Laserfiche WebLink
M11T4ftJNT #►�_ <br />On May 7, 2003 the Community Development Departrnent supported the request by Mr. <br />Berger and reconunended approval of the requested variance, subject to the conditions. <br />However, staff has historically deferred to the recommendations of the Planning <br />Commission. <br />8,2 i Commission split <br />request. <br />83 The City Council should deterrm"ne reasonableness and practicality of the variance <br />be® ■ ■ i <br />■ <br />�- 0 <br />B. Continue the issue to June 16, and direct the City Attorney to draft findings <br />for a resolution denyine the VARIANCE to Section ■ 4 i <br />1004.01A7 of the <br />Roseville ■ onspecifled findings i <br />■ <br />Council. <br />alternatives IAOTE: The Planning Commission's determination was that options and/or <br />,Tf existing attached garage could occur to south., without need for a variance. <br />Prepared bar: Thomas Pasch a (651-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232) <br />Attachments: Location neap, narrativc* site plan, aerial photo, Plan. Comm excerpt, draft resolution. <br />1i tcteria\Com mDev\Pianning HeW450- 3499\3465_Berger, enneth\RCA 060203 ■doc <br />PF3465 - RCA 06/02/03 Page 6 of 6 <br />