100610_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 6, 2010 Page 2 Applicant William “Bill” Rodrique, 1015 Judith Avenue 1 Mr. Rodrique provided pictures as a bench handout and advised that issues with a 2 dryer vent and main floor laundry had prompted the variance request, at which time 3 he reviewed those issues in detail, and safety concerns in continuing to vent the dryer 4 as now being done, and on the advise of the Fire Marshal. Mr. Rodrique reviewed the 5 issues in cold weather with condensation on the interior walls of the home due to the 6 length of the dryer venting (39’). Mr. Rodrique advised that he had hired a designer 7 and this was the most practical and cost-effective plan to meet their needs and 8 address safety concerns related to address potential fire hazards due to lint buildup in 9 the vent run and carbon monoxide. 10 Discussion among the applicant and Commissioners included proposed extension of 11 the laundry room and continued use of the garage; grading requirements due to 12 ongoing flooding of all properties on the south side of Judith during heavy rains; and 13 the ability to use existing plumbing, electrical and furnace/duct work for heating the 14 space with this most practical option, in addition to extending footings to correct 15 existing garage floor floating. 16 While the applicant agreed that there were other options available, he advised that 17 this was the most economical option. 18 Public Comment 19 Vice Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 5:53 p.m. with no one appearing 20 to speak for or against 21 Discussion among Commissioners included realistic approaches while recognizing the 22 recent case law and impacts for future minor and/or major projects for property 23 owner’s reasonable use of their property. 24 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted the conflicts in the recent case law and realistic 25 approaches for property owners to have reasonable use of their property; noting 26 significant impacts for future minor and/or major projects coming before the 27 Commission; while recognizing that the Supreme Court had spoken and the need to 28 rule in the best interest of the City. 29 Commissioner Best noted that this was a difficult situation, but it appeared that there 30 were other options for the property owner, allowing the City the best protection given 31 the advice of legal counsel and recent case law; and making it difficult to justify 32 approval with those facts in mind. 33 MOTION 34 Member Best moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist, to adopt Variance 35 Board Resolution No. 88 entitled, “A Resolution DENYING Variances to 36 Roseville City Code, Section 1004.16 (Residential Setbacks) at 1015 Judith 37 Avenue (PF07-030); based on the comments and findings of the staff report 38 dated October 6, 2010. 39 Ayes: 2 40 Nays: 0 41 Motion carried. 42 Vice Chair Gisselquist reviewed the applicant of the steps for appeal of the ruling, as 43 detailed in the staff report. 44 5. Adjournment 45 Vice Chair Gisselquist adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. 46