CCMIN103189 - Laserfiche WebLink

447 Mr. Jim Huckestein, 6274 Inglewood, the property directly behind Mr. Johnson's house, stated that he believed the dish was less than eight feet from the property line. He added that the tenants at his property are objecting to the dish as unsightly. He mentioned that if his tenants are not satisfied, he stands to lose rent and future money on his property. Mr. Steve Bega, 6298 Inglewood Drive, the property also behind Mr. Johnson's house, objected to the dish as being an eyesore from his backyard. He added that it makes a lot of noise when it turns. He gave Mr. Mercer some pictures taken from his backyard. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Mercer asked staff if the City has gone out and actually measured the setbacks, as all the adjoining neighbors have indicated that the actual setbacks are not as depicted in the drawings. Mr. Swift replied that the differences are due to the fact that the setbacks could be measured from different angles of the dish. Mr. Mercer asked Mr. Beougher if he had any comment on the letter of the Satellite Broadcasting and Communication Association of America. Mr. Beougher replied that he and Mr. Roush had looked into that and find the City's ordinance appropriate. Mr. Mercer noted that the letter deals with height but has nothing on setbacks. Ms. Mohr commented that the letter states that the regulations are pre-empted unless such regulations have a reasonable health, safety and aesthetic objectives. The issue being addressed at this time is aesthetics; this gives the City the opportunity to respond to that concern. Mr. Butler explained that there are two different issues at hand. First, if the variance were to stand, there would be a Code enforcement problem with regard to the conditions of the variance. Second, there is the question of making the proper findings for the variance. He indicated that he could not make those findings and would therefore be in favor of the appeal. -7- 10-31-89