Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 10-01 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1992, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERsS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Len Olson, L. Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Nan Faust, John Palmer STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the September 3, 1992, meeting were approved and filed. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-39 David A. Carlson Companies Vernon Court Subdivision North of Highway 62 and East of Highway 169 zoning: In the process of being rezoned from PRD -2, Planned Residence District to R-2, Double Dwelling unit District Request: Front yard setback variance for Vernon Hill, double bungalow placement Ms. Aaker presented her staff report noting the subject site is a four acre parcel that will combine two land elements to include all of the remaining vacant land fronting Vernon Court. Ms. Aaker said the developer is proposing to rezone the property from PRD -2 to R-2 to allow for the platting of eight double bungalow lots for a total of 16 units. Ms. Aaker asked the board to note the R-2 zoning district requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. The preliminary plan submitted by the developer indicates that frontyard setbacks range between +-13 - 50 feet from the front property boundary and between 23-60 feet from the edge of the street. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff acknowledges the hardship present with regard to the steep topography and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Notice of ordinance 1045.02 and its restrictions regarding parking within 15 feet of the street curb be included in the 1 homeowner's restrictive covenants/bylaws as well as included in the purchase agreements of the home and sales literature. 2. Final Plat and Rezoning is approved by the City Council. 3. Grading, retaining walls and drainage are reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department. The proponent Mr. Carlson was present. Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Aaker if the driveways will be steep. Ms. Aaker explained that since the proponent has requested to construct the units closer to the street instead of more into the hill the driveways will be relatively flat. Mrs. Utne questioned if snow removal would be a problem. Ms. Aaker responded that she spoke with the city engineer and he indicated there would be no problem with snow removal or snow storage because the subject site is very isolated, and the excess snow could be piled at the end of the cul- de-sac. Mr. Olson indicated he has a concern that a precedent could be set if we grant such large frontyard setbacks. Mr. Johnson said he finds no problem with the proposal as submitted and told the board this product has been proven to work. He acknowledged the site is hard to develop, but said saving the hill, and reducing the size of retaining walls is a very important consideration. Mr. Johnson said he does have a concern that the units may be hard to market because of the shallowness of the driveways and the inclusion in the sales literature and covenants about the ordinance for parking compliance. Mr. Johnson concluded that he believes because the site is so isolated there will be little, if any impact on neighbors. He said he supports the proposal as submitted, and because of the uniqueness of this site precedent setting should not be a concern. Mrs. Utne also stated she is not concerned that a precedent could be set as a result of the applicant's request for frontyard setback variances. She pointed out this site is very isolated, the land is unique, and peculiar to this area, so precedent setting should not be a problem. She concluded she believes this proposal is a viable solution for this site. Mr. Johnson moved approval subject to staff conditions with special notice given to the covenants and sale literature for the subdivision, stating they should contain language that explains the parking situation for this development. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-41 Scott and Ann Moran 4603 Meadow Road 2 That part of Lot 2, Whites 6th Addition Request: A two foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject home is located on the east side of Meadow Road, north of West 47th Street and west of France Avenue. The home is a one story rambler to be converted into a story and one-half cape cod. The applicants are proposing a substantial addition to their home with all portions of the project conforming to ordinance requirements with one exception. The southeast corner of the home is encroaching two feet into the required 10 foot sideyard setback area. Ms. Aaker concluded staff is supportive of the variance request based on the aforementioned findings, but staff would suggest approval be contingent on the use of similar materials to the existing structure. The board noted that the request is not large and the end result will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Olson moved approval of the request as presented. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-42 James Ernest and Regina Aufderheide 5325 62nd Street West Lot 3, Block 1, Wyman Southview 2nd Addn. Request: Variance from Ordinance 815 regarding a rear roof mount of a satellite dish antenna in an R-1 zoning district Ms. Aaker outlined for members of the board the Edina Antenna Ordinance 815 and it's requirements: Unless exempt no antenna, dish antenna, or tower of any kind shall be erected, constructed, or placed anywhere within the city without first making an application for and obtaining a permit from the city. Dish antennas greater than nine square feet in cross section area and greater than 6 feet in height require a permit and shall not be located on the roof or exterior wall of a principal or accessory building. 3 Ms. Aaker explained after purchasing the home in the spring of 1992, the homeowner installed a roof mounted satellite dish antenna without the benefit of a permit. After the dish was brought to the attention of the building department inspectors ordered the antenna removed and indicated to the homeowner that a roof location of that size of dish would be in violation of city ordinance. The property owner is requesting a variance from the requirements to allow the desired roof mount location. Ms. Aaker noted that while staff believes that the proposed location of the dish antenna does not accomplish the goal of limiting impact staff acknowledges that local ordinance cannot unreasonably interfere or restrict access to satellite signals. In addition, it would appear that the hardship of obstruction caused by trees may satisfy the variance requirements. The applicant has claimed the proposed location is the best location including those areas permitted by the code. In that regard staff cannot recommend denial of the request. The proponent, Mr. Aufderheide was present. Interested neighbors were also present. Mrs. Utne said she understands that staff has read both the FCC regulations and city code regulations regarding satellite dishes, and questioned if staff believes the proposed dish meets the FCC standards. Ms. Aaker said, as she interprets the FCC regulations, the proposed dish does meet with those standards, but does not meet the city's standards. Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained the City of Edina has adopted a new ordinance relating to satellite dishes, antennas, etc. She noted according to staff interpretation of the FCC regulations cities can adopt guidelines for the installation of satellite dishes and antennas, but they cannot preempt the FCC. Ms. Aaker pointed out our ordinance restricts these dishes to the rearyard, maintaining setbacks of a principal dwelling, no closer to the buildable area of the neighbor than to the subject principle building, and no higher than 12 feet, including mount. Ms. Aaker said since the FCC does not "spell out" what too restrictive is, the only way we can find out if our regulations are too restrictive or prohibitive is to have our ordinance challenged in the court. Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Aaker why she did not recommend denial of the variance, because if she understands the language of our ordinance correctly roof mounted antennas of this size are not allowed, and in her opinion a hardship appears hard to define. Ms. Aaker said the burden of proof that a hardship exists is upon the applicant, and he has indicated that he cannot operate his dish antenna, and receive the signals he wants to receive due to the number of trees within his rearyard. Ms. Aaker pointed out the applicant believes the trees are a hardship. Continuing, Ms. Aaker reiterated that roof mounted dishes of this size are not allowed by our ordinance, and if correctly installed in the proper location 4 require a permit. Ms. Aaker explained this is why the applicant had to remove the dish and apply for a variance. Mr. Aufderheide reported to the board that trees located in his rear yard block signals. He added he is familiar with both the city's regulations and the FCC's. Continuing, Mr. Aufderheide said he understands that the burden of proof for a variance due to hardship "rests on his shoulders". Mr. Aufderheide explained that the trees, as mentioned previously, block a majority of signals. Mr. Aufderheide pointed out any satellite dish located in shaded areas in the rear yard between the hours of 10:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. would receive blocked signals, and almost any rear yard location would not work for dish placement. Mr. Aufderheide noted the purpose of the FCC rules is to create competition in the market place between cable and dish companies. Mr. Aufderheide concluded that his wife enjoys watching television from Korea and with obstruction from the trees many channels, including Korean T.V., cannot be properly received. Mrs. Utne said she is curious when Mr. Aufderheide purchased the dish why he wasn't informed of our ordinance regulations. Mr. Aufderheide stated he was aware of our regulations, and presently is the owner of a satellite dish company that has installed many dishes within the city. Mr. Aufderheide reported that in his experience with cities most allow installation of satellite dishes on the roof. Mr. Daniel Darney, 5324 Maddox Avenue, explained to the board that his rear yard overlooks the subject site. He stated he has a problem with the dish and said he felt bad that the proponent did not speak with him before erecting the dish on the roof. Mr. Darney pointed out that Mr. Aufderheide must have realized our rules regarding installation of dishes, and the permitting process, but ignored those rules, and erected his satellite dish without going through the proper process. Mr. Darney explained after Mr. Aufderheide installed the dish he stopped by city hall offices to inquire what the rules are concerning the installation of satellite dishes. At that time he found out that Mr. Aufderheide installed the dish illegally. Mr. Darney told the board that is the reason city inspectors directed Mr. Aufderheide to remove the dish, and that is the reason Mr. Aufderheide is seeking a variance. He wants to reinstall the dish on the roof. Mr. Darney concluded that he believes there is no hardship. He stated he understands Mrs. Aufderheide wanting to watch Korean television, but in his opinion that should not be considered a hardship. Mr. Darney also said he believes the dish that was erected may be greater then 12 feet in diameter and it should be placed in a location according to our ordinance requirements. Ms. Debra Snyder , 5321 West 62nd Street, stated she knew when the proponents moved that Mr. Aufderheide was in the business of installing satellite dishes. She said that caused her some concern 5 because her family room abuts their property and any dish located in the rearyard would impact her. Ms. Snyder said she understands the position and concern of the other neighbors who will easily view the dish on the roof, adding she won't be able to see it on the roof from her house. Ms. Snyder agreed the roof location works better for her because compliance with ordinance standards locates the dish smack in view from her family room. Ms. Snyder said she wishes the dish could be positioned so that it would not be offensive to anyone. She concluded that she realizes if the dish is placed in an unobtrusive place that all channels cannot be received, but added the concerns of the neighbors that have to look at the dish should be considered. Mr. Aufderheide in response to comments explained that he helped with the language of the city ordinance and understands the size and location requirements and is seeking a variance from these requirements. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification, he thought the issue was the roof mount, not the size of the dish. Ms. Aaker said that's because the size of the proposed dish is in excess of nine square feet in cross section area, and because the dish is greater than 6 feet in height, which is not allowed by our ordinance. Therefore, location of the dish, and size of the proposed dish does not comply with our ordinance which is the reason variance is requested. Expanding on this Ms. Aaker explained that roof mounts are allowed for smaller antennas, and dishes, but Mr. Aufderheide's dish is too large to be placed on the roof. Ms. Aaker explained the smaller dishes do not require a permit. Ms. Aaker stated the size of the dish as proposed could be legal if located appropriately in the rearyard. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Aufderheide why he just doesn't install a dish that complies with our ordinance. Mr. Aufderheide said the smaller dishes do not receive all the signals he would like to receive. Mr. Aufderheide said the FCC does not want someone to be prevented from receiving signals and he wants the opportunity to receive those signals. Mr. Aufderheide reiterated the only place he can receive the signals he desires is to place the dish on the roof. Mr. Aufderheide said he believes he meets the spirit of the FCC rules. Concluding, Mr. Aufderheide said when he purchased his home there was a moratorium on the installation of satellite dishes so he couldn't install the dish of his choice. Doug MacHoll, 5320 Maddox Avenue, said the ordinance discussion has confused him. He asked to have the moratorium explained. Ms. Aaker said a moratorium was initiated by the city council as result of a variance request to erect a monopole cellular antenna near an R-1 district. The moratorium was lifted in March of this year. Ms. Aaker explained during the moratorium the council took careful consideration and study to create a new ordinance. Ms. Aaker said she would like to clarify, our old 2 ordinance did not allow roof placement of a dish of this size and height and our present ordinance does not allow the installation of a dish of this size and height on the roof. During the moratorium no dishes, etc., were to be erected. Mr. MacHoll said he believes Mr. Aufderheide should not have erected the dish on his roof before he received city approval or obtained a permit. Mr. Olson noted that Mr. Aufderheide is in the satellite dish business, and said he should have checked with the city before erecting the dish. Continuing, Mr. Olson said if he understands correctly Mr. Aufderheide stated he was familiar with the rewriting of the ordinance during the moratorium, and indicated he helped with the language of the ordinance. Mr. Olson said Mr. Aufderheide should not have erected the dish. Mr. Aufderheide said there are other satellite dishes of this size within the city on roof tops. Ms. Aaker said they are not allowed unless a variance has been granted. Ms. Aaker stated that a variance was granted in the 1980's for a roof top satellite dish on Long Brake Trail, if there are others they were erected illegally. Due to the topography and the vegetation and placement of the dish on Long Brake Trail it cannot be seen from the front street and impact is minimal for all neighbors. Ms. Aaker pointed out the City of Edina has always had an antenna ordinance that prohibited structures of this size on the roof. Mr. Olson said in his opinion the board should consider the negative reaction of the neighbors. Mr. Olson suggested that a neutral party familiar with antennas visit the site and study the situation, and report back with their findings. Mr. Olson pointed out there could be another location where the dish could be located that is not as obtrusive. Mr. Olson said in all good faith he cannot find a hardship if Mr. Aufderheide's wife cannot receive T.V. from Korea. Mr. Olson pointed out the satellite business is Mr. Aufderheide's business, and maybe he is not neutral. Mr. Aufderheide explained that if they would like a neutral party to view his lot that would be fine. He stated at present the sun is in the same location as the satellites, and where there is shade the dish will not work, and a neutral party will discover the same thing. Mr. Aufderheide reported even cable channels are lost for a few minutes a day because of the sun. Mr. Darney said the lots within this neighborhood are not that large and the dish will be apparent to almost everyone. Mr. Darney asked what is .reasonable. Should we allow the dish on the roof so the applicant can receive every signal at all times, or is it fair to request that the dish be placed in a least conspicuous location where the applicant receives all signals but for only certain periods of time. Mr. Darney said he does not know enough about satellite dishes, their size, etc., and would like a neutral opinion. Mr. Johnson speculated that Edina is a developed city and 7 almost every lot in our residential subdivisions contain large numbers of trees, so virtually everyone could have a roof mounted dish antenna. Mr. Johnson stated he believe's that approval of this request would be precedent setting because anyone that wishes to receive the full spectrum of signals in Edina will have some. interference from trees, therefore they would request a roof mounted dish. Mr. Johnson noted that the applicant is in the satellite business, and should have understood that wooded and treed lots would have trouble receiving all signals so the dish would have to be placed on the roof, and roof mounted satellite dishes of the size and diameter of the subject dish were not and are not allowed within this city. Mr. Johnson said he does not believe trees are a hardship. He concluded it is our board's responsibility to act on our ordinance. We cannot act on, or interpret federal law. That may have to be accomplished through our city council and city attorney. A hardship should be unique to a property and trees in Edina are not unique. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the request for a variance from our ordinance. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. Mrs. Utne said she supports the motion for denial adding her concern is the height and size of the dish and its location on the roof. Mrs. Utne requested that the neighbors settle this matter civilly so it doesn't become a neighborhood feud. She said she hopes that all those who object will act appropriately to the applicant. All voted aye, in favor of denial. Motion carried. Mrs. Utne told Mr. Aufderheide that he can appeal the decision of the board to the council. B-92-43 Garold R. Nyberg 4520 Casco Avenue Lot 11, Block 5, Country Club District Fairway Addition Request: 1 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property is located within the historic Country Club District on the west side of Casco Avenue between Sunnyside Road and Bridge Street. The homeowners are in the process of remodeling their home which will nearly double their floor area. All aspects of the plan conform to ordinance requirements with one exception: the frontyard setback of a new proposed closet area above the existing entry. The homeowners are hoping to continue the existing front building wall to allow a second story for a small extension of the master bedroom. 8 Ms. Aaker concluded staff would not object to the small addition, given that it will not extend beyond the existing frontyard setback. Architectural integrity of the design may merit attention and'comment of the Heritage Preservation Board. After a brief discussion Mr. Olson moved approval of the variance request. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. H�00—geZakkerlt k, 0