New Antenna Zoning Restrictions in St Louis Park, MN

Hi folks;

Last night I learned, by observing a City Council study session, about efforts to put very restrictive changes in the antenna zoning ordinance for the City of St Louis Park. The staff is representing the change as a 'minor clarification'. The current ordinance allows (in R1/R2) an antenna up to a height of 67.5 feet and a process to petition of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If you meet the conditions specified, which includes a 1.5 times the height setback to each R1/R2 neighbor, then they give you a permit that defines the maximum height. So if your lot is between two R1 neighbors you need a lot at least 204 feet wide for a 68' tower and much wider as the height is increased. Staff has stated that they tell folks that they are only allowed an antenna height of 45 feet, and that they must get the CUP to go up to 67.5 feet. They are not allowed to go above 67.5 feet. You would need a lot 138 feet wide to have a 46' tower. Since they have been challenged to justify this "interpretation" they are asking council to codify their practice. There is was discussion about adding additional language requiring an environmental impact statement and a study to prove that the new antenna "would not interfere". I was surprised that even after I sent the mayor and council members copies of PRB1 and related information they are still advocating for these new restrictions, but they have not worked out the exact language yet. The whole issue started when a FM broadcaster approached the city to discuss getting permission to raise the height of one of the four 200' towers near the Cedar Lake Trail, west of Hwy100. The staff says that that they apply this ordinance to any antenna whether mounted on a building or on a tower, whether temporary (as in Field Day) or permanent.

Any thoughts?
Phill n0oe

Follow-up

I just want folks to know that had a very good follow-up conversation with Council persons Sue Sanger and Loran Paprocki. There are two concerns. 1) It has been pointed out that there are some conflicts in the language of the ordinance, so they want to resolve those issues, and 2) there are issues that are specific to the FM Broadcast proposal.

I am continuing to interact with other hams and try to provide constructive feedback on the first issue. On the second issue, based on what I have heard, I am glad that questions are being rasied.

Phill, n0oe