1981-05-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,'" ./ I legality of enforcing the proposal. The motion stood for some time as extensive discussion and comments ensued. A major difference in the opinion of residents and council was' in regard to whether the city' has the authority to regulate antenna and tower heights which meet with F.A.A_ rules. Mayor Senden contended that the council was seeking to govern the matter via property zoning, but antenna proponents maintained that the city would be prohibiting antenna use it had no authority over by doing so. R.J. KeU 187 15th Avenue N.W., submitted a gra~ely toned letter from the Ameri~n Radio Relay League, Inc., strongly m. dicating court support againsta ttempts to restrict height of ham and other radios because "height, is critical to ability of range of radio transmission." Kell said he felt that the position the courts bed taken would apply to CB, t.v, radio of aU types, etc. The letter was received and referred to the city attorney for study and report. The council also received a letter from Frank Lunquist, 1295 Brighton Square, under the letterhead of the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, which spoke in behalf of promoting local amateur radio operators and permitting them to have towers oC sufficient height to carry signals. Bob Schultz, Z119 Violet Lane, discussed wind loads and tower construction and presented a copy of the EIA STANDARD RS222; he asked that provisiOllll for such structures as smokestacks and church spires be kept separate from radio an. tennas and towers in the ordinance. Other comments included the questioning whether a utility pole could be used in lieu oC a metal tower; if a tower is structurally sound, having been installed according to specifications and has proper insurance, the city should not regulate the towers, and that if the towers did come down because oC a storm, other structures would also be damaged; questioning the appropriateness of regulating rooC. mounted antennas; opposition to regulating towers and antennas in general, noting that utility poles, trees and other structures are potentially as hazardous under high-stress wind con- ditions; question of whether the ordinance would control both ground-mounted and roof-mounted towers and antennas. whether licensing requirements would be included, and the burden it would entail for the city; that electric razors and hair dryers create more interference with television and radio sets than do ham I radios; city ordinance regulating towers I should be reasonably easy to comply with ' for amateur radio operators encountering a learning experience; Cederal regulations pre-empt a municipality's ability to regulate radio antennas; con. , cern over requiring a special use permit . for roof.mounted antennas because the ' height 0{ many existing houses would preclude using a roof antenna without a permit. I I MOMENTARILY VOICED down by the audience after remarking that tbe proposed ordinance "is.' a jOt mure liberal" than those in neighboring Arden HiUs and St. Anthony, Mayor Senden repeated that the restrictions in both mentioned cities was much tougher; and Winkels noted that virtually all cities had height limitations, reviews and ~rcquirements. "You people must un- derstand," Sendcn said, "that there'is citizen concern about this thing." As for federal authority in the matter, Senden said he couldn't believe the federal govenunent "has taken power away from locallOvernment to provide for the safety of its citizens." Before approving the still standing motion. the council also unanimously approved two amendments: to include direction to the staff to include in its study further information regarding cost associated with processing special use permits in regard to an types of antennas and towers and to re-examine district height "requirements; and to direct the staff to examine EIA Standard RS222 and FCC regulation t7.45. In the only other item that came up at the hearing, the council heard concern expressed by a resident reprding the definition of "Camily" and its eCfect on single family residential properties. The problem had to do with a home rented CNt to unmarried couples by the son of the owners of the property, and the difficulty involved in proving a nuisance existed. In discussion, it was felt that the definition of family in the code should eliminate most of such problems. and although the or. dinance covers the situation the city would continue to be careful in enforcing it legally. An expected challenge to the sensitive industrial ordinance did not surface at the meeting. AT THE OUTSET of the hearing, Winkels said that literally hundreds of changes had been made in the ordinance, that the planning commission had worked toward three main objectives: 1) Format change - aU recuIations pertaining to specific divisions put in one area and organized by definition and use; 2) Content - All development regulations updated where necessary; 3) General Cleanup - Wording streamlined and reduction from 16 chapters to 10. Leverkuhn added that a lOlirth objective was to bring the code in agreement and consonance with the comprehensive plan. It was pointed .out that the flood plain zoning ordinance was a model one adopted by all municipaliles and not used in the 16 months it had been on the city books. and that also W1Chanted was the sign ordinance that had been \Vtlrked on fOl' . CClI'ISidetab1e time and following whose adoption there had been no stgnificant sign problems. Mayor Senden added further that the p1anninc com. mission bed held a number of heari. on the code and the council had held a number of meetinp with the planning commission as well as its own. The hearing was continued to 7:35 p.m. r.(ay 36.