Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 24, 1991 <br />building has been built thus far. Scalze did not feel <br />the PUD should be amended to allow construction of a <br />tower, pointing out that the Council should be <br />concerned with the highest and best use of the site. <br />Malloy pointed out that the tower would not interfere <br />with the PUD as proposed. Malloy reported that <br />construction of the tower and equipment building would <br />result in the loss of only one parking stall from the <br />original PUD. <br />Scalze pointed out that the PUD has never been <br />completed and she felt that approval of the tower would <br />be a step backwards at this point. Scalze pointed out <br />that the tower would have an impact on the properties <br />across the highway, and these property owners were not <br />notified of the public hearing. Scalze also pointed <br />out that the tower and equipment building would not be <br />a high revenue producing entity for the City. <br />Malloy replied that the project would contribute to the <br />taxes generated by the property and will not interfere <br />with the completion of the oriqinal PUD. <br />Scalze felt that if any amendment to the PUD is <br />considered, it should be for development of the <br />original proposal since that is what will help the <br />taxpayers of the City. <br />Scalze pointed out Shoreview's past actions in <br />requiring user fees of towers in order to compensate <br />for the loss of tax revenue on properties developed <br />with towers. <br />Blesener replied that the Shoreview towers take up <br />considerably more land than this tower would. Blesener <br />pointed out that the 125 foot tower proposed is not <br />very tall and will not cast a very large silhouette. <br />Malloy pointed out that there are trees on the north <br />end of the site that will screen the tower. <br />Scalze stated that she was not surprised that Little <br />Canada has been targeted as a site for the tower <br />pointinq out that the City has high ground and <br />surrounding cities, with the exception of Maplewood, do <br />not allow additional free-standing towers. Scalze <br />stated that if the PUD had been completed on the site, <br />she would consider the proposal, however, felt it <br />premature at this point. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by LaValle, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Page 7 <br />