Laserfiche WebLink
CASE NUMBER: 1366-82 <br />APPLICANT O Jim I roiss <br />C <br />5 May 1982 <br />Page 4 <br />Certainly, a radio tower with guy wires is a prime example of low intensity <br />land use, which is most assuredly counter to the City's policy of <br />encouraging more intensive, efficient, use of our remaining open land <br />(and the redevelopment of such land). In this respect, a self - supporting <br />tower occupying a small area of land is perhaps consistent with more <br />intensive use inasmuch as the density of contiguous development will not <br />be affected* In the case of the KSTP Tower, or instance, their studios <br />and offices are located in a very attractive building immediately contiguous <br />to the tower. <br />S. The basic question Mien, it would appear, comes down to a value judgement <br />as to whether or not the visual presence of the tower as a prominent land - <br />mark is an asset to the community or a liability. Members of the Planning <br />Commission and Council may wish to view and discern the visual impact of <br />some of the towers noted in this report and others of which they may be <br />aware. Though no specific tower is located to our knowledge in the <br />Metropolitan Area exactly like the tower proposed, the viewing of other <br />structures may be helpful in forming your opinion_. Should the members of <br />th6. Planning Commission and Council so desire, examples of more similar <br />towers outside the Twin Cities Area could be researched as to appearance <br />and impact on contiguous areas and the community. In this event, it would <br />be appropriate to table the request for at least a 'month, allowing time for <br />such information to be gathered. <br />