Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />September 5, 2000 <br />Page 11. <br /> <br />MOTION: Sisk moved that Council adopt Resolution 42, Series 2000, which <br />disapproves the Special Review Use application, seconded by Mayer. <br /> <br />There was Council discussion relative to the motion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light stated that it was not essential for Council to act on Resolution No. <br />42, Series 2000 in order to select alternatives. Light advised Council that if they desire to <br />take some action on Resolution No. 42, Series 2000, and the Resolution passes, the <br />Special Review Use application will be disapproved. If Council wants to pursue some <br />other course of action, they need to make a motion to reconsider and repeal Resolution <br />No. 42, Series 2000. Light stated that Council also has the option to have the matter <br />removed from the agenda. <br /> <br />Sisk voiced his concern relative to PSCo's failure to meet the criteria of the Special <br />Review Use. Mayer stated he shared Sisk's concern. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light emphasized that the request for a decision on PSCo's Special Review <br />Use application is not an obligation under State Statute. He stated that there is a legal <br />obligation, at some point in time, to make a final decision on the Special Review Use <br />application. Light stated that there is an option to continue. <br /> <br />VOTE: Roll call vote was taken. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2. Davidson and <br />Howard voted no. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayer moved that Council direct the City Attorney to write a Resolution <br />providing conditional approval with two dates to be determined by Staff and PSCo: 1 .) <br />The date by which if the City has not provided a decision and mechanism for the funding <br />of the undergrounding, PSCo could go forward with the Special Review Use. 2.) The <br />date that the Special Review Use is granted, and the choice of poles 3.) The resolution <br />requiring that any costs in the interim period would be borne by PSCo, seconded by Sisk. <br /> <br />Light offered a friendly amendment that the first portion of the motion read "to repeal <br />Resolution No. 42, Series 2000," and direct the City Attorney to draft for Council <br />consideration at the next meeting, a substitute resolution granting conditional approval <br />with the conditions outlined. <br /> <br />Sisk and Mayer accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Light stated that Staff will need direction on the pole issue and Council will need to <br />choose the pole type. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />