City Council Minutes 2000 12 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting December 5, 2000 Page 12. Wood noted that this is the first public hearing coming before Council as a Special Review Use since the adoption of the telecommunication ordinance in 1997. Wood noted that the center of the request is a policy issue. The primary policy issue is whether the City differentiates a monopole structure from what is defined as a freestanding CMRS facility. It is not clear whether this proposal is an Alternative Tower Structure (ATS). Wood read the description of an Alternative Tower Structure and noted that this technology was not available in 1997, at the adoption of the ordinance. He noted that the ordinance does not allow freestanding structures, monopoles or any telecommunication facility of any sort. Wood noted that the Applicant's position is that the monopole is not a freestanding CMRS facility but is actually an ATS facility. He stated that this is based on two points of discussion, one that the antenna lie more concealed within the 18" diameter pole, and secondly, because this type of pole was not available when the telecommunication ordinance was adopted. Wood noted that the ordinance contemplates circumstances where an ATS could be utilized, such as in a freestanding light pole in parking lot or athletic field. He stated that the code requires that any non-CMRS facility meet the definition of an ATS. The definition of an ATS is constructed on the basis of compatibility with the natural setting and surrounding structures that camouflages or conceals the presence of the antennae and/or towers. Wood stated that the Planning Commission found that an ATS needs to be associated with a more useful object that is commonly associated with the landscaping and not intrusive. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended disapproval at its November 14, 2000 meeting. He noted that the Planning Commission's action was based upon testimony and findings that the requested facility was determined to be a freestanding monopole, which is an excluded use in all zone districts in the City of Louisville, rather than an Alternative Tower Structure. The Planning Commission found that the proposed facility was not eligible to be reviewed as an ATS as it did not meet the definition of an ATS. In conclusion, Wood stated that in light of Staff and Planning Commission recommendation, a policy issue has arisen on the intent of the ordinance and in dealing with a technology not available in 1997. The Planning Commission forwarded recommendation to Council that it may be appropriate to review the Telecommunications Ordinance periodically to ensure that the ordinance still correctly reflects the intent of the City with respect to the regulations of free standing monopoles within all zone districts. Davidson called for Applicant presentation. 12