Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />December 5, 2000 <br />Page 15. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that he was disturbed by some parts of Mr. Rowe's presentation. He felt <br />that Mr. Rowe had misrepresented the ordinance, Section 1708.076 CMRS. Mayer stated <br />that Mr. Rowe was disingenuous in the interpretation of the ordinance. Mayer read Sec. <br />17.08.022, the definition of an Alternative Tower Structure. "Alternative tower structure <br />means an existing or proposed structure that is compatible with the natural setting and <br />surrounding structures and that camouflages or conceals the presence of the antennae <br />and/or tower." Mayer stated that Mr. Rowe completely misrepresented the ordinance. <br />Mayer stated that he was insulted by the implication that Council is not competent to read <br />its own ordinances. <br /> <br />Mr. Rowe apologized and stated that was not his intent. He stated that his interpretation <br />was that it was either the antenna or the towers or could be both. <br /> <br />Mayer noted that the ordinance states "the presence of the antennae and/or towers" and <br />its clear that Rowe had said the antenna is concealed, but no reference was made to <br />concealing the tower. He referenced the examples of manmade trees, clock towers, bell <br />steeples, and light poles. Mayer stated that essentially the existing structure would be a <br />60' pole. Mayer stated that the issue of whether the City should include items such as <br />this is a separate issue. He noted that a plain reading of the ordinance is that the tower is <br />to be concealed and that was Staff and the Planning Commission's position. Mayer <br />asked if there is a technical reason why the pole has to be 60' high. <br /> <br />Rowe stated that it was for coverage. <br /> <br />Mayer asked if it could be multiple poles at lower heights. <br /> <br />Rowe stated that lower poles do not work effectively and he understood that the City <br />does not want multiple poles. He noted that the ordinance does provide for 50' poles. He <br />stated that there is not a good alternative to get the necessary coverage. Rowe referenced <br />the ordinance, which states "other similar alternative design manmade structures." Rowe <br />stated that encompasses and meets the camouflage and conceal objectives and is therefore <br />congruent. <br /> <br />Mayer referenced a pole located in north Louisville that looks like venting pipes and no <br />one knows that it is there. Mayer noted that it is deceptive to say that it is not <br />recognizable. Mayer stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation to review <br />the Ordinance is appropriate. He stated that as he reads the ordinance, the proposed <br />tower is not compliant. <br /> <br />Rowe stated that he respected Councilman Mayer's viewpoint, however respectfully <br />disagreed with the reading of the Ordinance. He stated that examples were supplied in <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br /> <br />