My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 12 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 12 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 8:54:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/5/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 12 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />December 5, 2000 <br />Page 16. <br /> <br />the ordinance without considering future technology. He stated that the intent of the <br />ordinance is to conceal the antenna and that they have done so. <br /> <br />Mayer stated in Qwest's interpretation of the ordinance, the word tower is being dropped. <br /> <br />Rowe noted that the ordinance states "antennae and/or towers" and therefore can be read <br />as antennae or towers. He stated that they are camouflaging the antennae and that is <br />where there is a difference of opinion. <br /> <br />Keany stated that the applicant is asking the City to allow them to put in a tower because <br />of needed coverage. He asked why they cannot go to STK and ask them to put a tower <br />on their property. He stated that the reason Qwest is asking Louisville for a SRU is <br />because no one else would allow the installation. <br /> <br />Rowe stated that there are two issues; one that Louisville is a sovereign jurisdiction and <br />therefore, Qwest must obtain permission to site the pole. The second issue is that Qwest <br />could negotiate a site arrangement with a private landowner and noted that the proposal <br />offered by Flatirons Crossing Mall was not acceptable. He stated that Federal law puts <br />limitations on state and local governments but not on private landowners. He stated that <br />the proposal matches the City's ordinance. He stated that the Planning Commission <br />recommended denial and Qwest is asking the City Council to approve it under Federal <br />and local laws. <br /> <br />Keany asked Rowe for the definition of a monopole. Rowe stated that the requested <br />monopole is a pole that is only there to support an antennae array. Rowe noted that there <br />has to be an antenna and that it has to be put in the air. He noted that the goal is to install <br />an antenna in such a way as to minimize the visual impact to the public. He stated that in <br />the industry, a pole with a crown as illustrated in the photo, is a monopole. <br /> <br />Keany asked Rowe if he believed that the public would not recognize this structure as an <br />antenna. Rowe stated that he did not believe the monopole would be recognized as an <br /> <br />antenna. <br /> <br />Keany asked Rowe what prevented Qwest from using the Public Service poles. <br /> <br />Katie Myers, Qwest Wireless Real Estate Manager, stated that they do not have an <br />agreement with Public Service to utilize their poles. She stated that they have been <br />working on an agreement, but it is not in place at this moment. <br /> <br />Keany asked if other carriers utilize Public Service poles. Myers stated that she did not <br />know. She stated that she is only familiar with what Qwest is doing at this time. <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.