City Council Minutes 2001 03 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting March 6, 2001 Page 12 conditions with moderate revisions. He agreed with Councilman Howard about the location of the poles and strongly supported monitoring of EMF and noise levels. Sisk concurred with the comments voiced by Mayor Davidson and Councilmen Howard and Brown. He expressed his displeasure with the PSCo in the Special Review Use process. He supported the conditions brought forth in Resolution No. 16, Series 2001, Alternate A. In summary, Mr. Diehl stated that the Planning Commission's recommended conditions in Alternative Resolution No. 16 would hinder PSCo in complying with the PUC ruling. Davidson suggested changes to the conditions of Resolution No. 16, Series 2001, Alternate A. are as follows: On condition 2b," Unless approved by the Mayor" the applicant shall. On condition 2a, The applicant shall "use the single spun concrete monopoles." Sisk stated that 2f should be modified to read: "The capacity of the existing infrastructure is 135 MVA "per circuit." He agreed that the SRU approval should be applicable to Xcel Energy or its successors. MOTION: Sisk moved that Council approve Resolution No. 16, Series 2001, Alternate A, with the following revisions: 2a, the use of a single spun concrete monopole system; 2b, the applicant shall locate and install new poles adjacent to the existing structure locations, which may only be deviated with the Mayor's approval; 2f, the capacity of the infrastructure of 135 MVA per circuit and 247 MVA per circuit; 2k, the SRU approval is applicable to Xcel and its successors in ownership; and a new condition that Xcel Energy or successors shall be bound to submit to the City, as requested, monitoring levels on EMF and noise, which monitoring levels shall be consistent with the testimony given to the PUC and shall at all times be under the levels submitted to the PUC, upon which the PUC relied to make its ruling, seconded by Howard. City Attorney Light suggested a friendly amendment to condition 2b, noting that there is an Exhibit which is not to scale and, therefore, the Exhibit could be deleted and the condition would then reqUire that pole locations shall be adjacent to the existing structures. Sisk and Howard accepted the amendment. City Attorney Light stated that the motion as amended, included delegation of authority to the Mayor to approve deviations of certain pole locations. He suggested adding criteria to 2b, so that there is a stated maximum amount of the feet of deviation that may be permitted through the Mayor's authority. Light stated that the applicant represented that only six poles would not meet the condition. He suggested adding the following 12