City Council Minutes 2001 03 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting March 6, 2001 Page 13 criteria to the delegation to the Mayor: "The Mayor may approve adjustments in locations of up to 85'for no more than six poles. " Sisk and Howard accepted the amendments. City Attorney Light suggested an amendment to the proposed new condition 2n. He recommended that the monitoring levels be consistent with representations made to the City Council and incorporated as an Exhibit to the Resolution. Light suggested as an amendment to condition 2n, as follows: "That the EMF and noise levels may not exceed the maximum amounts represented by the applicant to the City as set forth on a table, on page 5 of the Supplemental Information." That table will be attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution." In the format requested by the City, they will provide monitoring in compliance with those levels. Sisk and Howard accepted the amendment. City Administrator Bill Simmons reviewed the document presented by Xcel before the meeting. He noted that on page 2, III A. 4., it states, "five new two-pole concrete angle structures with down guys would be designed to replace the five, steel pole, anchor bolt structures currently planned." He stated that the motion was for single poles. Howard suggested that Council grant the Mayor the authority to approve the pole types and placement. Sisk accepted the amendment. Simmons stated that it was his understanding that there would not be any guy wire in the steel poles. Diehl stated that it was also his understanding that there will not be any guy wires on the single steel poles proposed. City Attorney Light suggested that the Mayor should not be given the authority to approve the pole types, due to the possibility of litigation. Howard and Sisk withdrew the amendment granting the Mayor authority to approve the pole types. Brown voiced his concern that litigation would ensue regardless of the conditions of approval of the PSCo Special Review Use application. City Attorney Light stated that his understanding of the applicant's position is that PSCo does not want to do monitoring. He stressed that Council is on firm legal ground to require that PSCo stand by the representations included in their application. He stated that the City may have to bear the expense of doing the monitoring, but that the mechanism in the land use approval would be a condition requiring PSCo to abide by the noise level 13