City Council Minutes 2001 03 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting March 6, 2001 Page 14 representations or the SRU would be revoked. He stated that Council can also adopt noise ordinances and penalize violations by other means. He noted that enforcing a noise level through a SRU could be difficult, but could also be handled through a municipal ordinance. Keany commented that changing the pole type at this late date would be a poor decision. He stated that 2g has language about noise level and suggested incorporating PSCo's table. He also suggested that the City decide how to monitor the EMF and noise levels. Howard concurred with the comments of Councilman Keany that condition 2g would be an appropriate placement for EMF and noise level monitoring, and that the pole type should not be changed. Sisk asked City Attorney Light a procedural question on the time limit for a vote. He asked about the time limit for a person who voted for approval of the resolution and then chose to bring up the issue for reconsideration. Light stated that it would have to be as soon as possible, given that there would likely be actions taken in reliance on the approval. Brown offered a friendly amendment that the original monopole pole type be added back into the Alternate Resolution. Light suggested a restatement of condition 2a, as follows: "That the applicant shall utilize the single monopole system with the cortan finish." Sisk and Howard accepted the amendment. With respect to condition 2n, Light offered a friendly amendment to strike condition 2n and rewrite condition 2g to read as follows: "Noise and EMF levels shall not exceed those set forth in the table provided to the City on page 5 of the Supplemental Information." He stated that the monitoring would not be addressed in the condition. Sisk did not accept the amendment and offered an amendment to delete condition 2g, as the subject is covered under condition 2n, and to further require that the monitoring would be done after completion of the line and thereafter semi-annually. Howard accepted the amendment. Planning Director Paul Wood stated that Exhibit #A was attached to Resolution 16, Series 2001, Alternate A, to show the pole locations in the corridor. He stated that the Exhibit is important because it identifies the pole location. He noted that beyond pole #46, Avista Hospital has indicated that they would like the flexibility to site the poles. The intent was to provide relief of the condition on commercial property. 14