Laserfiche WebLink
<br />an attachment, which he passed out to the Commission. Seconded by Debra Kalish. <br /> <br />Unanimous voice vote to approve. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Commissioner McDermott asked Public Service if they have investigated other material to use for <br />the poles other than Corten? <br /> <br />Danny Pearson, Public Service Company, stated that the Corten is the generally accepted brand. <br />It is actually a weathering steel that is the standards within and tolerances required. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton asked Sam Light, City Attorney, what vestd rights Public Service has today <br />and what they could expand into with what they have today. <br /> <br />Sam Light responded that there is no flat exemption for public utilities from the cities zoning <br />requirements. There is nothing in state statutes that expressly states that this type of application is <br />exempt from the City of Louisville’s land use process. There are some methods under the state <br />statutes by which certain types of uses can be exempted from the operation of the zoning laws, <br />but those require reversal of a Planning Commission decision by a “Governmental body with <br />jurisdiction”, or they require a process in front the City’s Board of Adjustment. The second <br />process has not been invoked here. <br /> <br />The first process regarding whether a “Governmental Body with Jurisdiction” can reverse the <br />Planning Commission suggests whether the PUC has authority to reverse a decision of the <br />Planning Commission. There is no case law directly answering that question. It appears to be <br />that statute would not apply. It is not a question that can be answered one way or the other. <br /> <br />Sam Light stated that he understands that this line was built before the current zoning ordinance <br />was put in place. There were zoning regulations in the city well before 1962, but they did not <br />address this particular use. It was not until the comprehensive rezoning was adopted in 1973 that <br />public and private utilities became a use by special review in all zoned districts. That is the reason <br />that this application is considered a non-conforming use. <br /> <br />One of the issues on under grounding is whether simply imposing a condition requiring under <br />grounding would be a reasonable exercise of police power. There is not a reported case in <br />Colorado that deals squarely with that issue as to whether you are in the exercise of your police <br />power to preserve property values and aesthetics, you can impose a condition requiring under <br />grounding of a transmission line. The question here would be can a case be made under the <br />Special Review Use criteria to allow under grounding for aesthetic reasons. It is a point that is <br />debatable and could be pursued. <br />Commissioner Lipton asked if they are entitled to what they have today and really no more <br />without getting approval under the Special Review Use. <br /> <br /> 5 <br /> <br />