Planning Commission Minutes 2000 12 12

Home Browse Search

disapproved the Resolution 12, Series 2000 because the requested failed to meet the Special Review Use Criteria No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4. A revised Resolution No. 12, Series 2000 has been included in your meeting packets. The Commission opposed any expansion of the utility within the right-of-way. The Commission was unanimous in its recommendation to City Council that the City Council work with the applicant to bury the lines if financially and technically feasible. With regard to Council action, the City Council held a public hearing on Resolution No. 42, Series 2000, a resolution recommending disapproval of the rebuild of an above ground, 115 kV electric transmission line on July 18, 2000. The Council proceeded through many continuances, public workshop, held on August 8, 2000, the Council continuance on Aug 15 and to a regular meeting on September 5. The Sept 5 meeting the City Council directed the City Attorney and staff to prepare a revised resolution for final consideration and action on September 19, 2000. On September 19 the City Council did not take final action on a revised resolution, instead remanded the application to the Planning Commission. The remand had two specific directions to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was to further evaluate rerouting alternatives as well as pole types for the rebuild within the existing right-of-way. With regard to the rerouting alternative, the Planning commission record reflects that the topic of rerouting was discussed on several occasions. The Planning commission record reflects that when asked about the possibility of rerouting the additional capacity from another part of the system around the City of Louisville, the applicant’s response was that the corridor was a ‘load serving path,’ which precluded rerouting additional capacity from another part of the system. With respect to the series of discussion the applicant did respond to a series of questions: Q: Discuss feasibility of rerouting entire infrastructure out of the City. A: The applicant responded that rerouting off the existing PSCo right-of-way would be considered only if the project schedule is not delayed and PSCo receives equitable land rights, any required permits, and any difference in construction costs. Q: Discuss the feasibility of rerouting added capacity out of the City. A: The additional capacity is required to serve the existing and future growth in the area. The transmission corridor is defined by the applicant as a load serving path, which does not allow additional required capacity to come from another part of the system network. Q: Discuss costs associated with the rerouting alternative. A: Costs would be dependent on the length of the reroute and necessary acquisition of new land rights. Q: Discuss feasibility of rerouting to another logical location in the City. A: The applicant responded that the most logical location is the existing right-of-way. Rerouting is only feasible as long as the project schedule is not impacted and PSCo receives equitable land rights, permits and costs. 5