City Council Minutes 1997 08 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ann S. Closser, Land Use Consultant, Airtouch Cellular, 4720 Table Mesa Drive, Suite F., Boulder, Colorado 80303, was concerned about the complete prohibition against any free-standing installation within the City of Louisville. She stated that with Council's opportunity for review, they may determine that in certain areas a monopole is the most appropriate method of supporting the antennas. They wanted access to the "process". She was concerned about the setback imposed on building mounted antennas of 100' from any residential property lines, which would effectively prohibit many building mounted antennas within the City. Another concern was about the reduction from 24" to 12" on the wall mounted antennae between the building face and the antennae. She pointed out that the 12" limitation would effectively kill 95% - 100% of all building mounted installations from all cellular providers. On the setback from single family residences, it had been increased from 50' to 100', which she felt was unnecessary as the antennae will be disguised so you will not know it is there. They also were not in favor of 17.42.060, Section P, as they felt it was unrealistic to go five miles, so far removed from the antenna coverage area. She stated that she would strike the first part of the last sentence up to "....an affidavit that capacity will be available to other providers." in Section P. Davidson called for anyone else wishing to speak on this Ordinance No. 1264. NONE Davidson called for Council questions. Mayer wanted to see where the specific problems are and is it really creating problems. He did not feel the monopoles were attractive. Sisk asked if the 24" was to allow down-tilting. Johnstone stated that originally there was 24", but it was changed at staff level, because of concerns with how visible building mounted antennae would be. He explained that the change to 12" was made without a real sound basis for doing so. He felt 24" was good reference point. Sisk was concerned about the requested 24 hour/day maintenance. Jelinek stated that taking a site down to maintenance takes away coverage, the ability for you to make a phone call or an emergency. Tanoue stated that what Closser is seeking sounded awfully close to the process that is in place for ATS. The ATS definition allowed something close to a monopole that is camouflaged to look like another utility pole. This ordinance is awfully close to providing what it is that they are seeking in the way of Special Review Use. Johnstone agreed that the wording in the definition of an ATS is blending in with the surrounding development or environment. 6