# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - December 11, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 11, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3537 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3537?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-12-11 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 29,016 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on December 11, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included 13 agenda items, 19 motions and votes, and 10 public comments. The Commission addressed a range of planning and development matters. The meeting began with approval of the previous minutes and consideration of postponements or withdrawals. The Commission then reviewed and approved multiple land subdivision items, including the reapproval of Meadow Oaks Plats and several specific development plans and plats. Notable approvals included Plan 2014-104F for Lextran Property (Lots 1 & 2), Plan 2014-106F for Hamburg East (Lot 2), and DP 2014-110 for Hamburg Place Mall Unit 1. The Commission also reapproved DP 2006-84 for Hamburg Place Farm's Tuscany Unit 1 and approved a revision to DP 2014-63 for Lengrove Edition. Additional business included approval of annual reports, release and call of bonds, and a conditional use permit for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility) under CT 2014-1. All agenda items were approved or processed as scheduled. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 11, 2014: * Mike Owens * Mike Cravens * Frank Penn * Carolyn Plumlee * Bill Wilson * David Drake * Patrick Brewer * Karen Mundy * Joseph Smith * Carolyn Richardson * Will Berkley Will Berkley arrived late to the meeting. No attendees were absent. ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during this meeting passed unanimously with no dissenting votes or abstentions. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:01:35] The amended minutes from October 9, 2014, and November 13, 2014, were approved by unanimous vote (10-0). The motion was made by Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Karen Mundy. **Postponements** Three items were postponed by unanimous vote (11-0): - DP 2007-134: Sand Lake & Estes Property (AMD) to January 15, 2015 [timestamp: 00:02:44], motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Karen Mundy - PLAN 2014-96F: Glen Creek (Dove Creek, Unit 3-B, Section 3, Lots 66-75) to December 18, 2014 [timestamp: 00:14:17], motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee - PLAN 2014-101F: Long Valley Farm, KY, Inc., Unit 2-B (AMD) to January 15, 2015 [timestamp: 00:15:25], motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee **Denial of Postponement Request** A postponement request for CT 2014-1: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility) was denied by unanimous vote (11-0) [timestamp: 00:03:00], motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Mike Cravens. **Consent Agenda and Reports** The Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote (11-0) [timestamp: 00:22:36], motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Mike Cravens. The PDR Annual Report and the Courthouse Area Design Review Board Presentation were each approved by unanimous vote (11-0) [timestamp: 00:32:32], motions by Karen Mundy. **Plan Approvals and Reapprovals** Multiple development plans were approved or reapproved by unanimous vote (11-0): - Plan 2008-139F: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1B (Ashford Oaks) [timestamp: 00:38:27] - Plan 2008-138F: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1A (Ashford Oaks) [timestamp: 00:38:59] - Plan 2008-140F: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1C (Ashford Oaks) [timestamp: 00:39:32] - Plan 2014-104F: Lextran Property, Lots 1 & 2 with 12 conditions [timestamp: 00:46:12] - Plan 2014-106F: Hamburg East, Lot 2 (AMD) with 11 conditions [timestamp: 00:52:07] - DP 2014-110: Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1, Parcels 2 and 2A with 12 conditions [timestamp: 00:56:54] - DP 2006-84: Hamburg Place Farm, Tuscany Unit 1, Lot 169 with 12 conditions [timestamp: 00:59:02] - DP 2014-63: Lengrove Edition revision with 12 conditions [timestamp: 01:03:36] A waiver for Plan 2014-104F was approved by unanimous vote (11-0) [timestamp: 00:46:43], motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Mike Cravens. **Bond Release and Call** Release and call of bonds was approved by unanimous vote (11-0) [timestamp: 00:59:39], motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Mike Cravens. **Conditional Approval** CT 2014-1: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility) was approved by unanimous vote (11-0) with two conditions [timestamp: 01:03:36], motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mike Cravens. ## Public Comment Ten speakers addressed the commission regarding the CT 2014-1 cell tower proposal. **Opposition to the Proposal** Hank Grady [01:06:01] opposed the cell tower due to concerns over visual impact and property values, citing AT&T's own reports indicating greater need in Zandale for an alternative location. Council Member Clark [01:06:58] opposed the tower, emphasizing the impact on residents' quality of life and the need to protect neighborhood character despite service benefits. Dr. Sean Lucas [01:07:12] expressed concern about the tower's proximity to his family's home and its potential impact on his children's health and well-being. Helen Morrison [01:09:11] argued that the tower would harm the character of the Southland Drive area and should be located elsewhere to minimize adverse effects. Michael Galbraith [01:11:13] supported the Hillandale Neighborhood Association's opposition, stating the tower would infringe on the visual character of the area. Nancy Stallard [01:11:44] expressed concern about the tower blocking her view and negatively affecting her quality of life. Deanna Corey [01:12:06] opposed the tower due to its proximity to her home and her son's rental property, fearing it would negatively impact property values. **Support and Alternative Suggestions** Teresa Voigt [01:06:46] supported the tower, arguing that property values are not significantly impacted by such structures and that the neighborhood has other visual elements like power lines and railroads. **Design and Implementation Concerns** Damon Snyder [01:08:01] criticized AT&T for not exploring more creative, less obtrusive solutions and suggested that smaller, less visible devices could serve the area effectively. Hillary Angelucci [01:10:41] urged the commission to consider a more aesthetically integrated design that fits the neighborhood, rather than a standard monopole. ## Contested Items **CT 2014-1: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility)** This proposal generated significant community opposition despite receiving support from staff and the applicant. Residents and neighborhood associations raised concerns about the project's visual impact, potential effects on property values, and safety considerations. The disagreement centered on whether the benefits of the wireless infrastructure project outweighed the community's quality-of-life concerns. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building. [timestamp: 00:00] Mike Owens presided over the opening of the meeting. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:01:35] The meeting proceeded to approve minutes from two previous sessions. The amended minutes from the October 9, 2014 meeting and the minutes from the November 13, 2014 meeting were both presented for approval. Carolyn Plumlee and Karen Mundy were the key speakers on this agenda item. The minutes were approved unanimously with no objections raised. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:02:44] Three items were postponed during this agenda item: - **DP 2007-134** was postponed to January 15, 2015 - **PLAN 2014-96F** was postponed to December 18, 2014 - **PLAN 2014-101F** was postponed to January 15, 2015 The discussion involved Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, and Patrick Brewer. All items were postponed as requested. ## Land Subdivision Items The consent agenda containing multiple land subdivision and development items was presented for approval [timestamp: 00:22:36]. Key speakers on this agenda item included Bill Sallee and Tom Martin. The discussion covered final subdivision plans and development plans that were presented with associated conditions. Rather than individual debate on each item, these matters were processed through the consent agenda, which allows for approval of multiple routine items in a single vote. The outcome of this agenda item was approval. All final subdivision plans and development plans included in the consent agenda were approved with their respective conditions. ## Annual Reports The PDR Annual Report and the Courthouse Area Design Review Board Presentation were presented during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:32:32]. Key speakers presenting the reports included Beth Oberman and Elberman. Both reports were presented to the board and subsequently approved. ## Reapproval of Meadow Oaks Plats [timestamp: 00:38:27] The council considered the reapproval of three Meadow Oaks plats identified as 2008-138F, 2008-139F, and 2008-140F. Tom Martin presented this agenda item to the council. The reapproval included conditions for the plats, specifically updates to boundary lines. Additionally, the council approved a waiver of sidewalk construction requirements for the project. The motion to reapprove the three plats with the specified conditions was approved. ## Plan 2014-104F: Lextran Property, Lots 1 & 2 [timestamp: 00:46:12] This agenda item addressed the approval of Plan 2014-104F for the Lextran Property, Lots 1 & 2. The discussion involved key speakers Tom Martin and Kevin Phillips. The plan was approved with 12 conditions attached to the approval. Among the conditions was a waiver for sanitary sewers, indicating that the standard sanitary sewer requirement was waived for this particular project. Additionally, the plan required technical committee review as a condition of approval. The motion resulted in approval of the plan. ## Plan 2014-106F: Hamburg East, Lot 2 (AMD) [timestamp: 00:52:07] This agenda item addressed Plan 2014-106F for Hamburg East, Lot 2, which was presented as an amendment (AMD). The discussion involved Tom Martin and Matt Carter as key speakers. The plan was approved by the meeting body. The approval included 11 conditions that applicants must satisfy: - Access easements were required as part of the approval - A final development plan must be submitted and approved before any construction can begin - Nine additional conditions were imposed (specific details not provided in available materials) The conditional approval structure indicates that while the plan met the basic requirements for advancement, several outstanding items needed to be addressed before the project could proceed to the construction phase. ## DP 2014-110: Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1 [timestamp: 00:56:54] The development plan for Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1 was presented for consideration. Key speakers on this item included Kelly Hunter and Patrick Bennett. The development plan was approved by the body. The approval included 12 conditions that applicants must meet. These conditions encompassed updated square footage specifications and required technical committee review of the project. The outcome of the discussion was approval of the development plan as conditioned. ## Reapproval of DP 2006-84: Hamburg Place Farm, Tuscany Unit 1 [timestamp: 00:59:02] The board considered the reapproval of Development Plan 2006-84 for Hamburg Place Farm, Tuscany Unit 1. Key speakers on this item included Cheryl Gallt and Charlie Schneider. The plan was reapproved by the board with a total of 12 conditions. A new condition regarding capacity assurance was added as part of this reapproval process. The motion to reapprove the plan was approved. ## Release and Call of Bonds [timestamp: 00:59:39] The release and call of bonds was presented as agenda item XI. Tom Martin addressed this matter, and the motion was approved. ## Revision to DP 2014-63: Lengrove Edition The revision to DP 2014-63: Lengrove Edition was presented as a motion item on the agenda. [timestamp: 01:03:36] Tom Martin was the key speaker on this agenda item. **Outcome** The revision was approved with 12 conditions. The conditions included updated stairwell dimensions and technical committee review requirements. ## CT 2014-1: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility) [timestamp: 01:03:36] The board considered a cell tower application from New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, operating as AT&T Mobility. Key speakers on this agenda item included Barb Rackers, David Pike, and Hank Grady. The application was approved with specific conditions attached to the project. The approval required two main modifications: * **Tower redesign**: The applicant must redesign the tower as an alternative tower design * **Security and landscaping**: Installation of a security fence with a landscape buffer is required The motion to approve the application passed with these conditions in place, allowing the project to move forward subject to the applicant's compliance with the specified requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of amended minutes from October 9, 2014, and November 13, 2014 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Postponement of DP 2007-134: Sand Lake & Estes Property (AMD) to January 15, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Denial of postponement request for CT 2014-1: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility) - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Postponement of PLAN 2014-96F: Glen Creek (Dove Creek, Unit 3-B, Section 3, Lots 66-75) to December 18, 2014 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Postponement of PLAN 2014-101F: Long Valley Farm, KY, Inc., Unit 2-B (AMD) to January 15, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Consent Agenda as presented by staff - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of the PDR Annual Report - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board Presentation - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Reapproval of Plan 2008-139F: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1B (Ashford Oaks) - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Reapproval of Plan 2008-138F: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1A (Ashford Oaks) - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Reapproval of Plan 2008-140F: Meadow Oaks, Unit 1C (Ashford Oaks) - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2014-104F: Lextran Property, Lots 1 & 2 with 12 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of waiver for Plan 2014-104F: Lextran Property, Lots 1 & 2 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2014-106F: Hamburg East, Lot 2 (AMD) with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2014-110: Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1, Parcels 2 and 2A with 12 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Reapproval of DP 2006-84: Hamburg Place Farm, Tuscany Unit 1, Lot 169 with 12 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of release and call of bonds - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of revision to DP 2014-63: Lengrove Edition with 12 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of CT 2014-1: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (dba AT&T Mobility) with two conditions --- ## Full transcript I find I'd like to welcome everyone to the December 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. First on the order of business agenda, approval of minutes from our meeting October 9, 2014. Those minutes were, and we have another set, November 13, 2014. both sets of those minutes were sent to commission members for approval I've heard of no changes or for either set if no one knows of any corrections I'll entertain motions for approval miss Plumlee mr. chair move approval minutes October 9th and October 13th for the Planning Commission. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next on the order would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On page 8, this is item D at the bottom of the page, DP 2007-134, Sand Lake and Estes. I need to request a one-month postponement to the January 15th meeting. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none. Did you say January 15th? Yes. I think that's the correct date, yes. Seeing none. Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2007-134 Sand Lake until January 15th. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of DP 2007-134 Sand Lake until January 15th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is that all? Yes. Okay. I was just asking. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is Hank Grady, and I would like to call your attention to item 4A, that's CT 214-1, the cell tower on page 10. I represent the opposition, and I have written to the Planning Commission staff and to Mr. Pike earlier today to object to the hearing this afternoon for two reasons, and I have a letter that I can distribute to you so that everybody has the letter, but I would like to explain my reason for objecting to conducting the hearing this afternoon, if I may. Okay. Page 10. Page 10. Commission items, item number A, CT214-1, new cell tower. Go ahead and pass out the letter. You want to just hand it and we'll pass it along. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as I said, I represent Hillandale Neighborhood Association in opposition to this proposed location. And we make this objection to the hearing based upon two recent submittals by the applicant. The applicant submitted a radiofrequency study done in August, and we reviewed that, and we were preparing to respond to that. In fact, we submitted alternative sites to the applicant as part of our attempt to discuss with the applicant a resolution. In response to our submitting alternative sites, the applicant has submitted a November 25th supplemental radiofrequency study and a December 5th radio frequency study, both of which raise two new issues that were not a part of their original study. One is both of those reports make reference to another site, the Zandale site, and that's discussed in both of those reports on page 7 and page 8 of those two new reports. Secondly, the third report, the one that was done last week, raises a new area of need. We thought we were discussing 3G connectivity. That's what's in the first report. Well, in this third report prepared last week, and we received it this week, they introduced 4G connectivity and the need to address 4G connectivity. They introduced two new maps that we'd never seen before, and frankly, this is not fair. We deserve more time to prepare to respond to an application that is going to overshadow our neighborhood than getting two new reports, one a week before a hearing. And so I have asked, I've objected to being required to put on my case this afternoon under these circumstances. I have suggested in my letter that the cure, if the applicant wishes to go forward this afternoon, is to let Hillandale present its formal opposition next month and to continue the hearing to give us a chance to respond. There is a second issue and separate issue that we make a request for additional time. when you get to the staff report, you will see a recommendation for an alternative design, essentially to try to hide the cell tower. When I received the staff report, I contacted Mr. Pike to ask if he was going to agree with that alternative design, and he said he would do it if you required him to do it. And I said, can we agree to postpone so that you can provide me and my clients with a descriptor, something to look at, so that we can look at it and see what the alternative design would look like before we're required to come to a public hearing? And he said no. He would not provide us with an alternative design in advance of a hearing, so that we might have some idea about what this will look like if the staff report is followed by you. He said he was going to present it today. He was ready to present it. which means we will never get to see it until prior to the public hearing. The cure for that as well is to let him present his alternative design if he's going to and let us review it within the neighborhood and come back and put on our case in January when we will be given fair opportunity to prepare for a hearing that will dramatically affect our neighborhood. Thank you for considering my request. Thank you. Is the applicant here, Mr. Pike? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Response to that? Thank you for the opportunity. For the recorded record, my name is David Pike. I'm a principal with Pike Legal Group, PLLC, PO Box 369, Shepherdsville, Kentucky. I'm here representing the applicants. I have responses on two levels. First of all, let's kind of be clear. We have prefiled virtually all of the exhibits in our case, even though we are under no statutory or regulatory obligation to do that. In fact, that's what the hearing's for, is to introduce evidence like that. But in an abundance of courtesy to all concerned, we've tried to pre-file as many of our exhibits as possible. More fundamentally, however, this is another example of where cell tower cases are frankly different from other types of zoning cases. You'll, of course, want to rely on your legal counsel's interpretation of these issues, But the issue of when this hearing is held is governed expressly by KRS 100.987 sub C, which indicates that cell tower cases must be completed within 60 days, and if they are not completed within 60 days, they are deemed approved by operation of law, unless the applicant agrees in writing to extend the time. We have done that twice as a courtesy to deal with opposition issues. We are now 112 days into this process. My client is not willing to extend the time further. Thank you, sir. Clarification from staff, filing dates and so forth, are we required if with him saying that they're not willing to postpone? Our deadline time is up and we would have? Our deadline is up, yes. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions from the commission in regards to this request for postponement? All right. Yes, sir. Tracy, do you agree with that decision? Do you think that's the way we have to go? Yes. Okay. It sounds like we do not have much of an alternative. So at this point in time, do we even need a motion? Since there is a request for postponement, it probably would be best if you voted on it. Okay. Commission members, if you're ready. Question? I guess I need a little clarification on what it is we're voting on. They can propose a postponement. Well, you've been requested by opponents to grant a postponement of this hearing. However, under the statute, it's already been postponed by agreement a couple of times. If the applicant doesn't agree to a postponement at this point in time, it really has to be heard. I'm just stating for the record, I'm assuming it would be best if you all would act on the request, so there's no question that you heard it and determined to go forward or not with it. I have one other question, if I could. As I understand from the attorney, Mr. Grady, is it that they wanted to split the difference, in other words, let the proceedings go on and then at the same time allow the opposition to have time to reflect on a few activities connected with this proposal and then present an alternative next. Hold on, Mr. Grady. Thank you very much. Who are you taking the question? Well, actually, I was looking at... Okay. Hold on, Mr. Grady. So I was asking, what they're asking is, can we split the difference, I guess, is what they're asking. I'm not sure that you can under the statute. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Any other questions? If not, we need a motion. Yes, sir. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission hear CT 2014-1. Okay, thank you. The motion is that we do hear the CT 2014-1 new singular wireless. The motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion in regards to the motion? Yes, sir. Would it clarify the record if the motion also included a statement that we have really, under the statute, we have no alternative but to hear it? Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay. Mr. Cravens? Yep, second as well. Okay, that's fine. Any other discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Staff has two items. Yes, sir. We'd like to direct your and the commission's attention to page two of your agenda. Item B, Plan 2014-96F, Glen Creek, also known as Dove Creek, Unit 3B, Section 3, Lot 66 through 75 for property located at 201 through 1145 Appian Crossing Way. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-week postponement on this plan. That is to your next week's hearing. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, if commission members have none. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement plan 2014-96F for one week. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for postponement plan 2014-96F until December the 18th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if I may direct your attention to page 3, item G. This is Plan 2014-101F, Long Valley Farm, Kentucky Incorporated, Unit 2B, property located at Long Valley Lane and Russell Cave Road. We have received a request for a postponement for one month. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of Plan 2014-101F to the January 15th. What meeting would that be, Bill? January 15th meeting? Yes. Do we have a second? The motion has been made and seconded for postponement of Plan 2014-101 Elf Long Valley Farm Company, Kentucky, Incorporated until January 15th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll move to the consent agenda, which is before you. Mr. Salee, I believe, will walk us through that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are a number of items that are here in the Senate agenda that is required and no discussion based on the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee. The Senate agenda has been placed with your locations. There are several final Subdivision Plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your Subdivision Committee. The first appears on the bottom of the page, item A, Plan 2014-93 Harvey property located at 4500 Old School House Lane. The next item appearing on your consent agenda is on page 2, item C, the meeting agenda. Plan 2014-97F New Market property, Phase 1, Unit 1D, Lot 63. This involves property with an address of 1201 here at Hayden Lane. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 2 item D, plan 2014-98-PF Blackford Priority, phase 4, with an address of 3200 and 310 Blackford Parkway. The next two items are on your meeting agenda are also on the consent agenda. Both of all the Lexingtonian states, section 1 and section 2, they're also known as the signature of states. These are amended by the Platts. Page 3 item E is plan 2014-99F. On page 3 item F this is plan 2014-100F. These properties are located at Winter Circle and Andrew Sails Road. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for pre-approval by your subdivision. This is on page 6 item K to the meeting agenda. Plan 2013-27F, member East Tracks 1-3. This is amended by the flat for property of 2185, Rola Club, Walmart. Here is one final subdivision plan recommended for a one-year extension by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 6, item L of your meeting agenda, plan 2013-127F, Tuscany Unit 3A. This is for property with an address located on Old Rosebud Road. There are four development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that appear on the consent agenda. The first is on page 7, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-102, amended final development plan for the Palumbo property, tract A, located at 251 West Loudon Avenue. On page 8, item B of your meeting agenda, we find DP 2014-103, Arcadia Investments, Plots 3, 4, and 5. This is also known as metaphoric manner. This is an amended final development plan for property at 1590, 1600, and 1610 Leastown Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 8, item C, DP2014-104, Amber Place, Phase 2, Lot 14. This involves property at 2541 Sir Barton Way. The final item on your meeting agenda, pardon me, on your consent agenda, appears on page 9, item E of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-80, Providence Place, Track 3, Blots 5A and 5B amended. This involves property at 1201 Providence Place Parkway. You'll note that the last item requires a finisher by the Planning Commission, and before the start of the meeting, there was a report before this development plan circulated to you. On page 2 of that is the appropriate finisher, DP 2014-80. Mr. Chairman, I would report at this time the staff has not seen the required affidavit for the time closer to this, and if that document is not available, we would recommend this particular item be removed from the consent agenda. Is the applicant here? If you have the affidavit, I ask you that, please. Okay. We're going to try and put a photograph of the sign on the overhead since we do not have one. You keep doing that. I was going to say, Mr. Salley, if you can read it, I'm sure we'll take your word for it. My new glasses have come in handy. That does read December 11th. The sign is in order. Thank you for your patience. All the items on your consent agenda are eligible for approval by the commission at this time, unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask to remove one of these items to allow it to have further respect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to have any one of these items heard? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I move that the consent agenda be approved as presented by staff. I think the motion has been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. I want to ask, with the commission's permission, during the course of the day, to take a couple of items out of order. The first one would be page 10 under commission items. We have two annual reports. Ms. Beth Oberman is here for that. And I believe both will be fairly brief, and we'll let her get about other business. Ms. Overman. Okay. Good afternoon. I am going to start with the PDR report. Do I just – you all have that? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. This doesn't seem to be clicking. Okay. There we go. Sorry. Okay. So our fiscal year 2014 acquisitions, we utilized approximately $2 million of LFUCG funding and approximately $2 million of federal funding to purchase easements on six farms. Four of the six farms have closed, and two are pending with our federal partners. We utilized $60,000 of our remaining LFUCG bond funds to purchase an easement on a 40-acre farm. One farm totaling 240 acres located at 6602 through 7090 8th and Spoonsboro Road withdrew after being appraised and receiving an offer. The farm is owned by three siblings, one of whom was not ready to put the farm under easement. The family has reapplied for fiscal year 2016 consideration. So the addresses and acreage of the easements we acquired are 4701 Paris Pike, 256 acres, 2401 through 2501 Royster Road, 127 acres, 5425 Old Richmond Road, 222 acres, 1001 North Cleveland Road, 100 acres, 4467 Old Frankfurt Pike, 292 acres. That one is pending. 2801 Elkchester Road, 264 acres. That is pending as well. And 1031 North Cleveland Road, 41 acres, which is the one we used our local funding for. So our total acreage of easements was 1,302, which is great. So our cumulative PDR acreage, and looking forward, we have 244 farms in the program. and 28,169 acres. Although I was going to tell you all, that's the number we use. As I go through the data, I think that number is probably what we have acquired, and some retained their right to subdivide in the early days and have done so. So I think next year when I come to you all after I've had a chance to go through all this, that number may increase because, for instance, right now in our easement monitoring sheet, We have at least 254 farms. So I will be working on that this year and let you all know. But the acreage of the 28,169 is accurate. Some of those have just subdivided since we acquired them. We are at 56.34% of the 50,000-acre goal. And for fiscal year 2015, we received federal funding of $1.54 million for seven farms totaling 782 acres, and those appraisals and acquisitions are in process. For fiscal year 2016, we have 28 applicants, 15 of which are currently eligible for our federal application. Let's see. And do you all have copies of the map with you? I know that would be hard to see on the screen, okay? If you can start on the left side, you'll see the one that's 264 acres, and that will likely close before Christmas. And then the next, the 292 acres, will likely close early in the new year. And then coming on around, the 256-acre farm, and on down the 127-acre farm, and the 100-acre and 41-acre, that was one farm that the owner subdivided so that she could give a parcel to each child. so that is one farm that was subdivided and then the 222 acre farm and you can see in looking at the map that nearly every parcel we obtained was adjacent to another PDR farm so and you can see that they are all working on that critical mass so it was a good productive year for PDR so are there any questions about that before I move on to courthouse any questions no one okay I just I'm just curious just because I'm an appraiser okay I know the average is about two an acre what's kind of the range per acres I just took the 1.54 by the 780 oh okay you mean what is the average per acre price that we're paying it's about 2900 right now any other questions okay if not before you move on let me have a motion i think we need to approve this uh if i could if there's no other questions i'll learn a motion on a motion yes mr chairman i i move that we approve The report is presented on the PDR program. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the annual report. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Ms. Overman, Courthouse. Okay. It started. Okay. Okay, here we go. All right, so for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, in 2014, we actually only had two applications. One was 135 West Main Street, which is the blue building beside 21C, and there was an authorization permit approved to rehabilitate the side and the back of the building. And 100 and 120 West Main Street, which is center point, and it was an authorization permit amended and reissued for the approval of building designs. and you can see the before and after photos of 135 West Main. I don't know if you all recognize, if you're driving on Short Street, that has been to the before and the left and the back and the bottom. It is a wonderful renovation. I saw it the other day and, you know, it backs up to just a parking lot there. So anyone driving down Short Street, that's your view. So it has been a tremendous remodel. So that is there. And then as far as violations, the only one was 115 through 119 East Main Street, which is the Bellini's building. They were cited repeatedly for the broken window you can see at the top, and once for a torn cord on the awning that was hanging down on the sidewalk where people could trip. Code enforcement received no responses to their notices, and we have since learned the building is in foreclosures. So any questions about that? Questions for Ms. Elberman? Oh, and one other thing. The fire department usually provides data to us about any violations. They were not able to get that to us yet. So when they do, if there were violations that they found, I will send that to you all through Chris. Any other questions? Any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Mundy? Yes, I move approval of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board presentation as it was given today. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Okay, thank you all. we will resume the agenda order for a while i'll put it that way um we'll move to page four item h plan 2008-138 elf meadow oaks unit 1a which is up for reapproval and I believe there are three right there one A, one B and one C on the adjoining pages Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next three items on your agenda are three record plats that need to be re-approved by this body. Plan 2008-138F Meadow Oaks Unit 1A. Plan 2008-139F Meadow Oaks Unit 1B. And Plan 2008-140F Meadow Oaks Unit 1C. How's that? There we go. These are three record plats for an area known as Meadow Oaks or also as Ashford Oaks, located near the Blackford Parkway and its intersection with Manowar, which is somewhat to the north of the Polo Club Manowar intersection. Greenbrier is back here. In fact, here's the golf course. We have Feliciano Way that comes here off of Blackford, which provides the entrance into the subdivision. It continues back into this area, and you can see the little courtyard area or open area that is associated with the development and the Loop Street. And on this plat, what you have here is a Greenway floodplain area that is its own lot with access up in here. So it's this area, Unit C is. So we have A in the back, we have B, and here we have C, which is down through here. Again, you can see the 100-year floodplain reference. portions of these property has been already certified and recorded. That's how we got the street. It is a private street. That's how we got this lot. This area that's been highlighted here has all been recorded. So they need re-approval of the rest of the property since it has expired. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda today. The only interesting little change would be on this plat. And of course interesting is perhaps based on your perspective. But this area right in here is the new boundary of this green way. And that is because there has been a consolidation plat that has modified the boundary of this particular unit. And, of course, this body does not see minor record plats very often. So, again, with that, staff is recommending re-approval of these three plats. Did I hear anything about a waiver, Tom? Pardon me. Thank you very much. There was a waiver originally granted with these plats, and it was relative to the construction or the timing of the construction of the sidewalks. They wanted to have those built after the houses were constructed and the aprons were put in to avoid damage. Since that time, your subdivision regulations have been changed, and they are allowed to post a surety to cover the construction of those sidewalks. That happened to be a condition of the waiver that you approved on these plats that they post a surety. Your subregs now allow them to do that. So the waiver really is no longer necessary. Thank you. So we would be approving without a re-approving. That's a request, re-approving without a waiver now. There is no longer anything that needs to be waived because the original waiver required assurity. Your subregs now allow them to do that, to post assurity. We have highlighted that statement for you in your subregs. Okay. Very good. And anyone in the audience wish to speak on these plans? any questions from the commission if not uh thank you mr martin i'll entertain a motion these all separate motions for reapprovals yes sir mr chairman i move for reapproval of plan 2008-139f for one year reapproval Okay, motion's been made and seconded for the real approval of Plan 2008-139-ELF. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next one. Well, he said 139. It's 138, I'm sorry. Why don't you do 138 now? Let's go ahead and do 138 now. All right. I move approval of Plan 2008-138F for one-year extension. Yep. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2008-138F. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the remaining one. I move approval of Plan 2008-140F. One-year extension. Thank you. Motion's been made in segment for the re-approval of Plan 2008-140-L. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Moving to page 7, item M, 2014-104L. It's Lex Tran property, lots 1 and 2. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 7, item M, Plan 2014-104F, Lex Tran property, lots 1 and 2. This is a final record plat for the Lex Tran property that was formerly the GE plant, and it was at the intersection of North Broadway and West Loudon Avenue. Here's the CSX Railroad in this location, and the Hope Center is immediately to the west in this location. Lex Tran has recently purchased a property. You may have seen the grand dedication that they had, and they announced that they are going to redevelop this as their service center. This was just a recent, just a couple days ago they had it, as a matter of fact. the plant that you see before you, this is a 13 acre, a little over 13 acre tract. They are creating an interior lot in this location. And you can see, and this is under an acre. It's a very odd configuration. This is the line table. You don't see many line tables like this. That is very simply because they've done the outline of the proposed building. that's what this reflects. That is necessary to the financing that they are utilizing to construct the new facility, and I have no doubt that they have several different types of financing. And in this particular case, they needed to create a lot in order to take advantage of the particular financing that's part of the financing on this development as a Lex Tran facility. Associated with this, there is a waiver. A waiver is one that you occasionally see, and you've seen it more often when we have public entities or quasi-public entities like our schools and that sort of thing that come in, and that is a waiver of the sanitary sewers. There is a sewer line on this property. It's going to be relocated as part of the redevelopment as they build the new facility. They have requested a waiver. It will save them a step in trying to adjust easements and address that issue later. They're trying to address it up front. In conjunction with that waiver of the sanitary sewer to this particular lot, there is inherent in that request a waiver of a performance surety and the substantial completion in your subdivision regulations. And again, you have seen this most recently with your school sites and also with Coldstream, with the state of Kentucky, where they have to request a waiver because they don't post sureties. The protection afforded to public safety under your subregs is their own contracting and procurement standards that govern the way they have to run their construction projects and see that things are built in accordance with the contracts and with federal and state standards. I believe South End Project, the Newtown Pike Extension, was one of the more recent projects that you also, they requested a waiver for similar reasons because it's governed by the state of Kentucky's procurement and construction standards in that instance. LexTran has to meet similar standards because of their federal funding. And they are, of course, a quasi-governmental entity. They're exempt from zoning as such. So that's another issue that impacts this particular development. With that, your subdivision committee did recommend approval to the conditions that you see on your agenda today. It was a late plan. It will return to your technical committee for review prior to being certified. the waiver report has been handed out to you as well and staff is recommending approval of the waiver to you today if you have any questions for me i'll be happy to answer them any questions for mr martin i wouldn't know where to start if not applicant here or have anything else to add yes sir good afternoon kevin phillips with interest engineering don't really have anything to add request your approval and of course the waiver that tom has provided your report for okay thank you sir anyone else in the audience wish to wish to speak to this plan seeing none any questions from the commission If not, I'll entertain motions. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan 2014-104F, Lex Tran property, lots 1 and 2, with the 12 conditions as presented by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made in second and for approval of Plan 2014-104L, Lex Tran Properties with 12 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then a motion for the waiver. Yes. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the findings for petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations for Plan 2014-104F, Lex Tran property, Lots 1 and 2. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the waiver for the Plan 2014-104F. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Thank you very much. On the same page, page 7, plan 2014-106F, Hamburg East, lot 2 amended. You do have a revision, which is on a yellow sheet. Good afternoon. We are looking at the yellow sheet. It's plan 2014-106F. This is Hamburg East, lot 2. We had, just shortly ago, we had the Cabela's come in, and so they're creating the lot for that Cabela's. We had one single lot, and originally they came in only wanting to create five lots, but since the subdivision committee meeting, they decided to create six lots. So this was one lot. Now they're subdividing that, too. So now we have a total of six lots. With that, we have our typical governmental agencies and utility sign-offs that are required. Plus, we have to note there should be no development on lots 2H or 2I until a final development plan is approved and certified. this is for that area that needed to be residential to meet the zoning and this is to be reviewed by the technical committee to plans for plan certification because this was a late file to begin with so they've resubmitted with this new plan for six lots for total with that anybody has any questions Questions? Mr. Penn? Ms. Caldwell, where is the last lot that they created? There's no more access out on Polo Club Boulevard. So is there internal access to that big law on the left? Well, we don't have a final development plan on that, but that's what this access point here from the Cabela's, my understanding that we'll have an access easement to that. I guess maybe I'll rephrase the question. In subdivision, we approved the five. Show me where the sixth lot is. It's this lot right here. This small lot up here, it's an out lot. Because this one lot followed here. Okay. And then they've come back and they've subbed about it, that one large lot now, to two. So we have this smaller lot right here fronting on Polo Club. So we have to wait on the development plan before we see where the access is going to be on the other one. Yes, sir. but they're limited through there so the development plan will decide more than they know other questions applicant have anything else to add good afternoon mr chairman members of the commission my name is matt carter with vision engineering uh i can give you a brief explanation why we're adding the extra lot as part of the closing contract with Cabela's. The Cabela's lot and the three lots in front are considered, I guess in their contract they call it a shopping center. And since the new lot we added was considered part of that shopping center, the attorney says it has to be a platted lot. and that's basically the reason. We understand it's a non-buildable lot until a final development plan is done, but that's what the attorneys are requesting, that we include that lot and make it a sixth lot. Thank you. Mr. Penn, you have a question? Mr. Carter, is that going to force us to put another exit out on Polo Club Belivar when you come in and develop the bigger lot to the left? No, no. Our intention is, as shown on the preliminary development plan and the final development plan, it will be accessed from the, there will be along the front of the Cabela store, there's an access easement, and that lot will be accessed off that access easement. On a service road? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. The conditions, we're good with the 11 conditions. Thank you for the revisions and the cleanup. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, there's no further questions from the commission. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of Plan 2014-106F Hamburg E Slot 2 amended with the recommendations as indicated by the staff. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? second second by mr. Wilson for approval with the revised conditions please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you thank you mr. Carter next at the bottom of page 9 DP 2014-110 Hamburg place mall unit 1 we do have a revision which is up on a salmon sheet in front of you Mr. Chair, members of the commission, as stated, this is DP 2014-110, Hamburg Place small unit 1 parcels 2 and 2a this is an amended final development plan for the property located at 1816 alley sheba way property you see here is boarded by alley sheba way man of war pink pigeon vendor way and sir barton and with myers here on the top purpose for the amendment was to add 634 square feet of restaurant floor area to an existing restaurant this area here or as you can see on the overhead a little bit better and to increase the parking subdivision committee recommended it for approval however the applicant provided a revised drawing on December 10th so with that the revisions were for the parking, not adding any more square footage to the building. And it was an attempt to put the parking back to its original layout. And with that, staff had a chance to look at it and can make the recognition for approval based on the conditions you see on your agenda. The first eight are the typical sign-offs that you all see, with nine being the addition of the dimensions for the driveway and for the aisles, walkways. We also need the dimensions of the building and the height of the building and feet, denote the required parking, and then, of course, review by technical committee because this was a late file. With that, I just turn it over to you all for any questions or comments. Questions for Kelly? Thank you, sir. Applicant, anything to add? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Patrick Bennett. I'm with Core States Group. Just a housekeeping issue. I think it's just oversight or miscommunication with our staff and Kelly. We are proposing a total square footage of 4,134. the addition is going to be 976 square feet. And I think the discrepancy there is we enclosed the freezer cooler that was previously submitted on the original plan, and now it's going to be all part of the building. So I would request that the number and the record change from 634 to 976. Kelly. Chairman, I take the information. Just note that in your action. That should be a situation. Okay, so the total now is going to be what? The total does not change. Just the addition that is referenced in the note as 634 should be 976. 976. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the commission? Anyone else like to speak on this? Kelly? Anything to add? No? Okay. If there's no one else and no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair and Commission, I recommend approval of DP 2014-110 Hamburg Place Mall Unit 1 Parcels 2 and 2A. as shown with the conditions as shown by staff, the 12 conditions, and just noting that it's 976 square feet instead of 634 square feet. Thank you. We do have a motion and second with the revised conditions, 12 conditions now. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to page 10, item G, DP 2006-84, Hamburg Place Farm, Tuscany Unit 1. This would be for a reapproval. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. We are on DP 2006-84 Hamburg Farm, Tuscany Unit 1, Lot 169. This is for the YMCA. This is to be built out in the Hamburg area. We have Sir Barton Way, Old Rosebud, and Piscali Place, and this is located here on the corner. This plan has expired, and now they're asking for reapproval. and we have the 11 conditions plus we need to add a 12th for the capacity assurance because this was approved and signed so long ago so we want to add the 12th condition for the cap and with that any other questions? Thank you Ms. Galt. Any questions for Ms. Galt? Is that applicant here to add anything? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Charlie Schneider with Brandstetter Carroll. Don't have much to add to this, but would like to seek your approval at this time. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for re-approval now with 12 conditions. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for re-approval of DP 2006-84 Hamburg Place Farm Tuscany Unit 1, Lot 169, with the now 12 conditions as noted by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for re-approval of DP 2006-84 with 12 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. that motion passes thank you continuing down the page right in the middle of the page performance bonds and letter of credit dispose of that I think quickly mr. chair yes sir move approval of the release and call of bonds thank you motion has been made in a second before the release and call of bonds from the memo that is before us dated December 11, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. And with the commission's permission I'm going to take one other item. We only have two left for the most part. One item out of order. It's on the addendum on the last page under staff items it's dp 2014-63 lynn grove edition Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the staff item that we're bringing back to you today is a final development plan that you recently approved. It's back on your agenda courtesy of our infill and redevelopment facilitation for this particular plan. It is located on Simpson Avenue at Stillwell and at Fern Avenue. And you may recall it was a recent zone change. They brought in the final development plan. Here are the apartment building. In reality, it's one building of various heights here with the parking in this area. You may recall the discussion about the dumpster originally. They brought it in here, and it was approved in this location. That was one of the conditions of approval on this plan, that it be shown in this location. The open space is in these areas that you see here. There was some discussion about their usable open space being in the side yard that is permissible under the zone. The reason it is back to you today, this plan is almost ready to be certified. They received most of their sign offs and that sort of thing. And they want to start grading the site fairly soon. So they want the plan to be certified. And what has happened is right in these locations, these stairwells, they got bigger. They got bigger by 2,130 square feet. So that is the sole reason that this plan is back before you today for your approval is that additional 2,130 square feet. No unit change, no parking change, no bedroom change. the architect and his creativity increased the size of the stairwells all the way up. So staff does not have the authority to approve that sort of change. We brought it back to you for your approval today. And we are recommending approval of that subject to the conditions that you see on your addendum. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? not mr. Barrett anything dad no thank you anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this seeing none if there's no questions I'll entertain a motion mr. chairman yes sir I'm going to move approval dp 2014-63 land grove edition thank you do we have a second Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the revision DP 2014-63 Lengrove edition. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Our remaining item is CT 2014-1 new singular wireless. Thank everyone for the patience to get to this point. I would ask for your patience just a little bit longer. We'll take a five-minute recess before we get started. thank you Thank you. I'm sorry. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Bruce and Tracy and Andrea. and then everybody from here over to I don't read. Oh my gosh. No, they're not. How many trees did you get? Thank you. And before we presume and actually get into this, let me make a couple of statements and clarify a couple of things. One, there has been a request for an extension of time to speak. I'm generally not a grouchy person, but call me Grinch if you want to. however I did not see a need in this at this time so for today's hearing on this both the applicant and opposition would have 30 minutes to speak to make their presentation any citizens wanting to speak will have three minutes if the applicant or the opposite mr. Grady for the opposition wishes to bring a witness up during their time to speak they may do so but it's going to be part of that 30-minute time limit and as I said any other citizens more than welcome to speak they will be limited to three minutes one other thing I want to mention trying to prepare for this checking with my legal department there are federal statutes and state wise and let me read this to you the federal telecommunications act of 1996 in 47 USC section 332 number 7 B says no No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency. Emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with federal communications commissions. Regulation concerning such emissions. the same is said in Kentucky revised statutes 100.986 which says any discussion about radio frequency emissions will not be permitted in this hearing today the Planning Commission therefore can focus on the issues of land use which is their purview so simply put radio frequency emissions I don't want to go there because somewhere down the road it may come back to bite someone. And, you know, it's opening up in a new can of worms for appeals and everything else. So please work with me and let's not go there today. One other thing before Ms. Rackers gets started, we do have a letter before us that was sent, I believe, to each commission member from Mr. Thomas Andrea Sr. Europe. So with that, Ms. Rackers, you may start. All right. This is on page 10 of your agenda. It's item A under commission items. And before I get started, I have several emails and letters to distribute to you. The one on top here is from Council Member Henson. She's the council member for the 11th district, and she was not able to be here. Oh, you have a copy of it? Okay, good. We got that. Okay. So that takes care of that. We have several in opposition. We've gotten emails since August, and these are in order from the most recent to the, it's back on the bottom. And then we have one letter from someone who is part of the Friends of Wolf Run, and this is just comments of concern. And then we also have some in support of this. Okay, this is CT 2014-1, and it's an application by New Singular Wireless doing business as AT&T Mobility. They're asking to put a 125-foot monopole tower with a 5-foot lightning arrestor on property at 302 Southland Drive. The property is basically vacant. There is a bandstand in the corner, and I'm not sure if you can actually see it. So this is the property right here, and here is the bandstand. And I don't know how permanently it's attached to the ground, but generally things like that are not permanent. The property is vacant other than that. It's Zone B1. It's owned by and adjoining the Oleika Shriners Temple property. Their property is right here. and this building right here is the home of Incredipet and the Dollar General Store. And if you could put the next one up, Bill, for the zoning. Surrounding zoning is a mix of neighborhood business, professional office, and residential. We've got single-family residential and two-family residential. This is the property right here. All of this, and you can see that it aligns with the rest of the commercial zoning along this portion of Southland Drive. Here's professional office here, two-family residential, and single-family residential. Chilton. We've got Sheridan Drive here, Southview Drive, this is Southland Drive, and the railroad tracks go along here. Nicholasville Road is over in this area somewhere. As the tower is currently designed, it'll be a little bit less than 80 feet from the property lines on Sheridan Drive, the rear property lines. It'll be within a 2,500 square foot lease area, and the lease area will be about 60, a little bit more than 60 feet away from those properties. If you could put that one up, Bill, please. This is the property right here. This is the lease area. Here's an access easement that comes off of Huff Court, which comes off of Eastway Drive. And these are the rear property lines of the properties along Sheridan Drive. Here is Southland Drive up here. Even though the tower will be that close to the residential properties, with a 3 to 1 height to yard ratio that is required for towers in any commercial zones, at that 3 to 1 height to yard ratio and at its proposed height, it meets the setback that's required for towers in a B1 zone. A 3 to 1 height to yard ratio means that for every 3 feet of tower height, you would need 1 foot of horizontal distance to the nearest property line. So it does meet and exceed that distance. The distance would be about 42 feet per 125-foot tower. And it could be possible to move it closer to these commercial properties up here. Here's the tower location right there. and it would be possible to move it up to right there, but that would only be about 25 or 30 feet more from the residential properties than it is right now. It would require a variance, but it would be a variance from the commercial properties instead of the residential properties, and we would probably support that. The tower will be constructed, and it will be the same style and the same construction materials as almost all the towers that you've approved here in Fayette County, which would be a steel monopole. It will be designed to allow co-location, even though it will be shorter than most towers that you've approved. And due to its lower height, the tower's diameter will be 20 inches at the top, which is about that big, and 44 inches at the bottom. It will be smaller than most towers, and that will help to minimize its profile. And if you can put that one up, Bill, please. So at this location right here, it would be about 20 inches. Down here, it would be 44 inches. There won't be any lights on it because it would be under the 200-foot height requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration. If it's 200 feet or less, then it does not require lights. It will comply with all FAA and Federal Communication Commission requirements. The lease area will be enclosed by an 8-foot security fence, which will be a privacy fence. And if you could put that next one up, please. This is the lease area right here. privacy fence will be in here, and then there's a five-foot landscape buffer area around here. It'll have a six-foot continuous hedge along the fence, and then there will be Evergreen's 15 feet on center within that five-foot landscape buffer area, and that also meets the requirements of Article 25. There are service issues in the area that need resolution. The amount of service and the type of service has become inadequate in the area. There are gaps in coverage along Southland Drive, Jessalyn Drive, and Nicholasville Road that have resulted in blocked and dropped calls. And as you know, Nicholasville Road is one of the most heavily traveled in the urban area of Lexington. In 2011, which was the last time it was documented, there were at least 38,000 vehicles on a daily average per day going through this intersection, and it's probably gone up since then. The polygon that has been created by the four closest towers to the area doesn't provide adequate coverage, and there are apparently antennae on buildings in the area, but those also don't provide enough coverage. They help, but they don't do a good enough job to alleviate the needs in the area. Towers provide the best coverage for various reasons, the height, the size, and the ability of the antennas to catch radio waves. And the spacing between the towers is as important in the site location as topography is and as height of the tower is. They have to be close enough to hand off calls to people that are traveling through the area, and they have to be far enough apart so that the signals don't interfere with each other from each tower. And depending on the topography and the vegetation and the buildings that are near and between the towers, they can provide service for up to a mile or two miles, but that isn't always the case. And missed and dropped calls are an inconvenience to most people, but when you talk about emergency service providers, when they have to contact hospitals, when they have to be in contact with E911 dispatchers, it's critical in that case. So it is an issue. Article 25 recommends that we use government properties for towers whenever possible, and it also says that flood pains have to be avoided. and almost the entire north side of Southland Drive is Bema floodplain area. So that limits any tower location pretty much to the south side. There are a few properties that are not within the floodplain, but not many on the north side. When the initial site assessment process was done, they considered the fire station that's on the corner of Cherry Bark and Southland Drive. That's about 700 feet to the northwest. That is this property right here. But this, all of this, which would be an area that might be feasible for a cell tower, all of that is within the floodplain. The other half of the property, at least half of that is taken up with building and parking. And this would be the only area on that property that would be left for a cell tower. And that is right up against the road, and chances are they, that would not be approved. I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be. I would have a hard time recommending approval for that. all the commercial properties on southland drive that are not within a floodplain were considered and there's only one other that might have worked and that would be the collins bowling bowling center down at the other end of southland drive but that was also determined to be infeasible because the only area on the property that's not in the floodplain and not already planned for another use i don't know if you remember the the golf little mini golf course that was planned for that property the only area that other area on the property would be the parking area and that is needed for the required parking for the use, and so the tower would have taken up required parking and that's not allowed. So the bottom line is they were unable to find any other suitable location that was large enough to accommodate the tower and its equipment, that's out of the flood plane, not environmentally sensitive, that's not within a residential zone, that had an owner that was willing to negotiate a lease, and that would remedy the service issues that are in the area. And because of the level of opposition from residential property owners, and in response to multiple letters and emails that you have there, alternatives that were suggested by the neighbors regarding other locations for the tower and co-location on buildings as far as antennas, they were considered by the radio frequency engineer. And after review and analysis of each of those alternatives, it was still determined that this property at 302 Southland was the most feasible to provide the service that's needed in the area that would fulfill all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, Article 25. They're making it as unobtrusive as possible other than an alternative tower design by the height and the diameter and still allowing co-location. As you know, the 2013 comp plan doesn't make recommendations for specific properties land use recommendations. It's policy-based, and it's based on appropriate land use principles. The 2007 plan can be consulted because of that for prior land use recommendations, And all of the prior comprehensive plans have recommended retail trade and personal services for the subject property because of the B-1 zoning, probably, and the likelihood that it wouldn't be developed as residential because it's been used and owned by the Olaika Temple people since the 1950s. They've owned it since then. And coincidentally, that's around the same time as the Hillendale neighborhood adjacent to the property was developed. And as you saw on the map, the B1 zoning aligns with the rest of the B1 zoning along Southland Drive, and so chances are it would never be developed as residential. There's one particular objective of the 2000 plan that's still relevant, and it's supported by the text of the 2013 plan. That is that we should improve and develop essential public and private facilities and services in existing neighborhoods where they are nonexistent or inadequate. That is supported by the 2013 plan text and goals and objectives. And then there is Theme D, Goal 2 of the 2013 plan that is also applicable and it's relevant to this. And it supports this. And that is to provide for accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of Lexington Bay County's residents and visitors. So the tower is consistent with the comprehensive plan and it does comply with Article 25. it meets all the technical requirements of article 25 regarding setbacks screening they haven't asked for any variances they don't need any variances and it states in article 25 that if a variance to either the screening or the setback is required or needed then they have every right to ask for it and you have every right to to approve it but they haven't asked for either of those it's not in a floodplain it's not an environmentally sensitive area it's not within 1,200 feet of an historic district. It's not along a scenic byway. It's in a B1 zone where a monopole is permitted. It'll allow for co-location, which is encouraged by the zoning ordinance. And that being said, the antenna of Article 25 for cellular towers is to provide for cellular telecommunication towers in appropriate locations throughout the community at sites that provide adequate cellular telecommunication service while protecting the public, preserving the character and value of surrounding property and protecting the view from residential areas. The cell service in the area has been documented, proven to be needed. It was documented between January and November of this year as far as dropped and missed calls. The radio frequency analysis documents and proves that it's needed. That complies with the intent of Article 25. We have a statement from a real estate appraiser that reported that the presence of the tower would not negatively affect area property values, and that also meets the intent of Article 25. And I did check property values of areas, residential areas, where there are other towers located, and property values have not gone down. They've only gone up, so it doesn't affect it. But having a tower so near residential properties isn't really an ideal situation. Article 25 does say that no towers should be located in residential zones unless no other location can be found. But in this area, there are neighborhood trees. They're mostly deciduous, and the tower will be screened only for about a half a year from a distance. And although its profile will be minimized with regard to height and diameter, it will be visible from many properties, not from all, but from many properties. It will affect the view from many residential properties in all directions, and that is contrary to the intent of Article 25, which is to preserve the character and protect the view of residential properties. So based on the documented need and the analysis and elimination of other sites in the area, for various reasons, all of which are valid, and the intent of Article 25 to provide service where it's needed and in compliance with the comprehensive plan. We recommended approval, but based on the intent of Article 25 to preserve the character of residential neighbors and protect the view, we recommend an alternative tower design. And that was done for a cell tower over in the Tates Creek Road corridor. The Centenary Methodist Church has a cell tower inside the church tower that was built specifically to disguise the tower so it would protect the viewshed of the Tates Creek Corridor. So something similar for the subject property or the temple property would be good. Some kind of architectural design feature that would appear to be part of the temple building would be a good thing. That would minimize what the property owners in the area think is going to be an overwhelming negative presence in the neighborhood. So our recommendation is subject to three conditions. That the tower be redesigned as an alternative design tower in order to lessen the visual impact from the adjoining residential areas. that the tower be surrounded by an eight-foot security fence as well as a five-foot landscape buffer area that contains both a six-foot hedge and evergreen trees as shown on the submitted site plan and is required by article 25 the area surrounding the equipment cabinet is to be screened from the view of surrounding property owners that the tower accessory equipment cabinet and lease area be maintained on a regular basis by the owner of the facility so has so as to have minimal impact on surrounding properties and if you have any questions about the staff report i will be happy to answer them. If you have any other questions, Mr. Pike is here for the applicant. Mr. Grady is here for the opposition. And I'll happily turn this over to them. Thank you, Ms. Rackers. Questions for Barb at this point? If not, we'll proceed on and welcome Mr. Pike. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Could we bring up my attempt at being very high-tech PowerPoint? And while they're bringing it up, I will remind you we have 30 minutes here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ready for me to start? My name is David Pike. I represent the applicants. It is a pleasure to appear before this board again. We recognize the importance of moving expeditiously with cases like this. We have worked extraordinarily hard to design an approach that will allow us to get done within the allowed time. I think we can do that, especially if questions are, of course, deferred until the end of my presentation. I would be remiss if I did not, as one of the first things I say, thank Ms. Rackers for the extraordinary amount of work that she's obviously put into reviewing this application. As you can see from some of the excerpts of the file that we've tendered to you in a binder that I'll be discussing shortly, We've tendered an extraordinary amount of expert documentation associated with the case, and we're grateful for her taking all the time necessary to review it thoroughly. Ultimately, all the exhibits required by Article 25 have been submitted. And let me stress, this application meets all the requirements of the regulations that have been developed by this planning commission and adopted by this urban council. Every single one of them. No variances are required. No waivers are required. That's not by accident. It's based on the incredible level of effort and concern that this applicant has put in, understanding the sensitivity of this issue to make sure that we are meeting your requirements to the letter. I think it's also worth noting from a legal perspective that although confidentiality is one of the hallmarks of applications like this under the Kentucky Revised Statutes. We waived that confidentiality as to the initial application and as to all subsequent documentation, so that's not an issue for us today. A copy of this PowerPoint presentation is available in tab A-B near the end of the binder that we've tendered, if you wish to consult it. A copy of this binder has also been tendered to Mr. Grady just prior to the beginning of my presentation. I think it's worth, and of course what I'd like to do now is to kind of quickly move through that binder to highlight some of the provisions in it that we think are particularly important. Virtually all of these exhibits have been pre-filed, even though there is no requirement for that to be done. First out of the staff report, the magic language is this proposal meets all the technical requirements of Article 25 with regard to siting a tower. all the technical requirements. There is also, as staff indicated, a recommendation that we consider an alternative tower design. It's our view that that's a bad idea, but later on in this presentation, I will indicate to you that if you choose to condition your approval on the construction of an alternative tower design, there's one that we're prepared to implement for you. Next, tab B in the binder before you is our site plan. It's significant because it demonstrates that there are no variances requested or required. Again, the site is designed in strict conformance with the regulations promulgated by this planning commission and adopted by the Urban Council. Next is tab C. That's a series of three different expert reports by our radiofrequency design engineers, who are, of course, here in addition to many other expert witnesses to answer questions that the board may have. They document, as Ms. Rackers indicated, a significant gap in our wireless service coverage in this area. In order to remedy that deficiency, two key requirements have to be met. First, a tower has to be located within our prescribed search area, since spacing between sites in order to integrate it into the existing network is critical. And second, it has to be built to the required specified elevation. Although not required to do so, we've taken extraordinary efforts in this case to examine quite literally every tract of ground within this search area. Most of the search area is ruled out by the Commission and the Urban Council's regulations indicating that if there's a commercial site available, residential property cannot be considered. And second, by the floodplain prohibition, which goes beyond just the floodplain. In addition, accessory structures can't be 25 feet from a floodplain boundary as well, further limiting the available real estate that we might have been able to have selected from within our search area. We also, based on emails that were received by the Planning Commission, have tendered expert report documentation indicating why small cells or femtocells cannot be utilized in order to fill this coverage gap. a tower is required. Moving the site to the southeast as documented in these reports is not a solution because, again, spacing is critical, and this is not the only site that AT&T is going to be seeking approval for before this planning commission over the next couple of years. Of course, we continued with a review of suggested alternate sites that were tendered to us through the opposing council, who represents the Neighborhood Association. All of those sites were located well outside of our search area. Despite that, every single one of those sites was modeled by our radio frequency engineering team. None of them would work, and the documentation associated with that is included at tab C of the binder that you've received. Of course, this tower has been sited with high band coverage in mind as well, because, of course, that's the nature of the radiofrequency that modern carriers are working with now in order to try to meet the ever-increasing demands for wireless communication services. And the site that we've selected accomplishes that objective. Tab D is an excerpt from those radiofrequency design reports. This is the search area that I have been referring to. As you can see, it is a densely developed area. There are no large tracts of ground here that we can select from. And the vast majority of the areas is, as I have previously indicated, ruled out based on it being residential in zoning or based on the floodplain, based on your own regulations, eliminating tracts from any consideration. We have a site acquisition report that's included at tab E. It documents that, of course, any time we can co-locate on a tower, we want to do so. Not only do your regs requirement, it's a lot cheaper. And also, although it is always a pleasure to appear before this planning commission, that would not be required if we were co-locating. Certainly, we did an exhaustive search. There are no towers within this search area. The closest ones are an extensive distance away, and there are no buildings of sufficient height to meet the coverage objectives that are necessary for this site. Long and the short of it, we have exhausted co-location alternatives in this instance. Tab E and tab F, if we're moving on, includes our county tower map, which bolsters the statements that I've made previously. In this instance, you can see all of the towers that are located in Fayette County and a specified distance outside of the county's boundary. That's required by state statutes that we tendered as part of our original application. The nearest towers are approximately a mile to the south of this proposed tower. Of course, this search ring's radius is .25 miles. They're simply far too far away. We've included a detailed planning review for your consideration. All of these documents, of course, pre-filed for consideration by the public, planning commission, and staff. That planning review was developed by Marshall Slagle, who's also, of course, present here today. He's not just a member of AICP. He is one of, I believe it's just three, fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. His detailed report examines many of the issues that we've been discussing regarding site selection. Like your planning staff, he finds that this meets all the requirements of your comp plan, of your zoning ordinance, that this parcel is the best site, and that monopoles are the preferred structure not only under your zoning code and regulations, but also based on general zoning principles. We're not required to eliminate all other parcels. This parcel is allowed to be considered on its own merits, but he examines that parcel rule-out process and finds that, in fact, there are no other available parcels that would meet this facility's objectives that are allowed under the terms of your own zoning regulations that are, of course, approved and endorsed by this planning commission and adopted by the Urban Council. Ultimately, only one site remains, and that's the site that we're here before you on today within this search area. And, of course, it's important to note that although this field is empty right now, Mr. Slagle indicates that there are a variety of other uses that this property could be put to, including automobile service stations, office space, funeral parlors, and parking structures as examples. Again, items that are perfectly allowed within this zoning district. Tab H, property valuation. We have an expert real estate appraiser with us here today. He's reached the conclusion that this proposed facility will not adversely affect real estate values or the increase in those values. Structural considerations are taken up at tab I. That report analyzes our towers from an engineering perspective. It's prepared by William Grigsby, a licensed PE. He's, of course, here today to answer any questions you may have. He will indicate that this structure is built to extraordinary engineering standards, that in the event of a catastrophic tornado, it would, as he puts it, be the last structure left standing. Also, this tower is better engineered than most of the other towers in your locality. We have engineered it to a so-called zero fall zone radius. which means that in the event that there was a catastrophic meteorologic event, i.e. a Category 5 tornado or higher, in that event, it would not fall like a tree, but instead would bend so that the tower itself would never hit the ground. Now, those types of towers cost more, but that's exactly what we're proposing in this instance. Our tower and foundation design is included at tab J. That was, of course, filed with our original application. It is also endorsed by a Kentucky licensed engineer who's an expert in tower construction. It bolsters the fact that this tower is over-engineered to a zero fall zone radius standard. Our geotechnical report is included at tab K. That report indicates that we've done full subsurface borings at this location in order to rule out any possible geotechnical issues associated with the site. and, of course, that was done prior to the design of the tower to make sure that the engineering standards would meet any geotechnical requirements. Important to note that there will be no blasting associated with the construction of this tower, an issue that was raised by opponents in some of the many emails that were received by the Planning Commission over the last few months that this application has been pending. There's no historic impact. We have a letter that we filed from the State Historic Preservation Officer indicating that there is no adverse effect associated with this proposed development for Fayette County. Environmental concerns, we deal with them in two reports, tab M as in Mary and N as in Nancy. These are based on issues that were raised in e-mails. The first one is, of course, there is some limited amount of diesel fuel and backup batteries that are stored for our generator and backup power systems at this location. All of those are designed well beyond any regulatory requirements, and we have response teams that are prepared to deal with them 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. The generator that would be involved here that we provide, because, of course, when there's a power outage or a serious emergency, that's when it is most important that this system function properly. The noise emissions are de minimis. As indicated, it's roughly equivalent to a diesel engine running, which would be permitted under your code in any residential area or any zone of any type, for that matter. And, of course, we have emergency response teams available. It's important to note that when it comes to our backup generator, it runs about 30 to 45 minutes a week on a test. We can time that test at a time that's agreeable for local area residents. if they're concerned about it. And, of course, we've, you know, I've talked about that, you know, both M and N together here, but, again, we have expert witnesses who are here to deal with both of those issues if they're a concern. Floodplain information is included at Tab O. That matter was addressed by your planning staff. I brought it up several times. We have a registered surveyor here who's here to verify two things. First of all, much of this search area, and especially the commercial properties, are taken up by your floodplain. And second, this property is not, and so it's not subject to that regulation. Copy of the floodplain map. Photo simulations. The first of the group are included at tab P, as in PAW. These were prepared by the Power of Design group. We have a witness here present who can verify their accuracy. In order to assure that they were accurate, we conducted a balloon test with a balloon being flown at the height of the tower that's proposed and conducted a whole series of photographic simulations. As you can see, the tower is not visible from most of the search area because we'll discuss tower height issues in a couple of minutes, but although this is a tall structure, it is short by cell tower standards. I'm going to kind of presage a point that I'll be making in greater detail in a couple of minutes, but cell tower cases are different from other types of zoning cases because, of course, we have a federal overlay, as was alluded to by the chairman in his introductory comments. That federal overlay is the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, and it's critical to note that generalized aesthetic concerns cannot serve as a basis for a turndown by this board or by this body under the federal case precedents that we'll be quoting in greater depth in a couple of minutes. Here's an example of those photographic simulations. As you can see, balloon visible and tower simulation. There are a number of other of these, of course, included in full color in the binder before you. Of course, all these materials, like the previous ones, were pre-filed for consideration by the public, the planning commission, and your professional staff. At tab Q, we include four different photographic simulations, which take our effort to demonstrate that degree of visual impact to a different mathematical level. Here, we have views taken from four different compass locations, north, south, east, and west, that we selected. You can see the distances from the camera vision point to the tower on the slide before you. What we did was to do a full panoramic view that would encompass the full visual spectrum that someone would see if you are looking at a scene. When that is done, you can see the degree of the visual arc displayed here that is actually taken up. and it varies from 1,000th of the visual field all the way up to 1,450th of the visual field. Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but mathematics don't lie. Tower height is dealt with at tab R because there have been a number of emails received by the commission indicating that this tower would be much taller than all other towers in the community. Nothing could be further from the truth. We've tendered a map with a 10-mile radius from our proposed location. There are 71 federal or FCC-licensed towers constructed within that radius. Only two of those 71 towers are shorter than the one we are proposing. The average height of those registered towers is 278 feet, more than twice as tall as the tower that we are proposing here. No one is indicating that this is a short structure. It is not, but it is a short cell tower based on the pattern of behavior and experience that this community has dealt with for the duration of your time here in Fayette County. Tab S and T deal with our compliance with local regulations and notice requirements. First, tab S, as you can see, demonstrates our chapter and verse compliance with all of your notice requirements, including the two extensions that we have granted in order to accommodate opposition concerns and consideration. Tab T begins a report which runs through your local regulatory requirements, an exhaustive listing of all of them. Let's take just a minute, and you can read them as I tick through these slides. As you can see, absolutely all of your local requirements are met to the letter. A key issue brought up by Ms. Rackers is the indication that we should consider an alternative tower design. That is not required by your regs. Having said that, we are prepared to deploy one if the Planning Commission directs us to as a condition of approval. If you tell us to, we'll build a monopon at this location. We think, using the technical legal phrase, it's a dumb idea, but we'll do it if you direct us to. Now, it would look like this. it is essentially it's our monopole but it's with the addition of branches that we then have to maintain in perpetuity and which complicates servicing and complicate our deployment at the site it also involves a faux wrapping around the monopole which is tough for us to maintain we'll do all that if you tell us to it is our view however that this is self-defeating And the reason I say that is it increases the visual cross-section of the structure. This makes it, in our view, more noticeable, not less. Ms. Rackers quite rightly pointed out that based on the reduced height of this monopole as compared to others in your community, we're able to build that monopole with a smaller pole. This helps defeat all of those advantages by providing a large tree structure associated with it. But if this planning commission directs us to deploy it as a condition, we'll do it. I think it is worthwhile to spend a few minutes talking about federal telecommunications law and our view of it here. Because, as I have mentioned several times already, cell tower cases are different from all other types of zoning cases that you'll consider. First, applications for construction of a telecommunications facility can be denied only when the denial is based on substantial evidence that is admissible by federal standards. Now, we're quoting several cases here. You'll want to rely on your legal counsel for your ultimate advice. But we've kind of been careful to pick these cases. There are lots we could have picked from around the country, but these are all from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, the court that would have jurisdiction over any telecommunications litigation associated with this case, or the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court that supervises that court. A locality's own zoning requirements are examples of substantial evidence. And, of course, it's been demonstrated not only based on the extensive amount of proof we've done, but your staff's own finding that we meet those requirements. The following items are not substantial evidence under federal law in this district and in this federal circuit. Lay opinion is not, as opposed to expert opinion. Unsupported opinion is not a basis for a cell tower turndown. Generalized expressions of concern with aesthetics is not a basis for a cell tower turndown. Claims that the tower is unsightly are generalized expressions of aesthetic concerns because the same objection could be made by any resident in any area in which the tower is placed. General concerns that the tower is ugly or unwanted near to a residence is not substantial evidence that can be used as a basis for a cell tower turndown. And, of course, anyone who opposes a tower in their backyard can claim it would be bad for the community, not aesthetically pleasing, or is otherwise objectionable. Again, from the federal cases quoted. Federal law, of course, prohibits you from prohibiting us from providing wireless service, and a prohibition of service has been found to occur when an application to construct a telecommunications facility is denied, even though the applicant proves that there is a gap in service, which we have done on an uncontroverted basis, and that an inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or sites has occurred. We have done that to the nth degree in this case. A service gap exists when we present evidence of a significant gap in our own coverage, which we have certainly done, as acknowledged by your own staff. Health concerns are dealt with in a memorandum that we've tendered at TAB W. That's an issue which your legal team has already acknowledged and the chairman dealt with in his opening remarks. So I think we can move on from there. There's an FCC report that's tendered at TAB X. approximately 70% of all emergency calls that are placed in your community are done from wireless phones, which places a special onus on us to provide not just okay service, but outstanding in-building service in every instance that we can. Let's couple that with findings from the National Health Interview Survey contained at tab Y. As of December 2013, of course, these percentages have grown, I'm sure, significantly since then, but this is the most recent report that I'm familiar with. 39.1% of all adults live in households with only wireless phones, no landline phone. 47.1, or roughly half of all children, live in households with only wireless phones. Making the provision of key wireless coverage when coupled with the material in the previous slide, 70% of all emergency calls being placed on wireless phones, all the more critical. We have a statement of support that I had picked as an email to include in your hearing binder. In an interesting surprise, we had had no prior communication with her before. That email is from Teresa Voigt. Ms. Voigt is present and approached me out in the hall a few minutes ago, would like to speak, so I'm going to reserve the very end of my presentation time for her to speak as a citizen. We've tendered proposed findings of fact for your consideration at tab AA. This was not pre-filed. This is a new filing, of course. And, of course, copy of my presentation, which was not filed prior to this, at tab AB. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I think had been discussed with staff previously, what I would propose now to do is the following. I'm looking at a slide that is labeled witnesses, which is included at tab A-B of the hearing binder. For all of the individuals listed, all of those people are here today and available for examination. I'd like to stipulate at this juncture that my summary of their materials that are contained at the tabs listed next to their names and the contents of those tabs, being their reports and work product, they adopt in full as their sworn testimony as if given here today. Is that agreeable? Yes, sir. Okay. And since we've got all this on the screen and in the binder, I won't bother reading it all into the record. I'd also like to note at this time that all filings by the applicant to date, including prior to this hearing, supplemental filings and information introduced today, including the somewhat voluminous binders that we've tendered to you are evidence in this proceeding and we'd like to have them introduced into the record. There is nobody here with me today for AT&T and there are a lot of people on this side of the room that are with me who are naive enough to think that these are easy cases or that these are popular. Just a second. How many folks are here with me here today from AT&T? Stand up if you would. We take this seriously. And the degree of documentation we've turned in, I hope, underscores that. The people who are our customers in this area depend on us. We want to provide them and the rest of this community with the best and most advanced wireless service that the world has to offer. That's not just optional. There was a time when I was growing up that cell phones were something that J.R. Ewing had in the back of his limousine. That's no longer the case. This is communications now. In order to serve areas like this that are residential, we have to be in these areas. That's the way the physics work. That unfortunately means that we're going to be near some people in order to do it. But that's what it takes for this technology to function. We have worked scrupulously hard to adhere to the rules of the game, and the rules are, in this zoning process, are the regulations that this commission and the Urban Council adopted, and we meet them, chapter and verse to the letter. It is our hope that when you consider our application that you will vote yes, because we need that vote in order to provide this community with the wireless service that it deserves and needs. How much time do I have left? One minute and 12 seconds. Good. In that case, I think you indicated that individual people would be allowed to speak. I think we'll probably have to have Ms. Voigt speak as an individual. That'll be fine. That concludes my presentation within the time. Thank you, sir. That's amazing how you all have clocks in your head. Any questions for Mr. Pike? Yes. What's the quality of service that will be provided from this facility? Speed and capacity. 4G versus 3D, which is it? 4G. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. Penn? Yes, sir. Going forward, if this technology becomes obsolete and satellite becomes the way you do it, what happens to those poles? Well, first, I'm out of business. But we are required by state law and by the terms of our lease to remove the structure. That's also a requirement of your local regulations, which we have to adhere to. Other questions? Yes, sir. I'm not technically oriented at all, so my hammer has too many moving parts for me. Question about your relay point. Right now, you said that you are 2.5 miles away from the next nearest connecting point without the cell tower. In order to answer that, I would need to call up a couple of radio frequency engineers. Could I do that at this juncture? Okay, because that's beyond my math grades as well. Mike, Sherry, would you all like to speak, step up both of you or one of you? Yeah. Okay. This is Sherry Lewis, who's of course listed as one of our expert witnesses and who tendered materials at TAB C. She's a radio frequency engineer for AT&T. Okay, so you were asking about the spacing from that site to the, from our proposed site to the existing sites. That's right. And I'm. I think what was brought up in David's testimony was the spacing down to the southeast, which is what was of concern of the opposition. And from our current site to the nearest site to the southeast, we are at 2.3 miles, which is what he was referencing earlier. Now, there are other sites that are closer, you know, as you go north and west, distances roughly 1.2 to 1.5 miles at various locations, you know, as around the clock. What are you actually trying to achieve and what distance? One mile, two? In this particular locale currently, our distances vary based on the topography and the height of the tower and locations. Roughly the cell spacing in this area, if we put in the sites that we need, is roughly a mile, a mile, a mile and a quarter. But it varies from area to area. It's not a standard. But that's what you're trying to achieve, the one mile in this particular area? In this particular area. And could I ask one other? Yes, sir. Mr. Pye, I'm not a technical person. I'm just getting clarification here and learning in the process. You indicated somewhere that there might be other towers going in in that area? Not in this immediate area, but approximately how far? That's about 1.2. About 1.2 miles away, consistent with that one mile standard. One thing to note, of course, is that this tower, based on your zoning requirements and also something we do as a standard, can accommodate multiple additional companies' antennae so that in the event that other competing companies that we have reciprocal leases with chose, wanted to locate their antennas in this area, they would be required to locate on this tower first. Just to follow up, if in fact they were not, they were your competitors and they had to figure out a different place to locate, they would have to locate and they'd have to find another location in effect. But first they would have to demonstrate to the commission that they could not meet their service needs by co-locating their antennas on this tower. And we have reciprocal master leasing agreements with all the competitors in this market. Okay, thank you. obligate them to allow us to go on their towers and vice versa that's one of the desert and i'm not trying to monopolize what's the access to how do you get to that tower from where can we uh... miss records could we bring up your map It's not part of my slide presentation, but it was part of her earlier one. If I remember, there it is. Would you like to point out the access, Ms. Rackers, if you don't mind, please, and comment? This is Eastway Drive, and then this is Huff Court. Sorry, Huff Court that will provide the access into the property, and this is the drive to get to the actual site. It's worth noting, once this facility is constructed, I mean, the norm is a vehicle in and out once every week or two at the most. It's a very, very low trip generator. Other questions? Thank you for your time. Mr. Pike, I have one. I've got several, but most of them is just curious, and I'll save that. You offered alternative tower, and if you called it the brand make of the tree was a pine. Monopine. Monopine, thank you. What would the height of that be? Would it still be 125 feet? Same height. All right, thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll move to Mr. Grady, and then we'll take all public comment after the fact. Okay, all public comment. Yes, sir. Comment and support. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me distribute a smaller package to the members. Very impressive. Thank you. We can share it. We can share it. We're friends. right don't worry about getting another one we can share this one fine out of this we're friends we can share Mr. Grady go ahead Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission And I would like to join with Mr. Pike in thanking you for the opportunity to come back and be before you. I will ask you to reach a different result than Mr. Pike asked you to reach. And I want to go through the reasons that we believe you should disapprove this site and you should instruct AT&T, frankly, to build the site in Zandale, which is where their reports say the more serious gap and problem is. Now, we didn't learn about the Zandale site in their application. It was only when they began filing their supplemental applications that they indicated that that is where they intend to build a tower. They just haven't told us when. But we believe that when you go through their reports, what you see is a problem centered in Zandale, not on Southland Drive. and we think those reports actually undercut the compelling need to locate this site at this location. Now, my presentation is going to begin by my clients telling you about where they live, the character of their neighborhood, and we're going to stress that because we believe that this application violates the intent of your Article 25 very clearly. Let me ask you, if you'll look at my letter, I'm going to read or comment on the opening page. Again, my name is Hank Grady, and my office is in Versailles, Kentucky. I've been asked to represent the Hillandale Neighborhood Association on behalf of the majority of residents in the area who will be adversely affected by the construction of this proposed cell tower at this location. We ask you to disapprove it and instruct AT&T to locate a cell tower where there is a more obvious and demonstrated need based upon their own documents. Number one, this site is not appropriate location for a cell tower. Article 25 of your ordinance says the intent of Article 25 is to, quote, provide for cellular telecommunication towers in appropriate locations throughout the community at sites that provide adequate cellular telecommunication service while protecting the public, preserving the character and value of surrounding property, and protecting the view from residential areas. This ordinance section requires a consideration and a finding on five separate and distinct siting requirements. It must meet the need, protect the public, preserve the character of the area, preserve the value of the area, and protect the view. To be approved, you must find that it meets all of those. It fails to meet four of those five. The first part of our presentation is going to be from the people that can tell it better than I can and the people that I think you more want to hear from than you want to hear from me. At this point, I would like to call Gail Leitner forward and Janet Cabanis to talk about the area where this is proposed to be located. We just need a little technical help. So we have a presentation that will have a blue slide for each person, and it will pause there. So all we'll need to do is click when the blue slide comes up. Can we take a time out to pretend? Somewhat. Let's go over here and see if we can figure this out. There you go. There it is. Good shot. mr chairman members of the commission the southland drive business corridor and the surrounding residential areas are some of the oldest and most well-established in lexington we turn the lights down a little bit these photos will give you a glimpse into the unique character of the neighborhood and why many of the local residents and businesses feel that this area is not the appropriate location for a 125 foot tall monopole cell phone tower much of the southland Drive area was first established in the 1940s and 50s. The surrounding neighborhoods are robust and growing to this day due in large part to the fact that these well-established residential areas are both affordable and walkable. Southland Drive is the home of a very diverse and eclectic array of locally owned businesses. It has developed the reputation of being a shopping district where a small locally owned business can take root and grow. One of the unique aspects of the Southland Drive area is that residents may get groceries and a cup of coffee, watch the UK basketball game, have their hair cut, and play a game of darts all on foot. Today, 6,134 people and 1,534 families live within a half-mile walk of Southland Drive. The area has recently become even more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, with sidewalks underneath the railroad bridge and new bike lanes installed along the length of Southland Drive. Both of these improvements should help bring businesses to the merchants of the Southland Drive corridor. Public art is also a feature of Southland Drive, with four horse sculptures from Horsemania at pasture along Southland Drive and a mural depicting the region's musical traditions. Coming soon will be an Arts in Motion bus shelter in front of the Good Foods Co-op, which not only will add to the aesthetic appeal of the area, but will improve connectivity. However, if the proposed cell tower location is approved, this out-of-place eyesore could hinder businesses in the area. Hillandale Park, located on Maplewood Drive, is a hub of neighborhood events and activities, from picnics to pickup basketball. The park was previously home to a community garden, a project which the new Neighborhood Association hopes to revive. Hillandale Christian Church, found on Hillandale Road, is another activity center in the neighborhood. The church embraces not only its own activities and its members, but the entire neighborhood serving as the site for neighborhood association meetings and social events. The intent of Article 25 of the zoning ordinance, which deals with telecommunication towers, states that that intent is to, quote, provide for cellular communication towers in appropriate locations, end quote, defined as sites that, quote, preserve the character and value of surrounding property and protecting the view from residential areas, end quote. The proposed tower location of 302 Southland Drive would place the cell phone tower closer to the backyards of residents on Sheridan Drive than to businesses on Southland Drive. A large group of Southland Drive area neighbors, businesses, and patrons feel that erecting a cell phone tower at 302 Southland Drive is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Thank you. Gail, would you state your title with the Hellandale Neighborhood Association? I'm the president of the Neighborhood Association at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Leitner. Are there any questions? Not at the present. We'll probably hold it until the end. Say again? I said not at the present. We'll probably hold the questions until the end of your presentation. I'm told that I can click and stop this. I'm speaking, I'm Janet Kavanis. I'm speaking as the former Hillandale Neighborhood Association president. The Southland Drive's corridor, corridor's character involves more than just the residential streets. Residential and neighborhood character have been deliberately established and enhanced over recent years by the formation of the Southland Association. I would like to point out that I'm not speaking for the Southland Association. I'm speaking for myself and for my knowledge of what I know to be the case since I've lived in the area for a number of years. Southland Association membership includes merchants, professionals, neighborhood associations, and individual members. And the idea for having it exist is to embrace, enhance the viability of the Southland area for everyone, strong home values and strong businesses. Southland Association has brought to the area both the Farmer's Market and the Southland Jamboree for the exact purpose of enhancing the area's viability. I think that's the Farmer's Market. If you've ever been there, it's on Sundays. Started in 2005. It's a hit. We have a whole lot of people, as you can see from the pictures that are being flashed up there. Moving on to the Jamboree in a minute. There you go. The Southland Jamboree is a free weekly Tuesday night bluegrass concert held during the summer months from May to September. It's also a successful effort by the Southland Association, and it's in its ninth year. We have about 6,000 people a year attend, up to 800 per summer night. These visitors that come to the concerts bring businesses to the shops and the residents, the shops along the corridor, and the event establishes Southland Drive as a place for cultural events. And this, again, is a carefully cultivated aspect of Southland that most proponents of the area want to retain. Through 2014, the jamboree was held in a field to the side of... How do you stop this? Okay. To the side of Collins Bowling Lanes on Southland Drive. However, construction is planned for that space, and it is unavailable in the future. This is the important part. The Southland Jamboree has announced its relocation for its 2015 season to the grassy area behind Olika Temple, the very area proposed for the cell tower. Nowhere in the planning staff's report is mentioned the mixed presence of upwards of 500 people regularly coming to the area into the field with this tower and equipment with its warning signs of diesel fuel, keep away, I've seen them all over town, and high voltage electricity, no trespassing. My question, does the construction of this tower in the form requested by AT&T violate the safety needs for these activities in the field? We want to protect public safety. I think it probably does not. I also ask you, can these two disparate land uses coexist? Should the Southland Jamboree locate elsewhere? Just like AT&T says it can't find anywhere else to build a tower, Southland Association looked far and wide to find another place and chose this field because it is on Southland Drive and maintains the character of the Jamboree. Should we end the neighborhood tradition? Article 25 says to me that a tower should not change neighborhood character, but I feel that it does if it's located in this particular field. I'm Janet Cabanis. one of my homes is at 380 Bradford Drive in the area. You're the former president. And I am the former president of Hill and Dale. How much time do I have left? How much time? You've got 18 minutes. 19 minutes. 19 minutes? Yeah, we'll add some for the time out. The next three speakers are residents who back up to the site of the proposed tower. Christina Zabowski, Carlin Robbins, and Rebecca Lutz. Hello, I'm Christina Zukowski. My family moved into our home on Sheridan Drive in 2012. When looking for a home, the community around the home was paramount. We wanted a neighborhood with personality, including mature lots, big trees, and walkability. The Southland neighborhood area is one of the few affordable locations we found that had access to neighborhood businesses and amenities. As we reviewed the area, I certainly considered any potential negatives. I came to Sheridan Drive during different times of the day and night to sit and take in the sights and sounds. After all those trips, I was satisfied that there weren't any noticeable sights or sounds from Southland Drive, and we decided that this was the place that we wanted to settle down with our young family. In August of this year, I was notified via certified mail of the proposed construction of the 130-foot monopole. Considering all the time and effort spent assessing the neighborhood and views from my home, I am outraged that there could now be a looming cellular monopole across from my home. The existence of the tower would have impacted our decision about our 2012 home purchase. We would not have purchased our home. I've had great hopes for the future of my neighborhood and the community with additions of bike lanes and increasing walkability, but I truly believe the addition of this tower will discourage other young professionals like myself and young families from moving into the area. The proposed site does not minimize the impact to residences. This location is absurdly close to Sheridan Drive properties. If you intend to uphold the intent of Article 25 to protect the public, preserve character and value of surrounding property, and protect their view from residential areas, you must reject AT&T's proposed Southland site. In addition to being a resident of Sheridan Drive, I'm a mechanical engineer and am a licensed professional engineer for the state of Kentucky. To educate myself on topics of radiofrequency engineering, I contacted an engineering professor at UK who has specialized knowledge about antenna analysis and design to expand my understanding of cellular antenna propagation. Based on this knowledge, the neighborhood made a good faith effort to find alternate sites for AT&T's tower. We came up with 12 alternate sites that we felt would have a lesser impact on the public. Our focus was on finding sites that meet the cellular coverage need while having a lesser impact to the public. Sites that utilize rooftops or pervert to avoid tower proliferation, and secondly, sites that were further from residential homeowners. As Mr. Pike pointed out, our sites were located to the southeast. The reason for that was the 3G covered maps were the only maps provided in the original application. Unfortunately, we didn't have the benefit of seeing the high-band coverage maps until they were submitted by Pike Legal to the Planning Commission on December 5th, and I didn't have an opportunity to see them until this week. The new coverage maps paint a fuller picture of the need, And I feel confident that we could work to find an alternate site based on the new information. There are many sites and churches along the Southland and Pasadena and Clay's Mill area that might be the perfect spot. We just haven't had the chance to evaluate them. Christina, thank you. What is your last name? Zikowski. Zikowski, thank you. Carlin? Good afternoon. I'm not trying to start this again. My name is Karlyn Robbins. I'm the vice president of the Hillandale Neighborhood Association, and I've owned my home on Sheridan Drive for the past 13 years. As a self-supporting single homeowner, my first concern after receiving this letter was for my property value. Subsequently, I placed a call to the Fayette County Property Valuation Administrator's Office to inquire if there was data on cell phone towers and decreased property values. During that conversation, I was told that a cell phone tower would be considered an external obsolescence. From this conversation, I understood the term to mean an eyesore. Further research yielded a definition by the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4th edition, as an element of depreciation, a defect usually incurable, caused by negative influences outside site, and generally incurable on the part of the owner, landlord, or tenant. The term is also referred to as an economic obsolescence. Other resources state that external obsolescences affect appeal and marketability. I also contacted a real estate agent from RE-MAX about the possibility of listing my home for sale. I was told that I would have to disclose the cell phone tower proposal to potential buyers and that this disclosure would limit the number of buyers who might have otherwise looked at my property without an external obsolescence within 500 feet. If approved, the view from my front window will be blighted by a 125-foot monopole cell phone tower with a 5-foot lightning arrester and up to three sets of antenna. The real estate agent brought about nine comps that represented almost all the streets in my neighborhood. If my home value decreases, in turn, this will negatively impact the market value of other homes neighborhood-wide. Article 25 states that the burden shall be on the applicant to establish by a clear preponderance of evidence, among other items, reasons why the tower will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. As part of my research on cell phone towers, I have traveled to many of the towers in Lexington and several in between here and Berea. Without a doubt, the proposed cell phone tower at a total height of 130 feet will alter the character of the surrounding area and the public view. However many times I've read Article 25, in its entirety, I keep returning to the intent of the ordinance to provide for cellular telecommunications towers in appropriate locations throughout the community at sites that provide adequate cellular telecommunications service while protecting the public, preserving the character and values of the surrounding property, and protecting the view from the public. I'm going to stop there for time. Barbara? Rebecca? Rebecca? My name is Rebecca Lutz, and I live at 331 Sheridan Drive. My house is located directly behind Incredipet, so my property backs up to the field in which the tower will be placed. I moved here 10 years ago, and one of the reasons I chose this area, and particularly this house, was its easy access to close-by businesses. I planned to age in place and I could walk out my back gate and get to my vet, the pet store, what was then CVS Pharmacy, Winchell's, and other businesses in that strip. Earlier this year, I walked out my back gate and was shocked to discover I was closed in by a chain link fence with a padlocked gate. I now know the fence was put up by AT&T, who leased the land from the Alika Shrine Temple in preparation for building a cell phone tower. The strip of land on which it is to be built is relatively narrow, so that tower will effectively be in my backyard. The impact of such a large construct in such a small space is staggering. It will completely overwhelm the surrounding area. The fact that there are 46 homes within 500 feet of the proposed tower site illustrates better than I can the compact area in which this is to go. I use electronic devices regularly and know that infrastructure has to be in place to make them possible. I also realize businesses need to work to add to their bottom line, but I don't think a business should be able to increase its revenue at the expense of an entire neighborhood and the people who live and work there. I find it extremely difficult to believe that another more suitable location isn't to be had for this project. Shortly after we received the first of our certified letters, I was talking to one of my neighbors about what this would mean for our neighborhood. She had Googled 130-foot monopole cell phone tower to see what these looked like. One of the first images that popped up was a picture of a tower on fire. She clicked on the link to a news story that covered this event. As enormous clouds of smoke billowed around it, the newscasters were discussing the fire as well as the possibility of the tower collapsing. The idea of something like this occurring in close proximity to so many homes is frankly terrifying. The website she told me about is www.electronicsilentspring.com, on which there is a list of 15 such incidents, as well as 23 tower collapses, with links to news stories, photos, and videos documenting these events. The information on this site was compiled by Dr. David Stupin, retired physicist from Los Alamos National Laboratory. I've become extremely concerned about the safety of my home and my neighbors' homes. I'm asking you to please remember that this isn't being done in a vacuum and consider the many homes and businesses that stand to be negatively affected that this project is allowed to go forward. A total of 36 accidents, most of which occurred over a five-year span, illustrated what can happen despite the builder's best intentions. There is no buffer zone around the proposed tower for me, my neighbors, or the businesses in the area. None. Either type of event in this small space would be catastrophic. Article 25 of the Zoning Ordinance states that telecommunication towers be placed in, quote, appropriate locations throughout the community at sites that provide adequate cellular service while protecting the public, end quote. Please protect our neighborhood and our homes and stop this project. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Ms. Lutz. Mariah Cruz. I think we do want to advance the slide a little bit, but I'm not sure how to do it. Am I going backwards or forwards? Am I going the right direction? Anyone who knows? Should I keep going? Go the other direction. Oh, okay. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. Oh, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mariah Cruz. I've lived in Lexington for 25 years, and I've lived in the Southland area for seven years. I settled in this part of town because it feels like a quaint small town in the middle of a bigger city. And it's just really pretty. You've been there, haven't you? It's a really pretty part of town. I listened to Mr. Pike make the point that you would not be able to decide on matters of aesthetics. However, in your own regulations, you're asked to consider the character of the community. How can you not consider aesthetics in the character of a community? You've heard my friends discuss and neighbors discuss various aesthetic concerns, so I'm not going to say the same things they did about how beautiful our neighborhood is, about how close-knit we are, about how many of us know our neighbors, about how we walk everywhere, and about how we grow gardens in our backyards and flowers, and how we've got one of the neighborhoods that has more Christmas decorations per square foot than just about any other neighborhood in Lexington. You can verify that in the coming weeks. So my initial response to this proposal was, oh no, a six-story tower in the middle of this little neighborhood? this will do irreversible harm to the character of our neighborhood. It would be like permanently installing an elephant in the middle of your living room. As I've discovered in the past weeks, to my great surprise, as I've walked the neighborhoods, talking to people from home to home, from business to business, and even talking to neighbors who have walked by on their way to, here's some of our opposition, on the way to the farmer's market. Most of my neighbors feel the same way, honestly. In talking to probably 100 people, I only encountered two who said they thought the cell phone tower was a good idea. The opposition is very high. Our Neighborhood Association itself has nearly unanimously opposed it, dedicating funds from our very limited treasury to secure legal counsel and appointing a subcommittee of volunteers to express our opposition. Even with only three and a half months to prepare for when we first received our letters, we have organized and we've received and seen an outpouring of opposition. As quickly as possible, we put up a Facebook page. We created yard signs to help educate people. We went door to door with flyers and petitions. Please take a look at this particular slide. This is a Hillandale neighborhood, and the houses that are in red are the houses who have signed the petition saying they oppose the cell tower. That's pretty dense representation. If we had another month to go around, I feel sure that would be even a denser representation. We did collect a number of petitions. We have those here with me if you'd like to see them. 169 Hillandale residents and Southland Corridor businesses signed our petition and a separate petition for community at large. These are anyone who shops in our area and walks in our area and thus has an interest in its future, attracted another 116 signatures. One of Lexington's greatest appeals is its neighborhoods. By putting a gargantuan cell tower in the midst of one of those neighborhoods, It may not be considered historically significant in the formal sense of the word, but we all know that the Southland area is a very significant neighborhood historically in Lexington. We immediately lose some of our appeal, and we lose some of our value, irretrievably and permanently. One woman I spoke to who bought her three-bedroom Bedford Stone just one year ago, because she loves this area, told me if I thought they were going to construct something like this nearby, I wouldn't have bought this house. Please respect the views of our neighborhood association and reject AT&T's application. Thank you so much. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman? You have five minutes. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, let me quickly go through the written material that I've given you in the remaining four minutes and 50 seconds that I have left. I've emphasized the elements in the staff report that we believe this violates. I believe that the staff report from Ms. Racker and the testimony that you have heard gives you a basis to find that this proposal at this location does not protect the character of the Hillentail neighborhood. And I believe you have a basis to find that it does not protect the view from the residential area from the witnesses you've just heard from. Now, those are two of the elements that are part of finding a site is suitable. And you have a basis with the staff report and this testimony to say this site fails to meet those two. If I may, I would now like to ask you to look at tab two in my letter. And I'm going to, in light of the instruction from the chairman, There is content in my letter that references radio frequency. You have ruled that that is out of order. I'm not going to read it. I will understand that you are striking that. I tendered a report from my appraiser, Mary Clay, that appears at tab 2, where she provides a literature search regarding the impact of cell towers, and then she provides a damage study that she has done concerning the impacts of cell towers. And it is her opinion that the average impact is approximately 20%. Her studies show a range from 12 to 50%, and that is in her report. She is an MAI, and her CV is included with the materials that I provided you. Mr. Grady, I really don't want to go there. I really don't. Simply put, if it can be construed that our decision was based on something that the federal government says we cannot rule on. Your Honor, I understand that everything in here relating to radio frequency is going to be struck. I'm asking that you consider the discussion separate from those items. this is what she relied on. And she reaches conclusions based upon the market, and she explains why the market acts the way it does. I'm not asking you to decide anything based on radio frequency. I'm asking you to decide something based upon property value. Property value is okay. I'm sorry. Property value is okay. Go ahead. All that is relevant and admissible from her testimony is the impact on property value. And I believe that her testimony and the testimony of my clients gives you a basis to find that this location does not protect the value of the residential properties it adjoins. Below that, at tab 5, I have provided you with proposed findings that would allow you to cite these aspects of the intent section to turn down the application. If I can skip to page four of my comments, titled Finding an Appropriate Location, all of us have cell phones, and all of us want adequate service, and all of us support, in general, AT&T's efforts and the other cell providers' efforts to find a suitable location so that cell coverage is adequate. But we believe this is not the correct location, and we believe it in part based upon the documentation that they have provided you. I would ask you to look at tab C and what Mr. Pike has provided you. Those are three studies of radio frequency engineering statements. The first one is the one that was with this application, the one we had until last week when we got the other two, And it showed an area near Zandale as the area in pink, the area where the service was the worst. And for the life of us, we couldn't figure out why the search area was in Southland. And so we had a search area in Southland and the most serious problem area in Zandale. And so we wanted to provide alternatives, so we went to tall buildings on Nicholsville Road and turned in 10 alternatives. that seem to be closer to the problem area. I met with Mr. Pike, and I handed him to him and said, please tell us if these will help solve the problem. We then learned that they are proposing a cell tower in Zandale, right where the problem is. And they discussed that in RFES 2, the November one, and RFES 3, the December 5th one. And that is the tower that is needed. Their documentation proves that's where the tower should go. And so we ask you to turn down this request and send AT&T and us searching for a site in Zandale that will be where the problem is, and then determine if there is a need in Southland. And if so, where is the search area after the Zandale Tower is built? and we will help find locations to make it work. The final point is we believe the fire station, the front yard of the fire station, which is out of the floodplain, is worthy of consideration. It is a governmental building. I've given you the floodplain information at tab 4, and you can see that the front yard of the fire station is open and it's not being used. We believe that is a proper site. We believe, in fact, that may be the required site under your local ordinance. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Any questions for Mr. Grady or any of his witnesses? Yes, ma'am. There are some public officials that I was supposed to ask you to recognize before I spoke, but I was afraid you would charge me with their time. But I would ask you to invite any public officials to come forward and comment in respecting their status. Any citizens that are here and wishes to speak are more than welcome to. Yes, Ms. Mundy. My question, I'm a little confused about the Jamboree. Where is that held? You need to come to our microphone, ma'am. I'm sorry. For the first eight years, it was held beside Collins Bowling Lane. Do you know where that is? I do. And Collins stretches this way. If you're standing on Southland Drive, there's a field that's about half of the size of the field that we're talking about right now. It was held there. There was a stage that looked very similar to that temporary stage. Right. And that's where it was. Believe it or not, you can crowd 600 to 800 people in there. Okay. So I guess I'm confused as to why that was brought up with regard to this property. Okay. The Southland Association has been told that the owner of the bowling lanes is building something on that property. I don't know what it is, but that location where it's been is no longer available. Okay. So the board of directors went to great lengths to try to choose another one, and this is the field behind Alika that was chosen. Okay. They've chosen that field, but that field is leased to AT&T. Well, is the entire field leased? I mean, I don't know that. I guess that's, I'm really confused as to how you can announce you're going to have something on a piece of property that you don't own and that somebody else has leased. So I'm just trying to, in my mind, clear that up so that I can get past that, I guess. I can tell you that the OLICA administration, and I'm not privy to who that is, made the offer to the Southland Association, and the Southland Association chose it. Okay. Whatever that means. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Other questions before we get to public comment? I would have one, Mr. Grady. Nothing. And you said, identified or commented in regards to the possibility of the alternative tower that has been mentioned by Mr. Pike. Would you be in opposition to that or would you be in favor to the alternative tower that he presented? We look forward to supporting the location of a tower in the Zandale area. on... I'm just asking about the alternative tower that he mentioned at the current location. I'm sorry, you're talking about the pine tree? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, as you may have noticed, I objected to being asked to approve an appropriate design that I'd never seen when we began the meeting. I've now seen it and my clients have seen it for the first time. I don't know what my clients think of it, I will say that I thought what Ms. Racker was suggesting and what we would see was something more along the lines of a church tower, something she mentioned, the Methodist church and the building of a structure that looks like a church tower that would not be so out of place. It seems to me that within a Leica Shrine temple, there's a possibility of some sort your light structure okay that might work thank you answer your reserve in your answer because you haven't had time that's okay anything else if not what I'm gonna do I want to clarify something miss clay is not available she turned in this report but she had a conflict that prevents her from being here which was another reason that I wanted to be able to present our hearing in January because I was afraid Mr. Pike might object. Thank you. But she is not here. Thank you. At this time we'll move on to public comment. I will take anyone speaking in favor of this plan, this request first. And I will remind everyone it is three minutes. I want to give everyone the opportunity to speak, I would just simply ask, let's not be repetitive, please. Yes, ma'am. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's getting that way to me. My name is Teresa Vogt, and I have lived at 394 Sheridan Drive since my parents brought me home from the hospital, with the exception of about 12 years when I lived up in Louisville. I understand that you buy your house and you own your property. You do not own your view in perpetuity. I learned that when we bought a property down at Barron River and they dropped the water level. I had a lovely dock sitting in the mud. I understand that my neighbors are very upset not in my backyard. It's going to destroy our property values. I've heard it all. I've heard it all at 1, 2 in the morning, 3 in the morning when they call my cell phone. I have heard it when, I've seen it when they slip the notes into my newspaper on Sunday. I pay for a newspaper, I'm on the board, and yet they still slip newspapers, they still slip a slip in my newspaper. My son came home from work and stopped someone from putting a yard sign opposed to the tower in my front yard. I was the lone person on that neighborhood board to say it's not a big deal. The other side of Eastway Drive has high voltage power lines in post every third yard. And then there's the railroad tracks on the other side. Do you really honestly think that this monopole is going to tank your property values much more than the other two things? Not to mention the fact that we have Southland Drive itself and all of its businesses, several of which have been robbed. I've talked to several that use cell tower backups for their business records. and when a call gets dropped, they may lose their backup records and have to do it again before they actually start their business day. I'm here not, I've kept quiet about this as in not overly fighting against it, but at the same time I've gotten to the point where I've been pushed into a corner now I'm saying not in my damn neighborhood are we going to stand by and be treated like lepers because we don't agree with each other I have as much right living there for 50 years to say a tower is fine and a Lika Temple has done more for this community than the entire neighborhood association ever could do with its charities. And that's where the money's going. Thank you very much. Now, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask them because I have a bus to catch to get home. Any questions for Ms. Vaught? Thank you for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. others that would like to speak in favor of if not we'll start with those that would like to speak in opposition of please come forward how many want to speak let me see a show of hands okay thank you feel free to have one or two in reserve on the side here it may speed things up a few seconds mr. Clark good afternoon Thank you very much. It's somewhat unusual to be on this side of the mic. I am the council member from the 10th District where this proposed cell tower will be. And, Mr. Chair and members of the commission, I rise in opposition to this, and let me make a few comments, and I'll be quick. First, I want to say that I have absolute respect for the planning staff. We've been around and around once in a while. They are one of the truly outstanding agencies of the urban county government, and I understand the task at hand. I can tell from the staff's report that they are also concerned about this matter, sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. But the staff must report the facts. They must make recommendations based on the comprehensive plan, on ordinances and regulations at all levels. They must make an objective report and recommendation. I understand that. I also have the greatest respect for this commission. I certainly do not envy you your task. Fortunately, this commission can make a subjective decision, taking into account not only the facts, of the effect on human life and happiness, the welfare of the people who will be impacted by this tower. The staff cites goals and objectives, theme D, goal 2, about the quality of life as support for the tower. I disagree. In fact, it is a significant factor in disapproving of this location. Real estate appraiser reports no negative effect. One appraiser? For such an appraisal to be reliable, you certainly need multiple opinions, particularly from real estate agents who would be charged by residents to try to sell their property with the tower hovering over their heads. Let them then tell you that there would be no effect. Let's say this is your home that backs up to this tower. You're in your backyard tending your garden or sitting on your desk, on your deck. Do you realize how close this tower and all its accoutrements are going to be? Let me tell you, from that wall to that wall, this is your home. So I guess I'd ask how you would feel about this. I'm sure it would be disturbing. Attorney Pike, good job. It's his job to make the points. AT&T and the Shriners are interested in the development of this because it's a business, it's money, and I understand that. But they're not interested in the welfare of these people whose lives they're going to interdict. People who have put their savings in their homes with pride, struggling to pay their mortgage, who expect to look out their windows, tend their gardens, grill their hamburgers, without the ugly spectrum of this monstrosity looming over them. It's easy to say. We've looked at all the alternatives. Nonsense. We can do better. We must do better for these citizens, for struggling homeowners who deserve better. As a city government, we cannot afford to ignore the possibility of significantly impacting the normal life of our residents. Almost through. Thank you, Mr. Clark. That's not our role, and that's certainly not our style. Attorney Pike doesn't care. He's a nice fellow. AT&T doesn't care. Apparently, the Shiners don't care either. But you care. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Yes, others. Hey, thanks for having a public comment. I'm Dr. Sean Lucas. I live at 103 Venice Park. I'm not in the Hillandale Association. I would like to state that our neighborhood association, as far as I know, was not even aware of this going on. Certainly, we're not supposed to speak towards radio emissions, but the radio emissions are going to come over my neighborhood. You don't have to consider it, but my wife and I, who have a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old, have to consider radio emissions. It's going to change the character of our neighborhood. I walked from my house to the comic book store next to Southland Barbershop last night. I went to Winchell's after that on foot with my two-year-old and my five-year-old. And for me, that tower would bring in serious considerations. I'm fortunate. I work in Springfield, Kentucky. My wife is in a statewide nonprofit. So we would be able to pick up and move. And if this tower gets built we're going to take our incomes and we're probably going to seriously consider picking up and moving I hate it because this community is a wonderful community we've been part of it for seven years we choose to live in Lexington because we love this community and I don't want this tower so close to my children thank you dr. Lucas Hi. Sorry to chop your microphone there. Hi. My name is Damon Snyder. My address is 380 Bradford Drive. And I just find it extremely interesting that AT&T, whose corporate DNA structure includes Bell Labs, who invented the transistor, can't do a better job of an option than putting a 150-foot tall sequoia in Southland. I found it interesting when I read AT&T's proposal, one of the interesting things was the lack of even a single other option they were given to the Planning Commission. It may be true that based on AT&T's research that 302 Southland Drive is the optimal place based on AT&T's needs to place the tower, but it is also true that it is the only place as they say in their proposal. I don't think so. Let me suggest a hypothetical situation where the vacant lot located behind Incredipet was already occupied, or what if it even didn't exist? Would the vast amount of time, equipment, manpower, and money that AT&T has invested in Lexington's cell phone infrastructure come to a complete halt? Of course not. The engineers would work around it and pick another location. This new location would then be their first pick. It may not be as efficient, but it would work. It would have to work. And we've heard a lot of facts and figures here today, but there's just one main idea I would like to leave with you. The so-called only spot to place a tower and the only way of providing service via a monopole, both statements are not absolutes. They only express desires on the part of AT&T. To do it any other way than AT&T wants would cost them extra money. In essence, AT&T wants to fulfill their mission at the least possible cost, even if, unfortunately, their ideal solution forces other in the adjacent area, mainly homeowners, to accept both additional direct costs and potential home devaluation and indirect costs of a lower quality of life in a less visually appealing neighborhood. The problem as I see it is that AT&T hasn't provided the Planning Commission with a creative enough solution. Monopoles are the established technology, But the future in cellular communications, if you look in any of the journals, is for smaller, less obtrusive devices. AT&T has already solved similar problems using these devices in other parts of the country. This proposal should be given back to AT&T with the instructions to try harder to have expanded cell service that is less visible. The biggest stumbling block doesn't appear to be lack of available technology. is AT&T's reluctance to spend the extra money to install it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schneider. Next, others? Yes, ma'am. Hello. Helen Morrison, 571 Mitchell Avenue. And thank you for hearing me speak and everyone else as well. And I couldn't get my printer to work, so I brought an iPad, so hopefully I can read off of it. I'm speaking today against the cell tower proposal because I care about the future of Lexington and the Southland Drive area. Southland is not only where I choose to live, but a uniquely interesting place for several reasons. It has an increasingly diverse population. It is an urban neighborhood with housing and a variety of small businesses existing together. It has an interesting history, and it's walkable and bikeable. If cared for and further improved, it could be a model for Lexington and other cities. If not, it will become an opportunity lost by lack of forethought and planning. Our ordinance says the following in regards to towers like the proposed one. Whenever possible, cellular antenna towers, whether temporary or permanent, shall be sited at locations that minimize their adverse effects on residential uses in the immediate area. And I know I'm not the first one to say this, but this is not a location that will do that, as it would hover over residential streets. in a well-established neighborhood and it's quite possible, even probable, that there is some other location somewhere that would provide service and lessen the adverse effect. It also says to the largest extent feasible, applicants are encouraged to consider properties owned by local government for the location of cellular towers. I find, and of course I think I didn't see a later map, So I'm going to go ahead with this statement. But I find the location of the search ring at the northwest corner of the service area a little strange and can't help but think that the search ring was moved a few times. I mean, I can't accuse anybody. Or even that that would be wrong. They're just trying to find a place to provide service. But what it does indicate is that there's some flexibility on how to serve the area. It feels like it would have had to have been moved a few times to find an area that was done commercially and had an appropriate yard-to-height ratio, especially since it is sort of an odd place to serve that whole large area. So that flexibility is what I would like to see worked with. And perhaps most disturbing, it appears that the reason the tower had to be so tall is that it's intended to help that very large service area on Nicholasville Road. So, you know, I've read that in high-density urban areas, it's actually becoming more common to use lower towers and small cells, which I don't know a lot about, but small cells because it boosts at the street level where all that traffic is, and it's easier to hand off to another small cell. So this is sort of like the nail, you know, when you just have a hammer and a nail and you've got to fix a problem. That big monopole is that solution. um so you know you wonder if they had the chance to um talk to the commission to the planning staff beforehand when they were looking for a place or if they um considered like that the smaller sales along the railroad or something like that have more to say but that's my time so thank you ma'am all right thank you hello my name is hillary angelucci and i work for council member peggy henson as her legislative aide, but I also live in the area. And I just want to speak to one point that should the cell tower be approved, because I understand that maybe we have exhausted all options, maybe not, I'm not sure, but should that happen, there is one condition that the planning staff recommends, and that is for the tower to be redesigned as an alternative design tower in order to lessen the visual impact from joining residential areas. I think that this condition can be implemented in many different ways. I think I put up a picture because you can do a pine tree or you can do something that might fit the neighborhood, and I don't know if it's possible to consider requiring certain design elements. I know that it's not in the ordinance, But I do think because it is so closely knitted into this neighborhood, I think that it deserves the question and deserves the right to look into a better design that fits rather than a pine tree. Because those don't really blend in despite being brown and green. I ask that Mr. Pike and the clients, the applicants, that put yourself in the situation that if your house was 50 feet away, look up and that would severely impact your life. You'll see it all the time. And so I just ask that maybe you raise the bar and create a better standard for cell phone towers in Lexington. I know you met all your requirements, but sometimes just meeting the requirements is not enough. There are a lot of local artists in this town. Maybe we can come up with something creative that really suits the neighborhood. So I just ask that you consider the design. Should you all approve the cell phone tower? Maybe it doesn't have to be a basic brown and green pole with some fake branches. Maybe it can be something better. but I do stand behind my council member Peggy Henson and and support her first but I do want you all to think about that so thank you thank you I live at 133 Edgemore Drive in case somebody wanted if you look at that out thank you very much yes sir ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today my name is Michael Galbraith I'm president of the Mitchell Avenue neighborhood so organization which is close to our neighbors in the Hill and Dale neighborhood Association I'm here to speak on behalf of our membership though who at our latest public meeting recommended we support the Hill and Dale neighborhood groups objections to the location of this tower at this site. Like that group, we believe this proposal represents a visual infringement on the residential character of the adjoining homes. As well, it is counter to the efforts of the Southland Association's merchant and residential members to beautify the Southland Drive corridor with their efforts at planting trees, establishing rain gardens, and other efforts. To address the photo simulation points that were previously displayed, I'd like to say that while motorists' skyward vista is blocked by their car's rooftops, For those of us who use the Southland Corridor as pedestrians and bicyclists, especially on the new facilities that were just installed there, the infringement on the skyline vista represented by this tower is much greater and is seen for a much longer time. so allowing this tower at this location represents a permanent infringement on the visual character of our area and is contrary to Southland Association merchants and residents efforts to beautify the corridor and is contrary to article 25 of the zoning ordinances to protect the character through visual enhancements thank you very much thank you mr. Galbraith yes ma'am my name is Nancy Stallard I live at 346 Stratford Drive and the view out my front windows is lovely I don't want it to change with the big cell phone tower that I'm going to be looking at thank you thank you anyone yes ma'am my name is Deanna Corey excuse me I live on Eastway Drive my daughter and my grandchildren live next door to me on Eastway Drive and I also own the duplex on the corner of Sheraton and Eastway which is right in the path of where the tower will go and my son rents from me there so I really don't want this tower Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman, Janet Cabanas has a videotape from Sandy Schaefer that she would like to play as a comment on this. Okay, hopefully it's about three minutes. But if you want to see if there's any other speakers while we're... Anyone else that would like to speak? If not, we'll bring up Sandy Schaefer. We really cannot hear that. Is there any way you can get a microphone to it? She should have a microphone that works. Yeah. is or maybe yeah yeah yeah sorry if we can't get it working you know one we can't hear that unfortunately we still cannot hear that so we're going to have to move on Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak? If not, questions from the commission for either applicant? No? We'll move to the rebuttal stage at this point. And start with the applicant as far as any rebuttal. Before I get started, Mr. Chairman, could we bring up my PowerPoint presentation, slide V as in Victor? Is this going to be part of your rebuttal? Okay. I should comment rebuttals five minutes. Yes. If we can wait until the slide's up to start the clock, I'd be grateful. We'll try. Otherwise, I'll be left telling jokes or something. It's not in anyone's interest. Hopefully just a 30-second timeout, not stretching to a full. V as in Victor, correct. Tab V. Well, actually, I'll tell you what, bring it up and I'll page through to find it if that's helpful. it's the one that references tab v at the top don't we have those in the back of your handout we should if necessary i'll go that way Just one second, Mr. Chairman, I'm getting there. Whenever you're ready, sir. Yes, sir. Go for it. I'll keep my presentation brief again. and make sure that I stick within the time limits. Rebuttal. Rebuttal. Ultimately, I think there are just a few issues that I want to try to deal with. First, let's talk about the fire station briefly. That public property site is dealt with in detail in the expert report of Marshall Slagle, a fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. It's important to note that the floodplain is not the only limiting factor there. Under your own regulations, all the accessory structures associated with the tower have to be more than 25 feet from the floodplain, which effectively eliminates the entire lot. Second, I would be remiss as an attorney if I did not now log my objection to all issues associated with health effects. I applaud the board for refusing to consider those. also for the introduction of any alleged expert testimony where that individual is not here to be cross-examined because I'm entitled to that under due process standards and the Commission's own bylaws and regulations. As for issues concerning whether the setbacks are appropriate or not here, those rules are dictated by this Planning Commission and by the Urban Council that sets down the rules. Those are the rules that we have followed to the letter. It's no accident that this site does not require variances. It meets all of your requirements. I ask for this slide to be brought up because there is not one scintilla of evidence that has been presented by the opponents that can serve as a basis for a turndown of this site because everything that they have introduced falls within the areas that do not constitute substantial evidence under the federal standards that are applicable to this proceeding in this federal circuit. I recognize these are controversial cases. When I saw the number of people who fell within 500 feet of this site, I knew that we were going to be in for a long day. And that's been the case. But nothing that has been said alters a fundamental fact. We meet the requirements that you have set down. And absolutely none of the expert reports and documentation that we have tendered has been effectively challenged. I think that's within time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Grady. I will respond briefly to Mr. Pike's argument that none of my evidence is admissible. I believe the Planning Commission can consider the evidence that we have presented. Some of that evidence actually corresponds to the staff report. The staff report acknowledged an impact on the view from the residential area, and it discusses it in the portion of the staff report that discusses the general character of the area as one of the criteria. So I believe your staff report, along with my client's factual testimony, not opinion testimony, but factual and lay people can talk about what they have experienced. They can talk about the decisions they have made, what they have lived through. In some situations, lay people can give opinion testimony. And in this case, they testified about their experience, what a realtor told them if they were going to list the property. So they have probative evidence in front of you about the potential impact on the value of their property if and when a cell tower is built 60 feet from their backyard. And that is evidence you can consider. You've allowed the evidence in, and I believe it will support a decision to deny this application at this location. I would ask you to reject Mr. Pike's attempt to eliminate all of my evidence and to consider our evidence and turn it down and instruct AT&T to find a better site without the problems on residential areas this site poses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Staff? I'm not sure if this works or not, but I realize that this is a new tower in a residential area, but there are several other areas of town where towers are located in residential areas and it has, it's, I've looked at PBA values. They have not altered the property values of properties. They're in residential areas. They're seen from all over, but after a while, you don't see them anymore. At first, you see them because they're new, but once they're there for a while, you don't even see them. When you and I were speaking the other day, and you said something about the one on Waller A, but I thought, I've never even seen that. Tom pointed it out to me today. We looked out my window from my office, and I could see it then, and I was like, oh, okay, it is there. But you don't even see them after a while. And this one is going to be smaller in diameter than most, than any that I've ever seen. And it will be, the impact will be minimized as much as possible without being an alternative tower, if it's not an alternative tower. Thank you, Ms. Rackers. So, no, sir, not at this point. We've heard from everybody, both parties involved, and rebuttals. So at this point, what I will do, I will close this part of the hearing, open it up for commission member discussion and or motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I've got questions for one of the applicants. Is that still appropriate? We can if needed. Yes, sir. For Mr. Pike. As a matter of fact, I have several. I don't have much experience in the telecommunications industry. Is it subject to a regulatory compact like the electric utility industry is? A regulatory compact? Could you describe what you're getting at here? Well, in return for being able to provide a public service under the protection of a regulatory authority, You're obligated to provide service and a certain quality of service. Yes. So I think now I understand what you're getting at. Excuse me. Kind of the analogous provisions are that we hold an FCC license, which was purchased at extremely high cost. And, of course, the FCC evaluates corporations to make sure they're suitable candidates to receive those licenses. Those licenses provide two sides to them. One of them is that it grants us the right to provide service in these areas, and it's for certain frequencies based on certain geographic areas. The other side of it is we are obligated to provide better service all the time, or we lose the license. Are you subject to a least cost standard in that evaluation anyplace? No, because we're, I suppose, the best phraseology legally, and again, you would turn to your counsel to correct me if necessary. We're kind of a new age utility in that our rates are not regulated. And, of course, also we do not have eminent domain authority. So in order for us to obtain new infrastructure locations, we have to have a willing landowner to do business with. I have one more. Pardon me. One more question. to clarify my understanding of your testimony, your presentation. I think I got the impression, or not, I think I did get the impression, I want to know if it's correct, that AT&T's analysis is that within your search parameters, your search area, all other sites except this one were eliminated. Is that correct? That is correct. And that's a good bit of the expert materials that are included in your binder. not only from site acquisition but of course also from Marshall Slagle. A good bit of his report is tied up doing that because the first set of criteria that are utilized in determining what is an available site or not are your own regulations and what the requirements are. The vast majority of this search area is off the boards based on or can't be considered based on either floodplain or based on the fact that it's residential property because under the terms of your regulations, if there's an available commercial tract, that means that residential properties cannot be utilized. You have technical expertise with you. Can you address the suggestion that you can provide better service from an alternate site, i.e., the Zandale site? I can answer this, and if it's not sufficient, I'll call them up. This is not an either or. This is a two-site issue. There are multiple new cell tower applications in the works for this community in order to dramatically improve service. Mr. Wilson, you were hitting on earlier what those distances were. So it's not are we going to do this or Zandell. We're going to do both in order to fill these gaps because you cannot fill both with one. You've got to have two. That clears it up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure. Thank you. Comments, questions, discussion from Mr. Penn? Well, I just would like to ask the chairman if you'd rather hold the discussion until after a motion is made. I can do it either way you want to do it. If you're ready for a motion, we can go. I want to know if the commission is ready for a motion. Any other discussion? Yes, ma'am. Hold on just a second. Ms. Plumney? I don't know what your motion is going to be, so I want to speak my piece right now. When we first started and Chairman Owens gave us some guidelines from the feds and on down, I thought, well, here comes the 500-pound gorilla. Where can we go? And probably not too far with this. And after my fog cleared, my only conclusion is hopefully we could get to an alternate arrangement, such as the tower in the church that Barb mentioned earlier, something that was not just a plain pole. And I don't know if that's a possibility yet. And secondly, I want to thank the neighbors for coming down. Non-citizen commitment and involvement is always important, and we appreciate it. Thanks. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I found that, I mean, this proposal meets all of our requirements, and we always have a lot of requirements, but I'm probably the only one in here that lives near a cell tower right now, within maybe 150 feet of my house. In fact, if it fell like that, they say it don't, but if it hit my house and the tower was there before I built the house and I bought the lots all around it and built the houses there, it has no effect on the value of the homes. In fact, I don't even think about it until we come down here and there's somebody who wants to build one somewhere else. It's the only time I ever think that the tower is there. So the fear of it, I guess, is maybe worse than the reality of it. But I can support it. And I don't want to see it camouflaged with some fake-looking Mountain King Christmas tree look or something like that. That probably impedes its ability to work right with hanging that stuff around the antenna. And then if you were to put it in a steeple or something like that, that would require, that probably is against our rules of a building being so tall. I mean, it might be a building at that point because it would be a permanent structure. So, but I'm going to support it. Mr. Brewer? I've got a couple of quick questions. Well, I hope there are quick answers, too. Tracy, the slide that the applicant put up about all the legal rulings, do you need to see that again? Are you in agreement with that? I have not read every single one of those cases, but I have read some in the Sixth Circuit, and they are consistent with what was represented on that slide. All right. Barb, I again applaud what you, I'm looking at these boxes and I'm daunted by what you probably went through to get this summarized for us, so thanks. The suggestion of an alternative that was considered a dumb idea, the pine tree, it looks pretty silly to me too. What's your thought on that? It doesn't look real because pine trees don't get that tall. Then on the other hand, when I was in Morocco, they have palm trees that are cell towers, and they blend in with, there were three of them together, and there were other palm trees around it. And I only realized it was, I only knew that it was a cell tower because I know that alternative designs are done. And when I saw it, and I saw that it was as straight as it was, and some of the other ones were kind of like, you know, a little bit awkward. but I could tell that it was a cell tower before the person that was doing the tour said that it was a cell tower and I pointed it out to my sister and she goes well how can you tell and I said well look how straight it is I said and look at the very top I said it's got antennas sticking out of the top she was like oh okay you know and other people in the on the in the group are the same way the pine tree I think is is probably not a good idea I'm not sure that they could get a building structure as part of the building i'm not sure how tall the one at centenary methodist is but i know that that was built specifically for the cell tower in the tates creek red corridor i don't know how tall it could i mean it would have to be to to serve the area like it's supposed to and i think something that is architectural that would blend in with the area that would blend in with a building. I mean, maybe a neighborhood sign or something, not a sign, but a column that had the Southland neighborhood or Southland area is an identification thing, to give it some identity with the neighborhood, something like that. But the pine tree is like, yeah, I don't think that, I mean, it does make it more visible than it would be otherwise if it was just a monopole. Well, that's what I thought, too, was looking at it. it looked silly to me, and it looked more to me of an eyesore than a thin tower. So I can't think of anything, any alternatives that would not also sort of fall into that building. I think a sign for the neighborhood that big would be more obtrusive to the neighbors than a cell tower is. And with all due respect to the neighborhood, this is classic NIMBY. And I think when you look at the map, this is the one page that I pulled out of that binder. I mean, all the other towers that are around, they're in somebody else's backyard. And this is shorter than most of them and I think thinner than most of them, I believe he said. So we're kind of hamstrung, I think, up here also with the rules that have been laid down by the law, by the regulations at the federal and state level. So, again, I have great respect. I appreciate you coming down. I've got a big tower in the back of my yard that we thought long and hard about before buying the house and bought it. We don't see it anymore. And we did plant trees to block it. So with due respect to all of you and your opinion, I think this is something we're going to have to go for. Other thoughts? Anything else? Ms. Mundy? Yes, I too would like to say thanks to all of you for coming down, all your research, your work, both sides. It's good for us. It educates us and brings us maybe a little closer to the mark. The one thing that came out that I keep, I guess, rolling around in my head is the dropped calls in emergency services. You know, that's a safety issue or a concern. And so I keep rolling that around through my head. It would be a real bother to me to think that a phone call got dropped and someone, myself, or someone fell or got hurt or was in a car wreck or whatever and couldn't get the care that was needed. So I keep thinking about that, and then the case that was presented, and our counsel says that she, from her research, is comfortable with it. I think I'm going to have to go with the safety issue on this. But again, thank you so much for your time. Anyone else? Let me say this. Mr. Berkeley, you got something to add? I, too, want to thank the neighbors I've passed actually lived in the neighborhood, so I am familiar with it. This is, I guess, the third cell phone case that I've had. Anyway, and the last one happened to be in my neighborhood, and I ultimately voted that we needed to do it primarily because of the service level issue. I think that's, as commission members, we're charged with considering that as well as the other federal rules. The property valuation issue, I tend to go with AT&T's expert just based on my experience. So thank you for coming. But again, I think the service part of this is what is going to weigh on me. Others? Yeah, Mike. Yeah, go ahead. I was going to wait for a motion, but I really think that what Councilman Clark said and what the neighborhood has said is emblematic of what we're dealing with here. We have to have this service. We haven't found any better creative way to come up with it than this fake-looking pine tree, and I can't go with that even though that's a staff's alternative. I just think that makes your neighborhood look more like a joke than it does just a service thing. And I didn't hear any of you all express to me that if we have to have this, let's have the pine tree. Because I just didn't hear that. I was waiting to hear that. I didn't hear it. My hope has always been that we could do something in Lexington that's a little bit different than what we do in every other town you go to. And I heard all my life you have to have signs, but I've been to Hilton Head, and they don't have any big atrocious signs everywhere. If the community wants to do something, puts enough pressure on it, they'll find a way to do it. This community has not done that. AT&T has not done it. I don't blame them for coming down here and wanting to do their cookie cutter. I mean, that's what corporations do. They work to their bottom line. Absence of something else that we can do other than that monopole or that fake-looking Christmas tree, I just can't go with a staff alternative. And yet I don't think I can say, no, you can't put this tower here because of service. And so I'm just going to leave it at that, Mr. Chairman, and somebody else can make the motion. Anyone else? Thank you, Mr. Penn. I'm going to, if not, I'm going to weigh in on this just for a moment. Again, I'd like to thank everyone for coming here. We need a voice. Sometimes the results aren't always good, but we need the voice of the community. It is important, and believe me, we do listen. I told Barb earlier in the week I thought this was a very good, very thorough staff report. What has been presented, Mr. Pike has presented a very good case. Yes, he said there's no variances needed. There are a lot of items to be checked off, and he's shown that they were checked off, which makes this difficult. The one compelling thing that I think is that it can affect the character of the neighborhood. It can affect neighbors in the immediate vicinity especially. I'm going to take exception to the fake Christmas tree. I know of one in an area where I've visited yearly for the last 20 years. From here to the wall, yes, it looks like a fake Christmas tree, but it blends into the horizon. It blends into the landscape. It blends into the viewscape more so than a pole would do so. So I would be very much in agreement of that or some form of an alternative tower as the staff has recommended. So with that, unless there's others that want to speak, I guess we're ready for a motion. Ms. Richardson? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the CT 2014-1 New Cellular Wireless PCA, DBA, AT&T Mobility without the condition of an alternative. Okay, thank you. We do have a motion for approval with, I would say, the two conditions now, striking number one. Yes. Okay. Are they in the back number one? I'll second. I'm sorry? Is it based on the staff's recommendation? Yes, based on the staff recommendation without number one. Okay. Thank you. We do have a motion for approval based on the staff recommendation striking number one, leaving two and three. It was seconded by Mr. Cravens. Are there any discussion in regards to the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks, once again for coming. I apologize. No, I can't apologize for the results. It is what it is. I hope Lexington is better for it. I know the cell phone service will be better. I think that concludes everything on our agenda. Our next meeting is next Thursday, the 18th at 1.30. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Any second? All those in favor please say aye. Motion adjourned. Meetings adjourned. Thank you.