# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - November 14, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · November 14, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4898 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4898?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-11-14 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 6, 2026 - **Length**: 17,622 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 convened on November 14, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as chair. The Commission addressed 12 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 14 motions and votes throughout the meeting. No public comments were heard during this session. The Commission approved 7 items, including the meeting minutes, consent agenda, and several development projects such as Stanford Company Property Lot 1 (Mist Lake Shopping Center), Lexington Superdome (Central Equipment), Stonewall Shopping Center, AT&T Jacobson Park wireless communications facility, and an amendment to Articles 1 & 6 regarding stub streets. Five agenda items were postponed, including Lansdowne Shopping Center, Thomas Communications Inc. (Walnut Grove), Masterson Station Center (Citation Village), Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Lot 126, and Fayette Commons (Moe's & BurgerFi). ## Attendance The Commission meeting on November 14, 2019 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Mike Owens • Patrick Brewer • Anthony de Movellan • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • William Wilson **Absent:** • Headley Bell • Graham Pohl No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took 14 votes during the November 14, 2019 meeting, with all motions passing or being postponed unanimously by the nine members present: Mike Owens, Patrick Brewer, Anthony de Movellan, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson. **Administrative Actions:** - **Meeting Minutes**: Karen Mundy motioned to approve the October 10, 2019 meeting minutes, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed unanimously 9-0. - **Consent Agenda**: Patrick Brewer motioned to approve all consent agenda items, seconded by William Wilson. Passed unanimously 9-0. **Postponements:** Several development projects were postponed: - **PLN-MJDP-19-00062** (Lansdowne Shopping Center AMD): Frank Penn motioned for postponement, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 9-0. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00064** (Thomas Communications, Inc. Walnut Grove AMD): Carolyn Plumlee motioned for indefinite postponement, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 9-0. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00066** (Masterson Station Center AMD): Carolyn Plumlee motioned for postponement, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 9-0. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00056** (Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Lot 126): Frank Penn motioned for indefinite postponement, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 9-0. - **PLN-MNDP-19-00020** (Fayette Commons AMD): Frank Penn motioned for postponement, seconded by William Wilson. Passed unanimously 9-0. **Approved Projects:** - **PLN-FRP-19-00048** (Stanford Company Property/Mist Lake Shopping Center): Karen Mundy motioned to approve both the waiver and final subdivision plan, seconded by Larry Forester. Both passed unanimously 9-0, with the subdivision plan subject to 13 staff conditions. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00053** (Lexington Superdome/Central Equipment): Frank Penn motioned to approve both the waiver and development plan, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Both passed unanimously 9-0, with the development plan subject to 11 revised staff conditions. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00061** (Stonewall Shopping Center): Karen Mundy motioned for approval, seconded by William Wilson. Passed unanimously 9-0 with 9 staff conditions. - **PLN-CELL-19-00001** (AT&T Jacobson Park Wireless Facility): William Wilson motioned for approval, seconded by Anthony de Movellan. Passed unanimously 9-0 with staff conditions. - **SRA 2019-2** (Stub Streets Amendment): Karen Mundy motioned to approve the amendment to Articles 1 & 6, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed unanimously 9-0 with staff alternative text. ## Contested Items Two items on the November 14, 2019 Commission agenda faced significant community opposition, leading to extended discussion and varied outcomes. **Fayette Commons (Moe's & BurgerFi) Amendment** The proposed amendment for Fayette Commons, involving Moe's and BurgerFi restaurants, drew community concerns primarily focused on traffic congestion issues. Residents and stakeholders raised objections about the addition of a drive-through facility in what they characterized as an already congested area. The community opposition centered on potential traffic flow problems and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood's accessibility and safety. Due to the level of community concern expressed during the meeting, the Commission decided to postpone the item for further discussion. This postponement allows additional time for staff review, community input, and potential modifications to address the traffic-related issues raised by opponents. **AT&T Jacobson Park Wireless Communications Facility** The AT&T wireless communications facility proposal for Jacobson Park generated substantial community opposition, with residents expressing concerns about two primary issues: the facility's proximity to local schools and potential health effects from wireless communications equipment. Community members voiced objections during the public comment period, focusing on the location's closeness to educational facilities and raising questions about possible health impacts on students and nearby residents. However, Commission staff and legal counsel noted that federal telecommunications law significantly limits local government authority to consider health effects when reviewing wireless facility applications. Despite the community opposition, the Commission's ability to deny the application based on the concerns raised was constrained by federal regulations governing wireless communications facilities. The federal framework requires local governments to focus on land use compatibility and design standards rather than health considerations, which are regulated at the federal level. Both contested items highlighted the ongoing tension between development proposals and community concerns, with the Commission navigating between local opposition and regulatory constraints in their decision-making process. ## Approval of Minutes The Planning Commission considered the minutes from their October 10, 2019, meeting for approval. The discussion involved key speakers Karen Mundy and Patrick Brewer. The Commission reviewed the minutes without any noted corrections or amendments being raised during the discussion. Following their review, the Planning Commission voted to approve the minutes from the October 10, 2019, meeting. The approval of these minutes allows them to become part of the official record of the Commission's proceedings and decisions from that previous meeting. ## LANSDOWNE SHOPPING CENTER (AMD) The Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-00062, an amendment for the Lansdowne Shopping Center to revise building area and parking requirements. Key speakers during the discussion included Frank Penn and Karen Mundy, who presented details about the proposed amendments to the shopping center development. The Commission determined that additional time was needed to thoroughly review and discuss the proposed changes to the building area and parking specifications. Rather than proceeding with a decision during the November 14, 2019 meeting, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of the amendment. The item was postponed for one month to allow for further discussion and review of the proposed revisions. This delay will provide the Commission and stakeholders additional time to examine the details of the building area modifications and parking adjustments before making a final determination on the amendment. The postponement ensures that all aspects of the Lansdowne Shopping Center amendment can be properly evaluated before the Commission takes action on PLN-MJDP-19-00062. ## THOMAS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., (WALNUT GROVE) (AMD) The Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-00064, an amendment request from Thomas Communications, Inc. for a property located in Walnut Grove. The proposed amendment sought to remove pedestrian facility requirements and re-plat current property lines. Key speakers during the discussion included Carolyn Plumlee and Karen Mundy, who addressed various aspects of the amendment request. The Commission ultimately decided to indefinitely postpone consideration of this amendment. No specific timeline was provided for when the item might be reconsidered or brought back before the Commission. The indefinite postponement means the amendment request remains in limbo, with no immediate action taken on the proposed changes to remove pedestrian facilities or modify the current platting of the property lines. The reasons for the postponement and any conditions that might need to be met before reconsideration were not detailed in the available information. This outcome leaves the current zoning and development requirements for the Thomas Communications, Inc. property in Walnut Grove unchanged for the time being. ## MASTERSON STATION CENTER (CITATION VILLAGE) (AMD) The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-00066, an amendment to the Masterson Station Center development, also known as Citation Village. The proposed amendment sought to revise the townhouse development plans and add a street cross-section to the existing development proposal. Key speakers during the discussion included Carolyn Plumlee and Larry Forester, who presented details about the proposed modifications to the development plan. The amendment focused on adjustments to the townhouse component of the mixed-use development and the incorporation of updated street design standards. Following discussion of the proposal, the Commission determined that additional time was needed to thoroughly review the amendment details. The item was postponed to allow for further discussion and consideration of the proposed changes to the townhouse development and street cross-section elements. The postponement indicates that commissioners or staff may have had questions or concerns that required additional review before making a final determination on the amendment. The Masterson Station Center development will return to a future Commission meeting for continued consideration of the proposed modifications. ## PLEASANT RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOT 126 (REAPPROVAL OF ZDP 90-79) The Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-00056, a request for reapproval of ZDP 90-79 for Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 126. The item involved reviewing a previously approved subdivision development plan that required reapproval. Key speakers during the discussion included Frank Penn and Carolyn Plumlee, who addressed various aspects of the subdivision reapproval request. The Commission raised concerns regarding development activity related to the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision project. These concerns were significant enough to prevent the Commission from moving forward with the reapproval at this time. Due to the issues identified with the development activity, the Commission decided to indefinitely postpone consideration of the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 126 reapproval. This postponement allows time for the concerns to be addressed before the item returns to the Commission for further review. The indefinite postponement means no timeline was established for when the item might be reconsidered, and the reapproval request remains pending resolution of the development activity concerns that were raised during the discussion. ## Consent Agenda The Commission addressed several items through the consent agenda process during the November 14, 2019 meeting. Patrick Brewer and William Wilson served as the key speakers for this portion of the meeting. The consent agenda included multiple items for approval, consisting of both reapprovals of previously considered matters and new development plans. These items were grouped together for efficient processing, as is standard practice for routine or non-controversial matters that do not require individual discussion. The Commission approved all items included in the consent agenda. This streamlined approach allowed the meeting to proceed efficiently while ensuring that all necessary approvals were granted for the various reapprovals and development plans under consideration. The specific details of individual items within the consent agenda, including project names, locations, and applicants, were not detailed in the available meeting materials. However, the approval of these items indicates that staff had reviewed them and found them to meet applicable requirements and standards. ## Stanford Company Property, Lot 1 (Mist Lake Shopping Center) The Commission reviewed agenda item PLN-FRP-19-00048, a final subdivision plan for Stanford Company Property, Lot 1, located at the Mist Lake Shopping Center. Key speakers during the discussion included Karen Mundy and Larry Forester, who presented details about the proposed subdivision plan. The application required consideration of a waiver for lot frontage requirements, indicating that the proposed lot configuration did not meet standard frontage specifications under current zoning regulations. The Commission evaluated the merits of granting the frontage waiver as part of the final subdivision approval process. While specific details of the debate were not captured in the available materials, the discussion centered on the technical aspects of the subdivision layout and whether the waiver request met the criteria for approval. Following their review and discussion of the application materials, the Commission voted to approve the final subdivision plan for Stanford Company Property, Lot 1. The approval included granting the requested waiver for lot frontage requirements, allowing the project to proceed despite not meeting standard frontage specifications. This approval represents the final step in the subdivision process for this portion of the Mist Lake Shopping Center property, enabling Stanford Company to move forward with their development plans for the site. ## Lexington Superdome (Central Equipment) The Commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-19-00053 for the Lexington Superdome Central Equipment project during the November 14, 2019 meeting. Key speakers on this item included Frank Penn and Patrick Brewer, who presented details about the proposed development plan. The discussion centered on the project's compliance with city development standards and requirements. A significant aspect of the review involved the project's tree canopy coverage. The development plan required a waiver from the standard tree canopy requirements, indicating that the proposed project would not meet the typical landscaping standards mandated for new developments in the area. Despite the need for the tree canopy waiver, the Commission ultimately approved the development plan for the Lexington Superdome Central Equipment project. The approval suggests that the Commission found the project's benefits and compliance with other development standards sufficient to justify granting the requested waiver. The Lexington Superdome Central Equipment development plan represents infrastructure improvements or modifications to support the existing sports and entertainment facility. The Commission's approval allows the project to move forward to the next phase of the development process. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Stonewall Shopping Center The Commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-19-00061 for the Stonewall Shopping Center during the November 14, 2019 meeting. The item was presented as a discussion item regarding the proposed development. Key speakers during the discussion included Karen Mundy and William Wilson, who addressed various aspects of the development proposal. The primary focus of the deliberations centered on tree canopy requirements and preservation measures for the shopping center site. The Commission ultimately approved the development plan for Stonewall Shopping Center, though the approval came with specific conditions attached. These conditions were directly related to tree canopy preservation and management requirements that the developer must meet as part of the project implementation. The approval represents the Commission's endorsement of the shopping center development while ensuring environmental considerations, particularly regarding existing tree coverage, are adequately addressed in the final development plans. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item discussion.* ## Fayette Commons (Moe's & BurgerFi) (AMD) The Commission considered agenda item PLN-MNDP-19-00020, a minor development plan for Fayette Commons involving Moe's and BurgerFi restaurants. Key speakers during the discussion included Frank Penn and William Wilson, who addressed various aspects of the proposed development plan. The primary concern that emerged during the meeting centered on the drive-through component of the project. Commissioners raised questions and expressed reservations about this particular element of the development, though specific details of their concerns were not elaborated in the available materials. Due to the unresolved issues surrounding the drive-through, the Commission decided to postpone consideration of the minor development plan. This postponement will allow the applicant and staff additional time to address the concerns raised by the Commission regarding the drive-through operations and design. The item will return to a future Commission meeting once the drive-through issues have been adequately addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of both staff and the Commission members. ## AT&T Jacobson Park (Wireless Communications Facility) The Commission reviewed application PLN-CELL-19-00001 for AT&T's proposed wireless communications facility at Jacobson Park. The application requested approval for a 195-foot cellular tower installation. Key speakers during the discussion included William Wilson and Anthony de Movellan, who presented details about the proposed facility and addressed questions from commissioners. The application underwent review to ensure compliance with both local zoning requirements and federal telecommunications regulations. Staff analysis confirmed that the proposed 195-foot tower met all applicable standards for wireless communication facilities in the area. The Commission approved the AT&T Jacobson Park wireless communications facility application. The approval allows AT&T to proceed with construction of the 195-foot cellular tower, which will enhance wireless coverage in the Jacobson Park area while meeting all regulatory requirements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Amendment to Articles 1 & 6: Stub Streets The Commission considered agenda item SRA 2019-2, an amendment to Articles 1 and 6 regarding stub streets. This discussion item focused on updating the definition and requirements for stub street signs within the municipal code. Key speakers during the discussion included Karen Mundy and Frank Penn, who presented information about the proposed changes to the stub street regulations. The amendment addressed both definitional language in Article 1 and specific requirements outlined in Article 6 of the relevant municipal ordinances. The proposed changes aimed to clarify and modernize the standards for stub street signage, ensuring consistency in how these temporary street endings are marked and regulated within the community. Stub streets typically refer to street segments that are planned for future extension but currently terminate without connecting to other roadways. Following the presentation and discussion by the Commission members, the amendment was approved. The updated regulations will provide clearer guidance for developers, city staff, and residents regarding the proper identification and treatment of stub streets throughout the municipality. The approval of SRA 2019-2 represents the Commission's effort to maintain current and effective municipal standards for street infrastructure and signage requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of the minutes of the October 10, 2019, meeting - **PLN-MJDP-19-00062** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of LANSDOWNE SHOPPING CENTER (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00064** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of THOMAS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., (WALNUT GROVE) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00066** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of MASTERSON STATION CENTER (CITATION VILLAGE) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00056** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of PLEASANT RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOT 126 (REAPPROVAL OF ZDP 90-79) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items - **PLN-FRP-19-00048** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for Stanford Company Property, Lot 1 (Mist Lake Shopping Center) - **PLN-FRP-19-00048** — passed (9-0): Approval of final subdivision plan for Stanford Company Property, Lot 1 (Mist Lake Shopping Center) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00053** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for Lexington Superdome (Central Equipment) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00053** — passed (9-0): Approval of development plan for Lexington Superdome (Central Equipment) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00061** — passed (9-0): Approval of development plan for Stonewall Shopping Center - **PLN-MNDP-19-00020** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Fayette Commons (Moe's & BurgerFi) (AMD) - **PLN-CELL-19-00001** — passed (9-0): Approval of AT&T Jacobson Park (Wireless Communications Facility) - **SRA 2019-2** — passed (9-0): Approval of amendment to Articles 1 & 6: Stub Streets --- ## Full transcript And guess what? So is my money All I want you to do for me Give it to me when you get home Yeah, baby With it coming When you get home Now R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to me R-E-S-P-E-C-T Take that C-C-B Chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga litter-ish way Chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga chugga litter-ish way Just a little bit Litterish way Just a little bit I'll get tired Just a little bit Keep on trying Just a little bit You're running out of food Just a little bit And I ain't lying Just a little bit R-E-S-P-E-C-T When you come home R-E-S-P-E-C-T Boy, you might walk in and find out I'm gone Just a little bit I got the heart I got the heart I got the heart I got the heart I got the heart I got the heart I got the heart I got the heart You can laugh and joke and make fun of your friends Spend in the middle when all the trouble is thickened Take it nice and easy and always pretend That you're cool, so cool, so cool Say I'm alone and I'm wild and I will not be seen Talk like a jerk or an educated brain Be an old girl I know that you have to go It's all up to you but whatever you do Take it easy on me So now I'll go the minstrel road without you I know there will be times when I'll need you there And each night as I sing those songs about you I'll think back to the time when you used to care Take it easy on me It should be easy to see I'm getting lost in the crowd Hear me crying out loud Just want you to know I know that you have to go It's all up to you but whatever you do Take it easy on me Take it easy on me Oh baby don't leave me crying It should be easy to see I've needed you for so long Just one more chance with you One more chance will you Take a chance Come on and take a chance Take it easy on me It should be easy to see I'm getting lost in the crowd Hear me crying out loud Just want you to know I know that you have to go It's all up to you but whatever you do It's all up to you but whatever you do Take it easy on me It's still up to you but whatever you do Take it easy on me Take it easy on me Look what you're doing to me I'm actually at your whim All of my defenses down Look I'm running through me With this x-ray vision Our systems run aground All I can manage to push from my lips Is a stream of absurdity Every word I intended to speak Winds up locked in a circuitry No way to control it It's totally automatic Whenever you're around I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic All of my systems are down Down, down, down Automatic Automatic What is this madness That makes my motor run My legs too weak to stand I go from sadness To exhilaration Like robot at your command My hands perspire Shake like a leaf Up and down goes my temperature I go from sadness To bliss and relief As they tell me there is no cure Tell me No way to control it It's totally automatic Whenever you're around I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic All of my systems are down Down, down, down Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Look what you've done to me I'm actually at your whim All of my defenses down Your camera looks through me With its x-ray vision And all systems underground All I can manage To push from my lips Is a stream of obscenity Everywhere I intended to speak A stream winds up locked in A stupid dream No way to control it It's totally automatic Whenever you're around I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic All of my systems are down Down, down No way to control it It's totally automatic Whenever you're around I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic All of my systems are down Down, down, down No way to control it It's totally automatic Whenever you're around I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic All of my systems are down I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic All of my systems are down Down, down No way to control it It's totally automatic Whenever you're around I'm walking my phone it Completely automatic Whenever you're around Darling, I I can't explain When we lose our way Girl, it's driving me insane And I know I just need one more chance To prove my love to you And if you come back to me I'll guarantee That I'll never let you go Can we go back to the days That love was too hard Can you tell me How a perfect love goes wrong Can somebody tell me Can somebody tell me Can somebody tell me How a perfect love goes wrong Can somebody tell me How a perfect love Goes wrong Can somebody tell me Can somebody tell me How a perfect Love goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong Can somebody tell me How a perfect love Goes wrong Can somebody tell me How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong How a perfect love Goes wrong Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN-MJDP-1956 and indefinite postponement. Thank you. Motion has been made by Mr. Finn, seconded by Ms. Plumlee for indefinite postponement of Plan MJDP-1956 Pleasant Ridge subdivision. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Martin, do we know applicant for Fayette Commons? Are they here today? Applicant for Plan MJDP-1920 Fayette Commons at the bottom of page 7. Are they here today? Yes, sir, they are. Moving on, we do have a consent agenda to take care of a few of the remaining items. Let Ms. Wade walk us through that. There are two subdivision items and now six development plan items. I'll read through those and then ask if there's anyone in the audience or anyone on the commission that wishes to have any of those pulled or if we can hear or act on them all together with one motion. The first item on the consent agenda is a reapproval. It's on page 2, item B, PLN-MJ sub 16-5 for Green Property Holdings, LLC. This is for property located at 1441 Sunshine Lane. Because of the reapproval, there was one change to the listed conditions related to the landscape examiner. I'll just note that. The second item is on page 2, item A. It's a preliminary subdivision plan, PLN-MJ sub 19-6 for Tuscany Unit 15. This is for property located on a portion of 1970 Winchester Road. And then the next several items are development plan requests. This is for property located at 1449 and 1451 Bryan Avenue. Next on page 4, item D, PLN-MJ 19-58 for Raleigh Bishop Carroll Senior Property. That's property located at 375 Pasadena Drive. The next item is also on page 4, item E, PLN-MJ 19-60 for the Wiggins & Company, Inc. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 2514 and 2520 Nicholasville Road. Skipping the item on page 5 since it was postponed a month. The next item is on page 6, item H, PLN-MJ 19-64 for the Stanford Company Property, also known as Miss Lake Shopping Center. Again, this is an amended final development plan for property with addresses at 3100, 3110, 3120, and 3180 Richmond Road. The next item is on page 6, item J, PLN-MJ 19-65 for the Highwood Center, Lot 4. This is also an amended final development plan for property located at 506 West New Circle Road. And then one last item on the second page of the consent agenda is a reapproval. It's located on our main agenda on page 7, item L, and it's ZDP 2009-86 for Bryant Property. This property is located at 1810 Bryant Road here in Lexington. And again, there is another change to the conditions of approval on this item also for the landscape examiner. The Planning Commission can consider all of these items in one motion for conditional approval at this time unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or one of the petitioners would ask that any of these items be removed for further discussion or consideration by the Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience today that would like to have any of these items heard separately? Commission members? Thank you, Ms. Wade. You're welcome. As it is the consent agenda, we have one item being removed. That's down at the third from the bottom of the page. Plan MJDP 19-62 Lansdowne Shopping Center is being removed. And please make note there is one R1 over on the backs out of the consent agenda as well. So at this time I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda with the exception of the postponed item, page 5, item G, PLN MJDP 19-62. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of the consent agenda with the one exception, Plan MJDP 19-62. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you. So we will take the remaining items as they are on the agenda itself. We'll start on page 1 with Plan FRP 19-48 Stanford Company Property. You do have a waiver that should be before you on a white sheet of paper. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda today is on page 1. It is a final subdivision plan, 19-48 for the Stanford Company Property, lot 1. This is the Mist Lake Shopping Center. Of course, you probably know it better as a former site of a Walmart, and a very, very large and impressive retaining wall is on that site as well. This item is before you today for the purpose, here is the parent tract, and they are creating an interior lot in the subdivision. They are proposing an access to provide the frontage for this lot. The property is zoned B3, and B3 has a frontage requirement. They are unable to meet that frontage requirement with an interior lot, so they are here today to ask you for a waiver of that particular requirement. There are times, there are circumstances where occasionally they can meet the frontage requirement through a slight modification of the plan due to the topography, due to the layout of this particular shopping center. There are some challenges for them to do so. In addition, as you all have heard quite frequently in these meetings, of course, financing of these developments are also important, and they require fee-simple property to do so. You just approved the amended final development plan on this property on your consent agenda. It is for the relocation of the Texas Roadhouse restaurant on this interior lot from across the street where it is currently located on Richmond-Athens-Boonesboro Road. You can see the layout of the shopping center. Here is the access easement, the proposed lot, access to South Locust Drive. We have the traditional layout of a shopping center, the large anchor, other shops along this line and here, and then, of course, your parking, a very traditional shopping center layout. If this was, in fact, a B6P shopping center, there would be no frontage requirement for these lots. They're generally governed by the development plan, as is this site, and you have joint access and parking on those properties. This particular instance, access is what is being granted here, and they do have reciprocal access agreement with the rest of the shopping center that, as you can see, remains on these lots. There is no reciprocal parking because, as with a lot of these centers, they're all very jealous of their prerogatives on assigning their parking. The plan that you approved, the development plan, does meet the requirements and this site does meet the parking requirements. Staff has reviewed this waiver request and we're recommending approval of the grant along with the waiver and the finding on the access easement, which is also in your report today, and staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? No? Thank you, sir. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Bruce Simpson. On behalf of Texas Roadhouse folks, Tom gave a short and concise summary. I don't find the need to supplement what he said, and I would ask for your approval. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak on this request? If not, thank you. We'll close this part of it, open it up to the commission for any questions, concerns, motions, whatever you wish. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PON FRP 19-48, Stanford Company Property, Lot 1. May I back up for a second? Let's do the waiver first. I will correct that, and I will do the findings for the petition of waiver for PON FRP 19-48, Stanford Company Property for the reasons given by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the waiver associated with Plan FRP 19-48, Stanford Company for the reasons provided by staff. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes, and now for the record plat. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PON FRP 19-48, Stanford Company Property, Lot 1 with the 13 conditions as set forth by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Forster for approval of Plan MJ SUB 19-6. No, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Let's go back to page 1. For Plan FRP 19-48, Stanford Company Properties with 13 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you. We move on to page 3 at the bottom. It's Plan MJ DP 19-53, Lexington Superdome, Central Equipment. You do have a revision that is before you on a blue sheet of paper, and there's also a waiver that's on the white sheet that should be before you as well. Good afternoon. Yes, ma'am. Okay. This is Lexington Superdome, Central Equipment. This is located over off of Red Mile Road. This is being Red Mile Road. We have Versailles Road up closer to this side. Harry Sykes Way is in this area. They have one single building on the property. They have parking in the front, and then they have storage that pretty much wraps around the whole rest of the property. They're in today to add additional parking along the front of the property, and also at the same time put in some underground storage tanks for detention on the property. They brought in a revision on their plan. That's why we have a blue sheet. As you can see, we've been in discussion with them about a couple about the access to the property. At this time, we have reviewed it, and we only have the sign-off conditions left and then just clarify the width of the right-of-way on Red Mile, and we also have provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver. They are asking for a waiver on this property. In the B3 zone, you are required 20% tree canopy, and at this time, with all the construction that they're doing for the detention basins, they're unable to meet the tree canopy. Currently, they are below the tree canopy at this time because of the development that was done since 1997 when they were first built. They didn't meet it then, and now with the new construction to it, the detention basins won't allow them to plant additional trees. It kind of creates a hardship for them. So they're going to plant some along the front, so they're going to increase the tree canopy they have at this time. But that's why they're asking for a waiver to reduce the tree canopy requirement. With that, if there's any other questions. Questions for Ms. Gold? No. Thank you, ma'am. Applicant, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. I have Katie Pentecost here with me as well, who has done the plan. If you have any specific questions, I'm pleased to report, you may remember from subdivision committee, we were trying to work out a couple of issues. Pleased to report that those issues have been resolved. I want to express my appreciation to Ms. Gold and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Parker for working those out with us. I think Cheryl's done a good job explaining the plan. We'd be happy to entertain any questions if you have them. I would only add to underline something that Cheryl said. We are absolutely improving the tree canopy here from what's on site now. But because of that underground detention, can't get to the full required number. But it is being improved from what's on the ground now. So it will be better than it exists to that. But with that, we'd request your approval of both the waiver and the plan. And be happy to entertain any questions that you might have. Thank you, Mr. Walburn. We do have a question. Mr. Penn? Yes. In the subdivision committee, we discussed the sidewalk. Can you show me where that sidewalk is going to be? We are actually going to place it on their property. That was the safest location that we could figure out. So it's actually going to come across here right in the back of the parking. And then lead up to the existing sidewalk on Harry's side. What about the other end? We can create a connection here. But there's no sidewalks on any other properties on this side in this area of Red Mile Road. So it's essentially a sidewalk that leads to nothing. But it will be there for when future sidewalks are put in later. So we can't really figure out how to connect that because there's nothing to connect to right now. Well, that's my question. That's what we discussed in the subdivision committee. I'm concerned that the sidewalk will not be where it needs to be when the curbs and gutters are put on the rest of Red Mile Road. So I don't understand how the sidewalk, if it's not lined up with where it needs to be for the improvements on Red Mile Road, I don't understand what good the sidewalk is. I know we need to get it. But to put it in, just to put it in, and it's not going to line up, I want you to assure me it's going to line up before we force them to do that. Because it's just common sense. So I'd like to know, Mr. Wahlberg, is that sidewalk where it's going to line up or are we just doing that to pick and put a sidewalk in? I would have to indicate the latter there because we don't know on either side yet where those sidewalks will ultimately be placed as other development plans come in. I would say two things. One, a portion of our agreement with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Parker was simply on the side where we have the elevation issue, you may remember us recalling, that we would not be required to construct sidewalk there, that we could resolve that by note or other appropriate document. But to directly answer your question, we don't know where the other sidewalk will necessarily be going yet, but this is the agreement that we were able to come to to resolve other potentially more expensive items from having to be installed. Well, of course, my question is to get it on the record because there will be time when that sidewalk will have to be located. Yes. And I just want the record to show what we've done here. Absolutely. Other questions? If not, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this? Not. And there's not any other questions. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it for any discussion and or motion. Once again, we get to the motion. I'd like a motion on the waiver first. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval for the waiver for PLN MJDP 19-53 Lexington Superdome. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the waiver related to Plan MJDP 19-53 Lexington Superdome. I presume for the reasons provided by staff. Seconded by Mr. Brewer. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And now for the DP with the revised conditions. Okay. I would like to approve the PLN MJDP 19-53 Lexington Superdome with the 11 revised conditions provided by staff. Once again, motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Brewer for approval of Plan MJDP 19-53 Lexington Superdome with the 11 revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I believe we move to page five. In the middle of the page, it's Plan MJDP 19-61 Stonewall Shopping Center with the revisions that are before you on an orange sheet of paper. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. This property is located at the corner of Place Mill Road. Place Mill Road this way, Wellington Way. We have Stonewall Shopping Center to the rear. This used to be a C-store, the Speedway. They are coming back in and putting in a new C-store with pumps. The reason this is back in front of us is because the tree canopy or the TPA that was along the backside of the property was removed when they were doing the grading, so they lost their tree canopies, and now they're coming back to show revision to how they're going to meet their tree canopy. That was some of the questions. And so they brought us back in a revision, as you can see, which tells us how they're going to meet their tree canopy. They have several large trees, and then they have the remaining smaller trees around the property to meet the required tree canopy. And with that, we have just the typical sign-off conditions that are here, and we just need to, they have the contours at one foot, and it's required at two foot. So with that, we recommend approval now. If you all have any other comments or questions. Questions for Ms. Gault? Thank you, ma'am. Applicant? Good afternoon. Greg Smorstad, Banks Engineering. And Ms. Gault pretty much took care of anything that I had to say, so we agree with the revised conditions and just ask for your approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? Anyone in the audience? Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this request? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion from the commission. Thank you, sir. Anyone? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP-19-61 Stonewall Shopping Center amended with the nine conditions as set forth by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of PLN-MJDP-19-61 Stonewall Shopping Center with the revised nine conditions. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We'll move on to, I believe, we're at the bottom of page seven, minor development plans. PLN-MJDP-19-20 Fayette Commons continues on page eight. Yes, ma'am. I'm going to try to get them all done here. Okay. We're at the bottom. Fayette Commons. This is this is Roger Drive, Nicholasville Road. We have the cinemas located in this area. I believe it was the Johnny Corino's. We had Burger Fine Moe's and the pub. And this was the Fayette Mall Road back in here. They are in because they they came in and spoke to us about taking Johnny Corino's down and putting in a new building for both Burger Fine Moe's. And with that, we discussed it and we felt like it could be a minor plan because it was under the square footage that they currently have on the property. The property is zone B6P. We did not have any discussion about having a drive through on the property. So when we received the mylar for the property to review it, there was a drive through on the plan. So we needed to bring this to you all to show you that they are requesting to have a drive through around the back of the building in the B6P area. So we had a few sign off conditions that we were reviewing when we reviewed the plan to make sure that they've met other divisions. So this shows you right here Roger and the building that there's going to be more centered into the lot for where Johnny Corino's because they were back here further back in the property. And so that's where they're coming in and proposing the drive through around the property. With that, I'll leave it to you all if there's any other questions. Clarify for me on the agenda. It's got staff recommended postponement. I was not there. So can you explain that? Well, it's because, yes, I was going to say at the subdivision committee meeting, they were recommended for postponement because there was nobody there at the meeting. And so we believe they're here today and we would recommend approval at this time. So it's not the fact that there was any real discussion items or need for. It's just nobody was there. Needed attendance. OK. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? So do we have attendance today? Is the applicant here? Please come forward. Your name, sir. Excuse me. Yes, my name is Jeremy Pettit. I'm with the Jim Enterprises. I represent the shopping center owner. And I want to start off by apologizing. There was a mix up with the team internally about who's going to attend that meeting. So I apologize for that. We had no attendance. I want to start off with saying that. I think staff presented it pretty well. We're looking at taking out the existing Johnny Corino's building and putting a new building for Moseburger by there. It'll be 6480 square feet, which is approximately 1500 square feet less than the Corino's building is now. There will be less of an impact from a square footage standpoint. And we are requesting a drive through to go around the building. And I'm here to answer any other questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Pettit? Yes, ma'am. Gosh, I'm sorry. My question is, you know, we didn't see it or I don't remember seeing it with the drive through. So do you have appropriate stocking around that building? Yes, as far as their use. Their use for stacking is eight to nine cars, which is what we're providing. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Finn? I guess I want to ask Mr. Parker, have you looked at this and you're okay with the circulation? So it's fine? Ms. Wade? So I just want to put it on the record that Mr. Parker indicated it was fine because eight or nine spaces for stacking exceeds the requirement of the zoning ordinance, which requires five spaces behind the order point. That's what I was trying to do was get that. All right. Very good. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Pettit. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this request? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion from the commission. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. I would be opposed to the drive through because this is a very congested area. If you are aware of the area, there are movie theaters there. It's just a crowded, congested area. And I think a drive through based on personal experience would not be appropriate for this area at all. So I would be opposed. Others? Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Finn. This is the reason that we have the subdivision committee is to talk about these type of issues. And so that's why we were trying to clarify that there was or was not space for this. And so normally we don't do this in a hearing because we've already heard it in the subdivision, but we hadn't heard it. So that's why we needed to make sure that this was all right. Thank you. Other comments? Questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Anyone? If not, we need some sort of motion for approval, disapproval, continuance. Continuance or, you know, it's up to you all. Mr. Wilson. Ms. Plumlee, lead me to it. Okay. For PLA and MNDP-1920 Fayette Commons, I would move for a continuance. Do we have a second on that? Ms. Wade? We need a second, really. Yeah, I was waiting if there was a second. Second? Anyone for continuance? We need a motion. We need a second. If not, the motion is going to die because of lack of a second. I'll make another motion. Okay. In the meantime, Ms. Wade, would you like to comment? Well, hopefully if there are any questions, the staff can address those. But I was going to make the point if there was a second, we would need more information about what the commission would need during that period of time. Sure. Okay. So, Mr. Penn, are you interested in the motion? Yeah. I don't want to drag this out just to be dragging it out, but we do have a process. And the process is that we would vet this at the subdivision committee, and we would have testimony as to how this works, how the circulation works. It's in a very crowded situation. So if we can't get a motion, I move for postponement and bring it back to the subdivision committee and go from there. Okay. So, okay, now we have a motion for postponement. Do we have a second for that? I second it. Motion is for postponement, which means it goes back. The request would be yes, yes, yes, yes. Unless you have an agreement from the applicant, you're going to have a problem. Today is the date. Today is the last date to possibly do something. Applicant? Let me, Mr. Penn, one second. To clarify, I know applicant Mr. Pettit was not in subdivision. There was a reason for a postponement. Was this thing discussed? I'm hearing no. Okay. Okay. So the request is to start, since this was not heard in subdivision, to get possible vetting, talk about drive-throughs, et cetera, et cetera. At this point, they're asking for a postponement of this to put it back into committee to have it discussed and hopefully go forward at that point in time. Understood. Are you okay with that? It's not that hard, folks. Just a second. If I may, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, try to provide a little background and help clarify the situation. The applicant met with staff. They discussed the changes, the plan they were going to submit. It was deemed to be a minor development plan. Subsequently, it was accepted as such, filed as such. The fees were appropriate to a minor. However, they did submit a MILR for signature, and at that time we did discover that they had a drive-through on the plan. We had not initially discussed that with them. So we immediately said under the B6P provisions of the ordinance, the planning commission needs to approve the drive-through. We brought it to you as a staff item, a minor development plan with a drive-through. Mr. Parker with traffic engineering has verified that the stacking will work, which is the issue. And, of course, yes, we do have a process. I would say, however, that we did go to subcommittee. Unfortunately, they're from out of town, that sort of thing, and this happens. So they did not attend the committee. Chick-fil-A actually was the same circumstance. The drive-through on the Chick-fil-A at Lexington Mall didn't go to subcommittee. We brought it to you for your approval as a minor staff item. It was the same omission in that instance. Although, frankly, in that circumstance, staff missed it. In this case, the applicant did miss it. So I wanted to give you some background. We brought it to you again because you do have to approve the drive-through. But, again, staff doesn't see any material change in the plan that could happen due to bringing it back through subdivision committee than anything that you can see today before you. I mean, it's the building with the drive-through. That will not change. Thank you, Mr. Fardin. I can understand that. I think since there has been a concern raised about the drive-through, the fact that it didn't go through subdivision as well is also a concern. Mr. Fenn, do you have a question? Yes. The subdivision committee was a little bit in error by not going ahead and discussing this because we didn't have a representative of the applicant. So some of that's on us. But the question becomes here, is this a major or minor? Does the drive-through make it a major? It does. The drive-through does make it a major amendment. So it's not a minor? No longer. No longer. That is why we brought it to you today. I'm just concerned about the process here. I'm not saying it's good, bad, or indifferent. I just think when you go from a minor to a major, you ought to have some discussion at the subdivision level. That's probably on us because we didn't ask for it. We just postponed because the applicant wasn't there. Mr. Martin or staff, typically, with these development plans, we've got longer than, say, 30 days to deal with this. What is the reason for the shortness of this as far as the time? From the filing date. Because they filed it as a minor and then we had to bring it to you as a referral. That established the time period. If it's a major, obviously you're saying it's turned into a major development plan. What's the time frame on acting on that? Had it been filed as a major, it would have followed the same time period as other majors, depending on when they filed it. Okay. All right. Very good. Okay, Mr. Pettit. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding stacking if we wanted to do that here. I'm available to do that. Okay. We're at this point, the concern is do we, in essence, postpone this and bring it back through the committee process once again to try and iron out any concerns? Typically, you know, that's where we try and reason for the committee. I'm sorry about your absence. I understand. That was on our behalf. If we need to go back through and do the subdivision committee process, we're open to do it. So would you be okay with, in essence, postponing this for 30 days to go through that process? Yes. Okay. All right. Mr. Penn. So we do have a motion. I'll ask our legal department, is it the motion? Well, we did have a continuance that died for lack of a second. We do have a second on the motion for postponement. Is postponement or continuance still the best approach? Well, if you postpone, then everything is subject to coming up repeatedly again, although I don't really know exactly what you've heard today, to be honest. Okay. So if you continue, you start at that point and go forward. Correct. Since you didn't hear anything, you can probably do either one, but it's up to you all. Okay. Let's stay with motion to postpone, and, you know, hopefully, you know, any discussion items, concerns can be ironed out between now and when you come back. I understand. And hopefully it won't take very long. And if I'm not mistaken, these items usually show up at the top of the agenda. Am I correct as far as postponed items? No, not necessarily? Okay. Sorry, I tried. So we do have a motion to postpone this with a second by Mr. Wilson. Once again, this is a ---- Mr. Wilson. Oh, yes, sir. This is not a postponement agenda. Correct. And we could ---- 12-12. 12-12? That works. Okay. And I'm sure we'll see you at subdivision committee. So we do have a motion to postpone until 12-12, 2019. This would be for plan MN-DP19-20 Fayette Commons. Questions on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Yes, sir. Motion passes. One quick question I was trying to figure out is we were postponing for the purposes of the process. Is that what I understand as opposed to, I mean, I don't know what more information you're going to get when you get to the subdivision than you got right here to begin with. So my question is, what are you going to do in the postponement other than just review what we've already done? Mr. Pim. Well, hopefully what we're going to do is we're going to sit down with Mr. Parker and we're going to see how the stacking is going to work because, according to what Ms. Plumlee said, it's an extremely congested area. And for us not to have at least had that discussion about the congestion in that area because there's a movie theater right there. So that was a discussion we didn't have. We could have had, but we didn't have because we chose to postpone and move on. And that's probably our fault. That's okay. I was just curious because you've got your people sitting here and your staff is saying that the stacking is okay. I don't know how you resolve that. I mean, the staff is saying the stacking is okay and it's appropriate. What you all are saying by personal experience is the stacking is potentially not okay. I guess my question is how you resolve that. It ultimately may not be. But ultimately we will have a discussion and look at it. We're just asking for the opportunity. Look at it in depth. So. Well, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. I'm sure we'll see you in three weeks. Performance bonds, letter of credit. This is on your Granicus for review if warranted. Otherwise, we need a motion on this. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for release and call of bonds as shown on the Granicus. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion made and seconded by Mr. Penn for the approval of the release and call of bonds that is shown on the Granicus. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Move to commission items. We have a plan CELL19-1 AT&T Jacobson Park Wireless Communications Facility. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, I know this is a surprise to you. I'm here to present to you a proposal for a cell tower location. And before I get started, I'm going to bring you a couple of e-mails that we received after coming over here to enter into the record. You may be interested to know that in my long and somewhat disreputable career, I actually worked in this industry for a short time. It was a very interesting experience. And with that, the item that you do see before you, the proposal is for a cell tower location. It is plan CELL19-01 AT&T. It says Jacobson Park, which is an unfortunate designation because it is not at Jacobson Park. The property where the cell tower is being proposed to be located is the Hanks Farm. It is this property in this location here. It's over a 40-acre tract of land. You can see, of course, the subdivision that is developed all in this area, the Guess Farm and Ramsey-Sullivan. Here's the middle school. At this location is the new elementary school. This is the zoning. This, of course, is EAR1, part of the expansion area. Here's our urban service boundary at this location. And you can see that all this property, including this, this is AR, Agricultural Rural. It is a compliant lot. It is over 40 acres at this location that the Hanks family created some years ago. The applicant is proposing to put a 100 by 100 cell tower site. It's a leased area on the farm. You can see the site plan they're proposing. Here's the access. It comes from the service road that is parallel to Athens Boonesboro. There's an access drive currently into the farm. It will be extended to serve the lease area, the compound in this location. Here you can see the property boundaries along the Hanks farm. These are buildings and outbuildings and things that are part of the farm operation. The property is located, you can see, towards the end, towards the backside of the property. Here's the frontage again on Athens Boonesboro. As I pointed out before, you have the urban service boundary. This farm is not eligible for PDR. It's adjacent to the urban service boundary. There's always the possibility that we could extend the boundary in this direction and this property would be available for development of some sort, depending, of course, on the expansionary plan in this area. There's plenty of room, frontage access, that sort of thing, that would allow the front of the property to develop should that expansion happen in this area and still allow the cell tower to remain and function as it's intended to. Again, as I pointed out, the location with it, here is an aerial view of the site. This is the approximate location, again, within the farm. The property, the lease space, as I stated, is 100 by 100. The setback requirement in an AR zone for a cell tower is one-to-one. This tower is 199 feet, so 200 feet. I like to do the easy math. The setback would be one-to-one. In this case, they've exceeded that in every direction. The northwest yard setback is 484 feet. The northeast yard setback is 476 feet. The east yard setback is 890 feet. And the west yard setback is 957 feet. And that's the frontage along Athens-Boonesboro Road. These setbacks greatly exceed the required setback in the AR. So the lease site is located in a very good location relative to its relationship with the surrounding properties and the surrounding uses. It is, as I've stated before, a 190-foot tall pole. That includes a four-foot light on the top. It is a steel monopole. These are the standard design that they use most often now. It provides a high level of structural support. It handles quite a few antennas. You can mount them. You've seen them as the platforms as they go. And from staff's perspective, and I'm kind of jumping ahead a little bit in the report, in terms of co-location issues, you've heard this from us quite a bit, and we stress co-location very strongly in our community. And, frankly, it hasn't always been dealt with as well as it could have been, in that we've dealt with a lot of much smaller lease sites. And it's so important to note that the size of this lease site will accommodate at least three more providers. And co-location is important because that way you have one tower, you have various providers that can locate in that area, and it prevents that proliferation of towers that you sometimes see in certain areas. It's very common along interstates. You know, the good news is you don't often see them in town and that sort of thing, but you certainly do see them around interchanges, and it's something we really try to avoid by providing for co-location. And a 100 by 100 will certainly satisfy that need and allow for additional providers. We have a lot of sites around our community that, unfortunately, are much smaller than that, and that completely inhibits and prevents co-location in many parts of our community. The applicant has submitted all their required information. They have a uniform application that they submit. They also submit supplemental information, and this supplemental information documents their compliance with a comprehensive plan by a professional that they hired, a professional planner. It involves the engineering reports for the communication engineers. It also contains the geotechnical report that is required on the installation of every one of these towers. They are anchored tremendously deep in the ground. They pour a large amount of concrete. This pole, I believe, is going to taper from 68 inches or roughly 64 inches at the base up to about 21 inches towards the top, and I'm sure that their professionals will be glad to jump in at their opportunity and give you any specifics along that line that you deem necessary. It will be fenced, an eight-foot fence. It will be landscaped, and this is all in accordance with our requirements. In addition, it's a little hard to see, but the dark green areas all in here and in here and even down through here, those are all trees, and the area is very well protected by tree cover and a lot of trees, so the site is well landscaped in that regard relative to the adjoining land uses. And I would mention, too, as part of their supplemental information, they have documented the fact that they're required to put a sign on the property. We have a photograph of that. We have an affidavit of that. And we also have copies of all the certified letters that they sent out to all the neighbors. Now, they're required to meet a 500-foot radius. That's the legal requirement. They've met it. And like zoning, when they touch on an ag piece, they have to go beyond that, as you all are aware. They have met all those requirements, and they've documented that information to staff. Again, it's a lot of information, so we don't want to have to make a lot of copies and just pile up a lot of material in front of you. So we are reporting to you today that they have certainly filed all the required and necessary information to go along with their application. In speaking to the Comprehensive Plan, and that's the key to one of these cell tower applications, staff in reviewing this would point out that it does meet the Theme D and Goal 2 of your newly adopted 2018 Comprehensive Plan. That goal does read as follows, Support a model of development that focuses on people first to provide accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs for Lexington-Fayette County residents and visitors. And obviously, cell phone infrastructure has become an integral and vital part of our communities and our society as a whole. This is supported by other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, including maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land. This is located in the AR, but it is very close to the urban service boundary. And although not as relevant to this, it does provide for the balance of life that is necessary in the development of our community. They did a search ring. When they discover that they have a problem with service, which they did in this area, they do a search ring. And then within that ring, they search for appropriate locations. And a lot of criteria go into that. Topography, elevations are all very important. In order to meet our requirements, things that we are allowed to restrict or to evaluate in the placement of a tower include floodplains, historical, culturally significant sites. Those types of issues are design criteria. We do review under Article 25 of your ordinance. In addition, it needs to be pointed out, they create this circle and they start searching. They also have to find a willing property owner. We all hear frequently when we see development, well, why can't they put it somewhere else? Why can't they build those apartments on that vacant land across the road? Well, someone has to be willing to do business with them. So they do go out and they do search the area and they do meet with property owners and they do their best they can to find a site that will work for everyone involved, the coverage required as well as the property owner that they have to sign the lease with. So again, locating, meeting, doing the best they can is something that is required in your comprehensive plan in terms of being unobtrusive and meeting the needs. This is further supported by the Theme C, Goal 2B of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan where it states that we are seeking to improve opportunities for small business development and workers who rely on personal technology. As you all know, cell phones are many computers that contain a tremendous amount of data. And that's one of the reasons we're getting more towers. We're getting towers that have higher technology antennas on them to deal with the amount of information that is being carried on our phones. In addition, the 2017 update of the Rural Management Plan has a recommendation that states that there is a need for the agricultural industry to have access to the internet and telecommunication providers. And it states that we should continue to explore options and provide high capacity broadband infrastructure to businesses and homes in the rural service area. So this location is in fact, as I pointed out, the urban service boundary. We have an urban area it's serving. We have AR rural areas that it is serving. And they have found, and they state in their application, that they have detected or experienced, is the better word, a high demand for wireless high speed internet in this area. There has been some concern. We have had a lot of phone calls. And the neighbors have expressed a lot of concern. You've seen the emails that we've attached to your information. And I will say they've all been urgent to a certain degree with their concerns, but very polite and very reasonable to talk to about their concerns with staff. One of the concerns has been its location, again, here. And what we wanted staff, wanted to demonstrate to you, here it is, approximate location relative to the middle school, relative to the new elementary school, and the closest house in this neighborhood at this location. This is approximately 700 feet here. This is well over 1,000 feet. In fact, I neglected to write it down on my report, but it's, I believe, 1,800 feet to the elementary school. And then this is in excess of right around 600 feet to the mayor's house. And as I pointed out to you before, the AR requires one-to-one. They only need a 200-foot setback from the property line. They could have positioned it in other locations on the property and been much closer. But they positioned it in the back and in the middle. They greatly exceed the setbacks. And you, again, can see the distance from the schools and from the residential neighborhood on that slide. I have touched on the co-location issues and the comp plan issues. This is a map of the cell towers in Fayette County. Right, oops, wrong button. There we go. You see this little area right in here? That's the area we're talking about where they have the coverage drop. And you can clearly see the gap. This is all the coverage we have in our community. Most of the community, particularly in our urban area, very well covered. But there is, as they have stated in their application, a need in this area. And you can clearly see the gap in that area. So with that, in your report, staff is recommending approval of the property. We did consider the factors I mentioned in Article 25, which includes there's no FEMA floodplain on the property. There are no specific areas where there's any geologic hazards. The topography is gently to rolling topography. There are no historic or cultural landmarks in the area within 1,200 feet of the lease area. The adjoining streets are not designated scenic byways. Athens-Boonesboro becomes a scenic byway, but it's once you get to Athens and out towards the river. There's adequate space. There's adequate fencing. There's plenty of landscaping. As I've stated, they exceed the setback requirements. They will also have a privacy fence. A hedge is required under Article 25. They plant red maples that as they grow and mature, they provide additional landscaping around the compound area. So with that, as I stated, staff has recommended approval, our conditions of approval, that it has to meet the site layout that you have seen before you today. It will have to meet all the requirements of Article 25, most of which I just mentioned to you. And then all applicable permits will have to be pulled and met by the applicant in the construction of the tower. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Questions for Mr. Warden? No? Let me ask one, Tom, if I may. You mentioned there's some concern as far as notification and so forth. You did mention notifications went out as they were supposed to, timely and so forth. And I would presume that both schools, since they're within that area, were notified as well? The school board would be notified, yes, sir. Okay. They are part of the area. All right. Thank you. And by the way, I received a phone call, neglected to mention this, from one of the employees of the Facilities Management Division of the Fayette County Public Schools. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, applicant? Good afternoon. It's been a while. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to appear before you again for the recorded record. My name is David Pike. I'm a managing owner of Pike Legal Group, PLLC, PO Box 369, Shepherdsville, Kentucky. The rest of my contact information is of record in the somewhat voluminous documentation that we've been submitting to your planning department. With your permission, before I get started, I have some reference binders that I'd like to distribute. It's the royal we distributing them, as opposed to me, actually. Does everyone have a reference binder who needs one? Well, before I begin, I would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Martin for his outstanding staff report. I regret that I cannot call him as an expert witness in other communities, because that's about as good a set of substantial evidence supporting an application for a wireless communications facility as I've heard. Also, before I begin, I want to commend this planning commission. When I saw the docket online, I assumed I would be here at 7 p.m. tonight, as opposed to being called this early. As an intro, I think it's worthwhile to introduce some of the people I have with me here today. Based on the degree of public concern that's been expressed, not necessarily in person today, but in record, it's incumbent upon me to do a complete presentation. I will, of course, try to be expeditious, but that's appropriate under these circumstances. I have with me here a number of subject matter experts. I will be summarizing the written reports that they have submitted, but they are available for examination and cross-examination, as would be appropriate under normal Kentucky due process standards. If you could raise your hand when I call your name, I would appreciate it. First of all, we have Cy Hanks, who's our property owner. We have Stephen Lentz, who's an attorney with my firm. We have Mike Lewis, who's a senior AT&T radio frequency design engineer for this area. Marshall Slagle, who's one of the only fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planning in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We have Glenn Katz, our expert on real estate valuation, who's also the president of the Kentucky chapter of the Appraisal Institute. And we have William Grigsby, who's a licensed professional engineer with expertise in cell tower structures. And, of course, again, my thanks to your planning department. We've been burning up the airways with emails and telephone calls. I'm gratified that they find that our proposal is in complete compliance with all of your local regulatory standards. That's not by accident. It's based on hard work on our part and making certain that we had addressed any concerns that they've raised. Also, of course, our General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, makes these applications confidential. It's our view that that's inappropriate, so we have voluntarily waived confidentiality as to all aspects of our application and all subsequent findings as well. A copy of this PowerPoint presentation is included as an exhibit in the reference binder that I've distributed. I'll introduce all of that cumulatively as an exhibit before I conclude my presentation. A site plan is included at tab A of the materials that we've distributed to you. As staff noted, we have gone way, way, way beyond the requirements for setbacks associated with this site. And I would be remiss at this juncture if I did not offer a thank you to our property owner who was gracious enough to allow us that centralized location on his real estate to help achieve those levels of setbacks. They're all listed here on this slide. And as you can see, in some dimensions, we've gone more than four times the setback criteria that are set forth. Of course, our view is, under federal law, simply meeting your setbacks if we met it with one foot to spare is sufficient, but we try to do a lot better than that. It's also, of course, worth noting that the two nearest residential structures that are not on the site parcel are over 600 feet from this proposed location. The radiofrequency need associated with this site is clear if you're an AT&T customer and have tried to make a call in this area. However, we went the extra mile here to make certain that we had documented it scientifically. And at tab B, you'll see that we've provided some radiofrequency plots. Here, of course, what we're trying to achieve is green coverage as opposed to blue. This is a current representation of what the existing coverage is. If we are fortunate enough to receive your approval today, this is what we'll achieve, high-quality in-building coverage that is reliable first time, every time, for communications. Of course, we've also prefiled a report, which Mike Lewis, who's here today, has adopted as his own testimony. Naturally, any time we can co-locate on an existing structure, we do so. A lot of people think we like to build towers. That's not the case. It is always cheaper and faster to co-locate, and although it is always a pleasure to appear before this august body, we wouldn't have to do any of this if we were co-locating. We could pull a building permit and proceed. But in this instance, within our search area, there are no existing FCC-licensed towers, leaving us with no alternative but to seek the construction of a new facility. Of course, this is our search area. We can't just put these towers anywhere. They have to be located so as to integrate with our existing network and still be able to meet the coverage objectives. Of course, again, within this area, there are no other existing FCC-licensed towers. We provided you with a site selection report, helping to explain why we ended up on the parcel we ended up on, but I think perhaps the best evidence of that is your own expert planner's testimony earlier in his staff report, in which he explained that this meets all, and again, I underscore all, of your local regulatory requirements. And again, of course, we were able to achieve outstanding setbacks that far exceed the minimum requirements set forth in your own regulations. And since, of course, it's your own regulations, you would acknowledge that that represents an appropriate level of integration for any facility of this type under the terms of your comp plan and regs. We provided the statutorily required county tower map at tab E. I thought the version that was included as a slide in the staff report did a great job of explaining why a facility in particular is needed here, and that this is a chronically underserved area, and, of course, this is infrastructure that will help to redress that. As noted by staff, this site is pre-engineered, both the tower for structural capacity and the ground compound, to accommodate a minimum of three additional wireless communications companies, and, of course, we have pre-existing master lease agreements with all of the other FCC license holders in this market, establishing the terms for sharing those facilities. We've included a planning report at tab F that was prepared by Marshall Slagle, who's here today, who, again, is one of the only fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planning in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. He had over 35 years of service with what was then known as the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission, and he is the only six-time former president of the Kentucky chapter of the American Planning Association. Like your own expert planner, he finds that this meets all the requirements of your local regulations and meets the express terms of your comprehensive plan. Property valuation is, in our view, not an acceptable grounds for the disapproval of a cell tower under state and federal law that's applicable, but it's an issue that's often raised as a matter of concern by the public, so we decided to address it up front. In this instance, we have a report that's been filed at tab G of the materials that we provided to you, prepared by Glenn Katz. He has over 25 years of appraisal experience. He's a certified general real property appraiser in Kentucky. He used to include all of his certifications. It was simply too many letters to put on the slide, so what I now say is he holds every professional designation offered by the Appraisal Institute. He is the current president of the Kentucky chapter of the Appraisal Institute, and he was their education chairman for over ten years prior to that. And he is also currently the education chairman for all of Region 5 of the Appraisal Institute. He finds that this facility will have no adverse effect on real estate valuation. Structural considerations are dealt with in a report that was pre-filed at tab H of the materials that I have distributed to you. It is prepared by William Grigsby, who's here today. He's, of course, a licensed professional engineer. He indicates that this meets Rev. G and is also over-engineered beyond those basic requirements to be a so-called zero-foot fall zone tower, meaning that it is engineered that in the event there was a catastrophic wind event sufficient to cause failure, that the tower is designed about two-thirds of the way up to bend at the top like so, thereby relieving the stress so that the tower would never hit the ground. With a debt of dramatic engineering flourish that's not customary for engineers, he also indicates in his report that in the event that there was ever such a circumstance, everything else on the ground would have already been destroyed because nothing else is built to this same level of structural integrity under Kentucky State Building Code standards. Tower and foundation designs are dealt with at tab I. And, of course, that's based on our geotechnical reports. I will note that no blasting is required in the construction of this facility. Our geotechnical report signed and sealed by a licensed geotechnical engineer in the Commonwealth of Kentucky based on actual borings at this location to make sure that our tower and foundation design is accurate is included. Of course, we've also included floodplain information and a licensed professional engineer finds that this is not located within a floodplain. Now, I would not be so bold as an advocate to indicate that this is a short facility. It isn't. It is a cell tower. But compared to other cell towers that this commission has routinely reviewed and approved, it is. There are 11 FCC-registered towers constructed within five miles of this proposed site. Eight of those are taller. Two towers are approximately the same height. Only one of those towers within that radius is shorter than this one. The average height of the registered towers within five miles is 423 feet. That's more than twice the height of this proposed site. So relative to the consideration that this commission has given to prior proposals, this is on the short end of the stick. Albeit, it's still a cell tower, and we readily acknowledge that. It is also worth noting that based on the fact that we were able to meet our coverage objective at under 200 feet, that this tower does not and will not be lit for aviation purposes under the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Kentucky Airport Zoning Commission. Now, as I'll discuss in our view of federal law shortly, it is our view that aesthetics cannot be utilized by this or any other planning commission in the Sixth Circuit as a basis for a cell tower disapproval. Having said that, since we know this is an issue of some concern locally, we provided photographic simulations that are included at tab K. You'll note it's very difficult to see the cell tower. That's because of the tree screening that was alluded to by planning staff. And these are, of course, different views, all of which are included in our filed materials and also copies of which are included in your hearing reference binder. We've, of course, met all of the notice requirements and then some. Of course, you have a super notice requirement. We met that. We have filed proof of our completion of all of those. We've also provided photographic proof of our meeting of the requirements associated with the posting of signage in a timely fashion and also the posting of newspaper notice. Now, you have expert legal assistance, and it's expert assistance that I've known for some time. And you should always rely on her legal advice. Having said that, it is incumbent upon me as an advocate here and also as a representative of AT&T and in a larger sense for all of AT&T's current and future customers to give you what our view of federal law and state law is associated with this application. The reason that's important is that the law applicable to this application is completely different from the law that governs any other type of case that this commission will consider. Totally separate statutory scheme, totally separate set of cases. If I could inquire of our planner, I saw that we are docket number one. Is this the first cell tower case of this year? Well, we're overdue in that case. And so in this instance, I think it's all the more important that we take a look at that law. Again, I'll be expeditious. Of course, all of these proceedings are governed by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. And, of course, cases construing this are considered in federal court, not in state court. A locality's own zoning requirements within the Sixth Circuit constitute evidence of compliance and substantial evidence that mandates approval. It is uncontroverted that we have met and exceeded the requirements of both your comp plan and your local regulations. It has been expressly found by U.S. District Courts and by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals governing this locality that the following items are not substantial evidence and cannot serve as a basis for a cell tower disapproval. Lay opinion cannot. Unsupported opinion cannot. Lay opinion cannot serve as a basis, especially when juxtaposed against any expert opinion. And make no mistake, we have provided a plethora of expert opinion, all of which is in written report format, pre-filed for the public to review, for staff to review, and for the members of this commission to review. Unsupported opinion cannot serve as a basis. The classic example being, here's some stuff I found on the Internet and printed out. That is not a basis for a cell tower disapproval under federal law. Expressions of concerns with aesthetics, claims that a tower is unsightly, general concerns that a tower is ugly or unwanted, none of these things under federal law can be considered by the commission and none of them can serve as substantial evidence supporting a cell tower disapproval. Otherwise, of course, as the federal courts in this circuit rightly point out, anyone who posed a tower in their backyard could make that claim and there would be no wireless communications in this country. It is, of course, also just black letter law in both the state and at the federal level that you cannot take actions which would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service and you cannot take actions which would discriminate among functionally equivalent providers. Now, of course, one issue that the public often wants to address is our alleged health and environmental concerns. Again, you should, of course, rely on the opinion of your expert legal counsel. It is expressed in both the Kentucky revised statutes and in federal law that this planning commission is prohibited from considering any such allegations or any such concepts because all of those are expressly and totally preempted by the Federal Communications Commission. Of course, we've met all of your local regulations. I won't go through them chapter and verse because your staff has done such a great job of reviewing those already in their report. It is, of course, also worth noting that we are different from other types of applications because we are not just an applicant. We are a public utility registered with the Kentucky Public Service Commission and, of course, as a result, we are here not only making an application on our own behalf legally but on behalf of the customers in this community who under our FCC license and under our charter with the Kentucky Public Service Commission have a right to expect improved wireless communication services. Now, I'm in the home stretch. If you take a look at tab L of the materials that I provided to you, and that's a report from the Federal Communications Commission, indicating that 70% of all emergency calls are now placed from wireless phones. Hold that statistics in mind for just a moment. And then take a look at tab M, which is the annual national health interview study. Now, this is an annualized report that is prepared by a consortium of federal health agencies. They do the definitive analysis of how Americans go about communicating. Now, why would they be so concerned about this issue? Well, the reason is, as public health agencies, they have to rely on polling in order to get an accurate measure of how people are living their lives and how to better tailor public health initiatives. So they have to make sure that bias doesn't creep into those samples. Over the years, I have watched these stats rise every single year. The most current version of this report is dated December 2018. It documents that we've crossed some crucial thresholds. We are now at a point where over 57% of all American homes do not have a landline phone and rely exclusively on wireless phones. We are also at a point where over 67% of all children are growing up in homes just like that. Now, when you hold in mind that 70% of all emergency communications are made from wireless phones and you take a look at this statistic, it becomes all too evident why it is crucial that those radio propagation maps that I showed earlier have to be the right color. We have to provide high-quality wireless communication services. And that's one of the reasons that the federal courts place such restrictions on local planning commissions. It's because this is a life-and-death mission. This is not a question of convenience. This is a question of this community being able to respond to emergency situations. Now, one last issue that I'd like to address that's something new for you since you have not had any cases filed this year. And that is that this facility will be deployed with our new FirstNet services. Many of you, after 9-11, got a copy of the Presidential Commission report that came out in a big paperback book called the 9-11 Commission Report. It is going all the way back to, you know, after the terrorist attacks. That Presidential Commission was charged with the responsibility to study why the attacks occurred, how similar attacks could be prevented in the future, and how we could better respond to similar types of emergencies going forward. Many of its recommendations were adopted right away. One of them took a long time. And that was that there was a need to provide dedicated spectrum and dedicated access to wireless communication systems for first responders and key government officials. Because one of the issues that we ran into after 9-11 was that even in areas where all of those systems still worked, no one could get a call through because everyone was seeking to use the system simultaneously to check on the safety of their loved ones and to check on other issues that they thought were important based on the challenges that both communities, families, individuals, and our nation faced. Well, it's taken this long, but last year the FCC announced a unified standard for that and they selected AT&T as the provider for that service and Kentucky has opted into it. So this facility will be built with that capacity. We will also be retrofitting other facilities here in this county to help provide that emergency level of immediate access to the necessary bandwidth so that key emergency personnel will be able to deal with the challenges that they would face in any local, state, or national emergency. A copy of this presentation is included at tab O of the materials that I have distributed to you. At this juncture, what I would like to do is to introduce our application, all subsequent written communications, including emails, and all of our subsequent filings, including, cumulatively, a copy of the exhibit binder, which I have distributed and have provided to your staff as exhibits in this proceeding, as if read in their entirety. These are important issues. I'm not naive. I recognize a lot of people don't want a cell tower next to them. That doesn't alter the fact that we have to have them. This facility is carefully crafted to meet your requirements. That is uncontroverted. And we've gone beyond what is required. And I hope this commission, in considering our application, recognizes that we've gone the extra third, fourth, and fifth mile here to try to properly cite this instead of going with the easy hit, which would have been to put it next to our property line, all of which we could have done legally, but we chose not to. At the end of the day, we have all of the other approvals from all other government agencies that it takes to construct this facility. This is the last one we need. And I hope, on my behalf, on behalf of AT&T, and on behalf of our customers, that we'll be fortunate enough to receive that approval today. If there are any questions, either I or the much more knowledgeable and, in some cases, much better educated experts that I have with me, are prepared to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Pike. We've got a couple that's already chimed in. Mr. Wilson first. Mr. Pike, I don't offer this comment in objection to your proposal, but every time I listen to you make a presentation, I learn a lot. So I'm in a learning mode here with this question. When do you see or if do you see the day where we will not need cell towers? Why don't we just do this by satellite? Oh, that's a great question. You know, there's some very specific reasons why that won't work. Well, to answer the first portion of your question, I foresee no time during my lifetime that that is even remotely possible, that we could do without these ground-based facilities. Right now, we're in the middle of the largest wireless communications deployment that my firm has ever worked on, and we're filing applications in seven different states and are working on hundreds of apps all over those states, many of them here in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There are some trends associated with them. The trends tend to be that these are now shorter facilities. We're building way fewer of the tall facilities because increasingly this is about trying to meet capacity requirements, not just coverage requirements. When it comes to satellite-based systems, there's some good reasons rooted in physics why that could never meet daily demand requirements, and it's based on capacity. What we encounter on an ongoing basis today is the critical need. In some cases, we may have had a facility serving an area for a decade that's worked great, but now it no longer works great because there is so much demand on it that you can no longer meet that demand. The old analogy in dealing with the Internet of a pipe and there just being so much you can put through the pipe applies here. So if you think about it, you could never possibly have enough satellites that would be focused on a small enough area on the globe to be able to meet that demand. All of the satellite systems that are currently being proposed are designed to provide a high level of latency and Internet connection when none others are available. And all of them, of course, are near-Earth orbiting satellites, which means they are racing overhead at hundreds of miles an hour. In order for it to ever be able to replace a terrestrial network, it would have to be able to focus on an area no bigger than a couple of miles across on a continuous basis, none of which can be done. Even Elon Musk's proposals, which are the most ambitious out there, and I am a big fan of Elon Musk, maybe not the cars, but SpaceX big time, even he acknowledges that that would never be the case. It's a matter of physics and it's a matter of the incredible level of demand. Just one last thought. For any of you who are my friends on Facebook or just my friends, you also know that I have a place up in Alaska. If I could have figured out a way to earn a living up there, I would have been gone a long time ago. And I have a satellite phone that I have to use up there from time to time. World's worst service. You can't send a text on it. You can't upload any data on it. It works if that's the only thing you've got. And that's what you get from satellite-based systems. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Mr. Fleck, I'm going to ask you the question I normally ask you. I hear you say that the demand for this will outlive the life of the tower. Is that right? The demand for what now? The demand for this service will outlive the tower. Oh, no. I said the demand for this, the need for new cell towers will outlive me. And I'm still pretty healthy. Well, my point is this. How long is the lease agreement? In other words, do you come back in and renegotiate the lease agreement? Well, the terms of our lease are proprietary, but I'll give you the basics. All of these things are structured at a minimum of 30 years, and they're typically on five-year renewals. I have been practicing in this field since, well, I'm not going to say how long. I have never seen one of these brought down anywhere, period, because the need is so critical. And once you establish service in an area, customers will not tolerate you discontinuing that service, and rightfully so. I understand that. And the other question I have for you is maybe I should ask the staff this. You all tried to find a location somewhere on a government-owned site, because we have tried our best to put these on government-owned sites. And schools are not an available option under state law. That's the only government property that would have been available. What about Jacobson Park? That's not within our search area. Okay. It's called Jacobson. We don't name these things. We all get a pejorative name very early in the process based on some feature that's close by. And then once that's established, it takes an act of Congress or the almighty to change the name. I'm just asking questions, because in the past that's kind of what we've tried to do. Perfectly valid. And I guess I could follow up with one more question, and that is this. All the litany that you read us about what we can't do, why are we doing this? That would be a question for your legal counsel. But ultimately, you are here to, in my view, is that you are here to do what your staff led with, and that is to assess this for compliance with the local regulations and comp plan. And it is not that different from the mission that you are on in other types of zoning cases. It's just there's a litany of things that you can't get into. Thank you. Mr. Pike, we may get back to you in a minute. I think we do have a couple other questions. But I want to move on to anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak at this time. If there is any. Anyone want to speak on this plan? No? Okay. I thought there may have been. So we'll go back. Mr. Pike, you may have to get back up. Ms. Plumlee, you've got a question. Thank you. We had several letters from the public with concerns about the school situation, the children, the health concerns. So I wondered if one of your experts could briefly put some of their minds to ease as to what effect that would have. The answer is no. We can't discuss that. That's a violation of Federal law. And it's a violation of State law. And I can't participate in that violation. However, I can say the following. And that is we meet all FCC requirements. And we have certified in our application materials that we will do that. The failure to do that could result in the revocation of our FCC license, which this company purchased for billions with a B dollars without compensation from the Federal Government. And there's no recorded examples of us exceeding those requirements. That's our mission. That's the requirement under our FCC license. And that's our obligation. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Pike, I'm a little familiar. I keep doing that. I'm sorry. I'm a little familiar with cell towers. We have one on a family farm in West Virginia. And it's on the top of one of the tall mountains there. And it does very well. And we get a little payment from it every month. Our original lease was for 99 years. It's been there about 30 years. It has never been renegotiated. But they have been gracious and raised our rent a little bit over the years. But my question is, because we've had a problem with this, who will maintain that road to that tower? The applicants are obligated to do so. So the cell tower folks will do that? That is correct. We haven't been so lucky. So good for them. Well, the leases have changed over the years. I have noted that. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, Mr. Wilson. Another learning question, and this may not be for Mr. Pike, it might be for the staff. You put up a slide that showed the number of cell towers we have in the urban service boundary. Do we have a number on that? It was a coverage map and not an exact number. Okay. But do we know how many cells? We do. And the applicant actually submitted a map with numbers, but it's at a scale where it's very difficult to read. Well, the other question I had, because the applicant told us, too, that one of the things we couldn't say about a tower is about the fact that it's ugly and you can't do anything. But we do have stealth towers in this community. Yes, sir. We have cell towers. And we have a lot of antennas that are located on buildings and existing structures as well, and they're there because they address the capacity issue that Mr. Pike has talked about. Okay. So I'm assuming, then, when those people went to the stealth area, that was done by the applicant's desire to accommodate more so than the demand from the council or the commission to request it. If you'd like, I can interject here. I've done stealth facilities. The difficulty is the tower has to be short enough for that to be viable. In a 200-foot tower, that's not the case. We have had some examples in which we've had very short facilities, 60 feet, something like that, where we've reconfigured them to look like faux trees and functions like that in the past. But stealth deployments only work when it's to scale. And in this instance, this is the minimum height that we can utilize and still fill the coverage gap. And I would agree that, first of all, the stealth sometimes does not make any sense, to have a pine tree with nothing on it, except, you know, it doesn't make any sense. But in the case of a bell tower like we have on Tate's Creek with the church, it makes perfect sense as such. But, okay, that's fine. Just curious. Mr. Demovlin? Yes. You mentioned that this is a shorter tower than normal. Is there a minimum height for an antenna on it? Now, this is as short as we can go and still meet our coverage requirements. There are three other slots beneath this that are available for co-location, and the tower is pre-engineered to that. Is that not the question? Were you asking a different question, and I missed it? I'm curious how low an antenna can be from the ground. Oh, that's a function of power and how it is and how the antennas are aligned. Mike, would you care to respond to that? Step on up here, if you would. I'm now going to call someone with better math grades to the podium. This is Mike Lewis. For clarity, is there like an FCC requirement that it can't be within so many feet of the ground? That's what I'm asking. Give us your name, sir. Michael Lewis, AT&T engineer. You can go as high, as low as you can go with, I guess, RF exposures and things of that nature. Like if we have some buildings, for instance, you have a rooftop or something of that nature, those can be, say the roof is only 70 feet, you could be there. But if you have a self-monopole like this particular one, anywhere from the tip of the tower all the way down to what's your coverage, you need to cover your objective to do it. But you, as far as going, like, are you asking like if you're going like 20 feet or something of that nature? Then that won't be, no. I'm asking is there any restriction on how low you put an antenna on this tower? Now I get the question. Thanks, Mike. Now I get the question. And the answer is it's a function of power and frequency. So the closer you would get to the ground, antennas would still be allowed, but at a lower power. So as an example, I don't know if Lexington has been approached yet regarding small antenna deployments in right-of-ways. Is that the case? So in those instances, you might have antennas placed on lamp posts that you couldn't quite touch, but might just be 20 feet in the air. But those are lower power. As long as you meet the sliding scales associated with the FCC, there's no per se limitation on height above the ground. Other questions? Thank you, Mr. Pike. In that case, I will sit down with Stile. Thank you, sir. I would have one question for the staff. Mr. Pike gave us a litany, a large list of do's and don'ts or yeses and nos and so forth, as far as our legal department. He very adequately let us know that we should defer to you if there's a legal question. Everything he said was you'd be in agreement with? I would. I mean, the state statute's pretty clear on what you can't consider, and the Sixth Circuit also has a number of cases that are pretty clear as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I don't mean to belabor the point, but I don't believe the general public understands what the ramifications of a cell tower is. So when people write to us in opposition, is there any way to explain to them what they would need in order for us to even consider their concerns? Because they're thinking that we have some type of power here that we really don't have. This is ministerial. That's according to Mr. Pike. So is there a way that we can communicate with the people and say, look, we heard you, but this is not something that the commission can deal with? Well, I think the thing I can most equate it to in other areas that you deal with is like when you all do a public facilities review. You know, you all are primarily tasked with looking at the land use, and so you're just being asked more or less to review something, but not necessarily to make the end decision on it because it's controlled by the Federal Communications Act. So, you know, that same thing is true, you know, if the Fayette County Public Schools comes to you and asks you to look at a school site and they're asking for you to maybe give them your opinion on how that site is going to fit in with the comprehensive plan and if there are some things that you might recommend to them, but knowing that, you know, they're exempt from zoning under our state statutes, and so you can't require it of them. I mean, it's a hard concept, I think, to explain to the public, but it's I guess the easiest way to say it would be that it's not strictly governed by, well, it's not strictly governed by CARES 100 like your other zoning decisions are. It also has the aspect of the Federal Communications Act that basically trumps everything. You know, I understand that doesn't always explain it to the, you know, general citizenry, but that's the best way I know to say is that it has that added component of the Federal Act that we have to follow. And our state statute says we have to follow that. I hear you, Ms. Jones. I guess just down in the pit of my stomach, we're in the public relations business because the people will look at us as though we have done something, and it's not us at all. And all I'm simply saying is to the people who write in, is there a way? I know we don't normally respond to letters and things of that nature, but I was curious, is there any way from a public relations perspective, just to let the people know when a cell tower or a public school comes to the forefront that the commission only can do certain things and that's approved. Now, I would say that there's a major difference between a cell tower and a school because I haven't heard of anybody saying a school hurt anybody, not in the same way that a cell tower would be claiming. They're not claiming that a school facility produces cancer and leukemia, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't know. I would just throw that out there as a way. Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson, I think you raise a very good point. And as Mr. Pike noted, here we are 11 months into the year, and this is the only cell tower case that we've had this year, the first one we've had in a long time. We have zoning cases every month, and yet we still have a public that doesn't understand that process, too. So we do have a challenge, an ongoing challenge, to make sure that the processes that you all are overseeing are communicated to the public. And we start with the ones that they deal with the most, and that's the zoning and the development plans and those kinds of things, and we still don't have all that information out there. So I think it's a challenge to us to certainly make sure that we're communicating the information as best we can. But that's going to remain a challenge, and we will continue to try to look for ways to do that and impart this information to the public so that they can understand. But it continues to be a challenge. Mr. Pim. Mr. Duncan, you just raised an interesting question. I never thought of the fact that we are the conduit for the public to come down and complain or talk or write letters or whatever, that by us having this hearing provides the public with the opportunity to know where it is and to be able to come down and speak to it, whether they choose to do it or they choose not to do it. I see the folks, and it just came to me after all these years of fighting these cell tires for a lot of reasons, is that this is the only opportunity the public has to express their support, opposition, whatever it is. This is like a public hearing. And whether we might not be able to do much with this or not, we can provide the public with the opportunity to have a public hearing. I'm a little slow. I finally got it. Well, let me add, and I have voiced my concerns about cell towers, and Mr. Pike knows that very well. I'm not going to go as far as saying this is just ministerial. It may be very close. But, you know, we still do have the authority to decline something, but we better have very good reasons to do so if we're going down that road, you know, because as we well know, we've gotten overturned in the past. I don't think we have on every one of them, but as few of them we have. But with that said, any other questions? If not, no one in the public wanted to speak. So I will close this part of the hearing, and if there's any discussion, we can have it. If not, I think we've had that. We can go with a motion. Yes, sir, you're reaching. I'll try this. I would simply say that the PLNCL cell 19-118T Jacobson Park Wireless Communication Facility is in compliance with the 2018 comprehensive plan, and therefore we pass our blessings. We do have conditions for approval. Oh, I'm sorry, with the conditions identified by staff. Okay. So motion has been made for approval and, as he said, is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Noting the reasons for approval, conditions for approval by the staff. Do we have a second? Do we get a second? We do have a second by Mr. DeMovlin. So if there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. That's the first group. Mr. Pike, I'd say in a while around here. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. It's always a pleasure. And I appreciate your willingness to listen to the full Monty so I could establish a record. We understand the reasons. Thank you, sir. We do have a staff item. The agenda says improvement plans. We have no improvement plans to report on. Therefore, we move to SRA 2019-2, amendment to Articles 1 and 6, substreets. Thank you. There he is. That's me. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I am here again to talk to you about this. If you can give us, for the record, name. Gotcha. My name is Stuart Kearns. I'm a senior planner in the transportation section with the Division of Planning. Very good. Thank you. You'll be pleased to know I have no binders to pass out. Just here to talk to you all about SRA 2019-2, Articles 1 and 6 for substreet signs. Let's see. Sorry. First timer. All right. Just to give you a little history on why we're proposing this amendment. Originally, the original request was initiated by the planning commission with the adoption of the 2018 comprehensive plan. The intent of the text amendment was to basically require a sign that informed the general public that substreets are planned for future connections. When you have a development that has a substreet, the developer would be required to basically put a sign there that would tell the general public that there's going to be a future connection. This is just a way of facilitating that communication with the general public so that if there's a question about it, they're able to contact the staff and find out what's going to be going on. After that point, subsequently, we were contacted by the Division of Traffic Engineering, and they requested a revision to the same text in Article 6 regarding issues such as the installation and maintenance of street name signs, traffic control signs, all the other signs that the developer is required to put in, how the maintenance and the responsibility for those signs would be passed from the developer to the city. The first thing we're looking at adding is in Article 1, and this would be new text. Basically, this would just be a definition of what a substreet sign is. Basically, that's just a sign of the terminus of each substreet, which shall be identified as a planned future connection, and the size and format for that sign would be specified by the Division of Traffic Engineering. Then the next update basically takes the current text for street name signs and then adds in language that's a little more specific. Without going through the entire street name signs, the new text would basically say, street name signs, Stowe Street signage, street name signs, Stowe Street signs, and all other required traffic control signage shall be provided, installed, and maintained by the developer as required by the Division of Traffic Engineering prior to plat recordings. Then this was added in, talking about the design. Signage shall be in compliance with all requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, MUTCD, and also LFUCG Traffic Engineering Guidelines. That would cover basically all of your traffic control signage under the MUTCD, and then other signs like the Stowe Street sign would be designed and controlled by Traffic Engineering. All signage shall be maintained in a proper fashion by the developer until the final asphalt surface has been applied and written notification of pavement installation is given to the Urban County Government Traffic Engineer. So that would touch off when responsibility was transferred from the developer to the city. Just to give you an idea of what the sign looks like, you did see this in the work session. The only thing that we have added since that meeting is we did add Lex Call 311 to the bottom of the sign. This way, if somebody sees it, they have a question, they can call Lex Call 311, and they would be sent to the proper people in planning to answer their questions. Generally, that's going to be a land use question, like when is this property going to develop? In most cases, it may be a wall. And with that, it's fairly cut and dry. If you have any questions about the proposed text amendment, I'd be glad to entertain those. Questions? Anyone? No? Most of us did see it at the work session. So I think we're good. Okay, excellent. Obviously, no one else in the audience wishes to speak on this. So if not, we can move on to a possible motion on this. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I move approval of SRA 2019-2, amendment to Articles 1 and 6, Dub Streets, for the reason that the staff recommends the approval of the staff alternative text. There are three. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the staff report on Petitions for Subdivision Regulations, the amendment to Articles 1 and 6, Dub Streets, which is SRA 2019-2, with staff alternative text. Do we have a second on that? I'll second it. Yeah. I'm sorry. Oh, there it is. I'm sorry. I was looking down below. Okay. So we do have a second, so please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. I think that's all the items on the agenda for us. Mr. Duncan, a couple of announcements for the future? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to remind you all that because of the Thanksgiving holiday, we are off schedule this month, so we will be meeting again one week from today, Thursday, November 21, in this room at 1.30 for the November zoning hearing. So all cases scheduled for zoning that you all reviewed at the committees early this month will be heard next Thursday, 1.30, in the Planning Commission, or in the Council Chambers. Thank you. Anything else? If not, with your approval, I'll call this meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.