# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - October 8, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · October 8, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6902 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6902?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-10-08 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: October 8, 2026 - **Length**: 14,109 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). --- ## Full transcript Thank you for joining us for this session. Good afternoon. Today is October 8th, 2026 and this is the meeting of the Lexington State Urban County Government's Planning Commission subdivision and zoning items. Our first item on the agenda today is the approval of minutes. We have minutes from July 9th, August 13th, and September 10th to be approved. They were circulated. Do we have any revisions or floors open for a motion? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the minutes of July 9th, August 13th, and September 10th as submitted. Thank you, Commissioner Wuerth. Second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Do we have any discussion? I'm going to vote, but I wasn't here on the 10th. Okay, so Mr. Penn's vote excludes the September 10th as he was not present. Okay. Do we have any discussion to that motion? If not, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Okay. Mr. Penn, are you in the affirmative otherwise? Oh, yes. Are you? Okay, great. Good enough. Okay. We're going a little out of order. We have a memorandum in our packet for Mr. Fairchild. This is the performance bonds and letters of credit. If everything looks acceptable, the floor is open for a motion on that. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for the release of the call of bonds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And again, this is the memorandum dated October 16th. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Do we have any discussion? Yes, it's October 6th. Right. Oh, 16th. Sorry. October 6th. All right. Do we have any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, go ahead and take a vote. All right. Okay. That carries. Thank you very much. Now we will move on to postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon. Zach Cato of Billings Law Firm. I have two items for postponement today. First is at the top of page two, BLNFRP 26-27, GDK Farm. We're requesting a two-week postponement on that to allow some time to work out some final issues with the urban forester on some details. And then it'll be ready to present in two weeks. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Is that October 22nd? Correct. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Cato? If not, the floor is open for a motion. I'll make it. Yes, sir. Regarding BLNFRP 26-27, a two-week postponement per the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Jonathan Davis. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Do we have any discussion to that motion? If not, this is postponing to September 22nd. Okay. That carries. Thank you, Zach. Oh, I'm sorry. You have two items. One more. This is on page four, the first item under waivers, 5A. It's PLNWAV 26-21, Griffin Gate Center, Clarion Hotel. There's additional revisions ongoing with that that aren't ready to be discussed right now. We're getting closer. The request is for a one-month postponement there to the November 12th date. Okay. Request on the PLNWAV 26-21 to November 12th. Do we have any questions for the applicant? If not, Mr. Penn? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement to November the 12th for PLNWAV 26-21. That's the waiver. Okay. Motion from Mr. Penn to postpone to November 21st. Seconded by Commissioner Marley-Davis. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote on that. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On behalf of Anderson Communities, page five, item one, the Anderson Communities LLC, Zone Map Amendment, PLNMAR 26-18, and the associated development plan and waiver. We've been working diligently with the staff on this, and the staff's been working very diligently with us, and we just couldn't get it all done in time for today. It's mainly down to street configuration, so we'll be working that out the next week, hopefully, so we're requesting a two-week postponement to October 22nd. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? If not, the floor is open for a motion to postpone for the reasons outlined by the applicant to October 22nd. Mr. Chair? Yes. I make a motion to postpone, as requested by the applicant, Anderson Communities LLC Map Amendment Request and German Property Andover Commons Development Plan PLNMAR 26-18 Anderson Communities LLC for two weeks. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Marley-Davis, do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Jonathan Davis. If there's no discussion, we can go ahead and take a vote on this request. All right. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, if I may, this is a little bit of an oddity, however. This is in regards to the waiver request on page 4, which is NPE 26-1. This information, all 50 some odd pages of it, was sent to commission members yesterday at 5 o'clock. I don't know how many of them had a chance to read it. I only got it this morning at 8 o'clock, partly because of an email problem on my end. However, we saw a little bit of this in our committee last week. And quite frankly, I think that just kind of opened the can, so to speak. And we really didn't have a lot of knowledge other than the fact that there was a mistake made. I can acknowledge that without any problem. However, there's a lot here. There's 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 items that requires attention. And I think it would be very prudent to postpone this and bring it back to committee to open it up for full discussion and have knowledge of this prior to continuing. So I would like to move to postpone this for a month so that we can bring it back into committee and have a discussion at that point in time. Thank you, Mr. Owens. So that would be November 12th? Yes. Okay. All right. Do we have any discussion? Are we allowed to do that? I don't see why not. I didn't know. I was just asking. Excuse me? I didn't know, are we allowed to do that? Well, they've had it for 20 years. Sure, we can get a month. We can. Okay. Do you want an opinion, Mr. Forster? Yeah, I was just asking for opinion. I mean, I'm okay with Mike. I'm okay. I mean, I think it might be at least prudent to ask the applicant for some input on that. But if you want to postpone, I don't see a reason legally why you can't. But the applicant's here. You could at least get their input. Well, from what I'm hearing, it's for reasons not involving the applicant. But we could certainly offer any questions, if there are any, for the applicant. Otherwise. I don't want to hear it from the applicant, but I don't think it's going to change anything. Yeah, right. That's kind of what I was thinking. I should probably also note, in case, that you would actually be just making a recommendation. Council would actually be the entity that would have to approve the waiver. So there's another step after this. But it's still the issue that that's an awful lot for us to try to sort from Friday after. I understand. I just also want to point out that there are only so many council meetings left in the year. And so there is, to some extent, a time frame. The applicant could speak to how that may or may not impact them. I think it's up to you. I just wanted to point that out. Okay. Mr. Owens has made a motion. Okay. So we have a second from Commissioner Molly Davis. I suppose it would be fair, if the applicant does wish to put anything on the record or answer any questions, we could take that opportunity. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. John Woodall on behalf of the applicant. I understand where Mr. Owens is coming from. We were ready to go forward. Could we do it again in two weeks? Possibly? I'm being cognizant of what Brittany just said about the meeting schedule for the council. My only request for a month would have been to give the staff an opportunity to bring it back to the committee for further discussion. I understand. It puts me in a bad spot standing here. I mean, it could be something that we could take up in a work session, depending on when our work session is. I guess that's next week. Yeah. If we could do that. Let's push the pen. I have a question. Yeah, John. It puts you in a bad spot. I'm not sure we can discuss a waiver request in a work session. Well, I think it would be more of a, could it be a tutorial for the planning commission on the 2007 study? I mean, has something been available for 20 years and we're just now hearing about it? Well, I'm not sure. Maybe the nine of you haven't heard about it, but it is something that has been adopted by the council in order to facilitate the development around what was previously termed Newtown Pike Extension, but was renamed Oliver Lewis Way. So this is an existing ordinance, yes, that has been in place for almost 20 years. The last time the commission took action on a request like this was 2021. So some of you might not have been here, but some of you might have. So just to clarify, what I'm hearing is not to hear the waiver request itself to discuss the waiver request, but to discuss the information that's been provided. Is that correct? Well, I understand we cannot make a decision in a work session. I would, you know, simply put, this is new information to me. The staff did briefly open it and mention it in our committee last week, but one, we didn't have 53 pages as put before us to have a chance to digest that or answer any questions at that point in time. I'm happy with two weeks if that works as well. But, I mean, this is something, we've got an ordinance in place and I can apologize for everyone else that somehow it did get missed. But, you know, by the same token, bringing it to us in this fashion at this time is just a little quick for us to be able to digest this and make some rational decisions on it as far as I'm concerned. So, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, what if the Planning Commission went ahead and took this up today and had the applicant make the presentation, the staff, ask any questions you want, and if at the end of that you are not satisfied that you have all the information you need, then we continue this for two more weeks, which would give you more time to study the Newtown Pike Ordinance if you'd like to do so, and then come back and finish this up in two weeks. That way you can at least find out today what it is you want to know and then the applicant and staff can bring that back to you in two weeks. Mr. Evans? Would, what would... It'd be kind of like a work session. Excuse me? It'd be kind of like a work session. Kind of like a work session. We've got one next week. We can do that. I think trying to flush this out, like I said, 53 pages right now is a little bit much. So, simply put, that's my take. And the applicant says he'd like a work session. Is that what you just said? No. What did you just say? Going the route that Mr. Duncan proposed would be kind of like a work session, is what I said. If we went ahead and presented today on this light docket and then if you're not satisfied, then we can postpone and come back in two weeks and go through the committee process. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir? Simply put, I can leave this up to my fellow commission members. I'm more than willing to go with a two-week postponement, but I'll stay with that at this time. Okay. Commissioner Davis? Thank you, Chair. As the seconder, I was in favor of a month. I will be out of the country next week and won't be able to attend any kind of a meeting. And I would like to know what the applicant has to present today, if possible, so that if we are going to be looking at something in two weeks, I will be informed and not coming again without any knowledge of what's being requested. Okay, so do you withdraw your second? Well, I don't. Sure, I'll withdraw my second, please. Okay. So, Mr. Owens, your preference? The motion is still for a month, right? Yes, the motion is still for a month, but now it doesn't have a second. Do you want to offer any amendment, Mr. Owens, or? My offer was, yes, it was for a month, but I was offering up two weeks as well. Would you like to make a motion? I'll change my motion to postpone this for two weeks. This would be until October 22nd, 2026. Okay. For plan WAV 26-21. No, plan NPE 26-1. Okay, so that's a motion to postpone this for two weeks. I'll second that. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Jonathan Davis. That has a second. Is there any discussion to that? Does that mean that the applicant will not present anything today? Correct, there would be a postponement. I don't think that's the right thing to do for the applicant in some respects, because they were on the agenda. They've come prepared. Well, let me respond to that. It's not the right thing for us, because to get it at 5 o'clock, we can't even be prepared. All we got to do is accept what he says, and that's just not fair. If you ought to send it to us Monday or even Tuesday, we had a chance to read it, but 5 o'clock this afternoon? We just got to quit doing this. I don't know whether it's important or not important, but I mean, we just cannot operate like that. If you're going to have it on the docket for Thursday, don't wait till 5 o'clock Wednesday to send it to us. Fair point. I mean, that's just not right. Okay, point. So we have a motion and a second, just because I think it's fair. Mr. Woodall, do you have anything to add? Fair point. I can't say anything other than that. It is what Mr. Penn said. Okay, all righty. Okay, well, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, we will go ahead and take a vote on Mr. Owen's motion to postpone this item for two weeks. Okay. Okay, that carries with two in the negative. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Okay, now, if we do not have any other postponements or withdrawals, I believe that takes us to page three. PLN MJDP 2652. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission. My name's Chris Chaney with planning staff. The plan before you, MJDP 2652 White Farm, which is located at 3515 Richmond Road. This is a preliminary subdivision plan and a final development plan. We've previously looked at the preliminary development plan associated with the zone change a few months ago. This one's coming through now to move forward. This plan depicts the development of 114 townhome and 480 unit multifamily residential buildings and then the public infrastructure that goes along with that. On the plan, this is Yorkshire, where it curves and intersects Palumbo currently. Richmond Road is far off to plan left. And then this is Dabney coming in from the existing neighborhood and currently it stubs at the property. And there currently isn't a stub here, but this plan is showing a connection out to basically an extension of Palumbo into the property with a stub onto the remainder of the White Farm and then also connecting into Dabney here. And then on the plan, the northern portion of this is townhomes and they're showing a private right-of-way coming in to a cul-de-sac and then access easements that come off of that cul-de-sac. And then the southern portion, or actually kind of southeastern, similarly we come in and have cul-de-sac and then the associated parking and drive aisles around the multifamily structures which are depicted on this portion of the property. And they're showing their detention basins on the eastern corner and the southern corner of the property. The property's rotated a little bit. You can kind of see this is the current outline of the property here. So the corners kind of go to the compass points. And then previously they had shown a private pump station and there was an associated waiver for the private pump station. The applicants have been working on that and they worked it out so that there's a gravity solution and they won't need the pump station. And the waiver has since been withdrawn. So that has been addressed. Also, there were some concerns on stormwater as they're showing an easement that comes out. The outflow of the detention crosses a single-family lot here. It's kind of hard to see. I've got a detail I can show on that. And then also on to the golf course. And then similarly there's an outflow in that area as well. So we had some concerns over the stormwater and I believe they've been working through all that as well. And then otherwise they've got quite a few clean-up conditions. Well, not quite a few, but they've got some clean-up conditions that are pretty straightforward. So we don't really have any concerns with any of those items. Again, this is the close-up of the townhome area. So this is where Palumbo and Yorkshire currently intersect. And then Palumbo extends into the property and intersects with what will be Dabney there. And then this would be Dabney across that goes into the existing neighborhood. This is a close-up of the multifamily area. So again, Dabney currently comes up in Stubbs. They're going to continue in and have an access there. And then this access that comes in and the drive aisles and parking radiate from that. And then Dabney will continue on over. And then this is just kind of a close-up of that southeastern boundary. Here's the detention basin and then the outflow. This shows a little bit better that single-family lot. And then the outflow here as well. So we had some questions about how that was going to work moving on to the adjacent properties. And then again, we have the aerial. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any questions for me. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for Chris on the development plan? Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. Chris, could you give me an idea how many acres this space is? Please, I can't seem to find it. It's 30, it looks like it's 39 acres. 30 some acres, okay. And- Sorry about that. And by looking at the aerial, if you wouldn't mind going back to that. It looks to be somewhat tree covered. It is on a slope. Has the, what do the people, what do the urban forester and the people in the storm water management department have to say about, is it going to be just totally all channelized, put into pipes and into the detention basin? I don't know the details of that. The applicant may be able to go into more detail of how that's going to be handled. The topography generally, it flows downhill in this direction. And I believe there's kind of a ridge. I don't know if it shows. Can't really see the contours well on that. There's kind of a high area and then a drainage in this area and I believe in this area as well. I'm kind of going from memory on that. They had indicated that the sanitary sewer, I believe, will go, for the townhomes will go this direction and for the multi-family will go this direction and tie into the existing. Okay, and what is the urban forester had to say about this plan? I don't remember there being specific concerns. I think they're maybe, I don't know if they're mature trees. I think they're like scrub trees on the property currently. Yeah, I think that's true. I don't think there were any significant trees identified when they came in for the zone change. So that led the urban forester to not require any specific tree protection areas of any tree stands. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions for Chris at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Good afternoon, Brad Boaz with CMW on behalf of the applicant. We can start here with the aerial, Ms. Davis. So yeah, that is a lot of Bradford pear right there. And so I've walked the site with the urban forester twice, once without leaf canopy and once with it. And there are some larger trees along the perimeter that we're going to be able to keep, but walking through the body of the site, there were no. This used to be, 20 years ago, this was just a cattle field. And so like I said, the Bradford pears have taken over, so hopefully we can get those back under control. But we are going to do our best to preserve all perimeter trees around the perimeter of the site. And so Eric, Mr. Sutherland is accepting of that. And so yeah, we've been working hand in hand, trying to make sure we preserve anything we can, and then replacing with what is removed on our new plan. But to go back to the overall plan, this is pretty much identical to what the zone change plan was when we came back earlier in the spring. As Chris said, we are working through some issues with utility connectivity. Believe we're on the right path there, therefore withdrew the request for the private pump station. And so we are accepting of the conditions that you all provided, and we'll just see if you have any questions for me. Thank you, Mr. Boas. Do we have any questions? All right, seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you, appreciate it. Okay, do we have anyone from the public who would like to speak to this application today? Seeing none, the floor is open for any commissioner question, comment, or motion. And again, we do not have a waiver necessary today. Yes? Okay, will you? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2652 White Farm with the 14 conditions required by staff. Okay, all right. Thank you, Commissioner Worth. And second from Commissioner Wilson. Do we have any discussion? Seeing, yes, Commissioner Davis. I'd like to say something. Could you? Well, I understand that this plan meets the letter of the law and all of the things that we need to do. But it does seem to create a property that is divorced from its context. This could be in Kansas, this could be anywhere. It is a sea of parking and structures. And there is no sensitivity for how it could have been developed to be more in keeping. But it does follow the law. I just think we ought to do better as a community than to have this kind of development that could be anywhere. Staff, Council, can we discuss? We cannot talk about the design of projects. I thought that was part of the, I think that needs to be stated a little bit more. Unless it's in the ordinance, no. Okay. So we're in the ministerial territory here, is that what you're saying? This is, there's no waiver associated with this. It's only in front of you because that's a subdivision plat. So yes, objective standards apply ministerially. Okay. Okay, so again, we had a motion and forgive me. Judy made the motion and it had. Yes. Yes, Mr. Wilson. Okay. So do we have any further discussion? If not, we can put this to a vote. Okay. That carries with one abstention. Thank you, applicant. All right. Our next item on the agenda today, I believe, is our last. Yes. It is on page eight under item seven. PLN CELL 26.6. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crump, Planning Staff. The last item on your agenda here is a request for a new cell tower. So the applicant here is Municipal Communications 3 LLC, along with New Singular Wireless PCS LLC. But for the purpose of this, they do business as AT&T. So this is for the construction of a 155-foot-tall cellular communication tower at 2680 Wilhite Drive. Here is the location of the subject property outlined in blue. Just to orient everyone, this is Nicholasville Road. This is the off-ramp for New Circle Road. And then Wilhite Drive circles and snakes around here and kind of circles back behind this shopping center that joined Nicholasville Road. In the vicinity, we have a Starbucks use here, we have a hotel use here, and an adult retail use here. From a zoning perspective, it's surrounded completely by commercial businesses and uses. You'll note in the far right portion of the screen here, we have existing residential as you get further away from Nicholasville Road. Here we have a view of the subject property, including its existing commercial use. So as of right now, this structure is being utilized as a trophy shop, along with its associated parking areas. The applicant's ask here is to take about a 2,500 square foot portion of the bottom of the site, utilize that for the construction of the tower, its associated equipment, and then the screening necessary to enclose it. Here's a view of the subject property, basically from the adjoining parking lot. So Wilhite Drive is running this direction on the screen. You have the existing trophy shop here. And then to the far left, essentially where this car is being parked, is where that cell tower would be located. Here is the view from the on-ramp, erroneously marked as for sales road. We are not that far out. But this essentially is showing the relationship between that on-ramp and the property. So it sits up higher, and the base of that facility really wouldn't be seen due to the differences in topography. The applicant has provided and waived some of their normal confidentiality when it relates to sharing some of the documents that are involved in identifying the site and that they're providing as a part of their application. And so this was the applicant's search area that they generally looked to to provide an extra boost in service. They identified areas of coverage that were lacking, and based on their coverage area, these were the areas that they searched. Typically, when we see cellular towers, we typically ask first that the applicants choose to locate those in areas with existing towers. So co-locating on an existing tower. Here, within their search area, there were none identified. Here is the applicant's sort of coverage map. So the piece on the far left represents kind of the current coverage, with green being the best, blue, and then transitioning into red. The right is with the addition of this tower. So essentially, this would expand coverage in this area to serve the neighborhoods and businesses that are east of Nicholasville Road based on an identified need within their organization. Here is a picture of the proposed tower. Once again, a monopole design. There's really not much to it, but the 150 total height with a five foot lightning arrester on top, bringing the total height to 155 feet. Now, when it comes to planning commission review of cellular towers, it plays a little differently than your all's normal review. So it is heavily regulated by both the federal and state governments. So your review of telecommunications towers is slightly limited. The state has what's called the uniform application. This is a packeted and extensive documents, including geotechnical reports, locational requirements, signage, other notification requirements, that basically lay out the process and review for cellular towers. However, the local municipalities are afforded the ability to create their own ordinances. Within our example, our local ordinance, article 25, lays on specific requirements for things like floodplains, separation from historic districts, protection for scenic byways, allows us to create setbacks, other design criteria, and screening criteria. Article 25 is really the teeth of what you all as a local planning commission really get to regulate to. We have to allow cell towers if they meet the article 25 requirements and they meet the other aspects of the uniform application. So when staff reviews a cell tower, we go through the exhaustive list of, have they provided everything in the uniform application? In this case, we have verified that that is correct. And then we dig into article 25 and we talk about the specifics of the request. Those are laid out in the staff report in front of you. In total, staff found that they were in agreement with the requirements of article 25, with the exception of two pieces that we'll go over in a moment. Those are aspects that the planning commission has the ability to modify or waive if they see fit. But from a really large big picture perspective, there was not any theme of floodplain on the property or in the area. No identified geologic hazards. There was not any type of historic or scenic designation that was included within the area. The tower construction meets our ordinance requirements. And then once again, in instances where this is for providing and augmenting service for telecommunications device, once again, our local review is somewhat limited. But, and from the comprehensive plan perspective, expanding the network that is used by emergency services, as well as the residents of Lexington, something that is supported by the comprehensive plan. So these are the same criteria you generally see in all cell tower applications. Two aspects in which the current application does not fully comply with article 25. The first is screening. So the applicant is proposing, and this is a sort of a zoom in of the site plan that was provided. They are providing screening and fencing for the subject property. However, along the side, the western side here that adjoins the on ramp for New Circle Road, they are asking for a waiver to not provide the normal trees in those areas. So they will still be providing a fence that encloses the entire facility. But due to the kind of difference in topography and the slope there, providing those trees really would not provide a benefit from screening those facilities due to where they are located. So with this aspect, staff is recommending approval of this aspect of that waiver. The second is a height to yard ratio. So within the non-residential zones, a three to one height to yard ratio is required. So essentially, for a 155 foot tower, that would require a 51.66 foot setback. Here, the applicant is requesting a reduced setback. So the location that they are showing here is approximately 21 feet from both of the eastern and western property lines. They meet it with respect to the northern and southern pieces. But in those two instances, it is closer than the 51 feet and some change that would be required by the ordinance. So when staff takes a look at that and the ordinance directs the planning commission to look at it, they talk about is there any unique hardships with this property, when in this case, the parcel's unique size, rather shape configuration, as well as the fact that it's bound on both sides by roadways. So while this does not meet the full 50 foot and some change setback requirement, there is not an adjoining property within that 52 or so feet on either sides. We have the right-of-way associated with the on-ramp, and then a cross-wheel height drive, I believe approximately 70 feet is where the next closest property adjoins. So within respect of creating a location of a cellular tower that is kind of adequately situated away from surrounding properties, to help kind of maintain that visual aesthetic and to kind of minimize contrast, staff found that a waiver or a reduction in that setback here would be appropriate. Ultimately, staff is recommending approval of the request. Once again, the application meets the criteria for the uniform application established by the state. It meets the aspect of Article 25, and they're asking for the two waivers for the aspects that are not currently meeting. Staff found that in this instance, both of those requirements being waived was appropriate. And then our conditions for approval are the standard conditions that accompany all requests, and it would include them updating the development plan for the subject property as a minor amendment within 30 days. So they will still need to meet all construction requirements, get all other necessary approvals. But with this, staff is recommending approval at this time. The applicant is also here to, with a presentation of their own, and also able to answer any questions. So with that, if you have any questions of staff at this time, I'd be happy to entertain those. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions for Daniel on either the application, the staff report, or any of the waiver requests? Yes, Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Daniel, when the staff looked at the setback requirement, so for a 155 foot tower, it needs 51.66, they're reducing it to 21 feet. This may be a dumb question, but what happens if the cell tower gets blown down and goes onto New Circle Road, I mean, that seems like the primary place you'd want to have, not have something that could possibly injure people and could impact safety. Yeah, yeah, so in our ordinance, there's actually a couple sections that kind of talk about height to yard ratios. When we talk about the agricultural zones and residential zones, a one to one is required, so your setback is as high as your tower goes. What a three to one tower ratio essentially means, though, is if that is being met, there is no circumstance in which case that tower falling over would not cause that same issue. So a 50 foot setback in this instance for the tower location would meet the ordinance requirements. However, if that falls over, it is 150 feet and sort of creating the same issue. So the three to one shouldn't be understood as a, this is the necessary setback to prevent this from ever happening. It really is more related to sort of creating the relationships between those properties, things like visual impact. I can't speak to the structural aspects as far as how those towers, especially a monopole, are designed to fall. But just to sort of underpin that a three to one height yard ratio was not designed to prevent something like that from happening. It really is more of just preserving the relationships and acknowledges that the three to one is applying in our commercial areas, which are kind of more densely packed. So in these areas where we do have development, we still do need that cell service. And so it's sort of a balancing act on how do we provide that in a safe manner. So the fact that this property was sort of divorced from any other adjoining parcels by the roadways is what was basically letting staff kind of be comfortable with the recommendation of a reduction of approximately 20 feet, sorry, 30 feet. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions for staff? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel, help me as far as orientation. Looking through everything on Granicus here, Starbucks seems to have a complaint. Where is Starbucks? I didn't see it in any pictures. Yeah, they are further up, and I'll go back to the map here. So I can't start a slide far off. My recollection is this, the, is this, nope, it's this guy. This guy right here, yep. So actually it is adjoining. Yes. The property is adjoining anyway. Okay. Yes, to the north. All right, thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Daniel. All right, at this time we can hear from the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Keith Brown with Pike Legal Group, coming over here from Shepherdsville, Kentucky. Our firm does wireless practice around Kentucky in multiple states, and we're excited that our clients here today are wanting to improve service in an area of Lexington where we've all been stuck in traffic before at the intersection of New Circle and Nicholasville Road. I remember even being stuck in traffic in that area when I was in law school in the early 1980s. So traffic is always there. It's always a, certainly it's a heavily commercial area, and it needs improved cell service. My colleague here, Steve Lentz, my co-counsel, has just passed out some handouts that are materials that are already in the administrative record, and that's just for some ease of reference. We filed all the exhibits that the Kentucky revised statutes require. We followed all the procedural guidelines of the Kentucky revised statutes, and of course we've waived confidentiality of the application. From the time the application was filed, anyone could go into the zoning office and look at the application, and I filed a copy of this PowerPoint, is filed in the record today. So I'll be doing my presentation. We'll try not to be too repetitive here. If there is any opposition, I'd like to reserve rebuttal time, but my understanding is that no one was here from the Starbucks letter, and so I would consider and preserve that their opposition is waived if they are not here for this administrative hearing. I'm here to report. Okay. All right. All right. If you are, you'll have a chance to speak, I assume, and I would like to have rebuttal time if that is necessary. Here's the proposed site location area. You can see the little yellow pin. I assume everybody who's breathing in Lexington knows where the intersection of New Circle and Nicholasville Road is. We'll go to our next slide, which you can see the yellow pin, and from the other depictions presented by staff, you know this area. You couldn't find a more commercial area in Lexington or maybe in the Commonwealth. Current AT&T mobility coverage. This slide was shown before, but I just want to mention who prepares this slide. It's AT&T Radio Frequency Engineering, and that is expert testimony in this proceeding. The way these new cell sites are considered is that the cellular companies have their RF engineers think about where they have gaps in coverage, where they could get improvements in coverage, and this slide certainly shows that the coverage is not ideal in this area. The blue coverage there to the right is not ideal. Then when you see this new site constructed, the Malibu site, you see the big expansion in the green area of coverage, which is definitely an improvement. So that's what we're trying to do, solve a gap in coverage that the engineers have identified. Next slide is the site plan elevation drawing. You'll see that the vast majority of the towers in Fayette County are taller than this one. This is built at a just right height to serve this commercial area, and you'll see that at the top, AT&T will put its antennas because they are the anchor tenant, and they're paying for really the construction of this tower by municipal. So AT&T goes to the top, but then there are other co-location slots on that tower for other carriers, Verizon, T-Mobile, whoever is a carrier in the Lexington area, that the time will come, hopefully, when they will want to be on this tower as well and enter into an agreement with municipal communications, which will be the owner of the tower. Municipal as a tower company has a tremendous financial incentive to market this tower to the other carriers that are serving the Lexington area. So over time, after the tower is built, hopefully other carriers will come on to the tower. And we see another drawing of showing where the site is. It's in sort of an oblong area of this property that has the trophy shop on the other end of it, which I would presume is not really a high traffic parking lot type area. So we think this is a very good location. Here's another depiction of a little broader view of the site. You'll see the Red Roof Inn over there. You'll see Nicholasville Road and New Circle, and you'll see the trophy shop, and you'll see the Starbucks off to the left there and sort of the upper left side. Of course, that's an adjoining property that's, of course, between the—it's beyond the trophy shop, and you see where the tower will be, which is the yellow pin. Planning staff has already talked about the landscape waiver, just the way this property is shaped, how it goes up against near the New Circle ramp. You don't want—there's just no need for landscaping around that one side. The other sides of the compound area, the lease area, we will have the landscaping. We don't see any adverse impact from that landscaping necessary. We're not asking for any more. create a hardship for improving the service in this area if you apply strictly the landscaping waiver area and we just don't think it would be appropriate for people getting off the exit ramp there and given the elevation differential. Another photographic simulation, you'll see the proposed monopole in the background and you'll also see that there are other tall structures like light posts and signage in the area, obviously commercial. This is not a pristine area as far as structures where the only thing that would be there is a cell tower. You'll see another photographic simulation here. You see the other light pole and other poles sticking up in the area. With this being a monopole, we think it's the least intrusive of the type of structures. The lattice towers are much more visible or the huge guy wire towers are much more visible that are much taller. Radio frequency need, we filed a radio frequency need report of Sherry Lewis, an AT&T mobility radio frequency engineer. That is, of course, expert testimony. She is documenting in this report the need for this site to solve a significant service gap in the area. There's no giant hotel right in this search area to put antennas on the rooftop. There's no other close by cellular tower that we could co-locate on. AT&T, of course, has agreements with all these other major carrier, wireless carriers, and they co-locate on each other's towers. They compete tooth and nail in the retail sales, but on these towers, I think we all know they locate on each other, but that's just not an option. Also for radio frequency engineering purposes, it's necessary to have this 150 foot height. A 25 foot tower just would not work. The radio frequency report is expert testimony showing the height that the tower is necessary. The search area, you'll see the sort of light green trapezoid or oblong area that's right there. That's the search area where the tower would need to be to meet the coverage objectives. The tower, when built, will have coverage in a larger area than that, but that's where it's built. You'll see there's just not a lot of options. It's all very dense commercial. We think we've picked the least intrusive option here. We've made a good faith search for a tower site in the area, and there's just not other good options. We filed a site selection report showing our good faith in searching the area for a tower site. If there was an existing tower we could co-locate on in this area, AT&T would do it because it would be much cheaper than paying municipal communications to build an entirely new tower. A lot of due diligence goes into a new tower, expensive to build. This is just one of the many regulatory approvals that are necessary to obtain. To resolve this coverage, the way to do it is with this site. We discussed the zoning in the area, it's heavily commercial. I do these hearings around the state, and sometimes we have no choice but to put a tower near a residential area. Planning commissioners will say, find us a commercial site, why can't you put it on a commercial property? For Lexington, we have found the commercial property. I think we found the Shangri-La of cell tower sites. It's a very dense area, it's a commercial site. Lexington gives an order of preference for tower placement. There's certain policies that you can't really put it on a school district property because you can only have a lease for one year, that kind of thing, so that's not really an option. It's the most suitable and available property. Remember that the cell tower companies, they're not like these other utilities that have condemnation power. We have to reach an arm's length deal with the property owner. We can't just condemn a property for a cell tower. An arm's length deal has been reached. This is over 715 feet from the nearest existing residence, which is an apartment building. It's not close to any single family homes, not close to condominiums, not close to duplexes or anything like that. I think we've got a good location that meets the standards of the plan, of the ordinance and of your comprehensive plan. Speaking of the comprehensive plan, sometimes there will be people that just don't like cell towers at all, and there will be localities that don't like cell towers at all. But Lexington has taken a different approach in their comprehensive plan. Support policy C, support the maintenance and expansion of a robust wireless communications network, creating reliable service throughout Lexington's urban and rural areas. And also, the plan mentions, beyond the daily use for community members and businesses, the construction and maintenance of a robust and reliable wireless system throughout the urban and rural areas is essential to the operation of Lexington's emergency services. This AT&T tower, as we filed documentation in the record, is part of what's called the FirstNet system. It's a special switching system unique to AT&T towers. And what it does in times of an emergency, like a tornado, a chemical spill or something, that it will give special priority in switching calls on this tower and other AT&T towers to the first responders. So consistent with your plan, this tower's FirstNet capability is very important and useful for emergency services. The Kentucky legislature has recognized the importance of telecommunications. We quote a statute here, state-of-the-art telecommunications is an essential element to the Commonwealth's initiatives to improve the lives of Kentucky citizens, to create investment, jobs, economic growth and support the Kentucky Innovation Act of 2000. Think of all the businesses in this area who need their customers, their suppliers, whoever and their employees to have wireless service. That's what we're doing. We're helping the economic needs of that area because every business needs wireless service. We've complied with all these local regulations. If we had not, the planner certainly would not have given us a positive recommendation. We do need those two waivers that we've discussed, but in everything else, this tower is not in a residential zone, it's not in a flood zone, it's far away from a scenic byway and outside the view of a scenic byway. We filed all the exhibits, followed the procedural requirements and we're going to proceed with that development plan approval that we need as well. Obviously there are more requirements of 25, Article 25, check mark, check mark, check mark. We've complied with all of them and we feel that we've done all the background work necessary to submit the exhibits for a site that should be approved. I do want to briefly mention federal telecommunications law. I give seminars on this, could go on for hours. I will not. I will just say that as you know, the discretion is different from a regular rezoning proceeding. The Federal Telecommunications Act puts an overlay on this type of proceeding and a community cannot just prohibit cell towers or make decisions that are based on anything other than substantial evidence, real evidence. Real opinion testimony is not enough. Also sometimes a local zoning board will presume that something will happen and that other regulations will be violated. You can't really do that. That's like an expectancy. It's like assuming that the roof to the Dollar General will not be built right and it will fall in and smash the customers. That would be a violation of all kinds of things. It's the same thing with cell towers. You can't assume that we're going to violate all these other regulations. AT&T is obviously one of the biggest wireless companies in the world. Municipal Communications builds these towers all over the country. We will comply with regulations and we're obligated to. This goes without saying, but everybody is using cell phones, you know, from adults to children and it's very important for business, personal use and emergency services. First net, as I sort of jumped the gun and talked about, that's just a very important switching system in the case of an emergency and that's a good benefit of this tower. You know, AT&T wants to bring good wireless service to this community. We found a gap where the service is not great. All the evidence that we filed, I want to admit that into the evidentiary record of this hearing. Of course, this PowerPoint presentation is admitted into the hearing. We think we filed a site that makes a lot of sense for this heavily commercial area of Lexington. I do want to reserve rebuttal testimony, but I ask you to consider what we've filed and what we've presented and to approve the application. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I'm sure we're going to have questions. Let's start with Commissioner Wilson and then Commissioner Molly Davis. Okay. Just a couple of quick questions as it relates to the microphone. By the way, did you all in the process of developing the tower consider a stealth tower of any kind? You know, it's not a huge tower as it is. As towers go, obviously it's a big structure, but something like one of those monopine towers would look very strange in this part of Lexington. I would agree with that 100%, but I was thinking about something a little bit more creative. For example, I have a cell tower not too far from my home, but it's in a clock tower. In other words, it's near a church. They put a clock in it and made it appear as though it's a—but it's really a cell tower. I was thinking maybe something creative like that may have been considered, but I'm just asking the question. You know, the people at Municipal who build these towers, they're familiar with those kind of things around the country, and they've probably done them in certain places. But it's sort of like there's a place for everything, and I'm not sure a 150-foot clock tower would look too normal right at the exit of New Circle and Nicholasville. So it's the kind of thing that is considered, but it's not really something that is—no particular type of structure is required by your regulations. This is one of your required structures. I've been involved in other situations of those church bell tower type things, but it's tough to have one that'll meet a 150-foot height objective. There's another type of tower that has the antennas in a canister, and it's like a slim line, but you really can't have a bunch of co-locations. And our concern here is that not just AT&T provides service out of that tower, but also the other carriers as well for the future. So it's a balancing of concerns, but this is—did not seem the type of location that would be good for anything but a monopole. Okay. And I understand that very clearly. And I use the clock as an example. I was thinking there's other creative ways to do that, but no problem. One other quick question. Some towers are designed to fall. Some towers are designed to collapse under certain things. What's the construction for this one? Is it a collapsible tower, or one that would fall? We are—most people don't know it, but Kentucky's sitting on a major earthquake. Well, the—you know, I'm not an engineer, I'm a lawyer, but I do these towers all over the state. And the normal thing that is—comes up on these towers is that if in the very unlikely event that they would collapse, very, very unlikely, that they sort of crumple into themselves. They don't turn over like a pencil or something like that. They crumple into themselves. I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, but I've presented actual evidence on that point over and over across the state. And this tower is going to be built up to the building code, okay? And there may be different types of towers that are designed to fold in a certain way, but what I can say is that this one is built up to the building code, will be. And if you had something that was strong enough, like an earthquake or the worst tornado in the world that could knock down a cell tower, believe me, everything else in that area would be gone, too. So you know, it's like every construction project is a building, is a—you know, is different and every construction project, something could break, but we think we've met all the legal standards by our engineering design. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brown, right? Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I heard you say something and it made me wonder. You said that there was not a tall enough building in the area upon which to place some sort of tower. Did I hear you correctly? Well, yes. Wireless carriers like AT&T all the time locate their antennas on very tall buildings, you know, like a 10-story hotel or something. Your downtown buildings here in Lexington, some of them have cell towers on them. There's nothing like that in the search area that I showed you, so we didn't have the option to do that. The tower has to be in the search area to work. If there was a building like that and we could work out a deal, AT&T could do that at much less cost than paying municipal to build a new tower. Believe me, they would do that. So the hotel over in Lexington Green isn't tall enough? I can't think what brand of hotel it is. Just Red Roof Inn. Thank you. Well, no, the one in Lexington Green, not next door to it. So I guess the other part, I guess they aren't tall enough, but I guess the flip part of my question is, if Starbucks became aware of this, did the Red Roof Inn become aware of this, the Trophy Shop? Is public input required on this or public notification? Well, I can tell you that there's extensive notice requirements and all of that was made. Obviously we have someone here representing Starbucks, so they certainly got their notice. But we did all the notice. The planner hasn't said there's any deficiency in notice. So we did all of that. So everyone is aware. In these other hotels, they're either not in the search ring or they're not tall enough. Okay. Thank you. It satisfied my own curiosity. Sure. Thank you. And for the record, there is a landowner notice list in one of the attachments with all of the surrounding property owners that were notified by a certified letter. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brown, as a follow-up to Mr. Wilson's question as far as the towers falling for whatever reason, did I understand you to say that this one, in your words, would crumple and come down or just fall like a tree? And make sure I'm clear here. What I'm saying is that in the normal evidence that I see in all of these towers that I do is that these monopoles, in the extremely unlikely event that they would fall, they crumple down on themselves. They do not turn over like a pencil. That's what I'm asking. They do not do that. So this is designed to crumple, in your words, not fall like a tree? That is the general design of these monopoles. Okay. The other question I have, I didn't see it in your presentation on the slide, but in the paperwork, you've got one, I don't know if you can see it, it's got a large circle around the proposed site. Is that a site plan or what is this? You may be looking at our 500-foot radius map where we provided notice. Say what it is. Could I approach and look at that, if you would? Oh, okay, sure, I know what it is now. Commissioner, that, what you're pointing to, is the 500-foot radius map. That's an area in which we give notice to. That's not the search ring. The search ring is sort of oblong. It had a green outline in the slide. You said that a moment ago, yeah. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Sure. Thank you. Sorry, I had one more question. I'm looking through the documents here, and on the drawing that is labeled TE-1, it shows at the tower elevation, with the landscaping kind of situated, will it truly be that wide at the base? As wide as a 20-foot tree? May I approach to look at that drawing? Of course. Of course. Is that drawn to scale, I guess, is my question? There's sort of two layers of landscaping that you can see here. Is it truly that wide? You know, I can't speak to the exact measurements, but we're complying with the requirements on the slides. Sir, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Would you just repeat what you said on the floor? In the interim, I believe, and I don't have the included within the uniform application is some structural information. I'm wanting to say it was less than 10 feet in width, but I believe included within the uniform application is a diameter at the base of the actual tower itself. So staff will take a look through this real quick to see if I can find where I track that information down. Only because it looks as big around as a car, perhaps, is what will sit on the base of the ground, which is very large. We will comply on those three sides with the ordinance. Sometimes when you see drawings and you see like tree drawings, it's hard to get the perspective, but we will comply with your regulations on three. I have just seen something that says not to scale. So the scale is not to scale. Our engineers like to draw towers, but they're not that great at drawing trees. The trees look quite good. I hope they grow that well. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Council, if you would like to address the Planning Commission at this time, you may. And then we will hear from any members of the public who are here to speak on it as well. Thank you. My name is Thomas Rawlings. I'm here for DuMal of Kentucky, Inc., which is the owner of 2700 Wilhite Drive and its tenant Starbucks. And as you all have noted, we did file a written objection. I think it comes down to the impact on property values, and I don't think there's any dispute that no one likes to have cell towers nearby and that it diminishes property values. And that's true with this property. And as Mr. Brown stated, this isn't a pristine area, and that's kind of the point. There's already billboards, there's giant steel utility poles, there's wires everywhere. So let's just drop a cell tower in here. No one's going to object. But if you look at the service area map that they have up there, they're wanting to put this up in the farthest corner, away from the heart of the service area that they want to service. And when I looked at yesterday, you know, their application, and then this morning at the staff report, you know, there's representations that we couldn't find a better place for people didn't want to deal with this, or it wasn't at a price that was right. That's a representation. I don't know if it's true. I don't know what efforts they've made, and it may be in the application. It was like 70 pages long, but I did my best. But there may be better locations in the heart of the service area that would also be suitable. Maybe not quite as cheap as whatever they got from the trophy shop property, but maybe it's a better spot. And if you look at their location, they've got it wedged between a curve on Wilhite Drive and New Circle Road. There's not much room there. And it's not, it wouldn't surprise me if somebody didn't run into that thing, especially off Wilhite Drive on that curve. And I went out there yesterday and looked at the site. It's not far off the road. It's pretty close. And especially with a big base around it, I think that's something else that the council should consider, the commission. As far as co-location, I have not, and I'm not an expert on it, I don't know what tall buildings are around there. I remember their application stated that there were no compliant FCC towers there. I don't know if there are other towers there, but they also said there weren't any buildings that were tall enough. And I don't know what the commission can do or has done to dive into the representations in the application. They represent this, they represent that, but is it true and how hard did they try? You know, it's awfully easy to say, well, this area already looks like crap, let's just stick a cell tower in there. I don't know if the landowner will care, because he put a picture up there. There's poles everywhere. Well, as a landowner, you know, that impacts the value of their land. It's going to impact what a prospective purchaser would pay, and it's going to impact Starbucks business. And we ask that you all consider that. Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir, let's just see if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak. Yes, sir. Okay. At this time, the Planning Commission will hear from anyone from the public who would like to speak to this application today. Seeing none. Thanks for the opportunity for rebuttal. And even when I disagree with opponents, I understand their right to speak and to be here and state their concerns. First off, as an overview, keep in mind that Planner Crum has recommended approval of this. There was a lot of discussion of what if, has the Planning Commission considered this or considered that. Staff has recommended approval, so you're not just listening to Keith Brown on behalf of applicants. People for the property owner for Starbucks talked about property values, but no expert testimony was offered. I believe they referenced some article that is highly speculative, that type of thing. Based upon his considerations, I think you would have to deny any cell tower because anyone could come up and say it might reduce property values. That's a what if type question. This is not up against a residential area. This is a commercial property in which the commercial property owner executed a lease, so they certainly don't think that there's going to be a reduction in property value. And yes, there's all kinds of other structures that are tall in this area. It's a commercial area. That's why it's a good place for a cell tower. We can't imagine any reduction in property values of a Starbucks, which people come in and use their cell phones when they're waiting in line. We just can't imagine that that would occur. The Council for Starbucks says there may be better locations. Well, again, that's just raw speculation. We filed an incredibly detailed site acquisition report talking about all the search efforts we made at looking at various properties here. Remember, municipal and AT&T do not have condemnation power. We had to get an arm's length deal. Also remember that Planner Crum did not object to our site selection process at all. We think we found the least intrusive site for a cell tower in this area. I described it as the Shangri-La of cell towers because it's nowhere close to residences. Residences, apartments, 715 feet away. It's sort of like, what more could we do? It was stated by Council that people might run off the road and run into the cell tower. Well, that's one of those expectancies. You know, there's Will Hoyt Road there. There's the exit ramp. People are obligated to stay on those exit ramps. Would you say don't build a Starbucks because somebody might drive right through it in the parking lot or off the main road? Or don't build a trophy shop or don't build a red roof in because somebody might drive into it? Our location and the distances have been recommended as appropriate by the planner. And because of all that and all the expert testimony we have submitted, our drawings signed by engineers are expert testimony. The Sherry Lewis Radio Frequency Report is expert testimony as to the need for this tower to solve a significant gap in service in that area. So you know, I appreciate that people might have various points that they might want to speculate on or want to see additional proof, but we've provided the proof. So respectfully, we ask the Commission to approve this cell tower. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Can you put that search area slide back up, please? Is that possible? I think I can. Oh. There's the site location. That shows the improvement in coverage. There we go. See the green outline, that sort of oblong area? That's where it needs to be, somewhere in that area. And then where's the site? You can see the little yellow pin. That's what I'm trying to find. Oh, gotcha. Okay. Yeah. All right, then. Right near the exit ramp there. And the engineers say it has to be in that area to solve the service gap. One other question. Separation from the tower and well height, fencing, landscaping? There's fencing and landscaping on that side, yeah. I mean, there's fencing all the way around it. But landscaping on three sides. And the landscaping is going to be what? Well, it's as required by the ordinance. Mr. Crumb, what kind of trees is it? Yeah, so it's outlined in the report, but you're looking at an 8-foot tall solid wooden fence along with tree plantings around that perimeter. I can tell you, I've already looked at that, if you want to know. It's hornbeams and skip laurel. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any final questions? Okay. Thank you very much. All right. On a cell tower, do we find that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan, or do we actually approve the request? Okay. All right. Okay. All right. The floor is open for any commissioner comment, question, motion. And then we have two waivers to consider as well. I'm going to speak to the need. Sure. Because I live just to the northeast of this area, and we've had cell tower, I mean cellular service coverage issues for years. You know, they've tried to improve. I'm not going to be impacted by your improvement plan because I live too far just outside that territory. But I do know there's a need for better coverage than they have right now. That particular part of the neighborhood is, we're talking about Malibu Jacks, that old strip shopping center. We're talking about, I mean, really, and there's a medical complex in there. It is heavily commercial. I frankly think a fence and some trees are going to make it look better. And I understand Mr. Wilson's concern about making it look more appealing in that particular area. I think you'd have a hard time coming up with something that would do what you're talking about. Okay. That's all I could have said. Okay. Do we have any other thoughts? Or again, the floor is open for a motion on the application. Mr. Chair. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. One, the staff that's been around with me for a few years or that I've been around with them for a few years and a couple other members of the commission know that have often complained about cell towers and the location of them and can we do better. I'm thinking today that really and truly this probably is good of a location that I've seen in the 15 years that I've been here. But obviously, we've got a citizen that's not agreeing with that and I apologize for that. Personally, I kind of think that being in any Starbucks and seeing the people in there on computers and phones and so forth, they would love the service. But with that as it is, I'm very much in favor of this and can make a motion if you're ready. Do you want to include the two waivers with the motion? It looks like it's in the staff report that way. Is that okay? To just put it all in one motion? What did you say? I think in this case it makes sense. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the plan cell, plan CELL 26-6 municipal communications 3 LLC and new singular wireless PCS LLC along with the two waivers for the reasons provided by staff. Is that including the conditions outlined in the staff report? Including the conditions, not the reasons. Including the conditions. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Owens, we have a second from Mr. Penn. Do we have any discussion to that motion? If not, we will go ahead and take a vote on it. And this includes approving the waiver requests. Okay. That carries unanimously. Great. Before we go to Mr. Duncan, are there any commissioner items today? Any commissioner items? Yes, sir. This is a clarification issue. If an applicant comes to this meeting and is ready to present, can a commissioner in effect indicate that we would like postponement? I mean, the way we handled that was interesting. I think it was appropriate from a commonsensical perspective. But I'm trying to figure out who has the priority here. The commissioner's request for postponement or does the applicant have the permission to make a determination whether or not he or she wants to be postponed? And I say that because sometimes applicants may come in with people from out of state and if they wish to make a presentation on that day, can they do it? Mr. Chair, that certainly is a—and Mr. Wilson, certainly a consideration for the applicant to think about the effort that they put into participating in the meeting. But the main consideration for postponement is, is there a statutory or an ordinance timeline that must be met? And so if there is still time on the clock before the next meeting and the planning commission chooses to postpone, they can do so without the applicant's consent. But if the time has run out and the planning commission cannot postpone without the applicant's consent, otherwise the application prevails and it goes on from there. In this case, there was no time limit associated with the information—with the waiver request that Mr. Owens was talking about. I'm just thinking. But the clarification is since there was no time—in other words, there's no statutory requirement. In fact, if in fact we had received that information as we sat down at this meeting, it still would have been under legal compliance. Yes, yes. In fact, you are brought new information at every meeting that you consider as part of the application. So, in effect, the issue of being late is not an issue from a policy perspective and a legal perspective. If a person presents information at the very moment, then that could be considered or not. I mean, in this case, that's the process that should be followed. And the applicant then has the permission of saying, well, I either wish to or not. In other words, if the applicant says, I want to go forward with this, I don't care whether you received it two minutes ago. You got it. That's not quite that— And the applicant then runs the risk of you feeling you don't have enough information and you deny the application then. Okay. That's exactly what I was just—there are two sides to that coin. And I'm going to clarify for me. We're not—I mean, we're not talking statutory here. We're talking really procedures of the commission, aren't we? Well, Mr. Wilson asked under what conditions the planning commission could automatically postpone an item. And if there is a time limit, and we always publicize what that is, then you should not postpone beyond that without the applicant's consent. But that's the external to the procedures of the committee. That puts a constraint on procedures of the commission. Is that what you're saying? Yes. It's meant to acknowledge the rights of the applicant. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mullins. Thank you, Chair. I wonder if the council who's present here today could provide some clarification about what are appropriate topics or questions to raise at our zoning committee and subdivision committee and work sessions and of applicants since they are on the record and public versus what must wait until, say, we're in council chambers for discussion. I would say that any question that you would want answered to help you form your final decision would be an appropriate question to ask at one of these committee meetings. You know, sometimes we might have a postponement recommendation, and so you might still have some questions. Sometimes they have or have not yet engaged with the neighborhoods, and so you might want to know about that. And sometimes there might be questions about, especially with the development plan, you might want to know what changes might be made. Those are all appropriate questions to ask the applicant because there's a lot of work that goes into these plans before it gets in front of you for a final hearing. Does that answer your question? It does. And I guess, Mike, you want to comment about what's not appropriate to say at a zoning committee meeting or a subdivision committee or a work session. What is not appropriate to say? Any statement that would tell the applicant and the public that you know exactly how you're going to vote before the final hearing occurs. And also personnel matters. Yes. Yes, that would also be anything that would suggest a personal bias against the applicant divorced of what they have in front of you, but also something that suggests that you have already decided how you're going to vote before that final hearing occurs, which wouldn't necessarily be a question. I guess you could phrase it in the form of a question if you were being creative, but still. That would be inappropriate. That would suggest a prejudgment before they've had their right to be heard. Thank you very much. Okay. If we have nothing else from the commission, Mr. Penn. The one thing we didn't, we haven't talked about was a big reason for me is the fact that we didn't get this information in time to ever study it or go with it, and we hadn't had it. I mean, you're talking about what, seven or eight, ten different things that were part of that. And I just didn't think we could do that today with the commission we have sitting here, and all of us got this at 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon. And this is not like it's something that's new. I mean, it's new because he brought it up, but the ordinance has been in place since 2007. So my point was is that if I'd have gotten the information on Wednesday and we had a chance to read it and understand what each one of these meant, I mean, you're talking about very specific items that apply to this Newtown Pike or Oliver Lewis Way. And we had an applicant there that we were supposed to approve or disapprove, and we didn't even know what the ordinance was until 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon. That's my point for doing that, and I don't mean to throw spurs, and I'm not saying anybody did whatever. I'm just saying that I don't think speed reading while somebody else is talking is a requirement to be on the planning commission. So that's, I either got to read or I got to listen. I can't do both. Mr. Chair, what I understood from Mr. Duncan just a few minutes ago, people present last-minute information all the time, and it does not, I mean, unless you're, you know, in a speed reading position, you can't read all that anyhow. The point is, from a legal perspective, they could do that. They do this early part because it's the courteous thing to do, and I agree with my colleagues that in order to make the proper decision, you need that kind of time. But from a procedural perspective, someone, and they frequently do, come in and start passing out papers here, all these types of things, and we're expected to consume all of that immediately and still make a position on it. So what I'm hearing is, is that where that may not be comfortable, it's okay. It's a procedural thing. Yeah. Let me add to that, though. If I misspoke, Mr. Duncan, clean me up. I think we have in this body asked for time to step back in the back and have some time to read some information before we moved ahead. I would agree with that as well. And in fact, the matter is, if we have serious issues, the problem is, is that everything that we do is open for anybody. The City Council does not have that. They have a luxury we don't have. So you can step back in the back, but the newspapers could follow you back, and some of these other people could arguably suggest that they would like to go back in the back. Yeah, I'm not talking for privacy reasons. I'm talking for time. Just knowledge. Just your, yeah. Well, I guess the question is, then, when people present us this information at the last minute, per se, are you all as a commission willing to exercise that particular prerogative of stopping everything and going back and reading it? Now, I say that in two ways. Sometimes the information is so voluminous, I don't want to go back and sit back and talk. But if it's a critical issue, I would agree. Now, everything we do here is critical because of the applicants. They're paying big bucks and money to come here and do all those types of things. But I just wanted clarification in my own mind as to what was the legal part, because this is the first time that I've been here where a commissioner has said, I'd like to postpone. If the applicant said, I don't want it, I want to go move forward with this, based on what I've just heard is that we could have, that could have happened. Now, he was accommodating because of what you all said related to the numbers of people here. But some applicants may not be accommodating because they may have people coming in from out of state, from California, and they may not have that luxury unless they want to charge their client. So their client is sitting there saying, I don't care about all that. I want to move this thing today. And to that end, they would be in their legal right to do so and procedural right to do so. I don't mean to make a, unless you all want to take up a collection from me, that's my sermon. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since I opened this door earlier today, let me put in my two cents worth. We, subdivision committee, what I'm saying, we were, had this put before us last week in the manner of this has come to our attention that there's a design overlay and ordinance, called Newtown Pike Extension, Oliver Lewis Way or whatever, that we didn't realize was there. And we need to get this plan adopted or that adopted into this plan to make everything right. And then when I saw the paperwork this morning that I got through 10 pages of, it was like, well, no, wait a second. It's not the fact that everything coincides. It's just, it's the fact that we've got 10 different items here that really doesn't meet the design guidelines that we're talking about, have found and are talking about. So we need to mesh the two. And for me, it takes, I would love to have a little bit more time to decipher that. I think it would have been very appropriate to have explained those 10 items in the committee that day and give us some relief as to what really was going on. So that's where I'm coming from and what I would like to see and hear down the road. A quick follow-up. First of all, I applaud your motion and I applaud Mr. Penn's points on that. What I was trying to clarify is procedurally what is correct. To that end, all I was getting and what Mr. Duncan clarified was, I know it was late. I know it was tough. I know it was, it doesn't matter. If the applicant had wanted to push that, that applicant could have done it. And we would have had to have taken it. But that's okay. Not unless the time was running out. Well, he said there was no time in this case. That we could do it. That's right. If it's up against the time, that's one thing. You're right, you're right. But that's okay. I've already got my collection for today. Yeah, okay. Thank you. I'm glad we could help you achieve that, Mr. Rosen. Okay. Do we have anything else before we go to Mr. Duncan? Okay. Thankfully, no. Mr. Duncan? Okay. All right. If we are finished today, then without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. It's going to be a long time before they ask me to serve.