[3.a. Consideration of the application of Hemphill, LLC by Faulk & Foster, requesting approval of 1) an Amendment to Planned Development (PD) District 03-52 for Community Retail Uses; 2) a Detail Plan for an Antenna, Commercial Use and 3) a Specific Use Provision (SUP) for an Antenna, Commercial Use. This property is located at 1102 North Country Club Road. (District 1) (File Z 23-43)]

GOOD ENOUGH. ALRIGHTY. FIRST ZONING CASE. CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF HEMPHILL LLC BY FAULK AND FOSTER REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZERO THREE DASH 52 FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES AND A DETAILED PLAN FOR AN ANTENNA. COMMERCIAL USE AND A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR AN ANTENNA. COMMERCIAL USE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1102 NORTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD IS THE APPLICANT HERE? CARE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RALPH WEINGARTEN FROM FALCON FOSTER, 1428 TRAILSIDE COURT, NORTHWEST, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, 49 504. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, HEMPHILL LLC, I ALSO HAVE WITH ME TONIGHT IN THE AUDIENCE, MITCH MYERS FROM MY CORE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE UNDERLYING PROPERTY. THEY'VE LEASED THE PROJECT AREA FOR THE CELL TOWER TO US FOR A LEASE TERM THAT STARTS OUT WITH FIVE YEARS AND THEN HAS SEVEN RENEWABLE TEAM TERMS. SO THAT'S THE 40 YEAR TERM THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, IS TO KIND OF BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LEASE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS AN 80 FOOT MONOPOLE WITH A FIVE FOOT LIGHTNING ROD. AT THAT HEIGHT, THE FAA DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY LIGHTING. SO IT'S A DARK SITE AT NIGHT. THERE'S NO FLASHING LIGHT, AND THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCEL IS PLANNED TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S NOT A CONCRETE PLAN, BUT IT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE SHOP OR OTHER SIMILAR TYPE USE WITH A WITH A DRIVE LANE AROUND A BUILDING. AND SO THERE WAS A QUESTION BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE EASEMENT GOING ACROSS. AND WE ACTUALLY WORKED THAT LOCATION OUT SO THAT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A FUTURE DRIVE LANE WHERE A DRIVE THROUGH WOULD COME IN, AND WE DIDN'T SNUG IT ALL THE WAY UP AGAINST THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SAVE ROOM FOR PARKING SPACES ALONG THAT LINE.

SO THE IDEA WOULD JUST BE BE CONSISTENT WITH A DRIVE LANE AROUND THAT CORNER AND THENN LEE PARKING AT THE EXTERIOR, IN TERMS OF THE LEASE AREA SIZE, IT MAY HAVE LOOKED KIND OF BIG JUST POSED BY ITSELF. IT'S 2657FT■S, OFTEN WE DO LIKE IN RURAL AREAS, 100 BY 100 LEASE, WHICH IS 10,000FT■S. I'VE SEEN HIM AS SMALL AS LIKE 60 BY 60, WHICH COMES OUT TO 3600FT. SO AT 26, 57, THIS ONE'S ACTUALLY ON THE SMALL, END OF THINGS, AND WE'VE KIND OF TUCKED IT AS FAR AS WE COULD INTO THAT NORTHEAST CORNER SO THAT THERE'S ROOM FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE TO GO AROUND AND PARKING AND THEN CLOSER TO THE CORNER WOULD BE THE ACTUAL FUTURE USE OF WHATEVER MR. MYERS DETERMINES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THERE. A STAFF REPORT, POINTED OUT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH YOUR ENVISION GARLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS WIRELESS PROVIDERS OR WIRELESS TOWERS, BUT IT DOES HAVE A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES TO SUPPORT GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, UTILITY CAPACITY IS ESSENTIAL TO CONTINUED RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH

[00:20:05]

IS FROM THE CHAPTER SIX TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT, PAGES SIX AND SIX. DASH FIVE. THEN AGAIN ON PAGE 6-8. THE AVAILABILITY OF UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PLAYS A ROLE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. THE SITE MUST HAVE PROPER SERVICES IN ORDER TO HANDLE A NEW RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL USE. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S TALKING ABOUT ELECTRIC CITY AND ROADS AND THINGS TOO. BUT WE BELIEVE IT ALSO PERTAINS TO WIRELESS AS WELL, BECAUSE THAT'S SUCH AN INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS NOWADAYS. FOR BOTH THE CUSTOMER AND THE BUSINESS OPERATOR. AS FAR AS THIS IMMEDIATE AREA, THIS INTERSECTION OF NORTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND CASTLE DRIVE HAS GOT, GAS STATIONS ON THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNER ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER. THIS PARCEL IS ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER AND THEN ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS A SUBSTATION. AND THEN ALL ALONG COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. I DROVE NORTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, KIND OF FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH, AND I THINK I COUNTED 3035 OF THE STEEL MONOPOLES FOR THE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES RUNNING ALL ALONG THE STREET. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HIS POLE, THAT'S KIND OF 31 AND OURS IS KIND OF 32. SO IN TERMS OF THE VERTICAL CONTEXT, THERE'S ALREADY THAT VERTICAL CONTEXT THERE IN TERMS OF STEEL POLES IN THE AIR CONSISTENT WITH THIS BEING KIND OF THE HUB FOR THE SUBSTATION FOR ELECTRICAL POWER, GAS STATIONS AND OTHER SERVICES, WE KIND OF VIEW IT AS THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FARTHER OUT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE AROUND ON EVERY SIDE, THIS PROPOSED SITE WON'T REQUIRE WATER, SEWER OR WASTE COLLECTION. TRAFFIC WILL BE VERY LIMITED, MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN WILL BE IN A COUPLE TIMES A MONTH AT MOST. SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A BIG TRAFFIC GENERATED COMPARED TO SAY LIKE A GAS STATION. ALSO, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, THE WIRELESS SERVICE WILL HELP WITH, HEALTHY EVENTS, REPORTS OF CRIMES, ACCIDENTS, WEATHER ALERTS, MONITORING THE RADAR, ALL THE KINDS OF THINGS IN IN ADDITION TO, HELPING WITH THE E911 RESPONSE AND CALLS. IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL TYPE ONE AND COMMERCIAL TYPE TWO THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE PD, I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT TOO, IF WE LOOK AT YOUR CURRENT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, I KNOW THERE'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOWERS ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT AND NON RESIDENTIAL AND TOWERS REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND NON RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT CUT OFF IS THE 85FT IN A NON RESIDENTIAL AREA YOU GENERALLY ALLOW TOWERS UP TO 85FT AS OF RIGHT NOW. AND THEN ABOVE 85FT YOU REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND SO THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE WE SAW THE CUT OFF BETWEEN TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO IN THE PD.

AND SO OUR POSITION WAS THAT IT LOOKED LIKE UNDER THE PD AS WRITTEN THIS WOULD BE AN AS OF RIGHT, TYPE USE. WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK, THAT GIVEN THE GIVEN THE CONTEXT HERE, IT HAS BUILT CONTEXT WITH THE EXISTING, INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE, WIRELESS POLE OF THE ELECTRICAL POLES AND, AND THE WAY THAT WE ARE MEETING ALL THE OTHER SETBACKS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND WE WOULD RESPECTFLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL, I THINK IT'S NOTABLE THAT OF ALL THE 41 RESIDENTS NOTIFIED, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVEN'T SHOWED UP TONIGHT WITH CONCERNS, I KNOW THERE'S A GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE THAT'S SPEAKING REGARNG THE OTHER TOWER, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. AND THEN I'LL COME BACK AND ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ITEMS AS WEWELL. ALL RIGH.

THANK YOU. WELL, COMMISSIONER DALTON HAS A QUESTION OR TWO. OKAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND OUR ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO DISTANCE BETWEEN CELL TOWERS HAS ONLY TO DO WITH CELL TOWERS. HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER MONOPOLE. SUCH AS POWER DISTRIBUTION OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. ONLY CELLULAR PROVIDING TOWERS BEING WITHIN 5000FT OF ONE ANOTHER. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE HAS. OKAY, YOU SAID IN YOUR COMMENTS THAT THIS IS TO IMPROVE CELL SERVICE IN THE AREA. WHAT CARRIER ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE ON THAT TOWER? AT&T, AT&T AND THEN THERE'S SPACE FOR THREE ADDITIONAL OTHER PROVIDERS, RIGHT? YEAH, I'VE NOTICED THAT WE DON'T RESTRICT IT TO JUST CELL PROVIDERS. WE ARE OPEN TO EMERGENCY SERVICES, ANTENNAS, WIRELESS INTERNET PROVIDERS, ANY OTHER TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY THAT'S

[00:25:05]

COMING DOWN THE ROAD WITH INTERNET OF THINGS, HEMPHILL DOES NOT RESTRICT WHO THEIR OCCUPANTS ARE IN TERMS OF TYPE OF SERVICE. WELL, OF COURSE, AT&T ALSO, THEY'RE THE PROVIDER FOR BAND 14, WHICH IS THE, WHAT'S KNOWN AS FIRSTNET. YEP, THEY'RE THE PROVIDER OF THAT.

AND THEY DO USE THAT ON THEY DO OPERATE THAT BAND 14 ON CELL TOWERS AND NOT ON THE SAME PUBLIC SAFETY TOWERS ON THIS MAP THAT YOU'VE SEEN THE TOWER THAT THE CITY OF GARLAND OWNS, IT'S, OVER AT COUNTRY CLUB IN 66. THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO IN THAT TOWER. SO HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL WITH CELLULAR SERVICES, SOME OTHER TOWERS IN THAT VICINITY IN AT&T IS ON ONE OF THOSE AS WELL. RIGHT AND THAT'S WHY I QUESTIONED THAT BECAUSE, THESE TOWERS ARE CAPABLE OF MULTIPLE USERS. AND THE TOWER THAT'S ONLY 600FT AWAY, I WOULD THINK WOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING AT&T AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHY I'M QUESTIONING THE PROVIDER THAT'S GOING UP ON THIS TOWER, YEAH. AT&T NEEDED TO HAVE A 75 FOOT CENTER LINE FOR ITS ANTENNAS TO MEET ITS SERVICE OBJECTIVE. THE SBA TOWER IS A 65 FOOT TOWER, AND IT'S GOT OCCUPANTS. IT'S GOT AN OCCUPANT ON THE TOP SLOT, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT A 60 FOOT CENTER LINE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECOND ONE BELOW. AND MR, GENTLEMAN CAN PROBABLY ENLIGHTEN US IF THERE'S OTHER LEASED SPACES BELOW THAT.

BUT IN TERMS OF AVAILABILITY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE 40FT AVAILABLE, WHICH IS ABOUT HALF OF WHAT AT&T NEEDS. SO THAT'S THE ISSUE WITH THE EXISTING TOWER IS IT'S ONLY 65FT. TOP PORTION IS LEASED. SO THE AVAILABLE PORTION IS DOWN LOWER ON THE TOWER. OKAY AND ALSO IN THE FUTURE I THINK IN TERMS OF OTHER CARRIERS AND OTHER NEEDS, THERE'S ENOUGH NEED TO KEEP TWO SHORTER TOWERS BOTH OCCUPIED IN THE ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE IS ALSO GOING TO BE USEFUL IN THE FUTURE FOR OTHER PROVIDERS. SO BOTH OF OUR TOWERS CAN HOST DIFFERENT DIFFERENT PROVIDERS IN THE FUTURE. WELL, WE WE'RE AWARE OF THAT. AND SINCE THERE'S THREE PROVIDERS, TYPICALLY MANTOWERS ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING ALL THREE CARRIERS SIMULTANEOUSLY. I KNOW OF LOCATIONS, MORE SPECIFICALLY IN DALLAS ITSELF, WHERE WHEN THERE WAS FOUR PROVIDERS, THERE WAS FOUR TOWERS LITERALLY 100FT APART AND A LITTLE SQUARE IN THAT SAME LOCATION. TODAY, THERE'S ONE TOWER WITH ALL FOUR, ALL THREE PROVIDERS ON ONE TOWER. IT'S OFF OF INTERSTATE 30. SO THAT'S A BALANCING ACT THAT JURISDICTIONS HAVE LOOKED AT. DO WE WANT, YOU KNOW, FEWER, TALLER TOWERS OR LOTS OF SMALLER TOWERS WITH INDIVIDUALS ON IT? AND THAT'S KIND OF A FUNCTION OF SOMETIMES WHAT THE JURISDICTION WANTS TO DO. AND THEN ALSO AS THE SYSTEMS MATURE, THEY NEED SMALLER AND SMALLER CELLS IN TERMS OF THE CAPACITY. AND SO THEY KEEP FILLING IN, FILLING IN, FILLING IN WITH SHORTER TOWERS. WELL, TALLER TOWERS GET MORE COVERAGE RIGHT. THEY GET FURTHER COVERAGE. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ON THE INTERSTATES THREE 400 FOOT TOWERS ON THE INTERSTATE COVERING THOSE LARGER AREAS WHERE IN TOWN YOU'LL GET A 85 OR 75 FOOT TOWER AND A LOCAL AREA, THE EXISTING TOWERS AROUND. AND SO THAT'S WHY THESE ARE ONLY IN THE 80 FOOT OR SO RANGE, IS BECAUSE WE WANT A SMALLER CELL THAT'S JUST HITTING THIS INTERSECTION. AND KIND OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND IT, AND THAT'S IT. WE DON'T WANT TO GO FURTHER THAN THAT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT OTHER TOWERS SERVING THOSE OTHER AREAS. AND THEY'RE FULL OF, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF CAPACITY. WE WANT IT EVENLY DIVIDED. WELL, SINCE I DIDN'T SEE A HEAT MAP SUBMITTED WITH THIS, I WAS JUST KIND OF WONDERING. YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WHEN SOMEBODY ASKS TO REDUCE THE 5000FT, THEY DO COME IN WITH A PROPAGATION MAPS AND EVERYTHING TO SHOW US WHERE THE GAPS ARE AND HOW THEY'LL FILL IN, I NOTICED YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT HERE. AS IT GOES ON TO COUNCIL, YOU MAY WANT TO. OKAY. THAT. YEAH, THAT DIDN'T PROVE A POINT. COME UP WITH STAFF. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR ABOUT A YEAR ON THIS AND THAT ONE DIDN'T COME UP. BUT NOW THAT WE'VE GOT OTHER CONCERNS. YEAH. IS THE NEED FOR MORE TOWERS BECAUSE OF CAPACITY? BECAUSE I THINK EVERYTHING'S COVERED. OR IS IT JUST THE CAPACITY WITH ALL THE VIDEO AND OTHER FUNCTIONS BOTH WAYS, IT GIVES US A STRONG DOMINANT SIGNAL IN TERMS OF SIGNAL STRENGTH, BUT IT ALSO CARVES OUT A CAPACITY PIECE THAT'S RIGHT AROUND THIS INTERSECTION AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. SO WHAT WAS ONCE SERVED BY THOSE FURTHER OFF TALLER TOWERS COVERING THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU'RE CUTTING THAT IN ABOUT HALF SO THAT THOSE TOWERS HAVE ROOM TO GROW IN. THIS ONE TAKES ON MAYBE 50% OF WHAT THE SURROUNDING EACH SURROUNDING TOWER HAD. SO IT FUNCTIONS AS A

[00:30:02]

CAPACITY RELIEF IN THAT WAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH ALL RIGHTY. I HAVE A I HAVE A CARD FOR, WILLIAM FRANCIS. AND WHILE YOU'RE COMING UP, I ALSO HAVE A, PERSON NOT TESTIFYING. MITCH MYERS. HE'S FOR. THANK YOU. YEAH EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU, SET THIS UP FOR SLIDESHOW, PLEASE? DOES ADOBE HAVE A SLIDESHOW MODE? IT'S. OH, IF THIS IS A PDF, PROBABLY NOT. YEAH, WELL, YEAH, I WILL JUST BE ABLE. WE CAN SEE IT. WE CAN DO THIS MONITOR. YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE FINE. YEAH. THE ARROWS UP AND DOWN. GREAT MR. CHAIR, BEFORE WE GET GOING, I APPRECIATE A COUPLE EXTRA MINUTES BECAUSE THE COMPLEXITY MATTERS AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANTS MADE REGARDING THE SBA TOWER. SO I PROMISE YOU I'LL BREEZE THROUGH THIS, BUT I THINK YOU'LL FIND IT INFORMATIVE. I HOPE, AND I DO NEED THE NAME AND ADDRESS. ABSOLUTELY EXCUSE ME FOR THE FROG VOICE. MY NAME IS BOB FRANCIS, AND THE ADDRESS IS 112 EAST PECAN IN SAN ANTONIO. I REPRESENT THE SBA COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THREE LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS. THEY HAVE OVER 67,000 TOWERS, EITHER OWNED OR MANAGED IN THE UNITED STATES. THE TOWER THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE, AS WE DISCUSSED, JUST ONLY 680FT FROM THE SBA TOWER. NOW, I THINK WE NEED TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS SBA TOWER IS AN 85 FOOT TOWER, NOT A 65 FOOT TOWER. AND SHOW YOU A LETTER AND THE LETTERS IN THE PACKET ITSELF IN THE IN THE SLIP FROM THE EXECUTIVE OF SBA CONFIRMING THAT THEY HAVE A 75 FOOT RAT AVAILABLE. AND THAT IS WHAT THE RAD THAT AT&T NEEDS. SO WE'LL GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT DETAIL FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, I'D LIKE TO PUT OUT FOR YOU THAT THE GDC DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD TO DISREGARD THE 5000 FOOT SEPARATION LINE. IF YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH, THEN ALL THE ELEMENTS OF YOUR WIRELESS ORDINANCE COULD BE APPLIED TO BE DISREGARDED, BE AMENDED OUT, SUCH AS BUILDING IN THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK. THAT'S WHY WE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS BY VIA EMAIL SINCE DECEMBER WITH STAFF ON THIS POINT. ADDITIONALLY, THEY HAVE NOT MET THE. ANY INFORMATION TO YOU TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF AN SUP, A SPECIAL USE PROVISION. YOU ALL HANDLE THOSE ON A REGULAR BASIS. THERE'S BEEN NO TESTIMONY. THERE'S BEEN NO DOCUMENTATION TO MEET THAT CRITERIA THAT YOU REQUIRE OF ANY APPLICANT, WHETHER IT'S A GARAGE, A BUILDING OR WHATEVER, TO GET AN SUP. I HEARD NO TESTIMONY. ADDITIONALLY, GETTING BACK TO THE MAIN, ONE OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS, STAFF, ECHOED IN THEIR REPORT. WHAT, MR. WEINGARTEN SAID THAT THE REASON THAT WE NEED TO DISREGARD THE 5000 FOOT SEPARATION IS FOR CELLULAR COVERAGE ISSUES. NOW, LET'S STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE. WHERE'S AT&T? ARE THEY HERE TO SAY WE HAVE SPECIFIC, COVERAGE ISSUES? NO. WHERE ARE THE RF MAPS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT? NO, WE'LL SEE IN A MINUTE. WE CREATED MAPS TO SHOW. SO IF THERE IS A GAP IN SERVICE AT 75 FOOT RAD, ONLY 680FT AWAY, IT FILLS ANY HYPOTHETICAL COVERAGE GAP. YOU'LL SEE THAT VERY QUICKLY. SO BASICALLY WE'RE GOING ON A HUNCH THAT THERE IS A COVERAGE ISSUE, AND THAT COVERAGE ISSUE WARRANTS COMPLETELY DISGARDING A KEY ELEMENT OF YOUR GDC REQUIREMENTS. AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE NO RF MAPS, THERE ARE NO TESTING. GERMANY, THERE'S NO AFFIDAVIT, THERE'S NO STATEMENT FROM THE ACTUAL CARRIER. BASICALLY YOU'VE GOT HEARSAY ON HEARSAY, ON HEARSAY, AND A, A CONSULTANT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A. TONIGHT'S THE FIRST

[00:35:02]

TIME THEY'VE DISCLOSED IT WAS AT&T. WE ASKED BACK IN DECEMBER WHO'S THE CARRIER SO WE COULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. WHY IS THERE A GAP WE WERE TOLD BY STAFF, OH, CARRIER ISSUES, ARE NOT, APPROPRIATE TO BE ADDRESSED. THAT CAME BACK FROM, NABIHA. AND THEN ALSO FROM BRIAN ENGLAND. SO TONIGHT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THAT IT'S BEEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED WHO THE CARRIER IS. IT'S KIND OF DIFFERENT. LAST MONTH, YOU APPROVED, JACOBS, WHO CAME IN WITH AT&T. YOU HAD THE FULL CONTRACT. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S HANDLED ACROSS THE STATE AND IN OTHER STATES WE WORK WITH. AGAIN, THE QUESTION I'LL LEAVE THIS FOR YOUR LEGAL TEAM TO DISCUSS, AND THANKS FOR RAISING . IF YOU CAN'T AMEND OUT A PD TO REMOVE A KEY 5000 FOOT SEPARATION, THEN HE SHOULD BE APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE. OTHERWISE IF YOU ALLOW THIS PROCESS OF AMENDING A PD TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WIRELESS ORDINANCE, EVERY TOWER WOULD BE IN A PD BECAUSE THEY COULD GET ASKED FOR ANYTHING THEY WANT. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS COME IN AND SAY, OH, WE WANT TO AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK. I NEED TO GET OVER CLOSER. SO TO ME THAT IS A KEY QUESTION. AND YEARS AGO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR A VARIANCE. NOW PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD LOOK IN THE PACKET LEAF THERE'S A LETTER FROM JONATHAN ROUSH WHO IS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF MARKETING FOR, SBA COMMUNICATIONS. HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE MAJOR CARRIERS. SBA HAS MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH AT&T TO COVER COSTS OF CO-LOCATION. THEY REGULARLY HAVE CALLS EITHER WEEKLY, MONTHLY.

THEY CALL JONATHAN, HEY, WE'VE GOT A GAP IN GARLAND. WHAT DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE? THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT RELATIONSHIP. AT&T IS ON 6200 OF AT&T OF SBAS TOWERS. YEAH BUT AS JONATHAN SAYS IN HIS LETTER AND AS OF LAST WEEK, HE HAS NOT HEARD A SINGLE WORD FROM AT&T CLAIMING A COVERAGE GAP. THAT'S ODD. THAT'S VERY ODD. NOW ANOTHER THING HEMPHILL DID THAT'S RATHER UNUSUAL IS, IS NOTICE ON THE APPLICATION, THEY CALL IT UNIQUE ANTENNAS. WHY ARE THEY HIDING? IT'S AT&T. THEY THEY YOU DON'T BUILD TOWERS ON SPEC. THEY GO IN AND YOU'LL SEE I'VE WORKED WITH THEM ON THE OTH SIDE OF SEVERAL OTHER APPLICATIONS. NOW THE QUESTION OF FREQUENCY MAPS, THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED FREQUENCY MAPS OF WHAT DID SBA DO. SBA USED ITS ITS ENGINEERING TEAM TO CREATE RADIO FREQUENCY MAPS, PRESUPPOSING LET'S MAKE UP A HYPOTHETICAL GAP IN SERVICE, AND LET'S COMPARE HOW THAT GAP CAN BE RESOLVED AT 75FT ON SBA TOWER VERSUS THE 75FT THEY'RE PROPOSING. THIS IS THE FIRST EXAMPLE. THIS IS AT 700MHZ. THIS IS POINTING TO THE COVERAGE THAT WILL BE GENERATED AT 75FT ON THE SBA TOWER. BLUE IS EXCELLENT. AND THEN IT DEGRADES DOWN TO RED WHERE YOU HAVE DROPPED CALLS. NOW LOOK AT THE MINUSCULE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COVERAGE AT 75 ON SBA TOWER AND THE COVERAGE ON HEMPHILL. OOPS, SORRY, THERE WE GO. HEMPHILL SBA NOW. SO WE WENT UP TO A DIFFERENT FREQUENCY, 1900 MEGAHERTZ, WHICH HAS A LOWER A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, BUT AT 75FT AT AT&T ON THE SBA TOWER, 75FT ON THE HEMPHILL TOWER. WHY DIDN'T THEY COME TO SBA AND FOLLOW THE PROCESS? WHY DIDN'T THEY COME DURING ALL THE TELEPHONE CALLS WHERE THEY DISCUSSED SITES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WHERE AT&T HAS ISSUES? WELL, IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE RUN INTO THIS ISSUE. THESE ARE THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS THAT YOU WILL SEE OF THIS. WHAT OCCURS WHEN YOU IGNORE THE TOWER SEPARATIONS? YOU COULD WRAP IT UP FOR US, PLEASE, REAL QUICKLY. OKAY WELL, THIS IS I HOPE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO YOU ALL BECAUSE IT'S THE EFFECT THAT IT'LL IMPACT YOUR YOUR COMMUNITY. HEMPHILL APPLIED FOR 150 FOOT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER AND BURLESON. THAT'S ONLY 240FT FROM THE SBA TOWER. TWO YEARS GO BY

[00:40:05]

THESE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS, THE COUNCIL DIDN'T LIKE THE 150. THEY WOULD ONLY APPROVE 100. AND MR. WINEGARD WASN'T HAPPY WITH IT. BUT APPARENTLY THEY BUILT IT. BUT THIS IS WHAT BURLESON NOW HAS IS THE SAME THING IN RED OAK. THEY APPLIED FOR A TOWER THAT WAS ONLY 0.15 MILES AWAY.

DENIED SAME IN SHREVEPORT. APPLIED AGAIN DISREGARDING THE TOWER SEPARATION. AGAIN A YEAR AND A HALF OF DISCUSSIONS BACK AND FORTH MET MULTIPLE MEETINGS BEFORE COMMISSIONS, DENIED. AND HERE'S ONE INTERESTING AT&T. I HAD TO GO DOWN TO DEER PARK. BEAUTIFUL DOWN THERE. THEY APPLIED FOR A TOWER 200FT AWAY FROM AN SBA TOWER. WHEN WE GOT UP AND STARTED DOING A PRESENTATION, THEY WITHDREW, BUT THEY WENT AHEAD AND DENIED IT. THESE NEXT PICTURES AND THEY'RE IN YOUR BOOK ARE THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND THEY SHOW THE DIRECT IMPACT THAT THIS PROGRAM HAS OF BUILDING TOWERS AS CLOSE AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO EXISTING TOWERS, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING COVERAGE, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO BUILD IT AND THEN REMOVE TOWERS. CARRIERS OFF THE EXISTING TOWERS. AGAIN THE QUESTION THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE ASKED, WHY DIDN'T AT&T MENTION THIS IN OVER A YEAR OF MONTHLY CALLS, IF NOT WEEKLY CALLS WITH SBA, THAT THEY HAD THIS GAP IN SERVICE? WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT AND THAT, WE LEAVE IT UP FOR YOUR COMPETENLEGAL STAFF TO ADVISE YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN USE UNDER YOUR CURRENT CODE, THE, THE AMENDMENT TO THE PD PROCESS TO DISREGARD THE TOWER SEPARATION. I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS, AND THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME SOME EXTRA TIME. SURE, COMMISSIONER DALTON, THANK YOU. WHAT CARRIERS DO YOU HAVE ON THAT TOWER RIGHT NOW, T-MOBILE. JUST T-MOBILE? YES, SIR. BUT THE 75 FOOT RAT IS VACANT, SO YOU'VE GOT PLENTY OF ARRAY SPACE. ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE? YES SIR. AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS. THE LETTER THAT WE GOT FROM JONATHAN. SO T-MOBILE IS THAT ONE RUNNING IN TH 600MHZ RANGE, OR IS IT RUNNING UP IN THE NINE HUNDREDS? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW OKAY. BECAUSE 700 WAS MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY IN 700 IS WHERE THE, AT&T IS RUNNING BAND 14, AND THAT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE OF A CRITICAL THING RIGHT NOW TO GET BAND 14 UP AND FUNCTIONAL. YES, SIR. IT'S IN THE LOW SIDE OF 700. SO, UPPER SIDE OF 700, 800 I IS ALL PUIC SAFETY STUFF. SO THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD. 900. NOW YOU'RE GETTING UP INTO THE CELL PHONE WORLD OR DOWN INTO THE SIX, 700 OR 600MHZ RANGE, SO YOU GOT PLENTY OF ROOM AND AT&T IS NOT APPROACHED YOU OR YOU HAVE ASKED THEM SPECIFICALLY IF THEY NEED COVERAGE. THERE NO, NO. AND IN FACT THE SAME SITUATION BURLESON THEY A VERIZON FOR TWO YEARS HAS NEVER FOLLOWED THE CODE. HEMPHILL NEVER FOLLOWED THE CODE TO ASK SBA WHAT AVAILABLE SPACE DO YOU HAVE. THEY WANT TO BUILD A TOWER AND THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE TECHNICAL SETBACK. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING DOWN. I HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKER CARDS. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE. COME ON BACK. THANK YOU, FIRST OF ALL, IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED, PRESENTED, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, INITIALLY WHEN WE STARTED WORKING WITH PLAN WITH STAFF, PLANNING STAFF, OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THIS WAS A SPECIFICALLY AS OF RIGHT ALLOWED TOWER UNDER THE PD AS TYPE ONE. TYPE TWO, WE SAW AS THE 85 FOOT CUTOFF. AND SO BEING NOT TALLER THAN 85FT, IT WOULD BE A TYPE ONE TOWER, WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE PD. WE WERE ADVISED BY PLANNING STAFF THAT ALL WE NEEDED TO HAVE WAS A DETAILED PLAN, NOT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WITH ALL THE PROOFS AND MAPS, AND SO ON. AND THAT HAS JUST SNUCK IN HERE AT THE VERY END THAT NOW WE'RE REFERENCING A SPECIAL USE PROVISION. AND I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER ITEM IN ADDITION TO THE DETAIL PLAN. SO THAT'S NOT

[00:45:03]

SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON ALL ALONG WITH STAFF TALKING ABOUT NEED FOR COVERAGE MAPS AND ALL THIS OTHER CARRIER SUPPORT LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE IN A TRADITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS. WE WERE WORKING WITH STAFF ON THE DETAILED PLAN WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A PD, MEANING WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT DRIVEWAYS AND DISTANCES FROM THE CORNER AND ALL OF THE SITE PLAN TYPE THINGS TO GET THAT STRAIGHT FOR THIS HEARING. AND NOW WE'RE BEING PUSHED INTO, OH, THIS IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. YOU NEED ALL THESE PROOFS. WHY YOU NEED TO HAVE IT. WHY YOU NEED TO HAVE A TOWER HERE AND SO ON. AND WE CAN GET THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE WERE AT IN TERMS OF WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH PLANNING STAFF. AS FAR AS THE TOWER HEIGHT, ALL OF THIS IS BASED ON THEIR TOWER HEIGHT BEING 85FT. I STILL QUESTION THAT I LOOK TODAY AT THE ANTENNA STRUCTURE REGISTRATION ON THE FCC DATABASE, AND IT SAYS THAT THEIR TOWER WITHOUT APPURTENANCES IS 19.8M, WHICH TRANSLATES INTO LIKE 64 POINT, BLAH BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. SO THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE INFORMATION OF IT BEING 65FT.

AND THAT'S, I GUESS, A FACTUAL ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESOLVED. BUT LOOKING AT IT, I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT IT LOOKS PRETTY SHORT TO ME. AND THAT'S WHAT THE FCC DATABASE SAID. SO THAT'S WHAT WE BASED OUR 65 ON. HE'S NOW SAYING IT'S 85 WITH 75 AVAILABLE. AND THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY THAN THAN WHAT WE SEE, SO YEAH, I GUESS I GUESS THAT'S THE CONTEXT AND WHERE HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS, STAFF IS KNOWN FOR AGES THAT IT'S AT&T. WE'VE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT TO STAFF. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DIDN'T SHARE THAT. I'M NOT SURE. YOU KNOW WHY SBA IS KIND OF THE GATEKEEPER FOR ALL THE INFORMATION. I JUST THEY MAKE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS TO STAFF, AND I EXPECT THAT STAFF WILL SHARE WHAT INFORMATION THEY HAVE. AND THAT'S BETWEEN BETWEEN THEM. BUT WE'RE NOT HIDING THAT. IT'S AT&T. AND WE HAVE MENTIONED THAT FOR A LONG TIME WITH STAFF. THEY ASKED US ABOUT THE NEED AND WHY AND WHO THE CARRIER WAS, AND WE PROVIDED THEM WITH THAT INFORMATION. SO, IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT HERE, THEY MENTIONED A LOT OF DIFFERENT SITES, SOME INVOLVING HEMPHILL AND SOME INVOLVING OTHER PROVIDERS, THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN APPROVED AND HE'S NOT BEEN, ON THE, ON THE WINNING SIDE, WHICH HE DIDN'T MENTION. SO THAT JUST GETS INTO AN ARGUMENT, KIND OF A COMPETITION. MCDONALD'S BURGER KING, WENDY'S, WHATABURGER. WHO DID WHAT? AND YOU GUYS AREN'T HERE TO SEPARATE THAT OUT.

YOU'RE HERE TO JUST DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT WHAT IS IN CONTEXT WITH WHAT'S THERE. AND, FROM OUR POSITION, IT'S 65FT. IT DOESN'T MEET THE NEED, HE'S SAYING IT'S 85. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO WHAT TO DO WITH THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PLUMB LINE AND A LADDER. BUT BUT WE DON'T THINK IT MEETS WHAT WE NEED. OKAY I'VE GOT A COUPLE COMMISSIONERS. WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHIN COMMISSIONER JENKINS, THEN, COMMISSIONER PARIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, SIR, HOW DID YOU COME TO THE ASSESSMENT THAT IT WAS 65FT, FROM THE FCC ANTENNA STRUCTURE REGISTRATION DATABASE. THEY HAVE A LISTING OF EACH TOWER'S REGISTRATION WITH THEM. AND THIS PARTICULAR TOWER FROM SBA IS REGISTERED ON THAT DATABASE, AND IT SAYS 19.8M IS THE HEIGHT WITHOUT APPURTENANCES. THAT MEANS WITHOUT LIGHTNING ROD, WITHOUT ANTENNAS. AND THAT'S 19.8M, WHICH TRANSLATES TO 65FT. THANK YOU. I REFERENCE, THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBER IN OPPOSITION JANUARY 24TH. THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION INDICATES THAT THE TOWER IS NOT, IS NOT 80FT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE LETTER INDICATES THAT THE TOWER COULD BE, A SUPPLEMENTED TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. SO I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION SURROUNDING THAT. I'M GOING TO USE THE LETTER IN OPPOSITION, AND THE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE FCC INFORMATION AS A BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT IT'S PROPERLY 65FT. THANK YOU. OKAY SO IT SOUNDS LIKE HE NEEDS TO TAKE OUR CLIENT OFF OF OUR TOWER TO JUSTIFY EXTENDING HIS UP TO THE 80FT, BECAUSE THERE'S A FEDERAL PROVISION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO EXTEND A TOWER THAT'S CONSTRUCTED WITH IF YOU HAVE A CARRIER TO JUSTIFY THAT EXTENSION, WHICH I GUESS IS, IS OURS THAT THEY'RE TAKING, BUT TO ME, THAT'S SHORTSIGHTED IN TERMS OF FUTURE NEEDS, BECAUSE HERE WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THREE ADDITIONAL PROVIDERS ONCE THEY EXTEND AND PUT OURS ON. WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT APPLICATION IN THAT FEDERAL LAW ONLY ALLOWS YOU TO EXTEND ONCE, NOT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

AND SO I THINK IN TERMS OF LONG TERM VIEW, THERE'S ENOUGH WORK FOR BOTH BOTH TOWERS TO BE

[00:50:08]

OCCUPIED HERE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER JENKINS, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A FOLLOW UP. YES. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, ONE FINAL QUESTION, THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED, HIGHLIGHT A, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT PAGE IT IS OF THE DIAGRAM, A UNIQUE TOWER ARRAY AT THE VERY TOP. I'M NOT. THIS ENTIRE THING IS EDUCATIONAL TO ME. I'M NOT AN RAF GUY. WHAT IS THAT? TOP SPACE. SPACE OKAY, THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO AT&T. I THINK THEY STARTED OUT WITH IT JUST LABELED UNIQUE AS THEY WERE NAILING DOWN THE PROVIDER. BUT NOW THAT AT&T HAS NAILED DOWN, THAT SHOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE DRAWINGS AND WE'LL MAKE THAT. SO THAT'S NOT, DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY OR NO. THAT'S THE EXACT SAME TECHNOLOGY AS EVERYTHING ELSE. OKAY SO IT'S THE EXACT SAME TECHNOLOGY THAT'S ON THE 65 FOOT TOWER, LESS THAN 5000FT AWAY. EACH PROVIDER HAS THEIR OWN FREQUENCY RANGE THAT THEY'RE LICENSED BY THE FCC. SO THERE MIGHT BE TINY DIFFERENCES, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE SAME TECHNOLOGY. THANK YOU. YEP. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PIERCE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ADDRESSING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. I HAVE. ONE MORE CLARIFICATION. I AM NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH CELL TOWERS IN GENERAL, SO I TYPICALLY LOOK AT LAND USE. AND THEN ALSO THE GDC TO HELP GUIDE AND HELP MAKE DECISIONS. AND I AM UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT CELL TOWERS HAVE TO BE WITHIN 5000FT OF EACH OTHER, AND THIS SEEMS TO BE ONLY WITHIN 600FT OF EACH OTHER. OF THESE TOWERS. AND SO, VERSUS IS THAT DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT OR HAVE I MISUNDERSTOOD SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE? ONE OF THE MANY SETBACKS AND SEPARATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IS A 5000 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN, BETWEEN EXISTING BETWEEN CELL TOWERS. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY EXPECT THEM TO BE SET BACK THAT MUCH UNLESS THERE'S EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. BUT THAT'S IN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SECTION AND NOT IN A PUD WHERE IT ALREADY PROVIDES FOR THE USE. AND YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT LIKE AN SUPP. IT'S ALREADY WRITTEN INTO THE PUD AMENDMENT. AND SO IF YOU'RE DOING JUST A DETAIL PLAN BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THE KIND OF THE UNIQUE REGULATIONS FOR THAT PD, THEN THEN THE LAST STEP IS JUST THE DETAIL PLAN AND YOU'RE DOING WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED WHEN THE PD WAS APPROVED. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN IN THIS IN THIS PROCESS, NOT IN THE ON THE SPECIFIC USE TRACK. THANK YOU. I MAY COME BACK WITH ANOTHER QUESTION. THANK YOU. THAT'S FINE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OH SURE SURE. COMMISSIONER CORNELIUS, YOU CHIMED IN WHILE MY HEAD WAS TURNED AWAY, LOOKING AT. NO, I'M I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUPP AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE PD THAT WAS PRESENTED AND WHAT STAFF PRESENTED. IT SEEMS A LITTLE CONFLICTING. I COULD I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DID KNOW? OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PD REFERRED TO TYPE ONE THAT ARE ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT, AND TYPE TWO THAT REQUIRES SPECIFIC USE WITHIN THE WITHIN THE PD ITSELF. THAT TYPE ONE REFERRED TO TOWERS 85FT OR LOWER AND TYPE TWO REQUIRING THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REFERRED TO TOWERS 85FT OR HIGHER. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE SAW THE CUT OFF. AND I. AND THEN THERE WAS A DEFINITION GIVEN, BUT IT KIND OF REPEATED ITSELF. AND THAT WAS FROM SOMETHING ELSE. AND I DON'T KNOW, I HAVEN'T SEEN A CLEAR SPLIT AS TO WHAT TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO WOULD BE, BUT TO US IT WAS THE 85FT. ARE YOU OVER 85FT? THEN YOU GO SPECIFIC USE PROCESS UNDER 85FT. THEN YOUR AS OF RIGHT AND ALREADY PROVIDED FOR WITHIN THE PD SO THAT ALL YOU NEED IS A DETAILED PLAN TO WORK OUT THE SITE PLAN DETAILS FOR APPROVAL AND THEN YOU'RE DONE. THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY, I STILL FEEL CONFLICTED, Y'ALL, MAYBE STAFF CAN ADDRESS WHAT HE WAS TOLD. I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I. I VOTE CORRECTLY, ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD DEFINITELY REMIND YOU OF THE STAFF PRESENTATION, WHICH IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A PD IN PLACE FOR THIS SITE AND PER THE PD AND SCP WAS REQUIRED FOR THE ANTENNA, THE PD REFERS TO A TYPE TWO, WHICH IS HOW IT WAS DEFINED WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN IN 2003. AND SO THAT IS THE DEFINITION THAT WE ARE

[00:55:03]

FOLLOWING. FOR THIS REQUEST. AND SO WHAT IS SHOWN IN YOUR PLANNING REPORT IS WHAT STAFF'S, COMMUNICATION OF THIS ITEM IS IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, I DEFINITELY DEFER TO STAFF IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, FEEL FREE TO STEP UP IF YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. NO, WE DON'T NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. THANK YOU SIR, SO I DID WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS ABOUT THE SCP AND PD PROCESS HERE. SO ANGELA IS CORRECT. SO THE PD DOES REQUIRE AN SCP FOR A TYPE TWO ANTENNA, WHICH IS FROM THE ORDINANCE BEFORE THE GDC, AS FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT'S HAPPENING HERE, IF THIS WAS A TYPE ONE ANTENNA OR IF THERE WAS NO SCP REQUIRED FOR A TYPE TWO WITHIN THIS PD, THE SAME EXACT, THEY WOULD BE HERE NO MATTER WHAT, AND THE SAME DRAWINGS WOULD BE SUBMITTED BECAUSE IN GENERAL, IN THE GDC, NOT JUST THE PD OR AN SCP ONLY, IT IS THE 5000 FOOT RULE IS WHAT IS BRINGING THEM HERE. IF THERE WAS NO SCP REQUIRED, THE SCP IS JUST KIND OF AN ADDITION TO THAT, JUST PURELY BECAUSE OF THIS PD. BUT THE SAME DRAWINGS AND THE SAME OVERALL PROCESS OF COMING HERE, GOING TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE OF THAT 5000 FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN TOWERS, IS THE REASON THEY'RE HERE. AND THE SCP IS REALLY JUST A WEIRD KIND OF STICK OUT JUST BECAUSE THIS PD YEAH. SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL HELP IS BY ITSELF, THE GDC WOULD NOT REQUIRE IT. BUT THIS IS A PD PRE THE GDC THAT SAID ANY TOWER THAT GOES IN THERE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN SCP FOR. AND SO THAT JUST KICKED IN THE WHOLE THING FOR THE SP AND THE REQUIREMENT. YES. THAT'S WHAT TACKS ON THE SCP TO A PROCESS THAT ALREADY WAS TRIGGERED BY BEING WITHIN 5000FT OF ANOTHER CASE. THE RULES OF 85 UNDER 85 DOESN'T MATTER NOW, AND THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE HEIGHT, WAS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ANY OF THIS, IT IS WITHIN LEGAL HEIGHT OF THE GDC. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID THAT CLARIFY IT FOR YOU? ALL RIGHTY. WELL, NO. NO, MISS STATEMENT. WELL, NO, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM YOU.

WE. YEAH. WE LET THE APPLICANT HAVE THE LAST SAY. ALL RIGHTY. I THINK IT'S UP TO US NOW. I THINK. OH, COMMISSIONER DALTON, IT'S UP TO US NOW. YES THERE WAS A REASON THE CITY PUT THE 5000 FOOT RULE IN AND THAT WAS TO PREVENT MULTIPLE TOWERS BEING TO CLOSE TOGETHER. AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE DON'T. I CAN DO THAT. IF WE'D LIKE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON. SECOND TO, BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SORRY.

I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GET THAT GOOD. JUST TO MAKE SURE. IT'S JUST US. WELL, YEAH. COVER OUR BASES. EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, EVERY REQUEST WE'VE HAD FOR A CELL TOWER HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO A HEAT MAP. WHAT WE CALL IN THE INDUSTRY, A HEAT MAP THAT SHOWS THE REASON WE NEED THE CELL TOWER, THAT THERE IS A GIANT HOLE IN THIS LOCATION, THAT PEOPLE'S CALLS ARE BEING DROPPED. THINGS OF THIS NATURE TAKING PLACE THIS DAY AND TIME WITH THE TECHNOLOGY, WHAT IT IS, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE ALL THREE OF THE CELLULAR PROVIDERS ARRIVE ON ONE TOWER AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT WORKS GREAT HERE. WE HAVE A CASE WHERE A TOWER EXISTS WITH ONE PROVIDER, AND SOMEONE'S OFFERING TO PUT A SECOND TOWER IN WITH ONE PROVIDER. I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT. I CANNOT, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST IT. I THINK IT'S BEST IF WE STICK WITH THE RULES THAT THE CITY HAS CREATED MANY YEARS AGO. IT'S FOR THE VISUAL BENEFIT OF OUR CITIZENS. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE WHERE I STAND ON THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JENKINS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FIND THE ORATION O OF MY FELW COMMISSIONER, COMPELLING. AND I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS AS WELL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I, TOO AGREE WITH YOU. AND IF YOU RECALL, YOU'VE SAT HERE THROUGH ENOUGH OF THESE. WE HAVE APPROVED LESS THAN 5000FT BEFORE, AND THE QUESTIONS COME UP. FIRST. THEY SAY WE'RE DROPPING CALLS AND THEN ONE

[01:00:04]

QUESTION ALWAYS COMES UP. IS THERE ANY PLACE ELSE YOU CAN PUT THAT ANTENNA, ANOTHER TOWER NEARBY, A BUILDING OR ANYTHING, AND HAD AT&T OR WHOMEVER COME IN ON THIS ONE, WE WOULD HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION. AND SO I DON'T THINK THE CASE IS MADE FOR THE NEED. AND BY PUTTING THAT THERE, I THINK IT DIMINISHES THE VALUE OF THE PIECE OF LAND THERE TOO. WELL, NOT MONETARILY FOR THE OWNER, BUT FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES FOR THE CITY. COMMISSIONER DALTON AND COMMISSIONER ABEL. WELL, COMMISSIONER ABEL, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE WENT THROUGH ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO THIS OVER OFF OF BASS PRO, AND THERE WAS A COMPELLING CASE MADE FOR CASES WHERE CALLS ARE DROPPED. HI DENSITY. WE HAVE APARTMENTS. WE HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE RETAIL WISE. IT'S COMING IN THERE, I DON'T SEE THAT IN THIS AREA. DRIVING THROUGH THERE. IT'S SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, IT'S VERY SPARSE. RETAIL I, I CAN'T HELP I KNOW WE VOTE ON THE USE OF THE LAND AND I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S AN UNDERLYING ISSUE HERE THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING. AND I THINK FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND, THIS IS NOT IT. AND IN THIS CASE, SINCE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A DEVIATION FROM 5000FT, THERE'S ALSO TESTIMONY REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT NEED.

THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. I MEAN, I WITH THE BASS PRO AREA, WITH THE HOTELS, WITH EVERYTHING IN THE AREA. THEY MADE A CASE HERE. WE JUST WANT A TOWER. I DON'T I DON'T SEE IT. SO THANK YOU. YOU KNOW THE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER DALTON. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE APPLICATION. SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS TO DENY THE APPLICATION. THE MOTION IS TO DENY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[3.b.Consideration of the application of R-Delta Engineers, Inc., requesting approval of 1) an Amendment to Planned Development (PD) District 85-62 for Industrial and Community Retail Uses and 2) a Concept Plan for a Lineman Training & Bulk Materials Storage. This property is located at 2701 East Centerville Road. (District 2) (File Z 24-26) ]

ALL RIGHTY. WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. BUT WE'LL NEED A VOTE TO POSTPONE IT. THAT IS CONSIDERATION. THE APPLICATION OF OUR DELTA ENGINEERS, INC. REQUESTING APPROVAL. AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 85, DASH 62, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ITEM TO THE JULY EIGHTH, 2024 MEETING. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO DO SO? MR. CHAIR? COMMISSIONER JENKINS, A MOTION TO. I'M SORRY TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE APPLICATION TO FOR THE APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REQUEST TO JULY 8TH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO JULY 8TH BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ABEL. ALL RIGHT.

IT'S THE FIRST ONE I HEARD. SORRY. IT'S A TOSS UP. SOMEBODY PLEASE VOTE. MOTION IS TO POSTPONE. I'M JUST LOUD. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. AND SO THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF JULY 8TH, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

CONSENT AGENDA

Jun 24, 2024 Plan Commission

CONSENT AGENDA

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item