Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commission meeting for September 10th, 2026. Call this meeting to order. And we have no business items, so we'll jump right to the regular agenda. Oh, hello. Sorry.

Just one second. Slow it down just a little.

Sorry, I got really excited.

Yeah. I mean, it's fair.

Let's go ahead.

Thank you.

Sorry, just a few moments of technical difficulties.

We expect this on Britney day, not on her.

That's pretty brutal. We're all friends.

All right, so item 3.1 is public hearing and consideration of Adam Albrecht's request for approval of an exception for the garden Park subdivision revising a six-foot no climb fence along the railroad corridor and to be an eight-foot wall located at approximately 500 South Center Street. The applicant is requesting an eight-foot fence to provide an appropriate and durable separation between the residential lots and the adjoining railroad use. The applicant believes the fence would better mitigate physical and visual disruptions from the rail line and help reduce noise as well. The DRC had two technical comments. including that fences over seven feet require a building permit and that fences must not overlap the sidewalk. Please consider all DRC comments in your motion. The Planning Commission has discretion to approve this exception or not. This is a public hearing item, but there were no online comments. So I'll turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you, staff. Any questions for staff?

No.

All right, is the application, or excuse me, is the applicant present? Is there anything you'd like to add, you're welcome to, or?

Just one, I guess one possible change. I think instead of going eight feet the whole property line, we're probably gonna do one panel at four feet, a second panel at six, and then the rest eight, and the panels are 12 feet long. I just think aesthetically it might look a little weird to do eight feet all the way across there.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant?

Name?

Yeah, sorry.

Adam Albrecht.

Thank you, Adam. Okay. I don't believe we have any questions for you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anybody from the public would like to speak to item 3.1, you're invited to do so now as we open the public hearing.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Zeng, and I live directly behind Primary Children's Hospital. I'm asking a few qualifications before this antenna permit is approved. Because of how close my home is, I'd like to see a radio frequency study showing the antenna's direction and expected exposures in nearby houses. I'd also like...

I don't mean to cut you off. Sorry, that's item 3.2. Oh, I see. Next one. You're welcome to continue your talk, but if it's not about item 3.1, we'll have you come back up and talk during 3.1. Okay.

So this is only about the fence at this point? Correct, 3.1.

We will get to item 3.2, which is the antenna. Okay, I see. Got it. Very nice. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak to item 3.1? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

We're ready to put forward a motion unless anyone thinks otherwise. All right. Item 3.1, I move that we approve the proposed exception to fence height with the findings being that the 8-foot fence will help this finding gentleman and his family to be able to mitigate disruptions from the railway corridor. And the eight-foot fence will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the community. And please include the few DRC comments that are there.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Now we will get to item 3.2. Okay.

Item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration of AT&T's request for conditional use approval of the AT&T Riverwalk primary children's antenna, requesting to place a telecommunications antenna on top of primary children's hospital located at 2250 North Miller Campus Drive. Chapter 12 of the development code has a priority system for telecommunication structures. and states that first priority will be given to antennas located in a residential zoning district on property that is being used for non-residential uses. This meets that criteria. The platform the antenna will be on is 165 square feet, and the antenna will be 10 feet tall, which is below the 18-foot height requirement in Chapter 12. The antenna is also set back at least 28 feet from the edge of the roof. This is a conditional use according to the Holbrook Farms Area Plan. There were three red line comments from the DRC, including that antennas shall be painted to match the color of the building or structure, or the background against which they are most commonly seen. Please consider all DRC comments in your motion. This is a conditional use, so the Planning Commission may place reasonable restrictions on location and design of the antenna to mitigate against potential negative impacts. They cannot deny the antenna outright unless there is documented proof the antenna would cause significant harms to citizens. This is a public hearing item, and there were no online comments, so I'll turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? I guess I did have a few questions. You said it's more than 18 feet from the edge. Is that all edges? Or are we specifically focused on the street edge?

It's just the edge of the roof of the wall.

So any edge of the roof where at least 18 feet. Okay. And then the color. I would imagine the backdrop would mostly be the sky. Are we looking at a blue antenna?

I believe the color is white, but there is a DRC comment that they will match that, so the applicant might be able to speak to that a bit more. Okay.

All right. Any other questions for Steph? Okay. Is the applicant present? Come on up and share your name and tell us all of your secrets.

Jared White representing AT&T. I think most of the items were covered. As far as the color of the antenna, that's a subjective opinion. The sky's not always blue. Usually it's white or gray. Generally we find that the standard white-gray antenna blends in better than most. Overall, you know there may be certain days that a blue antenna could do and but for the most part When you try and color them they stand out more not less we have no objections to any color It makes no difference to us, but just in our experience the standard color is kind of made to be flat and blends in better than most But we're open to anything with that and then as far as that if there's any other questions that I can answer I'm it's a pretty standard facility The height of it, the location of it makes it so we don't need to build a pole in the area. We actually have approval currently for a tower in the park that's across the street. We will likely just walk away from that as this is a far superior design now that the hospital's done.

I was going to bring that up. We had looked at other options in the area before.

Yeah, so the one, and I believe the city holds that lease. We would likely just not exercise the option on that lease, because the max height that we can build is not even close to what this building is. And it's also further south than we'd like to be. So the hospital has far better coverage than that site would in the park, in addition to having better access and a lot of other challenges. The park location is hard to build where it's at. It's hard to get access to without cutting everything out of the park. So we just feel like this is a better option all around.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay.

Thank you.

Now this is a public hearing, so if anybody would like to speak to item 3.2, we invite you to come up and speak now as we'll open the public hearing.

My name is Zeng, and I live directly behind the hospital. And my first question about the, well, maybe the only question about the antenna is that if there's an RF study showing the antenna's direction and expected exposure in nearby houses, The radio frequency study, yeah.

Great question. This is not a back and forth. You give us your questions and then we'll address it with the applicant. Oh, I see. Thank you. Thank you. Is anybody else here that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, and I don't believe there were comments online. So we will close the public hearing. And, Appahit, do you want to address the question that you heard?

So we, the FCC, federal government, has very strict regulations as to RF exposure. We don't typically do an RF study for each site. We just have our equipment that is tuned basically to be well below the acceptable RF standards of the FCC and federal requirements. If we go above those, we face fines. There's all kinds of things that we do. So to mitigate the risks, we just stay far below the the acceptable exposure rate. And then generally the reason for concern with that is health risks. As long as we are operating below those standards, then the federal law and FCC basically states that health cannot be considered as part of conditional use permit since we're operating under federal law and under those parameters.

Can you speak to the schedule of how often those are policed or how often they are monitored?

For a rooftop site like this, even more often, where we would police and monitor them isn't our concern. We would have to be, if our antennas are below 30 feet, That's where they would be considered to be a higher exposure risk to the public surrounding there. At this height, the FCC would do that. But because it's a rooftop site, we have to do them every year or two, not to protect the houses around, but to protect the people that could be working on the roof. Because they're the only ones that would really actually have a concentrated level of exposure.

Is there a higher standard for this being a hospital site as well?

No. The standard is so strict that there's no need for a higher standard for schools or hospitals or anything like that. We're thousands of times below what is considered the acceptable exposure rate. Unless you're standing directly in front of and touching the antenna, and then there's got to be, you know, there's lengths of time that you're not supposed to do it. But without being someone that's actually working on the roof, you would never get anywhere near an exposure level that's above what's allowed by the FCC. Okay.

Can I ask a question? Yeah.

If somebody wanted to look at that information or see what those rates are, where could they find that? Would that be the FCC website?

Is that something that you could... Yeah, to see what the limits are, you would have to go to the FCC website. It's not easy to read. You have to know how to read it. I can hardly even read them. RF engineers do it. So the information is there. Our studies themselves are proprietary, just for liability reasons and things like that. But the standards... that we're required to meet are published on the FCC's website. But they are difficult to find.

Okay. Are your studies posted anywhere?

Studies for this site in particular or for all sites?

Yeah, this site and... No, not...

I mean, if you go on the internet, you can find a million people that have done their own studies. You can find studies that say that it's horrible for you. You can find studies that say that it doesn't matter. And so the hard part with that is it depends on who the source is. For that reason, the federal government has said their studies are the only ones that count because otherwise there's too much. It's too difficult to distinguish who's correct. So the FCC basically says this is the standard and this is the law. You have to follow us. And the other ones, lots of people can do them. Anyone can do any study. But it's the FCCs that kind of rule what can and can't be done.

The reason for the line of questioning, obviously, is this is a permitted use. Right. The only leg that we really stand on here is the health, safety, and welfare clause that's in our code. So you just want to cross our T's.

No, I understand. And part of that, as I mentioned, and I think your legal would do that, for that very reason, the SEC has said that health in the form of like exposure cannot be considered for cell towers because it's there's too much subjective information out there so the federal law kind of protects the cities from that and says they can't consider this these are our laws and we have to follow that okay any other questions no thank you thank you

Any other discussion, questions for staff, or a motion?

I think I'll make a motion then. On item 3.2, public hearing and consideration of AT&T's request for conditional use approval of the AT&T Riverwalk preliminary children's primary. It should be primary children's antenna, right?

Yeah, that's the typo.

Preliminary.

Primary children's antenna? Primary children's, yes.

Ken, talk into your microphone.

Yeah, you're a little quiet.

Am I quiet? Yeah. That's all. Should I start over? Or I'm good? I'm good? Okay.

Speak into the mic. Start over. I'm the one with hearing aids.

Come on. All right. We'll start over. On item 3.2, hearing and consideration of AT&T's request for conditional use approval of the AT&T Riverwalk Primary Children's Antenna, requesting to place a telecommunications antenna on top of Primary Children's Hospital located at 2250 North Miller Campus Drive. I move that we approve the conditional use and site plan with the findings that the proposed use in the location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. It will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City plan and I think also it's conducted in in accordance with the FCC and federal laws That the property on which the use building or other structures proposed to be establishes of adequate size and it fits What is recommended from our code and please include any DRC comments?

I'll second it.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. There was a vote from the audience noted as well. All right.

Item 3.3. Item 3.3 is public hearing and consideration of Alpine Bible Church's request for approval of of an exception for the Alpine Bible Church, located at 710 West Main Street, requesting an exception to the glass requirement. The applicant requests that an exception be granted to allow less than the minimum 40% glass coverage due to the nature of the building interior and layout. The street-facing wall is the church's main auditorium, and it would disrupt their audio-visual system as well. The applicant has tried to accommodate the lack of glass by providing other visual interests and relief along the street. There were 43 DRC comments, but they were related to the site plan itself, a lot of it relating to utilities and things like that. The Planning Commission should determine if the intent of the code is met, if the exception is granted. This is a public hearing item, but there were no online comments, so turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you, staff. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Please come forward and state your name and add anything that you'd like to add to the packet here.

My name is Nathaniel Wall. I'm the pastor there at Alpine Bible Church. And I'm going to hold comments until after I think public comments, and I'll come back up and answer if there's any questions related to that.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. This is a public hearing at this time for item 3.3. We will invite anyone to speak to this item if they have public comment to be addressed. We will open the public hearing now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion. I will start. I feel very passionate about our code and the limitations. We've had several requests like this that have come recently. However, I know that there is quite a precedent that has been set specifically with religious uses in our city of different denominations. And I feel very comfortable with the request that has been made, particularly with the precedent that we currently have in our city for this specific religious type of use.

Yeah, even with the non-religious uses that we've seen recently, I feel like we've been fairly lax. All right. Okay. Well, with that, I'll put forward a motion for item 3.3. I'm going to remind myself, is this an administrative item? No. Okay. So we are moving to approve item 3.3 for the findings that are listed in our packet. Can I be as simple as that?

You may. Sure.

OK, I will do that.

I will do that. So the first finding being that the proposed use of the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The second one being the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner of compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City General Plan and the purposes of this code. Third, that the property on which the used building or other structure is proposed to be established is of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of the facilities and the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties in the area. And please include the many DRC comments.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Sorry, can you say who the second was for me? I'm not catching. Ken. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I need to put that in my habit.

So, okay, motion carries forward. You need to speak into your mic.

Test, test.

Can everybody hear us out there? Okay, we will do our best to speak up today.

Item 3.4 is public hearing and consideration of Uncommon Architecture's request for approval of exceptions to the outlets at Traverse Mountain Storage Building's architectural requirements, including the maximum EFIS percentages, architectural features, and glass requirements located at 3800 Cabela's Boulevard. The applicant would like a storage building for seasonal decorations used by the outlet mall. They have expressed their intent for the storage building to blend in with the surrounding hillside. The proposed use of storage does not need to attract people to it, and reduced features will help it blend in more with the background. There were five red line comments from the DRC, including informational comments that any exceptions to the design standards would need to come to Planning Commission for approval. Exceptions are discretionary items, and the Planning Commission should determine if the intent of the code is met if these exceptions are granted. This is a public hearing item, but there are no online comments, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you, staff. Any questions for staff?

This is a poorly worded question, Katie, so forgive me. Will this impact the parting quote-unquote quota? Will this leave the mall without enough parking spaces? I think your answer is no.

No, yeah. The storage facility is planned to be kind of pushed off into this corner here where this red spot is. I can pull up the parking here very quickly. So yeah, there is actually no parking there right now. But they might lose a couple spots for access, but they're well over parked at this point. So yeah.

They have an ocean of parking.

Except on Black Friday.

OK. Is the applicant present?

My name is Patrick Wendland. I'm the owner representative for Craig Realty Group, the owner of the mall. Our intent here is really just to have a maintenance storage building where we can put stuff in, store our winter Halloween items and not have it blending, having it look like a typical mall store where customers might wander over there Oh, what do we got here? And wandering into buildings. So we want it to look more like a storage building than another part of the mall, but also have it looking like our standard mall buildings.

Will there be any office space? Will you have any personnel that have office spaces?

We will not have office or restrooms or anything in there. It's literally just a place to put... stuff i could use some place to put this any questions for the applicant is it going to be built into the hillside at all yes it is so it yeah i think it will probably have about eight feet eight to ten feet of the the hill covering the the back of the building which is like 20 24 feet high if i remember correctly so about half the building will be sticking up Past the hill and the back, and then the front will be about 24 feet.

And the apartments that are up on the hill, I wouldn't imagine this is going to affect them at all.

No, not unless they're looking down.

What is the material of the roof?

It's going to be a flat ephus roof with a parapet and some false...

But it won't be of a shiny variety. That could be the only nuisance I could think of, people up on the hill, is some kind of shiny, bright, direct rays from there.

We do use the white roofing material, which is pretty standard. Will it have a reflectiveness? It might in some cases. Again, if they were looking down at it, I'm trying to think how the sun would go in that direction. I can't really tell you.

And again, I know there's quite a steep hill there as well, but just something to think about. All right, thank you. Oh, sorry, were there any other questions for the applicant?

No, not now.

Okay, this is a public hearing. If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.4, we will open the public hearing now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

Katie, can you go to the next slide? Is it kind of the idea that it's going to look like that? Not much of a question.

That was my assumption as well.

I think that is a sampling of what it could look like. I do want to say, I mean, we had a warehouse recently that came in that had a similar request. And I do think that this is starkly different. This is not a location that will have office space, that will have personnel inside of it. This is not intended to bring people in in any way, whether they be employees. even employees to that matter, right? There is strictly a storage facility that is meant to disappear, not necessarily be seen. So I do think there is enough of a difference of why I would be more in the favor of this request than what we've seen recently in the past. But again, that's just my position and my thinking.

I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. Go for it. No, do it. Okay. Item 3.4, public hearing and consideration of uncommon architecture's request for approval of the exceptions to the outlets at Traverse Mountain Storage Building's architectural requirements, including maximum EIFS percentages, architectural features, and glass requirements located at 3800 Cabela's Boulevard. I move that we approve. approve the request with the findings that the proposed exceptions were adequately justified for the use of the building as a storage facility. And the proposed exceptions will not decrease, yeah, will decrease the visual appeal of the area, right?

No, will not. They want it to. Do they want that?

They don't want it to. Will not. Okay. Will not decrease the visual appeal of the area. Please include all DRC comments. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second by Lindsay. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. All right. Moving forward to 3.5.

Okay. Item 3.5 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of the Chapter 29 Development Code Amendment clarifying the development agreement process. This language clarifies what the exact process the development agreements must go through after being directed by city council to create one. This amendment also updates some language to be in line with state code, including that we cannot require the development agreement to follow Lehigh City zoning and general plan, the zoning and general plan. It also requires there to be language in the development agreement detailing how the agreement would end. There were three comments from the DRC mainly pertaining just to some wordsmithing and cleaning up some general language. Please include all DRC comments in your motion. This is a legislative item, so the Planning Commission will give their recommendation to the City Council, and the Council will make the final determination if this item will be approved or not. This is a public hearing item, but there are no online comments for this, so I'll turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? All right. This is a public hearing. We will invite anybody from the public that would like to speak to item 3.5 to do so now. All right. We will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

How is this, I guess this might have been more appropriate for staff, but what's the process now and how does this change it?

So this doesn't change the process. This is really, we don't have it formally codified in the code right now. And so to be more in line with what the state code is asking of us and to just make it clear for any applicant that comes through the city with a development agreement, we want it somewhere in the code that we can point to. Thank you.

I think it's a good step because we do a lot of this. Yes, we do. It's good to codify it. Any other questions, comments, concerns, or a motion?

Ready to put forward a motion that we recommend approval for item 3.5 with the findings being that the proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements. And please include the DRC comments.

Second.

We have Beau with the motion and Ken with the second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. City business.

Yeah, I can't think of any. Just regular meetings.

Okay. We were sad to miss our regular meeting, our meeting last time. I was sad. I don't know if everyone else was sad, but I missed it.

Kim, how many more of these do you have? Ooh, I don't know, probably less than I can count on two hands.

Are you retiring?

Yeah, yeah, in January. Interesting. Wow. During the end? Probably like mid-January, yeah.

Well, that's news. That is city business.

There you go. Okay.

Congrats, but we will miss you.

I'm retiring too. Great job tonight.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

We have a motion by Nicole and a second by Ken.

heard that one.