Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0514 Study Session PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, May 14, 2012 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5:30 p.m. Executive Session regarding real property transaction pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f) 5:45 p.m. Study Session 1. Look Ahead review 2. Discussion of development standards for wireless communication facilities 3. Discussion of a proposed ordinance to restrict persistent offenders from the downtown business district 4. Continued discussion: Closing the feedback loop with the City Administrator 5. Other business from the Council In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). CMiN!CI1, '11-F[INGS ARE BROA\DCASI 1_1VF ON ( 11ANN'F) 9 V'II'I- "I'I IF CITY OF ASI ILAND'S 4V'E13 SI-IT AT ASI I LAN D.("M,UI N O N O N N a a 0 lid *s � v 1a C7 M, Q = 0 r m t ry N N - ry N N m p p p 2 W 3 p p p p r N K 2 W K K K O 00 Z 0000 s{ d 0 Q n a 10 LL U 4) 4) 4) fn N N co 0a a aZ � � �0 00c0c ' Q Q y C N 4f. J d • c c U U o o U c d d U x • c c c c V m U °c:, c c J U J c U E m m m m _ - m E m m �2.. v d v c p c c c o cola o 0 c _ 0 0 ¢ � Q iiULLLLLLaJ ar',r_ ii ¢ iiUaU ii U U > m y `m Y ? W c d O d d a d m N (>0 J N = 7j ? d « p �O > � s � a n Co E 0 ~ 0Mv — 0m o !7� o� n=ca o (7 E d > � El > dd « Ej oU Uv O V m d c 0 0 Oi m N O ry O O' U m E C d d C m — d a C d ~ C C t 9 Q C V p c O l0 W J d 'O .� m F OI J... m 'O d d 41 C� dl O U t N X N J O O •p r add .d. O d 1�1 3�Cd�`ll' f0 N d Yj y N d d v GYj m V ` (� c J �d r`[c� y. -O O_ Q « cm M N — 7 N d C w O O INS .0 O O fc6 C 0 O Vl c c (� m d J •E v y o 'Vl. c'. y 'v adi v cdi� 7 c - 5 4 71 m E °� ` d c m 3 d r 7 c d o c 2 d c 1�: I7�Q d d — w o' m 2 o a' > o U d � , duo o d '> d d R m1� O E c d V c d c ID 1 m o c o c 'e V d , c E •g V "' c• W E c = d m o d • o c U o y 'c •> ro, 'j^:: c d 3 d m c c d 0' o m CO c O1 c fN E d R ._ O C 7 N .d.. d O C r0, X110) 401 Q J «O N d 7 Y OWE F '.- L dp a W 0 OI m YO C C O N m w r td, _U 7• d v/ Y ' o c d r �� 7. N Q N Q d fA = E d' m e a d '� d -° O :� o 0 .o d; v, 2 X m d m V d�d u y' d• 7 d y o Q' dd o E _ > m7CV y � i�, d 7mv EmEy �j � c« � aicc 3 0 G d w w d �� d i m 7 0 U u! O' 'O d ,... H V 7 E c o = dcoo7 E7U tim d Od7 � V 7 m0 � m CL m(p o U m > c c o o to 2 „ U E c c o y m �« y m 3"c > rn o m 7 2 J m C c C m m C C d i °� m m m d p m N Q d V O O O d d .O C r>y N cdi d N 'O 'O ymi aP� d « O d m (p E ' vv r: d c � a 6� Xfi, > -� LL g o 0 0 0 c c d d w m c c d o 0 0 0 o d V m 5 0 o c a? • c d Y O N 0 4) U U N N 3 s . y U U 41 C -. d f0 .D an d 7 7 U d d d d d d f 2 d d b 7 E — 7 � Y , wa d wmmwv) cowLL to, -j Ou> cow LL a'.a m daaU <p � �: N m m O M Q 4) m r N CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 14, 2012 Study Session Discussion of Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager, harrism @ashland.or.us SUMMARY After holding public hearings on the first reading of draft amendments to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities at the regular meetings on November 1 and November 15, the Council decided at the regular meeting on December 6, 2011 to have a study session discussion. The draft amendments were initiated to address the Council's interpretation of the collocation requirements included in the November 2010 decision on the appeal of the application to install rooftop wireless communication facilities atl644 Ashland Street. During the Planning Commission's review of the draft amendments, the requirement of a third party review was added to the draft development standards. Additionally, staff was directed to address the issue of residential setbacks for wireless communication facilities at the Council's December 6 meeting. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The draft ordinance amendments forwarded by the Planning Commission to the Council for first reading on November 1, 2011 addressed two policy issues— amendments to the collocation requirements, and a requirement for a third party review of the application. 1. Collocation Requirements. Collocation is the use of a single wireless communication facility by more than one wireless communications provider(I 8.72.020.C, Attch. 2, page 4). Generally speaking, wireless communication facilities are located in or on a structure, with the structures being buildings (e.g. rooftop), alternative structures such as a clock tower or church steeple, or free-standing structures such as a monopole. In Ashland, the existing wireless communication facilities are located on buildings. In November 2010, the City Council made a final decision on appeal of a planning application to install rooftop wireless communication facilities at 1644 Ashland Street by Goodman Networks, Inc. for AT& T Wireless, LLC (PA 2009-01244). The proposed amendments were initiated to address the Council's interpretation of the collocation requirements included in the November 2010 decision. Specifically, the draft amendments include revisions to address the three items the Council interpreted in the findings including clarifying that the Preferred Designs section is a stepped hierarchy, defining "feasible," and specifying the collocation study requirements. 2. Third Party Verification. A third party verification is an independent analysis of planning applications requesting approval to install new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a structure with existing wireless communication facilities in place. The third party review is conducted by a professional with qualification and experience in telecommunication Page 1 of 7 11VALA CITY OF ASHLAND engineering, telecommunication law or other related fields of expertise. The idea behind having a third party review is that the technical analysis included in a collocation study (e.g. a significant service gap in coverage area, electronic, electromagnetic or other radio frequency interference) is highly specialized, and requires expertise not typically found in local government staff. As a result, an independent outside contractor is hired to review the study and verify that the technical information is valid. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff requests direction from the Council in four areas—Council's interpretation of the collocation requirements, third party verification, exempted facilities and setbacks. The following discussion covers each of the issues. 1. Council's Interpretation of Collocation Requirements. SECTION 18.72.180.D.2 Preferred Designs. Existing Standard: 2. Preferred Designs a. Where possible, the use of existing WCF sites for new installations shall be encouraged. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. b. If (a) above is not feasible, WCF shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WCF. d. If(a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. New Standard: 2. Preferred Designs. The following preferred designs are a stepped hierarchv, and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative. For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. Page 2 of 7 WMAR CITY OF ASHLAND a. Collocation. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on pre-existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre-existing towers. b. Attached to Existing Structure. If(a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. Alternative Structure. If(a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilities. d. Freestanding Support Structure. If(a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant's service coverage area needs; and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, if the application and independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at prospective collocation sites: i. a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifving existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference QUESTION: Would the Council like to clarify the amendments to the Preferred Design and Collocation Standards to implement the Council interpretation from November 2010? RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. The amendments address three items from the Council's interpretation of the collocation requirements in the November 2010 decision including: 1) clarifying that the Preferred Designs section is a stepped hierarchy; 2) defining "feasible;" and 3) specifying the collocation study requirements. In the review of the Council's interpretation of the collocation requirements included in the November 2010 decision, the Council found the development standards to be ambiguous, and interpreted the Preferred Designs section to be intended to outline a stepped hierarchy in which an application must demonstrate the first collocation standard is not feasible before moving on to the next design option. The Council decision went on to define feasible as being "capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization." Additionally, the Council determined that in order to evaluate the feasibility of collocation sites an application must demonstrate that a preferred design can or cannot be Page 3 of 7 1r, CITY OF -AS H LAN D accomplished, and that a demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a design option is not capable of being done, rather than an applicant simply saying it would be difficult to make use of an alternative. Finally, the Council found that the collocation study submitted with an application must demonstrate the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that meet the applicant's service objections and clearly identify why those sites are also not feasible. SECTION 18.72.180.D.1.h (new subsection) h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. This language is suggested so that if a new structure is built, other wireless communication facilities can be added in the future. 2. Third Party Verification SECTION 18.72.180.C.8 Submittals (new subsection) 8. For applications requesting approval of installation of new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a structure used by one or more wireless communications providers, an applicant shall submit, along with the standard application fee, an additional fee to reimburse the City for the cost of having the application materials reviewed by an independent contractor. The contractor must provide obiective advice based on professional qualifications and experience in telecommunication/radio frequency engineering, structural engineering, assessment of electromagnetic fields, telecommunications law, and other related fields of expertise. The fee for this independent analysis of application materials shall be in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 18.72.180.D.3.b (new subsection/same as on-pp 3-6 of this memo) 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant's service coverage area needs; and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, if the application and independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at prospective collocation sites: L a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met Page 4 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference QUESTION: Does the Council wish to require a third party verification of the technical analysis included in planning applications to install new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated? RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS: The impacts of instituting a process in which the City hires and pays for independent review of applications include: 1) greater confidence in the validity of technical conclusions about proposed collocation projects, 2) potential lengthening of time required to reach decision on applications; and 3) redirection of staff resources from other planning work to administering the procurement process to hire an independent contractor to perform the third party verification and ensuring decisions on applications not involving collocation are reached within the required 120 days. The proposed amendments require the applicant to submit an additional fee with the application submittals that will be used by the City for the cost of having an independent contractor review the application materials. This provision applies to applications that are requesting approval of new wireless communication facilities that would not be located on a structure used by one or more wireless communication providers. The fee would be established by resolution of the City Council. If the Council decides to include the additional fee for independent contractor review, staff will prepare a. resolution to add the new fee to bring back with the ordinances. Staff s initial research indicates a third party review of a collocation study typically takes 30 to 45 days, and ranges from $3,500 to $5,000 in cost. The process for hiring independent contractors for review to review collocation studies will involve the following steps. • Staff develops a description of the skills and qualifications required for analysis of a collocation study. • Staff identifies and develops a list of qualified contractors. The list may need to be updated on an annual basis. • The additional fee is submitted with a planning action. • Immediately after submittal of an application, staff initiates the hiring of a contractor from the list of qualified contractors. • The contractor would be selected, and a personal services contract drafted and approved through the city procurement process. • Staff would transmit the application to the contractor. • Contractor would prepare and submit the analysis. • After contract elements are complete, staff would initiate payment to the contractor. • After the project is complete, the contract would be closed. • Staff would initiate a refund of any unused portion of the additional fee to the applicant. If an independent review of the collocation study takes longer than 30 days, a decision on the land use application for installation of a wireless communication facility would have to wait until completion of the independent analysis. Land use applications that involve continued hearings and/or appeals of Planning Commission decisions occasionally take close to the full 120 days. Adding additional time Page 5 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND for an independent review entails some risk that an application might be deemed approved pursuant to state statute simply because the 120 day deadline could not be met. Testimony at the Planning Commission's October 11, 2011 public hearing included a concern that requiring the third party professional verification analysis to be submitted with the application and approved by the Community Development Director did not create enough separation between the third party professional and the applicant, and that the City "should pay the bill" to maintain impartiality in the third party professional analysis. The Commission expressed concern, and asked that this item be noted. The Council also expressed concern at the regular meeting on November 1, 2011 meeting, and directed staff to bring back revisions addressing the City hiring an independent contractor to review collocation studies. These revisions were included in the attached draft amendments from the November 15, 2011 meeting. 3. Exempted Facilities SECTION 18.72.180.C.5 Existing Standard: 5. Collocation standards a. Each addition of an antenna to an existing WCF requires a building permit, unless the additional antenna increases the height of the facility more than ten feet. b. Addition of antennas to an existing WCF that increases the overall height of the facility more than ten feet is subject to a site review. New Standard: SECTION 18.72.180.B.3 (new subsection) 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved ' ' eompenents antennas and associated mechanical equipment such a cables,wires, conduits,vaults, electronics and switching equipment are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions: a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility ; and b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning action; and c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section 18.72.180.D. QUESTION: Does the Council want to allow the replacement of wireless communication facility equipment for previously approved facilities through approval of a building permit? RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS: Staff recommends approval and suggests two changes as noted above. The proposed "Exemptions" subsection was drafted to replace the previous Collocation Standards 18.72.040.D.5, and is intended to clarify the type of equipment that can be replaced or added to an existing wireless communication facility without going through the planning action process. Recent Page 6 of 7 11FALIN CITY OF ASHLAND applications have involved previously approved wireless communication facilities on collocation sites replacing and updating the antennas and related electronic equipment in the same location as the previous equipment and with no change in the visual impacts. The proposed amendment would allow replacements of equipment consistent with the previous approval and with no increase in height to occur with building permit approval. 4. Setbacks SECTION 18.72.180.D.5 Visual Impacts. Existing Standard: d. Wireless communication facilities, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. QUESTION: Would the Council like to amend the residential setback requirement? RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS: The potential impact of creating a greater setback from residential zones is excluding large areas of Ashland, and significantly restricting locations for wireless communication facilities. Staff does not recommend changes to the current setback requirement. The existing standard is intended to mitigate the visual impact of a wireless communication support structure. In some jurisdictions the special setback is used to also address safety issues in order to protect adjoin properties by creating a default "fall radius" so in the event of an ice storm, high winds or other hazard that might make a structure fall, the falling tower will not hit any residence. In researching various codes addressing setbacks from wireless communication facilities, the typical setback requirement is either the base setback for the zone, or a requirement that the setback form a property containing a dwelling no less than the height of the communication tower. In one case where a residential buffer setback was used, an exception was provided if the buffer resulted in a significant service gap in coverage area. The exception is necessary to be compliant with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA). SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of Draft Amendments 2. Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards 3. Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Page 7 of 7 $ - a m0E GEE § � 0 J \ k /} \ a 6a 6a R - &< §{ §{ ` 7 E ! ! m - - : \ s : O ; t\! ) {{{ >! ) [ ° { . . Mm ; a , E &&kefalf »; 2al, § gi {B_ ! #72 @f2 )z (%) k2 2! &§aEE\ ae { §k{) f ` � t15n0 z- : s.9R2m ) -z e , ,: . , , ; GCMFuOZ; re §® � l ; ;3 � 7 : ! »: )) ra � fa © § l - � 24_ E . u � � m / ]§k{) ){)$ 7a >§fsiOun : ;OEOM00 , %! :f aaJw x.. 2235 /} [ ° , , i ,laG ) 3$\ � c \3 !£ C0 0 0 LU /§\f 7 ,±\) c ® § ! §\; Q \a> . \ \} 2 9 © � a m - m mow) ) §() § ). }) G1 } c E �� m[ E0 8$ o - ° k \ 0f� E { « I7 k § / 7 ® "\ \) , , {) \=/ ,-ni0Ck- i6 _ f § \ ; E ) )\} ) fff® ) r7 \ CcowoC ' ! ®j : j \ 2 m i a [ K ƒ /Ic , 9w � ®) *s )\f ®)])\7 ){Z f) \2 § 00 ; ! »§ ! f7#{�\ <fft ; r- = rK= m / ; « f « o _ & moo © �« ; a +00fma . fEBOcE : 2 - \{)> 0.{ 0 ,` � em 0 ( � / � §} k{ 2 !}\k{)) f) \)\ /� � °` yk} ° § ) /f 3: 00M ee{ k )\\ R -, � § ./!] k 7 »{5> 8 -8 im E.D- C §)\ 2 #£ 2 # E 2 ° %� )/{])\ m) ]2 ) :® `� �2« =! J a/®/2 +% :»« +«] ]}/\ \ 7 {/ (f0w 7 ° ° °�` � - _: �- � : lem: oa *»: GBl , , , , 2 a \ {) !{ \ � t #]z E \ \ }{\0 m ) \{) ( /\ ( #/ � ° 0 / k . £ f E0 (ƒ E § \ / . O2 O �! m 0 c 'm0 J m y L 'Q nn O) ao O= M 0 d m .> T m.� o m Em 9 �,, r6 m c l6 d iri �cp 1p 09c op rn� �n ° rnc nn m .4� � YqJ (n E E 0 n cUi � N'p�� � aj N� .()o C Q a c ._� N rn 0 O t 75 E O dmnd M<T�- Q _ ax m > co9 ja AQ � 0 2 V �"� O :O m u1 Ol N — N U c 3 U n >L_ OE- _ O ac [0 N'�-j tp (0 R' a o 3 m d°2 c a N a m a m a 3 3 m m n c n U 0 . Ql 1� N Z O Ocf Ngo � Uw Zap - b 00 - d ~ Z NL aZ rjt W Q r U o w n U X F < v: 2 wo aa � ? L L p LL = O >> C C L y E d >T E _ .c_ � c Y E N ya °� n 30. Eoo 0.0 m '° maai � ami °' Eo.� o6 �a L E �= m = m� �° a-a Q 3 O d cc U a Z` o U mm m c)o 3 0 o m c 5 0 0 0 Q ¢ m m D Y ] c p U m D� '- � pO O m� O O C O N .L' M j Y V) c 3 V) c ._. K C O C d W Q m N Q m L L m H m C c Q U m Q O f O v {p m J O U O n Y O N y c 5 .9 C N d O m m E U E m E mp>D O c Q m O V c ; 0 m L N L o U C J Y E E E O N N Z N o y a U) U D 'p O) y O C w E t� U N X co EU wU- E LQ LL o U ¢ � a \ ) #{ $ - K ® ! t f / !. ! \\\\j ; i) 2 § § k) {; _; : 22; ; ! ; e ( k {/ � Eo _ /\ ) jE 0 - -0 [ ° ) \\) t) I) ) \ - \ \\ (Po\ )\\ | ta , �.z � o $ e � k � ° ° kr)fe® [ 522 ® ft ; 2ƒ) (\\o ; ) { ' � / } 26 ° , , / . ` 0 � am tM - f\\\/ \ /\ f $ \# k °\ 0 2 ) ; §ƒa [ ! -f) 2 e« [ m ! ` - \ \ § mE m.c \/ _ L {f : 2z� r0c « 3 ) L) C0 0 ow { ) � / / eE0kE ao 222 Ee ) ° Eu ] ƒ \ k } , § § / Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. A. Purpose and Intent -The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact . imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents,but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Applicability. I. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-1)(Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited . C-1 -Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM(North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC(Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Page 1 of 7 Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards 2. Additional Provisions. a. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast or tower - structures(such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-13), wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet. c. With the exception of the C-1-D zoning district as described above, wireless communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. -- eanment mt on dAi eiWm"wa:ndopad May 19Y)wish original Developmen,Standards for W,mless Commoniredon F.dides,and 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved wireless communication facility inad.-mmilydadd in Anil 2148 ominwp components are permitted outright with an approved building permit,and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the - e"^ssa""t[tz]:axommmd replecmg w;d,morn spec,(m IWnguaga rvch ss"m�mnaa and associa M preceding subsection,provided that these actions: m,,haniml egmpmms sanh Wa nbIna,ward, a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility more than ten feet;and 1 condai",.Wald,d«vonirs and aching 4mpmmr b. COO1prm5 with the conditions of the previously BDDfOV¢d plapnlOQ 8fhpn;and "'.{[anment[ta]:Cory ow fmm previous c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section llmgvagaracommma delnring 18.72.180.D. C. Submittals- In addition to the submittals required in Section 18.72.060,the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. 1 Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility(min I"=10'). 3. A set of manufacturer's specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries,or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet 5. A map that includes the followine information: a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility:and b_A map showing the existing and approved wireless communication facility sites operated by the applicant,and all other wireless communication facilities within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. Details and specifications for exterior IiehtinQ. 7 A collocation feasibility study addressing the Collocation Standards in Section 18.72.180.D3. 8. For applications reguestine approval of installation of new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a structure used by one or more wireless communications providers, an applicant shall submit, alone with the standard application fee, an additional fee to reimburse the City for the cost of havine the application materials reviewed by an independent contractor. The contractor must provide objective advice based on professional nualiftcations and experience in Page 2 of 7 Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards telecommunication/radio freouency eneineerine,structural eneineering,assessment of electromagnetic fields, telecommunications law, and other related fields of expertise.The fee for this independent analysis of application materials shall be in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. 9. A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 10.Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 11.Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 12. Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 30Y of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting,mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. X13.Findings addressing the design standards in Section 18.72.180.D eanm nt Ral:Repma.eofVpreoeon ey�r�nm op .ma xInos. D. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed,treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency,or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. d. Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. f. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non- illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. g. Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition,or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor,if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. Page 3 of 7 Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. 2. Preferred Designs. The followine preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy,and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative. For the Purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of beine done, executed or effected; possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. a. Collocation. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on ore-existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place- or on ore-existing towers. b. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures,when feasible. c. Alternative Structure. If(a)or(b)above are not feasible,alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilities. d. Freestanding Support Structure. If(a),(b),or(c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: I) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applican('s service coverage area needs; and 3)document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, if the application and independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the followine conditions exist at Prospective collocation sites: 1. a sign cant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference 4. Landscaping.The following standards apply to all wireless communication facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way. Page 4 of 7 Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the wireless communication facilities shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet. c. The outer perimeter of the wireless communication facilities shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the wireless communication facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 5.Visual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or altemative structure. - b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or altemative structure shall have a non- reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. d. Wireless communication facilities,in any zone,must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. f All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact,unless otherwise required by other government agencies. - g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the wireless communication facility, additional design measures may be required. These may include,but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs,facades,specific colors and materials,masking,shielding techniques. Note: Definitions provided for background information. No amendments are proposed for this section. Page 5 of 7 Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards SECTION 1&72.020 Definitions. The following terms are hereby defined as they apply to this chapter: A. Accessory Equipment - All appurtenances defined in wireless communication facilities, with the exception of the support structure and antennas. B. Antenna - The device used to capture an incoming or to transmit an outgoing radio frequency signal from wireless communication systems. Antennas include the following types: I. Omni-direction(whip)antenna-receives and transmits signals in a 360 degree pattern 2. Directional or Parabolic (panel or disk) Antenna - receives and transmits signals in a directional pattem. They are typically rectangular in shape. 1 Microwave antennas - receives and transmits to link two telecommunication facilities together by line of sight. They are typically circular or parabolic in shape and can be a grid or solid material. C. Collocation -The use of a single wireless communication facility by more than one wireless communications provider. D. Floor-Area Ratio(FAR)-The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. E. Infill-The development of more intensive land uses upon vacant or under-utilized sites. F. Pre-existing structures - Structures in existence prior to an application for a wireless communication facility installation. G. Primary Orientation - Direction of the front of the building with the main entrance to the public. H. Wireless Communication Facilities - The site, structures, equipment and appurtenances used to transmit, receive, distribute. provide or offer wireless telecommunications services. This includes, but is not limited to antennas, poles, towers, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals,vaults,buildings,electronics and switching equipment. I. Wireless Communications Systems - The sending and receiving of radio frequency transmissions and the connection or relaying of these signals to land lines and other sending and receiving stations, and including, but not limited to cellular radiotelephone, personal communications services(PCS),enhanced/specialized mobile radio, and commercial paging services,and any other technology which provides similar services. J. Wireless Communications Support Structure - A structure used to support wireless communications antennas and connecting appurtenances.The purpose of such structures is to elevate an antenna above the surrounding terrain or structures and may be attached to an existing building or other permanent structures or as a free-standing structure which may include,but are not limited to monopole support structures and lattice support structures,and may have supporting guyed wires and ground anchors. Page 6 of 7 Attachment 2: Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards I. Monopole- A support structure which consists of a single pole sunk into the ground or attached to a foundation. 2. Lattice Tower - A support structure which consists of a network of cross braces that forms a tower. These types of structures are primarily used for taller towers and require a larger base than that of a monopole. 3. Alternative Structure- Man-made structures that, by design, camouflage or conceal the presence of wireless communication facilities, such as clock towers, bell towers, church steeples,water towers,light poles and similar alternative-design mounting structures. Page 7 of 7 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold l4ned4hrouo and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS,Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefiehters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland City Council found AMC 18.72.180.C.2 to be ambiguous on its face, and interpreted this standard in the final decision on November 2, 2010 for the appeal of a Planning Action 2009-01244, a request to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on the existing building located at 1644 Ashland Street; and WHEREAS,the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances based on the final decision of the City Council on Planning Action 2009-01244 at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments unanimously; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed,that an Page 1 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.72.180 [Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Applicability. 1. All installation of wireless .communication systems shall be subject towttlie reauirements of this section in addition to all apalicatile Site Design an&�Use Standards and are subject to the followinii approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP Page 2 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlayl CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 2. Additional Provisions. a. In residential zoning districts,wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-13), wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet. C. With the exception of the C-1-1) zoning district as described above, wireless communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts,as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved wireless communication facility components are permitted outright with an approved building permit,and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions: a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility more than ten feet; and b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning action; and c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section 18.72.180.D. R C. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required in sSection 18.72.060, the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. 2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min 1"=10'). 3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet. 5. A map that includes the following information: a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility; and Page 3 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted(i,e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) b_A map showing the existing and approved wireless communication facility sites operated by the applicant, and all other wireless communication facilities within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. Details and specifications for exterior lighting. 6 7.A collocation feasibility study and states the reasons eolloeation ean or eannot addressing the Collocation Standards in Section 18.72.180.D.3. 8. For applications requesting approval of installation of new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a structure used by one or more wireless communications providers, an applicant shall submit, along with the standard application fee, an additional fee to reimburse the City for the cost of having the application materials reviewed by an independent contractor. The contractor must provide objective advice based on professional qualifications and experience in telecommunication/radio frequency engineering, structural engineering, assessment of electromagnetic fields, telecommunications law, and other related fields of expertise. The fee for this independent analysis of application materials shall be in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. 7 9.A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 8 10.Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 9 11.Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 40 12.Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. 13._Findings addressing the design standards in Section 18.72.180.D. E D. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed,treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. Page 4 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) d. WC Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. e f. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non- illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. €g.Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. 2. Preferred Designs. The following preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy, and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the followimg design alterative. For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done, executed or effected: possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility remuires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. a. Collocation. Where possible, the use of e*isting 1.411CP sites &F new installations shall be eneouraged. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on pre- existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre- existing towers. b. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, ING wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. Alternative Structure. If(a)or(b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WGF wireless communication facilities. d. Freestanding Support Structure. If(a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. Lattiee toweFs are prohibited as freestanding wireless eemmuniention support struetures. 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable: 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant's service coverage area needs; and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. Page 5 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, if the application and independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at prospective collocation sites: i. a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference 3 4.Landscaping. The following standards apply to all 3AIC-F wireless communication facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way. a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the SAIC communication facilities shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet. c. The outer perimeter of the 3A'CF wireless communication facilities shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the \I)�wireless communication facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 4 5.V isual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, 'to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non- reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. d. \lam Wireless communication facilities, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a WCF wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. Page 6 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) f All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the WT wireless communication facility, additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. permit,a. Eneh addition of an antenna te an existing 3A'C-F requires a building unless the additional antennn *nprpnqp.-.q the height oF the fneility more than ten feet-. h. Addition of antennas to an existing MICF that inereases the over-all height of the 11).-All installation ofwireless eemmunientien'systems shall be subjeet to the FequiFefflents of this qppt*Rn in addition to all applienble Sate Design and Use Standards and are Al Existing Struetures Struetures str• ^`FY es Residential'Ze CUP Prohibited PrFkhibitet} C-4 CUP C.01' Prohibited COT Prohibited Prohibited ;�+ 1. e••o.ac-Reiiew Sate Review CUP F,4 Site Review Site T CUP A44. Site Review Sit,e Review CUP sou Site Review COT COP Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited iste +e Bis#iet� CUP Prohibited Prohibited/ HC (Health Cai e) rPp PrehihiteFI lzre/hiibiited U / CM OE Site"lnR^T.ie{A' Site Review S'O'P GA4 GI Site Review C tTnSe Review CUP nwcA4 MU CUP GUP CUP CM AS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Page 7 of 8 Attachment 3: Ordinance Version of Draft Amendments to Wireless Development Standards Policy neutral edits are highlighted (i.e. reorganization, rewording, reformatting) SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections I, 22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 2011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman,City Attorney Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 14, 2012 Business Meeting Discussion of a proposed ordinance to restrict persistent offenders from the downtown business district FROM: Terry Holdemess, Police Chief, holdemet @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Staff is requesting Council direction in developing an ordinance that would restrict persistent offenders from the downtown business district. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Over the last two years city staff has seen an increase in complaints from residents, visitors and business owners regarding the behavior of individuals that are engaging in unlawful or annoying conduct in the downtown. These complaints include aggressive panhandling; making lewd and lascivious comments to people on the street, blocking sidewalks, being unnecessarily loud, trespassing, using and being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol in public places, urinating in public, littering and leaving trash, and various other forms of disorderly conduct. The Police Department has been aggressive in writing citations for violations of laws, but many of the activities that generate complaints do not rise to the level of being a violation of an existing law. Of those individuals whose contact did constitute violation of existing law last year, several were cited or arrested more than 20 times; one was cited or arrested for 31 incidents. In 2010 the top ten violators have 168 citations or arrests for separate incidents between them. In 2011 the top ten violators had 184 citations and arrests between them and for the first four months of 2012 the top ten violators have 64 citations or arrests for separate incidents. Many of those cited or arrested multiple times appear to have little concern about the consequences of the violations and have not paid anything toward the fines imposed by the Municipal Court Judge as penalties for their violations. Even when the behavior constitutes a misdemeanor under the Oregon statutes, space limitations in the Jackson County jail preclude holding violators of minor crimes for very long, if at all. Many violators are aware of that fact. Further, many of these repeat violators avoid sentencing altogether by failing to appear in court to respond to the allegations against them. For them, too, the threat of jail time for failing to appear in court as ordered is an unrealistic sanction. On January 31, 2011, the Police Department recommended to the Council that they consider use of an ordinance to restrict persistent offenders from the downtown as part of the package to address issues related to homelessness. After discussion at several meetings the Council tabled that recommendation. On April 3, 2012 the Council directed the Police Department and the City Attorney to bring an ordinance to the Council that would restrict violators of selected ordinances or statutes from the downtown area for a limited time. Page ] of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND The Police Department and the City Attorney's office have reviewed several similar ordinances in other jurisdictions, reviewed related laws, and have talked to people and groups in the community about their concerns. Based on information gained during that process, staff requires additional direction from the Council on the following issues prior to developing an actual ordinance to present to the Council. Area of the City to be included in the ordinance: The ordinance must not be overbroad. That is, the means chosen for attempting to achieve the legitimate public purpose of maintaining order, etc, must have no broader impact on individuals' civil liberties than is reasonably necessary. Therefore, boundaries of the area to which the ordinance applies should be readily determinable, and the incidence of violations should be relatively high. Ashland's downtown meets those criteria. The area covered by the ordinance could be determined by the Council using one of the existing maps of the downtown, the C-I-D downtown zone, the Downtown Design Standards zone or could be an area specific to this ordinance. Staff recommends that the ordinance use a modified version of the C-1-D downtown zone. The proposed zone would end at Third Street and would include the entire existing C-1-D zone except for the library, the fire station and the gas station. That recommendation is based on the following factors: • The proposed zone is easy to understand and explain. • We do not want to limit anyone's ability to access the resources available at the library and if someone is continually disruptive in the library they could be trespassed from that location by the library staff. • The zone gives persistent offenders who have been restricted from the downtown the ability to use the north side of Lithia Way as a means of walking around the town without entering the restricted zone. Offenses that qualify under the ordinance. To keep the ordinance narrowly focused, the ordinance needs to apply to only the most problematic recurring violations and include only offenses that a person can readily avoid no matter what his or her financial, familial, or housing circumstances may be. Staff recommends that all misdemeanor or felony violations of the ORS criminal code and the following municipal code violations be included in the ordinance: a. (1) AMC 9.08.110--Scattering Rubbish b. (2) AMC 9.08.170--Unnecessary noise c. (3) AMC 9.16.110--Dogs-Control Required d. (4) AMC 10.40.030--Consumption of Alcohol in Public e. (5) AMC 10.40.040--0pen Container of Alcohol in Public f (6) AMC 10.46.020--Prohibited Camping In addition, the proposed ordinance would address multiple disobedience of orders to appear in court ("FTAs") to respond to citations for these violations or to criminal charges That recommendation is based on following factors: Page 2 of 4 ��, C1 T Y OF ASHLAND • The behaviors listed in those code sections are the ones for which the most citations are issued and are the regulated behaviors that generate the most complaints. • We have no evidence that we have persistent violators of offenses under the ORS vehicle or other codes that pose significant problems in the downtown or that existing laws are not a significant deterrent to reduce repeat offenses. • We have been advised that some people are concerned that several of those municipal code sections are "status" offenses and that people that have no homes will be forced to sleep, urinate and consume alcohol in a public place because they do not have a home to do those things in. This ordinance only applies to illegal activities that occur inside the zone covered by the ordinance. People who do not have a home will simply have to refrain from engaging in those activities illegally in the zone, if they do not want to be subject to sanctions imposed by this ordinance. Number of violations required to be subject to sanctions under the ordinance. The Council can determine how many violations of the laws covered under the ordinance an individual would need to commit and during what length of time those violations need to occur. Staff recommends that the Council approve a standard of three violations in any given six month period. That recommendation is based on following factors: • The concept of"three strikes and you're out" is easy to understand and explain. • A six month time frame is easy to explain and understand. • Staff believes that this allows us to identify and deal with people that are causing significant problems while still giving violators plenty of warning and opportunity to change their behavior before being restricted. • Three violations are still far less restrictive on violators than similar ordinances reviewed by staff. For example, the City of McMinnville's ordinance requires only two violations in a one year period to qualify a violator for restriction. Amount of time violators are restricted from the downtown. The amount of time a violator is subject to restriction varies in different jurisdictions and repeat offenders may be subject to additional sanctions. Staff recommends that the Council approve a standard of a three month restriction the first time a violator qualifies for restriction under the ordinance. If additional violations occur during that three month period or if the violator qualifies for a restriction a second time in a one year period, the court could impose a longer restriction, if appropriate. That recommendation is based on following factors: • Staff believes that the three month restriction is well within reason and should be adequate to deter potential violators. Determine if restriction occurs upon conviction or following citation being issued with an administrative review. All of the cities currently using this type of ordinance that staff has reviewed Page 3 of 4 CITY or ASHLAND impose the restriction prior to conviction in court but allow some type of administrative appeal process before the restriction is imposed. Staff recommends that the Council approve an ordinance that only applies after conviction on the underlying violations in a court of law, unless the violator fails to appear in court to contest the violation. In cases where the violator fails to appear in court and cannot be tried for the offense they will be notified that they are subject to restriction under this ordinance. They will then be given another opportunity to appear before the judge before they will subject to restriction under this ordinance. In all cases the Municipal Court Judge will have the ability to determine that mitigating factors exist and will have the ability to waive the restrictions imposed under this ordinance for any individual. That recommendation is based on following factors: • While these restrictions will extend the amount of time it takes for a restriction to be imposed on a violator, staff believes-that whenever possible waiting until a case has had judicial review before restricting anyone in any area of the city is consistent with community values and constitutional requirements. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff is requesting Council direction only on this issue at this time and no other action by the Council is required at this time. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: City Zoning Map Map of Downtown Design Standards Zone Page 4 of 4 lye SR. � t o ti �p ``� ,C'j Ili ME lmiff s� w tw � i a gg emm • 111=' 1 �a x1 � �fE ���• ��� FL NEe.e`l! I i,7 f it L1am���l•� _� � L♦rL I1111� �� ,'. ■'.111 �F 3w°$c i? Oi iSn� R Rzll' },# � [� eLeM Fyeooa Ay\la = � f,tl VIII 1 u � t� fir/ O� ! ����� JI I 14 1 11 i1 � tr ♦ � 1�• i tee♦1io � C �., y: _ fie+ yr-:, °�3 ■, • w l w' -te4 WI I 'tom i - rF�v� I� ', (1 ! 'd�~�e`ai.W • 1 #i' 1 5 "a V�! ) ss �p 114G�'aei aE'+. O ■ ae Fl�i�A °NIIY 4.�+4hpr7:^.r oa v D hy'•y•��°^- .q�W 1-ds 7'7uo '9rex� N � 7 ° UA �fnp.ja�v6Y; F Fee t °' Qt /'➢) A.-4� lJ li., / 11 `. 41A�. ILt 4�a v rP v. .ml\n Jti.• f C°ri� ..��`GS 11+.. p4 ,l C '9 NnJlx�l ll 'tr f•s.AV,M��' 'is x `,\,9a�L xa li 1 01.1 L`W__.IJKF lxlFYe�t d L ✓, V I,f ID. R �e�bo° 7 0 °.A.F.y�°�e•9! ,Fe e�'�OK�°°KO.ai ' t LAN W ��rt•-w�'''sbo4'g49. °e°.�0�"�e � °s ejq�x flak }'ki! /ti�e"° t(ae1�9B�.�Ywe�dgN Oe��,C' �f' ` �•(�'J a 9.�. 4� ��?�•�°OA•{:� �aL AJ IL� ?il li :T"b9ye�� �•�A°A . 1�� ■1 _ p 11 �. i.Ip10 It L. r -7 S�illi 7 Is IV �A •� MR x o. •� J � --�y, �� ter:=�� CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication May 14, 2012 Study Session Continued discussion: Closing the feedback loop with the City Administrator FROM: Dave Kanner, City Administrator, dave.kanner @ashland.or.us SUMMARY In my first week on the job, I met with each city councilor individually to solicit feedback about what was working well, what could be improved and what your expectations were for me. I provided a report to you at the April 16 study session regarding what I had learned in those meetings and offered some information on some changes I had made in response to that feedback. At least one major item is still unresolved: the general feeling on the Council of a need to change the rule that allows a single councilor to place an item on an agenda. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A number of things came out of the previous "closing the feedback loop" discussion with the Council: 1. The Council is happy with the recent changes to the various communications tools. 2. The Council appreciates the clarification regarding the use of study sessions and believes we're making them more productive. 3. There doesn't appear to be any direction to consolidate or limit the number of boards and commissions. The Council would like to ensure that the boards and commissions fulfill their obligation to report to the Council annually. The Council would like to ensure that boards and commissions are given an opportunity to provide input to the Council prior to annual goal- setting. 4. The Council would like to have time set aside on its agendas for reports from Council liaisons. (Note: This is already listed as the last item on every regular meeting agenda.) The one item that remains unresolved is the Council rule that allows a single councilor to place an item on an agenda. At this study session, the Mayor will present an idea as to how this rule might be modified. Because this "single councilor" rule is codified, any change will require an amendment to the municipal code. The Mayor will also present some ideas for how the Council might work better together. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: This item is scheduled for discussion and direction to staff only. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 1 of 1