HomeMy WebLinkAbout3068 Wireless Facilities Development Standards ORDINANCE NO. 30(o .
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
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, following the close of the public hearings
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
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.
Page 1 of 8
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 also 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 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-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
NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP
Page 2 of 8
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-1-1)), 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 antennas and accessory
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.
13 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 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 lighting.
Page 3 of 8
6 7.A collocation feasibility study
and states the reasons °°"°°°Lion eon or ennnot oeeu-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 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.
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.
4-0 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.
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.
d. MIC-F 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.
Page 4 of 8
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 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.
a. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing WGF sites for nem, installation-s
shall be ,...eouraged 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, MICF 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 WICF 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 sowers are-prohibited as freestanding wireless r2vnxmviricrtsimriiippvrs
nt......4........
IL�II�T.
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.
Page 5 of 8
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 M 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 MICF 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 WC–T 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 MYC–T—wireless communication
facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the
time of planting.
4 S.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 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. M 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 3AICF 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 axe wireless communication facility, additional design measures
may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage
Page 6 of 8
materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding
techniques.
a Fneh addition of an antenno to an existing MICF requires a building permit,
feet-. '
b. Addition of antennas to an e*' W-F Fier-enses the Fiver-all height of the
f fle ffit more than ten feet is ..1. eet 4o a site r-eview
Af thk qpptiAn On addition to all appheable Site Design and Use Standards and are
Zoning Designations Attaehed to A clternativa Freestandin
Existin g StFuetures °upp°r
StrUetUres StrUetHreB
C-4 CUP CUP Prohibited Prohibited
GY CUP CUP- Prohibited
C 1�—�WMOWOM CUP Prohibited Prohibited d
S4 Site Review Site Review
A44 Site Review Site Review CUP
Sou Site Review CUP
Prohibited Prohibited Pr-ehibited
m C44F Prohibited Prohiiblilted
A 1 (Airport ort !Over-lay) CUP CUP CUP-
HC- nth Com) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
GM-NG CU-P- CUP CUP
GM OE Site Review Site .r CUP
CM CI Site Review Site Review C-I�P
GA4 MU CUF CUP CAP
GM AS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
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.
Page 7 of 8
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 1,
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 s�day of 2012,
and ly PASSED and ADOPTED this da f 12012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this I/day of ZI! 2012.
ohn Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
avid Lohman, City Attorney
Page 8 of 8