The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-10-12 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 12, 2021 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. September 14, 2021 Regular Meeting 2. September 28, 2021 Special Meeting IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak Street V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS - APPEAL A. PLANNING ACTION: P A-T1-2021-00158 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 351 Walker Av/390 Stadium St OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/ Smartlink, LLC on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC/AT&T APPELLANTS: Kelly Marcotulli & Pamala Joy DESCRIPTION: approval of Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permits to install a new Wireless Communication Facility on the Southern Oregon University Campus at 351 Walker COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Avenue/390 Stadium Street. Southern Oregon ZONING:TAX LOT: University; SO; 39 1E 10CD; 100. VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00159 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 329 Granite St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for an interpretation of the land use code that regulates the amount of a driveway that can exceed 15 percent grade. Specifically, the application requests an interpretation F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.The request is to interpret if the code is meant to allow a total o In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). slope through an application for a variance, or in the alternative, if multiple sections no longer than COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: Woodland / Low Density Residential; WR / TAX LOT: RR-.5; 39 1E 08 DD; 704 B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300) DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain PLEASE NOTE: Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). The 1982 applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Jackson County Board of Commissioners as well. DESIGNATION: ZONING: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain;RR-.5 & NM- MAP: TAX LOT #: MF;39 1E 04A;1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300. VIII.ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft September 14, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Norton announced the public hearing for PA-T2-2021-00031, 375 & 475 East Nevada Street was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on October 12, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. per the request. Community Development Director Bill Molnar reminded the Commission there would be a virtual training hosted by the Oregon Chapter of the American Planners Association on September 29 and 30. The Housing Production Strategy had to be completed within a year of the Housing Capacity Analysis. Staff applied for a grant and would find out soon if the City would get it. The Housing Production Strategy would start in October and take approximately ten months to complete. At the next Planning Commission meeting on September 28, 2021, the Commission would continue the annexation code update discussion. In October, they would further discuss housing in employment was scheduled for December 7, 2021. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. August 10, 2021 Regular Meeting 2. August 24, 2021 Study Session Commissioner Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00029 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 1 of 8 DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a), an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. Chair Norton opened the continued public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, and Thompson, declared no ex parte contact. Commissioner Verner had no ex parte contact but had visited the site since the meeting on August 10, 2021. Chair Norton declared no ex parte contact. The applicant was his neighbor and neither had discussed the project. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): 822 Oak Street Proposal Setback Exhibit & Tree Protection Property Line Adjustment and Land Partition Survey Building and Zoning Permits Minor Land Partition Questions of Staff regarding the solar standards and recommended adhering to the code that stated for development of a subdivision, the lots had to demonstrate that a 21-foot structure could be built with a north-south solar setback that is not more than half. Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/Medford, OR/ They were unable to access building permits due to the office being closed that resulted in guesses on similar applications. Her understanding for the Oak Street proposal was there had been a garage. It was unclear whether a house was built. However, staff had not changed their position on the solar standards. She provided a presentation: Grizzly Peak View A Four Lot Subdivision 39 1E 04CA: TL 200 and 201 Master Grading Plan Conceptual Building Setbacks Physical and Environmental Constraints Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints was experiencing. Ms. Gunter explained the Condition applied to slopes at 25% or more. They were asking for it to apply to 35% or greater slopes instead of 25%. Mr. Severson confirmed the Hillside Development Standards were in the mapped overlay with slopes 25% or greater. The severe constraints applied anywhere there were slopes 35% or greater. The condition would regulate the property to 25% or greater and consider the sloped area of the proposal as a significant natural feature. If it were in Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 2 of 8 the Hillside Overlay, it would be protected by development standards. Here, under the code, because it is not in the overlay, it was not protected. Staff was suggesting rather than allowing development on those steeper slopes that would be protected on the hillside, it would be better to protect them as significant natural features. Mr. Severson confirmed the Hillside Development Standards applied to property with a slope over 25% and within the Hillside Overlay. The higher classification of severe constraints applied anywhere within the City where slopes were at 35% or greater. The Hillside Standards were in the mapped overlay and the 25% or greater slope. The severe constraints applied to 35% slopes anywhere. The condition would regulate the property to 25% or greater and consider the sloped area of the proposal as a significant natural feature. If it were in the Hillside Overlay, it would be protected by development standards. Here, under the code, because it is not in the overlay, it was not protected. Staff was suggesting rather than allowing development on those steeper slopes that would be protected on the hillside, it would be better to protect them as significant natural features. Mr. Molnar further explained the property was not in the Performance Standards Options (PSO) Overlay. An applicant could ask it to be in the overlay and processed under the Performance Standards. The City had three to needed to be processed under the Performance Standards to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation that would normally occur under general application of the subdivision code. Part of the PSO was looking at environmentally sensitive areas like sloped areas and trying to structure or place building envelopes to reduce the impact on a natural environment. Staff thought using the PSO only for the protection of the significant trees did not go far enough. There were significant slopes that went down to the Bear Creek flood plain area. Mr. Severson added the criteria stated the existing natural features of the land such as wetlands, floodplains, ponds, large trees, and rock outcroppings, were identified in the plan and significant features included in the common open space, common area, and unbuildable areas. Commissioner KenCairn asked if that meant any steep slope could be a significant natural feature that should be protected? Mr. Severson explained the Commission had the discretion to determine whether it was a significant natural feature or if protection was necessary. Commissioner KenCairn cautioned the Commission on defining slopes as a significant natural feature. The a disagreed with She thought considering a slope as a significant natural feature would lead to unintended consequences. In applying a more rigorous restrictive standard outside of the Hillside Overlay, how would they look at subdivisions inside of the Hillside Overlay? The code would deem them buildable and supposedly hillside lands were steeper and constrained as far as erosion. The soil types in the proposal were not erosive. They were preserving two large trees that were not technically required. They were going beyond PSO subdivision requirements regarding common open space. Questions of the Applicant Chair Norton wanted to know how the applicants wanted to handle the condition on the slopes. Ms. Gunter suggested amending the condition so that the building envelopes demonstrated no impact to the areas of 35% slopes or greater. Commissioner Verner shared her concern that the two main trees along the driveway might be undercut by the bioswale. Commissioner KenCairn asked for a condition to have staff address the location of the bioswale at the time of final approval. Commissioner Verner agreed. Commissioner KenCairn wanted the condition for tree protection to be based on the species and age of the tree that was either approved by an arborist or an authority on tree protection. Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Pearce wanted a condition requiring a GEO technical or structural engineering study for construction on slopes over 25% in place of the current condition regarding slopes. Ms. Gunter noted they had already begun consultation with a GEO technical expert for soils analysis. They would have a soil report prior to the building permit. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know the rationale for building under the PSO Overlay. The proposed tree protection did not satisfy the code standard to apply the PSO standards outside of a PSO Overlay. She asked staff if this had occurred in the past and what standard would apply and whether just protecting against degradation through a GEO technical or structural engineering study would be sufficient. Mr. Molnar responded this primarily happened in developments next to a flood plain and described how. It was part of the PSO. There was no minimum standard lot size so there was flexibility to design a project that was best for the site. He did not agree with Ms. Gunter that every steep slope was a natural feature because it was not the history of the application. Public Testimony - None - None Chair Norton closed the public hearing and record at 7:51 p.m. Deliberation and Decision Land divisions created new lots and were designed to certain standards. It did not matter if there was an existing lot. He supported that would require an arborist or professional opinion for tree protection from the bioswale. He restated his earlier suggestion to replace the current condition for the slope with a new one requiring a GEO technical report showing no adverse impact to slope stability. Commissioner KenCairn/Pearce m/s toapprove Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 with the suggested tree protection modification, not accept the solar request as it stood, and requiring a GEO technical report for construction on slopes 25% or greater to protect against degradation of the slope along with all other conditions recommended by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Verner, Thompson, Pearce, KenCairn, Norton, and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed. VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2021-00003 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 192 North Mountain Avenue OWNER: The Hodgins Family Trust (Robert & Beverly Hodgins, trustees); The Mary G. Walter Living Trust (Mary G. Walter, trustee); Steve White APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation of 7.9 acres and Outline Plan approval for a 52-unit residential subdivision for the property located at 192 North Mountain Avenue. With annexation, 7.9 acres of the ten-acre property would be brought into the city with R-1-5 Single Family Residential zoning, and the entire ten-acres would be subdivided to create 52 residential lots and eight common areas. The application also includes requests for an Exception to Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip with street trees on the proposed bridge over Beach Creek; a Limited Activities & Uses Permit to install a bridge over Beach Creek in order to provide street connectivity to North Mountain Avenue; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four of the 25 trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: Existing City R-1-5 & County RR-5, Proposed City R-1- Chair Norton opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Ex Parte Contact Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Dawkins and Verner declared no ex parte contact, and one site visit. Commissioner KenCairn had no ex parte contact but had been to the property. Commissioner Pearce declared no ex parte contact but was familiar with the property. Chair Norton had no ex parte contact but had visited the side streets around the proposed area. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Beach Creek Annexation Proposal for 192 North Required Affordable Units Mountain Avenue Vicinity Map TSP Street Dedication Map (Fig. 10-1) Existing Farmhouse & Accessory Buildings photo Proposed Beach Creek Drive Location photos Beach Creek Annexation aerial photos Adequate Transportation site plan Beach Creek Corridor (from south property line) TSP Sidewalk Priority Projects (Fig. 7-1) Beach Creak Corridor (where two channels TSP Existing & Planned Transit Service (Figure 9-1) converge) Beach Creek Corridor (behind old farmhouse) Plan Beach Creek (at north property line) TSP Existing & Planned Bikeway Network (Fig. 8-1) 60-inch DBH Black Oak Tree photos Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map 30-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine Tree Subdivision Site Plan North Mountain Avenue (looking south from Site Plan driveway) Conceptual Elevations North Mountain (looking north from driveway) Proposed Lot Coverage Allocation Surrounding Streets (Google Streetview) Limited Activities & Uses Permit (Bridge in WRPZ) Annexation site plan Exception to the Street Design Standards Annexation Criteria Tree Removal Permits photos Required Affordable Units site plan Proposal for 192 North Mountain Avenue Staff recommended approval subject to conditions and forwarding a recommendation in support to the City Council. Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner asked about Talent Irrigation District (TID) feeding the creek. It was explained the creek was intermittent. Even though TID was turned off, it had water in it mid-September. In general, TID ran in almost all the creeks. Commissioner Verner asked whether the open space would be available for public use. Mr. Severson did not think it would. He described the open spaces in the development. Commissioner Verner addressed common area E and asked if the houses on lot 19, 20 and 21 would be oriented towards that area. Mr. Severson confirmed they would face the common area. It would be a common promenade open space. He went on to note there would be a 12-foot bike path easement along the south portion of the property. There was a substantial creek corridor with two channels that would require a crossing. There was also property in the southeast built to the south edge of the railroad property that did not have easements in place. If the Commission did not require the easement as proposed, staff recommended increasing the width of a sidewalk from 5-feet to a 10-foot paved width to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians passing each other safely. He showed additional slides depicting the area. Commissioner Pearce addressed the excess open space being allocated to individual lots. He asked if there was a condition that demonstrated compliance. Mr. Severson confirmed there was a condition to comply with the 50% lot coverage, but the Commission could make it clearer by adding it was intended on a per lot basis. Commissioner Pearce explained it was not allowed in the code, but the applicants could get around it by increasing the lot size. Commissioner KenCairn thought it sounded like a density transfer. Mr. Severson explained in the past that was how it was considered. Sometimes lots were significantly smaller than the zoning had them be to minimize impact to a Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 5 of 8 natural feature or cluster them around open space. In the PSO Subdivision, prior applications had used that flexibility in the purpose and intent to allocate open space by adjusting lot spaces. It was challenged in 2012 and since then, the code was updated to make it explicitly allowable. What the applicant was proposing was consistent with how it was done in the past. There just was not a clear, direct path in the code to enable it. Mark Knox/KDA Homes/Ashland/ Mr. Knox provided a presentation: Beach Creek Subdivision Subject Property (single tax lot) Aerial of City and County Land Aerial of the site, street pattern Aerial of subdivision layout Subdivision Site Plans Photo Style of Proposed Houses Mr. Knox confirmed the promenade and pedestrian links would be available to the public through an easement along with the connection to the neighborhood in the north. He addressed the lot concerns. The smaller lots, the additional open space along with 176 square foot (sq. ft.) porches were critical to having a successful neighborhood. The design was planned well for pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Denise James/Habitat for Humanity/ Explained she had worked with City staff for years on ways to provide affordable housing in Ashland without success due to land costs, infrastructure, and income limits. This project would allow Habitat for Humanity to build affordable housing. She described the organization. They were excited to move forward soon. Mr. Knox added the intent was to build out the subdivision, install utilities and sidewalks then gift the land to Habitat for Humanity. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner KenCairn asked for a condition that required some form of sediment control for the creek. Mr. Knox explained they had a geologist on their team and had met with staff from the Public Works Department regarding the issue. He wanted the City to add it as a Capital Improvement Project with the applicant doing the work needed. He asked that explained the criteria required adequate public facilities. The Public Works Department recommended preparing a storm water plan that addressed post development peak flows not exceeding the pre-development levels. So the flows and volumes would be controlled on site. It would have to be connected in the Findings to a specific systemic need in terms of public facilities. The final plan would have an engineered design. Commissioner Dawkins wanted the bike lane increased from 5-feet to 10-feet on the southeast corner of Orchid and Rose Lane to limit potential conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Knox agreed with the suggestion. Commissioner Pearce clarified it would require a public dedication of a bike path along that area instead of the public dedication along the south boundary. Mr. Knox explained the open space around the farmhouse would not be open to the public. The promenade and pedestrian connections throughout the area would be public. They were planning an easement for the houses abutting the creek to the path for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Verner asked if there would be retaining walls for the driveways on the two lots at the southwest corner parallel to the creek. Mr. Knox explained both lots would be on flat land with a 30-foot setback from the Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 6 of 8 creek. He went on to confirm there would be on street parking spaces in addition to the garages on the site for a total of 3 parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Dawkins asked about having a pathway that went through the cohousing development. Mr. Knox proposed it, but the neighborhood was adamantly against it. There was another path directly to the south. Mr. Knox clarified right of way areas and public access. Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification on the request for the reallocation of the excess open space to the lots. Mr. Knox wanted 50% of the excess open space not required and not in the riparian area to be allocated to the 52 lots. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern that doing this without any code parameters would set a precedent for future development. Mr. Knox thought there was flexibility to do that in the performance standards chapter and was done often prior to 2012. He confirmed it would be 176 square feet per lot and not an average. Public Testimony Julia Sommer/Ashland/ Read from a document submitted into the record (see attached). Allan Weisbard/Ashland/ Explained his questions had been answered. He liked that the promenade would be public. Sue Whiteman/Ashland/ Read from a document submitted into the record (see attached). Rick Harris/Ashland/ Read from a document submitted into the record (see attached). Commissioner Dawkins/Pearce m/s to continue the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mr. Knox had no disputes with the testimony from Ms. Sommer and Ms. Whiteman. He was familiar with the issues. They would be building on site storm water detention systems. The fix was not that difficult, and they would be working in the creek anyway. He did not want to cut into the embankment to reduce the slope unless instructed to do Commission understood the proposed lot allocation was a fair response to saving the old house and open space. He thought it was the right thing to do and it would balance the other goals. Chair Norton closed the public hearing and record at 9:31 p.m. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Pearce liked Commiwould be approving the outline plan, the limited activities permit, the street standards exception and the tree removal permit contingent on the City Council approving the annexation. He was concerned allowing the increase to the lot coverage. It was a nice idea, but the Commission had to apply the land use criteria in the land use code. The applicant was relying on the purpose statement and that was not a land use criterion. There was nothing in the PSO Overlay that allowed it. The PSO Overlay allowed modifications to the minimum lot size, lot width, setback standards and other standards specifically provided in the PSO. He agreed with staff. Commissioner KenCairn wanted a condition that Beach Creek include a trash trap that collected anything larger than 4 inches before it left the property. There should also be a sediment control basin somewhere along the system. The Homeowner Association needed to inform potential buyers of the associated costs in having more open space. Commissioner Pearce commented state law required a reserve study showing weekly expenses over 10 to 20 years. Commissioner Dawkins agreed with Commissioner KenCairn. The City Council needed to be aware of it as well. Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 7 of 8 additional open space between the lots. She thought there was enough leeway in the code to allow it as well. Commissioner Thompson disagreed. She did not think the Commission had permission in the code to take it into consideration. Commissioner Dawkins did not think the street standards requiring trees and irrigation should apply to the bridge. Commissioner KenCairn agreed and suggested adding criteria that street standards did not apply within the riparian corridor and have it defined by the size of the stream. She thought the code should be amended in the future. Commissioner Pearce agreed the Commission should grant the exception and investigate changing the code. Chair Norton agreed it was a great idea to allocate additional open space to the individual lots, but it was not permissible in the code. He suggested the applicant reduce the amount of open space or reduce the number of lots and leave the excess as open space. Commissioner KenCairn explained the geometry of the site was determining lot size. It was more convenient for them to allocate the extra open space. There was not a precedent for doing it. Commissioner Pearce thought the Commission should consider changing the code to allow it in the future. Commissioner Dawkins/KenCairn m/s toapprove sending Planning Action PA-T3-2021-00003 to the City Council, without the Street Standards for the bridge, and changing the bike path to 10-feet, including a trash rack or something similar and a sediment control structure for the creek, addressing the creek issues when they do the engineering of the storm water plan, and contingently approving the four permits pending the approval of the annexation by City Council. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, KenCairn, Dawkins, Pearce, Norton, and Verner, YES. Motion passed. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300) DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The 1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300 . Commissioner Verner/KenCairn m/s tocontinue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on October 12, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 8 of 8 The remaining 2.1 acres –adjacent to North Mountain Avenue -are already in the city. \[Recommendation for Council decision.\] (Performance Standards subdivisions include a two-step review process. If Outline Plan is approved, a Final Plan subdivision application would follow with full civil drawings, street cross-section details, plat drawings, etc. for review, along with any related adjustments to the overall plan.) (Stream is regulated 30-feet upland of c/l. Street connection is identified in the Transportation System Plan.) (from south property line) where two channels converge behind old farmhouse at north property line looking south from driveway (looking north from driveway) Bike, Ped & Cottages only (Requires minimum 90% of base density, proposing 116%) not necessarily as located on the site plan. PublicWorkshasindicatedacitycapitalimprovementprojectisintheplanning stagestoredesignNorthMountainAvenuecorridorfromEastMaintoI-5(similarto therecentlycompletedHerseyStreetproject)toaddresssidewalkgaps,traffic calming,therailroadcrossingincludingwheretheBikepathcrossesNorthMountain, ADArequirementsandsomestormdrainageimprovementswithintheNorthMountain Avenuecorridor. *RVTDhasaskedforan8ft.x10ft. perpetualeasementfortransitamenities northofthedriveway,butsaidthatnothing needstobeconstructedatthistime.This wouldaccommodatefutureconstructionof aconcretepad&shelter. AMC18.6.1.030.CCoverage,LotorSite.Thetotalareaofalotcoveredby buildings,parkingareas,driveways,andothersolidsurfacesthatwillnotallow naturalwaterinfiltrationtothesoil.Landscaping,includinglivingplants, vegetativegroundcover,andmulch,whichallowsnaturalsoilcharacteristics andwaterinfiltrationandretentionisnotconsideredlotorsitecoverage.See also,lotcoverageexemptioninTable18.2.5.030.AȟStandardsforUrban ResidentialZones OakinPoor Condition,Competingwithlarger Oakandinconflictwithdemo The remaining 2.1 acres –adjacent to North Mountain Avenue -are already in the city. \[Recommendation for Council decision.\] (Performance Standards subdivisions include a two-step review process. If Outline Plan is approved, a Final Plan subdivision application would follow with full civil drawings, street cross-section details, plat drawings, etc. for review, along with any related adjustments to the overall plan.) (Stream is regulated 30-feet upland of c/l. Street connection is identified in the Transportation System Plan.) NorthMountainAvenueisafullyimprovedavenueormajorcollectoralongthefrontageoftheprojectsite(theportionwithinthecitylimits). Therearetravellanes,bikelanes,curbs,gutters,parkrowplantingstripsandsidewalksalongthefullfrontage.Thepavedcurb-to-curbwidth inthevicinityis34feetwithina60-footright-of-way. Theapplicationproposesanewresidentialneighborhoodstreet(BeachCreekDrive)whichwouldconnectNorthMountainAvenuetothe subdivision’sinteriorloopedstreetsystemandtotheexistingsubdivisionstothenorthandeast. Thestreetsadjacenttotheannexedarea(VilllageSquareDrive,OldWillowLane,KirkLaneandOrchidStreet)arefully-improvedand terminateatthesubdivision’sboundaries). TheapplicantproposestocontinueVillageSquare,OldWillowandKirkthroughthesubdivisioninaloopedcentralsystemwhichwouldhavea singleoutlettoNorthMountainAvenueviathenewBeachCreekDrive. OrchidStreetwouldprovidevehicularaccesstoproposedcottagesatthesoutheastcornerofthesubdivision,butwouldnotbeextendedfor vehiclethrough-traffictoavoidhavingvehiclescutthroughOrchidasashort-cutbetweenEastMainandNorthMountain. CalypsoCourtisaprivatestreetthroughtheBearGrassVillageSubdivision. StreetswithintheannexedareaareproposedtobefullyimprovedtoCitystandards. ThesoleExceptiontotheStreetDesignStandardsrequestedistonotinstallparkrowplantingstripswithstreettreesonthebridgecrossing BeachCreek,whichislocatedontheportionofthepropertyalreadywithintheCity. TheTSPStreetDedicationMapidentifiesasingleeast-westconnectionbetweenKirkLaneandNorthMountainAvenue.Theapplicanthas proposedaloopedstreetsystemthroughthesubdivision,withconnectionstoVillageSquareDrivetothenorth,andtoOldWillowandKirk Lanestotheeast.TherewouldbevehicularaccesstoproposedcottagesviaOrchidStreetatthesoutheastcorner,howevernovehicular throughtrafficisproposedhereinordertopreventcut-throughtrafficviaOrchidStreetfromEastMainStreettoNorthMountainAvenue. BikelanesareinplaceonNorthMountainAvenue. CentralAshlandBikepath(CAB)isinplaceonsouthsideofRRtracks. ApplicantproposestodedicateeasementtoaccommodatefutureCABextensiononthenorthsideoftracks(whichis identifiedintheTSP).NorthsideeasementisinplacealongHavurahShirHadash&AlephSpringsSubdivisionaswell. Staffbelievephysicalconstraints,lackofeasementstoSEandconnectivityalreadybeingprovidedmayrenderthis unnecessary. Theannexedareaisnotadjacenttoanarterialstreet–theportionalreadywithinthecityseparatestoannexationareafrom NorthMountainAvenue. NorthMountainAvenueisanavenueormajorcollectorratherthananarterial,howeverexistingbicyclelanesarealreadyin placeonNorthMountain. NorthMountainAvenuebikelanesandtheCentralAshlandBikepath(CAB)providebicyclefacilitiesalongtheproperty’s immediatefrontagetoschool’s,shopping,diningandparks,andwillultimatelyprovideforconnectivitytotheBearCreek Greenway. BicycleconnectivityisalsoprovidedviaeasementstoVillageSquareDriveandOrchidStreet,aswellasviastreet connectivitytoVillageSquare,OldWillowandKirk. SidewalkswithparkrowplantingstripsareinplacealongNorthMountain,andthesurroundingneighborhood’sstreets willbeextendedthroughtheannexedareatoCitystandardswiththeexceptionofOrchid,whichwillnotallowthrough trafficforvehiclesbuteasementaccessforpedestrianswillbeprovided. Adjacentstreets(VillageSquare,OldWillowandKirk)havesidewalksinplaceandwouldbeextendedthroughthe annexedareatoCitystandards,withconnectionstoexistingsidewalks. MountainAvenueisnotdirectlyadjacenttotheannexedareaasitisseparatedbytheportionwithinthecity,butithas sidewalksinplacealongthefrontage.StreettreeswouldberequiredtobeaddedtotheparkrowalongNorth Mountain. InteriorstreetsaretobeimprovedtoCitystandardsforresidentialneighborhoodstreets.(TheonlyException requestedistonotinstallcity-standardparkrowswithstreettreesonthebridgeoverBeachCreek.BeachCreekison theCityportionoftheprojectsite.) ExistingsidewalksystemisinplacealongthefrontageonNorthMountainAvenueandcontinuestothenorthand south. ApplicationproposesfullstreetconnectionstosurroundingneighborhoodstreetsexceptOrchid,wherebicycleand pedestrianconnectivitywillbeprovidedviaeasement. SidewalksonNorthMountainAvenue,connectionstosurroundingstreets,andthesouthsideCentralAshlandBikepath providesafeandaccessiblepedestrianfacilitiestoshopping,dining,schoolsandparks. Thereiscurrentlynotransitserviceavailabletothesubjectproperty. TheTSPultimatelyenvisionsanewRoute8whichwouldserveMountainAvenuetoNevadaStreetandthenbackto downtownviaLaurelStreet.However,asenvisioned,thisroutewouldrequirecompletionoftheNevadaStreetbridge. RVTDhasindicatedthatthereisanewRoute5alongthefrontageintheir2040Planandtheywouldlikeaneasement behindthesidewalknorthofthedrivewaytoaccommodateafuture10x8busstopshelter.Nopadinstallationis neededatthistime. AMC 18.4.6.040.D 16.Cut-Through Traffic.The neighborhood street should be designed to reduce continuous cut-through, non-local traffic on neighborhood streets. AMC 18.4.6.040 E.Connectivity Standards.New and reconstructed streets, alleys, and pathways shall conform to the following connectivity standards, and the Street Dedication Map: From: {ǒĻ ŷźƷĻƒğƓ <suewhiteman063@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:41 PM Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 9/14/21 To: Julia Sommer <juliamsommer@gmail.com> Ashland Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 14, 2021 We support the comments made by Julia Sommers of the Ashland Village HOA board. We reside within the HOA and have been involved in this project since the blackberries were removed in the spring of 2021 revealing the nature of the creek. Our property borders both the proposed development and Beach Creek. The stream is designated intermittent ephemeral flowing from the mountains into Bear Creek. It is part of the City's storm water drainage system. Onsite visits have occurred with Rogue River Watershed Council, Jackson Soil and Water Conservation, Plant Oregon and Derek Severson to address our concerns about past and future erosion and flooding. All restoration specialists have noted the KDA section of the creek is straight, deep and narrow resulting in an accelerated flow. At KDA's north property line, a large pile of debris including concrete culverts, tires, steel wheels etc was dumped into the creek diverting water toward our house. It has already caused 10 feet of erosion along a 10 foot drop off. That area is now bare soil and crumbling. Measuring from the eroded bank there is 11 feet to our property line and another 13 feet to our house. The creek then winds along the HOA's 1 acre section, slowing the flow of water until it exits through the culvert. Previous to blackberry removal, a neighbor across the creek has moved his fence a couple of times due to erosion. In addition, approximately 5 years ago the culvert was blocked, flooding an HOA house located close to the culvert. A video was recorded of the creek following a .08 inch rain event showing the culvert 2/3 full. The restoration specialists have viewed it and Derek has a copy. During the onsite visits we were informed the KDA portion of the creek will continue to get deeper and narrower, further increasing the risk of erosion and flooding downstream. The County's report dated 7/16/21 recommends netting be placed along the drop off by our house before winter rains arrive to reduce the potential for erosion. During our discussions with Mark Knox addressing our concerns, he has consistently stated he does not want to disturb the creek corridor including the pile of debris. We are requesting the planning commission support KDA's collaboration with our HOA, the County and City to mitigate erosion and flooding downstream. Thank you, Sue and Gery Whiteman Ashland, Oregon Testimony of Rick Harris PA-T3-2021-00003 September 14, 2021 community. Likewise, provision of housing for a community is one of the primary elements in a comprehensive plan for cities in According to State Economists, State Legislators, housing consumers and real estate professionals, Oregon has an acute housing shortagewe are 200,000 homes under the projected need statewide. According to Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service, Ashland has less than 35% of its historic inventory of available homes for purchase in all price ranges, and even less in more moderate (for Ashland) price ranges. Real Estate represents over 22.2% , it provides good paying jobs, and each new home represents an added economic benefit of $132,000. The immediate need for Ashland to provide increased housing inventory, together with the added economic benefits to the community, as anticipated in Oregon Land Use Planning Goal 10, are major reasons why this development should be approved. Sources: Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Census National Association of Home Builders Macroeconomic Advisors National Association of REALTORS® ` ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft September 28, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Maria Harris, Planning Manager Roger Pearce Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Derek Severson, Senior Planner Lisa Verner Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced there would be an appeal of the approval by the Community Development Director regarding an AT&T wireless communications facility at 351 Walker Avenue and 390 Stadium Street. It would come before the Commission at their October 12, 2021 meeting. If the findings for PA- T3-2021-00003, 192 North Mountain Avenue were approved at this meeting, it would go before the City Council on October 19, 2021. Staff was anticipating the annexation code amendments would go before City Council mid November. III. PUBLIC FORUM IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2021-00003, 192 North Mountain Avenue Ex Parte Contact The Commission declared no ex parte contact on the matter. Commission Verner addressed Condition 8 and asked if it pertained to KDA or Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Severson explained it could be either. It was for cottage unit approval and mostly a reminder. Condition 8.d Mr. Severson went on to clarify a change to regarding the trash trap and sediment control system for Beach Creek. The Public Works Department had informed Mr. Severson it would require engineering. Staff contacted Commissioner KenCairn and reworded the language. Commissioner Pearce/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T3-2021-00003, 192 North Mountain Avenue.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission September 28, 2021 Page 1 of 3 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion of Amendments to Chapter 18.5.8 Annexations Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided background and spoke to the recent LUBA decision regarding the annexation request for PA-T3-2019-00001 on 1511 Highway 99 North. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached): Focus Areas for Code Amendments Exceptions and Variances Terminology Public Facility/Transportation Improvements Commissioner Verner confirmed the distance was a ¼ mile from a required sidewalk connection but did not require a destination. Ms. Harris explained if the applicant demonstrated a pedestrian or bicycle generator within a ¼ mile, the approval authority could have the applicant connect the annexed area to that destination within a ¼ mile. Usually it was a sidewalk or bike lane. Ms. Harris would review the language and make sure it was clear. The intent was setting a limit on how far the applicant had to go for their improvement. Commissioner Pearce added it was permissive for the City Council and not a requirement. Other Commissioner Pearce recommended copying the language in the statute since it was a statutory requirement. Next Steps Commissioner Thompson noted page 6 of 14 in the ordinance and commented on the removal of the words E.2 accessibleShe addressed on the same page. One of the problems with the 1511 Hwy 99 North annexation was lack of control over the highway. Would the City have the exceptions process to address similar circumstances? Ms. Harris thought it might. Part of the issue in the LUBA appeal was the steep embankment, the drainage, and cutting into the hillside to widen the street. Mr. Molnar added for the annexation on 1511 Highway 99 North, the focus was on the physical constraints of the site. One of the issues was a potential pedestrian crossing. It was under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) who determined it was not feasible. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern a proposal could meet all the standards and still be denied by the City Council. Commissioner Pearce noted it was a legislation decision and the City Council could do whatever it wanted if it was not arbitrary or capricious. They were not giving up safety. The City Council had the discretion and authority to deny an annexation even it met all the standards. Alternately, the City did not need standards in an annexation Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 2.22 ordinance. The ordinance could just require compliance with and that it be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Molnar added the beginning of the annexation chapter emphasized an application may be approved. The City Council was not obligated to pass the ordinance because it was a legislative act. Ms. Harris page 5 of 14, 18.5.8.030(A.) under . Commissioner Thompson asked about the definition changes to adjacent and bordering. Ms. Harris explained adjacent could apply to both sides of a street where bordering applied to one side of a street. 18.5.8.060 Boundaries Commissioner Thompson noted page 10 of 14, and asked for clarification on the wording . Ms. Harris explained it would apply when there was a major utility line extension that made sense if another property was annexed or a private road that needed to Ashland Planning Commission September 28, 2021 Page 2 of 3 become part of the public street system. Commissioner Pearce added it could apply to a right of way the City did not own as well. 18.5.8.020 Application Submission Commissioner Verner made a correction to the top of page 5 of 14, RequirementsD.18.5.8.05018.5.8.0406.c18.5.8.050.G.6 should be instead of . On page 9 of 14, , should be 18.5.8.050.G.518.5.8.040. . In , she asked what pertained to the word Ms. Harris explained it was for city-initiated annexations due to a public health hazard or including a street instead of a proposed development. F. Commissioner Verner went on to make a correction to page 7 of 14, under , third line of the first sentence, changing the to to read . Mr. Molnar commented on removing the words safe and accessible. Accessible often spoke to grades. Transportation improvements could inherit street grades that could not be changed. Transportation Engineers looked at whether the improvements met the standards and if they were within operational levels of services. It would be difficult to make the statement that it was safe. Interior Lot Commissioner Verner asked for clarification regarding on page 12 of 14.Ms. Harris noted the diagram, Figure 3 Corner Lots , and explained it was the lot next to a corner lot. Ms. Harris explained they would attend the Transportation Commission meeting on October 21, 2021, and the City Council Study Session on November 1, 2021. The public hearing for the Planning Commission would happen at their meeting on November 9, 2021. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 28, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Project Objectives Focus Areasfor Code Amendments Exceptions and Variances Terminology Public Facility/Transportation Improvements o o o Other Next Steps FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00029 822 Oak Street BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 12, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2021-00029, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 5-LOT, 4-UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ) OPTIONS SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTIES AT 822 OAK STREET. THE APPLI- ) CATION ALSO INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR: A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PRIVATE) DRIVEWAY TO SERVE FOUR UNITS WHERE DEDICATION OF A PUBLIC STREET) FINDINGS, IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY A NON- ) CONCLUSIONS & CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY SEPARA- ) ORDERS TION IS NOT PROVIDED FOR AN AVENUE; AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STAN- ) DARDS TO NOT INSTALL CITY STANDARD STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVE- ) MENTS ALONG OAK STREET; AND A STREET TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ) REMOVE THREE OAK TREES. ) ) PPLICANT/OWNER: ASuzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC ) Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lots #200 and #201 of Map 39 1E 04 CA are vacant parcels at 822 Oak Street, on the east side of Oak Street between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive, and are zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential). 2)The applicant is requesting Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the two properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units where dedication of a public street AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1 is typically required under ; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming MC development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue as required in A 18.4.3.080.C.3.a; an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 1 c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 4) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 2 AMC 18.5.5.050.A 5) The criteria for a Variance are described in as follows: 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 6) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 3 e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. R-1. b. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 4 i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. AMC 18.4.6.020.b 7) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in as follows: 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. AMC 13.16.030 8) The criteria for a Street Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows: The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit has been issued PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 5 required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List. (Ord. 3192 § 100, amended, 11/17/2020) 9) Emergency Powers to declare a state of emergency to the City Manager, subject to subsequent ratification by the City Council. Emergency resulting from the Coronavirus contagion, and the Council has subsequently approved extension of this Declaration of Emergency through at least October 19, 2021. Among other things, this Declaration of Emergency provides for public meetings to be conducted by electronic means for the various City commissions and boards, including the Planning Commission. 10) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on August 10, 2021 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to the closing of the hearing, the applicant requested that the hearing be continued pursuant to ORS 197.763(6) to present additional evidence or argument. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to Tuesday, September 14, 2021 and 7:00 p.m., at which time the Planning Commission reconvened the meeting electronically at which time additional testimony was received and exhibits presented. Following the closing of the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 6 SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3, for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5, for a Variance described in AMC 18.5.5.050, for an Exception to Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.b; and for a Street Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 13.16.030. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, le ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements or has requested Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 18.3.9.080, and the provisions of the chapter as well as other applicable provisions including AMC 18.4.3 Parking, Access, & Circulation; AMC 18.4.6 Public Facilities; and AMC 18.4.8 Solar Access. The application materials further emphasize that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. The Planning Commission finds that the subject property here is outside of the PSO overlay, and as provided in AMC 18.3.9.030.D, if a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under the Perform following conditions exist: 1) The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; 2) That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; 3) The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM; or 4) The property is developed as a cottage housing development consistent with the standards in section 18.2.3.090. The subject property is less than two acres in area, is zoned R-1 and is not proposed for a cottage housing development. The Planning Commission finds that the use of the Performance Standards Option will protect the environment and neighborhood from the degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, and will preserve two large stature Cedar Trees which are to be preserved and protected on the common area lot. The Commission finds that a Performance Standards subdivision will be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impacts. The Planning Commission finds that the development of the individual, detached single family dwelling units requires two off street parking spaces each, and building permit submittals would need to demonstrate that required off-street parking would be provided with development of the individual lots. In addition, the t least one on- street parking space shall be provided per dwelling unit for all developments in an R-1 zone in addition to PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 7 off-street parking required. These on-street parking spaces are to be provided immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right- of-way streets, and each space is to be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. The Planning Commission finds that the four parking spaces proposed on the south side of the driveway are each within 200 feet of the unit they serve, are accessible from Oak Street and can be found to satisfy this requirement. The Planning Commission further finds that a driveway serving a single lot and greater than 50 feet in length, or a driveway providing access to flag lots is considered a flag drive and subject to the development requirements in AMC 18.5.3.060 including that each lot have three parking spaces situated so as to avoid the need for backing out; that the flag drive address width, fire access, work area and turn-around requirements; and that there are provisions for screening, drainage, and maintenance. Given that the drive here serves four lots and they are not flag lots, the Commission finds that strict adherence to the flag drive parking standards is not necessary. A third parking spaces is not necessary for each lot given that an on-street parking space is provided for each lot on the common area, however the Commission does find that the off-street parking spaces must be configured to eliminate the need for backing out, and that fire access, drainage and maintenance requirements shall be demonstrated to be satisfied at building permit. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.4.8.040 requires that land divisions creating new lots be designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a setback that does not exceed 50 percent -south dimension. Where lots have a north-facing negative slope of less than 15 percent, this calculation is based on Standard A, meaning the shadow cast cannot exceed that of a six-foot fence on the north property line. Lots having a north facing negative slope equal to or greater than 15 percent, this calculation is based on Standard B, meaning the shadow cast cannot exceed that of a 16-foot fence on the north property line. Where an applicant chooses not to design a lot with an adequate north-south protect the applicable solar access standard. The application here has identified north building envelope limits for Lots 2-4 showing where a 12-foot shadow producing point could be placed to comply with Standard A, but asserts that because Lot 1 is not changing from its current configuration (i.e. while included in the subdivision, it will retain the same dimensions as it now has as a pre-existing lot of record) it is not subject to the Solar Access Performance Standard requirement and is simply subject to Solar Access Standard B. The Planning Commission disagrees and finds that, because Lot 1 is part of the requested subdivision, and as such could have its north-south dimension adjusted to comply if the applicant chose to do so, it is subject to the Solar Access Performance Standard requirement and needs to either comply with the lot design requirement or identify a solar envelope complying with Standard A. A condition to this effect has been included below. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 8 The Public Works Department has noted that the following city facilities are available to serve the subject property from the adjacent Oak Street right-of-way: a six-inch water main, an eight-inch sanitary sewer main, and a 24-inch storm sewer main. The application materials assert that the proposal provides for adequate key City facilities, further explaining that water lines will be extended in the same general area as the existing water meter boxes, which are directly behind the curb; that the site grading plan anticipates individual sanitary sewer ejector pumps to the sanitary sewer main in Oak Street; and stormwater is proposed to be captured and detained onsite in an engineered swale which will overflow into the city system. The electric distribution plan provides a new vault on the north side of the driveway within the new common area lot. The applicant notes that necessary easements will be provided for all utilities, and that in discussions with Public Works and the individual utility departments no capacity issues or concerns have been identified. In terms of ade frontage. Continuous sidewalks were completed along the west side of Oak Street with a Local Improvement District (LID) some years ago, but there are no sidewalks in place along the east side for the subject property or the majority of the corridor between Sleepy Hollow Drive and East Nevada Street. The application includes a request for a Variance not to install frontage improvements along Oak Street which is discussed in section 2.5 below. The Planning Commission finds that adequate key City facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants according to the approved plans, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, The application materials explain that there are two large stature Incense Cedar trees on the property that will be preserved and protected on the common area lot. Three large Oak street trees along the Oak Street right-of-way were also initially planned for preservation, however after consulting with a certified arborist it was determined that these three trees are nearing the end of their life cycle and have damage to the degree that their removal is necessary. In their place, the applicant proposes to plant six Oak trees of at least two-inch caliper along the street and down the driveway as mitigation trees. The Planning Commission finds that, in addition to protecting the two large Cedars on the common area lot, the areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek floodplain corridor with slopes in excess of 35 percent are considered unbuildable under AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1., and the application identifies building envelopes which protect these areas from development. The Commission further finds that slopes greater than 25 percent can be subject to damage from erosion or slope failure and merit protection, and a condition has been included below to require that any development of the property disturbing slopes greater than 25 percent first provide a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 9 expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, adjacent The application materials provided explain that the adjacent properties are zoned residential, that the properties to the north and south have limited development potential due to the lot configurations and location of existing structures. The applicant goes on to explain that there is a larger parcel on the north side of the proposed Lot #4 that may have development potential, but the steep topography along the east property line prevents street connectivity. The east edge of the subject property slopes steeply towards the east, with slopes in excess of 35 percent in some areas, and there are substantial areas of the adjacent property where the slopes exceed 35 percent, which means they have no buildable area. The applicant concludes that the proposal itself will not prevent adjacent properties from developing as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Recognizing that existing development patterns and physical constraints may limit development of the adjacent properties to a degree, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision and its associated access and utility installation will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, The fifth approval criterion is that, and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or The application iation (HOA) and that Covenants, -Laws will be provided for review by the Staff Advisor along with a Stormwater Quality Management Plan along with the final civil drawings for review prior to signature of the subdivision survey plat. The application further suggests that the four units will be platted together rather than in phases. provisions for the long-term operation and maintenance of open space and common areas including the trees preserved and protected with the subdivision, the driveway, utilities and drainage system. With the inclusion of these conditions, the Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The sixth criterion iThe proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterThe base density for R-1-5 development under the Performance Standards Option Chapter is 4½ dwelling units per acre. The parent parcel here is 37,500 square feet or 0.86 acres, and the 0.86 acres x 4.5 dwelling units/acre = 3.87 dwelling units base density is 3.87 dwelling units (). The proposed density is four dwelling units, which equates to roughly 3.3 percent over the base density. The applicant proposes to utilize the allowed 15 percent density bonus for Conservation Housing by constructing 100 percent of the units to Earth Advantage® standards as provided in Resolution #2006-06. The Planning Commission finds that with the construction of 100 percent of units to Earth Advantage® standards, the proposed density meets the base and density bonus standards of the Performance Standards Option Chapter. A condition has been included below to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate that the homes have been designed to comply with the applicable Earth Advantage® standard PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 10 and that evidence of Earth Advantage® certification be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each home. The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that, No public street installation is proposed in conjunction with the current request. The application includes a request for a Variance not to dedicate and install a public street to serve four units. The Variance is discussed below in section 2.5. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip and sidewalk along the Oak Street frontage. The Exception is discussed below in section 2.7. TThe proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of AshlandIn AMC 18.3.9.050.A.3, the Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least five percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. While the properties here have a base density of only 3.87 units, the applicant nonetheless has proposed to provide 2,800 square feet of open space on the proposed common area lot. The application materials emphasize that this area will represent a significant amenity to the projectresidents who will use and enjoy the common open space on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the proposed open space supports the preservation of the two large Cedar trees and will include landscaping and a bench to improve the functionality of the space. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to insure substantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. The Planning Commission finds that where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings, common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for the approval of a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units. All streets serving four units or greater, and which are in an R-1, RR and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this section. The current proposal seeks to create lots to develop four units, but is requesting not to dedicate and install a public street. The first approval criteriThe variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.Here the application materials assert that the requested Variance is necessary due to special or unique physical circumstances including the slope of the subject property along the east property line which prevents the extension of any public street system, and the development pattern on adjacent properties to the north and south also prevent the extension of an interconnected street system. In addition, the application explains that due to PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 11 the narrow frontage the property along Oak Street - dedication of public street right-of-way would require a 25-foot wide cross-section for a Shared Street or a 47-foot wide cross-section for a Residential Neighborhood Street - the creation of a new street intersection would have substantial impacts on the large Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the south and north. The applicant suggests that the code provision to provide a public street when serving more than three units is overly restrictive and, in some instances, burdens the community with small, dead-end public streets serving only a single residential subdivision. The applicant emphasizes that the slope of the subject properties and those immediately to the east are simply too steep to extend a gridded neighborhood street system, and that the development pattern of the properties to the north and south of the subject property are developed in a manner that prevents extension of a public street. The applicant asserts that a private driveway will allow for a narrower disturbance that is more compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood, and would also place all of the burden for future maintenance on the users of the private driveway rather than on the city. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The applicant explains that the requested variance to allow a private driveway to serve four lots instead of three is the minimum necessary, and emphasizes that the private driveway would nonetheless be dedicated as fire apparatus access and would reduce the impacts that the development of the site would otherwise have with the installation of a public street and the resultant wide curb radii, reduction in on-street parking along Oak Street, and changes to neighboring properties setbacks. with a public street and the resulting curb radii and restricted parking along Oak Street, impacts to required yard setbacks for neighboring properties. T the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The application materials suggest that the benefits of the proposal include removal of any public responsibility for a small, dead end street that provides no vehicular access to future properties within the vicinity due to topography and existing development patterns. The will own the private driveway and the utilities, and have responsibility for maintenance and repairs. In addition, the application materials indicate that the driveway would have a narrower apron than a street intersection and would thus have a lesser impact on the Oak Street streetscape than a public street. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The application materials explain that the need for the Variance is based on the narrow lot width along Oak Street, the steep slopes which prevent connectivity to the east, and the development pattern on the properties to the north and south, all of which pose difficulties for street installation. The application materials emphasize that all of . The Planning Commission finds that the requested Variance is merited. The easternmost edge of the property has slopes in excess of 35 percent, and in rough staff calculations, the grade of an east-west street PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 12 extension would be in the 29-30 percent range. In addressing street grade, AMC 18.4.6.040.C5 provides that street grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent, and explicitly precludes variances to this requirement for public streets. The topography here is simply too steep for an east-west street extension, and the Commission finds that if the intent of the Performance Standards is to preserve and protect significant natural features, requiring a street extension which would disturb these slopes in order to direct vehicles to the Bear Creek floodplain corridor, which is now under Parks Department ownership, would be counterintuitive. Similarly, the Commission finds that the placement of existing buildings on properties immediately to the north and south combine with the topography at the rear (east) of the property to prevent easy north-south street connectivity. The Street Dedication Map (Figure 10-1) of the Transportation System Plan does not identify any planned streets on the subject properties or in the immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission finds that the street dedication requirement does not account for those situations where topography precludes installation of a street meeting the street grade requirements, and serving four lots rather than three via a private drive seems the minimum variance possible to address the difficulty while seeking more efficient land use, with the benefit that there would not be public responsibility for the maintenance of what would effectively be an overbuilt driveway without any associated public benefit from connectivity, and the Bear Creek floodplain corridor and the slopes that overlook it would be preserved and protected. In considering whether to require that the applicant provide a public pedestrian access easement through the property to offset the lost vehicular connectivity, the Planning Commission finds that, as noted above, the Parks Department has acquired property downslope along the Bear Creek floodplain corridor which includes public pedestrian trails. There is one property between the subject properties here and the Parks property below, but the slopes of that property like the rear of the subject properties here have severe constraints and are unlikely to support further development, and the Commission finds that these slopes are too great to require a pedestrian connection be provided. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that while the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing non-conforming development where the existing driveway separation does not meet the standard for a collector street type detailed in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3 and the proposal would move the driveways approximately six feet closer together, because the subject property is zoned R-1-5 it is not subject to the 75-foot driveway separation in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.b and C.3.c, but is instead required only to provide the minimum 24-foot separation detailed in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that a Conditional Use Permit is not required of the application as currently proposed. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for the approval of an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not install frontage improvements along Oak Street. Oak Street is classified as an avenue or major collector street in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and city standard frontage improvements detailed in AMC Table 18.4.6.040.F include a seven- to eight- foot irrigated park-row planting strip and a six-foot sidewalk. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 13 aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, mature trees, and limited right-of-way. Both of these conditions are present on the frontage. The property has a 50-foot wide frontage on Oak Street. Along the frontage of the property and the adjacent properties to the north and south, there is approximately eight-and-a-half feet of right-of-way, which is not adequate to install city-standard frontage improvements. In addition, then narrow width of the property frontage following the installation of the driveway will leave only approximately 28-feet of frontage for sidewalk installation. There are not sidewalk connections immediately to the north or south, and the applicant suggests that the request to not install frontage improvements would avoid a sidewalk and parkrow system that goes nowhere. The application materials further assert that there are large stature Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the north and south, and city standard sidewalk installation would impact these trees as well as the utilities in place within the existing right-of-way. The application emphasizes that the only way to preserve the neighbors trees is to use the narrowest driveway allowed and not install a public street or frontage improvements with sweeping curb lines. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. The application materials explain that the proposed frontage improvements will include regrading of the berm behind the curb line, installation of a driveway apron and the planting of two large stature Oak street trees to replace the street trees proposed for removal, and suggests that these frontage improvements are similar to the existing improvements on the east side of Oak Street, where sidewalks are not currently present. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The application materials explain that the proposed exception is to not provide either sidewalk or parkrow improvements in the 28-feet north of the proposed driveway curb cut. The application further notes that there is inadequate right-of-way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements, and that not installing a sidewalk alleviates difficulties in the extensions of said sidewalk in a logical and functional manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on existing development, will not redevelop in a manner that would require dedication of right-of-way or removal of trees. The application further suggests that in the event that frontage improvements are required, a five-foot wide curbside sidewalk with two street trees planted behind the sidewalk could be installed. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.ovide multiple transportation options, focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Street Design Standards outline the art and science of developing healthy, livable streets, and are intended to illustrate current standards for planning and designing the streets of Ashland. The standards are to be used in the development of new streets, and reconstruction of existing streets or portions thereof (i.e. improving a paved local street by adding sidewalks). The standards area also intended as a resource for use by home builders, developers, and community members in the pursuit of quality development practices. The application materials explain that there are very limited sidewalks with parkrow on the east side of Oak Street, noting that this was due to a many-years-long, very involved Local Improvement District (LID) process to improve Oak PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 14 Street. The application concludes that the exception seeks to not install sidewalks and parkrow along the frontage of the property due to the limited length of the sidewalk north of the driveway (28-feet), the lack of available right-of-way to install improvements, and that not installing sidewalk and parkrow will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience. The Planning Commission notes that with regard to the inadequate width of the available right-of-way to accommodate city standard frontage improvements, AMC 18.4.6.050 explicitly provides thatThe approval authority may require the dedication of land for the construction of a city street, greenway, or portion thereof, provided that the impact of the development on the city transportation system is roughly proportional to the dedication. It is assumed that all development requiring planning actions will increase traffic generated in the area unless it can be proven otherwise to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Land will be dedicated by a property owner for the construction of a street or greenway when: 1) A development requiring a planning action, partition, or subdivision takes place on the owner's property; 2) The development will result in increases in the traffic generated (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, auto) in the area, by some measure; 3) The property contains a future street or greenway dedicated on the official map adopted pursuant to AMC 18.4.6.050.D; 4) Where required neighborhood street connections are not shown on the Street Dedication Map, the development shall provide for the reasonable continuation and connection of the transportation system to serve the development and adjacent vacant or re-developable lands, conforming to section AMC 18.4.6.040.E Connectivity Standards; and 5) The City may require additional right-of-way for streets that do not meet the street standards of this chapter, or as necessary for realignments of intersections or street sections, which do not have to be shown on the official map. The Planning Commission finds that, based on the street dedication requirements above, the application can and should be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to accommodate the future installation of city-standard frontage improvements along Oak Street both in terms of being proportional to the impacts of added pedestrian trips within the system and because the applicant is also requesting a Variance not to provide the required public street serving the proposed new lots/units. A condition has been included below to require the dedication of the additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate standard frontage improvements, which equates to an additional approximately five-and-a-half feet along the subject The Planning Commission further finds that developments are typically required to install incremental improvements to city standard along their frontage so that as infill occurs, the system is gradually brought up to city standards. On the Oak Street corridor in the immediate vicinity, between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive, there are currently two sections of parkrow and sidewalk at 780 Oak Street and at 952-982 Oak Street where incremental sidewalk installations were required that illustrate this approach. However, in this instance, the Planning Commission finds that the requested Exception is merited. In addition to there being large stature Oaks on the properties immediately to the north and south, there are also fences, utility pedestals and grade changes behind the curb which mean that a pedestrian using an incremental into the street immediately at either end, and would face potential trip hazards if they were inattentive. To avoid this situation, the Commission finds that it would be preferable to have the applicant sign-in favor of a future LID for the improvement of the east side of Oak Street as required in AMC 18.4.6.030.B which PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 15 would enable a more comprehensive planning process for the corridor to address the various constraints in place, dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to support eventual sidewalk and parkrow installation along the frontage (approximately five-and-a-half feet), and to have the applicant re-grade the frontage to curb level and install a five-foot wide compacted granite path behind the curb to support on- street parking in the interim. 2.8 Planning Commission finds that the removal of street trees is not regulated through the land use ordinance in AMC Chapter 18. As these removals are cutting trees from city property, the City Manager or designee is instead charged with regulating street tree removal or pruning through AMC Chapter 13.16. No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or designee. Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to Street Tree Removal Permits are ministerial, and there are no land use criteria detailed in the code however the criteria established by the City Manager for Street Tree Removal permits, as detailed on the Street Tree Removal Permit application are: a)9ƒĻƩŭĻƓĭǤ ƩĻĻ wĻƒƚǝğƌ͵ The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non-emergency process. b)IğǩğƩķ ƩĻĻ wĻƒƚǝğƌ͵ The tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. c)5Ļğķ ƩĻĻ͵ The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. The application requests the removal of three native Black Oak trees (Quercus Kelloggii) located behind the curb line. These three Oaks are described as stressed and unhealthy, and the project arborist indicates that the three trees show signs of decline, noting that there is an animal burrow being created at the base of the southernmost tree which is actively undermining the base of the tree and that all three trees have numerous dead branches in the crown which are over two-inches in diameter. The trees are elevated above the street on a small berm, and in their current state would not respond well to even slight alterations to their environment. The arborist indicates that the trees show obvious signs of past branch shedding, and concludes that the likelihood of preserving the trees or improving their health is very poor. Planning staff been significantly undermined, and that there was significant dead wood in the canopies. The arborist PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 16 indicated that the best long- three trees, and once the development was complete to plant healthy replacement trees in the form of two- to three-inch caliper Quercus Kelloggii or other large-canopied, regionally-acclimated tree species (i.e. Swamp White Oak, Valley Oak, Willow Oak, Shumard Oak or Red Oak) located slightly further from the street. The arborist suggests that the soil in the area where the replacement trees will be planted should be protected from compaction during development, and that mulch, fertilizer and drip irrigation should be provided and maintained on a schedule for at least three years post planting. The application identifies six replacement Oaks to be planted along the driveway to recover lost canopy coverage, shade the non- permeable surfaces and aid in the absorption of stormwater run-off. The replacement trees are noted as being at least two-inch caliper with proper soil conditions and irrigation. The Tree Commission reviewed the application at its August 5, 2021 meeting and recommended that the application be approved subject to all conditions of the applicant, and that the project arborist monitor the protected trees for their health for the duration of construction. The Tree Commission further recommended that at least three replacement Oaks be planted prior to completion of the project nt a potential future public safety hazard which cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning in that their current condition and state of decline will only further deteriorate with time and development of the property. The Planning Commission also notes that the two healthy Incense Cedar (Calocedrus Decurrens) along the north property line will likely survive the impacts of development if properly protected during construction. The applicant proposes to provide required tree protection fencing along with five-inches of mulch installed starting three feet from the trunk and extending out to the end of the dripline. The trees are to be watered once a week during construction with approximately 100 gallons of water applied within 10 feet of the dripline during the months of April through October, and if work is to be done within the tree protection zones, a certified arborist will be consulted to identify best practices to preserve and protect the trees. To insure that the excavation of the proposed bio-swale does not adversely impact the root zones of these two trees, a condition has been included below to require that a revised Tree Protection Plan prepared by an arborist/tree care professional be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval by the Staff Advisor which identifies a tree protection zone based on the species and age of the trees. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals for a four-unit, five-lot Performance Standards Options subdivision, Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units, Exception to Street Standards not to install frontage improvements and Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The Commission further concludes that the requested Conditional Use Permit with regard to driveway separation is not required for an R-1 zoned property. PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 17 The Commission finds the subdivision proposal itself to be relatively straightforward, with the key issues being the Variance and Exception requests. The Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units here seems appropriate given that the site slopes and adjacent development pattern preclude an interconnected, gridded street system in the vicinity. The Exception to not provide frontage improvements is also merited given the trees, grade changes, fencing and utility pedestals located on the properties to the north and south, however the Commission finds it important that the applicant dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to provide for the eventual frontage improvements and sign-in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) agreeing to participate proportionally in a comprehensively planned improvement project for the corridor. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #T2-2021-00029. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #T2-2021-00029 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. 3.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for driveway approaches, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4.That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their August 5, 2021 regular meeting that the project arborist monitor the protected trees for their health for the duration of construction, and that three replacement Oaks be planted prior to completion of the project, shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. 5.That the recommendations of the project arborist including the type of mitigation trees, tree protection fencing placement, mulching within tree protection zones and watering schedule shall be conditions of approval. 6.That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging or issuance of a building or excavation permit. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction activity, including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree protection zones. 7.That parking on the four proposed developable lots shall be situated on the properties so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. 8.That prior to submittal of the final subdivision plat for signature: a.Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 18 Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean- drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b.That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. c.A site plan illustrating a revised solar envelope which includes Lot 1 being subject to a d.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-5 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. e.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. f.A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. g.A final grading and erosion control plan. n.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 19 standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. o.That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. p.That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the final plat submittal for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including driveway, open space, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and drainage system. q.That a revised Tree Protection Plan prepared by an arborist/tree care professional shall be provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor which identifies a tree protection zone based on the species and age of the trees to ensure that the bio-swale excavation will not adversely impact the two large Incense Cedars to be preserved and protected in the open space. r.The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved Tree Preservation and Protection Plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. s.A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four feet in height. Fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. t.That the applicant shall sign in favor of a local improvement district (LID) for the future improvement of Oak Street, including sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated street trees, curb, gutters and storm drainage. This agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final subdivision survey plat. u.That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 20 9.Prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat: a.That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b.The final survey plat shall include the dedication of additional right-of-way (approximately five-and-a-half feet) necessary to accommodate the future installation of city standard park row planting strips and sidewalks along the full Oak Street frontage to accommodate the street system proposed by the applicant. c.That the subdivision name and all street names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. d.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. e.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveway, and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat. f.Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. g.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. h.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. 10.That prior to the issuance of a building permit for any unit: a.The applicant shall provide evidence that the Earth Advantage® certifications necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing density bonus are being pursued, and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy the applicant shall provide evidence of having received the required Earth Advantage® certification. b.The areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek floodplain corridor with slopes in excess of 35 percent are unbuildable under AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 and shall not be included in building envelopes, as proposed by the applicant. Prior to disturbance of any slopes greater than 25 percent within the building envelopes, the applicant shall first provide a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. October 12, 2021 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 21 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL _________________________________ PA-T1-2021-00158 351 Walker Avenue / 390 Stadium Street Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00158 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 351 Walker Av/390 Stadium St OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/ Smartlink, LLC on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC/AT&T APPELLANTS: Kelly Marcotulli & Pamala Joy DESCRIPTION: Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permits to install a new Wireless Communication Facility on the Southern Oregon University Campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. This appeal hearing will be held via Zoom video- conferencing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; 39 1E 10CD; TAX LOT: 100. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:00 PM G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Walker_351_PA-APPEAL-2021-00013\\Noticing\\APPEAL_Walker_351 _PA-T1-2021- 00158_NOC.docx Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing via Zoom video conferencing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, RVTV Prime. or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/351Walker seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public- October 12 PC Hearing Testimony testimony@ashland.or.us Monday, October 11, 2021. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit October 12 PC Hearing the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us Testimony October 12, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oraltestimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 12, 2021 and you will be sent a Zoom link. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing via Zoom video conferencing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email October 12 Speaker Request 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4)specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating bycomputer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this -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). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson, the staff planner assigned to review this application, at 541-488-5305 or e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Walker_351_PA-APPEAL-2021-00013\\Noticing\\APPEAL_Walker_351 _PA-T1-2021- 00158_NOC.docx The Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Land Use Ordinance (LUO) is available online in its entirety at: https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse SITE DESIGN REVIEW (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.5.2.050 ) An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards; or 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.5.4.050) A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Walker_351_PA-APPEAL-2021-00013\\Noticing\\APPEAL_Walker_351 _PA-T1-2021- 00158_NOC.docx to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES DESIGN STANDARDS (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.4.10.040) All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated, and maintained in accordance with the following standards. A. General Provisions 1. 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 (FCC) confirming that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the facility is exempt from regulation. 2. 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. 3. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zone. 4. 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. 6. 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. 7. The 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. 8. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. B. 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 chapter 18.4.10, 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. 1. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing wireless communication facilities sites for new installations shall be encouraged. 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. 2. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. 3. 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. 4. Freestanding Support Structure. If (1), (2), or (3) 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. C. Collocation Standards 1. The collocation feasibility study shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable. b. Demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocatio c. Document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. 2. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approval 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. a. A significant service gap in coverage area. b. Sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers. c. Structural support requirements cannot be met. d. Collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction, or other radio frequency interference. D. 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. 1. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. 2. 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. 3. The outer perimeter of the wireless communication facilities shall have a landscaped buffer zone ten feet in width. 4. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. 5. 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 two inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Walker_351_PA-APPEAL-2021-00013\\Noticing\\APPEAL_Walker_351 _PA-T1-2021- 00158_NOC.docx E. Visual Impacts 1. 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. 2. 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 approval 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. 3. Antennas 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. 4. Antennas 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. 5. 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. 6. Exterior lighting for a wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. 7. Should it be deemed necessary by the approval 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, and shielding techniques. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Walker_351_PA-APPEAL-2021-00013\\Noticing\\APPEAL_Walker_351 _PA-T1-2021- 00158_NOC.docx ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 12, 2021 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00158/PA-APPEAL-2021-00013 OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University SmartLink, LLC on behalf of New Cingular Wireless, LLC/AT&T APPELLANTS: Kelly Marcotulli and Pamala Joy LOCATION: 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street ZONE DESIGNATION: SO COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University District ORDINANCE REFERENCES: Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan Update: http://www.ashland.or.us/files/SOU_MasterPlan_4.2010.pdf Ashland Land Use Ordinance: https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District 18.4.10 Wireless Communication Facilities 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.7 Signs 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits 18.6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: August 5, 2021 120-DAY DEADLINE*: December 3, 2021 (*The project is also subject to a federal 150- on December 19, 2021.) REQUEST: ASite Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to install a new Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) on the Southern Oregon University campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 1 of 18 I. Relevant Facts 1)Background - History of Applications In 1993, Planning staff approved a request for Site Review approval to construct a residence hall storage and maintenance building as PA #1993-102. In 1994, Planning staff approved a request to modify the previous Site Review approval for a residence hall storage and maintenance building as PA #1994-029. In 1995, Planning staff approved a request for Site Review to construct a 2,400 square foot single-story addition to the SOSC Physical Plant as PA #1995-106. In 1997, Planning staff approved a request for Site Review to install a satellite dish antenna on the two-story portion of the SOSC Physical Plant buildings roof as PA #1997-022. In 2012, Planning staff approved a Tree Removal Permit to remove 11 hazardous trees as PA #2012-01766. All of the trees were reviewed by a certified arborist and determined to be hazardous. In 2015, the Planning Commission approved the reconstruction of the McNeal Pavilion, now the Lithia Pavilion, and the Student Recreation Center on the subject property as PA #2015-00418. In 2020, staff denied a request to install a WCF camouflaged as a 105-foot tall pine tree a short distance away on the same property as PA-T1-2020-00097. The denial was because the collocation study and alternative sites analysis at that time were found to be insufficient in demonstrating that collocation or placement on an existing structure were not feasible. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. 2)Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description The subject property is located at 351 Walker Avenue and 390 Stadium Street, and is an approximately 17.46-acre parcel bounded on the west side by Wightman Street, on the south by Webster Street, and on the east by Walker Avenue. The parcel is located on the Southern Oregon University campus, and is within the Southern Oregon University District (SO) zoning overlay. Within this district, in addition to addressing the Wireless Communication Facility Design Standards, wireless communication facilities proposed as alternative structures require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. Proposal The application requests Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to install a new Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) on the Southern Oregon Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 2 of 18 University Campus at 390 Stadium Street, and would involve the placement of an AT&T 4G and 5G LTE tower as an alternative structure. As proposed, the applicant would replace an existing 73.9-foot tall concrete stadium light standard with a new 95-foot tall concrete light standard constructed to match the existing structure. The new stadium light standard would contain the stadium lights at their existing height and the proposed wireless communication facilities placed above them on the light standard. A 450 square foot lease area on the ground below the tower would contain ground equipment housed within a pre-fabricated walk-in cabinet on a ten-foot by 18-foot concrete pad with landscape screening and fencing. II. Project Impact As detailed in AMC 18.4.10.020, wireless communication facilities (WCF) proposed as alternative structures in the Southern Oregon University require Conditional Use Permit approval. The current application was approved by staff on September 17, 2021 with a 12-day appeal period which extended through the end of business on September 29, 2021. On September 27, 2021 prior to the end of the appeal period, Kelly Marcotulli and Pamala Joy timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Ms. Marcotulli resides outside of the noticing area for the application, but had submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. Ms. Joy resides within the impact area, had received notice and provided written comments during the public comment period. The notice of appeal identified three specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1.The loss of property values due to appearance of cell tower in the area and adverse effects of livability in the impacted area. (AMC 18.5.4.050) 2.The AT&T permit application does not clearly specify collocation provision and the SmartLink/SOU Lease Agreement does not clarify provision. (AMC 18.4.10.030) 3.Electromagnetic radiation should be considered an air quality pollutant and is in the high risk category per the ins. industry. The code does not list this, but it appears in the land lease documents. (AMC 18.5.4.050). AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff de novohearings before the Planning Commission and follow the standard Type II public hearing procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. Site Design Review for Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Installation WCF installations are subject to Site Design Review to consider compliance with the design standards for WCF installation detailed in AMC 18.4.10.040. The design standards is described in AMC 18.4.10 as: Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 3 of 18 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 impacts 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. To conform with this stated purpose, the Design Standards in AMC 18.4.10.040 include a The first design option is collocation. If it is proven not to be feasible, the next option considered is attaching the installation to an existing structure. If that proves not to be feasible, an alternative structure can be considered, and finally if other options have all proven not to be feasible, a free-standing support structure is the last option. Lattice towers are explicitly prohibited. The applicant is required to exhaust each previous standard, demonstrating that it is not feasible before moving to the next step in the preferred design hierarchy. Fcapable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization design can or cannot be accomplished. Here, the applicant has proposed to replace an existing stadium light standard with a taller light standard supporting lights at their current height with the WCF above as an alternative structure, and the applicant must accordingly demonstrate that neither collocation or attachment to an existing structure are feasible. In considering the feasibility of collocation, the applicationmust document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable, demonstrate coverage area needs, and to document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. Relief from collocation as the first-step in the hierarchy of design preference may be granted if the evidence contained within the application supported by independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at prospective collocation sites: a) a significant service gap in coverage area; b) sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers; c) structural support requirements cannot be met; and d) collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction, or other radio frequency interference. The applicants have provided the code-required collocation study/alternative site analysis, and as required by ordinance the City has retained the services of an independent third party reviewer. William P. Johnson, an RF Engineering Consultant, has reviewed the application materials to ensure that the site approvals are based on an objective need. In reviewing the Johnson concluded that: Assuming the validity of the RF coverage thresholds for in-building and in-vehicle coverage which are noted as consistent with those used by AT&T and other service providers in sites located in similar areas with in-building and in-vehicle service objectives the applicant has demonstrated the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site to -utilization of neighbor sites) that leads to Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 4 of 18 inadequate service. The proposed site will draw-off traffic from existing sites during busy times and as wireless service demands increase. The proposed 95-foot height appears reasonable for a site situated as proposed, and as one would expect a height reduction tends to decrease RF coverage. However, the a-foot high antenna tip) is unsupported other than by a percent change in service in an undefined area since change in coverage. After review of the alternate sites presented by the applicant, the independent third par considered in their analysis, the proposed site is the only technically viable alternative. Residents might be concerned about what they have heard regarding the millimeter wave (39 GHz) band and the unknown effects on people. This site does NOT have mm wave equipment. The early 1980s. I am sure \[city decision makers\] will keep in mind that federal law precludes a denial based on health effect for sites that comply with the FCC threshold In considering the proposal, staff noted in particular that Johnson determined that the application demonstrates the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site to remediate the over-utilization of neighboring sites that leads to inadequate service, and that Johnson of the alternate sites considered in their analysis, the proposed site is the only technically viable alternative. The independent reviewer also points out that the proposed 95-foot height appears a ten-foot height reduction (to an 85-foot high antenna tip) is unsupported other than by a for the purpose of comparing a four percent change in coverage. Conditional Use Permit Here, staff would first In residential zones, 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.In this instance, the WCF is as described in that it is proposed on an existing structure greater than 45 feet tall in the form of a stadium light tower and with the installation will serve the combined purposes of a stadium light tower and a wireless communication facility. However, because the proposal is not in a residential zone, the applicant and staff have taken the most conservative approach and treated the request as an alternative structure, rather than as an existing structure, thus requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is located within the Southern Oregon University (SOU) District, a special district established to provide for the unique needs of Southern Oregon University as a State educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City of Ashland. The SOU District is regulated under AMC Chapter 18.3.6 and by the SOU Campus Master Plan which has been adopted by the City as Ordinance #3014. Within the SOU overlay zone, WCF are authorized subject to Chapter 18.4.10, and alternative structures (i.e. Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 5 of 18 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) require a Conditional Use Permit for approval. Conditional Use Permits provide for discretionary review of the adverse material impacts of a request in comparison to adverse material impacts that could reasonably be expected from omplying with all ordinance requirements. Consideration in the criteria include impacts on the livability of the impact area when considered in terms of scale, bulk, and coverage, and architectural compatibility. Conditional Use Permits provide the city with the ability to impose conditions necessary to mitigate these adverse material impacts. In responding to the Conditional Use Permit criteria, the application materials assert that as an unmanned facility, the proposed WCF only requires electricity and telecommunications services and there is adequate access and capacity for each to serve the subject property. They further suggest that the proposed design is the least intrusive means of meeting coverage objectives for this site and will have no greater impact on the livability of the surrounding area than would the target use. The WCF is proposed as an alternative structure designed to be similar in bulk, scale and material treatment to the existing stadium light standards and thus architecturally compatible. The proposed lease area, which will accommodate ground equipment, is limited to only 450 square feet and will be surrounded with a six-foot high, sight-obscuring fence, with the requisite landscaping buffer to further screen the facility from the parking lot and adjacent residential areas. Photo simulations have been provided. The application further emphasizes that the proposal will not generate traffic, dust, odors or other environmental pollutants, and a noise study has been provided to demonstrate that the facility will not emit noise greater than that allowed under AMC 9.08.170, and lighting - other than the existing stadium lights - will be limited to security lighting for the prefabricated equipment cabinet or any required by the FAA or ODA. Comments Received NOCA Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Complete Application (), numerous written comments were received with regard to the proposal during the comment period. Generally, the issues raised included: Personal health effects (i.e. electro-sensitivity, ringing in the ears, disorientation. Sleeplessness, agitation, etc.) particularly in proximity to schools Harm to flora and fauna, including pollinators Increased fire risk Questions of architectural compatibility and adverse impacts to the character of the city Lack of necessity (i.e. internet speeds and cell phones function well enough now) Will weaken rights to petition government for redress of future grievances Impact to property values The bulk of these comments had to do with the environmental and health impacts of wireless communication facilities. Title 47 U.S. Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part 1 §332.7.B.iv Mobile Services Preservation of Local Zoning Authority No state or local Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 6 of 18 government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (Federal Communication regulations concerning such emissions. consideration of potential environmental health impacts of wireless communication facilities local zoning authority. This preclusion prevents the city from considering health impacts in individual land use decisions, and as such the environmental and health concerns raised cannot be considered in reaching a decision. Some commenters also noted a recent court decision Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (#20-1025 before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). Here the Court of Appeals ruled that in looking at whether it would revisit the current rules for wireless facilities, the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) erred in not addressing comments raised in the record with regard to environmental and health concerns when it decided not to revisit rules established in 1996. no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiationd evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.he Court remanded the matter back to the FCC to correct its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer Telecommunications Act of 1996, which says cities cannot deny applications based on environmental or health concerns provided that the installation will operate within FCC rules, as seems to be suggested in some of the comments received. With regard to the potential for increased fire risk with the installation of Wireless Communication Facilities, Fire Chief and Fire Marshall Ralph Sartain has reviewed the proposal and indicated that as long as the building permit application is reviewed and found to meet current building and fire codes, and all required inspections are approved he would have no concerns with increased fire risks. In terms of architectural compatibility, the criterion specifically speaks to architectural compatibility with the impact area which is the area within 200 feet of the subject property. In this instance, the applicants propose to reconstruct a concrete light standard which is already in place at Raider Stadium with a concrete standard designed to match the existing structure with lights at the existing 73.9-foot height and the wireless facilities installed above that, to an antenna tip height of 95 feet. For staff, reconstructing the light standard in concrete to match the existing standard and others already in place at the stadium can be found to be architecturally compatible with the impact area, however independent third party reviewer Johnson -foot height reduction (which would take the proposed WCF down to an 85-is unsupported Given that an alternative stconceal, camouflage, or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilitiesWireless communication facilities shall be instaand that Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 7 of 18 Johnson found that the need for the 95-foot height proposed versus a reduction to 85 feet ound that reducing the height to 85 feet compatibility and mitigating the visual impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility. Reducing the height to 85-feet in combination with constructing a new concrete light standard to match the existing 73.9-foot concrete light standard in design and material treatment will better blend with the existing stadium lights than would a ten-foot taller standard, and a condition to this effect was attached to the staff decision. Some commenters have suggested that their internet and cell phones function well enough now, and as such the facility is not necessary. The independent reviewer has determined that the application materials demonstrate the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in this area to remediate over-utilization of neighboring sites which leads to inadequate service, and the proposed site is intended to draw-off traffic from existing sites during busy times and as wireless service demands increase. For staff, the concern that approval of a wireless communication facility will weaken rights to petition government for redress of future grievances does not relate to any approval criteria or standards applicable to the current request. With regard to the potential reduction in property values, one commenter cited a 2004 study which found that close proximity to a cell tower reduced home prices by 15 percent on th average, and further suggested that an 11 Circuit Court decision upheld the denial of a WCF application based upon testimony that the tower would reduce property values in close proximity. In countering this argument, the applicant provided a 2012 study which concluded that proximity to a wireless facility had no apparent impact on home values or sale prices. For staff, there was not a definitive demonstration that proximity to wireless facilities reduces property values nor was there a clear tie to the applicable criteria, and here the facility is to be placed where a light standard is already in place at the stadium, approximately 496 feet from Walker Avenue and 677 feet from Wightman Street, which is more than double the 170-190 foot required setbacks from adjacent residential. Staff Decision communication facilities (WCF) while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. These standards are based in a recognition that, because of the physical characteristics of WCF, their impacts 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. It is important to emphasize that the concern most often raised in comments opposed to WCF installations - the environmental health impacts associated with such installations is explicitly precluded from consideration in local decisions by federal law provided that the installation meets FCC standards. As such, applications must be carefully considered in terms only of applicable local land use regulations including requirements for design review approval in light of specific approval criteria and design standards. Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 8 of 18 After consideration of all information contained in the record, the Staff Advisor concluded thatthe request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approvals to install a new Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) on the Southern Oregon University campus was supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Independent, third-party reviewer William Johnson reviewed the application submittals and determined that the application demonstrated the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site to remediate the over-utilization of neighboring sites that leads to inadequate service, and based on the alternative site analysis provided, the independent reviewer concurs that the proposed site is the only technically- viable alternative. Johnson also found that the applicaargument against a height reduction of ten feet, which would bring the antenna tip height from the 95 feet proposed down to 85 feet, is unsupported other than by a percent change in service in an undefined rcent change in coverage. Given that an alternative structure as proposed here is supposed to be conceal, camouflage, or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilities Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its and that the independent reviewer has found that the need for the 95-foot tely supported in the materials, staff found that reducing the height to 85 feet would better mitigate visual impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility. Reducing the height to 85-feet in combination with constructing a new concrete light standard to match the existing 73.9-foot concrete light standard in design and material treatment will better blend with the existing stadium lights than would a 95-foot standard. A condition requiring the height reduction was attached to the original staff approval. On that basis, Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00158 was approved by the Staff Advisor on September 17, 20221 subject to 11 conditions. Notice of the decision was mailed to the parties. III. Appeal Request On September 27, 2021 prior to the end of the appeal period, Kelly Marcotulli and Pamala Joy timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Ms. Marcotulli had submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal; Ms. Joy resides within the impact area and had received notice of the application, and had also submitted written comments during the public comment period. The notice of appeal identified three specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1.The loss of property values due to appearance of cell tower in the area and adverse effects of livability in the impacted area. (AMC 18.5.4.050) 2.The AT&T permit application does not clearly specify collocation provision and the SmartLink/SOU Lease Agreement does not clarify provision. (AMC 18.4.10.030) Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 9 of 18 3.Electromagnetic radiation should be considered an air quality pollutant and is in the high risk category per the ins. industry. The code does not list this, but it appears in the land lease documents. (AMC 18.5.4.050). IV. Staff Response 1.The loss of property values due to appearance of cell tower in the area and adverse effects of livability in the impacted area. (AMC 18.5.4.050) The issue of a potential reduction in property values was originally raised during the initial comment period by a number of commenters. One of those originally in opposition to the 9,514 residential home sales in ten suburbs and found that close proximity to a cell tower reduced price by 15 percent on average. The study itself was not provided originally, nor th has it been provided by the appellants here. Commenters had further suggested that an 11 Circuit Court decision (which was not specifically cited or provided) had upheld the denial of a WCF application based upon testimony that a cell tower would reduce property values in close proximity. In countering this argument, the applicant provided a 2012 study by the Wireless Communications Institute, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors and Silicon Valley Association of Realtorswhich concluded that proximity to a wireless communications facility had no apparent impact on home values or sale prices. For staff, with dueling studies there was not a definitive demonstration that proximity to wireless facilities in fact reduces property values, nor was there a clear tie made to the applicable criteria and standards. In addition, the WCF proposed here is to be placed where a light standard is already in place at the stadium, and is approximately 496 feet from Walker Avenue and 677 feet from Wightman Street. This is well beyond the 170- to 190-foot setback required from adjacent residential, and thus does not seem to be in close proximity to the nearest homes. 2.The AT&T permit application does not clearly specify collocation provision and the SmartLink/SOU Lease Agreement does not clarify provision (AMC 18.4.10.030) In the Application Submission Requirements in AMC 18.4.10.030.I, a copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site is required to demonstrate that the lease does not preclude collocation. While the application materials provided here include a lease agreement, it does not explicitly include language demonstrating that collocation is not precluded. As such, the That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a copy of the signed lease evidencing that collocation is not precluded by the lease agreement. approval criteria, addressing this requirement through a condition was consistent with the allowances of AMC 18.5.4.050.A, which details the criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval, noting that A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. In this case, a building permit will not be issued without the applicant first providing a copy of the signed lease which meets the requirement. Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 10 of 18 3.Electromagnetic radiation should be considered an air quality pollutant and is in the high risk category per the ins. industry. The code does not list this, but it appears in the land lease documents (AMC 18.5.4.050) Appellant Marcotulli notes that her initial comments discussed the health impacts of wireless facilities. Despite the 1996 ruling that denied using health as a reason for denying a WCF, the land lease agreement between SOU hazardous materials on the Property, or any environmental, health, or safety condition or matter relating to the Property, that, in . The appellant goes on to expAt the very least, this wording is ambiguous and needs clarification. This clause indicates a double standard where the right to terminate the lease agreement based on health grounds is an acceptable argument as determined by the Tenant, while it is not an acceptable reason for denial by the public and In terms of the human health and environmental impacts of wireless communication facilities, Title 47 U.S. Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part 1 § Mobile Services Preservation of Local Zoning AuthorityNo state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (Federal This federal law Communication ts of Such considerations fall under the exclusive authority of the Federal Communication Commission and do not provide a basis by which the city could deny a WCF application. In assessment, this federal preclusion prevents the city from considering health impacts in individual land use decisions and would prevent considering electromagnetic radiation as an air quality pollutant, and the fact that any environmental, health or safety condition site can be considered by the tenant as a basis for terminating the lease does not alter the applicable federal law limiting local zoning authority. V. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 11 of 18 drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The Wireless Communication Facility Design Standards are described in AMC 18.4.10.040 as follows: All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated, and maintained in accordance with the following standards. A.General Provisions 1. 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 (FCC) confirming that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the facility is exempt from regulation. 2. 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. 3. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zone. 4. 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. 6. 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. Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 12 of 18 7. The 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. 8. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. B. 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 chapter 18.4.10, 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. 1. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing wireless communication facilities sites for new installations shall be encouraged. 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. 2. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. 3. 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. 4. Freestanding Support Structure. If (1), (2), or (3) 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. C. Collocation Standards 1. The collocation feasibility study shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable. b. Demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites needs. c. Document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. 2. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approval authority if the application and independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 13 of 18 prospective collocation sites. a. A significant service gap in coverage area. b. Sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers. c. Structural support requirements cannot be met. d. Collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction, or other radio frequency interference. D. 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. 1. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. 2. 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. 3. The outer perimeter of the wireless communication facilities shall have a landscaped buffer zone ten feet in width. 4. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. 5. 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 two inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. E. Visual Impacts 1. 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. 2. 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 approval 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. 3. Antennas 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. 4. Antennas 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. Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 14 of 18 5. 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. 6. Exterior lighting for a wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. 7. Should it be deemed necessary by the approval 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, and shielding techniques. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 15 of 18 I. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations After staff initially approved the application, a timely notice of land use appeal was filed by the appellants here, Kelly Marcotulli and Pamala Joy. Ms. Marcotulli resides outside of the noticing area for the application, but had submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. Ms. Joy resides in the noticing area, had received notice, and also submitted written comments during the comment period establishing her standing. The notice of appeal identified three specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1) The loss of property values due to appearance of cell tower in the area and adverse effects of livability in the impacted area. (AMC 18.5.4.050); 2) The AT&T permit application does not clearly specify collocation provision and the SmartLink/SOU Lease Agreement does not clarify provision. (AMC 18.4.10.030); and 3) Electromagnetic radiation should be considered an air quality pollutant and is in the high risk category per the insurance industry. The code does not list this, but it appears in the land lease documents. (AMC 18.5.4.050). In terms of the loss of property values due to appearance of cell tower in the area and adverse effects of livability in the impacted area, this issue was raised and considered in the original and noted that this involved the analysis of 9,514 residential home sales in ten suburbs and found that close proximity to a cell tower reduced price by 15 percent on average. The study itself was not provided originally, or by the appellants here. The original comments further suggested th that an 11 Circuit Court decision (which was not specifically cited or provided) had upheld the denial of a WCF application based upon testimony that a cell tower would reduce property values in close proximity. In countering this argument, the applicant provided a 2012 study by the Wireless Communications Institute, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors and the Silicon Valley Association of Realtorswhich concluded that proximity to a wireless communications facility had no apparent impact on home values or sale prices. For staff, with dueling studies there was not a definitive demonstration that proximity to wireless facilities in fact reduces property values, nor was there a clear tie made to the applicable criteria and standards. In addition, the WCF proposed here is to be placed where a light standard is already in place at the stadium, and is approximately 496 feet from Walker Avenue and 677 feet from Wightman Street. This is well beyond the 170- to 190-foot setback required from adjacent residential, and thus does not seem to be in close proximity to the nearest homes. With regard to the AT&T permit application not clearly specifying a collocation provision in the lease agreement provided, a lease satisfying the requirement that collocation is not precluded is a submittal requirement. While the application materials provided include a lease agreement, it does not explicitly include language demonstrating that collocation is not precluded. As suchThat prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a copy of the signed lease evidencing that collocation is not precluded by the lease agreement. Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 16 of 18 submittal requirements are not approval criteria, addressing this requirement through a condition was consistent with the allowances of AMC 18.5.4.050.A, which details the criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval and notes A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.Similarly, the Site Design The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criterian this case, the condition insures that a building permit for the proposed WCF will not be issued without the applicant first providing a copy of the signed lease which meets the requirement. Finally, the appellants argue that electromagnetic radiation should be considered an air quality pollutant as part of the Conditional Use Permit review, and further suggests that such pollutants are in the high risk category per the insurance industry. The appellants assert that while this is not addressed in the land use code, the lease provided between the University any environmental, health or safety condition by the tenant as a basis to nullify the lease. In reaching a decision, staff was aware of the No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (Federal Communication) regulations concerning such emissions. consideration of potential environmental health impacts of wireless communication facilities Such considerations fall under the exclusive authority of the Federal Communication Commission and do not provide a basis by which his federal preclusion prevents the city from considering electromagnetic radiation as an air quality pollutant, and the fact thany environmental, health or safety condition as a basis for termination of the private lease agreement by the tenant does not alter the applicable federal laws limiting local zoning authority. none of the appeal issues identified appears to justify reversal of the original staff decision, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the original approval subject to the eleven conditions originally attached by the Staff Advisor and detailed below: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including that the existing concrete stadium light standard shall be replaced with a concrete standard to support the stadium light and wireless communication facility and that the concrete standard shall be colored and finished to match the existing standards at Raider Stadium. 2.That all conditions of previous land use approvals for the property shall remain in effect unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 3.That the new wireless communication facility shall be limited to no more than an 85- foot antenna tip height and the replacement stadium light standard shall be constructed to match the existing stadium light standard in design and material treatment (i.e. concrete, painted in a matching, non-reflective color) to better blend with the existing stadium lights and mitigate the visual impacts of the installation. 4.That the applicants shall obtain required building permits, including any structural, mechanical and electrical permits; pay associated fees and charges; and obtain all Planning Action 2017-01486 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicant: SmartLink Wireless/Appellant: Uhtoff Page 17 of 18 required inspection approvals. All requirements of the Building Division, including but not limited to: that final drawings prepared by an Oregon-licensed design professional may be necessary to complete the submission for permits; that permit drawings shall address any applicable Oregon Structural Specialty Code requirements (i.e. wind, seismic and tributary loads, and forms of attachment). 5.Building permit submittals shall include written communications from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Aeronautics section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communications Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with the regulations of their respective agencies or is exempt from those regulations. 6.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 7.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall obtain a business license from the City of Ashland. 8.That prior to use of the proposed wireless communications facility (WCF), the applicants shall paint, texture or otherwise treat the proposed pre-fabricated ground equipment cabinet in a non-reflective finish and color. 9.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a copy of the signed lease evidencing that collocation is not precluded by the lease agreement. 10.That prior to use of the proposed wireless communications facility (WCF), the landscaping to screen the proposed equipment shelter and related irrigation systems shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. 11.That no signage beyond that allowed for wireless communications facilities in AMC 18.4.10.040.A.6 (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) shall be permitted on the wireless communications facility. Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report / dds Applicants: SmartLink-New Cingular-AT&T/Appellant: Marcotulli & Joy Page 18 of 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Notice of Appeal Time for Filing Content of Notice of Appeal COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00158 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 351 Walker Av/390 Stadium St OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/ Smartlink, LLC on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC/AT&T DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to install a new Wireless Communication Facility on the Southern Oregon University campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: Southern Oregon University; SO; TAX LOT: 39 1E 10CD; 100 SUBMITTAL DATE: July 22, 2021 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: August 5, 2021 STAFF DECISION DATE: September 17, 2021 APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.) September 29, 2021 FINAL DECISION DATE (4:30 P.M.): September 29, 2021 EXPIRATION: March 29, 2023 DECISION The application requests Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to install a new Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) on the Southern Oregon University campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. Subject Property & Background The subject property is located at 351 Walker Avenue and 390 Stadium Street, and is an approximately 17.46-acre parcel bounded on the west side by Wightman Street, on the south by Webster Street, and on the east by Walker Avenue. The parcel is located on the Southern Oregon University campus, and is within the Southern Oregon University District (SO) zoning overlay. Within this district, wireless communication facilities as alternative structures require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. In recent years, projects in the immediate vicinity have included the reconstruction of the McNeal Pavilion, now the Lithia Pavilion, and the Student Recreation Center on the subject property, and the construction of two new dormitories and a dining hall on the parcel immediately to the south. An application (PA-T1-2020-00097) to install a WCF camouflaged as a 105-foot tall pine tree a short distance away on the same property in 2020 was denied study and alternative sites analysis at that time were found to be insufficient in demonstrating that collocation or placement on an existing structure were not feasible. Current Proposal The current application requests Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to install a new Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) on the Southern Oregon University Campus at 390 Stadium Street, and would involve the placement of an AT&T 4G and 5G LTE tower as an 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 1 alternative structure. As proposed, the applicant would replace an existing 73.9-foot tall concrete stadium light standard with a new 95-foot tall concrete light standard constructed to match the existing structure which would contain the stadium lights at their existing height and the proposed wireless communication facilities placed above them on the light standard. A 450 square foot lease area on the ground below the tower would contain ground equipment housed within a pre- fabricated walk-in cabinet on a ten-foot by 18-foot concrete pad with landscape screening and fencing. Site Design Review for WCF Installation WCF installations are subject to Site Design Review to consider compliance with the design standards for WCF installation detailed in AMC 18.4.10.040. The purpose of the design standards and submission requirements as described in 18.4.10 is: ŷĻ ƦǒƩƦƚƭĻ ƚŅ Ʒŷźƭ ƭĻĭƷźƚƓ źƭ Ʒƚ ĻƭƷğĬƌźƭŷ ƭƷğƓķğƩķƭ ƷŷğƷ ƩĻŭǒƌğƷĻ ƷŷĻ ƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷͲ ğƦƦĻğƩğƓĭĻͲ ğƓķ źƒƦğĭƷ ƚŅ ǞźƩĻƌĻƭƭ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźĭğƷźƚƓ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ ǞŷźƌĻ ƦƩƚǝźķźƓŭ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷƭ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ğĬźƌźƷǤ Ʒƚ ğĭĭĻƭƭ ğƓķ ğķĻƨǒğƷĻƌǤ ǒƷźƌźǩĻ ƷŷĻ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻƭ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻƭĻ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ ƭǒƦƦƚƩƷ͵ .ĻĭğǒƭĻ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƦŷǤƭźĭğƌ ĭŷğƩğĭƷĻƩźƭƷźĭƭ ƚŅ ǞźƩĻƌĻƭƭ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźĭğƷźƚƓ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭͲ ƷŷĻ źƒƦğĭƷƭ źƒƦƚƭĻķ ĬǤ ƷŷĻƭĻ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ ğŅŅĻĭƷ ƓƚƷ ƚƓƌǤ ƷŷĻ ƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩźƓŭ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷƭ ĬǒƷ ğƌƭƚ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ğƭ ğ ǞŷƚƌĻ͵ ŷĻ ƭƷğƓķğƩķƭ ğƩĻ źƓƷĻƓķĻķ Ʒƚ ĻƓƭǒƩĻ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ ǝźƭǒğƌ ğƓķ ğĻƭƷŷĻƷźĭ źƒƦğĭƷƭ ƚŅ ǞźƩĻƌĻƭƭ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźĭğƷźƚƓ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ ğƩĻ ƒźƷźŭğƷĻķ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ŭƩĻğƷĻƭƷ ĻǣƷĻƓƷ ƦƚƭƭźĬƌĻͲ ĻƭƦĻĭźğƌƌǤ źƓ ƚƩ ƓĻğƩ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌ ğƩĻğƭ͵ To conform with this stated purpose, the Design Standards in AMC 18.4.10.040 i is to be applied in succession to consider WCF placement options. The first design option is collocation. If it is proven not to be feasible, the next option considered is attaching the installation to an existing structure. If that proves not to be feasible, an alternative structure can be considered, and finally if other options have all proven not to be feasible, a free- standing support structure is the last option. Lattice towers are explicitly prohibited. The applicant is required to exhaust each previous standard, demonstrating that it is not feasible before moving to the next step in the preferred design hierarchy. capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. Here, the applicant has proposed to replace a stadium light standard with a taller light standard supporting lights at their current height with the WCF above as an alternative structure, and the applicant must accordingly demonstrate that neither collocation or attachment to an existing structure are feasible. In considering the feasibility of collocation, the applicationmust document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable, demonstrate that a area needs, and to document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. Relief from collocation as the first-step in the hierarchy of design preference may be granted if the evidence contained within the application supported by independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at prospective collocation sites: a) a significant service gap in coverage area; b) sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers; c) structural support requirements cannot be met; and d) collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction, or other radio frequency interference. 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 2 The applicants have provided the code-required collocation study/alternative site, and as required by ordinance the City has retained the services of an independent third-party reviewer. William P. Johnson, an RF Engineering Consultant, has reviewed the application materials to ensure that the site approvals are based on an objective need. analysis and collocation study, the third party reviewer has concluded that: Assuming the validity of the RF coverage thresholds for in-building and in-vehicle coverage which are noted as consistent with those used by AT&T and other service providers in sites located in similar areas with in-building and in-vehicle service objectives the applicant has demonstrated need for RF coverage from a base station facility in the -utilization of neighbor sites) that leads to inadequate service. The proposed site will draw off traffic from existing sites during busy times and as wireless service demands increase. The proposed height appears reasonable for a site situated as proposed, and as one would against a height reduction of 10 feet (to an 85-foot high antenna tip) is unsupported other is undefined for the purpose of comparing a four percent change in coverage. After review of the alternate sites presented by the applicant, the independent third party reviewer agrees with the applicantthat, of the alternate sites considered in their analysis, the proposed site is the only technically viable alternative. The independent third party reviewer further points out wĻƭźķĻƓƷƭ ƒźŭŷƷ ĬĻ ĭƚƓĭĻƩƓĻķ ğĬƚǒƷ ǞŷğƷ ƷŷĻǤ ŷğǝĻ ŷĻğƩķ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ ƷŷĻ ƒźƌƌźƒĻƷĻƩ ǞğǝĻ ΛЌВ DIǩΜ ĬğƓķ ğƓķ ĻƨǒźƦƒĻƓƷ źƭ ƚƦĻƩğƷźƓŭ źƓ ƷŷĻ ƭğƒĻ ĬğƓķ ğƭ ĭĻƌƌǒƌğƩ ǞźƩĻƌĻƭƭ ŷğƭ ǒƭĻķ ƭźƓĭĻ ƷŷĻ ĻğƩƌǤ ЊВБЉƭ͵ L ğƒ ƭǒƩĻ ΝƭƷğŅŅ ğƓķ ĭźƷǤ ķĻĭźƭźƚƓ ƒğƉĻƩƭΞ Ǟźƌƌ ƉĻĻƦ źƓ ƒźƓķ ƷŷğƷ ŅĻķĻƩğƌ ƌğǞ ƦƩĻĭƌǒķĻƭ ğ ķĻƓźğƌ ĬğƭĻķ ƚƓ ŷĻğƌƷŷ ĻŅŅĻĭƷ ŅƚƩ ƭźƷĻƭ ƷŷğƷ ĭƚƒƦƌǤ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ C// ƷŷƩĻƭŷƚƌķ In considering the proposal, staff notes in particular that the independent third party reviewer has determined that the application demonstrates the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site to remediate the over-utilization of neighboring determination that, of the alternate sites considered in their analysis, the proposed site is the only technically viable alternative. The independent reviewer also points out that the proposed 95-foot height appears reasonable for a site situated as proposed, but that the argument against a ten-foot height reduction (to an 85-foot high antenna tip) is unsupported other than by a percent of comparing a four percent change in coverage. Conditional Use Permit for an Alternative Structure in SOU Zone The subject property is located within the Southern Oregon University (SOU) District, a special district designed to provide for the unique needs of Southern Oregon University as a State educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City. The SOU District is regulated under AMC Chapter 18.3.6 and by the SOU Campus Master Plan which has been 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 3 adopted by the City as Ordinance #3014. Within the SOU overlay zone, WCF are authorized subject to Chapter 18.4.10, and alternative structures (i.e. 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) require a Conditional Use Permit for approval. Conditional Use Permits provide for discretionary review of the adverse material impacts of a request in comparison to adverse material impacts that could reasonably be expected from the T Southern Oregon University complying with all ordinance requirements. criteria include impacts on the livability of the impact area when considered in terms of scale, bulk, and coverage, and architectural compatibility. Conditional Use Permits provide the city with the ability to impose conditions necessary to mitigate these adverse material impacts. In responding to the Conditional Use Permit criteria, the application materials assert that as an unmanned facility, the proposed WCF only requires electricity and telecommunications services and there is adequate access and capacity for each to serve the subject property. They further suggest that the proposed design is the least intrusive means of meeting coverage objectives for this site and will have no greater impact on the livability of the surrounding area than would the target use. The WCF is proposed as an alternative structure designed to be similar in bulk, scale and material treatment to the existing stadium light standards and thus architecturally compatible. The proposed lease area, which will accommodate ground equipment, is limited to only 450 square feet and will be surrounded with a six-foot high, sight-obscuring fence, with the requisite landscaping buffer to further screen the facility from the parking lot and adjacent residential areas. Photo simulations have been provided. The application further emphasizes that the proposal will not generate traffic, dust, odors or other environmental pollutants, and a noise study has been provided to demonstrate that the facility will not emit noise greater than that allowed under AMC 9.08.170, and lighting - other than the existing stadium lights - will be limited to security lighting for the prefabricated equipment cabinet or any required by the FAA or ODA. Comments Received NOCA Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Complete Application (), numerous written comments were received with regard to the proposal during the comment period. Generally, the issues raised included: Personal health effects (i.e. electro-sensitivity, ringing in the ears, disorientation. Sleeplessness, agitation, etc.) particularly in proximity to schools Harm to flora and fauna, including pollinators Increased fire risk Questions of architectural compatibility and adverse impacts to the character of the city Lack of necessity (i.e. internet speeds and cell phones function well enough now) Will weaken rights to petition government for redress of future grievances Impact to property values The bulk of these comments had to do with the environmental and health impacts of wireless Mobile communication facilities. Title 47 U.S. Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part 1 § 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 4 Services Preservation of Local Zoning AuthorityNo state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (Federal Communication) nvironmental health impacts This preclusion prevents the city from considering health impacts in individual land use decisions, and as such the environmental and health concerns raised cannot and have not been a consideration in the current decision. Some commenters have also noted a recent court decision Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (#20-1025 before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). Here the Court of Appeals ruled that in looking at whether it would revisit the current rules for wireless facilities, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) erred in not addressing comments raised in the record with regard to environmental and health concerns when it decided not to revisit the 1996 rules. The no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.he Court remanded the matter back to the FCC to address the procedural error and provide a reasoned its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer. the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which says cities cannot deny applications based on environmental or health concerns provided that the installation will operate within FCC rules, as seems to be suggested in some comments. With regard to the potential for increased fire risk with the installation of Wireless Communication Facilities, Fire Chief and Fire Marshall Ralph Sartain has reviewed the proposal and indicated that as long as the building permit application is reviewed and found to meet current building and fire codes, and all required inspections are approved he would have no concerns with increased fire risks. In terms of architectural compatibility, the criterion specifically speaks to architectural compatibility with the impact area which is the area within 200 feet of the subject property. In this instance, the applicants propose to reconstruct a concrete light standard which is already in place at Raider Stadium with a concrete standard designed to match the existing structure with lights at the existing 73.9 foot height and the wireless facilities installed above that, to an antenna tip height of 95 feet. For staff, reconstructing the light standard in concrete to match the existing standard and others already in place at the stadium can be found to be architecturally compatible with the impact area, however the independent third party reviewer has indicated that the arguments against a ten-foot height reduction (to an 85-foot high antenna tip) is unsupported other than by a percent change in service in an undefined area since the specific target area is undefined for the purpose of comparing a four percent change in coverage. Given that an conceal, camouflage, or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilities, that AMC Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 5 height and mass necessary for its intended useand independent review has found that the need for the 95- needs while better achieving architectural compatibility and mitigating the visual impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility. Reducing the height to 85-feet in combination with constructing a new concrete light standard to match the existing 73.9 foot concrete light standard in design and material treatment will better blend with the existing stadium lights than would a ten-foot taller standard, and a condition to this effect have been included below. Some commenters have suggested that their internet and cell phones function well enough now, and as such the facility is not necessary. The independent reviewer has determined that the application materials demonstrate the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in this area to remediate over-utilization of neighboring sites which leads to inadequate service, and the proposed site is to draw off traffic from existing sites during busy times and as wireless service demands increase. For staff, the concern that approval of a wireless communication facility will weaken rights to petition government for redress of future grievances does not relate to any approval criteria or standards applicable to the current request. With regard to the potential reduction in property values, one commenter cited a 2004 study which found that close proximity to a cell tower reduced home prices by 15 percent on average, and th further suggested that an 11 Circuit Court decision upheld the denial of a WCF application based upon testimony that the tower would reduce property values in close proximity. In countering this argument, the applicant has provided a 2012 study which concludes that proximity to a wireless facility had no apparent impact on home values or sale prices. Fo demonstration that proximity to wireless facilities reduces property values nor a clear tie to the applicable criteria, and here the facility is to be placed where a light standard is already in place at the stadium, approximately 496 feet from Walker Avenue and 677 feet from Wightman Street, which is well beyond the 170-190 foot required setbacks from adjacent residential. The approval criteria for Site Design Review are detailed in AMC Section 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 6 exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The Wireless Communication Facility Design Standards are detailed in AMC Section 18.4.10.040 as follows: All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated, and maintained in accordance with the following standards. A.General Provisions 1. 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 (FCC) confirming that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the facility is exempt from regulation. 2. 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. 3. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zone. 4. 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. 6. 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. 7. The 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 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 7 90 days of the end of the six-month period. 8. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. B. 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 chapter 18.4.10, 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. 1. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing wireless communication facilities sites for new installations shall be encouraged. 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. 2. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. 3. 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. 4. Freestanding Support Structure. If (1), (2), or (3) 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. C. Collocation Standards 1. The collocation feasibility study shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable. b. Demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet c. Document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. 2. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approval 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. a. A significant service gap in coverage area. b. Sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers. c. Structural support requirements cannot be met. 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 8 d. Collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction, or other radio frequency interference. D. 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. 1. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. 2. 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. 3. The outer perimeter of the wireless communication facilities shall have a landscaped buffer zone ten feet in width. 4. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. 5. 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 two inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. E. Visual Impacts 1. 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. 2. 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 approval 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. 3. Antennas 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. 4. Antennas 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. 5. 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. 6. Exterior lighting for a wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. 7. Should it be deemed necessary by the approval 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, 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 9 specific colors and materials, masking, and shielding techniques. The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows I. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. ______________________________________________________________________ Decision Ashl facilities (WCF) while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. These standards are based in a recognition that, because of the physical characteristics of WCF, their impacts 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. It is important to emphasize that the concern often raised in comments opposed to WCF installations - the environmental health impacts associated with such installations is explicitly precluded from consideration in local decisions by federal law. This 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 10 preclusion applies to moratoria, as well as to individual land use decisions. As such, applications must be carefully considered in terms only of the applicable local land use regulations including requirements for design review approval in light of specific approval criteria and design standards. After consideration of all information contained in the record, the Staff Advisor concludes thatthe request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approvals to install a new Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) on the Southern Oregon University campus is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. An independent, third-party reviewer has reviewed the application submittals and determined that the application demonstrates the need for RF coverage from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site to remediate the over-utilization of neighboring sites that leads to inadequate service, and based on the alternative site analysis provided, the independent reviewer concurs that the proposed site is the only technically-viable alternative. However, the independent reviewer found inst a height reduction of ten feet, which would bring the antenna tip height down from the 95 feet proposed to 85 feet, is unsupported other than for the purpose of comparing a four percent change in coverage. Given that an alternative structure conceal, camouflage, or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilities, that AMC 18.4.10.040.A.4 Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended useand that the independent reviewer has found that the need for the 95- staff finds that reducing the height to 85 feet will better mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed wireless communication facility. Reducing the height to 85-feet in combination with constructing a new concrete light standard to match the existing 73.9 foot concrete light standard in design and material treatment will better blend with the existing stadium lights than would a 95-foot standard. A condition requiring the height reduction has been included below. Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00158 is therefore approved subject to the conditions detailed below. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA-T1-2021-00158 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including that the existing concrete stadium light standard shall be replaced with a concrete standard to support the stadium light and wireless communication facility and that the concrete standard shall be colored and finished to match the existing standards at Raider Stadium. 2.That all conditions of previous land use approvals for the property shall remain in effect unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 3.That the new wireless communication facility shall be limited to no more than an 85-foot antenna tip height and the replacement stadium light standard shall be constructed to match the existing stadium light standard in design and material 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 11 treatment (i.e. concrete, painted in a matching, non-reflective color) to better blend with the existing stadium lights and mitigate the visual impacts of the installation. 4.That the applicants shall obtain required building permits, including any structural, mechanical and electrical permits; pay associated fees and charges; and obtain all required inspection approvals. All requirements of the Building Division, including but not limited to: that final drawings prepared by an Oregon-licensed design professional may be necessary to complete the submission for permits; that permit drawings shall address any applicable Oregon Structural Specialty Code requirements (i.e. wind, seismic and tributary loads, and forms of attachment). 5.Building permit submittals shall include written communications from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Aeronautics section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communications Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with the regulations of their respective agencies or is exempt from those regulations. 6.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 7.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall obtain a business license from the City of Ashland. 8.That prior to use of the proposed wireless communications facility (WCF), the applicants shall paint, texture or otherwise treat the proposed pre-fabricated ground equipment cabinet in a non-reflective finish and color. 9.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a copy of the signed lease evidencing that collocation is not precluded by the lease agreement. 10.That prior to use of the proposed wireless communications facility (WCF), the landscaping to screen the proposed equipment shelter and related irrigation systems shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. 11.That no signage beyond that allowed for wireless communications facilities in AMC 18.4.10.040.A.6 (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) shall be permitted on the wireless communications facility. ______________________________ September 17, 2021 Bill Molnar, Director Date Department of Community Development 351 Walker Avenue/SOU WCF2.dds PA-T1-2021-00158 Page | 12 PROJECT SCOPESHEET INDEX MF22 1.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A T1.0TITLE SHEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON AN SOUTHERN OREGON EXISTING PARCEL FOR AT&T. LS-1SITE SURVEY 2.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NINE (9) LS-2SITE SURVEY ANTENNAS, EIGHTEEN (18) RRHs, TWO (2) SURGE UNIVERSITY PROTECTORS, AND FIBER/DC CABLES ON A NEW LS-3SITE SURVEY NOTES 85.0' TALL REPLACEMENT LIGHT STANDARD. ESC1.0GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 3.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A 6'-8" X 6'-8" WIC (EQUIPMENT SHELTER) AND 20kW GENERATOR A1.0OVERALL SITE PLAN ON A 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONCRETE PAD WITHIN A NEW FENCED COMPOUND. A2.0ENLARGED SITE PLAN FA #: 14647585 / USID: 231979 4.PROPOSED REMOVAL OF EXISTING LIGHTA3.0ELEVATIONS CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES STANDARD. 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 351 WALKER AVENUE A3.1ELEVATIONS OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 5.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A NEW 95.0' TALL L1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN LIGHT STANDARD. WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM ASHLAND, OR 97520 L1.1IRRIGATION PLAN 6.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NEW 200A ELECTRICAL SERVICE, AND FIBER SERVICE. L2.0IRRIGATION DETAILS FINAL ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT CONTACTSPROJECT INFORMATIONDRIVING DIRECTIONS APPLICANT: DRAWN BY:MS / KN SITE NAME:MF22 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITYFROM AT&T OFFICE IN TUALATIN, OREGON: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC ADDRESS:351 WALKER AVENUE CHECKED BY:GS 19801 SW 72ND AVENUE #100 ASHLAND, OR 975201.TURN RIGHT ONTO SW 72ND AVE (489 FT) TUALATIN, OR 97062 2.TURN RIGHT AT THE 1ST CROSS STREET ONTO SW SAGERT ST (.4 MI) DRAWING VERSION JURISDICTION:CITY OF ASHLAND PROPERTY OWNER: TAX LOT #:391E10CD-100 VER.DATEDESCRIPTION 3.TURN RIGHT ONTO SW MARTINAZZI AVE (.4 MI) SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY ACCOUNT #:10079029 PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 4.TURN RIGHT ONTO SW TUALATIN-SHERWOOD RD (.2 MI) 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD PARCEL SIZE:17.42 AC CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ZONING:SOU - SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 5.CONTINUE ONTO SW NYBERG ST (.1 MI) 06/22/21GRADING/ESC PLAN 3 6.SIGHT RIGHT TO MERGE ONTO I-5 S TOWARD SALEM (.2 MI) ZONING/PERMITTING AGENT: LATITUDE:42° 11' 18.70" N (42.188528°) 06/22/21FINAL LU DRAWINGS 4 SMARTLINK LONGITUDE:-122° 41' 24.35" W (-122.690097°) 7.MERGE ONTO I-5 S (275 MI) 10/04/21CLIENT COMMENT 5 11232 120TH AVE NE, #204 GROUND ELEVATION:1950.2' AMSL 8.TAKE EXIT 14 FOR OR-66 TOWARD ASHLAND / KLAMATH FALLS (.2 MI) KIRKLAND, WA 98034 SOURCE:1A CERTIFICATION DEBBIE GRIFFIN LICENSER 9.TURN RIGHT ONTO OR-66 W / ASHLAND ST (1.1 MI) PH: 480.296.1205 (P) STRUCTURE TYPE:LIGHT STANDARD (REPLACEMENT) ** THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS IS 10.TURN RIGHT ONTO WALKER AVE, SITE WILL BE ON THE LEFT (2 MI) (E) STRUCTURE HEIGHT:73.9' PROPRIETARY BY NATURE. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT SITE ACQUISITION AGENT: (P) STRUCTURE HEIGHT:85.0' WHICH RELATES TO THE OWNER IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. SMARTLINK (P) AT&T GROUND LEASE AREA:450 SQ FT GOVERNING CODES 11232 120TH AVE NE, #204 (P) IMPERVIOUS AREA:450 SQ FT TOTAL TIME:4 HRS 25 MINS KIRKLAND, WA 98034 TOTAL MILES:278 MILES CHIP O'HEARN OCCUPANCY:U PH: 503.490.2997 2019 OREGON STRUCTURAL SPECIALITY CODE GROUP:II-B RF ENGINEER: 2017 OREGON ELECTRICAL SPECIALTY CODE AT&T MOBILITY 2019 OREGON ZERO ENERGY READY COMM. CODE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: AT&T MOBILITY 2019 OREGON MECHANICAL SPECIALTY CODE TOM LOGAN PH: 253.709.0317 2019 OREGON FIRE CODE VICINITY MAPLOCALIZED MAP SURVEYOR: PROJECT INFORMATION AMBIT CONSULTING, LLC A.D.A. COMPLIANCE 245 SAINT HELENS AVE, SUITE 3A INSTALLATION IS UNMANNED / NOT FOR HUMAN MF22 TACOMA, WA 98402 HABITATION. HANDICAP ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED PER A.D.A. SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY APPROVALS 351 WALKER AVENUE FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SIGN-OFF ASHLAND, OR 97520 PROJECT AREA** REVIEWERS SHALL PLACE INITIALS ADJACENT TO EACH REDLINE NOTE AS DRAWINGS ARE BEING REVIEWED. PROJECT CONSULTANT/PRINTED NAME SIGNATUREDATE AREA SHEET TITLE LANDLORD: SITE ACQ: TITLE SHEET PERMITTING: RF MGR: CONST MGR: SHEET NO. OPS MGR: T1.0 PROJ. MGR: Know what's below. COMPLIANCE: Call before you dig. TRANSPORT: 1.OWNER OR DESIGNATED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH (E) CHAIN LINK LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. FENCE, TYP (E) UG ELEC. VAULT 2.THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN AND (OPTION 1 POWER SOURCE) CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESE ESC FACILITIES IS THE (P) TEMPORARY SILT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL FENCE PER 4/-, TYP CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION, AND VEGETATION/LANDSCAPING IS ESTABLISHED. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR (P) AT&T 12'-0" DOUBLE ACCESS MAINTENANCE AFTER THE PROJECT IS APPROVED GATE W/ SITE SIGNAGE 23 UNTIL THE LOTS ARE SOLD. 55 3.THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN 99 (P) AT&T 15'-0" X 30'-0" ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED IN THE 11 CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 4 5 9 1 FENCED LEASE AREA FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM MARKINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES, AND IN SUCH(P) 10'-0" LANDSCAPE A MANNER AS TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT ANDBUFFER; SEE SHEET L1.0 SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, ROADWAYS, OR VIOLATE APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS. 5 5 5.THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE DRAWN BY:MS / KN 9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SITE 1 CHECKED BY:GS CONDITIONS. DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIODS, THESE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS AND TO DRAWING VERSION ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT AND SEDIMENT LADEN VER.DATEDESCRIPTION WATER DOES NOT LEAVE THE SITE. (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 6.THE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY10/16/20 1 "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS ON THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF FENCE CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED (E) FIRE HYDRANT GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 FUNCTIONING. 7.AT NO TIME SHALL SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 ACCUMULATE MORE THAN 1/3 THE BARRIER HEIGHT. CLIENT COMMENT 510/04/21 ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING (E) TREE TO REMAIN; N LICENSER OPERATIONS SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT-LADEN PROTECT AT ALL TIMES 1 WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM. OF CONSTRUCTION 5 8.STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED 9 PER DETAIL 3/- 1 AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. (E) ROD IRON ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED TO FENCE, TYP (E) IRRIGATION INSURE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN METER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 9.STORM DRAIN INLETS, BASINS, AND AREA DRAINS SHALL BE PROTECTED UNTIL PAVEMENT SURFACES ARE COMPLETED AND/OR VEGETATION IS RE-ESTABLISHED. 10.PAVEMENT SURFACES AND VEGETATION ARE TO BE 0'0'-6"1'2' 11 X 17 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" PLACED AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE. 2EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 11.SEEDING SHALL BE PERFORMED NO LATER THAN 22 X 34 SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" SEPTEMBER 1 FOR EACH PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. 12.IF THERE ARE EXPOSED SOILS OR SOILS NOT FULLY ESTABLISHED FROM OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH APRIL NOTES:NOTES: 30TH, THE WET WEATHER EROSION PREVENTION PROJECT INFORMATION FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL, EDGE OF DISTURBED AREA 1.ALL PLANTS DESIGNATED TO BE 1.BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER FABRIC 6" BELOW FINISHED MEASURES WILL BE IN EFFECT. SEE LOCAL 36" WIDE ROLLS MF22 SAVED SHALL BE PROTECTED BYGRADE, 2" X 2" FIR, PINE, OR STEEL. JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WET WEATHER FENCING, AS SHOWN.2.FENCE POSTS W/ STITCHED LOOPS TO BE INSTALLED RESTRICTIONS. SOUTHERN OREGON 2.INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCEON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE SLOPE. DRIP LINE 13.THE DEVELOPER SHALL REMOVE ESC MEASURES 2'-6" AT THE TREE DRIP LINE OR AT EDGE 3.COMPACT ALL AREAS OF FILTER FABRIC TRENCH. WHEN VEGETATION IS FULLY ESTABLISHED. UNIVERSITY OF DISTURBED AREA, PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.5'-0" 3.FENCE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXISTING CONTOUR USE STITCHED LOOPS ORANGE, UV RESISTANT, HIGH 351 WALKER AVENUE 8" OVER 2" X 2" POSTS TENSILE STRENGTH POLYETHYLENE 2'-6" ASHLAND, OR 97520 LAMINAR BARRICADE FENCING W/ NEW CONTOUR 1.33 LBS/LF STEEL POSTS, SPACED 6'-0" MAX SPACING FILTER FABRIC 4'-0" MAXIMUM. POSTS SHALL BE 2'-6" MATERIAL 4'-0" ABOVE GRADE, MINIMUM, TEMPORARY SILT FENCE SHEET TITLE AND 2'-0" BELOW GRADE, FRONT VIEW MINIMUM.5'-0" EROSION & SEDIMENT 4.TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BE ERECTED AND MAINTAINED 8" CONTROL PLAN THROUGH THE DURATION OF THE TOP VIEW PROJECT. SLOPE 5.STORAGE OF MATERIALS WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHEET NO. 250 ZONE IS PROHIBITED. GROUND ELEVATION INTERLOCK 2" X 2" SIDE VIEW POSTS AND ATTACH ESC1.0 11X17 SCALE: NTS 11X17 SCALE: NTS 1NOTES & LEGEND3TREE PROTECTION FENCE4TEMPORARY SILT FENCE 22 X 34 SCALE: NTS 22 X 34 SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1.THE OVERALL SITE PLAN IS GENERATED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GIS MAPS, AERIAL MAPS, PHOTOS, IMAGES, AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (IF PROVIDED). I O W A S T ADJACENT ZONING: R-2 ADJACENT ZONING: SOU - SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY DISTRICT (E) OPEN FIELD CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM 6 0' R OW ± 710 .00 ' ADJACENT ZONING: SOU - SOUTHERN T 36 2'- 7" OREGON UNIVERSITY S K 49 K6'-0 " C (P) DISTRICT TOC E WE R S ETB AC K A (P) TOW ER SET ABAC K N (E) RESIDENCE (TYP) B B V T T " E E 0 A S - S 'A 4R" (P) AT&T ANTENNAS D E6 5 M- 150' .002N ' R W 7 T U LINE OF 300' OFFSET FROM EXISTING DRAWN BY:MS / KN 0 E O O 3 T H (P) POWER P PROPERTY BOUNDARY ) K CHECKED BY:GS P M SOURCE L ( G O I C A ) DRAWING VERSION P W ( W VER.DATEDESCRIPTION (P) UG POWER ROUTE FROM (E) PROJECT AREA PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T ± 31 5.0H-FRAME (+/- 100 LF) 0' SEE A2.0 CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 72 5 5 GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 . 0 0 TAXLOT #: 391E10CD-100 ' (P) AT&T FENCED FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 ZONING: SOU COMPOUND CLIENT COMMENT 510/04/21 K C (P) UG FIBER ROUTE FROM (E) K A ' C LICENSER B FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T 0 T A " 0 E B . 1 H-FRAME (+/- 290 LF) S T - 1 ' ADJACENT ZONING: E 9 4R S 3 0E "R-1-5 ± 5 D 5 W -(E) ELEC. TRANSFORMER ' N O 1 U T (OPTION 2 POWER SOURCE) 2 ) O 4 (E) BUILDING (TYP) P P ( M ADJACENT ZONING: (P) FIBER SOURCE O R-3 C ) 37 7'-2 " P ( 466 '-8" (E) PROPERTY LINE ( P) C O MP OU ND SET BA CK (PRIMARY PARCEL) (P) CO MPO UN D S ETB ACK ± 41 8.0 0' ± 1 0 2 . 0 0 ' ± 66(E) RESIDENCE (TYP) 0.0 0' INGRESS & EGRESS FROM WEBSTER ST W E B S T E R S T PROJECT INFORMATION T S MF22 ADJACENT ZONING: M SOUTHERN OREGON SOU - SOUTHERN U I OREGON UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DISTRICT D A T S 351 WALKER AVENUE ADJACENT ZONING: ASHLAND, OR 97520 RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ADJACENT ZONING: R-3 N SHEET TITLE OVERALL SITE PLAN (E) PROPERTY LINE (ADJACENT PARCEL) ADJACENT ZONING: RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY SHEET NO. A S H L A N D A1.0 S T R E E T 0'400'100'200' 11 X 17 SCALE: 1" = 200'-0" 1OVERALL SITE PLAN 22 X 34 SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 1&2 A A3.0 N N E T N A (E) STADIUM LIGHT W/ PLATFORM TO BE R O RELOCATED TO (P) STADIUM LIGHT COLUMN T (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & C E ° S 0 ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT 3 A : MOUNTED TO SECTOR FRAMES H H P (E) 73.9' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM T L U A LIGHT COLUMN TO BE REMOVED ) M I P Z ( A CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT (P) 85.0' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM ON SECTOR FRAMES, MOUNTED TO (P) SITE PRO1 LIGHT COLUMN (MATCH EXISTING) 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 MODEL# SCM34 SQUARE MOUNT W/ CUSTOM 360.915.6750 ANCHOR PLATES OR APPROVED EQUAL WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM (P) CABLE TRANSITION HOUSING A N N E T N A R O T ° C0 ( E 6 S 2 A: P H M T MU A AM I ) Z G ) A P ( Z B I E M T A U T S H E : C 1 T 5 O 0 R ° A (P) UG CONDUIT FOR AT&T N T E (1) FIBER CABLE & (3) DCDRAWN BY:MS / KN N (E) CHAIN LINK N CABLES (±85 LF) A CHECKED BY:GS FENCE, TYP (E) UG ELEC. VAULT (OPTION 1 POWER SOURCE) DRAWING VERSION 1&2 VER.DATEDESCRIPTION (P) AT&T UTILITY H-FRAME W/ 200A A3.1 PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 METER BASE & FLEX 12 CABINET (E) IRRIGATION CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 (E) 6' TALL BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCE ON GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 EAST SIDE OF PROPOSED COMPOUND ONLY, (P) AT&T 12'-0" DOUBLE ACCESS FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 TO REMAIN AND BE UTILIZED GATE W/ SITE SIGNAGE CLIENT COMMENT 510/04/21 (P) SIGHT OBSCURING BLACK PRIVACY MESH TO BE INSTALLED ON THE WEST OF FENCE (P) AT&T 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONCRETE LICENSER EQUIPMENT PAD WITHIN 15'-0" X 30'-0" LEASE AREA (E) TRACK (P) UG POWER ROUTE FROM (E) FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T A H-FRAME (+/- 100 LF) E (P) LANDSCAPE R A BUFFER; SEE SHEET L1.0 E S A E L / (P) AT&T 20kW DIESEL GENERATOR D ON 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONC. PAD N U (P) AT&T 6'-8" X 6'-8" VERTIV WIC ON " O 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONCRETE PAD 0 P - ' M 0 3 O C PROJECT INFORMATION D E (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ MF22 C (P) AT&T GPS ANTENNA ON (P) N "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS ON E EQUIP. SHELTER (WIC) F NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF FENCE SOUTHERN OREGON T & (E) FIRE HYDRANT T A UNIVERSITY ) P ( 48" MIN. 351 WALKER AVENUE (E) TREE TO REMAIN; ASHLAND, OR 97520 PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF (P) UG FIBER ROUTE FROM (E) CONSTRUCTION FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T H-FRAME (+/- 290 LF) N SHEET TITLE (E) IRRIGATION R 6'-0" 10'-0" E METER F15'-0 " (E) ROD IRONF ENLARGED SITE PLAN U (P ) AT& T FEN CED FENCE, TYPB " E C OMP OUN 0D / -P ' 0 AL EASE ARE A 1 C S D SHEET NO. N A L A2.0 0'32'8'16' 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1ENLARGED SITE PLAN 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.THE PROJECT CM / PM TO VERIFY ANY REQUIRED PAINTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED TOWER, ANTENNAS, ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, CABLES, AND HARDWARE PRIOR TO ORDERING / INSTALLING EQUIPMENT. CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT MOUNTED TO SECTOR (P) AT&T ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT FRAMES ON (P) SITEPRO1 MODEL# 85.0' AGL SCM34 SQUARE MOUNT W/ CUSTOM ANCHOR PLATES OR APPROVED EQUAL (P) AT&T ANTENNA RAD CENTER 82.0' AGL DRAWN BY:MS / KN CHECKED BY:GS (E) TOP OF STADIUM POLE 73.9' AGL (E) TOP OF RELOCATED DRAWING VERSION (E) TOP OF LIGHT STANDARDLIGHT STANDARD 71.8' AGL71.8' AGL VER.DATEDESCRIPTION PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 (E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE RELOCATED FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 (E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE TO (P) STADIUM COLUMN; INSTALL AT CLIENT COMMENT 510/04/21 RELOCATED TO (P) STADIUM SAME HEIGHT COLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHT (P) AT&T FIBER/DC CABLE ROUTE LICENSER WITHIN (3) 2" INNERDUCTS, (E) ACCESS LADDER PROPOSED ROUTE TO FOLLOW DESIGN FROM TOWER / POLE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (P) 85.0' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM LIGHT COLUMN (MATCH EXISTING); CAPACITY OF PROPOSED LIGHT STANDARD & ITS FOUNDATION TO (E) LIGHT STANDARDSUPPORT PROPOSED LOADING TO BE COLUMN TO BE REMOVEDPROVIDED BY OTHERS (E) TREE TO REMAIN; (E) TREE TO REMAIN; PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION (P) AT&T 6'-8" X 6'-8" WIC (±11'-0" TALL) ON CONC PAD WITHIN PROJECT INFORMATION FENCED COMPOUND MF22 (P) LANDSCAPE SEE SHEET L1.0 (P) AT&T GPS ANTENNA SOUTHERN OREGON MOUNTED TO CORNER OF WIC (E) 6'-0" TALL UNIVERSITY ROD IRON FENCE, TYP (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ (E) WHEEL "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS STOP, TYP 351 WALKER AVENUE (E) FENCE ASHLAND, OR 97520 6.0' AGL may exceed may exceed NOTICE CAUTION INFORMATION ACTIVE ANTENNAS ARE MOUNTED ON THE OUTSIDE FACE OF THIS BLDG BEHIND THIS PANEL ON THIS STRUCTURE STAY BACK A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM THESE ANTENNAS Contact AT&T Mobility at (800)-638-2822 and followtheir instructions prior to performing any maintenance or repairs closer than 3 feet from the antennas. This is AT&T Mobility site _________________________ (E) GRADE (E) GRADE 0.00' 0.00' SHEET TITLE (E) LANDSCAPE BETWEEN (1950.2' AMSL) (E) FENCE & (E) PARKING STALLS, TYP ELEVATIONS (E) LANDSCAPE AREA (EAST SIDE OF LEASE (P) AT&T UTILITY H-FRAME W/ 200A AREA ONLY) METER BASE & FLEX 12 CABINET SHEET NO. A3.0 0'32'8'16'0'32'8'16' 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" (E) NORTH ELEVATION(P) NORTH ELEVATION 12 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.THE PROJECT CM / PM TO VERIFY ANY REQUIRED PAINTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED TOWER, ANTENNAS, ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, CABLES, AND HARDWARE PRIOR TO ORDERING / INSTALLING EQUIPMENT. CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT MOUNTED TO SECTOR FRAMES ON (P) SITEPRO1 MODEL# SCM34 SQUARE MOUNT W/ CUSTOM ANCHOR PLATES ON SECTOR FRAMES, (P) AT&T ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT OR APPROVED EQUAL 85.0' AGL (P) AT&T ANTENNA RAD CENTER 82.0' AGL DRAWN BY:MS / KN CHECKED BY:GS (E) TOP OF STADIUM POLE 73.9' AGL (E) TOP OF RELOCATED LIGHT DRAWING VERSION STANDARD (E) TOP OF LIGHT STANDARD 71.8' AGL 71.8' AGL VER.DATEDESCRIPTION PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 (E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE(E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 RELOCATED TO (P) STADIUMRELOCATED TO (P) STADIUM GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 COLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHTCOLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHT FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 CLIENT COMMENT 510/04/21 (P) 85.0' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM LICENSER LIGHT COLUMN (MATCH EXISTING); (E) ACCESS LADDER CAPACITY OF PROPOSED LIGHT STANDARD & ITS FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT PROPOSED LOADING TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS (E) LIGHT STANDARD (E) ACCESS LADDER COLUMN TO BE REMOVED (P) AT&T 6'-8" X 6'-8" WIC (±11'-0" TALL) ON CONC PAD WITHIN (E) TREE TO REMAIN; FENCED COMPOUND PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION (P) AT&T FIBER/DC CABLE ROUTE WITHIN (3) 2" INNERDUCTS, PROPOSED ROUTE TO FOLLOW DESIGN FROM TOWER / POLE PROJECT INFORMATION (E) 6'-0" TALL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (P) AT&T GPS ANTENNA ROD IRON FENCE, TYP MF22 MOUNTED TO CORNER OF WIC SOUTHERN OREGON (E) TREE TO REMAIN; PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION 351 WALKER AVENUE (E) FENCE(E) FENCE ASHLAND, OR 97520 6.0' AGL6.0' AGL (E) GRADE (E) GRADE 0.00' 0.00' SHEET TITLE (1950.2' AMSL) WEST ELEVATIONS (P) AT&T UTILITY H-FRAME W/ 200A (P) LANDSCAPE METER BASE & FLEX 12 CABINET SHEET NO. SEE SHEET L1.0 A3.1 0'32'8'16'0'32'8'16' 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" (E) WEST ELEVATION(P) WEST ELEVATION 12 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" PLANT SCHEDULE TREESCODEQTYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE QS6QUERCUS SHUMARDIISHUMARD RED OAK1.5" CAL. SHRUBSCODEQTYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE MC17MYRICA CALIFORNICAPACIFIC WAX MYRTLE1 GAL. NC10NANDINA DOMESTICA `COMPACTA`DWARF HEAVENLY BAMBOO1 GAL. VD35VIBURNUM DAVIDIIDAVID VIBURNUM1 GAL. CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM PLANTING NOTES 1.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AMENDMENTS TO SOILSTANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1) AS WELL AS DETAIL 17 - VD CURRENT CITY OF ASHLAND STANDARDS AND THE OREGONPH FERTILITY AND/OR DRAINAGE CONDITIONS NECESSARY TODRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. STRUCTURAL SPECIALTY CODE.ENSURE PROPER GROWING CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSED32.LAYOUT OF MAJOR PLANTING AREAS AS INDICATED IN THE 18 - VD 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEASTPLANTINGS. SEE SPECS.DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY; OUTLINE IN THE FIELD TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO START OF LANDSCAPE WORK TO REVIEW15.CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW PROVIDER'S INSTRUCTIONS ANDLOCATIONS AND IDENTITY OF ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND 6 - QS PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS & JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEEDING.COVERS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 3.SUBSTITUTIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY16.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY A FULLY AUTOMATED,33.INSPECTION: NOTIFY THE OWNER 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING 6 - NC ACCEPTED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'SPERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.PLANTING. THE OWNER MAY ADJUST PLANT MATERIAL LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE.SEE SPECS.TO MEET FIELD CONDITIONS. 8 - MC 4.VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING LOCATION OF17.PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE34.DO NOT COMMENCE WITH PLANTING UNTIL OWNER HAS PROPERTY LINES, PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK. REPORT ANYOWNER WITH AS-BUILT PLANS OF THE INSTALLATION, COPIES OFAPPROVED THE LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF ALL PLANT BEDS. 4 - NC DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVEALL OPERATION MANUALS AND WARRANTY DOCUMENTS.35.IF WORK IS NOT PROMPTLY OR PROPERLY PERFORMED BY THE 9 - MC IMMEDIATELY.18.ALL NEW PLANTS IN LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE WARRANTEDCONTRACTOR, THE OWNER WILL, AT THEIR DISCRETION, HAVE THE 5.DO NOT WILLFULLY PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION WHENFOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINALWORK PERFORMED BY OTHERS. THE COST OF THE WORK BY UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTIONS AND/OR DIFFERENCES EXIST THATACCEPTANCE.OTHERS WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CONTRACT AMOUNT. 10'-0"MAY NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN DURING DESIGN. IMMEDIATELY 19.COORDINATE INSTALLATION PLANTING MATERIALS WITH36.MULCH ALL SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PLANTING BEDS WITH A NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTIONSIRRIGATION. PLANT ONLY IN AREAS WHERE THE IRRIGATION2 INCH LAYER OF IMPORTED MULCH MATERIAL WITHIN 2 DAYS AND/OR DIFFERENCES. PRIOR TO REMOVING ANY EXISTING SYSTEM IS COMPLETE AND FULLY OPERATIONAL.AFTER PLANTING. FEATURES, REVIEW AND CONFIRM EXTENT OF DEMOLITION WITH37.COVER ENTIRE BED AREAS; APPLY EVENLY. PLANT HEALTH AND REPLACEMENT OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 6.PROTECT EXISTING ITEMS TO REMAIN DURING CONSTRUCTION.EDGING INSTALLATION 25.PROVIDE PLANT MATERIAL THAT IS HEALTHY NURSERY STOCK, ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING ITEMS DESIGNATED TO REMAIN I.E.38.SHOVEL-CUT EDGING: SEPARATE MULCHED AREAS FROM TURF WELL BRANCHED, AND FULL FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF; AND FREE CURBS, WALKS, PLANT MATERIAL, LAWN OR FENCES SHALL BEAREAS, CURBS, AND PAVING WITH A 45 DEGREE, 4 TO 6 INCH DEEP, FROM DISEASE, INJURY, INSECTS, WEEDS AND WEED ROOTS. REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THESHOVEL-CUT EDGE. 26.PLANT MATERIALS NOT MEETING SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OWNER. WILL BE REJECTED. 7.VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, LINES,MAINTENANCE INITIAL INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL 39.1.MAINTAIN LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS FROM INSTALLATION UNTIL PIPES, VAULTS, OR BOXES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. MARK AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES, SITE FEATURES AND VEGETATION TOFINAL ACCEPTANCE. 27.ASSEMBLE ALL PLANTS FOR EACH INSPECTION AT ONE LOCATION 40.MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER BY TRIMMING, REMAIN IN PLACE. ANY DAMAGE TO ANY KNOWN EXISTING UTILITY FOR INSPECTION TO BE COMPLETED IN ONE VISIT. ANY FURTHER ELEMENTS SHALL BE REPAIRED PROPERLY AND IMMEDIATELY.PRUNING, CULTIVATING, WATERING, WEEDING, FERTILIZING, INSPECTION REQUIRED DUE TO PLANTS BEING UNAVAILABLE, 8.REMOVE FROM THE SITE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRISRESTORING PLANTING SAUCERS, TIGHTENING AND REPAIRING REJECTED, AND OR NOT MEETING SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE AND EXCAVATED MATERIAL NOT REQUIRED FOR FILL. NO RUBBISHSTAKES AND GUY SUPPORTS, AND RESETTING TO PROPER CHARGED TO THE CONTRACTOR AT THE CURRENT HOURLY RATE OR DEBRIS SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SITE.GRADES OR VERTICAL POSITION, AS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PERFORMING THE INSPECTION. HEALTHY, VIABLE PLANTINGS. 9.MAINTAIN ALL ROADWAYS AND PAVED PATHWAYS CLEAN AND 28.OWNER RETAINS RIGHT TO OBSERVE TREES AND SHRUBS FREE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND DEBRIS, PROVIDING41.WATER TREES BY DEEP ROOT WATERING METHOD. FURTHER FOR SIZE AND CONDITION OF BALLS AND ROOT NECESSARY DUST CONTROL WHERE REQUIRED. SYSTEMS, INSECTS, INJURIES, AND LATENT DEFECTS AND TO WEEDING AND CLEANUP 10.COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE ALL WORK WITH THE OWNER'S REJECT UNSATISFACTORY OR DEFECTIVE MATERIAL AT ANY TIME REPRESENTATIVE. 42.KEEP ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS CLEAN AND WEED FREE. KEEP ALL DURING PROGRESS OF WORK. 11.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY BUILDINGS, PAVEMENTS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 29.REMOVE REJECTED TREES OR SHRUBS FROM PROJECT SITE OF ASHLAND STANDARDS PRIOR TO SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPE CLEAN AND FREE OF SOIL AND DEBRIS. WITHIN 24 HOURS. INSTALLATION. 43.WEED ALL BEDS WEEKLY. 30.REPLACE PLANT MATERIALS REJECTED BY OWNER AT NO 12.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TOPSOIL, SOIL AMENDMENTS, AND 44.APPLY A 2 INCH LAYER OF MULCH MATERIAL TO SAUCER AREAS ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO OWNER. EROSION CONTROL. OF TREES AND SHRUBS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANTING BEDS. 13.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT CERTIFIED TOPSOIL ANALYSIS PLACE MULCH NO CLOSER THAN 4 INCHES FROM TRUNKS OF PLANT LAYOUT AND INSPECTION REPORT FOR OWNER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLANT WOODY PLANT MATERIAL AND AWAY FROM THE CROWNS OF 31.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO AMERICAN INSTALLATION. SEE SPECS. HERBACEOUS PLANTS. TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1.BEFORE WORK IS STARTED, INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING. F 2.NO ENCROACHMENT OF ANY KIND IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCE ZONE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3.ROOT PROTECTION ZONE IS AN AREA AROUND A TREE THAT IS BASED ON THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE CANOPY. 4.FENCING SHALL BE 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH METAL POSTS ROOT ZONE : AND BE SECURED TO THE GROUND WITH 6-FOOT METAL POSTS. UP TO TREE AVOID DRIVING POSTS OR STAKES INTO MAJOR ROOTS. CANOPY DRIP LINE WHERE POSSIBLE. 5.FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING, FILLING OR SEE NOTE 5 & PLAN ANY LAND ALTERATION AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL AFTER FOR LOCATION CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. 6.NO EXCAVATION OR COMPACTION OF EARTH OR OTHER6' MIN. METAL POST POTENTIALLY DAMAGING ACTIVITIES ALLOWED WITHIN THE SEE NOTES 4,5, & 6. PROTECTION FENCING. 7.PLANTING WITHIN PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE DONE MANUALLY. NO STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE FENCING. 8.DURING WORK, ANY ROOTS GREATER THAN TWO INCHES FOUND DURING EXCAVATION SHALL BE CLEANLY CUT. MULTIPLE ROOT PRUNING EVENTS FOR SINGLE TREES SHALL BE MANAGED & MONITORED BY THE CITY STAFF ADVISOR. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 9.AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, TREE PROTECTION FENCING CAN BE REMOVED. CRITICAL ANALYSISIRRIGATION SCHEDULE Generated:2020-10-22 16:23SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONPSI P.O.C. NUMBER: 01HUNTER RZWS-18-CV 2530 Water Source Information:ASSUMED - FILED VERIFY18" LONG RZWS WITH INSTALLED .25GPM OR .50GPM BUBBLER OPTIONS, CHECK VALVE, 1/2" SWING JOINT FOR CONNECTION TO 1/2" FLOW AVAILABLEPIPE Water Meter Size:1" Flow Available:37.50 gpm SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION PRESSURE AVAILABLE Static Pressure at POC:70.00 psiHUNTER ICZ-101-25 1" Elevation Change:5.00 ftDRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT. 1" ICV GLOBE VALVE WITH 1" HY100 FILTER Service Line Size:3"SYSTEM. PRESSURE REGULATION: 25PSI. FLOW RANGE: 2 GPM TO 20 GPM. 150 MESH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN. Length of Service Line:20.00 ft Pressure Available:68.00 psi PIPE TRANSITION POINT ABOVE GRADE NOTE: DESIGN ANALYSISPIPE TRANSITION POINT FROM PVC LATERAL TO DRIP TUBING WITH Maximum Station Flow:7.98 gpmRISER TO ABOVE GRADE INSTALLATION. LAYOUT OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS Flow Available at POC:37.50 gpm CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS IS DIAGRAMMATIC. AREA TO RECEIVE DRIPLINE Residual Flow Available:29.52 gpm IRRIGATION LINES SHOWN WITHIN PAVED HUNTER HDL-09-18-PC 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 AREAS ARE FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. Pressure Req. at Critical Station:44.98 psiHDL-09-18-PC: HUNTER DRIPLINE WITH 0.9 GPH FLOW. LIGHT BROWN 360.915.6750 Loss for Fittings:0.08 psiTUBING WITH BLACK STRIPING. EMITTERS AT 18" O.C. DRIPLINE IRRIGATION HEADS AND PIPES ARE TO BE WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM Loss for Main Line:0.81 psi LATERALS SPACED AT 18" APART, WITH EMITTERS OFFSET FOR PLACED WITHIN LANDSCAPED AREAS WITH Loss for POC to Valve Elevation:0.00 psiTRIANGULAR PATTERN. INSTALL WITH HUNTER PLD BARBED OR THEIR LOCATIONS MODIFIED AS REQUIRED Loss for Backflow:0.00 psiPLD-LOC FITTINGS. TO AVOID PLANT MATERIALS, UTILITIES AND Loss for Water Meter:0.50 psi Critical Station Pressure at POC:46.37 psi OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS. SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION Pressure Available:68.00 psi 3 " Residual Pressure Available:21.63 psi 4 HUNTER PGV-100-MB 1" 1" PLASTIC ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, FOR RESIDENTIAL/LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE. MALE THREAD X 1" BARB INLET/OUTLET. GLOBE CONFIGURATION, NO FLOW CONTROL. CONTROLLER HUNTER NODE-BT-200 2-STATION BLUETOOTH CONTROLLER, OUTDOOR, BATTERY POWERED. POC WATER METER 1" ASSUMED - FILED VERIFY IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 1/2" IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 3/4" IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 3/4" IRRIGATION NOTES 3 " 4 1.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH OWNER AND UTILITY COMPANIES THE LOCATIONS OF 2 7.98 ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO DETERMINE IN THE FIELD THE9.FIELD ADJUST SPRINKLER HEAD RADIUS AND ARC FOR MAXIMUM COVERAGE WITHOUT ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWNOVER SPRAYING PAVED SURFACES. ON THE PLAN OR NOT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UTILITY PROTECTION SERVICE 1" 72 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A REPRODUCIBLE AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLAN. PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF IRRIGATION INSTALLATION, ON A 2.CONTRACTOR TO REPORT ALL DAMAGES TO EXISTING CONDITIONS ORREPRODUCIBLE SITE PLAN (PROVIDED TO CONTRACTOR BY OWNER'S INCONSISTENCIES WITH PLANS TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.REPRESENTATIVE). AS-BUILT PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE FINISH SURFACE, GRADES, TOPSOIL QUALITY AND 1 DEPTH. DO NOT START ANY WORK UNTIL UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN11.CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE A LAMINATED COLOR CODED ZONE MAP OF THE 6.00 CORRECTED. VERIFY LIMITS OF WORK BEFORE STARTING.IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSIDE OF IRRIGATION CONTROLLER. F 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE IRRIGATION INSTALLATION WITH INSTALLATION OF12.ELECTRICIAN TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL ELECTRICAL CONDUITS AND WIRING TO 1" LANDSCAPING, PAVING, WALL CONSTRUCTION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.PROVIDE POWER FROM ELECTRICAL BRANCH PANEL TO THE IRRIGATION CONTROL CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH OTHEREQUIPMENT UNIT, COORDINATE WITH CONTRACTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. SUBCONTRACTORS FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND SLEEVING. NO SAW CUTTING OF NEW PAVEMENT WILL BE ALLOWED!13.PROVIDE AND INSTALL CONDUIT SWEEPS AND STRAIGHT SECTIONS FROM IRRIGATION TRENCHES TO THE CONTROLLER. ROUTE CONTROL WIRE AND COMMUNICATION 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE IN ALL LANDSCAPE BEDS AND ALLCABLE THROUGH CONDUITS INTO CONTROLLER CABINET. NEATLY CONNECT WIRES LAWN AREAS.TO TERMINAL STRIPS PROVIDED IN THE CONTROLLER CABINET. CONTROLLER 6.LAYOUT OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS IS DIAGRAMMATIC.14.LOCATE VALVE BOXES WITHIN SHRUB BEDS. ONE VALVE PER VALVE BOX. 3 IRRIGATION LINES SHOWN WITHIN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. 3 " 4 "IRRIGATION HEADS AND PIPES ARE TO BE PLACED WITHIN LANDSCAPED AREAS WITH15.LOCATE VALVE MANIFOLDS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY FOR EASE OF MAINTENANCE, BUT 4 THEIR LOCATIONS MODIFIED AS REQUIRED TO AVOID PLANT MATERIALS, UTILITIESNOT CLOSER THAN 4'-0" BETWEEN VALVE BOXES. AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS. 16.THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT A MINIMUM OF 60 PSI 7.INSTALL TRACING WIRE OVER ALL MAINLINE PIPE AND CONTROLLER WIRE (INCLUDING)AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION. IF THE PRESSURE IS LESS THAN 60 PSI, OR GREATER POC WIRE WHICH IS NOT INSTALLED IN TRENCH WITH PIPE. INSTALL EXTRA WIRES (6) FORTHAN 95 PSI, NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IN WRITING, PRIOR TO FUTURE EXPANSION. EXTRA WIRES TO RUN THE EXTENT OF IR. SYSTEM. MARK ALLPROCEEDING WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ZONE LINES WITH TRACER WIRE, TERMINATE THE WIRE END IN THE ZONE'S VALVE BOX.17.AVAILABLE STATIC PRESSURE WAS CONFIRMED. EXISTING IRRIGATION METER, CONTRACTOR TO CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRESSURE COORDINATE LOCATION 8.INSTALL IRRIGATION HEADS 6" FROM BACK OF CURB. INSTALL PIPES, VALVES, VALVE18.NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF PRESSURE TEST EXCEEDS 95 P.S.I. AND/OR IF IS MIN. 70 PSI. NOTIFY OWNER'S REP OF CONTROLLER WITH BOXES AND OTHER IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AT BACK OF CURB OR IN LANDSCAPEAVAILABLE FLOW IS LESS THAN 30 GPM. IF PRESSURE IS LESS THAN 70 PSI OWNER WHERE APPROPRIATE. OR GREATER THAN 100 PSI EXISTING 8" DIA. SPRUCE TREE TO REMAIN, PRESERVE & PROTECT NOTES 1. LOCATION OF QUICK COUPLER WITHIN VALVE BOX IS SHOWN FOR CLARIFICATION ONLY. INSTALL OFF-SET FROM MAINLINE. IF POSSIBLE LOCATE QUICK COUPLER 2. EXACT FITTING REQUIREMENTS, WITH VALVE IN BOX. INSTALL ASSEMBLY COMPONENT SHAPES AND SEQUENCE MAY PER DETAIL AND ATTACH WITH 1/2" DIFFER FROM THAT SHOWN. GALV. PIPE X 3' LONG-ATTACH TO RISER FINISH GRADE WITH TWO S.S. IRRIGATION BANDS 6" ROUND VALVE BOX LINE SIZE ISOLATION VALVE (PER VALVE BOX) VACUUM RELIEF VALVE SPECIFIED VALVE, WYE FILTER AND 1/2" PVC COUPLING 18" COIL PRESSURE REGULATOR OF WIRE 1/2" SCH. 80 NIPPLE SPECIFIED VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING LID (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) UNION EACH SIDE OF VALVE BRICK SUPPORTS (THREE) SPECIFIED LATERAL PEA GRAVEL SUMP PVC PIPING AND FITTING CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES STANDARD BRICK OR CONCRETE BLOCK (TYP.) 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 6" MIN. DEPTH, 3/4" WASHED ROUND RIVER ROCK OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM MAINLINE SCHED. 40 CROSS OR TEE 1BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE ASSEMBLY2DRIP IR CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLY3VACUUM RELIEF VALVE L2.0L2.0L2.0 SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS NOTES 1.PLACE VACUUM RELIEF VALVE AT FURTHEST DISTANCE VARIES END(S) OF ZONE. 2.STAKE TUBING WITH MIN. 6" LONG STAPLES AT 8' INTERVALS ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH. REMOTE CONTROL DRIP VALVE DISTANCE VARIES MAINLINE SEE PLANS IRRIGATION HEADER CLASS 200 PVC 1 4 311 VACUUM RELIEF VALVE 7 SPECIFIED EMITTER LANDSCAPE DRIP LINE - SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EMITTER SPACING 10 4DRIPLINE LAYOUT DIAGRAM5INLINE EMITTER TUBING INSTALLATION 28 L2.0L2.0 SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS 9 2 6 5 3" MIN. FROM EDGE OF TRENCH, PAVING OR FOOTING NOTES 18 FINISH GRADE 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR FINISH GRADE TRENCH SETTLEMENT AND 6" ROUND VALVE BOX RESTORE FINISH GRADES. 9 FLUSH VALVE 2 UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE OR COMPACTED FILL 10 C L 3 PVC COUPLING 11 POLY PIPE FROM HEADER 4 BRICK SUPPORTS (THREE) BACKFILL, PER SPECS 5 3/4" PEA GRAVEL SUMP - 1 CUBIC FOOT LATERAL LINE 6 CONTROL WIRE & TRACE WIRE 7 MAINLINE 67 IR TRENCHING DETAILFLUSH VALVE8 L2.0L2.0 L2.0 SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS Debbie Griffin MF22 Southern Oregon University AT&T RF Justification Antenna Tip (Approximate 1952ft ground elevation) v. Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Figure E.3—Proposed New AT&T Site Location Antenna Tip Coverage of New AT&T 1 Proposed New WCF 85ft A.G.L. 3 US Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory 2 Alt RAD Comparison Ashland High School and Gym Day Care Center 123 9.Qpsu!Boufoob S2S3Z2Z3 Gsfrvfodz!Sbohf 7:9:717:9:7127:637:127:637:1 Evbm!Qpmbsj{bujpo YYYY IQCX 76±76±76±76± Bekvtu/!Fmfdus/!EU 2±21±2±21±3/6±23±3/6±23± tfu!cz 9.Qpsu!Boufoob!7!:9:7107:9:71027:637:1027:637:1!76±076±076±076±!27/6027/6029029eCj 2±21±02±21±03/6±23±03/6±23±U 91121:77 Uzqf!Op/ Mfgu!tjef-!mpxcboeS2-!dpoofdups!23 7:9:71 Gsfrvfodz!SbohfNI{7:9!!9178:2!!973935!!9:5991!!:71 Hbjo!bu!nje!UjmueCj26/827/227/527/6 Hbjo!pwfs!bmm!UjmuteCj26/7!²!1/527/2!²!1/427/4!²!1/427/5!²!1/4 Ipsj{poubm!Qbuufso; B{jnvui!Cfbnxjeui±77!²!3/:76!²!3/476!²!3/775!²!3/: Gspou.up.Cbdl!Sbujp- eC?34?34?35?36 Upubm!Qpxfs-!²!41± Dsptt!Qpmbs!Ejtdsjnjobujpo eC?21/1?:/6?21/1?22/6 pwfs!Tfdups Wfsujdbm!Qbuufso; Fmfwbujpo!Cfbnxjeui±:/8!²!1/8:/1!²!1/69/8!²!1/69/4!²!1/5 Fmfdusjdbm!Epxoujmu ±2/1!!21/1 dpoujovpvtmz!bekvtubcmf Ujmu!Bddvsbdz±=!1/5=!1/5=!1/5=!1/5 Gjstu!Vqqfs!Tjef!Mpcf! eC?27?29?29?31 T!vqqsfttjpo Dsptt!Qpmbs!JtpmbujpoeC?41 Qpsu!up!Qpsu!Jtpmbujpo?38!)S2!00!S3* eC ?41!)S2!00!Z2-!Z3* Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X511!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* qfs!Qpsu Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X911!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* Qpsu!23 Wbmvft!cbtfe!po!OHNO.Q.CBTUB!)wfstjpo!:/7*!sfrvjsfnfout/ !!!ohno!15/36/13/12!!!Tvckfdu!up!bmufsbujpo/ :47/63:90e 91121:77.3129.S2/1!!!Qbhf!2!pg!21 9.Qpsu!Boufoob Sjhiu!tjef-!mpxcboeS3-!dpoofdups!45 7:9:71 Gsfrvfodz!SbohfNI{7:9!!9178:2!!973935!!9:5991!!:71 Hbjo!bu!nje!UjmueCj26/627/127/427/7 Hbjo!pwfs!bmm!UjmuteCj26/6!²!1/727/1!²!1/627/4!²!1/527/6!²!1/5 Ipsj{poubm!Qbuufso; B{jnvui!Cfbnxjeui±78!²!4/676!²!3/775!²!4/174!²!5/4 Gspou.up.Cbdl!Sbujp- eC?33?34?35?37 Upubm!Qpxfs-!²!41± Dsptt!Qpmbs!Ejtdsjnjobujpo eC?:/6?21/6?21/1?22/6 pwfs!Tfdups Wfsujdbm!Qbuufso; Fmfwbujpo!Cfbnxjeui±:/9!²!1/7:/1!²!1/89/7!²!1/59/2!²!1/6 Fmfdusjdbm!Epxoujmu ±2/1!!21/1 dpoujovpvtmz!bekvtubcmf Ujmu!Bddvsbdz±=!1/5=!1/5=!1/5=!1/4 Gjstu!Vqqfs!Tjef!Mpcf! eC?29?32?31?31 T!vqqsfttjpo Dsptt!Qpmbs!JtpmbujpoeC?41 Qpsu!up!Qpsu!Jtpmbujpo?38!)S3!00!S2* eC ?41!)S3!00!Z2-!Z3* Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X511!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* qfs!Qpsu Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X911!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* Qpsu!45 Wbmvft!cbtfe!po!OHNO.Q.CBTUB!)wfstjpo!:/7*!sfrvjsfnfout/ Mfgu!tjef-!ijhicboeZ2-!dpoofdups!67 27:637:1 Gsfrvfodz!SbohfNI{27:6!!29912961!!2::12:31!!32913411!!35113611!!37:1 Hbjo!bu!nje!UjmueCj28/729/129/429/228/: Hbjo!pwfs!bmm!UjmuteCj28/6!²!1/528/:!²!1/529/2!²!1/629/1!²!1/728/9!²!1/7 Ipsj{poubm!Qbuufso; B{jnvui!Cfbnxjeui±75!²!5/:75!²!6/173!²!6/568!²!6/872!²!8/2 Gspou.up.Cbdl!Sbujp- eC?35?37?37?36?35 Upubm!Qpxfs-!²!41± Dsptt!Qpmbs!Ejtdsjnjobujpo eC?9/6?22/6?21/1?8/6?:/1 pwfs!Tfdups Wfsujdbm!Qbuufso; !!!ohno!15/36/13/12!!!Tvckfdu!up!bmufsbujpo/ Fmfwbujpo!Cfbnxjeui±7/5!²!1/66/:!²!1/46/6!²!1/55/9!²!1/45/5!²!1/3 Fmfdusjdbm!Epxoujmu ±3/6!!23/1 dpoujovpvtmz!bekvtubcmf Ujmu!Bddvsbdz±=!1/3=!1/3=!1/3=!1/3=!1/3 Gjstu!Vqqfs!Tjef!Mpcf! eC?2:?2:?28?2:?28 T!vqqsfttjpo Dsptt!Qpmbs!JtpmbujpoeC?39 Qpsu!up!Qpsu!JtpmbujpoeC?41!)Z2!00!S2-!S3-!Z3* Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X311!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* qfs!Qpsu Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X511!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* Qpsu!67 Wbmvft!cbtfe!po!OHNO.Q.CBTUB!)wfstjpo!:/7*!sfrvjsfnfout/ :47/63:90e Qbhf!3!pg!21!!91121:77.3129.S2/1 9.Qpsu!Boufoob Sjhiu!tjef-!ijhicboeZ3-!dpoofdups!89 27:637:1 Gsfrvfodz!SbohfNI{27:6!!29912961!!2::12:31!!32913411!!35113611!!37:1 Hbjo!bu!nje!UjmueCj28/628/:29/329/429/2 Hbjo!pwfs!bmm!UjmuteCj28/5!²!1/628/9!²!1/529/1!²!1/729/3!²!1/728/:!²!1/7 Ipsj{poubm!Qbuufso; B{jnvui!Cfbnxjeui±77!²!4/177!²!6/674!²!7/:67!²!8/268!²!8/8 Gspou.up.Cbdl!Sbujp- eC?36?35?36?38?36 Upubm!Qpxfs-!²!41± Dsptt!Qpmbs!Ejtdsjnjobujpo eC?:/6?22/1?21/1?:/6?21/6 pwfs!Tfdups Wfsujdbm!Qbuufso; Fmfwbujpo!Cfbnxjeui±7/5!²!1/66/:!²!1/46/7!²!1/55/:!²!1/55/5!²!1/3 Fmfdusjdbm!Epxoujmu ±3/6!!23/1 dpoujovpvtmz!bekvtubcmf Ujmu!Bddvsbdz±=!1/3=!1/3=!1/3=!1/3=!1/2 Gjstu!Vqqfs!Tjef!Mpcf! eC?2:?29?29?2:?29 T!vqqsfttjpo Dsptt!Qpmbs!JtpmbujpoeC?39 Qpsu!up!Qpsu!JtpmbujpoeC?41!)Z3!00!S2-!S3-!Z2* Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X311!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* qfs!Qpsu Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X511!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou!ufnqfsbuvsf* Qpsu!89 Wbmvft!cbtfe!po!OHNO.Q.CBTUB!)wfstjpo!:/7*!sfrvjsfnfout/ !!!ohno!15/36/13/12!!!Tvckfdu!up!bmufsbujpo/ :47/63:90e 91121:77.3129.S2/1!!!Qbhf!4!pg!21 9.Qpsu!Boufoob Nfdibojdbm!tqfdj!dbujpot Fmfdusjdbm!tqfdj!dbujpot-!bmm!tztufnt Joqvu9!y!5/4.21!gfnbmf WTXS=!2/6 Dpoofdups!Qptjujpo!cpuupn Sfuvso!MptteC?25 Bekvtunfou!NfdibojtnGmfySFU-! dpoujovpvtmz!bekvtubcmf Joufscboe!JtpmbujpoeC?38 Xjoe!mpbe!)bu!Sbufe!Xjoe O!}!mcgGspoubm;!2511!}!426 Qbttjwf!JoufsnpevmbujpoeCd=!264!)3!y!54!eCn!dbssjfs* Nbyjnbm;!2516!}!427 Tqffe;!261!ln0i*!):4!nqi* Qpmbsj{bujpo±,56-!56 Mbufsbm;!361!}!68 2311!)bu!61!±D!bncjfou! Nby/!Fggfdujwf!Qpxfs X Gspou;!2/397!}!24/95 FQB!)n 3!}!gu 3!* gps!uif!Boufoobu!fnqfsbuvsf* Mbufsbm;!/341!}!3/59 Wbmvft!cbtfe!po!OHNO.Q.CBTUB!)wfstjpo!:/7*!sfrvjsfnfout/ Nby/!Xjoe!Wfmpdjuzln0i352 nqi261 Ifjhiu!0!Xjeui!0!Efquinn3549!0!619!0!286 jodift:7/1!0!31/1!0!7/: Dbufhpsz!pg! YI!)Y.Ifbwz* Npvoujoh!I!bsexbsf Xfjhiulh63/1!0!68/1!)dmbnqt!jodm/* mc225/7!0!236/8!)dmbnqt!jodm/* Qbdljoh!Tj{f!nn3746!0!653!0!379 jodift214/8!0!32/4!0!21/7 Tdpqf!pg!Tvqqmz Qbofm-!GmfySFU!boe! dmbnqt!gps!66226!nn!} 3/35/6!jodift!ejbnfufs Bddfttpsjft!)psefs!tfqbsbufmz!jg!sfrvjsfe* SfnbsltXfjhiuVojut!qfs! Uzqf!Op/Eftdsjqujpo nn!}!jodiftbqqspy/!lh!}!mcboufoob 961211:83!dmbnqtNbtu!ejbnfufs;!221!!331!}!5/4!!9/8:/5!}!31/82 961211::2!epxoujmu!ljuEpxoujmu!bohmf;!1±!!21±21/7!}!34/52 1/8!}!2/6 2/5!}!4/2 97121273Hfoefs!Bebqufs1/156!}!1/1::2 Tpmfmz!up!cf!vtfe!jo!dpncjobujpo!xjui! 3596!}!:8/93334!}!98/63549!}!:7/1 uif!GmfySFU!npevmf!97121264 97121274Qpsu!Fyufoefs1/27!}!1/462 W12 Bddfttpsjft!)jodmvefe!jo!uif!tdpqf!pg!tvqqmz* 961211:73!dmbnqtNbtu!ejbnfufs;!!66!!226!}!3/3!!5/66/1!}!22/12 97121264GmfySFU2 W12 Gps!epxoujmu!npvoujoh!vtf!uif!dmbnqt!gps!bo!bqqspqsjbuf!nbtu!ejbnfufs!uphfuifs!xjui!uif!epxoujmu!lju/ Xbmm!npvoujoh;!Op!beejujpobm!npvoujoh!lju!offefe/ !!!ohno!15/36/13/12!!!Tvckfdu!up!bmufsbujpo/ Nbufsjbm;Sf!fdups!tdsffo;!Bmvnjovn/ Gjcfshmbtt!ipvtjoh;!Ju!dpwfst!upubmmz!uif!joufsobm!boufoob!d!pnqpofout/!Uif!tqfdjbm! e!ftjho!sfevdft!uif!tfbmjoh!bsfbt!up!b!njojnvn!boe!h!vbsboufft!uif!cftu!xfbuifs! !qspufdujpo/!Gjcfshmbtt!nbufsjbm!hvbsboufft!pqujnvn!q!fsgpsnbodf!xjui!sfhbset!up!tubcjmjuz-! tujggoftt-!VW!sftjtubodf!boe!qbjoujoh/!Uif!dpmps!pg!uif!sbepnf!jt!mjhiu!hsfz/ Bmm!ovut!boe!cpmut;!Tubjomftt!tuffm!ps!ipu.ejq!hbmwboj{fe!tuffm/ Hspvoejoh;Uif!nfubm!qbsut!pg!uif!boufoob!jodmvejoh!uif!npvoujoh!lju!boe!uif!joofs!dpoevdupst!bsf! 2* ED!hspvoefe/ Dpohvsbujpo!fybnqmf!Dpohvsbujpo!fybnqmf! xjui!Tjuf!Tibsjoh!Bebqufs!97121265xjui!Tjuf!Tibsjoh!Bebqufs!97121266 3* FlexRETFlexRETFlexRETFlexRETFlexRETFlexRET :47/63:90e Site Sharing AdapterSite Sharing Adapter 4* 3-way6-way BJTHBJTH 2*33!}!1/: 3*261!}!6/: BTS1BTS2BTS3 4*22!}!1/5 BTS1BTS2BTS3BTS4BTS5BTS6 Bmm!ejnfotjpot jo!nn!}!jodift Gps!npsf!jogpsnbujpo!qmfbtf!sfgfs!up!uif!sftqfdujwf!ebub!tiffut/ Qbhf!5!pg!21!!!91121:77.3129.S2/1 9.Qpsu!Boufoob Mbzpvu!pg!joufsgbdf; 286!}!7/:!+ 351!}!:/5!+ Y1Y1R1R1R2R2Y2Y2 L6L5L2L1R4R3R8R7 1695-26901695-2690698 - 960698 - 960698 - 960698 - 9601695-26901695-2690 :4!}!4/8!+ 237!}!6/1 337!}!9/: 437!}!23/9 537!}!27/9 619!}!31/1!+ Cpuupn!wjfx +Ejnfotjpot!sfgfs!up!sbepnf Bmm!ejnfotjpot!jo!nn!}!jodift Dpssfmbujpo!Ubcmf Gsfrvfodz!sbohfBssbzDpoofdups 7:9:71!NI{S223 7:9:71!NI{S345 27:637:1!NI{Z267 !!!ohno!15/36/13/12!!!Tvckfdu!up!bmufsbujpo/ 27:637:1!NI{Z389 Y1Y2 R1R2 LeftRight :47/63:90e 91121:77.3129.S2/1!!!Qbhf!6!pg!21 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00158 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 351 Walker Av/390 Stadium St OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/ Smartlink, LLC on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC/AT&T DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit approval to install a new Wireless Communication Facility on the Southern Oregon University Campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; 39 1E 10CD; TAX LOT: 100 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 5, 2021 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: August 19, 2021 OVER G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Noticing\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_NOC.docx The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted on Page 1 of this notice. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to planning@ashland.or.us or to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown on Page 1. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to must be made in writing to the Ashland Planning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Derek Severson at 541-488-5305 or derek.severson@ashland.or.us. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse/18.5.4.050) A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Noticing\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_NOC.docx b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. Wireless Communication Facility Design Standards 18.4.10.040 All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated, and maintained in accordance with the following standards. A. General Provisions 1. 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 (FCC) confirming that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the facility is exempt from regulation. 2. 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. 3. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zone. 4. 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. 6. 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. 7. The 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. 8. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. B. 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 chapter 18.4.10, 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. 1. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing wireless communication facilities sites for new installations shall be encouraged. 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. 2. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. 3. Alternative Structure. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage, or G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Noticing\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_NOC.docx mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed wireless communication facilities. 4. Freestanding Support Structure. If (1), (2), or (3) 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. 5. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. C. Collocation Standards 1. The collocation feasibility study shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable. b. Demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the c. Document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. 2. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approval 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. a. A significant service gap in coverage area. b. Sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers. c. Structural support requirements cannot be met. d. Collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction, or other radio frequency interference. D. 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. 1. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. 2. 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. 3. The outer perimeter of the wireless communication facilities shall have a landscaped buffer zone ten feet in width. 4. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. 5. 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 two inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. E. Visual Impacts 1. 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. 2. 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 approval 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. 3. Antennas 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. 4. Antennas 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. 5. 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. 6. Exterior lighting for a wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. 7. Should it be deemed necessary by the approval 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, and shielding techniques. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\W\\Walker\\Walker_351_SOU Grounds\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_Wireless Facility\\Noticing\\Walker_351_PA-T1-2021-00158_NOC.docx Debbie Griffin ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________ Pursuing LEED® Certification? YES NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 39 1E Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________ Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________ APPLICANT Name Phone E-Mail ____________________________________________ Address __ City __________________ Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone E-Mail Address _ ____________________________________________________ City Zip NGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER SURVEYOR, E Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail _________ _______________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4)that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant’s SignatureDate As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner’s Signature (Date required) \[To be completed by City Staff\] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________ OVER ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document. 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11”x17”. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional – 1 additional large set of plans, 2’x3’, to use in meetings) FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. ( Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which ). meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o MF22 Southern Oregon University AT&T RF Justification Serving Sector Capacity –December 2018 to December 2019 2019 December to 2018 December Capacity Sector Serving Figure A—Search Ring 5-mile Radius mile Radius from Proposed WCF Figure B.1—Existing AT&T Sites—5- ered Towers 5 Mile Radius Figure B.2—Existing Regist SOURCE: FCC Database Addition of Proposed New WCF Coverage BEFORE AT&T Targeted Service Area Existing Figure C.1— 95ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Proposed New WCF On-Air— Coverage AFTER AT&T Projected Coverage New Figure C.2— Addition of Proposed New WCF RSRP BEFORE AT&T Targeted Service Area Existing Figure D.1— 95ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Proposed New WCF On-Air— RSRP AFTER AT&T Projected RSRP Gain New Figure D.2— Addition of Proposed New WCF SINR AT&T DL BEFORE Targeted Service Area Existing Figure E.1— 95ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Proposed New WCF On-Air— SINR AFTER AT&T DL Projected DL SINR Gain New Figure E.2— e Site Locations Figure F—Alternativ (Approximate 1968ft ground Antenna Tip v. Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Figure G.1—Facilities Management & Planning Building Coverage of New AT&T Antenna Tip Alt Site #2 Comparison Alt Site #2 35ft A.G.L. elevation) (Approximate 1968ft ground 35ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Figure G.2—Facilities Management & Planning Building Alt #2 Facility On-Air— RSRP —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #2 elevation) (Approximate 1968ft ground 35ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Figure G.3—Facilities Management & Planning Building Alt #2 Facility On-Air— SINR AFTER —New AT&T DL Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #2 elevation) Antenna Tip (Approximate 1974ft ground elevation) v. Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Coverage of New AT&T Figure H.1—Digital Media Center Antenna Tip Alt Site #3 Comparison Alt Site #3 55ft A.G.L. (Approximate 1974ft ground elevation) 55ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Alt #3 Facility On-Air— Figure H.2—Digital Media Center RSRP —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #3 55ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 1974ft ground elevation) Alt #3 Facility On-Air— Figure H.3—Digital Media Center SINR —New AT&T DL AFTER Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #3 Antenna Tip (Approximate 2068ft ground elevation) v. Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Coverage of New AT&T Antenna Tip Figure I.1—Science Building Alt Site #4 Comparison Alt Site #4 47.9ft A.G.L. 47.9ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 2068ft ground elevation) Alt #4 Facility On-Air— Figure I.2—Science Building RSRP —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #4 47.9ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 2068ft ground elevation) Alt #4 Facility On-Air— SINR Figure I.3—Science Building —New AT&T DL AFTER Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #4 Antenna Tip (Approximate 1957ft ground elevation) Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Coverage of New AT&T Figure J.1—Lithia Motors Pavilion Antenna Tip v. Alt Site #5 Comparison Alt Site #5 35ft A.G.L. (Approximate 1957ft ground elevation) 35ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Alt #5 Facility On-Air— Figure J.2—Lithia Motors Pavilion RSRP —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #5 35ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 1957ft ground elevation) Alt #5 Facility On-Air— Figure J.3—Lithia Motors Pavilion SINR —New AT&T DL AFTER Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #5 Antenna Tip (Approximate 2051 ground elevation) Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Coverage of New AT&T 4G LTE Antenna Tip v. Figure K.1—Hannon Library Alt Site #6 Comparison Alt Site #6 60ft A.G.L. ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 2051 ground elevation) 60 Alt #6 Facility On-Air— RSRP Figure K.2—Hannon Library —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #6 60ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 2051 ground elevation) Alt #6 Facility On-Air— SINR Figure K.3—Hannon Library —New AT&T DL AFTER Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #6 . Antenna Tip (Approximate 1980 ground elevation) Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Coverage of New AT&T 4G LTE Antenna Tip v. Figure L.1—SOU Dormitories Alt Site #7 Comparison Alt Site #7 55ft A.G.L. 55ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 1980 ground elevation) Alt #7 Facility On-Air— Figure L.2—SOU Dormitories RSRP —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #7 55ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height (Approximate 1980 ground elevation) Alt #7 Facility On-Air— SINR Figure L.3—SOU Dormitories —New AT&T DL AFTER Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #7 (Approximate 1957 ground Antenna Tip Proposed New WCF 95ft A.G.L. Figure M.1—Mountain Ave Theater “fly tower” Coverage Antenna Tip v. of New AT&T Alt Site #8 Comparison Alt Site #8 88ft A.G.L. elevation) (Approximate 1957 ground 88ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Height Figure M.2—Mountain Ave Theater “fly tower” Alt #8 Facility On-Air— RSRP —New AT&T AFTER Projected RSRP Alt Site #8 elevation) (Approximate 1957 ground 88ft A.G.L. Antenna Tip Alt #8 Facility On-Air— Figure M.3—Mountain Ave Theater “fly tower” SINR AFTER —New AT&T DL Projected DL SINR Gain Alt Site #8 elevation) Height AT&T Page 2 MF22 Southern Oregon University 24-Hour Operation Equipment AT&T Page 3 MF22 Southern Oregon University Emergency Equipment N O I T C S L U G A N D V N T O O I I I I R G T T R I E R A : T D W C D E N I A LL O V I L AR P R P T N O O M P O I W A T VA E F We support today’s growing mobile and cloud computing ENABLES ••• OF OUR DIGITAL APPLICATIONS THE VITAL ™ VERTIV WORLD ing power and assets. We’re on the leading edge – (NFV) to effectively and efficiently leverage comput N O I T A S C I K N R U O M W M T O E N C E C N E R E F F I UNIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE D V I T R E V E H T T E N I B N A O I C S C R I N E 1 W V I 0 , 8 K 8 – 1 - 0 L E T 2 / A T 0 T 3 W / A X 4 Air Cooling” primary cooling N O ™ 7100 Power System I T A R T U Integrated high efficiency “Direct E G N I I F B N A O C C N T I C K U L D A O W R P T - O O 1 0 F 8 - 6 E ••••••• X T X 6 •••• – – ••• •• S L A I R E T A NN M OO I I F TT T TO AA A RR L UU L I GG B I I FF F – – NN TT OO E C C N I TT B CC A UU C DD N OO I RR K PP L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 S N O T I E S N N I E B M A I C D N L I L K A L R A E W V O T – O O 1 0 F 8 - 6 E X T X 6 G N I W A R D NN Y OO L I B I TT T M T AA A E RR S UU S GG A I I FF F – – NN TT OO E C C N I TT B CC A UU C DD N OO I RR K PP L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 T N U O M S P G D N A G N I NN T OO F I I I L TT T T AA A, F RR O UU O GG R I I FF F – – NN TT OO E C C N I TT B CC A UU C DD N OO I RR K PP L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 S W E I V ••••• L N N A OO N I I O TT T I AAT A T RR C UU E GG S G I I I – – FF F N N T T N OO E N CC I TT B CC A UU C DD N OO I RR K PP L - A 1 1 W 00 88 - 6 EE X TT XX 6 Integrated dual OEM 19” or 23” rack S W E I V L •• N N A ••• OO N I I O TT T I T AA A T RR C UU E GG S G I I I – – FF F NN TT N OO E N CC I TT B CC A UU C DD N OO I RR K PP L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 ed KABA simplex door locking mechanism Master Ground Bar: 24 Position, dual lug with 3/8” studs on one inch centers S W E I V L SS A 36” x 84” 8 Gauge steel door, with integrat N N N OO O I I I TT T T T AA A C CC E I I S FF F I I – – CC C TT EE E E PP N SS I TT B CC A UU C DD N OO I RR K PP L - A 1 1 W 0 0 88 - 6 E E ••••••••••• X TT XX 6 T E N I B A C A •••••• S ••• A L A A VVV V V V OO T RR E PP N I PP B AA A AA C SS N CC / I / L L K UU L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 – S N O I ••••• T A • C I F I T R R EE T CC E L L N AA I NN B A OO I C I TT I N I DD I DD K AA L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 S I S Y L A N A L A M R E H T D N N AA T L L E AA A N RR I B UU A TT C CC UU N RR I TT K SS L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT ••••• XX 6 S E H S I N I F R O I R E E TT T XX E EE N I L L B AA A N N C OO I N I TT I PP K OO L - A 1 1 W 00 8 8 - 6 E E X TT XX 6 S E R U T A E F T C U D O NetSure™ 7100 Power System R •Ships “Site Configured” with P T E N I B A C M N I E T K S L Y A ••••••• S W R – E 1 W 0 O 8 - P E C T X D •Mechanically interlocked “mains” enabling manual S E R U T A E F T C U •••• D O R P T E N I B A S C T P N I T K C L E A S W R E – T 1 N 0 I 8 - A E 0 T 0 X 2 S E R U T A E F S T T C P U - D Y O A R B P N T O E I N T I A B C A I C N N U I M K M L O A C W T – S 1 O 0 P 8 - O E W T X T S E R U T ) A C E A F D ( T C G U N I D L O O R O P C T R E I N A I B T A C C E R N I I D K H L C A E W T – F F 1 O 0 8 R - H E TC X S S E R U T A G E N F I T L C O U O D C O D R E P T T N E U N O I M B A L C L A N W I K N L O A T W 1 – P 1 U 0 8 K - C E A T X B S E R U T A E F T C U D O R P T E N I E B S A A C B N G I N K I T L A N W U O – M 1 0 E 8 L - B E A T X C G N I L E V E N L O T I L T O A B L - L E A L T G S N N I I S T : E N N O I I B T A A C D N N I U O K F L A L W A C – I L 1 E 0 H 8 - E C I T W X •WIC plate is 2.75” thick which leaves a gap of just over 4” of leveling space •WIC stairs are designed to be 18” from grade to the bottom face of the WIC G N I L E V E L N O T •Top of the helical plate must be 11” above site grade I L T O A B L - L E A L T G S N N I I S T : E N N O I I B T A A C D N N I U O K F L A L W A C – I L 1 E 0 H 8 - • E C I T W X G N I L E V E L N O T I L T O A B L - L E A L T G S N N I I S T : E N N O I I B T A A C D N N I U O K F L A L W A C – I L 1 E 0 H 8 - E C I T W X G N I L E V E L T L O B - E S L N G O N I I T S A : R N E O D I I T S A N D O N C U O R F E I T P N E U T O E M R C E N T O E R C C – N 1 O 0 C 8 - E C I T W X ••••• •Four 11” extensions are attached to four corner plates using provided leveling hardware. G N I L E V E L T L O B , (4) Plates and (1) stair set - E L N G O N I I ed to the concrete base T S A : L N L O A I T T A S D N I N •Each kit includes (4) 11” extensions T U E O N •Each 11” extension is anchor F I B T A N C U O N I M K E L T A E W R C – N 1 O 0 C 8 - ••• E C I T W X 18” from grade to G N I L E V E L T L O B - E N L O G I T N A I S L : L N A •Footers are threaded and utilize 1” hardware. T O I S T N A I D T N E U N I O B F A T C N N U I O K M L A Y W T I V – A 1 R 0 G 8 - E C I T •••• W X L A C I L E H O W T N – O M I R T A O L F L T A A T L S P N R I O T T E A N R I B E A N C E G N I R K A L L A O W P L – A 1 C ••• 0 I 8 T - R E T E V X M R O F T A L P N L O A I C T I A L L E L H A T R S O N T I A T R E E N N I E B G A C R ••• A N I L O K P L A L W A T – N 1 O 0 Z 8 I - R E O T X H elevations. Maximum height is 20’. must be elevated above the Osha 18” height requirement. Current beams are added for support at 8’ and above. The S S M E R R O U F T T models are 4’, 6’, 8’, 10’, and 12’ A A E L F P T N C E U G / D C O I R W P D – E 1 T 0 A 8 V - E E T L X E 5/8”. Recommend Kelly bar size between 2” and 2 S L O O T N O S I T E A R L U L T A A T E S F N T I C T U E D N I O B R A P C – N 1 I 0 K 8 - L E A T W X S E R U T C I P N O I T A L L S A E T R S U N T I A E E T F I S T C T U E D N I O B R A P C – N 1 I 0 K 8 - L E A T W X S E R U T C I P N O I T A L L S A E T R S U N T I A E E T F I S T C T U E D N I O B R A P C – N 1 I 0 K 8 - L E A T W X S E R U T C I P N O I T A L L S A E T R S U N T I A E E T F I S T C T U E D N I O B R A P C – N 1 I 0 K 8 - L E A T W X P A M E G A R E V O C Y T I L I B O M T & T A With Vertiv™, ATT Regional markets can deploy Critical Infrastructure Faster Y R A M M U ••• S The comments of this pre-app are preliminary in nature and subject to change based uponthe submittal of additionalor different information. The Planning Commission or City Council are the final decision making authority of the City, and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff as part of this pre-application. This pre-application conference is intended to highlight significant issues before the applicant prepares and submits a formal application. with design features that conceal, camouflage, or mitigate the visual impacts From the Findings of PA-T1-2020-00097: “capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization ” The applicant’s collocation study and alternative sites analysis is insufficient in demonstrating that collocation or placement on an existing structure are not feasible. Relief from collocation requirements calls for a clear demonstration that sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structures or towers, and the application has failed to consider how the structures considered might be modified to achieve their needs while meeting community design standards. Without an adequate demonstration to that end, an alternative structure cannot be approved through the stepped hierarchy of the design standards. “the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative.” Furthermore, it is uncertain why the application fails to consider other structures in proximity such as the newly constructed dormitories, or the “fly tower” at the Ashland High School Mountain Avenue Theater. Theanalysiswasalsounclearwhetherrelativegroundelevationateachofthesiteswas considered.Therequestproposesa95-footantennatipheightwherethegroundelevationis approximately1,946feetsotheantennatipwouldbeatanelevationofabout2,041feet.Alternate Site#4,theSOUScienceBuilding,isdismissedasnotfeasiblebecausemaintainingtheexisting buildingheightonlyallowsa47.9-footantennatipheightandwouldthusonlybeafractionas efficientinmeetingtheserviceobjectives,howeverthegroundelevationinthislocationisroughly 2,066feet,soevena47.9-foottipheightherewouldputthetipofanantennaontopofthebuilding atabout2,113.9feet-almost73feethigherrelativetosealevelthanthetipelevationinthe proposedlocationsoutheastofRaiderStadium.Similarly,thehigherofthetworecently constructeddormitoriesisatanelevationofroughly1,972 feet above sea level, and has an average height of 49 feet. An antenna tip at the existing building height would be at an elevation of 2,021 feet, and as an existing structure should at least have been considered here. Any discussion with regard toantenna tip height should include discussion of thetopography as well as theelevation above sea level to antenna tip in all alternate site when comparing alternate sites. Generally, Chapters 18.4.5 and 18.5.7 for tree protection and the removal of trees greater than 18-inches in diameter at breast height, 18.3.6 for the SOU district, 18.5.2 for Site Design Review, 18.4.3 for Parking, Access and Circulation; 18.4.7 for signage, and 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits are the primary guiding sections to the district –in addition to the 2010 SOU Master Plan. (A separate sign permit is required prior to installation of signage; signage not compliant with the regulations in AMC 18.4.7 would require a modification of the Campus Signage Master Plan Conditional Use Permit.) The decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. The burden of proof is on the applicant(s) to ensure that all applicable criteria are addressed in writing and that all required plans, written findings, and other materials are submitted as applicable http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/AMC_Chpt_18_current.pdf o o o o readable satisfied by Site Design Review o o o (if applicable o if applicable o AssociatePlanner preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy Satisfied by submittal requirements below Stqqxt Vxuux} Stqqxt Vxuux} Debbie Griffin Debbie Griffin I object to the Walker Street Cell tower. If you must build a tower, please put it a safe distance from residences and schools.....many miles away in the country! I thought this was already vetoed (was it last year?). Why are we revisiting this when clearly the community Does NOT want it. Thank you, Rita Moran Hello Debra, Thank you for your attention. The placement and nature of the proposed tower would be highly incompatible with health and safety standards of the community. I'm sure Ashland isn't the only township not desiring too many or bad siting of such hazardous equipment. I hope the results of their deliberation puts the brakes on this project. Thanks again, Joe Breazeale 550 permanent failure for one or more recipients (debra.griffin@smartlinkgroup.com:blocked) pro rata pro rata \[INSERT AS APPLICABLE\] PROJECT SCOPESHEET INDEX MF22 1.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A T1.0TITLE SHEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON AN SOUTHERN OREGON EXISTING PARCEL FOR AT&T. LS-1SITE SURVEY 2.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NINE (9) LS-2SITE SURVEY ANTENNAS, EIGHTEEN (18) RRHs, TWO (2) SURGE UNIVERSITY PROTECTORS, AND FIBER/DC CABLES ON A NEW LS-3SITE SURVEY NOTES 95.0' TALL REPLACEMENT LIGHT STANDARD. ESC1.0GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 3.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A 6'-8" X 6'-8" WIC (EQUIPMENT SHELTER) AND 20kW GENERATOR A1.0OVERALL SITE PLAN ON A 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONCRETE PAD WITHIN A NEW FENCED COMPOUND. A2.0ENLARGED SITE PLAN FA #: 14647585 / USID: 231979 4.PROPOSED REMOVAL OF EXISTING LIGHTA3.0ELEVATIONS CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES STANDARD. 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 351 WALKER AVENUE A3.1ELEVATIONS OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 5.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A NEW 95.0' TALL L1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN LIGHT STANDARD. WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM ASHLAND, OR 97520 L1.1IRRIGATION PLAN 6.PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NEW 200A ELECTRICAL SERVICE, AND FIBER SERVICE. L2.0IRRIGATION DETAILS FINAL ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT CONTACTSPROJECT INFORMATIONDRIVING DIRECTIONS APPLICANT: DRAWN BY:MS / KN SITE NAME:MF22 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITYFROM AT&T OFFICE IN TUALATIN, OREGON: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC ADDRESS:351 WALKER AVENUE CHECKED BY:GS 19801 SW 72ND AVENUE #100 ASHLAND, OR 975201.TURN RIGHT ONTO SW 72ND AVE (489 FT) TUALATIN, OR 97062 2.TURN RIGHT AT THE 1ST CROSS STREET ONTO SW SAGERT ST (.4 MI) DRAWING VERSION JURISDICTION:CITY OF ASHLAND PROPERTY OWNER: TAX LOT #:391E10CD-100 VER.DATEDESCRIPTION 3.TURN RIGHT ONTO SW MARTINAZZI AVE (.4 MI) SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY ACCOUNT #:10079029 PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 4.TURN RIGHT ONTO SW TUALATIN-SHERWOOD RD (.2 MI) 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD PARCEL SIZE:17.42 AC CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ZONING:SOU - SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 5.CONTINUE ONTO SW NYBERG ST (.1 MI) 06/22/21GRADING/ESC PLAN 3 6.SIGHT RIGHT TO MERGE ONTO I-5 S TOWARD SALEM (.2 MI) ZONING/PERMITTING AGENT: LATITUDE:42° 11' 18.70" N (42.188528°) 06/22/21FINAL LU DRAWINGS 4 SMARTLINK LONGITUDE:-122° 41' 24.35" W (-122.690097°) 7.MERGE ONTO I-5 S (275 MI) 11232 120TH AVE NE, #204 GROUND ELEVATION:1950.2' AMSL 8.TAKE EXIT 14 FOR OR-66 TOWARD ASHLAND / KLAMATH FALLS (.2 MI) KIRKLAND, WA 98034 SOURCE:1A CERTIFICATION DEBBIE GRIFFIN LICENSER 9.TURN RIGHT ONTO OR-66 W / ASHLAND ST (1.1 MI) PH: 480.296.1205 (P) STRUCTURE TYPE:LIGHT STANDARD (REPLACEMENT) ** THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS IS 10.TURN RIGHT ONTO WALKER AVE, SITE WILL BE ON THE LEFT (2 MI) (E) STRUCTURE HEIGHT:73.9' PROPRIETARY BY NATURE. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT SITE ACQUISITION AGENT: (P) STRUCTURE HEIGHT:95.0' WHICH RELATES TO THE OWNER IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. SMARTLINK (P) AT&T GROUND LEASE AREA:450 SQ FT GOVERNING CODES 11232 120TH AVE NE, #204 (P) IMPERVIOUS AREA:450 SQ FT TOTAL TIME:4 HRS 25 MINS KIRKLAND, WA 98034 TOTAL MILES:278 MILES CHIP O'HEARN OCCUPANCY:U PH: 503.490.2997 2019 OREGON STRUCTURAL SPECIALITY CODE GROUP:II-B RF ENGINEER: 2017 OREGON ELECTRICAL SPECIALTY CODE AT&T MOBILITY 2019 OREGON ZERO ENERGY READY COMM. CODE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: AT&T MOBILITY 2019 OREGON MECHANICAL SPECIALTY CODE TOM LOGAN PH: 253.709.0317 2019 OREGON FIRE CODE VICINITY MAPLOCALIZED MAP SURVEYOR: PROJECT INFORMATION AMBIT CONSULTING, LLC A.D.A. COMPLIANCE 245 SAINT HELENS AVE, SUITE 3A INSTALLATION IS UNMANNED / NOT FOR HUMAN MF22 TACOMA, WA 98402 HABITATION. HANDICAP ACCESS IS NOT REQUIRED PER A.D.A. SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY APPROVALS 351 WALKER AVENUE FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SIGN-OFF ASHLAND, OR 97520 PROJECT AREA** REVIEWERS SHALL PLACE INITIALS ADJACENT TO EACH REDLINE NOTE AS DRAWINGS ARE BEING REVIEWED. PROJECT CONSULTANT/PRINTED NAME SIGNATUREDATE AREA SHEET TITLE LANDLORD: SITE ACQ: TITLE SHEET PERMITTING: RF MGR: CONST MGR: SHEET NO. OPS MGR: T1.0 PROJ. MGR: Know what's below. COMPLIANCE: Call before you dig. TRANSPORT: 1.OWNER OR DESIGNATED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH (E) CHAIN LINK LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. FENCE, TYP (E) UG ELEC. VAULT 2.THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN AND (OPTION 1 POWER SOURCE) CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESE ESC FACILITIES IS THE (P) TEMPORARY SILT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL FENCE PER 4/-, TYP CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION, AND VEGETATION/LANDSCAPING IS ESTABLISHED. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR (P) AT&T 12'-0" DOUBLE ACCESS MAINTENANCE AFTER THE PROJECT IS APPROVED GATE W/ SITE SIGNAGE 23 UNTIL THE LOTS ARE SOLD. 55 3.THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN 99 (P) AT&T 15'-0" X 30'-0" ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED IN THE 11 CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 4 5 9 1 FENCED LEASE AREA FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM MARKINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES, AND IN SUCH(P) 10'-0" LANDSCAPE A MANNER AS TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT ANDBUFFER; SEE SHEET L1.0 SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, ROADWAYS, OR VIOLATE APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS. 5 5 5.THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE DRAWN BY:MS / KN 9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SITE 1 CHECKED BY:GS CONDITIONS. DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIODS, THESE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS AND TO DRAWING VERSION ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT AND SEDIMENT LADEN VER.DATEDESCRIPTION WATER DOES NOT LEAVE THE SITE. (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 6.THE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY10/16/20 1 "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS ON THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF FENCE CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED (E) FIRE HYDRANT GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 FUNCTIONING. 7.AT NO TIME SHALL SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 ACCUMULATE MORE THAN 1/3 THE BARRIER HEIGHT. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING (E) TREE TO REMAIN; N LICENSER OPERATIONS SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT-LADEN PROTECT AT ALL TIMES 1 WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM. OF CONSTRUCTION 5 8.STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED 9 PER DETAIL 3/- 1 AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. (E) ROD IRON ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED TO FENCE, TYP (E) IRRIGATION INSURE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN METER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 9.STORM DRAIN INLETS, BASINS, AND AREA DRAINS SHALL BE PROTECTED UNTIL PAVEMENT SURFACES ARE COMPLETED AND/OR VEGETATION IS RE-ESTABLISHED. 10.PAVEMENT SURFACES AND VEGETATION ARE TO BE 0'0'-6"1'2' 11 X 17 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" PLACED AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE. 2EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 11.SEEDING SHALL BE PERFORMED NO LATER THAN 22 X 34 SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" SEPTEMBER 1 FOR EACH PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. 12.IF THERE ARE EXPOSED SOILS OR SOILS NOT FULLY ESTABLISHED FROM OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH APRIL NOTES:NOTES: 30TH, THE WET WEATHER EROSION PREVENTION PROJECT INFORMATION FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL, EDGE OF DISTURBED AREA 1.ALL PLANTS DESIGNATED TO BE 1.BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER FABRIC 6" BELOW FINISHED MEASURES WILL BE IN EFFECT. SEE LOCAL 36" WIDE ROLLS MF22 SAVED SHALL BE PROTECTED BYGRADE, 2" X 2" FIR, PINE, OR STEEL. JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WET WEATHER FENCING, AS SHOWN.2.FENCE POSTS W/ STITCHED LOOPS TO BE INSTALLED RESTRICTIONS. SOUTHERN OREGON 2.INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCEON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE SLOPE. DRIP LINE 13.THE DEVELOPER SHALL REMOVE ESC MEASURES 2'-6" AT THE TREE DRIP LINE OR AT EDGE 3.COMPACT ALL AREAS OF FILTER FABRIC TRENCH. WHEN VEGETATION IS FULLY ESTABLISHED. UNIVERSITY OF DISTURBED AREA, PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.5'-0" 3.FENCE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXISTING CONTOUR USE STITCHED LOOPS ORANGE, UV RESISTANT, HIGH 351 WALKER AVENUE 8" OVER 2" X 2" POSTS TENSILE STRENGTH POLYETHYLENE 2'-6" ASHLAND, OR 97520 LAMINAR BARRICADE FENCING W/ NEW CONTOUR 1.33 LBS/LF STEEL POSTS, SPACED 6'-0" MAX SPACING FILTER FABRIC 4'-0" MAXIMUM. POSTS SHALL BE 2'-6" MATERIAL 4'-0" ABOVE GRADE, MINIMUM, TEMPORARY SILT FENCE SHEET TITLE AND 2'-0" BELOW GRADE, FRONT VIEW MINIMUM.5'-0" EROSION & SEDIMENT 4.TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BE ERECTED AND MAINTAINED 8" CONTROL PLAN THROUGH THE DURATION OF THE TOP VIEW PROJECT. SLOPE 5.STORAGE OF MATERIALS WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHEET NO. 250 ZONE IS PROHIBITED. GROUND ELEVATION INTERLOCK 2" X 2" SIDE VIEW POSTS AND ATTACH ESC1.0 11X17 SCALE: NTS 11X17 SCALE: NTS 1NOTES & LEGEND3TREE PROTECTION FENCE4TEMPORARY SILT FENCE 22 X 34 SCALE: NTS 22 X 34 SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1.THE OVERALL SITE PLAN IS GENERATED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GIS MAPS, AERIAL MAPS, PHOTOS, IMAGES, AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (IF PROVIDED). I O W A S T ADJACENT ZONING: R-2 ADJACENT ZONING: SOU - SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY DISTRICT (E) OPEN FIELD CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM 6 0' R OW ± 710 .00 ' ADJACENT ZONING: SOU - SOUTHERN T 36 2'- 7" OREGON UNIVERSITY S K 49 K6'-0 " C (P) DISTRICT TOC E WE R S ETB AC K A (P) TOW ER SET ABAC K N (E) RESIDENCE (TYP) B B V T T " E E 0 A S - S 'A 4R" (P) AT&T ANTENNAS D E6 5 M- 150' .002N ' R W 7 T U LINE OF 300' OFFSET FROM EXISTING DRAWN BY:MS / KN 0 E O O 3 T H (P) POWER P PROPERTY BOUNDARY ) K CHECKED BY:GS P M SOURCE L ( G O I C A ) DRAWING VERSION P W ( W VER.DATEDESCRIPTION (P) UG POWER ROUTE FROM (E) PROJECT AREA PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T ± 31 5.0H-FRAME (+/- 100 LF) 0' SEE A2.0 CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 72 5 5 GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 . 0 0 TAXLOT #: 391E10CD-100 ' (P) AT&T FENCED FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 ZONING: SOU COMPOUND K C (P) UG FIBER ROUTE FROM (E) K A ' C LICENSER B FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T 0 T A " 0 E B . 1 H-FRAME (+/- 290 LF) S T - 1 ' ADJACENT ZONING: E 9 4R S 3 0E "R-1-5 ± 5 D 5 W -(E) ELEC. TRANSFORMER ' N O 1 U T (OPTION 2 POWER SOURCE) 2 ) O 4 (E) BUILDING (TYP) P P ( M ADJACENT ZONING: (P) FIBER SOURCE O R-3 C ) 37 7'-2 " P ( 466 '-8" (E) PROPERTY LINE ( P) C O MP OU ND SET BA CK (PRIMARY PARCEL) (P) CO MPO UN D S ETB ACK ± 41 8.0 0' ± 1 0 2 . 0 0 ' ± 66(E) RESIDENCE (TYP) 0.0 0' INGRESS & EGRESS FROM WEBSTER ST W E B S T E R S T PROJECT INFORMATION T S MF22 ADJACENT ZONING: M SOUTHERN OREGON SOU - SOUTHERN U I OREGON UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DISTRICT D A T S 351 WALKER AVENUE ADJACENT ZONING: ASHLAND, OR 97520 RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ADJACENT ZONING: R-3 N SHEET TITLE OVERALL SITE PLAN (E) PROPERTY LINE (ADJACENT PARCEL) ADJACENT ZONING: RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY SHEET NO. A S H L A N D A1.0 S T R E E T 0'400'100'200' 11 X 17 SCALE: 1" = 200'-0" 1OVERALL SITE PLAN 22 X 34 SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 1&2 A A3.0 N N E T N A (E) STADIUM LIGHT W/ PLATFORM TO BE R O RELOCATED TO (P) STADIUM LIGHT COLUMN T (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & C E ° S 0 ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT 3 A : MOUNTED TO SECTOR FRAMES H H P (E) 73.9' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM T L U A LIGHT COLUMN TO BE REMOVED ) M I P Z ( A CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT (P) 95.0' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM ON SECTOR FRAMES, MOUNTED TO (P) SITE PRO1 LIGHT COLUMN (MATCH EXISTING) 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 MODEL# SCM34 SQUARE MOUNT W/ CUSTOM 360.915.6750 ANCHOR PLATES OR APPROVED EQUAL WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM (P) CABLE TRANSITION HOUSING A N N E T N A R O T ° C0 ( E 6 S 2 A: P H M T MU A AM I ) Z G ) A P ( Z B I E M T A U T S H E : C 1 T 5 O 0 R ° A (P) UG CONDUIT FOR AT&T N T E (1) FIBER CABLE & (3) DCDRAWN BY:MS / KN N (E) CHAIN LINK N CABLES (±85 LF) A CHECKED BY:GS FENCE, TYP (E) UG ELEC. VAULT (OPTION 1 POWER SOURCE) DRAWING VERSION VER.DATEDESCRIPTION (P) AT&T UTILITY H-FRAME W/ 200A PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 METER BASE & FLEX 12 CABINET (E) IRRIGATION CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 (E) 6' TALL BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCE ON GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 EAST SIDE OF PROPOSED COMPOUND ONLY, (P) AT&T 12'-0" DOUBLE ACCESS FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 TO REMAIN AND BE UTILIZED GATE W/ SITE SIGNAGE (P) SIGHT OBSCURING BLACK PRIVACY MESH TO BE INSTALLED ON THE WEST OF FENCE (P) AT&T 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONCRETE LICENSER EQUIPMENT PAD WITHIN 15'-0" X 30'-0" LEASE AREA (E) TRACK (P) UG POWER ROUTE FROM (E) FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T A H-FRAME (+/- 100 LF) E (P) LANDSCAPE R A BUFFER; SEE SHEET L1.0 E S A E L / (P) AT&T 20kW DIESEL GENERATOR D ON 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONC. PAD N U (P) AT&T 6'-8" X 6'-8" VERTIV WIC ON " O 10'-0" X 18'-0" CONCRETE PAD 0 P - ' M 0 3 O C PROJECT INFORMATION D E (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ MF22 C (P) AT&T GPS ANTENNA ON (P) N "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS ON E EQUIP. SHELTER (WIC) F NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF FENCE SOUTHERN OREGON T & (E) FIRE HYDRANT T A UNIVERSITY ) P ( 48" MIN. 351 WALKER AVENUE (E) TREE TO REMAIN; ASHLAND, OR 97520 PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF (P) UG FIBER ROUTE FROM (E) CONSTRUCTION FIBER DEMARC TO (P) AT&T H-FRAME (+/- 290 LF) N SHEET TITLE (E) IRRIGATION R 6'-0" 10'-0" E METER F15'-0 " (E) ROD IRONF ENLARGED SITE PLAN U (P ) AT& T FEN CED FENCE, TYPB " E C OMP OUN 0D / -P ' 0 AL EASE ARE A 1 C S D SHEET NO. N A L A2.0 0'32'8'16' 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1ENLARGED SITE PLAN 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.THE PROJECT CM / PM TO VERIFY ANY REQUIRED PAINTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED TOWER, ANTENNAS, ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, CABLES, AND HARDWARE PRIOR TO ORDERING / INSTALLING EQUIPMENT. CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM (P) TOP OF LIGHT STANDARD 95.0' AGL (P) AT&T ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT 95.0' AGL (P) AT&T ANTENNA RAD CENTER (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & ANCILLARY 91.0' & 92.0' AGL EQUIPMENT MOUNTED TO SECTOR FRAMES ON (P) SITEPRO1 MODEL# SCM34 SQUARE MOUNT W/ CUSTOM ANCHOR PLATES OR APPROVED EQUAL DRAWN BY:MS / KN (E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE CHECKED BY:GS (E) TOP OF SLIGHT STANDARD RELOCATED TO (P) STADIUM 73.9' AGL COLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHT DRAWING VERSION VER.DATEDESCRIPTION PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 (E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE RELOCATED CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 TO (P) STADIUM COLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHT GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 (P) 95.0' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM LIGHT COLUMN (MATCH EXISTING); FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 CAPACITY OF PROPOSED LIGHT STANDARD & ITS FOUNDATION TO (P) AT&T FIBER/DC CABLE ROUTESUPPORT PROPOSED LOADING TO BE LICENSER WITHIN (3) 2" INNERDUCTS,PROVIDED BY OTHERS (E) ACCESS LADDER PROPOSED ROUTE TO FOLLOW DESIGN FROM TOWER / POLE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (E) LIGHT STANDARD COLUMN TO BE REMOVED (E) TREE TO REMAIN; (E) TREE TO REMAIN; PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION (P) AT&T 6'-8" X 6'-8" WIC (±11'-0" TALL) ON CONC PAD WITHIN PROJECT INFORMATION FENCED COMPOUND MF22 (P) LANDSCAPE SEE SHEET L1.0 (P) AT&T GPS ANTENNA SOUTHERN OREGON MOUNTED TO CORNER OF WIC (E) 6'-0" TALL UNIVERSITY ROD IRON FENCE, TYP (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ (E) WHEEL "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS STOP, TYP 351 WALKER AVENUE (E) FENCE ASHLAND, OR 97520 6.0' AGL may exceed may exceed NOTICE CAUTION INFORMATION ACTIVE ANTENNAS ARE MOUNTED ON THE OUTSIDE FACE OF THIS BLDG BEHIND THIS PANEL ON THIS STRUCTURE STAY BACK A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM THESE ANTENNAS Contact AT&T Mobility at (800)-638-2822 and followtheir instructions prior to performing any maintenance or repairs closer than 3 feet from the antennas. This is AT&T Mobility site _________________________ (E) GRADE (E) GRADE 0.00' 0.00' SHEET TITLE (E) LANDSCAPE BETWEEN (1950.2' AMSL) (E) FENCE & (E) PARKING STALLS, TYP ELEVATIONS (E) LANDSCAPE AREA (EAST SIDE OF LEASE (P) AT&T UTILITY H-FRAME W/ 200A AREA ONLY) METER BASE & FLEX 12 CABINET SHEET NO. A3.0 0'32'8'16'0'32'8'16' 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" (E) NORTH ELEVATION(P) NORTH ELEVATION 12 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.THE PROJECT CM / PM TO VERIFY ANY REQUIRED PAINTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED TOWER, ANTENNAS, ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, CABLES, AND HARDWARE PRIOR TO ORDERING / INSTALLING EQUIPMENT. CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM (P) TOP OF LIGHT STANDARD 95.0' AGL (P) AT&T ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT 95.0' AGL (P) AT&T ANTENNA RAD CENTER (P) AT&T ANTENNAS & ANCILLARY 91.0' & 92.0' AGL EQUIPMENT MOUNTED TO SECTOR FRAMES ON (P) SITEPRO1 MODEL# SCM34 SQUARE MOUNT W/ CUSTOM ANCHOR PLATES ON SECTOR FRAMES, DRAWN BY:MS / KN OR APPROVED EQUAL CHECKED BY:GS (E) TOP OF SLIGHT STANDARD 73.9' AGL DRAWING VERSION VER.DATEDESCRIPTION PRELIM LU DRAWINGS 10/16/20 1 (E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE(E) STADIUM LIGHTS TO BE CLIENT COMMENT 11/03/20 2 RELOCATED TO (P) STADIUMRELOCATED TO (P) STADIUM GRADING/ESC PLAN 06/22/21 3 COLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHTCOLUMN; INSTALL AT SAME HEIGHT FINAL LU DRAWINGS 06/22/21 4 (P) 95.0' TALL CUSTOM CONC. STADIUM LICENSER LIGHT COLUMN (MATCH EXISTING); (E) ACCESS LADDER CAPACITY OF PROPOSED LIGHT STANDARD & ITS FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT PROPOSED LOADING TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS (P) AT&T 6'-0" CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ "BLACK" SIGHT OBSCURING SLATS (E) LIGHT STANDARD (E) ACCESS LADDER COLUMN TO BE REMOVED (P) AT&T 6'-8" X 6'-8" WIC (±11'-0" TALL) ON CONC PAD WITHIN (E) TREE TO REMAIN; FENCED COMPOUND PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF CONSTRUCTION (P) AT&T FIBER/DC CABLE ROUTE WITHIN (3) 2" INNERDUCTS, PROPOSED ROUTE TO FOLLOW DESIGN FROM TOWER / POLE PROJECT INFORMATION (E) 6'-0" TALL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (P) AT&T GPS ANTENNA ROD IRON FENCE, TYP MF22 MOUNTED TO CORNER OF WIC SOUTHERN OREGON (E) TREE TO REMAIN; PROTECT AT ALL TIMES OF UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION 351 WALKER AVENUE (E) FENCE(E) FENCE ASHLAND, OR 97520 6.0' AGL6.0' AGL (E) GRADE (E) GRADE 0.00' 0.00' SHEET TITLE (1950.2' AMSL) WEST ELEVATIONS (P) AT&T UTILITY H-FRAME W/ 200A (P) LANDSCAPE METER BASE & FLEX 12 CABINET SHEET NO. SEE SHEET L1.0 A3.1 0'32'8'16'0'32'8'16' 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 11X17 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" (E) WEST ELEVATION(P) WEST ELEVATION 12 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" 22 X 34 SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" PLANT SCHEDULE TREESCODEQTYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE QS6QUERCUS SHUMARDIISHUMARD RED OAK1.5" CAL. SHRUBSCODEQTYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE MC17MYRICA CALIFORNICAPACIFIC WAX MYRTLE1 GAL. NC10NANDINA DOMESTICA `COMPACTA`DWARF HEAVENLY BAMBOO1 GAL. VD35VIBURNUM DAVIDIIDAVID VIBURNUM1 GAL. CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM PLANTING NOTES 1.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AMENDMENTS TO SOILSTANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1) AS WELL AS DETAIL 17 - VD CURRENT CITY OF ASHLAND STANDARDS AND THE OREGONPH FERTILITY AND/OR DRAINAGE CONDITIONS NECESSARY TODRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. STRUCTURAL SPECIALTY CODE.ENSURE PROPER GROWING CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSED32.LAYOUT OF MAJOR PLANTING AREAS AS INDICATED IN THE 18 - VD 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEASTPLANTINGS. SEE SPECS.DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY; OUTLINE IN THE FIELD TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO START OF LANDSCAPE WORK TO REVIEW15.CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW PROVIDER'S INSTRUCTIONS ANDLOCATIONS AND IDENTITY OF ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND 6 - QS PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS & JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEEDING.COVERS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 3.SUBSTITUTIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY16.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY A FULLY AUTOMATED,33.INSPECTION: NOTIFY THE OWNER 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING 6 - NC ACCEPTED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'SPERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.PLANTING. THE OWNER MAY ADJUST PLANT MATERIAL LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE.SEE SPECS.TO MEET FIELD CONDITIONS. 8 - MC 4.VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING LOCATION OF17.PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE34.DO NOT COMMENCE WITH PLANTING UNTIL OWNER HAS PROPERTY LINES, PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK. REPORT ANYOWNER WITH AS-BUILT PLANS OF THE INSTALLATION, COPIES OFAPPROVED THE LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF ALL PLANT BEDS. 4 - NC DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVEALL OPERATION MANUALS AND WARRANTY DOCUMENTS.35.IF WORK IS NOT PROMPTLY OR PROPERLY PERFORMED BY THE 9 - MC IMMEDIATELY.18.ALL NEW PLANTS IN LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE WARRANTEDCONTRACTOR, THE OWNER WILL, AT THEIR DISCRETION, HAVE THE 5.DO NOT WILLFULLY PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION WHENFOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINALWORK PERFORMED BY OTHERS. THE COST OF THE WORK BY UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTIONS AND/OR DIFFERENCES EXIST THATACCEPTANCE.OTHERS WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CONTRACT AMOUNT. 10'-0"MAY NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN DURING DESIGN. IMMEDIATELY 19.COORDINATE INSTALLATION PLANTING MATERIALS WITH36.MULCH ALL SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PLANTING BEDS WITH A NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTIONSIRRIGATION. PLANT ONLY IN AREAS WHERE THE IRRIGATION2 INCH LAYER OF IMPORTED MULCH MATERIAL WITHIN 2 DAYS AND/OR DIFFERENCES. PRIOR TO REMOVING ANY EXISTING SYSTEM IS COMPLETE AND FULLY OPERATIONAL.AFTER PLANTING. FEATURES, REVIEW AND CONFIRM EXTENT OF DEMOLITION WITH37.COVER ENTIRE BED AREAS; APPLY EVENLY. PLANT HEALTH AND REPLACEMENT OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 6.PROTECT EXISTING ITEMS TO REMAIN DURING CONSTRUCTION.EDGING INSTALLATION 25.PROVIDE PLANT MATERIAL THAT IS HEALTHY NURSERY STOCK, ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING ITEMS DESIGNATED TO REMAIN I.E.38.SHOVEL-CUT EDGING: SEPARATE MULCHED AREAS FROM TURF WELL BRANCHED, AND FULL FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF; AND FREE CURBS, WALKS, PLANT MATERIAL, LAWN OR FENCES SHALL BEAREAS, CURBS, AND PAVING WITH A 45 DEGREE, 4 TO 6 INCH DEEP, FROM DISEASE, INJURY, INSECTS, WEEDS AND WEED ROOTS. REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THESHOVEL-CUT EDGE. 26.PLANT MATERIALS NOT MEETING SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OWNER. WILL BE REJECTED. 7.VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, LINES,MAINTENANCE INITIAL INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL 39.1.MAINTAIN LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS FROM INSTALLATION UNTIL PIPES, VAULTS, OR BOXES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. MARK AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES, SITE FEATURES AND VEGETATION TOFINAL ACCEPTANCE. 27.ASSEMBLE ALL PLANTS FOR EACH INSPECTION AT ONE LOCATION 40.MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER BY TRIMMING, REMAIN IN PLACE. ANY DAMAGE TO ANY KNOWN EXISTING UTILITY FOR INSPECTION TO BE COMPLETED IN ONE VISIT. ANY FURTHER ELEMENTS SHALL BE REPAIRED PROPERLY AND IMMEDIATELY.PRUNING, CULTIVATING, WATERING, WEEDING, FERTILIZING, INSPECTION REQUIRED DUE TO PLANTS BEING UNAVAILABLE, 8.REMOVE FROM THE SITE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRISRESTORING PLANTING SAUCERS, TIGHTENING AND REPAIRING REJECTED, AND OR NOT MEETING SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE AND EXCAVATED MATERIAL NOT REQUIRED FOR FILL. NO RUBBISHSTAKES AND GUY SUPPORTS, AND RESETTING TO PROPER CHARGED TO THE CONTRACTOR AT THE CURRENT HOURLY RATE OR DEBRIS SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SITE.GRADES OR VERTICAL POSITION, AS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PERFORMING THE INSPECTION. HEALTHY, VIABLE PLANTINGS. 9.MAINTAIN ALL ROADWAYS AND PAVED PATHWAYS CLEAN AND 28.OWNER RETAINS RIGHT TO OBSERVE TREES AND SHRUBS FREE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND DEBRIS, PROVIDING41.WATER TREES BY DEEP ROOT WATERING METHOD. FURTHER FOR SIZE AND CONDITION OF BALLS AND ROOT NECESSARY DUST CONTROL WHERE REQUIRED. SYSTEMS, INSECTS, INJURIES, AND LATENT DEFECTS AND TO WEEDING AND CLEANUP 10.COORDINATE AND SCHEDULE ALL WORK WITH THE OWNER'S REJECT UNSATISFACTORY OR DEFECTIVE MATERIAL AT ANY TIME REPRESENTATIVE. 42.KEEP ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS CLEAN AND WEED FREE. KEEP ALL DURING PROGRESS OF WORK. 11.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY BUILDINGS, PAVEMENTS, AND OTHER EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 29.REMOVE REJECTED TREES OR SHRUBS FROM PROJECT SITE OF ASHLAND STANDARDS PRIOR TO SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPE CLEAN AND FREE OF SOIL AND DEBRIS. WITHIN 24 HOURS. INSTALLATION. 43.WEED ALL BEDS WEEKLY. 30.REPLACE PLANT MATERIALS REJECTED BY OWNER AT NO 12.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TOPSOIL, SOIL AMENDMENTS, AND 44.APPLY A 2 INCH LAYER OF MULCH MATERIAL TO SAUCER AREAS ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO OWNER. EROSION CONTROL. OF TREES AND SHRUBS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANTING BEDS. 13.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT CERTIFIED TOPSOIL ANALYSIS PLACE MULCH NO CLOSER THAN 4 INCHES FROM TRUNKS OF PLANT LAYOUT AND INSPECTION REPORT FOR OWNER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLANT WOODY PLANT MATERIAL AND AWAY FROM THE CROWNS OF 31.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO AMERICAN INSTALLATION. SEE SPECS. HERBACEOUS PLANTS. TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1.BEFORE WORK IS STARTED, INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING. F 2.NO ENCROACHMENT OF ANY KIND IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCE ZONE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3.ROOT PROTECTION ZONE IS AN AREA AROUND A TREE THAT IS BASED ON THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE CANOPY. 4.FENCING SHALL BE 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH METAL POSTS ROOT ZONE : AND BE SECURED TO THE GROUND WITH 6-FOOT METAL POSTS. UP TO TREE AVOID DRIVING POSTS OR STAKES INTO MAJOR ROOTS. CANOPY DRIP LINE WHERE POSSIBLE. 5.FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING, FILLING OR SEE NOTE 5 & PLAN ANY LAND ALTERATION AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL AFTER FOR LOCATION CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. 6.NO EXCAVATION OR COMPACTION OF EARTH OR OTHER6' MIN. METAL POST POTENTIALLY DAMAGING ACTIVITIES ALLOWED WITHIN THE SEE NOTES 4,5, & 6. PROTECTION FENCING. 7.PLANTING WITHIN PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE DONE MANUALLY. NO STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE FENCING. 8.DURING WORK, ANY ROOTS GREATER THAN TWO INCHES FOUND DURING EXCAVATION SHALL BE CLEANLY CUT. MULTIPLE ROOT PRUNING EVENTS FOR SINGLE TREES SHALL BE MANAGED & MONITORED BY THE CITY STAFF ADVISOR. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 9.AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, TREE PROTECTION FENCING CAN BE REMOVED. CRITICAL ANALYSISIRRIGATION SCHEDULE Generated:2020-10-22 16:23SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTIONPSI P.O.C. NUMBER: 01HUNTER RZWS-18-CV 2530 Water Source Information:ASSUMED - FILED VERIFY18" LONG RZWS WITH INSTALLED .25GPM OR .50GPM BUBBLER OPTIONS, CHECK VALVE, 1/2" SWING JOINT FOR CONNECTION TO 1/2" FLOW AVAILABLEPIPE Water Meter Size:1" Flow Available:37.50 gpm SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION PRESSURE AVAILABLE Static Pressure at POC:70.00 psiHUNTER ICZ-101-25 1" Elevation Change:5.00 ftDRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT. 1" ICV GLOBE VALVE WITH 1" HY100 FILTER Service Line Size:3"SYSTEM. PRESSURE REGULATION: 25PSI. FLOW RANGE: 2 GPM TO 20 GPM. 150 MESH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN. Length of Service Line:20.00 ft Pressure Available:68.00 psi PIPE TRANSITION POINT ABOVE GRADE NOTE: DESIGN ANALYSISPIPE TRANSITION POINT FROM PVC LATERAL TO DRIP TUBING WITH Maximum Station Flow:7.98 gpmRISER TO ABOVE GRADE INSTALLATION. LAYOUT OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS Flow Available at POC:37.50 gpm CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS IS DIAGRAMMATIC. AREA TO RECEIVE DRIPLINE Residual Flow Available:29.52 gpm IRRIGATION LINES SHOWN WITHIN PAVED HUNTER HDL-09-18-PC 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 AREAS ARE FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. Pressure Req. at Critical Station:44.98 psiHDL-09-18-PC: HUNTER DRIPLINE WITH 0.9 GPH FLOW. LIGHT BROWN 360.915.6750 Loss for Fittings:0.08 psiTUBING WITH BLACK STRIPING. EMITTERS AT 18" O.C. DRIPLINE IRRIGATION HEADS AND PIPES ARE TO BE WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM Loss for Main Line:0.81 psi LATERALS SPACED AT 18" APART, WITH EMITTERS OFFSET FOR PLACED WITHIN LANDSCAPED AREAS WITH Loss for POC to Valve Elevation:0.00 psiTRIANGULAR PATTERN. INSTALL WITH HUNTER PLD BARBED OR THEIR LOCATIONS MODIFIED AS REQUIRED Loss for Backflow:0.00 psiPLD-LOC FITTINGS. TO AVOID PLANT MATERIALS, UTILITIES AND Loss for Water Meter:0.50 psi Critical Station Pressure at POC:46.37 psi OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS. SYMBOLMANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION Pressure Available:68.00 psi 3 " Residual Pressure Available:21.63 psi 4 HUNTER PGV-100-MB 1" 1" PLASTIC ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, FOR RESIDENTIAL/LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE. MALE THREAD X 1" BARB INLET/OUTLET. GLOBE CONFIGURATION, NO FLOW CONTROL. CONTROLLER HUNTER NODE-BT-200 2-STATION BLUETOOTH CONTROLLER, OUTDOOR, BATTERY POWERED. POC WATER METER 1" ASSUMED - FILED VERIFY IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 1/2" IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 3/4" IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 3/4" IRRIGATION NOTES 3 " 4 1.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH OWNER AND UTILITY COMPANIES THE LOCATIONS OF 2 7.98 ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO DETERMINE IN THE FIELD THE9.FIELD ADJUST SPRINKLER HEAD RADIUS AND ARC FOR MAXIMUM COVERAGE WITHOUT ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWNOVER SPRAYING PAVED SURFACES. ON THE PLAN OR NOT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UTILITY PROTECTION SERVICE 1" 72 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A REPRODUCIBLE AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLAN. PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED, UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF IRRIGATION INSTALLATION, ON A 2.CONTRACTOR TO REPORT ALL DAMAGES TO EXISTING CONDITIONS ORREPRODUCIBLE SITE PLAN (PROVIDED TO CONTRACTOR BY OWNER'S INCONSISTENCIES WITH PLANS TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.REPRESENTATIVE). AS-BUILT PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE FINISH SURFACE, GRADES, TOPSOIL QUALITY AND 1 DEPTH. DO NOT START ANY WORK UNTIL UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN11.CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE A LAMINATED COLOR CODED ZONE MAP OF THE 6.00 CORRECTED. VERIFY LIMITS OF WORK BEFORE STARTING.IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSIDE OF IRRIGATION CONTROLLER. F 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE IRRIGATION INSTALLATION WITH INSTALLATION OF12.ELECTRICIAN TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL ELECTRICAL CONDUITS AND WIRING TO 1" LANDSCAPING, PAVING, WALL CONSTRUCTION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.PROVIDE POWER FROM ELECTRICAL BRANCH PANEL TO THE IRRIGATION CONTROL CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH OTHEREQUIPMENT UNIT, COORDINATE WITH CONTRACTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. SUBCONTRACTORS FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND SLEEVING. NO SAW CUTTING OF NEW PAVEMENT WILL BE ALLOWED!13.PROVIDE AND INSTALL CONDUIT SWEEPS AND STRAIGHT SECTIONS FROM IRRIGATION TRENCHES TO THE CONTROLLER. ROUTE CONTROL WIRE AND COMMUNICATION 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE IN ALL LANDSCAPE BEDS AND ALLCABLE THROUGH CONDUITS INTO CONTROLLER CABINET. NEATLY CONNECT WIRES LAWN AREAS.TO TERMINAL STRIPS PROVIDED IN THE CONTROLLER CABINET. CONTROLLER 6.LAYOUT OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS IS DIAGRAMMATIC.14.LOCATE VALVE BOXES WITHIN SHRUB BEDS. ONE VALVE PER VALVE BOX. 3 IRRIGATION LINES SHOWN WITHIN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. 3 " 4 "IRRIGATION HEADS AND PIPES ARE TO BE PLACED WITHIN LANDSCAPED AREAS WITH15.LOCATE VALVE MANIFOLDS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY FOR EASE OF MAINTENANCE, BUT 4 THEIR LOCATIONS MODIFIED AS REQUIRED TO AVOID PLANT MATERIALS, UTILITIESNOT CLOSER THAN 4'-0" BETWEEN VALVE BOXES. AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS. 16.THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT A MINIMUM OF 60 PSI 7.INSTALL TRACING WIRE OVER ALL MAINLINE PIPE AND CONTROLLER WIRE (INCLUDING)AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION. IF THE PRESSURE IS LESS THAN 60 PSI, OR GREATER POC WIRE WHICH IS NOT INSTALLED IN TRENCH WITH PIPE. INSTALL EXTRA WIRES (6) FORTHAN 95 PSI, NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IN WRITING, PRIOR TO FUTURE EXPANSION. EXTRA WIRES TO RUN THE EXTENT OF IR. SYSTEM. MARK ALLPROCEEDING WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ZONE LINES WITH TRACER WIRE, TERMINATE THE WIRE END IN THE ZONE'S VALVE BOX.17.AVAILABLE STATIC PRESSURE WAS CONFIRMED. EXISTING IRRIGATION METER, CONTRACTOR TO CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRESSURE COORDINATE LOCATION 8.INSTALL IRRIGATION HEADS 6" FROM BACK OF CURB. INSTALL PIPES, VALVES, VALVE18.NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF PRESSURE TEST EXCEEDS 95 P.S.I. AND/OR IF IS MIN. 70 PSI. NOTIFY OWNER'S REP OF CONTROLLER WITH BOXES AND OTHER IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AT BACK OF CURB OR IN LANDSCAPEAVAILABLE FLOW IS LESS THAN 30 GPM. IF PRESSURE IS LESS THAN 70 PSI OWNER WHERE APPROPRIATE. OR GREATER THAN 100 PSI EXISTING 8" DIA. SPRUCE TREE TO REMAIN, PRESERVE & PROTECT NOTES 1. LOCATION OF QUICK COUPLER WITHIN VALVE BOX IS SHOWN FOR CLARIFICATION ONLY. INSTALL OFF-SET FROM MAINLINE. IF POSSIBLE LOCATE QUICK COUPLER 2. EXACT FITTING REQUIREMENTS, WITH VALVE IN BOX. INSTALL ASSEMBLY COMPONENT SHAPES AND SEQUENCE MAY PER DETAIL AND ATTACH WITH 1/2" DIFFER FROM THAT SHOWN. GALV. PIPE X 3' LONG-ATTACH TO RISER FINISH GRADE WITH TWO S.S. IRRIGATION BANDS 6" ROUND VALVE BOX LINE SIZE ISOLATION VALVE (PER VALVE BOX) VACUUM RELIEF VALVE SPECIFIED VALVE, WYE FILTER AND 1/2" PVC COUPLING 18" COIL PRESSURE REGULATOR OF WIRE 1/2" SCH. 80 NIPPLE SPECIFIED VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING LID (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) UNION EACH SIDE OF VALVE BRICK SUPPORTS (THREE) SPECIFIED LATERAL PEA GRAVEL SUMP PVC PIPING AND FITTING CAPITAL DESIGN SERVICES STANDARD BRICK OR CONCRETE BLOCK (TYP.) 2101 4TH AVE E, SUITE 202 6" MIN. DEPTH, 3/4" WASHED ROUND RIVER ROCK OLYMPIA, WA 98506 360.915.6750 WWW.CAPITALDESIGNSERVICES.COM MAINLINE SCHED. 40 CROSS OR TEE 1BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE ASSEMBLY2DRIP IR CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLY3VACUUM RELIEF VALVE L2.0L2.0L2.0 SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS NOTES 1.PLACE VACUUM RELIEF VALVE AT FURTHEST DISTANCE VARIES END(S) OF ZONE. 2.STAKE TUBING WITH MIN. 6" LONG STAPLES AT 8' INTERVALS ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH. REMOTE CONTROL DRIP VALVE DISTANCE VARIES MAINLINE SEE PLANS IRRIGATION HEADER CLASS 200 PVC 1 4 311 VACUUM RELIEF VALVE 7 SPECIFIED EMITTER LANDSCAPE DRIP LINE - SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EMITTER SPACING 10 4DRIPLINE LAYOUT DIAGRAM5INLINE EMITTER TUBING INSTALLATION 28 L2.0L2.0 SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS 9 2 6 5 3" MIN. FROM EDGE OF TRENCH, PAVING OR FOOTING NOTES 18 FINISH GRADE 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR FINISH GRADE TRENCH SETTLEMENT AND 6" ROUND VALVE BOX RESTORE FINISH GRADES. 9 FLUSH VALVE 2 UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE OR COMPACTED FILL 10 C L 3 PVC COUPLING 11 POLY PIPE FROM HEADER 4 BRICK SUPPORTS (THREE) BACKFILL, PER SPECS 5 3/4" PEA GRAVEL SUMP - 1 CUBIC FOOT LATERAL LINE 6 CONTROL WIRE & TRACE WIRE 7 MAINLINE 67 IR TRENCHING DETAILFLUSH VALVE8 L2.0L2.0 L2.0 SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS Dilbert — Wireless Tech Hazards & Solutions for Schools https://assets.amuniversal.com/a11e4f00b7ff013817ab005056a9545d Safe School Tech emf A picture is worth 1000 words. Glossary Emf The Electromagnetic Spectrum . Symptoms of wireless toxicity https://assets.amuniversal.com/a6ffc9c0b7ff013817ab005056a9545d Here’s more research on the hazards of 4G, 5G, WiFi, and other wireless tech. Why is the list of symptoms so long? Internet access can be either or safe. References ElectromagneticHypersensitivity (EHS) Most doctors don’t know about EHS. We still use cell phones Safe School Tech How to use cell phones more safely: How to use computers safely during remote learning: Healing from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Quitting wireless— one family’s experience Safe School Tech An EMF meter tells the truth. Why isn’t the media doing their job? https://assets.amuniversal.com/4147e5d0c6480135071f005056a9545d Glimmer of truth The FCC’s so-called safety standard https://assets.amuniversal.com/7898f8e0e3f8013826b6005056a9545d Our kids deserve the same protection as fire fighters. The profit motive skews science. If WiFi is so hazardous, why doesn’t everyone know? https://assets.amuniversal.com/c8253cc0db9a012e2fae00163e41dd5b Safe School Tech Power corrupts https://assets.amuniversal.com/548daec0b5c6013500f1005056a9545d Telecom tells the truth A bonus In loco parentis Safe School Tech An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure? Free your students from “EMF chambers” Better Grades When Phones Are Banned https://assets.amuniversal.com/74b49420d2bd01350b65005056a9545d “When pointing out a problem, offer a solution.” Safe School Tech Safe School Tech Tho’ Telecom hides the facts, experts have been warning us: Caveat Emptor Telecom should make amends. Better late than never. Safe School Tech Thank you! Safe School Tech Does EMF exposure magnify COVID-19 severity? The FCC deprives the nation of oxygen. https://vertassets.blob.core.windows.net/image/eac387f4/eac387f4-2cc2-11d5-a770-00d0b7694f32/041001akembedded1.gif 00 The Secret History of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Safe School Tech CC: "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" https://assets.amuniversal.com/a679dca0fb2901367903005056a9545d EXISTING PROPOSED Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density Reference (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) -13 Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with As low as (10) or Belyaev, 1997 chromatin conformation (DNA) 100 femtowatts/cm2 5 picowatts/cm2 (10- Changed growth rates in yeast cellsGrundler, 1992 12 ) 0.1 nanowatt/cm2 Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with 10 Belyaev, 1997 (10-) or 100 chromatin condensation (DNA) intensities comparable to base stations picowatts/cm2 0.00034 uW/cm2Chronic exposure to mobile phone pulsed RF significantly reduced sperm count,Behari, 2006 0.0005 uW/cm2RFR decreased cell proliferation at 960 MHz GSM 217 Hz for 30-min exposureVelizarov, 1999 0.0006 - 0.0128 Fatigue, depressive tendency, sleeping disorders, concentration difficulties, cardio- vascular problems reported Oberfeld, 2004 uW/cm2with exposure to GSM 900/1800 MHz cell phone signal at base station level exposures. In children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused headache, irritation, concentration difficulties 0.003 - 0.02 uW/cm2Heinrich, 2010 in school. 0.003 to 0.05 In children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused conduct problems in school (behavioral Thomas, 2010 uW/cm2problems) In adults (30-60 yrs) chronic exposure caused sleep disturbances, (but not significantly increased across the 0.005 uW/cm2Mohler, 2010 entire population) Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm2Thomas, 2008 significant, but elevated) Chronic exposure to base station RF (whole-body) in humans showed increased stress hormones; dopamine 0.006 - 0.01 uW/cm2levels substantially decreased; higher levels of adrenaline and nor-adrenaline; dose-response seen; produced Buchner, 2012 chronic physiological stress in cells even after 1.5 years. 0.01 - 0.11 uW/cm2RFR from cell towers caused fatigue, headaches, sleeping problemsNavarro, 2003 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density Reference (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) Adults (18-91 yrs) with short-term exposure to GSM cell phone radiation reported headache, neurological 0.01 - 0.05 uW/cm2Hutter, 2006 problems, sleep and concentration problems. Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm2Thomas, 2008 significant, but elevated) Adults exposed to short-term GSM 900 radiation reported changes in mental state (e.g., calmness) but 0.015 - 0.21 uW/cm2Augner, 2009 limitations of study on language descriptors prevented refined word choices (stupified, zoned-out) 0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm2RFR linked to adverse neurological, cardio symptoms and cancer riskKhurana, 2010 0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm2RFR related to headache, concentration and sleeping problems, fatigueKundi, 2009 Sperm head abnormalities in mice exposed for 6-months to base station level RF/MW. Sperm head abnormalities occurred in 39% to 46% exposed mice (only 2% in controls) abnormalities was also found to be dose 0.07 - 0.1 uW/cm2dependent. The implications of the pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head. The occurrence of sperm head Otitoloju, 2010 observed increase occurrence of sperm head abnormalities on the reproductive health of humans living in close proximity to GSM base stations were discussed." 0.38 uW/cm2RFR affected calcium metabolism in heart cellsSchwartz, 1990 0.8 - 10 uW/cm2RFR caused emotional behavior changes, free-radical damage by super-weak MWsAkoev, 2002 0.13 uW/cm2RFR from 3G cell towers decreased cognition, well-beingZwamborn, 2003 0.16 uW/cm2Motor function, memory and attention of school children affected (Latvia)Kolodynski, 1996 0.168 - 1.053 Magras & Zenos, Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to RFR from an 'antenna park' uW/cm21997 0.2 - 8 uW/cm2RFR caused a two-fold increase in leukemia in childrenHocking, 1996 0.2 - 8 uW/cm2RFR decreased survival in children with leukemiaHocking, 2000 0.21 - 1.28 uW/cm2Adolescents and adults exposed only 45 min to UMTS cell phone radiation reported increases In headaches.Riddervold, 2008 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density Reference (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) 0.5 uW/cm2Significant degeneration of seminiferous epithelium in mice at 2.45 GHz, 30-40 min.Saunders, 1981 Wi-FI level laptop exposure for 4-hr resulted in decrease in sperm viability, DNA fragmentation with sperm 0.5 - 1.0 uW/cm2Avendano, 2012 samples placed in petri dishes under a laptop connected via WI-FI to the internet. 1.0 uW/cm2RFR induced pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrierPersson, 1997 1.0 uW/cm2RFR caused significant effect on immune function in miceFesenko, 1999 1.0 uW/cm2RFR affected function of the immune systemNovoselova, 1999 Short-term (50 min) exposure in electrosensitive patients, caused loss of well-being after GSM and especially 1.0 uW/cm2Eltiti, 2007 UMTS cell phone radiation exposure 1.3 - 5.7 uW/cm2RFR associated with a doubling of leukemia in adultsDolk, 1997 Pyrpasopoulou, 1.25 uW/cm2RFR exposure affected kidney development in rats (in-utero exposure) 2004 1.5 uW/cm2RFR reduced memory function in ratsNittby, 2007 2 uW/cm2RFR induced double-strand DNA damage in rat brain cellsKesari, 2008 2.5 uW/cm2RFR affected calcium concentrations in heart muscle cellsWolke, 1996 2 - 4 uW/cm2Altered cell membranes; acetycholine-induced ion channel disruptionD'Inzeo, 1988 4 uW/cm2RFR caused changes in hippocampus (brain memory and learning)Tattersall, 2001 4 - 15 uW/cm2Memory impairment, slowed motor skills and retarded learning in childrenChiang, 1989 5 uW/cm2RFR caused drop in NK lymphocytes (immune function decreased)Boscolo, 2001 5.25 uW/cm220 minutes of RFR at cell tower frequencies induced cell stress responseKwee, 2001 5 - 10 uW/cm2RFR caused impaired nervous system activityDumansky, 1974 6 uW/cm2RFR induced DNA damage in cellsPhillips, 1998 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density Reference (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) 8.75 uW/cm2RFR at 900 MHz for 2-12 hours caused DNA breaks in leukemia cellsMarinelli, 2004 10 uW/cm2Changes in behavior (avoidance) after 0.5 hour exposure to pulsed RFRNavakatikian, 1994 Increased risk in radar operators of cancer; very short latency period; dose response to exposure level of RFR 10 - 100 uW/cm2Richter, 2000 reported. 12.5 uW/cm2RFR caused calcium efflux in cells - can affect many critical cell functionsDutta, 1989 13.5 uW/cm2RFR affected human lymphocytes - induced stress response in cellsSarimov, 2004 20 uW/cm2Increase in serum cortisol (a stress hormone)Mann, 1998 28.2 uW/cm2RFR increased free radical production in rat cellsYurekli, 2006 37.5 uW/cm2Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody producing cellsVeyret, 1991 45 uW/cm2Pulsed RFR affected serum testosterone levels in miceForgacs, 2006 50 uW/cm2Cell phone RFR caused a pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier in 1 hourSalford, 2003 50 uW/cm2An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and learning functions)Mann, 1996 60 uW/cm2RFR caused structural changes in cells of mouse embryosSomozy, 1991 60 uW/cm2Pulsed RFR affected immune function in white blood cellsStankiewicz, 2006 60 uW/cm2Cortex of the brain was activated by 15 minutes of 902 MHz cell phoneLebedeva, 2000 65 uW/cm2RFR affected genes related to cancerIvaschuk, 1999 92.5 uW/cm2RFR caused genetic changes in human white blood cellsBelyaev, 2005 100 uW/cm2Changes in immune functionElekes, 1996 100 uW/cm2A 24.3% drop in testosterone after 6 hours of CW RFR exposureNavakatikian, 1994 120 uW/cm2A pathological leakage in the blood-brain barrier with 915 MHz cell RFSalford, 1994 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Power Density Reference (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) 500 uW/cm2Intestinal epithelial cells exposed to 2.45 GHz pulsed at 16 Hz showed changes in intercellular calcium.Somozy, 1993 500 uW/cm2A 24.6% drop in testosterone and 23.2% drop in insulin after 12 hrs of pulsed RFR exposure.Navakatikian, 1994 STANDARDS 530 - 600 uW/cm2Limit for uncontrolled public exposure to 800-900 MHz ANSI/IEEE and FCC 1000 uW/cm2PCS STANDARD for public exposure (as of September 1,1997)FCC, 1996 5000 uW/cm2PCS STANDARD for occupational exposure (as of September 1, 1997)FCC, 1996 BACKGROUND LEVELS 0.003 uW/cm2Background RF levels in US cities and suburbs in the 1990sMantiply, 1997 0.05 uW/cm2Median ambient power density in cities in Sweden (30-2000 MHz)Hamnierius, 2000 0.1 - 10 uW/cm2Ambient power density within 100-200' of cell site in US (data from 2000)Sage, 2000 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR Reference (Watts/Kilogram) 0.000064 - 0.000078 Well-being and cognitive function affected in humans exposed to GSM-UMTS cell phone frequencies; RF levels TNO Physics and W/Kgsimilar near cell sites 0.00015 - 0.003 Calcium ion movement in isolated frog heart tissue is increased 18% (P<.01) and by 21% (P<.05) by weak RF Schwartz, 1990 W/Kgfield modulated at 16 Hz 0.000021 - 0.0021 Changes in cell cycle; cell proliferation (960 MHz GSM mobile phone)Kwee, 1997 W/Kg Neurobehavioral disorders in offspring of pregnant mice exposed in utero to cell phones - dose-response 0.0003 - 0.06 W/Kgimpaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission onto layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex.Aldad, 2012 Hyperactivity and impaired memory function in offspring. Altered brain development. 0.0016 - 0.0044 Very low power 700 MHz CW affects excitability of hippocampus tissue, consistent with reported behavioral Tattersall, 2001 W/Kgchanges. Heat shock protein HSP 70 is activated by very low intensity microwave exposure in human epithelial amnion 0.0021 W/KgKwee, 2001 cells Digital cell phone RFR at very low intensities causes DNA damage in human cells; both DNA damage and 0.0024 - 0.024 W/KgPhillips, 1998 impairment of DNA is reported Changes in active avoidance conditioned behavioral effect is seen after one-half hour of pulsed radiofrequency 0.0027 W/KgNavakatikian, 1994 radiation 900 MHz cell phone signal induces DNA breaks and early activation of p53 gene; short exposure of 2-12 hours 0.0035 W/KgMarinelli, 2004 leads cells to acquire greater survival chance - linked to tumor agressiveness. MW modulated at 7 Hz produces more errors in short-term memory functioin on complex tasks (can affect 0.0095 W/KgLass, 2002 cognitive processes such as attention and memory) 750 MHz continuous wave (CW) RFR exposure caused increase in heat shock protein (stress proteins). 0.001 W/KgDe Pomerai, 2000 Equivalent to what would be induced by 3 degree C. heating of tissue (but no heating occurred) Statistically significant change in intracellular calcium concentration in heart muscle cells exposed to RFR (900 0.001 W/KgWolke, 1996 MHz/50 Hz modulation) Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR Reference (Watts/Kilogram) A significant change in cell proliferation not attributable to thermal heating. RFR induces non-thermal stress 0.0021 W/KgVelizarov, 1999 proteins (960 MHz GSM) 915 MHz cell phone RFR caused pathological leakage of blood-brain barrier. Worst at lower SAR levels and worse with CW compared to Frequency of pathological changes was 35% in rats exposed to pulsed radiation at 0.004 - 0.008 W/KgPersson, 1997 50% to continuous wave RFR. Effects observed at a specific absorption (SA) of > 1.5 joules/Kg in human tissues Cell phone RFR induces glioma (brain cancer) cells to significantly increase thymidine uptake, which may be 0.0059 W/KgStagg, 1997 indication of more cell division Sperm damage from oxidative stress and lowered melatonin levels resulted from 2-hr per day/45 days 0.014 W/KgKumar, 2012 exposure to 10 GHz. 0.015 W/KgImmune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody-producing cells)Veyret, 1991 A single, 2-hr exposure to GSM cell phone radiation results in serious neuron damage (brain cell damage) and 0.02 W/Kgdeath in cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia of brain- even 50+ days later blood-brain barrier is still leakingSalford, 2003 albumin (P<.002) following only one cell phone exposure Activity of c-jun (oncogene or cancer gene) was altered in cells after 20 minutes exposure to cell phone digital 0.026 W/KgIvaschuk, 1997 TDMA signal 0.0317 W/KgDecrease in eating and drinking behaviorRay, 1990 Hyperactivity caused by nitric oxide synthase inhibitor is countered by exposure to ultra-wide band pulses 0.037 W/KgSeaman, 1999 (600/sec) for 30 min A 1-hr cell phone exposure causes chromatin condensation; impaired DNA repair mechanisms; last 3 days (longer than stress response) the effect reaches saturation in only one hour of exposure; electro- sensitive (ES) 0.037 - 0.040 W/KgBelyaev, 2008 people have different response in formation of DNA repair foci, compared to healthy individuals; effects depend on carrier frequency (915 MHz = 0.037 W/Kg but 1947 MHz = 0.040 W/Kg) gnificant increase in firing rate of neurons (350%) with pulsed 900 MHz cell phone radiation exposure(but not Si 0.05 W/KgBeason, 2002 with CW) in avian brain cells Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR Reference (Watts/Kilogram) 900 MHz study of mice for 7 days, 12-hr per day(whole-body) resulted in significant effect on mitochondria and Aitken, 2005 0.09 W/Kg genome stability Wireless internet 2400 MHz, 24-hrs per day/20 weeks increased DNA damage and reduced DNA repair; levels below 802.11 g Authors say "findings raise questions about safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi 0.091 W/KgAtasoy, 2012 internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on fertility and integrity of germ cells" (male germ cells are the reproductive cells=sperm) Increased cell death (apoptosis) and DNA fragmentation at 2.45 GHz for 35 days exposure (chronic exposure 0.11 W/KgKesari, 2010 study) Cardiovascular system shows significant decrease in arterial blood pressure (hypotension) after exposure to 0.121 W/KgLu, 1999 ultra-wide band pulses Lymphoma cancer rate doubled with two 1/2-hr exposures per day of cell phone radiation for 18 months 0.13 - 1.4 W/KgRepacholi, 1997 (pulsed 900 MHz cell signal) 0.14 W/KgElevation of immune response to RFR exposureElekes, 1996 0.141 W/KgStructural changes in testes - smaller diameter of seminiferousDasdag, 1999 0.15 - 0.4 W/KgStatistically significant increase in malignant tumors in rats chronically exposed to RFRChou, 1992 0.26 W/KgHarmful effects to the eye/certain drugs sensitize the eye to RFRKues, 1992 Significant increase in reported headaches with increasing use of hand-held cell phone use (maximum tested 0.28 - 1.33 W/KgChia, 2000 was 60 min per day) 0.3 - 0.44 W/KgCell phone use results in changes in cognitive thinking/mental tasks related to memory retrievalKrause, 2000 0.3 - 0.44 W/KgAttention function of brain and brain responses are speeded up Preece, 1999 Cell phone RFR doubles pathological leakage of blood-brain barrier permeability at two days (P=.002) and 0.3 - 0.46 W/KgSchirmacher, 2000 triples permeability at four days (P=.001) at 1800 MHz GSM cell phone radiation Significant decrease in sperm mobility; drop in sperm concentration; and decrease in seminiferous tubules at 0.43 W/KgSalama, 2008 800 MHz, 8-hr/day, 12 weeks, with mobile phone radiation level on STANDBY ONLY (in rabbits) Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR Reference (Watts/Kilogram) 0.5 W/Kg900 MHz pulsed RF affects firing rate of neurons (Lymnea stagnalis) but continuous wave had no effectBolshakov, 1992 0.58 - 0.75 W/KgDecrease in brain tumors after chronic exposure to RFR at 836 MHzAdey, 1999 Mouse embryos develop fragile cranial bones from in utero 900 MHz The authors say "(O)ur results clearly show 0.6 - 0.9 W/Kgthat even modest exposure (e.g., 6 min daily for 21 days" is sufficient to interfere with the normal mouse Fragopoulou, 2009 developmental process" 0.6 and 1.2 W/KgIncrease in DNA single and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells with exposure to 2450 MHz RFRLai & Singh, 1996 GSM 900 MHz, 217 Hz significantly decreases ovarian development and size of ovaries, due to DNA damage and Panagopoulous, 2012 0.795 W/Kg premature cell death of nurse cells and follicles in ovaries (that nourish egg cells) Altered human mental performance after exposure to GSM cell phone radiation (900 MHz TDMA digital cell 0.87 W/KgHamblin, 2004 phone signal) Change in human brainwaves; decrease in EEG potential and statistically significant change in alpha (8-13 Hz) 0.87 W/Kgand beta (13-22 Hz) brainwave activity in humans at 900 MHz; exposures 6/min per day for 21 days (chronic D'Costa, 2003 exposure) 0.9 W/KgDecreased sperm count and more sperm cell death (apoptosis) after 35 days exposure, 2-hr per dayKesari, 2012 Rats exposed to mobile phone radiation on STANDBY ONLY for 11-hr 45-min plus 15-min TRANSMIT mode; 2 times per day for 21 days showed decreased number of ovarian follicles in pups born to these pregnant rats. < 1.0 W/KgGul, 2009 The authors conclude "the decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries." One 6-hr exposure to 1800 MHz cell phone radiation in human sperm cells caused a significant dose response and reduced sperm motility and viability; reactive oxygen species levels were significantly increased after 0.4 - 1.0 W/Kgexposure to 1.0 W/Kg; study confirms detrimental effects of RF/MW to human sperm. The authors conclude De Iuliis, 2009 "(T)hese findings have clear implicatiions for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring." 1.0 W/KgHuman semen degraded by exposure to cell phone frequency RF increased free-radical damage.De Iuliis, 2009 Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR Reference (Watts/Kilogram) Motility, sperm count, sperm morphology, and viability reduced in active cell phone users (human males) in 1.0 W/KgAgarwal, 2008 dose-dependent manner. 1.0 W/KgGSM cell phone use modulates brain wave oscillations and sleep EEGHuber, 2002 1.0 W/KgCell phone RFR during waking hours affects brain wave activity. (EEG patterns) during subsequent sleepAchermann, 2000 Cellphone use causes nitric oxide (NO) nasal vasodilation (swelling inside nasal passage) on side of head phone 1.0 W/KgParedi, 2001 use 1.0 W/KgIncrease in headache, fatigue and heating behind ear in cell phone usersSandstrom, 2001 1.0 W/KgSignificant increase in concentration difficulties using 1800 MHz cell phone compared to 900 MHz cell phoneSantini, 2001 1.0 W/KgSleep patterns and brain wave activity are changed with 900 MHz cell phone radiation exposure during sleepBorbely, 1999 GSM cell phone exposure induced heat shock protein HSP 70 by 360% (stress response) and phosphorylation of 1.4 W/KgWeisbrot, 2003 ELK-1 by 390% 850 MHz cell phone radiation decreases sperm motility, viability is significantly decreased; increased oxidative 1.46 W/KgAgarwal, 2009 damage (free-radicals) significantly decreased; increased oxidative damage (free-radicals) A significant decrease in protein kinase C activity at 112 MHz with 2-hr per day for 35 days; hippocampus is 1.48 W/KgPaulraj, 2004 site, consistent with reports that RFR negatively affects learning and memory functions 1.0 - 2.0 W/KgSignificant elevation in micronuclei in peripheral blood cells at 2450 MHz (8 treatments of 2-hr each)Trosic, 2002 GSM cell phone exposure affected gene expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem 1.5 W/KgCzyz, 2004 cells; and significantly increased HSP 70 heat shock protein production Whole-body exposure to RF cell phone radiation of 900-1800 MHz 1 cm from head of rats caused high incidence 1.8 W/Kgof sperm cell death; deformation of sperm cells; prominent clumping together of sperm cells into "grass bundle Yan, 2007 shapes" that are unable to separate/swim. Sperm cells unable to swim and fertilize in normal manner. Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR Reference (Watts/Kilogram) GSM cell phone exposure of 1-hr activated heat shock protein HSP 27 (stress response) and P38 MAPK 2.0 W/Kg(mutagen-activated protein kinase) that authors say facilitates brain cancer and increased blood-brain barrier Leszczynski, 2002 permeability, allowing toxins to cross BBB into brain 900 MHz cell phone exposure caused brain cell oxidative damage by increasing levels of NO, MDA, XO and ADA 2 W/Kgin brain cells; caused statistically significant increase in 'dark neurons' or damaged brain cells in cortex, Ilhan, 2004 hippocampus and basal ganglia with a 1-hr exposure for 7 consecutive days 900 MHz cell phone exposure for 1-hr significantly altered protein expression levels in 38 proteins following 2.6 W/Kgirradiation; activates P38 MAP kinase stress signalling pathway and leads to changes in cell sie and shape Leszczynski, 2004 (shrinking and rounding up) and to activation of HSP 27, a stress protein (heat shock protein) 2.0 - 3.0 W/KgRFR accelerated development of both skin and breast tumorsSzmigielski, 1982 2 W/KgPulse-modulated RFR and MF affect brain physiology (sleep study)Schmidt, 2012 STANDARDS 0.08 W/KgIEEE Standard uncontrolled public environment (whole body)IEEE 0.4 W/KgIEEE Standard controlled occupational environment (whole body)IEEE 1.6 W/KgFCC (IEEE) SAR limit for 1 gram of tissue in a partial body exposureFCC, 1996 2 W/KgICNIRP SAR limit for 10 grams of tissueICNIRP, 1996 TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING Code Interpretation _________________________________ PA-T1-2021-00159 329 Granite Street ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00159 APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNERS: Katherine and Joseph Clarke SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 329 Granite Street MAP #: 39 1E 08 DD; TAX LOT: 704 ORDINANCE REFERENCES: See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse AMC 18.1 Introduction and General Provisions AMC 18.1.5 Ordinance Interpretations AMC 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria AMC 18.5.5 Variances . AMC 18.6 Definitions 120-DAY TIMELINE: Not Applicable (see ORS 227.188) REQUEST: The application is request for an interpretation of the land use code that regulates the amount of a driveway that can exceed a grade of 15 percent. Specifically, the application requests an interpretation of the meaning of Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.3.060.F. The request is tohave the Planning Commission determine if the code is meant to allow a total of 200 feet of driveway length to exceed the maximum slope through an application for a variance, or in the alternative, if multiple sections each no longer than 200 feet in length, but having a combined length in excess of 200-feet, may exceed the maximum slope through an application for a variance. I. Description of Application The application is a request for an interpretation of Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.060.F, which reads as follows: F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Specifically, the request is to interpret if AMC 18.5.3.060.F to clarify if the meaning of the code is one of the following: Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00159 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (bg) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 1 of 5 1) Allow an aggregate total of 200 feet of driveway length to be between 15 and 18% grade through an application for a variance. With this interpretation the combined length off all driveway segments of 15%-18% grade would be less than 200-feet in total. 2) Allow multiple individual segments of a full length to be between 15 and 18% grade through an application for a variance, where each individual segment is no more than 200 feet in length. With this interpretation the combined length off all driveway segments of 15%-18% grade would exceed 200-feet in total. The subject application PA-T1-2021-00159 does not propose development. Instead, the request is for clarification of the meaning of the above-referenced code section, AMC 18.5.3.060.F. Any development proposal that seeks to use this interpretation of AMC 18.5.3.060.F, whether for the subject property or any other property, will have to apply for any required planning approvals as well as an application for a variance to AMC 18.5.3.060.F. A code interpretation from the Planning Commission will apply universally to all developments subject to the provision, and as such are not specific to one property. However, as the applicant has identified the issue relative to the property at 329 Granite Street, they have provided information to assist in clarifying the issue and constraints relating to that specific site. Additionally, Planning Staff has included as attachments to this report information in the planning record relating to the land use history of this specific property. The property at 329 Granite Street is a legal lot of record that was established prior to the hillside development ordinance. As such, although it contains severe slopes it is acknowledged to be developable for a single family home consistent with the underlying zoning. In 2014 the prior owners of the property donated the western 13.71 acres of the parent property (391E08DD Tax lot 705) to the City of Ashland Parks Department as public open space. The eastern portion of the property addressed as 329 Granite Street (391E08DD Tax lot 704) is the parcel where a future home is anticipated. Given the severe slopes, and existing streams bisecting the property, the development of the property will subject to Hillside Development Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints planning requirements. AMC 18.1.020 and 18.1.5 provide a process for resolving differences in the interpretation of the ordinance text where the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear. The Staff Advisor may refer the interpretation question to the Planning Commission for its written interpretation through a Type II procedure, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060. As a subsequent application for development of the property would be subject to a separate planning action approval, and specifically a variance to the driveway grade standard, the current code interpretation application is being treated as a action to obtain the Planning interpretation in advance of any such variance application. The Planning Commissions interpretation will inform the applicant application to develop their property consistent with the meaning of the variance standard relating to driveway grade but would not have the effect of amending the ordinance. II. Discussion The applicant has submitted materials which address the interpretation to AMC 18.5.3.060, Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. F, relating to a variance to driveway grade both in general terms and topographic conditions specifically at 329 Granite Street. Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00159 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (bg) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 2 of 5 The application submits that the intent of this section of the code (18.5.3.060.F), from a fire apparatus perspective, would permit multiple sections greater than 15%, up to 18% grade, with each segment up to 200 feet length, on a driveway without unduly compromising the ability of fire apparatus performance to ascend or descend the steeper segments of a driveway. Planning Staff does not dispute this position made from fire apparatus However, it is Planning position that suitable fire apparatus access is only one consideration when evaluating the intent behind the establishment of maximum driveway lengths and driveway grades within the Ashland Land Use Code. Notably, the Flag Drive Standards currently contain a separate criterion (18.5.3.060.I) that requires flag drives are subject to the requirements of the Oregon Fire Code: 18.5.3.060.I Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. flag drive standards can be more restrictive than the Oregon Fire Fire Apparatus Access Road standards. Flag Drives developed under standards would still comply with the standards established by the Oregon Fire Code. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance, which would apply to the subject property at 329 Granite St., aswell as other properties similar properties within the Hillside Overlay, articulates that regulations on development are intended to protect natural and topographic character, environmental resources, aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and protect the public health,safety and general welfare by ensuring development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. Consistent with the purpose of designating properties as hillside lands, any exception or variance tothe standards to facilitate development, including installation of driveway, should be the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Specifically Planning Staff maintains that limiting cuts and fills, to the minimum amount necessary to service the parcel and allow the development of a Single-Family Home, assists in protecting the natural character of the site. Limitations regarding maximum driveway grade certainly do function to facilitate fire apparatus access, but such maximum grades and driveway lengths also serve to limit excavation and fill to assist in retaining a greater percentage of a property in a natural state. Planning Staff has historically applied the standard as shown in Illustrations 1 and 2 below, essentially processing a variance for driveways with grades over 15% (between 15-18%) where the combined length of all steep segments is not more than 200 feet in length on any one driveway. Planning Staff has considered that either of these alternatives (Illustrations 1 and 2) are consistent withvariance limit established in 18.5.3.060.F. The applicant is requesting an interpretation that seeks to clarify the phrase more than 200 and find that statement was intended to be a maximum length of 200-feet for driveway any individual segment(s) that are between 15% and 18% grade, and that flag driveways are subject toOregon Fire Codes for Apparatus Access which does not limit the length of the steeper segments of driveway, just the grade of the individual segments. This requested interpretation would be consistent with Illustration #3 below. Illustration #1 One segment only, with a grade between 15-18% for a length of not more than 200-feet: Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00159 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (bg) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 3 of 5 Illustration #2 Multiple segments with a grade between 15-18%, where the combined lengths of all steep segments are not more than 200-feet: Illustration #3 Multiple segments with a grade between 15-18%, where the length of any individual segment is notmore than 200-feet. This interpretation would allow multiple segments of a driveway to have slopes between 15% to 18% provided each individual segment did not exceed 200-feet in length. However, the combined or total length off all driveway segments of 15%-18% grade would exceed 200-feet: III. Procedural 18.1.020 Interpretations Authorized Wherethe intent of this ordinance, the status of a use, or the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear, the Staff Advisor may interpret the ordinance in writing through a Ministerial or Type I procedure, as applicable, pursuant to section 18.5.1.040 or 18.5.1.050. Alternatively, the Staff Advisor may refer the question to the Planning Commission for its written interpretation through a Type II procedure, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's interpretation shall have the effect of amending this ordinance. Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00159 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (bg) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 4 of 5 18.1.5.030 Interpretation Criteria Any interpretation made through the foregoing procedures shall be based on the following criteria: A. The interpretation is consistent with applicability policies of the Comprehensive Plan. B. The interpretation is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance provision that applies to the particular ordinance section, or sections, in question. C. The interpretation is consistent with the opinion of the City Attorney. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Planning Staff acknowledges the complexity of developing the specific property at 329 Granite Street due to the physical constraints present, and further recognizes that the limitations regarding driveway grades poses added difficulty in developing the subject property due to the confluence of steep slopes, riparian protection zones, and tree preservation objectives. However, as a code interpretation is applicable throughout the City, the constraints on the identified property are not factors in Planning review of the code interpretation request. Planning prior application of 18.5.3.060.F on development proposals has considered that driveways are to be less than 15% grade, although a variance can be obtained to allow portions to be greater than 15% grade, but less than 18%, provided those portions have a combined length of 200 feet or less. Planning Staff has requested the City Attorney provide an opinion on the interpretation and this opinion will be provided to the Planning Commission upon receipt. The Planning Department received five letters from residents within the notice area regarding this interpretation request and they are attached for the review and consideration. Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00159 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (bg) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 5 of 5 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # ________________________________ 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 Request for Interpretation of AMC 18.5.3.060.F. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________ Pursuing LEED® Certification? YES NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY N/A Street Address 39 1E Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________ Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________ APPLICANT amygunter.planning@gmail.com Name Phone E-Mail 541-951-4020 Rogue Planning & Development Services 97501 Medford 1314-B Center Drive PMB #457 City __________________ Zip Address __ ____________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER N/A Name Phone E-Mail Address _ ____________________________________________________ CityZip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Fire Code OfficialMargueritte Hickman541-941-2681 margueritte@sagefiresolutions.com Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ 1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB#405Medford97504 Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4)that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. _____________________________________ __________________________________ July 22, 2021 Applicant’s SignatureDate As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. __________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Property Owner’s Signature (Date required) \[To be completed by City Staff\] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________ OVER G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Forms & Handouts\\Zoning Permit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document. 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11”x17”. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional – 1 additional large set of plans, 2’x3’, to use in meetings) FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. ( Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which ). meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Forms & Handouts\\Zoning Permit Application.doc From:Amy Gunter To:planning;Maria Harris Subject:Interpretation Request Date:Thursday, July 22, 2021 3:29:31 PM Attachments:Interpretation Findings.pdf 329 Granite - Fire Access Findings - 2021-0622.pdf Zoning Permit Application.pdf \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hello, Attached is a written request seeking an interpretation of AMC 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. F. A supplemental document regardingFire Apparatus Access is also attached. Please notify me when the fee has been determined. Thank you, Amy Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 541-951-4020 www.rogueplanning.com This communication, including any attachments hereto or links contained herein, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or legally protected information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments from your system. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC July 22, 2021 City of Ashland Planning Division Attn: Bill Molnar / Maria Harris 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 This is a request for a formal interpretation of a phrase in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that appears to have an unclear meaning. The phrase for which the interpretation is sought is found in AMC 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Where the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear the Staff Advisor may interpret the ordinance in writing through a Ministerial or Type 1 procedure. Or, the Staff Advisor may refer the question to the Planning Commission. Specifically, interpretation of the phrase “for not more than 200 feet” is requested. Thank you, Amy Gunter Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Attachments: Findings Addressing Interpretation Criteria Fire Apparatus Access Findings. Margueritte Hickman, Fire Code Professional 1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 www.rogueplannning.com amygunter.planning@gmail.com ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Requested interpretation: AMC 18.5.3.060.F. States “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.” This interpretation request seeks to define the phrase “not more than 200 feet” and find that statement was intended to be a maximum length of 200-feet for driveway segments that exceed 15% but not more than 18%, and that flag driveways are subject to Oregon Fire Codes for Apparatus Access. which does not limit the length of the steeper segments of driveway, just the grade of the segments. AMC 18.1.5.030 Interpretation Criteria Any interpretation made through the foregoing procedures shall be based on the following criteria: A. The interpretation is consistent with applicability policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: It can be found that the requested interpretation is consistent with applicable policies of the Comprehensive Planrelevant to the development of steep lots and impacts to Environmental Resources and furthers the goals and policies of the Housing Element. Allowing residential construction of a pre-existing residential lot is consistent with the Housing Element. The requested interpretation seeks to accommodate the development of a driveway that is proposed to minimize erosion, preserve the maximum amount of existing vegetation, protect the creek corridor, minimizes erosion through limiting disturbance. Limiting hillside cut and fill is consistent with the Environmental Resources policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the driveway with segments that exceed 15% but not 18% and each segment of driveway between 15 – 18% are not more than 200-feet in length is necessary to access the future residence, but cumulatively there is more than 200-feet of driveway that is more than 15%. The interpretation seeks to recognize that the intention of the flag driveway development standards code specifically states flag driveways are Fire Apparatus Access roads and was not intended to limit the total combined sections that exceed 15% to less than 200-feet. It can also be found that there are limited instances where the interpretation would apply, and there are very few existing lots of record that exceed the maximum slope without a building area of less than 35%, and would have a driveway more than 200-feet total length. 1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 www.rogueplannning.com amygunter.planning@gmail.com ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC The proposal emphasizes preservation of the majority of the large stature forest vegetation while reducing the wildfire hazard risks. The design standards for the flag driveway ensure that development of the forested areas will provide erosion control and stormwater management to prevent erosion. The driveway provides a fuel break in the gully of Twin Creek. The installation of a driveway compliant with the fire apparatus access standards provides fire fighter access to the urban wildland interface. B. The interpretation is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance provision that applies to the particular ordinance section, or sections, in question. It can be found that AMC 18.4.3.080.D. Driveways and Turn-Around Design require that 1.) A driveway for a single dwelling shall be a minimum of nine feet in width, and a shared driveway serving two units shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width, except that drivewaysover 50 feet in length or serve a flag lot shall meet the width and design requirements of section 18.5.3.060. It can be found that AMC 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria requires that driveway grade comply with the standards from subsection F.). Subsection F states that “Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.” It can be found that AMC 18.5.3.060. I. that Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. It can be found that the declaration of a driveway more than 50-feet in length as a Fire Apparatus Access Road and subject to the requirements thereof and the Oregon Fire Code does not limit the total length of the driveway over 15 percent slopes but less than 18 percent to 200-feet. The Oregon Fire Code, Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Road D103.2 Grade states that Fire Apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade, exception is granted when approved by the fire chief. It can be found that when driveways are substantially more than 200-feet long, the driveway may have segments of 15 – 18% grades up to 200-feet in length to meet the fire apparatus access standards which regulates the grade of the driveway not the number of segments of driveway that are 200-feet long. It can be found the interpretation furthers the purpose and intent of the partitions chapter which seeks the orderly and efficient urbanization of the development patterns envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to protect the natural environment and encourage efficient use of land resources and public service. The interpretation allows for the development of a lot with a 1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 www.rogueplannning.com amygunter.planning@gmail.com ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC driveway that complies with fire apparatus access standards which in turn allows for the urbanization of the parcel and the protection of the natural environment through the implementation of the wildfire prevention fuel reduction plan. C. The interpretation is consistent with the opinion of the City Attorney. The opinion of the City Attorney has been sought. 1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 www.rogueplannning.com amygunter.planning@gmail.com Fire Access Findings 329 Granite Street, Ashland June 22, 2021 The following report addresses the fire apparatus access requirements for a single family home to be built on the property located at 329 Granite Street in the City of Ashland. This property is in the Wildfire Hazard Zone and has grades greater than 35%. There are multiple codes applicable to this property that reference fire apparatus access. The 2019 Oregon Fire Code applies throughout the state of Oregon. The Ashland Municipal Code provides references for fire apparatus access both in Chapter 15.28 where the Oregon Fire Code is adopted and in Chapter 18, the Land Use Code. The State of Oregon has adopted the 2019 Oregon Fire Code (OFC). The City of Ashland has adopted the OFC and Appendices A through N, Q and R with City of Ashland amendments via Ashland Municipal Code 15.28.010. reasonable The purpose of the OFC is to provide a level of life safety and property protection from the hazards for fire, explosion or dangerous conditions and to provide a reasonable level of safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. One of the key words in the intent of the OFC is reasonable. It has long been recognized that not every property or structure cannot meet every detail of the codes nor can every hazard be prevented, so there are alternatives to the written code that provide that 3) The following are some of the fire related requirements for this property: Provide approved fire apparatus access Provide water supply Implement fuels reduction for wildfire prevention as indicated in AMC 18.3.10.100 Physical & Environmental Constraints for Wildfire Lands Fire Apparatus Access Requirements The driveway serving the structures on this property is a fire apparatus access route. The following are the code requirements for this required fire apparatus access. Chapter 5 and Appendix D address the majority of the access requirements found in the OFC. The City of Ashland has made a few amendments to the OFC, and there are also fire access requirements found in the land use code. The following will outline the requirements and exceptions. 1. Approved walls of the building (OFC 503.1). The fire code official is authorized to modify this for one of three reasons: Fire sprinklers are installed throughout the building 1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB 405, Medford, OR 97504 (541) 941.2681 14 329 Granite Street - Page of Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions AND an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group-U occupancies. 2. Fire apparatus access roads are required to be 20 feet wide in the model OFC; however, ORS 368.039 allows the road standards adopted by the local government to supersede standards in the fire codes and requires consultation with the local fire agency. Through AMC 18.5.3.060 flag drive requirements, this driveway is permitted to be a minimum clear width of 15 feet with a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. Obstructions are not permitted within the 15 foot width including landscaping materials. 3. The grade and angles of approach and departure of the fire apparatus access road are required to be 503.2.7 & .8) While the OFC asserts a maximum grade of 10%, it allows a steeper grade as approved by the fire code official. AMC 18.5.3.060 D specifies that flag drives are permitted to be 15-18% for 200 feet with a variance approval. The intent of limiting the grade for fire apparatus access is as much about the ability to respond to an incident quickly and efficiently as it is about the capabilities of the apparatus performance both uphill and downhill. By limiting the section of the grade to no more than 200 feet, it limits the power needed for the engine or ambulance to climb the grade and it limits the brake usage to descend the grade. It is my opinion that the intent of this section of the code from a fire apparatus perspective is that there could be multiple sections of up to 18% grade up to 200 feet length on a driveway depending on the total length of the driveway and the distance between the segments. While the code does not specify the distance between segments, it may not be reasonable to have two 200 foot segments separated by 20 feet, but it may be reasonable for example to have two 200 foot segments separated by 200 feet. 4. Construction of the fire apparatus access road is required to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000 pounds. (OFC D102) 5. -around. (AMC 18.5.3.060 J) 6. structures exceeding 24 feet in height unless an approved automatic fire sprinkler system is installed. (AMC 18.5.3.060 M) A fire sprinkler system will be installed in this home. 7. When required by the fire code official, fire apparatus roads shall be signe FIRE 8. The land use code considers flag drives and fire work areas to be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. (AMC 18.5.3.060 I) The OFC requires that fire apparatus roads be approved Therefore, these requirements found in the land use code should be at the approval of the fire code official. In addition, the OFC provides the fire code official with the authority to modify any of the 1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB 405, Medford, OR 97504 (541) 941.2681 24 329 Granite Street - Page of conditions related to fire apparatus access when fire sprinklers are installed in a building. This home will have fire sprinklers installed. Water Supply Requirements Based on AMC amendments, a fire hydrant is required to be located within 600 feet of a structure when fire sprinklers are installed. (AMC 15.28.070 G) 2021 ICC Wildland Urban Interface Model Code (WUIC) Access requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed the requirements of the WUIC. Water supply requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed the requirements of the WUIC. Fuels reduction requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed the requirements of the WUIC. Access Grade Requirements Comparison After researching the access grade requirements in several communities, the following grades were found to be codified: Jackson County 15 % maximum finished grade; up to 18% for 100three sections Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (Beaverton, Tigard and surrounding areas) 15% maximum grade Development of This Lot Improves Community Safety One of the questions that sometimes arises is whether the development of a lot improves or reduces community safety. Having spent my entire career in both the wildland and structural fire service, I appreciate this question and have had many opportunities to hear it discussed and negotiated and to see what happens in a fire. The development of this lot provides added safety to this neighborhood. Through the development of this lot, fuels reduction will be required to be implemented and maintained. This will help to improve the potential to slow a fire if it moves through and reduce the potential for a crowning fire to occur. This also provides a greater potential for firefighters to make an impact on a wildfire and reduce the potential negative impacts of fire to the neighborhood. The grade of the driveway, the fire apparatus access, meets the requirements of the OFC and AMC. While lesser grades may be more desirable for the fire department, there is also a need to balance priorities and requirements including riparian areas, cut and fill and erosion mitigation. The allowances of up to 18% grade for flag drives was approved by the fire department and helps to balance these sometimes competing priorities. The home will have fire sprinklers installed inside. While this will not stop a wildfire from moving through the area, they will likely reduce the potential for a home fire to spread to the forest and adjacent homes. 1750 Delta Waters Road, Suite 102, PMB 405, Medford, OR 97504 (541) 941.2681 34 329 Granite Street - Page of Subject: Chief Sartain of AF&R letter to applicants regarding the proposed drive at 329 Granite St. Hello, Thank you for the emails. This is a very difficult property to access and develop. While I can see some differences in the land use code for the City of Ashland and how an interpretation could be made in either direction, I must look at practicality and equal application of the fire code. With you providing a sprinklered residence, a wide turning radius on your approach, “turn-out” locations allowing vehicles to pass, and the fact you are creating a fire break and defensible space surrounding this property I do not have issue with the application submitted. Thank you, RaplhSartain , MO, IAAI-CFI, NAFI-CFEI Fire Chief Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 ralph.sartain@ashland.or.us Office: 541-552-2229 Cell: 541-301-8872 Fax: 541-488-5318 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. Thank you . PA-T1-2021-0059 Public Comments Received TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING Code Interpretation _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00031 375 & 475 East Nevada Street TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00031 375 & 475 East Nevada Street Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots1100,1200 & 1300) DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clearthat the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The also requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, August 10th, 2021 at 7:00 PM OVER Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 10PC Hearing Testimony August 9, 2021. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 10 PC Hearing Testimony August 10, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 9, 2021. In order to providetestimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email August 10 Speaker Request 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the C-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). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson, the staff planner assigned to this application, at 541-488-5305 or e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us Minor Map Amendments or Corrections (Type II). \[AMC 18.5.9.020.A.\] The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will e 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT June 8, 2021 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (375 E. Nevada St.) David Young (475 E. Nevada St) SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E Map 04A, Tax Lot 1000) 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E Map 04A, Tax Lot 1100-1200-1300) ORDINANCE REFERENCES: See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse AMC 18.1 Introduction and General Provisions AMC 18.1.2 Title, Purpose & General Administration AMC 18.2 Zoning Regulations AMC 18.2.1.030 Determination of Zoning Boundaries AMC 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria AMC 18.5.1 General Review Procedures AMC 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Ordinance Amendments AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections AMC 18.6 Definitions Ashland Comprehensive Plan (see http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Comprehensive_Plan- updated_6.2019.pdf) UGBA 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement () between City of Ashland & Jackson County (See https://jacksoncountyor.org/ds/DesktopModules/Bring2 mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_D ownload&EntryId=34685&language=en- US&PortalId=16&TabId=1460) 120-DAY TIMELINE: Not Applicable (see ORS 227.188) Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 1 of 13 REQUEST: The application is a request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of urban growth boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in (1.37 question are within the City of urban growth boundary as Residential Reserve acres of Tax Lot 1000)(2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan 1200 & 1300) as illustrated on the attached Staff Exhibit S-1. -judicial procedure may be used for minor map amendments or corrections. However, in this instance the 1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. As such, the application is being treated as a procedure because it requires a Council decision. If the City Council approves the current request, the applicant would then need to make a similar application to Jackson County for consideration by the Board of Commissioners before either body adopted an ordinance correcting the boundary line. I. Discussion The application requests approval of a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment in the form of a map correction to clarify the urban growth boundary. The application materials assert that the record of the exact location of the urban growth boundary line has been inconsistent, and recording a plat to further urbanize the subject properties within the city limits would leave Jackson County RR-5 zoned remnant properties outside the Urban Grown Boundary with less than the minimum required lot area under their county zoning. Goal 14 of Oregons statewide land use-planning goals deals with Urbanization. In the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), OAR 660-004-0040 discusses the Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas. The subject properties here are within the counties Rural Residential zone (RR-5). With regard to rural lands planned for residential uses such as the properties here, Goal 14 prohibits the urban use of these rural lands, and to that end prevents the creation of new lots or parcels smaller than the minimum size (which is generally no smaller than two acres in Goal 14, and specifically five acres here under the Countys RR-5 zoning) without an exception to Goal 14. Recording a plat to partition or divide the portions of the properties within the city limits would create new discrete parcels out of the remnant pieces of the properties that lie outside the city limits and urban growth boundary, triggering the exception. This would be a costly action with the County and in a pre-application with County staff, they have indicated to the applicant that approval of such an exception appears extremely unlikely. There are portions of four tax lots included in the request for clarification of the urban growth (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, boundary. These properties are located at 475 East Nevada Street 1200 & 1300)(39 1E 04A Tax Lot 1000). and at 375 East Nevada Street In 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning; a Zone Change from Jackson County Rural Residential, ½-acre minimum (RR-5) to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 20-lot/23-unit Performance Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 2 of 13 at 475 East Nevada Street. The application materials explain applicant met with Jackson County staff regarding the split-zoning of the property and the need, with subdivision of the property, to create discrete lots for the remnant properties outside the urban growth boundary. The application suggests that at this point, it became apparent that there were 8 and the maps the County used in implementing their development regulations. The application concludes that the request is that the portions of tax lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 totaling 2.08 acres at 475 East Nevada Street, and the approximately 1.37 acre area of tax lot 1000 at 375 East Nevada Street which are depicted on the current city maps as being outside the urban growth boundary instead be included within the City of Ashlandurban growth boundary as it was drawn in the official 1989 map, explaining that while the present Geographical Information System (GIS) maps show the properties divided by the City of Ashland urban growth boundary roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines with the urban growth boundary following the city limits boundary, the 1989 map is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps. The application materials emphasize that the issue at hand must be addressed before further action can be taken to complete the approval and development of the Katherine Mae Subdivision. II. Analysis The expansion of the urban growth boundary other than through the correction of a mapping error would trigger a minor amendment to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. When the Regional Plan was completed in 2012, the City of Ashland was the only participating city in the region that chose not to identify urban reserve areas for the future expansion of its urban growth boundary. Ashland instead committed to accommodating a doubling of the regional population over the next 50-60 years through more efficient land use within the existing city limits and urban growth boundary. Should the city now seek to expand its urban growth boundary by not more than 50 acres, it would require a minor amendment to the Regional Plan be processed by Jackson County with the City of Ashland as the applicant. In discussing the application with Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff, they have confirmed that if the application is truly a clarification of the UGB boundary based on the interpretation of historic documents, it does not constitute a UGB amendment and can be treated as a correction The request here is to determine whether the current maps reflect the originally intended placement of the urban growth boundary, or if the urban growth boundary was incorrectly placed in the transition from the original paper maps to the currently adopted electronic maps and thus merits correction. Minor Map Amendments or Corrections As detailed in AMC 18.5.9.020.A, minor map amendments or correction may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 3 of 13 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Determination of Zoning Boundaries AMC 18.2.1.030 also speaks to the of Zoning and provides that: Unless otherwise specified, zoning boundaries are lot lines, the centerlines of streets, and railroad right-of-way, or such lines extended. Where due to the scale, lack of scale, lack of detail or illegibility of the Zoning Map, or due to any other reason, there is uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as to the intended location of a zoning boundary, the Staff Advisor or, upon referral, the Planning Commission or City Council, shall determine the boundary as follows: A.wźŭŷƷƭΏƚŅΏǞğǤ͵ Boundaries that approximately follow the centerlines of a street, highway, alley, bridge, railroad, or other right-of-way shall be construed to follow such centerlines. Whenever any public right-of-way is lawfully vacated, the lands formerly within the vacated right-of-way shall automatically be subject to the same zoning designation that is applicable to lands abutting the vacated areas. In cases where the right-of-way formerly served as a zoning boundary, the vacated lands within the former right-of-way shall be allocated proportionately to the abutting zones. B.tğƩĭĻƌͲ ƌƚƷͲ ƷƩğĭƷ͵ Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the minimum width or depth of a divided area is 20 feet or less, the entire lot shall be placed in the zone that accounts for the greater area of the lot by the adjustment of the zoning boundary. Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the minimum width and depth of both divided areas is greater than 20 feet, the lot shall have split zoning with lot area designated proportionately to each zone. C.WǒƩźƭķźĭƷźƚƓ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following a City or County boundary, or the Urban Growth Boundary, shall be construed as following said boundary. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 4 of 13 D.bğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerlines of a river or stream, a topographic contour, or similar feature not corresponding to any feature listed in section 18.2.1.030, above, shall be construed as following such feature. Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) In addition to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), there is an County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement which was adopted in 1982. The UGBA sets forth the mutually adopted urbanization program between the City and Jackson (and) establishes an Urban Growth Boundary, an Area of Future Urbanization, Areas of Mutual Planning Concern, joint policies governing the urbanization of lands, and revision and administrative procedures. The UGBA requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners as follows: /ƚƩƩĻĭƷźƚƓ ƚŅ 9ƩƩƚƩƭ͵ If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein. In discussions with Jackson County staff, they have confirmed that if the city determines an error has been made and the map requires correction, they would forward the issue to the Board of Commissioners for a decision, as detailed in the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. For staff, the most applicable criterion in considering a minor map correction is AMC 18.5.9.020.A.2, that A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. clear that the transition from the original paper maps to a computer-based Geographic Information System (GIS) enabled mapping by the city and county to become much more precise and represented a substantial change, and the key question is whether the more precise mapping resulted in the incorrect identification of the intended urban growth boundary. The original paper maps often did not show tax lot boundaries or clearly illustrate how the city limits or urban growth boundary lines related to one another or to individual properties. As the applicant notes, in some of the adopted paper maps, the UGB line was drawn with a width which equates to more than 200 feet on the ground, while the current request deals with tax lots that are in some instances only 250 feet in depth. While staff believes that boundary lines including the UGB should follow property lines wherever possible, as provided in AMC 18.2.1.030, in reviewing the maps provided by the applicant and other maps in city records, staff are unable to identify any clear error in the placement of the urban growth boundary lines. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 5 of 13 The Tarp The original working map used in developing the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps is often referred to as as it was created from a large canvas tarp. This is not an officially adopted map, but has been used as a reference tool for staff when boundary questions arise. Staff estimates that The Tarp dates to the early- to mid- as it was in use as a reference tool when the current Community Development Director was hired in the late A photo of The Tarp as it illustrates the subject properties is shown below - with a red rectangle added by staff to identify the subject properties: Figure 1 While The Tarp does not illustrate a clear distinction between the city limits and urban growth boundary here, it does clearly show the subject tax lots and does not identify Comprehensive Plan map designations for the portions north of the city limits line shown, suggesting that even from this early date, boundary lines were located so that they left the portions of the subject properties in question here outside the boundaries. Based on the scale, the boundary line is shown at just over 150 feet from the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 6 of 13 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Map The city and county adopted an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement in 1982 which included an Urban Growth Boundary Map as A. A portion of that map depicting the subject properties is copied below, with a red rectangle added by staff in the general area of the subject properties: Figure 2 1982 UGBA Map This UGBA exhibit map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, but the city limits and urban growth boundary lines appear to scale to less than 200 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. (The current GIS map has this boundary at between 153 feet and 167 feet north of the right-of-way. If adjusted as the applicant requests, the boundary would be between 250 and 329 feet north of the Nevada Street right-of-way.) Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 7 of 13 1982 Comprehensive Plan Map from Urbanization Element (Adopted by Ord. 2227) A new Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan map were adopted in 1982 as Ordinance #2227. The Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan included a map illustrating the urban growth boundary; the portion of this map depicting the subject properties is copied below, with the general location of the properties, the urban growth boundary and city limits identified in red: Figure 3 1982 Urbanization Element Map This 1982 Comprehensive Plan map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, and identifying the exact intended location of the urban growth boundary is complicated by the fact that the width of the boundary line itself scales to slightly more than 200 feet and obscures the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way and the city limits line beneath it. The associated Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan does include a narrative description of the urban growth boundary based on lettered points called out on the map noting, The urban growth boundary returns to the city limits at point Q. The only other departure of the urban growth boundary (line from the city limits line) is from point R to point S, where it includes the sewage treatment plant and a portion of the Bear Creek Greenway. The subject properties are between point S and the starting point A, suggesting that in this vicinity the city limits line and urban growth boundary line were one and the same in 1982. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 8 of 13 1982 Adopted Zoning Map Staff have obtained a digital copy of the original zoning map sent to the state for acknowledgement in 1982. The portion relevant to the subject properties is illustrated below, with the general location of the properties in a red rectangle: Figure 4 Officially-Adopted Zoning Map (1982) The city limits and urban growth boundary line are one and the same here. Individual tax lots are not identified, however the boundary line scales as approximately 120 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 9 of 13 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement Map The application materials provided include a map described as being part of a 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. The relevant portion of this map, with the notes in the red box, is included below. Figure 5 UGBA Map (1989). hŅŅźĭźğƌͪ Staff cannot locate an adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, and as such cannot confirm that this is an official map. There was an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement update process initiated in 2001, but it never came to fruition, and both the city and the county are still currently working under the adopted 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement discussed above, and are unaware of an adopted 1989 update. While the map provided includes individual tax lots, the tax lot lines are unclear with regard to the subject properties here, and the map provided does not include a scale. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 10 of 13 2008 Officially Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map In 2008, the city adopted new zoning and associated overlay maps in digital format with Ordinance #2951. These are the current official maps. A portion of the official Comprehensive Plan map depicting the subject properties is shown below, with a red rectangle added by staff around the subject properties. Figure 6 Current Officially-Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map (2008) In the current officially-adopted maps, the city limits and urban growth boundary lines are one and the same in this vicinity, similar to the way they were depicted on and described in the narrative description in the 1982 Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This currently adopted official GIS map has the boundary lines at between 153 feet and 167 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way, which splits the subject properties between city and county, leaving remnant portions outside the city and urban growth boundary under the county jurisdiction. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 11 of 13 III. Procedural AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Ashland/Jackson Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Section 11.D of the 1982 UGBA between Ashland & Jackson County addresses of as follows: Correction of Errors. If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 12 of 13 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that the boundary lines would have been much better placed to follow property lines, and staff is equally frustrated that the size of resulting remnant properties in the county prevents further urbanization of these properties, however in reviewing the application materials and associated maps, staff have been unable to identify any clear error in the urban growth boundary current placement that suggests it was placed differently than was originally intended and needs to be corrected. While each of the various maps pose some challenges in terms of clarity, scale and the identification of individual tax lot lines relative to the boundary line locations, all of them are generally consistent in depicting a straight urban growth boundary line in the same location as the city limits line as was described in the Comprehensive Plan narrative in 1982 when the boundary was established - rather than having the boundary follow property lines. As such, staff are unable to say that a correction is merited here. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 13 of 13 Received 3.15.2021 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 375 East Nevada Street 475 East Nevada Street ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Received 3.15.2021 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Subject Property Property Address: 475 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300 Property Owner: Young Family Trust 348 South Modoc Street Medford, OR 97504 Property Address: 375 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000 Property Owner: Peter and Laura Schultz 375 E Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Surveyor:Hoffbuhr & Associates 880 Golf View Drive; Suite 201 Medford, OR 97540 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 Medford, OR 97501 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Reserve Zoning: SPLIT: City of Ashland RR-.5 Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) Adjacent Zones: NM-R-1.5; NM-MF; Rural Residential (RR-.5); Jackson County RR-5; and Jackson County Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 1 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Request: The application requests approval for a City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Jackson County Rural Residential to Ashland Residential Reserve/North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. It can be found that the record of the exact location of the Urban Growth Boundary line has been inconsistentand leavesJackson County RR-5 zoned remnant parcels of landthat necessitate Goal 14 exceptions due to the limited lot area of the legal parcels of record of the areas north of and outside of the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. There are portions of four parcels of record included in the request for clarification of theUrban Growth Boundary. The properties are 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300) and 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000). In 2017, the Katherine Mae Subdivision obtained Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning, a Zone Change from Jackson County Rural Residential, ½ Acre minimum (RR-.5-P), to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision to allow for the future development of a phased subdivision in 2017. At the time of the subdivision request, it was believed that the property was divided by the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that is shown on the 2008 adopted maps from the city of Ashland as roughly half-way between the north and south property lines. Following discussions and meetings with Jackson County regarding the “split zoning” of the property and the need to create separate and discrete parcels of recordnorth of the UGB that areseparate from the property on the south side of the UGB. Following inquiries at the County, it became apparent that there is question to the adopted maps on file with the city of Ashland and dated July 2008 and the maps that Jackson County uses in the implementation of their development regulations. In the research of this issue, the ability to readily manipulate the boundary lines presently when mapped by the Geographic Information Services (GIS) mapping software versus the lines drawn on the adopted Comprehensive Plan Mapsbecame more apparent. The property owner and the project team find that there is an important issue at hand that must be addressed before further action can be taken concerning the Final Planning of the adjacent Katherine Mae Subdivision. According to the present Geographical Information Systems (GIS) drawn maps, theproperties are divided by the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines. The UGB is shown following the city limits boundary. The official map is dated 1989 Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 2 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps. The request is for the 2.08-acre portions of 1100, 1200 & portions of 1300, and an approximately 1.37- acrearea of 375 East Nevada Street that is on the north side of the GIS drawn line to be included into the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary as drawn upon the 1989 official maps. Property Descriptions: The properties proposed for proposal consists of four properties, tax lots #1000, 1100, 1200, and 1300. The properties are on the north side of East Nevada Street west of the intersection of East Nevada Street, and an unimproved, remnant portion of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way. The subject properties are Comprehensive Plan designated as Single-Family Residential Reserve. Tax lots 1100, 1200, and 1300 have been rezoned to North Mountain Multi-Family Residential. Tax lot 1000 is a city of Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5 zoning. The properties are all within the Performance Standards Overlay. North of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the City limits boundaries, the properties are Jackson County Rural Residential, Five Acre Minimum (RR-5). Tax lot #1200 is occupied by a 1,785-square foot single-story, single-family residence that was constructed in 1954. There is a detached garage on the county side of the property. Another outbuilding exists behind the residence. Tax lots #1100 and 1300 are vacant. The properties to the east and west are also split by UGB and split zoned by Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5. The property to the east is too small and constrained to be considered. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 3 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 The property to the west at 375 East Nevada (39S 1E is included in the proposalat the recommendation of the City of Ashland. This property is occupied by a single-family residence and associated outbuildings. The property to the north at 1059 North Mountain Avenue (39S 1E 04A; 201) is zoned Jackson County RR-5. This lot is occupied by a vacant mobile home. This lot is zoned Rural Residential, five-acre minimum, and is more than five acres in area. The property at 1260 Oak Street (39S 1E 04A; 300) is to the north of 375 East Nevada Street. This property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and is 21.97 acres. Across the North Mountain Avenue overpass to the southeast, the properties are zoned Healthcare (HC). These properties are part of the Skylark Assisted Living Facility and Mountain Meadows Retirement community. The properties to the south, across East Nevada Street, are within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Overlay. There are North Mountain Single Family (NM-R-1-5); North Mountain Commercial (NM-C); and North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) zones within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Overlay. The four parcels included in the request are bound by East Nevada Street along the south property lines. According to the street classification in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), East Nevada Street is an Avenue or Major Collector. East Nevada would be considered a two-lane avenue. Avenues have a right- of-way width of between 59 – 86 feet. There is generally, 60-feet of ROW along the frontage of the properties. In the area of steep, rocky slopes between the subject property and the driving surface of East Nevada Street, there is more than 120-feet of ROW. East Nevada Street is not improved to Avenue Standards. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street is narrow, constrained by the development to the south, and by the rock outcropping on the north side. East Nevada has a varying width of improvements. Along the frontage of the properties, East Nevada Street is improved with pavement, curb, and gutter. There is a 22-foot paved travel lane, curb, and gutter. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are various street improvements within the varying width ROW. Across from 475 East Nevada, there is curb and gutter, no sidewalk. This property is “under-developed”, and street improvements will be required with future site development. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street, the street improvements include 22- feet of driving surface, with curb, gutter, varying width park row, and sidewalk. These improvements continue down the hill to the intersection of Camelot and Kestrel Parkway. None of East Nevada Street has dedicated bicycle lanes. The right-of-way that forms the east boundary of the property is North Mountain Avenue because it falls within a remnant of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way, but the actual surface street North Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 4 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Mountain is above the property and transitions from surface street to bridge over the Interstate. The “street” is not improved more than the narrow gravel driveway that serves the five-acre parcel to the north of the subject properties. This new street is approved to be named Franklin Street. Details of the Request: The request is to acknowledge the adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Map and that the north side of the pen stroke (the north property lines of the properties at 375 E Nevada Street and 475 E Nevada Street) is the location of the UGB. Discussions regarding the property boundaries of the Katherine Mae subdivision began in earnest with Jackson County and the City of Ashland in early 2016. At the time of the Subdivision application to the City, Jackson County had indicated that the Urban Growth Boundary Line was a defacto property line due to jurisdictional overlap. The County found they could not approve a partition of the “non-conforming” parcels that are north of the presently mapped GIS database for a few reasons. 1) All of the subject parcels that are divided by the GIS version of the UGB are zonedJackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) lots. Torevise thelegal description of the properties north of the UGB, a partition application in Jackson County is required. The resulting lot areas of the separate parcels to the north of the UGB are substantially less than the minimum lot size in the RR-5 zone. 2) Rural Residential lands that are outside of the UGB and are less than the minimum lot area of two acres, requires a Goal 14 Exception. The property is unique from what appears to be assumed with Goal 14 review, that future division of existing parcels to create lots that are less than the minimum lot area cannot be approved. This property consists of three, discreet parcels that exist with the UGB creating the boundary division. Allowing the land to be urbanizeable to the standards of the City of Ashland prevents the application of Goal 14 to the rural residential land. Oregon Administrative Rules: 660-004-0040 Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas (1) The purpose of this rule is to specify how Goal 14 “Urbanization” applies to rural lands in acknowledged exception areas planned for residential uses. (2) For purposes of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR 660-004-0005 shall apply. Also, the following definitions shall apply: (f) “Rural residential areas” means lands that are not within an urban growth boundary, that are planned and zoned primarily for residential uses, and for which Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 5 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 an exception to Goal 3 “Agricultural Lands”, Goal 4 “Forest Lands”, or both has been taken. 5) The rural residential areas described in subsection (2)(f) of this rule are “rural lands”. Division and development of such lands are subject to Goal 14, which prohibits urban use of rural lands. (6) (a) A rural residential zone in effect on October 4, 2000, shall be deemed to comply with Goal 14 if that zone requires any new lot or parcel to have an area of at least two acres, except as required by section (8) of this rule. (b) A rural residential zone does not comply with Goal 14 if that zone allows the creation of any new lots or parcels smaller than two acres. For such a zone, a local government must either amend the zone's minimum lot and parcel size provisions to require a minimum of at least two acres or take an exception to Goal 14. Until a local government amends its land-use regulations to comply with this subsection, any new lot or parcel created in such a zone must have an area of at least two acres. (7) After October 4, 2000, a local government's requirements for the minimum lot or parcel sizes in rural residential areas shall not be amended to allow a smaller minimum for any individual lot or parcel without taking an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 14, and applicable requirements of this division. (8)(a) The creation of any new lot or parcel smaller than two acres in a rural residential area shall be considered an urban use. Such a lot or parcel may be created only if an exception to Goal 14 is taken. This subsection shall not be construed to imply that the creation of new lots or parcels two acres or larger always complies with Goal 14. The question of whether the creation of such lots or parcels complies with Goal 14 depends upon compliance with all provisions of this rule. To facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the parcels in question eliminates the dividing line that created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB. The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 6 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 directly adjacent to the city limits and the areahas had various mapping that leads one to believe the boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided. For clarity, the criteria are infont and the applicant’s responses are in Times New Roman Calibri font. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 7 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Findings of Fact Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change: 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. Applicant’s Finding: According to the 1982-024 Jackson County and Ashland Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, Minor Boundary Line Agreements, are minor adjustments to the UGB that are defined as focusing on individual properties and not having a significant impact beyond the immediate area of the change. In 2004, the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance adopted a process for correcting minor mapping errors. The Jackson County criteria regarding minor amendments are similar to the Ashland Municipal Code requirements and an application for amendment is necessary at the county level following the decision at the City of Ashland. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant’s Finding: The change implements the public need for the additional land area adjacent to the existing developable land area that allows for diverse housing stock. The requested change is consistent with the State of Oregon Legislative goals and is in line with a recent effort by the Department of Land Conservation and Development pilot program for minor UGB amendments though a state-assisted process, Ashland was not part of the project area but qualified if it had sought the program. The proposal implements Statewide PlanningGoal 14: Urbanization, to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.If undersized, substantially smaller than minimum five-acre portions of RR- 5 zoned land remaining, it is an inefficient use of level, buildable, connected land that is best suited for urbanization instead of remnant rural residential lands. The addition of connected, owned in common properties to the Urban Growth Boundary furthers Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.10. Which seeks to ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section ofAshland’s population, consistent with Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 8 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 preserving the character and appearance of the city. The development standards of the North Mountain Overlay (anticipated with future rezoning and development of these portions of the properties) ensure the character and appearance of the city are maintained. The North Mountain Overlay allows for single-family attached and detached, clustered, and multi-family style development patterns. This is consistent with the character and appearance of the city. The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.11 as it relates to growth form, City policy should encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area while providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. This shall be accomplished with specific annexation policies.Allowing portions of existing parcels that are in the same immediate vicinity, served by the same public streets, adjacent to the same freeway, restricted to the same solar orientation standards, lot coverage, stormwater drainage, parking, open space requirements, heights, orientation, scale, etc. as the properties to the east as part of the Mountain Meadows development including Skylark Place, and the other developments within the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south, and southwest is an inefficient use of land that allows for additional housing area to meet Ashland’s housing needs. The proposal furthers the Energy, Air, and Water Conservation goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Chapter 11. The proposal adds land that is physically connected to the city limits. The land has access to city electricity, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, and water. The site has excellent solar orientation and solar electric generating systems would be possible. 1059 N Mountain Avenue (39 1E 04; 200) though outside of the city limits and UGB has city water service. The city shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. The Council's goals include leveraging the city resources to provide additional lands for housing development. Allowing for a small area of land to be included within the UGB to allow for future urbanization demonstrates the city's efforts to increase the developable area to increase housing stock. The proposal furthers the goals outlined in Chapter 12, Urbanization which seeks to maintain a compact urban form and include an adequate supply of vacant land to not hinder natural market forces and ensure orderly and sequential development of the land in the city limits. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. Applicant’s Finding: The state regulations imposing Goal 14 exceptions when a parcel area of Rural Residential land is smaller than the minimum lot area was adopted in 2000. The city limits were adopted pre-1900. The urban growth boundary was adopted in the early 1980s, the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1997. The subject properties were Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 9 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessedonly by a gravel-surfaced, North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer, and water to this area. The current property owners understand the great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the adjacent property zones and development patterns allowing for furthering the Comprehensive Plan concerning urbanization. The various Comprehensive Plan Maps lead one to speculate that there is a discrepancy between the paper maps adopted in the 1970s and 1980s and the 2000s changes to the state laws regarding Goal 14 exceptions for RR-5 zoned land that is smaller than minimum lot areas, is a substantial change that necessitates the requested modified Urban Growth Boundary to create remnant parcels that cannot be developed or are area deficient and requires an exception to state regulations of rural residential lands. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. Applicant’s Finding: N/A 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant’s Finding: The area of the 475 E Nevada Street parcels is 2.08 acres. Of this, approximately 11,300 square feet (.259 acres) of tax lot 1200 has slopes of 35 percent or greater. The remaining 1.82 acres has a base density of 21.85 dwelling units. When these properties are annexed, five (21.85 X .25 = 5.46) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is annexed and developed. The area of 375 E Nevada Street that is north of the city limits line is 2.34 acres. Of these 2.34 acres, 5,200 square feet is the floodway of Bear Creek and 25,860 square feet is FEMA's 100-year, special flood hazard area. The area of the property outside of the floodplain and floodway is 1.63 acres and the base density is 19.66. When this property is annexed, four (1.63 X .25 = 4.91) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is annexed and developed. Adequate numbers of affordable housing units that comply with the standards of subsection ALUO 18.5.8.050.G. will be provided when the subject properties are annexed into the city. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 10 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards outlined in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant’s Finding: N/A 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliancewith affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Applicant’s Finding: The total number of affordable housing units varies depending upon the future uses and the level of AMI restriction. The future development of the subject properties will demonstrate compliance at the time with the required number of affordable housing units as required per ALUO 18.5.9.202.A. The property owner and the applicant find that to facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the parcels in question eliminates the dividing linethat created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB. The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is directly adjacent to the city limits and the area has had various mapping that leads one to believe the boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question. Respectfully submitted, Amy Gunter Attachments: Snip of Ashland Acres SubdivisionPlat Map (1923) Draft UGB map (1” = 4000’ dated 2/22/1979) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 11 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Draft UGB map (1” = 2000’ dated 2/22/1979) Adopted UGB map (dated 11/2/1982) UGB Map from 1989 UGB Agreement (dated 7/1989) Official Map of City of Ashland (dated 2004) Jackson County Development Services map of the property (dated 12/14/2018 and 1/23/2019) Jackson County Pre-application Conference Summary Letter from Attorney Brett Hall (dated June 7, 2020) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 12 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Bqqspyjnbufmpdbujpopg tvckfduqspqfsuz)2:8:* Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 MpdbujpopgTvckfduQspqfsuz/ Pvutjeffehf)opsuitjef*pg mjoftipxojtmpdbujpopgopsui qspqfsuzmjof/)2:9:* Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Development Services Charles Bennett Planner III 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Room 100 Medford, OR 97501-2902 Phone: (541)774-6115 Fax: (541)774-6791 bennetch@jacksoncounty.org Pre-Application Conference Summary Report File: 439-18-00012-PRE(PA-NON) \[This is nota Land Use Decision and is for Informational Purposes Only.\] 1) GENERAL INFORMATION: LegalDescription : Township 39, Range 1E, Section 04A, Tax Lot1100&1200 & 1300 Location: The property is located at 475 East NevadaStreet. Property Owner: Young Family Trust Meeting Time: A meeting was held on Friday,December 21, 2018, at 2:00 PM. Agent: Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC Staff: Charles Bennett & Craig Anderson Proposal: The property owner wants clarification on location of the Urban Growth Boundary. Acreage: 2.08 acres Zoning: The property ispartially within the City of Ashland and partially in the County zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5). 2) DISCUSSION: Staff and the applicants discussed the location of the Urban Growth Boundary based on review of current mapping (GIS) and historic maps. GIS maps are not official maps. The official map is dated 1989 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property. Most of the historic maps indicate that the UGB is a straight line that corresponds with Ashland City limits. The UGB also appears to be consistently approximately 1320’ from the Section line to the northin this area. A previous version of the GIS mapping had the UGB following the subject taxlotsjust north of the Ashland City limits which appears to be the least consistent with official historic maps. GIS mapping currently indicates the UGB to be a straight line along the city limits. Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 1 Received 3.15.2021 3) REQUIRED APPLICATIONS: The Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and the 2004 Land Development Ordinance (LDO) provide for the process to correct minor mapping errors. The applicants first need to obtain Ashland City Council acknowledgement of the error and then file for a Type IV Zone Map Amendment ($7,078)addressing the map error procedureand criteria whichthen would go to the Board of Commissioners for final review(skipping the Planning Commission per procedure). The applicants couldalsoapply for a Type II or Type III partition along the UGB line(Section 10.2.3). The applicants may also apply for a Type IV application for a Goal 14 Exception to expand the UGB to includethe entire subject tax lots, but approval appears extremely unlikely. 4)CONCLUSION / DISCLAIMER: Notice: There was no public notification of this PRE-APPLICATION proposal (This is not an application. It is a pre-application.) Information: This report is for informational purposes onlyand represents the Planning Departments best understanding of the applicant’s request at this time. No guarantees have been given in this pre- application as to whether or not the application will be approved or denied. The burden of proof rests solely with the applicant to provide the necessary information to approve such a request based upon the applicable standards and criteria of the County Land Development Ordinance. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call at 774-6115. Sincerely, Charles Bennett Planner III Date: 1/25/19 Attachments: Copies of Maps, UGBA, Section 5.1.4 of LDO Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 2 Received 3.15.2021 June 7, 2020 Planning Division, City of Ashland 20 East Main Street 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Dear City of Ashland: I represent the Young Family Trust. The Young Family Trust owns Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A; the street address is 475 East Nevada Street. There is currently an approved Planning Action 2017-02129 in place for development of this property into a 20 lot, 23-unit subdivision, with associated proposed Comprehensive Plan designation changes. The planned development is consistent with the goals of the City of Ashland and Oregon land use law, and will benefit the City of Ashland. It will provide additional housing for the City’s residents, and will include low income housing. The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line along these three tax lots. There is currently a question as to the location of the UGB along the north side of these three tax lots. The City has previously taken the position that the UGB follows the City limits boundary, which is approximately 100 feet south of the northern most property line of each lot. This position appears to be based on a visual interpretation of a thick marker line on the latest Comprehensive Plan map, and a GIS map adopted by City Council. It is our understanding that this position is also inconsistent with previous maps and agreements as jointly adopted and agreed to by Jackson County and the City, such as the Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement dated May 20, 1982. See Attachment 1, Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. See also, Attachment 2, Excerpt from 1982 Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map Pg. 9), adopted November 2, 1982, ORD 2227. It is also inconsistent with the Jackson County Planning Office’s interpretation in December 2018. See Attachment 3, Pre-application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision at p. 2. See also Attachment 4, 1982 map received from Jackson County. And finally, maps based on GIS mapping and not physical surveys, such as the one adopted by the City of Ashland, are necessarily imprecise by virtue of the imprecise method in which they are created, as opposed to maps from actual surveys which can and did serve as the legal basis of the 1982 agreement between Jackson County and Ashland.For these reasons the exact location of the UGB with respect to these properties is unclear. In addition, the City’s position would result in that land being subject to County jurisdiction, and we understand a Goal 14 Exception is not feasible. (ORS-660-004-040 Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas). If, on the other hand, that land is within the UGB then the property could be annexed, brought into the development and provide additional housing for the City of Ashland and its citizens. 1 Received 3.15.2021 Accordingly, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., we request a formal interpretation of the exact location of the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary \[Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12; Urbanization: Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227\] along Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A, and to determine whether the adopted line from the aforementioned map has a width of along the adopted city limits boundary, which would be the south edge of mapped line, or along the north property line boundary of the subject property, which would be the north edge of mapped line. Again, we believe the map from with the 1982 boundary agreement with the County is the accurate map and is not based on GIS interpretation which is generally not a precise form of map. Please contact me if you have any questions. In the meantime, we look forward to the City’s formal interpretation. Best regards, Brent H. Hall Attachments: Attachment 1: Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. Attachment 2: 1982 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map p. 9). Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227 Attachment 3: Pre-Application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision Attachment 4: 1982 Map received from Jackson County cc: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development Services Client 2 Received 3.15.2021