The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-11-09 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 9, 2021 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. October 12, 2021 Regular Meeting 2. October 26, 2021 Special Meeting IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL CONTINUED 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. . Please note: The record and public hearing is closed on this matterThe Planning Commission's consideration of this item will be limited to their deliberation and decision. No further submittals (evidence or argument) will be accepted into the record. VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2021-00012 DESCRIPTION: Amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapters 18.4.6, 18.5.8 and 18.6.1 regarding annexation standards. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for 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). 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 Ashland/Jacks 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 October 12, 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 Kerry KenCairn Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant 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 November 9, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. per the request. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Department of Land Conservation and Development awarded the City technical assistance funding for Housing Production Strategy. Staff met with developers interested in purchasing the Croman Mill Site. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. September 14, 2021 Regular Meeting 2. September 28, 2021 Special Meeting Commissioner Verner/Pearce m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. IV.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak Street Ex Parte Contact The Commission had no ex parte contact on the matter. Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak Street. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS - APPEAL A. PLANNING ACTION: P A-T1-2021-00158 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 351 Walker Av/390 Stadium St Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 1 of 9 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 COMPREHENSIVE Southern Oregon University Campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING:ASSESS Southern Oregon University; SO; 39 1E 10CD; TAX LOT: 100. Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings and opened the continued public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins and Chair Norton declared no ex parte contact but past the site often. Commissioner KenCairn disclosed she had a conversation with an executive at Southern Oregon University (SOU) about previous issues with cell phone tower. It would not affect her ability participate. She frequently passed the site. Commissioner Pearce, Thompson, and Verner declared no ex parte contact and no site visit. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Request & Appeal Site Plan Vicinity Map Ground Equipment Screening Photo proposed wireless location Proposed Ground Equipment & Screening Telecommunications Act of 1996 Photo Sim. Location Reference Map Independent Review Third Party Reviewer Caution About Photo Simulations Existing Wireless Facilities in Ashland photos Appeal Issues Alternate Sites Considered Appeal Issue #1 Existing Stadium Lights Appeal Issue #2 Existing Light to be Replaced Appeal Issue #3 Currently Proposed WCF Staff Recommendation on Appeal As originally proposed (95-foot height) As conditioned (85-foot height) Staff recommended the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the original approval. Questions of Staff - None Kimberly Allen/Wireless Policy Group for AT&T/ The facility was part of the AT&T effort to fortify the network and make it more reliable. They concurred with the staff recommendations and findings. AT&T submitted an analysis with seven alternatives. They submitted alternative sites that were reviewed b-party expert, William Johnson, who concluded this site was the only viable alternative. The adjacent AT&T sites were at or nearing exhaustion. Capacity function was based on time and number of users. The AT&T justification analysis determined the surrounding sites were becoming unreliable. Capacity site was different from coverage site and more difficult to map. The AT&T radiofrequency (RF) engineers used computer modeling and internal data to determine the site was needed. Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 2 of 9 She addressed issues raised by the appellants. The lease was not specific on granting colocation on the tower to other providers. They would amend the lease regarding colocation prior to seeking a building permit. The appellants had not provided the study regarding property value issues to the applicant or staff. There were studies in 2004, three years before the advent of the iPhone. The applicants had submitted studies. One showed there was no impact on property values. Alternately, it had become a selling feature. The other study was from 2014 that showed no measurable positive or negative impact was determined regarding property values due to proximity to a cell tower. The second issue related to aesthetics. The tower would resemble an existing stadium light, just taller. The facility was far from the connecting streets, reducing visual impact. AT&T agreed to reduce the height from 95-feet to 85- feet which would minimize visibility. The third issue spoke to health concerns. The FCC indicated if a carrier demonstrated a facility will operate within the RF emission limits, decision makers may not consider testimony regarding health effects or environmental impacts related to RF emissions. The record had a report from an AT&T RF engineer stating the proposed facility will operate well within and under the FCC limits for RF emissions. Ap Presentation Kelli Marcotulli/Ashland/ Kelli Marcotulli explained the 85-foot cell tower would be close to a preschool, an elementary school, and vulnerable populations. Could this application legally be denied based on the evidence? Yes, there was compelling evidence the application did not meet city code. Could the City of Ashland avoid legal and monetary consequences if the application is denied, and should the City deny this application based on the evidence? She made the following three points: 1. The Ashland ordinance stated the applicant must submit studies showing colocation is not feasible. The feasibility studies in the application were based on computer generated propagation maps that the FCC recently deemed inadequate without hard data for validation. 2. Ashland code standards stipulated a copy of the lease agreement for the site did not preclude colocation. 18.4.10.30 There was no specific statement requiring colocation as required by Ashland code . Smartlink stated future colocation might require a taller pole for an additional facility and did not preclude future carriers from extending the height of the facility, utilizing other stadium lights or other locations on Southern Oregon University (SOU) campus. 3. A wireless applicant must substantiate current need for a new tower. The City was not required to provide wireless facilities based on future need. She addressed the second question on whether the City could avoid legal and monetary consequences if the application was denied. A lawsuit did not mean the City would incur liability. The City would be directed to install the tower without penalties or fines. Wireless companies were not allowed to receive damages, monetary award or legal fees for a City violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. They could only sue for an injunction for the City to issue a permit. Regarding her third question on whether the City should deny the application. There were substantial legal grounds for the City to deny the application and no legal consequences for a denial. Pamala Joy/Ashland/ Pamala Joy explained she moved to Ashland in the early 1990s because of the livability factors. She founded the Ashland Food Angels in 1995. collected and distributed a quarter million pounds of food annually. The cell tower was alarmingly close to her home which the Food Angels worked from. The proximity of the cell tower would lower her property value. If the tower was installed, she would most likely move and close the Food Angels as well. Loss of property value due to a cell tower was well established and could be confirmed by many real estate organizations. Cell towers were eyesores, devalued properties and lowered the selling price of homes. They could discourage renters and impact the tax base of the area. The Wall Street Journal Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 3 of 9 reported that over 90% buyers and renters were negatively affected by the presence of cell towers near a home. The National Institute for Science Law and Public Policy in 2014 showed that 94% of home buyers would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or an antenna. From other sources she reported that cell towers were not allowed at fire stations, schools, or school grounds. Some schools sued to have the towers removed due to their effects on children. In 2012, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considered cell towers hazards and nuisances. HUD required its appraisers to consider nearby towers to determine home values. HUD prohibited FHA underwriting of mortgages for homes within the engineered fall zone of a cell tower. She quoted a 2017 statement from Burgoyne Appraisal Company that adverse aesthetics had a large impact on property value for homes new cell towers. Per 6409 A of the Middleclass Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, once a cell tower was installed, it could go up to 20-feet higher without community input. According to the Appraisal Journal of 2006, buyers could pay 20% less for properties near cell towers. Her house would fall into that category resulting in a possible difference of $88,000. She and her renter were both electronically sensitive to EMF radiation. Her renter would move if the cell tower was installed, further affecting Msfinancial stability. The Ashland code for Conditional Use Permits included livability as criteria. Property values pertained to that livability factor and so did general wellbeing. The cell tower would have a major effect on the livability of the surrounding areas. A better solution was wired broadband with fiber optics, copper wire and ethernet cables to the premises. Public Testimony Alan Rathsam/Ashland/ Shared his credentials. For the last 3.5 years, he studied manmade post electromagnetic radiation and legal actions taken by cities to regulate wireless facilities. The cell tower coverage maps in the application were not accurate enough to support credible analysis. They were computer generated and not validated by drive test data in Ashland. He spoke to gaps and inaccuracies using computer generated maps stated in a document he submitted into the record by the FCC, titled Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report. Allan Widmeyer/Ashland/ Did not think the public was sufficiently informed this wasa 5G tower installation. He showed a capacity graph from 2019 and explained the capacity was exceeded four times during that year. An updated versionfrom November 19, 2019 through August 20, 2021, showed a peak trend line that dramatically dropped from the prior original. He explained it would not exceed capacity for twelve years. There was one peak capacity point during the 22-month period and the pandemic. He went on to clarify that seven months or 30% were left out of the graph, the period for May to December 2020 and could not be relied upon. Rod Newton/Ashland/ Successfully appealed a cell tower facility installation in 2010 that resulted in him, Jim Fong and Community Development Director Bill Molnar clarifying the ordinance and wireless installations. They worked on the step hierarchy and the definition of feasible. The application did not show that colocation or attaching to an existing reless code and should be denied. David Schieber/Ashland/ The application fell short three areas. Their need for a new facility was based on computer generated propagation maps. Based on the FCC report included in the record and titled Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report which showed the accuracy of the propagation maps ranged from 16.2% to 64.3%. This did not meet substantial evidence like a dropped call log or a drive by measurement would. Neither were provided. Ms. Allen requested the record remain open so they could respond to the technical testimony regarding the FCC no longer accepting propagation maps. This was new information submitted within the last 24-hours. From her initial review of the memo titled Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report she thought there were significant differences. One, it was a staff report from a task force researching whether the propagation maps were adeqIt also showed where it was and was not. One Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 4 of 9 observation in the report was that maps tended to overestimate the amount of coverage than was on the ground due to different circumstances. They also tried to measure the speed of broadband in these locations. She wanted AT&T engineers to review the article and add technical data in the record. She was not aware of any prohibition by the FCC on using computer generated models. They were the industry With respect to the lease and colocation, the applicants would amend the lease that colocation would be allowed. There was a nine-foot separation required between antennas. AT&T voluntarily reduced the tower height from 95-feet to 85-feet. A future colocation may need to increase or decrease the height. She did not think the attorneys that spoke on the efficacy of the coverage maps established themselves as experts regarding propagation maps. She wanted to evaluate the real estate studies as well. This was additional testimony to what the appellants had stated in their appeal. Finally, she addressed the comment on wired broadband as an alternative to wireless. Federal law prohibited communities from dictating which type of technology will provide service to their residents. The carriers needed to be able to design and evaluate their own networks. Alternately, wired broadband on highways, open spaces, or rural areas was not feasible. Ms. Allen confirmed they wanted the record left open. The record would be left open for three weeks. The first week would allow any party to submit additional evidence or argument. The deadline would be Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. The second week would allow any party to submit evidence or argument in rebuttal only to the materials submitted during the first open record period. The deadline for the second week would be Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. The last week, only the applicant could submit final legal arguments and could waive this period if they chose. Questions from the Commission 18.4.10.040.C.2.a Mr. Severson explained would allow relief from colocation by demonstrating a significant service gap in the coverage area. Commissioner Thompson asked Ms. Allen if the tower would be designed for colocation by another carrier. Ms. Allen explained structurally, they would be able to accommodate more than one carrier. It was not possible to predict the height of any future colocation. Extenders would be included to raise the height up an additional ten feet. Mr. Johnson from the cells currently approaching exhaustion. The proposed site was midway between filling a gap area and all siteswere equally spaced. The propagation plots were valid and showed a coverage gap. The capacity chart did not go over the limitation line partly due to the pandemic and there were no events at the stadium. He did not know why the chart was missing data from April 2020 to January 2021. The data was showing more demand as things began to open earlier this year. The change in the slope line discussed by one of the appellants that was pushed out from 3 years to 12 years was due to lack of gatherings during that period. The applicant had sufficient data to support the need for the added capacity. The RF maps were also sufficient and valid. He addressed the staff report from the FCC that discounted the use of propagation plots to build a wireless network. This was a single site and computer- generated maps were what the network was designed upon. He provided history on drive tests, the time involved and costs. Drive tests were rarely used. There was no decision by the FCC to discount propagation maps. Chair Norton closed the public hearing at 8:44 p.m. Commissioner KenCairn asked Mr. Johnson to clarify what the fall zone for the cell tower was. Mr. Johnson explained it was a mechanical failure where the tower would fall over. Commissioner Pearce noted the public hearing was closed and the Commission could no longer ask questions. The Commission and staff discussed process. It was determined the Commission could ask the parties involved to include certain information during the first week the record was open. Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Commissioner KenCairn wanted study data on the definition properties near cell towers. Chair Norton wanted an explanation on future colocations being able to increase the cell tower height without public input. 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 of Ashland Municipal 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. length exceeding the maximum slope through an application for a variance, or in the alternative, if multiple COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: Woodland / Low Density Residential; WR / TAX LOT: RR-.5; 39 1E 08 DD; 704 Chair Norton opened the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner KenCairn declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from the meeting. She was involved in the project. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte contact but knew the site. Commissioner Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Chair Norton declared no ex parte contact. Staff Report Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided history on the item. The applicant would be resubmitting and including findings relating to a maximum allowed grade for a flag drive and request a variance to that standard. This was not a review of a development proposal. The Commission would clarify how the variance standards for driveway grades greater than fifty feet long could be applied. With the formal interpretation of the existing code, the applicants would address the standard, as interpreted by the Commission, and complete their development proposal. This interpretation by the Commission would not change the code only clarify the meaning as drafted. He proved the following presentation: Code Interpretation 18.5.3.060.F Flag Drive Maximum Grade Code Interpretation Options - Interpretation 1 Code Interpretation Options - Interpretation 2 Staff received an opinion from the City Attorney this afternoon. It concurred with the Planning Division prior application where multiple segments where the combined length is not more than 200-feet was plan and clear. Questions of Staff Commissioner Pearce as if this was a flag lot. Mr. Goldman explained any driveway over 50-feet long was held to the flag drive standards. The future application for the property was not a flag lot. It was a lot with a private drive currently in place. Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Medford, OR/ Amy Gunter introduced the team and provided a presentation: Request for Interpretation of Specific Statement within 18.5.3.060.F Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Requested Interpretation Comprehensive Plan & Ordinance Compliance Fire Chief Finding Fire Professional Opinion Conclusion Chris Hearn/Davis, Hearn, Anderson & Turner Attorneys at Law/Ashland/18.1.5.030 Read the criteria under Interpretation Criteria18.1.5.030.A18.1.5.030.B and explained how the project met and . The lot was a buildable and not a partition. It was on the comprehensive plan map and zoned for a single-family residence. When 13.5 acres was dedicated for Parks and Recreation land, the remaining parcel would be buildable. They received the opinion of the City Attorney shortly after 4:30 earlier that day. He explained why the Commission should discount the PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993) sited in the memo was overruled by ORS 174.020 in 2001 and later overruled in part by State v. Gaines. Lastly, he thought the final paragraph stated it was clear in 18.1.2.020 the intent of the ordinance was vague. Margueritte Hickman/Stage Fire Solutions/Medford, OR/ Had three points on the project. The Fire Department indicated the application met the needs of the Fire Department. The addition of home fire sprinklers, wide turning radii turnout locations on the driveway and defensible fire space made this an acceptable project. Second, adding a new residence improved wildfire protection in the neighborhood through fuels reduction, additional people and the sprinkler system that would slow down fire in the residence. The driveway would provide more access for firefighters. Third, the maximum 200 feet of 15% to 18% grade. Many homes in other areas in the city had added fire sprinkler systems to gain this allowance. When she worked for the City of Ashland, she frequently reviewed fire access for lots with steep driveways. The question on whether this should be an aggregate of 200-feet or individual sections of up to 200-feet for that 15% to 18%. Having the driveway in segments increased safety for fire access and inclement weather. She recommended approving it the way it was applied for. She could not recall if there had been prior applications with more than 200-feet of driveway but thought it may have occurred. Ms. Gunter clarified the section of code they were seeking interpretation on was not fire apparatus access specific and there were other standards within the flag lot partition criteria required to address driveways longer than fifty feet in length that were specific to fire Regarding the 10% driveway grade. The property had steep hillside constraints and two riparian zones where the driveway entered the site. To retain the grade of the existing driveway, the initial part was less than 10%. Questions of the Applicants Commissioner Pearce thought this was coming to the Commission in the abstract and not associated with an application. He asked Mr. Hearn to elaborate on the needed housing ordinance and how it applied to this interpretation. Mr. Hearn explained the needed housing statues required local ordinances to be clear and objective when it involved housing. The code did not provide a clear and objective standard because it did not specify whether the 200-feet was cumulative or if it was segmented in 200-feet or less, sections. The remedy was legislative action by the City Council on whether it should be cumulative over the entire 200-feet or segmented with parameters. If it is unclear, it should default in favor of the applicant. Mr. Goldman clarified the code interpretation was not site specific. This property was where they discovered an issue. The driveway length necessary to access the property would have multiple segments up to 200-feet in length each. Staff found other issues with the pre-application. One was the driveway grade and the variance standard. Driveway grade considered flag drives shall have no more than 200 feet that is over 15% and less than 18%. Staff concurred with Mr. Hearn that the site was developable with severe constraints in terms of slopes. It was created prior to the hillside ordinance. Development will have to be on slopes greater than 35% or greater than 25% and that was allowable. Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Pearce was concerned the interpretation would apply citywide. Mr. Goldman clarified the Commission was doing an interpretation of the code, not a modification. Future applications in similar circumstances would look to that interpretation on what constituted 200 feet. Mr. Goldman confirmed the flag drive standards predated the hillside ordinance. Commissioner Thompson noted the City had interpreted the code as the length of a driveway being a total of 200-feet. The Commission was being asked to change the way a section of the code had been interpreted for thirty years. It was concerning. implications that a staff advisor may bypass procedure and go directly to the Planning Commission and City Council for legislative review and public hearing. Commissioner Thompson was more comfortable treating it like accomplishing new legislation through interpretation. Public Testimony Joe & Katie Lynch/Ashland/ Explained they purchased the property with the intention of building a home for their family. They recognized this was a challenging lot to build on and appreciated the Planning Commissionefforts. Joan Holley/Ashland/ Wanted to know the length of the driveway. She had questions on the grade and fire access. Dida buildable lot assume a driveway is possible? She had two properties below that intersected with the drive on 329 Granite. She was also concerned about the access point turnaround for the fire truck. Was there is an easement? She had questions on location, access, driveway length, trees falling, the integrity of the land, and potential mudslides. Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Ms. Gunter did not know the exact length of driveway but thought it would be more than 600 feet in length. The grade of the sections would not be over 18%. The driveway started on the north side of the property where it connected to the existing private driveway. The driveway would not affect existing fire apparatus access or pullouts currently in place. There was no other access to the property. Mr. Hearn was surprised to see this would apply citywide and thought it was unusual. If it applied citywide, he thought there should be legislative notice. Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record at 10:00 p.m. Advice from staff Mr. Molnar explained staff thought it would be useful to separate the project from the code interpretation. Given that the examples were so lot specific, it might be best to table the interpretation. The applicant could move forward with their application on the site and have it evaluated in the context of the land use code. The other alternative would be starting a legislative process. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Dawkins commented it should be a code change and noticed citywide. Commissioner Thompson thought the language was reasonable and clear. What was being asked was a legislative interpretation. Commissioner Pearce agreed. He thought it violated the needed housing ordinance because it was ambiguous. The ordinance stated variances, not variance, causing two possible interpretations. Both interpretations met the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Verner thought the ordinance was clear as well on the 200 feet of driveway being cumulative over the length of the driveway. The Commissioner further discussed the interpretation. The code needed language specifying whether the driveway was cumulative, or 200 feet was the total length. The variances needed to be addressed as well. Language was suggested that there would be no more than 200-feet for each variance. Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Pearce/Thompson m/s the Planning Commission decided not to take action on PA-T1- 2021-00159 as an interpretation in the abstract that will affect other properties in city and that the statue was open to different interpretations and a legislative fix was more appropriate. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Mr. Goldman explained the applicant could apply before the legislative change and come back to the apply for a variance or variances. 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 s 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 & PLEASE NOTE: 1300). The review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners as well. DESIGNATION: ZONING: MAP: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain;RR-.5 & NM-MF;39 1E TAX LOT #: 04A;1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300. Commissioner KenCairn/Verner m/s tocontinue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Page 9 of 9 denovo or have the effect of prohibiting Cities cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental concerns about radio frequency emissions if the facility will operate within FCC standards. There are federal “shot clocks” based on the type of application in addition to the State of Oregon’s general “120-day rule.” preferred Design features to conceal, camouflage or mitigate. Lattice towers are prohibited as free-standing support structures anadditionalfeetoreimbursetheCityforthecostofhavingtheapplication materialsreviewedbyanindependentcontractor.Thecontractormustprovideobjectiveadvicebasedon professionalqualificationsandexperienceintelecommunication/radiofrequencyengineering,structural engineering,assessmentofelectromagneticfields,telecommunicationslaw,andotherrelatedfieldsof expertise. doescomply Existing Wireless Facilities elsewhere in the Rogue Valley installed in newly constructed cupola architecturally integrated whichwasnotspecificallycitedorprovided close Any partycan submit additional evidence or argument. Any partycan submit evidence/argument but only strictly in rebuttal to the materials submitted during the first open record period. The applicant can submit final legal arguments (no additional evidence). The applicant may waive this period if they choose. 150-day federal shot clock and Oregon’s 120-day rule coincide here and put the decision deadline at December 20, 2021. ` ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES - Draft October 26, 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 the City Council approved the first reading of the 192 North Mountain Avenue annexation at their meeting on October 19, 2021. The condition on building homes to Earth Advantage levels was changed to building homes to recognized green building standards. He and Maria Harris would provide an update on the annexation code changes to the City Council at their study session on November 1, 2021. The Planning Commission would deliberate on the AT&T appeal at their meeting on November 9, 2021. Senior Planner Derek Severson announced the nominations for Tree of the Year. Information was on the website, https://gis.ashland.or.or/Tree/ III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Code Amendments for Housing in Employment Zones Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached): Data Analysis Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones with E-1 Residential Overlay Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones with Transit Triangle Overlay Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones with Transit Triangle Overlay and Downtown Design Standards Three Locations 1: Inside the DDS overlay Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones, with Transit Triangle Overlay and Downtown Design Standards Map 1 Example Photo 2: Outside DDS and TT overlays Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones, with Transit Triangle Overlay and Downtown Design Standards Map 2 Example Photos 3: Inside the TT overlay Ashland C-1 & E-1 Zones, with Transit Triangle Overlay and Downtown Design Standards Map 3 Example Photos Other Amendments Ashland Planning Commission October 26, 2021 Page 1 of 3 1: Inside the DDS overlay buildings that 1 story or lots that are greater than 10 acres in size The code required applicants to use the standards in place for the Downtown Design Standards (DDS). If the building was in the C-1 or E-1 zones, only 35% of the ground floor could be residential. Next Steps Ms. Harris addressed written testimony from Mark Knox. He suggested allowing 100% residential on the ground floor in all three locations and use the conditional use permit process to limit housing as temporary. Commissioner Pearce commented on the floor area ratio (FAR) and that 1.5 was too low. Ms. Harris explained 1.5 FAR was used in the Transit Triangle Overlay (TTO). When parking and landscaping were factored in, 1.5 worked. They discussed allowing a 2.0 FAR for buildings with underground parking. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know if the changes would apply to areas outside the DDS overlay and if it pertained to new construction only. Ms. Harris explained for the TTO option, it must be new construction. Outside of the TTO, it would reduce the current requirement of 65% for non-residential uses on the ground floor, to 35% and was not limited to new construction. The application would have to meet building codes. They discussed obtaining the current square footage of existing commercial buildings. It would require inventorying existing building space and that was not doable. The City did not have square footage information for all existing buildings. Commissioner Thompson asked about having sufficient land for commercial and employment. Ms. Harris explained Fregonese and Associates, compared vacant land with land used over the past decade as well as job numbers. The goal was not to look at how much employment land will be needed; it was generating more housing. The 2007 EOA forecasted more employment growth than what happened. No one knew what the demand for retail and office space would evolve to. Ms. Harris pulled up the slide depicting C-1 and E-1 Zones with the TTO and DDS. Along with Mr. Molnar, they confirmed the parameters of all three areas. e areas to meet the demand for housing. The Commission could review the outcome in five years. If there was a demand for commercial, they could change the approvals and convert units back for commercial. Ms. Harris commented that once an area was changed to 100% residential, it would be difficult to convert back to commercial. They discussed being commercial ready and allowing residential to be 100% in all three areas. Commissioner Verner thought it should all be 100% commercial ready. Ms. Harris explained 100% residential was allowed in the TTO. For the other areas, the requirement would shift from 65% commercial on the ground floor, to 35%. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know the impact on allowing 65% residential to non-TTO areas. Mr. Harris explained it added 30% more for residential. Commissioner Pearce did not think it would have much of an impact. Converting a building from commercial to residential would be expensive. Ms. Harris clarified it applied only to two or more stories and would have no impact on one story buildings. Commissioner Thompson was less concerned about residential in commercial space in certain areas and used the area by the Ashland Hills Hotel as an example. Ms. Harris explained an option for that area was creating another overlay. Mr. Molnar supported the analysis provided by Fregonese and Associates. The EOA projected growth over 20 years and included employment growth using 8 acres annually and the reality was only 2 acres were used per year. The TTO area had only 6 proposed developments over the past thirty years. Commissioner Thompson had concerns regarding the parking changes for multifamily citywide. Ms. Harris confirmed it would change multifamily parking requirements. Chair Norton thought allowing 100% residential might create successful little retail nodes. He did not support a five- year check in and suggested letting the private sector and market control that and not use CUPs. Ashland Planning Commission October 26, 2021 Page 2 of 3 The Commission discussed allowing 100% residential in new construction and including it in the E-1 zone and requiring construction to be commercial ready. Commissioner Thompson was not comfortable changing the parking standard for city in any zone for multifamily development. Ms. Harris explained it was the standard used for cottage housing and the TTO. One of the strategies in the Housing Capacity Analysis was decreasing multifamily parking requirements. Chair Norton thought they should use the standards, monitor the outcome and adjust if necessary. Ms. Harris suggested bringing back two code options. The one presented tonight and another using the TTO approach everywhere in town except the downtown area. There was consensus for allowing 100% residential in the E-1 and C-1 zones. Ms. Harris would leave out the DDS overlay. Everything else in C-1 and E-1 zones would have the residential overlay. It would allow 100% ground floor residential on first floor with a certain percentage for commercial ready space. Commissioner Dawkins did not agree. He thought it should be 100% in the C-1 and E-1 zones but left to the developer to determine what would be appropriate. Commissioner Pearce thought commercial ready criteria was important for this change. Staff would bring two ordinance options for the Planning Commission Study Session on November 23, 2021. Chair Norton did not support changing the FAR without significant studies. Mr. Harris would provide analysis on what efforts would support increasing the FAR. Staff would also research underground parking. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission October 26, 2021 Page 3 of 3 DataAnalysis ThreeLocations 1:InsidetheDDSoverlay 2:OutsideDDSandTToverlays 3:InsidetheTToverlay OtherAmendments NextSteps TYPE II CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL _________________________________ PA-T1-2021-00158 351 Walker Street COMMENTS RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 19, 2021 _________________________________ 351 WALKER APPEAL COMMENTS RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 26, 2021 _________________________________ 351 WALKER APPEAL APPLICANTS REBUTTAL RECEIVED NOVEMBER 2, 2021 _________________________________ 351 WALKER APPEAL OCTOBER 12, 2021 PACKET MATERIALS TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL _________________________________ PA-T1-2021-00158 351 Walker 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 _________________________________ PA-L-2021-00012 Annexation Code Amendments ASHLANDPLANNINGDIVISION STAFFREPORT November9,2021 PLANNINGACTION: PA-L-2021-00012 APPLICANT: CityofAshland ORDINANCEREFERENCES: AMC18.4.6 PublicFacilities AMC18.5.8 Annexations AMC18.6.1 Definitions REQUEST: TheproposalincludesaseriesofamendmentstotheAshlandMunicipalCode (AMC)Title18LandUsetotheannexationstandardsinChapter18.5.8Annexations.Thedraft codeamendmentsareattachedandthepastmeetingandreferencematerialsareavailableonthe projectwebpageatwww.ashland.or.us/annexationcodeupdate. I.OrdinanceAmendments A.SummaryofProposedCodeAmendments The proposal includes a series of amendments to AMCTitle 18 Land Use to the annexation standardsin Chapter 18.5.8 Annexations. The amendments are intended to: 1) addressthe issues raised before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)in the appeal of the city's annexation approval that included two parcels totaling 16.87 acres located at 1511 Highway 99N (Applicant: Kendrick Enterprise LLC and Casita Developments);2) provide clear standards for the evaluation of needed housing;and 3) to provide clarity andresponsiveness in Ashland’s development process. Thedraftamendmentstotheannexationstandardsareattached.Thedraftamendmentsto Chapter18.5.Annexationsarefocusedinthreeareas–providingaprocessforthe approvalauthoritytoconsiderrequestsforrelieffromtheannexationstandards(e.g., exceptionsandvariances),creatingconsistencyinterminology(e.g.,site,parcel,lot),and providingclear,measurablestandardsforconnectionstoandimprovementsofpublic utilitiesandthetransportationsystem.Theamendmentsaresummarizedbelow. Process for exceptions and variances to annexation standards 18.4.6.020.A –clarifies that public facility requirements including street o standards apply to annexations. 18.4.6.020.B.1 –makes the approval criteria for the Exception to the Street o Standards the same as for the Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards by providing flexibility for the approval authority to approve an alternate design that meets the purpose and intent of the street design standards. PlanningActionPA-L-2021-00010AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage1of6 18.5.8.050–permits the approval authority to grant exceptions and variances o to the annexation standards. 18.5.8.050.I –clarifies that the approval criteria in the Exception to Street o Standards or Variance sections can be used by the approval authority to grant exceptions and variances to the annexation standards. Consistency in Terminology A variety of terms –property, site, etc. –are replaced throughout the o annexation chapter with “annexed area.” A new definition of annexed area is added. New definitions added for the terms contiguous, parcel and tract. o The definitionsof lot and parcel arerevisedto make it clear that the terms are o used throughout the land use code interchangeably. This is the approach and language is used in the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development’s model code. Measureable Standards for Transportation Improvements 18.5.8.030.A–clarifies that the City Council may require public facility o improvements in addition to those required in the annexation standards, as well as grant exceptions and variances to the standards. 18.5.8.050.E–annexation standards for improvements to the transportation o system are reworded to make requirements clear, per the 2021 Housing Capacity Analysis recommendations. The standards are reworded to require specific improvements bordering and within the annexed area, as well as connecting an annexed area to likely bicycle or pedestrian destinations within ¼ mile of the annexed area. Other amendments Concurrent planning application –language added in 18.5.8.020.Fand o 18.5.8.030requiring concurrent filing of a planning application for the development of the annexed areaexcept for City-initiated annexations. 18.5.8.060–clarifies that additional areas can be included in the annexation o by the Staff Advisory to make the boundary more logical, to efficiently extend or public facilitiesto avoid creating islands that are surrounded by the City. B.RecentlyRevisedItems There are several items that were revised in thedraft ordinance since the Planning Commissionsprevious study session on August24, 2021.These items are covered below with page references totheattached draftordinanceand are also noted with comments in thedraft ordinance. Safe and AccessibleBicycleand Pedestrian Facilities(pages 6 and 7) The existing annexation standards include a requirement that safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities existor will be provided with theannexationin 18.5.8.050.E.See highlighted sections below. 2.Forbicycletransportationsafeandaccessiblebicyclefacilitiesexist,orcan andwillbeconstructed.Shouldtheannexationbeadjacenttoanarterial street,bikelanesshallbeprovidedonoradjacenttothearterialstreet.Likely PlanningActionPA-L-2021-00010AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage2of6 bicycledestinationsfromtheprojectsiteshallbedeterminedandsafeand accessiblebicyclefacilitiesservingthosedestinationsshallbeindicated. 3.Forpedestriantransportationsafeandaccessiblepedestrianfacilitiesexist, orcanandwillbeconstructed.Fullsidewalkimprovementsshallbeprovided ononesideadjacenttotheannexationforallstreetsadjacenttothe proposedannexedarea.Sidewalksshallbeprovidedasrequiredby ordinanceonallstreetswithintheannexedarea.Wheretheprojectsiteis withinaquarterofamileofanexistingsidewalksystem,thesidewalksfrom theprojectsiteshallbeconstructedtoextendandconnecttotheexisting system.Likelypedestriandestinationsfromtheprojectsiteshallbe determinedandthesafeandaccessiblepedestrianfacilitiesservingthose destinationsshallbeindicated. Theinitialdraftcodeamendmentsincludeddeletingthelanguageconcerningsafeand accessiblebicycleandpedestrianfacilitiesbecauseofthelackofacleardefinitionof orspecificstandardsfor“safeandaccessible.”Instead,thestandardwaseditedto requirespecifictransportationsystemimprovementswithintheproposed development,borderingthedevelopmentandpotentiallywithin¼ofamileofthe development. AconcernwasraisedattheAugust24,2021PlanningCommissionstudysession regardingdeletingthesafeandaccessiblerequirements.Inaddition,staffpresented thedraftcodeamendmentstotheTransportationCommissiononOctober21,2021. TheTransportationCommissiondiscussedtheimportanceofretainingthe“safeand accessible”languageintheannexationstandardspertainingtobicycleandpedestrian improvements.TheCommissionmadethefollowingmotionatthemeeting.The minutesfromtheTransportationCommissionmeetingwerenotavailableatthetime writing. “GrafmadeamotionthatarecommendationbemadetothePlanningCommission andCityCouncilthatlanguagesays‘safeandaccessibletotransportation engineering standards’.Dannerseconded.Brouillardrequestedtoalso includePeterson-Adams’previousstatement.Dannerseconded.Allayes exceptClaypool-Barneswhobrieflyleftthemeeting.” ThepreviousstatementthattheaboveisreferringtomadebyLindaPeterson- Adams,ChairoftheTransportationCommission,isasfollows: “Peterson-AdamsthenstatedthatthemissionoftheTransportationCommissionisfor peopletobeabletomovethroughthecitybymodeoftheirchoice,andthecommission mustconsidersafety.ShewentontostatethattheTransportationNetworkPlanning SystemthattheTransportationCommissionusesisthesameonethatthestateuses,and theyresolvetobuildatransportationsystemthatincreasessafety,thereforerequirements forannexationleadingtodevelopmentshouldincludesafetyaswell.Peterson-Adamsalso notedthat‘accessibility’isnotspecificallytalkingaboutADArequirementsbutismore general.” Subsequently,staffconsultedwithatrafficengineerKimberlyParducci,PE,PTOEof SouthernOregonTransportationEngineering,LLCandtheCityofAshlandPublic PlanningActionPA-L-2021-00010AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage3of6 WorksDepartmentaboutadaptingthelanguagetoprovideaclearerexpectationfrom atrafficengineeringperspective.ThefollowinglanguagewasdraftedbasedonMs. Parducci’sinput.TheAshlandPublicWorksDepartmentindicatedtheyarein agreementwiththeproposedlanguage. reasonably Forbicycletransportationsafeandaccessiblebicyclefacilities accordingtothesafetyanalysisandstandardsofthegoverning jurisdictionofthefacilityorstreet(e.g.,CityofAshland,JacksonCounty, OregonDepartmentofTransportation) exist,orcanandwillbeconstructed. reasonably Forpedestriantransportationsafeandaccessiblepedestrian accordingtothesafetyanalysisandstandardsofthegoverning facilities jurisdictionforthefacilityorstreet(e.g.,CityofAshland,JacksonCounty, OregonDepartmentofTransportation). exist,orcanandwillbeconstructed. Theabove languageis included in theattached draft ordinance. The Planning Commissionhas several options formaking a recommendation to theCity Council regarding thesafe and accessible standard including retaining the current standard, deleting thelanguage entirely, using the most recently drafted languageor an entirely different edit to thestandard. Required number of affordable units (page 10) StaffupdatedtheCityCouncilontheprojectattheirNovember1,2021study session.TheCouncilindicatedthattheywouldliketoseeanamendmenttoAMC 18.5.8.050.G.7requiringthenumberofaffordableunitsrequiredofanannexationto beroundedupratherthanroundeddown.Themeetingminuteswerenotavailableat thetimeofwriting. Definition of adjacent(page 11) The initial draft code amendments included adefinitionof adjacent. However, the definitionisremoved from theattached draft ordinance.Upon further review, staff determined theterm adjacent is used throughout the code and in most chapters.As a result, making thechange is fairlytime intensive because the term needs further time and research before it can be definedconsistently throughout thecode and in a way that doesn’texpand or restrictcurrent standards. Definitions of lot and parcel(page 12) Additional languageis added to thedefinitionof parcel to clarify the term parcel is interchangeablewith lot in the land use code. After further research, staff determined thattheterm parcel is used throughout the land use code and in almost all chapters. In all but one case, it is used in the general sense to mean bothlot or parcel.As a result, making thechangein the definitionisamore efficient than changing each individual instance in thecode. C.Discussion The goal of the project is to address inconsistent and ambiguous language in Chapter 18.5.8 Annexations. While the issues raised on appeal before LUBA warrant a review of the annexation standards, there are two additional reasons for evaluating and amending PlanningActionPA-L-2021-00010AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage4of6 the standards –1) to provide clear standards for the evaluation of needed housing and 2) to provide clarity and responsiveness in Ashland’s development process. The2021-2041HousingCapacityAnalysis(HCA)foundthatannexationoflandfrom theurbanizingarea(UGB)intothecitylimitsisnecessarytoaccommodateAshland’s populationgrowthoverthenext20years.TheHCArecommendedthecityidentify opportunitiestocreategreatercertaintyandclarityintheannexationprocesstoensure Ashlandhasanadequatesupplyoflandavailableandservicedtoaccommodatefuture growth.The2019AshlandHousingStrategyImplementationPlanfoundthatalackof clarityinannexationpoliciescanimpedethedevelopmentofneededhousing: Existing\[annexation\]policieswereintendedtohelpensureorderlygrowth; however,thisistheroleoftheCity’sUrbanGrowthBoundary(UGB). CreatingobstaclestoannexinglandwithintheUGBforhousingcontributes tohigherlandcostsandmakesitdifficulttofindlandforlargerhousing developments. AlargepartoftheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentsworkoverthepast15years hasbeenfocusedonmakingthedevelopmentprocessclearerandmorepredictable,and improvingcustomerservice.Forexample,apreviousCityCouncilgoalwasto“Increase theclarity,responsivenessandcertaintyofthedevelopmentprocess.Developaspecific actionplantorespondtotherecommendationofthe2006ZuckerandSiegelreports.” CreatingaUnifiedLandUseCodewasarecommendationoftheSiegelreport(i.e.,Land UseOrdinanceReviewbySiegelPlanningServices,LLC,2006)andthisprojectwas completedin2015. In2017,theCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentheldaDeveloperForuminwhich30 professionalsfromthedevelopmentfieldswereinvitedtoafacilitateddiscussionof potentialcustomerserviceimprovements.Subsequently,aseriesofchangesweremade inthereviewprocessforplanningandbuildingpermitsincludingtheimplementationofa newpermittingsoftwareprogram,trainingotherCitydepartmentsincommentingonpre- applicationsandpermitapplicationsinthenewsoftware,andthecreationofthe DevelopmentServicesCoordinatorposition.Theissueofremovingbarriersinthe developmentprocessforhousingprojectswasraisedintheCityCouncildiscussionon August3,2021. D.ProjectBackground OnMay12,2021,LUBAprovidedtheirFinalOpinionandOrderandreversedthecity's annexationapprovalthatincludedtwoparcelstotaling16.87acresat1511Highway99N (Applicant:KendrickEnterpriseLLCandCasitaDevelopments).Inreversingthecity's approval,LUBAdeterminedthatthecity'sannexationapprovalcriteriadonotallowfor exceptionsbecauseAMC18.5.8.050requireseitherfullconformanceatthetimeofthe decisionorfuturefullconformancethroughtheimpositionofconditions.Underthe AMC,exceptionstothestreetstandardsapplytoproposalsfornewdevelopmentorland divisions,neitherofwhichwereproposedaspartoftheannexation.Asummaryofthe appellant’spointsraisedbeforeLUBAisincludedinthestaffmemoincludedinthe August3,2021CityCouncilmeetingmaterials. PlanningActionPA-L-2021-00010AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage5of6 TheCityCouncilinitiatedamendmentstoChapter18.5.8AnnexationsattheAugust3, 2021meeting.TheCouncildirectedstaffandthePlanningCommissiontoevaluateand draftcodeamendmentstoaddressissuesraisedonappealbeforetheOregonLandUse BoardofAppeals(LUBA)withthegoalofaddressinginconsistentandambiguous languageintheannexationchapter. ThePlanningCommissiondiscussedtheLUBAappealandproposedcodeamendments atthreeelectronicpublicmeetingsincludingMay25,2021,August24,2021,and September28,2021. StaffpresentedthedraftcodeamendmentstotheTransportationCommissiononOctober 21,2021.TheTransportationCommissiondiscussedtheimportanceofretainingthe“safe andaccessible”languageintheannexationstandardspertainingtopedestrianandbicycle improvements.Themeetingminuteswerenotavailableatthetimeofwriting. StaffupdatedtheCityCouncilontheprojectattheirNovember1,2021studysession. TheCouncilindicatedthattheywouldliketoseeanamendmentrequiringthenumberof affordableunitsrequiredofanannexationtoberoundedupratherthanroundeddown. Themeetingminuteswerenotavailableatthetimeofwriting. II.Procedural 18.5.9.020ApplicabilityandReviewProcedure ApplicationsforPlanAmendmentsandZoneChangesareasfollows: B.TypeIII. Itmaybenecessaryfromtimetotimetomakelegislativeamendmentsinorderto conformwiththeComprehensivePlanortomeetotherchangesincircumstancesor conditions.TheTypeIIIprocedureappliestothecreation,revision,orlarge-scale implementationofpublicpolicyrequiringCityCouncilapprovalandenactmentofan ordinance;thisincludesadoptionofregulations,zonechangesforlargeareas,zone changesrequiringcomprehensiveplanamendment,comprehensiveplanmaportext amendment,annexations(seechapter18.5.8forannexationinformation),andurbangrowth boundaryamendments.ThefollowingplanningactionsshallbesubjecttotheTypeIII procedure. 1.ZonechangesoramendmentstotheZoningMaporotherofficialmaps,exceptwhere minoramendmentsorcorrectionsmaybeprocessedthroughtheTypeIIprocedure pursuanttosubsection18.5.9.020.A,above. 2.ComprehensivePlanchanges,includingtextandmapchangesorchangestoother officialmaps. 3.LandUseOrdinanceamendments. 4.UrbanGrowthBoundaryamendments. III.ConclusionsandRecommendations StaffrecommendsthePlanningCommissionrecommendapprovaloftheproposedamendments totheCityCouncil.Theproposedamendmentsarescheduledforapublichearingandfirst readingattheCityCouncilonDecember7andforsecondreadingonDecember21. PlanningActionPA-L-2021-00010AshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage6of6 1ORDINANCE NO.3204 2 3AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.4.6, 18.5.8 AND 18.6.1OF THE 4ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE REGARDING ANNEXATIONS. 5 6 deletionsadditions Annotated to show and to the code sections being modified. Deletions 7 boldlined throughbold underline are and additions are in . 8 9 WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: 10 Powers of the CityThe City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and 11 common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow 12 municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those 13 powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, 14 shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall 15 have perpetual succession.; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power hasbeen interpreted as affording all legislative 18 powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. 19 International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 20 734 (1975).; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is required to perform a housing capacity analysis every eight 23 years as required by ORS 197.296 and OAR 660-0008-0045. House Bill 2003 passed in the 2019 24 Oregon legislative session and amended the previously mentioned state laws and rules to require 25 cities in Oregon to perform the housing capacity analysis and housing production strategy.; and 26 27 WHEREAS ,there is a need toprovide clear standards for the evaluation of housing that is 28 proposed as a part of an annexation to the City ofAshland. The 2021-2041 Housing Capacity 29 Analysis(HCA)was adopted as a technical study supporting the Ashland ComprehensivePlan 30 by the Ashland City Council on August 17, 2021 and found that annexation of land from the 114 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of 1urbanizing area (UGB) into the citylimits isnecessaryto accommodate Ashland’s population 2growth over the next 20 years. The HCA recommended the City identify opportunities to create 3greater certainty and clarity in the annexation processto ensure Ashland has an adequate supply 4of land available and serviced to accommodate future growth.; and 5 WHEREAS 6,the2019 Ashland Housing Strategy Implementation Plan also found that a lack of 7clarity in annexation policies can impede thedevelopment of needed housing; and 8 WHEREAS 9,the annexation approval criteria put forth in chapter 18.5.8.050of the Ashland 10Municipal Code do not allow the city to approve exceptionsand variancesto the annexation 11approval criteria.; and 12 WHEREAS 13, thestandards and approval criteria for development within the City Limitsallow 14the City Planning Commission or City Council toconsider approval of variances under chapter 1518.5.5 Variances, and exceptions under Section 18.4.6.020.B.1.; and 16 WHEREAS 17, amendments to the annexation criteria in 18.5.8.050are neededto allow for 18consideration of exceptions and variancesto accommodate unique or unusual conditions and 19provide for anequitable review process that is consistent with the planning application process 20that isapplied to developments within the City Limits.; and 21 WHEREAS 22, the City of Ashland Planning Commission conducted on November 9, 2021 a duly 23advertised public hearing on amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance concerning the 24standards relating to annexations, and following deliberations recommended approval of the 25amendments.;and 26 WHEREAS 27, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing 28on the above-referenced amendments December 7, 2021.; and 29 30 214 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of WHEREAS 1, the City Council of the Cityof Ashland, following the close of the public hearing 2and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the 3Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter.; and 4 WHEREAS 5, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and 6benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to 7amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate 8factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive 9plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. 10 11THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 12 SECTION 1. 13The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this 14reference. 15 SECTION2. Section18.4.6.020\[Applicability–PublicFacilities\]oftheAshlandLandUse 16 Ordinanceisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: 17 18.4.6.020Applicability 18 A.Applicability.Chapter 18.4.6 applies to all new development, including projects subject 19 to Land Division (Subdivision or Partition) approval and developments subject to Site 20 Design Review,and planningactions requiring a Type I, Type II, or Type III review procedurewhere public facility improvements are required. All public facility improvements 21 within the City shall occur in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter. 22 B.Exceptions and VariancesRequests todepart from the requirements of this chapter are . 23 subject to chapter 18.5.5 Variances, except that deviations from section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards are subject to 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards, 24 below. 25 1.Exception to the Street Design Standards.The approval authority may approve exceptions 26 to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standardsin section 18.4.6.040if all of the following circumstancesthe circumstances in either subsection a or b below, 27 are found to exist. 28 a.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter 29 due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.; andthe exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the 30 exceptionis consistent with the Purpose, Intent,and Backgroundof the Street 314 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of Design Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A; and the exception will result in 1 equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the 2 following factors where applicable. 3 bThe exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. 4 i.For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride 5 experience. 6 ii.For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of 7 bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. 8 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.; 9 or 10 c.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 11 d.The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street 12 Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 13 b.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 14 stated Purposes,Intent,and Backgroundof the StreetDesignStandards in 15 subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 16 SECTION 3. The Annexations Chapter of Ashland Land Use Ordinanceishereby amended as 17 follows: 18 18.5.8.010Purpose 19 This chapter containsThe purpose of this chapter is to establishprocedures and approval 20 criteria for the Annexationannexationof land to provide for the orderly expansion of the City 21 andadequate provision of public facilities and services, consistent with the provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) including ORS Chapter 222or successor state 22 statute. Commented \[MH1\]: Added for consistency with new 23 language in 18.5.8.040. 24 18.5.8.020Applicability and Application Submission Requirements 25 Except for annexations initiated pursuant to section 18.5.8.040, application for annexation shall 26 include the following information. A.Consent to annexation, which is non-revocable for a period of one year from its date. 27 B.Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of special 28 districts defined in ORS222.510. 29 C.Boundary description and map preparedin accordance with ORS 308.225. Such description 30 and map shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as required by statute subsequent to City Council approval of the 414 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of proposed annexation. 1 D.Written findings addressing the criteria and standards in section 18.5.8.04018.5.8.050. 2 E.Written request by the property owner for a zone change. Provided, however, no written 3 request shall be necessary if the annexation has been approved by a majority vote in an 4 election meeting the requirements of Section 11g of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 47). 5 F.For annexation applications not initiatedby the City, aconcurrent filing of a planning 6 application(e.g., Site Design Review, Subdivision, or Land Division) for the 7 development of the annexed area. 8 9 18.5.8.030Applicability and Review Procedure 10 All annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure. Except for City-initiated annexations,annexationapplicationsrequire an accompanyingplanning application for 11 the development of the entirety of the annexed area in accordance with applicable 12 procedure and approval criteria in chapter 18.5.1. GeneralReview Proceduresconcurrent with the annexation application. 13 A.Legislative Authority. Annexations are a legislative decision and the City Council 14 makes the final decision on annexations in accordance with subsection 15 18.5.1.010.B.4. The City Council may require improvements to public facilities, such as utilities and streets, asa condition to annexation approval,in addition to the 16 requirements of section 18.5.8.050, and grant exceptions and variances to the criteria 17 and standards in accordance with subsection 18.5.8.050.I. 18 19 18.5.8.040Initiation by City Council or Planning Commission 20 The City Council or Planning Commission on its own motion may initiate a proposal for annexation. The applicable approval criteria and standards in section 18.5.8.050shall applyto 21 City-initiated annexation applications.Provided, however, that in the case of annexation 22 pursuant to section 18.5.8.050.H.3 (current or probable public health hazard due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services) or section 18.5.8.030.H.6 (the lot or lots 23 proposed for annexation are an islandcompletely surrounded by lands within the city 24 limits), the approval standards in subsections 18.5.7.050.E, F and G shall not apply. Annexations initiated to address dangers to public health shall follow the process and be 25 subject to the criteria in ORS Chapter 222 or successor state statute. 26 27 18.5.8.050Approval Criteria and Standards 28 An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can 29 be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of the following approval criteria.An application for an annexation maybeapproved if the proposal 30 meets the applicable criteria in subsections A through H below. The approval authority 514 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval consistent with the 1 applicable criteria and standards, and grant exceptions and variances to the criteria and 2 standards in this section in accordance with subsection 18.5.8.050.I. 3 A.The landannexed areais within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 4 B.The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently 5 with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning.The annexation 6 proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan plan designations applicable to the annexed area, including any applicable adopted neighborhood, master, or area 7 plan, and is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. 8 C.The landannexed areais currentlycontiguous with the present city limits. 9 D.Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the siteannexed areaas determined by 10 the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the siteannexed areato the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of 11 electricity to the siteannexed areaas determined by the Electric Department; urban storm 12 drainage as determined by the Public Works Department canand will be provided to and throughfromthe subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a 13 shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists 14 system-wide for these facilities.All required public facilityimprovements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. 15 E.Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and throughto servethe subject 16 propertyannexed area. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for 17 annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian,and transit transportation meeting the following standards. 18 1.Forvehicular transportation a minimum2022-foot wide paved access exists, or can and 19 will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project siteproviding access to the 20 annexed areatofromthe nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent tobordering onthe annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to an 21 applicable City half-street standard with a minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. 22 The City approval authoritymay, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent toborderingonthe annexed area. All 23 streets located within annexed areas shall befully improved to City standardsunless 24 exception criteria apply. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and 25 improvement of these streets and includedwith the application for annexation. 26 2.For bicycle transportation reasonablysafe and accessible bicycle facilities according 27 to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction ofthe facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of 28 Commented \[MH2\]: In the previous draft reviewed at the Transportation) exist, or can and will be constructed.Should the annexation be 9/28/2021 PlanningCommissionstudy session, this sentence 29 was deleted. Based on Planning Commissioncomments and adjacent toannexed area borderanarterialstreet, bike lanes shall be provided on or the 10/21/2021 TransportationCommission adjacent to the arterial streetconstructed along the arterialstreet frontage of the 30 recommendation, staff worked with a traffic engineerand annexed area. Likely bicycle destinations within a quarter of a mile from the project Public Works Department to develop this alternative language. 614 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of siteannexed areashall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities 1 serving those destinations shall be indicatedthe approval authority may require 2 the construction of bicycle lanes or multi-use pathsconnecting the annexed area tothe likely bicycle destinations after assessing the impact of the development 3 proposed concurrently with the annexation. 4 3.For pedestrian transportation reasonably safe and accessible pedestrian facilities 5 according to the safety analysis and standards of the governing jurisdiction ofthe facility or street (e.g., City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon Department of 6 Transportation).exist, or can and will be constructed.Full sidewalk improvements shall Commented \[MH3\]: In the previous draft reviewed at the 7 be provided on one side adjacent to the annexationforofall streets adjacent 9/28/2021 PlanningCommissionstudy session, this sentence was deleted. Based on Planning Commissioncomments and tobordering onthe proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by 8 the 10/21/2021 TransportationCommission ordinanceon all streets within the annexed area. Where the project siteannexed area recommendation, staff worked with a traffic engineerand 9 is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk systemor a locationwith Public Works Department to develop this alternative language. demonstrated significantpedestrianactivity,the approval authoritymay require 10 sidewalks, walkways or multi-use paths, the sidewalks from the project site 11 shalltobe constructed to extend and connect to either or both the existing systemand 12 locationswith significant pedestrian activity.Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian 13 facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 14 4.For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the siteannexed area, or be likely to be extended to the siteannexed areain the future based on information from 15 the local public transit provider, provisions shall be madefor the approval authority 16 may requireconstruction ofadequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus 17 turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures 18 on the annexed property. 19 5.Timing of Transportation Improvements. All required transportation improvements 20 shall be constructed and installed in accordance with 18.4.6.030.A. F.For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development 21 of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90percentof the base 22 density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units isarenecessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical 23 constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded 24 with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will 25 occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan.For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of theannexed area containing 26 undevelopableunbuildable lots, parcels, or portions of the annexedarea such as 27 existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilitiesand property, wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, slopes greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated 28 as a public park,shall not be included. 29 G.Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, 30 employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the 714 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of following requirements. 1 1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, 2 shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit 3 equivalency values set forth herein. The base density of the propertyannexed areafor the purposesof this calculationcalculating the total number of affordable units in this 4 section shall exclude any undevelopableunbuildablelots, parcels, or portions of the 5 propertyannexed areasuch as existing streets and associated rights-of-way, railroad facilities and property,wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, water resource areas, slopes 6 greater than 35 percent, or land area dedicated as a public park. 7 a.Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below120percentthe area 8 median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. 9 b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100percentthe area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. 10 c. Ownership or rental unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80percentthe 11 area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. 12 2.As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above,the 13 applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 14 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 15 456.055 to 456.235. 16 a.The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in sections 18.5.8.050.G.5 and, subsections 5 –6and 18.5.8.050.G.6. 17 b.All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for 18 transfer. 19 c.Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, 20 an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a non– profit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 21 456.235. 22 d.The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland’s 23 affordable housing program requirements. 24 e.Transfer of title of buildable land in accordance with this subsection shall exempt the project from the development schedule requirements set forth in 18.5.8.050.G.4. 25 3.The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix with the market rate units in 26 the development. 27 a.The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per 28 dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This 29 provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as 30 compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor area based as set forth in Table 814 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of 18.5.8.050.G.3, or as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 1 Development (HUD) for dwelling units developed under the HOME program. 2 3 Table 18.5.8.050.G.3–Minimum Required Floor Area for Affordable Units 4 Unit TypeMinimum Required Unit Floor Area 5 (Square Feet) 6 Studio350 1 Bedroom500 7 2 Bedroom800 8 3 Bedroom1,000 9 4 Bedroom1,250 10 11 4.A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable 12 housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. 13 a.That 50percentof the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior 14 to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50percentof the 15 market rate units. b.Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percentof the market rate units, 16 the final 50percentof the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of 17 occupancy. 18 5.That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. 19 a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall 20 be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External 21 building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units 22 b.Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard tofloor area,interior 23 finishes and materials, and housing typeprovided that the affordable housing units 24 are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, 25 insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 26 6.Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 –G.5, above, may be 27 approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. 28 a.That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development 29 meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. 30 b.That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 914 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing 1 units will be provided in a timely fashion. 2 c.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the 3 development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.618.5.8.050.G.5, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal 4 Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. 5 7.The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be 6 determined by rounding downupfractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed Commented \[MH4\]: The City Council indicatedthey restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with wanted this language changed at the 11/1/2021 study session. 7 affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years for units qualified as affordable 8 rental housing, or 30 years for units qualified as affordable for-purchase housing. 9 H.One or more of thefollowing standards are met. 10 1.The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain planning action approval 11 for an outright permitted use, special permitted use, or conditional use in 12 conformance with the annexation request.The annexation proposal shall meet the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.080.B, above. 13 2.The proposed lot or lots will be zoned M-1, CM, E-1, or C-1 under the 14 Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Design Review 15 approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request. 16 32.A current or probable danger to public health hazardexistswithin the proposed area 17 for annexationdue to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water servicesin accordance 18 with the criteriain ORSChapter 222or successor state statute. Commented \[MH5\]: For consistencywith new language in 18.5.8.040. 19 43.Existing development in the proposed area for annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 20 54.The area proposed area for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service 21 extended, connected, and in use, and asigned consent to annexation agreement has 22 been filed andaccepted by the City. 23 65.The lot or lots proposed area for annexation areisanisland completelysurrounded by lands within the city limits. 24 I.Exceptions and Variances to the Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards. The 25 approval authority may approve exceptions to and variances from the approval 26 criteria and standards in this sectionusing the criteriainsection 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exceptions to the Street Design Standards or chapter 18.5.5. Variances. 27 28 18.5.8.060Boundaries 29 When an annexation is initiatedbya private individualan applicant other than the City, the 30 Staff Advisor may include other parcels of propertylandin the proposed annexation in order 1014 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of to make a boundary extension more logical, to address the effective extension of public 1 facilities,andorto avoid parcelsan areaof land which areisnot incorporated but areis 2 partially or wholly surrounded by the City. The Staff Advisor, in a report to the Planning Commission and City Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcelslandother than the 3 parcellandfor which the petitionannexationis filed.The purpose of this section is to permit 4 the Commission and Council to make annexations extending the City's boundaries more 5 logical and orderly. 6 18.5.8.070Statutory Procedures 7 The applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS chapter 222 the 8 applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely. 9 10 SECTION4. Section18.6.1.030\[Definitions-Definitions\]oftheAshlandLandUseOrdinance 11 isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: 12 13 18.6.1.030Definitions 14 The following definitions are organized alphabetically. Commented \[MH6\]: The draft definition of “adjacent” was included in the draft reviewedatthe 9/28/2021 Planning 15 Commissionstudysession but is removed here. Upon further review, staff determined the term needs further time and Annexed Area. A property or group of adjacentproperties, including public right-of-way, 16 research before it can be defined. The term adjacent is used to be annexed. throughout the code and in most chapters. 17 18 Contiguous. That alot, parcel, site, or annexed area has a common boundary, including a 19 boundary that only touches a common point.For purposes of annexation, “contiguous” also means a property or group of adjacentproperties, including public 20 right-of-way to be annexed, that touch the city limits at any point along any exterior 21 boundary of the territory to be annexed or that is separated from the city limits only by a public right-of-wayor a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. 22 23 Lot.Aunit of land created by a subdivisionAlegally created piece of land other than a 24 tract that is the result of land divisionor a unit or contiguous units of land under single 25 ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the time such lots were created. Any contiguous ownership of non-conforming lots will be considered one tract of land. 26 The term “lot”is used in this ordinance to apply to the state definition of both lot, the 27 result of subdividing, and parcel, the result of partitioning,unless otherwise noted. Commented \[MH7\]: Added so that individual sections of the code can use lot according to the state definitionif it is 28 - Corner Lot. A lot abutting the intersection of two or more streets other than an alley. specified in that section. See Figure below. 29 30 1114 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 3 Corner Lots 11 Flag Lot. A lot with two distinct parts. See Figure below. - 12 1.The flag, which is the building site; and is located behind another lot. 13 2.Thepole, which connects the flag to the street; provides the only street frontage for the lot with less than 40 feet of frontage on a street; and unless an alley provides 14 access, includes a driveway providing access. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Figure 4 Flag Lot 24 -Interior Lot.Alot other than a corner or flag lot. 25 -Through Lot.An interior lot having frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel 26 streets other than alleys. Such a lot has one front yard fronting on the primary public 27 street. 28 Parcel.A legally defined are of land created through a partition.The term “parcel” is 29 Commented \[MH8\]: The term parcel is used throughout used in this ordinance to apply to the state definition of both lot, the result of the land use code and in almost all chapters. In all but one 30 case, it is used in the general sense to mean bothlot or subdividing, and parcel, the result of partitioning, unless otherwise noted. parcel. The one outstanding case is addressed in the definition of “partition” below. 1214 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of Partition.To divide an area or tract of land into not more than three parcels within 12 months. 1 For the purpose of this definition, parcel meansa legally defined are of land created 2 through a partition. 3 -Major Land Partition. A partition which necessitates the creation of a road or street. 4 -Minor Land Partition. A partition that does not necessitate the creation of a road or street. 5 Tract.A piece of land within a platted subdivision reserved for open space, utility 6 corridor, recreation facilities, sensitive lands, or other purpose; may be dedicatedto 7 anowner’s association or other entity for maintenance. 8 9 SECTION5.Codification. Inpreparingthisordinanceforpublicationanddistribution,theCity 10 Recordershallnotalterthesense,meaning,effect,orsubstanceoftheordinance,butwithinsuch 11 limitations,may: 12 (a) Renumbersectionsandpartsofsectionsoftheordinance; 13 (b) Rearrangesections; 14 (c) Changereferencenumberstoagreewithrenumberedchapters,sectionsorotherparts; 15 (d) Deletereferencestorepealedsections; 16 (e) Substitutethepropersubsection,section,orchapternumbers; 17 (f) Changecapitalizationandspellingforthepurposeofuniformity; 18 (g) Addheadingsforpurposesofgroupinglikesectionstogetherforeaseofreference;and 19 (h) Correctmanifestclerical,grammatical,ortypographicalerrors. 20 21 SECTION6.Severability. Eachsectionofthisordinance,andanypartthereof,isseverable, 22 andifanypartofthisordinanceisheldinvalidbyacourtofcompetentjurisdiction,the 23 remainderofthisordinanceshallremaininfullforceandeffect. 24 25 The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, 26 Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ___th day of _________, 2021, 27 th and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ___day of _________, 2021, 28 29 _______________________________ 30 Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder 1314 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of 1 2 3SIGNED and APPROVED this ___ day of _________, 2021. 4 5 6 7________________________ 8Julie Akins, Mayor 9 10 11Reviewed as to form: 12 13_______________________________ 14Katrina Brown, City Attorney 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1414 ORDINANCE NO. 3204Page of Scott Knox D.V.M. 1525 Hwy 99 N Ashland, OR 97520 541-601-3331 VIA email only Scott.fleury@ashland.or.us Transportation Committee City of Ashland Dear Committee members: This letter provides perspective and comment for your agenda item in the October 18 meeting concerning Draft amendments to Chapter 18.5.8 Annexations. As I am sure you are aware, LUBA reversed the Ashland City approval for the annexation sought by Kendrick Enterprises and Casita Development in part due to the s nonconformance with Ashland street design standards. This nonconformance involved in large part exceptions for lack of pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility. tent and ambiguous I refer you to 18.5.8.050 Section 2. The clause, For bicycle transportation safe and accessible , is not inconsistent or ambiguous, nonetheless, Ashland planning wishes to strike this clear with other language that does not insure safety or accessibility. is also struck in section 3 . The new added language again does not insure safety or accessibility. The following example illustrates how eliminating safety and accessibility from the language will lead to very unsafe and dangerous situations. If any of you are not intimately familiar with the area of Hwy 99 in question I urge you all to go out and take a thorough look. At this point in time there are no requirements or plans for a traffic light or even a lit pedestrian crossing in this area. This means that it is impossible for a cyclist or pedestrian to safely cross Hwy 99 in the area of the Grand Terrace project. This is very unfortunate and shortsighted and will result in accidents and injury. The new language does require a bike lane but it is required on the frontage of the annexed property. Since cyclists cannot safely cross Hwy 99, those wishing to go westbound toward Medford will use the only bike lane available, or worse, use the sidewalk, of which both are on their side of the road. The cyclists would then travel downhill against traffic westbound toward Medford. Vehicular traffic attempting to turn on or off Hwy 99 will not be looking for, or able to easily see, cyclists coming downhill fast against the flow of traffic. Accidents with serious threat to life and limb will occur. There is good long standing reason why cyclist are required to travel with vehicular traffic not against. In mandating a one size fits all solution and eliminate the requirements of safety and accessibility, planning will degrade the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. The previous example is just one of many examples of the safety issues that are in question with this annexation. Subsequently safety will be worsened by planning attempts to make changes to well written simple codes , deleting straight forward accessibilityand replacing them with mandatory obvious from this example, attempts degrades safety. This new language will not only apply to this project but all future projects throughout Ashland city limits. Requiring bike lanes is a good thing, but not providing for safety and access can make them dangerous. Again, these proposed reversal of the annexation for Grand Terrace Development and the City of Ashlanddesire to revisit and approve this annexation without actually addressing the many safety issues for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists in this area of north HWY 99. There appears to be some rush to get these changes in language completed as per the memo from Maria Harris of September 28. She indicated the goal of having this completed by the end of the year. I think safety and accessibility language in the AMC for cyclists and pedestrians needs to be well thought out and well vetted rather than rushed to meet some perceived planning deadline. In summary, by through Planning significantly degrades the promotion of cycling, walking and other alternative forms of Green transportation in Ashland. I refer you to the Mission Statement of the Transportation Committee as listed on the City website: "Ashland has a vision - to retain our small-town character even while we grow. To achieve this vision, we must proactively plan for a transportation system that is integrated into the community and enhances Ashland's livability, character and natural environment...The focus must be on people being able to move easily through the city in all modes of travel, Modal equity then is more than just a phase. It is a planning concept that does not necessarily imply equal financial commitment or equal percentage use of each mode, but rather ensures that we will have the opportunity to conveniently and safely use the transportation mode of our choice, and allow us to move toward a less auto-dependent community." I posit to you, the transportation committee, that these proposed changes seriously degrade ability to conveniently and safely use the transportation mode of our choice and degrades the effort to move toward a less auto dependent community in the entirety of Ashland. I urge you all to advise P ambiguous. Respectfully, Scott Knox TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING Code Interpretation _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00031 375 & 475 East Nevada Street AUGUST 10, 2021 PACKET MATERIALS TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING Code Interpretation _________________________________ 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