Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-10 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 2018 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. June 12, 2018 Regular Meeting 2. June 26, 2018 Special Meeting V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA- 2017-01486, 1250 Ashland Street VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None A. Planning Commission Recommendation for Wildfire Ordinance and Map Amendments XI.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). B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Draft June 12, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Commission would hear two public hearings at their meeting June 26, 2018. The Wildfire Ordinance and the appeal of the Southern Oregon University (SOU) cell tower. He recommended starting with the Wildfire Ordinance then continuing it to another meeting to accommodate the appeal. The City Council would have a public hearing June 19, 2018, regarding the Accessory Residential Units Amendments Ordinance. He encouraged commissioners to attend the meeting. He distributed the draft agenda for the upcoming Retreat. Lastly, former Commissioner Miller had withdrawn her request for reappointment. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Brown provided an update on the Transportation System Development Review Committee. They met earlier in the day and set the groundwork for the review process. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. May 8, 2018 Regular Meeting 2. May 22, 2018 Study Session Commissioners Brown/Mindlin m/s to approve the minutes of the Regular meeting May 8, 2018. Chair Pearce was absent for the meeting and abstained from the vote. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of the Study Session May 22, 2018. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke on climate change, the need to stop development, how wealthy people moving to town increased criminal behavior, and traffic. Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2018 Page 1 of 5 TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2018-00001 DESCRIPTION: An ordinance adding a new Chapter 18.3.14 Transit Triangle Overlay, a Transit Triangle (TT) overlay map and amending chapters 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.3, 18.3.12, 18.3.13, 18.4.3, 18.6.1 of the Ashland Municipal Code to implement the recommendations of the infill strategy project for the area surrounding the bus route in the southeastern part of Ashland that circulates on Ashland St., Tolman Creek Rd., and Siskiyou Blvd., also referred to as the transit triangle. Chair Pearce explained this was a continued public hearing from the meeting May 22, 2018. This was not a quasi- judicial public hearing. The Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council. Community Director Bill Molnar added Fregonese and Associates were unable to attend the meeting due to a family emergency. Staff Report or Consultant Report Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the project started in 2016 and consisted of nine public meetings, two the open house and stakeholder meetings in addition to the newspaper. The Transit Triangle would increase rental housing units and provide an area where residents had options for getting around. Currently, the purchasing power of a median-income household in Ashland was $217,950. In 2017, the median home price was $421,500. There were low vacancy rates and increased rental costs. In Ashland, 39.4% of households had one person compared to 27.8 for the state. Of that, 44.8% of those households were renter-occupied. The median size for Ashland was two people per household. The proposed area had a supply of vacant and re-developable land. It was served by Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Route 10 with shopping and services within walking distance. Background supporting the project included: The 2015 City Council Strategic Plan 5.2.a Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. 13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies. 18.2 Develop and encourage alternative transportation options. The 2012 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan No areas identified for urban growth boundary expansion. Minimum of 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre. A recent report from the Regional Housing Strategy that showed Ashland was slightly behind the minimum 6.6 dwellings at 6.4 units per gross acre. encouraging development and redevelopment adjacent to the bus route that included commercial and residential uses. Being near the bus route provided transportation options and promoted sustainable planning. Project Objectives included: Diversify housing supply by providing an area to build moderately priced rental units. Provide a better environment for local business development and expansion. Support transit service through increased ridership. Create a walkable setting in close proximity to existing neighborhoods. The market feasibility model under the current zoning and development standards indicated large residential units with rates exceeding market rates. Commercial rents were too low to make construction feasible. Changing the Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2018 Page 2 of 5 requirements for residential density, the number of stories, required parking and landscaping coverage would result in the following: Increased number of residential units. A decrease in the size of residential units. Rents decreased. Fregonese and Associates put together several ordinance changes. The Transit Triangle Overlay created a new chapter, 18.3.14 that was optional and not mandatory. However, if a developer elected to use the overlay, they would have to meet all requirements of 18.3.14. The Overlay option required residential units to be rentals. It prohibited hotel, m. The commercial and residential split included: C-1 and E-1: 50% of the ground floor in permitted uses (non-residential). R-2 and R-3: 60 square feet of retail, restaurant or office permitted for each residential unit. For Dimensional Standards in the Overlay Option, they suggested a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 for C-1 and E-1 Zones. For R-2 and R-3 zones, the maximum would be 1.25 FAR. Building height for C-1 and E-1 would be 50-feet or four stories. R-2 and R-3 zones were 42-feet or three stories. There were no changes in the landscape area for C-1 and E-1. It would remain at 15%. Landscape area for R-2 and R-3 zones was reduced 20 percent. Open space did not change for C-1 and E-1 zones and was not required for R-2 and R-3. There were no changes for C-1 and E-1 regarding building separation. In R-2 and R-3 zones, it was not required. Yard setbacks were 15-feet from residential yards for C-1 and E-1 zones. There would be a 5-foot minimum setback for front yards in R-2 and R-3 zones. A new requirement was building step backs for side streets within 25-feet of a residential zone. Any portion of a building over 25 feet must be stepped back 10-feet. An alternative from the developer roundtable included a combination of articulation, offsets, setback, angles or curves to reduce building mass instead of using a step back. Parking under the Overlay Option would require one space for units less than 800 sq. ft. It would provide a three-space off-street parking credit for retail, restaurant, or office. Other Amendments deleted the requirement for affordable units in C-1 and E-1 for projects with over 10 residential units. It added a micro-car parking management strategy with a credit of up to 25%. Next Steps included a public hearing at the City Council meeting on August 7, 2018. Questions of Staff Commissioner Mindlin addressed the articulation option for the step back from the developer roundtable discussion. How would they determine if something articulated was adequate? Ms. Harris explained initially the requirement where 25% of the façade shall be articulated was in the original draft. They removed it because it would be difficult to apply. It would be up to the hearing authority to determine. It was similar to the detail site review zone that provided offsets or entry alcoves to break up the building mass. Not all of the Transit Triangle was in the detail site review zone. The R-2 and R-3 zones would be subject to the residential site review standards and then the few standards included in the transit triangle. Commissioner Brown was not sure it would work. The Transit Triangle was trying to reduce the perception of mass. Articulation made it opinion based and therefore subjective and difficult for the Commission to make a determination. It left the City open to appeals. He was not comfortable replacing the step back with articulation. Mr. Molnar did not think it was different from developing in the detail site review zone or under the large-scale development standards. It did not quantify the actual amount of offset. It had similar standards in terms of using a change of materials. Ultimately Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2018 Page 3 of 5 the burden was on the applicant to convince the Commission they tried to reduce building mass. Commissioner Brown explained it was using mass that made it too subjective. The standard was in there but for a different purpose. It could not be done with an objective code statement. Having a 10-foot step back or range worked. Chair Pearce agreed. Commissioner Brown thought it should be removed from 18.3.14(B)(4). Commissioner Norton suggested using an average for setback and let public comment determine approval. Staff confirmed the plaza requirement would apply through the detail site review standards. It counted towards the FAR. Commissioner Mindlin noted the height definition 18.6.1.030 Definitions. One definition had a 6.5-foot height and another definition showed 7-feet for floor areas. Ms. Harris clarified the different definitions of floor area were used in different ways. It was not counting at 6.5. It counted at the 7-foot maximum permitted floor area because that was the volume measurement for residential historic district buildings. It counted spaces that could be converted into living space. The maximum permitted floor area was only used in reference to historic districts. Chair Pearce wanted to include a reference to the vertical housing ordinance. Ms. Harris explained the Council would review a draft vertical housing ordinance in August. Commissioner Norton was not comfortable recommending vertical housing without more information. Strategies report. Commissioner Mindlin raised a concern regarding the tax incentive for vertical housing. Chair Pearce explained it was a state statute that could be implemented in certain areas. Ms. Harris further explained the City could tailor the zone to the community. It encouraged development in areas that had languished. Commissioner Mindlin thought it made sense but it was usually geographic with an overlay zone. Public Testimony Mark Knox/Ashland/Supported the project with small changes. He addressed the discussion regarding setbacks Commissioner Mindlin and Commissioner Brown had earlier. The state required the setback to be clear and objective. He stated he had no financial interest and was speaking from a citizen and planning perspective only. He referenced the downtown design standards and discussion on having balconies. It resulted in a standard with illustrations on how it could work and withstand appeals. He was recently in Tiburon California and was surprised to see roughly 40% of the businesses were closed due to the influx of Amazon. It was a circumstance that could occur in Ashland. He suggested the ground floor be 35% commercial in this zone and 65% residential. He was struggling with the requirement of having residential units as apartments. It should be a requirement for housing. Adding impediments could affect financing and construction. If the units were built as condominiums, they could still be rentals. Zach Brombacher/Ashland/Moved to Ashland in the 1960s. People did not think the town could get built up to where it was. He commented on the overcrowding the infill strategy was having on the town. He was zoned E-1 in the south part of Ashland. He wanted to see more jobs created. Requiring residential units above commercial was not conducive to the light industrial and truck traffic. Every square foot of his property was worth quite a bit. Taking away frontage from his land took away money. He did not support having tall buildings in the area. He commented on developments receiving discounts and not having to pay local improvement districts (LIDs) due to low-income and senior citizens. Ashland was a unique place. He believed the homes would always be expensive. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins had an issue requiring the units to be rentals. He understood why the requirement was there Chair Pearce thought the requirement was problematic. The units needed to be affordable. Units could be rented whether they were owned individually or had several owners. Commissioner Brown agreed. It seemed heavy handed. Ms. Harris explained it was in the original drafts from Fregonese and Associates. It was an option for someone if they wanted to develop ownership housing. They could but would be unable to take advantage of the Transit Triangle provisions that included less parking and landscaping and larger buildings. Commissioner Dawkins thought it would deter development. Commissioner Mindlin commented Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2018 Page 4 of 5 it was part of their modeling program. It provided developers with a financially feasible plan. Commissioner Dawkins noted at approximately $1,400 a month, the rental costs were not affordable. Mr. Molnar clarified it was an option to build 30 units an acre at three stories and not be tied to rental or new ownership. He was curious at the long-term affordability with condominiums. This option retained the units as rentals and kept rental costs down over the long term. Chair Pearce observed a single owner would have the same costs as a condominium association. Ms. Harris explained when Fregonese and Associates modeled the plan they had a rate of return for rental units and ownership units. In addition, workforce housing was a City Council goal. Fregonese and Associates looked at the different demographic groups that typically were attracted to different and diverse housing types. Commissioner Norton added there were different standards for condominiums. Converting apartments to condominiums could reduce the number of units in order to meet the standards. Commissioner Mindlin thought they should try the plan and readdress it if no development occurred over two years. Chair Pearce added City Council wanted to encourage more rentals. He was comfortable keeping it rental. Commissioner Dawkins thought there would be a couple of councilors who would object to keeping it rental. Commissioner Norton supported trying it and seeing what happened. Commissioner Mindlin appreciated percentage of commercial versus housing. Commissioner Brown proposed changing it to 35% commercial and 65% residential. Ms. Harris noted in the Transit Triangle chapter, it was reduced it to 50-50. In other areas, it was 65% commercial required on the ground floor. Chair Pearce agreed with 35% commercial and 65% residential. Commission Norton suggested reducing commercial further to 25%. Commissioner Brown noted strip shopping did not work well and he doubted it would be successful in Ashland. Having one building with ground floor commercial and offices above might work better. He was comfortable lowering the percentage of commercial or keeping it the same. Office space on the ground floor mixed with retail was not conducive to a walking environment. Other communities banned office space on ground floors. He liked the concept of the transit district with shopping at the beginning or end node and not sporadic. He thought the commercial space would remain empty. Remove the requirement and require a commercial component instead. Mr. Molnar explained the Commission could recommend Council review changing the 50-50 to 35% commercial and 65% residential and still meet state requirements. The Commission supported 35% commercial and 65% residential. Regarding the step back, Mr. Molnar would add language they were subject to exceptions that were equivalent or better. Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to accept the draft plan except for two changes, one to lower the percentage of commercial to residential to 35%-65% and remove the definition of set back and make it an equivalent or better exception. Roll Call: Commissioner Dawkins, Brown, Mindlin, Norton, and Pearce, YES. Motion passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2018 Page 5 of 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft June 26, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Dennis Slattery ANNOUNCEMENTS - None AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None PUBLIC FORUM - None TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2018-00003 DESCRIPTION: Ordinances amending Chapters 18.3.10, 18.4.3.080, 18.4.4, 18.5.1, 18.5.3.060, 18.5.5.020, 18.5.7 and 18.6.1 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to amend the development standards for Wildfire Lands, amend the official Physical and Environmental Constraints Map to expand the boundary of 9.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code to establish a Prohibited Flammable Plants List. Staff Report Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided the following background on the amendments: Wildfire Ordinance Amendments Wildfire Lands to incorporate the entire City (April 15, 2014). th Ashland Fire & Rescue identified a number of potential changes to the municipal code, to be considered: Clarify the submittal requirements for a Fuel Prevention and Control Plan o Update the requirements for general fuel management areas (fuel breaks around structures). o Prohibiting new planting of highly flammable plants within proximity of structures. o Ordinance and Map amendments are a legislative Land Use action requiring the approval of o an ordinance, with public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Fire Department Division Chief-Forestry Division Chris Chambers explained over the past few years Ashland had experienced several fires that were outside the wildfire protection zones. The ordinance would protect life and property, Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 1 of 10 firefighter safety, watershed, and quality of life in the face of climate change with increasing wildfires. Ignitions were occurring all over the city. Highly flammable vegetation continued being introduced throughout the city around existing and new structures. Fire through the air was a primary concern for the Fire Department as well. Wind from high intensity wildfires like the Siskiyou fire, carried embers and caused fires. He provided examples. Mr. Goldman explained the Wildfire Lands Ordinance Amendments would: 1.Expand the Wildfire Lands Overlay to include the entire city. 2.Proposed update to the Development Standards for Wildfire Lands relating to new construction and additions. 3.Proposed Municipal Code change to define specific highly flammable plants as a nuisance to not be newly planted within 30 feet of structures. 4.Proposed Resolution with a Prohibited Flammable Plants list. Expanding the wildfire zone citywide was supported by a 2014 Wildfire Hazard Zone Evaluation Report. It mapped wildfire fuels and found that all areas within the city were at or above the threshold for a wildfire hazard zone designation. The Fire Prevention and Control Plans were subject to planning actions like partitions, subdivisions and new commercial development. They would require Site Design Review. They were not required for new single family dwellings, accessory residential units, or additions. The applicant would submit a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the wildfire mitigation standards on both existing and proposed landscaping. The plan would duplicate primary elements of their landscape plan. They would also provide a schedule to implement the plan. Larger projects for commercial, multifamily and subdivisions would have a management plan that included: New Landscaping Tree removals Areas to be thinned Schedule for thinning and removal Ongoing Maintenance The General Fuel Management Area applied to all new buildings, additions, and decks increasing lot coverage by 200 sq.ft. or greater, and new buildings if the footprint was larger than 200 square feet. It would not apply to internal remodels, second story additions, or small additions less than 200 square feet. Requirements for general fuel modification areas included: Remove all dead or dying vegetation on the property. No new planting of plants listed on No combustible materials within 5 feet of a new structure or addition, including mulch. New fences connecting to a structure must be non-combustible within 5 feet of where they attach. Existing Flammable trees (evergreen pine, fir) which are to be retained: Provide a 10-foot clearance to canopy from new building or additions Allowance for an exception if pruning the tree to this extent will compromise its health. Existing fire resistant trees (deciduous oak, maple) to be retained: Pruned to not touch a structure Roof Material (new or 50% re-roof) to be fire resistant (Class B). Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 2 of 10 Through the review by the Planning Commission, Tree Commission, and Wildfire Mitigation Commission, The initial draft of the ordinance presented in 2015-16 was changed to have a clear distinction between highly flammable plants, and plants that were more fire resistant. This acknowledged that fire resistant trees and shrubs could be closer to buildings without substantially increasing risk. The Tree Removal section was amended and would: separate tree removal permit in hillside lands if proposed as part of an approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan, or to implement a comprehensive general fuel modification strategy. Require Tree removal permits for larger properties subject to partitions or subdivisions. A resolution adopting the Prohibited Flammable Plant List would apply citywide: Prohibit Existing listed flammable plants are to be removed if within The Tree Commission and Wildfire Mitigation Commission reviewed a draft earlier this year. Each Commission recommended approving the draft ordinance and recognize the amendments made during meetings with various commissions and the working group. Additional suggestions made by both Commissions were incorporated into the draft. The draft would go before City Council July 17, 2018 for First Reading and August 7, 2018 for Second Reading. Division Chief Chambers commented on the disproportionate impact developing new structures without considering existing housing stock. The existing homes, businesses and buildings made up the bulk of fire danger in Ashland. It was one of the reasons the initial proposal was withdrawn and revised then brought back at this time. Existing stock would continue to be addressed through the Firewise Communities Program. Staff was applying for a grant through FEMA for $3,000,000. They had also ranked structures in the city that had a high fire rating. In the future, they planned to consider the appendix W that would look at the construction of the buildings. Lessons from recent fires showed the area zero to 5 feet away from a house was critical to prevent houses from igniting during a wildfire. Eaves and venting of houses were also important but currently not addressed. The proposed amendments would meet the current understanding of wildfire ignitions and community preparation. Questions of Staff Commissioner Mindlin appreciated the work done. She addressed the possible waiver based on fire resistant materials on the building and wanted to know why windows were not considered. Mr. Goldman explained if there was a flammable plant below a window, the heat would likely break the window and penetrate the house. The exceptions process was an opportunity to review each property case by case to grant that exception. A property could have bark mulch if there was fire resistant siding. Public Testimony Kerry KenCairn/Ashland/Was concerned about homes with 3-foot setbacks and wood fences in the historic district. She wanted to ensure there was enough exception language that spoke to historically complicated and odd neighborhoods that did not force metal fencing or the removal of established landscaping. She hoped they would honor the historic pattern. Mr. Goldman explained they were concerned with a fence running on a property line at 3-feet from one building and 3-feet from the other. Fencing was an opportunity for privacy screening between the two properties. They crafted the ordinance to specify the fence within 5-feet of where it connected to the building. The fence running parallel between the properties could be wood. Wood fencing could act like a fuse during a wildfire. A 3-foot metal gate connecting to a home could be enough to prevent a fire spreading to the house. Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 3 of 10 Chair Pearce noted Section 9.04.022 used the term general fuel management area and Section 18.3.10.100(B) referenced a general fuel modification area. Mr. Goldman clarified both should be general fuel modification area and would make the change. Commissioners Mindlin/Brown m/s to approve and make a recommendation in favor of the ordinance to the City Council. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Dawkins, Brown, Mindlin, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 5-0. Councilor Slattery left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2017-01486 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Ashland Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/Smartlink LLC for Verizon Wireless DESCRIPTION: request for a Site Design Review Permit to install wireless communication facilities (antennas and associated equipment) on the roof of the Science Building at 1250 Ashland Street on the Southern Oregon University Campus. The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit because with the installation of panels proposed to screen the wireless communication facility installation, the building height will exceed 40 feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University District; : 100 Chair Pearce communication facilities at Southern Oregon University (SOU) by Mr. and Mrs. Uhtoff. He read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins declared no ex parte contact. He spent his college career in the same building and had read the article in the Ashland Daily Tidings. The article would not influence his decision. Commissioner Brown had no exparte contact and a site visit. Commissioner Mindlin had no ex parte but was familiar with the building. She was contacted by Rod Newton and declined via email to talk to him. Instead, she referred him to the packet online. Commissioner Norton had no ex parte and a site visit. He had read the article in the Ashland Daily Tidings. Chair Pearce declared no ex parte contact and drove by the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson explained the appeal was of an administrative approval for two requests: Site Design Review Permit to install Wireless Communication Facilities (antennas and associated equipment) on the roof of the Science Building at 1250 Ashland Street on the Southern Oregon University Campus. Conditional Use Permit because with the installation of panels proposed to screen the wireless communication facility installation, the building height will exceed 40 feet. Staff initially approved the application subject to a number of conditions, and subsequent to the Notice of Decision. Kathy Uhtoff filed an appeal request. The Planning Commission heard Type I appeals. This was a de novo hearing. The building had partial screening walls around the roof to screen mechanical equipment. The applicants proposed to extend the panels around the building fully screening the antenna installations. The City regulated the wireless services. It identified the following preferred designs: 1.Collocation on Existing WCF Site is the preferred option. 2.Attached to Existing Structure if #1 not feasible. Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 4 of 10 3.Alternative Structure is #1 & #2 not feasible. Design features to conceal, camouflage or mitigate. 4.Free-standing Support Structure if #1, #2 & #3 not feasible. Lattice towers are prohibited as free-standing support structures. Other regulations included: Independent Third Party Review required. Placement in the area of the site with least visual impact while allowing functionality. Setback from residential zones at least twice the height of the installation. Mitigate visual impacts through architectural integration. Non-reflective finish & color; blend with color & design of existing. Limits exterior lighting and signage to only what is required by federal or state law. Additional visual mitigation may be required to camouflage through design, facades, colors, materials, masking and shielding techniques. The City had two approved sites. The Holiday Inn Express & Suites on Clover Lane and the Ashland Springs Hotel downtown. Both had architecturally integrated wireless facilities into the architecture of the buildings. There were two appeal issues: 1.The deadly and serious consequences of 5G. Potential hazards of fifth generation (5G) wireless facilities to human health and the environment. 2. Ms. Uhtoff notes that Goal 1 goals in OAR 660-015-0000(1) calls for citizen involvement, and suggests that neither the city nor the applicants fully disclosed to all affected citizens their intention to install a 5-G cell tower as the notices mailed only went to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property while cell tower radiation and frequencies from the new tower will extend well beyond 200 feet. Mr. Severson addressed appeal issue #1 and explained the proposal was for a 4G installation and not 5G. City code did not distinguish between 4G and 5G. Federal law precluded the City from considering the health impacts: 47 U.S. Code § 332(c)(7)(B) - Mobile services (ii) - act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iv) - No wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the concerning such emissions. For appeal Issue #2, he explained the following: Statewide Planning Goals are not approval criteria. State law requires a 100-foot noticing area for administrative actions. require a 200-foot noticing area (from the site). Notice was appropriately provided here (see exhibits) for the application, the decision and the appeal. -foot noticing area (from the wireless facility) for a neighborhood hearing conducted by the applicants. Staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the original approval with the conditions recommended in the staff report. Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 5 of 10 Questions of Staff Commissioner Mindlin asked if the students at the university were notified. Mr. Severson did not have any information on whether they were informed or not. Chair Pearce noted City Attorney Dave Lohman want the Commission reminded of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In 47 USC 332(c)(7)(B), Congress decided to preempt any local decisions and zoning authority. A local entity could not 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 were approved by the FCC and complied. The Commission was constrained by federal law to make a decision based on health issues. Mike Connors/Hathaway Larsen Law Firm/Represented the applicant. The proposed site would provide coverage and capacity. The coverage component would cover dead spots in service. The facility would supplement coverage. The other aspect was capacity and related to bandwidth. There was an increasing number of people using wireless equipment. The types of uses had increased and subsequently decreased bandwidth. The location was chosen based on building height. The facility would cover the university and surrounding areas. He clarified it was a rooftop facility and not a cell tower. The applicant would extend and complete the remainder of the existing screening wall making it architecturally consistent with the existing screening. The primary benefit was visual. Both the antenna and the equipment would be concealed. They would also help screen some of the mechanical equipment there already. The second benefit of the screening wall was noise reduction. Noise standards required the applicant to demonstrate that noise levels affecting residential properties would not exceed 45 A-weighted decibels (dBA). The noise study concluded with the screening wall, the noise level would be 21-23 dBA. There was a colocation option for the second preferred option. A report provided in the application explained the reasons and needs for using the SOU location. The report evaluated three alternatives that met the first option preference and explained why they were not feasible. The alternatives did not provide the intended coverage and were located too close in proximity of existing facilities and would create interference. The City had their own expert, Mr. he had concurred with their conclusions. Mr. Connors understood the health concern issues. It was prohibited by federal law. The purpose behind the law was the federal government determined there was a need to standardize radio frequency (RF) emissions. Experts determined the national standards. As a carrier, Verizon was required to demonstrate compliance with FCC standards. It was a complicated issue with deep science. It made it difficult for local decision makers who may not have that expertise to make a determination. It was a reason federal law prohibited local jurisdictions from making decisions based on health or emission effects. The second issue raised had to do with the statewide planning goals. Oregon law stated if a local jurisdiction had a Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance, compliance with that was presumed to be compliance with the statewide planning goals. The applicant complied with noticing requirements and procedures. He did not believe there was a legal basis for the Commission to preclude that the applicant violated statewide planning goals. The applicant complied with the criteria. He asked the Commission to approve the application and adopt the staff report as Findings. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Mindlin asked if the students at the university were notified. Mr. Connors did not think the students were notified. Notice requirements applied to property owners. Appell Kathy Uhtoff/Ashland/Lived in the area in a multi-generational household. She was concerned with the cell tower. Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 6 of 10 Alan Rathsam/Ashland/ Was a retired mechanical engineer and shared his credentials. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was antiquated and based on 580 micro watts per square centimeter of radiated power which was felt on a level of being cooked. It was obsolete. Current reports from scientists all over the world showed there were health effects far below those levels. One report noted there was blood brain penetration in a matter of seconds when someone held a phone next to their head. Another report stated scientists found measurable brain changes in fifty seconds of holding a phone next to your head. Scientists were demanding a halt to the introduction of 5G. Currently, 4G was limited to 6 gigahertz. The 5G cell would start at 30 gigahertz and could go to 300. It would most likely serve 28-98 gigahertz. Ms. Uhthoff did not believe the need had been substantiated. The City hired Mr. Johnson, a New York engineer, to do a study and he was coming to the conclusion the cell tower was not needed. At that point, Verizon heard of the upcoming report and had their expert submit another report. From that report, Mr. Rathsam had submitted a graph into the record showing the need was not now. It might be in the future. Based on that, she did not think the Commission should approve the application. Public Testimony Amy Munro/Ashland/She had recently read of other cities not permitting 5G installations. She was a conventionally trained doctor and initially skeptical. There were thousands of studies on the issue. On the whole they were split with 55% showing a negative effect from the electromagnetic field (EMF) and electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Lack of definitive proof that something was harmful did not mean it was safe. She spoke to the electromagnetic spectrum. Approximately 130 years before there was only sunlight and cosmic radiation. Now it was full of manmade EMF and EMR. The precautionary principle should be used in this circumstance. Jasper Rose/Ashland/Lived a block away from the college and proposed cell tower. She cared about the quality of life for herself and two younger brothers, family, and neighbors. Through commented dissonance it was easy to think the harmful effects were not there but they existed. She was scared for her future. People were surrounding themselves with wireless technology. They were either aware or not aware like the SOU students who did not know the cell towers were being installed. Everyone had been so driven to keep advancing technology that they forget to question safety. As a community, we should stand together and say no. Vicki Simpson/Ashland/Needed to speak for the children and young people. There were classrooms at SOU for young children. She knew from a few hours of research there were all sorts of danger and red flags against concentrated cell phone power in one area. There were increased levels of medical issues for children. She listed several. Other concerns were bees, birds, animals, and foliage removal around cell towers. There were money concerns for the City. She doubted insurance companies would insure any wireless operation. She suggested the City use qualified engineers to map out the ambient radiation levels before the towers are installed and on a yearly basis after installation. Scott Ploss/Ashland/Worked with people who had radiation poisoning. All of his standard training as an electrician stated it did not exist. He had worked with people who could find wires in a wall because they were that sensitive. The need had not been demonstrated. In California, cell towers were banned on fire stations. He questioned using SOU as a location. Science had advanced since the federal communication guidelines that came out in 1996. There were many new studies from the federal government. The law had not changed and they were not supposed to address health issues but there might be other ways to address the issue. Approximately 10% of the nation had EMF sensitivities. The law needed to be changed. Some laws were wrong in history. Alan Rathsam/Ashland/ case for immediate need of the SOU cell tower had not been presented directly, comprehensively, and adequately to the Ashland Planning Department. The case for immediate need was implied but not specifically addressed in a letter by Andrew Thatcher to Planning Manager Maria Harris. The letter presented s immediate need in a simple plot of a forward data volume. An FTD trend line fitted versus time with a reference line showing present data volume capacity. He used the graph submitted into the record earlier. It was taken s letter. It did not show the basis of cell tower coverage growth that determined the slope of the trend line. The key was to justify immediate need. The simple plot was not sufficient to establish immediate need. Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 7 of 10 only contribution was the cell tower measurements at SOU. Other information in his letter was merely a review of analysis done by Verizon. Mr. Johnson, cell tower consultant accepted findings in the letter without questioning the lack of details. Kelly Marcotulli/Ashland/Protested the cell tower on the grounds that not only was it unnecessary, the City would lose money because the bee population of Ashland will decline. She submitted a document into the record that spoke to colony collapse due to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and relay towers. Ashland was a designated Bee City. The cell tower jeopardized bees and everything people held dear here. Once the cell tower was installed, others could collocate. Then the next 5G installation comes along and people fry along with the bees. Bees were an important species and critical pollinators. They pollinated crops that fed 90% of the world. Where was the feasibility study showing the need for the tower? It threatened life. Denise Allen/Ashland/Had over 200 signatures gathered in a short time of people wanting to stop the SOU cell tower. She had no doubt the signatures would reach the thousands. People in Ashland were very informed. There were many concerned citizens. She hoped the Commission would make a safe decision for everyone. Darwin Thusius/Ashland/Read excerpts of the letter to the Editor in the Ashland Daily Tidings that strongly opposed the tower. He went to the websites of two of the studies referenced in the letter and found no evidence of what the letter claimed. The conclusion in the studies was ambiguous. Everything was uncertain including the effects of radiation on lab rats versus humans. Current data showed the present safety limit was acceptable. He was not taking a stance either way but wanted to know the actual truth. Ivy Ross/Ashland/Was part of Oregon for Safer Technology. Her group viewed this as a 5 to 10-year project. They were planning on challenging the entire City code if needed. They were not concerned with aesthetics. They were going to the next level of consciousness on the subject. Cities around the world were doing this research. They planned on educating the community and challenging the federal law of 1996, the FCC, and the telecom industry. They would also make sure SOU students and families understood what was happening with this facility. They questioned the $18,000 for such a large important issue. Commissioner Mindlin asked if Ms. Ross had information on the notification of students. Ms. Ross had no knowledge if SOU had notified their students. Paul Sheldon/Ashland/Lived approximately 800 feet outside of the notification zone. He spoke of having the moral courage to act. The moral courage to this is wrong. His house will be subject to electromagnetic trespass from this tower. The law was not there to prohibit trespass in brain with electromagnetic waves. The Commission would have to answer to their grandchildren on the decision made tonight. The McCarthy hearings were within the law. Would the Commission have spoken up during that time? Or when smoking was allowed in rooms in the 1950, or with the current housing of immigrant children? He urged the Commission to say no. Gary Hrraz/Ashland/All visual aspects of the study were shown except for the view from the neighborhood above the location. He provided day care for his grandchildren and an elderly woman. His concern went beyond money and what the federal law thought. More studies were needed. They were in direct line of the site. Noise was also an issue at 45 decibels. There were already issues with noise never addressed. There was nothing to block the radiation that will come from the tower to their neighborhood. Chris Lucas/Ashland/Worked at SOU. University students were not notified in an official capacity but were talking about the facility. There was a real need for greater capacity around SOU. He taught media production with classes in advanced technology and citizen journalism. Students used their cell phones for reporting. The uses of this technology were important for the students development and moving into world as media journalists, and story tellers. They needed to rely on ability to keep facilities up to date. When it got crowded on campus, people lost coverage. Students Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 8 of 10 wanted more capacity. He had done the research and he was not worried. There was a good argument for building capacity for the city and SOU as an instructional tool. Tara Shea Aananda/Ashland/Expressed respect for the Commission. This was an opportunity to get involved in something that could possibly go down in history. To make a huge difference not only socially but in human consciousness. The 5G technology was an attack on physiology and consciousness. This kind of technology affected the ability to dream, meditate, and connect to each other and whatever created us. She invited them to upstage William Shakespeare and box the federal government. We do not have to roll over just because of the Telecom act of 1996. Jim Fong/Ashland/Shared his background and credentials. He had previously worked with Rod Newton form the Hidden Springs Wellness Center regarding a cell tower going on top of a nearby cinema. They worked closely with staff to amend the current city ordinance. His wife was electromagnetic sensitive. He was very aware of the federal ban on considering health concerns. The planning process executed by the City was fundamentally flawed. The assessment and need for colocation options and stated needs and demands for the facility were unsubstantiated. They all knew the third party evaluation process would result in efforts by telecommunication companies to throw it back as their validation. In this case, it appeared the third party evaluation lacked sufficient expertise and knowledge. Miriam Sundheim/Ashland/The FCC regulation that did not allow decisions made based on health issues was 22 years old and maybe could now be challenged. She was concerned because they did not really know what the added electromagnetic issues might mean. She suggested taking more time to consider whether or not to take this risk. She supported using the precautionary principle. Rebuttal by Applicant Mr. Connors addressed testimony about need. There were no approval criteria that related to need. However, there was evidence from their expert on need who had explained the particulars regarding colocation. This was reviewed by the City expert. He took i pushed back and wanted more supportive evidence to substantiate some of the statements Verizon had provided. Additionally, his client would not be doing this unless there was a need. Apparently, the notice was not sent to the students because it was specific to property owners. He emailed the consultant and her understanding was that SOU provided a general notice to the students. With the screening wall, the noise would be half the maximum allowed. Lastly, was testimony on health concerns. He reiterated this was not 5G, it was 4G. LTE was an acronym for 4G. Most of the testimony did not relate to the approval criteria. The Commission had to apply the facts of the law and were not policy makers. They were constrained in their role. There were venues for someone wanting to challenge the law. Commissioner Dawkins asked if there were plans to go from 4G to 5G. Mr. Connors responded there was no plan to do that. He could not say never, 5G was very early in the process. It would be a long evolution and possibly take many years. Commissioner Norton wanted to know if Verizon had panels on either of the two existing sites. Mr. Connor did not think Verizon had panels at either of the sites. They looked at them both for colocation purposes. The conclusion was they did not satisfy or cover the intended coverage area and were too close to existing facilities and that would create interference. Mr. Connors did not know where report. Questions of Staff Commissioner Norton asked if the two existing facilities had site design permits and the process for modifying facilities. Mr. Severson explained there were eight providers at the Ashland Springs Hotel facility. If they wanted to modify that, Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 9 of 10 they would have to check with the City. Altering the exterior of the building would require a new process. Replacing an older system with a new system in the same place would not require the applicant to go through a planning process. Deliberations & Decision Chair Pearce noted the Commission was severely constrained. Most of the testimony spoke to health concerns and the Commission was not the venue to make challenges. Congress was the appropriate entity. Commissioner Dawkins spoke to the cell tower facility at the cinema eight years before. He had sympathized with testimony against the facility. He could not vote for it or abstain so he had walked out. Commissioner Mindlin had done the same and both were reprimanded by the mayor. The Commission governed by being quasi-judicial. They had to uphold same standards as judges. He noted comments made on the McCarthy hearings about moral responsibility. The criteria stated they could not deny the application based on health issues per federal law. It was a symbolic gesture but not a legal one. It went against why the Commission was there and their responsibility here. Commissioner Mindlin spoke to cognitive dissonance and being constrained by federal law. The reason she kept asking about the students was that she found it disturbing there was not a single student present for or against the facility. The students may want more coverage. School was out but some students lived in town. She thought if the students were aware they would have had the opportunity to go to their administration and oppose the application. That would be within the legal parameters of what was possible. She did not think sufficient public process was followed in this case. Commissioner Brown wondered where was the speakers regarding the wildfire ordinance. He acknowledged public concern regarding the cell facility. However, the Planning Commission had a job that was relatively simple. When an applicant came in with an application, there are required criteria. The Commission played a role in that process. The Commission had no control over the cell facility at SOU. They did have 100% control over the wildfire issue. But no one was talking to that topic. They were speaking to things the Commission had no control over and reprimanding the Commission. He found it interesting. Commissioner Norton was not concerned with the roof and screening. He focused on the significant service gap. Both letters from Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Johnson agreed there was a gap. Tonight, he received the graph, but wished it had gone back to Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Johnson for a response. Commissioner Brown noted the existing coverage maps in the packet. Commissioner Norton thought the graph contradicted the information in the packet. Chair Pearce added there were two hired experts and both agreed there was a coverage gap. There was substantial material that showed the criteria was met. Commissioner Norton noted there was not enough time to review the graph but hoped next time, this kind of information was submitted earlier in the process. Commissioner Dawkins agreed it came late but this was a de novo hearing and the next step was LUBA. Goal 1 issue. The City complied with the ordinance for noticing. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to deny the appeal and approve the application with conditions in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Norton, Pearce, Brown, and Dawkins, YES. Commissioner Mindlin NO. Motion passed 4-1. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 10 of 10 Planning Commission Report DATE: July 10, 2018 TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Ashland Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Recommendation Ordinance Amendments for Wildfire Development Standards Ordinance (PA-L-2018-00003) Summary The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Planning Action PA-L-2018- 00003. This legislative action includes proposed amendments to the Physical and Environmental the entire City; amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement new standards for fire prevention and control plans and fuels reduction associated with development; amendments to the Tree Removal permit requirements; and a Resolution to establish a Prohibited Flammable Plant list and a municipal Code amendment to declaration that such plants as a fire hazard. The Commission found that wildfire poses a risk to persons and property throughout the entire community and therefore determined that the designated wildfire lands boundary, and the development standards for wildfire lands, should be applied city wide to mitigate for the potential adverse effects of wildfire. The commission found that the Wildfire Hazard Zone Evaluation in 2014 demonstrated that the existing Wildfire Lands overlay boundary does not incorporate all areas within the City that meet the criteria to be considered a Wildfire Hazard Zone as set forth by OAR Chapter 629, Division 044, and that that frequency, spread, acceleration, intensity, and size of fires that have occurred outside the existing wildfire lands overlay demonstrates that the expansion of the wildfire lands overlay boundary is warranted. Ashland Fire and Rescue presented a map to the Commission that identified where individual fire ignition points and larger wildfires have occurred since 1959. This map showed that the risk of wildfire has not been isolated to the existing wildfire lands overlay area. - 2- Ashland wildfires and ignitions: Pink polygon = Existing wildfire lands designation Green stars = ignitions Blue, green, and red polygons = wildfires occurring in 1959, 1973, 2008, 2010 In review of the existing development standards for Wildfire Lands, the Planning Commission identified a number of potential changes to the existing code to be considered as part of the legislative amendment process. Draft code revisions were presented at numerous study sessions throughout 2017 and 2018, and were discussed by the Planning Commission, Tree Commission, Wildfire Mitigation Commission, and an ad-hoc wildfire hazard committee convened by the Mayor (comprised of City staff, representatives from the Tree, Planning, and Wildfire Mitigation Commissions). Through these study sessions the Commissions aimed to clarify the submittal requirements for a Fire Prevention and Control Plan, as well as revise or establish requirements for the implementation of required General Fuel Modification Areas not presently codified within the currently adopted Land Use Ordinance. The Planning Commission found that if approved the proposed ordinance amendments, and expansion of the Wildfire Lands boundary, would address Statewide Planning Goal 7 as a local effort to implement measures to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards including wildfire. Further the Commission found that the 2017 Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) identified that regulation of new development within the Wildfire Fire Overlay was considered necessary to be more resilient to climate change impacts, and that adoption of the proposed ordinances would address this CEAP goal. The Commission further acknowledges that the City Council had an established an explicit Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us - 3- wildfire hazard zone to accurately reflect risk. Update the Wildfire Hazard Zone ordinance to . This Council goal is directly addressed through consideration. The Commission held a public hearing and deliberations on the proposed amendments on June th 26, 2018. Prior to the public hearing, the Planning Commission held study sessions on June 24, 2014, February 24, 2015, November 24, 2015, February 23, 2016, and February 27, 2018. Recommendation AMC 18.5.9.020.B permits legislative amendments to meet changes in circumstances and conditions. As discussed earlier, the Planning Commission finds the proposed amendments to the land use ordinance relating to wildfire development standards and the wildfire lands overlay map are necessary and are supported by the Planning Staff Report dated June 26, 2017, the 2014 City of Ashland Wildfire Hazard Zone Evaluation, the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) Ashland Ordinance Review (dated January 10, 2017), the CPAW report titled Best Practices Compilation for Ashland (dated April 2017), and the minutes from the prior study sessions as included in the record. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendations of the City of Ashland Tree and Wildfire Mitigation Commissions as included in the Planning Staff Report dated June 26, 2018, and considered the public testimony and written comments provided at the public hearing. After careful thought and consideration, the Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve first reading of the ordinances and resolution as follows: Approval of the proposed map amendment to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Wildfire Lands Map to designate the entire Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits as Wildfire Lands. Approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to amend the development standards for wildfire lands, and the applicability of tree removal permits. Approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the Ashland Municipal Code to declare Prohibited Flammable Plants a nuisance. Approval of the resolution establishing the proposed General Fuel Modification Area Prohibited Flammable Plant List Wildfire Lands. Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us