Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Study Session

Monday, May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way

Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:41 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. 
Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Morris, Slattery, and Voisin were present.  Councilor Lemhouse was absent.
1.   Look Ahead Review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
2.   Discussion of development standards for wireless communication facilities
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained there were four areas in the ordinance requiring direction and clarification from Council.  One was Council interpretation of hierarchy and criteria, the definition of feasibility, and requirements and thresholds for the collocation study. The second was third party verification.  The third, exempted facilities and needed definition on allowable modifications to existing wireless communications facilities with a building permit and without planning action approval. The fourth area was the residential setback, the ordinance currently used the height of the wireless facility multiplied by two so residential zones were at least that measurement from the facility itself.
ISSUE 1:  Clarifying Amendments – Preferred Design and Collocation Standards
Would the Council like to clarify the amendments to the Preferred Design and Collocation Standards to implement the Council interpretation from November 2010?

  1. Clarifying the Preferred Designs section is a stepped hierarchy.

Council confirmed the Preferred Design section was a stepped hierarchy and discussed the proposed language.  Some preferred the recommended language while others thought it should be simpler.  

  1. The Definition of “feasible.”

Council retained their interpretation of “feasible” as “capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization.”

  1. Specifying Collocation Study Requirements

City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the language requiring an applicant to make a “reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites,” strengthened the City in the event of an appeal.  Council in general supported the language used.
ISSUE 2:  Third Party Verification
Does Council require third party verification of the technical analysis included in planning applications to install new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated?
Council and staff discussed the impact a third party analysis might have on the 120-day rule and the availability of experts.  The application indicating the choice not to collocate would trigger a third party verification study.  For third party analysis experts, the ordinance could stipulate independent contractors for third party verification had not worked with the applicant for a specific period prior to the new application.  Currently staff knew of one person nationwide that represented municipalities for third party technical analysis.
Council directed staff to research and identify other third party experts.  If there were not enough, Council could consider whether to include third party verification in the ordinance.
ISSUE 3:  Exemptions
Does the Council want to allow the replacement of wireless communication facility equipment for previously approved facilities through approval of a building permit?
Council majority supported staff’s recommendation that would remove “wireless communication facility components,” from 3. Exemptions to read:  “Replacement of previously approved antennas and associated mechanical equipment such as cables, wires, conduits, vaults, electronics and switching equipment are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions:” and removing “more than ten feet” from 3. Exemptions (a.)  to read:  “Do not create an increase in the height of the facility; and”
ISSUE 4:  Setbacks
Does the Council want to allow the replacement of wireless communication facility equipment for previously approved facilities through approval of a building permit?
Council agreed with the staff recommendation to retain the current setback requirement.
3.   Discussion of a proposed ordinance to restrict persistent offenders from the downtown business district
Police Chief Terry Holderness explained the proposed ordinance would trespass persistent offenders from the downtown area for three months when convicted of their third offense.  The banned area would exclude the Fire Station, library, and Lithia Way.  Exclusion would displace some criminal activity but not much since it targeted repeat offenders.  City Attorney Dave Lohman further explained in addition to the persistent offenders’ ordinance, a second ordinance would address failures to appear in court that was also a common issue.
The Parks and Recreation Department used a more restrictive two-strike trespass policy that was successful and resulted in approximately three trespasses a year.  The intention was to curtail repeat offenses just by having the ordinance in place.
Chief Holderness explained the necessity of keeping the ordinance narrowly focused and staff’s recommendation of including the following violations:

  1. AMC 9.08.110 - Scattering Rubbish
  2. AMC 9.08.170 - Unnecessary noise
  3. AMC 9.16.110 - Dogs-Control Required
  4. AMC 10.40.030 - Consumption of Alcohol in Public
  5. AMC 10.40.040 - Open Container of Alcohol in Public
  6. AMC 10.46.020 - Prohibited Camping

Mayor Stromberg was concerned including the camping ordinance targeted homeless people.  Chief Holderness responded it applied only to the downtown area, was easily avoidable, and camping violations, although minor, were a common repeat offense.  He expected displacement into the park rather than residential areas.  Assistant City Attorney Doug McGeary added it could create issues for protest camping.  Chief Holderness was more concerned about the areas behind businesses where the Police Department received many complaints.
Council majority agreed to include AMC 10.46.020 Prohibited Camping in the ordinance.
Staff recommended three violations or crimes in a six-month period as constituting exclusion.  The second exclusion would last six-months.  This determination would fall under the Municipal Court Judge’s discretion. 
A separate ordinance would address people who failed to appear in court and incurred multiple arrests.  It would allow the Police to serve them a citation after not appearing three times.
Council agreed with the three violations resulting in exclusion and waiting for a conviction to initiate exclusion versus through citation.  Opposing comments thought three strikes was lenient but one strike too harsh.
4.   Continued discussion: Closing the feedback loop with the City Administrator
Item delayed to a future meeting.
5.   Other business from the Council
Meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,                                
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder

Online City Services

Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top