Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Exhibit #001 Submitted at Mtg k City of Aah!a: 4 Flannin; Exhibit Exhitit# _ TO: Ashland Planning Commission ?A# V dGV<< Dat Staff DATE: February 4, 2014 FROM: Barb Barasa 183 W Nevada Ashland OR barb@websitings.net 541-621-2739 RE: Support for Verde Village Applicant Request for Variances I will be out of town on the dates of the planning commission and city council meetings where the Verde Village project will be discussed and comments will be taken, so I am submitting my comments in writing. I have been an Ashland resident for 17 years. For 5 years I worked for land planner Alex Forrester, including'during the time he wrote the findings for the original Verde Village project and presented the project to the planning commission, where it received approval. I was also one of the original homeowners/builders in the Rice Park project (the affordable housing portion of the original Verde Village plan) although I dropped out of that project before it was completed. I now own and live in the house at 183 W Nevada at the intersection of Laurel, so I am about one block from the Verde Village property. So I have a lot of reasons to be interested in Verde Village! I don't have time to go to the planning office to review the original findings and still get my comments to planning in time to be distributed, so I am making my comments based on what I recall of the findings and on information Derek Severson sent me about, the applicant's current requests. 1) Request to change the phasing of construction and infrastructure. This request seems reasonable, especially since the affordable housing requirement of the approved plan has already been met. Originally, I believe all the infrastructure was to be completed at once, including the infrastructure for what is now Rice Park (affordable housing). So the original plan already did not happen as envisioned. Because of the real estate crash, Rice Park (which was funded by USDA) got built in 2009-2011, before Verde Village, and I believe RVCDC was responsible for the infrastructure needed for Rice Park. As long as all the homes have utilities and access to Nevada (via some completed street) at the time they are built, and access to the dog park,is available during all phases of construction, changing the phasing (again) should not negatively impact the project orthe neighborhood. Getting some houses built could help sell other lots and speed completion of the project. 2) Request to change the building standards from net zero energy standard to Earth Advantage Gold plus "solar ready". This change should lower the cost of construction while still achieving the main goal of the project -sustainable, energy efficient residences. The change could bring in more buyers, which would speed the completion of the project. Net zero is a very high standard to meet, even for one individual building one house. To find 53 buyers who are willing to meet that standard significantly limits the pool of potential buyers. This change would not affect the neighborhood, and the construction standards would still exceed the city's standards. 3) Request change to Bear Creek Greenway extension and riparian planting. This issue is problematic. If I recall correctly, there was a land swap involved and possibly a variance given so that more homes could fit in the plan and the greenway . In return, the applicants agreed to the specific Greenway extension and riparian restoration in the findings. To change this part of the agreement after the fact does not seem right to me. Derek says the applicants would work with Parks staff to reach a new agreement. I believe the city is already trying to get more trees planted along the creeks in order to bring down the temperature of the water to meet DEQ standards. In my opinion, the applicants should not be allowed to renig on their agreement since the cost of full riparian restoration would then fall to Parks. I strongly support the first two requests and hope Parks can reach an agreement with the applicants to fulfill the most important parts of the original plan agreement regarding the riparian zone.