HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-053 Findings - Verde Village BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
April 1, 2014
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2014- 00052, A REQUEST TO
MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VERDE VILLAGE
SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 87 WEST NEVADA ST.
AND 811 HELMAN ST. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE:
CLARIFICATIONS OF THE PROJECT PHASING TO MAKE CLEAR WHICH
IMPROVEMENTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH PHASE AND TO ALLOW
EITHER PHASE TO OCCUR FIRST; CHANGES TO THE ENERGY EFFICENCY FINDINGS,
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT ALL UNITS WILL BE CONCLUSIONS
CONSTRUCTED TO AT LEAST EARTH ADVANTAGE "GOLD" STANDARDS AND ORDERS
AND WILL BE "PHOTOVOLTAIC READY"; AND CHANGES TO THE
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION
OF THE MULTI -USE PATH.
APPLICANT: WILMA, L.L.C.
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots 800, 1100 and 1400 -1418 of Map 39 lE 04B are located at the intersection of
Heiman and Nevada Streets and are zoned Single Family Residential (R- 1 -3.5, R -1 -5 and
R- 1 -7.5).
2) The proposal involves a request to modify the Development Agreement for the Verde
Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 W. Nevada Street and 811 Heiman
Street. The proposed modifications include: clarifications of the project phasing to make
clear which improvements are required with each phase and to allow either phase to
occur first; changes to the energy efficiency requirements of the development so that all
units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be
"Photovoltaic Ready and changes to the landscaping requirements associated with
construction of the multi -use path. The site plan and detailed application materials are on
file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval or modification from the Performance
Standards Options Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.88.030.A.4 as follows:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City ofAshland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 1
c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, jloodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan ofthe development and
significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable
areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for
the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases' have the
same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
4) The criteria for approval or modification of a Physical Environmental Constraints Review
Permit to allow construction of a multi -use path in the Ashland Creek riparian preservation
area are detailed in AMC 18.62.040.1 as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts
have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create
and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible
actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing
development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted
by the Land Use Ordinance.
5) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on February 18, 2014 at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to closing the hearing, the
Council was asked by a participant to leave the record open for seven days pursuant to ORS
197.763(6)(a) which provides that, "Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any
participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony
regarding the application. The local hearings authority shall grant such request by continuing the
public hearing... or leaving the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or
testimony..." The applicants also requested that the record remain open for an additional seven days
to provide written arguments. The Council granted the requests, closing the public hearing but
leaving the record open until February 26, 2014 and allowing the applicants until March 5, 2014 to
provide written arguments.
Council deliberations and the first reading of the necessary ordinance associated with the
modification of the Development Agreement were continued until the Council's regular meeting on
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 2
March 18, 2014 at which time the Council approved the requested modifications of the Verde
Village Subdivision's Development Agreement including: clarifications of the project phasing to
make clear which improvements are required with each phase and to allow either phase to occur
first; changes to the energy efficiency requirements of the development so that all units will be
constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be "Photovoltaic Ready and
changes to the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi -use path. The
Council also added two conditions to Exhibit E of the Development Agreement dealing with the
project phasing #30) and with the timing of the multi -use path and Nevada Street sidewalk
construction #31).
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for modifications of the Development Agreement
for the Verde Village Subdivision including: clarifications of the project phasing to make clear
which improvements are required with each phase and to allow either phase to occur first;
changes to the energy efficiency requirements of the development so that all units will be
constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be "Photovoltaic Ready and
changes to the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi -use path,
meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in Chapter 18.88.030.A.4 and
for the approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit described in
Chapter 18.62.040.1. The Council further finds that the originally adopted findings for the Verde
Village Subdivision and the associated Development Agreement and its subsequent
modifications shall remain in effect except as specifically modified herein.
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 3
2.3 The Council finds that the Verde Village Subdivision, originally approved in December
of 2007, involved an 11.64 acre site comprising five parcels on the site of the old Ashland
Greenhouses at 87 West Nevada and 811 Heiman Streets. The related approvals included: an
Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes from Jackson County Rural
Residential (RR -5) to City of Ashland Low- Density Multi Family Residential (R -2) and
Suburban Residential (R- 1 -3.5); Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68 -unit
residential development; Site Review approval for multi family development; a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi -use path in the Ashland Creek
Riparian Preservation Area; a Tree Removal Permit; Exceptions to the Street Standards to install
a curbside sidewalk on one side of a proposed street, to not locate a street adjacent to natural
features and to not connect two of the proposed streets; Variances to reduce the on- street parking
requirement from 78 to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback requirement for six of the
townhomes in the northwestern corner of the site from 20 feet to 12, 14 and 16 feet, and to
reduce the required distance between buildings for the 27 cottages in the southwestern corner of
the site; an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to have the primary
orientation of the buildings to the south, rather than to the street, in order to maximize the use of
solar energy; a land exchange with the City of Ashland dedicating 2.78 acres adjacent to Ashland
Creek to the city for parks purposes in exchange for approximately 1.54 acres of the Dog Park in
the area of the access and to the south of the existing parking area; and a Development
Agreement with the City of Ashland which governed the requirements for development of the
subdivision to completion, including a detailed timeline.
The development agreement was adopted by Ordinance #2945 on December 19, 2007.
Subsequent to the 2007 approval, the applicants dedicated property to the Rogue Valley
Community Development Corporation to develop 15 affordable units as part of the first phase of
Verde Village to satisfy the affordability requirements of the annexation. Utilities and
infrastructure, including the partial extension of Almeda Street, were completed to serve these
units, which are now built and occupied as "Rice Park at Verde Village." The applicants
obtained Site Review approval for the remainder of the first phase, the multi family cottage
housing portion of the subdivision, in 2009. Prior to the installation of infrastructure or
commencement of the remainder of the first phase of the development, the national economy
suffered a major downturn which made it difficult for projects with approvals in place to obtain
financing. To date, the city has approved three timetable extensions in response to difficulties
associated with the current state of the economy and availability of financing.
2.4 The Council finds that the Development Agreement requires in 21.2 that, "Amendment...
of this agreement shall be made by adoption of an Ordinance.... The procedures and
requirements for amendment... are the same as for approval of a Development Agreement,
currently notice and hearing before the Council with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission." The Council further finds that the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the request at its regular meeting of February 18, 2014 and recommended that the
Council approve the request with the addition of two conditions to Exhibit E of the Development
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 4
Agreement dealing with the project phasing #30) and with the timing of the multi -use path and
Nevada Street sidewalk construction #31).
2.5 The Council finds that the first of the proposed modifications involves clarifying the
project's phasing. The applicants note that, as currently written, the development agreement
requires the completion of the bulk of the infrastructure with the first phase, and with the
modifications proposed they request a clearer phasing of the required infrastructure installation
more in keeping with a two phased project, and also request greater flexibility in terms of the
order in which the phases may be constructed so that either phase could be built first. The
specific modifications proposed include:
That the multi -use path and the sidewalk on Nevada Street, from Heiman Street to Oak
Street, be tied to the construction of Sander Way as part of Phase II rather than as a part of
Phase 1.
That Planning staff have the ability to allow Phase II to be constructed prior to Phase 1 if the
developer requests.
That if the project is built in phases, the first phase that is built will include:
o The construction of Almeda Street to Heiman Street.
o The construction of Perozzi Street.
o The construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips on both sides of
Almeda Street and Perozzi Street prior to any home construction for either phase.
That if the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the combined lots in Phase
I and Phase II) would need to meet the time line requirements of Phase 1 in the current
timeline.
The applicants assert that these changes do not adversely affect the final development, and would
still yield the improved Dog Park access as the first item to be completed before any lots could
be developed. They note that these changes would minimize the land disturbance where lots are
not ready to be built upon, and that these changes do not alter the final completion date. They
suggest that the only items which might be delayed with the proposed changes are the
construction of the Greenway multi -use path and the sidewalk along Nevada Street to Oak Street
which would be completed prior to the development of any lots in Phase 1I. The application
materials include a revised timetable which would replace the adopted timetable as `Exhibit F' of
the Development Agreement.
In considering the proposed modifications to the project phasing, the Council finds that Rice
Park at Verde Village, the affordable housing portion of the Verde Village Subdivision, was
completed with only a partial extension of Almeda Drive and with temporary facilities installed
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 5
to provide the required fire apparatus access and fire truck turn around. The Council further
finds that the key concerns with any alteration in subdivision phasing are ensuring that
whichever portion of the development occurs first includes completion of the extension of
Almeda Drive to provide permanent access to the already completed and occupied units in Rice
Park for both residents and emergency vehicles, and that Perozzi Street is extended to provide
permanent access to the existing, heavily -used Dog Park. The Council finds that the applicants'
proposed modifications clearly recognize and address these concerns by requiring completion of
these improvements prior to any home construction for either phase.
2.6 The Council finds that with regard to the proposed modifications to the development's
energy efficiency performance standards, all of the units in the development were originally
subject to a unique, project specific "net -zero energy performance standard' that was developed
by the applicants' team for the original application submittal from 2006. The stated goal
underlying these standards was to provide "the most energy efficient homes constructed in
Oregon," and this was to be accomplished through a combination of proper solar orientation,
improved thermal envelopes, solar heating, night flush cooling, high efficiency HVAC systems,
heat recovery ventilation, and efficient appliances, all of which were to achieve 50 percent better
performance, and 50 percent less potable water use, than a typical code compliant home at the
time. In addition, through the installation of a photovoltaic system, the homes were to be
capable of generating as much energy as they used on an annual basis, making them "net zero
energy." Specific energy efficiency measures were required, and these ranged from specific
requirements for the lighting and water fixtures (only fluorescent or compact fluorescent lighting
were allowed, only either dual flush 1.1/1.5 gpf or single 1.1 gpf toilets were allowed, and all
showerheads and faucets were to provide 1.5 gpm fixture controls) to requirements that the
homes be designed for "night flush cooling" through the use of mass (concrete floors), improved
thermal envelopes and operable windows so that they could be cooled at night to a degree that
would eliminate the need for air conditioning.
The Council further finds that the original application included a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to up zone the property. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments require that the
proposed change meet one of five factors detailed in Chapter 18.108.060.B and be in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. Both the Planning Commission and Council's support of the
original Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment's approval were based on the energy and water
conservation measures proposed addressing an identified public need for energy and water
conservation in new homes as supported in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan (Chapter XI,
Policy #3 C, D, and G, and Policy #8 B). The Council further found that the energy
efficiency measures proposed at the time supported the requested up- zoning as they equated
favorably to development under the prior Comprehensive Plan designation with density bonuses
for affordability and energy efficiency.
As part of the original approval, building permits were required to include a summary of how
each unit complied with the energy efficiency performance standard to facilitate plan review.
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street /Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 6
The affordable homes at Rice Park were constructed according to these performance standards,
and Community Development staff have noted that this posed substantial complications to the
plan review, construction and inspection processes because of the uniqueness, specificity and
complexity of the standards which leave little room for variation and which differ drastically
from what most contractors are used to building under either standard codes or the common
third -party "green building" accreditation programs like LEED or Earth Advantage.
The Council finds that with the current request, the applicants are asking to replace these unique,
project specific energy efficiency performance standards with a requirement that each home
obtain at least an Earth Advantage "Gold" certification and be "Photovoltaic Ready." They
explain that this would benefit the city both through the ease of administration and through the
ability to automatically change with technological developments, and suggest that with the
modifications proposed they will still satisfy the standards initially approved. The applicants
note that that the Earth Advantage Gold with Photovoltaic Ready option produces homes that are
at least 15 percent more energy efficient than current codes, that the solar orientation of the
homes is not proposed to change, and that the proposed modifications continue to address the
Comprehensive Plan's identified public need for energy and water conservation in new homes.
The Council finds that Earth Advantage certification considers materials and methods to reduce
energy and water usage and improve indoor air quality; development practices which diminish
land degradation and deforestation, promote healthy landscapes, reduce waste, and prevent
potential erosion associated with development; and the encouragement of local, environmentally
responsible, durable materials. Builders complete a points worksheet detailing the proposed
approach to the development, and an independent third -party verifier visits the site to verify
compliance. Earth Advantage has various levels of certification including silver, gold, platinum,
net zero ready and net zero. The City of Ashland is currently the local Earth Advantage license
holder, with certified inspectors on staff and additional third -party inspectors in the community
operating under the city license. The Earth Advantage program is currently the program used in
granting density bonuses for Conservation Housing, and city staff and the local development
community have a general familiarity with the requirements of the program.
The Council further finds that the City's Conservation Division has reviewed the proposed
modifications, and has noted that construction to Earth Advantage Gold and Photovoltaic Ready
standards would equate to approximately 15 percent more energy efficiency than current codes
which would likely mean homes were 20 -30 percent more efficient than if built to the codes in
place when the subdivision was approved. Conservation has also indicate that while the
applicants are requesting relief from the photovoltaic solar installation requirements, the
Conservation Division's solar incentive programs would remain available to individual builders
and homeowners who may be interested in striving to meet the original net zero standard.
Conservation staff emphasized that the original orientation of the homes is not proposed to be
altered which means that it is highly likely that all of the homes built will have more than
adequate solar exposure to take advantage of the sun as a power source in the future, either at the
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 7
time of home construction or through future retrofits. Conservation staff concluded that they
remain excited at the prospect of an entire subdivision committing to the Earth Advantage
program and that they support the concept of utilizing a tested third party system to help the
builder, City staff and ultimately the homeowner, ensure that the home functions as designed,
approved and built.
With regard to the proposed modifications to the energy efficiency performance standards, the
Council finds that while homes certified as Earth Advantage Gold /Photovoltaic Ready would not
be the "net zero energy" homes originally envisioned for the development, the level of energy
efficiency proposed would continue to support the original up- zoning approval findings that the
project meets an identified public need for energy and water conservation in new homes, and that
the energy efficiency measures and affordability would equate favorably to development under
the previous Comprehensive Plan designation with density bonuses for affordability and energy
efficiency. In addition, the Council finds that the change to an established, standardized rating
system with independent third party verification of compliance would simplify the plan review
and inspection processes on the city side while likely having the added advantage of being a
program with which designers, contractors, lenders, realtors and homebuyers have a greater
degree of familiarity and would thus be more willing to invest.
2.7 The Council finds that the original Verde Village application included a land exchange
between the developers and the city. Because the city lands involved were originally purchased
with federal funds as park land, there were requirements to ensure that the land received in
exchange was of equal or greater value for public use and that the exchange would further the
public interest. As originally approved, the exchange was for 1.54 acres of the city's ten -acre
"Dog Park" parcel, including the access drive and entry lawn area, for 2.78 acres of land from
the developers which had previously been identified by the city for acquisition in the adopted
"Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan" map.
The Council further finds that in addition to the real property exchanged, as part of the
Development Agreement the City was also to receive a new city standard public street entrance
to the Dog Park and an additional 1,300 lineal feet of multi -use pathway to extend the regional
Bear Creek Greenway Trail. The value of these improvements was specifically noted as not
being considered in the valuation for the land exchange. The original findings in support of the
land exchange noted, "City finds that the difference in value between the two parcels being
exchanged is $150,000 in favor of City, based on the analysis and conclusions contained in the
Appraisal Reports commissioned by City, contained in the record and incorporated herein by
this reference. AFSG agrees to "gift" the $150,000 difference in value to City." These findings
also noted, "The approximately 2.78 acres of property received by the City will be used for
public open space and passive recreation, including the greenway trail. The reasons stated for
City Council consideration for the exchange include but are not limited to the added value to the
City's Parks and Trails system.... Acquisition by City of the [parcel]... provides City with the
opportunity to extend City's multi -use path, which is part of the regional Bear Creek Greenway.
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 8
The real property exchange also provides the public with additional scenic frontage along
Ashland Creek. Further, acquisition of the Williams Property provides City with an opportunity
to benefit the community by preserving and enhancing the riparian area along Ashland Creek."
The Council finds that, as approved, the multi -use path will weave above and below the riparian
zone and the top of the slope of the Ashland Creek riparian corridor. The path will cross slopes
of 40 to 50 percent in some areas and will include retaining wall construction to retain the
necessarily steep cuts. The riparian corridor is regulated both by the requirement to preserve
significant natural features in the Outline Plan approval criteria, and by AMC Chapter 18.62,
Physical and Environmental Constraints, which requires a Physical Constraints Review Permit
for construction of the path on Riparian Preservation lands. The multi -use path will also be
within fi ve feet of the edge of one of the site's wetlands for a distance of approximately 40 feet.
To ensure that the path installation was adequately buffered and would not negatively impact the
functions of the riparian area or wetland and satisfied the Physical Constraints Review Permit
approval criterion requiring demonstration that all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on
the environment would be taken with the path installation, the applicants were required to
provide a:
mitigation plan prepared by a riparian biologist or a natural resource
professional with training and experience in biology, ecology or related fields for
the impact of the construction of the multi -use path in the riparian corridor and to
address the 10 foot wide riparian corridor buffer. The riparian corridor buffer is
the setback between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek
riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25 -39,
and is delineated as common area in the application materials. Disturbed areas
from the multi -use path construction shall be re- vegetated and an additional area
restored and enhanced with local source native plant material including ground
cover, shrubs and trees at a 1:1.5 ratio, erosion control material shall be applied
(e.g. mulch, hay, jute- netting, or comparable) and temporary irrigation facilities
installed. The mitigation plan shall include but not be limited to a statement of
objectives, measurable standards of mitigation, an assessment of riparian
corridor functions and values, a statement and detail plan of the location,
elevation and hydrology of the mitigation area, a planting plan and schedule, a
monitoring and maintenance plan, a contingency plan and performance
guarantees. The applicants shall install the mitigation measures in the approved
mitigation plan in conjunction with the multi -use path installation.
The Council finds that the applicants provided the required mitigation plan along with plans for
the multi -use path installation as part of the Final Plan application for Phase I of the development
(Planning Action #2008 01853). This plan proposed the mitigation of approximately 46,005
square feet of the riparian setback area (i.e. the full riparian corridor area between the proposed
path and the creek) to mitigate habitat impacts and provided an additional approximately 9,382
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 9
square feet of non invasive ornamental plantings selected for their habitat and screening value
outside of the riparian setback area. As required in the Development Agreement, there was also
a maintenance period where the applicants were responsible for the maintenance and
replacement of any plantings which failed to survive three years after the path's completion.
The Council finds that with the current request, the applicants propose "to change the
landscaping requirements of the multi -use path to a level that is more in keeping with what is
reasonable to maintain by the City and takes into account what has been learned in the creekside
restorations since the development agreement was written. These changes still serve to protect
the valuable creek." With the request, they would reduce the plantings associated with
mitigating the path installation to the areas within four -feet of the path itself and any additional
lands disturbed through construction of the path. They would also plant the ten -foot buffer along
the eastern property lines of units 25 -39 and 68 on the subdivision property as required in the
original approval. The application materials provided emphasize that the restoration and
enhancement of the creek corridor were not considerations for the land exchange only the
lands' location, size and the multi -use path itself were considered, and these are not proposed to
change in terms either of the value of the exchange or in furthering the public interest with the
requested modifications.
The Council notes that the materials provided suggest that the currently approved mitigation plan
requirements are not appropriate in light of recent experiences with creek side restoration, and
that the blackberries and other non native plants that are currently on the property serve to
protect the stream. They go on to suggest that by removing these plants and replacing them with
natives, it would adversely impact the stream in the short term by removing the shade which
currently cools the water, and that by planting all of the new plantings at once there would be
higher plant mortality rates because of the sudden change to the growing conditions. They note
that the Parks Department has estimated that it would cost roughly $49,000 per year to maintain
the new plantings as all maintenance would need to be done by hand, rather than through
chemical application, because of the proximity to the creek. The applicants conclude that this is
a high cost with little benefit, and that the changes proposed would reduce costs by 60 to 75
percent. The Parks Department subsequently revised their maintenance cost estimates and
indicated that maintenance of the full three -acre maintenance project would run $39,000 per six-
month season, including irrigation and staff time, and that with the reduced planting area
proposed by the applicants here, costs might be reduced to one quarter of that amount.
The Council finds that the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission considered the proposed
modifications to the pathway installation and associated riparian landscaping at their December
23, 2013 meeting and made a number of recommendations:
o With regard to the timing of the improvements, the Commission unanimously recommended
"Council allowing Verde Village developers to wait for the second phase of development to
install the path if the first phase was not along the path; however if the first phase was
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 10
implemented and the developers did not put in the second phase along the pathway, after five
years they would need to build the path."
o With regard to the pathway landscaping, the Commission recommended that, "the proposed
vegetation in the development plan be reduced to an 18 foot wide corridor along and
including the bike path, including any affected or disturbed areas within that corridor which
would be re- vegetated, as opposed to how the plan is shown." Parks staff subsequently
clarified this recommendation noting that it would accomplish the need for replacing
vegetation on disturbed areas and begin the process of eliminating noxious and invasive
weeds but would not give the department a project that was too large and costly to adequately
maintain.
o The Commission also asked that Council, "allow Parks' professional staff the flexibility to
work with the developer to identify any additional trees to plant outside or inside the
identified 18 foot corridor" as this would allow some additional trees to be strategically
planted and maintained into the riparian corridor to establish themselves and gain dominance
over the blackberries leading to a higher survivability and success rate when further
restoration is pursued.
o The Parks Commission made no recommendation with regard to the possibility of reducing
the maintenance period associated with the re- vegetation from three -years down to one -year.
Parks staff has subsequently noted that Commissioners felt that with the changes they were
supporting the scope of maintenance necessary would ultimately be reduced to a level that
was reasonable for the developer to maintain for the original period, and that this would
provide a higher likelihood of success for the plantings when ultimately turned over to the
Parks Department.
With regard to the proposed modification to the multi -use path landscaping and the associated
riparian corridor restoration and enhancement, the Council finds that the scope of the previously
approved mitigation plan went well beyond what was necessary to mitigate the disturbance
associated with the path installation. Particularly in light of the Ashland Parks and Recreation
Commission's general support of the request, the Council finds in favor of the requested
modifications to the multi -use path landscaping and riparian corridor restoration requirements.
The Council further finds that the added condition recommended by the Planning Commission
adequately addresses the recommendations made by the Parks Commission. and the condition is
accordingly attached to this approval as Condition #31 of the Development Agreement's
"Exhibit E." This condition reads:
Multi Use Path Nevada Street Sidewalk Timing. That the multi use path and the
sidewalk on Nevada Street, from Heiman Street to Oak Street, shall be tied to the
construction of Sander Way as part of Phase II, rather than as a part of Phase 1. A
revised plan (replacing Sheet R -1 from December 1, 2008) shall be provided prior to
pathway installation illustrating the proposed pathway installation and the redefined
limits of the slope stabilization and associated re- vegetation and shall include the
planting of additional trees both inside and outside the pathway corridor to be
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 11
selected based on recommendations of Parks Department staff as to the number, type
and placement. The multi -use pathway improvements shall be installed with Phase 11
of the development, but no later than five years following completion of the first
phase."
2.8 The Council finds that subsequent to the Verde Village Subdivision approval, the City
adopted the Water Resources Protection Zones Ordinance which added new regulations by
creating stream bank and wetland protection zones. The Council further finds that while Section
21.3 of the Development Agreement generally envisions that the applicable regulations shall be
those in place at the time the agreement was adopted, with a modification, the City may apply
current regulations to the Development Agreement.
The Council finds that the Water Resources Protection Zones Ordinance created a 50 -foot
Stream Bank Protection Zone from the top of bank of Ashland Creek. The subdivision's homes,
as originally proposed comply with the requirement to provide protection zones. The ordinance
also provides that constructing unpaved trails up to six feet in width in parks are considered to be
exempt activities as detailed in AMC Section 18.63.060.A.2.b. The Council further finds that if
these new regulations were to be applied, a paved ten -foot public multi -use trail within the
stream bank protection zone would be subject to a Limited Use Permit as detailed in AMC
Section 18.63.070.A.3.a if it were found to be necessary to maintain a functional system, like the
Bear Creek Greenway regional trail system.
The Council finds that review under the new regulations would consider impacts of the proposal
and require a mitigation plan and management and maintenance similar to that already
conditioned upon Verde Village through the Outline Plan and Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit approvals. The Council further finds that the Development
Agreement requires mitigation plantings be provided on a 1:1.5 ratio (i.e. 150 square feet of
mitigation per 100 feet of disturbance) which is the same mitigation required under the Water
Resources Protection Zones Ordinance. The 1,300 linear feet of multi -use path proposed here at
a ten -foot width would equate to 13,000 square feet of disturbance, which at a 1.5 mitigation
ratio would require a 19,500 square foot mitigation area. As originally approved, the mitigation
area proposed included 46,005 square feet of mitigation landscaping in the riparian corridor with
plantings to cover the full area between the path and the creek, which ranges in width from 25
feet to approximately 130 feet, and an additional 9,382 square feet of riparian buffer on the
subdivision side for a total mitigation area of 55,387 square feet of mitigation plantings,
significantly exceeding what would be required even if the newer Water Resources Protection
Zones Ordinance regulations were to be applied. With the proposed modifications to the
landscaping currently proposed, the mitigation area of the 13,000 square feet of multi -use path
installation would equate to at least 23,400 square feet, still significantly more than the 19,500
required under the new regulations. The Council accordingly finds it unnecessary to apply the
new Water Resources Protection Zones Ordinance to the current request, as the existing approval
already mitigates the impacts of the path installation to an equal or superior extent.
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 12
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the
application for modification of the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision including
clarifications of the project phasing to make clear which improvements are required with each phase and
to allow either phase to occur first, changes to the energy efficiency requirements of the development so
that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be "Photovoltaic
Ready and changes to the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi -use path,
has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record.
The Verde Village project envisioned a unique mix of housing types and energy conserving housing that
Ashland had not seen before in a subdivision, and included connectivity improvements to better serve
the now constructed affordable housing in Rice Park, the Dog Park, the Bear Creek Greenway and the
surrounding community. The economic downturn has unavoidably precluded realization of the
applicant's original vision for the development; however Council believes that most of the originally
envisioned benefits to the City from this development can still be achieved with the modifications
requested here.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the
following conditions, we approve Planning Action 2014- 00052. Further, if any one or more of the
conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2014 -00052
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicants and stipulations contained within the application shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That the following condition shall be added to "Exhibit E" of the Development Agreement, as
recommended by the Planning Commission:
"30) Phasing. That Phase I and Phase IT refer to specific portions of the development,
and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase 11 prior to Phase I, or to
construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50
percent tf the total number of lots in Phase 1 and Phase II) would need to meet the
timetable for Phase I. if the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first
shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Heiman
Street, and the construction of Perozzi Street (formerly `Canine Way') from Almeda
Drive to the Dog Park. Both streets shall be completed according to the approved plans
(including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees
on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any homes for either
phase."
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 13
3) That the following condition shall be added to "Exhibit E" of the Development Agreement, as
recommended by the Planning Commission:
"31) Multi Use Path Nevada Street Sidewalk Timing. That the multi use path and
the sidewalk on Nevada Street, from Heiman Street to Oak Street, shall be tied to the
construction of Sander Way as part of Phase II, rather than as a part of Phase I. A revised
plan (replacing Sheet R -1 from December 1, 2008) shall be provided prior to pathway
installation illustrating the proposed pathway installation and the redefined limits of the
slope stabilization and associated re- vegetation and shall include the planting of
additional trees both inside and outside the pathway corridor to be selected based on
recommendations of Parks Department staff as to the number, type and placement. The
multi -use pathway improvements shall be installed with Phase I1 of the development, but
no later than five years following completion of the first phase."
4
cif Ape royal Mgt 4 Je 9611 in Date
PA 2014 -00052
87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications
Page 14