HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-184 Findings - Verde Village
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
JULY 19, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION 42016-00229, A REQUEST FOR A )
MODIFICATION OF THE OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT )
AGREEMENT, AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE II, THE 28-UNIT )
SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF THE VERDE VILLAGE; SUBDIVISION )
LOCATED AT 87 WEST NEVADA STREET, 811 HELMAN STREET AND 127 ) T
ALMEDA DRIVE. THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED INVOLVE CHANGES ) FINDINGS,
TO THE PROPERTY LINES; BUILDING ENVELOPES; THE NUMBER OF ) CONCLUSIONS
ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS; THE APPROVED LANDSCAPING ) & ORDERS
PLAN; AND THE APPROVED PUBLIC/PRIVATE SPACE PLAN FOR PHASE )
II, THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF THE VERDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. )
APPLICANTS: Verde Village Development, LLC/KDA Homes, LLC )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots #1100, #1400, #1418 and #1419 of Map 39 lE 04B are located on contiguous parcels at 87
West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Almeda Drive and are zoned R-1-3.5 (Suburban
Residential), R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) and R-1-7.5 (Single Family Residential.
2) The applicants are requesting Modification of the Outline Plan approval and Development
Agreement, and Final Plan approval for Phase 11, the 28-unit single family portion, of the Verde Village
Subdivision located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The modifications
proposed involve changes to the property lines; building envelopes; the number of detached and attached
units; the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private space plan for Phase II, the single
family portion of the Verde Village Subdivision. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan subdivision approval or modification through the Performance Standards
Options Chapter are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows:
a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.
b. 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.
C. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the
development and significant features have been included in the open space, common
areas, and unbuildable areas.
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 1
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. 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 some or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. 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 Final Plan subdivision approval or modification through the Performance
Standards Options Chapter are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.13 as follows:
5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of
substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is
intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another.
Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final
plan meets all of the following criteria.
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the
approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those
permitted in the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten
percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these
distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance.
C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline
plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by
more than ten percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in
the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial
detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be
achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or
increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 2
dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space
reduced below that permitted in the outline plan.
6. Any substantial amendment to an approved Final Plan shall follow a Type I procedure in
section 18.5.1.050 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria.
6) The original Subdivision approval and Development Agreement envisioned that Final Plan
approval for each of the two phases of the development could be processed, like any other Final Plan
applications, through administrative review by staff, and in fact the Final Plan approvals for both
Rice Park and the Cottages in Phase I were approved administratively.
However, the approval criteria for Final Plan in AMC 18.3.9.040 provide that building locations and
sizes, open space areas, and yard depths may vary no more than ten percent over those approved in the
original Outline Plan and the current request includes buildings which were previously shown as being
25-26 feet apart now illustrated as envelopes that are only 12 feet apart. The building on Lot 46 had a
footprint illustrated at approximately 900 square foot (exclusive of garage) in the original approval, while
the "viable, footprint" is now illustrated at 2,432 square feet. Because these changes exceed the ten percent
threshold allowed between Outline and Final Plan, modification of the original Outline Plan approval, and
thus the Development Agreement, is necessary.
Procedurally speaking, 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 current request is
therefore for a land use decision as to whether the proposal complies with the applicable approval criteria
detailed above for Outline and Final plan approvals. In addition, as provided in ORS 94.508.2, the
approval or amendment of a Development Agreement is a land use decision.
7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April 12, 2016
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing,
the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site. Findings approving that the proposal for Modification of the Outline Plan approval
including changes to the property lines; building envelopes; the number of detached and attached units;
the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private space plan, and Final Plan approval for
Phase II, the 28-unit single family portion, of the Verde Village Subdivision were adopted on May 10,
2016.
8) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 7, 2016 at which time
testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The hearing and record were closed, but due to a lack
of time the Council's deliberations were continued to their next regular meeting on June 21, 2016 at which
time the Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of
the site.
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 3
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
Planning Commission's findings and recommendations, the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the
exhibits received.
2.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for modification of the Outline Plan approval and Final Plan
approval meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval as described in Chaptei 18.3.9.040.A and for
Final Plan approval as described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.B.
2.3 The City Council finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City
of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan provided delineates the proposed
building location, design and associated site improvements. The City Council further finds that the
application involves requests to modify the original land use approval and the associated Development
Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision by making changes to the property lines, building envelopes
and number of detached and attached units, and by making changes to the approved landscaping and
public/private space plans for Phase II, the single family portion of the subdivision.
2.4 The City Council finds that the Verde Village Subdivision was originally approved in December
of 2007 and consisted of an 11.64 acre site comprising five parcels on the site of the old Ashland
Greenhouses at 87 West Nevada and 811 Helman Streets. That original application involved numerous
approval by the City, including:
o An Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes from Jackson County Rural
Residential (RR-5) to City of Ashland Single Family Residential (R-1) and Suburban
Residential (R-1-3.5)
o Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68-unit residential development
o Site Review approval for multi-family development
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 4
o Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the
Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area.
o A Tree Removal Permit
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o A Development Agreement with the City of Ashland which governed the requirements for
development of the subdivision to completion, including a detailed timeline. This development
agreement was adopted by Ordinance 42945 on December 19, 2007.
Subsequent to the 2007 approval, the original applicants dedicated property to the Rogue Valley
Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to develop 15 affordable units as part of Phase I of
Verde Village to satisfy the affordability requirements of the annexation. Utilities and infrastructure,
including a 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 Final Plan and Site Review approval for the remainder of the Phase 1, 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
economy and availability of financing, and in 2014 approved requested modifications of the Development
Agreement including: clarifications of the project phasing to make clear which improvements would be
required with each phase and to allowing either phase to occur first; changing 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 changing the landscaping requirements associated with
construction of the multi-use path.
In 2015, a request for modifications (PA 42015-00825) including partitioning the property to be consistent
with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #349 and #15417, and to modify
Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and
timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive was approved. The Phase I
portion of the development has been sold to Verde Village Development, LLC (the current applicants)
PA #2016-00229 Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 5
and infrastructure installation for the first phase is now well underway.
2.5 The City Council finds that the application explains that the number of dwelling units proposed,
street pattern, and public improvements associated with the extension of the bikepath and new street
system are to remain as proposed and that the modifications requested are limited to: adding property lines
around 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase I; adding building envelopes within the new property lines
for 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase I; modifying the open space treatment; detaching four of the
six previously attached units; and clarifying the maximum house size of the proposed homes.
With regard to adding property lines around 25 of the 28 single family lots in Phase 1, the application
explains that the originally approved Outline Plan did not include property lines for 25 of the 28 proposed
single family residences. The applicants now desire to add clear property line boundaries in order to
delineate ownership boundaries and avoid confusion between property owners. They note that the
previous plan did not consider pet control issues, ownership values, privacy concerns or neighborly
interaction.
With regard to adding building envelopes within the new property lines for 25 of the 28 single family lots
in Phase I, the applicants similarly note that the original Outline Plan approval did not include building
envelopes but instead presented conceptual house footprints. The applicants are now requesting to add
building envelopes within the property lines in order to identify potential home construction boundaries
and provide future home owners some flexibility in designing their homes. The applicants emphasize that
building envelopes are not proposed house footprints, but instead boundary limitations that are necessary
to retain private open space, provide for solar access and address spatial sensitivity and that there are
numerous factors that limit the actual size of a home within the envelope including lot coverage, setbacks,
solar access, owner preferences, and the 2,500 square foot limitation committed to with the application.
With regard to detaching four of the six previously attached units, the applicants note that the original
approval identified six attached units, and the current request proposes to reduce this by four noting that
this change would be more in course for the subdivision and would create a more balanced approach when
it comes bringing a mixture of housing types to the market.
With regard to clarifying the maximum house size of the proposed homes, the applicants note that the
original application narrative stated that, "small is beautiful" and that philosophy remains today.
However, they emphasize that it has always the applicants' intention to exclude the units' garage square
footage from the 2,500 square foot limitation described in the original application and as such, the current
request seeks to clarify that units will be limited to 2,500 square feet not including garages or porches.
They suggest that only a few of the homes would likely broach this level, but desire the flexibility in
design in order to offer a variety of house types and sizes to remain competitive in the marketplace.
With regard to modifying the open space treatment, the applicants suggest that there is no clear indication
in the plans or narrative for the Outline Plan approved indicating the purpose of the site's open spaces and
that it appears to be partially planted and unplanted passive open space with no trails or central focus
points for neighborly interaction apparent. They suggest that it was unclear whether this space was to be
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 6
public or private, and that it was unclear how wall, window and door placement adjacent to open space
was to be treated to determine whether the homes turned their backs onto the open space. The applicants
propose to define the plantings for the project open spaces, and where paths are provided to grant public
easements. A small focal point is proposed to anchor the large central space and provide a neighborhood
interaction point. The applicants suggest that building envelopes will have standard rear yard setbacks to
reduce building massing around the open space. The applicants also propose fence height restrictions to
be included in the project CC&R's that would prohibit fence heights exceeding four feet so that the
common open space areas retain a sense of openness. Overall, the applicants contend that the proposed
modifications to the treatment of the open space areas provide far more open space than originally planned
and do so in a more useable manner with homes that now face the open space and the street and provide
eyes on the open space for a comfortable, enjoyable recreational experience.
With regard to clarification of the solar access for the proposed homes, Condition #22 of the original
approval required that all homes in the development comply with Solar Access Standard A and cast no
more shadow than would be cast by a six-foot fence on the north property line. The applicants explain
that because the property lines are de-emphasized to enhance the sense of community, the applicants
propose to comply with this standard based on a hypothetical six-foot fence built at a six-foot setback
rather than based on the private lot lines proposed. This is similar to the shading that has been allowed in
other Performance Standards developments such as the Millpond Subdivision, and would limit the shadow
cast to no more than would be cast by a six-foot fence built six feet south of the home to the north's wall.
The applicants emphasize that the subdivision's original efforts to maximize solar orientation remain
unchanged, and that they would provide Earth Advantage® Platinum homes (currently Gold is required)
that are Photo-Voltaic Ready with conduit and circuit breakers installed; homes designed with optimum
roof pitch and area for solar, and include an identified solar reserve area on building plans; and an outlet
with a 240-watt circuit breaker in each garage to accommodate an electric car charger. The application
materials include solar studies as Sheets A2-A5 illustrating how this shading would work, and all building
permits would include demonstration of compliance with the standard.
The applicants conclude with the assertion that the modifications proposed will notably improve upon a
neighborhood that will be more desired and valued by its tenants. They suggest that the previous plan
was conceptual and not fully vetted nor the criteria fully understood by the applicants as the previously
approved plans "would have created a development that felt like a government designed communal
housing project that would have had little life and or individual expression."
2.6 The City Council finds that during the Council hearing, the applicants proposed that Phase II of
the development would be built to Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready standards. This would combine
Earth Advantage Platinum standards with homes designed and modeled to generate as much energy on
site as they use over the course of a year, less the actual installation of a renewable energy system. This
means that the homes would have proper roof orientation, roof pitch and roof area as well as EPA solar-
ready compliance, and would be modeled as Zero Energy Ready using Rem Rates energy modeling of
annual total energy consumption. The Council finds that with Phase II built to Zero Energy Ready
standards, Verde Village will include a mix of energy efficient homes in a variety of sizes and types,
including the affordable townhomes in Rice Park at the northwest corner of the site which were built to a
project-specific zero net energy performance standard with the original application, the cottages which
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 7
are to be built to Earth Advantage Gold/PV Ready standards, and the single family homes in Phase II
under consideration here which would be Zero Energy Ready. The Council finds that this would bring
the subdivision's focus on energy efficiency back much more in line with the original approval.
2.7 The City Council finds that in considering internal connectivity, there needs to be greater
provisions for access from within the development to the creek corridor and a condition has been included
here to require that prior to preparing final civil drawings for Phase II, the applicants shall work with the
Staff Advisor on a revised pathway placement to provide for better internal connectivity. This placement
would be a public path, with the location shifted northward to achieve a more direct connection while
taking into account the impact of cut and fill slopes that may result due to the steepness of the bank and
ADA grade and landing requirements. The Council recognizes that the Staff Advisor will need to make
a final determination, based on the engineering details provided by the applicants, which balances the
level of disturbance to the slopes and creek environment versus the inconvenience of requiring a little out
of direction travel for pedestrians.
2.8 The City Council finds that the current request involves modification of the approved Outline Plan,
and is subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of
review is limited to the modification request as provided in AMC 18.5.6.030.0. The Council further finds
that the modifications requested can be found to comply with the Outline Plan approval criteria. The
development will continue to meet applicable ordinance requirements of the City; the provision of
adequate key city facilities and treatment of natural features are not proposed to be altered; the proposed
changes will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive
Plan; there are adequate provisions of the maintenance of open space and common areas; and the proposed
density and streetscape treatment are to remain unchanged.
2.9 The City Council finds that the number of dwelling units are not to vary from the number shown
in Outline Plan herein and will not exceed the number of units in the original approval; that with the yard
depths, open spaces, building sizes, elevations and materials are to remain consistent with the
modifications considered herein; that the modifications proposed remain consistent with the standards
which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the original approval; and that the development
continues to comply with the Street Standards except in those areas where Exceptions were previously
approved
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the proposal
for Modification of the Outline Plan approval including changes to the property lines; building envelopes;
the number of detached and attached units; the approved landscaping plan; and the approved public/private
space plan, and Final Plan approval for Phase II, the 28-unit single family portion, of the Verde Village
Subdivision is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action 92016-00229. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-00229 is denied. The
PA #2016-00229 Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 8
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all conditions of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein, including but not limited to:
a. That fencing adjacent to the open space be limited to no more than four feet in height and that
these fences shall be of an open construction which does not obscure views from the open
space area.
b. That the development's CC&Rs shall make clear that there is to be no blocking of solar access
by vegetation.
c. That homes in Phase II shall not exceed 2,500 square feet exclusive of standard garages and
porches.
d. That the allowed garage space for each lot shall not exceed 540 square feet.
e. That the proposed attached units shall obtain Site Design Review approval prior to approval
of building permits.
f. That the homes in Phase II shall be constructed to Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready
standards as proposed by the applicants. Building permit submittals shall include point sheets,
energy modeling details, and evidence of submittal to Earth Advantage for review. Evidence
of Earth Advantage Zero Energy Ready certification shall be provided by the applicants prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each home.
2) That all conditions of the previous land use approvals and the approved Development Agreement
and subsequently approved modifications shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that safe and free public
access, and associated temporary public access easements, to the Dog Park and Bear Creek
Greenway be maintained during development.
3) That lots adjacent to open space shall provide standard side and rear yard setbacks for the zoning
district as a minimum appropriate transition between the public and private spaces.
4) The single-family zoned Lots 466-68 in Phase II shall be included in the homeowners' association
and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements.
5) The applicants proposed allocation of additional lot coverage from the open space to individual
lots is not approved. Lot coverage calculations shall be provided with each building permit
demonstrating that each lot complies with the lot coverage limitations of the underlying zoning.
6) That the streetscapes, including the park row planting strip s/bio-swales, shall be maintained by the
homeowners association and this obligation shall be reflected in the CC&Rs.
7) Building permit submittals shall clearly illustrate compliance consistent with Solar Standard A.
8) That prior to preparing final civil drawings, the applicants shall work with the Staff Advisor on a
revised pathway placement to provide for better internal connectivity.
PA #2016-00229 Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 9
i
City Council Ap roval D #e
PA #2016-00229-Council Decision
May 10, 2016
Page 10