3/10/10 Planning Commission Agenda

Town of Ashland
Planning Commission
March 10, 2010 Agenda
Regular – 7:00 p.m.
Town Hall Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
IV. CITIZEN INPUT
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REZ09-1012 Rogers-Chenault, Inc. requests rezoning from RR-1 (Rural 3

Residential) and R-1 (Residential, Restricted) to R-2 (Residential, Limited) on
properties identified as GPINs 7870-45-8350, -9225, -55-0040, and –4089,
consisting of +/- 14.76 acres. These properties are located west of North Macon
Terrace subdivision, and front +/-430 feet on the east side of Chapman Street +/-
1450 feet north of Wesley Street, as well as the southern terminus of Wales Way.
The subject property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for
Low Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre)
B. CUP10-0204 EcoProperties, LLC requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow 17

apartments located above commercial space, in accordance with Sec. 21-92(2) of
the Town Code, on property identified as GPIN 7870-81-4253, and currently
zoned B-1 (Central Business) District, located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Thomas and Robinson Streets. The subject property is designated
by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for Central Business uses.
C. CUP10-0208 Randolph-Macon College requests a Conditional Use Permit to 28

allow exceptions to the lighting requirements for the purpose of illuminating
tennis courts, in accordance with Sec. 21-266 of the Town Code, on property
identified as GPIN 7870-62-8355 and -72-0773, and currently zoned HE (Higher
Education) District, located +/-375 ft. north of Henry Clay Road, between N.
Center Street and N. James Street. The subject properties are designated by the
Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for institutional uses.
VI. REPORT OF COMMITTEES
A. Town Council – by Ned Henson

B. Ashland Main Street Association – by Bob Brown
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

A. Carter’s Hill Subdivision – Preliminary Plat
VIII NEW BUSINESS
A. Randolph-Macon College – Parking Plan 48
IX PRESENTATION OF MINUTES
A. Approval of September 09, 2009, Minutes

B. Approval of October 14, 2010, Minutes
C. Approval of November 18, 2009, Minutes
D. Approval of January 13, 2010, Minutes
E. Approval of February 17, 2010, Minutes
X ADJOURNMENT
Council summaries are attached

STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia

From: Zack Robbins, Senior Planner
Date: March 10, 2010
Case Type: Rezoning & Preliminary Plat (Major Subdivision)
Case No.: REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012
Case Name: Carters Hill Section II
Applicant: Rogers Chenault Incorporated
Location: West of North Macon Terrace subdivision, and fronting +/-430 feet on the east
side of Chapman Street +/-1450 feet north of Wesley Street, as well as the
southern terminus of Wales Way.
GPIN(s): 7870-45-8350, -9225, -55-0040 and -4089
REQUEST:
The applicant requests: (1) Rezoning from RR-1 (Rural Residential) and R-1 (Residential,
Restricted) to R-2 (Residential, Limited) on +/-14.79 acres, (2) Preliminary plat approval to
create a thirty twenty-eight lot residential subdivision on +/-14.79 acres, and (3) Exception to
Sec. 17-42, which states that a subdivision block must be at least 500 feet in length.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of the requests until the April 14, 2010, meeting. For the full
recommendation, see Page 7.
www.town.ashland.va.us
Planning Commission
Town of Ashland, Virginia Page 2 of 14
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning RR-1 (Rural Residential) and R-1 (Residential, Restricted)
West of North Macon Terrace subdivision, South of Carters Hill
Location subdivision, also fronting +/-430 feet on the east side of
Chapman Street +/-1450 feet north of Wesley Street.
Size +/- 14.76 acres
Existing Land Use Vacant
North - Carters Hill sub. (under construction), zoned RR-1,
Surrounding Land South – Vacant, zoned R-2
Use and Zoning East – North Macon Terrace subdivision, zoned R-2
West – Single-family residential, zoned R-1 and R-2
The Plan states that this property is appropriate for Low Density
Comprehensive Plan
Residential Uses (1-4 dwelling units per acre)
PROCESS:
The applicant has simultaneously requested rezoning, as well as preliminary plat approval.
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not specifically prohibit or encourage such
(except in Planned Development districts), however staff sees some advantages to reviewing
both applications concurrently, as the preliminary plat layout can be incorporated into the
zoning approval through proffers.
The proposed subdivision is considered a Major Subdivision, which requires approval of a

preliminary plat prior to recordation of a final plat. The preliminary plat must show all existing
and proposed boundaries, utility easements, drainage systems, streets and buildings. The
purpose of the preliminary plat is to identify, at the subdivision stage, any site development
issues that may arise related to zoning, environmental concerns, adequate utilities, site
access, or other rules, regulations, or policies of the Town. Any specific design standards
that may arise from these issues would further be refined at the site plan review process.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Staff has reviewed the applicant’s most recent submittal, last revised February 19, 2010, and
finds the subdivision plat meets all dimensional requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances, with the exception of the length of the block of Wales Way between Vaughan
Road and Wales Place. Staff has concerns relative to other aspects of the subdivision and
rezoning, as outlined below.
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends that this property is appropriate for low-density
residential development, at 1 to 4 dwelling units per acre, in conventional subdivisions.
Clustering concepts and innovative layouts are encouraged to achieve open space and to
preserve sensitive lands. Further, these areas should be at densities consistent with
surrounding development.
The Vision, Goals, Objectives & Strategies section of the Comprehensive Plan states that
new housing should be sensitive to the character of the surrounding community, and that
new subdivision development near the edge of Town, such as this, should complement the
character of the older neighborhoods.
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Carters Hill Section II
Planning Commission
Significant open space is preserved on the proposed layout (about 35%). The proposed
density is 2.0 units per acre, with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The properties to
the north and west are developed at a lower density (one acre lots to the north, and 15,000
square foot lots to the west). The applicant has proffered larger lot sizes adjacent to the
properties to the west. The properties to the north are separated by a significant amount of
open space to allow for the transition in density.
Cash Proffers. The applicant has submitted a cash proffer in the amount of $8,198.00, for
Hanover County Public Schools, in compliance with the Town’s adopted Cash Proffer Policy.
Tree Preservation/Replacement. The applicant has proffered to attempt to minimize grading

on the site, except where clearing is necessary for road, drainage, and utility installation.
The preliminary plat shows a significant portion of the site (about 18 of the proposed 28 lots)
may need to be cleared upfront for installation of the drainage improvements, due to the flat
topography of the site, however all of the open space, except for the site of the BMP, would
remain uncleared.
The applicant has further proffered to plant eight deciduous trees, two-inches in caliper on
each lot that is fully cleared. To be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance landscaping
requirements, staff suggests that a 2 ½ inch minimum caliper would be appropriate.
Stormwater Management. The proposal shows a system of underground stormwater

systems draining to a centralized basin (BMP). The plat shows the basin to be located
adjacent to Vaughan Road in the northeast corner of the site.
Staff’s experience with past BMPs has been that when a BMP is hidden from view behind
residential lots, maintenance is not prioritized, impeding the ability of the BMP to perform
properly. When BMPs are located in a highly visible area, along a public road, sufficient
maintenance occurs, however the BMP is not very attractive, particularly dry basin BMPs.
The applicant has proffered to provide a landscaped dry BMP.
Proffered Home Sizes & Character. The applicant has proffered the following regarding
home sizes and height:
• Lots 1 and 28, which front Chapman Street, will have least 2,000 square ft. homes,
and one of those shall be a rancher.
• In the entire development, 25 to 50 percent will be single story homes.
• The minimum home size is 1,200 square feet, and at least 50% shall be at least
1,400 square feet.
To address the character suggested by the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has proffered
that foundations are to be brick, that no identical homes shall be built side by side, and that
cinderblock will not be used on any exterior. Staff believes that these proffers may not be
adequate to ensure that the character of the property is consistent with surrounding
neighborhoods, and that it may be appropriate to proffer typical elevations or design
guidelines.
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
Staff is neutral as to the implementation of

home size or mandating one-story or two-story
homes as there is no direction from the
Comprehensive Plan aside from suggesting
that proposed subdivisions should
complement the surrounding development.
Given the buffers created by open space, staff
believes that adequate separation occurs to
allow appropriate transition to the
neighborhoods to the north and west.
This chart and map summarizes the typical lot

and home sizes of the adjacent existing development.
Typ. Lot Typ. Lot Avg Home Home Size % Two #

Size Width Size Range Story Homes
1. North Macon
10,000 75’ 1466 1144-1980 23% 38
Terrace
2. Chapman
43,560 +/-100’ 1628 1044-2624 55% 20
Street – South
3. Chapman
32,000 175’ 2328 1450-2807 29% 7
Street- North
4. Carters Hill
43,560 150’ 2515 1843-3466 73% 11
Sec. 1
Average:
75’
13,500
5. Prop. Carters (larger on 50%-
Range: 1400+ 1200-? 28
Hill Sec. 2 Chapman 75%
10,000-
St)
43,000
Street Connections. The subdivision provides connections to existing Wales Way (in
Carter’s Hill subdivision), and completes about one-quarter of the proposed Vaughan Road
Extension, by tying into Chapman Street. Chapman Street would be realigned so that the
western segment of Chapman Street free-flows into Vaughan Road, on a temporary basis,
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
until the next section of Vaughan to the west (on the Green Acres property) is completed.
Stub streets are provided to the south and
east to provide for street connections
suggested by the Comprehensive Plan, for
Vaughan Road Connector, as well as the
extension of Wales Way south to Snead
Street.
Staff believes that the applicant should

provide a stub street to the west to allow
access to approximately 6 ½ acres of
vacant land that is currently under common
ownership. Should the owner of this
adjacent property choose to develop their
property, Sec. 17-46 of the Subdivision
Ordinance states that ‘street arrangement
must be such as to cause no unnecessary
hardship to owners of adjoining property
when they plat their own land and it must
provide for convenient access to adjoining
property.’
Transportation Impact. Staff requested a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) be submitted

with the zoning application, to help analyze the potential traffic impacts generated by the
connection of Chapman and James Street, and ultimately Route 1 North and Route 54 West
(although it does not create the direct connection that is ultimately desired). The
development itself will only generate a total of 343 trips per day, however the new traffic
patterns generated by the completion of through streets could have a significant impact.
The analysis looked at three scenarios for transportation impact in the year 2019:
• Background growth without the development or the Vaughan Road Connection
• Background growth with the development and the Vaughan Road Connection
• Background growth with the development, using the cut-through Carters Hill
subdivision.
The analysis showed that the intersection of Archie Cannon Road and US 1 should be
closely monitored in the future for potential signalization, as heading west on Sylvia Road at
US 1 will be affected by the volumes heading east on Archie Cannon Road. These volumes
are generated by background growth, not this development itself. The background growth
creates 64 seconds of delay on westbound Sylvia, but only 10 seconds can be attributed to
this development.
EXCEPTION REQUEST:
The applicant has requested an exception to Sec. 17-42 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
code section states:
The maximum length of blocks generally shall be twelve hundred (1,200) feet, and
the minimum length of blocks which have frontage shall be five hundred (500) feet.
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
The authority to grant exceptions to Subdivision requirements is included in Sec. 17-5 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, which states the following is necessary to grant an exception:
• Extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties would result from strict compliance

with the Ordinance, or the purposes of the regulations would be served to a greater
extent by an alternative proposal.
• The exception shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the
regulations.
• The following three findings must be met:
o The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public safety,
health, or welfare, or injurious to other property.
o Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner
would result if the strict letter of these regulations are carried out.
o The exceptions will not in any manner vary the provisions of the zoning
ordinance, comprehensive plan, or official zoning map.
The applicant has submitted a letter (see attached) stating several reasons in support of this
request. The following reasons are notable:
• Wetland impact would be greatly increased if Wales Place is shifted further south.
The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes conservation of
environmentally sensitive areas.
• Complication of the tie-in to Vaughan Rd. to Chapman
St. and the future extension of Vaughan to Rt. 54. Staff
originally requested Vaughan Rd. be shifted further
north, however the radius of the curve is already close
to the minimum VDOT standard for an Urban Local
Street with a 30 MPH design, which is 273 feet. Any
greater radius would potentially require right-of-way
from adjacent property owners. Additionally, shifting
Vaughan northward would potentially create a short
block between Hillsway Drive and Vaughan. (see
graphic)
Staff also notes that the Comprehensive Plan states on page

96 that blocks shall be kept fairly short.
Staff believes that the findings necessary for the granting of the
exception have been met, and that they are in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
At its January 13, 2010, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended deferral of the
requests to March 10, so that the following issues mentioned by the Planning Commission
may be addressed by the applicant:
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
• Preference for larger, high quality, sustainable homes on larger lots that are
consistent with the surrounding area.
• Vaughan Road design, specifically whether a 30 or 40 MPH design speed were
appropriate, and appropriate buffers from Vaughan Road.
Housing Size & Quality, Lot Sizes. The applicant’s resubmittal has increased the size of the
lots adjacent to Chapman Street, and deleted one of the lots on the west side of the
development. These lots along Chapman Street are now consistent with the adjacent
existing lots along Chapman, at 0.62 and 0.97 acres.
Regarding higher quality homes, the applicant has proffered not to use certain inferior
materials, or chain link fences, and proffered to require paved or concrete driveways. Staff
believes that it may be appropriate to improve these proffers by including architectural
guidelines or typical elevations to guarantee a certain level of quality.
It was suggested that Earthcraft design features be implemented into this development to
ensure sustainability. Staff does not believe that Earthcraft or other ‘green’ design programs
would ensure sustainability from a neighborhood preservation or longevity standpoint, as
these programs are only setup to ensure environmentally friendly building practices. It would
be possible to build a lower quality house using green development principles. Additionally,
the certification procedures for green development programs is completed after the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, making it extremely difficult for staff to enforce, and potentially
causing problems for new homeowners at the time of closing.
Vaughan Road. Currently, there is no policy or long-term plan direction available to staff to
make a recommendation for what the ultimate section of Vaughan Road should be.
However, for the plan that is proposed with this subdivision, Public Works staff believes that
the design speed used, and right-of-way provided will be sufficient for Vaughan Road upon
its completion, and into the future.
Regarding the Vaughan Road corridor, the applicant has resubmitted using a design with a
slightly larger radius for curves, which would meet the ‘Urban’ 30 MPH design guideline, as
opposed to the ‘Urban Low Speed’ 30 MPH guideline used in the earlier submittal considered
by the Planning Commission at its January meeting. VDOT’s road design manual states:
Design speeds exceeding 30 mph in residential areas may require longer sight
distances and increased curve radii, which would be contrary to the basic function of
a local street.
The following information from the VDOT road design manual should be considered in
determining the proper classification and design of Vaughan Road:
• Arterial highways are intended to provide direct service between cities and larger
towns and are high speed, high volume facilities. Collector highways serve small
towns directly, connecting them and local roads to the arterial system.
• Design speeds for arterials and collectors:
o 40MPH is the min. if this road is intended to be an arterial.
o 30MPH is the min. if this road is intended to be a collector.
• The min. centerline radius for a 40MPH design (regardless of classification) is 563’
• The min. centerline radius for a 30MPH design is 300’
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
• In a typical street grid, closely spaced intersections limit vehicular speeds and make
design speed less of an issue.
Staff also recommends the Commission consider that given the higher design speed, the
more likely it will be utilized as a bypass, reducing traffic in the central business district, and
the potential that it would act as a barrier, similar in effect to Ashcake Road.
Finally, the Commission expressed concern over buffering and fencing provided along
Vaughan Road. Upon meeting with the applicant, it was determined that the only fences that
could be permitted adjacent to Vaughan Road within setbacks would be a four-foot fence. If
a full eight-foot fence were desired, it would need to be located beyond the 25 or 30 foot
setbacks off of Vaughan Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following:
The Planning Commission defers consideration of rezoning request REZ09-1012 to April 14,
2010, to allow additional time for the applicant to address the following items:
1. Revision of Proffer #2 to delete the first line of paragraph (a).

2. Revision of Proffer #3 to align the tree caliper requirements with that of the town, and
state the intent of the proffer more clearly, for example: Prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, eight deciduous trees of at least 2 ½ inches in caliper shall
be provided on each lot. Existing trees, and street trees provided on adjacent right-
of-way may be credited toward this requirement.
3. Provision of typical elevations for the development that will ensure that the character
of the neighborhood is consistent with surrounding neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission defers consideration of the subdivision request SUB09-1012 to

February 10, 2010, to allow additional time for the applicant to address the following items:
1. Provide a stub street to the west, as an extension of Wales Way.
The Planning Commission defers consideration of the exception request to Sec. 17-42 to
February 10, 2010.
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

STAFF REPORT

Case Type: Conditional Use Permit
Case No.: CUP10-0204
Case Name: EcoProperties, LLC
Location: Northwest corner of Robinson and Thomas Streets
GPIN(s): 7870-81-4253
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow apartments above commercial
space, in accordance with Sec. 21-92(2) of the Town Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission defers consideration of this request to its April 14, 2010, meeting
to allow the applicant to provide the following:
1. A subdivision application to subdivide the property or a site redesign, as suggested

within this report.
2. A site layout showing proposed improvements to the adjacent street, to include curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and on-street parking.
3. Information regarding proposed signage, landscaping, and lighting.
4. Southern and western building elevations.
5. Revised elevations incorporating additional architectural features to ensure
compatibility with the central business district.
Planning Commission
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning B-1, Central Business District

Location 108 Thomas Street
Size Approximately 10,000 sq. ft. (+/-0.229 acres)
North, East: Commercial uses
Surrounding Land West, South: Post Office
Use and Zoning Southeast: Residential (Condominiums)
B-1, Central Business District in all directions
The Plan states that this property is appropriate for Central
Comprehensive Plan
Business uses.
The subject property was occupied by a lumber yard that had been vacant for several years.
The structures on the property were demolished by the applicant in 2009.
On February 26, 2009, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized two grants to
the property owner for the purpose of assisting with demolition and infrastructure costs. In
order to receive the demolition grant the owner was obligated to demolish and remove all
structures from the property, as they were not salvageable, and prepare the site for
development. In order to recieve the infrastructure grant, the owner will be required to
extend water and sewer from England Street to the site. This grant can also be used to
offset utility connection fees.
The applicant proposes two two-story buildings, with commercial space on the lower floors,
and six apartments on the second floors. The Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use
permit for apartments above commercial space in the B-1 district.
The applicant has submitted a site sketch, showing the general orientation of the property,
typical drawings of the proposed office building, as well as proffers, associated with the
rezoning.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Process. Sec. 21-13 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the criteria for granting a conditional
use permit:
A conditional use permit shall not be issued unless the town council shall find that the
use for which the conditional use permit is sought and the operation thereof will not
affect adversely the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed use; will not be detrimental to public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood; and will be in accord
with the purpose of the comprehensive plan.
Staff notes that conditions imposed through the Conditional Use Permit process apply only to
the use in question, and are not applicable should a use occupy the site which does not
require a conditional use permit.
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan makes the following statements that are applicable to this
request:
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010
EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
Page 84. Land Use, Central Business District. The commercial downtown district
promotes harmonious development and redevelopment. Emphasis is placed upon
enhancing pedestrian circulation, minimizing vehicular and pedestrian access
conflicts, pattern, and maintaining continuity with the architectural character of the
area. Signage, parking and lighting standards should give particular emphasis to the
elements of the existing downtown atmosphere.
Pages 84-85. Land Use, Recommendations. A major portion of the downtown area
is included in the nationally designated historic district. Future building modifications
and new construction in this area should be compatible with the existing scale,
intensity of use and architectural character of surrounding development.
*note: the property in question is not located within the historic district, however, the post office property,
directly to the west is within the district.
Page 96. Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Ashland also derives much of its
character from the elements that decorate the roadways. This includes signs,
lighting, plantings, benches, and so on. These details can have a noticeable impact
on the appearance of a community.
Site Design. The applicant’s proposal shows two two-story buildings, totaling 9,600 square
feet, with commercial below six apartments. Parking is provided via a ten-space parking lot
along Thomas Street. In the B-1 district, parking is not required for these commercial uses,
however, six parking spaces are required for the apartments. The service area, including
dumpsters, is located near the dead-end of Robinson Street, adjacent to the service area for
the post office.
Sec. 21-94.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following regarding setback regulations:
There shall be no setback requirement for buildings and structures, provided that no
parking area or other area for circulation of vehicles shall be located between the
main building on the lot and the street, nor shall any such area be located any closer
to the street than the main building. Parking areas shall be located to the side or rear
of buildings, and shall be provided with a landscaped setback of not less than five (5)
feet, which shall be improved and used in accordance with the provisions of section
21-233 (b) and (c) and section 21-234 of this chapter. See the Development
Guidelines Handbook for guidelines and examples for treatment of landscaped
setbacks.
New buildings or structures built in the B-1 district and adjacent to a building that is of
significant historical character in the historic district must be setback the average of
the two (2) adjacent structures on either side unless waived by the zoning
administrator.
The proposal as submitted does not meet the requirement, which states that no parking area
should be located between a main building on a lot and the street. Staff offers three potential
solutions: (1) Redesign the building so that there is one building located directly along
Thomas Street, (2) subdivide the lot, so that the larger building is located on its own lot, and
the second lot would contain the parking lot and the smaller building. Staff believes that the
ordinance does not contain provisions for lots located at the intersection of two streets,
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010
EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
however the intent of establishing a building line along the street is met by the smaller
building being located along the street. Additionally, the establishment of a consistent wall of
buildings is more desirable along England Street or Railroad Avenue, with the understanding
that the parking for the uses along these more prominent thoroughfares would be provided to
the rear or sides, and along streets such as Thomas Street, or (3) amend the ordinance to
address situations such as this with corner lots.
Staff notes that the layout does not show proposed improvements to the adjacent streets,
which should include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and on-street parking. The applicant should
revise the layout to show these items.
Additionally, the applicant should provide information regarding proposed signage,

landscaping and lighting for the property.
Architectural Elevations. The applicant has submitted elevations and a rendering showing
the north and east elevations. The elevations note cedar siding with a brick water table at
the base, and glass storefronts. Standing seam metal is proposed for the roof and awnings.
Staff provides the following suggestions regarding the elevations to address the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan:
• Provide elevations showing the south and west elevations.

• Study and incorporate elements from prominent buildings within the central business
district. Suggested buildings: Old Post Office, New Post Office, Town Hall, Theater,
Railroad Avenue retail, Old Railroad Station, Henry Clay Inn.
• Suggested features from above-mentioned buildings:
o Provide a greater mix of brick.
o Raise the brick water table to the height of the lower floor window sills, or even
higher.
o Provide more substantial accent treatment around the eaves, cornices,
corners and windows, such as headers at windows, wide trim bands, or
columns.
o Consider different ways to break up the mass of the roof, or a different roof
form.
o Some art-deco type features such as exposed metal may be appropriate, as
included on many storefronts along England Street.
• In implementing these changes, keep in mind the residential uses immediately
adjacent at Blair Manor Condominiums.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission defers consideration of this request to its April 14, 2010, meeting
to allow the applicant to provide the following:
1. A subdivision application to subdivide the property or a site redesign, as suggested

within this report.
2. A site layout showing proposed improvements to the adjacent street, to include curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and on-street parking.
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
3. Information regarding proposed signage, landscaping, and lighting.

4. Southern and western building elevations.
5. Revised elevations incorporate additional architectural features to ensure
compatibility with the central business district.
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
Planning Commission
CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

EcoProperties, LLC
STAFF REPORT

From: Zack Robbins
Case Type: Conditional Use Permit
Case No.: CUP10-0208
Case Name: Randolph-Macon College Tennis Court Lighting
Applicant: Randolph-Macon College
Location: +/- 375 feet north of Henry Clay Rd., between N. Center and N. James Streets
GPIN(s): 7870-62-8355 & -72-0773
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow exceptions to the lighting
requirements for the purpose of illuminating tennis courts, in accordance with Sec. 21-266 of
the Town Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission defers consideration of this request to its April 14, 2010 to allow
the applicant to provide a profile view of the light fixture showing projected lighting levels to
show the distribution pattern of the light, and prove that off-site glare will not be an issue.
Planning Commission
BACKGROUND:
Existing Zoning HE, Higher Education District
+/- 375 feet north of Henry Clay Rd., between N. Center and N.
Location
James Streets
Size +/-0.75 acres
North – R-MC owned single-family & vacant, R-1 & HE
Surrounding Land
South & West – Vacant and single-family, R-2 & HE
Use and Zoning
East – Vacant and college offices, HE
Comprehensive Plan The Plan states this property is appropriate for Institutional uses.
In May 2009, the Town Council approved a rezoning to HE, Higher Education for a portion of
this property, along with a conditional use permit for Randolph-Macon College to construct
ten tennis courts at this location. A copy of the associated proffers and conditions is
attached.
In December 2009, the Town Council approved Ordinance PL2009-14, which amended the
Town’s lighting requirements to establish a procedure for granting exceptions for lighting
athletic fields. A copy of the ordinance is attached at the end of this memorandum.
The applicant subsequently submitted site plans for construction of the tennis courts for staff
review, along with this conditional use permit application. The plans indicate ten tennis
courts, with the four courts at the rear of the site to be illuminated by six light arrays mounted
on six fifty-foot poles.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Process. Sec. 21-13 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the criteria for granting a conditional
use permit:
A conditional use permit shall not be issued unless the town council shall find that the
use for which the conditional use permit is sought and the operation thereof will not
affect adversely the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed use; will not be detrimental to public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood; and will be in accord
with the purpose of the comprehensive plan.
Staff notes that conditions imposed through the Conditional Use Permit process apply only to
the use in question, and are not applicable should a use occupy the site which does not
require a conditional use permit. Further, staff notes that this request is applicable only to
the tennis court lighting where exceptions are requested, and does not consider the lighting
provided within the parking lot, which is reviewed by staff.
Requirements. The applicant’s proposal will require the following exceptions to the lighting
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance:
• Exception to the requirement that all lighting used to illuminate outdoor areas visible
from residential districts should be designed with a sharp-cutoff design to orient light
downward and prevent glare.
• Exception to the requirement that outdoor light fixtures not exceed twenty (20) feet in
height.
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Randolph-Macon College Tennis Court Lighting
Planning Commission
In order to obtain an exception to lighting standards for an athletic field, a conditional use
permit is required, and the following criteria must be met:
• A system of luminaires cannot reasonably comply with the lighting standards to
provide sufficient lighting for the safe use of the facility, as determined by Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America practices.
• Sufficient information must be submitted, to include photometric drawings, cutsheets,
and renderings depicting the impact of the proposed lighting.
Proposal. The applicant has submitted photometric drawings indicating the foot-candles
projected by the lights. The Town’s current standard of ½ foot-candle is applied as the
maximum lighting level at any property line. The drawing indicates that this ½ foot-candle
standard is met about 170 feet away from the nearest property line. The lighting diminishes
even further to less than 0.1 foot-candle at about 75 feet from the nearest property line.
*Staff has been unable to locate any adequate descriptions of what is comparable to a 1/2 foot-candle lighting
level, however 0.02 foot-candle is provided by the typical full moon, while 10 foot-candles are adequate for
reading. In the Town of Ashland Zoning Ordinance, and generally across the United States, ½ foot-candle is the
generally accepted maximum lighting level for regulating obtrusive light from adjacent properties.
Based upon the IESNA standard for illuminating tennis courts without spectator seating, a
lighting level of 75 foot-candles is desired for the play surface. The photometric drawing
shows lighting levels averaging around 75 limited to the play surface, diminishing greatly
beyond the tennis courts.
Cutsheets of the proposed lights have been submitted, and indicate that each pole will have
three to four fixtures attached at a height of 50 feet. The fixtures are to be pointed
downward, with a bonnet-style shield at the top, to prevent casting unnecessary light off-site.
It is unlikely that there is any full-cutoff style fixture that is manufactured for illuminating
athletic facilities such as this, therefore it is necessary to consider some alternatives that are
as close to full-cutoff as possible. Staff is concerned, due to the design of the fixture, that
some glare will project onto adjacent properties, however, additional information from the
applicant should be provided to show whether this can be avoided. It also may be
appropriate for the applicant to provide a profile view of the lighting showing projected light
levels to help understand the distribution pattern of the light, and how glare could affect
adjacent property owners. It is important to understand that with these fixtures, that the
additional height has an effect on the amount of glare cast offsite, that is, that shorter fixtures
will need to be aimed at a more horizontal angle than a higher fixture.
Finally, the drawings indicate that the fixtures are to be painted black.
Approved Conditional Use Permit. As noted within the Conditional Use Permit which allowed
the Tennis Court facilities, no more than four courts may be illuminated, and must be
programmed to shut off by 10:00 PM, and shall utilize an on-demand timer to ensure the
Tennis Courts are to be on for no more than 90 minutes at a time. This will be verified at the
completion of the construction of the courts.
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission defers consideration of this request to its April 14, 2010 to allow
the applicant to provide a profile view of the light fixture showing projected lighting levels to
show the distribution pattern of the light, and prove that off-site glare will not be an issue.
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

Planning Commission
Ordinance PL2009-14
AN ORDINANCE to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Ch. 21 “Zoning,” Article XXV
“Supplemental Regulations,” Section 21-266 “General Lighting Standards.”
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a procedure for granting exceptions to lighting standards
for athletic fields within the HE, Higher Education district.
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing on the 15th day of December 2009,
advertised as required by Virginia Code Section 15.2 – 2204.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Ashland, Virginia that Section
21-266 “General Lighting Standards” shall be amended to read, as follows:
Section 21-266. General Lighting Standards.
The following general standards shall apply to all outdoor lighting provided for uses that are subject to
the site plan requirements of article XVII of this chapter. In addition to the following, all outdoor lighting
shall comply with the standards and guidelines contained in the Development Guidelines Handbook.
Lighting standards shall be indicated on all site plans in sufficient detail to determine compliance with
the provisions of this section. (See article XX for sign lighting provisions).
(a) Light to be confined to the premises. All lighting used to illuminate outdoor areas shall
be located, directed or shielded so as not to shine directly or create glare on adjacent properties or
streets, and so as to confine all direct light rays entirely within the boundaries of the property on which
they are located. All lighting visible from streets and from properties in RR-1 and residential districts
shall be of a sharp cut-off design in a fixed position which orients the light downward and prevents
glare, and all lighting of parking areas and drives shall be confined within such areas. Lighting of
outdoor features from below shall be provided with deflector shields to accomplish the intent of these
provisions.
(b) Lighting intensity and fixture height. The intensity of outdoor lighting shall be no
greater than shown on the approved site plan, and in no case greater than one-half (1/2) footcandles
above background lighting at the property line. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20)
feet in height.
(c) Reduction to minimum level necessary for security. All exterior lighting shall be
reduced to the minimum level of intensity necessary for security purposes during the nonbusiness
hours of all business and industrial uses.
(d) Exceptions to Lighting Standards. Exceptions to the standards within this section may
be granted for athletic field lighting in the Higher Education HE District, with a conditional use permit
for each individual athletic field, subject to the following criteria:
(1) An outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for an athletic facility
cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the
facility for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity,
or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable.
(2) Sufficient renderings, including, but not limited to, photometric drawings, luminaire
cutsheets, and renderings depicting the impact of the proposed lighting, shall be
provided with the application.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Town Council that the amendments herein of the Code of the
Town of Ashland shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

STAFF REPORT

RE: Randolph-Macon College Parking Plan
REQUEST:
The applicant requests approval of a parking plan as required for colleges by Sec. 21-204 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council approve the parking plan,
subject to the following:
1. Revise the plan to show the correct total number of parking spaces.
2. Remove the on-street parking spaces that cannot be counted toward the overall
parking requirement (segments of streets that are not zoned HE on both sides)
3. This approval shall only be in conjunction with the site plan for the tennis courts. Any
subsequent site plan for athletic facilities or dormitory facilities will require revisions to
the parking plan.
Planning Commission
BACKGROUND:
In December 2009 the Town Council approved Ordinance PL2009-13, which amended the
Town’s minimum parking requirements for colleges. Previously, the minimum number of
spaces was determined by the number of dormitory beds, in conjunction with a parking plan
approved by the Town Council. The new standard requires 0.8 parking spaces per student
based upon enrollment at the beginning of the fall semester and continues to require the
parking plan, approved by Town Council.
As a condition of approval for the conditional use permit for the tennis courts, a parking plan
must be approved by the Town Council prior to site plan approval.
At the time of approval of the ordinance, the Town Council opted to refer the next parking
plan for the college to the Planning Commission for recommendation.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The College states that the total student enrollment of the College is 1246 in fall of 2009,
which translates into 997 parking spaces required using the 0.8 parking spaces per student
standard.
The following chart summarizes the parking provided by the existing approved (2003) plan,
the proposed plan, as well as the student/staff counts for 2003 and fall 2009.
2003 Plan Proposed
Plan
On-Street 233 233
Off-Street 979 1038
Total 1212 1271
Fall 1098 1246

Enrollment
Staff/Faculty 299 319
The plan submitted shows a total of 1038 off-street parking spaces (although the plan states
1002), and 334 on-street spaces (although only about 233 of these spaces can be counted
toward the off-street requirement, because HE zoning must be present on both sides of the
street to qualify as such). Therefore, the total number of spaces provided on the proposed
plan is 1271. The College should make these corrections to the plan.
This request is solely to grant approval in conjunction with the tennis courts, which the plan
shows 66 additional spaces to be added in conjunction with the construction of the tennis
courts. It is not anticipated that the tennis courts would generate a large amount of parking
demand. The Zoning Ordinance states that 2 spaces should be required for each tennis
court, therefore 20 parking spaces should be adequate for the facility. (Note: the spaces for
the tennis courts would still count toward the College’s total 997 required spaces, as the
courts are accessory to the College)
Since the tennis facility will not create much demand upon parking, staff recommends that
the approval of this parking plan be solely for the tennis court facility, and that the parking
Error! Reference source not found.March 10, 2010 Randolph-Macon College Parking Plan
Planning Commission
plan be required to be re-evaluated for the proposed athletic facilities and dormitories along
the northern side of campus.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council approve the parking plan,
subject to the following:
1. Revise the plan to show the correct total number of parking spaces.
2. Remove the on-street parking spaces that cannot be counted toward the overall
parking requirement (segments of streets that are not zoned HE on both sides)
3. This approval shall only be in conjunction with the site plan for the tennis courts. Any
subsequent site plan for athletic facilities or dormitory facilities will require revisions to
the parking plan.
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Planning Commission

3/10/10 Planning Commission Agenda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/10/10 Planning Commission Agenda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Town of Ashland

II. ROLL CALL

III. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

IV. CITIZEN INPUT

A. REZ09-1012 Rogers-Chenault, Inc. requests rezoning from RR-1 (Rural 3

B. CUP10-0204 EcoProperties, LLC requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow 17

C. CUP10-0208 Randolph-Macon College requests a Conditional Use Permit to 28

VI. REPORT OF COMMITTEES

A. Town Council – by Ned Henson

VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

VIII NEW BUSINESS

A. Randolph-Macon College – Parking Plan 48

A. Approval of September 09, 2009, Minutes

Council summaries are attached

To: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia

The proposed subdivision is considered a Major Subdivision, which requires approval of a

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Tree Preservation/Replacement. The applicant has proffered to attempt to minimize grading

Stormwater Management. The proposal shows a system of underground stormwater

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Staff is neutral as to the implementation of

This chart and map summarizes the typical lot

Typ. Lot Typ. Lot Avg Home Home Size % Two #

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

Staff believes that the applicant should

Transportation Impact. Staff requested a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) be submitted

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

• Extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties would result from strict compliance

Staff also notes that the Comprehensive Plan states on page

PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

1. Revision of Proffer #2 to delete the first line of paragraph (a).

The Planning Commission defers consideration of the subdivision request SUB09-1012 to

1. Provide a stub street to the west, as an extension of Wales Way.

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010

To: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia

1. A subdivision application to subdivide the property or a site redesign, as suggested

Existing Zoning B-1, Central Business District

Additionally, the applicant should provide information regarding proposed signage,

• Provide elevations showing the south and west elevations.

1. A subdivision application to subdivide the property or a site redesign, as suggested

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

3. Information regarding proposed signage, landscaping, and lighting.

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010

To: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia

CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010

CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010