Planning Commission Work Session September 14, 2011 6:30 p.m.

Town Hall Council Chambers ~ Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 14, 2011 Agenda 7:00 p.m. Town Hall Council Chambers Agenda I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. CITIZEN INPUT VI. PRESENTATION OF MINUTES A. B. C. D. Approval of June 8, 2011, Minutes. Approval of June 30, 2011, Special Public Hearing Minutes. Approval of July 13, 2011, Minutes. Approval of August 24, 2011, Work Session Minutes
Page 4 Page 13 Page 20 Page 43

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CUP11-0701 William Gurdin requests a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Sec. 21-101(41) of the Town Code to allow for wholesale businesses on the properties identified as GPINs 7880-18-9201 and 7880-18-9314, consisting of +/- 3.2 acres. The properties are currently zoned B-2 (Highway Commercial), and are located east of Route 1 (Washington Highway) +/- 500 feet north of Jamestown Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as appropriate for Light Industrial uses. B. ORD2011-06 is an ordinance to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Chapter 21 Zoning, Article VI Residential, Medium District R-3, Sec. 21-50 Setback Regulations, and Sec. 21-52(a) Yard Regulations. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the setback and side yard regulations to allow for smaller setback and side yard regulations on lots within the R-3 zoning district.
Page 44

Page 52

C. REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties requests rezoning from RR-1 (Residential Rural) District and R-2 (Residential Limited) District to R-3 (Residential Medium) District on the property identified as GPIN 7779-76-5614 consisting of +/-9.16 acres. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Ashcake Road (Route 657) and Maple Street. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as appropriate for Low Density Residential uses. The R-3 (Residential Medium) District has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet which equates to a maximum density of 5.45 units per acre. D. CUP11-0713A Randolph-Macon College requests a Conditional Use Permits in accordance with Sec. 21-266(d) of the Town Code for an exception to the lighting standards to allow for light poles for the Randolph-Macon College Football/Soccer Fields on the property identified as GPIN 7870-82-0580, consisting of +/- 28 acres. The property is currently zoned HE, Higher Education, and is located to the west of Henry Street, +/- 900 feet south of Smith Street. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as appropriate for Institutional uses. E. ORD2011-03 is an ordinance to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Chapter 21 Zoning, Article XXIII Landscaping, Sec. 21-233 Landscape Setbacks, and Sec. 21-235 Parking Area Landscaping. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the landscaping regulations to allow for exceptions to the landscape requirements to be made on commercially zoned corner lots when the existing requirements inhibit the development/redevelopment of these corner lots. VIII. ACTION ITEMS NONE. IX. REPORT OF COMMITTEES A. Town Council George Spagna B. Ashland Main Street Association - Nora Amos C. Economic Development Authority of Ashland, Virginia - Nora Amos X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Nora Amos B. June Work Session Items: 1. Possible Adoption of Roberts Rules of Small Boards 2. By-Laws

Page 56

Page 66

Page 78

XI. NEW BUSINESS NONE.

XII. UP COMING ITEMS A. CUP11-0713 Randolph-Macon College Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles XIII. ADJOURNMENT ATTACHMENTS: A. Council Summaries B. Planning Projects
Page 98 Page 101 Page 85

Town of Ashland

Town of Ashland Planning Commission Work Session Minutes June 8, 2011 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission of the Town of Ashland, Virginia held a work session on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Town of Ashland Council Chambers, located at 101 Thompson Street, Ashland, Virginia. Those present were: Present: Alan Abbott, Vice-Chair Ned Henson Lou Ann Jewell Felix Stevens, III Bob Brown, Chairman Nora Amos, Director, Planning and Community Development M. Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner Nancy Offersen, Administrative Assistant

Absent: Others Present:

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Abbott opened the Planning Commission work session at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Abbott stated that he and Ms. Jewell attended the second and final session for the CPEAV/Plan Virginia training and as a part of that final session they discussed Roberts Rules of Order. Mr. Abbott provided a handout of points of interest that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission, and stated he would like to have it considered for a vote at the next meeting to add some or all of the items to the by-laws; the following items were discussed: The Chairperson can make a motion. When making a motion, a motion need not be seconded. Mr. Abbott stated that he and Mr. Brown suggest reviewing one chapter of the Comprehensive Plan every quarter and hold a public hearing once a year to adopt the changes to keep the Comprehensive Plan current; then, every five (5) years, review the Comprehensive Plan as required by law. Have a work Session prior to every meeting o So staff can present items on a more informal basis o Questions can be asked on a more informal basis o To provide a more informed understanding of each others position and opinion prior to the public hearing

Page 4 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT o to discuss openly items not on the agenda Setting an annual goal of what the Planning Commission would like to accomplish. The Planning Commission sessions must end by 10:30 p.m. unless it is voted to extend the meeting by a super majority. o If not extended, continue the discussion on the following Wednesday. Limit the speaking time to one-half of the time for speakers in favor of the case and one-half of the time for speakers who opposed to the case. Have identification badges for Planning Commission members to wear when they are going on a site visit. With regards to landscaping, either create proffers to enforce landscaping or create incentives to better motivate residents and businesses to properly maintain their lawns with things such as recognition programs, or featuring them on the Towns website. o What should be done about the areas that are in between the Towns right-of-ways and someone elses property.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no other comments, the work session was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

Page 5 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT

Town of Ashland

Town of Ashland Planning Commission Minutes Minutes June 8, 2011 7:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Ashland, Virginia was held on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Ashland Council Chambers, located at 101 Thompson Street, Ashland, Virginia. Those present were: Present: Robert Brown, Chair Alan Abbott, Vice-Chair Ned Henson Lou Ann Jewell Felix Stevens, III None. Nora Amos, Director, Planning and Community Development M. Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner Andrea Erard, Town Attorney Nancy Offersen, Administrative Assistant

Absent: Others Present:

CALL TO ORDER Mr. Abbott called the Planning Commission of Ashland, Virginia to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mr. Henson Mr. Abbott Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Here Here Here Here

Mr. Abbott stated that there was a quorum present. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Abbott stated that a quorum was present.

Page 6 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Mr. Abbott to approve the agenda as presented. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the agenda as presented. CITIZEN INPUT Mr. Abbott opened the floor for public comment. There being none, Mr. Abbott closed that portion of the meeting. PRESENTATION OF MINUTES None. Ms. Amos stated that with regards to the minutes, staff will begin doing a process that is similar to what the Town Council does. Ms. Offersen will finish the minutes and then send them out by e-mail with a time line to return them to her with corrections, changes or suggestions and if someone would prefer a hard copy then staff will provide that. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. ACTION ITEMS None. REPORT OF COMMITTEES A. Town Council Mr. Henson Mr. Henson stated that with regards to Safe Routes to school, the Town has received quotes for sidewalk construction on Hanover Avenue and South James Street across from Henry Clay Elementary School. Mr. Henson stated that Upton Martin has been appointed as the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Representative for the Town of Ashland who is replacing Bob Brown who has been the Towns representative for a few years. Mr. Brown will now become the alternate for that Committee. B. Ashland Main Street Association - Nora Amos Ms. Amos stated that the Ashland Main Street Association (AMSA) held their Second Annual Chalk Walk in the beginning of May and the event was a success. e

Page 7 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos stated that AMSA is currently having Lunch on the Lawn on Wednesdays between 12:00 and 1:30 p.m.. Anyone interested should bring their lunch to the front of the Town Hall. Drinks, desserts and music are provided and this will continue through June. AMSA is currently working on their formal designation through the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Last year DHCD were not accepting new localities, but they have received additional funding and determined that they can take up to four (4) new localities. Ms. Amos stated that AMSA is currently just an affiliate so they do get some support but not nearly as much as if they became designated. This application is due on June 16, 2011. Mr. Abbott stated that AMSA created a map of the Town on a tear sheet that is 11inches by 17 inches in size that has been given to the hotels, the Visitors Center, Town Hall and Library. They were also handed out at the Strawberry Faire and there are some at Ms. Offersens desk in the Planning Office. C. Economic Development Authority of Ashland, Virginia - Nora Amos Ms. Amos stated that some of the Economic Development Authority (EDA) projects overlap with AMSA. Ms. Amos stated that Ms. Thompson has been working with AMSA to set goals to work on some issues that they had started before Ms. Woodward left. Ms. Amos stated that the EDA is working on an Arts Overlay District which is also being coordinated with AMSA. Ms. Amos stated that with regards to faade grant funding, it has been three (3) years since the Town has funded any projects but funds will be made available again starting July 1, 2011, and the Town is working on updating the qualifications and AMSA will be administering that program. Ms. Amos stated that the EDA is reviewing and updating the three (3) loan programs that they currently have in place and are discussing the possibility of discontinuing the sign loan in lieu of the Towns Faade Grant and adding a program for rehabilitation assistance. The three loan programs that they currently have are: Infrastructure Demolition Signage

Page 8 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT The EDA is also reviewing and updating the Technology Zone Application and process that has recently been approved. Mr. Abbott asked about a tree replacement program for the Town. Ms. Amos stated that she had an intern that was working on a tree inventory of the Town, which included the location of dead and dying trees that need to be removed, places where the Town had removed trees and not replaced them or areas that never had trees that the Town may want to plant. Ms. Amos stated that the Town had trees that were 80 to 100 years old that had previously grown above the power lines and some that had been mutilated. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, appropriate sized trees need to be planted under the power lines. Ms. Amos stated that the Town would work with the property owners if Town Council approves the program. In order to share in the cost of putting in new street trees the property owner would have to maintain the trees but the Town would assist in getting them planted. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Nora Amos Ms. Amos stated that there was no Planning Commission meeting for the month of May because staff thought that we were going to have a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Amos stated that a few issues came up, and staff have worked through most of those and plan to have a public hearing on Thursday, June 30, 2011. Ms. Amos stated that there will be a large advertising campaign to make the Comprehensive Plan available to the public. A motion was made by Mr. Henson to have a meeting of the Planning Commission on June 30, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. regarding the Comprehensive Plan followed by a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan to begin at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Mr. Henson Mr. Abbott Aye Aye Aye Aye

With four (4) Ayes, the motion was passed.

Page 9 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos stated that the next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for July 13, 2011; at that meeting we will review all of the public comments received relating to the Comprehensive Plan and discuss whether a work session will be needed. Ms. Amos stated that staff has started working on the Zoning Ordinances. For a couple of the Ordinance sections she will probably be establishing a small group or a committee consisting of a couple of business owners and perhaps a citizen, especially for the signage ordinance revision. Mr. Phillips has been heading up the Ordinance revision and staff has been having weekly staff meetings. Ms. Amos stated that staff will be bringing the Ordinances to the Planning Commission for review and approval in small sections. Mr. Abbott asked if staff would put together a time line of when they expect to have everything done for the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Amos stated that she could do that. NEW BUSINESS A. ORD2011-03 Landscape Exceptions Mr. Phillips stated that at the July 13, 2011, meeting there will be a public hearing to consider an Ordinance Amendment to the Landscape section of the Ordinance. Mr. Phillips stated that this Ordinance will go before the Town Council so that they can authorize a public hearing. Mr. Phillips stated that the Ordinance is to amend Sec. 21-233 and Sec. 21-235 of the Town Code to allow for exceptions to the Landscape Ordinance when such requirements would inhibit the development of commercially zoned corner lots. Mr. Phillips stated that the reason for these amendments are in the past few weeks staff has met with prospective businesses that have been looking to locate or redevelop some of the lots that fall under these guidelines but have been unable to because of requirements such as a 20 foot landscape setback and the five (5) foot peripheral landscape setbacks buffer. Mr. Phillips reviewed the Ordinance Amendment as presented in the Planning Commission packets. Mr. Abbott asked how the curb cut and gutters are affected with the Ordinance amendment. Mr. Phillips stated that the entrances to lots and curb cuts are allowed in the landscape buffer and no matter how large their entrance is they would still be required to put in the amount of trees required for the amount of road frontage that they have.

Page 10 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Stevens asked if the Town is encouraging businesses to have sidewalks in front of their businesses and if so how will it work with the Ordinance amendment. Mr. Phillips stated that as a part of the Route 1 Road improvements, sidewalks are included and will be a part of the right-of-way and not on the private property. Mr. Stevens asked if the number of trees that the Town would be requiring the businesses to have would reduce the visibility of the business. Mr. Phillips stated that is would to an extent and it was also his opinion that it would not significantly reduce the visibility of the business with the right type of trees. Mr. Phillips provided a list of existing businesses to provide an idea of the size of some of the commercial buildings: Rite Aid 11,000 sq. ft. BP Gas Station 1,792 sq. ft. (convenience store only); Canopy 6,240 sq. ft. Wachovia 3,280 sq. ft. Ruby Tuesday 5,595 sq. ft. Wendys 3,134 sq. ft. Ponderosa 6,210 sq. ft. BB&T 8,280 sq. ft. Sheetz 4,323 sq. ft. (convenience store only)

Mr. Stevens asked for clarification on what parcels this Ordinance Amendment would apply. Mr. Phillips stated that this would apply to all commercial corner lots that are zoned B2, M-1 or Planned Shopping Center.

Mr. Phillips stated that he wanted to present this to the Planning Commission so that they would have time to think about it prior to the Public Hearing on July 13, 2011. Ms. Amos stated that it was her opinion that it was really significant especially on Route 1 with the amount of right-of-way the Town has either taken or plans to take and the language reads from the proposed right-of-way, so in most cases the Town is taking approximately 15 feet and people are already using that 15 feet; therefore, if someone comes in and wants to redevelop we have to tell them that they cannot use that 15 feet and they cannot use the 20 feet behind it either even though they have always used it. Ms. Jewell asked if the staff has received any feedback from the businesses. Ms. Amos stated that staff can think of three (3) prospects and they have not been able to build on the sites that they have looked at because of these regulations; however,

Page 11 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT they would be able to should they choose to do the additional landscaping as stated in the proposed Ordinance amendment. Mr. Abbott stated that it was not just the trees that were making the parcels nice looking or bad looking, usually its the shrubs and bushes and the lower lying things of that nature that caught his eye. Ms. Amos stated that staff could work on getting some language regarding that as another option. ADJOURNMENT There being no other comments, the meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. The next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is July 13, 2011.

Page 12 of 102

Town of Ashland

Town of Ashland Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes June 30, 2011 6:30 p.m. The Planning Commission of the Town of Ashland, Virginia held a special meeting on Thursday, June 30, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. and then a special public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Ashland Council Chambers, located at 101 Thompson Street, Ashland, Virginia. Those present were: Present: Robert Brown, Chair Alan Abbott, Vice-Chair (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) Ned Henson Lou Ann Jewell Felix Stevens, III Nora Amos, Director, Planning and Community Development M. Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner Andrea Erard, Town Attorney Margaret Barre Dr. George Spagna, Council Liaison Nancy Offersen, Administrative Assistant

Absent: Others Present:

PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT 6:30P.M. There was an open house for review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the Plan. PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Brown opened the special public hearing at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mr. Henson Ms. Jewell Mr. Brown Here Here Here

DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Page 13 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Brown stated that a quorum was present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Brown stated that there were no changes to the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING 1) Comprehensive Plan Mr. Brown stated that as the Planning Commission worked on the Comprehensive Plan and as things grow and change in Ashland, no matter what happens, Ashland must remain a beautiful small town and must remain Ashland. Mr. Brown stated that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to figure out what the nature of Ashland is so that we could write it down and make it clear. One of the first things that the Planning Commission realized was that the current Comprehensive Plan was not specific enough to guide someone regarding what to do. The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be specific about what Ashland is like so we can ensure that it keeps Ashland, Ashland. Mr. Brown stated that there are ten (10) chapters but it was his opinion that the only one (1) that needs to be mentioned at this moment is Chapter One (1) which states that there are six (6) guiding principles; we tried to write everything in the Comprehensive Plan based on the guiding principles as follows: a. b. c. d. e. f. Preserve Ashlands Small Town Character Protect Ashlands Unique Features Manage and Enhance Tree Cover Encourage continued Variety Promote Economic Development and Vitality Provide a High Level of Government Services

Mr. Brown stated that Ms. Amos will speak about how we got to where we are. Ms. Amos stated it has been a long road and a long process and that staff and the Planning Commission appreciates everyone who has participated in the process and helped us to get where we are. The Comprehensive Plan is available on the Town of Ashland Website, at the library, and in Town Hall, or we can e-mail a copy, in the event someone has not had a chance to read it. Ms. Amos stated that initially when the Town began working on the Comprehensive Plan in 2008, it was very important to the Planning Commission and the Town Council that there was an open public process, with that said, there were approximately 13 public meetings. Staff went to the various neighborhood areas and spoke with groups and had individual meetings and then took all the information and presented it several times to the public. All the data was gathered and staff began working on the chapters

Page 14 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT and came up with the guiding principles that Mr. Brown discussed and along with some key components that staff has incorporated as follows: The Urban Partners Market Study that was done in 2008 The County did a Retail Market Analysis and Strategic Plan which was used The Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) assisted with some Trans-Authority Development Plans as well as Public Transit Plans Ms. Amos stated that staff is still working from the 2020 Transportation Plan which was done in 2002; there will be recommendations for portions of that Plan to be updated and some joint studies from Hanover County and the Town to be done in the near future 2010 Census Various Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Studies

Ms. Amos stated that following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, with this being the first public hearing, there will be one (1) or two (2) additional public hearings over the next couple of months to allow additional opportunities for individuals to comment on the Plan. Ms. Amos stated that staff has set out a guide that they hope to follow on things that need to be updated. The Chapters are laid out with an introductory statement followed by specific policies. Ms. Amos stated that what staff has already begun working on are: Zoning Ordinance Updates so that they coordinate with the Comprehensive Plan Subdivision Ordinance Updates Capital Improvements Program (These should move forward within the next year) Design Guidelines (Quality and sustainability and keeping Ashland, Ashland is throughout the Plan) Transportation Plan Updates Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (The Town needs an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Proffer Model and Policy (The Town does not currently have a Proffer Model in policy, the Town is piggy-backing on the Countys and collecting proffers for the County) Focus Area Plans

Ms. Amos stated that in the Comprehensive Plan some of the things that they are looking for are, sustainability and varied development within the residential sections as well as quality. The Comprehensive Plan recommends incentive based zoning policies for residential land, along with a balanced housing stock to meet the needs of all residents and mixed commercial uses along all of U.S. Route 1 and the England Street corridor.

Page 15 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos stated that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to protect and preserve our natural resources; staff heard a desire for this on multiple occasions during the process. Mr. Brown opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who would like to come forward. Tom Wulf 105 Early Street, Ashland, Virginia, and President of Ashland Main Street Association. Mr. Wulf read a letter of support on the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of the Ashland Main Street Association, we would like to voice our public support of the draft of the 2011 Ashland Comprehensive Plan. While some details in the plan may require revision, we believe the Planning Commission has done an outstanding job capturing the values and characteristics that make Ashland Ashland, and has developed a sound set of guidelines for future growth. We especially support the Plans six guiding principles, which align closely with Main Streets mission and vision. As you know, our mission is to preserve, enhance, and promote downtown Ashland through cooperative efforts among local businesses, community organizations, Randolph-Macon College and the Town. Our vision is to make Ashland a destination location by offering a diverse mix of businesses, cultural and community attractions, pedestrian-friendly streets, and attractive public spaces. Recently we have made substantial progress towards earning Ashlands a Virginia Main Street Designation an honor shared by only 22 other towns in the state. During the past eight weeks, the board has worked closely with Ashland Economic Development Coordinator Alexis Thompson to complete the detailed VMS Designation Application. We hope that our efforts will be rewarded in July. Achieving an official designation would bring significant economic and cultural benefits to the entire region, along with potential pressure for additional town growth. Main Street believes its important that Ashland have clear guidelines in place before that pressure intensifies and we believe the 2011 Plan is the right blueprint for the future Town development. We urge our fellow business and community-based organizations to publicly support the 2011 Comprehensive Plan as well. All stakeholders need to work in concert so that we dont engage in redundant efforts, or worse, efforts that conflict with one another. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Together, we can ensure that the rich culture and charm of theCenter of the Universe will be enjoyed by generations to come. Sincerely,

Page 16 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Ian Kirkland, president 2010-2011 Tom Wulf, president-elect 2011-2012

Mr. Wulf stated that it was his opinion that organizations such as Ashland Main Street, Market Ashland Partners, the Economic Development Authority and other organizations that have a stake in the future growth of the Town need to publicly support this Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Abbott arrived at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Brown called the next speaker. Linda Feeley with her husband Paul Feeley 703 Wales Way. Ms. Feeley stated that when she opened the 250 page Comprehensive Plan, she really appreciated all the work and the effort that went into it by the Planning Commission and staff. Ms. Feeley stated that she would like to speak specifically on the Neighborhood portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Feeley stated that after a conversation with Ms. Amos where she was expressing her frustration that the Town of Ashland continues to build small or affordable homes and how it was her opinion that many of the people of Ashland feel that this is a mistake that Ashland has done for years and years and yet the Town feels intimidated because it is not exactly politically correct, and it is awkward to come and say I dont think that we need any more starter homes in Ashland, because it seems insensitive. Ms. Feeley stated that the facts in the Comprehensive Plan support that statement. Ms. Feeley stated that she has been in Ashland for 30 years and has been on the Ashland Main Street Association, on committees that brought the pool to the Town, she has been in the PTA and other types of involvement. Ms. Feeley stated that Ashland is a really good community and that the Town needs to continue to bring leaders and people who will be involved into the Town. Ms. Feeley stated that just last year they moved from a couple of blocks away from Town Hall to the Carters Hill Subdivision which is a 42 lot subdivision that has one (1) acre plus lots. The Carters Hill Subdivision sits just inside the Town limits; and of those 42 lots, 28 are sold. Ms. Feeley stated that the value of the homes start at $350,000.00, so there are some nice big homes in the Carters Hill Subdivision, and there are families coming into Ashland wanting to relocate. Ms. Feeley stated that she continues to be frustrated when she sees things such as the small piece of land at the corner of James Street and Snead Street that will have six (6) very teeny little houses into that area.

Page 17 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT Ms Feeley stated that they had a struggle the last time that her husband came before the Planning Commission regarding phase two (2) of Carters Hill subdivision to try to put 27 houses on quarter acre lots which was originally planned to be two (2) acre lots, with houses of a lower square footage and a lower value. Ms. Feeley stated that they were able to come before the Planning Commission and get the builder to back down and go back to seven (7) homes that would be more consistent with what is being built and to round out what is in her opinion needed to round out and balance what we have in Ashland. Ms. Feeley stated that she wanted to remind the Planning Commission of the points that were made at the time that had the greatest impression on the community; the things that we do not realize. For 25 years the Town built a lot of apartments, a lot of mobile homes, affordable starter homes and a lot of the Town residents could see that perhaps this balance was not going to help our population. This shows very well in the schools. Ms. Feeley stated that she works in sales with the schools and she has information regarding schools and she knows that the money is in those schools have a lot of Title One Funds. Title One Funds are designated to schools based on the population that receives free lunch. When you look at Hanover County, the schools are great but she has measurers of what the populations is in those schools and once those schools get around 25 percent, she goes to visit those schools because she knows that they have money. In Hanover at Kersey Creek Elementary School, they have a five (5) percent population receiving free and reduced lunches, which is very low; Mechanicsville Elementary School has 28 percent; Elmont Elementary has 24 percent, and Henry Clay Elementary School has 54 percent of its population receiving free and reduced lunch. Ms. Feeley stated that she has volunteered recently in the schools in the first grade and she stated that the teachers are great, but their jobs are harder than it was a few years back and that is something that she would like to focus on and turn around and it was her opinion that the Planning Commission and staffs commitment to encourage higher value homes to round out the imbalance in the Town and that it is a really smart move because it was her opinion that this is what families are looking for when they come into the Town. Ms. Feeley stated that she will be coming again and that this is something that she is not going to be shy about saying out loud. It has come to the point that she has gotten mad at the leadership in the Town for what has happened. The Town does not have a good situation and it was her opinion that the situation could go either way now. Mr. Brown asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak for or against the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brown stated that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission needed to have a work session to consider the comments from tonights meeting. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission and staff that there would be a work session held on July 13, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. with dinner being served. ADJOURNMENT:

Page 18 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2011 - DRAFT There being no other comments, the special public hearing was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.

Page 19 of 102

Town of Ashland

Town of Ashland Planning Commission Work Session Minutes July 13, 2011 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission of the Town of Ashland, Virginia held a work session on Wednesday, July 13, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Town of Ashland Council Chambers, located at 101 Thompson Street, Ashland, Virginia. Those present were: Present: Bob Brown, Chairman Alan Abbott, Vice-Chair Ned Henson Lou Ann Jewell Felix Stevens, III None. Nora Amos, Director, Planning and Community Development M. Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner Nancy Offersen, Administrative Assistant Dr. Spagna, Council Liaison

Absent: Others Present:

CALL TO ORDER: Ms. Amos opened the Planning Commission work session at 6:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to vote on holding a special meeting on August 24, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., with food being served. The Planning Commission Members volunteered to pay for food and further to cancel the regularly scheduled August 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Phillips reviewed the staff report for the Landscape Ordinance, ORD2011-03, being presented at the regularly scheduled 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting as presented in the Planning Commission packets. Ms. Amos reviewed the staff report for the Lance and Bridle Rezoning request being presented at the regularly scheduled 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting as presented in the Planning Commission packets. Ms. Amos stated that staff recommends deferral of the Lance and Bridle Rezoning request and that the staff requests that the Planning Commission communicate their desires to the applicant at the 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting.

Page 20 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos reviewed the staff report for the Chapman Street Subdivision request being presented at the regularly scheduled 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting as presented in the Planning Commission packets. Ms. Amos stated that this request is a by-right subdivision request. Ms. Amos stated that the applicant may request a text ordinance amendment for sidewalk setbacks. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other comments, the work session was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

Page 21 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT

Town of Ashland

Town of Ashland Planning Commission Minutes Minutes July 13, 2011 7:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Ashland, Virginia was held on Wednesday, July 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town of Ashland Council Chambers, located at 101 Thompson Street, Ashland, Virginia. Those present were: Present: Robert Brown, Chair Alan Abbott, Vice-Chair Ned Henson Lou Ann Jewell Felix Stevens, III None. Nora Amos, Director, Planning and Community Development M. Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner Andrea Erard, Town Attorney Dr. George Spagna, Council Liaison Nancy Offersen, Administrative Assistant

Absent: Others Present:

CALL TO ORDER Mr. Brown called the Planning Commission of Ashland, Virginia to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mr. Henson Mr. Abbott Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Mr. Brown Here Here Here Here Here

DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Brown stated that a quorum was present.

Page 22 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Brown asked if there were any changes to be made to the Agenda; there were none. CITIZEN INPUT Mr. Brown opened the floor for public comment. There being none, Mr. Brown closed that portion of the meeting. PRESENTATION OF MINUTES A. Approval of April 13, 2011, Minutes. Mr. Brown asked if there were any comments on the April 13, 2011, minutes. Ms. Jewell stated that on page seven (7) of the April 13, 2011, Work Session minutes, there was one change under the third sentence speaking on the consensus of the Planning Commission to add a narrative or abstract at the beginning of each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that Ms. Offersen add that it was recommended by the Town Attorney, and that has been changed. Mr. Brown stated that he had a change as well, stating that he remembered on April 13, 2011, that Mr. Henson suggested that the abstracts be the same as the executive summary. A motion was made by Mr. Brown to accept the April 13, 2011, minutes as amended. ROLL CALL Mr. Abbott Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Mr. Henson Mr. Brown Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye

With all Ayes, the motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS ORD2011-03 is an ordinance to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Chapter 21 Zoning, Article XXIII Landscaping, Sec. 21-233 Landscape Setbacks, and Sec. 21-235 Parking Area Landscaping. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the landscaping regulations to allow for exceptions to the landscape requirements to be made on commercially zoned corner lots when the existing requirements inhibit the development/redevelopment of these corner lots.

Page 23 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Phillips presented the staff report as presented in the Planning Commission packets. Mr. Phillips stated that staff provided a preliminary presentation last month and staff has also made a few changes from what the applicant was originally proposing. Mr. Phillips stated that what originated the Zoning Ordinance amendment was that staff met with various prospective businesses that were looking to relocate or redevelop properties within the Town, but the prospective business owners were unable to develop on the corner lots that were of interest because of the current landscape requirements. Mr. Phillips stated that there has been a request to amend Sec. 21-233 and Sec. 21-235 of the Town Code which would allow for exceptions for the Landscape Ordinance when such requirements inhibit the development of commercially zoned corner lots. Mr. Phillips stated that prospective businesses have been unable to locate or develop on corner lots because of landscape requirements such as the current 20 foot landscape setback and the peripheral landscape setbacks. Mr. Phillips discussed the conclusion of his review of the staff report, as follows: The proposed Amendments would alleviate situations in which the landscape requirements inhibit the development of corner lots. The proposed amendments would allow for development of these properties while ensuring that adequate landscaping is provided. Staff recommends approval of the landscape exception ordinance amendments.

Mr. Brown opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who would like to come forward to speak for or against the ordinance amendment request. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Brown asked if the Planning Commission would like to comment on the matter. Ms. Jewell stated it was her opinion that something needs to be done to allow businesses to be able to have more use of their properties that are located on the corner lots. It was her opinion that the five (5) foot landscape setback is narrow and she would like to see it increased. Mr. Brown stated the drawings were very informative and that the idea of 50 feet of blacktop to the shoulder, then five (5) feet of green space, and then another 60 feet of parking lot will make the five (5) feet of greenery seem very small. Ms. Amos stated that the ordinance amendment does not include the sidewalk and the strip between the curb and gutter as they are in the right-of-way.

Page 24 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Jewell asked if the parking spaces would be reduced to the minimum if the green strip was increased to seven (7) feet. Ms. Amos stated that there are a few things that can be adjusted and then brought back to the Planning Commission to ensure that the landscaping is attractive is included within the Ordinance, and that the Town will get what they desire. Ms. Amos stated that the Town is proposing to grant a waiver, and there are certain requirements in order to get that waiver and staff would like to ensure those requirements are being met. Staff will bring this back to the Planning Commission at the August 10, 2011, meeting. Mr. Brown stated one thing that he would like to remind staff is that the Planning Commission would like to see that the five (5) foot strip of greenery be deeper; to seven and one-half (7 ) feet or something like that, large enough for a tree to be planted and grow, as well as three (3) additional dimensional bushes besides the three that are shown on the sketch. Ms. Amos stated, and continual. Mr. Brown stated, some continual or something like that. Mr. Stevens stated that many of the corner lots are gas stations and asked how the parking spaces apply to gas stations since they do not require as many parking spaces. Mr. Bryant stated that gas stations require one parking space for each 150 square feet of floor area of the building. Mr. Brown asked if there was a recommended action. A motion was made by Ms. Jewell and seconded by Mr. Henson to defer Ordinance 2011-03 to the August 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to make the recommended changes. ROLL CALL Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Mr. Henson Mr. Abbott Mr. Brown Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye

With all Ayes, the motion passed. REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties requests rezoning from RR-1 (Residential Rural) District and R-2 (Residential Limited) District to R-3 (Residential Medium) District on the property identified as GPIN 7779-76-5614 consisting of +/9.16 acres. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Ashcake Road (Route 657) and Maple Street. The Comprehensive Plan designates

Page 25 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT this property as appropriate for Low Density Residential uses. The R-3 (Residential Medium) District has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet which equates to a maximum density of 5.45 units per acre. Ms. Amos presented the staff report as presented in the Planning Commission packets. Ms. Amos stated that the Applicant has submitted proffers as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the garages will be front loaded. Each house will have a minimum of 1,500 square feet of living area. Each house will have a minimum of 180 square feet of covered porch areas. The front setbacks will be no more than 25 feet. The developer will provide easements on the side yards to allow side-load garages to function. 6. The minimum siding types shall be vinyl, beaded and at least 0.042 thickness or shake siding. 7. At least fifty percent (50%) of the front elevation of each home shall be constructed of stone or tumbled brick. 8. All front porches shall be constructed of masonry with the flooring being constructed of concrete or mason pavers. 9. Each home shall have at least one first-floor bedroom. 10. Each home shall be served with hard surface driveways. 11. Each home shall have a front post lamp located at the sidewalk/driveway connection. 12. The landscaping packages shall include street trees, sod and irrigation in the front and side yards, and foundation landscaping.

Ms. Amos stated that the Applicant submitted sketches for the houses with the application but they have not been proffered, nor have any of the elements from the sketches been proffered. Ms. Amos stated that with regards to Proffer number four (4), within the R-3 Zoning District, the front setback requirement is 30 feet and from recent discussions with the Applicant, they may be able to meet that 30 feet requirement. Ms. Amos stated that staff could not accept the proffer of a 25 foot setback. Ms. Amos stated that staff is working with the Applicant on revising proffers regarding the layout and the design of the property. Ms. Amos stated that in reviewing this request staff did have to review some transportation considerations; not because this property will be generating that much traffic because it would not trigger the traffic per day criteria to require a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Chapter 527 traffic study; but because staff is aware of the concerns for the traffic on Ashcake Road. Not only are there current issues on this road, but Hanover County has future plans to widen Ashcake Road to be four (4) lanes, with 100 foot right-of-ways.

Page 26 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos stated that the western boundary currently has an annual daily average traffic count of 7,000 vehicle trips per day, and the Ashland 20/20 Transportation Plan, which is what staff is currently working from, that was done in 2002 and is incorporated in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. That Plan recommends realigning Maple Street south of Ashcake Road, and it calls for full shoulders along Ashcake Road within the Town limits. With the amendment to the Hanover Countys Comprehensive Plan, and possible future amendments their Plan, staff is requesting that the Public Works staff work with the Towns on-call consultant to get a traffic study done for Ashcake Road from the Town limits to Hill Carter Road so that the need for future improvements along that corridor can be determined. Ms. Amos stated that the Plan of Development which has not been proffered calls for a 28 lot subdivision which would fall within the Comprehensive Plan low density residential for .06 units per acre, and that they would be single family units. Ms. Amos stated that if a Plan of Development referencing the number of units and referencing that they would be single family units, any future development would not be tied to the plan that has been submitted. Ms. Amos stated that internal access is being provided via a road from Ashcake Road to Maple Street giving the subdivision two (2) entrances as well as two (2) 16 foot private alley ways for rear access. This would allow for houses to have smaller cottage type garages in the rear of the property which would alleviate staffs concern for front loading garages throughout the entire development; however, several of the lots will not be serviced by the alley ways. Ms. Amos stated that the side yard shown on the development plan is 10 feet for side setbacks and the R-3 Zoning District requires a 15 foot minimum side setback. There would be a requirement for a text amendment request and the Planning Commission to review and recommend approval to the Town Council and then Town Council would have to approve the text amendment request. Ms. Amos stated that staff has some recommendations on how that could be done. Ms. Amos stated that because the rezoning is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan the way that it is currently presented, because of the potential maximum density within the R-3 District and other reasons stated within the report, staff would like to work with the Applicant to address some of the issues and rework some of the Proffers; therefore, staff is recommending a deferral of this application until the August 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Brown opened the Public Hearing and invited the developer to come forward. Todd Rogers, with Rogers-Chenault, Inc., the contract owner of the property being presented. Mr. Rogers stated that he had productive meetings with the staff and that their input has been invaluable and that he hopes to get input from the Planning Commission this evening as well.

Page 27 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Rogers stated that they will be proffering the maximum number of single family units allowed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan which will be 28 units. Once they finalize the layout then they will be proffering that as well. Mr. Rogers stated that there are several different things going on around the proposed development, the YMCA is near, Slash Cottage Subdivision is across the street, there is M-1 across another street along with daycare. It was his opinion that they could develop anything in this location and it would go well with the neighbors. Mr. Rogers stated that some of the design characteristics that they are aiming for specifically in the site layout is to make certain that there are a variety of lot sizes, which are currently between 8,800 square feet to approximately 16,000 square feet which will allow a variety of sizes of homes on those lots, and there will not be cookie cutter type houses next door to each other. Mr. Rogers stated that they are trying to use the proposed Comprehensive Plan as a guideline for their proposed development. Mr. Rogers stated that the intent of the alley way that is proposed is to design it for one way traffic with one side designed for parking for visitors and the other side to be a travel lane, and the alley way is proposed to curve around and connect to the proposed road into the development which will connect into the other alley way that goes behind all of the houses where it will become a two-way flow of traffic. Mr. Rogers stated that the purpose behind this is to have vehicular traffic behind the houses and access rear garages on the homes to be constructed and make the automobile less of the landscape, and have visitors parking in the front while the homeowners park in their garages on lots one through fifteen. Mr. Rogers stated that they will have the normal required sidewalks to help provide walk flow; they will also provide interconnections to the private access alley allowing pedestrians to walk in the alley ways. Mr. Rogers stated that the speed limit along Ashcake Road is currently 35 miles per hour and that it was his desire to see it reduced with the traffic study being done; and that currently on the north side of Ashcake Road there is a sidewalk that has already been constructed to allow pedestrians access to walk to the YMCA. Mr. Rogers stated that they have had contact with one of the adjacent property owners to try to get an easement to construct a sidewalk. He stated there may also be room in the Towns right-of-way to construct a sidewalk. Mr. Rogers stated that the larger lots around the perimeter of the development will have a more traditional access with driveways coming into the front of the properties; the interior lots with the alley ways will not have a driveway in the front of the house, rather they will have access by way of a sidewalk coming from the street to the house and their main access for guests and their vehicles would be in the rear.

Page 28 of 102

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Rogers stated that their desire with this development is to have an aging in place type of community so that as people age they can continue to live in their homes and not have to move when they get older. Mr. Rogers stated that the housing along Maple Street will face Maple Street but will not have direct access to Maple Street. Mr. Rogers stated that the front of the houses in the entire development will have all of the houses facing outward. Mr. Rogers stated that along Ashcake Road there will be a 25 foot landscape buffer as per the Town Ordinance; and in the Proffers they will be working on language to keep any existing vegetation that they can and supplement that area with plantings to provide a nice clean looking buffer along the main roadways. Mr. Rogers stated that with regards to the setbacks, there was an error in the proffers; the setbacks will be the required 30 foot from the front. Mr. Rogers stated that the smaller side yard setbacks that are being requested to allow for a 10 foot side yard setback to allow a larger house to be built on the lot rather than a shot-gun style home and it will bring the houses closer to the road, and the right-of-way will give the subdivision more of a community feel. Mr. Rogers stated that he would like to request a text amendment to allow that reduction in the side yard setbacks. Mr. Rogers provided a handout of the possible structure styles that are proposed for the development. Mr. Rogers stated that they realize that they were not ready for approval for this meeting and would really appreciate input from the Planning Commission so that when they meet with staff they will have a complete packet for the August 10, 2011, meeting in hopes that there will be a recommended approval to the Town Council. Mr. Henson stated that he likes the housing designs because they fit into the design of what makes Ashland what it is today; he stated he was not in favor of the front load garage design. Mr. Brown stated that some of the lots are larger and asked if it would be possible to take a front loading garage and create side loading garages. Mr. Rogers stated that was not something that has been addressed, but what they are asking to do is to be able to get a five (5) or ten (10) foot easement on the adjacent lots to allow vehicles to swing into their side load garages, as is done in zero lot line communities. Mr. Brown opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone that would like to come forward to speak for or against the rezoning request. Bruce Gainey, Attorney from Hanover County, representing Charles Wilson who was in the audience.

Page 29 of 102

10

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Gainey stated that Mr. Wilson is the owner of an 11 acre parcel located on the western side of Maple Street, which is zoned M-1 (Limited Industrial) District. Mr. Gainey stated that Mr. Wilson has four tenants: S & N Communications, Richmond Crain and Rigging, JDS Construction, and Wilcon Inc. They have great neighbors in Toddler Town Daycare which is located beside them and has been there for a very long time and is owned by the Conway Family; Mr. Conway was present this evening as well. Jay Small is the owner of the M-1 property to the south end of the proposed development and there is also a commercial construction company a little further down on Maple Street owned by Jack Walters. Mr. Gainey stated that it was not their desire to speak against the development; their concern is the entrance on Maple Street. These businesses have a lot of commercial trucks coming through on Maple Street, which is not exactly the type of road for that purpose but it is what it is. The drivers are always very careful driving on Maple Street because there are buses at Toddler Town Daycare and people picking up children on a regular basis. Mr. Gainey stated that one of their concerns has been alleviated because the plans that they reviewed showed parallel parking on Maple Street and that has been removed. With regards to the entrance on Maple Street, they would like to have anything that can be done to make this as safe as possible. Mr. Gainey stated that it was his opinion that adding to the old trolley line that has been in place for the past 50 to 60 years is a very good idea and would help. Mr. Brown asked what the hours were that the trucks were running on Maple Street. Charles Wilson - 12447 A, B, C, D and R, Maple Street. Mr. Wilson stated that they begin at 6:00 a.m. depending on deliveries for evenings, and they operate during the weekdays. Mr. Henson asked if the large truck traffic was concentrated in the morning hours. Mr. Wilson stated that the large truck traffic is pretty high volume and that it was all day long. Mr. Gainey stated that even widening Maple Street may help the situation. Ms. Jewell asked if the trucks have any difficulty maneuvering on Maple Street with the current width. Mr. Gainey stated that the trucks do tend to have some difficulty and require crossing the center line to pull out. Ms. Amos stated that staff can work with the developer.

Page 30 of 102

11

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT There being no further comments, Mr. Brown closed the public hearing. Ms. Amos stated that the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to discuss the sketches and the layout and any feedback that the Planning Commission can offer to bring back to the Planning Commission for the August 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting what they would like to see. Mr. Brown stated that he thinks that it is a shame that the Town requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Ms. Amos stated that the Applicant is requesting a text amendment, which is required in order for the Town to allow the 10 foot side yard setback; the smaller front yard setback could be included in this text amendment. Ms. Amos stated that there would not be enough time to do a full review of the R-3 Zoning to present to the Planning Commission the entire Zoning Amendment; therefore, it would be a piecemeal which staff has tried to avoid in the past. Ms. Amos stated that other localities offer the option that if the Applicant is proffering a Plan of Development the setbacks that are in the Plan of Development become proffered and if we had it in our Ordinance then we could allow those setbacks to be the setbacks that are regulated on the property. Mr. Stevens stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Brown with regards to the smaller front yard setbacks. Mr. Brown stated that with regards to the parcels that will be facing the M-1 District, what is it that the Applicant can do to make these lots more appealing rather than looking at a 20 foot piece of Town property and a chain link fence and then industry across the street. Mr. Rogers stated that the 20 feet of land that belongs to the Town is currently heavily treed. Mr. Rogers stated that for the next meeting, he will put an overlay on top of the aerial view to allow a better visual and to show exactly where the entrance point to the subdivision is located on Maple Street. With regards to the houses that are facing Maple Street, Lot number 13 is the only lot that is facing the industrial area and the others will be facing the Day Care Center. Mr. Stevens asked what the Applicants thoughts were regarding the width of Maple Street. Mr. Rogers stated that it was his opinion that it was not wide enough for an industrial area. Mr. Rogers stated that according to the Comprehensive Plan, the area that is being presented before the Planning Commission is designated as a residential area and it is more of an industrial area on the other side which wraps around to Route 1, and he does not know if there is some sort of resolution that can come from that.

Page 31 of 102

12

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Jewell addressed the Applicant and stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Henson and was not in favor of the front loading garages and would prefer the side load garage, and with regards to the 10 foot setbacks on the side, how much would it impact him to keep the 10 foot side yard setbacks. Mr. Rogers stated that he was not certain what they would lose, and that they were trying to stay with the 30 foot lot frontage. Mr. Rogers stated that they are not asking to go down to a five (5) foot setback on the side yards, they were asking to go down by five (5) feet which is 10 feet total which would allow them to have a 40 foot footprint; and approximately five (5) of the homes that are in the handout are 38 to 40 feet and it is very difficult to get a house with character for less than this. Ms. Jewell stated that she liked the 30 foot setback on the front of the house and asked the Applicant if he was okay with this. Mr. Rogers stated that they could live with the 30 foot front yard setback. Ms. Jewell asked the Applicant what his plans were for the common areas in the development. Mr. Rogers stated that there are some environmental issues that the engineers are working on with Ms. Stenbjorn, the Town Engineer, and that common area will be left as natural as possible. There really is no room for a public common area. With the proximity of the YMCA and Carter Park there are plenty of opportunities for activities in the neighborhood. Mr. Stevens stated that he likes Mr. Rogers idea of going from the neighborhood to the YMCA, but how would one get across the street to Carter Park. Ms. Amos stated that at this point Mr. Stevens question is a shared discussion between the Applicant and the Town. Mr. Henson asked what types of options are available. Ms. Amos stated that there is the option to put in crosswalks across Ashcake Road. Mr. Abbott asked if Ms. Amos was referring to a lighted crosswalk with a button to push to stop traffic to get across Ashcake Road, because if there are children in that development then they are going to want to go to the Carter Park. Ms. Amos stated that it was not what she was speaking on but that it could be discussed, and with regards to the traffic flow, that would most likely be reviewed in the traffic study. Mr. Rogers stated that he is trying to see if there is enough right-of-way along Ashcake Road to construct a sidewalk on this side of Ashcake Road, and if there is then they would like to construct a sidewalk to connect pedestrian traffic to the YMCA.

Page 32 of 102

13

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Abbott asked the Applicant if the houses provided were the only houses that were planned to go into the development. Mr. Rogers stated that the renditions that were provided were just some samples and not exclusive and they are trying to extract from those samples some language that describes others that could go into the development. Ms. Amos stated that she would like the Planning Commission to review the renditions that were provided and to comment on the areas that they are in favor of or not in favor of and e-mail those comments to her before Tuesday, July 19, 2011, when she will be meeting with Mr. Rogers to work on the language for the proffers. Mr. Abbott asked for confirmation from the Applicant that none of the houses would be less than 1,500 square feet. Mr. Rogers confirmed. Mr. Abbott asked if there could be language that states that only a percentage could be 1,500 square feet. Ms. Amos stated that they could work on that language but staff would have to work with the Applicant to see what he was comfortable with. Mr. Rogers stated that when the proffers stated that the minimum would be 1,500 square feet, that this would be the absolute minimum and if one would consider Carters Hill Subdivision, the minimum square footage is 1,400 but the minimum that has been build is 2,100 square feet, and not everyone would be comfortable with 2,000 or 2,500 square feet. Mr. Abbott stated that where the Planning Commission is coming from is that as stated in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, there is currently a very large inventory of smaller houses. Mr. Brown asked if staff could find examples of developments in the Town of Ashland where houses are 20 feet apart, with 25 foot front yard setbacks, and 30 foot front yard setbacks, and 1,500 square feet so that the Planning Commission could look at them Ms. Amos stated that staff could look up some examples. Ms. Amos stated that if it was the desire of the Planning Commission, staff could set up a time to look at the property being discussed as a group or see some of the other products that the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to see. Or she could send an e-mail to the Planning Commissioners with directions so that they could look on their own. Paula Long 501 College Avenue, Ashland, Virginia.

Page 33 of 102

14

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Long stated that with reference to the pedestrian crossing at the corner of Ashcake Road and Maple Street, would it be something to consider having another option of access to cross Maple Street and walk a little along Ashcake Road and cross Ashcake Road closer to the railroad tracks where the traffic speed would be a little bit lower. Mr. Brown stated that all options will be considered. Mr. Brown stated that no action needed to be taken from the guidance of the Town Attorney, Ms. Erard. ACTION ITEMS SUB11-0428 - Chapman Street Subdivision A request for a preliminary plat approval to create a four (4) lot residential subdivision on 2.51 acres of GPIN 7870-45-8350, 7870-45-9225, 7870-550127, 7870-55-0040. The Applicant is also requesting an exception to the requirement of sidewalks and curb and gutter for this subdivision per Sec. 17-49.2 of the Town Code. Mr. Phillips presented the Chapman Street Subdivision as presented in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Phillips stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider and approve the Chapman Street Subdivision Preliminary Plat as presented as well as the exception to the requirement of sidewalks, and curb and gutter to the Town Council. Mr. Brown asked the location of Vaughan Road in the first submittal of Carters Hill Section Two (2). Mr. Phillips stated that on this plat Vaughan Road is a little farther north than originally proposed. Mr. Brown asked if it was 200 feet different. Ms. Amos stated that she could not say that it is not that much different. Mr. Phillips stated that as a part of section two (2) the Applicant is proposing to dedicate a section of right-of-way as displayed on the preliminary plat. A motion was made by Ms. Jewell and seconded by Mr. Henson to recommend approval to the Town Council the Chapman Street Preliminary Subdivision Plat dated June 16, 2011, as presented, as well as the exception request to sidewalks, and curb and gutter. ROLL CALL Mr. Abbott Aye

Page 34 of 102

15

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Mr. Henson Mr. Brown Aye Aye Aye Aye

With all Ayes, the motion passed. Comprehensive Plan Nora Amos Ms. Amos stated that staff received minimal comments at the July 30, 2011, Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan with no substantial changes being recommended for the Plan. Ms. Amos stated that since then through discussion with Planning Commission and staff and other citizens, recommendations have been made for some minor amendments; therefore, it was her opinion that there should not be action taken of the Comprehensive Plan at this time. She recommended that the Planning Commission have a separate work session to discuss those recommendations, issues, questions and comments, and then re-advertise a public hearing and probably hold a public hearing in September. Mr. Brown asked for clarification on the date for the recommended work session. Ms. Amos stated Wednesday, August 24, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Henson to hold a special Planning Commission work session at 6:00 p.m. on August 24, 2011. ROLL CALL Mr. Stevens Ms. Jewell Mr. Henson Mr. Abbott Mr. Brown Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye

With all Ayes, the motion passed. REPORT OF COMMITTEES A. Town Council George Spagna Mr. Spagna stated that on pages 34 and 35 of the Planning Commission packet are the actions for the Town Council meetings of June 7, 2011, and June 22, 2011, and asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Mr. Spagna stated that at the railroad crossings on Ashcake Road and Route 54 several months ago all of a sudden cuts where done across the railroad crossings by CSX Chessie Seaboard Multiplier (Railroad Transportation Company). Mike Davis, the

Page 35 of 102

16

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Director of Public Works asked the CSX workers what they were doing and they told him that they plan to replace the crossings but the date is still to be determined. Mr. Spagna stated that the rubberized material had deteriorated so badly that CSX no longer installs it. The Town could either allow CSX to go back to the old timber crossing (which is a very rough crossing) at no extra cost to the Town, or CSX recommends install prefabricated concrete inserts which presumably will last forever and is very smooth to cross, and the next time the CSX needs to do repairs to the tracks they can pick the pieces up with a crane and do the repairs and place the concrete piece back. The Town has appropriated funding from the previous fiscal years paving budget into the Capital Projects Fund so that it will be available when the Town needs it for the crossings. Mr. Henson stated that it was his opinion that something that is worthy of noting is the retreat between the Town Council and Randolph-Macon College to discuss the Master Plan which has a 25 year horizon. Mr. Henson stated that the new Freshman Dorm that is being constructed is the first dorm to be built in 40 years. Next to be worked on are the Science Building, the Student Center, and Rotating the Football Field. Mr. Henson stated that Randolph-Macon Colleges objective is to get as great a percentage of the students on campus as possible while trying to grow the student body as the same time. Mr. Henson stated that this lead to a lot of discussion regarding when students live in neighborhoods the Town has a lot more leverage with the College. For example, students that are chronic problem in the community will be forced to move back onto the College Campus. Mr. Henson stated that there was also further discussion regarding the College taking over houses on the periphery of the Campus and turning them into things other than residential. Mr. Brown stated that he wanted to thank the Town Council for appointing Mr. Charlie Martin to be the representative for the Town of Ashland for CTAC (Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee) to replace him. B. Ashland Main Street Association - Nora Amos Ms. Amos stated that Ms. Thompson the Economical Development Coordinator has provided her with a written report. The Ashland Main Street Association has not heard back from the Virginia Main Street Association on their recommended localities to become a designated Main Street. Ms. Amos stated that it was her opinion that the State has made recommendations to the Governor and he gets to make the final decision and we hope that it will take place soon. C. Economic Development Authority of Ashland, Virginia - Nora Amos

Page 36 of 102

17

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos stated that the EDA is considering a Revitalization Grant Program to add to their list of incentives, with will replace the Sign Grant Program that they voted to discontinue. Ms. Amos stated that she has invited Ms. Thompson to come to the September 14, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to provide an overview of all of the incentives that the EDA is currently offering and will be looking to offer in the future. Mr. Brown asked where the EDA is seeking to do the revitalization. Ms. Amos stated that it would be for commercial property and they would like to structure it where it would impact certain areas of the Town at a time and then move to a different area. For instance they would work on the downtown area for a certain amount of time and then they may move to Route 1. Ms. Amos stated that Ms. Thompson is working with other staff members to put out an RFP (request for proposal) for a new website with hopes of having a new website by the end of the year or first part of spring for the Town of Ashland. Ms. Amos stated that Ms. Thompson has been working with the Street Crew to get bike racks installed throughout the Town, perhaps the Planning Commission has seen some of the new racks go up at Ashland Coffee and Tea. Te Town is working on getting a bike rack on Railroad Avenue, the next one will most likely be at the Post Office, and possibly at the Ashland Town Center. Ms. Amos stated that if the Planning Commission has any recommendations of locations for bike racks to go up while they are currently working on that project to please let her know. I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NONE. II. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Jewell asked staff who is responsible for the grass growing along the railroad tracks. Ms. Amos stated that this is the railroad property. Ms. Jewell asked for clarification and asked if right up against the tracks is the railroad property. Ms. Amos confirmed. Ms. Jewell asked if there was any way to get that grass trimmed. Ms. Amos stated that she could pass Ms. Jewells concerns along.

Page 37 of 102

18

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Brown stated that he is very interested in street trees and sidewalks. Mr. Brown stated that this is a part of our plan to make our small Town walkable and to have it shaded. Mr. Brown stated that they are cutting down approximately 15 trees on North James and Hanover Street and putting in four (4) foot wide sidewalks as an extension and he was wondering if someone could come to the Planning Commission to tell them what the criteria is for where the sidewalks are, which trees come down, what do we do about trees that come down, etc. Mr. Brown stated that it looks like a disaster to him when you see all of those stumps along James Street, and stated that there are always other ways of solving the architectural problem and the problem of people wanting to keep their trees and so on. It was his hope that the sidewalk bump in the road will be well marked, such as striped parking spaces so that people know that one is not suppose to ride their bike or drive their car there. Mr. Brown stated that some neighbors have mentioned concern to him that a bus is going to run into that bump-out sidewalk. Mr. Spagna stated that the sidewalk that Mr. Brown is speaking of is being done with a grant called Safe Routes to School, where sidewalks can go is subject to VDOT requirements because the Town must keep the street and sidewalks up to VDOT standards. Mr. Spagna stated that it was his best guess that the trees in front of Shiloh Baptist Church were in the Towns right-of-way and there was no way of putting the sidewalk in the right-of-way without taking the trees down. Mr. Brown stated that the Town could get the Church to allow the Town to make a trail through their side yard. Ms. Amos stated that Mr. Browns suggestion was discussed with the private property owner and if they are not okay with giving the Town an easement, which the Town has done in other areas, then the Town is required to go within its right-of-way. Ms. Amos stated that it was her understanding that the right-of-way is 40 feet and the sidewalk is on the edge. Mr. Brown stated that he would be interested in knowing what the criteria are because the Planning Commission does not know anything about it. Mr. Spagna stated that the bump-out on Hanover Avenue is within VDOT Code because the speed limit in that area is 25 miles per hour and the Town is allowed to do that bump out as a traffic calming measure. Mr. Spagna stated that that specific traffic lane is approximately twice the width of the lane going in the other direction. Mr. Brown stated that paint has a wonderful effect on peoples behavior. Ms. Amos stated that Mr. Davis would be the person to come and speak with the Planning Commission and she could talk with him regarding this. Mr. Brown asked the Planning Commissioners if they agreed with him that they would also like to be informed on what is going on with the sidewalks.

Page 38 of 102

19

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT It was the general consensus of the Planning Commissioners that they agreed with Mr. Brown. Mr. Henson stated that it may be a topic for a work session item since we will be discussing the possibility of having regular work sessions as the next topic for discussion. UP COMING ITEMS AUGUST MEETING: June Work Session Items: -Possible Adoption of Roberts Rules of Small Boards -Review of Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Ordinance (after completion) -Review of Current Construction and how we get what we want. -Possible work session prior to each meeting. -Goal Setting -By-Laws -Identification

Ms. Amos stated that at the June 8, 2011, 6:30 p.m. work session the Planning Commission discussed some policy and possible By-law amendments and it was her opinion that the agenda for this evening was a little lengthy and that it may be best to place these items on the August agenda. William Gurdin CUP11-0701 - Storage of Vehicles for Wholesale Distribution

Ms. Amos stated that the staff has received an application from William Gurdin for a Conditional Use Permit for a parcel which is located at 705 North Washington Highway which is two (2) or three (3) parcels north of Jamestown Road. There is a car lot currently adjacent to this parcel. Ms. Amos stated that the Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit and the Applicants are present to provide a brief overview of what they are asking for. Tammy Gurdin with her husband William Gurdin. Ms. Gurdin stated they are new to Ashland and Hanover area; they are coming from Henrico and moving to Beaverdam in two (2) week and that she would like to open up an antique store in Ashland. Ms. Gurdin stated that her husband is in the car business, they are not interested in opening a car lot, however they do need a holding lot for his businesses in Richmond and Portsmouth. As the cars come in that Mr. Gurdin will purchase from out of state, be it from an auction or a dealer, they would come into the area and need a place to be held until they are transported out to where they will be sold. They had a dealership in Richmond on Broad Street and all of the vehicles that

Page 39 of 102

20

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT were on that car lot (approximately 100 vehicles) will need to be stored until they can be relocated to a dealership. Ms. Gurdin stated that in order for her to be able to do the antique business, they need to have everything under one roof. If Mr. Gurdin is able to use the lot to hold the vehicles behind the building until they can be transported out; Mr. Gurdin will pay the bills and she can have her antique shop and they will be bringing additional revenue to the Town of Ashland. Ms. Gurdin stated that she has two (2) booth rentals; one (1) in Mechanicsville and one (1) at Southside and has been in the market and been around antiques her whole life and that she wants the shop to be a nice and classy shop. Ms. Gurdin stated that the parcel has previously been approved for holding vehicles and heavy equipment. Ms. Gurdin stated that if it was necessary, they are even willing to put up a privacy fence behind the building to conceal the vehicles. Ms. Gurdin stated that once the vehicles are completely sold off from the car lot that they have closed there should never be more than 20 to 30 vehicles at any given time. Ms. Gurdin stated that for example, Mr. Gurdin just went to a car sale and purchased 18 vehicles, those vehicles will be coming in this week but they already have homes but they need to come in to Mr. Gurdin for his drivers to take them to where they belong. Ms. Gurdin stated that Bobby Bruce and his partner are the property owners, and the property has been vacant for quite some time with no revenue coming in on this parcel for the property owners or for the Town of Ashland, therefore this could be a win-win for everybody. Kevin Engle Partner with Bobby Bruce, owners of the property located at 705 North Washington Highway. Mr. Engle stated that they have patiently waited for some quality people to rent this parcel of land and do something with it that they feel would be advantageous to the Town of Ashland and the community. Mr. Engle stated that they would like to provide the Gurdins an opportunity to do what they do best and generate revenue for the Town and Mr. Engle and Mr. Bruce are very much behind the Gurdins and would like them to be very successful and hope that the Planning Commission would agree with them and be able to help them to be successful. Mr. Brown asked staff what the next step would be.

Page 40 of 102

21

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Ms. Amos stated that the antique business is by-right; therefore, the Conditional Use Permit request is for the wholesale use. Any conditions would be on the wholesale portion of that use. Ms. Amos stated that for instance the buffering that the Applicants recommended. If the Planning Commission has any recommendations that they would like staff to consider or talk through with the Applicant then please let staff know before it comes back for the public hearing next month. Mr. Stevens asked what type of business was previously on the property. Mr. Engle stated that the previous business involved in moving office equipment for the state. Mr. Henson asked the Applicant to explain where they would like to store the 100 cars. Ms. Gurdin stated that she would need the parking lot for her business, in the back of the property near the corner of the of the building down to the woods to be enclosed with a privacy fence and then back across the opposite side of the building to conceal the vehicles. Mr. Henson asked if the Applicant had an idea of the type of privacy fence they intend to install. Ms. Gurdin stated that they did not; they were simply offering this as an option to allow them to do what they would like to do on the property, and that they were willing to be very flexible to put up the type of fence that the Town would require. Mr. Gurdin stated that it is a large expense to put the fence up to conceal the vehicles and if they did not have to put the fence up that would be great. Mr. Brown asked how this project would relate to the HNK Conditional Use Permit and Vehicles for Change Conditional Use Permit and their fences. Ms. Amos stated that Vehicles for Change had a slated fence already in place and the Town asked them to add more slats to their fence and it was directly along Route 1. Ms. Amos stated that staff will measure the distance and provide the information to the Planning Commission and they can visit the site. Ms. Jewell asked if the Applicant plans to sell vehicles on the lot. Mr. Gurdin stated that they are not selling vehicles, but selling antiques. Ms. Gurdin stated that there is a fence along the front of the property and that they intend to keep it up and it has large swinging gate entrances. At the end where they would put the added fence, they would also put the privacy fence double gate entrance and the fence for the vehicles to pass through.

Page 41 of 102

22

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2011 - DRAFT Mr. Brown stated that the thing that is to be considered is what the fence will look like, the screening the landscape and so on and he would like to look at the site and then make suggestions. Mr. Henson stated that that there are two situations: 1.) The initial big load of vehicles that the Applicant will have and he does not anticipate being a long term situation. 2.) The potential to have a condition that will work for a finite period of time for the big load of vehicles and then certain conditions if the quantity will adjust after a certain amount of time. Ms. Amos stated that staff can speak with the applicant regarding that possibility. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Page 42 of 102

23

Town of Ashland

Town of Ashland Planning Commission Work Session Minutes August 24, 2011 The Planning Commission of the Town of Ashland, Virginia held a work session on the Comprehensive Plan on Wednesday, August 24, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Town of Ashland Conference Room, located at 101 Thompson Street, Ashland, Virginia. Those present were: Present: Robert Brown, Chair Alan Abbott, Vice-Chair Ned Henson (arrived at 6:35 p.m.) Lou Ann Jewell Felix Stevens, III NONE. Nora Amos, Director, Planning and Community Development George Spagna- Council Liaison Margaret Barre Nancy Offersen

Absent: Others Present:

CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Brown opened the Planning Commission work session at 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission discussed the following items: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Executive Summary Abstracts Chapter: 4.0 Land Use Chapter: 5.0 Housing Suggestions from Chairman Brown and Ms. Jewell, which were presented in a handout.

The Planning Commission will tentatively hold a final public hearing at the October 12, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other comments the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

Page 43 of 102

STAFF REPORT
To: From: Date: Case Type: Case No.: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner September 14, 2011 Conditional Use Permit CUP11-0701

Case Name: William Gurdin Location: GPIN(s): Eastern side of Route 1 (N. Washington Hwy.), approximately 500 feet north of Jamestown Road 7880-18-9201 & 7880-18-9314

REQUEST: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow for wholesale businesses on GPINs 7880-18-9201 & 7880-18-9314 in accordance with Sec. 21-101 (41) of the Town Code.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1) Areas to be used for the storage of vehicles shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and Route 1 with either a staggered mix of diversified vegetative screening or solid-material fencing. Screening methods shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to installation. 2) There shall be no display or retail sales of used automobiles. 3) No vehicles shall be stored between the front property line along Route 1 and the rear of the existing building on the subject property. 4) The applicant shall participate as necessary in the recordation of this Conditional Use Permit in the Hanover County Circuit Court.

Page 44 of 102 www.town.ashland.va.us

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 2 of 8

MOTION: Approve I move for approval of the conditional use permit as recommended in this Staff Report, or Approve I move for approval of the conditional use permit as recommended in this Staff Report with the following additions: Deny I move to deny the conditional use permit. Defer I move to defer action on the conditional use permit until October 12, 2011.

CUP11-0701 William Gurdin

September 14, 2011

Page 45 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 3 of 8

BACKGROUND:
Submittal Date Existing Zoning Location Size Existing Land Use Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan July 1, 2011 B-2, Highway Commercial District East of Route 1, approximately 500 feet north of Jamestown Rd. Approximately 3.2 acres Vacant w/ an existing building North: Commercial (used car dealership); property zoned B-2 South: Commercial (auto repair); properties zoned B-2 and RR-1 East: Vacant (across Route 1); property zoned RR-1 West: Vacant; zoned M-1 The Plan designates this property as appropriate for light industrial uses.

The applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sec. 21-101 (41) of the Ashland Town Code to allow for the wholesale storage and distribution of vehicles. Vehicles that are bought at auctions by the applicant would be stored on the subject property until they are distributed to car dealerships throughout the state. No vehicles would be sold at retail on the subject property and the site would only be used for the storage of vehicles until they are ready to be sent to a dealership. In addition to the wholesale storage and distribution of vehicles on the property, the applicant would also be opening an antique shop on the property, which would be located within the building that currently exists on the property. Antique shops are permitted by-right in the B-2, Highway Commercial zoning district, and this request for a Conditional Use Permit has no impact on the use of the existing building as an antique shop.

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, e.g. the antique shop. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as appropriate for light industrial uses. The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states the following for light industrial land uses: Light Industrial This classification provides for a broad range of clean industries operating under high performance standards. This category encompasses areas of research and development, limited warehouse and distribution facilities, as well as office uses. The objective is to promote a park-like atmosphere for
CUP11-0701 William Gurdin September 14, 2011

Page 46 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 4 of 8

research oriented or office activities on well-landscaped sites, where quality development and design will be compatible to all types of adjoining land uses. The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following recommendations for development along the Washington Highway (Route 1) corridor: This corridor has been designated for General Commercial development, consistent with its present uses and character. Many original business and industrial uses have remained while new office and retail uses have added another layer of vitality. Continued transition has been anticipated and allowed for. Redevelopment is desirable and should include a continued emphasis on conversion to commercial use for serving needs of adjoining neighborhoods and through traffic. To facilitate an orderly transition along Washington Highway, combination land uses and specialty retail/service development suited to an urban thoroughfare are desirable. Gateway improvements would contribute to a more stable economic environment and should be pursued jointly by the Town and corridor area business owners. The Conditional Use Permit request, along with the proposed use of the property, appears to meet the intent and character of the light industrial land use designation and the Washington Highway corridor. The use of the property for wholesale storage and distribution of vehicles appears to fit the character of uses called for in the Comprehensive Plan, as the Plan specifically mentions distribution facilities as appropriate uses. With regard to the Route 1 Corridor, even though the proposed use is not retail, it does appear to fit in with the character of surrounding uses, which includes an auto repair facility and a used car dealership. Plan of Development. No official plan of development has been submitted with this request; however, the applicant has indicated that the back portion of the property is proposed to be used for the storage of vehicles. The property is primarily clear, with some existing wooded areas located along the eastern and southeastern portions of the property. Areas that are to be used for the storage of vehicles would be required to be screened from adjacent properties and Route 1. If any improvements are to be made to the property, such as graveling or paving the areas to be used as vehicle storage, then the applicant would be subject to the site plan requirements of the Ashland Town Code. The Hanover County Department of Public Utilities has indicated that a 16 waterline is located along the front of this property and is available for connection if the owner wishes to connect to public water. Also, if additional buildings are going to be proposed in the future and a site plan submission is required, a review of the adequacy of fire protection will be conducted and considered based on the additional buildings proposed at the time. Conditions. To ensure that vehicles are screened from view from adjacent properties and Route 1, staff is recommending conditions to make certain that adequate screening provisions are provided on the property. The first condition that staff is recommending is that either vegetative screening or solid material fencing be provided around any areas that are to be used for storage of vehicles. If vegetative screening is provided, staff recommends that such vegetation be a diversified and staggered mix of plantings. To further ensure that vehicles are not visible from Route 1, staff is also recommending that no vehicle be stored between the front property line and the rear of the existing building. This would mean that no stored vehicles would be within approximately 180 feet of Route 1. Finally, staff is
CUP11-0701 William Gurdin September 14, 2011

Page 47 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 5 of 8

recommending a condition that would restrict the display and retail sales of used automobiles on this site. The applicant has indicated that there would be no retail sales of automobiles as part of this CUP request, and staff recommends including this condition to ensure compliance. A complete list of recommended conditions is included in the recommendation section of this staff report. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, staff believes that this conditional use permit request meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, as the proposed use of the property for the wholesale storage and distribution of vehicles is consistent with the light industrial land use category, the character of development of the Washington Highway (Route 1) corridor, and the B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning District. As indicated, no vehicles would be available for retail sale, and vehicles would only be stored until they are ready to be distributed to car dealerships throughout the state. Additionally, the proposed use of the property should have no adverse impacts on the area as surrounding properties are zoned B-2 and M-1 with uses that include a used car dealership and an auto repair facility. Finally, staff is recommending conditions that should ensure that stored vehicles are screened appropriately and are not visible from Route 1 and adjacent properties.

Route 1

GPINs 7880-18-9201 & 7880-18-9314

Jamestown Rd.

CUP11-0701 William Gurdin

September 14, 2011

Page 48 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 6 of 8

CUP11-0701 William Gurdin

September 14, 2011

Page 49 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 7 of 8

CUP11-0701 William Gurdin

September 14, 2011

Page 50 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 8 of 8

CUP11-0701 William Gurdin

September 14, 2011

Page 51 of 102

STAFF REPORT
To: From: Date: Case No.: RE: REQUEST: This request is to amend Sec. 21-50 and 21-52(a) of the Town Code to reduce the minimum setback and side yard requirements of the R-3 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following: The Planning Commission recommends approval of ORD2011-06 as presented to the Town Council. Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner September 14, 2011 ORD2011-06 Ordinance Amendments

MOTION: Approve I move for approval of the ordinance amendment as recommended in this Staff Report, or Approve I move for approval of the ordinance amendment as recommended in this Staff Report with the following additions: Deny I move to deny the ordinance amendment. Defer I move to defer action on the ordinance amendment until October 12, 2011.

Page 52 of 102 www.town.ashland.va.us

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 2 of 4

SUMMARY: Staff has received and is currently reviewing the Lance & Bridle rezoning request (REZ110531), in which the applicant is proposing to rezone GPIN 7779-76-5614 from RR-1 and R-2 to R-3. As part of this rezoning request, the applicant has submitted and proffered a plan of development that proposes residential lots with front setbacks of 25 feet and side yards of 10 feet. However, the R-3 zoning district currently requires a front setback of at least 30 feet (Sec. 21-50) and side yards of at least 15 feet (Sec. 21-52(a)). Since the submitted plan of development has been proffered as part of the rezoning request, the request cannot be approved unless the setback and side yard requirements of the R-3 zoning district are amended or the applicant submits a plan of development to include lots that meet the current setback and side yard requirements of the R-3 zoning district. The applicant has stated that in order to meet the current setback requirements, they would have to make the lots larger which would ultimately mean that they would have to eliminate some of the proposed lots, making the development financially impractical. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a request to (1) amend Sec. 21-50 of the Town Code to reduce the minimum setback required from 30 feet to 25 feet, and (2) amend Sec. 21-52(a) to reduce the minimum side yard required from 15 feet to 10 feet. When considering this request, staff looked at the minimum lot size of the R-3 zoning district (8,000 square feet), and compared the current setback and yard requirements of the R-3 district to the setback and yard requirements of other localities with similar minimum lot sizes. The table below compares Ashlands R-3 district lot size, setback, and side yard requirements to those of other localities with a similar minimum lot size: Locality Ashland Richmond Colonial Heights Harrisonburg Winchester Blacksburg Waynesboro Roanoke Zoning District R-3 R-4 Low Density Residential (LR) R-2 Medium Density Residential (MR) Old Town Residential (OTR) RS-7 R-7 Min. Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft. Min. Setback 30 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet Min. Side Yard 15 feet 6 feet 7.5 feet 10 feet 6 feet 7 feet 9 feet 3 feet

The table above shows how Ashlands setback and side yard regulations compare to various Virginia localities with similar, although not exactly the same, minimum lot size requirements. For the minimum setback requirements, it is split fairly evenly with three localities having a 30 foot minimum (including Ashland), three localities having a 25 foot minimum, and two localities having a 20 foot minimum. However, the differences between Ashlands minimum side yard requirement of 15 feet compared to the other localities is quite different. Ashland by far has the largest minimum side yard requirement at 15 feet, with the next largest being 10 feet (City of Harrisonburg). All of the other localities have minimum side yard requirement less than 10 feet, with the smallest being only 3 feet (City of Roanoke). Of course, this is only a small sampling of Virginia localities, but it still provides some points of comparison for Ashland.
ORD2011-06 R-3 Setback & Yard Requirements

Page 53 of 102

September 14, 2011

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 3 of 4

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, staff does not believe amending the R-3 zoning district to reduce the minimum setback required from 30 feet to 25 feet and the minimum side yard required from 15 feet to 10 feet, will have any adverse impacts on existing and future R-3 zoned lots and developments. The table above shows that many localities in Virginia have setback and side yard requirements less than what Ashland currently requires on similar minimum lot sizes. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request to reduce the setback and side yard requirements of the R-3 zoning district.

ORD2011-06 R-3 Setback & Yard Requirements

September 14, 2011

Page 54 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia Ordinance PL2011-03

Page 4 of 4

AN ORDINANCE to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Chapter 21, Zoning, Article VI, Residential, Medium District R-3, Sec. 21-50, Setback regulations, and Sec. 21-52, Yard regulations. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the setback and side yard regulations to allow for smaller setback and side yard regulations on lots within the R-3 zoning district. WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing on the _____th day of _____ 2010, 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 21-50 Setback regulations and Section 21-52 Yard regulations shall be amended to read, as follows: Sec. 21-50. Setback regulations. The minimum setback shall be thirty (30) twenty-five (25) feet. See article XXV for supplemental yard regulations. (12-13-94, 8; 6-23-98(2), 1; 12-15-98, 1)

Sec. 21-52. Yard regulations. (a) Side. The minimum side yards for main buildings shall be fifteen (15) ten (10) feet. The minimum street side yard for all buildings and structures shall be twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Rear. The minimum rear yard for main buildings shall be twenty-five (25) feet.

(c) Accessory structures. The minimum side and rear yards for accessory structures shall be five (5) feet. See article XXV for supplemental yard regulations. (11-25-97(2), 1; 6-23-98(2), 1; 12-15-98, 1)

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. Introduced: Advertised: August 16, 2011 Planning Commission: Herald Progress: August 25, 2011 & September 1, 2011 Town Council: Herald Progress:

Public Hearing: Planning Commission: September 14, 2011 Town Council: Adopted: Effective:

ORD2011-06 R-3 Setback & Yard Requirements

September 14, 2011

Page 55 of 102

STAFF REPORT
To: From: Date: Case Type: Case No.: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner September 14, 2011 Rezoning REZ11-0531

Case Name: Lance & Bridle Club Properties Location: GPIN(s): Southeast corner of the intersection of Ashcake Road (Route 657) & Maple St. 7779-76-5614

REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 9.163 acres of GPIN 7779-76-5614 from RR-1, Residential Rural District and R-2, Residential Limited District to R-3, Residential Medium District.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following: The Planning Commission recommends deferral of this request until the October 12, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to allow for the findings of the Timmons Group Ashcake Road traffic study to be made available.

MOTION: Approve I move for approval of the rezoning request. Deny I move to deny the rezoning request. Defer I move to defer action on the rezoning request until October 12, 2011 as recommended in this staff report.

Page 56 of 102 www.town.ashland.va.us

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 2 of 10

BACKGROUND:
Submittal Date Existing Zoning Location Size Existing Land Use Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan May 31, 2011 RR-1, Residential Rural District & R-2, Residential Limited District Southeast corner of the intersection of Ashcake Rd. & Maple St. Approximately 9.163 acres Vacant North: Residential (Slash Cottage); zoned R-2 South: Vacant & Residential; zoned RR-1 & M-1 East: Commercial (YMCA) & residential; zoned POB & R-2/RR-1 West: Commercial; zoned M-1 The Plan designates this property as appropriate for Low Density Residential Uses.

The applicant has submitted a request to rezone approximately 9.163 acres of GPIN 777976-5614 from RR-1, Residential Rural District and R-2, Residential Limited District to R-3, Residential Medium District. As part of the rezoning request, the applicant has included a conceptual development plan that shows a proposed 28 lot subdivision. The applicant has also submitted proffers with the rezoning request, which includes the proffering of the submitted conceptual plan. CONSIDERATIONS: Statement of Intent. The Statement of Intent indicates the purpose of the zoning district and describes the characteristics of uses generally found within the district. The Statement of Intent for the R-3, Residential Medium District is as follows: Residential District R-3 encompasses medium-density, residential areas, both existing and planned, as well as certain compatible public and semipublic land uses. The following regulations are designed to stabilize, protect and promote this type of development. This district should provide a suitable environment for persons who desire a predominantly single-family area, but prefer lesser yard acreage and closer proximity to shopping areas. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as appropriate for Low Density Residential uses. The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states the following for the Low Density Residential land use: Low-Density Residential The low-density residential classification permits from 1 to 4 dwelling units per net developable acre and pertains generally to conventional subdivision development. Clustering concepts and innovative development layout planning are encouraged to achieve open space and sensitive lands preservation and conservation, as long as gross residential density is not exceeded. The R-3, Residential Medium District has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet for singlefamily dwellings, which equates to a maximum density of approximately 5.45 dwelling units per acre, whereas the Comprehensive Plan states that the Low Density Residential category is appropriate for residential developments with densities between 1 to 4 dwelling units per acre. However, the applicant has proffered that the proposed development would contain no
REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties September 14, 2011

Page 57 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 3 of 10

more than 28 residential lots, which equates to a density of approximately 3.06 units per acre and falls within the range recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The current and proposed Comprehensive Plans go into detail about the importance of details in innovative and sustainable design and how new development should complement the character of the older neighborhoods, which provide a variety of housing styles, sizes, lot area, and setbacks. The Plans and housing inventories also discuss and document the disproportionate amount of affordable housing and the need to provide a balanced housing stock to meet the needs of existing and future residents. The Town currently falls short in providing higher-end housing as well as an unmet need for age-in-place senior housing. Proffers. The current proffer statement, submitted August 31, 2011, addresses some of the comments provided by the Planning Commission at the July 13, 2011, meeting. These proffers were also developed based on conversations between the applicant and staff since this July 13th meeting. The current proffers for this rezoning request are as follows: 1) No more than fifty percent (50%) of the garages on the lots without an alleyway (lots 1-13 will be front-loaded.) 2) Each house will have a minimum of 1,500 square feet of living area for a one-story home and 1,700 square feet for a two-story home. 3) Each house will have a minimum of 180 square feet of covered porch areas. 4) The minimum siding types shall be vinyl, beaded and at least 0.44 thickness or shake siding. 5) All front porches shall be constructed of a continuous masonry foundation with the flooring being constructed of concrete or mason pavers. 6) Elevations. The houses constructed on the property shall be in general conformance with the elevations filed with this case, shown as Exhibit A attached to these proffers and made a part hereof to which reference is hereby made. 7) Each home shall be served with hard surface driveways. 8) Each home shall have a front post lamp located at the sidewalk/driveway connection. 9) The landscaping packages shall include street trees, sod and irrigation in the front and side yards, and foundation landscaping. 10) No more than three identical houses shall be built on the Property. 11) The project will be developed in substantial conformity of the Sketch Plan submitted to the Planning Department dated May 3, 2011, revised July 5, 2011, July 20, 2011, and August 9, 2011 entitled Lance and Bridle Club Property prepared by Dan E. Caskie, P.E. of Bay Design Group and will contain no more than 28 homes. 12) Subject to the approval by the Patrick Henry Family YMCA and YMCA of Greater Richmond, pedestrian access shall be provided between the property and the Patrick Henry Family YMCA. 13) Tree Preservation. The required front and rear yard of each lot, as required by the zoning ordinance, shall be selectively cut with no cutting of trees of 5-inch caliper or greater measured at three (3) feet high to be allowed. Additional clearing may be allowed (i) when said areas may be used for driveways, drainage and utility easements, when necessary for dwelling or all other outbuilding construction and/or;
REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties September 14, 2011

Page 58 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 4 of 10

(ii) when required by the Town of Ashland, and then only to the extent necessary, except when cutting is permitted in accordance with grading plans approved by the Public Works Department. The foregoing shall not prohibit the removal of dead or diseased trees. In addition, trees may be cut whenever necessary to establish required storm water detention or drainage facilities. The applicant eliminated the proffer that established a front setback of no more than 25 feet; however, the applicant has now proffered the submitted plan of development which shows a front setback of 25 feet and side yard setback of 10 feet. The R-3 zoning district has a minimum front setback requirement of 30 feet and a minimum side yard requirement of 15 feet. Therefore, before this rezoning request and proffered plan of development can be approved, the front setback and side yard requirements of the R-3 zoning district would have to be amended. The applicant has submitted an application for a zoning ordinance text amendment, which is scheduled to be considered at a public hearing at the September 14th Planning Commission meeting. Following the July 13th Planning Commission meeting, and after discussions with staff, the applicant was proposing to include a proffer that would provide a list of characteristics or options for the homes within the proposed development, where each home will be required to have a certain number of these characteristics. However, the applicant has since eliminated this proposed proffer, and has proffered the house elevation exhibits referenced in Proffer #6. Proffer #9 is not necessary as landscaping is covered within the Zoning Ordinance and this proffer is not stated in a way that would increase the landscaping value of the project. Proffer #10 is to ensure that there will be some variety among that houses that are provided within the neighborhood. Surrounding Uses. The subject property is surrounded by a variety of uses, which range from rural residential to commercial. The Slash Cottage residential subdivision is adjacent to the north of the subject property (across Ashcake Road), which is zoned R-2 and has an average lot size of approximately 0.25 acres (approximately 11,000 square feet). To the east of the subject property is the Ashland YMCA, which could potentially serve as a vital amenity to the residents of the proposed development or any future development. Carter Park is located to the northwest of the subject property, and is another important amenity in the area to serve the residents of any future development on this property. The properties adjacent to the south are zoned RR-1 and M-1, with a dwelling located on the RR-1 parcel and the M-1 parcel being primarily vacant. The properties to the west of the subject property are located across Maple Street, and are zoned M-1, and uses include a daycare facility (Toddler Town) and light industrial uses. Transportation. Per VDOT Chapter 527 requirements, this residential rezoning request would not require a traffic impact analysis as it would not generate more than 100 vehicle trips per peak hour. As discussed above, the R-3 zoning district has a by-right density of approximately 5.45 dwelling units per acre, which could result in a maximum of 49 dwelling units on the subject property. Trip generation rates are 10 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit, which with the potential for 49 dwelling units, would mean 490 vehicle trips per day. Peak hour trip generation rates are 1.01 vehicle trips per dwelling unit, which with 49 dwelling units would result in 49.5 trips per peak hour. The proposed development (28 dwelling units) would generate 280 trips per day and 28.3 trips per peak hour. According to VDOT 2009 traffic counts, the portion of Ashcake Road from the western Town boundary to Route 1 had an annual average daily traffic count of 7,000 vehicle trips per day. Furthermore, the Ashland 2020 Transportation Plan projects 2020 daily traffic volumes at

REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties

September 14, 2011

Page 59 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 5 of 10

8,475 vehicle trips per day on the segment of Ashcake Road between the western Town boundary and Route 1. The Ashland 2020 Transportation Plan provides both mid-term and long-term improvement plans for Maple Street and Ashcake Road. For Maple Street, the plan provides a mid-term recommendation to realign Maple Street south of Ashcake Road to remove an existing bend. The recommendation for Ashcake Road is included in the long-term improvement plan, and calls for the addition of full shoulders on Ashcake Road within the Town limits. Staff has some concerns over the amount of traffic that is currently generated on Ashcake Road and whether or not a turn lane and/or curb and gutter is needed for this proposed development due to the amount of traffic that currently exists on Ashcake Road and the amount of traffic that could potentially be generated by the proposed development. Staff is reviewing and considering a proposal from the Timmons Group to perform a traffic study for the Ashcake Road corridor, which is anticipated to be complete within 3-4 weeks. Plan of Development. As mentioned above, the applicant has submitted and proffered a development plan/subdivision plat for a 28 lot residential development, which equates to a density of approximately 3.06 units per acre. A 25 foot landscape buffer is shown between Ashcake Road and the proposed development. Staff would recommend that any existing vegetation located within the setback be preserved as part of the landscape buffer. The plan also shows a 1.04 acre common area on the northwestern portion of the property, part of which includes a portion of the landscape buffer. A small area of non-tidal wetlands exists on the southeastern portion of the property where the storm water BMP for this development is proposed to be located. The submitted plan shows that a majority of the lots would be accessed via a proposed road that would extend through the property from Ashcake Road to Maple Street. The plan also shows two 16 foot wide private alley ways to provide rear access to some of the lots in addition to providing access to those lots that do not have frontage on the proposed road. The applicant has also proposed to dedicate right-of-way to 30 from the centerline of Ashcake Road. However, depending on the findings of the Timmons Group Ashcake Road traffic study, additional right-of-way may required for any improvements that may be needed. The Town Engineer has also pointed out a couple issues and items of concern. One of the main concerns is with the proposed storm water BMP, which is proposed as a shallow detention area. The Town Engineer has expressed concerns with the effectiveness of shallow detention areas, and has discouraged the use of such for storm water management purposes. The applicant is looking into alternative BMP methods for this proposed development to address the concerns expressed by the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer has also stated that the proposed alley-ways should remain private, and should be maintained by the property owners or homeowners association, or some other private entity. Finally, the Town Engineer had also requested that the applicant construct a 10 wide asphalt trail along Maple Street from Ashcake Road to the bend in Maple Street across from Walder Road. The Town currently owns property between the subject property and Maple Street, and has plans to construct a public trail on this property along Maple Street. The proposed trail is part of the Ashland Trolley Line Trail and is proposed to run from Ashcake Road to Maple Street Extension and from Maple Street Extension to the Ashland Trolley Line Park on Gwathmey Church Road in Hanover County, just south of the Town limits. The trail is part of a regional project to convert the old Ashland Trolley Line right-of-way into a trail between
REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties September 14, 2011

Page 60 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 6 of 10

Ashland and Richmond. The most recent development plan shows a 10 asphalt trail that extends from Ashcake Road along Maple Street to the bend in Maple Street. As part of this trail, the applicant has also shown a pedestrian crosswalk across Ashcake Road, along with pedestrian crosswalk signs on Ashcake Road approximately 300 feet to the east and west of the proposed crosswalk. Finally, the applicant has provided a note on the plans indicating that trail and crosswalk would be constructed as part of the development of the property. The Hanover County Department of Public Utilities (DPU) provided a memo stating that they have no objection to the proposed rezoning. The memo states that the proposed development would require the installation of public water and sewer facilities. The memo also states that all water and sanitary sewer design shall be consistent with the Hanover County Water and Wastewater Facilities Master Plan, and all water and sanitary sewer design and construction shall be done in conformance with the Hanover County Department of Public Utilities Water and Sanitary Sewer Standards. Town and County GIS records show that a sanitary sewer line currently runs along the southern side of Ashcake Road, and a water line runs along the northern side of Ashcake Road. JULY 13, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: At the July 13, 2011, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended deferral of this request to allow the applicant to revise the proffers to address some of the comments and concerns raised by the Commission and staff. Some of these concerns included proffering the plan of development to ensure that the property would be developed in accord with the submitted plan, addressing the setback issues, providing safe pedestrian access across Ashcake, and traffic concerns. As discussed throughout this staff report, the applicant has made revisions to the proffers and the plan of development to address some of these concerns, and efforts to address the setback issue are pending. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the applicant has made efforts to address many of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and staff, most notably by proffering the plan of development and the number of lots to ensure that the density of the development does not exceed the 1 to 4 dwelling units per acre as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. However, before this rezoning request and the proffered plan of development can be approved, the request to amend the R-3 zoning district setback and side yard requirements must be approved. This request is scheduled for a public hearing at the September 14th Planning Commission meeting, and approval of the rezoning request is contingent upon approval of the ordinance amendment request. Staff also believes that a recommendation to Town Council should not be provided until the results of the Timmons Group Ashcake Road traffic study are made available, which as of the writing of this staff report, has yet to be completed. Therefore, staff is recommending deferral of this request until the October 12th Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the findings of the Ashcake Road traffic study to be released.

REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties

September 14, 2011

Page 61 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 7 of 10

Carter Park

Slash Cottage

GPIN 7779-76-5614

YMCA

REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties

September 14, 2011

Page 62 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 8 of 10

REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties

September 14, 2011

Page 63 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 9 of 10

REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties

September 14, 2011

Page 64 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 10 of 10

REZ11-0531 Lance & Bridle Club Properties

September 14, 2011

Page 65 of 102

STAFF REPORT
To: From: Date: Case Type: Case No.: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner September 14, 2011 Conditional Use Permit CUP11-0713A

Case Name: Randolph-Macon College Football/Soccer Field Light Poles Location: GPIN(s): West of Henry St., approximately 900 feet south of Smith Street 7870-82-0580

REQUEST: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Sec. 21-266(d) of the Town Code for an exception to the lighting standards to allow for light poles for the Randolph-Macon College Football/Soccer Field on the property identified as GPIN 7870-820580.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following: The Planning Commission recommends approval of CUP11-0713A with the recommended conditions.

MOTION: Approve I move for approval of the conditional use permit as recommended in this Staff Report, or Approve I move for approval of the conditional use permit as recommended in this Staff Report with the following additions: Deny I move to deny the conditional use permit. Defer I move to defer action on the conditional use permit until October 12, 2011.

Page 66 of 102 www.town.ashland.va.us

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 2 of 12

BACKGROUND:
Submittal Date Existing Zoning Location Size Existing Land Use Surrounding Land Use and Zoning July 13, 2011 HE, Higher Education West of Henry Street, +/-900 feet south of Smith Street Approximately 28 acres (entire parcel) Various RMC Campus Facilities North: RMC Campus; properties zoned HE South: RMC Campus; properties zoned HE East: RMC Campus (across Henry St.); properties zoned HE West: RMC Campus (across N. Center Street); properties zoned HE The Plan designates this property as appropriate for institutional uses.

Comprehensive Plan

The applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sec. 21266(d) of the Ashland Town Code for an exception to the lighting standards to allow for two (2) 80 foot light poles and two (2) 90 foot light poles for the future football/soccer field. These multi-purpose fields were previously approved as part of the Randolph-Macon College East Campus rezoning and conditional use permit request (REZ & CUP09-0309B), which was approved on May 19, 2009. A site plan for the football fields has yet to be submitted. 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. Analysis & Requirements. In December of 2009, an ordinance amendment to Sec. 21-266 General Lighting Standards was approved to allow for exceptions to the lighting standards to be granted for athletic field lighting in the Higher Education zoning district. The applicants request would require exceptions to the following lighting standards of the Town Code: 1) The intensity of outdoor light shall be no greater than one-half (1/2) footcandles above background lighting at the property line; and 2) Outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. Exceptions are allowed to be granted with a conditional use permit, and 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
CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles September 14, 2011

Page 67 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 3 of 12

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. The applicant has submitted a photometric plan for the lighting of the football/soccer fields, along with luminaire cutsheets and renderings of the proposed light poles. This information is included at the end of this staff report. The submitted photometric plan shows that the light poles would be located near the back corners of the sets of bleachers that are proposed on eastern and western sides of the proposed field. According to the photometric plan, the proposed lights would generate an average on-field lighting level of approximately 75 footcandles. The plan shows that the proposed lights would generate light onto Henry Street and the adjacent property across Henry Street at a footcandle level of 1, which exceeds the maximum of 0.5 footcandles as set forth in the Town Code. The light produced by the proposed poles does not appear to have any effect on other adjacent properties as the light quickly dissipates beyond the football field. Additionally, all adjacent properties are part of the Randolph-Macon College campus, meaning that the lights should have little to no impact on non-Randolph-Macon College properties. The photometric plan and cutsheets indicate that the two (2) light poles on the eastern side of the proposed field would each be 80 feet in height and contain twenty (20) luminaires each. The light poles on the western side of the proposed field would each be 90 feet in height and contain 24 luminaires each. The four (4) light poles combined would have 88 luminaires. The cutsheets also show that each luminaire would be shielded so that all light would be projected downward. Existing Conditional Use Permit: CUP09-0309B was approved in May of 2009 to allow for the new football field, as well as other athletic facilities such as the new baseball field and a football practice field. One of the conditions of this conditional use permit is that any lighting associated with the football and baseball fields shall be shut off by no later than 10:00 P.M. nightly. CONCLUSION: The proposed light poles for the Randolph-Macon College football/soccer fields would generate a significant amount of light at very high footcandle levels. Some of the light produced by the proposed lights would also spillover onto adjacent properties and right-ofways at footcandle levels that exceed the maximum permitted by the Town Code. However, the adjacent properties that would be most affected by the spillover light are part of the Randolph-Macon College campus. Staff believes that the proposed lights and any light produced by these lights would have little to no impact on any nearby properties that are not part of the Randolph-Macon campus. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this conditional use permit request.

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 68 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 4 of 12

Approx. Area/Location of Football/Soccer Fields

GPIN 7870-82-0582

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 69 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 5 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 70 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 6 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 71 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 7 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 72 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 8 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 73 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 9 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 74 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 10 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 75 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 11 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 76 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 12 of 12

CUP11-0713A RMC Football/Soccer Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 77 of 102

STAFF REPORT
To: From: Date: Case No.: RE: REQUEST: This request is to amend Sec. 21-233 and 21-235 of the Town Code to allow for exceptions to the landscape ordinance regulations to be made when such requirements inhibit the development/redevelopment of commercially zoned corner lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following: The Planning Commission recommends approval of ORD2011-03 as presented to the Town Council. Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner September 14, 2011 ORD2011-03 Ordinance Amendments

MOTION: Approve I move for approval of the ordinance amendment as recommended in this Staff Report, or Approve I move for approval of the ordinance amendment as recommended in this Staff Report with the following additions: Deny I move to deny the ordinance amendment. Defer I move to defer action on the ordinance amendment until October 12, 2011.

Page 78 of 102 www.town.ashland.va.us

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 2 of 7

SUMMARY: In recent weeks and months, staff has met with several prospective businesses that were interested in developing/redeveloping some of the corner lots in Town in order to locate their businesses on these lots. However, because of the 20 foot landscape setback requirement and the peripheral landscape requirements, the prospective businesses were unable to locate or develop on these corner lots due to the amount of property that becomes undevelopable or unusable because of these landscape regulations. Also, many of these lots are located along major corridors, such as Route 1 and Route 54, that have future road improvements planned that would involve widening the existing right-of-way. This would result in additional property being taken from these corner lots, which in addition to the required landscape buffer, would further reduce the amount of useable and developable space on these properties. To help alleviate such situations, staff is proposing to amend Sec. 21-233 and 21-235 of the Town Code to allow for exceptions to the landscape ordinance requirements to be made when these regulations inhibit the development/redevelopment of corner lots. Currently, Sec. 21-233 requires a minimum of a 20 foot landscape setback from the edge of any existing or future right-of-way. For corner lots, this means that two sides of the property must have a minimum of a 20 foot landscape setback, which renders a large portion of the property unusable. Staff is proposing amendments to this section, which would allow for reductions of the 20 foot landscape setback if certain minimum conditions are met. These reductions would only apply to those corner lots that are zoned B-2, M-1, or PSC. The first condition would allow for a reduction of the 20 foot landscape setback by 5 feet if the amount of parking area landscaping required by Sec. 21-235(c) is increased from 5% to 10%. Sec. 21-235(c) currently requires that no less than 5% of a parking area be devoted to landscaped islands or other internal landscaping. With the proposed exception, if the applicant/developer provides at least 10% of landscaped coverage within a parking area, the required landscape setback may be reduced by 5 feet. The second condition would allow for a 5 foot reduction of the 20 foot landscape setback if the minimum number of street trees required by Sec. 21-234 is increased by 25%. Sec. 21234 requires a minimum of 1 street tree for every 50 linear feet of road frontage. Therefore, if a property has 200 feet of road frontage, 4 street trees would be required. Under the proposed ordinance exception, the required 20 foot landscape setback may be reduced by 5 feet if the property developer increases the amount of street trees required by 25% (which would be one additional tree in this instance). The third condition would allow for a 5 foot reduction of the 20 foot landscape setback if the amount of shrubbery required is increased from 50% to 75%. Currently, the Town Code does not specify the number or amount of shrubs that are required in the landscape setback. Therefore, in addition to this proposed exception amendment, staff is also proposing an amendment to Sec. 21-233(b) that would require that at least 50% of the linear frontage of a corner lot, not including areas dedicated for ingress and egress, include continuous vegetative shrubbery at full plant maturity and at a maximum of 30 inches in height. The three exception conditions to the 20 foot landscape setback requirement all add up to 15 feet, meaning that if all three conditions are met, the landscape setback could conceivably be reduced to 5 feet. However, at the July 13th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission expressed some concern over having the landscape setback reduced to 5 feet. As a result
ORD2011-03 Landscape Ordinance Exceptions

Page 79 of 102

September 14, 2011

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 3 of 7

of these concerns, staff is including language that would not allow the landscape setback to be reduced to less than 7.5 feet, even if all three conditions are met. Sec. 21-235 of the Town Code requires that a minimum of a 5 foot peripheral landscaping buffer be provided between any off-street parking areas and adjacent properties. This requirement, in addition to the landscape setback requirement mentioned above, has made some of the commercially zoned lots in Town undevelopable, and thus unusable. Staff is proposing an amendment to this requirement that would allow for a waiver of the 5 foot peripheral landscape area requirement if the adjacent property already has a peripheral landscape buffer of at least 10 feet in place. The proposed ordinance amendment would require a written agreement between the two property owners, and such waiver would have to be recorded at the register of deeds in both the grantors and grantees names. The complete proposed ordinance language can be found in the ordinance attached to this staff report. JULY 13, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: At the July 13, 2011, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended deferral of this request to allow staff to make revisions to the proposed amendments based on the concerns raised by the Commission. One of the primary concerns of the Planning Commission was the potential to reduce the landscape setback to 5 feet. The Planning Commission felt that this was too small, and that street trees would not have enough room to grow in this small amount of space. The Commission also expressed some concern over the shrubbery requirements that were being proposed at the time. Staff had proposed 2 shrubs for every street tree as the minimum requirement, and with a 25% increase in the number of shrubs provided, the landscape setback could be reduced by 5 feet. The Commission felt that this was not enough shrubbery, and that shrubbery should be provided in a more continuous nature. Staff has amended the proposed ordinance language to address the Planning Commissions concerns by (1) adding language stating that the landscape setback may not be reduced to less than 7.5 feet, and (2) amending the minimum shrubbery requirements (50% of linear frontage) and the exception conditions (75% of linear frontage) to ensure that a more continuous row of shrubbery is provided within the landscape setback.

CONCLUSION: The proposed ordinance amendments are an attempt to alleviate situations in which the landscape ordinance requirements could potentially inhibit or even prevent the development/redevelopment of valuable commercial property in the Town. Staff is supportive of the Town landscape regulations as they provide essential buffer space while also improving the aesthetic appearance of commercial developments. However, staff does not wish to impose landscape requirements that would prevent a business from locating to one of these corner lots, and staff believes that these proposed ordinance amendments would allow the development of these properties while also ensuring that adequate landscaping is provided. Furthermore, the future road improvements and widening of the right-of-way of Route 1 and Route 54 is creating additional hardships for these property owners as they will be losing even more developable property.
ORD2011-03 Landscape Ordinance Exceptions September 14, 2011

Page 80 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia Ordinance PL2011-03

Page 4 of 7

AN ORDINANCE to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Chapter 21, Zoning, Article XXIII, Landscaping, Sec. 21-233, Landscape Setbacks, and Sec. 21-235 Parking Area Landscaping. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the landscaping regulations to allow for exceptions to the landscape requirements to be made on commercially zoned corner lots when the existing requirements inhibit the development/redevelopment of these corner lots. WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing on the _____th day of _____ 2010, 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 21-233 Landscape Setbacks and Section 21-235 Parking Area Landscaping shall be amended to read, as follows: Sec. 21-233. Landscape setbacks. (a) Landscaped setback required. A landscaped setback of not less than twenty (20) feet in depth measured from the existing or future right-of-way, whichever is greater, shall be provided along all streets, except that this requirement shall not be applicable to: (1) Property located in the B-1 district (See article X of this chapter for setback and yard requirements in the B-1 district); and Property devoted to single-family detached or two-family use (See setback and yard requirements in the district in which the use is located).

(2)

(b) Improvement of required landscaped setbacks. Required landscaped setbacks shall be landscaped with appropriate vegetative ground cover or shrubbery and shall be provided with street trees as specified in section 21-234 of this article. At least 50% of the linear frontage, not including areas dedicated for ingress and egress, shall include continuous vegetative shrubbery at full plant maturity and at a maximum of thirty (30) inches in height. Existing healthy trees with a caliper of ten (10) inches or greater located within such setback shall be preserved unless preservation is not possible due to circumstances external to the site. Approved walkways and other incidental improvements for pedestrian use may be located within landscaped setbacks. (See the Development Guidelines Handbook for guidelines and examples for treatment of landscaped setbacks.) (c) Use of required landscaped setbacks. No building or structure, other than a permitted sign, and no parking, loading or vehicle circulation area, except approved means of ingress and egress, shall be located within any required landscaped setback. No required landscaped setback shall be used for the display or storage of items for sale or for any similar activity. (10-8-85; 9-22-87; 2-17-04) (d) Exceptions. The following provisions shall apply to all corner parcels zoned B2, M-1, or PSC. Exceptions to the required landscape setbacks may be granted to allow for future economic development/redevelopment of key intersections that are currently inhibited by the landscape setback requirements of this section. Exceptions to the required twenty (20) foot landscape setback shall be allowed if the following minimum conditions are met, provided that the minimum depth of the landscape setback is reduced to no less than seven and onehalf (7.5) feet: (1) The required twenty (20) foot landscape setback may be reduced by five (5) feet if the minimum amount of parking area landscaping required by Sec. 21-235(c) ORD2011-03 Landscape Ordinance Exceptions September 14, 2011

Page 81 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia is increased from 5% to 10%.

Page 5 of 7

(2) The required twenty (20) foot landscape setback may be reduced by five (5) feet if the minimum number of street trees required by Sec. 21-234 is increased by 25%. (3) The required twenty (20) foot landscape setback may be reduced by five (5) feet if the amount of vegetative shrubbery required by Sec. 21-233(b) is increased from 50% to 75%. Sec. 21-235. Parking area landscaping. (a) Applicability. The requirements of this section shall be applicable to all off-street parking areas exceeding four thousand five hundred (4,500) square feet in area. For purposes of this section, the area of an off-street parking area shall be construed to be that portion of a lot which is paved or otherwise improved for the purpose of parking vehicles, including all parking spaces, access aisles, driveways, loading space and vehicle stacking areas and maneuvering space. (See the Development Guidelines Handbook for illustrative examples of application of the requirements of this section). (b) Existing parking areas. In the case of parking areas existing at the effective date of these provisions, the requirements of this section shall apply when a previously unpaved parking area is paved or when a parking area is reconstructed by removal of existing improvements and replacement thereof. In the case of expansion of any parking area existing at the effective date of these provisions by a cumulative total of more than two thousand (2,000) square feet, the requirements of this section shall apply to the area of expansion, provided that internal landscaping and trees required for the expanded area may be dispersed throughout the entire parking area. In any case where an existing parking area is expanded by a cumulative total of greater than fifty (50) percent of its original area, the requirements of this section shall apply to the entire parking area. (c) Required internal landscaping. Not less than five (5) percent of the parking area shall be devoted to landscaped islands or other internal landscaping. When landscaped islands located in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section result in an area greater than five (5) percent of the parking area, the higher percentage shall apply. When landscaped islands located in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section result in an area less than five (5) percent of the parking area, any landscaped area located within the front yard of the lot and in excess of the minimum required landscaped setback or minimum required peripheral landscaping may be credited toward the internal landscaping requirement. All areas to be credited toward the internal landscaping requirement shall consist of trees, shrubs, vegetative ground cover, other plant material, or combinations thereof, and may contain pedestrian walkways incidental to such landscaping. (d) Landscaped islands. Landscaped islands meeting the standards of this section shall be located within parking areas so that not more than ten (10) parking spaces are situated in a single continuous row, except as provided in paragraph (1) below, and so that each end of each row of parking spaces is separated from adjacent access aisles and driveways by a landscaped island. The following standards shall be applicable to landscaped islands: (1) Size of landscaped islands. Landscaped islands shall be not less than nine (9) feet in width as measured between the outside faces of curbs or other features that define the landscaped island if curbs are not provided, and shall be not less than the length of the abutting parking spaces. When landscaped islands of not less than fifteen (15) feet in width are provided, such islands may be located so that not more than fifteen (15) parking spaces are situated in a single continuous row. In the case of landscaped islands having irregular width, the width shall be measured at each point where a tree is to be located within the island. September 14, 2011

ORD2011-03 Landscape Ordinance Exceptions

Page 82 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 6 of 7

(2)

Improvement of landscaped islands. Each landscaped island shall be planted with at least one (1) deciduous tree having a caliper of not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) inches at the time of planting. The type of deciduous tree that should be used can be located on the tree canopy matrix and would consist of those trees that fall under the "shade and parking lot" use category. The appropriate quantity and type of tree shall be approved by the zoning administrator. The island shall also include shrubs, vegetative ground cover, other plant material, or combinations thereof, and may contain pedestrian walkways incidental to landscaping. Healthy existing trees to be preserved shall be credited toward the tree requirement when such trees meet the other requirements of this section, are shown on the approved landscape plan and are adequately protected during construction, provided such trees have a reasonable expectation of survival as determined by the zoning administrator from material contained in the Development Guidelines Handbook or additional supporting date submitted with the landscape plan. Required landscaped islands shall be protected from encroachment by vehicles by curbs, wheel stops or other approved features, and shall not include any portion of a required parking space. Areas to be credited as landscaped islands. Landscaped islands shall include areas that meet the requirements of this section and are situated in any of the following manners: a. Within an otherwise continuous row of parking spaces so as to provide separation between such spaces; At the end of a row of parking spaces so as to provide separation between such spaces and an access aisle or driveway; Between opposing rows of parking spaces, or between a row of parking spaces and an access aisle or driveway; or At the end of a row of parking spaces so as to provide a landscaped corner between rows of parking spaces that are arranged at an angle to one another.

(3)

b.

c.

d.

(e) Peripheral landscaping. Landscaped areas of not less than five (5) feet in width shall be provided so as to separate off-street parking areas from abutting property, except that this requirement shall not apply where buffer or screening requirements set forth in section 21-236 of this article impose a greater standard, or along a mutual lot line that is subject to a recorded crosseasement enabling vehicle access between abutting lots. Peripheral landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs, vegetative ground cover, other plant material, or combinations thereof, and may contain walkways incidental to such landscaping and providing pedestrian access between abutting properties. Peripheral landscaping shall be protected from encroachment by vehicles by curbs, wheel stops or other approved features, and shall not include any portion of a required parking space. (2-17-04) (1) If a minimum of a ten (10) foot peripheral landscape area exists on an adjacent parcel, then the requirement of a 5 peripheral landscape area may be waived provided that: a. Adjoining landowners execute a written acknowledgment of their consent to the waiver of such screening criteria and of its legal ramifications. b. The waiver is recorded at the register of deeds in both the grantors and grantees names.

ORD2011-03 Landscape Ordinance Exceptions

September 14, 2011

Page 83 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 7 of 7

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. Introduced: Advertised: June 21, 2011 Planning Commission: Herald Progress: August 25, 2011 & September 1, 2011 Town Council: Herald Progress:

Public Hearing: Planning Commission: September 14, 2011 Town Council: Adopted: Effective:

ORD2011-03 Landscape Ordinance Exceptions

September 14, 2011

Page 84 of 102

STAFF REPORT
To: From: Date: Case Type: Case No.: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia Bryant Phillips, Senior Planner September 14, 2011 Conditional Use Permit CUP11-0713

Case Name: Randolph-Macon College Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles Location: GPIN(s): Southwest corner of the intersection of West Patrick St. and North Center St. 7870-73-2227

REQUEST: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Sec. 21-266(d) of the Town Code for an exception to the lighting standards to allow for light poles for the Randolph-Macon College Multi-Purpose Fields on the property identified as GPIN 7870-732227.

RECOMMENDATION: None provided for review as a future agenda item.

Page 85 of 102 www.town.ashland.va.us

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 2 of 13

BACKGROUND:
Submittal Date Existing Zoning Location Size Existing Land Use July 13, 2011 HE, Higher Education Southeast corner of intersection of W. Patrick St. & N. Center St. Approximately 38 acres (entire parcel) Various RMC Campus Facilities North: Residential & Vacant (across, W. Patrick St.; owned by RMC); properties zoned R-2 & R-3 South: Residential, Business, & Vacant; properties zoned B-1, R2 (across Henry Clay Road), & R-1 (Mullen Drive properties; owned by RMC) East: RMC Campus (across N. Center St.); properties zoned HE West: Residential & Vacant (across N. James Street); properties zoned R-2 The Plan designates this property as appropriate for institutional uses.

Surrounding Land Use and Zoning

Comprehensive Plan

The applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sec. 21266(d) of the Ashland Town Code for an exception to the lighting standards to allow for four (4) 80 foot light poles for the previously approved multi-purpose athletic fields. These multipurpose fields were previously approved as part of the Randolph-Macon College West Campus rezoning and conditional use permit request, which was approved on May 19, 2009. A site plan for the multi-purpose fields was approved on November 1, 2010. 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 Comprehensive Plan designates this property as appropriate for light industrial uses. The Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states the following for light industrial land uses: Light Industrial This classification provides for a broad range of clean industries operating under high performance standards. This category encompasses areas of research and development, limited warehouse and distribution facilities, as well as office uses. The objective is to promote a park-like atmosphere for research oriented or office activities on well-landscaped sites, where quality development and design will be compatible to all types of adjoining land uses.
CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles September 14, 2011

Page 86 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 3 of 13

The Conditional Use Permit request, along with the proposed use of the property, appears to meet the intent and character of the light industrial land use designation and the Washington Highway corridor. The use of the property for wholesale storage and distribution of vehicles appears to fit the character of uses called for in the Comprehensive Plan, as the Plan specifically mentions distribution facilities as appropriate uses. With regard to the Route 1 Corridor, even though the proposed use is not retail, it does appear to fit in with the character of surrounding uses, which includes an auto repair facility and a used car dealership. Analysis & Requirements. In December of 2009, an ordinance amendment to Sec. 21-266 General Lighting Standards was approved to allow for exceptions to the lighting standards to be granted for athletic field lighting in the Higher Education zoning district. The applicants request would require exceptions to the following lighting standards of the Town Code: 1) The intensity of outdoor light shall be no greater than one-half (1/2) footcandles above background lighting at the property line; and 2) Outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. Exceptions are allowed to be granted with a conditional use permit, and 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. The applicant has submitted a photometric plan for the lighting of the multi-purpose fields, along with luminaire cutsheets and renders of the proposed light poles. This information is included at the end of this staff report. The submitted photometric plan shows that the light poles would be located near the four (4) corners of the multi-purpose field, and would generate an average on-field lighting level of approximately 75 footcandles. The plan also shows that spillover light onto adjacent properties and roadways would be most intrusive along West Patrick Street and on the properties across West Patrick Street. According to the photometric plan, spillover light onto West Patrick Street would be up to 11.8 footcandles and up to 3.9 footcandles on the adjacent property, far exceeding the maximum of 0.5 footcandles as set forth in the Town Code. However, all of these adjacent properties, and all other adjacent properties, are owned by Randolph-Macon College. The cutsheets indicate that each light pole would be 80 feet in height, with two (2) of the light poles containing twenty (20) luminaires each, and the other two (2) containing nineteen (19) luminaries each, for a total of 78 luminaires. The cutsheet also show that each luminaire would be shielded so that all light would be projected downward. Existing Conditional Use Permit: CUP09-0309A was approved in May of 2009 to allow for the multi-purpose fields, as well as other athletic facilities such as the new tennis courts and a ropes course. One of the conditions of this conditional use permit is that none of the athletic facilities, except for the tennis courts, can be illuminated. This condition from CUP09-0309A would have to be amended before the conditional use permit application for the lighting standards exception can be approved.
CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles September 14, 2011

Page 87 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 4 of 13

CONCLUSION: This request will be coming forward at the October 12, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, along with the amendment request to CUP09-0309A, which must be approved prior to approval of this conditional use permit request.

Approx. Area/Location of Multi-Purpose Fields

GPIN 7870-73-2227

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 88 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 5 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 89 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 6 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 90 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 7 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 91 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 8 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 92 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 9 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 93 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 10 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 94 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 11 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 95 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 12 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 96 of 102

Planning Commission Town of Ashland, Virginia

Page 13 of 13

CUP11-0713 RMC Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles

September 14, 2011

Page 97 of 102

Town Council Actions Items For July 19, 2011

PRESENTATION APPROVED Proclamation: National Night Out for August 2, 2011

CITIZEN INPUT Janet Jones, 505 Pleasant St, addressed Council regarding the maintenance of properties in the NPSTAR corridor as well as the abandoned well on private property. Tall grass and brush next to the South Taylor Street Park is a problem.

PUBLIC HEARINGS APPROVED ORD2011-04: An ordinance to vacate an unopened right of way off of West Patrick Street APPROVED ORD2011-05: An ordinance to vacate an unopened right of way known as East Patrick Street APPROVED Resolution: Hanover County/Town of Ashland Long Range Water Resources Plan (LRWRP)

CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED the consent agenda. The consent agenda included the following items: o Invoices o Minutes of June 21, 2011 o Resolution for Line of Duty opt out o Annual contract for plumbing, electrical, HVAC, stone and tree maintenance services o Town Council meeting schedule for FY2011-2012 o Time change for August 2 meeting from 7:00pm to 7:30pm to accommodate National Night Out activities in the community o Referral of CUP request to Planning Commission o Annual paving program

ACTION AGENDA DISCUSSION Air Rifle Ordinance: Council approved to move ahead with the ordinance. APPROVED Sub10-0604: Randolph-Macon College East Campus SD, final plat APPROVED Sub11-0602: West Patrick Street Alley Plat of Vacation, final plat APPROVED SUB11-0428: Chapman Street SD, preliminary plat

MANAGEMENT REPORTS Management reports presented by all departments

Page 98 of 102

Town Council Actions Items For August 2, 2011

ACTION AGENDA APPROVED - Town Council approved the resolution for the Worldwide Championship Cycling event that Richmond is trying to get. APPROVED - There were no invoices for approval

Town Council Actions Items For August 16, 2011

PRESENTATIONS Ashland Police Department Awards Sergeant Scott Menzies, Officer Scott Nussele and Officer Paul Stirnaman for their superior police work over the past two quarters. Chief Goodman stated that awards will be given quarterly with the next award taking place in October. Academic Achievement Recognition Councilwoman Winston-Abri recognized four students for academic achievement through the Angeldeer Program. There were as follows: Tyler Amos, TyKara Turner, Edwin Henderson and Giselle M. Winston.

CITIZEN INPUT None

CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Council approved the consent agenda after moving two referrals for R-MC to the Action Agenda. (CUP11-0713 and CUP11-0713A) After removal of the two CUPs, the consent agenda included the following items: o Invoices o Referral of ORD2011-06 R-3 Zoning district Setback Amendments o Minutes of July 19 and August 2, 2011

ACTION AGENDA APPROVED Referral: CUP11-0713 - Randolph-Macon College Multi-Purpose Field Light Poles and CUP11-0713A Randolph-Macon College Football/Soccer Field Light Poles APPROVED Minor Subdivision: Maiden and Myrtle Streets

MANAGEMENT REPORTS Management reports were presented by the police department, planning and community development and finance department

Page 99 of 102

Town Council Actions Items For September 6, 2011

PRESENTATIONS CITIZEN INPUT Ms. Lorie Foley presented the town manager with the scrapbook assembled by the Team 150 from the 150th Anniversary Celebration. For the record, per the town manager, the scrapbook will be stored in the vault in the treasurers office along with the time capsule. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Council approved the consent agenda. The consent agenda included the following items: o Invoices o Resolution for the Declaration of state of emergency Certificate of Recognition to Macks Service Center and Vineyard Christian Fellowship for their contribution of $5,600 in free gas on August 13. Proclamation for Constitution Week September 17 through September 23

MANAGEMENT REPORTS Management reports were presented by the town manager, public works and the finance departments

CLOSED MEETING Interviews with applicants for the Planning Commission and Central Virginia Waste Management as well as discussion or consideration of the disposition of publicly held real property.

Page 100 of 102

DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Applications under review

Carters Hill Section 2 Subdivision Final Plat Chapman Street Subdivision Pending Final Plat; Preliminary Plat Approved Maiden & Myrtle Streets Subdivision Final Plat Approved by TC August 16, 2011 Lance and Bridle - Rezoning Request William Gurdin Conditional Use Permit Randolph-Macon College Multi-Purpose Field Lighting Poles - Conditional Use Permit Randolph-Macon College Football/Soccer Field Lighting Poles Conditional Use Permit

Approved

Ashland Lumber Yard Site Plan (Approved: 2/28/2011 / Expiration Date: 2/28/2016) Ashland Park Site Plan (Approved: 3/14/2011 / Expiration Date: 3/14/2016) Ashland Towne Square Parking Lot Drainage improvements (Approved:11/18/2010/ Expiration
Date:11/18/2015)

East Ashland Water/Sewer Plans (Approved: 3/2/2011/ Expiration Date:3/2/2016) Project Grapevine Site Plan (Approved: 3/14/2011 / Expiration Date: 3/14/2016) Randolph-Macon College Multipurpose Field Site Plan (Approved: 5/5/2011 / Expiration:
5/5/2016)

Utility Trailer Sales of Virginia Site Plan (Approved: 3/29/2011 / Expiration: 3/29/2016) Vista Environmental - Hill Carter Parkway (Approved: 3/14/2011/ Expiration Date:3/14/2016) Maiden & Myrtle Streets Utilities Site Plan (Approved: 7/25/2011 / Expiration Date: 7/25/2016)

Under Construction

Carters Hill Subdivision James and Chapman Streets Cottage Greene Condominiums Cottage Greene Drive Heartland Subdivision N. James & N. Snead Streets Hickory Hill Section Two I-95 Turn Lane March Park - off of Woodside Lane Randolph-Macon College Baseball Field Site Plan Randolph-Macon College Freshman Dorm Site Plan Route 1 and Route 54 Waterline Replacement Site Plan Randolph-Macon College Freshman Dorm - Amended Site Plan (Approved: 4/8/2011 / Expiration:
4/8/2016) Certificate of Occupancy 8/15/2011

Text Amendments ORD2010-09 - Air Space - Adopted 1/18/2011 ORD2010-08 - Pedestrian Lighting - Adopted 2/2011 ORD2011-03 Landscape Exceptions ORD2011-06 R-3 Zoning District Setbacks -

Other None.

Page 101 of 102

New Businesses August 2011 Gwens Beauty School, LLC Rappahannock Mattress Co., LLC

105 Hanover Ave. 147 Junction Drive

Page 102 of 102