3/2/10 Town Council Agenda

AGENDA
ASHLAND TOWN COUNCIL

March 2, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
OPENING
Invocation The Reverend Bob Blinn, Duncan Memorial United Methodist

Pledge of Allegiance
Adoption of Agenda
Announcement of Council Business
CITIZEN INPUT
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from the January 19, 2010 meeting
1. REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 Ashland Properties, LLC requests: (1.) Rezoning from PSC
(Planned Shopping Center), RR-1 (Rural Residential), R-2 (Residential, Limited), and R-4
(Residential Medium-High) Districts to M-1 (Limited Industrial), PSC (Planned Shopping Center),
and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Districts, on +/- 129.5 acres. The subject property fronts:
the east side of I-95, +/-1000’ south of the VA 54 overpass for +/-2200’; the west side of Mt.
Hermon Rd. +/-1300’ south of VA 54 for +/-1350’; the east side of Mt. Hermon Rd. +/-900’ south of
VA 54 for +/-1800’, and; the south side of VA 54 +/-800’ east of Mt. Hermon Road for +/-1600’.
These properties are identified as GPINs 7789-49-6983, 7880-41-5325 (pt.), -50-1680, -6302, -60-
4701 (pt.), -61-4768, -6987, -7681, -62-1235 (pt.), -4453, and -72-0523. (2.) A Conditional Use
Permit to allow a shopping center in excess of 200,000 square feet, and retail businesses in excess
of 50,000 square feet, in accordance with Sec. 21-173 of the Town Code, on the properties
identified for rezoning to PSC as stated in request #1 above. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1
2. ORDINANCE PL2009-09: Ord. PL2009-09 is an ordinance to amend The Code of the Town of
Ashland, Chapter 21, Zoning, Article XVI, Planned Developments to amend setback requirements
along the periphery of all Planned Development districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19
ACTION AGENDA
1. Appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 25

2. Draft Capital Improvements Program Presentation (Mr. Farrar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 26
3. Invoices*
4. Minutes* December 15, 2009
NEW BUSINESS
Mayor’s Report
Council Members’ Reports
Committee Reports
Appointments
EDA (2)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
ADJOURNMENT
*No attached material

SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
All meetings are at Town Hall unless otherwise indicated
March 2010
Town Council March 2, 7:00 pm

Ashland Main Street Assoc. March 9, 5:30 pm
Planning Commission March 10, 7:00 pm
Town Council March 16, 7:00 pm
EDA March 25, 6:30 pm
April 2010
Town Council April 6, 7:00 pm

Ashland Main Street Assoc. April 13, 5:30 pm
Planning Commission April 14, 7:00 pm
Town Council April 20, 7:00 pm
EDA April 22, 6:30 pm
STAFF REPORT
To: Town Council, Town of Ashland, Virginia

From: Zack Robbins, Senior Planner
Date: March 2, 2010
Case Type: Rezoning & Conditional Use Permit
Case No.: REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507
Case Name: Ashland Properties, LLC
Applicant: Ashland Properties, LLC
Location: Southeast quadrant of I-95 & Route 54
GPIN(s): 7789-49-6983, 7880-41-5325 (part of), -50-1680, 6302, -60-4701 (part), -61-
4768, -6987, -7681, -62-1235 (part of), -4453, and -72-0523
REQUEST:
The applicant requests rezoning, with proffered conditions, of approximately 130 acres, from
PSC, RR-1, R-2 and R-4 to M-1, PSC, and PUD. This application, in effect, would amend
the development plan approved in 2007 as part of a prior rezoning application, and rezone
additional land along I-95 from RR-1 to M-1.
Further, just as requested in the 2007 case, the applicant has requested a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a shopping center greater than 200,000 square feet in the PSC District, and
to allow an individual retail user to exceed 50,000 square feet. This is required by Sec. 21-
173 of the Town Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council defer the Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit
requests to April 20, 2010, to allow the applicant to work with staff to resolve the issues
identified in the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations, which are at the end of
this staff report.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Defer: I move to defer action on REZ09-0507 and CUP09-0507 until April 20, 2010.
www.town.ashland.va.us 1
Town Council
Town of Ashland, Virginia Page 2 of 18
BACKGROUND:
PSC (Planned Shopping Center), RR-1 (Rural Residential), R-2
Existing Zoning (Residential, Limited), and R-4 (Residential Medium-High)
Districts
Location Southeast quadrant of Interstate 95 and Route 54
Size +/-130 acres
Existing Land Use Vacant and single-family residential
North-Zoned RR-1. Single-family residential, and vacant.
Surrounding Land East and South- Zoned A-1 in adjacent Hanover County. Single-
Use and Zoning family residential, and vacant.
West- Interstate 95.
The Comprehensive Plan states that this property is appropriate
Comprehensive Plan
for Residential/Commercial Mixed Use.
Zoning History.
In 2007, the Town Council approved rezoning case REZ07-0327. The case rezoned 101
acres to B-2, PSC, R-2 and R-4. At the same time, conditional use permits were approved to
allow a shopping center to exceed 200,000 square feet, and to allow townhouses within the
PSC district. A buffer exception was also granted, in the PSC district, to allow the residential
areas to be in close proximity to the retail areas. This rezoning case was the result of
litigation due to the Town’s denial of a prior application submitted in 2005.
Later in 2007, the Town Council approved amendments to the conditional use permit for the
shopping center, relative to the phasing of the proposed development.
Current Request.
The applicant resubmitted proffers, plans and design guidelines on February 2, 2010, which
supersedes the November submittal, which was referenced in the Council’s January report.
The information contained in this report addresses the current submittal, and how it
addressed the prior comments.
The following table summarizes the total commercial space and residential uses requested:
Ashland Hanover Total
Commercial Space 546,400 sf 335,200 sf 881,600 sf
Residential
Single-Family 62 51 113
Two-Family 4 - 4
Townhouse 49 169 218
Residential Above 109 186 295
Multi-Family - 198 198
Total Residential 224 604 828
The current rezoning request does not include the B-2 portion (hotel/restaurant sites) that
was in the 2007 case. The existing zoning and proffers will remain in place for that property.
The applicant is now requesting rezoning of the land south of the B-2 portion of the old case,
west of Mt. Hermon Road that was not included in the earlier request. M-1 zoning is sought
on this land, as well as some PUD zoning.
The current request attempts to cohesively plan the development across the Town/County
boundary, as there is a request from the same developer currently pending with Hanover
County to rezone land just across the border.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

Ashland Properties, LLC
2
Town Council
The application contains a master plan for the property, which is also part of the Hanover
rezoning case. Further, proffered conditions have been submitted, as well as design
guidelines for the project. Staff has completed three reviews of the application, and
forwarded comments to the applicant, and is awaiting a subsequent resubmittal.
A Traffic Impact Analysis has been submitted as part of the rezoning case. Suggested
improvements as part of that study are discussed below in the Considerations section of this
memorandum.
Comparison of Previous Requests.

Below is a table summarizing the commercial square footage and residential units for the
Town portion of the project, not including the B-2 zoned property rezoned in 2007:
Pending
Original Case Area (Town only) 2005 case 2007 case
Case
Commercial Space 174,000 sf 174,500 sf 348,400 sf

Residential
Single-Family 88 47 62
Two-Family - - 4
Townhouse 42 86 49
Residential Above - 80 109
Total Residential 134 213 224
The geography for the current proposal is significantly different from the 2005 and 2007
requests, therefore, for the table above, only the areas in common between all three
requests were included.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan for the Town states the following regarding Mixed Use
(Residential, Corporate, Office and Commercial), which this property is designated on the
Future Land Use Plan:
Ashland is extremely fortunate that within two sections of the community relatively
large tracts of undeveloped land exist. Within these areas it is proposed that
development occur on a mixed use basis incorporating the traditional values
embodied in the Town’s past development. These have been discussed previously
but include features such as neighborhood centers; a pedestrian scale; shops and
offices sufficient to provide for weekly needs; a design scale that is oriented toward
defining spaces; and the integration of shopping and public spaces. In order to assure
the desired quality of development a master plan for each mixed use development
should be required as a part of the rezoning process and development should be
encouraged on parcels of land 50 or 100 acres or greater in size. Two mixed use
development categories are proposed. Design controls would be necessary to
provide for use transactions within this mixed use category and innovative projects
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010
3
Town Council
integrating mixed uses within building or complexes would be encouraged. These

controls should also assure that residential development on a composite basis in all
mixed use developments not exceed forty (40) dwelling units per year.
Mixed Use Residential, Corporate, Office and Commercial

Uses:
Residential - 35% minimum to 50% maximum
Neighborhood Commercial - 0% minimum to 10% maximum
Office Commercial - 10% minimum to 45% maximum
Select General Commercial - 0% minimum to 10% maximum
Open space - 20% minimum
Appropriate land uses in this category would include residential uses (single family,
townhouses, and condominiums at a density of four dwelling units per acre); open
space including parks and playgrounds; community facilities, including day care
centers, and churches; office uses (corporate offices and professional offices); select
general commercial, limited to hotels, restaurants (except drive-through facilities);
retail sales of goods and services (not to exceed 2500 square feet per business);
banks and other financial institutions (including drive-thru facilities, provided such are
located at the rear of the site.)
Comprehensive Plan Analysis.

Following is a summary of the land uses proposed by the Plan for this proposed mixed-use
area, compared to the approved 2007 case, and the current request:
Mixed Use Percent Suggested by Provided by Provided on

Allocations Plan approved 2-10
plan submittal
Residential 35%-50% 58-83 acres 51.8 acres 38.5 acres
Neighborhood 0%-10% 0-16.5 acres 22.1 acres 34.7 acres
Commercial
Office Commercial 10%-45% 16.5-75 acres 19.1 acres 19.1 acres
General 0%-10% 0-16.5 acres 30.3 acres 30.3 acres
Commercial
Open Space 20% 33 acres min. 43.2 acres 43.8 acres
Minimum
Mixed Use Allocation. The approved 2007 case does not conform with the suggested land
use distribution suggested by the Plan, however, at a minimum, staff suggests that the
revised proposal be more aligned with the uses suggested by the Plan. However, the chart
above demonstrates that the current proposal reduces the amount of Residential land to
within the limits suggested by the Plan, and increases the amount of Neighborhood
Commercial land, making the proposal less consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff and the applicant have performed fiscal analyses of the project, and finds that the ratio
of commercial to residential requested in this application will result in a net increase in
revenues anywhere from $100,000 to $425,000 annually. The same analysis was applied to
the existing approved plan (which showed a potential for a potential $125,000 loss of
revenue or an increase of $65,000), as well as the Comprehensive Plan suggested ratios,
which showed that the Town could lose anywhere from $65,000 to $450,000 annually.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

4
Town Council
To summarize these fiscal analyses, it is likely that if the lower amount of commercial
development suggested by the Comprehensive Plan were implemented, that the revenues
generated by the development may not be sufficient to pay for the government services
provided to the project.
Upon researching the justification in the ratios suggested for the mixed uses, it appears that
the numbers in the Comprehensive Plan may have been chosen arbitrarily, with little factual
basis.
Phasing. The proffers that were submitted do not fully address the statement that mixed use
projects should only be able to construct 40 new dwellings annually, as a composite of all
mixed use projects (Currently there are no other mixed use projects in the Town).
Staff believes that if the 40 dwellings per year number is not to be followed, some additional
analysis should be provided to arrive at an appropriate number to limit the development to on
an annual basis, or provide some means to make up for the impact. Staff believes that the
desire behind the limitation is for three reasons: (1) To ensure that development occurs
slowly, at a rate that government services can absorb the new growth, (2) To ensure that the
market is not oversaturated with a large amount of a single building product, both in the short
term, but also in the long term, to ensure a variety of housing types and ages, and (3) To
ensure that the Town does not exceed its desired 2 percent annual growth rate.
The applicant has submitted a proffer limiting the PUD portion of the development to no more
than 40 dwelling units per year, however that number can be exceeded if the developer
provides a cash proffer toward the Town’s Capital Improvements Program. Staff believes
that this number should be lowered to 20, to allow for capacity for other potential mixed use
developments in the Town, and the cash proffer should be directed toward a specific
improvement, rather than general CIP funding.
Maximum size of retail. Staff notes that the Plan states that retail businesses in this area
should not exceed 2,500 square feet of floor area. Given the project’s proximity to Interstate
95 and the necessity of larger anchor tenants to ensure the success and overall healthy
tenant mix of the project, staff believes that larger anchors may be appropriate. Appropriate
architectural treatment and site design must be provided to disguise big box retailers and
associated parking lots.
M-1 Property, Adjacent to I-95.

The applicant has proffered a maximum of 198,000 square feet of floor area within this area,
and has proffered to limit the use of the property to limit the uses to office park type uses.
The applicant has proffered development guidelines for the architecture and signage of the
property, and a 100 foot undisturbed buffer along Interstate 95.
PSC Property.
The applicant proposes 156,600 square feet of in-line retail to front on the two entrance
roads and an event lawn. Additionally, 175,000 square feet is proposed that may be in the
form of two big box users. Eighty-eight dwelling units are proposed to be located above retail
space, and 21 live/work units are planned.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

5
Town Council
Staff is concerned about the visual impact of the rear of buildings from Rt. 54, specifically the
big box uses, and the large parking areas associated with it. Upon resubmission of plans,
the applicant has rotated the larger big box so that the front now faces Rt. 54, and has
moved buildings to reduce the visual impact of parking from Rt. 54. This has also fulfilled
staff’s ongoing concern about integration of the big box into the ‘Main Street’ design of the
remainder of the PSC area.
The applicant has also proffered to limit freestanding signage to monument-style signs, and
not allow drive-thru restaurants.
PUD Property.
The applicant is proposing a mixture of single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and
townhomes organized on a gridded street network.
The applicant’s plan shows a specific number and potential location for each of these units,
however, flexibility has been requested via proffered conditions. The applicant has proffered
a maximum number of units (114), a maximum number of townhouses (53), and a minimum
number of single-family units (60).
There are several instances on the plan where street intersections are close to one another,
and the angles of approach to the intersection are too small. The subdivision ordinance
states: (1) Intersections should be no closer than 200 feet apart, (2) Blocks should be 500 to
1,200 feet in length, on the sides where lots front on them, and (3) Street should intersect at
an angle of at least 80 degrees. It appears that these standards may be excessive, and
based on older VDOT requirements. An exception to the subdivision ordinance standards
could be granted by Town Council to remedy this situation.
Open Spaces.
The application originally did not state much regarding the open spaces. The applicant has
since submitted additional information in the Design Guidelines to provide sample amenities
and landscaping treatments. The application still should provide more detail regarding the
treatment of these spaces.
Design Guidelines.
Staff has reviewed a second resubmittal of the Design Guidelines and finds that it is much
more direct and easy to interpret compared to the original version, and implements
procedures for an Architectural Review Board. Below are some of staff’s major areas of
concern with the Design Guidelines:
• The Design Guidelines establishes an Architectural Review Board with five members,
four appointed by the developer, and one by the Town. Staff believes the three
County, Town, and Developer should have an equal say in the interpretation of the
guidelines. Further, appeals of the Board’s decisions would go directly to the
developer. Staff believes that this is inappropriate, as the Town or County may object
to the interpretation of the Guidelines. Additionally, staff believes it may be
appropriate for the Zoning Administrator to reject an approval of the Board, if it finds
that a decision was clearly inappropriate.
• Many of the phrases used throughout the document are subjective, however, this
may be less of an issue now that a Board will oversee the approvals, rather than the
Zoning Administrator.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010
6
Town Council
• Building treatment for the big box users is not acceptable, as there are some
monotonous walls and inadequate entrance treatment for where the big box will face
the event lawn.
• Side and rear building treatment has since been submitted, however there is still
potential to make the rears of these buildings more attractive, by adding additional
building elements, additional brick, etc.
• Each building type is provided with regulatory text for certain building features, and
photo examples are provided for each, but there is little explanation about how the
examples should be applied.
Staff has many detailed comments regarding the Design Guidelines, which are included in
the comments at the end of this document.
Traffic Impact.
The traffic impact analysis proposed several improvements for the surrounding road network.
Those improvements are outlined in the map below.
TIA Recommended Improvements:
1. Add roadway and ramp capacity on Rt. 54
and the ramp to Southbound 95.
2. Modify the ‘yield’ condition so that WB 54 to
SB 95 will have right-of-way on the on ramp.
3. Extend the merge lane on EB 54 to Mt.
Hermon Rd.
4. Create a left turn lane from EB 54 into
Frances Rd.
5. Create right turn lanes from EB 54.
6. Create left turn lanes from WB 54.
Signs indicate proposed signals.
Dashed lines indicate proposed 4-lanes.
The applicant has submitted proffers to implement most of the road improvements suggested
by the Analysis. Staff continues to insist that the following two items be addressed:
• The proper function of the interchange at Route 54 and I-95. Specifically, the
westbound 54 to southbound 54 movement, and the southbound 95 to eastbound 54
movement.
• Analysis of the internal traffic issues that would result from the large amount of
commercial space at the southern portion of the site, since these future roadways will
become the maintenance responsibility of the Town.
RECOMMENDATION:
At its November 18, 2009, meeting, the Planning Commission approved the following motion:
The Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning request REZ09-0507

because of a lack of complete information, for the reasons stated in the staff report,
and for the following reasons:
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

7
Town Council
• The proposed rezoning does not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan in
terms of stormwater management, ratio between the proposed uses, overall
environmental impact, and because it is not clear that the proposed development
reflects the traditional values that are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.
• In addition, the traffic impact information is incomplete and the proposed traffic
improvements do not sufficiently address the actual traffic impacts of the
development, nor do they sufficiently coordinate with other development in the
area.
The Planning Commission would have preferred:
1) Increase the number of single family detached houses and reduce the number of
town houses, to include the proposed “live-work” town houses and the duplex
houses so that there is a minimum percentage of single-family, detached houses.
2) Increase the average width of single-family detached lots to at least 80’.
3) Design the residential neighborhood on an interconnected grid road network,

without diagonal road(s) and one or more wide office access road(s). In other
words, primary access to the business/office areas should not go through the
residential areas.
4) Provide a detailed landscape plan that includes native plants and tree-shaded
sidewalks and parking lots, with large and spreading deciduous trees. The
landscape plan should include species, size, spacing, and locations of plants and
trees. The landscape plan should include the big parking lots and all shopping
and residential streets as well as a landscaped entrance to Ashland and the area.
In the landscape plan, trees should be spaced 40’ apart along all streets. The
landscape plan should also include a tree-filled landscape buffer along I-95.
5) Make all structures - residential and commercial - energy efficient, based on

'Earthcraft' and 'LEEDS'.
6) Include the following design details:
• All single family detached houses must have no front garages; all houses
should be served by an alley.
• All windows in residential units must be of the “simulated divided light” (or true
divided light”) type.
• All facades of retail buildings that are visible from the roadways must include
ground floor windows and other architectural design details. (No blank walls.)
• To the maximum extent possible, durable exterior materials shall be used,

such as brick or hardiplank siding.
• Include residential front porches that are a minimum of 8’ deep.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

8
Town Council
• Mixed use retail should not exceed a maximum height of 35’ to the top of the
roof, or 2 stories.
7) All traffic improvements required in the area, by any phase of development, shall
be completed prior to the completion of that phase of development. Prepare a
complete site plan of the larger Route 54 area that shows all traffic improvements,
and the adjacent developments.
8) Reduce the total area of retail to a set amount of square feet; with specification
as to the amount of square feet to be constructed during any twelve month period
of time.
9) No more that 20-30 townhouse, duplex, and live/work units to be constructed

during any twelve month period of time.
10) No more than 22 apartment units over retail to be constructed during any twelve
month period of time.
11) Revise the proposed Design Guidelines to provide an initial Architectural Review
Board of no more than three members with one member appointed by the
developer, one member appointed by the Town and one member appointed by
the County. The appeals process involving the Design Guidelines needs to be
modified.
12) Add a roundabout or traffic circle on Route 54.
13) During the construction process, provide for minimal tree canopy and vegetation
removal as well as conservation of topsoil.
14) Use pervious pavers where possible.
15) Utilize measures to minimize light pollution resulting from the development.
16) That staff’s comments suggested within the staff report (see attached) be
addressed.
Lastly, that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for the purpose
of addressing the myriad of issues and details that are unresolved.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the request not be approved, unless the
following occurs:
1) The Ordinance amendment regarding setbacks for the PSC and PUD districts is
approved.
2) The Town Council approves exceptions to intersection spacing and angle
requirements.
3) A detailed fiscal analysis shall be performed by the applicant to prove that the
proposed ratio between commercial and residential development is superior to the
ratio suggested by the Plan, with respect to the revenues generated to the Town
and the ability of the Town to provide municipal services to the development.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010
9
Town Council
4) The phasing of no more than 20 to 30 dwelling units per year be allocated to the
development, unless additional variety of dwelling types can be ensured, and the
phasing can be backed up by the fiscal analysis suggested above.
5) The transportation impact analysis shall be resubmitted for approval by the Town,
and upon said approval, appropriate proffers shall be submitted to ensure the
proper phasing and installation of the recommended improvements.
6) The Design Guidelines are revised to provide an initial Architectural Review Board
of no more than three members, one appointed by the developer, one appointed
by the Town and one appointed by the County. Further, appeals to the Design
Guidelines shall not be interpreted by developer, and a more appropriate
appellate authority should be chosen, and that the Zoning Administrator should
have the right to reject an approval of the Board, if it finds that a decision was
clearly inappropriate.
7) Building treatment for the big box users and the rear of all buildings in the
development should be adequately addressed.
8) Standards for the open space, street cross-section, and buffer samples should be
strengthened, and clarification should be provided to provide the Zoning
Administrator with authority to implement that portion of the Guidelines.
Staff recommends that the Town Council defer this request to its April 20 meeting, so
that the applicant can address the current outstanding issues as follows:
1. The Ordinance amendment regarding setbacks for the PSC and PUD districts needs to be
approved.
2. The Town Council needs to approve exceptions to intersection spacing and angle
requirements.
3. The applicant has proffered to phase no more than 40 dwelling units in the PUD annually,
however this does not address the units within the PSC, and the number still exceeds the 20
to 30 suggested by the Plan. This proffer should apply to the entire property. The applicant
further has proffered money toward CIP projects, if the 40 units/year is exceeded, but only for
those units. The applicant needs to provide a specific project whose need is triggered by this
project.
4. Staff continues to request some traffic analysis be performed to provide information on internal
circulation, as well as additional information on the traffic needs at I-95.
5. The applicant has revised the Design Guidelines to provide an initial board that consists of (1)
a member appointed by Town Council, (2) the developer, and (3) a Hanover County resident.
Note that the guidelines do not state who the Hanover County resident is appointed by.
Additionally, the appeals process has not changed, as appeals would still go through the
developer.
6. The applicant has submitted new elevations for the rears of the big box. The elevations still
need some work, as there are blank walls with minimal treatment to break up the massing of
the building.
Plan of Development Comments
7. Provide alleys behind all of the single-family units.
8. Look at alternative treatments for the 11 units whose rear faces the nature area.
M-1 Proffers
All issues relating to M-1 Proffers have been addressed.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

10
Town Council
PSC Proffers
9. Proffer 7: The proffer should make reference to the revision date of the Site Overview.
PUD Proffers
10. Proffer 13: The proffer should make reference to the revision date of the Site Overview.
11. Proffer 13: The minimum lot dimensions suggested in the proffer are not provided in the
Design Guidelines.
12. Proffer 14: The cumulative number of dwelling units does not match the number shown on the
plan. Staff counts 49 townhouses, 4 duplexes, and 62 single family = total 115. Shouldn’t 49
be the max number of townhouses, and 62 be the minimum number of single family?
13. Proffer 15:
a. Staff believes that this proffer should be in the section applicable to all properties, not just
PUD.
b. Based on the language contained in the Comprehensive Plan, the number of units should
be limited to 20-30, to allow for other mixed use development to occur in the Town.
c. Add a cost of living index similar to the schools proffer, to provide that the dollar amount
will increase along with each annual cost of living index update.
d. The contribution should not be generally for any capital project within the Town. Please
identify a project within the Town’s CIP that would be directly affected by the rezoning,
such as Route 54 improvements, interchange enhancements. Please contact staff for
assistance in selecting the appropriate projects.
e. Please remove the intent statement from the proffer, and only state the regulation.
Proffers Generally Appplicable to the Property
14. Proffer 19:

a. Provide full name/revision date reference to the proffers in the first sentence.
b. In (b) provide clarification that the all aspects of the Guidelines apply to M-1, however,
none of the site layouts shown apply to M-1. Also would be a good idea to state that the
open space shown on the layout in M-1 can be adjusted in shape or location, but not in
size.
c. The second sentence, mandating review of association/covenant documents, should be a
standalone proffer.
15. Proffer 20: Delete this. It conflicts with 19.
16. Proffer 23:

a. In the table, ensure add the word ‘Commercial’ to ‘square footage.’
b. Ensure that the total number of dwelling units matches what is shown in the plan. (Similar
to the error in Proffer 14.)
c. Sections A and B: replace “is/are ready for tenant upfit” with “have received a certificate of
occupancy for the building shell”
d. Section C: Add an ‘n’ at the end of ‘Lawn’. Also, better define what is meant by ‘under
construction’ – Does this mean land disturbance has begun? A slab has been poured?
Framing is completed? Staff would prefer the more advanced stages of construction.
Transportation Proffers
17. Proffer 24:
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

11
Town Council
a. As written, it could be questionable as to when each phase ends. For instance, suppose
the developer chooses to complete all of the commercial development, but none of the
residential development, it could then be argued that Phase 1 has never been completed.
b. The first sentence in the proffer needs to change, as ‘the time of complete development’
does not apply to Phase 3.
c. There are several references to Entrances 1,2,3 & 4, however they do not appear on any
proffered documents.
d. (ii)(a) states ‘based on the final interchange design’ – reword to state ‘if signalization is not
permitted’
e. What happened to the left turn lane for Frances Road?
f. B(i) Should be more clear and state ‘Prior to the approval of the first site plan…’
g. B(i) Clarify whether Rt. 54 is to be a divided or undivided section.
h. C(i) Grammatical error – remove ‘a’ from before “STOP”
i. (ii)(b) and (iii)(b) For what distance are these four lane/five lane improvements? Are they
divided?
j. (iv) This can be deleted, as this is not within the Town.
k. (v) Staff does not know where Entrance 4 is located, and thus cannot provide comment.
l. The proffers do not provide for the four-laning of Mt. Hermon Road as suggested by the
TIA.
18. Proffer 25: Remove the exception for attorneys fees, as these are all costs that should be borne
by the developer.
19. Proffers 25-28 should be relocated to ‘Proffers applicable to the entire property’, not under
‘transportation improvements’.
20. Proffer 26: The proffer should be deleted. Sec 21-144 (e) prescribes the procedure for submitting
site plans. A proffer cannot be used to amend the ordinance.
21. Proffer 27: The proffer for Low Impact Development should have more teeth. Could some
reference be made to a catalog of LID techniques? Also the last sentence will be very difficult to
determine what is ‘feasible’.
22. Proffer 28: These are pretty standard items on major appliances. Would this also mean that when
appliances are replaced, the new ones must be energy star? Staff believes that it may be
appropriate to proffer a certain number or amount of commercial buildings to be LEED certified
instead, with a bond used at time of CO to guarantee the green construction. Perhaps the office
buildings on the M-1 property?
Design Guidelines
23. Page 5 – East Ashland Architectural Review Board:

a. Staff insists that the initial board should consist of three members only, one appointed by
each of the following: Developer, Town Council, Board of Supervisors.
b. As currently written, the EAARB could shift to East Ashland Board control once Ashland
Properties LLC relinquishes control of the declarant power. What would happen if
Ashland Properties LLC sold the development to another developer? Perhaps this should
only state ‘once the Declarant power is released to the EAARB’?
Architectural Guidelines
24. The Guidelines for architecture as a whole continue to be vague. Additional direction should be
given in each section of the development relative to the intended style for each building type. See
some other communities Guidelines for assistance.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

12
Town Council
25. The examples continue to be misleading as they don’t always tie into the requirements, and aren’t
necessarily representative of the intended end product. Some of the examples aren’t necessary,
such as photos of building materials. Appropriate examples would be: How to appropriately treat
entranceways and corners, how to apply accent bands, cornices, etc.
26. Nothing has been provided to give examples of what these buildings would look like, with the
exception of Retail. Staff requests that at a minimum something conceptual (not substantial
conformity) should be included to base some level of review on.
Retail/MU Guidelines
27. 3rd bullet point under materials states that large expanse of storefronts greater than 80’ should be
broken down. 80 feet is a very large storefront length! 30 feet is a more traditional storefront
length.
28. Entrances and corners shall be emphasized….this statement should be strengthened. How do
you emphasize such? Tower elements?
29. 4th bullet under Roofs – As stated earlier – an 80’ mass is very large.
30. Rear Retail Elevations- The rear of these buildings have several sections of plain siding.
Additional detail should be added to reduce the mass and repetitiveness.
31. Big Box-

a. Is this intended to be applicable to both the big box buildings?
b. There is nothing showing that the event lawn will face a storefront, rather than the side of
a big box.
c. Consider three or four sided architecture for this building – entrances on all sides?
d. All elevations have massive walls with little more than repetitive patterns to break up the
monotony.
e. Provide something to make the roofs on Elev. A and B appear to not be artificial. Ensure
that they will extend back into the building rather than end at the building line.
Live Work Guidelines
32. The same issues encountered with the retail guidelines apply here as well. The ‘large expanse’ of
storefront is not included herein and should be.
33. The last bullet under Building Materials is repeated.
34. An 80’ expanse of roof is relatively large, especially when adjacent to residential.
Corporate Office Guidelines
35. Building materials: Is siding really appropriate to be used in the corporate office area?
Single Family Attached/Detached Guidelines
36. The last bullet under Building Materials is repeated.
37. Under Porches, restate the first two bullets to state: Front porch piers shall be brick. Front
porches higher than 2’ above grade shall be enclosed with vinyl lattice.
38. A 24 sf porch is not much larger than a stoop. Further, 25% of the porches is not a significant
number to be reflective of Ashland’s character.
Residential Setbacks
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

13
Town Council
39. Should state that this page demonstrates the minimum lot dimensions and setbacks…
40. No setbacks are provided for accessory buildings (sheds, garages)
41. How will garages orient toward the alleyway?
Landscape Design
42. Pg. 62 – Note that the Town maintains all sidewalks and streetlights within public rights of way,
therefore the association will not be maintaining these.
43. Pg. 65 – The amount of landscaping provided in the perimeter buffer language is not significant.
44. Pg. 65 – Limit the signs in the buffers to only those identifying the overall development.
45. Pg. 67 – The language here does not provide any landscaping requirement. This is a critical area
that will need to be screened.
46. Pg. 69 – The amount of landscaping provided here will not provide a sufficient screen.
47. Pg 72/73
a. Be advised that our landscape ordinance requirement will prescribe the minimum number
of trees for each plaza, therefore the numbers of trees shown in the chart may not meet
the minimum planting requirement.
b. For ‘accent planting’ will there be some type of minimum standard?
c. None of the plazas within our jurisdiction are intended to have amenities other than
benches. Two don’t even have benches. Why?
d. The example photos show a plaza as having focal point features – a clock, fountain,
shelter. None are provided in the Town plazas.
48. Pg. 74
a. The drawing shows the big box in its former orientation.
b. What type of plantings are shown in this example? Differentiate between large/small
trees/shrubs.
Pg 76
49. Are all of the areas proposed for nature areas currently wooded? If not, provide some
language to reforest these areas.
50. Fifty foot tree spacing is the Town’s minimum. Staff suggests tightening up the spacing.
Pg 86
51. Remove the picture of the cobra-head light fixture, as it does not meet ordinance
requirements.
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

14
Town Council
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

15
Town Council
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

16
Town Council
COMPARISON BETWEEN APPROVED AND PENDING CASES

2007 First Submittal Submittal Submittal
Approved 2009 11-2009 2-2010
Commercial Total 174,500 sf + 369,000 sf (PSC) + 348,400 sf (PSC) 348,400 sf (PSC)
2 hotel sites 198,000 sf (M-1) + + 198,000 sf (M- + 198,000 sf (M-
2 hotel sites 1) + 2 hotel sites 1) + 2 hotel sites
Single-Family 47 30 22 62
Two-Family - 44 22 4
Townhouse 86 144 118 49
Residential above 80 134 109 109
Comm.
Residential Total 213 352 271 224
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

17
Town Council
REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

18
STAFF REPORT
To: Town Council, Town of Ashland, Virginia

From: Zack Robbins, Senior Planner
Date: March 2, 2010
Case No.: PL2009-09
RE: Ordinance Amendment relative to Planned Development Setbacks
REQUEST:
On July 21, 2009, Town Council requested the Planning Commission consider a potential
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regards to setbacks at the boundary of all Planned
Development districts. This time and date have been advertised for a public hearing
regarding this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
At its November 18, 2009, meeting the Planning Commission recommended denial of
Ordinance PL2009-09, due to unresolved issues regarding heights of structures and
setbacks.
Staff recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance PL2009-09. Staff believes that
Planned Development applications provide sufficient information as part of the application to
adequately show building heights and setbacks, therefore, each application could be
reviewed on its own merits.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
Approve: I move for approval of Ordinance PL2009-09.
Deny: I move for denial of Ordinance PL2009-09
www.town.ashland.va.us 19
Town Council
BACKGROUND:
On July 21, 2009, Town Council requested that the Planning Commission consider potential
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with regards to setbacks. This was in response to a
letter received from Wilton Development requesting that the Town consider a Zoning Text
Amendment specifically reducing or eliminating the setback requirements between the PSC
and PUD districts, as well as any land outside of the corporate limits with a similar
designation. This is being requested in association with the Ashland Properties, LLC, East
Ashland rezoning request. At its August 12, 2009, meeting the Planning Commission
deferred action on this item, so that it could be considered simultaneously with the
application of Ashland Properties, LLC.
The Planned Development Districts, outlined in Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance, consists
of four districts: PUD (Planned Unit Development District), PSC (Planned Shopping Center
District), PMH (Planned Mobile Home District), and POB (Planned Office-Business District).
The development proposed by Ashland Properties, LLC, is a traditional neighborhood

concept, which consists of proposed PUD and PSC districts. In order to mix uses within
close proximity to one another, different zoning districts are required, however, the setback
required at the periphery of the PUD district is 35 feet from the district boundary, or 60 feet
from the centerline of any street along the boundary, whichever is greater.
Following is a summary of the setbacks for each of the Planned Development Districts
Typical Internal Buffer from
District External Setbacks
Permitted Uses Setbacks Residential
Single-Family, Two-
Single-family, Family, and
Two-Family, Townhouses. 35 feet
Multifamily, from district boundary,
None. Defined
Townhouses, or 60 feet from
PUD by development None
Churches, centerline of street
plan.
Schools, Limited
Retail and All other uses. 100
Offices. feet from district
boundary.
10 feet from
streets and
50 feet from district common areas.
PMH Mobile homes. 50 feet
boundary 20 foot or 15
foot spacing
requirements
Shopping
Setbacks shall
centers, None. Defined
conform with the
PSC Dwelling units by development 50 feet
adjacent district’s
over retail, plan.
setback
Townhouses.
Light [When adjacent to
Manufacturing, residential/When not
Hotels, adjacent to Front 50 feet
POB Restaurants, residential] Side 30 feet 50 feet
Offices, Front 75 feet/50 feet Rear 50 feet
Research Side 100 feet/30 feet
facilities Rear 100 feet/50 feet
PL2009-09 March 2, 2010

20
Ordinance Amendment relative to Planned Development Setbacks
Town Council
CONSIDERATIONS:
Since the 1970s, the Town’s Zoning Ordinance provided Planned Development Districts,
specifically, the PUD, PSC, and PMH districts. The POB district was added in 1995 to allow
for the development of planned industrial and office developments.
Planned Developments and Traditional Neighborhood

Developments.
Nationally, the original intent of planned development districts
was to allow for carefully planned developments, with
additional flexibility that could not be achieved through
traditional zoning districts. In exchange for the flexibility, a
conceptual plan was required to be adopted as part of the Residential
approved zoning case. In many instances, cluster
developments were implemented, with a higher density than
would have traditionally been permitted with conventional
zoning. In exchange, common open space was often
required. Often, these were implemented as mixed-use
projects, in that a small commercial core would be developed Commercial
to serve the residents of the development. Usually these
commercial areas were on the periphery of the site, and Typical 1980s era Planned
separated from the residential areas. Automobile-oriented Development. Note the clustered
development was encouraged. subdivsions, and segregated
commercial areas.
Beginning in the 1990s,
the traditional neighborhood development concept
(TND) began to grow in popularity, with better known
developments along the East Coast such as Seaside,
FL, and Kentlands, MD. TNDs integrated uses even
more than the older Planned Development model.
Further, gridded streets, smaller lot sizes and setbacks
all contributed to making traditional neighborhood
Residential development a more walkable development than the
older Planned Development concept.
Commercial Town’s Planned Development Ordinance

The Town’s current ordinance has two Planned
Development districts that appear to be designed to
allow for innovative and flexible development design,
the PUD and PSC districts. Currently, both districts
Typical Traditional Neighborhood require setbacks at their perimeter, but setbacks are not
Development concept. Notice required within the districts themselves. These
residential abutting directly upon setbacks are determined through the development plan
commercial area. which is adopted as part of the zoning case.
The purpose of these setbacks is to protect neighboring properties from the impact of the
development. In order to encourage traditional neighborhood development, the PSC and
PUD uses should be able to be in close proximity with one another. Under current ordinance
requirements, a commercial PSC structure would typically need to be setback 75 feet from
the street (if a 50 foot wide street separates the PSC and PUD), and the residential PUD
structure would need to be setback 35 feet from the street. Both of these setbacks are
greater than standard B-2 and R-1 setbacks.
PL2009-09 March 2, 2010
Ordinance Amendment relative to Planned Development Setbacks 21
Town Council
The Planned Development proposal by Ashland Properties, LLC, straddles the County/Town
boundary, and as such, a similar issue exists at the corporate limits, where a significant
setback is imposed for buildings near the edge of the PSC and PUD districts. The County’s
MX Zoning District implies a buffer at the boundary, but the County has determined the buffer
not to be applicable where it abuts the development on the Town boundary.
To address the setback situation, staff suggests the setback requirement be eliminated
between the PSC and PUD districts, as well as between the PSC and PUD districts and any
adjacent county zoning that requires a similar design review process.
It should be noted that this would not affect any existing PSC or PUD development districts
for two reasons: (1.) Currently, no PSC abuts a PUD development, and (2.) the layout of
each of these districts is governed by a development plan adopted by the Town Council. In
order to utilize these proposed amendments, an amendment to the Plan would require public
hearings before the Planning Commission and Town Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
At its November 18, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of
Ordinance PL2009-09, due to unresolved issues regarding heights of structures and
setbacks.
Staff recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance PL2009-09. Staff believes that
Planned Development applications provide sufficient information as part of the application to
adequately show building heights and setbacks, therefore, each application could be
reviewed on its own merits.
PL2009-09 March 2, 2010

Town Council
Ordinance PL2009-09
An Ordinance to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Ch. 21 “Zoning,” Article XVI
“Planned Developments,” Division 2 “Planned Unit Development PUD,” Sec. 21-150
“Setback and yard requirements,” and Division 4 “Planned Shopping Center PSC,” Section
21-177, “Requirements when a PSC District adjoins other zoning districts,” to amend setback
requirements along the periphery of Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned
Shopping Center (PSC) Districts.
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing on the ___ day of _________
20___, 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 21-150 “Setback and yard requirements,” shall be amended to read, as follows:
Sec. 21-150. Setback and yard requirements.

All structures in the PUD District shall be set back at least thirty-five (35) feet from the
boundary of a PUD District or sixty (60) feet from the centerline of any street, alley or way
adjoining such boundary, whichever distance is greater, provided however, that all buildings
other than one-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings shall be set back at least one
hundred (100) feet from the boundary line of the PUD District.
These setbacks shall not be applicable when abutting a PSC district that is under
consideration as part of the same zoning case. Further, these setbacks shall not be
applicable when the district abuts land outside of the corporate limits with a similar zoning
classification that requires Master Plan review by the Hanover County Board of Supervisors.
For this setback to be waived adjacent to the corporate limits, the Town’s development plan
must be coordinated and integrated with the County’s Master Plan for the adjacent parcel, so
as to appear as a single cohesive development.
Be it further ordained by the Town Council that Section 21-177, “Requirements when a
PSC District adjoins other zoning districts,” be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 21-177. Requirements when a PSC District adjoins other zoning districts.
When a PSC District adjoins another zoning district, the front, side or rear yard setbacks only
on the perimeter of the PSC District shall conform to the abutting zoning districts as provided
in this chapter.
These setbacks shall not be applicable when abutting a PUD district that is under
consideration as part of the same zoning case. Further, these setbacks shall not be
applicable when the district abuts land outside of the corporate limits with a similar zoning
classification that requires Master Plan review by the Hanover County Board of Supervisors.
For this setback to be waived adjacent to the corporate limits, the Town’s development plan
must be coordinated and integrated with the County’s Master Plan for the adjacent parcel, so
as to appear as a single cohesive development.
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.
PL2009-09 March 2, 2010

Town Council
Introduced: July 21, 2009

Advertised:
Planning Commission:
Herald Progress: August 23, 2009 and September 3, 2009
Town Council:
Herald Progress: December 31, 2009 and January 6, 2010
Public Hearing:
Planning Commission: September 9, 2009
October 14, 2009
November 18, 2009
Town Council: January 19, 2010
Adopted:
Effective:
PL2009-09 March 2, 2010

MEMO
TO: Town Council
FROM: Lois A. Smith
DATE: February 26, 2010
RE: Appointment of BZA member
Due to a vacancy on the Board of Zoning Appeals, Ron Hopkins’ name was brought forward at the
February 16, 2010 meeting of Town Council to be recommended to the Hanover Circuit Court for
appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals. His appointment would fill the term of A. C. Bruce which
would expire on June 30, 2013. Mr. Bruce was re‐appointed in 2008.
The recommendation of Mr. Hopkins is scheduled to be voted on at the March 2, 2010 meeting of Town
Council.
MOTION
APPROVE: I move to recommend to the Hanover Circuit Court the appointment of Ron Hopkins to
the BZA to complete the term of A. C. Bruce, whose term expires on June 30, 2013.
DENY: I deny the recommendation of Ron Hopkins to the Circuit Court.
25
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Council Worksession
Background:
The CIP represents a plan to meet the capital needs of the Town’s government and its citizens based on
the Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Drainage, and Parks and Recreation Plan. It also takes into
consideration the capital needs outlined by the director of each of the Town’s departments. The CIP also
indicates how Ashland proposes to fund the identified capital improvement needs over the next five (5)
years.

The five‐year CIP includes twenty‐nine (29) projects and the funding is divided among Ashland’s General
Fund, Capital Projects Funds, grants, bonds and other private funds.

Areas of focus for the CIP are:
• Consolidation of Voluntary Settlement Agreement Funds
• Continued investment in neighborhoods
• Continued investment in sidewalks and gutters
• Refocusing on transportation projects as a priority

For the past several years the process for CIP adoption has involved staff developing a draft CIP,
Planning Commission providing comment on the relevancy of the projects and recommending priorities,
and Town Council adopting the CIP with funding where identified. Of course, in recent years funding has
been difficult, but the CIP document and process still provide an important planning and education tool.
The planned schedule for adoption is currently:

Planning Commission:
• November meeting – Distribution of previous 2010‐2014 CIP
• January meeting – Project prioritization work session
• February meeting – CIP public hearing with recommendation to forward to Council

Town Council:
• February 16 Meeting – Ask Council to advertise Public Hearing for March 16 meeting
• March 2 Meeting – Presentation of Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the CIP.
• March 16 Meeting – Public Hearing and Adoption of the 2011‐2015 CIP.

Additional Background:
One additional consideration this year is an administrative need to redistribute some funds within the
Economic Development portion of the CIP. Council may remember that this discussion took place last
year, but staff failed to incorporate the reshuffling of the funds approved by Council into the FY10
adopted budget. For that reason, staff is asking Council to reconsider the redistribution of these
economic development funds. The specific changes will be discussed below in the Financial Impact
section of the staff memo.

Summary of Administrative Changes from the 2010‐2014 CIP to the 2011‐2015 CIP:

Minimal changes were made from last year’s CIP to this year’s CIP. The changes are:
26

ED‐005: Downtown Sidewalks
Note made regarding the progress of this project. Staff are evaluating alternative approaches to
accomplish this project.

PF‐005: Visitor’s Center Roof Rehabilitation
This project is complete. Upon final payment of the last invoice this project will come in under budget.

SW‐001: Townwide Drainage Improvement Program
Update status and project description. Town Council has identified downtown business district drainage
as a priority and directed staff to proceed with the project. Public Works staff are in the preliminary
design stage and a cost estimate should be available in the near future. Staff and planning commission
recommend making this a “priority” project.

TR‐001: Sidewalk, Curb, & Gutter
Updated the status of this project. Public Works staff applied for a Safe Routes to School grant to
connect significant portions of our sidewalk network. We are awaiting the response to the grant
request.

TR‐008: Signalization at 500 Washington Highway
Changed the name of this project to reflect the pull out of Lowes Home Improvement as the possible
developer.

TR‐010: Vaughan Road Extension
Update status and project description. Planning Commission identified this as a priority project as
development pressures accentuate the need for a pre‐determined plan for this project.

TR‐021: Rte. 1 & Archie Cannon Rd. Traffic Signal
Added this project at the request of Public Works staff and Planning Commission.

Planning Commission Recommendation:
Planning Commission recommended the Town Council adopt the CIP subject to the following:

• Remove PF‐005: Visitor’s Center Roof Rehabilitation. The project is complete.
• Add project TR‐021: Rte 1 & Archie Cannon Drive Traffic Signal
• The following nine projects will be recommended as priority projects:
1. ED‐005: Downtown Sidewalks
2. PR‐001: North Ashland Park
3. SW‐001: Townwide Drainage Improvement Program
4. TR‐001: Sidewalk, Curb, & Gutter
5. TR‐002: Residential Area Improvement Program
6. TR‐005: Intersection of Routes 1 & 54
7. TR‐010: Vaughan Road Extension
8. TR‐013: I‐95 Interchange Improvements
9. TR‐019: Railroad Crossing Improvements
27
• Among these nine projects Town Council should give special consideration to funding the
following five projects within the nine priorities:
1. ED‐005: Downtown Sidewalks
2. SW‐001: Townwide Drainage
3. TR‐010: Vaughan Road Extension
4. TR‐013: I‐95 Interchange Improvements
5. TR‐109: Railroad Crossing Improvements

Financial Impact:
As mentioned above, staff asks that Town Council consider making the following transfers within the
Capital Projects Fund from one project to another. As a reminder from last year, staff made every effort
to transfer funds between like projects where possible. These transfers do not involve new funding.

• $35,000 of VSA funds from ED‐002: Streetscape Improvements General (a project that will be
deleted) to ED‐007: Gateway & Wayfinding Signage.
• $25,000 of general funds from ED‐002: Streetscape Improvements General (a project that will
be deleted) to ED‐005: Downtown Sidewalks.
• $81,250 of VSA funds from ED‐003: Corridor Improvements General (a project that will be
deleted) to ED‐007: Gateway & Wayfinding Signage.
• $25,638 of general funds from ED‐006: Interchange Landscape Enhancements (a project that will
be deleted/combined with ED‐007) to ED‐007: Gateway & Wayfinding Signage.
• Transfer the balance of PF‐005: Visitor’s Center Roof Rehabilitation to PF‐002: Town Hall
Renovations. This amount should be approximately $2,500 once the final bond payment is
made.

These changes are all incorporated into the draft CIP presented to Council.

Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the draft 2011‐2015 Capital Improvements Program as presented
including the Planning Commission’s recommended priorities and the funding reallocations listed in the
financial impact section of this memo.

MOTION
APPROVE: I move to recommend the Capital Improvements Program as presented be
considered at a public hearing on March 16, 2010.
OR
APPROVE: I move to recommend the Capital Improvements Program as amended be

considered at a public hearing on March 16, 2010.
OR
DENY: I move to deny the Capital Improvements Program as presented.
28
Capital Improvements Program
(CIP)
FY2010-2011 through FY2014-2015
29
March 16, 2010
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Ashland Town Council:
I am pleased to present to you the proposed FY2010-FY2011 to FY2014-FY2015 Capital

Improvements Program (CIP) for the Town of Ashland. The CIP represents a plan to
meet the capital needs of the Town’s government and its citizens based on the
Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Drainage, and Parks and Recreation Plan. It also
takes into consideration the capital needs outlined by the director of each of the Town’s
departments. The CIP also indicates how Ashland proposes to fund the identified
capital improvement needs over the next five (5) years.
The five-year CIP includes twenty-nine (29) projects and the funding is divided among
Ashland’s General Fund, Capital Projects Funds, grants, bonds and other private funds.
Areas of focus for the CIP are:
• Consolidation of Voluntary Settlement Agreement Funds

• Continued investment in neighborhoods
• Continued investment in sidewalks and gutters
• Refocusing on transportation projects as a priority
The CIP as presented is a document focused more on identifiable projects than concepts.
This approach should allow for more informed decision making in the years to come.
The challenge for the future will be to focus on the most important priorities while
maximizing other funding and limiting future debt.
Yours truly,
Charles W. Hartgrove
Town Manager
30
Forward
The Town of Ashland was established in 1858 and is located in Hanover County,
Virginia, approximately fifteen (15) miles north of Richmond. The Town consists of
7.12 square miles. The size of the Town increased with the 1977 annexation and again
with the 1996 Voluntary Settlement Agreement with Hanover County.
The Town is organized under the Council-Manager form of government. The Town
Council is the legislative body of the Town and is empowered by the Charter to make
Town policy. Town Council is comprised of five (5) members who are elected at large
for four (4) year overlapping terms. The mayor is elected by members of Town Council
at its organizational meeting in July every two (2) years.
The Town Council appoints the Town Attorney and the Town Manager. The Town
Manager acts as the chief executive officer of the Town and serves at the pleasure of the
Council, carries out its policies, directs business procedures and has the power of
appointment and removal of all Town employees. Duties and responsibilities of the Town
Manager include preparation, submission and administration of the capital and operating
budgets, advising the Council on the affairs of the Town, enforcement of the Town
Charter and the Ordinances of the Town, and direction and supervision of all
departments.
The Town Council, in its legislative role, adopts all ordinances and resolutions and
establishes the general policies of the Town. The Council also sets the tax rate and
adopts the budget.
31
Capital Improvements Program
Fiscal-Years 2010-11 through 2014-15
The CIP serves as a guide for financial decisions, annual budgeting and the coordination
of major public investments in the preservation and expansion of the Town’s
infrastructure. The CIP shows how Ashland plans to address its public facility needs and
the best method of paying for them within the Town’s fiscal capacity.
The preparation process of the CIP involves several steps. Initially department directors
identify potential capital projects for a five (5) year period. The Town’s financial
capabilities are analyzed to determine revenues available for capital projects. A schedule
of capital projects is prepared for the five (5) year period and is approved by the Town
Manager for submittal to the Planning Commission and Town Council. Finally, the CIP
is reviewed, revised and recommended by the Planning Commission to the Town Council
for evaluation and adoption. The CIP is normally updated annually in conjunction with
the adoption of the budget.
Priority levels for CIP projects are determined considering a number of different
information sources. Planning Commission recommends four to nine priority projects
based up Council Policy and goals, the Comprehensive Plan, community input, and a
general determination of need. The remaining projects are placed on the CIP Vision list.
These general guidelines are supplemented with recommendations from existing plans,
i.e. Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Trails and Greenways Plans, downtown plans, etc.,
input from the public, Planning Commission, and Town Council, and finally the
availability of staff and financial resources to address the project.
The CIP includes capital projects, continuing programs and capital equipment. A capital
project is defined as a construction, renovation or demolition project or acquisition of
land and considered to have a useful life in excess of ten (10) years. Included in this
description would be new projects as well as approved projects that require continued
funding.
Capital Improvements Program and Comprehensive Plan
The CIP and the Comprehensive Plan are separate documents that support the Town in
comprehensive, financial and land use planning.
32
Debt Management
The Town’s bonds are rated by Moody with a rating of A
Legal Debt Margin
The Code of Virginia limits the total amount of General Obligations debt that can be
issued by the Town to ten percent (10%) of the assessed valuation of the real estate
subject to taxation. Debt which is included in determining this limit includes any bonds
or other interest bearing obligations including existing indebtedness. Excluded from this
calculation would be any revenue bonds or debt whose debt service requirements are
derived from a source other than from the Town’s real property tax revenues. The
following was the Town’s legal debt margin as of June 30, 2009.
Assessed Value $724,064,966

Debt limit 10% of assessed value $72,406,497
Amount of debt subject to debt limit:

General Bonded debt $154,959
Enterprise fund debt $640,041
Total applicable to debt margin $795,000
Legal debt margin $71,611,497
The recommended CIP includes twenty-nine (29) projects estimated to cost considerably
more than $82,279,200.00 in the next five (5) years. Of the total amount $1,506,097 has
been identified in local funding. Financing of these projects is to be from
intergovernmental sources.
The Town’s bonded indebtedness stood at $795,000.00 on June 30, 2009. Of this amount
$640,041.00 relates to water and sewer projects, which will be paid for by Hanover
County through the Town. Debt service payments peaked in 1994-95 and have decreased
thereafter due to the final payments on several small borrowings. If any of the larger
unfunded projects are to be accomplished by the Town, borrowing or outside funding
would be required.
33
Summary of Capital Projects
The CIP is divided into five (5) functional areas. They include the following:
Economic Development (ED)

Streetscape improvements in various areas of the Town, including relocating overhead
utilities, will be influenced by decisions made by Ashland Main Street Association, Town
Council and Planning Commission.
Parks and Recreation (PR)

The Planning Commission recommended a new project, PR-1 North Ashland Park a few
years ago to provide additional recreation facilities for the northernmost portion of Town.
The Parks and Recreation Committee and the Town Council will consider these projects.
Public Facilities (PF)

The Visitor’s Center Roof was rehabilitated under the previous years CIP. There is a
need to begin fund allocations for further modernization of Town Hall or rehabilitate the
Fire Station Facility.
Stormwater Management (SW)

The Town is currently mapping all the ditches, streams, and drainage systems throughout
Town. Once mapping is complete, Public Works will prioritize drainage projects.
Council has prioritized downtown drainage.
Transportation Facilities (TR)

Funding through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) incorporates the
majority of the projects found within the current CIP. One of the major projects, Hill
Carter Parkway, is complete. The other large project found within the Transportation
Facility portion of the CIP is the Route 1 widening project. A portion of this project is
complete. The next major transportation project with be the Rte. 1 and Rte. 54
intersection.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

3/2/10 Town Council Agenda

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

3/2/10 Town Council Agenda

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AGENDA

ASHLAND TOWN COUNCIL

Invocation The Reverend Bob Blinn, Duncan Memorial United Methodist

PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from the January 19, 2010 meeting

1. Appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 25

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

*No attached material

All meetings are at Town Hall unless otherwise indicated

Town Council March 2, 7:00 pm

Town Council April 6, 7:00 pm

To: Town Council, Town of Ashland, Virginia

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

Comparison of Previous Requests.

Commercial Space 174,000 sf 174,500 sf 348,400 sf

integrating mixed uses within building or complexes would be encouraged. These

Mixed Use Residential, Corporate, Office and Commercial

Comprehensive Plan Analysis.

Mixed Use Percent Suggested by Provided by Provided on

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

M-1 Property, Adjacent to I-95.

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

The Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning request REZ09-0507

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

The Planning Commission would have preferred:

2) Increase the average width of single-family detached lots to at least 80’.

3) Design the residential neighborhood on an interconnected grid road network,

5) Make all structures - residential and commercial - energy efficient, based on

6) Include the following design details:

• To the maximum extent possible, durable exterior materials shall be used,

• Include residential front porches that are a minimum of 8’ deep.

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

9) No more that 20-30 townhouse, duplex, and live/work units to be constructed

12) Add a roundabout or traffic circle on Route 54.

14) Use pervious pavers where possible.

Plan of Development Comments

7. Provide alleys behind all of the single-family units.

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

13. Proffer 15:

Proffers Generally Appplicable to the Property

14. Proffer 19:

15. Proffer 20: Delete this. It conflicts with 19.

16. Proffer 23:

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

23. Page 5 – East Ashland Architectural Review Board:

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

31. Big Box-

Live Work Guidelines

33. The last bullet under Building Materials is repeated.

Corporate Office Guidelines

Single Family Attached/Detached Guidelines

36. The last bullet under Building Materials is repeated.

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

40. No setbacks are provided for accessory buildings (sheds, garages)

41. How will garages orient toward the alleyway?

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

COMPARISON BETWEEN APPROVED AND PENDING CASES

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010

To: Town Council, Town of Ashland, Virginia

Deny: I move for denial of Ordinance PL2009-09

The development proposed by Ashland Properties, LLC, is a traditional neighborhood

PL2009-09 March 2, 2010