3/2/10 Town Council Agenda

8/9/2019 3/2/10 Town Council Agenda

1/65

AGENDAASHLAND TOWN COUNCILMarch 2, 2010 7:00 p.m.

OPENING

Invocation The Reverend Bob Blinn, Duncan Memorial United MethodistPledge of AllegianceAdoption of AgendaAnnouncement 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 ofVA 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 UsePermit to allow a shopping center in excess of 200,000 square feet, and retail businesses in excessof 50,000 square feet, in accordance with Sec. 21-173 of the Town Code, on the propertiesidentified 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 ofAshland, Chapter 21, Zoning, Article XVI, Planned Developments to amend setback requirementsalong the periphery of all Planned Development districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19

ACTION AGENDA

1. Appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 252. Draft Capital Improvements Program Presentation (Mr. Farrar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 263. Invoices*4. Minutes* December 15, 2009

NEW BUSINESS

Mayors ReportCouncil Members ReportsCommittee ReportsAppointments

EDA (2)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

ADJOURNMENT

*No attached material


2/65

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


3/65

www.town.ashland.va.us

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, fromPSC, RR-1, R-2 and R-4 to M-1, PSC, and PUD. This application, in effect, would amendthe development plan approved in 2007 as part of a prior rezoning application, and rezoneadditional 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, andto 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 Permitrequests to April 20, 2010, to allow the applicant to work with staff to resolve the issuesidentified in the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations, which are at the end ofthis staff report.

SUGGESTED MOTION:Defer: I move to defer action on REZ09-0507 and CUP09-0507 until April 20, 2010.

1


4/65


5/65

Town CouncilTown of Ashland, Virginia Page 3 of 18

REZ09-0507 & CUP09-0507 March 2, 2010Ashland Properties, LLC

The application contains a master plan for the property, which is also part of the Hanoverrezoning case. Further, proffered conditions have been submitted, as well as designguidelines for the project. Staff has completed three reviews of the application, andforwarded comments to the applicant, and is awaiting a subsequent resubmittal.

A Traffic Impact Analysis has been submitted as part of the rezoning case. Suggestedimprovements as part of that study are discussed below in the Considerations section of thismemorandum.

Comparison of Previous Requests.Below is a table summarizing the commercial square footage and residential units for theTown portion of the project, not including the B-2 zoned property rezoned in 2007:

Original Case Area (Town only) 2005 case 2007 casePending

Case

Commercial Space 174,000 sf 174,500 sf348,400 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 2007requests, therefore, for the table above, only the areas in common between all threerequests 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 theFuture Land Use Plan:

Ashland is extremely fortunate that within two sections of the community relativelylarge tracts of undeveloped land exist. Within these areas it is proposed thatdevelopment occur on a mixed use basis incorporating the traditional valuesembodied in the Towns past development. These have been discussed previously

but include features such as neighborhood centers; a pedestrian scale; shops andoffices sufficient to provide for weekly needs; a design scale that is oriented towarddefining spaces; and the integration of shopping and public spaces. In order to assurethe desired quality of development a master plan for each mixed use developmentshould be required as a part of the rezoning process and development should beencouraged on parcels of land 50 or 100 acres or greater in size. Two mixed usedevelopment categories are proposed. Design controls would be necessary toprovide for use transactions within this mixed use category and innovative projects

3


6/65



integrating mixed uses within building or complexes would be encouraged. Thesecontrols should also assure that residential development on a composite basis in allmixed use developments not exceed forty (40) dwelling units per year.

Mixed Use Residential, Corporate, Office and CommercialUses:

Residential - 35% minimum to 50% maximumNeighborhood Commercial - 0% minimum to 10% maximumOffice Commercial - 10% minimum to 45% maximumSelect General Commercial - 0% minimum to 10% maximumOpen 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); openspace including parks and playgrounds; community facilities, including day carecenters, and churches; office uses (corporate offices and professional offices); selectgeneral 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 arelocated 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-usearea, compared to the approved 2007 case, and the current request:

Mixed UseAllocations

Percent Suggested byPlan

Provided byapprovedplan

Provided on2-10submittal

Residential 35%-50% 58-83 acres 51.8 acres 38.5 acresNeighborhood

Commercial

0%-10% 0-16.5 acres 22.1 acres 34.7 acres

Office Commercial 10%-45% 16.5-75 acres 19.1 acres 19.1 acresGeneralCommercial

0%-10% 0-16.5 acres 30.3 acres 30.3 acres

Open Space 20%Minimum

33 acres min. 43.2 acres 43.8 acres

Mixed Use Allocation. The approved 2007 case does not conform with the suggested landuse distribution suggested by the Plan, however, at a minimum, staff suggests that therevised proposal be more aligned with the uses suggested by the Plan. However, the chartabove demonstrates that the current proposal reduces the amount of Residential land towithin the limits suggested by the Plan, and increases the amount of NeighborhoodCommercial 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 ratioof commercial to residential requested in this application will result in a net increase inrevenues anywhere from $100,000 to $425,000 annually. The same analysis was applied tothe existing approved plan (which showed a potential for a potential $125,000 loss ofrevenue 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.

4


7/65



To summarize these fiscal analyses, it is likely that if the lower amount of commercialdevelopment suggested by the Comprehensive Plan were implemented, that the revenuesgenerated by the development may not be sufficient to pay for the government servicesprovided to the project.

Upon researching the justification in the ratios suggested for the mixed uses, it appears thatthe numbers in the Comprehensive Plan may have been chosen arbitrarily, with little factualbasis.

Phasing. The proffers that were submitted do not fully address the statement that mixed useprojects should only be able to construct 40 new dwellings annually, as a composite of allmixed 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 additionalanalysis should be provided to arrive at an appropriate number to limit the development to onan annual basis, or provide some means to make up for the impact. Staff believes that thedesire 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 themarket is not oversaturated with a large amount of a single building product, both in the shortterm, but also in the long term, to ensure a variety of housing types and ages, and (3) Toensure 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 morethan 40 dwelling units per year, however that number can be exceeded if the developerprovides a cash proffer toward the Towns Capital Improvements Program. Staff believesthat this number should be lowered to 20, to allow for capacity for other potential mixed usedevelopments in the Town, and the cash proffer should be directed toward a specificimprovement, rather than general CIP funding.

Maximum size of retail. Staff notes that the Plan states that retail businesses in this areashould not exceed 2,500 square feet of floor area. Given the projects proximity to Interstate95 and the necessity of larger anchor tenants to ensure the success and overall healthytenant mix of the project, staff believes that larger anchors may be appropriate. Appropriatearchitectural treatment and site design must be provided to disguise big box retailers andassociated 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 entranceroads and an event lawn. Additionally, 175,000 square feet is proposed that may be in theform of two big box users. Eighty-eight dwelling units are proposed to be located above retailspace, and 21 live/work units are planned.

5


8/65



Staff is concerned about the visual impact of the rear of buildings from Rt. 54, specifically thebig 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 hasmoved buildings to reduce the visual impact of parking from Rt. 54. This has also fulfilledstaffs ongoing concern about integration of the big box into the Main Street design of theremainder of the PSC area.

The applicant has also proffered to limit freestanding signage to monument-style signs, andnot allow drive-thru restaurants.

PUD Property.The applicant is proposing a mixture of single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings andtownhomes organized on a gridded street network.

The applicants plan shows a specific number and potential location for each of these units,however, flexibility has been requested via proffered conditions. The applicant has proffereda maximum number of units (114), a maximum number of townhouses (53), and a minimumnumber 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 ordinancestates: (1) Intersections should be no closer than 200 feet apart, (2) Blocks should be 500 to1,200 feet in length, on the sides where lots front on them, and (3) Street should intersect atan angle of at least 80 degrees. It appears that these standards may be excessive, andbased on older VDOT requirements. An exception to the subdivision ordinance standardscould be granted by Town Council to remedy this situation.

Open Spaces.The application originally did not state much regarding the open spaces. The applicant hassince submitted additional information in the Design Guidelines to provide sample amenities

and landscaping treatments. The application still should provide more detail regarding thetreatment of these spaces.

Design Guidelines.Staff has reviewed a second resubmittal of the Design Guidelines and finds that it is muchmore direct and easy to interpret compared to the original version, and implementsprocedures for an Architectural Review Board. Below are some of staffs major areas ofconcern 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 threeCounty, Town, and Developer should have an equal say in the interpretation of the

guidelines. Further, appeals of the Boards decisions would go directly to thedeveloper. Staff believes that this is inappropriate, as the Town or County may objectto the interpretation of the Guidelines. Additionally, staff believes it may beappropriate for the Zoning Administrator to reject an approval of the Board, if it findsthat a decision was clearly inappropriate.

Many of the phrases used throughout the document are subjective, however, thismay be less of an issue now that a Board will oversee the approvals, rather than theZoning Administrator.

6


9/65



Building treatment for the big box users is not acceptable, as there are somemonotonous walls and inadequate entrance treatment for where the big box will facethe event lawn.

Side and rear building treatment has since been submitted, however there is stillpotential to make the rears of these buildings more attractive, by adding additionalbuilding elements, additional brick, etc.

Each building type is provided with regulatory text for certain building features, andphoto examples are provided for each, but there is little explanation about how theexamples should be applied.

Staff has many detailed comments regarding the Design Guidelines, which are included inthe 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.

The applicant has submitted proffers to implement most of the road improvements suggestedby 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, thewestbound 54 to southbound 54 movement, and the southbound 95 to eastbound 54movement.

Analysis of the internal traffic issues that would result from the large amount ofcommercial space at the southern portion of the site, since these future roadways willbecome 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 REZ09-0507because of a lack of complete information, for the reasons stated in the staff report,and for the following reasons:

TIA Recommended Improvements:

1. Add roadway and ramp capacity on Rt. 54and the ramp to Southbound 95.2. Modify the yield condition so that WB 54 toSB 95 will have right-of-way on the on ramp.3. Extend the merge lane on EB 54 to MtHermon Rd.4. Create a left turn lane from EB 54 intoFrances 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.

7


10/65



The proposed rezoning does not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan interms of stormwater management, ratio between the proposed uses, overallenvironmental impact, and because it is not clear that the proposed developmentreflects 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 thedevelopment, nor do they sufficiently coordinate with other development in thearea.

The Planning Commission would have preferred:

1) Increase the number of single family detached houses and reduce the number oftown houses, to include the proposed live-work town houses and the duplexhouses 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 otherwords, primary access to the business/office areas should not go through theresidential areas.

4) Provide a detailed landscape plan that includes native plants and tree-shadedsidewalks and parking lots, with large and spreading deciduous trees. Thelandscape plan should include species, size, spacing, and locations of plants andtrees. The landscape plan should include the big parking lots and all shoppingand 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. Thelandscape 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 housesshould be served by an alley.

All windows in residential units must be of the simulated divided light (or truedivided light) type.

All facades of retail buildings that are visible from the roadways must includeground 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.

8


11/65



Mixed use retail should not exceed a maximum height of 35 to the top of theroof, or 2 stories.

7) All traffic improvements required in the area, by any phase of development, shallbe completed prior to the completion of that phase of development. Prepare acomplete 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 specificationas to the amount of square feet to be constructed during any twelve month periodof time.

9) No more that 20-30 townhouse, duplex, and live/work units to be constructedduring any twelve month period of time.

10) No more than 22 apartment units over retail to be constructed during any twelvemonth period of time.

11) Revise the proposed Design Guidelines to provide an initial Architectural ReviewBoard of no more than three members with one member appointed by thedeveloper, one member appointed by the Town and one member appointed bythe County. The appeals process involving the Design Guidelines needs to bemodified.

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

13) During the construction process, provide for minimal tree canopy and vegetationremoval 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 staffs comments suggested within the staff report (see attached) beaddressed.

Lastly, that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for the purposeof addressing the myriad of issues and details that are unresolved.

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the request not be approved, unless thefollowing occurs:

1) The Ordinance amendment regarding setbacks for the PSC and PUD districts isapproved.

2) The Town Council approves exceptions to intersection spacing and anglerequirements.

3) A detailed fiscal analysis shall be performed by the applicant to prove that theproposed ratio between commercial and residential development is superior to theratio suggested by the Plan, with respect to the revenues generated to the Townand the ability of the Town to provide municipal services to the development.

9


12/65



4) The phasing of no more than 20 to 30 dwelling units per year be allocated to thedevelopment, unless additional variety of dwelling types can be ensured, and thephasing 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 theproper phasing and installation of the recommended improvements.

6) The Design Guidelines are revised to provide an initial Architectural Review Boardof no more than three members, one appointed by the developer, one appointedby the Town and one appointed by the County. Further, appeals to the DesignGuidelines shall not be interpreted by developer, and a more appropriateappellate authority should be chosen, and that the Zoning Administrator shouldhave the right to reject an approval of the Board, if it finds that a decision wasclearly inappropriate.

7) Building treatment for the big box users and the rear of all buildings in thedevelopment should be adequately addressed.

8) Standards for the open space, street cross-section, and buffer samples should bestrengthened, and clarification should be provided to provide the ZoningAdministrator with authority to implement that portion of the Guidelines.

Staff recommends that the Town Council defer this request to its April 20 meeting, sothat the applicant can address the current outstanding issues as follows:

1. The Ordinance amendment regarding setbacks for the PSC and PUD districts needs to beapproved.

2. The Town Council needs to approve exceptions to intersection spacing and anglerequirements.

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 20to 30 suggested by the Plan. This proffer should apply to the entire property. The applicantfurther has proffered money toward CIP projects, if the 40 units/year is exceeded, but only forthose units. The applicant needs to provide a specific project whose need is triggered by thisproject.

4. Staff continues to request some traffic analysis be performed to provide information on internalcirculation, 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 thedeveloper.

6. The applicant has submitted new elevations for the rears of the big box. The elevations stillneed some work, as there are blank walls with minimal treatment to break up the massing ofthe 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 ProffersAll issues relating to M-1 Proffers have been addressed.

10


13/65



PSC Proffers9. Proffer 7: The proffer should make reference to the revision date of the Site Overview.

PUD Proffers10. 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 theDesign Guidelines.

12. Proffer 14: The cumulative number of dwelling units does not match the number shown on theplan. Staff counts 49 townhouses, 4 duplexes, and 62 single family = total 115. Shouldnt 49be 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 justPUD.

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 Towns CIP that would be directly affected by the rezoning,such as Route 54 improvements, interchange enhancements. Please contact staff forassistance 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 theopen space shown on the layout in M-1 can be adjusted in shape or location, but not insize.

c. The second sentence, mandating review of association/covenant documents, should be astandalone 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 shelld. 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 Proffers17. Proffer 24:

11


14/65



a. As written, it could be questionable as to when each phase ends. For instance, supposethe developer chooses to complete all of the commercial development, but none of theresidential 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 developmentdoes 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 notpermitted

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 plang. B(i) Clarify whether Rt. 54 is to be a divided or undivided section.h. C(i) Grammatical error remove a from before STOPi. (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 borneby the developer.

19. Proffers 25-28 should be relocated to Proffers applicable to the entire property, not undertransportation improvements.

20. Proffer 26: The proffer should be deleted. Sec 21-144 (e) prescribes the procedure for submittingsite plans. A proffer cannot be used to amend the ordinance.

21. Proffer 27: The proffer for Low Impact Development should have more teeth. Could somereference be made to a catalog of LID techniques? Also the last sentence will be very difficult todetermine what is feasible.

22. Proffer 28: These are pretty standard items on major appliances. Would this also mean that whenappliances are replaced, the new ones must be energy star? Staff believes that it may beappropriate to proffer a certain number or amount of commercial buildings to be LEED certifiedinstead, with a bond used at time of CO to guarantee the green construction. Perhaps the officebuildings 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 ifAshland Properties LLC sold the development to another developer? Perhaps this shouldonly 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 begiven in each section of the development relative to the intended style for each building type. Seesome other communities Guidelines for assistance.

12


15/65



25. The examples continue to be misleading as they dont always tie into the requirements, and arentnecessarily representative of the intended end product. Some of the examples arent necessary,such as photos of building materials. Appropriate examples would be: How to appropriately treatentranceways 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 theexception 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 bebroken down. 80 feet is a very large storefront length! 30 feet is a more traditional storefrontlength.

28. Entrances and corners shall be emphasized.this statement should be strengthened. How doyou 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 ofstorefront 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. Frontporches 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 significantnumber to be reflective of Ashlands character.

Residential Setbacks

13


16/65



39. Should state that this page demonstrates the minimum lot dimensionsand 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 areathat will need to be screened.

46. Pg. 69 The amount of landscaping provided here will not provide a sufficient screen.

47. Pg 72/73a. 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 meetthe 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 dont 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. 74a. 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 7649. 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 Towns minimum. Staff suggests tightening up the spacing.

Pg 8651. Remove the picture of the cobra-head light fixture, as it does not meet ordinance

requirements.

14


17/65



15


18/65



16


19/65



COMPARISON BETWEEN APPROVED AND PENDING CASES2007

ApprovedFirst Submittal

2009Submittal11-2009

Submittal2-2010

Commercial Total 174,500 sf +2 hotel sites

369,000 sf (PSC) +198,000 sf (M-1) +

2 hotel sites

348,400 sf (PSC)+ 198,000 sf (M-

1) + 2 hotel sites

348,400 sf (PSC)+ 198,000 sf (M-

1) + 2 hotel sites

Single-Family 47 30 22 62Two-Family - 44 22 4Townhouse 86 144 118 49Residential aboveComm.

80 134 109 109

Residential Total 213 352 271 224

17


20/65



18


21/65

www.town.ashland.va.us

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 potentialamendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regards to setbacks at the boundary of all PlannedDevelopment districts. This time and date have been advertised for a public hearingregarding this matter.

RECOMMENDATION:At its November 18, 2009, meeting the Planning Commission recommended denial ofOrdinance PL2009-09, due to unresolved issues regarding heights of structures andsetbacks.

Staff recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance PL2009-09. Staff believes that

Planned Development applications provide sufficient information as part of the application toadequately show building heights and setbacks, therefore, each application could bereviewed on its own merits.

SUGGESTED MOTIONS:Approve: I move for approval of Ordinance PL2009-09.

Deny:I move for denial of Ordinance PL2009-09

19


22/65


PL2009-09 March 2, 2010

Ordinance Amendment relative to Planned Development Setbacks

BACKGROUND:

On July 21, 2009, Town Council requested that the Planning Commission consider potentialamendments to the Zoning Ordinance with regards to setbacks. This was in response to aletter received from Wilton Development requesting that the Town consider a Zoning TextAmendment 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 similardesignation. This is being requested in association with the Ashland Properties, LLC, EastAshland rezoning request. At its August 12, 2009, meeting the Planning Commissiondeferred action on this item, so that it could be considered simultaneously with theapplication of Ashland Properties, LLC.

The Planned Development Districts, outlined in Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance, consistsof four districts: PUD (Planned Unit Development District), PSC (Planned Shopping CenterDistrict), PMH (Planned Mobile Home District), and POB (Planned Office-Business District).

The development proposed by Ashland Properties, LLC, is a traditional neighborhoodconcept, 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 setbackrequired at the periphery of the PUD district is 35 feet from the district boundary, or 60 feetfrom the centerline of any street along the boundary, whichever is greater.

Following is a summary of the setbacks for each of the Planned Development DistrictsDistrict

TypicalPermitted Uses

External SetbacksInternal

SetbacksBuffer fromResidential

PUD

Single-family,Two-Family,Multifamily,

Townhouses,Churches,

Schools, LimitedRetail andOffices.

Single-Family, Two-Family, and

Townhouses. 35 feetfrom district boundary,

or 60 feet fromcenterline of street

All other uses. 100feet from district

boundary.

None. Definedby development

plan.

None

PMH Mobile homes.50 feet from district

boundary

10 feet fromstreets and

common areas.20 foot or 15foot spacingrequirements

50 feet

PSC

Shoppingcenters,

Dwelling units

over retail,Townhouses.

Setbacks shallconform with the

adjacent districtssetback

None. Definedby development

plan.

50 feet

POB

LightManufacturing,

Hotels,Restaurants,

Offices,Researchfacilities

[When adjacent toresidential/When not

adjacent toresidential]

Front75 feet/50 feetSide100 feet/30 feetRear100 feet/50 feet

Front50 feetSide30 feetRear50 feet

50 feet

20


23/65


PL2009-09 March 2, 2010


CONSIDERATIONS:Since the 1970s, the Towns Zoning Ordinance provided Planned Development Districts,specifically, the PUD, PSC, and PMH districts. The POB district was added in 1995 to allowfor the development of planned industrial and office developments.

Planned Developments and Traditional Neighborhood

Developments.Nationally, the original intent of planned development districtswas to allow for carefully planned developments, withadditional flexibility that could not be achieved throughtraditional zoning districts. In exchange for the flexibility, aconceptual plan was required to be adopted as part of theapproved zoning case. In many instances, clusterdevelopments were implemented, with a higher density thanwould have traditionally been permitted with conventionalzoning. In exchange, common open space was oftenrequired. Often, these were implemented as mixed-useprojects, in that a small commercial core would be developed

to serve the residents of the development. Usually thesecommercial areas were on the periphery of the site, andseparated from the residential areas. Automobile-orienteddevelopment was encouraged.

Beginning in the 1990s,the traditional neighborhood development concept(TND) began to grow in popularity, with better knowndevelopments along the East Coast such as Seaside,FL, and Kentlands, MD. TNDs integrated uses evenmore than the older Planned Development model.Further, gridded streets, smaller lot sizes and setbacks

all contributed to making traditional neighborhooddevelopment a more walkable development than theolder Planned Development concept.

Towns Planned Development OrdinanceThe Towns current ordinance has two PlannedDevelopment districts that appear to be designed toallow for innovative and flexible development design,the PUD and PSC districts. Currently, both districtsrequire setbacks at their perimeter, but setbacks are notrequired within the districts themselves. Thesesetbacks are determined through the development plan

which is adopted as part of the zoning case.

The purpose of these setbacks is to protect neighboring properties from the impact of thedevelopment. In order to encourage traditional neighborhood development, the PSC andPUD uses should be able to be in close proximity with one another. Under current ordinancerequirements, a commercial PSC structure would typically need to be setback 75 feet fromthe street (if a 50 foot wide street separates the PSC and PUD), and the residential PUDstructure would need to be setback 35 feet from the street. Both of these setbacks aregreater than standard B-2 and R-1 setbacks.

Resident ia l

Commerc ia l

Typical 1980s era PlannedDevelopment. Note the clusteredsubdivsions, and segregatedcommercial areas.

Typical Traditional NeighborhoodDevelopment concept. Noticeresidential abutting directly upon

commercial area.

Resident ia l

Commerc ia l

21


24/65


PL2009-09 March 2, 2010


The Planned Development proposal by Ashland Properties, LLC, straddles the County/Townboundary, and as such, a similar issue exists at the corporate limits, where a significantsetback is imposed for buildings near the edge of the PSC and PUD districts. The CountysMX Zoning District implies a buffer at the boundary, but the County has determined the buffernot to be applicable where it abuts the development on the Town boundary.

To address the setback situation, staff suggests the setback requirement be eliminatedbetween the PSC and PUD districts, as well as between the PSC and PUD districts and anyadjacent county zoning that requires a similar design review process.

It should be noted that this would not affect any existing PSC or PUD development districtsfor two reasons: (1.) Currently, no PSC abuts a PUD development, and (2.) the layout ofeach of these districts is governed by a development plan adopted by the Town Council. Inorder to utilize these proposed amendments, an amendment to the Plan would require publichearings before the Planning Commission and Town Council.

RECOMMENDATION:At its November 18, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial ofOrdinance PL2009-09, due to unresolved issues regarding heights of structures andsetbacks.

Staff recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance PL2009-09. Staff believes thatPlanned Development applications provide sufficient information as part of the application toadequately show building heights and setbacks, therefore, each application could bereviewed on its own merits.

22


25/65


PL2009-09 March 2, 2010


Ordinance PL2009-09

An Ordinance to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Ch. 21 Zoning, Article XVIPlanned Developments, Division 2 Planned Unit Development PUD, Sec. 21-150Setback and yard requirements, and Division 4 Planned Shopping Center PSC, Section21-177, Requirements when a PSC District adjoins other zoning districts, to amend setback

requirements along the periphery of Planned Unit Development (PUD) and PlannedShopping 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 thatSection 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 theboundary 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 buildingsother than one-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings shall be set back at least onehundred (100) feet from the boundary line of the PUD District.

These setbacks shall not be applicable when abutting a PSC district that is underconsideration as part of the same zoning case. Further, these setbacks shall not beapplicable when the district abuts land outside of the corporate limits with a similar zoningclassification that requires Master Plan review by the Hanover County Board of Supervisors.For this setback to be waived adjacent to the corporate limits, the Towns development planmust be coordinated and integrated with the Countys Master Plan for the adjacent parcel, soas to appear as a single cohesive development.

Be it further ordained by the Town Council that Section 21-177, Requirements when aPSC 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 onlyon the perimeter of the PSC District shall conform to the abutting zoning districts as providedin this chapter.

These setbacks shall not be applicable when abutting a PUD district that is underconsideration as part of the same zoning case. Further, these setbacks shall not beapplicable when the district abuts land outside of the corporate limits with a similar zoningclassification that requires Master Plan review by the Hanover County Board of Supervisors.

For this setback to be waived adjacent to the corporate limits, the Towns development planmust be coordinated and integrated with the Countys Master Plan for the adjacent parcel, soas to appear as a single cohesive development.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Town Council that the amendments herein of the Codeof the Town of Ashland shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

23


26/65


PL2009-09 March 2, 2010


Introduced: July 21, 2009Advertised:

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, 2009November 18, 2009

Town Council: January 19, 2010

Adopted:Effective:

24


27/65

MEMO

TO: TownCouncil

FROM:Lois

A.

Smith

DATE: February26,2010

RE: AppointmentofBZAmember

DuetoavacancyontheBoardofZoningAppeals,RonHopkinsnamewasbroughtforwardatthe

February16,2010meetingofTownCounciltoberecommended totheHanoverCircuitCourtfor

appointmenttotheBoardofZoningAppeals.HisappointmentwouldfillthetermofA.C.Brucewhich

wouldexpireonJune30,2013.Mr.Brucewasreappointedin2008.

Therecommendation

of

Mr.

Hopkins

is

scheduled

to

be

voted

on

at

the

March

2,

2010

meeting

of

Town

Council.

MOTIONAPPROVE: ImovetorecommendtotheHanoverCircuitCourttheappointmentofRonHopkinsto

theBZAtocompletethetermofA.C.Bruce,whosetermexpiresonJune30,2013.

DENY:

Ideny

the

recommendation

of

Ron

Hopkins

to

the

Circuit

Court.

25


28/65

Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Council Worksession

Background:

TheCIPrepresentsaplantomeetthecapitalneedsoftheTownsgovernmentanditscitizensbasedon

theComprehensivePlan,StormwaterDrainage,andParksandRecreationPlan.Italsotakesinto

considerationthecapitalneedsoutlinedbythedirectorofeachoftheTownsdepartments.TheCIPalso

indicateshowAshlandproposestofundtheidentifiedcapitalimprovementneedsoverthenextfive(5)years.

ThefiveyearCIPincludestwentynine(29)projectsandthefundingisdividedamongAshlandsGeneral

Fund,CapitalProjectsFunds,grants,bondsandotherprivatefunds.

AreasoffocusfortheCIPare:

ConsolidationofVoluntarySettlementAgreementFunds

Continuedinvestmentinneighborhoods

Continuedinvestmentinsidewalksandgutters

Refocusingontransportationprojectsasapriority

ForthepastseveralyearstheprocessforCIPadoptionhasinvolvedstaffdevelopingadraftCIP,

PlanningCommissionprovidingcommentontherelevancyoftheprojectsandrecommendingpriorities,

andTownCounciladoptingtheCIPwithfundingwhereidentified. Ofcourse,inrecentyearsfundinghas

beendifficult,buttheCIPdocumentandprocessstillprovideanimportantplanningandeducationtool.

Theplannedscheduleforadoptioniscurrently:

PlanningCommission:

NovembermeetingDistributionofprevious20102014CIP

JanuarymeetingProjectprioritizationworksession

Februarymeeting

CIP

public

hearing

with

recommendation

to

forward

to

Council

TownCouncil:

February16MeetingAskCounciltoadvertisePublicHearingforMarch16meeting

March2MeetingPresentationofPlanningCommissionsrecommendationregardingtheCIP.

March16MeetingPublicHearingandAdoptionofthe20112015CIP.

AdditionalBackground:

Oneadditionalconsiderationthisyearisanadministrativeneedtoredistributesomefundswithinthe

EconomicDevelopmentportionoftheCIP. Councilmayrememberthatthisdiscussiontookplacelast

year,butstafffailedtoincorporatethereshufflingofthefundsapprovedbyCouncilintotheFY10

adoptedbudget.

For

that

reason,

staff

is

asking

Council

to

reconsider

the

redistribution

of

these

economicdevelopmentfunds. ThespecificchangeswillbediscussedbelowintheFinancialImpact

sectionofthestaffmemo.

SummaryofAdministrativeChangesfromthe20102014CIPtothe20112015CIP:

MinimalchangesweremadefromlastyearsCIPtothisyearsCIP. Thechangesare:

26


29/65

ED005:DowntownSidewalks

Notemaderegardingtheprogressofthisproject. Staffareevaluatingalternativeapproachesto

accomplishthisproject.

PF005:VisitorsCenterRoofRehabilitation

Thisprojectiscomplete.Uponfinalpaymentofthelastinvoicethisprojectwillcomeinunderbudget.

SW001:TownwideDrainageImprovementProgram

Updatestatusandprojectdescription.TownCouncilhasidentifieddowntownbusinessdistrictdrainage

asapriorityanddirectedstafftoproceedwiththeproject.PublicWorksstaffareinthepreliminary

designstageandacostestimateshouldbeavailableinthenearfuture.Staffandplanningcommission

recommendmakingthisapriorityproject.

TR001:Sidewalk,Curb,&Gutter

Updatedthestatusofthisproject.PublicWorksstaffappliedforaSafeRoutestoSchoolgrantto

connectsignificantportionsofoursidewalknetwork.Weareawaitingtheresponsetothegrant

request.

TR008:Signalizationat500WashingtonHighway

ChangedthenameofthisprojecttoreflectthepulloutofLowesHomeImprovementasthepossible

developer.

TR010:VaughanRoadExtension

Updatestatusandprojectdescription.PlanningCommissionidentifiedthisasapriorityprojectas

developmentpressuresaccentuatetheneedforapredeterminedplanforthisproject.

TR021:Rte.1&ArchieCannonRd.TrafficSignal

Added

this

project

at

the

request

of

Public

Works

staff

and

Planning

Commission.

PlanningCommissionRecommendation:

PlanningCommissionrecommendedtheTownCounciladopttheCIPsubjecttothefollowing:

RemovePF005: VisitorsCenterRoofRehabilitation. Theprojectiscomplete.

AddprojectTR021:Rte1&ArchieCannonDriveTrafficSignal

Thefollowingnineprojectswillberecommendedaspriorityprojects:

1. ED005:DowntownSidewalks

2. PR001:NorthAshlandPark

3. SW001:

Townwide

Drainage

Improvement

Program

4. TR001:Sidewalk,Curb,&Gutter

5. TR002:ResidentialAreaImprovementProgram

6. TR005:IntersectionofRoutes1&54

7. TR010:VaughanRoadExtension

8. TR013:I95InterchangeImprovements

9. TR019:RailroadCrossingImprovements

27


30/65

AmongthesenineprojectsTownCouncilshouldgivespecialconsiderationtofundingthe

followingfiveprojectswithintheninepriorities:

1. ED005:DowntownSidewalks

2. SW001:TownwideDrainage

3. TR010:VaughanRoadExtension

4. TR013:

I95

Interchange

Improvements

5. TR109:RailroadCrossingImprovements

FinancialImpact:

Asmentionedabove,staffasksthatTownCouncilconsidermakingthefollowingtransferswithinthe

CapitalProjectsFundfromoneprojecttoanother. Asareminderfromlastyear,staffmadeeveryeffort

totransferfundsbetweenlikeprojectswherepossible. Thesetransfersdonotinvolvenewfunding.

$35,000ofVSAfundsfromED002:StreetscapeImprovementsGeneral(aprojectthatwillbe

deleted)toED007:Gateway&WayfindingSignage.

$25,000ofgeneralfundsfromED002:StreetscapeImprovementsGeneral(aprojectthatwill

bedeleted)toED005:DowntownSidewalks.

$81,250ofVSAfundsfromED003:CorridorImprovementsGeneral(aprojectthatwillbe

deleted)toED007:Gateway&WayfindingSignage.

$25,638ofgeneralfundsfromED006:InterchangeLandscapeEnhancements(aprojectthatwill

bedeleted/combinedwithED007)toED007:Gateway&WayfindingSignage.

TransferthebalanceofPF005:VisitorsCenterRoofRehabilitationtoPF002:TownHall

Renovations. Thisamountshouldbeapproximately$2,500oncethefinalbondpaymentis

made.

ThesechangesareallincorporatedintothedraftCIPpresentedtoCouncil.

StaffRecommendation:

Staffrecommendsapprovalofthedraft20112015CapitalImprovementsProgramaspresented

includingthePlanningCommissionsrecommendedprioritiesandthefundingreallocationslistedinthe

financialimpactsectionofthismemo.

MOTION

APPROVE: I move to recommend the Capital Improvements Program as presented beconsidered at a public hearing on March 16, 2010.

OR

APPROVE: I move to recommend the Capital Improvements Program as amended beconsidered at a public hearing on March 16, 2010.

OR

DENY: I move to deny the Capital Improvements Program as presented.

28


31/65

Capital Improvements Program(CIP)

FY2010-2011 through FY2014-2015

29


32/65

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 CapitalImprovements Program (CIP) for the Town of Ashland. The CIP represents a plan tomeet the capital needs of the Towns government and its citizens based on theComprehensive Plan, Stormwater Drainage, and Parks and Recreation Plan. It alsotakes into consideration the capital needs outlined by the director of each of the Townsdepartments. The CIP also indicates how Ashland proposes to fund the identifiedcapital improvement needs over the next five (5) years.

The five-year CIP includes twenty-nine (29) projects and the funding is divided amongAshlands 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 whilemaximizing other funding and limiting future debt.

Yours truly,

Charles W. HartgroveTown Manager

30


33/65

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 againwith the 1996 Voluntary Settlement Agreement with Hanover County.

The Town is organized under the Council-Manager form of government. The TownCouncil is the legislative body of the Town and is empowered by the Charter to makeTown policy. Town Council is comprised of five (5) members who are elected at largefor four (4) year overlapping terms. The mayor is elected by members of Town Councilat its organizational meeting in July every two (2) years.

The Town Council appoints the Town Attorney and the Town Manager. The TownManager acts as the chief executive officer of the Town and serves at the pleasure of the

Council, carries out its policies, directs businessprocedures and has the power ofappointment and removal of all Town employees. Duties and responsibilities of the TownManager include preparation, submission and administration of the capital and operatingbudgets, advising the Council on the affairs of the Town, enforcement of the TownCharter and the Ordinances of the Town, and direction and supervision of alldepartments.

The Town Council, in its legislative role, adopts all ordinances and resolutions andestablishes the general policies of the Town. The Council also sets the tax rate andadopts the budget.

31


34/65

Capital Improvements ProgramFiscal-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 Townsinfrastructure. The CIP shows how Ashland plans to address its public facility needs andthe best method of paying for them within the Towns fiscal capacity.

The preparation process of the CIP involves several steps. Initially department directorsidentify potential capital projects for a five (5) year period. The Towns financialcapabilities are analyzed to determine revenues available for capital projects. A scheduleof capital projects is prepared for the five (5) year period and is approved by the TownManager for submittal to the Planning Commission and Town Council. Finally, the CIPis reviewed, revised and recommended by the Planning Commission to the Town Councilfor 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 differentinformation sources. Planning Commission recommends four to nine priority projectsbased up Council Policy and goals, the Comprehensive Plan, community input, and ageneral 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 theavailability of staff and financial resources to address the project.

The CIP includes capital projects, continuing programs and capital equipment. A capitalproject is defined as a construction, renovation or demolition project or acquisition ofland and considered to have a useful life in excess of ten (10) years. Included in thisdescription would be new projects as well as approved projects that require continuedfunding.

Capital Improvements Program and Comprehensive Plan

The CIP and the Comprehensive Plan are separate documents that support the Town incomprehensive, financial and land use planning.

32


35/65

Debt Management

The Towns 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 beissued by the Town to ten percent (10%)of the assessed valuation of the real estatesubject to taxation. Debt which is included in determining this limit includes any bondsor other interest bearing obligations including existing indebtedness. Excluded from thiscalculation would be any revenue bonds or debt whose debt service requirements arederived from a source other than from the Towns real property tax revenues. Thefollowing was the Towns 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 $154,959Enterprise 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 considerablymore than $82,279,200.00 in the next five (5) years. Of the total amount $1,506,097 hasbeen identified in local funding. Financing of these projects is to be fromintergovernmental sources.

The Towns 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 HanoverCounty through the Town. Debt service payments peaked in 1994-95 and have decreasedthereafter due to the final payments on several small borrowings. If any of the largerunfunded projects are to be accomplished by the Town, borrowing or outside fundingwould be required.

33


36/65

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 overheadutilities, will be influenced by decisions made by Ashland Main Street Association, TownCouncil and Planning Commission.

Parks and Recreation (PR)

The Planning Commission recommended a new project, PR-1 North Ashland Park a fewyears 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 Visitors Center Roof was rehabilitated under the previous years CIP. There is aneed to begin fund allocations for further modernization of Town Hall or rehabilitate theFire Station Facility.

Stormwater Management (SW)

The Town is currently mapping all the ditches, streams, and drainage systems throughoutTown. 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 themajority of the projects found within the current CIP. One of the major projects, HillCarter Parkway, is complete. The other large project found within the TransportationFacility portion of the CIP is the Route 1 widening project. A portion of this project iscomplete. The next major transportation project with be the Rte. 1 and Rte. 54intersection.

34


37/65

35


38/65

36


39/65

37


40/65

38


41/65

39


42/65

40


43/65

41


44/65

42


45/65

43


46/65

44


47/65


48/65

46


49/65

47


50/65

48


51/65

49


52/65

50


53/65

51


54/65

52


55/65

53


56/65

54


57/65

55


58/65

56


59/65

57


60/65

58


61/65

59


62/65

60


63/65

61


64/65

62


65/65

3/2/10 Town Council Agenda

Documents

Transcript of 3/2/10 Town Council Agenda