3/10/10 planning commission agenda

8/9/2019 3/10/10 Planning Commission Agenda

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/31010-planning-commission-agenda 1/53

T o w n o f A s h l a n d

Planning Commission

March 10, 2010 Agenda

Regular – 7:00 p.m.

Town Hall Council Chambers

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. ROLL CALL

III. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

IV. CITIZEN INPUT

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

3A. REZ09-1012 Rogers-Chenault, Inc. requests rezoning from RR-1 (RuralResidential) and R-1 (Residential, Restricted) to R-2 (Residential, Limited) on

properties identified as GPINs 7870-45-8350, -9225, -55-0040, and –4089,

consisting of +/- 14.76 acres. These properties are located west of North Macon

Terrace subdivision, and front +/-430 feet on the east side of Chapman Street +/-1450 feet north of Wesley Street, as well as the southern terminus of Wales Way.

The subject property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for

Low Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre)

17B. CUP10-0204 EcoProperties, LLC requests a Conditional Use Permit to allowapartments located above commercial space, in accordance with Sec. 21-92(2) of

the Town Code, on property identified as GPIN 7870-81-4253, and currently

zoned B-1 (Central Business) District, located in the northwest quadrant of theintersection of Thomas and Robinson Streets. The subject property is designated

by the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for Central Business uses.

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

allow exceptions to the lighting requirements for the purpose of illuminating

tennis courts, in accordance with Sec. 21-266 of the Town Code, on property

identified as GPIN 7870-62-8355 and -72-0773, and currently zoned HE (HigherEducation) District, located +/-375 ft. north of Henry Clay Road, between N.

Center Street and N. James Street. The subject properties are designated by the

Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for institutional uses.

VI. REPORT OF COMMITTEES

A. Town Council – by Ned Henson

B. Ashland Main Street Association – by Bob Brown

VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS



A. Carter’s Hill Subdivision – Preliminary Plat

VIII NEW BUSINESS

A. Randolph-Macon College – Parking Plan 48

IX PRESENTATION OF MINUTES

A. Approval of September 09, 2009, Minutes

B. Approval of October 14, 2010, Minutes

C. Approval of November 18, 2009, Minutes

D. Approval of January 13, 2010, Minutes

E. Approval of February 17, 2010, Minutes

X ADJOURNMENT

Council summaries are attached



www.town.ashland.va.us

STAFF REPORT

To: Planning Commission, Town of Ashland, Virginia

From: Zack Robbins, Senior Planner

Date: March 10, 2010

Case Type: Rezoning & Preliminary Plat (Major Subdivision)

Case No.: REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012

Case Name: Carters Hill Section II

Applicant: Rogers Chenault Incorporated

Location: West of North Macon Terrace subdivision, and fronting +/-430 feet on the east

side of Chapman Street +/-1450 feet north of Wesley Street, as well as thesouthern terminus of Wales Way.

GPIN(s): 7870-45-8350, -9225, -55-0040 and -4089

REQUEST:The applicant requests: (1) Rezoning from RR-1 (Rural Residential) and R-1 (Residential,Restricted) to R-2 (Residential, Limited) on +/-14.79 acres, (2) Preliminary plat approval tocreate a thirty twenty-eight lot residential subdivision on +/-14.79 acres, and (3) Exception toSec. 17-42, which states that a subdivision block must be at least 500 feet in length.

RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends deferral of the requests until the April 14, 2010, meeting. For the fullrecommendation, see Page 7.



Planning CommissionTown of Ashland, Virginia Page 2 of 14

REZ09-1012 & SUB09-1012 March 10, 2010Carters Hill Section II

BACKGROUND:Existing Zoning RR-1 (Rural Residential) and R-1 (Residential, Restricted)

LocationWest of North Macon Terrace subdivision, South of Carters Hillsubdivision, also fronting +/-430 feet on the east side ofChapman Street +/-1450 feet north of Wesley Street.

Size +/- 14.76 acres

Existing Land Use Vacant

Surrounding LandUse and Zoning

North - Carters Hill sub. (under construction), zoned RR-1,South – Vacant, zoned R-2East – North Macon Terrace subdivision, zoned R-2West – Single-family residential, zoned R-1 and R-2

Comprehensive PlanThe Plan states that this property is appropriate for Low DensityResidential Uses (1-4 dwelling units per acre)

PROCESS:

The applicant has simultaneously requested rezoning, as well as preliminary plat approval.The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not specifically prohibit or encourage such(except in Planned Development districts), however staff sees some advantages to reviewingboth applications concurrently, as the preliminary plat layout can be incorporated into thezoning approval through proffers.

The proposed subdivision is considered a Major Subdivision, which requires approval of apreliminary plat prior to recordation of a final plat. The preliminary plat must show all existingand proposed boundaries, utility easements, drainage systems, streets and buildings. Thepurpose of the preliminary plat is to identify, at the subdivision stage, any site developmentissues that may arise related to zoning, environmental concerns, adequate utilities, siteaccess, or other rules, regulations, or policies of the Town. Any specific design standardsthat may arise from these issues would further be refined at the site plan review process.

CONSIDERATIONS:

Staff has reviewed the applicant’s most recent submittal, last revised February 19, 2010, andfinds the subdivision plat meets all dimensional requirements of the Zoning and SubdivisionOrdinances, with the exception of the length of the block of Wales Way between VaughanRoad and Wales Place. Staff has concerns relative to other aspects of the subdivision andrezoning, as outlined below.

Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recommends that this property is appropriate for low-densityresidential development, at 1 to 4 dwelling units per acre, in conventional subdivisions.

Clustering concepts and innovative layouts are encouraged to achieve open space and topreserve sensitive lands. Further, these areas should be at densities consistent withsurrounding development.

The Vision, Goals, Objectives & Strategies section of the Comprehensive Plan states thatnew housing should be sensitive to the character of the surrounding community, and thatnew subdivision development near the edge of Town, such as this, should complement thecharacter of the older neighborhoods.





Staff is neutral as to the implementation ofhome size or mandating one-story or two-storyhomes as there is no direction from theComprehensive Plan aside from suggestingthat proposed subdivisions shouldcomplement the surrounding development.

Given the buffers created by open space, staffbelieves that adequate separation occurs toallow appropriate transition to theneighborhoods to the north and west.

This chart and map summarizes the typical lotand home sizes of the adjacent existing development.

Typ. LotSize

Typ. LotWidth

Avg HomeSize

Home SizeRange

% TwoStory

#Homes

1. North MaconTerrace

10,000 75’ 1466 1144-1980 23% 38

2. ChapmanStreet – South

43,560 +/-100’ 1628 1044-2624 55% 20

3. ChapmanStreet- North

32,000 175’ 2328 1450-2807 29% 7

4. Carters HillSec. 1

43,560 150’ 2515 1843-3466 73% 11

5. Prop. Carters Hill Sec. 2

Average: 13,500 Range: 10,000- 43,000

75’ (larger on Chapman St)

1400+ 1200-? 50%- 75%

28

Street Connections. The subdivision provides connections to existing Wales Way (inCarter’s Hill subdivision), and completes about one-quarter of the proposed Vaughan RoadExtension, by tying into Chapman Street. Chapman Street would be realigned so that thewestern segment of Chapman Street free-flows into Vaughan Road, on a temporary basis,





until the next section of Vaughan to the west (on the Green Acres property) is completed.Stub streets are provided to the south andeast to provide for street connectionssuggested by the Comprehensive Plan, forVaughan Road Connector, as well as theextension of Wales Way south to Snead

Street.

Staff believes that the applicant shouldprovide a stub street to the west to allowaccess to approximately 6 ½ acres ofvacant land that is currently under commonownership. Should the owner of thisadjacent property choose to develop theirproperty, Sec. 17-46 of the SubdivisionOrdinance states that ‘street arrangementmust be such as to cause no unnecessaryhardship to owners of adjoining property

when they plat their own land and it mustprovide for convenient access to adjoiningproperty.’

Transportation Impact. Staff requested a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) be submittedwith the zoning application, to help analyze the potential traffic impacts generated by theconnection of Chapman and James Street, and ultimately Route 1 North and Route 54 West(although it does not create the direct connection that is ultimately desired). Thedevelopment itself will only generate a total of 343 trips per day, however the new trafficpatterns generated by the completion of through streets could have a significant impact.

The analysis looked at three scenarios for transportation impact in the year 2019:

• Background growth without the development or the Vaughan Road Connection• Background growth with the development and the Vaughan Road Connection• Background growth with the development, using the cut-through Carters Hill

subdivision.

The analysis showed that the intersection of Archie Cannon Road and US 1 should beclosely monitored in the future for potential signalization, as heading west on Sylvia Road atUS 1 will be affected by the volumes heading east on Archie Cannon Road. These volumesare generated by background growth, not this development itself. The background growthcreates 64 seconds of delay on westbound Sylvia, but only 10 seconds can be attributed tothis development.

EXCEPTION REQUEST:

The applicant has requested an exception to Sec. 17-42 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Thecode section states:

The maximum length of blocks generally shall be twelve hundred (1,200) feet, and the minimum length of blocks which have frontage shall be five hundred (500) feet.





The authority to grant exceptions to Subdivision requirements is included in Sec. 17-5 of theSubdivision Ordinance, which states the following is necessary to grant an exception:

• Extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties would result from strict compliancewith the Ordinance, or the purposes of the regulations would be served to a greater

extent by an alternative proposal.• The exception shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the

regulations.• The following three findings must be met:

o The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public safety,health, or welfare, or injurious to other property.

o Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographicalconditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the ownerwould result if the strict letter of these regulations are carried out.

o The exceptions will not in any manner vary the provisions of the zoningordinance, comprehensive plan, or official zoning map.

The applicant has submitted a letter (see attached) stating several reasons in support of thisrequest. The following reasons are notable:

• Wetland impact would be greatly increased if Wales Place is shifted further south. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes conservation ofenvironmentally sensitive areas.

• Complication of the tie-in to Vaughan Rd. to Chapman St. and the future extension of Vaughan to Rt. 54. Stafforiginally requested Vaughan Rd. be shifted furthernorth, however the radius of the curve is already closeto the minimum VDOT standard for an Urban LocalStreet with a 30 MPH design, which is 273 feet. Anygreater radius would potentially require right-of-wayfrom adjacent property owners. Additionally, shiftingVaughan northward would potentially create a shortblock between Hillsway Drive and Vaughan. (seegraphic)

Staff also notes that the Comprehensive Plan states on page96 that blocks shall be kept fairly short.

Staff believes that the findings necessary for the granting of theexception have been met, and that they are in compliance withthe Comprehensive Plan.

PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

At its January 13, 2010, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended deferral of therequests to March 10, so that the following issues mentioned by the Planning Commissionmay be addressed by the applicant:





• Preference for larger, high quality, sustainable homes on larger lots that areconsistent with the surrounding area.

• Vaughan Road design, specifically whether a 30 or 40 MPH design speed wereappropriate, and appropriate buffers from Vaughan Road.

Housing Size & Quality, Lot Sizes. The applicant’s resubmittal has increased the size of thelots adjacent to Chapman Street, and deleted one of the lots on the west side of thedevelopment. These lots along Chapman Street are now consistent with the adjacentexisting lots along Chapman, at 0.62 and 0.97 acres.

Regarding higher quality homes, the applicant has proffered not to use certain inferiormaterials, or chain link fences, and proffered to require paved or concrete driveways. Staffbelieves that it may be appropriate to improve these proffers by including architecturalguidelines or typical elevations to guarantee a certain level of quality.

It was suggested that Earthcraft design features be implemented into this development toensure sustainability. Staff does not believe that Earthcraft or other ‘green’ design programswould ensure sustainability from a neighborhood preservation or longevity standpoint, as

these programs are only setup to ensure environmentally friendly building practices. It wouldbe possible to build a lower quality house using green development principles. Additionally,the certification procedures for green development programs is completed after the issuanceof a certificate of occupancy, making it extremely difficult for staff to enforce, and potentiallycausing problems for new homeowners at the time of closing.

Vaughan Road. Currently, there is no policy or long-term plan direction available to staff tomake a recommendation for what the ultimate section of Vaughan Road should be.However, for the plan that is proposed with this subdivision, Public Works staff believes thatthe design speed used, and right-of-way provided will be sufficient for Vaughan Road uponits completion, and into the future.

Regarding the Vaughan Road corridor, the applicant has resubmitted using a design with aslightly larger radius for curves, which would meet the ‘Urban’ 30 MPH design guideline, asopposed to the ‘Urban Low Speed’ 30 MPH guideline used in the earlier submittal consideredby the Planning Commission at its January meeting. VDOT’s road design manual states:

Design speeds exceeding 30 mph in residential areas may require longer sightdistances and increased curve radii, which would be contrary to the basic function ofa local street.

The following information from the VDOT road design manual should be considered indetermining the proper classification and design of Vaughan Road:

• Arterial highways are intended to provide direct service between cities and largertowns and are high speed, high volume facilities. Collector highways serve smalltowns directly, connecting them and local roads to the arterial system.

• Design speeds for arterials and collectors:o 40MPH is the min. if this road is intended to be an arterial.o 30MPH is the min. if this road is intended to be a collector.

• The min. centerline radius for a 40MPH design (regardless of classification) is 563’• The min. centerline radius for a 30MPH design is 300’





• In a typical street grid, closely spaced intersections limit vehicular speeds and makedesign speed less of an issue.

Staff also recommends the Commission consider that given the higher design speed, themore likely it will be utilized as a bypass, reducing traffic in the central business district, andthe potential that it would act as a barrier, similar in effect to Ashcake Road.

Finally, the Commission expressed concern over buffering and fencing provided alongVaughan Road. Upon meeting with the applicant, it was determined that the only fences thatcould be permitted adjacent to Vaughan Road within setbacks would be a four-foot fence. Ifa full eight-foot fence were desired, it would need to be located beyond the 25 or 30 footsetbacks off of Vaughan Road.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following:

The Planning Commission defers consideration of rezoning request REZ09-1012 to April 14,2010, to allow additional time for the applicant to address the following items:

1. Revision of Proffer #2 to delete the first line of paragraph (a).2. Revision of Proffer #3 to align the tree caliper requirements with that of the town, and

state the intent of the proffer more clearly, for example: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, eight deciduous trees of at least 2 ½ inches in caliper shall be provided on each lot. Existing trees, and street trees provided on adjacent right- of-way may be credited toward this requirement.

3. Provision of typical elevations for the development that will ensure that the character of the neighborhood is consistent with surrounding neighborhoods.

The Planning Commission defers consideration of the subdivision request SUB09-1012 to February 10, 2010, to allow additional time for the applicant to address the following items:

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

The Planning Commission defers consideration of the exception request to Sec. 17-42 to February 10, 2010.




STAFF REPORT




Case Type: Conditional Use Permit

Case No.: CUP10-0204

Case Name: EcoProperties, LLC

Location: Northwest corner of Robinson and Thomas Streets

GPIN(s): 7870-81-4253

REQUEST:The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow apartments above commercialspace, in accordance with Sec. 21-92(2) of the Town Code.

RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and approve the following:

The Planning Commission defers consideration of this request to its April 14, 2010, meeting to allow the applicant to provide the following:

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

2. A site layout showing proposed improvements to the adjacent street, to include curb,gutter, sidewalk, and on-street parking.

3. Information regarding proposed signage, landscaping, and lighting.4. Southern and western building elevations.5. Revised elevations incorporating additional architectural features to ensure

compatibility with the central business district.




CUP10-0204 March 10, 2010EcoProperties, LLC

BACKGROUND:

Existing Zoning B-1, Central Business District

Location 108 Thomas StreetSize Approximately 10,000 sq. ft. (+/-0.229 acres)

Existing Land Use Vacant

Surrounding LandUse and Zoning

North, East: Commercial usesWest, South: Post OfficeSoutheast: Residential (Condominiums)B-1, Central Business District in all directions

Comprehensive PlanThe Plan states that this property is appropriate for CentralBusiness uses.

The subject property was occupied by a lumber yard that had been vacant for several years.The structures on the property were demolished by the applicant in 2009.

On February 26, 2009, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized two grants tothe property owner for the purpose of assisting with demolition and infrastructure costs. Inorder to receive the demolition grant the owner was obligated to demolish and remove allstructures from the property, as they were not salvageable, and prepare the site fordevelopment. In order to recieve the infrastructure grant, the owner will be required toextend water and sewer from England Street to the site. This grant can also be used tooffset utility connection fees.

The applicant proposes two two-story buildings, with commercial space on the lower floors,and six apartments on the second floors. The Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional usepermit for apartments above commercial space in the B-1 district.

The applicant has submitted a site sketch, showing the general orientation of the property,typical drawings of the proposed office building, as well as proffers, associated with therezoning.

CONSIDERATIONS:

Process. Sec. 21-13 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the criteria for granting a conditionaluse permit:

A conditional use permit shall not be issued unless the town council shall find that theuse for which the conditional use permit is sought and the operation thereof will notaffect adversely the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in theneighborhood of the proposed use; will not be detrimental to public welfare orinjurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood; and will be in accordwith the purpose of the comprehensive plan.

Staff notes that conditions imposed through the Conditional Use Permit process apply only tothe use in question, and are not applicable should a use occupy the site which does notrequire a conditional use permit.

Comprehensive Plan. The Plan makes the following statements that are applicable to thisrequest:





Page 84. Land Use, Central Business District. The commercial downtown districtpromotes harmonious development and redevelopment. Emphasis is placed uponenhancing pedestrian circulation, minimizing vehicular and pedestrian accessconflicts, pattern, and maintaining continuity with the architectural character of thearea. Signage, parking and lighting standards should give particular emphasis to the

elements of the existing downtown atmosphere.

Pages 84-85. Land Use, Recommendations. A major portion of the downtown areais included in the nationally designated historic district. Future building modificationsand new construction in this area should be compatible with the existing scale,intensity of use and architectural character of surrounding development.

*note: the property in question is not located within the historic district, however, the post office property,directly to the west is within the district.

Page 96. Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Ashland also derives much of itscharacter from the elements that decorate the roadways. This includes signs,

lighting, plantings, benches, and so on. These details can have a noticeable impacton the appearance of a community.

Site Design. The applicant’s proposal shows two two-story buildings, totaling 9,600 squarefeet, with commercial below six apartments. Parking is provided via a ten-space parking lotalong Thomas Street. In the B-1 district, parking is not required for these commercial uses,however, six parking spaces are required for the apartments. The service area, includingdumpsters, is located near the dead-end of Robinson Street, adjacent to the service area forthe post office.

Sec. 21-94.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following regarding setback regulations:

There shall be no setback requirement for buildings and structures, provided that noparking area or other area for circulation of vehicles shall be located between themain building on the lot and the street, nor shall any such area be located any closerto the street than the main building. Parking areas shall be located to the side or rearof buildings, and shall be provided with a landscaped setback of not less than five (5)feet, which shall be improved and used in accordance with the provisions of section21-233 (b) and (c) and section 21-234 of this chapter. See the DevelopmentGuidelines Handbook for guidelines and examples for treatment of landscapedsetbacks.

New buildings or structures built in the B-1 district and adjacent to a building that is ofsignificant historical character in the historic district must be setback the average of

the two (2) adjacent structures on either side unless waived by the zoningadministrator.

The proposal as submitted does not meet the requirement, which states that no parking areashould be located between a main building on a lot and the street. Staff offers three potentialsolutions: (1) Redesign the building so that there is one building located directly alongThomas Street, (2) subdivide the lot, so that the larger building is located on its own lot, andthe second lot would contain the parking lot and the smaller building. Staff believes that theordinance does not contain provisions for lots located at the intersection of two streets,




CUP10-0208 March 10, 2010Randolph-Macon College Tennis Court Lighting

In order to obtain an exception to lighting standards for an athletic field, a conditional usepermit is required, and the following criteria must be met:

• A system of luminaires cannot reasonably comply with the lighting standards toprovide sufficient lighting for the safe use of the facility, as determined by IlluminatingEngineering Society of North America practices.

• Sufficient information must be submitted, to include photometric drawings, cutsheets,and renderings depicting the impact of the proposed lighting.

Proposal. The applicant has submitted photometric drawings indicating the foot-candlesprojected by the lights. The Town’s current standard of ½ foot-candle is applied as themaximum lighting level at any property line. The drawing indicates that this ½ foot-candlestandard is met about 170 feet away from the nearest property line. The lighting diminisheseven further to less than 0.1 foot-candle at about 75 feet from the nearest property line.

*Staff has been unable to locate any adequate descriptions of what is comparable to a 1/2 foot-candle lightinglevel, however 0.02 foot-candle is provided by the typical full moon, while 10 foot-candles are adequate forreading. In the Town of Ashland Zoning Ordinance, and generally across the United States, ½ foot-candle is the

generally accepted maximum lighting level for regulating obtrusive light from adjacent properties.

Based upon the IESNA standard for illuminating tennis courts without spectator seating, alighting level of 75 foot-candles is desired for the play surface. The photometric drawingshows lighting levels averaging around 75 limited to the play surface, diminishing greatlybeyond the tennis courts.

Cutsheets of the proposed lights have been submitted, and indicate that each pole will havethree to four fixtures attached at a height of 50 feet. The fixtures are to be pointeddownward, with a bonnet-style shield at the top, to prevent casting unnecessary light off-site.It is unlikely that there is any full-cutoff style fixture that is manufactured for illuminatingathletic facilities such as this, therefore it is necessary to consider some alternatives that are

as close to full-cutoff as possible. Staff is concerned, due to the design of the fixture, thatsome glare will project onto adjacent properties, however, additional information from theapplicant should be provided to show whether this can be avoided. It also may beappropriate for the applicant to provide a profile view of the lighting showing projected lightlevels to help understand the distribution pattern of the light, and how glare could affectadjacent property owners. It is important to understand that with these fixtures, that theadditional height has an effect on the amount of glare cast offsite, that is, that shorter fixtureswill need to be aimed at a more horizontal angle than a higher fixture.

Finally, the drawings indicate that the fixtures are to be painted black.

Approved Conditional Use Permit. As noted within the Conditional Use Permit which allowed

the Tennis Court facilities, no more than four courts may be illuminated, and must beprogrammed to shut off by 10:00 PM, and shall utilize an on-demand timer to ensure theTennis Courts are to be on for no more than 90 minutes at a time. This will be verified at thecompletion of the construction of the courts.






The Planning Commission defers consideration of this request to its April 14, 2010 to allow

the applicant to provide a profile view of the light fixture showing projected lighting levels to show the distribution pattern of the light, and prove that off-site glare will not be an issue.





Ordinance PL2009-14

AN ORDINANCE to amend The Code of the Town of Ashland, Ch. 21 “Zoning,” Article XXV“Supplemental Regulations,” Section 21-266 “General Lighting Standards.”

The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a procedure for granting exceptions to lighting standardsfor athletic fields within the HE, Higher Education district.

WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing on the 15th day of December 2009,advertised as required by Virginia Code Section 15.2 – 2204.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Ashland, Virginia that Section21-266 “General Lighting Standards” shall be amended to read, as follows:

Section 21-266. General Lighting Standards.

The following general standards shall apply to all outdoor lighting provided for uses that are subject tothe site plan requirements of article XVII of this chapter. In addition to the following, all outdoor lightingshall comply with the standards and guidelines contained in the Development Guidelines Handbook.

Lighting standards shall be indicated on all site plans in sufficient detail to determine compliance withthe provisions of this section. (See article XX for sign lighting provisions).

(a) Light to be confined to the premises. All lighting used to illuminate outdoor areas shallbe located, directed or shielded so as not to shine directly or create glare on adjacent properties orstreets, and so as to confine all direct light rays entirely within the boundaries of the property on whichthey are located. All lighting visible from streets and from properties in RR-1 and residential districtsshall be of a sharp cut-off design in a fixed position which orients the light downward and preventsglare, and all lighting of parking areas and drives shall be confined within such areas. Lighting ofoutdoor features from below shall be provided with deflector shields to accomplish the intent of theseprovisions.

(b) Lighting intensity and fixture height. The intensity of outdoor lighting shall be nogreater than shown on the approved site plan, and in no case greater than one-half (1/2) footcandlesabove background lighting at the property line. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20)

feet in height.(c) Reduction to minimum level necessary for security. All exterior lighting shall be

reduced to the minimum level of intensity necessary for security purposes during the nonbusinesshours of all business and industrial uses.

(d) Exceptions to Lighting Standards. Exceptions to the standards within this section maybe granted for athletic field lighting in the Higher Education HE District, with a conditional use permitfor each individual athletic field, subject to the following criteria:

(1) An outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for an athletic facilitycannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of thefacility for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by theIlluminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity,or other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable.

(2) Sufficient renderings, including, but not limited to, photometric drawings, luminairecutsheets, and renderings depicting the impact of the proposed lighting, shall beprovided with the application.

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




STAFF REPORT




RE: Randolph-Macon College Parking Plan

REQUEST:The applicant requests approval of a parking plan as required for colleges by Sec. 21-204 ofthe Zoning Ordinance.


The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council approve the parking plan,subject to the following:

1. Revise the plan to show the correct total number of parking spaces.2. Remove the on-street parking spaces that cannot be counted toward the overall

parking requirement (segments of streets that are not zoned HE on both sides)3. This approval shall only be in conjunction with the site plan for the tennis courts. Any

subsequent site plan for athletic facilities or dormitory facilities will require revisions to

the parking plan.




Error! Reference source not found.March 10, 2010 Randolph-Macon College Parking Plan

BACKGROUND:

In December 2009 the Town Council approved Ordinance PL2009-13, which amended theTown’s minimum parking requirements for colleges. Previously, the minimum number ofspaces was determined by the number of dormitory beds, in conjunction with a parking planapproved by the Town Council. The new standard requires 0.8 parking spaces per student

based upon enrollment at the beginning of the fall semester and continues to require theparking plan, approved by Town Council.

As a condition of approval for the conditional use permit for the tennis courts, a parking planmust be approved by the Town Council prior to site plan approval.

At the time of approval of the ordinance, the Town Council opted to refer the next parkingplan for the college to the Planning Commission for recommendation.

CONSIDERATIONS:The College states that the total student enrollment of the College is 1246 in fall of 2009,

which translates into 997 parking spaces required using the 0.8 parking spaces per studentstandard.

The following chart summarizes the parking provided by the existing approved (2003) plan,the proposed plan, as well as the student/staff counts for 2003 and fall 2009.

2003 Plan ProposedPlan

On-Street 233 233

Off-Street 979 1038

Total 1212 1271

FallEnrollment 1098 1246

Staff/Faculty 299 319

The plan submitted shows a total of 1038 off-street parking spaces (although the plan states1002), and 334 on-street spaces (although only about 233 of these spaces can be countedtoward the off-street requirement, because HE zoning must be present on both sides of thestreet to qualify as such). Therefore, the total number of spaces provided on the proposedplan is 1271. The College should make these corrections to the plan.

This request is solely to grant approval in conjunction with the tennis courts, which the planshows 66 additional spaces to be added in conjunction with the construction of the tennis

courts. It is not anticipated that the tennis courts would generate a large amount of parkingdemand. The Zoning Ordinance states that 2 spaces should be required for each tenniscourt, therefore 20 parking spaces should be adequate for the facility. (Note: the spaces forthe tennis courts would still count toward the College’s total 997 required spaces, as thecourts are accessory to the College)

Since the tennis facility will not create much demand upon parking, staff recommends thatthe approval of this parking plan be solely for the tennis court facility, and that the parking





plan be required to be re-evaluated for the proposed athletic facilities and dormitories alongthe northern side of campus.


The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council approve the parking plan,subject to the following:

1. Revise the plan to show the correct total number of parking spaces.2. Remove the on-street parking spaces that cannot be counted toward the overall

parking requirement (segments of streets that are not zoned HE on both sides)3. This approval shall only be in conjunction with the site plan for the tennis courts. Any

subsequent site plan for athletic facilities or dormitory facilities will require revisions to the parking plan.

3/10/10 planning commission agenda

Documents