High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
In February and March of 2009, the Town of Ashland held its Comprehensive PlanUpdate Focus Area meeting series to gather public input on four potential futuredevelopment patterns that the Town could implement to accommodate planned growth .Entitled “Where do we want to be? EvaluatingScenarios,” the workshops were held in variouslocations throughout the town, with each focusing on adifferent geographic area. Facilitators included theMayor and Town Council Members, PlanningCommissioners, Town Staff and Randolph-MaconCollege staff.Each meeting began with Planning Director NoraAmos presenting an overview on the background and purpose of the ComprehensivePlan, as well as an update on the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update. SeniorPlanner Zack Robbins, followed, presenting a summary of the development scenarios,and the visual and physical characteristics of the place types used to populate thescenarios. Participants thenmoved to facilitated breakouttables, reviewing thedevelopment scenarios on aseries of maps. Individualwritten surveys geared todetermine the desirability ofeach scenario were also givento participants. At theconclusion of the evenings,the entire group reconvened toshare comments and ideasfrom each table.
General themes and ideas from the discussions, and survey results are summarized below.
Placetypes and Scenarios
Overall, Scenario Two appears to be the most desired, however some groups notedthat some aspects of the other scenarios would be appropriate in certain areas.Comments included:
•
The mixed-use nodes should be closer to existing built-up areas, if notpossible, access to these areas must be addressed.
Meeting Dates, Locations and Attendance
Date LocationEstimatedAttendanceFocus Area
Feb. 4Randolph-MaconOld Chapel85North AshlandNorthern FringeFeb. 10Holiday InnExpress65Northern FringeRoute 1 NorthRegional ServiceSouthern FringeFeb. 18St. James theLess EpiscopalChurch45West AshlandNorthern FringeFeb. 23Ashland Churchof God67South AshlandSouthern FringeMarch 5Ashland BranchLibrary45 Downtown
Summary:Focus Area Meetings:
Where do we want to be?Evaluating scenarios
•
Some groups were concerned that the new mixed-use nodes would competewith the existing downtown, or that the existing downtown should be built outprior to new mixed-use nodes.
•
Ensure that open space is truly preserved, not just shown on the plan as openspace, only to be developed later. Also, open space should be on highquality land where possible, not just leftover or undevelopable land.
•
Higher density development isappropriate, so long as the smalltown character is maintained.
•
Commercial development shouldbe confined to existing corridors.
•
Some property owners were upsetthat their land was shown as openspace on all alternatives.(See Place Types documents for descriptions)
•
Low density Residential
o
This place type wasacceptable to some groups,while still considered too suburban for some.
•
Medium Density Residential
o
Desirable, especially for infill.
•
High Density Residential
o
Should be geared toward owner-occupancy units and senior living, asthere is already an abundance of multi-family and rental property in Town.
•
Low Density Commercial
o
Most stated that this was too suburban for Ashland.
o
It was suggested that we seek to phase out the Low Density Commercialdevelopment that we currently have, seeking something more typical ofmedium density, as properties redevelop, even on Route 1 and 54.
•
Medium Density Commercial
o
It was suggested that this should become the norm for commercialdevelopment outside of the downtown area.
•
High Density Commercial
o
Mixed opinions on this place type. Some stated this would be appropriatefor areas proposed for office uses.
•
Lower Density Mixed Use (Primarily Residential)
o
Desirable
•
Lower Density Mixed Use (Primarily Commercial)
o
Desirable
•
Higher Density Mixed Use
o
Some felt that this category was much too urban for downtown Ashland.
North Ashland
•
Do not complete the extension ofBerkley Woods Drive to U.S. 1, ormitigate cut-through traffic.
•
Randolph-Macon students shouldlive on-campus rather than livingoff-campus in single-familyneighborhoods.
•
In the Linden/Park/Elm area,provide streetlights, curb, gutter,and sidewalks.
•
Enhance the Railside Trail, it is anasset to the Linden/Park/Elmneighborhood.
•
Preserve and maintain existingalleys.
•
Realign the intersection of NorthJames, Patrick and Snead Streets.
Northern Fringe
•
Western Mixed-Use Node.
A variety of opinions weregiven regarding the mixed-use node at the westernedge of Town, on Route 54:
o
Some groups wereaccepting of a morecompact mixed-usedevelopment in this area
o
Several preferred low-density residential in thisarea to providetransition prior toentering the county.
o
Some suggested this was an appropriate location for senior housing, andmedical facilities.
o
There was dislike for the idea of commercial here, but some saw merit asit would intercept some trips that are currently made to use services on theeast side of town.
•
Northern Mixed-Use Node.
Generally, mixed-use development in this areawas accepted, however a few groups had some alternate ideas.
o
A few groups preferred low-density residential on this tract, with somehigher-density commercial uses along U.S. 1.
o
Mixed-use would be more appropriate between U.S. 1 and I-95.
Add a Comment