Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) an Alternative

Executive Summary

The 28 Sep and 5 Oct PCWG meetings will ask Commissioners to evaluate the Preferred Scenario Framework Map/ Future Land Use Map (FLUP). it is the next step before the submission of a conceptual 2045 Land Use Map to the Board of Supervisors (BoS) on 7 Oct. The submission is part of a read-ahead in preparation for a joint Board and Planning Commission meeting update on Engage 2045 Comp Plan on 28 October.

 This paper suggests a framework for discussion by Commissioners of the efficacy of the FLUP scenario or an alternate to the FLUP before the read-ahead is submitted to the BoS. It accepts that Scenario A – the status quo – was rejected by a resounding majority of James City County residents, although it does not necessarily follow that Scenario B meets the wishes of those residents

The Future Land Use Map (FLUP) is a product of a considerable amount of citizen input and a data-driven process with a new set of scenario modeling tools that Commissioners are asked to synthesize and evaluate. That evaluation should have a discussion on the merits of the FLUP against the five citizen survey questions that showed significant gaps between the importance of the issue and the lack of satisfaction of what the county was doing about the issue. All are interwoven with population growth. All five of these gap areas should be considered as we evaluate the efficacy of the FLUP scenario or of an alternative to the FLUP (AFLUP)

  • Affordable housing – 33% gap (83% important vs. 50% satisfied)
  • Roads & highways – 24% gap (98% important vs. 74% satisfied)
  • Attracting jobs& businesses – 20% gap (88% important vs. 68% satisfied)
  • Preserving rural character – 16% gap (85% important vs. 69% satisfied)
  • Protecting environment – 15% gap (85% important vs. 70% satisfied)

The FLUP/AFLUP is broken into 4 groups and each group has its map that is Scenario B/ Preferred Scenario Framework Map annotated with specific place types for discussion.  

  • Group 1 (Figure 1) takes Scenario B and the 2035 Land-Use map and asks the question, What do we agree about Scenario B that is also consistent with the 2035 Comp Plan Five Citizen Gap Questions? If there is a consensus then it is placed into the Alternative FLUP. 
  • Group 2 (Figure 2) are areas that are new in Scenario B and are different from the Comp Plan. This group is focused on the residential place type changes and specifically changes to Residential High Density, which provides an opportunity to add affordable housing capacity. If there is a consensus then they are placed into the Alternative FLUP. 
  • Group 3 (Figure 3) has Scenario B placed types that appear to be consistent with the 2035 Comp Plan but require clarification along with two new land use applications (Solara Woods and Eastern State). If there is a consensus then it is placed into the Alternative FLUP
  • Group 4 (Figure 4) are undefined additions to the FLUP. As a page holder, they are comments on Land Use from the 6 May PCWG and recent email comments and listed them with a Scenario B map. 

A few concluding comments

Group 1, 2, and 3 maps are really centered on gaining a consensus on an Alternative Future Land Use Map.

  • Group 1- There is really not any controversy over the eight items called out on the map (Figure 1) except for the two parcels from the  Mooretown/Hill Pleasant Farm EO  
  • Group 2  is a discussion of changed residential densities to moderate and high density and the issue is not that the Land Use Map should accommodate the opportunity for affordable housing but a discussion about the appropriateness of the selected location and the cumulative impact on the environment and traffic congestion missing from the FLUP
  • Group 3 is really about a “gut check” on the new land use applications (Solara Woods and Eastern state) and a review of the Mixed-Use designation around the I 64 Croaker Interchange with a view to examining the cumulative impact on the environment and traffic congestion missing from the FLUP
  • Group 4 is a catch-all with unresolved issues raised by commissioners and in the most part they will be resolved and discussed as we look at specific chapters of the 2045 Comp Plan in the coming months
  • Although both scenarios used a 2045 population of 125,000 to measure the effects of the two land use maps, a population of 125,000 seems antithetical to the preferences expressed by a majority of residents. The question is why would we decide to increase the capacity of the Alternative Future Land Use map when we already can accommodate 80% of the 2045 population capacity now, with the alternative future land use map. The answer is that there is no reason, at this time, to decide on how to accommodate a 125,000 population now, given what we know about the FLUP’s cumulative impact of that growth on the environment, traffic congestion and the fiscal health of the county finance’s let alone what it may not do to meet the wishes of our residents. 

Introduction

Alternative Future Land Use Map (FLUP) Assumptions

The Alternative FLUP analysis’s start point is that within the PSA we have 15,279 by right dwelling units that are about 80% of the housing capacity to meet the population gains by 2045. Any proposed FLUP will either modify these numbers by not only changing the Land Use category/Place Type but also an implied zoning change. This FLUP retains the existing land use and zoning for these 15,279 dwelling units and non-residential capacity Figure A unless specifically called out below in the alternate FLUP methodology section. 

This is unlike the assumption of the Preferred Scenario Frame work Map which assumes that –   

“This framework map is a snapshot of one possible pattern of growth by the year 2045. It does not presume how this pattern of growth would be achieved and therefore does not necessarily conform to current zoning or the Future Land Use Map in the current County Comprehensive Plan. It is assumed that over the course of 25 years, the Future Land Use Map and some zoning designations may be changed over time. The current inventory of approved “by right” lots and subdivisions was not taken into account in this concept as these entitlements could theoretically be revised to address changing market conditions at some point, and the purpose of this concept was not to document current entitlements on parcels but to envision a different potential future based on the Scenario narrative.”

Constellation:Users:polsterfAir:Desktop:PSAJCC_SummitPresent_11_14_19_Final_Online.pdf 2020-09-13 09-42-34.png
Figure A 2035 Comprehensive Plan Land Use section Growth in the Primary Service Area

Figure B below is the 2035 Land Use Map with the same place types used in Scenario B but not adjusted to increase population and household densities in residential areas, which the Preferred Scenario Framework methodology did e.g. increased Mixed-Use/MCI population and jobs. This is the “as is” and “business as usual” scenario that in the PSA retains the by-right development, existing land use designations, and zoning for those 15,279 dwelling units and non-residential capacity shown in Figure A . Figure B also shows the top five TAZs (1841, 1826, 1839, 1820 and 1823) that have 52% of the population change in 2045.

Figure B is the 2035 Land Use Map with the same place types used in Scenario B and has the top five TAZs (1841, 1826, 1839, 1820, and 1833) that have 52% of the population change in 2045 *Note 1

Figure C below shows the top 5 Traffic Analysis Zones in the county (out of 46 TAZs) that will constitute 52 % of the population change by 2045, 50% of the number of Households, and 68% of the number of vehicles by 2045. Not surprisingly, the 2045 growth takes place in the upper county, in and around Colonial Heritage and Stonehouse, and central region mostly, in and around Ford’s Colony.

Figure C – Shows the top 5 Traffic Analysis Zones (out of 46 TAZs) that will constitute 52 % of the population change by 2045

Based on the discussions from the 28 Sept PCWG I have added a bit more clarification on why the parcel level of detail is used for this analysis. It was simply used to identify what areas we were talking about when we removed density from scenario A to B and new density appeared on Scenario B. The density/population and employment did not go away they just got redistributed so that both scenarios A and B were an apple to apple comparison with control totals for 2045 Population (120,741) and Employment (45,921) remaining constant for both scenarios.

Paul made a good point when he said we should be looking at the overall concept and that some areas would be more and some less. I agree, which is why Figure C was an attempt to display the level of population change just in those 5 TAZ by 2045 that reinforces the concept of growth will occur in the upper county. What I did not do was provide an order of magnitude of this growth in the upper county which attempts to illustrate the effect of moving density/population and employment to the middle and upper county place types.

Figure D – Scenario A Map with RDL in yellow and existing development in grey

In Figure D, Scenario B takes RLD density from Scenario A and redistributes it in the middle and upper county’s EOs/MCI, Mixed-Use/MCR, and HRD and at the same time reduces the density of RMD and RLD in Scenario B. Figure E below shows the magnitude of that shift on the 11 of PSA TAZs whose 2045 Population and Employment are redistributed to areas/place-types from Scenario A to Scenario B. The order of magnitude is a shift of 79% of the 2045 PSA population change by 2045 into the middle and upper county, as opposed if we did nothing there would be a 52% addition to the upper county and middle county (Figure C).

Figure E Order of Magnitude of redistributing density from the 11 TAZs in the PSA

That shift in population density may be ok in part or as a whole, which is why this paper is about an Alternative Scenario Framework Map. The suggestion is to test the Preferred Scenario Framework Map against the five citizen survey questions that showed significant gaps between the importance of the issue and the lack of satisfaction of what the county was doing about the issue. Look at the five individually but also as a whole since the five are interconnection to each other and consider the impact of a population increase by 2045 of 26,949, and potentially an addition of 18,490 vehicles in the upper and middle county along with the impact on the environment and traffic congestion. The analysis below makes an attempt to start a discussion to assess those impacts.

Alternative Future Land Use Map (FLUP) Methodology

The FLUP analysis is broken into 4 groups and each group has its own map that is Scenario B/ Preferred Scenario Framework Map annotated with specific place types for discussion. 

  • Group 1 (Figure 1) takes Scenario B and the 2035 Land-Use map and asks the question “What do we agree about Scenario B that is also consistent with the 2035 Comp Plan Five Citizen Gap Questions?” If there is a consensus then it is placed into the Alternative FLUP. 
  • Group 2 (Figure 2) are areas that are new in Scenario B that is different from the Comp Plan. This group is focused on the residential place type changes and specifically changes to Residential High Density, which provides an opportunity to add affordable housing capacity. If there is a consensus then it is placed into the Alternative FLUP. 
  • Group 3 (Figure 3) has Scenario B placed types that appear to be consistent with the 2035 Comp Plan but require clarification along with two new land use applications. If there is a consensus then it is placed into the Alternative FLUP. 
  • Group 4 (Figure 4) is undefined additions to the FLUP. As a page holder, they are comments on Land Use from the 6 May PCWG and recent email comments and listed them with a Scenario B map

* Note 1. The graphics used as illustrations are screen captures from a geographic information system a GIS software application, QGIS. GIS data files that make up the majority of the graphics are from the consultant team’s GIS, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) GIS, James City County GIS, VDOT GIS, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Virginia Conservation Lands Database GIS. The remaining graphics used are screen captures from Google Map, the county property management system, graphics from SUP and Land Use applications, and the consultant teams presentations

Figure 1 – Group 1 

Figure 2 – Group 2
Figure 2 Group 3

Group 1

Stonehouse

The FLUP for Stonehouse appears straight forward in that the amended master plan moved density out of the Stonehouse Reserve and Riverfront Reserve into the remaining areas. The retraction of the PSA and the placement of the Stonehouse Reserve and Riverfront Reserve into the rural lands outside of the PSA is appropriate to see (Group 1 Scenario B Stonehouse Reserve and Riverfront Reserve area)

Figure 2 and 3 depict the Scenario B MCI, RMD, RLD with the 2035 Comp Plan and Zoning.

Figure 1 -Stonehouse Scenario B MCI, RMD, RLD 2035 Comp Plan did retract PSA where 1079n RLD master plan reduction Stonehouse Reserve and Riverfront Preserve
Figure 2 -Stonehouse Scenario B MCI, RMD, RLD Zoning Map Scenario B did retract PSA where 1079n RLD master plan reduction Stonehouse Reserve and Riverfront Preserve

Figure three is the amended Stonehouse master plan

Figure 3 -Stonehouse amended Master Plan

Mooretown/Hill Pleasant Farm EO

The Hill Pleasant Farm plus are now Rural Residential and not in the PSA. The Pottery section in the south of the EO is M1 Limited Business/Industrial and inside of the PSA, parcel 2430100031 113 acres (Figures 4 and 4A) should also come out of the EO. Entry to the parcel is through two points on Lightfoot Road on to Williamsburg Pottery Rd and from Richmond Rd across the CSX rail line on to Williamsburg Pottery Rd. The issue is that the original condition to bring the Mooretown/Hill Pleasant Farm EO into the PSA was that it required a master plan and to make it feasible the Mooretown Corridor Extension. The Pottery section of the EO is in the PSA and has entry point roads to it off Lightfoot and Richmond Rd. At this point what is prevent the development property from Mixed Use with a zoning change from the M1?

Figure 4 – The 2035 Land Use Map with Mixed-Use in light blue the Mooretown/Hill Pleasant Farm EO in gray with Scenario B showing MCI and MCR in orange dots and Rural Residential – RR in green triangle
Figure 4 A – Pottery EO zoned M1 Limited Business/Industrial and inside of the PSA, parcel 2430100031 (outlined in blue) 113 acres

RHD Colonial Heritage CCRC

The Colonial Heritage CCRC was approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the BoS. Figure 5 is the proposed project and Figure 6 is the Zoning Map with RHD

Land Owner: Virginia Health Services, Inc.: New construction of a +/-160,670-square foot assisted living facility on one of the commercial parcels of the Colonial Heritage Master Plan.

Location: 6799 Richmond Road Tax Map/Parcel No.: 2430100032

Project Acreage: ±23.35 acres

Figure 5 -Virginia Health Service, Colonial Heritage site plan

Figure 4 A – Pottery EO zoned M1 Limited Business/Industrial and inside of the PSA, parcel 2430100031 (outlined in blue) 113 acres

RMD/RLD Ford’s Bluff

The DRC has reviewed the conceptual plan (Figure 7) and Figure 8 shows the 2035 Comp Plan Land Use Map showing Low Density. Zoning is R4 Residential Planned Community and the parcel was master-planned for a CCRC. Scenario B shows RMD and RLD.

3889 News Road Ford’s Bluff; One Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) facility and 215 independent living homes in a mix of unit types parcel3730100004, SWR-HOCKADAY, LLC & MCMURRAN, MARTHA, Comp Plan Low-Density Residential, Zoning R4 Residential Planned Community

Figure 7 – Ford’s Bluff Conceptual master plan

Figure 8 – 2035 Land Use Map Low Density Scenario B – RMD and RLD w/RPA

Olde Towne Commercial

The area marked in Scenario B, CH, and new commercial is already Neighborhood Commercial in the current comp plan and zoned Limited Business (Figure 9)

Figure 9 = Olde Towne Scenario B CH 2035 Comp Plan Limited Business

Eastern State Parcel on the west side of Route 199 labeled New Public, IP in Scenario B

The staff has made the determination that the portion of Eastern State labeled IP in Scenario B is not appropriate.

Figure 10 – Eastern State Scenario B IP west of Route 199 

Branscome/Sanifill Scenario B New Industrial, IL & IH

Grove/Green Mount Industrial Park Scenario B Light Industrial IL and Heavy Industrial IH

Scenario B Light Industrial IL /2035 Land Use Limited Industry – Encompasses light industrial uses (Research & Development, warehousing, services, etc.)

Scenario B Heavy Industrial IH/2035 Land Use General Industry -Encompasses heavy industrial uses with possible adverse environmental impacts (manufacturing, etc.)

Scenario B dot graphic show in purple an area as New Industrial on two parcels at the southern border of the county bordering Newport new the Branscome Enterprise LLC 6030100002 parcel  281 acres and the Sanifill of Virginia Inc 6030100003 parcel 279 acres.  They are both zoned M2 General Industrial which is the same as Scenario B’s IH. The parcels are mined for clay for the Hampton landfill, which Sanifill owns and Branscome sells to.

Figure 11 – 2035 Land Use General Industry (tan) Scenario B IL and IH and zoned General Industry M2

Group 2

Figure 12 – Group 2

LDR Hawkins

The parcel is already Low Density Residential in the comp plan and zoned A1. Please see Anderson Corner in Group 3 for related 2035 Comp Plan guidance on the parcel. 

Figure 13 – 1240100011 HANKINS, GEORGE M JR & DUNN, SHARON H Low Density Residential A1 157.6 acres

Richmond Rd from Croaker Rd to Toano.

Figure 14 – is the 2035 Land Use Map with the blue area Moderate Density Residential, the green Mixed Use, and the yellow Low Density Residential.

You may recall the Oakland Pointe SUP where the Land Use Map showed Moderate Density Residential, zoned A1 and the applicants was asking to build a R5 affordable housing units. 

Figure 15 – Zoning Map – yellow General Agricultural, dark green Limited Business/Industry and 2045 Land Use map Scenario B RHD Residential High-Density red dots.

Figure 15 is the Zoning Map with the yellow area General Agricultural, the dark green Limited Business/Industry, and the 2045 Land Use map Scenario B RHD Residential High-Density red dots.  The existing 2035 Land Use Multi-Family Residential translates for Scenario B/2045 Land Use is both RMD and RHD.

 The zoning districts for multi-family residential districts are Multi-Family Residential District R5 zoning or Residential Planned Community District – R-4.

Parcel 2310100001 R5 Multi-Family Residential 95.2 Acres with a right of way through to Oakland Pointe south of Richmond Rd and next to Oakland Pointe (R5) Scenario B RHD

Parcel 1340100020 zoned A1 vacant Comp Plan Moderate Density Residential North side of 60 from Croaker rd. It is next to the parcel west of Croaker next to a Mixed-use parcel 2320100001 also zoned A1 7.85 acres. Scenario B RHD

Parcel 1330100008 zoned A1 vacant comp plan Low Density Residential north of Richmond rd. third parcel west of Croaker, 30.28 acres. Scenario B RHD

The last two parcels are North of Richmond Rd but next to the CSX rail line off of Cokes Ln 

Parcel 1340100019 zoned A1 Comp Plan Mixed Use 1-acre LUCK STONE CORPORATION

Parcel 1340100018 zoned A1 Comp Plan Mixed Use 7.2acres LUCK STONE CORPORATION

Traffic Volume HRTPO Volume 2015 and Beyond

The Richmond Rd area between Croaker Rd and Toano in TAZ 1827. The chart below shows the increase in population, households, and vehicles for the TAZ by 2045. These increases were based on the 2035 Comp Plan’s Land Use Map which does not account for the increased density proposed in the FLUP.

Figure 15 A – TAZ 1827 Pop, Households and Vehicle Increase by 2045

Traffic Volume data from HRTPO Traffic Volume in 2015 had an Average Daily Traffic of 14.00 vehicles. The July 2020 HRTPO’s Historic Triangle Comprehensive Transportation Study on Richmond rd from  – Barhamsville Rd Rt to 607 – Croaker Rd at an Existing Weekly Volume of 15,041vehicles and a Weekly Volume in 2040 of 22,000 vehicles. It described the PM Peak Period Congestion Level for the Existing as LOW, and 2040 as LOW. The HRTPO studies use the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data projections based on the 2035 Comp Plan’s Land Use Map, which does not account for the increased density proposed in the FLUP. Combined with TAZ 1826 and 1841”s data from Figure C and the increased densities proposed in these TAZ in the FLUP it is reasonable to say the 2040 HRTPO  Historic Triangle Comprehensive Transportation Study Study on Richmond rd from  Barhamsville Rd Rt. to 607 – Croaker Rd will change to the Moderate  range

Richmond Rd between Croaker Rd and Toano  AADT 14,000 HRTPO Traffic Volume 2015

LDR Whisper Ridge LLC/Norge Solar Farm

Figure 16 – WHISPER RIDGE, LLC* Scenario B New RLD

Whisper Ridge LLC parcel 2320100052 (figure16) is already designated in the Comp Plan as Low-Density Residential, Zoning A1 General Agriculture on 215.68 acres and is vacant. However, on 9 Jan 2018 the BoS approved SUP-0028-2016, the construction and operation of a photovoltaic solar electrical generation facility with a capacity of up to 5,000-kilovolt amperes or more, and electrical transmission lines capable of transmitting 69 kilovolts or more, The Norge Farm Ln goes through the end of the property as seen on the aerial below in figure 17. Figure 18 depicts the other three contiguous parcels that belong to Whisper Ridge LLC.

Figure 17 – Whisper Ridge LLC very Recent Aerial next to Walnut Farm subdivision 20 acres

Figure 18- Approved Master Plan for Whisper Ridge LLC/Norge Solar Farm with RPA

RHD Armistead AFD

The Armistead AFD (Figure 19) is located to the west by Centerville Rd and on the east by a portion of the Warhill Sports Complex.

Armistead AFD in purple (300 plus acres) ,which is inside of the PSA  and in the 2035 Land Use Map it is Low Density Residential. Scenario B has it as High-Density Residential (Figure 19).

Figure 20 is the zoning map shows that one of the parcels is A1 and 3 of Armistead parcels in green are Rural Residential. Also shown in Figure 20 is Scenario B’s High-Density Residential (red dots HRD). 

If approved in the 2045 Land Use Map  a zoning change would be required from Rural Residential  for three of the parcels and the one A1to be rezoned either Multi-Family Residential District R5 zoning or Residential Planned Community District –  R-4. The last piece is  

3130100029 132.08 R8 Rural Residential

3140100001 41,179 R8 Rural Residential

Figure 19 – Scenario B – RHD red dots and Armistead AFD

Figure 20 – Scenario B -RHD Armistead AFD with RPA and Zoning Map

Armistead  Centerville Traffic Congestion Historic Triangle Comprehensive Plan  Transportation Study

  614 Centerville Rd Rte 612 – Longhill Rd US 60 – Richmond Rd; Existing Weekly Volume – 10,837  Weekly Volume 2040 -12,000;  PM Peak Period Congestion Level Existing Severe 2040 Severe

TAZ 1835

 TAZ 1835 includes the Armistead RHD and covers the area between Centerville Rd, Longhill  Rd to Olde Towne Rd, and along 199 to Richmond Rd. The chart below shows the 2015 and projected 2045 population, households, and vehicles. which are less in 2045 than 2015

HRTPO 2015 Traffic VolumeLonghill from Centerville  to Longhill Gate Entrance to Warhill Sports Complex7

Armistead RHD Centerville from Adam’s Hunt to Richmond Rd ADT 11,000
 
Armistead RHD Centerville from Adams Hunt past Longhill ADT  9,200

Upper Powhatan Watershed w/ Armistead and Warhill Sports Complex

Figure 21 is an overview of the upper Powhatan Creek watershed. The Armistead AFD is at the headwaters of this main trunk of the watershed. High-Density development will increase the impervious surface cover with negative impacts downstream – flooding, increased levels of sediment, environmental impairment, and hydrology changes – similar to what we have seen with the density of New Town on the other headwater main trunk of the watershed.

Figure 21 – Upper Powhatan Watershed w/ Armistead and Warhill Sports Complex

RHD Olde Towne Rd between Route199 and Power lines

Figure 22 – Scenario B – RHD and 2035 Land Use Map

The 2035 Land Use Map designates the three parcel below as Low-Density Residential and Scenario B as High-Density Residential RHD (red stars) with > 12 dwellings per acre. The current zoning ordinance map considers the 4 parcels that total 28.936 acres as general residential  R2 (purple).  

If approved in the 2045 Land Use Map  a zoning change would be required from R2 to R5.

Zoning R2

Comp Plan Low Density Residential

3240100002B

BURDEN, BARBARA D

9.83 acres

3240100001

CHARTER LLC

11.676

3240100002A

SCOTT TRUST (THE)

6.41 acres

Greenspace on 0.96 acres

3240100002A (5427 OLDE TOWNE RD, The Scott Trust Borders Olde Towne Rd on the south and on the east the power line right of way

WLC documents state that Parcel #1 owned by Scotts.   WLC holds a 75′ landscape buffer along Olde Towne Road on Parcel #1

3240100009A

HUGHES, ROBERT D JR & HERZBERG,

1.02 acres

RHD by Longhill Rec Center

Scenario B – RHD Long Hill Rd By Longhill Rec. Center and Rolling Woods

Figure 23 – Scenario B -RHD with 2035 Land Use Map

The 2035 Land Use Map designates the three parcel Figure 23 as Low-Density Residential and Scenario B as High-Density Residential RHD (red stars) with > 12 dwellings per acre. The current zoning ordinance map considers the 17-acre parcel and half of the 6.82 acres parcel as general residential  R2 (purple). The other half of the 6.82-acre parcel and all of the 5.7-acre parcel are zoned Multi-Family Residential (R5).

If approved in the 2045 Land Use Map  a zoning change would be required from R2 to R5.

3330100038

MALLORY, ARTHUR DENNIS TRUSTEE 

17 acres

3330100037A

MALLORY, ARTHUR DENNIS TRUSTEE

6.82 acres

3330100037B

WILLIAMSBURG ASSEMBLY OF GOD C/O TRUST

5.7 acres

ROLLING MEADOWS REDO LLC

R5

20 acres

RMD Waltrip by Airport

Scenario B RMD – Williamsburg Vineyard R8 PDR 4840100010, Waltrip R8 4820100006  Williamsburg  Winery R8 Rural Residential 4840100005

There are three parcels (Figure 24) with the zoning designation of Rural Residential, which has a minimum lot size of 3 acres. The district is intended to maintain a rural environment suitable for farming, forestry, and low-density rural residence, together with certain recreational and public or semipublic and institutional uses, until such time as an orderly expansion of urban development is appropriate. The area is adjacent to the airport.

The parcel 4840100010 is owned by the Williamsburg Vineyard, zoned R8, the Comp Plan has it as Low Density Residential and has a conservation easement with the Historic Virginia Land Conservancy. (Figures 25 & 26) .

The second parcel 4840100005 is owned Williamsburg  Winery is R8 and the Comp Plan has it as Low Density Residential. 

The Waltrip Parcel 4840100005 is R8 and  the Comp Plan has it as Low Density Residential. 

If the 2045 Land Use Plan is approved as RMD a zoning change would be required

Figure 24 – Scenario B RMD

Figure 25 – Williamsburg Winery Historic Virginia Land Conservancy

Figure 26 – DCR Williamsburg Winery Historic Virginia Land Conservancy

RMD HRSD Plant 

Figure 27 shows the Colonial Investors, Inc.’s parcel5910100028, with 23.89 acres, zoned asR2 General Residential and in the Comp Plan as Low-Density Residential: 150 Grove LLC 5910100029,7.1 acres, Zoning R2 General Residential Comp Plan Low-Density Residential; PALMER, JOSHUA C 5910200018F, 2 acres, and PALMER, JOSHUA, 5910200018E 2 acres are at the middle bottom 2 long narrow parcels both Zoning R2 General Residential Comp Plan Low-Density Residential; DLH TWO LLC 5230800027, 6.5 acres, ROBERTS, KAREN D & FRANCIS HAILEY,5910200026, 3.81 acres middle top 2 long narrow parcels both Zoning R2 General Residential Comp Plan Low-Density Residential.

Figure 28 shows the roadway to the 6 different parcels and the surrounding parcels.

Figure 27 – HRSD Scenario B RMD (6 parcels) and Zoning Map

Figure 28 – HRSD Scenario B RMD (6 parcels), Parcel Map with Structures and roadways – Ron Springs Drive off of Pocahontas Trail and Magruder Avenue off of Ron Springs rd.

Group 3

Figure 29 – Group 3

Hazelwood EO

Figure 30 – Hazelwood EO, which also extends across I64 across from the Stonehouse entrance

Anderson Corner EO

Anderson Corner Scenario B MCI MCR RLD RMD

                 Figure 31 – Anderson Corner 2035 Land Use Map Scenario B – MCI, MCR, RLD, RMD

Figure 32 – Anderson Corner Zoning Scenario B -MCI MCR RLD RMD

2035 Land Use on Anderson Corner-The operative guidance is – Changing the Land Use Map Designation to Mixed-Use is not recommended. Here are additional changes. 

Changes. Parcel 1210100031and 1210100030 on Anderson Corner across from the gas station are owned by JCC. Why not have it designates as Open Space and remove the B1. Parcel 1220100008 8297 Richmond Rd, The Geddy Farm, is a PDR JCC Conservation easement + Scenic buffers on adjacent lots. Remove the B1 designation.

In the 2035 Comp Plan, the Land Use Map Descriptions and Development Standards section on page 177 and page 187 is this section below –

2035 Comp Plan LU section Anderson’s Corner Area (pages 177-178)

There are approximately 90 acres outside the area designated Mixed-Use in this area that is zoned, General Business (B-1), and designated Low-Density Residential. The surrounding property is zoned General Agricultural (A-1 Hawkins 157-acre parcel from Group 2) A1 Low-Density Residential)) and Limited Residential (R-1). The County recognizes this property’s zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations are inconsistent; however, for the reasons outlined below, the County believes that no changes in Land Use Map The designation is warranted.

  • Changing the Land Use Map Designation to Mixed-Use is not recommended. There is a substantial amount of land designated Mixed-Use in and around the Barhamsville Road and the Croaker Road interchanges. There is also a substantial amount of land designated for General Industry just to the south of Anderson’s Corner.
  • Changing the Land Use Map Designation to make it consistent with the underlying zoning would lend credibility to other adjacent property owners wishing to re-designate their parcels from Low-Density Residential to a more intense land use classification. Further development beyond what could occur based on existing zoning could result in significant increases in traffic volumes on both Route 30 and Richmond Road (Route 60).
  • Because these B-1 parcels are adjacent to existing single-family homes and property designated Low-Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan, they are not an appropriate location for intense business/commercial uses. By keeping the Low-Density Residential designation in this area, the County is better able to mitigate the impacts of businesses that locate in this area through the SUP process. It is the policy of the County to mitigate these impacts during the development review process.
  • 1240100011 HANKINS, GEORGE M JR & DUNN, SHARON H Low-Density Residential A1 157.6 acres (see Group 2)

Hazelwood and Anderson Corner EOs in the context of the Diascund Creek Watershed

Both thee Hazelwood and Anderson Corner EOs are at the headwaters of two main trunks of Diascund Creek (Figure13 A) and inside of the PSA Figure 13A also shows the vacant parcels > 100acres (red outline)  and subdivisions.

Figure 13 A – Diascund Creek Watershed with Hazelwood and Anderson Corner EOs that are at the headwaters of two main trunks of Diascund Creek as shown by the RPAs in gren crosshatch The graphic also shows Vacant parcels over 100 acres outside of the PSA boundary in black outline

Figure  13B below adds the structure 9out lined in red) in the watershed as well as the septic systems (yellow dots). Without a definitive impervious cover from a watershed management plan for the Diascund Creek Watershed, the estimate for the current impervious cover is likely in 1%-5% range and is Sensitive within the 0%-10%range. It is s the best estimate available. The overall 2045 population, household, and vehicles projected for the watershed as a whole and for the specific TAZs of both EO areas will raise the level of impervious surface cover in the Diascund Creek Watershed but hopefully not above the sensitive range of 0%-10%. Increases in the impervious surface cover will have negative impacts downstream – flooding increased levels of sediment, environmental impairment, and hydrology changes – similar to what we have seen with the density of New Town on the other headwater main trunk of the Powhatan and Yarmouth watersheds

Figure 13B – Diascund Creek Watershed with Hazelwood and Anderson Corner EOs that are at the headwaters of two main trunks of Diascund Creek. The graphic also shows Vacant parcels over 100 acres outside of the PSA boundary in black outline structures (red outline) with subdivisions and septic systems in yellow dots

Croaker Rd I64 Interchange

Figure 33 – 2035 Land Use Map with Mixed-Use in light blue the Mooretown/Hill Pleasant Farm EO in gray with Scenario B showing MCI and MCR in orange dots and Rural Residential – RR_in green triangle

Figure 35 places the Croaker Mixed-Use area in the context of its position at the headwaters of two main trunks of the upper Skimno Creek watershed. High-Density development will increase the impervious surface cover with negative impacts downstream – flooding, increased levels of sediment, environmental impairment, and hydrology changes – similar to what we have seen with the density of New Town on the other headwater main trunk of the watershed

Figure 34 – 2035 Land Use Map with Mixed-Use in light blue the Mooretown/Hill Pleasant Farm EO in gray with Scenario B showing MCI and MCR in orange dots and Rural Residential – RR in green triangle, Red hatch areas are parcels. the 43,8-acre parcel in red is owned by the Williamsburg Land Conservancy and zoned M1 Limited Business/Industrial (IL)

Hawkins Property II 2018 Historical Virginia Land Conservancy; parcel 143010003 8196 Croaker RD; Zoning M1 Limited Business/Industrial Comp Plan Mixed Use 61.10 acres
Hawkins Property II, 20II, Historical Virginia Land Conservancy/Williamsburg Land Conservancy; parcel 1440100019 8240 CROAKER RD Zoning – R5 Multi-Family Residential; Comp Plan – Mixed Use 43.84 acres

Figure 35 – Skimino Watershed I64 Croaker Interchange  

Solara Woods

The Solara Woods proposal is to develop 57 lots on 4 parcels currently outside of the PSA with 4 parcels that are in the PSA. The project is unique in that development is based on a concept of a Zero Energy Ready Home and building homes of the future. The novel proposal is to build a sustainable community around a virtual micro-grid/solar farm located on the development as well as solar panels on each single-family home.

Figure 35 – Skimino Watershed I64 Croaker Interchange  
Figure 37 – Solara Woods 57 Lots

Private

MARSTON LLC HEALTH-E COMMUNITY

R1 Limited Residential

Vacant

No

Rural  Lands

Low Density Residential/Addition to PSA

See applicant narrative on Permalink: https://comdev.jamescitycountyva.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/#/plan/b0d260bb-22cb-4e5c-82a3-dc01dfca8f68   Plan Number: LU-20-0001

To date in the Yarmouth Creek Watershed the county has invested in 8 stormwater projects, 2 of which were stream restorations projects at a total cost of $622,144. Projects to date are in the headwaters in sub-watershed 103 and 104. 

In the FY 20-24 Capital Investment Program (CIP) the Yarmouth Creek Watershed has two more stream restoration projects at a cost of $1,613,000. 

 Also, the Neighborhood Drainage program from 2016-2018 had 9 projects  that in total came to $140,239 of which the county payed  $67,178 of that total. 

From 2008 to 2024 the county will have spent $2,302322 to mitigate the effects of growth on her watershed

Greenspace

JCC GIS Conservation Easements includes Conservation, Open Space, Greenway and Scenic. And VA Conservation Land Easement GIS

19

Yarmouth

DeBord

130 Crescent Drive, PIN 2310100001B

JCC

101

6/26/07

6/29/07

Fee Simple

 $  1,212,000 

 LU 20-0001

Property-owner initiated

Marston Parcels

282 Bush Springs Rd, 290 Bush Springs Rd, 291 Bush Springs Rd & 308 Bush Springs Rd 

2220100036, 2220100034, 2220100090, 2220100035

Private

MARSTON LLC HEALTH-E COMMUNITY

R1 Limited Residential

Vacant

No

Rural  Lands

Low Density Residential/Addition to PSA

See applicant narrative on Permalink: https://comdev.jamescitycountyva.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService/#/plan/b0d260bb-22cb-4e5c-82a3-dc01dfca8f68   Plan Number: LU-20-0001

Figure 38 – County Septic System around the Solara Woods parcel (yellow dots)

The county has 4,805 septic system in the county that it monitors and 36% or 1,826 septic systems are inside of the PSA

Figure 39 – Upper Yarmouth Watershed 102 is the location of Solara Woods
Figure 40 – Upper Yarmouth Watershed with sub-divisions septic systems (yellow dots) and vacant parcels larger then 100 acres

Based on the Center’s stream impervious cover model, all nine sub-watersheds were classified as sensitive (CWP, 1998). If we consider future growth, four of these sub-watersheds are expected to move into the impacted category. However, future growth in the watershed remains uncertain as areas can be re-zoned.

Stream habitat surveys show early and clear signs of stress in the most headwater streams primarily due to stormwater runoff from Richmond Rd (Rt. 60) corridor. However, streams quickly improve as you move downstream from the Rt. 60 corridor. (10-25% Impervious cover is classified as impacted which means runoff from urbanized areas is triggering stream channel and stream bank erosion. This degrades in-stream habitat such that biodiversity decreases.)

Figure 41 – the 1998 Impervious Cover survey of the Yarmouth Creek Watershed by Center for Watershed Protection (CWP

Eastern State

Figure 42 – 2035 Land Use Map Eastern State Scenario B -MCI_MCR

Figure 43 – Zoning Map Eastern State Scenario B – MCI_MCR

Figure 44 –  2009 WEG Upper Powhatan Creek  Floodplain Study of the Upper Powhatan areas labeled in red are multiple road crossings within the study area that are overtopped during the modeled 100-year event. 

Safety concerns at road crossings range from those associated with catastrophic failure during extreme events to the gradual deterioration of embankment faces and sloping abutments. Road overtopping in general has a variety of effects, including, but not limited to, obstruction of exit routes preventing evacuation or emergency services, and disruption of utilities, and is typically accompanied by debris jams at culvert entrances and erosion of embankments and sloping abutments.

A study done in 1976 an estimate of  impervious was 2-3% In 2007 the impervious cover of the watershed is 14.4 % but did not estimate full build out conditions

Figure 41 places the Eastern Stat Mixed-Use area in the context of its position at the headwaters of the eastern main trunk of the upper Powhatan Creek watershed. High-Density development will increase the impervious surface cover with negative impacts downstream – flooding, increased levels of sediment, environmental impairment, and hydrology changes – similar to what we have seen with the density of New Town on the headwater of the eastern main trunk of the watershed

Updated hydrologic modeling provided with the 2009 study shows that runoff rates associated with a 100- year or a 500-year return period are estimated to have increased significantly since the original study was performed. Based on Atlas 14 data, in conjunction with the land cover changes described above, the 100-year peak runoff for 2007 land cover conditions is estimated to be 2.5 – 5 times the peak runoff shown in the effective FEMA FIS

2018 SPECIAL SESSION I VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY CHAPTER 2

An Act for all appropriations of the Budget submitted by the Governor of Virginia in accordance with the provisions of § 2.2-1509, Code of Virginia, and to provide a portion of revenues for the two years ending respectively on the thirtieth day of June 2019, and the thirtieth day of June 2020.

Approved June 7, 2018

Item 310 page 331

U.1. The Department of General Services (DGS), with the cooperation of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS), shall work with James City County to identify the amount of acreage needed on the Eastern State Hospital site to be purchased or leased at fair market value by James City County for the co-location of a new facility for Old Town Medical Center and Colonial Behavior Health and the development of a community project that serves as a residence for 25 families impacted by a member with serious mental illness by Hope Family Village Corporation.

U.2. As part of this process, DGS will work with James City County to update the James City County comprehensive plan to assist with a master development plan, including the subject acres, of the entire site to maximize the economic development opportunities, expedite the rezoning process and the receipt of funds for DBHDS Mental Health Trust fund from the sale(s) of surplus property.LU 20-0003

The developers of New Town are proposing a change the land -use for Eastern State to Mixed-Use, which is adjacent  to New Town.

Property-owner initiated

Eastern State-Mixed Use Community

4601 Ironbound Rd

3910100152

Public

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL

PL Public Lands

Eastern State

Yes

Federal, State, and County Land

Mixed Use

Figure 45- Eastern State parcel map with retained Eastern State

ABVA would intend to develop up to 85 single-family dwelling units on Parcel C-1 in a manner entirely consistent with the adjacent residential development in New Town. ABVA would intend some combination of up to 190,000 square feet of commercial development and 100 single-family attached dwelling units or 150 multifamily units on Parcel C-2. 

85 single family dwelling

100 single family attached dwelling units or 150 multifamily units

Figure 46 – Eastern State Parcel map
Figure 47 – Eastern State parcel aerial view with RPAs

A/B/B1/B2

250 Apartments

691 Townhome/Condominiums/Single Family Home

140 Single Family Detached

Approx.  372 Affordable Units

5 New businesses 

Medical Office Users

**C1/C2**

85 single family dwelling

100 single family attached dwelling units or 150 multifamily units

**Total A/B/C**

The proposed land-use change to Mixed -Use  has a development of  Eastern State to build, 235 Single Family Detached, 791 Townhome/Condominium/Single Family Home attached, 250 Apartments and 5 new business.

How likely are you to support a land-use change of Eastern State to Mixed-use?

2.46 X 1276 = =3,100 population

Figure 48 – Eastern State entry roads parcel C from New Towne

Figure 49 – Eastern State parcel RPAs and contour map

Figure 50 – Eastern State Road Network with twp “Bottlenecks”

Historic Triangle Comprehensive Plan  Transportation Study

Depue DriveTraffic Congestion Historic Triangle Comprehensive Plan  Transportation Study

 612 Longhill Rd SR 199 Rte 615 – Depue Dr; Existing Weekly Volume – 16,878 Weekly Volume 2040 – 25,000; PM Peak Period Congestion Level Existing Low 2040 Moderate

Bottleneck PM – Longhill turn on to Longhill Connector and Depuy  Dr AWDT 11412  (HRTPO 2015  AAWDT 9900)

Depuy Dr and 322  HRTPO 2015  AAWDT 12000

Longhill Connector and 199  HRTPO 2015  AAWDT 12000

Bottleneck PM – Ironbound and Rt322 AWDT – 0  (HRTPO 2015  AAWDT 9900)

199 between Monticello and Longhill North Bound  HRTPO 2015  AAWDT 31000

I appreciate your explanation of why your PM Bottleneck, a volume-to-capacity ratio exceeding 90%, is an apple to oranges comparison to the Historic Triangle Comprehensive Plan Transportation Study’s congestion level of SEVERE defined as a Level of Service (LOS) between E-F.

From a layman’s perspective when I compare your PM Bottlenecks between Scenario A, our current land-use map, and Scenario B, an alternative land-use map, with few exceptions the PM bottlenecks are the same. 

When I look at the Historic Triangle Comprehensive Plan Transportation Study’s roadway predicted as congestion level of SEVERE by 2040 they are by and large they are the same roadways.

“Major roadways in the Historic Triangle that are expected to operate in severely congested conditions in 2040 include I-64 between Route 30 and Route 199/646, Route 199 to the south of Williamsburg between John Tyler Highway (Route 5) and Pocahontas Trail (US Route 60), portions of Monticello Avenue in James City County and Williamsburg,” 

Having said that I am interested to understand how the PM Bottleneck volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 90%, was calculated. Was the data contained in the shapefiles for  All_Net_JCC_VF_v3 and Allday_Net_JCC_AF_v3 or was it some other calculation that the model used?

The example that I am interested in understanding is for Scenario B, how the model’s PM volume -capacity ratio was computed for the new Mixed-Use area for Eastern state.

The proposed land-use change to Mixed -Use has a development of Eastern State to build, 235 Single Family-Detached, 791 Townhome/Condominium/Single Family Home attached, 250 Apartments, and 5 new business. Total 1,276 Residential Households X 2.48 persons per Households = 3,165 population plus 5 new business.

What was the impact on the Longhill Connector from 199 to Ironbound with a doubling of the future population for TAZ 1812?

Group 4

Group 4

6 May PCWG

6/7 – Land Use (5:10-5:20)

                 1.* Mooretown Rd./Hill Pleasant Farm (Mr. Polster)

                 a.* Re-examine the appropriateness of EO designation

                 b.* Incorporate this into the modeling

                 c.* LOS was not improved on surrounding roads with Mooretown Rd extension. The bigger impact of the reduction of development.

                 d.* Building the extension would exacerbate traffic problems – take out full connection or at least portion that goes to Rochambeau (Mr. Haldeman)

                 2.* Either extend utilities to serve designated Economic Opportunity zones or only have EO inside PSA (Ms. Leverenz)

                 3.* Economic Opportunity Zone (Mr. O’Connor)

                 a.* Density

                 b.* Increased residential opportunity consistent with Smart City Design concepts

                 c.* Increased vertical for more cost-efficient construction and create additional affordable housing opportunities

                 d.* Remove certain uses (residential and childcare, refer to recording for additional ones) from the zoning/ lu designation for the Barhamsville interchange to maximize its value (best for offices and light industry but not other uses that will just create traffic (Mr. Haldeman) 

                 e.* For Barhamsville and Anderson’s Corner Area, have models show them as MCR and MCI to see the difference (Mr. Polster). 

                 f.* Eliminating housing from these areas could have a negative effect on the road network as it would eliminate walk to work (Mr. O’Connor)

                 4.* Incentive for sustainability/modern technology-driven construction (Mr. O’Connor)

                 a.* energy

                 b.* material

                 c.* most sustainability in modern construction has a greater impact on regional level vs. local level

                 5.* Short-term rentals (Mr. O’Connor)

                 a.* What role do they play in our local economy?

                 b.* Should there be a limit to number or locations?

                 c.* What is the public benefit – i.e. creation of jobs with benefits, support of sports or agritourism? 

                 6.* Expiration dates on tourist home SUPs; review tourist home standards (Ms. Leverenz)

                 7.* Ft. Eustis military overlay district (Ms. Leverenz)

                 8.* Promote workforce housing and economic opportunities (such as grocery store) in the general industry land-use area of Grove through land-use changes (Mr. Haldeman)

                 9.* What is the deliverable in our consultant contract on the PSA, whether to expand it or keep it as is? (Mr. Polster)

What guidance do you need from the community on land use issues to help inform policy direction?

                 * * On HPF and Mooretown Road, what do they think about keeping it rural and outside PSA versus developing it? (Mr. Polster)

                 * * Is the community supportive of the County extending utilities to Barhamsville interchange properties to prepare it for economic opportunity (appropriate to be in PSA, appropriate for County to spend resources to incentivize this and provide affordable housing and a grocery store up there)? (Ms. Leverenz, Mr. Polster)

                 * * Do we know whether the community supports an expansion of the PSA? If so, where? (Ms. Wertman)

                 * * What reconsideration of the PSA line should there be based on patterns of development since it was drawn? Adjustments vs. redrawing? (Mr. Krapf) Contraction? (Ms. Wertman)

                 * * What support is there for lowering the density in rural lands? (Ms. Leverenz)

                 * * We need more community preference information on mixed-use and mixed density developments. (Ms. Wertman)

Frank

Watershed Zoning

Protect Preserve Rural Lands

Jack

Jack Neighborhood Commercial on Monticello across from Windsor Meade  

3.  Would you consider and Open Space/PDR and as a minimum eliminating the Neighborhood Commercial designation?  Sure, that’s what I recommended after the PC denied the application.

Tim O

Could we please add a discussion of the PSA boundary especially in light of the diminished need at Stonehouse.  We should look at those areas that are potentially developable with central well and septic systems as a way to make a positive impact on sensitive watersheds. 

Here’s my thought on the PSA.   

Background for my thoughts:

* We have typically used the PSA to control growth.   

* The PSA was expanded some years ago to allow for the growth of Stonehouse at the northern end of the county

* Developer downsized by 1000 DU +/- and is still able to market the property as being in the PSA

* Some were sold on the fact that it would be some sort of conservation area for the State (hasn’t come to fruition yet)

* There is a by-right land use application for Marston Farm for 57 units at the end of Bush Springs Road which is intended to have individual well and septic systems

* Scenario B of our Comp Plan update relies on 2 things that are counter to what we do currently (my opinion) – 

                 * That we will have some sort of plan to attract some high tech business/corp headquarters/research to provide a greater business tax base

                 * That we will allow higher density in the PSA to lessen the pressure on Rural Lands

That said,  my comments on the PSA is that perhaps we need to shrink at Stonehouse and those areas not in danger of being developed and expand to those areas that may be developed that are off the main drags.  This would accomplish several things

1  Take lands that will probably be developed that are off the main roads and allow them to be in the PSA and have the higher density to accommodate Scenario B

2  Lessen the pressure and impact of higher density on main road viewscapes. 

3 Have a positive impact on the environment through water and sewer hookups and a positive impact on affordability as well/septic is $16,000 per Lot vs. $10,000 JCSA hook up fee.   

I’m sorry I’m not more eloquent but this is why I feel the discussion is so important.  I remain convinced that several of our colleagues and the public at large don’t understand that our definition of rural lands is those lands outside the PSA vs. the viewscape that folks currently enjoy driving north and west of Lightfoot.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *