land use - james city county, va

Land UsePlanning Commission Working Group

December 7, 2020

1

ENGAGE 2045 James City CountySHARE your ideas SHAPE our community

Items for Review Today2

Technical Report

Community Guidance

Open Space Programs Briefing Paper

Existing Land Use Map Descriptions & Development Standards

Existing GSAs

Growth Management Trends & JCSA Analysis

FLUM Materials


Growth Management

• The linchpin of James City County’s land use planning is growth management

• Growth management tools fall under the following categories: • Direct growth controls

• Urban containment (growth boundaries)

• Facility planning, adequacy, and timing

• Infill and redevelopment

• Regional planning

3


Primary Service Area (PSA) 4

• Principal tool for managing growth

• Combined growth area/service area boundary to direct growth to areas where the

land is suitable

• Goals Accomplished

• Increase public benefit per dollar spent

• Encourage efficient utilization of public facilities and services (water and sewer,

roadways, schools, fire and police stations, libraries, etc.)

• Help ensure such facilities and services are available where and when needed

• Promote public health and safety through improved emergency response time

• Minimize well and septic failures within the PSA

• Encourage utilization of Rural Lands for economically beneficial agriculture,

forestry, and related uses


PSA: Residential Capacity5

Parcel Status

Estimated

Development

Potential

(Dwelling Units)

Estimated Years to

Absorption

1. Master Planned Communities and By-Right

Subdivisions with Approved Construction Plans6,787

13-172. Other Vacant Platted Lots 598

Subtotal 7,385

3. Undeveloped Parcels Designated Low Density

or Moderate Density Residential3,157

20-263. Totals Above, Plus Undeveloped Parcels

Designated Mixed Use or Economic

Opportunity (portion of designated areas)*

944

Grand Total 11,486

Table LU-1. Residential Units Based on Planning Division Staff Analysis


Acreage By Zoning6

Zoning Districts are classified as follows: Agricultural (A-1, R-8), Residential (R-

1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, PUD-R), Commercial (LB, B-1, PUD-C), Mixed Use

(MU), Public Lands (PL), Industrial (M-1, M-2)


PSA: Non-Residential Land Capacity7

Category Acres

Zoned, undeveloped 2,325

Zoned, available portion of partially

developed parcels113

Designated, not yet zoned 1,055

Total 3,493


Other Tools Used In Conjunction With PSA

8

New development policies: pedestrian/bicycle accommodations, adequate public schools facilities analysis, traffic impact analysis, etc.

Voluntary proffers and SUP conditions for legislative applications to mitigate impacts

Development Tracking

Land Conservation, Infill & Redevelopment, Greenspace Program


Rural Lands Tools

9


Rural Lands: Open Space

Tool Decision Tree

10


Agriculture

• Agriculture continues to be an important part of a diverse economy in James City County

• In addition to economic benefits, agriculture benefits the County by upholding rural community character

11


Agricultural Trends

2017 2012 2007 2002State County State County State County State County

Total Farms 43,225 72 46,030 83 47,383 74 47,606 64Land in Farms (acres)

7,797,979 6,630 8,302,444 5,544 8,103,925 5,831 8,624,829 8,962

Avg. Size of Farm (acres)

180 92 180 67 171 79 181 140

Total Cropland (farms)

32,091 46 34,525 57 35,954 47 41,047 60

Total Cropland (acres)

3,084,067 3,591 2,990,561 2,987 3,274,137 2,990 4,194,158 6,342

12

2017 2012 2007 2002

State County State County State County State County

Farms by Size Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

1 to 9 acres 4,595 11% 17 24% 3,343 7% 17 20% 3,530 7% 10 14% 3,027 6% 13 20%

10 to 49 acres 13,631 32% 26 36% 14,425 31% 34 41% 15,177 32% 40 54% 14,082 30% 22 34%

50 to 179 acres 14,800 34% 18 25% 16,850 37% 28 34% 17,589 37% 16 22% 18,315 38% 19 30%

180 to 499 acres 6,732 16% 9 13% 7,864 17% 3 4% 7,777 16% 7 9% 8,613 18% 7 11%

500 to 999 acres 2,127 5% 0 0% 2,173 5% 0 0% 1,985 4% 0 0% 2,183 5% 1 2%

1,000 acres or more 1,340 3% 2 3% 1,375 3% 1 1% 1,325 3% 1 1% 1,386 3% 2 3%

Summary comparison data from Census of Agriculture 2002-2017

County and state farm size comparison.


Residential Trends

• County has undergone continuous rapid growth since 1970

• In the past 50 years, the County’s population has more than quadrupled, growing from 17,853 in 1970 to 74,153 as of 2018

• Approximately one-third of the County’s existing dwelling units are in large master-planned communities (with 500 or more homes each)

• 87% of the County’s existing dwelling units are in the PSA

13


Residential Trends: Units Added14


Residential Trends15


Residential Trends16


Commercial Trends • The County has experienced significant diversification in business and

industry since the 1990’s

• This trend aided by the development of New Town• A mixed-use area approved for more than 1,000,000 square feet of

commercial space

• Since 2010, commercial development in the Settlers Market section of New Town has completed build out of approximately 400,000 square feet of commercial space

• Nearby to New Town, complementary commercial development exists within the Courthouse Commons, Courthouse Green, Windsormeade, Monticello Marketplace, and Monticello Shoppes developments

17


Industrial Trends • Industrial growth concentrated in the James River Commerce Park

and Green Mount Industrial Park. In the last ten years, Jacob’s Industrial Park has added significant infrastructure and several businesses

• In 2019 Navien, Inc. announced its plans to establish a manufacturing and assembly center within the Stonehouse Commerce Park

• County’s industrial base includes three Fortune 500 (or Fortune Global 500) firms: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Ball Metal, and Wal-Mart

• Industrial property remains available in Stonehouse Commerce Park, Hankins Industrial Park, James River Commerce Center, and Green Mount Industrial Park

18


Total Water & Sewer Customers19

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure LU-5. Total Water & Sewer Customers 2010-2019

Water customers Sewer Customers


Total Water and Sewer Mileage20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure LU-6. Total Water and Sewer Mileage 2010-2019

Water lines (miles) Sewer lines (miles)


Fort Eustis Joint Land Use Study & BASF Site21

• The Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE) is a 7,933-acre facility that is located in both Newport News and James City County and supports a population of 22,000 people, including active duty members, the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and civilians and family members

• JBLE is important to national defense and to the economies of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Hampton Roads region and James City County

• During 2015 Comp Plan Update, the County received a request to change the land use designation for the BASF property from General Industry to a Mixed Use designation

• Prompted JLUS Study


Fort Eustis JLUS Process• The Joint Base Langley-Eustis JLUS commenced in January 2017

• The objective of JLUS was to identify land uses that are compatible with the mission and use of Fort Eustis, as well as develop growth management guidelines for surrounding communities

• The County was an active participant in the 15-month collaborative planning process that produced the JLUS.

• Stakeholders included the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, Joint Base Langley-Eustis (Fort Eustis), the City of Newport News, the City of Hampton, James City County, York County, and community residents and business representatives

22


Fort Eustis JLUS Recommendation• The JLUS recommends that the County and the JBLE establish formal

communication procedures to ensure that development proposal and policy changes from either party are communicated clearly and in a timely manner

• The JLUS also recommends that the County establish a Military Influence Overlay District (MIOD)• The MIOD is a policy tool that would ensure a representative of JBLE would

have the opportunity to provide comment and guidance on land use policy decisions and development proposals within the County portion of the JLUS study area

23


Other Policies

• Large Retail Establishments

• Strip Commercial Development

• Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs)

• Short Term Rentals

• Time Shares

24


Community Guidance• Community Input a key driver for this section

• 2019 Citizen Survey• CSR mailed advance letter to a randomly selected sample of 3000 residents

• 1060 completions

• Response rate of 35%

• “Summit on the Future”• Live Polling Exercise

• Preserve Change

• Big Ideas Map

25


2019 Citizen Survey: Amount of Dev.

Industrial 2019 Survey 2014 Survey

Too low 6.4% 4.1%

About right 58.7% 51.0%

Too high 34.9% 41.6%

26

Commercial 2019 Survey 2014 Survey

Office* Retail* Commercial*

Too low 5.6% 5.6% 11.1%

About right 66.5% 45.0% 40.4%

Too high 27.9% 49.4% 44.9%

Residential2019 Survey 2014 Survey

Too low 20.0% 23.8%

About right 62.3% 49.0%

Too high 17.7% 8.3%


Survey Highlights• 79.3% of respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that

developers who wish to build businesses or residences should always be required to pay a fee to the County to offset public costs even if it means increases in the price of their services and new housing. This is nine points higher than the response received to the same question in 2014, with 70.3% agreeing with this statement at that time.

• 78.5% of respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that it is more important to preserve farmland in the County than it is to have more development. This is similar to the response received to the same question in 2014, with 77.5% of respondents agreeing with this statement at that time.

27


Survey Highlights

• 97.9% of respondents strongly favored or somewhat favored having developers provide public amenities such as sidewalks, bikeways, streetlights, parks/open spaces, and street trees in the County’s development area.

• 81.2% of respondents strongly favored or somewhat favored reducing the number of lots a person can divide a large (rural) parcel into. A comparable question was not asked in 2014.

28


Summit On the Future Highlights• 65% of respondents stated it was very important for the County to

improve its efforts to protect and preserve rural character in the County

• 87% of respondents stated it was very important for the County to improve its efforts to protect and preserve the natural environment within the County

• When asked about their opinion regarding the future of lands outside the PSA, the highest ranking answer (71% of respondents) was “Protect as much rural and environmentally sensitive land as possible”

29


Summit on the Future Highlights• When asked about their biggest concern for the future, the highest

ranking answer (42% of respondents) was “Changing Community Character (ex. Loss of rural vistas, historic places, small town…”)

• When asked what the most important objective for the County ought to be, the highest ranking answer (48% of respondents) was “Managing growth”

30

Preserve/Change Map

• Jamestown Island, York River State Park, and Chickahominy Riverfront Park identified for preservation

• Grove, Toano, New Town, Eastern State Hospital, Monticello Avenue (segment from Rt. 199 to News Road) and Lightfoot as being opportunities for change and preservation

31


“Big Ideas” station

• Support for preserving the “small town” character and encouraging development/redevelopment to locate inside the PSA

• Participants also generally supported increasing mixed-use development and the efficient use of space within such developments

• The Eastern State properties were specifically called out as an opportunity for future mixed use development

• Participants also recommended locating shopping, dining, and similar amenities adjacent to independent living to allow greater access for residents

32


Open Space Programs Briefing PaperScenic Viewsheds

• The County’s Greenbelt Policy (designation in 1975 and policy in 1987) laid the foundation for landscape buffers along select historic and scenic roadways at the time of legislative approval. The list of roads and associated standards can be reviewed with each Comprehensive Plan.

• Greenbelt roads evolved into Community Character Corridors (CCCs) in the 1990s, and timber and right-of-way buffer requirements were added to the Zoning Ordinance to mirror the Comprehensive Plan CCC standards. Zoning Ordinance revisions are often contemplated as implementation item following a substantial update to the Comprehensive Plan.

• Some viewsheds not protected via Zoning Ordinance requirements have been protected through the Greenspace and PDR programs. Generally, the public benefit and cost increase as more of the physical land and its rights are covered by easement.

33


Open Space Programs Briefing PaperForge Road and Other Rural Views

• Determining the values of a property or corridor is an important first step and can help determine the best strategy moving forward.

• Strategies include consideration of CCC designation, appropriateness of land use designations and land use development standards.

• Strategies can also include Zoning Ordinance amendments to adjust use lists, setbacks, minimum lot sizes, development patterns, and landscape requirements.

• The open space work session memo outlines past priority areas, including targeted geographical areas (such as Forge Road) and conservation values (such as agricultural and forested lands).

34



Open Space Programs

• In addition to geographical priorities and conservation value priorities, a parcel’s threat of development can also be a factor. • It can help determine a target list of properties for the County to proactively

seek to acquire as in the Greenspace Program.• It can be used to help the County rank in a reactive manner to properties

offered for acquisition through an application process as in the PDR Program.

• The Board of Supervisors authorizes program targets and preliminary negotiations and considers final approval at a public meeting.

• The open space work session memo outlines the history of the programs, their distinctions, and various tools and funding opportunities.

35


Open Space Programs Briefing PaperCommunity Guidance

• There has been a considerable amount of public input received on open space and preservation issues; however, it should be noted that the issue of preserving natural areas and rural character consistently ranked highest in public concern and support.

• The input has several recurring themes and provides insight on what the public wants to conserve and preferences on how to conserve it.

• Round 3 engagement efforts include gauging support for varying types of protection measures, different categories of natural lands, undeveloped lands and open spaces that can be protected, character guideline questions and land use designation questions.

36



Next Steps

• Planning and implementing Round 3 public engagement items related to these topics

• Exploring the concepts mentioned in the scenario and policy framework documents for further inclusion in the section and GSAs

• Preparing a future memo on preferred scenario framework and policy framework guidance, James City County’s existing program and policies, other localities’ approaches, and recommendations for James City County

37


Existing Land Use Map Descriptions & Development StandardsFor this initial review, staff has not revised the existing Land Use Map Descriptions & Development Standards that were adopted for the Toward 2035 Leading the Way Comprehensive Plan.

Members of the PCWG are encouraged to continue providing initial suggestions and comments regarding these descriptions and development standards.

38


GSAs

For this initial review, staff has not revised the Goals, Strategies, and Actions that were adopted for the Toward 2035 Leading the Way Comprehensive Plan.

Staff is currently beginning to examine potential revisions to the GSAs and has tentatively identified some actions to be potentially revised.

Members of the PCWG are welcome to provide initial suggestions and comments regarding the revision the of GSAs, and to provide suggestions for questions to include in the next round of public input.

39


Growth Management Trends & JCSA Analysis

• For areas outside the PSA, the Subdivision Ordinance requires developments with six or more lots (“major subdivisions”) to have a community independent water system and supporting infrastructure

• For major subdivisions with independent water systems, the developer is responsible for constructing the well facility and infrastructure, which JCSA then owns and maintains

• As has been discussed during the past two Comprehensive Plan updates, it is the case that operating these systems currently result in a JCSA deficit

40

Future Land Use Map Materials

12 Land Use Designation Changes applications scheduled to proceed at this point

• 3 property-owner initiated applications

• 9 County-initiated applications

Additional options for consideration• PCWG recommended ideas for

discussion

• Scenario B differences for discussion

41


Questions?

42

land use - james city county, va

Documents