1 Transmittal

5248 Olde Towne Road, Suite 1
Williamsburg, Virginia 23188
Phone (757) 253-0040
Fax (757) 220-8994
aesva.com
February 11, 2014
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Linhares Ribeiro
Senior Planner II
James City County Planning
101-A Mounts Bay Road
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
RE:
Kingsmill Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment
James City County No. Z-0003-2013/MP-0001-2013
AES Project No. W07753-38
Dear Jose;
To follow are our responses to the comments received for Kingsmill Rezoning and Master Plan
Amendment. Our responses below are highlighted in bold.
Planning Division Review Comments
January 14, 2014
Revised Master Plan
1.
As previously requested all “Areas Designation” shown on the master plan shall be in
accordance with Section 24-276 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Dwellings are categorized by the
Ordinance as either “single-family”, “multi-family” (i.e., dwelling containing up to and including
four dwelling units, and dwelling containing more than four dwelling units), or “apartments”. All
proposed 81 single-family detached units should collectively be identified as “Residential Area
A”; all 30 townhouses should be identified as either “Residential Area B or C”
(depending on the number of dwelling units); and all 96 condos should be identified as,
depending on density per Section 24-279, “Residential Area D”. Please revise the legend and
land use table to reflect these changes.
Response: The designations within Area 2 have been updated to match the area
designations as outlined in the current ordinance section; noting the single family
(residential A) and the apartment style condos (residential D).
2.
Regarding Carter’s Grove Country Road (the “Country Road”) staff recommends that the
information be shown on the master plan in the following manner:
a.
Area of Carter’s Grove Country Road (east of Mounts Bay Road): 179 acres
b.
Area within Carter’s Grove Country Road to be developed: 90 acres
c.
Area within Carter’s Grove Country Road to remain undeveloped: 89 acres
d.
Total area of Quarterpath Road: XX?
Response: The master plan now clearly labels all the acreages of the Country
Road/Quarterpath Road.
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 2 of 8
3.
Please confirm that the Quarterpath Road designation is not being amended/revised by this
application.
Response: There is no proposed change to the master plan within the area of Quarterpath
Road.
4.
Do the acreage numbers shown along the Country Road (i.e. 46, 25.9 and 85), represents a breakdown of the Country Road’s total acreage (east of Mounts Bay Road)? If so, please note that
these numbers do not add up to 179 acres. Please clarify.
Response: The acreages on the Mater Plan have been revised to reflect the total areas and
should provide an accurate representation of the areas included.
5.
A note states that the area of proposed master plan amendment is ±106 acres. This
information should be revised to match the land use table data (i.e. ±118 acres to be
amended).
Response: The area of the amendment has been revised to properly reflect the total
changes for the master plan.
6.
It would be helpful to graphically enhance the visualization of the Country Road parcel(s) on the
plan to set it apart from adjacent areas (e.g. use of a different contouring line, solid/dash lines).
Response: Due to the complex nature of the document we would prefer not to add further
hatching, however the limits of the original country road should be visible on the master
plan sheet 2. All areas that are being amended include a solid gray hatch with an associated
hatch indicating the proposed use for the parcel changing. If more clarity is required we
can provide a separate exhibit.
7.
Please amend the notes section under the Revised Open Space Calculations to state that “Open
space is exclusive of private residential lots.”
Response: Notation has been added that the open space as calculated for the revised areas
is exclusive of the private residential lots.
Proposed Areas of Development
1.
The proposed master plan identifies Area 6 as “Residential B” on 5.2 acres of land. Per the
approved 1986’s Kingsmill Master Plan, this area is identified as “Residential B” but on only 4.6
acres of land with a portion of its area labeled as “landscape control zone”. This additional area
should be protected to provide adequate buffer for the proposed dwelling units.
Response: Landscape Control Zone was not honored within the final plan of development
from the original master plan. It is our understanding that these landscape control zones
were precursors to the RPA buffer. As such we are honoring the RPA buffers but for the
purposes of calculations we are not making distinctions for those areas on the Mater Plan.
For consistency sake we believe that the landscape control zones should be ignored with the
understanding that the proposed proffer and JCC Ordinance requirements of RPA buffers
will be honored. As such we are noting the area of the original pod of development to be 5.2
acres and not 4.6 acres, noting that all other development acreages within the development
have been handled similarly.
2.
A conceptual plan previously submitted to staff as part of a master plan consistency request
showed a storage lot being relocated to an area of 3.8 acres. However, the master plan
identifies this area as 9 acres. The storage lot limits needs to be consistent with the Planning
Commission action taken on this matter. Please revise the area of the relocated storage lot.
Response: As we had discussed in our meeting, the parcel is 9 acres and as such we have
noted the Community Storage as a parcel area for clarity. To the best of our knowledge the
3.8 acres is the total area of the improvements.
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
3.
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 3 of 8
The conceptual layout plan for Area No. 5 (Community Impact Statement-Sheet No.2) shows
single-family lot Nos. 7-18 located within an area labeled as “Area Subject to Future Rezoning”
(Previously shown as Area No. 4 subject to the initial rezoning application). It is understood that
Area No. 4 has been removed from current consideration. Please note that locating single-family
dwellings in an area which is currently not zoned for residential uses (i.e.; M-1, Limited Business
Industrial) is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. Please
revise the application materials accordingly.
Response: Notation and a clarifying hatch have been added to concept plan that the single
family lots in that area are subject to rezoning.
Zoning Ordinance
1.
According to information provided by the applicant the master plan for Kingsmill was
approved for a maximum of 4,600 units. It appears that this number was achieved by using the
gross density (i.e. not to exceed 2 dwelling units per acre in R-4 zoning districts) and the total
area of the R-4 parcel (i.e. 2,300 acres). However, please note that density is calculated by
dividing the number of units by the gross acreage (refer to Section 24-278 of the Zoning
Ordinance). Please update accordingly.
Response: The permitted density is determined by the R-4 ordinance in effect when the
development was originally approved, as the same may have been changed by subsequent
legislative approvals. Based on our research that number was well over 5,000. The 4,600
number we are using is our best estimate at this time. Frankly, this seems like a number the
County would be providing to us. The point here is whatever the exact number that the
units included in this application are well within the total number of approved units. We
are not aware of any disagreement on this point.
Comprehensive Plan
1.
As with any legislative land use case, this project is subject to the Comprehensive Plan land use
analysis.
Response: So noted.
Proffers
1.
Please consider submitting proffers addressing the following two policies which have been
previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors:
a.
Housing Opportunity Policy. According to information provided by the applicant the
intent of this policy has been met with existing 855 dwelling units in Kingsmill falling
within the three price ranges established by the Housing Opportunity Policy representing
37.8% of the total dwelling units in Kingsmill. Staff finds that the proposal to develop
207 units (none of the proposed new units would be within the three price ranges of the
policy) is subject to this policy as these are new units being proposed after approval and
adoption of the policy on November 27, 2012. Further, the Housing Opportunity
Policy
currently
does
not
have
a
mechanism
addressing
existing
affordable/workforce dwelling units within an established development.
Response: The applicant is declining to make such a voluntary proffer for the
reasons previously given.
b.
Cash Proffers for Schools. Please note that this application is subject to this policy as the
impacts of 207 units (generating approximately 54 students) to the local school
system should be mitigated. Below are the adjusted per unit school proffer for 2013:
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 4 of 8
Single-Family Detached $ 18,929.19
Single-Family Attached $ 5, 386.22
Please note that “Single-Family Attached” includes townhomes/condos not for rental
Response: The applicant is declining to make such a voluntary proffer. The units
proposed are approved but unbuilt units and the proposal generates a positive fiscal impact
on the County.
2.
Thank you for providing a proffer addressing compliance with the County’s Natural
Resources Policy. Please note that there are areas within the proposed development, in particular,
an area known as the “Grove Creek Conservation Site” which appears to be the site of substantial
biodiversity. Organizations such as the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the
Virginia Native Plant Society (VNPS), and private citizens have raised concerns related to the
proposed residential development along this area. In order to adequately determine impacts to
the Grove Creek site, staff recommends that a natural resource inventory be submitted
before the rezoning/master plan application is considered through the legislative process.
Understanding where this biodiversity is located now may be helpful to determine the most
appropriate number and location of the proposed dwelling units. This information may also be
useful in determining which areas to avoid when re-aligning parts of the trail.
Response: Under the County’s Natural Resources Policy proffered by the applicant, the
inventories must be done and conservation plans approved before any land disturbance or
development takes place on the property. The necessary information will be in hand when
actual development plans are prepared and will be incorporated in those plans in
accordance with the Policy.
3.
Thank you for providing a proffer addressing buffers. According to the proffered language “there
will be a minimum 50 foot buffer along Kingsmill Road and Southall Road as the same front
onto Master Plan Amendment Areas 6 and 7 of the Property, which buffer area, is generally
shown on the Kingsmill Areas 6 and 7 Conceptual Layout included in the Master Plan”.
The ordinance minimum for residential development adjacent to M-2 land is 75 feet. Please
revise accordingly; consider increasing this buffer above the minimum required and/or
include language to this proffer allowing for a matured vegetated/ landscape buffer. Staff is
concerned that this proffer, as currently written, does not address critical buffer areas between
residential and non-residential uses (i.e. The back of residential lots on Area Nos. 7, 1 and in
particular, area No. 6).
Please also consider proffering buffers for Area Nos. 1 and 2,
fronting along Kingsmill Road and Wareham’s Pond Road. Based on previous meetings
with the applicant, staff understood that care would be taken to ensure buffer areas,
particularly between residential and non-residential uses, above and beyond what is currently
required by the Zoning Ordinance. Providing a minimum buffer area does not constitute a proffer.
a.
what are the planned proffer buffers for the area identified below:
Response: The previously proffered buffers you note in the first sentence above are
buffers from the streets. Your sentence about a required 75’ buffer from land zoned M-2
relates to perimeter buffers. Please let us know what ordinance requires such a 75’ buffer
on the residential property – I believe that requirement applies on the M-2 parcel.
Nevertheless, see new proffer 6(d) addressing this issue.
4.
Proffer No. 4-Carter’s Grove Country Road Trail:
a.
Please revise Proffer No. 4 to include the following change “In the amendment Areas 5
and 6, the trail shall consist of paved asphalt at eight feet in width and shall be located
generally as shown on the conceptual layouts entitled “Kingsmill Area 5 and Kingsmill
Areas 6 and 7 Conceptual Layout” and dated….
Response: We have revised the proffer as requested.
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
b.
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 5 of 8
Please note that the conceptual layout plan for Area 6 shows the “realigned trail”
encroaching on adjacent property. Please revise to eliminate such encroachment.
Response: The plans have been so revised.
c.
Which party will be responsible for maintaining and/or repairing the trail?
Response: See proffer 4. As the amendment areas are developed, the trail is to be
conveyed to KCSA as common area so it will be a permanent recreational amenity for the
community. After such conveyance, KCSA will be responsible for maintenance.
5.
On proffer No. 5 please include a mechanism by which owner is able to send copies of such
disclosures to staff.
Response: See proffer 5(c).
6.
Thank you for providing a proffer addressing disclosure and acknowledgements related to the
sale of lots near the Brewery and the Theme Park’s properties. Please ensure that these proffers
have been reviewed by these entities and provide staff with documentation regarding their
position (i.e., A-B Brewery, Busch Gardens, and McLaws Circle Commercial Association)
Response: Responses from Seaworld and Anheuser Busch will be forwarded under
separate cover. Since the development originally proposed adjacent to the Busch Corporate
Center (other than the parcel where Kingsmill Realty is located which is owned by
Xanterra) has been eliminated from the application, we are not providing any specific
disclosure related to the Corporate Center.
7.
Please consider a proffer that limits development to non-RPA areas.
Response: Based on the comments from Engineering and Resource Protection we have
added proffer 7.
8.
Please consider a proffer addressing the Traffic Impact Study’s recommendation for
intersection improvements.
Response: There are no recommended intersection improvements at this point.
9.
Please consider a proffer that addresses construction and/or installation of water and sewer
improvements.
Response: The necessary water and sewer improvements to serve the proposed
development are required to be built – we do not believe they need to be proffered.
Sound/Noise
1.
Many Kingsmill residents have expressed concerns regarding the perception that noise,
particularly from the Brewery and the Theme Park, will increase and negatively affect existing
residents as parts of the Country Road buffer will be eliminated for development. Please note that
one Board member has also expressed the same concern. Please provide a study and/or simulation
to determine the current levels of noise in the vicinity the Country Road and adjacent
areas and what these levels may be once the development is in place?
Response: The applicant does not believe such a simulation would provide any meaningful
information. The applicant has addressed this concern by plan changes removing proposed
development from key areas to preserve the buffers where they are most important.
Fiscal Impact Analysis Worksheet and Assumptions
1.
Staff noticed that the version submitted for review is an older version dated “10.21.11”. Please
submit the most recent version of the worksheet dated “12.6.12” and available at the James City
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 6 of 8
County
Website:
http://www.jamescitycountyva.gov/pdf/planning/Policiesall/PolicyGuidelinsandStudiesPage/jccFiscalImpactWorksheetVersion.pdf
Response: Updated version is included herewith.
Engineering and Resource Protection Review Comments:
January 14, 2014
General:
1.
RPA. It appears that the schematic layouts provided in the Community Impact Statement for
Areas 5 and 6 impact known and projected resource protection areas. The response to previous
comment indicates that wetlands delineation has already been completed to assess potential
impacts of the proposed development. According to staff records, this is only partially true. A
‘Perenniality Determination, Request for Verification, County Road Area 8’ was submitted by
Kerr Environmental on May 3, 2010 and approved by staff on June 24, 2010. This study set the
limits for the RPA in the area shown as Area 5 on the current master plan submittal and the RPA
shown in the submittal is not the same. The previously mentioned RPA study did not include
Area 6 from the current proposal and there is a perennial stream with adjacent wetlands in this
area. The location of the missing RPA information could have a significant impact upon the
layout, especially Area 6. Any future proposed, non-water dependent RPA impacts associated
with this master plan, whether from stormwater management features, roads, or lot grading,
would have a negative staff recommendation when those impacts need approval from the
Chesapeake Bay Board. Although this may be during the time of plan of development, it would
be proper to assess this during the conceptual layout stage in some manner.
Response: The layout for area 6 has been updated based upon field evaluation by Kerr
Environmental with the acknowledgment that further work will need to be done to confirm
and finalize the locations of the RPA buffer on that property prior to the submittal of a final
plan of development.
2.
Proffers. Draft proffer conditions were provided in the submittal. Please consider or explore the
following for the project’s voluntary proffer conditions to show environmental benefit consistent
with provisions to protect and preserve natural resources and limit the least amount of disturbance
to natural features. First, Page 9 of the CIS indicates use of upland water quality measures (LID
features). Consider or explore a proffer condition to commit to use of Low Impact Development
or Better Site Design measures within all or select land bays to show distinct environmental
benefit. Second, the project narrative indicates that Areas 1, 2, 6 and 7 drain to the College Creek
watershed. Consider or explore a condition to contribute to a future watershed management plan
for College Creek to show distinct environmental benefit. Third, consider a proffer to include no
RPA on lots smaller than 1/2 acre in size.
Response: See new proffers 8 and 9 proffering nutrient management plans and subjecting
the property to the County’s Special Stormwater Criteria.
3.
Channel Adequacy. Section VII of the CIS implies that stormwater requirements will be met if
runoff is reduced from predevelopment rates. At the time of plan of development, the
requirements of Minimum Standard # 19 and the County’s Stream Channel Protection volume
requirements will apply. If receiving natural channels are inadequate then channel improvements,
stabilization, attenuation or a combination of these measures may be required. If onsite
attenuation is required, County stream channel protection volume requirements will apply. Please
revise the narrative in the CIS accordingly to reflect current County quantity control
requirements.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and the CIS has been revised to note the
County’s quantity control requirements.
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
4.
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 7 of 8
MSWMP. In accordance with the previously approved master stormwater master plan for
Xanterra Kingsmill LLC, Division Plan No. SWM-01-12 dated June 29, 2012, Wareham’s Pond
and Kingsmill Pond has been credited as 8 point BMPs. Please revise the amended master plan
drawings and CIS accordingly. Also, the CIS should make mention of the previously approved
master stormwater management plan.
Response: The concept plans and CIS have been updated to note that the facilities are 8
point facilities.
The following comments are provided as guidance for the plan of development stage of the project, if
rezoning occurs as proposed:
5.
Kingsmill Pond. Please be advised that if Kingsmill Pond is not owned by Xanterra, a shared
Inspection and Maintenance agreement between KCSA and Xanterra, as well as all necessary
recorded drainage easements must be provided to the Engineering and Resource Protection
Division prior to the issuance of any land disturbing permits for the proposed areas of
development.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and proper evidence of drainage/maintenance
easements will be provided during future plans of development.
6.
Dam Break Inundation. Please be advised that Areas 1 and 2 are downstream of a large dam,
Kingsmill Pond. Area 5 is downstream of a large dam, the Rhine River Lake. Both are known to
be subject to state dam safety act and regulation requirements (i.e. state inventoried dams).
Therefore, at the time of plan of development, site plans for these land bay developments will be
subject to the provisions of mapped dam break inundation zone requirements of the state dam
safety act and regulations and Section 19-27(k) and 19-29(o) of the County’s subdivision
ordinance. However, it would be proper to assess this during the conceptual layout stage in some
manner.
Response: This comment is acknowledged. We would note that Areas 1 and 2 are actually
upstream of Kingsmill Pond and would not be impacted. Area 5 can be evaluated however
the elevation of the homes should be above the existing top of dam and water surface of the
Rhine River Lake so the properties there should not be impacted.
7.
Downstream BMPs. The provisions of Section 23-9(b) (8) (a) of the County’s Chesapeake Bay
Preservation ordinance will apply to this project. This is if proposed land bay developments as
part of the rezoning has reliance on the previously approved master stormwater management plan
or existing stormwater management BMP facilities for water quality compliance. This would
include Kingsmill Pond (County BMP ID Code: CC019), Wareham’s Pond (JR008), Moody’s
Pond (JR012) and the Rhine River Lake (JR004). If compliance for a development is based in
whole or part on the use of existing downstream onsite or offsite structural BMPs, evidence shall
be provided that (such) facilities are currently in good working order and performing at the design
levels of service. The manager may require a review of both the original design and maintenance
plans to verify this provision. A new inspection-maintenance agreement or evidence of a shared
maintenance agreement may be required to ensure compliance with the ordinance.
Response: This comment is acknowledged and compliance will be established prior to site
plan approval for the individual sections as required.
Mr. Jose-Ricardo Ribeiro
January 20, 2014
AES Project Number: W07753-38
Page 8 of 8
JCSA Department Review Comments:
December 27, 2013
1.
James City Service Authority has reviewed these plans for general compliance with the JCSA
Standards and Specifications, Water Distribution and Sanitary Sewer Systems and has no
additional comments for the above project you forwarded on Dec. 12, 2013.
Response: Acknowledged.
Fire Department Review Comments:
July 30, 2013
1.
No objections to this rezoning request.
Response: Acknowledged.
VDOT Department Review Comments:
December 26, 2013
1.
The District has completed its review of the subject master plan amendment dated November
2013 and received by the VDOT Land Development Office on 12/12/13. It appears that there are
no impacts to VDOT right-of-way with this proposal and approval of the Master Plan
Amendment is recommended.
We will note that there is no longer rezoning associated with this application. When the future
parcels are rezoned, the TIA comments provided on August 26, 2103 will need to be addressed.
Response: Acknowledged.
I appreciate the time spent by the Staff in the review and guidance for this project. If anyone has
any questions in reference to this project please do not hesitate to call me at 757-253-0040.
Sincerely,
AES Consulting Engineers
Jason A. Grimes, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
jason.grimes@aesva.com
S:\Jobs\7753\38-Xanterra-KM MP Amend\Admin\Forms & Comments\Responses\W07753-38 Response Ltr 1-20-14.doc