JACKSONVILLE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 9, 2017 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS JACKSONVILLE CITY HALL I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. INVOCATION IV. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA V. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Regular Meeting – September 11, 2017 VI. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE – Councilman Robert Warden VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Building Ad Hoc Development Committee Report IX. REPORTS A. Interim Planning & Inspections Director X. ADJOURNMENT 1
The motion to approve the minutes as presented was unanimously approved
by the Board Members present.
VI. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE – Councilman Robert Warden
Councilman Warden gave a report.
VII. OLD BUSINESS - None
There was no old business.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Special Use Permit and Type III Site Plan – ABRA Body and Glass – 2301 Lejeune
Boulevard
ABRA Body and Glass has submitted a Special Use Permit and Type III Site Plan
application seeking approval of a proposed 2,738 square foot automotive paint and
body shop. The 1.33 acre development site is located at 2301 Lejeune Boulevard, zoned
Corridor Commercial (CC). This project as proposed will be adjacent to and part of the
existing ABRA Body and Glass, although the plan was designed so that it could operate
independently. A Special Use Permit is required for an automotive paint and body shop
in the CC zoning district.
The proposed development is within the City limits and as proposed would not impact
the City’s Sewer Allocation Policy.
The subject parcel is designated as Regional Commercial (RC) by the CAMA future land
use map. Properties to the North, East, and West, are also designated RC by the CAMA
future land use map. Regional Commercial provides areas for large scale commercial
operations and mixed use developments. Land allocated to RC uses shall have access to
a thoroughfare. The proposed use is consistent with the Regional Commercial CAMA
designation.
The proposed development is located within the City limits and is zoned Commercial Corridor (CC). The site is bordered to the North, by undeveloped property zoned CC; to the west by ABRA Auto and Glass zoned CC; to the east, by vacant properties zoned CC; and to the south by Tarawa Terrace. Per Article 5: Development Standards, Section 5.1: Off-Street Parking, Loading, and Circulation of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the proposed use has a parking requirement of 1 space per 250 square feet of building area. The required minimum parking is 12 spaces, with a maximum allowable being 64. As proposed the
development is providing the minimum number required, 12 spaces. All adjacent properties are zoned CC, therefore no buffering is required beyond the standard landscaping requirements which is a 4 foot perimeter lawn with shrubs and understory trees. Per Article 5: Development Standards, Section 5.5: Exterior Lighting of the UDO the following standards shall be met and/or maintained; 1) maximum lighting height shall not exceed 30 for new development locating adjacent to lower intensity development, 2) maximum illumination levels are allowed up to 2.5 foot candles; and 3) all proposed lighting shall be directed downward thereby maintaining a “dark sky” standard. At this time lighting is not proposed for this development. Any future lighting will be required to meet the standards in place at the time the permit application is received. The proposed development site is not located within the Flight Path Overlay District (FPOD). Staff recommend approval of the Special Use Permit and Type III Site Plan based on Findings of Facts A, B, C, E, F and G being found in the affirmative and D mitigated by the filing of a revised site plan.
Homer Spring moved to approve the Special Use Permit and Type III Site
Plan based on Findings of Facts A, B, C, E, F and G being found in the
affirmative and D mitigated by the filing of a revised site plan. Theresa
VanderVere seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the Special Use Permit and Type III Site Plan based
on Findings of Facts A, B, C, E, F and G being found in the affirmative and D
mitigated by the filing of a revised site plan was unanimously approved by
Subject: Building Ad Hoc Development Committee Report
Department: Planning and Inspections
Presented by: Ryan King, Interim Director of Planning and Inspections
Issue Statement During City Council’s FY18 budget workshops, the City Manager’s Office (CMO)
discussed concerns about the lack of residential development within the City. Dr. Woodruff informed the Mayor and Council that an Ad Hoc Committee of the development community would be assembled to determine issues that may be discouraging residential development within the City. Over the last 3 months, CMO and staff have met with the Ad Hoc Committee. From those meetings, the Committee identified 10 issues they felt were affecting the costs of residential development. Staff has analyzed these issues and presented these recommendations for changing the UDO or MSSD. On September 22nd, the Mayor and Council gave support to the recommendations. Amendments will now be scheduled for formal amendments on future Planning Advisory Board and/or Council agendas.
Action Needed Receive Presentation
Attachments:
A Background information
7
Ad Hoc Development Committee Staff Supported Recommendations
1. City facilities fees: Consider establishing a phased in partial payment program so thedeveloper does not have to “front” the cost at time of permit issuance.
Staff Recommendation Beginning August 9, 2017 and continuing for a period until Friday, October 13, 2017, the City will conduct a pilot project during which time the system development fees will be collected only at the time the request for a Final Inspections is made. This means that when the request for final inspection is made, the fee must be paid before the final inspection is made.
2. Stormwater Escrow Account: Consider reducing or eliminating the amount that thedeveloper must pay into the HOA-type stormwater BMP escrow account. Assignmore or all of the funding responsibility to the HOA.
Staff Recommendation Consult the Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC) about changes to the City’s requirement for establishment and funding of escrow accounts for BMPs maintained by a homeowners' association, property owners' association, or similar entity. The alternatives that Staff proposes to discuss with the SWAC are:
No change to the current requirements
Replace the current escrow account funding requirements with one thatrequires the developer to record, and reference on the record plat, amaintenance plan that instructs the property owners association or lot ownerabout the annual maintenance tasks and associated costs for at least a 20-year period. A second requirement would call for the developer to record amaintenance agreement, or restrictive covenant that sets forth the propertyowners’ association or lot owners’ continuing responsibilities for maintenance,including specifying how cost will be apportioned among lot owners served.
Establish a City stormwater facility replacement fund to ensure that adequatefunds are available to the City for the maintenance, repair, replacement andreconstruction of stormwater control facilities should a homeownersassociation fail to perform any of these necessary functions. Monies for thefund would come from developers of property. The amount paid by adeveloper would be based on a percentage of the estimated stormwatercontrol facilities he/she will construct. The City would recover from theassociation and its members any and all costs the City expends to maintainor repair the structural BMPs or to correct any operational deficiencies.
3. Stormwater Design: Eliminate or reduce City requirements that are seen as barriersto low-density projects.
8
jsmith
Stamp
Staff Recommendation City staff has evaluated MSSD requirements for streets, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and cul-de-sacs. Staff recommendations are provided for each in Items 4, 5, and 6.
4. MSSD Street Standards: Consider reducing requirements for street width, cul-de-sac
diameter, base course depth, and asphalt thickness. Staff Recommendations City staff recommends the following concerning current dimensional requirements for residential streets:
1. Allow NCDOT-type widths for residential streets with curb and gutter as an alternative to current requirements as long as, off-street parking is provided. Adoption of this recommendation by Council will require Council to rescind its prior adoption of Appendix D of the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code since it essentially requires minimum street widths of 26 feet. A table that summarize the City’s current residential street width requirements and the alternate proposed by Staff are provided as Attachment 1.
2. Reduce the required minimum diameter for cul-de-sacs. Staff suggests a minimum cul-de-sac diameter of 80 feet measured to the face of the curb versus the current standard of 96 feet. Implementation of this change will also necessitate rescinding Council’s prior adoption of Appendix D since it requires minimum cul-de-sac diameters of 96 feet.
City staff recommends the following concerning current pavement construction standards for residential streets:
1. Delete the requirement for placement of engineering fabric within the pavement structure of residential collector streets. Designate the City’s current requirements with this one change as the “standard requirements.”
2. Revamp Section 3 of the MSSD street design guideline titled “Pavement Design” to make it easier for designers to propose alternate pavement designs. Under this scenario, the developer and his/her designer could opt to construct streets in accordance with current requirements or propose alternate pavement sections that have been derived via use of a new, design procedure provided by Section 3. A description of the recommended design procedure is provided as Attachment 2. The differences between the pavement construction details from use of this alternate method versus the current standards would be as follows:
a. The base course thickness would be 6 inches for local residential streets where good to excellent subgrade soils exist versus the standard requirement of 8 inches.
b. The residential collector pavement section would consist of 2½ inches of asphalt on 8 inches of aggregate base course where good to excellent subgrade soils exist. The standard requirement for a residential collector is 2 inches of asphalt surface course on 4 inches of
9
an asphalt base course that is in turn, underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base course.
c. The residential collector pavement section would consist of 1½ inches of asphalt surface course on 2½ inches of an asphalt intermediate course that is in turn, underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base course where fair to poor subgrade soils exist. Again, the standard requirement for a residential collector is 2 inches of asphalt surface course on 4 inches of an asphalt base course that is in turn, underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base course.
The geotechnical consultant that developed the proposed design procedure has proposed a 2½-inch asphalt surface course for a local residential road constructed on fair to poor subgrade soils versus the current standard requirement of 2 inches. City Staff proposes to retain the current standard of 2 inches for this condition.
curb & gutter along streets. Staff Recommendation: After careful consideration and much discussion, City staff does not support the construction of streets with roadside ditches/swales in lieu of streets with curb and gutter.
6. MSSD Sidewalk Requirement: Consider eliminating requirement for concrete sidewalks on both sides of City streets or require only on one side of streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining a requirement for sidewalks but supports an alternative to the current sidewalk requirement. Therefore, Staff intends to present the following options for Council consideration:
Maintain current requirements that generally call for 4-foot sidewalks on both sides of residential streets.
Institute a requirement for a 6-foot wide sidewalk on one side of all streets with the exception of cul-de-sacs with 6 or fewer lots in lieu of the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of streets.
Amend current standards to incorporate both options. Under this scenario, one of the two options would be constructed throughout the initial development as well as, the future sections/phases of the development.
7. Letter of Credit: Consider a shorter time period for the Letter of Credit.
Staff Recommendation The UDO and MSSD currently require performance guarantees and a warranty. Prior to recent legislation changes, the City required a performance guarantee to cover the estimated cost of infrastructure improvements plus an additional 10 percent. Once the improvements were accepted by the City, the City allowed the developer to
10
reduce the performance guarantee to 10 percent of the total cost (excluding sidewalks) which the City then held for the remainder of the 18-month warranty period. This requirement tied-up a portion of the developers’ money for additional 18 months past acceptance of the infrastructure. Legislation changes, covered in the Discussion section of this item, no longer allow the City to withhold the performance guarantee through the warranty period. Staff recommends revising Section 5.14 B. Warranties of the UDO as follows:
B. Warranties General A warranty in accordance with the standards in this section is required in the following circumstances:
To ensure against defects in workmanship or materials in providing infrastructure improvements required as part of an approved Subdivision (Section 2.3.E), or Site Plan (Section 2.3.C).
Term of Warranties The term of a warranty for required infrastructure improvements shall be that which is stated in the City of Jacksonville’s Manual of Standards, Specifications, and Design (latest version) from the date of acceptance. Form of Warranties Where required, the developer shall furnish a warranty in any of the following acceptable forms:
Cash (in US currency) deposit with the City; Certified check from a North Carolina financial institution
based upon a cash deposit, bearing the name of the developer, and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and Finance Director;
Irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution located and incorporated in North Carolina in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and Finance Director. This may include the ability for the letter of credit to be cashed in Onslow County;
A certificate of deposit in the name of and payable to the City of Jacksonville, referencing the name of the developer or subdivider; or
Other financial instruments including land or finished and developable lots which are acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager may be provided for unconstructed sidewalks only.
The warranty shall be conditioned on the performance of all work necessary to maintain required public infrastructure improvements during the term of the warranty. Warranties shall provide that in
11
case of the developer’s failure to maintain and repair the infrastructure during the term of the warranty, the City shall be able to immediately obtain the funds necessary to make necessary repairs or replacements. Amount of Warranties Warranties shall be in an amount equal to at least 10 percent of the full actual cost, including the costs of materials and labor, of installing the required improvements. Actual costs for installing required improvements shall be itemized by improvement type and certified by a licensed professional engineer, or land surveyor or licensed landscape architect and shall be approved by the Public Services Director and/or Development Services Director, whichever is applicable. Warranties for Developments Outside Corporate limits or with Private Streets Inspection Required for City Infrastructure Once improvements are complete, the developer shall submit, in writing, a request to the City for a final inspection. The City shall inspect the subdivision, and if deficiencies are found, the City shall notify the developer by certified mail. Once the corrections have been satisfactorily completed, the City will notify the developer by certified mail and reduce the warranty to a revised amount for incomplete sidewalks, if appropriate . a request for City Council to consider accepting the public infrastructure and will provide a signed, written Warranty Guarantee to be placed on the Council’s agenda. If accepted, the developer shall be responsible for Warranty Period as defined by the Manual of Specifications, Standards, and Design, Latest Revision. Upon satisfactory completion of the Warranty Period, the City will be responsible for all operation and maintenance of said infrastructure. Warranty Period Because the City may not accept improvements outside the City Limits and because some subdivisions designate their streets as private, the following shall govern the warranty period.
Warranty for private streets. A financial guarantee is required for the warranty period unless a Homeowner's Association has been organized and documentation recorded which addresses the upkeep and maintenance of streets. Warranty for NCDOT streets. If a Homeowner's Association has been organized and documentation recorded which addresses the upkeep and maintenance of streets and addresses the petition process for NCDOT acceptance, no warranty period for streets will be required. Additionally, if the developer can
12
provide documentation that the streets have been included on the State system; no warranty guaranty for street will be required.
Release of Warranties The Director of Public Services shall inspect the improvements approximately three months prior to the expiration of the warranty term. Release of a warranty shall only occur after City staff has performed an inspection of the infrastructure and certified in writing that the guaranteed improvements have been maintained in accordance with approved plans and specifications. Extension of Warranties A developer may request an extension for an expired warranty period to repair damaged infrastructure or dead vegetation. Default and Forfeiture of Guarantee If the developer fails to maintain the guaranteed improvements during the term of the warranty, the Director of Public Services shall give the developer 30 days written notice of the default by certified mail.
8. Water and Sewer Bills: Consider a lower bill after the Certificate of Occupancy and before sell of home.
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends implementing a contractor rate for new single-family construction that may be applied until the house is sold or occupied (whichever comes first) that includes the water rate and stormwater fee as identified in the adopted Fee Schedule.
9. Permit fees/review process: Analyze to see what can be eliminated and simplify the process.
Recommendation City staff recommends amending the current single-family fee to $.45 per square foot and reducing the technology fee to 5% for single-family only as ePlan is not currently used for single-family. This would mean a target house of 1,700 square feet would cost approximately $14 more than Onslow County’s Fee. Under this scenario permit fees for smaller homes would be cheaper in Jacksonville than in Onslow County.
Staff has also evaluated the Stormwater Review, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, and Engineering Inspection Fees. These fees are based on actual costs to perform reviews and are in general comparison with other entities. No changes are recommended to these fees.
13
10: Minimum foundation height requirement: Consider reducing foundation height requirement.
Recommendation Staff recommends maintaining the 18-inch minimum for exposed foundation in the downtown zones but supports a small reduction for all other zones. Staff recommends amending Section 5.11 of the UDO from 12 to 8 inches using the following language: Eight (8) inches (minimum) of exposed foundation shall be provided above the finish grade. A masonry, stucco or decorative concrete exposed foundation or decorative band of at least 12 inches in height shall be provided around
14
Attachment 1 Current and Proposed Alternate Street Width Requirements
City Staff supports NCDOT-type widths for residential streets with curb and gutter as an alternative to current requirements as long as, off-street parking is provided. The following table summarize the City’s current residential street width requirements and the alternate requirements proposed by Staff.
SUMMARY TABLE
Street Width measured from:
Edge-of-Pavement
to
Edge-of-Pavement
Back-of-Curb
to
Back-of-Curb
Minor Street (i.e. Local
Street)
Standard Requirement 27 ft. 31 ft. No
Alternative Standard 22 ft. 26 ft. Yes
Collector Street
Standard Requirement 33 ft. 37 ft. No
Alternative Standard 30 ft. 34 ft. Yes
Notes:
1. Listed widths assume construction of a 2 ft. wide curb & gutter section.
2. The residential street alternative design may be used provided adequate off-street
parking meets the level of parking demand generated by the residential use, allows for the safe movement of passengers from parking space to residence, and reduces
parking impacts on roadways. Off-street minimum parking requirements shall be as
follows –
a. Two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each 1-bedroom single
family dwelling.
b. Three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each 2- and 3-
bedroom single family dwelling.
c. Four (4) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each single family
dwelling of four or more bedrooms.
d. Two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each 1-bedroom multi-
family dwelling.
e. Three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each 2- and 3-
bedroom multi-family dwelling.
f. Four (4) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each multi-family
dwelling of four or more bedrooms.
g. Minimum dimensions for an individual off-street parking space shall be 9 ft. x
18 ft.
h. Off-street parking spaces shall be located beyond the street right-of-way and
within the limits of the driveway(s) or dedicated, paved parking spaces.
15
i. The garage shall not count toward the minimum number of spaces
16
Attachment 2
Excerpts from: Draft Pavement Design Recommendations Report Pavement Design Policy Rewrite City of Jacksonville By: S&ME 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100 Wilmington, NC Date: May 13, 2015
Includes Introductory Commentary by City of Jacksonville Staff
August, 2017
17
City of Jacksonville Staff Commentary
City staff has been considering a re-write of Section 3 of the MSSD street design
guideline titled “Pavement Design” to make it easier for designers of developments to
propose alternate pavement designs. Staff asked the Wilmington, NC office of S&ME to
make recommendations to this end along with other recommendations relative to the
City’s street-related requirements. Below is a reprint of a portion of the report that
resulted from S&ME’s efforts. The portion provided below describes a proposed
pavement design procedure recommended by S&ME.
The method proposed by S&ME is based upon the selection of a pavement section
without the performance of detailed design calculations. The method proposed by
S&ME relies upon determination of soil types in the areas to be paved through the use
of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey and the USDA
Onslow County Soil Survey report. Selection of the pavement section is then made
based upon the type of street to be constructed and the worst soil type upon which the
pavement is to be constructed. Again, no detailed design calculations are required
when following the procedure developed by S&ME. Additionally, S&ME envisioned a
process that relies upon the USDA soils mapping without any field verification of the
mapping.
City Staff supports implementation of the S&ME recommended procedure with two
changes as follows:
Include a requirement for confirmation of the soil types that are mapped
along the route of the proposed street(s) through field investigation.
Table 2.5 of the S&ME report proposes a 2½-inch surface course for
residential local streets constructed on fair to poor subgrade soil. City Staff
proposes to retain the current standard of 2 inches for this condition.
2.1.3 Standard Pavement Sections – Without Geotechnical Exploration and Detailed Design
If Section 3 of the Street Design section of the City’s Specifications, Standards, &
Design, Street Design Policy document dated, June 2006, revised 2012, Draft 1 by GKM,
is deleted, then S&ME recommends the following procedures be used by
developers/designers to determine design pavement section(s) for their projects and by
the City of Jacksonville to review the pavement design submittal and drawings:
1. Determine the soil types using Web Soil Survey
(http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm) and the Onslow
County Soil Survey Report prepared by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Locate the project on the soil maps and
