MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA

Transcription

1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA REGULAR MEETING April 26, 2005 The Regular Meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Mike Bavard. I. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mike Bavard, J. Mark Pusich, Marshal Kendziorek, Dan Bruce, Maria Gladziszewski, Jacqueline Fowler, Peggy Ann McConnochie, Nancy Waterman None A quorum was present. Staff Present: Dale Pernula, CDD Director; Greg Chaney, CDD Planner; Ben Lyman, CDD Planner; Chris Beanes, CDD Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION - by Pusich, to approve the minutes as corrected of the Regular Meeting of April 12, There being no objection, it was so ordered. Mr. Kendziorek and Ms. Waterman provided the secretary with corrections. III. IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None RECONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS - None V. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION - by Pusich, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. There being no objection, it was so ordered. SUB AN EXTENSION OF SUB : A PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL FOR A NEW 25- LOT SUBDIVISION ON USS 1568 TR B LOT 5. Location: 7520 Glacier Hwy Applicant: Duran Construction Company Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Director s analysis and findings and grant an extension for 18 months to the previously approved preliminary plat (SUB ) with the same conditions as contained in the Notice of Decision dated October 29, The conditions are as follows: Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 1 of 9

2 1. The applicant shall include in the final plat any additional drainage and utility easements that are required by the Engineering Department as a result of changes to the construction plans. 2. Prior to final platting the developer shall obtain US Army Corps Nationwide permits for wetlands previously filled. 3. The final plat shall contain a fifteen-foot no build easement from the banks of both streams on the subject parcel; with the exception of lots 1, 2, 14, and 15, where the no build easement shall be 10 feet. 4. The developer shall re-vegetate all disturbed areas within the no-build easement adjacent to the streams. 5. The developer shall submit a development plan and schedule for all stream work as part of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall construct step pools for that portion of the eastern stream being moved. 7. The applicant shall construct stream-bank slopes to a maximum of 2 to 1 (2 horizontal to 1 vertical). 8. The applicant shall install an oil water separator on the storm water drain prior to discharging. 9. The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan as part of the final platting. 10. The applicant shall change the title block on the final plat to match the correct legal description of the original parcel (Lot 5, Tract B, US Survey 1568). 11. On the final plat, there shall be a provision for vacating the cul-de-sac at the end of Vista Del Sol Drive if there is street extension in the future. USE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 520 SQUARE FOOT MOBILE HOME ATTACHED TO A GARAGE AS AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT WITH A PLANNED NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE LOT. Location: 8175 Threadneedle Street Applicant: John and Catherine Sweeney Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Director s analysis and findings and grant the requested conditional use permit. The permit would allow the consideration of the existing mobile home on the subject parcel as an accessory apartment after the existing carport is converted into a garage and all applicable building code requirements have been met for said conversion. A single-family residence could then be constructed on the lot, as shown in Attachment A. VAR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO 5 BACKOUT PARKING SPACES ON GORDON STREET AND 1 BACKOUT PARKING SPACE ON VILLAGE STREET WITH A REDUCTION OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 5" TO 3" FOR ONE CORNER OF PROPOSED BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED ROOFLINE WITH 16" OVERHANDS. Location: 288 Village Street Application: Brad Cure Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment adopt the Director s analysis and findings and approve requested Variance, VAR The Variance would allow for construction for a four-plex multifamily residential development on a vacant lot within Juneau Indian Subdivision, upon meeting the following conditions: Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 2 of 9

3 1. Stacked parking along the Northeast property line shall be earmarked for one unit only. 2. Wheel stops shall be provided to demarcate required parking spaces on site. 3. Advisory condition: CBJ Streets has indicated that Gordon and Village Street shall not be maintained. Any improvements within the ROW will require an Allowable Use permit. VI. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS TXT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE RELATING TO PANHANDLE LOTS. Location: Boroughwide Applicant: CBJ Staff Report: Greg Chaney, CDD Planner, reviewed the application as presented previously and as detailed in the staff report. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that in order to allow for greater flexibility in land development, the Planning Commission endorse this recommended ordinance modification and forward it to the CBJ Assembly for approval. Mr. Kendziorek thought the and, should be dropped from the wording of the ordinance proposal to get rid of any ambiguity. Mr. Chaney replied that the wording came straight from the CBJ Law Department and that he would submit the Planning Commissions comments if requested. No members of the public wished to testify on this item and testimony was both opened and closed. Mr. Bruce asked if the common-use driveway for both lots needed to be located within the panhandle. Mr. Chaney said it was not required and that it could be in a different location for each panhandle depending on topography. Mr. Bavard spoke to the usefulness of the ordinance. MOTION - by Kendziorek to move TXT to the Assembly with the Planning Commission s approval. There being no objection, the motion passed. VII. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None REGULAR AGENDA INQ APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR S DETERMINATION CONCERNING THE PARTY ZONE SIGN PERMIT. Location: 6585 Glacier Highway Applicant: Darlene McNaughton Staff Report: Chris Beanes, CDD Planner, reviewed the conclusion of the staff report in order to explain the main question for the decision, in that the mural for Party Zone is in fact a sign, which does not meet the sign requirements in the CBJ Land Use Code. Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 3 of 9

4 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends upholding the Director s determination that the mural constitutes signage. Mr. Bruce asked if the name of the business were missing it would still be labeled as a sign. Mr. Beanes explained that in this case, the wording itself makes it a sign. Mr. Kendziorek pointed out that there are other businesses that use both wording and painting to describe their business and that even without the wording the painting has a commercial connotation. There was discussion as to what constitutes a sign as opposed to a mural. Mr. Kendziorek noted a letter from the applicant that said she had been under the impression her application was acceptable. Mr. Beanes explained that the original application was submitted over the phone and that without a drawing it could not be approved. Mr. Pernula noted another portion of the applicant s letter that stated that according to staff, her application was acceptable as long as the mural did not contain any commercial connotation and that the lettering was within the square footage allowed. Mr. Pernula thought that the drawing included with the wording was similar to the example given by the applicant in her letter (that of a car dealership having a picture of a truck). Ms. McConnochie asked when the applicant was informed that her permit would take longer because of its nature. Mr. Beanes replied that the applicant was not informed that the permit would take longer to process. Public Testimony Darlene McNaughton, 6585 Glacier Hwy, Applicant, described the process of getting a permit. When she originally spoke with the city she asked about painting a mural. She was told it would be okay as long as the text was within guidelines. Because of weather concerns, her painter suggested doing the mural in panels. She contacted the city with her plan but did not have artwork yet to submit. When she received the design from the artist she contacted the city again with her plan and a description of the mural. She was told that she did not need to submit the drawing before the permit was ready. She was not informed that the process would take six months to be denied. She did not believe that the mural implied the nature of the business. Mr. Bavard asked of the permit process in converting the building. Ms. McNaughton said the contractor had taken care of all the permits, so the sign permit was her first experience with the process. Ms. Gladziszewski asked if the panels could be moved to other parts of the building. Ms. McNaughton said it would disrupt the painting and it wouldn't work. The panels currently cover a problem with the building, and that the wall leaks. Ms. Fowler asked why the particular images were chosen for the sign. Ms. McNaughton said she was given a few choices by the artist and that although she did not have a specific reason for choosing it, it seemed the most appropriate. Mr. Bruce noted that the design was ed to staff on October 21. He asked whose was the handwriting on the drawing. Mr. Beanes said the notes were his and that he made them while speaking to the applicant after the drawing had been submitted in order to determine dimensions, which were not included. Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 4 of 9

5 Ms. McConnochie asked when the sign had been installed. Ms. McNaughton said it had gone up the week after the application was submitted. She said the next thing she heard was when she went in for the batting cage permit in February and was told that her sign permit had been received but not approved because it had been lost. That was the first she knew that there was an issue with the application. Mr. Kendziorek said he would be willing to continue the item in order to allow the applicant time to review the materials further and get council if desired. Ms. McNaughton said she was willing to submit more details but was unsure what the Commission could want. Mr. Pusich explained that the burden of proof was with the applicant and that if she needed more time to present it, because she did not have adequate time to review the staff report, she needed to indicate it. Ms. McNaughton wondered what else she needed to prove other than what she had already submitted. Ms. Gladziszewski referred to the drawing submitted in October and asked if dimensions had been submitted at all. Ms. McNaughton said the dimensions were detailed on the application. Mr. Pusich asked of the applicant's reference that the application had been lost. Mr. Beanes said he had received the application maybe a month after it had been submitted. Ms. Fowler noted on the application a box marked "sign approval" had been checked and was dated October 21. Mr. Beanes explained that marking that was part of the process of intake and was not an approval per se. Ms. Fowler spoke to the confusing nature of the form and asked where the approval signature would go. Mr. Beanes said that approval would be sent to the applicant in the form of a letter. Ms. Fowler clarified the details of this particular permit process, and that the permit input person had accepted the application without knowledge of the rest of the mural. Mr. Beanes added that the applicant should submit all dimensions at the beginning but that in this case the permit person had believed that the text was the extent of the sign. Ms. McConnochie said the law did not expect the buyer (Ms. McNaughton) to understand the process, but that instead it is the responsibility of the seller (the CBJ) to make sure everything goes as it should. Ms. McNaughton was the victim of a complete breakdown of communication and that she should not be penalized for not understanding. Ms. McNaughton added that she had hired a contractor and was told that the permits were completed as needed for the conversion of the building. She said she could provide proof that the sign was erected after the application was submitted. Ms. Gladziszewski asked if she had secured the painters before or after she had applied for the permit. Ms. McNaughton said it was after. No member of the public wished to testify, so public testimony was closed. Mr. Kendziorek thought it was a sad situation but that it still seemed like a commercial connotation in the mural. He said the applicant had referred to "picture as signage." Although it was sad that Ms. McNaughton had not understood the process, it was still her responsibility to find out. He likened the permit application to a job application and said someone could not plead ignorance after speeding. It was true that the city should not have taken so long, but he did not believe that Ms. McNaughton had met the requirement for burden of proof. Mr. Bruce noted that the applicant had notified the city of her timeline and said it was unconscionable for the city to not explain the process. He thought there might be estoppels issues. Mr. Bavard added that he believed in the sign ordinance, but that this was a different issue. Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 5 of 9

6 There was discussion between staff and the Commission as to timing issues involved in the process. Mr. Kendziorek thought it did not matter at this time when the sign had been installed, but whether or not the sign meets the requirements. He urged the Commission to focus on the issue at hand. Mr. Bruce reminded the Commission of a previous permit involving estoppels. He thought equitable estoppels should apply in this case and that the appeal should be granted. Ms. Gladziszewski and Ms. McConnochie agreed with Mr. Bruce's assessment. Mr. Kendziorek asked if it was CDD's policy to deal with applications in a more timely fashion. Mr. Pernula indicated that it was. Mr. Kendziorek read from about appeals and said that the mural is a sign and that there was a policy error in the timing issue. That would suggest that the appeal could be granted and that the city should adhere more closely to policy. Ms. Waterman confirmed that the entire mural is a sign and invited staff to respond to concerns of the timing issue. Mr. Pernula said there was indeed a policy error, but that it did not occur between the date of application and the present. The error was instead at first contact. The applicant inquired as to the possibility of the sign and was not told to bring in the drawing with the application, and was left with the impression that the application constituted approval. Mr. Bruce agreed. MOTION - by Kendziorek that the Planning Commission accept the appeal, INQ , and conclude that while the entire mural is a sign with commercial connotation, there was a policy error within CDD as described by Mr. Pernula that renders the decision in favor of the appellant. Mr. Bruce asked what would happen in the future when the sign needed to be updated and if it would need to be brought into compliance at a later date. Mr. Pernula referred to an amortization period for signs in many cities. He did not know if it could apply to one particular sign unless the Planning Commission made it part of their findings. Mr. Kendziorek accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. There being no objection to the motion, it passed. IX. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VAR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO 0' ON ONE SIDE AND 5' ON THE OTHER. Location: Anka Street Applicant: Perseverance Theatre VAR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO 0' ON ONE SIDE AND 5' ON THE OTHER. Location: Anka Street Applicant: Perseverance Theatre Staff Report: Ben Lyman, CDD Planner, said some progress had been made and the applicant has proven more points to the requirements for the variances, but that it did not change the final recommendation. He noted the site on a map and explained the variance requests. Staff did not believe that variances would be Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 6 of 9

7 needed in order to use the lots. There is some hardship with Lemon Creek, but this is not where the applicant is asking for variances. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment adopt the director s analysis and findings and approve the variances to the exterior required side yard setbacks and deny the variances to the interior required side yard setbacks on the requested Variances, VAR and VAR The Variances would allow for a relaxation of the side yard setbacks on Lots 4 and 5 of RSH III to permit the construction of two industrial buildings as shown in the project site plan (Attachment A). The Director further recommends that the Board of Adjustment recommends to the applicant that they consolidate the subject parcels in order to develop a single building on a single lot. If the Board of Adjustment does not adopt the Director s analysis and findings and decision on the requested Variances, VAR and VAR , and approves the requested variances as proposed by the applicant, the Director recommends a single condition of approval: 1. A maintenance agreement for the walls along the common property line that has been approved by the CDD shall be recorded in the State Recorder s Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy for either building. Ms. Fowler asked for clarification on the document submitted by Perseverance in the blue folders. Mr. Lyman explained that he had sent a draft staff report to the applicants, which they had modified. He added that staff is in the process of making a director's determination as to whether the caretaker's residences will be allowed as proposed. Mr. Kendziorek wondered if the buildings would be allowed as permits for two separate applicants for 0- lot line buildings. Mr. Lyman said that if the variance requirements were met then the buildings would be allowed, but that in this case the requirements would not be met. Staff would not recommend consolidation, but otherwise it would be the same recommendation. Ms. McConnochie referred to the absence of buildings in that subdivision. Mr. Lyman noted a number of similar requests. Ms. McConnochie confirmed that it was preferable to have a minimal setback on one side rather than encroach into the streamside setback. Ms. Fowler thought the buildings in a lot consolidation would essentially be a commercial duplex. Mr. Lyman explained that the buildings could be condominiumized through the state. He added that common-wall buildings are not allowed in the industrial zone. Although asking for zero setbacks would produce the same effect, it is a different process. Public Testimony Catherine Heumann, representative for Perseverance Theatre, noted the approval of a conditional use permit for the rehearsal space and said that the set shop is needed, also in the industrial zone. Jeffrey Herman, Producing Director for Perseverance Theatre, spoke to the need for the proposal. Larry Spencer, for the applicant, noted that the lots are 40-feet wide, and that without the requested variances there would not be sufficient parking. Ms. Heumann spoke about the requirements that staff felt were not being met. Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 7 of 9

8 Public testimony was closed. MOTION - by Kendziorek to adopt the findings, analysis, and recommendations of the document submitted by Perseverance Theatre on April 21, and the conditions contained in the staff report of April 19. Mr. Kendziorek spoke to the motion in that the requested variances were much more favorable than what is normally requested in the industrial zone. Mr. Pusich agreed and noted that he and Mr. Kendziorek had taken a site visit to the area recently. Ms. McConnochie added her support of the motion. Mr. Bavard reluctantly supported the motion. He thanked staff for their hard work on the report and thought Perseverance had tipped the scales in their favor. Mr. Bruce and Ms. Waterman added their support. Ms. Waterman thanked staff for the proposed conditions. Ms. Fowler agreed with staff's findings, especially in use of the property. However, since that was the only issue against the proposal, she felt she could also be supportive. There being no objection to the motion, VAR and VAR passed. X. OTHER BUSINESS - None XI. DIRECTOR S REPORT Mr. Pernula reminded the Commission of the upcoming CIP workshop, which will allow discussion of current priorities and of missing projects. He thought the Commission should particularly look at streets, pedestrian ways, and utility extensions. Mr. Pernula spoke again about the sign permit and that the problem was not telling the applicant about the process, rather than the problem being with the delay that came after the application was submitted. Mr. Pernula told the Commission of the resignation he had received recently from Chris Beanes, and noted that Tim Maguire would be retiring and returning after a month as a temporary employee. XII. REPORT OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Bruce said the Waterfront Committee had met and identified the portion of the seawalk they would like to begin renovating, but that they did not know how much it would cost. Ms. Waterman spoke of the Lands Committee meeting and of the action items on its agenda. The first item was to name the West Douglas Rotary Park, the second was about the Dog Task Force allowing dogs at Twin Lakes, and the third was a request by Harbors to acquire commercial land north of Alaska Glacier Seafoods. The request by Harbors was continued because the owner of the land had asked a price that was considerably higher than the 2005 assessed value. Mr. Pusich said the Wetland Review Board had met and discussed two items, both which would be coming to the Planning Commission soon. The applicants for the two items were both represented by Murray Walsh. Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 8 of 9

9 XIII. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Ms. Fowler asked when the Lands Committee would meet again on the Harbors proposal. Ms. Waterman said it would most likely be on May 9 in Assembly Chambers. Ms. McConnochie recently attended a session on Rules of Order. The recommendation was to have only motion minutes. Mr. Pernula said that in most appeals there is a request for precise minutes, and Ms. McConnochie replied that supplying a tape of the minutes would suffice. Mr. Kendziorek disagreed, in that it was important for the minutes to be as detailed as possible. Ms. Fowler agreed with Mr. Kendziorek and explained the need for showing the process of coming to decisions. Ms. Gladziszewski thought it would be good to hear from the city attorney on the matter. Mr. Bavard noted that the Lena Point Subdivision was on the agenda for the following meeting and reminded staff to be thorough in notification and analysis so that the public would not come in uninformed. Ms. Fowler said she would like the same process to be followed with the Lands Committee proposal in Statter Harbor, with neighborhood meetings especially. She spoke to the lack of detail in the Docks & Harbors minutes. Ms. Fowler asked if the wording "sign approval" could be changed to avoid confusion. XIV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - by Gladziszewski to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 26, 2005 Page 9 of 9