MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. REGULAR MEETING January 25, 2005

Transcription

1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA REGULAR MEETING January 25, 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: Mike Bavard, J. Mark Pusich, Marshal Kendziorek, Jim Scholz, Dan Bruce, Maria Gladziszewski, Peggy Ann McConnochie, Nancy Waterman Commissioners Absent: Jacqueline Fowler A quorum was present. Staff Present: Dale Pernula, CDD Director; Chris Beanes, CDD Planner; Ben Lyman, CDD Planner; Nathan Bishop, CDD Planner; Gary Gillette II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION - by Kendziorek, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 11, There being no objection, it was so ordered. III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Kelly Corrigan, st Street, Douglas, said he is a general contractor and has recently finished the infrastructure and installation of utilities for All Season s Subdivision, an 18-lot single-family subdivision midway on the Back Loop Road. The streets were paved and the subdivision is substantially complete, only lacking the sidewalk. CBJ will not accept the subdivision and the accompanying maintenance of the street. They have a bond in place and they have proposed modifying the bond to ensure construction of the sidewalk and the remaining minor items. Many subdivisions do not have sidewalks and they are still getting plowed. Lot A is sold with a home currently under construction and they are ready for the CBJ to reconvey their lots so they can close on lot 11A. He felt that if the sidewalks were not complete in the city s Lena Loop subdivision, the streets would still be plowed. Mr. Bavard asked if he was looking for something from the Planning Commission. Mr. Corrigan said he needed to know why the city would not take over the plowing and the maintenance of the subdivision until the sidewalks are in. His attorney sent a letter to Engineering. They are in the process of releasing his lots back to him now so they can continue on with selling the lots. He could have put the sidewalks in this fall but he is building most of the houses himself. All the curb and gutter is in but his preference would be to build the sidewalks as he builds the homes, thereby eliminating the need to build areas of Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 1 of 9

2 sidewalk that would have to be removed and still allowing the people who are purchasing these homes to design their own home and build their driveway where they want. Ms. Gladziszewski asked if he had exhausted all avenues with the city and Mr. Corrigan thought so. Mr. Bavard suggested he attend next Monday night s Assembly meeting or Public Works meeting. IV. RECONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS - None V. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Kendziorek, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CSP SITE WORK TO RECONFIGURE AND ADD PARKING, AND CREATING A SPORTS FIELD AT THE SCHOOL COMPLEX, INCLUDING JDHS, MARIE DRAKE AND HARBORVIEW AREAS. Location: 1639 Glacier Avenue Applicant: CBJ Staff Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Director s findings and analysis and approve the JDHS Renovation Phase II, as it meets overall Comprehensive Plan policies. USE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY ON AN EXISTING LAWFULLY NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITH SUBSTANDARD SETBACKS. Location: 1537 Pine Street Applicant: Rob McMahon Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Director s analysis and findings and grant the requested Conditional Use permit. The permit would allow the development of a second story on the existing structure, a lawfully nonconforming structure with substandard setback. Recommended conditions: 1. (a) (Advisory Condition) Construction workers shall carpool as much as possible to reduce the traffic and parking impacts of this project. (b) (Advisory Condition) Any and all use of public rights-of-way shall require a right-of-way permit under (Enforceable Condition) Outdoor construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. VI. VII. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 2 of 9

3 VIII. REGULAR AGENDA - None The Planning Commission adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Adjustment. IX. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VAR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY APARTMENT FROM 600 SF TO 740 SF. Location: 3168 Fritz Cove Road Applicant: Thomas Williams Staff Report: Mr. Beanes reviewed the report included in the packet. Ms. Gladziszewski asked for clarification on the lot size of 19,000 if the minimum lot size is 36,000. Mr. Beanes said it was most likely a non-conforming lot that was established prior to the 36,000 D1 zoning. He noted there were a fair number of these in this neighborhood along the waterside. On the uphill side, there are a number of lots that meet the square footage requirement. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Board of Adjustment adopt the Director s analysis and findings and deny the requested Variance to allow for an increase in the size of the accessory apartment from 600 square feet to 740 square feet. Public Testimony: Thomas Williams, 1707 Willow Drive, handed out a letter to the Commissioners dated January 25, 2005 which would become part of the record, and he referred to the information he presented earlier outlining why he felt this was a reasonable request. He felt this posed no particular threat to the CBJ relative to its zoning and was fully consistent with the zoning and the requirements of the ordinance. He read his letter dated January 25 into the record. He felt his situation was unique and the variance would provide substantial relief to him and his wife without harming anyone. Mr. Kendziorek said the circumstances under which the Commission is allowed to grant a variance are strictly prescribed. There are very specific criteria which have to be met. If the applicant does not meet these criteria, the Commission is not able to grant the variance. He asked Mr. Williams to explain why he met the criteria. Mr. Williams asked if the Commissioners received a copy of his actual variance request where he addressed those particular issues and how his request meets the conditions of the code. It was determined that his comments were not included in the packet. He provided a copy for staff to copy for the Commissioners and the Commission took a recess to read them. R E C E S S 7:35 p.m. 7:45 p.m. Mr. Williams said the definition of an accessory apartment allows it to go higher. He agreed it should not be opened up to everybody and he did not think granting this one would do that. He felt it met all the other criteria as his letter explains. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 3 of 9

4 Mr. Kendziorek appreciated Mr. Williams comments and said to some degree he would grant a couple of his comments. It has taken him years to understand the planning language so he could understand when a novice does not quiet understand what some of this means. The land use environment is for a larger lot and he did not see how they could possibly get to saying it is authorized use in this district because it is not. He asked if he could use the apartment and rent it out if it were 600 square feet. Mr. Williams said he probably could if it were 400 square feet. Mr. Kendziorek said that A was not met. Mr. Beanes said that if it exceeds the 600 square footage requirement for an accessory apartment, it then becomes a duplex. There is no other way to define a unit that is over 600 square feet than a duplex unit. Mr. Bruce asked staff about the applicant s comment about the specific language in the code that reads... or such other area as may be approved through the procedure for variance. Mr. Beanes said that would apply to an apartment that needs to meet ADA requirements as there has to be more square footage devoted to a bathroom and to other areas to meet building code requirements. Mr. Pernula said based on that definition, it is not an absolute hard figure. On certain occasions it can go beyond 600 square feet but that is only after the Planning Commission reviews an application and believes it meets the criteria to issue a permit. He felt that if they were arguing for additional square footage without having some sort of a hardship or some sort of a special circumstance that justifies it, then essentially the 600 square feet is too small. It needs to be uniformly applied to everybody and maybe they should change the code to increase it. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Pernula relative to equitable application, he disagreed that they need to change the 600 feet to grant the variance. He thought they should treat people similarly situated equitably. Public testimony was closed. Mr. Williams was allowed to make closing comments. He said the reason there was a variance process was to make good reasoned judgments. If they want to lock everything down and say it is going to be this way regardless, then there is no reason to have a variance process. He felt he made as good a case as could be made relative to an increase in the apartment. There s a limitation on it, as a practical matter it could never be more than 840 square feet and he would be happy to sign that as a condition. He hoped the Commission would put themselves in his situation in considering this. It will cost him money to modify it at this stage, and if and when the property goes to D-3 it will cost him a lot more to do it then. Looking at the values on the first page of his previous letter, there would be nothing inconsistent with granting this variance with what the goals of the zoning are. Commission Action: MOTION by Kendziorek to grant VAR Mr. Bruce said more often than not he tries to find for variance, but unfortunately in this instance, he cannot do that. It is a rule and they are stuck with definitions. If he could make it fit he would, but he does not see it. If 600 square feet is too small then the remedy is to change that to allow larger accessory apartments. He appreciates the applicant coming forward for the variance and said a number of people have come before the Commission who built their project thinking that if it is built, it would be approved. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 4 of 9

5 Mr. Scholz spoke in favor of the motion. He found the applicant s arguments compelling and he felt he met the criteria for a variance. He noted to staff that there were different interpretations and it is very important to get the applicant s interpretation into the packets. Mr. Kendziorek asked Mr. Scholz what legally defensible findings he would write for criterion 4 or any of the sub criteria under criterion 5. Mr. Bavard said he would like to vote before making those decisions. Mr. Pusich said he was struggling with Mr. Williams reference to D1 zoning transitioning to D3. It is not there yet; it is in the future, and they don t know when that will be. They have to work with the zoning that exists right now. Ms. Waterman appreciated all the work of the applicant and staff. She would not support the motion because it is a D-1 zone and an accessory apartment cannot exceed 600 square feet. Ms. Gladziszewski referred to his comments about similarly situated, in that this would not open the floodgates, but that he did it himself and gave an example of another one who was allowed to do it. ROLL CALL Ayes: Scholz Nays: Waterman, Bruce, McConnochie, Pusich, Gladziszewski, Kendziorek, Bavard Motion failed 1:7 MOTION - by Pusich to accept staff s findings, analysis and recommendation to deny the requested variance. Mr. Scholz objected. ROLL CALL Ayes: Bruce, McConnochie, Pusich, Gladziszewski, Kendziorek, Waterman, Bavard Nays: Scholz Motion carried 7:1 and VAR was denied. The Board of Adjustment adjourned and reconvened as the Planning Commission. X. OTHER BUSINESS SUB DISCUSSION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE RCA LENA SUBDIVISION, TRACT C, LOT 1 INTO 22 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. No decision would be made at this meeting. Location: Pt. Lena Loop Road Applicant: Bruce Griggs Staff Report: Mr. Bishop briefly reviewed his report included in the packet. He displayed a Power Point presentation showing the area. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 5 of 9

6 Conclusion: The primary concern with this subdivision is how sewage will be treated and disposed of. There are several different outcomes to this discussion that could influence the subdivision s design. 1. Individual on-site disposal is determined to be a suitable means of treatment in this area; however, it requires larger lots than proposed. This would require the applicant to modify the plan to accommodate the necessary area for on-lot treatment. 2. Individual on-site disposal is not appropriate in this area; however, a community on-site disposal is feasible. This option would require the developer to dedicate a site for on-site treatment, requiring a modification to the plat. 3. Individual on-site disposal is appropriate as proposed. If this is the conclusion, then the subdivision can proceed as proposed. 4. No on-site disposal is feasible in this area. If this were determined to be the case, either the developer would have to wait for CBJ to construct a community treatment plant, or the developer would need to secure the necessary easements and permits for a marine outfall prior to preliminary platting. Until this issue is resolved, staff is not able to make a recommendation on this subdivision proposal. On January 31, 2005, a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Assembly will have a presentation from CBJ staff to give staff guidance on what they believe is a suitable solution to this problem. Following this meeting, staff will reschedule this subdivision for review by the Planning Commission, at the earliest feasible date. Mr. Bavard asked what staff anticipated would happen at this meeting. Mr. Pernula said CBJ staff is putting together the report and they have been working to address various issues. They will also be considering the city s subdivision, which collectively will create up to 70 lots, all possibly with on-site septic systems. In addition to the standard, which is not very specific regarding suitability of soils for onsite septic systems, the Planning Commission must make a finding. One of the criteria that must be met, relative to a conditional use permit, is the Planning Commission finding. The application must be denied, if they make a finding that it will materially endanger the public health or safety. Staff will make recommendations on that based on the outcome of the meeting on the 31 st. Mr. Bavard said they would hold off on any lengthy discussion on the sewer system until after the meeting on the 31 st. Mr. Bishop said part of the reason this was on tonight s agenda was because the applicant would like to present their proposal so the Commission can have some insight into their thoughts on the issue prior to going into the meeting on the 31 st. Mr. Kendziorek asked staff to come to the meeting on the 31 st with information about other on-site systems of this magnitude that have not failed. Ms. Gladziszewski asked Mr. Bishop for further explanation on DEC s procedure. Mr. Bishop said there used to be a waste disposal certificate that was signed by DEC. DEC pulled that provision from their statutes and they no longer do subdivision review. The only time they do a review is for individual systems on individual lots. There is a bit of disconnect there if they determine that the lots are not suitable for on-site waste disposal. There is doubt as to what DEC would do in regard to permitting after making such a determination. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 6 of 9

7 Ms. Waterman asked that information on how the NOAA facility would be dealing with its wastewater and sewage be presented at the meeting on the 31st. MOTION - by Kendziorek to waive the Rules of Order during this work session and allow the public to testify. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Bruce Griggs and Scott Jenkins came forward together. Mr. Griggs said they pushed for this meeting because they felt it to be in their best interest to submit their ideas for wastewater disposal in this subdivision. He has a lot of experience in this as he works with SJS Excavation and part of their business is replacing failed leach fields. They hope to be able to help the city with some of their problems as they may have a solution that the city has not thought of. He noted that the median lot size was not 21,000, it was actually 31,000, which is almost triple the size of the allowable use. Their stamped Engineer s report addresses the public health issue with the new style of wastewater disposal. The engineer has stated a lot of the regulations in the report that could shed some light on what exactly can be done. They would like to approach this development separate from the city and the problems that they are having developing their property in Lena. Theirs is a much smaller subdivision than what the city is trying to push through. The city also has had problems with the neighborhood association. He said they went to the Neighborhood Association before doing any of their platting and tried to address concerns prior to designing the subdivision. He felt they had a better relationship with this association. They have planned this subdivision and organized it based on their experience of how everything is going to drain and work. One thing they are concerned about is that the city is going to present options for their sewer problem on Lena and determine that a treatment plant is necessary. That could stop this subdivision from going forward for a number of years. They would like to approach their subdivision with on-lot sewage treatment plants with a provision that if the city does decide to put in neighborhood treatment, they will make it mandatory for lot owners, when they buy their property, that they will agree to an LID to the city sewer system. They would like to, immediately, start selling lots, building houses and installing sewer systems that could be permanent, but may be temporary. They are proposing a different type of system. He explained what they were planning Robert Regis, came forward and presented a handout to the Commissioner s. They were not proposing the standard traditional system and he explained how those systems work. They are proposing a package plant and as certain package plants are approved by DEC generically, each one installed on that particular site will be reviewed and approved by DEC engineers, to make sure it is going to work on that individual lot. The concern with the standard traditional system is the lack of operation and maintenance. There has been no requirement that existing systems be maintained properly. One system out of compliance throws off the overall ability of the drain field to work, so none of the 22 individual package plants can fail, if the subdivision is going to work. Homeowner Associations coupled with CC&Rs has not really worked. To insure the necessary operation and maintenance they propose a service area. He explained how this would be done and said this was a heavily used device in the Fairbanks area. Mr. Bavard felt this information should be given to staff and was more appropriate for the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 7 of 9

8 Mr. Jenkins asked if the meeting on the 31 st was open for public comment. Staff said it was not. Mr. Jenkins said that was why he wanted to make sure that a discussion of their proposed plan occurred. The applicants think it is a great idea. They felt if they were not able to discuss it tonight, it might not be discussed on Monday. Mr. Pernula asked for a copy of the letter and said he would distribute it to the various departments. Kirk Miller, current president of the Lena Neighborhood Association (LNH), said they met with the applicant several months ago. They have seen the plans and of all the people in town, he felt their intentions were very sincere. If anyone would to do a good job designing this subdivision, it would be Mr. Griggs with his current partner, Mr. Jenkins. However, he did have three concerns from the LNH. They think the lot sizes should be at least an acre in size so that they match the neighborhood. In addition, with on-site sewage systems, the greatest chance of success would be a larger lot. The old DEC rule of thumb for on-site systems was roughly an acre of land. That way, if or when, the primary system fails, the lot would be large enough to accept a second system. Next, the residents would like some consideration to have this area rezoned to D-1, or with some other sort of covenant to restrict development on each of these lots to one dwelling as that is important for the sewer system. Regarding Aerobic Treatment Units (ATUs), he said they are not the silver bullet of sewage treatment. They are a tool that is used and DEC will not approve of anything else for use in this town. They need to be maintained and fed at a constant ratio. If people go on vacation for days, they go dormant and need to be kicked back into cycle. They also can be overloaded, which causes failed systems. They should be treated with caution. LNA proposed that the developers eliminate lots 21 and 22 and spread out the development along the road. That would allow them to increase the size of some of the other lots. The applicants did not think that was economical to eliminate any lots. Mr. Kendziorek asked about his comments that DEC would not approve areas less than an acre. He use to work for DEC and did not recall that. Mr. Miller said he was a registered civil engineer and he designed on-site sewer system for nine years in Anchorage. He agreed he has never seen it written down in DEC. Mr. Regis said there was a table in the regulation, and they go by the number of bedrooms and the percolation rate. Al Kegler, works for DEC and has a lot of experience with DEC regulations. He agreed with Mr. Kendziorek that there was nothing in the state regulations that speaks to minimum lot size. It is handled in a separation distance procedure and he explained how that was determined. It is usually 100 feet from your neighbor s drain field and neighbor s well. He has never seen this result in a public health problem. Public testimony was closed. Mr. Bishop said this proposal was something they were looking at and they would continue to do so. XI. DIRECTOR S REPORT Mr. Pernula said the meeting on Monday was at 5:00 in the Chambers. They would be putting out a packet on Thursday. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 8 of 9

9 XII. REPORT OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Kendziorek said the Wetland Review Board met on Thursday and they reviewed work at the airport. There is an area where they want to lower the berm to get further separation distance between the plane wings and the top of the berm, but it is in the 25 foot zone. They discussed some options and came up with some suggestions. Ms. Waterman said the Land Committee meeting was rescheduled. Ms. McConnochie said Public Works would look at rezoning Hidden Valley to a gravel extraction area. XIII. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Mr. Pusich asked if the Breeze In appeal had been heard. Mr. Pernula said the appeal has been heard and he understood they had made a decision but they had not made their decision public yet. It will probably be adopted at their next meeting. Mr. Bavard referred to the testimony by Mr. Corrigan and his concerns about why the city has not taken over the subdivision. Mr. Pernula said he would have to talk to the Manager s Office and he would report back. Mr. Bishop said that typically Public Works does not do subdivision inspections past a certain date. Mr. Bruce said in light of Mr. Wanamaker s previous comments and the capital move argument about the high price of homes and lots in Juneau, there is further need to get lots on line as quickly as possible. Mr. Kendziorek said when an applicant submits documents with their perspective on criteria; the submittal needs to be included in the packets. Mr. Pernula agreed and said that should have been done. XIV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - by Kendziorek, to adjourn. There being no further business and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 25, 2005 Page 9 of 9