Title 49 Committee TXT February 20, 2009 Page 2 of 4

Transcription

1

2 Title 49 Committee TXT February 20, 2009 Page 2 of 4 3. LINE 1295: What happens if a grave or other archeological object is found? Is the reference to procedures in the Inventory of Historic Sites adequate? Is there a different inventory for CBJ, State and US inventories? Different standards? Procedures in place? We have the same concerns with this section of code. We have suggested some major rewording, but even so, the changes do not address the whole issue. First, the reference to sensitive areas was eliminated because these are addressed more directly in other code sections. We have also proposed deleting the reference to scenic areas; it was eliminated because this term is not defined and there are no guidelines for dealing with this type of feature. We were proposing to leave in reference to historic properties because this feature can be defined. (See attachment 1). The wording in the draft needs to say historic property not Inventory of Historic Sites ( ) Scenic areas, sensitive areas and llocations with important historical propertiesinterest shall be taken into consideration during subdivision layout. These revisions still beg the question as to what you could do when a historic property is indentified within a proposed subdivision. The code language implies that the subdivision layout would need to be modified. However, what happens if the subdivider decides to demolish the property? Comment [TJM1]: Sensitive areas are covered elsewhere. There is no definition or standards for scenic areas We can use the definition of historic properties as a reference. But what you do with these historic sites when reviewing a subdivision is still not clear without a more detailed ordinance Also, in discussion with staff, it appears that the definition of historic properties does not necessarily include archeological sites. With all these questions, staff recommends that we do more research into this issue before adopting any code language. 4. Commercial and Multifamily subdivision standards Please complete a whole list of standards you and CDD staff think would be appropriate, rather than depending on us to come up with the suggestions? With regard to the subdivision standards, I wanted to see if the group thought that was something we should look into since we potentially would be approving more subdivisions in-house. We will follow up with some suggestions after doing more research and seeing what might make sense for Juneau. 5. My only question is about general concept of overlay districts. Recent update of the Comp Plan included many overlay districts: noise, airport noise, affordable housing, transit oriented, scenic corridor. How does a property owner learn about these, and use them to make decisions about subdivision or other development?

3 Title 49 Committee TXT February 20, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Now, the subdivision ordinance only refers to overlays districts that have been adopted in code and have some development standards. For example, the airport noise contours (See Attachment 2) are not adopted maps and have no development standards associated with the maps. One suggestion would be that a note be placed on the plat that references these maps. This would be for the purpose of notification to new owners. With regard to the transit/high density and scenic corridors, and the affordable housing areas, the plan is to follow up and adopt overlay maps with guidelines for development. These guidelines may include subdivision development as well. At this point, it would make sense to put reference to these new overlays in the subdivision code. STAFF QUESTIONS There were not many major issues not discussed in the first staff report. 1. LINES : The code language concerning subdivision design for street layout was changed significantly. The exiting code talks about discouraging any kind of through traffic. This has led to subdivision proposals with many cul-de-sac streets, which dump all the traffic onto collector streets. The lots that front on these streets then experience the high traffic speeds and volumes. The new code language still looks at discouraging through traffic by supplying a number of routes through the subdivisions so that traffic is dispersed; t his is called street connectivity. In addition, the code would discourage the use of cul-de-sac streets. Culde-sacs not only prevent connectivity, but also are expensive to build and difficult to maintain. The current area-wide Transportation Plan talks about the need for street connectivity. (See Attachment 3) Does the Committee support this change in design standards? 2. LINE 795: A new code section has been added that requires information regarding tree clearing within a subdivision development. The concern that has been raised in the past is related to safety. Will tree clearing affect the wind firmness of the remaining trees and create a danger for the surrounding properties? Does the Committee agree with this code addition? 3. LINES 1534 & 1554: During review of the code section dealing with access requirements for all new subdivision lots, the concept of allowing public stairways as an

4 Title 49 Committee TXT February 20, 2009 Page 4 of 4 acceptable access option (particularly in the Downtown area) was discussed Approving this kind of access raises some big issues including how will emergency services and off street parking be provided. Does the Committee want staff to pursue this option for subdivision development if these issues are addressed? 4. The question of the need for public notice for major subdivisions that are approved in-house (5 10 Lots) was raised. At this point, the language for major in -house subdivisions has not been written. This will be completed with the second phase of the subdivision rewrite. Staff suggests we take that issue up when we look at some draft language. Currently we do not send out notice for minor subdivisions (1 4 Lots) and no changes are being recommended. 5. One aspect of the code update for subdivis ions is to deal with approval deadlines and expiration of subdivision applications. For example, the language concerning the 10-day deadline for approval of a minor subdivision is proposed to be deleted (LINE 1805). This language has not been useful in the past and there is no consequence if not met. Staff s opinion is that timeliness of review of applications is the responsibility of the director. In addition, the time to process a minor subdivision can vary greatly. The timeframe is very dependant on the applicant s response to request for revisions and the availability of the subdivider s surveyor. Another issue is cut-offs for applications. Currently the code does not have any cut-offs for submittal of a complete application or finishing a subdivision proposal that has been submitted. This has led to situations were subdivision application stay on the books indefinitely. We are proposing adding cutoffs for submitting complete applications (LINES130) and for expiration of plats that are not completed (LINE 157). These proposed cut offs are not stringent with 180 days proposed for the former and 5 years proposed for the latter. They do, however, ensure some finality. Does the Committee agree to these proposed revisions to deadlines and cutoffs? FUTURE DISCUSSION At our previous meeting, we discussed the new CBJ construction oversight and maintenance requirements for on-lot waste disposal systems and how these regulations relate to the subdivision approval process. I have attached (See Attachment 4) a memo that was sent out to the various CBJ agencies that deal with implementing these regulations. Their input will be valuable in any discussion of this issue. We will discuss and try to resolve the code and regulation discrepancies at a later date.

5 Tim Maguire From: Sent: To: Cc: Tim, Daniel Sexton Tuesday, January 13, :03 PM Tim Maguire Benjamin Lyman; Beth McKibben; Dale Pernula; Eric Feldt; Jennifer Wilson; Kathleen Bailey; Stephen Baxter; Stephen Hanis; Teri Camery; Greg Chaney Subject: RE: Code language questions To define a historic property or historic site, we could use language that is similar to that of the Property Tax Code (CBJ ), which defines a Historic Property as: Historic property means a structure which has been placed on or nominated for placement on the National Register of Historic Places; a contributing property within a designated historic district which has been placed on or nominated for placement on the National Register of Historic Places; a contributing property within a designated historic district which has been recognized by the state or the City and Borough; a property which has been declared architecturally significant by City and Borough historic building surveys; a property which possesses characteristics of nationally or locally recognized historic styles of architecture as determined by the historic district advisory committee; or a locally designated or recognized historically significant structure. As we just discussed, I ll contact the State Office of History and Archaeology to see if there have been any instances where private properties that contained a historic resource were subdivided. Daniel J. Sexton, Planner I CBJ Community Development Dept. 155 South Seward Street Juneau, AK Ph: (907) Fax: (907) daniel_sexton@ci.juneau.ak.us

6 3-11 ATTACHMENT 2 Figure 3-3. Existing airport noise exposure contours. Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge 60 dba 70 dba 65 dba 75 dba Miles 0.5 1:45, Date: December 13, 2006 Source: DNL (day night noise level) noise data is from BridgeNet International 2000 EIS Operations. Base map taken from a hillshade grid derived from Intermap's Juneau-GT2 GLOBAL Terrain digital surface model, [D: \Report Maps\FEIS\Ch. 3\2000_Noise.mxd] 0 Airport Boundary MWSG Refuge 60 dba 65 dba 70 dba 75 dba Existing 2000 DNL Noise Contours Existing Noise Contours for JNU Juneau International Airport EIS Juneau FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

7 City and Borough of Juneau Area Wide Transportation Plan Volume I Transportation Plan Recommendations July 9, 2001 Prepared by the Department of Community Development

8 Area Wide Priority Solution List Local ID SOLUTION DESCRIPTION TIMEFRAME 1.1 Transportation Demand Management Policies* Implement transportation demand policies throughout the CBJ focusing on reducing single occupant vehicle trips and promoting alternative modes of travel such as transit, carpooling, and bicycling. These policies should also focus on encouraging telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and be presented as incentives. 2 Increased Frequency of Transit Service 3 Develop Local Street Connections 4 Maintenance of Bicycle Lanes, Pathways, Sidewalks and Bus Stops 5 Enhanced Routes to School Program 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities on Local and Collector Streets 7 Improved Local Transit Service in the Mendenhall Valley 10 Access Management Policies for Residential Subdivision Design * This solution is a policy choice, rather than a development or construction-project that the CBJ will implement. Double service frequency, to a bus every 30 minutes, along existing local routes during peak hours Monday through Sunday. Extend Care- A-Van service from 6 PM to 9 PM on Sundays. Develop local street connections between subdivisions and adjacent local or collector streets to maximize connectivity and minimize local vehicle trips on principal roadways. Where feasible, connect streets for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle use. Improve connections from neighborhoods to regional trail system. Maintain bicycle lanes, pathways, sidewalks and bus stops with regular re-striping, resurfacing, street sweeping and snow removal. Fund enhanced routes to school program to construct sidewalks and/or bicycle and pedestrian routes from neighborhoods to schools. With new construction and reconstruction, evaluate pedestrian and bicycle needs and recommend sidewalks on one or both sides of a street, as appropriate, in all commercial or residential subdivisions. Restructure local service on the existing Mendenhall Valley/Lemon Creek/Downtown route. Provide a circle route using Mendenhall Loop Road and Riverside Drive. This route will continue to Downtown on Egan Drive as Express service. Create a separate route providing service on Glacier Highway to the Lemon Creek area, and another route serving the West Mendenhall Valley. Both new routes would connect to other routes at the Valley transfer center (Nugget Mall). Implement access management policies to address residential subdivision access onto principal roadways. 11

9

10 Rorie Watt, Engineering & Joe Buck, Public Works TXT February 17, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Recommendation: Our recommendation is divided into two parts CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT Since this construction oversight is a one-time activity that can be carried out in conjunction with the building permit process, it would not seem to be that big of a burden for this requirement to apply to minor subdivision as well. Additional fees would be collected for these inspections; this would require a change to the existing regulations. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CBJ It would seem that requiring a maintenance agreement for OWTDS for minor subdivisions would also not be a major burden, if it only involves collecting addition fees and having the property owners added to the list of clients for the CBJ contractor. On the other hand, the D.E.C. still has some oversight over the construction of wastewater treatment systems and has authority to require that these systems be maintained. No matter the decision, the regulations need to be amended to conform to the definition of major and minor subdivisions. The regulations define a minor subdivision as 1 to 3 Lots and the code says 1 to 4 lots. ISSUE 2 - Commercial/Industrial vs. Residential Subdivisions The Land Use Code, section , also does not make a distinction between the types of subdivision, whether commercial, industrial, or residential; whereas, the regulations only require construction oversight/inspection and maintenance of OWTDS for major residential subdivisions. We reviewed the zoning maps and the areas of the CBJ that are currently served by public sewer. The latest sewer LID in the West Valley area provides sewer service to the last major industrial/commercial area in the CBJ not previously served. Recommendation: There does not seem to be a reason to make a distinction on the type of subdivision that is covered. Staff would recommend that the regulations be amended to say major subdivisions rather that major residential subdivisions. ISSUE 3 - Individual vs. Community waste treatment systems The Land Use Code Section Private treatment systems below does not make a distinction between individual or community types of private treatment systems.

11 Rorie Watt, Engineering & Joe Buck, Public Works TXT February 17, 2009 Page 3 of 5 A commu nity treatment system is one where effluent is collected from all dwellings in the subdivision and then transported for treatment and/or disposal on or near the subdivision site. Treatment can either take place with individual treatment plants on each lot or with a joint treatment and disposal system (i.e. treatment plant, sewage lagoon, or common drain field. In our opinion, permitting and maintenance of community systems can be just as important as that for individual onsite treatment and disposal systems in terms of health and safety. The history with the Bonnie Brae and Bayview subdivisions shows that problems occur with these types of systems and they become bigger problems for the CBJ. Practically speaking, I would not see many, if any, proposals by private developers to construct these types of systems in the future. Bonnie Brae, Brigadoon, Bayview, Lena View, and the South Lena Subdivisions are all zoned D-3 (12,000 sq. ft. minimu m lot size). There is very little private or public land zoned D3 in areas that do not have public sewer service. It would be uneconomical to put in a community type treatment system in areas with lower density zoning such as the D-1 and RR zoning districts (36,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). Recommendation: Our recommendations are based o n the type of community systems: ONSITE TREATMENT Staff recommends that the code section be rewritten to make it clear that a community system with individual onsite waste treatment, even if the effluent is collected and taken off site, come under the requirements for construction oversight and maintenance ( if it doesn t already). OFFSITE DISPOSAL A proposed community system with off site waste treatment and disposal would be constructed as part of the subdivision. The construction would therefore be inspected and approved before final plat approval and the sale of any lots. Maintenance of the community system would also have to be resolved before plat approval and recording. The code can be amended to make it clearer that construction oversight and maintence in this situation does not apply. ISSUE 4 May vs. Must The existin g code is unclear about who decides and when the decision is made as to whether maintenance agreements are required. The current wording is regulations may require the landowner During the review of Chapter 35 by the Title 49 Committee, a recommen dation was made that the wording be changed to regulations mustmay require the landowner. (See strikeout in the code section below).

12 Rorie Watt, Engineering & Joe Buck, Public Works TXT February 17, 2009 Page 4 of 5 In later discussion with the Law Department, it was pointed out that the intent of the code was to have the Planning Commission decide whether maintenance agreements are required at the time of subdivision approval. For this reason, the wording was shown as may require. At the time this section of code was reviewed by staff and the Title 49 Committee, this intent was not known. The Committee made the recommendation to change the wording from may to must to take out the uncertainty. Recommendation: Staff does not have a problem with leaving the wording may if the code is rewritten to spell out that the Planning Commission will make the determination as to when maintenance agreements are required, when in the process that decision is made, and that the Public Works Department comments on each proposal. In addition, the Title 49 Committee is considering a code amendment to allow in -house approval of major subdivisions from 4-10 lots. If this change is approved, wording will need to be added for the director to make this same determination for major in -house subdivisions. Please give us your thoughts on each of the issues. EXISTING LAND USE CODE The existing code language is shown with the initial set of revisions: Private treatment systems. (a) If a public sewer is not available, septic tanks, leaching fields or other private sewerage facilities may be permitted, provided the state department of environmental conservation must approve all private sewerage systems and treatment plants, and that the owner of a lot using one of the above-listed private sewerage facilities obtains from the Engineering Department a CBJ on -site wastewater treatment and disposal system permit prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. The requirements for obtaining a wastewater treatment and disposal system permit, and the permit fees, shall be established by regulations issued by the Manager pursuant to CBJ Such regulations mustmay require the landowner to enter into a contract with the CBJ Public Works Department or its designee for operation, monitoring, or maintenance of the private sewerage facility. Comment [TJM1]: The DEC no longer reviews or approves the plans for wastewater treatment for subdivisions.-.they only review plans for single lots as proposed by the subsequent property owner. This needs to be rewritten EXISTING REGULATIONS Existing regulations for the Engineering Department regarding construction oversight and inspection of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems (OWTDS) read as follows:

13 Rorie Watt, Engineering & Joe Buck, Public Works TXT February 17, 2009 Page 5 of 5 06 CBJAC Purpose. This regulation is enacted to provide standards for the department to provide an inspection and oversight program for residential onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems (OWTDS); and 06 CBJAC Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Regulated. (a) Except as provided in (b), all property owners who install or cause to be installed an OWTDS on a lot created by a major residential subdivision after July 1, 2005, which is not served by a centralized municipal wastewater treatment system, are required to comply with this Chapter; Existing regulations for the Public Works Department regarding maintenance of OWTDS read as follows: 03 CBJAC Purpose. This regulation is enacted to provide standards for the department to provide an inspection and maintenance program for onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems (OWTDS) of major residential subdivisions. Cc: Ron King, Chief Regulatory Surveyor Dale Pernula, Community Development Director