PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1998 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 Johan Dybdahl. I. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Mike Bavard, Ken Williamson, Johan Dybdahl, Mark Pusich, Jody Vick, Marshal Kendziorek and Merrill Sanford. Commissioners Absent: Tracey Ricker and Dan Bruce A quorum was present. Staff Present: Cheryl Easterwood, Director Community Development; Kim Kiefer, Director Parks and Recreation; Terry Stone, CDD Planner; Gary Gillette, CDD Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. Corso swore in the two new Planning Commissioners: Marshal Kendziorek and Merrill Sanford. III. IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None CONSENT AGENDA Chairmen Dybdahl announced that USE98-00064 was moved to the Consent Agenda. MOTION - by Vick, to adopt the Consent Agenda consisting of USE98-00064. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 1. USE98-00064 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A ONE BEDROOM ACCESSORY APARTMENT DESIGNED TO BE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE. Location: Applicant: 2908 Gkacierwood Court Northern Lights Development, Inc. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the director s findings and grant the requested conditional use permit. The permit would allow the development of a 588 square foot accessory apartment in a proposed single-family dwelling at 2908 Glacierwood Court with the following condition: 1. That screening is provided between the proposed parking pad on the East Side of the lot and the adjacent lot, 5A. This can either be fencing or landscaping that provides a visual Planning Commission 1 November 24, 1998

barrier. The screening will be approved by the CDD and must be in place or bonded for prior to occupancy. V. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - None VI. REGULAR AGENDA 1. CSP98-00014 CITY PROJECT APPROVAL FOR A 26,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY AT SAVIKKO PARK. Location: Applicant: 121 Dock Street Douglas 4 th of July Committee and USE98-00060 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 26,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY AT SAVIKKO PARK. Location: Applicant: 121 Dock Street Douglas 4 th of July Committee Staff Report: Mr. Gillette reviewed the staff report included in the packet. He commented that there was a letter passed out tonight which raised issues about noise, parking, hours of operation and costs in terms of maintenance and operation. All items were addressed in the staff report. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the director s analysis and findings and grant the requested conditional use permit and city project review approval as identified in the staff report. The approval would allow the development of the Treadwell Arena, an indoor recreation facility, as proposed and submitted with the application. The approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a design review permit approved by the Design Review Board. 2. In the event the summer uses of the building change from those authorized by this permit, the applicant shall consult with the CDD Director to determine if the change of use significantly impacts traffic and parking. If such impacts are anticipated, the permit shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for amendment. Mr. Vick asked if this would normally go under Design Review. Mr. Gillette said the Design Review ordinance had not changed and therefore it still applies. The Assembly had asked for an ordinance to be brought forward and that had not happened. Mr. Pusich asked about recommendation no. 2 regarding the use of the facility in the summer months. He asked that if ice skating were to take place during the summer, would that be considered a change of use. Mr. Gillette thought so. He said the reason for that condition was that specific uses had been identified as basketball and tennis courts. The reason those were identified was because those were uses that currently exist. They are anticipating that that level of use may go up a little, because the courts would be covered, but it would not increase dramatically. They do not know exactly what the demand for this facility will be. If there were to be a high intense use in the summer, Planning Commission 2 November 24, 1998

parking and traffic would need to be reevaluated. He also noted that the Harbor Board was proposing major improvements to the area so parking might not be a problem. Mr. Bavard stated that two of the fields were relatively close to the existing basketball/tennis courts. He asked that during construction, did staff anticipate any impacts on the two fields that were used extensively for softball and soccer. Mr. Gillette thought there was area behind the building that could be staged and fenced fairly close to the outline. He did feel there would be a need to impact the other fields. Mr. Kendziorek asked staff to comment on one of the concerns mentioned in the letter and the possibility of a fence so people would not be parking on St. Ann s. Mr. Gillette said, looking at the map, there were existing toilets by a stairway. He felt it would be pretty far to park on St. Ann s and use those stairs. He also was not aware of any public property that a person could park on without parking on the street. He felt it would be easier to park at Savikko Park and walk to the facility. The only time parking overflow could be anticipated to move to St. Ann s would be during the summer and again, they do not anticipate the use to be that high during the summer. Mr. Sanford asked if anyone had looked at Savikko Park s angle parking. He felt that parking was for smaller cars and he asked if there were any plans for improving that area. Mr. Gillette was not aware of any, but he assumed that would be considered with the Harbor Expansion. Public Testimony: Wayne Jensen, architect for project, Kim Kiefer, Director Parks and Recreation. Ms. Kiefer said that the Parks and Rec. Advisory Committee (PRAC) had reviewed this and was very supportive of the Treadwell Ice Arena. There was a public meeting last week with the Douglas Island Advisory Committee with approximately 12 members of the public present, they too were very supportive. The majority of them were Douglas residents and they see this as a way to expand their winter use of Savikko Park. They did not see much increase in use during the summer, but it was possible because covered tennis courts are not available anywhere in Douglas or downtown. Mr. Jensen said the design would be very modest, very simple and primarily for recreational use. Mr. Sanford asked if they had considered any extra parking in the area. Ms. Kiefer said they had not looked at extra parking, although they would be working closely with Joe Graham as they expand the harbor. Harbor parking would be closer to the dock so that will free up some of the parking areas for Savikko Park. Mr. Pusich asked Mr. Jensen about the construction of the facility and what impacts it might have on the existing fields. Mr. Jensen said the idea was to locate the building generally where the tennis courts are now but to put it physically as close to the slope as possible, back from the ball field as much as possible to give more space around the ball fields. He referred to the map, which showed their proposal to relocate the walking path, which currently goes behind the ball fields, to the front to the building. He did not anticipate interference with the fields. They were not sure when construction would take place because it would be dependent on when the funding was available. The most likely place to stage would be the northwest side of the building. Planning Commission 3 November 24, 1998

Mr. Bavard said he was a user of the tennis courts and occasionally softballs had landed on the courts. He cautioned about placement of any windows. Ms. Kiefer said they were looking for ways to provide netting on field three that would keep the balls on the field, not hitting the side of the building. She said as the field scheduler for the past four years, she knows the demand on the fields and they would do all they could to coordinate this so there was no need to impact the fields. Commission Action: MOTION by Pusich, to approve USE98-00060 and CSP98-00014 and accept staff s findings, analysis and recommendations. Mr. Pusich spoke in favor of the motion and said he was very much in favor of the project. He felt it was a wonderful asset to the community. Mr. Vick thought the Fourth of July Committee should be very well commended for the work and effort they have done to progress this project to this stage. ROLL CALL: ayes: Bavard, Pusich, Sanford, Williamson, Vick, Kendziorek, and Chairman Dybdahl nays: None Motion carries 7:0 The Planning Commission adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Adjustment. VII. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1. VAR98-00046 A VARIANCE TO REDUCE SETBACK TO NINE MILE CREEK FROM 50 FEET TO 15 FEET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY AND PARKING PAD. Location: Applicant: 10055 N. Douglas Highway Joe L. Parnell Staff Report: Mr. Stone reviewed the staff report included in the packet. He noted that there was an error throughout the report where it says from 25 and it should say from 50 to 15. Mr. Stone also noted there was a letter submitted by the adjacent neighbor on the East Side. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Board of Adjustment adopt the director s analysis and findings and grant variance to Title 49.20.250 for the reduction of the required 50 setback from anadromous streams to 15 to allow the applicant to construct a 28 by 14 driveway and a 28 by 12 parking pad provided the following permit condition is added: 1. The applicant shall construct the driveway and parking pad with stable slopes and shall vegetate the parking pad and driveway slopes to prevent erosion and sedimentation. the applicant shall maintain the vegetation and stability of the slopes throughout the life of the project. Mr. Bavard said the existing 30 easement for the driveway was not addressed. He asked that if the variance were to be granted, would the applicant be able to have the variance Planning Commission 4 November 24, 1998

with the shortened up distance to the stream and then also keep the 30 driveway easement that is on the neighboring lot. Mr. Stone thought the easement was as part of the deed plat for Tract A. Mr. Bavard clarified that would have been done at the time this tract was subdivided. Mr. Kendziorek asked if Fish and Game (ADFG) had made any comments on this application in reference to the anadromous stream. Mr. Stone said that ADFG would review the whole lot which had been determined to be wetlands by the Corp. of Engineer s (COE) and they would do a review of that under the Coastal Consistency Review process. They have issued a permit for the footpath that crosses the stream and he was not sure of any other concerns. Mr. Williamson asked for clarification of the status of the easement. He said in the letter from the neighbors, the owners of Tract A, they indicated the easement was for access to lot 225. He asked if Mr. Stone had a copy of the easement or if he knew it was an access easement to Tract B. Mr. Stone said it was an access easement to Tract B that was provided when the lot was subdivided and sold. There was a written easement, which was in the previous file. Mr. Williamson stated that on the DOT driveway permit, they indicate there was a construction plan attached. He asked if there was a second page, a site plan, which was attached to the application. Mr. Stone said not that they received. Mr. Bavard asked if the definition of the driveway easement would be for parking or just a footpath to walk through. Mr. Stone thought it was a driveway easement for access, which was granted for the future driveway to be built across this portion of Tract A to access Tract B with a driveway. The applicants plan was not to build at the end of that easement, but more in the AK DOT right-of-way, due to the fact that the applicant did not want to remove some very old large trees right there. Also, constructability of the slope is less steep in the AK DOT ROW. He would have to drop about 10 of grade in 30 of distance to get down the hill to his parking area. Mr. Pusich asked how wide the walking path would be. Mr. Stone guessed a couple of feet wide. He said part of it is in and the bridge is in, and it is less than two feet wide. He felt the walking path would be less than that. Mr. Pusich clarified the applicant would hand mix the concrete for the foundation of a future residence. Mr. Stone said the applicant stated that he proposed to move everything to the building site by hand. Mr. Pusich asked if a COE permit had been applied for. Mr. Stone said the permit application had been submitted and the Coastal Consistency application/questionnaire was in the public review process. Public Testimony: Gary Wharton, P.O. Box 21446, Juneau, next door neighbor to Mr. Parnell. He referred to his letter. He had talked with COE, AK DOT, and CBJ. He said the COE had not finished their review of the project yet and they would not until the end of the month. They have not heard back from ADFG. He was confused about the accuracy of Mr. Parnell s drawings as presented. He said his surveys did not match with what Mr. Parnell has on his drawings. At a minimum, he felt a professional survey should be done with stakes posted for each marking. COE and AK DOT all agree that would probably be prudent. The proposal shows fifteen feet from a cross culvert that runs parallel to a Planning Commission 5 November 24, 1998

stream that goes under North Douglas Highway. AK DOT states that is the minimum to be away from the creek. He asked that a professional survey be done so that everyone would know what the applicant is proposing and what it is that will be put in. Another issue had to do with the easement, which according to his paperwork, was for egress and ingress from the property and was not designed for a parking pad. The proposal was not on the easement, but in the State DOT ROW and the corridor of the stream. They do not have a lot of say in what happens, other than the legal paperwork does not describe the easement as a parking pad. His legal advise was that if something were built there and it were to collapse, if it was on the easement, they could actually be sued and responsible for part of that because it was part of their easement. One other issue had to do with the covenants of the property. He said there were four lots and actually three easements involved. The applicant had never conveyed any information as to what he planed to do. There are standards in the covenants as to what can be built and they would like better communication. They received advice to get a legal agreement addressing who maintains what and who was liable for what. Mr. Bavard clarified that the covenants would need to be addressed between Mr. Wharton and the other lot owners and would not be enforceable by the Commission. Joe Parnell, Box 20354, Juneau; applicant. He stated he was applying for a grading permit to build a parking pad. Using the neighbors numbers, the property corner was 24 from Nine Mile Creek. A car is 8 wide and with a 15-foot setback, there would be just enough room to get a car in there. The project has been looked over by three contractors, the CBJ planner, the DOT, ADFG and the COE. The only folks who have opposed it so far are the neighbors who do not want traffic going up and down the front of their house. That is perfectly understandable, but when they bought the property they knew there was an easement in their driveway and that someone owned the property next to them which was zoned D-1, single family housing. He felt their big hope was that he could come in from the other side. He referred to their letter, which said it made more logistical and economical sense to approach the property from the other side of the creek. Mr. Parnell said he did not have legal access to use the other side. When the land was subdivided in 1972, he was given legal access and he feels it is his right to use it. He never asked for an easement on the other side. As for getting a professional survey, one has been done, it is on file, the markers are there and all is perfectly clear. It has been checked by a number of agencies and his hope was to get started on building a home. Mr. Bavard referred to staff s recommendation no. one. He asked if, in his discussion with contractors, did they see any problem with slope stabilization with this project. Mr. Parnell said that water drains down hill and there is a large culvert that goes under the North Douglas Highway. He did not see how there would be any more water once he put in his driveway pad; there were drainage ditches in place. There was always the possibility of disaster and if he was at fault, he would be held liable. Mr. Williamson said on the DOT permit, they indicated there was construction plans. He asked if there was a drawing in his application to them. Mr. Parnell said yes, it was the same one in the packet. Mr. Williamson then asked how far Nine Mile Creek was from the common corner of his property. Mr. Parnell said there were two survey sticks there, one from on old survey and one from a new one. There was about ten feet between the two stakes. Planning Commission 6 November 24, 1998

Mr. Williamson asked that, if indeed there was only 24 feet to the creek, how was he going to build the pad. Mr. Parnell said with stone. Mr. Williamson asked how long he was going to build it and how close to the creek. Mr. Parnell said 15-10. Mr. Kendziorek clarified that Mr. Parnell said that if the survey was a little off, he might be building within 10 of the creek. Mr. Parnell said he would like to keep it at 15. He would also like to protect the stream, but he has to get his car parked on his property. He was hoping it could be worked in between 15 feet and the property corner, which the neighbors have established as the property corner. Mr. Kendziorek clarified that he had been working with a number of other agencies but had not received any permits yet. Mr. Parnell said that DOT had given him a permit and the other reviews were ongoing. Mr. Sanford asked staff if this was permitted from 50 to 15, and the applicant went to 10, what would the city do. Ms. Easterwood said his authorization would be to build 15 from the stream so there would not be a grading permit approved that allowed fill to proceed closer than that. Mr. Pusich asked Mr. Parnell if a grading plan had been prepared for the project. Mr. Parnell said just what was in the packet. Mr. Pusich asked if it was his intent to meet the list of requirements of a CBJ grading permit. Mr. Parnell said he did the checklist and provided all the information. He thought he had met those requirements but said he would be glad to look over the list again. Mr. Bavard stated to staff that it seemed unclear where the property lines were and if this project could actually work. Mr. Stone said that he went out on October 9 th and looked at the site and the proposal with the applicant. They did not stake the perimeter of the fill but they looked at where the perimeter of the fill would be. Mr. Stone said he flagged where the ordinary high water mark was and that there was room to get the pad in. The applicant would like to get it in without disturbing as many trees as possible and as inexpensively as possible. Mr. Stone thought it could be put in, graded, stabilized and revegetated at a reasonable cost. Mr. Williamson said that without an actual survey showing the location of the creek, he would be hard pressed to support this application. He felt the outcome was really determined by how far the creek was from the property line and whether it could physically be built. He felt that if a permit was issued and the creek were 10-15 feet closer to the property line than indicated, was the permit for the size of pad indicated or was it for the setback or what was it. He said he would be willing to offer a motion to continue, if others were willing to support it, on the hope that an as built survey would be brought in on that Tract showing the location of the Creek. Mr. Vick agreed with Mr. Williamson and added that there were a number of unanswered questions that needed to be answered before a legitimate vote could be taken. Mr. Bavard said he was leaning toward supporting the motion to continue because he was unclear of the applicant s intent to get the pad in. Mr. Bavard felt that was the wrong approach to take and the right approach would be to stay with the 15 feet. It was a significant request for relaxation that was being requested and he felt it appropriate to have accurate measurements. Planning Commission 7 November 24, 1998

Board Action: MOTION by Williamson, to continue, and he noted that the intent was that an as-built survey be brought by a licensed surveyor indicating the exact location of the stream. Mr. Bavard asked if it would be appropriate to have a sketch of the proposed pad in there also. Mr. Williamson agreed that that would be best. There being no objection, this item was continued. The Board of adjustment adjourned and reconvened as the Planning Commission. VIII. PLANNING DIRECTOR S REPORT Ms. Easterwood noted that appeals run cyclically and there seemed to be a new season of appeals. Presently, there was three Commission decisions that were appealed, two of which had been accepted by the Assembly. The decision to approve parking on Gastineau, Max Borges applicant, has been appealed by the Downtown Neighborhood Association; Mr. Steve Landvik had appealed the Commission s denial of his allowable use permit which would have had a parking lot that accessed Gastineau; and, Paige Bridges had appealed the decision to approve the H&H Building on South Franklin Street. The city attorney s office would be representing the Commission on the Borges case and, at present, she would be defending the Commission s decision on the Landvik and H&H appeals. Ms. Easterwood noted there would be Planning Commissioner training for the two new Commissioners and any other Commissioners who may not have had an opportunity to sit with the city attorney to discuss the issues that surround meetings and Planning Commission decisions. She said staff would poll the Commissioner s to see what would be a convenient time. Mr. Bavard asked the length of training. Ms. Easterwood was thinking 1-2 hours. She noted that the Wetland Review Board was also interested in attending. IX. REPORT OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MOTION by Vick, that the officers be appointed by seniority which would be Johan Dybdahl as Chairman; Mike Bavard as vice-chair; Tracey Ricker as clerk; and Ken Williamson as viceclerk. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Appointment of Commissioners to vacant committee positions. Committee Vacancies that needed to be filled included Ms. Bomengen s seat on the Transportation Steering Committee as well as the vacancies identified in the packet. Mr. Vick was appointed to the Waterfront Committee; Mr. Sanford was appointed to the Lands Committee; and Mr. Kendziorek was appointed to the Transportation Steering Committee. Mr. Pusich reported on the application before the Wetland Review Board by RHD Development. The applicant proposed development on Crest Street behind Valley Lumber. The proposal was to develop the property in a commercial use with three separate types of uses. Staff s findings were to deny the permit and the vote was 5:2 for denial. The applicant had been before the board twice before on that permit and Mr. Pusich was not sure if there would be an appeal. X. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Mr. Bavard commented that Mr. Parnell appeared to feel rather discouraged. He said he did not feel this body had any reason to continue this other than additional information. He felt there Planning Commission 8 November 24, 1998

might be a way for the applicant to obtain his goals and he thought staff should let him know the Commission did not shoot him down, only requested more information. Chairman Dybdahl added that if there was the actual physical space, almost anything could be constructed. It would depend what the applicant was willing to do in order to engineer it and make it happen. He felt that was a large relaxation being asked for without really knowing exactly how far from the stream the pad would be. Mr. Kendziorek asked if it would be appropriate to do a field trip instead of requiring an expensive survey. Mr. Williamson asked what then would be used as a base point. Mr. Pusich said there was uncertainty in the information provided in the packet and to some of the agencies as well as what it was he was trying to accomplish. There was a stream showing on paper, but physically, it has not been tied into any of the landmarks. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - by Pusich, to adjourn. There being no further business and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Planning Commission 9 November 24, 1998