MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU
Maria Gladziszewski, Chair
REGULAR MEETING
March 9, 2010
I.
CALLED TO ORDER
Chair Gladziszewski called the regular meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
Planning Commission (PC), held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, to order
at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present:
Dan Miller, Marsha Bennett, Dennis Watson, Nicole Grewe,
Benjamin Haight, Frank Rue, Maria Gladziszewski
Commissioners absent:
Karen Taug, Michael Satre
A quorum was present.
Staff present:
II.
Dale Pernula, CDD Director; Greg Chaney, Beth McKibben, Eric
Feldt, CDD Planners
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 16, 2010 – Planning Commission Committee of the Whole
MOTION: by Mr. Rue, to approve the February 16, 2010 PC Committee of the Whole minutes,
with corrections.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
III.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None
IV.
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON REPORT
Bob Doll said the Public Works & Facilities Committee heard an action relevant to the PC,
although he deferred to Mr. Watson to report on this information with the commissioners later on
in the PC meeting.
Chair Gladziszewski asked if Mr. Doll wished to share with the PC what happened with the
recent rezone request. Mr. Doll said he already did so at the last PC meeting. Chair
Gladziszewski thanked Mr. Doll for doing so, noting that she was not in attendance at the last PC
meeting although she already knows what happened.
V.
RECONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS - None
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 1 of 32
VI.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Gladziszewski announced that there were two items on the Consent Agenda, and inquired
if there was public comment on these items. No one from the public had comments, and no one
from the Commission had questions.
MOTION: by Mr. Rue, to approve the Consent Agenda, as presented.
There being no objection, it was so ordered and the two cases below were approved, as
presented.
USE2010-00005
An Allowable Use permit to develop a short term, transitional living home, with one on-site staff
member, for up to 5 individuals who are homeless.
Applicant:
Dorothy Green
Location:
379 Village Street
Staff recommendation: that the Planning Commission adopt the Director's analysis and findings
and grant the requested Allowable Use permit. The permit would allow the development of a
transitional living home, with one on-site staff member, for up to 5 individuals who are homeless
and have difficulty remaining stably housed. The approval is subject to the following condition:
1. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained
prior to anyone living in the structure.
VAR2010-00003
A Variance to setback requirements to construct a rear deck 4’ into the rear yard setback.
Applicant:
William Nelson
Location:
111 Troy Avenue
Staff recommendation: that the Board of Adjustment adopt the Director’s analysis and findings
and approve the requested Variance, VAR2010-00003. The Variance permit would allow for an
attached, split-story rear deck to encroach 2.5 feet into the rear yard setback, with the following
condition:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit an as-built
survey showing the location of the decks with a setback of at least 16 feet from the rear
property line to the Community Development Department.
[Ms. Bennett arrived at 7:02 p.m.]
VII. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – Moved following
the Board of Adjustment portion of the Agenda.
Chair Gladziszewski announced that staff requested that TXT2009-00004 be moved following
the Board of Adjustment presentation since people are in attendance who wish to speak on the
next two Agenda items, [to which the commissioners agreed].
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
IX.
REGULAR AGENDA
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 2 of 32
MAP2008-00004
A Zone Change Request for parcels: USS 2135 TR II, USS 2135 TR I TR A, and USMS 2305
LT 15 from D-3 to D-18.
Applicant:
Multiple
Location:
North Douglas Hwy.
Staff report
Beth McKibben stated that on December 8, 2009 the PC held a public hearing and considered
requests to rezone five sites in the North Douglas area. The PC acted on two of them [Sites 1
and 2], and the PC made a recommendation on Site 3 to the Assembly, which will be considered
on March 15, 2010. She said Sites 4 and 5 were referred to the Subdivision Review Committee
(SRC) for further discussion who met on February 5, 2010 and asked staff to present four
alternatives to the PC for consideration.
She said Sites 4 and 5 are currently zoned D-3. She explained that these lots are identified in the
2008 CBJ Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as a “split lot zone” in the Urban Low-Density
Residential (ULDR) on the N. Douglas Hwy., and recommends a transition to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) on the upper portions, which is classified as up to 20 units in the Comp Plan.
She explained that the nearest zoning available is D-18, which is what the applicant is requesting
Sites 4 and 5 be rezoned to. Chair Gladziszewski asked how ULDR differs from MDR. Ms.
McKibben said ULDR encompasses D-1, D-2, and D-3, and MDR allows up to 20 units per acre.
She said she neglected to mention that Murray Walsh is representing the applicant of Site 5.
In terms of the four alternatives, she said the original recommendation by staff (Alternative 1 Map A) was to rezone Sites 4 and 5 to D-18 with a 200’ no development buffer along the
highway, which staff is recommending that the PC consider tonight.
She said Alternative 2 (Map C) would be to rezone Sites 4 and 5 to D-18 with a 50’ no
development buffer along the highway, which is beyond what is required to provide access and
infrastructure, noting that this would be created along the highway where the lot lines abut land
within lower density D-3 zoning.
She said Alternative 3 (Map B) is with strict adherence to the Comp Plan, which would create a
“split lot zone” situation where the lower portions of Sites 4 and 5 along the highway would be
rezoned to D-5, and then the upper portions would be rezoned D-18. She noted a small triangle
parcel is located near Grant Creek, which is currently an individual lot and is also part of Site 5,
explaining that if they strictly followed the guidelines of the Comp Plan it would rezone this
small 1.62-acre triangle parcel to D-18.
She said with Alternative 4 [no map provided] the lots would be rezoned to D-18, and staff
would create some sort of tracking so the bulk of the development would take place away from
the highway. She noted that this would be structured in such a way as to embrace the spirit of
the Comp Plan by keeping the areas nearest the highway and adjacent to the existing low-density
residential development further away by providing for dense development toward the rear of the
site. She said this would take place without actually splitting the zoning or creating a no
development buffer. She said this alternative would be very difficult to administer, including
that such zoning could be in place for decades, and therefore it would be very difficult to track
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 3 of 32
over time. She said this includes when changes in staff and property owners take place later on
that this might be overlooked and/or be confusing at the time of future development, thus staff is
not in favor of Alternative 4.
She noted that staff found that only the lower portion of Grant Creek is available to anadromous
fish, and therefore is subject to the 50’ streamside setback only for the downhill side of N
Douglas Hwy., not Sites 4 and 5.
She said staff provided recommendations for each of the four alternatives (pages 2-5 of the
report). She noted that she separated each alternative recommendation into two; one for Site 4,
and the other for Site 5. Regarding Alternative 1, she explained that for Site 4 staff recommends
rezoning this parcel to D-18 with access points for new developments to be aggregated to the
extent possible, and access roads should be spaced at least ¼ mile from adjacent access roads
when possible. Also, that a 200’ no development buffer, beyond what is need to provide access
and infrastructure be established from the highway. For Site 5 staff is recommending a rezone to
D-18 with the same access points as Site 4, including a 200’ no build buffer, and that Site 5 shall
be consolidated into one lot.
For Alternative 2, which is the 50’ no build buffer for Site 4, she said staff recommends the
aggregation of access points, and a 50’ no development buffer along the highway and where lot
lines abut land within the lower density zoning district. For Site 5, she explained that staff
recommends the aggregation of access points, and a 50’ no development, including the
consolidation of Site 5 into one lot.
She referred to Alternative 3, which is the “split lot zone” concept, whereby she noted that staff
recommends a rezone from D-3 to D-5 and D-18 (as shown on Map B), with the inclusion of
access points. In terms of Site 5, she explained that this is an option where staff is not
recommending combining Site 5 into one lot, and instead, recommends that the smaller lot be
entirely rezoned to D-5, not split into D-5 and D-18. She noted that the staff report provides one
method in which they might be able to work around the issues of “split lot zoning” by allowing
only one dwelling unit per lot for D-5 zoning, although this creates an interpretation problem.
She said one method of addressing this challenge would be to subdivide the property following
the district boundaries, and thereby eliminate the “split lot zone.”
She said the 200’ and 50’ buffer alternatives maximize the development potential of the sites.
The 200’ buffer most closely follows the intention of the Comp Plan, and at the same time
maximizes the development, which might create more dense development on the upper portions
of the lot, rather than along the highway where lower density development already exists. She
said the 50’ buffer is not consistent with the intent of the Comp Plan, which shows low density
along the highway, but it would still provide a small buffer between high and low density
development.
Mr. Watson said staff mentioned in Alternative 1 “...a 50-foot no development buffer, beyond
what is required to provide access and infrastructure...” so he asked how much the access and
infrastructure would take up beyond 50’. Ms. McKibben explained that if there are buildings in
the upper portion of the lot they would need a driveway from the highway to extend water and
sewer, and electricity, noting that the 50’ buffer would not be allowed to be developed as a
parking lot or snow storage site. Mr. Watson asked if the 50’ no development buffer parallels
the highway. Ms. McKibben said the 50’ buffer would be from the property line with no
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 4 of 32
development within it, although there could be infrastructure punched through the buffer to
provide access for utilities. Mr. Chaney added that it would allow for utility infrastructure to be
within the 50’ buffer, not in addition to it.
Mr. Rue asked if the SRC provided any specific recommendations to the PC and/or if they
discussed them. Mr. Pernula said the SRC asked staff to present these four alternatives, and yes
they held discussions but they did not provided a specific recommendation regarding any of
them. Chair Gladziszewski asked if the same commissioners present at that SRC believes that
Mr. Pernula’s statements are correct, [to which Mr. Watson and Ms. Bennett agreed].
Mr. Miller stated that he has four different questions. First, he asked staff to explain their
reasoning for providing a buffering rezone request, as opposed to requiring this during the
subdivision review process. Ms. McKibben said this is a zone change request, not a subdivision
application, whereby she noted that they are allowed to condition rezone requests. She said this
is clearly stipulated in the ordinance, and therefore it would not get lost over time in history,
which was the primary point she was attempting to make. Mr. Pernula said another primary
reason is that the subject property is at the interface of a high-density zone, which is next to a
low-density zone. Mr. Chaney added that the Comp Plan requires low density along the
highway, but this does not work very well if there is a “split lot zone” on a parcel. He said
buffering the highway provides the property owner the advantage of high density, but they also
have to move such density away from the highway. He explained that if they instead did as the
Comp Plan suggests they would end of with a “split lot zone” adjacent to lower density zoned
property, which is why the 200’ buffer works, including that this is what the Comp Plan calls for.
He noted that the 50’ buffer would work similarly, but it does not meet the intent of the Comp
Plan.
Mr. Miller said his second question is whether the northwest area above this parcel is zoned
ULDR(T)MDR. Ms. McKibben explained that currently this parcel is zoned D-3, but the Comp
Plan calls for ULDR(T)MDR, including the upper northwest portion of the properties further
north on both sides of the highway.
Mr. Miller said his third question is regarding staff’s reasoning for recommending the
consolidation of Site 5, noting that he read Mr. Walsh’s letter. He said this appears to make
sense, and the applicant may do this anyway, but he asked what the reasoning was for doing so
other than to just have one driveway access. Ms. McKibben said this is staff’s original
recommendation, and it makes sense to her as she views Map B, whereby the small triangle
portion of Site 5 (1.62 acres) leaves a very small area that would make development to the
maximum density potentially challenging, and therefore it does not seem suited for D-18 zoning.
She said when staff was drafting the original staff report she asked Mr. Walsh if the applicant
would be opposed to this, and they were not at the time, although they have since changed their
mind. Mr. Miller stated that by consolidating Site 5, he asked if the applicant is allowed to
transfer density from the area that staff says may be too difficult to develop onto the other
portion of the parcel, which might be easier to develop. Ms. McKibben said if the two lots were
consolidated, the density would consist of the total acreage of the entire site, and therefore future
density could be placed anywhere. She explained if the two lots are not consolidated on Site 5
the density for the 1.62 acres would be calculated on its lot size, thus it would only leave the
small triangular portion to be developed.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 5 of 32
Mr. Miller asked if they might contemplate a fifth alternative to entirely rezone Site 5 to D-18
without any buffer as Mr. Murray suggests. Ms. McKibben said yes, adding that this is a
possibility.
Ms. Bennett explained that during the SRC meetings they reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) in terms increased traffic regarding the larger parcels being rezoned, but there was also
discussion about the location of the bulk fuel plant and the need to protect these parcels from it.
Therefore, she is wondering if the PC should postpone rezoning these smaller parcels, but let the
other larger parcels move forward, which might be a more of a reasonable alternative. Ms.
McKibben said all five sites are within one mile of the fuel facility, but the Fire Marshall had no
concerns with development in this area. She said the concerns were not necessarily for safety or
health hazards for newly developed property in the area, and it was instead brought up just as a
point of clarification that there is some potential that this development might affect future
renewals of the CUP for the fuel facility. She explained that the TIA was discussed quite a bit
during the last SRC meeting, noting that there are many concerns regarding traffic, so the
potential full build-out of all of these sites would create traffic levels of service beyond what is
acceptable in Code, but each development will be considered individually. She noted in relation
to Site 3 that a separate memorandum was provided, which encourages the Assembly and staff to
advocate more strongly for a North Douglas crossing, noting that was also mentioned in the first
staff report, dated December 9, 2009. She explained that not acting on these requests, or not
approving them are actions that the PC is also able to contemplate tonight. Mr. Watson noted
that Ms. McKibben mentioned the North Douglas crossing, but he is more specifically
interesting in the new bench road, noting that while he reviewed the maps in the Comp Plan
(page 218) the bench road is shown to go though some of the upper portions of Sites 4 and 5.
Ms. McKibben said she is limited on her ability to comment on the bench road at this time, but
she understands that the lines drawn on the Comp Plan maps are fairly vague, which are mainly
to show general locations, but the particular location of the bench road has not yet been
determined. She also understands that if there were subdivision development proposals brought
forward in the future, the PC might consider the bench road at that time, and therefore might
require rights-of-way to be established depending on feasibility. Mr. Rue said this was a concern
he previously expressed when this rezone was first presented to the PC because he wanted to
make sure that CBJ Engineering did not feel that this would somehow make installing the bench
road more difficult. He explained that ultimately the bench road is going to be as important, if
not more important than the North Douglas crossing to alleviate traffic issues. He said this is
certainly true at Lena Pt., Indian Cove, etc. where the new bypass was installed, which has now
made the Auke Rec. area a nicer and safer place to reside. He said something similar in this area
would have the same impact, and therefore he does not want to see a subdivision block or make
installing a bench road in the upper reaches too difficult, whether it is in association with the
North Douglas crossing or not. He said he has never heard back on this from staff regarding this,
so he asked Mr. Pernula if he has spoken to CBJ Engineering, or whether he feels confident that
the bench road will still be a possibility even with this rezone. Mr. Pernula said he is confident
that the bench road is still a possibility, and it may be more likely to occur with higher density
zoning. However, he does not know that this rezone request would affect it one way or the other,
but he assumes that if there is going to be a bench road that it would be on top of an actual bench
that runs parallel to the N Douglas Hwy., so perhaps it could be dedicated with the development,
but if it is only serving the development itself it may require some governmental involvement
with either the State and/or the CBJ to construct it. Mr. Rue said he is concerned that sufficient
land remains above this site that provides CBJ Engineering some capabilities, but he also wants
to ensure that the area doesn’t solely consist of a wall of rock. Mr. Pernula said all the CDD staff
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 6 of 32
has in relation to the bench road right now are general locations shown on the maps in the Comp
Plan, noting that one of them is drawn though two of the rezone parcels, and the other is above it.
Mr. Pernula noted that public testimony was closed at the last public hearing, but the PC could
re-open it with six affirmative votes.
MOTION: by Mr. Watson, that the Planning Commission re-opens public testimony regarding
MAP2008-00004.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Public testimony
Murray Walsh, 2974 Foster Ave., representing Tigar Properties (Site 5), along with James M
Donaghey, 415 6th St, Ste. 300 representing the Corps. of Catholic Bishops (Site 4). Mr. Walsh
stated that he is representing Site 5. He noted that he provided a letter to the PC and apologized
for misnaming the Chair, although his points in the letter are still worth the PC’s attention. He
said the Comp Plan is the main reason why they have written letters such as this objecting staff’s
proposals. He said the 200’ buffer alternative is anathema to them, as it dramatically reduces the
developability of the parcel. He noted that split zoning the lower portion to D-5 and the upper
portion D-18 is equally anathema because it would create a confusing situation, which staff does
not like either so he hopes the PC can rapidly dispose of this alternative. In terms of the 50’ no
development buffer, he said they could live with this if they had to. However, the fundamental
question is when this aspect of the Comp Plan was offered, he wonders what the commissioners
were thinking. He noted that this is an existing neighborhood where lots directly abut the
highway that could not be legally built today because of the rule that the City has, which states
that new lots cannot front arterials, but this is what N Douglas Hwy. clearly is. He said with this
being the case, the PC should continue to allow that type of development, which is not legal. He
said the reason for this rule is because people do not like having many individuals backing out
onto a 50 mph high-speed highway, so it makes sense to develop in a different way. He said the
PC has to make the judgment call where certain parts of the Comp Plan make more sense and are
more important than that. Therefore, the fundamental, easy, and more sensible option for the PC
is to rezone this entire parcel to D-18 as the applicant has requested, knowing that when they do
come up with a plan for a subdivision, condominiums, or apartments there will be a single access
point, including that there will be all types of public opportunity to review those plans. He said
they are able to provide low growing buffers so the applicant’s buildings would provide a view
for tenants to enjoy, which are the same amenities provided to the existing neighborhood,
including that it would provide a visual buffer between them, noting that this would be stated in a
more specific basis once they develop a plan. Therefore, if he is forced to choose one of four
alternatives right now, he would go with Alternative 4 because it is the least intrusive and
punitive. He noted that particularly in relation to Alternative 1 requiring a 200’ no build buffer,
this makes him wonder if his client is not welcome, which feels really bad. He apologized if he
is reacting emotionally, but this is just how it feels. He explained that they can go ahead and
require the applicant to provide single access for the two parcels of Site 5, but the idea to conjoin
them before the rezone takes effect seems punitive. He said if the major concern is that they do
not want multiple access points, he explained that they are perfectly happy to accept a single
access point limitation, but he also requests that the PC allow them plan this development the
best way they can.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 7 of 32
Mr. Watson referred to CBJ §49.70.250 Standards for approval for hillside development, asking
if a 50’ or a 200’ buffer might push the property development to the hillside portion of the
property. Mr. Walsh said the development would be challenging due to the drainage and type of
topography, but not because of the slopes because they are not very steep.
Ms. Bennett asked Mr. Walsh to respond to her suggestion about leaving the zoning as is,
including her previous comments tonight. Mr. Walsh said his first reaction is that it is wildly
unfair, explaining that the Comp Plan does not contemplate any time limitations, and instead, it
states that when the sewer is in property owners should be provided the opportunity to rezone.
Therefore, he asked why should the owners of Sites 1 and 2 be treated better than his client who
owns Site 5. He noted that the owners of Sites 1 and 2 might not develop in time, and maybe his
client will be the first one to actually construct affordable housing on their property. He noted
that the idea is have a lot of property that is zoned for multi-family dwellings so that there is
competition and opportunities, and therefore whoever is able to provide a financial package,
design, and permitting is the one that is going to be the first to construct lower-cost housing,
which places the City in a better place. He said in relation to Ms. Bennett’s postponement issue,
he is assuming that she is not tying this rezone request to the tank farm, because it is probably
instead in regards to the traffic that she is concerned about, as he thought the tank farm issue was
off the table because of what staff stated earlier about the Fire Marshall’s comment.
Mr. Rue asked if Mr. Walsh contemplated a less dense development by rezoning the smaller
parcel to D-10. Mr. Walsh said ‘they play the cards they are dealt’, adding that he is sure that
there is probably a way to make money if a portion was zoned D-10, but if the PC does this they
would be depriving his client and the community of greater opportunities to have lower-cost
housing. He said every limitation the PC places on this rezone request means that there would be
fewer units available per acre of land. He said for the PC to suggest D-10 zoning because it feels
right is just not good enough, as the Comp Plan allows for D-18, which is what the PC should
provide the applicant unless they have a good, solid, tangible, and technical reason for not doing
so.
Mr. Donaghey said he is the Business Manager for the Corp. of the Catholic Diocese of Juneau,
and they own Site 4. He agrees with everything Mr. Walsh said, except on Site 4 there is an
existing driveway from the highway that enters Site 4 and runs down to Site 2, which will
eventually be a driveway. He noted that with any development that takes place on Site 4, none
of it would be facing the highway, and instead would face the direction of the driveway. He said
he agrees with Mr. Walsh in that he also does not want to see 200’ of his property taken away for
a no build buffer as this would take quite a bit of value away from the property, as he might
eventually want to sell or develop the property.
Mr. Watson stated that he knows that a 200’ no build buffer would create a financial impact,
including that he probably would not need quite as much roadway, although if they went with the
50’ no development buffer, he asked if this option would require any additional roadway than
what the 200’ setback would require. Mr. Walsh said they would have to provide 50 lineal feet
of roadway from the highway across the setback to where the actual development begins, which
is better than 200 linear feet of useless roadway. He imagines just for design purposes that they
would want to get in at least 50’ before they start twisting the roadway around on the property,
but the access road that he has imagined on the various schemes would be installed perpendicular
to the highway, but they are going to have to veer off one way or another, which might be within
the 50’ buffer, but they would still be preserving most it. He noted that as Mr. Donaghey stated,
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 8 of 32
if they are going to rezone to multi-family zoning, they want to be able take advantage of the
view, and therefore they will want to develop up the hillside a ways. He said they might also
want some cleared areas in front of the buildings, including installing some low-growing
vegetative buffer. He assumes by “buffer strip,” they are talking about a visual buffer to block
the view from people who are walking on the highway, so at human-being height when people
are walking and looking at this property they are just going to see vegetation. He is assuming
that this is what is wanted from this buffer so he would like to believe that they could cut down
some tall trees, and then grow short ones to take advantage of the view. He stressed that he
hopes this is not for a buffer that is never touched, which would be more punitive and utterly
inappropriate in terms of them being able to provide some visual amenity from this site.
However, if this is the case it would just be insane, but he cannot believe that this is what they
are thinking. Therefore, he stressed that if they are required to have a buffer, he presumes that
they will permit the developer to re-landscape the buffered area with low-growing vegetation.
Phillip Gray, 4410 N Douglas Hwy, said he has resided at this address for over 30 years, and he
is in favor for the current residents who have invested their life savings to reside in this location
as well, which was based on rural D-3 residential zoning. He stated that he never heard of the
ULDR(T)MDR type of zoning from D-3 to D-18 for all the sites, and some were already rezoned
at the last PC hearing. He said that was not publicized, noting that he did not read about it in the
local newspaper so he did not know it was going on. He said they already had about 100 acres
rezoned to D-18 closer to the Juneau-Douglas Bridge area so this is going to present additional
traffic concerns. He explained that he and his wife were nearly totaled due to heavy traffic this
past winter on two separate occasions near the bottleneck area at the roundabout by drivers
zooming through it. He said there is so much traffic already on the highway that they are hardly
able to get out of their driveway and have to wait for multiple vehicles to drive by before they
are able to do so. Therefore, to rezone a lot of property to high-density residential zoning in this
area, which would include apartments with many more people driving from North Douglas, so it
will make for an even worse and dangerous traffic situation. He noted that right now the current
residents do not view any large buildings along the highway, and he would really hate to see the
developers cutting down large trees because it would not be fair to the present property owners.
He stressed that his main concern really is the traffic, as this highway is at its capacity now.
Therefore, he favors not rezoning Sites 4 and 5 to D-18, and instead, he suggests that the PC
postpone doing so until they have a better traffic situation so that the rest of the residents will not
be in danger. However, if the PC does decide to rezone these parcels, at the absolute minimum it
should be with a 200’ no build buffer requirement so they are not allowed to chop down the large
trees. He said if they allow high-rise buildings in high-density residential zoning, he requests
that they construct it further back so the current residents do not have to view it.
Mr. Walsh offered to answer questions of the PC, [to which the PC had none].
Public testimony was closed.
Commission discussion
Mr. Watson referred to CBJ §49.60.140 Residential density bonus, asking if the property owner
might be denied the opportunity of using such a bonus if either the 50’ or the 200’ buffer were
imposed. In addition, whether they might be allowed to take advantage of the density bonus by
installing bus pullouts, bike paths, walkways, etc. Mr. Pernula said not many applicants have
taken advantage of the density bonus provisions of the Code and it is certainly available, but
requiring a buffer would not have an effect on this if the property owner wanted to take
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 9 of 32
advantage it. He stated that, e.g., the original staff recommendation with the 200’ buffer is so the
developer is to still be able to construct the total number of dwellings that were proposed, but
they would have to place the units on another portion of the parcel; plus they would still be able
to use the square footage within the buffers for calculating the density bonus. Chair
Gladziszewski commented that whatever the buffer ends up being, the density and/or bonus
density would be transferred to the rest of the parcel.
Mr. Rue stated, as the PC has previously discussed with the other parcels, the basic point of the
Comp Plan in terms of installing sewer was to provide for a higher density core near the center of
the community, not to just continue allowing sprawling out to North Douglas. Therefore, there
was logic provided regarding allowing higher density in this part of the community considering
the way Juneau is growing, so he supports the idea of rezoning these parcels to a higher density.
He thinks they would later be presented with many zoning requests so the density will continue
to increase out the road, and therefore the long-term traffic issue would later need to be
addressed by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or the CBJ to build a bypass
such as they did in the Auke Rec. area. He agrees with Mr. Walsh when he stated that they
cannot create situations that involves developers having single access points onto the highway
because it becomes unsafe when many people are using them. He said the main issue is how
much of a buffer is important, and they need to state their reasons for requiring this. He said he
does not believe that a 200’ buffer would allow the developer to maintain the visual amenities,
and therefore he is leaning towards rezoning the parcel to D-18 or D-15 with the density bonus
option. He stressed that he is not leaning towards thinning out the trees where they could
potentially blow down later on, but this might also prevent the visual aspect for tenants.
Mr. Miller said he agrees with most everything Mr. Rue stated with the exception of the buffer.
He explained that having constructed subdivisions in the past he knows what is drawn on paper
versus what is found in the field often varies, as a two-dimensional buffer drawn on paper might
look good, including that the ability to transfer high density into steeper areas might also be a
fine notion, although in reality it depends on topography, streams, drainage ditches, soil
conditions, wetlands, etc., Therefore, requiring a buffer could really ‘tie the hands’ of the
developer without even meaning to, so they might only end up with D-10 density when the PC
intended it to be D-18. He stressed that he supports higher density zoning.
Chair Gladziszewski said buffers are most often completed during the subdivision design
process, so she asked how often the PC required these in terms of rezone requests. Mr. Pernula
said he would have to research the records to determine this, but they have not had that many
rezone requests since he has been with the CDD. Chair Gladziszewski stated that in a
subdivision design in terms of the Comp Plan designations, she asked if this was sufficient
justification to include these aspects using different types of tools to assure that the neighborhood
concerns are addressed. Mr. Pernula said if they ended up proposing a Major Subdivision, he
thinks the PC has some discretion to require certain aspects, although Minor Subdivisions are not
provided to the PC for review, and therefore he does not know if the PC would necessarily have
all the types of tools that they might wish to have.
Mr. Miller said he is thinking about the possibility of a Minor Subdivision, which would consist
of four lots, although it could not be developed to the higher density that the applicant is
requesting. Mr. Pernula said the higher density zones have larger lots because they might have
one or two buildings that are higher, which could have 30 to 40 units each, and therefore with
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 10 of 32
four lots they could have many more units, e.g., in the Crow Hill area where they have very large
lots.
Mr. Rue said he has not been involved in anything quite like this rezone request since he has
served on the PC. He said the neighbors beneath this site do not want D-18 parcels directly
abutting their D-3 zone, which is really the main issue. He said if they were to keep the
development slightly back from the highway, he asked if it is possible to require the parcel to be
zoned D-15 with an incentive to increase it to D-18 if they provide certain amenities, i.e.,
buffering against the D-3 zone and pulling the development back from the highway, or whether
this is an aspect that has to be done through the subdivision design process. He explained that he
is just wondering if there is a method in which they could add in the density bonus factor for
doing the development in a positive manner without actually proscribing it with lines and
numbers. Mr. Pernula said this is possible, although it might be creating zoning provisions in
somewhat of an ad hoc manner. Therefore, he suggests if they want to require a buffer they
should stipulate exactly what type, i.e., narrow to what level of density, or broad to what level of
density. He said, e.g., they might choose to require a 50’ buffer and retain all the existing
vegetation, or remove the vegetation and replant new vegetation, including stipulating to what
level of buffer density. Mr. Rue said they have to first decide what the purpose is, i.e., are they
attempting to screen the development from the roadway and adjacent landowners to minimize
the impact on these interests, or whether it is mostly to screen it, as Mr. Walsh said, from people
walking past the area so there is distance and screening from the development. However, he is
not sure that they are going to effectively be able to screen a very high-density development in
this area, but he may be wrong. Chair Gladziszewski said she is certainly interested in screening
the development from existing neighbors, not particularly from people walking down the
highway.
Mr. Watson said regardless of what buffer the PC ends deciding upon tonight, when the
subdivision planning process begins, additional requirements could be placed on the developer
beyond what the PC is discussing so the applicant may very well not be able to develop some of
this land in the manner they envision, whereby he asked staff if this is a fair statement. Mr.
Pernula explained that if the PC rezones the land, e.g., to D-18, or D-15 this is the density that
staff will do their best to approve.
Ms. Bennett referred to page 215 of the Comp Plan, which states, “...it is also a local access
residential street with over 500 private driveways accessing directly onto the road.” She stated
that she is concerned that the traffic situation is so ambiguous in relation to this rezone request
the PC is reviewing, so she is concerned about the number of potential accidents without the PC
having a better understanding of where future roads would be built. She stated that if they are
going to allow higher density so the developer could build apartment and condominium
buildings, she said they could potentially be placed very close to the roadway. She explained
that, e.g., if they were considering a site at Montana Creek in a large single-family area where a
developer was proposing to construct a high-density development adjacent to it then it might be
logical to install a buffer of trees to protect the neighbors, but the adjacent residential property
situation the PC is reviewing in terms of this case is much different, and therefore they should
just let them build their development near the roadway.
Staff recommendation: Four Alternatives:
Alternative 1
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 11 of 32
Rezone Sites 4 and 5 from D-3 to D-18 and create a 200-foot no build buffer from the highway;
this is staff’s original recommendation. This option maximizes the development potential of the
area, allowing the most units, clustering development away from the road, while at the same time
respecting the Comprehensive Plan. Map A illustrates this option. If this is the option
recommended to the Assembly, staff recommends the following conditions:
Site 4 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcel from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads when
possible.
2. A 200-foot no development buffer, beyond what is needed to provide access and
infrastructure, be established from the highway.
Site 5 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcels from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads when
possible.
2. A 200-foot no development, beyond what is needed to provide access and infrastructure,
and buffer to be established from the highway.
3. Furthermore, staff recommends that Site 5 only be rezoned from D-3 with the condition
that prior to rezoning the two lots will be consolidated into one.
Alternative 2
The second alternative is illustrated on Map C. For this alternative, all of Sites 4 and 5 would be
rezoned to D-18 and a 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is required to provide access
and infrastructure, would be created along the highway and where lot lines abut land within a
lower density zoning district. This option also maximizes the potential development of the sites.
The 50-foot buffer does provide some protection to adjacent low-density development but does
not comply with the intent of the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends the following
conditions should this alternative be recommended to the Assembly:
Site 4 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcel from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads, when
possible.
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is needed to provide access and
infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot lines abut land within a
lower density zoning district.
Site 5 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcels from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads,
when possible.
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is needed to provide access and
infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot lines abut land within a
lower density zoning district.
3. Furthermore, staff recommends that Site 5 only be rezoned from D-3 with the condition
that prior to rezoning the two lots will be consolidated into one.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 12 of 32
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 follows the recommendation of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan literally. For Sites 4
and 5 this creates a “split lot zone” where a section of property along the highway is zoned D-5
and the upper portions of the sites are zoned D-18. This option reduces the maximum number of
units that could be built. It also creates administrative challenges because of the way the Table
of Permissible Uses is worded—D-5 only allows up to one single-family dwelling per lot. One
method of addressing this challenge would be to subdivide the property following the district
boundaries, and thereby eliminating the “split lot zone.” This alternative is illustrated by Map B.
If this alternative is recommended to the Assembly, staff recommends the following conditions:
Site 4 Recommend the Assembly approve the rezone the subject lot from D-3 to D-5 and D18 as shown on Map B with the following condition:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads
where possible.
Site 5 Recommend the Assembly approve the rezone of USS 2135 Tract I, Tract A from D-3
to D-5 and D-18 as shown on Map B with the following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads
where possible.
Site 5 Recommend the Assembly approve the rezone of USMS 2305 Lot 15 from D-3 to D5.
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads
where possible.
Staff notes that if this small lot is zoned entirely D-5, then the recommendation for lot
consolidation is not made.
Alternative 4
The fourth alternative is to create an administrative framework that will come into play when the
lots are subdivided or development permits are applied for. This framework would be structured
in such a way as to embrace the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan by keeping the areas nearest
the highway and adjacent to the existing low-density residential development in low-density
development, and provide for more dense development toward the rear of the site. This
alternative would be very difficult to administer. Since this zoning could be in place for decades
it would very difficult to track over time, with changes to staff and property owners it is highly
likely this could get overlooked, or be confusing, at the time of development.
Commission action
MOTION: by Mr. Rue, that the Planning Commission adopts the Director's analysis and
findings and grants the requested Zone Change request, MAP2008-00004. The request allows
the rezone for Sites 4 and 5 parcels: USS 2135 TR II, USS 2135 TR I TR A, and USMS 2305 LT
15 from D-3 to D-18. The approval is subject to the conditions outlined by staff with the chosen
Alternative 2, including an amendment to Site 5 regarding Condition 3, which is recommended
to the Assembly, as modified by the Planning Commission:
Alternative 2:
The second alternative is illustrated on Map C. For this alternative, all of Sites 4 and 5 would
be rezoned to D-18 and a 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is required to provide
access and infrastructure, would be created along the highway and where lot lines abut land
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 13 of 32
within a lower density zoning district. This option also maximizes the potential development of
the sites. The 50-foot buffer does provide some protection to adjacent low-density development
but does not comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Site 4 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcel from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads,
when possible.
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is needed to provide access and
infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot lines abut land within a
lower density zoning district.
Site 5 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcels from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads,
when possible.
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is needed to provide access and
infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot lines abut land within a
lower density zoning district.
3. Furthermore, staff recommends that Site 5 only be rezoned from D-3 with the condition
that the two lots will share an access point to North Douglas Highway prior to rezoning
the two lots will be consolidated into one.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: - Mr. Miller, to revise both Sites 4 and 5 regarding Condition 2 in
each case for Alternative 2, as follows:
Site 4
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, as differentiated from a do not disturb buffer beyond
what is needed to provide access and infrastructure, be established along the highway
and where lot lines abut land within a lower density zoning district.
Site 5
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, as differentiated from a do not disturb buffer beyond
what is needed to provide access and infrastructure, be established along the highway
and where lot lines abut land within a lower density zoning district.
Mr. Rue said this is his intent, whereby he accepted Mr. Miller’s friendly amendment.
Ms. Gladziszewski suggested instead revising both Sites 4 and 5 regarding Condition 2 in each
case for Alternative 2, as follows:
Site 4
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, not a 50’ do not disturb buffer, beyond what is needed
to provide access and infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot
lines abut land within a lower density zoning district.
Site 5
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, not a 50’ do not disturb buffer, beyond what is needed
to provide access and infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot
lines abut land within a lower density zoning district.
Mr. Rue explained that this developer might want to replant using juniper trees. He said an
example of this is where developers thinned the large trees too much on property near the
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 14 of 32
Mendenhall Loop Road intersection so many of the trees recently ended up blowing down, and
therefore the neighbors might prefer that the developer replant juniper trees to provide a buffer
from the adjacent industrial area.
Mr. Miller agreed with the revised version provided by Ms. Gladziszewski, whereby Mr. Rue
accepted Ms. Gladziszewski’s friendly amendment.
Mr. Rue spoke in favor of the motion, explaining that he was searching for a method in which to
provide incentives because this is such a large parcel, so in order to make the site work well for
the developer and the neighbors they could build a bonus density incentive into it. He explained
that he believes this will naturally happen as they are planning the development of the site. He
said this would be ensured per the comments provided by the PC, that they construct the
development away from the roadway, including installing a 50’ buffer to protect the
development from the neighbors residing on the lower density lots.
Ms. Grewe spoke in opposition to the motion because she is in favor of requiring the 200’ no
build buffer to protect the neighbors and to mitigate impacts to adjacent properties, and
Alternative 1 is the most consist option with the Comp Plan while still allowing for high-density
development.
Mr. Watson asked that the friendly amendment by Mr. Miller be restated, [which was revised by
Ms. Gladziszewski, and accepted by Mr. Rue as being friendly].
MOTION RESTATED [INCLUDING AMENDMENTS]: by Chair Gladziszewski that the
Planning Commission adopts the Director's analysis and findings and grants the requested Zone
Change request, MAP2008-00004. The request allows the rezone for Sites 4 and 5 parcels: USS
2135 TR II, USS 2135 TR I TR A, and USMS 2305 LT 15 from D-3 to D-18. The approval is
subject to the conditions outlined by staff with the chosen Alternative 2, including amendments to
Site 4 regarding Condition 2, and Site 5 regarding Conditions 2 and 3, which is recommended to
the Assembly, as modified by the Planning Commission:
Alternative 2:
The second alternative is illustrated on Map C. For this alternative, all of Sites 4 and 5 would
be rezoned to D-18 and a 50-foot no development buffer, beyond what is required to provide
access and infrastructure, would be created along the highway and where lot lines abut land
within a lower density zoning district. This option also maximizes the potential development of
the sites. The 50-foot buffer does provide some protection to adjacent low-density development
but does not comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Site 4 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcel from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads,
when possible.
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, not a 50’ do not disturb buffer, beyond what is needed
to provide access and infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot
lines abut land within a lower density zoning district.
Site 5 Recommend the Assembly rezone the subject parcels from D-3 to D-18 with the
following conditions:
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 15 of 32
1. Access points for new developments should be aggregated to the extent possible, and
access roads should be spaced at least one-quarter mile from adjacent access roads,
when possible.
2. A 50-foot no development buffer, not a 50’ do not disturb buffer, beyond what is needed
to provide access and infrastructure, be established along the highway and where lot
lines abut land within a lower density zoning district.
3. Furthermore, staff recommends that Site 5 only be rezoned from D-3 with the condition
that the two lots will share an access point to North Douglas Highway prior to rezoning
the two lots will be consolidated into one.
Mr. Watson stated that he has problems even with the less intrusive 50’ buffer, as he clearly
recalls the PC previously reviewing the Comp Plan a couple of years ago when they referred to
an overview map of this area (Map B). He pointed to a red line (black on Map B) drawn through
the subject property, which indicates no development would be allowed between it and the
highway. He explained that he attempted to locate a 200’ setback reference in the Comp Plan
but he was unable to at this time. He noted that there were sufficient comments provided while
reviewing the Comp Plan, which allows the PC flexibility, whereby he referred to a section that
states, “...as a failure of a proposal that performs to one particular policy in a plan does not
automatically mean that it is inappropriate if conformance is shown with other policies, analysis,
and when balancing the many relevant policies...” He said there is another section that clearly
addresses the fact that the PC has to look beyond what the Comp Plan was written for, noting
that although the PC reviewed it two years ago, since then the sewer system has been installed by
the City to help develop the area, but at that time the aspects probably were not as deeply
considered as is being done by the PC tonight. He said if the only choice were the 50’ buffer he
might speak in favor of it, but they are not so he thinks the PC might in essence be creating a
hardship for the property owner.
Mr. Haight spoke in favor of the motion, stating that the 50’ buffer is signifying the setback
between higher and lower density properties, including from the highway. He explained that the
problem he has with Alternate 1 is that although it provides a 200’ no build buffer, it would not
be justly applied across all the lots in terms of providing equal separation from lower density
properties, as there would be some cross over. He stated that he finds it is somewhat difficult to
take that much property away from a developer to maintain a 200’ separation. In addition, he
said it appears that staff has the additional ability to work with the applicant to define further
buffering possibilities, should the terrain later indicate this need.
Mr. Rue clarified that the 50’ no development buffer as it is depicted on Map C shows the
division line drawn on only the lower half of the parcel, which provides a 50’ separation between
the subject higher density area from the lower density area below, stressing that this 50’ buffer
does not completely surround the subject parcel.
Roll call vote
Ayes:
Haight, Watson, Miller, Rue, Gladziszewski
Nays:
Grewe, Bennett
Motion passes: 5:2; and MAP2008-00004 was recommended for approval to the Assembly with
the chosen Alternative 2, as modified by the PC.
BREAK: 815 to 8:23 p.m.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 16 of 32
Chair Gladziszewski adjourned the PC, and convened the Board of Adjustment.
X.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
UNL2010-00001
A Similar Use Determination for a pet grooming facility.
Location:
Boroughwide
Applicant:
Dayna Robertson
Staff report
Eric Feldt stated that when a use is proposed it must fit within the Table of Permissible Uses
(TPU), which is permitted according to a certain Allowable Use permit (AUP) or a Conditional
Use permit (CUP), which may be denied if it does not fall within where blank cells appear under
certain use descriptions for zones. He explained that staff might also find that the proposed
project could be similar to a use allowed in a zoning district. In regards to this proposal,
UNL2010-00001, the applicant is operating a pet grooming business on D-5 zoned property, so
since this type of use is not listed in the TPU, staff has found it somewhat similar to a
permissible use in the district under 12.200 Kennel, noting that the Land Use Code established a
process for this type of circumstance, which he cited as follows:
49.25.300 Unlisted uses.
(2) Unlisted uses. The allowability of a use not listed shall be determined pursuant to section
49.20.320.
And;
49.20.320 Use not listed.
After public notice and a hearing, the board may permit in any district any use which is not
specifically listed in the table of permissible uses but which is determined to be of the same
general character as those which are listed as permitted in such district. Once such
determination is made, the use will be deemed as listed in the table of permissible uses.
He noted that in this situation, if the Board of Adjustment approves it, this would be permissible
through the CUP as a kennel and would be reviewed as such, thus any potential impacts could be
minimized or mitigated. He said the definition of a kennel, according to Title 49, means “a
building in which six or more dogs more than four months of age are kept.” He noted that there
are very few kennels in town, but unfortunately no definition of “pet grooming” is provided in
the Land Use Code. He noted that kennels often offer pet services beyond pet grooming, i.e.,
obedience, training, etc. to provide additional income. He said a few local examples of existing
businesses that provide such services are the Gastineau Humane Society and Pet Nanny. He
noted that the Gastineau Humane Society is located near Fred Meyer along Glacier Hwy., and
Pet Nanny is located in the Lemon Creek area near Costco. He stated that when kennels are
constructed they often provide adequate room and facilities to provide grooming and cleaning for
their client’s pets. Therefore, having a grooming operation along with a kennel is typically
associated with a kennel use, but separate grooming operations do not necessarily have any
proportional increase in impacts as kennels tend to, i.e., traffic generation or noise. He said the
kennel portion of the operation usually brings in likely impacts of traffic generation, parking, and
noise, which can often result in higher intense type of uses because more animals may be kept
on-site for longer periods. He noted that Gastineau Humane Society offers short- and long-term
stays for various animals. He explained that if the PC denies this request the pet grooming
operation shall be discontinued and/or the applicant will be required to dramatically reduce
operations to meet the home occupation standards defined in the Land Use Code, which are very
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 17 of 32
strict. However, through the CUP process conditions might be placed on the permit, if
necessary. He said this is when the parking, traffic demand, and noise of the operation could be
reviewed and minimized. He stated that staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment grant
the requested Similar-Use Determination, noting that the permit would acknowledge the
similarity between the operations of the proposed pet grooming use and a kennel, whereby the
applicant could then proceed by applying for a CUP for the proposed pet grooming use.
Mr. Rue said the applicant could instead request a CUP for a kennel, and if it were granted they
would then be allowed to place a kennel in their yard. Mr. Feldt said yes, adding that such a use
would be held to the definition of a kennel.
Public testimony
Steve and Dyana Robertson, the applicants. Mr. Robertson said he and his wife do not intend to
kennel animals on their property or in their residence outside of than the hour or two that it takes
to groom them.
Public testimony was closed.
Board discussion - None
Staff recommendation: that the Board of Adjustment adopt the Director’s analysis and findings
and grant the requested Similar-Use Determination. The permit would acknowledge the
similarity between the operations of the proposed pet grooming use and a kennel. As a result,
the approval would allow the applicant to proceed with a Conditional Use permit for the
proposed pet grooming use.
Board action
MOTION: by Mr. Rue, that the Board of Adjustment adopts the Director’s analysis and findings
and grants the requested Similar-Use Determination, UNL2010-00001. The permit
acknowledges the similarity between the operations of the proposed pet grooming use and a
kennel. As a result, the approval allows the applicant to proceed with a Conditional Use permit
for the proposed pet grooming use.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Chair Gladziszewski adjourned the Board of Adjustment, and reconvened as a PC.
VII.
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS – Continued
TXT2009-00004
Discussion on Potential Modifications to the Table of Permissible Uses.
Applicant:
City & Borough of Juneau
Location:
Boroughwide
Staff report
Mr. Chaney said the draft TPU is a fairly substantial modification to the Land Use Code,
explaining that the PC provided a couple of previous reviews already. He said they are aware of
the concern regarding the regulation of snow storage in general. At the previous meeting, the
commissioners requested additional information to be provided by CBJ Engineering, but they
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 18 of 32
were not able to do so prior to printing and distribution of the report, however Mr. Watt who is
the Director of CBJ Engineering is present. He noted that the snow storage aspect was not
presented to the Title 49 Committee who previously reviewed the TPU because they did not
know that it was coming up. However, since this was first presented to the CDD, he is now
proposing a Planning Proposal, which is a three-tiered approach under 10.230 Snow storage
basin: [10.232 Neighborhood, less than ½ acre; 10.235 Regional, ½ to 1 acre; and 10/237 Area
wide, over 1 acre] for areas being improved and where the melt water drainage would be treated,
not for areas where random snow is being pushed to be stored for a day or two. Therefore, he is
advocating for disbursed snow storage, not centralization. He referred to Note z, which stipulates
that snow storage basin CUP applications would only be approved on a five-year basis, which is
so snow storage basin operations could be re-assessed after that time period. He noted that only
small snow storage basins would be allowed in multi-family zones, and larger operations in
General Commercial, Industrial and Waterfront Industrial zones.
He noted that another approach is the Engineer Proposal where snow storage would be allowed
in every zone through the CUP process, which would be limited to five years, except in the
mixed-use zones where it would be permanently approved.
Rorie Watt, representing the applicant, said the challenge they have is that in 2008 the US Forest
Service (USFS) notified the City that they were unable to use their property (adjacent to the
Mendenhall Glacier parking lot) in October 2009 to store snow. He said CBJ Engineering
informed the USFS personnel that this presents difficulties, and they were able to talk them into
using the site one more winter, noting that this past winter has been fairly mild so they have not
had heavy snow hauling such as in past winters, so it makes it appear that this issue not as
serious as it really is. He explained that this site is where most of the snow is stored from the
Mendenhall Valley, noting that downtown they haul snow to the areas by the Public Works Shop
near the Juneau-Douglas Bridge, including the Yacht Club by public and private snow removal
operators. He said they are being pushed out of both of these downtown sites as well for
regulatory reasons, so they recognize that these are not long-term solutions, which are also not
particularly legal in the short term either, but even so this is what they have been doing for many
years.
Mr. Rue said if they were to institute a drainage system for these sites, he asked whether they
could continue to use them rather than using the current uncontrolled melting process. Mr. Watt
said this might be possible at the two downtown sites, but at the USFS site it is a sheer volume
issue where they would have to actively engage in melting snow. He said the technology exists
for doing so, and they discussed this concept with developers of similar facilities who stated that
they basically make a large box where the snow is heated with diesel fuel burners, then the
melted snow drains into a big bathtub apparatus that they try to maintain at 35 degrees with
temperature sensors, which heats the snow up while trying to use as little energy as possible so
such a system is basically just a big stove. However, there are many issues in terms of water
quality with these types of systems because the snow removed from roadways contain quite a bit
of gravel and sand. Therefore, with any type of the advanced water-treatment systems that are
increasingly being required, they tend to become immediately plugged, so there has to be a
primary filter installed beforehand, which they are experimenting with in Anchorage. He noted
that in Anchorage they experience long haul distances to the big box stores, but they have not yet
found a cost-effective solution to do so. He knows that this is done at other large airports in the
Mid West, including in Minneapolis, which is where they literally plow snow to the end of the
runway and use diesel burners to melt it. Even so, he said the two downtown sites are just too
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 19 of 32
small, and he doesn’t know if the commissioners viewed pictures of the snow pile from last
winter (12 mos. ago) at the USFS site, but it was literally a mountain that would have
overwhelmed both of the downtown sites. He said they are currently seeking a home for snow
storage. [He requested Mr. Chaney to pull up an “Analysis for Potential Snow Dump Sites” map
in the Mendenhall Valley and Lemon Creek], whereby he stated that they essentially started
looking at all available CBJ parcels in the Mendenhall Valley that they could potentially use,
which they overlaid with zoning districts and steep slope issues where snow storage might be
allowed, noting that they only ended up with one or two locations, which essentially brought
about this zoning request. He noted that under the current zoning, one obvious location is in the
corner area of where the Food Bank is located that is primarily undeveloped, and was formerly
used as a sludge storage area from the sewage treatment plants in the 1970s. He said this area is
flat and more or less centrally located, and is zoned Industrial. Chair Gladziszewski interjected,
stating that the PC does not want to hear about where CBJ Engineering wants to dump snow, and
instead, about where they should dump snow, including the difference between the Engineering
and the Planning Proposal, particularly in terms of the Planning Proposal in relation to the D-5,
D-10, D-15, and D-18 zones. Mr. Watt said CBJ Engineering requested snow storage in all
zoning districts and their basic theory is that large tracts are not available, thus smaller sites are
going to be needed. He said snow storage is an activity that does not have an enduring attraction,
and as better uses of the land comes up this type of use is going to get pushed around, as this has
happened in the past. Without the D-5 use allowance, nowhere in the valley could be used as
snow storage sites. He said the Planning Proposal is a great improvement over the existing
situation and perhaps it would now be workable in the valley, including possibly in some of the
D-3 areas off of the Mendenhall Back Loop Rd. However, he thinks they are probably going to
be pushed to decentralized snow storage by using smaller neighborhood sites. He said in doing
so he is looking at the CBJ owned land against Thunder Mountain, but this site poses issues in
terms of potential impacts to Jordan Creek and adjacent neighborhoods; but this site is one of the
few tracts of land that they could have, which might avoid either snow melting or long-distance
hauling. He noted that Douglas provides very few snow removal options, with one being the
quarry at Crow Hill, which is not owned by CBJ although this area would probably be a good
site for snow storage, noting that it is zoned D-5 and D-18. He stated that while he appreciates
the CDD staff opening up this possibility, he also believes there is a good chance he will be back
in front of the PC to request that they open the door even further to allow for additional snow
storage. Therefore, his premise for what the CUP process should allow for, i.e., for CBJ
Engineering to develop the best options they are able to present in a CUP, and if the concerns
cannot be mitigated, e.g., they are unable to remain sufficiently far enough away from
residences, and therefore maybe they should not have applied in the first place so their CUP
application might be rejected.
Chair Gladziszewski asked how large the sites are that they have used in the past. Mr. Watt said
they have not developed a snow pile at the Public Facilities site downtown because the snow is
pushed into Gastineau Channel, so those sites do not represent a winter’s worth of snow buildup.
Mr. Rue said at a previous meeting he asked if they would conduct a ‘war room type of game’
where all the City personnel who deals with snow removal could meet to discuss the particular
snow removal aspects. He said this might include whether they have to use ½-acre
neighborhood snow storage sites in D-3 zoning, or if they if they might do so in the red (D-3)
area on the map in the Mendenhall Valley, or possibly in Douglas, etc. He said this could
include whether over 1 acre might make a difference. He stressed that the PC wants to know if
there are any possible snow storage sites, including if there are certain sites that are unworkable.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 20 of 32
He said the CBJ personnel who performs snow removal operations should already be very
knowledgeable regarding this type of information. Mr. Watt explained that Mr. Scott (former
CBJ Streets Div. Superintendent) previously spearheaded this type of effort, noting that before
Mr. Scott retired he began looking at City parcels. He explained that Mr. Scott found a parcel in
the valley, but he ran into problems with the US Corps of Engineers. Therefore, Mr. Scott
started looking at other CBJ parcels in the valley, but later found there was zoning prohibitions
on them. He noted that Mr. Scott was attempting to find alternate snow storage possibilities in
the valley due to the USFS site problem near the glacier, but not for downtown or Douglas at that
time. He explained that he watched and supported Mr. Scott’s efforts, including reviewing the
zoning issues, and therefore sometime ago he made the request that they contemplate adding
more zoning districts for snow storage. He said Mr. Scott subsequently retired, so CBJ
Engineering personnel has stepped into this role and are attempting to figure it out. He noted
that he does not have all the answers. Mr. Rue confirmed that Mr. Scott did not conduct the
exercise to try to find 10 ½-acre sites, versus one 10-acre site. Mr. Watt said he did not.
Mr. Watson said there hasn’t been any discussion about the landfill site, and he realizes it is
private property but he wonders if there are tradeoffs that the City might contemplate with the
owner, noting that it is in an area that is very accessible and meets all the criteria for snow
storage. Mr. Watt said it would be a good site, although the issues are whether the private
landfill owner would agree, including the long hauling distance aspects with that site. He noted
that the cost of snow removal is heavily tied to hauling distance, and essentially the town
operators have strongly advocated for the two waterfront sites he mentioned. Mr. Watson
commented that he does not want to spin this discussion into site locations, but he brought this
up because this site has the potential to be ‘part’ of the snow storage solution, not the ‘whole’
solution.
Mr. Miller said when he contemplates the size of the Yacht Club snow storage site, he wonders
whether a ½-acre snow storage site would even be usable. He explained that they use large
trucks that have to be backed up, and front-end loaders and excavators to maneuver the snow
around on a site so a ½-acre site may be too small. Therefore, he asked if perhaps they might
need to use a ½-acre site for placing the snow, and then another ½-acre site for staging. Chair
Gladziszewski said Mr. Chaney is proposing ½-acre sites, and therefore she asked if him if he
has any reason to believe such sites might be useful. Mr. Chaney said yes, explaining that a ½acre site as envisioned is for the snow storage basin capacity, so there could be room for
maneuverability of equipment beyond the basin area. He noted that ½-acre sites provide
limitations on the amount of snow that might be able to be stored, so it would be more for a
neighborhood operation, with the intent that there might be several of these ½-acre sites located
throughout the Borough. He noted that with such sites none of the adjacent residents would have
to bear the entire brunt of snow storage for the entire community. Chair Gladziszewski clarified
that by “snow storage basin,” this could include heavy equipment using larger driveways, but
Mr. Chaney is stating that the pile of snow cannot be larger than ½ acre in size in the basin. Mr.
Chaney said yes.
Mr. Rue said an acre is about 200’ x 200’, so a ½ acre is roughly 100’ x 100’. Mr. Pernula
clarified that instead, a ½ acre is 100’ x 200’. Mr. Rue said the snow storage basin size might
begin in neighborhoods at less than 1 acre, and then over 1 acre in regional and area wide zones,
so they might just have two size divisions, versus three that Mr. Chaney is proposing. Mr.
Chaney said the Planning Proposal he presented is to allow for some flexibility within for
different zoning districts. He noted that the map for potential snow storage sites is somewhat
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 21 of 32
misleading, as the entire center portion is available for smaller sites. He explained that they are
just discussing that a site for area wide snow storage would not be allowed in densely populated
areas of the Borough. He said for anyone who viewed the pile at the Mendenhall Glacier area
knows that it would be hard to imagine any place within this inner core on the map that would be
appropriate for such a huge snow storage site. Chair Gladziszewski asked what the actual size of
that pile was, noting that she viewed a picture of it although she was not able to fully gauge its
size. Mr. Watt said the pile itself was probably around three to five acres. Mr. Pernula noted
that a couple of years ago there was a huge snow pile at Dimond Park, which is where they used
to deliver the snow from other valley areas until they started building the new high school, and
that site was between one to two acres although it was not as large as the one on the USFS
property, and he said he does not know if the Borough has any parcels of that size anymore that
would provide adequate buffering.
Chair Gladziszewski stated that difference with the Engineer Proposal is the allowance of snow
storage in D-5 to D-18 zones, versus the Planning Proposal where regional and area wide snow
storage is prohibited in these zones, and therefore she asked Mr. Chaney what his logic is
regarding this. Mr. Chaney said he does not think the Engineering Proposal is a huge win or loss
for zoning, which is instead for more of a one-line approach across zones, but it is still going to
have to undergo the CUP process so they would not be ‘giving away the farm’. However, in
defense of zoning, he stated that people who own residential property have the right to expect
that only residential uses will be allowed to take place adjacent to them. He said this is the
bargain when they bought their property that they are not going to later have industrial uses
taking place adjacent to it, and neither are their neighbors, which is the bedrock of zoning.
During the wintertime, he stressed that this is one of the more intense industrial type of uses the
Borough has because of its associated noise, especially during nighttime hours. He said if
compacted snow piles were allowed to be stored at unlimited zoning sites they could potentially
be up to 50’ high, which would be very difficult to buffer so they should not expect residents to
have to live next to them. Therefore, he does not think that residential property owners should
ever have to defend themselves against such a use, so he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Watt.
In addition, if they were to install a large snow storage site in such areas, he believes it would
reduce the desirability to developing housing around it. He said his main point is that Mr. Watt’s
approach could possibly create a zone that lowers the desire for housing development, including
placing an impact on adjacent property owners even though it is somewhat transitional, which is
his only defense for the Planning Proposal. He added that he a big fan of dispersed snow storage
in the neighborhoods where they bear the burden of their own snow, rather than transporting it
several miles away.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Watt if there is any merit in allowing snow storage in some of the D-5 to
D-18 residential areas only during daytime hours of operation to provide more flexibility, which
is due to potential limitations because of the undesirability of noise during nighttime operations.
Mr. Watt said yes, explaining that the impact of a snow storage site to adjacent residents is
primarily related to the distance and size of the snow pile from residents in terms of the hours of
operation, including truck-hauling routes (not zoning), which is in essence a ‘tick list’ of
conditional use review issues. However, they will take what they can get, and if in certain areas
they were able to operate small snow storage sites during the daytime it would be great, whereby
they would recognize that in such instances their activity would be limited. In terms of another
issue that Mr. Chaney brought up regarding the potential impact on the land in terms of future
development, the mitigation would be the setback from their property line, which the PC would
flush during the CUP public hearing process.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 22 of 32
Ms. Grewe said she is a fan of the Planning Proposal, whereby she asked Mr. Watt if he is
convinced that this proposal will not work, noting that the PC suggested that CBJ Engineering
and the Streets Div. personnel conduct a snow storage drill, but even so she stressed that she is
not convinced that this plan will not work. Mr. Watt said defining “work” is really the crux of
the matter. He explained that there is interplay between the level of service that the City
provides and its cost in terms of snow removal for the people of Juneau, which is directly related
to how far the snow has to be transported. He said the farther they haul snow the less they clear,
including the less service people would receive, and therefore he believes this would work,
although they would have to tailor the snow removal service they provide people in the future.
He said he has not conducted an exhaustive review of potential parcels as Mr. Rue is suggesting
to come up with a “hit list,” but the potential site that jumps out at him is the quarry at Crow Hill
in Douglas, which is away from residences. He explained if they are unable use this site their
only other option would be Douglas Harbor, but that site has nearby residences, including that
they would probably receive opposition from Docks & Harbors, or else they might contemplate
hauling the snow elsewhere farther north. Mr. Rue asked how large the Crow Hill site is. Mr.
Watt said it is about two acres. Chair Gladziszewski asked where the snow from Douglas is
currently stored. Mr. Watt said the snow storage sites often change in Douglas, so there is no
specific site at this time.
Mr. Miller asked approximately how many gallons of fuel/yr. does snow removal operations
consume, such as last year. Mr. Watt said he does not know, but it is a significant amount. Mr.
Miller asked if it might consist of tens of thousands of gallons. Mr. Watt said he honestly does
not know, explaining that snow removal involves private trucking contractors, front-end loaders,
and blowers, etc., and running all this heavy equipment consumes a lot of fuel.
Chair Gladziszewski asked staff to explain what is expected of the PC tonight in terms of the
draft TPU review. Mr. Chaney noted that he has other issues he would like to present to the PC
tonight, as this was just one item that the commissioners requested to receive input from CBJ
Engineering on. Mr. Miller said he first would like to discuss real concerns he has about the
Planning Proposal before the PC moves on to other items, noting that he generally likes staff’s
idea, which is where he believes it needs to end up. However, to have to do so by this winter
could be really difficult, so he wonders whether the PC might offer a compromise. He noted that
the Planning Proposal is for a 24-hr. use, and the Engineering Proposal might be revised to allow
for daytime use in which case it would provide CBJ Engineering another level of flexibility. He
explained if they were to allow daytime hours of operation in the D-5 to D-18 zones, e.g., in such
a location like the quarry site at Crow Hill it might not impact residents too much.
Mr. Rue said he likes the Planning Proposal, but the only aspect that gives him trouble are the
red (D-3) zones on the map because maybe the old waste treatment site and the quarry at Crow
Hill could be potential snow storage sites. He said there might be a couple of other locations as
well where they are not yet built-out in certain D-3 or D-5 zones, but the Planning Proposal
might preclude this option from happening. He noted that instead of doing so through zoning,
they might contemplate allowing snow storage sites in the urban service areas, which are where
it makes more sense to have ½-acre snow storage sites. He said he somewhat agrees with Mr.
Miller that the red (D-3) area on the map is not that built-out in the core area of the valley,
including some quarry areas where snow storage activities might not pose issues if the PC went
with the Planning Proposal. He said this is slightly opposed to what Mr. Miller is suggesting
because with allowing daytime hours of operation they could pretty much propose snow
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 23 of 32
operations anywhere, but even so with this option the PC would still have the ability to deny
CUPs if certain proposed projects do not meet the criteria.
Chair Gladziszewski said she is considering the Planning Proposal with the addition of 10.235
Regional, ½ to 1 acre and 10.237 Area wide, over 1 acre to add D-5 to D-18 for daytime hours
of operation by including a new note stipulating this limited use, which still requires the
applicant to undergo the CUP process. She noted that she prefers the neighborhoods not having
to defend themselves against these types of snow operations.
Ms. Grewe said she still likes the Planning Proposal because she is not convinced that it will not
work. She understands the challenges, but she think the daytime versus nighttime hours of
operation is a creative approach, although the backbone of zoning is not a daytime/nighttime
type of consideration. She believes all residential areas should be assured that they will not have
industrial activities taking place near them whether it is daytime/nighttime, noting that she is a
resident of the Borough and this would not be acceptable to her if the CBJ personnel thinks they
can operate an industrial activity next to her home. Instead, she would rather see more effort put
into trying to make the current proposal work, or show where it is not going to, i.e., if there are
specific areas of the Borough where this will not work, or they cannot place the snow anywhere
so alterations are going to have to be made to certain locations. She said she would rather see
this type of approach, versus giving a blanket type of approval for snow storage per the Engineer
Proposal.
Ms. Bennett said at the last meeting they discussed several gravel pits in the Borough that might
be potential sites for snow storage, which are regional sites so they would not impact residential
neighborhoods, although the PC has not talked about them tonight. She said they consist of
fairly large areas, so this might solve many problems that the PC is currently debating.
Mr. Haight said it is important to minimize traffic and noise in all densely populated residential
areas, primarily due to safety reasons because it is common to see children in such areas so they
cannot have excessive heavy equipment operators conducting snow removal activities in these
areas. In addition, looking at this from an engineering perspective, if they have certain defined
residential areas in D-5 to D-18 as being undeveloped, then maybe it would be reasonable to
develop them as large snow storage sites. Therefore, if they could maintain the Planning
Proposal and have the areas for regional and area wide development, and then categorize them to
allow larger snow storage sites based on the fact that there might be undeveloped areas for a
specified period of time, i.e. maybe for a three-year or five-year allowance. He said after this
time the PC might revisit the issue with the understanding that these sites may start becoming
developed later on. Mr. Pernula said most of the zones in the Engineering Proposal have a fiveyear limitation, but they would also need to define “undeveloped area,” whereby he asked if this
might be measured from existing dwelling units, e.g., not within 1,000’, etc. Chair
Gladziszewski said this would be different from how they currently apply any other use
description in the draft TPU, as a use is either allowed or it is not.
Mr. Miller stated that he just does not know, although next winter they are going to have to
ensure that the snow removal process works no matter what. He explained that he likes the
Planning Proposal, which might save diesel fuel and lessen greenhouse gas emissions. However,
because he does not know he questions whether having a neighborhood snow pile 50’ high is
wise because of safety reasons, as that is where all the neighborhood children might choose to go
sledding, and what if there is a small pocket that they are able to fall into, etc. Therefore, the
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 24 of 32
only approach he can support right now has to be the Engineer Proposal, which is because he
does not think anyone is going to know until they try to figure this out over the next couple of
years, but at least by going with the Engineer Proposal they will be leaving the options open so
they can make sure that snow removal operations can take place. He noted that with the
Engineer Proposal every zone is listed as having threshold levels of 3, which requires CBJ
Engineering to appear before the PC with a CUP so the PC would be able to discuss any
concerns at that time.
Ms. Grewe said she agrees with Mr. Miller, stating that she also does not know, but if the PC
moves forward with the Engineer Proposal it should be because the commissioners definitively
know that Planning Proposal will not work. Further, this snow removal aspect just might not
work with the PC’s schedule to recommend adoption of the draft TPU to the Assembly. She
noted that she understands the challenges, but she is not hearing the specific neighborhood issues
being fully addressed. She said Juneau often experiences heavy snowfall, and there are snow
removal operators who probably have the street grids memorized although the PC still does not
have definitive information so they do not know any particulars, except that it is going to be
difficult.
Mr. Rue said he tends to agree somewhat with Ms. Grewe, explaining that what the
commissioners previously requested was for CBJ Engineering and the Streets Div. personnel to
state that they had worked this snow removal proposal out. He said this should have included
providing scenarios for the three different snow storage use categories in specific zones by
running drills. However, what he is hearing is that Mr. Watt does not know, which unfortunately
leaves him in the same place as Mr. Miller as well. Therefore, the PC is now being asked by Mr.
Watt to leave the draft TPU open so they can deal with every proposed snow removal project on
a case-by-case basis, but if there is heavy snowfall next winter CBJ Engineering personnel could
make the commissioners look foolish i.e., by stating that the PC did not give CBJ Engineering
the authority to anything, so he stressed that this process has been very frustrating although he
will probably end up moving in the same direction as Mr. Miller.
Chair Gladziszewski said it appears as though many of the commissioners want to support the
Planning Proposal, but most feel as though they are being backed into a corner in some regard
without sufficient information being provided to the PC. She explained that hopefully people
will understand, considering that the commissioners do not know anything regarding how CBJ
Engineering wants to disperse small snow storage sites, but she stressed that the PC definitely
does not want giant piles of snow placed in just a few areas of the Borough.
Mr. Watson said with each CUP snow storage proposal CBJ Engineering will have to appear
before the PC, and therefore the permitting process would literally have to begin very quickly in
preparation for this coming fall. He explained that all it is going to take is for a group of
neighbors getting together to decide which site works best for them. Therefore, he is very
concerned that if this is not the case, the PC might be presented with situations just like what
happened a few weeks ago on a rezone request, whereby the Assembly ended up making the
final decision, which did not align with the PC’s determination. That said, he tends to side with
the Engineering Proposal.
Ms. Gladziszewski stated that if they just split the 10.230 Snow storage basin category into two
subsections by retaining 10.232 Neighborhood, less than ½ acre as is, and then revise 10.235
Regional, ½ toover 1 acre and include the snow storage use in D-5 through D18 zones with a
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 25 of 32
threshold level of 3, including a new Note indicating that this use is only allowable during
daytime hours of operation, and therefore this might provide the potential for small snow storage
sites in denser neighborhoods under certain circumstances.
Mr. Miller said the PC also has the option of stating that they are not going to make a final
decision on this snow storage issue tonight. He explained that Mr. Watt pointed out that that he
is going to have to go to work fairly quickly to determine what the snow removal operators are
going to do this coming winter, and therefore the PC would probably receive all the snow storage
proposal CUP applications within a short timeframe.
Ms. Grewe said several commissioners stated that they do not have sufficient information, so she
is concerned that they are intending to vote on an issue they do not know about. She said the PC
should instead be provided information by the CBJ Engineering and the Streets Div. personnel
stating what will and will not work. Chair Gladziszewski said Mr. Miller already suggested that
the PC take no action on this tonight. Ms. Grewe said she supports Mr. Miller’s suggestion.
Ms. Bennett stated that if they are intending to have three sites Boroughwide that are large
enough, which might be at the different gravel pit areas although the PC does not know where
these sites are located or what zones they are in so they are unable to make a decision. She noted
that Mr. Watt stated that one of the gravel pit areas is located in a D-5 zone, although snow
storage use in this zone is disallowed in the draft TPU, including with the Planning Proposal. In
addition, it is difficult to contemplate this snow storage issue at a neighborhood level, so she
imagines that this issue is going to be a big pain for the PC and the people in this community in
the future.
Chair Gladziszewski said it appears that the PC is attempting to perform committee work tasks at
this point, and therefore maybe they should send this to the Title 49 Committee for review
because this snow storage issue has already taken up a lot of the commissioner’s time.
Mr. Rue stated that if the PC tabled this snow storage portion of the draft TPU tonight, he asked
staff what its status might entail afterwards. Mr. Pernula said this review is only for where snow
storage basins are permitted, but existing snow storage areas in the community are very limited
right now, as they are only currently allowed in industrial and commercial zones. Chair
Gladziszewski said doing so would allow the CBJ Engineering and the Streets Div. staff to
conduct research. Mr. Rue said he sees two options in front of the PC, noting that the first would
be to send the snow storage aspect to the Title 49 Committee for future review, or the PC might
make a motion to split the category into two subsections, with one being below 1 acre for
regional, and the other above 1 acre for area wide as Chair Gladziszewski previously suggested,
including adding a new note to the threshold levels of 3, e.g., which could be 3z*, with the *
meaning daytime hours of operations only for 10.237 over 1 acre for area wide. He added that
he is not sure he prefers doing so because it would limit hours of operations, e.g., at larger
quarry/gravel pit sites.
Commission action
MOTION: by Mr. Miller, that the Planning Commission selects the Engineer Proposal for snow
storage in relation to the draft Table of Permissible Uses, TXT2009-00004.
Mr. Rue said he is trying to think whether there is any useful committee work that might make
him not want to accept either proposal, or whether it is worth the PC spending a little more time
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 26 of 32
considering this snow storage aspect. He believes that the only way this is able to move along is
if CBJ Engineering has a staff person dedicated to this snow removal issue, including running
scenarios he mentioned by scheduling a charrette, but he does not know if they are able to do so
over the short-term, otherwise the Title 49 Committee will just have the same issues the PC is
discussing tonight.
Chair Gladziszewski said what disturbs her is that most all of the commissioners initially said
they like the Planning Proposal better, but now they are about to vote on the Engineer Proposal
that they generally do not care for.
Mr. Haight said if the PC moves forward with the Engineer Proposal, basically they are putting
the commissioners work off to a later date when they will have to review each individual CUP as
they are presented to the body, which is when the commissioners will have to address any issues
at that time on a case-by-case basis. Chair Gladziszewski said this would also force neighbors to
come out to state whether they want this industrial type of use allowed in individual
neighborhoods. Mr. Miller said this is going to happen anyway because of the way it is listed in
both the Planning and the Engineering Proposals for the D-1 and D-3 zones already, including
that the Engineering Proposal also includes D-5 through D-18 zones; plus in neighborhoods that
are less than ½ acre, including those in the Planning Proposal. He said if this snow storage use is
right next door to a subdivision people are going to object to it in droves at future PC meetings.
Therefore, without knowing further information he thinks the commissioners have to provide
CBJ Engineering the opportunity to research every possible option, which is the only way the PC
is going to know these unknown aspects. He explained that only then will they be able to listen
to the residents concerns, which will also assist the PC to guide snow removal site uses in the
future.
Mr. Pernula said most of the snow is not from a neighborhood in some little corner. He
explained that in his neighborhood even during the snowiest year they did not haul any snow off
of nearby streets, and instead, it was all plowed to the side of the roadway. He said the snow that
is actually plowed and transported elsewhere is from arterials, i.e., from Riverside Dr., etc.,
which is hauled to either these small neighborhood sites or a regional site. Mr. Rue said he has
had experience with this regarding stump dumps, and what happened was a developer presented
a proposal that was denied, so then they presented another proposal that turned out into be a
worse proposal than the first. He said with this snow storage scenario they might eliminate a
choice for the best snow removal site, and therefore the PC might a decision without a plan first
being implemented, which he thinks is really a bad idea, as they are going to make many people
angry, including possibly ending up with a worse snow removal site because the PC may have
previously disallowed a site somewhere else, and therefore he thinks he might vote against the
motion. Instead, he prefers CBJ Engineering and the Streets Div. personnel to develop a snow
storage plan, and then present it to the PC.
Ms. Grewe said they are discussing adding this addition of snow removal use to the draft TPU,
although Mr. Chaney has stated many times that this draft TUP review is probably the most
important task the commissioners will do while they serve on the PC. However, they are talking
about introducing this new snow storage category at the last minute, and if they move forward
with the Engineer Proposal they are leaving it too wide open because they don’t know, but yet it
is one of the most important tasks they will do as commissioners, so it philosophically does not
feel right from a planning perspective. In addition, she does not believe the Title 49 Committee
would be able to offer any more insight because they would not be in the same position as the
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 27 of 32
PC. She said this would be totally new to the Title 49 Committee because the members did not
review this last minute addition, and therefore she thinks it should be turned back to CBJ
Engineering personnel to conduct more research.
MOTION RESTATED: by Mr. Miller, that the Planning Commission selects the Engineer
Proposal for snow storage in relation to the draft Table of Permissible Uses, TXT2009-00004.
Roll call vote
Ayes:
Watson, Miller
Nays:
Haight, Bennett, Rue, Grewe, Gladziszewski
Motion fails: 2:5, and TXT2009-00004 was not recommended for approval to the Assembly with
the Engineer Proposal, by the PC.
MOTION: by Mr. Rue, that the Planning Commission selects the Planning Proposal for snow
storage in relation to the draft Table of Permissible Uses, TXT2009-00004.
Mr. Rue stated that if this does not work for CBJ Engineering and the Streets Div. personnel,
they might later find that specific snow storage sites could be included later on, which is when
they might contemplate amending the TPU. He explained that without this being provided to the
PC the commissioners would end up disrupting neighborhoods without more serious options
being provided beforehand, so they could effectively eliminate some options, and therefore he is
supporting the Planning Proposal.
Mr. Miller stated, e.g., if CBJ Engineering later finds a snow removal site in a D-5 zone, but it
has a blank in the regional and area wide use descriptions of the TPU because the PC just
approved the Planning Proposal, and therefore they would not be allowed to use the site. Chair
Gladziszewski said this is correct, unless the TPU is amended. Mr. Chaney added that the TPU
can be amended at anytime, but it would slow the permitting process down. He explained that the
amendment process probably take six-weeks to two-months, which is required to be approved by
the Assembly, and then they would have to apply for a CUP following this.
Chair Gladziszewski clarified that the draft TPU is being held up by this snow removal aspect
right now. Mr. Chaney said yes. Chair Gladziszewski noted that CBJ Engineering would still
have time to possibly get this snow removal aspect in ‘under the wire’ on this process if they
move quickly. Mr. Chaney stated that doing so would be very difficult if the PC states that this
their preference, but if so, the CDD staff would hand the snow removal aspect over to the CBJ
Law Department, and then the Assembly would have to make a determination on the snow
removal aspect at the last minute. Therefore, he is not comfortable stating that CBJ Engineering
still has a good chance, as such a process would be somewhat awkward.
Mr. Watson spoke against the motion, stating that he would like to request CBJ Engineering
personnel to provide additional information. He explained that if the PC votes on the Planning
Proposal without requiring CBJ Engineering to do this beforehand, they will just be in front of
the PC later on with CUPs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, which will slow the process
down, and therefore he stresses that he wants CBJ Engineering to invest time on this right now.
Chair Gladziszewski clarified that the PC is attempting to get the draft TPU approved by the
Assembly, which they have been working on for a long time, but it is being held up by this last
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 28 of 32
minute snow removal addition. She explained that the PC is able to move forward with just the
draft TPU although she is assuming they prefer that the snow removal aspect be part of the
whole package.
Mr. Miller said the PC has previously considered many other similar permissible uses when the
commissioners thought that doing so might allow projects to take place, which was when an
applicant had a reason for needing a specific use in a certain zone. Therefore, the PC has
previously made these types of decisions, and therefore he believes they should include a
threshold level number in some of the blank squares of the Planning Proposal, i.e., in the D-5 to
D-18 zones. He said it is a fact that as it stands now every CUP for snow removal is going to be
presented to the PC one at a time anyway. However, he is concerned that snow removal
circumstances might happen in the same method in which Mr. Rue described when he referred to
the stump dump situation, and therefore he speaks against the motion.
Mr. Rue explained that with this motion it should not rile up citizens in neighborhoods, as they
would not have multiple CUPs for residential areas, so people would not have to defend
themselves against snow removal industrial activities. He stated that this is just a different
approach to having no information. He stressed that he is not happy either way.
Chair Gladziszewski asked if it is the will of the commissioners to once again hear from Mr.
Watt, [to which the commissioners agreed].
Mr. Watt stated that he has assigned a CBJ Engineering Project Manager to figure out snow
storage aspects within the Borough, noting that she is currently drafting an RFP to hire a
planning consultant to review available sites, and then she will develop a plan. He noted that
because they recently inherited this issue they are behind the ‘eight ball’, which is no excuse
although it is the fact of the matter. He said the timing of the draft TPU is one that is not
important to him, and therefore he is not looking for action on the snow removal issue by the PC
tonight, nor is he looking to hold up this body on getting the draft TPU through. He explained
that how this originated is that he provided a memorandum to Mr. Pernula in February 2010,
requesting the PC to review this snow storage issue while not knowing that the draft TPU was
under consideration for revision at that time. He said Mr. Pernula informed him that this was
good timing, and that the CDD staff would provide this to the PC at the next meeting, which is
how this conversation evolved. He believes the Title 49 Committee work might be beneficial, as
they might review the list of snow removal issues in relation the language in Code in terms of,
e.g., hours of operation, hauling distances, potential impacts to adjacent residents, etc. He feels
that what everybody wants to know tonight is the exact details of a possible snow storage
proposal, although he is unable to tell the PC what those are, but he wants to have adequate snow
storage sites options on the table. He noted that, as Mr. Rue previously stated, they do not want
to have a situation such as the stump dump site, i.e., one-by-one CUPs being presented to the PC,
so they instead prefer to review maps to determine what makes sense regardless of the current
zoning district.
Chair Gladziszewski said the PC is able to provide the draft TPU with a recommendation to the
Assembly without the snow storage aspect because is not complete, and therefore the
commissioners are not comfortable with it. Mr. Chaney said he encourages the PC to at least
adopt the Planning Proposal so as not leave it at the status quo because doing so would make it
very difficult for CBJ Engineering. He said if the PC were to do so, CBJ Engineering could
always pick it up from that point and add to it later on. He explained that he was honestly
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 29 of 32
attempting to be accommodating when he developed the Planning Proposal, as he realizes it is
difficult to do a blind test without any information regarding specifics, but his job is to look at
zoning through the lens in which he reviews the draft TPU.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Rue to restate the motion.
MOTION RESTATED: by Mr. Rue, that the Planning Commission selects the Planning
Proposal for snow storage in relation to the draft Table of Permissible Uses, TXT2009-00004.
Ms. Bennett commented that she has served on the Title 49 Committee for quite some time and
feels there is no reason why the snow removal aspect should not be included in the TPU, as they
could immediately schedule a committee meeting once the CBJ Engineering personnel develops
a plan.
Roll call vote
Ayes:
Bennett, Watson, Miller, Rue, Grewe, Haight, Gladziszewski
Nays:
Motion passes: 7:0, and the Planning Proposal for snow storage is the preferred approach chosen
by the PC.
Mr. Chaney continued with his report, stating that the CDD staff received a request from
Jonathan Anderson to consider adding Home Offices in residential districts in the draft TPU,
noting that this came third-hand because he did not speak directly with Mr. Anderson. He stated
that Professional Offices are allowed in multi-family districts that “are greater than 1,000 but
not more than 2,500 sq. ft., or four full time employees.” He explained that the Title 49
Committee recommended changing the draft TPU to read, “3.100 Professional Offices greater
than 1,000 but not more than 2,500 square feet or four full time employees.” He said this was
because it is very difficult to regulate the number of employees through the Land Use Code so
this was not practical, but they are able to effectively regulate square footage. He noted that this
fed into another issue that staff found through an enforcement case, which is that a person has
been operating a business in a single-family residential district for many years. Therefore, at this
point this person would be required to downsize his business to a Home Occupation, which is
very restrictive and would require that person to lay employees off, etc. He explained that this
person is proposing, which he believes is not a bad idea, to allow 3.050 Offices of not more than
1,000 square feet in single-family residential districts with a CUP. He said this is a concept that
the PC is able to review, which would allow for at least one business in town that has not caused
problems in their neighborhood for the past 20+ years to remain, including allowing people in
this internet age to have more home office type of activities without having to comply with very
strict Home Occupation requirements. Mr. Rue said if someone else wishes to start a home
office they would be required to provide parking. Mr. Chaney said yes. Mr. Pernula added that
it would also trigger the requirement to obtain a CUP, so the neighborhood would be advised,
including whether there are any special circumstances regarding traffic.
Chair Gladziszewski asked if the commissioners believe this to be a good idea, [to which all the
commissioners nodded their heads in agreement].
Mr. Chaney continued, stating that the PC previously discussed animal grooming services [while
reviewing UNL2010-00001]. However, he noted that the Title 49 Committee recommended
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 30 of 32
removing 12.200 Kennel use from the D-5 zone, therefore he just wanted to state that if the PC
feels they should have 12.250 Day animal services, grooming, walking, day care in the D-5 zone
at a threshold level of 3, they need to amend the proposal, or they could just let it stand as is. Mr.
Miller said he is fine with this, including possibly allowing this use in the D-10SF as well, e.g.,
in the neighborhood near the Federal Building, which might not be a bad idea. Mr. Rue said this
use would cause far less impact than a kennel because they would not have many barking dogs,
people walking dogs up and down the street, etc., and therefore he would support adding this use
at least in the D-5 zone at a threshold level of 3 under 12.250 Day animal services, grooming,
walking, day care. Chair Gladziszewski agreed, stating that the dogs being housed at the Pet
Nanny establishment bark all the time, so she agrees with removing the threshold level of 3 from
12.250 Kennel. Mr. Pernula stated that the impacts of this use are somewhat different because
they would have customers arriving with an animal every hour or so, and therefore is more of a
traffic/parking impact, versus barking dogs, etc. That said, he noted that the PC also made a
change to allow home offices in residential zones, and both of these changes are more towards
permitting a higher degree of mixed uses even in what are now fairly exclusive residential zones,
noting that this seems to be a nationwide trend. Mr. Rue said this is a good idea because
residents might just have to drive a ½-mile to drop their animal off for such services. Chair
Gladziszewski asked if the commissioners prefer adding the threshold level of 3 under both D-5
and D-10SF zoning districts for 12.250 Day animal services, grooming, walking, day care, [to
which the commissioners nodded their heads in agreement].
Mr. Miller referred to the addition of the office request by Jonathan Anderson to the draft TPU,
asking if the PC sufficiently accomplished doing so. Mr. Chaney said he does not believe so,
explaining that he thinks Mr. Anderson’s interest was to allow for full-on office use in the multifamily district, which is beyond his comfort zone. He noted that some of this type of use is
allowed now, and he feels that in multi-family districts small offices are appropriate to consider,
but allowing such unlimited use would be a bit much.
Mr. Chaney requested that the PC provide a motion to forward the draft TPU to the Assembly.
MOTION: by Mr. Rue, that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the draft Table
of Permissible Uses to the Assembly, as amended.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
XI.
OTHER BUSINESS - None
XII.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Resolution supporting the Juneau Commission on Sustainability (COS)
Mr. Pernula stated that Ms. Grewe provided an e-mail suggesting that the PC support a
resolution making the COS permanent, although he now understands there is sufficient time for
staff to further formalize this so he will present this to the PC at a subsequent PC meeting.
Draft Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list
He stated that the CDD staff just received a copy of the draft CIP, which they did not have a
chance to provide on the Agenda for this PC meeting. Therefore, he requested the PC to begin
contemplating possible projects to include on the draft CIP list, including any that they may have
missed, e.g., perhaps aspects regarding the seawalk project, or whatever projects they feel are
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 31 of 32
appropriate, etc. Mr. Miller commented that he has already reviewed the draft CIP fairly
quickly, whereby he picked out several items he has questions about, and he will bring these
forward when it is presented to the PC. Mr. Doll reported that the Public Works & Facilities
Committee (PW&FC) is scheduled to meet on the March 22, 2010 to review the draft CIP,
noting that they may be impatient to obtain the PC’s comments. He added that he believes the
PW&FC will likely forward their recommendations to the Assembly directly following this
meeting regardless. He noted that the PW&FC members were barely willing to wait for the PC’s
comments yesterday, but they ended up delaying action on approving the draft CIP list so they
could obtain the PC’s response. Chair Gladziszewski said the PC is not scheduled to meet again
until March 23, 2010. Mr. Pernula said it is possible to schedule a Committee of the Whole
meeting on March 16, 2010 at 5:15 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers to review the draft CIP, [to
which the commissioners agreed]. Chair Gladziszewski requested staff to provide an e-mail to
remind the commissioners, including a meeting packet beforehand. Mr. Pernula offered to do so.
Memorandum from the Utility Advisory Board (UAB)
He noted that this memorandum was included in the packet, and what the UAB is suggesting is
for areas within the urban service boundary to be zoned D-5. He explained that unless the urban
service boundary has densities of at least D-5 zoning they are unable to economically provide
utility services, and therefore it causes everyone else to pay higher rates. He believes that the
UAB wants the PC to be cognizant of this fact, and to consider this while they are rezoning
areas, which he thinks is a good suggestion. Mr. Rue commented that he feels the urban service
boundary should at least be rezoned to D-5.
XIII. REPORT OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Watson stated that Mr. Doll just reported that the PW&FC met yesterday, whereby he noted
that there is a lot of money involved in terms of the draft CIP for many important projects, so
everyone is going to have their own opinions, and therefore he requests the commissioner to
scrutinize the projects very closely. He explained that some items have been moved around
within the draft CIP list, including others that have been removed.
XIV. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Mr. Rue said he did not feel very good about the earlier vote regarding having to choose between
the Planning versus Engineer Proposal on the snow storage aspect in relation to the draft TPU.
However, even though the PC chose the Planning Proposal CBJ Engineering has hired a
consultant to develop a snow storage plan, which he hopes will be presented to the PC in case
they need to amend the TPU to allow the commissioners to deal with this issue at a future date.
Chair Gladziszewski said she did not feel very good about this either, but the PC appreciates all
the work that staff and the Title 49 Committee provided before the draft TPU was presented to
them.
XV.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: by Mr. Watson, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
There being no objection, it was so ordered and the PC meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
PC Minutes - Regular Meeting
March 9, 2010
Page 32 of 32