Planning Commission Committee of the Whole

Packet Page 1 of 79 Agenda Planning Commission - Committee of the Whole City and Borough of Juneau December 15, 2020 Virtual Meeting Only 7:00 PM This virtual meeting will be by video and telephonic participation only. To join the webinar, paste this URL into your browser: https://juneau.zoom.us/j/95214964747. To participate telephonically, call: 1-346-248-7799 or 1-669-900-6833 or 1-253-215-8782 or 1-312-626-6799 or 1-929-436-2866 or 1-301-715-8592 and enter Webinar ID: 952 1496 4747. I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. AME2015 0010: Text amendment for the Auke Bay area proposed re-zoning and new Land Use Code regulations III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. REPORT OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES V. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS A. Additional Materials for December 15, 2020 Planning Commission Committee of the Whole VI. ADJOURNMENT  Packet Page 2 of 79 CITY AND BOROUGH OF EAU ALASKA'S CAPITAL CITY (907) 586-07 15 CDD_Admin @juneau.org www.juneou .org/CDD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 155 S. Seward Street • Juneau, AK 99801 Date: December 4, 2020 TO: Michael LeVine, Planning Commission, Chair FROM: Allison Eddins, Community Development Department, Planner II CASE NO.: AME2020 0001 & AME2015 0010 RE: Amendments to CBJ Land Use Code to include NC and MU3 zoning districts (AME2020 0001) and proposed rezone and overlay district for Auke Bay Center (AME2015 0010) Attachments Attachment A – Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020 Community Development Department (CDD) staff and the Auke Bay Area Plan Implementation Ad Hoc Committee of the Planning Commission are proposing amendments to the CBJ Land Use Code 49.25 for the addition of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Mixed Use 3 (MU3) zoning districts and CBJ 49.70 for the addition of the Auke Bay Overlay District. Background In 2017, CDD received two rezone requests from property owners in Auke Bay. The first, AME2017 0005, was a request to rezone approximately 30 acres from D10 (T) D15 to General Commercial (GC). The second, AME2017 0013, was a request from four property owners to rezone approximately 7 acres from D10 to Light Commercial (LC). Staff recommended approval, but noted that, although close, LC does not entirely comply with the Auke Bay Area Plan or the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for Auke Bay. On December 12, 2017, the Planning Commission denied that rezone request and a motion for reconsideration failed at the January 23, 2018 meeting. AME2017 0005 was withdrawn after AME2017 0013 was denied. The Implementation Ad Hoc Committee formed in January of 2018. During this time, the Ad Hoc Committee held 17 public work sessions where public testimony was taken in the form of written comments. Staff hosted seven neighborhood meetings in Auke Bay where they presented details of the proposed zoning districts and the overlay district. Ad Hoc Committee members attend these neighborhood meetings, as well. Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use 3 The proposed NC and MU3 zoning districts are consistent with Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Marine/Mixed Use (M/MU) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations of Auke Bay. The proposed zoning districts place a greater emphasis on mixed used development, with small scale commercial and medium to high density residential. The proposed zoning districts have flexible setbacks that encourage the development  Packet Page 3 of 79 December 4, 2020 AME2020 0001 & AME2015 0010 Page 2 of 3 of pedestrian-oriented buildings. Commercial development within the NC and MU3 zoning districts will be on a smaller scale than the LC and GC zoning districts. NC and MU3 will also allow more commercial uses than are currently allowed in multi-family zoning districts. Currently within the Auke Bay Center, there are seven zoning districts: D3, D10, D10 (T) D15, D15, LC, GC, and WC. This variety of zoning within a small area can lead to the development of incompatible uses that makes planning for future growth challenging. Key concepts of NC and MU3:  Minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet.  Minimum density of 3 dwelling units per lot. 1 and 2 dwelling units are allowed only if they are part of a mixed use building.  NC – Maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre.  MU3 – Maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.  Building height maximums of 35 feet for primary buildings and 25 feet for accessory buildings.  Flexible front yard setback of 0 feet to 20 feet for NC and 0 feet to 15 feet for MU3. Maximum front yard setbacks will require parking to be located in the rear.  Increased setbacks and landscaping requirements when buildings over 15 feet in height about a residential zoning district. Auke Bay Overlay District The Auke Bay Area Plan recommends the creation of a connected street-grid network, the preservation of views of Auke Bay and Statter Harbor, and building and streetscape design standards. These design standards include building heights of at least two stories, ground floor commercial with residential above, and building facades and entrances designed to attract pedestrians. CDD staff and Ad Hoc Committee members, being mindful that requiring design standards could increase development cost, are proposing an Auke Bay Overlay District (ABOD) with voluntary design standards, site features, and public amenities. These features can be incorporated into a development in exchange for bonus points. These bonuses can then be used to increase height and density maximums, or reduce parking minimums. Key concepts of ABOD:  The Planning Commission shall hear all applications for ABOD bonus points.  Structures or sites already existing that contain all or some of the public amenities, design standards, or site features may earn bonus points retroactively. The application process will be the same as with new development.  Bonus points can be earned by incorporating any of the following into a development: o Dedicating private land for the future development of a public right-of-way o Developing and maintaining public parking on private land o Mixed use, multi-story buildings that incorporate commercial and residential uses o Street facing building facades that incorporate transparency, canopies, and/or building facades with at least 20% transparency o The addition of bike racks, outdoor seating, and/or outdoor planters or landscaping o Screening parking lots, trash, and recycle receptacles, and free-standing utility, mechanical and electrical boxes o Preserving views of Auke Bay and Statter Harbor  Bonus points can be used in the following ways: o Parking minimums can be reduced by up to 30%  Packet Page 4 of 79 December 4, 2020 AME2020 0001 & AME2015 0010 Page 3 of 3 o Assuming the Auke Bay Center is rezoned to NC and MU3:  In NC, building heights can be increased from 35 feet to 45 feet  In NC, density can increase from 15 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre  In MU3, building heights can be increased from 35 feet to 55 feet  In MU3, density can increase from 30 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre  Packet Page 5 of 79 Auke Bay Re-zoning Protest Letter Tanner Terrace Property Owners Association 12020 Cross Street Juneau, AK 99801 Commissioners, CBJ Planning Commission Community Development Department City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 March 14, 2020 Dear Commissioners, We, the homeowners of the Tanner Terrace subdivision, protest the Auke Bay Ad Hoc Committee and the Community Development Department's inclusion of Tanner Terrace in the proposed Neighborhood Commercial ("NC") zoning area. This designation will ultimately destroy a mature, view property neighborhood by urbanizing it. We will not be able to sell our homes to other single family buyers because our properties will be declared "non-conforming" to the NC code which will affect the cooperation of mortgage lenders to finance potential buyers nor allow us the option of refinancing. Over time, our single family home lots will be subdivided into 3,000 square foot lots holding mixed use structures with no yards and at least three residences per lot and commercial first floor businesses. Our views and property values will be destroyed. This is counter to the 2015 Auke Bay Plan which states that view sheds and existing neighborhoods should be preserved. Note that we have no objection to making the Auke Bay "Traditional Town Center'' area near the roundabout into a mixed use, walkable village as described in the Auke Bay Plan and the Ad Hoc Committee's proposed re-zoning. However, we don't understand why our neighborhood is being sacrificed when other neighborhoods closer to the Traditional Town Center, such as Lee Drive and Caroline Street, remain intact. Sincerely, Name Address £ ~ ,(),' cl< ew Y'J-' i pV I 2(J) 2, (1) C°V' IJ s s 57'll'fZ. e --I Lj~ 0{,-r/er Ja,o;,.t, Cr~$~ ~r. '-"l;Ju f WJi) f I d670 CttJSS f:h flltR.K SCHW"f\~ 1-a..a9o crns~ sf, m~ l t} (Y)e·, t\e-v s l'2-Uo Cro~s 'Sf. ~i7 5 S ettvf etu r{ve.-. 3855 &ttvt-ew t4v1-e . 3i~S B~v,'e..w Ave 30~5 CY~Vt~ AJE. Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 6 of 79 Auke Bay Re-zoning Protest Letter 'f2~ "F ~~+ (·z 0--C O Cv-c.J~~ ~ ... 1) b (' ~ v'- l--.. I I JA [ ll VY\ I 2- 0 ~ O ro $£ · ~~ b~ \\. OJ /~ o s-O Cf'o ~ s;,,- flNJf ;f/e,/l/ef'.5 /.:Z.//0 C:rt/55 :sr Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 7 of 79 March 16, 2020 City & Borough of Juneau Planning Commission 155 S. Seward Street, Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Members of the CBJ Planning Commission, In 2018, the CBJ Planning Commission and CBJ Assembly denied a proposed zone change by Douglas Island Development LLC to change the properties located at 11950 Glacier Highway, 11998 Glacier Highway, 12020 Glacier Highway and 3853 Bayview Avenue from D10 (residential) to light commercial (LC). When the zone request came before the planning commission and assembly in 2018 the respective bodies understood that this contradicted the Auke Bay Area Plan that was adopted by the CBJ Assembly March 16, 2015. Page 61 of the Auke Bay Area Plan illustrates the maximum allowable heights for Auke Bay. In this plan, the Tanner Terrace neighborhood is clearly shaded as such to conform to a maximum height of 35 feet. All that has changed since 2018 is a forced reinterpretation of the Auke Bay Area Plan by the Auke Bay Ad Hoc committee, CBJ planners and a persistence to ignore the facts and concerns brought forth by the other owners and neighbors of Tanner Terrace. At the March 10 CBJ Planning Committee of the Whole meeting, CBJ planning staff presented the Neighborhood Commercial zone change as a solution to a fictitious problem. Never once did the CBJ planners highlight the areas of success, established history that should be preserved and/or emphasized in the Auke Bay district. Instead, the planners have fixated on two details: urban density and commercial development. In reality, the existing zoning in Auke Bay already allow for both of these so called problems to be solved as there is substantial undeveloped commercial land in Auke Bay that should be given time to develop into the desires addressed by the Auke Bay Area Plan. The zone change boundaries as recommended by the Auke Bay Ad Hoc committee and the CBJ planning staff are not justified in any way and are instead arbitrarily drawn to solve a forced problem, that, once again, does not exist. As a rebuttal, CBJ planning staff have justified the zone change due to a request by property owners – all the while ignoring the opposition by neighboring property owners who actually live in the Auke Bay district. The primary lots seeking this zone change are located along Glacier Highway at the entrance to the Tanner Terrace neighborhood. All other properties in the neighborhood currently have views of Auke Bay that look through, over or beside the existing buildings on the four properties in question. Adding ten feet to the height of the existing buildings would greatly reduce and negatively affect the views that have been long established by the property owners association of Tanner Terrace. The proposal to create a new type of zoning designation that would experiment with a long-standing Juneau neighborhood also contradicts the Auke Bay Area Plan. Changing Tanner Terrace to the new, untested “Neighborhood Commercial” zoning designation would allow for increased heights via bonus points by future developers. This is concerning because the adopted Auke Bay Area Plan states that, “Protecting scenic vistas and viewpoints from the effects of haphazard development can allow the Auke Bay area and community to preserve its unique charm, civic pride, and attract positive growth to the area. Preserving key viewpoints can lead to many benefits such as higher property values, strengthening tourism, and contributing to the overall enjoyment of the area. Consideration for building orientation and height is needed to maintain important views.” Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 8 of 79 The Auke Bay Area Plan identifies nine key viewpoints. The first identified view point is “Looking toward Auke Bay from the intersection of Bayview and Glacier Highway.” This view point is exactly in the location where Douglas Island Development LLC has requested the zone change and has expressed the desire for future development. Future commercial development in the Tanner Terrace neighborhood will contradict the intent established by the CBJ Assembly when the Auke Bay Area Plan was adopted. Additionally, the new zoning proposal would in fact destroy the established Tanner Terrace neighborhood. This would also contradict the above statement quoted from the Auke Bay Area Plan in that the elimination of the neighborhood would not “preserve its unique charm” or “civic pride.” The Auke Bay Area Plan took a community to create. It would be shameful to push through an alternative agenda that clearly does not meet the intentions of those who spent their time providing valuable input for the future of Auke Bay. It is my expectation that the CBJ Planning Commission will either deny entirely or redraw the proposed zone change as supported by numerous neighboring property owners of Tanner Terrace. Thank you for considering the facts presented. Sincerely, Jeremy Woodrow 3875 Seaview Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801 Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 9 of 79 March 17, 2020 Andrew J. Meiners 12110 Cross St. Juneau, AK 99801 To: City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission I am writing to you as a potentially affected citizen to express my concerns regarding AME2020-001 & AME2015-0010. My name is Andy Meiners. My wife Amy Jo and I live at 12110 Cross St and have for the last 20 years. Cross St is in Tanner Terrace (TT). I have maintained a professional office in Auke Bay for the last 16 years. I urge you to reconsider the inclusion of TT in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposal. Like many of you, our homes are the single largest investment we have or ever will have. It is the asset for which we place the most importance in providing for our families and our current and future well­ being. Our home and the equity that Amy Jo and I have built over the last 20 years is under attack by the proposed AME2020-001. I hope that you would consider a few points about how AME2020-001 would be detrimental to Auke Bay. 1. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) will needlessly create non-conforming single-family homes 2. The Auke Bay Plan has a fundamental flaw in that it is predicated on growth. 3. The public process was, and is again, poorly handled. Neighborhood Commercial Although the Assembly recently passed amendments to Title 49 of the land use code, it does not cure the fact that AME2020-01 creates non-conforming single-family homes. The introduction of the recently passed ordinance states: "This ordinance should make buying and selling most nonconforming residential developments easier while protecting the community from harmful nonconforming developments. " This could not be further from the truth. The fact is the Assembly does not and cannot control private lending practices in this community. AME2010-01 is harmful in that it needlessly creates non-conformity. Additionally, and more significantly, making this change would not only negatively affect the present and future value of my home, it will impact my insurance rates because insuring property in a commercial use area is more expensive than that of residential. I object to you taking control of my private property based on assumptions made by the planning staff. I cannot stand by and leave the future of my largest investment in the hands of the planning committee. Auke Bay Plan The Auke Bay Plan is predicated on a "Vision." When the Vision of the plan was devised, each person who participated formed a picture in their minds of what Auke Bay "could" look like based on some commonly agreed upon parameters. Everyone's vision was loosely similar yet different. Now pen and Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 10 of 79 paper are trying to put the vision into something concrete and it's not working. The public participated by voting using the design charrettes. Not one choice in those charrettes included an option to outlaw single fami ly homes. Much of the Vision focused on growth. You may not agree with me, but Auke Bay is not growing. Sure, there have been new condominium developments and more permitted to be built; however, these developments don't mesh with the Vision of the Plan. In light of the current and foreseeable economic trends, can you really see an additional 90 high-end condominium units being built and sold? You can cite the Forbidden Peaks Brewery as growth, but it's not. The existing building has just found a better use. There has not been a new commercial footprint established in Auke Bay in over 30 years, in fact Auke Bay has lost commercial space when Fishermen's Bend burned to the ground in 2008. The CBJ Housing Action Plan I 0/2015 identifies Juneau' s population as stagnant and projects the population to decline through 2042. Let's face reality, we shouldn't restrict current property owners by planning for growth if it's not happening in our lifetime. The Plan states "Auke Bay, Auke Lake and the upland wilderness play a cumulative role in giving the Auke Bay community its identity. It could be concluded that the existing urban uses such as retail , restaurants, boat harbors, etc., were built here because of the identity of Auke Bay. The proposed AME2020-0 I does not enhance the identity of Auke Bay, it will destroy it. The potential commercial identity will be altered by restricting the current building codes and by earning the magic points you can earn back what was already their right to do in the first place. At one of the early public meetings someone asked if the point system was implemented in other areas and what was the result. Staff indicated that the point system was used in a couple of metropolitan areas in the lower 48 and had met " limited success." I fai l to see the logic of implementing something that met limited success in other areas with larger populations and land masses. The concept of NC seems valid on the surface, but the logic of implementing it in Auke Bay is heavy handed and literally will serve no purpose other than stifling any ability of the area. The proposed rezoning will alter the identity in a profound way. Neighborhood Commercial will eliminate single family homes in favor of a Boat Condo community . Public Process In the presentations you have seen, staff does a nice job pointing out that this has been a transparent community-driven process and that AME2020-01 is a result of the public process. This is not a completely true characterization of the process. What is true: several years ago there was a public process and one of the overriding themes was the preservation of neighborhoods. Early in the planning process, the Auke Bay Steering Committee's conclusion was that TT was to be excluded from the designated concept of NC. We thought that was the end of it and the public participation input was honored. Unfortunately, once the public planning process was over, TT was encompassed into the proposed NC against the recommendations. The neighbors of TT attended many of the 17 public meetings since and have submitted written opposition and when given the opportunity, vocal opposition to this. Staffs response is that they "are not married to the boundary lines as drawn. " Yet, the lines never decrease, but keep expanding. Once the new zones were proposed, I am not aware of a single public comment being incorporated or shown any influence upon the planning staff. It appears Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 11 of 79 we have been ignored. My only conclusion is that TT is being steamrolled into a nonconforming neighborhood that will have lasting negative impacts. The only remaining public process afforded us now are written comments to you and 3 minutes of oral presentation. This hardly rates as meaningful public participation. I urge you to reconsider the results of the original Auke Bay Steering Committee input and retain the residential neighborhood. Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 12 of 79 Mark Schwan and Debi Ballam March 17, 2020 12090 Cross Street Juneau, AK 99801 CBJ Planning Commission Members Community Development Department City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Commissioners, We are opposed to the inclusion of the Tanner Terrace neighborhood in the new, proposed Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone in the Auke Bay area. We do not understand the need, nor how the permissible uses being proposed for the NC zone are accurate to the original concept described in the Auke Bay Area Plan (ABP). On page vii in the Introduction of the ABP, it states: “Auke Bay boasts a rich mixture of densities that can accommodate many housing needs, from detached homes to condominium.” We know the steering committee members who worked on the early stages of the plan would not support the elimination of our single-family residences, but that is what a designation of NC would do over time. Given the undeveloped city land in the NC zone will not be allowed to contain any single-family residences if developed, our neighborhood should be allowed to exist in its traditional status. Ours is a small area compared to the vacant city-owned land behind the Auke Bay center. If no new single-family residences will be allowed on all that land, why is there not a place for us in the Auke Bay area? Single- family residences are an attribute. There was early support from members on the planning commission to maintain our neighborhood for single-family residences, what happened? We cannot find anything in the published minutes of meetings or through conversations of other residents who attended meetings to explain this. All we know is that the boundary lines were changed between the July 11 and July 24, 2019 ad hoc committee meetings. There was much discussion during during the July 24, 2019 meeting, which I (Mark) attended, regarding the inclusion of the University property and Lee Street and Court in the new NC zone. When commissioners suggested including Lee Court, a city planner expressed caution, reminding them that in the earlier planning stages, the residents there wanted their neighborhood to remain in a residential zone. The commissioners deferred, and then one looked at the projected image of our area on the screen, pointed over toward Tanner Terrace, and said those people over there just need to join the future. This was extremely disappointing, and makes the inclusion of our neighborhood seem almost Procrustean, a callous action to force conformity and ignore individual differences. Our homes are older but well maintained. Our lots are not large. We have been told many times from various people that ours is one of the nicest neighborhoods in Juneau. Our house is currently assessed at a value of $545,000. We paid $190,000 for our house 31 years ago. That was a huge amount of money for us, and we have expended more than $250,000 to maintain and upgrade it. If our house is deemed non-conforming in the new NC zone, this presents a substantial risk to the equity in our home, and would be an economic disaster for us. Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 13 of 79 We appreciate the planning commissioners’ and city planners’ work to construct a matrix for implementing the Auke Bay Plan. However, there is nothing in the Auke Bay Plan that recommends the elimination of traditional single-family residences and it is outrageous this is your intent for our neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Mark Schwan and Debi Ballam Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 14 of 79 March 17, 2020 CBJ Planning Commission 155 S. Seward St. Juneau, AK. 99801 My wife and I am writing to strongly object to the inclusion of Tanner Terrace subdivision in the Neighborhood Commercial “buffer zone” as laid out in the Auke Bay Area Plan (ABAP) and Auke Bay Overlay District. As someone that has lived in the Tanner Terrace subdivision more than twenty five years, and transited the area for over 50 years having lived in Lena Cove before that, I am having difficulty seeing the need for the seemingly aggressive planning changes proposed for Auke Bay. The glacier has changed more than Auke Bay in that time span. As a local businessperson for several decades, I’ve had an interest in viable commercial real estate for years. The ABAP plans for ground floor businesses and housing above. However, given the competition from “big box” retailers within a ten to fifteen-minute drive of Auke Bay, the reality of retail success in Auke Bay is extremely limited. This is borne out by the lack of retail in Auke Bay in the past. Throw in competition from the internet and the propensity for our younger future shoppers to order and have their goods delivered to their door, and retail in Auke Bay doesn’t get any easier, or likely to succeed. The development envisioned can and does happen no doubt, but this is in markets that have several hundred thousand people or more in the area to draw from. Now I may not be a planning professional, but any plan that takes an existing neighborhood and changes the rules it was developed under, has lived under for decades, and has been bought and sold under is a bad plan. I’m sorry, but the Planning Department isn’t starting out with a blank sheet of paper or a couple hundred acres of farmland that is going to be a brand-new development. Auke Bay is unique and charming and has existing infrastructure to consider. And to then exclude neighborhoods to the north and east, closer to the Auke Bay town center, from the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning? Interesting. Regards, Ron and Julie Flint, 12070 Cross St., Juneau, Ak. 99801 Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 15 of 79 Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 16 of 79 Rick and Lisa Currier 12020 Cross Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Commissioners, CBJ Planning Commission Communit y Development Department City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 March 16, 2020 Dear Commissioners: This letter protests the inclusion of Tanner Terrace subdivision in the proposed Auke Bay Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Tanner Terrace is a mature single family neighborhood. Encouraging mixed use, higher density development will ultimately destroy the neighborhood and introduce traffic safety issues. When the CBJ Engineering and Public Works Department paved our streets approxima tely five years ago, the project was designed to minimal residential standards. Our streets are 21 feet wide, including gutters. On street parking is prohibited during the winter months. Cars parked on the street make it impossible for oncoming vehicles to safely pass; one must wait while the other clears the parked car. There are no bike lanes; the streets are too narrow. The sidewalk is only on one side of each of the three streets that make up our neighborhood. The sidewalk is five feet wide; barely enough room for two people to walk abreast. As designed and built, the streets and sidewalks are adequate for a small single family neighborhood. Neither the streets nor the sidewalks are designed to handle the increased vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic that the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation would generate. Further, the intersection of Glacier Highway and Seaview Avenue is dangerous when turning left (toward downtown) from Tanner Tf;3rrace because Glacier Highway west of Seaview Avenue has an increase in grade and a blind curve that hides inbound cars. All of us in the neighborhood exit via Bayview Avenue and encourage visitors to also do so because it is safer. Increasing housing density with a commensurate Increase in traffic, will exacerbate this problem. The Auke Bay core area near the roundabou t and the CBJ parcel upslope of Tanner Terrace comprise over 100 acres of land that can be developed into a higher density, mixed use community, if really needed. Juneau has a declining or, at best, stable population. Why is there a need to include Tanner Terrace, a stable, sought after single family neighborhood with its narrow streets, in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district? Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 17 of 79 Comment submitted to the Juneau Empire’s My Turn column by Rick Currier, who asked that this be included with comments submitted to the Planning Commission, as well. Opinion: High-density housing is more efficient for land use, but not very safe during a pandemic – March 27, 2020 I believe high-density, walkable urbanized communities helps to spread viruses. Department are proponents of increased housing density and urbanization. I’ve heard the phrase, “We want it to be just like Brooklyn” from community planners at re-zoning meetings. I’ve lived in Brooklyn; most of it is Flatbush, not Williamsburg, which most of us can’t afford, anyway. Apartments stacked above boutiques, salons, pubs, or delis seem attractive because increased density results in more efficient land use. Single-family homes seem to be the enemy. I recently heard a planner state that single family homes do not provide enough “density” to justify serving them with city services such as water and sewer lines. It seems that the opposite should be true: Greater density taxes city services, especially sewage. Just ask any public works employee in a boom town. I’ve been tracking the mushrooming worldwide rate of infection of the coronavirus. Europe, especially Italy, is having trouble containing the virus. Italy’s infection rate is more then double the size of Juneau’s population. Italy’s daily death rate continues to break records. Other European countries are also experiencing rapid infection increases. My son, who lives in coastal France, told me that he and everyone else in France are forced to self-quarantine for the next forty-five days, with the exception grocery shopping and going to the pharmacy. The urban planner’s dream of the Mediterranean style walkable or bike-able community with first floor retail and offices while happy urbanites live on upper floors is realized in most European communities. When I visit my son in France, I’ve noticed that there are few single-family homes on individual lots. My son lives in an enclave in a rural area. There are fields and pastures all around, yet there are approximately a dozen families living in what we would call town houses or stand-alone homes with no street setbacks and within a meter of the neighbors. Clustered dwellings amid acres of land. The pattern is repeated throughout the Brittany countryside. I believe that the vision of high-density, walkable urbanized communities helps to spread dangerous viruses. While the coronavirus currently is the center of attention, don’t forget that flu viruses sicken and kill more people, and have done so, even so far during this year. Think about urban living: common entrances to multi floor apartments with stair rails and elevator buttons retaining whatever nasty bugs are currently blooming. Buildings served by HVAC systems designed to efficiently (read cheaply) distribute heat or ventilation (and airborne viruses) throughout the building. Europeans don’t buy food like we do; they shop nearly every day. European refrigerators are about a third of the volume of an American one. Their kitchens are minuscule with very limited food storage. They have to buy food frequently because they can’t store it. Those frequent trips to the store mean more frequent contacts with others and surfaces such as door handles and countertops. They began banning plastic grocery bags before we were “woke” to the threat these evil bags impose. However, bringing bags (and the viruses in your home) to the specialty shops the Europeans prefer is a recipe for epidemic transfer. Maybe mixed-use, high—density housing is more efficient for land use, but it isn’t very safe during a pandemic or even during a “normal” 30,000 domestic death flu season. Well-separated, single-family Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 18 of 79 homes offer greater safety and less possibility of spreading infections. Maybe single-family homes should be appreciated rather than deprecated. • Rick Currier has lived at Auke Bay since 1993. He’s been attending meetings of the Planning Commission’s Auke Bay Ad Hoc Rezoning Committee for several years. Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 19 of 79 November 9, 2020 To: City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission I am writing to you as a potentially affected citizen to express my concerns regarding AME2020-001 & AME2015-0010. My name is Andy Meiners. My wife Amy Jo and I live at 12110 Cross St and have for the last 20 years. Cross St is in Tanner Terrace (TT). I have maintained a professional office in Auke Bay for the last 16 years. I urge you to reconsider the inclusion of TT in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposal. Like many of you, our homes are the single largest investment we have or ever will have. It is the asset for which we place the most importance in providing for our families and our current and future well­ being. Our home and the equity that Amy Jo and I have built over the last 20 years is under attack by the proposed AME2020-00 I. I hope that you would consider a few points about how AME2020-00 I would be detrimental to Auke Bay. I. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) will needlessly create non-conforming single-family homes and cause any future residential development to stagnate. 2. The Auke Bay Plan has a fundamental flaw in that it is predicated on growth. 3. The public process was, and is again, poorly handled. Neighborhood Commercial Although the Assembly recently passed amendments to Title 49 of the land use code, it does not cure the fact that AME2020-01 creates non-conforming single-family homes. The introduction of the recently passed ordinance states: "This ordinance should make buying and selling in most nonconforming residential developments easier while protecting the community from harmful nonconforming developments. " This could not be further from the truth. The fact is the Assembly does not and cannot control private lending practices in this community. AME2010-01 is harmful in that it needlessly creates non-conformity. Additionally, and more significantly, making this change would not only negatively affect the present and future value of my home, it will impact my insurance rates because insuring property in a commercial use area is more expensive than that of residential. I object to you taking control of my private property based on assumptions made by the planning staff. I cannot stand by and leave the future of my largest investment in the hands of the planning committee. Auke Bay Plan The Auke Bay Plan is predicated on a "Vision." When the Vision of the plan was devised, each person who participated formed a picture in their minds of what Auke Bay "could" look like based on some commonly agreed upon parameters. Everyone' s vision was loosely similar yet different. Now pen and paper are trying to put the vision into something concrete and it' s not working. The public participated by voting using the design charrettes. Not one choice in those charrettes included an option to outlaw single family homes. Much of the Vision focused on growth. You may not agree with me, but Auke Bay Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 20 of 79 is not growing. Sure, there have been new condominium developments and more permitted to be built; however, these developments don't mesh with the Vision of the Plan. In light of the current and foreseeable economic trends, can you really see an additional 90 high-end condominium units being built and sold? You can cite the Forbidden Peaks Brewery as growth, but it' s not. The existing building has just found a better use. There has not been a new commercial footprint established in Auke Bay in over 30 years, in fact Auke Bay has lost commercial space when Fishermen' s Bend burned to the ground in 2008. The CBJ Housing Action Plan I 0/2015 identifies Juneau's population as stagnant and projects the population to decline through 2042. Let' s face reality , we shouldn' t restrict current property owners by planning for growth if it's not happening in our lifetime. The Plan states "Auke Bay, Auke Lake and the upland wilderness play a cumulative role in giving the Auke Bay community its identity." It could be concluded that the existing urban uses such as retail , restaurants, boat harbors, etc., were built here because of the identity of Auke Bay. The proposal in AME2020-0l does not enhance the identity of Auke Bay, it will destroy it. The potential commercial identity will be altered by restricting the current building codes and by earning the magic points you can earn back what was already their right to do in the first place. At one of the early public meetings someone asked if the point system was implemented in other areas and what was the result. Staff indicated that the point system was used in a couple of metropolitan areas in the lower 48 and had met "limited success." I fail to see the logic of implementing something that met limited success in other areas with larger populations and land masses. The concept of NC seems valid on the surface, but the logic of implementing it in Auke Bay is heavy handed and literally will serve no purpose other than stifling any ability of the area to grow. The proposed rezoning will alter the identity in a profound way . Neighborhood Commercial will eliminate single family homes in favor of a Boat Condo community. As you know, the city owns property behind TT. By zoning the entire parcel NC, all conforming development would have to have commercial space on the bottom and residential on top. Imagine if you will, 40 or more structures built on that hillside that have some sort of commercial shop on the ground level. That picture seems ludicrous to me. The only thing that NC will do is cause more work for future planning commissions to approve conditional use permits because no one will be able to build an economically viable project in the proposed NC zone. Public Process In the presentations you have seen, staff does a nice job pointing out that this has been a transparent community-driven process and that AME2020-0l is a result of the public process. This is not a completely true characterization of the process. What is true: several years ago, there was a public process and one of the overriding themes was the preservation of neighborhoods. Early in the planning process, the Auke Bay Steering Committee's conclusion was that TT was to be excluded from the designated concept of NC. We thought that was the end of it and the public participation input was honored. Unfortunately, once the public planning process was over, TT was encompassed into the proposed NC against the recommendations . The neighbors of TT attended many of the 17 public meetings since and have submitted written opposition and when given the opportunity, vocal opposition Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 21 of 79 to this. Staffs response is that they "are not married to the boundary lines as drawn. ·· Yet, the lines never decrease, but keep expanding. Once the new zones were proposed, I am not aware of a single public comment being incorporated or shown to have any influence upon the planning staff. It appears we have been ignored. My only conclusion is that TT is being steamrolled into a nonconforming neighborhood that will have lasting negative impacts. The only remaining public process afforded us now are written comments to you and 3 minutes of oral presentation. This hardly rates as meaningful public participation. I urge you to reconsider the results of the original Auke Bay Steering Committee input and retain the character of the residential neighborhoods in Auke Bay. Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 22 of 79 Auke Bay Area Plan – Implementation I applaud the efforts by so many people to develop, produce and adopt the forward thinking plan for the Auke Bay Area! Many places in America, indeed throughout the world, have not planned adequately ahead and have been paying the price and are playing catch up. This next phase is the difficult challenge of implementing it in a good way. Good steps forward are being made. Here are some of my thoughts on how to keep moving forward. Auke Bay Bypass Road The ultimate success of achieving the plan’s vision is dependent upon the completion of the long term alternative in the Juneau-Auke Bay Corridor Study by Alaska DOT (alternative 3, pages 47-48). This road would be a complete bypass of the Auke Bay Community from Industrial Blvd., follow the east side of Hill 560, cross Back Loop at Goat Hill, continue behind Auke Bay Community and connect to Glacier Hwy near Auke Nu Creek. What a great opportunity, let’s not lose it. This corridor needs to be protected from encroachment by developments that would hinder its ultimate implementation. Road projects take a long time to reach fruition. The Planning Commission and the Assembly need to actively advocate for it as soon as possible. This was the top choice of opportunities for the Auke Bay community by folks participating in the early development of the Auke Bay Area Plan (ABAP). Possibilities With the bypass road in place, Glacier Hwy from Fritz Cove intersection to Spaulding Meadows trailhead could become a CBJ road. Heavy commercial vehicles (dump trucks, busses, oil trucks, etc.), ferry and out the road traffic would use the bypass. If so, things that could happen on a CBJ road would be; a 25 mph speed zone, angle parking on the uphill side of the road from Auke Bay Lab to Spaulding Meadows trailhead, light activated pedestrian crosswalks, in short a more user friendly/safer community. Fortunately, geography and topography offer some exciting opportunities. Absent some beneficiary developer or consortium like James Rouse, who envisioned Columbia, Maryland (it can be googled), I like the idea of offering bonuses/incentives to potential developers, especially if they can combine forces/visions/resources to come as close as feasible to the collective visions presented in the ABAP. Perhaps tax abatements could be considered to entice collective developments. An example could be the strip of land on the uphill side of Glacier Hwy from the roundabout to the Auke Bay Lab corner. Behind angle parking, a connected line of retail shops (bakery, restaurants, coffee shops, bookstore, etc.) with 2-5 story condominiums/apartments above with property owners parking behind, could be developed. With a little tree cutting on the waterside of Glacier Hwy, all those residents could have an Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 23 of 79 unobstructed view of sunsets over Auke Bay. If developers from the roundabout to Seaview could combine forces, a better blended completion of parts of the ABAP’s vision in that area could occur, including connected side streets. Real estate folks like to tout location, location, location and view, view, view in offering properties. With careful planning and developer coordination, preservation of most public, as well as private views, of Auke Bay could/should occur. For instance, with good developer coordination condos in Auke Bay Station could have guaranteed views protected from interference from the potential Jetty development. Public Parking Beyond roadside and business parking, an uphill area needs to be designated for a future parking garage. With careful planning if could incorporate a public space and/or private business with views, like the redeeming feature of the library on top of the downtown parking garage. Sea Walk As envisioned in the DOT study, a sea walk from the Auke Bay boat harbor to the ferry terminal should be kept in mind for designation. Variations of this are presented in Appendix B – Capital Improvements List in the ABAP. Businesses A good waterfront seafood restaurant and a small neighborhood convenience store (kind of a DeHarts on steroids) could be very profitable and enjoyable future options. Conclusion Keep up the good work! People (residents and visitors) 20, 50, 100 years and beyond will be thankful for your vision and tenacity. The Auke Bay area can be an even more wonderful place to live, visit and enjoy, especially for a growing UAS so close by. Bruce Conant 6/25/2019 41 year resident of the Auke Bay Community Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 24 of 79 From: Mike Allen <cmallen@alaska.net> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 12:43 PM To: PC_Comments Subject: Auke Bay Area Plan Comments EXTERNAL E‐MAIL: BE CAUTIOUS WHEN OPENING FILES OR FOLLOWING LINKS ________________________________ November 12, 2020 CBJ Planning Commission 155 S. Steward St. Juneau, AK 99801 To: The CBJ Planning Commission, These are a few comments on the proposed Auke Bay Area Plan. I had attended many of the ad hoc committee meetings, which went on for two years, for this plan before it was put before the assembly in 2015. Also I made most of the meetings held by Allison Eddins of the Community Development Department on this subject at the UAS Rec Center after that. It has been a long drawn out process. This proposed plan has a vision for what a future community in the Auke Bay area would or should look like. Most of the core area is private land and the plan seems to focus on the property owned by Mr. Don Howell, which includes the Squires building and the land behind it. There is current and proposed development on two sides of his property. If he decides to sell or develop, his place is basically the only space available that will have to follow the guide lines if this rezone is approved. To me, this is asking or expecting a lot from Mr. Howell and will probably have an impact on the value of his property. The Auke Bay area has wonderful views of the harbor, water and of the outer islands when walking or driving along the highway or patronizing one of the local businesses. The proposed plan does little to protect these views. Docks and Harbors has shown they care little about existing views with their landscaping phase of the completed Statter Harbor parking lot. Those trees are maturing and already has an impact what you can see from the road during the summer. There is nothing in the plan to stop them from leasing some of that property for waterfront development or increasing dock space for bigger ships involved with the tourism industry. The proposed point system of this plan is interesting in that it makes it a game to see what one can do to their advantage. I really don't like the one where points can be used to decreased parking requirements for any future building development. Public and private parking is already a premium in the area and to increase competition for these existing spots in not a good idea. Costs for any project would probably go up because of trying to make the requirements for point approval. It was appreciated when the Community Development Department held meetings for the plan in the Auke Bay area at UAS instead of down town. Attendance by locals was good at many of them. Since most of the people were not up to speed on the plan, a lot of review had to be done. The consensus of most locals was that they were not interested in the plan because of how the border lines were proposed and what impact it could have on their home or neighborhood. Yes, there are existing codes that could have the same results, but people seemed more comfortable with them. 1 Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 25 of 79 I'm basically happy with the existing looks and feel of Auke Bay. The core area is already an community. Future development is inevitable and change is hard to except. Good planning is a useful tool. But I feel this plan is not a good fit for Auke Bay. Thank you for taking time to read my comments. Respectfully, Mike Allen PO Box 211122 3601 Oxford St. Auke Bay, AK 99821 907‐790‐4118 2 Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 26 of 79 November 16, 2020 Planning Commission City & Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward St. Juneau, AK 99801 Re: Implementation of Auke Bay Area Plan To Whom It May Concern, I own the Squire’s Building in Auke Bay. I believe that I have been targeted by the Auke Bay Area Plan from the beginning. When the steering committee began meeting regarding the Auke Bay Area Plan the stated purpose of the rezoning was to clean up hodge‐podge zoning. I don’t see any hodge‐podge going on. General Commercial transitions to Light Commercial to High Density Residential to Lower Density Residential. This type of transition is easy to understand, easy to live with, and it has 50+ years use experience. The Auke Bay Area Plan new zoning is bound to have bugs; who is going to pay for building delays and last‐ minute required changes? I’m sure it won’t be CBJ or it’s planning department –it will fall upon the property owners. The new zoning outlined in the plan reduces my General Commercial height limit and occupancy density. This height restriction severely limits me on what I can do with my land in the future. Additionally, the plan would lower the parking requirements on new buildings before even knowing how many spaces the building would need. This would cause problems like we have downtown and would also require building owners to allow non‐customers to use their parking lots. Parking lots require more maintenance dollars that the building most years. This parking limitation puts an unfair burden on building owners that actually provide parking lots. It also seems as if the plan has no thought put into what future businesses will look like. For instance, large drive‐in business is not allowed. Will grocery stores of the future be drive‐in? Far less space needed in stores and fewer employees, sounds like a good bet to me. One thing that was brought up in the steering committee meetings that was extremely bothersome was a map showing cross‐streets through my property. The cross‐streets overlapped portions of my buildings. The planners want me to give ½ acre of my ready‐to‐build land for streets and cross streets. CBJ owns the adjoining property directly behind me. Why would the planners even suggest that I cut off 40’ of my building and give them a 50’ strip of my land? It’s absurd. I’ve been in the commercial rental business for over 40 years and a couple of things I’ve learned is that you don’t build a building for one specific purpose because that purpose will change and you don’t short yourself on parking if you want maximum use of your building. During the planning/steering committee Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 27 of 79 meetings the CBJ planners had the steering committee pick businesses from the General Commercial zone to be put in the new zone. Several businesses were removed and none were added. This means more restrictions, more restrictions, and less building. Rather than wasting everyone’s time and money replanning land that is already developed (there is hardly any available undeveloped land in Auke Bay), why not give these planners 50 or 100 acres of city land out the road or on North Douglas? This way they could implement their plan. If it doesn’t work there is no loss and productive people would not be taken out of production to defend their property from extorsion tactics by planners. Sincerely, For: Don Howell Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 28 of 79 EKH Design & Engineering P.O. Box 210393 E<HErin Howell, p.e. OESIG N & ENGINEERING Auke Bay, AK 99821 (907) 321‐5950 erin.ekhdesign@gmail.com November 10, 2020 Planning Commission City & Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward St. Juneau, AK 99801 Re: Implementation of Auke Bay Area Plan To Whom It May Concern, My father-in-law, Don Howell, is the owner of what is know as the “Squire’s Rest” building in Auke Bay. My husband and I have been discussing purchasing the property from Don for the past couple of years. We have known about the possible changes being made to the zoning districts in and around Auke Bay through the Auke Bay Area Plan since the steering committee was formed around five years ago. My husband and I did not attend any of the meetings because, at the time, we had small children and attending long meetings fairly late in the evening was nearly impossible. Additionally, we were not considering purchasing the property at the time that the steering committee meetings were going on. In hindsight, we should have been more involved. My husband and I are a bit concerned that the subject of implementing the Auke Bay Area Plan has once again come up. The last thing we had heard was that CBJ wasn’t sure whether or not the plan could legally be implemented. Perhaps the legality of the plan was ok’d by CBJ’s law department since then? Mine and my husband’s biggest concern is regarding the zoning changes. After reviewing the plan, it seems as if CBJ is making changes to the zoning to the detriment of property owners…and then allowing them to achieve the older zoning standards through a set of “bonus points.” To me it seems as if CBJ is trying to control the development of these properties when it should be up to the people that actually own the property to development in their own vision…not the vision of the local government. I would like to add that I honestly would like to see something like what the steering committee has envisioned constructed in Auke Bay. What my husband and I have planned for the Squire’s land will fit into that mold very nicely, but I absolutely don’t want someone dictating what I can and cannot do; especially when it comes down to a pointed bonus system. We should not have laws written in such a way that “if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Is that even legal? If so, I would say that the line is very thin. Sincerely, Erin Howell, P.E. Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 29 of 79 From: Lisa Greenough To: PC_Comments Subject: Subject- Re-zoning of Auke Bay Area Plan Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 12:09:18 PM EXTERNAL E-MAIL: BE CAUTIOUS WHEN OPENING FILES OR FOLLOWING LINKS Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Assembly members and CBJ Staff, The materials which have been provided to you by staff only include letters from the public from March 2020 forward- all members as well as the public should have a complete historical record of all letters written regarding this matter since 2015. I wrote a letter summarizing my concerns dated Feb 4, 2020 and many other letters have been written as well. New members of the commission and assembly need to see these materials in order to fully understand the concerns the citizens of Auke Bay and the surrounding neighborhoods have about this proposal our city is putting forward. I have attended more than a dozen meetings on this subject and all of them were well attended - roughly 20-40 persons at every meeting I went to. The folks who went to these meetings were there to voice their opposition to many aspects of this proposal- The public in comment after comment voiced their disapproval of these plans. Sadly these meetings were not recorded and our staff may not have informed their supervisors fully of the community opposition to this rezoning action. Regarding the boundaries I object to the property behind Auke Bay School being included- land maps that I looked at in 2019 show this area was designated for recreation to support educational activities. I also object to Tanner court being included. With covid being so bad in our community many people have discovered the Dan Bishop trail and are using it more than ever and I would like to see plans for a trail to connect it to Spualding Meadows. High density zoning, no drive-thru and pick up drop off rules make no sense given what we know today- This proposal needs a lot more work in my view. Sincerely, Lisa Greenough 907-789-1007 Po Box 210742 Auke Bay, AK 99801 Attachment A - Public Comments Received Between March 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020  Packet Page 30 of 79 CITY AND BOROUGH OF EAU ALASKA'S CAPITAL CITY (907) 586-0715 CDD_Admin@juneou.org www.juneau.org/CDD COMMUNITY DEVELOP MEN 1 155 S. Seward Street • Juneau, AK 99801 DATE: October 5, 2020 TO: Nathaniel Dye, Chair Title 49 Committee FROM: Allison Eddins, Planner II Community Development Department CASE NO.: AME2020 0002 PROPOSAL: Proposed amendment to Title 49 to include a purpose statement for vegetative cover and landscaping Background On March 5, 2020, CDD Staff presented proposed amendments to Title 49 that would provide purpose statements for vegetative cover and landscaping. The Committee members discussed the proposal and requested Staff make the following changes to the proposed prupose statements:  Vegetative cover regulations should require non-invasive and native species.  Lanscaping regulations should require non-invasive species.  Green infrastructe that assists with drainage and screening should count toward vegetative cover requirements.  Decorative outdoor landscaping elements should count toward the landscaping requirement. Staff has not included native species as a requirement in either purpose statement. In order to determine native species, a boundary must first be defined, i.e. Southeast Alaska, Pacific Northwest, North America, etc. Additionally, a comprehensive list of all native species would need to be developed in order to determine compliance. This can become burdensome and subjective without providing much ecological benefit beyond anadrmous waterbodies. Requiring non-invasive species however, is not subjective and provides enormous ecological benefits. Developing purpose statements is the first step in the process. Staff intends to develop clear vegetative cover and landscaping standards in the near future. When those standards are developed, some of the language in the purpose statements will be relocated to the standards. Staff will bring draft standards to the Title 49 Committee for discussion.  Packet Page 31 of 79 Proposed Amendment CBJ 49.50.300 Vegetative Cover Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum vegetative cover requirements in order to minimize the risk of flooding and erosion, and to slow the speed and volume of storm water runoff onto surrounding lands. Vegetative cover shall be met with non-invasive plant sepcies. Green infrastructure, including but not limited to green roofs, bioswales, rain gardens, and similar features, shall count toward vegetative cover requirements. Additionally, porus concrete used on site shall count toward vegetative cover requirements. CBJ 49.50.400 Landscaping Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum decorative vegetation requirements in order to minimize the visual and noise impacts of a development, provide visual separation between pedestrian and traffic movements, increase compatability between different intensities of land use by providing visual barriers, and to visually unify a development and the surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping shall mean an area developed and maintained with non-invasive plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials, decorative outdoor landscaping elements, paved or decorated surfaces of rock, stone, brick, block or similar material (excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas), and sculptural elements.  Packet Page 32 of 79 Revised No ce Public Mee ng for the proposed Auke Bay rezone and overlay district Hearing Rescheduled to December 15th CITY AND BOROUGH OF AU 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 TO: Printed December 4, 2020 THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 15 2020 AT 7 P.M.—MEETING WILL BE HELD VIA ZOOM WEBINAR The Planning Commission has rescheduled a public mee ng to discuss the implementa on of the Auke Bay Area Plan, including new zoning and land uses. Public tes mony will be taken at the mee ng. Wri en comments submi ed to pc_comments@juneau.org by noon, December 14, will be sent to Commissioners to review in prepara on for the mee ng. This virtual mee ng will be held by video and telephonic par cipa on only. To join the webinar, visit h ps://juneau.zoom.us/j/95214964747. The Webinar ID is: 952 1496 4747. To join by telephone, call: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 and enter the Webinar ID. Upcoming Commi ee of the Whole Mee ng To read the Auke Bay Area Plan, adopted by the CBJ Assembly on DATE TOPIC 3/16/15, or the proposed zoning district and overlay district regula ons, visit Tuesday, December Public tes mony on proposed zoning districts and 15, 2020 h ps://beta.juneau.org/community‐ proposed Auke Bay zoning changes (rezone) and development/auke‐bay‐area overlay district For more mee ng informa on, visit Forquestions orcomments,contactAllisonEddins,CDDPlanner, h ps://beta.juneau.org/assembly/ at(907)586‐0758orallison.eddins@juneau.org assembly‐minutes‐and‐agendas  Packet Page 33 of 79 Additional Materials Regular Planning Commission Meeting Virtual Meeting Only 7:00pm Meeting Date: December 15, 2020 1. AME2015 0010: a. March 10, 2020 Planning Commission Committee of the Whole Minutes b. Auke Bay Draft Ordinances  Packet Page 34 of 79 Minutes Planning Commission Committee of the Whole CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU Nathaniel Dye, Acting Chairman March 10, 2020 I. ROLL CALL Nathaniel Dye, Acting Chairman, called the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) Planning Commission (PC), held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, to order at 5:09 p.m. Commissioners present: Nathaniel Dye, Acting Vice Chairman; Paul Voelckers; Travis Arndt; Joshua Winchell; Weston Eiler; Ken Alper (joined at 5:27pm) Commissioners absent: Michael LeVine, Chairman; Dan Hickok Staff present: Jill Maclean, CDD Director; Allison Eddins, Planner; Alex Pierce, Planning Manager; Emily Wright, Law; Assembly members: Greg Smith (joined at 5:57pm) II. REGULAR AGENDA AME2020 0001: Amending CBJ Land Use Code to create Mixed Use 3 (MU3) & Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning Districts Applicant: City and Borough of Juneau Location: Auke Bay and Borough wide Planner Allison Eddins gave a brief presentation of AME2020 0001 and explained the types and reasons for the new proposed zoning districts. The MU3 zoning district is intended to place greater emphasis on the integration of small-scale commercial with residential at densities of thirty dwelling units per acre. The NC zoning district is intended to encourage the development of mixed-use neighborhoods that are compact and walkable with an emphasis on densities of up to fifteen dwelling units per acre with neighborhood scale commercial activity that is less intense than is currently allowed in other commercial and mixed-use districts. PC Committee of the Whole March 10, 2020 Page 1 of 3  Packet Page 35 of 79 Discussion and Questions for Staff: Mr. Voelckers was concerned that an existing single-family home in the proposed zoning district, if it were to become MU3, would be considered nonconforming and what the ramifications would be if the homeowner were to refinance, reconstruct, or sell the home. Would lending institutions allow it to be financed? Ms. Maclean said currently, they would be allowed but lending institutions are able to change their rules and CBJ cannot control that. Mr. Dye asked for an example of medium manufacturing in Juneau. Staff explained that Alaska Brewery may be medium manufacturing. Mr. Eiler asked for explanation on the figures and the rationale CDD used in determining the standards for NC and MU3, specifically the reasoning for minimum density. Ms. Eddins explained the process and rationale used by the ad hoc committee. Ms. Maclean added the residents in the area had input as well and they wanted to encourage more of a village atmosphere as opposed to a downtown atmosphere. The minimum density is a new concept as a method of encouraging development in that area. Mr. Alper liked the concept of making walkable neighborhoods but minimum density of three seems small. He asked why it is not larger. Ms. Eddins explained they arrived at three as a good number to start with and reminded the commissioners that this is a minimum. Further discussion centered on the setback requirements and height limits described in the new districts. Recess 6:11 pm until 6:18 pm AME2015 0010: Rezone of approximately 105 acres (approximately 75 acres owned by CBJ) in Auke Bay from a mixture or residential and commercial districts to MU3 and NC and the creation of the Auke Bay Overlay District Applicant: City and Borough of Juneau Location: Auke Bay and Borough wide Planner Eddins gave a presentation of AME2015 0010 and explained the steering committee process that created the Auke Bay Area Plan and she describe some of the current zoning in the area. The public process for this began in 2013 with a Steering Committee of 19 members. The process started and stalled over time due to turnover of staff and steering committee members. The creation of this proposed overlay district is in compliance with Auke Bay Area Plan recommendations to implement the Plan through design standards and the development of PC Committee of the Whole March 10, 2020 Page 2 of 3  Packet Page 36 of 79 bonuses to promote the creation of a neighborhood feel in the area through the use of wayfinding, lighting, and multi-modal transportation in well-connected routes. There was some discussion regarding the overlay and the bonus points. However, it was decided to carry the topic into the regular meeting in the interest of time. III. OTHER BUSINESS - none IV. REPORT OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES - none V. ADJOURNMENT – 6:57 PC Committee of the Whole March 10, 2020 Page 3 of 3  Packet Page 5 37ofof479 1 2 Presented by: The Manager Introduced: 3 Drafted by: 4 5 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA 6 Serial No. 2020-XX 7 An Ordinance Amending the Land Use Code to Create a Mixed Use 3 (MU3) Zoning District and a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning District 8 9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA: 10 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall 11 become a part of the City and Borough of Juneau Municipal Code. 12 13 Section 2. Amendment of Chapter. Chapter 49.25 Zoning Districts is amended to read: 14 Chapter 49.25 – ZONING DISTRICTS 15 16 ARTICLE II. ZONING DISTRICTS 17 49.25.220 Mixed use districts. 18 (c) The MU3, mixed use 3 district, is intended to place a greater emphasis on the integration of 19 small-scale commercial uses within high-density residential structures. Flexible setback 20 regulations are deliberate to promote cohesive neighborhoods and encourage the development of 21 pedestrian-oriented buildings. 22 23 49.25.230 Commercial districts. 24 (c) The NC, neighborhood commercial district, is intended to encourage the development of a 25 vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood that is compact and walkable. Greater emphasis is placed upon medium density residential as the primary use with neighborhood-scale commercial activity that Page 1 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 6 38ofof479 1 2 is less intensive than that permitted in the light commercial, general commercial, and mixed use 3 zoning districts. NC zoning districts are primarily used as a buffer between commercial and 4 mixed use zoning districts and single-family residential zoning districts. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  ARTICLE III. TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES 1 49.25.300 TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES 2 3 Zones 4 Use Description RR D-1 D-3 D-5 D-10 SF D-10 D-15 D-18 LC GC MU MU2 WC WI I NC MU3 5 1.000 RESIDENTIAL 6 1.100 Single-family dwellings 7 8 Single-family detached, one 1.110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1A 1A dwelling per lot 9 10 Single-family detached, two 1.120 1 1 1 dwellings per lot 11 Single-family detached, 12 1.130 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 accessory apartment X 13 Single-family detached, two 14 1.140 dwellings per lot, accessory 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 apartments X 15 16 1.200 Duplex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1.300 Multifamily dwellings 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 18 1.500 Child and Day care homes 19 20 21 Page 3 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Child; 12 or fewer children 1.510 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 under the age of 12 2 1.520 Reserved 3 Adult; 12 or fewer people, 12 1.530 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 years and older 5 1.540 Reserved 6 Child care residence, 6 to 9 children 1.550 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 under 18 years of age 8 1.600 Miscellaneous, rooms for rent situations 9 Rooming, boarding houses, 10 bed and breakfasts, single room occupancies with shared 11 1.610 facilities, transitional housing, 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 1 3N 1, 3 1,3 12 and temporary residences. Owner or manager must live 13 on site. 14 1.620 Hotels, motels 3 - - 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3N 3N 1, 3 1, 3 15 Single room occupancies with 16 1.630 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 private facilities 17 1.700 Home occupations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1.800 Mobile homes 19 20 21 Page 4 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Residential mobile homes on 1.810 3 3 3 1 individual lots E 2 Caretakers mobile homes on 1.815 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 individual lots E 3 4 1.820 Mobile home parks E 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1.830 Mobile home subdivision E 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 1.840 Recreational vehicle parks F 3F 3F 3F 7 1.900 Common wall development 8 9 1.910 Two dwelling units 1 1 1 1 1 10 1.911 Accessory apartments X 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 11 1.920 Three or more dwelling units 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 12 Two dwelling unit structures 13 allowed under special density 1.930 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 14 considerations, subsections 49.25.510(h) 15 1.950 Mixed use residential building 1,3 1,3 16 17 2.000 SALES AND RENTAL GOODS, MERCHANDISE OR EQUIPMENT G 18 19 20 21 Page 5 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  With less than 5,000 square feet and less 1 2.100 than 20 percent of the gross floor area of outside merchandising of goods 2 2.110 Reserved 3 4 2.120 Miscellaneous 1 1 1 1 3N 3N 3 1 1 5 Marine merchandise and 2.130 3T 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3 N 3 1 1 6 equipment 7 Storage and display of goods with greater or equal to 5,000 square feet 8 2.200 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3N 3N 3 and/or 20 percent of the gross floor area 9 of outside merchandising of goods 10 2.300 Marijuana retail store 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 3.000 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, CLERICAL, RESEARCH, REAL ESTATE, OTHER OFFICE SERVICES G 12 Offices of not more than 1,000 square 13 3.050 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1N 1 1 feet 14 Offices greater than 1,000 but not more 3.100 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3N 1 1 15 than 2,500 square feet 16 3.200 Reserved 17 3.300 Research, laboratory uses 3T 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 31 N , 31, 3 1, 3 18 3.400 Offices greater than 2,500 square feet 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 N, 3 3S 3 1,3 19 20 21 Page 6 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  3.500 Marijuana testing facility 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 4.000 MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, CREATING, REPAIRING, RENOVATING, PAINTING, CLEANING, ASSEMBLING OF GOODS G 2 3 4.050 Light manufacturing 3T 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 31 N , 31, 3 1,3 1,3 4 4.070 Medium manufacturing 3T 3 3 3 3N 1 N , 31, 3 5 4.100 Heavy manufacturing 3T 3Q 3N 3 6 4.150 Rock crusher 3T 1Q 1Q 3N 3 7 8 4.200 Storage of explosives and ammunition 3 3N 3 9 4.210 Seafood processing 3T 3 1, 3 1, 3 10 4.220 Marijuana product manufacturing facility 3 AC 3 3 3 11 5.000 EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS, PHILANTHROPIC, SOCIAL, FRATERNAL USES 12 13 5.100 Schools 14 Elementary and secondary 5.110 schools including associated 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 grounds and other facilities 16 Trade, vocational schools, 5.120 3T 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 3 3 17 commercial schools 18 5.130 Colleges, universities 3T 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 3 3 3 19 20 21 Page 7 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  5.200 Churches, synagogues, temples 3T 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 33 N 1, 3 3 3 1 5.300 Libraries, museums, art galleries 3T 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3N 1,3 1,3 2 3 Social, fraternal clubs, lodges, union 5.400 3T - - 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 33 N 1, 3 1,3 1,3 halls, yacht clubs 4 6.000 RECREATION, AMUSEMENT, ENTERTAINMENT 5 6 Indoor activity conducted entirely within 6.100 building or substantial structure 7 Bowling alleys, billiard, pool 8 6.110 - - 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3 1,3 1,3 halls 9 Tennis, racquetball, squash 10 courts, skating rinks, exercise 6.120 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3 1,3 1,3 facilities, swimming pools, 11 archery ranges 12 Theaters seating for 200 or 13 6.130 3T - 3 3 1 1 1 1 3N 3 1,3 1 fewer 14 Theaters seating from 201 to 6.135 - - 3 1 1 1 3N 3 1,3 1 15 1,000 16 Coliseums, stadiums, and other 17 facilities in the 6.100 6.140 3 3 3 3N classification seating more 18 than 1,000 people 19 20 21 Page 8 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  6.150 Indoor shooting range 1, 3 3 3 1 Outdoor activity conducted outside 2 6.200 enclosed buildings or structures 3 Recreational facilities such as 4 golf, country clubs, swimming, tennis courts not constructed 5 6.210 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3N 3 1,3 pursuant to a permit authorizing the construction of 6 a school 7 Miniature golf courses, 8 6.220 skateboard parks, water slides, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 3 3N 3 1,3 batting cages 9 10 Automobile, motorcycle racing 6.240 tracks; off-highway vehicle 3 3 3 11 parks 12 6.250 Reserved 13 6.260 Open space 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 15 Parks with improved facilities, 6.262 not approved in conjunction 16 with a major subdivision 17 6.264 Capacity for up to 20 people W 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3N 1 1 18 19 20 21 Page 9 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Capacity for more than 20 6.266 3T 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 3 3 1 people W 2 Aerial conveyances and 6.270 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 3 appurtenant facilities 3 4 6.280 Shooting ranges 3 3 5 7.000 INSTITUTIONAL DAY OR RESIDENTIAL CARE, HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 6 7.100 Hospital 3 3 3 3 7 Health care clinics, other medical 8 7.150 treatment facilities providing out-patient 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 1,3 9 care 10 7.200 Assisted living 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 1,3 11 7.300 Day care centers 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 1,3 12 7.310 Child care centers 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 1,3 13 14 7.500 Correctional facilities 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 7.600 Sobering centers 3 3 3 3 16 8.000 RESTAURANTS, BARS, NIGHTCLUBS 17 Small restaurants, less than 1,000 ft 2 18 8.050 3T 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1N 3 1 1 without drive through service 19 20 21 Page 10 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Restaurants, bars without drive through T 8.100 3 1, 3 1 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 33 N 3 1,3 1,3 1 service 2 Restaurants, coffee stands with drive 8.200 1, 3 1 3 1 N , 33 N 3 through service 3 4 Seasonal open air food service without 8.300 3 1, 3 1 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 33 N 1,3 1,3 drive through 5 6 9.000 BOAT OR MOTOR VEHICLE, SALES AND SERVICE OPERATIONS 7 Motor vehicle, mobile home sale or 9.050 1, 3 1, 3 3 3 1, 3 rental 8 9 Motor vehicle repair and maintenance, 9.100 3 1 including body work 10 9.200 Automotive fuel station 3T 3 1 1 11 12 9.300 Car wash 3 1 1 13 9.400 Boat sales or rental 3T 3 1 1 1 1 14 9.450 Boat repairs and maintenance 3T 3 1 1 1 15 9.500 Marine fuel, water sanitation 3T 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 16 17 Marine commercial facilities including 9.600 fisheries support, commercial freight, 3 3 3 18 passenger traffic 19 20 21 Page 11 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  10.000 STORAGE, PARKING, MOORAGE 1 Automobile parking garages or parking 2 10.100 lots not related to a principal use on the 3 1 1, 3 1, 3 1 1, 3 1, 3 lot 3 4 Storage and handling of goods not 10.200 related to sale or use of those goods on 5 the same lot on which they are stored 6 All storage within completely 10.210 1, 3 3 3 1 1 U , 1 U , 3 1 N , 31 N 1 7 enclosed structures 8 General storage inside or 10.220 1, 3 3 1, 3 1 N , 31 N 1 9 outside enclosed structures 10 10.230 Snow storage basin 11 Neighborhood, less than ½ 10.232 3 3 3Z 3Z 3Z 3Z 3Z 3Z 3Z 1 3Z 1 1 12 acre 13 10.235 Regional, ½ to 1 acre 3 3 3Z 3Z 3 3Z 1 1 14 10.237 Area wide, over 1 acre 3 3Z 3Z 3Z 3 3 15 Parking of vehicles or storage of 16 equipment outside enclosed structures 17 where they are owned and used by the 10.300 1, 3 3 1, 3 1 N , 31 N , 31 user of the lot and parking and storage is 18 more than a minor and incidental use of the lot 19 20 21 Page 12 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Temporary contractor's storage 1 10.400 connected with construction project off- 1, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 3 3 1N 1 3 3 site for a specified period of time 2 10.500 Moorage 3 4 10.510 Public, commercial 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 5 10.520 Private 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 6 Floating structures supporting seasonal, 10.600 3 3 3 3 3 7 commercial recreation 8 11.000 MATERIALS SALVAGE YARDS, WASTE MANAGEMENT 9 11.100 Recycling operations 10 11 Enclosed collection structures 0 of less than 80 square feet 11.110 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1P 1 1 1P 1P 1 1 1 1P 1P 12 total and less than six feet in height 13 14 Enclosed structures for 11.120 1 P , 1 P , 31 P , 31 P , 31 P , 3 1 P, 3 1 P, 3 1 P, 3 1 P, 3 1 P, 3 P 3 3 1 1 1P 3P 3P recyclable materials collection 15 Sorting, storage, preparation 16 11.130 for shipment occurring outside 1N 1 17 an enclosed structure 18 Reclamation landfill not associated with 11.200 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3N 3N 1, 3 a specific use 19 20 21 Page 13 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  11.300 Sanitary landfill 3 3 1 12.000 SERVICES AND ENTERPRISES RELATED TO ANIMALS 2 3 12.100 Veterinary clinic 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 3 1 N , 31 N , 31 3 3 4 12.200 Kennel 3 3 3 3 1, 3 5 Day animal services, grooming, walking, 12.250 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 3 6 day care 7 Zoos, aquaria, or wild animal 12.300 rehabilitation facilities with a visitor 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3 8 component 9 Wild animal rehabilitation facilities 10 12.310 3 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3 without a visitor component 11 12.400 Horseback riding stables, dog team yards 3 3 3 3 3 12 13.000 EMERGENCY SERVICES 13 14 13.100 Fire, police, ambulance 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 1, 3 3 3 15 14.000 AQUACULTURE, AGRICULTURE, SILVICULTURE, MINING, QUARRYING OPERATIONS, SPRING WATER BOTTLING 16 14.100 Aquaculture 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 17 Weirs, channels, and other fisheries 18 14.150 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 1 1 enhancement 19 20 21 Page 14 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  14.200 Commercial agricultural operations 1 14.210 Excluding farm animals 1, 3 1, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 3 2 3 14.220 Including farm animals M 1, 3 3 1, 3 4 14.230 Stabling of farm animals M 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 5 Marijuana cultivation (500 6 14.240 square feet or more under 3 3 3 3 cultivation) 7 Marijuana cultivation (fewer 8 14.245 than 500 square feet under 3 3 AB 3 3 3 9 cultivation) 10 14.250 Personal use agriculture 11 14.253 Hens, 6 maximum 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 12 14.300 Silviculture and timber harvesting J 3 3 3 13 14 14.400 Mining operations 2, 3 3 3 3N 3N 2 15 14.500 Sand and gravel operations l 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 3 16 14.800 Spring water bottling 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 17 15.000 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC AND SEMIPUBLIC FACILITIES 18 19 20 21 Page 15 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  15.100 Post office 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3N 3N 1, 3 1,3 1, 3 1 15.200 Airport 3 1, 3 2 3 15.400 Military reserve, National Guard centers 3 3 3 3 3 3N 3N 3 3 3 4 15.500 Heliports, helipads 3 3 3N 3N 3 5 15.600 Transit facilities 6 15.610 Transit center 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 3 1, 3 1,3 1, 3 7 8 15.620 Transit station 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Park and ride not associated 15.630 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 with transit station 10 11 15.700 Public works facility 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 12 16.000 DRY CLEANER, LAUNDROMAT 13 Drop off and pickup only, no onsite 16.100 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 31 N , 31, 3 1,3 1,3 14 laundry or dry cleaning process 15 Full service onsite laundry and/or dry 16.200 3 1, 3 3 3 3N 1 N , 31, 3 1,3 1,3 16 cleaning 17 17.000 UTILITY FACILITIES 18 17.100 Minor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 20 21 Page 16 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  17.150 Intermediate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 3 3 1, 3 1 1 3 3 1 17.200 Major 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 17.300 Driveways and private roads 4 18.000 TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES 5 18.100 AA Towers and antennas 35 feet or less 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 18.200 AA Towers and antennas 35 to 50 feet 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 7 8 Towers and antennas more than 50 feet 18.300 AA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 in height 9 Amateur (ham) radio towers and 10 18.400 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 antennas more than 35 feet in height R 11 18.500 Wireless Communication Facilities See CBJ 49.65, Wireless Communication Facilities 12 19.000 OPEN AIR MARKETS, NURSERIES, GREENHOUSES 13 14 Open air markets (farm, craft, flea, and 19.100 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 1, 3 1, 3 1 N , 31 N , 31, 3 1,3 1,3 produce) 15 16 19.200 Nurseries, commercial greenhouses 17 19.210 Retail sales 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1 1V 1V 1 1,3 1,3 18 19.220 Nonretail sales 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1 1V 1V 1 19 20 21 Page 17 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Marijuana cultivation (500 1 19.230 square feet or more under 3 3 3 3 cultivation) 2 Marijuana cultivation (fewer 3 19.240 than 500 square feet under 3 3 AB 3 3 3 4 cultivation) 5 20.000 CEMETERY, CREMATORIUM, MORTUARY 6 20.100 Cemetery 1, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 20.200 Crematorium 3 1, 3 8 9 20.300 Funeral home 3 3 3 3 3 3 1, 3 1 3 3 1,3 1,3 10 21.000 VISITOR-ORIENTED, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 11 21.100 Resort, lodge 3 3 12 21.200 Campgrounds 1, 3 3 13 14 Visitor, cultural facilities related to featu 21.300 3 3 - - 3 3 3 3 3N 3 3 the site 15 22.000 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH ONSITE CONSTRUCTION 16 17 Temporary structures used in connectio 22.100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 construction 18 19 20 21 Page 18 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  1 ARTICLE IV. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 2 49.25.400 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 3 (a) A bonus awarded consistent with this title may allow for a dimension to exceed the 4 corresponding dimension in the table of the dimensional standards. 5 (b) The following shall be known as the table of dimensional standards: 6 D-10 Zoning Regulations RR D-1 D-3 D-5 D-10 D-15 D-18 MU MU2 LC GC WC WI I SF MU3 NC 7 Minimum Lot Size 1 8 9 3,600 3,000 3,000 Permissible Uses 36,000 36,000 12,000 7,000 10 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10 Bungalow 9 18,000 6,000 3,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 2,500 11 12 Duplex 54,000 54,000 18,000 10,500 13 Common 3,600 14 Wall 7,000 10 5,000 3,500 2,500 2,500 Dwelling 15 Single- 16 family 17 detached, 72,000 72,000 24,000 two 18 dwellings per lot 19 20 21 Page 19 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Minimum lot width 150′ 150′ 100′ 70′ 40′ 50′ 50′ 50′ 50′ 50′ 40’ 40’ 20′ 20′ 20′ 20′ 20′ 1 Bungalow 9 75′ 50′ 35′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 2 3 Common wall 60′ 40′ 40′ 30′ 20′ 20′ dwelling 4 Minimum lot depth 150′ 150′ 100′ 85′ 85′ 10 85′ 80′ 80′ 80′ 80′ None None 80′ 60′ 60′ 60′ 60′ 5 6 Maximum lot coverage 7 Permissible uses 10% 10% 35% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% None 80% 75% None None None None None None 8 9 Conditional uses 20% 20% 35% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% None 80% 75% None None None None None None 10 Maximum height 35’ 35’ 45′ 35′ 35′ 35′ 35′ 35′ 35′ 35′ None 45′ 4 45′ 55′ 35′ 4 45′ 4 None 11 permissible uses 12 Accessory 45′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ None 35′ 25’ 25’ 35′ 45′ 35′ 4 45′ 4 None 13 Bungalow 9 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 25′ 14 Minimum front yard 0’ 0’ 15 25′ 25′ 25′ 20′ 20′ 10 20′ 20′ 20′ 0′ 5′ 5,8 25′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ setback 3 16 Maximum front yard 20’ 15’ 17 setback Minimum street side 0’ 0’ 18 17′ 17′ 17′ 13′ 10′ 13′ 13′ 13′ 0′ 5′ 17′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ yard setback 19 20 21 Page 20 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Maximum street side 15’ 10’ 1 yard setback Minimum rear yard 5’ 0’ 11 2 25′ 2 25′ 25′ 20′ 10′ 20′ 15′ 10′ 0′ 5′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ setback 3 3 Minimum side yard 0’11 0’ 11 15′ 2 15′ 10′ 5′ 3′ 5′ 5′ 5′ 0′ 5′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 0′ 4 setback 3 5 Common wall 10′ 6 3′ 5′ 7 5′ 7 5′ 7 5′ 7 6 dwelling 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 21 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX 22  Packet Page 26 58 of 47 79 1 2 Notes: 3 1. Minimum lot size is existing lot or area shown on chart in square feet. 4 2. Sixty feet between nonresidential and designated or actual residential site; 80 feet between 5 industrial, extractive and other uses. 6 3. Where one district abuts another the greater of the two setbacks is required for both uses on the common property line. 7 8 4. (Height Bonus) Reserved. 9 5. (Pedestrian Amenities Bonus) Reserved. 10 6. Zero-foot setback for the portion of the dwelling with a common wall, five-foot setback or 11 five-foot wide easement for the portion of the dwelling at the common lot line without a common wall, and ten-foot setback for the remaining side yards of the lot. 12 7. Zero-foot setback for the portion of the dwelling with a common wall, five-foot setback or 13 five-foot wide easement for the portion of the dwelling at the common lot line without a common wall, and five-foot setback for the remaining side yards of the lot. 14 15 8. On corner lots, buildings shall be set back 15 feet from a street intersection. The area in which buildings shall be prohibited shall be determined by extending the edge of the traveled 16 ways to a point of intersection, then measuring back 15 feet, then connecting the points. 17 9. Special restrictions apply to construction on bungalow lots. See special use provisions 49.65.600. 18 19 10. For lots adjacent to an alley, the following reductions to the dimensional standards apply: 20 (a) Minimal lot area includes 50% of adjacent alley (see graphic). 21 (b) Minimal lot depth includes 50% of the width of adjacent alley. 22 (c) Minimum front yard setback of ten feet. 23 11. Additional setbacks apply when lot abuts a multi-family or single-family residential 24 zoning district as required by 49.25.430(8). 25 Page 22 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 27 59 of 47 79 1 2 49.25.430 Yard setbacks. 3 (6) Maintaining building façade continuity. In order to maintain building façade 4 continuity, a new building in the NC or MU3 zoning districts shall have a front yard 5 setback and street side yard setback equal to the average front yard setback of the three 6 closest buildings sharing a frontage and within a 150-foot radius. An existing building on 7 the subject lot may be used as one of three buildings to calculate the setback determination. 8 For the purposes of this section, the buildings used in averaging must be conforming 9 10 enclosed buildings. 11 12 (7) Maximum building setback for NC and MU3. In NC and MU3 zoning districts, at least 13 50 percent of the length of the ground level, street-facing façade of a new or altered building 14 shall be within the maximum setback for the underlying zoning district. Where there is 15 more than one building on a lot, the maximum standard applies to the combined ground 16 level, street-facing facades of all the buildings. 17 18 Alteration to Existing Building in Conformance with Maximum Setback Standard 19 20 ADDITION EXISTING 21 BUILDING 22 At least 50% of the com bined ground-level, street­ facing \ 23 facades of existi ng buildin g and addition are within max imum Maximum 24 I building se tba ck allowed I 25 I ~----------- ------- ' - -- ------- ---------- setback Property line +----------------------------.-: ·--------~ Sidewalk Page 23 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 28 60 of 47 79 1 2 3 (8) NC and MU3 parcels abutting residential zoning districts. When a building in the NC 4 or MU3 zoning district abuts a residential zoning district the following setbacks and 5 landscaping requirements apply: 6 Height of building wall Lots abutting a residential zone Lots abutting a residential zone 7 side lot line rear lot line 8 15 ft. or less 5-foot setback and landscaping Underlying zoning district setback, no landscaping 9 15.1 ft. to 25 ft. 8-foot setback and landscaping 10 25.1 ft. and taller 10-foot setback and landscaping 11 12 ARTICLE V. DENSITY 13 49.25.500 Density. 14 The maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre shall be as provided in the 15 following table: 16 17 Zoning Maximum Dwelling 18 District Units/Acre 19 Density determined by minimum lot size in section 49.25.400 and special density 20 RR requirements in section 49.25.510. 21 Density determined by minimum lot size in section 49.25.400 and special density 22 D-1 requirements in section 49.25.510. 23 Density determined by minimum lot size in section 49.25.400 and special density 24 D-3 requirements in section 49.25.510. 25 Density determined by minimum lot size in section 49.25.400 and special density D-5 requirements in section 49.25.510. Page 24 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 29 61 of 47 79 1 2 D-10 10 units per acre 3 D-10 Density determined by minimum lot size in section 49.25.400 and special density 4 SF requirements in section 49.25.510. 5 D-15 15 units per acre 6 7 D-18 18 units per acre 8 MU No maximum density 9 MU2 80 units per acre 10 MU3 30 units per acre 11 12 NC 15 units per acre 13 LC 30 units per acre 14 GC 50 units per acre 15 16 WC 18 units per acre 17 18 Section 3. Amendment of chapter. Chapter 49.50 Parks, Open Space and Vegetative Cover 19 is amended to read: 20 21 CHAPTER 49.50 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND VEGETATIVE COVER 22 Article III. – Vegetative Cover 23 24 49.50.300 Minimum vegetative cover. 25 A minimum percent by area of each development site shall be maintained with live vegetative cover according to the following table. In the event of a conflict between district and area standards, the greater shall apply. Page 25 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 30 62 of 47 79 1 2 3 4 Percentage of Lot Zoning District 5 in Vegetation 6 D-1, D-3, and D-5, residential districts 20 7 D-10 SF residential districts 15 8 9 D-10, D-15, and D-18 multifamily residential districts 30 10 MU2, mixed use district 5 11 MU3, mixed use district 10 12 13 NC, neighborhood commercial district 15 14 LC, light commercial district 15 15 GC, general commercial district 10 16 17 WC, waterfront commercial district 10 18 WI, waterfront industrial district 5 19 I, industrial district 5 20 21 Convenience store, outside a commercial district 20 22 23 24 25 Page 26 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 31 63 of 47 79 1 2 Section 4. Amendment of Chapter. 3 Chapter 70 is amended by adding a new article XIII to read: 4 5 ARTICLE XIII. AUKE BAY OVERLAY DISTRICT 6 49.70.1300 Purpose. 7 The purpose of the Auke Bay Overlay District is to implement the Auke Bay Area Plan 8 Vision through design standards and development bonuses that promote the creation of a lively, village-like setting. Bonuses may be earned by providing a combination of design 9 standards, site features and community improvements envisioned by the Auke Bay Area 10 Plan. 11 49.70.1310 Applicability. 12 Auke Bay Overlay District. This article applies only to parcels located within the Auke 13 Bay Overlay District as shown on the adopted map. 14 49.70.1320 Relationship to Existing Zoning. 15 16 If a developer chooses to earn bonus points, a minimum of 10 percent of bonus points must be earned by providing design standards. Bonus points may be used to increase density, 17 increase building height, or reduce minimum parking requirements. All other requirements of the underlying zoning district apply. 18 49.70.1330 Auke Bay Overlay District Procedure. 19 (a) Auke Bay Overlay District Permit. The commission shall hear all applications 20 pursuant to this article. 21 (b) Pre-application Conference. Prior to submission of an application, the developer shall 22 meet with the director for the purpose of discussing the site, the proposed development activity including design standards, site features and/or community improvements that 23 will be incorporated and how bonus points will be used. 24 (c) Application. The developer shall submit to the director one copy of the completed permit application together with all supporting materials and the permit fee. A 25 developer that applies for a bonus, must show the nature and extent of such bonuses in the Auke Bay Overlay District application. (d) Director's review procedure. (1) The director shall endeavor to determine whether the application accurately reflects the developer’s intentions; shall advise the developer whether or not the Page 27 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 32 64 of 47 79 1 2 application is acceptable; and, if it is not, shall advise what corrective action may be taken. 3 (2) After accepting the application, the director shall schedule it for a hearing before 4 the commission and shall give notice to the developer and the public in accordance 5 with section 49.15.230. 6 (3) The director shall forward the application to the commission together with a report setting forth the director's recommendation for approval or denial, with or 7 without conditions together with the reasons therefore. 8 (4) Copies of the application or the relevant portions thereof shall be transmitted to interested agencies as specified on a list maintained by the director for that purpose. 9 Referral agencies shall be invited to respond within 15 days unless an extension is 10 requested and granted in writing for good cause by the director. 11 (5) Even if the proposed development complies with all the requirements of this title and all recommended conditions of approval, the director may nonetheless 12 recommend denial of the application if it is found that the development: (A) Will materially endanger the public health or safety; 13 (B) Will substantially decrease the value of or be out of harmony with property in the neighboring area; or 14 (C) Will not be in general conformity with the comprehensive plan. 15 16 (e) Review of director's determinations. (1) At the hearing on the Auke Bay Overlay District permit, the commission shall 17 review the director's report to consider: (A) Whether the proposed development is appropriate according to the 18 comprehensive plan, Auke Bay Area Plan, or other official adopted plan; (B) Whether the application is complete; and 19 (C) Whether the development as proposed will comply with the other requirements of this title. 20 21 (2) The commission shall adopt the director's determination on each item set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection (e) unless it finds, by a preponderance of the 22 evidence, that the director's determination was in error, and states its reasoning for each finding with particularity. 23 (f) Commission determinations. Even if the commission adopts the director's 24 determinations pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, it may nonetheless deny or condition the permit if it concludes, based upon its own independent review of the 25 information submitted at the hearing, that the development will more probably than not: (1) Materially endanger the public health or safety; (2) Substantially be out of harmony with property in the neighboring area; or (3) Lack general conformity with the comprehensive plan. 49.70.1340 Auke Bay Overlay District Standards. Page 28 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 33 65 of 47 79 1 2 3 Bonus points may be awarded for site features and design features that were existing on the date this ordinance was adopted. 4 5 (a) Community Improvements 6 (1) Platting new public rights-of-way. A development that includes the dedication of 7 private land for the future development of a publically maintained connected street grid system is eligible for the following bonus points. 8 Linear feet of Standard Points 9 public right Earned 10 of way 11 3 feet All platted public rights-of-way shall be 1 point consistent with the public right-of-way 12 (a minimum of width standard for streets other than 25 ft. must be arterials and connectors, as found in 13 platted) Chapter 49.35. 14 15 16 (2) Providing public parking on private property. A minimum of 12 parking spaces must be provided. The public parking spaces are in addition to the minimum parking 17 required for the lot. The public parking area shall be paved, the parking spaces shall 18 be striped, and a public parking sign must be installed and clearly visible from abutting public rights-of-way. The property owner will retain ownership of the lot and 19 is responsible for all maintenance of the parking area. The owner may charge reasonable fees for use of the parking area. 20 Parking Standard Points Earned 21 Spaces Provided 22 12 or more Bonus points may be earned for 1 point per space, public parking providing 12 or twelve and above 23 more spaces. 24 25 (3) Mixed use structures. Mixed use structures are intended to encourage structures that combine medium- to high-density residential uses with compatible commercial uses on a single site and within the same structure. Page 29 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 34 66 of 47 79 1 2 Residential/Commercial Points Earned 3 floor area ratio 1:1 8 points 4 2:1 12 points (16 points for zoning districts with height restrictions of 35 feet including 5 maximum height with bonuses ) 3:1 16 points (24 points for zoning districts with 6 height restrictions of 45 feet including maximum height with bonuses) 7 4:1 24 points 8 9 (4) Building Design Standards. Building design standards are intended to encourage the inclusion of specific design standards within new development, and 10 additions or exterior improvements to existing structures. The building design standards represent the vision of future development in the Auke Bay Center, as 11 identified in the Auke Bay Area Plan. A minimum of 10 percent of all bonus points earned must be earned from meeting design standards. 12 13 Design Standards Points Earned Welcoming street facing Windows and building 3 points for every 20% 14 building facades entrances comprise at least transparency 20% of the ground floor 15 wall area for all non- residential uses. Street 16 facing façade windows shall be no more than 4 17 feet above finished grade. 18 Windows and doors shall consist of clear glass. 19 Ground level entrances Entryways shall be 3 points for each entryway designed to orient 20 customers with attractive architectural features, such 21 as a recessed entryway, pedestrian oriented 22 lighting, and weather 23 protection. Each public entrance shall be clearly 24 defined and highly visible. Canopies provided for Canopies shall span the 1 point for every 5 ft. of 25 public right-of-ways and entire frontage of the canopy improved pedestrian building and shall meet walkways CBJ canopy standards. Page 30 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 35 67 of 47 79 1 2 (5) Site Features. Site features are intended to encourage the installation of features that promote pedestrian safety and create interesting and inviting outdoor spaces. 3 Site Feature Standard Points Earned 4 Pedestrian walkways Pedestrian walkways shall 1 points per 10 feet of 5 provide a direct route from walkway a right-of-way or parking 6 area to the building’s main entrance, as determined 7 by the director; be a minimum of 5 feet wide; 8 be separated from a parking area or right-of- 9 way with landscaping or a 10 raised surface of at least 6 inches; consist of a 11 walking surface other than dirt or gravel; 12 connect to a pedestrian walkway on an abutting 13 lot when possible Covered bike rack Bike rack(s) shall be 1 point per bike rack 14 installed near a building’s 15 ground level entrance; have a minimum capacity 16 of four bikes. Bike racks shall be covered and shall 17 be compatible with a U lock, as recommended in 18 the Juneau Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. 19 Outdoor seating Outdoor seating shall 1 point per bench or table 20 consist of at least one bench that seats at least 4 21 people or one table that seats at least four people; 22 be secured to the ground or building; and be 23 provided at a minimum during the summer 24 months 25 Page 31 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 36 68 of 47 79 1 2 Outdoor Planters or Outdoor planters or 1 point for every quarter Landscaping landscaping shall span a of the building façade with 3 minimum of 25 percent of planters or landscaping the building right-of-way 4 facing façade(s); contain 5 live, non-invasive plant(s); be designed and located in 6 a manner that does not interfere with site 7 distance from public right- of-ways or pedestrian 8 walkways, as determined by the commission 9 10 (6) Screening. Screening is intended to preserve and enhance the aesthetic value of 11 Auke Bay by minimizing views of specific parts of properties or structures from streets, pedestrian walkways, or abutting properties when the specific part(s) of 12 property or structure are located within 30 feet of a property line, public rights-of- way, or pedestrian walkways. 13 14 Structures to be Standard Points Earned 15 screened Above-ground parking lots Screening shall be four 3 points per parking lot 16 feet tall and shall consist of sight obscuring 17 landscaping or a sight obscuring fence or wall. 18 Parking areas do not need to be screened from 19 pedestrian walkways that 20 intersect the parking area. Recycle and trash Screening shall be as tall 1 point each 21 receptacles; above-ground as the structure or object oil, gas, water or wood being screened; shall 22 pellet storage containers; consist of sight obscuring freestanding utility, landscaping, a sight 23 mechanical and electrical obscuring fence or wall, boxes murals or other forms of 24 public art, or other 25 methods that meet the purpose of this section, as determined by the commission Page 32 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 37 69 of 47 79 1 2 (7) Preserving views of Auke Bay and Statter Harbor. Preservation of the view is intended to protect the aesthetic value of private property by encouraging developers 3 of structures greater than two stories in height to preserve the view(s) of Auke Bay and Statter Harbor from abutting properties, as determined by the planning 4 commission. 5 Building Stepback Points Earned Reduction of the upper 1 point for every 3% 6 floor footprint in relation reduction 7 to the ground floor. 8 9 49.70.1350 Using Bonus Points 10 (a) General. Despite the other provisions of this title, a bonus may be granted as 11 described in this section. 12 (b) Density Bonus. The allowable density of dwelling units per acre may be increased based on bonus points earned. Density increase shall be rounded to the nearest whole 13 number Bonus Points NC MU3 WC 14 Needed 15 Standard Zoning 15 units per acre 30 units per 18 units per acre acre 16 8 points 17 units per acre 35 units per 21 units per acre acre 17 16 points 19 units per acre 38 units per 24 units per acre acre 18 24 points 21 units per acre 42 units per 27 units per acre acre 19 32 points 25 units per acre 50 units per 30 units per 20 acre acre 21 (c) Height Bonus. Bonus points for increased height are not allowed in the Waterfront Commercial zoning district. 22 23 Bonus Points Needed NC MU3 Principle / accessory height limit 24 Standard zoning 35’ / 25’ 35’ / 25’ 25 6 points 45’ / 35’ 45’ / 35’ 12 points 55’ / 45’ (d) Reduce minimum parking requirements. The maximum allowed parking reduction in the Auke Bay Overlay District is 30 percent of the total number of parking spaces Page 33 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 38 70 of 47 79 1 2 required for all uses on the site. Dimensional standards for parking and off-street loading in 49.40.210 shall apply. 3 Bonus Points Needed Parking Reduction 4 Standard zoning Parking as required in 49.40 5 6 points 10% reduction 10 points 15% reduction 6 15 points 20% reduction 22 points 25% reduction 7 30 points 30% reduction 8 9 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption. 10 Adopted this ________ day of _______________________, 2020. 11 12 Beth A. Weldon, Mayor Attest: 13 14 15 Elizabeth J. McEwen, Municipal Clerk 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 34 of 34 Ord. 2020-XX  Packet Page 39 71 of 47 79 1 Presented by: The Manager 2 Introduced: 3 Drafted by: 4 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA 5 Serial No. 2020-XX 6 An Ordinance Amending the Land Use Code to Create the Auke Bay 7 Overlay District. 8 9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA: 10 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature 11 and shall become a part of the City and Borough of Juneau Municipal Code. 12 13 Section 4. Amendment of Chapter. 14 Chapter 70 is amended by adding a new article XIII to read: 15 16 ARTICLE XIII. AUKE BAY OVERLAY DISTRICT 17 49.70.1300 Purpose. 18 The purpose of the Auke Bay Overlay District is to implement the Auke Bay Area Plan 19 Vision through design standards and development bonuses that promote the creation of a 20 lively, village-like setting. Bonuses may be earned by providing a combination of design standards, site features and community improvements envisioned by the Auke Bay Area 21 Plan. 22 49.70.1310 Applicability. 23 Auke Bay Overlay District. This article applies only to parcels located within the Auke 24 Bay Overlay District as shown on the adopted map. 25 49.70.1320 Relationship to Existing Zoning.  Packet Page 40 72 of 47 79 If a developer chooses to earn bonus points, a minimum of 10 percent of bonus points must 1 be earned by providing design standards. Bonus points may be used to increase density, increase building height, or reduce minimum parking requirements. All other 2 requirements of the underlying zoning district apply. 3 49.70.1330 Auke Bay Overlay District Procedure. 4 (a) Auke Bay Overlay District Permit. The commission shall hear all applications 5 pursuant to this article. 6 (b) Pre-application Conference. Prior to submission of an application, the developer shall meet with the director for the purpose of discussing the site, the proposed development 7 activity including design standards, site features and/or community improvements that will be incorporated and how bonus points will be used. 8 9 (c) Application. The developer shall submit to the director one copy of the completed permit application together with all supporting materials and the permit fee. A 10 developer that applies for a bonus, must show the nature and extent of such bonuses in the Auke Bay Overlay District application. 11 (d) Director's review procedure. 12 (1) The director shall endeavor to determine whether the application accurately reflects the developer’s intentions; shall advise the developer whether or not the 13 application is acceptable; and, if it is not, shall advise what corrective action may be 14 taken. 15 (2) After accepting the application, the director shall schedule it for a hearing before the commission and shall give notice to the developer and the public in accordance 16 with section 49.15.230. 17 (3) The director shall forward the application to the commission together with a report setting forth the director's recommendation for approval or denial, with or 18 without conditions together with the reasons therefore. 19 (4) Copies of the application or the relevant portions thereof shall be transmitted to 20 interested agencies as specified on a list maintained by the director for that purpose. Referral agencies shall be invited to respond within 15 days unless an extension is 21 requested and granted in writing for good cause by the director. 22 (5) Even if the proposed development complies with all the requirements of this title and all recommended conditions of approval, the director may nonetheless 23 recommend denial of the application if it is found that the development: (A) Will materially endanger the public health or safety; 24 (B) Will substantially decrease the value of or be out of harmony with 25 property in the neighboring area; or (C) Will not be in general conformity with the comprehensive plan. (e) Review of director's determinations.  Packet Page 41 73 of 47 79 (1) At the hearing on the Auke Bay Overlay District permit, the commission shall 1 review the director's report to consider: (A) Whether the proposed development is appropriate according to the 2 comprehensive plan, Auke Bay Area Plan, or other official adopted plan; 3 (B) Whether the application is complete; and (C) Whether the development as proposed will comply with the other 4 requirements of this title. 5 (2) The commission shall adopt the director's determination on each item set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection (e) unless it finds, by a preponderance of the 6 evidence, that the director's determination was in error, and states its reasoning for each finding with particularity. 7 (f) Commission determinations. Even if the commission adopts the director's 8 determinations pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, it may nonetheless deny or 9 condition the permit if it concludes, based upon its own independent review of the information submitted at the hearing, that the development will more probably than not: 10 (1) Materially endanger the public health or safety; (2) Substantially be out of harmony with property in the neighboring area; or 11 (3) Lack general conformity with the comprehensive plan. 12 49.70.1340 Auke Bay Overlay District Standards. 13 Bonus points may be awarded for site features and design features that were existing on 14 the date this ordinance was adopted. 15 16 (a) Community Improvements 17 (1) Platting new public rights-of-way. A development that includes the dedication of private land for the future development of a publically maintained connected street 18 grid system is eligible for the following bonus points. 19 Linear feet of Standard Points 20 public right Earned of way 21 3 feet All platted public rights-of-way shall be 1 point 22 consistent with the public right-of-way (a minimum of width standard for streets other than 23 25 ft. must be arterials and connectors, as found in 24 platted) Chapter 49.35. 25  Packet Page 42 74 of 47 79 (2) Providing public parking on private property. A minimum of 12 parking spaces 1 must be provided. The public parking spaces are in addition to the minimum parking required for the lot. The public parking area shall be paved, the parking spaces shall 2 be striped, and a public parking sign must be installed and clearly visible from 3 abutting public rights-of-way. The property owner will retain ownership of the lot and is responsible for all maintenance of the parking area. The owner may charge 4 reasonable fees for use of the parking area. 5 Parking Standard Points Earned Spaces 6 Provided 12 or more Bonus points may be earned for 1 point per space, 7 public parking providing 12 or twelve and above more spaces. 8 9 10 (3) Mixed use structures. Mixed use structures are intended to encourage structures 11 that combine medium- to high-density residential uses with compatible commercial uses on a single site and within the same structure. 12 13 Residential/Commercial Points Earned floor area ratio 14 1:1 8 points 2:1 12 points (16 points for zoning districts with 15 height restrictions of 35 feet including maximum height with bonuses ) 16 3:1 16 points (24 points for zoning districts with height restrictions of 45 feet including 17 maximum height with bonuses) 18 4:1 24 points 19 (4) Building Design Standards. Building design standards are intended to 20 encourage the inclusion of specific design standards within new development, and additions or exterior improvements to existing structures. The building design 21 standards represent the vision of future development in the Auke Bay Center, as identified in the Auke Bay Area Plan. A minimum of 10 percent of all bonus points 22 earned must be earned from meeting design standards. 23 Design Standards Points Earned 24 Welcoming street facing Windows and building 3 points for every 20% building facades entrances comprise at least transparency 25 20% of the ground floor wall area for all non- residential uses. Street facing façade windows  Packet Page 43 75 of 47 79 shall be no more than 4 1 feet above finished grade. Windows and doors shall 2 consist of clear glass. 3 Ground level entrances Entryways shall be 3 points for each entryway designed to orient 4 customers with attractive architectural features, such 5 as a recessed entryway, pedestrian oriented 6 lighting, and weather protection. Each public 7 entrance shall be clearly 8 defined and highly visible. Canopies provided for Canopies shall span the 1 point for every 5 ft. of 9 public right-of-ways and entire frontage of the canopy improved pedestrian building and shall meet 10 walkways CBJ canopy standards. 11 (5) Site Features. Site features are intended to encourage the installation of features that 12 promote pedestrian safety and create interesting and inviting outdoor spaces. 13 Site Feature Standard Points Earned 14 Pedestrian walkways Pedestrian walkways shall 1 points per 10 feet of provide a direct route from walkway 15 a right-of-way or parking area to the building’s main 16 entrance, as determined by the director; be a 17 minimum of 5 feet wide; 18 be separated from a parking area or right-of- 19 way with landscaping or a raised surface of at least 6 20 inches; consist of a walking surface other 21 than dirt or gravel; connect to a pedestrian 22 walkway on an abutting lot when possible 23 Covered bike rack Bike rack(s) shall be 1 point per bike rack 24 installed near a building’s ground level entrance; 25 have a minimum capacity of four bikes. Bike racks shall be covered and shall be compatible with a U  Packet Page 44 76 of 47 79 lock, as recommended in 1 the Juneau Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. 2 3 4 Outdoor seating Outdoor seating shall 1 point per bench or table 5 consist of at least one bench that seats at least 4 6 people or one table that 7 seats at least four people; be secured to the ground 8 or building; and be provided at a minimum 9 during the summer months 10 Outdoor Planters or Outdoor planters or 1 point for every quarter Landscaping landscaping shall span a of the building façade with 11 minimum of 25 percent of planters or landscaping 12 the building right-of-way facing façade(s); contain 13 live, non-invasive plant(s); be designed and located in 14 a manner that does not interfere with site 15 distance from public right- of-ways or pedestrian 16 walkways, as determined 17 by the commission 18 (6) Screening. Screening is intended to preserve and enhance the aesthetic value of 19 Auke Bay by minimizing views of specific parts of properties or structures from streets, pedestrian walkways, or abutting properties when the specific part(s) of 20 property or structure are located within 30 feet of a property line, public rights-of- way, or pedestrian walkways. 21 22 Structures to be Standard Points Earned 23 screened Above-ground parking lots Screening shall be four 3 points per parking lot 24 feet tall and shall consist of sight obscuring 25 landscaping or a sight obscuring fence or wall. Parking areas do not need to be screened from  Packet Page 45 77 of 47 79 pedestrian walkways that 1 intersect the parking area. 2 Recycle and trash Screening shall be as tall 1 point each receptacles; above-ground as the structure or object 3 oil, gas, water or wood being screened; shall pellet storage containers; consist of sight obscuring 4 freestanding utility, landscaping, a sight mechanical and electrical obscuring fence or wall, 5 boxes murals or other forms of public art, or other 6 methods that meet the 7 purpose of this section, as determined by the 8 commission 9 (7) Preserving views of Auke Bay and Statter Harbor. Preservation of the view is 10 intended to protect the aesthetic value of private property by encouraging developers of structures greater than two stories in height to preserve the view(s) of Auke Bay 11 and Statter Harbor from abutting properties, as determined by the planning 12 commission. Building Stepback Points Earned 13 Reduction of the upper 1 point for every 3% 14 floor footprint in relation reduction to the ground floor. 15 16 17 49.70.1350 Using Bonus Points 18 (a) General. Despite the other provisions of this title, a bonus may be granted as described in this section. 19 (b) Density Bonus. The allowable density of dwelling units per acre may be increased 20 based on bonus points earned. Density increase shall be rounded to the nearest whole number 21 Bonus Points NC MU3 WC 22 Needed Standard Zoning 15 units per acre 30 units per 18 units per 23 acre acre 8 points 17 units per acre 35 units per 21 units per 24 acre acre 16 points 19 units per acre 38 units per 24 units per 25 acre acre 24 points 21 units per acre 42 units per 27 units per acre acre  Packet Page 46 78 of 47 79 32 points 25 units per acre 50 units per 30 units per 1 acre acre 2 (c) Height Bonus. Bonus points for increased height are not allowed in the Waterfront 3 Commercial zoning district. 4 Bonus Points Needed NC MU3 5 Principle / accessory height limit Standard zoning 35’ / 25’ 35’ / 25’ 6 6 points 45’ / 35’ 45’ / 35’ 7 12 points 55’ / 45’ 8 (d) Reduce minimum parking requirements. The maximum allowed parking reduction in the Auke Bay Overlay District is 30 percent of the total number of parking spaces 9 required for all uses on the site. Dimensional standards for parking and off-street loading in 49.40.210 shall apply. 10 Bonus Points Needed Parking Reduction 11 Standard zoning Parking as required in 49.40 12 6 points 10% reduction 10 points 15% reduction 13 15 points 20% reduction 22 points 25% reduction 14 30 points 30% reduction 15 16 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption. 17 Adopted this ________ day of _______________________, 2020. 18 19 Beth A. Weldon, Mayor Attest: 20 21 22 Elizabeth J. McEwen, Municipal Clerk 23 24 25  D Comprehensive Plan Boundary /PU ~ --------- Proposed Zones MU3 • Mixed Use NC - Neighborhood Commercial ULDR RLDR Auke Lake N Overlay District Boundary W+E s 0 250 500