Capital City Home Pagearrow City Government and Services arrowMinutes of Assembly MeetingsarrowFebruary 22, 1999


FEBRUARY 22, 1999

MEETING NO. 99-06: The Special Meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan.

  3. Assembly Present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Egan, Hagevig, and Muņoz

    Assembly Absent: Koelsch and Powell

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; John Corso, City Attorney; John Hartle, Assistant City Attorney; Cheryl Easterwood, CDD Director; Gary Gillette, CDD Planner

  5. MOTION - by Hagevig, to adopt the Consent Agenda, consisting of one item, and she asked unanimous consent that the ordinance be introduced and scheduled for public hearing at the next regular meeting. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    A. Ordinances for Introduction

    1. Ordinance No. 99-07


    Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and scheduled for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

    1. Landvik Appeal (USE98-00045): Proposed Decision and Parties’ Comments.
    2. Mayor Egan turned the gavel over to the presiding officer, Ms. Hagevig. Mr. Corso said the parties had raised a variety of concerns with respect to the proposed decision. Those concerns were summarized in his memorandum to the Assembly dated February 18th. He advised to consider the extent to which the Assembly should address the improvements required to the driveway encroaching on Gastineau and Ewing Way. He felt the proposed decision did not address those adequately and the parties had raised legitimate issues. Ms. Hagevig noted there was also the issues of costs. Mr. Corso said that if it was proposed that the bottom of Ewing Way be opened up, as proposed by the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA), that seemed a fairly substantial change to the area which would require some factual findings which the record does not provide. That would be a decision that must be made by the Assembly.

      Assembly Action

      MOTION – by Garrett, to thank Mr. Walsh for his time in the appeal, but deny the request for fees.

      Ms. Hagevig clarified that included the refund of the $250 filing fee. Mayor Egan clarified that meant the $4,250, not just the $4,000. Mr. MacKinnon did not have a problem denying the $4,000 because that was clearly not allowed under the code.

      Friendly Amendment – by MacKinnon, to exclude the $250.00.

      Mr. Garrett said the rational for not including it is that the purpose of a filing fee is to cover some basic administrative costs associated with the preparation and handling of an appeal. That filing fee does not even come close to covering the cost of handling an appeal. He suggested just getting rid of the fees if they were going to start handing them out. Mr. Garrett accepted the friendly amendment.

      Ms. Hagevig clarified that those in favor of accepting the amended amendment would deny reimbursement of costs of $4,000 and permit the $250 filing fee be refunded.


      Ayes: Kibby, MacKinnon, Muņoz, Garrett, Hagevig, and Mayor Egan

      Nays: Perkins

      Motion carries: 6:1

      Ms. Muņoz noted several issues in the DNA appeal about permit parking, rezoning of Gastineau Avenue and the opening of Ewing Way. She said there had been discussions on permit parking and she felt there was general support for that idea. She had not heard any discussion on the rezoning of Gastineau Avenue. The opening of Ewing Way was something that could be considered during the reconstruction of Gastineau Avenue. An alternate route would have to be found for the residents when that road is reconstructed. Ewing Way is one possibility and the other possibility is to open up Gastineau Avenue going down to Thane Road. That issue will be considered and solved as the reconstruction project progresses. Ms. Hagevig clarified she was not suggesting that any of those issues be dealt with tonight in the context of final resolution. Ms. Muņoz said she only wanted to give clarity to the DNA that there was support for the permit parking and that the discussion of rezoning had not been undertaken, and the opening of the ROW was very pertinent to the construction project. The developer asked for clarity on the improvements to the driveway and she did feel that or the parking garage issue should be clarified tonight.

      Mr. Garrett said that with regard to the issue of whether or not the developer can build a 17 unit parking space, and sign it so that only five units could be used, was not the Assembly’s intent. The intent was that they could construct the five unit parking space now and then, once the other conditions were met, the additional 12 spaces could be constructed.

      MOTION – by Garrett, that it be clearly stated that the parking lot can be for five spaces now, and the construction of the additional 12 spaces may only occur at the point and time that the other improvements occur.

      Ms. Muņoz said that condition no. 1 from the Planning Commission was that the driveway would need to be upgraded to a certain standard before any kind of commercial lot could go in there. She thought the Planning Commission was also seeking clarity on the Assembly’s decision. Ms. Hagevig clarified with respect to commercial spaces and not to spaces related to the residential component. Ms. Muņoz said it was in respect to the decision that was made by the Planning Commission to deny the request for an allowable use permit.

      Mr. Corso agreed with Ms. Muņoz that that was an essential issue as posed in his memo. There appeared to be general agreement that for now, the parking lot could be limited to five residential spaces. The question was whether or not Ewing Way needed to be improved to support those five spaces or whether the parking lot could be used with Ewing Way unimproved with a paved 20-foot wide driveway.

      Ms. Muņoz objected to the motion.


      Ayes: Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Egan, Garrett, and Hagevig

      Nays: Muņoz

      Motion carries 6:1

      Assembly Action

      MOTION – by Garrett, that some of the improvements to Ewing Way be made immediately, as it cannot remain the way that it is. But it should not be required to be improved to the level of pavement and curb and gutter because once Gastineau Avenue is changed, that will all be changed. The remaining full standard improvements will have to be done with the completion of Gastineau Avenue.

      Mr. MacKinnon asked if the developer would be on the hook to improve all of Ewing Way once Gastineau Avenue is done. Mr. Garrett said just the driveway access between Gastineau and the parking lot, which would essentially be a driveway, it just happens to fall in the ROW.

      Ms. Hagevig clarified that the lower part of Ewing Way would be further explored in the total reconstruction project.

      There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      Mr. Corso said that he would draft a final proposed decision for Ms. Hagevig’s signature. The parties would get to look at exactly what sort of criteria would be applied to the partial reconstruction and if it does not work, there would be a motion to reconsider.

      Mr. Kibby clarified with the second motion, that it is to be brought and built up to CBJ standards, excluding curb, gutter and paving.

    3. Downtown Neighborhood Association v. Planning Commission: Hearing on Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of the Variance for Parking on Gastineau Avenue (VAR98-00029).

Mr. MacKinnon was the presiding officer. He stated the appeal before the Assembly was the Downtown Neighborhood Association vs. Max Borges. The Appellant was represented by Myra Munson. The appellee was represented by Mr. John Hartle representing the Planning Commission and the intervenor was Max Borges. Mr. Borges had been represented by John Rice up to this point but he chose to speak of behalf of himself for this appeal.

The appellant was allowed 30 minutes, total time, to present their arguments. The appellees were allowed 30 minutes, total time, to present their arguments. Mr. MacKinnon stated that any questions by the Assembly would not count against the allowed time. The Assembly was given the opportunity to ask questions of each presenter. No witnesses were called in this proceeding.

Assemble Action

MOTION – by Egan, to recess into executive session.


6:32 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Garrett asked Mr. Corso if two motions were required since there was two variances. Mr. Corso advised to address the issues separately with two motions, although they would be contained in the same decision.

MOTION – by Garrett, on the issue of the variance for back in parking, that the Assembly grants the appeal.

Objection was noted.


Ayes: Muņoz

Nays: Kibby, Perkins, Egan, Garrett, Hagevig, and MacKinnon

Motion fails: 1:6

MOTION – by Garrett, on the variance with regard to distance from the place of business for off-site parking, to grant the appeal.

Objection was noted.


Ayes: Muņoz, and Garrett

Nays: Kibby, Perkins, Egan, Hagevig, and MacKinnon

Motion fails: 2:6

Mr. MacKinnon announced that the appeal on both cases had been denied. Mr. Corso was directed to draft findings. Mr. Garrett recommended following the arguments presented in the opposition brief.

  1. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.


Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan



Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk