Petersburg Borough: Planning Commission Meeting 8.11.2026

Okay, um, I'll call the meeting to order. Uh, would you please do the roll call? Heather? Here. Jim?

Sarah? Here. Joshua? Joshua said he wouldn't be able to make it.

Micah? Here. Thomas? Here. Chris?

Here.

All right, do we have any amendments to the agenda for today's meeting?

Um, Liz, we have questions about if we wanted to make comments to the Borough Assembly concerning a previous decision we made that's been appealed to them. Uh, would that be something that we would discuss under Commissioner comments or staff comments? Commissioner comments. What? Commissioner comments.

Okay, I just want to make sure I had it in the right spot. Yeah. Okay.

Are you adding that to the agenda? Yeah, let's, let's go ahead and add that to the agenda. Comments to the assembly. Comments to the assembly concerning a decision we've made.

All right, do we have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Is there a motion to amend? We said, uh, approve as amended. Is there a motion to—. We didn't amend. You're right, so we should have done an amendment.

I, I will do the little housekeeping, so I'll move to amend. Okay, second. All in favor? Aye. Now let's do the—.

Okay, yeah, motion is amended. Motion: I move to approve the agenda as amended.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, do we have any amendments to the minutes from the previous meeting?

Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Do you have any public comments that are unrelated to today's agenda items?

Please state your name. My name is Kirsten Dupree, and I'm speaking for myself. I was looking at this cell tower overlay, and I don't know. If there's any voting or anything that goes on, if it's right next to your property or on your property or anything like that. But I was looking at it last night and it's less than 1,500 feet from our property out by Seven Mile, um, one of them is.

And then it's on my sister's property and it Part of it extends almost to where their home is, and that's Olson's out at Three Mile on the, on the mountainside. What, what does a person do when that's going on? I mean, that means— I assume that means that somebody could put a tower right there.

Is that right? This, this overlay would give those areas a by-right use that they could put a tower within those areas. This is just a proposed map, so the idea is to get, get it to the point where we can have public comment on it at that point and then make a decision. So these are just areas that would be potential good locations, we think, but again, we need feedback from the community at that point. So what you're doing now is very helpful.

Okay, so I've passed it on, um, that— I mean, I was just really surprised to see I don't see that being right next to a home on her— ours, it's 1,500, almost 1,500 feet, one edge of it from ours. But considering that I'm one of those people that felt that 1,500 feet should be the limit, um, that's why I wanted to speak to it. So I'm wondering if maybe that was because— is the area that your sister lives zoned industrial? Maybe it's possible, but there's still a home there. True, true.

I just— I was just giving a reason why maybe the overlay had started there. It's very possible. Okay, I think that was the point was we looked at the maps and kind of drew things up. We were looking for industrial property that was farther away from where the residential places are. So that's why it was proposed, but nobody really looked into the detail where they're— where a home is or anything else at that point, because there's homes on industrial.

So am I right in thinking though that if you are a property owner with property in the overlay, you can just say no thank you. And not, and not sell or lease to a tower. Okay, you're within the overlay. It's your right as a property owner to say, yeah, because they still have to purchase or lease the property to put the tower on. So how about, like, say in her case where it's 15, where she says no, and but they say, well, I can do it right outside your property line.

Well, yeah, so the process that we're undergoing now is exactly— we're hoping for people to come in and do exactly what you're doing and say, hey, I see you've designated this. It's a little close, and can you back up the overlay and not put it where you have it. And so that's, that's a very helpful comment you're making. Has this been in the newspaper? No, not yet.

It's too early. Yeah, we're just, just getting kind of the, uh, what the language is going to be and then the locations, and then we put it out and say, okay, we want comment on this, and then we can adjust as needed. Okay, so, all right, thank you. I wonder when that goes out if we can give a little instruction manual for people, because this is a whole new thing we're learning as we go. The public doesn't know know how to voice concerns or have input, or even that this is even going on.

Yeah, right. No, I mean, hope— my understanding is that once this gets—. Once this goes to a public hearing item, then they'll get the notice. There'll be notices put out at that point, but we're kind of in the early discussions of like, okay, where would be good potential locations for this? So having people come in and say, I see you're considering this, I don't want this to be considered, is a great thing do.

There is one person online that would like to speak.

Okay. Hi, can everybody hear me? Yes. Okay, my name is Mary Evans, and I have a— I'm speaking for myself, and I have a question and concern for the Planning Commission about the data center. Um, I'm asking the Planning Commission to pause this process and allow time for meaningful due diligence and community discussion before Petersburg establishes a precedent that may be very difficult to reverse.

Um, public understanding of the long-term impacts of data center development is in its infancy right now. Communities across the country are right now grappling with questions about electricity demand, noise, heat, water, chemical use. Battery safety, land use, and cumulative effects of allowing these facilities to expand. And we don't yet know enough about this particular Greenspark project to confidently say that all of those risks are insignificant. The proposed facility could ultimately consume the 2 megawatts of electricity continuously, 24 hours a day, 365.

That's 16 times more power than Ocean Beauty used. But the borough itself has stated that additional capacity requests will be considered, meaning that there's not presently any sort of data center-specific growth restriction in place. And I'm of the opinion that we need appropriate limits and safeguards in place before, not after, this project is greenlit and a precedent is established. The potential long-term impacts deserve more consideration than simply comparing the project to a projected $62 utility bill savings 10 years from now. This is a decision that could affect Petersburg forever., and we should have the opportunity as a community to understand the consequences fully before making it.

Um, a recent Gallup poll showed that 71% of Americans do not want a data center in their community. This is a number that should substantiate a community, community discussion, even though this is happening on private land. And instead, I— it feels as though this decision is being made for the community because the project, the Project is proposed on private property, and I understand the private— that private property matters, but zoning exists precisely because private land use can affect surrounding property in the broader community. And so I came here with 7 points, but I'm just going to distill it down to my biggest 2 questions. Um, and the number 1 goes to the Title IX zoning, 1944-020.

Where— let me see here. I don't see where a data center fits within the specific permitted use category under this code. I see docks and wharves, transportation and shipment, warehouses and storage, marinas and boat storage, lumber mills and log storage, fish processing, manufacturing, fabricating, assemblage and storage, required essential services, junkyards. Caretaker dwellings, quarry, and, um, borrow operations. And I'm curious, my question for the Commission is, under what specific subsection is a data center permitted a principal use on this parcel?

Liz, I haven't actually looked at anything because I haven't had anything to look at and respond to, so It's— I get my understanding is generally all uses, unless they're specifically prohibited, are allowed in industrial. And that's the way that the code has been interpreted. So that's probably just sort of off the cuff here. It's kind of like why, why we are bringing up the data center ordinance is so there is some guidelines for what is allowed and what is not allowed as far as data centers. That's the whole reason to discuss it now, because if there's nothing in place, then if somebody wants to put one on industrial property, there's nothing to stop them.

So this is why we want to discuss it now, is so that there are guidelines and, uh, um, uh, rules concerning data centers in our community. So, right, that's kind of what we're talking about at this point. Okay, that's— I mean, that's, that's good. I guess I just, I bring this up because in further in Title 19 says in 19-56010 that no building or land use shall be used or occupied for any use unless such use is in conformity with the regulations specified in this title. So that to me doesn't mean— like, by the way, the language in the code does not to me say that any commercial use is allowed.

And I'm just going to move on to my biggest point here, and that regards the marine industrial overlay. The borough's FAQ about the data center states that the 2025 Marine Industrial Overlay does not apply to this parcel because it's privately owned. But the Marine Industrial Overlay ordinance itself does not appear to state that the overlay applies only to borough-owned property. Um, it describes the overlay as applying to the areas shown on the official zoning maps. And if the stated purpose of the MIO is to protect the finite economic resources of marine waterfront and to shield the maritime economy for incompatible uses while reserving waterfront land for water-dependent marine industrial uses, that policy seems directly relevant to a proposal for a non-water-dependent 24/7 computing facility on waterfront industrial property.

And so I'm curious if the borough can show us the official maritime industrial overlay map and identify whether the exact Mazzella parcel is inside or outside of the boundary.

Liz, can you answer that? Yep, the zoning map is on the map viewer. You just have to turn on zoning or click on the parcel. It'll tell you what the zoning is. If it's in the marine industrial layer, it'll say that it's in the marine industrial layer.

The mean industrial layer was created and put on property that is either owned by the borough and leased out to private leaseholders, or was at one time until it was recently sold off by the borough. As some of you may recall, there was an attempt, I want to say, 10, 9 years ago to establish marine industrial waterfront, and it was soundly rejected by the community on, on private land. And so that never moved forward.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. I guess that answers my next question of what the planning rationale was for excluding privately owned waterfront.

Um, okay, um, let's see here.

Okay. Another big question is just about the potential full capacity of what this buildout is going to be. And I'm curious if it is the 1 megawatt or the 2 megawatt that is being proposed right now. Like, what is the application that you guys have in front of you from Greenspark? Is it for Is the build-out for the 1 megawatt or with plans for 2, or do you have the application for the 2-megawatt build-out?

So we don't actually have an application before us, um, that, uh, the private company, um, kind of had a conversation with Power and Light Utilities and they notified the community through the borough assembly. Um, so what's before the planning commission, we're trying to put together a data center regulation. So we don't have an application from Greenspark before us. Okay, okay, that's good to know. Um, okay, let's see.

That, I mean, that's, that is kind of my main concern here is just, and I, I see that somebody submitted, um, a proposed ordinance, and I'm glad to hear that there's discussion happening within the borough of putting safeguards in place. Um, I'm curious about, um, if there's going to be any sort of public comment period in regards to— just in regards to those safeguards and like what the community wants. Because again, I understand that this is on private property, but I think that this has the potential without extreme due diligence and extreme safeguarding to really negatively affect Petersburg for forever. And, um, it also seems that the law is not keeping up with how fast this technology is emerging. And I just— my worry is that we are being we're in the position to be taken advantage of.

And, um, I just think that, um, the community deserves a discussion and a say and some agency in whether this is a future that they want. Um, this is why we have it on the agenda for us to discuss and get a framework put together for amending Title 19. Uh, and then once we get to, uh, something generally put together, then it'll be open for public hearing and public testimony at that point. So it will be coming up. So that's kind of where, where we are, but we're, we're trying to start the ball rolling on this.

So, okay, um, thank you for that response. I, again, this was my main concern. My understanding of this being on private property was that my worry was that there was not going to be any community input. And so I'm glad to hear that this is just the beginning, and I will keep a lookout for these future discussions. So I think that is all I have.

So thank you very much. Thank you.

Any additional public comments?

That was great testimony. Um, my name is Becky Knight, and I am also here to speak on the data center ordinance. Um, I realize that some of what I have to say may not be what the PMZ is authorized to consider, but I'm going to say it anyway. Anytime new tech infrastructure is introduced adds to the probability that personal privacy will be eroded. It's all about total information awareness.

As a coincidence, today I received a letter from a company I've never heard of that there was a data breach regarding my private records. They wrote that, quote, an unauthorized third party accessed one of our AWS environments, whatever that is, and claimed to have exfiltrated data from databases within that environment. I wager that just about every resident of Petersburg has, has received similar multiple notifications through the years. These data breaches are absolutely unacceptable and should not be the accepted cost of technological use. Our data and our privacy are clearly not protected.

In fact, the purpose of 5G and 6G cell towers co-located with data centers are to acquire, store, analyze, and distribute personal data for purposes antithetical to the constitutional rights of Alaska citizens. With all that in my mind, my first request is number one, that you authorize a moratorium on all such centers until at least our community can develop policies on them. Second, I request that the Petersburg Borough consider and conform with the State of Alaska Constitution and the Governor's Administrative Order Number 325, under the authority of the Alaska Constitution Article 3, Section 1, 16, and 24, which ordered state agencies to take actions to protect the sovereign authority of the state of Alaska and guard the constitutional rights of the individual Alaskans from federal overreach. I realize we're not federal, so perhaps this doesn't apply, but I think it does. Specifically, Article I, Section 22 guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and other property, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Shall not be violated. Article 1, Section 14 of Fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section. The Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 22. The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but the United States Supreme Court has recognized time and time again Several constitutional amendments that create this right, including the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Administrative Order Number 325 directs state agencies: If a federal agency proposes an action that may violate the Alaska or U.S. Constitution, the agents, commissioners shall immediately inform the Attorney General for the State of Alaska and seek legal advice as to how to proceed. The Petersburg Borough Assembly is obligated to take these matters into— and I'll say the Petersburg Borough is obligated to take these matters to the Supreme Court before taking any further action or on any current or future siting of cell towers or data centers. As I understand, the proposed data center is not exempt from conformance with the Alaska Constitution. Therefore, the Petersburg Borough must take these matters to the Supreme Court like I said. Also, I request that you consider— and this is pretty innovative, but I think pretty smart— that you consider the European Union's GDPR, namely the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679.

It sets out the general rules for the collection, use, and any other activity collectively called processing performed on personal data. The latter is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person and includes such data as telephone numbers, bank account information, national identification numbers, online identifiers, location data, personal preferences, shopping behavior, health data, or public opinions. The GDPR grants natural persons also known as data subjects, certain rights with regards to their personal data, such as the right to access one's personal data. Companies must respond to such rights. Failing to meet the requirements of the GDPR can lead to fines of up to £20 million or 4% of an entity or group of entities' global turnover.

It can also give rise to claims and class actions by data subjects. And lastly, I wrote this before you gave a little information there, but I would like to ask for update on where in the approval process is the proposed Greenspark Data Surveillance Center. And from what I think you said, Sarah, was that it's— you've just received an application. Oh, there's more than that. I, I don't— we have received nothing.

Planning Commission, we the Planning Commission have received nothing. Okay. Um, I know that Power and Light had a conversation with Greenspark, but I only know that from listening to assembly meetings. Okay. OK, so maybe, maybe we can get some more information from Liz Cabrera.

Our bureau communications with the developers subject to nondisclosure agreements. As all the required permitting been completed, I think it sounds like it's in progress, and if approved, will the proposed facility be somehow exempt from this ordinance? So plenty more to say. I'll stop there. Thank you.

My understanding is if there is a facility in place before we get regulations in, it would be— it would not be subject to regulations that come after it. So if they beat us to the finish line, then they would not— we would not be able to regulate things that are already in place.

That's my understanding of grandfathering. Um, thank you for your—.

State your name.

Hi, my name is David Beebe, speaking on behalf of myself. I'd like to reflect on the passing of the telecom tower ordinance. And after 9 months of public testimony, the, the elected representatives cannot presume plausible deniability, but there is certainly an information asymmetry associated with these highly technical subjects as cell towers and data centers are being— unprecedented speeds imposed on us without us understanding what is going on. And I would highly recommend that we all do our due diligence, especially as elected representatives, to understand what are the consequences of going from 4G to 5G and soon to 6G. This is absolutely critical in understanding what is now about to be testified to.

So way back in 1972, at the so-called dawn of the information age, Alaskans foresaw its inevitable consequences and passed an amendment to Alaska's Constitution. That amendment was to expressly establish our rights to privacy. So what are the legal and ethical consequences of elected representatives passing ordinances allowing for massive build-out of Tidal Network GCI telecom towers in addition to what already exists? I ask because these technologies are serving for the express purposes of updating to the latest 5G and 6G technologies, which include comprehensive surveillance systems on the citizen taxpayers of the Petersburg Borough. Why is this not in violation of oaths of office to support and defend the Alaska Constitution, Article I, Section 22, expressly stipulating Alaska's rights to privacy?

Why is this not a constitutional and states' rights crisis? Governor Dunleavy understood that a while back. There is a perfectly logical reason, of course, why the boroughs bummed rush to approve Title Network, quote, "because it was legal," and quote, "because besides the fact that questions of states' rights embedded in state constitutions are really about the for the purposes of protecting state sovereignty. And as far as the Alaska Supreme Court, really needs to be adjudicating this. And I deeply, deeply regret the assembly jumped to conclusions that this was not a point at which this should be brought and rather than surrendering our sovereignty on the basis of what was clearly a rigged game, legislative game, and it deals with basically legalized bribery of elected individuals based on Supreme Court decisions.

But the Supreme Court also upheld all of those amendments of our Bill of Rights, which didn't expressly— in the U.S. Constitution didn't expressly say this, but fortunately Alaska did.

And I really hope that we have a second opinion, apparently, in regards to what the legal disposition of this fork in the road has resulted in, because it may result in annulment of that, that entire ordinance because of these considerations that were not brought to the fore. Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional public comments?

Okay, we have nothing on the consent calendar, uh, this month. So moving on to public hearing items. Consideration of an application from Wes Davis and Ken Howard for a minor subdivision at 1004 and 1006 North Nordic Drive. Do we have any public testimony?

Hearing none, do we have a motion? I move to approve Resolution 2026-801 recommending approval of the Davis Howard subdivision minor subdivision replat, creating Lot 2A and Lot 2B, Block 82, U.S. Survey 1252, subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution.

I second it. Discussion?

So I think this is a pretty minor adjustment. It's pretty straightforward. I haven't seen anything, uh, in opposition to this, so I think this would be an easy one to pass. Question: do we have to amend it or say something about Power and municipal requesting utility easement. If there is aerial encroachment of a power line, is that already in the app— in what's before us, or do we have to add that as a condition?

It's already listed in the resolution. It's in there. Thank you. Thank you.

Any further comments, questions?

Would you please do the roll call? Sarah? Yes. Chris? Yes.

Micah? Yes. Heather? Yes. Thomas?

Yes.

Okay, moving on to a recommendation to the Borough Assembly regarding an application for a special use permit from Quito's LLC, DBA Quito's Public House, at 200 Chief John Lott Street. Do you have any public testimony?

Hearing none, do we have a motion? I move to recommend approval of draft Resolution 2026-XX to the Borough Assembly authorizing a special use permit to Quito's LLC for the ground landing of an exit stairway porch and wheelchair ramp within the Chief John Lott Street right-of-way. At 200 Chief John Lott Street, subject to the following conditions of approval.

Second, a second discussion. Uh, it's a housekeeping measure. From my understanding, um, it was a non-transferable special use permit when first approved in 1992. So as part of the sale, they need to get one themselves. So, um, I see no reason to deny it.

It's an existing use. I don't see a problem with it.

All right, please do the roll call. Thomas? Yes. Heather? Micah?

Yes. Chris? Yes. Sarah?

Yes. Okay, moving on. Consideration of an application from Aaron, uh, Aaron Bowler and Rachel Weld for variance from the front yard setback requirement at 705 Hogan Drive. Do you have any public testimony?

Aaron Bowler, owner of duplex on 705 Hogan Drive. Um, so we submitted a building permit quite a few months ago. It had different drawings on it where the stairs were on the side of the building. And we had— that was approved with a being 1 foot over the property line for the 20-foot setback. So, uh, we had changed the plans to move the stairs to the front of that deck to have access to the upstairs, because we realized that the steps going down the side of the garage would impede on the privacy of the other tenants.

So, um, and then if we were to put it on the other side of the garage, It would limit the access on the backside for that other unit where parking's at. So we moved it to the front and didn't realize we were that far over, and we are requesting a 7-foot relief. So, a 13-foot setback from the property to continue our deck build. So, I noticed in the, um, this resolution that they're looking to approve a 1-foot variance, but the new plans show that we need a 7-foot relief.

Thank you. I just wanted to clear up something. Yeah, there was a motion.

Yes, I move to approve Resolution 2026-803 to approve a variance reducing the 20— the required 20-foot front yard setback to allow construction of an attached second-story deck and stairs 13 feet from the property line at 705 Haugen Drive, with the condition that no parking allowed in front of the staircase that could encroach onto the sidewalk.

Second, second discussion. I really appreciate your testimony today. Our, um, Uh, what we've got— the paperwork we got here before us said that we needed a reason, that the applicant needed to demonstrate a need for that reduced setback. And I do believe that privacy of the neighbors makes a lot of sense. And you also have, um, that's supported by an email from one of your neighbors.

So to me, um, Allowing a second foot access with the staircases makes a lot of sense for fire reasons, but also having that be consistent with neighborhood privacy. I'm happy to approve that personally.

Further comments, questions? Yeah, so, you know, this is right on Haugen Drive, and there's not a whole lot of room between that structure and the sidewalk. And I just question, while looking at this with the materials provided, if 13 feet is enough room to maintain maintenance required item like poles or sewage or water or anything like that.

I just wanted to— having it on the side is completely gone because you say it would reduce the parking lot. And if we're talking about a 4-foot-wide stairwell, is that really going to affect parking that much that it's just not an option to put it on the side?

Side, and you've already taken down the fence and extended the parking lot on the right side of the duplex. So having a stairwell in front, uh, that's not going to be a pass-through for any traffic. Chairman, if you're going to have a back and forth, he needs to come to the podium. Please go to the microphone. Thank you.

Okay, our, our plan is to not—. State your name and your—. Sorry, Aaron Bowler, owner, 705 Hogan Drive. Um, so the plan is not have any parking in front of that stairwell. We're not planning on blocking any access from there.

We've already made the parking lot on the right side of the Hagen House big enough to have tenants park there, and we even put a driveway on A Street side. So, the tenants for apartment A have access on the left side, so where they're parking on the left side and access their apartments on the back side. So, the front side will, will be guaranteed that nobody be able to park there. If that's your concern. Well, my question was, if you were to, instead of put the stairwell in front between the house and Hogan Drive, put it on the side where your parking lot is, would that be taking too much room from the parking lot to make it not useful?

No, it wouldn't be taking up too much room. It'd be invading on the privacy of the other tenants. Oh, I see. Yeah, because there's totally different building. Yes.

Yeah, I see, because apartment A and B have 2 windows originally where we had the stairwell going down. That would impede on their privacy. And then on the opposite end, that's where parking is for apartment A and where they gain access around the backside of their, uh, their housing.

Any other questions? So I guess we just need to, you know, decide whether or not 13 feet is enough room between this structure.

And the sidewalk. Liz, was there any comments from any of the borough departments concerning easement, etc., if there was enough room?

That the— everything is on the applicant's property, so it doesn't extend into the right-of-way. Yeah, I just, just concerned if If there was any department that had any heartburn with this, we didn't get any feedback from them. Okay. Yeah, but, you know, you do need to update the findings in the resolution to show what the physical— exceptional physical circumstances on the property that requires a variance and also why the strict application results in a practical difficulty that requires a 7-foot variance.

So for Finding 1, that's the property's limited size constitutes an exceptional physical circumstance not generally applicable to other properties in zone. Um, so that would be the same. Um, um, I mean, I think that's, that still supports, uh, this 7-foot setback reduction, um, in my opinion, but I'm not, I'm not the department head. Um, but I, I think, um, my— I think where I'm mostly seeing an edit is in finding, um, 2, um, strict application of the setback requirement without the 7-foot allowance, um, would result in unnecessarily practical difficulty given the property's substandard dimensions and proximity to the neighbors' visual privacy. And then for Finding 3, um, this encroachment will not obstruct visibility, interfere with utilities, or create a hazard to neighboring properties or the public, and is I think that's still fine.

Finding 3, um, this, this encroachment, um, if anything, um, further does not obstruct visibility of the neighbors. It makes that condition stronger, in my opinion. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the neighbor is actually living on the property. It's not the neighbor next door. It's the other unit.

It's the other unit. That's right.

Well, I don't know. What do you guys think about the findings? I'm doing the best here.

I feel like because he's developed the access from the 8th Street, it shows that he's— can utilize that Haugen Drive access for entrance. 4 Stairs and deck to the apartment, and then it— I think these findings, I'm fine with them too, especially with that 8th Street access. Yeah, I think it seems fine as long as it's not like the main pass-through where there people are driving by the stairs. But I mean, he's done a lot of work to make that a much more cohesive flow for the— is it 2 or 3 units? Yeah, so I, I think it looks good and he's done the work.

What— I'm sorry, go ahead. I think we've satisfied the requirements. What persuaded me is, um, that this was possible in conjunction with the applicant's testimony is, um, the point 3 on page 31, um, the staff analysis that there's no anticipated issues If the 13-foot variance is granted, the condition should be applied. The applicant should ensure no parking is allowed in front of the staircase. I could encroach upon the sidewalk.

So, um, and that was repeated by the applicant in the second round of testimony that that's totally consistent with the new plan. So, that to me felt like the findings could be applied to this larger setback. Um, I don't know if that helps you, Director Cabrera, but that's, that's what my thought process was.

Uh, did you want to include that? Since it's not, it's not included in the resolution because the resolution didn't intend for that deck to be in the front. So if you want to include that because that makes it work for you, then you'd have to do that separately. Okay, do we need to do an amendment to the resolution? Or do we just— do I just verbalize that that is something the chair wants to do it?

I think we need to make an amendment so that there's— that the resolution that we're— okay, we're putting forward is appropriate because right now it's saying that a 1-foot allowance.

And multiple places in here, it says 1-foot setback encroachment. So we're going to need to amend all that anyway. So, um, I'm going to say this out loud before I propose it to make sure it's okay with every— that what— that it's making sense. So what I'm thinking of doing is 2 amendments. One is to change the 1-foot encroachment to 7-foot encroachment.

And then do a second amendment to add finding 3 about the, the 13-foot variance with the parking that I was verbalizing. Does that make sense? Okay, great. Okay, so I will move to amend Resolution 2026-803 to alter the references to 1-foot setback to 7-foot setback.

Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. And my second amendment would be to add finding 3.

This wording is not going to be perfect. There's a—. There's already a finding 3, so finding 4. Thank you. Finding 4.

Sure, finding 4.

The 7-foot encroachment, uh, would not be problematic if no parking is allowed in front of the staircase that could encroach onto the sidewalk.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Um, do we have a motion to approve as amended? So moved. Second. Roll call.

Sarah. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Chris.

Yes. Heather. Yes. Micah. Yes.

Consideration of an application from David Tynes for a minor subdivision at 20620, uh, 12 or 1206-1208 North Nordic Drive. Do you have any public testimony?

Hearing none, do we have a motion? I move to approve Resolution 2026-804 recommending approval of the Samuelson Matheny Subdivision, minor subdivision, re-plat, creating Lot 4A and Lot 5A, Block 83, US Survey 1252, subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution.

Second. I second. Discussion? This seems similarly straightforward as Item A.

So I'm in favor.

Yeah, I did, did that, and also I, I don't see anything where any opposition has been either stated or could be, could be an issue. So I think it's pretty straightforward.

All right, roll call please. Chris? Yes. Micah? Yes.

Thomas? Heather? Yes. Sarah? Yes.

Okay, moving on to non-agenda items, commissioner comments. Uh, we have the Communications Facility Overlay Ordinance.

Who wants to start? I appreciated that Mr. Pre came in and spoke about the parcels that were a few of the parcels that we're considering. That's definitely what we want people to be doing. So I'm fine with reducing the sizes of those parcels to give more of a setback to residences. I think we should do is, is we can leave the map the way it is for now, but say we want public testimony, have people show up, do it as a public hearing, and then we can make the adjustments at that time of what areas we want to block out.

Or if there— if people have suggestions of other areas that, uh, they would like to see in, you know, it's, you know, I think it's, it's worth the discussion. At that point, and that's probably the best time to do it all at once. So, yeah, my thought process, but I think we're at that spot now. Yeah, so it needs— if we're ready to move it up to, uh, into a public hearing, Liz, what do you think? What needs to be done?

Um, I have a question about this C2 and the way it's written. It says wireless communication facilities under the provisions of Chapter 1958. But 1958 is, you know, a whole conditional use process for wireless communication facilities, so I don't understand how it can be a permitted use and then reference back to— OK, the whole Chapter 1958. So the alternative to that is to use the entire definition. There's a long definition of What wireless communication facilities?

I mean, it— what I was intending was wireless communication facilities as defined by— in Chapter 19.58. I was intending to borrow that definition. There is a longer definition, a full paragraph, um, that we could substitute for that, that point. Um, we do. Defined in and then actually reference the actual— yeah, I can probably pull up the definition.

Yeah, that's what I was intending to use it as, a definition reference.

I can pull it up on my phone to give a— it'll take me a second, but I can find it, I'm sure. But that's— I'll do that if someone else wants to say their piece.

Comments? I was going to say too, also, this hasn't gone to the borough attorney yet, so—. Okay, so it needs to go to the borough attorney, and then we can— before we can schedule it. Okay, if she has any questions, I'll probably put it back as Under Commissioner comments or staff comments to address. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

And I don't know if you want to do the same thing for 3C3 as defined by— yes, I think there's a definition in there too, right? Um, I can't remember exactly, but there might be. I—. Or if that's—. I think that is the definition.

Okay. Um, But I, I've almost got it here.

Okay, so the definition, um, for wireless communication facility is, uh, 19.04.806. Wireless communication facility, WCF, means the set of equipment and network components including communication towers and affixed or adjacent antennas, accessory equipment, transmitters, base stations, power supplies, and cabling necessary or otherwise installed to provide wireless services, including cellular, mobile broadband, and fixed wireless internet services. This term does not include the non-commercial antennas and facilities used solely for the transmission of over-the-air broadcast radio or television signals, just for the record. And I'm gonna pull The C3, just to take a look at that.

Um, that was kind of more general, a tower that's not WCF.

So I mean, that's, that's exactly how they define it, a tower that is not a WCF. Um, so I think C3 is fine. Okay, great. But the borough attorney will correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay, so has anybody else got any other comments they want to add to this, or do you see anything else, Liz, that needs to be addressed?

I don't think so. I mean, I think things like essential facility requests would just be— fall under principal uses.

So I don't think we have an issue with that.

The next thing is to Um, send it to the borough attorney. Yep, I'll make this change and then send it to her. Okay, thank you.

Um, see here, now we have the data center ordinance. I have a proposal, yeah, that I would like to make. Um, uh, one of our gubernatorial candidates, Jonathan Christ Tompkins, one of his platform pieces is that he supports a data center moratorium for one year while we get our regulations together at the state level. And it got me thinking, why don't we just do that here? We couldn't do a moratorium for cell phone towers because that was explicitly preempted in the federal statute.

They say that you have to, you know, process a tower core request by 150 days. So that's not something we could do for a tower ordinance, but there's no reason we can't for a data center ordinance. So that's— I'm thinking, because the data center ordinance, I think, should be forward thinking because these are such, such new technology and it should be quite complicated. I know that Power and Light is working on it, but they haven't finished it yet, I don't believe. So what I support is, because I think a moratorium would be quite simple, um, it wouldn't take very much, it wouldn't be very complicated ordinance.

So I support, um, a total data center moratorium for 1 year, and by total I mean any data center of any size, for 1 year while we can get our regulations together. So that's, that's where my thought process is now, is that we should start with a moratorium and then continue working on this regulation.

Okay, Liz, how would we address that? So is that something that we can initiate to the borough assembly, or is that something the borough assembly would have to initiate?

Well, you can initiate amendments to Title 19.

I'm trying to think. We've never done moratorium per se that I remember.

Why I'm asking, so I think we can do it. It seems like zoning to me, but yeah, yeah, I mean, we certainly, I mean, we usually attack things from what's permitted, but then I guess you could just add a provision saying data centers are prohibited in all districts from this date to this date. Yeah, and then just have a sunset on it. That's my proposal. So it would be a standalone, and it would go in effect as soon as, as soon as we, we get it through.

I mean, I'm, I'm, I don't, we probably need to do it as an action item next time to vote to send it to the assembly. I think Maybe the way to phrase it would be to say that until a data center code is developed or a set sunset date. So we've got however, however long we feel that's going to need to occur. But you could have any code. Yeah, just repeal that.

That's part of the code, right? So if you adopted something else, you would just repeal that as part of the code. Part of. That makes sense. Yeah, we're not stuck with it if we don't want to be stuck with it, right?

Right. So that's, um, that's what I'm proposing be an action item for next month. Uh, you're gonna need to have code written, the language written, um, by today. Yeah, I think, I mean, my, the code that I'm proposing is one sentence. Long, but I probably need a definition of data center.

Huh, we can borrow it from the other draft. Yes, we have a different number, so I'm just—. I'm gonna do some out loud drafting here right now, but I'm just gonna look for what you have in your code here.

Yeah, I think the whereas defining data centers seems all right to me. I mean, I'm not an expert, but, um, I'm gonna think out loud here, but— or I'm gonna write it down first and then say it.

Okay, so it would be entitled Data Center Moratorium, an ordinance Banning data centers in Petersburg Borough. Data centers being defined as facilities that house computer servers for processing and storing data, either for a single enterprise or multiple enterprises, that serve as critical infrastructure for internet-based storage, complex software and language models, artificial intelligence, uh, parentheses, AI functions, and other computing needs. Computing needs for one— for a period of one year from the adoption of this ordinance.

This suggests it's prohibiting, not banning, and one year from the effective date. I love it.

And would be only Service Area 1, but you don't have to specify that, right?

Yeah. Um, is it all districts or is it any reference to Yes, yes, all different zones. In your, in your statement, did it reference any all districts, or are you just silent on that fact? Well, it's my intention to do all, all districts, including industrial. That was my intention in saying Petersburg Borough, but if you think a more specific language, all zoning districts in Petersburg Borough, I think that's not Petersburg Borough because It's, it's service area.

It's going to be service area ones, but you can just say all zoning districts because there's only zoning in Service Area 1, so that way all zoning districts. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But not everything is zoned, so. Well, what, what I want, I want to, I really want it to be as broad as possible because it's only for a year. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get to, but yeah, it's not easy.

No, I could have thought about it before this moment, but Mary Evans, thank you Mary, reminded me. Um, yeah, so if some properties would fall between the cracks because not everything is zoned, we should stipulate Service Area 1, all properties within Service Area 1, since not everything is zoned. Yeah, you could do all properties within Service Area 1. Thank you for the suggestion.

So I can reread this out loud. Or do you need that? We just—. We have the recording. Yeah, but if you want to read it out loud as you want it—.

Listening to the recording is hard enough, so I'll do it. I'll give it one more shot.

Um, data center moratorium, an ordinance permitting— prohibiting data centers in service in all properties of Service Area 1 for 1 year from the effective date of this ordinance. Data centers being defined as facilities that house computer servers for processing and storing data, either for a single enterprise or multiple enterprises, that serve as critical infrastructure for internet-based storage, complex software and language models, artificial intelligence— parentheses— AI functions, and other computing needs.

And I propose that we have that as an action item at our next meeting.

All right, moving on. We have, uh, comments to the borough assembly, um, concerning, uh, the res— or, uh, what was that, the subdivision? I'm gonna let you Oh, I—. My question being, um, at the last meeting, um, the motion wasn't seconded for the minor subdivision for Title Network for the parcel by the fire hall, and so they've appealed to the Borough Assembly, um, and to— for that to have that, um, be permitted to be able to subdivide to only to use that small section to put up their telecommunication tower. Um, my question being, um, we have listened to public testimony, we've worked on this.

Um, I would— my question was, is can we as a commission, because there's no public comment at that meeting about that topic for the appeal, as a commission, can we send something to the assembly supporting our decision and why we made that decision and encouraging them to uphold our decision. We can and we should. And that, that's why I'm asking is, can we put something together as a commission since it was unanimous? Liz, is there a good way to do that, uh, or do we just need to put together some sort of a letter and then send it on to them? Put together some kind of letter and send it on.

Do that at this time? I think we have to do it publicly if we're going to act as a body. Yeah.

So I do have some draft points that I was going to speak on if this came up for discussion, and I'll use that as why.

Stated that, uh, in the argument, um, to oppose the allowance of the subdivision change, um, it was a safety issue for me, uh, being that it's located right next door to our one and only fire hall. Um, there were safety issues came to mind, including icefall, structure failure, potential fire danger. Wind, snow, ice storms, they're common. Earthquakes, vandalism, inebriated drivers, you know, we get all that too. And having this, this tower erected right next to our fire hall with these additional risks, I was against allowing anything to jeopardize our one and only fire hall.

So I was going to make that argument, and, um, and with the argument, uh, there's some examples. Uh, the tower itself is, uh, a lattice communication tower with weak points in it so that if, uh, were to, um, go under stress, it would collapse. So this collapsible tower, uh, it would be built over top of a 200-gallon fuel source. I thought that was not a good idea, especially right next to our only fire hall. And I have evidence of, uh, of these high gusts.

Uh, it's a Palmer Tower, very similar to the one they propose. Uh, it snapped in peak gusts of 80 miles an hour. And, uh, and we have examples of that on this island where trees have snapped. You just go up to the Omer Creek there, and there's a big area there. So we have evidence that here we do have evidence of earthquakes.

They've been documented, and we have ice and snow buildup. We have evidence of that. We have buildings that have collapsed. We have roofs that have been, um, uh, doubled or collapse was imminent several times in the last 4 or 5 years. So That's an example used to justify that statement.

And falling ice, we all know ice builds, it falls, and that's a safety hazard for individuals coming to or from the fire hall in an emergency or not. So the last point was the fact that this tower would be built in such close proximity to the airport We have low-flying aircraft of different sizes, different skill sets, and of course our weather here is very challenging. So, of all the places around in Southeast Alaska, Petersburg's got to rank up there in the highest as far as having poor visibility and changing conditions. And also there's another aspect is emergency landings. Aircraft make emergency emergency landings all the time.

And it's just wherever, whatever closest airport they are. There's already a tower on Mill Road, putting one here, and then there's another one proposed behind Napa. It's like 3 towers people are going to have to fly around if they're, they're flying in uncertain conditions or emergency landings. So all these reasons are— I have written and we can just take that and add to it or subtract from it as a letter and just state it that way. Just, just put—.

I think that one of the difficult parts about this is we all, each of us, have different reasons why we didn't second it. I have a lot of reasons myself. But, um, I think safety is the only thing that we can really— safety and aesthetics are really the only things we can do. So I think airline safety is a, you know, perfectly good reason to put in a letter. Um, however, um, I think The statement that we made as a board that we didn't even consider the application is a pretty strong statement, and the assembly has heard public testimony just like we have for 9 months, and they've come to their conclusion.

We've come to ours. Um, so I, I'll put it this way, I find it really unlikely that they won't overturn it because they unanimously approved this tower purchase. Um, so I don't see— I don't consider it likely that they won't overturn it, but I think keeping it simple and saying, you know, the Planning Commission urges the assembly to not overturn our decision. Yeah, and just keeping it real simple. I agree.

And then individually, you know, writing in. I think I read that for this appeal process they are not going to allow public testimony, they'll allow written testimony. So on an individual basis, you know, with your letter, for example, Mr. Kowalski, if you submit that as an individual saying these are my individual reasons, and then that can supplement the board saying You know, please don't overturn our decision. I think that makes sense. Yeah, I think that we should just make the point that we've all put in just as much work on this issue, if not more than them, and we all need to kind of work together at some point and ask just— so I guess we just need a short, sweet paragraph that says, you know, We have to draft it here and now together in unison.

So, um, this is the Secretary. Okay, that's me. Okay, I am the Secretary. All right, you're right. Should we just, you know, Dear Petersburg Assembly, um, oh, hold on, I gotta find— you gotta find a spot.

Come out of my pocket here. I got a spot. You're right, and you're right, you're right. Okay, dear Borough Assembly. Okay, uh, we the Planning Commission, we as the United—.

No, I mean, we the planning, we want to be unanimous. We, we, we says that. Okay, respectfully ask our decision To not approve the minor subdivision by Title Network be upheld. Um, but we didn't actually—. We didn't—.

To not consider, not consider. Hold on, I got, I got only so many brain cells. Yeah, to not consider the minor subdivision.

Request. Application by Title Network.

L.

Say respectfully.

Request, and we can put unanimously at the end of the letter. Thank you. Yeah, um, I liked where you were going with, um, about how the hours that this body has spent considering testimony and thinking through the—. Yeah, we created an ordinance and it got shattered, and we've listened to testimony and we've worked really hard on this. With our community and for our community.

Yeah, so I think a sentence to that effect would not be out of place.

We didn't arrive at this decision lightly. It came after countless— listening to countless hours of testimony.

Um, community, okay, it— we to consider the non—. It would—. We came to this conclusion after countless hours of, um, collaboration over safety and aesthetic concerns.

Yeah, yeah, okay. I tried to, uh, address, um, concerns about the, uh, children's daycare being sandwiched between two towers and how the, uh, economic I didn't keep it simple, but just basically saying that we have lots of testimony over safety and aesthetic concerns, you know, economic. Yeah, microphone. Testimony about property values. Okay, I am going to read this out loud.

Okay, dear Petersburgh Borough Assembly, we, the Planning Commission, respectfully request that our decision to not consider the minor subdivision application by Title Network be upheld. We did not arrive at this decision lightly. We came to this conclusion after countless hours of community collaboration and in consideration of aesthetic, economic and safety concerns. Unanimously, Planning Commission. Sounds good.

Do we have a motion? I make a mo— I make a motion to send this letter to the Assembly on behalf of the Planning Commission. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Okay.

Staff comments. Liz, we have a meeting in October—. I mean, September 8th at noon, right here in the Assembly Chamber. Anybody have any idea if you're going to make it? I will be here.

I will be here. I'll be here. Okay, so we'll have a quorum. Sounds good. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.