Petersburg Borough: Planning Commission Meeting 7.14.2026

All right, meeting to order. Uh, would you please do a roll call? Chris? Here. Heather?

Here. Jim? Here. Sarah? Here.

Joshua?

Here. Can you hear me?

I can hear him on the laptop.

Yeah, yeah, for the record, I can hear you. Okay, um, we just have you on the laptop. You're not, um, you're not through the speaker in the room, so give us just a second here. I'm gonna put a microphone. I can hear you loud and clear.

I don't know what else to say beyond that. I know, we're gonna see. Um, Joshua, can you say here again? Here again.

Okay. Dang it, just not connected through. You have more of them.

That is true. Um, Do you guys feel comfortable having Anna relay Tom and Josh? Josh, I think so. It's both—. The only thing is conversation, right?

We don't really have a way of letting them discuss, right? No, not really.

Um, oh my gosh, would it work on, uh, if we put them on speakerphone, like through phone, not like through iPhone? Instead of having them through the—.

That might work.

Have you ever got— well, I was just thinking if we put it on speakerphone on a cell phone and hold it up to the microphone, that might work better than—. Maybe. Yeah, maybe.

Um, we can try that if these guys, uh, You can just mute their— here and call, and I can give you my phone if you want. Okay. And, uh, they can call my number and we can just put my phone on speaker. Okay. Okay, that'll work.

Okay, let's try that. Okay.

All right, be patient. Um, Joshua and Tom, um, we're going to have you call in on Liz's cell phone. Let me call them. Okay, she's going to call. I can conference them.

Slight, uh, technical difficulties here. I need their phone numbers.

Mine is 907-723-5866. Got it, thank you. And Tom? Mine is 907-660-7495.

Okay, I'm going to call you and then conference you, and then we'll put you on speakerphone, and then we'll, um, put you up to a microphone so that hopefully we can hear you. Okay. Okay, and then you might— you're going to need to mute your computers on that end so that it doesn't come through twice. Great, thank you.

Okay, here I am. Hi, let me, uh, see if I can add in another person.

Yeah, I can. Let me try and put you together, see if this works. Okay, hold on.

Okay, I have you both on. Hello?

Oh, okay. Yeah, I can hear you guys. Let me put you on speakerphone and then we'll try and see if this works.

Clever technique. Clever technique.

Okay, Joshua, can you say here again? Here. That's much better.

Do we start the roll call over, or should I just pick up where I—. M here.

Thomas here. Okay, um, do we have any amendments to the agenda for today's meeting?

Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? I have an amendment.

Go ahead, Thomas. I'd like to ask the discussion to, uh, discuss the possibility of creating ordinance to regulate data centers.

Okay, so where we put— where we would we put this? Under the commissioner comments on Yeah, okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, um, um, we have motion to approve the agenda as amended. So good.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Do we have any amendments to the, uh, minutes from the previous meeting?

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

Aye. Okay, do we have any public comments that are unrelated to agenda items for today's meetings?

Hearing none, we'll move on. We have on the consent calendar acceptance and scheduling of an application from Kido's LLC for a special use permit, uh, um, for the borough, uh, right-of-way for a landing porch and wheelchair ramp at 200 Chief John Locke Street. Um, your motion to accept this for the, uh, uh, next meeting? I move to accept and schedule an application for Kido's LLC for special use permit for use of a borough right-of- way for a landing porch and wheelchair ramp at 202 John Block Street. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, moving on to public hearing items. We have consideration of an application from, uh, Central Council, uh, Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska for minor subdivision at 1200 Pogon Drive.

Do we have any public testimony?

Um, yeah, step up, state your name.

Hello, my name is Nicole McLaren. I reside on Seenum Street, uh, adjacent to the lot in question. Um, and I've, I've come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, um, once before in person, submitted a letter in writing. And in regard to this, uh, this request, and I, I, I remain with many questions about it. Um, my— I have some base objections, uh, which have been quoted in the letter that I did submit, um, namely the precedent that it was set to turn, um, an open use zoning lot into basically what's a commercial entity and trying to solve a private— a private industry problem with public land.

I recognize that this would be technically owned by Pencahtayga Central Council. And so perhaps there are some government-to-government considerations there that are attempted to be taken into, into place.

My question, largely in line with the, with the way the ordinances are written out, if I understand properly, the uses permitted are, aside from the nice things like parks and things that we're definitely changing from, would be government buildings and quasi-uses.

And I don't see a cell tower as a government building. That seems— this seems like quite a stretch there, so I'm kind of failing to see how it fits in that permitted use. My second question would be, if it came under conditional use, then I believe then it would be subject to Commercial One limitations.

19.32.06, Which then limits construction to 3 stories or 35 feet. And I'm not sure if I'm following this quite correctly, um, but if I am, that then I'm so failing to see how a cell tower can be erected on that site.

And aside from— I mean, and I recognize that you folks have been, um, struggling with this. I mean, it's pushing on a year now, and, um, doing a lot of work with changing and creating ordinance that's adaptable. And it just kind of seems to me that if it's like this much trouble of like to get the puzzle piece to fit into the puzzle, it's not the right piece. And I'm, I, I'm struggling to see why we're working so hard to make this fit. It was the same question that I had when I first came before this entity, and that I've stated before your council, that I've stated at work sessions.

And when we just hear folks saying, hey, this is a bad idea, and we've got one entity saying, no, this is what we want to do. I'm at a loss.

I recognize that I've sort of bopped in and out. I have my own volunteer work that I do in the community. I don't see folks at the meetings for WAVE, but you're welcome anytime. But, you know, we've all got our things that we do, and I feel like I've done as much as I can do as an adjacent homeowner to state my opposition. And if it does not work to put a cell tower within our community, then it does not work.

And that we have to bend over backwards and give over, um, lands that are not really designated for such uses, I— for broadband within a 2.5-mile radius, and then build it and maybe they will come. Maybe other things can come. Maybe we'll budget in our system for emergency systems, you know, I don't know. But It just smacks to me like, like a bad idea. So I appreciate your hearing me, and I would like to see no vote on this consideration.

I wasn't going to talk. Becky, my community member, I'd like to, um, previous speaker said, and also say there are serious safety concerns about the location of the tower right next to the fire hall with 300 gallons of fuel right underneath it, which I just recently learned about. And also aesthetic concerns, they do count. And for the people that walk on the, um, that road often, next time You're, you're walking back there, take a look and see what that cell phone tower on Mill Road has done to the view of the Petersburg Creek area, which is beautiful wilderness area. But it really, it does matter.

It matters in our community. And I don't want our community to look like a porcupine of cell phone towers. So, and everything else concerned, and above all, privacy concerns are a huge issue, and I think that is probably the number one issue here. Thank you. Thank you.

I would like—. I have a comment. I'd like to follow up on Nicole McMurray's comment, and she here is on the land. I understand that Navajo Nation is federally recognized tribe. However, this is not really deliberations.

Can we wait till to handle this during deliberations, please? Oh, oh, sorry, I'm not there. I can't see.

Judy Elmer. I think since October I've, I've spoken at every assembly meeting and every planning and zoning meeting on the issue of cell towers, and now also the incoming plan for a data center. And I'm hoping that the discussion that you have here goes back to the safety of these aesthetics and the things even that we can't talk about in terms of making a decision about towers, like the health and the environment. We can talk about them, it just may not enter into what you can decide based on that. But the safety issues are huge.

You know, you talk to the childcare director and find out that, you know, they walk, they walk kids right by there. And you talk about a fall zone rather than the explosive setback. You know, that have been talked about before. There's some serious concerns. I would hope that in the discussions that you have at the end before you take your vote, hopefully you can do it that way, you know, that that kind of an issue can come up because fall zones are critical to the safety of the area.

And there's plenty to worry about. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public testimony? Hearing none, do we have a motion?

We move to approve Resolution Number 2026-0101 to subdivide a parcel to create a 10,036-square-foot lot at 1200 Ogden Drive.

Second. Move second.

We have no second.

Okay, so motion fails.

All right, moving on. Recommendation to a borough assembly regarding, uh, application to rezone borough-owned property from open space recreational to single-family mobile home in preparation for sale of Lots 26 and 27, Section 33, Township 58 South, Range 79 East. I move to recommend to the Borough Assembly that the application to rezone government Lots 26 and 27, T-580S, R-79E, Section 33, CRM Parcels 01-028 -100 and 01-028-150 from open space to single-family mobile home be approved with recommended conditions of approval. Second.

Um, you have any public testimony?

Hearing none, discussion?

Yes. So I asked Anna to distribute paperwork showing— I'll just read it— that our population has remained pretty static in the last 30 years. We did see a big uptick when we incorporated as a borough, which took in all of the out— by outsider folks. So where is there— where there is undoubtedly a need for housing, I feel like it's being met. I, I think with these developments that are already underway move forward, um, I, I think we're going to meet that, that requirement, um, given that the population isn't booming.

And given that we have Title 19 that says— that does have a zone for open space recreation, the purpose being to provide for land in natural state, to allow general access to lands while undeveloped, to allow public recreation opportunities, to protect any, uh, maintain fragile natural habitats. So I don't personally know of anyone from the Severson subdivision area that goes out there and cranberry picks, snowshoes, and goes cross-country skiing. But I know several that do from Mill Road. And since there are no homes along Mill Road, they're, you know, free to just access that and do all these wonderful things.

So when the Burrell— when Skylark Park bought lot GL lot 14 from the McGills, it was zoned open space recreational, which had remained that way until recently when it was rezoned for multi-family mobile home. Um, and that was a 217,800 square foot lot. Also, uh, 12,000— 217, excuse me, I meant to say 217,800 square foot lot, or the lot they bought from the Gales. Also, they bought, uh, for public benefit, um, lot GL21, which is also 217,800 square foot lot, which was rezoned away— both of these lots rezoned away from open space recreational, um, for the sake of a large development, which, you know, everyone agrees we need more housing. But I'm seeing all this open space recreational lands go away.

We're not having left. And, um, I noticed in their application they said they had no time frame, no specific design. And I know in the past we have required to see such things before we say, okay, yeah, let's, let's zone it, rezone it, let's sell it, and all this stuff. Um, so I personally would like to see it remain open space recreational. It is a zone.

We can sell land zoned. We can't sell unzoned land, is my understanding, but this sale could go through without us rezoning it. And, and I believe that under the circumstance that they were able to buy all that, all the lands that I've were open space recreational, as well as several lots that were single family. They said they could do their project with those lots, so I don't see how they need these lots to be rezoned for single family mobile home 2 to make the cost work out. Prior said they could do it with what they had purchased.

So I don't want to see all the open space recreational go away, especially when our population isn't growing by leaps and bounds.

Yeah, thank you. Excited, we do have one person online that has their hand raised. Would like to hear them.

Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Hear me? Um, try it again. Okay, I will try to speak, uh, in such a manner that you can hear me.

So I have concerns regarding this proposal. Sorry, I gotta stop you. It's just not coming clear enough through the speaker. Um, okay, would possibly typing work?

I'm sorry, um, typing your— oh, oh, I can copy and paste my, my comments. Shall I do that into the comments?

Um, that she could copy and paste in the comment here, or we can call her and do the same thing. We could do the same thing. I do have the background noise of the boat engine. Oh yeah, she's hearing background noise. Should we call— add her to that?

We're gonna add her to this. We're thinking about adding you to the call. Okay, we have a cell phone here that we have talking. Okay, I'll disconnect from here and go from there. Okay, you could just mute yourself on the Zoom.

See, that should work. Get her phone number. Donna, we'll also grab your phone number, please.

907-518-0144. Thank you. You're welcome. Let's see, trying to unmute.

If I can't— Hello, can you hear me?

Not through the phone. Not through the phone. Okay, I got you now. Yeah, so I'm gonna merge you in with the other two and hopefully that'll work. Okay.

Okay, Donna, hold on 1 second, then you're going to be good to go.

Okay, Donna, go ahead and try again. So regarding this rezoning from open space recreational to single-family mobile home, I do also have some concerns. It's 7.4 acres, 3.7 acres per parcel. Single-family mobile homes. So prior, the Assembly and the Commission have approved, uh, previous rezones of Lot 14 and Government Lot 21 for, uh, single-family mobile home census, plus this additional 7.4 acres for rezoning.

That would be a potential of those to be 5 at 8,500— parcels, that'd be 85 mobile homes. In the 2016 comprehensive plan, it suggested starter homes might be an option to provide affordable housing for first-time homebuyers, um, just manufactured homes, but also while avoiding overdeveloping housing for stable or declining populations. The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development recently put out their population Data, and then overall the state is declining 700,000 people overall.

Southeast is declining in particular, as well as Petersburg specifically. I think it was like 0.98% growth in 2024-2025, but it had a 3% decline for the previous 5 years. So I'm thinking we don't need a factory farm. And who knows what the future will hold. But industry that will support the growth, substantial growth, is down.

We have timber, mining, and commercial fencing. They're all down due to a number of factors. And unless there's a reversal on how these are managed, they will continue to decline. Well, timber and mining are probably just about nonexistent. Tourism has affected these three major industries dramatically, uh, by how things are legislated and mandated.

So by approving the rez-off, we will probably end up with surplus affordable housing and have growth allocated to the boroughs that would be— I think we're overshooting the mark here. I also appreciate the previous comment on putting so much of the space into development rather than green space that pedestrians, walkers, bikers, adventurers, kids access on year-round. So I hope you will use these thoughts in your deliberations. Thanks.

Thank you.

So when we were discussing this, this has been ongoing for a couple years. One of the things that was talked about, I remember the, the housing thing was discussed. One, we have a lot of old houses here. I mean, mine's been— mine was built in 1900. Uh, the person before me owned it.

Started remodeling. I've spent a lot of money trying to upkeep it myself. And then we have a lot of dilapidated housing here. You know, you drive down Parkin Street, you have to put a right in those trailers. You know, that's not what I would call living, in my personal opinion.

I've lived in places like that before. So I also mentioned that at the time when we first discussed this, there was no houses on the market less than 5 feet from my house. So that means, look how much it's gone up in just 7 years I've been here. And so what they're trying to do is create affordable housing. So it's not a matter of we have surplus of housing.

We don't have what I would consider reasonable housing for people to live. You know, a lot of people here live in trailers, single wides, whatever. I understand that now, you know, little houses is a, you know, growing trend, but that's because it's become so unaffordable for people to buy land to live. And as far as a developer, if you're building 2 houses, it's going to be a lot more expensive than buying— than building 10 houses. So I understand why, um, they want more space because it's going to distribute the cost.

Uh, and even since this started, look how much inflation's gone up with fuel price, timber, all that stuff. Everything is just going exponentially, and they're trying to create a dollar point to stay to. So I understand, I understand that we do still need housing, but I cannot get people to come. I, I've tried to— I have opening, I tried to get people from outside to come here, but there's no place for them to live. So there are other businesses in town— the hospital that was talked about it, um, the schools— they can't attract talent because there's no reasonable We are a little bit more understanding here in this community, but outside people, they come here, they're like, "I wouldn't live there.

I wouldn't live there." So we really have to think about that. Yes, you know what Donna said as far as fishing is harder. You don't have the timber industry anymore. We're having to rely more and more on tourism. You know, we can only accommodate so much because we don't have deep sea port.

So We have to do things to help. And we have families that are growing and they want to move out, but they have no place to buy. James talked about that, him and his wife having to buy a place. So I mean, this has been an ongoing discussion.

So, and my personal opinion is that we have a lot of space. It's sort of like when, um, they built the park, people were complaining about trees getting cut down. They were needed to be cut because they were affected or whatever. But we have lots of trees, we have lots of open space. I appreciate this area because we do have so much.

So, and I know that people are used to their little areas, something that, um, I respect that. But, uh, we do have an Eve, um, and I'm not talking about cutting down 1,000 acres, I'm just talking about small area. So that's important. Do you mind? I have a Follow-up on it.

I agree with many of the points that Commissioner Floyd has brought up. The housing needs assessment— I haven't looked at it lately, so it's off my memory, but I believe that it said we needed 330 new houses the next 10 years. And because of many of the points that Commissioner Floyd raised about the existing housing stock, we have kind of becoming more and more unlivable, and we need to get— and I understand people, you know, refurbishing their houses. It's very expensive to buy, to build new. I know from experience, but houses do have a lifespan, and our community, I don't believe, has reached the 330 mark.

I believe we still have many to go, and if there's 85 houses that be added to that tally, you know, maybe you'll get close. I don't even—. I don't think we're gonna meet that goal, um, even with this addition, but it could get us closer, um, which again, like other points you've raised, um, part of the reason I believe that our community is losing population is because we're not able to, um, keep people here. You know, people live with their parents as long as they can, but eventually they need to find a place where they can live with their young and growing families, and for a lot of people, that means we need kids. So I think in order to maintain our population or grow our population, I don't think we're going to have a housing surplus.

I can see it if they were expensive homes. You know, if built a bunch of 85 mansions, I don't think they would be filled because people couldn't afford it. But if we can have that many affordable homes, I really think that could make a really big difference. To a whole generation of people that may decide to stay in Petersburg instead of leave. And that can be, you know, you hear about cities all around the world experiencing brain drain where, you know, the youth that they decide to get educated and work and go elsewhere.

And so then you get this hollowing out of the community and it kind of decreases its future. So I do think it's important. I do want to recognize the importance of green space and the importance of, you know, having your spot where you pick berries, where you cross-country ski, where you build memories with your family. I do really think that's very important. That is a really beautiful spot by the cemetery.

So I do find myself to be a bit conflicted because there is a bunch of new housing going in, but I, I really do circle back to the economies of scale that if we want these houses that are going in to be truly affordable, the more we can build, the better.

In terms of, you know, we don't, we don't want to build what's called affordable housing and then it not be affordable. So that's, that's my reasoning at this point.

Yes. I, I just want to reiterate that this is all happening in one neighborhood. So where there used to be a lot of open space access for recreation, there's going to be very little. That's designated open space recreation. And so I agree, we need homes.

I mean, this is their big project through public benefit, is going to provide quite a bit of homes. And I've yet to see exactly how many homes. Have they actually told us that, Liz? Do we know how many homes will, will be created by the First 2 lots that were, um, rezoned, uh, they have a preliminary plat. It'll be on your agenda for August.

Okay. And does it—. Did it show—. But it's not the entire—. On both side of the proposed roads or just on one side like I've seen before?

I was just gonna say it's not the entire property because they're doing it phases. Okay. All right. I just feel like I don't see the emergency to do this now. We could wait and see what those other developments that's on those GL-14 and 21 provide, how many homes they do provide.

Plus they've got those single-family lots that they bought. I'd hate to see these taken away from this neighborhood because that's a lot of saturation in one neighborhood.

And there are developments going on elsewhere around town that can also fill these needs. I've heard somebody say before that people aren't building homes or buying homes, but of the crewmen that fished with us in the last few years, my daughter bought a home, she's building a home, my other daughter bought a home. Um, Ross and Aaron bought a home. Vanessa and Scott built a home. Cole built a home.

Um, it can be done. Maybe you're not building mansions, but you're building your first home. Um, I feel like I'm missing somebody from my crew, and I'm sorry if I am.

Um, every— I know, like, Ross and Aaron, yes, they bought a home, but they also bought land and plan to build on it. So I don't see where people can't afford to do what they do.

And, um, I mean, how many new homes were built in the last year? We used to see that in the paper. Do we still publish it? We used to have a, um, section in the paper once a year that said how many permits had been granted, how many new homes have been built. Does anybody remember that?

New paper. Because I think it'd be interesting to see. My sister Lee had a home built next to her within the last couple of years. My sister Heidi, right across from her, there's a new home that's not inhabited yet, but it is under construction, mostly done. So, I mean, this is just in my little world, the people revolving around me.

So I, I think they might be able to satisfy our needs with the lots they already have had rezoned, plus the other, um, developments that are going on around town.

And we have Tom, um, online with the And Tom?

Oh, he took his hand down. Are you still on the call, Tom? They're both out of their mic. Uh, yeah. Okay, thank you.

And Joshua, I see you.

I'm sorry.

You can go ahead if you have a comment. Yeah, so, you know, I, I, uh, been thinking about this quite a bit, and, um, and I agree with, with Heather and Donna, uh, in that the, the pro— the prospect of project standing, uh, beyond what the company already owns. It is a lot, it's a lot of land, but at the same time I'm thinking about it economically, and that's what this land is for. If we didn't have a purpose for the land, then it was designated for recreation, and when somebody has an idea that they can use the land And, uh, and that use would, would benefit the borough economically. Um, I, I have a, I have a hard time getting away from that when, uh, we are in a housing crisis and, um, and, and the inflated home prices, uh, because of the lack of homes.

Um, I, I, I think that I can support this, uh, moving forward. If, uh, if it's going to be something that helps the community in the long run. Um, I did try to find a, a use for that land. I, uh, I couldn't find anybody that actually uses it. Today was the first time that I heard somebody does use it for cross-country skiing.

And I don't think if we sold this— these lots that would interfere with somebody's, um, cross-country skiing in that area, maybe not do too long, uh, but there's a lot of land out there, uh, for that purpose. So I'm going to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Josh?

Yeah, I'm here to get the feedback if you do that. Um, I agree with Tom, but I want to shift gears for a minute and I want to ask you guys if you've heard of anything called a land value tax.

Anyone heard of that?

It's a special tax on underutilized structures. We're talking about the housing crisis more directly here. And it's bumping into our use of public lands. Maybe one of the best ways to free up more housing is to incentivize property owners to better use the land that we already have in the built environment.

A land value tax addresses that problem directly by charging— it's not fine, it's more like a fee for underutilized structures and land.

I think that's more of a Borough Assembly, uh, type discussion, not something that we would discuss at the Planning Commission because, uh that's dealing with taxation and such, which that is completely in the hands of the Borough Assembly. We're more to do with zoning and building and that sort of thing. So I think it's a— that would be something that would be better addressed to the Borough Assembly.

Sorry. Tom, you have your hand up.

No. Do we have any further comments, discussion?

I mean, it would be nice to see a plan, especially because we know there is a plan upcoming for the parcel they've already purchased. And I think it's— I'm assuming there's been some changes, as you know, there always is over time. Yeah, but it'll be interesting to see what that is. Last I saw, they were looking at like about 8,000 square foot lot, so you know, 8 by 100. So, but I don't know if that's changed, but we'll, we'll see that at the next meeting.

Um, any further comments, questions?

Would you please do the roll call?

Heather? No. Jim? Yes. Joshua?

Yes. Can you say that one more time? Yes.

Okay, I'm sorry, I got cut off with the phone. Yes. Thomas? Yes. Chris?

Yes. Micah? Yeah.

Yes. Okay, our next is consideration and application from Eric Grundberg for variance from the rear yard and side yard setbacks to construct a garage within 3 feet of the property line at 304 Hill Gallows.

Do we have any public testimony?

Uh, hi, my name is Eric Grimberg. I'm representing myself. I'm just here today to answer questions for you guys. Um, I have two lots off Lumber Street, and one is accessible from Hoag Alley and one is accessible from Lansing Street. And I'm proposing to build a garage on the Hoag Alley lot, and it would be accessed through my existing lot on Bancing Street, and the best place to build a garage is on the other side of the property where there's not heavily wooded area or a 10-foot bank.

That's why I'm asking for the variance.

Pretty simple.

If you have questions— and you're asking to go 3 feet from the property line? Uh, my proposed idea is to build the walls at 5 feet from the property line, but the eaves would be at 3 feet. So I'd have to fire rate the eaves. So technically, building could be at 5 and be— yeah, we usually don't like to do the variances for— we like to keep that 5 foot. Yeah, well, you can, you can reject.

I don't care. I'm here to ask. Doesn't matter to me. I have a motion. Yes, I move to approve Resolution 2026-603 to allow construction of a 16x24 garage no closer than 5 feet from property lines at 14 East Lansing Street.

Do we have a second? Second. Discussion? Um, the Uh, thank you, Mr. Grenberg, for coming in. Um, I, uh, uh, the, the, the part of the packet that resonates with me is, um, kind of the explanation for the 5 feet.

Um, staff recommendation is for construction no closer than 5 feet, which provides some separation from neighboring properties for snowfall from roof, increased runoff from roof, and is consistent with fire code requirement and past practices of the commission. Recently we had people come in and they wanted to go closer to the property line.

And we'll— they said, you know, we can go closer than 10 feet, but not closer than 5. So that's the question. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I hope that you can still get a good garage with this setback.

Yeah, I have a question just for my clarification, because We've had— so this is 2 separate lots, am I correct? So in the past, we haven't let people build a garage without an apartment. Am I being wrong on this? Yes, I can speak to it. So it's 2 separate lots, but also an application of removing that line between and creating one lot.

So then it's going to be one lot. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. And that's, that's clear.

Yeah, just wanted to make sure that would take care of—. We would be able to issue the building permit as, um, Commissioner Floyd said. I think if it, uh, uh, you know, with the 5-foot, keep it to 5 feet, which is kind of our standard practice, I think that's good. So I'm, I'm in favor. So any further discussion, any other comments?

So did we, uh You need to clarify that in our thing. In her motion, she said, uh, 5 feet, so we should be good, right, Liz? Yeah, I said in the resolution. Yeah, okay. So roll call, please.

Okay. Jim? Yes. Micah? Yes.

Joshua? Yes. One more thing. Yes. Sarah?

Yes. Thomas? Yes. Chris? Yes.

Heather?

Yes. Okay, moving on to non-agenda items. Uh, Commissioner comments. Um, the first thing I've listed is communication facilities, uh, overlay ordinance. Um, and then we've also got data center on there.

Uh, who wants to start out on that? I, um, I'll start for the communication facility overlay ordinance. We've spoken previously, um, at prior meetings about getting some language in for a tower overlay, so I propose that, and that's printed out. So the first— and I pulled these— the first two bullet points I pulled from the most up-to-date, what I believe is the most up-to-date ordinance for regulating wireless communication facilities. Because the tower overlay, communication facility overlay, is meant to be kind of a mirror where we've made things now conditional use, these make a by-right use.

In certain parcels, I figured that the definitions should also mirror each other. So, um, the byright— the, the definition of tower I pulled, um, it doesn't just include wireless communication facilities. It also includes other types of towers, which I pulled from the conditional use clauses in the ordinance. Um, so that's why I did what I did, and that reads, um, A, wireless communication facilities, WCF, under the provisions of Chapter 19.58. That's incorporated by reference, though, the entire definition.

And then B, a radio or television antenna, transmitter, or tower by any— or any other antenna, transmitter, or tower that is not a WCF, excepting non-commercial antennas. So I thought that would be an appropriate definition for by-right. Tower. Um, we also discussed setbacks. Um, I really liked the 110% setback clause in the regulation ordinance.

I think it makes a lot of sense for safety reasons. Uh, we have the ability to do it under the Telecommunications Act because it's for physical safety and not environmental health. Type safety. So I thought it made sense to include those safety setbacks in our tower overlay. And I want to make just a tiny tweak.

I took this definition from the, the, the tower, the 2-part tower definition of Part 1 is reflected in the ordinance. They have the WCF towers and then they have non-communication tower or non-communication towers, other towers. WCF towers. And so I took the definition from the other towers, um, because I thought maybe that would be more general, but I think I can just add a tiny tweak and do any instead of a tower. Um, so I'll read that out loud.

Setbacks, notwithstanding any other yard setback requirement for a district, a, any tower base must be situated on a parcel such that it is set back a minimum of 110% of the total transmitter or tower height from all property lines and the boundary lines of any public road or right-of-way. And then third thing we— that I recall discussing, um, is the purpose section of the overlay. And, um, my impression of the, uh, Commission's reasons for making this tower overlay— I've written this, um, to incorporate community preferences in WCF's citing and help streamline decision-making process for wireless communication corporations and citing WCFs consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I put towers instead of WCFs in here because this does more than just WCF towers, but the Telecommunications Act is what regulates communication towers. So, anyway, I put this together for the Commission's consideration.

So we can get the ball continuing to roll.

Thank you. Liz, we're just— from a staff standpoint, where do we stand on this?

What's going on with it? Are we waiting more from the borough assembly, or— as far as the overlay? This is purely in your hands. Yeah, but I was wondering if the borough assembly— because we were talking about waiting for the borough assembly finalize the, uh, the, uh, regular cell tower. But other reading is on the 20th.

Okay. But it has to be in this way, so it looks like—. Okay, so we're finally getting— yeah, we're getting some clarification there. But I, I think it's probably premature. It's a good idea to get, get going on putting this in, but I think it's premature to take any action on it until that is finalized.

I agree. Last meeting, we thought we should make it a discussion item and perhaps maybe an action item at the next meeting. Yeah, that's kind of where I— where I'm thinking now. So, okay. Um, as far as the data center stuff, or— we got both Tom and, uh, Josh have their hands up, so Yeah, all right, Tom, go ahead.

Yeah, I'm just thinking about the power ordinance, and when it passes, won't it also cover the, uh, the overlay area or Service Area 1? We have not proposed the overlay to the General Assembly yet. So we were waiting until, until the, uh, regular cell tower language was finalized before we discussed the overlay and send that, send that to them. Because, uh, it kind of— until they finalized what the rules were, it didn't make sense for us to do the overlay. So, yeah.

All right, that's it. Okay, thank you. Josh? Yeah, can you hear me? No, I don't know.

I could do it on my notes. I just had a small comment. We can't hear you, Josh. All right, maybe I'll just have to save it for later.

I think he changed his mind. Oh, sorry. Okay, um, is this the— Liz, this the data center proposed language you come up with, or—. I don't know where—. You don't know where that came from?

Okay, well, that came from me.

Yeah, okay. So we don't have a data center ordinance in place. I don't think we discussed it much, but, uh, I put a few things together there. I pulled the language from the, uh, Anchorage data center ordinance that passed in March, and I added some stuff to it, uh, to conform to our borough. And then I've heard some feedback from citizens that also would like to be included in, in some of their ideas, have some of their ideas included in the discussion.

So I thought I would bring it up today. This is kind of like a, a rough draft just with some basic, basic ideas of what the ordinance would require as far as the amount of work that we're probably going to have to do. It takes some time. And so I wanted to just get the discussion going today, and also maybe if we wanted to have a work session later, or maybe a committee, if you guys could get together with the public and public meeting format and try and develop a data set of origin.

Liz, I have a question for you on this. Have we heard from Power and Light about how much— they, they said there's power available for a certain amount, but they were going to look up a number. Have they figured anything out yet, or I don't think so. I think they have a transformer in place, and my understanding is the initial amount is half of that transformer's capacity. Okay.

But they can't— they're not going to be able to offer more power than that transformer has capacity for. So that's self-limiting, I guess. Right. I would just—. I don't have the number though.

Yeah, if we, if we had a number, because it's kind of— would be good to have that from Power and Light of how, of how much power would be available for data centers so we can have that to kind of as a baseline to start putting together. Not just this one that's being discussed. Not just the one that's being discussed. I think overall, how much could, how much could we, the community, what's the capacity? What's the ceiling that it can handle?

And because that gives us kind of like a baseline of where to start for putting our ordinance together, saying, okay, Beyond this limit, it's kind of a hard limit. Yeah, I know they're working on an ordinance for large commercial users, and I think that's what that is intended. That's part of that. Yeah. Okay.

So, so maybe they have it. I can ask them. Yeah, but it's, it's something I'd like to be kept in the loop. I think we should be on that because then whatever we're doing is mirroring what they're doing, so that way it, you know, works together. We want to We want to work with the other departments so that we're, you know, kind of all on the same page.

And then, you know, we're addressing the other issues of data centers. They're kind of the ones leading on how much power. So I don't think they haven't released a draft of that ordinance yet. So, but yeah, I'm just, just was curious. I mean, I think you could have Steve Harber come and talk to it, you know, if that would help you as well.

I think, I think it might help with us getting getting something on paper. So, um, it might be good for all of us to go through this before the next meeting and put in any ideas we have of things that need to be in it. Then we got a more in-depth discussion at that time. So one question I have when we're talking about power, and we've just had a lengthy discussion about the need for homes in this large subdivision of AD mobile homes, is in the— in Power and Light's consideration of available power for data centers, that taking into effect that we would like to— we need enough power for these homes to go in. So we can't— yeah, if we want homes for people to come here and live here, we don't want to preemptively sell all the power to them and then make the cost go up because it's—.

They're done up. That would kind— that to me, that's kind of why I would like to see this ordinance. One of the reasons why I like to see this ordinance getting underway is what do we want to have be our priority, homes or data centers for affordable power. Yeah, there, there's, there's more to just an affordable home. What makes being able to live in Petersburg is your— the other components that power has.

But without any information from Power and Light, so we kind of need to hear what they're, what they're talking about, because that is going to mesh into whatever we put together. And then the other parts of the, the parts I think we need to go through and look at are what limitations you want to put on the data centers as far as this, you know, you must use this type of system, you must, you know, but it is talking about, and that they must get preapproval on, on water usage and that sort of thing as part of this, of applying for a permit rather than just, you know, one of the things that this language that Tom put in here though that I thought was, is that keeping in with the town's plan for the waterfront, right? You know, does that— does a data center go along with the marine plan, right? So I just didn't—. That's why I would also think we probably should have input from Harbor on this.

From the Harbor Board because, uh, um, you know, they're going to be more of the marine use type stuff, and they probably are going to have a say in it. So yeah, I just want— how do we get all those pieces to come together so that we're not behind the ball and getting a data center before we have this ordinance? Kind of like what's happening with the towers. That's why it's like, if we start working on it now, we start putting all these pieces down, putting all of our individual thoughts down on paper, that way we can come into it and hopefully we can get input from Arbor and from Power and everything else so that we all are on the same page. We'll put it at home so it works really well for everybody.

I like— in that, along the same, I like the idea of a work session, um, so that we can do a multidisciplinary approach. I would also, if Mr. Arbor from Power— like Director Arbor, uh, if he is willing to come to our next meeting and educate us on the process that he's undergoing with this ordinance update. I, I think that would be very, very helpful. Um, I also, uh, want to kind of reiterate though that our zoning ordinance is more than just power. It's pollution, it's land use, it's things that are very firmly in our purview, although I, I agree we have to incorporate by reference their, their report.

Yeah, and it's— it helps if we can be communicating with the other boards and everything else so that we're all putting something together that's going to work well for everybody and everybody feels they, they've been— so I think that's the best way to do it. So yes, please step up and state your name.

Hi, thanks, thanks for helping. So, Richard, um, I believe it was the very first Whereas in the ordinance that was presented to the assembly talked about our community connectivity goals. We've never defined those. I think we're putting up the cart before the horse, and we need to know what we as a community needs, not what the data center needs. And so I guess that's my biggest issue.

Excuse me.

Anyway, I encourage you to come up with a purpose and needs statement that addresses those issues. In that, whereas it talked about health, safety, there was 3 or 4 things in there, but that's kind of general. So it would be nice to see a purpose and needs statement to kind of define what, what are we looking for. Anyway, thank you. Could you just state your name in the microphone?

Sorry, but can I? Thank you. All right, I guess we've got some work to do before our next meeting as far as going over this and some ideas.

Um, Liz, any staff comments? Uh, no, we'll have, uh, applications for consideration in August, so you can let me know during the I'm planning on being in town. It is August 11th, uh, in a new proportion.

The only reason I would be here is because I have Mike and Jerry to be in, so we'll see.

All right, do we have a motion to adjourn? So Second. All in favor? Aye.