fairbanks north star borough planning...

FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES March 1, 2016

A regular meeting of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Commission was held in the Mona Lisa Drexler Assembly Chambers, Juanita Helms Administration Center, 809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks, Alaska. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chris Guinn, Chairman. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Guinn Pat Thayer Sean Reilly Mindy O’Neall

Charles Whitaker Robert Peterson John Perreault Wendy Presler Mark Billingsley

MEMBERS ABSENT: Troy Bouffard OTHERS PRESENT: Christine Nelson, Director of Community Planning

Stacy Wasinger, Planner III Manish Singh, Planner II Melissa Kellner, Planner IV George Stefan, Platting Officer Wendy Doxey, Asst. Borough Attorney Tanya Hughes, Administrative Assistant I

A. ROLL CALL B. MESSAGES

1. Chairperson’s Comments:

Mr. Guinn requested disclosure of potential Conflict of interests. Ms. Presler stated that she had a friendship with John Poirrier, who was involved in correspondence regarding AP001-16 (Appeal of NR001-16 Terminal Street). She did not feel the friendship created a conflict. Mr. Guinn inquired if she was able to be unbiased. Ms. Presler responded “Yes.”

NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MS. PRESLER

PC Meeting Minutes 2 | P a g e March 1, 2016

Mr. Billingsley stated that he knew the owner involved in RE2015-001 (Remand of CU2015-003), and had disclosed that knowledge during the original hearing. It was not considered a conflict during the original hearing. Mr. Guinn thanked Mr. Billingsley.

NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MR. BILLINGSLEY

Mr. Guinn stated that he knew the applicant’s involved in RE2015-001 (Remand of CU2015-003), and offered that he could be unbiased.

NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MR. GUINN

Mr. Guinn requested disclosures of potential ex parte communication.

NO EX PARTE CONTACTS

2. Communications to the Planning Commission

Ms. Nelson relayed that the two recent Marijuana Workshops were very successful and well attended. Community Planning has already received more than nine zoning permits already. There are a number of Conditional Use applications that will be coming before the Commission in the next few months. Mr. Guinn inquired if there would be any time issue with entrepreneurs getting a permit or Conditional Use in time for the growing season. Ms. Nelson responded that it would depend on how long the State of Alaska. The Borough process would take a maximum of 90 days. April Planning Commission meetings already have cases on the agenda. Mr. Guinn inquired about APOC filings. Ms. Nelson relayed that the deadline for annual POFD’s was March 15.

3. Commissioner Comments

4. Citizens’ Comments – limited to three (3) minutes a. Agenda items not scheduled for public hearing.

b. Items other than those appearing on the agenda. Martin Gutoski, resident of the Borough, spoke regarding the process for testifying at appeals. He recounted how over 30 years of public service in the Community Planning office he had observed the evolution of notification, for appeal cases, to surrounding owners, called “Dear Property Owner” letters. Originally the distance mimicked that required for zoning ordinance changes; within 500 feet if the property lies inside city limits or 1000 feet if outside. There was a major rewrite in the 80’s which limited Dear


Property Owner letter notification to properties that directly adjoin. This reduced the number of non-germane testimonies received. Due to a few appeals that were considered “nuisance” appeals; Polar Delight and Elbasan Acres, the rules changed and only allowed owners that received a Dear Property Owner letter or they had to have testified at the original hearing. While the change eliminated superfluous testimony it also restricted citizen participation. He finished by noting that limiting community participation to only three minutes for those individuals who still qualify while the Borough has 3 attorneys that serve was unjust.

5. Disclosure & Statement of Conflict This was addressed during Chairpersons Comments

C. * APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda passes all routine items indicated by asterisk (*) on

agenda. Consent Agenda items are not considered separately unless any Planning Commission member or citizen so requests. In the event of such request, the item is returned to the general agenda.

D. MINUTES 1. *Minutes from February 2, 2016 PC Meeting

2. *Minutes from February 16, 2016 PC Meeting

MOTION: To approve the agenda and consent agenda, including the minutes of previous meetings by Mr. Billingsley seconded by Ms. Thayer.

Mr. Whitaker noted that on page 16, the second “Mr. Whitaker” needed to be amended to “Mr.

Halvarson”

AMENDED WITHOUT OBJECTION ROLL CALL ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED Nine (9) in Favor: Mr. Perreault, Ms. Presler, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall,

Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Thayer, and Mr. Guinn. Zero (0) Opposed:

MOTION CARRIED E. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS F. PUBLIC HEARING


OC2015-012 – Ordinance No. 2016-09 An Ordinance amending Title 18 by adding an amnesty chapter allowing for code relief for properties with certain existing zoning code violations. (Sponsored by: Assembly members Hutchison, Cooper, and Roberts) (Staff Contact: Christine Nelson) Public Hearing Opened Samara Steele, resident of the borough, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. She explained that she was personally experiencing a need for relief that this ordinance would grant. Public Hearing Closed Mr. Guinn noted that he made a procedural error by opening Public Hearing prior to the sponsor’s introduction. Diane Hutchison, Assembly co-sponsor, elucidated that the ordinance was designed to alleviate a problem in the borough. The staff report does a great job of explaining the intent of the ordinance. There were many current property owners in the Fairbanks North Star Borough that are not able to receive a variance for properties that were built a long time ago in order to get conventional financing on their homes. The date chosen for granting amnesty aligned with the Dodd-Frank reform. She expressed a concern regarding the staff proposed amendment regarding Grandfather Rights which appears to create two processes for owners; this could be consolidated to a single process in order to reduce overall processing time. There are a lot of older properties in this community that would be helped by this ordinance. Lance Roberts, Assembly co-sponsor, observed that variance requests had increased. This ordinance represents another step toward alleviating burdens created by recent financial reforms. Property owners in the Fairbanks North Star Borough have been facing issues; Due to the fact that Dodd-Frank was not in effect prior to their purchase of a property they had no choice or knowledge. In the future, there is a hope to deal with the “pecuniary” interest language in State Law. He agreed with Ms. Hutchison’s position that the requirement to also go through the Grandfather Rights process was time consuming for the property owners. Speaking to Amendment 6, he posited that a site plan should be optional, instead of a requirement for application; an affirmation from the property owner should suffice. If there is evidence found to contradict the affidavit is would be grounds for denial. He suggested the possibility of an administrative process for these types of applications which would safe staff time having to have a hearing. Matt Cooper, Assembly co-sponsor, agreed with Ms. Hutchison’s and Mr. Roberts’s presentation. He spoke regarding the amendment to require a Grandfather Rights application prior to the amnesty process; he reiterated earlier statements that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to reduce the administrative burden. Mr. Whitaker requested information on how the State Legislature received the proposal of changing Title 29. Mr. Roberts responded that those he spoke with were open to the idea. He stated that it was not proposed to the Legislature last year because the Planning Commission was still looking into the variance process. However, after the passage of a year they determined that a solution was needed.


Ms. Thayer spoke regarding the sponsors recommendation to not require a site plan. She enlightened how a site plan and/or survey added in terms of solid information; locations of corners, well, septic’s, driveways, etc. She requested information as to the reasoning behind the request to waive the requirement for a site plan in lieu of an affidavit. Mr. Roberts explained that it was sometimes hard to prove what was going on before the use of digital cameras in the 1980’s. An affidavit was used for Grandfather Rights because it established a level of proof, which if no opposing evidence was found, would be sufficient. A site map is also imperfect; he questioned if it should be a requirement. Mr. Billingsley spoke regarding the language “intentional or willful”; he queried how a new owner how could have intentionally or willfully caused the violation. Ms. Hutchison clarified that an owner who purchased a property with a violation could not have intentionally caused it. Mr. Reilly spoke regarding the use of affidavits; he questioned if a case of fraud were discovered, was a revocation clause or other remedy included. Ms. Hutchison deferred to Legal counsel. Ms. Doxey responded that there was no current specific provision at this time. Mr. Roberts noted that a false affidavit would violate State Law. Ms. Doxey concurred. Mr. Billingsley queried if this proposed ordinance posed any concerns for basically circumventing Alaska State Law. Ms. Doxey explained that previous attempts to change the variance process were not as effective due to Alaska State Laws governing variances. However, forgiveness provisions, like the proposed ordinance, were not prohibited. She added that this was “forgiveness.” Ms. Hutchison noted that she had similar concerns in the beginning of the process. Mr. Billingsley queried the date selected for amnesty to be applied prior to; was the date selected due to the change in lending practiced enforced beginning in 2010 Ms. Hutchison clarified that a date had to be selected; she explained that she was not in favor of forgiving all non-compliance nor encouraging future non-compliance builds. This was designed to help the owners of older borough homes that had violations that did not represent health and safety concerns. Mr. Cooper elucidated that there was a period of time when the Fairbanks North Star Borough was not enforcing zoning requirements. He spoke further regarding “good faith”; violations that occurred even before 2010 had had to be unintentional. Mr. Roberts noted that the date selected matched the previous variance ordinance.


Mr. Billingsley suggested the allowance of discretion in approving amnesty cases be considered, not a hard number like the 50% that was currently included. Christine Nelson presented the staff report. Based upon staff analysis, the Department of Community Planning recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following recommended amendments:

1. Delete “borough residents” on Lines 56 and 75-76 and insert “public” before “health, safety, and welfare.” Community Planning Staff feels that making findings on the “public” health, safety, and welfare and not “borough residents”, as noted in the purpose of Title 18, is important for consistency sake.

2. Insert “of the current code” after “violation” on Line 69 and delete the word “code”. This amendment will clarify that an applicant for amnesty relief would not be allowed to expand to a standard of some previous code [i.e. Title 49 or other prior zoning code] that could have much more lenient standards.

3. Insert the following on Line 73 as an additional criterion: "The violation for which

amnesty relief is sought does not quality for legal nonconforming status as set forth by Chapter 56 of this title;” This amendment clarifies the process by requiring a property owner to apply for affirmation of grandfather rights before they could apply for amnesty relief. It should be determined whether a “violation” actually exists via affirmative recognition of grandfather rights prior to seeking “amnesty” for that violation.

4. Insert “current” before “required” on Lines 77 and 79. Since zoning numerical standards can change over time, this amendment clarifies that it is intended to be the current numerical standard and that it is not expected that Community Planning will be required to recreate the entire zoning history of a property and determine what the numerical standard was for each zoning code.

5. Insert “or distance” after “area” on Line 84 and delete “or”.

This amendment clarifies the intent of the language based on existing definitions in FNSBC 18.06.010 of “yard” and “lot depth”/”width”.

6. Insert the following sentence: “The application must be accompanied by a site plan

showing size of the lot, the subject building, and current yard dimensions, if applicable.” on Line 99. This amendment adds the requirement for a site plan because the hearing officer must make findings as to whether the criteria are met for that which the Borough is granting “amnesty relief”. This requirement could be made more accurate by requiring a mortgage location survey or other similar survey drawn to the standard of practice for land surveyors as adopted by 12 AAC 36.250, as does the current variance and administrative variance application requirements listed in FNSBC 18,54.040(B)(2)(d).


7. Add a definition of “Amnesty Relief” in FNSBC 18.06.010. A proposed definition is:

“’Amnesty relief’ means relief from any enforcement action under this title provided to a property with an eligible violation of a numerical standard of this title that has received a determination of its authority to continue.” Community Planning staff and the Legal Department has differing opinions as to whether a definition is necessary or whether Section 18.60.010 Purpose (Lines 54-58) and Section 18.60.020 Authority to continue (Lines 60-66) already adequately “define” what amnesty relief is. Other application types such as “variance” and “non-conforming use” are defined in Title 18.06.010 Definitions.

Ms. Nelson spoke regarding Grandfather Rights process; 85-90% of applications received were grandfathered under a previous zoning code. Lenders may look at that determination as a stronger affirmation of their rights than amnesty. She spoke in favor of making all possible cases administrative over hearing to save resources and time; using the term “self-created” instead of “intentional” or “willful” would make it easier for staff to evaluate. She explaubed how going through the Grandfather Rights process proved, for cases granted those rights, that the property wasn’t non-compliant. Further, site plans were required for structural Grandfather Rights’ applications. Even with amnesty would grant a specific distance, which should be accurate and a site plan is helpful. Ms. Doxey noted that when an application was received for amnesty, Community Planning would need to make a Grandfather Rights determination at the outset. Changing the language would not alter the ordinance as it is proposed; if a property qualified for Grandfather Rights it would not be out of compliance and therefore would not require amnesty. There would be no formal Grandfather Rights procedure to sit through separately. Mr. Guinn asked for clarification from Ms. Nelson; it was her recommendation that the ordinance be recommended for approval with the recommended amendments. Ms. Nelson concurred. Mr. Perreault inquired how long a Grandfather Rights determination would take prior to the process for amnesty. Ms. Nelson replied that it took time and depended on the complexity of the application; anywhere from same day to ten days. Community Planning is reliant on Assessor’s files. However, inspections can be ten years apart so determining when a structure or addition was constructed and match that to applicable zoning at the time can be difficult. The Grandfather Rights portion would be the most time consuming of the process. The amnesty portion, if administrative, should be quite easy; a Public Hearing would lengthen that process. Ms. Nelson continued that once Grandfather Rights have been determined, the amnesty part of it is fairly easy. One thing to keep in mind though is that staff is also stretched thin with marijuana permit applications, etc. at the counter. Mr. Perreault then inquired if, regarding Mr. Roberts concern, is it possible to have the two actions happening concurrently. Ms. Nelson stated that there is no amnesty now, but she feels that it could be done. She further commented that she does not feel that there is anything in this ordinance prohibiting it. It is the


logistics of setting up the internal process and procedure. She stated that she feels it could be. Again, however, it is two separate pieces. Either they do or do not have Grandfather Rights affirmed and if they don’t do they qualify under the amnesty provisions. Mr. Perreault inquired if all of that could be in one application. Ms. Nelson stated that it could. Mr. Perreault then questioned if this was an effort to not have the applicant have to come back time and time again. Ms. Nelson stated that that was the intent. Mr. Billingsley questioned if the Planning Commission were to recommend adoption of this code, with modifications, would the Planning Commission be required to provide exact language or could they provide general recommendations that the Sponsors incorporate. Ms. Nelson stated that exact language is always preferred. Ms. Nelson added that the Sponsors have indicated that they would be open to suggestions regarding the language. Mr. Reilly questioned what would happen if a property were to have amnesty on one half and not on the other. Mr. Roberts replied that if they increase or create a violation by doing the enlarging or altering, then their property no longer has amnesty. If any part of your property does not have amnesty, then you have a setback violation. Ms. Hutchison concurred. Ms. Doxey clarified that the language of this ordinance does not say that they would lose their amnesty. You would have a situation with a particular amnesty relief that would apply to the old portion of the property and there would be no relief for the new violation which would be a new violation dealt with in whatever way. Mr. Reilly questioned if the Planning Commission should add words that state that the amnesty would be cancelled if there are new violations. Mr. Perreault disagreed with Mr. Reilly. Ms. Doxey cautioned the Planning Commission that she would be hesitant to move forward and perhaps it is something that should be considered further within the Legal department, but when you are giving someone a property right and then taking it away, you usually have to give them due process. She stated that she has concerns about this. Ms. Nelson stated that this is standard interpretation of the Code as it exists. She does not feel that changing it was the intent unless you want to take away amnesty. Mr. Guinn inquired if there were questions of staff.


Ms. Hutchison thanked staff for their work in this matter. Public Hearing Re-Opened Martin Gutoski, interested person and local surveyor, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that one of his clients had a pending sale that was to close today but the buyer found out that the two lots and two structures for sale had three zoning violations. Mr. Gutoski gave the specifics of the recording of the plat and the various zoning regulations that were in place over the years. Mr. Gutoski continued to describe other examples of zoning violations around the Borough that he was aware of. In conclusion, Mr. Gutoski stated that he supports this ordinance change. Heather Lambert, resident of the Borough, stated that she is in favor of this ordinance change. However, she does have two concerns. The first is that, as Realtor, this does not address the issue of a structure burning down. That is a major concern where Realtors and lenders are concerned. Ms. Lambert continued that her second concern is if the area was greater than 50% or if the setback was greater than 51%, could staff be allowed, providing the application met the first three items, to make an administrative decision. Ms. Lambert expressed that if staff is not allowed to determine what will work for people but don’t give them the allowance to do it, then they still will not be able to do the variance. It would be nice to give staff a little bit of leeway regarding the last three criteria, especially when meeting all of the other intentions. In conclusion, Ms. Lambert stated that as a realtor, the biggest reason for support of this is to allow for the house to be re-built. Mr. Billingsley inquired if Ms. Lambert, as a realtor, was seeing violations in excess of 50%. Ms. Lambert affirmed this. Ms. Lambert reiterated that she appreciates everything that all have done on this issue. It is really going to make a difference. Public Hearing Closed MOTION Move to accept Ord. No. 2016-09 with staff recommended amendments by Mr.

Perreault seconded by Mr. Billingsley. Discussion Mr. Perreault spoke in favor of approval of the proposed ordinance. He voiced approval of requirement for a site plan to establish percentages granted. Mr. Billingsley spoke in favor of approval of the proposed ordinance and agreed with the requirement of a site plan. He posited that the use of 50% as a standard number for amnesty allowance would potentially eliminate the possibility of amnesty for owners that deserve the same consideration. He agreed that Ms. Nelson’s suggestion to allow administrative decisions


for clearly defined cases, less than 25% and self-created, would take out the subjective view and help speed the process for those cases; he encouraged additional discussion to craft the language. He requested further clarification on Ms. Thayer’s comment regarding inclusion of the option to rebuild with in the same footprint. MOTION Move to amend the main motion by 1) changing “accept” to “recommend

approval”; 2) adding the option for discretionary approval of amnesty when the request exceeds 50% to the list of recommendations; and 3) adding an administrative process for cases under 25% and where objective criteria can be identified to the list of recommendations, by Mr. Billingsley seconded by Mr. Whitaker.

Discussion Mr. Guinn asked Mr. Billingsley if this should be a recommendation to the sponsors. Ms. Billingsley responded that it seems to carry more weight when in the form of a motion to the Assembly as opposed to just being on the recommendation of this body. Ms. Nelson advised, with regard to the relation to over 50%, the less quantitative you make it, the less likely staff will be allowed to make that decision. She recommended the commission pick a specific number. Mr. Perreault commented that it would mean that it is being done at an Administrative level for the amnesty and then still appear before the Planning Commission for the variance and that could be granted if allowable. Mr. Perreault continued that he feels that this would address a lot of properties that fall within the parameters of this ordinance. He feels 50% is quite a few and it does not deny a homeowner from having options. He will be supporting it. Mr. Peterson stated that he feels that this body is very limited in regards to these variances by law, if they are not covered under amnesty. He stated that he concurs with Mr. Billingsleys amendments. Mr. Peterson posited that if variance requests can be granted through the amnesty process it was much better for the community. Ms. Thayer queried if the amended motion included the ability to rebuild within the same footprint. Mr. Billingsley replied no. Ms. Thayer commented that if a home was destroyed, the appropriate time to address a setback issue would be at rebuild. ROLL CALL ON THE AMENDMENT


Nine (9) in Favor: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perreault, Ms. Presler, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall, Mr. Billingsley, Ms. Thayer, and Mr. Guinn.

Zero (0) Opposed:

MOTION CARRIED MOTION Move to amend the main motion to include a recommendation that if a structure

that had amnesty were destroyed due to fire or other act of God, reconstruction would be allowed in the same exact footprint that existed previously, by Ms. Thayer, seconded by Ms. Presler.

Discussion Mr. Billingsley stated that he will be voting in favor. He feels it is right, but would like to hear more, if possible. Mr. Reilly stated that he is in favor but his only concern is that the homeowner would have to build essentially the same structure as was previously there. Mr. Whitaker questioned what would be the reason for not allowing a larger or smaller footprint should the situation arise. Ms. Thayer replied that the foundation is existing and that is what they should build upon. Ms. Whitaker inquired to the thought that one may want to build smaller. Ms. Thayer argued that if one has a foundation that is 10’ within the setback and you have an affidavit and you should lose the home to fire and there is a home loan, you want to at least be able to build within the exact footprint as before. If one chooses to go smaller, that is fine. Mr. Perreault inquired if it could be worded to the effect to say “so as not to increase the encroachment into the setback. Ms. Nelson concurred. Mr. Guinn inquired of current requirements. Ms. Nelson explained the current requirements. ROLL CALL ON THE AMENDMENT Nine (9) in Favor: Mr. Perreault, Ms. Presler, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall,

Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Thayer, and Mr. Guinn. Zero (0) Opposed:

MOTION CARRIED ROLL CALL ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED


Nine (9) in Favor: Ms. Presler, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall, Mr. Billingsley,

Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perreault, Ms. Thayer, and Mr. Guinn. Zero (0) Opposed:

RECOMMENED APPROVAL WITH SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS Mr. Guinn addressed the General Public seated in the Assembly Chambers. He suggested that if there is a spokesperson to represent the group as a whole, it may help to move proceedings along. He did stress that each person that has testified in the past does have the right to testify again if they so choose. G. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING – AT OR AFTER 7:00 P.M. CU2016-006 A request by Rodney Pangborn for conditional use approval of a guesthouse in the Rural Residential (RR) zone on Lot 1, Pangborn Estates. (Located at 2594 Carrie Lynn Drive, on the north side of Carrie Lynn Drive, west of Brock Road and east of Badger Road) (Staff Contact: Stacy Wasinger) OATH GIVEN Ms. Wasinger presented the staff report. Based upon staff analysis, the Department of Community Planning recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the following two (2) Conditions and four (4) Findings of Fact: Conditions:

1. A primary, single-family detached dwelling at least one square foot larger than the guest house, which is approximately 864 square feet, shall be constructed on lot 1, Pangborn Estates Subdivision. If such a single-family residence is not constructed, this conditional use permit shall be null and void.

2. The replacement or construction of all wastewater disposal systems shall meet Alaska

Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC) regulatory requirements. Findings of Fact:

1. The proposed conditional use conforms to the intent and purpose of Title 18 and of other ordinances and state statutes because it conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 intent as a conditional use in the RR zone.

a) The intent of the RR zone is for “low density residential development and other compatible uses in areas where community sewer and water systems may or may not be available.” RR zoning allows a guest house as a conditional use if a single-family detached dwelling is located on the same lot, which therefore is considered to be low-density.


b) The guest house use is only in compliance with Title 18 requirements when the primary single-family detached dwelling is constructed on the same lot.

c) The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 3, Strategy 7 calls for a “variety of

residential land use opportunities” to be provided and the conditional use guest house and primary single-family detached dwelling conforms to this strategy as well as to the Preferred Residential Land and Perimeter designations.

2. There are adequate existing energy and transportation facilities serving the site, existing

private well and septic capacities are sufficient to support the proposed and primary uses, and other public services are available to serve the proposed conditional use.

3. The detached residential structure was previously utilized as a guest house under Conditional Use Permit CU2014-005 prior to replat of the lot lines.

4. The proposed conditional use will protect public health, safety or welfare as the structure

complies with Title 18 standards for the RR zone and maintains the neighborhood character.

Mr. Billingsley queried why this was consistent with low density development. Ms. Wasinger replied that Title 18 allows that the residential zone is considered a low density and it allows by Conditional Use a guesthouse to be on the same lot as a single family residence. Ms. Doxey added that more development was needed on this point. She clarified that it is a Conditional Use so just because there is a policy that it could be appropriate doesn’t mean that it is in keeping with a low density nature of the zone. Ms. Doxey continued that more discussion was necessary on why this particular development is still in keeping with a low density neighborhood. Mr. Billingsley asked Ms. Wasinger to describe the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Wasinger stated that in addition to the conditional use guesthouse that was previously approved on this site, there is a lot nearby that also obtained a conditional use permit for a guesthouse. This requested conditional use would not be the only lot in the neighborhood that has that use as well. Ms. Wasinger continued that most of the lots in the Fairfield Subdivision were developed as approximately one acre lots. The minimum lot size in the RR zone is 40,000 square feet. The neighborhood is mostly developed with one residence per 40,000 lots however there are a few exceptions such as the conditional use permit which was permitted to the southeast. Ms. Thayer questioned the size of the structure. She wanted clarification on the square footage of the residence. Ms. Wasinger clarified the square footage of the residence and the structure that is proposed as a guesthouse for Ms. Thayer. She further stated that the cabin is one and one-half stories so the footprint is 24 x 24. The deck is additional square footage.


Mr. Reilly inquired if there was a home on Lot 2 at this time. Ms. Wasinger replied that there is a home on Lot 2 currently. The structure proposed to be built will be on Lot 1. Mr. Reilly asked if there was currently a home on Lot 2. Ms. Wasinger responded that there is a home on Lot 2, the single family home that was built in 1982. Also on Lot 2 is the existing structure that is proposed to be used as a guesthouse. The structure that is proposed to be built will be on Lot 1. The structure to be built on Lot 1 will be the primary home. Mr. Reilly stated that in Chapter 18.20 it states that Conditional Uses are guesthouses, one per lot, and only with an existing single-family detached dwelling or, where permitted, an existing mobile home; he questioned that if the home is not already built on Lot 1, why is that not coming before the guesthouse. Ms. Wasinger clarified that in order to build a second residential dwelling on that lot, there has to be a Conditional Use guesthouse. The only way to have two dwelling units on a lot in RR zoning is to have one be designated as a primary single-family residence, detached, and one to be designated as the guesthouse. That was the reasoning behind Condition No. 1. Ms. Thayer requested the recorded plat. Ms. Wasinger clarified; exhibit 6 on page 79 was the recorded plat. Mr. Guinn requested information regarding driveway access. Specifically, he enquired if one had to cross another lot for access. Ms. Wasinger explained that both driveways crossed Lot 2; however, in the plat there was a dedicated driveway easement for the current driveway access to Lot 1. She pointed out that there was no easement that addressed a particular portion to access Lot 1 from Lot 2. Mr. Guinn queried if that was recommended as a Condition. Ms. Wasinger deferred to Legal. Ms. Doxey counseled that the Planning Commission could consider whether there were adequate facilities and access. She suggested a requirement for access easement across Lot 2 as a condition for granting the Conditional Use. Ms. Wasinger clarified that was a condition included in the previous guesthouse Conditional Use, CU2014-005. However, the lot line had been moved, parcels were combined, and then properties were later re-subdivided. Ms. Nelson noted that both lots were owned by the same individual, access would only become an issue if one lot were sold. Ms. Thayer observed that the access was located within a Public Utility Easement.


Ms. Doxey clarified that, according to testimony, on the eastern property line of Lot 2 there was a dedicated access easement to Lot 1, and on the western property line of Lot 2 there was a driveway currently being used for access without a dedicated access easement. The current owner intends to use the western driveway to access the guesthouse, and the eastern access easement to access the house.

OATH ADMINISTERED TO GEORGE STEFAN, PLATTING OFFICER Ms. Thayer inquired if a dedicated Driveway Easement located within a Public Utility Easement was common practice. Mr. Stefan explained that is was because typically a Public Utility Easement is adjoining a Right-of-Way. Ms. Thayer inquired regarding the driveway easement located on the east side of Lots 1 & 2. Mr. Stefan remarked that he did not have the preliminary plat, however, utility companies are given an opportunity to comment if there would be an impact. Ms. Thayer pointed out that dedicated Public Utility Easements were designed for future utilities and if it were occupied for any other purpose it would be useless. Mr. Stefan agreed that a dedicated Driveway Easement would be unlikely, however, this was a common Driveway Easement, which is limited in use and improvements allowed. Rodney Pangborn, applicant and owner, gave a brief history of the property which he purchased in 2013, after the re-platting. The builder originally built the home in violation of the setback requirements at the time, restricting the option to rebuild. The cheapest way to rectify the violation for the previous owner was to combine the lots, which required approval for a guesthouse. The guesthouse setback violation was also remedied. Regarding the lot size, he noted, it was much larger than the other properties located on the same street. The reduction brings the lots sizes in conformity with other property sizes. The access on the western side of Lot 2 to Lot 1 was a permanent easement. Mr. Billingsley queried how this development was consistent with low density developments. Mr. Pangborn replied he was not familiar with the Borough definition of low density development. However, the borough has approved this same type of request in the same area. Ms. ONeall queried when the house would be livable. Mr. Pangborn responded by mid-June. Mr. Reilly queried how the house would fit with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Pangborn explained there was a huge range in style and size to houses in the neighborhood; from log to French colonial style. Ms. Doxey suggested Ms. Nelson speak to the question of low density developments.


Ms. Nelson explained that the intent of Rural Residential zoning is low density residential development, or other compatible uses, where community sewer and water systems may, or may not, be available with specific lot size minimums. She posited that this Conditional Use application fits within the Rural Residential character. Interested Persons Testimony Opened John Pile, affected property owner, spoke in favor of the application. He stated he had no problem with the construction of a guesthouse. Interested Persons Testimony Closed MOTION Move to approve CU2016-006 with two (2) Conditions and (5) Findings of Fact as

proposed by Attorney Doxey, by Mr. Billingsley, seconded by Mr. Reilly. Conditions: 1. A primary, single-family detached dwelling larger than the guest house, which is

approximately 864 square feet, shall be constructed on lot 1, Pangborn Estates Subdivision. If such a single-family residence is not constructed, this conditional use permit shall be null and void.

2. The replacement or construction of all wastewater disposal systems shall meet Alaska

Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC) regulatory requirements.

Findings Of Fact:

1. As conditioned, the proposed conditional use conforms to the intent and purpose of Title 18

and of other ordinances and state statutes because it conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 intent as a conditional use in the RR zone:

a) The intent of the RR zone is for “low density residential development and other

compatible uses in areas where community sewer and water systems may or may not be available.” The development of a larger single-family dwelling on this lot and converting the current dwelling into a guest house is consistent with low density development.

b) RR zoning allows a guest house as a conditional use if a single-family detached

dwelling is located on the same lot, therefore the code contemplates that, depending on the circumstances, a guest house and a residence on one RR lot may be appropriate. Because the development proposed here will not disrupt the low-density character of the zone, it is in keeping with the policy expressed by the code.

c) Condition 1 to this permit ensures that the primary single-family detached dwelling will

be larger than the guest house, as required by Title 18. d) Granting the permit is in keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation

as a Perimeter Area, which allows variable densities so long as it is compatible with the surrounding community. Granting this conditional use is in keeping with the development of the area as low density, as intended by the RR zone.

2. There is adequate existing energy serving the site. The applicant has indicated that GVEA


serves the site.

3. There are adequate existing transportation facilities serving the site. The current dwelling is served by an existing shared access easement. The lot is further served by Carrie Lynn Drive, a public right of way.

4. The lot currently has adequate private well and septic capacities sufficient to support the

current uses. Condition 2 ensures that, should the owner develop the lot as proposed, the owner must develop adequate septic and the septic must be in conformity with ADEC standards.

5. The proposed conditional use will protect public health, safety or welfare because the

structure complies with Title 18 standards for the RR zone, including all setbacks, and maintains the neighborhood character.

Discussion Ms. ONeall spoke regarding Condition #1; she inquired if there should be a time frame. Mr. Guinn queried if Conditional Uses had a specific time limit. Ms. Nelson replied there was no limit in FNSBC; however, the ordinance passed in 2014 allowed the Commission to specify limitations on time. Ms. Doxey reminded that Ms. Nelson was a party in the case; therefore, the applicant should be asked if he had any additional comments. Mr. Pangborn opined there was always room for complications that could prevent building the house during the summer. He encouraged no time limit for use. ROLL CALL Nine (9) in Favor: Ms. Presler, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall, Mr. Billingsley,

Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perreault, Ms. Thayer, and Mr. Guinn. Zero (0) Opposed:

MOTION CARRIED

RE2015-001 (Remand of CU2015-003) A remand of the request by Bryan Maracle on behalf of Alaska Wireless Network and Amanda Copus for conditional use approval of a 120-foot communications tower in the Rural Estate 4 (RE-4) zone on Lot 06, Block 10 of Musk Ox Subdivision 1st Addition. The Board of Adjustment remanded this case to the Planning Commission to take additional evidence only as follows; 1.) Whether a significant gap in service coverage exists, 2.) Whether feasible alternative facilities or site locations exist, 3.) Whether potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives actually exist, and the Planning Commission may also consider whether it is appropriate to place conditions on the permit to mitigate adverse visual impacts. (Located at 1622 Wolverine Lane, on the northwest corner of La Rue Lane and Wolverine Lane) (Staff Contact: Melissa Kellner) Mr. Guinn read the specific instructions received from the Board of Adjustment for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Is there a significant gap in service coverage. 2) Has the applicant


done an inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities, or site location; If so, does it appear that the applicants proposal is the least intrusive of the alternatives examined. 3) Has there been evidence presented that alternative sites or facilities exist. If the Planning Commission considers granting the application they may consider ways in which the impact of tower can be mitigated; considerations will include those factors allowed by Fairbanks North Star Borough Code. By Federal Law the Planning Commission cannot consider radio frequency health concerns, and cannot reject an application based solely on neighborhood opposition. All testimony should be relevant to the considerations just read. The Planning Commission is familiar with the record created at the Planning Commission meeting Of April 7, 2015 and will consider that record when making its decision.

Expert Witness for FNSB Community Planning: Mr. Joe Blaschka Jr., P.E. 3929 184th Place SE Bothell, WA 98012-8827 425-489-0125

Affirmed connected via telephone

OATH ADMINISTERED TO GROUP INCLUDING MR. BLASCHKA JR.

Applicants for AWN introduced themselves for the record: Becky Windt Pearson, in house Land Use counsel for AWN. Bryan Maracle, Project Manager for GCI. Teresita Flores, Engineer. Gene Strid, Chief Technology Officer for AWN. Melissa Kellner introduced the staff report and introduced expert witness, Joe Blaschka Jr., connected telephonically. Joe Blaschka Jr., P.E. expert witness from ADCOMM Engineering, reviewed the proposed application for CU2015-003. He confirmed that a significant gap in coverage did exist. Regarding available and technologically feasible alternatives He confirmed that the site chosen, based on a variety of factors like terrain, foliage, zoning, and ability to lease, appeared to be the least obtrusive that is available and willing to lease to the applicant. He explained that the tower height proposed was at the minimum required to maintain coverage and to comply with Fairbanks North Star Borough requirement to allow for collocation on the tower. He addressed the question of whether alternative technologically feasible were available; for the rural area, given the radio frequency and interference from foliage and other factors, microcells were not practicable and GVEA does not allow wireless sites on their poles. He surmised, there was a significant gap in coverage, site choices were limited by ability to lease, the tower height was justified by coverage need and requirement to provide co-location, and there were no other system technologies that could be used. Ms. Kellner completed the staff presentation. Based upon staff analysis, the Department of Community Planning recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the following two (8) Conditions:


1. All existing vegetation, with the exception of that which is necessary to be removed for

construction and placement of the cell tower and related equipment, shall be maintained on the property for as long as the communications site exists on the site.

2. There shall be no lighting on the tower.

3. The monopole is limited to 120 feet in height and no more than six antennas at four feet in height for a total of 124 feet in height except for legally permitted collocations.

4. A Utility Lot for the proposed lease area shall be created and recorded through a Quick Plat process to meet Title 17 and Title 18 requirements.

5. The yard requirement of the required utility lot is modified from 62 feet on all sides to: 1’ 6” from the north utility lot line and the east utility lot line for the equipment shelter and 13’ 3” from the south and west utility lot lines for the tower, as indicated in the site plan (Exhibit K of the application).

6. Except where modified by other conditions of approval, the property shall be developed

according to the attached site plan as Exhibit A, Drawings C-1 through C-10 of this report.

7. Maintenance work and upkeep of the leased premises shall only be Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the exception of emergencies.

8. The utility lot plat shall be amended as necessary and recorded. Mr. Whitaker queried if a requirement for a flush mount antennae should be in the conditions. Mr. Billingsley noted that the Findings, as currently proposed, did not address all of the three pronged approach and would also need to be amended. Ms. Doxey requested that Ms. Kellner email the proposed Findings and Conditions so she could add language while the Planning Commission discussed the proposed motion. Mr. Billingsley asked Mr. Blaschka for a clear definition of what “significant” represented, as it pertains to “significant gap in coverage”. Mr. Blaschka agreed that was somewhat subjective, but effectively, locations where calls are dropped and it would take a significant distance to reestablish. Mr. Perreault inquired how additional rise in elevation impacted a towers ability to provide coverage to a larger area. Mr. Blaschka explained that for the frequencies allotted cellular carriers, terrain ends the signal; therefore coverage has to be line of sight. Mr. Perreault requested an explanation of a shadowed area still not covered by the proposed site.


Mr. Blaschka clarified that coverage does not extend in a diffused pattern; it is similar to a spotlight or lighthouse depending. Therefore directly under the antenna there can be less coverage. Mr. Perreault queried if the primary purpose of the site was to provide coverage to the road system or the residential area. Mr. Blaschka replied that to his memory it was both and deferred the question to the applicant. Mr. Billingsley asked Mr. Blaschka how AWN’s analysis of alternative sites and technologies compared to other cases he worked on. Mr. Blaschka responded that applications varied by location; the applicant did a good job looking for available alternative sites. Mr. Peterson inquired if there were any other towers in the area. Mr. Blaschka stated he would have to look at the report; by memory, not within the distance that a typical cell tower covered. AWN did look at towers in the area and provided coverage predictions for some. Ms. Pearson began the applicant’s presentation; she noted for the record that AWN had submitted application materials that spoke regarding the provisions of Fairbanks North Star Borough Code applicable to the application, 18.54.030 and 18.51.55. She explained that the presentation would focus on the parameters set by the Board of Adjustment in the remand decision which cited the criteria set by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in T-Mobile USA vs. City of Anacortes. The application itself seeks to fill a significant gap in coverage; 625 residents of the Fairbanks North Star Borough would receive primary service from this tower and it would extend coverage to significant portions of Ballaine and Farmers Loop Roads that currently have no coverage. Ms. Pearson continued that the proposed site was identified through the use of an idealized design point generated by their RF engineering consultants through analysis of coverage in the area and the surrounding areas. Multiple sites were considered. There are no available towers in the area to allow for colocation for this project. They also approached owners of RA zoned property in the area and were unable to reach an agreement with them. The chosen site has the benefit of being undeveloped which allows for some screening from the existing vegetation on the site. It also is essentially at the top of this ridgeline which means that a tower can be constructed at the lowest possible height, which is a criteria set by code and it minimizes the obstruction of views for properties that are located further down the hill. It is also adjacent to GVEA’s high-voltage transmission line which cuts through the area. It is an area of this neighborhood where there is existing utility infrastructure. Ms. Pearson stated that they did double check to make sure that they did not overlook any site that was non-residential within the search ring that could be a possibility. They had not initially proposed a possible tower on the Pearl Creek Elementary site or in Pearl Creek Park as they felt that those sites would be less desirable from a neighborhood perspective. They did conduct an RF analysis on those sites in preparation for this meeting and the challenge is the elevation is considerably lower than the elevation of the chosen site. A tower on either of the Pearl Creek sites would have to be at least 220’ in height.


Ms. Pearson stated that AWN reached out to GVEA again regarding collocation and were denied again. Ms. Pearson further stated that they have been engaged in discussions with the neighbors of the property about a potential move within the site. The neighbors did propose an alternate site on the property. They have analyzed this new location and will speak to it in their presentation at greater depths. They feel that the proposed site is the least intrusive location available and technically feasible alternative to fill the significant gap in coverage in this area. Ms. Pearson continued that the location was strategically selected to minimize visibility, allows for the shortest possible tower, does not require the use of water or sewage facilities or supplies, is served by the Borough road system, power is available and will affirmatively protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by filling the gap in coverage in this area. Bryan Maracle, AWN Project Manager, addressed the Planning Commission. He gave an overview of the project to date. He gave the specifications on the tower and the facility that is intended to be constructed. Mr. Maracle gave a brief history of the cellular industry facilities and how they function. He further commented that one of the questions regarding cellular towers was how it would affect property values in the area. Through an appraisal study they found that there is no deamination on property values based on Chilton Hines analysis. Mr. Maracle deferred to Mr. Strid and Ms. Flores to explain how design points are generated and how the models are used to generate them. Ms. Flores stated that the idolized design point is selected to fill a coverage gap. Although the center of the circle is the preferred, construction is usually given a half-mile radius to find a property. Mr. Maracleclarified that the coverage maps that the displayed actually show the different height analysis that they explored. He showed several display maps of different scenarios. He stated that the primary difference between 100’ and 120’ towers is a slight increase increase in coverage but is a significant increase in allowing for collocation space. Mr. Maracle gave other examples of coverage values in the area and the significance of having this tower at this location. Mr. Maracle added that as a wireless carrier they prefer to collocate. They prefer to utilize existing infrastructure and it is more cost effective. However, in this area, there are no potential towers to fill this coverage gap. Mr. Maracle continued that they did look at a number of alternative sites and that when looking at RA-5 alternatives in the vicinity, they determined that they could not secure a lease for any of these parcels in the non-residential zone. They continued up the hill and at their second preferred location, the landowner was not willing to entertain a lease. That left them with their third preferred location, this subject property. Mr. Maracle stated that they did investigate the two alternative areas, one at Pearl Creek School and the other at Pearl Creek Park. Being that there was a significant drop in elevation at both of these locations they preferred a shorter tower as opposed to a taller tower. Therefore,


this current location meets those desires. Mr. Maracle added that once a tower reaches 200’, there must be lighting added. This is per FAA requirements. Mr. Maracle gave further explanation between the two alternative locations and the desired location and the specific requirements for the different towers. Mr. Maracle stated that they do intend to do a flush-mount antennae system in order to decrease the visual impact. A microwave antennae will also be installed for back haul. A 10’ X 12’ equipment shelter and a 30’ X 30’ fenced area will be designated. As for the visual analysis, they conducted two different studies. One was photo simulations and the other was an actual balloon test. Mr. Maracle explained the differences between the two and the different results of each test. Mr. Maracle continued that with this examination of the photographs taken at different locations within the vicinity, the balloons were mostly not noticeable. Mr. Maracle added that at this neighborhood reached out to him recently and requested a discussion pertaining to alternatives. Mr. Maracle agreed to meet. As a result the neighbors have proposed an alternate location. Mr. Maracle confirmed that he met with several neighbors and they viewed the area. As a result, the neighbors have identified two major areas of concern. The first is the view of the ground facilities from Wolverine Lane. Mr. Maracle displayed diagrams of the original proposed location as well as the neighbors/AWN negotiated location. Mr. Maracle stated that the difference, documented by GPS point readings, was a difference of 40’. Mr. Maracle continued that with respect to moving the tower to the location as proposed by the neighbors, there would be a diminishment of service as they are dropping between 20’ and 30’. There is also a diminishment of coverage and the loss of collocation space. If the tower were to be increased to 150’ at this proposed location, coverage would be closer to the coverage that their original proposed location would provide, however service would still be diminished. They also tested this new proposed location utilizing a 180’ tower. Coverage would still be somewhat diminished. Mr. Maracle continued that there is a note in the code that states that 150’ is the suggested maximum height for towers. Mr. Maracle stated that the question now is why not the alternative location. He gave several reasons that support not moving the tower to the proposed new location. Mr. Maracle stated that they have met with a professional landscaper at the site and inquired what type of vegetation would he suggest to increase the vegetative buffer from the road. As a result, they have revised their proposed vegetation plan based on input from both the neighbors and the professional landscaper. Also included in this plan is an agreement with the professional landscaper to have them come back next year and maintain the planted buffer to ensure that they are maturing and growing as expected. Based on continued conversations with the neighbors, the neighbors feel that even with adding 3-5 additional spruce trees along the direct line of the road, one would still be able to see the ground facilities through the trees. In order to mitigate this, they questioned the professional landscaper as to the number of trees that would be required to fill the gaps between the trees. It was determined that 7 trees should solve this problem.


Traffic and access was another issue that the neighbors were concerned with. Mr. Maracle stated that they visit site locations bi-annually to perform annual preventative maintenance, but will visit site locations any time in an emergency outage situation. Public health and safety was another issue that they addressed. He stated that public health and safety would be increased by the location of this site. Power to the location will be provided by GVEA and this site location is on the borough road system. Ms. Pearson added that there is a significant coverage gap in this area. The Telecommunications Act does give a carrier the right to close a gap, subject to limitations. She feels that they have addressed those limitations as set forth in the remand decision. They do believe that they have proposed the least intrusive available and technically feasible location for this property. The site and placement of the tower allows for coverage with a tower of minimum height and will allow for collocation which will minimize the creation of new towers in this area in the future. She stated that they are open to additional feedback on the vegetation plan, the fencing around the tower and the color of the tower. They have proposed a brown tower thinking it would blend in the most, but they are open to additional feedback. Ms. Pearson reiterated that this site, as they have proposed, meets the standards set by the Borough Code for the construction of a new communications tower. They feel that the site selected will minimize the net impact on all residents of the surrounding area, both those immediately adjacent to it and those who might see it from a greater distance. Collocation on another tower is not an option here nor are there any non-residential alternative sites available for this particular project. The project will be designed to realistically accommodate future collocations. As stated previously, the height is necessary in order to get more than one carrier up above the treeline and realistically allow for collocations in the future which would prevent construction of additional towers in the area. This tower will not be illuminated. Screening vegetation will stay in place and set-backs will be met from the parent parcel if not from the actual utility lot itself. In conclusion, Ms. Pearson stated that public health, safety and welfare will be protected by the addition of the coverage and impacts will be mitigated by the placement of the tower, which as noted, is the least intrusive alternative in this area. Ms. Pearson welcomed questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Perrault questioned why this particular location was selected. Ms. Flores explained that this area, as depicted in their presentation, does not have coverage. Mr. Perrault noted that there is a continuing gap as one proceeds east along the ridge. He questioned if there are future plans to continue to build additional towers to close those gaps as well. Ms. Flores responded that they would if given the opportunity. Mr. Perrault questioned if there was any discussion about moving east from this design point up towards where other towers further up the ridge are located to gain both elevation and coverage.


Mr. Maracle stated that if they move more than one-half mile away from a particular design point, the existing coverage gap closure is not met. Mr. Perrault questioned if their design point could be moved to another location which has not been discussed yet to achieve the same result. Mr. Maracle replied “No.” Mr. Perrault again asked if there were any plans to try to close gaps to the east along the ridge. Mr. Maracle stated that as wireless networks continue to expand, they are always looking to continually fill coverage gaps as well as look at traffic patterns. It an evolving network and an evolving standard as more people are utilizing cell services. This is increasing the traffic. Ms. Flores stated that one of the reasons that she could not look further to the east is that there is already a new tower two miles to the east of this location. Mr. Perrault asked for confirmation that there is not another design point between this location and the tower located two miles away. Ms. Flores confirmed this. Mr. Whitaker questioned if antennae are ever mounted on an angle bracket. Mr. Strid stated that when designing a tower, one strives to stay above the treeline so that coverage is not lost. The idea is to pick cell sites in such a place where you can keep the RF signal above the treeline and not have to go through the trees. Going through the trees causes loss of signal strength. Mr. Whitaker commented that he feels that these same areas could be covered if the antennae were angled. He questioned if areas along Farmers Loop Road were investigated. Mr. Maracle stated sites along Farmers Loop Road are outside of the half-mile design point. He brought attention back to their presentation to explain this. Ms. Doxey interrupted to advise the Planning Commission that the courts have accepted this methodology as sound and industry standard to identify the gap, find the ideal location and explore within a half-mile radius. This is an acceptable method. Mr. Reilly asked for clarification regarding the alternative location proposed by the neighbors. He wanted to know what was the smallest tower that one could erect to obtain the most effect. Mr. Maracle replied that the 120’ tower that they are proposing is the smallest that they could use to obtain the most effect. Mr. Reilly questioned if anything could be placed underground to help mitigate the visual effect. Mr. Maracle responded that he does not know of any underground facilities that have ever been used. They do utilize underground cabling for facilities, power extensions, etc. to decrease the overhead transmission lines. In this particular location, bedrock is below the surface. Mr. Reilly then questioned that what AWN is proposing is the least intrusive to the environment and yet most effective for this project. Mr. Maracle confirmed this. He further commented that they are continuing to work with the neighborhood to find a mitigation strategy that will cover all of their concerns. Mr. Maracle again referred back to their presentation to describe the fencing which they feel will be the least intrusive for the property. Mr. Whitaker inquired if AWN also own the tower next to the Mushers Hall. Mr. Maracle replied that they did not


Mr. Whitaker asked how far away the base station facility could be installed. Mr. Maracle replied that typically you would want them as close as possible to keep the facility compact, but you can go a considerable distance. Mr. Perrault questioned how tall the tower is at Mushers Hall. Mr. Maracle stated that he did not know. Mr. Perrault questioned if Mr. Maracle knew how close this particular tower is to its ideal spot. Mr. Maracle replied that he did not. It is not their tower. Mr. Perrault questioned if Mr. Maracle knew how close the tower at the Ken Kunkle Community Center was to its ideal spot. Mr. Maracle replied that that tower is 120’ and that it is pretty close to the design point as well. Mr. Perrault questioned why a lower tower works for that particular design point as opposed to the one that is being proposed. Ms. Flores added that they have six existing towers that are close to the Ken Kunkle Center and that one will fill in the gap between the other existing towers. Mr. Maracle added that terrain makes a significant design point criteria. If you are in the valley and trying to cover the valley, being in the flat area is beneficial. If you are trying to cover in the hillsides, being up in the hillsides is beneficial. The terrain and the foliage make a significant difference on how you design the points. Ms. O’Neall questioned if there was only one service provider that can provide the service from this tower or are you able to rent it out to other service providers. Mr. Maracle responded that that is where collocation comes into play. They have designed the towers to allow for collocation. Ms. O’Neall asked if they had had any interest of anyone requesting collocation. Mr. Maracle replied that they have not received a specific request for collocation for this tower to date. Mr. Billingsley questioned if Ms. Pearson mentioned the 9th Circuit Court case at the last meeting. Ms. Pearson replied that she was not at the last meeting regarding this tower. She was here for the tower on Gilmore Trail. Mr. Billingsley inquired if Mr. Pearson brought this 9th Circuit Court case to the attention of the Borough. Ms. Pearson stated that she did bring it to the attention of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Billingsley stated that he is surprised that Ms. Pearson did not bring this matter to the attention of Mr. Maracle when this case was originally heard. Ms. Pearson responded that she did not work for them at the time that this case was originally heard. Mr. Billingsley questioned the number of primary users expected for this tower. Ms. Pearson stated that they have implemented a new system based on census date to accurately track the number of users that would be served by a tower. Mr. Billingsley asked if the owners of the RA-5 land that was considered were not willing to lease their land. Mr. Maracle confirmed that the owners of that land were not interested in leasing their property. Interested Persons Testimony Opened


Paul Schneider, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he still stands in opposition to this project and expressed that he feels that the process by which he and his neighbors have had to go through to appeal a former decision is flawed, He stated that as the applicant, the inability for his group to be able to provide information for the Commissioners’ packets is wrong. As a result, they are forced to testify individually in person. Mr. Schneider stated to the Planning Commission some of the various topics which will be touched upon this evening by members of this neighborhood. Mr. Schneider commented about the meetings with AWN which began February 1. At one of these meetings it was suggested that the tower site be moved 80 feet which they estimate to ab a change in elevation of only 10 feet. They believe this minor change along with a vegetative screening, and an access road that does not allow the site to be seen from the road, would greatly reduce the visual impact of the tower and the ground facilities for the tower. Mr. Schneider also expressed his disdain that only persons within 1,000’ of the project area are invited to provide testimony during the application process. Therefore, discussions about visual impacts for anything outside of this area is mute. Mr. Schneider asked, on behalf of his neighborhood group, that their measures be considered as part of the application requirements as they believe that they are not as onerous a presented by AWN. Mr. Schneider made himself available for questions. He further commented that their suggestion to move the tower to an alternate location is only a difference of approximately 10 feet. Mr. Whitaker queried how the neighborhood group came up with a 10’ elevation difference when AWN states a difference of 40’. Mr. Schneider stated that they walked the site and utilized a hand level. They do not agree with their assessments which were based on contour maps which they believe are extremely approximate. He further stated that at 20’ intervals, the contour maps are only good to ten feet. They believe that the change is much less than they are proposing it to be. Mr. Billingsley stated that if this were to be approved and the Planning Commission were to impose mitigating measures, a record of such would have to be made and therefore this body will need everybody’s help in identifying problems and how those problems can be mitigated. John Morack, interested person addressed the Planning Commission. He read the following statement into the record; “A month ago the neighborhood decided that in order to be accommodating, they would approach AWN with a proposal to move the location of the proposed tower to a bit further from the road and behind some spruce trees. The reason for this was to better hide the ground facilities and to reduce the impact of the tower when driving or walking on LaRue and up Wolverine Lanes. As a reminder of how intrusive this tower will be, consider AWN’s simulation from the corner of LaRue and Wolverine Lanes. The second slide is a simulation that they ran from across the street. This will be the view that the people on upper Wolverine Lane and Taiga Lane will see everyday as they walk and drive by.” “Additionally, the facilities on the ground are only 50’ from the side of the road and will be easily viewable from the road. There is no way to completely eliminate these impacts but we feel that there is a way to reduce them substantially. We propose that the tower be moved approximately 80’ to the southwest, which we estimate a drop of about 12 feet. This location is shown on a


Google Earth map in the next figure. The next slide shows this proposed location plotted on AWN’s engineering drawing. The proposed tower location near the southwest corner of 120’ X 120’ utility lot of AWN as proposed. The utility lot would need to be moved to accommodate this, however much of the old utility lot could be incorporated into the new one. This move, I believe, would make a waiver on the required set back distances unnecessary. The position of the matured spruce trees that would block the tower are shown on the display as green circles. These should be protected and not cut during any additional clearing that would be needed.” “Additionally, an area along the road was cleared last year and is shown in the diagram in blue. This opens the current site to direct view and needs to be landscaped although we feel that it would be several years before the mitigation is satisfactory. To better illustrate this, we have taken a few photographs from the road towards the site. Photograph one shows the location of the site on Wolverine Lane from my driveway and shows the Borough notice of tonights hearing. This is what I see out my driveway. Photograph two shows the view from the road near the Boroughs notice sign looking towards the site along a 20’ wide cleared area.” Mr. Morack continued “As you can see, even where trees exist, they are very sparse and do not significantly block the view of the site. If you look straight ahead in the photograph you can see the mature spruce trees that they are proposing to be used to shield the tower and its base and its base facilities from view. The last photograph shows a closer view of these same spruce trees and a pair of cross red surveyor stakes where we think the tower should go. As I have stated, even this move will not totally eliminate the impact of the tower but having the tower further from the road will make it less visible when walking and driving by and we feel the spruce trees will do a much better job of blocking the ground facilities from view.” In conclusion, Mr. Morack commented that they have been communicating with AWN and the neighborhood group feels that they need a few weeks to consider some of the compromises that AWN is offering. A summary of testimony was provided to the Planning Commission. Ms. Doxey stated if this summary is actually testified hereto under oath and subject to questioning, then it is fine for the chair to accept this as a summary of that for your review later if you so choose. Ms. Doxey added that so long as the testimony here today is reflective of what is in this document, it is potentially acceptable. Paul McCarthy, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He wanted to emphasize that the neighborhood took the initiative six days after gaining access to the revised proposal to reach out to AWN. Mr. McCarthy stated that they, the neighborhood, are asking for AWN to a commitment to add a clause to the visual impact that protects the people of the neighborhood. They feel that the view from one or two miles away is less valuable than the view that people get walking or driving by the site every day. He feels that visual impact is really important. He stated that he feels that their proposed change is modest in nature, utilizes part of the site that is under consideration, is close to the original site, utilizes part of the access road already in place, provides much more natural in place screening and seems to be agreeable to AWN and the landowner. Mr. McCarthy addressed each item in the handout that was provided describing in detail each. Mr. McCarthy concluded that Mr. John Burns and Mr. Morack conversed with Mr. Maracle Independently on Friday and both received the same information, that the land owners and the company officials were willing to move the tower to a new proposed location, that the tower might need to be taller, that the driveway could zig-zag so that the tower and supporting unit


would not be visible from the road or the driveway and that adequate landscaping will be done to mitigate the visual impact. Mr. McCarthy reiterated that the neighborhood passed up other opportunities to look at and to provide testimony believing that they would arrive at a decision. Mr. McCarthy acknowledged Mr. Maracles willingness, thanked him for it and requested a few more weeks to see if they can work together with the new proposal. Cam Carlson, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. She reiterated what Mr. Schneider had previously stated. She stated that when this case was remanded back to the Planning Commission, their neighborhood group misunderstood and believed that they were starting back at “square one.” As part of the process for preparing the packet for this meeting, they thought they would be able to provide documentation in support of their opposition. Such was not the case. Instead, they were told that this is a quasi-judicial hearing and that they would not be provided this opportunity. Ms. Carlson stated, as she has stated before, she is absolutely opposed to the application. She expressed that the Borough is powerless to enforce landscaping rules and gave an example of such a site. Robert “Bob” Carlson, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He confirmed that they have been meeting with Mr. Maracle over the last several months. Mr. Carlson clarified that he is a retired civil engineer and a licensed and surveyor. This he feels helps him to understand the situation at hand. He spoke regarding the steps that were taken when they walked the property and how he was able to come up with their suggested change in elevation of approximately 12 feet. Mr. Carlson did have a comment regarding the use of larch as a landscaping tree. He stated that there is no larch present at this location. The closest larch he has found is approximately two miles away. Additionally, he stated that larch drop their needles in the winter which is what is not wanted in the wintertime. Jamie Hollingsworth, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He read the following into the record; “First, I would like to encourage the Board to postpone the making of their decision until the next meeting at which time, if an agreement can be met with AWN, that stipulations can then be included in your findings. I would, however, like to take a few minutes of time to discuss a couple of the arguments laid out in the yellow mailer that I received in the mail.” The first item that Mr. Hollingsworth addressed was the significant gap in service. He stated that he disagrees with that there is a significant gap in service. He stated that AWN depicted this gap in their presentation and this figure is misleading. He pointed out that they never did have a signal nor did they show how bad the signal really was. He knows this how? He clarified that he is a current GCI customer and he has the ability to view on his phone signal strengths so he knows which tower he is connected to, which type of data service he is getting and he has been contributing this data to a crowd sourced project that maps all coverage. He argues that this AWN obligation map shows a relatively small percentage of the area that they would actually be serving with this new tower. The second item that Mr. Hollingsworth addressed is the ability to find alternative locations. He stated that he does not feel that they tried very hard. They found one property owner that said yes and that was about it. He questioned being a good neighbor. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that


by using the FNSB GIS system, he was able to find approximately 250 lots that exist within their half-mile search radius. Within that search radius there is more than 25 unimproved lots yet they only contacted three land owners. Mr. Hollingsworth concluded by stating that the last time this issue was brought before this Commission, they weren’t reminded of the legal ruling that was pointed out to them tonight and he does not want that to be a hinderence in the Commissions’ decision. Nor were there experts and he added that an expert can say whatever you want an expert to say. Mr. Guinn suggested that the Planning Commission motion and vote to extend the time of evening for this meeting to extend to. Ms. Doxey clarified that the Planning Commission rules state that a motion is needed to extend past midnight. Mr. Guinn stated that this will be revisited at midnight. Pamela Miller, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that after reviewing the entire Planning Commission packet, she concludes that there is insufficient evidence to meet the three part test set forth by the remand. The bottom line is that AWN did not provide evidence supporting a conclusion that the tower location is the best location or that there are not other alternatives. She stated that it is her belief that the tower location was determined first and then materials created aimed at supporting it. She stated that AWN did not provide any methodology or objective analysis to under guard its calculation of the design point from which answers to all three remand questions follow. There are lots of maps in their presentation that depict areas no to marginal coverage but she questions which area does AWN consider the significant gap. What exactly are they considering the significant gap? She stated that it is vital to know the geographic scope of a defined study area from which a computer analysis was run for determining the design point. They have not pointed out what study area, exactly, they calculated their design point based on. She further commented that she questioned what were the variables that were input. Ms. Miller also stated that there was no explanation was given for what level of service is considered “No coverage to Marginal coverage” nor is the data defining areas with “Good coverage to Excellent coverage” nor areas with “Good coverage to Marginal coverage.” She stated that these are overlapping categories that don’t make sense as “Marginal” is in there twice. Ms. Miller added that ‘4G” coverage is the only indication for what kind of coverage levels they were looking at when they created those coverage maps. She noted that 3G data, voice and text as well as 4GLTE are shown in coverage maps on the GCI website. She has been a GCI customer for over 9 years and described the services that she has been able to utilize through her provider. She commented that she is content with her service in this area that AWN describes as being a dead zone. Ms. Miller concluded by stating that the critical piece that the Planning Commission needs to consider is the design point because they are biasing the process of determining the alternatives in that whole area. She feels that they could have alternatives on the lighting poles which are already there to provide service along the highway. There is landscape that has trees and hills and houses that are not close to each other because that is what this zoning level that you’re having to give a variance for covers. Mr.Guinn questioned if Ms. Miller received a Dear Property Owner letter. Ms. Miller replied that she is not a property owner. She spoke at the last meeting. She is hoping to purchase property in this neighborhood. She is affected. She worked as an environmental professional reviewing


documents for over 30 years. Ms. Doxey intervened and stated that the Chair would have to do an interested person analysis to determine if Ms. Miller has standing to make comments. Ms. Miller stated that she has lived at this residence for nine years and has a lease. Mr. Guinn questioned the Commission to see if anyone had an issue with Ms. Millers testimony. He further stated that in the past, lessees have been determined to have a property interest. Ms. Doxey reminded Mr. Guinn that there will need to be inquiry as to the property interest that is impacted. He will need to identify the specific property interest that is significantly affected in a way different than the general public. That is the interested person standard for somebody that did not receive a DPO letter. Mr. Whitaker inquired if Ms. Millers’ landlord received the DPO letter. Ms. Miller stated that she did not know. Ms. Doxey clarified that an adequate record was made to make the determination. Kay Wilson, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that her property is located west of the potential cell tower site. Her property abuts this property. She thanked the Commission for denying the permit nearly one year ago. Ms. Wilson stated that her testimony provides no data or legalese but ask that if the Planning Commission should approve this application, it be done with the provision that the tower be relocated to the site recommended by the neighborhood. She continued that the benefit of this tower is clearly in favor of AWN and the Guthrie household. One is an Anchorage based company and the other is a property owner who doesn’t even reside in the neighborhood. Ms. Wilson stated that last year when they went before the Borough Assembly, they had approximately 60 signatures of people in opposition of this tower, including some who were aware that there was a potential benefit to them as cell phone customers. She continued that it is difficult to argue corporate and personal monetary gain against esthetic environmental health concerns. In this culture, big money usually wins. Ms. Wilson continued that they were informed that they could not argue against the tower for health concerns, but that has been her major objection from the start. This tower is a desecration to the environment and esthetics of this quiet wooded old established neighborhood. Ms. Wilson gave an example of this. She stated that she works in a health care field and this is an analog that she can easily relate to. She gave further explanations to support her statements. Ms. Wilson concluded that she has lived in this area since 1991 and enjoys its offerings. She further commented that had she known that a cell tower was to be constructed in this area she would never have purchased her property. She urged the Planning Commission to be responsible and accountable to this neighborhood and not approve this permit. However, if the Planning Commission should choose to approve this permit, please do so only if the alternative site is accepted. Ms. Wilson added that she has excellent coverage and it was never presented to them that this would be a microwave antennae. Mr. Guinn questioned if there were any other people in the audience who wished to testify who did not receive a Dear Property Owner letter. No one responded.


Scott Shirar, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that he did receive a Dear Property Owner letter. He stated that he and his wife attended the first hearing before the Planning Commission when the neighborhood came to voice their collective opposition to the cell tower on the grounds that it was not necessary and did not provide needed services to the area. Furthermore, it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and the property owners. Mr. Shirar stated that his neighbors have, and will continue to, voice various objections this evening. He stated that he and his family have questions about the negative effects on property values of homes surrounding the cell tower. Mr. Shirar read the following statement into the record; “Our homes represent not just places where we live but significant investments although the applicant provided an appraisal report stating that the tower would not have a negative impact on home values.” Mr. Shirar stated that he objects to this statement. Their appraisal was not done by a residential appraiser nor did it address the specific situation of the effects of a new tower on adjacent property owners. Mr. Shirar stated that they spoke with their realtor nearly a year ago and their realtor mentioned that having a cell tower nearby would most certainly affect the pool of potential buyers. Many people, including themselves, do not wish to live next to a cell tower. In addition to esthetics, some of their concerns echo Ms. Wilsons regarding health and safety. Mr. Shirar continued that even if this cell tower does not directly affect their property values in terms of tax assessments or appraisals, which they believe it most certainly will, at the very least this will make their property sit on the market for longer than it would otherwise if they were to put it up for sale. It will affect their ability to resell in a timely manner. Mr. Shirar stated that he and his wife purchased their home 2 ½ years ago and had they known that a cell tower was going to be built, they would not have made an offer on the house. He and his wife ask that the Planning Commission please weigh these impacts to the neighborhood in their decisions. Nancy Hallinan, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that she did receive a Dear Property Owner letter. Ms. Hallinan described to the Commission her experience with her wireless and cellular services that she had purchased years earlier and her satisfaction with the services that she received. In July of 2015 their quality of service declined. They made several calls to the provider, GCI, and were surprised to find that a new tower was being constructed in their neighborhood. This prompted their opposition to the application before the Planning Commission. Subsequently, their service has declined in the process. Ms. Hallinan continued that during her discussion with the technician at GCI in July 2015, it was learned that towers could be “re-tuned” and she questioned if rather than building new towers, could the existing towers in the area be “re-tuned?” She stated that she is totally opposed to this tower in this neighborhood. Tom Hallinan, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he did receive the DPO. He stated that he has two concerns. The first is that he does not believe that the ideal set points that they started with. He stated that Mr. Maracle explained to him that in the portion of the frequency spectrum that GCI uses that the radio waves go downhill whereas then all their companies use portions of spectrum where


radio waves go uphill so their antennae should be on the ridgetop. Mr. Hallinan stated that he does not agree with this. Mr. Hallinan gave further explanation of how the decision was made to locate the tower at its present proposed location. Mr. Hallinan questioned the validity of the maps provided regarding improved signal strengths. He stated that the only areas indicated in their maps is a small portion of Merlin Drive and a small part of upper Wolverine. Mr. Hallinan added that the main thing that they do seem to feel that they will be able to accomplish is more coverage on Ballaine Road and partial additional coverage in University Heights. Mr. Hallinan stated that if the main point of this is to get better coverage on Ballaine Road, choosing a point in University Heights Subdivision and then saying that they are not going to look at any other positions within a half-mile of that simply does not make sense. The area that they are really out to serve is more than a half-mile from their design point. Additionally, Mr. Hallinan added that he does not feel that they have gone about this in any logical sense and they have never explained to anyone how they chose the set point. Mr. Hallinan stated that he did concur with his wifes’ prior statement that their cellular serviche was good for three years and that they only lost this good service when GCI re-tuned their antennae because they had already built an antennae on Wolverine Lane. Mr. Hallinan further commented that one of his concerns is the aesthetics in the area. The neighborhood has serious concerns about the aesthetics as they walk the roads and trails in the area. Mr. Hallinan stated that the installations that he has seen around town are ugly. Mr. Hallinan thanked Mr. Maracle for offering to do landscaping but stated that trees planted now will not be mature enough to obscure this sight in his lifetime. Mr. Hallinan also pointed out that in prior correspondence, GCI pointed out that in order to accommodate collocator’s they pointed out that the collocaters could lease more land within that proposed utility lot. Mr. Hallinan added that it is also feasible that the proposed landscaping will be mowed down by some other renter. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend that landscaping has to be preserved and is not subject to cutting down in the future. Wendell Shiffler, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not receive a Dear Property Owner letter. He stated that he has lived in this area for approximately 48 years. In the 1980’s he and his neighbors worked very hard to rezone this area. They went from RE-2 to RE-4 to stop the subdivision of the lots. Mr. Shiffler stated that to break off a small piece of land for a cell tower goes against what Musk Ox Subdivision intended. Mr. Shiffler gave examples of some of the improvements in the area that residents have enjoyed over the years. Mr. Guinn questioned how far Mr. Shiffler lived from the proposed location. Mr. Shiffler replied about a quarter mile. Mr. Guinn questioned if Mr. Shiffler believed that he would be able to see the tower from his property. Mr. Shiffler replied that he would hope not. He did not see any of the balloon testing. Ms. Doxey advised that if the Planning Commission feels that the standard has been met they can make that determination or if they would like they could take a vote.


Mr. Reilly stated that he would vote that Mr. Shiffler has no property interest. He is not able to see the structure and is only guessing that he might be able to see the structure. Mr. Reilly stated that he does not believe that Mr. Shiffler has a direct property interest at this time. A poll was taken of the Planning Commission. Ms. O’ Neall stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Ms. Pressler stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Mr. Reilly stated that Mr. Shiffler should not be able to testify. Mr. Billingsley stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Mr. Whitaker stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Ms. Thayer stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Mr. Peterson stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Mr. Perrault stated that Mr. Shiffler should be able to testify. Mr. Shiffler added that this request does not fit within the original intent of Musk Ox Subdivision neighborhood. He stated that his feeling towards this tower just might be different if the owner of that property lived on the property. One of his greatest concerns is that if this is granted, he feels that it will set precedence for future requests for utility easements on that lot which was originally intended for a residence. He stated that he has good coverage in this area through AT&T. He again respectfully requested that the Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use request for this tower on Wolverine Lane. Mr. Shiffler continued that if this request is granted he would hope that the appearance of this structure would be blended into the view shed of the area to make the least visual impact as possible on the neighborhood. Ross Adkins, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he is opposed to this cell tower for several reasons, many of which have been addressed thus far. Mr. Adkins wanted to add that he feels that there is more impact to the residents of Wolverine Lane from a safety standpoint that has not been discussed. He stated that a cell tower will have as much traffic impact as a residence. The road there was built long ago, has not been improved since then and does not meet the Borough requirements for a road of that type. It is too narrow. The grade is about the steepest in the Borough. There is a 15% grade on part of that road which is a trial to every resident there in the fall when it first snows and in the spring when it thaws. He stated that heavy equipment which might be servicing this tower is not what the neighbors need in Wolverine Subdivision. Mr. Adkins continued that he and his wife sold this particular lot to the current owners several years ago. At that time, he asked the realtor what the owners intended to do with the lot. The answer was that they were going to build a residence so that his children could go to Pearl Creek School. Now we find that that is not the case. Mr. Adkins expressed that this lot and this subdivision were never intended for utility industrial improvements. Mr. Adkins concluded that he feels that it would be a big mistake to approve this application. If it is approved, however, he requests that the Planning Commission stipulate that this cell tower


is having as much impact as a residence so that no other building can be built on the lot. That is only fair to the people who have maintained the size of those lots as they were intended. He feels that by approving this request, it would be another step towards subdividing every lot in the area. Lewis Shapiro, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not receive a DPO but that he lives on Wolverine Lane but is just outside of the 1,000’ area. He submitted a letter last year and was approved as an aggrieved party. Mr. Guinn commented that by allowing Mr. Shiffler to testify earlier, the Planning Commission will allow Mr. Shapiro to testify as well. Mr. Shapiro stated that he is not happy with the tower going in. He feels that it destroys the character of the neighborhood. He has lived there since 1972. They walk the road regularly and drive by it every day. It is not the sort of thing that they want to see there. He added that the site was even being prepared before the Planning Commission heard the application last year. Mr. Shapiro stated that he felt that they were moving ahead of the Conditional Use permit application process. In conclusion, Mr. Shapiro stated that he is opposed to this application. However, if it were to be approved, he would like to see the location moved to the alternate location which was discussed between AWN and the neighbors. Wayne Long, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he did receive a DPO letter. Mr. Long wanted to speak to the Commission regarding the gap in service. He stated that he traveled the entire neighborhood using his cell phone from GCI and he has never lost service in the area. He stated that he is self-employed and relies on his phone to make his living. He has never lost service in this area. Owen Guthrie, owner, addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked the Planning Commission and his neighbors for their comments and thoughts regarding this matter. Mr. Guthrie stated that he knows that this has been a contentious process and, for his part, he wishes that it were otherwise. He stated that he was raised in this area and is familiar with some of the residents in the area. Mr. Guthrie stated that in some respects there is a difference in the meaning of the word “neighborhood.” Mr. Guthrie continued that this area was served with modern internet utilities in approximately 1997. Some of the people who have testified this evening have GCI cable. Most of the people who will be served by this tower do not. They still have the “pipe.” In conclusion, Mr. Guthrie stated that he is available for questions. Casey Byrne, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that she did not receive a DPO letter but is here to address item number one, the gap in service. Mr. Guinn reiterated that based on allowing two other people to testify even though they did not receive a DPO, he will allow Ms. Byrne to testify as well.


Ms. Byrne spoke to the Commission regarding the gap in service. She stated that there absolutely a gap in service in her neighborhood off of Raven Drive. She stated that she cannot have a phone conversation with anyone for longer than two minutes before the call is lost. This is her primary phone. Thankfully she has not had any emergencies. Ms. Byrne added that there was an incident in November 2015 when during a snowstorm and the subsequent power outage. Communication was difficult. Ms. Byrne also spoke to the fact that this neighborhood is very tightly knit. In this area there is a group that communicate via facebook and one of the topics which is constantly discussed is how to get better service in the Goldstream Valley community. There is an issue in this area with regard to gaps in service. She stated that she is not impacted aesthetically by this particular tower but in an effort to keep people connected and to continue to grow the population and preserve the talent in Fairbanks, she urges the Commission to allow this tower. Hank Statscewich, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that he did receive a DPO letter. Mr. Statscewich stated that many of the comments heard here tonight may sound N.I.M.B.Y (not in my back yard) but to be clear he wanted to state for the record that mixing commercial activities and residential neighborhoods is a very unwise decision. That is why there are zoning laws, to define how a particular piece of land could be used. The problem is not the creation of this cell tower but rather the damage that will be done to the neighborhood after commercial activities are introduced to our residential setting. Mr. Statscewich further commented that the residents of Musk Ox Subdivision are aware of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and all have reviewed Section 332.C.7 and realize that the Planning Commission, as community leaders, have a very formidable road to travel should you deny this permit. By law you are not allowed to discriminate among providers. You must act within a reasonable amount of time and a denial of this application must be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. Mr. Statscewich continued that the neighborhood has been instructed that their input to the Planning Commissions prior decision should focus on three key points. Mr. Statscewich stated that he will focus on the gap in coverage element. He stated that quality cell service unequivocally exists in the proposed region through a variety of cell service providers. That is key to understand. AWN is just one provider and their maps only represent the coverage based on their providers signal. Mr. Statscewich stated that they have traveled the roads in this are utilizing a cell phone signal strength app (Open Signal) on their phone and the results indicate that there is not a significant gap in coverage. The ADCOMM Engineering report that was commissioned by the North Slope Borough states that they find GCI’s test drive and computer model data “convincing” but to date no third party with sufficient technical expertise has actually set foot in the neighborhood to conclusively quantify this critical decision point. The burden of proof, he believes, lies thoroughly on the Borough. Mr. Statscewich stated, in conclusion, that he recommends that the North Star Borough deny this conditional use permit on the basis that there is no significant coverage map that has been independently verified by an unbiased party.


Dan LaSota, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not receive a Dear Property Owner letter but would like to speak to item one of the criteria. Mr. LaSota stated that in his neighborhood off of Manchester Loop, there is a shadow and he cannot speak to signal strength but can give you what happens to calls when you drive or walk on the road. Phone calls are constantly dropped in this shadow area. Mr. LaSota commented that the reason that he feels that this particular cell phone tower location is important to him is because he has line of sight from his house straight across to Ester Dome. There is a chance that this cell tower could impact him in a positive way and he is not the only one. The impact goes beyond this particular 1,000 foot radius. He appreciates the concerns of the neighbors but there are a lot more people impacted by this decision. In closing, Mr. LaSota stated that he is in favor of approval of the Condition Use permit. Judi Morack, interested person, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that she did receive a DPO letter. Ms. Morack stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed cell tower site and that she is very opposed to this. She commented that she feels that traffic will increase should this application be approved. Ms. Morack expressed her reasons for moving into the area and stated that she will probably have to move because she is not going to live across the street from a cell tower. Kesler Woodward, interest person, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not receive an individual Dear Property Owner letter pertaining to this meeting. He and his wife did receive notification for the original hearing as they are partial owners of the Taiga Woodlands greenbelt. Mr. Woodward commented to the Commission that if this permit is approved, one of the things that Taiga Woodlands will do is to look into the improper notification of effected homeowners. There will be many more people to testify in opposition of this cell tower. Additionally, Mr. Woodward commented that he is concerned about the fact that so little effort was made to explore alternative sites. He gave several examples of some of the conversations that neighbors had had in the area regarding alternative sites. In conclusion, Mr. Woodward stated that if the Planning Commission does decide to approve this application, it is his hope that you will at least have substantial mitigation regulations that have been suggested written into the approval. Interested Persons Testimony Closed MOTION Move to extend the meeting conclusion time to 1:00 a.m.by Mr. Reilly seconded

by Ms. Presler. All were in favor. There were no objections. The motion carried. A recess was taken. The meeting reconvened. Rebuttal


Ms. Pearson again addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that she wanted to clarify several of the practical challenges with this proposal for the alternate location on the site and also to clarify some of the comments that were made regarding the presentation that was presented. Ms. Pearson stated that to preserve the trees that are cited by the neighbors of the property as a desirable screening mechanism, the tower actually needs to be further back than actually proposed because they cannot build a tower immediately adjacent to trees. This is due to safety issues and restrictions on how far a tower can be from vegetation. In order to effectively preserve the trees, the tower would have to be bumped back a bit. Knowing this, they confirmed the elevation change four different ways. The first measurement was taken by hand held GPS and because it did seem larger than Mr. Maracle had gauged from being on the property. They did verify this several other ways as well. The first was by looking at contour maps. The second was by doing a hand level measurement. The third was the use of propagation mapping from their RF Engineering team. That is how they ended up with the assessment that the tower would need to be approximately 30’ taller in order to give the equivalent coverage. Ms. Pearson continued that other challenges here are that a move to that site would require more net trees to be cleared on the property. Most practically speaking, this area falls outside of a lot that they have been able to lease on the property. They cannot actually move outside of what they have the lease rights to on the property. She stated that they are not a public utility therefore they do not have the rights that a public utility would have. Ms. Pearson added that they can and are willing to move the tower back within the utility lot that they have on the property. They can also offer more vegetation in front of it, but the challenge is the exact location pinpointed is both going to have the additional net impact issues on the area that they cited earlier and also has some serious feasibility challenges for AWN on this site. Ms. Pearson continued regarding the three prong standard that they have been asked to address this evening. With regards to the significant gap, she reiterated that the 9th Circuit Court has concluded that the significant gap standard is met by a significant gap in a carriers own coverage, not by a gap in any coverage in the area. Ms. Pearson cited the specific citation related to this. Ms. Pearson addressed the design point. She stated that essentially they look for the area that they are trying to cover and then proprietary data is entered about the network into a computer program. The results are the design points with which they work with. Some of the gaps there may be the issue that we don’t and no carriers do share all proprietary data about where our antennaes are where they point. That is standard in the industry and is also something that has been legally affirmed as a practice in terms of what goes into the computation of that kind of design point. As far as the selection process and the examination of alternatives, Ms. Pearson stated that it appears that there is the impression that they have only spoken with three property owners in depth. That is not what happened. The number of people who actually agreed to engage in some kind of negotiation for a potential lease, there was outreach to the owners of the RA property. There was extensive outreach by Mr. Maracle to inquire of people, including the


person who is cited in the testimony to make calls and ask if they were interested. Those numbers were not considered substantial conversations. In following up for this hearing, they did reach out to the school district regarding the potential Pearl Creek School site but did not pursue it further once they determined that that site would need to be as enormous as determined, a 220’ tower. They reached out to Golden Valley as well. There were more than three which were considered to be the finalists for this site. With respect to the impact of the property, there were questions about access. As per their presentation, there is not going to be consistent ongoing access to this property. The access will be for scheduled maintenance and for outages. Scheduled maintenance is slated to be two times per year. Outages are relatively rare. That access will be a truck with tower climbers. It will not be heavy equipment. There may be some additional access depending on the vegetation plan that is enacted in order to make sure that that vegetation remains healthy and in place. In conclusion, regarding impact, Ms. Pearson urged the Commission to think about what federal law and the Borough code do say about impact and it is not necessarily limited to just the people who received the notice as set by code. It is not defined just by the people in the immediate area but to the general surrounding area. The federal standard is what kind of impact the project would have on the area as well. Mr. Maracle commented that drive test data defines the geographical boundary of the significant gap. Mr. Strid added that the drive test data is gathered using equipment outdoors in the elements. Signals may seem strong in the outdoors but could weaken indoors. Mr. Billingsley questioned if AWN had a legal definition for significant gap. Ms. Pearson stated that there is not one. It is contingent upon each location. There is no specific language from any court that speaks to what is and is not considered a significant gap. Mr. Billingsley questioned if they consider their conversations with the neighbors to be done. He questioned if it might be beneficial for this item to be tabled and addressed again in the near future while conversations continue. Mr. Maracle stated that he would like to have ongoing conversations with the neighbors. He feels that there should be more conversation regarding what the mitigation strategy should be. Mr. Maracle added that they are willing to entertain a move within the existing utility lot area. Moving significantly down the hill, as previously discussed, there is a greater total net impact. In that regard, he feels that a continued conversation with the neighbors on mitigation strategies and a vegetation plan is a productive conversation to have. Regarding a move outside of the current utility lot area, they would be increasing the net impact overall. Ms. Pearson clarified that they do not have the capacity to move it outside of the utility lot area. They would like to be able to work with the neighbors’, however time is beginning to be an issue for this project. She feels that there are some points that both sides are at an impasse but there are other points that could still be discussed.


Mr. Reilly asked at what point did the neighborhood association come back to AWN with their proposal. Mr. Maracle stated that the communicated this at the end of January 2016. Mr. Reilly inquired if at any time between April of 2015 and January 2016 was Mr. Maracle unavailable to communicate with the neighbors. Mr. Maracle replied that he made himself available as much as possible. There has been intermittent conversation during this time. He stated that they don’t always agree with one another, but they continue to discuss the issue. It has been positive. Ms. O’Neall asked Mr. Maracle to speak to the practice of the anticipation of building a tower and how it affects the service already there. Mr. Maracle explained to the Commission the process by which antennaes are repositioned to maximize the coverage area. This was not done in anticipation of this tower being constructed. It was a tuning of the network that always happens when you commission new cell sites. This retuning happened when the commissioned the Goldstream Lions site. Ms. O’Neall questioned that in adjusting one antennae to gain service, one may create a service gap in another location. Mr. Maracle confirmed this. Ms. Doxey stated that there is a criteria in code that states that the tower has to be designed to accommodate additional antennaes equal in number to the applicants and reasonably future foreseeable requirements. She questioned if this had been addressed. Mr. Maracle continued that in the design of a three carrier tower, they design for an additional step-up in change out in antennaes. There is also a requirement in code that the proposed tower is not within 1,000’ of an existing tower. This was addressed in the April meeting. Mr. Maracle stated that it was addressed in the beginning of their presentation this evening. MOTION Move to postpone the rest of this vote to give Mr. Maracle and the core group of

neighbors time to come to an agreement on mitigation factors and return to this body at the April 15, 2016 to continue meeting by Mr. Perrault seconded by Mr. Whitaker

Discussion Ms. Doxey stated that if we send these folks away to try and come to an agreement and they do come to some sort of agreement and present it to the Planning Commission, to the extent that there may be neighbors who do not agree with this agreement, they would need to be heard. To the extent that there are conditions that have not been discussed, the Commission would likely need to reopen public comment so that the neighbors could speak to that. This will also allow the applicant rebuttal as well. Mr. Reilly stated that by delaying the vote, the Commission is delaying all the other options which could follow this decision. He feels that it should be voted on this evening. Mr. Billingsley questioned if by postponing this to another hearing, would it require them to agree to the postponement. Ms. Doxey stated that the applicant would have to agree to it realistically, but what the Planning Commission does as a body is up to you. If you choose to postpone it, you could do that. There


are time concerns when dealing with a cell tower application. There is a waiver of the shot clock on file from AWN. ROLL CALL Two (2) in Favor: Mr. Perrault and Mr. Whitaker Seven (&) Opposed: Mr. Reilly, Ms. Presler, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall, Mr. Billingsley, Ms. Thayer and Mr. Guinn MOTION DENIED Ms. Doxey stated that she sent an e-mail to the Commissioners i-pads with draft conditions and findings of fact that the Commission may wish to look at as a starting point. Ms. Presler questioned if this Commission could take AWN counsels suggesting to move forward with the condition that they are allowed to continue to discuss the location. Mr. Billingsley clarified that if one was inclined, they could make a motion to approve the conditional use permit with these facts and conditions but modify them to accommodate what you are asking. Ms. Doxey added that she would be concerned with this, the Commission wanting to grant the conditional use permit but then leave it open to be changed because it could affect your other findings of fact, particularly health, safety and welfare. These things are contingent on the actual plan that this Commission is approving. MOTION Move to accept the thirteen (13) conditions and the sixteen (16) findings of fact

and to approve the Conditional Use permit by Mr. Reilly seconded by Ms. Thayer

Discussion Mr. Reilly commented that this has been before a majority of the Commissioners last year. He feels that if this body had the information that it has now last year, things may have been different. He questioned if the residents fully understand the footprint. If you take the tower and move it to a lower elevation, this will cause more environmental damage and more environmental impact. He further stated that he has concerns regarding the N.I.M.B.Y implication. He feels that there is a hinderence in this project. There was testimony to support collocating antennae on GVEA poles and it was made clear that GVEA will not allow this. He questions if the neighborhood group understands this. Mr. Reilly stated that he feels that the traffic impact will be minimal. He does not anticipate a lot of vehicle traffic going into the site once it is completed. He further stated that he accepts the definition that Ms. Pearson gave regarding significant gaps. Based on the findings of fact and the testimony made this evening, he feels that the three criteria were met. Mr. Whitaker requested changing Condition #3 to read “…flush mounted antennae…” There were no objections. “Flush mounted” will be added to the condition. Mr. Billingsley stated that at the last hearing, a different legal standard was applied that was not corrected by the Planning Department. Ms. Pearson brought this up in the meeting earlier this evening. He wanted to bring this to the attention of the residents. Mr. Billingsley continued that if the Planning Commission were inclined, there is still enough room for this Commission to


deny the request. Significant gap is not defined. If this Commission supports it with adequate findings of fact, the Commission could deny the tower. Ms. Doxey interrupted to correct Mr. Billingsley. She stated that there is case law that tells us that in these circumstances you cannot overcome expert testimony with lay opinion. You heard from two experts, AWN’s and Staff’s, who both said that there is a significant gap. That showing has not been overcome with any evidence. To find that there is not a significant gap would be without a legal factual basis. Mr. Whitaker stated that he is leaning towards voting against this because of the significant gap issue. Ms. Thayer commented that the Planning Commission has been instructed that they cannot deny an application for a cell tower location if the denial would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service. It is not that they are prohibiting, it is that there is a gap. Mr. Guinn stated that the Borough expert witness stated that there was a gap. The applicant states that there is a gap in their service. He feels confident that there is a gap. Ms. Doxey stated that she would like to hear from each Planning Commission member as to their position because if there is a significant risk that there will be an illegal decision made, we need to go into executive session before the vote. Mr. Perrault stated that he realizes the inevitability of the legal decision, but depending on the count is he may vote “No” simply to register his opposition to this site. Mr. Peterson conveyed that he agreed with Mr. Billingsley. He feels that there is no legal definition of what a gap in coverage is. He thinks that these property owners have certain rights with regards to their property. Mr. Billinglsey inquired of Ms. Doxey to explain that in court an experts opinion can be disregarded. He questioned if this was true in this context. Ms. Doxey clarified that in this context, the law says that the applicant has to make a prima-facia case that a significant gap in service exists and there are no adequate alternatives. Once they meet that minimal burden, the burden shifts to the opposition to overcome that by substantial evidence. In this context, the courts have said “lay opinion evidence is insufficient to overcome that showing.” Mr. Billingsley countered that prima-facia does not take into consideration the residents opinions. That is getting to the next step. Ms. Doxey stated that she is happy to get into a better analysis of what significant gap has been interpreted to mean in the courts. Significant gap has been found when there is service outside but there is not service in a household. When there is service outside but not service in a vehicle, it has been defined as more than just a dead spot. If it is more than just a dead spot, it should be considered a significant gap. Mr. Billingsley questioned if this is from binding opinions. Ms. Doxey clarified that these are from various opinions throughout the United States applying the law. We don’t have an appellate case in the 9th Circuit and it has not come to the Supreme Court yet. This is the way


circuits across the United States are applying this. She stated that she feels certain that this is what the courts in Alaska would apply. Mr. Billingsley stated that he will be voting in favor of approval of the Conditional Use permit. ROLL CALL Six (6) in Favor: Ms. Presler, Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perrault, Ms. Thayer and

Mr. Guinn Three (3) Opposed: Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson and Ms. O’Neall, MOTION APPROVED MOTION Move to continue the meeting until 1:15 a.m. by Ms. Presler seconded by Mr.

Whitaker. All were in favor. There were no objections. H. APPEALS AP001-16 (Appeal of NR001-16 Terminal Street) An appeal by the Fairbanks North Star

Borough of the Platting Board decision of a request by the Fairbanks North Star Borough to rename Terminal Street to Citizen’s Way. (Located within Section 10 T1S R1W, F.M.)

Mr. Guinn addressed the sole member of the public that was seated at the testimony table. Mr. Gutoski was reminded that he did not testify at the original hearing of this item, therefore he would not be able to provide public testimony at this hearing. Mr. Gutoski stated that he understands this and yet he still feels that he has an interest in it that should be heard. Ms. Doxey stated that it is not legally allowed. Mr. Guinn clarified for the Planning Commission that testimony can only be allowed from those who testified at the original hearing. Jim Williams, FNSB Chief of Staff addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he is representing the Borough in this appeal. Mr. Williams stated that the genesis of this whole application started with the Mayor engaging Borough employees to become involved with changes that they felt needed to be addressed. Through this outreach, it was discovered that employees felt that the address for the Borough was incorrect and that made it hard for the public to find the building. Mr. Williams continued that the initial application is in alignment with one of the Mayors expectations, that being that employees of the Borough are citizens’ servants. He stated that this is the message that the current Mayors administration wants to convey to the public. Mr. Williams stated that this appeal also involved some employee involvement. Immediately following the decision by the Platting Board to not approve the road rename, employees of the Borough were notified that the application had failed. He stated that he received a multitude of


responses in response to his e-mail. Some were in favor and others encouraged him to continue with the appeal. The request to continue on were based on the following two principle rules:

The rules were not followed.

Was the Borough, as an applicant, treated any differently than a regular citizen should have been?

Mr. Williams continued that the employees of the Borough made it clear to him that they too are citizens of the Borough. Mr. Whitaker inquired of the ratio of support to opposition. Mr. Williams replied that about two-thirds of the responses were in support of the appeal. Mr. Whitaker questioned how much this name change will cost. Mr. Williams replied that the sign will be the most expensive part. The stationery and other items that the Borough currently has will be used up and replaced with new. Ms. Doxey stated that she would like to let the Commissioners know the parameters of this application. She stated those parameters to the Commission. Mr. Stefan presented the staff report. Based upon Staff analysis, Staff recommends the Planning Commission reverse the action of the Platting Board and approve the renaming of Terminal Street to Citizens Way with the following two (2) conditions and five (5) findings of fact as recommended by staff.

Staff’s Recommended Conditions for Approving the Public Street Renaming:

The following recommended conditions were part of the staff report presented to the platting board at the January 20, 2016 meeting. 1) The applicant shall replace the current signage with new signs which meet the

requirements of Title 17.60.190.D for road name signs. 2) Photo verification shall be submitted by January 20, 2018 showing that all

required signage has been installed.

Staff’s Recommended Findings for Approving the Public Street Renaming:

The following recommended findings were part of the staff report and addendum presented to the platting board at the January 20, 2016 meeting. a) FNSBC 17.40.070.I requires that the applicant replace and install all street name

signs if the road naming request is approved. b) At least 75% of the adjoining property owners have signed the road naming

application. c) The proposed name does not conflict with any existing street names. d) Title 17.60.190.D provides specific regulations on road signs and support

structures. e) With the two conditions recommended by staff, this public road naming request

meets all applicable requirements of Title 17. Ms. Doxey reminded Mr. Stefan that all that the Planning Commission is not considering any procedural errors. All that the Planning Commission should be hearing about is the criteria that needs to be applied to these Title 17 code provisions to determine if they have been met.


Mr. Stefan questioned of Ms. Doxey if he should proceed with what the appellant placed in their application. Ms. Doxey responded that there is no need to. There is no decision being made on any procedural errors. They are simply applying just as if they were the Platting Board hearing it for the first time. The Planning Commission is simply deciding whether the rename application complies with Title 17 standards. Ms. Doxey added that if conditions are to reflect a deadline, there needs to be a reason. Mr. Stefan stated that typically any preliminary plat that is approved by the Platting Board is given two years to submit a final plat application. We have used that same criteria for the road signage evidence. This two year criteria has also been used in other road naming applications that the Platting Board has approved. Ms. Presler questioned if Citizens Way was a duplicate name. Mr. Stefan responded that it has not been used in the last five years. Ms. O’Neall inquired of any historical context regarding Terminal Street. Mr. Stefan stated that he could not, other than what is in the old Fairbanks townsite plats. Ms. Doxey stated that the reason for the tag name needs to be read into the record. Mr. Stefan stated that 17.40.050.D allows the Platting Board to consider other tag names for unique or historical purposes. MOTION Move to deny AP001-16 with two (2) Findings of Fact by Mr. Perrault seconded

by Ms. O’Neall Discussion Mr. Perrault stated that he made this motion because Terminal Street is at the terminus of the Alaska Railroad. Ms. Doxey countered that it is not legal criteria to consider the history of the name that it is being changed from. Mr. Perrault countered that he is addressing the causing confusion. There is a historical precedent for why it is called that and to change it to something that does not have a historical association with that location would cause confusion because it has been used that way for 80 years. He further commented that this is his reason to make the motion to deny. ROLL CALL Five (5) in Favor: Mr. Perrault, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Reilly and Ms. Thayer Four (4) Opposed: Ms. Presler, Mr. Whitaker, Ms. O’Neall and Mr. Guinn

MOTION CARRIED Ms. Doxey interrupted and again commented that this is not a legal basis for denial. Code criteria says “confusion due to the spelling or pronunciation of any existing street name in the Borough” not confusion because of historical use of the name.


MOTION Adjourn and revisit this item at a later Planning Commission meeting by Mr. Reilly seconded by Mr. Billingsley

Ms. Doxey stated that if there needs to be revisiting of this, and there does, there is a limited

time to do a motion to reconsider. She suggested that the Planning Commission extend for 5 minutes, move to reconsider, vote to reconsider and then pick up in 4 weeks (two Planning Commission meetings) on this topic. As it stands right now, the Planning Commission has an illegal decision. Ms. Doxey stated that there is time to vote down the motion to adjourn and move to extend by five minutes. ROLL CALL Four (4) in Favor: Mr. Billingsley, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perrault, Mr. Whitaker Five (5) Opposed: Ms. Presler, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall, Ms.Thayer and Mr. Guinn

MOTION FAILED MOTION To extend meeting for 5 minutes by Mr. Peterson seconded by Ms. Thayer ROLL CALL Nine (9) in Favor: Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Presler, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perrault, Ms.

O’Neall, Mr. Billingsley, Ms. Thayer and Mr. Guinn Zero (0) Opposed:

MOTION APPROVED MOTION To reconsider by Ms. Thayer seconded by Mr. Peterson Discussion

Mr. Guinn questioned what a “Yes” vote or a “No” vote means. Ms. Doxey clarified that a “Yes “ vote means to reconsider the motion to deny. ROLL CALL Five (5) in Favor: Ms. Presler, Mr. Peterson, Ms. O’Neall, Ms. Thayer and Mr. Guinn Four (4) Opposed: Mr. Reilly, Mr. Perrault, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Billingsley

MOTION APPROVED

THE ITEM IS POSTPONED UNTIL A LATER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. The meeting was adjourned. All were in favor. None were opposed. L. ADJOURNMENT


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 a.m.

fairbanks north star borough planning...

Documents