Approved Minutes - Fairbanks North Star Borough

FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION 

MINUTES 

September 6, 2011 

A regular meeting of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Commission was held in the 

Assembly Chambers, Borough Administration Center, 809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Tom Marsh, Chairman. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Marsh Tom Temple 

David Pruhs Nello Cooper 

Michael Wenstrup Joy Huntington 

Joe Cottingham Marna Kranenburg 

MEMBERS ABSENT: Pamm Hubbard 

OTHERS PRESENT: Bernardo Hernandez, Director of Community Planning 

Jim Lee, Deputy Director of Community Planning 

Mark Mussman, Planner III 

Melissa Kellner, Planner II 

Cynthia Klepaski, Asst. Borough Attorney 

Marnie Long-Boehl, Secretary 

A. ROLL CALL 

B. MESSAGES 

1. Chairperson’s Comments: 

None 

2. Communications to the Planning Commission 

None 

3. Citizen’s Comments – limited to three (3) minutes 

C. *MINUTES 

a. Agenda items not scheduled for public hearing. 

None 

b. Items other than those appearing on the agenda. 

None 

D. 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.

PC Meeting Minutes 


MOTION: To approve agenda and consent agenda, including minutes of previous meeting 

by Mr. Temple, seconded by Mr. Pruhs. 

Objections 

None 

MOTION APPROVED 

E. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 

F. PUBLIC HEARING 

V2012-005 A request by David St. Laurent for a variance of 13’ to the Rural Residential rear 

yard requirement of 25’ for an existing single family home located 12’ from the rear lot line 

on Lot 09, Block 01, Aune subdivision. (Located on the northwest corner of Gordon 

Road and Ismo Drive) 

Melissa Kellner presented the staff report. Based upon staff analysis, the Department of 

Community Planning recommended denial of the proposed request. 

Mr. Pruhs stated that in the packet it showed the original zoning permit. He asked Staff 

how many feet from the structure to the lot line? 

Ms. Kellner replied the zoning permit that was issued was for a structure that was 25 feet 

from the lot line. 

Mr. Temple commented on the site plan and how it showed a well under the house. 

Ms. Kellner said that the applicant can clarify the location of the well. 

Mr. Temple asked when the plot plan was made in relationship to the house being 

constructed. 

Ms. Kellner replied that the plot plan was dated in 1985, so it was shortly after construction 

was completed. 

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 

David St. Laurent, the applicant, said that the house was built in 1985 and he purchased 

the property in 2004. The banks did not have an issue in 2004 with lot lines. He had two (2) 

interested buyers for this property recently, and both could not purchase this property due to 

the encroachment. He is asking for a variance at this time. 

Mr. Cooper asked how the previous owner disposed of the property. 

Mr. St. Laurent replied that he bought the property knowing that it had an encroachment 

problem with the setback. He stated that financing was not a problem in 2004. 

Mr. Temple asked if at the time of purchase, title insurance was obtained. 

2



Mr. St. Laurent replied yes. 

Mr. Temple asked if the title company disclosed that there was an encroachment problem 

with the setback. 

Mr. St. Laurent replied yes. 

Mr. Temple replied “and you bought it anyway.” 

Mr. St. Laurent said that he was told that this encroachment was not a problem, and it was 

common. He asked the neighbor if he had a problem with the encroachment on his land, 

and he did not have a problem. 

Mr. Temple said that there is enough room for you to purchase 13 feet of property from your 

neighbor if he was willing to sell, then you would be in compliance with the setback. 

Mr. St. Laurent concurred. 

Mr. Temple asked Mr. St. Laurent about the well inside the house on the site plan. 

Mr. St. Laurent said that it is an old well that is not functional. 

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 

MOTION Move to approve V2012-005 by Mr. Temple, seconded by Mr. Cooper. 

Discussion 

Mr. Temple concurs with Staff recommendations. There was a site plan done, and the 

house was built improperly. The applicant purchased the property knowing about the 

encroachment setback. He is not in favor of this variance. 

Mr. Cottingham questioned Staff’s second Finding of Fact. It states that denial of the 

proposed variance will not deprive the applicant the use of his property in a manner 

equivalent to the use permitted to be made by the owners of property. He believes that if 

you cannot sell your property, then the person is being deprived use of the property. 

Mr. Temple responded that there is nothing that stops the applicant from selling his 

property. There is a problem with financial institutes giving loans, for the sale of this 

property. The property owner could find another bank that would work with this property, 

owner finance, or sell the property for a cash settlement. He does have options. The 

Commissioners are applying the law, and treating each applicant in the same manner. 

Mr. Cooper believes the owner has the opportunity, maybe, to purchase 13 feet from the 

neighbor’s property. 

Mr. Wenstrup concurs with Mr. Temple. 

3



ROLL CALL 

One (1) in Favor: Mr. Cottingham. 

Seven (7) Opposed: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pruhs, Mr. Temple, Mr. Wenstrup, 

Ms. Huntington, Ms. Kranenburg, Mr. Marsh. 

MOTION TO APPROVE, FAILED. 

MOTION Move to adopt Staff’s three (3) Findings of Fact to support denial of V2012-005 

by Mr. Temple, seconded by Mr. Pruhs. 

Mr. Marsh asked if the Commissioners would like to amend Staff’s Findings of Fact per 

Mr. Cottingham’s comment. There were no objections on Staff’s Findings of Fact. He said 

that roll call will be taken in support of denial, with three (3) Findings of Fact. 

ROLL CALL 

Seven (7) in Favor: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pruhs, Mr. Temple, Mr. Wenstrup, 

Ms. Huntington, Ms. Kranenburg, Mr. Marsh. 

One (1) Opposed: Mr. Cottingham 

MOTION TO APPROVE, PASSED IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL. 

Mr. Marsh stated that anyone can file an objection with the Clerk’s office within 15 days. 

Ms. Klepaski clarified Mr. Marsh’s statement. She stated that it would be an appeal with 

the Clerk’s office within 15 days. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

CU2012-001 A request by Matthew and Christina Banning for conditional use approval for a 

guest house in the Rural Residential zone on Tax Lot 2157, Section 21, Township 1 North, 

Range 1 West, Fairbanks Meridian. (Located on the east side of Farmers Loop, west of 

Capricorn Street) 


Community Planning recommended approval of the proposed request. 

Mr. Temple asked Staff if ADEC approve outhouse regulations. 

Ms. Kellner said there are ADEC standards for outhouses. 

Mr. Hernandez concurred with Ms. Kellner. 


Curtis Matulka owns three lots in the neighborhood. He is concerned with off road parking. 

There is a dangerous / blind curb in the neighborhood. 

4



Mr. Temple asked Mr. Matulka for clarification on off road parking. He wanted to know if 

people park along the road side. 

Mr. Matulka responded with a yes, and that it has happened in the past. 

Matthew Banning, the applicant, said that the pictures on the overhead are the adjacent 

property to his property. These properties own a shared entrance. 

Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Banning if he had any pictures of his property with him tonight. 

Mr. Banning replied no. He said that his plans are to build a good livable structure with 

quality materials. 

Mr. Marsh asked for clarification that the cabin will not have plumbing. 

Mr. Banning replied correct, due to the condition of the soils. 

Ms. Huntington asked Mr. Banning to address the concerns of the neighbors regarding 

traffic and parking. 

Mr. Banning understands that the neighbors are worried about people parking on the road 

side. He said that he will have parking in front of the cabins. His driveway will be around 

200 feet long. To the right of the property is US waterways, and that is forbidden for 

development. 

Mr. Temple pointed out the letter from Mr. Banning concerning the conditional use permit. 

It is stated that the cabin will be approximately 400 square feet, with a space for parking. He 

asked the applicant if his intent was to build just one parking space per structure, or more 

parking spaces. 

Mr. Banning replied with that he is installing 30 x 30’ pads, and he believes that there will 

be adequate parking. 

Mr. Temple asked if someone was to have guests visiting, would the driveway be 

constructed in the manner to allow the guests to park along the driveway, so they would not 

park along the road side. 

Mr. Banning replied that there will be enough parking for three cars. His footprint is 

restricted, because he is building on wetlands. He believes there will be three spaces per 

structure for parking. They can still park in the driveway as well. 

Mr. Marsh asked if there were any more questions. 


MOTION Move to approve CU2012-001 with one (1) Recommendation and three (3) 

Findings of Fact by Mr. Pruhs, seconded by Mr. Temple. 

5



Discussion 

Mr. Pruhs agreed that the area was wetlands, and outhouses are common in this area. He 

will be voting in favor of this conditional use. 

Mr. Temple concurs with Staff recommendations. Due to the length of the proposed 

driveway, off road parking does not seem like a real issue. He is in support of this 

conditional use. He asked Staff about the Dear Property Owner returned letter. He can’t 

read the bottom line. 

Ms. Kellner read the Dear Property Owner comment as follows: 

I object to 2 residences on one acre. Absolutely not legal under DEC for sewer systems 

and Borough size. 

Mr. Marsh disagrees with these comments. This property is the correct size for the zone, 

and it is not a waste water septic system. As long as the outhouses that he proposes to 

build comply with DEC, this conditional use is acceptable. 

ROLL CALL 

Eight (8) in Favor: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pruhs, Mr. Temple, Mr. Wenstrup, Ms. Huntington, 

Mr. Cottingham, Ms. Kranenburg, Mr. Marsh. 

Zero (0) Opposed: 

MOTION TO APPROVE, PASSED. 

Mr. Marsh stated that anyone can file an appeal with the Clerk’s office within 15 days. 


CU2012-003 A request by FNSB Public Works for conditional use approval for an 

emergency operation center with a communications tower in the Rural Estate 2 zone on 

Lot 1, Mountain View Sixth Addition. (Located on the east side of Farmers Loop, north of 

Skyline Drive) 



Ms. Kranenburg asked about the conditions of a communication tower, and the 

communication tower would be removed if not used for 12 months. 

Ms. Kellner stated that it is a requirement through the Borough’s ordinance, on 

communication towers. 

Ms. Kranenburg asked if this was concluded in the Findings of Fact. 

Ms. Kellner said that the applicant has signed an agreement to this condition. 

6



Mr. Cottingham asked if the Emergency Operation Center will go from four (4) people or 

ten (10) people working every day, for parking spaces. 

Ms. Kellner said that she talked with the Fire Chief and he stated that they use four (4) 

parking spaces now and with the expansion, they will need up to ten (10) parking spaces. 

She said that there will be seventeen (17) on-site parking spaces. Seven (7) will be 

available for emergency operations and visitors. 

Ms. Klepaski asked about the new proposed generator. She asked Staff what the setback 

is for the generator, from the rear lot line. 

Ms. Kellner stated that it is 29 feet, 5 inches from the rear lot line. 


Don Ranken, resides at 470 McKinley View Drive, disapproves of this area for the 

Emergency Operations Center or the communications tower. The neighbors were told that 

when the Fire Station was approved, that was all that would be constructed on this site. 

Now additions are proposed to be added. He stated that the neighbors have had problems 

with the lighting at the Fire Station. The lighting is bright, at all hours of the night. The 

neighbors complained of the bright lights in the residential area. Lights have been turned 

down, but are now turned back on all night long. The building should have been designed 

with the office section on the Farmers Loop side, and then they would not be visible to the 

neighbors. He is not in favor of this conditional use. 

Mr. Hernandez asked Mr. Ranken where the location of his property is on the overhead. 

Dave Throop, PO Box 82033, said that he sees communication towers as a new 

infrastructure. He would like to have this conditional use delayed until the Planning 

Commission has revised the current cell tower ordinance. 

Mr. Pruhs asked Mr. Throop how long ago the revisions for communication towers were 

requested to be sent from the Borough Assembly to the Planning Commission. 

Mr. Throop believes it was last winter. 

Mr. Pruhs wanted clarification if Mr. Throop just wants this conditional use to comply with 

the intent of what the Assembly is wanting for communication towers. 

Mr. Throop agreed. 

Mr. Marsh asked if Mr. Throop had an objection to the communication tower, as presented 

in this proposed conditional use. 

Mr. Throop supports the Borough coming forth with organized plans for communication 

towers. 

7



Art Robson, resides at 483 McKinley View Drive, stated that there is a problem having 

businesses in a residential area. He has a problem with the bright lights of the Fire Station. 

He claimed that the Chief of the Fire Station said the bright lights were to keep the Russian 

children that were fleeing across Alaska, from getting lost. He likes his Fire Department, but 

does have a problem with the interior and exterior lights on all hours of the night. He is not 

in favor of the communication tower in this location. 

Mr. Cooper asked about the lighting, and if it was the exterior lights pointing outward that 

bothered the neighborhood. 

Mr. Robson replied that the exterior lights on the outside of the wall, that light up the 

neighborhood. He knows that there are not Russian children in the neighborhood and does 

not know why they were told that there were children fleeing. 

Mr. Cooper asked if the lighting keeps you awake at night time. 

Mr. Robson replied yes. 

Mr. Marsh asked about where the existing towers are located in this area. 

Mr. Robson replied at the east end of Farmers Loop. 

Mr. Marsh asked if these towers can be seen from Mr. Robson’s house. 

Mr. Robson said yes. 

Mr. Marsh asked if Mr. Robson understood that there will not be a light on the top of this 

communication tower. 

Mr. Robson does not believe that there will not be a light, because no one keeps their word. 

Mr. Marsh asked where Mr. Robson resided. 

Mr. Robson gave directions to his property. 

Mr. Pruhs asked if Mr. Robson could see the Fire Station from his house. 

Mr. Robson said that he does not see the building, but he does see the lights. 

Mr. Pruhs asked if it impedes his lifestyle. 

Mr. Robson replied yes. 

Joan Robson, resides at 483 McKinley View Drive, owns six (6) lots in this neighborhood. 

They had the first home in the neighborhood. She confirmed that they were told by the Fire 

Chief or Commissioner that there were Russian children fleeing in the neighborhood, and 

the lights were for their safety. She did ask the Fire Chief if they could turn the lights down 

to save energy. His reply was that the new Fire House used less energy than any of the 

existing Fire Houses. 

Mr. Cooper asked what the population is, in her area. 

8



Ms. Robson said that after the first thirty (30) homes, she stopped counting. 

Mr. Cooper stated that in order to service a community, the Fire Station would need to 

expand. 

Ms. Robson responded with, “not in that particular manner.” She said since the Fire Station 

has been in operation, she has only seen fire trucks exiting the building one time. They do 

respond to ambulance calls. She doesn’t see why the Fire House would need an 

expansion. 

Mr. Hernandez asked Ms. Robson if the building light is directed towards her house or just 

light in a distance. 

Ms. Robson answered with, bright lights wasting energy. 

David Gibbs, Director of FNSB Emergency Operations, described the proposed project. He 

said that this is a central location for emergency operations in times of disaster. Emergency 

operation center functions are to gather information, analyze the data, and make 

recommendations in terms of how the community responds to disaster. The current 

emergency operation center is in a floodplain, not clear on the size mobility of the structure, 

not enough room, poor HVAC, and no electrical outlets. They applied and received a grant 

from FEMA for this project. The Farmers Loop and Skyline area is located out of a 

floodplain area, close to an ACS Communication hub, and a good line of site down into the 

city. 

Mr. Temple asked about the Russian children fleeing in this area. 

Mr. Gibbs does not know anything about the Russian children. The lighting is provided for 

security purposes. They are not adding any other exterior lighting. 

Mr. Cooper asked about the flood light, outside the building. 

Bud Marschner, FNSB Public Works, said that he was the manager on the building when it 

was originally built. He believes the building has 150 watt yard lights and 275 watt battery 

wall packs. They were installed for lighting for driving the fire trucks in or out for safety. 

Mr. Cooper asked if the lights shined outward. 

Mr. Marschner said that the lights shine down. 

Mr. Cooper asked about how many exterior lights are there. 

Mr. Marschner believes that there is one yard light in the driveway, and two wall packs on 

each side of the building. 

Mr. Cooper asked if the light in the driveway is run by a motion detector. 

Mr. Marschner said that it is run by a clock. 

Mr. Cooper asked why this outside light can’t be put on a motion detector. 

9



Mr. Marschner explained why it was put on a clock. A motion sensor could be used, but it 

would be the decision of the operator of the lights. He said from past complaints to the Fire 

House, it was the equipment bays lights that shine through the windows and the door 

windows, that was a bother to the neighbors. These lights are on for safety issues, getting 

in and out of the equipment, in case of a fire. 

Mr. Cooper asked about Mr. Marschner’s poster boards. He asked him to point out the 

location of the perimeter lights on the poster boards. 

Mr. Pruhs asked about the alternative site at Birch Hill. 

Mr. Gibbs does not have an alternative site for this Emergency Operation Center. 

Mr. Pruhs asked if other sites were investigated for this project. 

Mr. Gibbs said yes, downtown in the floodplain. 

Mr. Marsh wanted clarification on what the additions to the Fire House were going to be 

used for. 

Mr. Gibbs responded with a dormitory space for the Fire Department, and the other addition 

is for the Emergency Operations Center. 

Mr. Marsh asked if the Emergency Operations Center is going to be staffed 24-7. 

Mr. Gibbs said no. 

Mr. Marsh clarified that the Emergency Operations Center will be unmanned unless for 

emergencies or exercises. 

Mr. Gibbs agreed. 

Ms. Kranenburg asked if the grant money specified that the Emergency Operations Center 

could not be built in a floodplain. 

Mr. Gibbs said that it would not be a good practice, since flooding is the primary risk in 

Fairbanks. 

Ms. Kranenburg asked if the existing building is built in a floodplain. 

Mr. Gibbs said yes, and that it is part of the reason to relocate the Emergency Operations 

Center. 

Ms. Kranenburg wanted clarification if the existing Emergency Operations Center is in a 

residential area. 

Mr. Gibbs said no. 

Ms. Kranenburg asked if they looked for other areas, and if there was not another place 

that was not a residential area and not in a floodplain. 

10



Mr. Gibbs said that the proposed site has other advantages, other than not being in a 

floodplain. 

Mr. Cottingham asked Mr. Gibbs about the neighbor’s concerns about lighting. He asked if 

anything will be done to change the lighting situation. 

Mr. Gibbs answered that this project will not add additional lighting. FNSB can work with 

the Fire Department to see if lighting can be reduced, but that is not part of this project. 

Mr. Marsh asked if there were any further questions. 


MOTION Move to approve CU2012-003 with two (2) Conditions, four (4) Findings of Fact 

for the Emergency Operations Center, and twelve (12) Findings of Fact for the 

Communication Tower by Mr. Temple, seconded by Mr. Pruhs. 

Discussion 

Mr. Temple noticed from the pictures in the Staff report, that the Fire Station is a well 

maintained building. He does see that lighting could be an issue in a residential 

neighborhood. He stated that maybe the Fire Department can work out the lighting problem 

with the neighbors. He is in support of the approval of this conditional use. 

Mr. Pruhs is in favor of this conditional use. 

Ms. Huntington is in favor of this conditional use. She would have liked to see a 

representative present at this meeting from the Steese Fire Department. She believes that 

this is a necessary service that will be provided to the FNSB. 

Mr. Pruhs added that he lives across the street from a Fire Department as well, and 

understands the neighbors’ concern. 

Mr. Marsh believes that there are measures that can be taken by the Fire Department to 

reduce the glare of the lights in the neighborhood. He said that the Borough has done a 

good job incorporating and minimizing for a brand new structure for the Emergency 

Operations Center, and taking advantage of an existing facility. He is in favor of this 

conditional use. 

ROLL CALL 





Mr. Marsh said that anyone may appeal this conditional use to the Clerk’s office within 15 

days. 

11




RZ2012-001 A request by Michael Rasmussen to rezone Lots 2 and 4, Block 14, Lemeta 

from Multi-Family Residential (MF) to General Commercial (GC) or other appropriate zone. 

(Located on the southeast corner of College Road and Kathryn Avenue) 

Mark Mussman presented the staff report. Based upon staff analysis, the Department of 



Mr. Marsh asked if the applicant was present. 

Mr. Mussman said no. 

Mr. Marsh asked if there was anyone here to testify on this application. 

None. 


MOTION Move to approve RZ2012-001 with three (3) Findings of Fact by Mr. Temple, 

seconded by Mr. Cooper. 

Discussion 

Mr. Cooper said that these Land Use Goals do not conflict with Title 18. He is in support of 

this rezone. 

Mr. Temple said that this rezone does create a continuous flow of General Commercial, 

since it is bordered by General Commercial in the east and west. He is in support of this 

rezone. 

Mr. Marsh concurs that this is not a spot zone, since there is General Commercial on each 

side of the property. He is in favor of this rezone. 

ROLL CALL 





Ms. Klepaski wanted clarification if the motion included the Findings of Fact. 

Mr. March replied that it did include the Findings of Fact. 

12




RZ2012-002 A request by Mark Backes to rezone Lots A and B, Liberty Park from Rural & 

Agricultural-5 with Special Limitations to General Use-1 or other appropriate zone. (Located 

on the north side of the Richardson Highway and west of Peggy Street) 


Community Planning recommended denial of the proposed request. 

Mr. Wenstrup wanted to see the map on the overhead. He stated that the land in the east 

is a developed area with GU-1 zoning. He asked if this area is residential. 

Ms. Kellner said that it is a mix of residential and industrial uses. 

Mr. Wenstrup asked if this property was originally part of the RR to the west zoning, and 

was rezoned to RA-5. 

Ms. Kellner replied yes. 

Ms. Huntington wanted clarification on the difference between the cabins and a residential 

cluster development. 

Ms. Kellner believes a cluster development is a conditional use in RA. The difference is 

that in order to have a cluster development a site plan would have to be submitted, then the 

Planning Commission would approve it with lot size requirements and buffering. 

Ms. Huntington asked if a permitted use is a blacksmith shop. She wanted to know the 

differences between a blacksmith shop versus a sheet metal shop. 

Mr. Hernandez explained that a blacksmith shop has to do with agricultural uses, and a 

sheet metal shop does not. A blacksmith shop deals with horses. 

Ms. Kellner stated that when RA was approved, the Special Limitation restricted the zone to 

a commercial greenhouse operation. 

Mr. Temple wanted to know the current violations on the property. He understands that 

there is a sheet metal house with apartments, and multiple cabins on the property. He 

asked Staff if there were other violations. 

Ms. Kellner replied that the outside storage is in violation. 

Mr. Temple asked how many apartment units are rented, or available for rent. 

Ms. Kellner said that this question can be directed to the applicant. 

Mr. Temple asked if anything is different about this request, than the request that was 

originally rejected. 

Mr. Hernandez cannot recall the previous request. 

13



Ms. Kellner said from reading the file the original request was a mix of GU-1 and RA-5. The 

Planning Commission wanted to talk about Special Limitations, so the public hearing was 

postponed. Staff met with the applicant, then came up with a new proposal for RA-5. She 

believes that the greenhouse was the original idea. The applicant may be able to answer 

this question. 

Mr. Pruhs asked if there was any aspect that currently complies with the zoning existing on 

the property. 

Ms. Kellner replied no. 

Mr. Pruhs asked if there were any aspect of the present improvements that comply with the 

neighborhood. 

Ms. Kellner said that the building is at a larger scale than anything in the neighborhood. 

Mr. Cooper asked if the property owner is present at this public hearing. 


Mr. Wenstrup wanted clarification if the lots in the residential area are in compliance with 

the zone. 

Ms. Kellner replied, yes. The Rural Residential zoning is to the west of this property, and it 

is mostly single family homes. 

Ms. Huntington asked, during the violation process, have there been recommendations to 

create a buffer or have there been other recommendations to help mitigate between the 

different zone uses and surrounding zones. 

Ms. Kellner replied that the FNSB Code Enforcement Officer has been handling all the 

complaints. 

Mr. Lee said that the FNSB Code Enforcement Officer has been working with the applicant, 

and the adjacent property owners in this area. This request by Mr. Backes is to clear up 

some of the uses that he has already built, in order to clear up some of the violations on site. 

Mr. Temple requested to see the pictures on the overhead of the warehouse / apartments. 

He asked for the size of the building. 

Ms. Kellner does not know the dimensions of the building, but said it is large. 

Mr. Temple asked if this building dwarfs the other buildings in the neighborhood. 


Mr. Marsh asked if Staff had an aerial photo of the building. 

Ms. Kellner replied no. 

Mr. Marsh asked to see the building on the overhead. 

14



Ms. Kellner said that there is a site plan in the packet that shows the greenhouse. It shows 

the greenhouse to be 100’ x 300’. 

Mr. Marsh asked if that is where the existing shop is located. 

Ms. Kellner concurred with Mr. Marsh. 

Mr. Marsh asked to have Staff point out the location of the cabins on the overhead. 

Ms. Kellner said that the cabins are on the northern end of the northern lot. 

Mr. Marsh asked if there were any lots in the GU area to the east that contain multiple 

residences or cabins. 

Ms. Kellner is not aware of any other multiple residences. She said that the lots are small 

and narrow. Some residences have one structure on two lots. 

Mr. Wenstrup asked how many Dear Property Owner (DPO’s) letters were returned. He 

commented that, in the packet, it looked like 3 DPO’s and a letter. 

Ms. Kellner replied, yes. 

Mr. Wenstrup commented on Ms. Castle’s DPO that was in favor of the rezone. He asked 

Staff to point out Ms. Castle’s tax lots on the overhead. 

Mr. Temple asked Staff if they could tell the Commissioners about the past complaints on 

the applicant. 

Ms. Kellner said that the complaints came from the neighbors. Some of the neighbors are 

present tonight. 

Ms. Huntington, Point of Order, needs clarification on the last DPO in the packet. 

Ms. Kellner read the DPO as follows: 

I don’t want any building behind me, it’s not right to go one way and the people been 

here for years. 

Mr. Marsh asked if there were any other questions for Staff. 


Cindy Colburn, resides at 1550 Juanita, is the owner of the only Light Industrial lot on the 

map, on the overhead. They bought their home in 1984. They wanted to have a body shop 

on their property. To have a three (3) stalled shop, they had to come before the Planning 

Commission and asked to be zoned Light Industrial. Mr. Backes has been a bad neighbor 

from the beginning. He cleared all the trees on his property. He runs a sheet metal shop, 

and it is loud. Their operation hours are past 8:00 pm. She feels Mr. Backes wants to be 

rewarded for breaking the law. It was against the law to do what Mr. Backes has done in 

his zoning. She is not in favor of this rezone. 

15



Mr. Temple asked Ms. Colburn if she is the primary complaintant against Mr. Backes. 

Ms. Colburn said that she has never filed a complaint with the FNSB against Mr. Backes. 

Mr. Wenstrup asked Ms. Colburn if she testified at the last rezone for Mr. Backes. 

Ms. Colburn said no. She did not have an objection to a greenhouse. 

Mark Backes, the applicant, explained that he received this property on a bad debt. He has 

been trying to make this property better than what it was, when he came in possession of 

the property. He stated that when he received the zoning for his agricultural greenhouse 

project, the Borough put stipulations on the zoning disallowing manufacturing. The Special 

Limitation would not allow him to do want he wanted to do on his property. He built the 

building and cleaned up the property, but the taxes were so high with this type of zoning. 

He could not afford the taxes. He moved a business into his building, other than 

agricultural, to make revenue to pay taxes. He also built dry cabins. He was not going to 

leave the cabins on the property, but was going to move them at a later date. 

Ms. Kranenburg asked Mr. Backes about the agricultural business and what was his plan. 

Mr. Backes said to manufacture agricultural products such as sheet metal and 

blacksmithing. 

Ms. Kranenburg said that on the rezone it stated greenhouse. 

Mr. Backes said that there were special limitations attached to the rezone and he was 

under the assumption that he could push these limitations in his favor. He described his 

neighborhood. He said that others were using his land for their personal use. He said that 

the neighborhood does not like him. 

Mr. Pruhs asked about the size of the cabins. 

Mr. Backes replied that the cabins are 20’ x 14’ with a 6’ porch. 

Mr. Pruhs asked if the main structure has rental units. 

Mr. Backes responded with a yes. 

Mr. Pruhs said that until you built the rental units on the main structure, the zoning should 

have been Light Industrial. He said the only way for this property to be zoned properly, is to 

remove the rental units on the main structure and apply for Light Industrial. 

Mr. Temple asked about the previous rezone and the fact that Mr. Backes received 

permission to build a greenhouse, and then realized that would not work for him. Then he 

build a large warehouse, and rented out the apartments, and built additional cabins. He 

asked the applicant why he didn’t come back to the Planning Commission for permission for 

these structures. 

Mr. Backes said that he had permission to build the main building, as an agricultural 

business. 

16



Mr. Temple stated “as a greenhouse.” 

Mr. Backes responded with, “manufacturing of agricultural products.” He stated that the 

FNSB changed the Special Limitation before they printed it out. He said that the paperwork 

was written at first for agricultural products. He said that it could be sheet metal products or 

other agricultural products. 

Mr. Temple said that the Special Limitation said that it was limited to a commercial 

greenhouse, home gardening supply sales, and accessory uses. He asked if the current 

warehouse was suppose to be the greenhouse. 

Mr. Backes replied that the agricultural products were going to be in the back of the 

property. This building is supposed to warehouse his equipment, and he would live in the 

building. 

Mr. Temple asked Mr. Backes if he received permission to build the warehouse, before he 

constructed it. 

Mr. Backes thinks he received permission. 

Mr. Temple asked if Mr. Backes if he received permission to put rental units inside his 

warehouse. 

Mr. Backes said that it was not the intent to have rental units. He does not have rentals, but 

does have his daughter and one of his employees living in the building. He said that there is 

no money changing hands. 

Mr. Temple understands that he built the cabins, and was going to move them. 

Mr. Backes said that was the intent. He has bought some properties, and intended to move 

these cabins. 

Mr. Temple wanted clarification if the cabins were going to be moved or if you receive 

approval on this rezone, the cabins will become permanent structures. 

Mr. Backes said yes, the cabins will stay if he gets the rezone. 

Mr. Cooper asked what year the first rezone was approved. 

Mr. Backes does not know, but probably three (3) years ago. 

Mr. Cooper said that since this rezone, a large building was constructed with apartments on 

the top floor. 

Mr. Backes said that was not the intent. He was going to live in the building, and this 

building would be an agricultural building. 

Mr. Cooper asked about the buffering, and why the trees were removed. 

Mr. Backes stated that it was to keep people and their belongings off his property. 

17



Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Backes how many code violations he has right now. 

Mr. Backes said that he has no idea, maybe two violations. 

Mr. Wenstrup wanted clarification. He walked through the steps from the time Mr. Backes 

received his first rezone, when he built on the property, until present. He cited the Special 

Llimitation that Mr. Backes received from the first rezone. He asked if he was present when 

the Assembly gave this Special Limitation. 

Mr. Backes said that he was present at the Assembly meeting. 

Mr. Wenstrup asked Mr. Backes if he remembers that the Assembly said that he could 

appeal the rezone. 

Mr. Backes stated that he thought the Special Limitation would just go away. 

Mr. Wenstrup explains that his take on the Special Limitation is that Mr. Backes did not 

agree with the Special Limitation, so he just ignored it. 

Mr. Backes responded with, “that sometimes you just take what you get and read between 

the lines.” 

Ms. Huntington said that she is looking at what is allowed in RA-5. She asked Mr. Backes 

if he read through the list for RA-5. 

Mr. Backes replied yes. 

Ms. Huntington said that her point is that there are a lot of options available in RA-5. 

Mr. Backes said that he could be doing other things within his limitations, but he is done 

with it. He wants to do what he wants to do with his property. 

Mr. Temple said the reason for this public hearing is because you have a huge building in 

the neighborhood. It is detrimental to the neighborhood. He said that the applicant did not 

get permission for any of the buildings on his property. 

Mr. Backes disagrees with Mr. Temple. 

Mr. Temple said that this building is not the greenhouse that was approved to construct. 

Mr. Backes said it is the building that he had approved. 

Mr. Temple asked if there was green paint on the building. He said that this is not a 

greenhouse. 

Mr. Backes wanted clarification on a greenhouse. 

Mr. Temple said that it does not have the glass allowing light to produce agriculture. 

Mr. Backes responded that the planting is in the back of the property. 

18



Mr. Temple said that this building was not part of the plan. 

Mr. Backes said that it was on the drawings. 

Mr. Temple said the drawings state “greenhouse” on the plan. 


MOTION Move to approve RZ2012-002 by Mr. Temple, seconded by Mr. Cooper. 

Discussion 

Mr. Wenstrup stated that the applicant believes that he was in RA-5 but did not agree with 

the Special Limitation or believes that it was a different Special Limitation than what it really 

was. He believes this rezone today is not appropriate. 

Mr. Marsh said that the Special Limitation must be approved by the property owner. It has 

a place for the applicant to sign the Special Limitation. He does remember this particular 

rezone. He is not in favor of this rezone. He stated that all the use violations would go 

away if this rezone was approved, but the applicant would be incompatible with the 

neighborhood. He is not in favor of this rezone. 

Mr. Temple said that a rezone to GU-1 allows any use including the current uses. The 

current uses are not compatible with the neighborhood including the huge building with 

apartments, and the rental cabins. This is not appropriate for the area. He does not want to 

reward a person that ignores the law and regulations. This rezone is not consistent with the 

goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He is not in favor of this rezone. 

ROLL CALL 

Zero (0) in Favor: 

Eight (8) Opposed: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pruhs, Mr. Temple, Mr. Wenstrup, Ms. Huntington, 


MOTION TO APPROVE, FAILED. 

Mr. Marsh announced that this rezone will be forwarded to the Borough Assembly. 

Mr. Hernandez asked if this motion included the Findings of Fact. 

MOTION to adopt the two (2) Findings of Fact in support of denial of RZ2012-002 by 

Mr. Temple, seconded by Mr. Pruhs. 

Mr. Marsh asked if there were any objections to the two (2) Findings of Fact. 

None. 

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

19



H. NEW BUSINESS 

I. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS 

1. FMATS 

None 

2. Title 17 Rewrite Project 

None 

3. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board (CPAB) 

None 

4. Other Commission Comments 

Mr. Wenstrup asked Staff to add the approved minutes to the staff report if a rezone 

has had prior public hearings. 

I. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:01 p.m. 

20

Approved Minutes - Fairbanks North Star Borough

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?