4/29/2026 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting

You're on the record. Thank you. I would like to call the April 29, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting to order. If you are able, please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May we have the roll call, please? Thank you. Vice Chair Dothit. Here.

Chair Keeton. Here. Commissioner Haskin. Present. Commissioner Urszly.

Present. Commissioner Kraus. Here. Commissioner Fikes is absent. Commissioner Woodard.

Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Commissioners, before we get to agenda and consent agenda approval, I would bring to your attention the laydown materials.

We're going to add item F3, and we're going to take some public comment from Oh, we're adding public comment. And is he going to be— it was requested, this was requested by the planning director.

Page 1 through 5 of the laydown.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda? With the laydown. I move that we approve the motion— the agenda and the consent agenda with the noted addition. Thank you. And a second?

Second.

Commissioner Woodard? Okay. Um, are there any additional revisions to the agenda or consent agenda from the commissioners?

Would the clerk please read— the clerk, please read the consent agenda items into the record. Thank you, Chair. The approval of minutes, regular meeting of March 25th, 2026. And that is your consent agenda. Thank you.

Are there any public comments on any of the consent agenda items just read by the clerk?

Not quite yet.

I asked for unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was requested. Are there any objections? Microphone, please.

Unanimous consent was requested. Is there— are there any objections? Hearing no objections, the agenda and consent agenda are approved.

Section C, scheduled public comment. We have none. That is correct. Unscheduled public comment. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak to anything that is not on the agenda?

Are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? They are not. Thank you.

Consideration of plats, we have none. Public hearings, that brings us to public hearings. The first public hearing before us tonight is Resolution PZ2026-04, rezone of parcel 04106318 with a physical address of 6575 Kenai Spur Highway from a split zone of rural residential and general commercial to the single zoning district of general commercial. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ-2026-04?

I move to, uh, I make a motion for PZ-2026-04, resolution recommending the commission approve a rezone of parcel 04106318 with a physical address of 6575 Kenai Spur Highway from a split zone of rural residential and general commercial to the single zoning district of general commercial.

Is there a second? Second.

Director Butner, can we have The staff report, please. Uh, thank you, Chair Keeton. Um, Resolution PZ-2026-04, the rezone of parcel with multiple zones. In 2025, the property owners submitted a replat combining lots 2, 3, 14, and 15 of Beaver Creek Alaska subdivision amended, which has created a split zone on the now singular parcel. Replat was recommended for approval through Resolution PZ-2025-21 on June 25th, 2025.

With the condition that if the borough approved the replat, the zoning would need to be addressed. The southern half of the lot is zoned as rural residential, while the northern half is zoned general commercial. The purpose of the rezone is to assign one zoning district to the new— newly replatted parcel. This rezone would reduce ambiguity and confusion, ensuring clarity to its purpose and allowable development. As there are no provisions to determine which zone takes precedence, it is determined that the rezone would eliminate any confusion for— in the event of conflicting guidance.

There will be no nonconforming uses created by the completion of this rezone. It will simply enlarge the adjacent zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan supports this rezoning in the following identified goal: Goal 3, Land Use— develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development. Specifically, Land Use 3, review existing zoning and subdivision codes to determine if they address current and future land uses adequately. Pursuant to KMC 142270, the initiation of a zoning map amendment may be initiated by a majority of the property owners in the area to be rezoned.

Furthermore, the area to be rezoned contains a minimum of 1 acre, excluding street or alley rights-of-way, unless the amendment enlarges an adjacent district boundary. The replatted parcel is under the ownership of the applicants. Both property owners jointly applied for the rezoning, therefore meeting the initiation of rezoning application and the area to be rezoned exceeds the required minimum size. The existing zoning is split rural residential and general commercial, and the proposed zoning is general commercial. The intent of the proposed general commercial zone outlined in KMC Section 1420.120 states the following: The general commercial zone is established to provide for areas where a broad range of retail, wholesale, and service establishments is desirable.

Uses are regulated to concentrate commercial development to the greatest extent possible and to prevent any uses which have an adverse effect upon nearby properties. New single and two-family residential uses and other non-commercial uses, except otherwise provided in this chapter, are not permitted in this zone as principal uses. It is intended that land classified in this zone be reserved for commercial purposes, and because a commercial zone is not suited to the uses excluded above, the existing land use classification is General Commercial. And the intent, as outlined in Imagine Kenai 2030 Comprehensive Plan, states the following: the General Commercial is intended for retail, service, and office businesses that serve Kenai and the larger region. General commercial is appropriate for locations along the arterial road system.

General commercial also— that type of development requires larger, larger parcels of land and access to major road systems. It is intended to support smaller-scale businesses. The current property is a 32-space recreational vehicle park allowable with a conditional use permit pursuant to land use table in KMC 1422. The CUP was granted by the Commission in 2021 and has remained in compliance with no recorded incidents. The existing land use classification states that compatible mix of residential commercial uses.

It is anticipated that current and future development will be compatible to zoning code with surrounding residential uses to the south and commercial along Kenai Spur Highway to the northeast and west. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would not impact the current use or CUP and is consistent with the land use classification as designated by the Comprehensive Plan and Kenai Municipal Code. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 142280, notices of the public hearing for the rezone were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject properties. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion, and notification was posted. Um, I will retract this last statement.

Um, we did receive public comments after this report was drafted, but they are included in your packet.

Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the rezone request for the property located at 6575 Kenai Spur Highway from the split zone of rural residential and general commercial to a singular zoning district of general commercial. That was my report.

Thank you. Um, so This item may be opened up for public comment. Is there anyone wishing to make comment about this?

Are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? No, there are not. Seeing no one, we will bring this back to the commission discussion from the commission.

Go ahead. Just for clarification to the chair, for staff, um, this by rezoning this, this will eliminate the need for the CUP, is that correct? No, the CUP will remain in place. RV parks do require a CUP no matter where they're at. It will just eliminate the split zone that was created with the, the replan.

Okay. And for clarification, I believe we talked with the applicant about doing this once we— with the initial CUP application. So this is just moving forward what we had already discussed and was the plan in the future. So with knowing that, that it was the plan all along was to do to do the CUP knowing that would allow you to cross into two different zonings, I will be, uh, definitely for this. Thank you.

Just a clarification, please. On the current zoning map here next to Beaver Loop, you've got all of these lots in red that are general commercial, but they're currently not general commercial. Just the spur highway portion is general commercial, and the back lots are residential.

Um, if referring to page 15 of the packet, that's our land use plan. It isn't the exact zoning map. The intent with the land use plan is that potentially in the future, looking out 20 years from that plan, is that could have been a small business center, knowing that Beaver Loop and Kenospora have a decent amount of traffic. Um, as it stands today, the lots directly along Kenospora are general commercial. Um, There's very little, if no— actually, I think there might be only one within a few hundred feet of this, but most of those are along a non-platted road, or it's platted, not developed road to the south right now, but there's no other residential development along the strip.

Thank you for the clarification.

Are there any other questions from the Commission?

Go ahead, Marty. Yeah, I believe we're at that. Non-platted road is, is actually lower land. So the odds are probably pretty good you will not ever get a road built there. To where this property located is and to the west, yes, it is, uh, down in significant lowlands.

Um, to the east, potentially there, there might be some developable land, but there's nothing's been developed at this time.

Anyone else? Last chance. Anyone from the audience want to speak?

Yes, my name is Casey Gaze. Casey, can you come up to the podium and hit the button and tell us your name again and where you live?

My name is Casey Gaze. I'm the owner of 6575 Kenai Spur Highway, and I'm just here to answer any questions you may have about the property. Um, Basically, it was replatted, uh, so in the future power could be ran to the, um, campsites, which, uh, HGA would not allow either with those, uh, boundaries in place. So thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Gaze?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gaze, for Appreciate it.

Unanimous— excuse me— unanimous— was unanimous consent requested? It is now. I'll request unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was requested. Are there any objections?

Okay, seeing none, clerk, can you please— Resolution PZ2026-04, rezone of parcel 104106318 with the physical address of 6575 Kenai Spur Highway. From a split zone of rural residential and general commercial to the single zoning district of general commercial is passed.

Okay.

The second public hearing before us tonight is Resolution PZ-2026-06, conditional use permit to allow a retail marijuana store. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ2026-06?

I'll make a motion to— for approval of PZ2026-06, a conditional use permit to allow marijuana retail establishment. I'll second. Thank you, Director Butner. Can we have a staff report, please?

Is the applicant for PZ2026-06 in the room?

Thank you.

Okay, Director Butner, can we have the staff report please? I'll give my report real quick, and then if the commission has questions, they may follow up with you, sir. So it'll be just a minute if you want— if you want to have a seat right there for a couple minutes.

This is an application for the operation of a commercial marijuana establishment. The proposed retail marijuana store would contain an approximate 257-square-foot retail space, an approximate 333-square-foot product storage area, the remaining square footage of the remodeled expanded current structure being divided into spaces that to be used for commercial lease. The subject marijuana establishment would be located within an, within an existing structure that is being remodeled and expanded, located on an approximately 0.95-acre lot. Pursuant to KMC 1420-150A, the intent of a conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the designated principal uses in specific zoning districts, provided certain conditions are met. Prior to granting a conditional use permit or amendment, the Commission shall determine that the identified criteria as outlined in KMC 1420-150E conditional use permits review criteria are met.

Criteria 1: the use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes of the intent of the zoning district. The subject parcel is zoned General Commercial pursuant to Ordinance 2870-2016, approved by City Council on January 20th, 2016, with an effective date of February 19th, 2016. A retail marijuana store may be established and operated under conditional use permit within the General Commercial Zone. The General Commercial Zone is established to provide for areas where a broad range of retail, wholesale, and service establishments is desirable. Uses are regulated to concentrate commercial development to the greatest extent possible and prevent any uses which would have an adverse effect on nearby properties.

As proposed, the commercial marijuana establishment would consist of an approximate 257-square-foot retail marijuana store located within an approximately 3,680-square-foot building. 333 Square feet will be used for product storage, and the remaining square footage will be divided into leaseable retail spaces.

Primary access to the subject commercial marijuana establishment would be from the Kenai Superhighway, which is classified by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities as a principal arterial. A principal arterial road serves activity centers of statewide significance, including airports, seaports, colleges, medical complex, military bases, recreational and industrial and commerce centers. They carry a high proportion of urban travel on minimal mileage and accommodate trips entering and leaving urban areas and movements through the urban areas. Designated parking following the regulations set forth in KMC 142250 will be located on site. Staff finds it reasonable that the proposed retail marijuana store would be consistent with the purpose of KMC 142150 and the intent of the General Commercial Zoning District given the compliance of all federal, state, and local regulations.

Criteria 2: The economic and non-economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. The proposed development must comply with requirements of KMC 1420.330, Standards of Commercial Marijuana Establishments. In addition, the proposed development must also comply with Alaska Statute 1738, an act to tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana, as well as the Alaska Administrative Code Title 3, Marijuana Control Board Omnibus, licensure requirements and procedures for marijuana establishments.

Pursuant to KMC 1420.010 land use table, a retail marijuana store may be established in the general commercial zone with a conditional use permit. In addition, KMC 1423.030, Standards for Commercial Marijuana Establishments, provisions have been put in place to help mitigate impacts to the value of adjoining property and surrounding neighborhoods. Provided that all conditions required by the State of Alaska and the City of Kenai are followed, staff may Staff does not find that the value of the adjoining properties and neighborhoods will be significantly impaired. Criteria 3: The proposed use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is defined in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as general commercial.

Relevant goals under the Imagine Kenai 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, Goals, Objectives, and Implementation. Several goals and objectives are met from the proposed use. Goal 2: Economic development. Provide economic development to support the physical health of Kenai. Objective ED1: Promote projects to create workforce development opportunities.

Objective ED2: Implement business-friendly regulations, taxation incentives to create a stable, positive climate for private investment. ED3: Promote adaptive reuse of vacant commercial buildings in the city center and along the Kenai Spur Highway. This building would occupy a vacant building along the Kenai Spur Highway and would support a business moving from the borough into the city of Kenai.

Goal 3, land use, is to develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development. Specifically, support development at emerging community centers that lie outside the major employment centers, but provide a mix of retail, service, and residential uses. The subject property is accessed via a paved, State of Alaska maintained arterial road. The lot is currently serviced by city water and has private on-site septic. Additionally, there is access to natural gas, electric, and telephone services.

Criteria 5: The proposed use will not be harmful to public safety, health, or welfare. The proposed use is to establish and operate a commercial marijuana establishment consistent of a retail marijuana store and on-site marijuana storage. These establishments are required to strictly adhere to a variety of federal, local, laws, state statutes, and city municipal codes in regards to sales, odor emissions, health and safety. Additionally, CMEs require the approval and issuance of a retail marijuana store license from the State of Alaska Marijuana Control Board. With regard to buffer distances discussed in KMC 1420.330, the proposed establishment would not be located within 1,000 feet of any primary or secondary school consisting of any grades between kindergarten and 12th grade, or within 500 feet of any vocational program, post-secondary school, including but not limited to trade, technical, or vocational schools, colleges, or universities.

In addition, it would not be within 3,500 feet of any recreational use centers, correctional facilities, churches, state-licensed substance abuse treatment facilities providing substance abuse treatment. Given the multiple agency regulations requirements, staff does not find that the proposed use will have harmful impact to the public safety, health, or welfare. Criteria 6: Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Commission to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions. These may include, but not limited to, measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use, or in other similar aspects related to the proposed use. No additional or specific conditions are deemed necessary to fill the above-mentioned criteria.

Pursuant to KMC 1420.330, notices of the proposed hearing for the proposed conditional use permit were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot periphery of the subject property to meet the required minimum of 30 different unique property owners being notified. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion at least 7 days prior to the hearing. Staff— city staff submitted an affidavit opposing verifying a sign was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the conditional permit amendment request. As the— as of the date of this staff report, one public comment has been received and is included within this packet. Staff recommendation: staff finds that the proposed use of retail marijuana store on Lot 12, Block B, Beaver Creek Alaska Subdivision Amended, located at 6384 Kenai Spur Highway, meets the criteria and conditions for issuance of conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E1 through E6 of Kenai Municipal Code 1420.150 and KMC 1420.330, Standards for Commercial Marijuana Establishments, and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution PZ-2026-2023.

-06, Approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions. 1, Further development of the property shall conform to all state and local regulations. 2, Prior to beginning construction, a building permit must be issued by the building official for the City of Kenai. 3, Prior to starting operations, the landscape site plan must be reviewed and approved by the planning director. 4, Prior to operation, the applicant shall submit a copy of the approved and fully executed license from the Alaska Alcohol Marijuana Control Board.

The applicant shall comply with all regulations as stipulated by the Control Board. 5, All standards for commercial marijuana establishments found in KMC 142330 must be maintained. 6, Pursuant to KMC Section 142150F, the applicant shall submit an annual report to the City of Kenai due no later than December 31st of each year. 7, The applicant must— will meet with city staff for on-site inspections when requested. 8, If there is an expansion or change of the use for the above-described property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 1420.150.

Failure to provide documentation to the city or adhere to the conditions shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the conditional use permit. That is my report. Thank you. Excuse me. Uh, is there— are there any public comments?

Okay, are any questions for the, the applicant? Okay, would you like to go ahead and address the commission?

I really don't have much to say. I just, uh, wanted to get my application before the commission and, um proceed. Okay, thank you, thank you.

So is it—. It's my understanding then that there are no codes or requirements for per capita amounts of facilities that we can have in the city of Kenai?

Through the chair, that is correct. There are no caps set by Kenai Municipal Code.

Just a curiosity, what if a vocational school or church wanted to move in within 1,000 feet of this building? What would be the fix?

You're not asking these questions tonight, are you? Commissioner Krause, uh, through the chair, um, at this point, this business would pre- would be— would exist prior to, um, in theory it would become non-conforming, so no expansions could be had. However, since this would be in place before any new business were to open up, this one would probably take precedence, um, would be my understanding based on where things move in the future. There's not— it's not very cleanly or distinctly put out there, but generally if, if something happens under, it would fall under the code as it existed at that time. In the condition or the neighborhood that it was in.

Future development generally has to deal with the status as is when they're ready to develop. Go ahead. Oh, I just have a question for the applicant. Um, it's a very large building compared to the amount of square footage you're actually utilizing for your, your marijuana sales facility, and it looks like the right-hand portion, you have possible idea for strip mall or, you know, other businesses move in there type of thing. The left, it looks like a very large open shop.

Is there future plans to possibly move this into a— utilize it as a grow-up grow facility also because of the square footage that's available, or is it just right now it is but maybe in the future you want to use that? I'm just trying to figure out what your future plans are. Yeah, that's a very good question. I will not be expanding my marijuana business at all, not for grow or for on-site or anything like that. I'm just using that small space for a retail store.

I have a grow operation in the borough and it's very sufficient for me. Thank you.

How many storefronts would this be for your business?

Uh, this will be for, uh, for retail stores and then, uh, the cultivation.

Through the chair, uh, for staff, I have a couple of questions with regard to subject to the following conditions. Uh, number 6, um, you state the applicant shall submit an annual report. What will be included in that? And line item 7, um, the applicant will meet with city staff for onsite inspections when requested. Is there a timeline that the city would have to give the applicant, um, prior to wanting to perform an inspection?

And what would that inspection entail?

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Erzly. For the, um, annual report, that's for all CUPs. We basically are asking any conditional use permit holder, are you still in business? Because people may have a business for a couple years and then possibly retire, their LLC dissolves, whatever. So we— the annual report is our tool to basically keep track of who's actively running a business under a CUP.

Uh, the— on the City South for on-site inspections, we put that in because as they're doing the remodel, they're going to have regular meetings with the building official and I don't think there's any other city staff at this point would be, but it's just a, just a condition that we keep in there for anyone who's remodeling or updating their business, because that way it puts it into writing that they'll have that relationship with city staff. Thank you.

To the chair on this, is that for all of the building So if they're like going to have several storefronts for other retailers, those can be inspected too. Is that what you're talking about? Through the chair, Commissioner Askin, the— as they remodel and get everything ready, yes, the building official would go and inspect, make sure everything's good to go for all those. Dependent on what the actual retail uses are, many of them probably will be allowed to, to exist by right in that zoning. Um, let's just say it's a small bodega or something like that.

All those could exist without needing a CUP. It's just going to depend on who, uh, this gentleman gets to lease that space. Thank you.

For staff first, is it a— in plenty of distance from the racetrack where there's a lot of kids?

Through the chair, Commissioner Warder, yes, it is far enough away from the racetrack, and per our code, the racetrack doesn't— we do recognize that there are a lot of adults and children that, that do use that area. Is not specifically called out in our code, whereas like schools and other facilities like that are, but we did definitely take that into consideration. We molded over, but we think because of the— there's no direct access, it's, you know, out and around, back a ways. We think there's sufficient separation between the two land uses.

Microphone, please.

In your diagram of the building, you show what looks like a food truck in front of it. What is that all about? My original idea was to use the entire building for my business. And I was going to add a food truck for an on-site consumption in the large area. It's a very nice building.

I could have used it for that. But once I discovered that the city of Kenai had not approved for on-site consumptions with the state of Alaska when that law was changed, I just retracted it. I don't need it. I'm going to rent that office space out. And so the food truck that's there is really just a ghost.

It's nothing. Okay, so it would have just had to do with food and none of your other products, right? Yes.

So just for clarification, your original plan was to turn it into like one of the— like a marijuana-type bar like they have and I've seen applied for, but it's not allowed in the city. Is that correct? Yeah, it's sort of, you know, a social area. Um, you know, there's, um, the new rule for allowing on-site consumption. The way I looked at the building, I only need a small portion for the store.

I had that other portion that's actually very nice and, um, thought that we could use that for special events and, you know, you know, like the comedy tour and stuff like that. And because it would be connected to the retail store, it would have met the requirements by the state. I thought it was a good idea, you know, but it was just an idea. And then once I talked to the planning department, it was completely dropped. Yeah.

Through the chair, did you, um, cite the, uh, parking, uh, requirements?

Uh, through the chair, I believe. Let me double check. I remember reading it.

Oh, I'm reading the wrong report. Sorry, there it is.

Sorry, I was rifling through papers and got them all out of order because— That's why you don't pay— do things double-sided. Here it is, it's further back.

Yes, I see where explicitly— yes, um, under Finding 1, it's the last sentence under the findings. Designated parking following the regulations set forth in KMC 142250 will be located on site.

Thank you.

Are there any more questions from the commission?

Are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? No, there are not. Thank you. Seeing no one else, we will bring this back to the commission for discussion from the commission.

Does anybody have any Discussion? Any questions? Are we done with that? Yeah, go ahead. I guess this is a good time to talk about concerns or anything with the community.

And I know I talked to multiple surrounding landowners.

Several were not real thrilled about a new marijuana store coming into town, the retail side of things. The biggest thing that they showed concern about was another possibility of a grow operation. Seemed like the consensus— they were very adamant they didn't want to see another grow operation there. So that's where that question came from, is multiple of the neighbors requested—. Were worried that it could future lead to another grow operation.

They didn't want to have that. You have stated that that's not, and I know it's another conditional use permit, another permit you'd have to apply for at a later date if you did decide to change that into that, but that was kind of the big consensus that came about. Seemed like the most thing that came up was that people were concerned about a grow operation there. The retail side of things, they weren't thrilled about, but they weren't as 100% against as they were the grow operation. So just for your awareness, the concerning neighbors were about the grow— the biggest concern was about the grow operations.

The concern I do have a little bit is just with the economic, non-economic value when you start to see that, that 1,000-foot radius, you know, starts limiting those specific businesses. And that's, that's one of the concerns I have is We start talking about one of the three pillars of what the community needs most is daycares and those kind of things. And the more these establishments that we restrict for the particular land use, they can't have that with location within 1,000 feet, it starts to cut back on that. And that can have an effect, I think, of non-economic or economic value to the surrounding landowners that may or may not have developed yet, is that restricting restricts the type of businesses they can have. Um, none of those individuals have showed up here to testify for or against it.

Um, I know they reached out to me, a couple of them, that I talked to a couple of the neighbors there, and the biggest stress was the not having the grow. So maybe that that has been eliminated from them for that. But based on the testimony that you don't intend to have a grow, and that was the one thing that came up, I will be voting for this since I don't have any other surrounding landowners here to testify otherwise. So I would just state my findings.

You most certainly can respond if you choose to, though.

Well, my own personal feelings about having it grow inside the city is kind of silly, too. It's a big state. There's lots of areas to grow, or it's very remote, and doesn't matter to anybody. But, you know, and this is retail. This is a retail location.

That's really all I ever want to do with it. And I would like to be able to invite other businesses to come in and join me. Understand it can't be a daycare or a church. But I do have a great property there. And I think that someone's going to find a good home there.

Uh, Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you. Commissioner Urschel. Yes. Commissioner Kraus?

No. Commissioner Fikes is absent. Commissioner Woodard? Yes. Commissioner Askin?

Yes. Chair Keeton? Yes. Vice Chair Dothit? Yes.

You have 1 no vote and 5 yes votes. PZ Resolution 2026-06 is approved.

So please note that there is a 15-day period that an aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. The third public hearing before us tonight— it— oh, thank you. The third public hearing before us tonight is Resolution PZ-2026- -08, rezone from conservation to suburban residential zoning district as depicted on the attached boundary map. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ-2026-08?

I make a motion to pass Resolution PZ-2026-08, rezone one 81-acre parcel from conservation to Suburban Residential Zoning District. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you.

Director Butner, can we have the staff report please? Thank you, Chair Keaton.

The City of Kenai seeking to rezone portion of one 81-acre parcel located at 10060 Kenai Square Highway from Conservation to the Suburban Residential Zoning District. Purpose of the rezone is to allow for low to medium density residential development adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods within walking, biking, or short driving distance to commercial services. Pursuant to KMC 142270, the initiation of a zoning map amendment may be initiated by the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission or the Kenai City Council. This parcel is wholly owned by the City of Kenai. The area to be rezoned contains far above the minimum of 1 acre, excluding street or alley rights-of-way.

The existing zoning conservation and the intent as outlined in KMC Section 1420.070 states that the commercial conservation zone is intended to apply to areas which should be preserved primarily as open areas and as watersheds and wildlife reserves. Airport-related uses have been included in the zone to allow for the reservation of aircraft approach zones. It is intended that this zone shall apply mainly to publicly owned land. In August 2025, The city applied to the Federal Aviation Administration Alaska Region for a deed of release to remove FAA restrictions on an 81-acre parcel located east of the airport. On September 15th, 2025, the deed of release was approved by the FAA and recorded with the state of Alaska.

This deed of release removed a number of restrictions and allows this land to be leased for other than aeronautical uses and also may be sold for fair market prices if authorized by the city. Furthermore, the proposed rezone area contains a a large drainage area— sorry, is adjacent to a large drainage area that is in most of the western sections of the parcel. Upland portions along the eastern side of the parcel are adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Approximately 10 to 15 acres of these uplands are suitable or may be suitable for residential development. Conservation only allows for residential development with a conditional use permit.

The proposed zoning is suburban residential, and the intent, as outlined in KMC Section 1420-090, states that the Suburban Residential Zone is intended to provide for medium-density residential development in areas which will be provided with common utility systems. The specific intent in establishing the zone is: 1, to separate residential structures to an extent which allows for adequate light, air, and privacy; and 2, to prohibit uses which would violate the residential character of the environment or generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. The rezone to Suburban Residential would align with the adjacent residential zoning districts As mentioned above, approximately 10 to 15 acres of the upland portions of the parcel could be suitable for residential development. Suburban residential is appropriate in areas where there are common utility systems. In this case, city utilities are available at the corner of Princess Lane and Magic Avenue.

This is on the southeast corner of one of the upland portions.

The existing land use classification, uh, is Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, and the intent as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan states that open parks, rec, and open space intended for the public recreation facilities as well as undeveloped lands that provide for the conservation of natural scenic resources. These areas can be used for a variety of passive and outdoor and indoor sports and recreational activities. Areas that might be suitable for future natural resource development may be included. The existing land use classification states that this area is to be parks, recreation, and open space. A majority of the parcel will remain as open space as it lies within a large lowland drainage area and is not suited for development.

The approximate 10 to 15 acres of the parcel, mostly on the eastern edge, has upland portions that could be suitable for residential development, but the 81-acre parcel would require subdivision prior to development. An amendment to the land use map and the comprehensive plan is not currently required as residential uses are allowable in conservation zone, albeit as conditional uses. The, the city, the city anticipates updating comprehensive plan within a couple of years, and a new land use plan may be developed as part of this process. The comprehensive plan supports the rezoning, uh, as to develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development. The proposed rezone to suburban residential would align largely with the intent of keeping a majority of the lowland drainage areas protected, as a parcel could then be subdivided and the City of Kenai retaining ownership.

This would align with supporting workforce development by allowing new to low-medium density residential development in appropriate areas served by city utilities. Existing use: the proposed rezone area, the land is vacant. The proposed rezone to suburban residential would allow those upland portions to have that low to medium density residential development adjoining an existing residential neighborhood which has been identified as a crucial need. Pursuant to KMC 1422-80, notices of public hearing for the rezone were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice with the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion, and notification was posted.

Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the rezone request for the portion of the property located at 10060 Kenai Spur Highway from Conservation to Suburban Residential Zoning District. Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. The administration believes rezoning to R-1 would likely deter development of the property due to the required minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet compared to 7,200 square feet in the Suburban Residential Zone. Development costs, installation of roads and utilities are significant, and requiring lots sizes of at least 20,000 square feet would make development most likely uneconomical. The Rural Residential 1 zone also prohibits structures with more than 5 dwelling units and requires a conditional use permit for structures with more than 3 dwelling units.

Because the property is within walking, biking, or short driving distance to commercial services, it is an ideal location for low to medium density development. While the application is not yet complete, the app— the administration is working with a developer who's interested in constructing multifamily development, which may not be permitted in an RR-1 zone. And on March 18th, 2026, City Council referred the request back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to reconsider the administration's original request to amend the zoning to suburban residential and to consider a split zone approach. Under this approach, the upland portion of the parcel suitable for residential development would be rezoned suburban residential, while the larger parcel of the property containing drainages and associated wetlands would remain in the Conservation Zoning District. While split zones are generally not considered, considered best practice, in this case, a split zone using meets and bounds to delineate the portion of the larger parcel that would be considered for rezoning the portion of the lot suitable for development from what should remain open space and not be developed.

A split zone would also negate the need to rezone the remaining parcel back to Conservation once subdivision of the developable portion is complete, if it happens. That is my report. Thank you, sir.

Um, we could, uh, open this up for public comments. Are there anybody— is there anybody from the audience who'd like to come and speak?

Go ahead and state your name and your address, please. Hello, my name is Lisa Coates and my address is 410 Magic Avenue. Magic, okay. Um, good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Um, I live adjacent to the property being considered under this resolution.

I am not opposed to development of this land. However, I strongly believe that suburban residential zoning is not appropriate for this parcel. And I respectfully ask that you, that you consider replanning and zoning the building portion as Rural Residential 1. This property is approximately 81 acres and a much smaller area is buildable. The remainder is wetland.

These wetlands are not unused land. They provide important habitat for wildlife and such, such as wood frogs, wood ducks, and other wildlife. Once they are disturbed, they cannot be easily restored. My concern is that suburban residential zoning opens the door to higher density development, including multi-family housing, which is not consistent with the rural character of this area. I also understand that there has been discussion about potential multi-family development in Kenai.

That raises an important question: is this zoning change being driven by a type of development that would not be allowed under rural residential zoning? If so, I would ask you to carefully consider whether this location is appropriate for that level of density, especially given the infrastructure limitations. Our roads are not built to suburban standards. In fact, they are not even well-maintained gravel roads. They are mostly dirt at this point, and the city has not improved them, under my understanding, since they were originally built.

So I would also ask, if higher density development is allowed here, Who will be responsible for upgrading and maintaining the road infrastructure to support it? I would also like to raise a public health and safety concern. There is a fire training facility located on the other side of the conservation area. During training exercises, significant smoke is generated. We live nearby and, and regularly have to turn off our air exchange system because of the smoke, depending on the wind direction.

The proposed buildable area appears to be more directly in line with that smoke, so I would ask the commission to consider: is it appropriate to allow higher density residential development in an area that is regularly impacted by smoke from a nearby training facility? Future residents may not be aware of this, and it could affect their health and quality of life. Taken together, environmental limitations rural character, inadequate infrastructure, and nearby impacts like the fire training facility, I believe suburban residential zoning is not a fit— a right fit for this property. A more appropriate approach would be to recognize the constraints of the land, preserve the wetland areas, and zone the buildable portion as Rural Residential 1, which better reflects the surrounding area. This allows reasonable development while protecting both current and future residents.

Zoning sets the long-term direction for this land. I'm asking you to choose a designation that reflects what the area actually is, not what we wish it could be. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr.

Eubanks, would you like to speak?

Chair Keeton and members of the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Terry Eubank. I'm city manager with the city of Kenai. I do reside in the city. I am here this evening to recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-PZ-2026-08.

This resolution will rezone a portion of an 81-acre parcel from conservation to suburban residential. The city of Kenai is experiencing a housing situation. In the fall of 2025, a statistically valid community survey was completed where 74% of our residents surveyed believe that the city has a housing availability and affordability problem. In order to address these issues, the admin— the city administration has taken a multitude of steps in order to make development of housing less administratively burdened thus making it easier and cheaper. This, this commission has been a part of those steps to include rezoning and review of subdivision standards.

The action being requested in Resolution PZ-2026-08 is consistent with these steps and is being requested to remove one of the barriers to development of a portion of this parcel that staff believe may be suitable for development. The cost of subdivision without the certainty of being able to utilize the property for the desired purpose is a barrier to development. Rezoning this portion of the parcel guarantees the property may be utilized for the permitted purpose of the, of the zone, with further consideration if the developer determines the property is adequate for development. It is important to note that development is not guaranteed by this action, but the certainty of use, provided that is permitted within the zone, is achieved. Removal of such barriers is important when trying to facilitate housing construction in, in this time of shortage.

The administration recommends rezoning of the portion of the lot to suburban residential, a zone that permits smaller lot sizes and higher density construction. The availability of city water and sewer utilities and proximity to other services makes this an ideal location for low to medium density construction, as tenants have, have walking, biking, or short driving access to commercial services. Due to the high cost of utility infrastructure, rezoning to suburban residential will assist in making subdivision economical. A minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet can support installation of utility infrastructure, where a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet in the RR zone likely does not. The suburban resident— residential zone permits up to 6 family dwelling units, um, and through conditional use may permit 7 or more family dwelling units.

In contrast, the Rural Residential 1 zone permits up to 3 family dwelling units, may conditionally approve 4 family dwelling units, and prohibits more than 4 family dwelling units. Again, this is an ideal location for low to medium density development, and the RS zone, or the suburban residential zone, provides for that. Your support for PZ-2026-08 is respectfully requested. Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Reebanks? Go ahead.

During the staff report, um, I understand that we have a developer that is already interested interested in the area or could have interest in the area. Are you familiar with who that developer is?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Krause. To the chair, I'm not. I haven't— I don't believe we've had a completed application, so the department would be the ones working with the applicant at this point.

Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Krause, right now, because they don't have a formal approved complete application, we generally don't divulge them quite yet. Um, now we're trying to hide anything. They may— if they may ultimately pull out, they haven't pushed it through and pushed it all the way through. But once we do have a complete application, that's when we would address both the commission and council. But right now they're really just kind of trying to figure out what is allowable and where in the city.

Since it's already on record from the past meeting that we had ish with this issue, it's already known that I'm against this issue. But, um, also would like to state as a real estate agent that I do agree that we need more land for building. We have a housing shortage, but I don't think that rushing through a project on conservation land is in the benefit of the city in any way, and I have to agree with a lot of what this public lady said. So I also put a lot of stock into— and I only just received this, I had no idea that Mr. Greenberg would be submitting this as a laydown material, and I hope everyone took the time to read it. Mr. Greenberg, this is his wheelhouse, and I take what he has to say very seriously.

So So I will be voting against this again.

Through the staff, if you could clarify what is allowed from an R— we know what's RR-1. The next above that would be RR, and then there's the— asked about RS, correct? What would the dwelling units be in an RR? Rural residential allows up to a fourplex conditional with 5 or 6 units and prohibits 7 or more. Suburban residential allows up to 5 or 6-plex and conditional 4, 7 or more.

And then the RR-1, which is what the other part of subdivision is now, is the 3 to 4, correct? Allows it— allows a triplex by right, a fourth unit, a 4-plex would be a conditional use permit and prohibits anything above that.

So previously we had discussed— we had several other people in the audience that discussed and talked about it from the local neighborhood. I know that local neighborhood several years ago had gotten together and done the RR-1 to be more restrictive, and there are certain lots in there that are non-compliant with even the RR-1 now that wouldn't be allowed to be able to put in like they are right now. I know the last time we discussed it It was kind of a happy medium to kind of come to an agreement with the residents where they weren't thrilled with it, but they were okay with it sticking at least going to like an RR, RR1. I would like to propose an amendment to RR for this current reconsideration. So from RS to RR, not RR1 but RR, because it gives a little bit in between both.

It would allow for similar dwelling units per parcel and would hopefully appease some of the residents in the area that I've talked to that are concerned about the higher density in that situation. So if we can rewrite that to— I'd like to make an amendment to go to RR.

Is there a— is it— it's a formal motion, so is there a second? Yeah. Second.

Can I ask, Mr. Eubanks, how do you feel about the RR as opposed to the RR1?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner, um, Keaton. I'd have to ask staff, um, Kevin. I'd have two questions, um Could you restate the dwelling unit, um, situation in an RR and also the minimum lot size of the RR zone? Through the chair, Mr. Eubank, the Rural Residential 1 allows up to a triplex by right. A fourth unit, a fourplex, would be condition— would need a conditional use permit.

Anything above 5 is prohibited. In a rural residential, you can have up to a 4-plex by right. A 5th or 6th— 5 and 6 are combined— would require conditional use permit, and anything of 7 or above is prohibited. The RR and RR-1 have the same 20,000 square foot minimum lot size.

And Commissioner Keeton, to answer— I'm sorry, Chair Keeton— to answer your question, I would, I would recommend against the RR zone because the minimum lot size is too large. In my opinion, it's too large to justify the investment that's going to be needed to extend utilities in that area. And with that, I don't think it's going to be developed. Thank you. That's sort of where I was headed.

Go ahead. Anybody, any other comments? Before we vote.

Sorry, I'd like to reiterate that this land slopes down into this creek that feeds into the Kenai River, and I haven't heard that there's been any study on what the impact would be to the neighboring area or that creek.

Commissioner Askin. Yeah, thank you. A couple of things. We're looking— you say you're looking at it 10 to 15 acres approximately. If we do the RS, rural suburban residential, that would basically— you're looking at 75 lots that you could subdivide there.

That if you put a, say, just a minimum of a fourplex on there, that's 300 people or 300 families basically, and we're using the 5 vehicles a day trip routine that we used like on the last time when we were talking about the rural sub— residential suburban for the mechanic shop. That's 1,500 additional trips on Princess.

If you put a 6-plex there, that's 450 additional people, which would be 2,250 additional vehicles on that gravel road. I mean, it's currently today, it's not a— I mean, it's a gravel substandard road presently that we would have to probably make decisions or something about pavement or something to handle that additional load, because you're looking at a pretty substantial group of traffic. Okay, could that be something that's part of the— if they choose to put in triplexes and fourplexes, with the upgrade of the road be a consideration for Director Buehner. Thank you, Chair Keeton. Um, as land is owned by the city, um, our traditional way is to enter into a lease with a provision to buy once development is completed.

Um, depending on the negotiations of that lease, uh, improvements including the utility expansion and enhancements to the road could be negotiated as a part of that lease. But since we don't have anything directly, I can't state that it would for certainty. But ultimately, that would be something we likely would be proposing to council when they're looking at, looking at a lease in the future. And it is not uncommon for other developments in the city to do this as a benefit to their, to their development. They want access to their development.

We've seen other places in town where, especially, um, We might be familiar more with KPHI off readout where they have been putting in their own roads, or they will be with the grant that we got.

Mr. Eubanks, thank you, Chair Keeton. The only thing I'd like to—. The other point I'd like to remind the commission of is that, you know, like I stated, all this action does tonight, I believe, is remove one of the barriers to development. No developer is going to expend the funds needed to complete a subdivision when they can't even be certain that at the end of the process they'll be able to use the property for what they'd like to use it for. Any action to subdivide, any action to lease or to purchase will be back before this commission for additional action.

Those decisions are not being made here tonight. And with all respect to Commissioner Askin's remarks, I think, you know, that's based upon simple math, and I don't think you're going to get a subdivision in this area that's going to accommodate the number of lots that you laid out. You have to be able to provide reasonable access to all of them. So, you know, again, I just want to remind you that any further action beyond this will absolutely be back before this commission and the city council. And all of the things that you're discussing can be taken into consideration during those points in time.

This is just to remove the barrier of requiring subdivision prior to rezoning. Thank you.

Yeah, I think we need to discuss the amendment. Thank you. Um, I want to move to enter into an adjudicative session in accordance with Alaska Statute 44.62.310 for the purpose of performing judicial or quadrijudicial functions related to the findings of fact The adjudicary session will include all members of Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Director, Butner. After the adjudicative session, uh, we will move to enter back into regular session.

Second. Second.

Unanimous consent.

Okay, all right, so we'll just—. Yeah, we will take a short break for the adjudicative session. Thank you.

Operate only as a marijuana product manufacturing facility. A copy of the state business license is on file and included with— as a part of this application. The transferee is required to operate under the terms and conditions of the approved CUP at the subject property. Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the original CUP resolution, and 1, 2, and 3 from the landscape site plan, were not included on the notice of decision as they were applicable only to the initial building of the manufacturing facility and initial landscaping. The new permit holder is required to obtain new build permit and submit a new landscape and site plan for any future development of the property as required by city code.

If there is a future change in use, the transferee must apply for a new conditional use permit. Staff hereby recommends approval of the transfer of the conditional use permit, Resolution Number PZ-2017-40, for marijuana production facility on this property described as lot Lots 1 through 5, Block 4, Radar Subdivision, located at 14927 Kenai Spur Highway, within the light industrial zoning district, subject to the conditions as set forth in the approved CUP.

Thank you, Director. Are there any questions? Just— I'm pretty sure I know this is the one across from the EDD building, correct? Okay, so I thought so. This circumstance doesn't require the person we're transferring to to be present?

That is correct. Only a brand new CUP requires the attendance.

Are there— is there anybody would like to make public comment?

There is nobody online. Thank you.

And could I— right, I was going to say, yeah. So seeing that there's no comment, we will bring this back to the commission for discussion from the commission.

My only comment is, uh, I wasn't aware that manufacturing was actually allowed in the city.

It's just this cultivation, but the definition, um, is the same. Okay, thank you.

Uh, would somebody like to request unanimous consent? I'll request unanimous consent.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none, PZ-2017-40, the transfer of marijuana product manufacturing, is approved.

Also note that there is a 15-day period that any aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office.

That brings us to reports. Planning Director Butner, may we have your report, please? Uh, keep it pretty brief. Uh, at the very end of your packet, you'll notice it's a very large packet. Um, the last pretty much half is the Parks and Rec Master Plan draft that is currently out.

Um, Parks and Rec Commission has been working diligently. Um, we've had a working group here in the city with the Parks Director, myself, City Manager, just talking about, um, ways that they can improve the parks over the next 20, 20 years or so. It's essentially an outgrowth of the comprehensive plan, but it specifies activities at the Parks and Rec level. So I invite you to look at it. Just because I have the word plan in it, we wanted to make sure you were aware of it, because if somebody brought it up, we wanted you to know it exists.

And, um, but it's been a, it's been a fun ride, and I did go to Anchorage at the beginning of the month, and it was the Alaska Infrastructure Symposium. There were a lot of different grant funders up there, a lot of different nonprofits. So just looking at ways that we can advance some of the goals that we have as a city, um, looking at maybe what are non-traditional funding sources. But, you know, we all pay our taxes and all the stuff goes to DC, so if we can claw it back, that's what we're going to try to do. With that, that's my report.

Thank you, sir. Um, I don't really have a report yet. I'm working on what my report should be, so I just want to thank everybody for coming tonight and, uh, thank you for your service. Uh, Commissioner Daniel— or I'm sorry, City Council Liaison Daniel, may we have your report please? Oh, thank you.

Uh, all right, so keep it brief. Um, My last council meeting, big news here was the special election was certified. So we are going to kind of match up with the borough those, those dates, and then also in the future make some changes so it can be amended by code if we ever have another change. A couple other things of highlight— had a nice report from Mr. Doug Heyman from Connections about using about the Challenger Learning Center, about possible use for homeschool. That was an interesting report from him.

And let's see here, a couple other highlights in here. Approved a bunch of leases for, for SETN and others. And what else do we want to talk about? Oh, big one, also had some discussion around pools. It's still an ongoing discussion.

And yes, if you guys have any questions, let me know.

I actually have a question about the Challenger Center. We kind of made a comment about it. We're just curious, are there any major plans going forward with that, or is it still being just considered? Still being considered. There's just lots of options on the table, and we're reviewing them all right now.

There's still no, no, nothing to push forward yet. So thank you so much.

Additional public comment is open. Is there anyone from the public wishing to comment? There's nobody online. Thank you. Uh, next meeting notice, attendance notification will be May 13th.

Please take note that the May 13th is— that the next meeting is May 13th, 2026. Is anyone planning to be absent or attending remotely?

I'll be remote. Okay. Marty? Okay. Anyone else?

Uh, everybody else plans on being here. Okay, thank you. Commission comments and questions. Mr. Askin.

Ms. Woodard.

I would like to know if there's a way that we can establish a limit to the amount of marijuana facilities that are within the city limits.

How, how, how would we go about that? I think that's what our liaison's for. Well, the attorney at one point made a comment that we could suggest those kind of things, and— but I don't know how to go about that. Um, if the commission would like us to look into it to bring a motion in front of you, um, to make a recommendation to council, we could go that direction. Um, as a private citizen, you could also address council directly.

There are ways to bring it to council. Ultimately, they would have to take it into consideration if they would like to make changes to the code. But we can— I can make sure that I get any process outlined and share with this commission. Thank you, I'd appreciate that.

Commissioner Krause? Um, I agree. Um, and as a pro-marijuana person who helped put the ballot measure on for the state, uh, I don't— I guess I don't like how peppered we are with marijuana establishments all over the place. I don't think it's a good look for the city.

Thank you. Commissioner Earsley.

Thank you all for your time.

And Vice Chair Doffett. I will only say that I tried.

As far as pending items, we have none. Seeing no further business before this body,.