Kenai: 2026-10-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting

Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call to order the October 14th, 2026 Kenai Planning and Zoning Committee meeting.

If you are able to rise, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Clerk, could you please call the roll? Thank you. Chair Keeton.

Here. Commissioner Askin. Present. Commissioner Urszly. Present.

Commissioner Kraus. Present. Commissioner Fikes.

Commissioner Woodard? Here. And Vice Chair Dothett is absent. You have a quorum.

Number 3, approval of the agenda and consent agenda.

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

Request additions to the packet: add item F1, public comment for PZ2026-32, requested by the planning director.

And the pleasure of the commission.

Motion to approve the agenda and the consent agenda with the addition of the, uh, add-on, the item, um, F.1 for PC2026-32. Thank you. Second. Are there any additional revisions to the agenda or consent agenda from the commission?

Hearing none, can I request unanimous consent? Request unanimous consent. Are there any objections or discussion?

Hearing none.

Oh, sorry, I jumped the gun. Are there any public comments? Oh wait, would the clerk Please read the consent agenda into the record. Thank you, Chair. The approval of minutes for regular meeting of September 23, 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?

Thank you. Unanimous consent was requested. Are there any objections?

Hearing no objections, the agenda and consent agenda are approved.

Item C, scheduled public comment. We have no scheduled public comment this evening. Item D, unscheduled public comment. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak to anything that is not on the agenda?

Clerk, are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? There is somebody online, but I'm not seeing a notification that they're wishing to speak at this time. Thank you.

We're now moving on to Item E, consideration of PLATS. We have no PLATS for consideration tonight. Item F, public hearings. Resolution number PZ2026-32, granting a conditional use permit for cabin rental of a single-family dwelling on parcel 04326047, located at 502 Ash Avenue. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-32?

Motion to approve Resolution PZ-2026-32. Second. Second. Director Butner, can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair.

All right, the applicant is requesting conditional use permit to operate a cabin rental at the existing single-family dwelling. A conditional use permit is required to operate a cabin rental in the suburban residential zoning district. Pursuant to KMC 1420-150A, the intent of 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 conditional use permit, 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 and intent of the zoning district.

Findings: the residential— 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 this zone is: 1, to separate residential structures to an extent which will allow for adequate light, air, and privacy; 2, to prohibit uses which would, A, violate the residential character of the environment; and B, generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. Proposed use would not violate the residential character of the neighborhood. As stated by the applicant, it will continue to function as a single-family dwelling used for habitation, just on a short-term basis. Traffic flow is not anticipated to be affected negatively, as a rented household expected to generate the same average daily traffic counts as an established tenant.

Staff finds that the proposed use meets the intent of the Suburban Residential Zoning District. Is there sufficient off-street parking? And conditions outlined in this conditional use permit would place restrictions on noise levels during established quiet hours. This property has also previously used— been used as a daycare under the previous conditional use permit that has since expired. Staff finds that the use as cabin rental, short-term rental, would be less impactful in regards to traffic generation.

Criteria 2: The economic and non-economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood would not be significantly impaired. As stated by the applicant, operation of the home as short-term rental allows for greater oversight than long-term rent tenants. Clients will typically be staying for 1 week or less, with the property being cleaned and inspected between stays, allowing the applicant to quickly address maintenance, noise, parking, or other concerns that may arise. Guests will be required to follow house rules regarding occupancy and respect for the peace of the neighborhood. Property shall remain well maintained and compatible with the residential neighborhood.

Staff concurs with the applicant that short-term rentals will allow the owners or their designee increased opportunities to address any issues that may arise during the tenure of any tenant and keep the property in compliance with all city ordinances. Staff finds it unlikely that the proposed use will have any negative impact on the economic or non-economic value of the adjoining property or neighborhood. Criteria 3: The proposed use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan and the City of Kenai Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property with the Suburban Residential land use classification. The Suburban Residential classification is intended for single-family and multi-family residential uses that are urban or suburban in character.

The area will typically be developed at a higher density, lots are typically smaller, and public water and sewer services are required or planned. Some developments may be required to construct streets to a paved standard, and larger subdivisions may be required to provide sidewalks and public areas. The surrounding lots are developed single-family lots, and there are other short-term rentals in subdivision, making the proposed use in harmony with the current use of the neighborhood. As stated by the applicant, Proposed use of cab rentals consistent with the city's comprehensive plan by supporting tourism and economic activity while maintaining the residential character and quality of the neighborhood. Short-term lodging provides accommodations for visitors to Kenai while responsible management, occupancy limits, and established house rules help provide the livability and character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Staff finds the proposed use is consistent and in harmony with the goals of the comprehensive plan, specifically goals 1 and 2 listed below. In Imagine Kenai 2030 comprehensive plan, chapter 6, Goals, objectives, and implementation. Several goals and objectives are met from the proposed use. Goal 1, quality of life, is to promote and encourage quality of life in Kenai. Objective Q1, ensure the Kenai's community where people and property are safe.

Q2, provide and rejuvenate the livability of existing neighborhoods. Q4, promote the siting and design of land uses that are in harmony and scale with surrounding areas. Goal 2, economic development, is to provide economic development to support the physical health of Kenai. Objective ED9: capitalize on the tourism industry, marketing Kenai as a destination for recreational activities, conventions, festivals, cultural and other events. Criteria 4: public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use.

The property is connected to city water and sewer and has established natural gas and electric services that are in good standing. The property is accessible from Ash Avenue, a city-maintained road providing adequate access for guests and emergency services. Staff finds that the public services and facilities adequate to serve the proposed use. Criteria 5: The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health, or welfare. The applicant has stated that they will limit the occupancy of the house as well as require guests to adhere to established rules regarding noise, parking, and guest conduct.

The home will be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained between guests, and any concerns will be addressed promptly. With these protocols in place, staff finds that the proposed use will not be harmful to 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 are not limited to, measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use, and other similar aspects related to the proposed use. Staff finds that allowing short-term rentals from the existing single-family dwelling would not have adverse impacts to surrounding properties, and that an additional specific condition to limit the number of guests allowed on site at any, at any one time is needed to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions.

Pursuant to KMC 1422-ADC, notices of the public hearing for the conditional use were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice of public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion. City staff submitted an affidavit opposing verifying a sign that was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the conditional use permit request. 3 Public comments were received at the time of this report and are included in, in this packet, as well as the laydown given tonight. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use permit for a cabin rental in the existing single-family dwelling on the property described as Lot 1, Block G, Woodland Subdivision Part 1 meets the criteria for issuance of conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E-1 through E-6 Appendix 9, Municipal Code 142150, and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution PZ-2026-32 approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1, any development or use of the property shall comply with all applicable federal, state of Alaska, and city regulations regardless of whether or not the requirements are listed as conditions for the approval of the conditional use permit; 2, pursuant to KMC 142150, The application shall submit an annual report including a summary of the on-site activity to the City of Kenai due no later than December 31st of each year.

3, The applicant will meet with city staff for on-site inspections when requested. 4, If there is an expansion or change of use of the above-described property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 1420.150.

5, The applicant will have fire inspection performed every 2 years. 6, The applicant will ensure the property will be adequately maintained and kept free of trash or junk. 7, The number of guests is limited to 6 or 2 per bedroom. 8, Quiet hours to be observed between 10 PM and 7 AM. That's my report.

Thank you, Director. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to Resolution PZ-2026-32?

Come on up, sir.

Okay, we'll have the applicant come up first and then we'll have you come up second. Is the applicant present today?

There is somebody raising their hand online. Are they the applicant?

Perfect.

Um, hello. Hi. Um, Thanks for coming on. Uh, go ahead and give us your name and the general area where you live. I'm Stephanie.

Okay. And we currently live down in Anchor Point. Okay, thank you. Can you go ahead and tell us what you want us to know? Um, just that the, the house is, um, better maintained and well maintained since having no long-term rentals— renters there, and the action and plan moving forward for a short-term rental gives us better access to the property between occupants so we can maintain the property better inside and out.

And I think that it's better for us as homeowners and for the community.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Come on up, sir, and tell us your name and the area in which you live.

And if you'll just hit the red button at the bottom of the microphone, or the— yeah, the white button turns red. There you go. Thank you. Uh, thank you. My name is Bob Malloy and I live at 5113 Ash Avenue in Kenai.

Just down the street. Miss Schmidt and I bought our home at 513 Ash Avenue in September 1985. Major reasons were that there were families with children and covenants that prohibited business operations in Woodland Part 1 subdivision, our neighborhood. We've been homeowners there for 41 years. We've raised our daughter Lily there and have seen several generations of families raise children here.

I oppose Resolution 32. Woodland Subdivision was developed over time in several parts. The findings in Resolution 32 do not recognize that there are different neighborhoods within Woodland Subdivision. Our Part 1 neighborhood is not the same as other neighborhoods developed later. The current land use of single-family dwellings in Part 1 is by homeowners or long-term tenants as residences for their families, except for the burnt-out house and the vacant house on Ash and the non-permitted Airbnb business at 502 Ash.

The historical land use has been similar. The findings on criteria 2, that there are other short-term rentals in Woodlands subdivision, therefore the proposed use is in harmony with the current use of the neighborhood, is false as to our Part 1 neighborhood. This would be the first Airbnb in our Part 1 neighborhood. If there are other Airbnbs in other neighborhoods that are unpermitted, that's illegal and shouldn't be justification for this. If there are Airbnbs with COPs in Part 1, which we have a map of in our, in our presentation, that, you know, I didn't know about them, and that fact would support denial because approval of the COP will be a precedent.

Uh, there is a, a domino effect of precedent. What happened on Angler Drive with guide, uh, businesses, uh, may happen on Ash Avenue with Airbnbs. Ash Avenue needs the city's protection and rejuvenation of its livability for families under Goal 1 of the comprehensive plan, not Airbnbs. At present, there is a burnt-out house and a vacant house. Uh, both used to have families with children.

If this CUP is approved, investors may want to buy and use those vacant properties as investments for Airbnbs, and families will lose the opportunity to buy or rent these properties. This CUP is not in harmony with Goal 1. The finding on Criteria 1 is erroneous because the business operation of an Airbnb by non-resident investors will violate the residential character of the environment of our Part 1 neighborhood especially Ash Avenue. The findings on criteria 1, 2, and 3 are erroneous because the findings never weigh an Airbnb as a new business land use of a single-family dwelling by non-resident investors compared to its value in, in the current use by homeowners and their families as part of a neighborhood.

So I have more to say. I could wrap it up and then submit the rest of it, uh, if you would accept that as, uh, um, you know, what else I was going to say about this. Yeah, if you could please. It's, um, we try to limit to 3 minutes. There may be other people wanting to talk.

Yeah, sure, I, I get that. Okay. Okay, so in the big picture, Resolution 32 states the commission's preference for the new business land use of a single-family dwelling as an Airbnb by non-resident investors to be preferred over the current and historical land use of a single-family dwelling as a resident— as a residence by homeowners or tenants for their families in our Part 1 neighborhood, and especially Ash Avenue. Please deny this application. So I'll just hand this to the clerk so the rest of what I was going to say be in the record for you.

Thank you very much. Perfect. Thank you, sir. I have a question for the director.

Define resident— of the residents or of the state or of the city?

Are there any other comments, or would the— okay, you're welcome to come up and give us your comments. Just need your name and the area where you live, please.

Christine Schmidt, 513 Ash Avenue. We are asking— I submitted a letter and documents to the packet. Um, please consider those. We're asking you to deny this permit because this business use, transient lodging, is incompatible with our neighborhood's single-family residential use and exclusive use, which has been in effect since the late 1960s. First, the applicants have not supported their application with evidence.

Their conclusory statements are not evidence. For example, they argued under several of the CUP criteria that their clear house rules would address problems, but they didn't provide those rules. We did provide a download of some rules from their Airbnb website, and these are minimal. They don't deal with traffic, parking, property care, respect for the neighbors, as they claim. The house rules don't require the customers to park off street, and our photos show in, in the packet show that they do park on the street.

The planner's recommended conditions also do not require off-street parking, but should. Even if there were sufficient house rules, they're not enforceable by the neighbors or the city because they're not in the, in the conditions listed. There's no on-site supervision, so anything can happen. I just handed to you two pictures showing that support my testimony that last week and this week, the lights were on in every upstairs room at 502 Ash. And the ceiling fans were running for at least 5 straight days, day and night, with no one to— obviously with no one there to turn them off.

You know, we go by there several times a day, so we saw that personally. I, uh, if there had been a fire, the place would have burned down and might have taken the neighbors' houses with it. Second, many of the statements in the staff report are speculation or just repeat what the application says. These statements are also not evidence, and some are incorrect. For example, the planner mentions that the property was previously under a daycare conditional use permit, and cabin rental, short-term rental, would have less traffic.

However, this is not correct. I was involved with the daycare CUP process. My understanding is that the CUP was never operational because of licensing problems, and in fact, it was under appeal before the Superior Court when the business closed. And the daycare was a— is a completely different business. It operated during normal business hours, unlike an Airbnb, which is 24/7, 365.

As for traffic, the daycare traffic was only morning drop-off and afternoon pickup. It wasn't, uh, 24/7, 365, multiple vehicles parked on-site and in the street, as you can see in the photos in the packet. The planner justifies approval by stating that there are other short-term rentals in the subdivision, but doesn't identify them. To our knowledge, there are no other legal short-term rentals in the subdivision. Prior illegal use should not be used as precedent to approve this CUP.

Um, so the, the last thing I wanted to mention was that the city had denied an application very similar to this one a few years ago. Where a guide business wanted to have lodging in a single-family residence in an exclusively residential subdivision like Woodland. And in that case, the business owners were on site and they still got denied. And so the problems with customers could have been handled. The reasons for the denial of that permit should be precedent for this one.

Is there substantial evidence here to approve this permit? No, thank you. Thank you. Um, she can respond.

Okay. Um, Miss Lanzini-LeBaron, do you have anything else you would like to add?

Um, yeah, I, I have, I have a lot that I would like to add, but, um, first, first I would like to say that this property did have a CUP for a daycare. It was not denied by the city, it was approved by the city. Uh, the Malloy and Schmidt family have routinely been attacking anything that I attempt to do with my property. I was living on property and doing the daycare at the same time, and I would just like it on record that the reason we no longer live in that community was because I felt attacked and unsafe to have my children in that community because of the Malloy-Schmidt family. They are routinely taking pictures of me and my children, the neighborhood children, and it became too uncomfortable even with the 10-foot privacy fence that we had built around the property.

And so we had to make the decision to move for the safety and protection of our children, which is why the daycare was closed. However, we do love the city of Kenai, and we do want to be able to come back there So we are not wanting to part with our home there, and this is a way that we can monitor the property. We did have long-term renters there, and they destroyed the house, um, much more to a degree than anybody staying for less than 7 days could. This gives us the ability to maintain our home, and I don't really see why lights or fans being on is any of their property, or why they feel the need to take pictures of my property so closely. But it is very uncomfortable.

Understood, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to make comments? Go ahead, Mr. Schmidt. Yeah, you can.

Sure, just, just one more time, that's it.

I'd just like to caution you just quickly This is— try to make it fact-based and not about the relationship between you and her, okay? I just want to know about the house and the CUP. Uh, excuse me, I, I, uh, this is Bob Malloy, 513 Ash Avenue again. I do need to say that, uh, that I've never taken any photos of their children. That's a flat-out lie.

Uh, okay, that's not up for debate here. We don't, we don't put any weight on that. What we're here to learn about is your opinion of the reason that we took photos that are in the packet is so that you could see that, uh, 502 Ash is a house, it's not a cabin, and that you could see that there are two other on the same street. There's a vacant house and there's a burnt-out house, and, and, and that needs more attention from the city in terms of rejuvenation. And, uh, the issue that, uh, you know, this would be a precedent for other Airbnbs on our street if, uh, you know, investor buyers buy those properties instead of families.

So thank you, I want you to be aware of that. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the general public that would like to speak on this resolution, PZ2026-3? To. Only if you're going to say something different. Okay.

I think if you're going to allow people to make personal attacks on people who've testified in good faith, that you should give the people a chance to rebut what they say And also that you— or you should cut it off right from the beginning and not let it go on and on and on like you did. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Seeing no one or no one else— seeing no one else, we will bring this back to commission discussion from the commission. Are there anybody like to make comments? Um, I live in this neighborhood, so I would like to abstain from discussion and voting in this. A resolution. Thank you, Clerk.

Is that recorded? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Woodard. Anybody else would like to make comments about this on the commission? Okay, Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Oh, okay, sorry, I'm trying to formulate a thought. Um, I wasn't sure who to address it to, staff or the testifiers. I guess my question is, is, uh, Commissioner, how am I separating a short-term residential use, which is going to be advertised typically for a family to rent, as opposed to somebody down the street who is an owner and has family? How am I differentiating those uses? That's what I'm struggling with.

And then also, it was testified that the city has not completed the land use Is that still the case for the short-term rentals? The land use is still ambiguous, or has that been fleshed out?

I'll, I'll start to answer your question, uh, through the chair. Um, so our current code, we have not made changes to the code, and I'm going to scroll all the way back here.

Um, uh, currently in our land use table. It's called cabin rentals, a bit of a misnomer. Um, we have not updated this piece of code for quite some time, so more of an antiquated title, but means the renting of one or more individual detached dwelling units or buildings to provide overnight sleeping accommodations for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. So that is a fairly broad definition, but that is what currently the City of Kenai is using for short-term rentals. There are talks, there's been discussions from commissioners, um, previous council members of wanting to define short-term rentals in a much more clear and concise manner.

But to date, we have not made any changes. Uh, we being the city, um, through city council, they have not made any changes yet. Uh, doesn't mean it can't happen. I know that we've worked on work sessions with this body to start looking at that land use table and potentially looking at possible changes in the conditional use permit arena. But as it stands today, that is our current piece of code for what we're using for short-term rentals because of that less than 30 consecutive days.

And under that definition, how many other properties are on that street utilizing that same definition?

On Ash Avenue, there are none.

So this would set a precedence in that neighborhood, on that street, if we were to approve this tonight? On the street, yes. In the neighborhood, no. In the larger subdivision, the larger Woodland, the greater Woodland subdivision. And then maybe this question as a follow-up would be better suited to the applicant, because I think I heard you testify about, uh —bear with me—a map or edging of what you referenced as—thank you—Phase 1, I think is how you titled it.

So I was curious, as you're asking the Commission to approve a CUP for this one area, and I know that the Commission does not have the authority to accept covenants. That's not really, I guess, my question. I guess I'm trying to understand. You guys are saying that there's City saying there's no other, but I heard you guys testify that there is. And then maybe you could come up and clarify that again, maybe.

Okay, thank you.

Part one is in the packet on page 39. Um, the yellow is— shows our house, and then the other one, the little triangle one, is the, um, subject parcel, uh No, there are no other businesses or anything like that. Thank you. That, that are legal that we know. Part 1, would that go beyond Ash Avenue?

Would—. Yes, that whole area on this whole page, that whole area on that page. And so going back to staff, is there other short-term rentals that we're aware of on CUPs in reference to cabin rentals? In the southeast part of Woodland, no. In this Part 1, no.

Not in Part 1, but you're saying there is beyond Part 1? Beyond Part 1. Okay. I think more in the northern— I want to say it's the northwestern side of Woodland. I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

I said, um, I believe it's in the northwestern side. It's, it's on an opposite side of Woodland. It's in the Woodland subdivision but not in Part 1. You are correct, there are none in Part 1. And I don't think there's any legal ones with permits in the rest of the subdivision either, if I'm not mistaken.

Okay. And then I guess back to staff, I heard some testimony again about resident and non-resident, but I don't know that there's any language in the cabin rental code that would prohibit a non-resident versus a resident to perform a CUP. Short-term rental in these areas? I mean, do we differentiate between a resident and a non-resident?

Through the chair, can you clarify your question on the resident? Whether you're saying the people that are staying, if they're like state residents, or if you— are you saying—. I apologize. No, I'm saying if I were the applicant seeking my resident to become a short-term rental, if I'm not a resident as it was testified and I live in another state would I be afforded that same luxury as somebody else who lives here and is trying to do the same thing with their own property? I've heard it testified and brought up that this is an issue with people that are non-residents, so I just wondered if we had any language in code to say yay or nay, one way or the other.

Standby. I don't believe we have anything in code that states that it has to be a resident. I believe it is tied to the ownership, but let— before I get down in there— nope, we, we verify the ownership So the ownership, if they own the property, then they are, they are entitled to go through the process. It is not necessarily dictated on their state of residence as it stands in code. Okay, thank you.

And then my next question is for the applicant. It was also brought up in testimony as to how you plan to advertise this, I guess, to enforce the rules that you're saying that you'll adhere to, I guess, with conduct. So it was again kind of ambiguous in the packet as to how that was going to be handled. Can you elaborate more on that? Yes, I know it was brought up that we don't have— we have vague house rules, but every applicant— or not applicant, sorry, every renter— first they have to be vetted through Airbnb, and I can choose to accept or deny them if they have enough stays at previous homes or if they have poor ratings.

So if they have poor ratings, I don't accept them as renters. So they are vetted pretty closely just on that regard. And then they get sent a big packet before rental starts of all of the house rules, including check-in time, check-out time, how we expect them to handle the property, um, no more than 8 guests, that quiet hours must be between 10 PM and 7 AM. We recently changed it because it was 11 PM, and my neighbor across the street who also monitors the house and does a lot of the cleaning for us said that it— she would prefer 10, so I accommodated per the neighborhood, the neighbors, um, that they have to keep all indoor and outdoor noise at a respectable level, um, even outside of the quiet hours, and that they're expected to respect all neighboring residents and avoid disruptive behavior at all times. Um, and that all parties and events are not permitted.

Smoking isn't permitted. Pets aren't permitted. Um, guests must treat the home and surrounding properties as if it were their own and they were living there as a resident. Guests have to place their trash in the designated receptacles, and all trash is removed between each stay. They have to ensure that everything is locked up and cleaned before they leave.

And whenever possible, the guests should assist in any outside maintenance. We don't expect them to mow the lawn. We have people that do that regularly. But if they see that there's— it was stormy and there's debris, to pick it up, things like that. So they do get more robust house rules sent to them as they rent.

Okay, and as a follow-up question, if you were to get a renter in there and that renter had guests or somebody joining them that was disruptive, what would be your plan for resolution? Um, well, my— the property manager lives directly across the street, so she maintains the property at all times. And if they were to be disruptive, she would know promptly. And at that point, I have the legal right to call the police, which is what I would, I would do if their behavior is disruptive. I would file a noise complaint or whatever the disruptive behavior is with the Kenai Police Department.

Okay, thank you for, uh, testifying to that. Without those rules in front of us, it's kind of hard when it's brought up, so thank you for that testimony. Thank you. I just want to clarify in the staff report that, um, the number of guests, um, in the report identifies a maximum guest number at 6, but in your application you state 8. And it still is noted that 11 PM is the quiet hour.

I know you just said that you were going to change that. What is your timeline for adhering to those?

Um, well, I was not aware that 6 was a maximum number. We have 8 because we have a sofa bed in the living room, so that's the amount of beds that we have. We also have a downstairs unit as well that I mean, so like the total occupancy of the actual house well exceeds 6. I can make it 6 if that's what the city is requiring. They just wouldn't be able to make use of the sofa bed.

And I'm not, I'm not sure where the number 6 was developed, but I have already changed the rules in the packet for the renters on Airbnb to be 10 PM, or it should have changed. I changed it, but I guess I can go on right now and look and see. But I plan to adhere to that immediately.

Um, as a follow-up question through the chair, um, oh dear Lord, I lost my train of thought.

So the question came up about occupancy And I know this has come up in the past. I honestly don't know where the city or staff could regulate it any more than the resident can. I—. If somebody has a better answer, I don't know. When we've done stuff on Angler, I don't recall where they could specify, you know, this renter or this owner can only have 10 people or 12 people.

Do you have any other additional comments on that?

Through the chair, yes, we, we went with the number of bedrooms, um, more just looking for, uh, setting a baseline that is measurable. If it's 3-bedroom, it's 6. Um, in theory, people could put beds in other rooms that are not classified as bedrooms, but, um, we wanted to look at, at it more for, um, like really with fire safety and everything. If we can have a reasonable assurance there's 3 bedrooms, we can expect there should be up to 6 people in the house. It's more for, um, should— if a fire were to break out, you know, how many people are we realistically expecting to be pulling out of a house, um, if we had to.

So we're looking at more on the public safety, um, to have that kind of— that, that baseline. Okay, so as a follow-up, do you know if we've ever included an occupancy number in any of our other CUPs? To my knowledge, I do not believe we have, unless it's been tied directly to like a hotel, and that's usually number of rooms, um, and those are— a lot of those are older. This is something we want definitely going forward to have some sort of established baseline so that we again can understand and communicate, you know, if this is going to be an allowable CUP or an allowable use, what can we reasonably expect on the public safety side to You know, because the house is a fairly sizable house. You could put quite a few people in that house comfortably, like they would still have a lot of space to theirself.

Um, but if we don't have any kind of way— and to look at it, you know, if we were to, let's say, look at the listings or whatever, or go down a pathway where we— I'm not saying the city of Kenai is doing this, but if we were to go down a road like the city of Salatna has where they regulated in a different manner. It actually scrapes a lot of that information from the Airbnb site, like every rental that's out there. You could say, oh, they're, um, they're allowing X number of people in this house, you know, and if our CUP or whatever our process at that point is, um, we could regulate it on that, on those merits. But again, the reason we picked the occupancy As a criteria is, um, we want to ensure that everyone that is staying there is safe, um, should the worst case scenario ever happen. So I just want to make sure that if I'm approving this tonight, it's based on what's happened with other CUPs.

They've, they've also exercised the same requirements, or am I now imposing a new requirement on this applicant? That's what I'm struggling with.

This is a, this is a newer requirement. Previous ones have not been limited except, like I said, with hotels, motels, because that's predicated on the number of rooms that those buildings have. However, it was brought to our attention talking with other departments in the city that setting that, setting that baseline does ensure that they, that they're going to be a lot safer. They're prepared to bring you know, the amount of equipment they're going to need to, to deal with it. Should, again, should a bad scenario happen, we just want to make sure that everyone's prepared, that everyone can get out safely.

We don't want to have an overcrowded situation because that could backfire. Yeah, I respect the safety aspect. I just want to make sure that it's being applied evenly so that we don't get an appeal that comes back and says that, you know, I have one down the street and you didn't require that of me. And then I also understand from the applicant that it sounded like they already put a number in there, so that sounds reasonable. I just wanted to flesh that out so they understand it as we're going through and approving something.

What is it that we're approving? Um, and then my other question was, is, um, it was also brought up with traffic and parking. Is that something that's also included in our changes, or is that just a natural expectation of the 3 bedrooms, 4 bedrooms? Each one of them could be a drivable adult and have a vehicle and Can you help me understand that one? Yeah, as far as parking on the street, um, the only limitation the city has is between October 1st and I believe it's May 1st, uh, you cannot park on the road between 4:00 AM and 8:00 AM, and that is a ticketable offense, um, by KPD.

And a lot of that is for snow removal and safety for those. But at any other time, it is a public road. You can park on the street as long as you're not impeding the right-of-way Um, so we cannot put a restriction on parking on the street, again with a caveat that this time of year between 4:00 AM and 8:00 AM there is that, that restriction. That's the only piece of code that we have that we can enforce, um, for that parking. Um, so realistically, in terms of that, um, ideally most people, um, would probably park in the driveway, but If they do have 6 individual cars and there's 6 people there, the likelihood is they would be parking in the street, but they would also hopefully be made aware by the applicant that they can't park there overnight, especially this time of year.

So anyone this time of year would have to be on property or parked elsewhere in a legal parking spot. Director, we have attached Quiet hours to other CUPs of this nature. Will this—. Will quiet hours be attached to this CUP? It is.

I believe it's—. I believe it's number 8. I think it's the last one.

Anybody else? Conditioning.

One quick question. The zoning here is Residential suburban, right? It's not 1 or 2 or any of those other ones, just, just suburban residential, no suffix. So basically it's allowed in as a conditional use.

Are they going to be required to post occupancy on the outside of the building? That's also one of those great cues for firefighters when they roll up. They know how many people are in it.

Through the chair, that, that is not a current condition. The commission could, could add that if they would like as a condition.

One other quick question. If my understanding is correct, the fire marshal sets the occupancy based off of square footage, right? Not necessarily bedrooms. Yeah, I know OSHA does also.

So I don't know where that house falls into that as far as—. Well, it's more of a commercial application, not necessarily residential, but I'm confused as to whether or not this becoming a business makes it commercial, or does it stay residential rentals? I don't know the answer to that. Uh, an 1,100-square-foot 3-bedroom house is a lot different than a 2,100-square 3-bedroom square foot house. That's a huge difference.

It's still RS. Okay, thank you.

Anybody else?

Through the chair, um, if any of the conditions are not If you do not— if the Commission does not want any of the conditions that are currently listed, the Commission does have the power to amend the resolution to remove them if they, if they see fit.

Okay, Clerk, could you please call the roll? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Askin? Yes. Commissioner Urszly?

No. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. Commissioner Fikes? No.

Commissioner Woodard is abstaining. Chair Keeton? Yes. You have 3 yes votes, 2 no votes, and 1 abstention.

PZ-2026-32 is approved.

Please note there is a 15-day period that an aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. We are now on item F2, resolution number PZ-2026-33, granting a conditional use permit for a cabin rental of a single-family dwelling on parcel 04328011, located at 1123 Walnut Avenue. Is there a motion to approve the resolution PZ2026-33?

Motion to approve, uh, PZ2026-33. Second.

Thank you, Gwen.

Director Butner, can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Keaton.

The applicant is requesting conditional use permit to operate a cabin rental with existing single-family dwelling. CUP is required to operate cabin rental in suburban residential zoning district. Pursuant to KMC 1421-50A, the intent of conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the designated principal uses in the specific zoning districts, provided Certain conditions are met. Prior to granting conditional use permit, the Commission shall determine that the identified criteria as outlined in KMC 1421.50 conditional use permits review criteria are met. Criteria 1: use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district.

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 allow for adequate light, air, and privacy; 2, to prohibit uses which would, A, violate the general or the residential character of the environment; and B, generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. Proposed use would not violate the residential character of the neighborhood as stated by the applicant, and it will continue to function as a single-family dwelling used for inhabitation, just on a short-term basis. Traffic flow is not anticipated to be affected negatively as rented household is expected to generate the same average daily traffic counts as an established tenant. Staff finds the proposed use meets the intent of the RS zoning district and there's sufficient off-street parking and conditions outlined in this conditional use permit would, would place restrictions on noise levels during established quiet hours.

The economic and non-economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood would not be significantly impaired. As stated by the applicant, the operation of the home as a short-term rental would be limited to approximately 75 days during the summer. Guests would be required to follow house rules regarding occupancy and respect for the peace of the neighborhood. Property will remain, remain well maintained and compatible with, with the residential neighborhood. Due to the short duration of use, Housing and Cabin Rental staff finds it unlikely the proposed use will have any negative impact on the economic or non-economic value of the adjoining property or neighborhood.

Criteria 3: Proposed uses in harmony with comprehensive plan. Land use plan— the City of Kenai comprehensive plan identifies the subject property with the subject suburban residential land use classification, which is intended for single-family and multi-family residential areas that are urban or suburban in character. The area will typically be developed at a higher density, lots are typically smaller, and public water and sewer services are required or planned. Some developments may be required to construct streets, um, that's exist neighborhood. So the surrounding lots are developed single-family lots, and there are other short-term rentals in subdivision, making proposed use in harmony with the current use of the neighborhood.

As stated by the applicant, the proposed use of cabin rental is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan by supporting tourism and economic activity while maintaining the residential character and quality of the neighborhood. Short-term lodging provides accommodations for visitors to Kenai while Responsible management, occupancy limits, and established house rules help protect the livability and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Relevant goals. Goal 1: Quality of life. To promote and encourage the quality of life in Kenai, ensure that Kenai is a community where people and property are safe.

Economic development. To provide development to support the physical health of Kenai and capitalize on the tourism industry by marketing Kenai as a destination for recreational activities, cultural, and other events. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. The property is connected to city water and sewer and has established natural, natural gas and electric services that are in good standing. The property is accessible from Walnut Avenue, a city-maintained road providing adequate access for guests and emergency services.

Staff finds the public services and facilities adequate to serve the proposed use. 5, Proposed use will be not be harmful to the public safety, health, or welfare. The applicant has stated they will limit the occupancy of the house as well as require guests to adhere to established rules regarding noise, parking, and guest conduct. The home will be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained between guests, and concerns will be addressed promptly. With these protocols in place, staff finds the proposed use will not be harmful to public safety, health, or welfare.

Criteria 6: Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions may include but are not limited to 2 measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use, and other similar aspects. So I find that allowing short-term rentals for the existing single-family dwelling not cause adverse impacts on the surrounding properties, and that specific conditions are not deemed necessary to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions. Pursuant to KMC 1422-ADC, notices of the public hearing for the conditional use were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice Notice of the public hearing, the plans are clear. City staff submitted an affidavit opposing verifying a sign was placed on a parcel with information on the public hearing for the conditional use permit request.

No public comments have been received at the time of this report. Staff finds the proposed conditional use permit for cabin rental in existing single-family dwelling, as described as Lot 11, Block R, Woodland Subdivision Part 2, meets the criteria for issuance of conditional use permit set forth in subsections E-1 through P-9026, Kena Municipal Code 1421.50, and hereby recommends Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution PZ-2026-33 approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1, any development or use of the property shall comply with all applicable federal, state of Alaska, and city regulations regardless of whether or not the requirements are listed as conditions for the approval of the conditional use permit. Pursuant to KMC 1421.50, the applicant shall submit an annual report including a summary of the on-site activity to the City of Kenai due no later than December 31st of each year. The applicant will meet with city staff for on-site inspections when requested. If there is expansion or change of the use of the above-described property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 142150.

The applicant must have a fire inspection performed every 2 years. The applicant will ensure that the property will be adequately maintained and kept free of trash or junk. The number of guests is limited to 6 or 2 per bedroom. Quiet hours to be observed 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Thank you, Director.

Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to Resolution PZ-2026-33?

Come on up and please state your name and the area where you're from.

Thank you, Sheila. Thank you very much. My name is Bruce Ladd. I'm the neighbors of the Fowlers. I'm quite impressed by what has happened here about the Ash property.

I'm not nearly that prepared. My concerns is the transient people, not knowing who these people are coming and going. What is their requirements as far as people coming and going into their home? Do they have to do a background check? The traffic pattern as far as traffic is about the same, but there's times where People are there, there's way more people there, but it's all within reason, I believe.

My concern is again the transient. And in Goal 1, it talks about, well, my life is disrupted because I don't know who these people are, their background. They're coming and going. So other than that, they just recently put up a privacy fence, so they're trying to do or are doing everything they're supposed to be doing? So those are my concerns, and I can't say too much more other than the transient people, again, is a concern of mine.

And if they are required to do a background check on the people— now, they're obligated 2 people to a room. They have 4 bedrooms, so that's 8 people. Does that include kids? Now, that's kind of nitpicking, but that's where I'm going to leave it. Thank you very much.

Just button—.

Any other people wishing to speak, come on up. State your name and where you're from.

I'm Derek Fowler. I live at the residence 1123 Walnut Avenue. I've lived there since 2017. Um, with the conditional use permit is something new to us. It was something we were unaware of when we did sign up for the Airbnb program.

And I do understand the, the public's concern with some of the things that were addressed tonight. Um, I do think that there are some things that maybe in the, in the future zoning, uh, some of those details would be outlined. We do have rules similar to the one that was just spoken about the quiet times, there is a background check. There's people that absolutely cannot even get an Airbnb account because they can't, or they have prior theft, whatever, you know. So the transients, and I understand that 100%, Bruce, that's, that's a concern for ourselves because this is a house that I live in for most of the year.

I mean, 75 days minus, you know, every other part of it. I grew up in the neighborhood. I don't want to see it go to pot either. I can definitely see, you know, the concern with out-of-state investors buying up properties and doing the similar— a similar thing, because I see what the rentals are these days. They're upwards of $2,000 for a very bare basic rental.

Ours is short-term. Most of our guests don't stay for very long. Some of them do and most of them are families and they are workers that are trying to work at the refineries or at local projects and they're just looking for a place to stay. Traffic stays minimal. We try to be respectful.

We keep in contact with our neighbors. Seth over here, he watches our house. We keep in contact with him throughout the summer just to make sure that everything's is well maintained and that there's nobody acting crazy. We also have cameras surrounding the house to protect the house and our neighbors as well, because we have just as much concern with the decency of the neighborhood as anybody else who might have concerns about randoms showing up and trashing the neighborhood. And bringing property values down.

And who knows who they are? You know, I could say the same thing about my— some of my neighbors. I have no idea, 3 doors down on some— in certain directions who they are either. So—. But they didn't require a background check to buy a house.

So, I think that's about the only difference there. I'd say if anything, we're screening these ones, you know. So, I grew up in the neighborhood, just a couple of doors down. I love the neighborhood. I— I want to follow what we're going to set forth.

You know, if this is the rule, I will follow this rule. I'll put this permit in. I will follow whatever conditions. If 6 people is the maximum, we will follow that. Whatever rules are put through, I have no problem with that.

We like to travel in the summer, and we're not using the house at the time. And if it gives somebody a place to be when they come into town, I feel like there's nothing better for the city of Kenai than an option other than $400 hotel rooms that are just a room, no kitchen, no, no anything, especially for families. Thank you so very much. That's all I got. Thank you.

Would you like to come up and speak for it? Either one of you.

My name is Shayla Fowler and I live at 1123 Walnut Avenue as well. We have a large family. We have 7 kids with 2 of us. I do believe that traffic is worse when we are home in the wintertime rather than when there's people coming and staying. We do have very good guests.

We do the whole process where we vet people as well. Last year we didn't, and there was a few things that were taken from the house, and you know, they're— in response to people doing bad at our house, they ended up losing their Airbnb privileges.

I know that people have tried to get Airbnb accounts and they've had a DUI years previous, and they are not allowed to have an Airbnb account. So there's, there's a vetting process that they do do through the company of Airbnb. Love the neighborhood. Lived there for a couple years now. And I do believe that it brings in people from all over the world.

We had people come in from Germany, I believe, and they stayed at the house for 3 weeks. Amazing group of men. I just—. We have 7 kids, and Airbnbing our house out in the summertime gives us the opportunity to go travel with kids, get them outside, get them away from school. Screens and whatnot.

So it's an enjoyable thing. Thank you. Thank you very much. You had something to say? All right, come on up.

Tell us who you are and where you, where you're from.

All right, still recording. Uh, Seth Beverly. I live across the street. I'm just a character witness. I've been there, uh, 5 years.

I love all my neighbors. At least adjoining neighbors. Those ones are easier to love.

Yeah, been renting out for, for a couple summers. They have been— I have two kids under three. We have never had an instance where we felt unsafe, to the detriment of my and my wife's mental health. Our kids are very light sleepers, and they have not been woken up by neighborhood noise. So, um, for me, this is, this is a good thing.

I don't see any problem with it. Thank you, Seth. Are there any other people that would like to speak for or against this CUP? Come on up.

Christine Schmidt. I think I get more than 2 minutes though, right? Well, it's 2 minutes there, so thank you.

513 Ash Avenue. I want to go on record as opposing this, uh, permit And I will be here for every permit that you guys, um, have for Woodlands Subdivision for the same reason. We have covenants in place against businesses, and also, um, that businesses are not compatible with our exclusively single-family residential neighborhood. I just want to say too that the cabin rental isn't really the right isn't the description of what's going on here. I think there's been some discussion of that.

That wasn't the original intent of the words cabin rental way back when this was changed. It was a type— it was for guide businesses that had cabins on site for their clients. It wasn't for Airbnbs. They're new. They're a totally new business, and you shouldn't be trying to shove it under a description that doesn't match.

Airbnbs, or at least the ones recently, are— well, theirs sounds a little different, but usually what they are these days is they're off-site owners. The owners aren't on site if they're houses, and they may or may not have any supervision of the residents. And as an Airbnb customer, I can tell you that sometimes it's very hard to get a hold of the people that you're renting from because they're just not around. Okay, so if there are problems and there are issues, good luck. They'll say something on their site like, well, we'll respond in 7 hours, which— so it's really not the same thing as a bed and breakfast.

It's not the same thing as cabin rentals. And I really do think Sultana has a short-term rental ordinance, and the city should too. And it's not really— it's not— doesn't fit this, the situation. The other thing I'd like to say is that the, the Fowlers are— have a 75-day period they want to have for to be— to have rentals, but that's not in the conditions. And I've testified many times before that when people say that they're going to do something, you should have it as one of their conditions.

So I would ask you, if you're going to approve this, to amend their conditions to have that 75-day period. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?

Okay.

Clerk, is there anybody online that was wishing to speak? There is somebody online, but I'm not seeing a notification they're wishing to speak. Okay, thank you. Seeing no one else, we will bring this back to the commission. Is there any discussion from the commission?

My own. Okay, well, I live even closer to this house, so I will abstain from discussion and voting. Thank you.

Um, through the chair, I, I'm struggling with this one as well. However, I do see a difference in the fact that the application does state that this is shorter period and that they still plan to reside under this roof. So with that understanding, and possibly anybody else on the commission, if we were to approve it, would you be open to including that as a condition in the permit not to exceed the 75 days? And I'd be willing to put that forth as an amendment for the clerk. But I still struggle as a whole with this whole thing.

I totally believe in personal property rights. Property rights. I really do. It's your home, it's your investment. You should have that opportunity to exercise it as you see fit.

Where I struggle with testimony from the community and testimony from the owners is the line in between. How do I connect those dots, you know, to where that person has the property rights to exercise, but these guys have the right to live in peace and harmony, just like it was testified, you know, you want We want everybody to be vetted and approved because it's a business requirement, but they're not vetted and approved if they move in and they party all night long and they live in a band and the band is going to practice every day, 7 days a week. You know, I mean, where's the difference if all those cars that they're turning wrenches and parking in the driveway and on the street? So I really struggle with that as far as the code is just not, in my humble opinion, a strong enough tool. Tool, and I can appreciate the fact and the difference of this applicant being that they're still residing in the home.

And so for that, if I can present an amendment to code, I would be willing to approve it for the condition of the 75— not to exceed a rental of 75 days.

I'll second that.

So you're going to propose an amendment that the 75 days during the summer be a condition in the permit? I'm just going to leave that part up to the applicant. If they get some random person in November or October that wants to come up, I'm just going to leave it at 75 days. They can pick the calendar. Is that amendable?

And that would be my, my suggestion is 75, not to exceed 75 days within a calendar year. Yes, my apologies. Yes, in a calendar year. Thank you. Okay, clarifying the amendment to say 75 days within a calendar year as a rental.

Correct.

Are you okay with that as part of your second— second? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you.

Does anybody have any discussion about the amendment?

Again, I, I would like to voice my opposition to the amendment because we just gave a conditional use permit without such restrictions in it, and I don't think it's fair to these owners to restrict them in a way that we didn't restrict the original, the, the first CUP that we passed. So, um, I, I'm going to be a no vote on the amendment.

Anyone else?

Okay, great.

Okay, Clerk, could you please call the roll for the amendment? Thank you, Chair. For the amendment, Chair Keeton? No. Vice Chair Dauphin is absent.

Commissioner Fikes? Yes. Commissioner Erskine?

Yes. Commissioner Kraus? No.

Commissioner Woodard has abstained. Commissioner Askin? No. You have 2 yes votes and 1 no vote, so the amendment fails to pass. I'm sorry, 3 no votes.

The— I have one job. Math is not fair. Math's not my friend. Amendment fails to pass. Thank you.

So with the amendment not passing and there's no language in the original CUP that restricts their date, do we need an amendment or can we just vote on the original motion?

Point of order. You can vote on the original motion.

Make an amendment.

Okay, Clerk, could you please call the roll on the original motion? Thank you. Commissioner Urszly?

Yes. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. Commissioner Fikes? Yes.

Commissioner Woodard is abstained. Vice Chair Dothan is absent. Chair Keeton? Yes. Commissioner Askin?

Yes, there are all yes votes.

PZ-2026-33 has passed. All right, thank you. Congratulations. Please note that there is a 15-day period that an aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Next item we have is item F3, resolution number PZ-2026-34, granting a conditional use permit.

For the extraction of natural resources on parcel 04901068. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ2026-34?

Motion to approve PZ2026-34. Second. Thank you. Director Butner, can we have a staff report, please? Thank you, Chair Keeton.

Bear with me, I am so sorry to the Commission. This is one of the long ones.

The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and a variance permit for the construction and operation of a gravel pit and extraction within the setback for the proposed surface extraction of natural resources pursuant to KMC 1420.151 through KMC 1420.157.

The applicant, River Resources, LLC, is requesting that the CUP allow for extract— excavation below the water table, stating it is a common practice in the area and that there's active excavation below groundwater at adjacent material sites. In conjunction with the conditional use permit, the applicant is requesting a variance of 2KMC 1420-154 regarding buffers, buffers to the public rights-of-way and property lines due to the use of adjacent properties as material sites. The variance requested is a 50-foot buffer to the northeast, west, and south. This variance will be heard later in this meeting as a separate resolution.

Criteria for the issuance of a conditional use permit for surface extraction natural resources are outlined in KMC 1420.154, Issuance of a Permit for Surface Extraction of Natural Resources. KMC 1420.154, application is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter. This application is in substantial requirements of the— with requirements of this chapter. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use meets the requirements for boundaries, assuming the variance permit is granted back slopes, public safety, and the need for gravel within the city and surrounding region. KMC 14-2154-A2.

The boundaries of the proposed excavation at its greatest dimensions, including back slopes, are at least 200 feet from any road or public right-of-way and at least 150 feet from other surrounding property lines, except that adjoining permitted surface extraction of natural resource sites is not required to maintain the above 150 feet preservation between sites. The applicant has provided two versions of the boundaries for staff to review. The initial set delineates a 200-foot setback from all roads and public rights-of-way and a minimum of 150 feet from other surrounding property lines. The applicant also shows alternatives based on the variance for a full project at this location. These—.

Those boundaries depend on— depend upon the variance permit application submitted in conjunction with the conditional use permit being granted. If granted, there will be a 50-foot setback to the public rights-of-way, 50-foot setback to adjacent property lines, and excavation in the water table. The excavation slopes will be 1 vertical to 1 horizontal, as shown on page C-5 of the submitted site plan. KMC 1420-154-A3: Buff strips between the excavation sites and roadways and property lines contain sufficient natural screening to obscure the entire excavation from sight of roadways and inhabited areas. If there is not sufficient natural screening, the site plan must provide for artificial screening.

The proposed extraction site is north of an adjacent gravel pit and is not visible from Beaver Loop Road. Additionally, there is a tree line creating a natural barrier to the south of both pits. The site plan provided by the applicant shows the existing tree line remaining along the periphery of the property during excavation. This tree line will provide sufficient natural screening of the property. KMC 142154A4.

The surface extraction is outside of the 1% annual chance flood zone, or the 100-year floodplain, the 1/5%, or 0.2%, annual chance flood zone, or the 500-year floodplain, and high hazard coastal areas. City staff has confirmed the subject parcel is outside of the regulatory floodplain and is outside of the 1% annual chance flood zone and the 1/5% annual chance flood zone, or the 100 and 500-year floodplains. And high-hazard coastal areas. The current classification for the project location as designated on FEMA's latest floodplain maps dated February 28th, 2025 is XU, which is undefined. The City of Kenai's floodplain administrator has reviewed the application and has no comments.

KMC 142155A5, site plan provides that back slopes be a minimum of 2:1 slope except for the contiguous working phase. Site plans submitted by the applicant show that the reclamation will be continuous process, including sloping the sides of the excavation 2:1 or flatter along buffer zones and inactive work areas, a 4-inch minimum of topsoil mix, organic clearing debris, and seeding as necessary to contain erosion. KMC 14-2124: The site plan does not provide for excavation below the water table except where a reasonable method of drainage is available at a particular site or where the proposed future development plans for a lake on the site of the excavation. Applicant states that it is anticipated that mo— much of the gravel extraction will require— will occur below the water table. The final configuration of the site will be similar to most material sites in the area, with ponds forming in areas worked below the water table and haul routes adapting as the site is further developed.

Final development plan envisions a lake on site and the reclamation of shorelines. This will include grass or other vegetation and constructing locations for houses or RV parking spots around the ponded area. KMC 1420-154A7: The excavation is to be below the water table and the site is likely to endanger the public safety. The site plan will provide for fencing of the work area. Applicant states that casual access is not anticipated as the proposed site is rural and surrounded by large tracts of wetlands to the north and other material sites to the east and south.

The applicant plans to construct berms as ponds are created during operations to prevent vehicles, equipment, people, or animals from going into the water. Staff does not anticipate that the site will present any danger to public safety. KMC 14-2154-A8, the proposed use of land after extraction is completed is feasible and realistic and is a use permitted in the zone in which the property is located. The proposed extraction site will be operated on a continuing as-needed basis until the site is exhausted. Applicant estimates this time frame to be approximately 20 years in total.

The majority of the gravel being located below the water table, the final development would be to reclaim the shorelines of the ponds, establish grass or other vegetation, and construct locations for houses or RV parking sites along— around the ponded areas. Site reclamation will include grading and recontouring back slopes using overburden and topsoil to condition that allows for reestablishment of natural vegetation and seeding. Parcel does not currently have any existing structures, and there are no plans for any permanent structures to be added. Anything that is stored will be temporary and movable. Staff finds that this adequately addresses a feasible and realistic use of the land once extractions of natural resources on the site cease.

KMC 14-2154-A9: Extraction does not destroy the land for the purpose which it is zoned. City staff have discussed the importance of ensuring a clean water supply in this city, and the applicant will take measures to monitor water levels, be mindful what is allowed near water and sensitive areas of landscape. Applicant notes equipment and construction debris will not be disposed of in surface water. The applicant also plans to seed slopes with plants suitable for Alaska conditions and limit erosion and dust that could affect the landscape. As stated in the previous criteria, no permanent structures are planned to be erected, which will leave the parcel vacant and ready for future development.

An example of successful reclamation can be found in the Lake at Kenai subdivision east of this project along Beaver Loop Road. KMC 142154-A10. The need for the particular natural resource within the City of Kenai outweighs any detrimental effects the operation may have on surrounding property owners. Majority of the parcels surrounded the subject— surrounding the subject lot are also utilized as material extraction sites, and there are no residential properties in the immediate area. The city and its residents will benefit from the additional local gravel resources from this location.

KMC 14-2154-A11. The applicant is the owner of the subject property. The proposed parcel was recently conditionally sold by the City of Kenai in the 2026 land sale auction to River Resources LLC. The applicant is petitioning on behalf of the owner of the subject property to satisfy a condition of sale. KMC 142154A-12: Clearing limits shall be delineated on the site plan as well as clearly visible on site and shall be inspected by the city planner or designee prior to the application being deemed complete.

Submitted site plan adequately and clearly shows the proposed clearing limits Prior to application being deemed complete, city staff will meet with the applicant at the site to ensure that proposed clearing align with those submitted on the site plan. Pursuant to KMC 1420.150, the intent of a conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the designated principal locations, um, or principal uses in specific zoning districts, provided certain conditions are met. Prior to granting a conditional use permit, the commission shall determine that the identified criteria As outlined in KMC 1421-50E, conditional use permits are met. Criteria 1: use is consistent with the purposes of the chapter and purpose intent of the zoning district. Property is within the rural residential zone pursuant to KMC 1420-080.

The intent of the zone is low-density residential development and attractive residential environment to prohibit uses which would violate the residential character of the environment and generate heavy traffic in a predominantly residential area and separate residential structures in order to prevent health hazards and preserve the rural open quality of the environment. Surface extraction is a conditionally permitted use and can be consistent with the intent of the residential zone, especially when the reclaimed property is developed to allow for future residential uses. The proposed extraction is adjacent to existing permitted gravel pits and vacant lots. It would not change the character of the neighborhood. This use is consistent with the current development and once reclaimed will meet the purpose and intent RR zone.

The value of the adjoining property neighborhood will not be significantly impacted. Adjacent property to the north is undeveloped wetlands owned by the City of Kenai and Alaska DNR. Adjoining properties to the east and south are all material sites. Staff does not find that the value of adjoining properties or neighborhood will be significantly impaired as it aligns with the current uses of the immediate area and existing haul routes off South Baker Street and Track 6 Horseshoe End at Riverbend subdivision will meet up and follow existing routes. Criteria 3: Proposed uses in harmony with Comprehensive Plan.

Uh, 2016 Imagine Kenai 2030 Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as parks, recreation, open space, defined— intended for public recreational facilities as well as undeveloped lands that provide for conservation of natural or scenic resources. These areas can be used for a variety of passive and active outdoor and indoor sports and recreational activities. Areas that may be suitable for future natural resource development may be included in this category. The location of the site minimizes the potential for conflict with neighbors as it fits within pattern land use along the north side of Beaver Loop Road. Therefore, staff finds the proposed use would be consistent with the intended purpose of the comprehensive plan.

Relevant goals. Goal 2: to provide economic development to support the physical health of Kenai, promote projects that create workforce development opportunities, uh, to develop land use strategies, to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development by establishing siting and design standards so the development is in harmony and scale with surrounding uses, and where feasible, consolidate access to and from, uh, and between land uses via frontage roads or by shared driveways onto main streets and highways. Criteria 4: Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. River Resources LLC members own and operate the 36.14-acre material site immediately south south of the subject lot. This parcel will be utilized to access the proposed material site from Beaver Loop Road as well as from South Baker Street.

This does not increase the amount of potential conflicts along Beaver Loop Road. Additionally, the applicant, uh, will have sufficient sanitation facilities located on site. Staff finds that the proposed services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health, or welfare. Casual access to the property is not anticipated as it is surrounded by large parcels of similar use and is not situated near any amenities such as fishing parks or recreation.

The applicant notes that the adequate adjacent existing barriers and screening will be utilized. The extraction site will not be a safety concern or visual impairment. The applicant has shown plans for reclamation and will be mindful about materials stored near any water sources. Uh, criteria 6: any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Commission to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant. Recommended conditions are stated at the end of the report.

Pursuant to KMC 1422-80-C, notices of the public hearing for the conditional use were mailed to property owners within 300' periphery of the subject property. The city staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion. Pursuant to KMC 1422-80-D, public posting, no sign was posted on the subject property as there are no improved streets adjacent to the subject property. No public comment was received at the time of this report. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use for surface extraction of natural resources on the property described as Lot 1, Beaver Loop Acres, Addition Number 3 subdivision meets the criteria for issuance of a conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E-1 through E-6 of Kenai Municipal Code 1420.150 and subsections A-1 through A-12 of KMC 1420.154, and hereby recommends Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Resolution PZ-2026-34 approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions.

Any development or use of the property shall comply with all federal, state of Alaska, and city regulations regardless of whether or not the requirements are listed in the conditions for the approval of the conditional use permit. The applicant will properly store fuel, oil, and hazardous materials away from wetlands and other sensitive areas of landscape. The applicant will not store fill materials such as concrete and construction waste in or near areas with an exposed water table. The applicant will limit noise disturbance and not use compression release engine brakes, commonly known as Jake brakes. Applicant will adhere to proposed hours of operation, 7 AM to 7 PM, with the allowance of outside hours being utilized on an as-needed project-specific basis and not ongoing.

City will meet with the city staff for on-site inspections when requested.

If there's an expansion or change of use for the subject property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 1420-153. L5, and the permit holder will submit a yearly report between October 1st and December 31st to the Planning and Zoning Department that includes a summary of on-site activity.

Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to Resolution PZ-2026-34?

Clerk, are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? There are not. Okay, seeing no one, we will bring this back to the commission. Discussion from the commission? Does the applicant not need to be here for this?

They do need to be here. So, um, we just read through all of that. We didn't. They're supposed to be online, but I will give you some language because we have to do something, right?

Okay, um, if it's okay through the chair, um, I'm just gonna put some language on the table if anyone on the commission would like to adopt it. Please proceed.

Um, in accordance with the KMC 1420.150, public hearing— if the application is in order, public hearing shall be scheduled, which was this evening. An applicant or representative of the applicant must be present in person or by remote device for the application to be considered at the public hearing. If the applicant or representative is not present at the scheduled public hearing and has not provided timely notice of unavailability to the Planning Department or Commission, the application will be dismissed by the Commission without a public hearing, and the applicant may reapply at any time after paying a new application fee.

So do we make a motion to dismiss? Okay, I move that we make a motion to dismiss PZ-202634. Second. Whoops.

Is there any discussion?

Clerk, could you please call the roll on the motion to dismiss? Sorry. Thank you. On the motion to dismiss. Commissioner Kraus?

Yes. Commissioner Fikes? Yes. Commissioner Woodard? Yes.

Vice Chair Dotha is absent. Chair Keeton?

Yes. Commissioner Askin? Yes. Commissioner Urszly?

Yes. The motion to dismiss is passed.

So we need to take these one at a time even though they're the same applicant and he's not— and they're not here?

Okay, thank you.

Brings us to item F4, resolution number PZ2026-35, granting the application for a variance permit to build into the setbacks for expanded extraction of natural resources on parcel number 04901068. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ-2026-35?

Motion to approve PZ-2026-35. Second. Director Butte, do we need to— can we, can we do it?

Okay, Director Butner, can we have the staff report please? Uh, Chair Keeton, um, it has been noted that the applicant has— is not here, um, as required by code. Uh, we would ask per code that you make a motion to dismiss the application. They can reapply once a new application has been paid for. May I have a motion to dismiss please?

Motion to dismiss PZ2026-35.

Second. Thank you. Is there— do I have to open it for the public?

Clerk, could you please call the roll for the motion to dismiss? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Fikes? Yes. Commissioner Woodard?

Yes. Vice Chair Dauphin is absent. Chair Keeton? Commissioner Askin? Yes.

Commissioner Urszly? Yes. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. The motion to dismiss has passed.

Thank you. Is that it? That's the last one. Oh, we got to get through 5, right? Yes.

Okay, we are now on item F5, resolution number PZ2026-36, approving the withdrawal of the application for a variance permit at 2817 Beaver Loop Road on parcel number 04911029, previously approved by resolution number PZ2026-26. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-36?

Motion to approve, uh, PZ2026-36.

6. Excuse me, he withdraw the application.

Was that you, Gwen?

Okay.

Director Butner, can we have the staff report and recommendation, please? Yes, thank you, through the chair. Um, thankfully this is much shorter. Uh, applicant is seeking to formally withdraw the application for a variance permit on parcel number 0409-11029, located at 2817 Beaver Loop Road. The applicant initially submitted a complete application that met the requirements of Kenai Municipal Code, KMC 1420.180.

The City of Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on August 26, 2026, following requirements outlined in KMC 1422.80 for public hearings and notifications. At this meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution Number PZ2026-26 granting a variance permit for expanded surface extraction of natural resources on parcel 049-11029. This decision was appealed by an aggrieved party to the Board of Adjustment in accordance with KMC 1422-90. The applicant, upon notification of the appeal, chose to withdraw the application on September 22nd, 2026. In order to make a complete legislative history, it was recommended by administration to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to pass a subsequent resolution to document this withdrawal.

Pursuant to KMC 1422-AC, notice of the public hearing for the variance permit were mailed to property owners, um, within the 300-foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion on October 2nd, 2026. No public comment has been received at the time of this report, and there are no stated objections. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution PZ-2026- -36, approving the withdrawal of the application for the variance permit at 2817 Beaver Loop Road on parcel 049-11029, previously approved by resolution number PZ-26-26. Thank you, Director.

Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to resolution PZ-2026-36?

Clerk, are there any remote attendees? There are not. Thank you. Seeing no one, we will bring this back to the commission. Discussion from the commission, please.

Um, through the chair, just a question for, um, staff. Does the applicant get the opportunity of a refund then for his application fee?

Um, through the chair, uh, no, at this, um, because the, the fee is for the public noticing requirements and all that. Um, They understood going in that there was a chance that it could be appealed. They chose, instead of going through with the appeal, to withdraw their application, basically, so they didn't have to put together a whole thing.

This resolution essentially is closing our history so that when we look back, if it's 10 years from now, as it stands now, they have an approved variance. This kind of closes that. It was appealed, but on the record, because we haven't had a Board of Adjustment hearing on this We're just trying to document so when we look back 10 years, we see that it was opened, it was approved, but then it was also withdrawn. So this is just helping us tell the history, you know, later down the road when this commission's, you know, turned over. I may be in another position.

We want to make sure that we dot our i's, cross our t's, and make a complete history. Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Is it—. Would it be okay to ask that in the future when we have something like this come up, I can see the original application so that I can better understand what transpired?

Yes, I apologize for that, but yes, I can put the— I can put the full record.

All right, anyone else? Seeing no one else, we'll— or, I'm sorry, Clerk, would you please call the roll? Commissioner Woodard? Yes. Vice Chair Dothan is absent.

Chair Keeton? Yes. Commissioner Askin? Yes. Commissioner Urszly?

Yes. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. Commissioner Fikes? Yes.

There are 6 yes votes. Resolution PZ2026-36 is approved. All right, now we move on to unfinished business. And we have no unfinished business.

Item H, new business.

Number 1, action approval, amending noticing requirements for planning and zoning and land administration to modernize procedures. We're going to now open a discussion.

Is there a motion to approve amending noticing requirements for planning and zoning and land administration to modernize procedures?

Procedures. Motion to approve the ordinance amending the public noticing requirements and procedures. Second. Director Butner, can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Keeton. Uh, city's public noticing requirements are intended to ensure that members of the public receive timely and meaningful information regarding public hearings, land use matters, and other matters requiring public notice. As methods of accessing information have evolved, there's an opportunity to modernize the city's public noticing process while maintaining transparency and promoting meaningful public participation. The proposed ordinance would update existing public noticing requirements to place greater emphasis on accessible, commonly used, and efficient methods of communicating information to the public. A key component of the proposed changes is development and implementation of a dedicated public noticing webpage on the city's existing website.

A centralized online notification would provide several benefits, including improved accessibility that would be available to the public at no cost and without requiring paid access to a particular publication. Increased public awareness— notices from different city departments could be published on a dedicated web page that would provide a consistent location for residents, property owners, businesses, and other parties to find city notices. Greater efficiency— the city would have greater flexibility in publishing notices without being constrained by the publication schedule of an outside newspaper. Reduce costs. Public funds could be directed towards methods of notification that provide broad and convenient public access while reducing reliance on increasingly costly publication requirements, which have nearly doubled in the past 2 years.

The proposed changes are intended to provide a more efficient, flexible, accessible, and cost-effective public noticing process while continuing to promote transparency and meaningful opportunities for public awareness participation. The question before the Commission with this action approval is, does this commission— does the commission recommends Kenai City Council enact the ordinance? Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Director. Um, is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to amending noticing requirements?

Come on up.

Christine Schmidt, 513 Ash Avenue. I oppose this resolution, this ordinance. Here's why. Okay, I've lived here for 44 years, and what I've seen the city of Kenai do, except for a few years in the early 2000s, is just basically year after year make less public notice, less transparency, and less public outreach. And this is just another example.

While it says that it's— wants to maintain transparency and promote meaningful public participation, you're taking away one of the ways of notice. I wouldn't have any problem if this was in addition to publication in the newspaper and other ways to, to give public notice, but What this requires you to do is go to the city's website. This is not outreach, it's requiring people to go to the city's website and, you know, and figure out when such notices will happen. If something's happening, like for example, these hearings we went through, the only reason the neighbors got notice is because you sent out letters to the people within 300 feet and then there was a sign for those of us who drive by every day. Day.

But with it— when it comes to some of the other things, the only way that I can see what's going on in the city is by looking at the newspaper. And the newspaper has really saved us in many cases because of their publishing deadline. It's pushed the notice period back a little so we might have a day or two to actually provide— to get notice.

Improved accessibility and increased public awareness. When you take away something just to replace it with someone— something harder to use. That is not doing that. And reduce costs— the city makes a big deal about supporting local economic development, but then decides— here decides to take away business from our local newspaper. Publication costs are a tiny part of the city budget and should be paid for by applicants anyway.

Okay, so those are my points. Any questions? No. All right, thank you. I hope you'll vote no on this, or at least ask them to take out the part about, um, like where they have put in, um, uh, capital letters.

That means take out, like leave that alone. Have publication and city website information. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, Clerk, are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? There are not. Seeing no one, we will bring this back to the commission. Discussion from the commission? Couple questions.

Due to the fact of the reduced circulation of the newspaper, our 45-day requirement is rather hard to meet, right?

Um, through the chair, um, typically if we get something for a public notice, um, to meet all the requirements currently in code, it takes around a little over 3 weeks, somewhere between 3 and 4 weeks to make sure that it's to the paper and ready for publication at a date that gives us the minimum— usually it's 10 days of notification. So it is almost a month projecting a month ahead is roughly the timeline we're on right now. Maybe that bumps up against our other ordinances on timeline too, right? The only one that is limited by time is preliminary plats, which have a, um, we have 49 days to review, and that's based on borough code. It's in our code as well, but it's based on the borough process.

Okay, the other question I have Is— would it be out of line to ask that the person who is applying for the permit go talk to every neighbor and let them know that this is going on?

Um, we could— we could highly encourage that. It'd be very hard to enforce. Um, this does not eliminate, um, for— when permits go in, this would not eliminate the distance requirements. The 300-foot for most CUPs and various things, the 500 feet if it's marijuana, or 1,000 if it's a school with a marijuana establishment. This would not eliminate any of that.

All that noticing would still happen. The signs would still go up on the properties. Uh, this, this ordinance as presented to council does not eliminate any of that. So the only thing we took out with this was the publication in the newspaper, um, but make sure that it's published in at least 3 places publicly, um, bulletin board, which we would do anyways right now, and at 2 other public places. Um, generally we look at, uh, commonly other departments and other, uh, things in the city will place one on the bulletin board at the post office, um, which is accessible 24/7 in that area.

It's in the PO box area that's accessible. Um, and then another, um, could be at the library, could also be depending on where it's at, could be posted at the borough building which is a public location, but a minimum of 3. And the way we understood it for the longest time is if you did not subscribe to the paper, finding the legal— you could find the classifieds, but the legal notices would not be in the classified section. And having— online. So either you have to purchase a paper and spend money that way, or you have to pay for the e-edition.

And getting the legal notices until very recently was you had to go through the eEdition, not just through the classifieds. So it was a bit of a cumbersome process that I would, um, I would say could disadvantage people because you had to pay to play essentially to get the information that's out there, whereas putting on the city website puts it out there and it's in one place where anyone can do with no cost to access the information. So do our public postings, as far as the signs go, do they have the city website address on there where the people can find more information? They do have the city website, and we're actually about to order new ones which are going to— would direct them to an actual web page, not just this, the website. Um, we only have 2 of the old ones left, so we're about to order new ones, and I think it would be appropriate, um, to not only put the website, but we're also looking at possibly putting a QR code that would take them.

So if you're walking by, you can snap a picture, but also you have the URL so you can jot it down if you don't have your phone.

Thank you. I know the city has a Facebook page or whatever you call it, but I, but I never see anything come up on that. I have—. So is that something that where you post anything?

In my past life as a business person, they highly recommended advertising with Facebook, whether it was paid for or free, because that reached the greater amount of people. The meeting invites go on Facebook to let people know that they're they're happening. Um, I'm not in charge of the social media policy. I will have to ask the people that are, um, whether or not they, they think that legal notices should go on there, um, or at least maybe have a cyclical thing. Hey, keep up on our public notices, they're available here, and have a link to the website.

Um, I can ask about that, but I'm not in charge of social media. They don't—. I don't even have a Facebook, to be honest. So, um, that is something I could definitely bring up to the administration, see what their policies would be on that. Well, also, the radio, when they do their public service announcements, does the city fall into that?

Would that be a possibility?

Uh, yes, we could, um, we could get into a contract potentially with the radio. Um, we do— city does have a standing contract with, uh, I believe the KSRM Group that does a lot of other notifications like For instance, library jumps in on that. If we have, um, our storefront and streetscape improvement program, when that's open, we usually use that to, to advertise different things. Um, putting a public notice, I— we theoretically could. Uh, we have not explored that option currently, but that is an avenue we could look into.

Christine Schmidt again. There's actually a state law on providing public notice. The Open— I think it's called the Open Meetings Act— has a public notice requirement. And in fact, why you actually do publish in the newspaper. I just, just remembered this.

There's actually an order from the Kenai Superior Court bench quite a few years ago that the city had to publish it in the newspaper because at the time all they did was post a copy of the agenda on the downstairs here at the clerk's office, and there was a lawsuit and the court— the city was ordered to— this— the judge said that's not enough. You know, that's not reasonable public notice. So I wonder if just putting it up on the city's website, because it's so limited in terms of outreach to people, is gonna, is gonna cut it under that law. I don't know, I haven't seen anything about that, but only having it on the city's website, public notice of these things and nowhere else, I'm not sure that will, that will be, that will cut it under the state law. Just something to know about.

Uh, thank you, Miss Schmidt. I will bring your concerns up to the city attorney because he will be, um, more privy to, to case law such as that. So I do appre— I really do appreciate that. Um, I will say that it's— it is not limited only to the public, uh, website, that it does have to be published in at least 3 other public places. And this is the public notice itself.

This isn't just an agenda. This is the full public notice that you would see. It wasn't— it was a bench order that the judge verbally said it. That's just, just FYI. Okay, so there's nothing in writing, that's all.

Excuse me.

Has this ordinance gone past the city attorney's desk? Yes, he, he has reviewed the ordinance as it's presented.

Is there any discussion from the commission further?

Okay, would somebody like to request unanimous consent, or would you like a roll call? I'll request unanimous consent.

I think we should have a roll call. Okay, clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair Keeton? Yes. Commissioner Askin? Yes. Commissioner Erstle?

Yes. Commissioner Krause? Yes. Commissioner Fikes? Yes.

Commissioner Woodard? Yes. Vice Chair Dothan is absent. You have 6 yes votes. Uh, the action approval for amending notice and requirements for planning and zoning and land administration to modernize, modernize procedures is approved.

Thank you, clerk. Um, Now we're going to move on to Section I, Reports. Planning Director Buechner, may we have your report, please? Thank you, Chair Keeton. I think you guys heard my voice far too long this evening, so I have no report.

I have no report either, other than to thank everybody for continuing to serve their community sitting on this commission. Thank you. I had a quick question for the director. If you don't have Facebook, how do you know what the lunch specials are in town?

I rely on very good friends in high places.

Commissioner Fikes, may we have your report? All righty. We met, uh, on Monday the 12th. We had before us a conditional land use permit in the Nakiski area. Ko'Alaska, operating as QAP, was looking for a land use permit, and that one was approved to adopt a resolution granting approval of land use to operate a material site, Type 1 and Type 2.

There was no conflicts with surrounding residences, And so that one was approved after discussion. Moving on to a right-of-way vacation in the Homer area to vacate an unnamed, um, half-cul-de-sac located along the west boundary of Tract A, uh, A and B Gordon property, City of Homer. And that one was vacated. And then we had a right-of-way vacation in the Clam Gulch area, and that was to vacate, uh, former Commissioner Glenn Denny Street right-of-way, and there was no significant impact to the surrounding properties. It was pretty much undeveloped land, and so that one was approved.

There would be still equal and greater access to all the property owners involved. Moving us on to a right-of-way vacation in the Homer area, and this was to vacate Knapp Circle right-of-way and associated utility easement placements, and that one was approved as well. And then that finished us off, and we had some director's comments discussing the recent land sale. There was, I believe, 7 parcels at the borough up for auction, and not all of them sold, and we were told they would circle back around and attempt to put them up for sale again. And out of the 7, I was told that I believe 2 of them, uh, property owners exercised the new program to purchase land and get a reduced price.

So if I were to get a winning bid on one of these parcels and built something and resided on it, I would get a partial refund on that purchase. So 2 people took advantage of that new program. So that's nice to see in our area. And that wrapped us up. Thank you.

Councilmember Daniel, may we have your report? Sure, I'll try to keep it brief tonight. A couple fun things: the council met on October 7th and we adopted Resolution 202664, which gives us an opportunity to, um, to get a maximum award of $250,000 for matching grant funds for the Old Town Park. So it's very exciting. Hopefully that continues forward.

Appreciate the staff's work on that. The fun one of the night though, we all got to experience, you all as well, thank you for your good work on that, was the Resolution 2026-65 granting street improvement exceptions for the Mica Subdivision. That also passed. The exception was approved. So thank you all for your efforts on that as well.

That was a challenging one. Uh, let's see here, other things we did, a city-wide paving design project. Uh, we definitely have some roads that need some help. And then also down by Mission Avenue, trying to get a contractor down there, um, to work on some of the erosion, uh, from that spring runoff. The city staff's able able to find— I can't remember the contractor, but we were able to find someone to do some work there.

That's good. And then the last thing that is kind of interesting, um, that data center project in Cook Inlet, the city, um, we, we authorized, uh, City Manager to file a motion to intervene on that project, basically meaning we can keep appraised of as it develops, which And we'll see how it goes. But nothing— no action was really taken from our perspective. We just wanted to be involved with the process so then if things do come up and we need to, you know, write a letter for, against, et cetera, we have the information we need. So basically we're along for the ride now.

More to come on that. And that's about it. The only other thing I have, more of a fun thing, was got to help serve hot cider at the Pumpkin Festival. This last Saturday. It was—.

Oh, it was wet. It was cold. It was wet, but people were still there. It was— but there's still a good turnout, a lot of pumpkins, a lot of fun. Got rid of all the cider and ended up having to buy more midway through, and we still ran out of cider.

So it was still well attended, and the kids, of course, love it. And I think the mayor did make it in there in the off the— dropping the pumpkin down into the little kiddie pool, and everybody got their ice cream. So that was a lot of fun. So anyways, that is my report. Any questions, let me know.

I have a question about the sealing projects for, um, like, uh, Candlelight, Lawton, all those areas out there by the schools. Yes, what about them? Uh, when do they start? Like the crack sealing? Yeah.

They've done some— a lot of crack sealing this summer. We approved it. I can't remember what the budget was. It was a fair amount of money to do crack sealing. Uh, there's definitely more.

We didn't do all of it, but part of those, like Squires Road and Lawton, those are part of that citywide, uh, improvement project. Basically, those roads are on the block to try to get major, like, repaving improvements. And, uh, I believe that, um, I'm gonna totally get it wrong. I hope Mr. Butner can help me here. One of those is up for the Safe Streets for All project.

Tinker— it was Tinker and Lawton in front of the middle school there, which will hopefully— not only will be able to redo the road, but we'll also be able to improve the road if we're awarded that grant. Yes, make it safer for students crossing the school. So I hope that answers your question. It's a very long-winded answer. It does.

I do appreciate that. Thank you. So lots, lots of good stuff happening.

Any other questions? Great, thank you. Uh, and the next on our list is Item K— oh no, I'm sorry, Item J. Are there any members from the public who would like to address the commission at this time? Come on up.

You know what, actually, if you want to speak at that microphone, I am sorry I didn't just have you do that back And I apologize.

Well, I haven't been to one of these meetings in a long time. Um, it's— I think it's ironic that I get 5 minutes to speak, and yet on something that's very important to me, I only get 3. That's just ridiculous. Um, I really think you guys need to look at revamping the conditional use permit process. I mean, it's been talked talked about forever, but it's, it's just, it just, you need to look at what is allowed and not as a conditional use permit.

The, the land use table. I don't know if you, if any of you are aware of this, but originally the land use table pretty much didn't allow any business uses in commercial, in the residential district, district zones. And then in 1997, um, Basically, a C got put in every box, you know, because somebody said it was too confusing, even though for 20 years before that, the empty boxes meant no. Somebody said that was too confusing, but instead of putting an N in every box like it had been, they put C in every box. And so that makes it really difficult for those of us who bought property, you know, in the '80s and the '90s.

To, to deal with this constant business creep into our neighborhoods. The other thing that's really disappointing is the process itself. Bob, my husband, who testified tonight, was on the city council for 16 years, and he was the sponsor of, of the ordinance to change the process. So it was intended to be a more fair process, but it's so— it's disappointing to see the same kind of unfair, unfair process as it plays out on the ground. Okay, so number one, the short timeline that you get— you don't get to see the application.

We couldn't see the application until the packet came out, basically, unless we filed a public records request, which is just ridiculous. We— it should be posted online so you could see it right away so that you could comment on it. Um, the The, the report pretty much favors the applicant, takes what, you know, basically just adopts what they say, doesn't ask questions, no investigation, and doesn't deal with the disadvantages of the conditional use permit or talk to the neighbors or look at the other side of the coin. You, you just depend on us, the citizens, to come in or those affected neighborhood. And it's just really difficult to do that.

You know, I used to do this for a living, so it's not that hard for me. But I know for— well, you could see people's hands shaking when they went up there. It's really not an easy process. And I feel like you should be doing a better job of finding out how people feel about putting a business into their neighborhood before you just put a resolution in that favors it. I think the report should be more neutral.

It should sort of talk about the pros and cons so that you would decide instead of just having the administration pretty much deciding for you. It's very difficult for you— I've seen it in action for 40 years. It's very difficult for people on the commission to go against what the administration wants because, well, they won't be on the commission very long, will they? Lastly, I think the 300 feet limit is really not enough. A lot of these activities do impact you.

More than 300 feet. The borough has 500 feet for their, um, for their distance, for example, and many other cities have a greater distance. So, so that's one thing I wanted to talk about is the conditional use permit. The second one is, I'm— it's about 10 years since the comprehensive plan, the last one, and I'm just wondering where we're at on that. It's usually— it's been about a 10-year process.

Are we looking at doing anything about that, or Um, that was very controversial last time. I'm sure you remember. So I hopefully it'll be more peaceful this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Item K, next meeting attendance notification. The next meeting will be on October 28th, 2026. It doesn't note a time. Uh, please note that the next meeting is October 28th, 2026. Is anyone planning on being absent or attending remotely?

I will not be in the country.

Okay. And Item L, Commission comments and questions. Marty? I'm good.

Commissioner Ersley? I'm good. Commissioner Woodard? I'm good. Commissioner Kraus?

Thank you, Commissioner Fikes. I just appreciate all the testimony and all the, uh, discussion, so thank you for everybody participating.

All right, uh, Item M, pending items. We have no pending items. Item N, our favorite, adjournment. Seeing no further business before the commission.