Kenai: 9/23/2026 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting

I would like to call the September 23rd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission work session to order. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Keeton.

Commissioner Askin. Present. Commissioner Earsley. Commissioner Kraus. Present.

Commissioner Fikes. Commissioner Woodward. And Vice Chair Dauphin. Acting Chair Dauphin. Here.

On to action item, new business, open discussions on conditional use permits for staff.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dowsett. So this is a continuation of process we started last year, kind of put it on pause when we were dealing with some other issues that council wanted us to look through, and we enjoyed a nice We enjoyed a summer. It was a summer. Um, um, so the last time we did this, we were going through these tables. Um, there's some available up here, but I think both of you have one.

Um, but it is, uh, we're taking the land use table, taking it and chunking it down. Uh, we've gone through the residential, um, land uses, so not the zones but the land uses, land use types like single-family dwelling and such. Um, Today we're moving to the next one, which is commercial.

What our intent was when we started this process is we had 539 maybes, those conditionals, in this table, which is more than the yays or nays, the ones that are permitted or not permitted. And it leads to a lot of confusion. It sometimes, it can almost seem contradictory to a recommendation that might be made You know, we don't want this in a certain neighborhood, perhaps. So we cite findings as to why we wouldn't want that. But it's still a maybe, and we keep going through, well, maybe, maybe, maybe.

And if it's not going to be the intent of either, you know, the city, the commission, staff recommendations, anything like that to allow it, why is it a maybe? So we're looking at these kind of really trying to think what's in the best interest of the city, what's the best interest of our residents. And then how do we just make it more clear what is acceptable where, knowing that there will always be some areas where we're going to have some conditions. Um, but I'll jump right in. I'm going to go down the side but read right to left.

I'm not going to read every single one. Um, anything that's in red is something that has a potential change. These are just recommendations. Um, everything here on the table is open for debate, but we're looking to make the land use table just a little bit better for everyone involved.

Um, so first one's airport compatible uses. We didn't change much. Um, we recommended changing it to, um, not allowed in the working waterfront, um, for these airport compatible uses. These are mostly like, by their definition, hangars, support facilities, um, generally are not going to be located down by the river. They're too far down anyways to be of use to the airport because they'll be below the bluff height.

And it's, you know, close— it's closer to like conservation area. When you get close to the river, you know, you don't want hangars where you're working on aircraft and oil can leak out and get, you know, to the river faster. So that was really the only change there, was not a dramatic one.

Adult businesses are, uh, can be controversial. Right now they're only permitted with a lot of certain restrictions that are encoded in that section of code for adult businesses. Currently are permitted in Central Commercial, General Commercial, and Low and High Density Industrial.

The only change here was Central commercial and the central mixed-use areas are— when you're looking at what the uses are, are almost identical. Um, and in the central mixed-use area, especially as it lays out here today, there are virtually no residences here in the central mixed-use zone. Um, so potentially permitting— again, they're going to have certain restrictions that they have to be away from certain things, shielding. Basically, you can't look in the windows. I have to have like, um, the winds have to be completely frosted, or, you know, you have whatever, um, covering the window.

So everything's contained inside the building. Um, so the only, the only justification for changing it to permitted is because Central Commercial, um, actually does have residential areas in it. Um, Central Mixed Use does not. It's more of the business district. And if a use like this— we have none in the city, but if a use were to come into the city, an area like this where there are no residences around may be more appropriate than, um, subject to all the other restrictions in that section of code.

Um, automotive sales, um, we decided, um, to disallow them in residential areas. We didn't feel that it was very congruent. Um, we did permit them in limited commercial, so that is a lot of Most of our limited commercial is along the Kenai Spur Highway on the east side of town when you're heading towards Soldano, close to where the Eagles are, near Beaver Loop, that general area. So somewhere like that may be more conducive. You have some traffic generators, it's already fronting the highway, may not be as contentious as trying to put a car lot in Woodland.

You know, that it's just that didn't really drive to us. A quick question on that: what is the definition? When does it become a car lot? Is there like a number of vehicles for sale, or How does that work? I will double-check.

I believe it does have a minimum number. I want to say that's 5. So it's, it's not like if you're putting a car out in your front yard to— with a for sale sign, that does not constitute automotive sales for us. It's generally if it's going to be a commercial enterprise and you're going to be selling several at the same time. So I want to say the number's 5.

Do not quote me on that. I'll double— I'll get a firm number for you.

I think those would probably— we don't really have a definition for those. We would likely lump them into this because that's probably the closest land use we have to them. So I will definitely track down a, a number for you if there's a certain number. I don't know what triggers the automotive sales off the top of my head. Speaking of that consignment lot, so the one that's out there right past the 45 to 55 zone on the left, what What zoning is that area?

Is that general commercial, I believe? General commercial out there? Yeah, general commercial goes out quite a ways. Limited commercial starts really at the top of the hill once you pass Beaver Loop. Okay.

And it kind of goes down through the mortuary where the Eagles are. What about car rental lots? Yeah, uh, car rental lots, I believe we have them under the miscellaneous, um, because there are still We have industrial, public institutional, maybe a recreational group, and a miscellaneous group. And I believe that's in the bottom group, which is the miscellaneous. They don't fit into rural residential.

Uh, I do not believe they do currently in the land use table, but that could be something we address when we get to that section. But, um, we would treat those roughly the same, and we have very few of them. They're mostly attached to the airport. Which would be more appropriate.

Automotive service stations, so just more gas stations that can also be like a quick lube station. Not—. Our definition is basically anything that doesn't require like a certified mechanic. So a quick lube is one thing, a full-on auto body shop or something like that is different in our for our definitions. Um, we didn't feel that they were congruent with residential areas, and we also took them out of the recreation area.

We have so few recreation areas, and we'll be working with the Parks and Rec Commission. Now they have a master plan to possibly look at that recreation and redefine what that zone does, and it'll probably be much more restricted than simply the park lands in the city.

Limited commercial, it was possible. Again, we thought that would be an appropriate one to actually add a condition. We don't have a lot of limited commercial, but it is front— it all fronts the Kenai Spur Highway. So there is potential that if a good site is selected and developed well, it might be able to fit in, but again would have those conditions. Through the conditional use process that would put some— set some guardrails for that kind of development.

So it's not a, yeah, go ahead and do it, but yes, maybe. Um, banks—. We, um, changed a few here. Um, we wanted to disallow them in at least rural residential. Rural residential banks generally do generate a lot of traffic, um, whether it's people just visiting the ATM, actually going to talk to a teller, Um, that turnover in activity is a lot higher than even like a doctor's office where someone might be there for an hour.

A bank, you're there 5, 10 minutes and you're gone, and wash, rinse, repeat. So, um, urban residential, there might be an argument depending on the density of the development, where the development is at, what roads it's on. So I think conditional may still be appropriate for urban residential, um, but might not, um, definitely not for the lower density areas of town.

We made it permitted in heavy industrial. We don't have a lot of heavy industrial currently in the city. Most of those areas are like off-bridge access or off other major roads. There is some on the— near the cannery on the other side. Unlikely just because banks wouldn't go there because it's harder to get to because it's the end of a road, but Um, there is potential, um, or it could be possible that it might make sense, um, over on that, on that end.

And then again, taking it out of recreation because it just doesn't fit that meaning. Bed and breakfast. So bed and breakfast, on our definition, there's a little bit difference between this and a short-term rental, which currently are cabin rentals, which we'll get to here in a couple couple minutes, but bed and breakfast is you can only use up to 30% of a dwelling unit. So basically renting out a room. The owner is on site the entire time, which is one major difference.

And generally, at least a meal is involved. So it could be breakfast, as in bed and breakfast, could be dinner. So it is a slightly different entity than a cabin rental or what we call short-term a short-term rental, which we call cabin rentals.

Um, unfortunately Airbnb has breakfast in the title, so it gets a little confusing, but that's, that's our definition. That's why we're distinguishing them. Um, so we didn't think they were congruent with conservation, which is you're either holding land for the airport and open space like that, so we— or the environmental side of conservation, especially wetlands, the Kenai Flats. Would not be a good area to develop. We also took them out of RR1, which is a more restrictive part of rural residential.

Most of our rural residential 1 is just east of Princess, where that whole Princess Magic area is RR1. Um, it would—. I gotta back up there. Um, isn't that like, uh, Angler Drive area also, or no? No, that's a regular rural residence, which is at Angler Drive area.

Uh, yeah, Ames, I think, or is it Dolchek, Ames, that area to the north? Um, there, I believe there is also R-1 out there. Um, but coming in off of, coming in off Angler from Beaver Loop, all of that is rural residential. So now the ones that are currently existing within there would be non-comply? They'd be not, they'd be non-conforming because they existed before if this code were to change, so we wouldn't revoke anything that we— yeah, they become non-conforming uses.

This one is simply bed and breakfast. A lot of what we have down Angler are guide services, lodges, hotels, and there is a slight difference that I found out again today what that is. So I'd say this really wouldn't impact Angler Drive, sorry, because we are still allowing conditional in rural residential. But the RR1, the Dolcek Ames, and then that Princess Magic area is, um, Rural Residential 1, and they typically have stated that they don't want a lot of transient uses in there. They would rather remain simply single-family detached homes in there.

Yeah, so, uh, as Jess said, just so I can put on the record, there's only one bed and breakfast, um, CVB in the city. Most of them are short-term rental cabin rentals. A lot more, especially in that area, are lodges, which also couldn't provide meals. So I guess this might be a good time to talk about it because it also rolls into the cabin rentals or short-term rentals. Um, We all know there's a heck of a lot more bed and breakfasts in this city than one.

We all know there's a heck of a lot more short-term rentals than we have for CUPs and everything else. At what point can we just say this is ridiculous and just go to what several other cities are doing and just say P permit all the way across on all this and just have them fill out a permit and say at least give us your information who's doing it? I think that would definitely be—. Just kidding. I think that'd be a conversation It has ebbed and flowed.

You know, I think early last year, the discussion was started and then kind of ebbed and—. Yeah, it flowed away real quick when I got out of office. But I think that could be something we look into. I think one of the first steps— this is just me making a somewhat reasonable recommendation— is I'll just jump down to cabin rentals, which is 2 lines down. We elected to actually strike that and rename it short-term rentals just to modernize the name because we actually had a couple people, and I believe it'll be in the next packet, um, where some people had been reported for having Airbnbs, and they said that they looked for short-term rentals in Kenai code, and if you search that, it's not there.

They don't know to look for cabin rentals. And so they tried to follow the rules, didn't think that there was actually a reason to get a CUP, and didn't. I know there's other people that may operate it, you know, regardless of if they found it in code or not. But I think modernizing the name so that we can actually say, yes, we have a short-term rental, would be one step so people are aware of it. And then should the commission want to explore this further, we could put something together and make recommendations to council for their for their deliberation as well.

Just as— so in this situation with both these, what would it look like? What would be the, the letter that would associate with a permit? Not permitted, but a permit required. Is there something for that? We would probably— it would probably be, um, P with a footnote.

With a footnote. Um, because like, uh, adult businesses, it's permitted in those areas, but there are still a lot of restrictions you have to get through. You can't just put one up across the street necessarily. Um, so we will probably be permitted but, and then have footnotes, and then, and that's what we could—. The, the standard, what we want them to do.

They never have to see us. They fill it out, we get their information, and they go away. Yeah. And it may just say— the footnote may say, okay, please see KMC 1420 whatever number, and we enacted an entire section of code that spells out what short-term rentals have to do. Like, it could be something like that, because we— when we did campgrounds, um, it, you know, it said please see this, um, this section of code, and it does not apply to public land.

So I think we have some flexibility on how we make it look in here, but it would be easier. I think we just— I would really like to see this dug into a little bit more so we don't— we get rid of this whole messy CUP process with these conditional use short-term rentals, whatever you want to call them. And go to like Soldotna, Wasilla, Palmer. Most cities are starting to switch to just a simple one-page application permit. You give us all your numbers, you meet these conditions, we do an inspection, and away you go.

I really think that would save a lot of this headache. I would like to see this move in that direction, at least for a recommendation towards council to have them look at it too, because there are people that are starting to get a little bit frustrated with the CUB process.

Yeah, I think that's a good thing to start working on. I think there's just a lot of things we can do to streamline this whole process and we're looking at streamlining stuff and I think this is a big step forward. At least get some recommendations of what we want to see on the permit. And we could pull up, probably pull up what Soldotna utilizes. There's nothing wrong with seeing something working over there that we couldn't copy a lot of, maybe modify the way we want to see it.

But I think there's a lot of information out there, and I'd really like to see that start to move that way. So that'd be great.

Sorry to interrupt, but it's a workshop. So—. Sorry. I appreciate your comments. Comments?

I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Uh, Rob Rogalski. Um, the, uh, I'm a citizen, uh, but also I'm the chairman of the LEPC for the borough, so I got a little bit of fingers in this game. And I know from further con— from further conversations or previous conversations with Victoria, she is quite interested in this whole thing.

And it's like, I appreciate what you're doing here, and I don't want to interrupt the process, but there are some things that are coming out that are pertinent to how we go forward with conditional use permits. And I've got a list of things that hopefully I get my 3 minutes. I know I get shut down often when I come to these meetings, but I'll try to be briefer than 3, you know. Well, I might take 5. But just some comments that I wanna make about this whole conditional use permit process is these are all good things.

You're all talking about good things and we wanna do good things with it. But there are some issues with how the process works now. And how the oversight of that process is afterwards. Okay, as I think Alex said, Okay, you get your permit and you trot off into the sunset. That works great for 95% of them.

But then there's those ones that don't. And those are some of the issues. I'm sorry? They don't follow the rules. Yeah, there's some of those things, they don't follow the rules.

And that's some of my quirky dots here that I wanna say if I get my 3 minutes or 5 minutes, however much you guys give me. I know you got stuff to do and I don't want to take up your time, so carry on with trying to do what you're doing here with the rest of this. But I just want to throw that out there as a thought process.

Just a devil's advocate on this. Permitting. I would say that I would anticipate the pushback that you're going to get is from those people who have— who should have a conditional use permit and don't, and don't want to get the permit, is because they're worried about future taxation. If they— like a bed tax or vacation, whatever type of taxes that there are. Those are the comments that I've heard in my industry about the permitting in Wasilla and Anchorage and that type of thing.

So That's all.

Just a quick question. I know I stepped in late, but, um, is there a way to do an analysis in a presentation to an applicant that this is the way it is now, but this is what we're proposing and the financial impact might be? These are the fees, these are what are not charged, so they can see up front what a CUP is and possibly the change that you're looking to do. Yeah, I think as we put something together, I think we definitely would have what does the transmission transition plan look like? What does it look like today if enacted?

What does something else look like? So I think that would definitely be a reasonable part of the process because, um, we want to make it easier for people. So I think even if we deliberate here, we get it up to council, they deliberate, and then they— if they choose to make any change, I think at another— not at that public hearing, but also at other venues, we need to— even if it's just like me recording a video and putting on the website, hey, interested in doing a short-term rental? Here's your process, and navigate them through. So I think it would be something good for public education, um, to get that out there.

But I think we need to build the, uh, build the cart and get a whole bunch of stuff in that cart, and then, you know, find the horse to drink, you know, start dragging it down the path. So, um, duly noted. I do take some notes, and I'll start digging in and, um, hopefully very soon bring a discussion item to the to the commission to kind of kick this off, um, if that's appropriate. Uh, obviously I want what's best for the city, but, um, I'm just curious, do we ever pursue a property that we may know has— is running an Airbnb or a short-term rental? And I'm just going to give you an example, such as in lending.

If someone comes to me for a loan that they're owner-occupying underwriting will run their address before we close, make sure it's not being advertised as a lodge or an Airbnb or anything like that, um, and, and say, hey, this isn't, uh, owner-occupied because we see you're advertising it for rental purposes. So is there any time that we also seek that information? Uh, we have not to date. There is software, um, most of the cities— I believe the borough even uses it for sales tax compliance, but there is software that could scrape all the, you know, Verbos, Airbnbs. Right now, our current process is where we go through the code enforcement process because it does— code states that if you're running a short-term rental or cabin rental, by our definition, you have to have a CUP.

So if you don't have a CUP and someone reports you, we've reached out, and that's where we actually found Some of the ones that have come forward of late, um, and the ones coming up, not this next meeting but in 2 weeks or 3 weeks, um, again, he looked— they looked for short-term rental in our code. They didn't find it, so they didn't think they needed it. Um, once we reached out, said, hey, you know, this person had reported like 5 in a certain neighborhood, and, um, we actually got responses, and a lot of them were like, oh, I, I didn't know, and this is why. And a lot of it was We couldn't find the definition. So that's why I think a very short interim step might be to just rename cabin rentals to short-term rentals, just so it's easy to find and search online while we work through the rest of the process.

And, you know, we may eventually eliminate it completely, or, you know, permit it with, um, with some certain conditions in the footnotes. So that's the reason for my recommendation on that one.

I, I just want to reiterate the key, key comment there is there has to be a complaint. The city itself is not doing any research and will not seek out enforcement unless there's a citizen complaint. So if they're doing an Airbnb and nobody really cares, then other neighbors care and they all know and nobody ever reports it, the city, even if we know, we're not going to enforce anything unless there's a citizen complaint. We're reactive, not proactive on enforcement. So I should go find out which one of my neighbors complained that I was building shit.

Exactly. Yes, thank you. Yes, it is a complaint-driven process. So it's not us driving down the street like, oh, looky there.

So business consumer services, these are just your generic providing something for a fee. It could be consulting firm.

So, I mean, there's just— it's kind of everything else, you know, business and consumer services. Groceries would fit in here too. Um, we propose to change, take it out of R1 again because a lot of other non-residential uses generally are not well received in that area. Um, take it out of urban residential. Um, again, a lot of it— a lot of these generate traffic, and traffic is a major complaint in residential areas.

So we just want to eliminate the conflict altogether. Um, allow it in heavy industry. Again, what we do have, it would be context sensitive. Um, a lot of the review is going to happen at— if someone puts in a permit, you know, is looking for land, but, you know, and comes in for a building permit, a lot of, you know, do they have proper ingress, egress? Do they have enough parking?

Do they have enough area on the lot to put what they want? So There are other areas where we can— we still do have oversight of what's going in, but in the land use table, we're saying conceivably you could put something, especially as some heavy industry might transition, or if it's more warehousing, it may be more appropriate to have a store closer to a warehouse than, let's say, a factory.

Um, S is secondary. I'm just getting to that one. And this one, the reason we put secondary for education is if we were to We're probably not going to get a college because we have KPC on the other side of the river, but let's say we get a vocational school. You know, AVTEC's bursting at the seams. Let's say AVTEC Kenai shows up, you know, or something similar.

They may have a bookstore. They may have something. So the primary is still education, but they do have a consumer. And because a lot of the times they will concession that out, so the school itself is not running the bookstore, it's Barnes Noble or whatever. So this would allow it.

As long as the education is— educational use is on that site. So it's not— we're not putting Walmart on the school campus, but a bookstore on a— at a vocational school or college would be appropriate under this. Can I ask real quick for clarification? You're going to drop the C in the RR and the C in the RS for business consumer services? Uh, RR and, uh, RR1, we took it out of RR1.

And actually, what about RS then? That is an oversight. So yes, those would be— so we're taking out of residential. Okay, so out of RS and RR, is that correct? Yeah, there would be not allowed in any residential.

Okay, so it's still allowed in a rural residential? We take that one out too. We're taking out of res— I meant to take it out of all residential. I just didn't. Okay, that's what I'm trying to understand.

Sorry, my eyes are getting a little crossed by this point, so I keep getting conflicting—. Okay, I think I got it. Nothing in residential. Thank you. Quick question, don't we have something like that coming up right now on our agenda packet that's doing what we're saying we're not going to do now?

That's a home occupation, that's a different chapter. Home occupation doesn't go under consumer services, it has a whole different, um, thing in code, a whole different section. Okay, just checking on that. So it doesn't go through a conditional use process? Um, and this one I did struggle a little bit because part of it— so I'm open to it being a C-2.

That's kind of why we brought it forth for discussion, is maybe in a rural residential, if you own a farm like on the edge of town and you want to sell, you know, part of your harvest at like a farm store or something like that, would that fit? So that's why I struggle with this. Do we take it out of residential? Do we leave it but condition it in the 3 main categories, take it out of the subcategories of RS-1, RS-2. I'm honestly more for leaving it in an RR for a conditional use permit.

I mean, there's a lot of RR in this area with large lots, and they might have a sub-business that they might work for something like that. As far as an RR-1 or RS, I could see those are smaller lots or they're more restrictive RR, and I personally would rather just see it left as a conditional on the RR for those larger lots. Sorry, I'm, uh, I, I don't have my map open. Um, what is the general, uh, zoning for like the Strawberry Road area?

Heard the definition, just if it helps any, um, definitions in code: a home occupation does not employ more than one person outside of the household. So for a home occupation, It's just you selling your goods, whereas in the land use table, that definition of business, consumer business, is employing other people. So it would be actual outside employees, like a full business, versus home occupation is generally just you. So some of these things that you talk about, like selling sweets, like the big one around here is people making the cinnamon rolls, and those are home occupation because it's just the homeowner that's doing it, and it only allows up to 1 person outside of the household employed. So it comes down to number of employees.

I look at that Strawberry Road area as the RR1 as a good example. You know, they have a great greenhouse. They might sell stuff out. They're going to have part-time hires or something working on the farm selling hay. I think this could get a little bit messy if we don't allow at least a conditional process for those RRs.

So I'd like to see it left C. Definitely, I'll make that note. We just— Jess and I were going through this and we were struggling like, Yeah, but maybe kind of. So, um, we definitely want to get your input, and I think it makes sense. The larger lot size can absorb some of the— they'll have adequate parking, that kind of thing, more likely than a tiny, like, woodland-size lot.

Um, let me speed myself up a little bit. So cabin rentals, I'll skip at this point. We've talked about a lot. We did add it as short-term rentals on the next page just to keep it alphabetical. So that's why it's down there and struck out all the way across the board here.

Commercial recreation. So this is providing recreation for a fee. And right now, ALI is generally tied directly to the airport. There is a larger piece that kind of wraps around on the east side of Willow. I believe that once that gets subdivided, it'll probably get re— rezoned to light industrial to match what the rest of that area is.

Um, but it used to be part of a larger parcel that actually crossed Willow and went into the airport. So that's why there's a purple blob, um, over there. And we think that that kind of recreation— this is something for a fee. So if we skip over to like education, um, and recreation, for example, the MPF is we have a concessionaire and they do charge fee for, you know, skating at the MPF and various other things like, I think, hockey leagues and stuff like that. So there, there is a fee there.

Currently by code, it's, uh, it's a little sketchy how we're doing that, but, um, we'll figure it out. And then the 2 just means that there's a footnote, the second footnote that I was talking about today. So this is just my personal— 2 means nothing, but That was going to be P1, but I just decided asterisk was easier, and then I never went back to fix the 2. But those are from my notes.

The first asterisk was anything— if it's an asterisk, anything that happens on the airport itself would be managed by the airport. So, for example, guide service, if the airport chose to put a, um, conditional use permit— or not conditional, a special use permit— so that a guide outfit could reserve a couple of berths in the floatplane basin, that is managed by the, by the airport itself. Um, SUPs are only 1 year, so it's kind of an annual thing. Um, we didn't want to step on their toes. We're just saying, um, it may be permitted, um, we may change this to a P, but with the asterisk that it is only allowable if the airport manager and their commission says yes, this is good.

Um, the second one would be— what was our second one? I had notes and I left my notes upstairs. Um, oh yes, so the 2, the reason we put it permitted but with a 2 For this one is these terms, the conditions shouldn't go through conditional use permit. We don't think if we have a concessionaires agreement with someone running the MPF, for instance, or like the lease we have with the golf course, that should be baked into the lease terms. It should be baked, you know, it could be an amendment to a lease, could be part of the concessionaires agreement.

Making them also come back through for conditional use permit, I think, is just a little bit overkill because they're already going through a public process for bidding to run, um, the MBF when we put it out for bid, you know, for a contractor to run it, or a lease of the golf course. Um, so I think that's a more appropriate— still a legal document, it's still binding, but it's not yet another instance of having to go through yet another, um, another process that just takes up time and effort and achieves virtually the same thing.

Um, guard services, leaving them again conditional, but the airport would manage anything that's on the airport. That's why it's under ALI. Um, not allowing them on recreational lands. We don't have that many. Most of it's the Kenai Sports Complex, the golf course, Oilers.

Um, probably not running guide services out of any of those locations, so it just didn't make sense.

Um, townsite historic Um, because of the historic nature, that it's a, um, that it's a certified area that's historic, we have historic preservation plan for the area, that it may work in certain areas but not everywhere, and that's why it's conditional. It would be a case-by-case basis. Limited commercial, because that fronts the Kenai Spur Highway, we thought it more appropriate. You know, the traffic generation is not going through a neighborhood, it's turning directly off the highway into these lots, so we think that the impact would be a lot less, and it would maybe be a way to develop some of our limited commercial areas.

So hotels and motels is if you have 6 or more people staying. So rooms to accommodate 6 or more people doesn't mean you have to have 6 rooms. If you're doing 3 bedrooms, 2, 2 people can stay in each room, you're technically a hotel.

So, and then lodge is 5 and under. So that's why you see hotels under CUP on Angler. We don't actually have like a Hilton Hotel down there. So it's just our definition. These might get cleaned up in the future, but for now, just using what we have without going through a full rewrite, which might happen under a new comprehensive plan, just to align this.

Not allowing them on the airport itself. I don't think the city is keen on operating their own hotel necessarily. Um, would prefer to let the private market do that. Um, take the hotels, motels, take them out of rural residential and suburban residential. Um, again, because a lot of that's going to, um, generally is going to drive traffic.

If you have 6 people, um, it can get— I think it can get a little dicey. I have a question. We're kind of contradicting ourselves, I think, right here. I think it gets a little dicey when you start talking bed and breakfast as a C in an RR, and then you're saying hotel/motels as an N. If you're saying it's 3-bedroom bed and breakfast, that's any house almost in the Kenai area, just about. And you turn that into a bed and breakfast, now you got a hotel/motel permitted and not permitted.

And I think this word— I think this needs to be bed breakfast, cabin rentals, hotels, hotels and lodges. Um, yeah, bed and breakfast, cabin, hotels and lodges. I think all four of those need to be scrutinized. Um, I think we have some duplication. I think some of this could be either streamlined, merged, or taken out completely if we were to go down another process.

So I think I would like to add it to the previous discussion we're looking into on those 4 items. And in this situation, if we're currently going to leave it as RR for bed and breakfast as a C, I'd like to go ahead and just leave motel hotels as a C also, because I think right now that would contradict each other pretty quickly. So just— so just make bed and breakfast, hotels, and lodges pretty much, pretty much the same for now and then. Yeah, if the definition of a motel currently is 6 people and you've got— you could technically have 2 bedrooms then that sleep 6 people and consider it a hotel/motel under city definition then, in theory. But I don't like people that much, so I wouldn't do it.

But I'm just saying, if we permitted it one way and we say the same thing the same as a condition, that would get a little bit weird. So I think that tracks. I think, I think it'd be appropriate to leave it all this— make them mimic each other for now and then work to clean up, because I think, like I said, it's— it could get duplicative real quick, especially in the modern development patterns. Um, so I'll make those changes. Um, these 4 marijuana, we're not striking them out, we're moving those to industrial because this is the industrial side of marijuana.

I am not getting into that. Um, retail marijuana is a separate category. It's still in here, it's on the next page. Um, But the other ones would be more appropriately put into the industrial category. Um, and we don't anticipate making, uh, many, if any, changes based on where they're at and all the limitations that are already in code as to where they can go.

Um, personal services— this would be more like hairdressers, nail salons, um, things more of that nature. Um, ALI— making it permitted. Um, right now it's not, uh, not that big a thing. But if we were to get direct jet service here at the airport, if we get it, which would probably then generate the need for terminal expansion, and a service like this might be something, um, that might want to go in there while people are waiting for their jets. Because, you know, it's— if we do get jet service, we also get TSA.

Then you actually have to wait, so you can't just show up a couple minutes before your flight. So people are going to be stuck in the airport a little bit longer, and so it may be appropriate for something like that to go in there. So we want to just think a little ahead. Um, again, most of the area that is ALI is on the airport and would be managed through the airport itself. So anything that would go in a terminal has a concessionaire agreement, and that we think that's the appropriate way instead of doing a conditional use permit, because the city still has a say of what goes in.

They, you know, they, they're the ones who approve if the restaurant goes in, that kind of thing. Sorry.

Um, so why not Rural Residential 1 and Rural and Suburban 1? Why is— why not those? And I'm thinking like, what if I'm a masseuse and I want to give massages in my home? That's just one person at a time. It's not a bunch of cars in my driveway.

Um, and we can, um, where this came from, because this came from the miscellaneous category, so, um they at this time, they just weren't there. Um, historically, when you start getting to the numbers, they get more restrictive. So rural residential is maybe okay, but rural residential 1 was created because they wanted to be more restrictive than the rural residential. So I think that's why you see the conditions under, um, RR and suburban residential. But when you get to the numbers, um, is generally they have somehow, whether it was a voting process or they, um, went through council and brought something forward and got it enacted, um, locked down what was allowed in their neighborhood.

But again, these are only suggestions. So if, if we think we want to put them somewhere, we can definitely revisit any of these. These are just me putting some in front of you so we can have a discussion, um, which will probably be an ongoing process throughout the fall. So this is not going to be the first bite at the apple, trying to get through some chunks. And then as we digest it, we may have some more changes.

And before we would do anything, I'd bring all of, you know, a whole litany of changes, have a nice long work session, bring tons of pizza, and, um, you know, hammer out some of the more fine details. So C is—. That's conservation, uh, for the zoning? Yes, the C, the second column, is conservation, um, which Again, we're not trying to build stuff in wetlands, stuff like that. Makes sense to have them in commercial areas.

Um, the one under E, I put, I put a condition under education. Again, if we get something like a vocational school or something like that, if we had like a school of cosmetology or something like that, they may have a, uh, they could have a salon as part of a front-facing part of an education experience. So that's why we left to see I don't think we would just say conditional use, yeah, you can go put a hair salon at the high school. I don't think that'd be appropriate. But again, if we got a vocational school that had a cosmetology track, it may be appropriate at that point.

So that's why we left it conditional but took it out of recreation. Um, I'm going to get myself in 2 minutes so I give our gentleman some time to speak. Um, professional offices, took them out of rural residential, rural residential 1. And took it out of recreation, would allow them in the airport light industrial, um, within measure. If it's going to have apron access, the FAA is probably not going to allow it anyways.

It's not an aeronautical, but there are some areas where it may be, as it's currently zoned, allowable for an office. Restaurants, um, took them out of rural residential altogether, obviously out of conservation. Left them in suburban residential and urban residential for one thing. Not all restaurants are all the same size, and we're thinking, would there be an opportunity where it may be a small corner store, bodega, may be appropriate? You know, it may only seat 2 people.

You know, it's kind of one of those things, a neighborhood little sandwich shop, something like a neighborhood deli or something like that. We don't have any of those right now, but we don't know what it looks like in the future, and we don't want to just slam the door on it when it may be an appropriate use if it's congruent. And that's why we left it as a conditional use currently, but also allow them in limited commercial, again, to develop some limited commercial where they're going to have higher traffic volumes, may have more visibility, be able to put signs up and, and get the business. Quick question on the restaurants. Why?

So I see you were talking about small lots and stuff as a conditional. But now we've taken it out of RR. I mean, couldn't that fall under the same thing as a small restaurant or small sandwich shop or a farm having a little food stand? And I could see that still being a C. If we cut it out of there completely, I don't know. Are definition of restaurants more of the traditional sit-down or even just a takeout?

Um, something like a mobile food vendor, like if you had at a farmer's market, you had a food truck, that's driven by a different process. Um, if they were to actually have a restaurant, I could see, but I mean, I could see it being conditional there. Um, our thought was more in the denser areas, so they have the either the foot traffic or the actual vehicle traffic to be, to be seen in, but I could see it possibly being a C in rural residential. Just going back to where we've made rural residential the possibility of having a conditional use for some kind of a small business, I think the same thing should apply to the RR for just leave it as a C and let's set somebody bring an idea to us and see if it falls in that right kind of work. I think it'd be important to just leave that as an option.

Um, and I think this is education.

Secondary on education, again, we don't know what the future holds if we do go the vocational route or get some sort of small branch of KPC that's here in town. Whatever ultimately happens in the future, oftentimes their cafeterias would have concessions, so they're treated like restaurants. So secondary, again, the education has to be on that education parcel.

Retail business, main change was to make it permitted in town limited commercial. They get permitted there. Short-term rentals is just copy and pasting. Cabins will merge— we'll make those look like the Airbnbs or the bed and breakfast lodges, all that, as we discussed. Theaters, we took out of the rural residential, suburban residential, left them possibly in urban— in the urban Um, depending on the type of environment, especially if it's a more mixed-use where you might have some things downstairs, or you might have like a small actual like mixed-use plaza, it may be appropriate if you had denser.

Right now I don't think that's the development pattern here, but I've seen where larger apartment complexes have like a small community theater, you know, that generally is more for the residents, but sometimes other people can go there and see a movie or something. And then making a couple other changes, taking it out of heavy industrial, I think that's where that one is. And then wholesale business, your larger warehousing, just the size of those buildings generally are going to be a lot bigger. Think Costco, something like that. So didn't make sense in some of the residential neighborhoods, made more sense in your industrial and your commercial and commercial mixed-use areas.

Um, going back to the, um, theaters, just— I can't remember what it's zoned. What is the rugby field over there zoned?

Over by the— I think it's still seen in the park. Yeah, is that recreation or is that—. It's not recreation. I want to say it's central commercial, but I just want to make sure. Jess is looking it up for us.

I wasn't sure what it was. Make sure it's not permitted there, because I know we have plans to put a possible amphitheater in the future in that area. And I want to say it's commercial, some version, some flavor of a commercial zone over there, because everything along the highway is commercial in that area. Okay, on this side of, uh, bridge access. Yeah, yeah, right there by the senior housing.

But I did want to give a few moments, um, if Mr. Rogowski wanted to, because he mentioned he wanted to say a couple things. If you would, at least if you could just give us a name before you, for the record of who's speaking. MJ Loveland, Kenai resident. And, um, I really appreciate you, uh, for the long-term future going through the land use tables. We wanted to address some ideas to fix the bad actors on the conditional use permit the 5% that aren't following the rules.

Well, not necessarily bad actors. Well, the ones that— anyway. Input. Input. So I have 6 little ideas, and I'm going to run through them real quick, and then I'll email them to you because I see you're running out of time.

So first, my first idea, just to catch everybody up, is to review all the conditional use permits and repeat that every 2 to 5 years to ensure that the permit owner is the business owner, because there's several permits out there that belong to the property, not to the owner. And if they aren't, send them a notice of violation. My background is well integrity, I'm a retired well integrity engineer in the state, with their notice of violations always gave a fine, even if it was a minimal fine, $500, $100, something. Notice of violation with a fine. And then to inspect inspect to ensure that all conditional use permit conditions are complied with and they're not being overreached.

And then have an annual review, and then if they're not in compliance, a notice of violation. Following up on an article that was in the newspaper a couple of days ago, or a couple of weeks ago, of that— had sold out now— but review all the area Airbnbs and VROs to make sure that they have conditional use permits. That's a side question. I'll interrupt you. Did you guys get a copy of that laydown?

Anyway, um, make sure that they apply for a conditional use permit, and if they don't, send them a notice of violation, give them a fine. Um, any, uh, violation including lack of permit or annual report— lots of places don't give an annual report when they're supposed to— Give them a fine. If they don't pay their fine, put a lien on the property. Just an idea. And any violations that aren't fixed in a reasonable amount of time, close the business or make them reapply and/or $500 a day fine.

Make it, make it hurt if they're not following the rules.

Keep a seasonal or like an enforcement officer to help with on-site inspections and the digital review to make sure that all these permits are in line. And how we could pay for that is short-term rental bed tax, and that will completely cover your position. It doesn't have to be very much, 1%, and it will, it will pay for that officer. That's my ideas, and I will, I will send that to you in an email. Thank you.

And yeah, once we get it all, make sure the commissioner's good. Thank you for that. Did you have a, we got like 2 minutes if you wanted to make some more comments there, sir. I'm sorry. We got just like 2 minutes if you wanted to make another comment or she covered most of it.

No, she gave a good, she made a good summary. And first of all, I want to thank all of you for what you do. I know having been on many committees and boards and finally off of all but one, So I know how much it takes out of your time and your life to do what you guys are doing. So thank you very much. And as she said, we will summarize this, we will summarize some of our points more concisely, and, uh, then we will get those to Kevin so that they could be, you know, presented to you guys and to the city council.

Because I know that, um, I know that, uh Uh, there are some people on the city council— Vice Mayor Askins, for one— I've had many conversations with her, and she supports a lot of the stuff that needs to be adjusted in, in conditional use permit process. So, uh, we'll get that in so that we don't take up this time, because you guys obviously have some other stuff to do, and you got another meter— another meeting coming up here. So we'll let you go. Thank you. Just a really quick update too on the conditional use permit front.

Like you were talking about the annual reports. This year we did have 100% compliance from every single CUP holder in the city. We have—. We are at 100% for fire inspections and we are at 100% for the annual reports. That is excellent to hear.

That's good news. That's good news right there. All righty. Well, if we have another comments, no other— seeing no other business before the body. I'm gonna— you're gonna adjourn out of this work session at 6:59.

Are we still in?

Oh, we're still in the meeting.

The work session has been adjourned. We're waiting to start the, the meeting.

Thank you.

You're on the record.

All right, I'd like to call the September 23rd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 7:03. If you're able to, please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Uh, Clerk, can I please have the roll call? Thank you. Vice Chair Dotha? I'm here. Chair Keeton is absent.

Commissioner Askin? Present. Commissioner Urszly is absent. Commissioner Kraus? Here.

Commissioner Fikes? Here. Commissioner Woodard? Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you, sir. All right, Commissioner, before we get it to the agenda and consent agenda approval, I'd like to bring your attention to the laydown materials in your packet there. Additional items F2, public comment, brought to us, pages 1 through 7, brought to us by the Planning Director. All right, pleasure of the Commission. On the laydown approval and agenda and consent agenda approval.

Are there any additional revisions to the agenda or consent agenda from the commission?

Saying none, I would like to— Clerk, please read the consent agenda items into the record, please. Can we get a motion and a second, please? Make a motion to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as presented. I'll second. I was going to just add that.

Okay.

All righty, Clerk, would you please read in the consent agenda items into the record, please? Thank you. The approval of minutes for the regular meeting of August 26th, 2026, and action approval home occupation permit for a home-based food business specializing in baked goods and confections that will be prepared, packaged, and stored inside the family residence at 207 Linwood Lane. And that is your consent agenda.

All righty, are there any public comments on any of the consent agenda items just read by the clerk? Anybody from online?

Anybody in the room looking for this? No? Okay, seeing none. Anybody want to Request unanimous consent on this. I'd like to request unanimous consent.

Are there any objections? Seeing none, hearing no objections, the agenda and consent agenda are approved with the laydown as presented.

All right, scheduled public— moving on to item C, scheduled public comment. Uh, we have no scheduled public comment for this evening. Moving on to item D, unscheduled public comments. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak to anything that is not on the agenda? Anybody online?

Nobody. And nobody in here for nothing not on it. All righty. Moving on. All right, that moves us to consideration of plats.

E, this brings us consideration of plats. The plat before us tonight is Resolution PZ-2026-30, recommending the plat, the preliminary plat, Mica, Mica Subdivision Parks plat be approved. Is there a motion for approval of PZ-2026-30?

I move to approve, uh, Resolution PZ2026-30. Second. All righty, Director Bunier, can we have the staff report please? Thank you. Uh, if I shared out it, I could find the right page, I will be on to the races.

Here we go. A preliminary plat has been submitted from Jason Stollenberg PLS on behalf of the property owners for replat of lot Lot 156B, Mica Subdivision; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park Subdivision; and Government Lot 155, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian; and vacating approximately 560.6 feet of the 30-foot-wide Glacier Street right-of-way to create 2 parcels. Kenai Municipal Code Chapter 1410, Subdivision Regulations, states preliminary plats or replats must first be submitted to the city for review and provide recommendation to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission. Pursuant to KMC 1410-090 Variations and Exceptions, the applicant has requested an exception to KMC 1410-080 Minimum Approvals Required to not install portions of the Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven Lane rights-of-way dedicated in this plat.

The proposed replat meets a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, or about 0.47 an acre, for the Rural Residential Zoning District. The size of proposed Lot 155A is approximately 139,828 square feet, or 3.21 acres. The size of proposed Lot 1A is approximately 46,827 square feet, or 1.075 acres. City water and wastewater are not available in the area of proposed Lot 155A. However, private water and wastewater have been installed on site and are subject to the regulatory requirements to the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

City water and wastewater are available along the southern boundary of proposed Lot 1A adjacent to Lawton Drive and are subject to the regulatory requirements of the City of Kenai Public Works Department. Direct access to proposed Lot 1A is provided via Lawton Drive, a maintained paved city road. Direct access to proposed Lot 155A is provided via Rainbow Drive, an unmaintained gravel city road. The portions of right-of-way along Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven Lane to be dedicated to this plat were granted by BLM Land Patent 50-65-0236 dated October 12, 1964, and are continuations of these unimproved rights-of-way. The approximately 560.6-foot by 30-foot Glacier Street right-of-way was granted to the City of Kenai at the Mica Subdivision of Government Lot 156 and the Park Subdivision of Government Lot 177 and do not reflect a patented right-of-way.

Um, these attachments are further back in the packet, but they are referring to patents 50-60-0239 and 50-67-0347. The Kenai City Council must declare the Glacier Street right-of-way not needed for a public purpose and approve the vacation of this right-of-way as shown on the preliminary plat.

The applicant has asked for an exception to the minimum improvement requirements affecting proposed lot 155A requesting to not install those portions of Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven Lane fronting proposed Lot 155A pursuant to KMC 1410.090 Variations and Exceptions, which states: Whenever the tract to be subdivided is of such an unusual size or shape or surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of the requirements contained in these regulations would result in real difficulties, substantial hardship, or injustice, The City Council, after report by the Planning Commission, may vary or modify such requirements so that the subdividers may develop their property in a reasonable manner, but so that at the same time the public welfare and interests of the city and surrounding areas are protected and the general intent and spirit of these regulations preserved. Please see applicant submit— submitted Exhibit A again after the staff report.

The City of Kenai Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary plat and is amenable to abandoning the the Glacier Street right-of-way. Existing Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven Lane are both unmaintained city right-of-way and possess portions of what would— of what now would be considered Pioneer Roads in the Street Design Standards Manual, but there have been no verification of the quality or construction of these roads. Rainbow Drive is accessed from a city-maintained portion of Highbush Lane, and city maintenance responsibilities end at this intersection with Rainbow Drive. For Rainbow Drive to be maintained, it would need to be constructed to a minimum of residential standards. It is standard requirements for property owners dedicating new right-of-way to be required to design and construct roads through the new right-of-way dedicated.

Development of city roads does provide for future access and development of lots. Pursuant to KMC 1410-080-G1, if approval of the requested exception recommended to City Council, the plat must contain that all the lots in any subdivision as defined in this chapter will be subject to assessment for any of the improvements required herein when installed at a future time by the city. Fire Marshal and Building Official have reviewed the preliminary replat and have no comments. During the field survey of the subject lots, it was discovered that the existing improvements encroach on the building setback and utility easement, thus making the current improvement a nonconforming structure. The building file has been flagged and no construction or modification will be allowed on that particular structure that will increase the nonconformity.

Staff finds that the preliminary plat for a re-plat of Lot 156B, Mica Subdivision Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park Subdivision, and Government Lot 155, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian, meets the following Title 14 Municipal Code sections and aligns with the intent of the Kenai Zoning Code. Number 1, pursuant to KMC 1410.070, Subdivision Design Standards, the preliminary plat for subdivision subject to the listed conditions, provides utility and access easements, provides satisfactory and desirable building sites with existing on-site private water and wastewater systems subject to the regulatory requirements of DEC and city water and wastewater subject to the regulatory requirements of the City of Kenai Public Works Department. 2, Pursuant to KMC 1410-080, Minimum Improvement Required, the preliminary plat is a re-plat of a tract containing newly dedicated rights-of-way for the western half of Misty Haven Lane and the southern half of Rainbow Drive. Therefore, an installation agreement or completed road development will be required for this— for the development of Pioneer Roads as defined in the City of Kenai Street Designs Manual. Uh, sorry.

The applicant has requested an exception to this requirement pursuant to KMC 1410-090. This request requires approval by Kenai City Council. Should Kenai City Council not approve the requested exception, The property owner will be required to enter into either into an installation agreement or install the required sub-sections Rainbow Drive, Misty Haven Lane prior to the final plat. Staff finds that Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven Lane are both essential to the future development of the unapproved lots to the north of the preliminary plat. For this reason, staff recommends requiring the installation of the portions of these rights-of-way, or if approval of the exception is recommended to Kenai City Council, that the plat contain a covenant that all the lots in the subdivision be subject to assessment for any of the improvements required herein when installed at a future time by the city.

Pursuant to KMC 1424-010, Minimum Lot Area Requirements, the preliminary plat meets city standards for minimum lot size in the rural residential zoning district of 20,000 with proposed lot sizes of 3.21 acres and 1.075 acres. Pursuant to KMC 1424-020, General Requirements, The preliminary plat meets city standards for minimum lot width and depth and access utility easements. Compliance with the max— compliance with the maximum lot coverage, maximum height, and setbacks will be reviewed during the building permit review. Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat for Mica Subdivision's Park 3 plat meets the general standards of Kenai Municipal Code Chapter 1410, Subdivision Regulations, and 1424, Development Requirements Table. Staff finds that the re-plat is possible to complete under the current Kenai Municipal Code provisions.

Staff also asked Planning and Zoning to review the requested exception from the applicant to determine if there are any real difficulties, substantial hardship, or injustice as outlined in KMC 1410-090. If a real difficulty, substantial hardship, or injustice is found by the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends adding an additional finding to the resolution and sending the modified resolution along with a copy of this public hearing packet to the Kenai City Council for their review and deliberation. Subject to any potential decision of the— made on the request exception by Kenai City Council.

Staff hereby recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Resolution PZ-2026-30 for a replat of Lot 156B, Micro Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park Subdivision, and Government Lot 155, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward meridian to the Kenai Peninsula Borough without the exception, subject to the following conditions: further development of the property will conform to all federal, state of Alaska, and local regulations. The Kenai City Council must declare the approximate 560.6 feet of the 30-foot-wide Glacier Street right-of-way not needed for a public purpose and approve the vacation of the rights-of-way shown in the preliminary plat. Install the, uh, install the Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven Lane rights-of-way, or enter into an installation grant prior to final plat, or the planning— if the planning zoning report to Kenai City Council that reasons for an exception have been found as outlined in KMC 1410-090, add a covenant to all the lots in the subdivision be subject to, subject to an assessment for any of the improvements required herein and when installed at a future time by the city.

One more.

It never ends. Uh, add plat note, flood hazard notice Some or all of the property shown on this plat has been designated by FEMA as a flood hazard area district as of the date of this plat is recorded with the District Recorder's Office. Prior to development, the City of Kenai floodplain administrator should be contacted for current information and regulations. Development must comply with Chapter 1430 of the Kenai Municipal Code. See FEMA Form Panel 02122C-0145F for information on floodplain zone X-ray uniform.

Alrighty, well, that's a mouthful. Thank you, sir. Uh, is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to the resolution PZ2026-30 that is before us now?

If you'd like, you can come up to the counter. Please state your name and, uh, rough address, don't have to be exact. And also, um, you have 3 minutes. Zach Greiniger. Hit the, hit the button, it'll turn red for you.

There you go, now we're good. Got it. My name is Zach Greiniger, I currently live at 1605 Rainbow, uh, Drive. Um, I was the one that started this replat, um, request. Um, I brought some additional documentation on why it's, um, a hardship on us to, to put in those roads.

Um, I've got, um a proposal from a contractor to, to do the work you're requesting, and it totaled up to almost $63,000 in removal of trees and grading and adding those roads in. We've already started construction on our house for this, and occupying our house would be contingent on all this being completed. So that's not something we budgeted for. To find that. I've also got some, some drawings showing maps off of the KPV Parcel Viewer showing just how many trees— these trees in area you're being required to clear would act as a privacy buffer for not just our lot but neighboring lots.

They're literally the only trees surrounding that portion, and pretty much the entire area you're asking us to put a road in is completely covered in trees. Um, we'd really, really, um, like to avoid that. Um, I also have a map showing, um, just how little this would do to help increase, um, access to further lots. By my count, all the undeveloped lots in this area that could even potentially be accessed by this could just as easily be accessed by a different route even after this is added in. It does nothing for anyone, and I don't think anybody in this area wants this additional road put in.

So that's all I've got for you for now. Just for clarification, are you speaking of the Glacier Street vacation or which—. No, I'm talking about the Pioneer Roads being requested on Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven. OK. Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven. Yeah.

Thanks. I have a question. Sorry. So the portion of Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven that are currently in They're not maintained by the city. Is that correct?

That's my understanding. I've never seen anybody on them. They definitely don't meet city standards for roads. The portion of Rainbow that does exist is not maintained. It stops— city maintenance stops at High Bush, which is just to the left.

Misty Haven doesn't exist at all. It's not paved at all in that location. There is a driveway portion that runs down a little bit. Yeah, according to the borough's mapping, they have it a road appears to be there. So, but they're not maintained because they're not up to city standards.

It's my understanding. And we're asking the subdivision to put in the rest of Rainbow Drive and Misty Haven to boroughs— to city standards? No, we have a definition for Pioneer Road, which is essentially a half a road. Um, the portion of Rainbow from where it ends that's being dedicated on this lot, and the Pioneer Road, so one lane. So basically the half that is dedicated, because to the north it's not dedicated to— that's an unsubdivided government lot.

So the other half of Rainbow Drive does not exist yet. And then to the east, Misty Haven has been dedicated but has not been constructed north of what is essentially a driveway to the south, but adjacent to this gentleman's property. It is not developed in that area. I cannot see on this plat where the wetlands are, but I would assume that some kind of culverting would be needed if there's wetlands in there. And if culverting is needed, does he just put in half of a culvert?

I don't think there's anything delineated. That floodplain note is because it was close enough to the Kenai River when they did the last from panel update that— I mean, he's like up in the top corner, but because it touched his property, they had to classify it. Um, XU really means undefined. Um, and in that general location, he's actually fairly above most of the drainage areas. So in theory, if there were ditching or something and he had to channel water, um, a Pioneer Road, he would have to do it at least under the part that he would develop.

Um, if it was to be fully developed, if the lot to the north subdivides and a full Rainbow Drive goes through, then at that time the culvert would be replaced and go all the way through under the entire road if it were developed. So he would just— so what we're asking him to do is develop half of the road, so he still wouldn't get city maintenance there because there's— it wouldn't be a full road? Correct. The Pioneer Road does not get maintained. Thank you.

Kevin, could I add on that too? The, the sections on Misty Haven and Rainbow coming into this are at lower standards than what we'd be putting in even for the Pioneer Road. So even the existing drives are worse off than what's being required. So you'd have a really poor section of driveway and then a really nice section of driveway, but accessing from either side still wouldn't even be maintained to get to that nice portion, Pioneer Road.

What's the city width of Pioneer Road? I'll double-check. It's either 10 or 12 feet. I would have to double-check the manual. Um, but it's only— it essentially is a drive.

It's only the one lane because, um, currently as it stands now, uh, to the north, Rainbow Drive does not exist. It has— it's, it's in a patent, and it will be if it's ever subdivided. But if until that government lot to the north is subdivided, there is no full right-of-way. So we couldn't expect them to build an entire city street on his half of the right-of-way, um, because it would never get built if, if the subdividers to the north ever were to develop their land. So that's why the Pioneer Road is an option when we put it in, because we understand some of the times it's going to take a while for some of the more, um, I'm going to say rural, but the more off, off the maintained, maintained system, you know, until those get fully developed.

We understand that it's, it's unfair to ask them to do, um, a full road. So that's why it wouldn't be maintained, but it would be access, um, and would kind of initiate as it grows. So I guess for clarification, that seems like it's more than just a vacate, right? Why is it just— it's— this seems like we've looped a lot of stuff into one. Um, I see a vacate where we can we're vacating one, but then we're also talking about requiring a road on a second portion for access.

I guess my, my, my question on this was, you've started building, it sounds like. Did you have a building permit when you started? So the city granted a building permit before they granted access to the building? So they did have access because he's owner. He acts— he can access through Rainbow Drive as it exists now.

Because his— so where Glacier Street was, um, was right between his unsubdivided government lot, which is where the new construction is happening, and his existing property that, um, is to the west. And that had access, so he had access to his property, um, reasonable access by our definition. You would get to his property down Rainbow. I wish—. Yeah, going to Lawton to High Bush to Rainbow.

Glacier was not in a patent. Glacier was dedicated when they subdivided the 3 lots to the south of this gentleman's land. So when he brought— he did bring a replat earlier this year that we had sent back through. In the interim, when we approved that, like 10 days later, the road standards took effect. So it was just in that nick of time as when we took our action.

So what we did was by code then.

Now with the new road design standards, it kind of did, because we didn't have a definition of what a pioneer road was. But when it got to the borough and the public noticing happened, because for Platts we don't send out the public notice, the borough does, it's their— they're the ones taking action. Um, the gentleman to the south was like, hey, I don't need Glacier Street either, because it used to go all the way to Rainbow. And so they're like, let's get rid of it. So that's why it's coming back again with getting rid of Glacier, because they were going to merge all three of those separate lots back into one lot.

Should a new owner ever want to resubdivide, they could, but they would have to give full access to those lots somehow out of the land they, they have. But as it stands now, they did not need Glacier, and it was only half of Glacier, it's only the west 30 feet, so it wasn't even a full right-of-way. So that's why they're asking to get rid of the glacier, um, to get rid of all that just so they can use the lot without having a platted road through it. Um, Rainbow and Misty Haven were dedicated— they were in the federal patent, um, specified. So whenever an unsubdivided government lot, um, if it's just sitting there in the patent, they're there, they're ready to go.

But as soon as you subdivide, you have to dedicate them. Um, what the exception is, is yes, he's going to dedicate him, he has to by the federal patent, but he is asking for the exception, um, stating that, um, where they're at, you know, how do they meet up or don't, or lack thereof, meeting up with the rest of the road system, um, and to what benefit of the community. Um, staff finds that, you know, as subdivisions go through, you know, if they don't get built at the subdivision when the subdivision goes in, when do they get built? But we also recognize that there are some peculiarities for this section because like the other half of Misty Haven, it's already been subdivided, already been platted, um, not constructed, and we're asking to construct the other side of Misty Haven, um, but that the exception— that's why we asked Staff did ask the commission to definitely review that, um, and I can read it again or I can tell you what page it's on, um, that exception, because there may be, um, let me get the definition right so I don't misspeak, uh, real difficulty, substantial hardship, or injustice. Um, if the commission finds that one of those, you know, fits the situation, then the body can make a recommendation to city council to allow for an exception.

To not require the development. The planning will still happen, it'll still be on the map, but it would not be constructed if the exception is granted by council. All right, quick clarification. So we're looking to make him have to develop Misty Haven or Rainbow? Which one are we trying to— we're making—.

We're saying only the portions on that are adjacent to his lot. So we wouldn't— we would not say—. So we're going to landlock a road in the middle of nowhere after the building permit was already granted just because we changed midway through our road standards? This makes no sense. Um, I am for definitely granting the re— the vacate of Glacier Street.

Um, I am not for making him have to put in these roads in any way. This should have been addressed before the building permit, I believe. And he's still going to access it, I would imagine, off High Bush where you've got the driveway already existing. Um, I would say it would be— what was the definition the last one you said? Unjust, or real difficulty, substantial hardship, or injustice.

I think we could probably go with all three of those. Um, I don't believe that there should be the findings to make him have to literally landlock a road when nobody else around them is going to have to pay for it either. So in my opinion, I think the vacate should go through, and I will be voting for the vacate. But I think we can— do we need to make an amendment of some sort to say that it's unjust or hardship for the road portion of this? Can I—.

Anybody else can speak up to that too. So looking at the borough map here, there are 5 2.5-acre lots. For me looking at this to the north of where we're talking about, I'm sure that's not north, but I'm just going to say to the north. Okay. Um, and there is no platted road for those 5 2.5-acre lots, but Misty Haven obviously would be what would go through.

May not happen in my lifetime that those lots are developed, but at some point those lots are going to be developed and Misty Haven will have to be put in, who would then divide up the cost of Misty Haven? I mean, and these are government lots, so they're not platted. Uh, they're, they're not subdivided. They're, they're platted, but they're not subdivided. But, um, they, um, they, um, so this, pursuant to KMC 1410-080-G1, if this body were to, um, go for the exception, the, the would have The plat would then have to contain a covenant that all of the lots in any subdivision as defined in this chapter, which is any preliminary plat, will be subject to assessment for any of the improvements required.

So building the roads when installed at a future time by the city. So if in one scenario, if we were to recommend— if the body were to recommend to council and council were then to also agree to allow the exception, um, this lot would be— this lot and every other lot as you're going up north, as those roads get developed, should the city at some point go in and say, well, we have to put in the other half of Misty Haven, we want to put in this half of Misty Haven, each property that touches whatever development would be essentially— I'm going to call it a special assessment district. It would follow many of those kind of same rules, but this having it as a plat note, you know, it doesn't get lost. So if it doesn't happen for 50 years, but in, you know, was that 2076, we decide Misty Haven needs to go through at that point because we don't have flying cars yet, then at that point each property along whatever, however long we build Misty Haven would then get assessed at that time. So it's, it's taking the onus off today and placing it for future development in the future, should it happen.

I guess clarification on that, it looks like those lots just— I don't know what direction, is it south, north? Don't they cross Lawton there? Aren't these two of those lots would have— these two bottom lots would have access on Lawton? And then am I going down? So here's the lot.

Not Lawton. What's— isn't there a road to the south of those? This is Misty Haven. All of these are landlocked, all 5 of these. But what road is north of— or what road is to the other— just adjacent with lot?

And what's on the other side? Is it Aliak the next one up? Uh, it's not the next one up. I think it's like, yeah, or something like that.

Because right now I see the lot that borders this gentleman's property would be accessed realistically High Bush to Rainbow, there's an X-section there and those little lots, and then you've got Misty Haven that goes to nowhere. I'm just curious if there was another road on the other side, they might be coming in from the other side too and never even have to develop that side. What, Cacamy or Coney? And is there— there's nothing coming off either one of those going that way, which is also not plotted in? No, um, Kakenu, Kiona, all those stop on one of the drainage.

Um, they're theoretically supposed to go on the other side of the large drainage to the west of High Bush. Um, and even High Bush itself does not go all the way through from Lawton up through, um, Aaliak and all that. They—. There is a section where it is not maintained. It's a few— I'll call them driveways, and that's being a very considerate name.

Dirt bike trails. Dirt bike trails. Been there, done that. Um, so right now there are no other major cross streets. Um, they're, they're planned.

They're, they're forecast to be there if it ever gets subdivided, but currently there's nothing, um, until you get way up to the north. So that's what I was just looking at, is there's other access points coming from the other side too, that if we're going hypothetical speaking, somebody could buy these lots and develop them from the other side and not even have to do that side, because this technically, these two lots, this gentleman's and the lot next to him have access off of Highbush and Rainbow. So you'd have to expand that lot a lot, almost as far or farther, depending on which way you go to access. Either way, they're still landlocked. And now, I guess I fall back on we approved a building permit with access, and then we changed it halfway through.

Sorry, just stick my hand in my mouth there for this one. The building permit— we were approved for the building permit before on the government-plotted lot without subdividing it. That was our intent originally. And then we decided to try to make— to combine these two lots after the fact. So there was nothing the city did wrong in that problem as far as we're concerned, as far as vacating that right away.

The reason for doing that had to do with, uh, actually hookups for natural gas that were also incredibly expensive because And start wanting to charge us to put a main in for the entire length of Rainbow, um, at like $18,000 worth of cost. So we were trying to get around that, which is why we went to try to do this replat. And really, rather than— it's technically a subdivision, but really we're, we're not subdividing, we're actually putting them on the one lot, right? Um, but yet that the Pioneer Road requirement started halfway through this process. So that's kind of where we're at with it.

But yeah, but the city was great with the permitting and whatnot. They didn't do anything I thought that shot us in the foot. So yeah, I see where you're coming from. I'm not saying the city did anything wrong. I'm just saying it was, it was kind of foot before the, you know, it happened halfway through the process, right?

You're trying to build and all of a sudden the law changes midway through your project and now you're like, oh, by the way, this could add a lot more. And I just, that's where I see the the wording wrong here. When they said unjust or—. Could I make one more comment? —A real difficulty or hardship.

One more comment too on accessing those lots in the middle there. I did make up a map. As far as the government lots go, they are all patented with right-of-ways that run along CACNU or parallel to CACNU. And, and if you look at it, you know, there's about, you know, each one of these would have 300 feet of right-of-way, your road access off of High Bush as well, at multiple locations. So by adding this in, and I'd be welcome to show you this if, if you got it, but, um, that it doesn't increase it by adding this road.

It doesn't increase anybody's proximity to a roadway. It just makes it the same to get in from there.

Um, just before we take action on this, is there any other comments from the other public that's already in the room on this matter? Seeing anybody, um, if we can take a 5 minutes, 5 minutes or less, we might come back sooner. I'm just going to figure out what the amendment would be to make this in writing so we can get a vote on this amendment. So if we would, I'm just going to take a 5-minute at ease, try to get the language right on this, and then we'll move forward.

All right, uh, we're going to come back out of at ease. I think we have an idea what we're going to do here. So I would like to make amendment to the current motion, so we'll be adding a, a fifth on this, 5th condition on this, and it will read: Pursuant to KMC 14.10.080, if approval of the requested exception recommendation to Kenai City Council, the plat must contain a covenant that all of the lots in any subdivision as defined in this chapter will be subject to assessment for any of the improvements required herein with installation of the future time by the city. So at a future time by the city. The findings— so I would need to get a second on that amendment.

Yes, I'll second that amendment. Or first, excuse me, I need to get a— and then a second. So can I get a recommendation as amended? Second for that. Sorry.

Okay, we're going to get through this. There's a lot of big words tonight. All right, so now that amendment's on the table, and I just wanted to read the reason for my findings on that. Um, would be following under KMC 1410.090, variations and exceptions, um, would fall under unusual conditions that the strict application of this requirement contained in this regulation would result in real difficulties, substantial hardship, or injustice to the applicant. And I think the way it switched halfway is where I'm getting this findings, um, in the middle of his process.

And by doing this amendment, it would mean that if that road were to ever get developed, now they would spread the burden of the cost to all of the landowners along that and not just have a little road in the middle of nowhere basically that he has to develop. So I think this is a fair resolution amendment. Um, any other comments or questions or concerns? It would actually be a road that would be used Yeah, not just a—. It would be a section that nobody can do a really nice four-wheeler path.

Yeah, would that be a road that would be requested by the residents or forced on them? It would, from—. Through the staff, if I'm clear, clear on this, it would be if somebody develops behind there and they need to put an actual road in at that time, then that's when that would be— it would be subject to everybody having to pay their part. They did similar stuff over in VIP not too long ago. If you would.

Um, through, through the chair, Commissioner Woodard, um, I wouldn't say the word force necessarily. It is still in the federal patent. It's kind of just sitting there just under the surface. So, um, really the second any of these unsubdivided government lots start coming online, um, and people are requesting to get access to them, they're going to have to develop something anyways to get to their lot. But if a new subdivision were to come in And the way it's worded, that, you know, if the city's like, all right, this road's going in, it's time to put in Misty Haven or Rainbow, whichever one, at that time they would do an assessment for however far it needs to go.

So it could go up only to the next parcel, but likely it could be, you know, if a collection of them sold and they make a bigger development back there, you know, another subdivision, that's when it would be assessed. So it's basically just waiting until that subdivision triggers the federal patent requirements. So they're sitting there. They're— anyone who's bought the land, if they've read the patents, that when they do all the title work, it's there just waiting to be enacted.

Okay, so we have a second on this amendment, and can we get a vote, or is there unanimous Any questions for this amendment? On the amendment? I'm sure we can open up the amendment to public comment. Would the petitioner have any questions or concerns about this amendment? Okay.

Anybody online? No. Okay. All right. So do we want a unanimous on— Request unanimous consent.

Thank you. Any objections on unanimous on the amendment?

Okay, seeing no— got a second and seeing no objections, uh, it is amended. So now we're back to the original main motion of PZ2026-30 as amended. Any questions or concerns or comments from the public? I guess first— nope. Okay, why do I always have the questions?

Um, So we've got two different subdivisions here that— and then along with the government lot, we're merging them all into one subdivision. Does that create a new name for Mica and the Parks, whatever the other subdivision is called? Uh, so the, the new name is the, um, where'd it go? I put it away. Um, you hoped we were done.

I thought we were done. It will become the Mica Subdivision Parks Replat. Um, which is a different one than just the regular Mica subdivision. So, and I know we don't deal with covenants, but does Mica subdivision have covenants, and does Park subdivision have covenants, and do they match? Um, and do we care?

Not that we have seen, and we wouldn't be able to enforce them as the city. Um, the word covenant in this regard that we just added to an amendment, um, is— would be formalized as a plat note if City Council does approve the exception. So It's less a— we say covenant in code, but in this case it means a flat note, which makes it binding.

Anybody else? I see somebody itching to— nothing? Okay. All right, let's go ahead and bring this one to a— as no other comments from the public, we'll go and bring this to a vote. Can I get a roll call please?

Commissioner Askin? I approve. Commissioner Ersley is absent. Commissioner Kraus? Yes.

Commissioner Fikes? Yes. Commissioner Woodard? Yes. Vice Chair Douthit?

Yes. And Chair Keeton is absent. You have 5 yes votes. Um, PC-2026-30 is approved as amended. Thank you, sir.

There are 15 days for an appeal on this, and it still has to go before Not on this one. Oh, I'm sorry, getting ahead of myself. Yep, just, just for clarification for you, it does still have to go to City Council. Now we're just recommending it as is. City Council makes the final decision on this, on, on the—.

Yeah.

Finally, we are now on to item E2, Resolution PZ-2026-31, recommendation the plat The primary plat of Ender's Subdivision 2027 replot be approved. I recommend that we approve PZ 2026-31. Thank you. Is there a second? Second.

Thank you. And Director Butner, can we have a staff report please? Thank you, Chair Dowsett. This one's much easier, I promise. A preliminary plat has been submitted for From Jason Schoelenberg on behalf of the property owner for a replat of Lot 1 and 2, Ender Subdivision, Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian, to create one parcel.

Kenai Municipal Code Chapter 14-10, Subdivision Regulation, states preliminary plats or replats must first be submitted to the city for review and provide recommendation to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission. The proposed replat meets the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet or 0.47 acres. For the rural residential zoning district. The size of the proposed lots is approximately 66,298 square feet, or 1.522 acres. City water and wastewater are available along the eastern boundary of proposed Lot 1A, adjacent to Highbush Lane, and are subject to the regulatory requirements of the City of Kenai Public Works permit.

Direct access to the proposed lots is provided via Highbush Lane, a maintained paved city road. If approved, proposed Lot 1A will retain the the 309 High Bush Lane address. The City of Kenai Public Works Department, Fire Marshal, and Building Official have reviewed the preliminary plat and have no comments. Therefore, staff finds that the— that an installation agreement is not required for the preliminary plat. Kenai Peninsula Borough River Center Manager Samantha Lopez commented with a recommendation to remove the graphic depiction of the habitat protection district.

This recommendation has been passed along to the applicant. Staff finds that the preliminary plat for a re-plat of Lot 1 and 2, Inter-Subdivision Township 6 North, Range 11 West, Section 34, Seward Meridian meets the following Title 14 of Kenai Municipal Code sections and aligns with the intent of Kenai Zoning Code. Pursuant to KMC 14-10-070 subdivision design standards, preliminary plat for re-plat subjected to the listed conditions provides utilities and access easements, provides a satisfactory and desirable building site, and the accessible water and wastewater systems are subject to the regulatory requirements of the City of Kenai Public Works Department. Pursuant to KMC 1410-080, minimum improvement required, the right-of-way within a proposed preliminary plat exists prior to this plat. The right-of-way is a continuation of an existing street and is determined acceptable access.

Therefore, an installation agreement is not required. Pursuant to KMC 1424-010, minimum lot requirements, preliminary plats meet city standards for minimum lot size, uh, with a proposed lot size of 1.522 acres. And pursuant to KMC 1424-010, 20 preliminary plat meets city standards for minimum lot width and depth and access utilities, meets compliance with the maximum lot coverage, maximum height, and setbacks will be reviewed during the building permit review. Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat for Ender Subdivision 2027 Replat meets the general standards of Kenai Municipal Code Chapter 1410, Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 1424, Development Requirements Table, and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Resolution PZ2027-2027. 2026-31 For a re-plat of Lot 1 and 2 in their subdivision, Township 5 North, Range 11 West, Section 1, Seward Meridian to the Kenai Peninsula Borough, subject to the following conditions: that further development of the property will conform to all federal, state of Alaska, and local regulations.

Thank you for that staff report. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to the resolution on their table, which is 2026-31?

Seeing no one, is there anybody online? Nobody online. All righty. Anybody from the commission that would like to speak on this?

Through the chair, it seems pretty straightforward. I agree with the staff's report and findings, and so therefore I'll be approving it. Thank you for that. And I too think this is a pretty straightforward making just a little bit bigger lot for somebody. And I too will be agreeing with the findings on this and for this if we can.

Uh, anybody like to do a unanimous consent request? I would like to request a unanimous consent on this. Second. And seeing no objections, uh, it passes unanimously.

Moving on.

All right, this brings us on to public hearings. The first public hearing before us tonight is Resolution PZ-2026-28, granting the application for a variance permit to build into the 10-foot setback along the north side of Parcel 04510014, located at 503 Candlelight Drive. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ-2026-28? Move to approve, uh, PZ-2026-28. Thank you, sir.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you. And Director Butner, can we have a staff report, please? Thank you, Chair Dawson.

Uh, the applicant is requesting a variance permit to build 5 feet into the Side— side yard setback along the north property line. The subject property is zoned suburban residential, and the structure being built is consistent with the definition of split-level structure, which requires a 10-foot setback. The proposed building is a 24-foot by 32-foot detached shop, which will serve the existing single-family residence and provide enclosed storage and a workspace, and will replace the existing greenhouse and shed that currently occupy the space. This is at 503 Candlelight Drive, which is Lot 3, Yuregi Subdivision. On the east side of town.

Pursuant to KMC 1421-80A, the intent of variance permit is to provide relief to the development requirements of KMC 1420 when the literal enforcement would deprive a property owner of the reasonable use of his or her real property. Prior to granting a variance permit, the commission shall find that all the conditions have been met as set forth in 1421-80C, variance permit review criteria. Criteria 1, special conditions or circumstances are present which are peculiar to the land or structures involved, which are not applicable to all— to other lands or structures in the same land use or zoning district. As stated by the findings, include that, as stated by the applicants, the property's existing residence driveway access and overall site layout limit the practical locations available for a detached shop. The requested location will minimize the impact of existing developments while allowing construction of a reasonably sized accessory building that complements residential use of the property.

Criteria 2: The special conditions, circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant, and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute a pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. Findings: That the applicant based on— based the request off the property's existing configuration and site constraints rather than financial considerations. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property while accommodating the existing residents' access and available building area. Criteria 3: The granting of the variance should not authorize a use that is not a permitted principal use in the zoning district in which the property is located. The current structures on site are following zoning code, and the proposed building would remain compliant always except regarding the side yard setback.

The granting of the permit would simply allow for the upgraded split-level structure to be constructed in place of the current existing single-story accessory structures that only require a 5-foot setback. The footprint of the lot would not be changing in any way, as the current structure being replaced is in the same location with a 5-foot setback. Criteria 4, the granting of a variance shall be the minimum variance that will provide for the reasonable use of land and/or structure. The requested 5-foot setback variance is the minimum amount necessary to construct the proposed structure in the most practical location while maintaining the functionality of the property as it stands and preserving as much of the setback as possible. Criteria 5, granting of a variance shall not be based upon other nonconforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district.

Applicant states that the request for the variance is based solely on the current physical characteristics and layout of the parcel is not based on the existence of any nearby nonconforming structures, land uses. The current greenhouse and accessory structure are compliant, as only a 5-foot setback is required for a smaller single-story structure. The proposed design, as shown in the attached site plan, shows the front of the structure is 12 feet tall, conducive of a single story, while the rear of the structure with a sloped roof increases to a height of 17 feet, which zoning code would consider a split-level structure. Applicant is requesting relief to allow reasonable use of the property while remaining consistent with the current footprint and intent of the zoning regulations. Pursuant to KMC 142280, notices of the public hearing for the variance permit were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject property.

City staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion on September 11th, 2026. Property owner submitted an affidavit opposing, verifying a sign was placed on parcel with information on the public hearing for the variance permit request. No public comment has been received at the time of this report, and there are no stated objections to the variance permit. Staff recommendation: staff finds the proposed variance meets the criteria for issuance of variance permit as set forth in Kenai Municipal Code 1421-ADC. Hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance permit subject to the following conditions: applicant must comply with all federal, state, Alaska, and local regulations.

Applicant must obtain applicable permits and file all required landscape and site plans prior to beginning construction.

Thank you, sir. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to this resolution before us, which is PZ2026-28?

Please state your name. You have 3 minutes and a rough address.

Uh, Jesse Updike, 503 Candlelight. I filed the variance. I think the staff report summed it up quite well. I just wanted to come up and give you folks any questions that you may have for me an opportunity to ask. Through the chair, I was looking at your design and you have a slope and it looks like to the north— is that the business, the commercial businesses to your north?

Towards the north is the commercial business, yes. And the slope would, uh, go to the back of the property, to the back of the property, to the to the west. So that 17-foot rise, that wouldn't have any roofline impacts, no weather conditions on that commercial property? No, whatsoever. The higher roofline would be facing, uh, okay, thank you.

And I don't know if this would be probably through staff, so just for clarification, if this building was 12 feet all the way across This variance would be null and void, correct? Yeah. Yes, it was 12 feet across. It would be a single story and would actually meet all setbacks. The only reason is because the 17 makes it a— anything above 12 story in our code is considered above one story.

Thank you for the clarification on that. One quick follow-up: there's no impact with any kind of, uh, electrical utilities cable in the area? No, the incoming power to the property comes along the north boundary line. The shop setback will be behind that and we won't affect it. I assume that there was notice on the property.

You haven't heard any impact from the commercial property owners? I actually spoke to them Saturday. They had the notice in the mail and they came over to talk to me about it so that they could understand exactly what was happening. They had no objections. Okay, thanks.

All right, I've got what I needed. Anybody else? Any other Questions, concerns? Thank you, sir. Uh, coming back for this body, is there any questions or concerns?

I had one quick question for staff. You had mentioned a landscaping site plan. This is a residential property.

It would be part of the building permit process, so it just documents exactly where everything's going once everything's finalized, but just verifies that It stays in the 5-foot setback. It just kind of our checks and balance. Like, we say you can do it. What is the ultimate? Once it's— once the actual building plans are approved, does it meet the intent of this?

You know, so it didn't shift 5 inches one way or the other. So it's, um, it's already a part of the actual process. Oh, I misunderstood. So when I heard you say the landscaping plan, he doesn't have to throw 3 trees out, 2 in the front, 2 in the back kind of thing, and a rose bush, or what are you saying? No.

Single family generally doesn't have to do a site plan, but you do have to do like a formal landscape site plan. But when you do a building permit, you do have to give a very rough site plan of here's where everything's going. So we're not gonna have any additional— yeah, you have to plant 4 trees and a rose bush, nothing like that. You had threw that out there, so I was just like, do you have something for us? No, it's— we combine those 2 different plans into 1 document.

I just like to say that, you know, thank you for bringing this up. This is a classic example, I think, of, you know, not everything can be black and white. This is just one of those designs that, you know, just 4 or 5 feet can make all the difference. There's not really a second story here. If you had just made a flat roof, we wouldn't even be here.

I'm totally— I'll be voting for this just based on this is just one of those small variances. I think this is why this process exists. I don't see it being impeding the neighbors around. It aren't against it at all. There's nobody talking up against this.

I see this as being a positive, and it looks like a nice building. You did obviously really nice engineered plans, so you're not just throwing something hodgepodge together, and you're really going through the process properly. So I'm— I'll be for this. Thank you. Anybody else?

Alrighty, so seeing no one else wishing to comment or the commissioners Uh, let's go ahead and do a roll call, please.

Commissioner Ursula is absent. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. Commissioner Fikes? Yes.

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

Commissioner Askin? Yes. You have 5 yes votes. Uh, Resolution PZ2026-28 is approved. All righty, we're now on to F2, Resolution PZ-2026-29, granting a conditional use permit, uh, for operation of a non-commercial recreational vehicle park and campground at 1518 Tundra Rose Lane.

Is there a motion for approval of Resolution PZ-2026-29?

Motion to approve PZ2026-29. Second.

Second. Thank you. And Director Buechner, can we have a staff report, please? Thank you, Chair Dossett. All right, the applicant is in the process of purchasing the property contingent on approval of conditional use permit to operate a family recreational or non-commercial recreational vehicle park and campground on the 1.16-acre lot.

The applicant plans to utilize property seasonally to temporary house family during the summer season. Pursuant to land use table in KMC 1422-010, a conditional use permit is required to operate a recreational vehicle or campground in the rural residential zone. And down to analysis, uh, pursuant to KMC 1420-150A, the intent of a conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the design principle uses and specific 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 1420.150 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.

The RRR zone is intended to provide for low-density residential development in outlying and rural areas in a form which creates a stable and attractive residential environment. The specific intent in establishing this zone is: 1, to separate residential structures to an extent which will, A, preserve the rural open quality of the environment; B, prevent health hazards in areas not served by public water and sewer; and 2, to prohibit uses which would, A, violate the residential character of the environment; and B, generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. The property has riverfront access and will be used used only by the applicant and their family in temporary seasonal capacity, which is allowable by conditional use in this location. The applicant does not intend to use this property outside of their immediate and extended family and does not forecast large increases in traffic. Staff finds that the proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district due to a lack of similar development in the surrounding area.

The current development in the surrounding neighborhood is primarily single-family dwellings. The development of an RV park campground would bring additional traffic into the neighborhood. The proposed use would therefore not be congruent with the residential character of the environment because it would be generating heavier volumes of traffic from the parcel comparatively when all RV or tent sites are used. Using the Institute of Traffic Engineering's Trip Generation Manual, a single-family dwelling on average generates 5 round trips per day. This is based on the family of 4 where both adults are employed and 2 children are in school.

Using this model and extrapolating this to each allowable site on the parcel, assuming 5 sites total. This would create 25 round trips per day from this parcel, which is more than double the number of trips generated along Tundra Rose Lane as currently developed, which is approximately 20 per day using the model. Criteria 2: The economic and non-economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. The neighborhoods within a quarter mile of this parcel are mixed between long-term residents and short-term rentals. Some of the properties in the area cater to seasonal residents and guests but those are generally located in single-family dwelling units.

A number of parcels to the north consist of surface extraction pits. To the east is a city-owned park that is a popular fishing destination, and to the west are private residences. Access to Cunningham Park is not directly accessible from Tundra Rose Lane. Motorists must access the park from Beaver Loop Road, while pedestrians or bicyclists could use a multi-purpose trail adjacent to Beaver Loop Road. A mobile home park is located about a half mile to the east, and lodges exist along Engler Drive over a mile to the east of subject parcel, but predominantly the neighborhood is low-density single-family residential.

Staff finds that the economic, non-economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood would not be significantly impaired by granting the conditional use permit. So the current development in the surrounding neighborhood is primarily those single-family dwellings. Um, the existing gravel pits already introduce land use that could affect those economic and non-economic values. Criteria 3: Proposed use is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. The land use plan from the 2016 comprehensive plan identifies the subject property with the low density residential land use classification.

LDR classification, as stated in comprehensive plan, is often because of location or quite poor site conditions and is intended for large lot single family low density residential development. Area will typically be constructed to rural street standards and sidewalks will not be typically included in the subdivision design. Rural residential becomes LDR to avoid confusion with zoning category. Um, potential relevant goals that this would potentially meet would be goal 3, developing land use strategies to implement forward-looking approach to community growth and development. Um, specifically objective value to promote the infill of existing improved subdivision lots.

Staff finds the proposed use is not in harmony with comprehensive plans as recreational vehicle park and campground would not be comparable to the current low-density single-family dwellings in the surrounding area. Cunningham Park, which the city owned and maintained, is for day use only with no overnight camping authorized. Introduction of recreational vehicle park and campground is not aligned with the low-density residential land use, which calls for large lot single-family residential development, which is the predominant use in the area. Criteria 4: Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. As stated by the applicant, a plan has, has been established with Homer Electric to bring power to the lot.

Recreational vehicles primarily used on lot until water and septic can be installed. Recreational vehicles are self-sustaining with potable water and septic containment. Once well and septic can be installed on site, small cabins may be erected on site to be connected to those services to adequately address sanitation concerns. Anytime tent camping may occur, a portable outhouse will be brought in for the time frame that tents are present. Routine trash service will be secured anytime the family is residing.

Tundra Rose Lane is accessed via the city-maintained Beaver Loop Road, and there's a snow storage plan in place for the potential of winter use cabins down the road. Staff finds that the proposed sanitation plans will adequately serve the proposed use and have incorporated these plans into the conditions of the permit. Criteria 5: Proposed use will not be harmful to public safety, health, or welfare. Applicant states that the conditional use would be solely for outdoor recreation. They will have clearly defined policies in place, would not permit any activities that will be harmful to public safety, health, or welfare.

Recreational vehicles and any po— Portable outhouse accommodations will be kept in a safe distance from the river and will have routine septic pumping and maintenance during the duration of any use. Staff finds that the sanitation facilities outlined in criteria 4, combined with reasonable use of the land as campground or RV park, would not be harmful to the public safety, health, or welfare. Criteria 6: Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions. These may include, but are limited to, measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design, operation of the use, and other similar aspects related to the proposed use. Conditional use permits are subject to the following standards, uh, per KMC 1420-245: recreational vehicle parks are not to become a nuisance to surrounding properties, recreational vehicles shall control dust, shield lighting from other properties, prohibit loud noises, and maintain a clean, orderly appearance free of refuse.

The applicant states the intention to keep as much of the natural vegetation as possible that borders the lot to help minimize any noise and disruption during site development. Garver will be brought on site to eliminate dust and has submitted a list of rules and regulations that will be put in place to help maintain a respectful atmosphere among neighbors and themselves. Staff recommends submission of a detailed landscape site plan to be submitted prior to any construction or land clearing to ensure all landscaping requirements are met and follow the Kenai Peninsula Borough Habitat Protection District standards for development near nadir water bodies. Pursuant to KMC 1420-280, Notice 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 the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion.

City staff submitted an affidavit opposing, verifying a sign was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the conditional use permit request. No public comment, um, at the time of this report when it was published had been received, um, but with the laydown, it has been included in the packet. Staff recommendation: staff finds that the proposed conditional use permit for the lack of non-commercial— for a non-commercial recreational vehicle park and campground property described as Lot 5, Block 1, Wild Rose subdivision does not meet all required for issuance of conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E1 through E6 of Kenan Municipal Code 142150, and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to approve Resolution PZ-2026-29. For the conditional use permit. If the commission does adopt the resolution, staff proposed the following conditions.

1, Any development of 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, Applicable building permits will be obtained prior to the construction of any permanent structures erected on site. 3, Upon request, the applicant or applicant's representative shall meet with city staff for an on-site inspection. 4, If there's an expansion or change of the use for the above-described property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 14-2150. Pursuant to 13-10-060, sanitary facilities will be provided by the property owner who allows camping on the property and will be adequate for the number of people camping and be within reasonable distance.

KMC 13-10-060 states a recreational vehicle, motorhome, or camper with adequate self-contained sanitary facilities will be considered to have adequate sanitary facilities. 6, Property will maintain a clean and orderly appearance free from refuse. 7, Permit holder will submit a yearly report between October 1st and December 31st to the Planning and Zoning Department that includes summary of on-site activity. 8, Property will be limited to a total of 5 sites for recreational vehicles and/or tent camping. Approval of a detailed landscape site plan must be obtained prior to any construction or land clearing.

Intend to meet the definition of non-commercial, there shall be no paying guests.

All righty, thank you, sir. Uh, is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to the resolution before us, PZ2026-29?

All righty, please come up, state your name and rough address, and you have 3 minutes.

Make sure to hit the button. There you go. There we go. Yep. Um, my name is Nicole Smith.

This is my husband David. Public speaking is not my strong suit. Um, we have applied for the conditional use permit for 1518 Tundra Rose Lane as a non-commercial recreational vehicle park and campground. I know that sounds like a lot, and it's probably not the right description. But what we're really looking to create is a beautiful space for our family to enjoy the river and community of Kenai that we have been enjoying for years.

As lifelong Alaskans and empty nesters, we have owned property here on the peninsula for many years since our youngest moved away to college. Recently, she and her family have moved back to Alaska, and our son is also planning on starting a family soon. This has made us realize that we have simply outgrown our tiny little lot and single room cabin if we are to share the Kenai with them as a family. We have reviewed the staff report and we thank everyone who took their time to research and create it. I hope I can ease your reservations about our plan.

In regards to criteria 1 and traffic concerns, since 1518 is the first lot on Tundra Rose Lane, once our family exits Beaver Loop Road, it will be the first driveway and our final destination. Our family would not be passing by any other residents or lots to arrive at our property. Thus, no additional traffic flow would be placed on the road or current residents. Also, this property will be used on a seasonal basis, so it will only be accessed during the time of year when the peninsula sees a larger number of visitors and traffic as a whole. The property itself will be self-sufficient for our stay and will not require a lot of coming and going.

Cooking, sanitation, laundry facilities, and outdoor recreation that we seek will already be present on the lot. In the event we do need to leave the property, we will make a large effort to carpool to limit the amount of vehicles. It has been stated that the surrounding area does have a large number of single-family dwellings. However, they are all clearly used for the same outdoor recreation that we intend to use our lot for. The neighbor directly to the west has stairs constructed to the river, as well as his boat moored in the river during the summer months.

And 1510 Tundra Rose Lane has been approved for short-term rentals, which one can assume on a river lot will be bringing visitors who intend to fish and participate in outdoor recreation. To address criteria number 3 and goal number 3, I do believe we're still in harmony with the comprehensive plan. In addition to items listed in Attachment 1 in our application and as shown on our site plan, we do intend to put a permanent structure on the property at some point for us to enjoy for the entire summer during our retirement. But in the meantime, we want to be able to enjoy the river and the city of Kenai with our family, which will also bring additional growth and revenue to the city. It does also appear that the owners of 1510 Tundra Rose Lane were residing in an RV this summer while they were building their permanent structure, which is essentially what we would intend to do.

My husband and I have reviewed all 10 conditions recommended in the staff report and have no issues abiding by any of them. Thank you. Sorry, she's a crier. I'm a big crier, and public speaking is not for me. Uh, thank you for those comments.

Did you have comments too, sir, or just— just, just there for moral support? Okay. Does the commissioners have any comments or questions for the individual?

I'm just looking down the line here. Okay, one thing on the last section there, you did mention a permanent structure. It is— and correct me, I'm pretty sure on this one— you may reside in your RV for up to 1 year on the lot if you have a current and active building permit, but I might be off just a little bit on that. Go ahead. Um, while you have an active, an active building permit, there's an 80, 180-day window, um, basically the summer, April to the end of September.

Um, so they, you can stay in RV if there's an active building permit on site. Um, building permits, I believe, are for up to 2 years, could get an extension with CAWS. So that it is allowable for certain times of year. It's— we're rapidly ending that window, but just for clarification on the—. There might have been somebody living there in an RV.

So, and through staff, please correct me on this, what is the current regulation on number of RVs and length of stay on a residential lot? Um, to be considered an RV park, it's 2, um, 2 or more Um, and we consider long-term if it's, um, set up— it's 30 days or more, but also if it's been skirted, um, it looks like it's quasi-permanent at that point as what we define. But an RV park is 2 or more RVs in a campground, which was recently enacted as 3 or more tents. Um, so in the staff report, we did the bare minimum for an RV and the bare minimum for a campground, um, just to set a baseline, just because we didn't have a firm idea of what the upper limit was.

When we did the application, we kind of went like long-term worst-case scenario, or, you know, not worst-case scenario, but long-term, like what we may, you know, want to do eventually. And maybe we should have kept it a little bit more narrow because really all we're trying to do is put in a driveway and a gravel pad so that we can park some motorhomes there by the river.

Um, are you planning on installing a well and septic right away, putting in some utilities there? Um, we've already spoken with Homer Electric about bringing electric to the property, and our goal in the spring is yes, to put in a well and a septic. Um, I've researched this neighborhood a little bit just because we conditional use permit that we issued there as well. So I'm a little familiar with it. I'm unable to find any covenants and restrictions that the neighborhood has put into place restricting RV use.

So, will your RVs be there permanently for the year, or come and go as the season progresses? Um, ours will probably be there for the season, um, and then be put away for the season, and then, um, our children would probably come down you know, for the weekends would be the goal, would be the kind of the plan. So, okay, but for the— our, our main one would be put away for the season.

I don't have any objection to this conditional use permit, so thank you. So would you be storing them there as well then?

Um, we didn't have— we don't have a set plan for that yet. I don't believe, um, right away we would be able to, if just bringing in the driveway and the gravel pad for them to set, so we would probably need to store them at a local facility or take them back to Wasilla with us at that time. Um, but we didn't— we don't have a set storage plan for it yet. And then back to staff, so this is not a commercial entity, this is just a person trying to utilize their own lot for their extended family. Is that the way I'm understanding this?

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Fikes, through the chair. Yes, that's how it was conveyed to us, that it was not going to have a Um, our definition of a commercial campground is anytime someone charges a fee. So, um, non-commercial is the best way for us to define it, um, because we won't be on-site policing. Um, I'll take the applicant at their word it would just be family, but I— since we can't police that, that's why we just went with the definition of non-commercial. So this is to change the zoning?

No, this is a resolution for a commercial This would, this would allow for an RV campground, RV park, which is one conditional use, and a campground. So if they did have tents, it kind of covers both bases. If there's— if let's say their children come down, they don't stay in an RV, they stay in tents. So it is, it is CUP, but it's two different, um, land uses. On the land use table, it's covering two of them because Um, they wanted to cover their bases because if they have a second RV, now it's an RV park.

But if they have their RV—. And then how many permanent structures are you allowed within the 1-acre property? Um, so if you decide to throw up a dry cabin—. We don't allow dry cabins in the city. Um, they do have to meet— there are certain minimum standards.

You can have a tiny home, which is different, but, um, lot coverage in rural residential is 30%. Um, rural residential in theory, by code, you can have 2 of them, 2 single-family dwellings, if you wanted, as long as you still don't cover 30%, because some—. And you could then still satisfy the RV parking, or once you put those structures in, does that take away from your allotment for RV parking? No, permanent structure would not take away, but even if you do have a home and you bring 2 RVs onto your property, that does constitute a RV park if you're using them. Like, if you're just storing them on your property, that's a different story.

Um, but if you— let's say I have a house somewhere else in Kenai and I allow people to bring 2 campers and park them behind my house, that technically constitutes an RV park and would need a conditional use permit if they're staying in the RV. If they're staying in the RV, they're not staying in my house longer than 7 days. Um, RVs, I believe, is up to 30 days.

Campground— the provisions for the campground were stripped out, so it's just 3 tents, um, I believe. I believe that's the one. I think you guys could have a seat. If you have any questions, we can call you back up. I think there might be some more people here, landowners and general areas in this area, that would like to speak.

So if we have— is there anybody else would like to speak to this matter?

Is there anybody online? Yes, yes, yes, yes, I'm online. Uh, Ken Corbett, 1510. Okay, uh, can you give us just— we'll get these.

Okay, if he's in Georgia, let's get him real quick and then we'll get back to you guys. So if we would go online.

Oh, he just disappeared. Well, if he comes back up, we'll address him now since he's used— we'll wait for him. I must hit the wrong button there. So if you would, if you want, take your 3 minutes, and you can have 3 minutes total or each. Just let us know how you're going to do that, and make sure to hit the red button and state your address.

Ron and Ginger Pitts, we are 1514 Tundra Rose. We're in the lot next to the 1518 Who's requesting the conditional request? We're concerned about this RV tent campground.

It's— is it appropriate for this particular property in this neighborhood? When we chose to live here, we did so understanding the area was intended for residential character. New homes, very valuable homes, have been added and make this a very desirable neighborhood. An RV campground is very, very different use from a single-family home. So instead of one household living on a residential property, the campground would bring multiple occupants, overnight guests in the neighborhood.

That would mean a significant different level of vehicle traffic, RVs, tow vehicles, visitors, outdoor activity, lighting, noise, trash, general activity. We believe those differences matter when considering, considering whether this proposed use truly fits with the homes and families that are already here. Um, we're concerned about the access Tundra Rose, um, you know, it's unpaved, unmaintained, and we've been taking care of the road, so it easily, uh, deteriorates. And so we're having to work on that all the time. Also, we do not believe, uh, Cunningham Park should be used as a justification for this proposal.

The city identifies the park as a public recreation fishing, but overnight camping is prohibited and parking is limited, so it can't be compared.

As homeowners, we believe the city's adopted land use plan should mean something to the people who live there. Residents who choose to live in a low-density residential neighborhood should be able to have some confidence that it will remain that way. Finally, we support staff's finding that the proposed RV park and campground is not in harmony with the city's comprehensive plan. We respectfully ask the commission to consider the existing character of this neighborhood and the impact, impact of this proposal it could have on the people who live there.

The plan they drove— drew out Several RVs, tents, future cabins. It looks like an RV park to me.

Did you see the plan? Thank you, ma'am. Uh, that was 3 minutes. If you'd like to have another 3 minutes, you're welcome to, sir. Please state your name.

I'm just Ron Pitts. Okay. Did you see the plan that they drew up? Yes, yes, sir, we have the plan in here. So then you know.

Thank you. Uh, is there a gentleman online again?

Yes, I'm back. Yes, I'm back. If you'd like to speak, state your name and address, and you have 3 minutes. My name is, uh, Ken Corbett, 1510 Tundra Rose. Uh, I'd like to thank for the opportunity to speak.

Uh, I submitted a letter prior to receiving this, uh, package. Uh, I actually received it from Mr. and Mrs. Pitts who just spoke. Uh, I'm yet to receive the official notice from the city, just, just for your information. Uh, I would like to make a few comments after receiving, uh, this application and having the time to look at it. Uh, number one, on the, on the criteria and the findings, I, I agree with the staff.

There's lack of anything, uh, similar in the surrounding area. The additional traffic and occupants that, that it can accommodate and allow will be 5 times what is typical on a residential lot, which is basically just multiplying a lot times 5. Uh, on number 2, uh, on criteria, the economic and non-economic value. I know that the staff has criteria that they have to go by, you know, this might— this, fill in the blank or whatever. But I disagree with the staff's finding on this.

First off, to the— well, to the south of this area is the river, of course. Then to the north of this area is the gravel pit. Which this particular area, uh, Tundra Rose, the gravel pit, the access to the gravel pit is a lot further east. It has a good buffer in front of Tundra Rose, so it's— I mean, we have moose that walk through the yard almost daily, so it's, it's secluded from the gravel pit per se. Uh, item number 3, or, uh, the— I'm sorry, the gravel pit to the north.

Then to the west of us there is a nice residential neighborhood. Uh, you have Barbera and Cunningham, uh, streets down there. Both have, have nice modern, uh, homes in them. Uh, to the east of us, the, the parcels to the east, there are, are some places that are rental places, and those, I'm assuming, just looking at them, were, were built prior to the KMC being brought in. And a lot of these places, I think that the municipal code is probably why it was designed.

Then item number 4, or number 3, I agree with that it is not in harmony. A campground just does not fit. And with this, with this area within, within a, a residential subdivision. And if you could just wrap up your thoughts here real quick, sir. Okay, uh, as far as public, public service facilities, according to the US EPA, a person uses 82 gallons of water per day.

22% Of those goes to washing clothes, which they can wash those elsewhere. Another 20% goes to waste, uh, or whatever. 18— There's— so that leaves 34 gallons per day that a person uses. A RV, a large RV, holds about 90 gallons. So if you have 4 people there, you're going to eat up that water in one day.

So that's adding to trips in and out with an RV for water. Then when you have tent camping on site, you're gonna have to have showers, portable outhouse. How big is this gonna be in addition to adding RVs in the campground? So I mean, it could be just a—. Sir, we're well beyond 3 minutes, sir.

I'm gonna have to— kind of have you cut it off there. Um, we kind of get, get your gist there, but we are up to the 3 minutes there. If commissioners have questions, they're, they're welcome to ask you, and that give you more time to be able to answer questions. I'm going to pause you there and then open— ask commissioners if they have any questions for you. Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay, thank you.

I'm seeing no questions at this time, sir. Um, we have heard up to that comment there. I'm going to open up the floor to anybody else that may have comments or concerns. Any other residents in the room that would like to speak? Mr.

Garcia. Yep, my name's Chris Garcia. I live at 2528 Beaver Loop Road. And calling this a recreational park or campground's a bit odd, actually, for From what I can gather listening to the folks, they don't even actually plan on putting in sewer and water for the motorhomes. They're gonna put a gravel pad in and then just park 'em.

But they will have their sewer and water available on the site.

And we've got another place right down at the end of Beaver Loop that used to be a house. It's now basically used for parking motorhomes whenever they're there in the summer. And I don't think they really bother anybody. I've seen— normally there's usually 1 or 2, and I've seen 4 and 5 in there. I don't think they heard a thing.

It's always neat and clean. They come and go. And like I say, it sounds like to me that this really isn't going to hurt anybody, especially if they're basically using it for summertime.

So that's all I got to say, really. Thank you. Is there any— anybody else who would like to speak to this resolution before us? Nobody online? Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the commission for comments, concerns, questions.

One more person. All righty, uh, you can— you step up here real quick, state your name for the record and an address. 3 Minutes.

My name is Barbara Lichner Brew, and I'm a caretaker at 1506 Tender Rose Lane for the last 8, 9 years. I also own property on Barabara 1509 Barabara Drive. And I don't really think I can add any more or say it better than what has been said here by Ginger and Ron and some of the other concerns. I personally, myself, I don't agree with that. I hope that it doesn't pass.

Um, maybe build something a little bit different, but an RV park and a tent park I think is completely I don't know, it just seems strange to have that in a residential area like that. And for me, I just kind of see a snowball effect where we're going to be affected by it in the long run. So I'm hoping that it won't pass. That's my own personal feelings on it, in my opinion. Thanks.

Thank you.

Anybody else before we go back to the commission?

Seeing no other comments, we'll come back to the commission for comments, concerns, questions.

For staff, if we pass this to allow them to park on their own property and be able to utilize it, do they have to come back to us if they decide to go something more commercial or can that just happen because we have given them the CUP?

Based on the conditions set, um, that were suggested, um, I think that that would constitute a change of use and would bring them— have to bring them back before the body if it were to morph into something other than what is presented tonight.

It would not, however, if they want to put a permanent structure on such a single-family house, it wouldn't— that would not necessarily have to come back to body. That would just be an addition to their property.

Um, I, I, after hearing the testimony and the staff report, I, I don't agree with it being inharmonious with the comprehensive plan or with the character as testified in the neighborhood. I, I don't see where a 1-acre lot smack dab between other single-family homes is going to be the best possible use. I do sympathize with somebody wanting to use their land, but I think that option would be what the staff had suggested, where somebody wants to develop it and they have 180 days to stay in their RV as they develop it. That would be an example of what may be impactful to the single-family, but to actually come in and wedge a campground in the middle of it. I, I, I don't agree with that.

Thank you. Um, I guess I'll go and weigh in. So I too, uh, don't— I agree with the staff report of it being non-conforming to this. Um, I agree with the staff report to not— asking to not approve this. Um, some of the questions and concerns that I have is, yes, I don't think it necessarily blends in with the current surroundings.

You got people building large homes on the river. To slap an RV park in the middle of there, it, it doesn't seem like it meets the criteria, the surrounding area and the harmony of it. You've got the park that specifically the city already labeled as a non-overnight campground, um, as far as Cunningham Park goes right there. If there was going to be a permanent structure put up with a couple RVs on occasion visiting or hanging out, that's kind of different than what's been proposed here. A large gravel pad with multiple RVs, maybe some tents, isn't what the rest of the subdivision has.

And we've got all the surrounding neighbors, pretty much adjacent neighbors, all showing concern for this. I see some big issues with enforceability of this. I know the, the applicants are probably great people, but I see You know, this opens up a whole ball of wax for other entities like this trying to get in for their dip net season, and they have a random blank lot in the middle of the subdivision. Now we're just going to say, hey, we're now up an RV park and we'll be here for 30 days. It's non, non-commercial.

Enforceability of commercial versus non-commercial— we don't have the ability to go in and try to set a sting operation to see if somebody's paying. I don't know how the city would even be able to enforce it, whether it was actually commercial or not. Once you authorize an RV park, you're going to see multiple RVs coming and going. There's going to be no concern for are they paying or not. I think that would be a very, very difficult thing to try to enforce.

Um, uh, just if we have questions, we can, we can comment on that.

Um, so based on the staff report and on the surrounding area neighbors' concerns for it, I will be voting against this.

I think the best solution would be if they wanted to build a residence like the neighbors did, they could have RVs come and go, a few there and meet that code, but it doesn't match city goals. And I don't know how you would enforce something like this. This just opens up— we've got a lot of concerns already. It came before this, the council, earlier this year about people camping. Already doing this and having enforceability issues on city lots, and it's supposed to be coming back for council to address the issue, uh, in the near future, possibly change to restrict timing and lower that already.

So it's already on the books, and this just seems like one way that you might be able to sneak it by, and then it's really hard to enforce. And I don't think it meets the comprehensive plan. The staff did a lot of work and research to say that it doesn't meet the comprehensive plan. And I will definitely be supporting staff's decision on this, and especially in this specific area. So that's where I'm at on that.

Anybody else? Concerns? Comments? Anybody else? Seeing none.

Okay. Yes, we'll be voting on PZ-2026. -29. Clerk, can we have a vote? Please call.

Thank you. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. Commissioner Fikes? No.

Commissioner Woodard? No. Vice Chair Douthit?

No. Chair Keeton is absent. Uh, Commissioner Askin? No. Commissioner Urszly is absent.

You have, uh, 1 yes vote and 4 no votes. Resolution PZ-2026-29 is not approved.

All right, there is a 15-day process for appeal period, uh, that a party can file on an appeal within the clerk's office. So, um, you guys could file an appeal and start the appeal process if you'd like, and it'll go before a different body All right, moving on. Unfinished business. Looks like we have no unfinished business at the time.

All right, this brings us to new business. H1, new business.

H1 was included in— we already did the consent agenda on H1. I'm just catching up to my notes here, sorry. Yeah, I missed that one too.

All right. So I don't— skipping down.

So H1 was addressed. So now we're on to H2 discussion. This will be Federal Energy Regulation Commission Notice of Preliminary Permit— holy smokes— Application Accepted for Filing of Soliciting Comments. Motions to intervene in competing applications. Open the discussion.

What do we— I got a quick, a very quick memo. Okay. So the attached filing was sent to the city. So starting on page 93 of your packet, due to the proximity of a proposed data center in Coogee, so this action under C data center in Cook Inlet. The filing was shared by the city manager to city council at the previous city council meeting.

We also received a public comment addressed to this body, which is why I'm bringing it forward to you as well, really to keep you guys in the loop. There's no action requested to be taken by the commission, but staff wanted to keep the commission informed on the issue, especially because public comments not only went to council but also came to this body. So if someone were to approach you, we wanted to clue you into what they're talking about ahead of time. Um, this is just a preliminary— a company went to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said, hey, we want to do this, can we? Um, since we are within a certain radius, I think it's 15 miles, um, we can actually, as a city, if we want to, submit comments, um, or at least get labeled as, uh, there's a certain party name, um, so that we are kept abreast of anything if anything does move forward.

So if anything does happen with this, we'll definitely keep you in the loop. But at this time, there's no action to be taken. We just— it's more informational for, for you. But since it was brought up to council and is in the public, that's where we're at. So just on clarification, would this be something that council could be making a resolution of support or non-support on?

I believe if, if what I heard at the meeting is correct and I'm interpreting it right, I think they we're going to bring back something to allow the city manager to file as— I think it's like an intervener or something, but basically says we want to be a party to this whole process, this whole process going forward, so that we're not— it— this isn't like, here's your public notice and then we never hear anything again. We want to be part of the process going forward. Okay, so what does in Cook Inlet mean? Under the water. So they, they want to put— what location?

I mean, Cook Inlet's kind of big. It's— I believe it's off Nakiski. It's between Nikiski and Tyonek, if I'm not mistaken. Is it East Fort Linn or North Fort Linn? I cannot get—.

I believe it was supposed to be North Fort Linn, kind of the neck down area. They basically wanted to use the tidal and the cold water to cool it and put it offshore somewhere. Um, there was public testimony given at the council meeting. Um, I can't duplicate that because that person's smarter than I am, but I highly recommend watching the video from last week's council meeting where this was brought up, and there are some good details in there.

So how does it impact the city of Kenai then? How do we get this memorandum as opposed to Nakiski? Um, I believe Nakiski and the borough also would have got it. Nakiski is not incorporated, so borough by proxy would have got it. Um, I don't know if they're taking any action to be a part of the process.

Um, we're a part of the process being one of the closest actual incorporated municipalities, and the fact that, um, depending on where they're getting the power source, that could potentially impact the power source on the grid here on, um, on the peninsula. And as you know, as you go up Kenai Spur Highway, you get one thing that trips off and you start knocking off large swaths of the peninsula if power goes out. So I think it's just more, hey, this could have impacts, it could have no impacts, but we want to be part of the process so that we're educated going all the way through this.

Yeah, I think, yeah, I think the tidal is going to be their primary, but if they had any kind of backup, you know, for the times where there's slack tides and the tide's not really going either direction. So you're talking Cook Inlet, but you're also throwing out the term data center. So you're talking about a structure on land? No, underwater. The data center, from my understanding, the data center was supposed to be assembled and sunk under the Cook Inlet.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Boulders that roll up and down the inlet and where boats roll up and down the inlet all the time. Yeah. East Forelands and North Forelands is not a good place to be.

Yeah. No, just the term data centers gets thrown out there, so that's why I was confused. So I get that you want to go underwater, but I didn't know if that was in conjunction with a structure as well. So— That's why I was looking for the clarification. I mean, it's more grandiose than this, but essentially think of like a grandiose oversized ConEx just kind of sunk down to the cooking floor.

And then using the cold water. So I look back, it's like 2008 or something like that, but Google piloted something like this in San Francisco Bay where they basically did just put a ConEx in San Francisco Bay to see if the concept would even work way back then. Apparently did. Um, I'm sure there was a lot of documented stuff. I'm sure there were studies.

Um, I don't know how much of that is public, but, um, and this, this would still have to go through a long regulatory process. But this, yeah, this is, hey, we want to do it. And then if it were to go forward, there would be many, many, many, many options, have bites at the apple. We just wanted you to be aware because someone might say, hey, I heard this, or I read it in the paper, what's going on? Um, they may ask you because being planning— the Planning Commission, they might expect you have knowledge of it.

So we discussed— I will add this. I don't know if it's anything of this time, but I will, if you don't mind, Chair. No, go ahead. In the laydown from the count last week's council meeting, there's a huge article about the data center and all the different components. And I guess it's more of an opposition statement, but it's very interesting, kind of lays the project out.

So it's very, very preliminary, and it's, uh, it's pretty interesting. So if you're curious more about the specifics, look at that laydown, and there was a lot of information there from the last meeting.

Thank you. That's more like the shotgun approach. They're just kind of throwing it out at a whole bunch of places to see where it can stick. All righty, moving on to next item, which I have is H3, action approval. Request for inclusion of comprehensive plan project into FY 2028-2032 of Kenai Capital Improvement Plan.

Let's open the discussion. Uh, so we did this last year. Um, we ultimately postponed this a little bit. Some city shifted a few things around in the budget, but, um, the new capital improvement plan will get— start getting discussed at the end of the year going into budget season in January. Um, we The staff think it's, uh, now that it's 10 years old, the comprehensive plan is getting a little long in the tooth and it's time for a good refresh.

So we, uh, want to request in the budget process for $275,000 for a comprehensive plan update in the upcoming capital improvement plan. Um, this is just our, uh, if, if you did, um, take action on this, this would just allow us to bring it forth so that we, um, can put it in there for consideration. Ultimately, council will make the final decision, but this is a us saying, hey, me too, me too, I want to be part of the capital improvement plan.

Okie doke. Is there a motion to approve the request from staff for inclusion of the comprehensive plan project into the fiscal year 2028 to fiscal year 2032 Kenai Capital Improvements Plan? Can I get a motion? Motion to approve. Okay, is there a second?

Second. All right, and then we already got the kind of staff report. Staff report was previous to this reported. Is there anybody from the general public who would like to speak to this issue? Anybody online?

I'm seeing none. All righty, can I get a request for unanimous consent? Hey, hey, I get a second? Second. All right, do I see any I don't see anybody objecting.

Nope. All right, we'll move on. It passes unanimously. All right, let's bring this to item H4, rescheduling the end of year meeting.

Open the discussion. I'll give myself porthead again. Oh, actually, do I need to make the motion first? You may as well. All right, let's do it the right way this time.

Uh, is there a motion to reschedule the end of your meeting to December 15th? December 15th.

Can I get a motion? I, I'll make a motion to reschedule the end of the year meeting to December 15th. Is there a second? Second. Seconded.

All right, now we'll have a staff report. Okay, um, so the meeting calendar for the Planning and Zoning Commission is— we have currently have a meeting scheduled December 9th and December 23rd. Um, the meeting on December 9th is immediately after the Alaska Planning Conference, which I'll be helping put on in Anchorage, um, and during the Alaska Municipal League annual meeting, which may reduce staff availability to include, um, our clerk's office. Um, December 23rd is immediately before the Christmas holiday, no surprise, and is anticipated that both staff and commissioners may be on vacation or traveling. Um, we recommend rescheduling to December 15th.

Um, it would keep us deconflicted from council, which would be using the chambers the next day. Um, it would be similar to what we did in November where Veterans Day canceled our meeting and the other one was the day before Thanksgiving and everyone's full of all the trimmings that you're not supposed to eat before Thanksgiving. Um, So this one, we kind of put it in the middle of the month so that we can make timely action, because we do, um, if a plat comes in, we only have 49 days to make our recommendations to the borough, and we just want to make sure that we don't have a very huge gap going into the holiday. So, um, it is a non-traditional day, and, um, the time could stay the same, but moving it to that Tuesday in the middle of the month would keep us having it one in November, one December, and get back to normal in January.

Through the chair, could we not meet on Wednesday, December 30th?

The 30th could work. It would be the bare— that would be the large— the longest gap we could do to keep in a timely manner with Platt. So the 30th would also work if the 15th doesn't Yeah, I mean, as somebody who's going to be quite busy for the holiday, that would make it easier for me. Plus I'm already having the borough meeting, so yeah. And then you wouldn't have to have met on the 9th only to turn around and have to meet again the following week.

So real quick, sorry to clarify, we'd be canceling the 9th and the 23rd and only meeting once in December. Oh. Still like the 30th.

If I'm still on this body, I fly out on the 15th, so I would not be here.

Uh, I would not be here on the 30th. I'm planning to visit my grandkids for Christmas, so I'll be out of the state.

I can do the 15th. My daughter and her new grandbaby is going to be coming up like on the 16th or 17th, so—.

Save me some cookies. Okay. All right. Looks like we have a unanimous— unanimous consent requested by somebody for the 15th? Unanimous consent requested.

Outstanding. Is there a second? Second. Outstanding. It passes unanimously to the 15th.

I have in my calendar that we have a work session next week. Is that right?

Uh, we were. That has— that had to be canceled due to a special— a special council meeting that's going on on the 30th, so Chambers won't be. So, um, yeah, 30th is not going to happen. It was— we did not, uh, advertise it, so we're not on the hook for it. Outstanding.

All right, now we're going to go to I reports. Planning— sorry, Planning Director. I'm getting tired. I got a lot of work still tonight. Planning Director Budner, may we have your report please?

I have an outstanding report, sir. Page 97, just real quick, just giving a quarterly update on our code enforcement, just so you kind of see where we're at, what we're doing. But other than that, thanks for listening to me ramble on all night, and I'll be done.

I guess this is where I come up with a report. Uh, since I found out I was the actual chair, like 30 seconds before the meeting started. I don't really have anything put together. Thanks for putting up with me, and we bumbled through it and we made it work. Thanks for everybody being here.

I encourage people to show up regularly. All right, moving on. Commissioner Fikes, may we have your report? All right, the borough had tied up chambers, so we all had to participate via Zoom, which was quite interesting since the chair dropped the Zoom connection not once, not twice, but pretty much 4 times. And we passed it to, uh, the gentleman in Homer, and we were able to finish.

I don't have the notes in front of me, but there was no objections for all the plats that we reviewed and passed, and there was no objections on the variances that we reviewed and also ultimately passed. Thank you, ma'am. And City Council liaison Mr. Daniel. Uh, thank you, Chair Doffett. Um, I'll be quick because it's been a late night.

I'll give some bigger stuff. So the last few council meetings, the biggest item on the agenda that was passed that'll impact everybody is the, uh, $75K exemption was passed by council and it goes before the voters. The $75K property tax exemption for your primary residence, it goes before the voters this coming November. So be on the lookout for that and make sure you vote too, either way. And then the only other thing that was kind of a big deal was— well, it was two things actually.

Airport fence perimeter, that got the financing got approved for that. That'll be approved. And then the big code overhaul for the library. So moving that out of being codified where they couldn't change certain things like related to using some of the conference rooms and policies around sleeping and making it more of a policy-driven approach. The library has a little more flexibility.

If you all have any questions, let me know.

All righty, sweet and short and sweet. All right, additional public comments. Are there any members from the public who would like to address the commission at this time?

All righty, moving on. Uh, Item K, next meeting attendance notifications. Next meeting is October 14th. Uh-oh, uh, hold on.

Anybody else not going to be here on the 14th?

Ooh, you're lucky, I leave on the 15th. All right, I will be here on the 14th. Anybody else? Everybody good? Okay, great.

Everybody's here, yay. All right, uh, on to L, Commission comments and questions. We'll start at the end and work our way up. Mr. Askins. Uh, having retired 1st of July, I've discovered that it's true what they say.

You are substantially more busy and you do a whole lot more now that you're retired than when you were working.

Yes. Oh, it's crazy. But that's all I got other than winter's coming, unfortunately.

All righty. Okay, yeah, there was frost this morning. Um, sorry I was late to the meeting. That's all I got.

Yes, there was solid water on my car this morning before I left the house, so I wasn't happy about that. But this was a great meeting, most populated meeting I've been to yet in this position. So thanks everybody. And last but not least All good. All good.

All right. I already had my two cents, but I would say if you haven't tried Jersey Subs in the airport for breakfast, well worth it. Oh, really? Yeah. They have a really good breakfast, like diner food.

8 To 11. Pretty mean biscuits and gravy. And their supper was good also. Oh, good. Yeah.

They got a lot more than just sandwiches.