Soldotna: 9-23-2026 City Council Work Session

You can have 2 mobile homes in the rural residential. So it's interesting that the density for a mobile home in the rural residential allows you up to 2 detached units. But when it comes to a conventional build, single-family or duplex, it has to be one building. And so I thought maybe open that to— could you build 2 dwelling units in the rural residential by right, not limited to one building? Because to a duplex or a single family only?

Could we open that opportunity there? We are seeing a lot of unpermitted structures on that side of town. Um, so, you know, it's not to circumvent this for them, but to give them the opportunity, because people will come in and ask, what can I do? We will tell them you can have a single family or duplex and potential an ADU, but we see a lot in the rural residential off the river. We see a lot of those properties with multiple buildings, cabins, recreational cabins.

Those are allowed by conditional use. We're kind of seeing a change in that area on the west side of what riverfront or the waterfront properties having multiple buildings. So it's, you know, I'm trying to see a trend of, well, can we open that opportunity to the rest of the rural residential properties on that side of town? You know, that's another opportunity to be more appealing to homeowners or developers who may want to build 2 separate units. They don't want to build a duplex and have an attached dwelling units.

People tend to be more attracted to live in the single-family dwelling. So hopefully that makes sense. Ultimately, is I'm proposing that in the rural residential, we're allowing the flexibility that they can have 2 dwelling units, detached dwelling units, versus having to be a duplex only.

Any questions? And I want to keep things very simple for myself, not for you, because you're, you're doing great. Are there developers who are coming to you and asking for changes in our zoning? In other words, you just mentioned a few little things, which wonderful, and I, I want to say I appreciate very much your expertise. Are there developers asking the city to make some changes in zoning?

Yes, there are some developers. We have some developers that are currently developing things right now who have spoken to— they want to continue to build in the city. They definitely want to see relax in the density. I've been shared that they have pursued a one residential lot, but they were told the density didn't kept them at a certain threshold that they couldn't do more. So therefore, that financially didn't pan out investment-wise for them.

So, um, in terms of— I've heard the density part simplify or allow some more in the smaller lots. And then also with the ADU, that's always been a theme. There's definitely challenges there if you look at the current ordinance of how many standards they have to meet. You know, so I've heard that. And in terms of the rural residential, I haven't had anyone specifically ask me to change it.

I just heard frustration. So it's not directly saying, hey, Linda, change the code, because I think sometimes when people talk to me, they don't realize code could change. They just share their frustration. It's like, why can't you let me build this like everyone else is doing it? I bought a property here.

I was told by my neighbor I can build a house, I can build a second house. And so I'm hearing a theme, and I'm getting more inquiries on that side of town of people interested in buying properties. But when they call us, we say no. And that's kind of where I'm trying to get at. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Anything else? Vice Mayor Parker. When you say that side of town, what side of town are you talking about? My apologies.

Uh, everything east of Redoubt, mostly all the rural residential is where, um, west, east of Sterling Highway. And so everything behind, east of Homestead, all those from the edge of the city limits and everything on the behind Homestead, east of Homestead and south of the creek.

I think that the feel of that area is different than the more denser areas, right? That rural residential down East Readout. I think people, you know, they intuitively think in downtown, the denser areas, there's going to be rules. But I'm going to be— I'm going to stake my place out here where I can have a lot more freedoms and do different things. And lo and behold, there's still zoning restrictions out there as well.

And, you know, we're experiencing some of the same frustrations in the building department as these developers come through and want to do different things out there. So, yeah, yeah, I, you know, as I shared with City Manager Bowers, we get a lot of increase of calls to develop in that rural residential, and we don't have the capacity from a code enforcement to drive through and say, hey, you're building an accessory. But luckily, with our, um, the borough sharing their EagleView map, which is aerial imagery that's updated every 2 years, we have at least the tools to see something built illegally or unpermitted structures. So now my goal for my department next year is to do a scan of all that, send out letters to everyone where we see structures that we don't have building permits for and let them know, hey, while we don't have capacity, the city is aware of your illegal permit or building so that people can get on board and also share the correct information. 'Cause it's always, well, so-and-so is doing it around the corner.

So you're telling me no, I see everywhere, you know? And so that's the goal for next year. Come around that my department is sending out a lot of code enforcement letters to ensure that people understand the city's rules and expectation requirements.

Any questions about that? Yes, please. I was just gonna make a comment on that. I think one of the things that I find most frustrating, and I don't know if you guys have— I had a conversation just last week with someone who who insisted that their house was not in Saldana, and it ended up where I pulled up the Saldana plat map and I showed them the circle around it, and I was like, this is the boundary. Your house is in Saldana.

And that was like just one situation that I had, and it's fascinating. You guys must come across— it's always— there's people who think they live in Saldana and they don't, and a lot of people who— and I don't know how to fix that, that giant issue. But, um, I know you think that it's someone who owns property would know where, where it's located, but it's not. And so I don't know if we need to have a communication strategy where we let people know who are having these short-term rentals that don't know whether they're in and out or out, um, or, or businesses operate that don't know if they're in or out. Um, I don't know how we define the boundaries more than we already have, but it's fascinating to that there's a lot of people who operate in Salatna or out of Salatna that don't know where the boundaries are.

Looking at the tax bill would show if they were inside the city because it'll say Salatna property tax on it. Property tax for sure. Businesses that have not registered as a business do not have that, um, or, or businesses that registered, they know their mailing addresses but they don't know where the proper— the line boundaries are, and they're not They're not, um, given that information, they themselves would have to self-assess whether they're inside the city or not. Does that make sense?

Um, that is a really good point, and yes, we face that all the time here. And part of what Linda was talking about earlier in, you know, a certain part of town is partly to put out more information of what we can and can't do in that area and within the city, and just really to have more communication out to the public about You are in the city, and we really hope just to be able to pass more information with work sessions like this, and then the ultimate result of the work session as well.

Perfect, and I will expand on that. So with the property sales list that we get from the borough every month, we actually use that list and send a welcome letter. We say, hey, welcome to the city for purchasing a city with or property within the city limit. Your property is zoned so and so, and then it lists the more obvious permitted use, and then a very snippet of there are other uses that are allowed, but subject to conditional use. Here's planning and zoning's number if you need questions.

So, every time there's a change of hands, we, we caught up, we send it out every month. So, that's been done as long as I think for years now. I got one when I bought a home in 2020. To here in the city. So that's one way.

But, um, now I'm curious who this person is and how long they've been in the city. But, um, yeah, I'll think of more opportunities to see how we can educate people of what the boundaries are and when they're in the city limit. Anything else from anyone? Moving right along. Yeah, so, um, just to touch base on You know, the single family, 2 family zone, and the single family residential only, you know, currently with the ADU code, the ADU code says you can only have an ADU if you're in these zones, but only if you have a single family dwelling.

So if you're in the single family, 2 family, you have a duplex, you know, you're not eligible for, for an ADU. So, I. That's just the way the code is written today. And then also, as I mentioned before, there's a cap, a 750-square-foot cap, meaning the dwelling unit portion. But if you want to attach, you know, a 1,000-square-foot shop to it, that's allowed because it just says the dwelling habitable space portion is limited to 750 square feet.

Unlimited in terms of how big the shop, the garage is that's attached to it.

Having a flat rate is difficult because we don't have a standard size lot of a single-family, two-family zone. Yes, we have a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet, but a lot of the lots also ranges from almost 3/2 an acre. And so some people have larger homes, but they're only allowed a maximum of 750. I think it's more flexible for proportion to set a maximum size of the ADU up to 50% percent of the main house and cap it at a flat rate, maybe 50%, cap at 1,100 square feet. That way you can still maintain it.

That gives it a little bit more flexibility and appeal. Mostly, you know, you want a larger size and you're— maybe you combine your lot and now it's an acre within a single-family, two-family, you know, that gives it more flexibility within the wide range of lot sizes within this zone. And so that's what I'm proposing is kind of expanding that ADU eligibility in terms of size, um, and potentially allowing a duplex to have qualify for an ADU. They'll still have to be subject to meeting the lot coverage of 30% in these zones. They still have to meet the setbacks, the building height requirement, and the parking requirement.

So why can't a duplex within a single-family, two-family zone qualify for an ADU. So that's what I'm bringing forth, is potentially opening that opportunity with— for duplex to have an additional dwelling unit. And we do have one situation, this case, where he has a duplex, he wants an ADU, and then I told him, well, if you want— he really wants to detach one. So if any in the future, it's a family member, He wants to keep them in a separate detached dwelling unit. I told him he had to convert the main house back to a single family and he's like, okay, so I have to convert my duplex to a single family if I want to detach, but call it an ADU.

So, you know, it's, again, we do have a lot of duplexes, potentially they may want an ADU, but right now the code says no, because you're a duplex, you can't have it. But if you want an ADU so that you have a detached dwelling unit on the premise, you would have to convert your duplex. Into a single family. So another opportunity to give some flexibility there as well.

Any questions?

Okay, I will have you jump to the next slide, please, Johnny.

Perfect. So this one is something that was requested by a developer who does affordable housing and who has developed several of our affordable housing developments in the city. Um, they want the certainty, you know, no discretion, preferably no variance, um, and they provide the data to support this. And this, um, proposed standard was used as a waiver, um, to reduce their parking. And this is the 25-unit apartment, the Pine Ridge Apartments off Sohhi Lane.

You know, I use this ratio, um, writing an administrative waiver, and they provided data from other units within this, other developments within the city. And instead of constantly doing an administrative waiver, um, I'd rather just eliminate that and provide the standard when it comes to affordable units to reduce the parking count. And the justification is, with their numbers and with the tenants that they've seen, is usually they can't afford additional vehicles or several vehicles. And so this is the trend they've seen, and they have demonstrated in the other existing development that parking is not an issue with this ratio. So I'm proposing that your council considered doing a parking reform, in essence reducing the parking from— our standard right now is 2 per dwelling unit all across the board.

If you're building a dwelling unit, it's 2 parking per dwelling unit. It doesn't matter how many bedrooms you have. And so this would reduce it to, for an affordable 1-unit, to 1 space per unit. Affordable 2- to 3-bedroom, 1.5 spaces per unit. It allows them to not build all this asphalt and parking area that they may not need, and which is a substantial cost to them as well.

So it cuts civil costs and pervious service and allows them to do focus on more buildable lot area. Any questions on this one? When you take into consideration parking, or a particular place. Does that include the parking needs for visitors? The way our code does not require visitors, no, I have not seen that, and we haven't included visitors.

The only other requirement for parking is loading spaces for certain commercial use or larger office use where they're required to provide like a 12 by 40-foot loading zones. But in terms of outside this parking requirements for the use itself, visitor parkings is not a mandate within our code to provide.

Any questions?

Oh, go ahead, Mr. Kerr. I'm interested in the term affordable housing. Um, is affordable mean the housing's affordable, or does it mean the individuals are low income? What's affordable housing? Well, I'm going to default to using the same definitions as These affordable rates, how they do percentage of the income.

I haven't defined that yet, but if we were to move down this path, it will be clearly defined what affordable housing is. But usually it's a percentage of the market rate or their income, what threshold they meet. Could I follow? Go ahead. The reason— thank you.

And just starting. Would it be correct to infer that for the non-affordable— again, housing is using the opposite term— that there won't need to be parking reform? I'm wondering why we're starting with parking reform. I'm not against it. I'm just trying to get a sense of understanding why we're looking at reforms, particularly for the affordable housing.

Are there more concerns than there will be for as we move into Again, I don't know the other terms, so the term would have to be the unaffordable housing. But again, that—. Market rate is the other term that they use for market rate. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

So, I want to make sure I understand your question. So, in terms of why we're focused on the affordable housing parking reform only and not on the market rate, correct? What I'm looking for is, again, moving from 1.5 to 2 down to 1. 2 Down to 1.5. Should I infer that as we look at other housing, there's also a need for reform on parking?

I haven't seen the need for market rate to be so far. All the market rate that we've dealt with, they want the 2, 2 dwelling units per— right, dwelling units, because they recognize, like, The 12-unit, when I said, hey, if you wanted to reduce it, because, you know, part of that approval was a lot of the site layout and snow storage. I was like, maybe you ask for a parking reduction. They're like, no, we don't want that. We need at least a minimum 2.

So far in my experience dealing with market-rate apartment complex, they want minimum 2. I haven't been asked to reduce parking waivers for market-rate units. And so that's why I haven't looked into it, but it's not to say for future housing, for market rates, could there be a need to reduce it? I would like to think so. This was just starting off with the data that I had.

I do believe that it could be beneficial for a 1-bedroom apartment for a market rate to be reduced to 1, but that's just me speaking from general knowledge, not specifically to the city of Sultana. Thank you.

I guess the way they might be looking at it in affordable housing is they may not be able to afford a car. So that's why they don't need the extra spaces where market rate, you may have 2 people living in there and each have a car for work. I can understand that. Yeah. Vice Mayor Parker.

There, there is a federal definition for affordable housing. And it's usually in that— you're in the 80 to 120% CPI.

So, and below 80% is low-income housing, and then above 120 is just housing, market housing. But there is a federal definition. Yeah, I can add to that. This particular developer is taking advantage of AHFC's federal low-income housing tax credits, which has eligibility criteria. It's a, it's a competitive proposal process, um, and they were awarded, uh, this development.

Um, there's, it was probably 6 or 7 in the state this round or something like that. And, uh, and there, that criteria is out there for us to look at and consider as we define these things. So, go ahead. Along with that, and with this developer, that's where the data is coming from as far as parking, because they do develop these properties through the AHFC funding and meet that criteria, and they have provided data of each unit. Um, what is happening?

What the needs have been for parking? So some of that data comes directly from not just development here in Soldotna, but across the state as well.

Any other questions?

Move along. Perfect. Next slide, please.

So, um, now it comes down to potential rezoning areas that one rezoning would align with the neighborhood compatibility areas where there isn't water and sewer, so therefore the existing lot size in the zoning district isn't financially feasible for it to be developed. And then, um, for such a low-density use within the existing property size, and then other areas where we've seen conditional use permits been issued for housing. So I'll go from left to right. For one, South Fireweed Street, this is where that 12-unit apartment complex is off of Cobuck under construction. So now everything in red is what's being— staff is proposing that it be rezoned to multifamily to align more with the— everything in blue is multifamily zoning.

Existing uses to all of these is 2 fourplex to the 2 lots to the north, and a single-family dwelling to the 3rd property following, and then the 12-unit complex. So rezoning it to multifamily will make all of these actually conforming uses with the new zoning district of a multifamily. Under the current commercial district, all these residential use will accept the 12-unit because they obtain a conditional use permit. The other 3 parcels were built before 2010, meaning they're all legal nonconforming uses in the commercial district. I did talk with a commercial, um, appraiser.

And the bank for lending purposes, like, does this matter to them when it comes to legal nonconforming? How does that affect their lending? If you have a legal nonconforming, to some extent they're more concerned with the nonconforming code. Can they rebuild it? And to what extent?

It does make it easier if they, you know, just maybe save some time of not having to obtain a rebuild letter if these properties were sold. And for lending purposes, they don't have to get a rebuild letter from the city stating, one, was it legal nonconforming? Making sure that it was permitted at the time it was constructed with a building permit and alignment with the zoning code at the time. And then 2, could they rebuild it according to our nonconforming code? So rezoning these 4 parcels will now make it conforming with the new zoning of a multifamily, because these are all residential uses and multifamily residential developments to the north, um, to the west, and to the south.

Well, the school.

So for this, this, um, area and the others, for those people who are currently have structures there, have you talked to them that this is a potential? I have not.

Um, I've only talked to the 12-unit, um, I have not talked to the other 3. If this is something that your council considers, obviously we'll reach out and see where they stand and do the proper outreach. Um, I don't see it being controversial in the sense of it doesn't change in terms of zoning. It actually makes them conforming unless they plan to convert it to commercial in the future. But these have been built 1997, 1997.

The other one was 2004, and now most recently the Cobuck one under construction. So they have remained commercial for quite some time— or residential, my apologies.

Yeah, I would just think before we proceed too far that I'd like to know that the property owners are okay with it, um, because if they don't like it and want to stay the way things are, then Why change it?

I understand if one of those property owners has a conditional use permit and they sell that property, does the new owners have to come in for a CUP, or is it transferable to the new owners? It runs with the land, so transfer to the, the owners, the new owners, or any future owners.

Any other questions from the council? Ms.

Wagner.

When we were discussing changes to other potential changes, I remembered talking about what happens if something with a conditional use permit or grandfathered in, in a different use was no longer zoned that way. What level of destruction and replacement required. Basically, if a multifamily unit currently as commercial property with a conditional use permit right now were to be fully destroyed, um, and they were to rebuild at the current zoning, is there anything that changing this to residential versus commercial with the conditional use would change if we changed its zoning? Did I ask that right?

Would there be a benefit to the homeowners themselves, or the property owners, as it currently stands, for it to be zoned as what it's used for versus the conditional use?

I still am not sure if I phrased that right.

Is there a benefit as the conditional use permitted? If it were to get destroyed, could they rebuild right now as it stands, or because it's outside, they would have to get permission again? Well, with—. Because they obtain a conditional use, in essence, they're conforming because all the other ones were built prior to 2010, which required a conditional use. If those other 3 properties decide to get a conditional use, they would be conforming under the commercial district because they have obtained that conditional use permit.

Right now, all those other 3 properties do not have a conditional use permit. They were just built before the code change. Um, there's the other face value of if we rezone it, the properties that are currently in the multifamily would be probably most impacted if these residential change to commercial, because commercial has the most broadest use. So technically they can change to anything commercial. Now you're impacting the existing residential across the way.

They've been residential for a long time. So there's the other benefit of benefit of neighborhood compatibility, protecting the existing neighborhood as well. If it was to be changed to multifamily, yes, it may impact the existing property owners of those to be rezoned. Now they just have a limited use of what they can change it to, but at the same time it has been residential for so long. Do we want the opportunity for these lots to be other uses, a retail store along these properties?

Because it could be, it could be converted as long as you get a building permit. Right now, under the zoning, to be any uses that's a permitted use on the commercial district, and there are those existing multifamily homes across the street from Fireweed off of Rigger, off of Cobuck as well. So that's the other factor to consider when we're looking at rezone too.

I remember correctly, 2 of those parcels. Um, one was Linda Banner, and she sold, and then the other two are old, owned by a revocable trust there. And, uh, so even though they're zoned, they'd been a fourplex for years, the other two pieces. Correct. Those were built in 1997.

Right. So this basically wouldn't change them a bit. No, they'd just be now conforming, and it ensures that— yeah, they, they would just be conforming, not legal non-conforming.

Those already multifamily— well, fourplex, a fourplex, two, two fourplex, a single family, and now 12plex. Used to have a shop on it, and then they built the house. Correct. Or the fact, and now we have a 12 flex. Yes, thank you.

You're welcome. All right. So the other corridor, and you might remember receiving an email from a prospective buyer back in March or April, the Foothill Road corridor. So these is between Karen Street and Kenai Avenue, Foothill Road. Um, there are 12 parcels along this frontage, this block face to the east.

7 Of those parcels are city-owned properties. Um, just to kind of bring some history to it, when you probably see that email, it was inquiry about 2 parcels, um, about rezoning it because right now we don't have water and sewer. Well, it's close to water and sewer lines, but to run down Foothill, a new line down Foothill for a single-family lot, it's a substantial investment. Um, and so realistically, this prospective buyer wanted to combine 2 lots to make it, um, a multi-family, um, development within this corridor. And so these are all vacant lots, all 12 of them, and The vision after looking into it at that time, and Councilmember Chelson, I think hopefully you're still willing to sponsor this rezone, um, looking at rezoning it to multifamily to allow lot consolidation to make a lot larger so that they can build multifamily and make the justification to bring in those connections into this corridor to hopefully see it developed.

And so right now, as it stands, you know, you can only build a single family or duplex down this corridor, and existing lines to connect is at the corner of Karen Street and Foothill, and at the end of Kenai Avenue and Foothill Road. So you would have to run the line. So changing the zoning to allow higher density and allowing people to maybe consolidate, and potentially the city consolidating, and doing land sales, um, would bring opportunity to these vacant properties within city limits.

Vice Mayor Burke.

So it's currently zoned single-family? Correct. Single-family, two-family. And the lots to the right, um, that aren't colored, what are those zoned? To the further right in the lighter blue is all rural residential.

Okay, thank you.

Mhm. So I believe one of those or two of those lots, there is an easement for water and sewer that goes through there because we own, what, two lots north of that, or whatever it is up there, and they wanted us to abolish that easement. So rezoning this wouldn't affect that, is that correct? No, the rezone does not affect any underlying easement unless they do some kind of replat, but rezoning it doesn't change the existing easement. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Go ahead. Alright, so the third identified corridor for rezoning is Robin Place. Um, this runs east of Redoubt to the end of Little Avenue behind PC Mall. And back in 2023, early 2023, we had one of the parcels at the corner of Beluga and Robin Place in the southeast corner obtain a conditional use permit for a fourplex. Um, that has since expired because it did change hands a few months before the conditional use permit was expired, but at some point this area has seen interest in wanting to be developed again in a commercial corridor.

You need a conditional use permit. If you look at the surrounding uses, it's all limited commercial. Everything limited commercial allows you to build dwelling units of any density, as long as you meet the development standards by right. And so, uh, staff are recommending that this whole commercial corridor be rezoned to limited commercial. It allows for a lower intensity of commercial use, so retail, office still, and then dwelling units.

And I did look at the existing buildings within this. They all meet the parameters. And so even if it's change rezoned, it does not bring any of the existing use into a nonconforming status, because you look at the corner of East Redoubt and Robin at the northwest corner is a house and I think a fabric store, that fabric store in the retail and the limited commercial is limited to 1,300. They're at 1,100, a little bit over. So even if it's rezoned to limited commercial, that use will remain conforming.

And then there's another medical office along East Readout. Again, that's a permitted use in the limited commercial. So I find this is another opportunity to bring housing without Bringing in the discretionary review, if people see this as an opportunity, additional vacant land in the city to build homes. So this would be another corridor to consider to be rezoned.

I remember looking at that when that 4-plex came up. Um, and actually what I noted in there, there's some streets that are dedicated in there, but probably will never ever be built. That could be added to those properties eventually.

Yeah, I did drive down there today and off Little Avenue, and there's just signs that says road closed. So, and it just terminates. Many, many, many, many years ago, and I'm sure Mr. Carey can remember, there was a kind of a dirt road that went up to Robin Place, and that was kind of the shortcut everybody took from Central Peninsula Mall.

I can see that.

I remember doing it.

And then really, this concludes my presentation of, you know, just these topics of— yep, of really what the next steps are, where your council sees— like, I've taken notes of concerns of if we were to do these rezones, we'll absolutely do outreach first. To kind of get preliminary kind of feedback, I'm absolutely happy to do that. Do open house, you know, really educate the public what that looks like, even maybe adjacent owners too. Um, but if there's anything that you want to add to or say, hey, this is not where the direction we want, let's hold off on this, I'm okay with that. I'm just really bringing some options that I've seen that could address some of those things I've heard, what I've seen, um, that could be improved and open opportunities for housing development in the city.

Mr. Carey, I appreciate very much that we're looking forward, and in terms of what we should do in making decisions, I'm wondering, you know, obviously you've brought us 3 specifics. Are there a few others? Would— should we anticipate that as we move forward, if we move forward on this, that there'll be others? And I'm just wondering, were there others that that just didn't quite make the cut, and so you just stuck with these 3, or is there another— is there a 4th, is there a 5th that you would anticipate, I'll say, within a year or 2 that you would bring to us? Thank you for that great question.

Yes, I kept this to like my top priorities where I think it's like a low-hanging fruit of like, this is achievable, like for the best interest as all parties involved to the best. There are more rezoned areas that I've seen. I want to bring forth. I think this is a good first step of taking a small bite of the apple, but I have a lot of ideas to bring forward. I just didn't overwhelm this discussion.

Like I said, I think I have a series of work sessions for your council because I'm excited to look at these things that are specific to Soldotna, like preserving housing. And yes, I would love to bring you more areas that we can see, but at the same time, I recognize the comp plan is ready for an update as well, and that could be the time address the additional when we do a whole comprehensive outreach as well. But these are ones I think are more of the high priority or opportunities, the more immediate opportunities. Thank you. Mhm.

We like ideals. Keep, keep bringing. Any other questions, comments? No, thank you so much. Thank you.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Miss Howler? Okay, uh, we'll go ahead and just adjourn this work.