5/13/2026 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting

You're on the record.

Thank you. I would like to call the May 13, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting to order. If you are able Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

May we have the roll call, please? Thank you. Chair Keeton. Here.

Commissioner Askin. Present. Commissioner Urszly. Present. Commissioner Kraus.

Here. Commissioner Fikes. Here. Commissioner Woodard. Here.

Vice Chair Dauphit. Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Number 3, approval of the agenda and consent agenda.

There are public comments allowed for this, 3 minutes per speaker and 30 minutes aggregated.

Okay, so there is a laydown. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? I will make a motion to approve the agenda as presented with a laydown. And second? Second.

Thank you. Are there any revisions to the agenda?

Are there any objections to approving the agenda?

Hearing no objections, the agenda is approved.

B, the approval of minutes. There are no minutes to approve this meeting.

Scheduled public comment. Public comment is limited to 10 minutes per speaker. At this time, we have no scheduled public comments. Unscheduled public comment. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak to anything that is not on the agenda?

If anyone wants to speak, you may— you have 3 minutes, and you will be asked to state your name and address for the record.

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

E, consideration of plats. There are none. F, public hearings. Granting the application for a variance permit to build the 20-foot setback along the north side of parcel 045-15303. Is there a motion to approve granting the variance permit?

I'll make a motion granting, uh, the application for— or consideration of application variance permit to build within the 20-foot setback. Is there a motion? I'll second. Is there a second? Thank you, Gwen.

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

Thank you, Chair Keeton. Um, and at the end of this, I'll ask the clerk if he can share the screen after the staff report, just so we have a visual to refer to. The subject property is zoned suburban residential, which requires a 20-foot front and rear setback. This 0.46-acre property is a corner lot with double frontage along Candlelight Drive and Cacnew Way. As shown in the attached site plan, uh, which is page 11 of the packet, the sole entry to the property will be from Candlelight Drive.

The north side of the lot along Cacnew Way will act as a side lot line and will be blocked with a structure, creating a solo entry from the east. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow them to treat the north side of the lot as a side setback, which requires only 5 feet of setback. Allowing the proposed structure on the north side to be built 10 feet into the current 20-foot setback. Pursuant to KMC 1420-180, the intent of a variance permit is to allow— is to provide relief to the development requirements of KMC Chapter 1420 when the literal enforcement would deprive a property owner of the reasonable use of their real property. Prior to granting a variance permit, the Commission shall find that all of the conditions have been met as set forth in KMC 1420-180 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 other lands or structures in the same land use or zoning district. Findings: Subject property currently has double frontage access. With the proposed build, the double frontage will be eliminated, eliminating a secondary traffic conflict point. Criteria 2: The special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant in such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute— that's a fun word— pecuniary— we're gonna try— we're gonna go with it— hardship or inconvenience. The double frontage predates the current ownership.

Staff finds that the request has not been caused by any actions on behalf of the property owner or petitioner. Criteria 3: the granting of the variance shall not authorize a use that is not a permitted principal use in the zoning district in which the property is located. The granting of the variance will resolve the double frontage, furthermore allow for the site plan to comply with city requirements for the construction of 2 new multi-family structures, which is, which is needed commodity within the community. Criteria 4: the granting of a variance shall be the minimum variance that will provide for the reasonable use of land and/or structure.

Granting the variance will improve safety and bring the property into code compliance by reducing access to a single entry point. The building will be placed in the northwest corner with the northeast used for snow storage and a 20-foot east setback, ensuring clear visibility at Cacnew Way and Candlelight Drive. The north side will function as a side yard with a 10-foot setback exceeding the 5-foot minimum required for the zone. Criteria 5: The granting of a variance shall not be based upon other nonconforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district. The granting of this variance permit is not based upon other nonconforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district.

Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 142280, notices of the public hearing for the variance permit were mailed to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject properties. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Clarion on May 8th, 2026. The property owner submitted an affidavit opposing, verifying a sign was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the variance permit request. Um, at the time of this report, there were no public comments received. However, they were included in the laydown this evening.

Staff recommendation. Staff finds that the proposed variance request meets the criteria for issuance of a variance permit as set forth in Kenai Municipal Code Section 1421.8 and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance permit subject to the following conditions. One, applicant must comply with all federal, state of Alaska, and local regulations, and applicant must obtain applicable permits and file all required landscape and site plans prior to beginning construction.

If I'm correct, the applicant is present. Okay. Um, you have an opportunity to speak on the issue if you would like. Yes, just make sure you tell me your name and then press the button so it turns red.

Uh, Jonathan Coates, uh, the property owner. Um, like to speak on the plan. Interested in building into that setback. I know there is a concern raised by the, by the public that there's, uh, that children play along that road. Um, recognize that I brought my children here.

Additionally, if you look at, uh, we don't have a Google Earth or Google Street Plot, there's already trees obstructing view within that 10 feet. Of the road already. So if there is an obstructed view, it already exists. I'm going to be needing to adjust that to build. I will be removing those trees and then complying with city landscaping requirements.

Essentially, the concern raised is, is, uh, is a concern for sure, but again, that this obstruction already exists. There are trees within 10 feet of the road obstructing a view already. By building this, there'll be the opportunity to rectify that as well and comply with city landscaping requirements. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Coats.

Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this variance?

Please give us your name and your, um, where you live, and then press the red button.

Hi, good evening. My name is Nathan Valentine. My address is 212 Baker Street, and I came here to just kind of see— I got the notice in the mail regarding the variance, and this is my first hearing of what the plans for the property are. Um, just speaking as having been a property owner for 12, 14 years on Baker Street. There are a lot of kids, to the point where that first corner between Candlelight and Cacnew has a, you know, pretty rutted-in, like, bicycle trail.

You know, the kids play up on there a lot. So there is, like, some trees, yes, but it's been mostly raw land. My concern and my request for you tonight to not approve the variance for this is that the entirety of CACNU from the junior high to the end of the road where I live, there's a lot of raw land, there's a lot of abandoned houses, um, and on the opposite side of Candlelight Drive in CACNU, there already is, I believe, a 3-unit multidwelling. And so when I hear that there's going to be 2 multidwellings, you know, like, where Candlelight's pretty busy, and I'm just thinking about how that adds to the traffic and everything, where this seems like— I would like to see more single-unit dwellings going up and families living there, but to have that concentration of multifamily dwelling units is a bit of a concern to me. That's pretty much all I have to say.

Thank you very much. Anybody else would like to comment? Go ahead, state your name, where you're from, and— well, the red button's still early, but you'll have to push it again. There you go, one more time. There you go, perfect.

Oh, just— okay, I see. Hi, I'm, I'm Katie Way. I'm a realtor, and I'm the realtor that sold the land. And I do love that the city had zoned that property single-family, multi-family, because they established that there's an absolute need for multi-family as our communities grow and develop. And it's, it's no, it's no mystery that there's children on every single street everywhere.

But the, the trees where they're at right now, the buildings are not even going to be as close to the road as the trees are right now, so that there's no change in obstruction of view or anything from where it's currently at. And it's never been a spoken concern until the multifamily development was addressed. So the applicant is using the property according to what the city allows, and he's following all the proper guidelines and all the safety guidelines. And we need more families in our community. And just like they like that families are there, it will be more families.

Seeing that there's no one else to speak, is there, uh, any discussion from the commission?

So as far as these plans go, I just For clarification, we still have the setback, it's not the road right-of-way. The road right-of-way is 60 feet in that general area, is that—. I believe so. So we have a 60-foot road right-of-way, and we're talking an additional 20 foot of the property owner's property, which is the setback. And on a corner lot, that takes a lot of property away, and I understand where they're coming from on that.

Currently, from my understanding, is it would be eliminating 10 foot more of those trees. So from an obscure obscuring the road, I don't see it being a safety hazard. I can see this actually— A, it's going to eliminate the additional driveway on that side by having this. So you're limiting that entry and exit point, which helps control traffic flow to the primary road of Candlelight, I believe is what it is. So I can see that being a benefit for safety, not having an extra driveway on there entering and exit.

I don't see it being a harm to visual obstructions because, A, we're, we're opening that up more than it is right now. Um, there's nothing saying that somebody could put a shed in that 20-foot road right away right now. That's okay with city code. You don't have a permit for a shed, from my understanding. So to say that there could never be anything in a right-of-way is also a slight misconception.

This is a way to be able to do something with a permanent structure. I believe by cutting off that road right-of-way access with the building is a good use of the lot. This entire area is zoned for this, so seeing that the The city has already planned for the possibility of multifamily dwellings. It's not really changing it. And quite frankly, right now we're seeing more demand for multifamily because the lower cost than single family in this area.

As much as we'd love to see a bunch of really nice houses, not everybody can forward $300,000 or $400,000 right now to build a house. So having these multifamily dwellings is an efficient way to get younger families in here. And it does meet the other side, it matches the other side of the road with already multiple multifamily dwellings along Candlelight. So I see it being a positive for the neighborhood. I'm glad to see that the, the landowner, I believe, already has cleaned up one of the dilapidated structures on an adjoining lot and has plans to, to clean the area up and utilize some of these abandoned or non-utilized lots, which we live in the city and that's what they're there for.

And we're hoping to build them. So I see this as a good thing. I don't see it as a safety hazard. If anything, I can see it opening up that area. And making it more visible when you're coming up to those intersections to be able to see left and right quite a bit.

So I will be in favor of this.

Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else?

Commissioner Askin or Commissioner Earsley?

No, I'm good.

Thank you.

Through the— I feel good. Thank you. Having reviewed the packet and read through the zoning regulations, and as it was testified, it does qualify as a multi-family. It was advertised as a multi-family. Um, having gone by the parcel myself and viewed it, Um, I agree with the similar testimony that it's actually going to be an improvement, in my opinion, to shut off Kakano for access and divert it over to Candlelight, which is a longer stretch.

If you're to go to Kakano, you're going to be approaching a stop sign and you're not going to have any static traffic. You're going to be backed up if you're having multi-dwellings. And our 9 months of winter and plowing and school school bus activity at 40 feet, I would think it would be a better design for traffic flow to have that access coming off of Candlelight. And as far as obstruction of view, you got trees that are getting knocked down left and right in town due to Spruce Park beetle kill and whatever else. So the fact that there's going to be development taking place, um, yeah, I, I agree with the findings that have been presented by staff and what I've heard in testimony.

I, like I say, I'm going to be voting in favor of it. I It would be an improvement and a definite need in the community for additional housing units.

I agree with what everyone has said here, but I did have a question. So I did not drive by this. I usually do, but I had a pretty good grasp, I thought, until just this moment. So is it my understanding that Candlelight is a straight through? It's not a 4-way stop there.

It's only a 2-way stop. It is a 4-way stop. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Um, I would like to echo the rest of the commissioners. I drive bus up and down those streets, and I know how many kids are out there when I come up to do a stop, and there are a lot of kids there. And putting it on CACNU is better. There are more stops on CACNU than there are on Candlelight. And I think that blocking off the access to CACNU is the right thing to do.

Thank you.

Um, I'm getting the eye, so I better—. I, I am in agreement with everyone. I actually drive by there almost every day, and I don't see where it's going to be any less visible than the trees that are there. I'm in favor.

So no one else has any other comments about this? Okay, great. Thank you. Clerk, can we call the vote? Thank you.

Chair Keeton? Yeah. Commissioner Kraus? Yes. Commissioner Fikes?

Yes. Commissioner Woodard? Yes. Vice Chair Dothit? Yes.

You have 5 yes votes. The application is passed. Thank you.

Please note that there's a 15-day period that an aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Thank you.

Section G, we have no unfinished business. Section H, action approval subdivision regulations. Is there a motion to recommend council approval of ordinance number 35202026? I move to approve, um, action approval on city Kenai City ordinance Number 3520-2026. And a second?

I'll second. Thank you. Can we have the staff report, please? Director Butner. Thank you, Chair Keeton.

Um, keep this fairly short and simple. The, um, based on the community survey that was done in the autumn 2025, housing availability and affordability were noted as important issues, which we've discussed at length over the past few months. Um, it's further highlighted during conversations with the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District, which is Capehead, local realtors, and both large and small-scale developers. Uh, that, that— and they took place during a housing assessment effort that was sponsored by Capehead. Um, one thing that came out of that is that sometimes it's confusing, uh, with builder— for developers, uh, especially that trying to navigate our code.

So we wanted to look through a lot of it. A lot of it is Title 14, which falls under the purview of this commission. And one thing that was highlighted for us was, um, there were certain things that were in code, specifically road design standards, that were very specific down to width of pavement and whether or not it's going to have sidewalks and everything. Um, but it wasn't— it wasn't standard throughout the entire community because it said certain roads, if they were classified as a certain way by the commission and by council, And it was, it, to me, it was very confusing. Um, and certain things change over time as parts of the city develop.

Different roads could bring on more importance, you know, as more units go onto a road, it may become a collector versus just a local road. Um, with that, we work through as commission back at the end of last year to go through subdivision regulations through code, uh, which have been captured in this ordinance. Um, essentially what we're doing is pulling all of the specificity out of code and referring to, um, the Street Design Standards Manual for the City of Kenai. That'll be something that can be updated as best practices change and then applied uniformly throughout the entire city based on a lot of different parameters. Some of it's traffic based on the amount of traffic, some of it's going to be based on its location of what it's connecting to, if it's going to be pulling a lot of traffic off the spur, taking into a neighborhood and then dispersing those roads may be wider, may have sidewalks, you know, various things like that.

So, um, before we took it to council, we wanted to bring it back in front of you so you could see what we are— since we're taking stuff out of code, we wanted to show you what we're putting in its place so that we're not just arbitrarily making decisions on code. So that's why we brought it back for your recommendation to council.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on the recommendations to council on ordinance number 3520-2026?

And there's no one online. There's nobody online. Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, we bring it back to the commission to Discussion from the Commission, please.

I just would like to say I'm in favor of this. I've been talking with this— this is even for quite some time about road standards and being able to get it to where it doesn't necessarily have to come back before Commission and a body every time they need to update or adjust something. And from my understanding, clarify, this is going to be a lot of it based off of what borough road standards are, kind of going to synchronize a little bit better with some of that too. Through the chair, Commissioner Douthit, yes, it's— we took some initial from the Mat-Su Borough, we looked at the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and then looked at what we actually do have here on the ground. On the ground, between all that and with just engineering best practices, we've modified some of them, but it makes more sense because we're in a more urban context here than some of the roads in the borough.

Yeah, anything we can do to help developers build across between the borough and the city to help them understand things better. And like I said, the biggest thing I see is that by having it just refer to a manual, the manual can be updated and critiqued a lot faster and a lot more efficiently as the need arises than we can do actually set in code. So I think it's a great idea, and I, I think this is helping move forward with being able to— with government efficiency, so to speak, for development within the city. I know they've had some issues in the past with how roads are required and kind of outdated standards. And, and by doing this, stuff changes every couple years, and now they can do it without having to go for the whole process and take up a lot of city time.

So I'm glad to see these kind of things happening, and I see more of this kind of stuff coming up in the future, and I'm glad to see that happening. So thank you, staff, for doing this, and I'm definitely for it.

I agree with the concept of using a manual to lay out what is— what street sizes, what sidewalks are they, do they need to be 60 feet based on the housing, etc., paved, unpaved, etc. This is going to make it a lot easier for everybody, including the public. Thank you.

I just had a question for staff. Section 8 It says, um, amendment of code, and it's saying the owner of a commercial lot located in a commercial zone may divide the tract into fragment lots. What's a fragment lot? Uh, through the chair, Commissioner Fikes, um, fragment lots— so we don't have in commercial zones, we don't have a size like we do for suburban residential or residential. Yeah, we have minimum lot sizes.

Commercial doesn't because occasionally, um, depending on how— if they condo-ize like a strip mall kind of thing, at some point some of those may not be standard size. It also allows for outlots when you have a place like Walmart that has a large lot and then they want to put a McDonald's next to it or something like that. So it just allows a little bit more flexibility. This isn't a In Section 8, the main thing that changed there is since we're going through code changing the shalls to wills, we were just changing language so it's consistent throughout code. But the fragment lot, that's been in our code for some time, but it just allows for that what could be typically nonstandard, just depends on how they ultimately want to split up a commercial parcel.

And then just curious, it mentions declarations, covenants, and restrictions. And I didn't think we were bound by any kind of covenants, so why would we have that in our language?

Where are we at? Uh, sorry, Section 8, um, A, the owner of a commercial lot, track located in a—. Um, so we, we do not— we the city do not enforce those. Um, However, uh, if they are there, developers could be, could be bound by them, especially if it has like an active, um, neighborhood association or something like that. So, um, we recognize that they are there, but ultimately that's going to be up to the developers and/or an association in that neighborhood to, to handle that.

Um, again, we won't— we can't— the city can't enforce them, um, but we know they exist and we want to at least acknowledge that they do exist and could be Um, could be enforced, but it doesn't set us up for any kind of legal issues. That's what I was wondering, by putting the language in, are we confusing that? So anything that is not underlined or bracketed is already existing code. So, so we didn't, we didn't add it this time, but, um, we, as long as we, the city, in any capacity, whether it's Commission, Council, as long as we do not make a decision on those on the basis of that. Like, we can't use them to cite findings, right?

Um, as long as we do not take any action, that we would not face any legal, uh, action on that. We can provide the information, but we can't use it as substance. Correct. We can provide the information if it's available. We can't use it to make it an official city decision.

I'm for it, but I just thought the opportunity was in front of us, so I just wanted to ask those little nitpicky questions.

Any further comments from the commission? Oh, I have one more. So if we're— sorry, they come to me.

Dinner's not ready yet. Um, so on Strawberry Road as an example, so as we develop and we move forward and we make these adjustments and changes, What does that do for our landowners and property owners that have old regulations in place? Are they grandfathered in? If they sell off, where does that put them?

So any, anytime code changes, anything that exists prior is essentially what we call grandfathered in. They, if it doesn't meet the exact code as it stands, once it's modified, they become nonconforming. So there are places where there are lot sizes in developed— in zoning districts that are technically too small because they were rezoned from something else. For example, if it was rezoned from suburban residential to a rural residential, rural residential has a smaller lot, but— or a larger lot size, but you might have these smaller lots in that neighborhood now. So you can't expand on a nonconforming use.

If and when someone were to change the development cell or anything, new development would have to follow the new code. Again, non-conformalized, you're not really going to change much, but the development possibly could change. But again, as those developments happen, we go with what the best information we have at the time to include CC&Rs or anything else that is found during our research, um, so it's at least provided so that everyone has access to it. Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay, great. Thank you. Seeing one— seeing— is there anybody from the public who would like to speak on this ordinance?

Seeing no one wishing to speak, we will We will bring it back. Oh, sorry, we need to call for the vote. I lost track.

Commissioner Askin? Uh, I'm for it. Commissioner Urszly? I'm for it. Commissioner Kraus?

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

Vice Chair Dawson? Yes. Chair Keeton? Yes.

It looks like it's approved. Thank you. Um, reports from the Planning Director, Butner. May we have your report, please? Sure.

I don't have a large, uh, report this week, uh, this, this meeting. However, um, I will state for the record, uh, at our last meeting, um, administration through me, uh, had us go into adjudicative session. I found out the next morning that that was an error. So, uh, because we were acting at that time in an advisory capacity and not as adjudicative— so the variance permit, CUPs like that, that's adjudicative, we are allowed to go into adjudicative session for that. Um, when we're making recommendations to council, we are not And I erroneously did take us into a— or offer the motion to go into that.

So for that, I will apologize profusely. As such, it's coming back for the third time at our next meeting. Things won't change. It'll just basically— we have to— since we had an open meetings infraction, the best way to cure it is to open it back up to the public. So the discussion we had at our last meeting basically just has to reoccur in the public so that we can clear up any, uh, potential gray areas and move forward.

Um, so I just wanted to bring that up just because that was my mistake, and I wanted to, um, ensure that it was not— I didn't know better. I do now. So going forward, that won't happen again. But I just want to apologize to the commission.

Lesson learned. What is the remedy then if we have those kind of questions? Um, the remedy is to bring it back in front of the— have another public hearing. And this time, um, so the discussion we had, um, when we were adjourned adjudication— adjudicated session basically has to happen here at the dais. So that's open to anyone.

Okay, great.

Um, I don't have any particular report to give. Commissioner Fikes. All righty, we got the borough. We met on Monday and let's see, we had some—. There we go.

All right, we had right-of-way vacation in the Kenai area and we had an easement, utility easement along the southeasterly lot line parallel to Wildwood Drive and we approved the Brightway vacation, and then we moved on to authorizing a communication site lease agreement, and we approved that, and that was in the Kenai area.

I want to say Pickle Hill. I believe that was the one on Pickle Hill. And then we had another one that was a conditional use permit over in Tyonek with the Native Corporation, and that was to remove two culverts and replace them with 50-foot by 14-foot bridge, and that's going to improve the habitat. And so that was great for spawning salmon, so we approved that one. We had another commercial or conditional use permit request to install a boat launch and a dock on Daniels Lake.

And there was some discussion on that. And it was ultimately decided that that was something that was already approved and authorized for those areas. And so that was approved as it met code. And then we had a conditional use permit that was brought to us by DNR in the Sodatna area. And that was for construction of a fence in the 50-foot habitat area of the Kenai River and Sodatna Creek.

And that is if you're in Soldotna Park and you were to walk down the trail, if you will, to the running water, um, you look across, that's where they're going to put up a 50-foot fence. And it's going to be just strips of metal with wire connected to them so that the water can still flow through, but there's quite a bit of bank erosion. And so the hope is, is trying to improve that area and get some more vegetation and some solid bank and not lose any erosion. There was several agencies that were weighing in on that, and everybody gave it a green light, so that one went ahead, no problem. And let's see, oh yeah, we finished it out with 8 plats, but we postponed one, so 7 of them we approved.

And no commissioner comments. Yep, that was it.

Thank you, Commissioner Fikes. Next is our City Council liaison, Council Member Askin. May we have your report, please? Thank you, Chair Keeton. We met on May 6th.

We had several ordinances. The first one was Kenai City Code Chapter 715. We removed requirements to publish advertisements in newspapers because Our newspaper, I think, is down to one time a week, and it would— it just delays everything. And then we had four ordinances where we increased revenues. One was to purchase firefighting foam.

Our foam is out of date. We need to replace it. Another one was to purchase snow removal equipment, and return a residual balance from a completed project back to the original funding source. We also increased revenues for overtime costs in excess of budgeted amounts, and we also passed— in the, in the past, our firefighters have been receiving a 5% bonus if they carry like a paramedic license and stuff, and the industry standard is 15%, so we voted that up. Increased— we also increased appropriations for authorizing a consulting agreement to evaluate the natural gas storage opportunities on Kenai Municipal Airport lands.

That's the NSTAR, Hilcorp have proposed— each one of them have proposed a contract for that pore space gas storage, and so they're, they're competing.

We also authorized the purchase of a new Ventrac trailer— or tractor, I mean— and attachments, and 2026 fire systems testing. We also authorized our city manager to enter into an airplane operating agreement with Fox Air. Their plan is to begin service at the airport on June 1st. We also authorized an extension of a contract for purchase of water and wastewater chemicals and a contract for refueling services for city facility fuel tanks. And then we, as part of a grant requirement with the Federal Fair Housing Act, we had to reaffirm the city's support of non-discrimination policies as outlined in Title VIII.

Of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Director Butner already spoke about the returning the ordinance 3510-2026 to you, and that concludes my report. I stand for questions.

Are there any questions for Councilmember Askin?

I guess I have a real quick one. Did the city staff Have they completed their investigation, so to speak? And I know they were looking further into Fox for the final approval on that. Or did they find any findings on that allegations? I've not heard what, what if anything they found.

There were some allegations of some impropriety, and so we were researching that further before, um, City Manager Eubank signed the contract.

Thank you. I just hadn't heard anything yet.

Oh, and we are, um, we are still looking for an airport manager. They'll be reissuing, um, advertising for that position again.

Uh, looks like the restaurant in the airport is moving out. Do we have a tenant for that location? We do not. Yes, they are, I think They're leaving the 1st of June, I believe. And no, we don't have— we haven't had any interest so far.

Okay, we're back to Section J, additional public comments. Is there anyone from the public wishing to comment? Are there any remote attendees? There are none. Thank you.

Ma'am, would you like to make a comment? Okay, thank you. Next meeting attendance notification. Next meeting is May 27th, 2026. Please note that the next meeting is, is May 27th, 2026.

Is anyone planning to be absent or attending remotely? Commissioner Askin or Commissioner Earsley?

Commissioner Askin will be attending remotely. Thank you. Anybody else? I'll be available, uh, present. Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Woodard? Comments or questions? I'm good. Anybody else?

I have to apologize, I misspoke on Ordinance 2026-2022 authorizing the communication site lease agreement. That was off a readout and not Pickle Hill, but a good side note on that is it was a lease agreement with the borough for $3,000 a month that has now been changed to, I believe, $30,000 a month. So there's a significant change in that. And that's a lease that goes out to multiple people. It could be GCI, it could be AT&T, with space saved for the borough for any kind of safety necessities.

But yeah, it was a huge adjustment to their lease agreement. So. Which readout? Readout Ave here in Kenai, right by our trash. If you drive by there and you'll see a tower, I think it's between 1st and 2nd.

Yeah, is that city land? Uh, borough. But yeah, that's why I was getting all excited about the lease. That's why I was like, holy smokes. But I don't know if there's any kickdown from that.

But yeah, research it. That was phenomenal negotiation. Uh, I just wanted to say thanks everybody for good findings and good discussion on these ordinances. It's really important when we're doing these kind of things to if anything is contested, to be able to have opinions and what's going on and why we did something. So it's great to see everybody pitching in and having comments on that.

So thanks for that. Other than that, I have nothing. I'd just like to thank everybody, um, for coming today and, uh, let you guys know that I'm still learning every day, and I appreciate your input. Thank you.

We have no pending items. And seeing no further business before this body, we are adjourned.