Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

You're on the record.

Thank you. I would like to call the August 26, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. If you are able, please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. and justice for all. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Thank you. Commissioner Woodard?

Here.

Vice Chair Doffit?

Here.

Chair Keaton?

Here.

Commissioner Askin?

Present.

Commissioner Ersley is absent. Commissioner Krause?

Here.

Commissioner Fikes?

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you. Item 3 is the approval of the agenda and consent agenda. Commission, before we get to agenda and consent agenda approval, I would like to bring your attention to the lay down materials. Add item G3, G4, and G7. What is the pleasure of the commission? Would somebody like to?

I move to add in the add items of G3, G4, and G7.

And a second, please? Second. Thank you. Are there any additional revisions to the agenda or consent agenda from the commission? Thank you. Would the clerk please read the consent agenda items into the record?

Thank you, Chair. The approval of minutes of the regular meeting of August 12, 2026, and that is your consent agenda.

Thank you. Are there any public comments on any of the consent agenda items just read by the clerk? Hearing none. Unanimous consent.

Go ahead.

I'd like to request unanimous consent on the consent agenda.

Thank you. Are there any objections? Hearing none, the motion is passed. The agenda and consent agenda are approved. Item C, schedule public comment. We have no public comments this evening. Item D, Unscheduled public comment. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak to anything that is not on the agenda? Are there any remote attendees?

There is nobody online.

Thank you. Moving on to item E, consideration of plats. We have no plats for consideration. Moving on to item F, public hearings. We have no new public hearings. item g unfinished business that brings us to unfinished business these items were originally presented for a public hearing on july 29 2026 due to a lack of quorum these items were rescheduled for tonight's meeting the first public hearing before us tonight is resolution pz2026-20 recommending approval of a rezone of parcels 4923002, 4923003, 4923004 with the physical address of 5940 and 5968 Kenai Spur Highway and 220 North Fern Street from Limited Commercial to Rural Residential. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-20?

Make a motion for approval of PZ2026.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Director Buettner, can we have the staff report please?

Thank you, Chair Keeton. If I can draw your attention to page 11, there was a memorandum from August 6th, but the memo requests a postponement of this business item. This item was given public noticing in accordance with Kenai Municipal Code 1420-280C, but is no longer applicable to this meeting. The applicant has chosen to withdraw this project from consideration. We request this item be postponed indefinitely. Thank you for your consideration.

Is there any...

Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to resolution PZ2026-20?

Okay.

The applicant has chosen to withdraw this project from consideration. Can I please have a motion to postpone PZ2026-20 indefinitely?

I'll make a motion to postpone indefinitely PZ2026-20.

Is there a second? Second. No fighting. Seeing no one or no one is, oh, is there, are there any remote attendees? My apologies.

No, there is nobody online.

Okay. Seeing no one, we will bring this back to the Commission for discussion from the Commission. Any discussion from the Commission on this? None? Okay. Clerk, can you please call the roll? Okay. Okay, can we, I would like to propose someone ask for unanimous consent on this.

I request unanimous consent.

On PZ.

On the motion which is above us to postpone indefinitely PZ2026-20.

Thank you. Is there any objections?

OK.

Hearing none, the motion for PZ2026-20 to be postponed indefinitely is passed. We are now on item G2, resolution PZ2026-21, granting a conditional use permit for the operation of a six-space recreational vehicle park. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-21?

Make a motion for approval of PZ2026-21.

Second. I'll second that. Thank you. Director Buettner, can we have the staff report, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair Keaton. The applicant was not available to come this evening. They did say that if they did have questions, and if you had questions for them that were not answered by the staff report, that they could bring them to a subsequent meeting. So we could, if you need more information, postpone this to a date certain in the future.

But I'll go ahead and give the staff report and see where the discussion goes. Just real quick, are they required to be here for this or no?

They are required, but if they give us advance notice, we can uh excuse them if the commission doesn't have any additional questions of them okay but ultimately if you're not comfortable making decision tonight without asking questions we could postpone this to a for a future meeting So summary, the applicant is requesting to operate a six-space recreational vehicle park with water and electricity hookups on the existing 1.086-acre lot. Pursuant to land use table and KMC 1422010, conditional use permit is required to operate a recreational vehicle park in the central mixed-use zone. Pursuant to KMC 1420-150A, the intent of a conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the designated principal uses in specific zoning districts, provided certain conditions are met. Prior to granting a conditional use permit, the Commission shall determine that the identified criteria, as outlined in KMC 1420-150E, conditional use permits review criteria, are met. Criteria 1. The use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district. CMU zone is established to provide a centrally located area in the city for general retail, shopping, personal and professional services, entertainment establishments, restaurants, and related businesses. The district is also intended to accommodate a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The CMU zone shall be designed to encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area. Building and other structures within the district should be compatible with one another in the surrounding area. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes and intent of the zoning district. A small RV park centrally located in town would help promote tourism within the city. The lot is easily accessible by foot or vehicle traffic and located near shops, downtown, and recreational activities, making it an ideal spot for travelers. Criteria two, the economic and non-economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. Adjacent parcels in the neighborhood consist of a mixture of commercial businesses. Having a recreational park centrally located among them would be beneficial to both surrounding property owners and clients using the park. Guests would be conveniently located within walking distance of entertainment, dining, and local shops, increasing profits to local businesses. Staff finds that both economic and non-economic value of adjacent properties would not be negatively impacted by the proposed business. Criteria three, the proposed use is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. From the 2016 comprehensive plan, the subject property is within the institutional land use classification, which is intended to provide an area in which government and tax-exempt institutions can offer social and cultural amenities to the citizens of the community. The primary use is public, nonprofit, and quasi-public uses, including government offices and facilities, schools, churches, and other community service-oriented facilities. The property is owned and operated by the Kenai Elks Lodge 2425, a nonprofit organization. The proposed use aligns with the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan by allowing the opportunity for a non-profit entity to offer an affordable and necessary service that will benefit a mixture of members of the Elk Lodge, visitors to the area, and local businesses. Relevant goals from the Imagine Kenai 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter six, goal one, quality of life, promote and encourage quality of life in Kenai. Objective Q4, promoting the siting and design of land uses that are in harmony and scale with surrounding uses. Objective Q9, encourage healthy lifestyles by providing opportunities and or facilities for outdoor activities. Goal 2, the economic development, providing economic development support to the physical health of Kenai. Objective ED9, capitalize on the tourism industry by marketing Kenai as a destination for recreational activities, conventions, festivals, arts, cultural, and other events. Goal 3, develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development. Objective LU2, promote the infill of existing improved subdivision lots. Criteria four, public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. The lot is currently serviced by city water and sewer. The park has been established on the lot for years and function as such without any issues or complaints. The lot is accessible by a paved city maintained road. Staff finds that the public services and facilities that have been utilized over the years of operation to be adequate to serve the proposed use. Criteria five, the proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health, or welfare. The applicant states that dumping is not allowed on-site and all guests must utilize an authorized dump area. Trash services are not provided on-site, but applicants are informed of the rules and regulations regarding containing and properly disposing of any and all trash during their stay. Staff does not find that the proposed use will be or has been harmful in any way to public safety, health, or welfare. Criteria 6. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Commission to fulfill the above-mentioned conditions. Conditional use permits are subject to the following standards per KMC 142245. Recreational vehicle parks are not to become a nuisance to surrounding properties. Recreational vehicle parks shall control dust, shield lighting from other properties, prohibit loud noises, and maintain a clean and orderly appearance free of refuse. Pursuant to KMC 1422 ADC notices of the public hearing for the conditional use 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. 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. One public comment has been received at the time of this report and is included in this packet. Staff recommendation. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use permit for use of a six-space recreational vehicle park on the property described as Lot 1A, Block 3, Fidalgo Commercial Center Elks Replat meets the criteria for issuance of a conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E1 through E6 of Kenai Municipal Code 1420.150 and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt PZ2026-21, approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions. 1. Any development or use of the property shall comply with all applicable federal, state of Alaska, or city regulations, regardless of whether or not the requirements are listed as conditions for the approval of the conditional use permit. Upon request, the applicant or applicant's representative shall meet with city staff for non-site inspection. 3. If there is an expansion or change of use for the above-described property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 1420 . Pursuant to 14-20-160, all areas not devoted to buildings, drives, walks, parking areas, or other authorized installations will be covered with lawn grass, natural or ornamental shrubbery or trees, or other suitable materials approved by the Commission. Five, the property will maintain a clean and orderly appearance free from refuse. And six, permit holder will submit a yearly report between October 1st and December 31st to the Planning and Zoning Department that includes a summary of the on-site activity. That's my report.

Thank you. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to Resolution PZ2026-21? Are there any remote attendees, sir?

There are not.

Seeing no one, we will bring this back to the Commission for discussion from the Commission.

In your staff report, you mentioned there was a letter, public comment. Yeah, neither do I.

Can you say if it was in favor or against?

Our apologies. The oversight wasn't added to the packet. It was very short, but it was a neighboring property owner that was in support. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it was a property owner for the person who owns the building that houses the Mexican restaurant to the west. I think it's Martha's Cucino.

That was my biggest concern. It was a for or against? It was for. That's cool. Thanks.

Through the chair would it be possible to read into the record then since it wasn't available to us doesn't need to be recorded I Could go upstairs and print it out real quick it might take me a moment to grab it But if we could do that to put it into the record before we adjourn the meeting That would be good, and then I had one more question for staff Since we're asking for an adjustment to the land use is there a site plan for landscaping that's required I

Yes, there is a brief site plan. Right now there is really no change to the existing.

Okay, I'm looking at lines. Are we talking, am I going to get trees? Am I going to get a fence?

There's already a fence there between. I don't see any trees. Trees, currently as it stands, because they're not modifying, what they have technically is non-conforming, but they're not expanding the non-conforming use.

I only bring it up because I just know that the policy, and as more people and more applicants come forward, I wouldn't want this to be negative on the city for saying, well, you approved this, but you didn't alter or change. I just saw the existing fencing, so I just wanted to make sure that we're in compliance with what that may be perceived as looking like.

Correct. The development for the CMU district is a little less intense. And a lot of the screening is really when you start bumping up, when you have residential versus commercial, when you're on that line, when you're within a larger commercial or central mixed-use district, when you have similar uses close to each other, like across the streets, the post office with a large parking lot, the Elks being where they're at, they do have some Some site, the shielding, that fence between them and the rec center, which is still institutional, but it's not as commercial, I guess, as the others. So they do have that between those two land uses, but the rest of it in that area is commercial, which is consistent when we're looking at places down the street like IGA. You have the store, then you have LA Esquitire, large open areas with minimal landscaping. So this fits the context of the neighborhood.

Perhaps maybe down the future some wooden cutouts, some wooden elks maybe. I don't know. Just saying.

I'll pitch that to them. They do have a big brass one sitting on top of the building.

Yeah.

So I will say this has been basically an operation like it's presented for as long as I can possibly remember. I think this was something that they didn't realize they needed to have is this conditional use permit. Nobody's talking against it, and I haven't seen anybody complaining about it as it's been operational for as long as I can possibly remember. So because of that, I think this is just a clerical issue that they're getting resolved to make sure everything's square, and I'll be 100% in support of this.

I'm not an ELKS member, but I think the community involvement that the lodge has is immeasurable, including their more than two decades of service to the breakfast provided at the alternative high school. So I'm happy to support this 100%. Any other comments?

I just had one question on that. Was there any plans to drain sewer or anything, or is that just the way it stays?

At this time, none have been conveyed to us. They do not dump on site. They're told that they're not allowed to, that they have to go to another authorized dump site. If that were to change, we'd probably bring it back. But at this time, there are no plans for that. OK.

Since you brought that up, could they have somebody like Peninsula Pumping come out and empty the tanks?

Not 100% certain if they would pump directly out of the RV. They could in theory, but often a lot of them just go to another dump site too. They stay there for a few days. And this generally happens around the fishery, so they come in for a few days and then they kind of rotate out. So there's generally a lot of movement, so they're not... But yes, in theory, as a commercial service, they could have it done.

Okay, perfect. And there's no more discussion from any of the commissioners? Okay.

I'll go ahead and move for unanimous consent, seeing that we're reading the room here. Unanimous consent being requested for PZ2026-22. Second.

2-1.

And we got a second from?

Second.

Thank you. Are there any objections? Hearing none, the motion to approve resolution PZ2026-21 is approved. Please note that there is a 15-day period that an aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Next, we have item G3, resolution PZ2026-22, Granting a conditional use permit for surface extraction of natural resources on KPB parcel 04901069. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-22?

Why not? I'll make a motion PZ2026-22, motion for approval. Second.

Is there a second? Go ahead. And Director Buettner, can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Keeton. The staff report is lengthy, but there are two sets of findings within the report. There's one for the surface extraction as specified in code, and then one for the overall CUP process in general. So you'll hear two sets of findings. I just didn't want anyone to be confused when we get into it. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and a variance permit for the construction and operation of a gravel pit. This resolution is for the conditional use permit. Item E5 will be the related variance. And for the proposed service extraction of natural resources pursuant to KMC 1420.150 through KMC 1420.158. The proposed extraction site will be owned and operated by Coalaska doing business as QAP. In addition to the subject lot, Coalaska also owns Lot 3 to the east and the 60 acres immediately east and southeast of Lot 3. Those parcels will be utilized to access the proposed material site from Beaver Loop Road. The applicant is requesting that the CUP allow for an excavation below the water table stating it is a common practice in the area and that there is an active excavation below groundwater at adjacent material sites. In conjunction with the conditional use permit, the applicant is requesting variance KMC 14-20-150 regarding buffers to the public rights away and property lines due to the use of adjacent properties as material sites. The variance requested is a 50-foot buffer to the north, south, and west, and a zero-foot buffer on the adjoining property lines of lot two and three. These variances will be heard later in this meeting as separate resolutions. Criteria for the issuance of conditional use permit for surface extraction natural resources are outlined in KMC 1420.154. Item 1. The application is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the chapter. This application is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the chapter. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed use meets requirements for boundaries, assuming the variance permit is granted, back slopes, public safety, and the need for gravel within the city. Item 2. Boundaries of the proposed excavation at its greatest dimensions, including backslopes, are at least 200 feet from any road or public right-of-way and at least 150 feet from surrounding property lines, except that adjoining permitted surface extraction natural resources sites are not required to maintain above 150 feet excavation between sites. The applicant has provided two versions of the boundaries for staff to review. The initial set delineates a 200-foot setback from all roads and public rights away and a minimum of 150 feet from other surrounding property lines except for the adjoining Lot 3, which is also being heard for a CUP at this meeting through Resolution PZ2026-23. The applicant also showed alternatives based on a variance for a full project at this location. Those boundaries depend on the variance permit application submitted in conjunction with the conditional use permit being granted. If granted, there will be a 50-foot setback to public right-of-way, 50-foot setback to adjacent property lines, zero-foot setback to adjoining property line with Lot 3, Beaverly-Bakers Edition No. 3, and excavation in the water table. The excavation slopes will be one vertical to one horizontal, as shown on page C5 of the submitted site plan. Item 3. The buffer strips between the excavation site and roadways and property lines contain sufficient natural screening to obscure the entire excavation from the site of roadways and inhabited areas. If there is not sufficient natural screening, the site plan must provide for artificial screening. The proposed extraction site is north of an adjacent gravel pit and is not visible from Beaver Loop Road. Additionally, there is a tree line creating a natural barrier to the south of both pits. There are no inhabited areas in the nearby vicinity to warrant the necessity of additional or artificial screening to be required. Properties located north of the proposed gravel pits, which is near the Kenai Golf Course, are over 30 feet higher in elevation and it is not feasible to add additional screening. Item 4. The surface extraction is outside of the 1% annual chance flood zone, also known as the 100-year floodplain. one-fifth percent, 0.2% annual chance flood zone, the 500-year floodplain, and high-hazard coastal areas. City staff has confirmed that the subject parcel is outside of the regulatory floodplain and is outside of the one percent annual chance flood zone, one-fifth percent annual chance flood zone, and high-hazard coastal areas. The current classification for the project location as designated by FEMA's latest floodplain maps dated February 28, 2025, is XU, or X-ray Uniform. which is undefined. The City of Kenai's floodplain administrator has reviewed the application and has no comments. Item 5. The site plan provides that backslopes be a minimum of a 2 to 1 slope, except for the contiguous working face. Site plans submitted by the applicant show that the reclamation will be a continuous process, including sloping the sides of the excavation 2 to 1 or flatter along buffer zones and inactive work areas with a 4-inch minimum of topsoil mix, organic clearing debris, and seeding as necessary to contain erosion. Item 6. The site plan does not provide for excavation below the water table except where a reasonable method of drainage is available at the particular site or where the particular development plan provides for a lake on the site of excavation. Applicant states that it is anticipated that much of the gravel extraction will occur below the water table. The final configuration of the site will be similar to most gravel pits in the areas with ponds forming in areas worked below the water table and haul routes adapting as the site is further developed. The final development plan envisions lake on-site and the reclamation of shorelines. This will include grass or other vegetation and constructing locations for houses or RV parking spots around the ponded area. Item 7. If the excavation is to be below the water table and the site is likely to endanger public safety, the site plan shall provide fencing for the work area. Applicant states that the casual access is not anticipated as the proposed site is rural and surrounded by large tracts of wetlands to the north and other material sites to the east, west, and south. The applicant plans to construct berms as ponds that are created during operations to prevent vehicles, equipment, people, or animals from going into the water. Staff does not anticipate that the site will present any danger to public safety. Item 8, the proposed use of land after extraction is completed. After extraction is completed, it is feasible and realistic and is a use permitted zone in which the property is located. The proposed extraction site will be operating on a continuing basis for approximately four years and then on an as-needed basis until the site is exhausted. Applicant estimates this timeframe to be approximately 15 years in total. With the majority of the gravel being located below the water table, the final development would be to reclaim the shorelines of the ponds, establish grass and other vegetation, and construct locations for houses or RV parking sites around the ponded areas. Site reclamation will include grading and free contouring backslopes using overburdened topsoil to a condition that allows for reestablishment of natural vegetation and seating. The parcel does not currently have any existing structures and there are no plans for any permanent structures to be added. Anything that is stored will be temporary and movable. Staff find this adequately addressed as a feasible and realistic use of the land once extraction of natural resources on the site cease. Item 9. The extraction does not destroy the land for the purpose for which it is owned. City staff have discussed the importance of ensuring a clean water supply in the city and the applicant will take measures to monitor water levels and be mindful of what is allowed near water and sensitive areas of the landscape. Applicant notes equipment and construction debris will not be disposed of in surface water. The applicant also plans to seed slopes of plants suitable for Alaska conditions and will limit erosion and dust that could affect the landscape. As stated in the previous criteria, no permanent structures are planned to be erected, which will leave the parcel vacant and ready for future development. An example of successful reclamation can be found at the Lake Kenai subdivision east of this project along Beaver Loop Road. Item 10. The need for the particular natural resource within the City of Kenai outweighs any detrimental effects the operation may have on surrounding property owners. The majority of the parcels surrounding the subject lot are also utilized as material extraction sites and there are no residential properties in the immediate area of this lot two. The city and the residents of will benefit from an additional local gravel source from this location. Item 11. The applicant is the owner of the subject property. The proposed parcel was recently conditionally sold by the City of Kenai in the 2026 land sale auction to Coal Ascot Doing Business SQM. The applicant is petitioning on behalf of the owner on the subject property to satisfy a condition of sale. Item 12. Clearing limits shall be delineated on the site plan as well as clearly visible on site and shall be inspected by the city planner or designee prior to the application being deemed complete. The submitted site plan adequately and clearly shows the proposed clearing limits. Prior to application being deemed complete, city staff will meet with the applicant at the site to ensure that proper clearing will align to those submitted on the site plan. Pursuant to KMC 142150A, the intent of the conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the designated principal uses in specific zoning districts provided certain conditions are met. And here are normal CUP conditions. Criteria 1, the use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and purposes and intent of the zoning district. The properties within the rural residential zone pursuant to KMC 1420.080, the intent of the zone is for lower density residential development in an attractive residential environment, to prohibit uses which would violate the residential character of the environment and generate heavy traffic in a predominantly residential area, and to separate residential structures in order to prevent health hazards and preserve the rural open quality of the environment. Surface extraction is a conditionally permitted use and can be consistent with the invent of the residential zone, especially when the reclaimed property is developed to allow for future residential uses. The proposed extraction is adjacent to existing permitted gravel pits and vacant lots. It would not change the character of the neighborhood. This use is consistent with the current development and, once reclaimed, will meet the purpose and intent of the rural residential zone. Criteria 2. The value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. Adjacent properties to the north are undeveloped wetlands owned by the City of Kenai and Alaska DNR. Adjoining properties to the east, west, and south are all material sites. Staff does not find the value of the adjoining properties or neighborhood will be significantly impaired as it aligns with the current uses of the immediate area and existing haul routes off Lot 2 will meet up and follow existing routes. The 2026 Comprehensive Plan classifies subject property as parks, recreation, open space, which is intended as undeveloped lands for the conservation of natural scenic resources. They can be used for a variety of active outdoor and indoor sports and activities. Areas that may be suitable for future natural resource development may be included in this category. The location of the pit minimizes the potential conflict with neighbors as fits with the pattern of land use along the north side of Beaver Loop Road. Therefore, staff finds the proposed use would be consistent with the intended purpose of the comprehensive plan. Also meets the following goals in the conference plan. Goal two, economic development to provide the support for the physical health of Kenai. Objective ED1, promote projects that create workforce development opportunities. Goal three, land uses to developing land use strategies. Implementing a forward-looking approach for community growth and development. Establish reciting and design standards so development is in harmony and scale with the surrounding uses. where feasible consolidate access to and between land uses via frontage roads or by shared driveways onto main streets and highways. Criteria 4. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Colasca owns 60 acres immediately east and southeast of the subject lot. These parcels will be utilized to access the proposed material site from Beaver Loop Road. This does not include the amount of potential conflict points along Beaver Loop Road and effectively consolidates the additional traffic flow to one shared access point. Additionally, the applicant will have sufficient sanitation facilities located on site. City staff finds that the proposed services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Criteria 5. The proposed use will not be harmful to public safety, health, or welfare. The casual access to property is not anticipated as it is surrounded by large parcels of similar use and is not situated near any amenities such as fishing, parks, or recreation. The applicant notes that adequate adjacent existing barriers and screening will be utilized. The extraction site will not be a safety concern or visual impairment. The applicant has shown plans for reclamation and will be mindful about materials stored near any water sources. Criteria six, any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the Commission to fulfill the above mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant. Recommended conditions are stated at the end of the report. Public notice. Pursuant to KMC 1420-280C, notices of the public hearing for the conditional use were Mail to property owners within a 300-foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice of the public hearing of the Palenzo Clarion. City staff submitted an affidavit opposing posting verifying a sign was pasted on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the conditional use permit. At the original time of this report, which was for our July 29th, we did not have any public comments, but we have inserted public comments both into the packet and introduced with the lay down this evening. Staff recommendation. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use permit for the surface extraction of natural resources on the property described as lot 2, Beaver Loop Acres, addition number 3, subdivision meets the criteria for issuance of a conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E1 through E6 of Kenai Municipal Code 142150 and subsections A1 through A12 of KMC 1420154 and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt PZ2026-22, approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions. One, any development or use of the property shall comply with all applicable federal, state of Alaska, and city regulations regardless of whether the requirements are listed as conditions for the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Two, the applicant will properly store fuel, oil, and hazardous materials away from wetlands and other sensitive areas of the landscape. Three, the applicant will not store or fill materials such as concrete and construction waste in or near areas within the exposed water table. Four, the applicant will limit noise disturbance and not use compression release engine brakes, also known as Jake brakes. Applicant will adhere to the proposed hours of operation 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the allowance of outside hours being utilized on an as-needed project-specific basis and not ongoing. The applicant will meet with city staff for on-site inspections when requested. If there is an expansion or change of the use for the subject property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 1420I5. A permit holder will submit a yearly report between October 1st and December 31st to the Planning and Zoning Department that includes a summary of on-site activities. That is my report.

Thank you, Director. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to Resolution PZ2026-22? Go ahead. Come on up and press the button and tell us who you are and where you're from.

all right i'm kurt wilcox at 3329 beaver loop road my property adjoins qap so that right there shows that there is residence in the that is uh applicable to this request i'm going to kind of go backwards starting with your stack staff recommendation that any development or use of the property shall comply with all applicable Federal, state, Alaska, and city regulations? Well, they don't have a permit that I can see for this asphalt plant they have. In my opinion, and in my research, they should have a conditional use permit. Chester Cone never had any sort of a manufacturing crushing plant or asphalt plant and I hear that these guys are grandfathered in well that's for extraction not for the manufacturer of so right off the bat they're not meeting the requirements of the city regulations and now I'm going to go back to the original Planning and zoning resolution number PZ219, 2019-26, which is the conditional use permit that was transferred from the estate of Chester Cone. So they got, that meeting was July 24th. Well, just to give some bad, Some background. I'm going to show that they have a bad record of washing out for the environment and following permit requirements. Not two weeks after receiving this transfer, they actually dug up the buffer zone, which the city has a record of me calling Elizabeth Appleby to complain. She went out to no avail. I've got some great pictures of not only digging the buffer zone out that's within 30 feet of the property line they're asking for a variance to dig within 50 feet of the property line well i say that they should be held to the 150 feet of property lines that would be on the kmc 1420 154 a2 and I hear that they want to dig at a one-to-one in some variants. And I don't know who wrote that, but that is probably an OSHA violation.

So I can give you another 30 seconds to finish your comment.

Well, I have, I guess I can just submit this whole document then because it's, Like I said, I got a lot to say. And I tried to get on my 10-minute thing, and I was denied. So I don't know what to say. This is a one-to-one slope, cause continued erosion, prevent revegetation. They've got a bad record. I'd point out the damage they caused to the stream buffer area and documented fishing game permit violation for that. Current spilling. Their storage is bad, hazardous materials adjacent to the stream with no secondary containment. That's a SWPPP violation. Violation for noise control requirements, jake breaks, backup alarms. Air quality violation. I've got a document from the DEC.

OK, so let's do this. If there's questions from the commissioner and you can answer their questions, maybe you can get a little more information out that way. But for right now, we have to cut you off. OK. The commission have any questions for this gentleman?

I have a question. You testified that you tried to get additional time. Did you speak with somebody or talk to somebody?

Well, I wanted to be put on the the docket for, I made a request to the planning and zoning. I would have to look through my emails, but I was said that I couldn't be put on the docket, that I could, when discussions came up, I could input my information.

Did anyone ever contact you or call you in relations to that permit request?

You mean to speak?

Yeah, to testify, yeah. Did anybody ever get back to you or talk to you about the process?

Yes, Kevin did.

Okay.

Okay. Because of the nature of this item, the next item, and the last item, actually all of them are pretty related, if you want to utilize your three minutes spread out over those items, you could possibly get a lot more read into the record. Because this one and the next one are literally mirrored. So we give you another three minutes to get more into the record if that's...

Microphone, please.

What I'm speaking of is basically past what they have in the pit that they have now, not the two new pits that they bought. Although my requests are going to be the same for all of them. I think they should be held to what I'm speaking of in the original.

Okay. That's perfect. So let's try to, we're going to get the commissioners to ask questions, and then when we get to schedule public comment about these ones and number seven, then you can do your three minutes there. Don't go anywhere. All right.

So I guess now I'll ask, so in pertaining to the current pits, not what you feel is previous violations, so the current pits and the CUP that's in front of us right now, What were your recommendations for, what are the, you know, a couple of bullet points for your recommendations for UWC modifications to the CUP application?

They should adhere to the original. You know, you opened the discussion that, The digging into the water table is a common practice, digging into the water table and all the ponds. Well, I have to remind you that all those ponds was a violation of the original conditional use permit. The reasons there's holes in the ground and ponds is the city never enforced their own code. So I mean, does two wrongs make a right?

OK. So that's the only recommendation you have for the modification of the CUP? That's what my question was. OK. Not pertaining to setbacks, because that's on a different, that'd be later, right? OK. So as far as the one that's in front of us right now, what would your recommendations be? Not setbacks, but as far as the conditional use permit on this pit. Are there any things? I see there's a lay down. You asked about the possibility of white noise.

That's right.

So that would be something. Is there anything else you're recommending or asking for?

Well, white noise is a big, major concern. The noise and the pollution and the dust. I do have a A note from the DEC that they did violate, they had some initial results for an exceedance of particular matter. Which brings me back to the, I don't think that they legally have the right to operate an asphalt batch plant.

Okay. Let's talk about that later. OK. You've got your ideas of things that you want to see changed in this particular matter. And we've heard those. Is there anything else you would like to add to your list?

No. I'll save it for my next one.

I have a question. You mentioned a DEC document. They recorded a violation. What was that violation?

They exceeded a particulate matter.

Air, water?

Air.

I'm not sure where I need to ask the question on the asphalt plant. Okay. On the asphalt plant that he's talking about, is that going to be in this area or not?

Not on the current one we're discussing. It will be more relevant to G7, which is the last. Okay, G7.

Okay, that's what I needed to know.

Okay, I do have a question. Are you aware of any testing that's been done to any of the ponding that's been sent to like the extension office or something that has a water quality report, anything like that?

The only pond that I know of is the big one now that i don't have any knowledge of it being tested and there was a natural pond or a pond from the old cone days that i haven't seen for quite a while i haven't visited it so there's two ponds i know of besides an adjacent pond that that starts on my property that happens to be an agimus so all these all the water on that one tract that they own is affecting my water, which is the source of an anagymous stream.

I guess I have a question through staff. You had referenced something about digging below water level and it's a common practice. Is there anything specifically in city code that would refrain from being able to do that? And is that an exception for this? Or is that, I couldn't find anything off the top of my head.

Let me refer back.

So in code, there are two things that relate to extracting below the water table. either that they either need to have a reasonable method of drainage to keep it dewatered essentially, or where the proposed future development plans for a lake on the site of the excavation, which is the case in this. Then the other one is if they do, that they don't endanger the public safety. So putting up fencing for the work area and also not allowing any hazardous materials to be near the water that could then seep into the water table.

Okay. And that was what I was clarifying is I couldn't find where it said we You couldn't. There were just parameters saying that if you do, you have to do this in city code. Now, there might be other things with DEC that I'm not aware of, but we're talking about what we can do in the city set of things and that kind of thing.

Well, I researched Chester Cohn's original conditional use permit, and it was 75 or 78, and they went to great lengths to see that he did not dig into the water table, and he adhered to it.

Okay, thank you. Does that conclude your particular comments for this section?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to address this issue? Your name and where you're from.

Nick Stoller from Wasilla. I'm representing Coalaska QAP. So yeah, we bid on the land auction sale that the city provided for these two lots, intending for them to be gravel sources. We're a construction company that does mostly public works, road construction, airports. So the gravel that we're asking for the conditional use permit to extract gravel would be to supply those projects and the current and future projects like was in the report, probably several years worth of operation there for the materials. We do have those properties that are to the south and east, so access would remain off of Beaver Loop Road and through the existing gravel pit to get to these properties. There wouldn't be any new roads or anything for us to access the two lots. And I Yeah, I believe that we are, part of the permit is to do also crushing, processing, and the asphalt plant, which is typical in our road construction work to complete the projects. So, yeah, I can address the setbacks too, or are we gonna do that at a later? Okay. Yeah, so I can answer any questions or comments that we have.

I have a question. In your permit, so you stated that there is the intent to possibly do crushing and rock development and plants and stuff on these lots. In your permit, you stated a seven to seven work frame unless otherwise delineated by a job or something like that. What would that entail to have a running a crushing plant 24-7 if the job and is that obviously something that according to this permit it's kind of vague that could happen at any whim?

So typically we're going to operate during normal business hours, 7 to 7. When we would request to work outside those is typically when we're doing a project where traffic is affected if we work during the day. And so we have to operate at night to meet specifications. So that's when we would ask to work outside of the 7 to 7. As far as crushing, we would typically still do that during the day.

In most part, but as far as running the asphalt plants or having equipment in the material source That's kind of where we're we've asked for that variance in hours And just for clarification on that the way this permit is written and this might be for the staff to there would be no Need for you to come back to this body to ask for a variance to operate at night It's written in this permit already correct staff

That is correct. It's being a project case-by-case basis. We would be reviewing. We would also be informing you just because it is a condition release permit that if the request is made, we would be informing the body that there is a request.

And just for clarification, it wouldn't come back to a public meeting for that request change, but it's already written into this as being okay, correct? Correct.

What's your mitigation strategy in the event that you do breach the water table?

So our intent would be to excavate the gravel underneath the water table. This site where the water table is, it's 10 to 12 feet, so a majority of the gravel is actually below the water. typically what we would do is we would remove the overburden take the gravel down above the water table first and then we would dig down to whatever the either the bottom of the gravel or what the equipment can reach and that's what creates the pond at the end of the day

We had mentioned the gravel pit on the other side of the road, which was a pond. Was that your guys' reclamation for the pond on the east side, or was that a different company?

Not the southeast property. We're talking about a different one altogether on Beaver Loop.

I thought it was mentioned. Was that this property, or was that the one across the road?

This one is further down Beaver Loop. It's an older one. We just highlighted that as a successful reclamation effort that has happened within the city in fairly recent times. So that wasn't your guys? Correct?

No, I know which one you're referencing, though, that was kind of the brainstorm for how we would leave it a success story.

So it's kind of a related question, but an unrelated question. Do you frequently move your off road trucks up and down Beaver Loop Road?

I know the answer to that so not loaded. So unloaded occasionally if we are taking it from a site we have we obviously have to get permits to move oversight vehicles and that's a whole other deal but they're unloaded and they would drive on the road but as far as once they get to the site they're operating within the. material source. I think when we did the Beaver Loop project, that project was done there, and we used the bigger trucks to do that, but unless there's another Beaver Loop reconstruction, I don't see that happening.

It was your truck. I'm curious, you're aware that there's pupil transportation that goes through that section. There's three pickups at that end of Beaver Loop Road every day. I'm not sure what the question is the question is you're aware that you're heavy trucks are on the road with buses at the same time. Oh right now as the right now I'm not know I'm not aware that would would you be willing to modify your hours so that those buses could pass without having to pull the right hand side of the road to let your trucks by.

I definitely can talk to the people that are in charge of that project. I'm not familiar.

They're off the road by 8 AM.

8 AM.

Thank you. Back to this. Do you commonly already have equipment that one of the requests for the CUP from the gentleman who actually was about the white noises? I know it's a common practice to use it. What kind of a hindrance or would it be that big of a deal for you guys to utilize the white noise alarms on the vehicles that you already have in this operation?

So, yeah, I know we have some on some equipment. I'm not the expert in what it takes to equip. It's probably mostly our loaders and our trucks backing up frequently. So I'd have to look into that to provide an answer. But yeah, as long as it meets the OSHA MSHA and it's loud enough to be audible, that's something we can do.

One quick question. I didn't see anywhere in the permits where it said what your max depth is. When they did the test drilling on this, did they go down and find out where the other water tables are?

Cannot speak to that off the top of my head. We've been using a 20 foot as far as I think from OG down to 20 feet, I believe is what was tested. I'd have to look back at the report that was included in that auction to see how deep it is. I know we didn't do anything deeper than that. So that's all I could speak to. Any deeper than that would be you'd have to use different kind of equipment to extract. So that's kind of usually the limit.

Commissioner, asking through the chair, page 41 of the packet for this particular one is referencing the report that Mr. Saller just mentioned.

Yeah, I read where they were talking about depth drilling down to 25 feet, but I didn't see anything where they went down to water well depths for the area.

Just when he mentioned the report, I wanted you to know what he was referencing. Thank you.

Hey. Are there any people that want to speak remotely?

There is nobody online.

Is there anybody else? Go ahead. They're part of the applicant.

My name is Gina DeBartolaben. I'm with McLean Consulting. I'm a licensed engineer in the state of Alaska and I was hired by QAP to help prepare their permits to meet their meet code. But I would also like to offer some information because I was also, our firm also did The exploratory work for the city a few years back when they were looking at marketing those parcels as material sites. So if you have questions about that information, I can probably provide some answers. And then along with some other just assistance for the city as they were trying to make those looking at the value of those properties and making them marketable. And again, like I said, that they were really the city's intent when I was involved with the process that they be material sites because that is an area that is surrounded by material sites and is also It's one of the few marketable uses for that property just because of the wetlands and other material sites and it's kind of just a vast lowland area. So along with that, I'd like to just make the comment that I did a quick, I mean, I do a lot of gravel permitting through the borough, not a lot in the city. It's been a few years. But there's currently 13 parcels that I just counted on Parcel Viewer in the Beaver Loop, in the loop area that have ponds on them. It is a very common practice in this area. And now there's another scattered half dozen, dozen of them that are permitted versus historical permit material sites. There is no documented DEC reports on groundwater contamination from a material site. Now, there might be like an equipment spill adjacent to or such. The one thing about hydrocarbons and groundwater is that they float, and so they're easily recognizable and easily cleaned up. So I just kind of like to provide a little information there for some assurance. This right now, we're only talking about lot two, which is the eastern, or I'm sorry, the western parcel that hasn't been developed. So if you're looking, that's the one on the left. And lot three is very similar to this one. It will be the next item. This is an undeveloped piece of property. It hasn't been used for anything yet, just in the sale contract still, but is essential for Coalaska's projects here on the peninsula. So anyhow, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Through the chair, so they talked about some of the buffers got reduced or removed and then they also brought up the proposed operating hours are they willing to amend those proposed operating hours and are they willing to adjust those buffers to accommodate the residential area immediately across the street.

So the buffer that I believe Mr. Wilcox is discussing is on the existing site that is the last agenda item. So we are going to have variants for the buffers on these undeveloped ones, but the one that he was saying potentially was breached, and I don't have knowledge of that, is the existing one that they've been utilizing, I believe, for their processing. It's the one where their plant is set up. I think Nick can verify that, but it's the one where the asphalt plan is currently set up. And that is, I think, item seven. I think the last item on your agenda today is that parcel.

But would they be willing to stick to the seven to seven daytime hours in place of the ambiguous wording and the proposal?

I can't speak to that when it comes, and I believe that's all for more for processing, not for excavation and such. I can't speak to that. But nobody wants to work at night if they don't have to. So it does come down. What we see in this area is DOT has a huge amount of their contracts that currently you can't, they can't interrupt traffic from July 1 through like mid-August, which is why all of a sudden as soon as mid-August shows up, here we go, we're full steam ahead. And so it really creates a small paving window for these large projects. You have this window before July and this window in late August or through September before we get freeze. And of course, then you're fighting, fighting, raiding fall weather and such, where occasionally you really have, they really have to, you know, put pedal to the metal and get some projects paved out and closed up. But what I normally see is that a contractor will put together a schedule of maybe it's a block of 14 days within a month where they're going to have to work nights. It's not continuous for weeks on end. It's it's we're gonna get it done. And that again, like, like, like Nick said, it's it's they don't want to crush at night, but they have to produce asphalt at night, usually.

Any questions from the commissioners? Thank you.

Alright, a couple things. I'd like to propose one amendment here to the CUP would be the white noise. I think that's a fairly small ask on the community around him. He asked for the white noise beepers. I know QAP's been asked to do white noise throughout the borough in multiple different pits and stuff, so I know it's a fairly small ask. I think it gives a little bit of A give and take to the project on this one here. So I'd like to add in the, I know it talks about the mitigation of noise, but if we can just put in there the use of white noise for backup alarms, I think that's a pretty small ask for clarification on what that mitigation is, what's in writing. So if anybody would like to second the mitigation of noise to clarify to use of white noise backup alarms. I would second that.

Are there any objections or comments? Okay.

Through the chair. Go ahead. Do we need to vote on the motion to amend?

Yes.

Perfect.

Yeah. Could you call the roll, please? Voting on the amendment to the motion.

And just for clarification, the motion as written would be, you know, it specifically talks about the mitigation, the applicant will limit noise disturbances and then we would, you know, I don't know how we want to put that in parentheses or what, but just to signify the use of white noise backup alarms on equipment. Do we need to get the wording exact on that right this second or how do you want to do that?

Yes, as referenced by the public testimony in your lay down, the condition, and this was through a borough resolution, but language stands as you brought it up. The permittee must install multi-frequency white noise backup alarms on all equipment and vehicles that have existing state or federal backup alarm requirements. That would be the additional condition.

Yes, that sounds like it's in writing and now that we know what we're actually voting on.

Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Woodard?

Yes.

Chair Keeton?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dauphin? Yes. Commissioner Fikes?

Yes.

Commissioner Ersley is absent. Commissioner Krause?

Yes.

Commissioner Askin? Yes. My table's a little messed up. Did I miss anybody? I'm so sorry. I have one job, making sure I got everybody. I called everybody's name. Very good. The motion to amend passed.

Thank you. So at this time, we're going to vote on the resolution PZ2026-22 as amended. Clerk, could you please call the roll?

I'd like to modify that and make an amendment to stay within the operating hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., as it was stated. Page 41.

I would like to comment on that. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. is not always realistic, especially when you're laying down asphalt and it's getting late and you've got to get that stretch done. I don't think it's reasonable. I can think of in five years of road construction, maybe three times we worked through the night. So it's not something that they strive to do. Is that correct?

Through the chair, I understand that, but I also know that that's like the common theme we hear about from testimony from the public. And like I say, it's adjacent to the neighborhood. I would be willing to modify it in concession of five to maybe eight days and no more or a return to a modification of the original CUP.

Are there any other comments or questions about Commissioner Fike's amendment?

I can see where you're going with the seven to seven. If we don't put that in there, then there's nothing saying that I came back here and asked for modification. If it would be possible to, you know, that one time here and there, maybe put a length of time if they're going to be operating more than five days or something, we could come up with a day, more than five days out of the month or five days consecutive or something. So there's a time limit on it. If they went above that or if they think, hey, we're going to have a job, we've got to work all night long, all summer long, because that's what DO said we have to do, they'd have to come back in here and ask for a variance. That's why I would want the 7 to 7 in there. It's one thing a day here and there, I can see maybe. But if you're going to be, hey, we've got a job, and it's going to be four months of night operations, that would really drive me nuts as a landowner.

I can appreciate that. I would still vote no on this just because you can't predict what kind of situations you're going to run up against. NSTAR forgot to lay a line down and you got to tear it up in the middle of the night so that you're not having to stop traffic for long periods of time. You just never know what you're going to run into in a project. So there are going to be times that you're going to have to work late.

And that's where I'm talking about a minimum, you know, more than five days where if you know you have a contract coming up that's going to be a long, you know, most of the summer night operations, you have to come back here for modification. I understand the emergency, oh, goodness, got us way a little late here and there. So if we had something that set a timeline of so many days, so, you know, if the neighbors said, hey, man, they've been working nights for two weeks, well, and their CUP has said they can only do it for one week. then we have something to come back and say, hey, you need to modify this. This is going to be an all summer kind of thing. And that's where I would say. So I guess building off Fikes' statement there, I would support a seven to seven, maybe no more than one week.

Yeah, speaking to that, and again, it's not a left or right or a yes or a no. It's more of a compromise for the residents, but also a mechanism for the company to come back before the commission to say, hey, we're willing to work with you. We think this is what's going on. You're probably going to get a lot of complaints. And then it also gives us a tool that They've already told us they're not going to exceed seven, but they've also come to us and said, you know what, we're going to go 14 days. So it's a mechanism to engage both the company and the residents would be my goal with amending this.

Logistically, something happens the day after we have a planning and zoning meeting. So now the company has to wait two weeks and come and get our permission. That's not logical.

Just to clarify that, Commissioner Krause, through the chair, if they were to ask for a variance, the public noticing requirement is almost a three-week lead time, so it would delay them almost a month minimum.

And so I understand where Commissioner Dothit and Commissioner Fikes are coming from, but I also know having a husband that worked for Peter Kiewit, which is a major company, when they're putting down a lift or constructing a road, it's got to happen, and it can't wait for three weeks. You're laying people off. You're having issues with equipment that's sitting there waiting to get going. I would vote against it.

Well, I say we put it to a vote, see what happens. So seven to seven one week, is that what we're saying?

I think it should be two weeks.

So, yeah, my amendment to the proposal would be daytime operating hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. not to exceed a night operation of seven days without proper approval from the city. I think that negates the having to come back before us because you're then just going directly to the planning department. That was my thought with the amendment. It's like we're anticipating seven days, but possibly 14. It gives the community and it gives the company a window, but they don't still have to go before the procedurals of three weeks and going before the board and that. That's what I'm trying to find a compromise here.

Is it possible to ask the applicant how long those type of things happen?

Thank you. Yeah. So, as far as most of the planning, you're going to know. For a project, the traffic restrictions, and when you do have to do stuff at night, so that you don't delay traffic, but I will stress that. It will never be planned out all the time. Kenai Spur Highway right now, we're starting, for example, we can't just stop traffic on there all the time, right? So if something comes up where we have to build part of that road and restrict traffic too much in August, we would have to do that work at night. So that might not have been planned in June. And then we got delayed, couldn't get it done by time. And now what I'm hearing is, We'd have to come back before the committee, the three-week notice. And so, yeah, that would be where it would cause delays. We don't have another place to go to to operate out of. So it's unpredictable, unfortunately, even though we try to plan it as best we can.

So just for clarification, this is for that one lot behind the lot your existing plant is already sitting in? So we would just be restricting that one lot, correct?

Lot two, which we're discussing, is the furthest west, which is, lot three is Caddy Corner to their existing lot. This is the one further to the west, which would have to go through lot three to get out.

And that's what I was just, for clarification, that we're not talking about the front right now. We're just talking about just this one lot back here. I guess another quick question while I've got you is I heard a two-week window. I'm just looking for something that would give us a blank where you could say, okay, we had an emergency. We're going to have to change the scope of plans. So if we had a couple-week grace period to get this done, that's great. But as you said, if we know we have a whole project coming up where in the planning stage we know we're going to be operating at night all summer, that's the kind of thing where I'd like to see it come back to this commission. So is there a grace period where you could see it working for both the residents, say, hey, we've got a night operation only project coming up. We just want to notify you guys that this is how we're going to mitigate stuff. We might have to increase earthen berms or something to make it work better for you. Or is there just nothing that you think would work to mitigate anything?

The mitigation from just my experience running projects is once again, I know that if we get into a pickle and I have to restrict traffic, I have to work after a certain time period. So I would probably come here immediately to try to get an extension of that right off the bat when I know my project has those traffic restrictions. And I couldn't probably tell you exactly when that's going to happen. I'd have to notify you two weeks in advance, like, okay, it's going to be August 15th to August 21st. We're going to have to pave this ATB over here, and we're going to have to stop traffic, so I got to do it at night shift. Or we have to do a borrow haul because we're tearing up the existing roadway at that time, and so we have to move traffic. So we'd give the notice, but it would be hard to get that granular in the specifics of dates within the time periods that we're talking about of the three weeks notifications. So I would, I mean, I would suggest to whoever's running those projects to come here first and try to get that variance for the night. Not that we plan to work night shift, because we really, really don't want to work night shift, I promise. But if we have to, to meet the DOT or the borough or whoever's, you know, if you're paving at the airport, sometimes you have to do stuff like that. So hopefully that answered. I guess my, the issue and the potential hiccups I see for delaying projects.

Are we ready to, yeah, are we ready to further clarify the language if you want to put it in writing for a couple, a minute or so you want to write it down so that we can

So just for clarification, so if we were to amend this and make it a condition of the permit for operating hours to be daytime 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., not to exceed seven days at night, is there a way that you can also incorporate into the condition that the applicant is allowed to come back for an extension beyond seven days only through staff and not to have to go through the commission?

Yes.

Stand by. Stand by.

Where there was a will, there is a way. OK. So currently, this is for both 22 and 23. The current language here says the applicant will limit noise disturbance and not use compression release engine brakes or jake brakes. Applicant will adhere to proposed hours of operation 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the allowance of outside hours being utilized on an as-needed project-specific basis and not ongoing. So my recommendation to modify that I think this is where we're getting to, I would modify this condition four, it's under section two, I'm currently using the one for 23, so this is page 73 that I'm looking at, which is the next one I know, but I can't find the 22 right thing. We will put applicant will adhere to proposed hours of operation 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the allowance of outside hours being utilized. And then I would strike everything past that. With the allowance of outside hours being utilized, No greater than seven consecutive days without notification to the city administration because it'll probably be Public Works most likely. But if we say city administration, that gives city manager and any designee.

Yes, and we possibly, if larger projects, we might put a blast out on social media or something. So language would then, just so we have it.

All right, so the amendment, if I understand it correctly, the amendment that we would be looking at now would be that section two, number four would be modified. To read, the applicant will limit noise disturbance and not use compression release engine brakes or jig brakes. Applicant will adhere to proposed hours of operation 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the allowance of outside hours being utilized no greater than seven consecutive days without notification to city admin. So anything above seven would then need to be notified to the city.

Sounds like we've come to a compromise. At least we got something on the books. And I guess just for the applicant and for staff, the ultimate goal here is if you've got a long-term project that you're going to be working at night, we'd like to be notified and maybe give a heads up that you're going to be going all summer or something.

Yeah, and like I say, the goal is just we can help you get the communication out. If the city, like he says, can utilize social media or whatever, we can also be that assistance for you to communicate it to the residents so that we can keep that complaints down. That's the goal.

So is it amended and I will second it, or you?

Do we have any further discussion on how it was worded? Because we did change the intent quite a bit. Any commissioners have any further comments on the second amendment?

That's set up as seven consecutive days, or is that, I mean?

That's what the original language quoted, yes.

Right. So you could have it set up where they could do two or three days, four days, and then? It would restart, right?

I think it was written in there as consecutive days. OK. No greater than seven consecutive days.

OK. Just for clarification, the amendment was in motion by Commissioner Fikes. Do we have a second? Thank you, Alex. I second. Thank you.

I just would like to ask the applicant if that is doable for you. Or does that sound reasonable?

If I'm understanding correctly, the variance of the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., that would be basically a communication back here that wouldn't require the notice in the meeting that could be responded to that we're going to work and could be approved, I guess, within a week or, you know, a little bit or a little bit more.

Yes, the last bit is for it to come to city administration, not to this body.

Okay, yeah, that seems very reasonable. I guess the only other comment I would be in this is if the 7 a.m., 7 p.m., if those are times specific or it could be a 12-hour period during the day, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. sounds fine. I just wasn't sure if the...

We're just going off what you put in the original.

Yeah, I was just going off what you had on your proposal with 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. I was just trying to address after 7 p.m. what happened. So this amendment just addresses what hypothetically could happen if you need a nighttime operation.

Yeah, okay. So that sounds like doable.

So just a quick question. If nighttime operations are complicated, is it easier for you to work in daylight? Right. And so as it gets darker later in the morning, you would want to maybe adjust that eight hour period or that 12 hour period or no?

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. As we get into October, we're probably not starting shift at 7 a.m. anymore because it's dark. So we kind of move shifts. And the same thing in the summer is 6 a.m. to 6 shift. So what I was leaning at is if it would be more appropriate to a 12-hour shift between 6 a.m. and, say, 8 p.m. if 9 is too late, if 6 is too early. I just wanted to ask the question for that exact reason. Is the daylight switch...

In that same vein, though, if you're starting later because of daylight, let me just tell you, it's cold in October early in the morning. But it's also cold in October at 7 o'clock at night. So, I mean, do you think that reasonably you would still be operating after 7 p.m. in October?

October is a tough month to pave, so probably not.

Guardrails.

October is for guardrails. Yeah, guardrail.

I think, I mean, if you're okay with 7-7 notification, we'll just keep it at that. I mean, that's what was in the application. I'm okay with keeping it admitted as is. I guess if you needed to come to the staff and be like, hey, we might be able to work out an hour or two here and there, you could notify staff. It would still fall under the same notification, right? just have to notify staff and say hey by the way for the next two weeks we're going to be having to do a little earlier a little bit later because the weather or something like that that would still go beyond that seven to seven so if there's just basically i would think the the genre of this says anything below on seven to seven more than seven days you just let staff know that hey by the way if you're getting complaints this is why we're doing it and we just need to let you know i think it'd still be the doable yeah no that that makes sense

We need to vote on that amendment.

Clerk, would you please call the roll?

For the amendment, Chair Keeton?

Hesitantly, yes.

Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dothit?

Yes.

Commissioner Fikes? yes commissioner ersley is absent commissioner kraus pleasantly happy that i can vote with the rest of the crowd yes and commissioner woodard yes the motion to amend passed okay now we have to deal with the regular okay

So now we're back to voting on PZ2026-22 as amended. Clerk, would you call the roll?

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Dauphet?

Yes.

Chair Keeton?

Yes.

Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Commissioner Ersley is absent. Commissioner Krause?

Yes.

Commissioner Fikes?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodard?

Yes.

You have six yes votes. The resolution PZ2026-22 is approved as amended.

So I'd like you to please note that there is a 15-day period that a grief party can file an appeal with the clerk's office on this matter. Thank you. That brings us to item G4, resolution PZ2026-23, granting conditional use permit for surface extraction of natural resources on KPB parcel 4901070. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-23? I'll make a motion for approval

PZ2026-23.

I'll second. Thank you. Director Buettner, may we have a staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Keeton. Bear with me. This is Lot 3, Beverly-Bakers. This is the eastern of the two lots. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and variance permit for the construction and operation of a gravel permit and extraction within the setback for the proposed surface extraction of natural resources pursuant to KMC 1420-151 through KMC 1420-158. The extraction site will be owned and operated by Coalaska DBA, doing business as QAP. In addition to the subject lot, Coalaska also owns lot 2 to the west and 60 acres immediately east and southeast of lot 3. Those parcels will be utilized to access the proposed materials site from Beaver Loop Road. The applicant is requesting that the CUP allow for excavation below the water table, stating it's a common practice in the area, and there is active excavation below groundwater at adjacent mineral sites. In conjunction with the conditional use permit, the applicant is requesting a variance to KMC 14-20-154, which will be heard later in this meeting as a separate resolution. All right, here we go. Part of the analysis. Criteria for the issuance of conditional use permit for surface extraction of natural resources are outlined in KMC 1420.154, issuance of a permit for surface extraction of natural resources. Item one, application is substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter. This application is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed use meets the requirement for the boundaries, assuming the variance permit is granted, back slopes, public safety, and the need for gravel within the city. Item 2. Boundaries of proposed excavation at its greatest dimensions, including backslopes, are at least 200 feet from any road or public right-of-way and at least 150 feet from other surrounding property lines, except that adjoining property or permitted surface extraction of natural resources sites is now required to maintain the above 150-foot excavation between sites. The applicant has provided two versions of boundaries for staff to review. The initial set delineates a 200-foot setback from all rows in public right-of-way and a minimum of 150 feet from other surrounding property lines, except for the adjoining lot two, which was just heard for CUP through PZ2026-22. The applicant also showed alternatives based on the variance of a full project that will be heard later in this meeting. Item 3, buffer strips between the excavation site and roadway property lines contain sufficient natural screening to obscure the entire excavation from site, roadways, and inhabited areas. If there's not sufficient natural screening, the site plan must provide for artificial screening. The proposed extraction is north of an adjacent gravel pit and is not visible from Beavolip Road. Additionally, there's a tree line creating a natural barrier to the south of both pits. There is an inhabited area to the east that would warrant the necessity of screening to be required. Properties located north of the proposed gravel pits near the Dakenai Golf Course are over 30 feet higher in elevation. It's not feasible to add additional screening to the north. Item 4. Service extraction is outside the 1% annual chance floodplain with 100-year floodplain, the 1-5% chance annual floodplain with 500-year floodplain, and high-hazard coastal areas. City staff has confirmed that subject parcels outside of the regulatory floodplain is outside of the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood zone and high hazard coastal areas. Current classification for the project location as designated by FEMA's latest floodplain maps dated February 28, 2025 is XU, which is undefined. The city of Kenai's floodplain administrator has reviewed the application and has no comments. Item five, the site plan provides that the backslopes be a minimum of two to one slope. Site plans submitted by the applicant show that the reclamation will be a continuous process including sloping the sides of the excavation two to one or flatter along buffer zones and inactive work areas. A four inch minimum of topsoil mix organic clearing debris and seating as needed to contain erosion. Item six, the site plan does not provide for excavation below the water table except where a reasonable method of drainage is available at the particular site or where the proposed future development plan provides for a lake on the side of the excavation. As the applicant states, it is anticipated that much of the gravel extraction will occur below the water table. The final configuration of the site will be similar to most gravel pits in the areas with ponds forming in areas worked below the water table and haul routes adapting as the site is further developed. The final development plan envisions lake onsite and reclamation of shorelines. This will include grass or other vegetation and constructing locations for houses or RV parking spots around the ponded area. Item 7. The excavation is to be below the water table and the site is likely to endanger the public safety. The site plan shall provide for fencing of the work area. Applicant states that casual access is not anticipated as the proposed site is rural and surrounded by large tracts of wetlands to the north and other material sites to the east, west, and south. The applicant plans to construct berms as ponds are created during operations to prevent vehicles, equipment, people, or animals from going into the water. Staff does not anticipate the site will present any danger to public safety. Item 8, the proposed use of land after extraction is completed is feasible and realistic and is a use in the zone for which the property is located. The proposed extraction site will be operated on a continuing basis for approximately four years and then on an as-needed basis until the site is exhausted. Applicant estimates this timeframe to be about 15 years in total, with the majority of the gravel being located below the water table. The final development would be to reclaim the shorelines of the ponds, establish grass or other vegetation, and construct locations for houses or RV parking sites around the ponded areas. Site reclamation will include grading and re-contouring back slopes using overburden and topsoil to a condition that allows re-establishment of natural vegetation and seating. The parcel does not currently have any existing structures and there are no plans for any permanent structures to be added. Anything that is stored will be temporary and movable. Staff finds it adequately addressed as a feasible and realistic use of the land once extraction of natural resources on the site cease. Item 9, the extraction does not destroy the land for the purpose for which it is owned. City staff have discussed the importance of ensuring a clean water supply in the city and the applicant will take measures to monitor water levels and be mindful of what is allowed near water in sensitive areas of the landscape. The applicant notes equipment and construction debris will not be disposed of in surface water. The applicant also plans to seed slopes with plants suitable for Alaska conditions and will limit erosion and dust that could affect the landscape. As stated in the previous criteria, no permanent structures are planned to be erected, which will leave the parcel vacant and ready for future development. An example of successful reclamation in the city can be found at the Lake Kenai subdivision east of this project along Beaver Loop Road. Item 10, the need for a particular natural resource within the city of Kenai outweighs any detrimental effects the operation may have on surrounding property. The majority of the parcels surrounding the subject lot are also utilized as material extraction sites and there is one residential property in the immediate area. The city and residents of will benefit from an additional local gravel source from this location. Item 11, the applicant is the owner of the subject property. The proposed parcel was recently conditionally sold by the city of Kenai in the 2026 land sale auction to Coalaska Doing Business SQ App. The applicant is petitioning on behalf of the owner of the subject property to satisfy a condition of sale. Item 12. Clearing limits shall be delineated on site plan as well as clearly visible on site and shall be inspected by the city planner or designee prior to application being deemed complete. The submitted site plan adequately and clearly shows the proposed clearing limits. Prior to the application being deemed complete, city staff will meet with the applicant at the site to ensure the proposed clearing will align with those submitted on the site plan. The review criteria for the conditional use permit. Pursuant to KMC 142150A, the intent of the conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with designated principal uses in specific zoning districts provided certain conditions are met. Prior to granting a conditional use permit, the Commission shall determine that the identified criteria as outlined in KMC 142150E conditional use permits is met. Criteria one, that it is consistent with the purpose of the chapter and purposes of the zoning district. Properties within the rural residential zone pursuant to KMC 1420.080. The intent of the zone is for low density residential development and attractive residential environment to prevent uses that would violate the residential character of the environment or generate heavy traffic in a predominantly residential area and to separate residential structures in order to prevent health hazards and preserve the rural open quality environment. Surface extraction is conditionally permitted use and can be consistent with the intent of the residential zone, especially when the reclaimed property is developed to allow for future residential uses. The proposed extraction is adjacent to existing permitted gravel pits and vacant lots. It would not change the character of the neighborhood and would be consistent with the current development and once reclaimed, will meet the purpose and intent of the rural residential zone. Criteria two, the value of the adjoining property and neighborhood will not be significantly impaired. Adjacent property to the north is undeveloped wetlands owned by the City of Kenai and Alaska DNR. Adjoining properties to the east, west, and south are material sites and there is one residential to the east. Staff does not find the value of adjoining properties neighbors will be significantly impaired as it aligns with the current uses of the immediate area and existing haul routes off lot three will meet up and follow existing routes. Criteria three, proposed uses in harmony with comprehensive plan. 2016 imagined Kenai 2030 comprehensive plan classifies the subject property as parks, recreation, open space, which is defined or intended for public recreational facilities as well as undeveloped lands that provide for conservation of natural or scenic resources. These areas can be used for a variety of passive and outdoor, active outdoor and indoor sports and recreational activities. Areas that may be suitable for future natural resource development may be included in this category. The location of the pit minimizes the potential for conflict with neighbors as it fits with the pattern of land use along the north side of Beaver Loop Road. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed use would be consistent with the intended purpose of the comprehensive plan. meets the relevant goals of the comprehensive plan, specifically goal two, economic development through objective ED1, promoting projects that create workforce development opportunities. Goal three, land use is to develop land use strategies to implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development, specifically objective LU1, establish siting and design standards so that the development is in harmony and scale with surrounding uses. And LU11, when feasible, consolidate access to and between land uses via frontage roads or shared driveways and onto main streets and highways. Criteria four, public service and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Kowalski owns 60 acres immediately east and southeast of the subject lot. These parcels will be utilized to access the proposed material site from Beaver Loop Road. This does not increase the amount of potential conflicts along Beaver Loop Road and effectively consolidates the additional traffic flow to one shared access point. Additionally, the applicant will have sufficient sanitation facilities located on site. City finds that the proposed services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Reposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health and welfare. Casual access to the property is not anticipated as it is surrounded by large parcels of similar use and is not situated near any amenities such as fishing parks or recreation. The applicant notes that the adequate adjacent existing barriers and screening will be utilized. The extraction site will not be a safety concern or visual impairment. The applicant has shown plans for reclamation and will be mindful about materials stored near any water sources. Criteria six, any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the above mentioned conditions should be met by the applicant and these conditions are stated at the end of this report. Public notice pursuant to KMC 1420-280C, notices of the public hearing for the conditional use were mailed to property owners within a 300 foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the Peninsula Aquarium. City staff submitted an affidavit of posting verifying the sign was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the conditional use permit request. As of the date of this report, no public comment had been received. Since then, they have been. They've been added to this packet and as a lay down. Staff recommendation. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use permit for the surface extraction of natural resources on the property described as Lot 3, Beaver Lube Acres, Addition Number 3, Subdivision meets the criteria for issuance of a conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E1 through E6 of Kenai Municipal Code 142150 and subsections A1 through A12 of KMC 142154, and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt PZ2026-23, approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions. One, any development or use of the property shall comply with all applicable federal, state of Alaska, and city regulations, regardless of whether or not the requirements are listed as conditions for the approval of the conditional use permit. Two, that the applicant would properly store fuel oil and hazardous materials away from wetlands or other sensitive areas of the landscape. Three, the applicant will not store or fill materials such as concrete and construction waste in or near areas with the exposed water table. Four, the applicant will limit noise disturbance and not use compression, release, engine brakes, or jig brakes. Applicant will adhere to proposed hours operations, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the allowance of outside hours being utilized on an as-needed basis, project-specific, as-needed, or project-specific basis, and non-ongoing. Five, the applicant will meet with city staff for on-site inspections when requested. Six, if there's an expansion or change of the use for the subject property, a new conditional use permit must be obtained as stated in KMC 1420.150 . And seven, permit holder will submit a yearly report between October 1st and December 31st to the Planning and Zoning Department that includes summary of downside activities.

Thank you. So, I have a question. Is it our intent to amend this as we amended the previous resolution?

Yes, I was going to plan to make both amendments to this. I don't know if you want to do that now and then open it up to comment or not.

I think the people should be able to comment on our amendment too.

Fine. Then I will move to make both amendments as per 22.

Yeah. PZ202622.

which I will lead into the record or changes.

I think procedurally, we have to open it up for public record for public comment before we make the motion to okay to amend.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to resolution PZ2026-23? Go ahead. Come on up.

Thank you. If you'd like to talk more about this or any other questions, this is another three minutes for you. This will be the time for three minutes.

I'd just like to clarify my position on the white noise amendment that I expect it to be for all the QAP operations at this area in Beaver Loop, all parcels. And that's what I'd like to get out of this.

That's, we agree. We'll probably, we have to do them one at a time, however. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anybody? Would you like to come forward again?

Nick Stoller, from Wasilla, representing Colasca QAP. And similar to the last one we did, applying for the permit to extract gravel to support our construction projects.

Do you have any questions for us? I do not. Do we have any questions for him? Go ahead.

I do not understand these graphs, so I was hoping you could tell me what is important about these graphs.

Sure. Gina DeBartolave and McLean Consulting.

Microphone, please. Gina DeBartolave and McLean Consulting. The question were regarding the material report that was prepared maybe three or four years ago along with it. So it really was test holes and a geotechnical kind of report on marketable materials. So what you have there is you'll have tables that show the test holes and they have depths. So it shows the stratus as you excavate test holes, what you would like. I don't have it in front of me. But if I, the top maybe 8 to 10 inches would be like your organics. And then from there to next would be like a silty sand. And then it shows where the viable gravel is and what kind of grade the gravel is. So what the graph you were just kind of holding up for me is a sieve analysis or a gradation. And it is, thank you. And it is a lab test where we take and we run material through a set of sieves and it just shows the breakdown on the stratus of the material. So it'll show like you naturally have you know, 90% passing the four inch sieve and 10 to 30% on the number four. So those are all different screens that we run the rock through. And what that does is show what that material is viable for constructing. So when we talk about our base material in a row, that's a clean draining material. So it has low fines, like low 200s. So if you look at that and you look at the, so you see the graph, but there's also a table beside it. They'll say like on the very bottom was your 200s, right? And that's how much silt or really fine dust particles are there. And that's a binder in your material versus your rock. And that's all that is. So when a contractor looks at a material site and they want to look at those gradations and those sieve analysis so that they know if they can make the specification of gravel required for a project. It also shows them if they have enough rock in there to crush to make asphalt and so on. Or if they can run it through a screening plant and they'll have sand that'll make a DEC septic system. Yes. And those were under the request of the city during that investigation of the property when they were trying to decide if it was marketable and what areas and how to do that.

Yeah. Anything else?

OK.

Thank you. Are there any other comments from anybody? Is there anybody online?

There is not.

Thank you. Any other comments? Any comments or questions from the Commission? OK. Can we go ahead and put forth the amendments, please?

Yes. I'd like to make both amendments that we made previously to the 22 as far as this. So if we're going to read those amendments in and then we can vote them on. I'll second.

OK. To put this in the record so I know how to type this later, this will amend. feel free to correct me before you actually take a vote but this is to amend resolution pz2026-23 by changing um by changing section two item four um to read the amended language will read the applicant will limit noise disturbance and not use compression release engine brakes or Jake breaks, applicant will adhere to proposed hours of operation 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the allowance of outside hours being utilized no greater than seven consecutive days, then notification to city admin for anything over seven days. And adding a condition that the permittee must install multi-frequency white noise backup alarms on all equipment and vehicles that have existing state or federal backup alarm requirements.

I lost, I think we're, I thought we were on PZ2026-22, not 23.

We're on 23?

These are adjacent lots of the, the staff reports are essentially identical.

Okay, so we're going to vote on the amendment first. Yes. I'm waiting for her to finish. She's ready? Okay. And clerk, would you please call the roll for the amendment?

Thank you, Chair. For the amendment, Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dothit? Yes. Commissioner Fikes?

Yes.

Commissioner Ersley is absent. Commissioner Krause?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodard?

Yes.

Chair Keeton?

Yes.

You have six yes votes. The amendment passed.

Thank you.

Comments? Questions?

PZ2026-23. Okay. Wonderful. We'll have to call it. Yeah. So, Clerk, would you please call the roll on the resolution PZ2026-23 as amended?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Krause?

Yes.

Commissioner Fikes?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodard?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dauphitt?

Yes.

Chair Keeton?

Yes.

Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Commissioner Ursula is absent. You have six yes votes. Resolution PZ2026-23 is amended and approved.

Okay. Please note that there's a 15-day period that an agreed party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. We are now on item G5, resolution PZ.

Could I please ask for a two-minute break to get some coffee? Two minutes? Yeah, I just need something for my throat.

I would say five would be good. Let's make it five. There we go. All right. Perfect. Thank you.

For the record, we're at ease.

We'll be at ease for five minutes.

We're ready for comments.

PZ2024. Okay. We are now on item G5. Girls.

Ready to roll.

All right. Are you sure? Okay. Resolution PZ2026-24, granting a variance permit for surface extraction of natural resources on KPP parcel 04901069 within the setback. Is there a motion to approve resolution PZ2026-24? Move to approve. What did she say?

She's making a motion to approve 2026-24, I believe.

And the second is Alex? I'll second. Joan, or I'm sorry, Gwen. All right. Director Buettner, can we have your shorter staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Keeton. Gladly, because my voice will be gone. So for reference, this is a variance permit that is regarding lot two, which is the first one we heard this evening. The applicant is opposing 100-foot excavation into the setback to the south, west, and north property lines. The applicant is also requesting a zero-foot setback to the east property line that serves as the divider between an adjoining property also owned by Colasco. This would leave a 50-foot setback on the south, west, and north property lines. Pursuant to KMC 142180A, the intent of a variance permit is to provide relief to the development requirements of KMC 1420 when the literal enforcement would deprive a property owner of reasonable use of his or her real property. Prior to granting a variance permit, the Commission shall find that all the criteria conditions have been met as set forth in KMC 142180C 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. The variance permit is being requested to best utilize resources of the current area. The property adjacent to the south is a currently permitted material site and the property to the north and west are undeveloped wetlands owned by the city of Kenai and Alaska DNR. Property adjacent to the east is another lot owned by the applicant that is also undergoing the application process for conditional use permit of the same type of similar buffer variance requests. Criteria two, the special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. The proposed request is consistent with that of the adjoining properties. There are no special conditions or circumstances caused by actions of the applicant and the request does not merely constitute a pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. Criteria three, the granting of the variance permit shall not authorize the use that is not permitted principal use in the zoning district in which the property is located. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the current zoning district subject to obtaining a CUP. The applicant is in the application process of obtaining the CUP, which we heard this evening. that is in conjunction with the variance request in the use is appropriate given the surrounding existing material extraction sites adjacent to the subject lot. The variance request does not alter the principal use of the area. Criteria four, the granting of a variance shall be the minimum variance which will provide for the reasonable use of the land and or structure. The proposed buffer of 50 feet along the north, south and west borders and zero foot buffer to the east will still offer an adequate divide between sites while allowing for a better utilization of land space. As stated by the applicant, the granting of the variance request is anticipated to increase the usable material site by 32% by adding 18.5 acres of usable extraction area. Criteria five, the granting of variance shall not be based upon other non-conforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district. The requested variance is not based on other non-conforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district and will not alter the principal use of the property that is approved with the granting of the CUP. Pursuant to KMC 1420, 280 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 Peninsula Clarion on July 17, 2026, and then again in August. The property owner submitted an affidavit posting a verifying sign was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the variance permit request. At the time of this report, original report, no public comment had been received at that time, and there were no stated objections. Staff recommendations. Staff finds that the proposed variance request meets criteria for issuance of a variance permit as set forth in Kenai Municipal Code Section 1421 ADC, 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, Alaska, and local regulations. And two, applicant must obtain applicable permits and file all required landscaping and site plans prior to beginning construction.

Thank you, Director. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to resolution PZ2026-24?

Sir, would you like to speak to this one at all? This is the time to do it.

It's a variance.

It's the setback variance.

OK. Are there any, oh, go ahead, Nick, come on up.

Nick Stoller, Wasilla, representing Colasca QAP. So the reason why we're requesting the variance is, as this was intended to be a gravel resource through the auction, our main goal is to maximize the gravel that we can get out of the locations. And going to the typical code of, I believe it's 150 and 200, depending on property line versus right of way and easements. substantially reduces i want to say like 40 percent it's not it's a it's a lot of reduction in the obtainable gravel that we can get and our goal is if this area is deemed as a viable location to have gravel pits and they're coming harder and harder to you know acquire and permit we'd like to stay in one as long as we can and get as much gravel out as we can without having to move around and, you know, buy other pieces of property down the road. It's much better, I think, for the community to isolate those all in one location. So if we can get 30%, 40% more by reducing a buffer in an area where maybe it makes a lot of sense because there's not a beaver loop next door there, it's a rural area, probably difficult to develop with the overburden that's adjacent. seems like a good candidate. So that would be why we thought it was reasonable.

Thank you. Does anybody have questions for Nick while he's up here?

I noticed there are some notes on the plat here. Would this variance go against any of the notes on the plat regarding the 15 foot next to the right of way, which would be South Baker Street, which isn't in, is it? That platted road? It's proposed, but it says that there should be at least 15 feet for utility easement on any rights of way.

This variance will have a 50-5-0 foot all the way around, with the exception of the lot line between 2 and 3 because they're both ground units.

That was my next reservation on here, the 50 foot along each side. OK, thank you.

Gina DeBartolet from McLean Consulting. First of all, I stood up because if there are questions on the plot, I can answer those experience also. But I would also like to point out because I think precedence is always important in a public meeting, that I do know that, like the Child's Avenue pit has reduced setbacks on it. And so I just wanted to bring that up. I think it was permitted about 1012 years ago, kind of. I don't know about any of the other ones since then. But it has it has greatly reduced setbacks on the adjoining property lines and on the on the right-of-way on Child's Avenue. So that is the one that is owned by BMCG, and it's over adjacent to Processor Creek, kind of across the bridge access from the dock, the public dock, and right below the bluff of, like, Portlock and such. So anyhow. It is a small site, and then it was expanded later on, the additional permit on the adjacent property. But yeah.

Thank you.

I guess I have a quick question for staff. The lot line between this proposed lot and the other one that we're looking at here in a second, the setback doesn't pertain so they can go all the way through, correct? Or is there still something there?

No, they would go all the way through. It would be zero flood. We'd eliminate the setback, which is allowable by code when you have two adjoining gravel pits with the same owner. So in those cases, it would work. It would not work if it was company A and company B had two pits unless one of them bought each other out. That's the only way you can do it.

Okay, so they don't have to replat that line to eliminate that line to make it one. They can just go through both. That is correct. Thanks.

Could they use that as access to bridge access from their other pits?

There's no access to bridge access. They'd be going right through wetlands. We still retain a very large track to the west. This one would connect to...

I understand.

It's not as long as you think, but it is long.

As we mentioned in the CUP for both of these, the Cypherport, they would be utilizing their access point through their existing lot that is closer to Beaver Loop. So you're not going to have a lot of different conflict, but you'll have what we call traffic conflict points where trucks and moving traffic are going to be interacting, but it's going to be consolidated to their existing access points.

No, I just wanted to say some findings. So in the retaliation to this lot here, I totally understand the setbacks being reduced, especially with the neighbors that are there. Essentially, you're looking at DNR, the city of Kenai, and yourself. So I don't see a lot of future development, not residences around there. If this was surrounded by houses, I'd probably be looking a little bit more curious about that. But in the relation to where this is and what this area looks like, this is a good fit for this. And I understand the one to optimize the amount of gravel to be able to take out of this with the least amount of harm to anybody, any residential areas. And this is a good spot for it. So I will be in favor of this.

So Is there any further discussion from the commissioners on this? Okay. All right. Clerk, would you please call the roll on this resolution PZ2026-24?

Thank you, Chair. Chair Keeton? Yes. Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Commissioner Ursley is absent. Commissioner Krause?

Yes.

Commissioner Fikes?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodard?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dothit?

Yes.

You have six yes votes. Resolution PZ2026-24 is approved.

Thank you. I would also like to note there's a 15-day period that an aggrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Okay, next item, G6, resolution P02026-25, granting a variance permit for surface extraction of natural resources on KPB parcel 04901070 within the setback. Is there a motion to approve this resolution, PZ2026-25?

I'll make a motion for approval of Resolution PZ2026-25. Second.

Thank you. Director Buettner, can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Jerry Keeton. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot excavation in the setback to the southeast and north property lines. The applicant is also requesting a zero-foot setback to the west property line that serves as the divider between the adjoining property, also owned by Coalasco. Long direction. Pursuant to KMC 142180A, the intent of variance permit is to provide relief to the development requirements of KMC Chapter 1420 when the literal enforcement were deprived of the property owner of the reasonable use of his or her real property. Prior to granting a variance permit, the Commission shall find that all conditions have been met as set forth in KMC 142180C, the variance permit review criteria. Criteria one, 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. The variance permit is being requested to best utilize resources of the current area. The properties adjacent to the south and west are currently permitted. Material sites and the property of the north is undeveloped wetland owned by the city of Kenai and Alaska DNR. Parcel adjacent to the west is another lot owned by the applicant that is also undergoing the application process for conditional use permit of the same type with similar buffer variances. Criteria two, special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. The proposed request is consistent with that of the adjoining properties. There are no special conditions or circumstances caused by actions of the applicant and the request does not constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. Criteria three, 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. proposed use is allowed within the current zoning district subject to obtaining a CUP. The applicant is in the application process of obtaining the CUP in conjunction with the variance request and the use is appropriate given the surrounding existing material extraction sites adjacent to the subject lot. The variance request does not alter the principal use of the area. The granting of the variance shall be the minimum variance that will provide for the reasonable use of the land and or structure. The proposed buffer of 50 feet along the north, south, and East borders and zero foot buffer to the west would still allow for an adequate divide between sites while allowing for better utilization of land space. Stated by the applicant, the granting of the variance request is anticipated to increase the usable material site by 32% by adding 18.5 acres of usable extraction area. Criteria five, the granting of the variance should not be based upon other non-conforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district. The request variance is not based on other non-performing land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district and will not alter the principal use of the property that is approved with the granting of CEP. Pursuant to KMC 142280, notices of the public hearing for the variance permit were mailed to property owners within the 300-foot periphery of the subject properties. City staff published a notice of the public hearing on the Peninsula Clarion and submitted an affidavit opposing the firing sign that was placed on the parcel with information on the public hearing for the variance permit request. At the time of the report, no public comment had been received and there were no stated objections. staff finds that the proposed variance request meets the criteria for issuance of variance permit as set forth in Kenai Municipal Code Section 1421 ADC, and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance permit subject to the following conditions, that the applicant must comply with all federal, state, and local regulations, and that the applicant must obtain applicable permits and file all required landscaping and site plans prior to beginning construction.

Thank you. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak? to the resolution PZ2026-25, either opposed or applicants.

Nick Stoller, Walsilla, representing Kulaska QAP. And similar to the last resolution for the setback variance, This property is also surrounded by other gravel pits and KPB land and our own property to the southeast and the lot that we just went over to the west. So same thing, try to maximize the intent of the material resources.

Thank you. Does the commission have any questions for Nick?

Yeah, just for clarification, and you might know, it might be a Gina question. You own the properties on two sides of this, or three sides technically now. How much property is that little sliver that the other gentleman in here, do you know how big of a section that he owns on that one that abuts that? Just linear feedage roughly, you know? I don't know. Yeah, that's what I was looking at. It didn't look...

I think it's probably 60 feet. 60 foot. I'm just looking at what the dedicated right-of-way of Cone Avenue is or Baker Street, and it's very...

Okay, that's what it looked like. It was like that. That's not a dedicated road right-of-way there, is it? That's just a sliver...

It's a sliver of that to get to that parcel.

Okay, it's an access point.

It's used for like a driveway. Okay. It's not...

Okay, it's an access point possibly in the future, but it's not a dedicated roadway. Okay, that's what I was curious. Thank you.

Are there any remote attendees wishing to speak on this issue?

There are not.

Thank you.

On this one here, similar findings is what I'm looking at in the previous lot. It does border a very small portion of it to the other gentleman's property, but it's more of an access point. It's not a residential home going to be built right next to it. So that's where I see the setback. variance here is acceptable in my view. If this was another property, like there was residences right there against this property, I could see that being a concern for this reduced setback. But in this situation, it seems reasonable to be able to accept these setbacks for the purpose of extraction in the general area of this whole thing. I don't see it being a big enough implication there. So I will be for this.

Mr. Wilcox, I have a question for you. Can you come up to the microphone, please? Would you tell me what your feelings are about this sliver of land?

We utilize that more or less as a nature sanctuary, I guess. And most of it is to access it from the other way is not reasonable because it's a spent dredge line. So there's a pond, which is the beginning of the anagimous stream that runs through their property. We go out there. It's a nice piece of land. I think it's platted. You can't put a building on it. But it would be nice to be able to access it by the gravel street, which is platted. And it looks like this particular piece of land that they bought, the property corners are on the setback of the easement. There's a 30-foot easement on each side of gravel street. and it looks like their property lines are already set back, which would be a concern if they were going 50 feet from the section line. Gravel Street is actually a section line that,

To clarify to Mr. Wilcox's, Gravel Street is, it's on the eastern border of the parcel, is a platted but not built city street. This, their property line, so that is a, I believe it's 60 foot, no, it's 66 because it's a section line. The section line is not part of their property. This variance would be 50 feet from that as well. So it would be if Gravel Street were to be put in right along the section line, as it could be in the future, we're looking at the first 50 feet of their property that is not in that section line. So it would be, forgive my math, 83 feet from the center line of a potential gravel street if it were to be put in.

That sounds reasonable to me.

that's what i wanted to hear thank you does anybody else have any questions before we go to a vote okay clerk would you please call the roll on pz 2026-26 or i'm sorry two five thank you chair commissioner kraus yes commissioner fikes yes commissioner woodard Yes.

Vice Chair Dothit?

Yes.

Chair Keeton?

Yes.

Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Commissioner Hersley is absent. You have six yes votes. Resolution PZ2026-25 is approved.

Thank you. Please note there's a 15-day period that an agreed party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Moving on now to item G7. Resolution PZ2026-26, granting a variance permit for the surface extraction of natural resources on KPB parcel 04911029 within the setback. Is there a motion to approve Resolution PZ2026-26?

I'll make a motion to approve PZ2026-26. I'll second.

Thank you, Marty. Uh, Director Buettner, can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Keeton. Uh, applicant is proposing 60-foot excavation in the setback to the west property line, sorry, adjacent to Kenai Peninsula Borough property with no change to the setback distance from the residential lot in the southwest corner. Pursuant to KMC 142180A, the intent of a variance permit is to provide relief for the development requirements of KMC 1420 when the literal enforcement were to 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 to set forth KMC 142180C, the variance permit review criteria. Criteria one, special conditions or circumstances are present which are peculiar to the land structures involved which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same land use or zoning district. The adjacent property to the west is an undeveloped lot owned by the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The subject parcel will be providing access to the adjacent property to the northwest, which is lot three, Beaver Loop Acres, addition number three, that is currently being petitioned by COALASCA for conditional use permit for extraction of natural resources. The requested variance aligns with other variance permits granted for similar sites in the area. Criteria 2. The special conditions or circumstances have not been caused by actions of the applicant, and such conditions or circumstances do not merely constitute pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. Proposed requests are consistent with that of adjoining properties. There are no special conditions or circumstances caused by actions of the applicant, and the request does not merely constitute a pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. 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 proposed use is allowed within the current zoning district subject to obtaining a CUP and is appropriate given the surrounding existing material extraction sites adjacent to the subject lot. The variance request does not alter the principal use of the area. Criteria 4. The granting of variance shall be the minimum variance that provide for the reasonable use of the land and or structure. The proposed buffer of 50 feet along the west property line will still allow for adequate buffer space from the adjacent undeveloped property. The properties to the north and east are both owned by the applicant and will not be unpackaged by the requested variance. The property line to the south will maintain the code required 200 foot buffer from Beaver Loop Road and 150 feet buffer from the property to the southwest. Criteria five, the granting of a variance shall not be based on other non-conforming land uses or structures within the same lot or zoning district. The request variance is not based on other non-conforming land uses or structures within the same land use or zoning district and will not alter the current principal use of the property. Pursuant to KMC 142280, notices of the public hearing for the variance permit were mailed to property owners within the 300-foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice of the public hearing of the Peninsula Clarion, and the property owner submitted an affidavit verifying a sign was based on personal information on the public hearing for the variance permit request. At the time of this report, there's no public comment that had been received and there were no stated objections. I will note that we did take a call from the land management staff at the Kenai Peninsula Borough, discussed a lot of this. They had called before this particular packet had been published, but we referred them to the July 29th packet because it was materially the same report. They reviewed that and they did not provide any comments to us, but they did call us after this report was written. Was there a concern? They didn't state any concern, just have been receiving notice and looking at their land holdings, they wanted more information. So when I steered them to the packet, we talked briefly on the phone, they said they would review it and no comments were received either orally or written. Staff finds that the proposed variance request meets the criteria for issuance of a variance permit set forth in Kenai Municipal Code 1421 ADC and hereby recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance permit subject to the following conditions. That applicant must comply with all federal, state of Alaska, and local regulations and that they must obtain applicable permits and file all required landscape and site plans prior to beginning construction.

Thank you, Director. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to resolution PZ2026-26? Go ahead, Mr. Wilcox.

Okay, my concern here is the same gravel street that we spoke of in the previous resolution this one there's a 33 foot easement rather than the property line so is it 50 feet from the easement or is it 50 feet from the property line i think it should be 83 feet from the property line and also The burrow was, I heard about this, they did a little research because they wanted to know if they could sell gravel out of their piece. And maybe the McLean specialist can speak to this, but right in the center here is a peat bog. There was a fellow called Meeks that used to sell peat out of there. And the borough found, maybe through the McLean people, that there's indeed peat right in the center of this parcel of the boroughs. I own the property across the street, Beaver Loop here, and I have two wells. I'm concerned about contamination from this dig into the water line. I don't know, does that mean I should get my water tested now if this goes through and get it tested later and hold QAP accountable? But those are my concerns, contamination and why do they need to dig in that area. And that's about it.

Thank you. Would you like to comment?

Nick Stoller, Mozilla, representing Kowalska QAP. So yeah, we would only be requesting like was mentioned, on the adjacent side to KPB, there is, I don't know if it's a resident or a business, but there's a structure at the southwest corner property that would still maintain the typical setback, 150 feet beaver loop, nothing would change there. So just the 50 feet up to KPB, and that's partially the reason is, like Mr. Wilcox said, is KPB could potentially utilized that as a gravel source and their setbacks. And Gina can correct me, I believe it's either 50 or 30 feet as their standard. So we were just trying to match that and felt like it was a reasonable request.

Thank you. Gina?

Gina DeBartol, I've been in McLean Consulting. So I think that Some of the justification when we're looking at what might be a viable variance is based on precedence. And we know that the city of Kenai has larger variance in their code. But with this being adjacent to borough property and the borough code being, it used to be 50 feet. It's now 30 feet for buffers from property line, adjoining property lines. it was thought that 50 feet would be acceptable to the borough and therefore potentially acceptable to the city of Kenai. Part of, I think that, question on why QAP is trying to reduce the buffer there goes back to the gradations and the material testing that is similar to what you questioned about in there. There's really good gravel right there. And it's good gravel for making asphalt. So, you know, trying to utilize as much resource in the already existing material sites. You know, it's a balance. So that answer

I have a question. So this on the plat, it's referred to as a 33-foot section line easement. Do we have the right to vacate a section line easement?

Commissioner Krause, there are provisions to vacate a section line. This is not asking for this. This 50-foot setback would contain the 33-foot section line and then some to the east. So we're not touching the section line. It would remain as is. OK.

So that, I guess, takes us back to Mr. Wilcox's first question. Feet from the 33-foot section line?

No. The difference between this one and the ones to the north is the Lot 3 that we just discussed actually platted A Street. and that when we plat a street that essentially shifts the property line inwards from the center line of where that street would go. This one is still a tract. It has been subdivided, but no street has been dedicated in this section. So with the current variance as it is structured in front of you today would be 17 feet. further East from the section line. So it would be 33 feet section line from property line in, and then an additional 17 feet from that. And that's would be, that'd be the total 50 feet.

Does a section line denote an area of access?

Yes. It is public access, does not mean it is a dedicated street in all areas, but is reserved for that particular reason.

But access will be cut off if they dig there?

It will not be cut off. They would go up to within 17 feet of a potential Within that section line. So the section line is actually 66 feet wide, but half of it's on the adjoining. Our road standards for a fully developed road is 24 feet, and that would be from the middle line. But the section line, in almost every case in Ohio, or sorry, wrong state, Can you tell I'm from the Midwest and tired? In Alaska, it's 66 feet with very few exceptions. So this would not cut off access, but currently there's no planted access in this location.

Any other comments from the commission? Okay.

I guess I'm just trying to look on this. I'm just trying to look for the I guess maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. I'm trying to find the lot where it says the setback will stay at 150 feet from that residence.

Is that in there? Yes, in this page. What page is that? Page 142. If you see the right under where it says 150-0, there is a residence to the south has a green roof. And you can see where the section line to the west of that, where that residence is butting up against the section line, they're keeping that 150 feet from the back part of that lot, that property line, that residence, to the north. So they're not doing the entire western boundary. They're doing as much as they can, but still meeting the code required 150 from the residence to the south.

Okay. So just in this picture, just the section that they're asking for the setback reduction is the yellow portion, correct? That is correct. The residents will maintain it and so will Beaver Loop will also maintain it, correct? Yes. Okay. That's my concern. Thank you. In this situation, I'm fine with that.

Are there any other comments? And do we have any remote attendees online to speak?

There is nobody online.

Thank you very much. Are we ready to vote on this?

OK. One real quick question. So I know there was this whole white noise thing. This is just a variance. This doesn't open up Pandora's box to be able to modify any other conditional use permit on this lot, does it? This would be for staff? Commissioner Dowell, that is correct. This is only for a variance related to that parcel. So just for clarification for the gentleman in the room, This is only something we can deal with with this. We wouldn't be able to change the conditional use report, conditional use that might be on this lot. So all we can do is talk about and we can only do the univariances or changes to the actual what's been asked for in this variance. So just for your clarification.

You got to come up to the microphone. I'm sorry.

So in order to have the amendments on this particular piece of land, what do I have to do?

Mr. Wilcox, so I think we, this body, would be well within our rights to talk to the current property owner because their current CUP, I know that the wording isn't the same as what we've discussed this evening, but it does state that the applicant will limit noise disturbances and not use compression engine brakes, the Jake brakes. I think, as we've seen from the applicant, that they're willing to be amenable to some of these conditions so that they can be a good neighbor. And I think that since it is a larger area, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for them to, I won't speak for them, but I don't think it'd be outside of the realm for them to adopt this, I'll say site-wide.

I respectfully asked two weeks ago for or their noise reduction, I submitted the documents, the email that I wrote to both the city planner and the SWPPP contact on that piece of property. And there was no change. It's quite loud.

So also within that CUP, it does say the applicant will meet with city staff for on-site inspection. As all was addressed to our public works director, myself, we can definitely have a meeting with the applicant and the people there on site to address this on the existing CUP.

Just for question, and this might take some research for the staff, don't want me to put you on there. What is the timeframe on the current CUP, or when would it be up for a renewal? It only can change when they change hands, correct? That would be the time when it changes hands to add anything. Is that how that works, correct?

no the only time is if they change use and they would come back because they would be adding something taking something away um conditional use permits as long as they meet the requirements this said um if this body felt uh there are provisions of code that if um we were to be directed which we could be to have a to investigate if there's complaints we have received complaints um we can follow up and provide a report to the commission um then the commission at that point, it's under the section of code where if there are findings that they're not meeting the intent of the conditional use permit, which has been brought forth by our public testimony, we can, after an investigation, bring a report to the commission. The commission then could consider revocation, but we do have to give the commission CUP holder time to rectify the situation. So I think having an on-site inspection, having a conversation with the owner would be appropriate at this level. If things do not change and we had continued issues, then this body could go through the investigation phase.

Would it be first step revocation or would it just be a mitigation? Where like, hey, can we just do a, write it, put it in writing, this variance or this condition will match the ones or does that just go straight to there's an investigation and there's a revocation process?

We're all learning here. I would have to dig into that because I personally have not exercised this piece of code. So I'll get clarification on that process from the city attorney. The intent is to, if there was an investigation, the first step is to try, one, to mitigate the issue, but have the CUP whore mitigate the action that is in violation of their CUP. I think the appropriate first step is to take Mr. Wilcox's testimony, myself and possibly the Public Works Director, have a conversation with the onsite for the existing pit as it is, and hopefully that can mitigate all this. If it does continue, I would highly encourage Mr. Wilcox to let us know, and we will start exercising that piece of code that gives us the ability to do a formal investigation.

Did that help you at all, sir?

It did, but let me play this. This was like last night at 6.30. This is in my yard, in my driveway. And does that sound like they're mitigating delays? that they're trying, they're not even trying. And maybe the representative from QAPP, in good faith, can you stop this annoyance by putting in the white noise system? Yeah, I'm talking about now. I mean, it goes on. My wife figured it out. How many a minute? It's like 20 a minute. You put that in a day, it's thousands.

Yeah, but white noise.

Okay, well, then. uh i guess what you were talking about for mitigation if it doesn't happen it'll just have to probably take months i'll commit um to reach out to them this week and if i can get on site this week very early next week is all right i think you i gave a copy of of the email i sent to the city two weeks ago

Yes. Yeah, that is page one of the lay down.

Yeah. Okay.

I do believe, you know, like the applicant said, we just, the two new lots that they want to get all this new nice gravel out of and all these setbacks, everything, they want to get in there. They can't get in there if they don't have white noise. That's in writing now. So they're not going to have three loaders over here with backup alarms that can't go over there. So I would say it might take a little bit of time. Everything does. Unfortunately, these pits were granted before this was ever even a thought, right? It's going to take time. I think we're working in the right direction. As they start to develop this, just keep an eye. If you see that new land that doesn't have white noise alarms being developed, that's something directly that we can go back and that would be a pretty simple enforcement tool for us. So as they develop that new property, if those don't have backup alarms that meet the regulation, now we have it in writing. Unfortunately, some of this stuff was years ago and we just don't have it in enforceability on some of that stuff.

Well, we do have it. There is a noise mitigation, which they're not doing.

Unfortunately, it's a pretty gray area. It doesn't say white noise specifically. So we're doing the best we can, and we'll continue to work for that. I guarantee that. And we have a meeting every two weeks. If it doesn't change, come before this body and let us know, and we would love to keep an eye on that. That's what we're here for.

Okay. Thank you.

Are you ready to vote? Okay. Clerk, could you please call the roll on resolution PZ2026-26?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Fikes?

Yes.

Commissioner Woodard?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dothit? Yes. Chair Keeton?

Yes.

Commissioner Askin?

Yes.

Commissioner Ersley is absent. Commissioner Krause?

Yes.

You have six yes votes. Resolution PZ2026-26 is approved.

Thank you, clerk. Please note there's a 15-day period that an agreed party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Next item is item H, new business. We have no new business. Next item is I, reports, planning director. May we have your report, please?

Thank you, Chair. I think you've heard me talk way too much this evening, so I do not have a report.

Agreed.

Okay. For my report, I would, we didn't, there was a package that we got in our documents that showed a study. And I read that study. And I can't tell you how much I agree with it, that the city of Kenai does need to move more forward with residential planning and that we are leaving out the middle. And so I look forward to planning the growth of this city. And I think I know that the commissioners probably share that sentiment as well. And I look forward to doing that. And I appreciate being able to work with you all as a team. Thank you. Commissioner Fikes, may we have your report?

Yeah, pretty similar sediments. The borough met on Monday, but pretty much just had a plat to review and approve, which they did. And then we moved into a work session to discuss some bylaws, some code changes. some of those things were also discussing was what you brought up was the economic impact study and some of the ideas and how we as a borough or city can move forward you know as an example so that has no available land to expand the borough does Kenai does there's a land sale coming up in October as an example and the boroughs put forth the lap plan which is the lot availability program for those that want to purchase it and possibly get a return from the borough if they choose to commit and build on it and stay in it kind of type program so yeah that was all we had and we wrapped it up great vice mayor askin may we have your report

Thank you, Chair Keeton. So I have two meetings to report on. August the 5th, we swore in our new chief of police, Ryan Coleman. We also had a 2026 housing assessment report by the Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District, Mr. Wink. Lots of good information. Then we had an ordinance. We amended ordinance 7.25.030 allowing the city manager to appropriate donations and grants under $10,000 so we don't have to approve all of those at every meeting. and then he can announce to us what's happening. We also removed from public purpose designation six lots to accommodate disposal recommendations in the city land management plan. And then we committed funds to begin partial construction for water sewer and sewer on 6th Street, which is a whole new development block. And they also accepted a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant passed through the State Department of the Commerce. And then we also authorized the city to purchase new computer equipment. There wasn't a lot of other things that happened. That was a pretty uneventful meeting. The 19th, we had several ordinances. We accepted a grant from the US Department of Transportation for traffic enforcement overtime, and also a grant from the police department, high intensity drug trafficking, also for overtime. We amended the Kenai Municipal Code to add an airport light industrial designation. We also accepted a surprise grant from Wheels of America to the Senior Center for $10,000. And we authorized a contract for digester pumping and disposal. And then we authorized the renewal of the city's CASEL software licensing program that's utilized for payroll and human resources. And the city manager entered into a grant agreement with Kenai Peninsula Borough. We set aside $46,000 to help pay for utilities for the swimming pool, for the Kenai swimming pool. And then we redirected previously appropriated capital funds at the Vintage Point Improvement Project for repair and placement of windows. The big thing that everyone here is interested in is Ordinance 3542-2026 is coming up at our next meeting for approval to put on the ballot to establish a residential property tax exemption in the amount of $75,000.

And I'm open for questions.

Any time frame? Have you heard anything about the airport grant for the Alaska Airlines flights? Any word on that? No. Any application yet?

No. No word on that. They are, however, ahead on paving and are expecting to wrap up a little sooner than anticipated. Thank you.

Thank you. There is a time here for members of the public who would like to address the commission at this time. There is a five minute limit per speaker. Does anybody like to come up and speak? okay our next item is item k our next meeting attendance notification next meeting is september 9. please note that the meeting on september 9 if anyone is planning to be absent or attending remotely can you let us know is that the meeting where we're having the work session ahead of uh not the night that'll most likely be the 23rd

I will not be here on September 9. OK. Alex. I'm sorry. It's moose season.

I was going to say, I think I might be out of town also.

OK. Gwen?

I know Marty might, but OK. You'll be here. All right. Good. All right. Commission comments and questions. Marty. Do you have any comments? Okay. Gwen? I'm good. Okay.

I just wanted to say thank you, and I've heard a lot of positive feedback about the Kenai Swim Team this year, so thank you for that money.

This spikes.

All good.

All right. Alex?

All good. I can't stress more. I agree that the borough's given and selling off land and getting it developed. I've been able to take advantage of that and we're building a new rental property on one of those lots that the borough was able to put back on the market and get developed and utilize a piece of property that hasn't been utilized. So I'm glad to see they're continuing forward with that. We have a lot of empty land and we don't make any money off empty land. So hopefully we can continue to get that property built up.

And I agree with Alex. I think the most important thing for us right now is to look at the housing situation in our community, and I mean all over the borough. It's not just here in Kenai, but Sultana and Homer and Seward, and just finding places where people can live at a reasonable expense rate. And I think we're moving in a positive direction there, and I'm hopeful that we'll all get to work together and make that happen for Kenai. Thank you very much. It doesn't look like we have any pending