Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like to call the February 25, 2026 planning and zoning work session to order. May I have the role, please? Chair Keaton, here. Vice Chair Dallet here. Commissioner Askin here. Commissioner Ersley here. Uh, Commissioner Krauss absent. Uh, Commissioner Fees also absent. And Commissioner Woodard here.

Okay. Uh, we're going to have public hearing on conditional use permits. Any commission comments or questions? Ah, I just get a I'm assuming some kind of presentation from staff. Okay. Open up for discussion for the chair. That's what I did. Okay. May we have your report?

Okay. Uh, no formal report. Um, since it's kind of a going to be more of a back and forth dialogue with with the commission uh and members of the public. A few months ago, we've kind of been bouncing around with few different things on work sessions. Um, trying to get a few things few projects done. Uh, but something we started last year was looking at our conditional use permits. um both what is allowed for conditional uses and then also the actual process of conditional uses. One of the first things we did when we looked at this was to look at how many conditional uses are there in the city of Kenai. Um currently as it stands now on our land use table there's 549 conditional uses which is more than anything that is permitted by right or is prohibited by right. You know the yes and nos are less than the may. Um, so I figured one way we could start to tackle some of this, um, cuz the process, I don't think the process is irretrievably broken. I think there's some tweaks we can make to the process to make it easier both for the commission and for people coming in while keeping the guard rails that we need to keep up. But I think one part of it is there's a lot of inongruent uses that may not have been designed to be conditional in the first place. Um, we have had testimony from members of the public that back really in the 80s, early 90s, some of those areas in the land use table that were blank all of a sudden started to become conditional. Um, so that might be why we have so many possibles or may. So, I wanted to break this up cuz if you look at the land use table, it is overwhelming to look at all at once. So, I just took just the residential section. And tonight I wanted to kind of go through um I'm not going to say exactly line by line, but kind of line by line look at the different um zones that we do have and what's allowed in these zones and whether it actually

meets the intent of the zone that it is in. Um so you'll see anything that's in red are these are just suggestions. These are really my way of initiating conversation with the commission. Um but these are not set in stone by any any way. Um, so if there is um if there is something that you do question here you're like why is this a no or why is this yes um like I said it's just a conversation starter. Um and for the record so I can put it in the minutes. Uh Commissioner Krauss is present. Um I guess um one of the first things I think we could kind of go through is maybe explaining what the different land uses are besides just because I don't see a a key or

a key on this one specifically. So maybe explaining what the CR are or and or also something going into this might be and it could be for another discussion would be but possibly the map the zoning map unless I could

maybe pull that up. It would explain where these areas kind of lie but at least if we just go through real quick and explain what the different abbreviations are on top maybe that would help. Just kidding. Uh left to right across top for our zones. Ali is our airport light industrial. So that is uh as designate. It does include the airport but also has some lands that are close by the airport but not directly you know within the perimeter of the airport. Um, generally these are going to be just to the north here of city hall up along Willow. Um, designated more for aeronautical uses and things that are that could serve um the airport but may not directly be services with hangers or anything. Uh, it is similar but not exactly the same as our light industrial that is not tied to the airport. Some of them are if you look at the zoning map which I'll pull up later, they're kind of co-mingled in this area. Um but it is airport's a little more specialized. Uh conservation which is the just the letter C. Um originally the designation was to conserve open spaces for the airport um for approaches to the airport. Um, and you know, make sure like the city was holding a lot of these air some of this area that we were given in reserve. Um, not necessarily for airport expansion, but again, if we have to put a new radar site out or um instrument approach hardware, we wanted to make sure they're that those are there. And also, you know, the last thing you want is to put a communications tower at the end of the runway, you know. So, that's what the original intent of conservation was. It did over time evolve to also include some environmental conservation. Um so

you'll see in town especially um and we'll see this tonight actually of one one item of business in a business meeting uh is going to go with this but it also you know for drainage areas for the wershed um some lands in the city and also the the flats um down just west of bridge access. uh a lot of that is in the flood plane or the flood way and can't build on anything down there anyway. So we hold in conservation um so that's more of the environmental side. It just happens to also benefit the airport as well. Rural residential is the first one RR of the residential category. It is our default zone. So if we were to annex anything into the city, not saying we are, but if we were to gain any new land, um by default it is rule residential. It then can be reszoned to whatever else or at the pleasure of council would be zoned or designate something at the time that we were to acquire it. But that is our default zone. It is the um I'm going to say the most restrictive. It is fairly restrictive. Um, this one is designed more for areas that are not served by utilities. Um, so a lot of our land, especially on the east side of the city, um, a lot of areas along Beaver Loop, not the entirety, but along most of that, uh, VIP mostly is rural residential. Um, those lots have to be bigger because they have to be able to hold water or wells and septic. So, you're looking at almost an acre. Um some areas where they might have water and not sewer, you can get by with a smaller because you don't have to worry about a well, but you still have to have a septic system. Um it's also generally by its definition um with their name rule, it is intended not to be as dense. So again, larger lots could be larger homes. You may see shop buildings on on

these bigger lots. Uh but again the big thing here is no utilities or very sporadic utilities at this time.

Um quick talking about that it's the first C that's come up on here for mobile home parks and I see quite a bit of these have conditional or possibility of conditional for mobile home parks but to my understanding we don't allow mobile homes any longer to be in the city of Kenai. Correct. We don't uh we would allow the establishment of new mobile home parks, but existing ones are are still there. Um there is a possibility that they may need um additional uh conditions put on them. So that's why we we've left it at this time, but there is a se the section in title 14 says that no new mobile home parks will be established in the city. So it's kind of there to catch

on.

Correct. No longer permitted in the city. Ones that are existing are still able to be there until they're microphone. Until they're vacated. Correct. They're able to be there until they're completely vacated. The only

Oh, microphone went off on yours. The only potential issue I see with that is if we consider them non-conforming, then you can't you cannot expand a non-conforming use. So the existing mobile home parks, um there's two major ones, one's up by Wildwood, one's uh down off Silver Salmon. Um if let's for instance, the one on Wildwood does have space. if they wanted to bring in, as the code stands now, they could bring in additional uh mobile homes to that park within their footprint that they have. Um, as long as they meet um I'm confused. I thought mobile homes weren't allowed.

No new mobile home parks are allowed, not necessarily the mobile homes themselves. So, we basically if someone comes to us and says, "Hey, I have 10 acres. I want to put a mobile home park code RA right now shuts that down. Um but the existing ones um it's not worded in such way that they can't continue to operate. So but making them non-conforming I fear would restrict their potential business. Um not to say we can't address that particular section of code in a future session though. Um, just want to clarify for my own information. My uh thought process was prior to this that if you have if you owned your own lot and you have a mobile home on it and you remove that mobile home, you cannot replace that mobile home with another mobile home. Am I correct on that?

I believe that is what code says. I was talking about the larger parts themselves, but yes, if if you had a mobile home and then pulled it off, you wouldn't replace with a mobile home. Potentially a modular modulars are allowed because it's on a permanent foundation. They don't want non foundation house. They don't want houses that are not on found not fixed. They want something that's not registered with the uh Department of Transportation. Um, so, uh, I guess my own thinking maybe as Alex's is that, um, once a mobile home was moved out of a park that we're getting close to the end of that park being a park each time a mobile home left. But you're saying no, they can bring in another mobile home.

I think we need to look I need to look at that piece of code because the way I was reading it is the parks could continue to operate and I don't think we have any restrictions on that itself. So, um, yeah, you're you're you're correct. If it's lot by lot, one singular house, well, that was a mobile home gets taken out and replaced with a fixed structure, you know, that would, you know, kind of kill it. But I want to before I wholesale say absolutely nothing with mobile homes, I want to double check that it doesn't conflict with that piece of code for the parks themselves.

Yeah. And that just to go back, my understanding was and that's why we have a lot of mobile parks that are dwindling is that the way I was informed is that when I did the research on it was they can once a mobile home becomes inhabitable and it's no longer usable and they remove it, they can't bring anything new back into the city because what I was informed by the fire marshals, they don't basically don't want anymore of these mobile homes. They're a liability. So they put a stop to it and you couldn't bring in new mobile homes to fill in dead spaces is how I understood it. But you definitely need to double check on that for sure. And that's where if that truly is the case, going to the mobile homes is not permitted would make logical sense for me because they can be there and then as code what I understood it as once they're not inhabitable anymore and they have to be removed, they're not going to keep adding more. But like we definitely need to double check there and that's where that could eliminate this kind of a little bit antiquated. Uh see

okay I will I'll look at that section of code um with fine to come may talk to the city attorney about it to see what their interpretation is. Um if if they're an agreeance I think like you said it would make sense that it would it would be not allowed. We'd probably leave it in the table just because somebody will have that question in the future potentially, but um having ends across board may be appropriate if the interpretation's the same as yours. Thank you. It is some for sure. So on Birch Street, you're aware that there are several mobile homes there on residential lots.

Yes. Uh the one at the end was demolished except the foundation was left. You can't see it now cuz it's covered in snow, but uh the person who owned that has recently passed. Do those become because there's no true owner yet. Did if they get to the point where they need to be the other one needs to be demolished as well, it's unsafe for human habitation. Does that restrict them from being able to put another mobile home on that lot?

Yes. if it so if it becomes a public nuisance or or just unsafe for habitation that would go down the code enforcement path pathway um which we've done several other places through town not just mobile homes um it wouldn't restrict use of the property but they wouldn't be allowed to use a mobile home if they wanted for instance to rehab that foundation and put a modular home you know again fixed foundation um assuming that it meets all the building code requirements they they could use it um in that manner but they would not be able to do a onetoone swap with another mobile home.

Thank you. Okay. Um so RR1 is just a little more um restrictive. It is probably the most restrictive of all of our residential. Um it's very similar in nature. Um but you'll see um through here that for example for rural residential it's conditionally allowed to have five and six family uh dwellings or seven or more. So having multif family is conditional on more but rule residential one it stops after three as permitted then goes conditional and then you can't have anything above a forplex assuming you get a cup. So, um, a lot of these are going to be very similar when you have the numbers. They're very similar to their parent zone. It just usually they're going to be more restrictive. Um, and that those have come over time where that section of the community has asked to, you know, a majority of the land owners in that area, whether it's a subdivision or just a whole area of town, uh, have asked to be a little bit more restrictive. And I'm not going to say they're they're similar to covenants and um restrictions, but they're not they're not codified. It's it's kind of very much kind of like a hybrid. Um so their CCNRs will usually start that conversation, but the actual designation of a zone has to be vetted through all the Alaska statutes and everything else. So, um it's this one actually does have something that we can enforce, whereas a CCNR we can take into consideration when we're making decisions, but we can't um the city can't enforce them because they're not our low our laws, our code.

Clarification, please. Um you started off by saying uh five to six flex. That's with a conditional use permit on R1 or no it it's conditional for on the rule residential but it is not allowed at all in rural residential one. Gotcha. Okay. Um so that's kind of where the differentiation whereas you can get a forplex on rule residential permitted by right. It's conditional with R1. So it's just a they kind of ratcheted down what they wanted in their neighborhood. Okay. Maybe you could just clarify. What is a planned unit residential development? Mhm.

Um, so there's actually a whole section of code on this, but uh, some of these you're starting to see where, and they can take many different forms, but what a lot of times you're seeing in the lower 48 is they are almost full neighborhoods that are kind of built around a central theme. So, you could have it could be a neighborhood that has like a clubhouse, uh, like a shared clubhouse and a gym, maybe a shared pool. Not that you're using pools up here in Alaska very much or not for very long anyways. Um not necessarily a gated community, but it's you can tell that it is um it's been built maybe by one developer, a very small consortium. Um if you've traveled to places like Phoenix and Tucson and you go down the street, you know, each subdivision is essentially a PUB down there. Um not all of them, but a lot of them are designed that way. So, it's kind of a little more comprehensive and uh has some other amenities other than just residential. It may not go to any kind of commercial activity and it may be restricted, you know, like that clubhouse is restricted to people that live in that area. Um it's essentially one step above an HOA in a in a manner of speaking, but um they they all look a little bit different, so I don't want to say it's one sizefits-all, but we do have a complete section of code that addresses U PUD development. Does that also include town houses where you own the land underneath your townhouse, but you could have connecting walls with the other town houses?

It it could um we've also broken town houses separately out because they don't have to be a part of a PUD, but a lot of times in PDS, you'll see a mix. So, you may have you may have a wide ranging. It may have some single family detached or maybe duplexes. They step up to town homes. Then you might get into a place where you have some mixed use with commercial, ground level commercial with apartments two and three stories above and then you go full-on commercial. You know, usually the commercial's separate, but everything up to that point sometimes can be considered part of in the PUD. So, um, the best one would probably be Lanzen and Homer is probably the if you we transplant something like that up here that would most likely follow under a PUD. I think the development across the street from Readout Elementary is considered in Seldatna a PUD where they've got the back row is nothing but town houses and then in front of that they have single felt single dwelling units if anyone's driven by there.

Would that qualify for the Canary Road development? Is that what that was going to be? um when they were basically they were the same people as the Homer spit and they were wanting to do a bunch of those little individual homes and houses and all kind of a

Yes. Yes. um that that area, Kenai Landing in that general area. Um it's kind of been pieces have been spun off here and there, but that that area originally was or was designed to be a PD and often these are going to be phased uh projects. So rarely will someone come in and build everything all at once, but as units sell and they build another building or add additional services, it becomes a PUD. But that's generally how those get started. but they don't have again everything looks a little bit different per development. Um so moving along the top uh suburban residential um don't ask me why but the codes are backwards so RS but um is how we have it coded. Uh suburban residential a lot of these they're going to allow for smaller lots. So rural residential you're looking at 20,000 ft minimum lot size. Um, so roughly 0447 of an acre if I'm not quite just shy of a half acre. Uh, the suburban residential it is 7,200 ft². Um, and the reason we have these on smaller lots because now you're going to generally have common utilities. Um, in the city you're looking at water and sewer. In certain areas they've um, especially way in the way in the past they designated what would be community wells um to serve them. But you're going to be looking at some sort of water and wastewater utility to to allow for the much more dense um development. That's the minimum lot size. It doesn't mean that every lot size has to be that. You can you you we've seen places like in Black Gold estates where it's 0.17 which is suburban residential. It meets the antenna code or you go over to like in the woods and they're about a third of an acre between a quarter and a third of an acre. So as development patterns change and design standards change and people's you know what people want change um the lot size can go up a

little bit but again place like Inlet Woods are served with utilities um the intent for places like Black Gold and Mstrom they were platted well I mean 60 some years ago um the intent there was that was supposed to be downtown Kenai before you know we were deed the airport and before development happened as it did. So they kind of put the cart before the horse over there. But to fully develop that area, we um eventually, you know, to be ade to adequately serve it, you would have to have utilities in that area for it to develop. Um and that's a lot of the reason why we're not seeing a lot of development deep in those, you know, on the periphery. We are because it touches utilities on neighboring uh whether it's the highway or neighboring developments. But um that's kind of why we're not allowing a lot of construction back there currently. Um you'll see suburban residential has two um sub categories and again these are just more more restrictive than the suburban residential. Um you'll see in suburban residential you can get up to five and six units on just regular suburb residential. Um by right you can get up to five and six units. Again, you have to go through building codes. All those still apply. Um, and then you get down conditional. Whereas with RS1, subm residential one, you can get up to a triplex, but then they completely prohibit anything above a triplex in RS1. Um, same with RS2. And then there's some other issues or some other uses and other categories that are restricted in those categories. Urban residential is our probably our least restrictive. commercial or per residential uh zone. Um so you'll see you can get all the way to very large six or or seven or more units. Um as the name implies, urban, we're not necessarily talking about New York City here, but we are talking more density. Um whether that's going to be apartment

buildings, could be town homes, a mix thereof. um may allow for some low impact commercial uses as well that we'll see in subsequent um but for instance um like they do allow professional offices in urban residential. So it could in theory and the reason we reszoneed or ask council to approve and they did to reszone acres at forest uh north forest and readout is as they develop they may want to take some of their tribal offices onto their land. um and be there within their community and urban residential allows that to do by right versus consistently have to come back for coops for all this. Um there's a very large parcel so you know the impacts to the surrounding community will be pretty muted but even along um there are other places along the uh along readout that we reszone to urban residential and that was for to eliminate cups actually for uh KPHI's development. Um there's some other apartment buildings and other multif family along there and it just allows that development at that scale to happen without having to always track down cups. um like when it's the first one in the neighborhood, the cup was appropriate. But as it's been developed and that's kind of the theme in that general area, um it made more sense to have that as urban residential. Um just because going after CP after CUP, you know, you're forever chasing it parcel by parcel. Um, so that was a bigger whole scale change, but um, urban residential the main areas are right now along I'll pull up the map as well, but along readout um, there is a couple other places. It's not a very widespread uh, one. Most of our

city, especially on the west side, most of it is suburban residential. There are some undeveloped pockets that are still rural residential, but they just they're undeveloped. So, the zoning at this point doesn't matter as much until they're ready to pull the trigger. Um, and the ones that are over there that aren't developed or just rural. Um, but they could switch to suburban if they want to split it up. Um, mostly to the east, we do have pockets uh that are suburban residential that do have water kind of close to toak. Um but a majority of anything that's not directly on the highway, especially out east, you're looking at um commercial along the highway and then you're going to rule residential on either side of it for the most part. Again, there are a few exceptions. Uh central commercial is the first commercial. That's CC. That's what everywhere to the east of Oldtown, which has a different one we'll get to. Um but a lot of the areas along frontage road are central commercial. Um and some of those doctor's offices and other places that are just behind um central commercial and central mixuse which is our next to last one are very very very similar. Almost all the uses um are allowed in both. There are very I think there are maybe three or four differences. Um but central commercial is kind of the a very flexible commercial that does allow some residential. So some of that mixed um you know maybe someone has a shop and lives above it kind of development that historically in the lower 48 you've seen a lot in older towns in Alaska even you saw that um even like way back in the days of the gold rush. you know, shop here, shopkeeper lives above it. That kind of development. And it's it fell out of favor for a long time, but it's starting to come back because people are realizing, you know, if I don't have to build this building and then have it

insured and build this building way over here and commute all the time, if I can save some money, um, that live, work, play mentality. Um, not for everyone, but there are people that they want it or or people that are, I'll say, a little more transient. So someone may be like a traveling nurse or um people that are assigned to different places. Maybe they work for the state and so they're assigned to an office for 3 to 5 years down here and then they move to Glenn Allen or you know whatever their next stop is. So u you're seeing some some demand for for mixes like that in certain areas. So I see on here um under C under the central commercial you recommended switching and getting rid of what I was kind of surprised it was already permitted was one family to non-permitted.

I I didn't make that re recommendation mainly for scale um for a couple reasons. A lot of people already um just talking with people in the community um hearing when people are testifying with different things, they want that separation. If they have their own house and they want, you know, to go home, you know, kick off their shoes and sit in the recliner, they don't necessarily want to be listening to music from the bar next door. They don't necessarily want, you know, a lot of people passing by their front door. So, um for me personally, it didn't make sense to have a single family detached kind of house. Like I I assumed um even though it's not central commercial or mixed use, but again it's similar. I wouldn't see a single family house directly here on this lot across from city hall. I don't think that'd be the best use cuz I don't think anyone's really going to like being right next to the post office. Tangent building gets a little bit busy during the day. Fire department, you know, and police department when they're on their runs, people in and out of city hall all day during the day. Um it was it just seemed inongruent. um not there are transiitories are there zones that come close. So if they're around the corner and that's suburban residential and they're close to downtown but they're not in downtown or you know in the central commercial um to me I could see apartments. So you know duplex triplex or even bigger those kind of fit more of the character but that single family house just didn't to me didn't seem like it would fit in this kind of fabric. All I could think of was, you know, say, you know, somebody has a fairly large commercial lot on the outskirts of that area and they built their own house on the backside and had their shop on the front and it's still detached. That would still fall under that single family or would it be considered a part of the the shop, so to speak, if they had two buildings?

Just kidding. You could make it a secondary. um like you'll see the next one over um single family is a secondary, but the primary use of a commercial zone would be a commercial enterprise. So if the if they built their own house, if like like you said, if they have a big lot and they built their house and but the primary use of that property is commercial, um making a secondary use could be appropriate. Um, again, it's could be more more context sensitive, but um,

that was my only concern is, you know, say somebody had a large lot and they wanted to build a house on it as long as it's least could be considered a secondary purpose even though it's not attached because I could see somebody having a mechanic shop and not want to necessarily live above it, but could have a house behind there, you know, or vice versa, something, you know, I mean, they still have a detached dwelling. So, as long as they could still have a detached dwelling as a house residential, I'd be okay with not permitted. But if it was something where they would have to go through a conditional use permit or something to get that detached, I would be better with that. But if it can be a secondary use, I'd be okay with it.

Yeah, we do allow some secondary uses. Um, again, I think the intent of that uh zoning district again is especially being central, not necessarily the commercial that's further out on the spur. uh allowing a secondary use would be because you know front and center is probably going to be your mechanic shop and then if you live behind it I think that could be appropriate in certain cases but again they're going to have to meet the intent of zoning code um building codes and make sure like lot coverage setbacks all that as long as they meet all that I think theoretically a secondary use wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. Um general commercial this is our biggest commercial. Um most commercial lands in the city are fall under this. Um so if you go out almost almost but not everything along the spur in town here I'd say between forest and Walmart. Um and then once you get even past the schools a lot of that is also uh highway frontage commercial. Um they all look a little bit different, but it's essentially um where a lot of business you get the traffic, you get the exposure. Um the area near Wildwood, we just reszone some some areas of that to kind of finish. There were 3/4 of it was commercial and then we uh expanded that commercial a little bit more. Um because especially as the highway has grown over time, you know, when it was a farm road in the 1960s, that was one thing. you know, when you're seeing 10, 12, maybe 14,000 cars a day, people going in into and out in a kisky, um, someone building their house probably doesn't want to be right next to the highway. So, allowing a a business to be there and then and they could live behind it. They could live on the next road behind it, um, and just let some of that road and always die down in the commercial zone. Um, and get some screening in maybe with trees or something. It's uh I I think just what you're seeing when

people are developing, they're not saying, "Hey, I want to put a $500,000 house and my driveways on the spur." You know, you're not seeing a lot of that necessarily. More people kind of want a little bit more peace and quiet when they're putting a single family home up. So with uh on that general commercial with changing it from an S to a C, is that now with a conditional use permit, they could put just a standalone two or threebedroom or two or three unit apartment then with a conditional use it would allow that whereas a second area wouldn't if unless they had a business in front of it. Correct.

Correct. Um the conditional would allow for certain mixes and again there are certain areas where general commercial because it's not general commercial is a little bit more geared toward just almost pure commercial not necessarily um residential but not and not even really a mixed use um the way there's a lot of different uses here. So it could be appropriate in certain areas uh in the general commercial. Um but if the primary at some point if the primary development in a certain area is going to be let's say multif family residential um it may be appropriate at that time to look and say we have 10 cups in a row. Does it make sense that we reszone this and eliminate the cups? because the intent that people have uh I'll say they voted with their wallets at that point. If they're putting up that kind of development, that's what they want. That's where they wanted it. We could look as a body to say, "Hey, we the first two or three." Okay. Conditional. Um but if that's going to be start to become the majority, maybe we start looking at

Yeah. I just look at the Wildwood stuff. Some of that conditional or some of that general commercial comes right against the residential still. And I could see, you know, having the option to be able to put forplexes or two or duplexes or something like that as a condition if they're, you know, there's three, four lots deep sometimes off the highway, you know, but they're still bordering that. It could I could see having that as. So I do agree with instead of secondary, some of those might be with the condition to say it borders a residential area already. We want to put in a residential, you know, forplex or something that seems to appropriate that. One question is in the central commercial, do we need to change that N to an S? Then would that be to make it a secondary for one family dwelling?

Yeah, I I jotted that down over here. Okay. Based on our disc, I'll just make that on my notes then. Okay. Uh just for information purposes, as of today and the past 20 years I've been in real estate, you cannot get a residential loan on a general commercial property. Absolutely not. No way. It'll have to be cash,

which which is very good to know. Um because usually we're we don't get to hear that piece of it cuz we're usually at the hey, I want to build stage when they come to us. Um so thank thank you commissioner. Um the other one's uh a little bit easier. Light and heavy industrial. Um pardon, didn't drink enough water. Uh light industrial you see a lot over here. our industrial park um areas between the industrial park and the airport again it's a kind of co-mingled between airport light industrial and regular light industrial um areas where like ha is sitting is a light industrial area um these light industrial typically you're going to see a little bit more storage maybe more warehousing um so I believe U-Haul is now fully uh it was split zone but we fixed that and I believe that is now all um light industrial Um, heavy industrial is what you generally would think of when you people think industries, they think factories, they think small stacks, that's where heavy industrial would be anchored. Um, not that we have a lot of that here, but um, that's kind of the visual people when people say industry, that's what they're thinking. Um, a lot of our canery area used to be before it was reszoneed working waterfront. Um but to the east of Bridge Access, there are some areas uh south of the residential areas um but north of Beaver Loop that are still heavy industrial. Um so where the Singa one of their pads is in heavy industrial um you're looking probably especially here you're looking probably could be material storage. It could be um a little more truck heavy you know freight in and out. Um, we have the education zone. Pretty self-explanatory. Um, our school campus is education. Not every school in town is education yet. We're working on it. Um, it's part of my goal to get the map

reflective of what we actually have in town. R, just a regular R, is is recreational. So right now soccer fields and some of that land going up the spur as well as the um golf course and the Oilers ballpark um Coral State more memorial ballpark. Those are all recreational lands that are a little bit different than conservation. There are some similarities. Quick qu um and you might not know where that whatever happened with that white crane academy. Was that considered educational or is that zoned differently? Where is that? No, it's the Oh, man. It's over behind the that weed ch uh high. What's that?

Private residence. It's Well, it's it's technically has been a private residence, but it was zoned differently, I'm pretty sure. And the Kite or Salamanto tried to buy it. Uh what's the heck of the name of the road? High Bush Lane. Kiana Lane. That's it. Baker Street back in there. It's kind of that weird yoga studio. used to be LDS church. Uh we kind of one of the last things on the corner when you Yeah. LDS church. Um right now I believe it is suburban residential. I don't believe it has a different zone. Okay. I wasn't sure. It just made me think of that if that was ever.

Our biggest area right now is our campus and the shop that's across the street off Lton is all educational. Uh where Challenger is sitting sitting is also educational uh currently. Um but with like Kit's new school right now that's commercial which a school is allowed there but eventually we're going to get it zoned so that ideally not only for developers but when people are looking at our city um it is my dream one day to work with this body to zoom and we might have to create a new category for like parks but then we you know people can say oh there's a park in my neighborhood or there's not a park in my neighborhood and I want a park in my neighborhood you know kind of where are the schools in town and it should be easy when you look at a zoning map to be, oh, schools are there, parks are here, here, here. You know, um, again, it's kind of it's a subtle way for us to market ourselves without, you know, putting everything out there. Just when people are doing the research, it makes it easier. Um, township, town site historic, the TSH, um, pretty self-explanatory, but that's where we, um, have designated for the National Register of Historic Places. So that is um certain area we are certified local government. We're eligible for different grants that could make some improvements over there on different things. Um there is it's not a lot of money, but hey, if it helps put up some interpretive signage or something to redo part, you know, one section of one of our parks or something over there, um shake every tree because if you get a few cents, it's worth it. Uh limited commercial is kind of that transitory. it it's a step down from general commercial and it's kind of the transitory or yeah transitional there's the word I'm going for uh zone between residential and commercial. So you're seeing a few areas that are out um along the spur that uh I think or I think the mortuary if I'm

not mistaken is limited commercial. Um, yeah, next to the Eagles there, uh, that house I tried to sell for like 3 years, that's still vacant. Hint, hint, hint. Um, limited commercial, you can get a residential loan on. Um, so yeah, it's a it's

um, but you'll see, especially when we get down to the commercial section, that there's a lot of uses that you can't do in limited commercial. Um, you're not popping a Walmart in limited commercial. You're this is kind of a incremental. Uh, central mixuse, like I said, is almost exactly like central commercial. And then working waterfront, which right now is a significant number of properties. Our current canery um, and down a little bit further south all the way to the city dock is the working waterfront. And the thought there is as that place redevelops or as development changes, you know, we're not kicking the canery out by any any stretch of the imagination. um you know they're good neighbors but there are some underutilized properties down there right now or um I think is it the port of Kenai is you know coming up with some different uses that are reusing you know some adaptive reuse of some of those buildings. So, um, tying in, you know, that event center, um, the campground that they have, their RV park that they have that's seasonal, uh, working our way up cuz, you know, we have a ri we have fantastic riverfront has great views and eventually, you know, some people may want to live down there, right? you know, like not just in VIP, but on this side of the river, um there's some killer views down there. And as development goes, we just kind of look be forward looking and see how can we repurpose some of that land as it changes over time. So that's a lot of lot of words. Um so you'll see there's a lot that I didn't recommend any changes and again I'm not beholden to any of these. Um these were just a conversation starters but the definition for conservation for me which is the first column I guess if I'm working left or right that had some changes conservation both in the environmental sense and for the sense that we had it for the airport. I didn't really see why we would we would be looking at putting multif

family whether that's duplex and greater um even puds if that development is wanted and needed and you know maybe there is an opportunity for it on what is now currently conservation but could be severed and you could chunk out different pieces. Um, I think it would be personally be more appropriate to say, you know, one house, a onesie, two, you know, on a case by case, so it's conditional. Anything bigger than that, you're going to have to reszone it to at least rural residential or possibly something else, whatever would be appropriate for that area. Um, but it just seemed to me it was going against the very definition of what that zone is to allow this kind of development. So that's why you see a lot of ins. Um and actually that sorry the town houses should be an N2 again because it's multif family but um that was my reasoning behind just recommending you know prohibiting those because I just don't see a strong argument to not reszoning it to something that would give you stuff by right is especially if it's if it's in town maybe suburban residential if it's on the periphery maybe rural residential, whatever is again most appropriate with within the context of that area. Um, the next big one, um, and I can go either way on this one, urban residential, I recommended, um, because PUDs have their own section of code. There's they have their there's other pieces of code that govern how that development happens. Um, allowing it by right because they're still going to have to follow a whole different SE. I didn't want to say go get a CUP but then also yet follow these other rules over here and work with the building official like just trying to get us out of our own way especially since we have other safeguards for that.

So do PUDS also uh does that umbrella also include condominiums? It could. Yes.

Okay. Um and and again with town houses, town houses, um the same kind of logic there as well is town homes also have their own specific piece of code. And a lot of where you're going to run into I'm going to say more challenges, especially during construction is with the building codes because of the um like all the firewalls and all the extra fire suppression and all that you're going to be looking at. Um there's other guardrails that will help with that kind of development. Put some some buffers up. Um central commercial uh allowing town homes. Um I put I left PDS as conditional here only because um and again I can go either way but commercial again the intent of that is to be more of a um commercial facing versus residential facing. Um but there could be some mix especially in central commercial and CMU the central mix use those I could I could probably be convinced that they could be permitted again having all the other safeguards in place. um general commercial um I think the secondary u with the one one family or one uh yeah one family dwelling uh conditional if you're going to get much bigger than that because again um as the as Commissioner Krauss pointed out for residential loans you're probably not getting one in general commercial um so you'd be having to do a lot of cash and again if the thought is that development Um, if you had a conditional use permit and you can state your case as to why and maybe you are paying cash and that's great. Um, but maybe it's being used to support a business. You know, hey, I have to bring people into town for

4 to 6 weeks for a training course or something and I do that often enough. So, I, you know, it it's ancillary to my business. It's not it isn't my business, you know, necessarily, but it's amenity or a perk. I I they have room and board or something like that. So I think there are areas where that could make sense. That's why I left it as more of a cup process um to give some flexibility but not um not encourage a lot of residential in the commercial zone if that makes sense. um restricting and just saying no residential in industrial and heavy light and heavy industrial. We don't have that much land that is zoned that in in the city. And again, if your intent is to build residential, especially to a scale where you're going to be doing some uh and to avoid conflicts in the future because what we don't want is I'm just going to pick this up. we this not happened to us but let's say someone's like I want to build on one of the lots in the industrial park like cool you know and it was conditional we get they get a CP they do the process they build their house and now an actual industrial tenant wants to come in you know I don't necessarily want that person to be like oh well now it's loud and carrying on over here it's like well that's what it was zoned for so um to me it was just the inongruence of having residential and industrial like commercial I can see because commercial, depending on what type of businesses you're in, they could be done by 5:00 and then it's just quiet like any other neighborhood. Industry warehouses, they could be going all night. You could have, you know, two or three shifts depending on like I'm not going to say Amazon, but if you're shipping stuff out, people might need to get that those semis on the road by 2 3 in the morning to get them up to Anchorage so they can fly out.

What would the zoning what zoning would uh a development that had like say restaurants and bars and shops but then above had rental units or owned condos above? What would that be under?

Currently, um you'll see a lot of that in it's allowed currently um in either central commercial or central mixuse. Don't let the central get away from you because I don't like the central mixed use. I if I had all kinds of power, which I don't, I'd strike the central off of and just call it mixed use cuz I think there's other pockets around town where it might be appropriate. Um, but that's so you're probably central mixeduse uh central commercial again in this kind of core area also working waterfront. It would it would just depend on again very contextsensitive but those are the three major zones I would see that mix of live work play kind of development. I think we saw that with the working waterfront specifically when there was a restaurant wanted to move in, but they were also talking about building their house next to the restaurant on that working waterfront. And that's where we came out with the secondary purpose, I think, is when we made that. But I do like it better going to conditional use because I think it opens it up a little bit more for somebody that might not have the restaurant but has a lot in front and then somebody else might want to build a house there and they could be separate entities on essentially separate lots but two of the same contractor so to speak. So it it was back when there was a restaurant going to move in there and then they wanted to build a house in front of the restaurant and that's why we had the S when we first made that but now changing that to a C I think makes more sense to waterfront for sure. And then education,

just kidding. Education is so limited and so specific. No one's put no one's putting a house on the high school property. So, uh, just restricting and just saying no no residential. You can be around it. You just can't be on it. Um, and I think especially this day and age, we can we're nimble enough we get something reszoned if it, let's say that area where the shop building is, if the bro said they didn't want half of that lot and turned it over, I think, uh, or wanted to develop it into residential, we could push a reszone pretty quickly, um, because the intent changed. um recreation um again this is going to be a little more I'm not going to say necessarily commercial recreation but um bare scale so as we developed the sports complex the Oilers ballpark the golf course um recreation there I left it conditional um but as I've been thinking through it I'm thinking because again recreation is so specific um eliminating that the only reason I left. It is potentially if we had some sort of like not that's that big, but like especially places that a little bit uh further out, you know, maybe the state maintains if they wanted to put like a park keepers area. Um I don't think we have anything that's that is that big and that's in the city. But when I was taking my first act, that was my thought, but I'm thinking maybe just no residential at all in that district. um towns site didn't change, limit commercial didn't change for residential um and then the mixed use allowing more of the multif family um by right because I think it fits more in that fabric. You know, if you have a duplex or a triplex and then next door is a small bodega or something like that, I think that is the intent of the mixed use. So allowing that by right instead of having to go with a lot of CPS, but again um I put one family

dwelling as conditional. Again, I really don't think it fits in the fabric, but it does give the body some discretion um to allow it on a case by case where it may be appropriate. So, that's why I left it as conditional and struck out the secondary and working waterfront uh allowing town homes um in that district. And then again, making the one family dwelling uh conditional. Again, if if it fits right and the context is right and the body thinks it's a great idea, it gives the body the ability to do it, but it doesn't compel you. Um, so those were my initial hacks here. Um, and I think as we go on for future uh work sessions, breaking it up into chunks that we can talk about. Um, but I'll design a key and give you guys a handy dandy map for each uh concurrent. I do appreciate this, Kevin. It it does make a lot of sense. I do appreciate the changes you've made. That one S maybe is the only thing I could see. I do agree getting rid of some of these, especially in the conservation section makes logical sense. I mean, we we've kind of just scattered a bunch of these C's throughout and we got to start cleaning it up a little bit. I think this is a good start. Um, I do agree with the working waterfront making that a C also. I think that just makes sense. It just opens it up a little bit more for more than just somebody who might be building on that another business there. There might be another land owner that wants to and maybe develop a house there. And I do like the town houses because I think town houses were one of the things that were talked about as a possible option for development when we were doing that. You know, somebody wants to put in a development of town houses. Now they don't have to they can don't have to get a conditional use permit. We just already talked about that in the initial planning of that waterfront area. So, it makes sense to make it permitted. It just cuts out one less step that we have to jump through. And that's what's important on these. Um, so yeah, I agree with all these. I just do want to reiterate that I would like to look into the mobile home situation and if in fact it is not able to move in new ones, I think we can just strike these to a

bunch of ends and get rid of a whole bunch of cups. So thank you. Thank you. And uh, chair, I think that wraps up our time before our business meeting.

I don't uh, are there any other comments or questions? Okay, seeing none. My turn. Okay. Question. You're still on the record. I would like to call the February 25th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting to order. If you are able, would you please rise and join me in the pledge of the allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Clerk, may we have the roll call, please? Thank you. Commissioner Krauss, present. Commissioner Fees, absent. Commissioner Woodard here. Vice Chair Doth here. Commissioner or excuse me, Chair Keaton here. Commissioner Asen present. Commissioner Ersley present. You have a quorum.

Thank you. May we uh consider approval of the agenda and consent agenda. Before we go before we get into agenda and consent agenda approval, I would like to bring your attention to the layown materials. We'd like to add item B1, meeting minutes, planning and zoning commission January 14, 2026, requested by the planning director, pages 1 through 4.2.

Okay. Then we're going to add item. We'd like to add item F2, reszone contour and drainage map added to PNZ 2026-3 also by the planning director pages five and 8. Adam add item 01 cup closure memorandum closure of PNZ2021-41 also by the planning director on page nine. I move to approve minutes as presented with add-ons.

Second. Are there any additional revisions to the agenda or consent agenda from the commissioners? Would the clerk please read the consent agenda into the record? Thank you. The approval of minutes regular meeting of January 28th, 2026. And that is your consent agenda.

Thank you. Are there any public comments or any of the consent agenda items just read by the clerk? If anyone wants to speak, uh, you have three minutes and they could they they should state their name and address and address for the record. Okay. Unanimous consent. Anybody request unanimous consent?

Unanimous consent was requested. Are there any objections? Hearing no objections, the agenda and consent agenda are approved. Okay. Um, scheduled public comment. Do we have any scheduled public comment? None. We have none. We have none.

Unscheduled public comment. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on any to anything that is not on the agenda? Okay. Are there any remote attendees wishing to speak? There are remote attendees, but I do not see anybody wishing to speak at the moment.

Thank you. Uh consideration of plats. We have none. Public hearings. That brings us to public hearings. The first item is granting a conditional use permit to allow for assemblies here at Coral Seymour Memorial Ballpark in the recreational zoning district. Is there any motion to approve the conditional use permit? I'll make a motion to approval of the conditional use permit to allow assemblies. Okay. Second.

Thank you. Director Butner, can we have the staff report, please? Thank you, Chair Keaton and the commissioners. Um, the applicant is requesting the applicant, let me start back. The applicant is Peninsula Oilers Baseball Club, Inc. Um, areas northwest quarter of government lot 4. Address is 103 South Tinker Lane. Um, this is locally called the U Oilers Ballpark, but formerly the Coral Seymour Memorial Ballpark. The applicant is requesting to host assemblies on the already established 12acre lot. Conditional use permit is required to allow assemblies with our definition would allow things as um as varied as fairs um and concerts and anything something of that nature not necessarily the operation of the ballpark itself that is uh that was implied by its by the recreation. Uh the property currently operates as a baseball stadium and the applicant is will wanting to add the allowance of assemblies in addition to sports. Pursuant to KMC 1420150A, the intent of the conditional use permit is to allow some uses that may be compatible with the designated principal uses in specific 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 1420150e conditional use permits review criteria are met. Criteria one, the use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the purposes of the intent of the zoning district. The find the recreation zone is intended to contain both public and private lands to be utilized for commercial and non-commercial recreation and residential purposes. Lands designated for this district should be evaluated for long-term public benefits to acrew from the protection offered by this designation. The proposed use will allow operators of the Coral Sea Memorial Ballpark, the Peninsula Oilers Baseball Club, Inc. to offer additional recreational events within their stadium. Events held the stadium have been described by the applicant as being fundraising events to support the B to support the baseball

team. The benefit the events would benefit from the already established parking and infrastructure on site reducing the burden on the surrounding neighborhood by reducing the length of time for event setup and tear down. Proposed use is not anticipated to generate a significant change in daily traffic as events would not be a daily occurrence. additionally is serviced by two larger conductor roads providing adequate and safe travel roads to and from the property and there is adequate parking available on site. The existing density would remain unchanged since there are no prop proposed alteration to increase the number or size of any structures on the lot. Additionally, the events would provide supplemental entertainment and recreational activities to participants while supporting the primary recreational baseball program. Staff finds that the proposed use meets the intent of the recreation zoning district. The economic and non-e economic value of the adjoining property and neighborhood would not be significantly impaired. The proposed use mirrors the current use of the property that has been established since 1976. There is no history of complaints or issues stemming from the current use of the property. The proposed assemblies would take place during the late spring and summer which overlaps with the baseball season. Parking is already in place on site and events would be timed to minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhood akin to the game schedule. Therefore, staff finds the proposed use will not have an adverse impact impact on the neighborhood and adjoining properties. Staff finds that the proposed use will not impair the economic and non-economic value of adjacent properties and neighborhood. Criteria three, proposed use as a harmony with comprehensive plan. The land use plan from the 2016 comprehensive plan identifies the subject property within the recreation land use classification. The R land use classification is defined in comprehensive plan is intended for those public recreation facilities as well as undeveloped lands that provide for the conservation of natural or scenic resources. These areas can be used for a variety of passive and active outdoor and indoor sports and recreational activities. Areas that may be be suitable for future natural resource development may be included in this category. The surrounding use uses

consist of suburban residential to the north and west, education to the north. I lied to the north and east, education to the northwest, and recreation um to the east and south. Staff finds that the proposed use meets uh is in harmony with the comprehensive plan both as currently zoned. As stated by the applicant, the proposed reinvigoration of the property as proposed is consistent in harmony with several goals of the 2016 comprehensive plan. Goal one quality of life is to promote and encourage quality of life uh in Kenai to encourage healthy lifestyles by providing opportunities and/or facilities for outdoor activities. Provide economic development support physical health Kenai. Capitalize on the tour industry by marketing Kenai as a destination for recreational activities, conventions, festivals, arts, cultural and other events. Ensure that Kenai has excellent parks and recreational facilities and opportunities to and two objectives met here. maintain existing recreational opportunities and plan for new parks and recreational improvements and support projects that provide additional quality outdoor and indoor recreation public service and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. The ballpark is already established city water and sewer and meets the needs to service sizable crowds and if additional uh and if needed additional temporary lavatories would be utilized. Criteria five proposed use will not be harmful to public safety, health or welfare. there's adequate parking and a buffer for the proposed use to minimize the impact of the surrounding area. It is not anticipated that the continued use would be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare. As noted by the applicant, the events will be occasional and required at times that and duration similar to the current use. These would be during times when nearby residents are active. Um their baseball schedule is generally early uh early to mid-after afternoon or very early evenings for some of their later summer games. um approximately 6:00 7:00 p.m. Uh any specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fill the

above mentioned conditions. Uh applicant states the considerable placement of sound equipment will be utilized to lessen the impact to the neighboring lots. With the this consideration in place and the current uses of the lot already established that finds the proposed use would not disrupt daily activity in the area. Pursuant to KMC 1420228C, notice of the public hearing for the conditional use were mailed to property owners within 300 foot periphery of the subject property. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the peninsula clarion and submitted an affidavit of posting verifying sign was placed on the parcel with information for the public hearing. No public comments have been received at the time of this report. Staff recommendation recommend that the proposed conditional use permit for assemblies of the ballpark on the property described as northwest one quarter of government lot 4 meets the criteria for issuance of conditional use permit as set forth in subsections E1 through E6 of K9 municipal code 142150 and hereby recommends that the planning and zoning commission adopt PZ 2026-02 uh approving the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions 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. And two, upon request, the applicant or applicants representative shall meet with city staff for on-site inspection. That's my report.

Thank you, director. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak granting a conditional use permit at the Coral Seymour Memorial Ballpark in the recreation zoning district? We do have a hand raised online. Go ahead. Can you please state your name and your address, please?

Hi. Uh, my name is Benjamin Meyer. My address is 33085 uh Gaswell Road. I had intended to um uh ask a question during the unscheduled comment period and I flubbed the button on my phone. I apologize if I um should submit my comments in written form uh instead. It was on a different topic not related to this agenda item, but I believe the next agenda item. If I should submit those comments in written form instead, I can do so. Um,

we we do have an additional comment period uh after uh section I reports. Um if you'd like to make your comment at that time. Yes, I will make my comments in that section. Thanks very much. Thank you. Is there are there any other hands raised online? No, there are not. Thank you.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, we will bring it back to the commission for discussion from the commission. Are there any questions or discussion? I I do have just clarification through the chair uh for staff. Go ahead. Um they haven't had when they were previously operating they haven't had this kind of a permit before. Correct. This is a new addition.

Correct. Um prior prior to this they have had um being in the rec recreational zone the baseball games are allowed by right. Um, this is specifically to ask um, and it came they came last year um, right before the season. There really wasn't time for us to execute anything before that season cuz it's very short. Um, but they approached us to ask to allow um, for one, two, maybe three events throughout the summer, late spring, but generally during the summer um, as fundraising opportunities for the Oilers um, operation. uh they've sold one of their buildings, you know, and they're just trying to be creative and they figured, hey, we already have games and games during these hours haven't been disruptive. You know, what if we had I'm going to call it a battle of the bands, but I don't know that that is necessarily what they would be looking at, but you know, having an opportunity where they might invite, you know, have host an event um and potentially charge a mission to this event and some of those proceeds would support the baseball team. Um, as it stands right now, those are not allowed by right in recreational zones. Uh, you'll see them a lot on the green strip. Um, where it is allowed in ALI, the airport light industrial. Um, the reason they wanted to do it at their ballpark is one, they have the seating, they already have all that infrastructure in place. Um, parking isn't an issue as well. So, they figured this is being a little bit more self-contained versus um, taking everything back to the green strip, setting up, people parking on the streets over there. tear down and all that. So, they figured just, you know, kind of a one-stop shop.

Thank you for that. I was just curious if they'd had it before, but it makes a lot of sense. This is even more removed. I think has a better buffer for those kind of events um than, you know, being right in town. They're better parking and I'm just happy to see the Oilers coming back this year finally. I was think it's a great event to have over there and hopefully this will help them be able to stay open. So, I'm I'm I will forward this. Thank you. Go ahead. I assume Parks and Rexs maintain the field. No. Who maintains the field?

Uh the Oilers are responsible um as part of their lease with the city. Um they do all the operations, all the maintenance. Um it is considered a park. Yes. But in this particular case, we do not maintain. So they damage the field. It's on them. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commission? Shall we go ahead and call for the vote? Commissioner Asen. I'm for it. Chair Katon, I'm also for it.

Vice Chair Doit, yes. Commissioner Krauss, yes. Commissioner Fees is absent. Commissioner Woodard. Yes. There are five yes votes. The conditional use permit is approved.

Thank you, Clerk. Uh, please note there is a 15-day period that an agreed party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Next public hearing is recommending the Kenai city council approve the reszone from conservation C to suburban residential zoning district for 81 acre lot located at 10,060 Kai Highway. Is there a motion to approve the reszone? I'll make a motion to for approval of recommending the city council approve the reszone from conservation to suburban residential.

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

Thank you, Chair Keaton and Commissioner. Um, in this case, the applicant is the city of Kenai as it's a city-owned parcel. Um, the current zoning is conservation. proposed zoning would be suburban residential. It current land use is vacant uh vacant land. Uh our land management plan says that it is mixed um on this parcel to dispose and retain um different sections which I'll get to in my report. And with the land use plan, it is considered parks, recreation, and open space. Uh the city of Kenai is seeking to reszone 81 acre parcel located at 100060 Kai spur highway from conservation to the suburban residential zoning district. Purpose of this reszone is to allow for low to medium density residential development adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods within walking biking or short driving distance to commercial services. Pursuant to KMC 142270, the initiation of a zoning map amendment may be initiated by the Kenai planning and zoning commission. This parcel is wholly owned by the city of Kenai. the area to be reszoned contains far above the minimum of one acre excluding street or alley rights away. Um and then the other section where the amendment large enlarges an adjacent district boundary um is not applicable in this case. The existing zoning is conservation and the intent as outlining KMC section 142070 is intended to apply to areas which you serve primarily as open areas and as waterersheds and wildlife reserves. Airport and related uses have been included in the zone to allow for the reservation of aircraft approach zones. It is intended that this zone shall apply mainly to publicly owned land. In August 2025, the city applied to the Federal Aviation Administration Alaska region for a deed of release to remove FAA restrictions on the 81 acre parcel located east of the airport. On September 15th, 2025, the deed of release was approved by the FAA and recorded with the state of Alaska.

This dude release removed a number of restrictions and allows the land to be leased for other than aeronautical uses and also may be sold for fair market prices if authorized by the city. Furthermore, the proposed resone area contains a large drainage area throughout most of the western sections of the parcel. Upland portions along the eastern side of the parcel are adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Approximately 10 to 15 acres of these uplands are suitable for residential development. Conservation only allows for residential development with a conditional use permit. The proposed zoning is suburban residential and the intent as outlined in KMC section 142090 states the following. The suburban residential zone is intended to provide for medium-density residential developments and areas which will be provided with common utility systems. The specific intent in establishing the zone is to separate residential structures to an extent which will allow for adequate light air and privacy and to prohibit uses which would a violate the residential character of the environment or b generate heavy traffic in predominantly residential areas. The reszone suburban residential would align with the adjacent residential zoning districts. As mentioned above, approximately 10 to 15 acres of upland portions of the parcel would be suitable for residential development. Suburban residential is appropriate in areas where there are common utility systems. In this case, city utilities are available at the corner of Princess Lane and Magic Avenue on the southeast corner of the parcel. Um, and this is the southeast corner of one of the upland portions. The existing land use classification is to be parks, recreation, and open space and the intent as outlined in Imagine Keenai 2030 comprehensive plan states the following that they're intended for public recreation facilities as well as undeveloped lands provide for the conservation of natural and scenic resources. These areas can be used for a variety of passive active outdoor indoor sports and recreational activities. Uh areas that may be suitable for future natural resource development may be included in the category. The existing land use classification states that the area is to be parks, recreation, open space. A majority of the parcel will

remain as open space as it lies within a large lowland drainage area and is not suited for development. Approximately 10 to 15 acres of the parcel, mostly on the eastern edge, has upland portions that would be suitable for residential development, but the 81 acre parcel would require subdivision prior to development. An amendment to the land use map in the conference plan is not currently required as residential uses are allowed in the conservation zone, albeit as conditional uses. The city anticipate updating the comprehensive plan within a couple of years and a new land use plan may be developed as part of that process. The comprehensive plan supports this resoning in the following identified goal to develop land use strategies and implement a forward-looking approach to community growth and development specifically by reviewing existing zoning and subdivision codes to determine if they address current and future land uses adequately. The proposed reszone to suburban residential would align largely with the intent of keeping a majority of the lowland drainage areas protected as the parcel would be subdivided and with city of Kenai retaining ownership. This would also align with sporting workforce development by allowing for new low to medium density residential neighborhood in appropriate areas served by city utilities. Existing use the land is vacant. The proposed reszone to suburban residential would allow for those upland portions to be developed um and adjoining the existing residential neighborhood which has been identified as a crucial need for the city. Pursuant to Kenai Municipal Code 142280, notice of the public hearing for the resone were mailed to property owners within a 300t periphery of the subject properties. City staff published notice of the public hearing in the peninsulon. Notification was posted. No public comments have been received as of date. Uh based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, staff recommends the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the reszone request for the property located at 1060 Kenox Highway from conservation to suburban residential zoning. Planning and zoning commission's recommendation will be forward to city council for consideration.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to recommending city council approve the reszone from conservation to suburban residential zoning? Are there any remote attendees clerk? Yes. Are you wanting to speak to Okay. the Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand go up before I went on to the next section. We haven't come up to the to the front mic. Come on up to the front mic. State your name and your address, please. Button on the bottom.

If you touch the button, it'll turn your microphone red.

I am a rookie and I'll need help. Uh my name is Von Roman. and I live at 401 Princess Street. Um I I don't know this is time for comments or I I'm new at meetings. I've never been to them at all. But um my question is uh you know they have a this section all here is for residential but yet all those on the left forgive choice of words here on the left side you have all those um sections there and nothing's done with it. And why do we need all this? I I don't understand what the purpose truly is. I mean, off a marathon there, all those it look like subdivisions and gravel roads are put in, but nothing's done through the chair. Uh to to answer your question, um that area to the west of Marathon is currently zoned as light industrial. Um most of that subdivision is our industrial park. Uh it joins our shop and then goes north and then kind of where makes a D-shape is um most of that area is light industrial, airport, light industrial. So, it's not um This this what I'm looking at is is on east side.

It on the east side to the drainage between Marathon and the drainage area is is industrial. The Oh, that's industrial. Yes. It's not developed, but it is zoned as industrial. Now, you say that uh I'm sorry, Mr. Vman, can you please hit your microphone again? Touch your It shuts off.

Lights. Oh, there it is. Oh, when it goes white, it's off. Huh. Okay. So you say um most of this will be used on the on the um on the east mostly residential on the east end you say of this property. Correct. There are some there are some uh upland portions that are pretty much level with what the current look um neighborhood is. It does drip drop down into that um section. And the reason we're bringing the reszone first um is right now the city owns it outright. the whole the whole parcel. Um the intent would be for any future development, whether that's, you know, single family houses, someone wants to build a few houses kind of next to the ravine. Um you for development, we would be asking not only um let's say someone came to us today and said, "Hey, I want to build a couple homes here." Right now, we would say, "Well, you can't. You would have to go get a conditional use permit." And that's that's a risk, you know, cuz they could say no. um they have to pay for the subdivision. They have to get it appraised, you know, per our code. So, there's a lot of upfront cost that would make it kind of burdensome for any kind of developer to want put it would add a lot of time and effort for a developer. So, our intent for the reszone is to allow for people to carve it up the upland portions, which makes sense um again at their own risk. you know, they have to go put in a preliminary plat and all that with the with the burrow. Um, but then they would be allowed to develop residential um structures. So, single family detached, maybe a duplex. Um, once it's carved up and we get rid of all the upland portions or, you know, they've been leased out or sold, I believe the intent would then be to reszone all the lowlands back, but we're trying to eliminate one of the barriers to entry for developers um to add a

couple more houses in that area. um by allowing um a couple more houses

potentially. I we've we don't have any uh proposed developments but um the intent is to the the area that is that could be developed. We want to be you know as upfront as we can to say yes we we would encourage the development in the city um and try to get out of our own way in a matter of speaking. So you said the utilities are available excuse me princess and magic. So in other words pretty much you're the access would be through from continue princess potentially unless let's say a developer comes in they could depending on how they subdivide um that area they either would put it along princess they could bring it into the parcel and split it out there. It would depend on the nature of the actual subdivision, but um the mains do come to Magic and Princess um and from then from there they would be able to be extended at the developer's cost. Now this is conservation land, right? Is there not any land available that is not conservation turned into residential? Is there nothing else? You're saying there's a need in building. Is there not not any other land that the city has?

There are certain other lands that the city does have. Um most of them do not have utilities near them at this time. Um and we're require a substantial investment. Um we're talking potentially up to about a/4 mile extension of mains which are gets very pricey. So, um, this is one of the few that are, um, still public held that do have more of an ability to get developed in a very short quarter versus, um, a very lengthy investment. There is other available land, but a lot of it, especially in the city near utilities, is still privately held. If I might just real quick, I think one to it says 81 acres, but if you also notice that they're the really they're only looking at what they're hoping to see is usable land is that 10 to 15 acres right near the utility end, not the whole 81 acres, which is mostly unusable because of the wetlands. So, it's the the little the couple possibility of some lots to be able to be made out of that 10 to 15 acres is the intent of this, I believe.

Okay. So if that is so, why turn it all? Why change it all?

Uh so to to reszone, you have to have a legal description. Uh right now it has the legal description of it's well it's in the staff report, but it's um kind of convoluted. If what we don't want to encourage development, we want to remove one barrier which says that it's res. residential now or or could be residential if it if it were to be changed. The developer still takes the risk of putting in the preliminary plat going through that process. Um but if it is residential, they don't have to come back for a conditional use permit. The this body does review the preliminary plaque. We'll make sure that they're not developing in in the lands. Once everything's carved back up, the the remainder of the parcel will get a new legal description. Each of the small parcels that are carved out will get their own. then the city can reszone all the lowland portions back using that legal description. But we can't basically split the zone. So I can't use a pencil and kind of carve out um the upland portions because then we would make a split zone which is something we don't want because then a lot of times uh funders are looking at it you know what is this zone? Can we even build here? Um it just clean it makes it very clean for um the developer know exactly what portions um and again through that platting process. They're going to be talking with us and they're going to know we can't build in in the wetland. So it seems a little curt before the horse, but this is the easiest way for us to get rid of one barrier in order to allow for the development and then clean up the map as soon as all the usable pieces are taken out of it. So, if if I might just dig into that, basically in layman terms, what I've learned is the city's not in the business of wanting to pay for reerveying and platting. They want to put that into the developer's hands, but they have to approve what the

developer is going to suggest. So, they this way they don't pay for the replat and they don't pay for the surveying. The person who wants to develop the land does, but the city has to have a say on what they're going to allow to be replatted. That makes sense. So, we don't want to go through the city and put in a subdivision and pay for a replatting on the taxpayers essentially dime. We can say this area could be we know what area we're going to let them do it in, but you pay for this and then we'll be okay. Now you've done that. Now we can replplot this back into conservation. I don't know if that kind of makes it a little more little less convoluted. That's kind of how I was described. Yeah, I understand that part. But still, I don't, you know, with the drainage included and and all that turning conservation into into this other land just for a minimal amount of acres compared to the overall and to me just doesn't make any sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Please come forward. State your name and your address. Thank you. I've never done this either. Rosie 704 Alak Drive. Um him and I are butdding up um at the ends there. And my question is, you're saying the utilities here at Princess Magic, what is that potentially going to do to us who are still on whales back there when a developer comes in and starts messing with that? Are we going to have to get city water or what's that going to do to us? Because I don't even get my road paved. I maintain that on that alak end. So

uh through the chair if I may. Um so as long as your structure is more than 200 ft from the main as it is extended, you would not be compelled to take city water and sewer. Um my my guess is they're going to keep it on the west side of Princess. um and stub it out into different um different lots if if they're created. Um as long as your house is like not directly like even with all your setbacks and all that, my guess is um we can measure it out. But I do not believe um the effective properties along there would be compelled just based on where the structures are currently located today and the fact that the mains are most likely going to be on the west side of Princess away from the development or the existing development. Okay. So, a potential buyer is going to come in and be able to do 10 to 15 acres. What are those acre lots that you're saying that they're um going to be doing? Like, is that up to the bu uh the person coming in to build that they're going to choose how big the acres are going to be?

Yes, the developer would approach to do the preliminary plan and that's where they'll designate um suburban allows for smaller lots. does not compel them to have smaller lots. They could have larger lots. Um if they are roughly an acre, if they want to buy and put in single family on bigger lots, then they could do well in Septic because they would have the um um Yeah, it does move. I've done it. Um they is it really is up to the developer. We are just trying to say, hey, this some of this land may be appropriate for residential development. Um I'm also the flood plane administrator. So um when it comes to the wetlands like I I I do have the power to say no to development in the wetlands. So they they're still going to be protected. There's other mechanisms for that in the intervening time. But yes, the developer is going to be the one that says, you know, I want larger ones or I want maybe quarter or third or maybe halfacre lots. It'll be up to them what pencils out for their development. the re and the reason why some of us are back in that zone and we've been there 20 40 years. Some of us um we we are we didn't want more neighbors in that zoning area. That's why we are back where we're back and you know thought we were safe all these years but potentially were not from the city.

Anyway, that's I have a question for the staff really for it. But yeah, just for clarification on through staff, what is the zoning of their neighborhood now? What does it allow for lots size in that neighborhood? Now, if I'm not mistaken, it's rural residential one uh to the east of Princess. Uh, and if they have well and septic, you would be almost need an entire acre. I think it's 0.96 is DC's. Um, the ones towards the south closer to the highway may have water and they could be on a little smaller lots. Um, but that that would be up to them. But where the where my location is, I'm 2 and 1/2 acres. agreed. So, yeah, RR1,

my guess was, is there anything in that zoning area that would restrict somebody who has a 2 and 1 halfacre lot from subdividing in that into multiple lots and putting well other homes on there in the current RR1 now?

In the current one, as long as the smallest you get again would be 0.96. So, if they had two two and a half acres, they could probably split down the middle and get one more house in there um and still meet DC requirements with well and septic assuming, you know, someone's septic is not right next to someone's well. We'd have to play that game. But, um they could do that as it stands now. Um I will also say that if the and this would be up to the body, u they could make it a more restrictive, they could amend the resolution to make it more restrictive. Um, that option would be a motion that if if the body wanted to

and if they had, just for clarification, RO1, if they had water and sewer in that vicinity, then they could go also smaller lots even on that 2 and a half acres. Correct. No. No. Um, not with R1. The rural residential has a minimum lot size of 20,000 ft. So they That's what I was Let me Let me take that back. They go down to about half acre if they have water and sewer in the R1, but that'd be the smallest they possibly could go. That's what I was curious about. Just so you're aware that in theory R1 could go down to halfacre lots as far as zoning goes.

Anyone else wishing to speak? We do have somebody raising their hand online as well. Go ahead. Please state your name and your location.

Hello, this is Benjamin Meyer. Um, my address is 33085 Gaswell Road Sold. Um, and I am also speaking on this agenda item. The previous uh questions have mostly addressed the questions that I had. I appreciate all the information. Um, I wanted to speak to this particular land parcel because I am familiar with it working as a biologist. Um, I study wetlands and streams and fish habitat and just wanted to vouch for the value of uh the existing ravine area and its contributions to headwater streams areas of a small um unnamed tributary that flows into the Kenai River. It's sometimes referred to as Walmart Creek um but it's officially unnamed I believe. And the several mile length of that stream is uh important um habitat for salmon and other freshwater fish. And so yeah, I just wanted to highlight the value of the uh wetlands area that's been described and uh the value of keeping that intact. I do understand and support the city's um motivation to increase housing opportunities in the region and I really like the thinking of using the upland areas um for residential areas. Uh my question was I just wanted to ensure that there is like a definite accountable plan for reszoning this um smaller area. That sounds like it would be about seven or 65 acres after the smaller area is carved off. Um what what's uh asurances I guess do we have that that will be reszoned as conservation and not left as is? Um it sounds and I

guess my question is is has something like this happened before that has gone successfully as described. Um that is the end of my questions. Thank you very much through the chair. Uh thank you for the for the question. Um council could add a a stipulation to their and this body could also make a recommendation. I won't put words in your mouth, but um this body has a the ability to put a a condition on this reszone um as part of their recommendation. Um, and then council could then also take it under under consideration to specifically call out the lowland portions. That would be conservation to that there still is a public purpose for those. Um, they could designate that. Um, that would that would be one way to protect them. Um, as the flood plane administrator, um, I work a lot with the Kenai River Center and we don't allow development in these kind of lowland drainage portions specifically for that to protect the habitat. So, um there are other areas that already are in code that we can enforce that would keep any development out of those land portions. Um it would be council's ultimate decision. uh should should they make that decision? Um that would state that after such time that the upland portions have been um subdivided out that they could then um a put a public um a public use declaration on the remaining pieces um and also could then compel staff to bring forward legislation to reszone once the subdivision is complete.

Thank you very much. I support the kind of amendment that you described.

I have a question for for staff for the chair. Um what is the purpose of going to suburban residential versus matching the adjoining uh RR1? Is there is there a reasoning why behind that

through the chair? The main reason was uh because there was uh utility the access to city utilities was there. Um suburban would allow for the smaller lot size should the developer want it but they're not compelled to. Again um it was res since it's still residential neighbor neighbor in try this again. Since it's still residential in character we felt that there wasn't as much of any kind of inongruity. um they don't match but they're both residential. Um this gave again this would give the greatest flexibility to a potential developer um because of utilities. However, um this body could also like I said amend this if they decided that they wanted residential but they wanted it to match. They could also um amend the resolution that's in front of you.

Do we want to open it back up? I have a question. Come on up. Name and address, please.

Jessica Wilus, 304 Hedo Street. I only have a two like concerns, I guess. one would be um we are like one of the last dirt roads in Kenai and like as far as our little street and our road it's maintained fairly well with the little traffic we have is there with adding my concern would be you know is there a potential like are we going to get paved roads or anything from just because right now the way it is it can get so bad in summer. Not the winter's fine, but anyway, that would be one concern um for the traffic. And um also the is there going to be the road like magic ever punched through? Is that like a thought

through the chair? Um are we talking magic going west towards Walmart or east? Yeah, towards Walmart. um if money were no option possibly uh getting extended um or looking at other areas maybe it's uh a mixeduse path that bridges that ravine potentially in the future. Um, right now there are no plans. Um, I can't speak for what happens in 20 years. Um, or if we could potentially maybe we found a grant or something uh to make that more feasible, but right now, no.

Uh, to address your other concern, um, our public works director, uh, we just did a street condition assessment, and part of that was one of the kickers of that is not only what conditions are each of these roads in, whether they're gravel or not, um, but also volume of traffic. So, as volumes of traffic increase, very likely I again um until the council makes an appropriation, I don't want to speak for council, but I would say that if if we were to see an increase in traffic because we're going to see increase in development, I think the city would take a long hard look at um also improving the streets to make it um and some of that may come from the developer and may say, "Hey, I want to improve these lots and you know, I have to dig up some of this for water and sewer mains anyways. Let's say they extend the mains at that point they may go ahead and improve some of that some of those roads and then um some agreement can be worked out. So I don't want to say yes it'll happen but I want to say that it will it very well will be taken into consideration throughout the whole process.

Any other questions online or in the audience? Seeing no one else wishing to speak, we will bring it back to the commission. Discussion from the commission.

Um, I reject the idea that we couldn't recoup the money for surveying the property when we sell it because we are the owners of the property. And I do believe that we are putting the cart before the horse. I'll use your terminology 100%. I think that we should subdivide off the piece that we know is going to be used for residential development, which I 100% support, but saying it is our intent, it is our intent, it is our intent, doesn't give me warm fuzzies. So, we've seen situations happen. I'll remind everyone of the fingerpointing that went on between the burrow and a certain land o owner on uh K Beach with all of the flooding that happened there and hundreds of homes wells went bad and septic systems failed. So this is an unintended consequence of this and I think reszoning the entire piece does not make sense to me at all.

If I might if I'm not mistaken we have in our land sales in code how that works and I believe that the serve it has to be done by the person trying to purchase and then they pay for it. Correct. If I go through the staff,

there are provision code through the land sales. Um, this one would be title 22 because it's city owned. It's outside the reserve, but it is still um airport land. Um, if they go through the sale process in that manner, yes, it is on the applicant. Um, but to Commissioner Krauss Krauss's uh point, the city could in theory um if they appropriate the money could do it and then um make that a condition of the sale on the other end. So either option is on the table right now.

Got one question for the director. Um beans this resoning you would have to go through Magic Princess area and it's an R R1 correct. This is going to be rural resident or suburban residential. What is the possibilities of people wanting to redo the rural residential one being you're a lower classification behind you know smaller lots behind there versus like magic has all city water and sewer but it's RR1

any future um through the chair any future reszoning efforts um because it is an established zone with established residents. Um it would take a majority of of people in that area if they want to reszone. They're not ever compelled, but if they banded together and said, "No, we this we think this makes sense." Um cuz that's kind of what happened to make them R1 in the first place. Um if I'm not mistaken, it was our it was just regular rural residential and they opted to go a different route. Um, so it would take a majority of the land owners in whatever section that wanted to be um, so it wouldn't take the entire neighborhood. If it's maybe it's four properties and say, "Hey, we want to change that would be up to those four property owners." Um, but that that that would be the mechanism to bring that forward if they ever wanted to in the future. But um having a different residential zoning than what is existing um because they're two residential um we have a lot of areas where two different ones butt up against each other. The boundary has to fall somewhere. So um it's not unheard of to have something like rural residential next to suburban. Um like right now, especially on the west side of the airport, there's a lot of pockets of rural residential that butt up right next to suburban residential. So it's um really kind of up to the development patterns in the area.

I would just like to bring up that we have discussed I know it was brought up previously about a issue on KB beach in the burrow and developing wetlands and I think that's put a little bit of the sky is falling here. The city has issues with you know we have to look at our wetlands. We're not going to say we're going to block off the creek and dam up a river and just let them go all over the place with building houses in the middle of the wetlands. That has nothing to do with this issue. I think it comes down to just the small partial that the city's trying to allow development on quality parcels within the city. And as we continue to grow and the need for houses continue to grow, I see this is progressive thinking of where can we as a city say, "Hey, we've got good land here. We don't need to hold on to this. somebody might be able to do something. How do we make this more streamlined when somebody does want to come to us? One thing I do see is and it was brought up with the the homeowners here is that the feel of the neighborhood is larger lots and that is a concern and that they would select to go to RR1. Um, I would like to propose an amendment to this to instead of going to suburban residential is to match the adjoining community of an RR1 which would then make the minimum of a halfacre lot which would reduce the possibility of a high density so to speak housing in that available lands um and possibly um relieve some of the concerns of the individuals here um tonight to be able to match that RR1 which was already put in place on the adjoining community. Um so I would be like to propose an amendment to do instead RS suburban residential to R1 to match the adjoining uh neighborhood.

Is there a second on the motion? I'll second that motion. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. Uh, shall we call for a vote on the amendment? Yeah. On the amendment. Chair Keaton. Yes. Vice Chair Doit. Yes. Commissioner Ersley. Yes. Commissioner Krauss, no. Commissioner FS is absent. Commissioner Woodard,

yes. Commissioner Asen, yes.

There are five yes votes. The recommendation to reszone as amended is approved. Just the amendment. Just the amendment, excuse me, is approved. Okay. So, is there anybody who would like to discuss the previous motion, the the original motion as amended? Are there any other discussions on it?

Since we amended the original motion. Does anyone from the public wish to address anything? I'm asking you if this makes you feel better.

All right. Can we call Are we in a position? Should we call for the vote? Can I ask a question? Go ahead. Um, looking at the map, this um, the green area, the floating island area, is there already any code that says you have to stay so far away from that type of designated land or would that be another thing we should amend?

It it does not um the reg or the regulations that would fall to deal with any kind of drainage is covered by flood plane. uh the flood plan the existing flood plane regulations um as they're already intent. So um if this were to be subdivided we would be taking into consideration all of this um as part of the review process. So um you know working with the river center and and myself as the flood plan administrator, we would be looking at all of this holistically um so that if they did carve out a parcel, they're not making they may not be neat squares um because they may have to follow the contours of the land. Um, but those are considerations whenever anything gets replatted. Um, no matter where it is, just in this case, it's right next door. Any further discussion? Okay. Can we call for the vote, please, on the original amendment as amended? The original motion as amended. Sorry.

Vice Chair Doth. Yes. Commissioner Ersley, yes. Commissioner Krauss, no. Commissioner Fes is absent. Commissioner Woodard, yes. Commissioner Asen, yes. Chair Keaton, yes. There are five yes votes. The reason uh the recommendation for reszone as amended is approved.

Thank you. Please note there is a 15-day period that an agrieved party can file an appeal with the clerk's office. Next section is section G, unfinished business. We have none. for that brings us to new business. The first item is H1. New business transfer of conditional use permit PZ199-05 and PZ197-53 for the use of lodging, cabin rentals, and boat parking. Is there a motion to approve the transfer? I'll uh make a motion to transfer of conditional use permit PZ1199-05 and PZ1997-53.

Second. Thank you. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak to this transfer?

Anybody online? Anybody online? There's nobody raising their hand online.

Thank you. Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion from the commission. Seems like a pretty straightforward transfer. Nothing special is happening and they're not planning on changing the use of the business in any way. through the chair. Yes. Um it is straightforward. Um apples apples transfer from one owner to the other. Uh the reason there's two two is we they added uh at a later time I believe it was cabin rentals was added to the land use in 1999 after the original lodging of boat parking was approved in 97. So that whole part or both of those together on that parcel to a new owner.

Thank you. Have we had any complaints about this conditional use permit in the past? Uh through the chair, no, we have not received complaints of this um this cup on this property. We don't have a history of code enforcement. As far back as I can dig through my records, which are solid through 2014 and get a little scattered after that. Okay, seeing no further discussion, um how about is anybody offering unanimous consent? I'll make unanimous consent, please. Requesting.

Since unanimous consent was requested, are there any objections? No objections. Could the clerk please call the role? If there are no objections, please it um passes.

The motion passes. Next, we have H2, the transfer of a conditional use permit PZ2017-33 for the use of retail marijuana and product storage. Is there a motion to approve the transfer? Seeing a pattern here. Uh, I'll make a motion to transfer of conditional use permit PZ207-33. Second.

All right. Is there anybody from the general public who would like to speak to this transfer? Anyone online? Nobody is raising their hand online. Okay, thank you. Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. The commission needs discussion. Same question. Any complaints? No, no complaints on this one. And this um this one is they're keeping the business as is. Doing doing business as it would remain as is. Um but again just a apples apples transfer from one owner to the other.

I request unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was requested. Are there any objections? Seeing none, the motion passes. Okay, reports are next. Planning director Bututner, maybe have your report, please.

Uh, keep it brief. Um, just want to thank everyone for coming to the work session earlier uh that was able to attend. Um we do have a lot of projects on the table, but we are we are making progress and uh I think it's to the better to the betterment of the city that we're doing this. Um the oneformational item that was read in under the lay down um something we've started this year that I want to keep on. But as we go through our CU files and find that people have moved on, sold their business, got retired, whatever, um start closing them out so we can keep our records u and span going forward. Thank you, director. Um, I don't have a report other than I just want to thank everybody for coming and participating. I would like to thank the public for coming and participating and the online uh people as well. Thank you very much.

Uh, no doc. I think I believe Daniels is next. I too will keep it short. Couple highlights from the February 4th meeting. Uh let's see here. Uh we reviewed the uh financial performance of some of our funds which are doing well. And um we're have another meeting on the 4th to review how some of those funds are handled. Uh and uh also had uh let's see here. Sunset the harbor commission that was enacted unan unanimously. Kind of sad but it was it was time. It's okay. Um, a couple other things of highlights here to look at was uh put up determined that we can put up for the Beaver Loop uh properties for sale. These are um meant for gravel extraction in the Beaver Loop area. Uh so that pass which is great. And let's see here. What else we got that's important? Oh, a big one. Uh water and sewer project. Uh this is a forgivable fund that we a loan that we approved to and to that project turned out to be a little bit bigger than expected but the funds are forgivable to um for the water treatment pump house project. Uh so that worked out well and yeah I think I'm going to leave it at that. If you guys have any questions let me know.

Thank you so much Mr. Daniels.

Quick question. Have they completed the pump house or when's scheduled for completion? I think it's this year and but I again I mean you know how it goes with construction. Is there anyone from the public wishing to comment? There's nobody raising their hand online.

Okay, thank you. Is the gentleman from earlier still online? He's still online. This is other questions. Benjamin. Uh yes, I am still here. Okay. Um would you like to make a comment?

Um yeah, the the amendment regarding the um parcel north of Kenai Spur Highway sounds like passed. Um, and I would just really encourage this uh committee when they pass this on to the council to include all of the comments from uh the property owners and anyone else that spoke here, including myself. Um, I do hope that there is some kind of a actual binding commitment to ensure that the remainder of this parcel remains in conservation status as opposed to a um verbal commitment. That's the end of my comments. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you so much. If you have no further comments on the previous issue you wanted to discuss. Uh no, the only issue I had to discuss was um related to the parcel um north of Kenisp North Kisper Highway.

Thank you so much. Uh the next meeting, please note the next meeting is March 11, 2026. Are any commissioners um planning on being absent or attending remotely? Okay, Marty. Okay. Remote

Alex remote. All right. Thank you everybody. Um, commission comments and questions. Commissioner Asen. No, my only deal was on the reasonzoning of that. I think that's that's a good result. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Woodard. I just want to thank the public for showing up. Uh I also want to thank everyone for showing up. First time, don't make it your last. And Mr. Do appreciate everybody's comments and hopefully we came to somewhat of a resolve on that.

And finally, uh section M pending items. We have none which uh excuse me chair uh Commissioner Ursley is online as well if she commission I'm so sorry commissioner earsley no comment at this time I apologize thank you very much seeing no further business before this body we are adjourned