Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-27 Planning & Zoning MinutesKENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2018-7:00 P.M. KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 210 FIDALGO AVENUE, KENAI, ALASKA CHAIR JEFF TWAIT, PRESIDING MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Twait called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . a. Pledge of Allegiance Commission Chair Twait led those assembled in the Pledge of the Allegiance. b. Roll Call Commissioners present: Chair J . Twait , Vice-Chair R. Springer, D. Fikes , K. Peterson, G . Greenberg, V . Askin Commissioners absent: J . Halstead Staff/Council Liaison present: City Manager P. Ostrander, City Attorney S . Bloom , City Clerk J. Heinz, City Planner E. Appleby, Deputy City Clerk J . Kennedy, Planning Assistant W . Anderson, Council Liaison H . Knackstedt A quorum was present. c. Agenda Approval Commissioner Peterson noted the following addition to the packet: Add: 6(a) MOTION: Letter of Opposition -Allison Gottesman Letter of Opposition -Kenai Soil & Water Conservation District Letter of Opposition -Bruce Richards and Shanda Hall Commissioner Peterson MOVED to approve the agenda with the addition of laydown items for 6(a) and Commissioner Askin SECONDED the motion. There were no objections; SO ORDERED . d. ConsentAgenda MOTION: Commissioner Peterson MOVED to approve the consent agenda and Commissioner Greenberg SECONDED the motion . There were no objections; SO ORDERED. *All items listed with an asterisk(*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Commission and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission Member so requests , in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders. e. *Excused absences -None 2. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 13, 2018 The minutes were approved by the Consent Agenda. 3. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (10 minutes) None scheduled . 4. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT: (3 minutes) None . 5. CONSIDERATION OF PLATS-None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ17-30-Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources submitted by Lavern Davidhizar for the property located at 4905 Silver Salmon Dr., and further described as a portion of Government Lots 1 and 9, and a portion of the NE Y-i of Section 7, Township 5 North, Range 10 West lying West of Spur Highway and East of the Kenai River (Kenai Borough Parcel No . 04937136 City Planner Appleby reviewed the staff report and noted the history of the application process. Appleby noted that of eleven requirements, one does not apply to this application as the City ordinance requirement change went into effect after the application was submitted . Appleby reviewed the ten requirements for approval of the application. Appleby reported that staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission deny Resolution PZ17-30 application for a conditional use permit for surface extraction of natural resources. Denial was recommended on the basis that the application did not meet requirements for screening, access impacts, compatibility with zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan , did not outweigh detrimental impacts to neighboring properties, and was a risk to public welfare . She added that the applicant did not contact the Alaska Department of Transportation to check for compliance with their permitting processes and regulations , as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission . Appleby summarized the ten requirements and noted the applicant met two of the requirements, one was undetermined, and seven were not met. She added the application did not follow State of Alaska requirements of gravel and rock extraction . Jason Foster, on Lavern Davidhizar's behalf noted the application was not for a gravel pit and that a gravel pit included machinery, continuous work, sales of surface and subsurface aggregates, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans , etc. He clarified that the purpose was to extract gravel to make a body of water, similar to Ames Avenue and Angler Drive . He noted that currently there was a swamp on the property and Mr. Davidhizar wanted to make it a body of water with the work taking place this winter only, and not continuing afterwards as a gravel pit. Mr. Foster clarified that a barrier fence would be put up during the work, even if it was not in the Planning and Zoning Comm ission Meeti ng June 27, 2018 Page 2of11 application as it was the normal practice and the intent. He added that the conditions required to do the work would be met. Mr. Foster noted that he would not be helping Mr. Davidhizar in this project if it was for the purpose of a gravel pit as it would be in competition with his gravel pit company. He clarified the purpose would be a one-time , over a period of two months in the winter, gravel extraction to fill Mr. Davidhizar's other properties off-si te and make a lake from the current wetlands on the property, which would have more curb appeal to the property owner versus a swamp . He offered to answer questions about the use of the gravel and the process. He noted that the yield of gravel as noted in the application was not accurate and that the boundaries were estimated. Mr. Foster reiterated that it would not be operated as a gravel pit at all . MOTION : Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to adopt Resolution No. PZ17 -30 and Commissioner Peterson SECONDED the motion . Chair Twait opened the floor for public testimony. Bruce Richards spoke in opposition based on the code that governed the process. Focused on the requirements of the conditional use perm it, he was pleased with the staff report and recommendation to deny the permit. Joe Connors, Vice-Chair of the Kena i River Special Management Advisory (KRSMA) Board spoke in opposition of the conditional use permit because of the possible adverse impacts and affects it would have on the Kenai River . He noted the potential for ponds becoming part of the Kenai River through erosion, flooding and river natural realignment had not been accorded any weight. Mr. Connors provided a letter by the President of the KRSMA Board reiterating the Board 's opposition of the conditional use permit. Ron Lazenby spoke in opposition of the conditional use permit and agreed with the staff report . He further noted that other people would have a lot to lose with a gravel extraction site in the area. Alison Gottesman submitted a letter on June 25 in opposition of the conditional use permit. She concurred with the staff report and denial of the application. She noted that a pond, gravel pit or anything similar would have a serious negative impact. James Nelson spoke in opposition of the conditional use permit. He noted that he owned two properties , similar homes , with equal value, and proximity to the Kenai River, with nothing between the homes except wilderness and other homes . The project would lower the properties values, he noted it unnecessary to develop an unnatural pond , and the trucks extracting the gravel would be a disruption to the community. Christine Hutchison spoke in oppos ition of the appl ication , clarifying that the Kena i River is an anadromous river and it would be a grievous m istake to approve the permit. Dwight Kramer spoke in opposition of the application and commented on habitat quality. He noted that in looking at the effects of various developments in wetland areas , the effects would be unknown until later in time . He added that it was unknown what could happen long-term to the Kenai River if this was approved, and it was not worth the potential effects . Jack Sinclair, Executive Director of the Kenai Watershed Forum spoke in oppos ition of the application. He noted appreciation of the Commission packet and the thorough information Planning and Z oni ng Co mmission Meeting June 27 , 201 8 Page 3of11 provided. He spoke on various projects done and noted the importance of the wetlands , the nutrients produced and its flood protection. He reiterated that the property was a high value wetland and a necessity. Marcus Mueller spoke in opposition of the application , noting his property was at the end of the channel to this property. He commented on flood plains and backwater channel, specifically noting his property by the River was the largest salmon rearing backwater channel. He noted the concern of the channel was avulsion . Tim Mcintyre spoke in opposition of the conditional use permit, noting his agreeance with the staff report. Mr. Mcintyre commented on the opening of a potential half-mile long "pond' at the base of the bluff, could channel the Kenai River toward that bluff and cause erosion to occur, altering the flow of the river with long term affects . He noted the significant noise pollution with a gravel pit in a residential area and indicated the absence of a specific reclamation plan nor adequate financial restitution available if the project did not go as planned. Laura Rhyner, representative of Cook Inlet Keeper spoke in opposition of the application. She noted by the public presence at the meeting, the residents of Kenai greatly support the protection of the Kenai River. She added that baby salmon are reared in wetlands and it allows continual return each year. Ms . Rhyner noted there was a gap in the process though and advised it be addressed . She referenced the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Kenai Comprehensive Plan. She also noted that the flood plain of the Kenai River was not a su itable place for gravel extraction. Kathy Heus thanked the commissioners and City Planner for their service, and spoke in opposition of the application . She noted the Kenai River was too valuable to risk on the proposed development. She agreed with the staff report where the applicant did not meet several of the requirements . Ms . Heus further noted the applicant had sufficient time to follow through with what was requested and required for the conditional use permit but did not. John Hammelman spoke in opposition of the application. He noted it would be more acceptable if the project was as described by Mr. Foster as a partial one-winter, smaller project. He commented on how the application does not reflect the same figures in amount of gravel and size of pond , or the timeframe. He added that would be a significant amount of water removed from wetlands only to make a pond. It would result in chemical changes and characteristics that would be a s ignificant negative impact. Sarah Pyhala spoke in opposition of the conditional use permit. She noted it was too high of risk on the flood plains, referencing the Anchor River as an example . The river was listed as impaired and it would increase turbidity and any other chemical change. She added that the Kenai River was too high of value and this project would destroy the Kenai River habitat. Dale Sandahl spoke in opposition of the application . He noted he had lived in that neighborhood for 20 years . He commented that City Planner Appleby addressed his concerns and answered his questions . Mr. Sandahl noted that this was about protecting the river. He held up a Kenai magazine and referenced an article by Mayor Gabriel regarding the relationship of past to present, historical references and over fifty percent of the magazine was about the "national treasure" of the Kenai River. Mr. Sandahl also held up a Soldotna magazine, noting it labeled the Kenai River as a "hot spot" for fishing . He further refe renced the Kenai Comprehensive Plan and noted that this property was part of the tidelands . Mr. Sandahl ex pressed appreciation of the representatives of the State , Borough , local cities and the community in attendance to this meeting . Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 27, 20 18 Page 4of 11 Kaitlin Vadla , City of Soldotna Planning and Zoning Commissioner, spoke in opposition of the application. She noted characteristics of the Kenai River and the unknown negative impacts it would have. She advised the Commission to write a resolution to City Council to revisit the gravel extraction Ordinance to better this process . She added that the City of Soldotna had an overlay of 100 feet. There being no one else wishing to be heard, Chair Twait closed public comment. On behalf of Mr. Davidhizar, Mr. Foster noted he respects the desire to protect the Kenai River and that this was not an issue of protection ; further clarified the distance between the river and the project was 300 feet. He agreed that as a resident he would not want anything to obstruct that view and clarified that a pond would not do that. He stated there were septic systems and wells within 300 feet of the river, which would have more of an impact if more homes were developed instead. He agreed that Mr. Davidhizar should have had an engineer to provide reassuring specifics versus the broad details or plans as currently in the application . Mr. Foster asked if the material did not leave the site if a conditional use permit was required. City Planner Appleby clarified that a conditional use permit would not be required. Mr. Foster noted the request for historical data of the negative impacts with tidal concerns because he believed it as a non -issue . He added that he thought the figure of 500,000 cubic yards was a miscalculation. He clarified that his company, North Star Paving , would not be doing the work, as it was unionized and had expensive costs . He was asked individually to oversee the project noting Mr. Davidhizar bought the property from Mr. Foster's parents. He clarified that Mr. Davidhizar wanted to extract gravel to bring to his other properties. He added that he believed it would be a valid project, over one winter period, a small circular lake , and it would not affect the wetland close to the river. He clarified the soil under the top two feet would not be frozen and the overburden would stay on-site and spread around . Mr. Foster clarified that this was a reclamation project as it would be taking a swamp and turning it into a pond; shaping it to make it safe for animals entering and exiting it. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend to make findings for the ten criteria and Commissioner Peterson SECONDED the motion . There were no objections; the ten criteria would be discussed individually. Chair Twait noted Criteria No. 1 stated the application was in substantial compliance with the requirements of Kenai Municipal Code Section 14.20.154. It was noted staff found this application was not in substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter. The applicant has not demonstrated t he proposed use meets the requirements for boundaries of the proposed extraction , buffer strips and screening, back slopes, or fencing. Some required criteria were not possible to evaluate without guessing because the application neglected to provide detailed information despite the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and additional time given to the applicant. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend that the application was not in substantial compliance w ith the Kenai Municipal Code and adopt the City Planner's recommendation; Commissioner Askin SECONDED. There were no objections; SO ORDERED. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 27, 2018 Page 5 of 11 It was noted the City Planner did a comprehensive job on the findings and there was agreement with the applicant's representative that the application was vague. Chair Twait noted Criteria No. 2 stated the boundaries of the proposed excavation at its greatest dimensions , including back slopes, are at least two hundred feet (200 ') from any road or public right-of-way and at least one hundred fifty feet (150') from other surrounding property lines , except that adjoining permitted surface extraction of natural resources sites are not required to maintain the above one hundred fifty feet (150') excavation between sites. It was noted staff found the application did not denote exact dimensions . Using the May 2018 paper map submitted by the applicant containing outlines of the gravel pits and a ruler, the boundaries of the proposed excavation and the distance from other surrounding property lines and roads could be estimated . Assuming one inch equaled 86.957 feet (calculated from the scale bar showing 11 .5 inches equals 1,000 feet), the proposed gravel pits are approximately 530 feet from Silver Salmon Drive, 108 feet and 130 feet from property lines to the south and north , approximately 240 feet from the Kenai River to the west, and approximately 195 feet from residential properties to the east. Using these numbers, the proposed use did not meet the property line boundaries required by KMC 14.20.154(a)(2). MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend by adopting staff findings for Criteria No . 2; Commissioner Peterson SECONDED. There were no objections ; SO ORDERED. Chair Twait noted Criteria No. 3 stated the buffer strips between the excavation site and roadways and property lines contain sufficient natural screening to obscure the entire excavation from sight of roadways and inhabited areas . If there is not sufficient natural screening, the s ite plan must provide for artificial screening . It was noted staff found, the applicant stated, "the site cannot be seen from Silver Salmon Drive " and "there will be trees on all sides of the pond after project completed ... the area will continue to be remote wilderness ". KMC 14.20 .154(a)(3) stated there must be sufficient natural screening to obscure the entire excavation from the site of roadways and inhabited areas. The neighboring properties of the subject property were not remote wilderness, zoned residential and contained homes. Several residences on two different streets directly overlooked the site of the proposed excavation from a higher elevation . Even if all trees surrounding the pond were left in place and the applicant successfully used an ice road, these residences would still directly overlook the excavation. Since there was not sufficient natural screening, KMC 14.20 .154( a )(3) stated there must be artificial screening . The application provided for no artificial screening or fencing, and does not meet this requ irement. MOTION TO AMEND : Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend Criteria No . 3 finding that it did not contain sufficient natural screening from roadways and inhabited areas; Commissioner Askin SECONDED . There were no objections ; SO ORDERED. Chair Twait noted Criteria No . 4 stated the site plan provides that back slopes be a minimum of a 2 : 1 slope, except for the contiguous working face . It was noted staff found , the application had a line reading , "the pond will be a 2: 1 slope or greater" as part of a description of the proposed use. Planning and Zoning Commission Meet ing June 27, 2018 Page 6 of 11 The site plan provided with the application contained no post-extraction contours or any detail of where extracted material would be stored , other than it would be hauled off-site. There is not a site plan showing grading or proposed reclamation slopes to verify this requirement. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend by adopting the staff findings for Criteria No. 4 and Commissioner Springer SECONDED. There were no objections; SO ORDERED . Chair Twait noted Criteria No . 5 stated the site plan does not provide for excavation below the water table except where a reasonable method of drainage is available at the particular site or where the proposed future development plan provides for a lake on the site of the excavation . It was noted staff found , the June 12, 2018 Site Investigation Report noted the "groundwater table was generally encountered within a half foot of the surface in proposed pond areas". The application did not discuss any methods of drainage on the site . The application proposed to form two ponds as a result of the excavation and therefore met this requirement. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend by adopting staff findings for Criteria No . 5 and Commissioner Peterson SECONDED. There were no objections; SO ORDERED . Chair Twait noted Criteria No. 6 stated if the excavation was to be below the water table and the site was likely to endanger the public safety, the site plan shall provide for fencing of the work area. It was noted staff found the applicant stated no fencing would be needed and that a gate would block the private driveway. Due to their proximity to homes and the Pillars Boat Launch , a person from the boat launch or nearby residence could easily access the pit and work area without a fence or other safety barrier. Staff also found the applicant proposed to only extract gravel in the winter when the ground was frozen using an ice road and to only drive on the area to be extracted. This plan is not realistic . Ice roads are used rarely on the Kenai Peninsula. When Peak Oilfield Service Company built a three-mile ice road for NordAq Energy Incorporated to conduct exploratory drilling within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge during the single winter season of 2010-2011, special equipment and plans were necessary. This included plans to use equipment to drive the frost level deeper and earlier, interlocking steel rig mats, water and ice chips, snowmakers, and contingencies for warmer weather. Using the paper map submitted by the applicant and a ruler, the proposed width of the ponds are approximately 0.21 miles and 0.1 miles. While the applicant's ice roads would be much shorter than the three-mile ice road referenced , it is still unrealistic to propose ice roads for the climate of the Kenai Peninsula with no contingencies or plans for warmer weather. If the ice roads were not stable, the underlying wetlands could be damaged, and the land could become deeply rutted and prone to erosion. The applicant proposed to work long hours to finish the work within three years . Without specific hours of operation , it was not possible to determine if the activity is compatible as a use within the RR zone adjacent to residences . MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Greenberg MOVED to amend by including comments of the City Planner as a finding to Criteria No . 6 and Commissioner Peterson SECONDED. There were no objections ; SO Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 2 7, 2018 Page 7of11 ORDERED. Chair Twait noted Criteria No . 7 stated the proposed use of land after extraction is completed, is feasible and real istic, and is a use permitted in the zone in which the property is located . It was noted staff found the property under consideration was within the Rural Res idential (RR) Zone. The Land Use Table allowed surface extraction of natura l resources in the RR Zone with an approved conditional use permit. Permits may be granted if the proposed use would be compatible with the surroundings and the conditions and requirements we re met. The June 12, 2018 Site Investigation Report stated the area "can be developed as shallow ponds ". The applicant's proposed use was not accurately described as shallow ponds . The proposed use was gravel pits to be excavated to a ma xi mum depth of 20 feet of encompassing approximately 13 acres . It is misleading to refe r to the proposed conditional use as solely to build small ponds . The Kena i River Center did not have jurisdiction over the proposed use because it is outside of the 50-foot River Habitat buffer. However, the River Center raised concerns for the ponds and surrounding lowlands to become inundated and have significant erosion in the event of a flood. The ponds would be appro ximately 240 feet from the Kenai River based upon paper ca lculations with a ruler from the map submitted by the applicant. In 2002, a si x-acre abandoned gravel m ine abandoned in 2000 and developed within 100 feet of the South Fork of the Anchor River was captured by the river. This had detrimental impacts to fish in the river. The U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service paid for the Anchor River to be restored . However, avoiding the capture of the gravel mines would have been less expensive and provided better fish habitat. Because of the proximity of the extraction to the Kenai River and the possibility for the Kenai River to capture the two proposed ponds and adversely affect the salmon fishery, the proposed use poses an unreasonable r isk for the City of Kenai wi t h potential effects far outside of the ne ighborhood of the proposed use. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Springer MOVED to amend by adopting the staff findings for Criteria No . 7 and Commiss ioner G reenberg SECONDED. There were no objections ; SO ORDERED . It was noted , th rough testimony of the community, there was agreement w ith the City Planner's findings and that Joe Richards , KRSMA Board , was a great influence in helping understand the intent of application and the impacts to the area . Chair Twait noted Criteria No . 8 stated the extraction does not destroy the land for the purposes for wh ich it is zoned . It was noted staff found properties adjacent to the subject property were also in the RR Zone . To the west of the subject property is the Kenai River . Silver Sa lmon Drive and the Kena i Spur Highway borde r the northern extension and eastern edge of the property. See findings under 14.20 .154(a )(7) for concerns about potential river capture , erosion, fisheries ris ks , and damage to wetlands . MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Springer MOVED to amend Criteria No . 8 by adopting staff findings relating to river capture , eros ion , fisheries at risk and damage to wetlands ; Commissioner Askin SECONDED. There were no objections ; SO ORDERED . Pl anning and Zo n ing Commissi on Meeting June 27 , 201 8 Page 8 o f11 Chair Twait noted Criteria No. 9 stated the need for the particular natural resource within the City of Kenai outweighs any detrimental effects the operation may have on surrounding property owners. It was noted staff found, gravel pits and other surface extraction may be compatible uses within the RR Zone, provided the applicant has plans to address screening, operating hours, post- extractive use, and truck/machinery traffic. This application did not address any of those items. Without any plans to mitigate the impact of a gravel pit on a residential neighborhood , this proposed use would have detrimental effects on surrounding property owners. Surrounding homes looked directly over the site of the proposed surface extraction . The quality of life in the neighborhood would be affected by noise, traffic, and views. The character of the neighborhood would be greatly impacted by this use during operation. After the extraction , there were no plans for future site development and the site would not be backfilled. The water table was very close to the surface , so the gravel pits would fill with water even while extraction was taking place. The applicant did not described any plans for drainage or diverting water. There was a risk of the Kenai River capturing the two ponds and the applicant did not follow State of Alaska Best Management Practices for surface material extraction. There were several other gravel pits operating within the City of Kenai. More suitable locations for surface extraction in Kenai were available away from water bodies and could more easily include mitigating measures for neighbors, such as screening . The applicant did not identify a need within the City of Kenai for the resource. The test probes also indicated the resource on the subject property was of uncertain quality and quantity. The proposed use constituted an unreasonable risk to the City of Kenai, and the risk did not outweigh the needs for the resource with the City. MOTION TO AMEND: Commissioner Springer MOVED to amend by adopting staff findings for Criteria No. 9 and Commissioner Askin SECONDED . There were no objections; SO ORDERED. It was pointed out that the applicant's representative testified the applicant did not have a reclamation plan or any plans of a noise mitigation plan in the residential area. Chair Twait noted Criteria No . 10 states the applicant is the owner of the subject property, and, according to the staff report, staff has found the applicant is the owner of the subject property. MOTION TO AMEND: Springer MOVED to amend by adopting staff findings for Criteria No . 10 and Commissioner Peterson SECONDED . There were no objections; SO ORDERED. Comm issioner Peterson thanked Mr. Foster for the information and answering questions, and thanked the audience for the civility of tonight's meeting . He noted he would not be voting in favor of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Springer agreed with Peterson and noted with all information provided and public testimony, he would not be voting in favor. Comm issioner Greenberg noted th is hinged on the Site Plan , Kenai Peninsula Borough parcel viewer, and given the findings of staff, he would not be voting in favor. Planning and Zon ing Commission Meeting June 27, 2018 Page 9of11 Commissioner Askin than ked Mr. Foster for the information and all the residents that provided thei r information and opinion . Askin noted that she would not be voting in favor because it did not meet the intent of t he Kenai Comprehensive Plan and , as a steward of the Kenai River, it was not in the best interest of future development. Chair Twait noted if this was to be a successful project it needed an engineering professional for more accurate information . He further noted it lacked completeness and follow through on what was requested ; thanked Mr. Foster for attending . Commissioner Fikes noted there was a lot of thoughtful, resourceful , and factual information regarding the Kenai Mun ic ipal Code and Kenai Comprehensive Plan . She added t he applicant's plans were continually changing , the rise of the water table and risk of flood ing without any accurate engineering information provided , and with the applicant not present for a second time to answer questions, she would not be voting in favor. VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION: YEA: NAY: Peterson , Fikes, Askin , Greenberg, Twait, Springer MOTION FAILED. Chairman Twait noted there was a 15-day appea l period . 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None. 8. NEW BUSINESS -None. 9. PENDING ITEMS: None. 10. REPORTS: a. City Counci l -Council Member Knackstedt rev iewed the action agenda from the June 20 City Council Meeting . He specifically noted an ordinance that was enacted regarding standards for commercial marijuana est ablishments and the land use table to prohibit standard marijuana cultivati on facilities in residential zones as initiated by the Pla nning and Zoning Commission. He also reported on the approved sale of two airport properties, one on Trading Bay Road and the other a Dry Cleaner business at the south end of A irport Road . b . Borough Planning -Commissioner Fikes reported that the Comm ission met on June 25; noted five plats were approved ; th ree utility easement vacations were approved ; and reported a limited marijuana cultivation application in K-Beach area was approved . c. Adm inistration -City Planner Appleby t ha nked the public for all the input and direction. She c larified that after the 15-day appeal pe r iod , if a cond itional use permit was not granted , the applicant cannot subm it another cond itional use perm it application for similar use for nine (9) months . Appleby also reported on the following : • Alaska Gasl ine Development Corporation announced the new Kenai Spur Highw ay route was decided , clarifying it was not the residentia l route; Plann ing and Zoning Commission Meetin g June 27 , 2018 Page 10 of 11 • She attended a Kenai Peninsula Economic Development D istrict (KPEDD) meeting and reviewed the 2018 Peninsula Borough Economic Development Strategy, which would provide data on economic industry; and • She met w ith the local bike advocacy group; noted it was a joint membership, and the City of Kenai would help provide support w ith i nformation to apply for a bicycle funding designation for the City of Kenai. 11. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT John Hammelman thanked the Commission for their work and requesting more information from the applicant. He also noted appreciation for the excellent and thorough staff report. Kristine Schmidt noted the gravel ordinance needed to be reviewed aga in and updated . She added that it would be better if it was more comprehensive to address some of the requ irements that were noted as missing by the applicant, requ iring it be provided through the ordinance. Tim Mcintyre thanked the Commission , noting it was interesting and instructive. He further thanked the City Planner for her report. 12. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS-None. 13. NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION: July 11, 2018 City Planner Appleby noted there were no agenda items for July 11 and suggested cancelling the meeting . There were no objections ; the next meeting would be July 25. Chair Twait and Vice- Chair S pringer noted they may not be able to attend . 14. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Comm issioner Greenberg noted the application was not approved most ly for technical reasons and agreed with Schmidt that the Commission should review the gravel extraction ordinance . Comm issioner Fikes appreciated the information and input provided by the Plann ing and Zoning Commissioner of Soldotna regarding review of our code and possible gaps . The Cha ir and Commissioners expressed appreciation of C ity Planner Appleby's t horough report, the c iv ility of the meeting, the public comment, and attendance . 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission , the meeting was adj ourned at 9:39 p .m . Minutes prepared and submitted by : Plann ing and Zoning Comm ission Meeting June 27, 20 18 Page 11 of 11