Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-10 P&Z MinutesKENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~~ December 10, 1986 Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 8, 1986 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Lease Review: Lot 2 Gusty S/D - Change of Use from Beauty Shop to Restaurant - Candy Nugent } b. Request for Release of Land: Tract F, Dena'ina Pt. Estates David B. Brown 8. PLANNING 9. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. City Administration 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 11. INFORMATION ITEMS Council Agenda - November 5th through December 3 Borough Planning Agenda - October through December Waste Disposal Commission Agenda Letters from U.S. Dept. of Interior regarding Native Allotment Lands 1L. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 13. ADJOURNMENT KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ! December 10, 1986 - 6:00 PM Kenai City Hall Lee Lewis, Chairman 1. ROLL CALL Present: All Commissioners Present 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Lewis asked to add 2 items: 7-c preliminary plat and 8, results of worksession. The agenda was approved with the additions. 3. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 8, 1986 Minutes were approved as submitted 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Lease Review: Lot 2, gusty S/d - Change of Use from Beauty Shop to Restaurant - Candv Nuaent Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer introduced the item explaining that this is not a new lease, rather a sub lease. It is Ray Cason's building where the Golden Hairpin used to be. The lessee is FSLIC who took over in a bankruptcy. The plans are for a restaurant. Candy Nugent came forward and explained that she submitted no paperwork due to the fact that there is no structural change with the only interior work being the installation of a bathroom which had been closed off and one additional sink, small counter, and KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 2 kitchen stove. There will be no sign as she is on a month to month ~ lease. It will be a small operation, will serve only foods that are boiled or baked, DEC does not allow frying with this type of restricted operation. Commissioner Carignan asked the number of persons for seating, answer 24. Commissioner Carignan asked if there was adequate parking, answer yes, the entire front and side of the building. Commissioner Smalley asked if there was any paperwork available, answer from Nugent, she did not feel the need for the lease form as there was no structural change. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer agreed, stating that since there were no changes other than the use of the building, there is not much she could fill out. Commissioner Carignan asked if the lessor or lessee should be the person appearing, Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer answered that the bank (FSLIC) would not appear in this case, it would definitely be up to Ms. Nugent. In this case, there is no specific purpose called for in the lease, therefore, Ms. Nugent really would not have had no notify the City at all, however, she did and is going through all proper channels. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved for the approval of sublease for Lot 2, Gusty S/D, change of use from beauty shop to restaurant, Commissioner Smalley asked if Mr. Carignan would like to add a clause that approval be contingent upon consent from legal dept. on any technicalities. Administrative Assistant-Gerstlauer agreed that if that is the Commission's desire, she can follow it up in the morning prior to going to Council. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Smalley moved to amend to read contingent upon approval by the City Attorney, seconded by Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner Carignan stated that he felt that there was no need to generate extra work, and since the lease shows no specific use, that this review is just a formality, I would vote no to the amendment. VOTE AMENDMENT: yes; 4 no; 2 VOTE MAIN MOTION: Motion passed unanimously b. Request for Release of Land: Tract F, Dena'ina Pt Estates - David B. Brown iv'OTE: Due to a great deal of confusion which arose over the motions, } portions of this section will be verbatim from tape. KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Brown came forward to detail his request. Mr. Brown, I am involved in a partnership for Tract A and I have an interest in Tract F, however, prior to sale the process is that the tract must be released for sale. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer ,it was set aside for park use in 1984 which is why it must come back to the Commission. If it is your desire to release this, Council must pass an ordinance to release for sale. Commissioner Smalley, has this been before the Parks & Rec yet? If we're looking at something many years down the road, with that kind of development going on out there it might be in the best interest to have it before Parks & Rec and I would hate to do something to it without them having even looked at it. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved that any action on this matter be deferred until a report from Parks & Recreation Commission, regarding their future plans for the use of this land be returned, (no second at this time) Mr. Brown, I can understand your concern, and don't have any problem on going to Parks & Rec, I would ask, however, maybe you could vote yes or not whether you, as a body approve it contingent upon Parks & Rec approving it. Then I wouldn't have to come back. Its going to be another 2 weeks before Parks & Rec then wait another 2 weeks for you then wait another 2 weeks for Council. NOTE: Commissioner Bryson arrived at 7:15 PM Commissioner Smalley, what's your action or plan .for this, it can't wait 4 weeks? I feel uncomfortable with even doing anything before they have a chance to look at it, I think that's what makes these bodies work together. Mr. Brown, I guess if it was only 4 weeks, but as I see it I'm not sure when the next time Parks & Rec meets. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, Janet says its the second week in January. Chairman Lewis, then we don't meet until the second week in January. Commissioner Smalley, that's a month, 4 weeks. Chairman Lewis, it would delay you about a month. Your delay would be almost the same anyway. If it was contingent on Parks & Rec you would save yourself maybe one week and maybe a trip out in the cold. Commissioner Smalley, I'll second his motion. Commissioner Bryson, was it previously identified as a site for a park? Chairman Lewis, that's what Dana says, Tract F was designated as a future park. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer at the time that all the other tracts were released for sale, that tract along with 3 others were set aside for park use. So its not as though its the only strip out there, there are several others and they`re close to Tract F. Then there's one back on the Tract A property. Commissioner Carignan, is it standard procedure for the City to negotiate the sale without advertising. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer that is a separate issue completely and I KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 4 don't see how there would be any way to go besides competitive .bid. Something else, its not airport land which implies there are a lot of restrictions on airport land. Its not airport land. Council can make determinations. Planning Specialist Loper, I was not in on the work session that this group held regarding Dena'ina Point when it was first being platted, but I can tell you that this park is not included in the parks inventory which the City wishes to maintain. I think, and you can tell me better than I can that this park was meant to be for the subdivision only, not one that the city was planning on maintaining. Commissioner Smalley, I don't know, but I personally feel uncomfortable until they have an idea of what's going on. Planning Specialist Loper, I think they may not even know it exists as a park and that it is a part of the planning body's decision, when this was first platted that it was to be set aside for that subdivision but not for the City to maintain rather than a City park. Commissioner Smalley, but you said may not. Commissioner Osborne, that may just have been an oversite. Planning Specialist Loper not necessarily, if it wasn't meant to be a city park. Commissioner Bryson, I would imagine there was considerable discussion in Council as to the status or it would have been identified as being for sale. I think there was a site located on both ends of section 36 west of the Spur Hw~~ for parks. Commissioner Oleson, I think Janet is right but I wouldn't want to bet my pay check on it. Commissioner Osborne, I'm thinking that's why this was withheld because it was going to be a park. Or set aside as a park. Planning Specialist Loper, it is the same type of situation with Woodland where a park was set aside, but it was supposed to be something that Woodland was going to develop and maintain and I think perhaps Redoubt has one too, in that case it is not something that would fall under city jurisdiction anyway, it was just in the over all planning process for a large subdivision. Commissioner Osborne, the difference is, this is city property where the property in Woodland wasn't. Mr. Brown, could the process be, as I understand it, the Planning & Zoning's part in this and the Parks & Rec is just to offer your opinion to Council and then Council has the final say, would it be appropriate for you to make your comments and opinions on it tonight then allow it to go to Park & Rec and let them make their comments and opinions on it for it to go to Council. Commissioner Smalley, its going to go to Council next week anyway isn't it? Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, it can, I appologize for not sending it to Parks & Rec, I didn't even think about it, I just thought as an after thought I'd send it to P&Z first thinking that Council would probably bounce it back if you hadn't acted on it. They have final authority, I can go ahead and send it on, I don`t think they would take action on it. It would give them an opportunity to know it was coming and think about it, they may act on it, I don't know. Mr. Brown, I don't mind going before Parks & KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 5 Rec, I'm just asking for your opinion and comments on it tonight and go before Parks & Rec before Dana submits it to Council. Commissioner Carignan, personally, I'm philosophically aligned with a negotiated sale of any city land and, would not support your request for negotiated sale. Mr. Brown, I guess what I'm really asking for from you tonight, I understand the process of negotiated sale, whether it goes out for bid and I don't really have a problem submitting a bid for it, I guess what I'm asking for you tonight is to comment and give me your opinion on whether it even should be released for sale. And then if its released for sale, let it go out for public bid. Commissioner Smalley, if Parks & Rec have no use for it, and would suggest that it go up for sale, at this point, I probably would not object to it. MOTION AMENDMENT: Commissioner Carignan - move to amend my motion to read: a statement of non-objection from the Commission should there be no objection from the Parks & Recreation Commission, recommend sale of Tract F release for sale, (see * for clarification) Chairman Lewis, I think its important that release for sale, because that gives them leeway of going the negotiated sale route or..... is there a second to the proposed amendment. Commissioner Smalley seconds. Commissioner Smalley, since Mr. Brown has submitted a request and it ends up going for sale, does he automatically have first dibs on it. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, in the ordinance from '84 when they released the other tracts they specifically added to that ordinance a section of the code that it would allow the initiating party preference right to the sale, they specifically deleted that section so that there would be no preference right. Say they did decide to put it to competitive bid, they would probably have to set aside that ordinance whether they want that preference right or not. Its a part of the code that the initiating party has that right, if they didn't want that in there they would have to specifically delete it by ordinance. Commissioner Smalley, does Tract F come under the old, where-that doesn't go into account. That he wouldn't, would not necessarily have first right then. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, he would have that right unless, in this ordinance they took it out when they were selling the other tracts. Tract F was not a part of that because it was set aside. When they write the ordinance for this, they may very well want to put that in I don't know. Commissioner Bryson, are there any other tracts, at this end of section 36 that are presently held by the city. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, for parks or... Commissioner Bryson, bluff side? Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, yes, Tract E is. On the map I gave you, Tract E is set aside for park use which is right along the bluff. Tract G is also, but I don't have that part of the map, its farther towards the center. Commissioner Bryson, KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 6 they identified the bluff and the tidelands portion. ! Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, there were four parcels set aside. Commissioner Bryson, what is the existing zoning on Tract F. Mr. Brown, its zoned for residential. RS. * Commissioner Carignan, Mr. Chairman, one point I want to make here, I want to make sure Council does not interpret this to mean that we are suggesting a negotiated sale. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, you just said a release. Commissioner Carignan, competitive bidding. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, is that what you want your motion to say, competitive bid? Commissioner Carignan, if its not in there I want to amend my amendment. Commissioner Smalley, I think that was the indication. Chairman Lewis, he said release for sale and I don't think that is specific enough to the City Council to interpret what we intended. Can we specify without making a second amendment? What negotiated sale means. Commissioner Carignan, it could just be included in there with agreement of my second. Commissioner Smalley, so agree. VOTE AI~NDMENT: Motion passes yes; 5 no; 2 Commissioner Carignan, before we vote I would like my two colleagues who voted no to share their logic. Commissioner Bryson, I guess I'll go first. The tract itself has very little depth and I don't know how something like that is going to be developed, but to buy the buffer that exists and the adjacent property are potentially available property, Tanaga Street, it has a buffer zone that's not part of Redoubt Terrace S/D, I think it exists in this section 31, if you extend these property lines to the east. That presumably, the platting of Redoubt Terrace may go right up to that section line. They are presently protected by a buffer zone that isn't their property. In the even that there is residential development on Tract F for example, I think you're going to be realizing that what you think is a buffer zone in fact doesn't exist, wouldn't exist on this tract. That and I'm uncomfortable putting Parks & Rec in the position where we've effectively approved it if they approve it. I think one of these tracts needs to be a recreation area not obviously the bluff, Tract F isn't appropriate for one and I don't think the City's intent is to encourage recreation on it, so either E or F, both of these are approximately a half mile from Forest Drive. If you go north the next park on that side of the road is more than a mile. Commissioner Osborne, my thoughts are basically the same, we talked about it quite a bit 'way back when we were working on section 36, that it should be a buffer between Redoubt and section 36. Plus it is a pretty small piece of property. Chairman Lewis, so in effect what both of you are saying is, you don't agree with releasing it for sale, period. Commissioner Smalley, I don't think that's what Phil said, he feels uncomfortable with putting Parks & Rec in a situation where we've KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 7 contingently approved it if they do. Commissioner Carignan, I think he also spoke to the buffer. Commissioner Bryson, the tract is only 150' in depth if the section line easement were vacated, which presumably it would be, that's not very deep for highway frontage. Development, highway oriented frontage, and its marginal for residential, if its isolated from the highway. I have no problem with this proposal but I think the tract configuration, doesn't fit. Chairman Lewis, any further questions or comments. we will then vote on the motion. Planning Specialist Loper, question, which motion. Chairman Lewis, amended main motion. Commissioner Bryson, same thing you're voting on again that we voted on. Chairman Lewis, right, we just voted on it, but that was to amend the motion, now we're going to vote to pass or fail the motion. VOTE MAIN MOTION: Motion fails yes: 3 no: 4 Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, so you want it to go to Parks & Rec and then come back to you? You postponed it? Commissioner Carignan, the amendment was to the first motion, the amendment to the motion was to approve it contingent that there be no problems with Park & Rec. That amended the original motion to send it to Parks & Rec first, and it was ok that Parks .& Rec we were recommending that.... Chairman Lewis, we were specifying that it be released for competitive bidding. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, so now you are saying that you do not approve of it being released, is that right? Chairman Lewis, that's what I think. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, so you want it to go to Parks & Rec then send it on to Council? Commissioner Smalley, Mr. Chairman, MOTION: Commissioner Smalley, I move that this be sent on to Parks & Rec for their information and recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Carignan. Chairman Lewis, what are they going to recommend? Commissioner Smalley, I think since we're dealing with Parks & Rec land it definitely should go to them. Chairman Lewis, I can understand that if we approved it, but since it was turned down... Commissioner Smalley, the request obviously is going on to Council all right, I just think Parks & Rec ought to have this information and ought to make recommendations on it. Commissioner Bryson, both our recommendations are going to the Council, presumably with the same degree of input. I would like to see Parks, you know, if they're interested in a park in this area, which they may or may not be, E vs r be evaluated and one of them.... they're rationale is we need a park and that's the only reason. That's their reason for commenting on it. Maybe E is good enough. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, E already has (inaudible) Commissioner KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 8 Bryson, specifically for park development? Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, well, for public use, it wasn't set aside for park use it was set aside for public use. Commissioner Smalley, maybe that is something that Parks & Rec could clarify. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, I guess my question is it was not set aside for specifically park use, it's set aside for public use. Commissioner Smalley, we were just told in 1984 it was set aside for park use. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, I may have said parks, the described city-owned land shall be retained for public use and shall not be made available for sale, Tracts A, 5, E, F, & G. Public use, I may have said parks. Commissioner Carignan, what falls into the category of public use, parks is one, Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, parking, access, etc. Commissioner Smalley, Mr. Chairman there has been a motion and a second to pass it on to Parks & Rec for verification and recommendation. VOTE: Motion passes unanimously. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, I want to make sure, do you want it to go to Parks & Rec and come back or do you want it to go to Parks & Rec then to Council. Chairman Lewis, we turned it down. Its meaningless to turn it on to Parks & Rec, no matter what they say, it doesn't make any difference to us now. Administrative f Assistant Gerstlauer, it might make a difference to Council, but it won't make a difference to what you're going to do unless you are going to look at it again. Commissioner Smalley, if Parks & Rec make the decision that they have no use for it and the recommendation is that it be set aside for public sale will that not come back to us as an information item? Chairman Lewis, we turned it down. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer, that's why I'm asking. It will not come back to you, you voted on it. c. Preliminary Plat PZ86-47: Sprucewood Glen S/D #4 Planning Specialist Loper introduced the item explaining that this is the plat which accompanies the vacation request for Mr. Lowry which was approved last August. Administration has no objections, the only request is that the utilities and retaining way be shown prior to filing. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to adopt PZ86-47 with incorporation of engineer's comments, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. Commissioner Bryson asked if the retaining wall would be a pre-existing encroachment, answer yes. Is the City going to accept operation and maintenance of the utilities, answer no. Mr. Lowry stated that there is an additional skinny strip that abuts the road. There has been a valve put in for the water line, there is no sewer line there. The valve connects through to the rest of the property. The idea is that it will remain connected until such KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 9 time that something would happen that it is not maintainable, then that valve would be shut off and it would be a dead end to the water line. There are no other utilities. The retaining wall encroaches about 18" on what is the former lot line which is the reason for moving the street back about 5'. VOTE: i~iotion passes unanimously. 8. PLANNING Chairman Lewis introduced the four items discussed at the work work session: Townsite Historic Zone, Encroachment Permit, Recreational Vehicles, and Additional Requirements. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved to place the four items on the next agenda for public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Smalley. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 9. REPORTS a. City Council Agendas are available. No questions or comments. b. Borough Planning Commission Agendas are available. No questions or comments. c. City Administration Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer reported on 4 land sales which have been in the process for an extended period of time. Howard Hackney, Building Official. I need to speak to you tonight about the Omni Food sign. The code says you cannot have flashing or intermittent illumination. This sign does do that and can be considered flashing. Also, at times there is animation and animated signs are not covered except under the section that states that any sign not mentioned in the code are prohibited. Under that criteria I am looking for direction. Chairman Lewis, my personal opinion is that I like the sign. Commissioner Smalley asked if it attracts your eye when driving by. Chairman Lewis asked if the question was meant to imply that it would be a traffic hazard. Commissioner Smalley answered yes. I feel we need to address fairness to all signs that have been identified as being prohibited and had to be changed. Commissioner ~ Zubeck stated that when we were addressing that we were talking about those signs that were flashing, on wheels, etc. Commissioner Carignan stated, that we must go through the steps one by one to KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 10 see if it meets the code, rather then whether or not we like it. Does it flash? Commissioner Smalley felt that the animation is not spoken to in the code and is prohibited. Commissioner Carignan; does it have intermittent illumination? Commissioner Smalley answered, that this is one of the most attractive signs on the whole peninsula, however, it also distracts the eye in a very dangerous area. Chairman Lewis stated that if our code prohibits a sign like this our code is too strict. Howard Hackney stated that the only problem he has with the sign is not when it moves but when it flashes on and off. I'm sure it could be programmed to do away with that. Mr. Lower answered that the sign indeed can be programmed to do anything. After some customer comments regarding a long sentence being something that tends to make a person read longer than they should, that highway along that stretch being what it is, we programmed the messages to read much shorter. Commissioner Carignan stated that he felt it fell under the automatic changing message sign. Commissioner Oleson stated that we are going to be seeing more of this type of sign where you can program anything into it. It is now a state of the art so I believe you are going to have to deal with finding some place in the code that will accommodate this type of sign. Kelly Bookey, my only complaint is that it does flash. It repeats the message in a flashing manner. I agree it's a nice sign. And all of us could come up with a different interpretation. Commissioner Smalley called to mind the Larry's Club sign some time back that was flashing. True it was shorted, but it did flash. Commissioner Carignan stated that it falls within the framework of section 3, if there is an automatic changing message, the criteria for flashing lights are intermittent illumination, except, I think it falls in that category of automatic changing message. I've seen the message change even though it comes up at a later time. If I were to vote based on these criteria I would say its ok. But I would have a concern about the amount of time it takes people's eyes off the road. MOTION: Commissioner Carignan moved that a memo be forwarded to the Building Inspector stating that it is opinion of this Commission that the Omni sign falls within the category of an automatic changing message sign and is allowable under the sign ordinance, seconded by Commissioner Bryson. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Smalley stated that we need to clarify the sign ordinance because more of these signs are going to be going up. I still think this is a flashing sign. Chairman Lewis - we will take that under advisement. We are not going to act on that right away. KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 10, 1986 Page 11 10. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 1 11. INFORMATION ITEMS 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Commissioner Smalley, regarding the letters pertaining to native allotment lands, it is interesting that this parcel of land was up for sale again by the BIA and I specifically asked the realty officer in Anchorage, the answer was yes, however, there were problems. It was advertised and listed for sale. Administrative Assistant Gerstlauer explained that the City Manager received another letter Monday from Jake Lestenkoff, Juneau Director. The letter was very angry and he appeared very upset about the correspondence that had gone back and forth between the BIA offices and the city. The ending paragraph demanded that the letters be rewritten in a different manner or they would press legal action. In effect they are saying that they don't agree with the fact that it will place the City in a higher jurisdiction than they have. I see them potentially declaring the trailer out there grandfathered since it existed during these questions. Commissioner Smalley informed the Commission that the property values out there have dropped because of the questionable use by 16% from an appraisal that I had done. I do not qualify for refinancing because of that existing use. No one within a quarter to half mile of a trailer house would be allowable to FreddyMac money according to the bank. Commissioner Bryson asked if the Garcia bony application had come before the Commission. Planning Specialist Loper explained that it was scheduled to, however, the Borough dealt with the matter by denying it prior to this meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Commission will be January 14th, 1987. Janet A. Loper, Planning Specialist Secretary to the Commission PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION j~~ ~ ) T II ~ rt~ I'~,~ d Call ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~< ~ Chairman 'Lee Lewis ~~ -Phil Bryson ~~ !r Richard Carri ~ ~' ~ ~ gnen C. Bob Oleson ' ~' ~~ • Ozzie Osborne ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Hal Smalley h ~` ~ Bill Zubek -~ 0 ~~ v , ~ " ,r~ TO DO ~/ CITY OF KENAI "D~l G~a~CU~a.I o~ ~I~i~a" 210 FIDALGO KENAI, ALASKA 99611 TELEPHONE 283 - 7535 MEMORANDUM T0: Planning & Zoning Commissioners FROM: Janet A. Loper, Planning Specialist SUBJECT: Work Session on December 10, 1986 Commencing at 6:00 PM. The Planning & Zoninq Commission approved a list of goals at the beginning of 1986. Goal #3 suggests updating of the zoning code in 4 specific areas. Only one of those goals has been accomplished, that of Creating the Zero Lot Line Ordinance. While the new zone for old town has been in the process for some time, the Commission has yet to address the home occupation or bed and breakfast revisions. I would also like to add day care centers to that list for the next available meeting in January. The following are revisions ready for your review: Townsite Historic Zone One of those goals was to create a zone suitable for the site of Kenai's earliest development now platted as Kenai Original Townsite. The last revisions to this draft were done by the Landscaping/Site Plan Review Board and the Old Town Committee in November. This draft now comes before the Commission for a final work session for any possible revisions before proceeding on to the public hearing phase. Encroachment Permits Another goal was to upgrade the Code pertaining to Variances. Several cases have come to the Commission which involve pre existing conditions which do not fall under the Variance criteria. The result is the Encroachment Permit draft. This is the first draft of a possible ordinance and will entail further study by the Commission. This first draft entails input from other communities which have the same type of problem, however, only one community has actually taken this step in writing. ~; WORKSESSION AGENDA December 10, 1986 Page 2 Recreational Vehicles This revision is the first part of an attempt to answer to the requests of the community to ban RV type vehicles from becoming permanent and unsafe living quarters for transient type people. By placing the RV in this category, it falls to Administration to enforce rather than police which has been recommended by Chief Ross. The police can act upon the request of a staff person rather than initiate contact through that dept. Additional Requirements This item has been before the Commission previously, however, at the last Council meeting, the wrong ordinance was approved which elminated the setbacks. According to the memo from Attorney Rogers, to comply with the Code, the item must come back before the Planning Commission in order to be added back into the Code.