Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-19; Planning Commission; Minutes~RKSiOP MEETI~ OF: DATE OF HEETIN:;: TIME OF MEET!~: MINUTES PL.ANN I~ O)t,f,IISS I ON February 19, 1986 6:00 P.r1. PLACE OF HEETI~: City Counc i 1 Chant>ers COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman SChlehuber at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chainnan Schlehuber, C(J'(lllissioners McFadden, Hall, McBane and Holmes. 1\bsent: Ccmnissioners Marcus and Sllith. Staff Members Present: Mike Howes, Senior Planner Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Clyde Wickham, Associate Civil Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEx:iIAOCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber. <X.Mm,l'l'S FRCl1 THE AUDIENCE ON IT™-5 NOT LISTED IN THE AGEN)A Ms. Pat White, 2882 WOOdridge Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the CO!lllission regarding her concerns with the Hosp Grove project, including t he amount of fill required, density, manipul~tion of soil, loss of trees, haza rds to the lagoon and preniction of failure regarding t he conversion of apartments to condos. PUBLIC HF.1\RINGS Continued 1) ZCA-187 -CITY OF CARLSBAD -An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to modify the City's parking requirenents and standards. Mike Howes, Senior Planner, gave the presentation on this itElll as contained in the staff report. He discussed sane of the prcblElllS with the parking requirements and stdff's reccmnended changes to them. Hr. Howes distributed information regarding a survey he had taken the prior evening and expl a ined what he had observed. He indicated that he thought the units in those caq:,lexes observed were either t otally rented or sold. Olairman SChlehuber opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. A resident at 935 Laguna Drive , Carlsbad, spoke against the changes to the parking requirements because it would affect a project that was being planned and asked for an allowance for existing projects. Conniasioner Holmes asked what was being done, and was advised that two professional offices were being built. Since no ooe else wished to speak, the public testimony was concluded at 6:12 p.m. CD MINUTES PLANNI!',l, CXHo\ISS ION February 19, 1986 Page 2 Carrnissioner McBane carmented that as drafted, the Code proposed to have uniform stamards across the City with the exception of the redevelopnent area, and he questioned whether that reflected reality. He suggested looking at the City on a zone basis. Chaianan Schlehuber indicated that he was in favor of looking at the City fran a zone standpoint, P.Specially since the beach and sane other areas had different requirements. Hr. Howes referred to a study for special criteria in the beach area. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, pointed out that staff contacted other cities to see if anyone had attarpted to use the zone basis. He discusserl what the consultants could look at in terms of a circulation and parking study. Hr. Holzmiller reccmnended that the Carrnission make the parking changes but look at the zone concept later on. Ccmnissioner McBane ccmnented that he thought the Ordinance shoul d be drafted on the zone basis at the present time. Chairman Schlehuber said the zone concept was interwoven am that he thought the Planning Carrnission could go ahead and look at the changes more carefully. CCJ11llissioner McFadden mentioned that Exhibit X covered the beach area at the bottan of the page and that it Jid specify special requirements for that area. She said that this should wait until the consultant's study was finished am then could be added to the Ordinance. Chairman Schlehuber stated that it had to be broad enough t o cover other areas, am referred to Pio Pico. Ccmniss ioner McFaa3en indicated that sane of the things that they were concerned about were addressed by use, and gave sane e xalll>les . Chainren Schlehuber mentioned that the use did govern it but they should be tighter on sane areas and looser on others. Dan Hentschke , Assistant Cit y Attorney, talked about flexibil ity of staooards in the redevelopnent area, and pointed out that t he Design Review Board and Housing & Redevel opnent Camd ssion could do sane of the more flexible types of parking alterat ions to meet the needs in the redevelopnent area. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that they were talking about other areas adjacent to the redevelopnent area but that he thought they s hould go ahead. Carrnissioner HcBane indicated he did not want to have ~o reformat the Ordinr.1oe again in June, am Cha irman Schlehuber stated that they wanted to make sure they were going beyan the beach area. MINUTES \ \ \ \ PLANNING COM-IISSION February 19, 1986 Page 3 0 i,S\ A. ~~~ ~ :,,""" ~ "o COMMISSIONERS q,_ ~" ~ Cam ssioner i"tF'adden ccmnented that the whole area would be looked at with circulation, and with regard to new projects. She added that the only time it would affect existing projects was if they came in for a different kind of use and the standards were enforced at that time. Hr. Howes concurred that Ccmnissioner McFadden was correct and explained it further. The Crnmission decided to go through the Ordinance l i ne by line. Ccmnissioner McFadden referred to page 2 regarding residential and questioned why it was that the larger the projects became, the more reduced parking there was for guests. Hr. Howes answered that this was in the previous Ordinance and discussed why ht thought it appeared there. Ccmnissioner McFadden talked about the statistics and what they would cane out with, and added that her preference was .5 for the first 10 and .3 for everything thereafter regardl ess of size. Callllissioner McBane irrlicated that he felt that .5 should be awlied all the way through and stated why. The Ccmnissioners discussed Mr. Howes' survey, and 01ai rman Schlehuber asked if they were really certain that there was inadequate parking at the units now. He said that he was not sure that it was proved, and that the object was to have adequate parking an::l not huge amounts of vacant spaces. Mr . Ho.,es irrlica ted that he believed the idea of requiring guest puking for apartments was valid. Cha ianan Schlehuber carm:mted that there was logic to what Cannissioner McFadden said an::l that he wanted to make sure that those figures were required. Mr. Howes pointed out that other crn11J.mi ties on an average had required guest parking for apartments. Chainnan Schlehuber asked about changing staff figures, an::l Hr. Howes replied that he did not think there was much need to increase guest parking requiranents. Ccmnissioner McFadden discusserl f2, lines 13 and 14, regarding credit for visitor parking and suggested that they should t public street stan::lards. Chaianan Schlehuber agreed with her. Ccmnissioner Hal l asked Mr. Holzmiller if staff was going to iraft different l anguage, an::l Mr. Holzmiller responded that they were preparerl to l ncrease it t o public street atandarda if the Carroission wanted i t to be increased. He suggested adding the words "that meet public s treet standards" after "frontage on l ocal streets" on line 14. MINUTES Pt.ANNI~ CXM-1ISSION February 19, 1986 Page 4 Connissione r McFadden stated t hat i f they d id not increase the guest parking requirements f or apartments, t hen she felt it was necessary t o require two parking spaces for everything in the bui lding. It they decided to increase parking requiremencs to .3, she indicated she would like to see two parking spaces f or one bedr oans arrl up since she was not happy with 1.5 parking spaces. Carmi ssioner Hall s a i d that they should firrl out what others have. Ccmnissioner Holmes concurred wit h Ccmnissioner McFadden that parking spaces should be based on sleeping roans arrl that two bedroan unit s should have at least two spaces. Ol8irman Schlehuber agreed with Ccmnissioner McFadden that two bedroans should have two spaces. He referred to c hanging fran 0 .5 for each and up to 10 uni ts, and .25 for others since they were only t a l k ing about guest parki ng. Conni ssioner Holmes stated that they should keep in mind that l-·10 uni ts were ge nerally smaller lots and smaller developnent s. He i ndicat ed he c ould understand .5 in that case, but when you get to 100-200 units, i t was easier to get parking. He sai d he would tend t o go with .25 for the bigger deve loi;:ments. Cannissioner McBane indicated tha t he had worked on pro jects in many cam,,m ities which required the .5 across the board a nd found 1t wor ked wi t h at least 100 units. Chairman Schlehuber rei terated tha t he wanted parking as necess ary and that he did not have any evidence that there WllS inadequa te parking i n t he informat ion that staff had provided. He ad:led that he would s tick wi th the .5 for the fir s t ten units. Cannissioner McFadden stated t hat she preferred .5 and then .3, but would go along wi t h .5. She said that she hoped it wouldn't be change1 so t ha t t hey would lose parking requirements on the apartment units since Council coul d go back when it gets to t han. Chairman Schl ehuber mentioned that they were making recamiendat ions t o sta ff and that when t hey came bac k with the changes, C<lmliss ioners &ni th and Marcus would participate in t he final vote . Mr. Holzmiller said that since t his needed t o cane back, staff could look at it again and then make sane recamiendations. Carmissioner McBane suggested that s taff l ook at Arcadia and Sierra Madre. Mr. Holzmiller Blffltlarized t ha t t he Ccmnis s i on wanted s taff to look at increasing parki ng, and Ccmnissi one r Mc-.Bane made a specific request for a uni form ratio. Chairman Schlehuber added t hat he was satisfied wi th .5 i f there was a need for it. ClllniSB1oner McFadden discussed determining t he required parking spa s. @ MINUTES PLANNING C)M1ISSION February 19, 1986 Page 5 CCJrmissioner McFadden indicated that she felt that if parking went t o at least .3, then two bedrocms and larger should have at least two parking spaces required, but if it did not go through, one bedroan should have two. CCJTll\issioner Hall said he would accept two bedroans a~ two spaces, am Chairman Schlehuher said that he thought two bedroans should have two parking spaces per unit. Cannissi on McBane felt that studios and one bedroan should have 1.5 per unit and two bedroans should be raised to two parking spaces. He wanted to know why they did not require covered parking in apartments, and Chainnan Schlehuber replied that this was not in the Parking Ordinance. Carmissi oner McBane pointed out that the PUD section mentioned it specifically, and Chairman Schlehuber clarified that they were not talking about building structures, but were discussing spaces needed in the building structure. Cannissiaier McBane asked why it was addressed in sane areas cf the Ordinance, and Mr. Holzmiller resporrled that they did not require covered parking spaces for apartments, but it should be included in the Ordinance. Canniss ioner Holmes agreed that there should be two spaces for two bedroans. The Canni ssioners discussed carports, and Mr. Howes expl ained that 75-801 of the projects requested approval for carports. Cannissioner Holmes stated that he thought a carport should be the mininun structure, and that he felt that garages offered a storage area that people need. He added that i t would depend on the quality of the developnent and expl ained what he meant. Chairman Schlehuber pointed out that they were only talking about the mininun and asked staff what the other cannunities required. Hr. Holzmil ler said that he thought this was an issue where standards for apartments and ownerships were different, and was the only way to get af f ordabl e housi ng in the City. He indicat ed that i f they required covered parking, it would add t o the cost of the housing and, discussed other factors involved. Ccmniss i oner s Hall and McFadden concurroo wi th Connissioner HcBane. Chairman Schlehuber Sl.lllnarized that there was unanimous support for one covered parking space per unit. Ccmnissioner HcBane suggestoo changing the wording in 12 to include on line 12 after the words "spaces/unit" the words "l coveroo". Ccmnissiawr HcBane expressoo concern about 14 since all projects in the beach area allowed tandem parking. Mr. Howes xplained it was intendoo to take care of substandard lots, and CaM1issioner McBane requested language stating that. (}) MINUTES February 19, 1986 Page 6 Mobile hanes were next discussed on page 1 in which it was reccmnemed that they hold them to the parking stamards described umer planned developnents. Chaianan Schlehuber raised an objection to this am said that they were mobile hcme units and had different stanfards. Ccmnissioner McFadden asked about the width of the streets in the mobile hane parks, am Mr. Howes responded that they were the same as the POD am explained what they were. Cannissioner McBane ccmnented that there were illt)ortant differences in the amount of guest parking req•Jired am counting of on-street parking. He stated that driveway credits were not included in mobile heme parks, and Mr. Howes pointed out that they were usually looked at in the site develO(l'llent plan. Ccmnissioner Hall said that the existing Ordinance was for two per units, 1 guest per 10, but changed in the Ordinance, am Mr. Hewes replied that it was what staff was recannending. Chairman Schlehuber said that he was satisfied with staff's reccmnendations and that Ccmnissioner McBane would like it to be with the PUD's. Carmissioners Holmes, Hall and McFadden also concurred with staff's recamiemations. Carmissioner McFadden asked about timeshare going to 1.25, am Cannissioner McBane discussed the greater of 1.25 per unit or 1.25 per bedroan and explained why. Chainnan Schlehuber stated that he thought they should get 1.25 am asked for staff's reasoning since he felt that 1.25 might be overkill. Mr. Holzmiller mentioned that they had been told am studies were submitted which imicated that cne space per unit was too much. He said the minim\.111 was for one space per unit am that in certain timeshare projects with a m.anber of two bedroan units, the ccmnunities required that it be increased over the minimum. He added that they did not look at E!llllloyees am had no objection to adding additional spaces for E!lll>loyees, am did not think they should be added for people who own the timeshares. Chairman Schlehuber asked if there was a way that they could start to look at these surveys on imividual items, arx1 requested that staff provide the Ccmnission with selected information. Mr. Holzmiller referred to a survey done on the Carlsbad Inn that could be reviewed along with sane others. Chairman Schlehuber coomented that his gut reaction was that it should be 1.25 but that it did not cover the en-ployee parking. He added that on the Design Review Board it was shown that the E!llllloyees were parking out on the street. MINUTES Pl.ANNI~ OJM'1ISSIOO February 19, 1986 Page 7 Hr. Holzmiller stated that staff agreed with it but could not support requiring as much parking in a timeshare as a corrlaninil.sn. Cha irman Schlehuber asked staff to cane back with additional information. ~irman Schlehuber declared a recess at 7:10 p.m. The Carmission re-convened at 7:16 p.m. The next topic discussed was t7 regarding residential care, arrl Chainnan Schlehuber talked about whether or not the proposed parking requirements were adequate. Mr. Holzmiller irrlicated that they could firrl that out easily, and Chainnan Schlehuber requested information as to how many E!ll1)loyees were needed. Ccmnissioner McBane pointed out that the ~loyee-to- resident ratio was defined by law. Mr. Hentschke clarified t-h:>t-mar.y uses required laoo use permits aoo that these were the minimun standards where no other permits were required. Chairman Schlehuber stated that he felt it was necessary to fioo out how many E!ll1)loyees were needed for a parti cular use in order to cane up with minimum parking requirements. Ccmnissioner Holmes volunteered to suani t the appropriate inf ormation to staff . Ccmnis sioner McFadden carmented that they could raise spaces for 18 to 1.25, and Ccmnissioner Helmes agreed that one was too light. Mr. Howes concurred with the C<Jl-:niasion arrl added that many fraternities had two residents per roan. Chairman Schlehuber suggested that r oaning houses differed fran fraterni ties in that roaning houses nonnally had one person per roan, aoo Ccmnissioner McFadden suggested splitting and rem.rrbering the i tern. The Ccmniss1oners discussed 110, and Chairman Schlehuber expressed concern about bank parking aoo discussed sane of the banks i n the area aoo problems with parking. Callnissioner HcBane mentioned problems with La Jolla Bank, ard Ccmnissioner Hall carmented that he thought they had waived the parking rights. Carmissioner ~e said that il: was not an adequate staooard, and Chairman Schlehuber reiterated that he had probleiM getting i nt.o sane of the area banks, due to a lack of available parking spaces. Ccmnissioner HcBane suggested that staff look at t he situation, and Ccmnissioner Hall pointal out that it would make a difference whether the bank was i n the redevelopnent area or not. Cannissioner Holmes statal that with the current philoeq>hy of banking aoo the use of drive-up wiooows, parking was adequate. Chair:man Schlehuber stated that the La Jolla Bank was the moot obviwa problem, and Carmissioner HcBane suggested changing the word "banks" to "financial institutions." 0) MINUTES PLANNING ~SSION February 19, 1986 Page 8 Chairman Schlehuber brought up the subject of office space and said that l for 250 was probably fair but that he was concernoo about the whol0 area under study. He said that he c ould not necessarily agree with l for 300 since sane should be a t l for 400 and others should be at l for 200, and d iscussoo why. Cannissi oners Holmes and Mc:Bane concurroo with him. Chairman Schlehuber stated that hopefully they would be l ooking a t t he zone concept and woold be reviewi~ it again . Canniss i ooer McBane asked why they only discussed the Village Redevelop-nent Area here, and Mr. Howes explained that it was the only area that had standards that were d ifferent fran the rest of the City. Camiissioner McBane talked about the joint use of parking, d i s cussed what the Village Design Milnual encouraged, and mentioned that he thought it shoold be addressed here. Mr. Hentschke stated that to the extent that the Design Manual dealt with such issues, the Design Manual should prevail. He pointed out that in this case they were d ifferentiating between the standard that woold be set which was not addressed in the Design Manual. It was agreed that d. should be a subsection of c. Olairman Schlehuber i ndicated that he had a problem with it and t hat there s hould be a tighter standard. Hr. Holzmiller said that the Planning Conmissioo made the recannerrlation about two years ago when this was revisoo, and explai ned that the Ccmnission felt that they wanted to encourage off ice de velopnent and that a lesser starrlard would do it. He addoo that staff had no problem with requiring t he same standard. Cam,issioner Schlehuber addressed the zone concept arrl explained what he meant. He irrlicoterl that they could leave it for now. Ccmnissioner McFadden request oo t hat they change the word "and" in the second line of Ill t o read "plus". In ackiressing itElll tl2 , Cannissi oner Holmes e xplained why he did not think t hat six per alley was too 111Jch, and Chainnan Schlehuber irrlicated he could accept s taf f's recatmendation a lthough he thought it might be t oo steep. Carmissioner McBane asked staff to define "asserooly ar ea" u set out in tU, arrl Hr. Howes replied that they were referring to ar, exercise roan or a Jazzercise roan. Comniaaioner Mc:Bane questiooed if it incl uded all the public spaces in terms of locker rOCJM, and Mr. Howes replied that this was sanething new added t o the Ord i nanc;e • Caxmissioner Md\ane irrlicated it uniformly applied for total squar footage. MINUTES PIJ'INNil«i COl'NISSION February 19, 1986 Page 9 T11e Cormissioners discussed using the total footage of the building instead of just the size of the asseri:>ly roan. Cannissioner Holmes addressed 115 am imicated that he researched this item with the Tri City Adninistrator who thought that three cars per bed was satisfactory. Cannissioner McFad:ien also agreed with three spaces, am asked Mr. Hentschke about Exhibit v. Catmissioner McBane discussed using the greater of 1 per 200 square feet or 1 per bed, am Cannissioners Holmes and Hall concurred. Chairman Schlehuber said that he had a problen with the errployees for 116, am Carmissioner Hall raised the issue of sleeping roan basis or unit basis. Chaianan Schlehuber mentioned that even with a suite, there would just be one, am others agreed. It was pointed out that there was typos for 117, am "250" should be changed to "150", am "500" should be changed to N250" • Regarding 119, Caimissioner McBane asked if the display area included the closed space, and Mr. Ha.,es imicated that it was included. Catmissioner Hall asked if this was calculated, arrl Mr. Howes respoooed that it hadn't but it was ill{)ossible to get parking spaces at a car dealership. Chairman Schlehuber added that they needed sane kind of experience. Catmissioner Hc:Bane requested a designated area for custaner perking. Chairman Schlehuber stated that they could usually park out on the street. Ccmnissioner Holmes addressed 120 am ccmnente:l that he thought it was too light am that there should be twice as much parking. Chairman Schlehuber irrlicated that they wanted to encourage a llllSeun and asked what staff had foum in other cannunities. Cannissioner Hc:Bane agreed with Chairman Schlehuber, and Callnissioner McFadden stated that she agreed with 1 for 500. Regarding 121, Mr. HCMeS irrlicated that the words "whichever is greater" should ht! added, arrl that they were talking in lines of a church. CcmniHioner HcBane womered if they would hold the same s .. wards for an aq>hitheatre, and Mr. Howes replied that they could be interpreted as both. cannissioner 11(;:Bane stated that he did not understam what was meant umer RV, arrl Chaianan Schlehuber explained it to him. MINUTES PLANNING cntt1ISSION February 19, 1986 Page 10 C<lllllissioner McBane asked why it was dictated in PUD's that there be a storage area, am Chairman Schlehubt-ir replied that this was for visitor parking to cane up to that lot. Mr. HCMes clarified that this was taken out of the existing Ordinance. Regarding 123, Chairman Schlehuber said he woold defer this to staff's knowledge, arrl Camlissioner McBane asked if any consideration was given to drive-up queing. Mr. H<:Mes responded that this was basically the starrlard for restaurants am that the Ccmnission might want to aciJ special requirements for fast food restaurants. Cannissioner McBane stated that he would like to encourage that am Jle other C<llllliss ioners agreed. Ccmnissioner McFacijen addressed shopping centers urrler 124 arrl irrlicated that she didn't have any problems with it as long as the restaurants were not freestaming. C<nrnissioner Hol.Jres concurred, arrl Chainnan Schlehuber irrlicated that staff could probably amerrl it. Regardi ng 125, C<nrnissioner Mc:Bane asked about ot~gr kirrls of schools such as pre-schools, am Mr. Howes replied that all pre-schools required corrlitional use permits. Ccmnissioner McFacijen added that there was a higher rate of erployees in a pre-school. Cannissioner Holmes mentioned that he thooght 1.5 spaces was too low am explained why. Mr. Hentschke suggested that the Ccmnission direct staff to talk with the State architect to see what the standard was for schools arrl make the requirements consistent with the State's minimum standards. Ccmn jssioner McFacijen addressed 124 again, arrl asked about autanated tellers arrl Fotanat stores, arrl Mr. H<:Mes replied that they were calculated as 1 for 200. Chairman Schlehuber added that they would have to cane for permits. Cannissioner McFadden discussed aisle widths, page 5, line 12 , arrl stated that she was not sure that they were adequate, especially for covered parking. Mr. Howes addressed t he Planned Unit Developnent Ordinance arrl discussed the requirements, arrl Mr. Holzmiller added that with encl osed parking, there would be more than 24'. Clyde Wickham, Associate Civil Eng ineer , discussed uncovered parki ng arrl gave sane exarl1)1 •,s. He explained that covered parking produces posts arrl described the probl81113 associated with it. Cannissioner McFadden asked about the mininun requir€m:!!lt on each side, arrl Hr. Holzmiller answered her question. Ccmnissioner Hceane asked about a specified turning radius, and Ccmniasioner HcFadden asked whe re it would be put in. Hr. Hentschke said that it woold be put in the moat apprq>r iate place. Cannisaioner McBane aciJressed line 21, page 5 arrl augg ted adding that parking should be within 100 feet frCln the unit it served. Mr. Holzmi ller stated t hat it waa required for 150 feet, arrl C<lllllissi oner Mc::Bane irrlicated that it was okay. MINUTES PI.ANN IM'.; (X)ff,11 SS I 00 February 19, 1986 Page 11 Mr. Holzmiller added that it was a pol icy that was always used on every project arrl explained why it was a pol icy. Carmissioner McBane asked if wheelstq:.; were required, and Mr. Howes pointed out that they might not want it in a tight spot. Caanissioner McBaue talked about lines 13, 14, aoo 15 on page 7 aoo suggested that they should require saoo minimal landscaping buffers in front of the masonary walls. Chalrman Schlehuber didn't agree with him aoo explained why. Cannissioner McFadden stated that she ass\Illed they needed the space for the zero setbad,. , and Hr. Hol=i ller indicate that she was correct. He added that if they required the laoo.scaped area, this requirement should bP ~:llcen out and d i scussed when this was added to the Ordinance and why. Carmissioner McBane indicated he had a problem with lines 22 and 23 and asked why they were required to be screened in the back yard. Hr. Holzmiller pointc-d out that they d id not regulate things going on in people's backyards. Carmissioner McFadden stated that 15 on page 9 regarding Multipl e Fanily Projects was meaningless, and Mr. Hentschke explained that if they did not have this section in the code, the coce would be much longer. Carmissioner McBane suggested including the r~~irf'!llent on line 11 for additional signs marking visitor parking and directions on how to get there. Cannissioner McBane asked how staff came up with the 55% figure on page 11, 12, 1 ine 10, and Mr. Howes answered his question. Caanissioner McBane iooicated he would like to see CCJ11)1!1ct spaces marked in a different color paint. Chai rman Schlehuber agreed th3t the different color paint was a good idea, and Carmissioner Hall asked what the stardard was for CCJ11)1!1cts. He iooicated he would like to see it brought back to 451, e.nd Mr. Hentschlte pointed out that the Ordinance did not regulate the use of space fran a violation of law standpoint. Chaicman Schlehuber expressed a need for sane study to detemine whether it should be at 451 or 551 aoo indicated there was agreement to go back to 45%. Ccmlliaaioner Hcl'adden asked about parking standards for parks, golf co-..1rses , and publ ic places that were not included i n the Ordinance, arx'I Chairman Schlehuber asked if they were different fra:n off ice spaces. Mr. Howes imlcated that i n the past they always calculated public plaou the smne as off ice , ·paces, and i t could be added to the Ordinance. Chai rman Schlehuber s aid that this was covered urder office spaces and should not be diatingui■had. CClmliaa i oner Holmes asked about gol f courses, Mr. Howes indioated that moat c i ties do not have a ny. Cha irman Sc::hlehuber wanted to know if this was working i n ot her citie.a, and Callniaaioner McFadden pointed out that staff should look at 1 t. @ Ml~UTES PL.ANNI?«:. CDl'f1ISS ION February 19, 986 Page 12 Olairman Schlehuber reopened the public hearing so that the public could make their cannents n the changes. By proper motion, the meeting of February 19, 1986 was adjourned at 8 :20 p.m. Respectfully sul:mitted, ~~~~ MICJiAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director Ruth Stark Minutes Clerk MEE'.i'INGS ARE Alm TAPID AND KEPT ON FILE l'NI'IL 'lliE MINUTES ARE APPRCNID. @