PC 09/27/67 - Laserfiche WebLink

language proposals and submit it to the Planning Commission before the next meeting. Mr. Frost and Mr. Fairfield both stated their concern for the necessity of scheduling study sessions for an exchange of ideas on the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Spink suggested that any real problems encountered could be discussed with the final decision being made at the last meeting. UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIONER PLATO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GARRIGAN, AND CARRIED, IT WAS DECIDHD TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE OF REVIEWING THE ORDINANCE AS SCHEDULED, WITH THE INTENT THAT PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WOULD BE REVIEWED AND DECIDED AT THE FINAL SUMMARY AND REBUTTAL SESSION. Section 1.105.2a. Jack Bras questioned the definition of the access corridor as stated in 1.1J5.2a. Mr. Spink indicated that perhaps a language change was needed in Chis section which would relate lot width and depth to the access corridor, in an effort to clarify the meaning 9.ntended. The Commission noted that instances such as this are rare and that a Variance could be obtained where necessary. Section 1.105.Sc. Mr. Fairfield questioned the method of measuring the lot frontage stating that the "chord" dimension is not indicated on tentative maps but that the frontage is shown relative to the property line. It was further pointed out that perhaps the language should be changed in this section so as not to confuse the layman. A suggested change was "for purposes of calculating minimum frontage." Mr. Spink pointed out that the Ordinance specifications are always a minimum and that frontage for the purpose of calculating the minimum frontage shall be measured at r_he shortest point. Commissioner Gibbs joined the meeting at 9:45 P.M. Section l.1fl5.9c. I*_ was felt that in this section an answer on definition of front lot line was needed. Section 1.105.7. It was felt by Mr. Fairfield that this section was quite Liberal. It was de- cided to question Mr. Blayney as to the problem of rear Lot line referenced in this section. Section 1.106, Study District. Mr. Fairfield questioned the need for it. It was decided that discussion on this district should come under Session dk3, Article 11. Section 1.1U5.14(a) and 2.101(b); Mr. Fairfield noted that the two sections were similar and questioned the need. Mr. Spink explained their purpose was for calculating the minimum lot area, and that any area where a 35 square foot square wouldn't fit would be excluded when calculating the minimum lot area. rlr. Frost indicated he would like to question this at a later date. No action was taken. Mr. Frost indicated his desire to see a statement in Article 1, General, Objectives, referring to the objective of offering houses for people in all income brackets. Mr. Fairfield questioned if there was a reason why the downtown area couldn't have a higher density. It was suggested that a new district could be added when the need arises. Section 1.109. 1.110. 1.111. 1.112• and 1.113. Mr. Dudley Frost questioned the need for the amount of time allowed for the vario~is phases of action on the various applications. The Commission noted that the time limits *,~ere not excessive, and further pointed out that those stated were the maximum time limits. Mr. John Stanley asked whether or not Pacific Gac and Electric Company :could be able to meet with the Planning Director to study u..~ proposed language changes before they were acted upon by the Commission. Mr. Stanley ..,as assured that this would be accomplished at the staff level. Section 2.100. There was considerable discussion pertaining to the charts in Section 2.100, also to the ROD concept. Mr. Fairfield stated that he felt there were two ordinances, 9-27-67