Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> Mr. Cox said he supports it because we need a way to take back the housing stock <br />for home ownership. He said the gain in terms of neighborhood protection outweighs <br />any concerns. He said this is core to his support of University districts. He said if we do <br />not want to do this then he wants to reconsider the density issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said many people do not want to live in high density buildings. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he could see supporting this proposal in the future, but he is not <br />there yet. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said that the number of unrelated persons could be reduced to three in <br />only R - 1U and R - 1US districts. Mr. Tolbert said that the current occupancy requirement <br />is enforced now and it would be no harder to enforce three rather than four persons. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, and Ms. Richar ds supported reducing the number of <br />unrelated persons to three in R - 1U and R - 1US districts. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Review for Entrance Corridors <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she is concerned that the Planning Commission is not a design <br />review body. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert sa id that the Planning Commission will already be reviewing site <br />plans for any projects in entrance corridors. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards and Mr. Schilling supported having the <br />Planning Commission be the review board for entrance corridors, and Mr. C aravati said <br />he does not support this. <br /> <br />Keeping 2300 Block of Fontaine Avenue R - 2 <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards and Mr. Schilling supported <br />keeping the 2300 block of Fontaine Avenue R - 2 <br /> <br />Removing Economic Return as Criteria for BAR Demol ition Approval <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelley said that the members of the Board of Architectural Review do not <br />know why they should investigate economic return as a criteria for demolition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling agreed with removing this as he thinks it is vague and arbitrary. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she would agree to remove this because of the availability of <br />appeals to City Council, who she thinks would be better dealing with the issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch agreed since there is an appeal process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he thinks it should st ay. He said half of the BAR members do <br />this for a living. He said he thinks it is a good safeguard for the BAR not to become too <br />messianic. He agreed that it is a bit arbitrary as it is current written. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards and Mr. Schilli ng agreed to remove economic <br />return as criteria for BAR demolition approval. <br /> <br />Upper Limit on Parking Allowed in Residential Zones <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards and Mr. Schilling agreed there should be no <br />upper limit on parking allowed in residential z ones. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Requiring Waivers of Parking Requirement Referred to Planning Commission <br /> <br />