Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> Mr. Caravati suggested that the Planning Commission have some other public <br />outreach on the zoning ordinance. He expressed concern about reduction in M - 1 uses, <br />noting that we need to welcome those businesses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said the intent is to have commercial/industr ial or industrial/ <br />residential mixed use, and not to disallow industrial, but to add other uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati asked if there was any consideration given to maintaining one side <br />of Jefferson Park Avenue for high density. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Halloran said this was con sidered, but the Planning Commission felt it <br />made sense to focus on a different part of the City first. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he does not think that is a bad idea. He said R - 3 now may allow <br />fairly high density development. He said requiring demolition permissio n from the <br />Board of Architectural Review may give some protection. He said he is not convinced <br />we will get the best results under the current rules at Jefferson Park Avenue. He added <br />that converting renter to owner occupied would help. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Halloran s aid that reducing the number of unrelated persons in a household <br />could help with conversion to owner occupied. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she has heard concerns for years that allowing higher density <br />development along Jefferson Park Avenue with reduced parking re quirements will create <br />spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. She suggested that language be included <br />regarding permit parking in those areas, but noted that this has issues too. She expressed <br />concern about demolition of houses in that neighborhood to bu ild higher density housing, <br />and said if there is something under the law that would protect those structures she would <br />like to see it pursued. She said she thinks that would reduce some concerns about higher <br />density development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he does not see high density on Jefferson Park Avenue as a negative <br />thing. He requested that we find a mechanism to further study the issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said, referring to the size of the University districts, that we need to <br />build housing for additional University students. He said we should look at it as a phased <br />approach. He said he is glad the Planning Commission is looking at environmental <br />protection. He said he thinks the concept of provisional uses has the potential to be <br />expanded, especially if we could re strict what could happen later. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Halloran said the Planning Commission is concerned about giving staff <br />more approval of provisional uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said that proffering can be used to restrict uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch questioned how we define mixed use development. He said there are <br />incentives for doing this in some zones but not in most. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said that basically density bonuses are offered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he thinks a major innovation of the ordinance is the creation of <br />mixed use development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked that any further changes to the ordinance be shown in strike <br />out/or red line form so that changes are easily seen. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said a vision for the riverfront was set out in the corridor study, and <br />she feels we could be doing much more in this area. She said she does not know the <br />extent to which the ordinance recognizes this issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said the ordinance was developed with that in mind. <br /> <br />