Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Just to pile on a little bit more, because I like that. Could I suggest maybe looking into, and I don't know what our current standard is, but in a boarding house, if there is shared restroom or shared kitchen space, I know that has been an issue sometimes, where you can, like in this, or as that, allow it to be even more... Cost-efficient to rent there is your random bedroom. Everyone gets to share kind of dining or kitchen facilities. I'm not sure what our current zoning allows, but if we are trying to promote that, I don't know. I read that in a book somewhere, so I'm sure it's true. You st

I agree with all the comments made so far. I just have a couple questions. What does temporary mean? And it's probably in another section there. And I was just thinking about students or graduate students. If somebody within the proper zoning area wants to rent out five bedrooms to five different people, is there a limit to the number? And what type of, um, you know, is, is there, I guess, is there a limit to the number of people and to the temporary status? Because maybe you want to live there for four years or five years.

But if they're renting it from someone who lives there, who is an owner that is not any relation to them, who has independent contract leases with each room, then that is likely then that's joy.

Okay, and that's permissible where boarding houses are permissible? Where boarding houses are allowed.

I mean, I think that is something to consider because it's not always feasible to do one lease. People have different transient needs, whether it's short-term or whatever temporary means. That's something that's worth thinking about.

I mean, I think there's some opportunity for, for clarification, hopefully alignment. It seems like there's been some conversations with the, property owner and the council member. And it seems like there's also been some discussion with the council member to potentially withdraw this item. I think we're past that now, but I understand staff's recommendation. I guess the approval would be based on it being appropriate for the area, but I think the What we've heard from the property owner is that it's inclusive of more property than is desired or maybe discussed as far as the intention. So, I m

Chair, if I can, I'll finish that. Thank you. Thank you, Director Kemp. I think it's important from my perspective to note that not opposed to an RM20 zoning in this area, but this very specific case, including property that may not have been intended by the property owner.

Yeah, I completely agree. So I would vote to disapprove this for that reason, especially when it's one parcel or just a few parcels owned by a single landowner. But I do want to clarify that the documents here actually do say requested by and then list the owners. So if the owners didn't I just want to clarify because you did not request.

Just to clarify if you all requested this change.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood you all did not initiate this. So I think that that's a concern. And I don't know if we want, since this is not the first time this has come up, it might be helpful to think about if we should have some sort of policy so that we're, I mean, staff puts a lot of time into developing this analysis for us. And if it's, if, if the owner has not requested it and is against it, I think that's where it's knowing upfront, maybe having a rule or a policy or something.

Um, one quick one, uh, just echo what everyone said, which is very uncomfortable doing it against property owner's wishes. Um, but do want to echo what commissioner Henley said, which is when I looked at this and didn't realize kind of the tangled web, uh, of inside baseball. Um, I thought it was, was basically appropriate. Um, also am I, I didn't catch the first time, except when you said it is Mountview considered an arterial as well. Mountview and Murfreesboro. Well, that I think is a pretty strong case along those two arterial and surrounded or at least very adjacent to a good mixed use an

All right. Commissioner Hanley. Thank you, Chair. Again, I think in order to meet the desires of the landowner, at least as I believe they were presented to us, I think it is meaningfully a disapproval because it materially changes. It would be a different parcel allocation to the rezoning. Saying that, I want to directly encourage the landowner to not fold up shop, like continue to work with the council member because this is an opportunity for housing that I think we really want to have come back before us. And also, I think, you know, to point out, you know, our staff report usually lists t

Thank you, Chair. Make a motion to disapprove the staff recommendation to approve RM20NS.

This is truly a moment of privilege, not necessarily to distract from our director, who is very deserving, but you mentioned this. And so I wanted to take the opportunity. You mentioned George, Mr. Rooker, and he is dealt with a lot of that dynamic growth in this department as well. So I wanted to, I've had a pleasure of working with him on a couple instances and, Just want to highlight him as well. I mean, there's a lot of things happening inside of the Planning Commission, and there's a lot of people who rely on George's work. So just wanted to take a chance to shout him out as well. But ext

Item 21, which is parks. Thank you, Chair. I'm bordering on thinking I'm talking too much now, but I'll be brief. I was extremely pleased to spend last Saturday at the rescheduled opening of Mariposa Park. If you have not had a chance to get out there, it is a fantastic space. It was really fantastic last weekend to see a very dynamic and quite honestly, I think, appreciative community celebrate the opening of that park. It was one of the best experiences I've had in the city, especially in the parks board role. So just want to compliment park staff and obviously all of the partners that came