Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The January 6th meeting of the Stillwater Planning Commission will now come to order. It'll be the process this evening to call for items on the agenda. The commission will hear briefly from staff first, then the applicant and/or their representative and then open the public hearing and hear from those in favor and then in opposition to the request. When you come to the podium, please clearly state your name and address for the record. And then before closing the public hearing, both staff, the applicant, and/or their representative will be provided an opportunity to respond to provide additional information and answer questions. After all interested parties have spoken, the public hearing will be closed and then we will hear closing remarks and alternatives from staff. First item on the agenda this evening is under general orders and we shall hear from staff. Okay. Good evening, chair [snorts] commissioners. My name is Henry Bebleheimer with development services. Tonight, we're looking at an alternative compliance request for 229 South Knoblock Street. This is in the formbbase code area, Transct 6. So, here's an aerial view of the property outlined in pink. Um, this property is just south of University. Um, on the north side of University, you can see the old uh fire station there. um as well as campus. Here's the proposed elevations. Um this is the old marble slab and cookie place being proposed to be remodeled into the Bank of Oklahoma. Um we'll come back to these elevations in a second. Um and here's the marble slab crearyy um as it exists now. Um one of the key changes I'll point out to you now is that on both images the door is centered. Um, in this image you have the windows left and right where in the proposed you have the windows on the left, on the right the applicant is proposing to add in an ATM and a night dropbox. Um, and this just falls into technicalities in that transct 6 formbbased code area where it

says that the street facing facades have to be symmetric as well as no [clears throat] blank walls basically requiring windows and/or doors along that frontage. So those are just technicalities we're looking at tonight um for this frontage for this proposed remodel. Um so staff's findings are that facads in transex six are required to be symmetric in design and not include any quote blank walls. The existing building is symmetric with a cric central door and glass door front facade on both sides. Section 23449 allows the planning commission to allow alternative design in the formbbased code area. I'm open to answer any questions if you have any.

I don't think I don't think I have any for staff. Anybody else have anything for staff? I I didn't have one. Can staff clarify how the request is distinguishable from a true blank wall scenario so that approving this alternative compliant does not unintentionally set a precedent for inactive facades elsewhere.

Yeah, that was really well worded. Um I like the way you used it inactive facades. Um specifically because whenever I think of a blank wall, you think of just like picturing a jail. You know, there's no windows, there's no doors. it is just a blank wall. Um, and in this scenario, there's not windows and doors, but there's kind of still intention there to that wall. There's still the breaking up of the facade. It's not a solid brick or stone or metal facade. It's still broken up into different pieces with the ATM, the dropbox, and the surrounding, using the word facade a lot, but the surrounding facade. Um, so that's kind of how I would distinguish this one still being broken up and still having kind of a focus point instead of just blank boring wall.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Thank you. At this time, um, we'd ask if the applicant would like to come forward and provide any additional information. Austin Drum. Uh, I'm the architect with Inventure. Address is 508 South Boston, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Um, so I don't have too much. When we did this, it was early on um in the SD phase and we're finishing up CD phase. Um, we're still having some conversation about this facade. Um, so I was hoping to make sure that the proposal allowed us to maybe make a little bit of adjustment to it. Um, some of the comments that the owner would like us to look at is maybe some windows. Um, which would probably be spandrel, but they're probably maybe looking up here, but most of the information is on here. Um, ATM will be there. Nightrop will be there, but you won't have any visibility through it. Um, and kind of to answer your question about blank versus this, um, this has a use to what is behind the door with the ATM and the and the night drop is not a blank facade. So,

so I think the question I would have is did did y'all take a look at putting the ATM in a vestibule that could have 24-hour access and then keep the glass facade as current? Is there plan attached? I think we submitted a plan, right? Yeah, there's there's a plan. [snorts] Sorry, if you want to kind of answer while I pull up, you can. Um, great response. Sorry.

Yes, to answer your question, we did. Um, it was just it eats into a lot of the interior space. And one of the program items that the the the bank wants to do is give space to the students of OSU to come um [clears throat] and use this space throughout the day um for their clientele that are bank members or not. Just come in here and use it for studying. Um, and that's kind of what we have up here up here in the front as a hospitality. Um, when we did the vestibule, doing the 4ft rule, it moves this wall almost out to where this table is and starts to eat it. And then keeping the glass ADA just becomes a nightmare with the night drop and the ATM sitting next to each other and trying to give enough space for that. Um, another item was when you go services now, you only have one way in and out. So if someone was to come in behind you, you really don't have a way out. Whereas out front, you still have a a method to run too. So

does that answer your Yeah, I mean I I I I would my comment would be ADA is still achievable. Yes, it takes space, but it's still achievable. I'm not sure that um the sidewalk is actually ADA accessible there. So, I don't know that if someone in a wheelchair would be able to be stationary and actually function. This side, it's pretty flat and we do plan to look at that. Um, this left side over here is it just drops right off from this door over to the left. But yeah, that that's what I'm recalling is that it's there's there's quite a bit of slope there. The sidewalk does not really meet ADA cross slope here.

So, we do have civil involved. We were just trying to get this into you guys to see about approval. Yeah. First. So, yeah. Okay. Yeah. And I I can I can I could see both sides of the coin on the safety issue, whether you're inside an enclosed uh glass where eyes could be on. Um but you would know if someone was coming up to you or you would be a little bit more exposed. I think personally I would feel a little more exposed out there. Um, so just kind of some personal thoughts kind of think you could see either side of the coin. Yes. On the safety issue. That was my question. [clears throat]

What were the potential changes that you said? Um, is it on the PowerPoint? Um, just looking at some glass to maybe make it a little bit more symmetrical. like I'm going to call it a transom, but a high glass window above it. Okay.

Um but below it will still be some sort of um marketing signage around the ATM and the night drop like like shown. Okay. Then the um what looks like kind of the darker tan. I'm not sure that I see a leader pointing to that. That explains what that is. Is that the bottom?

No. Or the on both sides. Yeah. Um so that is a woodlook panel. Okay. Yeah. It's part of their rebranding they're doing currently for all their locations. And then the the panel in the in the image we have in the rendering we have it it reads I don't know is that is that the Bank of Oklahoma um graphic there on the the the thing behind the night drop in the ATM?

Yes. Yeah. That's kind of their their new standard for behind their ATM. It's a kind of graphic white um design and then it says B financial on the left. Okay. And then so not necessarily a super graphic but um what's the material that that's what material is that? And it is um it's a vinyl graphic and some of it is like on a metal too if it's a vinyl graphic. Okay. And it's placed on a metal.

Yeah. It it'll stick out a little bit from that. Yeah.

Yeah. It's basically like a a signage type piece. Okay. And I think the other thing would be like there's graphic shown on the left, but the latest conversations is that's going to be geared to Stillwater OSU type graphic, not their standard graphic as what's in there. So, Are there questions for the applicant on the proposal? I don't think we see any. Thank you.

Thank you. This time we'd have staff come and present findings and alternatives.

Okay. And our findings tonight are that you can accept, deny, or table this request without a recommendation. That's really antilimatic, but those are your options tonight. [laughter] Okay. Thank you. So, if approved, are we approving how much how much leeway do they have once we approve this to change

what we're what I'm looking at? Cuz what I'm looking at personally, I'm I think this is acceptable. I would say that it's a specific use for that side of it. I understand why they're wanting it. I'm just curious if we approve this, can they then come could they then come back with no windows? I don't know. You can make it part of your motion that you want the windows to be as depicted and if you want additional I'm not saying you do. If you want additional window above the kiosk, you can make that part of your motion as well to ensure that those windows are make it part of my motion with the option to put in an additional window if the applicant so desires. Okay.

Sure. Thank you. That would be my thought. I don't know what everyone else is thinking on this. I'd be good with that. I I think the conversation about adding the spandrel piece across the top would certainly help make it read more um symmetrical. Mhm. The the canopy, which kind of gets lost in this two-dimensional drawing, will also help it in in three dimension when you're actually out there. But I think having that other piece of glass,

making as much of it as symmetrical as possible, right? Where you frame it. Yeah. I also wondered the ATM section is roughly the size of the window on the left. If it was moved over, I don't know if it could be moved over, but then you could have that extra window by the door, that would just make it more symmetrical, right? So then you would end up having a total of five windows surrounding the door with one window above the ATM station and it is the symmetrical to the bottom left window on the north side.

Yes. Just like them to consider that as a possibility. Can we ask the applicant if absolutely architecturally if that if they have room for that? Do you see what we're saying? If you did a side light on the what would be the right hand side or the south side that plan allowed where you where the so this is the night drop. This is the ATM. Are you talking in? So you see how the ATM is roughly the same size as the largest panel window on the other side. This one.

Yeah. So if the ATM was moved over in looking at the p in perspective of the of the picture to the right, could you surround the door with symmetrical windows? So what's kind of hidden there is this little rectangle sticking up, which is a remote FDC that is um is this little guy right here. Okay. Yeah. And that didn't really show in the drawing. It's just noted. Okay. straddle it. And it's also um Is it back on?

So the clearance issue for the ATM is also the the reason for its location. Um it's basically buted up against the inside wall. Okay. So on the inside you don't have the room to work. Okay. But you would have room for the upper window. Yes. Okay. Yes. I think that seems like a reasonable um solution to make it as symmetrical as possible working with what's already there.

The motion could be accept the fate is presented with with additional window above. Mhm. The ATM that's symmetrical to the other side if you so wish. Well, if no one else has anything, I would say for the sake of having as much symmetry as possible, I would motion to approve the application with the stipulation of adding a window above the ATM to match the symmetry of the other side. Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. Next item on the agenda is public hearing. Uh the first item is to um review a text amendment to Stillwater City Code on chapter 23. And we shall hear from staff first.

Yes, ma'am. Tonight we're looking at a text amendment to chapter 23 insert list of um sections that are being changed. We'll go over each one of these individually. Um but generally we're updating RMI and RMU which is residential multif family intermediate and residential multif family urban and how these do two zoning districts regulate Greek houses or fraternity or sorority houses as defined in the code. So to start off with the definitions um here's the current definition which is in section 237. There's two different sections we're talking about tonight, which we've kind of looked at the nuances between both of those before, but basically 237 is where we define general terms in our code. 2396, which is where we're proposing to move this definition to, is where we define uses in our code. So, right now, fraternity or sority houses are defined as just a term. We would like to define them as a use. So, we're proposing to remove this definition from this section. Um, I'll go ahead and read that now. Fraternity or sorority house means any building occupied and maintained by a social association of college students and contained within group living quarters wherein for compensation and by pre-arrangement for definite periods meals and/or lodging are provided exclusively for members of the organization and their guests. So we're proposing to remove that from 237 and to put it into 2396 basically making a fraternity or sority house of use. That means we could regulate it differently from like a multif family or a dormatory or a single family house since it's kind of a unique use. It is a different type of building. So our definition is basically the same except we're adding in this one highlighted section highlighted because it's important right I'll start right before that. It's u maintained by a social association of college students that is affiliated with a university recognized chapter of a fraternity or sorority. Um so this is just one of the recommendations that were made from our planning consultant. we had a comparative analysis done of how different college towns a similar size of Still Water regulate Greek houses. Um

and he said as we're looking at making these changes to mitigate any um to mitigate concerns of people taking advantage of this code to add this into the definition. So we've incorporated that. Um now looking at the different sections we're changing. The first one is RMI residential multif family intermediate. The only change to that actual section is this. We're adding in fraternity or sority house as a use. Since we're now regulating it as a use, we move that definition. We now have to say what zoning districts you're allowed to build a fraternity or sority house. There are more changes to this section. We're going to review those with the exceptions here in a bit. Um similarly in RMU, which is residential, multif family, intermediate, urban, um again adding in fraternity or sority house as a use. Um additionally, we're changing the sideyard specifically for fraternity or sority houses. So, your standard sideyards for RMU or multif family urban is 15 yard setback for residential structures and a 25 ft setback for all other uses. Um, because there are some other uses with specific use permanent stuff you're allowed to do in RMU. So, specifically for fraternity or sority houses, I'll read that. Um, what we're proposing to include, which is fraternity or sorority houses, when a sideyard has a common boundary with property in any single family residential district or use, the minimum setback is 15 ft. When a sideyard has a common boundary with a property in any other district or use, the minimum setback is five foot. Um, this mirrors the sideyard setbacks in RMI. Um, which is why RMI wasn't proposed to be changed. We thought those were appropriate setbacks for fraternity or sority houses. Um, one caveat I will say is that the exception that says for each story above one story, there's an additional 3-ft side setback does still apply. So, for a three-foot structure, functionally, your setback would be 11 foot for your two sides. Um, and we added in the caveat that we wanted to make sure to protect any single family residential um houses or potential future houses. That's why we have in

their district or use. So, if there's a single family house, the existing setback of 15 foot would still apply. And again, that would increase with each story above. Um, and that's existing single family house or potential future single family house, which we would say would be if it's zoned single family like an RSS. Um, now we have the exceptions. These are being applied to both RMI and RMU. So, both districts we've talked about, we're also adding in all these exceptions. This kind of gets into the design of the fraternity houses or fraternity or sorority houses. So, the first one is kind of just cleanup. We have residential structures not divided into dwelling units that'll have densities determined as each four beds shall be deemed to constitute one dwelling unit. To make that make sense, right now in our code, we have the similar caveat and this is when it says residential structures not divided into dwelling units. The easiest way to think of that is you have like apartments that's very clear each apartment is a dwelling unit. When you have something like a fraternity or sorority house, you have multiple people living there as one common kitchen, but you can't really call that one single family house. So whenever we're calculating density, we need a way to calculate what is a dwelling unit. Right now our code has two different sections um of how you can calculate density. We have um one that says if you are two or less bedrooms then um each two rooms is one dwelling unit. If you have three or more beds in the room, then each four beds is one dwelling unit. Um it's very similar to what we're updating it to. It just is confusing to explain to applicants whenever they're calculating density for their project. So this is just a way for us to simplify without substantially changing the way we calculate density in these types of structures. Now we're getting into those design requirements. So starting with that second one, a structural a structure being built for a fraternity or sorority house shall be built to have a residential appearance which shall include um a being a front porch. B is streetf facing facade shall be

constructed of masonry material which can include brick, cast stone, stone, ephus and stucco at least 50% of which shall be brick or stone. C. A landscape plan with at least one tree and 10 shrubs per 30 linear feet. Um corner lots shall provide landscaping for both front yards and the landscaping shall be a minimum requirement for a lot which can be clumped or spread throughout the parcel. Just us trying to set a minimum of trees and shrubs that will be planted for a fraternity or sority house. Not necessarily saying a tree has to be every 30 foot, just setting a minimum for what is being planted when that's being built. Um that third one down we have all fraternity and sorority houses shall have a maximum height of two stories for any portion of a structure that is within 30 ft of a single family residential zoning district or use. Um the intent of that is just to have a height step down when you're abing any single family residential district or use. We're not saying the entire structure can only be two stories. You can have a four story structure, but then whenever you get within 30t of that residential, it would step down to two foot and then you would have your setback, whatever that's set to. Um so that's just requiring some sort of step down when abuing some sort of residential use. Again, just trying to mitigate any negative effects that could come from this text amendment. Um, and then lastly, we have if a fraternity or sorority house is established in a structure prior to 2025, that structure may be rebuilt or enlarged without conforming to current RMU standards, provided the new building setbacks are no closer to the property line than the original. Um, just a technicality throw in. We're not trying to increase any non-conformities. We're not trying to require anyone to change their existing structure. So, this was just the intent is to change how we regulate Greek houses in the future, not affect any current houses. That was just again trying to mitigate any possible negative effects there. I'm open to answer any questions if you have any.

So if a fraternity rebuilt in the same footprint, are they still limited on height? Then it doesn't even say footprint though. It just says rebuilt. Yes, it's a good point. And this doesn't add any height limitations except if you're abing single family district or use. But you're right, the way that's written, I don't know if we would be able to apply that if you were rebuilding. The way the way it's written concerns me on the height. Yeah.

And and and I'm sure there probably some other factors. anything that so basically you're saying if you if you got in before 2025 or you got in before now you could go back and do whatever you want. I mean it seems kind of like a free-for-all the way it's written and then Yep. I I don't disagree with that and we could definitely understanding correctly if they rebuilt it sounds like maybe you want the maximum to be what they're already established prior to but not greater than I I think that would be fair to say rebuilt should meet new standards but new standards.

Yeah. Yeah. But if you if you enlarge then that might be something minor. and large I think would then go back to being rebuilt be back to have to go back and I [snorts] I agree because if you don't then then people just they'll just then they'll just enlarge instead of rebuild you know what I mean so they can get past these new requirements. So, I mean it would almost be, you know, if if you were it almost seems like just like an an interior renovation, but I'm not Yeah, it don't seems not not necessary. If if you're grandfathered in, you're grandfathered in. Your current structure is grandfathered in. Any future rebuild or any future rebuild or enlargement should be in compliance. I would think

it can be written that way. Yeah, I I we also like that better. Okay. Yeah, that was the the intent of this was not to say current structures don't have to conform to the design standards we're implementing, but that is what it says. Any future? Yes. Yeah. Right.

I I have probably more of a curiosity. Um, and that's we go back to the to the very first item, which is putting the fraternity sorority house into the usage as opposed to a definition. Since we just have the sections that are changed and we're not looking at this in its entirety and context, um, are the other uses listed this way? They're not defined in definitions in section 23-7 there in 23-96. All of the uses should be defined in 2396. Um, our code is not perfect. There are some uses that are listed as uses that are not defined. There are some that are defined in 237, but the intent of the way the code is written as they should be written into 2396, which defines our uses. So,

the future code amendments will be going to this method. Okay. Just trying to think what's going to be the most straightforward for somebody having to go in and look at the code. Right now, I think it is a mixture. And so the new the new this is the move we're going to the movement we're going to okay thank you for that appreciate that explanation but as a general statement yes the uses are defined in 2396.

So couple other questions I have um and kind of along the same thought of where where would one look for information if they were trying to use the code for a project. Um there's some landscape information that is part of the fraternity sorority. Um the way I read that for fraternity sorority, is this the only place that references landscape for that particular use? Yes, ma'am. And is there another part of our land development code that has landscape requirements? Yes, ma'am. So, how would one know to go from one to the other to make sure that they've that they're getting all the correct criteria? I'm not

It's a really good point. Um, I mean, I'm not quite understanding. I think if they what I'm interpreting this is if you're a fraternity, this is your landscape requirement, not the additional requirements. There is a landscaping section, which you're not wrong. That's that could be the first place someone looks to find their landscaping requirements is go to the landscaping section. Um, how would they That's also what we're transitioning to as well is we're trying to get to where you can look up

one use that you're trying to do and have all the requirements instead of flipping through because right now our code you're having to flip through so many different sections to know what you have to do and we're trying to get to and more movement of everything I need to know for this type of use. Is that the best way to describe it? Yes. Instead of being so our code is kind of complicated sometimes. So then would there still would there not be any additional landscaping requirements then based off of the landscaping section? This would be the requirements only for fraternity. This is it. There's nothing else that is applied to a fraternity sorority. The way this is written. Yes. So so they would be exempt from the other requirements in the landscape code is what we're saying. Correct.

Yes. Um and the intent was there were kind of different options that were recommended with that um comparative analysis and this was kind of an in between of just writing in some changes to code and doing like an overlay or incorporating design elements. So, we kind of wanted to incorporate some design elements to increase to guarantee that it's like a quality residential design um and have all of the Greek house requirements in one location. Um I could be confusing if you were going to look for landscaping where it should be in landscaping. Um but the intent was to try to simplify it and have everything in this one spot.

But is that necessarily industry standard? Which part of it? Well, industry standard. I would look in landscaping section for landscape requirements. I wouldn't be looking in code usage for landscape requirements. That is true. I would say industry standard is to put landscaping requirements in the landscaping section

and and I I appreciate the the opportunity to be able to have kind of one-stop shopping, but I don't know that it's industry standard. And so I think there could be some confusion in knowing where to look to find things. I think right now since we are just amending this section, I can see the short-term confusion because it's just going to be here and then you have the your normal section. But if I'm understanding our correct way we're going, the new code will not be you wouldn't have the conflicting.

But I'm but I'm not sure the new way we're going is an industry standard is the point I'm making. And I think it could be confusing for people wanting to develop in Still Water to know how to look and how to use that code. And right now we feel like the complaints we're getting is that it's too complicated. It's too all over the board. They would like to be able to one section and get what they need. That's my understanding what the complaints I'm hearing. Right. But we're open. I mean this isn't set in stone obviously. Yeah. What?

Sorry. David Bar Development Services. Um one of the issues that we have in our current landscaping ordinance is that and you probably have seen this people it's a point system. You can earn all the points that you have to have just by putting down sod. And so that's not really landscaping. Um and so we were trying to um again with these massive structures over by campus, you know, OSU's done a great job of landscaping. We didn't want new fraternities to be built that just met the requirements by putting in some sod. Now, we could have added these requirements into the landscaping section. kind of sounds like you're heading um that would have required a much bigger overhaul of our landing landscaping section of the code and yeah like like um um Kim mentioned we're we're in the midst of that right now. Um we hope to have that done in 8 months. There's going to be a lot of changes. So almost what we're doing right now with this is just we're getting out in front of this for the next 8 months and our our you know we will be looking at what is the best way to lay out and we do believe right now the best way to lay out everything is is that if you wanted to um if you want to develop in uh a certain zoning district that everything that you need for that zoning district is in one section. Right now there's cross references. There's things multi mentioned in multiple locations that don't align with each other and it's very complicated and confusing. I don't know maybe the industry standard is to have very complicated and confusing codes but [laughter] we don't want to be that then um you know we want to make things easier um for the people that develop here. And so this was this was our uh this was our take on on making sure that cuz we we have applications right now for new fraternities and sororities to demolish and rebuild and a bunch of them have

already done that. We're kind of behind uh on this but at least we wanted to capture um the remaining um the remaining uh you know Greek homes that are trying to redevelop. I think another reason we're doing this, there have been a tremendous amount of variances that have had to been applied for related to setbacks for creek housing. And um and so we're trying to make sure that um you know, we've got like like Henry mentioned, we used our planning consultant um to do a comparative analysis with other college towns to look at what are they doing for Greek housing and this, you know, this is what we came up with. So,

so then how would one know that they're exempt from the other requirements once this is in place because this is more specific. So code interpretation when you have something specific and a specific use that is the only requirements by not listing in your that's it's separate. I think I'd have to look at the landscape section to better understand what what's trying to be done and I think in eight months it'll probably be more clear once we have that path if of what we're trying to explain today.

Right. And I mean I to me I I would have I would have thought reading through this that there would have been a reference back to the other to the landscape section and I know there there whole other topic is conversation on point system versus other approaches to landscape requirements but that's another conversation I think that that it' be in conflict with this requirement then you'd have they would want to argue that the minimum of it there applies so so currently but you have a point system in place that and it's like the most restrictive would would rule in my experience with codes, right? The most the most restrictive would rule.

This is actually would be adopted after and this is specific apply to the sorities of attorneys that this would rule. Yeah, I we can change the language though if to be very more specific who you like. We can change. I mean to me to me the way it's written this feels like a gotcha. When I when I read this it feels like a gotcha. Like this is hidden here. And I know that now I understand it's not the opposite intent, but that was my interpretation opposite. And so I will say when we were having these conversations, we never had it in the context of this is overriding all the current landscaping. So when you said that, I was like, "Oh, we could have made that more clear." So that is a good point that I think we can clarify. We could work on that word. We could make it a little more clear

or Yeah. I mean, um, we I think there's a lot of options here. I mean with your all's um you know if you all want to recommend this with some um modifications we could certainly take go back and add something in the landscape section that refers to this we could take this and put it in the landscape section specifically for Greek houses. Um, I I I almost think if if if it's to me I to me I think the easiest thing for someone looking at trying to develop if there would be a reference in the landscape section to come here for this particular use

leave this here and add wording there that says this is where you go for this particular use and then when you're able to go back and clean up the landscape code it would be easier to remove that reference that point right and then here you wouldn't reference anything back to the other stop cross reference which we're trying to get right away from. Right. And I think that would be the least amount of of housekeeping at the end and clean up for now if all of that makes sense. Yeah, it does. Okay. Maybe that's good. I was reading it cold and it's a good perspective to get someone else's perspective. Yeah. And I'll as a caveat to that too, this is a very different way to calculate landscaping than the way we currently do it. So, it's

also kind of testing out a different way to measure landscaping. Um, as well as all these requirements are kind of a test. We were like, this we think this is the best way to do it, but this is kind of a good eightmonth trial period to see if this is the best way to regulate Greek houses. Okay. But we can certainly Okay. Reward.

And then I think I had one other Oh, no. See, I think that's I think that's all I have. I think you answered the other question I had. Okay. I feel like I've been hogging the floor. Um, other questions? Did you have anything else, Henry?

I think it might be time to open the public hearing. I think think probably. So, okay. All right. At this time, we would open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item to please come forward. Seeing none, we'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this item to please come forward. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and ask staff to present our alternatives.

Yes, ma'am. So, our findings are the proposed text amendment updates how the city regulates fraternity or sorority houses. The proposed text amendment updates the definition of fraternity or sorority house and moves the definition to the use categories. The side setback for fraternity or sorority houses in the RMU zoning district is proposed to be reduced to aligned with the sideyard setback requirements in RMI. Design standards for fraternity and sorority houses are proposed to be incorporated into the RMI and RMU districts to ensure a quality residential design. And the alternatives tonight are to um recommend approval, denial, or tableabling the request. Um I'm also going to add in um conditionally approve the request. Um staff recommends alternative number one, which is to accept findings and recommend that the city council approve the proposed text amendment as presented. Um we could change that recommendation to a conditional approval after our discussion, but

thank you. Well, I'm leaning toward a conditional approval, but I don't know exactly how to state that specifically what we should ask them to do differently.

I get clarification on the section we just talked about about landscaping. It's my understanding that we're okay with this language this week as long as we come back and present additional wording in our current landscape code that references to this for sororities and fraternities. Is that am I understanding that correctly? That I I I believe that would be the the direction we're headed the the way to go. Yes. Okay. So then the only condition I heard you speak about pro correct me if I'm wrong is the grandfathering sections uh seven under seven is E7. Yeah. 23140 and 23141 E7. E7. Okay.

Those two sections would um we only granting current structures but any modifications those structures they would have to be in compliance with this new code requirement. I'm just making sure I understood hear everybody correctly. So question to that What would happen if that if that I that line was just struck? If that whole piece was just struck the whole section, right? Seven. Does that Yeah, because this wording would not work at all for what we're doing.

Correct. I would have to look at it, but I might feel more comfortable if we add a sentence saying current structures That already that's on my grand that's automatic already as it's automatic, right? So I guess it's not necessary. We would just strike out E7 on both of those.

I I think striking E7 on both of those achieves what we're asking. So that any any modifications to existing structures and or anything that is um established in an area but is rebuilt would have to conform to the new standards. Any existing structure would just be in compliance, grandfathered in. Any future construction would have to be compliance. So if we remove E7, that would meet that requirement. I think that you're saying yes. So if you would like your condition would be with the removal of E7 under 23 141. Correct, Henry?

2314. I think I got an order here on my papers. Yeah, [laughter] it's it's do you follow as well? Yes. Okay. Okay. And just as an option, which I know you know is an option, but if you would like to table this, we can work on the wording and present you with a new proposal at the next meeting. Um, if that is also a preference just so you could see the final version. I think doing our due diligence that might be the best thing and that would give staff time to take a second pass and then we could look at it one more time. Okay. Do I have hear a motion to table this? So moved. You hear a second? Second. So

just to clarify, we're tableabling this to what date? The next meeting, which is I'm looking on the wrong page. January 27th January 27th motion to table to the January 27th planning commission meeting. I don't see it on second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. Okay, next item on the agenda is meeting summary for review and possible action. And we have the regular meeting summary from December 16th. Are there any additions or corrections to the summary? [snorts] Motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Second. We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. Next item on the agenda is miscellaneous items from staff, planning commissioners, or the city attorney for discussion and possible action. We have any. Okay. Uh, next meeting is January 27th and uh, last item on the agenda is adjournment. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. We now stand adjourned.