Commission tables Chapter 23 amendment to regulate fraternity/sorority houses, seeks clearer landscaping and grandfathering language
Loading...
Summary
The commission opened a public hearing on a Chapter 23 text amendment to treat fraternity/sorority houses as a distinct use with setbacks, design standards and density rules, but tabled the item to Jan. 27 to revise landscaping cross-references and remove or clarify a grandfathering clause (E7) so rebuilds must meet new standards (5-0).
The Stillwater Planning Commission opened public consideration of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 23 on Jan. 6 that would move the definition of "fraternity or sorority house" into the city’s uses section, add it as a distinct use in certain zoning districts, set side-yard setbacks, establish density calculations for group living and add residential design standards. Commissioners ultimately voted to table the amendment to the Jan. 27 meeting to allow staff time to revise landscaping cross-references and to clarify a grandfathering provision.
Development Services staff explained the principal changes: moving the current definition from section 23-7 into section 23-96 so that fraternities and sororities are regulated as a use; aligning RMU side-yard setbacks with RMI (including a 15-foot setback abutting single-family residential); specifying that, for density calculations, "each 4 beds shall be deemed to constitute 1 dwelling unit" in certain residential-structure cases; and adding design standards such as a front porch, masonry street facades with at least 50% brick or stone, and a minimum landscaping requirement of one tree and 10 shrubs per 30 linear feet.
Henry Bibelheimer read the proposed definition aloud: "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 prearrangement or definite periods, meals and or lodging are provided exclusively for members of the organization and their guests." Staff said these changes reflect recommendations from a planning consultant and comparative analysis of similar college towns.
Commission discussion centered on two issues. First, several commissioners questioned whether the new landscaping requirements should be placed in the new use section or left in the city’s existing landscape code; Development Services’ David Barth said the landscaping ordinance has a point system that can be misleading ("You can earn all the points that you have to have just by putting down sod"), and said a landscaping overhaul is planned within about eight months. Commissioners asked for a clear cross-reference or wording so applicants are not confused about which landscaping rules apply.
Second, commissioners expressed concern about subsection E7, which currently allows structures established before 2025 to be rebuilt or enlarged without conforming to new RMU standards as long as new setbacks are no closer to the property line than the original. Multiple commissioners said the clause as written could permit rebuilds that exceed existing heights or avoid new design standards; they asked staff to remove or rewrite E7 so that any rebuild or enlargement would be required to meet the new standards. Staff agreed this was consistent with the amendment’s intent and offered to revise the language.
No members of the public spoke during the hearing. Commissioner (Speaker 5) moved to table the amendment to the Jan. 27 Planning Commission meeting so staff could prepare revised wording; Commissioner (Speaker 3) seconded. The motion passed, five to zero.
The amendment will return for further review with clarified landscaping references and revised grandfathering language.
