Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 24 <br /> Regular Meeting May 11, 1992 Page 3 <br /> considered resident houses, and Mr. Gilley stated they were <br /> considered resident houses. Mr. Cotner questioned if after six <br /> points and the specific use permit was revoked, would this mean <br /> the property could not be a fraternity/sorority again, or could <br /> they rent to another fraternity/sorority. Mr. Patterson, <br /> Director of Planning, stated if the specific use permit was <br /> revoked from one fraternity/sorority, another <br /> fraternity/sorority could use that same location. Mr. Cotner <br /> questioned what constituted a fraternity/sorority. Mayor <br /> Morris stated there was a definition of a fraternity/sorority <br /> in the Zoning Ordinance. Mark Taylor read the definition of a <br /> fraternity/sorority building. Mr. Cotner stated some of these <br /> houses were built before 1970, and they complied with all the <br /> zoning laws at that time. Now, the existing structures would <br /> have to be redone to comply with the new specific use permit. <br /> Linda Gilcrease, Housing Corporation of the Alpha Delta pi <br /> Sorority, stated the sororities were being penalized for things <br /> they had not done or planned to do. However, there was an <br /> opportunity in the ordinance to automatically access penalty <br /> points. Ms. Gilcrease realized the law would not allow <br /> separating fraternities and sororities; however, sororities <br /> would like to be addressed separately. Ms. Gilcrease stated <br /> the number of people living in their houses and the parking <br /> limitations were a couple of their main concerns. Mayor Morris <br /> asked Ms. Gilcrease if her concerns were being penalized for <br /> things that had not actually occurred on sorority premises and <br /> that did not occur on sorority premises, but did occur in the <br /> system. Ms. Gilcrease stated that was correct, and she just <br /> wanted to go on record as saying they did not agree. Judy <br /> Padoc, Housing Corporation, Chi Omega, stated no one lived in <br /> their house; however, their complaint was the parking <br /> situation. This would impact the characteristics of their <br /> house. The wording required the ~ororities to comply with the <br /> parking, but did not limit the Zoning commission from requiring <br /> additional parking in the future. Mr. Cunningham re-addressed <br /> the Council to state the goals and motives behind this <br /> ordinance was to work through the justice system. The Zoning <br /> commission's main concern was applying the specific use permit <br /> process to the existing res idential uni ts ; however, certain <br /> areas were necessary in order to protect the health and safety <br /> of the community. Ms. Cole re-addressed the Council and stated <br /> in order not to be discriminating, all citizens should be given <br /> equal justice under the law. Ms. Cole stated she would like to <br /> see some type of variances in the ordinance, such as "RUSH <br /> WEEK". She stated she was concerned and distressed that the <br /> freedom and rights of property was being infringed upon. <br /> Mr. Milhawken re-addressed the Council regarding section <br /> 35(H) (4) (c)9-10. He hoped the fraternities would be protected <br /> if they made an attempt to remove people from their property, <br /> and the people did not cooperate. The Round Table was <br /> concerned that this ordinance was unconstitutionally broad by <br /> interfering with property rights and protection in due <br /> process. Mr. Cotner re-addressed the Council and stated he <br /> would like the ordinance to be as specific as it can be to <br /> prevent many future changes. Leaving certain items open to <br /> planning and zoning made it hard to enforce the previous laws. <br /> Brad Ambrose, President Interfraternity Council, stated he felt <br /> this ordinance was going to pass and would like the Council to <br /> look at it again in a year to see if there was positive impact <br /> or if it was destroying the Greek community. No one else <br /> wished to speak, so Mayor Morris closed the public hearing. <br /> Mayor Morris asked if the Council would like to bring the <br /> ordinance back over a period of time. Mr. Patterson stated it <br /> would take approximately a year for the process to be <br /> completely implemented. The Council agreed to look at it again <br /> in 12 months. Mayor Morris asked Mr. Patterson to bring back <br /> clarification regarding closing times of parties. Mr. Hart <br /> would like clarification on specific use permits that were <br /> revoked, and the availability of re-renting that premise to <br />