[0:00] - The Centre Region Active Adult Center is a vibrant,

[0:02] inclusive, and happening location designed

[0:04] for active adults 55 years and over to be social

[0:07] and participate in new experiences while

[0:09] also staying close to home.

[0:11] We promote healthy aging through our many activities

[0:13] and health forums, as well as lifelong learning

[0:15] through classes and social interaction

[0:17] that suit almost any lifestyle.

[0:19] Whether you prefer line dancing followed by a walk

[0:22] or a game of bridge and a meal,

[0:23] the center is sure to have something for you.

[0:25] Visit crpr.org for more info.

[0:31] - You are watching CNET Center County's Government

[0:34] and Educational Access Network.

[0:40] - Sponsorship for this program is brought to you in part

[0:42] by Town and Gown Magazine.

[0:45] If it's happening in Happy Valley,

[0:47] it's in Town and Gown Magazine.

[0:52] - Hello, we are calling to order the meeting

[0:56] of the State College Borough Planning Commission

[0:59] for August 6th, 2025 at noon.

[1:03] Roll Call. I am Zoe Boniface, vice chair acting as chair

[1:08] because Ron Madrid is not present in the room.

[1:13] Ron Madrid

[1:15] - Here - Is present long over the internet.

[1:20] Anita here. Dan man

[1:24] - Here.

[1:25] - Okay. He is also online. Tony Sapia Here.

[1:31] Curtis Schulman.

[1:33] Great approval of minutes from July 17th.

[1:37] Any comments or corrections?

[1:46] Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve?

[1:49] Motion approve. A second. Second. All in favor say aye.

[1:54] A Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay.

[1:59] Sorry about that. We're not, we're still in session,

[2:04] but the meeting, but the minutes are approved.

[2:06] - Question on Zoom. - Did you have a question, Ron?

[2:12] Or were you just approved? Yes,

[2:14] - I had a, no, I had a, I had a change on the minutes.

[2:19] - Oh, - But I'll,

[2:22] - Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:23] I missed that.

[2:26] - You can go ahead and reopen. - Go ahead.

[2:27] Yeah, we can reopen this. What, what is your concern?

[2:32] - Page seven under PC comments. The fourth bullet.

[2:37] My comment said increase building in regards

[2:40] to building heights from two to five stories.

[2:43] It should be nine to 11 versus two to five.

[2:48] - Thank you. So

[2:54] - Motion to, just a motion to approve.

[2:56] - Can we make Yeah. Mo a motion

[2:58] to approve the minutes with this correction.

[3:01] So moved. So moved. Okay.

[3:03] And we've got a second from Tony

[3:05] and then we will go on.

[3:08] Sorry about that Ron. I did not see your hand. Okay.

[3:13] Chair report. I will only mention

[3:16] that we have two more planning commission meetings

[3:20] and two more meetings that are devoted to review

[3:23] of these new

[3:27] proposed Zoning matters.

[3:32] And if you really care about this stuff,

[3:36] this is the time to come talk

[3:38] or to put comments

[3:40] online, public hour.

[3:44] If there is anyone here

[3:46] or online who would like to speak

[3:49] to the planning commission on a matter that is not

[3:51] of today's agenda, this is your opportunity.

[3:57] Come up and say who you are, where you live.

[4:01] - And I would say pretty much all the

[4:03] Zoning ordinances on the agenda.

[4:04] So if it's about Zoning, save it for the presentation.

[4:07] - I do have a few things which I do not think are covered in

[4:09] the agenda minutes, but feel free

[4:10] to stop me if that's not the case.

[4:12] My name is John Gardner homeowner in West College Heights,

[4:15] Hillcrest Avenue, Dr. John Gardner, excuse me.

[4:18] And I'm also a member of the Transportation Commission

[4:21] with Susan Vango back there.

[4:23] So the thing that I specifically wanted to address is just

[4:26] how boring, unpleasant,

[4:27] and unattractive West College Heights is.

[4:29] It has only ugly single family homes.

[4:32] It doesn't have any shops, it doesn't have any restaurants,

[4:34] it doesn't have any attractive apartment buildings.

[4:36] And I think the thing that really should be looked at is the

[4:40] buy right legalization of owner o operator corner stores.

[4:44] This is something that is sweeping,

[4:46] especially the West coast as they attempt

[4:47] to re legalize stores that were already in operation.

[4:51] I think the, the biggest places are Spokane and Seattle.

[4:53] And what they did was way back in the day, historically,

[4:57] there were always corner stores so the people didn't have

[4:59] to hop in a car and drive all the way through town to get

[5:01] to a mega box grocery store.

[5:03] If they needed a, a quick cup of coffee

[5:05] or, or, or some groceries.

[5:06] They could pop down to the corner store

[5:08] and make a, a walking trip instead of a, a driving trip.

[5:12] But that's specifically my point about West College Heights.

[5:14] There's nothing there. It's an absolute cultural desert.

[5:17] The only good part of the neighborhood is the bicycle trail

[5:19] to get out of the neighborhood,

[5:20] to go to other places to do things.

[5:22] It is exclusively an institutionalized bedroom.

[5:25] And so I think that a really important thing, especially

[5:27] for addressing climate change and a change

[5:29] and improving the feel of the communities is

[5:32] that you should really seriously address buy right corner

[5:35] store legalization such that any corner lot would be allowed

[5:39] to do, to have a corner store.

[5:41] Not necessarily something that big developers have

[5:43] to come into, but if somebody wants to convert a house and,

[5:45] and make their downstairs into a coffee shop,

[5:48] I see no reason why that shouldn't be something

[5:50] of extreme importance.

[5:51] And then also just in general, I think that R one

[5:53] and R two should be completely abolished.

[5:55] There's no reason for having ranch style homes in the middle

[5:58] of a, a dense urban core.

[6:00] And then the last thing I wanted to address,

[6:01] which I don't think is on the agenda today, is students,

[6:05] I know that a student occupation is extremely limited to,

[6:09] to a very small area of downtown.

[6:10] I personally found that very difficult and annoying

[6:13] because when I moved here, excuse me, for graduate school,

[6:16] I was under the age of 25.

[6:17] And that extremely

[6:19] and artificially shrank the number of places

[6:21] that I was legally allowed, allowed to live

[6:24] really only being penned into a a, a student, a stockyard,

[6:28] or going obscenely far outta the Borough.

[6:30] And that's ultimately why we ended up having

[6:32] to choose the place where we did.

[6:33] So I think that that is unnecessarily restrictive.

[6:35] It is in the name State College.

[6:37] The community thrives off of the university.

[6:39] So we should therefore be welcome to the students

[6:42] that allow us to exist.

[6:43] So thank you very much. Those are my comments.

[6:46] - Okay, - Zoe,

[6:47] we do have someone online who'd like to speak.

[6:49] - Okay, let's go ahead.

[6:55] I don't see, I'll,

[6:57] - I'll allow them to talk in a second.

[6:58] - Okay. Alright. Okay.

[7:02] - John Chu, you can go ahead and speak now.

[7:06] - Yes. Hi, can you hear me okay?

[7:08] - Yes. And I'm, I'm, I've been instructed

[7:11] to put people on the four minute timer.

[7:13] This is no comment on our first comment of the day.

[7:16] Go ahead.

[7:17] - All right. Well I've,

[7:20] if you haven't been reading your emails,

[7:22] I've been the reporter from the Daily Collegiate

[7:24] that's been trying to reach out to a Mr.

[7:26] Sapia for comment about the future land use map

[7:32] from the CRPA.

[7:34] I haven't gotten any responses back, so I just wanted

[7:38] to remind you guys about it

[7:40] and if you, any, if he's willing to speak about it

[7:44] and if,

[7:46] and if any of you guys are willing to speak about it

[7:48] as well, you can just contact me at

[7:52] JWC 64 ninety6@psu.edu.

[7:55] That's all. I just wanted to say, this

[7:58] probably doesn't have anything to do

[7:59] with the agenda right now.

[8:00] It's just wanted to put that out there.

[8:02] So thank you for giving me the time to speak.

[8:06] - Okay. Anyone else?

[8:15] Hearing none, we will go on.

[8:26] Okay. So we are now going on

[8:30] to review our new Zoning Ordinance.

[8:34] Today we are looking to re review the,

[8:39] summarize the residential districts sections

[8:44] that were introduced last month and,

[8:50] and then we'll have some recommendation,

[8:52] discussion and refinement.

[8:55] Okay. The Ordinance is available online

[8:59] and instructions

[9:00] for submitting public comments are available on the webpage.

[9:04] You can submit comments digitally at any kind

[9:08] to zone State College at State College pa

[9:11] us. Go ahead.

[9:15] - Okay. Thank you Zoe. Good afternoon everyone.

[9:18] So for today we're,

[9:20] we'll do our normal introduction again just

[9:22] to make sure everybody has the same information, both about

[9:25] how to provide comments

[9:28] and also to review the material that's online.

[9:30] The, the page that we have

[9:32] where we're putting everybody's

[9:33] online comments is getting lengthy.

[9:36] So if you have not had a chance to read any

[9:38] of that, please take a look.

[9:40] There's a lot of material in there.

[9:42] We're also, as Zoe said, we're gonna focus today on

[9:46] summarizing the comments that we've received related

[9:48] to the residential districts.

[9:50] We're gonna talk specifically about accessory dwelling units

[9:53] 'cause we just got that text right before the last meeting.

[9:56] And then also just kind of preview

[9:58] what we think will be happening for the eight 14

[10:00] and 8 21 meetings.

[10:02] And talk a little bit about transitional zones as well.

[10:04] We had an opportunity to sit down with Susan Vanoni on some,

[10:08] some of her map changes and comments.

[10:10] We wanna run a few things by you as well.

[10:12] So again, why are we doing this as far

[10:16] as the major objectives for the rezoning revision?

[10:19] And that is to increase housing opportunities period, both

[10:22] for market rate and affordable housing

[10:24] and tenants, both for home ownership and rental tenants,

[10:27] and also for long-term residents and students.

[10:30] I wanna just take a moment.

[10:32] There's been a lot of comments about affordable housing and,

[10:34] and I just think it's important and,

[10:36] and Ron mentioned this at the last meeting

[10:38] to recognize we're talking about increasing housing

[10:41] opportunities, more units.

[10:42] That doesn't mean that they will be necessarily affordable.

[10:45] In fact, unless you're using something like the mandatory

[10:47] inclusionary housing Ordinance, probably not going

[10:50] to make them affordable.

[10:51] So I just wanna be clear that this is

[10:53] about creating more opportunities.

[10:55] Those communities that have done significant increases in,

[10:58] in, you know, significant changes in Zoning

[11:00] to allow increases for more residential units, have seen

[11:05] rates of rent not increase as fast,

[11:07] but the idea that rent will be declining

[11:09] and we see significant downward pressure.

[11:11] I just wanna be clear, we don't think that we'll see that,

[11:13] especially not early days.

[11:15] So I just wanted to be clear about that

[11:18] 'cause there's been a lot of discussion about this, that

[11:20] by doing the Zoning we

[11:22] will suddenly have affordable housing.

[11:23] And I, I think it's important to notice that, that that's,

[11:26] these are large scale market forces.

[11:28] You may see more affordable housing

[11:30] outside the Borough further away

[11:33] because you may seem, you know,

[11:34] obviously there's more demand for housing,

[11:37] especially student housing closer to campus.

[11:39] So just wanted to be clear about that

[11:41] because there's, we had a lot of comments kind

[11:44] of all over the map related to that topic.

[11:48] Second thing is to support, really try

[11:51] to support our thriving downtown commercial districts

[11:53] and walkable neighborhood business districts.

[11:55] To Mr. Garner's point earlier, looking at ways,

[11:58] and we're gonna talk later today about maybe being more

[12:00] permissive with some uses throughout the residential zones.

[12:04] And then finally to do a better job calibrating our parking

[12:06] requirements since we, you know, we, we've tried to

[12:10] reduce the amount of at least residential parking that's

[12:13] required in the community.

[12:16] Some other topics for the basis

[12:18] for doing the Zoning revision

[12:20] or the new ordinances to modernize it.

[12:22] Make it easier to understand, to clear up ambiguities

[12:25] and make the regulatory language easier to follow.

[12:29] And also, again, maintain that diversity of,

[12:32] of long-term residents and student re resident occupancy.

[12:35] Knowing that the student housing market is so strong

[12:37] that without trying to do other things to

[12:40] maintain long-term residents, we would,

[12:42] we would see a lot more of our single family

[12:44] and duplexes convert to student housing.

[12:48] A couple things about sort of when we're writing the code.

[12:50] So we sort of, this is a test

[12:52] for when we're looking at the Ordinance language

[12:54] first, do we think it's legal?

[12:55] And if we don't know if it's legal,

[12:57] do we think we'd have a reasonable

[12:59] expectation of success in court?

[13:00] Obviously knowing that you never really know

[13:02] until you're in court and a judge has made a ruling.

[13:04] So secondly, is the language clear

[13:07] and can it be something that staff can operationalize,

[13:10] that we can enforce and can make sure

[13:11] that the private sector understands what they are

[13:14] and are not allowed to do with their property.

[13:17] And then third is, is there a reasonable expectation

[13:19] that these changes will actually lead to change,

[13:22] that you will actually see the market respond

[13:25] and build some of

[13:26] what is now gonna be permitted in the Zoning

[13:29] hunter view and comment.

[13:30] So we have a entire Zoning page

[13:33] dedicated to the new Ordinance.

[13:35] And if you are interested in submitting, first of all, we,

[13:38] we, this is, this is actually, it's gotten longer,

[13:41] but this is where we're putting all of the public comments

[13:45] as well as any petitions that we get.

[13:48] And when I say petitions typically mean like a form email

[13:51] where a lot of people send the exact same email just

[13:53] with all the different addresses if you can,

[13:58] we would really prefer the use

[14:00] of a Excel spreadsheet to provide comments.

[14:03] I'll be honest with you,

[14:04] only a couple people have done that.

[14:05] Both are in the room. And so for the most part we, we,

[14:09] this is something we like,

[14:10] but we, we know folks are not having the time to do it, so

[14:14] just get us the, the best thing

[14:15] that does help us is if you let us know the page

[14:17] number that you're referencing.

[14:21] We also provided some information to kind

[14:23] of help you navigate the Ordinance.

[14:25] So if you have comments, please provide 'em

[14:27] to zone State College at State College, pa us

[14:30] multiple staff, check that email frequently.

[14:35] Also, we had the reporter ask about the Centre Region comp

[14:38] plan and the future land use map.

[14:40] So we did create a a page on our website that sort

[14:44] of sends the viewer to the CRPA material.

[14:47] And again, just to remind everybody,

[14:48] if you have thoughts on the future land use map, please

[14:51] go ahead and, you know, check into the online resources

[14:55] that CRPA has provided.

[14:59] Gonna go through sort of the timeline on where we're at.

[15:01] So as Zoe said, we've got two more meetings after this

[15:04] before hitting the deadline for recommendations

[15:06] to Borough council.

[15:08] So today we're gonna focus on summarizing residential, some

[15:12] of the changes in the Zoning map and then ADUs

[15:15] and a few other things like home occupations.

[15:17] That's come up quite a bit.

[15:20] The goal is to have a memo prepared.

[15:23] We, we started it in sort of graphic form

[15:25] or I'm gonna show you that at the end

[15:27] of the presentation about what we think we're gonna be able

[15:29] to provide, please see to help you guys make decisions on

[15:32] the, hopefully on the 21st.

[15:34] So our objective is to have a draft out to you

[15:37] for the meeting on the 14th within having more time

[15:41] to finalize it on the 21st.

[15:45] We're on a show in terms of public involvement

[15:47] and planning commission Zoning or vision committee in.

[15:50] So this kind of the run of show is we're gonna go

[15:53] through summary content related to residential

[15:56] and ask for PC and ZA comments, then Public Comment.

[15:59] Then we're gonna workshop the ADUs

[16:01] and then we're gonna have some discussion on transitional

[16:03] zones, a little bit on, on transitional.

[16:05] So that those would be the three main chunks.

[16:08] And again, finally we'll we will preview the agenda

[16:10] for eight 14 and 8 21.

[16:12] Does that make sense everybody? Alright. Okay.

[16:15] So some changes to the Zoning map.

[16:17] We've got it on the easel.

[16:19] You're gonna see more, more zoomed in map soon.

[16:24] So just hang in there. I know this is hard to see,

[16:26] but I just wanna talk a couple broad things.

[16:28] One is, one of the things that staff has wrestled

[16:31] with is this mixed use district

[16:32] and the fact that it didn't require more

[16:35] than residential uses.

[16:36] So we're, we're recommending that if we're doing mixed use,

[16:39] that it should require at least two,

[16:41] at least one non-residential use along with residential use.

[16:45] And so thinking about that requirement led us

[16:49] to move away from having mixed use up against the Highlands

[16:53] R two district in the far eastern part of downtown

[16:55] and instead just extending the RO zone,

[16:57] which is already essentially where the, the area

[17:01] around the, the, the church is.

[17:05] So that that's one change.

[17:07] The second is the RO area that is around boroughs, kind

[17:11] of the 200 block the south boroughs right now

[17:14] that's ro we'd be recommending that be mixed use

[17:16] and it essentially that is able

[17:18] to extend downtown another block in terms

[17:21] of giving some more commercial uses based on the feedback

[17:24] that we've gotten in the last couple meetings.

[17:26] We also changed the map to move the

[17:30] downtown central district up against the university

[17:32] campus in the west end.

[17:34] That seemed to be something that there was a lot

[17:35] of discussion about as far

[17:38] as wanting more density up against the university.

[17:40] So it's reducing the West end district

[17:43] to essentially just those parcels

[17:45] that are fronting on West College

[17:47] and then making the downtown central zone,

[17:50] as you can see on the left hand side there,

[17:53] run along basically the, the block

[17:55] that is adjacent to campus.

[17:58] So I think those are the main highlights on the changes.

[18:01] And then again, we're gonna go over a few other things

[18:03] as we get further into the presentation.

[18:08] All right, just to, just to confirm,

[18:10] we've discussed this a couple times now, is we wanted

[18:13] to ensure that the dimensional standards

[18:15] that are in the zone, there was a lot of back

[18:17] and forth between how one family versus two family were

[18:20] treated versus three and four.

[18:22] So just trying to be consistent.

[18:24] Also changing a lot with,

[18:26] so we wanna talk a little bit about lot widths of

[18:28] of going from 50 feet minimum lot width

[18:30] and R two down to 40, talking about getting rid

[18:34] of the R three B district and just sticking with R four.

[18:37] Allowing R four to go to four stories with an incentive

[18:40] for making sure the whole building is Lee Gold.

[18:44] And also these neighborhood compatibility standards which

[18:46] essentially limits the height of a multifamily or

[18:50] or mixed use development

[18:52] to three stories if it's within the R one

[18:54] or R two zones within a hundred feet of the R one

[18:56] and R two zones and to four stories within 150 feet.

[19:02] So just to focus on the changes, what,

[19:05] what we would recommend in the R two district you can see is

[19:08] treating single family and duplexes the same in R two

[19:12] and reducing minimum lot width from 75 feet to 50.

[19:15] And then also doing the same with making sure that three

[19:19] and four is also 50.

[19:22] You can see maximum height in R two would still be two

[19:25] stories and 28 feet In the R three district.

[19:30] Dropping that minimum size from 50 down to 40.

[19:34] And then again treating single family

[19:35] and duplex the same, same thing in the R three H district

[19:40] going from 50 to 40

[19:43] and in our four we'd have,

[19:45] we would actually create a minimum lot width of 40 feet

[19:49] and then we would add an additional option to go

[19:51] to four stories if there was a lead certification

[19:54] for gold for the entire building.

[19:58] Just to show that change of going from 50 to 40,

[20:03] this is all of the minimum lot width at 50 feet

[20:07] and you get about 4,500,

[20:11] roughly 4,500 lots that are conforming.

[20:14] If you go to 40, you end up with about another 400 lots and

[20:19] and most of those are in our three H up toward the west end

[20:24] or in the area that we call light's edition,

[20:26] which is down sort of where Irvin Logan

[20:31] kind of intersect with South Atherton,

[20:34] Walnut, et cetera, Crestmont.

[20:39] And these would be the areas that are R three B

[20:41] that would go to R four and also

[20:44] Foxdale, which is R three B.

[20:48] And then again our suggestion is in that

[20:51] that we change the neighborhood compatibility

[20:53] to focus on R one and R two, not R three or R three H.

[20:58] And this is where that would mostly then affect

[21:02] increased height density.

[21:03] So you see on the left side up on the west end.

[21:07] So those parcels that are adjacent to R two on the far side

[21:10] of west college that are

[21:12] that west end district right now allows you to go up

[21:14] to six stories in the Ordinance

[21:17] because of that compatibility language

[21:19] that would only allow those parcels to be three stories.

[21:22] Same thing goes with the R four district at the edge

[21:25] of the Highlands, that would be right now it,

[21:29] the RO district allows up to four stories

[21:31] because of that compatibility.

[21:33] We only allow three stories in that area that's highlighted.

[21:39] A couple other things that we've talked about

[21:41] that we just wanted to get some clarity from planning

[21:43] commission about is we've,

[21:45] we've had some public comments about increasing standard

[21:47] occupancy to go from

[21:50] a family plus two unrelated individuals

[21:53] to a family plus three

[21:54] or to a total of four unrelated individuals in a property

[21:58] and also allow third floor residence residential occupancy

[22:01] and those that buildings that are existing.

[22:03] So we have a lot of larger homes that are taller that go

[22:07] above 28 feet

[22:09] and above two stories,

[22:10] which is the current minimum for our two.

[22:14] And so this would permit that third floor occupancy.

[22:16] We would suggest having some form controls in place

[22:18] to manage, you know, fire escapes

[22:20] or other egress, make sure that

[22:21] that was not coming out the front of the building.

[22:24] We would push that to the back,

[22:26] but the numbers on the right kind of give you an idea of

[22:29] how many additional housing opportunities

[22:31] you would create by that change.

[22:33] So you'd end up with a potential

[22:35] of roughly 975 additional occupants.

[22:37] Of those roughly 400 could be students

[22:41] because of the properties that

[22:43] that have student home permits.

[22:47] So just graphical representation.

[22:52] So a couple outstanding things

[22:54] that have come up from public comments.

[22:56] One is a number of folks have brought up the R one zone

[23:01] and is that an opportunity to

[23:04] increase housing opportunities?

[23:06] Why do we still have the R one zone?

[23:08] I can't tell you that answer as far as when it was created.

[23:12] I haven't had a chance to go back

[23:13] and look to see when that zone was originally created,

[23:16] but it, it's a relatively small part of the Borough

[23:19] and so there's been a number

[23:20] of comments about just making everything R two

[23:22] or in the end maybe we just make it all R one

[23:25] with the R two standards.

[23:27] We're trying to clean up some of the nomenclature of the,

[23:29] of the districts as well.

[23:32] Second is a question staff has is we've heard comments on

[23:36] both sides of the equation about in in including

[23:40] the deed restricted triplexes and quads in R two

[23:43] or just removing that section from the Ordinance

[23:45] or just removing it from R two and allowing it in R three

[23:48] or some of the denser districts.

[23:50] And we've had, there's been a lot

[23:52] of comments on both sides of that equation.

[23:54] So we would love to get some certainty from planning

[23:56] commission on that in terms of what your recommendation is.

[24:00] Third sort of discussion, there's been a lot

[24:03] of comments about making home occupations more permissive.

[24:07] I have a slide here a few minutes ago

[24:08] and it's a little more detail on that,

[24:10] but we'd like to get some direction on that.

[24:12] Fourth, we've identified a couple places

[24:15] where the neighborhood commercial Zoning district works

[24:18] based on existing uses and so we're gonna show you that

[24:21] but there it's really limited

[24:23] and we're interested in if there's other ideas

[24:26] and where to create that neighborhood commercial district,

[24:29] which again is 3000 square foot maximum

[24:32] building no more than three stories allows for mixed use.

[24:35] But the idea being a small mixed use building

[24:38] that would have commercial on the first floor.

[24:41] And then finally discussing some of the additional form

[24:44] and standards governing fraternities.

[24:45] We've had a lot of comments on fraternities, so I wanted

[24:47] to go over some additional revisions on that too.

[24:52] Alright, so first is this is the R two

[24:54] or the R one district, again the very light, light yellow.

[24:59] And so there's been some comments about why and,

[25:02] and right now you could really, from a use standpoint, most

[25:06] of the uses are relatively the same in R one

[25:08] and R two it's just different dimensional standards.

[25:10] And R one has the country club.

[25:11] So I don't think

[25:13] that we're gonna see another country club created in R two.

[25:16] So I don't see a whole lot of danger of making

[25:19] that use permitted in R two,

[25:21] but that, that's kind of the key difference

[25:24] between R one and R two.

[25:25] Besides in the draft,

[25:27] R one does still have a minimum square footage requirement

[25:29] for lots, which is 12,000 square feet

[25:32] essentially just carries

[25:33] through the standard center in today's Ordinance.

[25:35] So just looking for some input if PC would like us

[25:39] to remove this or leave it in and if so, any changes.

[25:48] - Okay. - Anita,

[25:52] - What I commented on was a lot

[25:54] of R one looks exactly like R two if you drive through,

[25:57] but parts of it out evergreen drive for instance, which is

[26:03] the uppermost part of R one, there's a lot

[26:05] of buildable land in there.

[26:08] Now, if the homeowners

[26:09] or landowners wish to keep it that way,

[26:11] obviously they could.

[26:13] But if we're looking for a place to put in more housing,

[26:16] that one does seem usable.

[26:23] - Okay. Anyone else from the planning commission?

[26:29] Anyone else from the ZA?

[26:35] Go ahead. Yeah, you can. Yeah,

[26:40] - John Sep.

[26:41] Okay, ed, I, I don't know if this is in the standards,

[26:45] but historically there are some criteria in the R one

[26:50] that carries through the other districts

[26:52] and if you just, if you get rid of R one, just no.

[26:55] - Yeah, so that, that's been one of the big objectives

[26:57] for the whole Ordinance is if you'll permit me to geek out

[27:02] for just one moment, our Zoning Ordinance is what's called

[27:05] Euclidean and that is it, it builds upon e each district

[27:10] as it gets denser or more intense.

[27:12] And so a lot

[27:13] of our Zoning is based on a whole lot of standards in R one.

[27:16] Those standards have been pulled out

[27:17] and actually done the right way,

[27:19] which is a section of standards.

[27:21] So it's not, I mean right now we have commercial standards

[27:24] in R one, which makes no sense,

[27:26] but that's just what's happened over time.

[27:27] So yeah, to your point, a lot of, a lot of those things

[27:31] that are in R one have been pulled into the standards

[27:33] section and so they're no longer just in R one

[27:35] that are standards that pertain

[27:37] to whichever Zoning district they need to pertain to

[27:39] or in a lot of cases they're now in use standards. So thank

[27:42] - You.

[27:44] - Yeah, so I'm just talking about R one from a dimensional

[27:47] standard and a use standard standpoint.

[27:49] So right now the basic difference is

[27:52] that you've got larger lots and only single family homes.

[27:56] - I, I should add too, a lot of cities have decided

[28:01] that golf courses are not the best

[28:04] general public community use of

[28:07] land in densely built up areas.

[28:10] Now we're talking about the country club land,

[28:13] but there are other golf courses in this Borough

[28:16] that could provide quite a bit of housing.

[28:18] So that's something to think about.

[28:22] - Well you also, we never know what this,

[28:23] would the country club be interested in selling some

[28:26] of their property for housing development?

[28:27] You Well, yeah. I haven't had any

[28:29] of those conversations. Yeah,

[28:31] - Zoe, we do have Ron online with comments.

[28:34] - Okay, Ron, - I, I move

[28:38] that we leave the R one district the way it is

[28:43] when we talk about the R two in the other districts.

[28:45] I'll have a, I'll have a motion to do

[28:48] that if we leave the R one the way it is and

[28:50] because it has lots that can be

[28:54] where ADUs and triplex and quadplexes could be put in.

[28:59] If we leave it alone, that provides that opportunity.

[29:02] If we include it in the R two,

[29:04] that becomes a problem which I will address later.

[29:07] So my motion is to leave the R one as is,

[29:14] is there a second?

[29:15] - It Second. Second. Tony seconds.

[29:21] Okay. Any further discussion?

[29:28] Come?

[29:35] - Yeah. Eric Bell, wasn't it me?

[29:38] I'd like to hear Ron's reasoning for not combining R one

[29:42] and R two before you vote on deciding

[29:45] to leave it one way or the other.

[29:51] - Okay, go ahead Ron.

[29:53] - My, my motion in the, my motion in the R two is

[29:56] to exclude the R two for me to use plexes

[30:01] and quadplexes because the R two

[30:04] Zoning district includes most

[30:06] of the established neighborhoods within the Borough.

[30:08] But if we're gonna put in additional housing units, R one

[30:12] and R three and four would be, would be

[30:17] our, our notionally outside the established neighborhoods.

[30:28] - Okay. Further discussion.

[30:34] - I so I'm left confused or, or not confused,

[30:37] but of two minds.

[30:39] I see Ron's point,

[30:42] but we're trying to vote on R one,

[30:45] conditionally about talking about R two

[30:48] and that does leave it up in the air.

[30:54] - But if you leave R one alone at the moment,

[30:59] and if my motion in R two is passed,

[31:03] then no harm, no foul.

[31:05] If my motion in R two is not passed, then you can go back

[31:08] and change R one if you want.

[31:11] - Okay. I mean we could always just,

[31:14] I mean there's a motion on the table.

[31:16] Yeah, you, you could table,

[31:19] but you know, we're, we're just asking for guidance and,

[31:22] and using motions as a way to do

[31:23] that is good from a clarity standpoint.

[31:25] But if, if you wanna vote on it now

[31:27] and then whoever would vote,

[31:32] actually my recollection is you have,

[31:33] if it's somebody voted yes, would have

[31:36] to then bring it back onto the table

[31:37] after the R two conversation.

[31:40] If I remember my Robert's rules from college

[31:46] - Sounds like it would be a good

[31:47] idea to table for the moment.

[31:49] - Ron, how would you feel about tabling this motion?

[31:54] - That would be fine.

[31:55] - Okay, let's do that.

[31:59] - Yeah, we do need a vote to table. Oh

[32:01] - We do need a vote.

[32:02] Okay. Vote to table. Anita.

[32:07] Motions to table this motion. Do we need a second?

[32:13] - Actually, yeah,

[32:14] - I'm okay.

[32:15] We just vote. All in favor of tabling Ron's motion.

[32:20] Say aye. Aye.

[32:23] - Aye. - Opposed? Okay. All

[32:27] - Right, so let's go to the triplex.

[32:29] 'cause I think this is to Ron's point.

[32:30] So the next item is,

[32:33] as the draft is written right now, it would permit triplex

[32:37] and quadplex dwellings only if those dwellings would be deed

[32:42] restricted to prohibit university and college students

[32:44] and prohibit short term rental use.

[32:47] The deed restriction would be

[32:49] approved by the planning department.

[32:50] We've already talked to the solicitor about, you know,

[32:52] drafting what that deed restriction would look like.

[32:54] So we'd have a standard deed restriction

[32:55] that everybody would have to use and we, you know,

[32:59] the Zoning permit wouldn't be approved until we had

[33:02] that deed restriction.

[33:03] Essentially it would be recorded with the property.

[33:07] And also if you recall, since we're getting rid

[33:09] of minimum lot size, but for triplexes

[33:12] and for quads, there would still be a minimum

[33:14] of 10,000 square feet for minimum mo.

[33:16] That's consistent with the current minimum MO size

[33:19] for a single family home in R two.

[33:22] So that's where the 10,000 comes from.

[33:24] So we we're just looking for some direction

[33:27] on planning commissions.

[33:29] Do you want to see this in Ron suggested

[33:32] that we pull it out of R two.

[33:33] I'm just trying to get some clarity.

[33:38] - Ron, go ahead. - I think we ought to include that

[33:42] with the discussion on the A DU

[33:44] 'cause I think they're all linked.

[33:50] - They're, they're definitely different

[33:51] from a Zoning standpoint.

[33:52] One is an accessory to a principle structure.

[33:54] This is a principle structure. So no, I, I would disagree.

[33:58] I think these are, this is a specific use type

[34:01] that we either want it or we don't.

[34:03] And then yes, there are similarities with ADUs,

[34:05] but these are, they're very different things

[34:06] from what can get constructed.

[34:09] - Anita? I - Would agree.

[34:10] I think I'm agreeing with Ron that we don't want

[34:14] that in the older parts of R two for the simple reason.

[34:19] It will lead to, I would guess lot consolidation

[34:22] and tearing down perfectly good existing housing,

[34:25] which is environmentally a very bad idea both in terms of

[34:30] what the national trust calls embodied energy and landfill

[34:34] and all the rest of it.

[34:36] And it will, which disturb the equilibrium of the,

[34:41] the older neighborhoods, which is

[34:43] where there already is in effect a lot of this infill house

[34:46] or extra housing because of past Zoning rules.

[34:53] So if you pull it out of R two,

[34:55] it does seem a much more reasonable idea

[34:58] or at least the older parts of R two.

[35:07] - Anyone else to speak now?

[35:12] Somebody from the community?

[35:14] - Well, let's, let's do Z RAC first.

[35:16] - Okay. ZA. Okay. There is somebody from Z rac.

[35:21] Okay, go ahead Susan Ney.

[35:26] - I think you should leave it in R two

[35:28] and have it in R one as well.

[35:31] - And, and could you elaborate?

[35:37] - I think, I think there are

[35:43] a number of structures that probably have

[35:48] outlived their useful life based on

[35:52] prior Zoning decisions that took them from being a house

[35:58] into being a rooming house

[35:59] or, you know, a high

[36:05] occupancy building and they've been rented and rented

[36:08] and rented and killed.

[36:10] So maybe something new in some

[36:13] of those places would be a good thing.

[36:18] We do still have the harb,

[36:20] I don't think everything is just going to be torn down

[36:23] and turned into quads and triplexes.

[36:27] I, I just don't see that happening.

[36:29] I do think though, that

[36:32] some more housing opportunities could be

[36:35] created in R two.

[36:38] We're we're, we have R two, we, we treat R two.

[36:41] Like everything is single family homes, you know,

[36:46] and they're, it's not, it isn't.

[36:49] And, and I think that not all blocks,

[36:54] not all buildings,

[36:55] not all streets should be treated the same.

[36:58] And so I hope that you'll leave it in there.

[37:03] Okay. From the community I,

[37:14] - David Stone East Foster, also a member

[37:18] of the Nee Valley Environmental Coalition.

[37:19] And, and we're, we're looking at this closely, also a member

[37:22] of the Highland Civic Association.

[37:24] And this is an area

[37:25] and I, I i i, it's, it's a very,

[37:27] it's probably the most contentious

[37:29] and legally fraught part of the changes.

[37:32] And, and it it's great that it's being discussed.

[37:36] I have to go back to my objection though.

[37:38] There needs to be a due process compliant evidence-based

[37:44] resolution to this if it, if it's gonna be put in,

[37:47] if it's not gonna be put in.

[37:49] And I think there are, are ways

[37:51] to achieve similar housing opportunities without

[37:56] tear downs on extensive scale of,

[38:02] as, as people have said, perfectly good,

[38:05] potentially affordable, accessible single family homes,

[38:08] which can have ADUs internally

[38:12] or rental units, however you wanna call it.

[38:14] But it's complex. And so

[38:18] I I I would urge people to, as a starting point,

[38:21] send a clear message both on this

[38:24] and on the need for counsel to, to take some sort

[38:29] of an administrative law due process compliant.

[38:31] And, and I, I don't see the clock running, so I don't know

[38:33] where my minutes are, but I wanna go back

[38:37] to the basis for Zoning.

[38:39] I think it's relevant to this discussion

[38:41] and it's really kind of strange.

[38:42] It comes out of the police powers

[38:43] and there's a lot of language about why you can do that.

[38:46] And it has to do with, you know, clean air, clean water

[38:52] environment, but also accessibility of housing.

[38:55] It's, it's a very complex provision in the, in the code.

[38:58] And that's why when you're doing alternatives analysis,

[39:01] you want to have some kind of due process for either side.

[39:04] And so you don't have the right

[39:08] to do Zoning for certain reasons.

[39:11] And part of the justification I have heard for the tear down

[39:16] trip and quad aren't reasons which I believe are legally

[39:20] justifiable under the municipal planning

[39:22] code when it comes down to it.

[39:23] Particularly because we are in a very unique situation

[39:26] of having this charter that was passed by referendum.

[39:29] So insofar as we can either minimize

[39:34] the disruption, you know, disruption is considered a a plus

[39:37] for a lot of people advocate

[39:38] and they want to see tear downs.

[39:39] They wanna see disruption. That's not legal.

[39:42] That's not legal in my opinion.

[39:43] I I don't think it's legal in a lot of lawyers' opinions.

[39:46] There, there are things you can do to enhance accessibility,

[39:51] but it's a balancing act.

[39:52] It's an analysis. And so in administrative law,

[39:55] whether it's a public utility commission,

[39:57] nuclear regulatory commission, pendot,

[39:59] they always do in one way, shape

[40:01] or form a compliant alternative analysis.

[40:03] And I, I think everything that's been done here is

[40:05] constructive, but I don't think it rises to that.

[40:09] And, and, and I'll, I'll double down on

[40:11] that point about tear downs.

[40:12] Tear downs can be very environmental devastation.

[40:16] Not only in the environmental consequences of landfilling,

[40:18] the stuff of, of the, of the loss materials costs

[40:22] and the energy costs, but also to the,

[40:23] the neighbors as it's torn down.

[40:26] And there's a way

[40:27] to very carefully interject some more accessibility.

[40:31] I don't disagree with that,

[40:34] but I think we need another process.

[40:35] And I would urge you, no matter what happens on this vote

[40:38] to do that as well, to call on council to create a process

[40:41] where people have to come in, you know, establish standing

[40:46] file contentions and they can do this without a lawyer

[40:49] and to actually discuss some of this stuff.

[40:51] 'cause a lot of it's legal and we really need Terry Williams

[40:53] sitting there to, to, to look at all this stuff

[40:56] and to come up with the

[40:57] best position for the Borough to be in.

[40:58] Thank you.

[41:00] - Do okay, Mr. Gardner. Dr. Gardner

[41:06] - In two meetings, you already know my name.

[41:08] Am I that disruptive? Okay.

[41:09] - And I am gonna put on the,

[41:11] I was told I should put on this. Okay.

[41:14] - And - John, don't take that personally. Of course.

[41:16] You should have done that for David too. So,

[41:17] - Okay.

[41:18] How do I get this started?

[41:21] - I'll just use my time while the timer isn't ticking.

[41:23] All right, we'll go with that. Okay.

[41:25] H plus T housing plus transportation is,

[41:29] is the generally regarded nowadays most important

[41:33] factor in affordability.

[41:34] And it, it, you may be entirely right

[41:37] that if we legalize a ton of new building

[41:40] and get many new apartment complexes,

[41:42] that may not change the cost of rent itself at all.

[41:46] However, if we build them close enough to campus

[41:49] that people don't need to own cars,

[41:51] we actually do in fact address affordability.

[41:53] Last I checked, it costs the average person something

[41:56] ridiculous like $18,000 a year to own

[42:00] and operate a vehicle and insure it

[42:02] and register it with the state and everything.

[42:04] So if we don't build enough dense housing inside

[42:07] of State College and people are, are forced to,

[42:10] to live far out in like patent Township

[42:12] and they have to have a car, then

[42:13] that's an $18,000 a year extra cost on them.

[42:16] Conversely, if they live in State College,

[42:19] the rent can be up to $1,500 per month more

[42:23] expensive than present.

[42:24] And it would still be an affordability gain

[42:28] if they lived in a walkable area

[42:29] such as they didn't have to own a car.

[42:31] Now as with respect to duplexes, triplexes, ADUs

[42:35] and whatnot in R one and R two cars are also important.

[42:38] I I ran the numbers myself.

[42:39] They're, they're freely available on, on the, the,

[42:41] the Federal Highway Administration website.

[42:44] Cars are the number one source

[42:47] of carbon emissions in the United States right now.

[42:50] The private automobiles of just Texas alone are responsible

[42:54] for 0.5%

[42:55] of all planetary carbon in the atmosphere this instant.

[42:59] If, if just SUVs, not small cars, not trucks, just

[43:03] as if just SUVs were their own country,

[43:05] they would be the sixth largest polluting

[43:07] nation in human history.

[43:09] So I understand that of course we do want to

[43:12] minimize demolitions and that there is a lot of, of built in

[43:16] energy put into buildings

[43:17] and then also casting new concrete

[43:18] does create new carbon emissions.

[43:20] However, if we tore down every single family

[43:23] home in the Borough right now

[43:25] and replace them with multifamily houses

[43:28] that people would not have to own a car for,

[43:30] that would still end up in a net environmental positive.

[43:33] So I think it's really important.

[43:35] I single family homes the existence of that.

[43:37] I personally don't think that they're good in any way.

[43:39] I, I've lived in far too many of them in my entire life,

[43:41] and they've always brought with so many problems,

[43:43] not the least of which lawns I hate lawns, we shouldn't have

[43:46] to pay to constantly beat back these annoying weeds.

[43:49] We should just live in a nice building,

[43:51] let the weeds be weeds over there

[43:52] and let us be the humans over here.

[43:53] But whether or not the concept

[43:55] of single family homes is appropriate

[43:56] or not, I think we can all agree that it,

[43:58] they are not appropriate in a downtown core,

[44:00] which State College is.

[44:01] We are the center of a 150,000 strong metropolitan area

[44:05] that is, again, very walkable to the university.

[44:08] And so I think it's extremely important that we up zone

[44:11] as much as we can in here.

[44:12] If people wanna have a single family home, they can do

[44:15] that in patent Township, college Township, hon,

[44:16] but not within walking distance of the university.

[44:19] I think that's the most important thing.

[44:20] So I think it's really important to allow duplexes,

[44:22] triplexes, and ADUs on every single

[44:25] Zoning space within the Borough.

[44:27] And then lastly, I I also do, I I'm strongly opposed

[44:30] to the deed restriction

[44:31] because if, if you, you all probably know,

[44:33] so I'm probably mansplaining, but just in case not deed

[44:35] restrictions started as a way to keep Jewish

[44:37] and African American people from owning specific homes.

[44:40] And so it, it's a highly problematic way

[44:42] of going about things that, that is tied to, to really

[44:46] immoral things in the past.

[44:47] And at least in a sense, it's not as bad as a lot

[44:51] of things happen in history, but this is technically ageist.

[44:53] Again, we are State College, the students

[44:56] drive this community, they also bring with them a lot

[44:59] of wealth and spending power.

[45:00] And so I think it's really important that we also kind

[45:02] of mix that in more evenly rather than having only the

[45:06] townie area and then only the undergrad area

[45:08] and then a, a, a veritable border between them.

[45:11] Yeah. 16 seconds ago. Yeah, that's good enough. Thank you.

[45:16] - Okay. How do, how do I stop this? Just clear?

[45:22] Okay. Learning the box.

[45:27] And Tony, did you have your hand up?

[45:32] Ron does have his hand up. Okay. Ron,

[45:36] - Two th two things as far as the harvest is concerned

[45:40] based, some people know how many,

[45:44] how many bill historic buildings have been torn down within

[45:47] the Borough that the council has approved based on requests.

[45:52] - Zero. - So, zero

[45:56] zero historic buildings have been torn down

[45:58] - That the, that the Borough Council approved.

[46:02] So we've lost historic properties that, for instance,

[46:05] university club that was not covered

[46:07] by the local historic district.

[46:09] And obviously I think many of us feel that was a loss.

[46:13] But as far as we, we had a request for a demolition

[46:18] on East Foster Avenue.

[46:20] Counsel denied that request.

[46:22] We were, that decision was appealed to county court.

[46:26] We successfully defended that at county court.

[46:28] And the county court found that we,

[46:30] that the Borough counsel was used the statute correctly

[46:35] as far as enforcement.

[46:36] So at this point there's been one request and one denial

[46:39] and we succeeded in court. Eric was

[46:43] - After.

[46:44] Okay.

[46:47] - Neil Sullivan. The - The other,

[46:49] - Oh, sorry.

[46:50] You got more to say.

[46:51] - Yes. - Oh,

[46:52] - Sorry.

[46:53] And, and the other, and the other thing is there are many

[46:57] different, there is that diversity of housing

[46:59] opportunities already in the R two district.

[47:02] All I'm saying is we don't need triplexes

[47:05] and quadplexes in the R two.

[47:07] You can put 'em in the R one three and four with no problem

[47:11] because they're, and when we're talking about walkability

[47:15] to the university, you're only

[47:16] talking about three neighborhoods.

[47:18] College Heights, Highlands and Holmes Foster.

[47:21] When walkability is walkability in Tussy view.

[47:25] Tussy view or, or south or in green Greentree.

[47:30] And so again, it it's a, it's a focused area. Focused area.

[47:36] And at this point I move that we take triplexes

[47:40] and Quadplexes out of the R two.

[47:43] - Is there a second for that motion? Second.

[47:46] From a second for Anita. Okay. Discussion.

[47:51] Neil, you had your hand up.

[47:54] - This may be coming too late,

[47:56] but I just wanted to remind the group

[48:00] that when we started the Z rack, one of our goals was

[48:02] to increase housing choice and housing affordability.

[48:07] Adding the triplexes, quadplexes and other building types.

[48:11] NR two certainly would allow that,

[48:14] considering the R two takes up the

[48:16] majority of the Borough land.

[48:17] If, if we take it away

[48:19] and we re we resort it down to R one, R three, R four, then

[48:23] that's a very small percentage of land

[48:24] that's available for this.

[48:27] I'm sensitive to tear downs and rebuild

[48:29] and I'm sensitive to the embodied carbon and,

[48:33] and those tear downs.

[48:35] However, it is more expensive sometimes

[48:38] to renovate an old building to bring it up

[48:40] to modern standards, especially for accessibility.

[48:44] Sometimes it is cheaper to tear down and rebuild,

[48:48] but I, I would rely on the harb

[48:49] and another protection so

[48:51] that our historic buildings are protected.

[48:55] - Susan, - I would just like to add

[49:00] also that the term walkability doesn't literally mean

[49:04] walking every time.

[49:06] It also means public transportation and biking

[49:10] and scooters.

[49:11] They're not legal, but everyone rides them.

[49:14] So I mean, it's, it's other types

[49:16] of mobility other than a car.

[49:19] So walkability does have many forms.

[49:22] - And just, just to confirm for everybody, the, the draft

[49:26] as it is right now, the zone where the triplexes

[49:31] and quads become a a use by right

[49:34] with these D restrictions is in R two.

[49:36] So as of right now, the triplexes

[49:38] and quads are not permitted in R one.

[49:41] So we could obviously make, you can make

[49:43] that commend recommendation to change that.

[49:45] But as of right now, it starts at R two.

[49:48] - Anita - Two points.

[49:50] The HAR protects houses in these neighborhoods built

[49:54] before 1945.

[49:56] It would not stop perfectly good houses built in 1955

[50:01] or 65 from being torn down and lots combined

[50:05] and all sorts of more construction added.

[50:08] And I think those houses on the whole are as worthy

[50:12] of protection as what's in the harm.

[50:14] It's merely a matter of dates.

[50:16] Second point is I hear about

[50:19] buildings being passed their useful economic life.

[50:22] Now that was what the owners of the Glen said

[50:25] before it was converted into the hotel.

[50:28] And that applies to a whole lot of houses

[50:32] that have been converted basically into apartments

[50:35] and not very well kept up.

[50:37] Now I know a lot about this

[50:39] because that's the only reason we were able

[50:41] to buy the house we live in.

[50:42] It had been run into the ground.

[50:44] It was not habitable really though it was inhabited, I think

[50:48] by about 12 students that's on the landlords

[50:52] who have been taking money outta it and be,

[50:55] and everybody said at the time,

[50:57] nobody will ever buy those houses and fix them up.

[51:00] Well I know of many cases that that's exactly

[51:03] what has happened

[51:05] and if the landlords do not wish

[51:09] to keep those up, then eventually

[51:13] COG will stop them renting them and they will sell them.

[51:16] And that might be a way actually

[51:17] of getting some home ownership into the Borough.

[51:19] If we wanna talk about long-term consequences,

[51:24] limit the tear downs, see what happens.

[51:31] - I'm gonna take my turn to speak now.

[51:35] I would like to go back to Dr.

[51:38] Gardner's point that if you live within walking distance

[51:41] of the university and you,

[51:46] and you can have only one car, that it,

[51:51] that is a major factor for affordability.

[51:56] I live within walking distance of the university.

[51:59] My husband works there.

[52:01] We have had only one car for the entire time

[52:05] that we have owned our home, which is at this point

[52:08] about 38 years.

[52:11] The amount of money that my family has saved

[52:15] by having only one car

[52:18] we recently calculated is something like half

[52:22] a million dollars.

[52:24] And it certainly has affected the affordability

[52:28] of being able to, to maintain my home,

[52:33] send my kids to college,

[52:36] and all the other kinds of long-term things that

[52:42] a person not seemingly in need of affordable housing

[52:48] has been able to do.

[52:56] Okay, go ahead.

[52:59] - What would increasing,

[53:03] increasing the square foot minimum lot area, what would

[53:08] that do to, would lead to lot consolidation.

[53:13] What that also would limit some of these lots that

[53:18] are the, the tear downs.

[53:20] So putting it at that's just under a quarter of an acre.

[53:25] So putting it at a half an acre.

[53:27] - Yeah, I mean right now the reason

[53:29] that 10,000 square feet was chosen was

[53:31] because it's the,

[53:33] it's today's minimum lot size for a single family home.

[53:36] So most of the lots that were built that were subdivided

[53:39] and plotted after the war.

[53:42] So it is definitely after 1959, but between 1959

[53:46] and 1931, there was a 7,500 foot minimum.

[53:51] So there you, you have most of college south,

[53:55] the southern part of the Highlands, lots of Holmes Foster,

[53:59] and then obviously green tree, you know, every,

[54:01] everything kind of to the south.

[54:04] Those, those lots will be at a minimum 75 feet

[54:07] and most of them are 10,000 square feet.

[54:09] So if you increase that minimum lot size to say 12 or 14

[54:13] or 15, you'll just take more

[54:14] and more lots out of the possibility of doing a triplex.

[54:18] So you'll drive the quads

[54:21] and the triplexes to properties

[54:23] that are larger lots essentially.

[54:25] And you know, we haven't run any analysis on which,

[54:29] which lots that would look like.

[54:30] We, we can certainly, if

[54:32] that was important we could do that.

[54:33] But that's why the 10,000 foot minimums in there,

[54:39] there's been some folks who've advocated just get rid of it,

[54:41] period, which would allow a triplex

[54:43] or a quad to be on a 40 foot wide lot.

[54:46] But

[54:49] - I would like to also raise an another point about

[54:54] increasing density

[54:57] for a very long-term perspective.

[55:01] In our area, I'm talking about

[55:06] 50 to 100 years.

[55:10] There is speculation that

[55:13] central Pennsylvania will become one of the very

[55:17] best places to live in eastern America

[55:22] because we will have water

[55:24] unless the wind pattern changes, we will have water

[55:28] because we get wind coming off of the area

[55:32] of the Great Lakes.

[55:36] And we also are a hun a thousand feet

[55:40] above sea level elevation that will make

[55:43] a difference in the ability to survive here.

[55:49] Just temperature wise.

[55:51] That means that we need to make room

[55:55] for more people to come here.

[55:58] And I'm talking about the, the much wider area.

[56:02] And we also need to be able to protect our farmland

[56:06] 'cause all those people will still need to eat.

[56:09] And I love living in a house that was built

[56:14] before 1945.

[56:17] I personally don't feel most ha structures

[56:22] for me built after World War ii.

[56:24] I would not miss,

[56:27] although other people may feel differently about that,

[56:31] therefore I personally would go for the ability to build

[56:36] a triplex or a quadplex.

[56:41] If there are concerns about

[56:46] limiting the ability to do that, then I would focus on

[56:53] discussing and defining those limitations rather than

[56:57] wholesale outlawing them.

[57:03] - Okay. If I, if I could, I mean, I,

[57:05] I don't have the ability to call a question,

[57:07] but we've got a lot, we've got hours more material

[57:10] to go. So if we

[57:13] - Okay, Eric

[57:18] - And then Zoe.

[57:19] We do have Ron online after

[57:20] - That.

[57:21] Okay.

[57:23] - Sorry, ed, just wanted to point out to people that

[57:26] Greentree is walkable.

[57:28] I know a lot of professors that walked from there to campus

[57:33] and managed to get through tenure

[57:34] because they had that extra two hours of commuting time,

[57:40] excuse me, half hour of commuting time each way

[57:42] to decompress before they got home

[57:44] and started yelling at their wife.

[57:46] Thank you.

[57:50] - Okay, Ron. And, and please excuse this number.

[57:54] I don't know how to turn this thing off. Go ahead.

[57:59] We can't hear you. Can we fix that?

[58:06] I think you're on mute. Maybe

[58:14] - I would request a Roll Call.

[58:16] Vote on my motion.

[58:18] - Okay. Re please restate the motion,

[58:24] - Take out the triplex

[58:26] and quadplex Zoning ability in the R two district.

[58:33] - Okay. - Anita, are you seconding again?

[58:36] - Second. - Anita, you second right. Okay.

[58:38] - Seconded by Anita. Okay.

[58:42] Calling the question and,

[58:44] and requested with a Roll Call vote.

[58:48] - Yeah, I'll, I can handle that. Okay.

[58:50] So let's start with in the room. Tony. Tony,

[58:56] - Keep, keep.

[58:58] - So that's a, that's a no to the motion. No to the motion.

[59:01] Okay. Ron Madrid.

[59:04] - Yes. - Anita Genger. Yes. Zoe. A bonis?

[59:09] - No, - Ker. Schulman.

[59:14] Gotta gotta make a vote.

[59:21] We will come back to you. Dan.

[59:25] - No,

[59:30] - Back, back to you.

[59:31] Curtis.

[59:39] - I guess that would be, - Curtis,

[59:40] can you move closer to the microphone?

[59:42] Yeah. So let me ask, turn it on too. Is is the that helpful?

[59:45] Yeah. So is the issue about the deed restriction?

[59:49] So right now it's about whether you wanna include triplexes

[59:53] or quads, the ability to do them in the Ordinance.

[59:54] We could discuss the deed restriction separately.

[59:56] - Oh, I thought that section one was all one.

[1:00:00] - The motion was, Ron's motion was regarding

[1:00:06] quad versus triple and triplex

[1:00:09] - Was to keep triplexes and quads in the Ordinance.

[1:00:12] Obviously you could discuss d restriction

[1:00:14] as a sec, as a separate item.

[1:00:16] - I, I support the triplexes and quads. In in what?

[1:00:20] The, in the R one and R two. I think it's

[1:00:22] - Fine.

[1:00:23] So that is a no vote for Ron's motion

[1:00:26] - Or for Curtis? No, for Curtis.

[1:00:28] - Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[1:00:32] And I think that means that the motion fails.

[1:00:37] Do we want a separate vote on deed restriction?

[1:00:43] - Yeah, I mean, we haven't debated that.

[1:00:44] So I, I can tell you from the work that we did

[1:00:48] with council last year, that the deed restriction

[1:00:52] to student occupancy, short-term rental seemed

[1:00:54] to be a, a high priority item.

[1:00:57] And I, I think staff at least perceived that

[1:01:02] there was only support for doing triplexes

[1:01:04] and quads if the deed restrictions were in place, that

[1:01:08] allowing triplexes and quads to be permitted

[1:01:12] by right without a deed restriction would then lead

[1:01:14] to additional student housing in the neighborhood.

[1:01:16] And that seemed to not be the priority for, for council.

[1:01:19] So I just wanna put that context out there.

[1:01:22] That's why the deed restrictions are in there.

[1:01:23] I will agree with a lot of the comments

[1:01:25] that have been made about,

[1:01:26] there'll be enforcement challenges.

[1:01:28] We, I'm sure we'll have

[1:01:30] to discuss staffing at some point depending

[1:01:32] on how many of these get built.

[1:01:34] I'm being very transparent about that.

[1:01:36] But as far as the, the, that's the reason

[1:01:40] that the restriction is in there to Mr.

[1:01:44] Stone's comments, whether that would be challenged in court,

[1:01:47] whether we would succeed in defending it or not.

[1:01:50] I can't crystal ball that.

[1:01:51] So I don't know whether this would be legal or not,

[1:01:54] but the fact that you'd be accepting the deed restriction in

[1:01:56] order to build the triplex

[1:01:57] or quad, we would argue that you,

[1:01:59] you're accepting a incentive to do so.

[1:02:02] And I think Terry thinks it's supportive at this point from

[1:02:05] a, a legal standpoint.

[1:02:06] But again, we wouldn't know until we were challenged. So,

[1:02:12] - Okay.

[1:02:15] I think then we go on.

[1:02:17] - Yeah, unless we want to have,

[1:02:19] unless someone would like to make a motion about

[1:02:21] removing the de restrictions.

[1:02:25] - Not seeing that. Let's go on.

[1:02:28] - Okay. All right.

[1:02:30] So one of the themes that's been going on has been a

[1:02:36] increase in more permitted uses that are not residential

[1:02:41] in R two R three Zoning districts.

[1:02:44] So this is a first stab at those.

[1:02:48] And before anybody makes jokes about fortune telling

[1:02:50] establishments, the, the, the reason for staff sort

[1:02:55] of suggesting that these could now be permitted is

[1:02:58] because there are things that could happen in the house

[1:03:00] with minimal impact.

[1:03:02] So if you wanna do a tarot card reading, it doesn't seem

[1:03:05] to be that intensive to have somebody come

[1:03:06] over and do a tarot card reading.

[1:03:07] So that, that's just the rationale as far as why we,

[1:03:11] you know, staff felt that these were all uses that were

[1:03:14] really low impact

[1:03:16] and so that we could permit those, something

[1:03:19] that people could be doing in their homes.

[1:03:22] We also had some discussion about more home occupation

[1:03:26] and accessory use structures.

[1:03:28] So right now there's, in the draft,

[1:03:30] there's a clause about home occupation not being permitted

[1:03:33] in single family uses

[1:03:36] that have already have an apartment or short term rental.

[1:03:39] I think we've heard comments about just removing that,

[1:03:41] like why, and don't we wanna allow more uses in the house?

[1:03:46] And also getting rid of the only one home occupation.

[1:03:49] So if there's, you know, two that makes sense,

[1:03:52] why would we prohibit that?

[1:03:54] And also the onsite service or consultation with customers

[1:03:57] or clients is prohibited.

[1:03:58] We'd recommend removing that as well.

[1:04:00] That seems to be in line

[1:04:01] with a lot of the comments that we've heard.

[1:04:03] So just wanted to get a sense from planning commission,

[1:04:06] is this something you would recommend, you know,

[1:04:07] that you would recommend in terms

[1:04:08] of being per more permissive

[1:04:10] or do you like some of these standards?

[1:04:18] - Well, ed knows that I've made a lot of these comments.

[1:04:21] - A lot of this is directly from Anita,

[1:04:24] - Partly because partly it addresses

[1:04:27] John Gardner's comments, but partly it addresses reality.

[1:04:31] There have always been very quietly in my neighborhood.

[1:04:35] I know everything from a barber shop

[1:04:37] to a clothing alteration to a lawyer I know

[1:04:42] of a psychiatrist in a different neighborhood.

[1:04:45] And then you add in computer businesses.

[1:04:49] And the rather, a lot

[1:04:51] of this I think is based on the archaic assumption

[1:04:55] that someone who is at home tending to children or

[1:04:59] otherwise somebody who needs help are not,

[1:05:03] are supported by a wage owner with a job outside the house.

[1:05:07] And that's not true, never was with computers.

[1:05:11] Everything has changed

[1:05:13] and these businesses that I know of that have been

[1:05:15] around in my neighborhood did no harm to anybody

[1:05:18] and were quite popular with the neighbors.

[1:05:20] Now the only thing I don't see there, at a quick glance,

[1:05:26] I do know of a lawyer

[1:05:27] who had a very small discreet non lighted sign about

[1:05:31] this big ought to be that be two

[1:05:33] and a half by 18 inches maybe.

[1:05:36] And I don't see any harm in that either.

[1:05:38] One sign per building maybe,

[1:05:40] but no limit on how many occupations are going on.

[1:05:43] It would also help either renters

[1:05:46] or homeowners paying a mortgage if these sorts

[1:05:49] of small businesses could be included.

[1:05:51] Now, I'm not too sure about the corner grocery store

[1:05:53] by the way, because that's a lot more traffic.

[1:05:57] And the municipal planning code basically says that

[1:06:03] small businesses in neighborhoods should not be a

[1:06:06] problem to the neighbors.

[1:06:08] So that's the only issue there.

[1:06:11] - To be clear, the business has to be operated by the owner

[1:06:15] of the house or they could lease out

[1:06:18] - No, I would say by the owner of the house

[1:06:20] or a, a tenant perhaps as in a rental,

[1:06:24] in an attached unit or some sort.

[1:06:27] - So the person living there has to be occupying.

[1:06:29] You can't 'cause otherwise, if you don't limit right,

[1:06:32] how many businesses there are

[1:06:33] and it isn't clearly stipulated, that has to be the resident

[1:06:36] of that space, then it can create a

[1:06:38] weird and probably undesirable

[1:06:40] - Situation.

[1:06:41] Yeah. Not what we want.

[1:06:43] I would say to limit the number of employees

[1:06:45] because part of the issue is traffic

[1:06:48] and not if there is an attached apartment,

[1:06:51] say no home businesses either,

[1:06:53] because both of those are really the same thing.

[1:06:58] - Yeah. Right now the language has,

[1:07:01] the business shall employ one additional

[1:07:03] employee other than a family

[1:07:04] member residing in the dwelling.

[1:07:06] So there are some limits on employees coming in.

[1:07:09] I mean we had a situation in the Highlands that took a lot

[1:07:12] of Zoning enforcement and a lot of time there was a gym

[1:07:16] that was illegally operating

[1:07:18] and that the, the number of, the number of folks

[1:07:22] who were working there was actually one of the big

[1:07:25] sticking points in terms

[1:07:26] of how we were able to shut it down.

[1:07:27] So

[1:07:34] - I am in favor of promoting,

[1:07:38] allowing home businesses not only for all the reasons

[1:07:41] that Anita named,

[1:07:43] but both

[1:07:45] of my young adult children are remote workers.

[1:07:51] And I would hate for remote working to become illegal.

[1:07:56] It would make a lot of trouble.

[1:08:01] - I'm pretty sure the remote working isn't.

[1:08:03] It's for operating the business.

[1:08:05] So you can work from home at any point this would be

[1:08:08] operating a business out of the space.

[1:08:10] Correct.

[1:08:13] - Okay. - Yeah. With clients coming

[1:08:15] to the house, et cetera.

[1:08:17] And staff. I mean, so the sense I'm getting is

[1:08:20] that yes, okay.

[1:08:22] Be more permissive. We'd like

[1:08:23] to do some more work on fine tuning exactly what uses,

[1:08:27] there's a live work section

[1:08:28] that right now we are working at,

[1:08:30] based on the comments we've had from Susan is looking at

[1:08:33] expanding that, but also just making sure

[1:08:35] that we're not opening up too many commercial uses in R two

[1:08:38] for instance, or low density residential districts.

[1:08:40] So there's still some fine tuning I think to do on it.

[1:08:42] But if, I mean the sense I'm getting is

[1:08:45] that there's a willingness to be more permissive.

[1:08:46] Just we don't have all the final details yet.

[1:08:48] Is that, is that a fair read? Everybody.

[1:08:51] - Okay. Okay.

[1:08:54] Anyone on the Z rack?

[1:08:59] Susan?

[1:09:02] - So just so we understand this is not,

[1:09:06] the discussion we just had is not final.

[1:09:08] This is going to come back.

[1:09:09] I agreed with what you said about it needs to be

[1:09:13] the occupant or it could just be it turns into a commercial

[1:09:16] building that makes perfectly good sense,

[1:09:18] but I don't, I I think we could take out six, seven, and 11.

[1:09:24] - Honestly take out what please.

[1:09:26] - Six, seven, and 11. - Okay.

[1:09:28] - Yeah. That's essential what we're asking this like,

[1:09:30] that seems to be the crux of it.

[1:09:38] Okay.

[1:09:40] - Oh, Eric Belton.

[1:09:48] - Yeah. Question about number eight.

[1:09:50] Why should a home business be required

[1:09:53] to employ in a additional

[1:09:55] - Employee?

[1:09:56] No, we're gonna change that. I I think

[1:09:56] that they just mis Yeah, they miswrote it, it should,

[1:09:59] it it may, it makes it sound like you

[1:10:01] have to have an employee.

[1:10:02] So Yeah. We'll, sorry.

[1:10:04] We, we, we had already fixed that in our head.

[1:10:06] We just had, yeah, sorry.

[1:10:11] - Okay. - Alright.

[1:10:13] So next thing then is this neighborhood commercial district,

[1:10:16] which is a minimum lot width of 25 feet.

[1:10:20] There is a maximum lot coverage

[1:10:22] of 65 max height is three stories.

[1:10:25] This is really aimed at getting a mixed,

[1:10:27] small mixed use building

[1:10:30] that can sort of fit into the neighborhood.

[1:10:32] It, it would be something along the lines of

[1:10:34] what Dr. Garner had talked about as far

[1:10:36] as maybe a corner lot recognizing that.

[1:10:40] But again, the floor plate can't exceed 30,000 square feet.

[1:10:43] So this gives us a fix for two

[1:10:48] uses that I think are long cherished in the

[1:10:50] neighborhood or in the community.

[1:10:53] The Exxon on North Atherton and Graham's at Allen

[1:10:57] and Old Burg.

[1:10:59] So this is, this is two uses that would,

[1:11:03] we can now make essentially permitted by right?

[1:11:06] By using this network commercial.

[1:11:08] We don't have any other suggestions for other locations yet.

[1:11:11] We, we first just wanna check with,

[1:11:13] with PC if you thought this was appropriate.

[1:11:15] Secondly, we're we're, we're all ears for other concepts for

[1:11:19] where this use or where the zone could land.

[1:11:21] So if you wanna provide any comments to us

[1:11:25] outside the meeting, we're happy to take them.

[1:11:27] We, we, we just wanted

[1:11:28] to flag it something we're wrestling with.

[1:11:30] And are you guys okay with the,

[1:11:32] those two locations at this point?

[1:11:35] - I have a query. I thought

[1:11:38] that we cannot do spot Zoning

[1:11:40] for an individual lot an individual business.

[1:11:43] - Yeah. That that's all not either hold

[1:11:45] or as far as if it's something.

[1:11:46] So spot Zoning is when you have something that is,

[1:11:52] well actually there's like eight definitions of spot Sony.

[1:11:54] It depends on what people conceive of it is.

[1:11:57] The rationale behind this is, is

[1:11:59] that this is a zone specifically intended

[1:12:01] to be small scale commercial in a neighborhood.

[1:12:05] And it's, it doesn't have to be, you know, it's not one

[1:12:08] of the things where you need to have a large zone for it.

[1:12:10] It's specifically tailored to be these individual kind

[1:12:13] of corner lots or small limited areas.

[1:12:15] So I, I think the logic is sound if somebody were to say,

[1:12:20] I want to create this in the, you know, on the middle

[1:12:22] of McCormick, that you can make an argument that, that

[1:12:26] that could be spot Zoning.

[1:12:27] But again, the courts are all over the map when it comes to

[1:12:29] what exactly is spot Zoning

[1:12:31] and most legal cases that claim spot Zoning don't survive.

[1:12:37] - Okay. - The fresh

[1:12:41] and fill, isn't that also neighborhood

[1:12:43] commercial? Could be.

[1:12:45] - Actually we've talked about that. So it's a corner

[1:12:46] - Lot commercial - With makes perfect sense.

[1:12:49] Yeah, we, we actually looked at that too.

[1:12:51] So we, those are the kinds of

[1:12:53] suggestions we'd love to, to get.

[1:12:55] But yeah, I think the freshman field makes a lot of sense.

[1:12:59] - Okay. I further discussion.

[1:13:06] Let's go on.

[1:13:07] - Okay. Fraternities, super fun.

[1:13:11] This is a, we're being sort of, we've been wrestling

[1:13:14] with the feedback that we've been getting

[1:13:16] and also trying to be more clear.

[1:13:19] I think many folks know that the,

[1:13:22] the fraternity system in State College

[1:13:25] and at Penn State is changing.

[1:13:28] You've had a growth in independent fraternities.

[1:13:31] Those are fraternities that no longer have,

[1:13:33] they've walked away from Penn State.

[1:13:35] They're no longer recognized.

[1:13:36] They don't want to be recognized.

[1:13:37] They've created their own independent IFC.

[1:13:41] And so what we're proposing in the draft is

[1:13:45] that we are very explicit that they need to have

[1:13:48] national recognition if they do not have

[1:13:50] Penn State recognition.

[1:13:51] So that's what item number one is, is that,

[1:13:55] and we need written confirmation from their national entity

[1:13:58] that they're chartered and,

[1:14:00] and they're recognized as a chapter

[1:14:02] of the national organization.

[1:14:03] We're in the process right now of, of working

[1:14:06] with the eight independent fraternities to get

[1:14:08] that national recognition.

[1:14:11] I wouldn't be surprised if we end up in court on it,

[1:14:13] but at this point, you know, we're trying to get that,

[1:14:16] that essentially what's in this Sony Ordinance right now

[1:14:19] or that's how we're approaching it at the moment to try

[1:14:22] to get that national recognition.

[1:14:24] Right now in the Ordinance, currently you need a major,

[1:14:28] you need 50% of the members of the, the folks

[1:14:32] who were residing in the fraternity, being members of

[1:14:34] that fraternity staff is recommending going to 60.

[1:14:37] We've had some comments from the public about going all the

[1:14:39] way to a hundred percent requirement.

[1:14:41] I I, I think that would certainly be challenged

[1:14:43] by some of the fraternities.

[1:14:45] What the perfect number is.

[1:14:46] I don't know, but we started at 60

[1:14:49] and of course if you'd want to increase

[1:14:51] that percentage, we can certainly do that.

[1:14:53] But we'd like to get your recommendation on it.

[1:14:56] We've also been looking at, right now in the draft,

[1:14:58] these are the uses that are permitted

[1:15:00] for converting pre-existing non-conforming fraternities.

[1:15:03] This goes back to 1971.

[1:15:06] I think that the sixth section was first put in.

[1:15:08] So we've been looking at, first of all, we'd like

[1:15:11] to recommend just removing fraternities

[1:15:13] as a permitted use in the R three district.

[1:15:15] They currently are permitted,

[1:15:17] especially if we end up looking at

[1:15:18] expanding the R three district.

[1:15:20] We just think fraternities need

[1:15:21] to be removed as a permitted use.

[1:15:23] Secondly, we're recommending going up to 60%.

[1:15:27] Again, if PC wanted

[1:15:28] to recommend a higher percentage, we can certainly do that.

[1:15:30] I just don't know at what point does it cross over line

[1:15:32] that we're gonna be in, you know,

[1:15:34] in in we're gonna get challenged legally.

[1:15:36] And then finally is the acceptable conversions

[1:15:40] for preexisting nonconformities staff's been working at

[1:15:43] adding some additional uses to try to, you know,

[1:15:46] find other ways to reuse those properties.

[1:15:48] So we're recommending that on to the right,

[1:15:50] there's potential additional uses that could get added,

[1:15:53] like personal care homes for adults,

[1:15:56] vocational trade school conference

[1:15:57] or training center art, music dance or martial arts studio

[1:16:01] or school art gallery

[1:16:04] catering establishment or commercial kitchen.

[1:16:06] We, we actually, taproot has been trying to find a place

[1:16:08] to do a commercial kitchen in, in the Borough for years

[1:16:13] and it also hotel or motel.

[1:16:15] So those are uses that we've come up with

[1:16:17] as might make sense to add.

[1:16:19] As again, these would be special exception going

[1:16:23] through Zoning hearing board of a converted use.

[1:16:25] Right now the only fraternity that's been converted

[1:16:28] to a non fraternity use is the eye doctor on fraternity is

[1:16:33] that Locust Lane and I think Fairmount.

[1:16:36] Yeah. So, so that's the, that's the only one

[1:16:39] that's been converted since

[1:16:40] that section was included in seventies.

[1:16:43] So that's just like, to get your feedback.

[1:16:46] Do you like those, those changes? Do those uses make sense?

[1:16:50] And if 60% is too low, what,

[1:16:53] what would be an increased number that you'd like to get to?

[1:16:57] - Alex? - Yeah, Alex

[1:17:01] - Is, are you - On Alex Hanian?

[1:17:03] I just had a question for clarification.

[1:17:05] I think to direct directed to you Ed, with some

[1:17:10] of these new rules, for example, the fraternity having

[1:17:14] to present a charter or,

[1:17:15] or you know, some evidence that they recognized, how would

[1:17:19] that apply to existing fraternities?

[1:17:21] Because they're already grandfathered, right? Yep.

[1:17:24] So, so you know, we're considering these things.

[1:17:27] Are they going to be retroactive

[1:17:29] or basically if it's a fraternity right now,

[1:17:33] the the thinking is that they'll be able to continue whether

[1:17:35] or not recognized whether or not they have 60% members.

[1:17:39] Because, because of the previous operating history, the

[1:17:42] - Pre, the preexisting nonconformities

[1:17:44] is for a fraternity use.

[1:17:46] And so those properties, remember that in R two, which

[1:17:49] where most of the fraternities are located,

[1:17:51] fraternity use is not permitted today it

[1:17:54] has been permitted in decades.

[1:17:56] So all of those properties are preexisting nonconformities

[1:17:59] as a fraternity use.

[1:18:00] What we're trying to get at here is what is the definition

[1:18:03] of a fraternity use.

[1:18:05] And so what we're saying is you have

[1:18:07] to be a Greek letter chartered entity, either recognized

[1:18:10] by the university or recognized by your national charter.

[1:18:12] If you're not, then you're not a fraternity use.

[1:18:15] And then it becomes a matter of are we legally able

[1:18:18] to pull the permit on the occupancy

[1:18:20] for the, for the fraternity?

[1:18:22] Because it's no, for the building

[1:18:23] because it's no longer fraternity use.

[1:18:24] It's essentially operating as a rooming house,

[1:18:26] which is also illegal NR two.

[1:18:28] So you may have a situation where there is a fraternity

[1:18:32] that's lost Penn State recognition,

[1:18:34] lost national recognition.

[1:18:35] And then we would be in a position where we would,

[1:18:38] depending on what the manager or counsel

[1:18:39] and the solicitor wanna do,

[1:18:41] whether it would be entering legal challenge

[1:18:43] to basically pull the occupancy permit

[1:18:45] 'cause it's no longer a fraternity.

[1:18:47] - Okay. Yeah, that's really what I was trying to get at.

[1:18:48] Yeah. So this is, this is an attempt to take those, those

[1:18:53] potentially, right, the, the buildings

[1:18:56] that have organizations in them that have sort

[1:18:58] of been kicked outta the university system

[1:19:00] and are doing independent in this case.

[1:19:03] You know, you could now say you're no longer a fraternity

[1:19:07] use 'cause that's not our definition and

[1:19:09] therefore you're not allowed

[1:19:11] to rent the building anymore. Correct?

[1:19:13] - Well they would have to, they,

[1:19:14] it would have to become permitted use.

[1:19:15] So frankly they were, they would have

[1:19:18] to get national recognition

[1:19:19] or Penn State recognition. So Yeah,

[1:19:21] - Or, - Or what, what we're trying to prevent

[1:19:24] is 42 rooming houses

[1:19:26] because you have to be able to define the difference

[1:19:29] between a fraternity and a rooming house.

[1:19:31] We, we believe that the municipality has the right to say

[1:19:34] what is, what is a fraternity.

[1:19:37] I think that if you look at the definition in the

[1:19:39] dictionary, a Greek letter, you know, a Greek letter group

[1:19:43] that has some kind of affiliation,

[1:19:46] we also then are gonna be requesting the membership roles

[1:19:50] to try to get to that occupancy limit.

[1:19:51] We have not historically done that.

[1:19:53] We're gonna have to figure out how

[1:19:54] to approach that systematically.

[1:19:56] I can't treat one property different than the other. So.

[1:19:59] Okay. We're probably asking, you know,

[1:20:00] at least the independent, we'll probably in the,

[1:20:02] in the end have to ask 42 property owners

[1:20:05] to provide their membership roles and their leases.

[1:20:08] So you can imagine the staff time involved in that.

[1:20:12] - Tony - And it will have to be and

[1:20:15] or permitted by Penn State.

[1:20:19] - Yeah, it's, it's mutually and national charter.

[1:20:21] They're inclusive. So it could be one or the other or both.

[1:20:24] So you gotta have to have it,

[1:20:26] you need at least one. Oh, okay. Yeah.

[1:20:28] - Can you make it that it has to have be two?

[1:20:31] - We would, we would lose. Okay.

[1:20:33] Hands down because we already lost once on

[1:20:35] requiring Penn State recognition.

[1:20:37] Alright

[1:20:39] - Susan, I'm always interested in enforcement

[1:20:45] whenever we write things like

[1:20:47] how do they actually end up happening?

[1:20:49] So how often would these recognitions be checked?

[1:20:53] Is this every year when you get

[1:20:56] - Yeah, we already do that every year.

[1:20:57] So I get a list from Penn State

[1:20:58] and I just got one last week that has the fall 2025 numbers

[1:21:03] as far as those properties that,

[1:21:05] that they recognize. So there're

[1:21:07] - No, no, I meant all like I'm speaking as a whole,

[1:21:12] the independents

[1:21:13] and the Penn State recognize like to the Borough, it seems

[1:21:17] to me that they would all be the same.

[1:21:19] - Yeah, we, we are only checking the properties

[1:21:21] that Penn State has indicated are no

[1:21:23] longer recognized by the university.

[1:21:24] So those are the ones that we've reached out

[1:21:26] to say we need a national letter.

[1:21:29] Interesting. Because I, because I have something from Penn

[1:21:31] State saying that the other 36 ish are,

[1:21:34] are recognized by the university. So,

[1:21:36] - Okay, so well

[1:21:41] I can't help but ask, so if it's, I don't know, February

[1:21:46] and a fraternity loses both Penn State and

[1:21:49] - National.

[1:21:50] That's a really great question for Terry Williams.

[1:21:51] - Thank you. Okay.

[1:21:53] I didn't think you would want to answer that.

[1:21:54] And then why not year round at 60%?

[1:21:59] Why is it just based on the academic calendar

[1:22:01] - That goes back, that's been that way for

[1:22:04] 60 years in the Ordinance.

[1:22:06] I mean the original Ordinance had allowance for spring for,

[1:22:10] for summer occupancy.

[1:22:11] - Okay, well but this is a new Ordinance so you know,

[1:22:15] - There's no way we're gonna be able to enforce 42 univer

[1:22:18] to, to be able to say who's living in there for the summer.

[1:22:21] Like I like we could write it but we're not enforcing it.

[1:22:24] - Just photo desk. Neil,

[1:22:31] - Under potential

[1:22:32] - Additional uses, did you consider transformation

[1:22:35] of these fraternities into town homes or apartment

[1:22:38] - Buildings?

[1:22:39] Yeah, the multifamily use was specifically removed.

[1:22:42] So in 71 when that original section was created,

[1:22:46] multifamily was a permitted use

[1:22:48] to be converted somewhere along the way,

[1:22:50] and I haven't gone back to find out when,

[1:22:52] if you look in the existing Ordinance,

[1:22:54] there's a little asterisk under one of those items

[1:22:56] that asterisk was multifamily.

[1:22:58] So council specifically removed

[1:23:00] that ability at some point in

[1:23:01] the probably eighties or nineties.

[1:23:03] So we did not look at including that back

[1:23:06] because again now we're into a,

[1:23:08] a multifamily rooming house use situation.

[1:23:10] So if counsel wants to do that,

[1:23:12] we can certainly change that.

[1:23:13] But we, since there had been a pretty concerted effort

[1:23:17] to remove the ability to convert

[1:23:18] to multifamily, we let it lie.

[1:23:21] So

[1:23:22] - Alex, - Well to pick up on what Neil is saying, maybe

[1:23:25] that's a situation where you could deed restrict those

[1:23:28] in order to get the multi-family use

[1:23:31] - In order to what?

[1:23:32] - So permit multi-family but no student. No, no student.

[1:23:35] - Yeah. I mean, you know, if if the aversion

[1:23:37] to a rooming house and a boarding house

[1:23:39] that there'll be students, then maybe that's a place

[1:23:43] where you could have a rehab that allows non-students

[1:23:47] to live just a, I mean, you know, kicking things around

[1:23:53] - Anita, - Two points, I don't know all the ins

[1:23:56] and outs of the cooperative housing stuff

[1:23:58] that Zoe has talked about.

[1:24:00] - Yeah, we're still doing work on that.

[1:24:02] We don't know either. That

[1:24:03] - Seems like a possible use for some of these buildings.

[1:24:05] Yeah. And secondly the 60% allows

[1:24:09] for a 40% rooming house.

[1:24:12] - Yeah, I mean currently the Ordinance allows

[1:24:14] for 50% rooming house. Yeah.

[1:24:15] - So, and that seems like a very odd hybrid if we

[1:24:19] don't want rooming houses.

[1:24:22] - Yeah, I think - Maybe 10% would be reasonable.

[1:24:24] And I do understand about the summer occupancy.

[1:24:27] A friend of mine owned about 1971 who was a woman,

[1:24:30] got cheap housing in a fraternity through that.

[1:24:33] But you know, that wasn't a problem. Well it was, oh god,

[1:24:37] - That's okay.

[1:24:38] But we are, we are doing some research on other college

[1:24:41] towns to see if they have these kinds

[1:24:44] of restrictions related to the occupancy percentage to see

[1:24:47] what maybe some other Big 10 and SC C schools are doing.

[1:24:50] So we're doing some research on that to see if we've

[1:24:53] got any ideas about what seems reasonable.

[1:24:56] I know that, you know, I met with two owners

[1:24:59] or two representative fraternities with Tom a few weeks ago

[1:25:03] and one of the conversation sounded like there was maybe 20,

[1:25:07] 30% and one of the fraternities was not members.

[1:25:10] So I also know other fraternities that are a hundred percent

[1:25:12] so it, it really comes down to the size of fraternity

[1:25:15] and size of the fraternity building

[1:25:16] and are they getting enough, getting enough members,

[1:25:23] - I'll make a comment.

[1:25:27] I think that we should deal with

[1:25:33] some very specific matters

[1:25:36] with this particular Zoning change at this time.

[1:25:41] The whole phenomenon of fraternities

[1:25:45] changing their nature

[1:25:47] and not wanting to be affiliated with the university

[1:25:50] or losing affiliated affiliation with the university

[1:25:55] or are they,

[1:25:57] or are they not affiliated with a national chapter

[1:26:02] that is a societal change

[1:26:06] that is beyond us.

[1:26:08] Also the desire for rooming house space

[1:26:13] or cooperative living space that is not focused on students

[1:26:18] also may an evolving matter

[1:26:22] and let's not try to predict the future.

[1:26:27] I would love to learn more about what's going on

[1:26:31] with the changing nature of fraternities,

[1:26:35] but I, I don't think that we are

[1:26:40] in the position in the course of passing on this

[1:26:44] Zoning within two weeks onto the,

[1:26:48] the next step in its process to sort out this issue.

[1:26:57] And I, I think what we ought to do personally is

[1:27:02] take the, the proposed Zoning

[1:27:05] as it is currently written

[1:27:08] and acknowledge that in the future we are going to have

[1:27:12] to tackle this particular issue.

[1:27:13] Again, there are going to be amendments

[1:27:20] - I would think, as another potential additional use

[1:27:22] unless that would be considered somehow in the hotel motel

[1:27:25] piece would be a bed and breakfast.

[1:27:27] Just because the transition, if you're gonna invest in it,

[1:27:30] would lend itself well

[1:27:31] and probably be relatively reasonable compared

[1:27:34] to other construction costs.

[1:27:41] - Okay. Any other comments on this one?

[1:27:46] - Appears not. - Okay.

[1:27:48] - Alright. Accessory dwelling units.

[1:27:50] So Ron, now we're back on this topic.

[1:27:53] And again, I, we we're from staff standpoint, we're trying

[1:27:56] to treat these separately

[1:27:57] because they are, this would be an ex,

[1:28:02] an additional unit on a property for,

[1:28:05] on a one family detached dwelling.

[1:28:07] And I just wanna point out this is, this is clearly

[1:28:10] for a single family home.

[1:28:11] So we're not talking about a duplex or a triplex or a quad.

[1:28:14] So you'd only be able to put an A DU on a one family home.

[1:28:18] This, it also specifically excludes a mobile home

[1:28:21] manufactured home camper or an RV as an accessor drawing.

[1:28:25] We've had some advocates who have been,

[1:28:28] who who've advocated pretty strongly for ADUs on wheels

[1:28:32] that can be wheeled in this specifically precludes that.

[1:28:38] So just to go through some of the general standards

[1:28:41] that it has it's accessory to a one family dwelling

[1:28:45] and that it's no no more than one A DU on the lot

[1:28:49] that it has to be, that the A DU has

[1:28:52] to be in the same district as the one family home.

[1:28:54] That there's only a couple lots

[1:28:55] that are split zone like that.

[1:28:57] NADU is needs

[1:28:59] to meet the minimum lot width in the Zoning districts.

[1:29:02] You can't, I mean one of the goals of this has been to get

[1:29:05] to make most of the lots conforming.

[1:29:08] So in this case that's kinda what we're doing here as far as

[1:29:13] you know, we, hopefully we've made enough conforming lots

[1:29:14] and now the A DU would be permitted on it.

[1:29:17] You can't subdivide the A DU off.

[1:29:20] So you, you know, we wanted

[1:29:21] to make sure someone didn't come in, build an A DU

[1:29:23] and split it in on essentially it's a single family home

[1:29:26] do require that the A DU has to use the utilities on site

[1:29:30] so we don't have composting toilets.

[1:29:33] And then also that you have

[1:29:36] to access it from the assisting driveway

[1:29:38] or if you're coming at it from another right of way,

[1:29:41] like an alley, you can access it from there.

[1:29:44] We were specific about the A DU having to have a kitchen,

[1:29:47] a living room area, a sleeping area,

[1:29:49] at least one bed bedroom

[1:29:50] and it can't have more than two bedrooms

[1:29:52] and that there needs to be at least one parking space

[1:29:55] provided for the A DU Also that

[1:29:59] there Claire and included some language

[1:30:01] that we don't believe is actually legal in Pennsylvania when

[1:30:04] it comes to requiring colors

[1:30:06] and architectural design to be similar to the existing use.

[1:30:09] And we're gonna recommend that gets removed.

[1:30:11] I have a list of a couple of

[1:30:12] staff recommendations here in a minute.

[1:30:15] And also that there is a requirement that the A DU that the,

[1:30:20] the permanent full-time residence of the owner of the lot.

[1:30:22] So either the single family home or the A DU.

[1:30:25] So this is specifically written to prevent a situation

[1:30:29] where you've got a landlord with a tenant in the single

[1:30:31] family home, then builds an A DU

[1:30:34] and rents out the A DU to another tenant.

[1:30:36] This is specifically written to prevent that also

[1:30:40] that the A DU cannot can't be condoed

[1:30:43] and sold separately from the one family dwelling that

[1:30:47] there's no variance that can be approved for the A DU.

[1:30:50] So if you've got a situations where there's maybe a lot

[1:30:53] that's dimensionally not quite compliant,

[1:30:56] we can't have an owner going

[1:30:58] and getting a variance to allow the a DU to be constructed.

[1:31:01] And as with the triplexes

[1:31:03] and quads, there'd be a deed restriction

[1:31:05] for no short-term rental use

[1:31:07] and a deed restriction for college

[1:31:09] or university students as tenants.

[1:31:14] And we have some additional standards related to the size

[1:31:17] of the A DU, no more than the lesser of either 25%

[1:31:22] of the gross area of the single family home or 600 feet.

[1:31:25] And we had talked about this with council

[1:31:26] before, they wanted to go up to 800 that seemed

[1:31:29] to be agreed upon number.

[1:31:31] So we, we have a couple recommendations along this line

[1:31:34] and also that the access to the A DU

[1:31:37] can only be from the side of the rear yard.

[1:31:40] So we didn't want a situation

[1:31:41] where someone's coming in from the front.

[1:31:46] That's something that I like.

[1:31:47] I'm not sure that's a huge issue that that could be removed.

[1:31:50] That might end up being precluding some good opportunities.

[1:31:55] And also just some language about interconnecting with how,

[1:31:58] how it's interconnected with the single family home.

[1:32:02] And then some similar language on the detached ADUs as well.

[1:32:07] So a couple suggestions from staff

[1:32:08] and that one is again, back to what council agreed on is

[1:32:11] to go to 800 square feet.

[1:32:12] The both for the internal, so they, the E attached a DU,

[1:32:17] the internal A DU to the property

[1:32:19] or a detached A DU allow up to two bedrooms

[1:32:24] and 40% of the principal structure size 25%.

[1:32:27] Just from a staff standpoint, when we started looking at,

[1:32:29] at sizes of houses, you, you, you 25%, you would end up

[1:32:33] with like some 200, 250 square foot ADUs.

[1:32:38] We just felt that that would potentially be too,

[1:32:40] that would be too limiting and too small.

[1:32:43] We just had some clarification language you need about,

[1:32:45] there was some, we didn't know why clearing had written

[1:32:49] that it was one A DU

[1:32:50] or one dwelling unit for the whole thing

[1:32:52] and then later on said no, it's an additional dwelling unit.

[1:32:54] So there just needs to be some cleanup in the language.

[1:32:57] So just removing the reference to the regulation

[1:33:00] of the appearance character color, we don't believe

[1:33:03] that we have the legal authority to do that.

[1:33:05] And then finally also just specifically require

[1:33:08] that the ADUs to be constructed with a foundation.

[1:33:11] It might be belt and suspenders,

[1:33:13] but we just felt that we wanted to make sure that was clear.

[1:33:17] So that's all I've got on that section. Any suggestions?

[1:33:21] Any we, we didn't,

[1:33:24] we didn't necessarily prepare this for summarizing tonight.

[1:33:26] It was more of a, you know,

[1:33:27] do you have specific things you'd like to see changed

[1:33:31] or if you'd like to see

[1:33:32] that section pulled out in its entirety,

[1:33:34] it was definitely written to be encapsulated

[1:33:38] or maybe you include the attached ADUs

[1:33:41] but remove the detached ADUs.

[1:33:43] A lot of different ways we can go,

[1:33:44] but just wanna get your input.

[1:33:46] - I think as far as we talk about affordability

[1:33:47] and different ways that we can get families downtown,

[1:33:51] I don't see the benefit of deed restricting detached a

[1:33:55] eds whether or ADUs a ADU regard

[1:33:59] - EDU's a sewer.

[1:34:00] - Yeah, we should restrict that for sure.

[1:34:03] No, there shouldn't be deed restriction on ADUs in my

[1:34:06] opinion because if the principal, if the principal residence

[1:34:10] and it's a way for them to make secondary income,

[1:34:11] there's not really a negative consequence

[1:34:14] to having a student in a detached structure

[1:34:16] or even a short term Airbnb.

[1:34:17] I think that's a objectively different

[1:34:20] circumstance when people say, oh, the town was taken over

[1:34:23] by all the single fame hamms and now students

[1:34:25] or now they're all Airbnb's.

[1:34:27] I think that freedom to use the, their space

[1:34:29] and their property as they want to, allows 'em

[1:34:31] to have income benefit in a way

[1:34:33] that's no different than operating a a separate business

[1:34:36] or outta their home.

[1:34:37] So I would recommend removing that in that circumstance.

[1:34:42] - Anita, how would it be enforce

[1:34:45] that the owner is a full-time resident

[1:34:48] and what does that even mean?

[1:34:49] Does that mean somebody who's here Oh, for the summer

[1:34:53] - Or, yeah, we, we always have this problem with

[1:34:55] what exactly does that mean?

[1:34:57] So in our short term rental Ordinance, we say eight months

[1:34:59] and a comment that I have declaring is we need to tighten

[1:35:02] that up a bit as far as exactly what that means.

[1:35:04] But that is an enforcement challenge.

[1:35:07] As far as principal residency, we get lied

[1:35:10] to an awful lot about people who, you know, say they're,

[1:35:13] it's their principal residence, but

[1:35:14] they're living in New Jersey.

[1:35:16] No offense in New Jersey.

[1:35:19] - Oh, okay. Another question.

[1:35:21] Getting back to what Curtis said,

[1:35:26] My experience with students is we have students in our house

[1:35:29] and in the backyard, both quite legally.

[1:35:33] And we've learned that if we say upfront, okay,

[1:35:36] we live on this property, if you're not prepared to deal

[1:35:39] with your landlord being right there

[1:35:41] to know what's going on, you probably don't wanna live here.

[1:35:45] Now I don't know if that would apply to everybody or not,

[1:35:48] but the Airbnb, the problem with that has been in a lot

[1:35:53] of neighborhoods just far too much coming and going

[1:35:55] and partying of people who don't live there permanently.

[1:35:59] And it's been very hard on the neighborhood.

[1:36:02] So I would say not Airbnb,

[1:36:05] but I'm also wondering if 800 square feet,

[1:36:12] I know we have three apartments that are much smaller than

[1:36:16] that and they're readily rented to, well two,

[1:36:21] two working people and one grad student

[1:36:23] and we've never had any problem filling them.

[1:36:26] So I, I don't know if that's necessary

[1:36:28] or a good idea or not.

[1:36:32] - Susan, just a couple

[1:36:36] questions for clarification.

[1:36:37] What's the difference between an A DU and an apartment?

[1:36:42] - Yeah, we're trying to get away from, we're,

[1:36:44] we're considering it an accessory dwelling unit.

[1:36:45] Either the attached or attached.

[1:36:47] So the, the, the attached would be an internal,

[1:36:51] so you'd have an 800 square foot separate unit

[1:36:54] that could be in the basement, that could be on the back

[1:36:56] of the house, et cetera.

[1:36:58] We're, we're trying to get away from this single family home

[1:37:00] plus apartment and just say, what, what is the apartment?

[1:37:03] Okay. It's an, it's accessory dwelling unit,

[1:37:05] whether it's internal or external.

[1:37:07] Again, there's some different standards for that,

[1:37:09] but that's how we're training it.

[1:37:10] At least that's how this Ordinance treats it going forward.

[1:37:12] - And that's what I thought.

[1:37:13] And so then you could have a

[1:37:18] attached A DU, but then you could not have a detached

[1:37:21] - A DU and that's a great policy' question as far as what,

[1:37:24] what the preference is right now.

[1:37:26] It's written, you get one.

[1:37:28] But if you wanted to have an internal and,

[1:37:30] and a detached, that's certainly something

[1:37:32] that could be written and we just need guidance on that.

[1:37:34] When we talked about it last spring, it seemed

[1:37:37] to be just one,

[1:37:38] but yeah, people can change their minds. So,

[1:37:41] - So, so the question for me,

[1:37:46] I'm it was leading up to when does it become then a duplex?

[1:37:50] If you have an attached a DU, when,

[1:37:53] when does it become a duplex?

[1:37:55] - Yeah. And that's, there are building code issues relative

[1:37:59] to firewalls, et cetera.

[1:38:01] As far as, and I don't, I'm not gonna try

[1:38:03] to play Walt, but Right.

[1:38:04] You know, I know that there are structural

[1:38:06] issues with the duplex.

[1:38:08] I, I wanna get a little more clarity on exactly,

[1:38:10] because I've been asked this

[1:38:12] by a couple folks in the last couple weeks.

[1:38:14] So I think we need to do a little bit more work to be able

[1:38:16] to explain that exactly as far

[1:38:19] as what's required from a building code

[1:38:20] standpoint for it to be duplex. So

[1:38:23] - I would like to lend my support of,

[1:38:28] I think there are a lot of really large houses

[1:38:31] and there could be opportunities for an internal

[1:38:36] or attached a DU and a detached.

[1:38:40] I think there would be nothing wrong with

[1:38:42] that in certain circumstances.

[1:38:43] Also, a question about the deed restrictions.

[1:38:47] Wouldn't the student home rule apply

[1:38:52] with the separation requirements?

[1:38:54] And so, I mean, wouldn't I'll leave it a town?

[1:38:56] - Yeah, no, we, we've looked at that.

[1:38:58] The way that the student home rule is written right now, it,

[1:39:01] it wouldn't cover the A DU, it doesn't mean

[1:39:04] that we couldn't add it in.

[1:39:06] So this was a cleaner way just to say no,

[1:39:09] because then you're not into, I mean, do, do,

[1:39:12] remember there are some places you could have a new student

[1:39:14] home in State College?

[1:39:15] I don't, not gonna, we don't have a map specifically,

[1:39:18] but we have a pretty idea where they are the, at the end

[1:39:22] of the day, we just thought it was cleaner to, you know,

[1:39:26] just what do you want, do that in the code?

[1:39:28] Do do you want to prohibit student

[1:39:30] rentals from the ADUs or not?

[1:39:33] The sense I'm getting is

[1:39:34] that maybe student rental is okay in the ADUs,

[1:39:36] but not short term rental use based on neighbor impact.

[1:39:40] But we're, we're just looking for some guidance on that.

[1:39:42] That's what we thought we got coming out

[1:39:43] of the joint meetings last spring.

[1:39:45] But obviously that's a policy' decision.

[1:39:47] It could go a different direction.

[1:39:51] There certainly will be a lot more of a market

[1:39:53] for student occupancy in ADUs for sure.

[1:39:56] - There's also a shocking amount of people

[1:39:59] that principally live here 12 months a year

[1:40:03] than eight weekends a year.

[1:40:04] They Airbnb their place.

[1:40:06] And although I, I think you'd be shocked

[1:40:08] how little disruption there is in these neighborhoods

[1:40:10] because when it's a single family home

[1:40:12] and it's a nice well-maintained home, they get a premium.

[1:40:16] But there are also people that are then dumping

[1:40:18] that money back into the community

[1:40:19] and they're living here principally.

[1:40:20] That's one thing a lot

[1:40:21] of people do in a lot of people I know do.

[1:40:24] And I think that we have

[1:40:25] to be careful when we set these guidelines.

[1:40:26] 'cause that does impact people's ability to live here

[1:40:29] and afford here and kind of make a life

[1:40:32] and make impact in our community.

[1:40:35] - I want to raise a question about the status of

[1:40:40] a paper alley and access to these things.

[1:40:45] I have a paper alley behind my house.

[1:40:48] The, my, the area right around my house

[1:40:52] has long and relatively

[1:40:54] narrow lots.

[1:40:59] And how would, if somebody wanted

[1:41:03] to do an A DU attached

[1:41:06] or detached, how's that gonna work

[1:41:09] with a paper alley? Yeah,

[1:41:10] - That's, we'd really need Terry to, to talk about that.

[1:41:14] As far as what, what could a property error compel

[1:41:16] as far as access goes?

[1:41:17] I don't want to, that's not, that's a legal area

[1:41:21] that I don't have experience with in terms of

[1:41:23] what could be compelled for access.

[1:41:24] So that's a question for him.

[1:41:28] - By the way, a paper alley is an alley

[1:41:32] that was plotted but never built.

[1:41:35] And the one

[1:41:36] behind my house is in my block.

[1:41:43] There are some very big trees growing in that paper alley.

[1:41:46] Basically the land belongs to no one,

[1:41:51] although supposedly every resident along who

[1:41:55] who has access to the paper alley is, is entitled

[1:42:00] to access the back of their property using a vehicle.

[1:42:08] - And I, I think I promised this before, we need to go back

[1:42:10] and find the, when Terry came

[1:42:12] and gave, I think he gave like an hour long

[1:42:14] presentation on the topic.

[1:42:16] So we will, we need to go find that recording

[1:42:18] and get it back out to everybody.

[1:42:20] - Okay.

[1:42:26] Anyone else?

[1:42:30] - All right. So what, what will process?

[1:42:32] - I is did you have something else? Go ahead.

[1:42:43] - Speaking as somebody who has a couple ADUs,

[1:42:48] I think they all new ones should be built

[1:42:50] and required to have air, air conditioning.

[1:42:55] - Yeah, I don't think we can require that.

[1:42:57] - Okay. You can try. I thought I'd bring it up.

[1:43:02] The item about no residential units,

[1:43:07] no residential units should be for the heat and the gas

[1:43:11] and the sewer that made it look like it had

[1:43:13] to be connected to the house.

[1:43:15] - Yeah. So we have questions.

[1:43:17] Steph has some questions about the wording of that.

[1:43:19] I I know what they intended, which is

[1:43:21] you've gotta be on sewer.

[1:43:23] No. Yeah, so I, yes, there needs to be

[1:43:25] - Some words there.

[1:43:26] We're fine with that then. And I think there should be

[1:43:28] a minimum square footage. Some of the

[1:43:32] - Yeah, there would, sorry.

[1:43:33] There would be, if so in order

[1:43:35] to have it be occupiable from a building code standpoint,

[1:43:38] you would need at least 70 square feet for the bedroom.

[1:43:40] And I don't remember what the common area

[1:43:41] is, but it's around a hundred.

[1:43:43] So yeah, there are some minimums based on building code.

[1:43:45] - I think we should also add, well I noticed some

[1:43:49] of the studios in the high rises are 300 square feet

[1:43:53] and that is the bare minimum

[1:43:54] that I'd like wanna put anybody in.

[1:43:57] So maybe increase it more than

[1:43:59] - That.

[1:44:00] I, I just wanna be hesitant

[1:44:00] because we had a lawsuit with HUD based on our,

[1:44:04] our occupancy limits were increased based above

[1:44:07] what the building code requires

[1:44:09] and we actually had to settle with HUD to reduce them.

[1:44:13] So I didn't know that. Yeah.

[1:44:18] - Okay. Anything else on this topic?

[1:44:24] Hearing none, let's go on.

[1:44:26] - Okay. Just to highlight what we, we're gonna want

[1:44:29] to talk a little bit more about

[1:44:30] some of the transitional areas.

[1:44:33] We, again, we had a really good meeting with Susan.

[1:44:36] So the, just trying to get an idea of

[1:44:39] what the appropriate boundaries are

[1:44:40] and then also some appropriate heights

[1:44:42] and densities in those districts.

[1:44:44] So I just wanted to point out a couple areas.

[1:44:47] Again, making a suggestion to go to RO on the eastern part

[1:44:52] of, you know, where Beaver turns into high

[1:44:55] and then also over in the west where West End is

[1:45:00] kind of looking at that as, you know, there's, we're,

[1:45:02] Adrian is actually doing some renderings right now to try

[1:45:06] to get an idea of what it would look like over there in

[1:45:08] terms of the differences in height, going from nine stories

[1:45:11] to six to two,

[1:45:13] and just sort of give an idea of what that would look like.

[1:45:16] And then also kind of highlighting the,

[1:45:18] what planning staff always calls the Pugh spine in terms

[1:45:22] of running from downtown down to easterly.

[1:45:25] That's an area that's had a lot

[1:45:26] of debate over the years about what's the appropriate level

[1:45:29] of, of, of density and height.

[1:45:31] So we wanted to bring that back up.

[1:45:33] If there was any thoughts on, you know, we,

[1:45:35] we looked at maybe converting that to R three instead

[1:45:38] of R three H would,

[1:45:39] which would allow three stories instead of two.

[1:45:41] You have a lot of preexisting non-conforming apartment

[1:45:44] buildings in that area right now, some

[1:45:46] of which are 5, 6, 7 stories.

[1:45:49] So looking at maybe going to R three

[1:45:52] and also kind of the area that is south of OOCC and,

[1:45:57] and the Baptist church.

[1:45:59] As you get into Fairmount

[1:46:00] and Prospect as you go down the hill, they're sort of

[1:46:05] between Burroughs, Fraser and Alan.

[1:46:08] That was another area that we had some discussions.

[1:46:11] So we're not really necessarily prepared right now

[1:46:14] to give any suggestions.

[1:46:15] We wanted to flag it as something, we'd like

[1:46:17] to talk a little bit more on the 14th.

[1:46:18] So if anybody has opinions, thoughts, wants

[1:46:21] to see specific changes, we we're wrestling with this

[1:46:25] as a staff standpoint, so we'd love to get your input.

[1:46:30] And Ron's asked me a couple times, what, what,

[1:46:34] what are we gonna be preparing for you as far as

[1:46:38] some recommendations to go to council?

[1:46:40] What would that look like? So this is our first shot at it,

[1:46:44] kind of a topic then to the status bar would be removed

[1:46:48] because we'd hopefully be, we, we'd have got

[1:46:52] through them all and gotten your input

[1:46:53] and in some cases votes.

[1:46:55] So what we are looking for is these would be specific

[1:46:58] recommendations and we'd be putting in this kind of table.

[1:47:01] So you'll see a more elaborate version of this on the 14th.

[1:47:05] But this is kind of the way we're tackling it.

[1:47:07] So does this make sense?

[1:47:09] You know, anybody have any opinions, kind of

[1:47:12] what we thought might be the easiest way.

[1:47:14] And then as Ron kind of started today,

[1:47:16] if there are specific motions that are needed to get votes,

[1:47:20] we would kind of anticipate on the 14th

[1:47:22] and the 21st, kind of going through this to make sure

[1:47:25] that if there were areas

[1:47:27] where there was differences opinion on planning commission,

[1:47:29] that we would get some motions made

[1:47:31] to finalize what would be recommended.

[1:47:33] So how does that all sound? Good? All right.

[1:47:39] All right. And then just for those following at home

[1:47:43] and we're, we're getting to the end

[1:47:46] of the planning permission process, I just wanted

[1:47:48] to put this timeline back up in front of everybody.

[1:47:50] You saw it at the beginning of the summer,

[1:47:53] but as we get to recommendation, so we're at

[1:47:55] that August 21 slot.

[1:47:57] As far as PC making recommendation, this would go to,

[1:48:01] this would then go to council on September 8th

[1:48:03] and start a september october process.

[1:48:06] We have pretty much a drop dead October 20 date for

[1:48:10] when we would what?

[1:48:12] When we would need counsel to tell staff exactly

[1:48:14] what they do and do not want in the Ordinance,

[1:48:16] if they wanted revisions, changes whether they agree

[1:48:20] with pc, whether they disagree with PC

[1:48:22] and what, you know, what what the, what do they want.

[1:48:25] We then have, we'll transmit that to the consultant team.

[1:48:28] They'll have about a month to make revisions

[1:48:31] and then we have kind of a drop dead date

[1:48:33] of sending this to review.

[1:48:35] At Centre County Planning.

[1:48:36] There's the statutory 45 day review that they have.

[1:48:40] They have an MOU with Centre Region Planning.

[1:48:42] So Centre Region Planning will also be doing their

[1:48:45] review at the same time.

[1:48:47] So that will happen throughout the holidays.

[1:48:49] So Merry Christmas to that staff.

[1:48:52] And then at the end of the day, we will hopefully have

[1:48:56] something back from them in the middle of January

[1:48:59] with a anticipated going

[1:49:01] to Borough Council at the first meeting in February,

[1:49:03] asking them to authorize the advertisement

[1:49:05] for the Public Hearing, which will be March 2nd,

[1:49:08] and then adoption at the end of March.

[1:49:11] I'll also point out that there is a statutory requirement

[1:49:13] for a Public Hearing for the planning agency

[1:49:16] preparing the Ordinance.

[1:49:18] So that's been advertised for August 21st.

[1:49:20] So that'll meet the statutory requirement

[1:49:22] that Planning commission has a Public Hearing.

[1:49:27] So any questions on timeline?

[1:49:31] - Just one question. Is there any chance that any

[1:49:34] of this will come back to the Planning Commission

[1:49:37] after August 21st?

[1:49:39] - I mean, there's always a chance, but my understanding from

[1:49:41] council is that once PC's done

[1:49:43] with the recommendations, they're gonna take it from there.

[1:49:45] So the statutory, the, the statute, the MPC requires

[1:49:50] if there are substantial changes

[1:49:52] after that advertisement of the hearing.

[1:49:54] So when we get to that February 2nd meeting,

[1:49:58] the anticipation is that we would have a final draft.

[1:50:02] Counsel would authorize staff to advertise.

[1:50:05] Once that advertisement happens,

[1:50:06] there really can't be substantive changes.

[1:50:08] So there's a Public Hearing.

[1:50:10] Then on March 2nd, if council wants

[1:50:12] to make substantive changes from there, the statute requires

[1:50:15] that they would re advertise for a new Public Hearing.

[1:50:18] So we could end up in a series of a, a number

[1:50:21] of public hearings going through the spring

[1:50:23] or summer, if that's what council wants.

[1:50:25] There's no statutory requirement for them

[1:50:27] to send it back to Planning Commission.

[1:50:30] They could if they want it, but they're not required to.

[1:50:33] - Okay. Okay.

[1:50:36] Then it looks like we are onto official reports

[1:50:40] and correspondence. Borough Counsel,

[1:50:43] - Nothing from me.

[1:50:46] - Zoning Hearing board, - Nothing Upcoming.

[1:50:51] - Upcoming Land development plans,

[1:50:53] - Nothing upcoming.

[1:50:55] - Staff updates, - You're looking at it.

[1:51:01] - Okay. Okay. Centre Region Planning Commission.

[1:51:07] It's quiet Summer. Okay.

[1:51:10] Upcoming meetings next Thursday,

[1:51:13] Octo August 14th at 7:00 PM

[1:51:17] and Thursday, August 21st at 7:00 PM

[1:51:22] May I have a motion to Adjourn?

[1:51:23] Motion to Adjourn Adjourned.

[1:51:57] - Sponsorship for this program is brought to you in part

[1:51:59] by Town and Gown Magazine.

[1:52:02] If it's happening in Happy Valley,

[1:52:04] it's in town and Gown magazine.

[1:52:07] - Clearwater Conservancy has been committed to conserving

[1:52:10] and restoring the natural resources of Centre County

[1:52:12] and beyond for more than 40 years.

[1:52:16] In 2022, we purchased 10 acres on Spring Creek in Hauser V.

[1:52:20] We have a 20 year relationship

[1:52:21] with this land having restored the Streamside forested

[1:52:24] Buffer in 2004.

[1:52:27] This property in the heart

[1:52:29] of the Spring Creek watershed is the site

[1:52:31] of our new permanent home

[1:52:32] and our local conservation restoration

[1:52:35] and education programs.

[1:52:36] The public will be welcome to explore the stream, as well

[1:52:39] as use the community meeting room

[1:52:41] for partnerships and collaboration.

[1:52:43] Clearwater's dedicated volunteers will see firsthand the

[1:52:47] positive impact of their efforts.

[1:52:48] Your support ensures

[1:52:50] that our conservation work thrives protecting our natural

[1:52:53] resources for everyone.

[1:52:55] As an accredited land trust, we promise

[1:52:57] that residents will enjoy clean water

[1:52:59] and natural areas for many years to come.

[1:53:02] Your support is essential in preserving our natural

[1:53:05] resources for future generations.

[1:53:07] Visit clearwater conservancy.org to learn

[1:53:10] how you can get involved.

8/6/25 State College Borough Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript