Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 6, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 6, 2016 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: John Hinz STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Williams, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Zoning Code Enforcement Inspector; Alexa Naudziunas, Assistant Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 15, 2016 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Propp) I. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET & EASEMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF SOIL VAPOR MONITORING WELLS AT 303 CEAPE AVENUE/COURT STREET SOUTH OF CEAPE AVENUE AND ADJACENT CITY PARKING LOT/11 BROAD STREET Wisconsin Public Service is requesting privilege-in-the-street and granting of easements to allow for installation of four soil gas probes in City right-of-way and City-owned property. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and areas of the proposed easements and privilege in street installations. He explained the reason for the request which was for an environmental investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion conditions. He further explained that the two privilege in street requests were required as the installation would be in the City right-of-way and the easement requests were for the two installations that would be located on City-owned property. The installations would be coordinated with the Department of Public Works to properly document the easements and ensure no conflicts with City utilities. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request which are standard for these types of requests. Mr. Borsuk arrived at 4:03 pm. Mr. Thoms questioned if the insurance coverage referenced in the conditions was adequate. Mr. Slusarek responded affirmatively and stated that this was researched recently and updated and the current language used was reviewed and approved by city staff that deal with these details. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:04 pm. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 6, 2016 Mr. Thoms suggested that staff further research the amount of insurance coverage referenced in condition #6 to ensure that it is an adequate amount as he felt it should be higher. Mr. Burich responded that he would follow up on that matter but this is the standard policy for the city for these requests and he felt the amount of coverage is correct unless he would be directed otherwise by the staff that handles this aspect for such requests. He further stated that he did not want to hold up this request but would look into the matter for future items of this nature. Motion by Kiefer to grant a privilege in the street and easements for installation of soil vapor monitoring wells located at 303 Ceape Avenue/Court Street south of Ceape Avenue and adjacent City parking lot/11 Broad Street with the following conditions: 1. The soil gas probes be installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 2. If no longer needed, the soil gas probes be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 3. Any problem that may arise as a result of the placement of the soil gas probes be the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 4. All appropriate permits are obtained prior to the start of placement of the soil gas probes. 5. The soil gas probes be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City. 6. The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City of Oshkosh, and its officers, Council members, agents, employees and authorized volunteers as additional insured’s with a minimum commercial general liability coverage of $200,000 per occurrence and $500,000 in general aggregate. 7. It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the privilege in street within ten (10) days of notice. 8. The petitioner/owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. 9. The facility is part of and documented with Digger’s Hotline system. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 9-0. II. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF HARRISON STREET AND E. CUSTER AVENUE City staff is requesting an amendment to the Recommended 10 and 20-Year Land Use Maps in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject area is designated for industrial land use designation; the applicant is requesting a change to a commercial land use designation. Ms. Naudziunas presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She stated that the property was rezoned from M-2 Central Industrial District to C-1PD Neighborhood Business District with a Planned Development __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 6, 2016 Overlay in 2012 however the Comprehensive Plan was not updated after the zone change was approved. The proposed land use map amendment would make the land use consistent with the zone change and explained the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan land use maps. The existing land use designation was based on the previous use of the site and the site is proposed for redevelopment as a multi-family apartment development. Mr. Burich added that this action is a cleanup item from the zone change in 2012 as the land use map was not amended to be consistent with the new zoning designation. Mr. Thoms inquired if this map amendment was approved, if the new zoning classification for this area would be adopted appropriately with the update of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Burich responded that the zoning classification for this area would be UMU-PD which will be consistent with the new and existing zoning as well as the land use of the site. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a comprehensive land use plan map amendment for properties located at the northeast corner of Harrison Street and E. Custer Avenue. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9-0. III. REZONE 0 HARRISON STREET FROM M-2 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISTIRCT TO C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY The petitioner is requesting a rezoning of 0 Harrison Street from its current designation of M-2 Central Industrial District to the proposed designation of C-1 Neighborhood Business District with a Planned Development Overlay. Ms. Naudziunas presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She reviewed the area of the zone change request which is a triangular shaped parcel adjacent to the larger parcel that was rezoned in 2012. She discussed the partial street vacation of a portion of Mt. Vernon Street that was approved in 2015 between these two parcels and explained that the zone change was to make the property consistent with the adjacent site which is necessary for the sites to be combined into one parcel. Mr. Thoms questioned why the small parcel adjacent to the subject site was not included in the zone change request. Ms. Naudziunas responded that this portion was excluded as it is a City-owned parcel and its intended potential use was uncertain at this time. Mr. Nau added that this issue would be resolved with the update of the Zoning Ordinance map. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a zone change from M-2 Central Industrial District to C-1 Neighborhood Business District with a Planned Development Overlay for property located at the northeast corner of Harrison Street and E. Custer Avenue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 6, 2016 Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9-0. IV. LAND DIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 E. CUSTER AVENUE The petitioner is requesting a two-lot land division/certified survey map, as part of a Planned Development, from two existing parcels containing a total of 5.186 acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 3.051 Acres Lot 2 = 2.135 Acres Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the areas of the proposed two lots to be created. He explained that the land division was to establish two separate parcels, one for the current redevelopment proposal and that other for future redevelopment of the other portion of the site. He stated that Lot 2 was the site for the current redevelopment request and reviewed the certified survey map (CSM) depicting the proposed two lots. He reviewed a revised CSM that was submitted yesterday which addressed some of the issues that were excluded on the original submittal. He further stated that the conditions contained in the staff report for this request were removed as these items will be addressed with the conditions for the planned development request which is also on this agenda for action. Mr. Thoms inquired what issues, if any, would be created by this action for the single-family home adjacent to this site and if any issues would need to be addressed at this time. Mr. Burich responded that the land division does not change the boundaries of the parcel or the single-family use and that these are pre-existing conditions that do not require any action. Mr. Bowen questioned what the change in setback would be from the current zoning designation to the new zoning designation particularly the rear yard setback for Lot 2. He had concerns if it would be a substantial change as it is adjacent to the single-family residence. Mr. Burich replied that the setback for a C-1 zoning district for the side yard is ten feet for residential uses and the transitional yard setback would not change. He further stated that the planned development review was the next item on the agenda and the Commission needed to ensure that the petitioner would be providing adequate screening for the proposed development. Mr. Bowen commented that the revised CSM depicts easement areas that were not on the original document and questioned if these easement areas would affect the development of the parcel. Mr. Burich responded negatively. Mr. Thoms questioned if this would result in a negative impact on the residential use. Mr. Burich indicated that it would not as there was a lesser level of use on the residential site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 December 6, 2016 Motion by Vajgrt to approve a two-lot land division/certified survey map located at 300 E. Custer Avenue. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 9-0. V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 EAST CUSTER AVENUE The owner/applicant is requesting an approval of a development plan for a 56-unit multiple family apartment building, surface parking, landscaping and outdoor picnic area, and storm water management facilities. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She discussed the history of the site, the previously approved zone change, street vacation, and spot blight designation. She reviewed the development of a multiple family apartment building which would be located on Lot 2 and that Lot 1 was not proposed to be redeveloped at this time. The redevelopment of Lot 1 will require an amendment to the planned development at the time a development plan is determined for the remainder of the site and Lot 1 will have improved conditions as far as the removal of existing pavement and gravel with restoration to turf grass for the time being. She discussed the density of the development and removal of some of the existing impervious surface and that the apartment complex would be for low to moderate income residents. She reviewed the driveway accesses and pedestrian accesses for the site as well as the parking facilities which would be surface parking only at this time. She explained that the parking stalls will not meet code requirements initially and that a base standard modification was being requested for the number of parking stalls and for the parking lot setback between the two lots. She also discussed the cross access agreement necessary for additional parking to be provided on Lot 1 when this portion of the property is redeveloped. She discussed signage and landscaping for the development which will be reviewed and approved at the site plan review level and discussed the need for screening from the adjacent residential use. She reviewed the storm water detention areas which will require approval by the Department of Public Works and the building elevations for which there are no major modifications planned from its original state. The refuse enclosure was proposed to be located in the front yard on Grand Street and staff was recommending it be moved to some other location on the site to meet code requirements and a cross access agreement would also be necessary for the use of the enclosure for both lots. She also discussed the possibility of a mechanical chiller being installed if the utilization of a proposed geothermal alternative energy source was not feasible. She indicated that staff had concerns with noise issues related to this equipment and reviewed a table of sound levels generated by various elements for comparison. Staff will monitor this issue if the chiller is installed to ensure that it does not exceed code requirements as far as noise levels and the equipment would have to be relocated if it was an issue. She also reviewed the lighting plans for the development which will also need to meet code requirements and will be reviewed at the site plan review level. Mr. Borsuk commented that the noise source at the property line was 62 decibels. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 6, 2016 Ms. Propp asked for clarification of the location of the multi-family redevelopment parking lot and garages and the area of the property that was not included in the planned development at this time. Ms. Williams displayed on the site plan the location of the various areas questioned. Mr. Thoms discussed the noise generated by the chiller and that the noise levels for any purpose at the lot line was 62 decibels. He questioned how city staff determines if something is in excess of the requirements. Ms. Williams responded that staff has equipment that can measure the noise levels at the lot line to determine if it meets code requirements. Mr. Fojtik commented that the timing and frequency of the noise generated is more important. Mr. Thoms agreed and stated that the placement of the chiller and timing of the noise is relevant and questioned why it cannot be placed on the roof or in another location closer to the building. Mr. Bowen asked for clarification of the areas for storm water detention as it wasn’t clear on the site plan. It appeared that there was an area west of the building on Lot 2 and he questioned if this was all a storm water management feature. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, confirmed that there were storm sewer features in that area. Mr. Bowen then questioned if this would be a wet detention basin. Mr. Gohde explained that the small parcel of right-of-way may be used for a water quality system and that the grading needs to keep the two areas of land separated. He further stated that the site is exempt from water quality standards due to the pre-existing conditions on the site. Mr. Bowen then questioned if the area on the right side of the site plan was also a storm water management feature. Mr. Gohde responded affirmatively and stated that this area was de signated for bioswales and other storm water management features. Mr. Bowen commented that there were functional green space and storm water management areas on the site but it was hard to tell the difference by reviewing the plans and questioned if staff had any concerns related to storm water management on the site. Mr. Gohde responded that they did not have any concerns at this time. Matt Wiedenhoeft, representing Martin Riley Architects & Engineers, discussed the concerns with the installation of the mechanical chiller and that if the geothermal alternative energy source is __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 6, 2016 utilized, the mechanical chiller equipment would not be necessary. If installed, the energy source will meet code requirements as far as noise. He further discussed the parking concerns and that there would be 56 housing units and 56 parking stalls at the time the building opens with another 56 parking spaces in garage facilities on the other lot over time. Most of the units would be one bedroom with 46 out of 56 containing one bedroom and the remaining 10 being two bedroom units serving elderly and disabled tenants. He stated that they would meet the zoning code requirements of 112 parking stalls in time. He explained that they cannot place the chiller equipment on the roof due to historic reasons as the project was scrutinized due to the historic tax credit assistance received for its redevelopment. He discussed the water quantity and existing structure which would not be changed as far as the footprint and that the water quantity will not increase as they will be removing some of the impervious surface from the site. He continued to discuss the storm water management for the site including bioswales to collect runoff from the development. Ms. Propp questioned the building on Lot 2 that is open and unsightly with debris. Su van Houwelingen, Executive Director of the Oshkosh Housing Authority, stated that they had a tree removed from a site and were in the process of trying to find an area to relocate it and that they do not know what is going into the north building presently. The structure will be repaired but they currently do not have a time frame for when it will occur. Mr. Wiedenhoeft added that the National Parks Service has designated the building as historically significant and they are not allowed to do any type of renovations to it until a redevelopment plan is determined. Mr. Bowen inquired if the storm water features and replacement of turf will all be installed prior to the redevelopment of the remainder of the site. Mr. Wiedenhoeft responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowen also inquired about the decision to place the chiller in its proposed location. Mr. Wiedenhoeft replied that placing it between the buildings was not appropriate due to noise issues; placement on the roof was not allowed due to the historic structure requirements; and they considered placing it further to the west however the distance was too excessive. He further stated that test borings were still in the process of being completed and they have yet to determine if the geothermal energy source was feasible. Todd Hackbart, 1337 Grand Street, stated that he was concerned with the noise issue from the placement of the chiller near his property and that the noise from the train was bad enough. He further stated that the petitioner should have all of the parking facilities located on the lot that was being redeveloped and should not be able to place additional parking on the other lot. Motion by Propp to approve a planned development for a multiple family apartment development on property located at 300 E. Custer Avenue with the following conditions: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 December 6, 2016 1) Base standard modification to reduce the required 112 parking stalls to 65 parking stalls (42% reduction). 2) Base standard modification to reduce the required ten foot setback for parking lots to the proposed zero foot setback as shown on the development plan. 3) Base standard modification to permit the refuse enclosure be placed off-site. 4) Cross access agreement be establish between Lot 1 and Lot 2 and recorded with Winnebago County Register of Deeds to permit shared parking per Section 30-36(F)(3) and shared use of the proposed refuse enclosure. 5) Refuse enclosure be relocated out of the front yard setback to meet code requirements. 6) Information be supplied to determine any potential negative impacts of the proposed chiller and final placement of the chiller will be reviewed and determined as part of the Site Plan Review process by the Department of Community Development. 7) Placement, style and shielding of exterior lighting be evaluated and approved by the Department of Community Development during the Site Plan Review approval process to mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties. 8) Landscaping be placed around the proposed chiller and outdoor picnic area to mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Seconded by Borsuk. Mr. Bowen commented that the development was being approved with the chiller at the location shown on the site plan however it must be compliant with the noise ordinance which was up to the owner to ensure that it meets the necessary requirements. Mr. Burich indicated that the petitioner is considering their options and they are aware of these concerns at the time of the planned development approval. Mr. Bowen then commented that potentially there could be 66 total vehicles on site and questioned what if vehicles would start to overflow into the street if there was not adequate parking stalls on the property to accommodate them. He questioned if they would need to start using the parking facilities to be developed on the other lot to address this issue. Mr. Bowen commented that reducing the required number of parking stalls by 40% was a pretty large reduction. Mr. Burich stated that it was a redevelopment site in the central city and other alternative forms of transportation are available in the area. He further stated that staff would be more concerned with the issue if the petitioner was breaking off the other lot from this site but it would remain under the same ownership and access easements would be in place between Lots 1 and 2 to allow accommodation of parking on the other lot in time. Mr. Burich added that the project retains the capacity to add additional parking if needed. Mr. Thoms questioned if staff considered that they should have the other lot developed within a certain amount of time as there is nothing to ensure that it gets done. He also still had concerns __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 December 6, 2016 with the noise generated from the chiller and the frequency and timing of the noise. He felt another location should be found for the placement of this equipment as meeting the code requirements for noise is not the most important issue. He also still had concerns with the lack of adequate parking stalls and felt there should be a time limit on the development of the parking facilities. Mr. Burich indicated that the site has the capacity available and the enforcement process could be utilized if parking off site becomes an issue. Mr. Thoms stated that some tenants may have two cars so the number of units is not the only factor to be considered. Mr. Burich responded that this aspect can be controlled by internal management of the facility and we need to look at the aspect of providing too much area for parking with these types of projects. The amount of parking necessary for this development is based on the population of Housing Authority projects and given the intended population and bedroom count was not concerned that there would be a long term parking issue. Ms. Propp stated that she would like to know the percentage of vehicles to the number of tenants at the Raulf Place and Court Tower apartments which are both Housing Authority properties of a similar nature. Ms. van Houwelingen indicated that Raulf Place has 104 units and 67 parking stalls and they have a little issue with parking at that site. Court Tower has 104 units with 60% of the residents owning vehicles and Marian Manor has 121 units and has adequate parking with 94 stalls that accommodate both tenants and staff. Mr. Thoms questioned if bus service went past the site. Ms. van Houwelingen responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then questioned how many staff persons would be on site. Ms. van Houwelingen replied that there would be only one to two employees on site at one time. Mr. Thoms also questioned if the petitioner had alternative locations for the chiller. Mr. Wiedenhoeft displayed on the site plan alternative locations for the chiller placement. He reiterated that it cannot be placed on the roof due to historic issues and near the building was not possible either due to placement of windows for the apartment units. They needed to place the chiller as close to the building as possible. Mr. Borsuk commented that he supported the concerns related to the placement of the chiller due to noise issues. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 December 6, 2016 Mr. Wiedenhoeft reviewed the tables for noise levels again for other comparisons with noise elements. Mr. Borsuk discussed the parking concerns and stated that this request was consistent with the application of standards for other residential developments reviewed in the past. Ms. Propp commented that this redevelopment of the site would be a huge improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Fojtik stated that this was a nice re-use of a challenging site. Motion carried 9-0. VI. UPDATE TO CITY OF OSHKOSH ZONING MAP (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) On October 4, 2016, the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a new draft zoning map coinciding with the update/rewrite of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance. On November 15, 2016, staff presented 15 changes to the proposed zoning map, two of which the Plan Commission referred back to staff for further analysis. The Plan Commission also evaluated nine options for the University Transition Overlay boundary. After review, the Plan Commission requested staff to resubmit Option 9 and a variation of Option 9, which scales back the eastern extent of the Overlay District from Wright Street to Wisconsin Street. Mr. Nau presented the first map revision and discussed the Buckstaff property site which was proposed to be changed from HI to UMU-PD initially. The revised map revision is proposed to change this zoning classification to CMU-PD which was determined by staff to be in the best interest of future use of the site and as the properties are separated by public right-of-way, it should not have any negative impact on existing industrial uses adjacent to this site . The CMU zoning district has lesser setback requirements and the planned development overlay will provide oversight of any future development of the property. Mr. Burich further discussed the redevelopment of the Buckstaff site and the benefits of the planned development overlay. Mr. Nau presented the second map revision which was for properties located at E. Packer Avenue and Harrison Street which was proposed to be changed from HI to UI. After further review of the uses of these properties, two were found to be prohibited in the HI district and two others were found that do not meet the minimum parcel standards in regard to area. Staff was therefore recommending the originally proposed UI zoning district for this area. Mr. Nau presented a third map revision for properties located at W. 20th Avenue and W. 23rd Avenue from Minnesota Street to Montana Street. This area was proposed to be changed from HI to UI as that zoning classification better suits the smaller parcel sizes and less intensive uses. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 December 6, 2016 Mr. Nau presented a fourth map revision for the area that was just reviewed for a zone change at Harrison Street and E. Custer Avenue from M-2 to C-1PD. This revision would change the new zoning classification for that parcel from UMU to UMU-PD to be consistent with the zoning on the adjacent parcel that is being redeveloped. Mr. Borsuk stated that he appreciated the clarification on the map revision for the Buckstaff site and he spoke with several owners of the properties on Packer Avenue and Harrison Street who were agreeable to the proposed zone change. He questioned the reason for the revision on W. 20 th Avenue and W. 23rd Avenue. Mr. Burich responded that these parcels were small in size and a vast mixture of uses and the greater setback requirements in the HI zoning district was not appropriate for this area. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the miscellaneous changes to the update to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Map. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Burich discussed the previous actions and concerns at the last meeting relative to establishing the boundaries for the University Transition Overlay (UTO) District. He first reviewed Option #9 which pulls the eastern boundary back to Wright Street, the north boundary back to Vine Street and carving out the historic district on the south. This option would remove 257 properties (181 rentals, 76 owner-occupied) from the original boundary. He then reviewed Option #10 which pulls the eastern boundary west to Wisconsin Street which would remove 332 properties (249 rental, 83 owner occupied) from the original boundary and would also carve out the historic district on the south. He stated that staff supported Option #9 and that this boundary could be adjusted at a later date if desired. Mr. Thoms questioned what impact these changes of the boundary would have on property owners in this area. Mr. Burich responded that the intent of the UTO is to promote additional density inside this area that is already significantly impacted by student housing and prevent this rental housing trend from moving out further into other neighborhoods in the community. He explained the standards for 4 or 5 unrelated individuals residing in a dwelling unit within the UTO and the definition of functional families and the density reduction to 3 unrelated individuals allowed by right in other districts. This is intended to protect the owner occupied housing neighborhoods by allowing a more dense rental population inside the UTO boundary and less outside of this area. He further explained the allowance for 3 or 4 unrelated individuals being allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit. Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, representing the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association, discussed the petition that was presented to the Common Council requesting a change in the originally proposed boundaries of the UTO which would have extended to Jackson Street. She discussed the issue with neighbors who appreciated the alternative options and her research on the student housing matter. She voiced her concerns with the quality of life in student __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 December 6, 2016 housing areas and her desire to protect the families that live there. She again discussed the historic homes in this area and that the community needed to respect the historic district and maintain the integrity of the homes in that area. She felt that the Landmarks Commission could reach out to landlords to discuss the situation and continued discussion on rental housing in Madison and other communities. She also discussed the amount of rental housing outside of the new proposed boundary and the possibility that in time this could change back to owner occupied homes. Mr. Bowen left at 5:40 pm. Mr. Fojtik inquired if Ms. Mattox had a preference between Option #9 and #10. Ms. Mattox discussed the green space to the north of the area and that it should be preserved and that the larger of a buffer that could be established the better. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the revision to the University Transition Overlay District boundary to Option #9. Seconded by Nollenberger. Mr. Cummings inquired if Option #9 achieves the objectives and goals of the neighborhood association. Mr. Burich indicated that both options address this and although staff preferred the boundary extend out to Jackson Street, pulling it back to Wright Street will be adequate for now. Mr. Thoms commented that Option #10 was more of a buffer to the neighborhood but may be a hindrance to accommodate student housing. Mr. Burich discussed the nonconforming uses for four individuals in a rental unit and the issue s with verifying how many people are housed in any one property. He further discussed the issue of trying to preserve single-family neighborhoods and that shrinking the area of the UTO district may diminish what staff is trying to do with the establishment of this zoning district. Ms. Propp commented that she prefers Option #9 as it is not as dense and the boundary could be adjusted a later time if deemed appropriate. Motion carried 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Borsuk stated that he wanted to recognize Donna Lohry, who recently resigned her position on the Commission, for her service. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. (Vajgrt/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services