Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rlo Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Platteville rejects residential limited-occupancy overlay expansion after wide public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of testimony from 35 petitioning property owners and a statement from UW Platteville, the council voted down Ordinance 26-01 to expand the city's Residential Limited Occupancy (RLO) overlay to 35 eligible properties in a northwest neighborhood.
The Platteville Common Council on Jan. 13 declined a zoning amendment that would have expanded the city's Residential Limited Occupancy (RLO) overlay district to include 35 properties after extended public testimony and council debate.
Joe, city planning staff, said the petition was signed by 37 property owners and that 35 parcels were eligible for inclusion under the city's RLO rules. He described the RLO as an overlay that reduces the number of unrelated occupants allowed in a dwelling (from four to two) and traced the ordinance's origins to a 2011 effort to protect single-family neighborhoods adjacent to the university.
Several petitioners described personal experience of houses converted to student rentals, citing noise, traffic and parking issues and asking to be proactive to preserve neighborhood character. Diana Blinder of 1125 Holman Street said she moved to protect a quiet family neighborhood that was gradually converted to student housing. Priscilla Hahn of 920 Camp Street said RLO status helps keep single-family homes available to future buyers and reduces transient occupancy.
Bridget Wallace, chief of staff at the University of Wisconsin—2Platteville, told the council the university is operating in a competitive environment and that students contribute an estimated $42,000,000 annually to Platteville's economy; she asked the council to weigh that economic role.
Council members divided in debate. Supporters emphasized that petitioners sought RLO designation only for their own properties and noted an established petition process. Opponents and some members warned about long-term impacts on housing supply, the potential for repeated incremental expansions and the risk of restricting future housing options. One council member said noise and parking enforcement could be better alternatives.
A motion to expand the RLO to the 35 eligible properties was moved and seconded, put to a roll-call vote and failed. The ordinance did not pass, leaving the existing RLO boundaries unchanged.
The council approved several other items on the agenda, and staff said residents would be informed of next steps if they wish to refile or pursue alternative tools (parking enforcement, targeted code enforcement or education).
