Carbondale Reporter

Carbondale Planning Commission met May 10.

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:

Ms. Litecky called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky, and Bradshaw (ex-officio)

Members Absent: Burnside and Love

Staff Present: Taylor

1. Approval of Minutes:

There were none

2. Citizen Comments or Questions

There were none

3. Report of Officers, Committees, Communications

There were none

4. Public Hearings

PC 17-16, 6:32 pm- Jeff Williams is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for a rooming house in a PAR, Professional Administrative Office, Residential, Zoning District at 806 West Main Street.

Ms. Litecky declared Public Hearing PC 17-16 open and asked Mr. Taylor to read the legal notice.

Travis Taylor, Senior Planner for the City of Carbondale, read the legal notice.

Ms. Litecky asked Mr. Taylor to present the staff report.

Travis Taylor, Senior Planner for the City of Carbondale, was sworn in and read parts A and B of the staff report. Mr. Taylor stated that City Planning staff had received three letters in opposition, that were provided to the Commission in the packets, letters were received from the Beard Law Firm, Lawrence and Maureen Dennis and the Bankruptcy Clinic.

Ms. Litecky asked if there were any questions of staff.

Ms. Litecky questioned how many tenants would be allowed to reside at the residence if it were given the special use permit. Mr. Taylor stated that it would be a four bedroom rooming house, which would allow from one person per bedroom. Ms. Litecky also asked how many parking spaces would be needed. Mr. Taylor stated that six parking spots would be needed with the rooming house and the accessory dwelling. Ms. Litecky questioned how many could reside in the accessory dwelling. Mr. Taylor stated that it would be a single family unit, but that dwelling only has one bedroom.

Mr. LeBeau asked when the structure was built. Mr. Taylor stated that it was before the zoning records so he is unsure of the year it was constructed.

Ms. Litecky asked if the applicant wished to present evidence in support.

Jeff Williams, of 5369 Country Club Road, came forward to speak. Mr. Williams stated that his law office is only using half of the building and that the previous owners had utilized the building as apartments and offices. Also, previous owners of the law office, rented out the apartments to other tenants in the past. Mr. Williams stated that when he purchased the building there were current renters residing in the apartments and as they moved out he did not continue renting the apartments out. Mr. Williams stated that he is not trying to move a group such as a fraternity into the property, he is just trying to make adjustments to the structure so it can once again function as a rooming house like it was built to be. Since Mr. Williams has moved his law office to Murphysboro, for professional reasons, the building has no other use really than to be rented out as a rooming house. He stated that he has placed the property on the market to sell but no one has had any interest in purchasing the property. Mr. Williams has met with contractors about making the inside livable and nice for Carbondale and how to handle the parking space situation so it can be within the City Code.

Ms. Litecky asked if anyone wished to speak in favor.

There was no one.

Ms. Litecky asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition.

Jay Howd, of 29 Spring Creek Road and an attorney at the Bankruptcy Clinic, came forward to speak in opposition and about the letter that he submitted in opposition. He expressed his concern with the property and what would be allowed if it were to be rented out based off his experience with properties near his business. He has had many issues with the residence next to his business and that tenants at that location have no respect for his property or for Main Street itself. Mr. Howd is concerned that if Mr. Williams is allowed to put a rooming house across the street from his business, as well, it is going to cause even more issues on his property.

Mr. Sheffer asked Mr. Howd for clarification as to where his property is located in relation to Mr. Williams’s property on the map that the Commission was provided. Mr. Sheffer stated that he does not know if it is going to cause more issues considering that location already has other single family homes and apartments located all around it. Mr. Howd showed where he was located on the map and where the other properties were in relation to his property. Mr. Sheffer stated that he also does not feel leaving properties vacant is a good answer for Main Street either. Mr. Sheffer also stated that if Mr. Williams is allowed this special use permit he will have to follow City code and standards including having rental inspections, which might keep some of Mr. Howd’s concerns away. Mr. Howd stated that he was still concerned with bringing in more rental properties because of the current offices that are located in that area and the problems multifamily residential might cause. Mr. Sheffer and Mr. Howd then had a conversation about real estate in that area and the demand on those types of properties. Mr. Howd also expressed concern about inspections because of the property that is located right next to his and the lack of care to that property. It was then discussed whose property Mr. Howd was talking about and what might be done about that property.

Damaris Miltenberger of 2801 West Westridge and owner of the Language and Learning Center, came forward to speak in opposition. Ms. Miltenberger stated that her own property has been on the market for over a year, so she relates to Mr. Williams’ situation but she is concerned about putting in another rooming house. Ms. Miltenberger also stated that, like Mr. Howd, she also has issues with some of the neighbors as far as trash, animals and vandalism. Ms. Miltenberger is concerned that if Mr. Williams’ property is granted a special use permit for a rooming house it might make it even harder for her to sell her own property.

Ms. Litecky asked Mr. Taylor to read the analysis.

Mr. Taylor read Parts C and D of the staff report for PC 17-16, with a recommendation of approval.

Ms. Litecky asked if the Commissioners had questions for staff.

Mr. Sheffer asked how many people were living in the property that was causing Mr. Howd so much trouble next to his property. Mr. Taylor stated that he was unsure at this time how many tenants resided in that property. Mr. Sheffer also asked if it could be looked at as a duplex and not a rooming house to limit the amount of tenants that would be at Mr. Williams’ property. Mr. Taylor stated that he and Mr. Williams had discussed this possibility, but he would be required to have more parking spaces for a duplex and it would not decrease the amount of people who could live in the house. It was then discussed between Mr. Taylor and Mr. Sheffer what classifies the amount of parking spaces are needed at different types of homes. Mr. Howd came back forward to state that he would be fine with a duplex verses a boarding house as separating the units may change the type of tenant.

Dr. LeBeau stated that changing this would disrupt the line of offices on the block and would farther contribute to a busy Main Street. Mr. Hamilton agreed and asked Mr. Taylor if traffic problems and possible accidents were taking into consideration. Mr. Taylor stated that he did take these things into consideration and his thoughts are that traffic from a rooming house would mostly be in the mornings and the evenings, when the residents are coming and going, but an office building would be during business hours. Therefore making the stress on traffic about the same.

Ms. Litecky asked if there were questions from anyone to anyone.

Mr. Williams came forward to state that they are calling it a rooming house because there will be inside access to all three different apartments for safety reasons, but he plans to rent them out as separate places with each a separate kitchen. Mr. Williams stated that calling it a rooming house versus a duplex does not change how it is rented and the upkeep that he will do on the property. He also addressed the idea of it causing traffic or parking issues based on the other properties around his. Mr. Williams is not wanting to rent this property out as a party house, he wants it to be a nice rental and he does not want it to sit vacant.

Mr. Howd ask why he does not just sell the property but Mr. Williams stated that he would have to take a hit in order to sell the property and he has had difficulty finding a buyer.

Ms. Litecky declared PC 17-16 closed and asked for a motion on the findings of fact.

Mr. Sheffer moved that the Commission accept as findings of fact Parts A and B of the staff report for PC 17-16, the applicant was present, no one spoke in favor, two spoke in opposition and three letters were received in opposition, seconded by Ms. Lilly.

The motion was passed with a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Sheffer moved to vote on the seven criteria for PC 17-16 separately, seconded by Dr. Hamilton.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 5 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky)

No – 0

Mr. Sheffer moved that the proposed special use will permit and encourage an environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, seconded by Ms. Lilly.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 0

No – 5 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky)

Mr. Sheffer moved that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare, seconded by Ms. Lilly.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 3 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Lilly)

No – 2 (Hamilton, Litecky)

Mr. Sheffer moved that the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor substantially diminish and impair property value within the neighborhood, seconded by Dr. Hamilton.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 2 (Lilly, Litecky)

No – 3 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton)

Mr. Sheffer moved that the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district, seconded by Ms. Lilly.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 0

No – 5 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky)

Mr. Sheffer moved that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided, seconded by Dr. LeBeau.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 5 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky)

No – 0

Mr. Sheffer moved that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets, seconded by Dr. LeBeau.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 5 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky)

No – 0

Mr. Sheffer moved that the special use will be located in a district where such use may be permitted, and shall conform to all requirements of this Chapter, seconded by Ms. Lilly.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 0

No – 5 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Lilly, Litecky)

Mr. Sheffer moved that the Commission deny special use permit PC 17-16, seconded by Dr. Hamilton.

Roll Call Vote:

Yes – 4 (LeBeau, Sheffer, Hamilton, Litecky)

No – 1 (Lilly)

Mr. Taylor stated that the motion to recommend denial has passed and that the item would be on the City Council agenda for discussion at their meeting on June 6, 2017.

5. Old Business

There was none.

6. New Business

A. Mr. Taylor discussed the property where the Horizon Inn Hotel had been located, 800 East Main Street and the possibility of rezoning the property from AG, General Agriculture, to SB, Secondary Business. Mr. Taylor asked the Commission if they would make a motion to initiate the rezoning.

Mr. Sheffer moved for the initiation of the rezoning at 800 East Main Street, seconded by Dr. Hamilton.

The motion was passed with a unanimous voice vote.

B. Mr. Taylor discussed the uses in PAR districts and the possibility of more retail use.

Mr. Sheffer moved for the initiation of a text amendment to allow retail uses in the PAR, Professional Administrative Office, Residential Zoning District, seconded by Ms. Lilly.

The motion was passed with a unanimous voice vote.

C. City Council Agenda from April 11, 2017, April 25, 2017 and May 2, 2017.

Ms. Bradshaw reviewed the City Council meetings as they related to Planning.

7. Adjournment

Ms. Litecky adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.

http://explorecarbondale.com/sites/default/files/pdf/planning-agenda/2017Agendas/040517/Planning%20Commission%20minutes%2005.10.17.pdf