RESUME PUBLIC HEARING:

 

PC Minutes 7/24/06-DRAFT

ITEM NO. 5:              USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR A MAIN LIVING UNIT AND THREE RENTAL UNITS; 805 OHIO STREET (MKM)

 

UPR-05-08-06:  Use Permitted upon Review request for a Main Living Unit and three Rental Units, located at 805 Ohio Street.  Submitted by Daniel Riedemann, applicant, for Kenneth Riedemann, property owner of record.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Miller, Staff, gave an introduction and brief history of the UPR request. The request is an adaptive reuse of an historic structure and would allow multi-family uses.  The UPR assists the owner in financing the maintenance of the house.  The Historic Resources Commission has reviewed the application and made the recommendation that the property be nominated for an individual listing on the Lawrence Register with the condition that the owner submits the application within 12 months.  In 1992 the City Commission gave strict, site specific conditions for approval of the original UPR which included the recording of restrictive covenants with Register of Deeds.  In 1992 Staff originally recommended denial due to the increase in density.  The area currently has mixed uses and the UPR is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 

 

In communications from the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, one of questions raised was have the owners met the original City Commission conditions for approval.  Most have been met but behind schedule.  The applicant has requested a revision of one condition to allow couples in the apartments.    There have been infractions of plumbing and electrical codes and the UPR was rescinded temporarily in 1998 because the applicant had not met conditions. 

 

Staff recommends approval of the UPR per HRC recommendations with conditions.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Dan Riedemann, 805 Ohio St., applicant.  Mr. Riedemann explained condition 5 of the existing UPR requires limitation on the number of occupants in each apartment to 1.  He felt this is discriminatory against applicants based upon marital status. He continued that his intent to keep the number of occupants at a minimum but does not feel they should have to discriminate against families.  Mr. Riedemann contends the UPR puts them in the position of violating federal law.  HUD guidelines state that limitations can be uniformly applied to two people regardless of age.  Mr. Riedemann would like to be able rent to no more than two people, regardless of age.

 

Riedemann continued, regarding concerns with the ballroom attic condition stated, the Fire Department suggested that it not be finished.  They cited concerns that if the ballroom is completed there will always be a question as to whether it is living space.  The applicant rewired and replumbed the space but did not lay the flooring, which guaranteed that it cannot be used as living space.  Access to ballroom attic is in the owners living quarters which cannot be accessed by tenants.

Mr. Riedemann stated that he has applied for the state and national historic register a number of times in the past.  The national registry indicated the house is already listed as it is a contributing structure in an historic district.  The local registry is the only registry the house is not on. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Burdett Loomis, treasurer and acting president of the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association said the Association provided a letter in the Planning Commission packet.  Mr. Loomis requested the rental history of the property and wondered if Mr. Riedemann expected primarily singles in the one bedroom units.   Mr. Loomis also questioned whether the objective for the property is still to return it to a single family home.  The building is an important one and adds to the character of Lawrence and the neighborhood.  The neighborhood recently had a large downzoning effort and does not want to see this property set a precedent for multi-family uses in the long term.  The neighborhood also noticed a marked improvement in the property once the Riedemann’s purchased it and is grateful to the Riedemanns for their rehabilitation of the property. 

 

No other members of the public spoke regarding this item.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Erickson asked the owner to indicate the location of the 3rd apartment.

 

Riedemann provided a diagram.  He stated that there would be very little change to the structure to combine the two smaller apartments to gain a larger one.  Two apartments are on the 2nd floor, one apartment is on the ground floor.

 

Finkeldei questioned the rental history of the property and whether the owner is intending to move towards a single family dwelling.

 

Riedemann stated he rents to 60-75% singles.  The remainder has been either couples or a single parent and child.  Riedemann continued that it is not currently economically feasible to convert to a single family dwelling due to unexpected cost associated with renovations and rising energy costs.  He stated that the footprint of the home is 5,000 square feet and it is two floors which means the square footage is closer to 10,000 square feet. 

 

Harris asked about the number of parking spaces that have been proposed and whether he is concerned that a couple will likely have more than one car.

 

Riedemann explained there is one parking space per apartment and three for the home owner. He limits the number of parking spots to one per tenant and many tenants do not own cars. 

 

Harkins asked if the garage is ever used for anything other than a garage as he noticed an air conditioner.

 

Riedemann said it is used as a garage and for storage.  He also stated he restores furniture as a hobby and draws out humidity with the air conditioner. 

 

Burress questioned whether there is a realistic plan to eventually turn the home into single family residence.

 

Riedemann replied that to go to 100% single family, the home will need to go out of his ownership.  He said the house is 127 years old and expensive to renovate as parts aren’t readily available.  The maintenance issues are not routine and are constant due to the size and age of the home. 

 

Eichhorn asked about the duplex to the south mentioned in the Staff Report and questioned whether it is slated for removal.

 

Riedemann answered that he bought the duplex to control the rental and make it as nice as possible. 

 

Burress questioned whether Riedemann personally is ever going to be able to turn the home into a single family dwelling and if not, is Riedemann willing to sell the property.

 

Riedemann stated that with property values and energy costs rising he is not certain if he can turn convert it back into a single family home although it is the family’s goal to do so.  If the right buyer came along he would be willing to sell the property to convert it into a single family dwelling. 

 

Eichhorn asked Staff if it is permissible to have a group of renters in the house and if so, how many unrelated renters are allowed.

 

Stogsdill confirmed in RS zoning the definition of family consists of 3 unrelated individuals.  A boarding house which would allow more unrelated individuals would require rezoning.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Jennings, seconded by Finkeldei to recommend approval of UPR-05-08-06 a Use Permitted Upon Review for a Main Living Unit and three Rental Units, located at 805 Ohio Street and forwarding of it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions and with the change to condition number 5 stating that two persons per apartment be allowed:

1.        Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

2.        A restrictive covenant limiting the use of the property pursuant to these UPR conditions shall be filed with the Register of Deeds. The restrictive covenant shall be applied to the benefit of the City and the City shall have the authority to enforce the restrictive covenant by all lawful means. The restrictive covenant shall be approved in form and content by City Staff prior to filing. The restrictive covenant shall not abrogate or reduce the ability of the City to enforce this UPR through other lawful means.

 

 

3.        The owner shall, within 12 months of approval of the UPR, submit a completed application for individual listing as a Landmark Structure on the Lawrence and State Historic Registers. A copy of the submitted application must be provided to the Historic Resource Administrator. Failure to submit the application within this time limit will void the UPR.

4.        The UPR is granted solely to and creates property rights only to the applicants: Daniel T. and Sherri E. Riedemann. The property shall be occupied by the applicants, or the immediate family for the life of the UPR. Transfer of ownership, or any part or interest in the property, shall render the UPR null and void unless approval of the City is obtained prior to transfer or assignment.

5.        There shall be a limit of one two lessees per dwelling unit. Only lessees of the owner shall occupy any portion of the structure except the owner’s residence. Minor children, under 18 years of age, may occupy a dwelling unit with a lessee provided the lessee is a parent or has legal custody.

HRC Conditions:

6.        Any changes to the approved project will be submitted to the Historic Resources Commission prior to the commencement of any related work.

7.        The applicant will allow Staff to access the property annually to review the project’s compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

8.        The UPR will expire in 10 years, at which point the applicant must appear before the Historic Resources Commission for review.

9.        The applicant completes the Lawrence Register nomination for the property.

 

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Burress asked Burdett Loomis the neighborhood’s response to allowing two persons per unit.

 

Loomis replied that with the rental history being primarily a single individual he feels there would generally be no objection and they are fine with the reduction of one unit.

 

Haase stated his wish that Terry Riordan was still on the Commission as his property is located near fraternities and across from several rundown homes.  Haase continued that he purchased a home in Oread to maintain it as a single family dwelling. He does not see how anyone could deny this UPR is setting a precedent and he does not believe it is necessary.  He continued that he will not vote for it as it is in contradiction of every zoning principle recognized by the Planning Commission.  Haase feels that nothing will change in 10 years and this will essentially be a perpetual multi-family zoning. 

 

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve UPR based on Staff Report with conditions, with the change to condition number 5 stating that two persons per apartment be allowed.

 

          Motion carried 5-3, with Burress, Eichhorn and Harris in opposition.