PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

Regular Agenda – Public Hearing Item:

 

PC Staff Report

07/24/06

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 RECOMMENDATION:     Planning Staff recommends 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:

 

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 lessee 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.

KEY POINTS

·        The UPR application was submitted prior to July, 2006 and is being considered under the 1966 Code. Any references to Code in this report are to the 1966 Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.

·        UPR-5-09-94 was originally granted in 1994 to allow the applicant to rent apartments in the house to help finance renovations. Reinstatement of the property to single-family home was a condition of approval, and was to be accomplished within 10 years.

·        UPR-05-08-06 was approved as an Adaptive Reuse of Historical Register Properties in June of 2006 by the Historic Resource Commission.

 

GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER

ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

·         Surrounding area was zoned RS-2 (Single-family Residence) District. With the adoption of the Land Development Code, the zoning has changed from RS-2 (which requires 7,000 sq. ft. minimum area per lot) to RS5 (which requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq. ft). The area is developed primarily with single-family residences with several multi-family units in the area.

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

·         The area is part of the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood and is located on the southern edge of the Old West Lawrence Historic District. 805 Ohio is a part of that district.  Lots in this area range from 5850 sq. ft. to 17,500 sq. ft. with the majority of the lots in the 5850 sq. ft. range. The zoning classification changes in the southern portion of the 800 Block, going from single-family residential to commercial. This area is characterized by commercial uses bordering 9th Street, and residences elsewhere. These residences are a blend of primarily single-family and some multi-family homes. (Figure 1)

 

ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED

·         UPR-05-09-94: Original Adaptive Reuse UPR approved for 805 Ohio

·         City Commission suspension of UPR-05-09-94 in December, 1998 due to unmet conditions and building permit violations.

·         City Commission reinstated UPR in February, 1999 with revised conditions.

·         DR-05-49-06: Lawrence Historic Resources Commission approved the Use Permitted upon Review request on June 16, 2006.

·         City Commission approval of UPR-05-08-06 required.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING

·         Burdett Loomis, Acting President of the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, wrote a letter supporting a temporary UPR which must not be regarded as a precedent.  The Association would like the structure to be returned to single-family status at the end of the UPR, or when the ownership changes.  The Association stated that they did appreciate the improvements that have been made to the structure.

·         Kassie Edwards, 816 Ohio, expressed the opinion that the number of tenants allowed should be restricted in the UPR and that the structure be required to return to a single family home at some point.

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

Current Zoning and Land Use:        RS5 (Single-dwelling Residential) District [RS-2 in the previous Code]; Single-family home with multi-family use allowed as part of previous UPR for Adaptive Reuse of Historical Structure.

 

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:    RS5 (Single-dwelling Residential) District [RS-2 in the previous Code] in all directions; A mix of single- and multi- family homes with primarily single-family uses.                 

 

                                                CS (Commercial Strip) District [C-5 in the previous Code] at the southern portion of the block; bank, professional offices and a gas station/convenience store.

 

Applicant’s Reason for Request:

To continue the multi-family use of this structure.

 

History:

In 1994, the application for UPR-05-09-94; 805 Ohio Street, was received by the Planning Office. After reviewing the request, Planning Staff recommended denial of the UPR. The  Planning Commission voted to forward the UPR-05-09-94 request on to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial. Principal concerns with the UPR request were the setting of a precedent which could be used by owners of many homes in an historical district and the issues of monitoring and enforcing the number of tenants allowed.  The City Commission approved the UPR in July of 1994, with the stipulation that strict conditions and rigid, site-specific standards be placed on the approval to avoid setting a broad precedent.  The purpose of the original UPR was to allow the property owner to finance a portion of the renovations through funds received by renting apartment units in the house.  At that meeting, the City Commission stated that nothing in this UPR shall be interpreted as granting the applicants, or any other person, any right in maintaining a multi-family use at the property beyond a date ten (10) years after the date of the first lessee occupancy. A 10 year time limit was set on the UPR. At the end of the 10 years, extensions were granted to allow the applicant more time to carry out renovations.

 

In 1997, the applicant was notified by Planning Staff that conditions on the UPR had not been met. In December 1998 the City Commission held a public hearing to determine if they should revoke the UPR. The Commission voted to suspend the UPR, allowing no multi-family use, until certain conditions were met. All other conditions of the UPR still required compliance; however, the Commission indicated it would consider conditional reinstatement of the UPR if the specific conditions were met on or before January 1999. The specific conditions were met and the City Commission approved and reinstated the UPR in February 1999 with revisions to the remaining, unmet conditions.  The original conditions of approval are included in Attachment A and the revised conditions in Attachment B.  These are being included to provide understanding of the conditions which are being imposed.

 

I.         ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

 

Staff Finding – The area is zoned for single-family residential use and single-family homes make up the bulk of the neighborhood with some multi-family residences in the vicinity.

 

II.       CHARACTER OF THE AREA

 

Staff Finding – The character of the area is an established residential neighborhood with predominately single-family homes; however, several of the homes are used as multi-family residences. The southern end of the 800 Block of Ohio and neighboring blocks is zoned CS (Commercial Strip) District [formerly C-5 (Limited Commercial)] and commercial uses are located in this area.

 

III.      SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED

 

Applicant’s response—

The suitability of the Subject Property is perfect for the UPR being requested, but not suitable for use as a single family dwelling for the reasons set forth in the answer to Question One of this Sheet A” 

         

          Referenced answers:

 

          (805 is a very expensive property to operate, especially in the area of utility costs, and the fact that it is on the outer edge of that part of Old West Lawrence area that contains the best of the old mansions, and 805 is surrounded by smaller multi-family properties, limits its desirability as a single-family residence.)

 

          (The property continues to work extremely well as an apartment property. Because of the nature of the property and the amount of rent that we have to charge, we have attracted quality tenants which are very serious students and non-students as well. There is very adequate off street parking and to our knowledge there has never been an incident which has been disruptive to the neighborhood)


(The Kansas State Historical Society has been very supportive concerning the current use of 805 and in a letter dated February 14, 2003, stated “Adaptive reuse and rehabilitation are valuable tools used to preserve historic buildings that might otherwise be lost to deterioration or inappropriate development.”)

 

Approval of a Use Permitted upon Review will not alter the base zoning. Section 20-1451(b) of the 1966 City Code states that properties meeting certain criteria are encouraged to pursue adaptive reuse when such use can facilitate the active renovation or restoration of said property. One criteria is that the structure on the property must have a minimum of 4,000 sq. ft. in living space. The subject property has over 7,000 sq. ft. in living space.  This section also requires that the adaptive reuse of a residentially-designed structure maintain the residential quality and character of the property. These requirements are met with this proposal.

 

The granting of this UPR would waive the zoning restrictions as to density of development for this property; however, other multi-family uses in the area would remain non-conforming uses.

 

Staff Finding –The proposal meets the requirements of an Adaptive Reuse of a Historical Structure; however the UPR would waive the density restrictions for this property.

 

IV.       LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED

 

Staff Finding – The property is not vacant. The house on the site is a 110 year old historic home which is a contributing property within the Old West Lawrence Historic District.

 

V.        EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY

 

          Applicant’s response—  None

 

Allowing the continuation of the multi-family use in this property may detrimentally affect nearby property if it is seen as an acceptable and desirable use of the area. It is necessary that the use be established for this property only, with site-specific conditions. The property has existed as a multi-family dwelling with strict restrictions on the number of tenants and the number of cars allowed. These strict restrictions have reduced the impact of this multi-family use on the surrounding neighborhood. 

 

Staff Finding – With strict restrictions on the multi-family use, the removal of single-family restrictions on this property would not have a negative impact on nearby property.

 

VI.       RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS

 

The house at 805 Ohio is very large and the applicant has indicated that maintaining such a large, historically significant structure is very costly. The original UPR for Adaptive Reuse was approved to allow the applicant to finance the renovations using income generated from the rental units. The applicant states that the rental income is necessary to help recoup the cost of bringing the structure into compliance with City Code and the cost of ongoing maintenance. The Kansas State Historical Society wrote to Mr. Riedemann in February, 2003 that:

 

“This project was known to be part of a general rehabilitation of the building involving a new use of the property for a purpose compatible with its historic use as a home. The overall historic character of the building has been retained and even enhanced by the removal of non-historic materials that had previously been applied inappropriately. The repair of historic elements such as wood floors, wood trim, and original plaster, according to appropriate guidelines, further enhances this rehabilitation project.  Adaptive reuse and rehabilitation are valuable tools used to preserve historic buildings that might otherwise be lost to deterioration or inappropriate development. Projects that follow the Standards in this way should be encouraged.”

 

Mr. Loomis, acting president for the Old West Lawrence Neighborhood Association stated that the house was in much better shape now, than before the UPR was originally approved and that the neighborhood is pleased with how the property fits in visually. Their principal concern is with future additional multi-family uses in the area if approval of the UPR is seen as a precedent.

 

Staff Finding – Evaluation of the relative gain weighs the benefits to the community-at-large vs. the benefit of the owners of the subject property.  The use of the house as a multi-family residence has not created any hardship for the neighborhood and has made the preservation of a historically significant structure possible.

 

 

VII.     CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

 

The Comprehensive Plan encourages identification, protection, preservation and adaptive reuse of the wide diversity of historic buildings and structures that can be found in Lawrence and Douglas County. The Plan seeks to balance historic preservation and land use issues when making planning decisions. Policy 3.1: Facilitate Adaptive Reuse: Develop additional zoning regulations which facilitate the adaptive reuse of historic structures.

 

·                    Staff Finding – The proposed request is to allow restricted multi-family uses in an area zoned as a Single-family Residence District to allow adaptive reuse of a historic structure. This use strategy will provide the funding needed for the maintenance of the structure.  The proposed request is in conformance with Horizon 2020.

 

STAFF REVIEW

 

The City Commission, when approving the original UPR, expressly prohibited using the UPR as a precedent for any future multi-family use. Therefore, the original UPR will be reviewed in regards to the effectiveness of the adaptive reuse and the impact of the multi-family use on the neighborhood but will not be seen as establishing any precedent for approval.

 

The original UPR was approved with the condition that all the rental units would be removed and the structure returned to single family use within 10 years. The supporting arguments for this were that the inclusion of multi-family units in a single-family zoned area might have a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties and that the UPR may set a precedent to allow multi-family uses without requiring rezoning.  During the past 10 years the property has been renovated, as a result of the income generated from the multi-family use. The character of the house has improved which has a positive impact on the neighborhood. The original UPR was approved with stringent, site specific conditions which prevented setting a broad precedent. In Staff’s opinion the conditions applied to this UPR would prevent setting a broad precedent for additional multi-family uses in the neighborhood.

 

The other multi-family residences in the area may be non-conforming uses. In 1966, this area was zoned as single family so any multi-family uses that existed before that time and have continued are ‘non-conforming uses’ and are regulated by Article 15 of the Land Development Code. Multi-family housing which did not exist prior to 1966 are in violation of the Code.

 

One condition placed on the original UPR that has not been met was the application for individual listing as a landmark structure on the Lawrence and State Historic Registers. As the UPR is being requested for the renovation and maintenance of a historic structure, this condition should be met and a 12 month time limit has been recommended.

 

The UPR request has been reviewed by the Historic Resource Commission and the staff report is included with this report. The Historic Resource Commission applied a 10 year time limit to the UPR and stated the applicant must appear before the Historic Resources Commission for review.

 

Section 20-1608 of the 1966 City Code requires that a UPR application be accompanied with a site plan meeting the contents of the Site Plan provision of the Code (Section 20-1431). The accompanying site plan has been reviewed by staff and appropriate revisions have been made or conditions have been applied to the UPR.

 

The site plan is for the removal of one apartment from the building (going from 4 rental units to 3) and the removal of one off-street parking space. Adaptive Reuse has a variable parking requirement to meet the ‘adjusted’ need of the proposed use. The parking space will be returned to grass, and a barrier such as a curb or a parking block will be placed in the area to prevent parking on the grass.

 

Based on the information provided by the applicant, the history of the UPR, the Historic Resources Administrator, and neighborhood association, Staff recommends approval of the UPR for the adaptive reuse of the property which includes the conditions approved by the HRC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Figure 1. X is 805 Ohio. The boxes mark multi-family units, as shown on

     the City GIS system. The numbers indicate the number of units.