TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: January 14, 2025
RE:
Title
A24-45. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: Variance request for minimum yard setbacks at 510 North Street (REID #: 0437761787000), owned by Rogers and Breece Inc.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
• Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
o Objective 2.1: Ensure a diverse City tax base.
• Goal 4: Highly Desirable Place to Live, Work, and Recreate
o Objective 4.5: Ensure great neighborhoods for residents.
Executive Summary:
The applicant seeks a variance to maintain existing setbacks for a structure in an LC (Limited Commercial) zoning district that sustained fire damage exceeding 50% of its building cost. The existing building cannot meet current setback requirements without demolition, as the current setbacks are a front setback at approximately 25 feet, side setbacks at approximately 4 feet and 0 feet, and a rear setback of less than 2 feet. The existing structure is a crematory, a legally pre-existing use that will continue with no change of use, expansion, or remodeling. The applicant requests that the structure remain with its current setbacks under the regulations for legally pre-existing buildings and uses.
The adjacent properties are labeled LC and MR5 (Mixed Residential 5). Notably, the MR5 zoning to the rear of the property is Lamon Street Park, not a single-family residential area. Given the constraints of the existing site conditions, the requested variance aims to maintain the building’s original footprint while complying with the zoning regulations to the fullest extent possible. Compliance with current setbacks is not feasible without significant demolition, which would disrupt the continuity of the existing land use.
On December 10, 2024, the Zoning Commission held an Evidentiary Hearing regarding this case. After receiving all evidence and testimony, the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the Variance application.
30.2.C.14 Variance:
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numeric standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to exceptional circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner’s control (such as extraordinary topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), the literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner. The deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
Variances are to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances or under exceptional circumstances to relieve undue and unique hardships to the landowner. No change in permitted uses or applicable conditions of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
• Owner: Rogers & Breece Inc.
• Applicant: Bobby Pia
• Requested Action: Maintain original building setbacks.
• Zoning District: Limited Commercial (LC)
• Property Address: 510 North Street
• Size: 0.57 acres ±
• Existing Land Use: Rogers & Breece Crematory
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
• North: MR5 - Lamon Street Park
• South: LC - The Cardinal Building
• East: MR5 - Lamon Street Park
• West: LC - Rogers & Breece Funeral Home
Issues/Analysis:
The building has experienced fire damage exceeding 50% of its value, thus triggering the obligation to meet current setback requirements. Under the existing zoning rules, these setbacks are 25 feet at the front, 3 feet at the sides, and 10 feet at the rear. However, the current building does not meet these standards:
• The front setback is more than 25 feet.
• The side setbacks measure 4 feet and 0 feet.
• The rear setback is under 2 feet.
Bringing the structure into compliance would require partial demolition, an option the owners consider impractical and financially overwhelming. Strictly following the zoning rules places an additional economic burden on owners already impacted by the unforeseen fire, and complete demolition and rebuilding would cause undue hardship.
The property lies in a Limited Commercial (LC) district surrounded by other LC and MR5 zoning; the MR5 area contains a park rather than residential homes. The owner has no intention of changing the building's use, enlarging it, or remodeling it beyond repairing the fire damage and continuing the legally established crematory operations.
According to the applicant, a variance is necessary to ensure that the land remains usable and that the existing structure can be preserved without an extensive and costly teardown. The applicant further argues that the proposed variance represents the minimum step required to maintain reasonable use of the property, aligning with the zoning ordinance’s broader objectives.
The applicants maintain that allowing the variance will not compromise public safety or welfare. The building has operated in its current form for years without incident, and the planned work involves only repairs to the existing structure. The request underscores the importance of balancing real-world constraints with zoning rules. While setback standards aim to maintain space, safety, and visual harmony, strict enforcement here may place an excessive financial strain on the property owners, especially given the building’s construction under previous regulations and the unforeseen fire damage. In this context, granting the variance could be seen as a logical way to relieve financial stress and allow continued commercial viability.
Preserving the current footprint retains the established streetscape and local character. Forcing demolition to meet today’s setbacks would impose significant costs and disrupt neighborhood continuity. The park's location in the nearby MR5 zone further diminishes any risk to residential quality of life.
Adaptive reuse is widely recognized as a key principle of sustainable urban development. Rather than requiring strict compliance with contemporary standards that would force demolition, allowing existing structures to be repurposed supports more resilient and sustainable development methods. This strategy aligns with broader urban planning objectives of waste reduction and efficient resource use.
Evaluating whether the requested variance supports the community’s broader goals is critical. Here, no new construction, expansion, or change of use is proposed, which suggests minimal effects on public welfare. Since the building already coexists with neighboring uses, including a park, it is unlikely that granting the variance would negatively affect the public interest.
Insufficient Justification for Variance:
The following are not considered valid grounds for a Variance:
1. The presence of other nonconforming or conforming land uses or structures in the same or different districts;
2. A request for a use that is explicitly or implicitly prohibited in the district; or
3. Economic hardship or the potential for increased profitability through a Variance.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, as shown by the following evidence:
Strictly applying the Ordinance requirements would impose significant practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. Specifically, enforcing the setback provision would necessitate the complete demolition of the structure, rendering its restoration unfeasible.
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
The practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships stem from unique circumstances inherent to the property rather than any actions undertaken by the landowner, as enforcing the setback requirement would necessitate the complete demolition of the building.
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures, as shown by the following evidence:
The requested variance represents the least intrusive measure required to allow for the reasonable use of the land and its structures since the property houses substantial, immovable equipment, making alternative solutions impractical.
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The Variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance, preserving its spirit and principles. The structure that sustained fire damage has stood
on the property for many years under the same ownership, reflecting its longstanding integration into the community.
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done, as shown by the following evidence:
Granting the Variance ensures that public safety and welfare are fully considered while delivering substantial justice. The Applicant’s commitment to providing essential crematory services to the community underlines the facility's critical role in meeting local needs.
Budget Impact:
There are no anticipated budgetary implications at this time.
Options:
1. Approve Findings as submitted by staff.
2. Approve Findings with specific changes.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends option one above.
Attachments:
1. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact