TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: December 10, 2024
RE:
Title
A24-45. Variance Request for Minimum Yard Setbacks at 510 North Street (REID #: 0437761787000), owned by Rogers & Breece Inc.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022 - Goals 2027
• 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 is seeking a variance to maintain existing setbacks for a structure located in an LC (Limited Commercial) zoning district, which sustained fire damage exceeding 50% of its building cost. The existing building cannot meet current setback requirements without demolition, as the current setbacks are: 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, which is a legally pre-existing use and will continue as such with no change of use, expansion, or remodeling. The applicant requests that the structure be allowed to remain with its current setbacks under the regulations for legally pre-existing buildings and uses.
The adjacent properties are zoned as LC and MR5 (Mixed Residential 5). Notably, the MR5 zoning to the rear of the property is the Lamon Street Park, not a single-family residential area. The requested variance aims to maintain the building’s original footprint while complying with the zoning regulations to the fullest extent possible, given the constraints of the existing site conditions. Compliance with current setbacks is not feasible without significant demolition, which would disrupt the continuity of the existing land use.
Per 30.2.C.14, a variance is intended to permit deviations from dimensional standards of the Ordinance when special circumstances, beyond the landowner's control, would result in undue hardship if the strict application of the standards were enforced. A variance does not permit changes to the permitted uses or conditions of approval and is meant to be used sparingly.
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 sustained fire damage exceeding 50% of its value, which triggers the requirement to comply with current setback standards. According to the current zoning regulations, the required setbacks are 25 feet for the front, 3 feet for the side, and 10 feet for the rear. However, the existing building’s setbacks do not conform to these requirements:
• The front setback is over 25 feet.
• The side setbacks are 4 feet and 0 feet.
• The rear setback is less than 2 feet.
Meeting these setback requirements would necessitate a partial demolition of the structure, which the owners find impractical and economically burdensome.
Strictly adhering to the current zoning requirements imposes a significant financial burden on the property owners, whom the unexpected fire has already impacted. They argue that complete demolition and reconstruction would lead to unnecessary economic hardship.
The property is located in a Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district, with adjacent properties also zoned LC and MR5 - the latter housing a park rather than residences. No plans exist to change the use, expand, or remodel the building. The goal is to repair the fire damage and continue operating as a legally pre-existing crematory.
The applicant asserts that the variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the land while preserving the existing structure without requiring a disruptive and costly teardown. The justification for the variance emphasizes that the request represents the minimum action required to make reasonable use of the property, aligning with the overall purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The applicants maintain that granting the variance will not adversely impact public safety or welfare. The building has functioned in its current configuration for years without any issues, and the proposed work will only involve repairs to the existing structure.
The variance request highlights essential considerations that balance practical realities against the zoning regulations. Zoning setback requirements are designed to ensure appropriate spacing, safety, and aesthetics between properties. However, given that this building was initially constructed under different standards and considering the unforeseen nature of the fire damage, strict enforcement of current setbacks may impose an undue economic burden on the property owners. In this context, granting the variance could represent a reasonable approach to easing financial strain while allowing for the continued viability of the commercial use.
Maintaining the current building footprint preserves the block’s existing urban fabric and continuity. Requiring demolition to meet setback standards would not only incur costs but could also disrupt the neighborhoods aesthetic and functional continuity. The proximity of the neighboring MR5 zoning, which contains a park, further reduces any potential negative impact on residential quality of life.
Adaptive reuse is increasingly recognized as a fundamental principle of sustainable urban development. Rather than insisting on full compliance with modern standards that necessitate demolition, allowing existing structures to adapt supports more resilient and sustainable development practices. This approach aligns with broader urban planning goals of minimizing waste and promoting efficient use of resources.
Evaluating whether the requested variance aligns with the community’s broader interests is essential. In this case, since the variance request does not propose new development, expansion, or change of use, the impact on public welfare appears minimal. Additionally, since the building already exists alongside neighboring uses, including a park, it is unlikely that granting the variance would harm 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 (Based on Applicant’s Responses):
The following findings are based on the applicant’s responses in the submitted application and the most reliable information available regarding the proposal, prior to any testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing.
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:
The applicant states, “The entire building would have to be knocked down if the set back of 10' was enforced. As you are aware this would be a huge expense that the building owners would have to incur. The fire was an unexpected event. This has placed a huge economic strain on the family and they wish to avoid another one IF the current zoning standards are enforced.
Given the building's age and the challenges posed by current economic conditions, I respectfully request that a zoning variance be granted to allow for necessary repairs and renovations without adhering to the strict setback requirements.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. I would be happy to provide any additional information or documentation that may be required.”
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 applicant states, “The entire building would have to be knocked down. As you are aware this would be a huge expense that the building owners would have to incur. The fire was an unexpected event. This has placed a huge economic strain on the family and they wish to avoid another one IF the current zoning standards are enforced.
Given the building's age and the challenges posed by current economic conditions, I respectfully request that a zoning variance be granted to allow for necessary repairs and renovations without adhering to the strict setback requirements.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. I would be happy to provide any additional information or documentation that may be required.”
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 applicant states, “Not sure what is being ask, but this building has been there for decades and only the roof needs replacing. The existing walls will stay. The foot print is not moving.”
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 applicant states, “This building had a fire. It has been there for years. The owners have been the same people and would have to pay a high cost to rebuild.”
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states, “The building has been there for years and is not in the way of anything.”
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact associated with this request.
Options:
The board has the authority to approve or deny the request based on the five required findings of fact. Members must assess the evidence and determine if the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships based on the unique characteristics of the land.
If a member believes that the evidence presented is substantial, competent, and sufficient to meet the required findings of fact then the member may make a motion to approve the variance and the members must state all of the following five findings of fact along with the evidence that was presented to satisfy each finding.
If the members cannot find specific supporting facts under all five findings of fact, the members must consider a motion of denial. A motion of denial should indicate which of the five (5) of the findings of fact cannot be met.
The board can also place reasonable conditions on any variance approval.
If a member wishes to make a motion to approve the variance they should make a brief statement that recaps the evidence showing each of the five findings of fact. Any discussion by the Board following a motion may include a recap of the evidence supporting each of the five (5) factual findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve the variance maintaining the current building setbacks, ensuring the building can be repaired to its original footprint.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
2. 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:
______________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
_____________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
Motion to approve the variance(s) as requested but with added conditions
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request with added conditions:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
2. 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:
___________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
Motion to deny the variance as requested.
Findings of Fact Statements Required to Deny this Request:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
________________________________________________________________
2. There is not 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:
_______________________________________________________________
3. There is not 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:
_______________________________________________________________
4. There is not 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:
_______________________________________________________________
5. There is not sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________.
Recommended Action:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan