To

Mayor and Council

Subject

Request for Variance - (SV030601) - Replat of Part of Lots 51, 52, 53, 54 & 55, Ogletree Woods, Block "B"

Initiator

Aronda Smith, Principal Planner

Recommendation

Variance to the Columbus Subdivision Regulations requiring the lot combination \n \n of five (5) lots to conform to the frontage requirements for its respective \n \n zoning district. The variance request is to permit the combination of lots and \n \n the erection of a building upon a parcel of land which lacks lot frontage on a \n \n dedicated public right-of-way (street).

Approval

Approved

Background

Jordan, Jones & Goulding submitted a replat combining five (5) substandard

parcels without public street frontage into one (1) lot. In doing so, they

created a substandard lot that does not correspond with the Columbus

Subdivision Regulations to abut for at least twenty-five (25) feet upon a

dedicated public right-of-way (street). The lot is landlocked by surrounding

properties. A 50? access easement exists on adjoining property at 5731 Veterans

Parkway to provide street access unto existing lots 51, 52, 53, 54, & 55. The

0.78 acres of land is zoned C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial).

Analysis

(1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public

safety, health, welfare or injurious to other property.



The proposal of a lot combination without lot frontage unto a public street

would not inconvenience emergency access nor adversely impact other public

safety concerns due to the existing 50? access easement. However, the proposed

tract must have a Veterans Parkway address to ensure the safety of residents.

The combination of lots will reduce the density of development on the

property. The proposed variance would not create undesirable ambient

conditions which would be injurious to adjacent property owners.



(2) The condition upon which the request for a variance is based is

unique to the property for which the variance is sought and is not applicable

generally to other property.



The existing parcels were subdivided prior to the enactment of the Columbus

Subdivision Regulations. Thus, five (5) landlocked properties were lawfully

created without lot frontage to provide access upon a public right-of-way

(street). The purpose of the replat is to accommodate future development. The

variance is recommended because existing conditions are unique to the property.



(3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or

topographical conditions of the specified property involved, a particular

hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere

inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried out.



Usable frontage along the parcel is restricted because adjacent property owners

do not wish to sell or donate their property. Also, the regulations under the

Columbus Zoning Ordinance would restrict the owner from erecting a building

unto a parcel which does not abut a public right-of-way (street). Therefore,

an undue hardship particular to this land exists because Tract ?A? of the

replat is landlocked. The proposed layout of the combination of land is

appropriate due to the shape and physical surroundings of the specific property

involved.



(4) The variance will not in any manner vary to the provisions of the

zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan or official map.



Yes, the requested variance would permit the construction of a building

on a lot which does not abut for at least twenty-five (25) feet on a public

street (Columbus Zoning Ordinance, Section 22-6). Additionally, the requested

variance would allow the re-subdivision of a parcel that does not front upon a

public street (Columbus Subdivsion Regulations, Section 4.E2). Tract ?A?

must comply with all other zoning requirements.



Tract ?A? must utilize the existing access easement. The Planning

Division has determined that an undue hardship exists and that the granting of

the variance does not detract from the ordinance. The granting of this

variance will not adversely impact the overall objectives of the area as

outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.

Financial Considerations

None.

Projected Annual Fiscal Impact Statement

Legal Considerations

The approval of the variance to the Columbus Subdivision Regulations would

eliminate any violations of said ordinances concerning these aforementioned

issues.

Recommendations/ Actions

The request for a Subdivision Variance meets the criteria set forth in Columbus

Code Section 18A-53. The Planning Division recommends approval.

No attachments for this document.