Memorandum
Date: 7/11/2005
To:
Honorable Mayor and Councilors
City Manager
City Attorney
Clerk of Council
Subject: PC0506-16) Hardship variance to waive the street frontage requirement and allow
the construction of a nonresidential structure on a landlocked lot at 2521
Airport Thruway.
Applicant's Proposal
STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT?S PROPOSAL
This proposal is for the construction of a nonresidential structure on a
landlocked lot. The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 3.0-acre
tract of land into four (4) individual parcels. In doing so, the landowner
will created a landlocked lot (proposed Lot 500 ? see replat). The existing
site accommodates a local retail shopping center. The landowner is seeking to
renovate the existing shopping plaza and develop additional retail
establishments. The developer has not obtained a committed retailer to occupy
the subject parcel.
Section 7.3.5 (F2) of the Columbus Unified Development Ordinance states, ?all
lots shall front on a minimum of 25 feet of dedicated public right-of-way or
upon a right-of-way that has received the legal status.? The proposed
subdivision of the existing lot creates one lot, which does not meet the
minimum street frontage requirement as stated above. The subject property is
located approximately 290 feet from the nearest dedicated public right-of-way
property line. The proposed lot is completely surrounded by similar retail
uses on adjacent properties. For this reason, the subject property lacks
proper street frontage. However, Lot 500 will be provided practical access via
the existing 25-foot access easement intersecting Airport Thruway.
PLANNING & ZONING HISTORY
Applicant: Chuck Ford
Owner: Simon?s Airport Partnership, LLC
Acreage: 0.442 Acres
Current Zoning Classification: GC ? (General Commercial)
Current Use of Property: Shopping Plaza
Planning District: Planning District 6
General Use: Commercial - Retail
Environmental Impacts: None
Surrounding Zoning: North ? GC (General Commercial)
South ? GC (General Commercial)
East - GC (General Commercial)
West ? GC (General Commercial)
Traffic Impact: None
Planning Division
Recommendation: Approval based on the fact that it is compatible with existing
land-uses and it will not vary the provisions of the Unified Development
Ordinance
Reasonableness of Request: The proposed variance is reasonable based upon its
use as nonresidential and it ability to provide street access via an existing
25-foot access easement
Attitude of Property Owners: Sixteen property owners were notified by letter of
the hardship variance request. The Planning Division has not received any
comments
VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to grant the requested variances, the City Council must make a
decision that is based upon all of the following findings required by the
variance regulations of the Columbus Zoning Ordinance:
Planning & Zoning
- Applciant
- Owner
- Acreage
- Current Zoning Classification
- Current Use Of Property
- District
- General Use
- Environmental Impacts
- Surrounding Zoning
- Traffic Impact
- Planning Departments Recommendtion
- Attitude of Property Owners
- Other Recommendations
-
- Engineering:
- Public Safety:
- Public Works:
Variance Criteria
In order to grant the requested variances, the City Council must make a decision that is based upon all of the following findings required by the variance regulations of the Columbus Zoning Ordinance:
-
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other property;
The granting of this variance will not result in significant view, privacy or
other impacts detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
properties in the vicinity.
-
The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property;
The subject property is 19,253 square feet or 0.442 acres. The parcel complies
with property development regulations to construct a commercial establishment.
However, the parcel does not have legal street frontage. Therefore, the
property will have proper street access from the existing 25? access easement.
Reliance upon access easements is common in large shopping centers where
landlocked parcels do not have street frontage. Under Section 7.4.2 of the
Columbus Unified Development Ordinance, ?private streets, reserve strips or
access easements are prohibited except in multi-family and nonresidential
development, or as otherwise approved by the City Council on a case-by-case
basis.?
-
Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations are carried out; and
The landowner?s pursuit to develop an additional retail establishment that is
in full compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance is limited in scope
due to the size of the existing parcel and the location of existing buildings
surrounding the property. Over 60% of the existing 3.0 tract of land consists
of a paved parking lot and undeveloped property. The variance results from the
property owner?s intent to use infill development to revitalize a slowly
declining commercial area. The depth of the parcel and the location of
surrounding structures restrict the property owner from utilizing the property
to its maximum potential. It would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly
apply the Ordinance due to the unique circumstances stated above. In addition
the proposed site will serve a regional market and further enhance economic
development throughout this area.
-
The variances will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan or Official Map.
The proposed variance will not vary provisions or grant special privileges
inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan or Official Map.
Planning Division believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variance. The granting of this variance to waive the minimum
street frontage requirement and allow the construction of a nonresidential
structure on a landlocked lot constitutes a genuine hardship, which will not
detract from the intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and will not
adversely impact the overall objectives of the area as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan.