Columbus, Georgia

Georgia's First Consolidated Government

Post Office Box 1340
Columbus, Georgia, 31902-1340
(706) 653-4013
fax (706) 653-4016

Website: www.columbusga.gov/planning


6/12/2006
Honorable Mayor and Councilors
City Manager
City Attorney
Clerk of Council

Subject: (VAR060603) Hardship variance to waive the street frontage requirement and

allow the construction of a nonresidential structure on a landlocked lot at

7608 Schomburg Road.

PLANNING & ZONING HISTORY





Applicant: Moon, Meeks, Mason & Vinson



Owner: 1215 LLC



Acreage: 1.53 Acres



Current Zoning Classification: NC ? (Neighborhood Commercial)



Current Use of Property: Commercial



Planning District: Planning District 2



General Use: Commercial



Environmental Impacts: None





Surrounding Zoning: North ? RE1 (Residential Estate 1)

South ? NC (Neighborhood Commercial)

East ? RE1 (Residential Estate 1)

West ? SFR2 (Single Family Residential 2)



Traffic Impact: None





Planning Division Approval based on the fact that it is

Recommendation: 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 a primary right of entry via a

40-foot joint-use access easement





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 2.256-acre

tract of land into two individual parcels. In doing so, the landowner will

create a landlocked lot (proposed Lot 200 ? see replat). The existing site

consists of a neighborhood shopping center. The landowner is seeking to

utilize the undeveloped parcel of land (proposed Lot 100 ? see replat) as a

neighborhood commercial use.



Section 7.3.5 (F2) 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 as such.? 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 234 feet from the nearest

dedicated public right-of-way line. An adjacent neighborhood shopping center

is located South of the subject property. Lot 200 will be provided practical

access via a joint use 40-foot access easement intersecting Schomburg Road.





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 these variances 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 66,647 square feet or 1.53 acres. The parcel complies

with property development regulations to construct a commercial establishment.

However, the parcel does not have legal street frontage. The property will

have proper street access via a joint use 40-foot 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

developments, or as otherwise approved by the City Council on a cases-by-case

basis.? The Unified Development Ordinance promotes the use of access easements

and private streets in nonresidential developments such as shopping centers.





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 location of the existing building on

the property. The front building setback for the existing building is 310 feet

from the nearest public right-of-way line. Proposed Lot 200 abuts an

undeveloped segment of land on the front property. In 1997, this property was

rezoned from A1 (Agricultural District) or RE1 (Residential Estate 1) to C2

(Neighborhood Shopping District) or NC (Neighborhood Commercial) with a special

condition stating, ?No individual driveway access shall be allowed for any out

parcels. Access must be provided internally. Access for the entire

development shall be limited to two (2) access driveways.? The variance

results from the property owner?s intent to complete the final phase of the

neighborhood shopping center and comply with the special conditions of Rezoning

Ordinance 97-05. The depth and location of the existing 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 the unique

circumstances stated above.



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 evidence to support the findings for the

variance requested. The granting of the variance to waive the public street

frontage requirement 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.





















Respectfully,

Rick Jones, AICP
Director, Planning Department



Back to List