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


Memorandum
Date: 6/7/2012
To:
Honorable Mayor and Councilors
City Manager
City Attorney
Clerk of Council

Subject: (VARI-5-12-2067) Hardship variance to waive street frontage requirements for

certain lots of a new subdivision at 9772 Fortson Road.


Applicant's Proposal
This application is for a replat to subdivide an existing 15-acre tract of

land. Proposed Tracts 1, 2, 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C do not have street frontage and

access is provided via a 20-foot access easement. Tracts 1 and 2 are 1-acre

lots and Tracts 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C are 2.57 acres each. (Lots 3, 4, and 5 have

road frontage but ingress/egress will be from access easements). The

applicant?s intent is to subdivide the land for residential use. The applicant

is proposing to waive public street frontage requirements and allow an existing

40-foot access easement to serve as the primary right of entry onto the subject

lots. The project site is located off of Fortson Road, just north of the

intersection with Wooldridge Road. The proposed replat is consistent with the

RE1 (Residential Estate 1) lot size requirement of 43,560 square feet for newly

created lots.



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 as such.? The proposed

subdivision of the existing lot creates three (3) lots, which do not meet the

minimum street frontage requirement as stated above.
Planning & Zoning
Applciant
Wright Wade
Owner
Same
Acreage
15 Acres
Current Zoning Classification
RE1 ? Residential Estate 1
Current Use Of Property
Residential
District
A
General Use
Single family residential
Environmental Impacts
None
Surrounding Zoning
RE1- Residential Estate 1 - North

RE1- Residential Estate 1 - South

RE1- Residential Estate 1 - East

RE1- Residential Estate 1 - West
Traffic Impact
None
Planning Departments Recommendtion
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL based upon the fact that the strict enforcement of the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance is not applicable to the subject property. Said condition is that all new access easements be adequate for fire truck access and turn-around ability.
Attitude of Property Owners
N/A
Other Recommendations
  • Engineering: N/A
  • Public Safety: I reviewed the site plan and visited the site regarding the property at 9772 Fortson Road. The main items we verify are: access for fire apparatus( road surface, width, turn around access), proximity to a fire hydrant (must be no more than 1000' as the fire truck would lay hose), and distance from a fire station (ISO requires a station to be within 5 miles of the property). Lots 1,2,3,4, and 5 all appear to be within 1000' of a fire hydrant and are approximately 4.5 miles from fire station number 3. Lots 6-A and 6-B are more than 1000' from a fire hydrant and are about 5 miles from station 3. Also, lots 6-A,6-B,1,and 2 appear to be only accessible by using a gravel road. The 2006 International Fire Code requires a road surfaced to provide all weather driving capabilities. However, the gravel road appears to be well compacted and of sufficient width to provide access to lots 1 and 2. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
  • Public Works: N/A
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;
    As such, the granting of the proposed variance will not adversely affect the

    character, livability, or appropriate development of abutting properties or the

    surrounding area, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or

    injurious to other property.
  • 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;
    Tracts 1, 2, 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C will have primary access off of an existing

    40-foot access easement. From there, a 20-foot access easement would serve as

    the primary right-of-entry for said Tracts, which do not have street frontage.

    None of the aforementioned Tracts will front on a dedicated right-of-way. For

    this reason, a variance is requested to waive the minimum street frontage

    requirements. The proposed access easement would abut the subject property on

    the northern property lines.
  • 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 applicant owns a tract of land (15 acres). The primary use of the property

    is undeveloped. The property owner?s intent to subdivide the property is

    restricted due to lack of proper street frontage for Tracts 1, 2, 6-A, 6-B, and

    6-C. A hardship results on the property owner because the access easement does

    not front on a dedicated public street. The proposed access easement must

    fully comply with applicable street standards to ensure proper egress and

    ingress onto the site. The applicant shall maintain the access easement.
  • The variances will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan or Official Map.
    Granting of the variance will not vary the provisions of the Unified

    Development Ordinance. It will not alter the existing character of the

    subdivision and retain the scope of the Unified Development Ordinance and

    Comprehensive Plan.



    The granting of this variance to waive the minimum street frontage requirement

    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


Enclosure / Attachment
Back to List