Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

on the agenda is to approve the minutes for the September 10th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Has everybody had a chance to review those minutes? Any changes or anything you guys all saw need to be made? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from September 10th, 2025. I'll second the motion. Okay, I have a motion and second. All in favor? I.

Motion carries. The next item we have is to look at variance 2025-13, a variance request to reduce the setback requirements at 1001 North State Street, Augusta Middle School. Um, we got to consider the um approval for a variance. So, at this time, I'm going to need a motion to close the planning commission. Um, and then I will open up the meeting for the zone of appeals. Do I have a motion to close the planning commission meeting? I so move. Second. Okay. All in favor? I.

Great. Uh, pl commission closed. Okay. At this time, I'm going to open the meeting for the board of zoning appeals and I'll call on staff for report. Good morning. Good morning.

So, this is a variance request um initiated by the school district. Um, as you know that they recently passed their bond issue and they're making some improvements and additions to pretty much all of the facilities. Um, this variance request is for the middle school specifically. Um, they are proposing to add an addition um, kind of over here in this open space. And since the school is on a corner, the front setback is 30 feet and the side setback on this other street side according to our zoning regulations would be 15 ft. And the school is currently zoned as R1. Um it is an institutional use, but they are proposing to encroach on that 15t setback by approximately 5 ft and are requesting a 10-ft setback on this side. um for the new addition. I can bring up another picture real quick. So you see State Street right here and then Clark and building 4 is going to be the new addition um with a slight encroachment here. It's approximately 10 ft to the street. For the board to consider a variance, there are certain findings of fact that must be met. Um, so we'll go through those right now in the staff report. So the first one is the variance unique to the property in question. The property is residentially zoned but with a school use due to changes in the zoning regulations. Um so when the regulations changed from the old regs to the new regs, there used to be an institutional um assembly use and now all the schools have are zoned as residential. Under typical circumstances of the current zoning regulations, the property

would be developed with a PDO. So, under the new regulations, there would be a plan development overlay required, which we could anticipate some of these encroachments on the setbacks if we had an overlay for the school district, but that was not required when the original building was built. Um, and that PDO would allow for narrow setbacks. Staff finds this is unique to the property. Is the variance ordinarily found in the same zoning district? Variances to setbacks are found in the same zoning district. In most cases, setback variances in R1 districts relate to the placement of residential dwellings and accessory structures to ensure safe distance from utility streets and adjacent structures. In this case, however, the property's use as a school constitutes the need for the larger structures not ordinarily envisioned in R1 zones. This constrains the ability of the school to add suitable buildings as the larger setback limits the building footprint. These conditions make the requested variance specific to the site and not generally applicable to other R1 properties. Is the need for variance created by an action of the property owner or the applicant? The property has had the current school on site since 1995 with site improvements and building additions in place um since 2012. The property was subject to the zoning regulations as they existed at that time. In 2020, the city of Augusta adopted new zoning rags that change the zoning classification of the property by default. Will the granting of the variance adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents? Setback requirements establish minimum distances between structures and other improvements to promote safety, privacy, environmental protection, and in some cases, aesthetic consistency. The property has had its current land use in place since 1995 without adverse effects on adjacent property owners or residents. The proposed use does not change the

fundamental character of the property or the neighborhood and does not constitute an impedimement to the visual site triangles. Staff finds the request is not expected to negatively impact the rights of nearby property owners or residents. Excuse me. Will the strict application of the provisions of these regulations constitute a necessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application? Yes, a hardship exists due to the significant setbacks that pertain to R1 properties. When constructing building additions, schools are more likely to build larger buildings than residential dwellings due to the need to house a larger quantity of people within those additions. Strict application of the regulations would therefore impose an unnecessary hardship by functionally limiting the building envelope and thus limiting what might practically be built in that space. Does the requested variance oppose the general spirit and intent of these regulations? The proposed variance enables reasonable use of the property while remaining consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance to protect adjacent properties and vehicle traffic safety. So staff will stand for any questions or I would recommend opening the public hearing. You all have any questions for staff before I open the public hearing?

Okay, at this time I will open the public hearing. If there's anybody in the audience that wants to come up and speak on this item, they're welcome to do so now. You just have to come up to the podium. Name and address. Good morning. My name is Logan Mills. I'm with Certified Engineering Design. We're the civil engineering group involved with the project. And then we have Drew Meek with SPT Architecture. So, um I think you did a good job of explaining the situation. So, we have nothing else to add. If you have any questions, let us know.

Anyone have any questions for Logan? Okay. Well, at this time I will close the public hearing then and I will entertain a motion. Sorry, if I may, um, if you could go through those facts of findings. Yes. And just see if there's any additional comments or variations from what was presented in the staff report. It's just a matter of record. Sure, I can do that. That was easier for me.

Okay. So, I'm just going to go over these main topic questions, and if you guys don't have any questions, I'll just kind of move on. But we've got our findings of facts, the qualifications for variance standards. These are the standards that Cammy just went over that it's got to meet these to be able to get do the variance. So, the first one is the variance unique to the property in question. Any questions with that one? Is the variance ordinarily found in the same zoning district? Is the need for a variance created by an action of the property owners or the applicant? Will the granting of the variance adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents? Will strict application of the provision of these regulations constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application? Does the requested variance oppose the general spirit and intent of these regulations? All right, those are our findings of fact. Um, now we can look at a motion if you all would like.

I'll make a motion for the variance 2025-13 variance request to reduce the setback requirements at 10:01 State Street Augusta Middle School as presented. Second motion second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Okay. At this time, I would also entertain another motion to close the meeting for the board of zoning appeals. I so move. Second. Okay. Have a motion second. All in favor? I. I. Great. Now I will reopen the meeting for the planning commission. Hi, we're back. Very good, Nick. Thank you. Have a good day.

Trying to navigate that. Yeah. You're welcome. I mean, I'm on it with these zoning appeal things right now. Yeah. It's just as confusing for us to put it together. I think we should all just duck down and then come back up like with different outfits on. I got a I got a good I got a good hat I could put.

Congratulations. You perman here to recognize that motion. So, um, okay, back to work. Uh second item on our uh agenda is we are going to look at the CUP 2025-14. We need to look at a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an admin trailer at 1302 North Ohio, City of Augusta Parks Department. Uh we need to consider approval of this conditional use. And at this time, we will call on staff for a report on that. Yes. Good morning. Um it is 1301 North Ohio. Okay. What did I say? 1302.

That's what it says. Listen, I was so confident for a while. Yeah, on the very first page, it does. Dang it. My bad. Sorry. See, confusing. This is why Dave needs to come back in this chair. But it's right on page one, though. Yeah. Okay. The staff report has it correct. 1301 North Ohio. Um, sorry.

So, this was initiated by the city of Augusta. Um, this site at 1301 is where the parks department is located. Um, and this is a conditional use to allow the placement of a construction administration trailer. And the site is currently zoned industrial. Um, but it is intentional use as it's the parks department. Um the recommendation is to approve this conditional used permit um with the following conditions and those are for the front setback to be 30 ft and for this street side setback of the corner lot to be 15 ft and those are in line with the R1 zoning district. Um and as this site is actually surrounded by residential uses on that side of the street, we thought that would be appropriate. Um, the need for the construction admin trailer comes from the city's currently in the process of constructing a new public works facility um over by where the water treatment plant is. The intent is to eventually move the parks department over there. In the meantime, they are still located in their existing building, but we did have a Department of Labor audit and they found that this facility was not sufficient for employees to be operating out of. So, the short-term solution until the permanent buildings are built over on that public works campus is to bring in a construction administration trailer that you'll see on construction sites um to serve as those administrative offices. Um, the reason we're doing a conditional use rather than a temporary use is that it we don't know how long it's going to take for the public works campus to be complete. It could take a couple years. We still need to go through the bonding and finalize the plans and get the contractors and

start getting it built and it will be built in different phases. Um, so we wanted to go ahead and do a conditional use. That way the temporary use doesn't have to continue to come back um before the board during that time. So part of the conditional use is there's also findings of fact. So we'll go through those in the staff report. [Music] So the first one is does the temporary use adversely affect the character of the immediate neighborhood? The placement of a construction administration trailer will not fundamentally affect the character of the immediate neighborhood. The trailer will be used in a similar way to the current primary building and thus no fundamental change in land use will occur. Is the request consistent with the comp plan vision and character of the city? The request is consistent with the comp plan policy 18 which aims to provide efficient and well-maintained city infrastructure, facilities, and services that meet the current and future demands. The trailer will allow the city to transition to a new parks facility structure at that public works campus or adequate access to public utilities, roadways, and other needed public services available to support the proposed use. The property will utilize existing utilities such as water and electric. Is the use proposed suitable to the zoning restrictions of the property? A construction admin trailer is allowed by conditional use in an industrial district and is thus suitable to the zoning restrictions. How long has the property remained vacant as currently zoned? The property is not currently vacant as it's serving as the parks facility. Is the current zoning compatible with nearby properties? Ordinarily, it would not be desirable to have industrial districts near residential districts. However, the current land use is

institutional which is compatible with the residential properties. Will the request have a detrimental effect on nearby properties? Staff finds that the request will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties as the underlying land use will not change. Visual changes to the property with the placement of a trailer are minimal. Um, so staff can stand for any questions. Um otherwise I'd recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the following condition conditions for the front setback to be 30 feet and the side set back on the street side to be 15 ft. And I will note if this is approved this conditional approve is approved by the planning commission. It will go to city council on October 20th for final approval. Um I forgot we forgot to put that part in the staff report. So, it will go to city council on October 20th. Um, so again, we'll stand for any questions or I'd recommend opening the public hearing.

Tammy, what are they going to do with the building on 13 the present building 1301 building? Um, I do not know the future plans for the building itself. So, we have we are in the process of having some structural engineers come out and look at the building as well um to determine what what needs to be done done. If you've ever been in that building, there's not much of an interior of that building. It is almost like a large garage. It's concrete floors. There's not a lot of offices. There's a lot of storage. They store their mowers inside. So, it's not a typical If you go inside, it doesn't look like an office building. It is more of a garage.

I thought it was abandoned. I'm Yeah, it's I've seen the mowers come out and tractors a lot morning, I guess. So, yeah. And there they have some storage outside as well. There's some covered awnings, but um when I've been over there, the mowers have been inside the building. Um but I do not know what the future plans are yet for that building.

It looks really neat from the outside. Is any other questions before I open the public hearing hearing? Sorry. No. Okay. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Doesn't look like anybody in the audience has any questions. So, I'll just go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, and then we can entertain. Do you want me to go over those findings of facts again? Yes, please. I know you like that. So, I just want I just want to make you happy, Cammy. cover our bases.

Okay, I'm going to go over the findings and facts again on the conditional use permit and then we can look at a motion. Uh first one, does the temporary use adversely affect the character of the immediate neighborhood? Is the request consistent with the comprehensive plan vision and the character of the city of Augusta? Are adequate access to public utilities, roadways, and other needed public services available to support the proposed use? Is the use proposed suitable to the zoning restrictions of the property? How long is the property remain vacant as currently zoned? Is the current zoning compatible with nearby properties? And will the request have a detrimental effect on nearby properties? Anybody have any questions on those findings of facts? Okay, I will entertain a motion. At this time, I'll make a motion for a conditional use permit 2025-14 to allow for construction admin trailer at 1301 North Ohio, City of Augusta Parks Department with the uh conditions of the side setback at 15 and the front at 30 foot.

Second motion and a second. All in favor? I I motion carries. Okay. Looks like we are on to matters for the next meeting. Next meeting October 8th is what we've got temporarily planned, right? Yes. Okay.

Um so we are still working two plats. So we're still working the storage max plat out in the planning area. Um it has to go through Butler County. So we're getting those dates of when it'll be presented to them. And then we are still working on that new residential subdivision plat and preliminary um development overlay. Those are not intended to come to the October 8th meeting, but I just want to keep them on your radar that we are working through those with the engineers. Um there are three text amendments that will be coming on October 8th. And at the last meeting, we stated as we work through some of these cases, if there's items that come up where the text needs to be revised, we'd start bringing those. So, the three that we're looking at is one to um adjust the language for the board of zoning appeals um to make the jurisdiction match what's in the zoning regs. The second one is that there's some language in the board of zoning appeals that a resolution needs to be passed for approval. Um but the board of zoning appeals isn't it's usually just the city council that's authorized to approve resolutions. So, we're changing that language to match Derby Kansas to where it's just a written approval letter that gets filed with the register of deeds from staff. So, there's not an official resolution that gets approved by the board. The board would still approve the the variance, but then staff would just make an approval letter and send that to the property owner and file it with the register deeds. And then we had also noticed that playyards weren't allowed in C3 when dog kennels were. So, we're bring bringing you some revised language for that as well. Um, and then we are still working on the billboard issue out in the planning area, too. It's just when the public notification needed to go out. We don't have that language completely wrapped up yet. So, we may bring some proposed language on the 8th, but we will still have to have an

official public hearing um at another date to make those changes. But these three, we've posted the public notification. And there will be a public hearing on October 8th for these the three that I mentioned. Anybody have anything else for when do you think we might see that residential subdivision then?

Yeah. So we've sent we've gotten a preliminary submitt from the engineer and we've sent back our preliminary comments to them. Um so they're reviewing those right now. So I I'm hopeful that it will be this It it could be October 8th. It might be the second meeting in October, though. I'm hopeful it'll be in October and we'll still have some things to continue to work through internally on our end, but we can get through the preliminary we can start getting through the preliminary approval process. Um, and it will have to also go through a resoning, which is is part of that. So, we can get that started. that zone C1 now.

Is that C1? Thinking it was commercial. It is commercial, but I can't off the top of my head right now remember if it was I think it's C well C2. It might be C3. I think it's C3 actually. Any other questions for staff? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Move that we adjourn the meeting. Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor? I being adjourned. You guys, if you guys figured out what you're going to do