Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The agenda is to look at the minutes for the October 27th planning commission meeting. We need to review those and make a motion to vote. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes? And are there any questions or corrections that anybody saw? I'll make a motion. October 27th October 27th meeting. Second. Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Okay. Motion carries. Second item, we have the 2025-9 final plan development overlay for David and Ohio. We are going to consider approval of the preliminary PDO reviewed on October 27th 25 as the final PDO and move forward and forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. Okay. At this time, I will turn it back over to staff.

Good morning. This is a followup to the case that we reviewed October 27th. Um there are a lot of moving parts. Um and the reason that staff is recommending to move forward with the prelim as the final PDO at this time is there will be a 14-day protest period after approval by the planning commission. So, in order to try and get this kind of wrapped up by the end of the year, we want to go ahead and um recommend approval of that prelim as the final so the city council can hear the final PDIO on December 1st. So, on November 17th, city council will hear the reszone that was approved at the last meeting and then on December 1st, they will hear the PDO that is be before you today for final approval. Um the one and I didn't put it in the packet, I apologize. It's up on the screen. It's the same PDIO that was in the packet on October 27th. There haven't been any changes. Um the engineering firm's still finalizing that plat and the drainage plan. Um and we will get a final version of the PDO, but there won't be any changes to the substance of the PDO. It'll just be the verbiage kind of at the top that says final. Um, so I can stand for any questions or I would recommend approval of that preliminary PDO and then have it forwarded to the city council on December 1st later. Jim has a question that he would like.

Okay. Question is, has the land been purchased? Is the owner aware that it's been up that been I'll turn it over to Owen.

Yes. Owen Shgley, Ten Oaks Investment, uh, LLC, PO Box 780169, Wallaw, Kansas 67205. We do have a legal contract that is binding with the uh current owner Whitaker and it is basically um he is aware and it is part of our agreement that these have to go through approval for us to finalize the purchase. Okay. What about um any conversation with Whitaker that it going to be reszoned then?

That is written within our contract. I know but with the city. Have you received anything? No, we have not. They have a legal contract. So that's what we were operating under. And they were notified as part of the public notification process. The owner, the legal owner of record is notified as part of that process. had continued conversation with the owner and their representatives throughout this and they're okay with the reasoning. There has not been any push back from them. Actually, it was encouraged. What is your closing date?

We pushed it to December, but that doesn't bind on this actually binding on financing with as well. Any other questions? Wonder if you expect to actually break ground. Um, if we could do it tomorrow, I do it tomorrow. Weeks after after the closing. So, I mean, it's got to go through petitions uh for the financing within RHID. And if that gets approval, then we'd move forward. So, I think it's roughly based on March is kind of when that would work through, if maybe a little bit later.

Yeah. There's still some other processes that we need to go through on the city council side for the RHID. There's some resolutions that need to be approved, their developers agreement, the petitions, those cost estimates. We haven't started our review of those yet. So, um you already you already got your recommend recommended letters and everything like that, didn't you? Yes, we have our letter support, but those were for the tax credits and then we also have a resolution of support for the RHID from the from the school board too. They cannot offer a written. They can't. Okay. They just have the veto power. Okay, that makes sense. No,

RHID is a little different, but yeah, I've been in the leads on it a little bit. So, you know, on those projects, but yeah, I understand what they're saying. I understand also that like the current owner got the same thing that goes out to 200 and some, you know, 200 feet, right? He got the thing that, hey, this property is going to be reszoned. So he had the opportunity to come to a meeting and talk about it if he, you know, didn't. And they can submit a written Yeah. written comment, written opposition, approval, protest. They can submit that in writing as well. They don't have to physically be here. Any other questions for

Thank you very much. And it looks like down there here at the bottom, you've got kind of the suggested motion. Are you ready for a motion? Um, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve the document previously reviewed as the preliminary plan development overlay for case 2025-9 located at David in Ohio as the final plan development overlay. Further move to forward a recommendation of approval for the city council.

I'll second. Motion second. All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Next item we have is the Z2025-21 proposed text amendments to zoning regulations article 8 sign regulations as it pertains to billboards. And I will at this time send it back to staff billboards or we actually have a a couple of staff reports as it pertains to the sign regulations.

Um the public notice that went out um explain that it was going to be kind of a bulk text amendments to the sign regulations. So I'm going to go through uh both uh staff reports here before we take any actions. So, as I said, the public notice included just revisions to the sign regulations in whole. So, there will be two staff reports, but there only needs to be one public hearing. So, that's why we'll go through both staff reports first, then open it for a public hearing in case anybody here wants to participate in that. Sounds good.

All right. The first one uh is going to be as it pertains to billboards. Uh we have a request uh for approval of text amendments to article 84 and article 811 of the fixed sign regulations um by zoning district and land use and of excuse me of the zoning regulations to define and establish standards for billboards within C3 commercial general commercial and I1 industrial districts both within city limits and within the city's planning area. Um staff is going to recommend um that we approve text amendments to define billboards within zoning regulations and to establish billboard standards consistent with uh Butler County's regulations for properties in the shared planning area. Um staff recently uh received an inquiry about whether a property could uh place billboard on on their property uh out in the planning area. The property was zoned um C3 commercial with residential land use. Um and after review of the regulations um it was determined that uh billboard would not be uh permissible on the property um due to a myriad of factors uh as it pertained to to the sign regulations primarily um a lack of definition for what a billboard is and um the limitations of onremise signs uh for certain properties. Um and through through that research um staff has come up with these these recommendations.

Bear with me as I go through my first presentation here. You're doing great.

Okay. So, uh, first up, um, we wanted to come up with a definition for, um, what a billboard is, um, through a review of various communities that are in our surrounding area. Um, the gist of what a billboard definitionally is, um, is going to end up being, um, a freestanding structure that's primarily used for off-remise advertisements. Um, within our code, we don't we do not have um anything that says billboard or defined billboard. Uh, we have billboard mentioned once in the regulations, but there's a lack of context. Um, so it doesn't really provide staff any guidance on how to uh apply that regulation. Um, as we're um existing code currently uh just allows on premise signs. Um, billboards by nature are an off-remise sign and thus cannot comply with uh regulations. Um section A11C5 um allows for one additional uh fixed freestanding sign that can be on or off premise. Um for properties with at least 50 ft of highway frontage. Um conditions include that the sign must be located within 100 ft of the highway right away. Uh the sign can have a maximum area of 200 square feet, maximum height of 30 feet, and must have a minimum spacing of 1,000 ft between such signs. Uh it's staff's opinion uh that this section was likely intended to govern billboards uh based on the proximity to state and county regulation or regulatory standards. Um, further the word additional in that section does

imply that this section was intended to govern or as written um would only govern secondary signs as opposed to a primary sign. Um, in this circumstance, a billboard would necessarily be the primary sign on a property due to the size. Um, so this would not allow the facilitation of a billboard on a property. Um, okay. Um, so some of the benefits um for allowing um for excuse me uh some of the benefits for clarifying billboard regulations um is that it creates clear enforceable standards for both staff and applicants. uh promotes consistency between city and county regulations in the shared planning area and it enables controlled economic use of highway fronting properties. Some potential concerns are billboards can contribute to visual clutter or aesthetic impacts along major corridors. Uh could potentially distract drivers and there's a need to balance economic value with community character and corridor design goals. Um, as I mentioned earlier, um, staff did go through and review, uh, sign regulations for a bunch of different, uh, surrounding communities to see what their regulations were as it pertained to, uh, billboards. It's it's important to note that sign regulations between communities aren't necessarily a one for one um, comparison. Uh so during this process, staff did their best to kind of determine what the most appropriate regulatory framework in these other communities are uh that would be most applicable applicable to uh what we're trying to accomplish here. Um most peer

communities explicitly define billboards as off- premise signs. Um, some communities have decided that they're just going to outright um prohibit billboards um and others will allow them only with uh spacing, size, and setback limits. Uh, Butler County specifically regulates billboards um that are pretty consistent with uh what the Kansas state law regulations are as they pertain to billboards. Uh those excuse me those regulations are that um the billboards must have a minimum of 100 ft from residential property lines. Uh there's a maximum 300 square ft face area. Minimum 300 ft spacing along state and federal highways. Uh maximum sign height of 35 feet. a minimum of 30 foot setback from property lines and shielding uh shielded lighting requirements the 300 or whatever the

Yeah. So what we have up here um is a couple of examples to kind of represent the spacing requirement. Um so as as the current regulations if they would allow uh billboards Um these circles that you see on the screen here represent um a thousand foot radius um that would prohibit any billboards from being within those areas if a billboard were placed at the center of those circles. So as you can see the the distance there of 1,000 ft uh covers quite a bit and pretty strictly limits the availability of space for billboards to be placed. Um the second option that we have uh is to uh change that thousand foot limit down to a 300 foot uh distance restriction. Um same sort of thing here. Uh the circles represent that 300 ft uh radius um from where where a sign might be placed on a property um to kind of show how limiting that may be for for themselves and for neighboring properties. So staff has um two main proposals um to be considered. Uh proposal one is to define billboards in article 8.4. Uh also to clarify that section 811C5 applies only within city limits. um apply the thousand foot spacing in the planning area and maintain a 200 square foot area limit and the 300 foot height.

That's only for city limits. That proposal number one city,

correct? So this would this would uh split this would end up splitting um a section into Sorry, I'm still getting caffeine into my system. Um, we what is 8 811c5 highway frontage freestanding signs currently would apply to both city limits and planning area. What both of these proposals will end up doing is essentially splitting that into uh 811c5 applies to city limits only and then added a section 811C6 that more or less mirrors that with some with some language adjustments but have that only apply to the planning area. So, we thought there was a benefit in having different regulations within city limits and out in the planning area because if you think about it, Seventh Street is technically highway frontage. So, we probably want to regulate that a little bit different than we would out in the planning area. So, that's the reason for kind of splitting them up in the code. Now

are we looking at okay for the growth area like area are we still looking at being like right so basically proposal one doesn't it splits out the regulations from planning area to city and then there would be the same regulations as there are now. Is that correct? Correct. this this would effectively make no changes to what what would apply within city limits.

So that's proposal one. Then proposal two um which Sam will walk through now aligns more with what Butler County has as their regulations. And then proposal three is no change and then we'll get to staff's recommendation after that. Okay. Gotcha.

Okay. Uh so proposal two um largely uh mirrors proposal one except excuse me um that it changes some of the um size requirements um and some setback requirements to mirror that of Butler counties. Um, so we will still be defining billboards on article 84 uh clarifying um that section 81c5 applies to city limits uh while creating a planning area section. Um and those new standards that would be uh changing is uh increasing the maximum face area from 200 ft to 300 ft. Uh maximum sign height from 30 feet to 35 ft. uh reducing the sign spacing from a th00and feet to 300 feet. Um uh creating a a standard of a billboard setback to 30 ft as well as creating a billboard set back from residential properties of 100 ft.

And also what those proposals do is it takes away that language that says you need to have a primary on premise sign first. So this would allow a billboard to be a primary off premise sign. Um so that language is also in there. Um in the like in the attachments there's the different proposals and anything in red is what is being added to the text. This doesn't make sense to me. What's the difference between a billboard and a freestanding sign? A freestanding sign is essentially just a technical classification. Uh because a freestanding sign can be a whole bunch of different things.

Says I want to put a freestanding sign. They come say I want to put up a billboard. That's two separate things. No, the the onremise wording. So basically, you can put up a freestanding sign, but it needs to be for your for the business on that property. You can't advertise for an offsite business freestanding sign on a freestanding sign the way the rugs are written now. Well, I'm sure I mean there's lots of things that happen. There are lots of things that happen. This just this helps clean up. Those billboards. I don't know which one you're talking about specifically. You know, you come in, you see all these. So, there can be

right there. She has one, right? and we can go and enforce that and find people and ask them to take them down. I mean, there are lots of things that happen and you know, but when we have an opportunity to try and fix the wording to bring it more in line with what is already happening or if we think that's a good idea. So, we're cleaning it up. But no, I mean techn you can't we can't issue that permit when they come into our office because it's against the law for us to issue that permit. So if it's not on their property that we say

if it's not a on premise sign, it's the on premise wording. It's supposed to be. Yeah. The way I read that is the business can put up a huge billboard for their for their own whatever their company is on site. They can also have a secondary. So they could have a primary business sign. They could have a secondary sign that is a billboard, but they have to have that they're supposed to have that primary sign that is for their business. In this instance, in what we see already, especially out in the planning area, is that there's no there's no development on that property or you have a house that's running the highway um and they're wanting to put up a billboard. Well, that's not an on premise primary sign. They're wanting an off- premise primary sign. So, we're trying to get the wording to

match that intent. And you're from what I can see, you're basically mirroring Butler counties. We thought it would be the easiest, cleanest to just mirror what Butler County has um and their process. And we think, you know, this will only still apply, I guess, and that's another conversation to have is the way the proposals are is it will apply to anything zone C3 and industrial, which your property is zone C3. Um, and a lot of the highway frontage property is intended to be C3. It just may have a residential use on it right now.

Um, but it is intended to be C3. So, this is for C3 and industrial property. That's highway frontage out in the planning area. If you're wanting, we can also as part of this eventual motion, we could also change the wording if you want it to be applied to residential zoned property out in the planning area, but we just went with C3 and industrial, which most of it is anyways. Um, but what about egg? A is not included in this. No, I realize that, but I'm just saying there is some a out in the planning areas. So,

and there could and the way the public hearing was noticed is that it's the whole zoning section or that whole sign section of the rag. So, if you want to make some of those adjustments to have it apply to agg or residentially zoned um lots, we can incorporate that change today in the eventual motion. So, I think we should because we'll we'll have to readress this. That's what I was just going to ask. If if somebody has some a that's fronted in our growth area that wants to put sign, they would still have to come back to us again if we didn't include that language in here. They'd have to get a variance. Okay.

And that is a good point over and the egg in there too. We're just going to be and residential because there are Yeah. Well, you can do a and rural residential. You can do you can do all of the classifications if you want. That might be the simplest that are in the planning area. Yes. All zoning classifications along our growth area. Um yeah. So when we get to the motions, we can walk through adding that in there that in there to staff's proposal. Okay.

I mean to Jim's point, I get Jim's point that there's a bunch of these signs up that they're just out, you know, people ask for forgiveness instead of permission, you know. So there is probably a bunch of them that are already there that technically don't meet our guidelines at all. I mean, the signs are different. There are signs everywhere. Yeah. and very rare. Well, we've actually had a lot of sign permits, so I shouldn't say that. We've gotten a lot of people coming through our office this last couple months. The problem is with people that are trying to do it right and come into you and get a permit and want to put and the sign regulations really

I mean they're the largest section of the whole book and so they're very defined and restrictive in a lot of cases. So generally the person that is on the sign doesn't own the sign. Right. Yes. So, you have the billboard companies that have come in as well and said, "We want to put up a billboard on your," you know, and it's a lease. Regulations.

Okay. Do you want to go? No. She's got I think you got another one, right? Yeah. I think Yes. So, first, are there any more questions on the billboard one from the bench? No. Okay. So, we can walk through the No.

The multi-tenant. Yeah. Okay.

All right. The second one that we have here um is a request for approval of a text amendment to article 811B fixed sign regulations of the zoning regulations to allow multi-tenant commercial structures commonly known as strip centers to be regulated under C3 general commercial and I1 industrial sign standards uh regardless of their underlying zoning classification. Um staff is going to recommend approval of the proposed text as presented. Um as we believe the amendment will improve consistency, eliminate administrative confusion and align sign regulations with the functional and visual characteristics of multi-tenant commercial developments. Um so background on this is um the owner of the property located at uh 1010 North Ohio uh the Gambino's uh location um recently applied for a sign permit to install a 48 square foot wall sign on the north uh facade uh facing Ohio Street or kind of along the Ohio Street area. Um the application was denied uh because the property is zoned C2 central commercial uh which limits uh building mounted signs to 32 square ft. Um the property is a multi-tenant strip center uh single primary structure with multiple leased units uh each that are occupied by separate businesses. Um, these types of developments are common in retail corridors and typically feature exteriors entrances, shared parking, and multiple storefronts facing the same direction. Um, under the current code, multi-tenant commercial centers located in C2 districts are subject to stricter sign regulations than those in a C3 or I1 district. Uh this inconsistency has resulted in confusion uh uneven treatment of similar

land uses and unnecessary variance requests. Um so a multi-tenant strip center uh is allowed uh in both C2 and C3 zoning districts. Um, while both centers function similarly regard regardless of their zoning, uh, their signage options do differ significantly within our zoning regulations. Um, in a C2 zoning district, um, you're only allowed one onremise sign per street frontage, uh, with a maximum, uh, wall sign area of 32 square feet. Uh there's no clear allowance for multiple tenant wall signs. Um and in multi-tenant strip centers, only one tenant may install a sign which does not align with typical retail use patterns. Uh whereas in C3 zoning districts, um you're allowed one primary freestanding sign per frontage. Uh sign height and area vary by street classification. Um you can have any number of uh buildings uh building wall signs um as long as they conform to um the aggregate sign limit of the the building um which is 10% of the facade wall area. Uh this approach provides flexibility for each tenant to maintain a sign proportionate to their storefront while maintaining visual balance along corridors. Uh the proposed amendment that we have here um would state that uh multi-tenant commercial principal structures located in any R3, R4, M1, C1, or C2 zoning districts shall be subject to the C3 and I1 signing regulations governing maximum area, height, and quantity of signs. Uh this is going to this clarification would ensure that signage for strip centers is based on use and design

rather than strictly on zoning designation. Um the benefits for the of the amendment uh it's going to promote consistent treatment of similar land uses. Uh provide adequate visibility for multi-tenant retail businesses. Uh reduce the need for variances and administrative interpretation and enhance corridor aesthetics through predictable scalable sign standards. Uh some concerns are that larger allowable signs could increase visual impacts along corridors and that staff will need to verify eligibility for multi-tenant strip center designation during permit review. Uh staff is going to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment uh to create consistent practical and businessfriendly standards for multi-tenant commercial properties along all zoning districts. Let me open the public hearing.

Yes. If there's no questions, I'd recommend opening the public hearing. I'll go ahead and open it. And if you guys have questions while we've got open, you know, fire away. Okay. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak on either of the um options that we're looking at here for the signs and the billboards, uh they can come up, state their name, address, got like five minutes.

Hello, Kim. Brungard 11967 Southwest 99, Kansas. I mainly just am selfishly trying to see if my property will fit into this new standard. And um first off, thank you for addressing this since I know I'm the person that brought it to you. Um but you had mentioned because I haven't seen any of this and I my eyesight isn't good enough to read the fine print. Is there a a limit with regard to frontage in regard to size and that sort of thing along the highway with regard to getting an approval? Are you talking about in terms of sign size? Like a maximum size?

Well, uh, if you want a billboard, is there a minimum frontage requirement, minimum size requirement, that kind of thing? Because I thought you'd mentioned that, but I couldn't. I thought it was 50. That's what that's what I was bleeding and I think that's kind of what was already pre-existing. Okay. So, basically, yeah, I've got 200, so that'd be fine. That's mainly my thing is I just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to have to also then apply for a variance if I do that. So, if this is approved, then it goes to the city council and then I can make the application. Oh, I did want to uh make one amendment. I noticed in in the packet it said that this would go to um city commission on December 1st of 2026. Uh we're not we are not going to wait a year to do that. December 1st.

Yeah. So it should be uh December 1st of 2025. Wow. Patience. So small typo. Okay. Listen, Kim, when you pray for patience, I know, right? Be patient. Something I've never been good at. the agenda. Yeah. Way something to look forward to. That that is it. Thank you very much. I appreciate your Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Tim Shiggley, 10640 Southwest Ashley Road, Augusta. I have basically a couple questions in regards to billboard signings out on the corridor. Um, being a long-term resident of this town 30 plus years, I've watched the growth there on the corridor in the evenings, these billboards, and I don't know if this applies to electronic billboards or is this a big global billboard, if it's just, you know, this is going to be a plain jane billboard with a little bit of lighting. However, light pollution is a big issue today and it's growing all across the country. And I lived out there before some dealerships got there. They put up their electronic billboards are run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and their businesses aren't open those hours. Those nights where we have a little bit of gray cloud, which is pretty calm in this time of year, those billboards reflect in the in the moisture in that air. I live about 58 of mile south of 54. And if it's a bird crow flies over towards um say the Ford dealership, that sign illuminates my area almost threequarters of a mile as that crows fly. The problem is is I don't get any need for that business to have that sign rolling at 10 after 1000 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. because nobody's going to turn to go look. But it is light pollution. Many counties across the country are adopting what they call dark sky amendments which was putting in place where these electronic billboards and all billboards that they're barn door in the sense of lighting that it doesn't pollute the sky. When I came here, I could see the Milky Way

uh just plain Jane, just open up my eyes and see it. Today, it's really encroached upon that. I would encourage that we pass these amendments or changes, but we also look at what we're doing to our our community, you know, how we're light including it, particularly in the evenings. and those who don't live out and don't really enjoy that type of thing. Wow, what a bummer that, you know, that that they don't get to see the dark skies anymore. Uh, and what that really does. I would say that we look at ways we can encourage these businesses to be good stewards of their community that they're within that they may not live in. But if they, you know, if they're there, we look into the future of what we really do to protect our community and really enjoy what we had here in Butler County. We still have an opportunity. I know this is the city, but this is your corridor that you get to watch over. And so I really encourage we look at that and take that in mind that we are creating I have no problem with signage. I just want to make sure that we're doing it correctly. We look at all the aspects of it that we do not pollute the sky at night with with light. And uh so that's my my thoughts.

Thank you. Anybody else have any comments before I close the public hearing? This time I'll close the public hearing. And I will add there is and that is a really good point. And I drive there I drive through there every night. So I see some of those some of those signs have gotten extremely bright. Extremely bright. Um, I can sit in my bedroom.

Yeah. As an owner of an electric sign, not out on the corridor, there is a function that you can do to dim it at night, but it's still it still is bright, but my sign company added that so that because I have residential properties on the street and so I tried to be a good neighbor, but they're still bright because there's

they're just LED and there are lots of little light bulbs in there. There is this section in the in the sign regulations that does govern the illumination of the sign. So these changes would be more for your typical standard billboard. And then if it was one that had the illumination, we would look to that section of the rug as well, which isn't part of the revisions today, but it is something for us to go and maybe familiarize ourselves better with. architects a lot of times projects they are doing lighting but there are some totally quite frankly some electronic sign I can hear that that sign

buzzing like buzzing clicking and making noises it just ownership sometimes does not think through all those saying, but the bands are, you know, displaying their their wear, so to speak. I I'm fine. I get it. I understand it. But we also need consider.

Um, we got the Yeah. Y, you got some more comments? Uh, I don't have any more comments. I just want to make sure I'm here to help you walk through your motion. Motion. Yeah. They should be two separate motions. Could they should they not? One for signs and Well, I think basically what we talked about is for that growth area, we need to add some language onto the recommendation that says it's for all zone all zoned areas in the growth area that it mir mirrors the Butler County regulations. So, I think we want to add that language, right? Absolutely. So, I have I put together a draft. I don't know if you'd like to read it. Maybe which one? Well, I wrote one, right?

Oh, okay. You can read my writing or I can read that. Okay, go ahead. So, I put staff is recommending a motion to approve the text amendments to article 8 of the sign regulations as proposed by staff, which include revisions to section 8.4 to define billboards. Section 8.11 as presented by staff in proposal number two, adding language that billboards are allowed in all zoning districts within the planning area and approving revisions to section 8.11 amending sign regulations for multi-tenant strip centers as proposed by staff. You didn't add the

No, she did. She got that she got that language. Yeah. I'll make that motion. Okay, that's just a We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I

motion carries. Um I have a question now. That motion is carried. So, well, um, I want to get that part out of the way, but he brought up a great point, you know, and, um, so Butler County, we're trying to mimic their zoning regulations on in our growth area, which I really liked because I think ours are too restrictive in some degrees in that growth area. But who when Butler County reviews their information on that is um do we know how often that happens or when they do that or it you came from the Elorado area. Do you know who looks at that stuff there on the Butler County side?

Looks at what specifically like we've we've mirrored their sign regulations, right? But who's who's doing their sign regulations there? Is that something we talked about like we could send a letter or we could talk to them about, hey, you know, if we're all going to try and have the same zoning regulations for signs. Is that something?

So Toby with Butler County is who we speak to and he oversees their planning and zoning and enforcement department. So I know they're in the process right now of updating their comp plan and once the Butler County comp plan is updated, they're going to roll into like updating their subdivision and zoning rags. Um so I am hoping we can be part of that process and conversation. We have been with the comp plan so far and we have a good working relationship with that office. Um, so it absolutely could be something where we have some even joint conversations around some of these rugs um and making sure that we're applying them equally and that they benefit everyone cuz there's a lot, right? And we I really hate when people call in our office and we're like, "Okay, well, for this one thing it's us and then for something else it's Butler County." And then when we're not like our regs don't work well together, it it I'm sure it it's not great customer service.

Yeah, that's that's kind of what I was getting at like are we partnering with them to like make more of our regulations mirror there? So that's because it's super confusing in the growth area.

Yes. And we have a lot of like conversations about the extrajurisdictional area and what that needs to look like in the future. I know like the legislator brought legislature brought up some of that last year. So, I think everybody was just kind of sitting on it to see if there would be any changes. There wasn't anything that came out last year, but it could come up again this in 2026. Um, so we can just continue to have that that open dialogue with them at the county and and with staff, especially on things that work well and things that aren't working well and how we can better align moving forward. Yeah, we were. Yeah. Yeah. when I first got here. Huh? Yeah.

Yeah. I think as a safety net as far as a little crazy I get to look at shining in my dining room every night. So I just I didn't mention them. But but it's the same thing. They they shared it is what it is.

It's even outside of that. We've had, you know, land owners call our office that want to put up, you know, a large building to store their farm equipment in. Well, they don't have like is that allowed? It's not really allowed as part of the city rags as a primary. That's normally what we were seeing in the but it's allowed in the county and you know it's on hundreds of acres. So,

you know, in those instances there's we should align with the county. I mean, I'm not I mean, they're they have a business. They're farming. They need their equipment out there. So, it makes sense, but we see that's just an example of what we the questions we get in our office that where our regs don't allow align with the county, even though it's very much something you would find.

Yeah. Back to Jim's point, like I know we did sit down, I know we had a special meeting. We sat down and talked about not necessarily shrinking our growth area but changing the way it was shaped and things like that to bring you know more focus to right along the corridor there like at the front but not so much so those people could you know still put up their outbuildings and things like that. Do you know is there any more talk between No, it that was happening when I first started. I will say I feel like most of the requests we get are things that are in the corridor. So I mean that's probably one of the only example I don't think we get very many requests that are like we've had maybe well two two three

maybe just a handful yeah that have come through. Um the problem I mean the legislature I think was trying to get rid of the extra jurisdictional areas last year or this year earlier this year. So I'd hate to go through that exercise and then have them say well they're not. So, just wonder you brought up a good point. Okay, I guess we'll move on to the next item. Um, next one we've got here is we need to look at variance 2025-20. It's variance request to reduce the front building setbacks at 1053 Oage Street. And at this time, I'll send it back to staff for report.

Uh, yes. Uh, sorry. Sorry. Real quick, can you just open the meeting of the board of zoning appeals? Did you do that? Oh, yep. Okay. I'm going to open that meeting of board of zoning appeals at this time and then we are going to look at the variance request to reduce front setback lines at 10:53. I just think it's cleaner if we open the meeting. Listen, I'm here.

Uh, yes. So, we had uh uh the school district and their engineers uh recently request a building set back um from 30 ft to 19 ft 3 in um in order to accommodate a uh new building addition along the eastern side of of the property there at uh Garfield Elementary. Um site size uh 2000 or 28,61.56 square feet for a total acreage of 4.8 acres. Um staff is going to recommend uh that we approve the variance to reduce the building setback from 30 foot or 30t to 19 ft 3 in. Uh the school is proposing to construct a new addition to Garfield Elementary uh with dimensions of roughly 10 foot as measured east west by 40 foot as measured north south. The new addition would encroach into the existing side setback and would be within 19t 3 in of the east property line and 30 ft from the south uh south property line. Um, properties to the west have a residential zoning and residential use. Properties to the south have residential zoning, residential use. Uh, properties to the east have residential zoning and residential use, and properties to the north also have residential zoning and residential use. The adoption of the current zoning regulations redesated uh the existing property as an R1 single family residential district. Uh prior to the adoption of the current zoning regulations, the property was designated as an assembly district which had permitted uses of auditorium, civic centers, educational and religious. Uh the district had um excuse me, following setback requirements and specifically we're going to be looking at front

setback of uh 30 foot um and side and rear setbacks of uh 10 foot and 20 foot respectively. So as part of the variance request there are findings of fact um that the planning commission or the board of zoning appeals must make. Um so Sam will go through those right now.

Okay. So first finding of fact is the variance unique to the property in question. Uh the property is residentially zoned but with a school use due to changes in the zoning regulations. Under typical circumstances of the current zoning regulations, the property would be developed with a plan development overlay. The PDO would allow for narrower setbacks. Uh staff finds this to be unique to the property. Uh second is the variance ordinarily found in the same zoning district. Variances are set to 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 such as sheds and garages to ensure safe distances from utilities, streets, and adjacent structures. In this case, however, the property's use as a school constitutes the need for large structures not ordinarily envisioned for 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. Third is the need for variance created by actions of the property owner or the applicant. The property has had the current school on site since 2012. The property was subject to the zoning regulations as they existed at the time. Um, in 2020, the city of Augusta adopted new zoning regulations that change the zoning classification of the property by default. Four, 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 2012 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 impediment to the visual site triangles. Staff find that the request is not expected to negatively impact the rights of nearby property owners or residents. Five. Will strict application of the provisions of this regulation constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application? Yes. A hardship exists due to the significant setbacks that pertain to R1's own properties. When constructing building additions, schools are more likely to build larger buildings and residential dwellings due to the need to house a larger quantity of people within those additions. Strict application of the regulation would therefore impose an unnecessary hardship by limiting the building envelope which limits what might practically be built in that space. Lastly, does the requested variance oppose the general spirit and intent of these regulations? The proposed v 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 we are here to answer any questions. Um I know SP is it SPT is also here um to answer any questions okay that you might have. There'll also public open a public hearing. So

okay at this time I'll open the public hearing. If anybody wants to come up and visit name, address, talk for a little bit, you're welcome to do so. or if you guys have any questions for before 2020 it was assembly district so it had a 20 foot setback at that time didn't it rear was in the assembly uh it I believe it had a 30 foot front setback it says in here under 605 is uh the rear setback is 20 ft

correct this would actually be applicable to the front setback since it would be frontage along O. Oh, okay. Not Yeah. And the school is positioned a little. Yeah. Oh, but we went off of how it's addressed. So, say again, what is the setback that you're requesting that 19.3 three? Is that So, you're seven inches. more than 10. It was 30, but

I have just a silly question, I guess. Why are is this normal that schools are zoned R1 or why are schools zoned R1 or why aren't our schools zoned a special zoning district other than R1? We we talk about that frequently in our office, especially having staff that have seen multiple revisions of the zoning regulations and that it seemed a lot easier when like our government buildings and our schools and like our churches and you know there was kind of that assembly district. Um everyone feels like that worked really well and the other zoning rags. So it it is something that we could

I mean that separating out again. Um I think they're just residential cuz like they're in residential zone district. They end up getting built in residential area but they should Yeah. It was that state school district had control that back

when a school closed it go back to R1 and then it'd get toward houses would be put back on the property. Well, look at the the churches just in this town that have gone to residential. True. Across the street. I was just wondering. I know we don't see this stuff very often and we're seeing it because of the bond. Correct. Which I understand that. I was just I was like thinking about like is that how most cities do it or most like in El Dredo, do you remember? Are your schools zoned R1 or R2 or whatever your residential zoning is? I don't I don't recall what that zoning would have been. Okay. All right. We haven't gone down that rabbit hole of looking at other

I know we're still reviewing our zoning rags, right? That's still part of that process. You guys are still looking back. Aren't you guys still messing with like going through that book a little bit? I mean, every case that comes in we Is that kind of what you're doing now? Just case by case and fixing it. Trying to. Yeah. I mean, there's definitely some broader things that that might just be when we're looking through that. I wonder if we want to some consider that again. Yeah, the assembly I don't know why it went away necessarily.

Some of the changes are easy to make like on a case by case basis or easier to consider on a case by case basis and especially when we just find administrative things, you know, um that we can bring. There are also larger changes that should probably be considered, you know, looking at the whole book and thinking more comprehensively and strategically and like adding a new zoning district is one of those to where we'd want to think about it a little bit more comprehensively than agreed.

But it is something we can look at. It is, like I said, it's something where staff, at least administratively, has mentioned it was easier to work with an assembly district than it is to work with the governmental institutions being in R1. Yeah. And then it would have probably saved them time, too, because probably wouldn't I don't know if we still would have had a variance or something on I don't either. I mean, sometimes we'll look at the old code and see if it would have still applied and then sometimes we we don't. Um, it also has to do with the positioning of the original building, I would say. Like a lot of these schools for some reason, and I see it in other municipalities, too, they're on these huge lots of land. Like they're huge, but then they build the school right

real close on the property like right off of the street and then when they're wanting to do additions, they makes it difficult. Yeah. Is this just an entrance? What is this? There you go. I can speak to that.

So, my name is Kyle Hire. I am the project manager at SPT Architecture that worked on this building. Uh, so this little addition is actually a storage edition for the gym itself. Um, right now the school has a hardship to where when they have any kind of event in the gym, they have to get the the folding chairs from one side of the school all the way to the other and down this very tight ADA ramp that is over by the gym itself. Uh so with them having a need for additional storage anyway, uh we wanted to try to give them a storage room that was at gym level that would make it a lot easier for them to set up for their community events in the gym. And so that's why we were proposing adding this small little addition to the gym. And unfortunately with the way the school is set up with the gym entry right next to it and the closeness to the adjacent streets, this seemed to be the only location we could put such a thing even though it does encroach on the easement itself.

Any other questions for guys have any other questions for Kyle? Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Okay, at this time I'm going to close the public hearing and we will entertain a motion as the board of zone appeals. I make a motion that we variance request to reduced front building setback

second. Okay, I have a motion and second. All in favor? All right. Motion carries.

Okay. I think we're on to just matters. Will you close the meeting at the board of zoning? I'm going to close the meeting for the board of sounding appeals. Then I need to do I need to open back.

So that's final action by the board of zoning appeals and those don't go before the city council. So, you should be able to get your permits. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. This one doesn't have to go before city council. So, it's been it's complete. Do I need to open back up the planning? I'm going to open back up the planning commission meeting and we're going to look at um item D matters for the commission. and we're looking at the and this is just on here as an FYI that we will be drafting the 2026 calendar. Okay.

Um I know you guys prefer Wednesday mornings, not Monday morning. You like 8:00. So that's the premise we will run with for 2026. Okay. Still trying to do the every other two. Are you trying to coordinate it with council meetings and stuff like that? So yeah. So right now the council's first and third Monday and then these meetings are second and fourth Wednesday. So I am going to be looking at maybe moving the Wednesday to the first and third and see what that does to the coordination of the city council meetings. Um I'll bring multiple options probably and let you guys see the days in between that it creates based off of when these meetings are. So okay,

I will bring you options for Wednesday morning though. Anybody else have anything? You guys have anything?

Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Me?

That was a long year.