Planning commission reviews revised PDO to expand Augusta Storage Center; commissioners favor larger setback

The Augusta Planning Commission met to review Case 2026-03, a preliminary concept to rezone five contiguous parcels to I-1 industrial with a Plan Development Overlay (PDO) so Augusta Storage Center can expand. Applicant Jimmy Wayne told the commission the plan would expand storage units and add RV parking; staff described site-specific limits the PDO would impose, such as indoor-only storage activity, restricted RV parking locations, an 8-foot screening wall along residential boundaries and controls on lighting.

Staff said the northern parcels recently acquired at auction are currently R-1/R-2 and the existing storage site is industrial; consolidating the lots under a PDO would let the city limit future industrial uses to the storage operation and require buffering, fencing and screening. Staff presented fiscal and traffic examples used to assess impacts: under a moderate redevelopment scenario the city could see roughly $19,000 in additional property tax revenue in a low estimate and up to about $30,000 in a higher estimate; staff also cited a parking-generation table and estimated an additional about 1.7 vehicle trips per day on Ohio Street from the proposed buildings.

Jimmy Wayne, the applicant, described the project and said the ownership revised the design after earlier concerns. "Our plan is to develop and expand Augusta Self Storage Center, add more storage units, add a few more RV parking areas," Wayne said. Matthew Tucker, the applicant's agent from BHC, told the commission replatting and site-design steps could allow increasing setbacks and adding screening to preserve the "feel of the neighborhood." Staff said the PDO could be written to require preservation of mature trees, an enhanced landscape buffer and screening and to limit future uses to those shown on an approved site plan.

During questioning, commissioners and the consultant discussed setback widths, building footprints and an electrical easement that constrains moving buildings farther west. The consultant and staff referenced proposed building modules roughly 40 by 140 feet and 40 by 150 feet; staff noted those building envelopes and final survey data would be set during the planning review and platting process. Commissioners asked that the PDO include a larger building setback and a separate landscaping setback so screening does not "upstage" future residential frontages; several commissioners expressed a preference near 35–40 feet for the building setback and roughly 30 feet for the landscaping buffer.

Community National Bank representative Harry Grooms, who said his organization owns 1110 Ohio Street, addressed the commission during public comment. "The current PDO site plan is much better than the original," Grooms said, while raising questions about fence detail and drainage and asking whether a slightly deeper lot split (for example, 115 feet rather than 110) might allow future homes to fit. Resident Rebecca Tharman of 1150 Ohio Street said she is maintaining her property and asked, "How is this gonna affect us when we're trying to make our property look lovely?" Staff said the questions raised would be addressed in the next staff report.

Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the rezoning at this concept review. Staff indicated the applicant will revise the PDO to reflect commission feedback, staff will include responses to public comments in the packet, and the matter will return as a noticed public hearing and voting item before the Planning Commission and, if recommended, to the City Council. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.

Next steps: the applicant will submit a revised PDO and legal description; staff will prepare a packet addressing the comments heard today and will publish public hearing notice before the commission considers a formal rezoning recommendation.