Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board

MINUTES MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Thursday, January 9, 2025 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Buser Kelly Karl Ann Christian Debbie Nuss, chair Ken Ebert Hannah Fehr, vice-chair STAFF PRESENT John Adam, Assistant Director of Community Development; Ben Chmiel, Senior Planner; and John Verssue, Planner III 1. CALL TO ORDER 1.1 The chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Staff called roll and stated there was a quorum. 1.2 Open Public Comments: There were none. 2. CONSENT AGENDA 2.1 Approve the minutes of the December 19, 2024, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting Buser moved to approve the consent agenda; Ebert seconded. Motion passed 6–0. 3. GENERAL AGENDA 3.1 A WORK SESSION for the ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The Manhattan Urban Area Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April 2015. As part of the annual review, Community Development staff will share the progress to date and workplan for 2025 and take feedback from the Board (file no. CPA-24-155) Chmiel gave a presentation and summarized the work plan for the upcoming year and reviewed the progress completed in 2024. Nuss asked what the process would look like for the update of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and who would be involved. Chmiel said that there was no required process besides what a normal amendment to the Comprehensive MUAPB Minutes Page 2 01/09/2025 Plan would be, but that there would likely be public involvement. Chmiel said that direction would be given from the City Commission and the City Manager’s Office. Nuss said that there would likely need to be significant discussions regarding the map so the public should be involved as much as possible. Nuss said that a presentation on incentives and programs that the Commission had put into action would be helpful so that the planning board had all relevant information when considering items in the future. Chmiel said adding housing capacity would be a focus of the FLUM update, which would start as a technical analysis then be informed with public input. Nuss said that there would need to be a balance between preserving existing housing and new housing, and that the update would need to acknowledge that. Nuss asked if there was a formal presentation of the riverfront project to the board, or if there had been a presentation to the city commission. Chmiel said that he was unsure, with Adam and Verssue clarifying that there had been a presentation at a joint County/City meeting. Buser asked if the riverfront project would be translated by staff into something more grounded. Chmiel said the goal would be to adapt it into something the city could adopt. Ebert said that the previous rezoning requests had raised some questions from all parties about the future of zoning in Manhattan, and was curious as to how the FLUM could be amended to better reflect the public interest and potentially create a stronger connection between the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning designations in the Manhattan Development Code. Ebert reviewed the timelines for 2025 projects and said that he felt they were rather fast. Ebert said with the recent issues being a part of the various plans that he would appreciate seeing more time invested in the plans. Ebert talked about a past rezoning where the City Commission had approved against the Planning Board recommendation and asked if there would be any analysis of the inconsistencies between the future land use map and reality. Chmiel said that there would be some realignment between the zoning districts and the land use designations, but ultimately the FLUM is not prescriptive but guide. Chmiel also said that there would ideally be some flexibility introduced with the update, so that there could be a more realistic connection between the designations and reality as well as fitting alternatives. Chmiel said that one of the flaws with the future land use map was that it was created by using the individual parcel data from the zoning at the time. Chmiel said best practice is to create a future land use map with a higher level of scope and “thick lines” so that there would be more flexibility within the plan. Ebert agreed and said that he felt that when someone buys property, they likely look at both the current zoning and the future land use designation. MUAPB Minutes Page 3 01/09/2025 Nuss said that she felt that the less prescriptive the FLUM was, the more argumentative it would become to justify rezonings. Nuss said that even now with the map being parcel specific that there were still conflicts, and that the decisions made would largely be based on who is on the boards or commission. Chmiel said that conformance with the FLUM was just one of the rezoning criteria that the Board considers, but that like the other criteria it needs to be weighed appropriately. Verssue added that since the FLUM was more of a snapshot in time, that the consideration of that factor could be difficult in many cases. Nuss agreed but said that since history of the property was included by staff and in some cases the public as well, that she felt the Board had a good understanding of the evolution of any given property. Karl said that he felt the timeframes for projects were quick. Chmiel said that they were more like targets that the processes could take longer, and that there would likely be work sessions with the City Commission and Board before the start date so that everyone would be aware and familiar. Nuss said that she would appreciate if these items would come before the Planning Board before they went before the City Commission. Ebert asked in what cases things would go before the City Commission without coming to the planning board beforehand. Chmiel said that it depended on what the item was, if it would be within the purview of the Planning Board, and sometimes at the discretion of the applicant’s strategy. Buser said that he had gotten to sit on one of the kickoff sessions for the historic preservation plan, and that he felt it would be beneficial for the Board to have a review of what a historic neighborhood or building is. He also said that it could be beneficial to add historic criteria to the Planning Board or to bring in the Historic Resources Board for recommendation. Chmiel said that there were recent conversations with the Historic Resources Board about what their purview was, and that the consultants working on the preservation plan would hopefully include recommendations on that topic. Nuss said that the since the Comprehensive Plan had guidance on historic preservation that it should be a part of the decision-making process, but that some clarification would be appreciated. Fehr asked about what the timeline meant for the riverfront project—was it planning or construction. Chmiel said it was just the adoption process. Nuss said that for the Community Development Block Grant, that she would encourage the public to go to meetings regarding the grants and give feedback. Nuss invited members of the public to speak. Mel Borst, 1918 Humboldt Street, said that he appreciated the board’s interest in the analysis of the effects of infill development in various neighborhoods which could potentially qualify for historic preservation. Borst said that after the state removed the environs review, the local zoning regulations became much more important to maintaining the character of neighborhoods. Borst MUAPB Minutes Page 4 01/09/2025 said that the recent housing study encouraged more affordable housing, but that the plan was slowly destabilizing older affordable homes. Borst requested that the board complete an analysis of infill developments and to allow various citizens to present on conservation and preservation districts. Michael Crubel, 825 Houston Street, said that he felt the greatest challenge to the citizens and the Planning Board was to protect the older neighborhoods. Crubel said that he felt the goals of the various parties involved needed to be realigned so that everyone was working towards a unified goal. Crubel also said that it seemed that the City’s goals were to introduce multi-family housing wherever possible. Kathy Dzewaltowski, 100 South Delaware Avenue, said she would like to see a process for establishing a conservation district overlay as the Comprehensive Plan had included it as a potential solution to protect neighborhoods that might not qualify as historic but still had historic or cultural value. Dzewaltowski said that the TNO had existed when the comprehensive was made, so a different overlay was likely intended. Dzewaltowski said that her current residence was not included in the O-EN overlay district, but that it was from the 1950s, which could be considered historic today. Christian said that she had been reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and appreciated many of the comments that had been made by both the board and the public. Ebert said that the comments made by Borst reflected a need to review the consequences of past changes to the zoning code. Ebert said that regarding the comments about the conservation district that he had looked at examples in Topeka and that they were a more private matter completed and maintained by the individual neighborhoods, akin to something like a homeowner’s association or a benefit district. Ebert said that discussion with citizens about conservation districts could be valuable. Nuss said that she generally agreed with Ebert, but that a full conservation district would allow the city and its boards to have input and a voice in conserving older neighborhoods, rather than the private conservation idea which would not give the board any jurisdiction. Ebert said that it could potentially be a benefit to not have the city involved. Nuss and Ebert discussed back and forth on the ethics of public versus private conservation. Nuss said that like Ebert, she would also appreciate information regarding conservation districts and the changes to neighborhoods brought on by infill development. Nuss asked Verssue if it would make an appropriate topic for the upcoming housing summit. Verssue said that he would think about it. Nuss said that a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the Historic Resources Board could be beneficial to all. MUAPB Minutes Page 5 01/09/2025 Nuss asked about a previous idea regarding splitting the city into various neighborhoods and having a dedicated staff member to act as a liaison to their assigned neighborhood areas. Chmiel said that the idea had been circulated around the department in the past, but that ultimately due to number of staff and new directives it had not been continued. 4. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 4.1 Planning updates from staff. Adam said that the city-initiated rezoning of a PUD would be rescheduled due to a problem with notice. Adam asked if the board would be comfortable with a virtual meeting on January 23 since there would not be any items requiring a hearing. Nuss confirmed. 4.2 Comments from Board members. Ebert asked about the Aggieville Back Nine development project. Chmiel said that the last presentation was made in October to the City Commission, but that there had not been anything else made public. Ebert asked if the project would have been consistent with the zoning. Chmiel confirmed that the project would have been consistent with the zoning. 4.3 Next meeting: Chair announced the next meeting is Thursday, January 23, 2025. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. Submitted by Lance Wackerla, Planner I