Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board

MINUTES MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Thursday, April 10, 2025 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Buser Jim Fenton Ann Christian Kelly Karl Ken Ebert Debbie Nuss, chair Hannah Fehr, vice-chair STAFF PRESENT Barry Beagle, Senior Planner; John Adam, Assistant Director of Community Development; Rachel Sherck, Deputy City Attorney; Bob Issac, Riley County Planner; and Lance Wackerla, Planner I 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 March 27, 2025, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting 2.2 Initiate an AMENDMENT of the Manhattan Development Code (MDC) to address signs and procedures (applicant: City of Manhattan; file no. DCA-25-026) Karl moved to approve the consent agenda; Wilson seconded. Item 2.1 passed 6–0–1 (Christian abstaining). Item 2.2 passed 7–0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Nuss said that the order of the agenda would be changed to be considerate of time for Riley County Staff. MUAPB Minutes Page 2 04/10/2025 3.1 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Residential Use Designator-Extraneous Farmstead of a 2-acre tract of land generally located approximately 2,529 feet south of Moehlman Road, at the southern terminus of Rosencutter Road; Section 25, Township 10 South, Range 7 East; Manhattan Township (applicant: Joe Gerken; file no. RCF-25-033) 3.2 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider the Concurrent Plat for a 2-acre tract of land generally located approximately 2,529 feet south of Moehlman Road, at the southern terminus of Rosencutter Road; Section 25, Township 10 South, Range 7 East; Manhattan Township (applicant: Joe Gerken; file no. RCF-25-033) Items 3.2 and 3.3 were combined for presentation and comment. Isaac stated the subject site is an approximately 2-acre portion of two larger, contiguous parent tracts. He said the applicant is requesting a Residential Use Designator - Extraneous Farmstead for that portion of the parent tracts occupied by the existing single-family residence that was built circa 1918 and remodeled 1973. He said that although the property is located within a designated growth area as per the Vision 2025 Comprehensive Plan for Riley County, Kansas, but outside of the Manhattan Urban Service Area, it was recommended by staff that, due to nature of the existing land use, a residential use designator be utilized, rather than rezoning to a residential district. He stated that, as per Section 26-5A-3 - Applicability, of the Manhattan Development Code, the remainder of the parent tracts will continue in agricultural use and open space and therefore be exempt from the platting requirements. Staff recommended the Planning Board approve the request to receive a Residential Use Designator-Extraneous Farmstead, as it has been determined that it meets the minimum requirements of the Riley County Land Development Regulations. Staff also recommended the Planning Board approve the Concurrent Plat of Gerken Addition, as it has been determined that all requirements of the Riley County Land Development Regulations, Articles 26-5, 26-8 and 26-9 of the Manhattan Development Code and Riley County Sanitary Code have been met. Chairperson Nuss opened the public hearing. The applicant, Joe Gerken, stated his address is 523 Edgerton Avenue. He said there are two houses at the end of the road. He said the current property owners don’t have much use for the second house. He said he wants to combine some of the land he owns with the house to meet the Sanitary Code. Mr. Gerken stated he wants to purchase the house for some of their agricultural operations. There were no proponents or opponents. MUAPB Minutes Page 3 04/10/2025 Chairperson Nuss closed the public hearing. Buser motioned to approve the Residential Use Designator-Extraneous Farmstead, as it has been determined that it meets the requirements of the Riley County Land Development Regulations; Karl seconded. Motion carried 7–0 Isaac announced that the Board of County Commissioners will hear the request April 28, 2025, at 9:15 am in the County Commission chambers. Buser moved to approve the Concurrent Plan of Gerken Addition, as it has been determined that it meets the minimum requirements of the Riley County Land Development Regulations, Articles 26-5, 26-8, and 26-9 of the Manhattan Development Code and the Riley County Sanitary Code; Christian seconded. Motion carried 7–0. 3.3 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider the REZONING of 2323 Anderson Avenue, Unger Complex, a 5.17-acre site from BC, Business Commercial District, to RH, High- Density Residential District (applicant: Fred Merrill, Unger Housing, LLC; file no. REZ-25-024) Beagle gave the presentation. Wilson asked for clarification on the timeframe of future improvements to the site. Beagle clarified that the improvements would not take place before a building permit or platting process could begin. Wilson asked which departments would be involved with the process. Beagle said that Community Development, Public Works, Public Utilities, and Risk Reduction would be involved. Ebert asked about a portion of the lot (parking lot to southeast of site) that was not included in the rezoning request. Beagle said that he would let the applicant speak on its exclusion. Ebert asked if the site were to not have been for office use if the area would have likely been RLM. Beagle said that it would have more than likely been designated as RLM if it had not been historically used for office and institutional uses. Ebert asked about future improvements to the site and area, and which parties would pay for the improvements. Beagle said he was not able to speculate what the cost structure would entail. Ebert asked if there was a chance the neighborhood would have to help with the cost of future improvements in conjunction with the proposal. Beagle said he was not able to speculate. Ebert asked why staff found that the proposed land use was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Beagle said that the requirements for buffer yards and orientation of the site towards Anderson helped the proposed zoning be more compatible with the surrounding uses. Ebert said there were 75 housing units in the surrounding area, whereas the site with the proposed zoning district could support up to 225 housing units. Beagle showed the permitted uses for the RH, High-density Residential district, MUAPB Minutes Page 4 04/10/2025 and the BC, Business Commercial district, for comparison. Ebert clarified that the RH district did not specify the type of housing permitted, but rather the range and density of housing. Beagle said his understanding was correct. Adam asked for clarification on Ebert’s infrastructure question. Ebert said his question was focused on the infrastructure specifically for the site. Adam said that improvements to utilities and infrastructure on Anderson Avenue had been planned for a long time. Nuss asked if the improvements were related to the site in question. Adam said they were not. Nuss asked if there was a place in the community where buffer yards had been implemented for a project of this scale. Beagle said that to his knowledge there had not been a project of this scale since the implementation of the Manhattan Development Code. Public hearing opened The applicant, Fred Merrill, 3305 West 121st Terrace, Leawood, Kansas, said that he and his colleague, Jake Mooney, 11705 Wenonga Circle, Leawood Kansas, had completed tax credit housing developments for the past three years and had worked on other types of developments prior. Merrill said that market studies had indicated that Manhattan had a higher median housing price compared to its regional and peer cities, such as Lawrence, Fayetteville, and Lincoln. He added that Manhattan was ahead of its peers in attracting professionals and families, but that lack of middle-income range housing was beginning to slow growth of these population groups. Merrill gave a brief history of the building that occupied the site, adding that it required a large amount of remediation and maintenance on the part of its current owners, Kansas State University. Merrill said that the age of the building would allow it to qualify for historic funding sources for remediation and rehabilitation. He said there were challenges with finding users interested in office and institutional uses. Karl asked about the pricing structure for the project. Mooney said that the units would be rented, with the rental price being between $800 and $1200 per month. Larry Weaver, 1009 Karla Lane, said the proposed zoning district allowed too many potential additional units compared to the existing size of the neighborhood. Weaver said he disagreed with the assessment of compatibility in the staff report and asked that the board not recommend approval of the rezoning. Kirk Crabtree, 514 Pillsbury Drive, of Habitat for Humanity, commended the applicant and neighborhood for having open discourse about the rezoning and proposed project. MUAPB Minutes Page 5 04/10/2025 Bill Hughes, 2314 Indian Mound Lane, said that he had worked in the Unger complex in the past and had bought a house in the neighborhood. Hughes said there were other proposed buildings for the western part of the site. Zac Doyle, 2401 Timberlane Drive, said that introducing high-density residential would have a large impact on traffic and access, both vehicle and pedestrian. Doyle said that the neighborhood was equipped to handle the current level of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but not for the proposed development or zoning district. Doyle said there was a risk of the building being abandoned if the residential project failed. He asked the board to not recommend approval. Sondra Visser, 2429 Lookout Drive, said city staff had indicated there had been 49 vehicular accidents along the portion of Anderson and that future infrastructure would address the issues, but that current infrastructure would not be able to sustain the proposed zoning district or development. Visser said the proposed roundabout would not be a good solution as it would attract traffic from the Kansas State University sporting events. She said turning onto Anderson Avenue from Timberlane was dangerous and needed to be improved. Kerry Priest, 1001 Michael Road, said she had lived in high-density housing in Manhattan as a professional. Priest said she had decided to buy her house because she liked the neighborhood. Priest said that she supported the redevelopment of the Unger complex but was opposed to allowing high-density residential due to traffic, parking, loss of privacy and open space, and noise. Ebert asked Priest to clarify her position on the request. Priest said she felt the current zoning best served the neighborhood and provided a variety of potential uses. Chris Deetjen, 2315 Indian Mound Lane, said he had submitted a letter to the planning board prior to the meeting. Deetjen reviewed the five points covered in his letter. He said that while he had never been in a traffic accident in the area, that the intersections were still dangerous. He said the building should be demolished and suggested that the site be repurposed for single-family housing. Kasey Kile, 2326 Indian Mound Lane, said that while she understood the need to redevelop the Unger complex that she was concerned about the high-density residential district. Kile said the area was already a traffic concern and that the introduction of high-density residential would further complicate traffic safety. Johnathan Wiersma, 808 Wildcat Ridge, said he was concerned about the maximum number of units allowed by the RH zoning district and the possibility of abandonment of grant funding. He said that traffic concerns would be better addressed before the rezoning request appeared before the Planning Board. Cindy Wichman, 2325 Timberlane Drive, said that there were other planning considerations such as the long-term effects on social determinants of health. She said that social determinants of health included areas in which residents MUAPB Minutes Page 6 04/10/2025 lived and worked. She asked the board not to recommend approval and said low-density residential would be more appropriate for the site. Linda Weis-Olson, 2121 Meadowlark Road, owner of 2316 Anderson Avenue, said she was neither for nor against the rezoning request. She said Manhattan needed workforce housing since the city was expensive to live in. She said Kansas State University planned on demolishing the building if it was not sold, and that converting the site to single-family housing was likely not to be economically viable. She said she had worked with the applicant prior and spoke to his character as a developer. Mooney thanked the neighborhood for their input and collaboration on the proposal. Mooney said he already had commitments for tax credits and construction loans, and that it would be one of the largest projects he would have worked on. He felt with the continued collaboration with the neighborhood that the project would improve the traffic in the surrounding area. He said the traffic study could not be completed as there were still decisions to be made regarding improvements to Anderson Avenue. Mooney said the traffic study was drafted and suggested that commercial or office uses currently permitted could generate more trips than the proposed residential use. Public hearing closed Karl asked what the capacity and parking of the Unger complex was throughout its history. Nuss said that she had asked staff a similar question before the meeting and asked if anyone from the neighborhood recalled what the traffic conditions were in the past. Bill Hughes recounted the traffic conditions for the complex throughout its history and said it was not comparable with the increased traffic conditions today. Betty Henning said the traffic conditions would not be comparable because the office use generated traffic in the morning and evening hours, whereas the high-density residential would be busier throughout all times of the day. Chris Deetjen added that the Farm Bureau had staggered shifts when they occupied the building, which meant traffic was similarly staggered. Sondra Visser said she had contacted Kansas State University Parking Services and had been told there were 138 parking spaces on the property currently. Kirk Crabtree said in the past, parking and traffic in the area had the neighbors leaving the neighborhood as the office workers would arrive, and vice versa. Nuss asked the applicants if they had anything to add or rebut. The applicants had no comments. MUAPB Minutes Page 7 04/10/2025 Beagle confirmed that the board had received the submitted letters prior to the hearing. The board confirmed. Wilson moved to approve the request to rezone; Buser seconded. Buser said that he had frequented the neighborhood, and that the public had properly characterized the neighborhood. Buser said that the housing need in Manhattan would be well serviced by the proposed zoning district for the scale of the site. Buser agreed that the improvements to Anderson Avenue were needed, and that the future traffic study would be properly dealt with. Buser said the current zoning could allow greater variability in uses compared to the proposed residential zoning district. Karl said the common issue seemed to him to be the traffic infrastructure on Anderson Avenue. Karl agreed with Buser that the current zoning allowed for many different uses compared to the proposed district. Karl said the proposed zoning district would present positive opportunities for the property and surrounding area. Fehr said the current zoning was still appropriate for the site and that high- density residential would be too incompatible for the surrounding neighborhood. Fehr said that she was very familiar with the section of Anderson Avenue and that completing the rezoning while the traffic project made evaluating the request complex. Christian said she would support the rezoning as it supported the goals set forth by the housing study. Christian said she had seen other areas where high- density and low-density residential were located adjacent to each other successfully and not affect the surrounding property values. Christian said she did understand the traffic safety concerns with Anderson Avenue. Wilson said that he would be supportive of the rezoning as it would allow the preservation of a historic building and bring new housing to the area. Wilson said the city was working on the traffic safety concerns on Anderson and that the traffic study would likely indicate that the office use would generate more traffic. Ebert said that the proposed rezoning was likely the most difficult request he had heard in his time on the Planning Board. Ebert said the job of the Planning Board was to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan. Ebert said while there was flexibility in the future land use map designation, that the site would have likely been designated and developed as the RLM designation. Ebert said if the site had the development patterns of the surrounding area that the request would be clearly unreasonable. He said the density of the RLM designation would allow for around 50 units on the site. He felt the workforce housing term had become a review criterion of its own and asked that staff present annual statistics on the workforce housing progress. He said the surrounding neighborhood was opposed to the rezoning and that the submitted letter had MUAPB Minutes Page 8 04/10/2025 about 60% of the neighborhood signed. Ebert said that of the public comment at the meeting that no one had spoken favorably about the rezoning. Ebert asked his fellow board members to recommend denial of the request to the City Commission. Nuss said while she appreciated what the applicant had proposed in the way of housing and preservation, she felt the density of the request was out of character for the surrounding area. She said that the requested zoning district was not compatible with the surrounding RL, Low-Density Residential district, especially in terms of density. She said there had been much discussion of the actual project and not solely the rezoning and reminded the board to only vote in accordance with the rezoning criteria. Nuss said that she would not be supportive of the request to rezone. Ebert said strategic planning should emphasize high-density residential around commercial nodes and then step down in density further from the node. He said the nearest multi-family developments were about a half mile in either direction down Anderson Avenue, which would place the high-density residential district in an odd place. Ebert asked his fellow board members who planned on recommending approval consider what he had addressed about the request. Buser said that the future land use map did not account for the complete character and land uses of the Anderson Avenue corridor. He said with a commercial node just west of the site, that the higher density would be appropriate for the area. Buser said he found it difficult to recommend denial as the high-density residential district was less intense compared to the current commercial zoning, in his opinion. Ebert said the current uses of the area should not dictate what would be appropriate for the area in the future, and that the future land use map was the proper tool for assessing the future uses of the area. Fehr said she agreed with Ebert and that the neighborhood had shown up in opposition. She suggested that the site be brought to residential to be in line with the neighborhood, but with a lower-density district. Karl said he doubted that the maximum number of units would ever be achieved for the site. He felt the request properly met the rezoning criteria. Nuss said she felt the request did not meet criteria four and five. Fehr agreed. Motion passed 4–3 (Nuss, Fehr, and Ebert against). 4. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 4.1 Planning updates from staff. Adam said that there were no updates for the board. MUAPB Minutes Page 9 04/10/2025 4.2 Comments from Board members. Nuss asked when the board would be having a discussion on Accessory Dwelling Units. Adam said he was unsure. Nuss reminded everyone that the City’s housing summit would be on April 17. 4.3 Next meeting: Chair announced the next meeting is April 24, 2025. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Lance Wackerla, Planner I