Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board

MINUTES MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Thursday, May 8, 2025 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Buser Kelly Karl Ann Christian Debbie Nuss, chair Hannah Fehr, vice-chair Ryan Wilson STAFF PRESENT John Adam, Assistant Director of Community Development; Bob Issac, Riley County Planner, 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 April 24, 2025, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting 2.2 Approve the FINAL PLAT of Lee Mill Village, Unit 5, a 13.03-acre replat of Lee Mill Village, Unit 4, Tracts A and B, and Lots 1 through 10, into Tracts A, B, and C, and Lots 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B. Located at the intersection of South Wreath Avenue and Oakbrook Place. (applicant: City of Manhattan; file no. SUB-24-056) Christian moved to approve the consent agenda; Wilson seconded. Item 2.1 passed 5–0–1 (Buser abstaining). Item 2.2 passed 6–0–0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Residential Use Designator-Country Estate of a 52.2-acre tract of land generally located approximately 3,225 feet south of Pillsbury Drive, on the east side of McDowell Creek Road; Section 20, Township MUAPB Minutes Page 2 05/08/2025 10 South, Range 8 East; Manhattan Township. (Applicant: Chris Fox, file no. RCF-25-048) Isaac stated a portion of the subject site was recently rezoned agricultural from heavy industrial. He said the applicant wishes to build a home on the site, with enough acreage to own and maintain horses. Staff suggested utilizing the residential use designator-country estate option, rather than attempting to rezone the entire 58-acre acre tract to single family residential. He explained this particular residential use designator was designed to allow people to establish a non-farm residence on tracts large enough to own and sufficiently maintain horses as well as other stock animals. He said it also serves as a transition between large-lot single family residential zoning and the agricultural zoning district. Staff recommended the Planning Board approve the request for a Residential Use Designator-Country Estate, as it has been determined that it meets the minimum requirements of the Riley County Land Development Regulations. Ryan Wilson asked why a new driveway needs to be installed. Mr. Isaac explained the existing driveway is for agricultural use and doesn’t meet the driveway standards for residential use. He said the terrain is steep and the driveway needs to be able to accommodate emergency vehicles if needed. Chairperson Nuss opened the public hearing. The applicant, Chris Fox, 9175 Excel Ln, Manhattan KS., thanked staff for the work on the project and he could answer any questions the Board might have. He said this has been a lifelong dream of the family to build a home on the property. Steven Altobello, 2814 Tatarrax Dr, Manhattan, KS., said this is a dream that started with his father-in-law, Mike, to build a house for generations to come. He said his wife has several horses on the property and drives back and forth daily to tend to them. Mr. Altobello stated they would like to live there to make their lives easier. Mike Shilling said he had a dream years ago when his daughter Angie started riding horses back in 1980 when the subject site was purchased. He has been making it a life’s work restoring the land. Mr. Shilling said he always wanted to build a house, but he couldn’t get his wife to move out of town. He stated they are living at Meadowlark Hills Retirement Community and would like to see this happen for his daughter and her family. There were no proponents or opponents. Chairperson Nuss closed the public hearing. MUAPB Minutes Page 3 05/08/2025 Buser motioned to approve the Residential Use Designator-Country Estate, as it was determined that it meets the requirements of the Riley County Land Development Regulations; Karl seconded. Chairperson Nuss thanked the family for preserving the land and said their generations will thank them for doing it. Motion carried 6–0. 4. GENERAL AGENDA 4.1 A WORK SESSION to discuss the AMENDMENT of the Manhattan Development Code (MDC) to modify the design standards and remove review steps for the Urban Commercial (UC) district (applicant: City of Manhattan; file no. DCA-25-046) Adam gave the presentation. Buser asked if the district would be added to the Future Land Use Map or if it would be by request. Adam said it could be included in future iterations of the map and could potentially be a good solution for some of the issues with the current FLUM. Wilson asked if the max floor area was per site or per building. Adam said it was applied per building but did not include residential floor area if the building was mixed use. Wilson asked if the intent of the district was to provide flexibility for development. Adam confirmed. Wilson said if the intent of the district was to create a village style development, that many of the drive-through uses would not be of village character. Adam noted that some of the drive-through uses were already present in the CU district, though they were conditional uses. Wilson asked if the new bicycle standards from the last round of amendments could be considered for the district instead of the standard 1:16 ratio. Wilson also asked how vehicular parking would be handled. Adam said it would be handled on a per use basis. Wilson asked if the parking reduction would be retained for the district. Adam said it could be retained. Wilson said he would be in favor of retaining the parking reduction for the district since it would benefit a denser style of development. Adam agreed and said that developers are going to always include as much parking as they need to successfully market their product. Wilson supported the idea of using the district to convert PUDs and asked if the Heritage Square South PUD, which was mentioned in the report and recently rezoned to the CC, Community Commercial District, was intended to be rezoned again with this district. Adam said that would not be the case because CC fit the Heritage Square South PUD for conversion since it was already set up as a typical commercial development and did not have any binding aspects, such as MUAPB Minutes Page 4 05/08/2025 common area or common easements. Adam said not every PUD would be possible to convert due to some of these factors but that the proposed changes to the district would allow more PUDs to be converted. Wilson said by limiting the FLUM designations that would support the district that it would be made less effective for converting PUDs. Adam said the district could currently be supported by any FLUM designation but that he would rather keep some general conformance with the FLUM by limiting it to similar designations. Wilson asked if the acceptable future land use designations could change in the future, and if it would be handled through community feedback and another work session. Adam said that would be a possibility. Buser said he was very much in favor of the changes to the district. Buser said that in his experience working with PUDs in Manhattan tended to be a struggle for both developers, consultants, and city staff. He felt that PUDs often hindered the product as there were more costs associated with the additional processes that developers had to go through. He added that the mixed-use nature of the district would allow for many new developments to avoid becoming PUDs while still creating dynamic and interesting spaces. He said the floor area maximum should be removed as it would limit developments, such as structured parking counting against floor area, and that in the interest of flexibility that staff should reevaluate the standard. Buser said he had previously read through the district regulations and liked the list of uses but found the design requirements to be far too restrictive, and as such he would be supportive of the changes proposed by staff. Nuss said while she understood that too much specificity discouraged development, that too few parameters would politicize development and create polarizing meetings. She said the changes to the district went too far in the deregulated direction for her. She said that if she were an architect or other professional that she might feel different, but that as a community member she thought the changes went too far. Nuss asked what provisions would be included for open and community space. Nuss said that she was supportive of reducing parking requirements in whatever manner, and said the name should be changed from “Village” to something that better reflected the intention of the district, such as “Mixed-Use”. Adam said he would consider changing the name and revisit the green and open space requirements for the district. Wilson said block length should be considered for developments within the district as it would create higher levels of walkability. He said he was supportive of adding green space requirements but that it could be prohibitive for smaller developments. Nuss said that green space for developments did not need to be large to be successful and cited Blue Earth Plaza as an example of smaller green space that was very successful. Wilson said he agreed with the example of Blue Earth Plaza but did say the buildings around the plaza did not create good pedestrian connections to the green space, and that requiring pedestrian orientation to MUAPB Minutes Page 5 05/08/2025 community green space and restrictions on block length could be beneficial as part of the design standards for the district. Adam said he would investigate adding pedestrian and green space standards. Buser said he supported green space requirements but said a ratio or sliding scale would be most fair to smaller developments where green space requirements would not always make the most sense. He said that requiring green space would give something to the community in exchange for a development type that could be intense. He added that requests for the district should be carefully considered since it would allow for a variety of uses and development types. Nuss said in her experience with the redevelopment efforts for what would become Blue Earth Plaza that retaining green space had been a struggle. She said that for a constrained community like Manhattan, it would be important to reserve areas for green space since it is lost once developed. Buser reiterated that he felt it could be a hurdle for smaller developments but agreed with Nuss for larger developments. Nuss said that smaller developments that include green spaces could still have successful small green spaces, such as Triangle Park. Buser agreed. Wilson suggested that green space requirements be added to the district but that a fee-in-lieu structure be included which could go towards enhancing existing green spaces. Nuss disagreed and said the land was more important than the additional funding. Adam said there were fee-in-lieu options for some utilities but that the City was not set up for green or open space fee-in-lieu since there was no requirement for dedication. 4.2 Annual organizational meeting and election of officers Nuss nominated Hannah Fehr to Chair. Motion passed 6–0. Christian nominated Brad Buser to Vice Chair. Motion passed 6–0. Wilson asked for the differences between the chair and vice chair. Nuss said the Chair runs the meetings and signs documents with the vice chair running the meetings if the chair is absent. 5. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 5.1 Planning updates from staff. Adam said the East Manhattan Gateway Plan was still underway, and that the Historic Preservation survey was now live. 5.2 Comments from Board members. MUAPB Minutes Page 6 05/08/2025 Christian asked about the accessory dwelling units conversation. Adam said he would need to talk to his director first. Christian said they would benefit the housing situation in Manhattan. Nuss said that the current City Commission would likely be open minded to the issue. Adam said in his experience that the question of ADUs was often extremely contentious. Nuss said she had heard more positive than negative feedback about ADUs. 5.3 Next meeting: Chair announced the next meeting is May 22, 2025. 6. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Submitted by Lance Wackerla, Planner I