Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board

MINUTES MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Thursday, May 22, 2025 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Buser Debbie Nuss, chair Kelly Karl Ann Christian Ryan Wilson Hannah Fehr, vice-chair Shelley Carver STAFF PRESENT John Adam, Assistant Director of Community Development; Ben Chmiel, Senior Planner; Rachel Sherck, Deputy City Attorney; 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. Mel Borst, 1918 Humboldt Street, asked that the board include the land use action item of the comprehensive plan regarding the conservation and preservation of older neighborhoods within Manhattan as a future agenda item. 2. CONSENT AGENDA 2.1 Approve the minutes of May 8, 2025, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting 2.2 Initiate the AMENDMENT of the Manhattan Development Code (MDC) to change the name, modify the design standards, and remove review steps for the Urban Commercial (CU) district (applicant: City of Manhattan, file no. DCA- 25-046) Nuss moved to approve the consent agenda; Buser seconded. Nuss asked what the differences were between Item 2.2 of the consent agenda and the public hearing item. Adam said normally staff would include the initiation of amendments at the work session meeting, but that did not happen and as such the initiation had to take place at this meeting. MUAPB Minutes Page 2 05/22/2025 Item 2.1 passed 5–0–1 (Carver abstaining). Item 2.2 passed 6–0–0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider the AMENDMENT of the Manhattan Development Code (MDC) to change the name, modify the design standards, and remove review steps for the Urban Commercial (CU) district (applicant: City of Manhattan, file no. DCA-25-046) Adam gave the presentation. Nuss said she appreciated the inclusion of the green space provision as part of the changes. Fehr agreed. Wilson said he favored letting the developers decide the level of parking necessary for their products and that Manhattan was overparked. Wilson said he felt that denser areas on the east side of Manhattan should also let developers decide how much parking is needed as these areas have higher levels of transit access and walkability. He said that if staff were comfortable with allowing developers to decide how much parking to include in the outer parts of town that they should also be comfortable with allowing developers to decide in town. He suggested that the neighborhoods could designate parking zones reserved for those with passes or for a general parking reduction to be included. Buser asked what the parking requirements for the areas within the ward districts were. Adam said the CD (Downtown Commercial) district and the CA (Aggieville Commercial) were the only two districts that reduced parking minimums by-right. He added that the infill standards did introduce reduced parking requirements for the ward districts at 0.75 spaces per bedroom. Buser said the infill standards had been the most relaxed parking standards that Manhattan had seen up until the proposal before them tonight. Buser clarified that Wilson did not want to disadvantage the ward districts by requiring them to supply on-site parking whereas most areas on the west side of Manhattan would not be subject to parking minimums. Wilson said he was concerned that increased levels of on-site parking would encourage more vehicular traffic in the ward districts, which were already walkable. Wilson said that he had seen many mixed-use developments consider internal circulation but not external circulation, and that having shorter block lengths would encourage better connectivity. He suggested that there be provisions included for midblock connections. Adam said that there were connectivity standards in the subdivision regulation section of the Manhattan Development Code. Nuss asked what would prevent a perceived lack of public parking with there being no minimums. She said she could foresee the public asking for additional MUAPB Minutes Page 3 05/22/2025 public parking facilities to be built to make up for the perceived lack of parking and asked what could be done to change the minds of the public regarding parking minimums. She said the Strasser Village development was controversial because they did not provide enough on-site parking and were originally going to utilize the Senior Center’s parking lot. Adam said he understood her concerns and that both the Aggieville and Downtown plans had called for additional parking garages to be built to spur development but that it would be a mindset shift for the community. Nuss said that the reception to the Aggieville parking garage had been poor thus far. Carver said the parking garages were better suited to dealing with commercial and mixed-use developments and that they seemed a separate issue from what was before the board. Adam shared alternative parking requirement options. Wilson asked if there was potential for more permitted on street parking. Adam said there were areas within Manhattan that required on-street parking passes but that there could be an opportunity to expand the program. Buser said many of the areas that the zoning district could be implemented would be on the fringes of Manhattan and not in the central or eastern part of town, which were more walkable and could be less vehicle dependent. Wilson said that while he agreed with Buser, that requiring on-site parking in certain areas did not seem fair. He said that while he understood it could be seen as protecting on-street parking in some cases that it was conflicting with the goals to create a more walkable and bikeable Manhattan. Adam said the suggested parking requirements still required parking in certain areas of the City but did not get rid of parking altogether, which he felt Manhattan was not ready for. Wilson said he agreed that removing parking minimums in all parts of the City would be a large change. Carver asked if the purpose of the proposed parking standards for the district was to reserve on-street parking for residents on minor or collector streets. Adam confirmed and said there would be very few areas within the ward districts that would be eligible for rezoning to the MX district. Wilson asked if the Ag Press property would be eligible for no required parking in a hypothetical rezoning to the MX district. Adam confirmed. Wilson said the development seemed to be in a good spot for walkability and reducing parking would allow greater preservation of the property. Wilson said if there were going to be very few areas within the ward districts that would be eligible for rezoning to the MX district in the first place, then there would be relatively low risk associated with allowing developers to dictate their on-site parking. Nuss asked if parking could be elective and meet ADA standards simultaneously, especially given Manhattan’s low accessibility score. Buser said ADA parking space requirements were a function of the percentage of the MUAPB Minutes Page 4 05/22/2025 parking spaces provided, as such if none were provided then there would be no requirement. Adam reiterated Buser’s comment and said the low ADA score was more than likely due to public infrastructure. Buser said that he was working with the Ag Press PUD currently, and that the alternative parking scheme of reducing requirements to half would not work for the property as it required hundreds of spaces. Nuss said that the green space in front of the building was important to preserve and was more important than parking. Buser and Nuss said they both appreciated the original proposed parking requirements as they felt they were more tolerable for the public. Public hearing opened Mel Borst, 1918 Humboldt Street, said he appreciated the discussion on parking as it could affect the parking in neighborhoods. Borst asked if the MX district was intended to replace commercial PUDs or PUDs that were in older neighborhoods. Public hearing closed Nuss asked Chair Fehr if staff could speak to Borst’s question. Fehr asked staff to answer the questions posed during the public comment. Adam said the objective was to create a district that would be able to replace PUDs by providing many by-right uses and simplified design standards. Developers would be able to submit a building permit and then have Community Development staff confirm it would meet the MX design standards. Nuss moved to modify the amendments to the Manhattan Development Code with the alternative parking provision; Wilson Seconded. Motion carried 6–0. Nuss moved to approve the amendments to the Manhattan Development Code with the approved modifications; Wilson Seconded. Nuss cautioned the board against going too far with foregoing public hearings and granting too many administrative powers. Motion carried 6–0. 4. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 4.1 Planning updates from staff. Adam said the East Manhattan Gateway Plan was still under development. 4.2 Comments from Board members. Nuss asked about the meeting dates for June. Adam said the board would meet on June 12 and June 30. MUAPB Minutes Page 5 05/22/2025 Wilson asked if staff would be presenting more PUD conversions in the future. Adam said staff were working to document PUDs that would be candidates for conversions but that the City would seldom initiate rezonings of PUDs in the future. Wilson asked if there would be any additional zoning districts added to aid in the conversion of PUDs. Adam said there would not be any additional zoning districts added and that many PUDs would not need to take advantage of the MX district and be able to use a pre-existing standard zoning district. Nuss asked when the conversation about ADUs would take place and if staff had talked to management. Adam said the direction given to staff was to wait for the City Commission to ask to discuss the topic. 4.3 Next meeting: Chair announced the next meeting is June 12, 2025. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m. Submitted by Lance Wackerla, Planner I