Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board

MINUTES MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Thursday, June 12, 2025 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Buser Debbie Nuss, chair Shelley Carver Ann Christian Ryan Wilson Hannah Fehr, vice-chair Kelly Karl STAFF PRESENT Barry Beagle, Senior Planner; Lance Wackerla, Planner I; Bob Issac, Riley County Planner; Amanda Webb, Riley County Planning Director. 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 Randi Dale, 2416 Rogers Boulevard, asked that the Final Plat of Thomas Addition Unit 1 be pulled from the consent agenda. 2.1 Approve the MINUTES of the May 22, 2025, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting 2.2 Approve an EXTENSION to the period of validity for the Ag Press Preliminary Development Plan that was approved by the Manhattan City Commission on November 7, 2023. (applicant: Anderson Knight Architects, Brad Buser; owner, BBX, LLC, Derek Richards; file no. PUD-25-049) 2.3 Approve the FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN for Ag Press, a mixed-use development located at 1531 Yuma Street (applicant: Anderson Knight Architects, Brad Buser; owner, BBX, LLC, Derek Richards; file no. PUD-25-049) 2.4 Approve the FINAL PLAT of Thomas Addition Unit 1, a replat of Lots 39A, 39B, 40A, and 40B of Sam N. Rogers Subdivision into a single lot, generally located approximately 580 feet north of Marlatt Avenue, on the west side of College Avenue. (Applicant: Thomas, file no. RCF-25-065) MUAPB Minutes Page 2 06/12/2025 Nuss moved to remove Item 2.4 from the consent agenda; Karl seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Nuss moved to approve the remainder of the consent agenda; Christian seconded. Item 2.1 passed 5–0–1 (Karl abstaining). Item 2.2 passed 5–0–1 (Buser abstaining). Item 2.3 passed 5-0-1 (Buser abstaining) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Approve the FINAL PLAT of Thomas Addition Unit 1, a replat of Lots 39A, 39B, 40A, and 40B of Sam N. Rogers Subdivision into a single lot, generally located approximately 580 feet north of Marlatt Avenue, on the west side of College Avenue. (Applicant: Thomas, file no. RCF-25-065) Isaac stated the request is to replat four individual lots into one lot in Sam Rogers Addition. He said the purpose of the replat is to allow the applicant to build an accessory structure on the same lot as his house. Mr. Isaac stated that annexation was not being requested by the applicant nor was there any indication the City was interested in annexing the property. Nuss questioned the request and asked if this action would preclude any future requests to rezone or for annexation. Isaac replied this action would not prevent any future requests to rezone or annex. Nuss moved to approve the Final Plat of Thomas Addition; Buser seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 3.2 TABLE a PUBLIC HEARING to consider the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for 410 Poyntz Avenue, Wareham Hall, to allow the digital graphic sign type (applicant: Blade Mages, Wareham Hall Ventures LLC; file no. CUP-25-054) Nuss moved to table the item; Christian seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 4. GENERAL AGENDA 4.1 A WORK SESSION to discuss the proposed AMENDMENTS to Section 5.2 – Use- Specific Standards of the Riley County Land Development Regulations, specifically regarding short-term rentals. (file no. RCF-24-037) MUAPB Minutes Page 3 06/12/2025 Webb, Riley County Planning Director stated the Short-Term Rental (STR) Regulations were adopted in January 2022. She said an STR amendment was made in May 2022 to clarify the regulations were retroactive, meaning all existing and future STR’s had to be licensed. She said there have been several different conversations over the years with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and Planning Board with items that need to be changed or amended. Webb stated there are limitations with how the County can enforce regulations. She said we do have a violation process but ultimately it is up to the court to give us authority to shut down a use or fine them. She said for the most part, STR’s haven’t been too much of an issue. Webb explained that, at the Kansas Association of Counties (KAC) Conference in December 2024, the Riley County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) spoke with other county boards and staff about short-term rental regulations. She said Johnson County and the City of Independence, Missouri shared regulations which included setback distances and density requirements. She stated cities and counties are a little bit different because cities tend to have the density that we don’t necessarily have in the county. Webb said the complaints the BOCC receives are usually about noise, traffic and parking. She said it is more of a problem in the denser areas. She said if there is an STR on a 10-to-20-acre property, that really isn’t an issue. The proposed amendments are: • Expanding the Responsible Agent requirement to include Riley Count residency. Webb explained regulations require the Responsible Agent be designated on the application submittal. It can be the property owner, entity or person they designate. She explained there are several out-of-state owners of STR’s. She said the current code requires the Responsible Agent to be available 24/7 and to respond to complaints within one hour of notification. She said the code doesn’t specify how the response is to be made. She said this can have some impact on neighbors, especially in the denser areas. Webb said the BOCC recommended requiring the Responsible Agent to reside in and be present in Riley County while the unit is being rented. She said they want to know that a Responsible Agent is going to be able to be there when they receive a complaint or a call, question or concern and respond within one hour. Wilson asked if there have been enough issues to really push forward with more regulations. Webb replied that typically most STR operators do just fine following the rules with no issues. She said we do have two to three that have been a little bit more challenging. She said there have been calls to Riley County Police Department. She said Planning and Development has received numerous complaints that warrant the amendments. MUAPB Minutes Page 4 06/12/2025 Kelly asked what the Responsible Agent would be able to do above and beyond a police officer requesting to keep the noise down. Webb responded it is not always the police that are involved but there are other issues that need to be addressed. She said if the police are being called, someone with ownership or interest should really be there addressing the concerns. Nuss questioned Beagle about the City’s policy concerning residency of a responsible agent. Beagle stated that the City of Manhattan regulations concerning STR’s are less restrictive than Riley County. He stated there is an expectation that there would be some kind of responsible agent and normally it will be the owner. Nuss asked if they must reside here. Beagle replied no. Webb stated that when she was doing research, she wasn’t finding consistency among codes, but did find a few where the requirement was to reside in the area. Nuss asked if the Riley County Planning Board approved of this amendment. Webb replied yes. Buser asked if there were any comments from the public related to this amendment. Webb responded there was no public in attendance at the discussion with the Riley County Planning Board. She said there will be public hearings to give the public an opportunity to speak. Wilson asked who is requesting this amendment be made. Webb replied the BOCC and legal counsel. • Require property owners to be current on all county taxes and fees associated with the STR. Webb explained this proposed amendment came from Riley County Public Works during previous discussions with the BOCC, as there is one STR that tends to be late paying the sewer bill. She said basically, it would be holding the license until they are current on taxes and fees. She said she did find this requirement in several codes. Kelley asked if Webb could explain the licensing process. Webb explained there is an application; the initial license fee is $200.00 with an annual renewal fee of $100.00. She said there are several documents that are MUAPB Minutes Page 5 06/12/2025 required with the application, such as rules of conduct, a plan for trash services, and a site plan showing boundaries indicating no trespassing and where parking is available. She said Darrin Hobbs is the Planning Compliance Specialist who reviews everything and schedules the inspection. She said he goes inside the unit to make sure they have a working fire extinguisher, fire and carbon monoxide detectors, all bedrooms meet definition of a conforming bedroom, which means two ingress/egress and windows must be certain size, and verifies the number of on-site parking spaces. She said if all requirements are met the license is issued; if the requirements are not met, then he works with the property owner/responsible agent to remedy any issues. • 500’ distance requirement between STR units. Webb referred to the City of Independence that has setback and density requirements. She said staff had several work sessions with the BOCC to discuss whether or not we want both density and setbacks. She said it was ultimately decided density requirements didn’t make sense for Riley County. Webb stated it was decided to go with 500’ setback requirements from properties containing STR units. Staff discussed this amendment and thought it would be too restrictive for larger tracts/lots. Staff recommended changing the requirement to 500’ between units instead of properties. She said the setback is applied equally, and it won’t penalize the larger tracts that don’t have the problem with parking and traffic. She said the Riley County Planning Board was in favor of changing it to 500’ between units rather than property lines. Karl asked if that would be distance within the property footprint itself. Mr. Karl said for example, a walkout basement with a mother-in-law suite below and it’s on one side of the house. He explained the house is within 500 feet of an already established STR. He asked is it the distance between house to house or the unit within the house. He said some STR’s are the whole house and some are just a portion of the house. Webb said that was a good point and hadn’t been brought up until now. She said her original thought was most STR’s are the whole unit but it can be just a bedroom, basement or accessory structure. She said staff will need to look at this because it’s really about alleviating the perception of increased traffic and parking. We don’t want to unnecessarily burden people. Nuss asked how many STR’s are in the county. Webb said licensed STR’s there are around 24. Christian said in the rural area many properties have multiple buildings and as we are seeing more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), how do you take care of that distance wise. Webb stated only one STR per property is allowed. MUAPB Minutes Page 6 06/12/2025 Wilson asked, why 500 feet? Webb said the different examples she presented to the BOCC were as low as 200 and high as 1,000. She said the BOCC chose 500. Wilson asked if in a denser area, and the STR is just a bedroom, does it have the same impact as an 8-bedroom house. He suggested a sliding scale for distance between units. Webb said regulations require one on-site parking space per bedroom. It would be a lot less parking and traffic. Nuss asked how much administrative time that would take to police something like that. Webb said she didn’t think too much as we could establish, for example, a 200’ setback for a partial STR. Nuss asked about existing STR’s that are within 500’. Webb said the setback would be effective with the adoption of the regulation amendment and would not affect existing STR’s. Buser said he would like to see some additional ability to request a waiver from distance setback. He said if you are in a denser neighborhood then you have been excluded from potentially executing an STR. He felt this is heavy handed and would like people to be able to use their property as generally permitted. He suggested possibly do a notification process to the neighborhood, there could be a hearing. He said if people are already frustrated with the STR situation, their voice could be heard or the other way around and it is no big deal. He said one of the complaints he has heard in other communities limiting STR’s, there is a race to buy properties and establish them as STR’s. He said the Registered Agent seems odd to force someone to be here to confront guests and inappropriate to kick someone out. He said requiring the agent to reside within the county potentially increases the cost if the property owner is out of state or if their friend lives in Clay County and takes care of it. He said possibly just clarify what the response is. Nuss stated she likes STR requirements because in the past years she has had her own experience with rental properties next to her property where two owners lived out of town. She said if she would be calling the Riley County Police Department at 3:00 am then she would be calling the property owners at 3:00 am in the morning. If she is losing sleep, then someone else is going to lose sleep. Nuss stated if there isn’t someone local to take care of the property then it appears things are not being resolved or addressed. She said she is inclined to say go for it and try the amendments. If it doesn’t work, they can always be MUAPB Minutes Page 7 06/12/2025 changed. She suggested proposing to the BOCC what Wilson suggested on a sliding scale or lower setback requirement for partial STR’s. Karl said he agrees with Buser that it’s a first come, first gets it. He said if your neighbor sees your STR is doing well as a second income, he himself would like to have that opportunity. He said a good compromise preventing nuisances to the neighbors if 90-98% of them are good rentals and good people, then it shouldn’t be an issue. He said allowing the opportunity to petition the neighborhood who would be impacted should have input. He stated he would like the distance measurement from the actual STR within the structure. 5. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 5.1 Planning updates from staff. There were none. 5.2 Comments from Board members. Nuss said she had seen updates on the riverfront plan. Nuss asked the staff why the plan had suddenly progressed to public engagement. Wackerla said he was unsure, and that Ben Chmiel would know better as he was directly involved with the plan. Nuss said the Flint Hills Wellness Coalition, the Riley County Council of Social Service Agencies, and the Manhattan Senior Center would be holding a City Commission Candidate Forum on October 7, 2025. Nuss said she would be moderating and asking them about Accessory Dwelling Units. Nuss said she had talked to two current commissioners about ADUs. 5.3 Next meeting: Chair announced the next meeting is June 30, 2025. 6. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Submitted by Lance Wackerla, Planner I