Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board

MINUTES MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Monday, June 30, 2025 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Buser, vice-chair Ryan Wilson Hannah Fehr, chair Ann Christian Shelley Carver Debbie Nuss Kelly Karl STAFF PRESENT Barry Beagle, Senior Planner; Lance Wackerla, Planner I; John Adam, Assistant Director of Community Development 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 June 12, 2025, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting 2.2 Approve the FINAL PLAT of Islamic Center of Manhattan Complex, a 1.38-acre replat of Lots 1 and 2 of Whitney Addition into a single lot, located at 1224 Hylton Heights Drive (Applicant: Bradford and Harris, James Bradford; file no. SUB-23-122) Carver moved to approve the consent agenda; Christian seconded. Item 2.1 passed 3–0–1 (Carver abstaining). Item 2.2 passed 4–0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for 410 Poyntz Avenue, Wareham Hall, to allow digital graphic signs (applicant: Blade Mages, Wareham Hall Ventures, LLC; file no. CUP-25-054) MUAPB Minutes Page 2 06/30/2025 Wackerla gave the presentation. Public hearing opened The applicant, Blade Mages, gave a brief history of the Wareham Hall street frontage. Mages said that the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Office had also both reviewed the project. He shared that the cost to print posters for all six cabinets would be about one hundred dollars per poster, with four to seven events needing posters per week. Carver asked how Mages felt about the condition of approval that the Historic Resources Board had included in their approval. Mages said he was fine with the condition that the digital poster signs would only be allowed to change once per 24 hours. Mages added that Downtown Manhattan Inc had also reviewed and been supportive of the plans. Public hearing closed Buser asked if the board was recommending or approving the conditional use. Adam said the board would be approving. Carver moved to approve the request of the conditional digital graphic sign type; Wilson seconded. Motion passed 4–0. 3.2 A PUBLIC HEARING to consider the AMENDMENT of the Mercy Regional Health Center Planned Unit Development to allow banner and flag signs along College Avenue, located at 1823 College Avenue (applicant: William Mann, Schwab Eaton; file no. PUD-25-008) Wackerla gave the presentation. Wilson asked why the proposed signage was already present on the site and building. Wackerla said they had placed the banner and feather flag signs without any review by the City. He added that the proposed revisions to the PUD were part of rectifying the signage that had been placed there illegally. Wilson asked if the monument sign had also been placed illegally. Wackerla said that while it was different than what the ordinance had originally stipulated that it was less intensive than the original pylon and digital graphic signs and as such staff would likely not consider it a violation. Wilson asked why the ordinance included digital graphic signs when the proposal did not include any of those elements. Wackerla clarified that the digital graphic elements were part of the original approval and were not currently present on the site or included in the proposal currently before the board. Wilson asked if they would be able to reinstate the digital graphic signage in the future. Wackerla said they would be able to under the current ordinance but that the proposed plans once approved would not allow digital MUAPB Minutes Page 3 06/30/2025 signage unless the applicant returned later to amend or modify the final development plan. Wilson asked for further clarification. Wackerla said the proposal would be moving the permitted signage to the final development plan instead of being specified in the ordinance, which would require the applicant to complete a major or minor modification to the final development plan whenever they would need to change their signage. Wilson said the feather flag signs seemed to be a permanent fixture on the site despite their temporary nature and design and asked if there were any standards to enforce their maintenance and repair/replacement. Beagle said that all signs within the City of Manhattan were subject to a maintenance provision in the Manhattan Development Code. Wilson said he felt the feather flag signs were like grand opening or lamppost banner signs and should remain temporary in duration or otherwise have a more permanent structure. Wackerla noted that the plan set only showed the area of the feather flags and not the actual supporting structure, which would give the applicant flexibility to make them more permanent or keep them temporary. Wilson asked if the shape of the feather flag sign as shown in the proposed plan set could be changed if the manufacturer ever altered the design. Wackerla said it would likely be accommodated by a minor modification to the final development plan. Wilson asked if there were other PUDs that allowed feather flag signs. Wackerla said he was unsure. Adam said he did not think so. Wilson asked if there would be additional permitting if the applicant decided to make a more permanent feather flag sign since there would need to be footings. Wackerla said it would be addressed with a sign permit if it were the case. Carver asked if the request was to rectify and update the signage plans for the PUD or if it was done in anticipation of additional signage for the site. Wackerla said the applicants had not indicated there would be any additional signage or changes soon. Public hearing opened The applicants, Elyssa Carter, Ascension Via Christi, and Willian Mann, Schwab- Eaton, answered some of the questions asked by the board. Carter said the intention was to clean up the signage within the PUD since there was signage that was not currently allowed in the PUD and outdated signage plans. She said there were no plans for any additional signage for the PUD. Carter said the banner sign and feather flag signs were for recognition of the hospital’s leapfrog award, which they had won multiple years in a row which was why the banner and flags had remained on site in a seemingly permanent manner. She added that if the hospital did not receive the award one year, then the banner and flag signs would be removed. MUAPB Minutes Page 4 06/30/2025 Wilson asked if there would be any pushback to creating permanent fixtures for the feather flag signs that would be more aesthetically pleasing. Carter said if the hospital did not receive the award that the permanent fixtures would be flagless and appear out of place. Mann added that the neighborhood had not had any comments about the feather flag signs at the neighborhood meeting. Public hearing closed Beagle said that it would be difficult to properly enforce any conditions of approval that the board would add to their recommendation that limited the duration that the feather flag signs could remain on the site. Wilson said he thought the feather flag signs should be temporary in duration since the award they would represent was received yearly. He said it would require the hospital to install and remove the signs once per year but that it seemed better than letting them be permanent. Wilson asked how the other board members felt about the proposal. Carver said she felt the maintenance would be hard to enforce and that she could see limiting the duration as being an additional challenge for enforcement. Wilson said that the signage would need to be temporary since the award was given on a yearly basis. Carver agreed. Wilson asked if the proposed feather flag signs would still be considered temporary if they were up year-round. Buser asked staff for clarification on Wilson’s question. Wackerla said there was no limitation on duration as part of the proposal before the board, but that the board could add a condition of approval stipulating a duration. Buser asked what temporary sign regulations would be for a normal zoning district. Wackerla said that under a comparable district such as CC, Community Commercial, that it would be classified as a portable sign which could be used for 60 days a year, non-consecutively for up to 30 days each time. Wilson and Buser asked what would prevent this type of signage in other parts of the City. Adam said that normal zoning districts were limited by the MDC in terms of temporary signage but that the Mercy Regional Hospital was zoned as a PUD and could have the flexibility to have more than one temporary sign with fewer restrictions. Wilson said that the PUD should be elevating the standard for development. Buser said he thought it was a fair idea. Christian said she thought the discussion of the board was good but that she had no problem with approving the request as staff had recommended. Buser said the large banner sign was high quality but that the feather flag signs were specifically temporary by nature and should be treated as such. He said he MUAPB Minutes Page 5 06/30/2025 was conflicted about deviating from what a comparable commercial district would allow for temporary signage. Wilson asked if the board would agree to a motion with the additional condition of keeping the feather flag signs temporary. Buser suggested subjecting the feather flag signs to the portable sign standards in the MDC. Beagle said the board could add it as a condition but that it would limit the duration of the signs to 60 days a year, non-consecutively for up to 30 days each time. He added that it would be difficult to enforce. Wilson asked how enforcement was done for other areas that are zoned normally. Beagle said a portable sign would normally have a sign permit which would give a definite start and end date, whereas the PUD would not require a sign permit and therefore require monitoring. He said that staff had recommended no time conditions for the signage since the hospital would be putting up the signs when they won their award. Adam suggested the board have a straw poll on an additional condition. Wilson asked how the board would feel about adding the condition that the feather flag signs were temporary in duration. Buser asked if it would also apply to the banner sign. Wilson said he was not suggesting that the banner sign be subject to the proposed condition. Wackerla asked the board to specify an actual duration for the feather flag signs for enforcement reasons and that the condition not reference any timeframes or sign types within the MDC so that the intent of the decision would not change as the MDC is updated. Buser agreed. Buser asked the board how they felt about limiting the feather flag sign duration. Christian said she was in support but that she would want to clearly define the timeframe. Buser agreed and suggested 90 days. Beagle asked if the board would be more comfortable leaving the feather flag signs up all year if there were less than the proposed six. Buser said the number of signs was not his concern as much as the sign type itself and the lack of limitations on duration. Carver said she was in between supporting or opposing limiting the duration. She agreed that the feather flags should be temporary, and that it would more effectively draw attention to the award if they weren’t always up. She said she would like to specify that they would be temporary but leave it up to the hospital to decide what that would be. Wilson asked how the board would feel about requiring the feather flag signs to be more permanent in nature and structure. Carver said that there would not be a permanent need for the sign since the award was not necessarily going to the hospital every year. Wilson said the permanent feather flags could then be used as other signs in the meantime. MUAPB Minutes Page 6 06/30/2025 Adam suggested that the board discuss an acceptable duration for the feather flags otherwise it would default to 60 days a year, the standard within the MDC. Beagle agreed and suggested using a date range as the standard for duration within the PUD. Buser asked how the applicant felt about the date range limitation. Carter said the hospital would be fine so long as the feather flags were allowed to be up by first of March each year, since the awards were given out in January. Buser asked that a motion be made since the board seemed to have had plenty of discussion. Wilson asked the applicant how long they would prefer to have the feather flags out for each year, starting on March 1. Carter said the hospital would prefer to have the feather flags out for nine months. Carver said she thought nine months was reasonable since it would coincide with football season, when most traffic would be passing the signs. Wilson moved to recommend approval of the request subject to the condition found in the staff report and the additional condition that the feather flag signs as proposed can only be allowed for a nine-month period, starting on March 1 of each year; Christian seconded. Motion passed 4–0. 4. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 4.1 Planning updates from staff. Adam said the next meeting would be a full agenda. 4.2 Comments from Board members. Wilson asked how to best make alternative motions. Buser and Adam said to reach out to planning staff ahead of time to discuss. 4.3 Next meeting: Chair announced the next meeting is July 17, 2025. 5. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Submitted by Lance Wackerla, Planner I