By Scott Edger
Little Apple Post
At its regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday night, Manhattan City Commissioners moved forward with the City’s overhaul of the Manhattan Development Code.
The comprehensive plan, according to City administrators, consolidates zoning districts, adds new site and building requirements, and allows for different subdivision alternatives.
The new Development Code stems from a need to clarify and unify municipal codes, as well as other plans and projects, including Aggieville and Downtown Manhattan plans, the Manhattan Area Transportation Strategy, and the City’s Bike and Pedestrian System plans.
Development regulations can have a tremendous impact on a city’s attractiveness to businesses and industries considering relocation or expansion into the area. Coding regulations also deeply influence housing development and new home prices.
Exceptions to development codes are regularly granted for things like setbacks, sight line requirements, and overall lot coverage - which Adam said leads to not only widespread inconsistencies but also creates the impression that codes and ordinances are merely suggestions and are infinitely malleable.
John Adam, senior long-range planner for the City of Manhattan, explained to commissioners and the public that existing codes are clearly in need of an overhaul when an appeals office is laden with myriad exceptions granted to various projects.
“When you have that happening that is a good indicator that your code is wrong,” Adam said, “because it is not tracking with reality.”
Members of the community Mel Borst spoke during public commentary for the MDC. Borst raised concerns regarding the MDC’s codes regulating environmental open space and that new zoning policies would allow for construction of large buildings disproportionate to extant construction.
Borst said that language in the MDC “not only further damages existing neighborhood integrity and historic environs” and that the codes conflict with existing plans by, “allowing oversized houses to be constructed anywhere... regardless of established house size, scale or other historic considerations.”
Adam said that now is the time to approve and implement the plan. Further refinements are burdensome delays that keep the City “treading water.”
Commissioner Usha Reddi agreed that action is necessary – prudent and circumspect action, because “we also don’t want a big building that doesn’t belong there,” she said.
Adam noted planners fully realize that some development within the new code framework may vary from adjoining neighborhoods and development. He said that as specific issues come forth, planners could “re-trench.” He said the planners anticipate kinks. “We’re expecting to do some de-bugging with this because it’s not perfect,” Adam said. “We’re going to have our doors open on this.”
The commission voted 4-1 to move forward with the amended plan. Aaron Estabrook, the lone opposing vote, said he would not support the plan because document language did not change the definition of the word “family.”