Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Southeast Topeka Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff previews Southeast Topeka development plan, flags sewer and fiscal tradeoffs
Summary
Planning staff presented a draft Southeast Topeka Development Plan for the area around 45th and Croco that outlines land‑use options from conservative suburban growth to traditional neighborhood design, highlights sewer infrastructure needs across Croco, and provides fiscal impact projections ranging from roughly $452 million to $1.1 billion under different build‑out scenarios. The commission took no action and will consider an action item in a future meeting.
Planning staff presented the Southeast Topeka Development Plan to the commission, describing consultant work by Development Strategies, stakeholder outreach and four land‑use scenarios that range from a conservative suburban pattern to traditional neighborhood design with higher densities.
The presentation identified the study area near 45th and Croco and said consultants met with property owners, school district staff, Shawnee County planning and developers. Staff highlighted infrastructure constraints—most notably the need to extend sewer across Croco to serve portions of the study area—and said that fiscal‑impact modeling showed a wide range in total market value under different build‑out assumptions (staff cited figures of about $452,000,000 on the low end and roughly $1,100,000,000 for full traditional neighborhood build‑out).
Staff emphasized the plan is intended as a comprehensive‑plan amendment — a policy guide that "sets the table" for future decisions — not an authorization of immediate private development. The plan includes implementation actions, examines sewer/water/street infrastructure options and provides an appendix with fiscal details and revenue‑to‑cost indices. Staff noted only the full traditional neighborhood build‑out projected a positive revenue‑to‑cost ratio in the packet's modeling.
Commissioners asked whether consultants had contacted landowners (staff: yes) and why this area was selected; staff said council had authorized the project and that large, unimproved parcels and Shawnee County subdivision rules made this area suitable for study. Staff suggested the commission could expect an action item on the plan at a future meeting (staff aimed to return with an action item in December).
The commission did not vote on the plan at the meeting; staff requested commissioners review the packet, including the fiscal appendix, before a future action item.
