Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Missing Middle topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Topeka planning commission recommends allowing duplexes and triplexes by conditional use permit
Summary
The Topeka Planning Commission voted 6–1 to send a recommendation to the governing body to allow duplexes and triplexes in single‑family (R‑1/R‑2) districts via conditional use permits with new design guidelines; quadplexes were excluded from the staff recommendation. The item will be updated to the Policy & Finance Committee and then to the governing body for final action.
The Topeka Planning Commission on an X evening voted to recommend that the city governing body allow duplexes and triplexes in single‑family residential (R‑1 and R‑2) zones through a conditional use permit (CUP) process, adopting a staff‑recommended approach with new CUP guidelines to address concentration, design and parking. The motion passed 6–1.
Planning staff told the commission that current code prohibits duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes in R‑1 and R‑2 districts and that the housing committee and staff differed slightly: the housing committee favored option B1 to allow multiple 'missing middle' types by CUP, while staff recommended option B7 limited to duplexes and triplexes with specific CUP guidelines. “The recommendation from the housing committee is to allow duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes by conditional use permit,” staff said; staff later clarified its recommendation was to allow duplexes and triplexes by CUP and to exclude quadplexes.
The CUP approach preserves a public process: pre‑application meetings, a neighborhood information meeting, mailed notice to adjacent neighbors, a public hearing before the planning commission and a final decision by the governing body. Staff told commissioners the CUP is “almost identical to rezoning” in process and requires neighborhood notification (300 feet for neighborhood meetings on smaller sites; 200 feet for the legal public hearing).
During discussion, one commissioner cautioned that stringent design standards could deter small developers: “my biggest concern is that we will end up pushing away more housing creation because we're going to start putting requirements on top of requirements,” a commissioner said. Supporters argued the added design and density standards in option B7 provide safeguards against unintended consequences while still expanding housing options.
The roll‑call vote was recorded as follows: Mister Lolli — Aye; Miss Heron — Aye; Mister Brooks — Aye; Mister Neger — Aye; Miss Pearson — Aye; Mister Mach — Nay; Miss Hannan — Aye. After passage, staff said the commission will brief the Policy & Finance Committee (likely in December) and then the governing body may act in December–February depending on scheduling.
Clarifying details: the CUP guidelines referenced are attached to the staff packet and will be used to evaluate applications if the governing body adopts the recommendation. Staff also noted related resources in the packet: multiple literature studies and the citywide 2020 housing study that the commission cited in support of expanding housing types.
The commission did not adopt changes to the zoning code at the meeting; it forwarded a recommendation to the governing body for further action. The governing body will have the final vote.
