Topeka's City council remanning proposed zoning change to planning commission

TOPEKA (KSNT) —  The Topeka City Council voted to send a proposed housing development back to the planning commission over infrastructure concerns.

The city council decided to send the proposed zoning change back to the planning commission with considerations for a traffic and flood plain study. 

The council had mixed opinions regarding a proposal to rezone a 7-acre plot of land in North Topeka, to allow a developer to build multi-family duplexes and quadplexes.

You'll recall a recent study found Topeka has a severe shortage of affordable housing.

This project would create homes for 30 local families.

All council members said they had recently heard pushback from residents who live in the established neighborhood just north of land in question.

The neighbors have spent months voicing their disapproval, citing concerns about the potential impact on their property values and the character of their community.

"People have a basic right to their privacy and enjoyment of their property,” Tony Brandlin said, a nearby neighbor. “That takes all that away."

This is the second time in recent years this neighborhood has fought a housing developer.

In 2006, a similar plan was approved by the planning commission but was voted down by the city council.

Tonight many of those same residents were in attendance to find out what would happen this time around.

Tonight's discussion led to a heated debate between two council members as they disagreed on the projects' viability and community impact.

“It's been undeveloped for years and the planning commission worked hard to look at [whether] the land [or whether] it was developable,” Karen Hiller, District 1 Councilmember said.

“And for a district that is having to deal with the multitude of unsheltered encampments and fires,” Christina Valdivia-Alcala, District 2 Councilmember. “And those also impact your district.” 

The city council eventually voted 8-2 to send it back to the planning commission, to take a second look at feasibility concerns.

Afterwards, I met with the property owner, Craig McCullah, who proposed the multifamily development.

McCullah voiced his displeasure with the city's handling of the process, suggesting he may take his business somewhere else in the future.

“Right now, I am not impressed with the city’s processes, they’re not friendly to developers at all,” McCullah said. “We will get to a point where I won't be able to recoup what I lost and it is because of the city’s processes that I'm losing money and that I am going to decide not to ever attempt to develop here again.”

McCullah says part of the problem is the city wants him to pay for the expansion of the road.

For the neighbors, they tell me they've had their voices heard and hope the project never comes to fruition. 

The developer tells me he hopes to finish a process that has become a year-long headache.