CCHHAAPPTTEERR 33 TTrraannssppoorrttaatt iioonn,, UUtt ii ll ii tt iieess ,, aanndd PPuubbll iicc SSeerrvv iicceess

Issue Paper Regarding Establishment of County Growth Areas

Question Set: 16 Questions:

PPgg.. 7766.. WWhhaatt iiss aa CCoouunnttyy GGrroowwtthh AArreeaa?? HHooww iiss aa GGrroowwtthh AArreeaa ddeevveellooppeedd??

Response: BACKGROUND The Transportation, Utilities and Public Services chapter examines essential public services necessary to support county growth and development including key challenges to their delivery and maintenance. As noted on page 72 of the Plan, “proximity to infrastructure is integral to development. Shawnee County’s infrastructure allows future growth to occur in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner. As such, development should be encouraged where infrastructure such as sewer, water, and paved road are available.” To maximize efficiency of public services, it is encouraged that development be directed to areas where adequate public services and facilities already exist. As more residents move to the unincorporated area, concern will increase about the ability of local government to maintain roadways, utilities and public services as well as to improve services while making the best use of taxpayer dollars. Accordingly, the cost of providing public services must be considered as part of our land use and development decisions. The Plan notes that development patterns can affect the efficient and cost-effective delivery of public services and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Exurban (low density) residential development has encroached on traditional rural/agricultural areas for the past 50-years. This was enabled by a plat exemption process that made it easy for people to build homes on a 3-acre parcel along existing public roads. This process makes it difficult to consider in advance the cumulative impacts of scattered development on the provision of public services, including how to plan for and efficiently deliver those services. As noted on page 94 of the Plan, unanticipated consequences of scattered, unplanned development include:

1. Plat exemptions do not require utility easement dedication or rights-of-way dedication for future improvements.

2. Many public services cannot be supported at this density. 3. Drainage issues are often not identified until the building permit stage, if then. 4. Existing roads and bridges may not be suited for higher traffic volumes from residential

development. 5. Perimeter (section-line road) development may limit access to the interior hindering current

agricultural operations and future development. The plat exemption process does not recognize public service delivery costs because they are not tied to a minimum level of service standard. Service delivery issues are not discovered until the

P a g e | 2

building permit stage or after; it does not encourage development in places where infrastructure exists; nor, does it provide for the extension of infrastructure where it does not exist. Because infrastructure construction, maintenance and replacement costs are significant, the continued use of the plat exemption process is problematic as low density linear development raises these costs. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTY GROWTH AREAS In response to the issues/costs associated with scattered, low density residential development, a more managed approach to growth is encouraged. This approach advocates for establishment of county growth areas where land use and infrastructure can be planned together in advance. The Plan notes this will allow more strategic and efficient use of public funds and infrastructure. By tying development to infrastructure, the costs associated with public service and infrastructure delivery can be minimized. The Future Land Use Map in Chapter 4, Land Use and Design, identifies specific growth areas where residential growth and development is encouraged based on concentration of existing development and availability of public services and infrastructure. Designated growth areas include the Topeka Urban Growth Area, the Auburn Residential Growth Area, the Small Town Residential Growth Areas, and, the Half Day Creek Residential Growth Area. Each of these growth areas is defined in the Future Land Use section of the Plan beginning on page 101. Specific goals and recommendations related to these areas are addressed in LU-3: Encourage Responsible Residential Development beginning on page 104. Additional criteria related to subdivision and platting requirements and adequate public facility standards are listed on page 153. In summary, new residential development is encouraged to locate in the designated growth areas, including Auburn; the existing unincorporated towns of Berryton, Dover, Elmont, Kiro, Tecumseh, Wakarusa, and Watson; and, the Half Day Creek area. Directing growth in this manner will not only create opportunities for improved coordination between land development and capital programming, but will also support a key goal of preserving agricultural land.

102

6TH

KAN

SAS

29TH

17TH

TOP

EKA

AD

AM

S

CALI

FOR

NIA

WA

NA

MA

KER

GORDON

GA

GE

CRO

CO

FAIR

LAW

N

46TH

HUNTOON

21ST

57TH

61ST

TYLE

R

45TH

BU

RLI

NG

AM

E

10TH

29TH

12TH

37TH

BRAN

NER

41ST

AU

BU

RN

SEWARD

LAN

E

UR

ISH

35TH

UVK4

UVK4

£¤24

£¤75

£¤40

£¤24

£¤75

§̈¦335

§̈¦470

§̈¦70

§̈¦70

§̈¦70

AUBURN

ROSSVILLE

SILVERLAKEWILLARD

TOPEKA

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

FUTURE LAND USE - SHAWNEE CO, KS0 14,000 28,0007,000

Feet7/20/2017Draft FLU .mxd

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kansas North FIPS 1501

1 inch = 14,000 feet

North

Topeka 3 Mile ETJ (2014)

Future Land Use

Agriculture Conservation Area

Urban Rural Transition Area

Topeka Urban Growth Area

Topeka Airport

Lake Sherwood Improv. Dist.

Residential Growth Area

Residential Growth Area

Exclusive Agriculture Use Area

Berryton

Dover

Elmont

Kiro

Montara

Pauline

Tecumseh

Wakarusa

Watson

Lake SherwoodImprov. District

Topeka RegionalAirport

FIGURE 4.18: Future Land Use Map

6TH

KAN

SAS

29TH

17TH

TOP

EKA

AD

AM

S

CALI

FOR

NIA

WA

NA

MA

KER

GORDON

GA

GE

CRO

CO

FAIR

LAW

N

46TH

HUNTOON

21ST

57TH

61ST

TYLE

R

45TH

BU

RLI

NG

AM

E

10TH

29TH

12TH

37TH

BRAN

NER

41ST

AU

BU

RN

SEWARD

LAN

E

UR

ISH

35TH

UVK4

UVK4

£¤24

£¤75

£¤40

£¤24

£¤75

§̈¦335

§̈¦470

§̈¦70

§̈¦70

§̈¦70

AUBURN

ROSSVILLE

SILVERLAKEWILLARD

TOPEKA

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

FUTURE LAND USE - SHAWNEE CO, KS0 14,000 28,0007,000

Feet6/23/2017Draft FLU .mxd

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kansas North FIPS 1501

1 inch = 14,000 feet

North

100 year Flood Zone

Topeka 3 Mile ETJ (2014)

Topeka Urban Growth Area

Future Land Use

Agriculture Conservation Area

Urban Rural Transition Area

Residential Growth Area

Exclusive Agriculture Use Area

Berryton

Dover

Elmont

Kiro

Montara

Pauline

Tecumseh

Wakarusa

Watson

Issue Paper Regarding Transportation, Utilities and Public Services Goals and

Recommendations

Question Set: 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 Questions:

TTII--11:: PPrriioorriittiizzee tthhee mmaaiinntteennaannccee ooff EExxiissttiinngg IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree.. HHooww mmuucchh mmaannppoowweerr wwiillll iitt ttaakkee aanndd hhooww mmuucchh wwiillll iitt ccoosstt??

TTII--22:: EEnnssuurree ffiissccaallllyy rreessppoonnssiibbllee aaddmmiinniissttrraattiioonn ooff iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree iinnvveessttmmeennttss.. HHooww mmuucchh mmaannppoowweerr wwiillll iitt ttaakkee aanndd hhooww mmuucchh wwiillll iitt ccoosstt??

TTII--33:: IImmpprroovvee mmoobbiilliittyy aanndd aacccceessss tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthhee ccoouunnttyy ffoorr aallll mmooddeess ooff ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn.. HHooww mmuucchh mmaannppoowweerr wwiillll iitt ttaakkee aanndd hhooww mmuucchh wwiillll iitt ccoosstt??

TTII--44:: CCoooorrddiinnaattee ppllaannnniinngg aanndd sseerrvviiccee pprroovviissiioonn.. HHooww mmuucchh mmaannppoowweerr wwiillll iitt ttaakkee aanndd hhooww mmuucchh wwiillll iitt ccoosstt??

TTII--55:: UUssee iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree ttoo eennhhaannccee tthhee qquuaalliittyy ooff lliiffee,, ddeevveelloopp tthhee eeccoonnoommyy,, aanndd iinnccrreeaassee ssaaffeettyy.. HHooww mmuucchh mmaannppoowweerr wwiillll iitt ttaakkee aanndd hhooww mmuucchh wwiillll iitt ccoosstt??

Response: The Goals and Recommendation section of Chapter 3 indicates the cost of expanding infrastructure, the coordination of infrastructure, and the use of infrastructure to guide and promote development all contributed to the five (5) goals as part of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Services chapter. Each goal lists specific recommendations intended to achieve the stated goal. Chapter 7, Implementation, includes an Implementation Matrix that lists action strategies designed to implement each goal including identification of potential stakeholders, the type of activity involved, the timeframe or timing of the activity, and the tools to be used to implement the goal. The matrix makes it possible to consider the full scope of the Comprehensive Plan and how each goal is to be realized over the 20-year horizon of the Plan. For each of the five (5) goals of the Transportation, Utilities and Public Services chapter, the County Commission asked how much manpower will it take and how much will it cost. This was considered as part of a broader evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan. The issue paper concerning question set #3 (attached) included a document titled Shawnee County Comprehensive Plan – Anticipated Cost of Implementation. This document considered the entire scope of the Comprehensive Plan and its implementation. The implementation of the five (5) goals associated with chapter 3 are included as part of this document. Overall, the Planning Department anticipates plan implementation to include a one-time cost of $100,000+ to prepare new zoning and subdivision regulations to accomplish the goals and recommendations of the plan. The document also recognizes those goals involving research,

P a g e | 2

coordination, collaboration, cooperation, program development, etc. may impact the Planning Department’s ability to accomplish under current staffing limitations. It is anticipated additional staff support may be needed and that an entry-level planner would be sufficient to coordinate the work of the department. It is believed that a base salary of $0-45,000 would be competitive plus benefits.