Evergy on 3700 Block of Gage in Topeka KS @ Gage37 / #mcre1

 

Gage37

 

Gage37

 

Filler up - Step-by-Step: How to Calculate It for Your Project === mcre1

To calculate cubic yards of fill dirt needed, use this straightforward formula:

$$V = \frac{L \times W \times D}{27}$$

Where:

• $V$ = Volume in cubic yards
• $L$ = Length in feet
• $W$ = Width in feet
• $D$ = Average depth (or height) of fill needed in feet

1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, so you always divide the total cubic feet by 27.

Step-by-Step: How to Calculate It for Your Project

1. Figure out the area that needs raising Measure (or scale from the site plan, like sheet C1) the length and width of the zone you want to bring up.
   • For a simple rectangular building pad + parking area, just use overall dimensions.
   • For irregular shapes (most real sites), break it into rectangles, or use the average depth across the whole area.
2. Determine the average depth of fill needed This is the key number from your grading plan (especially sheet C3). Look at existing contours/spot elevations vs. the proposed finished floor or pad elevation. If the site is currently ~10 ft low in places, but the depth varies (deeper in some spots, shallower in others), calculate or estimate an average depth across the area. Example: If depths range from 6 ft to 12 ft, an average of ~9 ft is reasonable for a first-cut estimate.
3. Plug into the formula Multiply length × width × average depth (all in feet) to get cubic feet, then divide by 27.
4. Add a compaction / contingency factor (very important) Fill dirt compacts when placed in lifts and rolled (especially under a building pad or parking lot).
   • For basic site grading: Add 10–15% extra.
   • For structural fill under pavement or building: Add 15–25% extra. Most people use 15–20% as a safe rule of thumb for a project like raising a retail pad.
5. Convert to truckloads if helpful A typical tandem dump truck hauls roughly 10–18 cubic yards (depending on the truck and how full they load it). A larger semi can do 20+ yards.

Quick Example (Raising a Pad ~8–10 ft Low)

Suppose you have a roughly rectangular area 120 ft long × 180 ft wide that you want to raise an average of 9 feet:

• Cubic feet = $120 \times 180 \times 9 = 194{,}400$ cu ft
• Cubic yards = $194{,}400 \div 27 \approx 7{,}200$ cubic yards (raw)
• With 20% extra for compaction/waste: $7{,}200 \times 1.20 = 8{,}640$ cubic yards

That’s a ballpark — real numbers depend on the exact area and average depth from your grading plan.

Pro Tips for Accuracy on a Real Site (Like Your Dollar General Project)

• Best source: Use sheet C3 (Grading Plan). The contours and spot elevations let you see exactly how much cut or fill is planned in each area. Civil engineers calculate precise net earthwork volumes from this. For a quick owner estimate, average the fill depths over the zones you want to raise higher than currently shown.
• Irregular sites or varying depths: Divide the site into smaller rectangles or use the “average end area” method if you have cross-sections. Or use free online cut/fill calculators (search “cubic yard calculator fill dirt”).
• Compaction matters: The dirt you order is loose. After compaction it takes up less space, so you need extra volume. Structural specs (95%+ Standard Proctor) usually require good compaction in 6–12 inch lifts.
• Other factors: Add a little more if you have slopes, berms, or transitions around the edges. Subtract any material you can reuse from on-site cuts.
• Get professional quantities: For permitting, bidding, or a real construction project, have the civil engineer (AAB or whoever stamped the plans) run the exact cut/fill numbers or revise the grading plan for a higher pad elevation. That’s the most accurate and defensible way.

For basic, run-of-the-mill fill dirt in Topeka right now (June 2026), on the low end, you're probably looking at roughly $12–$18 per cubic yard delivered for decent-sized orders.

That’s my realistic take based on current local data — not the cheapest possible “someone’s giving it away” scenario, and not premium screened or structural fill.

Quick Breakdown of Pricing in Topeka Area

Here’s what the numbers show:

• Local benchmark (ProMatcher Topeka-specific data): About $18–$23 per cubic yard delivered for clean fill dirt (average right around $20.66/yd). This includes hauling and dumping within a reasonable local radius (often ~10 miles).
• Low-end / run-of-the-mill basic fill: $12–$18 per cubic yard delivered is very achievable for average construction-grade dirt (unscreened, mixed clay/soil, some rocks or chunks okay). This is the “overburden” or common borrow dirt type — exactly what most guys use for raising pads, filling low spots, etc.
• Per truckload: A typical tandem truck (roughly 12–18 cubic yards) often lands in the $250–$400 range delivered on the lower end for basic fill.
• Pickup / self-haul: Can drop it closer to $8–$14 per yard if you’re loading it yourself from a pit or supplier (saves the delivery fee, which is often $100–$200+ per load).

What Affects the Low-End Price

• Quantity — Bigger orders (multiple truckloads or project-scale) get better per-yard rates. Small “just a few yards” jobs cost more per unit.
• Type — Plain old fill dirt / common fill / overburden is the cheapest. Screened, clean, or compaction-tested structural fill costs more.
• Distance — Inside Topeka/Shawnee County stays on the low side. Hauling farther adds up fast.
• Who you buy from — Local excavators, concrete companies, and aggregate suppliers usually beat big-box or landscaper prices for basic fill.

Good Local Spots to Check in Topeka

• Concrete Unlimited (785-232-8636) — They specifically advertise fill dirt for construction/grading projects at “outstanding prices” and various quantities. Worth a call first.
• Reclaimit KS (Topeka location) — They sell basic fill dirt described as a black soil/clay mix that can have chunks and some foreign material — perfect definition of run-of-the-mill cheap fill.
• Local excavators and gravel pits — Often the best source for true low-end dirt.

My Straight Advice

If you’re doing something like raising a building pad or site grading (context from the Dollar General plans), $15–$18 per yard delivered is a solid, realistic low-to-mid target you can probably hit by getting 2–3 quotes from local guys. For very large volumes you might squeeze closer to $12–$15.

Prices move with fuel costs and how busy construction is, so the only way to know the absolute best current number is to make a couple calls and say you’re looking for basic fill dirt for a project and want their best rate on X number of yards. 

Analysis of the Dollar General Plans (Topeka Store #31716)

The 11-sheet civil set (C1–C11) prepared by AAB Engineering, LLC represents a complete, code-compliant site development package for a standard Dollar General prototype on a sloped Topeka parcel fronting SW Gage Boulevard. Key observations:

• Site Layout (C1, C11): The ~9,100 SF building is positioned with a typical DG parking field (striped spaces, drive aisles, ADA-compliant routes, dumpster enclosure, and loading area). Access is via a curved drive from the public street, with sidewalks and some landscape/ tree provisions shown on later sheets.
• Grading & Topography (C2, C3, C7): The site has meaningful existing relief. The grading plan shows dense contour lines, proposed spot elevations, cut/fill transitions, drainage swales, and slope arrows. The building pad and much of the parking area are set into the slope, with transitions handled by grading and (based on related project context) likely retaining walls or steep slopes in places. An old foundation/abandoned residence is being removed.
• Stormwater & Drainage (C5, C6): Pre- and post-development drainage maps compare basins. A detention basin with outlet structure, cross-sections, and a summary chart manages quantity and quality control. The design routes runoff through inlets and swales to the basin before controlled release.
• Paving, Utilities & Details (C4, C8–C10): Standard heavy-duty and standard-duty concrete sections, joint details, curb/gutter, handicap parking/signage, stabilized construction entrance, silt fence, and utility connections (water, sewer, electric, etc.). Erosion control is addressed for the construction phase.

Overall, the plans are professional and address the site’s topographic challenges through engineered cut/fill, detention, and standard retail prototype elements. However, the grading strategy places the finished floor elevation (and a substantial portion of the parking field) significantly lower than the SW Gage Boulevard frontage — on the order of ~10 feet in the critical areas, consistent with your description. This creates a depressed or “sunken” condition relative to the street, even with the engineered drainage and slope transitions.

Arm’s-Length Analysis: Why Raising the Pad with Additional Fill Dirt Is Better for Retail Sales Than a ~10-Foot Sunken Configuration

From an objective retail real estate and consumer behavior standpoint, finished floor elevation and resulting visibility are among the highest-leverage site characteristics for convenience/discount formats like Dollar General. The current depressed-pad approach introduces measurable disadvantages for sales performance. Raising the building and primary parking areas closer to street grade (via imported structural fill, properly compacted and drained) would deliver clear advantages. Here is the reasoning:

1. Visibility & Pass-By Capture (The Dominant Sales Driver) Dollar General stores derive a large share of volume from pass-by and convenience traffic. Industry site-selection analytics (traffic counts, visibility modeling, and sales correlation studies) show that clear line-of-sight from the arterial can add 15–30%+ in sales versus a compromised view.

A pad ~10 feet below street grade puts the storefront, entrance canopy, and primary signage below the typical driver sightline on SW Gage (especially at posted speeds). Motorists see rooflines, sign tops, or nothing until they are nearly adjacent — reducing discovery and impulse stops. Raising the pad restores full façade and sign visibility from hundreds of feet in both directions, maximizing the corridor’s traffic exposure without relying on oversized or elevated signage (which can face zoning or aesthetic resistance).

2. Curb Appeal, First Impressions & Brand Perception Environmental psychology and retail “servicescape” research consistently link positive first impressions to higher entry rates and perceived value. A store that appears to sit in a depression or “hole” — even if attractively landscaped — can subconsciously read as hidden, secondary, or lower-quality. This is particularly counterproductive for a value-oriented retailer where approachability and trust matter.

At-grade or near-at-grade placement makes the store feel integrated, prominent, and intentional — the configuration used by most successful standalone DG, Family Dollar, and Aldi pads. It avoids any “basement” or “sunken” perception and supports a stronger neighborhood commercial presence in Topeka.

3. Parking Experience, Wayfinding & Customer Friction When the parking field is also depressed, customers descend via driveways that can feel enclosed or steep. This creates hesitation (especially for older shoppers, parents with children, or in snow/rain). Perceived safety and openness of the lot suffer; drivers cannot easily see available spaces from the street before committing to the turn.

A raised pad enables gentler driveway grades, better sightlines into the lot from the roadway, and a more seamless public-to-private transition. It reduces the psychological “driving into a pit” effect and improves overall accessibility and dwell-time potential.

4. Security, Natural Surveillance & Operating Risk Sunken topography inherently limits “eyes on the street” from passing traffic and adjacent properties. This can elevate actual or perceived risk of loitering, vandalism, or crime — factors that affect insurance, staffing comfort, and long-term operating costs. Higher elevation improves passive surveillance and lighting effectiveness.

5. Asset Value, Tenant Performance & Future Flexibility For the property owner/developer, a highly visible, at-grade pad strengthens appeal to national credit tenants and supports stronger sales performance (which can translate to percentage rent or more favorable renewals). It also enhances long-term marketability and resale value. Retail valuation models routinely apply visibility and prominence premiums; a sunken configuration can warrant cap-rate or value discounts.

It also creates a more cohesive pad-site feel that integrates better with surrounding development (e.g., the Eveningside area context) and supports broader economic development goals of attractive, investment-ready commercial sites.

Trade-Offs and Practical Considerations (Balanced View) Raising the pad is not cost-free. It requires importing and placing structural fill (plus geotechnical verification), which increases earthwork expense versus a near-balanced cut/fill design. Drainage swales, inlets, and the detention basin would need re-evaluation to maintain positive drainage and regulatory compliance. Retaining wall locations and heights would shift. Utility depths and ADA ramp lengths would adjust slightly. These are solvable engineering issues but add upfront cost and coordination.

Alternative mitigations (taller monument signs, strategic berming/landscaping that preserves views, enhanced lighting, or digital wayfinding) can help but are inferior to correcting the root grade condition.

Bottom Line For a retail use whose economics depend on convenient discovery, strong first impressions, low customer friction, and maximum pass-by capture, a ~10-foot depressed pad is a material handicap. Raising the building and primary parking areas with additional fill dirt to align more closely with SW Gage Boulevard grade would produce superior retail sales outcomes through better visibility, curb appeal, accessibility, and perception. While it increases construction cost, the expected lift in traffic and sales — plus improved asset value and tenant performance — typically justifies the investment for a prominent retail pad site.

Review of Topeka Municipal Code Title 18 – Development Code Focused on M-2 Multiple-Family District and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Eveningside Northwest / 37th & Gage Parcel

Title 18 is Topeka’s comprehensive Development Code. It consolidates zoning districts, use regulations, density and dimensional standards, Planned Unit Development procedures, site plan review, landscaping, parking, subdivisions, and related development requirements. It is the primary regulatory framework governing the Eveningside Northwest parcel project.

The code is organized into divisions, with Division 4 (Zoning Code) containing the most relevant chapters for this residential development.

1. M-2 Multiple-Family Dwelling District (18.100)

This is the base zoning district Mike Hall recommended.

Purpose (per code and city summaries): The M-2 district is established to provide for attached dwelling units containing three or more dwelling units per structure. It expressly accommodates townhouses, condominiums, cooperatives, apartments, group living facilities, and congregate living. It is intended as a transitional district between lower-intensity single-family areas and higher-intensity uses.

Key Characteristics:

• Strongly supports clustered/attached housing (“units in connection with one another”), which aligns directly with the goal of maximizing units on the constrained ±2.48-acre parcel.
• Does not favor scattered single-family lots (R-1 style); those are easier under straight R-1 but yield far lower density.

Density & Dimensional Standards (cross-referenced in 18.60.020):

• Maximum Density: 25 dwelling units per acre (base). A 40% density bonus (up to 35 du/acre) is available when at least 30% of units qualify as affordable (≤60% of area median income).
• Maximum Building Coverage: 60% of lot area.
• Maximum Height: 50 feet.
• Minimum Lot Area: 7,000 sq ft (adjusted for multi-unit development).
• Setbacks (Principal Buildings): Front 25 ft, Rear 25 ft, Side 5 ft. Critical for townhomes: Zero side-yard setback is permitted along the shared lot line between attached units.
• Minimum lot width standards apply, with flexibility for attached products.

This district is well-suited to the irregular parcel shape created by following the stream buffer centerline. The zero side setback between attached units and the clustering emphasis make M-2 the logical choice over lower-density districts.

2. Planned Unit Development District (18.190)

This is the key tool that makes the M-2 recommendation powerful.

Topeka maintains a dedicated PUD Planned Unit Development District (18.190). It functions as both a zoning district and a flexible regulatory framework.

Purpose: To encourage innovative land planning and design that may deviate from strict application of base zoning standards (setbacks, lot sizes, density configurations, parking layouts, etc.) in exchange for superior overall site design, open space preservation/enhancement, amenities, and compatibility with surrounding areas.

How it works with M-2:

• The project can be rezoned to M-2 PUD (or established as a PUD with M-2 permitted uses).
• The PUD master plan / development plan becomes the controlling document. It can customize standards to fit the stream buffer, utility locations, and clustered layout while still delivering M-2-level density and attached housing.

Approval Process & Requirements:

• Requires a detailed master plan (or preliminary development plan) showing building locations/types, unit counts, parking, access, open space/stream buffer treatment, landscaping, phasing, etc.
• Typically involves a pre-application meeting (already begun with Mike Hall), concept plan review, Neighborhood Information Meeting, Planning Commission public hearing, and City Council approval by ordinance.
• Site Plan Review (18.260) is integrated into the PUD process for multi-family and clustered development.

Amendments (18.190.070):

• Minor changes to an approved PUD master plan can often be approved administratively by the Planning Director.
• Major changes generally require a new public hearing and City Council action.

This flexibility is exactly why Mike Hall recommended M-2 PUD rather than straight M-2 rezoning: it allows creative clustering around the ±38-foot transition from the stream buffer centerline while still complying with (or improving upon) the spirit of the code.

3. Supporting Standards Relevant to This Project

• 18.60 Use Tables & Density/Dimensional Standards: Establishes what is allowed in M-2 and the quantitative rules (already summarized above).
• 18.260 Site Plan Regulations: Most multi-family and all PUD projects require formal site plan review. Plans must address buildings, circulation, parking, drainage, utilities, landscaping, lighting, and compatibility. This will be a core submission requirement for the Eveningside project.
• 18.235 Landscape Requirements and 18.240 Off-Street Parking Requirements: Will apply; PUD can provide flexibility in how these are met (e.g., shared parking, enhanced landscaping in the stream buffer transition zone).
• 18.230 Dimensional Requirements: General rules that PUD can modify via the approved master plan.
• Subdivision provisions (Division 3): Will likely be needed later for platting the ±2.48-acre parcel and any internal lots or common areas.

Stream Buffer / Environmental Considerations: Title 18 does not appear to contain highly prescriptive riparian buffer ordinances in the zoning chapters (those are often handled through engineering/stormwater review or subdivision standards). However, the strategy of following the stream buffer centerline and treating the buffer as protected open space/amenity is consistent with good PUD practice and will strengthen the application by demonstrating environmental sensitivity and superior site design.

4. Implications & Recommendations for the Eveningside Northwest Project

The combination of M-2 base zoning + PUD is an excellent fit for the following reasons:

• It directly supports the clustered, attached housing product Mike Hall endorsed.
• PUD flexibility allows optimization around the stream buffer, the two buildable pockets (±0.63 ac and ±0.99 ac), and utility corridors.
• On the ±1.62 acres of identified buildable land, realistic unit counts in the 25–35+ range appear achievable depending on unit mix, parking, and final PUD negotiations (higher with the affordable housing bonus if pursued).
• The process gives the City comfort through detailed master plan review while giving the development team design latitude.

What the Code Will Require for Approval:

• Detailed PUD master plan / concept site plan (buildings, unit count/types, parking, access, open space/stream treatment).
• Compliance with (or approved deviations from) M-2 dimensional standards via the PUD.
• Site plan review addressing drainage, utilities, landscaping, and circulation.
• Public hearing process with opportunity for neighborhood input.

This framework supports a professional, code-responsive application that builds on the initial guidance from Mike Hall.

 

Eveningside Northwest Parcel (37th & Gage) – Professional Development Briefing

Prepared by Wible Property Development LLC

Based on initial consultation with Mike Hall, City of Topeka Planning Department

Executive Summary

Tyler Wible of Wible Property Development LLC conducted a targeted consultation with Mike Hall, City of Topeka Planning, regarding the northwest corner parcel at the intersection of SW 37th Street, SW Gage Boulevard, and Eveningside. The discussion yielded clear, actionable guidance on parcel configuration and zoning strategy.

Core Recommendation: Separate the parcel by following the centerline of the stream buffer. This produces a clean ±2.48-acre parcel while allowing the City’s standard 20-foot building restriction to be measured from the new property line (within an area the team does not intend to develop anyway).

Mike Hall recommended pursuing M-2 PUD zoning. This classification is specifically designed for attached multi-family and townhome-style development and, when processed as a Planned Unit Development, provides the flexibility needed to cluster units efficiently on this irregularly shaped site while respecting the stream corridor, utilities, and surrounding context.

This approach positions the project for higher unit yield through thoughtful clustering, stronger design review outcomes, and better integration of the natural stream buffer as an amenity rather than a constraint.

Parcel Configuration Strategy

By anchoring the new western/southern boundary to the center of the stream buffer, the team achieves:

• A well-defined ±2.48-acre parcel suitable for independent development and future platting.
• Compliance with the City’s building restriction/setback measured from the new property line.
• Logical separation from the remainder of the larger tract while preserving the stream corridor’s function.

Supporting Measurements (from Wible’s field review and mapping):

• Approximate distance from stream buffer centerline to buildable land: ±38 feet.
• Distance from buildable land to sewer main (green): ±112 feet.
• Identified buildable pockets:
  • Northwest of sewer main / south of water main: ±0.63 acres.
  • Southeast of sewer main / north of stream buffer: ±0.99 acres.
• Combined buildable area in the two pockets: ±1.62 acres (balance of the 2.48 acres includes the stream buffer transition and necessary setbacks/easements).

Water (blue) and sewer (green) mains are clearly mapped; their locations will influence access, utility extensions, and phasing but do not appear to preclude clustered development.

M-2 PUD Zoning – Detailed Explanation

M-2 Multiple-Family Dwelling District (Topeka Municipal Code Title 18) is the appropriate base zoning for this type of project. Its stated purpose is to accommodate attached dwelling units containing three or more units — explicitly including townhouses, condominiums, cooperatives, and similar clustered housing — while serving as a transitional district between lower-intensity residential areas and more intensive uses.

Key M-2 Standards (current code):

• Maximum Density: 25 dwelling units per acre (base). A 40% density bonus (up to 35 du/acre) is available when at least 30% of units are affordable (≤60% AMI).
• Dimensional Standards: 7,000 sq ft minimum lot area, 60% maximum building coverage, 50 ft maximum height, front/rear setbacks of 25 ft, and side setbacks of 5 ft (with zero side setback permitted between attached units — ideal for townhomes).
• Use Intent: Strongly supports connected/cluster housing rather than scattered single-family lots.

Why PUD (Planned Unit Development) is the right vehicle: A straight M-2 rezoning would lock the project into more rigid application of the above standards. Processing as (or with) a PUD allows the City and developer to negotiate a customized development plan that can include:

• Modified or averaged setbacks and lot configurations to maximize clustering around the stream and utilities.
• Creative site design that treats the stream buffer as protected open space/amenity (strengthening the application).
• Integrated parking, access, stormwater, and landscaping standards tailored to the ±2.48-acre site.
• Higher effective unit yield through good design without needing variances.

Process Overview (Topeka):

1. Pre-application meeting with Planning staff (already initiated via Mike Hall).
2. Preparation of a detailed concept/preliminary development plan and site plan showing building locations, unit counts/types, parking, access, open space/stream buffer treatment, and phasing.
3. Neighborhood Information Meeting (typically required).
4. Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation.
5. City Council consideration and approval of the PUD/master plan.

Once approved, the PUD functions as the site-specific zoning control, giving both the developer and City certainty while allowing the flexibility this constrained but promising parcel needs.

Rough Density Potential (illustrative only): On the ±1.62 acres of identified buildable land, M-2 base density could theoretically support in the range of 30–40 units depending on final layout, unit mix (townhomes vs. larger buildings), parking requirements, and open space allocation. PUD flexibility, combined with the clustering Mike Hall endorsed (“as many units as we can in connection with one another”), makes the higher end of that range more achievable while still delivering a high-quality project.

Illustrative Concepts & Site Plan Context

Pages 5–7 of the supporting materials include conceptual site plans (FALK) for a 37th & Gage housing development. These show clustered building footprints arranged around a central feature near the stream corridor — exactly the kind of efficient, connected layout that M-2 PUD is designed to facilitate. The plans demonstrate how units can be grouped to respect the stream buffer while creating a cohesive residential environment. These or similar layouts can serve as the starting point for the formal PUD concept plan.

Strategic Opportunities & Considerations

• Stream Buffer as Asset: Treating the buffer as protected open space/amenity (rather than just a setback) strengthens both the PUD justification and long-term marketability.
• Utilities & Access: Early coordination with water/sewer providers and City engineering on extensions and connections will be important.
• Grading, Drainage & Retaining Walls: Ongoing work with Tyler Wible’s team and McCoys Industries on grading, erosion control, and retaining walls aligns well with preparing a strong PUD submittal.
• Neighborhood Context: The transitional nature of M-2 and the PUD’s emphasis on quality design help address compatibility with nearby single-family areas.
• Affordable Housing Bonus: If the project goals include workforce or affordable components, the density bonus to 35 du/acre could be leveraged.

Recommended Next Steps (Professional Path Forward)

1. Formal Pre-Application Follow-Up — Schedule a more detailed pre-app meeting with Planning (Mike Hall or assigned staff) once a preliminary concept layout is ready.
2. Concept Site Plan Development — Engage civil engineering and architecture to produce a PUD-quality concept plan showing unit count, clustering, parking, access, and stream buffer treatment.
3. Utility & Engineering Coordination — Confirm sewer/water capacity and connection points; integrate any required drainage or traffic studies.
4. PUD Application Package — Prepare in accordance with City’s “PUD – standard format and notes” and related checklists (includes master plan, site plan details, etc.).
5. Team Alignment — Coordinate with project ownership and development principals on overall development objectives, target unit mix, and any affordable housing or market positioning strategy.

Wible Property Development LLC is positioned to deliver a well-prepared, code-responsive proposal that respects City guidance while maximizing the site’s potential. This M-2 PUD path offers both regulatory flexibility and a clear framework for approval.

Would you like me to:

• Draft a polished one-page memo version of this briefing suitable for sharing with the broader team or City staff?
• Help outline the specific elements needed for a PUD concept plan?
• Pull together comparable approved M-2 or PUD projects in Topeka for reference?

This positions the project — and Wible’s contribution — as thorough, professional, and ready for the next phase of advancement.

Max Rieke & Brothers, Inc. (maxrieke.com) is a family-owned excavating and grading contractor based in Shawnee, Kansas (Kansas City metro area).

Company Overview

• Founded: 1951, in response to the "Big Kansas Flood." Started by brothers Max, George, and John Rieke as a part-time venture alongside truck farming. It evolved from small-scale basement digging, pond building, and basic earthwork into a full-service heavy construction firm.
• Location: Physical address at 15400 Midland Drive, Shawnee, KS 66217; mailing P.O. Box in Shawnee. Hours: Mon-Fri 7:30am–5pm.
• Leadership: Third-generation family business. Currently run by Leon Rieke (Max's son), Steve Rieke (George's son), and Derrick Rieke (Leon's son, VP/COO).
• Size: 40–100+ employees (seasonal); fleet of 300+ pieces of equipment. Estimated annual revenue around $10–11M.
• Services: Excavating, grading, site development, site utilities (storm/sanitary sewers), underground utilities, pre-cast and rock retaining walls, heavy highway construction, commercial/residential projects, structural excavation, earth material hauling, and pond/lake excavation. They serve government entities, private developers, residential builders, commercial clients, and homeowners across Kansas and Missouri.

The company's website is straightforward and functional but quite basic—mostly contact forms, history, safety policy, customer info, and vendor/employment sections. It emphasizes reliability, experience (70+ years), and safety.

Pros / Good Aspects

• Longevity and stability: Decades of continuous operation as a family business, with a track record of growth and adaptation to larger projects. Strong local presence in the KC area.
• Broad capabilities: Comprehensive earthwork and site prep services, from residential to heavy highway/government work. Large equipment fleet supports scaling.
• Reputation indicators: High BuildZoom score (97, top percentile for Kansas contractors). Positive employee feedback on Indeed (e.g., "relaxed small office family construction company" with long tenure). Emphasis on safety programs and compliance.
• Community ties: Involved in local projects; appears professional and approachable for bids/quotes.

Cons / Potential Drawbacks

• Limited online presence: The website is minimalistic with little project portfolio, case studies, photos, or modern marketing. This could make it harder to evaluate past work quickly.
• Mixed historical legal notes: There are old court cases (e.g., 1990s–2000s contract disputes/arbitration), which is common for construction firms of this size but worth noting for due diligence.
• Not BBB accredited: Though it has an A+ rating profile (no major complaints highlighted in available data).
• Seasonal/operational factors: Employee count and workload fluctuate; construction businesses can face weather delays, labor shortages, or supply issues common to the industry. One older news mention of neighborhood concerns over prolonged excavation work nearby.

Overall, Max Rieke & Brothers looks like a solid, established regional player for grading/excavation needs in the Kansas City area—especially suitable for developers or larger site projects. They have the experience and scale that would appeal in your real estate/development work (e.g., the Eveningside or similar parcels). For current bids or specifics, I'd recommend contacting them directly at (913) 631-7111 or bid@maxrieke.com, as public info is somewhat limited. No major red flags stand out from available sources. 

We should not have to plant grass

 

Topeka / Shawnee County, KS Native Plant Recommendations for Xeriscaping (Low-Maintenance ROW/Parkway Use)

Topeka does not appear to maintain an official city-mandated "native plant list" specifically for right-of-way (ROW) or parkway areas. However, strong regional guidance exists for Northeast Kansas (including Shawnee County/Topeka) from sources like the Kansas Native Plant Society (KNPS), Kansas State University Extension, PlantNativeKS, Topeka Zoo native plant sales, and Dyck Arboretum. These emphasize drought-tolerant, low-water natives ideal for xeriscaping — perfect for your zero/low-maintenance goals in the 37th & Gage parkway (once approved).

Why Natives for Xeriscaping Here?

• Adapted to Topeka’s climate (hot/dry summers, variable rainfall, clay/prairie soils).
• Once established: Near-zero irrigation, minimal mowing/weeding/fertilizer.
• Excellent for erosion control on slopes (relevant to your site).
• Support pollinators/wildlife; meet TMC vegetation height rules (under 12 inches for weeds, cultivated plants allowed).
• Often permitted with a Public Works landscaping plan showing drainage, sight lines, and no obstructions.

Recommended Native Plants for Topeka Xeriscaping

Focus on sun-loving, drought-tolerant species suitable for open parkway conditions (full sun, well-drained after grading). Group by type for easy planning:

Grasses (Great for ground cover, erosion control, low mow)

• Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) — Blue-green foliage, red fall color.
• Side-oats Grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) — KNPS 2026 Plant of the Year; very drought-tolerant.
• Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
• Prairie Dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) — Fine texture, low maintenance.
• Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) — Taller option for screening.

Perennials / Forbs (Flowering, pollinator-friendly)

• Butterfly Milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa) — Orange blooms, monarch host.
• Pale Purple Coneflower (Echinacea pallida) or Purple Coneflower (Echinacea purpurea)
• Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
• Blue Sage (Salvia azurea)
• Prairie Coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata)
• Blazing Star / Gayfeather (Liatris species, e.g., pycnostachya, aspera)
• Purple Prairie Clover (Dalea purpurea)
• Yarrow (Achillea millefolium)
• Bee Balm (Monarda species)

Other Options

• Sedges (e.g., Carex species) for transitional areas.
• Native shrubs like Indigobush (Amorpha fruticosa) if space allows (check height/sight lines).

Topeka Zoo 2026 Native Plant Sale List (recent example of locally available stock) includes many of the above: Butterfly Milkweed, Black-eyed Susan, various Coneflowers, Blazing Stars, Little Bluestem, Indiangrass, Switchgrass, etc. Great source for proven local ecotypes.

Resources for Full Lists & Plans

• Planting Natives in Northeast Kansas (plantnativeks.weebly.com): Downloadable guides and plant lists tailored to NE KS.
• Kansas Native Plant Society (kansasnativeplantsociety.org): Gardening tips, sun-loving lists, and ecoregion guidance.
• Kansas Native Plants (kansasnativeplants.com): Detailed ID guide with 850+ species, prairie garden examples.
• K-State Extension / Shawnee County: Demonstration gardens at Cedar Crest (Topeka) and recommended plant resources.
• Dyck Arboretum (Hesston): Native plant database and landscaping ideas.

Tips for Your 37th & Gage Parkway Application

• Combine grasses + forbs in a matrix planting for low-maintenance coverage.
• Use rock/gravel mulch or stabilized aggregate as base (permeable, zero-mow).
• Emphasize in your Driggs plan: drought tolerance, erosion control on slope, compliance with TMC 8.60.150 (height/weed rules only — no grass mandate).
• Source local ecotype plants to maximize survival and gain City favor.

 

Topeka, Kansas Parkway (ROW) Maintenance Rules Summary (Relevant to 37th & Gage Project)

Key Definitions & Responsibilities

• Parkway / Street Parking: The area in the public right-of-way (ROW) typically between the back of the curb and the property line (or sidewalk, where present). The land is generally owned by the abutting property owner, but the City holds an easement for public use, utilities, drainage, and infrastructure.
• Owner Responsibilities: As the abutting property owner, you are primarily responsible for maintaining the surface/landscaping in the parkway in front of your property. This includes keeping it free of hazards, debris, and excessive vegetation. The City typically maintains the curb, roadway, and (often) sidewalks.

Vegetation & Weeds (Primary Maintenance Rule)

From TMC 8.60.150 (Section 302 – Exterior Property Areas), which adopts and amends the International Property Maintenance Code:

• All property (including the parkway/ROW abutting your lot) must be maintained free from vegetation in excess of 12 inches in height.
• Noxious weeds (per Kansas Dept. of Agriculture) are prohibited.
• "Vegetation" includes weeds, grass, woody vines, volunteer saplings, shrubs, brush, and uncultivated plants — but excludes cultivated trees, shrubs, vines, and gardens.
• Enforcement: City can issue notices, abate (mow/remove), and bill you for costs + penalties. Failure to comply can lead to prosecution.

This is the main rule driving the City's preference for Tall Turf Fescue (easy to mow uniformly).

Landscaping & Improvements (TMC Title 12)

• TMC 12.50 Street Parking: Covers occupancy and maintenance of the parkway area. Owners must keep it in good condition; specific rules on cutbacks, repairs, and cleaning.
• TMC 12.35 Sidewalk Construction & Maintenance:
  • Private walks/structures in street parkings require City Engineer approval.
  • Abutting owners handle cleaning and general maintenance to prevent hazards or obstructions.
• Any non-standard improvements (pavers, hardscape, xeriscaping, rock mulch, etc.) generally require a Public Works ROW permit and review by Public Works + Planning. They must not interfere with utilities, drainage, sight lines, safety, or future City work.

Practical Implications for Zero/Low-Maintenance Options

• Standard Expectation: Turf grass (e.g., Tall Fescue) + mulch/fertilizer for uniformity and ease of maintenance.
• Alternatives Allowed? Yes, with approval. The City (per recent email from Joe Harrington) is open to reviewing detailed landscaping plans for improvements that enhance functionality and aesthetics, as long as they comply with codes for drainage, permeability, safety, etc.
• Risks of Unapproved Work: City could require removal/restoration at your expense, especially during utility or street projects.

Recommendations:

• Submit a formal landscaping plan (incorporating RFP concepts) to Public Works for pre-approval.
• Include details on materials, drainage, utility coordination (Kansas One Call), and compliance.
• Reference the positive tone from the email thread — they are willing to collaborate.

Sources: Topeka Municipal Code (Titles 8 & 12), City Public Works guidance, and recent thread context.

Would you like me to pull specific code excerpts into a document, draft a landscaping plan outline, or prepare a reply to the City referencing these rules?

the blog is an account and record - savvy

Email Thread Summary: Gage @ 37th ROW Landscaping (June 9–10, 2026)

Overview

This is an ongoing email exchange between Henry McClure (MCRE, LLC) and Joseph A. Harrington (City of Topeka), with CCs to City Clerk, Mark Schreiner, Public Works, and others. The topic is improvements to the public right-of-way (ROW) parkway area at SW 37th Street & Gage Boulevard — specifically, finishing the area from the back of the curb/sidewalk to the property line with zero or low-maintenance treatments instead of standard turf.

Chronological Summary

• June 9, 2026 (Henry to Joe): Henry sent a detailed Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking landscaping/hardscaping contractors for zero/low-maintenance ROW improvements (permeable pavers, stabilized granite, rock mulch, xeriscaping, etc.). The RFP emphasizes compliance with Topeka Municipal Code, Public Works permits, drainage, safety, and erosion control.
• June 10, 9:12 AM (Joe to Henry): City prefers Tall Turf Fescue, fertilizer, and mulch only in the area between sidewalk and property line. No other options mentioned initially.
• June 10, 9:14 AM (Henry to Joe): Suggested a meeting to discuss.
• June 10, 9:15 AM (Joe): Replied “Okay.”
• June 10, ~12:39 PM (Henry): Updated on site progress (Fit Construction did good work) and requested help mitigating damages, including working around guy wires.
• June 10, 2:10 PM (Joe): “Sounds good. We will discuss this and get back to you.”
• June 10, ~3:06–3:13 PM (Henry): Follow-ups emphasizing urgency to mitigate damages and requesting help with humility.
• June 10 (Latest from Joe, ~after 3 PM): Positive update — The City is open to reviewing a landscaping plan. They still prefer fescue as the standard for the ROW, but property owners can propose improvements that increase functionality and aesthetics. Public Works and Planning will collaborate on review if Henry submits a detailed plan.

Current Status

The conversation has progressed positively. The City has moved from a strict “turf only” stance to willingness to review custom low-maintenance proposals. Next logical step is for Henry to prepare and submit a landscaping plan (potentially incorporating elements from the RFP) for formal review by Public Works and Planning.

This thread demonstrates constructive dialogue, with the City showing flexibility while maintaining standards, and Henry pushing for practical, cost-effective long-term solutions given the property hold period.

---

Henry McClure

​Joseph A. Harrington;​publicworks@topeka.org​

​City Clerk;​Mark Schreiner​

​mcre1.444danak@blogger.com​

Subject: RE: Gage @ 37th

Dear Mr. Harrington,

Thank you for your prompt response and for including the City Clerk’s office. I appreciate the City’s perspective on maintaining a consistent appearance in the right-of-way.

I am sympathetic to the preference for Tall Turf Fescue, fertilizer, and mulch as the standard treatment. However, as the abutting property owner, I believe we should have reasonable flexibility in the area from the back of the curb/sidewalk to our property line. This is especially true for zero or near-zero maintenance options that fully comply with Topeka Municipal Code (e.g., Titles 8, 12, and 18), Public Works standards for drainage, utilities, sight lines, safety, and erosion control.

Given Topeka’s economic and growth challenges, we anticipate holding this property for an extended period. Traditional turf would create ongoing mowing, watering, and care costs, whereas compliant low-maintenance alternatives—such as permeable pavers/hardscape, stabilized decomposed granite or rock/gravel mulch, native/low-water ground covers, or xeriscaping—could substantially reduce or eliminate those burdens while improving long-term stewardship and reducing erosion risks. These options would be installed only after securing any required Public Works permits and meeting all engineering and restoration standards.

To move forward productively, I would like to add the Public Works Department to this conversation for their guidance. I am happy to submit site plans, coordinate utility locates, or work directly with them on a review to ensure full compliance.

Thank you again for your assistance. I look forward to your thoughts and to collaborating on a solution that works for both the City and our stewardship responsibilities.

Best regards, Henry McClure MCRE, LLC 3625 SW 29th Street #100 Topeka, KS 66614 Phone: 785-383-9994 Email: mcre13@gmail.com

---

From: Joseph A. Harrington <jaharrington@topeka.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 9:15 AM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Cc: City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; Mark Schreiner <MSchreiner@Topeka.org>
Subject: RE: Gage @ 37th

 

Okay

 

From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 9:14 AM
To: Joseph A. Harrington <jaharrington@topeka.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; Mark Schreiner <MSchreiner@Topeka.org>
Subject: Re: Gage @ 37th

 

Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender-----

 

We should have a meeting to discuss this.

 

Henry McClure

785.383.9994 

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Joseph A. Harrington <jaharrington@topeka.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2026 09:12:02
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Cc: City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; Mark Schreiner <MSchreiner@Topeka.org>
Subject: RE: Gage @ 37th

 

Henry-

 

I don’t think that the City is going to want you to place anything between the sidewalk and your property line except for Tall Turf Fescue, Fertilizer, & Mulch.

 

From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 6:00 PM
To: Joseph A. Harrington <jaharrington@topeka.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>
Subject: Gage @ 37th

 

Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender-----

 

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) Zero/Low-Maintenance Right-of-Way (ROW) Parkway Improvements SW 37th Street & Gage Boulevard Area, Topeka, KS

Issued by: Henry McClure, MCRE, LLC Date: 6 / 9 / 2026 Proposal Due Date: ASAP Contact: Henry McClure | Phone: 785-383-9994 | Email: mcre13@gmail.com

1. Project Overview

MCRE, LLC seeks qualified landscaping and hardscaping contractors to submit proposals for improving the public right-of-way (ROW) parkway area along the subject property at/near SW 37th Street and Gage Boulevard, Topeka, Kansas. The goal is to finish the area from the back of the curb to the property line with durable, zero or low-maintenance treatments that comply with City of Topeka standards.

Key objectives:

• Minimize or eliminate ongoing mowing, weeding, irrigation, and other maintenance.
• Ensure proper drainage, safety, sight lines, and no obstructions.
• Obtain necessary Public Works permits (if required) and meet all TMC requirements for street parkings/ROW landscaping.

Estimated Area: [Insert sq ft or dimensions, e.g., "approximately X linear feet along the frontage, Y feet deep from back of curb to property line"]. Typical residential ROW in Topeka is around 60 ft total width; confirm exact limits with Public Works.

2. Scope of Work

Contractors must provide turnkey services including:

• Site assessment, utility locates (Kansas One Call), grading/drainage corrections, and erosion control.
• Design and installation of approved zero/low-maintenance surfaces (e.g., permeable pavers, stabilized decomposed granite, rock mulch/xeriscaping with native drought-tolerant plants/groundcover, or approved hardscape).
• All materials, labor, equipment, and restoration.
• Coordination with City of Topeka Public Works for any required ROW permits and inspections.
• Warranty: Minimum 1-2 years on materials and workmanship, with provisions for City-required restoration if disturbed.
• Removal/disposal of existing materials (if applicable) and final cleanup.

Prohibited or Restricted Items (per typical ROW rules):

• Non-permeable surfaces causing runoff issues.
• Items that obstruct utilities, drainage, sidewalks, or sight triangles.
• High-maintenance elements (e.g., extensive turf, unapproved sprinklers extending into ROW).

3. Proposal Requirements

Submit one (1) digital PDF proposal including:

• Company Profile: Experience with municipal/ROW projects, references (especially in Topeka or similar Kansas cities), licenses, insurance, and bonding capacity.
• Approach & Design Concepts: 2-3 options with descriptions, materials, estimated lifespan, maintenance needs (target: near-zero), and visuals/renderings. Address drainage, permeability, and durability.
• Detailed Cost Breakdown: Lump sum or unit prices, including permits, materials, labor, contingencies. Separate design vs. installation if phased.
• Timeline: Project schedule from award to completion.
• Compliance Statement: Confirmation of adherence to Topeka Municipal Code (Titles 8, 12, 18), Public Works standards, and any other regulations.
• Exceptions/Alternatives: Any proposed deviations with justification.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated based on:

1. Compliance with City codes and low-maintenance goals (30%).
2. Experience, references, and qualifications (25%).
3. Cost/value (25%).
4. Design quality, innovation, and timeline (15%).
5. Overall responsiveness (5%).

5. Timeline

• RFP Issued: [Date]
• Questions Deadline: [Date]
• Proposals Due: [Date, Time] to [email/address]
• Contractor Selection: [Date]
• Project Completion Target: [Date]

6. Terms & Conditions

• The owner reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, waive informalities, or negotiate.
• Work must comply with all applicable laws; contractor responsible for permits/insurance.
• Payment terms: [e.g., 30% deposit, progress payments, final upon acceptance].
• Insurance: General liability, workers' comp, etc., as required.
• This is not a contract; award is subject to negotiation of final agreement.

Questions: Direct all inquiries in writing to Henry McClure by [deadline].

Thank you for your interest. We look forward to your proposals.

Henry McClure MCRE, LLC

Gage @ 37th ROW Landscaping Email Thread – Bullet Timeline Summary (For Your Records – June 9–10, 2026)

• June 9, 2026 – Henry initiates Sent detailed RFP to Joseph A. Harrington for zero/low-maintenance ROW parkway improvements (back of curb/sidewalk to property line). Options highlighted: permeable pavers, stabilized decomposed granite, rock/gravel mulch, xeriscaping, native ground covers. Emphasized TMC compliance, Public Works permits, drainage, safety, and erosion control.
• June 10, 9:12 AM – City initial response (Harrington) Stated City preference for Tall Turf Fescue + fertilizer + mulch only in the area between sidewalk and property line.
• June 10, 9:14 AM – Henry reply Suggested holding a meeting to discuss the issue.
• June 10, 9:15 AM – Harrington Replied “Okay.”
• June 10, ~12:39 PM – Henry update Reported positive progress with Fit Construction on site; requested assistance mitigating damages and help working around guy wires.
• June 10, 2:10 PM – Harrington Confirmed they would discuss internally and get back to Henry. (Public Works added to thread.)
• June 10, ~3:06–3:13 PM – Henry follow-ups Reiterated urgency to mitigate damages and requested help with humility.
• June 10 (Latest ~after 3 PM) – Harrington positive update City is open to reviewing a landscaping plan.
  • Standard preference remains fescue.
  • Property owners may propose improvements that enhance functionality and aesthetics.
  • Public Works and Planning will collaborate on review.

Current Status (as of June 10, 2026): Positive momentum. City has shifted from “turf only” to willingness to review custom low-maintenance proposals. Next step: Prepare and submit a detailed landscaping plan for formal review.