PDF Format:

July 20, 2015
7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Augie BoginaPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Randy BraleyDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner James SchnefkePlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Henry SpechtAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Dennis Busby
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the July 20, 2015 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Schnefke.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, if you’d please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Items 1 thru 8 are listed under the Consent Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the items will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve the 8 items under the Consent Agenda, per staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve items 1 thru 8 of the Consent Agenda, all in favor?



(Motion passes 6-0)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’d just like to make a comment on item number 7. Item number 7 is a final plat of Arrow Rents which includes a access onto the frontage road that’s been determined on the plat and the Commission has not approved the plan for what they intend to do there and so the access would not be, would be subject to the Commission approval in the future when the plan is submitted.

Item D. is:


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The Planning Commission is required by state statute to review the City’s Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis. Traditionally, the reviews of the Chapters in the plan are made on a rotating basis to keep them current. At the May 4, 2015; May 18, 2015; and June 1, 2015 meetings the Planning Commission reviewed three of the corridor plans; which are: Kansas Highway 7, Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway plans. The purpose of the review was to update the corridor plans with current information, as well as to discuss policy issues in regard to land use decisions. The Planning Commission at the June 16, 2015 meeting conducted a final review of the proposed amendments and authorized publication of a notice for a public hearing at this meeting.

Staff has attached a document and a series of maps that indicate the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that were discussed. Text amendments are provided in red, and map amendments are indicated numerically on the maps.

After concluding the public hearing to review and discuss the proposed amendments to Chapters 4 and 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed amendments.

So, what I thought I’d do since we’ve sort of reviewed all of the text and the maps and just to get some on the record, I was going to go through each of the proposed changes to the Land Use Guide as well as the new updated objective in Chapter 4, since it’s a single one. In Chapter 4, under the Goals and Objectives for the Residential Land Use we have a new objective, 11, to ensure efficient and sustainable in-fill development by developing or redeveloping larger tracts of land with traditional single family residential sized parcels rather than large lot rural residential development, where utilities are available or can be extended to the properties; and we had a discussion on that issue more along the lines of, if we have utilities and services available, we need to make sure they’re sustainable and efficient and to do that, we need lots condensed to make that happen and not have large lots in the middle of areas where there are other types of subdivisions it’s just where it’s become cost effective to run utilities where they may not be available.

On the Johnson Drive Corridor, basically the changes are highlighted in red where we’ve updated the verbiage, taken out some old and sort of indicate what exists in those areas we did divide up, it used to be from Lackman Road to 435 and we divided it up a little bit, changed the references to the ATF Railroad to the Burlington Northern Railroad and also indicate that along Johnson Drive there are more sewers that have been installed and are available, which makes Johnson Drive a little more conducive to future development along the pattern.

Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor, we did the same changes, we updated the conditions; we made note of the I-435 Corridor Study; we made note that there had been some meetings with residents along Mauer Road to 67th St. in the past and pull that information into the category as well; and then made some pretty major changes from Mill Creek west to K-7 Highway, where we’ve seen pretty significant development occur west in the last 5 to 10 years; we also provided some information regarding traffic counts in the area and one of the reasons that we put this type of information in, the staff uses the Comprehensive Plan also, sort of like an almanac, it’s easy to go through and find your information so we figure if it’s good resource for that use and if we have information we can go ahead and drop it in and I think it’s very significant, the number of trips that are generated along Shawnee Mission Parkway today compared to just 10 years ago.

Changes to the K-7 Corridor study are similar, we did include some traffic counts in that area also an updated what’s gone on in the area; we make note of the changes that were showing on Land Use Guide; make note of the Eco-Commerce Center, which is up along 43rd St. out where Holiday Sand and Gravel, creating the new pond and intent is to happen out in that area is industrial/business park.

So, real briefly, I thought I’d go through each of the changes map by map on the corridors.

Johnson Drive Corridor:

And that’s this area on the south side of Johnson Drive. Below is the current and above is what the map would look life if the amendments were made; That’s in this area here. And that’s this area currently, there was some plans for townhomes, not squeezed in but they sort of had to take on a configuration to fit on there and probably an office use is a good use for that ground and staff’s even had some discussions with churches when they’re looking for church sites that perhaps that would be a good location and not eat up a lot of land along some of the other major roads like Shawnee Mission Parkway or K-7 Highway for that to be used.

The second corridor study is Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor:

That is this area here, originally some of the additional ground was in the floodplain, it was brought out of the floodplain and as the industrial park develops, it reflects the condition in that area. This is an area where we had discussions over the years about office development, it was just difficult to get to and it’s been zoned Commercial Highway for 35-40 years and nothing’s happened so perhaps sort of a change in recommended use would spur some development where you don’t need good access to Shawnee Mission Parkway or Midland Drive to do that. And that reflects the construction of the church.

K-7 Corridor:

That’s in this area in here. That’s also this area. At one time it was shown as Commercial and we’re not quite sure how we got on the Land Use Guide as an Open Space although it may have been what we were waiting on the study for Clear Creek to see how much that ground would end up locating in a floodplain and not much ended up being that way. The same as what had gone on in Grey Oaks or what had gone on at Midland and Woodland and create some more residential development along the K-7 Corridor, you have office development on the east side and it just seemed like a lot of development and we’d had some inquiries off and on regarding this piece of property. That would provide the flow from a higher density to a medium density and to the low density. That’s this location in here which was the rezoning for the K-7 Industrial Park a few months ago. That pulls the industrial development over to Monticello Road. And that was the item that was at the last Planning Commission meeting.

After consideration of the proposed amendments of the Comprehensive Plan provided in the staff report, staff recommends the Planning Commission authorize notification for a public hearing on the proposed amendments at tonight’s meeting.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m sorry, what? Was that…?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That’s it, okay. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff? I’m sorry if I was a little confused. Was this not the public hearing?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: This is the public hearing…this evening.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. So, I thought you ended up with that you would…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Staff recommends approval of the…


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: …of the amendments.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, as this is a public hearing, is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? If not, we would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Schnefke, do you have something?

COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: I would say staff did a very thorough job of rewriting/editing these, so I’m prepared to make a motion, unless there is other discussion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. So, hearing none, you may do so.

COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Mr. Chairman, I move for the approval of the proposed amendments as discussed of the Comprehensive Plan and as provided by staff.


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Tonight is the public hearing.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: See, I probably confused you, because it confused me. So, do you have a second?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve the changes proposed to the Comprehensive Plan, which would be Chapter 4 – Goals and Objectives and Chapter 5 – Land Use Guide, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.

(Motion passes 6-0)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: #2 is: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And Doug, before you begin, is the applicant present?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant is present.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, thank you. I thought she was here for comment. Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant is proposing to construct a 160’ lattice radio communications tower in the vicinity of the 7200 block of Martindale Road. The tower is proposed to the east of the existing railroad tracks within BNSF right-of-way, just north of a switching equipment box located at 7295 Martindale Road. The BNSF property is zoned AG (Agriculture).

Properties to the north and south of the site are made up of additional railroad right-of-way and are also zoned AG. Property to the east is zoned PI (Planned Industrial) and consists of forestland within the Millcreek floodplain. This undevelopable open space is owned by the Johnson County Parks and Recreation District. The existing rail line and right-of-way for Martindale Road is located to the west of the site. Property directly west of Martindale is zoned AG and consists of forestland that is part of a large single family property. In general, one single family home on acreage is located to the southeast of the proposed tower site, and two single family homes on acreage are located to the west of the proposed tower site.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential uses in the general area. However, the tower is proposed directly within right-of-way designated for rail use. Thus, the provision of a communications tower at this location is in compliance with the Plan.

The proposed tower is intended to provide interval radio communications coverage for the BNSF rail network. The tower will improve train safety by enhanced communication in the railway corridor. Several factors determined the need for a tower at this location. BNSF Railways performed propagation analysis to determine the intervals at which towers are needed for adequate radio signal coverage between trains and the land-based network. The study determined that a new tower was needed at this location to fill the gap between existing transmitters.

It must be noted that railway communication towers are an integral part of BNSF’s interstate rail system, and are specifically regulated by the Federal Surface Transportation Board as established by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act. This voluntary submittal for the special use permit is in no way meant to convey jurisdiction to local regulations, but instead is a by-product of BNSF’S commitment to partnership with the local community. As part of this cooperation, BNSF would allow future co-location of private telecom providers as long as they did not disrupt railway communication transmittal.

The tower will be of lattice design and will be constructed of gray metal. The width of the tower at the base is 16.7 feet, narrowing to 2.5 feet at the very top of the structure. The 30’ x 30’ compound around the tower base will be surfaced with AB-3 aggregate gravel. The communication hardware will be stored within the existing stainless steel equipment shelter currently located adjacent to the rail line. The lattice tower is free standing with no guy-wires, and will be bolted to footings located approximately 5 feet below grade. A six-foot chain link fence will surround the site for security purposes, and the access gate will remain locked when the site is not occupied.

The applicant has provided a fall zone map for the full 160-foot tower height. The map indicates that the tower would fall within adjacent railroad/city right of way or public park open space if it were to fail. No habitable structures are located within the fall zone area.

The site will be accessed by an existing railroad crossing that provides the drive entrance for the home located to the southeast. This drive will be used minimally by railroad personnel throughout the course of the year.

Approval of the special use permit should cause minimal effect upon surrounding properties. The tower and support equipment will be located to the east of the railroad tracks that are east of Martindale Road, and is buffered by existing trees located to the east, and a dense tree grove located on the west side of Martindale Road.

Construction of the tower will benefit the public by enhancing the safety of trains traveling on the railway. This in turn should increase the safety and well-being of residents who live around the rail line. The tower will also provide the opportunity for telecommunication co-locates should the need for enhanced cellular service arise in the future.

In terms of a recommendation, this tower is necessary for enhanced train safety along this portion of the BNSF interstate railway. Although not specifically regulated by City zoning rules, BNSF has voluntarily agreed to comply with SUP provisions, and has agreed to allow future telecommunication co-locates on the tower once it is constructed. In light of this staff recommends approval of SUP-07-15-07, a special use permit for BNSF Railways to construct a 160 foot lattice communications tower to be located within railroad right-of-way near the 7200 Block of Martindale Road, subject to the following conditions:

2. The tower shall be limited to 160 feet in height with a 2-foot tall antenna; 6. Review of the special use permit in one (1) year.

That completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? Hi, would you give us your name and address, please?

APPLICANT: I am Jennifer Schwaller from HDR Engineering, located at 4435 Main Street, Suite 1000, in Kansas City, Missouri.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Have you read the staff report?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are you in agreement with the staff’s recommendations?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you.

MS. SCHWALLER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: This is a public hearing so anyone who wishes to speak on this item, you may come forward. We would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah, I’d like to commend BNSF for coming forward through this process and working with the City to make sure we were in agreement with their proposed tower. Thanks very much, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If there’s no discussion, does anyone have a motion? Commissioner Schnefke.

COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of SUP-07-15-07, a special use permit for BNSF Railways communications tower, 7200 Block of Martindale Road, 160 foot communications tower, subject to staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve SUP-07-15-07, consideration of approval for a special use permit for BNSF Railways to construct a 160-foot lattice communications tower, located in the 7200 Block of Martindale, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.

(Motion passes 6-0)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: We would be in:
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul, do you have something?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I have a couple items for you; most of you are aware that staff’s been preparing some grant applications for work along the Nieman Road corridor for downtown and it’s been sort of a long review process that we’ve gone through; working with MARC and KDOT on those two grant requests and one reason I want to bring them up to you is that in a couple weeks the Planning Commission takes a look at the city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and recommends approval or provides some additional recommendations and you’ll see some of these items are going to show up on the CIP, so I wanted to let you know a little bit about them. The first grant is what we call our PSP grant – it’s the planning sustainable places, it’s the grant for the trail connectivity plan between Nieman Road and Turkey Creek, so it’ll connect Nieman to the Turkey Creek trail over in Merriam; we received responses from our RFP from four firms and those four firms are going to be interviewed on July 31, so hopefully we will be able to move along with that one. The second grant that we have working is the TAP grant, it’s more of a transportation grant and that’s the one that we refer to as the Nieman Road allocation of right-of-way; taking a look at how can we do, grab some drainage better, provide some open spaces, do we change the lane configuration, so that’s what that grant does; it takes into account what we came up with in the Nieman Connections study that was done a year and a half ago and taking some of those comments regarding potential creation of a better road for Nieman and to spur some additional development and also as part of our ten-year downtown plan to give Nieman Road a little more urban feel to provide buildings up close to the street rather than being set back and if that happens, how does it work with the right-of-way allocation to move some of those ideas forward. We received four responses also on that grant and staff will be reviewing the proposals on Wednesday afternoon of those four and hopefully we’ll be making a recommendation, so we expect that both of those projects, or work by the consultants will be underway in September and hopefully by early next year have some results. One thing, just to let you know that we may be looking for some community members to be on a steering committee for the trail project so we may be visiting with some Planning Commissioners to see if there is anybody who might like to help out on the steering committee for that project; I know Steven was on the one that we did for the Nieman Road project and we appreciated all of his input; so, that’s all staff has.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Great. Does Commission have any comments for the staff? If not, Commissioner Specht do you have a motion?

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to adjourn all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thanks.

(Motion passes 6-0)