PDF Format:


November 7, 2016
7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Augie Bogina Deputy Planning Director Allmon
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Planner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Randy Braley Administrative Asst. Angie Lind
Commissioner Dennis Busby
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the November 7, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner Braley.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Bogina.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance)





CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The Consent Agenda. Items 1 through 3 are listed under the Consent Items 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 Peterson?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we pass the three Consent Agenda items.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second? Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second for the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried.

(Motion passed 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I would like to make a comment about something in the Consent Agenda. And that is, is I really like the effort Johnson County Library went to with the style, with the materials used, and I think it will be a welcome addition to western Shawnee and I congratulate you on that.



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Under New Business, Resolution for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Senior Housing.

MR. ZIELSDORF: This is not really a presentation item. This is the actual resolution of all the work that we’ve done so far on the senior amenity language. And all that we ask of you tonight is to make a motion, second and take a vote for the Chairman to sign that resolution.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Hearing that, is there a motion?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina, please.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And why is it in this particular case that we have a resolution versus in other cases we haven’t?

MR. ZIELSDORF: Because this is an actual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and we do those by resolution. If this were a zoning text amendment, those are actually passed on then to the Governing Body and those are done by ordinance.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman, I would move to --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Bogina.



COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would move that we recommend that the Chairman and the Secretary sign the resolution regarding the text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to sign the Resolution for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Senior Housing. All in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oppose nay. Motion carried. And I assume we can do that after the meeting.

MR. ZIELSDORF: Even the next meeting [inaudible; talking off mic]

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. Thank you.

(Motion passed 10-0)



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: In Other Business, Discussion Item: Review of the Land Use Guide and Circulation Plan.

MR. ALLMON: Doug Allmon, Planning Staff. I’ve been in contact with Paul throughout the day. His mother actually had a little accident. She’s doing fine, but he needed to be with her tonight.

Generally he would be presenting these items. This is only an early on discussion. I think the intent was to just put these items out on the table for you to think about with the intent of bringing them back to you at a future meeting for even more discussion. And then at that time we would set the public hearing. So, I’ll just briefly go over these to just kind of set the table of what Paul was thinking about tonight.

In Chapter 8, Development Services and Planning staff have identified two connector streets to be updated on the circulation plan of the Comprehensive Plan. The first area is identified as a connector between Rosehill and Noland using 52nd Terrace. A portion of the connector was completed with construction of the Grayhawke subdivision. The modified map that’s in your packet shows that. And I’ve got that here.

Apparently you can see this entire section was in green. Now, with the construction of Grayhawke, a portion of West 53rd Terrace has now been completed through here. And so the amendment would be to just lessen the length of that green line, so that when future development occurs it’s still on the table and known that that would eventually be connected over to Noland Road.

The second modification is in regard to the connector street network between Lackman and Maurer Road between Shawnee Mission Parkway and Midland. The approval of the Neighbors construction site plan required movement of the connector off Midland. Additionally, Development Services realizes that there is no realistic cost effective direct connection between Lackman and Maurer given the ravine that extends roughly halfway through the area. In order to provide two access points for future developments, the circulation plan is proposed to be modified to provide a “C” type loop street along Lackman and a larger “C” loop providing two access points to Maurer to serve the vacant property to the north of the Midland Adventist School site, as well as properties to the south and east of the school.

And so this may be hard to see, I printed it off of GIS this afternoon. I’ll try to trace this. Here is the Neighbors office site right here off of Midland. Originally we had this loop street coming up with a connection coming here. When that site plan was approved this connector link was deemed not necessary. And so what Development Services is proposing now is a slightly different configuration. I’ll try to orient this to the way that it was. That would be east to west. So again, Neighbors is in here. And what we’re proposing is because of terrain, it’s very, very rugged through here. You can see those grade lines. And there’s a literal ravine. So, what they’ve come up with is two points of access off of Lackman with a cul-de-sac extension. And this is all shown as medium density residential. So, it might be that there would be private driveway approaches into an apartment or a multi-family type of development. And then future someday if this develops out, it’s all owned by the church now. We have never been contacted by them about development. But having two points of access then on the west side through that, what they’re calling reverse “C” street, and so those are the -- those are the two street modifications that we would like you to kind of think about. We’ll bring those back for more discussion, and obviously can have discussion tonight on that if you have questions about that or concerns.



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Are you taking -- do you want questions now on it?

MR. ALLMON: We can do it either way if you want to hold to the very end. I think it would be good to break the street out from the map portion. So, if you want to provide feedback now that would be.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I guess my question is, is when the Neighbors development, when we okayed it, it wasn’t that long ago, and not that it would change how I felt about that because I thought that was a good project, but I would think in the future we would want to know that this may change some of the routing of the streets when we’re doing that. Because when we okayed that, then obviously it’s coming up to us now that it’s changed the access points.

MR. ALLMON: Actually, and maybe I didn’t hit it strong enough, but that report did reference that the Land Use Guide would need to be changed if the zoning changed. The reason for that is, is that it was a pretty narrow lot and you’re talking 50-60 feet of right-of-way coming right out of the middle of their property. And so for it to be a viable development site we had to come up with alternatives in terms of design. We didn’t go into the detail of what those alternatives would be, but the report did kind of hint that we would be bringing you something for sure.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. And I’m sorry I missed it in there.

MR. ALLMON: I probably didn’t hit it enough in my presentation.


MR. ALLMON: Any other questions? I would just say that this layout has been designed to meet our radius requirements, street right-of-way requirements and does that at the same time and taking into context the difficult terrain that we’ll be dealing with especially over there on the east side of these vacant properties. So, we beat this one around a few times and this is what we came up with in terms of safety and access and still providing something that developable and basically shares the cost of the road between multiple properties.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please, Mr. Smith, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Doug, what is the length of that cul-de-sac from the T to the west?

MR. ALLMON: To the T, it’s going to be probably over 1,500 feet would be my guess. And that is the purpose of having the two points of access and it is a long cul-de-sac. But again, our cul-de-sac standards are usually in terms of single family residential where you don’t want to have multiple lots on a really long cul-de-sac in case it were to be blocked by access. But I really see this as being served probably by multi-family developments that’ll have more than one point of access even to the road. It may be that they connect in up to the north end and have a separate entrance then on the loop portion of that street. I think I’m getting at your concern of having a lot residences with only one way in and one way out.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: It’s all about public safety.

MR. ALLMON: Right.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: If that’s blocked, that’s an awful lot of folks down there with no access. It’s for public safety.

MR. ALLMON: Right. When we evaluate future development scenarios we will, in my mind, be making sure, and the Fire Marshal will be making sure that they have access to two points of in and out.


MR. ALLMON: My guess is, like I said, they’ll probably have an entrance off of that north portion and a private driveway access off of that south loop portion too, so that people can get in and out.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Question. Does the church currently own all of that property between, was it Maurer and the road?

MR. ALLMON: Yes. If you can see city right-of-way here. We have a portion of right-of-way here. Mark, help me. This is not part of the Wilborn property is it?


MR. ALLMON: It is all to the north.

MR. ZIELSDORF: The Wilborn property [inaudible].

MR. ALLMON: This is all owned by the church all the way around.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman. Do we have any -- I’m sorry.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Go ahead, Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Do we have any 1,500 foot length cul-de-sacs in the city?

MR. ALLMON: We have I think two or three maybe. I can think of those being out west and they’re limited in terms of the number of units that are on those cul-de-sacs. And in those cases the variance was granted basically for this same reason, that the terrain is such that we can’t economically span the ravine with a bridge.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, they were single family in that case?


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: But this might be multi-family and Development Services thinks that that is a better option, to have more people on a street?

MR. ALLMON: They analyzed this and actually they presented this to us to present to you. And again, I think it’ll be important to remember where the private driveway approaches from any multi-family development are. I don’t think you would ever see a scenario where you would have 30 single family homes off of that long, or 40 single family homes off of that long large cul-de-sac. It’ll have to be thought out in terms of the site development plan that we make sure that they have access to the north section of that and the south section somehow.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Then why would we want to propose it at this time without a development plan that was in front of us?

MR. ALLMON: Because in our Comprehensive Plan we have to show a future developer potential costs of improvements. So, we have to let them know that some street improvement is going to be required. This is not, I would say certainly not etched in stone. But it does at least say you would be extending a public street system into this property to develop it. And at the same time then sets the table that they would not necessarily be responsible someday for building a bridge to gap that ravine.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, I guess one last question would be this entire street layout on the west, it’s all under one ownership, is it not?

MR. ALLMON: Correct.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, would they not realize that they have to build a street system that would serve their own use if it’s self-contained. Would they not have that knowledge already without going to the Comprehensive Plan and learning it?

MR. ALLMON: I don’t know that I can answer your question in terms of what they know. This is certainly a resource that somebody who is interested in developing that property would have then to look at and know what was going to be expected of them to develop the property. My guess is, is that if the church decides to do future phases or something like that that’s not multi-family in nature that the street system would probably be vastly different. And it could be all parking back there with more buildings and maybe one street extension with a private driveway coming off of that. I think this just sets the table for say 15-20 years from now the church goes out of business or moves and the entire parcel becomes re-developable. It shows that we would expect a looping public street system to be put in place to make that property developable I guess is the best way to say it.


MR. ALLMON: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I guess I -- since I’m new at this I have a question more of the process. As you’re making these changes, is there any notification or any of the current businesses, residences and so forth in these areas when you make these changes? Is there a public notice?

MR. ALLMON: We’re not required by law to notify individual property owners because this is just a planning document, it’s not a zoning document. But anytime we hold a public hearing for amendments to the circulation plan or any element of the Comprehensive Plan, we publish it in the newspaper. And that’s our notification method. I don’t know if there will be effort made to talk to these individual owners before a prior meeting. If that’s something that you would want us to do, I can bring that up to Paul and see if that’s something that he plans to do.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: In looking from a satellite view there are also power lines that go through that section. Is that any of the consideration as well? Will those be buried if they interfere or is that just a developer’s issue?

MR. ALLMON: Kathy, my guess is, is that those are high-power transmission lines up to a certain amount and carrying the capacity, those lines can’t be buried. They will remain in place. So, difficulty in terms of redevelopment. You’re probably also looking at a 75 to a 100 foot wide easement that will be there forever that basically, except for parking, is a no build zone underneath.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah. Doug, so then how does this work? You know, we’ve got separate parcels here. But let’s -- we’re trying to predict into the future, so then how does this play out if say the church sells that property, if somebody is assembling property and puts those pieces together, so does that all just get revisited at the time if they put that together and try to come to us with a development plan, then we get the opportunity to revisit that and --

MR. ALLMON: That’s correct.


MR. ALLMON: This is just a concept --


MR. ALLMON: -- of what could be. It sets the idea in place that we are expecting street improvements. These street improvements would work in terms of our geometric design standards and taking account grade on the site. But if they came in and wanted to extend a cul-de-sac or something off the middle of the “C” street or only do a portion of the street with the first phase, we would have to evaluate that to see if it made sense from a public safety standpoint, too. So, yeah. We would be looking at the details of that when a detailed plan came in.


MR. ALLMON: Any other questions? We’ll bring this back to you. This was just kind of to set the table to get you kind of thinking about this. And obviously when it comes back if you have additional questions we’ll talk about those in detail, too, at that time.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug.

MR. ALLMON: All right. I’m going to move on to the Land Use Guide. This is a little, I wouldn’t say simpler, but probably not as detailed in terms of what we’re talking about. I went ahead and just took a map today and numbered this. So, I’m going to kind of move it around as I talk.

Tonight, we approved the site plan for the Johnson County Library. So, in terms of a color change on the Future Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan, this Number 1, which is right here, there’s a little sliver. They actually bought that piece and then there’s a little sliver to the west that is still shown as commercial. We would be talking about taking that all to public/quasi-public, so that it matches up the development site for the library.

Second, Number 2, removal of the Shawnee Park Christian Church at the northeast corner of Renner Road and Shawnee Mission Parkway, with the approval of the site plan for the two hotels and that strip retail building. It needs to be changed from the current purple or quasi-public use to an office/service designation. And that’s down here.

CHAIRMAN WILLOUGHBY: Doug, that should say Midland instead of Shawnee Mission Parkway.

MR. ALLMON: I will -- yes. You’re right. That’s why I was confused when I was doing the map earlier today. Right. Thank you. I’ll let Paul know that we made that change so that he’s aware of it.

CHAIRMAN WILLOUGHBY: And I called him today, but he didn’t answer.

MR. ALLMON: Yeah. He was gone all day.


MR. ALLMON: Number 3. Often conflicts between the Land Use Guide and current zoning creates development questions. The property at the northwest corner of Renner and I-435 adjacent to Shawnee Mission Park is such a situation. The park district recently purchased the western portion of a site that was zoned Planned Mixed Residential is the early 2000s. The Land Use Guide has been modified several years -- was modified several years ago to show Office/Service development from a previous identification for high density residential development. The remaining site is hilly and not exceptionally conducive to office development. Given the current zoning of the site returning the property to a high density residential designation may be appropriate. This site provides the opportunity for this type of development without impacting any adjacent neighborhoods, and will increase the residential density along I-435 as we have seen to the south in Lenexa.

And what we’re talking about there is Number 3 right here. It’s shown as Office. It’s actually zoned and was zoned for I think 360 or more apartment-type units. But that scenario has changed because the Park District bought about ten acres of that site to buffer the golf course. The remaining portion of that site is very hilly and it probably does warrant a more of a high density residential use, especially with what we’ve got going on in Lenexa to the south. I think doing an office development of any size on that property because of terrain would be very difficult. All right.

Number 4. The Land Use Guide currently indicates Mixed Density Residential development in the area west of Maurer Road and 56th Terrace. Maurer Woods is a 40-acre development with large single family residential homes. It is recommended that the designation of the 40 acres be changed to identify the current development of a low density residential nature.

And that’s right here. When we did the 435 corridor study back in about 2008, the Land Use Guide was changed pretty significantly. And I think in thinking back on it now, we probably should not have changed it at that time. It’s been developed with single family homes. It’s hilly and wooded. I don’t ever see it really being redeveloped in the next 40 or 50 years. You have some significantly large homes in there. And so the thought is to go ahead and change that back to low density residential. And that’ll be the break. That subdivision will be the break between the existing designation to the west then. All right.

Number 5. The property on the north side of 67th between Lackman and Midland Drive currently has a variety of land use designations. Farming activity in this area wedged between Shawnee Mission Parkway and 67th Street is no longer being undertaken. The land use guide currently indicates an area that is suitable for office development just east of Lackman. The properties along this route will not have direct access to Shawnee Mission Parkway. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review revising the Low Density Residential designation in this area by extending the office/service designation further to the east.

And what we’re talking about here is Number 5. We’ve got office on the corner. We have actually had application made for an office use that you’ll be seeing in December for that particular property. The idea being that we would extend the office color further east with a potential of maybe getting a second office there. I think as time has gone on we’ve realized that having single family homes backing to a very busy highway maybe not the best idea. And so it makes sense from that standpoint too. The good thing is also you’ve got 67th Street, which serves as a very good buffer for properties to the south because it’s wide. So, that’s the thought there is just taking that. And also we’re always looking for more potentially developable pieces for office. They’re becoming less and less prevalent in the city as we develop out.

Number 6. Several years ago, the Woodland Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway intersection was modified. The access to Woodland was moved further to the east. Properties to the west of the old Woodland Drive intersection now use an extension of Midland in the front of QuikTrip to get to Shawnee Mission Parkway. The properties between Midland Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway between Monticello Road and old Woodland do not have direct access to Shawnee Mission Parkway. The Land Use Guide indicates a commercial designation east of the Trinity Lutheran Church site and a property at the former intersection of Woodland and Shawnee Mission Parkway that is designated for High Density Residential Use. Staff recommends a review of this commercial designation to consider creation of a larger site for high density residential development. Similar to the site along I-435, the property is removed from the less dense residential uses, and provides a site with good visibility along Shawnee Mission Parkway.

And where we’re talking about there is, slide my map back over, is this area right here. Sorry for my finger. I stained doors over the weekend, so I have brown stain. I promise I washed my hands. So, here is the church site. Here is the high density residential up to that intersection in front of QuikTrip. And then there is this section of red between those two that to be quite frank within you without access to Shawnee Mission Parkway probably would be difficult to develop in a commercial nature. It makes sense to provide more acreage maybe for some high profile apartments or something of a higher density residential use along the parkway there. It has good buffering because of Midland for the houses that set up on the hill and any future single family development that may happen or multi-family development even along the south side of Midland that may happen in the future. All right.

Number 7. I think this is the last one that we had talked about. The northwest corner of 75th Street and K-7 Highway is designated for commercial use. Current plans for future improvements to K-7 Highway indicate an interchange will be constructed at the intersection. No funding is currently available, and access across 75th Street is currently not available, with traffic west of K-7 directed south on K-7, and traffic east of K-7 directed to the north. Land use will be acquired, excuse me. Land will be acquired at the northwest corner for ramps, limiting the ground available for development. The city has acquired properties at the southwest corner to assist in land acquisition needed for these future improvements. Additionally, an overpass will limit access on the north side of 75th Street. Staff recommends consideration of changing the designation at this location from commercial to medium density residential extending the current designation further to the east.

And where we’re talking about there, this is the Meadowlark site. It’s actually one of the first developments that came in when I started working here. Right here. And you’ve got this red section at the corner. You’ve got duplexes to the north and you’ve got some other uses that are existing. Actually it’s right here that the duplexes are. So, this red will be difficult to develop in terms of commercial because of all of the access questions that are going to come up when that interchange is brought forward. And that is in the state’s long-term plan of doing that. And the city wants it to be quite honest with you. So, the idea is just to take all of that area to medium density residential because access isn’t as critical.

So, those are the seven items. If you guys have questions or comments at this time we can take those.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It’s a clarification. You did say that the state is looking at doing an overpass there over K-7? So, you would not -- would you be able to enter and/or exit K-7, or would it just be strictly an overpass?

MR. ALLMON: It’s an interchange.


MR. ALLMON: So, it would be over the highway plus access.


MR. ALLMON: And that’s the difficulty is that those type of improvements take even more right-of-way than just an overpass.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Any other questions for Doug or the rest of the staff?

MR. ALLMON: Think about these as we go forward the next few weeks. Paul will be bringing them back to you on another agenda. And at that time I think his intent is to ask you to set a public hearing. We’re not real passionate about any of these. They all make sense to us. If someone has issues with them that makes sense to not do them, I think we’re find with that, too. But it is good to kind of tweak and look at this thing every year to make sure that we’re maintaining that percentage breakdown of uses that we want to see whenever the city fully develops. So, with that I’m finished.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug.

MR. ALLMON: You’re welcome.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The next item for discussion is considering changing the time for Planning Commission meetings to start, not end, to start, right? Commissioner Peterson, do you have something to say?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I know that the City Council recently made this change. My biggest question is shouldn’t we attempt to have some continuity between the different boards and/or commissions so that it would be easier for residents. It doesn’t -- just curious.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes. I think that would help if they start at the same time. However, I do believe that 7:30 gives people, the public more time to prepare, go home from work, maybe have some dinner before they come to a meeting. And I know, at least from my perspective 7:00 would be a very challenging time to start a meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anyone else? Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I didn’t know I was going to say anything.


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I don’t know how this started. I mean, is the only reason is the consistency? Is that why we’re having the discussion between the Council and ours? You know, the Council has asked us before if we would move to Tuesdays and we didn’t, for some reason, and I had forgotten the reason. And they asked us whether we would start earlier and we didn’t like any of those ideas in the past. But I don’t know what the reasons are now that -- which would be a good reason to change. Myself, I think, you know, I would be very happy if we compromised and just did it based on Daylight Savings Time. I have a different reason than Bruce in that I work late over the summers and when the sun is out. And it would be difficult for me over the summer to always get here on time. But I would adapt if that was what the majority wanted to do.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’ll add my two cents here and that is is simply, you know, it really doesn’t matter a lot to me, I’m retired. I could be here at 7:00, I could be here at 7:30. I don’t want to be here starting at 8:00. But if I’m affecting people that have been on this commission for a long time such as Bruce and Augie, then I really can’t -- I can’t feel like I could vote and say, hey, let’s make it more difficult for you guys to come to our meetings. I talked to a couple people on the City Council. And they said they questioned how many people and how much the public was going to be affected by this, but nobody really came forward and said it. Our audience tonight happens to be two people. Most of our meetings are limited in the amount of community people that are here. And generally it’s most of the people involved in our meetings happen to be with somebody with an agenda in front of us. So, I’m not sure we would be affected the same as public input that the City Council is. So, to me it doesn’t matter other than if we’re affecting people that have been on this commission for a long time, then I really can’t feel like I could vote to change it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would someone like to make a motion? I guess a lack of motion would say we’re making no changes. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I make a motion that we leave the start time at 7:30.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to keep the starting time the same. All in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed, nay.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I counted two nays, so I would say motion carried. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I just wanted to take the opportunity to agree with her for once.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Les Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does the Commissioner -- does staff have anything else for the Commission?

MR. ZIELSDORF: We have no other business.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone from the Planning Commission have anything for the staff? Well, it’s down to one more thing.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I move for adjournment.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Commissioner, I would like to make a motion to adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: A motion and a second to end this meeting, all in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Meeting ended. Thank you.

(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 8:07 p.m.)