Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Plat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission splits on Water District No. 2 plat after dispute over 45‑foot right-of-way
Summary
Commissioners split 3-3 on staff's request for a 45-foot right-of-way dedication for a proposed Rural Water District No. 2 site; the planning commission failed to recommend the 45-foot dedication and the plat will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners with the applicant's 25-foot dedication.
The Shawnee County Planning Commission on Feb. 10 heard a preliminary and final plat application for the “CRWD Number 2 Tower 1 Subdivision,” a 0.86-acre parcel at 9525 NW 40 Sixth Street intended to formalize a water-tank site and allow a small accessory building. The commission considered a disagreement between staff and the applicant over dedication of additional right-of-way along NW 40 Sixth Street: county public-works staff requested the standard 45-foot dedication from the road center line (90-foot total for a major collector), while the rural water district proposed dedicating 25 feet.
Ben Kramer of Kramer Consulting, representing Rural Water District No. 2, and water district manager Robbie Reese said the district needs the site to continue tower maintenance and to store equipment; they argued a larger dedication on the south side of the road would create safety and operational problems for tower maintenance and would be more costly to the district. A water-district board member explained antennas and maintenance require room outside the fenced tower area and said moving the right-of-way closer would impede routine work and could increase construction costs for the county because utilities and driveways on the south side would be affected.
Kurt Niehaus, Shawnee County Director of Public Works, told commissioners that for a major collector the county typically seeks a 90-foot right-of-way (45 feet on each side of center line) and said moving the road center line or rebuilding geometry can greatly increase project costs and complexity. He described the county preference to build on the existing center line and said future improvements may require relocation and compensation for utilities and driveways.
Commissioners debated the operational concerns raised by the water district and the county standards. After discussion, a motion to approve the plat based on staff recommendations (which included the 45-foot dedication) was moved and seconded. The roll-call vote was split: Jeanette Johnson (No), Dan Bryan (Yes), Terry Robinson (Yes), Myron Lenwitter (No), Rosa Cavazos (No), Chad Gearhart (Yes). The 3-3 tie means the commission did not approve the staff recommendation for the 45-foot dedication. Planning staff explained the plat process will continue through county surveyor mapping; the item will still be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the 25-foot dedication shown on the applicant's plat.
Commissioners and representatives discussed practical outcomes: Public Works said the county would need to secure dedications from all affected property owners before construction of a road widening project and could pursue negotiation or eminent domain if necessary. The water district said it is not opposed to standard right-of-way widths in principle but emphasized the disproportionate impact if the entire additional dedication came from the south side. Staff noted the parcel had historically been permitted for the tower but platting was required because the district now proposes an accessory building and more frequent on-site activity.
The commission's split vote means the Board of County Commissioners will receive the plat with the applicant's 25-foot dedication; county staff will continue coordination with the district and public works about utility relocation, map preparation and any future road-improvement impacts.
