[0:00] This is Greg Wolf. So, I'm going to call our August meeting to order. Can you

[0:05] call the role, please? >> Yes. Rod Richardson

[0:08] » here. >> Kevin Hogan

[0:10] » here. >> Brad Miller's absent. Lindsey Grace is

[0:14] absent. Fred Starret >> here.

[0:16] » Steve McGank >> here.

[0:17] » Tim Oric >> here.

[0:19] » Craig Connell >> here.

[0:21] » Andrew Logan >> here.

[0:22] » Jeff Huff >> here.

[0:24] » And Gregory Wolf >> here.

[0:26] » Thank you. We do have a quorum. >> The quick logistics. if you could make

[0:29] sure you turn on the little microphone in front of you. If it's got a red, uh,

[0:32] it's going to it's off. If it's green, it's you push the little button.

[0:38] Uh, okay. So, we've got a quorum. Do we need to say something to start

[0:44] this process? Your little disclaimer. >> I will read my statement.

[0:47] » Thank you. >> This meeting is now being recorded in

[0:50] the administration building with planning commission members attending in

[0:53] person. There's also an option for virtual attendance on Zoom webinar. For

[0:57] Zoom participants wishing to speak, please use the raise hand function in

[1:01] the Zoom app at the start of the agenda item when you which you desire to

[1:05] comment. Comments will be received from in-person attendees first, followed by

[1:09] Zoom participants. Uh please state your name and the community where you reside

[1:13] for the record, followed by your comments. All public speakers will be

[1:17] limited to 2 minutes. If you have trouble with Zoom, please call

[1:20] 911371596666.

[1:24] [clears throat] Uh board members, staff, and presenters, please state your name

[1:28] every time you begin talking and please speak into the microphone. Um this is a

[1:33] public meeting. We are presenting live and recording the meeting. Thank you.

[1:36] » Excellent. Uh there doesn't appear anybody be here from the public uh in

[1:42] person. Is there anybody online? >> Uh no.

[1:46] » All right. No public comment tonight. Do any uh members of the commission have a

[1:51] disclosure of a conflict of interest or exparte communication they need to

[1:55] disclose? >> Hearing [clears throat] none. Moving on.

[2:00] Does any member of the commission have an agenda addition or deletion?

[2:06] Hearing none. Moving on. I will entertain a motion to approve our

[2:11] minutes from our July meeting. Does anyone want to make that motion?

[2:15] » Mr. Chairman Rod Richardson. So moved. >> Fair enough.

[2:20] » Oh, got it. >> So, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hoff have

[2:25] moved. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your

[2:29] hand. Motion carries.

[2:34] All right. Zoning regulation update module two. Who's pres presenting to us?

[2:41] » Uh, good evening, uh, commissioners. This is Sean Pendley, County Planning

[2:45] Staff. I will begin uh the update for this item and then I will turn it over

[2:50] to our consultant, Jenny Baker with Clarion Associates. She's joining us on

[2:53] Zoom this evening, but I wanted to just give a quick update where we are with

[2:57] this uh process. If you recall, we have had a couple of presentations to the

[3:02] planning commission regarding this update for our zoning and subdivision

[3:06] regulations update. Uh we have also had various stakeholder meetings, public uh

[3:12] information meetings. In fact, we had two meetings just last week. Uh one was

[3:17] in uh New Century um Fieldhouse and Gardener New Century and then one was at

[3:23] Stillwell and we had uh quite a few members of the public attend those

[3:27] meetings. We provided it was an open open house meetings. We provided

[3:31] information regarding the updates specifically regarding module two. And

[3:34] what module two includes are the development standards and minimum

[3:39] infrastructure requirements and subdivision regulations. We'll get into

[3:42] part two of that this evening. Um Jenny will be uh describing the the second

[3:47] part. If you recall back in May, we had an update for the first part of module

[3:51] two with the development standards. So what we'll be focusing on tonight is the

[3:54] second part of that uh for minimum infrastructure and subdivision design.

[3:59] We are uh about twothirds of the way through. There are three modules. We

[4:03] have the the third module will be procedures and permitting. And so we

[4:07] anticipate bringing that module and those draft regulations to you in

[4:11] September for review and any uh questions and comments. Uh this evening

[4:16] after we do our presentation, certainly feel free to ask any questions. We'll

[4:20] provide a quick update as far as next steps and when we anticipate getting

[4:24] into the public hearings uh later this fall and hopefully adoption uh if not

[4:30] the end of this year, beginning of 2027. So, with that, I'll turn it over to

[4:34] Jenny and she can walk through the presentation and then we can circle back

[4:38] with any uh [clears throat] questions and comments.

[4:42] » All right, great. Thanks, Sean. Can all of you hear me? Okay, someone make make

[4:47] some indication if you can actually hear what Okay, I'm going to take that as

[4:51] yes. Thank you. Okay, so I will share a presentation. Uh

[4:55] » here's one question for a minute, Jenny. We do have one question.

[4:58] » Small to large. Um, yeah, I think she's sharing the screen and so if we get once

[5:03] we're [clears throat] once she's able to share the screen, you should be able to

[5:07] see the presentation. So, >> how is how is that? I can see on your

[5:12] screen. It's >> you got it on that screen right there

[5:15] closer. >> Yeah,

[5:21] » there you go. >> There we go.

[5:23] » There you go. >> It might just be a little slow, so I'll

[5:27] talk slowly. How is that? Um, fortunately Sean has covered a couple of

[5:32] the items that are in here, but let me tell you all good evening. Glad to be

[5:36] back talking to you. Um, here's the agenda for what we want to tell you this

[5:42] evening. Quick project update. That is mostly what Sean went over. I will tell

[5:47] you a little bit about the new content that's in module 2. Those are the

[5:52] minimum infrastructure standards along with subdivision design. And then we'll

[5:56] talk about the next steps. That's again something that Sean just told you about.

[6:01] Um, I can't see you all when I'm presenting. So, if you want to jump in,

[6:04] if you have any questions, please somebody speak up or raise your hand and

[6:09] I'll be happy to stop. This is a reminder of the project goals

[6:15] overall. You've seen them before, most recently in May when I came to talk to

[6:19] you all. The thing that this part of module 2 emphasizes in particular is the

[6:26] creation of modern regulations tied to infrastructure capacity. So we'll be

[6:32] talking about that tonight. This is a quick timeline. Um we are

[6:38] still in phase three. It's changed a little bit since we talked to you back

[6:42] in May. Um things extend. Sometimes it takes a little bit longer to make sure

[6:48] we get the regulations right, going back and forth with staff, back and forth

[6:52] with you all. And I'll tell you about some other meetings we've had with other

[6:56] departments. Um, and then we'll also be getting feedback from community members

[7:00] because this is posted for general feedback. Tell you about that too.

[7:05] Anyway, we are in phase three, which we anticipate will continue through

[7:09] October, and then the full draft of all of the installments will be available,

[7:14] and we will once again have another round of review and comment and

[7:19] potential changes. So, we're always showing you a draft until the very last

[7:24] time that we bring it to you for adoption. Up until that time, we can

[7:28] discuss changes and revisions, but this is what we think the current standards

[7:33] should be at this time pending further feedback.

[7:39] Last time we talked to you, we talked about off- streetet parking, landscaping

[7:44] and screening, fences and walls, exterior lighting and signs. This time

[7:49] we're going to focus on what is highlighted in yellow and those are the

[7:52] minimum infrastructure standards and also subdivision design.

[7:59] So why are why is is infrastructure important? Why are we talking about

[8:03] this? Why is it in the regulations? The main thing about this is the presence or

[8:08] absence of infrastructure is especially important in rural contexts because

[8:13] whether it is there or not is the prime determinant of what intensity of

[8:18] development can be supported in a given location. So in the more rural areas of

[8:23] the county where you do not have, you know, municipal sewer, water, um, and

[8:29] other municipal services, obviously you don't want dense development. And so

[8:35] that infrastructure is a really important determinant of whether um a a

[8:40] piece of land can support a certain extent of development. The other thing

[8:44] about minimum infrastructure is that planning administers these standards but

[8:48] they do impact other county departments and outside agencies. So we are talking

[8:54] about things that impact engineering such as road standards um public works

[9:02] also dealing with road classifications and standards and then infrastructure

[9:07] also includes water wastewater storm water management and fire. So, those are

[9:13] other agencies that the county staff collaborate with in in making sure that

[9:18] potential developments meet the requirements and they're in this code,

[9:22] but they are not exactly planning standards because they impact other

[9:26] departments. We are hesitant to make extensive changes. And if you're

[9:30] familiar with the standards now, you will understand that we haven't changed

[9:34] a lot of things. We have mainly focused on cleanup, reorganization,

[9:39] making things more accessible, putting them into a logical kind of hierarchy,

[9:45] and just making them look a little better. But we haven't really gone in

[9:49] and changed the substance of the standards too much.

[9:55] There is a table that's in the regulations right now and we have kind

[10:00] of recreated it to I hope be a little more straightforward and accessible.

[10:05] Here is a snapshot of that table. What it is showing is the different

[10:09] infrastructure types that have to be provided for development in each of the

[10:14] zoning districts. It covers uh proximity to fire stations. It covers roads

[10:21] according to different categories and those categories talk about the the road

[10:27] standards. So how wide does a road have to be? How many cars is it intended to

[10:32] serve? Is it paved or is it not paved? Those [clears throat] are the things

[10:35] that these different categories are dealing with. Um then it also talks

[10:40] about storm drainage, wastewater disposal. The other things that didn't

[10:45] really fit on the screen but are part of this table are um proximity to schools

[10:51] and that may or may not be included in the final drafts. It also deals with

[10:57] parks whether there is a need to provide a park parkland or a fee in lie of

[11:03] parkland with a new subdivision. So as you can see we've reorganized and

[11:08] reformatted the information. One change that we did make was the current

[11:13] standards include something that is termed a highly recommended factor. So

[11:20] there are requirements and there are highly recommended factors and then

[11:24] recommended factors. Essentially staff have said that the highly recommended

[11:29] factors are required. So we did away with that. If it's required, it's

[11:34] required. There isn't really a recommendation to it. So you do it or

[11:37] you don't. If you can't do it with your development, there is always the

[11:42] possibility for flexibility that is offered through a waiver request that

[11:46] isn't any different from what you see right now. So that's how this is

[11:51] structured. It covers the same things that the current regulations do with

[11:55] that minor exception about highly recommended factors and the possibility

[12:00] that there may be some other changes. So before we finalized this version of the

[12:07] document, we had some meetings with the people who have some interest in these

[12:12] standards. So public works, engineering, fire department, water, and some other

[12:18] departments. there are likely to be some adjustments

[12:22] on account of their review and some of their comments came back recently enough

[12:27] that they're not reflected in this draft, but I think we'll do some further

[12:30] updates obviously to reflect what they requested be

[12:34] included. Um, one of those things is the possibility for a requirement to connect

[12:41] to water and sewer in a new subdivision when it's within a certain proximity.

[12:47] So, if a boundary line of a proposed subdivision is within 1,000 ft of an

[12:54] existing water or sewer line, there will be a requirement to connect. And that's

[12:59] very common. The the distance proximity varies depending on the context. But the

[13:06] fact that there is that requirement to connect when those services are

[13:09] available is something that we see in in most development codes that we deal

[13:14] with. We may take out the proximity to schools, not because it isn't important,

[13:19] but because there's probably not really a lot of places or areas in the county

[13:26] that are inaccessible to current or potential future schools. So, it's

[13:31] somewhat less important to specify that a new development has to be within five

[13:36] road miles, 10 road miles, whatever the case may be. There are buses, we can get

[13:40] kids there, right? So, it's maybe not necessary to have that in there as a

[13:45] requirement. [clears throat] Um, the other thing that I think you

[13:48] might see is particularly with the road standards

[13:52] right now there's a lot of repetition in them. So, some of the things that apply

[13:57] to category 1 2 3 are the same. You can't have direct access direct access

[14:04] from a residential lot regardless of the zoning district onto a state highway.

[14:10] that's repeated over and over, but I think these could be reorganized a

[14:13] little bit to reduce that repetition and just say it once. If you're in a

[14:17] residential lot, you can't do this instead of saying it over and over. So,

[14:20] we'll see about that. Um, that again, not a substantial change. It's just

[14:25] something that we think about to make this code a little easier to navigate.

[14:33] The other thing I wanted to talk to you about tonight is subdivision design.

[14:36] Here again, we haven't made very substantial changes, but there have been

[14:41] some things that we thought about to make it a little clearer, more

[14:46] straightforward, easier to use. The current regulations, if you are familiar

[14:50] with them, divide subdivision standards over, I think, seven chapters. So,

[14:56] chapter 25 to 31. Um, and things are kind of all mixed together. So the the

[15:03] standards that you have to build to are kind of intermixed with the procedures

[15:08] and we have kind of separated those things apart. So anything that has to do

[15:13] with the design is what is included in this draft. Procedural information you

[15:19] are going to see as Sean mentioned in September and that applies to the entire

[15:24] code. The standards are one section, various chapters, and then anything that

[15:31] you want to know about procedures will be in that one section that you will see

[15:35] next month. Um, again, changes are not extensive. We

[15:41] did take out some information that was in there that was really technical.

[15:44] There was um some things about the design of roads and tangents versus

[15:49] straight stretches. That's not really within the domain of planning. um it is

[15:54] important but it's kind of more technical than zoning regulations

[15:59] typically get into that's covered in road standards, public work standards

[16:03] and engineering rather than planning. So we made some changes like that. The

[16:08] other thing that this does is focuses on connectivity within subdivisions and

[16:15] between them. So, I know that you all have had some instances where adjacent

[16:19] subdivisions are developing and they didn't want to make those road

[16:22] connections that would lead from one development into the other. That is

[16:26] increasingly important for a number of reasons. General connectivity standards,

[16:32] right? Great. But it's also important when you are seeing developments that

[16:36] have only one way in or out. Um, when you have any kind of disaster, whether

[16:43] it's a fire, a flood, a tornado, where a road is blocked, any of those kind of

[16:49] things in in circumstances where there's a single way in and out can kind of

[16:55] increase the destruction, the loss of life if you don't have more than one

[17:03] connection. So, it's important to connect roads just for everyday travel,

[17:07] but also to kind of recognize that emergency services needs to have ways to

[17:13] get in and out of places. Um, so that's kind of connection within development.

[17:19] We have also included a block length standard. So, this basically says that

[17:25] you will have an intersection every so often and not just these really long

[17:29] stretches of road with no breaks in them. Right now it's 1,320

[17:35] ft where you need to have some kind of break in a block. Um it's

[17:41] [clears throat] a quarter mile. It's an easy walking distance. And that also is

[17:46] pretty common in rural um rural contexts. As you get more urban, you see

[17:52] that number go down to 600 and then 250. But for the sort of development you see

[17:59] in the county, I think those quarter mile connections are probably pretty

[18:03] good.

[18:07] So those are that is the substance of the content that we didn't talk to you

[18:13] about last time. That's what's new in the drafts. What is also available is

[18:19] the full draft. So if you want, and we would love it if you do, you can go see

[18:23] the whole thing. So, not just what we talked about tonight or what I talked

[18:28] about so far, um, but also what we talked about the last time. So,

[18:32] landscaping standards, parking requirements, buffering between

[18:38] developments of different intensities, fences and walls, there were some

[18:42] changes there, new standards for exterior lighting, and significant

[18:47] updates to the sign standards. That's what we talked about in May, but all of

[18:51] that is available for you to review and comment on. You can go to either of

[18:55] these two websites. Conveo is is basically designed to allow

[19:02] the public to comment on these kind of documents.

[19:06] It's I think it's fairly intuitive, but I think that depends on the user. If you

[19:11] go to the site, it does require you to register um and then you can leave

[19:17] comments. The reason that it's set up that way is because the county wanted to

[19:23] not have people be able to see one another's comments. And if you just let

[19:28] anybody come to the site and make a comment, everyone can see what everybody

[19:32] else says. So, there is a registration requirement. It's a pretty low bar. Um,

[19:37] it's just tell us your name and your email and then you can go in and make

[19:42] your comments. um on the county's website, you will be able to see a PDF

[19:46] on the of the document. I don't think you're able to leave comments on it from

[19:50] there, but that's probably an easier place to go to if you just want to print

[19:54] a copy and read it that way. We did hear from um somebody that they had trouble

[20:00] when they went to Conveyo, which is the Commentable site, that they had trouble

[20:04] figuring out how to print a copy because they wanted to read it on paper rather

[20:08] than online. So, please take a look at the full draft on either of these

[20:14] locations. It would be especially important to hear from you all as

[20:18] decision makers in the comments whether you think it's going the right

[20:22] direction, if you have any issues with the standards or if you like the

[20:26] changes. Last thing is what will happen after

[20:31] this. I am happy to entertain your comments and questions this evening. You

[20:35] may not have a lot of them before you've had a chance to review it, but anything

[20:39] I can try to answer, I'll be glad to. Um, Sean mentioned module three coming

[20:46] in September. That is the staff, excuse me, staff review procedures for

[20:51] development. The staff the staff review for development review procedures. Um,

[20:57] the last thing will be all of these sections will be put together. you'll be

[21:02] able to see the whole thing start to finish and that will be able will be

[21:06] available in um October. We call it the consolidated draft once again chance for

[21:12] public review. We'll do more public outreach and accept comments. Then we'll

[21:18] get into the adoption as Sean mentioned towards the end of the year. Um I have

[21:22] it listed here as November to January. maybe a little bit subject to change,

[21:27] but that's the general timing of what we're looking at at this point.

[21:32] And that is what I wanted to tell you about this evening. Thanks for

[21:35] listening. Please tell me if you have comments. I'm going to stop sharing this

[21:38] and I'd be happy to answer what I can. >> Thank you. This is Greg Wolf. Uh, do any

[21:45] of the commissioners have any comments or questions for Jenny?

[21:50] » Yeah, this is Greg Connell. I have one com just a comment. I have entered

[21:54] comments in for both module one and module two and conveo and I thought it

[21:59] was pretty intuitive. So convey on the board here wants to put comments in.

[22:03] It's not that difficult. >> I'd like to tell you that Sean Pendley

[22:08] can't wait to answer your questions about how conveo works or respond to

[22:12] your emails. >> And I can't see his face so I can say

[22:17] that with with impunity. >> Certainly. Uh yeah, thanks Jenny. Uh yes

[22:22] uh Craig those are yeah good comment we yeah I appreciate you and I know some of

[22:27] the other advisory committee members have added comments in conveyo and I

[22:32] will acknowledge some of the changes and some of the comments we've received we

[22:36] haven't had a chance to make all updates uh some we have we're working through

[22:40] them same with some of our stakeholders in different departments um like I think

[22:44] Jenny mentioned you know we have some of our departments like public works they

[22:47] had some extensive comments so we're working through those we need to have to

[22:51] have a discussion internally with those departments, but then also as staff how

[22:55] we respond to some of those comments. But we absolutely look through

[22:58] everything. We we're we're um collecting all of these uh comments and kind of um

[23:06] processing through all of them to see what is updated. But yeah, that's that's

[23:09] good to know that you were able to get in and add comments in Cameo. And yeah,

[23:13] we absolutely encourage all of you to review it. if there's something specific

[23:17] they have questions about, check that and add their comments or you can always

[23:22] contact staff directly with any specific comments. And we'll um as Jenny

[23:27] mentioned also, we'll be bringing back before you the consolidated draft, which

[23:31] would be an opportunity again to look at it. We'll do one more full review before

[23:36] [clears throat] we have an actual public hearing. We did hear from some of the

[23:40] residents in our open house meetings. asked if they would have a chance to

[23:44] speak on this and we said absolutely. There will be public hearings and so

[23:48] we'll be posting those on the website when they're scheduled. But yeah, we

[23:51] certainly look forward to any comments whether they be online or in direct

[23:56] contact to staff. We're help happy to answer those either way.

[24:00] » Other questions for Jenny. >> Mr. Chairman, Rod Richardson, either for

[24:05] Jenny or for Sean. Um, I'm not clear on a couple of points. Uh, with reference

[24:11] to sewers versus density, there's a 1,00 foot proximity

[24:18] proposal that if, if I understood it correctly, if your development is within

[24:22] 1,000 foot of a available sanitary sewer, you have to connect to it. Is

[24:26] that correct? >> Um, actually the 10,00 foot requirement

[24:30] I believe is for water. Sewer has a specific requirement. Generally, um the

[24:34] Johnson County wastewater um staff has recommended when there's sanitary sewers

[24:39] within 1,320 feet, which is basically a one quarter mile of a subject proposed

[24:45] development, they would be required to connect. So that's what they would

[24:48] consider to be available in the what they call like the near phase, whatever

[24:53] that is. Um if you're that close, generally you're required to either uh

[24:58] connect with sanitary sewer or come up with another proposal or making uh sewer

[25:04] available in the near future. We have had some developments recently come

[25:08] through where uh the plat was within a close proximity of the sanitary sewer,

[25:14] but it was not feasible to extend the line. So they were required to dedicate

[25:19] required sewer easements to serve it when it was available. So there's

[25:23] usually those requirements, but sewer is a little bit different than water, but

[25:26] it's basically the same concept. If you're within a close proximity to

[25:30] existing infrastructure, you're required to connect. If you're beyond that and

[25:35] it's not feasible for connection, there's other usually um there's other

[25:38] options. You have those other categories to choose from, whether it be septic,

[25:42] let's say for sewer, or you know, if it's water, you might have other sources

[25:46] of water to provide uh the water that would serve the development.

[25:50] » Okay. I think you hit on what I was interested in is if if I have a

[25:54] subdivision that's 900 ft from a sanitary sewer, the requirement would be

[26:00] I would need to connect to that. But if that's on the other side of a piece of

[26:03] land I don't own, how do I get to it? >> Yeah, that's a good question. That's

[26:09] where we we would coordinate with Johnson County Wastewater to see what is

[26:13] feasible, how can be done, timing. There's usually also opportunities for

[26:18] contracts or agreements. they they're able to enter into agreements with uh

[26:23] property owners to provide those extensions and they work with all the

[26:27] property owners affected. Um we would have John County Wastewater weigh in on

[26:31] the details of it, but generally if you're within a close distance that's

[26:35] when what we want to make a applicant know is that hey if you're within a

[26:39] close proximity you're you're going to be required to connect or work out an an

[26:43] arrangement to have a connection in the future. So, just to clarify then, if you

[26:47] do all of that and for some reason you just can't do it, then the guy that's

[26:52] building the subdivision that despite everybody's best efforts, they can't

[26:56] connect could would probably be required then to provide easements and a dry

[27:00] sewer system. >> Correct. That's right. That's exactly

[27:02] what we did with another uh recent development. And and there was a lot of

[27:06] that question about dry sewer. That's another thing that Johnson County

[27:08] Wastewater has some very specific comments on. they don't necessarily want

[27:11] dry sewers because that may also be a prohibitive uh option in the future

[27:17] because that could be a maintenance issue. So there were other provisions

[27:20] for example they had to provide uh for this one particular example they had to

[27:25] dedicate the required easements for sewer and you know be willing they had

[27:30] to sign some type of an affidavit stating you know that they would be

[27:33] willing to participate in this sewer expansion when it was feasible. And

[27:38] usually the provider will have to provide the

[27:42] main. So Johns County Wastewater would actually install in but the developer

[27:46] would be required to make all connections from the the main.

[27:50] » Gotcha. Okay. And then the last part of my question goes to connecting to the

[27:55] next subdivision over uh about goes to the terminated street and how do we

[27:59] connect so that all these things connect up with as Jenny said fire protection

[28:04] that sort of thing. And there was a 1,320

[28:07] feet, if I understood it correctly, of another subdivision. I'm not sure I

[28:13] understand. I just maybe you could clarify exactly how that works because I

[28:17] had kind of the same question of what if you what if there's a piece of land

[28:20] between you and the other subdivision you don't own.

[28:23] » Yeah, >> I J if Jay, do you have thoughts on

[28:27] that? I have some thoughts, but >> I do, but you can go first if you want.

[28:32] Yeah, it so we looked up that Michelle and I were just looking that up I think

[28:36] while while Jenn was doing the presentation. This is very consistent

[28:39] with what we have today. The intent of this requirement is for connectivity

[28:44] with adjacent subdivisions. We would only require an actual connection from

[28:49] another development when you're actually adjacent to an existing development

[28:53] [clears throat] with a street sub. the the three 1,320 foot block length

[28:58] requirement I think is gear getting more at um is preventing long culde-sacs

[29:04] where we want to have street intersections and not just one extensive

[29:08] long 2,000 3,000 foot culde-sac we want to have street intersections set up even

[29:13] if you aren't able to provide a connection to an an adjacent property

[29:16] the point is we want to create street connections or availability for future

[29:22] street connections and not just build super long culde-sacs,

[29:25] » right? >> Is that is that getting at the point,

[29:27] Jenny? >> Yeah, I I the only thing I would have

[29:32] added is that that distance of 1320 is really for the streets within a

[29:37] subdivision. Um just to keep, you know, if you have 50 acres, you you probably

[29:43] could build a street that goes, you know, one end to the other and just

[29:46] have, you know, access to the houses off of it. But it's designed to have some of

[29:50] some of the connectivity within the subdivision to make it easier to get

[29:54] around the connections between in the instance you cited. What if I am

[29:59] building something and there's a vacant parcel in between? You would only be

[30:03] required to kind of do a stubout and then in the future when that vacant

[30:08] parcel develops, that's when that connection would be made. Um so it it's

[30:13] you know the the draft includes specifications for what those stubouts

[30:18] can be. Um and then I think that also is somewhat negotiable. You know people

[30:24] will come to you and say that you know there's something some impassible

[30:29] topographical thing. I can't do it. There's no sense in keeping this stub

[30:33] out because it's always going to be a dead end. That's always something that

[30:36] can be considered with actual land conditions. But um yeah, that's how that

[30:42] would happen. If I am building something, there's a vacant parcel, so

[30:45] there's really nothing to to connect to at this time.

[30:49] » Yeah, that was a good point. And I'll just add to that that um thanks Jenny.

[30:53] That is a good point about the impassible objects. If you've got flood

[30:58] plane, we actually had that in another recent subdivision where

[31:01] some of the zone remembers where there's a flood plane or a creek, you're not

[31:06] that's not feasible to build a street stub. So there in that instance you

[31:10] wouldn't need to provide the connection you could make a culde-sac there and so

[31:13] we work around those natural topographical challenges and yeah

[31:17] there's options but the key is where it is feasible you should provide that

[31:22] connectivity for even for future development

[31:26] » and my I think my last question for now anyone has to do with road capacity um

[31:32] the comment was made that a lot of these regulations are based on development

[31:35] versus capacity and I'm presuming that capacity could be sewers, water or road

[31:41] capacity. Um would this is the sense that a developer whether it's

[31:47] industrial, commercial or whatever is going to build something of any

[31:51] substance they would be required to get a traffic study done to make sure the

[31:56] the arterials or the other roads are connecting up with have reasonable

[32:00] capacity to handle that. I mean that's pretty standard now but

[32:04] » yes it is. And yeah absolutely that that's required and that may be covered

[32:09] in module three I don't recall but specific study requirements absolutely

[32:15] that will continue and yes generally when it's um there's any question about

[32:21] trip you know the num increases in trips number capacity for roads those are

[32:26] going to be required with any new subdivision. Yes, we'll continue to

[32:29] require traffic impact studies and uh and they will have to meet the minimum

[32:34] infrastructure requirements and any other specific requirements for say

[32:40] example for turnlands. There was a recent development we have for a church

[32:43] expansion and they were required to build a turnland on an existing arterial

[32:48] road to meet the demand for the future expansion of this church. That that will

[32:53] continue and that will be required with all applications for new development.

[32:57] Okay, great. Um, and I'll end it with this. Are you getting comment because

[33:01] obviously these long streets, you'll recall, can always be a concern of the

[33:06] fire department, particularly if there's one access in and one access out. So,

[33:10] are you getting comments or will you get comments from the fire service about

[33:14] what's what they're interested in? >> Absolutely. Every application we get for

[33:19] check with the fire comments and any new development would

[33:25] have to meet not only our subdivision regulations but also fire code

[33:28] requirements and we work hand inand with that and we always reference a lot of

[33:32] our regulations. We have that reference to other adopted standards such as fire

[33:35] and building codes. That's that's correct.

[33:38] » Thank you. This may be a procedural question, but does Johns County

[33:43] Wastewater enforce their own connection standards or are they looking to us to

[33:50] layer that on top of an application that goes to our [clears throat]

[33:57] our other board? >> Yeah, that's a good question. So you're

[34:00] asking basically does Johnson County Wastewater enforce

[34:04] » again that connectivity standard or is that a checkbox to you guys as an

[34:10] application comes through? I mean I assume you're connecting to public works

[34:15] fire I mean who all do you routinely connect to?

[34:19] » Yeah. Yeah. For so who all is a part of our review? Yeah. Are we absolutely

[34:22] » typically though is John County wastewater separate? In other words, can

[34:28] can they deny a permit to >> Oh, no. Do they have the authority to

[34:33] review? No, I don't think they have an uh review authority for the application,

[34:37] but we absolutely do include wastewater water one, all the water districts for

[34:42] any new applications. We send out all these proposed applications, we ask for

[34:46] their comments. Absolutely. Then it we work hand inand so all the different

[34:51] utility providers, we absolutely work with them to see, hey, what do you want?

[34:56] Does JCW have we'll ask specifically, do you have comments on this? And we

[34:59] include it in our review. And then they would request as part of that approval

[35:05] that we would include a stipulation when it's needed. I don't know if they work

[35:09] much directly with individual property owners except for maybe like building

[35:12] permits. They might have to work independently on individual. I I would

[35:16] assume if like wastewater or water one were making them connect and there were

[35:22] easements needed between a development and access, those

[35:28] entities could exercise their condemnation power to get those

[35:32] easements if they're going to require them.

[35:34] » Absolutely. They could work independently in that respect for

[35:37] acquisition or rideway uria easements. They they absolutely do make, you know,

[35:41] they they coordinate all the time with individual property owners on anything,

[35:44] whether they're doing an a sewer main extension or if they anticipate because

[35:49] of a contract that they're working out with one owner, they need to talk the

[35:53] other. They they do have have that ability and and work all of the time

[35:56] with individual owner. I don't know what their authority is though in terms of

[36:00] like subdivision review. They just they just provide us the comments and we

[36:03] include their stipulations for whatever they want.

[36:05] » Okay. >> Yeah. So ultimately that permitting is

[36:08] through county >> not separately through a separate

[36:13] permitting process a developer would have to go to

[36:16] » right >> for water one or for

[36:19] » only if they're like petitioning I think like when they're petitioning for like a

[36:23] sewer main extension they do a separate petition process or when when they

[36:26] enlarge their sewer uh district they do that but yes when when we're talking

[36:32] about subdivision regulations for new subdivisions

[36:36] the county and and board of county commission has the ultimate authority to

[36:39] approve it, but we incorporate any of their recommended stipulations as part

[36:43] of that approval. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.

[36:46] » This is great. Kyle Tim, just to clarify, um, wastewater does have their

[36:51] own permits to do things separate from a building,

[36:55] » right? But they're not but they're not imposing these kind of mandates

[37:01] » thousand feet away. In other words, if you come within 1320 feet of my line,

[37:08] you have to connect. Is that >> Yeah, we it we like I said, we work hand

[37:12] in hand. So, they would send us a comment. So, as far as the stipulation

[37:16] goes on a plat, it's included, but you're right. They then before they

[37:19] actually install the line, there's a permit needed for any private lines on

[37:25] uh you know, the private property or those those uh what do they call them?

[37:28] Like the the service lines or whatever extending. There is a separate permit

[37:32] for that. That's correct. But but the >> and and water one would have its own and

[37:38] seven and everybody else. Right. >> Jeff Jeff Huff. Um [clears throat]

[37:43] » first of all really appreciate all the work that goes into the clarity and you

[37:47] know conciseness easy to understand um practical side of it. I worked at FedEx

[37:53] for about 17 years and having arterial and being able to get in, get out, get

[37:59] to different parts of the subdivision, I think that's key. So, I appreciate that

[38:03] aspect on that side. One things that not necessarily here, but I want to continue

[38:09] to to bring it up is that, you know, I've heard from different builders and

[38:13] um developers and that that final connection to, you know, public

[38:20] utilities. I don't know if we've adding it in or if

[38:24] it's appropriate, but just that accountability because if we want to

[38:28] keep the housing affordable, that connection has to be quick. Sometimes

[38:33] they are waiting days, weeks, months for that final

[38:38] and it's I feel pretty strongly that that there should

[38:44] be accountability from the you know ever or whatever it is that that needs to be

[38:53] in an efficient scenario and and currently it just simply is is not or I

[38:58] don't think there's any accountability. I I don't know if we can or should or

[39:03] should not, but feel like there should be some kind of accountability there

[39:07] that that that is done as efficiently as possible for the builders, contractors,

[39:13] but also the people that are, you know, eventually going to be paying that whole

[39:17] cost because it gets passed to the consumer. It the builder's not eating

[39:20] it. >> Yes, Sean Penley. Um they you know for

[39:26] these uh other permits it is good point to mention there are other permitting

[39:30] requirements. So we go through our review and this these cases go to the

[39:33] zoning board and the board county commission subdivision and the plat

[39:36] approval then there's another le level of review for the individual utility

[39:40] providers to do their permitting and just as we would would with with say

[39:43] land disturbance and all the other and building permits. Unfortunately they are

[39:47] on a different track and they don't they don't follow our uh procedures for

[39:52] zoning and subdivision regulations. That's the one part. Then there's a

[39:55] whole other level of review for the other things. Building permits, sewer

[39:59] permits, water permits. Yeah. And it's unfortunately we don't have any control

[40:02] over most of those. We do with building permit review, I can tell you. And

[40:06] that's a something we're also going through this fall with a building code

[40:10] update, updating the [clears throat] international uh building code. That's

[40:14] um they're streamlining things. Definitely there there are new

[40:17] requirements for shot clock requirements for certain types of you know single

[40:21] family residential permits and things that can be addressed in that way but

[40:24] unfortunately we we have no jurisdiction over the different utility providers.

[40:30] » Any other questions for Jenny or staff

[40:36] » hearing? None. We'll move on to director's report. Jay is at the budget

[40:41] meeting. So John, will you be giving that?

[40:44] » Yes. Uh thank you commissioners. I uh yeah as far as really the director's

[40:49] report, the only item I had to mention was the if you recall the comprehensive

[40:52] plan annual review we had at the meeting in July and um you recommended approval

[40:58] of that with basically finding uh that the comprehensive plan is still uh

[41:04] current and and in um in in action. We do need updates and we identified some

[41:10] of those if you recall for future updates to the rural comprehensive plan

[41:15] and we uh will be working on those in 2027. We do have a item on the uh board

[41:22] of county commissioners agenda for September 10th and that really is just a

[41:27] manager's report with the finding that here are all the items as we identified

[41:31] as staff that need to be updated. planning commission has reviewed

[41:34] [clears throat] this and they recommended that and those items u I

[41:38] believe were mostly centered on our policy area uh you know the

[41:43] comprehensive plan our future uh land use policy areas we recognize we need to

[41:47] update that uh because of the continued growth and development in the county

[41:51] specifically the cities and that affects our urban fringe areas and rural areas.

[41:56] So we will be updating that and we anticipate meetings with those uh cities

[42:01] uh who have also undergone their similar comprehensive plan updates. So that's

[42:06] really the only item for update and as we mentioned at the next meeting we'll

[42:10] have the update hopefully ready for module three. Uh but certainly happy to

[42:15] answer any other questions.

[42:19] » Thank you. Uh any other old or new business we need to discuss tonight?

[42:24] Uh, our next meeting is September 22nd. I assume we'll be back in our normal

[42:29] space. >> Yes, that is correct. We'll be back

[42:31] upstairs in the third floor board. >> Excellent. Um, hearing no other

[42:37] business, we are adjourned. Have a good evening, everyone.

Planning Commission 08.25.26

Transcript