[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.