Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers seek variance for concrete cross section at Chisholm Oaks; county engineers and commissioners ask for compromise
Summary
Developer representatives asked the court for a variance to roadway cross section standards for Chisholm Oaks subdivision; county engineers and commissioners discussed concrete versus flexible base designs and agreed to coordinate for a compromise before the next meeting.
Representatives for the Chisholm Oaks subdivision asked Johnson County commissioners for a variance from the county’s standard roadway cross section and presented a design that uses a different stabilized subgrade and a concrete surface.
Miss Vanderlyn, speaking for Public Works, described the county requirement as a paved surface over an 8‑inch flex base with 8 inches of lime‑stabilized subgrade. The developer proposed a section with 6 inches of paved surface and 6 inches of lime stabilization. The developer's engineer said soil analysis indicated an alternative section suitable for the site and said their proposal would meet or exceed expected structural performance for that location.
County engineers raised concerns about subgrade drainage and long‑term maintenance. One county engineer noted the county’s flex‑base section provides a drainage layer and generally outperforms concrete placed directly on a stabilized subgrade in certain soils. The developer's representative said portions of the site had been a sand pit and later had orange‑red clay, and proposed cement stabilization as a potential compromise.
Commissioners said the county frequently receives requests from developers for alternate sections and that acceptance is often tied to whether roads will be turned over to county maintenance. One commissioner said that if the county assumes maintenance in the future, the road should be built to a standard the county can maintain and repair.
Outcome: The court took no action on May 12 and asked county staff, the county engineer and the developer to meet and propose a mutually acceptable cross section and materials specification; the item was expected to return to a future court docket.
