Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Johnson County commission adopts findings backing denial of P-1-25 preliminary plat, cites traffic hazard
Summary
The Johnson County Plan Commission adopted written findings supporting its prior denial of the P-1-25 preliminary commercial plat for East 300 Road, adding a specific item that the proposal "would increase traffic hazards on the nearby roads." The motion passed unanimously on a roll-call vote.
Johnson County Plan Commission members voted Nov. 17 to adopt written findings of fact that support their earlier denial of the P-1-25 preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision near East 300 Road.
Planning staff Michelle told the commission the findings were prepared after the board's prior vote to deny the preliminary plat and that the planning commission attorney had drafted an amendment to item 3 to reflect traffic concerns. "The proposed preliminary plat ... is not consistent with the applicable standards and requirements of the subdivision control ordinance and would increase traffic hazards on the nearby roads," the attorney read as the added language.
Commissioners had previously expressed concerns about traffic; the attorney said a traffic study exists but cautioned that audience comments and commissioners' remarks are also part of the record and that the commission must weigh that evidence. The attorney added that the study was not read aloud and that its conclusions were not automatically dispositive.
After brief remarks and no further discussion on the findings, Commissioner Stoney Van moved to accept the findings of fact as drafted; Charlie Canary seconded. The commission then conducted a roll-call vote. The recorded votes were Shaylee, Charlie Canary, Douglas Gray, Steve Hickman, Jonathan Myers, Robert Page and Stoney Van — all voting yes — and the motion carried.
The written findings complete the commission's record supporting its denial of the preliminary plat. The attorney and staff noted the inclusion of the traffic-hazard language reflects prior on-the-record comments and the commission's judgment about consistency with the subdivision control ordinance. The commission did not read the full traffic study into the record during the meeting.
Next procedural steps were not specified in the meeting transcript; the attorney noted that the denial and the written findings could be subject to appeal under the applicable statute.
