[0:00] All
[0:23] right,
everybody ready?
[0:29] All right, let's uh get this show
started.
[0:34] Um, first of all, it's called order and
then roll call, please.
[0:42] » Patrick Kizac
>> here.
[0:44] » Chelsea Young
>> here.
[0:47] » Tony Love
absent. Doug Thomas
[0:51] » here.
>> Michelle Beesky
[0:54] » here.
[0:59] All right. And if everybody stand for
the pledge of allegiance
[1:08] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[1:13] stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:19] for all.
[1:25] All right.
So, thanks for everybody for showing up
[1:29] here this evening. Um,
there any comments that's not on the
[1:34] agenda this evening that somebody wants
to speak to?
[1:41] All right, close that out.
All right, let's move to the approval of
[1:47] the minutes from last meeting on August
3rd, 2026.
[1:51] Everybody has a copy of that, I would
assume.
[1:54] Please look it over if you have any
questions or disagreements or
[2:10] » I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes from last meeting. Second.
[2:16] » All in favor?
[2:21] All right.
[2:26] All right. First piece of business
tonight
[2:30] is one we're all familiar with,
right, Miguel?
[2:35] » Yes.
[2:41] » All right. this uh case number 26-001
[2:49] uh concerning 520 Milton Street.
Continue public hearing, consider
[2:52] testimony, and make a recommendation to
the city council on a request to amend
[2:56] the zoning ordinance and zoning map of
the city of Josephine, each being part
[3:00] of a code of ordinance
from LR or from local retail to plan
[3:06] development with a base zoning of local
retail on two parcels of land totaling
[3:10] approximately 1.4 42 acres located 520
Milton Street.
[3:18] » Okay. Um if you will call the time to
open the public hearing
[3:24] is
>> 602
[3:28] and um we can either have people speak
if anybody wants to speak for against
[3:33] the item beforehand.
[3:37] Anybody have any questions, comments?
[3:41] Okay. So, um I'll I'll introduce the
item um for those who are watching. Um
[3:48] this is a planned development for a uh
singlestory strip mall, 14,880
[3:55] ft² building at 520 Milton Street. Um we
have been working with the applicant on
[4:02] this project for over a year now. That
process has included a a straight
[4:06] reszoning to to local retail and now
this plan development application that's
[4:12] been uh through several design
iterations for the last uh 5 months now
[4:19] um including just tableabling due to
concerns and and the time it takes to
[4:24] address these concerns. Um if you will
go through the uh
[4:32] if we can go to the landscaping exhibit
I think that shows the the best picture.
[4:38] Um
that will be exhibit D. So uh exhibit D
[4:44] shows probably the most complete
picture. As you can see, the the layout
[4:50] of the site remains practically
unchanged from last time with the
[4:55] exception of the new emergency access
fire lane um onto FM6.
[5:02] After extensive lobbing efforts by the
applicant, Texot has agreed in principle
[5:06] and I think they have a permit already
approved to construct this emergency
[5:12] entry. This entry will be gated only to
be used by first responders in the case
[5:18] of an emergency. It will not allow for
general circulation. So, the general
[5:23] population will use the Milton Street as
an driveway as their only way to get in
[5:29] and out. Um
after this um change in their design,
[5:35] our our fire chief is um comfortable
with and and um reviewed the new layout
[5:42] and and is fine, you know, and
recommends approval.
[5:46] Um we um made some changes to the
exhibit B which is the plan development
[5:52] standards to address some items that had
not been previously addressed
[5:59] namely the limit on hours of operation
if there's any outdoor
[6:04] uh dining or any outdoor uh business
activity. and also um adding some uh
[6:13] noise noise um prohibitions, right? So,
no outdoor speakers after, you know, a
[6:19] certain time. And this is to protect the
areas around.
[6:24] Um I think that's really it. I mean,
I've explained this project probably
[6:28] like five or six times to this
commission. So, um if you have any
[6:32] questions on the layout, the applicant
is here, the property owner, developer,
[6:38] and they also have a their consulting uh
design team here to answer questions you
[6:44] may have from for them.
[6:56] » Long.
Yes.
[7:01] » Yeah.
[7:12] » I'm softspoken.
So, what did you guys think about the
[7:16] letter that was included as an exhibit
here?
[7:21] » Some of the concerns
maybe we can discuss
[7:24] » about the traffic. Yeah, I think the
traffic and I mean it's clear that that
[7:28] is going to be the only or the main way
to get in and out of is going to be on
[7:34] Milton Street. The other one's just for
emergency.
[7:37] » Yep.
>> Ingress egress.
[7:39] » So Mike I the entryway shouldn't bother
those homes too much cuz
[7:45] » they're behind the building off if
you're looking at the building off to
[7:49] the to the left.
>> Gotcha. Um
[7:51] » so it's not this lot too. What what is
right there next door in this lot? there
[7:55] is to to the west. Um, so to the left of
the image you're looking at is a city
[8:00] water tower.
>> To the right is a single family home. I
[8:04] I believe the applicant has been in
constant contact with that property
[8:08] owner regarding this project. Um, so I
know they've been out there surveying.
[8:12] They've been looking at the fencing
situation, how that's going to be
[8:15] addressed. I do want to clarify that one
of the requests from this applicant is
[8:22] to not have a fence along the back side
of the property facing the railroad
[8:27] tracks. Now, I concurred with that
request because we want to prevent that
[8:31] canyon feeling and it's it's a public
safety issue as well. If there is a
[8:36] trail there, which there is a plan to
have a regional rail uh trail going
[8:40] through that back rideway, we want to
provide ways for people to get in and
[8:46] out. Um I I worked in in Denton County
along the Katy the the Denton Katy Trail
[8:52] and we've had issues um in the Corinth
area and Lake Dallas, particularly in
[8:57] the Lake Dallas area with those
situations where you have that canyon
[9:00] effect, no way in or out. So that is the
reason why I recommend approval of that
[9:06] departure for not having a fence. Now
you're you're you as a commission can
[9:11] ask for that. I wouldn't recommend it.
Uh and then to to address the question
[9:17] about traffic. So yes, the traffic in
and out will be concentrated along
[9:22] Milton. This is twofold. Number one is
that when FM6 is widened, they will have
[9:28] medians now. So they won't the it'll be
the left turns will be reduced all over
[9:34] that throughout the length of FM6. So
you know even if they have that open to
[9:40] the public the emergency access is just
not going to work. Uh secondly is we
[9:45] want to reduce the number of
intersections. Anytime you create a
[9:48] four-way intersection be it a driveway
or a regular intersection you have 32
[9:53] points of conflict potential points for
a collision. So you want to reduce that
[9:59] and that was the purpose of other
departures of reducing driveways as a
[10:03] whole. So we have taken all of those
things into consideration throughout
[10:09] this process. Um and and the resident
has raised concerns. We've addressed
[10:15] lighting. This was even before the
resident brought in these concerns. We
[10:20] looked at lighting. Uh we've looked at
you know the layout. uh trying to shift
[10:25] the building away from the homes as as
far as possible because their previous
[10:30] iteration actually had this building
backed up right to the house on Milton.
[10:36] So the the applicants design team has
worked to try to minimize the conflicts
[10:42] in in collaboration with us.
>> Thank you. Mhm.
[10:50] » Uh speaking of uh widening six, whether
it goes two or six or four or six lanes.
[10:56] » So the
>> is that going to cut into that property?
[11:00] » Not to my knowledge, the my
understanding and the applicant can
[11:04] address that question, but my
understanding is that this project has
[11:07] been designed
um with uh consideration of potential
[11:13] right-of-way acquisition at a later
point. The way text works is they'll
[11:18] acquire all of the rightway for an
ultimate buildout for up to six lanes,
[11:23] but they don't build the six lanes right
away. They'll build four
[11:28] um with a wide median. And then to build
the the third lane on each direction,
[11:34] they cut into the median. So that's been
their mo lately. So
[11:38] » they when they build four, they go very
wide so that you know exactly where the
[11:42] ultimate buildout is going to be. And I
I think you could maybe presuppose that
[11:47] the uh property was a rectangle before
and uh Textook
[11:53] over that corner uh has already um uh
annexed or dedicated that as a right
[12:01] away. It looks like on the on the map
here. I I I have a comment about the
[12:06] letter.
I don't know the history about the
[12:10] property that we're reviewing here, but
uh the base zoning uh was already local
[12:16] retail and I think a lot of the concerns
um this is not the appropriate time to
[12:22] address them. They they they should have
been addressed and um potentially uh
[12:29] you know heard out when this was changed
to a retail lot. And it does look like a
[12:35] lot of things have been done to
accommodate uh the the adjacent
[12:39] residential. A lot of times we would be
putting a buffer in or something like
[12:44] that. And again, the building is offset
about as far as it looks like they can
[12:48] get it from that local from that
adjacent residential property.
[12:52] » I agree with that. I think they have we
have done a lot to try to accommodate
[12:56] and I I do think normally you would have
a buffer and I did expect to see that
[13:01] but after hearing your explanation I
think it is a lot safer to not have a
[13:06] trail enclosed for the width
>> right and you know we had discussed
[13:11] widening that buffer for landscaping so
there's going to be a a row of shrubs
[13:16] that will grow to create a visual
barrier and you know it's not just
[13:20] having a fence because there there will
be an opening
[13:23] so that eventually people can walk off
the trail into whatever businesses come
[13:28] here. So there there is an there is an
opportunity here where they will build a
[13:33] sidewalk connection at the property line
so that if there's a trail you can just
[13:36] walk off that trail into whatever
businesses go go here and um and and our
[13:43] commissioner Chapel is correct. This was
zoned for a commercial purpose already
[13:48] back in our local retail purpose back in
January. Um I will um clarify just for
[13:55] context that this resident moved in I
believe in April or May. So um the the
[14:02] property owner moved in after that
change had happened. But as it is now as
[14:09] it was then letters went out to all
property owners. Nobody spoke for or
[14:14] against it at that time.
[14:18] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think to to be that close to
[14:24] six, which is nearly a thorough affair
already. And and to have a um um
[14:33] expectation of a low amount of traffic
on your property, I think that kind of
[14:37] goes above and beyond what someone
reasonably might expect who would have
[14:41] purchased that property on a re next to
a retail lot right there.
[14:49] Miguel, what did you say about the patio
situation there?
[14:52] » So, if there were to be any patios on
this property
[14:57] there, the hours of operation would be
limited and then the sound would be, let
[15:02] me find the exact wording of this.
>> 10 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This is you can't
[15:06] there's no no outdoor activity.
>> Correct.
[15:08] » 10 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
>> Correct.
[15:12] » So, what's uh from the back of the
building to their to the property line?
[15:16] How far is that?
>> The width of the railroad property is
[15:21] 100 ft. So it's 100 some give or take.
>> I mean well the back of the I mean the
[15:28] this property owner can't go into the
railroad property. So what's the
[15:31] distance from the back of this building
that's want to be built to railroad
[15:35] property?
>> The back of this building to a railroad
[15:38] property about 10 ft. So,
[15:44] » yeah, there's no
>> Yeah,
[15:45] » I don't think a patio could fit in
there.
[15:48] » Well, the patios could be for on the
corners and the applicant design team
[15:52] could address that possibility. Um, I I
rather let them answer. Sunny, would you
[15:58] mind?
>> There's a there's a 100 ft buffer
[16:02] between this property and the neighbor
that sent the letter.
[16:06] » Yes.
>> Is that correct?
[16:07] » 100 foot plus.
>> Yeah.
[16:10] And you know I
that right ofway could become an active
[16:18] rail line at some point in the future.
We've been told to design as if there
[16:24] will be one there because the the rail
district that owns it is actively
[16:30] looking to develop redevelop that again
as an active freight rail line.
[16:36] So that's something that I also have to
consider when designing these or helping
[16:43] developers go through the process.
[16:49] » My name is I'm the manager here on this
resale
[16:53] street to address the uh patio
the sides of the building. Um that's
[17:01] just the sidewalk
from the building separating
[17:06] » separating the uh the parking spaces
along with the uh the building so we
[17:11] have a good you know safety distance for
like residents to walk the sidewalk and
[17:16] whatnot. So the sides are not a patio.
The patio spaces if there were to be and
[17:21] that's going to be totally up to the
future uses of the you know like let's
[17:25] say we have a retail restaurant user
right? If you guys can see that angled
[17:28] curve right besides each side of the
building um along the uh the parking
[17:34] spaces on the corners, that can be
potentially um a gated patio. And that's
[17:39] again if a future tenant were to come in
and want that corner space and want to
[17:46] um take advantage of that space there to
build out a patio. I mean, I think
[17:50] that's very great for the uh the
community itself. you know, you get like
[17:54] a fine dining in restaurant experience
indoor and out. And um I know that we
[18:00] did address some of the uh the comments
for the residents as far as the noise
[18:05] and um our team, the development team
and everyone like that along with sides
[18:09] things are okay with operating and you
know we'll let the future users know
[18:15] that um you cannot use or utilize the
outdoor patio at past 1000 p.m. Um, as
[18:21] far as speakers outdoors, typically
that's like more in the high-end
[18:26] restaurant users, you know, you know, if
you guys ever gone out to like Legacy
[18:30] West or Grandcape and all that stuff,
like you obviously have like the TVs,
[18:33] the bars, the loudspeakers outdoors. Um,
but again, that's more of the high-end
[18:39] users for restaurant space. But if there
were to be someone that wants to come in
[18:42] and at least put some speakers outdoors
in that patio's um area in that corner
[18:46] of the building, um, we would also let
them know that, hey, there is a um, PD
[18:52] in place that past 1000 p.m. that in
favor of the residents and the community
[18:57] that, you know, we're not going to be
loud here and whatnot. So, we would be
[19:01] totally okay with not having um future
tenant users operate speakers and the
[19:07] patio space past 10 p.m.
[19:12] And again, we don't know who's going to
be there as of now. I mean, it may be a
[19:16] cat a coffee shop that wants to use that
patio space. Typically, coffee shops are
[19:21] open till what? 7 8:00 p.m. And
typically where I always see them, open
[19:25] till. But again, it just goes down to
who's going to be utilizing that space.
[19:31] And even if they do take that space,
it's totally up to the ten if they want
[19:35] to build out a patio or not.
[19:46] Any other comments?
My comment might be as far as the noise
[19:52] control is um I imagine that the the
property manager here will have that
[19:57] relevant information in the lease
agreements with the tenants, but I don't
[20:00] know that the teeth that the what type
of teeth the city has to enforce things
[20:06] like that and you know what what is
considered uh you know what might be
[20:11] considered a noise violation and that
that might be something that the
[20:15] resident you know might um have some
solace in that you you know, how how
[20:19] will we do we have a plan to defend an
ordinance like this telling them that
[20:24] they have to be quiet at night?
>> So, to clarify, we we wrote actually a
[20:28] full prohibition on outdoor sound like
so so amplified sound. So, we we did a
[20:34] full prohibition on speakers outdoors at
all times.
[20:39] You can make the change to that if you
want to grant the applicant flexibility.
[20:45] You can do that. The way I wrote this is
to be amplified sound shall be
[20:50] prohibited at all times. Now to address
a question about hours of let's for
[20:54] example say hours of operation. This
becomes part of your zoning ordinance.
[20:59] So our zoning ordinance contains pro
provisions on violations. There's fines.
[21:03] There's you know you know
>> someone could call the PD and they could
[21:08] respond and tell them to shut it down.
>> The police department would be the the
[21:11] enforcement arm for for this ordinance.
>> Okay.
[21:16] And just to clarify with staff as well,
this is for the outdoor patio to be used
[21:22] until 1000 p.m. Again, when it comes to
a restaurant user, again, a lot of
[21:26] restaurants do shut down by 10:00 p.m.
Weekends, they might be open till 11:00,
[21:30] but again, that's that's the, you know,
the users hours of operation if they
[21:35] want to go until 10:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m.
I don't see anyone being open till
[21:40] midnight, 1 or 2 a.m. But again, again,
that outdoor reasoning for the noise and
[21:46] stuff like that for everyone and all the
residents around in that area, we're
[21:49] totally on board with the city staff to
uh limit those hours for the tenants and
[21:54] they will be in the leases as well when
we draft leases with future tenants.
[21:58] » Okay.
[22:03] that to his point and kind of to the
larger broader discussion here, I don't
[22:08] see any language here that might
prohibit a nightclub coming in there and
[22:12] staying open till 2:00 in the morning
indoors.
[22:15] the
uses um for this ordinance refer to the
[22:22] » coffee shop staying open till
>> they they um
[22:26] » excuse me
>> for that type of use we refer back to
[22:31] our use chart in the base ordinance. So
it's it's
[22:34] » the local retail zoning ordinance.
>> Yeah. Chapter 22 or of the or section 22
[22:39] of our zoning ordinance has a use chart
and it lists all the uses that that can
[22:44] occur. Nightclubs
like which is basically a bar are not an
[22:50] allowed use in the city right now
period. They're not defined as a use. So
[22:53] they're not allowed as a use. Um we
added the a clarified definition of a
[22:59] restaurant that can serve alcohol or
not. they have the option into this
[23:03] ordinance specifically for this building
only. But that will be addressed at a
[23:08] later time for the rest of the city. But
a nightclub is not an authorized use for
[23:15] this um ordinance.
>> I'm not against nightclubs. I made it
[23:19] through college working at nightclubs at
night. So,
[23:22] » but but you know,
>> maybe not right there on Milton Street,
[23:25] » but the
>> the end goal on as far as our end as
[23:29] well to address that comment is to make
this retail shopping center as most
[23:34] friendly possible along with being a
family oriented place. Um, again,
[23:38] there's a lot of demand for retail here
and that's not just food. That can be
[23:43] doughnut shops, cafe shops, dentistries,
massage therapists, like any there's
[23:48] hundreds of, you know, retail uses out
there that we can use here in the city
[23:52] of Josephine. So, our goal is to address
that. And I assure you, we don't want
[23:58] the loud noise and that type of crowd
coming here late at night. So, we're
[24:04] going to be very um picky ourselves with
what type of uh tenant mix we have here
[24:09] for the 14,000 ft.
[24:14] Do we have to close?
>> Yes. If if if uh well, we allowed this
[24:21] to in case the somebody showed up that
wanted to speak. Um the chairman needs
[24:27] to ask. Perfect.
>> Um,
[24:31] » if the commission is done with questions
for staff or the applicant, um, if the
[24:35] chairman will ask if there's anybody
from the public that wants to speak for
[24:39] or against this item, you have to
formally say that. And then if not, you
[24:44] can close the public hearing and note
the time, please.
[24:50] » Any other comments?
[24:54] » Thank you.
[24:58] All right, we'll uh close the public
hearing
[25:03] and
[25:06] » Jesus Christ.
>> 6:24
[25:11] and uh take a vote on this.
All in favor?
[25:19] » Yeah.
>> Make a motion, somebody please.
[25:23] » Yeah, a motion approved.
[25:28] We can't hear you.
>> And yeah,
[25:31] » I make a motion to approve the zoning uh
26-001502
[25:38] Milton Street.
[25:42] » I second.
>> All in favor?
[25:49] » All right, motion passes.
[25:56] tight.
>> All right.
[26:06] » All right.
[26:17] » Yeah.
[26:21] » All right. Uh, next item,
[26:28] case numbersw SW-26-002.
[26:34] City counts on a request for a
subdivision waiver on section 3.9.B
[26:40] wastewater service requirements and
section 1.114.
[26:46] MM minor plat utility service
requirements of the subdivision
[26:49] ordinance in conjunction with a proposed
minor plat for a 347 acre prop property
[26:55] generally located at the southwest
corner of FM6
[26:59] and county road 637.
[27:03] » All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, for the record, Miguel Clan,
[27:07] city planner, uh if you will open the
public hearing and call the time and
[27:12] then I'll introduce the item.
Open the public hearing
[27:18] 626.
[27:21] » All right. Um
[27:25] this is a um sub it's an un an orthodox
item. Uh we received a minor plat
[27:32] application for this very small and very
very oddly shaped lot at the southwest
[27:38] corner of Cany Road 637 and FM6 which is
before the curve on the very
[27:44] southwestern side of the city. This
property is actually determined to be in
[27:48] the ETJ.
Uh
[27:52] during the review process we have to
verify the availability of utilities. Uh
[27:58] there are no utilities near this site
because it's very small. The county
[28:04] would not approve a a septic facility.
Uh the intended purpose of this lot is
[28:10] to establish a uh a potentially a
communications tower like a cell tower.
[28:18] Um
and they're here because that use
[28:23] wouldn't really require you know sewer
service. So they are asking for a waiver
[28:29] to
uh be allowed to not be required to
[28:34] connect to the city sewer system. Um if
at any time they want to redevelop the
[28:40] site, they'll have to either buy more
land or connect to city water
[28:46] or and sewer later for a purpose that
would require that. Given that the
[28:52] intended purpose is not is not something
that requires services, we recommend
[28:57] approval.
if you have any questions. Um,
[29:06] » so to cl to clarify 347 acres is not
even a half an acre, right?
[29:12] » Correct.
>> And they're wanting to put a septic
[29:16] system on it.
>> They cannot
[29:18] » they can't
>> they cannot. So the county I believe
[29:22] their minimum property size is 1 acre.
So basically what's happening here is
[29:28] county won't let them cannot let them do
septic because it's small. Our
[29:32] regulations require they either be
connected to the city sewer system or
[29:37] have septic.
They cannot meet any of those two
[29:41] requirements. So they're being suscing
[29:50] the sewers.
>> Yeah. So, so requiring a sewer service
[29:54] could potentially render this lot
undevelopable.
[29:58] That's the purpose of the waiver.
[30:05] » As long as there's restrictions on you
not being able to build an occupiable
[30:11] structure on it. So
>> that would
[30:13] » Colin County Colin County would issue
the building permit for this property
[30:19] and they're the ones who would make all
those requirements. So you cannot
[30:24] condition this to oh you can't build any
like you're allowing them to plat this
[30:29] property
under this configuration without the
[30:34] need to have a sewer connection. If at
any point they want to build something
[30:38] on here that does require sewer service,
Colin County will be the one making the
[30:44] requirement.
[30:49] » I make a motion to approve.
[30:56] » Yeah. So the ETJ this is in the ETJ. So
there's no land use,
[31:02] » you know, regulations from the city that
apply. So, anything could be built here.
[31:07] » And the reason I bring that up is
because I remember a few years ago there
[31:11] was a request somebody who's going to
build 68 homes on that corner which now
[31:16] they're building apartments.
>> Mhm.
[31:18] » And we there was a between us and Nevada
we Nevada took the water section of
[31:25] that. So I don't know why they were
coming to us when Nevada
[31:30] 3 or 4 years ago we gave them the
>> So the place where the apartments are
[31:35] going in they used to be in our ETJ as
well but they withdrew from the ETJ
[31:39] » is is that the part you're talking about
>> but that land from the apartments to the
[31:44] to the six. So the reason they are
coming to us is because the
[31:50] » a very small part of this property falls
within our sewer service area,
[31:55] » the the CCN. So they're coming to us.
They're way too far. We cannot serve
[32:01] them. The reason they're here is because
to be able to approve this plot and
[32:05] record it, there has to be a certific
certification
[32:10] that sewer is available to the site. We
can't do that. No, I understand that
[32:15] really where it is.
>> Um, so this little lot here, but
[32:20] everything to the
>> south
[32:22] » south of that is Nevada.
>> Part of it.
[32:25] » Part of it there there there's always
changes in their CCN boundaries
[32:31] » and this happened before my time. You
may
[32:33] » not not all areas are are in a CCN. Some
some areas there's not a CCN assigned to
[32:39] areas,
>> right? So they're free to
[32:41] » Well, like I said, I just remember this
>> that plot of land,
[32:46] » not just that little part, but all of it
from six to the apartments was proposed
[32:51] to put houses there. And we said Nevada
could handle the water and they wanted
[32:55] to. So
[33:06] » that's
all right. I guess
[33:10] » is Nevada able to handle the water for
this lot? It's just impossible on this
[33:16] tiny space is what I'm hearing.
>> Yeah, I mean the the stated purpose now
[33:22] you're not approving this, right? But
the stated purpose from the developer is
[33:26] to potentially build a cell phone tower
here.
[33:28] » And they don't need sewer for that.
>> They really don't need sewer. I mean,
[33:31] that's that's the whole purpose behind
this.
[33:35] » The applicant is online just he can't
speak, but he can't hear you either.
[33:45] » I move to recommend approval of
>> Can I do it yet? No.
[33:49] » No.
hearing if you will close the public
[33:52] hearing and note the time.
>> So, a few more questions for me.
[33:58] » Be a pain. So, you said Colin County
eventually has has to approve this,
[34:04] right?
>> The building permit would go through
[34:07] Colin County.
>> Okay. And I would assume if they're
[34:10] going to do a cell tower, they'd have
FCC approval also, wouldn't they?
[34:14] » Correct.
But way out of our jurisdictions.
[34:18] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. All right. So, we're Yeah, we're
[34:22] not talking anytime soon.
>> All right. Uh, any other comments?
[34:29] » I I think the general look at this is
that the concern for the sewage is the
[34:34] life safety of the occupants to make
sure that they've got sanitary
[34:37] facilities and conditions and as long as
you know Colin County is not going to
[34:41] give them a occupiable building permit
until those conditions are met. So I
[34:45] don't see this uh you know impacting
anyone's well-being and I think it's it
[34:51] it seems on the level of a request.
>> Yeah. I guess my basic thing is that few
[34:56] years ago we Nevada was going to handle
all the water for that area and now it
[35:00] looks like they're not. So
>> maybe just bits and pieces
[35:06] » that is confusing.
[35:11] » Okay. Uh, close public discussion at
6:34.
[35:21] » Move it.
>> I move to recommend approval of case
[35:25] number SW260002
as presented.
[35:30] » Second.
>> All in favor?
[35:34] » Right hand.
>> Chelsea the second she
[35:41] trying to make you
trying to make you spell my name.
[35:45] » Sorry.
>> Just be loud.
[35:50] » Okay.
>> It seems really loud from back here.
[35:52] It's like it's pointed right at my head.
[35:59] » Yeah.
>> You're voted either way.
[36:03] » Oh, nobody said disagree. We
>> need to say against
[36:08] it. That's it.
>> I wasn't even watching. Anybody
[36:11] disagree?
>> Sorry, Doug.
[36:25] » Okay.
[36:30] » So, uh, one more question on that. So,
if even though it's closed, just can I
[36:36] still do that?
>> Uh, depends on the question. So, isn't
[36:40] that the uh bypass going to go right
down to that corner there?
[36:45] » Not based on preliminary u rightway
discussions. No,
[36:52] » it'll be the the alignment is east of
there.
[36:57] » So, closer to Nevada.
>> No, closer to us.
[37:00] » Oh, really?
>> Yeah.
[37:02] » How much closer?
Let's say I I I don't have the actual
[37:08] map with me, but
>> Yeah, that's right.
[37:09] » I can provide that info.
>> Yeah, the outer loop. I can provide the
[37:13] info offline.
>> You know where the high lines are?
[37:16] » Yeah,
>> that's where it's going.
[37:18] » Okay.
>> That makes sense.
[37:21] » They're going to follow the
>> Yeah, they got right away probably there
[37:24] already.
[37:33] All right. Uh, next item,
case number CA26-003
[37:45] and hold public hearing to consider
testimony and make recommendations to
[37:48] city council on an amendment to the code
of ordinance chapter 10A, article 2,
[37:53] section 2.48. or H engineering plans
will allow the city engineer to accept
[37:57] preliminary engineering plans in lie of
detailed final final engineering plans
[38:02] with submittal a preliminary plat at an
applicant's request. If preliminary
[38:07] engineering plans are submitted with
preliminary plat, the city council shall
[38:12] condition the approval of a preliminary
plat on the submittal and approval of
[38:16] detailed final engineering plans in
accordance with this ordinance.
[38:26] That's kind of how I I read it.
>> I uh open discussion at 6:37.
[38:35] » Okay, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. I brought this item before
[38:39] you, I want to say about a year ago. I
think most of you are new so you may not
[38:44] be familiar with this subject but
um in the land development process for
[38:51] particularly residential developments
you have your preliminary plat which is
[38:55] basically a a glorified survey and a big
picture for a subdivision that lays out
[39:01] basically here's where we think our lot
lines are going to go streets drainage
[39:05] water sewer easements etc. The planning
and zoning commission and city council
[39:11] approve that. Then they move on to the
uh construction plan design process and
[39:18] they submit you know detailed uh
engineering plans. Then they move to the
[39:23] final plat which is where they certify
you know here's what we built. This is
[39:28] where it goes. Our current procedure in
Josephine is very strict in my opinion u
[39:35] compared to pretty much every other city
across the region and even across the
[39:41] state. We're one of very few
municipalities that request or require a
[39:48] full set of engineering plans. And that
means like, okay, here's a water line.
[39:52] It's going to be buried this deep. It's
going to go this long. like really
[39:55] technical information being required in
our professional opinion too early in
[40:02] the land development process.
Um we've had comments from applicants
[40:07] which developers
that have concern with being required to
[40:13] provide this level of detail on
something that may not happen. And I can
[40:19] tell you that um we lost some ETJ
uh west of High Meadows with the
[40:27] Greenwood MUD, the municipal utility
district. And one of the major
[40:31] contributing factors was that
requirement, having to do all that work
[40:36] up front and the city lost ETJ. So we we
as a community lost control over what
[40:44] could be developed there to some extent,
right? and how it would be developed
[40:49] because now they're in Nevada CTJ so
they're going with Nevada standards and
[40:52] not ours even though they're much closer
to us than Nevada. So we're running the
[40:57] risk here of additional muds potentially
or other developers moving on.
[41:04] Um and this goes for residential and
commercial. If the stated goal of the
[41:09] community is to make it easier for
commercial development to happen here,
[41:14] this is one of the steps that needs to
be taken. And again, it's condition. So
[41:19] if they submit preliminary engineering,
they still have to provide detailed
[41:24] engineering before going to
construction. So we're just letting them
[41:29] defer this and kind of punt a little bit
on the engineering plans.
[41:41] Is is there a baseline for what a
preliminary set of engineering plans is?
[41:46] And does the uh NCTCOG
do they have any take on on a submitter
[41:51] like this or what they might recommend
for this process?
[41:55] » The I don't think the COG has any
guidance on this. um they normally when
[42:00] it comes to construction standards there
is a set of standards but not a set of
[42:05] procedures right so a cog is more
focused on actual technical codes and
[42:11] standards rather than a procedural so
pretty much everybody in North Texas
[42:16] does things their own way um but our
city engineer was also in in uh
[42:25] concurrence with this request to to go
with preliminary engineering cuz he's
[42:30] the one that hears it cuz he's the one
that reviews the plans. Um, if this is
[42:36] approved,
we will work with our city engineer to
[42:40] develop that checklist.
>> Yes, I I definitely think this is the
[42:43] direction that we want to go. My concern
is that you get fingerpointing between
[42:47] Joe, a personal guy trying to get
something passed and and big developer
[42:51] Bob over here, and he says, "Well, this
is my preliminary set." And he says,
[42:54] "Well, this is my preliminary set." and
you and you end up with maybe uh you're
[42:59] asking different things of different
applicants and just to be able to
[43:01] clarify that what what those plans might
look like.
[43:04] » Well, the checklist would be applied
equally.
[43:09] » So, if if that's a concern, we will make
sure that that is addressed. uh when if
[43:15] this is approved at the same time this
is adopted we will publish a preliminary
[43:20] engineering checklist that addresses
everything so that there's a level
[43:25] playing field for all parties
[43:31] » this kind of just eliminates the first
step
[43:34] they still have to come to P&Z with the
plot
[43:38] » right the the the challenge we're having
is we have 30 days to review plots
[43:45] And in those 30 days, our city
consulting engineers are expected to
[43:49] review under the current regulations,
you know, several dozens of pages of
[43:56] detailed engineering plans which could
be subject to revisions. I mean, I've
[44:02] never had or never seen a set of
engineering plans or any plan for that
[44:07] matter be good on the first submitt.
So allowing us to look at preliminary
[44:14] engineering allows gives us the the
ability to say okay this looks good in p
[44:20] on paper in concept we recommend
approval of the prelim pre preliminary
[44:24] plot at that point then the developer is
more confident that hey this this could
[44:30] work now I can submit detailed
engineering plans subject to the city
[44:35] engineers approval
and then they can go to construction
[44:40] so you still have control over the plat
that that won't change the timing won't
[44:44] change. The only thing you're changing
here is the the engineering the detail
[44:49] of engineering. So you know
>> it's not a multiple multiple meeting
[44:53] discussion.
>> Correct.
[44:59] » Just give all
>> Yes.
[45:01] » Mhm.
>> I think it would help streamline some
[45:05] processes and that's important and I
think that is the direction that we're
[45:10] » Yeah. I I I think it helps the
applicants and future developers
[45:16] uh reduce some of that preliminary
financial burden. You know, there's
[45:19] there's a lot of money involved between
what you would call a preliminary set of
[45:22] plans and a final stamp, final
engineered set of plans. You you know,
[45:26] there's a lot of work in there that uh
you know, could save some rework as
[45:29] well.
>> And I think that's where some of the
[45:31] hesitation on the developers came in is
you know, they don't know if they want
[45:35] to invest thousands and thousands and
lots of hours into something that may
[45:39] not work out. Yeah, that's and that's
consistent with the language that was
[45:42] provided in the staff report.
>> So, and and this is just not a matter
[45:48] just of convenience. We're not
compromising safety here. We're just
[45:51] simplifying procedures.
[46:00] » So,
kind of what was stated earlier, I'd
[46:04] like to see some drummals before this
gets brewed. So, there's no
[46:10] plenty of business going on or whatever.
So,
[46:14] » well, um,
>> what's a preliminary what is preliminary
[46:17] plot? What does it entail?
>> I mean, can you do it in crayon?
[46:20] » Well, we we have a checklist for the
plot document itself and I believe we
[46:25] have a checklist for we have the
engineering standards
[46:31] already published.
We could create a checklist of and and
[46:36] this I cannot answer the question as to
what exactly would be in this checklist
[46:40] because that's a city engineer question,
>> right?
[46:43] » What what you're voting on right now is
to allow the engineer to accept
[46:48] preliminary engineering plans.
>> Like you said, cities do it differently
[46:53] all over the place. So some developers
are used to this and then they're used
[46:57] to that.
>> Well, I mean and and that happens,
[47:00] » you know, there was that, right?
>> But but Miguel, the check the checklist
[47:04] is the way that's the way these are
that's the way these are handled. Yeah,
[47:07] there's I've seen
>> lot
[47:11] checklist.
>> So we don't have preliminary plat
[47:14] requirements already.
>> We we have a preliminary plat checklist.
[47:18] » Gotcha.
>> And of detailed engineering. So it would
[47:21] just be that
>> you're creating you're creating the
[47:23] process to allow me and the city
engineer to publish a preliminary
[47:28] engineering checklist and whatever is
there is what will be required of
[47:32] everybody.
>> So will that preliminary checklist be
[47:36] the same that's on the books now or is
that going to be changed?
[47:38] » We don't have one. We're create
>> we do have preliminary
[47:43] » platformments
but we don't have preliminary
[47:47] » engineering
>> engineering plan requirements.
[47:50] » We don't allow that right now. So will
we allow it as a
[47:53] » but this would allow us to
>> create some requirements standards
[47:58] » for preliminary.
>> Yes.
[47:59] » Gotcha.
[48:05] » And it's to the satisfaction of the city
engineer. So this proposal so the
[48:12] engineer feels that you know what I'm
going to need more detail and he can
[48:18] require full engineering plans and then
if they're not good we would recommend
[48:25] denial of the plot
and the clock starts over.
[48:32] » So we're basically giving him discretion
over preliminary design basically.
[48:37] » Correct.
>> Gotcha. I don't agree with
[48:41] » Yeah, I think it should be
>> the discretionary is limited by the
[48:44] checklist approved by the council. It's
a documentation. It's a you know it's a
[48:48] documented discretion.
>> Well, yeah. What sorts of good
[48:51] checklist?
>> Yeah,
[48:53] » but we don't have that now.
>> That's what we're voting to give them.
[48:57] » No
[49:00] post. That's what
>> you're
[49:04] you're you're voting to let the engineer
accept preliminary engineering plans
[49:12] » but we don't have a standard
>> but we don't know what those look like.
[49:16] » So if we could get a standard that would
be great. What is a preliminary plat or
[49:22] requirement? Engineering requirement. If
some guy comes in, well, you're gonna
[49:27] need this. What if I give you 10 grand?
You pass it down.
[49:30] » That'd be really bad.
>> Be a checklist.
[49:32] » But yeah, if he has some sort of
standard, then that would help.
[49:37] » That would help because right now we
need full everything, full design. And
[49:42] the way we're proposing to change it, it
would just be this guy may be required
[49:47] to give us more than this guy. So if he
has a standard that we could say, okay,
[49:52] we're accepting a new standard of
preliminary drawings, then that would be
[49:58] better, right?
>> We just need to know what that standard
[50:01] is.
>> Drawings just be some
[50:05] » makes sense. So if if you're not
comfortable approving this tonight,
[50:11] you can table this
>> this continue this public hearing to the
[50:16] October meeting. The engineer and I will
work on creating a draft checklist to
[50:22] attach to this request. No, just some
>> that's an acceptable outcome
[50:29] and he could be here to explain
>> what could trigger him to require
[50:34] detailed engineering
>> under this scenario.
[50:39] » That's fine. I mean I don't I don't know
those
[50:41] » be included but there has to be some
kinds of guidelines just not
[50:45] » Yeah. Just so it's standardized.
>> Yeah, that's good. That's good. Yeah.
[50:49] » Okay.
>> Makes sense.
[50:51] » And just the overview, we don't have But
there's nothing to go by. It's what
[50:55] we're approving them to do it, but we
don't have a check.
[50:58] » We go by what they're doing.
>> Yeah.
[51:02] » Yeah. You know, he comes in and says
that the preliminary plat.
[51:08] Well, what does that mean?
[51:12] We don't know.
The engineer said it's good. No, we'll
[51:17] just take his word for it.
>> So, we table
[51:24] All right. Move to table this discussion
this
[51:27] » close the public hearing. What? All
right. Let me let me stay. We will need
[51:33] a motion to continue this public hearing
to the October Planning and Zoning
[51:38] Commission meeting and table the
request. That's the word like you
[51:43] continue the hearing and table the
request to the next table.
[51:48] » I move to continue the public hearing to
the October meeting. There we go. That's
[51:52] it.
>> For case number
[51:54] » CA
26003.
[52:02] » All approve.
>> I
[52:07] disapprove.
>> Okay.
[52:13] » All right.
I don't think we have anything else.
[52:16] Right.
>> I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
[52:20] » Second.
[52:26] I got her acted on already.
>> 52.
[52:48] » I know. Here's my name but can't