[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

Planning and Zoning Meeting - September 8, 2026

Transcript