Planning & Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody ready? All right, let's get this show started. First of all, it's called order and then roll call, please.

Patrick Cusick.

Here.

Chelsea Young. Here. Tony Love. Rapson. Doug Thomas. Here. Michelle Bukaski.

Here.

All right. And everybody stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, so thanks everybody for showing up here this evening. Are there any comments that's not on the agenda this evening that somebody wants to speak to? All right, close that out. All right, let's move to the approval of the minutes from last meeting on August 3rd, 2026. Everybody has a copy of that, I would assume? Please look it over and if you have any questions or disagreements or...

I make a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting.

Second. All in favor? All right. All right, first piece of business tonight is one we're all familiar with. Right, Miguel? Yes. All right, this is case number 26-001. concerning 520 Milton Street. Continue public hearing, consider testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request to amend the zoning ordinance and zoning map of the City of Josephine, each being part of a code of ordinance from local retail to planned development with a base zoning of local retail on two parcels of land totaling approximately 1.42 acres located at 520 Milton Street.

if you will call the time to open the public hearing is 6 o 2 and we can either have people speak if anybody wants to speak for against the item beforehand anybody have any questions comments Okay, so I'll introduce the item for those who are watching. This is a planned development for a single story strip mall, 14,880 square foot building at 520 Milton Street. We have been working with the applicant on this project for over a year now. That process has included a straight rezoning to local retail, and now this plan development application that's been through several design iterations for the last five months now, including just tabling due to concerns and the time it takes to address these concerns. If we can go to the landscaping exhibit, I think that shows the best picture. um that would be exhibit d so exhibit d shows probably the most complete picture as you can see the the layout of the site remains practically unchanged from last time with the exception of the new emergency access fire lane onto fm6 after extensive lobbying efforts by the applicant text that has agreed in principle and i think they have a permit already approved to construct this emergency entry this entry will be gated only to be used by first responders in the case of an emergency it will not allow for general circulation so the general population will use the milton street as and driveway as their only way to get in and out After this change in their design, our fire chief is comfortable and reviewed the new layout and is fine, you know, and recommends approval. We made some changes to the exhibit B, which is the planned development standards, to address some items that had not been previously addressed. Namely, the limit on hours of operation if there's any outdoor dining or any outdoor business activity. And also, adding some noise prohibitions, right? So no outdoor speakers after a certain time. And this is to protect the areas around. I think that's really it. I mean, I've explained this project probably like five or six times to this commission, so if you have any questions on the layout, the applicant is here, the property owner, developer, and they also have their consulting design team here to answer questions you may have for them.

I'm soft spoken. So what did you guys think about the letter that was included as an exhibit here? some of the concerns maybe we can discuss.

About the traffic?

Yeah, I think the traffic, and I mean, it's clear that that is gonna be the only or the main way to get in and out of, it's gonna be on Milton Street. The other one's just for emergency.

Yep.

Ingress, egress.

So the entryway shouldn't bother those homes too much because they're behind the building often. If you're looking at the building off to the left.

Gotcha. So it's not this lot. What is right there next door in this lot to Cruz?

There is to the west. So to the left of the image you're looking at is a city water tower. To the right is a single family home. I believe the applicant has been in constant contact with that property owner regarding this project. So I know they've been out there surveying. They've been looking at the fencing situation, how that's going to be addressed. I do want to clarify. that one of the requests from this applicant is to not have a fence along the backside of the property facing the railroad tracks. I concurred with that request because we want to prevent that canyon feeling, and it's a public safety issue as well. If there is a trail there, which there is a plan to have a regional trail going through that back right of way, we want to provide ways for people to get in and out. I worked in Denton County along the Katie, the Denton Katie Trail, and we've had issues in the Corinth area and Lake Dallas, particularly in the Lake Dallas area with those situations where you have that canyon effect, no way in or out. So that is the reason why I recommend approval of that departure for not having a fence. You as a commission can ask for that. I wouldn't recommend it. And then to address the question about traffic, so yes, the traffic in and out will be concentrated along Milton. This is twofold. Number one is that when FM6 is widened, they will have medians now, so they won't, It'll be, the left turns will be reduced all over that, throughout the length of FM6. So even if they have that open to the public, the emergency access is just not gonna work. Secondly is we wanna reduce the number of intersections. Any time you create a four-way intersection, be it a driveway or a regular intersection, you have 32 points of conflict, potential points for a collision. So you wanna reduce, that and that was the purpose of other departures of reducing driveways as a whole so we have taken all of those things into consideration throughout this process um and and the resident has raised concerns we've addressed lighting this was even before the resident brought in these concerns we looked at lighting We've looked at the layout, trying to shift the building away from the homes as far as possible, because their previous iteration actually had this building backed up right to the house on Milton. So the applicant's design team has worked to try to minimize the conflicts in collaboration with us.

Thank you.

Speaking of widening six, whether it goes four or six lanes, is that going to cut into that property?

Not to my knowledge. My understanding, and the applicant can address that question, but my understanding is that this project has been designed with consideration of potential right-of-way issues. acquisition at a later point. The way TxDOT works is they'll acquire all of the right of way for an ultimate build out for up to six lanes, but they don't build the six lanes right away. They'll build four with a wide median. And then to build the third lane on each direction, they cut into the median. So that's been their MO lately. So when they build four, they go very wide so that you know exactly where the ultimate build out is going to be.

I think you could maybe presuppose that the property was a rectangle before and TxDOT took over that corner, has already annexed or dedicated that as a right of way, it looks like on the map here. I have a comment about the letter. I don't know the history about the property that we're reviewing here, but the base zoning was already local retail. And I think a lot of the concerns, this is not the appropriate time to address them. They should have been addressed and potentially heard out when this was changed to a retail lot. And it does look like a lot of things have been done to accommodate uh the the adjacent residential a lot of times we'll be putting a buffer in or something like that and again the building is offset about as far as it looks like they can get it from that local from that adjacent residential property

i agree with that i think they have we have done a lot to try to accommodate and i i do think normally you would have a buffer and i did expect to see that but after hearing your explanation i think it is a lot safer to not have a trail enclosed for the width

Right. And, you know, we had discussed widening that buffer for landscaping. So there's going to be a row of shrubs that will grow to create a visual barrier. And, you know, it's not as having a fence because there will be an opening so that eventually people can walk off the trail into whatever businesses come here. So there is an opportunity here where they will build a sidewalk connection at the property line so that if there's a trail, you can just walk off that trail into whatever businesses go here. And our Commissioner Chappell is correct. This was zoned for a commercial purpose already back in our local retail purpose back in January. clarify just for context that this resident moved in, I believe in April or May. So the property owner moved in after that change had happened. But as it is now, as it was then, letters went out to all property owners. Nobody spoke for or against it at that time.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think to be that close to six, which is nearly a thoroughfare already, and to have an expectation of a low amount of traffic on your property, I think that kind of goes above and beyond what someone reasonably might expect who would have purchased that property next to a retail lot right there.

Miguel, what did you say about the patio situation?

So if there were to be any patios on this property, the hours of operation would be limited, and then the sound would be, let me find the exact wording of this.

It's 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. There's no outdoor activity. Correct. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Correct.

So from the back of the building to the property line, how far is that?

The width of the railroad property is 100 feet, so it's 100-some, give or take.

I mean, well, the back of the, I mean, this property owner can't go into the railroad property, so what's the distance from the back of this building that's going to be built to the railroad property?

The back of this building to a railroad property, about 10 feet.

Yeah, there's no, I don't think a patio could fit in there.

Well, the patios could be on the corners, and the applicant's design team could address that possibility. I'd rather let them answer. Sunny, would you mind?

There's a 100-foot buffer between this property and the neighbor that sent the letter. Yes. Is that correct? 100-foot plus. Yeah.

And, you know, that right-of-way, could become an active rail line at some point in the future. We've been told to design as if there will be one there because the rail district that owns it is actively looking to redevelop that again as an active freight rail line. So that's something that I also have to consider when designing these or helping developers go through the process

I mean, on the fire here on the retail side of the street to address the radio on the side of the building. That's just from the building.

separating the uh the parking spaces along with the the building so we have a good you know safety distance for like residents to walk the sidewalk and whatnot so the sides are not a patio the patio spaces if there were to be and that's going to be totally up to the future uses of the you know like let's say we have a retail restaurant user right If you guys can see that angled curve right besides each side of the building along the parking spaces on the corners, that can be potentially a gated patio. And that's, again, if a future tenant were to come in and want that corner space and want to take advantage of that space there to build out a patio. I mean, I think that's very great for the community itself. You know, you get like a fine dining restaurant experience indoor and out. And I know that we did address some of the comments for the residents as far as the noise and our team, the developer team and everyone like that, along with the size of things are okay. with operating and you know we'll let the future users know that you cannot use or utilize the outdoor patio at past 10 pm as far as speakers outdoors typically that's like more on the high-end restaurant users you know you know if you guys ever gone out like legacy west or grantscape and all that stuff like you obviously have like the tvs the bars the loudspeakers outdoors um but again that's more of the high-end users for restaurant space but if there were to be someone that wants to come in and at least put some speakers outdoors in that patio area in that corner of the building we would also let them know that hey there is a PD in place that past 10 p.m. that in favor of the residents and the community that you know we're not going to be loud here and whatnot so we would be totally okay with not having future tenant users operate speakers in the patio space past 10 p.m. And again, we don't know who's going to be there as of now. I mean, it may be a coffee shop that wants to use that patio space. Typically, coffee shops are open until, what, 7, 8 p.m., and typically where I always see them open until. But again, it just goes down to who's going to be utilizing that space. And even if they do take that space, it's totally up to the tenant if they want to build out a patio or not.

Any other comments?

My comment might be, as far as the noise control is, I imagine that the property manager here will have that relevant information in the lease agreements with the tenants, but I don't know what type of teeth the city has to enforce things like that and what is considered you know, what might be considered a noise violation. And that might be something that the resident, you know, might have some solace in that, you know, how will we, do we have a plan to defend an ordinance like this telling them that they have to be quiet at night?

So to clarify, we wrote actually a full prohibition on outdoor sound, like so amplified sound. So we did a full prohibition on speakers outdoors at all times. You can make a change to that if you want to grant the applicant Flexibility, you can do that. The way I wrote this is to be amplified sound shall be prohibited at all times. Now, to address a question about hours of, let's for example say hours of operation, this becomes part of your zoning ordinance. So our zoning ordinance contains provisions on violations, there's fines, there's, you know.

Someone could call the PD and they could respond and tell them to shut it down.

The police department would be the enforcement arm for this ordinance.

Okay.

And just to clarify with staff as well, this is for the outdoor patio to be used until 10 p.m. Again, when it comes to a restaurant user, again, a lot of restaurants do shut down by 10 p.m. Weekends they might be open until 11, but again, that's the, you know, the user's hours of operation if they want to go until 10 p.m., 11 p.m. I don't see anyone being open until midnight, 1 or 2 a.m., But again, again, outdoor reasoning for the noise and stuff like that for everyone and all the residents around in that area, we're totally on board with the city staff to limit those hours for the tenants and they will be in the leases as well when we draft leases with future tenants. Okay.

To his point and kind of to the larger broader discussion here, I don't see any language here that might prohibit a nightclub coming in there and staying open until 2 in the morning indoors.

The uses for this ordinance refer to the?

Coffee shop staying open until 2 in the morning. Excuse me.

For that type of use, we refer back to our use chart in the base ordinance.

The local retail zoning ordinance?

Yeah. Chapter 22 or Section 22 of our zoning ordinance has a use chart, and it lists all the uses that can occur. Nightclubs, which is basically a bar, are not an allowed use in the city right now, period. They're not defined as a use, so they're not allowed as a use. We added a clarified definition of a restaurant that can serve alcohol or not, they have the option, into this ordinance specifically for this building only. But that will be addressed at a later time for the rest of the city. But a nightclub is not an authorized use for this ordinance.

I'm not against nightclubs. I made it through college working at nightclubs at night. Maybe not right there on Milton Street.

The end goal as far as our end as well to address that comment is to make this retail shopping center as most friendly possible along with being a family-oriented place. Again, there's a lot of demand for retail here, and that's not just food. That can be donut shops, cafe shops, dentistries, massage therapists, like any, there's hundreds of retail uses out there that we can use here in the city of Josephine. So our goal is to address that. And I assure you, we don't want the loud noise and that type of crowd coming here late at night. So we're going to be very picky ourselves with what type of tenant mix we have here for the 14,000 square feet. Do we have to close?

Yes, if, well, we allowed this to, in case somebody showed up that wanted to speak, the chairman needs to ask if the commission is done with questions for staff or the applicant, if the chairman will ask if there's anybody from the public that wants to speak for or against this item, you have to formally say that, and then if not, you can close the public hearing and note the time, please.

Any other comments? Thank you. All right, we'll close the public hearing. 6-24. And take a vote on this. All in favor? Make a motion, somebody, please.

I make a motion to approve the zoning 26-001502 Milton Street.

Last second.

All in favor? All right, motion passes.

All right.

Yeah. All right, next item.

Case number SW-26-002. City Council requests for a subdivision waiver on section 3.9.B, wastewater service requirements and section 1.14. Point MM, minor plat utility service requirements of the subdivision ordinance in conjunction with the proposed minor plat for a .347 acre property generally located at the southwest corner of FM 6 and Cannon Road 637.

All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, Miguel Inclan, city planner, if you will open the public hearing and call the time and then I'll introduce the item.

Open the public hearing, 6-26. All right.

This is an unorthodox item. We received a minor plat application for this very small and very oddly shaped lot at the southwest corner of County Road 637 and FM 6, which is before the curve on the very southwestern side of the city. This property is actually determined to be in the ETJ. During the review process, we have to verify the availability of utilities. There are no utilities near this site because it's very small. The county would not approve a septic facility. The intended purpose of this lot is to establish a potentially a communications tower, like a cell tower. And they're here because that use wouldn't really require sewer service. So they are asking for a waiver to be allowed to not be required to connect to the city sewer system. If at any time they want to redevelop the site, they'll have to either buy more land or connect to city water and sewer later. for a purpose that would require that. Given that the intended purpose is not something that requires services, we recommend approval. If you have any questions.

To clarify, .347 acres is not even a half an acre, right?

Correct.

And they're wanting to put a septic system on it?

They cannot.

They can't?

They cannot. So the county, I believe their minimum property size is one acre. So basically, what's happening here is county won't let them, cannot let them do septic because it's small. Our regulations require they either be connected to the city sewer system or have septic. They cannot meet any of those two requirements.

So they're being- Right.

requiring the sewers, so requiring a sewer service could potentially render this lot undevelopable. That's the purpose of the waiver.

As long as there's restrictions on not being able to build an occupiable structure on it.

So Collin County would issue the building permit for this property, and they're the ones who would make all those requirements. So you cannot condition this to, oh, you can't build any, like, you're allowing them to plot this property under this configuration without the need to have a sewer connection. If at any point they want to build something on here that does require sewer service, Collin County will be the one making the requirement.

I make a motion to approve.

Second. Case.

Yeah, so is this Josephine or the ETJ?

This isn't the ETJ, so there's no land use, you know, regulations from the city that apply. So anything could be built here.

And the reason I bring that up is because I remember a few years ago, there was a request, somebody's going to build six, eight homes on that corner, which now they're building apartments. And we, it was between us and Nevada, and Nevada took the water. section of that so i don't know why they're coming at us when the beta three or four years ago we gave them the so the place where the apartments are going in they used to be in our etj as well but they withdrew from the etj is that the part you're talking about but that land from the apartments to the to six so we gave the reason they are coming to us is because the

A very small part of this property falls within our sewer service area, the CCN, so they are coming to us. They're way too far. We cannot serve them. The reason they're here is because to be able to approve this plot and record it, there has to be a certification that sewer is available to the site. We can't do that. I understand that.

That's really where it is. So this little lot here, but everything to the south of that is Nevada? Is that what they're saying?

Part of it. There's always changes in their CCN boundaries. And this happened before my time.

Not all areas are in a CCN. Some areas, there's not a CCN assigned to areas.

So they're free to...

Well, like I said, I just remember that plot of land, not just that little part, but all of it from six to the apartments was proposed to put houses there. And we said Nevada could handle the water, and they wanted to.

All right.

Is Nevada able to handle the water for this lot? It's just impossible on this tiny space is what I'm hearing.

Yeah, I mean, the stated purpose, you're not approving this, right? But the stated purpose from the developer is to potentially build a cell phone tower here.

And they don't need sewer for that, I wouldn't think.

They really don't need sewer. I mean, that's the whole purpose behind this.

The applicant is online, just he can't speak. But he can't hear you if you don't speak up.

I move to recommend approval of, can I do it yet? No. Close the hearing.

If you will, close the public hearing and note the time. So a few more questions for me.

Yeah.

I hate to be a pain. So you say Collin County eventually has to approve this, right?

The building permit would go through Collin County. Okay.

And I would assume if they're going to do a cell tower, they'd have FCC approval also, wouldn't they?

Correct. But way out of our jurisdiction.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. So we're not talking anytime soon. All right. Any other comments?

I think the general look at this is that the concern for the sewage is a life safety of the occupants to make sure that they've got sanitary facilities and conditions. And as long as, you know, Collin County is not going to give them an occupiable building permit until those conditions are met. So I don't see this, you know, impacting anyone's well-being. And I think it seems on the level of a request.

I guess my basic thing is that a few years ago, Nevada was going to handle all the water for that area. Now it looks like they're not, so.

Maybe just bits and pieces. That is confusing.

Okay. Closed public discussion at 634.

Move it.

I move to recommend approval of case number SW26002 as presented.

Second.

All in favor?

Right hand.

Was Chelsea the second?

I'm trying to make you spell my name. Sorry.

Just be loud.

It seems really loud from back here. It's like it's pointed right at my head.

I can't hear you.

Anybody disagree?

Sorry Doug. Okay.

So one more question on that subject even though it's closed. Can I still do that?

Depends on the question.

So isn't that the bypass going to go right down to that corner there?

Not based on preliminary right of way discussions, no. It'll be the alignment is east of there.

So closer to Nevada. No, closer to us. Oh, really?

Yeah.

How much closer?

Let's say I don't have the actual map with me. Yeah, that's right. I can provide that info. Yeah, the outer loop. I can provide the info offline.

You know where the high lines are?

Yeah.

That's where it's going.

Okay. That makes sense. Yeah, they got right away probably there already. All right. Next item. Case number CA26-003. And hold public hearing to consider testimony and make recommendations to the City Council on an amendment to the Code of Ordinance Chapter 10A, Article 2, Section 2.4H. Engineering plans will allow the city engineer to accept preliminary engineering plans in lieu of detailed final engineering plans with submittal of preliminary plat at an applicant's request. If preliminary engineering plans are submitted with preliminary plat, the city council shall condition the approval of the preliminary plat on the submittal and approval of detailed final engineering plans in accordance with this ordinance. that's kind of why can i write uh open discussion at 6 37. okay

Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I brought this item before you, I want to say, about a year ago. I think most of you are new, so you may not be familiar with this subject. But in the land development process for particularly residential developments, you have your preliminary plot, which is basically a glorified survey and a big picture for a subdivision that Lays out, basically, here's where we think our lot lines are gonna go, streets, drainage, water, sewer, easements, et cetera. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approve that, then they move on to the construction plan design process and they submit detailed engineering plans. Then they move to the final plot, which is where they certify, here's what we built, this is where it goes. Our current procedure in Josephine is very strict, in my opinion, compared to pretty much every other city across the region and even across the state. We're one of very few municipalities that request or require a full set of engineering plans, and that means like, here's a water line, it's gonna be buried this deep, it's gonna go this long, like really technical information being required in our professional opinion, too early in the land development process. We've had comments from applicants, which developers that have concern with being required to provide this level of detail on something that may not happen. And I can tell you that we lost some ETJ west of High Meadows with the Greenwood mud, the municipal utility district, and one of the major contributing factors was that requirement, having to do all that work up front. And the city lost ETJ, so we as a community lost control over what could be developed there to some extent, right, and how it would be developed. because now they're in Nevada CTJ, so they're going with Nevada standards and not ours, even though they're much closer to us than Nevada. So we're running the risk here of additional muds potentially or other developers moving on. And this goes for residential and commercial. If the stated goal of the community is to make it easier for commercial development to happen here, this is one of the steps that needs to be taken. And again, it's conditioned. So if they submit preliminary engineering, they still have to provide detailed engineering before going to construction. So we're just letting them defer this and kind of punt a little bit on the engineering plans.

Is there a baseline for what a preliminary set of engineering plans is and does the NCTCOG, do they have any take on a submittal like this or what they might recommend for this process?

I don't think the COG has any guidance on this. They normally, when it comes to construction standards, there is a set of standards, but not a set of procedures, right? So the COG is more focused on actual technical codes and standards rather than a procedural. So pretty much everybody in North Texas does things their own way. But our city engineer, was also in concurrence with this request to go with preliminary engineering, because he's the one that hears it, because he's the one that reviews the plans. If this is approved, We will work with our city engineer to develop that checklist.

Yes, I definitely think this is the direction that we want to go. My concern is that you get finger pointing between Joe, a personal guy trying to get something passed, and big developer Bob over here. And he says, well, this is my preliminary set. And he says, well, this is my preliminary set. And you end up with maybe you're asking different things of different applicants. And just to be able to clarify that, what those plans might look like.

The checklist would be applied equally. So if that's a concern, we will make sure that that is addressed. If this is approved, at the same time this is adopted, we will publish a preliminary engineering checklist that addresses everything so that there's a level playing field for all parties.

So this kind of just eliminates the first step They still have to come to P&Z with the plot.

Right. The challenge we're having is we have 30 days to review plots. And in those 30 days, our city consulting engineers are expected to review, under the current regulations, several dozens of pages of detailed engineering plans. which could be subject to revisions. I mean, I've never had or never seen a set of engineering plans, or any plan for that matter, be good on the first submittal. So allowing us to look at preliminary engineering gives us the ability to say, okay, this looks good on paper, in concept. We recommend approval of the preliminary plot. At that point, then the developer is more confident that, hey, this could work. Now I can submit detailed engineering plans subject to the city engineer's approval. And then they can go to construction. So you still have control over the plot. That won't change. The timing won't change. The only thing you're changing here is the engineering, the detail of engineering. So, you know.

It's not a multiple reading discussion.

Correct. Yes.

I think it would help streamline some processes, and that's important, and I think that is the direction that we're... Yeah, I think it helps the applicants and future developers reduce some of that preliminary financial burden. You know, there's a lot of money involved between what you would call a preliminary set of plans and a final stamp, final engineer set of plans. You know... There's a lot of work in there that, you know, could save some rework as well.

And I think that's where some of the hesitation on the developers came in is, you know, they don't know if they want to invest thousands and thousands and lots of hours into something that may not work out.

Yeah, and that's consistent with the language that was provided in the staff report.

And this is just not a matter just of convenience. We're not compromising safety here. We're just simplifying procedures.

So kind of what was stated earlier, I'd like to see some ground rules before this gets approved so there's no money business going on or whatever. What does preliminary plot, what does it entail? I mean, can you do it in Crayon?

Well, we have a checklist for the plot document itself, and I believe we have a checklist. We have the engineering standards. already published, we could create a checklist of, and this, I cannot answer the question as to what exactly would be in this checklist, because that's a city engineer question. What you're voting on right now is to allow the engineer to accept preliminary engineering plans.

Like you said, cities do it differently all over the place. So some developers are used to this, and then they're used to that.

Well, I mean, and that happens.

But Miguel, the checklist is the way. That's the way these are handled, yeah.

I've seen lots of ways.

So we don't have preliminary plat requirements already?

We have a preliminary plat checklist. Gotcha. detailed engineering so it would just be that you're creating you're creating the process to allow me and the city engineer to publish a preliminary engineering checklist and whatever is there is what will be required of everybody so that preliminary checklist be the same that's on the books now or is that going to be changed we don't have one

We do have preliminary plat requirements, but we don't have preliminary engineering plan requirements.

Because we don't allow that right now. So we allow it as a community.

But this would allow us to create some requirements, standards for preliminary. Yes. Gotcha.

And it's to the satisfaction of the city engineer. So the engineer feels that, you know what, I'm going to need more detail. He can require full engineering plans. And then if they're not good, we would recommend denial of the plot. And the clock starts over.

So we're basically giving him discretion over preliminary design basically? Correct. Gotcha.

Which I don't agree with.

Yeah, I think it should be a standard.

The discretionary is limited by the checklists approved by the council. It's a documentation. It's a, you know, it's a documented discretion.

Well, yeah, once there's a good checklist.

Yeah.

But we don't have that now.

That's what we're voting to give them, to let them do.

You're voting to let the engineer accept preliminary engineering plans. But we don't have a standard.

But we don't know what those look like. So if we could get a standard, that would be great. What is a preliminary engineering requirement?

Some guy comes in and says, I'll give you $10,000 and you pass it down. That'd be really bad. That'd be a checklist.

Yeah, if he has some sort of standard, then that would help. That would help because right now we need full everything, full design, and the way we're proposing to change it, it would just be this guy may be required to give us more than this guy. So if he has a standard that we could say, okay, we're accepting a new standard of preliminary drawings, then that would be better, right? We just need to know what that standard is.

Yeah, because it makes sense. So if you're not comfortable approving this tonight, you can table this, continue this public hearing to the October meeting. The engineer and I will work on creating a draft checklist to attach to this request.

Yeah. Just some basic standards.

That's an acceptable outcome. And he could be here to explain what could trigger him to require detailed engineering under this scenario.

That's fine. I mean, I don't know what's... No, no, I'm just... It has to be included, but there has to be some kind of guidelines. It's not... Yeah, just so it's standardized. Yeah, that's good, that's good.

Okay.

Makes sense.

And just the overview, we don't have, there's nothing to go by. We're approving them to do it, but we don't have the change. We'll let them do it. Yeah.

Yeah.

You know, he comes in and says that the preliminary placement or design has been approved. Well, what does that mean? We don't know. The engineer said it's good. We'll just take his word for it.

so we table all right move to table this discussion this closed the public hearing what all right let me let me state we will need a motion to continue this public hearing to the october planning and zoning commission meeting and table the request that's the word like you continue the hearing and table the request

MOVE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE OCTOBER MEETING. THERE WE GO. FOR CASE NUMBER CA-26-003.

ALL APPROVED?

AYE.

ALL DISAPPROVED?

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, RIGHT?

Second.

Second.

I got it on the way. 5.2? Yeah.

Just a moment.

It helped me. Second, there's a drawing. I see.

I see. Perfect.

As we go down in our notes, and I see you have .

I don't know. I mean, if you're going to debate, we can't speak.