May 11, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2022-05-11 6:30 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, May 11th, 2022. This is our work session and with a quorum present I will call us to order at 5.03 p.m. Our first item on work session is citizen comments on the consent agenda and to my knowledge we do not have anyone waiting unless I hear otherwise from someone. That will move us then to item two which is clarification of agenda for tonight's meeting. First thing to consider is the April 27th minutes. There was a slight change that was emailed to everybody earlier today. Are there any questions, revisions needed? Okay. That takes us to consent agenda. Any questions on consent? We've got two items there. Okay, seeing none, let's go to individual consideration items. For A is FP 220015. Julie will come up and give us a synopsis there. Hi, Julie. Good evening. This is FP 220015. This site might look familiar to you. You had a horizontal multifamily use plan development come before you as well as a preliminary plat. They have now submitted their final plat for review. There's still some outstanding comments they do need to work through so staff is recommending denial. However, they have requested that extension and we have no objection to the extension to January, I'm sorry, June 8th. Thanks, Julie. Any questions for Julie? Okay, thanks, Julie. You're sticking around for 4B, FP 220014. This is another horizontal multifamily use. They're at the intersection of Bonnie Bray Elm and Loop 288. This is for their final plat. Once again, they have some items that they do need to correct and so we are recommending denial. However, they have requested that extension and staff has no objection. Great. Questions? Okay, and you are up a third time here on 4C, PP 220010. Last one. This is for a commercial development there at the intersection of Teasley and Ryan Road. It's for some pad sites for some future commercial development. It's a preliminary plat. Staff recommends denial as they've got some items to work through. However, we have no objection to the extension to June the 8th. Any questions on this one? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. That was 24D, FP 220005. That is Karina's. Hi, Karina. Hello. Let me pull up my presentation. So the request for this is a final plat of three residential lots in the ETJ. Staff is recommending denials. They still have some drainage and lot requirements that they're not meeting. However, we have no objection to the requested extension to June 8th. Great. Any questions? Any questions for Karina? Thank you. Thank you much. Okay. That takes us to 4E, MP 220011. Mia, how are you? I'm good. You may commission. Okay. So this is a minor replat for a residential property. Essentially, they wanted to redraw the lot lines that separates lot one and two to include a septic system, an existing septic system on the correct lot. They did submit and for the first review, we were going to recommend denial. They requested and were granted a 30-day extension already, and they did not come through with that second submittal. So it is before you this evening with a recommendation of denial for your consideration. Thank you, Mia. Any questions? Okay. Thank you much. That takes us to 4F, Z210017. Hi, Lisa. Hi. Good evening. Let's see here. Commissioner Cole, I believe you do need to exit. Thank you. Commissioner Cole be recusing himself from this item in discussion. Since we went over this one last time, just a reminder that this is 311.5 acres that is being requested to be rezoned from RR to LI. The future land use designation is LI or light industrial in the 2040 plan. Staff does recommend approval of this one. So just so you all know, with the commission's tie vote last time, that's why we are back. It was required to come back to P&Z for consideration. Those options are to recommend approval, recommend denial, or you can vote to postpone the request until a specific future P&Z date. If there is another tie vote, it will be forwarded to council with a recommendation of denial, but there will not be a requirement for a supermajority if council wants to approve it. Okay. Thank you, Lisa. Questions? Comments? Discussion? In work session? Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. Lisa, there are a few things that we talked about the day last week or two weeks ago in regards to this. The applicant talked with you or city staff about any of the other possible options that we were talking about during the course of discussion on doing street zoning or PD, those kinds of things. Any updates there? Yes. There was a neighborhood meeting last night, which the applicant does have a presentation, so he will ask to do that again, but he said that he would not like to do the PD. He has made a few concessions with the neighbors as far to make them happy on the distance of the building from the street. That doesn't have anything specifically to do with the street zoning request that's before us today. That's between them, but I think that that was just in order to try to get their approval to let you all know that they're okay with the request, so he's still trying to go forward with the street zoning. All right. I actually didn't know. I didn't know what conversations have happened since last time, so thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Villarreal? Have we received any additional feedback from the neighbors in the area since the initial vote? I have received a number of things, but nothing in writing. At last night's meeting, the main thing was the distance of the first building from the street. There was some talk about Mosh Branch Road and when that will be widened and by how much. Whether it will be the entire length or just at the 380 intersection, which I've been told the plan is for the entire length by our traffic engineer. They mainly were concerned. They wanted it to be pushed back a few hundred more yards than the building already is, but they finally agreed by the end of the meeting that the applicant said that he would push back another 50 feet. That's all that he could do without losing a building and said that in that 50 feet, he would add on to the landscape buffer that's required, so now he would have an 85-foot landscape buffer. Gotcha. How many folks attended that meeting last night? About 25. Gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions for Lisa? Okay, thank you. All right, that will bring us to our public hearing item for tonight. 5A S22-0002, Julie. Good evening. All right, so this is S22-0002 pathway on Woodrow. I just have a summary slide kind of consistent with how we've been doing work sessions, but I can certainly go through the rest of the presentation or answer any questions. So the request is for a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings, 285 dwelling units in the SC Zoning District. That's our suburban corridor zoning district. Multifamily does require approval of a specific use permit in this district. The Denton plan, or I'm sorry, the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, our new comprehensive plan that was recently adopted, it does classify this area as moderate density residential. Basically 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is a little denser than what is typically seen in moderate density residential. However, the proposal is consistent with the overall goals within Denton 2040, particularly related to population, our need for housing, and our need for affordable housing as well as infill development. So staff has concluded that it is consistent with the overall goals of the comprehensive plan. And it's also consistent with the criteria for approval, and so staff does recommend approval of the request. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner McDade? All right. Let me get this straight. They're getting ready to shove some more apartments in Southeast Denton, correct? They are proposing a multifamily development, yes, sir. Okay, because I've talked to some individuals about that. That's one thing, that's the last thing we need in Southeast Denton, is more apartments. But the, you talked about the horizontal homes earlier, does that fall under, could that be under SUP? Is that? That is a great question. Our definition of multifamily within our Denton development code does not actually include that use. The way our definition is structured. So if a property owner did want to do horizontal multifamily in the SC district, it wouldn't be permitted. They would have to go through the PD route, as what we've seen in those other horizontal multifamily projects. Is the builder going to be here today for the public hearing, or? Yes, sir. The applicant is here, and he'll be, they have a presentation, and they'll also be able to answer questions. All righty. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. Julie, is there a, is that, that little tree stand that's kind of on the west side or the east side of that, of the property, is that environmentally sensitive area that it butts up next to? It is. Let me pull up another slide and maybe make it a little clearer. So I don't know if this is clear, but this area in blue, that is actually a confirmed riparian buffer within the subject property boundary as well as the adjacent property. And let me just pull up a, their site plan. You can see these little slivers here in green. They are not, as proposed, impacting that environmentally sensitive area. It is adjacent to their property, however, their development impact, their development activities are outside of that ESA. Okay. That was all my question was going to be, because it's not, it didn't look like it's actually on the ESA, but it's close enough to it to where I didn't know it, whatever it's adjacent to it, what criteria went into it to determine whether an alt ESA would be needed in that scenario or something like that. So it just, it's so close, but not on it. So I just wanted to make sure everything was good there. Yep. It is very close. It was reviewed by our water administration department, and because they are staying out of it, they wouldn't be required to pursue an alternative ESA, but if for some reason they did in the future want to impact that ESA, it would require approval of an alternative ESA. So how is drainage, is drainage going to basically run everything back down to Audreau, Woodrow? I mean, how, it's not necessarily a big enough development for there to be some sort of detention pond or something like that, but the drainage does occur, does the water department basically say that nothing flows towards that ESA from where that piece of that property sits now or how does that work? Well, they can't impact that ESA, so they wouldn't be allowed to do anything that would damage that ESA. The full engineering, the full drainage plans have not been reviewed and approved at this stage. That would kind of come with if this was approved, then it would go through the civil engineering plan review. Their applicant is here tonight, and I'm sure they have plans or ways that they're going to be addressing drainage on site, and they'll be able to answer questions. Just one second, Commissioner Froude. Just because we're talking about this ESA, which I had a question about, in the backup, you mentioned a preferred land preservation plan and that this area was potentially to be preserved. Can you school us on that? Absolutely. Within our Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, there was an additional map that was discussed with council, and Tina might be able to expound on that further, to look at those ESA areas or areas where the city's preference or places that we would want to preserve in a natural state. So this area, because it's a confirmed ESA, is included in that preferred preservation plan. So while we don't necessarily have standards associated with that, because they were not impacting that ESA, it did meet that standard of that map within that comprehensive plan. So on that same note, is there not anywhere we could get that protected? Right now, we just kind of have, well, we don't think they're going to impact it, or they don't look like they're going to impact it, but also that site plan is really, I mean, the SUP is connected to it, but that's not an exact site plan. Absolutely. And that, our water administration department, so our environmental group, is a reviewer on all projects associated with any development. And as part of that, they will review to ensure that impacts to those ESA, that that ESA is not impacted. And that is codified within SUP Chapter 7 of the Denton Development Code, our ESA regulations, that it says what you can and cannot do in riparian buffers. And so any impacts would trigger an alternative ESA, and they would have to stop until that was either approved or they changed their plans to ensure that those impacts would not affect it. So the site plan did kind of jostle a little bit to where it's now impacted. So they'd have to just stop in place, it needs to be reviewed, and then it needs to come before bodies again. Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. Good to know. Commissioner Anderson, and then Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Quick question. Are they going to build Dutchess before they build these apartments? They will, they will likely build probably, I don't know what the timing is on exactly how they're going to construct it, but they will have to either construct the public improvements prior to the prior improvements or concurrent with. So it would have to be designed, constructed, inspected, and then accepted by the city before they could get final approval on everything. Because on these plans, there's no entrance or exits from McKinney Street or Woodrow. Right. Yes. And their plans actually include constructing the entire segment of Dutchess that's adjacent to their property, as well as a turnaround you can see right here on the east side of the site so that there would be adequate turnaround. Eventually, Dutchess is going to connect all the way through to Loop 288. So as this undeveloped property continues to develop, Dutchess will be required. But yes, they will have to construct all of Dutchess, and it will either be constructed prior to or concurrent with those private improvements. Yeah, and you're talking about all of Dutchess that's just part of their land. Because Dutchess doesn't really, I mean, it doesn't exist. It does not exist. So it's going to be there, and then it'll stop, correct, and then it'll just be the vacant land that's in between them and where Dutchess is dumping out onto the loop right now. Correct. Okay. Correct. All right. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. As I look on the GIS map, it appears that this proposed site plan is a portion of the currently platted parcel that's much larger than this. Is that a difference in timing of updating things, or is that the way things are right now? So the larger parcel is not platted. It really is just a large tract of land. As it develops, it will have to preliminary plat and then final plat, and they can't leave a remainder that's less than five acres per our subchapter eight, excuse me, of the Denton Development Code. So I believe the applicant in his presentation will talk about kind of what their vision is for this entire area, because there's one kind of big landholder within this general area. But it will, as the development marches toward the east, platting will be required. So okay, that helps. I guess I know we went to some pretty great lengths to try to remove split zoning from properties when we did the 2019 code update and some city-initiated rezoning at that time. What happens with an SUP if a portion of an unplatted area is granted an SUP before it's platted? That SUP is tied to the legal description. So as part of their ordinance, they have a meets and bounds legal description that describes the area. That SUP only impacts that area. So that is a land use permission for just the boundaries, that 11 acres within that meets and bounds subdivision. It would not impact the remainder. Okay. So the description of the SUP basically outlines an area that's not platted yet, but is a subsection as we see in the site plan of the entire parcel. You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much. And then just one additional question, if I may. Actually just a curiosity, I mean, obviously there's a multifamily development to the north and kind of the northwest. And I know we have some connectivity requirements in the 2019 DDC that specifically apply, most commonly we'll see them in like commercial developments, right? Where there'll be a stubbed out connection to a complimentary land use or something like that. Is anything like that incorporated in multifamily sites where we might see additional multifamily budding at a later time? We would love to see that connectivity. This site's a little unique in that, you're right, it's kind of hemmed in on the north because there are existing multifamily developments without that connection. They have the fencing around them. So it really precludes that connection. We also looked at, we talked extensively internally in our transportation group about a connection to Mack Park. Is there a way to connect to there? I looked at it, I pulled the old plats to see if there was any, because I thought you might ask this question. And with that existing ESA there, along that eastern boundary, with those tree stands, and with the way Mack Park is designed, there's not really a good landing place for some sort of either pedestrian or vehicular connection to that property to the north. And our mobility plans and really our thought process is to potentially have connections further to the east as the property, as the general area, develops further. So while we would love to have those connections, the unique conditions around this site really kind of preclude those connections. They preclude the conditions to the north because of the previous development, but perhaps to the east there are some opportunities for the future? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Julie, is there any way to get us a better map? That one's a little bit hard, or blow it up to where we could see kind of what's happening between Woodrow and the loop? Yeah. I'm going to just-- Thank you. --mess with the presentation here. It's going to make this really big, and we'll move that off to-- Oh, you got to leave, sir. Yeah, so you've got the loop there. So the subject property is right here. This is the mobility plan. It shows the surrounding arterial network. Woodrow is a secondary arterial. McKinney is a secondary arterial. And then, as you're aware, loop 288 is that primary arterial. Dutchess is intended to be a collector that connects in this location. Now, this is schematic, so they're actually proposing the road track a little further to the south, but they are working with engineering to make sure that all of the pieces marry up. But what we really want is to make sure that connection is there. Great. Julie, thanks for doing that. Any other questions? No? OK. Thank you very much. You bet. Appreciate it. All right. That concludes our agenda. So with that, we'll close work session at 527 p.m. and reconvene in council chambers for our regular meeting at 630. Thank you. [ Silence ] >> I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one indivisible. [ Silence ] [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Make a motion to approve as amended. >> Commissioner Villarreal. >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to approve the minutes. Any discussion? OK. Seeing none, I'm not sure our board is working. You don't have it in front of you? OK. I'll go ahead and do -- OK. It is working on -- yes? [ Inaudible Remark ] OK. Hang on. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> We're having issues with your mic. We're not able to hear you. So we're going to have to pause for a second. >> OK. Apparently, my mic is not working, so we're going to pause the meeting just for a minute at 6.45 p.m. >> Thank you. Sorry about that delay. We've fixed our technical problem. Well, we've switched seats to fix our technical problem. I will call us back to order at 6.43 p.m. We left off with a motion and a second to approve the minutes for April 27th. Any discussion? OK. Let's call for a vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to our consent agenda for the evening. Chair can entertain a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith? >> Make a motion to approve. >> OK. We've got a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Cole? >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? OK. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to our items for individual consideration. 4A is our first item, FP22015. I'll invite Julie Wyatt up for presentation. Hi, Julie. >> Good evening. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. And I am presenting FP22-0015. The request before you is for a final plat for a multifamily or horizontal multifamily use. This might look familiar. It has gone through the PD approval process and preliminary plat process. They do have some items that they're still working through. And so staff is recommending denial. However, they have requested an extension to the June 8th meeting. And staff has no objection to that. >> Questions for Julie? I do not see any. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal? >> Move to approve the extension to a date certain of June 8, 2022. >> Okay. We've got a first to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 8. Commissioner Cole? >> Second. >> Got a first and a second on the floor to approve that extension request. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0, bringing us to 4B, FP22014. Hello again, Julie. >> Hello. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. This is also for a horizontal multifamily living use. The subject property is at the intersection of Elm, Bonnie Bray, and Loop 288 on the north side of town. This is for a final plat. They do have some items they have to work through. And so staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to their requested extension to the June 8th meeting. >> Thank you, Julie. Any questions? I don't see any, Julie. Commissioner Villarreal? >> I move to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 8, 2022. >> Thank you. Commissioner Anderson? >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 8, 2022. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That takes us to 4CPP220010. Julie's item again. >> All right. So this is for a preliminary plat for commercial lots. It is at the intersection of Teasley and Ryan Road on the northwest side of that intersection. Once again, they have some items they have to work through. They have requested the extension to June 8, and staff has no objection to that request. >> Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie? >> Thank you. >> I don't see any. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal? >> I move to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 8, 2022. >> Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt? >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 8. Any discussion? Please vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. That takes us to 4DFP22005. That is Karina's item. Hi, Karina. >> Hi. Good evening. So I have before you FP22-005B. It's a final plat request for three residential lots on the south side of town in the city of Denton's ETJ. They do have a couple drainage and variance requests that are outstanding. So staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not yet meet the criteria for approval. However, staff has no objection to the requested extension that could be granted to a date of June 8, 2022. >> Thank you, Karina. Any questions for Karina? I do not see any. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? >> Make a motion to approve the extension to a date certain of June 8, 2022. >> Okay. Commissioner Pruitt? >> Second. >> We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 8. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 7-0. That takes us to 4EMP220011. That's Mia Hines' item. Hi, Mia. >> Hello. Good evening. Mia Hines, associate planner for the city of Denton. Okay. So on the agenda for your consideration is a minor plat application for J&J Acres. The property is located within the city's ETJ to the northeast of the city limits. And essentially the applicant has requested -- had requested a 30-day extension. They were granted that 30-day extension, but they did not follow through with that second submittal. And so at this time, our first review and recommendation of denial is holding. And so we're recommending denial at this time. I'll take any questions you have. >> Thank you, Mia. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you very much. Commissioner Smith? >> Thank you, chair. Make a motion to deny. >> Commissioner Villarreal? >> Second. >> Got a first and a second for denial of this item. Any discussion? Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 7-0. That takes us to 4FZ210017. We'll invite Lisa Payne up for her presentation. Hi, Lisa. >> Hi. Good evening. Lisa Payne, principal planner for the city of Denton. Let me just pull up my -- >> While you're doing that, I will let the -- for the record, Commissioner Cole has recused himself from this item. >> Since you all have heard this presentation last time, I'll summarize it to say that this is a request to rezone 311.5 acres from RR to LI. And the property complies with the light industrial designation in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Staff does recommend approval as it complies with sections 245E and 272D of the DDC. Because of last time's tie vote by the commission, we are back -- it was required to come back to return a P&Z. Commission's options are to recommend approval, recommend denial, or you can vote to postpone this item until a specific date. If there's another tie vote, then this will be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of denial that there will not be a requirement for a super majority if council wants to approve it. I'm available for questions, and the applicant is also here in the presentation. >> Thank you, Lisa. Questions for Lisa at this time? I do not see any at the moment, Lisa. Okay. So as Lisa mentioned, this is an item for individual consideration. We did open and close the public hearing last time. State law does allow us to receive additional comments, which I do have a few cards. And we will hear those comments tonight. But we will bring Mr. Ramsey up for his presentation. >> Well, just thank you guys again for tonight. And I want to thank Richard States. We've had multiple neighborhood meetings. And there's been a lot of people in Rancho States who have allocated their time to come to those, and we're just not away from their families. So thank you guys for allocating your time. And the city staff, this has been a long project we've been working on a long time. I want to thank the city staff for working hard on this project also. >> Will you give us your name and address for the record, Mr. Wright? Will you give us your name and address for the record, please? >> I'm sorry, yes, Lee Ramsey, 525 South Loop 288. >> Thank you very much. This is just a quick overview of the neighborhood meetings and some resident meetings we have. I won't belabor on this too long. But we've had a lot of people spend time with us to really, really work through this. This is probably where I want to spend most of my time is we purchased the land in June of 2020. And since then, we've, of course, done a phase one and phase two environmental. We've completed a TIA, and that's been submitted to the city and accepted by the city. There was multiple comments back and forth through that project. We have also completed an ESA study, and most of these things aren't required until platting, as you guys know. We're just getting ahead of game. We've also had that approved by the city and worked back and forth to try to define what the true developable area was. We've also, in the beginning, this is a little bit about, you know, a PD in the beginning, which you brought up a good point. You know, hey, why didn't we do that in the beginning? So when we started this process, our original plan we thought was going to exceed the code and the ordinance by so much by dedicating that as a park. And that would have fixed a lot of problems as far as access to Hampton Road. That would have fixed a lot of problems as far as buffer forever. But as we met with the neighborhood, they brought up some real concerns that I didn't think about as a developer, which I should have because I have a lot of homeless next to my office, but I didn't. And so as they brought up concerns, we had a neighbor willing to step up and say, well, I'll purchase that area where the park is. So we shifted that. And we met with Austin Baker. And we've come to an agreement for him to buy that with a 25-year deed restriction that it can only be agriculture in place by us. So that agreement has been has been verbally worked out. Last night at the neighborhood meeting, so then when we came back, I go, OK, if we go back to a PD at this point, that's going to push me six to eight months more down the road. So my concerns with that are one is in today's environment, you know, interest rates are rising. There's lots of we don't know where this economy is going. I just feel we need to get this product to market. And it's not as hot right now for leasing and those kind of things. So I feel it's important we get this project moving down the road. So I go, how can I solve some of these issues? How can I overcome some of these? As we know, we communicated last night with the neighborhood, whatever agreements we talk about as far as buffers are not tied to this particular zoning case. So whatever we discuss is an agreement that would be they would have to trust us that we're going to fulfill those agreements. And I'm going to stand back before this council again at least three times this year. I've got projects in the pipeline, so I have every reason to honor my words. So as we work through that, we go, OK, how can we can we get to a conclusion that works for everybody? One thing we came up with, the neighborhood requested the front building be pushed, I believe, six to eight hundred feet back, which is not something we could do because we lost the whole building up front if we did that. So as we work through with the neighborhood, we can see. So currently by leaving by the RR, the additional space, the city code says we had to have a buffer of a minimum of 30 to 35 feet, which has to be 50 points. So as we talked with the neighborhood, we discussed what if we go to an 85 foot buffer, add an additional 50 feet to the buffer, which pushes the building back another 50 feet and make that buffer six to eight foot tall, a rolling buffer with screening trees. And we would work together with the neighborhood and our landscape architect to work together to come up with that design along the Hampton Road side and then come up with some buffer design or fencing along the east side for those residents. And we seem to have come to a conclusion on that last night that the neighborhood would support that. We also issued today to the neighborhood a letter of understanding to everybody we had on our email list of all what we agreed to last night. We issued that, emailed that to everybody today. So that was, you know, on record of this is what we discussed and this is what we said we would do. I just put this together real quickly. I won't spend a ton of time on this, but I did throw it together to show everything that is hatched like this is already currently some kind of commercial zoning, whether it's GEO or LI or whatever. This particular is not, this is the county yard where they have their tractors. It's zoned RR, but it's being used as actually an HI. This is an erosion control. It's actually zoned RR and this is an RV park. And then these sites are future sites that could potentially be because what's on them could be a commercial use. But what I'm really trying to show here is the amount of the buffer that is RR that will stay RR to buffer the neighborhood. This is something I put together, too, as I was asking myself the question, is what we did enough, right? I'm going, is the buffer enough? What we've already allocated to leave RR to basically expand Ranch Estates. Basically, that's what this does. It pushes their neighborhood to the north. So I put this together. So what we're leaving in RR zoning is 34 acres. The total acreage of Ranch Estates is about 166 acres. This is not really Ranch Estates proper or this, but we went ahead and included it in there. So if you just take the 34 acres that's staying RR, it's about 20 percent of the overall acreage of Ranch Estates that we're leaving as expanding basically Ranch Estates in RR zoning. These areas are basically a natural buffer through here and here because this is flood plain and this is an existing pond, which is about another 21 acres. So that's about 55 acres total. So that's approximately 33 percent of the total acreage of Ranch Estates that we're leaving as a buffer. Again, we've met with Preetem. We had a meeting with him last week after our meeting. We met with Preetem, talked to him about the future mobility plan and the road use. And I guess with some of the expansions from 35, he said that road is at some point needs to be there. So we were trying to maybe get that removed. But he did say that there's no funding for that road and it's a minimum of 10 years. And I asked him if it was okay if I shared that and he said, you know, there's no guarantee, but we don't have any funding for that road and it's going to be a long time before it's going to get built. But we did meet with Preetem and our engineers and try to work through that. This is what we currently, per our TIA, that we have approved of what has to happen in the corner of Mosh Branch and 380. I did go take some pictures out at Hampton Road, just starting at the east end. I'm sorry, at the west end, working east to show that there is some trees and buffers already along there, which we're going to add another buffer behind this is what we're talking about in the buffer we discussed with Ranch Estates. So you can kind of see as it goes, there is a couple of bare spots. If you notice in the picture up to the left here where that row of trees comes a long way down, there is some open spaces that you can see through that first buffer where I think the second buffer will help. And we can maybe figure out some solutions to help with those few open spots. But if you look for the most part, there is some natural trees and natural buffer. And that's part of when we wanted to leave that in RR, it was going to protect those trees and they wouldn't be affected through the development. This is just a quick cross section looking from the west toward the east. This is what the city required buffer would be to meet our 50 points. We have a couple of options, but this is the option that we chose. This would be the RR zoning area. But these trees are existing and I tried to lay them in here similar to where these trees would be along Hampton Road. So there's this, there's this, and then there would be another buffer behind it. Now these trees don't expand the whole distance of Hampton Road. There's going to need to be some more buffers behind that to make sure we get the full buffer. But I did want to show the existing situation. These are some options of how we came up with our point system for the city required buffer when we were doing 35 feet the buffer. So we came up with two options as far as a masonry fence or another option with more landscaping. So we have run those numbers. We did show this. I didn't have time to update this exhibit since last night. But if you notice basically what this is, this is where the 85 foot buffer comes in here and it pushes that building back. So from Hampton Road, that building will be approximately 436 feet. And this to the buffer is approximately 284 plus another 85 feet. This is the site again with any questions and I have 50 seconds left. I can't believe I did it. If there's any questions. Thank you. Any questions at this time? Thank you guys for your time and time away from your family. Thank you as well. I do have a couple of cards who do want to speak on this item. I will call up Rebecca Height. And with a nonpublic hearing item, we do allow three minutes for your additional comments on this item. If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin. Okay. Thank you. I'm Rebecca Height. I'm at 3800 Hampton Road. Thank you guys for hearing. The last time in the meeting I was opposing the LI. It was very uncomfortable for me thinking that was going to happen. The Orson Group has been 100% accommodating to the Ranch Estates Group. I can't thank them enough for everything that they've done for us, to be honest with you. They've been wonderful. So I just have a quick little presentation to tell you guys. I did want to recognize Orson Holdings for everything that they've done for us. Myself alone have made several requests and they have been very accommodating for the items that I've asked for. They have offered and extended in good faith a letter to the group stating the accommodations that they would make with the barrier. So they're going to do trees along the LI to make it more so that we can't see the warehouses. They're also pushed back the facilities, so that helped us. And then they're also going to meet with us again to discuss additional screening. So I just want to let you guys know that I am now in favor of the LI. So I appreciate everybody's time and the Orson Holdings Group time. There is one little thing that I do want to ask about that I am 100% unclear on and it has nothing to do with them, but it's on the traffic. And so I am concerned about the increased traffic flow that's going to come through Ranch Estates. And if there's any suggestions or maybe you guys can recommend who I should speak to about that. But I am concerned about the volume of employees that will be coming through and they're going to cut through our neighborhood and we're afraid it's going to make it unsafe. So that is one thing that I would like some help on and some direction of who to speak to about that. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Height. Lisa, if you'll get with her and just get her in contact with somebody at the city so she can discuss some of those concerns, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you very much. Okay. I do have another card who wishes to speak, Ann Smith. You know what? You are the last card I have. However, I can ask if anyone would like to speak before you. Is there someone else who would like you can come on down to the podium? Sure. If you'll state your name and address, you'll have three minutes and you can fill a card out when you're finished. Okay. Thank you. My name is Julie Kleinkopf and I live at 1918 North Lariat in Ranch Estates. That little piece of heaven that you got to see on the picture is our front and backyards and we just love it. So we, especially my family, but a lot of my friends just want to thank you for giving us the time to learn and process this situation because I think we were all just kind of shell shocked, not really wanting anything to happen over there. And so most of us, I think maybe everybody has come to the understanding that the city needs LI and we're getting more comfortable with that. But we're worried about the traffic, so we just want to make mention of that and also just want to put it to you. We trust this process and just want to say that we appreciate the 50 feet that he moved it back or they moved it back. Just concerned because the 200 feet seems to be floodplain where they couldn't have built. And so kind of just wishing maybe there was something bigger, but maybe y'all would say it's big enough. I don't know. But this is what our neighborhood looks like. We ride horses on the street because we don't have sidewalks. We walk our dogs. We ride our bikes every day. I mean, it's just kids and it's it's like a closed neighborhood. And so it's just pretty much semi private and just really hoping that what you vote tonight is what you think is best for ranch estates and the city. So we appreciate your time and just want to pass it back to you. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your comments tonight. I saw someone's hand up over here. You can come on down to the podium if you'd like. You'll state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. My name is Jessica Farr. I'm at 1919 North Harriet. I'll keep this short and sweet. I just wanted to kind of second the sentiments that have been shared here about Orson Holdings. I think they've gone above and beyond, quite frankly, and how they've worked with our neighborhood and addressed all of our concerns. So I have full confidence in the plan as it stands. I know there were some concerns at the last meeting about PDs and kind of all those those items. I just wanted to state that with the future plan already being to convert the space to L.I., my hope is that we do consider doing that today and not delaying situation just because I think they have gone above and beyond. And I'm happy with the plan as it stands. My fear is is if we push this decision out further and delay that there could be repercussions to that buffer and some of the things that have been granted to the neighborhood. So my hope is today that that we take into consideration all the work, the planning. I think the explanations that have been given have been really helpful. I think the buffer is going to be sufficient. I'm excited about the prospect of one of our local neighbors owning that tract and keeping cows on it, you know, keeping it, you know, the flavor of the neighborhood. So that's all I wanted to share with you all today. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Are there additional speakers wishing to speak before I have Miss Smith come up? My name is Clay Heldman and it's 3900 Lariat. I agree that with most everybody feels what Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Martino and everything has planned. And I do agree that the biggest concern for the neighborhood is truly going to be Moss Branch. It's a site that's going to have a lot of traffic being built within a very short amount of time. This is all dependent on 288 being expanded. That expansion is going to take a while. We're all realists. We know what this, you know, happens. And I think that there needs to be consideration about truck traffic. And then, yes, personal traffic, you know, this may potentially be a 24 hour facility. It's a lot of traffic. There is a condensed neighborhood. It is pretty closed off. There's not a lot of entrance to it for the time being. So that will get shoved through the neighborhood. And that's the main concern, I think, that most, you know, most people have. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Smith, I think I'll have you come up. My name is Anne Smith. I'm at 2013 Cindy Lane, Denton, Texas. First, I want to say thank you to you all volunteer position. Thank you for being here and thank you for being thoughtful on everything that you see here and have to judge. Secondly, I want to say thank you to the Orison Group. They have been professional. They've been polite. They've been respectful. We've had several meetings and at each meeting, that's my phone, and at each meeting, we've been we've pushed pretty hard for what we need. Paul, how long have you been in Ranch Estates? 50 years. How long have you been in Ranch Estates? 42 years. So for 42 years, for 52, for 27 years, we have been looking at the Baker property in a very wonderful way. We call that Ranch Estates. It never was Ranch Estates, but we got the blessing of looking at it. What the city has done in their 2030 plan and in their 2040 plan was surround us with LI. And I was aware of the 2030 plan when that first came out. And so then it's moved on to the 20. What I guess I don't understand is if y'all if the plan isn't a plan, a vision, if it's not more than just an idea, we don't understand why it isn't what you want as LI. What we want, of course, is a pasture for the rest of our days there. But the land sold. It changed. The Orison Group bought it. They have come in. I'm the point person at Ranch Estates and I get all the developers and I get the phone calls and I get to spend my time talking to people and talking them out of coming and developing on a hill or Ranch Estates 500 little cottages or whatever the case may be. If the city if this is a plan for the city, if this is what the city wants, then we're asking you to support your plan. We support Orison Group because they support us that to us that means we're good neighbors. But where we need the city to support us now is when just like the young man that just came up here, he said that once Mosh Branch goes under development to reconstruct it, to make it larger. Where are we going to put all those cars that are on 380 on 380 that are we can't detour them through Ranch Estates because you have little kids on on motors little motorcycles. You have four wheelers. You have you cannot do it. And that will be the fight of your lifetime right there to put a group of detour traffic. I know I'm out of time, but don't do it, please, because you're talking about little kids at this point. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I actually have a couple of questions for you. If you don't mind being that you point person for Ranch Estates. How does most folks in the neighborhood get in and out of the neighborhood to get down to 380? Is it down Cindy Lane and Marshall or does everyone go to Hampton and cut across and goes down Mosh Branch? It's probably Cindy Lane and Marshall. The Lariat people probably come down to Cindy. There's a lot of people that even from Cindy go to Marshall. So it's both of those. So even getting across to go eastbound on 380 still can take Cindy and Marshall and get across pretty easily there. To go. No, it's not really easy because there's no there's no left hand turn there. And we have to wait till all the traffic from from Western Boulevard comes before we can even get into the very far left hand lane. It's it's it's difficult. Gotcha. Thank you. That's I really want to know everyone pretty much asked about traffic and I wanted to ask a few more questions about traffic. So Lisa, can I see a question and Miss Smith probably knows it, but I'll ask you is that those roads inside of Ranch Estates are those aren't HOA maintained roads, correct? Those are city maintained roads. Correct. Got you. Hey, more more of more than anything else is we've seen projects like this before we've done. We've recommended road mitigation or traffic mitigation, I should say. We wouldn't we don't codify it at all in a vote, but it's something that before it goes to council to have city and developer talk about possibly putting in some things that might be road mitigation pieces of the neighborhood want to do. Once again, not making it dependent at all on a street zoning case, but to address some of the questions that the neighborhood has had that there are some things like road bumps and that kind of stuff to maybe keep people from wanting to go down that road because it's not the fastest way to get through instead. So that was just an idea. So thank you for let me know on the HOA piece. Appreciate it. Yes, and I'll be talking tomorrow with our traffic engineer to find out what the process is exactly about how to get things like no truck signs. If we allow speed bumps and what other kind of options that there are to deter trucks or other cars from coming through the neighborhood. Gotcha. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to add additional comments if not we're going to move on to a our discussion in a vote. Come on down. Gary Hellman 3900 Larry that was my error up here earlier I asked him to ask who is going to or who takes care of relocating the historical marker for the agricultural extension station out there. I talked with a lady she said it has to stay in the vicinity of the property and the sign is state property. So y'all take care of that. We'll bring somebody out from staff to answer that question because I'm going to get that quote had a neighbor email this morning shot him back what I knew and figured I'd dump it on you all tonight. Okay. Well, we definitely have historical preservation in place in the city. So I'll have staff answer that question. Do historic preservation officers here, but I won't ask her to come up last minute. And we are aware that the marker is there. And that's something that they have to go through the Texas Historic Commission. If they want it to be moved, there's a process to go through that. But that sign does have to stay in the vicinity. The applicant is aware of that. And so there are on it. There's all intentions to keep the sign safe. If it doesn't even move, they'll go through the right processes, but it will still be right there. So any development on the property that would have that marker moved would have to go through a process with the state. Through the state. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other comments from those in attendance? I don't have anyone on the phone. So I'm going to open up the floor for a motion or discussion here on the commission. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the agenda item as presented. Okay. Commissioner Pruitt. I'll second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the zoning change request. Is there any discussion? Okay. I'm just going to say a couple words. Thank you so much for being involved and coming out again. I will thank the applicant for their great communication seemingly with the neighborhood. I wish you would have done this PD from the beginning, as I stated before, so that we could get these promises in writing and have some kind of enforcement over them. Because I personally would like to support you, and I can't because anytime I have had a neighborhood protection concern, which I do here, I've never supported a straight zoning case. And that's me. That's my consistency on this commission. And unfortunately, I can't waiver from that because I just, for me, a PD is what makes sense here. I hope that if this does move forward and council does approve this, that you stay in great relationship and communication with this neighborhood and you do exactly whatever it is you have communicated to them and promised to them. With that, I will call for a vote on the board. Okay, that motion does fail, which it's now disappeared. So it is up there. Fails for two. So, Hillary, I believe I am correct that that will get moved on to council as denial. It will not require a super majority at council, correct? I believe that. Okay, very good. Tina, do we have this on council agenda yet? June 7th agenda. June 7th agenda. Okay, so for all of you in the neighborhood, it will be forwarded to council. Council will hear this item on June 7th. Okay, and it will be a public hearing item then, correct? Yes, ma'am. It'll be a public hearing item at council. Okay, very good. Thank you all. That will move us to our public hearing item for today. And that is 5A S220002. I will invite Julie Wyatt up and open the public hearing, invite Commissioner Cole back to the dais. And Julie, why don't you give us just a minute? I think the room is going to end up clearing out, so just a couple of minutes. Okay. Okay. Julie, you're on. Go ahead. Okay. Good evening. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting S22-0002 pathway on Woodrow. So the request before you is for a specific use permit for multifamily development for a multifamily development on about 11 acres, closer to 12 acres. On the subject property has a zoning designation of suburban corridor district, that's SC district. And it is on the east side of Woodrow, south of McKinney, the subject property is outlined here in yellow. There is a riparian buffer. We talked about it in work session. There's a riparian buffer along that eastern edge of the property that just clips that eastern edge, the eastern boundary of that property. So we'll take a look at the site plan before we go over the criteria for approval. They are proposing 285 dwelling units in six three story buildings. Those are outlined in purple on your screen. They are also proposing on-site open space and recreation amenities that includes a fence dog park, some playgrounds with some pedestrian connections, a pool and a clubhouse area. 476 parking spaces, bicycle parking near each building. They're proposing two vehicular connections to Dutchess Drive. Those are areas outlined, they're a little difficult to see, but they're outlined in orange. Those orange circles, those are the two vehicular connections. And three pedestrian connections. Those are shown with the blue arrows. One to Woodrow and then two toward the south. As part of the development, they are proposing to construct the entire section of Dutchess Drive, that entire width of Dutchess Drive between Woodrow and their eastern property boundary with a turnaround at the eastern boundary. I did mention that ESA, I just want to point it out. It's a little easier to see in the landscape plan, but we'll start talking about it now. It's this area outlined in green. That's where it's showing that it's just clipping that eastern edge of the site. And they are also proposing a 10 foot shared use path along Dutchess on that north side connecting to an existing sidewalk on Woodrow. Additionally, they are proposing a dedicated right-hand turn from Woodrow to that Dutchess piece. Dutchess will eventually connect all the way to Loop 288, so they are proposing to construct that right-hand turn. And then finally, the subject property and that design, it's a garden style, multi-family development, but they have sited those buildings in a way that defines that street, pulls those buildings up to the street to really activate the street for pedestrian comfort. There are elevations, those example of the elevations are also shown on your screen. We'll look a little bit at the landscape plan. It's kind of hard to see in the overall plan, so I've blown up just one particular building. They are proposing foundation plantings all along the building that includes adjacent to the street as well as those entrances for those residents to kind of create a front door for each building. Tree plantings in common areas, I don't know if you can see, but they are proposing tree plantings as well as tree preservation within their open space common areas. As I mentioned before, they have that ESA preservation. It is along that eastern property boundary with some additional plantings on that fringe of that ESA. And then they will have to meet our tree preservation requirements within the city of Denton. They've already started that process. They've submitted their tree survey and tree preservation plans to our landscape planner. She's been reviewing those with them, and they're working toward that tree preservation plan approval. So the first thing we always look at when we look at any project is the comprehensive plan, and the city of Denton has an updated comprehensive plan. The Denton 2040 comprehensive plan designates the property as moderate residential in that future land use map. Typically, we see about 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre within our moderate density residential areas as it's kind of a transition between our low density single family neighborhoods all the way up to our mixed use in commercial areas. Now, the subject property and that proposal is a little denser than what we typically see in moderate density residential, and they're proposing about 24 dwelling units per acre. However, that is kind of an umbrella. We're also looking at the context within that future land use designation. And given the subject property or the subject property's location near our county offices and that node of employment and activity and adjacent to Woodrow, which is an arterial, those additional densities make sense in this area. So staff feels like it's consistent with that overall intent of moderate density residential. Now, we also look at other parts of the comprehensive plan. It's not just that future land use map. So we also looked at what our population projections were in our Denton plan 2040. And Denton is really projected to grow to about additional 90,000 people by 2040. So within our plan, we talk about how are we going to accommodate that demand and that housing demand and multifamily is part of that. And so this project and especially where it is sited near our urban core is consistent with the housing demand and is served by those existing roadways. And it's also consistent with the vision of that compact development pattern. It's bringing in development near our near urban center. We also looked at a new part of the comprehensive plan, and we talked about it in work session. And that's that preferred land preservation plan. And really, that is just our ESA areas. And as Tina reminded me after work session, our floodplain areas. And those are areas that Council has looked at, the areas we think we want to preserve as kind of more natural areas. And this plan is consistent with that in that they are preserving that ESA area on their eastern fringe. And then finally, our housing goals within our DIN plan 2040. We have, it meets two of our housing goals in particular. It meets the needs of all residents with a diverse array of housing choice and type, cost and location. And then also to expand the availability of affordable housing choices for community members most in need of housing. So it meets our comprehensive plan and those overall goals. Since this is an SUP, one of our points of analysis is compatibility. And when we're looking at compatibility, we're looking at several factors. So we're going to go over those. So first of all, we look at adjacency. So where is it sitting? What is the context of this site? So first of all, it's adjacent to Woodrow's. I mentioned that as a secondary arterial. So that is one of our primary roadways within this area. It's also next to a regional employment and activity node. We have our county offices just to the west of the subject property, as well as those commercial uses that are there to serve those county offices and those employees there at that commercial intersection of McKinney and Woodrow. And so additional housing in this area is part of that mix of uses that provides that housing for those potential employees or customers for those commercial areas. So it provides that additional level of mix of uses. We also look at consistency. We looked at consistency in their design, their density, and then their development scale. So first of all, the design. We talked about that these are the garden style apartments with those on-site amenities. The activities on-site and their design, it's consistent with that surrounding multifamily in the area. So it's not introducing new uses, and it is consistent with those multifamily projects along McKinney. Density. They're proposing 24 dwelling units per acre. That aligns with those existing multifamily projects, where the densities range from 12 dwelling units per acre toward the east of the subject property all the way up to 28 dwelling units per acre. So it's right in kind of the mix of what's existing out there. And then finally, development scale. They are proposing those three-story buildings, which is also consistent with that existing development pattern. And then finally, zoning. The surrounding zoning to the south of the property and to the north of the property is at SC District. So we anticipate, especially along Woodrow, it's going to develop with similar uses and development scale that's existing out there and that would be compatible with the subject site. So in summary, the project is consistent with those overall goals of Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and then consistent with the surrounding development pattern. We also look at adequate public facilities, and in this particular case, we really looked at that focus on transportation and parks. They provided a traffic impact analysis that was reviewed and approved by staff. The use is anticipated to generate about 1,900 trips per day, 111 peak in the morning, and then 143 peak in the evening. Other TIA demonstrated that they don't anticipate that this is going to create a lot of negative impacts in the surrounding intersections, but they are proposing that right-hand turn from Woodrow onto Dutchess in order to accommodate the traffic, as well as the construction of Dutchess Drive, which is one of our mobility plan roads. They are proposing that 10-foot shared use path along the north side of Dutchess. And then finally, we looked at parks. One thing we always want to look at is that 10-minute walk to a park standard. There are parks within the vicinity of the site. We have Woodrow Open Space just to the west. We have Mack Park to the north. We have Carl Young Park and Fred Moore Park further off to the west of the subject property. There's also some capital projects within, especially on the west side of Woodrow, in that there is a 10-foot trail that is going to be constructed to link those existing parks on off-street trails, and that should be completed, I believe, in 2023. And then our Parks Master Plan is looking at an additional trail section south of the subject property. That's kind of a recommendation. It's not been designed yet. There aren't any plans yet, but it's one of the recommendations of the plan that we want additional trails in this area. And then they are proposing, because there are some challenges for pedestrians getting to, say, Mack Park to the north, is they are proposing those on-site amenities for the residents, the playground equipment, the pool, the clubhouse, and also the dog park, to provide those recreational opportunities on-site. So in summary, there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, and they are proposing those on-site recreational amenities to provide those activities for residents. Public outreach was sent out. We have received two responses in favor of the proposal, and so based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval. We do have some recommended conditions. I won't read over all of this for you. It is in your backup material, but essentially, if this was approved, it would attach the site plan, the landscape plan, to the ordinance, so that it would have to develop consistently with that. With some ability for some minor changes at the staff level, but any major changes would still require a revision to that SUP. I'll be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant does have a presentation as well. Great. Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie at this time? Commissioner McDade. Thank you, Chair. Julie, could you go back to the 2040 Comprehension Plan? Sure. Okay, because everyone knows I'm not a big fan of apartments, especially in Southeast Indian or District 1. For some reason, that spot right there alone has almost 6,000 apartments. But I'm looking down here, and I'm reading through the population where it says a broad array of housing and retail choices. We've been hearing for the last 30 or 40 years, when apartments go up, they say it's going to bring this, it's going to bring that, and 40 years later, nothing. So that's something that I don't believe in anymore. Also, you talk about affordable housing choices. What choices do you have when you're just building apartments? Affordable housing, to me, says affordable houses. Apartments aren't affordable housing to me. I just have a problem with, we've already got 216 coming down on the loop, and McKinney, which is unwanted, and in my opinion, 285 more, it's not going to bring anything different. It's just going to bring no retail, no places to eat, just like the last 6,000 apartments. I don't know if these 285 are going to do different. That's going to bring retail and restaurants to that area, because it's just not going to happen. So I can say, I've never been a fan of apartments. You have all that property there that you can build houses, but for some reason, when they come to District 1 or Southeast Indian, they only have apartments on their mind. And that's something that the neighborhood is not fond of, and I'm speaking on their behalf. I don't know if I could do it as a commissioner or do it in a public hearing, but I'm just letting everyone know that District 1, particularly Southeast Indian, does not want any more apartments. We want affordable housing, and when we say affordable housing, we mean houses. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Julie at this time? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. Julie, I apologize if I missed it, because there was a lot of content there. Did you mention the mobility plan having provision for a north-south route of a side path on Woodrow, or was I mishearing you? So existing on Woodrow, is that what you're... As far as the bicycle component of the mobility plan, identifying that as a future route? I'll have to check that as far as any future improvements to Woodrow for bicycles, so I can certainly check on that for you. They are, as part of this overall area of development, there probably will need to be some additional north-south connections, but I don't know that, but I can find out for you. I'd appreciate that. I guess I'd, you know, to some of the points that Commissioner McDade made, my impression is that when communities see growth, they see some of those desirable amenities when it's in a context where you can easily get to those places that are zoned for commercial use. But when it's difficult to get there without getting in your car, you cross this threshold where once I've pulled the car out of the driveway, it's not much difference in effort between driving, you know, a thousand feet to the restaurant at the corner, or driving a mile and a half to the restaurant on Loop 288, right? And so my concern is, as we develop these areas, how do we make sure that they stay connected and offer future possibilities for that, specifically so that we can maximize the potential redevelopment opportunities in areas to give the neighborhoods what we've been telling them will happen eventually as these places grow. So thank you. I'll find out. Any other questions at this time for Julie? Okay. And I don't have a card from the applicant, but you did say that there is a presentation, so I'll go ahead and invite you up to do just that. Okay, okay. Thank you. Good evening, Mistress. My name is Lance Van Zandt, 512 West Hickory here in Denton. It's my office address. I represent the applicant in this matter. First of all, I wanted to, first thing I need to do is thank Julie for all her hard work on this, her review and responsiveness. We appreciate that. And as always, Julie did a fantastic job and was very helpful to us as we work through the application process. I want to thank her. I have my clients here to answer, also to answer any specific questions you might have about the site. I do want to mention that we have met with, Julie indicated, some of the community meetings we've had, we did meet with the neighboring business owners there who have some commercial properties right adjacent to the site. They were supportive, and as recent as today, I've emailed back and forth to them some specific concerns they had about our use there and about how it might affect their access, their electricity. I was able to alleviate those concerns, and they were generally supportive of the development. They've been, their business owners have been there a lot of years and are well aware that this site has not developed over the years, and they're excited about the possibility of having something there. We also have, and you may have in your packet, we have support from the county as well as the school district. I've visited, had a couple of meetings with Councilwoman Byrd, and she has been very helpful and supportive as well. I do want to mention, I guess, Commissioner McDade, I understand and heard and understand your opposition for apartments. There's probably not anything I can say here tonight to alleviate your concern about apartments. And I certainly can't promise that, you know, any particular commercial business is going to be located here because of this, because of this development. I can represent that, you know, this is what you see in the green is our development here. That's part of a, and what we consider to be the first phase in a larger master plan community on that site. This is roughly 12 acres of, I believe, around 100 acres, if I'm not mistaken. 130 acre master plan community, and it's really, this is frankly a pretty difficult site to develop right here. It's, you know, as you can see, it's by the sheriff's office in the jail right across the street. It's next to some commercial metal buildings there, and it's fronts Woodrow, Woodrow Lane. The area to the, to the south and the east, however, doesn't have those, doesn't have those, those concerns, the only, but there is no connectivity to the, to transportation there. So we see this as the first phase that the construction of Dutchess Drive being able to kickstart development further to the east and what we are planning. You can see our development there is in the, in the brown. This is the, this is the first phase of, and frankly the, you know, the larger master plan community is waiting on the result of this case here to see if they're able to go forward with their, with their plans on their, on their subsequent single family development. So, again, because you're late, I don't want to, I don't know, this may not answer your concerns, but this is, we don't view this as just a standalone one time project, but some apartments here. This, we see this as part of a part of a larger undertaking that will bring some single family housing and office and retail uses to that area. So, you know, so I do, I do want to say that without, you know, making any promises I can't keep or, you know, probably not going to alleviate your concern about apartments. That's just something you've experienced and I understand that and appreciate it, but want to address it as best I can. So, and my client is here to answer any technical questions you might have about the site. Steve Sanders, Carsten Lowe are principals at Cardinal Multifamily and have done a number of these projects around the state. They're high quality projects. You can see those in the presentation. I can take you through some of those and be happy to answer any questions you have. So, thanks again. I appreciate your attention and thanks again to staff for all their hard work on this. Thank you. Hi, everybody. I'm Steve Sanders with Partners Multifamily. Unsurprisingly, we build apartments, so we think our baby is always beautiful and hopefully they are. I will tell you, I completely share your concerns, by the way. I'd love to build more single-family houses and we do. But the reality is in this country, and we're talking literally for 150 years, we build about one-third apartments for every two-third houses. You've got a population that's going to grow by 40,000 people or 40,000 households. That's a need for at least 10,000 more apartments, and I'm just suggesting it is part of the sort of overall idea of any community. You've got to have some transitional housing. We build affordable housing, and that's what this project is. I have to explain this to a bunch of neighborhood groups because they hear, and I know you're more sophisticated, they hear affordable and they think the wrong things. We're building for people in Denton specifically making between $29,000 and $58,000 a year, $29,000 to $58,000. That's going to include most of the warehouse workers that you have in this town. It'll include the night produce manager at your grocery store. It'll include the barista that makes your coffee. It includes both of my recently graduated daughters. They are in that income range because a lot of people fresh out of college are in that income range. But what we're trying to accommodate here is families. It's built to accommodate families. Eric Rinshaw is with HEDK Architects. He's our architect. He does our market rate apartments, too. And market rate, you know, for better or for worse, is you put an apartment in a good location and you charge as much rent as you can possibly get. And you sell it for as much money as you can possibly make. That's how market rate apartments work. That is not how our affordable projects work. But we hire the same team all the way down the line. We hire the same team and we tell them to build the same product. Because just because it's affordable, we don't want it to be anything less than Class A. So it will be Class A. Eric will talk a little bit about the project itself, if you don't mind. I just wanted to make sure that you guys understand that when we build these communities, the purpose of it is community. We've always said in our company, the best day we have is not when someone moves in, it's when they move out. The purpose of these is to accommodate families making, you know, anywhere from, what is the bottom, 30% to 60% of the median household income. That keeps going up and their income doesn't. So it's needed. I would suggest to you that if we do the community correctly, we've done something else. The clubhouse, which Eric will show you separately, is designed for programs. It's important that there be programs. There's after school programs for the kids. There's adult literacy and adult financial literacy programs for the adults. And frankly, anything we can think of, anything we can think of that actually helps someone manage their money better and get onto, you know, a single family home, we're happy about. And we work really hard to make that happen or to help them make that happen. So with that said, I want Eric to talk a little bit about the -- let me do this first, though. Yeah, go there, Steve. Anyway, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Eric Earnshaw, HEDK Architects, 4595 Excel Parkway, Addison, Texas, 75001. My company was founded in 1968 with multifamily in mind. The only product that we do in our company is multifamily. We do it across the country. We're currently working in 22 states. We've known Steve for a great many of years, and we've done a lot of market rate projects for him. But we've also done a good handful of affordable projects. And an affordable product is something that becomes a multifamily to an apartment complex to an attached neighborhood. It's building a neighborhood and building a community, as Steve says. We're able to have these services within. We're able to build a Class A product. We don't have a different template or a different mindset of what an affordable product is. We're trying to bring the best and the highest quality of living to different income brackets. And with clients like Steve, we're able to do that, and we're able to do it pretty well, to pull off something that doesn't spell affordable, something that spells, "I want to live there until I knock on the door and find out I might make too much money, and I can't live there." So it's with that in mind on the design and the elements that we bring to this development that we're going to have six individual buildings. I want to go back here just a second. Sorry. Six individual buildings. We're going to have a 7,000-square-foot air-conditioned club area. We're going to have indoor/outdoor space, covered patios, resort-style pool, business center, Wi-Fi, cyber lounge. We're going to have co-working space for people that are working from home that could go down to the club and sit in a bunkette or sitting in an area with free Wi-Fi and printers and so forth like that. This is for working families, and as Steve said, it's for people that are making lower incomes but looking for a place to live in a community and where they work. So it's important architecture for us to come across that it gives everything that a Class A product gives in a different location or different style buildings. The architectural that we are trying to portray is a edge treatment architecture. We're trying to hide the parking. We're trying to bring the pedestrians to the street. We're trying to have the connectivity to it, but also give a product that's in the affordable range. So it's exciting for us as architects not to always do a market-rate product, not always to do an affordable product, but bring something that is very successful for people that might need to live in an older development that's farther away from their job to have something nice location to live for their family and for their children. And the after-school programs that we've designed and to be able to have community space and have the children in the taut lots and under many trees that we're going to have that we're planting and saving the existing canopy here is exciting to us. We have a dog park here as well, be able to let your dog off the leash and so forth and run a little bit and have a dog bath for him and so forth. Our architecture is a contemporary farmhouse architectural style. You can see on the top of the page is the club leasing facility, the one-story facility. This is going to be class A product. That's what it is. We're not trying to cut corners on anything. We're not trying to give small bedrooms that are eight foot by nine foot that you can't get a bed in. We've worked with people like that in the past. We don't do that. We're looking for someone that every bedroom you can get a king-size bed in and get a full set of furniture and so forth. It's something that has to live. The apartment development becomes your home. And if I can get my furniture in there and I live well and I become a community and I meet my neighbors and there's outreach programs and there's things to do on the weekend and things to do after school, it really becomes more of an attached neighborhood to us, not just an apartment complex where I go in and live inside my unit. We're trying to get everybody outside and we're trying to have that communal effect within our developments as well. So it's important to us as architects and planners and the landscape architecture and so forth that we're bringing towards the project for everybody to enjoy. This is another project that we've worked with with Steve down in San Antonio. A little bit much denser. This is a four-story product and so forth. But the amenities that is offered in this project are the same that's going to be offered in the project here in Denton as well. So we're excited about it. We're excited about the location. We're excited about developing in Denton. We're excited about bringing a new product to the market here that when you have the more light industrial workers and the people that are working at the grocery store or the x-ray tech or the dental hygienist or something or the people that are just coming out of college and want to stay in Denton or moving to Denton and are affiliated with the university here that's so wonderful, it gives them a great opportunity to live in a wonderful development. And that's kind of how we see it. So I appreciate the time today and thank you very much. If you have any questions, we're happy to answer anything. It did occur to me you might have some questions. I'm going to ask the commission right now if there's any questions. Commissioner Pruitt, I do see you on the board. Do you have a question? No. Okay. That might have been a leftover from last discussion. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Commissioner McDade. Thank you, Chair. Just going to go back. I mean, I enjoyed your presentation, but I guess the problem I'm still having is now you say you're kind of putting it between the individuals who make $29,000 to $58,000. In my opinion, I think those individuals, they want the American Dream also. I mean, they're looking for home ownership. And I go to the other districts, two, three, and four, I mean, they're promoting the American Dream. That dream is not being promoted in District 1. I would love to see, I could say, the affordable housing where someone who's making $29,000 to $58,000 can afford the American Dream by buying a home in that neighborhood. Sad to say, that neighborhood only offers three choices. You have apartments, you have a Habitat home, and last but least, you have homelessness. That's all that's over in that area. We need affordable houses. And I'm sorry, I mean, for the life of me, I just cannot vote for this project. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you. I actually do have a question. Okay. I skipped my mind before. You mentioned several times in your presentation that the goal of this particular project is really to be a place that families can be. I didn't see any mention of the unit mix as far as number of bedrooms. Can you give us an idea of what that might look like? I'll be very specific about it. By the way, I'd like to give you the rent ranges, too. It is really, really important. When I have suggested to you that the top end of the range is $58,000, that's actually just 60% of what this area median income is set by the state, we're not looking to solve for those folks. And we've got tranches all the way down to, like I said, $29,000. We have 121 bedrooms, 111 two-bedrooms, 51 three-bedrooms, and 21 four-bedrooms. Okay. And I guess just to follow up, in general, are there barriers that you run up against in trying to incorporate more three- and four-bedroom units in a development like this from a code and regulation perspective that makes it more difficult for larger families who might be in this income range to find properties like this? You know, it's a really good question. I will tell you, we build at least as many market rate product as we do affordable. In market rate, 10% are three bedrooms, 0 four-bedrooms, 70% are one-bedrooms, because that's what brings the highest rent. We're actually part of the problem of why we then also have to do this on the other side of the company. We actually are forcing out people that might be able to afford a three-bedroom in a different location. We're pricing them out of the market. That's just a fact. The rent ranges, five hundred and forty-eight dollars a month for a one-bedroom, up to seven hundred and fifty-eight dollars for a four-bedroom. So it's pretty darn affordable, you know, for a whole lot of families. It's a whole lot better, I think, than what they can find in the general market. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. It looks like you do a good project or something, but I do have questions. As Commissioner McDade said, along McKinney Boulevard, I mean McKinney, that corridor, there are already 10 apartment complexes that are so-called affordable housing. We have two more coming along on Loop 288 that I'm totally against as well. But with that said, everybody says affordable housing. Well, I know friends that have gone to try to get to rent an apartment in some of these places, but they make too much money. They only make like forty-three thousand dollars. So when y'all say affordable housing, I don't buy it because, I mean, an employee making forty-three thousand dollars can't even afford -- they're overqualified for a one-bedroom apartment at all these apartments up and down the street. And I just kind of -- I wish I would call it what it is. And it's -- I just don't -- I don't see it being affordable for these people. And as Commissioner McDade said, everybody seems to want to pile them into precinct and into District 1. And, you know, we have them going up on other sides of town, which is good, but we have a huge homeless problem now, which is sad upon itself. But we do need affordable single-family residences in there. You said y'all have a master plan. I saw the other concept and all this stuff. Is that -- is that y'all's land as well, or is that just a concept? Yeah, I want to be very clear. Our entire development is in the brown. Okay, so all the other stuff -- Everything else is -- there's a master developer who's building the single-family residential. They're the ones selling us the land. They actually think we create a really great, frankly, buffer from them from the jail. They think that we are a really good use for the entry to their single-family residential. We do, too. But they're selling it to us, so, you know, obviously they support what we're doing. I can't tell you much about the rest of it because it's not my project. I mean, it's not that I can't tell you. Right. Then, you know, I'd like -- you know, it's some state secret. I just don't know much about it. No, but when they stood before us as well, they said these are affordable, you know, affordable apartments. There's affordable housing. Yeah. Then we have people -- I know friends have gone to try to get apartments there, and they're like, "You're overqualified. You make too much money at $45,000." It's interesting that you say that because, again, we've got multiple deals. State tells us where we can qualify income. Anybody making $42,000 clearly qualifies in our project. There are other programs. I don't know how every program works because we build what are known as 4% tax credit deals. That's what we build. Well, let me back up. They qualify, but they don't get the cheaper rate as somebody with a lower income. They have to pay the full amount. So say a two-bedroom apartment is $1,500 a month. Right. If you make $30,000, you get it for maybe whatever the percentage off is. Right. It does work that way, yeah. Right. So y'all are just going to be counted the same way there? Yeah, it does work that way. Okay. We have, as part of our approval with the state, we have tranches of 30%, 15% of all of our units have to be at 30% of the median. Right. But it never goes above 60% of the median. Right. That's where I'm getting about the affordable because somebody making $45,000 is overqualified. They don't get the break on the cheaper rents. That's kind of what I'm -- that's kind of what -- Can I speak to that? Yeah, please. So in these developments, you're not obligated to do 100% affordable. There can be any mix. There can have market rate mixed in with affordable. And so you are locked into X amount of percentage that you commit to. And as Steve mentioned, we do 100% affordable. So we have 85% at the 60% of median income and 15% at that 30%. So we do have a range of incomes, but those are the only two we do. And similarly, that is also driven by our market study. So we do an analysis of the population. We pull in the densities. We pull in any number of things. We have a market analyst conduct this. But that's how we calculate those densities, and so all of our developments are 100% affordable. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to let Tina speak for a minute on this land that we're looking at as this conceptual design. Right. Just two points for the commission's benefit. So one is we do not have any land development applications filed for the remaining balance of the property. So I would ask that you keep your focus on the area of requests this evening and the specific use permit that's before you. And then also just want to remind the commission that this decision should be based from a land use perspective. Because at the end of the day, it should not matter if it is market rate versus affordable housing. It's multifamily. I mean, they could change the income structure as they so be. It's just like when we talk about single-family residential developments coming in. It should not matter whether it's a $250,000 house or a $600,000 house, right? It should be based upon whether or not single-family residential is appropriate for the property. In this case, the commission has a specific use permit for multifamily that's before you. So the most appropriate consideration that we would ask is that you look at it from a land use perspective. Is this request consistent with the comprehensive plan? Does it meet other policies that we have in place associated with it? In the case of the affordable housing discussion, it does further advance in the city's affordable housing toolkit strategies that we have. Because that is a policy that the city has adopted that we have the ability to further implement as well. So again, I just ask that you consider it primarily from a land use perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Tina. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you for answering our questions. Thank you. And your presentation. This is a public hearing. I do not have any cards to speak. And I don't see anyone in the audience other than the applicant who did speak. And I'm looking now. I do not have anyone on the phone waiting. Yes, Julie? I do have an answer for Commissioner Pruitt's question regarding bicycles. So as part of our 2022 mobility plan, they did include that bike element. And there is at some point going to be a future side path along Woodrow. So that is included in that bike plan. As well as some additional bike facilities along Shady Oaks to the south. Commissioner Pruitt, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. So Julie, I guess I'm familiar in areas that are not as encumbered as this is by the right-of-way existing with Woodrow that adjacent roadways would be required to be upgraded to the cross-section that is shown within our mobility plan. How does that work in a situation like this where it looks to me -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- but it looks to me like the roadway dedication is sufficient on their side, but it's because that center line isn't really in the center of Woodrow. And if the property, if the jail redeveloped, which I can't see in my lifetime, then it would be required to yield a certain amount of right-of-way, right? So I'm just having a hard time understanding how that plan is going to be realized and how the redevelopment of these properties where we do have room on the east side of Woodrow is envisioned to get us there. I can give you a limited answer, but that might be a good question. We might need to continue the conversation in some of these hardened areas where we do have existing development along that right-of-way. You are correct. When properties redevelop along their additional right-of-way would be potentially secured for any additional infrastructure within that roadway. I did talk to our transportation folks, and there aren't any capital projects to make any improvements along Woodrow. But, you know, as we're continuing our mobility discussions and our variety of modes of transportation and our fuller picture when it comes to mobility, it's something we're going to have to look at in our internal areas. So I don't really have an answer for you other than your understanding of how things redevelop is correct and that eventually that piece would potentially all be there in the right-of-way. So I'll make this the last, but I guess in these situations, does the DDC speak to if the developer does not construct that cross-section as required within our code? Is there a certain amount of funding or something that they're supposed to provide for the city to do that as a future project? We don't have escrows within our DDC, so typically developers would have to construct any required improvements along that right-of-way. And so as part of the capital -- or, I'm sorry, the civil plans that we'll be looking at, our engineering will be looking at all of those elements associated with it, and if there are requirements, then that will be secured at that time. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thanks, Julie. I don't see any questions. All right. Okay. Seeing no one in the audience left to speak, and I don't have anyone on the phone, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing, and I will open the floor for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. We've seen a couple different affordable projects in my five years on commission, and this is probably one of the better ones that we've had presented to us as a commission. There are certain areas in where developers are able to build these types of affordable properties and be able to get the tax credit from the state for the property tax. It just so happens that that low-income tax housing credit exists in that area. I think it's no fun for there not to be a mix of development in a place or in a section of town, but at the same time, there is a need for affordable housing. And if we begin turning down affordable housing in areas in which it makes sense, it's close to central transportation and commercial centers that we can't look it in the mouth. So I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you. I'll second, and if you don't mind, I'll just offer a couple thoughts. You know, I'm going to support this. At the same time, I'm tired of multifamily being used as, quote, "a buffer between other homes and the jail." Okay? I understand jails are a special case. But I see this same sort of thing happening, butting up against commercial, butting up against loud roads, butting up against pollution sources, et cetera. And really what it does is it marginalizes a sector of our community that deserves homes. And those homes can be in a large building. They can be in a single-family home. They can be in a townhome. They can be in a fourplex. They are homes. Okay? I think this site is a special case because previous development doesn't allow us to build a neighborhood here. Right? There's no connectivity to the surrounding properties because we've got an iso to the east. We've got, you know, fenced off properties to the north. And so we need to learn those lessons very carefully. You know, I'll just point out it seems like many of these developments have ironic names. On the slide we see pathway on Woodrow. And nowhere on this site plan is there a pathway on Woodrow. We're talking about the existing four- or maybe five-foot sidewalk that if you try to walk north on that, you eventually get to McKinney Street. You cross McKinney, and I can tell you I've seen at least a dozen people walking westbound on the north side of McKinney trying to get to that convenience store on the northeast corner. There is no sidewalk going north along Audra. Forgive us. This road that's Woodrow here is Audra just north of McKinney. It's six other names if you keep following it. It's Denton. And so what these people do, they have to get to the store. There's a hedge between them and the store. They walk into the roadway, into the lane of traffic, around a bush, and then back through a drainage concrete canal between that convenience store and the drainage inlet on Woodrow. Right? We care more about the drainage water than we do about people walking to a store. With that said, that's my beef for how we connect these places together to make communities, as the applicant described. I have a heart to see communities that are more than just single development pods, but neighborhoods. So I do support this. I think in reality, the alternatives in this part of town would be more disruptive and more of a challenge to get built. So I think this is a good first step. And I think it makes sense here. Thank you, Commissioner Prudt. We've got a first and a second for approval. And I will just clarify that is with staff conditions as presented, correct? Correct. Okay. Very good. Is there further discussion? Okay. I'll just say a couple of things. You know, for this piece of land as it's presented, the 11.89 acres that it is, as Tina mentioned from a land use perspective, I mean, this does fill a need in the community for the goal of affordable housing. In this tract of land, the site plan as presented makes sense. It does abut to already commercial developed land. It is across the street from a jail, which I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Prudt, it's not to demean people living there. But there is some transitional need from that, transitional need from commercial development, and we're not going to put single family homes right there in that little tract of land on Woodrow. My hope is that the concept plan that we saw from that aerial, I hope that becomes a reality. I hope that connects through all the way to Loop 288. Dutchess becomes a great road. That becomes a wonderful master plan community of multiple phases of living in types of homes. That is what my dream is for in between there. In the reality, today we're dealing with this 11.89 acres and the request before us, which I think from a land use perspective makes perfect sense. That's my two cents. With no one else wishing to speak, let's go ahead and vote on the board. Okay, that motion fails for three. So with that, let me consult. Okay, it will move on to council as a denial. Do we have that on council agenda? Yes, ma'am. It's slated for May 17th, May 17th. Okay. Thank you very much for anyone listening. That will move forward on May 17th. Okay. That will move us to our planning and zoning matrix. I'll turn that over to Tina. So with respect to the matrix, a couple of items. So no development cases updates to provide the commission from the prior council meeting because we did not have anything on the agenda, but did want to share with you, there was to, Charlie did make the presentation regarding the notification system, the opt-in that you all received previously at the planning and zoning commission meeting. So council concurred with the planning and zoning commission regarding allowing folks to opt in and notice for the public hearing cases first. However, they would like to further review this in approximately six months to possibly expand the opportunity to other projects. And Haley, did I summarize that correctly? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Okay. They so that we will be rolling that out here soon and getting that implemented and again, monitoring it and seeing if there are opportunities to expand the types of projects that folks could opt in on for as it relates to the matrix. We removed the opt-in notification item that was on here. And then also what we did is we tried to add a little more specificity under the status column. If you're calling at your prior meeting, Haley gave a presentation regarding upcoming boot camp presentations that we've scheduled for the remainder of the year. So if any of those topics were on the matrix that were also on the boot camp presentation, then we updated it accordingly to reflect the time periods that we spoke to with respect to the boot camp presentation. So just to tie some of these down so you have an idea of when we're trying to deliver on these various items. Other than that, that concludes my update. Okay. Great. Anything for the matrix? Commissioner McDade. I just wanted to know if you have any kind of update on the Robertson Street project. I still have people asking me questions about it. I just wanted to know if you have any kind of update on it. I do not. You're more than welcome to reach out to Cameron Robertson, our historic preservation officer, because she was the planner on that zoning case. And I think you've got Cameron's contact information. So just email her directly. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything else for Tina on the matrix? Any concluding items? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Just a concluding item, looks like Cameron Robertson, who we just mentioned, is no longer here, but I wanted to give her some thanks. She's been doing an amazing job with the historic preservation month along with the county and many things. There's one event that they're running for that, specifically in the downtown area. I believe it's Saturday the 21st for sort of a lecture and tour of several redevelopment opportunities. I would encourage everybody that anybody we know who might be interested in that to just spread the word. Well, thank you for that compliment. We'll be sure to pass that along. She as well as her partners over at the county have been working very diligently. So in case you're not aware, it is historic preservation month this month, as well as it is building safety month as well. But we'll be sure to pass your compliments along, so thank you for that. Thank you. Any other concluding items? Okay, seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting at 818 p.m.