Oct 24, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-10-24 5:00 PM

Good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning work session for October 24th, 2018. It is 513. We'll open the work session meeting at this time. The first item is to clarify any agenda items listed in the agenda. Richard, do you have anything to start before you hop into the consent? >> No. >> Perfect. So we'll go into the consent agenda, 3A is Haley. Haley actually has 3A and B. So if you have any questions for Haley. Does anyone have any questions? Perfect. Margie, Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. I have a question, 3B really. I'm just curious. >> Does anyone have any questions for 3A real fast, Commissioner Ellis? >> I do. >> 3A? Perfect. Hey, can we just skip to 3B? So my question is on one of the notes where it says that we have to get permission from downstream owners for the runoff. Exactly how does that happen? >> So, Audra has a lot going on as I'm sure you've noticed. So there is, and I don't think it shows up on here exactly, further down to the east, closer to where we had the recent rezoning, there's an out fall there. And all of the developments, that one as well as this one and the property to the north of here that you may remember from last year, all are required to improve the storm water system to get their water to that point. So all three of the developers are in the process of trying to work together and figure out how they can share the cost of that and how that will happen. But engineering requested that that note be added in case all of that doesn't work out or just as a heads up that you still have to come to this agreement so that all three of you can share this and convey your water across each other's properties to get to that ultimate point that they all have to reach. So that's what that note is an advisement of. And additionally, there is a small property here that you see as, let me see if I can get to it here. It's a single family home that I believe also has a business associated with it, this lot one, block A of the Gary addition. That property also has to be traversed with the storm water line and they haven't yet completed those negotiations with that property owner about how they would get that storm system across his property. So four parcels that all have to work together here to get this accomplished. Right. So is that something that's done in writing and then? It would be ultimately. They're still pretty early in that because this property is kind of the first piece in but we're also working on the preliminary plat for this piece as well. And then with that recent rezoning, I suspect we'll see that plat for the further east property as well. But that's what that note is referencing is just that kind of team spirit that we're trying to get to to get this accomplished, to get Audra consistently improved with storm as well as street improvements as all three of these pieces come in. Okay. And what's being and what is held up if that doesn't happen ? The entire project? Um, there, I guess the biggest potential holdup is all three of the developers seeming very inclined to work together and share this cost would be this this kind of holdout lot here that that's already developed. So if that's the case, there is a potential that, you know, improvements could be skipped on that parcel if we're not able to to work with them. But they are working together and working with our engineering department to see what we can do to get all of this accomplished at once. So thanks. Any other questions for Haley? Thanks, Haley. Three C is Julie Wyatt's item. Any questions for that preliminary plot? Awesome. That is our consent agenda. Moving to public hearing for a has been postponed to a date certain of November 14. So we'll skip that one for now. Goes into the next one is for B, which is Cindy Jackson for final reply. So can you come up and present the final reply? Cindy will be seeing a lot of you tonight. I think I just need to pull a stool up to the podium. Okay. Fr 1810 is a request for approval of a final replat of 15A R1 and 15A R2, block 17, a residential replat of lot 15A, block 17 of Royal Acres. The site is generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hercules and Wellington Lane. You can see it right here. The plot actually was initially subdivided. It was approved in 1972 and it's hard to see, but here it is as two lots. In 1976, the property owner at that time re-platted it to create one lot. And what we have tonight is a request to take it back to two lots. We sent out 21 public notices via certified mail and then 275 public notices to the entire subdivision via certified mail, which is required by the local government code when we have a residential replat. We sent out 500, excuse me, 49 courtesy noses within 500 feet of the site. And as you can see, we got no one in opposition within 200 feet of the site. No one in favor, one neutral. And then we had four in opposition in the subdivision and two in favor within the subdivision and one that was neutral. Cindy, apart from us knowing the subdivision's response, the subdivision response outside the 200 foot buffer does not play into supermajority voting . That's just for our own edification? That's correct. Okay. You want to wait? Okay. Well, we recommend approval. Krista Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So currently there is a house built on the north side of that. That's correct. Right. And that's staying? Yes, it is. Okay. In fact, I had the applicant provide me a survey of the site so I could verify that the house with the subdivision of the land will still comply with all the requirements with setbacks and open space and all. And it does? Yeah, because it does look like it's going to sit quite. Yep. It does. At the south end of that boundary line. It does. I wanted to make sure of that before we move forward. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Oh, Commissioner Beck. Thank you. Chair, I'm not sure why the opposition, but I'm reading this one here. I guess they were concerned that something other than a residence was going to be built there, but that's not possible, is it? Well, no, it's not. It's 7NR4. Okay. Right. Okay. Thanks. Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez. Is it my understanding that, okay, the house will fit on one lot and the other lot will have, it's big enough to build a house of same caliber, 3, 000 square foot, or that's about what you have in that neighborhood? Yes, it is. The lot that is proposed is 12,000 square feet in area, which is significantly above the minimum requirement of 9,000 for NR4. Okay. Thank you, Cindy. Appreciate that. Sure. Next is agenda item 4C, the final replat by Ron Magenta. Thank you, Chair, members of the commission for my presentation. This is a final replat, a residential replat. That's why we're here for a public hearing. It's for a property located on Bernard. 711 is the address. Family zone DR2. The property is approximately .289 acres. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot. It is currently platted, but subdividing the lot into two lots, one lot in front and a flag lot to the rear. The dimensions and requirements per the DDC has all been met. They also meet the density requirements. We sent out notices per state law within 200 feet and the subdivision and have not received any letters or responses of any opposition neutral or in favor. With that, staff recommends approval of this final replat, residential replat of 711 Bernard. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. The name kind of throws you off the treehouse apartment. Yes. There's actually nothing there right now. So it's going to build a duplex. Can you go back to the site map that you showed? Yeah. Okay. So how are the people in the back going to access and park? There's a 21 access easement by this plat. And so I believe there's an existing drive here now. They're just going to extend that. The treehouse apartment name came by way of them platting this lot. I think it was last year wanted to develop apartments, but they were not able to meet that either financially or with the size of the lot. So they came back and wanted to replat it so that they can build two duplexes on this. So parking will occur on that little inlet street? No, this is access. So it's an easement. So they won't be able to park there. This is just the driveway easement. Okay. It will be required to park within the subject lot. Is there garages then? We haven't seen the site plan, but they will have to meet all the development requirements in order to develop. Okay. Great. Thanks. Any other questions for Ron? Thank you very much. Item four. I do have one. Commissioner Burnetta. Kind of piggybacking on what Commissioner Beck just said. So there's no parking on that. That's just an entryway, right? It's an access easement, yes. And based on where that is around the university, there's almost no street parking on there. They will be required to have parking on the property. Correct. Per the development code, there are parking requirements on site and they will have to meet that in order to develop. All right. Excellent. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Ron. Okay. Next is 4D Cindy Jackson again for a rezone. Okay. I am going to combine the presentation for Z170004 and S17 008 into one since they both are on the same lot. This is a request to public hearings. It's a request to provide an initial zoning designation of NR6 on approximately 118.04 acres of land. The second request is a SUP for manufactured housing development. You'll notice on the aerial map here, I've got a red dashed line along here. This demarcates that area that is being considered for zoning. It's to the north of this line and the SUP, it includes all of the area inside the yellow box. The subject site is generally located north of McKinney Street and west of South Trinity Road, which is right here. Current zoning on the site is RD5X because the site was actually annexed into the city last August. The site has a placeholder zoning of RD5X. They're requesting an initial zoning designation of NR6. This will be an extension of the existing NR6 that you can see located on the south of the site. This is the proposed concept plan. The total land area when you include the area that is already zoned along McKinney Street is 126.1 gross acres and that includes the 118 proposed for rezoning. The ESA is 18.5 acres and you can see this here, the applicant is proposing to preserve 100% of the ESA on the site. The open space on the site equates to 15.4 acres and you can see all the open space and parks that are being proposed for this site. There's pocket parks all over the site. The modular and manufactured homes are located within the yellow areas along here. There's 497 stands proposed and then six single family one acre lots are proposed along the east side along Trinity. The overall density of the site is four dwelling units per acre. When looking at rezoning a site, the criteria that we use is in section 35.3.4b which says that the proposed rezoning must conform to the future land use element of the Denton Plan 2030 and the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer schools, parks and other public requirements and public convenience. When looking at the future land use, sorry I'm trying to get caught up here. Based on the Denton Plan 2030, the most appropriate zoning for the site is the NR4 zoning district with a future land use designation of low residential. Pretty much the NR6 that is proposed meets the intent of the future land use only when you apply the conditions for approval that staff is recommending which limits the density to four dwelling units per gross acre as shown on the concept plan. The applicant is planning to provide let's see two left turn lanes into the site from McKinney Street. The ultimate right of way for Post Oak Road which will be along here will be dedicated equating to 1100 linear feet parallel to the subject site and it will be dedicated with this project. The four lane intersection of Post Oak and McKinney will be constructed with this by the developer with this application and that will include a traffic signal as well. There are two planned access points along Post Oak. There is a full access located to the north and a right in right out located closer to the intersection. The applicant is also proposing as I mentioned earlier to preserve 100% of the ESA located on the site. Adjoinage analysis will be completed during the plotting and civil engineering of the site to ensure no negative impact to adjoining properties. As noted previously the requested NR6 is a continuation of the NR6 that is located along McKinney Street. The uses permitted in the NR6 district are consistent with the uses that exist in the area today however at a lower density. The reason that the applicant requested the NR6 as opposed to the NR4 is because the NR6 it permits a manufactured housing park upon approval of a SUP. But the applicant is trying to keep it to NR4 standards with their density. The uses surrounding the area we've got Ashley Oaks which is a mobile home park that has been -- Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. You're probably about to answer my question but if NR6 and the mobile the manufactured home park and everything else but Ashley Oaks is NR2? Ashley Oaks is NR2 and I really don't know why. Neither do I. It was constructed in between 1985 and 86. And it was zoned NR2 during the 2002 rezoning. My thought is that it probably was just complying with the underlying future land use designation that it has which is low residential. That's the only -- it doesn't comply. It's a nonconforming use. And the other mobile home park that's just south of the property, the subject property, that's all RD5X? That has been annexed in. It hasn't been zoned. Okay. Yeah. So it's RD5X. It's placeholder. Okay. And traditionally Cindy whenever we do have a manufactured home park like that would this be the best way for them to go? It would be NR6 with an SCP for -- That's what we required. That's what you would -- anybody comes in and says I want to build a manufactured home you can find NR6 and you need to apply for SCP. That's right. Understood. We worked pretty extensively with the applicant. We've been working with the applicant for over a year now. Two years. Two years. That's why it's got 17 on it. Yeah, on this site. The applicant has significantly reduced the density of this site since it first came in. And he's also -- they've also introduced the single family home sites that are along Trinity to bring down the density. So the applicant has been very cooperative in working with the city and trying to get this to a place where it is approvable with conditions. Okay. I'll let you keep going. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Oh, dear Lord. Sorry. We'll come back to you. Yeah. We'll probably come back. Well, let me ask something that I'm going to ask later since I can't remember this one right. Can you go back to the concept plan? Mm-hmm. I'll go forward to it. Okay. Just north of where the six one-acre lots are, there's a little strip of land there that will back up to the phase three. Right here? No, go to the white area. Yes, that area right there. That's a real narrow strip. And as we look at, you know, the design here, it doesn't look like you could build much on that. And I know there's probably no answer for this, but that's going to be probably left vacant, or we have no idea. Right now, I don't know. And it's already -- It's not in the city yet. Oh, it hasn't been -- No. Okay. Okay. I thought it was already -- Let me get back to the -- see, that's not the right way. See, that's not -- oh, it is the city. It is already. Yes, it's already 5X. Yeah. It came into the city. That's going to be interesting to see who -- The public's got a single-family house on it. I did check that. That's going to be interesting to see who requested zone designation for that and what it is. Just out of curiosity, too, that little strip along McKin ney there that was already in R6. Mm-hmm. Okay. Was there -- there's nothing there, though. No. Okay. It's odd why they would just do that little strip. Well, that's what they did back when they did strip zoning. Strip annexation, rather. Yeah. They annexed 1,000 feet and then they strip -- Okay. -- zoned it. Strip zoned it. To what -- we're not sure why they recommended that in 2002 . Okay. Because we've got -- it's kind of like we've got a transition going here. NRMU. Yeah. Then NR6 and then NR2. Okay. And I did -- yeah. I did recall what I was trying to say. Now they'll be expected to meet the criteria for parking of NR6, right? Well, they're expected to meet the criteria for parking of single-family homes, manufactured homes, which is two parking spaces. Okay. That's different from regular NR6? NR6 doesn't have parking regulations. No. It's for use. Oh. Okay. Commissioner Sanchez? You mentioned that you had worked extensively with them to bring the numbers down. Why were you working to bring those numbers down as far as how -- the number of structures when you were -- I know you're willing -- they want to -- NR6, but why were you working -- why was that such an important thing to bring those numbers down? Because of opposition from the neighborhood that is located to the north, significantly to the north, Lakeview -- [ Inaudible ] Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yes. They had significant concerns expressed that to get to and from 380, people would come out here and go along Trinity through their neighborhood to get to 380. So what the applicant did -- well, first he put those single-family houses along here, which is -- it serves as a transition between the higher-d ensity park and uses to the east. And then he pretty much directed all of the traffic. As you can see, all the traffic is directed to the west. The timing of the development of this, if it's approved, McKinney Street is anticipated to be widened in approximately two years. It's under design right now. And Mayhill Road is expected to be completed within two years. So once this is developed, there will be little impact on the traffic because of those improvements. Plus we've got post-doc that the applicant will be constructing to give additional access to the site off of McKinney away from Trinity. Okay. >> Because how many -- what would be the difference between how many different structures with an NR6 and an NR4? Like you say, most people are going to be going out McKin ney. Very few people are going to go up to 380 unless they're going to use 380 if they have to -- they're going to take Trinity even if they have to go on 380. It doesn't make any difference. Not that many people. So I just didn't understand that. Okay. Well, that is just the feeling of those people in that neighborhood. Even at the meeting that we had Monday night, which I gave you a synopsis, the applicant explained how all the traffic's been diverted to the west. And they were still saying that, you know, people are still going to go up through their neighborhood to get to 380. But realistically, if you've got McKinney improved and May hill is improved, it's much easier and expeditious to go to McKinney and up Mayhill than it is to go through a two-lane road and over a one-lane bridge to -- and through residential to try to get to 380. All right. All right. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. It was mentioned in our material that they're going to be putting a masonry wall on the south facing and the east facing. But they didn't mention anything in that right of way or where POSOK is going to come through or they going to -- is that -- they're not going to be a m asonry wall there? I believe there is, yes. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. So those six one-acre lots -- Yeah. Are they within the gate of the gated manufacturer? No. They're not. They're going to be outside of -- Yeah. They'll be their own little subdivision there. Okay. But they're part of this SUP only because it's part of the conditions of approval. That they need to remain as six one-acre lots. Understood. Okay. Let's see where it was. Oh, okay. When you compare the density of the two mobile home parks that are here on either side, actually the density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre and I believe it's Denton Falls has a density of 5.12 dwelling units per acre. These are more of the trailer park homes that we're used to and these types of homes won't be in this park. This park will only be manufactured and modular homes which , by the way, the city considers modular homes to be single family. So they would be allowed on this site by right. If they were put into a lot instead of on a stand in a park . Commissioner Begg. Thank you, Chair. And they're going to be put on foundations. Yes. Are those slab foundations? Concrete reinforced foundations. Okay. Not pure and mean. Okay. Either way is fine. Okay. Notices. We have about 16 notices via certified mail within 200 feet of the site and 19 notices via regular mail. We've got two in opposition. The two parks that are located on either side, they said that it would be detrimental to their business. Those two parks, however, equate to 28% of the land area within the 200 feet of the subject site and triggered the requirement for a super majority vote of the council in order to be approved. Three signs were also posted on this site. And I gave you all of the responses that we got for this. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Just to be clear, they're in opposition because it's competition. That's what they stated on all of the notices. Yeah, they did. They did. I hope everyone understood that. I'm going to say that to the public. I'm going to say to the public session that you're only against it because it's competition and you don't want competition next to you. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Okay. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions. These conditions will bring the site into compliance with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030. The proposed conditions for approval are an overlay be placed on the site with the following requirements. The maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more than four dwelling units per gross acre and permitted land uses on the site. Our modular and manufactured homes as shown on the concept plan and six single family detached housing lots, minimum one acre lots located along South Trinity. I originally had in here the number of stands that would be required and all that. However, I realized that for the zoning site that doesn't include the whole site. So that many stands on this part of the site would really be a crunch. It is on the requirements for the SUP though. Okay. Now we're going to move on to-- Cindy, can I stop you real fast? On zoning requests, typically we see a slide that there's two conditions that we look at, future land use map and then capacity for infrastructure. I didn't see that slide. Okay, there is the future land use map and there's the zoning. Perfect. So on the future land use map, looks like individuals before us on a previous P&Z thought that this area should be rural and low residential and everything that goes along with that impact fees and stuff we've been talking about in terms of growth projections have that as rural and low. So it seems with the two analysis, it does not meet this one. This is-- and NR6-- NR6 does not meet this one unless you apply those conditions which restrict the density. To four. To four which would be consistent with the low density. NR4 is considered low density. Yes, it is. Okay, perfect. Thanks. Commissioner Smith. And right now, the concept plan that I saw in there has 500 something units, correct? There's 503 units total but that includes the six single family. If you remove the six single family, then there's 497. It's made of tomato. So 500 units. We're going to round up. 118 acres, NR6, I mean they're not building at an NR4 level . So if we suggested it, came back and suggested it as a commission, whatever we are, we can make it and suggest it as a commission, NR4 instead to them . We can't do that because it's a manufacturer and everything else. Well, if you suggest NR4-- And we're going to be suggesting NR4, I guess we're going to be limiting, right? Because we can't suggest NR4 because the NR4 doesn't allow for the SEP for manufacturing homes. Right. And that is why we've got the maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more than Fort Dwell and Uniper for a acre. That's-- I was looking at something else we said earlier. You're so smart, Cindy. I'm an idiot. I just have been practicing. I'm going to go back to the other one. I'm just going to be practicing. And then we'll move on to the next request. This is the second public hearing, S170008, a request for a specific use permit for a manufactured housing development and approximately 126.1 acres of land. You'll notice that the red line is gone and this is for the entire site. The subject site again is generally located north of East McKinney Street and west of South Trinity Road which are located here and here. Here's the proposed SUP concept plan again. I'm not going to go through all those slides again. I'll just remind you that it's 126.1 gross acres. The ESA area, they've got 18.5 acres of ESA. They're proposing to preserve 100% of the ESA on the site. Open space on this is 15.4 acres. Manufactured housing stands are 497 and then there are six one-acre single family lots. Overall density of the site is four dwelling units per acre . Okay. Now when we're looking at an SUP, we look at section 3564 and we do a compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and the requested use including the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding vacant property, parking, generation of traffic and access, nuisance prevention, landscaping and screening and architectural compatibility. This analysis is all in your backup so I'm not going to read it word for word. With the proposed density of four dwelling units per acre, this development has a lower density than the mobile home parks to the east and west as I noted earlier. The applicant has included six acres located on the west side of South Trinity which is to be developed with a one-acre single family home sites. This will provide greater compatibility to the land to the east. The applicant in response to concerns expressed by residents in the area has a limited access to and from the site via Trinity Road except for a gated emergency access that is only accessible by emergency vehicles and the police. Water is available from McKinney Street and improvements to the lift station will be located to-- the lift station located on Trinity may be needed to facilitate this development. The proposed development complies with element seven of the Denton Plan 2030, specifically element seven, encourage-- establishes a goal to encourage housing type, cost and location choices. In order to achieve this goal, the plan addresses affordable housing with a policy to quote, expand the availability of affordable housing choices for community members most in need of housing including those with low incomes and special needs. The proposed manufactured housing development will provide another affordable housing option for Denton residents. Notification, we sent out 17 notices within 200 feet of the site via certified mail and 20 notices within 500 feet of the site via regular mail. The responses to the legal notice, we received one in opposition which is this large property owner right here. And again, that equates to 28% of the land area within 200 feet of the site and will trigger a super majority vote of the council to approve this SUP as well. >> So any of the two businesses to the west and east were silent on the SUP? >> I believe they thought maybe if they opposed the zoning, the SUP is a moot point. I'm just conjecturing but that seems logical. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. And on that point, did this property owner oppose the zoning change? >> No. >> Okay. >> They probably got-- >> Commissioner Beck. >> Well, they got inundated with notices to be honest with you because we did originally-- this was originally on your schedule in January, last January and we pulled it to do all of this additional work. And so they got notices in January which I included in the packet I gave out. And we got notices this time as well. So and they each got two notices for SUP and rezoning. So it could very well be that they just got too many notices and just decided to fill out one. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. I noticed in your information, you know, that they had a neighborhood meeting nearly a year ago. >> Yes. >> November 11, 2017. It was recommended that they hold another one which I think is a good idea but as yet, we haven't set anything up. >> Well, actually, it was Monday night and I gave you a syn opsis of the meeting tonight. >> Oh, okay. That's what this is. >> Okay. So they have had a second meeting. >> Yes, they did. >> And we still have this opposition. >> Yes. >> Okay. Got you. Thanks. >> Commissioner Sanchez. >> You mentioned this affordable housing. Had they talked to you about what kind of prices those mobile homes are going to be? We're looking at HOA, I assume, right? >> Well, yeah. >> I think it's going to be an HOA. >> There will be an HOA and I know during the public hearing, the applicant will be able to address those questions about price points and the HOA dues. >> Okay. I didn't know if that discussed that with you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I don't know. >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions in Exhibit 7. Now, I've got them right here, but I also -- I can read them all if you'd like. >> I don't know if that's necessary. >> Okay. Okay. Because I'm prepared to read them all if you'd like. >> No, I think we're okay. >> You know -- >> Just kidding. Cindy, I don't know if I missed this or if you could point it out to me. Do you have the total number of acres that will be developed when you minus out the parks and the ESA or do you have the average size lot that's being used or leveraged? >> Well, there -- if you -- on the exhibit that is in your packet, it actually has all of that broken down. >> On their site plan? >> Mm-hmm. >> Yeah, in the corner down here? >> Yep. Thank you. >> Well, that concludes my presentation. >> Any other questions for Cindy? Great job. Did a lot of hard work. >> Thank you. >> Cindy, you have the next one. >> I do. Let me go get my file. >> Okay. Okay. S180002 is a request by Budget Self Storage for a specific use permit to allow quick vehicle servicing in suite 110 and 111 of Budget Self Storage. The property is located at 2820 Virginia Circle. Virginia Circle actually runs parallel to University. Here's Virginia Circle and here's University and here's the loop. This is actually an ALTA survey showing you everything that 's on the site. And the location of the two vehicle repair facilities are located in this corner here. And then the parking, they've got 12 parking spaces over here. The site was developed as a storage facility back in the 80 s. And then this, according to DCAD, was constructed sometime in the 90s. I couldn't find any records on it. A history of the site. In 1985, the site was platted and the self-serve storage facility was constructed. In 2002, it was rezoned from C to NRMU in the citywide rez oning. In 2010, CO, a certificate of occupancy, was approved for retail sales of automotive electronics in suite 110. And also in 2010, a CO was denied for auto repair in suite 111. The CO, the applicant then revised the CO to read office and the CO was approved for "office only" in suite 111. Now, this is actually the result of a code enforcement action. Last year, we received a complaint about an auto repair facility operating without a CO. That's when we, after a site visit and investigation, it was discovered that parking issues existed on the site and the two businesses were actually in violation of their COs. The applicant has three options to rectify the situation. One was, what was originally proposed to him was to rezone the entire site to CMG to rectify the situation. However, staff conferred with legal on this and the decision was that an SUP would be the more conservative way to go. If we rezone the site to CMG, we would create additional nonconformities because a self-storage facility requires an SUP in the CMG. And it's already a nonconforming special exception site right now and that would just flip it over into noncon forming if we did that. Here are some photos that were taken back last February and you can see the concerns staff has regarding parking on the site. These are the two businesses and at the time they had 15 parallel parking spaces along here. In the course of reviewing this application, I determined that those 15 spaces were substandard, didn't meet the requirements of our parking, parallel parking dimensions, and the applicant did go ahead and restripe them to meet those requirements. So now there are 12 spaces in front. This, what you see here, they are also doing overflow parking on the vacant lot adjacent to them. So as you can see, parking is a real issue on this site. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Just a clarification of one of the documents we have here. The Haney's Auto, I mean everything is all budget self-st orage, budget self-storage. Is Haney's Auto, is it one of the two businesses or both businesses? No, we've got two businesses, Haney's Auto and Melton's. And they rent out from budget? That's right, they're tenants. And the property owner is the applicant, which is budget self-storage. Okay, all right. So the property owner is basically representing two of his tenants in this scenario. That's correct. However, the representative of the property owner let me know that he couldn't be here tonight. And he said that one of the tenants was going to be here, but I'm not sure which one, to be honest with you. I was going to go looking for him when we were done here. Commissioner Sanchez. When you say the overflow parking is, this is a vacant lot, it doesn't belong to the owner, right? No, it doesn't. It's just, okay, it has nothing to do with existing businesses. Right, if you look on the aerial, you can see it on the aerial too. Mm-hmm, okay. Commissioner Burnetta. So it's currently still used for storage facility, correct? Yes, yes. This part of it is office warehouse, this one building. And if the rest of these, all of the rest of these are self -service storage. And the current parking requirements, the 12 parking spaces , those are meant to accommodate people who would be coming in and out of the storage? They're meant to accommodate this building right here. Okay. At the time this was developed, we didn't really have parking requirements for self-storage. Okay. Thank you. There is parking right here for the office. Yeah, Mr. Linnatter, attorney. I just wanted to clarify, the vacant lot to the west, that 's not included, correct, in this SGP request? I just want to make sure I'm just clarifying. The vacant lot where there's overflow parking, that's not included in this request? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, chair. I wouldn't think that's probably even owned by the same person, correct? Correct. Right, yeah. And there's over 20 cars parked on that piece of property. Well, I know that we've talked to the owner of the adjacent property through the pre-development meeting process, so they are looking to develop the site. You saw the floor. Yeah, they have a for sale sign on that lot that is kind of being shadowed over by the 20 some cars that are on it. But there is a for sale sign. Commissioner Beck. There was the one notification sign out front. Should there have been one to notify the residents that sit behind them a little bit? I know there's a pretty good buffer there, but... We put them along the right of way. The signs are required to be put along the right of way. Okay, so... And they've only got frontage along that one street. Okay, so it's possible that the residences are within 200 feet. Within 200 and 500 feet, the residents behind them got either a certified notice or a postcard. Okay. Commissioner Sanchez. As I was reading through this, you don't recommend that... your recommendation is not to accept it, but you also... I think you also state that if we do recommend it, that there are certain things they have to do in order for them to continue running a business. Running a business there. Exactly. Okay. Exactly. Staff felt that we really couldn't recommend approval of something we'd already recommended denial of. We initially recommended denial of the CO in 2010 for automotive repair based on the fact that it required an SUP . So now we have the SUP, but it's very clear that there are parking issues on the site. So we felt we still could not recommend approval of it. The applicant has been extremely cooperative with staff and has done everything staff has asked. And so we've done what we've done is what we call a soft denial, saying, well, we can't really approve it. You guys have the ability to approve it. If you do, these are the standards that should be placed on it. Commissioner Beck. Do you want to follow up? Okay. So say if we did approve it, is there anything that we could give like a say a SUP with conditions if we don't meet our conditions within or if we find violations, we'll pull that SUP? Out of curiosity. I don't know. I have to defer to Jerry on that. I guess my thinking is he seems to -- he said I've got other locations to park my cars. I'll only put two vehicles in here and blah, blah, blah. So my question is if he did all that that he says he's going to do and we monitor him and find out, hey, you didn 't -- SUP is being pulled just out of curiosity. Well, I expect that they will be monitored after we go through this process to make sure if it's approved to make sure that everything is being complied with. Okay. Jerry's looking that up. Commissioner Beck, do you want to -- Just as some of you know, I went out there and looked at it today. In my opinion, I think the applicant is going to be hard pressed to meet parking requirements. The other facility talked about only handled a couple of cars. There were at least two dozen cars on that adjacent lot at least. And then you saw there was a lot of traffic right in front of it too. So he's going to be hard pressed to meet the parking need. And I hate the prospect of putting somebody out of business , but the fact that he applied for a CO under nebulous, de vious circumstances is troubling too. So just the parking situation is going to be difficult for him to meet. That's why I'm going to have a hard time approving it. And I agree with you. I kind of went with that. I drove by there and I saw that. But it's like you say, you know, it's hard to put somebody out of business. If he's willing, give him a second chance. That's what I'm thinking. If he doesn't, that's why I was just curious if it could be pulled if he did comply. Sure. No, I understand. But what I'm saying is I don't see how he can. I honestly don't see how he can. Essentially what they'd have to do is they'd have to make other arrangements for overnight parking of any vehicles. Right. They can pull some of them inside, but that's about that. That would only, I guess, maybe I don't know, three or four vehicles in there. And they've got significantly more vehicles on the site, so they would have to come up with other arrangements. I worked with the applicant trying to find somewhere else to put parking on this site. And it's so tight, there's nowhere to put parking. Krister Smith. Thank you, Chair. In a traditional sense, if there was to be an auto repair shop elsewhere for the size of the units they have, do you know how much parking would be normally required? Well, under the standards we used to park by, we would require one for 300 square feet. And each of those units are 300 square foot units? They're really small. Yeah, they're tiny. They're really small. But today we're doing auto, see, we don't have a parking requirement standard specifically for automotive repair. So the most recent standard that we use is the standard that they were parked by, which is office warehouse. And it would be the same parking requirements that they have now. So it really, they have 15 space, they really don't have 15 , they say on the letter they have 15, they have 12 now. They have, there are 12 spaces shared with the applicant. But with everything else. And that 12 cannot include the square footage on the rest of the area, because the rest of the area is for self storage. It's not part of the SUP that's being requested. And so it can only be, parking spaces that are allowed, that they need, I guess, technically, are only the ones that are, that need are allowed. Well, they have, you know, we have the minimum maximum requirement for parking. And so the larger suite, which is 110 on the end, has four parking spaces of that 15. And then the 111 has three. Okay. Which is why I, in the recommendation, they can use two. The max is one per 300 square feet? No, one per, yeah, one per 300. If we parked it per retail, personal services, and that business. But that'd be the max, would be one per 300. Yeah. So right now, just by looking at the drawing that they gave us, 43 feet by 24 feet is about 1,000 square feet or so. So that's like three spaces, is their max. That's right. If you park it per office, the office is one space. And then the other one, the larger one, three spaces. So that would be. So they're really out of their parking. Yeah. Okay, thank you for the, just wanted to make sure the gravity of the parking situation was realized. Yeah. Yeah. And when they actually, you know, complied with the request to restripe the parking spaces, so they comply with our standards, they lost three spaces, too. So, but I think if they just, you know, come up with other means for handling the overflow parking, the offsite like one of them has, I think that would be an acceptable solution. However, one of our conditions is that there's no overnight parking outside parking vehicles, and that they can only use during the day two of their parking spaces for vehicles that are waiting to be repaired or waiting to be picked up. So we need we need a parking space for the employee. So I think we have an answer for Commissioner Sanchez, but real fast, I know Commissioner Pernetta has been waiting. So let's go Commissioner Pernetta, then we'll go legal. Yeah, you mentioned that the vacant lot where they're currently using their overflow parking had expressed that they would be planning on developing that property. Did they give any indication of what that use would be? They did, but I'm sorry, I don't recall. It's been a while since I've seen them, so my thinking is that whoever we met with, they decided it wasn't feasible for them. Okay. So we see if we have one of those pre-development meetings, then we see turnaround usually within six months. It's rare if we see it a year or two after. It happens, but it's rare. Thank you. Jerry, do you have an answer about revocation of SUP? I wasn't looking up revocation. I was looking up the conditions that were being put on it. The DDC does allow for conditions to be imposed. It's not an exclusive or exhaustive list. Adding parking spaces might be within bounds of this, although it's not explicitly mentioned. It talks about site development conditions that could be put in there as well. I guess my bigger concern on this, and maybe this is one for the commission to give some thought to, if you recommend approval of the SUP with conditions, but the council declines to impose one or more of your recommended conditions, it's still a recommendation to approve. And so I think the typical imposition of conditions would be done more or less at the council level. I don't know that it would be binding or trigger a super majority if council decided to go another way on the imp osition of those conditions, in other words. I think the conditions would be for the council to decide. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Sanchez was asking, I think, if we put conditions on it and they're not met, the city does follow up with conditions being met. Is that for a period of time, or is that indefinite to the property, or how does that work? Well, to be honest with you, I'm not sure. I can check with and find out. The conditions would run with that as long as that use is in existence. Well, I thought you meant when we'd be checking up on if they're still complying. Partly that, and I don't want to speak for Mr. Sanchez, but it seemed like he was expressing a concern that if they were out of compliance, that we would have power to pull their ability to operate. Well, probably the first step in that would be to be given a warning. And they would be told that they have X number of days to come into compliance with the SUP requirements. And if they still don't within that time frame, then it's possible we'll start citing them every day. And it could eventually end up in court. And that's not really the revocation provisions of the SUP chapter. It's really the general provisions in SUP chapter one where there's a requirement to comply with the DDC generally and with the conditions of permits imposed under the DDC. So that would be the source of any revocation. You'd have to follow the strictures of that in order to make it happen. But yeah, there's a possibility of it, but the devil's in the details. Chris Rebeck. Thank you, Chair. Let me change direction a little bit here and maybe for my edification. I don't mean to put staff between the rock and hard spot. But obviously, when we issue a CEO, we don't go out and confirm it. Actually, we do. We do now. Yes, we did then. So code enforcement went out and inspected the site to make sure the parking was there. Everything was there. And if that it was an office and not a every everything was checked. The coat. So that's how we did it then. I don't know how they do it now. I'm pretty sure they checked. They went out and inspected it. They hadn't set up their car repair for the purpose of that inspection. Probably they knew they were you know, they have to have to schedule these inspections. So they knew when they were coming. Good. You guys are on. Thanks. I know you keep moving on. Thank you, Chair. It's a code enforcement night where that we're getting ready to set up with that. I mean, I guess I'll just say that. Okay. Analysis. The subject site is to office warehouse suites, suite 110 and suite 111, which are utilized for quick vehicle service. The suites are part of a larger self-service storage facility, which includes one building comprised of 10 office warehouse suites. The site takes access from Virginia Circle, which is classified as a local street. Since the site was developed in 1985, it does not meet the standards for parking, land use, or lot coverage and is considered to be a special exception . With regards to the Denton Plan 2030, the site is designated as community mixed use. While the area in general is appropriate for the quick vehicle repair, the office warehouse building may not be optimal due to the limitations on parking that we were just discussing. The parking requirements for these two uses are based on the uses that were applied for and not the uses in place. Now, since we've changed how we are parking the automotive repair, they're actually, the parking is the same as what it was parked at in the office warehouse. The existing land uses surrounding the site include vacant or undeveloped land around here. To the south is a permanent open space area. It's open space for the Ashley Oaks. And then there's a vacant lot right here as well. To the north is University and it's all pretty much industrial and employment center type uses in here. The two automotive businesses have been in place for several years since 2010 and no new impacts to the infrastructure or the surrounding properties are anticipated. In fact, we anticipate a lesser impact to surrounding properties if this is approved because of the requirements, the conditions of approval that staff is placing on it with regards to parking. We sent out 12 notices within 200 feet of the site and 53 notices via regular mail. We did not receive any responses back and one sign was posted on the site. Staff recommends denial of this request. However, should the Planning and Zoning Commission decide to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions. A new certificate of occupancy for the correct use must be applied for and approved. This specific use permit shall be limited to these two particular business owners and these two particular suites. So for example, if the owners sell the business to somebody else, they'll have to get a new specific use permit for it or if the owners want to move the business to another suite, they would also have to get another specific use permit. The specific use permit will be limited to the use description and the floor plan that are in Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 in your backup. No overnight outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited and no more than two customer vehicles per each business can be parked in the parking spaces in front of the building during business hours. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Cindy. I don't see any questions this time. Considering the time it is, what we'll do is we'll take a quick break for food, put Julie on pause for a couple minutes and then we'll come back for Julie's presentation and wrap up the work session. It is 6.16, we'll pause for dinner. It is 6.25, we'll continue the meeting with Julie presenting her item. Hi, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner and I am presenting DCA 18.5 and this is for a tie vote procedure. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed revision to the Denton Development Code specifically to address motions that result in a tie vote. So as some of you may remember, we had a case earlier this year that did result in a tie vote of 3 to 3. In those instances, the City Council rules of procedure are applied and it applies to the Planning and Zoning Commission for tie votes and that matters voted on by the City Council which ended a tie vote shall automatically be placed on each subsequent council meeting agenda until a full council is present. So this rule applies to the Planning and Zoning Commission when it comes to tie votes. In relationship to this case, however, there was a recusal and so the total number of permanent voting members of the Planning and Zoning Commission for this case was always going to be 6. And so the Planning and Zoning Commission after a couple of tries could not get to 4 votes in the affirmative or the negative for this case. So it was essentially immobilized. So based upon that, City Council tasked staff to look at what we would do in these cases. And so City Council looked at this at a September 11th work session and they were presented with four options of how to address this. First, they could do no action. Second, they could remove that tie vote provision for all the boards and commissions including City Council. Third, they could remove the tie vote provision for boards and commissions excluding City Council. And the fourth option which is the one they ultimately directed staff to pursue was to do a targeted amendment to the DDC to address only the Planning and Zoning Commission and to allow those cases that result in a tie vote to move forward with a denial. However, as you know that if this--if Plan Zoning recommends denial, then a super majority is required for City Council to approve that request. And Council discussed pretty--had a pretty lengthy discussion regarding that and felt like that super majority provision was too punitive in this --in this instance because PNZ didn't have a majority voting in denial of the case. So they directed staff to move forward with a DDC amendment to provide for the tie votes that it would go forward as a recommendation of denial but not require that super majority requirement. Just a simple majority, yes, sir. So the proposed language is any motion resulting in a tie vote of the commission would automatically be deemed as a denial recommendation to be forwarded to City Council for a final decision. Such tie vote is not subject to City Code Section 2-29, that's that--that part we looked at at the beginning of the presentation. The denial shall not require three-fourths vote of all members of the City Council qualified to vote as stated in Section 35.3.4.c.4.b of the Denton Development Code. The language in that you said--I didn't see that earlier but the language you had in there earlier was that this would apply to only PNZ. Other recommending councils and boards and commissions-- Would not--would not apply to them. Do we not see that that might be important to have that also spanned to them as well as--as recommend--not--not all but the ones that are--that are recommending bodies that have that also available in case they have the exact same situation that happens there? And that may be something that City Council wants to address in the future. However, the Denton Development Code just addresses the Planning and Zoning Commission. So if that is something that Council wanted to move forward with, they would--it would be a different procedure for that. Commissioner Perdena. So based on what you just described, my simplification would be that--and if I'm misunderstanding it, let me know--that it's high rather than moving forward as a denial would in effect move forward as an approval? No, it would move forward as a denial but it wouldn't require the supermajority. So--so hold that thought and we may--maybe I'll answer it and if I don't, we'll keep talking about it till I--till we can get it--get it straight. So--so when staff just looked at this and--and did their analysis of this direction, we determined that--that this amendment would prevent leaving those projects in that indeterminate state, that it would actually allow those projects to move forward and that City Council would either approve or deny. So they would have their--be able to be heard by City Council. Although the recommendation would be a denial, it would not be a recommendation of approval, it does remove that supermajority requirement. So it's not overly punitive that it wasn't a full denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. But as with all cases, the City Council is apprised of the --of the PNZ meeting minutes as well as a summary of the points of discussion and the full vote so that they are fully informed when they make their decision. So although it would move forward as a tie vote recommendation of denial, they would be aware of some of those issues that would have been brought up at the--at this meeting in order so they can make a fully informed decision. Commissioner Burnetta. And I guess my clarification. So currently we would--if we made a recommendation, it would move forward to City Council and then they would vote on it and they would require a majority, right? To approve. To approve, right. So--and I guess I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding, you know, mistaking nomenclature versus procedure. So this one--in this case, it would move forward as a tie, which is technically not a--technically a denial, not an approval, but the vote process would still be the same as if it had been approved. I think you said it very well. Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. So what I'm hearing you saying is this would be any tie vote. It's not correct. It's changing a tie vote, not a perpetual tie vote, which was really what the problem was. Yes. It's not a tie vote that PNZ has. Like someone's on vacation, let's say, someone's child's sick, someone's sick. I think this is a really bad idea. We have policy in place right now, good policy in place that says if we have a tie vote, it goes to the next meeting to get that full commission. What our problem was, our problem was we had a recusal. So we were always going to have a six-member commission and probably a perpetual tie. We are rewriting good policy to address that one rare issue . And I have a real problem with that because something could get underhanded. I mean, I don't, there's bad people out there. Okay. Hey, why don't you be sick today at PNZ? Oh, automatic tie perhaps and goes on to city council, does not require a super majority. I've just got issues with this. We've got a policy in place that fixes a tie vote because it goes to the next meeting automatically and we vote again. So I don't know. Is anybody else understand? I think I'm going to let city jump in real fast because we saw a lot of hands pop up at your point. One option that could happen is if that is the case, it can always be requested to table the item to the following meeting. Can you say that again? An option could be that you could always table the item to the next meeting rather than taking a vote. And we'll go with Commissioner Smith. Just per Robert's rules of order, and you can correct me, that there's a request to table an item that supersedes any motion that's on the floor. So if there's a motion for an approval and it's going to obviously go to a tie, there can be some of us have said I motion to table the item. Robert's rules of order allows for that to supersede any motion that's on the floor. Just my understanding. Commissioner Burnetta. I think he kind of covered that, but is it possible to -- I mean, per Commissioner Ellis's concern to make an amendment where this would only happen in the event that there would be a permanent tie, you know, it would be a recusal. Or a secondary tie, like this is the second time it's been tied, or back-to-back sessions to both your point. Because I -- real fast, I'd like to add, because Commissioner Smith, if that was to happen, there's six people on the board and someone tables it, it's going to be hard to get that vote if someone knows that a tie vote would get it through. So I'm not sure if that table would -- that motion to table would pass and not hypothetical. I think it would be a stalemate going back to a tie to pass it forward. Commissioner Beck. That's a good point. Thank you, Chair. And I understand -- I'm glad she brought that point up. We never thought about the devious people actually deliberately missing. But my concern was what if we did have a tie vote and just result somebody wasn't here? And then I think somebody made the suggestion that if that happened a second time, that could be the way we could get around this. If it happened a second time and the same person was gone, then it would automatically go forward. But then I'm not opposed to just limiting it to the situation that we had to deal with that one time. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Can I ask why it wasn't written that way? Why it's not being proposed that way? So I believe that actually was discussed at City Council. I think there was ultimately concern that that would be hard to manage that, is what if somebody was on a long-term illness and they would be gone for months at a time. So I think a very similar comment came up at the City Council meeting as well, that work session as part of the discussion. Jerry, you want to hop in? I think part of it is also if the purpose of the law is to have the council consider the P&Z's recommendation and the P&Z comes forward with a tie vote, it's not a particularly strong recommendation, so as to be compelling. And I think that it's been published in the Texas Municipal Zoning Guidebook that we regard more or less as the Bible, that this may be a way to get around that perpetual no-man's land is to treat a tie vote as essentially a known recommendation and let it go on further to council. So the purpose has been solved by this rule in allowing the P&Z to make a recommendation. It's just that strange case in which P&Z can't make a strong recommendation. Koshelos. Thank you, Chair. I'll just say one more point on it. When we have policy written in place right now that handles a tie vote, this is addressing a very specific problem which has never occurred before in the time that I have been here. So it's a rare occurrence anyway, and we're rewriting this, and I will be voting no on this as it's written. Great. Commissioner Pernitta. And to kind of second Commissioner Ellis's point, I do have a concern that this would specifically target cases where there is a recusal, so there would be normally a conflict of interest in these cases. So to kind of draw back on those procedures in those cases, it seems like it's inviting issues. Commissioner Sanchez. Yes, I also wanted to state I agree with you. It was a very unique situation. I don't think we just run into that, you know, once every -- I mean, how often -- Has that happened since they've been having meetings? I think it's very unique because nobody even had ever seen it. So I agree. I think we should look at it as a unique situation and not make these general rules that apply all of a sudden for everything as -- instead of looking at specific what happened, how can we improve it? And I don't think -- So I think we made valid points. I don't know who's all in council chambers waiting, but if Julie wanted to continue, we can certainly continue the dialogue as appropriate. There is? Great. Let's not keep them waiting. So notification was published regarding this. Staff recommends approval of the language. We want to make sure we get the language in the right spot in the development code. This was something that was requested of staff by city council. So this was a directive by city council, and so that is also part of our recommendation for approval. And that -- our original assessment was to put it in subch apter 4 of the DENT development code, but we want to make sure that we have it in all the right spots to make sure that as applicants are trying to move forward with their cases and the public to understand the rules that will make -- if recommended and if approved by city council, that we would make sure it's in the DENT development code in the right spots to make sure that everyone knows all of the correct regulations. Thanks, Julie. Can I just ask for a point of clarification? So the concern would be if this was narrowly pointed to -- if a P&Z member had to recuse himself for a conflict, then this would be -- Thank you, Chair. Yes, the part that's broken is if you have an even number because of a recusal and you always have the possibility of a tie, that's what's broken. This completely changes how policy is written now, and I'm absolutely not on board with that. Julie, did you cover that? We may be putting it somewhere else in the code. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Julie, thank you so much. We can continue the conversation in there. We'll fast forward, dismiss. Is everyone okay for an early attendance on November 28th? We might have to call a meeting a little bit early. It's the week after Thanksgiving. Just want to make sure sometimes around holidays, travel. Is everyone planning on being here on the 28th? Well, I think normal time, but we just want to make sure we 're attendance. Okay. So with that, I will close the work session at 639. We'll meet in Councilor's chambers at 645. Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for October 24th, 2018. The meeting will be started at 645. Thank you all for being patient. We had a longer work session than we were anticipating. So appreciate you all being patient and hanging around. The first item on the agenda is to stand and give a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Commissioner Smith? Motion for approval. Commissioner Pern etta? We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0 . Next item is our consent agenda. Commissioner Ellis? Thank you. Try and move approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Beck? Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. That moves us to our public hearing items for this evening. Item 4A, Z18-0021C has been postponed. It will be brought back before the Commission on November 14th and will be reposted and re-noticed at that time. Next item is item 4B, FR18-0010. I will call Cindy Jackson for presentation and open this public hearing. Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. FR18-0010 is a request for approval of a final replat of lots 15A, R1 and 15A, R2, block 17, being a residential replat of lot 15A, block 17 of Royal Acres section 5. You can see the property right here. It's generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hercules Lane and Wellington Drive. The site was originally platted in 1972. Here you can see it was actually two lots, a little difficult, but it's there. In 1976, the then property owner replatted the two lots into one lot. Now today, we are here to replat the site back into two lots. Since this is a residential replat, we had notification requirements. We sent out 21 notices via certified mail within 200 feet of the property. We sent certified notices to the entire subdivision, 275 via certified mail. We sent 49 courtesy notices within 500 feet of the site. We received no responses in opposition within 200 feet of the site and one neutral. We received nothing in favor of the request within 200 feet of the site. Within the subdivision, we received four in opposition, which you can see here. We received two in favor, you can see outlined in green, and we received one neutral. This plat meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and the zoning code, and staff recommends approval of this request. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, Cindy. The applicant is present if you have any questions. I do not see any questions at this time. This is a public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak, they may do so. Anyone wishing to speak? Do we have any questions of the applicant from the commission before I close the public hearing? Okay. Oh, Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I do have one question for the applicant, if I may. Is the applicant here? The applicant, yes. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Gerald Jensen, Landmark Surveyors, 4238 I-35 North. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jensen, for coming out. Just real quickly, I think some concern that was expressed, and I just wanted to allay that if we could. Splitting this lot, you don't have any intentions of doing anything other than, if anything, building another single- family home there, is that correct? Okay. On the new lot, on the separate lot? Yes. Okay. That's all I need. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I have a question. Commissioner Sanchez. Did you meet with any of the neighbors in that area to find out what their thoughts were? Because I know I've talked to a few of them, and they were concerned about what was going on in dividing that lot, so that was their concern. So have you met with any of them to kind of? I have taken several phone calls from concerned residents and explained the situation, and I have one, actually, Mr. Jackson mirrored exactly what I was going to present to you , except I have one other exhibit that I'd like to show you if it'll help. Sure, absolutely. If you want to put it just on that, the felts. Okay. Okay. This shows the existing conditions. When the two lots were combined into a single lot, and for the moment ignore this new lot line, it was done because the size of the house was built and the original lot line was across here somewhere, so it needed to be combined into one lot. As it turns out, they left plenty of leftover there's approximately 12,000 square feet, or 7,000 is required for it should be 50 it's more like 90 something and depth is supposed to be 80 is more than 142 so it's way more than a standard law for that in our four zoning would be. But that's basically what's there now. This is the area where the second house will be built. Okay. Question for that. And I just kind of wanted to piggyback on what Commissioner back so I know a lot of the objections that we got were based on people not knowing what the area was going to be used for. We are just considering the division of the plot, in order for any of the anything business like we'd have to rezone it which we're not correct so right. And if I may add the answer to your question the conversations I had with the residents all had to do with some misunderstanding think if there was some kind of a zoning or the something commercial might go in. So I was able to explain to them and think that there was satisfaction, but all this was was just creating a rec reating a lot that existed once in 1972. The questions I had, they were afraid that the lot, the lot that you were going to create was going to be too small and you go in and create a smaller house than was in the rest of the neighborhood. There were, you know, most of those houses are about 3000 square feet, and you come in and maybe put in a 1200 square that was that was a concern that was given to me is come in and put a 12 1300 square foot, you have a small lot and a small house rather than what is compatible in the rest of the neighborhood. Right, as it turns out it's actually larger law than the rest of the thoughts in the neighborhood. I don't see any other questions I appreciate it. Thank you. This is a public hearing item if anyone wishes to speak, you may do so. Seeing none I will close the public hearing and open for discussion or emotion, Mr Smith. Motion for approval. First, Rebecca second. We have a first and a second. Is there any discussion. Seeing none I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven zero. As a point of order, we'd like to make an amendment to the agenda. For the sake of some timing, we'd like to move agenda G DC 18 DC a 18 dash 005 to the next item so item G is now going to become item C, and I'll call Julie for presentation. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton. And I am presenting a DCA 18 five tie vote procedure. Sorry . The request before us to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a proposed revision to the Denton Development Code, specific specifically to address those situations where there, there's a motion that results in a tie vote. I'll give it a background to see how how we got here. This, the planning and zoning Commission heard a rezoning case earlier this year that resulted in a tie vote that brought to the for what those, what the procedures are when a tie vote is resulted from a motion, and those, those follow the local rules of procedure there in the code of ordin ances and particularly in section to dash 29 matters voted on by the city council which in a tie vote shall automatically be placed on each subsequent council meeting agenda until a full council is present. And so that rule applies to the planning and zoning Commission. So on that previous case, due to a recusal in the planning and zoning Commission the number of voting members of the P NC was permanently reduced to six. And that's where they got the three three vote. The, the, the case came before the planning and zoning Commission twice, and four votes and either the affirmative or the negative were not possible. So in a sense that case was immobilized it couldn't go forward it couldn't, it couldn't do anything. And as a result of that city council, asked staff to prepare work session and some options by which that they could prevent this from happening again and so in September , staff presenting four options to city council regarding the tie vote issue. First option is no action just keep things as they are. The second option would be to remove the tie vote provision for all boards and commissions, including the city council. The third option would be to remove the tie vote provision for all boards and commissions but excluding city council. And then the fourth option was was the most targeted option and that was to amend the debt and development code to address only the planning and zoning Commission and allow cases where there is a tie vote to move forward as a denial. As, as you're aware, typically when the planning and zoning Commission recommends denial in order to approve that request city council would have to, there would have to be a super majority of votes which would be six out of seven, they felt like that might have been a little too strenuous as a denial since the full planning and zoning Commission did not recommend denial so they they they asked that we move forward with a text amendment to the debt and development code to move, move tie votes forward to the city council, but then remove that super majority provision for that denial. So the language that was prepared in response to that was any motion resulting in a tie vote of the Commission would automatically be deemed as a denial recommendation to before it did to the city council for a final decision. The The denial shall not require a three fourths vote of all members of the city council qualified to vote as stated in 35 dot three dot four dot c dot or dot B. So our original assessment was to was to place this language in in the operational procedures of PNC and sub chapter four. However, we wanted to make sure upon further reflection we felt like it should be maybe in several places in the development code so that so that applicants and members of the public could be aware of what the procedures would be. So they wouldn't have to target in on that one section there would be a couple of sections. So the considerations that we looked at was first and an amendment with this amendment as proposed would prevent leaving projects in an indeterminate state it would allow them to move forward and have an ultimate decision. Although the recommendation would be a denial. The super majority requirement has been removed since that since that since the PNC would the full PNC didn't recommend that denial. But there are issues that are that are discussed in the planning zoning Commission regarding all cases and in cases that result in a tie vote. And so as with any case the City Council would be apprised of the of the PNC meeting minutes as well as in their in their backup material as summary of the points of discussion including any issues that are that arise and the final vote so that they're fully informed of everything that transpired. So based upon the direction from Council staff recommends approval of the request with the caveat that this is the language that the recommendation before not necessarily the location and the development code and I'll stand for any questions. We do have one question back. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Julie. Could you go back to the options we had. And tell me what this number three until if we had a high vote it would just simply go into City Council. Is that what you're saying. Well, these were actually the options that were presented to city council as as and and numbers two and three would actually not even come before they wouldn't follow the process that you're doing tonight, because they would be amending the code of ordinances in order to do that so that would be changing a different set of regulations that the city and so three and four would be the code of ordinances, or I'm sorry two and three would be an amendment to the code of ordinances to change that entire section to dash 29, which is more involved more . It would just be a broader, a broader decision and in in Council's discussion discussions they really wanted a targeted solution to the to the problem. Okay. Okay, thanks. Pressure for Neda. So if we were to vote against this, I guess what would be the process of coming back and changing some of the wording , my, my concern is that this specifically deals with instances where there would be a recusal, and as we know a recusal in and of itself is a safeguard against the influence of special interests. So, right now what's proposed is that we not only remove that safeguard it moves on to city council, and then removes the requirement for a supermajority which then in and of itself removes to safeguards from the influence of special interest. Can we can we vote this down and basically address the idea of a these this procedure applying specifically to recusals and then be possibly moving you know if we were to move have to move forward, have to move forward as a technical denial, requiring a supermajority. So, Mr. Pernette staff has said that we would have the option to table the item and have it represented to us. Any more questions I don't want to. Are you good. No. You got. Sure Alice. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Table this item is that what you're talking about. The option. I mean, what I'm going to restate what I stated in work session, the way it's written right now we rewritten a rule that's already in place for a tie vote. The way it's written now it certainly is not fair that I would be absent I would be ill I would be on vacation, and I don't get my voice heard and it ends up in a three three tie and it's automatically a denial which were restating the definition of because a denial requires a supermajority . And now we're calling it a denial, but rewriting what that really means when it goes on to counsel. I mean, but not in just a tie vote at planning and zoning the way that this is written. I just can't, I can't support that at all. I mean, we're adding extra red tape and adding more procedures to an already complicated process and I don't agree with that either but if we just go back to the, to the, the actual event that occurred at the time. That was that the actual item that was for vote would be put to an approval so that we can essentially get to a council that would be full so there wouldn't be a tie vote that have seven voting members because there was me perpetual recusal at that level. And that would allow us to not have a almost a hung jury essentially we did down here, it was declare a mistrial allow for the item to go forward. I agree with you though that the, the one time if you know, Tim is missing because Tim has to be out of the city for work or whatever it is, and automatically an item that he would want to vote on is now passed on to the city council that completely misses maybe point or opinions that that'd be important for a seven person commission to see or a full voting commission be able to see so I agree with you and I would I would support a motion table, if that was to come to the floor. Commissioner Alice. Thank you, Jerry, just to respond to Commissioner Smith, we 're not really adding more red tape here we're rewriting something that's really not broken. You know we're not addressing really what is the broken items, we're adding, we're adding, we're adding new new rules and so yeah, to have time to have a question for. Well, yeah, if we table this, and this probably goes more to the director or maybe even legal. So, what does that entail then we're going to give city council opportunity reworded what happens if we table. Excuse me, if it's if it's tabled, based on the based on the discussion we had today we would go back and revise and then bring that bring a revised language in front of you to consider. Good. Thank you. So, a couple couple things. This is a public hearing so I know it sounds like a lot of family talk up here. But if someone has input on how we vote for tie votes, we certainly are needing to hear that feedback. We need to make that known. We have any more questions of staff. We can handle that. Commissioner Smith I wanted you to talk for close the public hearing if you have questions or comments. Yeah, I just I would, I'd like to make a comment. Yeah, just the to what we discussed second ago, Commissioner Allison that, you know, adding or changing perfectly good standard procedures now. It's we need to have something in there about perpetual rec usals because we don't have something in there about petul ant recusals, we're going to be whether it's next week, next year, 10 years 15 years 20 years down the road this planning and zoning commission is a recommending body will run into another petulant recus als at some point in time, there should be something, but I believe, and I would like to direct city staff to create something that makes this point adjust to perpetual recus als or extended absences. Yes, I also wanted to state that it was a to me it was a very unique situation. I mean the fact that we didn't have any kind of regulations directing it shows that it was a very unique situation. So we should look at it as a unique situation only happened once. And, and so that we can go ahead and like like Commissioner Ellis is, you know, let's just talk look at that. And if we don't agree on the first meeting, carry it on to the second, there's possibilities that one of the other commissioners might change their mind after thinking about it, but to table it at that first meeting and send it to the city council I think to me is kind of rapid. So let's go ahead, send it, look at it again and if there's in that particular situation. You know we had one one commissioner that was not never going to come back on that particular issue, then we still vote on it a second time and then send it on to the city council. So I don't see any other questions for Julie Thank you very much. Again this is a public hearing, if anyone wishes to speak, let me do so. Commissioner Ellis I see that you have one take a motion just for my staff clarification we're gonna leave the public hearing, open, depending on what your motion is, if it is a motion to continue. If you didn't have a continuous for date certain at next meeting or something along those lines. If that is your motion I don't assume, but you have the floor. So, to table the item to the next planning and zoning meeting to give staff a chance to address our concerns brought up at work session and this meeting. Sir, you have. You can come down. If you just say your name and address. I'm a member of the council of the city council members on 7909 rodeo drive. Did I hear correctly that you that the staff recommended that the whole council had to be present at the future meeting. That's what I thought I saw you read, and it. And if that is the case that issue needs to be addressed, because in the case where I believe you said something about a council member being sick or out of commission for a long time. That person, the whole council would not be present. That's my point. Christian. I'm sure it's like the, yeah, the wording is just for a for not to not to limit a super majority when it gets to council. And so it's I'm getting counseling commission. Yeah, yeah. So we're the commission to city council. Yeah, my point is is that I believe the language said that that the issue would be moved to a future meeting here until a entire commission was here. And if you actually look right there, the city code section to to 29. It does say that that is the current standing city council code that issue needs to be addressed because if someone can't be here. Yep. And that's what we're that's what we're working on. Appreciate you appreciate you input. Yeah, thank you. So we have a motion on the floor and just to clarify, you 're wanting to continue to the next PNC meeting. That's your motion. Correct. Okay, Mr. Smith, I second. We have a first and a second to continue the item. Okay. Okay. Motion carries seven zero will revisit this at next meeting . Appreciate that consideration for us handling that briefly. That'll move us on to our next item. The original item C. Fr 18 dash zero zero nine on right. Ron for presentation and I'll open the public hearing. Okay. Okay. Chair members of the commission. This item for your consideration this evening is a request for a final replat a residential replat. The total area of the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown downtown. The total area of the residential area is DR two downtown residential to is possibly point two eight nine acres. And again, generally on the east side Bernard approximately 350 feet just north of Eagle Drive. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. And the residential area is about a quarter of the city of downtown. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open for motion or discussion. Commissioner Beck. I move we approve FR18-009. Commissioner Pernetta. I second that. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. Next item on the agenda is the original item D, which is Z 17-004B, as well as item E, S17-008B. At this time, we're going to open both public hearings for item D and E. And we'll hear a presentation concerning both together. We will public hear both together. We'll close out each one and vote independently for the zoning and then the SUP. And I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearings. Thank you, Chairman, members of the commission. Let me pull up my presentation. Okay. This is, as you noted, I am going to be giving a presentation for two public hearings, Z17-0004, which is a request to provide the initial zoning designation of neighborhood residential 6 district to approximately 118.04 acres of land, and S17-0008, a request for a specific use permit for a manufactured housing development on approximately 126.1 acres of land. The subject site is located on the north side of East McKin ney Street and the west side of Trinity. You'll note this dotted line here. When we are discussing the zoning case, which we'll be doing first, we will be discussing all the land that is north of this dotted line. When we are discussing the SUP, the dotted line goes away and it's everything within the yellow shape. The request is for an initial zoning of this 118-acre site. It's currently zoned RD5X. That's the holding zoning designation, which was given to it when it was annexed into the city in August of last year. That is a placeholder zoning. The request for the NR6 zoning is actually an extension of the existing NR6 that is located along McKinney Street. This area, as you can see on this slide, was zoned NR6 during the 2002 citywide rezoning. The applicant has prepared a concept plan for the site. The total land area is 126.1 gross acres, of which 118.04 is the subject of this zoning request. The proposed development will be developed in three phases. It will accommodate 497 stands for manufactured and modular housing and six one-acre lots, which will be developed with single-family homes. The applicant is proposing to preserve all 18.5 acres of E SA that is on the site. The applicant is proposing to provide 15.4 acres of open space, as shown in the red. The manufactured housing, 497 stands, you can see will be in the yellow areas. The applicant is providing six one- acre single-family lots along Trinity. They will serve as a transition between the property to the east and the manufactured housing park. The proposed overall density of the site is four dwelling units per acre . When looking at a request to rezone, there are criteria that we must consider in the Denton Development Code, Section 35.34(b). Specifically, the proposed rezoning must conform to the future land use element of the site, and the proposed zoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation , water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public requirements and public convenience. The site is designated low residential on the future land use map, as you can see here. The intent of low residential is to promote single-family housing with lot sizes ranging from one acre or more in rural areas with a density of four units per acre. The proposed NR6 zoning district meets the intent of the future land use designation only when coupled with the conditions for approval, which limit the density to four dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed zoning is to be a continuation of the NR6 district located on the south side of the site. The uses permitted in the NR6 district would be consistent with the uses that exist today in the area, however at a lower density. Ashley Oaks is a mobile home park with 624 stands and a density of 5.99 dwelling units per acre. Denton Falls, I believe is what it's called down here, is a mobile home park which has approximately 188 stands with a density of 5 .12 dwelling units per acre. Well, this isn't a mobile home park, it is a modular and manufactured home park which is providing amenities that you would normally see in a single-family subdivision. The density of the proposed park is also significantly lower than the adjacent manufactured housing parks. 16 notices were sent out via certified mail within 200 feet of the property and 19 notices were sent out, courtesy notices within 500 feet of the property. We received two responses in opposition which comprise 28% of the land area located within the 200 foot buffer. You can see these areas here and here. Three signs were posted on the site as well. Now because of the fact that the 28% of the land within the 200 foot buffer is in opposition, this will require a super majority vote of the City Council when it moves forward. Staff recommends approval of Z17-004 subject to conditions. These conditions will bring the site into compliance with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030. The proposed conditions for approval are that an overlay be placed on the property with the following requirements. Maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more than four dwelling units per gross acre. Permitted land uses on the site. Modular and manufactured homes as shown on the concept plan . And six single family detached housing lots on a minimum one acre lot located along South Trinity. Okay. That concludes the first public hearing. The second public hearing is S17-00808, request for specific use permit for manufactured housing development on 126.1 acres of land. You'll note the red dashed line is gone and we are considering the entire site in the yellow shape. The subject site is generally located north of East McKin ney and west of South Trinity Road. Here again is the proposed concept plan. I'm just going to go over it really quickly. 126.1 gross acres. They're proposing to preserve 18.5 acres of ESA. They're proposing to provide 15.4 acres of open space. 497 stands within the park and six one acre lots along Trinity for an overall density of four dwelling units per acre. The site will actually take access from McKinney Street. We've got two entrances along McKinney Street. One is a right in, right out and one is a full entrance. The applicant will install two left turn lanes into the site from McKinney Street. The ultimate right of way for Post Oak equating 1,100 linear feet parallel to the subject site right along here will be dedicated with this project. The four lane intersection of Post Oak with McKinney Street with a transition to two lanes will be constructed with this project at the time of the McKinney Street improvements. There are two planned access points along Post Oak, a right in and right out closest to the intersection and then a full access entry right here. Now you will note that there is an exit off of an entrance off of Trinity that is a restricted access entrance that is only to be used by emergency medical services and police department. When we look at an SUP and consider whether or not it should be approved, we look at the criteria for approval in section 35.6.4. Compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and the requested use including the following. The specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding and vacant property, parking generation of traffic and access, nuisance prevention, landscaping and screening, and architectural compatibility. With the proposed density of four dwelling units per acre, this proposed development has a lower density than the mobile home parks that are located on either side. The applicant has included six acres located on the west side of South Trinity which are to be developed as single family homes. These will provide greater compatibility towards the east. The applicant in response to concerns expressed by residents in the area has eliminated access to and from the site via Trinity Road except for our gated emergency access site. Water will be available from McKinney Street and improvements to the lift station located on Trinity may be necessary with this development. The proposed development also complies with element seven of the Denton Plan 2030 with regards to encouraging different housing types, different housing costs and location choices. And again, we did send out notices within 200 feet, we sent 17 notices via certified mail and within 500 feet we sent 20 notices via regular mail. We received in response, one in response in opposition. You can see it right here and this again comprises 28% of the land area within the 200 feet of the property and will require a super majority of the council. The applicant also held two neighborhood meetings. One was last November and one was actually last, just Monday night. Synopsis of the meeting on Monday night was handed out during the work session. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions in exhibit seven. These are the requirements and I can read them out loud if you'd like. That concludes my presentation. The applicant is present as well. Thank you Cindy. We do have a question Commissioner Begg. Thank you Chair. Thanks Cindy for your presentation. I would like you to elaborate on a little bit because we've seen some of the opposition to it and I hope to clear it up . If you could explain a few things. Explain why there is a trailer park, a true trailer park in an NR2 zone right now. The Ashley Park or whatever it is to the west of this development. Well, Ashley Oaks was actually developed in 1985 and it was rezoned to NR2 during the 2002 citywide rezoning. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why it was rezoned to NR2 except perhaps to comply with the future land use designation of the site because the actual use doesn't comply with it. This second park down here was recently annexed into the city. It was developed in the county and it has a holding zoning of RD5X right now. But it hasn't been designated as a city. No it hasn't. What distinguishes a trailer park from what the developer wants to do here? Well, when you think of a trailer park, you think of the trailer homes that were developed before 1976 that have wheels and a metal skirt and are movable. They're in parks, on stands, and the amenities, there aren 't very many amenities in these parks typically. The proposed modular home and manufactured home park, they will not permit these mobile homes in this park. Modular homes are permitted and the city considers modular homes to be a single family dwelling unit. So they are permitted by right on this site if the site were a typical subdivision with lots and blocks. Manufactured homes are actually built after 1976. They are built according to actual building codes, whereas the trailer homes were not. These homes are going to be on a permanent engineered foundation and affixed to the foundation. The applicant can give you more information about that. Plus there's an amenity center, parks, open space ESA, walking trails, a lot of amenities that are going to be provided for the residents. And I believe there's plenty of landscaping and there's a six foot masonry wall around the whole development, correct ? Okay. I've known several people who lived in mobile homes and there's a distinct difference in style and structure and everything between them and a modular home and a manufactured home, a unapproved manufactured home. So there is a difference. Now explain to us, you talked to us in the work session about future road expansion, McKin ney and so on. And I know a lot of citizens are concerned about extra traffic and the roads not being able to handle them. So all ay some concerns here for us if you can. Sure. Let me find that. Sorry, it's in one of these. The applicant essentially is going to be providing two left turn lanes along McKinney to access the site. They are going to be providing the full width of post oak along that runs along this site here. They're also going to develop two lanes of it. They're going to develop the intersection of post oak and McKinney and they are going to provide a traffic signal. They are going to build a concrete path along McKinney to Ryan High School so that children can walk to school and not be in the right of way. Didn't you say McKinney was going to be widened completely all the way? Well, yes, McKinney is going to be widened. It's under designed right now. It's anticipated it will be widened within two years. That will coincide with the development of phase one. Also, the improvements to Mayhill are anticipated to be completed by that time as well. It's expected that when this opens up, there will be little impact to the actual traffic conditions because of the fact that all the widening and road improvements will have taken place. Okay, and lastly, in your backup material concerning post oak, it's going to come on the west side between this development and the Ashley Park Trader Park. You say the four lane intersection of post oak and McKinney with a transition to two lanes will be constructed. So is it going from four lanes on the south side of McKin ney to two lanes at that point? That's right and the applicant can probably speak more to that. Okay, okay, because it was my understanding post oak was going to be four lanes. Yes, it is. Okay, all right. I don't want to wait for that. It is, but up to their property. They'll build their half. Okay, okay, gotcha. Thanks. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So if I could just do some quick math with you here. Can you go back a couple slides? There was, we were talking about open space and the ESA. So 126 gross acres, 118 is being proposed for zoning, but we'll just take the gross acres. We take out the ESA and the open space acres that leaves us with 92.1 acres left. And so that's 92.1 acres that's being considered for the SU P. Yes. If hypothetically that was to be fully developed and we were actually to look at it and break it down to an actual, how many units per acre of that 92? Now I understand that in the actual calculations we include ESAs, but for the sake of this conversation and looking at just the facade and the feel of the actual development, they're only going to be able to develop on 92.1 acres. That's correct. So with that, if there's 497 of these units, six of them being single family being removed from the 503, so sort of the 497, that puts us at 5.4 units per acre. So it's closer to a feel of an NR6 designation, which is what they're looking for, than it is whatever we're requesting in staff. Staff's recommendations are for a four unit. I know we can't limit that because by the standards of including the ESA, it's still at the four unit limit. But the feel and the look is going to look closer to a six unit per acre. Well, it depends exactly because of the fact that this is what we call like cluster development. Yeah, cluster development. That's what the ESAs are. Exactly. They're clustering the homes to preserve the ESA, to give more open space. There is a gas line that goes right through here. So they have to avoid that as well. I completely get it. I think it's just more or less making it known that while yes, limiting it to four units per acre , and we may sit here and say, well, we're actually putting a limit on there to put a four units per acre. The facade and the actual putting boots on the ground and standing in the middle of that neighborhood is not going to look like four units per acre. It wouldn't, if you're right, in the middle of the subdiv ision. However, the city's definition of density is gross density. It's net density. I completely agree with you. I get the calculation. We've had this conversation before where we've had other people who've done the cluster and say, okay, we do realize that what we're voting on is not a four unit per acre. We're actually voting on something that's going to look like 5.4 units per acre. But that's the ability to do cluster developments. It's completely legal and understood. I'm not going to forget that. Exactly. He could spread it out and do an alternate ESA request and not preserve all of that. Oh, yeah, of course. Totally good. Yeah. Understood. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. When we're talking about modular homes, those are pretty much built with the same standards as anybody, any house built in Denton, right? Yes, they are. Can you put in, say, if somebody wanted, can they put a modular home inside the city limits? They can, right? Yes. Okay. So it's allowed by right. It's allowed by right. Okay. I just want to make sure. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Fernetta. So I just wanted to verify a lot of the objections that I'm seeing that came through were based on the idea that these are mobile homes. These are actually not mobile homes, correct? They are fixed. Modular homes. They're manufactured in modular homes. Okay. And kind of, I guess, along the lines of what Commissioner Smith brought up. So rather than it being about, you know, four units per acre, it's closer to five and a half. What are the yard, are there yards with these things or? With a stamp, it follows the requirements for our manufactured housing development and the yard requirements would be in that. I just don't have my code with me right now, but there are requirements as far as the minimum and maximum sizes and side yards and things like that. Okay. I'm sorry, I don't have my code. I brought the wrong code with me. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I think we can get clarification up here. The there's some basic minimum requirements that are within 359, subchapter nine, basic minimum requirements area. There's no minimum area which develop for manufacturer per stand requirements. No less than 40 feet in width, no less than 100 feet in depth and a minimum area of 5000. So very similar to some of our some of our zoning districts. And then there are some open minimum front yard of 15 feet. And then, you know, two off two off street parking. Thank you. Mr. Back. This is for Richard more. What was that 15 foot was that a setback. And if so, was that front side front yard front yard setback. Okay. Correct. Yeah, front yard setback shopping 15 feet. And then the minimum distance between the homes are 20 feet . So essentially defaults to a 10 foot side. I do not see any more questions for Cindy. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. We have several cards of individuals wishing to speak and several cards of individuals wishing not to speak. But first for presentation would be the applicant. I have four cards here. Is there four of you or just two. Okay. So you're welcome to do you have a presentation. Yes, if you just say your name and address for the record and then just so you know, you'll have a total of 20 minutes. 20 y'all has up to 10. We'll go faster than that. I'm Michael Halligan of the woodlands on Spring Creek and champ enterprises 14114 Dallas North Parkway Suite 265 Dallas Texas 75254. For you commissioners that have never worked in manufactured housing. I'm sorry for the small turnout. I apologize. Normally it's much, much greater than this. I blame it on the rain. Okay. We've we do all types of housing throughout Texas and Tennessee. We were the developers originally of the villages of Carmel and we also did force Meadows on single family developments with a lot of VSA is included. We are about to start breaking ground if it ever quits raining on the villas of Carmel or doing 400 town homes plus. And next month we come in for a senior housing deal next to Buckees for 200 units. So we do a lot of different things. And one of the things we do is manufactured housing. Tell the difference between manufactured modular versus a site built home for 11 years. I was the host of the television series. Your new house on the Discovery Channel. I did home buying seminars around the country and I tell people the way you can tell the difference when you're inside is lean against the longest wall in the house. And if the house if the walls wavy, it was built on site. If it 's straight, it was built in a factory. And that's really the difference between manufactured and modular. I was looking for a location for this property. The reason we picked this one, as you can tell, the things in Brown around us are either manufactured communities or mobile home parks. And across the street is the utmost storage. So it seemed kind of like a place where there would not be a lot of problems. It was in the ETJ. We were buying it at the last minute came up with a development agreement that had been signed with the city. So we had to annex it in and bring it into the city. We've been working on this for the past two years. Main thing we wanted you to see when you drove up to this community is not the homes. What we wanted you to see is walls and trees. That's why it's called the woodlands. That 's why we're preserving the ESA's. We like trees. We're saying let's build a three-foot berm in the front of the property. Then let's put a masonry wall on top of that berm. And then let's put tree arbors above that wall. So what you see from the road is a masonry fence with trees and a lot of grass. The whole community is gated and actually has security at the gate. If you could see through the gate, what do you see? For the first hundred plus feet, all you see are trees. No homes anywhere around any of the entryways on any of the roads going into this community. When you get into the community, there's different ways to mount a manufactured home or modular home. We want pre- engineered foundations just like you would on a site-built home. We want masonry on what people call the skirting, this area below the home down to the ground. So you put up concrete block. You put brick on front of that. The homes themselves, the frames are welded down to that pre-engineered foundation. Can they be moved? Yes, you can go in there with the torch and you cut them off and move them. But most of the time, I think 92% of all the homes that are placed somewhere, they never move again. So a different look. Also, like our town home communities, we take care of all the exterior. So the homeowner doesn't cut the grass. They don't have to worry about the flower beds. If they have a deck or a porch, we take care of the st aining and painting. So the whole community has a uniform look. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to our engineer, Brent Murphy from Kimley-Horn. Good evening. My name is Brent Murphy with Kimley-Horn, 57 50 Genesis Court in Frisco. First, I'd like to say thank you to staff. We've been working with this for over two years and it's been a very interesting process and I greatly appreciate it. We gave us a lot of input and we spent a lot of time. We talked a lot about the land plan. We talked a lot about traffic. In our neighborhood meetings, we heard a lot of opinions and we tried to react. We tried to give it time. I've never worked on a project that we spent two years zoning the project, but we listened to staff. We worked with staff and we listened to the homeowners around us to try to appease and address a lot of their concerns. I just want to say that Cindy's done a great job with us and I just can't say thank you enough. We're here tonight to present our case, but I can't thank her and the staff for all the time they've given us. Everybody's busy, but it's taken a lot of time. I just want to extend thank you to the staff and let you know how hard they work. It's almost like they're in the private sector at times. I am, so that's what I sign up for and that's some hours, but I do appreciate that. I want to extend that thank you. There's been a lot of discussion about the open space and what does the community feel like. I want to look at the plan and talk through some of those things because when you take 18 acres of ESA, you take 15 acres of open space, that's about a quarter of the overall project. I can promise you the client didn't pay for three quarters of the property. They paid for the full thing. There is a sense, we do a lot of planning across DFW and a lot of different types of projects, master plan communities . I tell you what, when you have one little pocket park under your entry, the feel changes. It changes the person's, they 're proud of where they live. It's kind of amazing how just a little bit of green space makes people proud. Trees, plant a lot of trees to do that. It's not cheap to do that. We're trying to pull off this look for the woodlands and the vision we want to see. There's a lot of effort to go into that. If you're in the middle of the western pod, will it feel a little more dense? Yes. We've broken the project up by identifying these key areas and tree lines and ESAs to create some nice open space. Kids can get to open spaces, have some passive areas for play. Our whole plan is to have trails that get them to these locations. It's one thing to have green belts. It's another thing to actually design to use them and whether they're utilized. A lot of times we're doing projects where the open spaces are just one big park. We're trying to space them out. We're trying to identify corners of different blocks to soften it. I just want to point those things out. We've talked a lot about some of the points of the project. We're building a 4,500 square foot of a mini center. Sometimes used, sometimes not. But that's not common and probably what people have seen in the past. We're trying to take these things, we're trying to put them in a SUP overlay with all these additional restrictions, self-imposed deed restrictions to make sure the quality stays. Nobody asks us to do that. We just work with staff and say we've got to earn people's respect on what it is. Let's self-impose those things. I'll get into the traffic a little bit. The traffic signal, those are $350,000. It's not warranted in a TA. Our traffic study does not justify having that signal at Post Oak and McKinney. But he volunteered to pay. If the city wants it, we're paying for it. Those are some things that are unique, not typical in most projects. The landscape buffers Michael was talking about when you come in along McKinney, we're sensitive to what that feels like, just like internal. When you come along McKinney, it's a three foot berm and an eight foot masonry fence, typically at six. We want that point of capture so you're proud to come here. You want to be here. In those HOA meetings, I talked to several ladies who were. I've got three kids. I'm sensitive to those things. Her opinion was this provides another opportunity for her. She works two or three jobs and has two kids. Everybody's got different situations. I understand that. But she was proud to have an opportunity to do something different. Part of our coordination, we've had some coordination with the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, and they sent a letter of support for our case. I think those were distributed to and so they feel too that it provides another opportunity. But we're trying to come in with something upgraded and committed and not an empty promise. We have to do these things. They're in the requirements. We can't walk from those. To me, that's a big separator from the people we work with. If they make empty promises, that's one thing. But when they're committing to these, they're bound to those. So I won't labor the points. Everybody knows we started a long time ago to get this project underway. Ten-plus meetings with staff, traffic studies over the last year and a half. I think we've done three iterations. We've done counts at different times. We've done counts when the schools are in session to make sure we understand. Because when schools, the traffic acts different during the school year. So we've looked at those things to see how those impact the study. And at one time we had over 100, we had 100 more stands. Staff recommended we take those out. We do the one acre lots and we focus traffic away from Trinity. There's some residents to our north that were adamant about that to offload Trinity. We heard, we heard there's a, we heard their concerns and we reacted. And again, we had another meeting just the other night and discussed some of the same concerns. So just, Cindy's kind of covered a lot of our intersection, what our TA requires us to do. We're spending a lot of money to improve roads and that's what we should do if we, that's what's required. So that's what we're doing. I think a key point I want to make in this time scale is that by the time we can finish entitlement, do final plat, do construction plans, get them approved and do the construction of the first phase, we're 18 months out from now. So really from December because it would take that to get through council if we're successful. So for zoning. So we're looking at August 2020. By that point we've worked with staff and understanding what's happened on McKinney Street. Now McKinney's a two lane road today. Everybody, you know, fills that traffic today on this existing two lane road. It's going to be improved to a four lane divided road by the time our first phase is ready to sell its, to have its first leasable unit. So not only is McKinney four lane divided, done at that time, but Mayhill will obviously be done by that time. So that diverts a lot of traffic back to the west and to the north to take loading off of Trinity, but also how it functions today, it improves that situation. So one point I want to make is there's some concerns on the internet and questions about people wanting to take Trinity to go to 380 as a question. So as you come out of the center to subdivision where you see that first star, if you were to take, take McKinney, head west and go up Mayhill, that's about 2.65 miles to get to 380. If you wanted to go down Trinity, it's about 3.3 miles to get to 380. So people typically take the path of least resistance. When our project first phase is done, again, four lanes of McKinney, four lanes of Mayhill, that's the path of least resistance. It's got the, it's going to, it's functioning, it's got higher speed limits as well. That's to me, in our opinion, that's where people go. They don't go down Trinity and on a slower speeds. And I know there's people who say they don't drive the speed limits and I'm sure there are some that don't. But the time you go down that two lane road and you cross, it's, it's a, it's a much longer distance and a longer time . I think time is probably the key. So I just want to point that out that we're, you know, we 're really our traffic studies and all of our city staff, their review. We feel like, you know, McKinney, Mayhill's improvements is a big part, part of this and it's going to divert traffic away from Trinity. So I'll try to close out here. So 21 months at this process we appreciate all cities work we're heavily committed to the road improvements for the project and over committing, you know, giving additional things to the, to the city, as far as traffic lights and things that are normally done over 33 acres of green belts densities four units per acre. One thing is that the trail that we're extending to the high school I think that's been appointed contention for a while, and we're proposing to do that that leaves our property, we're obligating ourselves to extend it off our property, but we don't. We don't want to provide that connection, we're close enough to the high school, some kids may walk, so we want to provide that connection that's not fully there today. One or last, the list station improvements. I had some citizens of concern that live near it that said there were some areas that were surcharging the cities indicated us that we've got to fix those things. The citizens said it's been 30 years since that list station has had some improvement it needs some improvement today with our project will be set to do it. You know that 's something we have to do for our project, and it hasn't had the attention to date to get fixed but we will fix that . We appreciate all staffs and help in. We appreciate their recommendation for approval. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that that we have amongst the commission or from citizens to. So thank you. We definitely have some questions up here we'll start with Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So, primarily my line of questioning, I'm asking you for the city staff is trying to confirm and you can probably just tell me off the bat. Is there an intent to be for sale to be purchased by the primary resident only not to be converted into rental properties that are bought by an original owner who then moves out and then then then rights afterwards, the intent is not going to speak to that. That's the stand. That's the intent and Michael can speak more to that too I mean that's he's into that's fine. Well, the other one I'm trying to get down to is, are these be renters or these could be owners. Now the way he stated is correct we don't. We're not going to be selling the homes, they'll buy homes other places will will lease them a place to put the hallways to put it was the least for the stand going to be rough, rough price for similar to our neighbors in the four and 500. Then these manufactured homes are going to be somewhere around the price of what prices nowadays you see is anywhere from 40,000 to low 100s depending on the home. What work have you guys done with didn't for housing corporation so far when you say that and they have a letter of support and so we're working with them. What exactly does that mean there wasn't anything really in description of what that meant. Our team has been at it for a while so we reached out to him to show him the project and talk about it in our representatives work with Michael had met with them to show them the project show them our vision, and they were supportive of it so it was consistent couple meetings, and they were one to support the project. I guess we say support the project that they're just they 're putting forth their moral support. That's it. The main thing they told us was you can't buy a new home for less than a quarter of a million dollars and then right now so they were looking for alternative options to where someone could buy a home and not just rent an apartment. Yeah, and, but the quarter million dollar home they're buying is of course one that's completely 100% faceted to the earth and can't be moved whereas this technically could they're buying the manufactured home they don't own the land underneath. Well actually you can move any home. I mean if it's built on a pre engineered foundation and welded to the foundation , or it's just nailed to the foundation like a site built home either way you can lift the home and fair enough, I would say that the quarter million dollar house or the houses that are surrounding this neighborhood probably wouldn't be moved as regularly. Maybe even as you know if the tenant was to leave, leave a facility like yours. Wouldn't would they naturally would they usually take that home with them or would they, well the home surrounding their home surrounding this subdivision, they would actually move them like they would any other mobile home or manufactured home. If you notice in the brown on the west side of the project, the brown on the north side of the project and the brown on the southeast side of the project. That's all manufactured or, or mobile homes. Sure, I'm asking about your project though so in your project, and the intent of your project and the way it's built because I've been, I'm ignorant of this and so I'd like to know the intent of this is different those are mobile homes you guys are manufactured homes within manufactured modular homes. The intent is that if a person was to buy the home you they lease the land from you they buy the home, it's placed there on that lot. They then leave five years later they're able to go forward quarter million dollar home somewhere else. They would then sell the home to somebody else. Their intent is to maybe they find a plot of land out in the middle of nowhere and they buy some acreage and they move that out there is I mean, are you guys seeing the thinking that these types of developments would have a lot of removing of the homes or that the homes once they're bought and they're placed on that land that they're there. All of the above. Like I said earlier about 92% of manufactured homes don't move once or place somewhere, they stay. They do have the option they could move it to some land. They do have the option they could just sell the home where it is and that's what occurs on most cases they just sell it where it is. Correct. And also to clarify, Ashley Oaks and Denton Falls. We're not saying that's a mobile home product . There's manufactured homes in there as well. They have both. But they're different than the development you guys are doing. They're definitely very different. Ours I see us managing it and it looking more like one of our town home developments than I do our neighbors. Understood. Okay. Okay. So you're still but you're still looking at even with the you know they're leasing it from you for $500 a month and then just on a basic mortgage am ortization of a setting $5,000 home with $2,000 down payment you're looking at $700 a month they're going to be paying already for their home that they purchased from the manufacturer and then other four to $500 to you for the le asing of. Yeah, I think that's similar to what they would be if they 're renting an apartment so anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 to $1,500 somewhere in that range per month. Awesome. Great . So do you have a question or two for you. I asked staff a question and follow up to the applicants presentation. Sorry commissioners. Whenever they're talking about McKinney, whenever the expansion of the developers sand at the expansion of McKin ney to four lane road there. The wording in our backup was a little bit interesting just didn't catch it in work session . But it states that the four lane intersection the post of McKinney, with a transition to two lanes will be constructed. Well it says will be constructed twice that's type of it will be constructed with this project at the time McKinney street improvement so there will be four lanes in front of the development, and it will go essentially go from Mayhill all the way out to Camp Copa so be it to lane for lane to lane. That's the way I'm reading it but you tell me if I'm looking at it. That will be transitioned to two lanes. Then McKinney will be four lane all the way to mail. Yes. Okay. Awesome. That's the big thing I want to know there. Now, if the construction of McKinney itself will be done by the city of them. That's correct. Okay. Is there any restrictions we can put on the any point later on after the rezoning and SCP if that was the past. So any restrictions we can put further down the line as a planning and zoning commission to make sure that phase one is not occupied until for sure, McKinney is completed because we all know that the city. Yeah, there's delays, it rains stuff happens. You know, so roads don't get done for a year or so. Well, you could stay you could add a condition stating that the timing of the release of phase one would should coinc ide with the completion of the construction of McKinney. Yeah, I would just really hate to say well the developer got done, you know, the developer did their job and they did a great job and built it and it got done. For whatever reason the city of Denton is behind. We'd hate to see not only construction happening on McKinney but construction with however many units are within one 200 units I have no clue what phase one was, but those all the open and then now we have 500 new people who are trying to drive up and down. I'm constructed road. Yeah, okay, you could do that. That would be done in the in the SCP that would be done in the SCP. Okay, got it. Yeah, I really wish the for commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. Mr Murphy or Mr Holliman or both of you come on back up to it please. Thank you for your presentation. I think you've got to find product considering that you're building something in an area where we've got traditional single family homes I think you've gone out of your way to ease what you've got into that community so I appreciate that. And I'm glad, Commissioner Smith asked about pricing because that was my concern too. One of the big issues we have here in this far from enough low income housing we needed desperately that contributes to a lot of the homeless we have because people don't have places to live so I'm for that at least. Let me answer this though that's a concern, I'm sure for the neighbors about lowering rent lowering property values. You built these kind of developments elsewhere right. Yes, sir. Okay, what's been your experience with these developments and lowering nearby home values. Can you address that. No, not exactly I, you know, I've never tracked. I've never tracked the fact that we have a lot of structured and mobile homes around us, and the gas plant across the street from us. The siding is that already planning. Yeah, nowadays most people use cementious siding like a hardy plank. Some do go ahead and break the home all the way up you know you on the skirting but some choose to have it taken all the way to the roof on. That's a good option is there is possible now again looking at the samples that you showed here look like they're elevated to but I understood these were going to be on concrete slab. So what we want is stairs going down to concrete patio or paved stone patio. Okay, very good. That's really I want to thank you for recognizing the hard work our city staff today, they don't get it that often so appreciate you. Thank you. Because you're also so fast we have city clarification. I just wanted to provide a clarification on that front set back I know the code had 15 feet. One of the conditions is that it will be set back 20 feet from back a curb. First, the head into cars. They're in the front, they're not on the side, and that's the intent. If I may, that does bring up some now. So, the parking will be on the street you're not allowing for driveway. There's a two car driveway. Show us. Thank you, sir. So just curious the rent that they're paying you for for the foundation. Does that include what you mentioned with lawn maintenance and full use of amenities and whatnot or is there a separate HLA. That's everything total is not a separate HLA. Perfect. My other question is the 61 acre lots. What do you envision that being because it is odd for six one acre residential lots to be adjacent to a property such as this so I'm curious as to your vision for those. When we had several meetings with staff. They were thinking of different ways to soften Trinity, you know we had offered to do the same wall that we're doing on McKinney Street. And I can't remember exactly who was a staff but they came up with the idea of doing something similar to the homes across the street, which were larger lots. So we agreed that we would put in six one acre lots and either build single family homes on them or sell them to someone who wanted to build single family homes. Mr. Sanchez. Maybe I misunderstood when I was reading this whole thing but he talked about affordable housing. So I was under the impression that they were going to buy a lot and mobile home from you all. But now it's, it's almost like living in a park they're going to buy, they either buy the mobile home from you all, is that going to be a mandatory that they buy the mobile or or the mobile home from you all they can bring one themselves in place in your property, they can bring it themselves. Yeah, we're leasing the stand for the home and taking care of the exterior, but they own the home itself. So what they're going to be paying they'll be paying fires, say for $500 just for for parking the modular home there, and then whatever they pay for the mobile home they might I mean for the modular home they may have payments of nine $1 ,000 so we're looking at 15, maybe $1,500. Right, depending on the home they are depending on the house. Yeah, most of them probably around that because that cheap either so we're looking at when we're talking about affordable housing. We're looking at possibly 12 to $1,500 a month, I'd say anywhere from about 900 to 1500 a month depending on the home they selected that they wanted there. So similar to apartments. As far as price total price for the month. Okay, because apartments are pretty expensive now they're about $1,200. Yes, I mean. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner pernetta. Yes, for the, for the six houses on the on the acres, are those going to be manufactured homes as well as side built homes somewhere to what's across the street. Thank you. I appreciate you being here for questions, the commission has no more, but I wouldn't go too far. Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If you wish to speak if you could please fill out one of these blue cards that are at the door, would be happy to talk to you. I do have several cards so we'll just get right to this. The first card I have is Jason, and forgive me if I messed up any names tonight, it is it is not personal believe me, but looks like Jason Vinucci. Do you just state your name and address for the record. I live at 1901 Lakeview Boulevard. I'm in the Lakeview Ranch subdivision. I'm actually here on behalf of the Lakeview Ranch subdiv ision. You'll have several speakers coming up after me. If you don 't mind, I would just like to ask those community members to stand up briefly and have a seat. Sure. Just to show you who's here. These are Lakeview residents is that one. These are the Lakeview residents. If you look at the map in the right hand corner it says Lakeview Ranch, and they are very light colored area. So, you know, we are here because we actually are hoping you will oppose this woodlands community. Tonight basically we want to, we want to go directly into discussing a few topics here. And those topics that will go through will be discussed by other community members that will come up. I just want to give you a quick summary of what I, what you can expect to hear and what what will take place. One of these topics we would like to discuss our safety, which is going to be due to the increased traffic, not only on McKinney, but as well as Trinity, which is a shortcut up to Lakeview and 380. We would also like to talk about the speeding of people cutting through the community to get to 380, as well as the fact that there is no traffic light at that intersection at Lakeview Boulevard and Highway 380. We would also like to discuss the deterioration of the current road condition and the future road condition. Previous to that, we've actually asked the city and requested several times for road humps speed limit signs more speed limit signs, as well as stop signs that has been denied. Basically, the impact of the woodland, how it would have an impact on our fire, our police, our ambulance service, as well as our school services. Are we prepared for that? The impact of the current home values, I believe you brought up and property tax. We'd also like to discuss the zoning change from RD5, which is designed to maintain this area as a five acre, one home per five acres for a rural area, as well as the 2030 plan, which also states that it should be maintained this way as a one home per five acre. We believe that with the research we've done that you will deny the request to approve this. We also would like you to reconsider adding additional zoning change signs, given that it's a rural area and there is one home per five acres assigned within 500 feet of this property is not appropriate. You may get a few cars going by one way or the other, but you're not reaching everybody that will be directly impacted. So that's just something to consider in the future. There's also a community that's located directly across the street from the Ryan High School and forgive me, I don't know the name of the subdivision. They do not have a homeowner association, but they are mostly not here tonight because they're not aware of this because their entrance is further to the west. Some of them that will use Lakeview Boulevard to cut through perhaps might know, but the majority are so close to the intersection of Mayhill and McKinney, they just go that way. But they're going to see an increase in traffic coming from the west. With that being said, I just want to thank you for your time. And hopefully we can we can come up here and go through our options. Thank you. Thank you very much. We actually have some questions for you. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. Can you give me some history of Lakeview Ranch? When was it built? I've been there actually almost 12 years. Okay. From what I know, Ashley Oaks was built in like '85, '86. Was that any worry? And I guess we technically can't elicit reactions from the crowd. So I would I would ask I would ask if you would like to answer this question for me later, if you have a blue card or you don't have a blue card, blue cards right out there. For myself, for myself, it was definitely a concern. Yeah. So that was a concern when you bought it, but you still bought a house there. I built a house there, but I built it under the impression. The if you're aware, Lakeview Ranch also has surrounding property and it was supposed to be developed into larger homes on larger home sites. I went to high school at Ryan. I lived down next to the Perry House. I used to drive through. I used to speak. I got my first speed ticket in Lakeview Ranch. So you're you're actually one of the people on my list. I'm a product of learning what you boys are all about. So you know exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly. To answer your question, yes. And the reason I did build a home in that community was the fact that there was future development planned. Unfortunately, some of the partners had a misunderstanding or there was a death and it just kind of broke apart. So that's why I continue to go ahead and build. How many how many folks would you if you're representing the rest of the community and the first one to come up here . So you get the most amount of darts thrown at you. How many how many in that community take Trinity to go south to McKinney? I couldn't answer that. Would you person buy it? I can't even do that. I could I could only guess. I don't know. Do you ever take it to go south? Very seldom. OK. The problem you have is there was a one lane bridge. Sure. Very limited access. So that's that's a huge problem. Mills and Trinity and Lakeview. I think I think the thing is is I get I see more people coming from the opposite direction to get to 380 than I see coming from 380 to get to. So with that with that question in mind then you know applicant put in put in restrictions to where this development has no access to Trinity unless they drive all the way down to McKinney and then all the way east to Trinity and then all the way north back again. The only way they had direct access to Trinity would be if they're an emergency vehicle and they won't be. So what is that you know in your in your opinion is that enough to limit northbound northbound. No not at all. Even if even if post I know it's hard to imagine now but the expansion of post oak is going to take it north and then may hill will be completed. It's hard it's hard to hard to conceive it now because you 're thinking right now today the woodlands is created where they got to drive or drive Trinity. Well there's a you know two lane very well managed post oak and two and four lane very well managed may hill to get access to 380. I would assume that that and there's not access directly to Trinity there is only access directly to post oak that people would naturally inclined themselves to go to the more well developed road but I could. I appreciate that but I would actually disagree I would be willing to bet most people are going to go Trinity to Lake view for the pure purpose of no traffic lights no stop signs it's just right through. And if you try to go to the west you're going to run into not only the school traffic the community traffic coming out of the subdivision I described to you as well as if you go further to the east. I think that's vacation village perhaps or there's some homes by Camp Compass vacation. All of those people are going the same direction. You're going to have a huge traffic problem at that intersection so if it were me I would immediately take a left and drive an extra half mile and go right through the subdivision with no lights no stop signs but police officers limited limited. We have to fight for that sir. We can pull the swing and pull the city of didn't police department, we have to fight for that I paid for that area. Just answer your question because you bring up signage is a real area that already five X is just a placeholder. That's really not the point the signage part is only on any on any frontage and Cindy can even our library if she wants to be that signage. The only place we can put it is is where roads touch the property in question. We can't go up to 380 and post a sign zoning two miles south of here if you want to come on down and check it out. Yeah, no, but I would expect that you would put one at the intersection. I mean you've got I don't know how many homes I'm just going to speculate there's two or 300 homes in that community. And I don't think a lot of them know about this. Sure. And I, they're good. I already talked to some of them and they have to wait in a line just to turn out of their community in the current state and if you're adding what 500 units approximately two cars per household. There's 1000 cars possibly. That's, that's just my observation. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. We saw more actually. Commissioner pernetta. Yeah, you mentioned fire safety and I'm guessing first responder response time and what direction would fire department come from to your community would they be coming up Trinity from McKinney or from another direction, they would probably be coming McKinney mills, you're right, actually mills yes I go McKinney and Mills. Okay, so. So right here. So basically up here so we wouldn't really. So then in fact if there was a fire emergency, they wouldn 't be affected by by this. Okay, I'm not in the present state I'm not aware of a fire truck could even cross the one lane bridge I'm not sure of the restrictions. Okay, and that's, I just wanted to clarify that clarify that because I know you raised that as a concern and I did absolutely I didn't see where that would be an issue. So, the, the question that commissioners. Smith came up. Sorry, I'm like jumping all over, I've got stuff all over. I'm bought up as far as Trinity goes and the traffic, he did mention that in order for this to work. Someone would have to go an extra half mile plus out of their way to go up Trinity. You mentioned that that would still be preferable to a developed post oak, or a widened McKinney to may hill. What is the speed limit on Trinity that would make it that advantageous standards speed trap. I mean is it kind of it's kind of the auto bonds you know I could just kind of blaze my bike up there and go through. I wouldn't recommend that. But I mean, there's, I don't know if there's a speed limit if there is, I don't know that anybody does it there's, you know, people racing through there, etc. Okay, I'm just based on the way this is going to be laid out and the fact that there is no access to Trinity except for the emergency vehicle route. I, I'm kind of failing to connect the dots on how traffic would be impacted in that direction. I guess those were the only well I think you know even the gentleman with the woodlands when he was up here he said people would take the path of least resistance. They would take a path that didn't have stop signs or traffic lights, even if it was a half a mile longer, and fewer traffic lanes. I mean there's no resistance, okay just shoot out right where you need to go. So there are but there are no there are no stop signs or anything like that along Trinity. Okay. All right. So one. Okay, I believe the only stop sign is, is that the actual one lane bridge. Southbound courage. Okay. I think that's all I've got. Chris Rebecca. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jason. Anytime there's new development there's always worrying concern, basically about traffic property value and stuff like that so we hear that a lot and we're, we're empathetic towards that. But inevitably, you're going to have development there, not be this time. But you had mentioned. And I was curious where you got this that this area was zone for one home per acre, I believe it was five acres. Well, and after listening to Cindy I believe it might have been a temporary zoning but it was five RDX or your future land use map refers to this low density area, which would include neighborhood residential one. Neighborhood residential to an R3 and an R4. Each one means one home per acre to okay. So, in our fours, which this is trying to accommodate, you know, if you stretch the numbers a little bit you might come up with five but you're getting in that area so inevitably what's developed there could could be in there to post post oak, as it comes through I've seen the mobility map, and it's it's going to skirt across your lake lands there. I'm not sure exactly where it may even go right through it because then Lakeland Boulevard, it'll probably run parallel with it. Yeah, so you're going to get that for learning traffic and that will be for laying. The problem there is, is, is my understanding post so hasn 't even been. There was traffic is going to be an issue there's no avoiding that. But I understand the concern, and I think, from what I've seen the developers have been over backwards to minimize the impacts that this type of development is going to have. That's more than some people do and I think if they weren't doing as much. I'd have a hard time with it too, but I don 't want you to think we're not sympathetic towards your concerns we are. I would just like to caution you I think you're, you're, you're setting a precedence going forward there's, there's other developers in the area that would love to expand on that property is a beautiful piece of property has amazing trees. Talking about Lakeland, the woodlands, we're proposing the site is a great piece of property in the surrounding area is too. But I think you're setting a precedence going forward by allowing this type of community there, and possibly asking other developers to walk away from future expansion, and it could be much greater size homes on much larger lots preserving more trees more land, less traffic less congestion. Well, we take each development individually so I'm not sure it's going to be an automated but again, right, you have right to that concern. But the thing I mentioned earlier, and I know everybody's concerned about this I don't want to say that you're not, but didn't need affordable housing. And I wish this was a lot cheaper than it is but it's, there's none out there. We have a homeless situation. Part of what contributes that is people don't have a place to live. And this will help accommodate that that's why the housing authority housing authority got involved. So, that's got to be a consideration we have to take into account so we don't want it to be a cheap neighborhood. The inference that, you know, it's a trailer park. It's not, but it's not, you know, the traditional standard residential home setting either realize that. So the fact that he's gone out of his way that I had the landscape the burns, the eight foot masonry wall, I think will help offset some of that release. That's my opinion on that. So, thank you though for coming up and speaking. Thank you, I hope we can help more. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I just wanted to say that when you said, the current, well it was currently. The classification was already five X, which is a holding position. So right now they want to move it to an NR six. So NR six mean that you can have up to six houses per acre. And so, it's not really. When you're talking about there'd be only one house for five acres that's not that's only a holding position. Well, I realize that now that Cindy's okay, given her presentation. All right. And I just wanted to say is, you look at Trinity, and you look at everything above that development. That's all open land. One day somebody's going to come in and you know, I sympath ize with you because we build we're building faster than when we're actually building roads to accommodate the, you know, amount of people were putting out there. And so my, my concern is if we stop this then I'm going to stop anything north of that developing until we have, you know, the right roads are going to stop, you know, people go through Trinity Road, I've taken it because I can't. You mentioned Vacation Village. I have some property out there. And so I learned about that cutoff and I just get on 380. To me it's a lot faster than going all the way down McKinney and dealing with all the traffic there. I just go through there quick even though it's a single, single road bridge. I can get through there a lot faster than going all the way down McKinney. So I do utilize that. I have used it , utilized it several times. My concern is, is that Trinity Road that goes all the way to 380, I know it goes to that subdivision, but that's a public road, right? And so are we going to restrict public roads when they go through our neighborhood? And that's my biggest concern. Everybody wants, doesn't want nobody go through their neighborhood, but they're willing to go through other people's neighborhoods to get where they want. And I know that that subdivision, that road right there, if ever becomes developed, it's going to push a lot of traffic through that Trinity Road. It's going to push a lot of traffic onto 380 so you can get to 380. So it's just a matter of time I think before that road gets developed and pushes enough so you can have enough traffic. So that's my concern is long term, how are we going to deal with that whole area? It's going to get developed. Well I think the way you deal with it is first by starting with a lower density. A higher density won't solve your traffic problem. Well, the problem is the city is expanding and you can't build one acre homes all the way outside to outside the loop. At some point you have to start building higher density homes because you can't put everybody on five acres , otherwise we're going to be all the way to McKinney. Agreed. Okay, so that's what they're doing is, you know, we have to find areas at one time, it was within the loop. Now that city is expanding and what used to be rural is no longer rural. It's, it's at that point that you know we have to develop those properties because people are coming in. My biggest concern is we're not building the roads to be able to move the traffic that's being created. And I sympathize with you because I take that all the time, Trinity Road. And when you take Mills, Mills is not even a road. I would consider it more of a trail, you know, it's really a bad road. So it's a whole lot easier just to go up Trinity. So I just want to mention we have to consider long term, where are we going to go in that area because it's going to be developed. Once this gets, if this gets developed, you're going to start seeing more development up in that area. I agree. Again, I just think that the density is not going to solve a traffic issue though. I think we need to be more cautious of that going forward. It's really in a corner. So to put that many residents in one spot is, is tragic really . I mean, there's no answer. I just told you I use it. Yeah. And I know it's going to get used. Well, you're just helping prove my point. But eventually that's going to become a major road and it's going to come right through that through your, through your neighborhood. It's going to go right through there because that's going to be one of the few accesses to 380 quick, you know. So actually I got on the board to get in line and then we 'll go to Commissioner Pernetta. First, thank you for being here. Thank you for representing everyone. Looking forward to hearing what I wanted to say. I just wanted to probably lay out where my thought process is and if this informs people how to respond, all the better. But a couple things that are resonating in my mind is when I look at this property and look at the surrounding land uses as well as our mobility. It does seem to be a fitting land use for that and I can go into that for two reasons. One, our mobility plan, regardless of the time of implementation, we know McKinney will be done. We don't know. I shouldn't say that confidently. It's scheduled to be done in 2020 and that would be a four lane divided road and then post oak which will run directly in between the perspective land and Ashley Oaks. That's a primary arterial. So that's a six lane divided road. So that corner that they're proposing to put a street light on will be identical to McKinney and loop 288 in terms of the size. And so when I think about McKinney and loop 288, it's hard for me to imagine one acre homes going in there and finding a market for larger single family homes at an intersection that massive. I know it concern about the viability of the project that they're presenting considering how dense that will be. You mean the intersection at Mayhill? No, McKinney and loop 288 . Although McKinney and Mayhill look the same. They're all primary arterials. You'll have Bonnie Bray, Carol, loop 288, Mayhill, post oak . Those will all be the same capacity of roads across Denton . Those are how the vertical struts of our city are planned. So post oak is intended to relieve traffic from loop 288 and then Mayhill and then post oak. That's going to run right next to the property. And so it's designed to get people north from I-35 to 380. That's the intent of it. It's going to be designed to get traffic that way and they're going to dump right onto that property. On the east side, Trinity and the mobility plan will be renamed to Lakeview and that's a collector road. And so the city has in our mobility plan that Lakeview Boulevard is designed to connect McKinney to 380. That's the design of the city is to connect those two streets. And I'm not sure if you're aware of this. This would be a larger concern if I was in the area. The adjacent property of the southwest of Lakeview Ranch that's undeveloped I think where that one lane bridge is. The southwest? The southwest of that highlighted yellow part. So if we're looking at the map, it's to... Just above the mobile home park? Yeah, well to the right. That would be southeast. Oh, okay. Okay. On either side of that, so it looks like Trinity kind of turns right there. On either side of that diagonal, if you think like a bow tie, that both those zoning on either side of that road is mixed use residential 12, which is a highly intensive use. 10,000 square foot retail, 12 units per acre duplexes. That 's by right. If someone bought that property that could go up tomorrow, it wouldn't even come to us. And so the... I guess to not belabor the point, there's going to be density on Lakeview. Hopefully it gets... It sounds like it's a bad street to begin with and hopefully there may be some speed mitigators like speed bumps or something that could help you. But Lake view is going to be built out. We've tried that so many times. I understand. But when we 're looking at this property, considering how much traffic is going to be forced there from a city onto that corner, it's hard for me to fathom that once that's built that they would go to the new Lakeview to go north. But even if they do, that's the way the city has designed that street. And unfortunately it goes through development. But from looking at, from my perspective, how the city has agreed from council and commissions before us of how that land is going to be navigated, it does seem like a fitting property, especially sandwiched in between two properties. So that's where I'm coming from. I appreciate... I'm wanting to hear all the feedback here. That's what I'm going to be listening to to understand how it's not a good fit. With that, I'll give it to Commissioner Pernetta. Thank you. Actually, you said a lot of the things that I was going to say, Chair Wiesel. Because one of the things that, you know, I know everyone has a vested interest in this. One of the things that we have to consider when we're making our decision is does what is presented fit with what is surrounding this right now? Now, I know a lot of people are looking at zoning and going , well, you know, there's the RDX-5 and there's, you know, the NR-2, just off to the west of that. Having said that, you know, in that NR-2, which I believe the pre-existing property, which is a mobile home park, was grandfathered in there. So when you look at that one, Ashley Oaks and Denton Falls, what they're proposing is actually completely conforms to what immediately surrounds it. And in some ways, it appears to be a nicer development. So based on the plan that they 've submitted to us. So as of now, based on the fact that when we consider the character of what's there and what we want, what is being asked to be put there, I haven't seen compelling evidence to vote against this. You know, you mentioned something about holding out for developers who will put in, you know, one-acre homes and everything. Well, my understanding is that they already own this property, so unless they're going to change, you know, direction midstream and, you know, put mega homes on one acre, and, you know, I don't think they are inclined to do that. They seem to put some time into this already. I'm not seeing that as being an option. I wish I could elaborate more on that. The surrounding property, unfortunately, as a result of the woodlands, is my understanding went up for sale immediately. Okay. And on that one, I'm sure that will come before us at some point in the future. My next thing is, Cindy, just out of curiosity, because I know a lot of this is based on hypotheticals in terms of traffic patterns. Do we know approximately when Post Oak will be ready for the traffic that we hope will? Well, are you talking the entirety of Post Oak? I guess the portion that would line up next to where we're at, that would hopefully, in effect, divert anybody from wanting to go a half a mile south. The applicant can answer that. We've worked a lot with staff and looking at Post Oak. Post Oak at one time was planned to be on Trinity, and then they moved. We worked with staff to, another thing we did about three or four months in, is to move that thoroughfare from Trinity to where we're proposing our west property line. So what does that mean? That means when Post Oak is extended in the future, instead of going on Trinity, it's going on the west side of our property north versus going right through the heart of the subdivision, through their subdivision. So, something that we did early on is to amend the thorough fare plan, and it was, we had those discussions, Richard, and that moves Post Oak and aligns it further west and doesn't put it down Trinity. Do we have an approximate time when Post Oak would be ready to accept that traffic? We've asked staff, they're not sure. So we're trying to jumpstart it by the first 1,200 feet and dedicate all the right of way. So we're trying to jumpstart that, establish the intersection, which that gives more reason to get it done sooner, but staff couldn't tell us exactly when. But that section you're thinking about would be somewhere around the time you're ready with Phase 1? Our part will be done with our project further north of us, I don't know. But what the big condition that changes is McKinney goes to a two-lane road to a four-lane road, and Mayhill, under construction today, goes to a four-lane divided road. So that substantially changes that area. And I know construction traffic too can, it changes patterns and it's frustrating. And I know Mayhill's under construction, but ultimately by the time we sell our first unit, or at least our first unit, those bigger things are done, which the dynamic changes a lot. So, do you have Post Oak, your section of Post Oak, is it connected to a certain phase? I think we have tied it to Phase 1, it's adjacent to our Phase 1. We have no concerns, we'll put that in as soon as the City wants it. But we were intending to do Phase 1. Alright, thank you. Assuming that would be a dead end then? It would, until the City continued it. That's all the questions we have for you. Appreciate your time. Next one we have is, I think it's Merritt Kirk. Gotcha. Thank you for the correction. I'm with you. If you could state your name and address for the record, and I'm sorry, can you pull that mic back towards you? My name is Merritt Kirk, and I live at 1301 Lakeview Boule vard with my lovely bride. I've heard a lot about future roads and plans and so forth, so I thought I might bring a little bit of the real world in here, in terms of what happens on our street. Now, we don't live behind a gate. Our street is right in front of our house, and it's crumbling, and there's people speeding up and down the road at all hours of the day. But anyway, to try to quantify the safety issue, my wife and I did a little survey door to door on how many mailbox es have been demolished or badly damaged in the years that we've lived there, which is about 13, 14 years. There are 37 properties, including our clubhouse, on the street, and it's roughly a mile from 380 down to where we hook into Trinity. And in the period that we've been there, we've had 51 incidents where the mailboxes were either crashed into or badly damaged. And in some cases, the individual properties have been hit three times. Matter of fact, I have a neighbor two doors down. He just rebuilt his mailbox, and one week later, it was crashed into again. So now I just put up a temporary. These mailboxes are substantial. I mean, most of them are brick with an encased . If you hit one, you know it. Anyway, I have if this thing will this we turn on. We get the eye on this guy on. Show you here on the property 37 properties. Step closer. And you'll see that what I have there is that the X is indicate the number of incidents. And this is, as I say, over a period since we've lived there, we moved in in December of '04. So 13 to 14 years. And a number of them have had three times mailboxes knocked down. And so, you know, we have a neighborhood where we hopefully we're kind of open in the open country where we can enjoy the peace and quiet of having a yard around us, which, you know, we try to maintain. And so it's a little bit risky when you go out and somebody little kids want to ride their bikes or we want to just take a walk or go out and get our mailbox, our mail. I have a neighbor who says that when he edges his yard, his wife is standing there telling him, here comes another one. No, get over. This is the real world we're living in here. And the cars and many cases are doing well over the speed limit, despite the fact that it's posted at 30 miles per hour. And despite the fact that there have been many calls to the police, both the county and the city, to come out and enforce. And when they come out, magically the speed goes down. And the minute they leave, almost the speed goes back up. And so it's really a quite dangerous situation. And I have personally, in going down the street, tried to maintain me even three miles above 30, try to be nice and cars will pass me. You know, they could tailgate me and then pass me. And so people have no fear whatsoever of being arrested unless they just got a ticket. So anyway, this is my data here. I'll show you. And that's the second page. We personally witnessed one day a car crashing into a tree, an SUV, not very far from where we were walking. So it's a very dangerous thing. And so when we hear about the development of this nature, 500 homes, 1,000 or more cars, and I know the argument about they're not likely to go over to Trinity and go up. But if you're working, and this point's been made by some other people in our group, that if you're working in Frisco or east of Lakeview, and you're coming down there and you're trying to decide how I want to get home, you can wheel right down there. Don't worry about the speed. Wheel right down there and go down Trinity, take a right, and you're home. Rather than go down, get in a line, getting off wherever May Hill or however that's going to work or the loop or whatever, we have real concern about the added traffic and added -- I 'm done. We actually have a question for you, so hopefully he gets more time. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Did you happen to have a source on the perps, the people who caused the accidents? Did you happen to know where they're from? Was it the kids coming from the high school? Well, it's all -- well, not really, but I'm only in Miami. Did you ever hear anything from the assistance? We had ours knocked down once. Our daughter and her family had theirs knocked down once. And that person was from our daughter's place. They said they were on their way -- they actually jumped out of the car and ran, but they went airborne when they hit the driveway and went airborne. And the guy ran off and then he came back. But he said he was going after somebody else to take to a party. That was his answer. And he was not in the community. The people that hit ours, do you remember how many? I don't know, but we were fortunate because the person left information and the insurance company paid for the -- doing a mailbox, which was about $600, $600, $800. I'm not saying that this means that the development of this Woodlands community wouldn't add to your problem, but I would wonder how many of those speeders, how many of those people who run the mailboxes, come from those communities that are down there along Trinity? I don't know if it's high schoolers, whoever else it is, or anything else. Now, I would like to ask Cindy -- and I don't leave you, I 've got another question for you then. Cindy, if you could come up and maybe you -- you may know, you may not. Is this -- Lakeview Ranch, clarification. I'm assuming it is because the city police goes out there and monitors it. City-owned street, correct? What is the process for a neighborhood to request speed bumps? Gee, you know, I would think they'd have to go to the streets department and talk to them. I'm not certain, but that's what I would do. It was my understanding that because emergency vehicles might need to use the roads, that we could have speed bumps . I don't know. I've never realized that. That's probably very true. Because that's all in one way in and one way out. That's it. There's nothing. That's unfortunate. Okay, I'm done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. Next up is Martha Lang. If you could just state your name and address for the record. And I just want to re-mention, if you're wanting to speak, you're more than welcome to do so. We ask that you fill out a card, but if not, you can just come in order once everyone's cleared out. My name's Martha Lang. I live at 908 Lakeview Boulevard and Lakeview Ranch. I've lived there for over 15 years. I'm one of the fortunate ones that's had a mailbox hit three times in the last 10 months. One of it completely destroyed from a young man coming from Ashley Oaks, because he did stop and we did get his information. The other two, no one stopped. We've had numerous cases of property damage with people going off the road into the yards. So the safety issue on Lakeview is a huge, huge problem. I strongly disagree with the applicant saying that people are going to take the path of least resistance, because that is the path of least resistance, like Jason was saying. Everyone from the high school to any of these other developments come through there. I think that we all bought these properties there because of the rural feel, and we'd like to try to maintain that and changing the zoning on this property would eliminate that, but it would also set a really bad precedence for any future properties around that. I understand the cities need to have different types of housing and levels of housing, but the safety issue and thinking of four vehicles as far as parking spaces for each one of these units, you're talking then, you're talking not just 1,000 cars, you know, possibility of more than that. When they did their traffic study results, I'd like to hear if any of that was based on Lakeview or whether it was just the surrounding area that all the notices have been sent to. We did traffic counts at Trinity in 380, at Trinity McKin ney. We did traffic counts at McKinney in May Hill at the time because we'd been there for a while, and then McKinney in the loop. So we did traffic counts. We looked at work with the city, what the traffic distribution, what our anticipation of who's going to use those roads. It's a very low percentage, and I think the timing delay, if you're coming up to Trinity Eternal in 380, was a second or two difference in our study. Okay. So my biggest concern is, of course, the changing of the surrounding property. Again, I think it's going to set a precedent for future developments, and of course, the safety issue along there. We have tried to remedy that with the city. There's been nothing resolved with that. There's always been some other excuse why we can't get the speed bumps or whatever. I do understand they're not the access on Trinity being shut off. That's a good thing, but there still will be that emergency access, and I'm curious about that gate also. If that gate becomes broken and it doesn't become fixed, that will be an access point to go in and out of their own Trinity also. Christian? No, I'm sorry. I actually, in reference to something you said, but I want to talk to the CSA. Richard, what would it take, and how can we find out, to the benefit of these citizens, about getting speed bumps put in? It was always my understanding that, like if you were a homeowner association, that'd be something that the residents themselves would have to pay for. But is there really an objection by fire trucks, stuff like that? Typically, there are concerns, but there are other ways to mitigate. There are traffic circles. I think the issue here is currently it's designated as a collector on the mobility plan. Oh, is it? So as a result, you typically don't put speed bumps on a designated collector. I think the intent is, as we're redoing this mobility plan, and given where post-Oak would now be, I think that's an option where that then could be lifted ultimately, and something like that could be looked at. So it's typically discussed through traffic engineering, and then there's a traffic safety committee that will discuss the application of speed bumps or the like. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Pernitta. Just to verify, because you had a question about the emergency gate. My understanding is the only access to the emergency gate would be first responders who have -- A bump? Yeah, a bump. Is that right? And as far as it ever becoming damaged, that would be a code issue, correct, where it would be required to be correct? Each away. Yeah, they would have to maintain that as a gate at all times. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Richard, when it comes to not speed bumps, but those little hard pieces of plastic that are not rubble strips, basically they're speed inhibitors. You get them when you 're going into the airport at DFW. Those don't prohibit emergency vehicles from having to -- [inaudible] Not just the reflectors, the ones that make noise as you drive over it. Like the rumble strips? Yeah, you do with bricks and everything else. What are the costs? What is the cost for any type of road improvement? That I'm not sure. I did, about five minutes ago, send an email to our traffic engineer, so I don't know if I'll get an answer tonight. Feel free to break in. But I did at least let him know that these issues were discussed at the meeting. Could it be something that we asked the applicant to pay for if that was part of the consideration? He just gave a thumbs up. Thumbs up is yes. Okay. What? Well, there was confirmation that the applicant would be willing to pay for speed mitigation on Lakeview Boulevard if the city approved it. My stop sign? I can't have a discussion off mic and we have an order. I don't know what it would be. [inaudible] Speed mitigation. And then who was it? At this point, we can't go into all the details. We have a lot of people who filled out cards. If you'd like to have a sidebar conversation with the city, you definitely can do that. Next up is Sheila Repka. Commissioner Beck. Thank you. Sorry. Is Lakeview Boulevard, is that four lane or two lane? Two lane. Striping that narrows the road at least gives that visual. That's always been to some effect a tendency to slow down traffic because they've got a narrow lane. So that wouldn't be prohibited on a collector road, would it? I don't believe so, but again, I would defer to traffic engineering. Okay. Just wanted to bring that up. Thanks. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Yes. I'm Sheila Repka. I know it doesn't look like Repka, but it is, trust me. I live at 1402 Lakeview Boulevard. We built our house about four years ago. I retired after 43 years of teaching, worked hard all of my life, and we moved to this neighborhood because it was beautiful. And we loved the surroundings. We loved everything about it . We built our house. We put in a basement, which is unheard of in Texas. And we love the area. Although there are serious issues. Traffic is one of them. There are numerous speeders up and down Lakeview. I even followed a young girl one day, and she turned off of 380, sped down Lakeview at a rate of 60 miles an hour, turned up Mills, and turned into Ryan High School. I got her tag number. I called the school. The vice principal, I asked him to call her parents and let them know what their daughter was doing. And he thanked me immensely. But these are things that we 're faced with all the time. It is a shortcut to Ryan, so we get lots of school traffic. I cannot walk on Lakeview, walk my dogs, or use my three- wheeled bike, which I purchased proudly a couple of years ago because I needed some exercise. I cannot use it on Lakeview. We have no sidewalks, no curbs . So we are at the mercy of traffic up and down that street. Numerous times I have been run off the road. One time when I was riding my bike, I literally had to swer ve into the grass in someone's yard, upset my bike, and injured myself. These are things we face on a daily basis. With the addition of at least a minimum of 1,000 additional cars traveling up and down our street, I can't even imagine the nightmare that that's going to be. I disagree strongly with the gentleman when he maintains that most of the residents there will use McKinney and May hill. I disagree. If they're traveling anywhere east, they will use Lakeview, as they do now. We get lots of traffic. Another thing I wanted to mention is he pulled on your heartstrings about telling the story of the woman with the children and how she would be so proud to have her own home . I am proud of my home, as all of our residents are in Lake view. We do not want this to happen. We do not want additional traffic. We do not want our property values to be... You know what I'm saying. We're very, very strong in our opinions about this. I taught at-risk students. I'm sure many of the students that I would have had had I continued teaching will live in that neighborhood. I have nothing against the people that would be living there. I love those children dearly. I still substitute at Fred Moore Alternative School. It's not a matter of prejudice. It's a matter of safety. It's a matter of protecting my lifetime investment, and I want to maintain my quality of life. This was to be our forever home. The thought of moving, selling our home makes me extremely sad. I hope to God we don't have to do that. Another thing. I'm a tree lover. We've planted... How many trees, Mel? I don't know. We probably have planted 40 trees in our yard since we moved there. These people are... I find this ironic that they're calling this the woodlands, but yet I hear that they're destroying 60% of the trees that are currently there. That's all I have. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Can I ask the applicant a question about the mobility on the four-lane McKinney and what you notice? Thank you very much for coming out. I really appreciate it. I think somebody else might have a question for you in a second. The question I'm going to ask is going to address some of your traffic concerns, but if I could ask Mr. Brett a question here for you real quick behind you. On the four-lane road that's there, is there any talk about a median? Traditionally, Richard or somebody else, please let me know on four-lane roads. Do they automatically include a median? If so, is there a way to limit that to where... I know there's supposed to be a stoplight, but I guess there's not a way to build a median to where there's only a right turn only out of the complex, correct? There's not a way because they're going to be turning into ... You can still build it to where you can turn into the complex, but you can't build a median and build the turn lanes to where it limits right turn only out of the complex. So you don't have people turning left to go down to Trinity and then north. Does that make sense? Because they can't get across... I can specifically think of Loop 288 right in front of LA Fitness and that 7-Eleven right there where you have to go down to the regulated stoplight to then turn left. So our concept has two roads that connect to McKinney. The southern one, that's a right in, right out. Okay. The only other one is a full median opening so you could go right in, right out. That's that full movement. And it has a left turn in. It will. Yeah. Okay. God, thanks. Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Chair. This is going to be for the developer too, but stick around . Stick around. That's okay. Mr. Murphrey? Yeah. Mr. Holloway, maybe you can help me. I just need...would like one of y'all to respond to Ms. Rep ke's comment about tree removal in this development. I understood that their comment was that they're maintaining 40% of the trees there, which means they're getting rid of 60%. Okay. Let's see. My math is correct. Okay. Cindy, let's make sure I've got this aerial here so I can ...I think Cindy, on your presentation, you can see that a clean, crisp aerial. Yeah. I'll pull out mine. I like to toggle between the aerial and our concept, because you can see where we have trees, existing trees, and you see where we have green belts. I think that helps make the point. There's the aerial. And there's the concept plan. Okay. Let me go to the aerial and I'll have to bounce back and forth. I wonder if I can zoom in here. You'll actually need to put it into presentation mode just so individuals watching on TV can see the screen. Okay. So I don't know if the zoom's going to work there, but if you... Oh. Yeah, you have to hit the button for presentation. Oh. Okay. Yeah. And then if you click through... It may not zoom. Yeah, I'm not sure either. So if you'll notice, you can see the mouse or the arrow here, this is a heavily ESA tree area here. There's a little bit here back behind the existing home, and then there's more up to the north. So this heavy tree area here, we are preserving all that. We're preserving all this. Our actual percentage might be that we're preserving is likely higher than 40%, but we're trying not to... With grading and things like that, we're trying not to over commit that. We're trying to be careful and respectful of that and not overpromise. But as you can tell, those two main real heavily tree ESA areas, we're preserving those. At the same time, we're planting back a lot of mature trees that we've obligated ourselves to in our standards. Along McKinney Street, it's not a requirement, but we're putting it in, and on every single leased space as well. Have you all done a tree survey? We've done some levels of it. It's not required as part of the zoning process, but it is part of what framed our plan. So we started deciding how we're going to lay out streets and do those things. It was part of our design. Okay. So you wouldn't have a real good idea of what kind of trees you're going to have to get rid of. Hopefully not native trees or heritage trees, but... Sure. Yeah. Okay. That was the case that we came across a heritage tree that fell in the middle of the park. We'd preserve it and hold out that stand. Okay. A tree preservation plan will be required during the planting process. Right. And they are required to preserve a certain percentage of the high quality trees as well as a certain percentage of the secondary trees. Any trees that they remove that has to be mitigated on a certain ratio, which is higher than what they removed. Right. Thanks for sharing that. That kind of covers an area that a lot of us have a concern about. Does that help a little bit, Ms. Rethke? It's still static. I know. And me too. I hate to see any trees go, but whether they're native or heritage or what, even old mesquite trees. Thank you, Ms. Rethke. I did not see any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. As a point of order, the Chair would just like to ask if the commissioners could try to ask questions to the applicant. If there's questions, I mean, the presenter, the speaker, if there's questions to the applicant or the city, let's do that at the end just for the sake of respecting everyone's time. We just have presenters come up and ask questions of them. And then if there's questions they bring up that need to be addressed, let's make note of them and make sure we do address everyone's citizens' questions. We can do that at the end. Thank you for that consideration. Next up is Ronald Basher. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Thank you for the opportunity to come here. I'm Ronald Basher. I'm in 1108 Lakeview Boulevard. And we've been there about 10 years now. What I want to try to cover here is some additional things that I see that needs to be brought out or expressed anyway . As you've seen and heard, my fellow members have taken the time to come here and voice their grave concerns for the ramifications of allowing this project to go forward before the proper infrastructure in the place is in place to handle the new subdivision. And this is a subdivision that not -- this is not a car wash or something being built. This is a great 500-house subdivision being built here. And the planning report tends to gloss over a lot of the issues about this high-density 500 new home project. Now, I understand it's really only the tip of the iceberg as you brought up that there's going to be 1,000 or more still coming that are going to be on Mills as well as Trinity, which leaps over into our section. The notification map and the pathetic notification of this project, as far as I'm concerned, exposes the project to be many -- to the many neighborhoods that are around here, in some of our opinions, smacks of a deception on the part of the planning commission to push the project through without exposure to the public. Thus, no notifications or opposition requests or whatever were sent back to you because the area covered, which you showed these little 500-foot limits on that, doesn't represent what this project actually affects. This development requires major street upgrades, storm surge, surge capacity upgrades in a place before subdiv ision of this magnitude are allowed to continue. What I understand is that this project has been -- if it is given a go-ahead, it will be ready in about a year and a half or 20 months or whatever, and it will turn -- in turn be dumping a lot of traffic onto very unsatisfactory streets to handle it. For my question is that if I got to take the exemption -- take exemption with the development of the traffic flow, which can we have that map show where your traffic comes up and goes either over to McKinney or McKinney to Mayhill or it goes up through Lakeview? Where is that map for? Anyway, what -- where does the commission envision the 500 or so vehicles traveling in and out of this new subdivision every day travel on? Evidently, it is out on poor old McKinney Avenue. Yes, thank you. I guarantee you that after a day or two of fighting the traffic with vehicles going out of Ryan High School and dealing with the Mayhill-McKinney intersection trying to get over to 288, there will not be turning right to go on McKinney. They will be turning left to go over to South Trinity Road. So I would bet that one-third of the residents are going to be seeking to go up Trinity towards 380 because a lot of them are going to be working east on 380 out of the Denton Township. So after we head north on Trinity, dodging all the dumped sofas, refrigerators, trash full of dirty diapers, dumped on the road by an end of the stream leading to Lake Louis ville, all this crap being dumped by the two existing mobile home parks, residents that are adjacent to this project. Then as they continue north, they will cross a one-lane bridge onto Lakeview Boulevard. Lakeview Avenue is the community's only access north and south out of that subdivision. I would estimate that there's already about 500 to 750 vehicles a day coming and going from 380. Some of the traffic has included semi-rock haulers, which I 'm sure will increase with this project. I'm curious as to how the construction in and out of all the materials are going to be handled getting into this project. I'm not sure if the one-lane bridge is rated to handle that weight. Lakeview was not designated to handle this kind of traffic and now will be asked to handle that much more traffic being added to the new subdivision, being added by this new subdivision. Without the proposed new bridge, which if you were talking about that little crook that takes off right there at the creek, supposedly, and talking to the people who built that temporary bridge, they're going to be taking off to the left going up through around to the west of our subdivision with a big new street . Now, you're going to build this bridge, but it's going to be 20 years before you get the rest of the road built up to 380, is what I'm understanding. That is unacceptable. Without the proposed new bridge and a proposed three and four lane street that is being planned to pass to the west of the subdivision and on up to Highway 380 and not being in place, this commission is really selling the Lakeview Ranch community down the river. You will be dumping all the new subdivision traffic into streets that were not designed for it. So to close in reading the politically correct mission or vision statement on page two of this planning proposal, it seems that this proposal misses almost every key focus mentioned. This proposal seems that it is an economic development project, but at whose expense? Evidently of the existing and very thriving and heavily taxed community surrounding it is who this expense is going to be based on. It also doesn't seek to advance safety issues that would be caused by the development as well as the livability of the already neighboring family friendly community of Lakeview Ranch HOA that is already there. Building the subdivision before the infrastructure in place is like putting the cart before the horse. Thank you for your time. Any questions? I don't see any questions. Thank you. We'll make sure to get an answer on your construction pathway question of how trucks will be getting in. Next person to speak is Doug Herzog. All right. As a reminder, we are allowing for six minutes to speak. Typically it's three minutes, but since we have two public hearing items open at the same time, we're just combining time. So you have six minutes. I am a resident of Lakeview Ranch. I would like to I want to state that it's been danced around, but I want to state this overtly instead of covertly. The reason we're concerned about the traffic on Trinity and Lakeview is because it takes less time to get from this area of the proposed rezoning to 380 at Lakeview than it does to go the other way around today. What it's going to be in the future, I don't know because those roads aren't finished yet. But today it is easier. The solution to our concerns, I really liked your idea of narrowing the lanes with paint with the caveat that you add turps, little turtles, so that someone gets an audible warning before they hit all these folks' mailboxes. That would be a grand idea. And the solution is not speed bumps. That just delays emergency response. And being a survivor of a house fire that was a chimney fire that had the train go by, if a train had been on the railroad tracks , the fire department said my house would have burnt to the ground. So speed and time is of the essence. The solution to the problem is stop signs. I would like next to address the homeless situation and how it corresponds to the proposed development. I believe the city of Denton has a plethora of apartments. And more coming. The reason homeless people are homeless is one of the reasons is not because they can't buy a $250,000 home. They can't afford an apartment in this town. The applicant has told us that his residences will cost about the same as an apartment to the residents. This is not a solution to the homeless situation. I worked for a residential land developer in the Metroplex for 18 years. My major responsibility for that developer was running the three homeowners associations. And at its maturity, I had over 4,000 homes under my pur view. I am well versed in political correctness. I am well versed in terminology. And I am well versed in the use of it in deception by homeowners who want architectural approvals. And just overall general, you can imagine the homeowners association issues that come up. And people trying to present their issue in a more pleasant light than it actually is. And I am well versed in recognizing that. And I do have a couple of concerns. The gentleman that works for the engineering company, as he was doing his presentation, listed a whole host of amenities that this proposed development has or is going to -- some of the amenities he said they are going to have in a different part of his presentation segment. He listed a whole bunch of amenities and it was implied that this development was going to have them. But he did not actually say that this development is going to have them. I believe you, sir, had a whole lot of -- working for a residential land developer, I am not in the camp of no more -- no additional traffic on Trinity or Lake V Ranch. I know more development is coming. And I know it is not going to be one house on five acres. I know it is not going to be one house on one acre. It is going to be more density than that. That kind of density is not where the residential marketplace is. It just isn't. We developed a 3,000 unit subdivision on 2,000 acres adjacent to another subdivision that was building -- I don't remember what it was -- 100 units on three to five acre lots. We built like 300 to one. I don't remember what the ratio was. It is not going to be that low of a density. It is going to be higher. But your issue is how is that going to -- how is the traffic going to flow and what is it going to take to get all these houses, all these residents around on traffic? And the answer is it is going to be infrastructure that the city is going to have to build. But more than that is how is that infrastructure going to be paid for? And it is going to be paid for by the residents. And that tax -- resident taxes. And that tax is not taxed on the basis of density. It is based on property values. And a $40,000 house is not going to support the additional road -- all infrastructure that is going to be needed to support the five point whatever units per acre. And that is going to be the way it is going to be paid for. And it is not going to work. >> We actually have a question for you. Commissioner Smith. >> We will ask the applicant a little bit about the question she had about the amenities. We lost that lady again. >> I want to ask you about the land. I know there are a couple of other folks who want to speak publicly. And that is that everyone understands and knows that at some point in time this land is going to be developed. >> Sure. >> At some point in time. So if it is not 500 units, is it we are okay with 400 units or 300 units? I am not suggesting we -- or zoning or telling the applicant, hey, they are okay with 200 units. You can only do 200. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I am not suggesting we are okay with 200 units. >> I apologize for the outburst a little earlier. I was just a little frustrated with what I was hearing. I am going to get down a couple of things here. Some of the state laws that apply to manufactured housing, construction, or modular home construction are two different animals. Manufactured homes are regulated by the United States government HUD design codes. Those came into effect after Hurricane Andrew wiped out Florida and a bunch of housing down there. The U.S. government thinking they are smart there, but he came in and took it over. Part of that deal is you have to have a crawl space underneath any manufactured home to get access to any of the piping or ducting underneath there. That is a state law and federal law. Minimum is 18 inches. Preferably is 24. Just FYI on that. I applaud the gentleman. They have a great business plan coming in, trying to put some housing in here for folks, renting some lots out. It is a really good plan. It is going to return their investment in about three years , which gives them positive cash flow forever. I think it is good. What kind of lacks for the city of Denton is the tax base, which some of the other individuals have touched on here just a little bit ago. Little Elm over in that area, they had a bunch of trailer homes, mobile homes over there for a long period of time. They have gone through and weeded them out. Because of that, their tax base has increased exponentially . Equality of homes has increased exponentially. Equality of living has done the same thing. Everything has gone up. One of my neighbors touched on a little bit earlier, Brian Flatley. He talked about the mobile home park there, Ashley Oaks, just to the west of the current proposed project. Somebody had a good sense of command there after it was built, the zone at NR2. There is a reason for it. If it is going to be sold, they want something other than mobile homes or manufactured homes on that property, because they want to increase the quality of life here in the city of Denton. They were smart. That is the game plan, increase the quality of life we got here in Denton. This, I do not believe does it. People want to be doing better than their parents did. I want my kids to do better than I did. I have succeeded in what my parents did, which is great. We are not doing that here with this project. So many individuals touched on the tax base. Excuse me, how do you pronounce it again? Thank you, sir. Mr. Singhani, he touched on it. The tax base on the 1,500 homes he wants to put in there with an average starting price of $275,000, the revenue it would bring into this city is huge. The average amount of taxes we pay within our subdivision for 155 homes in there is about $9,000 a year. I personally wrote a check for $17,000 last year. Why happy about that? Oh, no. I even fought my taxes and I lost. I can't sell it for what you all are taxing me for. But the tax rolls are the tax rolls and that's what brings money into this city. A house, a manufactured home, when it's not sitting on property that you do not own, is not considered real property by a Denton County tax assessor. It is considered personal property. And as such, this tax at a lower rate than real property, which you own a house, your house is sitting on a piece of property, that's real property. Personal property like a car, stuff like that, is what these are based on and what they're taxed on. So if you have a 17 by 76 square foot, 17 by 76 dimension, single wide, 1,292 square foot, you're going to pay about $ 1,500 a year in taxes on that manufactured home. And whoever owns the land is going to pay the difference, is going to pay the tax on the land. Now, if you come in and put a three bedroom, two bath, 1, 500 square foot house at about $180,000 price mark, you're going to be paying about $3,000 a year more. So take that $3,000 and multiply it by 497, what do you get ? You get about $1.5 million. That's a big difference in chunk of changes coming into the city of Denton. We bitch and moan about our transportation being lacking and quality of life being lacking because of our transportation, right there's your problem. That 1.5 million will pay for a whole lot of improvements on our roadways. And I bet you dog on dollar it will pay for three damn stop signs at our subdivision that the city engineer will not put in. He said, no, we don't need that. We can't do it. It won't affect the traffic. I personally saw a Bronco 2 up on two wheels coming up over that hill doing about 65 mile an hour. That's coming from that one lane bridge down the bottom of Trinity. By the time he got to the top of the hill, he's on two lanes, looked like he was working for Joey Chitwood. Old folks know who that is. I apologize. All right. It's fast. We've had people diving off into ditches not get hit. Because the city of Denton won't come out and put out three stop signs. We don't we don't need them. You don't need we're not going to put speed bumps in because of traffic because of emergency vehicles. It's stupid. You're putting people's lives at stake. That's the issue I got. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. I do not see any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Cody Hogan. As he's coming up, this is the last card we have this evening. That's not to say that no one else can speak. If you do want to speak, we're happy to hear you. We'd ask you fill out a card. But if not, after Mr. Hogan speaks, we can certainly have you come back up. I know that I already spoke. Would you be able to come up for one more minute and ask the applicant to address the question? After Mr. Hogan speaks, we might be able to address your question. Cody Hogan, 589 South Trinity Road. I know my time's quick. So I'm going to go over a couple of things. I truthfully think we should get a dumping pass for right there by the bridge. Maybe at least for me, because I at least dumped once a month of everybody's stuff that's from Vacation Village. I guarantee these people aren't dumping couches and dress ers. I'm the one that has to do that. So second thing is police. I have people that -- I don't do this very often, so I'm probably turning pretty red. But I live right there. I live exactly right here to be exact. And down by the bridge and exactly over here, it's a joke. I call the police because there's three -- no offense -- Hispanic guys shooting behind the house, ARs to be exact. It took 45 minutes for the police to get to my house. While I'm sitting there with my wife -- girlfriend -- and we're sitting there waiting and I put myself in a bad position, I have cows on the property. I get the fence cut all the time right here. Corps of Engineers, complete opening for four-wheelers to go through. Like, it's no joke. I have to -- I will be completely honest with you. I cut trees right here and I'll put fence here to stop the four-wheelers coming. Call the Corps of Engineer, they won't do nothing about it. So that right there is just going to escalate over here. It's going to happen. The speeding, it is. It's a joke. Like, it's scary on South Trinity Road and it's because of Vacation Village. I see them every single day because I have to drive my Ranger to check my cows around this property every single day to make sure my fence don't get cut. And it has. And I've had cows out here where I have to hire three or four guys to come out with drones with thermal to find my cows and bring them back in. That ain't cheap. About two months ago, I had an ambulance cut my fence, come in to pick up a crackhead with a family back here because they overdosed. I looked up. They wouldn't tell me much, but I kind of followed the mom out. Guess where she went? Vacation Village. It's exact same houses. I don't care if anyone says they are, but they are. Next thing is, the neighborhood, this trailer park right here, I will sit there for 30 minutes waiting on the bus to pick up every kid. Now we're doubling that, probably tripling that. So that's just a joke itself, too. I don't think we should have to sit there for 30 minutes for a thousand kids to decide if they want to get on the bus or not. By the way, I didn't get anything in the mail either. So tents, I have homeless people that live here and I have homeless people that live right here beside that property. Call the police. It takes 45 minutes for them to come and deal with that. I have to go down there myself with an AR and make sure that I'm safe to get them out. It is what it is. I mean, they literally are 10 minutes from my house. I really don't want anybody walking into my house. I mean, I don't think -- do any of you guys live close to Trinity at all? Because if you guys would like to volunteer and pick up stuff or deal with these kind of problems with me, please, by all means, come do it with me. I'm not trying to be rude. This is the truth. Let's see here. Water drainage. He brought up the water drainage, but I know I get a bill in the mail every single month to pay for water drainage. Exactly that. I pay that every single month to Denton County to handle the water drainage. So I don't think that should be an excuse. Let's see here. Little Elm. You know, look what Little Elm did. Everybody's brought that up that they've cleaned out the trailer parks. Are we wanting -- I mean, look how big they're booming, prosper, calling -- they're booming over there because they 're cleaning them out. And we're doing the exact opposite. Is that something that we want to kind of follow? I mean, what about over on 288 where D.R. Horton's building his houses? Why don't we build trailer houses over there? I guarantee we wouldn't do that because it's not hidden. We're trying to hide stuff over here and make it look good over there. I don't think that's right. These people spend a lot of money on their houses. My house, it ain't close to theirs. And we talk about low income. I'm 28 years old. Low income, I've not had any family funding or anything. I've busted my butt every single day and got where I am today. I have a couple rental properties. Low income, they need to get out there and bust their butt. If they don't want to live in a trailer house, I mean, get out there and work. That's what I mean. That's what I do. I've done it all on my own. So I just -- I can't believe that we're going to put trailer houses there when we already know it's guaranteed to become a disaster. It really is. I hate to say that. I understand. These people have a place to live. But is it our city that we have to take care of them to do that? I mean, we have enough already. Vacation Village, I hate to say this. Have any of you guys been to Mexico? Because that's what it feels like. And it ain't no joke. I guarantee some of these people won't even go through there. I have to go through there every single day to check my fence. I had to actually -- over here in this property, there's a water that handles all the water for vaca -- oh, sorry. Over here, that area right here, there's a guy that I guess rents for the water and everything for that trailer place. I had to personally spend my money and build a very good metal gate to keep people from going back there and dumping . I have become the new Denton dump, to be exact. If you guys told me, hey, you can bring all the dump for the next two months, I guarantee I'd have over probably 25 loads of junk that I would have to haul off. Tires is a joke, too. So all I'm saying is I'm 28 years old, I bust my butt, and I really feel like trailer houses is completely off the charts for what we should be doing. I mean, I'm going to live here for the rest of my life, and I really want it to be a nice house, not vacation village. We actually have a question for you, Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Cody, can you tell me where it is that you live? Exactly where I live? What's your address? 589 South Trinity Road, which is right here, to be exact. So there's actually a trailer house right in front of my house. And to bring that up, I deal with them hollering every single night because they want to be drunks. What is your cross street? What's your closest cross street off Trinity? All right, so you know where the single bridge is? On the first house on the left, where the white picket fence with the -- so I will tell you, though, the guns and the AR stuff, believe me, they got mad at me because I had to put barbed wire fence up by the bridge. Because -- and they were like, why -- that's -- you know, that's -- our trails -- and I said, well, they're shooting straight at my house, you know, and I have cows and everything, like horses, everything. I mean, would you guys want AR shooting in the back behind your house? No. And exactly where those people are, they were gang members that lived in Vacation Village, by the way. Because when the cops finally did get there, it was just a mess. Ask the chief of police. They had to get somebody out there with dogs to find the gun the next day because the guys didn't want to tell them. So, I mean, it's just -- it's escalated way too much. Mr. -- we have one more question. Yep. Mr. Sanchez. I just want to mention Vacation Village and what these guys are trying to do are two totally different animals. Yes, completely two different things. Because Vacation Village is actually people own their lot. Okay. And then they -- originally it started as mobile homes, but a lot of people have now, if you go back in there, are building homes. They're getting rid of their mobile homes and putting in really nice houses. But actually -- Okay. If we cannot interject, please. Sorry. If we cannot interject for the audience, I appreciate it. Go ahead, Mr. Ogey. So this property right here with all these trailers, too, that's going to be what exactly he's doing right beside it, right? To a certain extent. All right. These are trailer houses. He's building -- I don't know exactly what you want to call them. But these are trailer houses. So that being the exact -- all these people that live on this whole side, they literally just drive their cars right across the street right there and park into their trailer house. Is that okay? No driveways or nothing. They just pull right in right there and they think that's okay. Right here, you can see where the trailer people have literally just done burnouts and think, let's just start mudding and stuff like that. I guess my point was -- So I know. My point was you can't compare -- In five years, what's that place going to be? You're telling me when he sells it to another investor, it 's going to have the same rules? It's not going to. I mean, come on. And I feel like you guys have already kind of made your decision on doing it. Can I ask why? What's the benefit of putting that trailer house instead of building houses all the way through here? What's the benefit of that? Is it because you guys -- because Prosper and Little Elm is doing so good selling these half-million-dollar homes that you guys feel like you guys need to build these $150,000 homes to make people have a living? Is that what the goal is for Denton? I mean, I'm just asking the question. What is your goal for it? What I was just saying is you were comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing Lakewood Village to -- I'm comparing this five years down the road. It's going to be the exact same thing. And I don't know if it will be, but based on that they're going to have homeowners -- You wouldn't want it to be, though. -- based on the fact that they're going to have a homeowners association and they're going to have rules is a lot different from what Lakewood Village is. And Lakewood Village has come a long way from what it was five, 10 years ago. I've seen it. So what about this side? No, I don't know what's going on over there. On that side, I haven't been over there. Because I know there's a lot of four-wheelers and a lot of stuff over there. That's right beside it. I mean, I don't want to waste your guys' time, but I don't think -- can I ask you why you guys want to do that? I just would like to understand that. I've lived here my whole life. I certainly appreciate that. What's going to happen when we close the public hearing is you will hear to the best of our ability us articulate the reasons and our mindset for the vote that will take place. So we certainly want to let you in on how that decision will be made. Okay. For sure. I didn't know what it was, but I think it's all going to help us. We don't mind. Absolutely. If you could just state your name and address for the record. My name is Sunny Emory. I live at 8009 Stallion Street. There was two things. A lot of the neighbors did a great job bringing up things I had written down. But one of the things I had a question about was the walk path they're going to put into Ryan High. I don't have a problem with the kids walking. In fact, it took forever for y'all to finally put a sidewalk in McKinney Street for all those kids in the apartments to walk all the way down. And now you say you're going to put in a walking path, but they got to get across the new post oak in like 20 years when it gets here. But I'm thinking that's going to be the same problem about people getting hit when they're crossing over McKinney Street and 288. So it's kind of the same situation because you're going to want to and they're too close to be bus. So let's just be honest. And you're not going to want to give him the city pass for them to get on the bus because there is a city stop already over at Denton Falls for them to turn around and get right back off. They rather walk it because it's too much of a pain. They got to be on bus time for the city. So that was a big concern. Being a longtime resident, basically moved here when I was an itty bitty kid, lived on North Side, lived on South Side . My question is, y'all keep saying, well, this is what else is going to be built here around it? What else are we going to build? We've got a mobile home park here, a manufactured home here and here. OK, we'll look out at Hodge, not Hodge. Well, Hodge, you got Silver Dome down the street from Hodge . You built that whole nice little neighborhood right there around Hodge Elementary like 30 years ago. Over there by Geyer, you got a mobile home park around the curve. You built Geyer. Look, all these other homes are popping up . Sorry, my legs are nervous. But I'm just saying, you've got Hawk Elementary, not Hawk, what's the one? Nelson. Nelson's sitting right there on Teasley. You came in, there's a mobile home park. In fact, there was two. You built all those homes all up and down to Teasley right there. No problem. You've got Teasley trails, those big, high expensive ones going in. So why are you saying that you need to put this over here? Because this is the only place you're going to want to build. This is the only place that we're going to put it because nobody else is going to come in between these two mobile home parks. But my question is over here for the developer is out by Pe can Creek. They had one mobile home park. But look, that neighborhood area is booming like nobody else's business. They can't even keep up with that school. You're busing kids everywhere now in the school district to get that neighborhood taken care of. So the question comes down is if you have duplexes or townh omes coming in out there, why not consider that over here at Ryan over there by those mobile home parks? Why not put, especially if there's going to be eventually post oak going in there and you're going to have that wall. I mean, you've had mobile home parks back up to Lake, was it Lakewood Estates over there on Teasley? And now you have, sorry, my brain is rattling. You have those Oakmont Two Homes. All you did was put up a big giant wall there and it kind of made both sides somewhat happy. So I don't know why there can't be like some other median ground. I mean, to be honest, homes are being sold about as fast as you can get them built and done right now. There's only a few areas that can do zero financing to move in. Why not consider that and get some of these families into something like that that they can have as a life investment and not just like I've got this, but I can't do anything else with it. I'm sorry. I talk really fast. You're OK. We can certainly record those questions and we I have a lit any of questions. Ask the applicants. They'll be up and hopefully get those questions. That's all I really say was I don't know why we can't consider something else there. If other areas of didn't we have a major need for housing in our city. I mean, we can't get people into homes. Maybe we need to build some homes that are a little bit lower value. But to say that's the only thing that's going to go there because everything else around it is kind of crummy. That's my opinion. I appreciate that. You're more welcome to come and speak. If you just say your name and address for the record. I'm going to be a little bit of a flash B8209 of Creek Lane. Just a couple of things to reiterate is the notifications going out. I've been notified. The other thing I want to bring up is when you bring in all these extra people in this area, have you considered the schools? Really? Have you really considered what's going to happen? I mean, everybody right now must be blunt. Stinks because it's over in a low income area right now. What are you going to do to Ryan? You've added Guyer to where all the rich kids go. All right. Think about the schools. Third thing, telephone service. In Lakeview right now, I can't tell you how many times we get no service. There's not enough towers. You add all these extra people with wireless phones. You got to have more towers. Who's responsible for that? My son-in-law passed out at my house, couldn't breathe. If I wouldn't have had a landline, I never would have got through. Because there's no service, because there's too many people touching the tower. Sorry, you add that many more people. What are you going to do? Thank you. Thank you very much. Certainly, we have one comment per person, but if you would like to come ask your question, we can allow it. Doug Herzog, 7909 Rodeo Drive. If the first three rules of real estate investment is location, location, location, and we've established in our discussion that modular homes appreciate in value, and manufactured homes depreciate in value, I'm thinking why would a person build an appreciable asset in a community with depreciating assets? That sounds like a real estate investment nightmare. Mr. Applicant, would you please address, in your other communities like this, how many modular homes do you expect to have built? And if that number is low, City of Denton, is there something we can do in the SUP to raise that number? Thank you. Appreciate that. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak can certainly do so. So I have several cards that are in opposition not wishing to speak. I'm going to read the names into the record. We'll see if anyone wants to speak before closing the public hearing. Bear with me as I try to pronounce all these names. So the following names are those in opposition. Larry Ashby, Gail Ashby. Perfect. Perfect. We'll replace that one. Ronald Zich. Ron Basher. He spoke though, did he not? Janet McKentry. Eric Scholl. Alberta Kirk. Alice Gill. Scott Hinkes. Jennifer Grillhest. Alice Haddon. Max Estes. Dex Albright. Chris Komen. Bill McKentry. And Patricia Bacioto. Hopefully I didn't butcher any of those. Those individuals are on record as opposed. Is anyone else wanting to speak? You may certainly do so. Yes ma'am. Can you state your name again and address? Janet McKenstrie. And my address is 8108 Oak Creek Lane. The school bus was addressed but the schools themselves and the classrooms going to be needed. I understand we're going to build a brand new high school, a brand new elementary school, and a brand new middle school. But when are those schools going to be built and are they going to accommodate that area? Are they going to accommodate North 288 where they're building new homes? That the tax structure is higher at? Or are they going to overflow into our already overflowing schools that that area now goes to? Or this area now goes to? Does anybody know the answer to that? Mr. Beck. If I may. It's good questions. But DISD is the one you want to talk to. The city and DISD work together so those things are planned , they're anticipated. But that would be the better agency to talk to instead of us. Sorry. But then again when you're addressing this new development. Right. And it's all interplayed there. As the population grows, so this school. But you're getting ready to dump a thousand kids or better into the school system. A thousand kids in 500 homes. If you've got 497 homes, I guarantee you there's going to be at least two children. We're not necessarily going to have kids in every home. But that's okay. This isn't going to be a senior citizens development. This is going to be a young family development. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing. The day we can discuss for a motion and discussion. But before doing that, this commission has been sitting here for just over five hours. So I'm going to call a recess for five minutes for us to stretch our legs. We'll come back, finish our discussion and vote. It is 1143. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for letting us take a break . It is 1153. We'll call this meeting back into order. We had just closed the public meeting. So our discussion now turns to the dais. So we'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. We'll call this meeting back into order. The city's standard ordinances, if you're along an arterial roadway, require thin wall screening, masonry screening. It's six foot. If you're along a city arterial, you've got to build a six foot tall masonry wall. Our obligation here is to do minimum six feet. We said, "We'll bump it to eight. It's more expensive, but we'll bump it to eight and enhance it." That's an enhancement, not trying to hide something. It goes back to city code. It's rare. Most developments that we do, you probably see six. Six is more typical because it's cheaper. That's what I thought it was at first. It's cheaper to do six. That's what most people do. Most builders do six foot. Is all your landscape on the inside of that masonry fence? Is there going to be any on the outside? As we show it today, yes. It's on the outside. We're going to propose to put some on the inside too, because if you do, it's not in here, but I'm telling you that's what our plan is. Okay, so just an ugly masonry wall. There'll be some landscaping. Yeah, we're obligated to do plantings that's stated in here , not just a promise. It's stated in here that we'll have a three foot tall berm, an eight foot fence, and then there's tree plantings that are stated along there every 30 feet. Okay, and I just want to bring that out so everybody can hear that. Thank you. It was construction trucks. I was concerned about construction trucks coming down South Trinity. Is that going to happen? We've talked about that too. Actually, we had that in our discussion Monday night with some good question brought up by some citizens about, but there's kind of two parts to that question. We can control, when it's a development, we can control where our contractors that we hire, how they get to the site. Talking about the stands, building the stands. Building the water shorelines and the roads. Okay, we pay those contractors. Our client hire, selects who they are. We can control how they get to the site and how they access the site. So that's something we can control. On the other end of it, with this not being proposed as a stick and brick development, what happens, you can imagine how this comes together. So they bring out the unit, and then it's placed on the concrete pad. So just think about the number of trips. You've got somebody coming out to build a concrete pad, and somebody bringing a unit. It's two or three, four trips. You may have a plumber to come hook stuff up, right? So that's three or four trips. Think of a traditional stick and brick home. There's grading, there's rough plumbing, there's foundations, there's a framer, there's, I mean, just name it, there's multiple stages that happen. So then that's, they're coming from a lot of different directions. Okay, you're not going to, I guess part of where it's going is I don't see any of those prefab construction pieces coming down, trenching over that single-lane bridge. That would be a bad thing. Yes, sir, I don't believe any of them could fit. Right. I don't think it's possible. I mean, that's not something y'all would control, because that's the people who buy it, but I just-- And I think after tonight's meeting, I'm going to blow up that bridge. We're not going to worry about that anymore. [laughter] All right, you made them happy. We're going to add a cul-de-sac. [laughter] One thing I would--you shared a couple of locations where you've done this, and I can get with you later on this, but I would like to probably get these locations from you, look at the older ones, and maybe do a site visit myself. Yeah, we can give you a list. Okay. That's not a problem. Okay. And if you would just--and we touched on it--the concern that property taxes are going to be affected by your development, it's really impact fees that pay for this development, which doesn't affect current rateholders. We were just talking about this today in a work session, so I understand the concern there, but as property taxpayers, it's the impact fees that we charge the developers for coming in, and they're charged up front for this. And it goes on--it's attached to the cost of the house, so it's that buyer that pays for that. It won't be passed on to the ratepayers. And there's two sets of taxes. There's the tax on the home, and there's the tax on the land. So the homeowner has a tax, and then I have to pay a tax on the property as well, so-- Okay, somebody mentioned-- What's that? Somebody mentioned that this--the kind of taxes y'all will be responsible for be personal--personal property taxes. Probably the homeowner will have a real estate tax for improved property for putting in the utilities and the roads, what the value is of that finished lot or stand. Okay, so-- It will be taxed on the overall project, whereas individual homeowners will be taxed on their home. Okay. Separate. So you'll be taxed each year or just that one time? We get taxed every year. Okay, okay. And then the homeowner, of course-- One other thing, when we're talking about taxes, also we pay the city taxes, but this is a gated community with private streets. The city doesn't pay for the streets, doesn't pay for improvements on the streets. The subdivision north of us that needs work, in our development, if it needs work, we have to fix it. It's not a city responsibility. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Prunetta. Yeah, just a couple of questions. So one of the things that was bought up was you guys owning the land and charging a lease amount, right, on that one? Correct. What are the terms of the lease and how often do the homeowners lock in a rate on that for a certain period of time, or is that for the length of their ownership? It normally depends on your competition, and our competition is the communities on each side of us, which are owned by Yes Communities, which is the largest owner of manufactured housing developments in the country, multi-billion dollar corporation. So we'll have to base off whatever they're charging and whatever type of leases they do. So if they're-- last one I heard they were doing five-year leases, so I'll have to get up to date on what they're at now. So based on your current model, would you say that a five- year lease would be what you guys would offer at the-- If our competition continues to do that, probably, yeah. Okay. Yeah, we-- it's hard to be successful and be very far apart from your competition. Okay. The other thing, some of the property owners adjacent to you, we're showing pictures of runoff and basically drainage. What measures have you guys taken, what analysis have you guys done to ensure that-- I know we're not touching the ESA, but in terms of what else you guys are building, is there something that you guys have kind of looked into to ensure that we're not flooding anybody else close by? Environmentally sensitive area. It's the wooded area that will remain untouched. I messed up the labels, sorry. Yes, that's the zoning process at this time. The next step is platting. We have to do-- with the platting, we have to do detailed drainage studies for this whole project. What's coming from us from off-site, where our drainage and where it leaves our project. The city has a standard process that you have to do. It's a downstream assessment. We have to do $50,000 to $60,000 worth of engineering just to determine where the drainage is going and how is it adversely, if adversely, impacting anybody downstream of us. There's a threshold about how far you studied down the creek. As standard practice, it's an ordinance the city has that we have to follow. With our final plaque construction plans, we have to determine that. Most likely, in my opinion, we're going to be probably having to tension on our property to ensure we don't adversely impact downstream. Probably on Monday night, I had spoken to a lady that lives around this pond downstream of this draw. We had the same conversation. Just a minute ago, another gentleman who lives next to that creek. We have to do those things. It's a standard process. We can't go moving out to dirt until those drainage studies are approved. My gut tells me after doing this 25 years and knowing what it's -- we're going to detain. We're going to probably detain whether the report says we should or shouldn't because we're hearing what's going on. It's better to detain and not take the risk. -Okay. -Mr. Sanchez. -I want to talk a little bit about the value of these modular homes. What range are you going to be looking at as far as in mobile homes? I mean, there's a big difference in price, I think, between a modular home and a mobile home. Is that correct? -Yeah. There's been a lot of confusion tonight on what a home is. A mobile home is what people are calling trailers that were built before July 1976. Then their federal standards came in on how to build a home , and it became a manufactured home, and you had to meet these guidelines across the country. So it totally changed the industry. A manufactured home can be one section, two sections, three sections bolted together on a foundation. A modular home is built in the same factory. The difference is it's not set on a frame with wheels. It's set on a truck, and it's brought out and it's lifted with a crane. On the manufactured homes, you're going to see prices from the high 30s, low 40s into $100,000. On a modular home, you're going to see prices from $50,000 to multimillion-dollar homes, just depending on where you are and what they're building. Anything you can site-build, you can build with a modular also. So that's why the prices can get so high on those. In this development, most of the homes you're going to see, they're going to be from the 40s to 90 to 100, somewhere in there. You will see some above that, but most of them will be in that range. And since you deal somewhat with the mobile homes, do you know what kind of interest rate on a new type of-- A lot is based on your credit, but you also have kind of like a range? The last I heard when I talked with Palm Harbor, they were five to seven if you have good credit. If you had bad credit, it was closer to 10. But it's going to fluctuate with every other house interest rate also. And I think the VA or HUD also provides lens money for mobile homes. Is that correct? Well, HUD would, but that's if it's tied to the property and they own the property. We're not doing that. Christian Ellis. Thank you, Chair. A couple quick questions. Did you meet with DISD at all? No, not that I'm aware of. We did not have a meeting with DSD. Also, do you have a percentage of your developments that you sell? Of all my developments? Is there an average? I assume you've sold some. Yeah, in the past, it depends who we partnered with at different times. We were partners with Robert Bass for a while and then H icks Muse. Right now, we have an Asian group that we're partners with. They're a little different. The first two like to sell things. These like to hold on to things. So right now, we currently don't have any plans to sell any developments. It depends on your investor, it sounds like. Exactly. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Safety concerns that were brought up earlier tonight and some of the things. I hate it when from the DISD you come up here and you start saying, "All right, applicant, you're ready for some more to heap onto your load of crap you got to eat now?" But there's some safety concerns that have been definitely brought up. You guys are completely willing to bend and help work on those safety concerns? Yeah, they brought up the traffic concerns. I understand their development wasn't built right. Most people don't know it. They go in and they buy their dream house. Then they start finding out there's problems like they're on a collector street. The street isn't wide enough and it didn't have curves and it didn't have sidewalk. If we can help, yeah, that'd be great. We want to be good neighbors and I know it doesn't sound like it because we have one desire and they have a different one. But if there's a way to work together that helps both, then we're all for it. It's all the way to the point where if we make it part of a restriction within the SCP. Yeah, that's part of the overall deal. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. You mentioned a while ago that you might, dealing with drainage, you might have to put a detention pond in somewhere. Where would you put that? If that's the turn we need it, it would be kind of on the edge of the CSA. We wouldn't get into that area. But on the edge, it might cause us to have to lose some units. The zoning sets the maximum, but we might have to lose some units there to do that. Okay, so right now you don't know if you're going to have to, but if you do, that would be? No, and that's typical though at this stage at zoning because we've done a lot over two years with different studies and worked with Michael. So you've got to get through zoning before you get too far at the engineering. But we have to give some of the indication and study it initially to have a general idea of what we think it's going to be. But my gut tells me we do 60,000 articles of studies that's going to say detain and we'll detain. Okay. Let me raise one concern that I just honestly discovered in the public hearing, didn't it in the work session. If I missed it in there, shame on me. But these people aren't owning a lot of land. Y'all will own that. They'll just own the house on it. And it seems to me that's kind of a rental arrangement almost. And it bothers me that, you know, it just seems like there 's that element there that would hold them there longer if they own the land along with the home. But not doing that, it does. I can see the concern that, you know, they would not get back the value that they put into their house or if they wanted to move the house, you know, then you have that issue. So should I be concerned? And if not, why? It depends. You know, we've had one commissioner and a couple of the people in the audience talk about that they have lived in a manufactured home or a mobile home in the past. And they've moved up now into, quote, a real home or a stick-built home, site-built home. It is a way to move up. I know a lot of people don't believe it. But if you think about the situation, if you compare two families and one is buying a manufactured home and renting a lot, and one is renting an apartment, after 15 years, let 's say on the financing, that manufactured home is paid off. Is it worth more or worth less? Well, I don't know. You don't know. No one knows until they sell it. But they get something. You live in that apartment 15 years. Are you lease a house for 15 years? At the end of the 15 years, the landlord doesn't give you a check. They don't say thanks and here's some equity back. You know, so yeah, do they own the whole thing? No. They own everything above the ground. But the dirt itself, the pad site, the utilities in the ground, we own that and we lease that. Well, where I was going with that and what bothers me is it does, you know, you can put a comparison there of multif amily homes and renting. In this situation here, again, there's that element that's the loss of staying there longer, for lack of a better term , where if you own the land plus the house, there's more of an inclination to stay there and lock in there. So I do understand the concern that this place could go downhill as a result of that. And that's one of the reasons why I asked for some of your locations where I'd like to actually personally go see. And everybody needs to understand here whatever decision we make tonight. It's not the final one. If it's not the one you like, it goes to city council. So just so you understand that. So there's still time to pick at this. I expect to see them and all their friends. We'll give them warning. All right. Thank you. So we have no other questions. The only one I had, I've been trying to jot down as much as I can from everyone here. And I have a lot of questions for Cindy. But one that I haven't heard that I just want to get on the record was an issue about stacking the parking. Someone asked how long a car was. Can you let me know or let everyone know the driveway is 20 feet? Is there going to be garages, carports? Can you tell us a little bit about how cars are going to park on the property? So there'll be a driveway that's 20 feet, that's 20 feet deep for two cars in front of each unit. As far as garages, I mean it's -- Garages or carports are up to the homebuyer. They can be added to any of the houses there. You want to address the street widths also and stuff? So the street widths, they're public streets. So the pavement's 31 foot back to back. We've went ahead and made the wider -- City of Denton's gone to 31 feet from 28. So they're -- but we went ahead and made the wider streets that the city's adopted, but they are private streets. Perfect. And the 20 feet, that is city code for two cars, correct? That's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. We do a lot of other just traditional single-family in Dent on is 20 feet and in our city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. So that's the setback for garages on single-family homes across the city. And I think that's a good question. I mean, when I first came on three years ago, there was a big problem. The signs are bigger. The mailings are different. They used to just go to the property owner. So if that property owner leased it, that individual wouldn 't get the information. The guy who owned it in some other county would. And that raises the issue here. And I know this isn't going to be what you want to hear. But what we're looking at, most of you live in Lakeland Village, is that it? Lakeview Village. Ranch, thank you, sorry. Where's it been? I've been through there. I've been through there. I used to work for David Weekly Homes. And one time we thought we were going to build in there, and they didn't do it. But anyway, you all are outside of the limit that when we look at something, we look at this area that's in the immediacy of it. Now, we understand that it can still impact other areas. And we look at that, we're concerned about the traffic, about drainage and stuff like that. That has to be addressed as we move along. If we approve this thing tonight, it will come back and we 'll review the site plan. And we'll make sure that drainage and roads and all those things are addressed in a second. So that's what we're looking at. We're kind of confined by the area that this development is going to directly impact. And you all are sitting just outside of that, even though you'll be affected to some degree on some levels. If I can ask legal to interject here. Yeah, I was just going to point out that the notifications go out to the address that's shown on the most recently approved municipal tax rules. So that's not going to include ETJ property. That's going to be the property within the city. And it's going to be the most recent address. It's on the most recently approved municipal tax rules. So if it goes to a different address, it may be because the tax office says it wrong. Mr. Burnetta, what's your name? Chair, may I bring Brian up to Mr. Fletcher? You'll need to come to the mic. Which one? Sure. So anything that shades, we send notifications and the register marker. Well, actually, we sent notifications inside the blue line. The blue line is 500 feet and the red line is 200. The shading or those are the people who sent in responses. OK, thank you. Commissioner Burnetta. So I just wanted to clarify. So the red is within 200 feet of the area, right? So that's roughly like 65 yards. I don't know if anybody plays golf, but that's a chip shot pretty much. It's basically something that's across the street. So that's the area that gets certified. Anything within the blue got a postcard, correct? Got a postcard sent to the property address. Within the red, it was sent to the property owner. So from the yellow line, which is the subject site, to the blue line, postcards were sent to property addresses. So that there's an occupant in there that the site is being leased or rented, the occupant would get it. Anyone within this red area, it was a certified letter that went to the property owner. And a postcard. And based on what I'm looking at here, I'd say the majority of the residents here are probably about three quarters of a mile from the property that we're looking at. So that would account for them not feeling like they were notified. I'm going to check into that tomorrow to verify. But it kind of looks like some of them were outside of the limit at this time. Excellent. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Bagg. Real quick. Thanks, Chair. The signs, are they within the 200 or the 500 foot? The signs are on the property. On the property itself, okay. Right. They are signs were put here and here and here. Okay. Thank you. So you have a couple of questions that haven't been addressed yet, but I just want to make sure we cover. The first thing, an individual brought up the lift station and infrastructure. Can you tell me about the process of looking at infrastructure's capacity for a project like this? I know that's part of the engineering and I'm sorry, I don 't know very much about it. That's typically something that's covered by the engineering department. Sure. However, it is something that is looked at at the time of permitting. Okay. Actually, plotting is when the infrastructure is looked at. And I know with this particular site, the applicant has already said he expects to have to improve the lift station. Okay. Perfect. The other question that was brought up a couple of times in this one, if you could provide some historicity to it, the zoning to the west was NR2. Can you tell me anything you know about why that was NR2 or the process in which that became NR2? That became NR2 in 2002 during the citywide rezoning. As to why, the only thing I can think of is that they matched it to future land use designation and not what the use was on the ground. Is it considered a nonconforming use right now? Is it exempted? Yes, it is. Maybe not. There's a provision in the code that if a mobile home park was legal, which this one most likely would have been because it was annexed in. So if it was legal on the date of when this code was, the 2002 code was adopted, it was automatically granted SUP status. Special exception. I'm sorry, special exception. It's the initial adoption of the 2002 Dental Development Code and the rezoning at that time. If the initial adoption made any existing use illegal, it would be granted special exception status for being a legal use. Perfect. Thank you for the explanation. The last thing I have, and I think this might just tip off the discussion towards a vote, but it's the thought of speed mitigation. It's been brought up about what can be done. The overwhelming thing that I've taken away from this is it 's Lakeview Speedway and it's terrible. And so I would like to entertain a discussion about what can be done without overburdening a developer that's a mile away. So I don't know the options. I know Mr. Smith has brought that up. We had a thumbs up earlier from it. I don't know what the city can do. But as we look towards a vote with a litany of conditions, I don't know, and this would be legal or what we can do in terms of mitigating on a separate property. With this particular project, the applicant has pretty much steered all the traffic away from Trinity and Lakeview. We can't -- If we could maintain order in the -- We can't require the applicant to improve offsite. However, what can be done is talking to the transportation engineer and making him aware of the situation. I know that he's in the process of amending the mobility plan and looking to see where roads need to be improved. And this may be one that he needs to look at as well. Okay. Commissioner Pernitta. Yeah, I just wanted to circle back real quick on the special exception. Is that transferable or is that simply for whoever -- for the current owner? And would that exception expire if that property was sold? The exception -- Wouldn't it expire if it were vacant for six months like age? Well, first of all, again, it's SUP, not a special exception. But the -- It's not an issue of -- It's an expiration if it 's not built. That's the provision that's in the -- The property to the west. I'm sorry? The property to the west that's NR2. That's what Commissioner Pernitta's talking about. I'm sorry. Yeah, the NR2. Could you restate the question? Oh, the NR2. The mobile home park that's right next to the high school, which is in an NR2, but it has a special exception? You're asking if the special exception expires? It does not. Okay. Thank you. No. Commissioner Smith. Hey, Chair. Just two questions. One, Commissioner Rossell mentioned the speed mitigation, so you don't think that we can -- if I get clarification -- we don't think we can make that a requirement. We'd only direct the Transportation Director to look at it. That's my recommendation. Improvements that are offsite are based on proportionality. Of course. And based on the TIA. And the TIA is saying that most of the -- If I am correct, the TIA is saying that the impact isn't going to be there? Yeah. That's in discussion -- You can come to the mic. That's in discussion with our engineer and the city's engineer. So we actually all sit in the room four or five times to talk about distribution of where traffic is going to go. And that's what concluded in that year and a half's worth of studies is that when we made the shift and pulled most of -- almost all of our traffic away from Trinity, and with the timing of McKinney and Mayhill, you know, that is one silver lining that maybe, you know, this took two years is somewhat maybe unfortunate. Any requirements for offsite improvements would be based on the traffic impact analysis and if the traffic impact analysis says that there would be a negative effect. So -- and then it would be based on proportionality. I mean, TIA is not done until the true engineering phase, not in the zoning phase. The other question I had then would be are we ever allowed to require a post-bill TIA to be able to show -- because here's my issue, Cindy. We sit here and we say that safety is probably the number one thing that I think everyone in the room can agree on is probably the biggest issue is going to come along with the approval of this project. Definitely. So if we sit here and say, well, speed mitigation, applicants ready to do it, we as a commission are ready to do it, but we're sitting here saying we can't technically legally require them to do it because they're not within that. We can only encourage the director of transportation who's got a lot of other things going on in his life to have to do something about it. Is there any way we can tie something like a post-bill TIA to say you need to go back and see is there an increase usage of South Trinity after the bill? If there is, then at least that would be more evidence to go to the director of transportation and say, yep, before it was 500 trips a day, now it's 1,500 trips a day. Heading north and southbound on that, they're obviously not going up to Mills and cutting over to Mayhill. That would be dumb. They're going through Lakeview. So that would be a... That doesn't let Richard address it. Just one clarification. If the applicant were to proffer improvements to reduce speed, I think that would be something we could include as part of their condition. Let me just add that number one, this body is making a recommendation to the city council, and ultimately the conditions that attach to the SUP are going to be for the city council to decide. They're going to take into account the comments, the specific motion that's made, and even if it's something that's outside the scope of an SUP, I'm sure that the city council, they're going to be watching this video. They're going to be reading the minutes. They're going to be reading the staff report on that. If that's an issue of concern, by all means, bring it up to the city council. After all, whether it could be part of this SUP or not, bear in mind that the city council is the legislative body of the city. If they need to change the speed limit, they'll change the speed limit, and they don't have to come to P&Z to ask permission to do it. They can do that. If they need to change the laws, they can change the laws. If they need to do something else to the street, they can do something else to the street. They are the legislative body, and it doesn't necessarily have to be tied to a zoning case or an SUP in order to get done. - So within our recommendation as a commission, maybe we don't have to get specific, but we could possibly add an amendment to our SUP for recommendation to city council, who is the final, along with the super majority, because it's 20%, to say that speed mitigation should be considered in the final approval of this. We don't have to leave it as a final product. We can say speed mitigation efforts in some degree. - Well, I think you can make the council aware that I'm not sure that even making it part of this SUP recommendation is necessary. I think that your comments to the city council will be reviewed, will be heeded. They will know that this is going to be an issue. And if it's best to put it, I don't think that it's going to be best to tie it to this SUP approval. I think it's going to be best to deal with it some other way. - Okay. The second thing that I was going to talk about was the tying of the finishing of McKinney, or the expansion of McKinney to the release of occupation of phase one. We can put that to the SCP, correct? We can tie those two things together just purely back to the point I made earlier, that would it want to approve a project that then might possibly have 200 residents, 300 residents, however many is in the phase one, moving into a location and McKinney is not completed due to weather or city setback or something like that. - So you're talking about a condition that ties the timing down to it? - I'm not sure that that's going to be something that the city council is going to be able to do. You can certainly bring it up. - But the final plotting, something like that, that won't be approved until a timeline is aligned with McKinney four lane road being expanded? - I don't know that they're going to be in a position to hold up a development if something's not ready. And I don't really know that I want to get into all of the legalities about doing some additional research on it and having an opportunity to advise them, you know, confident ially. - Good. - Commissioner Beck. - Thanks, Chair. Brent, can I get you to come up one more time? There appeared to be a little skepticism mentioned about how you're directing traffic away from South Trinity. So tell me, how would somebody in this development get to South Trinity other than coming out on McKinney or the exits you're going to have on the west side? Is there any, because you're going to have the wall up all the way around. So they can't access that trailer park community to the east there, correct? Somebody thought they could cut across there, but I thought not if you've got a wall up there. - I think what the question was now, I probably need to open the other PowerPoint that just closed. If you're, I think that the Denton Falls community to our south to east, they were talking about, I think they're... - Cutting across there. - Cutting across Grissom. Was that the question? - Right. Coming out of this community, this development you 're going to do, can they access that area? - The Denton Falls, I'll try to answer it, the Denton Falls , they can't, they have their own access to Trinity. They can't access through us. - And we can't access through them. - We can't. - They have to come out on McKinney, go down to Trinity there. - They come out to Grissom and then in Trinity. - Okay. Okay. - They can't come through us. We can't go through them. - Okay. - Ours is gated. - So the public hearing is closed. We can't take just random comments from the audience. Commissioner Bec, do you have a question for a specific individual that we can answer your question? - Yeah, could... Does Cody have a question for us on this regard? - I just want to say that the speeding is a thing, but I'm looking, all us young guys, this is going to be our town in the future. We have to look at that. Is this something that we want to deal with in 10 to 15 years? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but this is, I'm going to live here for the rest of my life. - Okay, Cody, I need you to specifically address... - Okay. - Well, no, you're still welcome to. Okay. Brian, why don't you come up then? Thanks, Cody. I appreciate it. - So I think they've done a great job of impeding traffic leaving the neighborhood. You know what I mean? If people want to leave and go down Trinity, they got to make a left over a medium, right? Or a three medium. It's really coming home. - Okay. - When they come down 380, they can make a left straight through Lakeview's Speedway, right, right into the community, versus dealing with all the stoplights and making one, two, three lefts. - Okay. - It's not there. - And I don't disagree with the fact that they've at least tried to accommodate that one segment there. You know, it speaks to the effort they're trying to make. Yeah, they're not going to be able to control every facet of the traffic that goes up and down there. But... Thanks. Done. - There is no one on the board to speak for discussion or motion. So... Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. I'll just start a discussion here. First of all, thanks to all the citizens for coming out. There have been so many issues, so many issues brought up. Infrastructure being the big one. And definitely I think we need to do what we can as a city to get Lakeview off of being a collector's street. I'm struggling here with this vote because so many of these issues are not this applicant's problem. The requested zoning, which is what we're dealing with, can work for the area, especially with the conditions placed on it with the overlay. I know a manufactured housing community comes with a stigma , and it may not be an ideal for everyone, but I think it's a housing option. And I would have to think that there's some kind of a demand, or I don't think that they would propose this development. That being said, I mean, I'm still struggling with a vote here. I don't like the fact that DISD wasn't consulted. I think I would have liked their input. I'm bringing this density in. But certainly the citizens brought up real concerns, and I 'm hoping it leads to further conversation, regardless of how this vote is. Lakeview, specifically Lakeview Ranch, has definite concerns. So hopefully that will bring up further discussion with the city. I'll listen to my fellow commissioners here. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Cindy, did you have something you wanted to say? Yes, I did want to address the issue of DISD. When the site was annexed into the city, we have to contact all the service providers in the city and let them know that they are coming. And DISD had to respond to us. And so DISD is aware of the fact that this property was brought into the city at the time it was annexed. We knew what it was going to, what they were going to try to do with it. And DISD was made aware of that. It's a common practice when we do annexations, is we contact DISD and tell them, this is being annexed in, this is what's proposed, this is how many houses. And they know it's coming. Did they give input? They probably did. They do every time. I can look it up and give it to you later. I wasn't working on the annexation at that time, another co -worker was, but I know the process. And so they are made aware. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Okay. Let me try and jump into the fray here. I, too, have some problems with this. And I'm hearing almost, and there's a lot of passion out there from the people that live up at Lakeview Ranch. But we've heard some things that tend to get close to hyper bole. And I just want to touch on that, not to ridicule anybody, but to kind of bring us back down to reality on some things . It was mentioned that Post Oak Road won't be ready for 20 or 30 years. It's probably true that the complete construction of it won 't be done, but in increments, they've already started working on it. So if there's a need in one sector, like if this area starts to develop a lot, they probably will start bringing it in there sooner. They're not going to start at one end and necessarily work until they get to the other end. So it may not be a complete 20 years as it affects this area. But I don't disagree that we don't know when it's going to be done either. But I just don't, you get that 20 and 30 years stuck in your head and then that takes other things out of play here . They mentioned that there's going to be a thousand more cars there and a thousand more kids, you know, and you're just, you know, throwing numbers out there based on, there 's nearly 500 houses. So there's got to be two cars at each place. And I'm not saying that's an impossibility, but there's probably not, too. There's going to be people, one of the issues that I believe it was Sonny Embry that brought up why we're just now building a walkway on McKinney. And it was mentioned that, see, it didn't even own that part, that stretch. That was Farnum Market Road, it is Farnum Market Road, 426. That's a state road. We bought it from them, essentially, if I can say that. So now it's ours to do with and we're doing what we've always wanted done in the first place. So that's getting done. So you're going to have any kids that are close to Ryan High School and the elementary, there's going to be walking distances there. Hopefully in time, I ask Richard if there was public transportation out that far yet. He said no, but that's going to be a possibility. There's going to be people in there, if they're buying affordable housing, they may not have their own set of wheels or they may only have one vehicle and they're going to be relying on public transportation. So don't automatically, I see you shaking your head, but don't automatically lock in. There's definitely going to be a thousand kids. There's definitely going to be a thousand. We don't know that yet. Okay. There's going to be more traffic no matter what we put there. There's going to be some kids there that weren't there before. It was also, and I don't disagree that as a factor of low income housing, this isn't the solution. It's just an element of it. It will help to some degree. How much? Again, we can debate that. Nobody really knows. But to say that it isn't at all, you know, I'm not sure where you get that unless you brought in some studies that bear that out and I haven't heard that. So the thing that bothered me, as I mentioned, coming into this public hearing, I wasn't aware that they don't own the property along with the house. I think if anything unsettled me a little bit, it was that fact because I feel empathy towards anybody that's around that area that that could have a diminishing effect on that neighborhood. So I'm having that quandary right there. I think reluctantly, to the dismay of many of you here, I'm probably going to lean towards approving this. But this thing has to go forward to the city council. There's time to look at it. I plan on getting with the developers going out and looking at their oldest developments and seeing how they've come about. And if I see some deterioration there, I can come to city council myself and point this out and add that information. So we're not the final say here. But there's a lot of factors to consider here. I think the developers gone out of their way to accommodate a lot of your concerns. I think a lot of your concerns are legitimate and flawed, but in reality, I'm not sure that that's something you can just lock into and say it's going to happen, though. I can understand you coming from that direction. So anyway, right now, that's where I stand. We'll wait and listen for any motions made, at least on my part. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. First, I'd like to thank the applicant for coming out and bearing with us and working hard at this. I would like to make a quick remark to those who came in attendance and gave their opinion. Sometimes it's forgotten that we are a volunteer commission . We all have our own careers and jobs and whatnot. I was up at 430 this morning taking care of my dog and working out. So sometimes we get in here and there's definitely some public hearings that passion comes out and passion, right fully so, should come out. I hope that you guys as citizens know that no applicant, city staffer or volunteer commissioner or city council person would ever bring a project that has deception or some sort of devious intent to it. And that kind of saddened me tonight to hear that some folks came to the mic and said that we as commissioners who are just here to consider it and view what's in the best interest of the city were accused of trying to facilitate devious acts and hiding projects and hate to hear that. So hopefully if you guys do want to bring that to city council, I would make a recommendation you don't do that. They got a little bit bigger egos than we do. So that's a joke you can laugh at. But my personal opinion has been that safety is a big issue for me on this project. And to hear that more and more and more this project by no volition of their own action is going to cause some serious safety issues or at least give one inkling of increasing a safety problem that's already existing in your neighborhood as well as well documented. And that scares me I'd hate to be a be a guy who reads the DRC every single morning, even as a 28 year old sits around leads the DRC every single morning to see that a kid in Lakeview got killed because of a driver and to think that I as a commissioner maybe have added to that. I'd hate to think that. The same time, saying that you can't, we can't grow in certain ways and to say that, you know, an applicant doesn 't have a project we like but they need to change it around it's hard for me to justify Cindy, I have a question for you. Seeing that it's 20% more on opposition, and the abutting properties. It goes to supermajority City Council, City Council, then, let's say they get a five to vote rather than a six one which is what would be needed. We were asking Jerry I was asking Richard and it seems like from what I can read lips from across the dice that substantial change is a pretty, because that's what the requirement is for those who don't know that there's a denial the applicant has to wait 12 months until they can bring back the application for reconsideration, unless there is a substantial change in the circumstances with the direct word of the code as states. Did you ever seen with that substantial change could be what it might be and could it be something like, I don't know the director of transportation does something about some like view and then that could predicate substantial change in an application or because it's not inside of the area in question that this doesn't even matter, they can make it they could turn they could turn like view into I 35 for all they wanted and it wouldn't matter doesn't change anything. Well, substantial change typically has to do with the land use, or the density, or how they're laying it out that that Jerry can tell me if that if there's anything else but that 's pretty much what is considered substantial change. Yeah, that I think those are basically the same factors I outlined to you earlier that I don't know that there's a, you know, an incredibly dark black line on that, but that's that's typically the factors that are looked at. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. And this is one area. When I look at this green, the five x area which is north of the unit we're talking about. There 's a substantial piece of area there that I say is going to be developed. And, and so, the way I look at it is, it's not, you're going to have some. This is not going to affect what's happening in the project area we're talking about is really not going to affect your, your, the value of your homes because you still have a big buffer of development that's going to occur north of that project. So, I think one individual we had came and said right across he had a project like this develop across the street , and if it affected the value of his home, we're not across the street we're relatively a good distance from, from the project area. And, and I know we always it's always seems like any new development we get into the whole idea of increased traffic. And that's a big issue every, every two weeks when we meet meet and we talk about new projects. And we can hold back and say okay we're not going to do nothing until the traffic situation gets gets resolved because nothing would ever happen. Like I said earlier, a lot of what infrastructure money comes from is from development. And so, as I look at this, you know I started when I went and looked at this project, knowing that I traveled this area down McKinney pretty often because I've got like I said earlier, I do have property down at Vacation Village. And I traveled that, I kind of thought well, I'm pretty sure I'm on both award but then listen to everybody's comments. I, you know, became pretty heavy as far as I was concerned, I didn't know what to do but I really believe that some of the issues of impacting the community view area is not going to it's going to be traffic but that's an issue you've all had have had in the past, that has to be resolved, but I don't think that burden should be laid on the new development. It's something that has to be taken care of by that by that by that subdivision, and I think, I think they've done everything they can to to alleviate the issue, but there's some responsibility of what do you all have to do up in that area to control traffic and not blame them for it. And it seems like there's a lot of, well this is going to happen well it's been happening, and that should have been resolved a long time ago. So, if it's possible for him to self impose a requirement to improve the safety on Trinity. If there's a signal when it's warranted. If there's a concern there on the on the public safety of Trinity, then we can self impose if it's hard to for the yacht condition us, we could condition ourselves to add it to there that will help them try to find a solution, we'll, we can meet with their HOA and the city engineer and find that there's a solution if it's, I think a key part is the city's going through an MTP update now. And that road may come off a collector system, but we can put our heads together and find logical ways to see if it stops signs or what it is, you know, to help and assist with that so we've been at it for two years we adjusted, we're here just to say, we're willing to help and self impose. We're willing to help and self impose that condition. Appreciate that. Commissioner Prunetta. Yeah, I wanted to kind of, I guess, Senator, Commissioner Sanchez said a few things that were along the lines of what I was going to say. So, one of the things that I guess is controversial earlier tonight that I stated was I hadn't heard anything that would substantially change my opinion in terms of the zoning and I want to kind of explain a few things on that. When I say that, when we're considering the zoning. And, you know, what the use is going to be one of the things that we're taking into consideration is that we are considering an NR6 and we're also considering the special use permit so that way, instead of it being technically as dense as an NR6 it's closer to a four. I know there's been a lot of concerns about property values , as stated, you know, that example that was given somebody complained about, you know, modular units being put across the street. We know that these aren't across the street these guys, this is at least half a mile from you guys. And we know that when we're kind of well I'm sorry yeah and I'll get to you guys in a second. For the majority and let me let me refer to Lakeview. We're talking about that kind of thing. We're also, when we 're talking about property values and sales and things like that you guys know that appraisers go out and what they actually do is gather comps and those comps are related to like properties, so they wouldn't be grabbing a comp on a modular or manufactured home compared to yours. So, as far as resale value you wouldn't normally see that much of an impact. The other thing that's really kind of hit home for me when I've been considering this though is the safety issue. And on that one, it seems like there's a safety issue regardless of whether or not a property goes in here, whether we rezone it or not. That doesn't take back all your mailboxes. It doesn't take back the number of times somebody has driven into one of your yards. So, on that one, as a citizen myself, I would encourage you to take full advantage of your city council members. They are online and they are receptive when you bug them. And if you actually engage with them online, they generally do move very quickly to get things out like stop signs or speed bumps or replacements and things like that that encourage safety. So, I'd say that that's one of the things that I'd really encourage everyone to engage in. I think one of the things that I find encouraging in this is the fact that when we talk to the applicant throughout the night, I don't think anyone can deny that the applicant has not been more than willing to make accommodations to try and make things better. They've actually self-imposed conditions to help with the safety in the area. They've discussed the drainages that impose as it affects people in the surrounding areas that they're more inclined to go with detention rather than have that run off. These are some of the things that we consider when we're doing this. Once again, we're making a vote on the zoning and whether or not the proposed zoning kind of conforms to things in the area. No one can say that if we were to zone this for an NR2, somebody would come on and sell houses for $100,000 and bring your property values down. You know what I mean? Nobody could say that somebody could zone it for an NR6 and people would sell units for half a million each. When we're doing this, the idea of what the property value may or may not be isn't sometimes as prevalent as whether or not what they're doing conforms to what's in the area right now. But back to one of the main things I would like to say in terms of safety and everything, I would encourage you to engage your City Council people. And going forward, whatever happens with this, this is simply a recommendation to City Council. There is an additional line of defense that you have to discuss your concerns with them and make your voices heard in those cases. Thank you, commissioners. It's worth noting that right now, although it is convoluted , we have two items that we will need to motion and vote on. So we'll do the zoning first when it comes time. After that, we will engage the SUP. So as of right now, we are still discussing both. But when a motion is made, it needs to be made for the zoning case first and independent. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Quick question for legal with regard to the self-imposed Trinity improvements. I mean, how would that look on paper? I don't know. And I think that at one o'clock in the morning, I'm not that creative. But I think that the fact that the offer has been made and that the concerns have been expressed will no doubt resonate with the City Council when they review the minutes and the video and the staff comments. And so I and in between now and then when they have an opportunity to look at it, you know, perhaps I'll be fres her in the morning and I'll come up with an idea. But I really don't think that it's a situation as I'm kind of shooting from the tractor seat that is appropriate for us to tie in as a regulation. I think that is the as the engineer pointed out that if it has legs, it may best have legs as something that the applicant brings forward. Yeah, Richard. Just wanted to add a little bit more to that. This this if if it's well, regardless, if it gets moved tonight, it does not go to City Council until December 4th. And so we have we have some time that we can work between the the bodies that be the flesh out. The chair would entertain a motion at this point. Mr. Beck. Thank you, Chair. And I honestly want to thank you sincerely. Thank you. One of you for speaking up coming out and putting voice to your concerns, regardless of what you think. We do listen to you. We do care. And I'm pretty sure this thing moves forward that your concerns are going to be addressed. That being said, I'm going to motion to approve the 1704 be with the record of the proposed conditions for approval, which includes an overlay place on the property that the maximum permitted density on the site shall be no more than four dwelling units per gross acre. Permitted land uses on the site, 498 modular and manufactured homes, 120.1 acres and six single family detached housing on minimum acre. And I think I'm going to try and add an amendment here that deals with the self-imposed traffic mitigation concern here that and I'm so and I may need some help from commissioners . Help me word this, but I think I want them to address this with some concreteness again for lack of a better word. By the time they do go before the City Council, where citizens and the rest of us can hear what your plan is. I would also just let me add for not finished here. If you guys came out and force to the City Council meeting on December 4th, when you guys came out tonight here and start talking about top science and stuff like that, you're going to get more done there that way. You guys were overwhelming and because they are the legislative body, they're the ones that can do that kind of thing. We can't we're dealing with a specific area here, but they can deal with your issue that's disassociated with it somewhat. So let me just throw that out. So that being said, make a motion to approve. So we have a first, Commissioner Pereta. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? So a couple things to say before I call us to vote. This has been a long night. And so first, it's 1am. Thank you for being here. There, there could have been. Y'all watching this on TV. I hate to break it to you, but the couch is way more comfortable. Next time you can watch on TV. So to raise that, I also I appreciate the applicant two years of work is is no trivial amount of time and I don't know the cost. I actually don't want to know that be probably depressing. What I do want to mention is along with Commissioner Becks point. You I've been serving five years now. Three. This is the most coordinated effort I've seen of a community coming out and being vocal and it's impactful. It's it's definitely worth the effort. You all did to coordinate. However, you all did this. It's it's it's helpful for for us as a commission to understand what's going on, especially for me. I don't live in the area. I've never even been on that road . Certainly not. I've been speeding on it. And regardless of the vote tonight, it sounds like there's there's a legitimate issue with the road that needs to be addressed. And voting to deny this doesn't fix what is already there. Voting to approve this certainly might have an impact on it . Although if a thousand cars are on that road, it's going to be bumper to bumper traffic. No speeding. So maybe it pendulum swings the other way with extra traffic. That being said, I do echo Commissioner Smith's points to that we try our best to listen. We don't come in here with our mind made up. We are not a deceptive commission. And so hopefully you all are at City Council and you are being vocal. But the the laughing at some of our responses, the the attempts to make us choose based on money being thrown around of how much tax base. I don't think that would be a helpful way of addressing City Council if you were to go to the City Council and make the same plea for what it's worth. I certainly appreciate and again, I'm thankful for being everyone being here. Hopefully there's a mutual respect among citizens of trying to make this the city the best we can. I think that is my soapbox. So with that, we have a first and a second. I see one more discussion item, Christian Beck. Can we get the wording down on that amendment or is that make that clear enough to make sure that I think it makes it clear enough? OK, it ultimately may end up becoming part of the regardless of what how it ultimately ends. It might end up being part of the S.U.P. when it goes to to council. But I think it's fine with with OK, we got it. Great. Thanks. So we have a motion for approval with staffs recommendations and Christian Beck's added condition. We'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven zero. That is the zoning request. The next motion that's needed is for the S.U.P. Commissioner Smith, just a clarification. The changes to the amendment for the recommendation on the zoning should have those been amendments to the S.U.P. Richard's going to correct that. The addition of looking at addressing the traffic mitigation. I think it's OK as part of the as part of the the overlay conditions just for it's not necessarily imposing it. It's just a matter of looking at addressing it. Well, as I understood the the nature of the motion, you were asking for the applicant to come forward with something concrete before the matter comes forward to city council. And so I think that, you know, how it's best addressed may depend in part on how it's articulated. And so it may be a good thing to integrate into both the S. U.P. and the zoning vote. Fisher Sanchez. I just want to make a motion. Or I guess the S.A. 17. And are you doing that with the staff's recommended criteria? Yes. OK, yes. Commissioner Pernetta. I second that. Is there any discussion? I have one thing to add to this item is I was a no vote about 10 minutes ago based on the safety issues that I think every commissioner brought up. And my notes here have so many things crossed out of trying to listen and gather. I will applaud and recognize the applicant. It seems like everything that was asked within reason. You 're like, yeah, we'll do it. Yep, we'll do it. And so the what I hope is a sincere offer to help with Trinity Lake View, however you can, does proceed to council and the for council reading these minutes. I want it to be known that that is of top priority for my vote. That gets done to it. If it's possible to almost force all traffic west, I'm not sure how that looks. I'm hoping for an awesome, creative solution that's short of blowing up a bridge. But hopefully there's a solution out there. Yeah, I'm hopeful there's a solution that you all can be good neighbors, regardless of different perspectives on on that area. So we have a first and a second scene, no other discussion, a call for a motion on the board. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Joe. Just real quick, just to echo what you said. I was the same way. And I do appreciate your willingness to listen, hear concerns and take those concerns seriously. And please, as chair mentioned, that is you heard everybody 's top concern, not only the citizens here, but that is a concern to us. And we realize that you don't have to do what you just offered to do. So thank you. Call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven zero. The commission. We still have more to do tonight. But what I can do is give a couple of minutes for the room to clear so we can take a breather real fast. Are you awake? Your thoughts, concerns. You have a great many of them. So thank you. But as soon as as soon as the start farms rezoning was done , they included that right away. Thank you. Their projection they have essentially for every thousand homes, it's five. Generation. They usually last this. I don't think this is the latest on that. With the room being cleared, we have one more public hearing item for the evening. It is the original F, which has now been moved to G. Item S eighteen dash zero zero two a Cindy, you are for presentation. Any coffee or anything. This is a request to hold a public hearing and consider a request for specific use permit to allow quick vehicle serv icing in suites one ten and sweet one eleven of budget cell storage. The property is located at twenty eight twenty Virginia circle and you can see here's the property right here. The location of the vehicle repair facilities right now are is in this corner right here highlighted in blue. This is the site and also survey of the site. That was originally developed as a storage facility. And in nineteen eighty five and this building from what I can tell on D had was added later in the nineties. This building has twelve parking spaces located along the front. This is a little bit of history of the site as I know as I noted it was plotted and developed in nineteen eighty five in two thousand two. It was rezoned from C commercial to N.R.M.U. in a city wide rezoning in twenty ten. The CEO was approved for retail sales of automotive electronic equipment in sweet one ten and also in twenty ten a CEO was denied for auto repair in sweet one eleven. The applicant then the applicant for the CEO then revised the CEO to be for office only and it was approved in twenty seventeen. A complaint was received about an auto repair facility operating without a CEO. At this point the applicant has three options to rectify the situation. One was to apply to rezone the entire site which legal actually we confirmed with legal and they said that wasn't the best idea. The best idea to go would be to go for a specific use permit. That's a more conservative approach. It would only affect the two suites in question rather than the entire site. Here are some site photos that I showed you earlier of the site showing the parking along the front as well as on the vacant lot adjacent to the west and just a few other different views of the site. When we look at a criteria determining whether or not to recommend approval for a specific use permit there are criteria that criteria we have to follow as noted in thirty five six four consistency with zoning regulations conform ity to goals of the Denton plan twenty thirty consistency with surrounding development in terms of access nuisance prevention and scale of development. With regards to zoning the site is zone in our em you excuse me the request is for quick vehicle repair which is permitted in the N.R.M.U. by permission approval of a special use permit. I'm sorry I'm tired. The subject site is surrounded by vacant lots on all sides to the north and the west. The site zoning is ECC and then there's some ECI just on the other side of that vacant lot to the east is so N.R.M.U . to the to the south is N.R.M.U. twelve with the townhouses of Ashley Oaks and the area directly adjacent to the subject site is a permanent open space. When the site was developed in nineteen eighty five there were not the standards that we have in place today were not in place at that time and as a result the site does not comply with parking requirements that we have in place today. The land use the site the subject site was owned commercial at the time it was developed and this self storage was permitted use when it was rezoned N.R.M.U. in the two thousand and two citywide rezoning it became a special exception as we just discussed in the previous case. The lot coverage there were no standards for open space at that time so pretty much it's all impervious surface except for a seven foot strip of land along the front along Virginia. For community mixed use the dent plan twenty thirty it's the sites designated community mixed use. The site is a site that is not in place. As I noted earlier that while the area is appropriate appropriate location for an automobile automobile repair facility. The warehouse office warehouse may not be ideal for this site because of the parking issues that have been noted. The site is not in place however based on the way we now we currently park repair facilities. It ends up that being the same required parking. The existing land uses surrounding the site are vacant or undeveloped land and university drive in U.S. U.S. three eighty. The issue P. request is a result of a lack of space to adequately park vehicles. The request does not provide any additional parking to address the original concern. I was talking to one of the business owners tonight and he may be able to to have a solution to some some parking issues that we've been talking about and I'll let him come up and address you. We sent out notices within two hundred and five hundred feet of the subject site and we received no responses in return and one side was posted on the site along Virginia circle. Staff actually recommends denial of this request. We find it difficult to approve something that we previously denied. I want to point out that the applicant who represents budget self storage has been extremely cooperative with the city and they've done everything that we have asked them to do for that reason. We are offering conditions so that if the planning and zoning commission decides that they wish to recommend approval we are offering up the following conditions that a new certificate of occupancy for the correct use quick vehicle servicing must be applied for and approved. This specific use permit shall be limited to these two particular business owners and these two particular site su ites. This permit will be limited to the use description and the floor plan shown in exhibit eight and exhibit nine in your backup overnight outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited. And no more than two customer service vehicles per each business can be parked in the parking spaces in front of the building during business hours. That concludes my presentation. Yeah, on this. I cannot endorse the second condition that's offered that we limit the specific use permit to particular business owners because this this really should be a land use issue that deals with use of the land and should be agnostic as to who the owner of the property is. So for whatever it's worth and I apologize for calling it audible because we would said he's talking about talking to legal it wasn't me. Yeah, but it may have been another attorney but it wasn't did he any discussion that we had or I would have let you know that earlier. That's fine. We can we can withdraw that recommendation. Commissioner Smith to that point on that second one I guess the question I was gonna have was making sure that if there was an approval that that second condition would apply to if the business was ever sold. There was a new tenant that came in and use that that facility that it wouldn't continue wouldn't be grandfather ed it wouldn't be vested it'd be it'd be temporary it'd be gone and wouldn't wouldn't carry over. Is there a way legal for us to write that as a condition because we've done that another thing. Could we not just condition it to the property to the business owner. I know in the past with not here but in other cities with specific use permits particularly for private clubs. We have condition the specific use permit for alcoholic beverage to that business and no other business and if that business leaves so does the approval for alcohol beverage that that I can see a number of different issues for one thing you know there's an alcoholic beverage license that is specific to a given establishment or given owner and which is a different situation than what we have here. Okay. And there's there's also issues of state preemption and what have you and you know I'm sorry that we didn't get a chance to discuss it before and I have no problem with with tying it to to the two particular suites if that's if that's appropriate. It's it's tying it to the particular owners that I think is an issue as far as you know being temporary upon sale. I can't quite get there I think that's a condition to replace on the CEO. That's the case I mean the certificate of occupancy if the if that business was just my own understanding of how CEOs work if that business was ever to leave and then they go vacant and then the owner decide to lease to a new tenant that new tenant has to go and apply for a new CEO. I've had to do that on leased buildings inside the city of Denton. So we could tie it to the CEO, and that would solve that problem. I'm trying to specific business owner retired to stick out to feel occupancy. So if that's a condition that you'd endorse that. Yeah. And, you know, again I'm having to kind of shoot from a tractor seat here. But, you know, if you're inclined to do that that perhaps the way to address that would be to put something in the SCP that says upon consideration of a certificate of occupancy for the business that the intention is to prevent this use from being grandfathered in the future. And tie it to the suite. Commissioner pernetta. Yeah, I just got a couple of questions on on that so the primary issue right now that we're having is that there's a lack of parking be that the CEO is not currently used for what it was approved for right. Okay, they're in violation of their CEO. Because overall in terms of what the what the, what their business does. If it were to be rezoned or something like that to that effect I believe there's like a tire shop across the street, or something like that. As I said, this is not this is not a bad location for a business on automotive repair business with the zoning and, you know, the surrounding uses. It's just that the parking is an issue. And the fact that, while they're in violation of their CEO. So, so, to the parking. I understand from the photos that, you know, the overnight storage and everything was handled in a vacant lot that was owned by someone else. Pursuant to that, it has there been any plans expressed. If we were to approve this, where they would actually park those cars is there. Would that be on this property or someplace else or. That would be on this property. The business owner that I talked about is here, and he does not own the businesses putting the cars on that lot. That that is the other business. What this CEO, what this SUV would do was would make him have to move those cars off of that lot and and make other arrangements for the storage of those vehicles. And then verify and validate that that that that whatever the other location would be. Yes, we would do that when he applies for a certificate of occupancy for this quick vehicle service use. That would be when we would be working on that. Okay, thank you. I suggest what thing I'm just wondering, you know, is is is the applicant sure that he wants this decision made before these details are nailed down? Because if it's denied, you know, it could interfere with bringing the issue back. Is this something that's better nailed down, you know, before it's brought forward to a vote here at the PNZ? I'll say I'll go forward. If you just state your name and address. My name is Chris Haney. Address is 17787 West FM 922 Forestburg, Texas. I'm actually born and raised in Denton, been here 40 years and just moved there recently. I'm no then. I'm here on behalf of Randy and maybe that feedbacks. I'm here on behalf of Randy and then who is the property manager for budget self storage. I occupy unit 110. I don't know if you remember from the slideshow unit 110 was originally for retail sales for car stereo equipment that was allowed to be sold and installed on facility. My business moved in a direction to where buddies, friends, hey, can you change my brakes? Hey, can you put a starter on my car? Unknowing to zoning and neighborhood residential multi use. I had no idea what any of this meant. I thought my CEO was just permission for me to be there. I've been in businesses where it's on the wall, their certificate of occupancy will say North Texas car audio and on the sign out on the building, it says auto sound. I didn't know the difference between any of this until 2017 . Unlike 111 who was denied a CEO for automotive repair and then changed to storage and operated another repair shop. I didn't that him him in what he has done in the cars that are piled up around the place. Look bad for me in one of the pictures with all the cars. That's a totally separate piece of property that doesn't have anything to do with the property that's highlighted in the property that has the for the special use for sweet 110 and 111. The property that was showed with a bunch of cars stored on it is commercial property is rented from the owner. And it doesn't have anything to do with budget self storage property and especially use permit. Although some of the cars are from him or whatever, that's an entire separate piece of property. I'm here because Randy, the manager had prior engagement before this date was set. And so I had to come in this place. It's actually better that I'm here because I probably answer more questions. Another concern that you may have with two shops. And more cars, I would like to address too, because from my understanding, the other automotive shop owner will not be there much longer. He's behind on his rent, has no way to come up with it, and he's probably not going to be there much longer. So it's only going to be me. My CEO that I got was from March of 2010. That's why it says 2010 on there. But I was in the building next door before that one for six months. So I've actually been there nine years with no complaints and no problems. I can fit eight vehicles inside the building. So there should never be any time where I have vehicles stored outside of the building. All the vehicles that are stored out there right now, I mean, we can -- I do have a few over there. I'm not saying it's all him. I do have a few over there, but a lot of it is him. But all that can be taken care of if need be and then come back and vote or whatever you -- however you were talking about that. Commissioner Gruner. And that was going to be my question because right now the recommendation is a denial. So based on what you're saying, that there are some factors in terms of the other parties involved that may change and may make this a little bit easier to go through, my understanding would be that probably if this would be amenable, would it be something that you'll be open to do to basically kind of retract this right now, and then maybe add some details in order that we've discussed tonight that would make us more likely to vote yes? Because my understanding is that if we go through the denial, that would create delays in terms of you getting an approval in the future. And I don't think anyone on here is particularly excited about creating a situation which a local business owner maybe put out or just a sort of delight to get the details sorted out would be beneficial for you. I mean, me and the manager of the property have both spent money and jumped through hoops and trying to do everything possible to make this work. And I don't know basically within a month if my neighbor is still going to be there or not. And he's the one that's causing a lot of problems for me because I'm not a dirty guy. I don't litter up the place. I don't park all the cars down the road. That road of parking that was in front of the building that showed every parking spot taken, there's probably four cars out there right now. I would say there's at least eight parking spots available right now. And two of the cars belong to a guy that rents a storage unit farther down that doesn't have anything to do with either one of our businesses, but he has two cars parked out there. You know what I mean? So as far as me and my footprint over there, it's not going to be noticed if he moves out because it's his problem. You know what I mean? And I have two spots. I actually have two spots in the back of the facility that are rented parking spots. And I have a 22 acre lot that I can put cars on if need be. So just for clarification, that motion would leave the public hearing open and we can continue to a date certain of November 14th if the commission wanted to exercise that option. But it looks like we have some other questions or discussions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Haney. Appreciate you coming forward. And I'm sorry the other guy isn't here now. Your is Haney's garage. Correct. Okay. And you're in suite 110. 110. So you're not at the very end. Okay. And what is it again that you do? You started out wanting to do something and now you've gotten into something bigger. Okay. So I own a stereo shop in McKinney, Texas from 98 to 05. In 05 I got broke into. I didn't have insurance. I lost everything. So then I moved my business back here and just started doing mobile a little bit at a time because I didn't have the money. I got enough money to open another shop. The storage units were available. A buddy of mine knew the guy that rented them. And so I opened a stereo shop and I was doing good for a little while making money. And then it just died off. So all my buddies in the business went to home audio, home theater and all that stuff. I didn't go that route. And next thing I know, hey, this buddy is asking me to put brakes on his car. This guy's asking me to do a starter or an alternator or. So you were initially just servicing audio. Correct. We were actually. They're in the shop. They bring the car in. We put neon lights under the car. We do TV screens in the headrest, stereo speakers, amplifiers. Some of the jobs would take us six, eight hours to get them all wired up and installed. Okay. Were you at that time, were you able not able to do the jobs that day so they leave the car overnight or were you just doing some custom jobs? Yes. Took two to three days. Okay. Where were you leaving those cars? Inside the facility. Inside. Okay. You say you can put up to eight vehicles in there. Between the two shops. Yes. Between the two shops means. Correct. So between between both of our shops, we can fit eight vehicles inside. Okay. Well, if he's going to close down, then that'll just leave you. How many can you get in? If he closes, then I would take over. Okay. So right now, how many can you get into suite 110? In 110? Yeah. I can squeeze five, but four comfortably. Okay. There's normally four cars. Okay. Well, I'm glad you explained yourself. I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain, you know, how. I just want to explain how it evolved into what it is. It looked like it was a deliberately deceptive mood when you got your CO, but I, you know, based on what you've said now that. It just evolved into what it is. And at the time, this is my first time to ever be in any kind of meeting like this. It's really been after what went ahead of me. It's whoa. Yeah. Okay. So here's Mike. I was out there today and there were cars out front. Probably not as bad as on her videos, but that empty lot had, you know, I've got pictures of it here, had at least two dozen vehicles. How many of those were yours? I mean, to be quite honest, I rent that lot from Billy Stevens. Oh, you do? Yes, sir. Okay. So there's an understanding. There's an understanding there. That you can put the majority of those vehicles were on gravel with no grass. The rains that have come through. I have a guy that comes through in most just to keep the city office back. But the rains that came through the grass has grown through all the gravel and it looks like they're just parked on grass. Now some of Mr. Melton's my neighbor. Some of his cars are parked on the grass. I actually own probably four to six of those cars that I'll be taking home this week or within the next week. There's probably only about three cars, maybe four cars over there that are customers that need to be worked on and the rest of them are mountains. Okay, so explain to us how you're going to meet the criteria if we approve this, the condition that you will meet the minimum. A lot of what's on that lot right now is not stuff that it's stuff that's been accumulated over time that hasn't been dealt with because it didn't have to be dealt with. So how are we moving those out? How are we getting rid of those? I actually have been no towing on retainer. I can call them and have them tow anything for me at any time and I pay the bill at the end of the week. So some of them will be towed back to the owner's house. Some of those vehicles were towed in and it's jobs that I don't do or jobs that they can't afford to do. And so I have just allowed them to sit there instead of saying, hey, no, you have to pick up your car. It can't stay here, you know, or I'm gonna have to charge stores or vice versa. You know what I mean? Sure. Some of those have been there for quite a while and that lot's been cleaned off before. There was a time in the past where a letter got sent in and Billy said, hey, everything's got to come off the lot. And the whole lot got cleaned and two customers didn't pick up their cars and those cars got towed off. So he essentially didn't care until somebody else complained. Correct. He's okay with it. But moving forward, I want to focus more on shocks, struts, brakes, you know, just in and out jobs. You know, I don't want any cars coming in that need major work that are going to take, you know, days or a week to fix or anything like that. I've already had two transmission jobs lately that I sent out that I just, I'm not, I want to get away from any major engine or transmission repair and just stick with the basics and get them in and out, in and out. Because what I'm running into is I'm a small shop and I have one helper. It's me. When I'm not there, I'm closed. So what I'm running into on some of the other bigger jobs that are coming in, it's taken too much time to complete this job, where I've got three or four customers that have showed up with little short jobs that we could have done in that amount of time. And the money on the big jobs is not an issue. I would rather just have more customers in and out in and out, then to be working on one big job all day. Okay, here's my concern going forward. I was just off the bat, ready to deny this thing. I'm glad you explained yourself a little bit better. But going forward, I'm not sure that we can, you know, hold to the notion that this other guy is going to close up. Because if he doesn't, then he keeps causing problems. Well, I don't know how big a factor that is. Well, the problem is parking. If he's not, if he's got a lot of cars out there. Right. I don't, I don't know how big a factor that is. Because I mean there's, there's already an arrangement and an agreement for me to take over it when winning if he leaves and my understanding talking to him. And what he's telling me he's moving to back to his house to his shop. Okay. And shutting down his business before Thanksgiving. Okay, that's my understanding, regardless of whether he does or not, you're telling us that you can get those cars off that lot. And abide by the minimum parking by obviously putting up to eight vehicles in two suites. Correct. And then you have access to two parking spaces out front. Two parking spots in the back that are rented. Okay. Okay. Well that to me, you know, the criteria and I guess we're gonna go get rid of number two there. Is that what I'm understanding going to attach it. Okay. Let's. Okay, great. Thank you, sir. So before we get to Commissioner Smith, I'm going to question or Sanchez. I guess, I think you already answered my question but. So if you take over the other shop, it'll give you eight eight locations, I mean eight eight spots. Yes. And then outside you'll have what four or two. Two per business. That's basically up to the CEO, because I would have to reapply for a new CEO under the special use permit. Well based on the existing parking you had 12. And so I don 't know how many offices you have in that total. Right now he has three parking spaces and Melton's has four parking spaces. So if he moves, are you going to stay in your current suite and then go into the other suite as well ? I would rent it for additional parking and just additional. So he would have. I wouldn't have to front doors or two offices the office would stay shut I would stay where I'm at now, and just use the space. He would have seven spaces seven spaces there. Okay. And then you also have a location where you can take vehicles to. Correct. I'm 22 acres that I can park. Okay. And that are not in the city of Denton or the county of Denton. Okay. And you said you currently were renting the adjacent lot to park. Yeah, I, I have an agreement to keep the lawn and everything in compliance for the city of Denton to be able to park cars there. I can park vehicles on the gravel there, as long as I keep everything mode and keep it up to code. So there's no problem. And everything was up to code until the other repair shop has cars parked all over the grass and not on the gravel. But I can make all those disappear it's not a problem it's just never been a problem until now and now this problem I can make it disappear. I don't have to have a lot. I just use it because it's convenient. Chris Smith. I'd like to motion to table the vote on that's 18 dash 0002 a reason for that would be. There's a lot sounds like a lot of a lot of promises a lot of things that need to be done. A lot of things that don't necessarily can't be put into a condition for an approval. You know, like, I wouldn't want to see it come back in front of us until the guy who's about to leave is going to be gone. That's how big a factor is that because the pretty manager the manager of the property seems to think that he didn't even want me to mention that. But I feel like I need to mention it because it's it's more than likely going to happen. And he's afraid that he was afraid he didn't want me to mention that he might be leaving because he was afraid that this would start the whole process over again. No, no, no. It's not. I'd say that the if you're saying that he's the he's the main main reason why there's the parking issue, which is the pretty much I'd say probably the biggest the biggest issue as a council. He has a question. Is that is that is that that's the parking issue that I'd like to see the parking issue resolved or at least a plan put together rather than something we just kind of discuss here willy nilly before we put up an approval. And so I'd really like to see some some actual slip solid ified that. Yep. He's he's out X date. These cars are going to be moved off this lot and we have an agreement that that lot will stay empty. And if they're not, then the CEO has has the right to be pulled. And those kinds of things are are I think Jerry's probably going to yell at me. No, they're looking at me. Okay. But just I don't know. I don't feel like I don't feel like it's this is giving a definite enough of an answer. And so I'd like to table it. City staff and you work together and the owner work together come back and give some more definite. These things cannot happen. If that's it, then okay. We'll vote on it then. That's my question. Mr. Smith. Are you give the date certain of the 28th. Yes, sir. And do you think number 28th is okay to come back. Yes. Okay. Everything is supposed to happen within that time. Perfect. Yeah. So we can kick the can for a little bit then. So we have a first with Commissioner Smith and Christian Pernetta. Yeah, as it stands, I don't think I could approve it. But if he were to come back in a month with, you know, more definite plans. Yes, I'd second to this. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Haney, thank you for coming out and staying in this epic meeting that we're in. Yeah, I mean, the issue is certainly the 28 cars or whatever is parked down there right now. I mean, that is not okay. Certainly does not help us try to get this approved. So, you know, it's not that we're trying to put you out of business. You've just been operating a business that's not allowed. Right. So trying to work with that, you're going to have to work on that other end. So by tabling this gives you some time. But those cars have got to be gone because part of the everything in my control will be gone because part of the condition of this. But it's both suites. So whether he's gone or not, I mean, if he if he leaves and cars are left behind, then I'll have them towed off. Yeah, the property owner or what have you. But I mean, it's it's both of these suites. One of the conditions is going to be you can't even park cars overnight there outside anywhere, not even on the two in front would be part of this condition overnight. They're going to have to be indoors somewhere. So I think all of us would probably need to see some effort going forward to show that you could actually comply with that. I generally don't leave cars out overnight. Right. Right. Well, but there's 28 of them sitting there overnight. I'm talking about the part of this condition that we're talking about is from the business standpoint, moving forward and how it would operate. And so I wouldn't leave customer cars like I own a few of those cars. I bought them from customers and just never did anything with them. But in the future, I wouldn't do that. You know what I mean ? I understand that that's part of your business. That's just what happens in the mechanics world. But they can't be parked on a vacant lot like they are. Well, on a proof service, they were fine through code. But I'm not arguing the fact I'll make that disappear if I can stay. You know what I mean? I think this helps. At the time, they were parked on the approved service. It doesn't give you a denial right now, which is I think where this was probably going to head. And then that doesn 't help you. So, thank you. Krischer Smith. Yeah, I'm totally okay with having a motion for approval in November 28th. After we table it and see some progress. It's just that if we deny you now, you're kind of up a creek without a paddle . If we approve you now, we have no definite that changes are going to happen. And if they don't happen, then it's going to become a code enforcement issue. And the last thing we want to have to do is have a local business has to tussle with code enforcement. And we just said, oh, yeah, we'll do it. Just go ahead and get it done, whatever. Rather say, just table it, come back , say, hey, we got all this stuff moved around. These things have been done. This guy's out of here. He's the one. He's the joker. He's been jacked around my cars that I bought that have been sitting out there. They're now on my 22 acre lot. Everyone 's on the same page. Yeah, we'll give you we'll give you your approval to do that. That's what I want. I want to get everything fixed before. Because if I had if he's gone and I have room to park eight vehicles inside, I'm not going to be doing eight motor jobs at the same time where I have no place to park a car and I got to park cars out front. You know what I mean? I'll have eight spaces that there may be one car that I got to order brake pads for that it's special brakes or special shocks and I got to keep it overnight or two cars. But there's never going to be more than eight vehicles at one time. You know what I mean? So everything will be inside and everything will be as requested or as recommended once everything is cleaned up. And if I may just as a point of clarification, I'm assuming here that there's nothing that this commission is saying is promising to abate any enforcement if there's an ongoing violation. You know that that's a completely separate issue. This commission doesn't have authority to abate enforcement of a code requirement. So I just for whatever's worth I think with what the commission is saying is that if you force her to a vote today is likely going to be denial. But they'll give you an opportunity. But that doesn't mean that there won't be people giving you tickets if you are operating outside of the code requirements in the meantime. Correct. So we have a first and a second. Seeing no other discussion I call for a vote on the board. This is the table to date certain of November 28. Motion carries seven zero. We'll see you next month. Thank you. Moves us to our matrix. Anyone have anything else. Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry that I do have something but it all has to do with this epic meeting. Richard if there's anything you can do to get some of these lake view issues. Up to the forefront of some kind of discussion. I mean clearly Lakeview Boulevard needs to be looked at. And so please if you could get that in front of where it needs to go sooner rather than later. Already started. Thank you. And then the other thing is if D.I.S.D. is consulted on a project could we please get some of that in our in our backup material if there is some input there. I think that would be important to know especially for these larger projects that come before us. So if there is something to offer by them that that they have been you know contacted certainly if they've given input that would be great too. Thank you. I got one thing that this meeting has brought to light for me and that's is there any like training we can do for like Robert's rule of order in terms of decorum stuff that was going on tonight. I felt wholly inadequate to know how to engage in some of the one off banter or the laughing or the threats of that we're deceiving people. I appreciate that. But there is there's times where where an individual called a commissioner out and it led to like the sidebar thing and I think it's really I'd be really interested to know. And this could be a sidebar just for me personally unless other people want to know like some chair training. I would just like to know like what's expected of me as a chair and what my authority how far can it go because I was about to call some cop I was about to get him. I didn't thankfully but so any any information I get about like how to that's because that's the first time I've engaged. It's a lively group. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The before City Council meetings that they play the video about the decorum and the manner in which you talk to City Council and I brought to Jerry and I actually mentioned to Jerry after the accusation started. And that's the reason why I gave the tongue-lashing that I did was because we don't we don't sit up here and work as as Matt just brought up we've been here for 10 hours by the way I've been here nine and a half because I showed up. Yeah, don't call it. The, I guess my check would just be that much smaller. But, but but but but video video just that they play for City Council play it again for even planning and zoning because we do have these heated exchanges happen between us so that, hey, do not don't call out a commissioner and if you, if you do that is grounds for removal from, from the chambers that that's, I would I would feel, I would feel better and as Larry applicant. Yeah, or look, yeah, making making you can't you can't address, you can't address anybody except for the council and you can only address the council and hole you cannot address anybody else in the crowd or the applicant or anything like that. And you know as Larry joked around but it's very true because who knows the next time we have another heated argument like this. I wonder how many of those people are going to be outside waiting for us by our cars but Larry said I said, well, you know, I mean we never know we never know who might be not be really really mad. I put that on the matrix to make that done in the future. Well, and the point I made in response to your suggestion was that it was kind of difficult to change horses in the middle of the street because we had already set the standard of engaging directly with the people who came up to the microphone. And, you know, entertaining their questions on the spot to staff to others, you know, asking the applicant to come up and answer a question directly what have you. There was maybe Andrew's training would be would be definitely needed that's that we, as commissioners would know then so we don't engage in that increase of sort of precedence, and it definitely. From my perspective, went a lot more smoothly to hold the questions and and and sort of the directions to staff until the end so that we can accumulate them all together and not , you know, that seemed to kind of encourage that behavior of asking questions directly to the commission to staff directly to the applicant. You know when it was initially invited by the commission got it. Understood. So it's our fault sorry Jerry. Thank you, Chair, just on your point about Roberts rules I know that attorney Richard Hayes gave a great presentation to city council on Roberts rules, I don't know if that would be something that could be done for us but I think it would benefit all of us. I assume that Richard won't have any problem if we adapt it to our needs it's about 60 slides long. So I don't know if it would be possible to trim that a bit but that would be my suggestion anyway. Great. So I got anything. Yeah, just wanted to make one thing that I'm going to try to do for each meeting. We had talked earlier today about just notification when there's the neighborhood meetings. So, so as I started to think through listing to everything what I'm going to try to do is at least might just be a short memo with each packet. Since we do meet every two weeks, I don't think anything will lag in between, but just to give you an update on. So here's all of the upcoming neighborhood meetings related to projects that are that are moving forward. But then in addition, just kind of letting everybody know what what was the result of any items that were recommendation from the commission to city council. And then we'll just go through that and see if there's anything that's changed or, or just just to make sure everyone's in the loop. So I thought it would just be easier that way rather than calling her individually. I'll just include include that memo and certainly got questions. Call or email. However, it's easier for you. If that works. Meeting at 1 57am October 25.