Good afternoon, at 5.33 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14th, with the quorum present, we'll
call this work session of the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order.
Our first item is any in-person comments on the Consent Agenda, are there any?
Not seeing any.
We will go to the clarification of the items in the agenda, so any questions on the Consent
Agenda?
No?
Okay.
Items for individual consideration, there was one that got emailed out to us, but yeah,
so for A, Mia.
Good afternoon, Chair, any presentation on this?
The Item 4A, the individual consideration, FP25-28.
Mia Hines, Senior Planner, filling in for Angie, to present this plat, this is the reserves
at Brush Creek, a final plat that is for about 15.5 acres for a property located on the north
side of Brush Creek Road, approximately 392 feet east of US 377.
At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we will be
recommending denial, however, we have no objection to the requested extension to February 11th,
2026.
I haven't answered any questions on this one.
Any questions?
Is this our third extension?
I believe it is the fifth.
How many are they allowed?
They are allowed as many as they would like.
Okay.
They are allowed to request as many as they would like?
Does the reasoning matter, there are certain things they have to get ready?
With this particular one, the reserves at Brush Creek have been working through some
agreements regarding the funding of the Brush Creek improvements that will be coming through
with that CIP, and that's just been taking a little bit of time to get together.
Our approvals of the civil engineering plans are contingent upon that finalized agreement,
and the approval of the final plat is contingent upon those civil engineering plans.
At this time, that's the only item to be worked out, but our recommendation will remain the
same until such time it is.
Okay.
I'm just curious.
Okay.
Anything else?
No?
Okay, thank you, Mia.
Next item, I think, is also Mia's, FP25-38.
Yes.
This is a final plat for the Hickory Grove multifamily addition.
This is just over a 40-acre property located on the north side of West University Drive,
approximately 200, 2,800 feet west of Goldenhofe Drive.
Similarly, they are not meeting all of our criteria for approval at this time, but we
have no objection to the request extension to a date certain of February 11th, 2026,
and this is their first extension request for this item.
Okay.
Any questions?
No.
Thank you.
Next up is PP25-5.
This item is a...
Mia Hines, senior planner, filling in for Sean.
This item is a preliminary plat for Roselon Meadows.
This just about six-and-a-half-point-acre site is located on the north side of Roselon
Drive east of the existing South Bonneberry Street.
Similarly, they are not meeting all of our criteria for approval at this time.
This was the extension request that came in later in the day, so they have submitted that
extension request and staff has no objection to that, which could be granted to February
11th, 2026.
Sorry.
That will be fixed for the regular session, the date there.
Okay.
Third.
Third extension on this item.
Yes.
I did read that up there.
I don't know if I missed it on the other one I asked about.
It wasn't on that one.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Any questions?
I don't see any.
Thank you.
Brings us to our public hearings.
The first item is Z25-18.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Bryce VanArsdale, assistant planner.
This is Z25-0018.
This is a request to rezone approximately 0.74 acres from residential three to residential
seven.
This property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bolivar Street
and Taliaferro Street.
Generally, this request is consistent with the low residential future land use map designation
as well as the comprehensive plan and development code, the development code.
Staff is recommending approval.
One thing to note with this request is that while this request does provide for greater
density than we typically expect within a low residential future land use map designated
area, it is consistent with the development pattern of the area over time, which has several
different uses in the area, such as single-family, duplexes, quadplexes, multi-family, and some
supporting commercial uses as well.
I have a longer presentation that I'll present at the public hearing, but I'm happy to stand
for any questions.
I don't see any.
Thank you, Joyce.
Our second public hearing will be 5B CA25-5.
Chair, there is a joint presentation for this item and the next item if you want to call
those.
Sure.
Item 5B, the comprehensive plan amendment is to change the comprehensive plan and future
land use designation from agricultural flume and low residential flume to regional mixed
use for a property located just north of West University Drive, south of that Legends Ranch,
Hickory Grove mud area in the city's ECJ.
This if you kind of recall some of the other items that we've heard, comprehensive plan
items that we've heard is just to the west of that item or those properties.
The property itself is just under 25 acres and then the second request for this is a
rezoning from RR and R2 to that is incorrect that actually should be suburban corridor.
Let's use this slide.
Sorry about that.
So the first request is a comprehensive plan amendment from the agriculture and low residential
future land use designation to the regional mixed use future land use designation and
then the zoning request is a request to change from zoning of R2 to the suburban corridor
district.
The purpose of these requests is to entitle the property for anticipated commercial development
given the Hickory Grove also known as the Legends Ranch municipal utility district to
the north within the city's ETJ.
I won't go over the history too much in detail as we've kind of been discussing this item
over the past couple of meetings but just to give you a brief reminder that municipal
utility district to the north of this property is a special purpose district created to provide
essential services such as water, waste water and drainage to areas outside the city limits.
This property or the subject property for this item was identified within that mud development
agreement for future commercial and so at this time the applicant is just following
suit with the proper entitlements for that to occur for them to develop the property
with commercial land use.
I do have a more in depth presentation in the normal or in the regular session but I'm
happy to answer any questions that you all have at this time.
Anybody?
Half of a question Commissioner Dyer?
This is the one at our last meeting in December where we were talking with people from the
roads department and they were talking about text out and all the turns and we voted on
all that stuff.
This is just another extension of that?
This is that same area.
Okay.
Awesome.
This is that property right here.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anything else?
That's our last public hearing and we do not have any work session reports.
Sorry.
No, we don't.
This week.
At 543 p.m. we will recess and reconvene at 630 in council chambers for the regular session.
Thank you.
Good evening.
It's 630 p.m. on this Wednesday, January 14th.
With the quorum present I will call our regular meeting to order.
Our first order of business is to stand and say the Pledge 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.
Under the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one indivisible.
Brings us to our first action item 2A, PZ 26-252.
Consider approval of the December 17th planning and zoning meeting minutes.
Open the floor for a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Riggs?
I'll make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Garland?
I will second that.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Garland, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
Brings us to our consent agenda.
Open the floor for a motion.
Commissioner Garland?
Motion to approve the consent agenda.
And Commissioner Dyer?
I second that motion.
It's a motion and a second.
Not seeing any discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
Brings us to our first item for individual consideration for a FP 25-28 for final plat
at the reserve at Brush Creek.
Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item is a final plat for the reserves at Brush Creek.
The property is approximately 15.437 acres, located just on the north side of Brush Creek
Road, approximately 392 feet east of US 377.
At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending
denial.
However, staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to a date
certain of February 11, 2026.
This would be the fifth extension for this plat.
At this time, I'll happily answer any questions we have.
Any questions?
Not seeing any.
Commissioner Dyer?
I will make a motion that we approve the request for an extension to February 11th.
Commissioner Garland?
I will second that motion.
Motion and a second.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
4B, FP 25-38 is the final plat for Hickory Grove.
Evening again, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item is a final plat for the Hickory Grove multi-family addition.
The property is 41.39 acres, located just north of West University Drive, US 380, and
approximately 2,800 feet west of Golden Hoof Drive.
At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending
denial.
However, we have no objections to the requested extension, which could be granted to a date
certain of February 11th, 2026, and this would be their first extension for this property.
Happy to answer any questions.
Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Garland?
Motion to approve denial and grant the extension based on staff recommendations.
Sorry.
Oh, sorry.
For the extension or to deny it?
Yes, for the extension.
Okay.
Motion to continue to February 11th, and Commissioner Ketcham said?
I second that.
Okay.
We have a motion and a second.
Call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
Brings us to 4C, PP25-5B, preliminary plat for Roselon Meadows.
Good evening again, Mia Hines, Senior Planner.
This is a preliminary plat for the Roselon Meadows subdivision.
The property is approximately 6.494 acres, generally located just north of Roselon Drive
and east of South Bonneberry Street and west of the future Bonneberry Street.
At this time, the preliminary plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, so
staff is recommending denial.
The applicants did get an extension request in later this afternoon, which was forwarded
to this body.
So staff has no objection to that requested extension, which could be granted to a date
certain of February 11th, 2026, and this would be their third extension for this property.
I'm happy to answer any questions that you have at this time.
Not seeing any.
Commissioner Riggs?
I'll make a motion to approve the extension to date certain February 11th, 2026.
Commissioner Garland?
And I will second that motion.
Okay.
Seeing a motion and a second, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
Brings us to our first public hearing, Z25-18.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Bryce VanArsdale, Assistant Planner.
This is Z25-18, Denton Duplexes.
This is a request to rezone approximately 0.74 acres from residential 3 to residential
7.
This site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bolivar and Taliaferro
streets, and this purpose is to allow for the development of duplexes.
The surrounding area is comprised of a variety of housing types, such as duplexes, single
family, quadplexes, multifamilies, all some supporting uses, supporting commercial uses.
The current zoning is residential 3, which comes with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet and some associated setbacks with a 40-foot maximum building height.
The requested zoning district of residential 7 has a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet,
some similar setbacks, as well as a 40-foot maximum building height.
In regard to the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and the future land use map, this area
is designated as low residential.
Typically, this would be predominantly single family areas with appropriately scaled commercial
uses.
This designation does come with a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre.
This request does provide for a little bit more than that, but it is consistent with
the development patterns of the neighborhood around it.
A few goals that this accomplishes that are in the comprehensive plan are land use goal
one, which is to grow compactly, land use goal three, to grow our assets, which is strengthening
and maintaining our current neighborhoods, as well as housing in neighborhoods goal one,
which is to develop and maintain a diverse housing stock, both in choices, costs, as
well as location.
With regard to the Denton development code, this request is in consistency with the R7
district purpose statement.
It maintains the existing character of the neighborhood, it addresses the need for missing
middle housing, and it is compatible with the surrounding area.
The criteria for approval is that this request is consistent with the R7 purpose statement.
It is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map goals and
the objectives set forth in those plans.
This proposed zoning and development would be compatible with the area surrounding the
city.
This project was notified in accordance to state statute.
We received four letters in opposition, which totaled 11.8%.
District does recommend approval of this, as it does meet the criteria set forth in
the Denton development code.
I'm happy to stand for any questions.
I do note the applicant is also here and has a presentation as well.
Any questions for staff at this time?
Yeah.
Commissioner Riggs.
I know you received four letters in opposition, but that was actually two people?
That is correct.
Okay.
So three of those letters are from a property owner who owns three properties within the
200 foot buffer area, and then there's a second property owner.
Okay.
All right.
And then how many duplexes could be put on this property?
So the concept plan, which is not at all set in stone, shows four duplex lots.
Whenever they get to that point, they will be reviewed to Denton development code standards,
which have their own landscaping, buffering, parking, all that sort of stuff will need
to be met by each individual lot on its own.
Okay.
I will open the public hearing at this time.
I don't see any more questions, Bryce, and I'll call up the applicant, Ms. Amy Bissett.
Good evening, Chair Pruitt, commissioners.
Happy New Year.
Give me just one moment to pull up a brief presentation, and we'll get started.
My name is Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.
As Bryce shared with you, we are proposing a duplex development on the corner of Bolivar
and Talia Farrow.
It's roughly three quarters of an acre.
Bryce is predominantly a single-family neighborhood, although there is a mix of duplexes and some
multifamily housing integrated in the surrounding area as well.
As Bryce also covered, I want to zoom out a little bit so you can see the development
pattern and zoning.
In this area, it's generally north of Sherman Drive along Elm and Locust, and there's a
mix of R3 zoning, R7 zoning, which is the pattern in the brown, and a little bit of
R4 zoning mixed in there as well.
An aerial overview of how the surrounding area is developed, you'll see our site outlined
in yellow, and then all of the areas outlined in red are duplex or multifamily-type developments,
and those outlined in blue are commercial developments.
While this is a single-family neighborhood in terms of the future land use plan, there
is an existing context here that this development would be considered consistent in terms of
scale and compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
I do also want to share a sentiment from the property owner, who is our client.
They're not a developer.
They're a family who has decided to make their first real estate investment here in the Denton
community.
They wish to develop a project that is compatible, that is nice in appearance and attractive
to neighbors, with patios and yards, and is scaled appropriately with the surrounding
context.
The concept plan, Commissioner Riggs, your question about how many duplexes can go on
this site, we did a concept planning exercise, and based on just the dimensional standards
associated with the R7 zoning district, there is no way to get more than four duplex buildings
on this site, which would be a total of eight units here.
You can see the way that we have it oriented in order to meet DDC requirements, those buildings
would face Taliaferro Street, and then we would provide access off of Bolivar to a shared
access easement across the four lots, and each lot would have four off-street parking spaces,
which does meet the DDC parking requirements as well.
We did hold two neighborhood meetings virtually in December.
Approximately 250 invitations were mailed.
We had a couple of attendees, one at each meeting, and then a couple of others who expressed
some interest that we followed up with.
We did hear a few concerns that I'm happy to share with you.
The first was increased traffic on these neighborhood streets, so I've provided the trip generation
tables on the next page for you to see.
The second concern is an increase in on-street parking and the current right-of-way width
to allow for room for on-street parking.
We do know that the developer, the property owner, will be required to dedicate right-of-way
along Taliaferro to widen that street, and early meetings with the city have indicated
that some improvements associated with Taliaferro may be required as well.
We have parked each lot with four off-street parking spaces as well.
We also heard some concerns about the removal of trees, and we did a preliminary tree preservation
plan and are currently showing preserving 14 of the 21 trees on-site.
Here are the trip generation tables that come directly from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers manual.
We anticipate a total of 58 trips per day that is entering and exiting the development
with a peak hour number of four in the morning within one hour and five in the evening within
one hour.
And that is all I have.
I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time.
Questions for the speaker at this time?
I've got one.
I think there's...is there a bus route that goes by here on Elm Street, is that right?
I believe there is, but I'd have to look it up just to be sure exactly where that stop
is.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Denise Galeta, if you come up and state your name and address, you'll
have four minutes.
My name is Denise Galeta, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight.
And I'm talking about Talia Farrow and Bolivar Streets.
I respectfully oppose the rezoning request.
The property is located within an established residential neighborhood that has long been
characterized by low density development consistent with R3 zoning.
The existing zoning reflects the scale, rhythm, and expectations of the surrounding homes,
many of which were built with the understanding that nearby parcels would remain compatible
in density and intensity.
Rezoning this site to R7 represents a significant increase in density that is out of character
with this immediate area.
While growth and housing diversity are important goals in Denton, they must be balanced with
neighborhood compatibility, infrastructure capacity, and long-term planning consistency.
So this rezoning would introduce a density jump that surrounding streets were not designated
to support.
Bolivar and Talia Farrow are narrow streets, and I know they mentioned they would widen
Talia Farrow.
And they already experience congestion from on-street parking, service vehicles, and daily
neighborhood traffic.
And increased density will inevitably bring more cars, more parking demand, and more traffic
conflicts.
Particularly like North Elm Street, which is so heavily driven there, I'm scared to
walk on the street.
They drive so fast down there.
But second, the proposed rezoning was setting the precedent.
Approving R7 zoning on a small infill parcel surrounded by R3 zoning opens the door for
similar requests elsewhere in the neighborhood.
Over time, this can lead to piecemeal erosion of the established zoning patterns, undermining
the purpose of Denton's zoning framework and comprehensive plan.
And third, the compatibility is not just about building height or setbacks.
It's about scale, livability, and quality of life.
Higher density development on this site could affect privacy, noise levels, stormwater runoff,
and tree canopy, all of which are important to the character and environmental health
of the neighborhood.
And then also note that Denton has other areas, particularly along major corridors, and already
high density zones, where R7 development is more appropriate and better supported by the
infrastructure, transit access, and existing land use patterns.
This site, however, sits within a transitional residential block, and it's not highly density
area.
And I'm not opposed to rezoning.
It's not against housing.
It's just a request that it should be thoughtful, contextual, and consistent with adopted plans
and existing neighborhoods.
And the current R3 zoning already allows for residential development that respects the
surrounding homes while still providing flexibility for thoughtful in-built.
There are duplexes along Bolivar.
There has been no compelling justification presented that demonstrates why the existing
zoning is inadequate or why this level of density is necessary at this specific location.
I mean, when I think of eight units and 16 parking spots, and people parking on the street,
it's just a lot of traffic.
So for these reasons, neighborhood compatibility, infrastructure concerns, precedence, and planning
consistency, I respectfully ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend denial
of this rezoning request from three to seven.
And I thank you for your time, and appreciate you listening to me.
Thank you.
Next up, I have Joe Langham.
I knew you wouldn't get my name right.
I'm Joe Langham.
I'm the guy that sent in three.
I have the maps gone.
I'm right there on the front line, so I've got the house right across the street on the
corner of Bolivar and Fane.
I've got the lot next door to that, so I'm right there where that's all going to come
out.
And then I own the house on Fane, the only one that has an address on Fane.
I already have too much traffic.
There's no place for anybody to go there.
You have the residents, but where are all the visitors and all the friends going to
go?
They're going to come right out there on Bolivar that's already been skinned down because they're
trying to control the speed.
Well, now you're going to put in this many more, and it's just too much for the neighborhood.
Basically single-family.
They speak of commercial, which is over on Elm.
They speak of other duplexes that were built by Russell Trapp 30, 40 years ago, where they
had two houses, two lots, so they put in the duplex with shared walls, so it's much more
of an impact than it's being presented to you.
I just don't ... I'd say a duplex going there, but to put four duplexes on it, I find it
disappointing that we're even up here suggesting this.
It's just way too much for the neighborhood, way too much for me.
I see what happens in the street on Bolivar now, and to add, to put more on it, I just,
I can't see it happening.
Just too many.
That's all I've got to say, no need to keep repeating too many, so I appreciate you.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing, if anybody else would like to speak, you're more than welcome
to.
Come on down.
State your name and address, and you'll have four minutes.
Okay.
My name's Sam Bunn.
I'm at 2312 Bolivar, literally right next door to this lot.
This is my first time seeing any of the plans.
We've actually talked with the developer before.
He seems like a nice enough guy.
When we spoke to him, we'd said that we had three basic requests.
We moved in with a single story home next to us, so we asked him if he could plan to
keep it single story, which looks like he has, which is great.
All we want to do is preserve our privacy.
We have an active garden in our backyard.
We're out there nonstop.
We also asked him to preserve his made trees.
This looked like he's made an effort for that.
He says 14 out of 21, so are these four inch trees, or are they the 80-year-old oaks that
make our neighborhood special?
You can't ... 80-year-old oaks.
It's terrible because just up the street at the Evers farmstead, they just ripped out
all of those oak trees.
This is dentin, y'all.
So the third thing for us was just if they did build tall, to not put any windows on
our sides.
We've discussed about having a privacy fence too, but just seeing the plans, I got 16 cars
pointed at my house now.
And that is ... I moved into next to a single family home, not four duplexes with 16 cars
pointed at my house.
This is insane.
I'm a new homeowner.
I bought this home three years ago, and it's a true starter home for us.
It was $250,000, and we made that on $20 an hour.
We scrimped and saved for 10 years.
I moved here from California 10 years ago to buy a home.
My wife also.
We decided this was our dream, and so I don't have a problem with developers making money.
He needs to recoup his investment, and I understand that, but I don't want 16 cars pointed at
my house.
The neighborhood, the streets are so congested the way it is, they have to pass single file.
We have to wait for other cars to get out of the way so you can move through.
And my house, it's all right in front of my house.
We don't have sidewalks.
There's kids all over the neighborhoods.
We have kids who are running through our neighborhoods, through our yards.
We know these kids, and where are they supposed to go?
And I guess I'm a little disappointed seeing the plan, but yeah, I think I've made my voice
heard.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Anyone else before I close the public hearing?
Not seeing anybody.
I'll close the public hearing, open the floor for any questions of staff or discussion.
Or a motion.
Commissioner Riggs?
Yeah.
I have a question for staff.
I'm looking, sorry, I'm looking at the duplexes on Elm and the parking lot basically behind
it.
And it looks like for those four duplexes, they have, I don't know, like over 25 spots.
Is there, I guess this is just the bare minimum for the zoning, according to that plan?
I believe those were developed in 2017, prior to the 2019 development code update.
I couldn't tell you the duplex parking off the top of my head, but the 16 is what would
be required with our current zoning code, and with that, they would be allowed, if needed,
to go up to 125% of that, but those have additional standards.
So that 16 is what they are proposing.
Commissioner Dyer?
To kind of piggyback on that, I know we're not approving a plat, but are there going to
be like garages attached to these duplexes, or is it just the parking lot behind them?
I think I would leave that up to the applicant.
As far as I'm aware, it would just be the parking, is that correct?
Our client has not done architectural design yet, because we're only at zoning.
I believe that they are hoping to get at least a one-car garage back there, but also have
space for a backyard that correlates with each unit, but I've not seen architectural
plans.
Speaking of which, this is a non-binding concept plan as well.
We did a couple of layouts to show potentially how the site could function, but the layout
is not locked in by the zoning change.
Okay.
I'm just kind of curious, maybe this is more for staff.
If residents have a concern about the amount of parking, and we've already got the four
duplexes here to the east of this area, and they have way more parking, what is it in
the development code for developers that if you go to this designation, the zoning designation,
that it will not impact the street traffic as much?
What would the developer be beholden to?
Just to understand your question correctly, the zoning designation does not change the
parking requirement.
There will be, with the ZCP, the Zoning Compliance Plan, as well as civil engineering plans,
there's a TIA, as well as a trip gen analysis, which we'll go hand in hand with those, and
those will relate to any of the right of way stuff that needs to be done.
Even if they were put back into three single family lots, they would still have the same
parking requirements as four duplexes?
The parking is dictated by the use.
The duplex comes with it where there's four spots assigned to that, and with the single
family that will change based on the use of the parking requirement.
And I guess maybe that's kind of what I'm asking in a roundabout way, is with this designation,
especially we know there are going to be duplexes, what kind of parking, does it change the parking
restriction that they will have to abide by?
The zoning designation will not change that.
The use that they decide to go with the developer, that will dictate what their parking requirement
is.
Okay.
Commissioner Garland.
I was wondering if you could speak to, or the applicant could speak to, I know you said
that the design kind of wasn't set, but there's four duplexes, that's eight units.
Can you speak to how many bedrooms are going to be in each unit, or kind of what the thinking
is on that?
So when we prepared our concept plan, our client gave us a few templates to work with
in terms of duplex layouts and bedrooms.
And based on our current plan, those are very narrow duplexes, so you're looking at a maximum
of two bedrooms within that, just because the width of each frontage is too narrow to
support more than that.
If the zoning is approved, they might decide to go with a wider plan, but that would be
fewer lots and fewer units.
This is just, the concept planning was an exercise to determine for their understanding
what could go here.
Okay.
So eight units and then two bedrooms, probably max per unit, is what we would be looking
at.
I think always kind of the concern is, Denton, is this is a college town, and we always think
that students, that's four bedroom house, that's four students, four cars to each house.
And so is there a way that you could kind of cap each unit and say each unit is a two-car
maximum, or have you kind of gotten that far ahead in sort of the planning?
We have not gotten that far ahead.
So what we're operating under is the Denton Development Code parking requirements, which
gives us essentially a minimum and a maximum.
And like Bryce said, we could go up to 125% of that maximum, so we might be able to get
a couple more spaces in there.
If you look at the site, that is the number of spaces that will fit.
The way that we laid it out, we pushed the duplexes to Tally of Pharaohs so that there
was a room for a backyard and for a garage, a single car garage to accompany each one
of those, because that was the desire of our client.
But in terms of restricting the number of cars or the number of parking, I don't know
that there's a way to do that, except maybe in a lease agreement, so you're allocated
these two parking spaces, and that's it.
But if it was a single-family home and they had guests, they would park on the street
as well.
So being able to regulate that really comes down to regulating the city regulating on-street
parking in this neighborhood.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I guess I have one, Bryce.
I saw the history as far as when it had transitioned to under the '69 code.
There was talk about existing homes being built in this area, having some understanding
of the expectation of the neighborhood.
Has there been recent development here, or was it all prior to 1980 kind of timeframe?
Sure.
So since 1980, I believe it was 1995, we saw some quadplexes go in, and I don't have my
backup in front of me.
I believe it was 2017, the duplexes directly behind the lot went in, and the development
has kind of come in more or less waves over the years.
Okay.
But the single-family homes within this neighborhood were prior to that.
Those were first, and the more intense uses came afterwards, yes, sir.
Okay.
Anything else?
Okay.
Thank you.
Discussion or emotion?
Okay.
I will move approval on this, and I'll just say a couple things.
I think when we see these type of lots within a neighborhood, change is nervous.
I get that.
At the same time, we're talking about less than an acre.
We're not talking about a 10-acre subdivision or more, right?
So I guess I just feel like the amount of change here would be consistent with the previous
pattern of incrementally providing these additional housing types.
I don't think there's a mandate or a desire to restrict the number of homes here.
It's right on a bus corridor between Discovery Park and downtown.
It seems like it ticks all the boxes as far as allowing more people to live closer to
schools, to retail options, etc.
So with that, I'll move approval as staffed presented.
Oh, sorry, Commissioner Riggs?
I have to say, I'm torn on this one because I know we do have a desire and our future
plans are to basically do these type of infill lots and try to get some affordable housing
and those types of things, but also hearing from the residents, particularly the ones
right next door, you do have an expectation when you buy into a subdivision that the use
right next door, she's not just going to change overnight, so I'm undecided on this.
I would agree with Commissioner Riggs.
I know we talk a lot about the amount of infill lots within the city that still need to be
developed.
We talk a lot about finding ways for affordable housing, but I understand the concerns about
the amount of parking that this could put in this community on smaller streets.
We heard this several months ago on another, right around the corner from this, in another
area, and so I'm torn.
I guess I have another question for staff, Bryce.
I know the city is currently doing a citywide parking study.
Are we looking at tools and policies which could address existing on-street parking issues
within that?
I think I'll have to defer to Angie on that one.
And Charlie's even more in the know than I am, and he's coming down.
I know the citywide parking study is evaluating several different facets of parking, but I'll
defer to Mr. Riggs.
Hi.
Good evening, Commission.
Charlie Rizonol, Interim Director of Development Services.
As it relates to neighborhood parking, a lot of the recommendations around the citywide
parking study are related to residential permits, and those are targeted in areas near the universities
primarily.
In addition to that, that would be an intermediate phase of the study, so that wouldn't be an
immediate action item out of that study.
Okay.
But we are going to learn about some of those tools as a result of that.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
Residential parking permits was an action item out of that.
And do those types of tools regulate only new development, or do they regulate the street
parking for surrounding the existing developed lots?
I guess my question is when you regulate parking on new development, that doesn't have the
potential to change existing residences that may be using the on-street parking, but some
of these tools may have the potential to improve that.
Is that a valid statement?
Yeah.
I would think that's accurate, but like I said, the study found that primarily the on-street
parking issues were targeted more around the universities, but a residential parking permit
is an action item out of there, which would require on-street parking to have some type
of residential permit associated with it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Did you have something else?
Okay.
Yeah, Commissioner Dyer.
So if this doesn't pass, what options does the owner have?
So any of the uses developed by the ESCP process within the R3 zoning district, which typically
be limited to single-family housing as well as some supporting commercial uses such as
lower impact general retail or things of that nature.
So instead of duplexes, the owner could put a retail space in there is what you're saying?
I think I misspoke on that.
I don't believe it's retail.
Okay.
But there are supporting uses that can go within that zoning district that are not residential
as well.
Can you give us some examples?
I'm going to have to defer to Andy on that one.
Sure.
So just to clarify, there's not commercial, like a typical commercial use in the R3 zoning
district that you could expect by right.
Some things allowed in R3 are single-family homes, community homes, daycare, a community
service facility, some agricultural uses in private schools, typically lower intensity
or residential.
So if this weren't to pass and they didn't pursue a different rezoning, those would be
what they were limited to.
Of course, the applicant could also still decide to move this application forward to
counsel who would have the ultimate vote.
I guess, Bryce, just so that everybody can do the mental geometry, I'm thinking it looked
like this parcel is a little bit more than 200 feet wide, and with R3 with a 10,000 square
foot minimum lot size, you're probably looking at no more than three lots.
Correct.
So there's 32,000 square feet, which allow three lots.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Commissioner Ketchers said?
So I heard you right.
You said three lots, but we're saying four.
Sorry.
As usual, I'm confusing people, and I apologize.
What I was attempting to do was explain that if the zoning change were not approved and
the applicant still wanted to redevelop the property by right, what they could build,
I believe, would be approximately three single family homes.
Amy, do you want to address that so I don't put words in your mouth?
And I have one more quick one.
They could also get an SUP, correct, to build duplexes?
Not in R3.
That's not allowed.
So we actually had all of these conversations with our client before we chose the path forward
that we chose.
I believe we could get two lots in, one that fronts Bolliver and one that fronts Taliaferro.
I would like to point out that those two lots could each have a main house and an ADU, accessory
dwelling unit.
So you're getting a similar density in that regard.
We also discussed going with an R4 zoning with a specific use permit.
What we have found, we've looked at several of these lots over the last six months with
property owners.
What we have found is that an R4 with an SUP to get a couple of duplexes in is financially
infeasible because the SUP process alone is about $75,000.
And it's all at risk.
You've got to do full engineering plans, landscape plans, tree preservation plans.
And so that was just not an option for them.
They're a family who's cash funding this zoning change.
And so when we looked at the variable options and we went to a pre-application meeting with
the city with the pattern of R7 zoning around the area, we felt that it was consistent with
the goals of the comprehensive plan and the surrounding context.
And so that's why we went with the R7 zoning.
R4 with an SUP is an alternative, but it is not one that we would take because they simply
wouldn't spend that money.
However, I do want to say one more thing.
You guys see me up here frequently and we're a local zoning consultant.
What I can do is commit to ongoing neighborhood engagement and working with the neighbors.
Specifically, this is the first time we've heard the concern about the cars aiming towards
the neighboring house.
That is a concern and it's one that I think that it's our responsibility to address along
with just ongoing neighborhood concerns.
If this were to move forward and we move into design, I would personally commit that we
would remain involved with the neighborhood to gain feedback over time to do our best
to make this something that is compatible with them.
Thank you.
Commissioner Riggs.
Yeah, this is actually, excuse me, I've got something for staff.
So with this being, if this were to be approved, it would be a residential use next to a residential
use.
So is there any kind of screening requirements, particularly for the concern about the parking
lots?
So there's not any buffering requirements for these two adjacent uses.
If the developer does choose to do something along that nature, that's between them the
neighborhood engagement, but there's nothing in the development code which will require
that.
Okay.
So that would just, that wouldn't be part of this decision.
Correct.
Commissioner Ketchers had?
Would it be possible to have a community benefits agreement, like on a postpone and then come
back and present that with this?
I think those are typically much larger legal agreements.
Something like this is, it's not really feasible.
Because I think part of the hold up here is that even though we trust that this will get
done, once the zoning change has happened, you can do this by right with really nothing
stopping you.
Yeah, and I would say that's probably the way we should consider all of our deliberations
whenever we're talking about zoning changes is they have, at this point, they haven't
done the due diligence to figure out exactly what needs to happen.
So this just leaves all the options on the table for that zoning.
I think though, that being said, I do think we have overall goals to try to find affordable
housing and find these info lots.
I think I'm okay with it and just understand that I do think the developer will continue
to work with you all.
Yeah, I guess I'll say just to the concern about what specifically would happen, we have
the Denton Development Code for a reason in order to set the requirements for equitable
development in these cases.
So if there's a concern that the commission has about what is required or allowed by right
in these types of cases, then I think it's certainly within our purview to ask DCRC to
look at that and especially if there's a specific concern that keeps coming up.
But I think that trying to create a specific plan for every 0.7 acre lot in the city, we
would need 18 planning and zoning commissions that meet once a week perhaps.
Commissioner Dyer.
I mean, I agree with what you're saying and with Commissioner Riggs.
If we pass this, well, yes, we have a gentlelady's agreement that she will work with the community.
It's not a guarantee because in the end, the owner owns the land and he can do what they
want to do with the land according to how it's zoned.
Yes, we have been talking so much in this body in the Development Code Review Committee.
City Council has been talking about the infill lots and the affordable housing and trying,
you know, balancing that with the neighborhood's concern when there is one of these empty lots
and it's got to get developed because I would have to imagine a developed lot is a whole
lot better to live next to than a vacant lot.
But at some point, we have to think about these things when you're in such a zone that's
mainly single family homes when the city has these lots that every single lot can't always
be built this way and we don't want to set the precedent that every time it comes.
So it's a balancing act.
In this one, I will probably vote in favor of the zoning change.
I would like to impress upon Mr. Van Arsdell that to take the notes of what the community
has so when you're working with the developer, with the owners, that the parking is, you
know, first and foremost because it's going to come back in front of us and it will eventually
come back.
You know, it will go up in front of the City Council as well.
And to make sure because we'll have another public hearing and I'm sure all of these people
and potentially more will be back.
So we want to make sure that their concerns are heard for the next round.
Commissioner Riggs?
Yeah, I was going to make another point.
It was mentioned here tonight, but, you know, one of the things is if it stays residential,
Chair Pruitt to your point, you could put three individual lots on there and then they
would also could put in ADU.
So you essentially end up with two units on a lot, which sounds like that would probably
be the plan.
And now no dedicated parking, so definitely all that parking would be on the street.
So we do need a motion tonight.
I can go for it again, sure.
I'll move that we approve the staff recommended change to R7 for this lot.
Commissioner Riggs?
I second.
Any other questions?
Not seeing any.
I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes five one.
That brings us to both our second and third public hearings.
We're going to hold concurrently because they're on the same lot boundaries.
Sorry, CA25-5 and Z25-22.
Evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This is one presentation for two separate items, so they will require two separate votes.
And that is comprehensive plan amendment 25-5 and zoning case 25-22.
Again, this is two requests.
The property itself is just under 25 acres.
The existing future land use designation for this property is agriculture and low residential.
The proposed future land use designation for this property is regional mixed use.
And I'll get into some details about that request here in a second.
The existing zoning is residential two or R2, and the proposed zoning is suburban corridor
or SC, and that will follow, again, the comprehensive plan discussion.
The purpose of these requests is to entitle the property for anticipated commercial development
in terms of the hickory growth development to the north of this property.
I'm going over this slide in a couple of presentations that we've had recently, but the history of
this project is that it is undeveloped land.
In the Denton plan 2030, the future land use designation was all rural areas.
And then with a minor update of the Denton 2040 plan, we changed that to agricultural
flume and a low residential flume, which covers just a little bit of the northern half of
that westernmost tract there that you see there on the screen west of Golden Hill Drive.
The hickory growth municipal utility district does not include this lot, but it did call
out for future commercial on the subject property.
Just in terms of recent applications that we've seen related to that development and
sort of in line with how we've gotten here to this application this evening, the mud
was created in 2022, an amendment to the agreement to include some additional multi-family units
to the west of this subject property was approved in August 2024, and then some zoning changes
and entitlements have come before this body, as well as city council over the past couple
of months.
So that agriculture or that comprehensive plan amendment is that first part of the request.
Here to the left is the existing future land use designation, showing again that agriculture
and a little bit of that low residential to the north of that westernmost tract.
The proposed future land use designation would be regional mixed use, which would encompass
the entire subject area.
The area highlighted to that west there is the application that you guys considered a
little while ago, approved yesterday evening, I believe, for the regional mixed use future
land use designation.
So along this corridor we do see some more regional mixed use designation, and then to
the north we have that low residential that's being developed as a part of that mud.
The regional mixed use future land use designation is intended to apply to areas that serve as
regional destinations within Denton.
This does include residential, commercial, office entertainment, and other uses except
for industrial, at the highest level of scale and density within the city.
I just wanted to show this graph here to sort of show you where we have some of our clusters
of regional mixed use, particularly around the intersections of some of our major thoroughfares
being US 380 and I-35 north, as well as along just some of those major highway corridors.
And so this is the subject property here.
This would be sort of one more small cluster of regional mixed use.
We did put this request up against the criteria for approval and ultimately found that it
meets our criteria, specifically the regional planning and development trends that we see
in this area does reflect the need to plan for development of the area beyond agriculture.
Additionally, the request is compatible with existing and proposed development occurring
within the city and in the city's ETJ, providing for a land use and a retail or commercial
service that doesn't currently exist within this corridor.
And then finally, the regional mixed use is intended to encourage development at the highest
density along the major corridor, which is US 380.
Here you've seen this image before, just showing some of the regional development trends
that we've seen in the area.
This aerial imagery here to the left is from 2021, showing very little development in this
area.
This on the right is from 2025, showing some of those muds in the ETJ2 and the ETJ1 being
under construction with single family residential developments.
We had that case just to the west of the subject property come forward for a more moderate
density residential style developments and multifamily.
And then further east along that corridor, we've seen a significant increase in the amount
of industrial and warehouse uses.
So there's been jobs that's brought to the area.
There's been some rooftops that's been brought to this area.
And then of course, there's a sort of retail center on the east side of I-35.
So we are seeing that regional growth happening along the western edge of our city.
And this is in line with what we're seeing there.
With that, staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendments.
And that pretty much concludes my presentation on the comprehensive plan piece.
As for the zoning case, the current zoning is shown on the image to the left.
That is R2 for both subject properties.
And then the requested zoning change is two suburban corridor.
That is the image on the right.
A main difference within these districts is that R2 is a primary residential district.
And the SC district primarily allows for commercial land uses.
We did put this request up against our criteria for approval and found that it does meet our
criteria.
Currently, the proposal is intended to allow the property to develop according to the prior
approvals which anticipated future commercial for this property.
The proposal is also intended to allow development to be compatible with surrounding development
in the ETJ.
Generally, this is consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed future land use
map amendment that is before you this evening as well.
And then the regional growth trends that I talked about with the comprehensive plan amendment
again, indicates a need for some zoning that allows for commercial and retail services
within this area with all the growth that we're seeing out that way.
That suburban corridor district is intended to provide moderate to high-intensity commercial
office and retail uses along high-traffic corridors like US 380.
It's also intended to elevate building and landscape design, have buildings oriented towards
the street, and provide appropriate buffering for adjacent neighborhoods, which we do have
just adjacent to this site to the north.
The SC district isn't primarily auto-oriented, which is fitting for the US 380 corridor,
but is intended to also provide a safe environment for pedestrian and cyclists for future developments.
Just a little zoning district comparison.
So the column here is the R2 column.
That is the existing zoning and some of the standards that come with that.
Some of these two are some of the other zoning options and districts that we tossed around
to see if they would be a better fit in this area, and ultimately we landed on the SC.
The main differences that I want to point out to you is related to the building scale
and the permitted uses that are different within these two zoning districts, or across
these zoning districts, rather.
So in the R2 zoning districts, we have a max 40-foot building height, and the SC zoning
district, we have a max 55-foot building height.
The highway corridor districts, actually the Hickory Grove development agreement specifies
that properties that are adjacent along US 380 should be developed according to the highway
corridor development standards.
We ended up going with the suburban corridor zoning because of the scale that is slightly
more appropriate when adjacent to some of those single-family residential lots that
we see to the north.
Additionally, as far as uses go, the primary use for the existing zoning is residential
in agriculture versus the urban corridor.
The primary uses are commercial.
Specific use permits or multifamily residential could be allowed with specific use permits.
The applicant has stated that their intent is to develop the site with commercial, but
if that were to change and a greater residential density were to be proposed, that would, of
course, have to come before this body with a specific use permit.
So not to recapture too much on this slide, just to remind you of the history of this,
this was a future commercial was anticipated for the development of this property.
With both of these cases, we did send out notifications within property owners within
200-foot, 500-foot buffer, and we have received none in response, no responses as of the making
of this presentation.
With that, staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request in conjunction with
that comprehensive plan amendment request.
And this is just a reminder that these are two separate items, a comprehensive plan amendment
to change the future land use designation from agriculture and low residential future
land use designation to regional mixed use future land use designation, and then a separate
item is the zoning change to change the zoning from R2 to suburban corridor for both of
these properties.
That concludes my presentation.
I will happily take any questions that you have at this time, and the applicant is here
also if you have any questions for him.
Thank you.
At this time, I will open the public hearing for both of these items, which is CA 25-5
and Z25-22.
Any questions for staff at this time?
Not seeing any.
Thank you.
With that, I'll call the applicant.
He has a card, Mr. Thomas Future?
Future?
Fletcher.
I apparently am mistaking L's for U's, I apologize.
No worries.
Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you tonight.
Thomas Fletcher, 6161 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas.
I am the consultant for the applicant.
I just wanted to be available to answer questions, but I did want to share a couple of things.
We didn't have a neighborhood meeting, but we sent out letters to everyone within the
200 and the 500-foot notification distance.
The adjacent property owners, there's a couple of existing residences.
There's properties, undeveloped properties to the south that are undeveloped but are
proposed for future development.
Then we have the Hickory Grove Municipal Utility District, which is the residential development
that is currently under construction just to the north.
All of the homeowners within the notification are still owned by the home builders, and
there's really not an established HOA yet.
I did send out notifications, a letter that explained what we're doing, what we're proposing
along with the map that shows that I, at this time, have not gotten any.
I provided my phone number and my email, I haven't gotten any responses or any questions,
which looks like it's consistent with what the city staff has found as well.
When we did the overall project, this is not within the district boundaries of the mud,
but the original owner did purchase all the property and work to entitle it together,
so they did look at it as a master plan community.
With this portion of the project being along US 380, envision that as commercial land in
the future.
Now that the residential development has been developing and they're starting to get homeowners,
they're starting to get inquiries on the commercial, and now is the time that we wanted to go and
get the zoning in place to start working towards the vision of this complete master plan community
with retail services adjacent to the development.
When we did the preliminary plat for the overall development, we did include these tracks.
Those were shown.
We looked at and determined what utilities were going to be necessary to support the
developments when we did the water study for the overall development.
We looked at this as commercial, so from a utility perspective, that was taken into consideration.
When we did the traffic impact analysis as part of the preliminary plat, we looked at
this as commercial as well.
If this gets approved and we go forward with commercial, depending on the requirements
of the DDC, we may end up having to update traffic impact analysis for given users to
determine if any additional improvements are required.
As part of that TIA, there are provisions that we have to do as far as turn lanes and
some other improvements.
That has been factored in and is considered as part of this, but I appreciate your time
tonight.
I just wanted to be available in case there were questions that you had, and happy to
stand for any questions.
Any questions of the applicant?
I guess I have one.
If you don't know, that's fine.
I can check with staff, or maybe we just don't know yet, but the Thomas J. Egan Road that's
on the eastern side of this sort of parallels the Golden Hoof.
I said it, that's not Hope, Golden Hoof Drive, but they look fairly close to each other.
Are there future plans to expand the Thomas J. Egan, or is really the Golden Hoof the
main entrance to this area as well as the residential portion of the mud?
Golden Hoof is a secondary arterial on the mobility plan, so it will eventually get expanded.
Adjacent to our property, the first phases that we've developed, we have built our half
section of Thomas J. Egan.
We've widened that and we've added sidewalks, so if you look just to the north of where
this tract is, there is improvements to Thomas J. Egan that have been made.
With development of the commercial on the corner, there will also have to be improvements.
In our TIA, our phase five of our residential development, so if the commercial doesn't
develop prior to the portion of the residential that's at the southwest corner of Jackson
and Egan Road, if that residential develops first, they have to build a right turn lane
onto Egan and a right turn lane onto US 380.
That was identified in the TIA.
If the commercial develops first, then they have to do their perimeter road improvements,
but as part of the development, there will be additional improvements to Egan, and ultimately
Egan will be developed as a secondary arterial.
I believe I've got that correct as secondary and not primary.
Then Golden Hoof, part of the reason that it is closer to Egan at the intersection is
because Golden Hoof was an existing road at the connection of US 380, and because there's
existing residents that connect to that, when we were looking at what was appropriate for
the development, we wanted to maintain their access, so we connect there, but if you look
at the overall residential plan, it starts curving to the northwest and then connects
at Jackson, further away from Egan, so that there's more separation there.
Okay, thank you.
I don't see any more questions, thank you.
Thank you, appreciate your time.
This is a public hearing, so if anyone else would like to speak, you're more than welcome
to.
Not seeing anyone, I'll close the public hearing.
Open the floor for discussion.
Commissioner Ketcham said.
I motion to approve.
Commissioner Dyer?
I second that motion.
Okay.
Yes, yeah.
So I motion to approve Z25-0022.
Okay.
I think we want it in the opposite order.
I think we want the comprehensive plan amendment.
Can we make a motion on both items and vote on both items?
Okay.
Yeah.
So let's try that.
I think it'll just be cleaner, Commissioner Riggs, if we just go one by one.
Commissioner Ketcham said.
Okay, I motion to approve CA25-0005.
And Commissioner Dyer?
I second that motion to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the comprehensive
plan amendment.
Any discussion?
Yeah, I'll just say I have full faith in our staff to be able to apply our rules and regulations.
I have heartache about this entire corridor because I haven't heard people asking for
more of 380 east of town to happen west of town also.
I understand that that's not the way that quote unquote it's usually done in Texas.
And so it's a big rock to push upon.
You know, ultimately, I think the city has control over land use, and we don't have control
over a textile roadway.
And so when we're looking at safety implications and the future traffic flow, the only tool
we have is to influence the land use.
Not seeing any more questions?
Call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 5-1.
And I'll take a motion for the second hearing.
Commissioner Ketcham said.
I motion to approve the zoning change 0022.
And Commissioner Riggs?
I second.
Very good.
Any other questions or comments?
Not seeing any.
I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 5-1.
Thank you, sir.
That brings us to item 6A, planning and zoning commission project matrix.
Thank you, Chair.
So at our December meeting, we added several items to the matrix, which you should see
reflected in your backup, including upcoming discussions on the comprehensive plan, further
discussion on zoning and annexation, some updates on apartment vacancy levels, a request
to 380 study, explanation of the financial tool staff uses, and explanation on why various
departments don't attend all meetings.
So we've captured all of those.
And we'll continue to work through our matrix at future work sessions and upcoming meetings.
But happy to add any more if we would like, or yeah, further discussion.
Any items to add to the matrix from the commission?
I think that sounds like plenty for staff to get through.
Yeah.
It is a lot.
I do want to add something not urgent, but I think it's important to talk through this
as we get to the comprehensive plan in the future to the update.
And that is I think we need a continuation of the state bill discussion, specifically
on SB 840 from this previous session.
Thank you.
I think the commission would benefit from an understanding of not only what the current
status is, but what we expect to happen based on historical trends of how these bracketed
bills operate by 2030, and to give us a rational appreciation for what is coming so that we
can adjust to that beforehand instead of afterwards.
Not seeing any else.
Close that item.
And that brings us to item 7, concluding items.
Anyone have any concluding items?
Yep.
Wanted to give you all an update on some items that council considered at their meeting last
night that you all considered at your December meeting.
The ADU and town home amendments did pass.
Planning and Zoning Commission, you all had recommended approval of the amendments with
the modification that an additional ADU per lot could be added with an SUP and less within
a mile and a half of the downtown square district.
City council passed that with a modification.
So removing that mile and a half buffer, but you can get the additional ADU with an SUP.
So those passed yesterday.
As well as the Hickory Grove, the companion case that we saw last month, the comp plan
and the mobility plan passed last night.
The zoning case will be considered at the February 3rd meeting.
The Craver Estates Zoning District or Redistrict passed as well, so that was further north
closer to Lake Ray Roberts.
As well as the modular data center SUP and the special sign district for Hunter Ranch.
All of those were considered at their meeting last night and that's all I have.
Any other concluding items?
Seeing none, without objection, I will adjourn our meeting at 743 PM.
Thank you.