Planning & Zoning Commission - workshop

Thank you. you Bye. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome to the work session for the planning and zoning meeting of at 530 p.m. Hang on a second. I'm looking for my script. So I read these things the right way. Pardon me. Okay. It's now 5.30 p.m. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session of Tuesday, September 8th. April, has anyone signed up to speak on the work session agenda? Not April. I'm sorry, Claudia. My apologies.

Madam Chair, there's no one that's signed up to speak. Thanks.

A little muscle memory helps or cannot help. Thank you all very much for being here tonight. The purpose of our work session is to prepare commissioners on cases we have taken action on in the public hearing. You are welcome to provide comments during the work session, but also we encourage you to speak at the public hearing for your case. Before we get started on our individual items, Jocelyn has an announcement about some promotions within the planning department.

Yeah, of course we've had a lot of staff changes. We had three staff leave since April, so we've had people shifting around and trying new positions. We finally made those permanent in the last couple weeks. So Gina is now, instead of our acting planning manager, she's our planning manager. Haley is now a senior planner. And then, of course, Tanner's the planner. We've been moving positions around, but he's still the planner. And Abby is now formally a full-time member of our staff as a planner. So we're very excited to have everybody in their positions. And we're hiring for our last administrative specialist, which is kind of our frontline phone desk person. So we've been doing interviews. Hopefully we'll have somebody on board. So we're getting everything back into place. And just wanted to let you all know that we've got our team getting back together again.

Thank you. And we appreciate Claudia doing double duty on a lot of work in the middle of learning the ropes as well. Next agenda item is the report on the city council meeting decisions of August 27th. Does anyone have any questions about the council meeting from August 27th? Okay, great. We'll move on to the review of the public hearing items. So the first item on the agenda, we don't have anything to say about the consent agenda for approval or disapproval. That still remains the same.

Yes, it all remains the same.

Okay, great. Then the individual items, first one is Haley, you're up for 2026195ZC. All righty.

Right, like Chair said, Chair Debbie said, is 2026195CC. This is at 526 North MacArthur. The current zoning is SP2 for community commercial, and they're wanting to change it to SP2 for community commercial and two-family residential. After a staff review, the recommendation is for approval. In terms of public comment, there was none in support, and there was one in opposition. This is the aerial. future land use so the top part the top lot is main street downtown and then the south is compact neighborhood this is a zoning so you can see that they're both lots are under one site plan zoning and the surrounding to the south east and west it's that single family development and then you get more neighborhood commercial retail to the north These are the people that were notified. And then this is the protest map. So the letter of opposition came from right here. Their concerns were mostly with traffic and noise. And then this is the site plan. So how this is for the Southern for Tract 1 is what we're calling it, just for illustrative purposes. This is going to be the R3.5. Since this was originally zoned altogether, even though they have always been platted separately, there was a point in like the 70s or 80s when it was rezoned that this down here was going to be Oil changing or just additional to the to the car wash But it was never developed and then time goes on they sell it and then the person who bought this wants to do the duplex Well, you kind of notice and that's why they're postponed last time is that we realized since it is at SP1 We have to amend this site plan So basically had to get the owners approval of the car wash to be okay with amending their site plan We got that and that's why we're here today So really what this is to do is to kind of break this one because regardless of the zoning, if we don't amend this, then whoever owns this will have to be subject to if this owner is okay with it and they would have to do a rezoning anyway, no matter the use. Go to the next one. So this is subject property, so this is where the duplex is being proposed. This is kind of the track two, so the Mighty Fine Car Wash. And this is north of the subject property, south of the subject property, and then across the street. Let's see. And this is site plan, so any comments or questions?

Pretty straightforward, Haley. Thanks.

All right. Okay, moving on to Zoning Case 2026-220-ZC. Haley, this one's yours also.

All right, so this is at 502 North O'Connor. They're currently in SP1 for CC. They're wanting to continue with that same zoning. They're wanting to allow for the redevelopment of the existing restaurant. After staff review, we recommend approval. In terms of public comment, there was none in opposition or in support. So this is the aerial. So at the corner of Pioneer and North O'Connor. Future land use, what does that mean? Street downtown. Their zoning, mostly surrounded by CN, except for the south, is HCD. Property owners that were notified. And then this is their site plan. And I can go a little bit to this one. So since it was SP1, the changes that they were going to do, sometimes if it's within AA requirements, we can just do it administratively. But since they were Restriping parking and then really the extent the extension or the addition right here to the restaurant prevent them for being an AA So this is why you're seeing them today So what's kind of different is I guess you I think do those so it's the right is what is a initially approved years ago So this parking here was never developed. So that would bring it up to current conditions to show that it's just a drive-through lane. They have parking here. They're moving their dumpster. So it originally is here. Now they're doing it in the northeast corner of the lot. And then they're having an addition for a walk-in cooler. The addition, since it is not for seating, they are not having an increase in their parking. I believe they might be adding one space. So there's no variance required in the situation. It's just CC or SP to SP. So the subject property is to the north of it, to the shopping center and grocery store across the street and then south of them. open to any comments or questions.

I had a quick question. It's noted in the case notes about CIP requires new sidewalks and drainage. How does that work and

WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPER OR ANYTHING? THEY ALREADY HAVE AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT, I BELIEVE. BEFORE IT WOULD BE PASSED INSPECTION OR THEY WOULD GET ANOTHER CO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THE SIDEWALKS AND MAKE SURE THE DRAIN IS OKAY. BUT THAT'S MORE ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE.

So the city is going to be required to make those updates in conjunction with this case? They will make the updates. They'll pay for it.

But we will require them to do that, as far as I'm aware.

DEVELOPER PAY FOR IT.

I'M BRENDA WITH CIP. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHENEVER THE PERMIT We always request that the sidewalk is brought up to the standards, and it's just depending on the amount of improvements. So if it's maybe 51% above the DCAT value, then that's when we will go ahead and ask for those requirements. So it wouldn't be up to the city. Great. So the developer pays for it.

That's right. Thanks, Brenda. Any further questions, folks? Haley, this is yours, but the applicant has, the application's been withdrawn. So anything you want to say in advance or?

Not really, unless you guys have questions. As for an event center, there's a kind of, well, not kind of, there was a decent amount of opposition, kind of talking about the normal when it comes to event centers. They already have a They need a parking variance that was kind of large. There's apartments right next door. So residents, the owner of the apartment complex was unhappy. So after all that, they, at least in their letter that's in your update memo, talks about they're wanting to replant. So the parking variance isn't an issue. I did let them know that that's not really, in terms of citizen opinion, that's not why. That wasn't the only reason that they were opposed to it and they understand that so They at this point.

It's withdrawn as of Friday, so So it's withdrawn and and we do not have to take a motion on that I only just have to indicate that it's a case that's been withdrawn, okay? Thank you Abbie you're up for case 202 6-2 3 7-Z C

Okay. Can you hear me okay? Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. Abigail C. with the Planning Department. And I will be going over zoning case 2026-237-ZC at 4929 Montego Bay. And we will be going from Our 7.5 single family residential and state highway 161 overlay to SB2 to our 3.5 generalized site plan for two family residential and state highway 161 to add a duplex as a permitted use to the overlay district. Staff recommendation is denial. And as for public comment forms, there have been none in support, 14 letters in opposition, one letter of concern, and one petition with 95 signatures. And seven of these signatures were duplicates. So here's the aerial view of the map. I wanna give a little bit of background on this property. The subject property is approximately 0.27 acre lot that was developed as a single family house and due to damage from a fire within the past year, it was demolished in June of 2026. The applicant is requesting a zoning change to allow for the construction of a duplex. Here is the future land use of the map. As you can see, it's primarily traditional neighborhood. And then the surrounding zoning for the map, as you can see, it is primarily our 7.5 single family residential. To the west, we do have a zero lot line development and then more dense developments to the northeast, which were townhomes and smaller single family lots that were site planned. And then not only does it have the zoning of our 7.5 single family, it does have the overlay district as well, which it is in section 2B. And the overlay districts do provide additional uses and exclusions on top of the base zoning district. which also includes additional landscaping, parking, and design requirements. Because of the overlay, the duplex is not allowed by right or any density higher than single family without a site plan. And then here, this segues into the notification map. And because if this were to be zoned as a duplex for R3.5, it would be the only R3.5 zoned within the neighborhood. And because of this, we have received some correspondence from citizens surrounding this neighborhood. And again, as I said, we've received emails, phone calls, letters of opposition, and a petition. And the main concerns from this correspondence was that there's the potential tarnishing the character of the neighborhood. increased street traffic and the worry about having a rental in a single family owned neighborhood. The applicant did provide us with an exhibit showing a planned layout. And I wanna do stress that this is only for illustrative purposes only. And also just give you a definition for duplexes themselves, which are defined by the UDC as a detached building having two separate accommodations for two single family dwellings or occupied by two families. Going back to the letter of intent, the purpose for this duplex is for her to house her two sons, one of which is disabled, which I would imagine, one, they both can live in separate dwellings while one can take care of the other. With a duplex, the lot can be owned by one entity with each unit being rented to two different occupants or the tenant can live in one of the buildings while the other can be the tenant or in this scenario, two family members. And here is the illustrative site plan for the duplex itself. And I do, again, want to stress it is in compliance with the setbacks. And all departments, water, CIP, traffic, inspections, they had no objections to this plan. And then here is the subject property looking from the east from Montego Bay Drive. You can see that it has been demoed and funded out. The subject property looking south from Innisbrook Drive, it is a corner lot. south of the subject property on Montego Bay Drive, north of the subject property on Innisbrook Drive North, and west of the property on Montego Bay Drive. And then back to the site plan. And as for staff decision, the city would like to encourage infill development, increase housing options, and increase density, but only where it's appropriate. And due to the established character of this neighborhood single fit because the established character of this neighborhood is single-family we do recommend this case for denial and But that does anybody have any questions for me?

Jocelyn due to the aerial map and the notification map don't just create a supermajority situation Before last September the answer would have been yes but now because it creates an additional

residential unit. It's residential development. It has to hit a threshold of 60%, and even if it did, we'd still be at a majority vote. So no, it will not trigger supermajority at council.

Okay.

Any other questions for me at this time? Well, thank you, everybody.

Thanks, Abby. Abraham, you have 2026-245-ZC.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Abraham Soria with the Planning Department. This is Sunning Case 2026245ZZ, located at 324 North Nursery Road. The property contains approximately 7.5 acres. Excuse me. The current zoning is SP2 for ML20 uses. The applicant is requesting to maintain the same zoning while amending the existing site plan to modify the outdoor storage and screening requirements along North Nursery Road and Malmy Road. After review, staff recommends approval. We have received no public comment forms in support or opposition.

This is the aerial view of the property.

The future land use map, which is a manufacturing warehouse. This is the current zoning map. Properties to the north are zone ML20 and SP1 for ML20 uses. Properties to the east are zone SP2 for ML28 uses. To the east, the zoning is primarily residential and the DFW rail train corridor is located to the south. This is the notification map. Excuse me. This is the site plan, and the existing approved site plan allows ML20 uses, including the manufacturing of weatherproofing materials, building materials, and related products. It also allows a seven-foot front yard along North Nursery Road. There are three outdoor storage areas shown on the plan. The western storage area would allow outdoor storage to a maximum height of 9 feet. This area is set back from North Nursery Road and will be screened by a solid screen fence or wall with a maximum height of 10 feet. The central and eastern storage areas would allow outdoor storage to a maximum height of 14 feet. These areas will be located behind the existing eight-foot-tall concrete wall along Malby Road. The existing tree line along Malby Road would remain. If the tree lines become compromised, the plan requires replacement screening consisting of red tip, and eastern red setters. The proposed site plan also prohibits direct vehicular access to or from Malby Road. All other requirements of the existing approved site plan will remain in effect. This photograph shows the existing building on the eastern portion of the property along North Street Road. This picture shows the paved outdoor area on the property. And this photograph shows the existing concrete wall and the tree line along Malby Road. Oops. There you are. And again, this is a site plan, and just to summarize it, Sorry about that. The existing plan, again, allows ML20 uses, including the manufacturing of waterproofing materials, building materials, and related products. It also allows a seven-foot front yard along North North City Road. The proposed amendment adds three outdoor storage areas. The western area allows storage up to nine feet in height. with a solid fence up to 10 feet in height. The central and in-store areas allow storage up to 14 feet behind the existing eight-foot concrete wall and tree line along Mulvey Road. Again, the staff recommends approval. With that, I conclude my presentation and available for any questions you may have.

On the outside storage, it says up to 14 foot high. What are they planning on storing there? Let's see, I believe there were... Because that's five foot above the nine foot requirement.

Correct.

Because we're normally one foot under the fence.

So the owner had proposed a few different uses. The use that is identifying that 14 foot is a, I think they lease out like HVAC units. Some of those units might be stored on the ground. The 14 feet is because some of them might be stored on a flatbed trailer. So that's where that number came from.

Depending upon the size of it and stuff like that.

Right, right. But this is not being zoned for that user because those are just a tenant. So any future user could be up to 14 feet. So we're not zoning because as they actually had on the original site plan, HVAC units on trailers. It's like that's not, unless they are the owner, that they don't want to get confined to that specific unit. use being stored outside.

My thing is, is that if you stack it up that tall, I mean, you get a shingle company in there, for instance, says, oh, we can go 14 feet. You got six feet of shingles you're seeing everywhere, all the way across.

And that's what the vegetation is supposed to grow up tall enough where it will extend that screening. But that's their request. It's your prerogative to deal with.

That's on the backside, right? Yes. All the way around it.

No, that's just on the backside.

Just on the backside. This area right here. Okay.

Yeah, following up on that, on the front, is it still going to be the chain link fence? So what are they going to have to put in there?

So on Nursery Road, they're proposing a fence, a solid fence or a wall. They didn't really specify what they're going to do, but there will be later on in the public hearing.

And how tall would that need to be?

Maximum of 10 feet. And the reason being is because they're going to storage this area as high as nine feet.

I'll admit I'm kind of more interested in the minimum.

My minimum is, I believe, seven feet, but the maximum will be ten.

Because a lot of times you have variations. I mean, in terms of the issue about seeing all of the stuff that's being stored there, the higher the fence is. the less apparent it would be, obviously.

And the requirement is anything that is stored has to be one foot below the fence.

Okay, so they would still be subject to that?

Yes. So if they have a seven-foot fence, they can only store to six feet.

Well, then how can they get up to 14 feet if they can only get up to a 10-foot fence?

Well, it's further in the back. That's the way we're looking at it.

But as to that front storage, sort of bottom front storage area, they wouldn't be able to get up to 14 feet?

Correct.

Okay, so the idea would be whatever fencing they have the new fencing that they're going to have to put in, it is going to make it where you can't see whatever it is they're storing.

That's correct.

They would still have to follow the one-foot rule.

Okay.

I'm taxing everybody's memory on this, but when we had... Mike Randall? Marvin Randall's son? Is it Mike? Randy. Yeah, when he did his building and there was some discussion about heights of walls against single-family homes. Does anybody remember what the height of that was? Did we make a variance on that?

I thought it was 8 feet.

Yeah, I feel like 14 feet is really extreme. Even if there is screening there with trees and a stone fence or cement fence.

I can understand what she's saying as far as if you've got a big chiller unit. I mean, some of them things are eight, nine foot tall. You're bringing them on a four foot tall, four and a half foot tall trailer, you'd be 12 or 13 feet. But I think it should be more site-specific as far as the business goes and not just a blanket where... Because we had the issue with the pallet company behind Cost Plus, the same issue. I mean, they were in an industrial area, and they had the same issue as far as the height of the pallets.

And you could add to the site plan not to include the storage of, you know, waste, asphalt, or, you know, you could not to include piles, you know, only we'd have to figure out how to word that. You may want to postpone it. We could work with the applicant if that's what you want to do. But we could try to narrow down a little more of what could be stored outside, e.g. not having stacks of things, piles of things.

Yeah, I just think leaving it open. I'm glad to see something's being done with it. The thing's been vacant for a long time. So I just think the height and you see all the trees now. Everybody sees the growth. That's fine. But if you go down Maltby in the wintertime, them are all sticks. So you're going to see everything that's above that fence in the winter months because all them leaves fall and that's just pretty much all branches at that point.

So related to that, I guess I'm trying to gauge the likelihood that that screen is really going to be maintained. I looked up, it looks like eastern red cedar And then the requirement for replacement, I think, is four inches in caliper. And so you have an idea how tall a four-inch caliper tree would be?

It would be a guess, so I don't want to. And it depends on the species, yeah.

Yeah, so it's, I mean, as it gets, like Ricky says, in the winter, it's already going to be see-through. And then I guess I'm a little skeptical that, it's going to be replaced timely. And then even when it is, it's not going to block the 14 feet for some time.

I mean, looking at it from a standpoint, I can understand it. Like if you had like a crane company or something like that, they're going to be, your equipment is going to be taller. Definitely. I just don't know about, I can understand equipment because equipment moves. but I can't really understand just outside just laid storage, you know, that height at all times. If something's there and it moves and it's in and out, I could agree to something like that. I just don't know about laid down storage.

And the applicant will be here tonight, so maybe there is some offering they have to limit to equipment, to construction, you know, I don't know if they want materials per se because that sometimes can be too open as well. but see if they have something that can narrow down what types of items will be stored here and if that swages any of your concerns.

And going back to what Debbie said, that last one we did up there by the railroad tracks for the Irving countertop, I mean, they were having trusses and they were just going to stack trusses up and we still made them drop down below the fence level. far as I saw material, and they're moving it in and out consistently.

And we had that conversation with them, and it was a matter of a lease for this specific tenant. I don't know if this tenant is even under a lease yet. That would be a question. Even if they are leases and tenants move on, that's just the way it is. But this tenant needed that height in order to come on this site. There were tenants B and C kind of behind it. They had different options for tenants, but we said if you want this tenant, this is what we'd have to do.

How tall is the cement wall?

Eight feet.

Any other questions, folks? Okay. I'm sorry. There is one question. I just noted that drainage, CIP, Brenda, the drainage has to be updated and upgraded as well when the tenant comes in. So who covers that? The developer?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Jocelyn, I guess you're going to do the UDC requirements for rooming houses and related uses. Yes, ma'am.

So last month, August 17th, at our work session, we ran through this with you to introduce what the proposal was. So this is the request for a recommendation from the P&Z for the City Council. This is scheduled for this week's hearing, so September 10th. So on Thursday, this is on the agenda for City Council. So staff started looking at the rooming house definitions because the City Council is receiving complaints to the code compliance staff who was working on enforcing rooming houses. Most of these that, or all of these that are being found are in single family homes. Rooming houses today are not allowed by right in single family homes and after this amendment they will not be allowed by right in single family homes. So the purpose of this UDC update is just to make sure that as they enforce rooming houses in those single-family areas, that code compliance has other ground very solid underneath them. I want to also mention that Shane Diller, our code director, is here. So if you have any questions, he's happy to answer them. So a rooming house is the separate leasing or agreement to use individual rooms. So the tenants will have a bedroom, typically have their own lock on their bedroom. They typically share a kitchen and bathrooms and maybe a living area, but they do not live as a single housekeeping unit. They may or may not know each other, but they are just leasing those individual rooms. Rooming houses today are considered a form of multifamily use and are allowed only by right in the RXF residential extra family district. We only have a very small handful of those. I've got a slide in here. In August, y'all had asked where those were, and so we did provide those. And so a rooming house would need to rezone to the RXF district if they wanted to operate in any district. So the complaints that the city staff and city council has been receiving have been mostly about crash pads and pad splits. Of course, we're so close to the airport, often we'll see the flight attendants, sometimes the pilots may be needing a place to stay for a little while. But there's also, it provides an affordable residential home, residential unit when people, maybe they can't afford a full apartment on their own. We have Chapter 8A, which regulates boarding home facilities. These are specifically for disabled and elderly persons who do not need personal care. A rooming house also does not include a residential assisted living or a community home that are licensed by the state. So those are all very specific according to the state. A rooming house is not licensed. It's not regulated by the state. It is simply a residential structure. So the amendments that are in your packet today is to revise the use of rooming house to read as a rooming lodging house, trying to modernize that a little bit. Delete the use of boarding house in order to remove some complexity or confusion. And revise the use of boarding homes for the disabled in the land use chart to read as boarding home facility. And that matches up with Chapter 8A, which again is for elderly and disabled persons. And also amending the RXF multifamily district to remove the boarding house use. And we don't need those minor adjustments for accessory uses we found. We are setting a parking requirement of one space per bedroom, which is consistent with state law for multifamily use. Also, many definitions of the boarding homes for the disabled to, again, match up to Chapter 8A for a boarding home facility. Delete the definition of boarding house and revise the definition of rooming house to read rooming house and lodging house. And then this is just phase one. If council asks staff to proceed, then we would look into, since it is more of a multifamily use, considering maybe allowing these in the multifamily districts. They are not to be opened up in any other district but multifamily, so looking at that as an option and creating development standards, which are consistent with the rooming house, lodging houses, And then code would also prepare parallel amendments to create a licensing and inspection process similar to what they currently put together for the short-term rentals. So if we have rooming houses out there, then that would enable them to keep a closer tab on who's out there, who's operating, who to call, and just be able to know where they are in the city. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, sounds good. Thank you.

Yeah, let's start. When's phase two?

So the phase two would be if council wants us to, to allow them by right in the multifamily districts as a multifamily use and then set development standards for them. Code will probably already do a licensing inspection process. But again, we don't have that many. I thought I had the map in here. It may have been another version. But we only have a handful. I think two of them are single family. I think I emailed that to you all after the meeting. One is a church. One of them is an assisted living, a big institutional assisted living. One of them I think is outdoor storage. So we have no legal rooming houses in our except districts today. Any rooming houses we have are not legal rooming houses.

So for those that have been reported as rooming houses, then co-compliance can go in and eliminate those. And they can today.

Or they cannot today. They can today. So they're doing it today. We're just trying to make it a little bit cleaner.

Well, we appreciate it. I know it's a yeoman's job. Okay, that's the end of the review of the public hearing items. I just wanted to spend a minute talking about the data center tour, if you all liked it, if you, you know, was it helpful to you. Any comments or questions about the tour?

I thought it was good. I'm glad that the city and the data center hosted us and provided us that opportunity. I think we'll see more of those applications. I certainly benefited from seeing just, you know, firsthand how they are designed, and especially with all the terminology that we hear. So I was glad we did it.

Yeah, I really appreciate that. It came as a result of our relationship with economic development. And I know that there were some questions about why we weren't invited to the meeting and lunch with economic development. But those folks who were at that second tour for the lunch, those folks pay dearly to be part of the economic development group. committee or board or whatever it is. So, you know, they were there as a result of a relationship, formal relationship that they have with the Economic Development and the Chamber of Commerce. If you have any questions about membership and want to be included in those kinds of things in the future, all you need to do is pick up the phone. Beth Bowman said she'd be happy to talk with you about what's required, how that how that works. Beth is hard to reach, but if you do have any questions about Chamber membership and want to be included in those kinds of events, then I would encourage you to either talk to Beth or to membership at the Chamber, and they'll cover that with you. Okay? All right, folks, that's the end of that. Future agenda items, Jocelyn and I are looking at the November 18th, excuse me, November 16th, which will be our last quarterly workshop education for sure. If not before that, you'll hear the results of the Verdunity Consulting Project, which I think is incredibly valuable, and certainly from what I understand from Jocelyn, that information will Once it gets formalized will be a Correct me if I'm wrong an item in our case notes so that we would have additional information about you know what the city's on Responsibilities are for some of these large projects that we get from an economic development standpoint So I'm really pleased about that right now. What we get is all about variances and and history so having I think some financial information included in the case notes is can be helpful to us when we go to make decisions on variances. Does anybody have any other ideas for the November workshop? Or you want to leave it up to Jocelyn and me? I just want to make it interesting and worth everyone's time. I hate for it to be a waste of time for people. But if something comes up, feel free to ping Jocelyn or me. Go ahead. I have a feeling I know what you want. I know what Terry wants.

Can I just say one thing before we conclude?

Yeah, you bet.

Oh, just real quick. I noticed in the material, I just wanted to thank staff. I think it's relatively recent. I saw the color coding for when there's an opposition or some comment in the mapping, and I found that very helpful. So I appreciate that.

Are you talking about that on the notification map?

Yeah, so like the case El Montego Bay Drive, yes, because that notification map is what we have to pay attention to when it comes to public opposition. We like to hear from everybody, but the notification map is what's required by the state. All right, with that, we are concluded at 6.12. I apologize that we don't have more to talk about, but enjoy your time, and we'll see you out in the public hearing room at 7 p.m.