All right.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the Urban Design Commission meeting for Thursday, February 19th, 2026.

The Urban Design Commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting.

The following members are present today.

Commissioner Benner, Commissioner Carr, Commissioner DeBose, Commissioner Halliday, Chair Harper, Commissioner Hughes, Commissioner Moss, Commissioner Ramsey, and Commissioner Reed.

Did I miss anyone?

Nope.

All right.

Staff present today are Ana Alvarez, Andres Hernandez, Jefferson Prado Ortiz, Laura Young, Brandon Uderback, Chris Austria, and myself, Joseph Floss.

Today's meeting agenda in Docker can be found online at WW.fortworth Texas.gov.

Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting.

Attendees can sign up to speak by completing the paper form or scanning the QR code outside on the room doors.

Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website.

To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the UDC requests that the following rules of procedure be respected.

Number one, each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair.

Number two, all ensuing dialogue shall be directed only to the UDC.

Number three, after staff presentation, the applicant and any other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak.

Opposition may then speak for seven minutes.

Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chair's sole discretion and approval.

All other meeting procedures will adhere to UDC adopted rules of procedure to the extent practicable.

Number five, following the official close of each case hearing, the UDC will remain an open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question.

During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair.

Number six, a closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable UDC to receive advice from legal staff.

For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department by calling 817-392-8000.

Thank you for your attention today, and welcome to the Fort Worth Urban Design Commission meeting for February 19th.

Madam Chair, will you please call the meeting to order?

Thank you, Joe.

Okay.

And our do we have any recusals today that we know of?

I have one.

I forget the case number.

That's okay.

I guess if we're not leaving early, we'll probably be okay.

I just want to make sure we had quorum.

Odd one.

I'll announce it when it comes up.

Okay.

All right.

That's all I have.

All right.

We'll go to announcements first.

Uh any announcements from the commission.

All right.

We do have a couple of staff announcements as well.

All right.

So uh some of you may have seen the news.

One of our partner organizations, near South Side is uh undergoing a leadership transition.

We do a lot of work with the Near South Side Inc.

Um, their partners with us on the form based code.

They do a lot of great development work within the near Southside, and they've really set the standard across the whole city for urban redevelopment, uh working with developers, working with businesses, working with the community, balancing all of that with historic preservation.

They're a great organization, and I think everyone kind of looks to them as a success story for for the city of Fort Worth as a whole.

So, as you may have heard in the news, the near Southside president Mike Brennan is moving on to Trinity Metro.

They've stolen him from Near South Side Inc.

So we wanted to first off uh bring Mike up and thank him for his years of service to Near Southside in the city.

Uh Mike spent about seven years working for the city of Fort Worth, and then he went to work for Near South Side Inc., where he developed the uh form-based code there, helped establish the Urban Design Commission, and has been an integral part of city development.

He's also served on several city boards, including Trinity Metro, some TIFF boards as well.

So there's few people in the city who have done more to shape the city of Fort Worth than Mike Brennan.

And also just from the staff perspective, he's been uh a great leader and role model that we all kind of look up to and admire on a personal and professional basis.

So, given that I want to bring Mike up.

I know he's gonna say a few words, and we have a little certificate for him as well.

All right.

I I promised Joe I wouldn't recap the last 18 years since the code was adopted.

So I'm just gonna say a few things.

First, thank you to the commission and to staff, um, your predecessors, all of you still working on the commission today.

Um the code that was adopted, gosh, 18 years ago last month, established this commission, and at that time we were the only district that the Urban Design Commission really was focused on because the others had not yet come together.

Now we know that your your workload has increased significantly, and you're not doing this for any paycheck or anything.

You're doing this for the commitment to the city and to our districts.

And so really appreciate that.

We're very fortunate to have such professional staff as partners.

The second thing I want to say is how great I feel and really the entire Near South Side community feels about this transition, and that Megan Henderson is the obvious choice.

I've worked with her for the last 13 years.

She is really the driving force behind so much of the progress in the Near South Side, and she will continue to do that.

And so I look forward to y'all getting to know Megan.

And we're likely to be bringing on another staff member that you'll begin to work with along with Austin James, who you know well.

So feel great about that partnership.

And then third point, and uh I always take an opportunity when I can remind the the commission about the collaborative nature of our of our partnership.

Um we are uh economic and community development organization that is working through a contract with the city to administer the TIFF district, which is uh property taxes from the district so that we can direct those in a way that promotes private investment.

So it's really a public-private partnership.

We I remember that a former commissioner would sometimes call us a neighborhood association, and we we'd bite our tongue a little bit because that wasn't that wasn't the extent of our collaboration.

So we really feel we are an extension of the city staff working directly on behalf of the economic development, development services, and other departments to get great projects built.

And not all of the projects comply with all of the the provisions of the code, and that's by design.

That's why the commission was created to allow that flexible review and for us to continue to be on the front lines of that review.

So that we have a design review committee.

Um, we've got folks that are stakeholders in the district that are part of that review process, and we're always confident that when we get up here and we have reviewed a project and and we're uh advocating for some some flexibility or waivers and so forth.

We are confident that considering all circumstances, that's a good outcome for the for the district, and we always want to make sure that that's the um the position and the relationship that all of y'all are familiar with because I know that there's rotation on on the on the commission regularly, and we just want to take those opportunities to remind folks of our unique situation there.

Again, thank you so much.

I I want to give Megan a chance to just say hi because she's gonna be the face of the organization moving forward, and I know that she'll do a great job in this role.

So if you don't mind.

Yes, that's why.

Yes.

Hello, everyone.

I just wanted to say thank you so much.

Obviously, this is a big moment for our organization, and we are really honored to sustain and continue the great partnership we have with this important body.

There's an old adage about never meeting your heroes, and let me tell you, I think that that one is actually right, but not in the way you might assume.

You should work with your heroes, don't just meet them, get entrenched with them.

I'm so fortunate for the last 13 years of being a near Southside Inc.

employee and for 20 years in total of being aware of Mike's incredible role as a leader in the development community and serving our Near South Side community.

So I'm standing in the shadows of Giants today, and I have obviously a lot to learn, but I am ready to rise to the occasion.

Really grateful for the important work that you um pursue and that we pursue on behalf of you as a partner to this institution.

So thank you very much.

Thank you to Mike for his incredible leadership for the last 20 years at Near Southside Inc.

It's really extraordinary to be celebrated.

And we remain a committed partner to you working on your behalf every day.

So thank you for your service to our organization and community and the cases that you review.

We appreciate it.

Thank you, Joe, and to the city staff as well, who we work with so closely.

We're really proud partners of yours as well.

And it has been a great privilege to have Mike share in a leadership capacity what these relationships are and what they can be for the future.

And I'm really proud to work with all of you.

Thank you.

So, yeah, that's the new the new Mike.

Um like Mike mentioned to you, they are also in the process of hiring a TIFF administrator and redevelopment director to you.

And once that person comes on board, I'll make sure to introduce them to the commission.

That person and then Austin James, too.

Probably who you all see most in front of the the UDC during the presentations, but you will probably certainly see Megan as well.

So cool.

Uh one other quick announcement.

Uh the commissioners may have seen this on the agenda.

We're in the process of adjusting some of our agenda request language a little bit, um, changing some pretty small words just to clean it up.

And the context for this for the commissioners is that in addition to the requests that get put on the agenda too, the way we issue COAs has some language from that.

So we're just trying to create some consistency.

So starting this month, we transition to slightly modified agenda request language where we're requesting certificate of appropriateness COA for a project with stated waivers, and then the it will kind of follow for those stated waivers from each form based code.

So we're going to probably experience a little bit of growing pains with some of the motion language and stuff over the next few months, but it's really just to align it to make sure it's consistent with what gets presented in front of UDC, our recommendation, and the COAs.

That's all staff has for announcements.

Okay, do we want to approve the January meeting minutes?

Has everybody had a chance to review them?

Move approval.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We have a motion from Commissioner DeBose and a second from Commissioner Ramsey.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Motion passes 100.

So uh first off, we have a continued case from last month.

Your continued cases UDC 2025 306 for 8744 Camp Bowie West Boulevard.

The request is for a certificate of appropriateness in for the new construction of an auto-related service building for Take 5 oil with following waivers from the Camp Bowie revitalization code.

Waiver to allow a zero foot building frontage within the first 25 feet of the build two zone at the corner of Camp Bowie West Boulevard and Portales Drive, which is less than the required 25 feet for corner lots, and a waiver to provide a three-foot high street screen along Camp Bowie West Boulevard and Portales Drive, where a four-foot high street street screen is required.

So the case background, the project area is an approximately 0.51 acre lot located on the northeast corner of Camp Bowie Boulevard for an uh next to an arterial road controlled by Text Dot and Portales Drive, a local road controlled by the city of Fort Worth.

City records indicate the previous use was for auto sales.

The existing building will be demolished and a new building constructed.

The proposed project is a take five oil change service.

The proposed auto-related use auto service is allowed by right under the properties CBWB zoning, which is Western Business.

On July 20 21st, 2025, the applicant met with city staff during a predevelopment conference to learn more about the city's development policies and procedures and address site specific issues.

On January 15th, 2026, the Urban Design Commission granted continuance for the February UDC hearing, which takes uh which is today.

Under our findings and recommendations, the applicant the applicant is requesting waivers from the Camp Bowie revitalization code for development standards along Camp Bowie West Boulevard and Portales Drive, including allowing zero building frontage within the corner build two zone and reducing the required height of street screening.

For building frontage, uh the Camp Bowie standards for the Western Business District require 25% of the building footprint of new construction along the boulevard for a local street to fall within the Bill 2 zone, which in this district is between 10 feet and 25 uh I'm sorry, 10 feet and 75 feet back from the property line.

75 feet is also the maximum build set building setback from either street type permitted in this district.

Finally, for developments located on a corner lot, additional conditions apply.

And the code mandates that corner building street facades should be built to the BTZ for a minimum of 25 feet from the corner along both streets.

The proposed building does does not meet the building's frontage requirements as zero feet of its frontage uh are located within the BTC on Campoy West and Portales.

The proposed use significantly impacts the capability for these standards to be met along Camp Bowie West Boulevard with the drive aisle for vehicles exiting the building.

In reviewing the plat for the property, staff discovered a 25-foot plated build line that runs parallel to Portales Drive.

So the building may not be built any closer than the 25 feet without a replat of the property.

Therefore, this waiver is supportable.

Under the street screen requirement, the Camboy standards require that any frontage not occupied by a building within the build two zone be screened by a four-foot high street screen with uh service area screened for uh sorry with service area screened to the height of the equipment.

Street screens must be constructed of matching building materials, masonry, or approved living planting selected from the city's planting list and must be installed along the setback line of the applicable street frontage.

For this development, a street screen is required along Camp Bowie and Portales.

The applicant is showing living plantings within the setback.

The waiver requested is to reduce the height of the street screen from four feet to three feet, which staff have supported on other projects.

Overall site development.

The project complies with several of the Camp Boy revitalization code standards that include building placement setbacks, parking location, building height, and architectural design.

The two existing driveway entrances on Camp Bowie West Boulevard have been removed from the uh project proposal as recommended by Text Dot, and it appears the property will have shared access to the adjacent properties driveway entrance on Camp Bowie.

The existing driveway entrance on Portales Drive will also be relocated further north.

There are existing sidewalks along Portales Drive and Campoe West Boulevard.

However, the dimensions should be noted on the site plan.

Regarding landscaping, street trees, and pedestrian scale lighting along both frontages.

The applicant has started the application process with the city's small scale infrastructure program and is working with staff to meet the standards in the code.

The developer is proposing trees along the property boundaries where street trees may not be feasible along Camp Bowie.

Given the above, staff recommend the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of an auto-related service building for Take 5 oil with the following waivers from the Camp Bowie revitalization code for waiver to allow a zero-foot building frontage within the first 25 feet of the Bill II zone at the corner of Campoe West Boulevard and Portales Drive, and a waiver to provide a three-foot high street screen along Camp Bowie West Boulevard and Portales Drive be approved.

This concludes the staff report.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff?

Would the applicant like to speak?

But only if she needs to.

Is there anybody here to speak against?

You all received a letter from Campbell District Inc.

Okay.

I think we can close the public portion and just have discussion by the board.

When we saw this case previously, there was another waiver attached to it that had to do with pedestrian entrance and how that was oriented with the street.

Looks like they took care of that.

I do believe both of these waivers we were pretty supportive of previously.

So I don't have a problem with either one of them.

Same very good that they made the adjustment.

Work with staff.

I'm inclined to agree.

So we want to make a motion.

Commissioner Benner moves to approve the staff recommendation for uh approval of waiver for both.

Commissioner Carl's second.

We have a motion and a second.

Chair Harper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBoes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 100.

Your new cases.

UDC 2026 012 for 307 West Exchange Avenue.

The request is a request a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council to vacate the alley between West Exchange Avenue to Northwest 24th Street and North Houston Street within the exchange subdivision block 18.

Just some case background.

Sorry.

So just some history on the site.

This is part of the stockyards historic and farm based code district, and portions of it are also part of the so it's historic core and then all uh sorry, historic shop front, and then also part of the transition and the edge districts.

Um the code itself was approved in 2017, and it's gone through a zoning update to include it into the shop front on the northern um portion of it.

Um on December 30th, 2025, the applicant applied for a vacation under VA 25030 for the existing alleys within the exchange subdivision block 18.

Under staff's uh findings and recommendations, the applicant is seeking a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council to vacate the alley between West Exchange Avenue to Northwest 24th Street and North Houston Street within the exchange subdivision block 18.

The properties within this block include vacant lots, surface parking, a vacant building that was used as a church and a commercial structure at the southwest corner of West Exchange and North Houston Street, currently undergoing renovations.

Existing sidewalks on ex on exchange continue the historic pedestrian circulate circulation patterns and views into the historic core and the auto-related circulation patterns that were established by the commercial activity in the area exists today.

The right-of-way vacation on this exhibit three identifies a portion of the alley that was vacated by city ordinance number 664 in 1973.

That north-south segment was originally 20 feet wide and resulted in uh the remaining approximately 10 foot wide strip that is being requested as part of this application.

The vacation of the remainder of an unimproved alley in the sorry in the exchange subdivision, block 18, between West Exchange Avenue to Northwest 24th Street and North Houston Street does not represent an interruption of traffic patterns and circulation and will facilitate the future redevelopment of the site.

The unimproved alley network that extends south of 24th Street and north of West Exchange will remain generally unaffected by this vacation.

The applicant will continue to work with infrastructure review staff to identify and relocate any existing infrastructure that may still be within the alley right away.

Therefore, the vacation is supportable.

Given the above, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a recommendation to the City Plan Commission and City Council on the vacation of the alley between West Exchange Avenue to Northwest 24th Street and North Houston Street be approved.

This concludes the staff report.

Thank you.

Um do you all have any questions for staff?

Just for context, um boatman's yacht club.

You all remember that case.

That is the corner.

Yeah, so kind of give you an idea of where we are.

Um okay, is the applicant here to speak?

Hi, welcome.

Can you state your name in the city in which you reside?

Sure.

Good morning.

Phil Worgesee with Tignal Perkins, uh, reside in North Washington Hills.

I'm here representing the owner, Billy Newby with Wayne Equities and staff has done a very good presentation in terms of what we're requesting, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Have you spoke with Mr.

Kidwell about the vacation?

He's the gentleman that owns the property on the corner.

On the northeast corner.

On yes.

Yes, he's also in favor of the right-of-way vacation and his signatures on the application as well.

Okay.

That was really the only question I had.

Um that's correct.

Okay.

One one note for the commission too.

I'm not sure if this is on.

Uh in the CPC process, that's the that process was requires all adjoining property owners to sign a portion of the application.

So beyond that, they all have to sign off on it too.

As long as Cable's anymore.

Yeah, I I thought there was a question.

I think they own the rest of it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, do y'all have any other questions?

Well, thank you for coming.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this case?

Anybody to speak against?

Okay, we'll close the public portion and have discussion by the board.

Seems pretty cut and dry if all the property owners are in support and it is not in use.

It doesn't look like an alley.

So looks like it still has to get approved by the plan commissioner city council.

So all we're saying, all I think we're doing is yeah, if you abandon this, it's okay.

We're saying we're good with approving the vacation, if that is the motion that we make.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Halliday I'll move for approval.

I'll second Commissioner Wade.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Chair Harper Chair Harper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 100.

Your next case is UDC 2026.

Or 3800 Horn Street.

The request is for a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of a multifamily development with the following waiver from the Camp Bowie revitalization code.

A waiver to reduce the first floor height, sorry, the first floor to floor height to 10 foot 4 inches, where a minimum of 15 feet for the first floor to floor height is required.

And a request uh they request a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to allow the construction of two multifamily buildings that would encroach into the required projected front yard on Bonnell Avenue, where the required minimum projected front yard setback is 20 feet, and the requested projected front yard setback is 10 feet.

Just some case background.

A small seafood restaurant across the street on Bonnell Avenue to the north, and a single family residence on the other side of Horn Street to the east.

On October 10th, 2024, the applicant met with city staff during a pre-development conference to learn more about the city's development policies, procedures, and address site specific issues.

And on February 4th, 2025, the applicant met again with the city with city staff during a second pre-development conference.

On September 29th, 2025, the certificate of appropriateness application was filed since the initial submittal, the applicant revised the plan significantly to reduce the number of waivers requested from four to one.

On December 18, 2025, the Urban Design Commission denied the waiver for the ground story floor height under UDC 2025-248.

This gave the applicant an opportunity and time to meet with the Como neighborhood before the next hearing.

And on January 26, 2026, the certificate of appropriateness application was filed with the same request for the ground story floor height under this application, UDC 2026 020.

A request for recommendation was added for the established front yard setback along Bonnell Avenue, which I'll explain further.

Under staff's findings and recommendations, the applicant is proposing to construct two three-story home style buildings with three dwelling units each, so six units total on four on four excuse me, on four platted lots located southwest of the intersection of Bonnell Avenue and Horn Street.

The four lots are narrow with 25 foot widths and 125 foot lengths or ground floor height.

The proposed buildings comply with the number of stories allowed in the transition district, which is uh three stories.

However, the first floor height is required to be a minimum of 15 feet.

And the applicant is requesting that the height for the first floor as measured from uh from floor to floor be allowed to be 10 feet four inches.

The applicant's team stated that a 15-foot height would cause a strain in the multifamily project by making the stairs to each upper story not work and likely reduce the number of units possible.

The first floor will have a two-car garage for each uh dwelling unit, which satisfies the parking requirements.

The required 15-foot first floor to floor height is intended to facilitate ground floor retail where you may see a retail shop along the first floor frontage and residential units on upper stories.

The Camp Bowie farm-based code also requires that areas between the building and the edge of the Bill II zone at the public sidewalk include a six-foot wide landscaping strip with street trees planted at 40 feet on center, except at street intersections where paving is up is optional up to 30 feet along the building facade.

It is worth noting that the code exempts this site from providing street trees 30 feet from 30 feet deep from the corner along each side due to corner visibility constraints, and there is also a requirement from the parks department under forestry, which requires the street tree uh the street trees.

So the remainder of the lot frontage along Horn along Horn Street is required to have street trees and uh landscape buffer.

The applicant submitted revisions showing the proposed street trees and pedestrian scale lighting.

However, the location and placement on both the site plan and landscape plans need further revisions.

The applicant intends to meet all other Camp Bowie code standards.

So for the established front yard setback, the neighborhood inquired about the front yard setback along Bonnell Avenue and what and whether the established front yard setback of the adjacent property would be maintained.

The zoning administrator determined that chapter six section 6.101 yards of the zoning ordinance applies in establishing the required front yard setback.

The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is necessary as the applicant requirement, sorry, is the applicable requirement is derived from the zoning ordinance.

The project proposes a minimum, I believe it's 10 feet.

10 feet uh at the location of the fire riser room, which consists of a small one-story projection on each building.

The primary building wall maintains a setback of approximately three 13 feet four inches.

The adjacent property zone CBTF also contains an existing residence with a front yard setback of 15 feet as measured to the front porch and 20 feet as measured to the primary front wall.

By providing a 15-foot setback from the Bono Avenue property, the proposed project would better respect the established front yard setback pattern of the neighborhood while still allowing adequate space at the rear of the site for a sidewalk.

I'll show you the aerial here.

So in conclusion, the new development as proposed is generally appropriate for the context location and is consistent with the intent of the CBTF subdistrict, which encourages the development of a wide range of retail office service and light industrial while also supporting uses that transition between the neighborhood commercial and adjacent neighborhoods and residential uses within the CBTF subdistrict.

Careful consideration of the setback along Vino Avenue is important.

And having regard to the above, staff recommends the following motions.

That the request for a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of a multifamily development with the following waivers from the Camp Bowie revitalization code for the waiver to reduce the first floor to floor height from 15 the required 15 feet to 10 feet 4 inches be denied.

That the request for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to allow the construction of two multifamily buildings that would encroach into the required front yard setback.

On Bonnell Avenue, reduce reducing the required minimum projected front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet be approved subject to any adjustments made to the drawings before a certificate of appropriateness issued.

This concludes the staff report.

Thank you.

Are we at my reading on our agenda?

The second waiver says to reduce from 20 feet to 10.

And on here it says 20 feet to 15.

So I just want to clarify which what are they requesting?

They're requesting 10 feet to leave it as is, but staff staff is suggesting 15.

That's okay.

And on Bonnell Avenue, what is, and you may have said it, the setback, like the build line on those other houses.

How what are they at?

So 5709 Bonnell Avenue's plans show 20 feet from their front wall, but 15 feet to their front porch.

Okay.

So it's a compromise of 15.

And for the purpose of the first waiver, a long horn, because it's a commercial.

I'm assuming that's why we have this particular guideline at 15 feet on the first floor is because of the expected commercial expansion along Horn.

Yes.

The preferred um commercial.

Okay.

On the previous two meetings that you had with the applicant, were they made aware of the 15-foot heights requirement for the first floor?

Yes.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes.

Good morning.

Please state your name in the city in which you reside.

Good morning.

It's uh Elliot Cleaver and I reside in Dallas, Texas.

Um I did bring a statement this morning to read, if you would like.

Uh, but I know the major concerns then were uh me meeting with the NAC, uh, which I have been in contact with them, um, as well as to bring back my architect, uh, which I have with me today as well to explain further why we would we were requesting to build below the 15 feet.

But like I said, I do have a statement if you guys would like me to read to kind of uh is your statement from the NAC or your architect.

Myself.

Oh, yeah, go for it.

Yeah.

Um just kind of explaining a little bit further while we're leading towards this.

Uh so dear members of the commission, uh, I appreciate your time and consideration regarding our request for a waiver to allow a first floor toward to floor height of 10 feet four inches, where the Camboy revitalization code requires a minimum of 15 feet.

Uh, it is important to recognize that this rebutalization plan has been in place uh in the Horn Street quarter specifically since 2020.

Uh, and since its adoption, there has been limited redevelopment activity along portions of the corridor.

Uh while the tent of the code is commendable and forward thinking particularly in encouraging commercial vitality and pedestrian activation.

Uh the 15-foot minimum first floor height appears primarily geared towards commercial commercial storefront construction.

Uh, however, the code also permits residential uses, including townhomes and multi-family developments.

Uh, for a purely residential building, a 10-foot floor to floor height is consistent with quality multi-family construction and allows for functional, well-designed living spaces without compromising structural integrity or livability.

Uh, I've now had the pleasure of spending time with my neighbors of the Lake Como community and the neighborhood advisory council uh since our last hearing with you all.

I truly believe that granting this waiver would not undermine the intent of the corridor plan and what the people of the neighborhood are wanting to see for the future of Como.

On the contrary, I do believe it would help activate a corridor that has seen relatively little vertical development, introducing additional residents into the area, support the long-term viability of walkable amenities, neighboring self-uh serving retail coffee shops and other small businesses.

Uh, for example, I mentioned new the near establishments uh such as La La Land Kind Coffee demonstrate that there is interest in neighborhood oriented gathering spaces, but sustained residential dentist density is necessary to support and expand these type of businesses within the corridor itself.

Uh residential development brings daily activity, pedestrian presence and economic support that can catalyze further investments.

This project is not inconsistent with the vision for Camp Bowie.

It aligns with the broader goal of creating a walkable, vibrant environment.

Uh increased residential presence contributes to the sidewalk activity, community engagement, and long-term reinvestment in areas where the redevelopment has been limited, flexibility can serve as a practical tool to encourage momentum rather than stall it.

Uh, we respectfully request consideration of this waiver in light of the residential nature of the project and the board and the broader revitalization objectives of the corridor.

We believe this development will contribute positively to the neighborhood's future and help move the corridor toward the vision originally intended.

Thank you for your thoughtful review and service.

Um, and then I should mention also that we did uh also try to uh kind of go through plans that were that included a commercial element, but I think either way, in order to um to make the project kind of move forward, to be honest, we would have to apply for a waiver either way, just with the requirements.

Because once you add the commercial element to the bottom floor, it changes the parking requirements.

Right now, as a residential building as it sits, we're required to build 1.5 spaces per unit.

Uh, but if we add the commercial element, it's about I think one parking space per 300 square feet, I think is the exact so.

So we literally would need a variation variance either way.

Thank you, Mr.

Cleaver.

Um regarding the setback along uh Bonnell Avenue at 15, is that something y'all think is feasible?

Um we're we're trying to work and I and I can bring Philip up who's my architect as well.

That was something that was honestly brought upon us within the last two weeks, and we've been kind of discussing these plans uh for about a year now.

Um, and to be honest, one thing I noticed that is in the code, and I mentioned this uh to Anna as well.

She's been doing a great job of working with us, by the way.

Um couple things actually, uh the first mention um of that we talk about was uh that it says in the code is the development standards not addressed in this ordinance shall be governed by the city of Fort Worth zoning ordinance to the extent they are not in conflict with the intent or text of the CBR code.

Um and I say here to me, this issue is the development standards were addressed.

Um, speaking of the setbacks, the setbacks are mentioned in the code um in the Camboy revitalization plan, it mentions that the setbacks are to be a minimum of five feet and a maximum of 10 feet in the code.

Uh so they were addressed, so I'm not really understanding uh whether confusion is there.

Also, the code also specifically states in 3.3 uh 3.13, the provisions of the CBR code when in conflict shall take precedence over those of other city or Fort Worth codes, ordinances, regulations, and standards as amended as amended except as noted herein.

Um so basically what I'm saying is if the code is to take precedent and the setbacks are mentioned, we should be using the code and not the zoning ordinance.

Um, which like I said, I'm I'm just trying to understand what it kind of comes where the setback discrepancy comes in because they're they're mentioning the code and it says that the code is to take presidence over any other zoning are.

And can we speak to that?

Or can we get clarification?

Unless our legal team would like to.

Okay.

So the way that it's been interpreted is that when you you see in the CBTF uh zoning that it's not mentioned, anything about uh the adjacent uh front yard setback being uh projected.

So anything that's not mentioned in this code, we can refer to the zoning ordinance for uh but that is correct.

Um keep in mind that these form-based codes they are adopted and incorporated into the zoning ordinance.

So they are bought, they are essentially the zoning ordinance, they are just a basically a different section of it that have their own unique design standards.

So absent of any specific or explicit um regulations, then you default to the base zoning that is provided.

And so uh that what what Ana said is is is accurate and correct.

But if there are projected front front yard setbacks, how could anything ever be built closer to a street uh in an existing neighborhood?

Um it to me that's in conflict conflict with a form-based code.

The form-based code is saying that these are the setbacks that were that we desire and the existing structures are in some ways like non-compliant with what the the new form-based code is is uh trying to achieve.

Now if if we're sorry.

Well, if you consider what uh CBTF allows, it's a 10-foot setback that's minimum, and then the requ the maximum is actually a little bit larger than that, it's 30 feet.

So it's within that range that that building can be, and it still comply with CBTF at 10 to 30, I believe so.

And he's asking for 10.

He's asking to be right at 10, yes, which is also allowed.

But that's still arbitrary because if the adjacent house was 25 feet setback, then you would say that we have to set this building back 25 feet from the corner.

So um the form-based code should be more prescriptive than that.

It should be like targeted, right?

So can I jump in here real quick?

So the the form-based code is silent on block face.

Block face is adjacent to residential structures, so you don't have a building put forward, and the the house loses the view down the street.

So since it's silent on block face in the form-based code, it refers back to the zoning which establishes that block face on existing conditions.

For that reason, not being able to have a building blocking the view and aligning with the block face.

That's why we go back to chapter six.

But if you think about great like retail streets, they they don't they address the corner uh if that's what the target is to develop if horn is going to be a great retail street, then we would develop and address the corner, and then the neighborhood behind sort of uh you know sets back.

Uh if I'm thinking about like uh fair amount, for example, in Magnolia, the buildings do address the corner and they're built to block corners, and then the residences that fall behind, you know, typically there's some sort of uh cross alley that then establishes a new uh front yard setback, or if we're thinking about Barrie University District and other form-based code.

Yes, so yeah, I I understand what you're saying, but Horn Street is where the form based code is intended on L Street as a neighborhood street that's the way it's we have to respect that block face.

And so this argument would be heard as Board of Adjustments.

In this drawing, um can you pull up a drawing that has kind of like looking down on the streetscape with Bon Ellen Horn?

There's that one, and there's one that's in color, but I think yeah, that one.

On this drawing with this proposed site plan, are we at 10 feet?

10 feet to that riser.

Okay.

And so there at the fire raiser closet.

That's 10 feet, but 13 four inches along the main wall.

So if I can I have a quote.

So I I think the the motion should consider leaving out any kind of specific setback and let them decide where that ends up going.

Um, because there's a little bit of interpretation there between the porch and actually the face of the building.

And I don't want that to muddy the waters, so maybe just a recommendation to consider the block face.

The board of adjustments would be a little bit more appropriate.

I have a question then roll down uh horn many, many, many, many, many times.

Barnett, it's it's it's not it's in the like in the middle of Horn and uh and Camboy and Vickery.

Uh I want to ask the question.

Legally have all the requirements been met to move forward.

With the exception of the waiver being requested and now the recommendation.

Everything else, yes.

Okay.

Essentially, if he didn't need these two waivers, he could if he built without the waivers, if he went to the setback and did 15 feet on the first floor, we wouldn't be here at all.

He could just build it.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Cleaver, and this might be an architect question, just curious.

It looks like there is room if you had to move it five feet to be at the 15-foot setback.

Is that a hardship?

Outlet uh Philip and Okay, yeah.

Thank you guys for your time, by the way.

Good morning.

Please state your name in the city in which you reside.

Hello, good morning, commissioners.

Uh, my name's Philip Carwell.

I reside in Fort Texas.

Um, so I'm to answer your question about regarding the setback.

Uh, I think the we we did have a 10-foot minimum, 30-foot maximum.

I think 15 foot would be reasonable.

We've been working closely with Ana.

Um, I think we can definitely achieve that by pushing the building.

Being uh respectful neighbor of the residential context.

So that isn't really a concern.

No.

At the 15 foot setback.

15 feet.

Okay.

The 20 feet.

Um so right now, um, you can see west uh along Horn Street.

We pushed the building um to the alley.

It will be sitting on the property line.

And so there is zero setbacks along the alley.

Um we're just trying to create enough space for a sidewalk, uh pedestrian connection uh for the residents to have their polycars and trash along that back alley.

Okay.

Um why would we have it trash on the back alley since trash is picked up on the front?

So right now, um the current site plan today.

We originally showed uh surface parking back there, and then uh there's a small sidewalk.

We're trying to still maintain a landscape buffer along that alley.

The alley is currently unpaved today.

We're trying to leave um type of pedestrian connection there uh from the back of the buildings.

But we we would think the polycarts would be stored probably along the back of the buildings.

So if you're in unit 101, you would have easier access.

Correct, yes, sir.

Um don't go far.

We might have more questions.

Um thank you.

Uh do y'all have any other questions for Philip?

Can you talk to the 15 feet and while if the stairs could be accommodated?

Yes, sir.

So um the 15-foot floor um the stair layout, we would have to add another landing, which would the units themselves are already tight, and uh to make the project feasible for a client, we would probably eliminate a unit in order to do that.

Um also the 15-foot uh floor to floor, we would have to you'd have to build out a two by sixes or twelve feet, uh which would drive the construction cost up, and also the the ground floor is is parking, um, two car garages, and then the stair in the lobby or the entry, uh, which doesn't make sense to have a 15-foot garage.

Um, I think in the form base code, it does address parking structures.

Um, can have a reduction of the 15 foot.

Um and really that for the residential multifamily prototype.

Um, we don't see a lot of 15 foot unless we're doing like a podium style building um with retail at the bottom and uh multifamily above.

Thank you, Philip.

Is there anybody else here speaking in favor of this case?

Is there anybody here speak against?

If you would just come up and state your name and uh the city in which you reside, and then ma'am will get you next.

Anna, real quick, can you speak to the um reduction that Philip mentioned about parking uses?

Is that um it is for uh parking structures?

There is a reduction, but we don't consider this since it's residential.

Right.

Good morning.

Can you state your name?

Good morning.

I'm Sandra Stanley.

I'm a resident of uh Lake Como and um business owner there in Lake Como, and um uh I want to commend Elliot on him.

Uh I request he did come to Como.

I am the president of the Lake Como and uh he did come and talk to us.

He also came twice.

He met us on the site because a lot of us were really confused about how that all this is gonna fit into that space.

So he came and uh uh was receptive to uh to the community.

So one thing if you can educate me on is um it says that it's a camp bowie, Camp Bowie, and it's in District Three.

So if we're in District Six in the Camp Bowie, uh we are then coming under Camp Bowie, and then are we um coming under District Six?

Well, I said listed here.

If y'all could educate me on that typo on the agenda.

Sorry, staff error.

That's a staff error, Dr.

Stanley.

Huh?

Staff error.

I didn't correct the council district.

Okay, that's a big error.

Okay, all right.

That's so we I'm educated on that.

It's Eric, we are in district six.

We are Horn Street.

We are um, I don't know what you're calling us, Horn Street.

Um I did want to uh I did ask Elliot yesterday because the neighbor behind him, which is a home, uh, had he contacted him and he had not just to educate him or a letter or something to uh because that that person does not, everybody does not come to the next, so they might not be informed.

And then one uh community um uh I called another guy that came to the meeting, and he said when he moved to Como and he purchased that house, he came because it was a community with homes, and that's why he came there.

And he did talk to Elliot, but um, but that was a good question because this is gonna change a lot.

And then I don't think uh the coffee shop, what is it called?

Lulu's La La Land.

That's not a good example because we had so many issues with that when they first moved.

The traffic was back down uh to uh Laval blocking the driveways, blocking the community, and it was so many complaints about their business, and it's still a problem because when you come in from Camp Bowie, you can't come down that street because it's it's uh they're parked to go in and they're and they're in the park trying to get in.

So you you can barely get in.

So that's not a good example, but it's it is for me, it's helpful to know because if you just have one spot for one tenant, then where are their guests gonna park?

Where are they gonna park?

So um I know we can't make many changes, but I just want to voice my opinion because uh I think that Como has changed so much, and I think we kind of been asleep a couple of years now, and that we're not being educated.

We have not been educated on some of these things that's going on in our community.

We can't change investors, we can't change that they don't live here, and that's what I told Elliot.

Come meet your neighbors because you live in Dallas, and this is a unique community historic Lake Como, which we have our and we um we can't maintain a lot of it with investors have bought up with gentrification, but we just want to be informed and we want to be engaged and we welcome anyone.

We're not resistant, but we we want to be educated, and that's my comment.

Thank you.

My name is Eloise Burrell.

I live in Fort Worth, Texas, in the historic Como neighborhood.

So um I'm here to speak against.

I'm also very appreciative of Elliot's effort to try and bring um walkable residential uh living in our community.

It's something that we are interested in, and it's also part of our uh plans for the future.

I am currently a resident of Como.

I used to live on Horn Street near Bonnell.

I live behind a uh commercial strip on Bonnell Street.

My mother used to operate a hair salon, and our family lived behind that property.

I'm uh well aware of commercial businesses on street.

I'm also now an owner of a business on Horn Street, a historic uh commercial structure.

My parents built a fourplex that is on um Horn Street at the corner of Carver, just across from the community center, and I'm still the property owner and manager of that commercial structure.

So I'm aware of commercial businesses on Horn Street.

The neighborhood empowerment zone, which I believe is one of the design code uh requirements and recommendations going forward in the transition area, transition zone.

The reason I believe that Anna was uh informing you that the request is for 15 foot on the first floor.

There is another business that is also pursuing.

Actually, I think I believe that they've been before you uh with requests for some other variances, but what Elliot is trying to do is something that is definitely new to the Horn Street complex, and we'd like to see, as you know, more of that kind of development.

But I think that setting a precedent for waivers on one of the very first new developments on Horn Street is not a good precedent.

It means, oh, so then the people who come behind him, they don't have to meet the requirement either, because they've already done that with the very first business that's tried to uh do developments on Horn Street.

Bonnell is a historic business and residential street.

The engineer was not available at the community meeting, the neighborhood advisory council meeting to answer any questions that the community might have.

The zone transition zone guidelines, I believe, recommend that the businesses be 15 feet.

So to say starting businesses, excuse me, a uh new development that's not going to meet that requirement.

What's the purpose of having that as the guideline?

It's like, what?

Why why are you guys asking for me to do 15 feet when that guy didn't have to do it?

I just don't think it's a good idea, but I know you guys have to make your own decision.

I hope that the uh contractor or our Elliot and his engineer will comply with the design code, and I don't believe it sets a good precedent going into the future.

Miss Rale, thank you so much for your comments.

I do have a quick question for you.

If you have a second.

Yeah.

Um, your fourplex on Horn, is it a four-plex like apartment?

No, it's not apartment.

It's all responsible.

Commercial, yes.

Okay.

And one of the things that we're considering in this specific case is if we don't grant the waiver and Mr.

Cleaver has to build it to the standard, it will be taller over the other houses.

And I know that we've heard kind of going back and forth, but are you you don't mind that?

You're okay with that.

I personally don't mind it, but of course, I don't live behind a house that's tall, I mean any buildings that are taller than me.

But I do know that um in terms of the community, they've already experienced shifting heights between residential property and uh there's homes that are the buildings that are this tall and houses right next to them that are this tall.

And so that was certainly one of the things that we uh addressed in the conservation uh district.

Thank you.

It's one of the things that we discussed as part of the uh uh focus groups in the conservation district that they're pursuing, so that at some point we'll be able to set some guidelines.

But I understand also as you say it on Horn Street and Bonnell, Bonnell was a commercial dist strip, all up and down Horn by Bonnell was businesses.

So it's something that we'd have to accept as the community.

Do we want a commercial development area?

Then that's the way we would possibly have to make exceptions for the heights on things that would be on Bonnell Street.

And the house next to where Elliot is considered.

They're pretty tall themselves already.

Thank you so much.

So the zoning currently is part of the Campoe revitalization code, the transition zone specifically, which allows mixed use.

So first of all, may you guys pull out the figure number 18.

Okay, yeah.

So I came from I'm just wondering from like a neighborhood perspective, how other people would feel about the new height of the building, regardless of the 10 and 15 foot requirement.

Just because as a neighbor personally from one of my communities I used to live in, I'm just wondering how this apartment building would fit in with the rest of the community with all the almost being half the height of this new apartment.

Um before you answer that, I just wanted to make sure that um the question as it relates to what the neighborhood, how the neighborhood would feel.

Um I'm not sure whether or not the staff or the board will be able to answer that question if you're asking what the neighborhood okay, yeah.

I'm seeing what I'm saying.

Yes, so I would um I would probably reserve that question for uh potentially um a neighborhood uh meeting itself to kind of get that that um but with regard to the questions in the comments for purposes of of the meeting itself.

Are there any comments with regards to what has been um uh proposed?

Uh you can uh direct those comments or questions as to what has been proposed to the board itself.

I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of that.

Yes, I got on, yeah, I got another question since oh no.

Oh, sorry, Noah.

Yeah, this is my first time here, so I'm sorry.

We will get him a form to fill out, yes.

So, yeah, may I ask another question about something that does relate?

Okay.

So we're we're look talking a lot about com commercial in the area too.

So how how does this relate to any commercial developments in the area?

Yeah, I'm sorry, those are probably questions that need to be had more with the neighborhood association.

They're not really things that we could answer.

Our goal is to review the cases and the waivers at hand.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Yeah.

Thank you for coming.

Uh just want to add um to address your comment regarding the heights.

We did work uh with Anna closely to reduce the overall height at the corner.

Um we actually had a first iteration that yes, you can had like a rooftop bulkhead over the stair, uh, which increased the height.

So we actually we did um reduce the height um down in the there's some other uh residential uh houses nearby that it was almost like a three-story and we're below that overall height.

Um I will say my brother will all live down the street on Bonnell.

We're over there all the time, and we actually place balconies along uh horn because of the fireworks show every year for the residents.

Um really this is project more about community.

Um the height stands your question, saying it that more of a residential plate height, uh the nine to ten foot uh would match the residential context.

Thank you, Philip.

I think we're gonna close the public portion and have discussion by the board.

Um this is a it's interesting case.

Uh I feel like we have conflicting reasons for the height waiver.

I feel like some don't want it higher, so they want us to deny the waiver, which would then require the guy uh the applicant to build it higher.

Um the personally the 15-foot setback.

I understand that, and it doesn't seem like that is a problem for the applicant.

So I think obviously I'm open to everybody's opinions, but the height going from 10 to 15 on the first floor.

I understand the intent.

Do we what's the allowable height allowed per the zoning?

Well, the height of the building and uh on it, maybe you can say, but that isn't even at the 15 feet, he'd still be under his allowable height.

So it doesn't matter whether you got 10, 12, 15, as long as your building is underneath allowable height, it's allowed to be there.

But the the code build your house three stories too on on the lot based upon the zoning.

So to me, the question is whether the building has no commercial intent in it.

That's to me, something you're hearing.

That's why the 15 feet is there in case you want to do a mixed use.

And you put commercial below, then you put housing above.

So you know, to me, here you're just putting you're just putting a residential, so can we not flex the first floor because that's the question, right?

The extra the extra three feet, the extra four feet is additional cost, but what are they gonna put in there?

You know, well, I think you also have to think about, I mean, I guess the form-based code is for the future.

So if there's going to be retail next to it, then you have you're you're saying everyone can be, you know, everywhere.

I don't mind what they're building, but I think the intent is for everything to essentially look the more uniform.

And yeah, compliment each other.

I don't think it would complement other developments that are coming in or trying to come in.

They're trying to make it, you know, more commercial.

So if you have a residential and you come in knowing that the code says 15.

I mean, it's there for that purpose.

So I I understand that, but everything around this you know is all houses.

Yeah, right.

And so the development may not occur for 20, 30 years.

So possibly.

You know, and then you can still put retail in and 10 feet.

You know, it just it just depends.

Yeah, no, to me.

I understand, you know, you know, then we go, hey, you can't deviate from our code.

So everything has to be 15 feet, so everything down the line.

We'll I do want to reiterate uniform to everyone that we don't set precedent.

Right.

Each case is separate.

So it this if we were to grant a waiver here, it does not set precedent for the next case.

Correct.

Thank you.

Struggle with this.

The dividing factor or the the tipping point on this is the setback off of nail.

If we're 15 feet or further back, does the 15 foot still apply for the first floor?

It still does, right?

Okay.

It'd be nice if we could say it didn't it, because you're yeah, yeah, yeah.

As a person that live in that community, and O'Horan Street is supposed to be for our plans, was to be a kind of like a small commercial corridor inside of a neighborhood that's houses on both sides.

And I know that folks want to come into the community and say, I want a bill, and the com and and we want you to give us a waiver.

But if you look at the future, most of those townhouse the apartments are condos that they come within three years.

Yep.

Absentee landlords, and we're stuck with that.

If we want to have it where if something happened, that you would be able to do a small business there.

We've never had big business.

And so that's the difference it makes.

Do is it almost a question of is this code fitting Como correctly?

No.

Like requiring this 15-foot first floor along Horn, because I think you want the density to support the business.

You want the density.

Como has used to have a bunch of vacant lots.

We we are already growing.

They are building apartments all around us.

So yeah, I do want to have the 15 feet because if we want a commercial corridor there, then we need to keep that focus.

And apartments was not one of those that we were looking at to be our commercial.

It was set up to have some commercial on the first floor, and you could live above it.

Well, to yeah, to be honest, we're we're not talking about use here because the use is allowed by right.

But uh the 15 per 15 feet is what is required.

And I think the intent of the 15 feet is to allow for uh a future use that may not be um uh uh ideal right now or may not um just it it it's not for this this owner, not for this uh this occupant, but to allow for the building to be adaptable in the future.

That's the 15 foot uh requirement, right?

Would you like me to clarify a couple seconds?

Yes, please, Brandon.

Okay.

So the height is three stories, it doesn't specify a foot height.

Three stories, yes.

Yes, it's three stories.

So the the spirit and intent of form-based code is to have make it commercial ready on the ground floor.

Planning is a long game, redevelopment is a long game.

It's would more likely encourage a business moving into that ground floor in the future if it wasn't the 15 feet.

That makes sense.

There's a ground floor um street entrance that has separation from uh stair and garage.

Um, and we've tried to get that type of development all over the city, and um I I don't know that a nine foot plate versus a 14 foot plate really precludes this from uh accommodating uh a small office or like uh the type of uh small uh business retail or office user that uh that we may want or that the neighborhood may want.

And you are correct in having it uh you know, fronting those live work units uh was the potential for that was one of the reasons why staff was um you know considered this a decent development and so you're saying that at 10 feet four inches on the first floor versus 15, it's not precluding it from being commercial in the future or or live work not in my opinion.

I understand it's a difficult um change, uh, but there is more changes coming, and I understand the precedence.

I'm sensitive to making sure that you know the neighborhood and everyone that has um is going to be experiencing this every day and seeing it every day.

They don't want it to be um hindrance on on future growth and development.

So I get that.

I think it actually beautifies Warren Street a little and um makes it nice and affordable housing, more housing.

Is that the direction that the neighborhood wants to go?

I don't know.

It's coming.

How do we prepare?

How do you you know?

But we're our focus is this waiver request.

If I'm hearing correctly 10 or 15 is doable.

The uh the development.

Well, the setbacks.

Okay.

The height on the first floor, that's really the the hang up here.

Do we uh so is the hang up with the 10 or the 15?

The floor height on the first floor is supposed to be 15, and they're asking for a waiver to keep it at 10.

But but they also say that it could be 15.

Am I correct?

They're saying they don't want it to be.

Yeah, it's doable.

They said it was a hardship to go to 15 that they would lose units.

We're commissioner reed, we're there we've closed the public portion, so we just have to talk to us.

Most garages are 10.

So that's what he's making the statement that most garages and residential, and that the 15 was more applicable when it's a commercial, not so much residential.

So that's why we have the waiver to discuss.

Um do you think the neighborhood would be more in support if it was 15?

Because I feel like part of that problem is that it's even taller.

That's what I was gonna ask.

Since you live in district six community.

I'm asking is fifteen is what is what we're doing.

So there's really not a hardship to build a building according to the waivers.

There's not a hardship to build what is supposed to be there required by the code.

So what we're looking at is you know, usually it's more of a hardship case when we look at waivers.

Um just want to pull that back to the forefront.

And Como is a tight knit Chris says no?

I just want to make it Como is a tight knit community, and so you know.

I'm kind of lean toward whatever Como say because Como stands on its own, even though it's for worth what you ask anybody else at Como Texas.

I just I just want to make sure that's a hardship yes, exactly.

Uh a hardship is a much higher burden to meet.

So to meet yeah, and that's that's typically for the for the BOA if you um have a variance request.

Um you would you would need to approve up some type of hard.

Because ultimately what I'm saying is they could build to the code.

Yeah.

Uh with when we're viewing for uh UDC cases, uh it it is a it is a um it is a waiver as opposed to to to a variance.

Um so the waiver itself, you want to look at certain aspects of it.

Does it meet the intent?

Does it meet the guidelines?

Does it catch the spirit?

If not, what what what why why can't you meet these?

Right.

If there's a hardship, obviously you could take that in consideration, but that is not the absolute standard when approving or denying a specific um design waiver itself.

So I just wanted to make sure that the board understands.

And mixed use is allowed, or I'm sorry, multifamily is allowed by right in this location.

I believe so, I believe so.

According to the changes that were so apartments can be built here if the first floor is 15 feet and they don't have to come talk to us about it.

I think the issue is in multifamily housing, you have 10 foot floor plates.

If you do mixed use, which is what we're trying to encourage, I think in the deal.

First floor is commercial, so that you have the higher heights because of what you need to do there.

So question is we're putting multifamily in here, and the only not hearts.

The only issue is they've got to figure out what to do with four feet on the first floor.

Uh that they wouldn't typically have to do when build building a multifamily.

So that's that's really the their concern is hey.

If the attent along Horn is like a commercial village, probably similar to Magnolia, then that is what they're after, which I understand is not there yet, but progress takes time.

To me, it's almost just as important of concern is they want to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, and to me that's dramatic.

You to me, the street needs to be consistent with what's from the curb to the property.

And if they want to come 10 feet forward, that just fuses everything.

Well, and I feel like that's the essence of the issue is we're actually really conflicted.

The setback, if you want the setback back, that's residential, not commercial.

If you want the building taller, that's commercial, not residential.

So that's then there lies the problem on both of these waivers.

Right.

I agree with you.

It's like which it's it's residential on Bonell and commercial on Horn.

So what you know, the 15 foot setback off of Bonell, I think is a fair uh, you know, that meets kind of what's going on there.

I guess audit what you say.

One street is commercial.

Right there.

The next two streets over, it doesn't have any commercial.

And it's not zoned.

So that's one of the reasons.

This is where you can do the change of that.

Who put the multifamily in there?

Was that the it's zoned?

It's allowed by right.

It's the zoning.

It was part of the Camp Bowie's code since 2012.

And just incorporating this in 2020 into the CBTF zoning triggered that.

How unfortunate.

Sounds like it was total miscommunication.

Why don't we uh if I can make a suggestion?

If we're okay with the second waiver, or if we feel like that let's t take these separately okay.

Okay, did I make a motion to approve the waiver for the Florida floor heights?

What was the second part of your comment?

To approve the Florida floor height at 10 foot four inches.

I just want to get the ball rolling so we can all right.

Do we have a second?

I don't we don't have to have a second.

If there's not a second, then we can make a motion another direction.

A motion, Chris, am I you you essentially would just announce uh we have a motion on the floor?

There's been a lack of a second, and so that motion fails.

Okay.

Just there's an emotion on the floor.

There's not a second, so that motion fails.

Commissioner Ramie Ramsey revises the previous motion to recommend approval of a 15-foot floor to floor floor right on the first floor.

That is the waiver, or it is the requirements.

Are you denying are you saying you want to deny the 10 foot four?

I'm gonna deny the 10 foot four and make it match current set uh zoning are currently require the standard to be met.

So all you have to do is just a motion to deny the first waiver.

It would default to just whatever's required.

So the motion is a motion to deny Commissioner West seconds the request the waiver request to reduce the first floor to from 10 to 15.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Chair Harper, how do you vote?

To clarify, this is a motion to deny the waiver at 15 feet at 10 feet four.

Correct.

Vice Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

I Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

I motion passes 10 0 to deny.

Okay, regarding the waiver for the setback at 15 feet.

I can't make a motion, but Commissioner West, I make a motion that the request for the request for reducing the required minimum projected front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 be approved.

Um and follow the certificate appropriatenesses.

I'm sorry, but my particular document says they want to have the setback be only 10 feet.

It's separate.

It's the on our agenda here, it says 15, and on our paper it says 10.

I think what we wanted to go with was 15.

Be approved.

Oh, it's on the staff report.

Well, again, I would caution against giving a specific dimension and say recommendation to adhere to the block face established on funnel.

Staff said they wanted 15.

You don't want to well, I'm afraid there's going to be a little confusion when it gets to BOA.

And just to make sure that there's we don't have something extra on there that confuses them.

That be wait block face to come.

Yeah.

Does block face though put it at 20 feet because that's where their setback is?

Block face would be based on keep whether they interpret the porch in the calculation or temp or interpret the wall of the building in the calculation.

There's a little bit of wiggle room there that just makes me a little nervous, and I don't want it to just automatically fail to because it doesn't fit.

I would I would like to leave the footage out of it and just consider the block face.

Okay, I've got that written down.

So I'd like to adjust my motion to state that I approve um request that the recommendation that the variance be allowed to keep the block face into consideration and to approve their request for the waiver.

It's a recommendation to BOA.

Yes, it would uh what I would say is just uh I move to make a recommendation of approval to the board of adjustment to have the setback established by the block face.

That that's how I would say that is what that is exactly what Commissioner West was saying.

That is exactly what I was saying.

If you could just uh confirm that is what you're recommending, then required that's what we're saying.

Just let the BOA go.

Let the BOA make the recommendation and I as ours.

And I it's so according to staff, um, they desire not to have a specific foot uh square footage or uh foot um stated in the motion.

And so that's why the motion on the floor right now um is a motion to approve uh or make a motion to approve uh to the uh board of adjustment a recommendation that the block face uh be the uh guiding the front yard setback, projective front yard setway, correct?

Okay, something to understand about blocking match they will so the block face is as you're looking down Bonell, yeah, it matches what is going on on Bonell.

They will get the block face correct the block face to match the block face to match the block face.

So the request for recommendation of the BOA recommends allowing the block face to um be the setback okay Chris, do you like that?

We're setting the waiver to be the block, we're recommending the BOA that the block face set the setback.

Commissioner Wall, second.

Thank you.

We have a motion from Commissioner West.

Any second from Commissioner Moss.

Chair Harper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

I Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

I Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 10 zero.

Thank you.

Chair Harper, we're about halfway through.

Do you want to take a recess at all?

Oh, okay.

I guess we're taking a minute.

All right.

Uh this is UDC 2026 002 at 2626 North Main Street.

This is in the stockyards.

Um, this request relates to signage and the applicants requesting a certificate of appropriateness for two monument signs with the following waiver requests.

Um, a waiver request for the sign type from the sign type standards to allow monument sign in the transition mixed use district of the stockyards where monument signs are not allowed, a waiver uh from the monument sign setback standards to place monument signs less than five feet in front of the lot line where a five-foot setback from right of way is required.

Uh waiver from the sign allocation standards to allow more than one monument sign on a property of only 205 linear feet of frontage where properties more than 1,000 linear feet of frontage are allowed more than one monument sign, and a waiver request uh from the sign allocation standards to allow two monument signs on the same property at 118 feet apart where a minimum of 500 feet apart is required.

So uh just for a little bit of context, um this location is zoned stockyards TNX 55.

That's a transition mixed use district.

Uh the location is a bank, it's been a bank since the 1990s.

The uh when it was first constructed, Prosperity Bank is the current tenant.

They moved in around 2007-2008.

Uh Prosperity Bank has over 280 locations in Texas and Oklahoma.

Um, they reached out to us in late 2025.

They wanted to upgrade their poll sign, replace a wall sign and do two um and replace a mini kind of monument slash poll sign that you'll see a picture of later.

It'll kind of make sense of what it is.

Staff determined that the poll sign, the mate the main poll sign work was in kind.

They were just repainting and resurfacing the wall sign proposal was allowable by right with no waivers, um, but the monument sign request was beyond in kind of repairs.

Um, one other thing to note is that in front of the property, there's a retaining wall that runs along a 206th block of North Main Street that is designated historic.

So again, monument signs are not allowed by right in the transition district.

Here's a copy of the allowable signage per district.

It's highlighted in red right here.

The only place in the stockyards where monument signs are allowed is in the edge district.

So here are the monument signs dimensional standards, and here's a site plan showing where they are where they were proposing their monument signs and their current location of the poll sign.

So here's the location of the poll sign.

It's listed as number one on the site plan.

The proposed locations for the monument signs were right here and right here at each of the vehicular entries to the property.

The wall sign was above their front door.

Um, and then they had some uh teller signage in the back that doesn't necessarily require a COA.

So here is uh the monument signs that they were proposing, both monument signs were identical in terms of size, form, and design.

Uh it is a silver monument sign with blue lettering in line with the prosperity bank uh general brand standards.

It's 47 feet, 47 inches tall and 24 inches wide at the base.

So the picture on the left is what was there before they started their upgrades, and you can see the poll sign in the background.

The poll sign's been redone already.

Um they've removed this monument sign slash mini poll sign right there at the entryway.

This they only had this condition existing at the southern vehicular entry, not the northern one.

Picture on the right shows the monument sign and relative scale to what they're proposing, and then on the southern and then on the northern, it would look like this.

So here's a current picture of the site conditions where they've already done work on the base.

You can see too that they've repainted the prosperity bank poll sign and done a resurfacing.

Again, staff are considering that in-kind repair.

You can also see in the background the retaining wall that's designated historic.

Um there aren't many uh examples of monument signs within the stockyards.

Here were really some of the only two that staff could find by looking around at the armor site and the courtyard.

So one of the when we were analyzing this project, some of the things that we were looking at and discussing with the applicant were the context and feel of the design, how it fits in with the general aesthetic of the stockyards.

Uh the stockyards transition district states in the intent that the goal of the transition district is to activate the street with shop fronts and other street wall treatments to provide visual interest.

In contrast to monument signs, such as that which is proposed, uh, tend to be for more suburban style layouts and auto-oriented developments.

Um, the southern sign, as you can see here, is not set back five feet from the right of way, so that requires additional uh waiver request.

The code also states that where you can have two signs in the edge district, they're supposed to be certain frontage standards and they have to be 500 feet apart.

The proposal does not do that on either.

Um, and then lastly, one thing we talked to the applicant about was how the general design aesthetics of what's proposed doesn't quite match the general feel of the stockyards.

It's what the code refers to as a franchise architecture, which is discouraged the stockyards.

They're looking for things that capture more western cowboy kind of rustic themed, think earth tones a lot of the times uh as well.

So given this, staff recommends the following motions that the request for certificate appropriateness for two monument signs with the following waivers from the stockyards form be form-based code be denied.

Waiver request for sign type standards, waiver request for sign setback standards, waiver request for sign allocation standards for both frontage as well as distance apart that all these waivers be denied.

Thank you, Joe.

Does anybody have questions for staff?

Are there any registered speakers here to speak in favor of this case?

I don't think the applicants here either.

And are there any registered speakers here speak against?

We will close the public portion and have discussion by the board.

Just for what it's worth, these look redundant and cluttery to me.

Agreed.

Commissioner Benner seconds.

We have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey to deny all the requested waivers and a second from Commissioner Benner.

Chair Harper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Bose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

I.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 100 to recommend denial of the waiver requests.

That was a quick one relative to the case before.

Get us back on track.

All right.

The next case, UDC 2026 018 is also in the stockyards.

It's at 2685 Swift Armor Boulevard.

The applicants requesting a recommendation to City Plan Commission and City Council to vacate an existing 26-foot public access easement on the final plat of their property.

I'm not gonna read all of that.

So for background and context to this case, the street and pathway network of the stockyards form-based code proposes a 90-degree turn of uh Swift and Armor Boulevard in the kind of northeast section of the district, and that will connect it then to Packers Street.

Um the development, this is again the plan, the way it's actually been built built out is that it's a little bit south of where it was initially proposed, just based off of once they started kind of doing development, they had to adjust it slightly.

Um the applicant has constructed the part of Swift End Armor Boulevard that is on their property, and the remainder of the proposed street is on the property of a different property owner.

Um the that property owner who owns the other part, does not have any current plans for development or redevelopment of the site at this time.

Um in 2022, when the project got started, the applicant went to City Plan Commission for a waiver.

Uh subdivision ordinance requires prohibits dead end streets and says that when you have a dead-end street, you need to put a cul-de-sac in of about a hundred foot uh uh diameter.

So, in lieu of building a cul-de-sac, they got CPC waiver to do a public access easement that ran through their parking lot to connect uh Swift and Armor Boulevard to Packers Street.

The applicant, since opening in their residential complex in April 2025, has experienced unwanted trespassing in the parking lot from non-residents because the public access easement they're not allowed to gate the parking lot.

Um this parking lot location is relatively close to a number of very well-known bars such as Billybobs, um, those honky tonks over there in the stockyards.

So it's attracting a lot of folks who are not necessarily necessarily amenable to the residential parking lot.

Um they the applicant has provided, and it's in the staff report a number of security instances that have occurred since April 2025 to present.

Uh one other thing to note is that the applicant will retain the public use easement that runs through their property.

So pedestrians will still be able to traverse their property on the sidewalk.

So that public use easement is staying the same.

So here's the street uh standards applicability.

It does state that there can be modifications made to the street plan, given these conditions are met, such as that the modification doesn't increase congestion or compromise public safety, that it does not decrease the number of connections to the overall street network, uh, does not create lots without direct street frontage, does not create a block perimeter in excess of 1600 feet or a block length in excess of 500 feet.

Additionally, I've included the subdivision standard that talks about the uh temporary dead end streets and then you need to cul-de-sac them where those exist.

So here's the the zoning map showing the trend transition district, um Swift Armor District at 105.

This kind of shows their site.

Uh here's the aerial from a few years ago.

This is completely different today.

Here's what it looks like uh today.

So the residential development, what's known as uh Kairoy apartments, you can see those have been built out.

Um the red is where the applicant is proposing to gate off their um parking lot, and the public access easement runs right where that fire lane is, right through here.

So as you come up Swift and Armor Boulevard, you can then go through the public access easement to get back to Packers.

The property to the north.

Um, this area right here is currently used as horse pasture for livestock.

So here's here's I think probably the best map to visualize kind of what's going on.

The green is the built road as it exists today.

The developer has built their portion of Swift and Armor Boulevard to the stockyard standards that is on theirs on their property.

And the red is the future Swift and Armor Boulevard that will be built whenever the person who owns that property to the north of them chooses to develop it.

And then the purplish blue is the public access easement, the 26-foot public access easement that runs through their parking lot.

Here's a number of conditions of the site today.

You can see here that they do have some signage that warns trespassers that if they're caught parking there and they're not supposed to be, that they will be towed.

So there's a number of signs in both entrance entries stating that.

So they're trying to ward off these unwanted patrons into their parking lot.

Here's another picture of the parking lot as well as the dead end street that currently exists.

So should the fire department need to get through, they can still get through and get to those apartments.

Does want to comment that they uh the security concerns that the applicant has raised are very reasonable.

Um, and the applicant has done a good job documenting those concerns as shown in the staff report.

Um we do also recognize the applicant's concern about safety and security given the viability to their project that public safety could compromise the tenancy that they have for their residents.

It's not going to create a conducive spot for new lease to come in or anything like that.

Um while the city can change the future streets and pathways uh map, it does mention that it's not supposed to increase congestion or compromise public safety.

Conversely, um, the changes can only be made that do not decrease the total number of connections to the overall street network.

So ultimately, this will to a degree uh decrease the amount of vehicular connectivity while retaining the amount of pedestrian connectivity.

Um so we're not expecting any impact to pedestrianism this far from from this proposal.

So uh I will say before giving my final recommendation, this is one that we talked a lot about as staff because we could definitely empathize with the applicant, but we were also weighing our analysis against some of the connectivity objectives of the form-based code.

So, given all this, um, staff recommends that the request for a recommendation to City Plan Commission and City Council to vacate the existing uh 26-foot public access easement on the final platform be denied.

Um had the apartment developer put in the cul de sac initially instead of doing the public access easement, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Correct.

They could have gated their parking lot.

Correct.

We wouldn't have had a connection anyway.

Correct.

Can you what is the parking situation along Swift and Armor Boulevard?

Is it free parking?

Is it paid parking?

The street parking is free parking.

Yeah, like that's the old spaghetti warehouse and correct.

And they're they're doing more development just on the south side of that.

So it makes it very hard where the bricks are in front of the Swift Armor building to sometimes go around because of the construction that's going on.

And so they cut through the complex because of the whatever the construction tools and equipment that are up there on that north side.

But if it was a cul-de-sect, we wouldn't be cutting through anyway.

Correct.

And they wanted the connectivity because of the number of units that they have.

And they'll have connectivity eventually when the horse guy decides to put a street in.

Like if they develop it, they have to put that street in.

Yeah, so yes, to to Chair Harper's point, like if they have development, it'll be it will come eventually put in at that point.

But it is not dedicated on that adjacent property.

Not at this time.

No.

So this is Commissioner Hughes, and I have a question for the city.

You said you're recommending denial, but why?

So very good question.

Um, the staff analyzed uh really two primary factors, balancing public safety with the overall connectivity goals.

Um this would ultimately decrease vehicular connectivity from the current condition it is today.

And when the applicant went in front of CPC last time, they went in front of CPC, and then instead of doing the cul de sac per the standards, they received a waiver to do the public access easement through.

So that was kind of their presentation last time, and this is a shift from that.

Uh, it would have been better to consider that initially.

Yeah, and and additionally, for this issue.

Um, you know, one thing we considered is could it have been designed differently initially, the project as a whole, and the answer would probably be yes.

That could have mitigated some of this to some degree.

Um, at the time, they were probably, I think the applicant was expecting the northern property owner to develop more imminently.

So this is perceived as a short-term solution.

But a couple of years later, they've opened their complex, they're they're still waiting.

And uh they have made contact with the adjacent property owner, and the property owner confirmed that they're not, they don't have any current plans to develop at this time.

Uh, we tried to contact the property owner as well.

We were not able to get through, but that's what was relayed from the applicant to us.

So the the applicant has endeavored to see, like, hey, kind of what's going on so they can get a status update.

Is it a six-month wait or a six-year wait?

That portion is still unknown.

Is this existing before they did their development?

No, they built they built all of uh Swift and Armor Boulevard.

Um that you see here.

Pretty much everything to the east of the armor building they have uh constructed, everything to the north and east.

So the purpose of the public access easement was to allow pedestrian traffic.

So allow vehicular traffic uh from this area down this way.

From Packard up to get up and through and to get from Swift and Armor up here to the circle all the way down to Packers.

And for the residential to be able to come from that south unit to their office, which is right here on the other side of the pool.

Which residents will still be able to do that if it's gated.

Residents will, yes.

Um, are there any registered speakers here to speak in favor?

Yeah, I think Joe, am I not?

Am I correct that the public access use easement for vehicles and pedestrians actually went through the parking lot?

That quotes was what was agreed on on CPC not to see CPC approved the the waiver request from the standard for the cul de sac, and the applicant did two things.

They put the public access easement in for vehicles and a public use easement in for pedestrians.

Both of them went on the applicant's private property.

The applicant is only seeking to remove the public access easement for vehicles.

Pedestrians will still be able to cross over their property.

Okay.

The applicant uh is here.

You state your name and the city in which you reside, please.

Morning, commission.

My name is Grant Saxon.

I reside in Austin, Texas.

Um, so this is the new presentation.

So, yeah, so just talking about the comp plan and kind of the history of the project all together.

So this here shows Packard Street.

I just want to say that we also extended East Exchange Avenue running east-west as well as Union Stockyard Boulevard to the north of that, which runs east-west.

Uh, if you go over the slide.

There we go.

Okay.

So this kind of paints the picture of where we are here in current days.

So, right now, all we've built is three streets that I mentioned.

We've extended the East Exchange, built Union Stockyard, and then also Swift and Armor.

Swift and Armor cannot be connected back to Packers Street because it runs through the North of the Navy property.

They currently have no plan to sell developer grant ride-of-way access through, hence the access easement.

Now, this becomes a safety issue with our property because if you can see here, Swift and Armor is dedicated as an A Street.

The A Street typical detail includes a 10-foot travel lane, eight-foot parallel parking lane, three-foot bicycle buffer, four and a half foot bike lane, five-foot landscape buffer, and eight-foot sidewalk on each side of the street.

This is a pretty robust street design, overall, pretty wide, built to accommodate traffic.

What happens with the access easement is this gets bottlenecked down into a 13-foot drive aisle on each side, abutted by head-end parking.

Um, in all, you know, the access easement is not an A Street.

It can't handle traffic of an A Street, and it's you know, created issues with our residents.

People are backing into the drive aisle.

We have families living in our community who might be walking through the drive aisle to their car on the other side, or pet-friendly community.

You know, it's just created safety issues all together.

Moreover, we have two B streets, like I mentioned, that served kind of the same purpose as the access easement, both Union Stockyard and East Exchange as much better suited to handle this traffic and would overall you know create a safer environment.

Um this checks the box on the code that Joe mentioned.

Uh, Article 8 street standards, section 8.1.2 for dimensional standards.

Uh, this both increases safety and decreases congestion if vehicular traffic is routed down the B streets instead of the access easement.

Uh, moreover, on the overall connections, I do agree that you know, removing the access easement will reduce the overall connection to the street network.

However, this is only a temporary reduction when Swift and Armor is fully extended and goes back to Packard Street, the public access easement will be vacated in principle.

So this is basically expediting the removal of the easement in the name of safety and congestion for the stockyards.

Talking about auto connectivity too, the three streets that we built accomplish this goal for both all of the parcels it touches and abutting parcels.

It handles our development, the armor building, uh the office right there, any kind of future development for the area.

I think it's more than capable enough for doing this without the access easement.

And then just speaking to the property as a whole, you know, we're the we're the first multifamily community in the stockyards.

We're super proud to be there and you know, really happy to be building a community around all the great things that are happening in the stockyards proper.

You know, we see the stockyard success as our own and our success as you know contributing to the tailwinds behind the stockyards.

Um we're fully leased up, we have 418 units, 505 bedrooms.

You know, it's safe to say we're gonna have over 600 people living in the stockyards proper.

You know, and it's it's great to be building a community there.

You know, we really feel like we're doing our part.

This access easement has been a detriment to us, you know.

It's hurt our community, um, it's hurt our reputation as a business, and you know, just speaking plainly, it really hurts you know our property and you know our residents' personal property.

So um just asked that you know you take these things in into consideration.

I'm making the choice here today, so appreciate it and happy to answer any questions you might have requests or problem.

Grant, thank you for coming.

A couple of questions.

Did you represent the property when y'all went before the CBC to not have a cul-de-sac?

Uh I've only been with Cairo for about two years.

I was not a part of it during the pre-development.

The intent was to have the road be connected back to Packers on the street and not sacrifice valuable real estate for residential and mixing creating a cul de sac.

If the waiver were granted, do you have any uh plans to discourage vehicular traffic down the boulevard since it's going to be a dead end?

We you know, we can put signage up to prevent confusion and you know, prevent you know, three-point U-turns.

Well, that's because that's the concern, right?

Like if they can't get through and you're already bottlenecking into the neighborhood, and if it's just a dead end, then you're gonna have it's gonna be a nightmare.

Right.

I I understand, and we're happy to you know put anything up right now.

I will say right now in practice, it really just is residential traffic going back there.

It is public parking, so it's available to anybody, but in the in the current use, um basically just residential.

But if it's residential traffic, then what's the problem?

Because people are driving through the easement, treating it like it's an A Street.

Um I don't think anybody going back there in general is you know doing it with their maps, aren't taking over the easement, for example.

Like they're not they're driving back there because they're they're late to a dinner reservation or late to a concert, and it's it's created for our residents and our overall I didn't read all of the security issues.

Are y'all towing cars?

And most of the issues are happening right here in front of your office.

Yes, ma'am.

So the easement runs through uh two parcels.

There's one for our leasing building, which is on the far right of the photo, and then uh the parking lot right there.

So that is where the subject easement is that we're asking to be removed.

And anybody could come park along the boulevard and still walk through.

Yes, uh, we are not trying to impede any pedestrian or cyclist traffic.

That's on a public use easement.

And they're not allowed to put a gate right there by that crosswalk.

They they can't put a gate that blocks vehicular access over public access easement.

If we grant the waiver, they can gate it.

Is there any traffic study data that indicates how many cars are going through there on a daily basis?

We haven't done any kind of traffic impact analysis, but I mean, based off what we've seen just in practice, or in the staff court, um quite a bit.

I'm sympathetic.

I just wish I'll have built a cul-de-sac the first time.

It is the stockyards.

Um right now.

Thank you.

We may have more, but are there any other registered speakers to speak in favor?

One.

I'm sorry to speak again.

Okay.

Okay.

There are no other in favor.

Okay.

Any registered speakers here to speak against the waiver.

Yes.

Hi, welcome.

Please state your name in the city in which you reside.

You get this.

Uh Melissa Wade Hunter, I reside in Binbrook, Texas.

I'm here today representing the North Fort Worth Historical Society.

We're speaking against the request in this case.

Public access easement referenced in staff report says so much.

Permanently vacating is not desirable in this case for this plot for accessibility and decreases connectivity.

We sat through many meetings forming this uh form-based code.

It was lengthy, it was long, it was well thought out.

And the results are the rules that we are asking the city to abide by.

Let's see, the overall plan for this area affecting several property owners other than um Kev Harrow is not baked or cooked yet.

The staff has not really no objection to the gating, and therefore we were asking that the request be denied and the form of okay form-based code be upheld.

So thank you.

I guess this is a question for staff.

The form-based code would have required a cul de sac.

It did not require connectivity.

So the form-based code doesn't necessarily um speak to cul de sacs versus not, it just kind of lays out the street, and then the subdivision ordinance says you're not allowed to have the dead end street because the form-based code is presuming a completed street.

But the code doesn't the connectivity isn't part of the code.

Connectivity is part of the code.

Um we can make modifications from this proposed street plans as long as it doesn't decrease the connectivity.

I guess I'm just trying to make sure I understand that had this been a cul-de-sac, we'd still be in the exact same.

Like we wouldn't, we wouldn't be here because there wouldn't be an easement.

It would just be a cul-de-sac.

Correct.

And just to clarify, I may help in your conversations.

This is not a waiver, it's a recommendation to the CPC.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I guess we will close the public portion and have discussion by the board.

Maybe this is a question for staff.

Can CPC control parking on public streets?

CP CPC cannot control parking on public streets.

So I'm looking at the picture of the dead end.

And if there's a trailer and a motorcycle and a car in the way.

And people turn around easier.

So I think that is beyond the the waiver request.

The form based code lays out this the streetscape standards that they have to adhere to for the type.

I believe this is type B Street.

Um that's that's built out.

So it kind of codifies this is what it's supposed to be.

They're not proposing any change to that at this time.

You're kind of thinking like temporarily we could not have people park there, then we could grant this waiver.

It gives a nice spot for people to turn around.

No parking until it goes.

Until the road gets continued, uh built up.

Yeah, that that's really more of a the city would have to do that on behalf of the developer because it's public at this point.

Um, one thing I know staff's talked with transportation development services and developer about too is like, well, could could the proposed gates be moved such that you can create a three-point turnaround as well?

Um I think the applicant was was a bit open to that, subject to uh TDS kind of figuring out the final placement side, those cars couldn't make that three-point turn.

So if the gates were far enough back, and maybe there was signage that said not a through street, which we can't we can't dictate any of that, but we can make a recommendation to people who can dictate those things.

I'm sympathetic to the issue.

I wouldn't want to live there with a bunch of crazy people driving through all the time.

It was risky to build there too, so we knew that.

Well, I think it's they've had that convert.

I know the conversation came up when they were first planning to build there for residential.

It was kind of a red flag and a concern because of the uh amount of traffic, amount of parking and limited parking.

We're restricted in parking in the stockyards as it is, and I know that is in future development, but going to be addressed, but it's unfortunate, and we all face that.

I'm part of that program too, and it's it's unfortunate, but there is crazy people.

And it's a temporary solution of for their benefit, and they're sort of dealing with the consequences of that.

Exactly I think in time that you know that owner will eventually um give up but I just feel like there's no point in going down there if you don't live there right now.

So if it were addressed that it's not a through street probably probably issues because of the events that go down there.

Well I am a patron I know you go to the events down there you're probably driving through here to get to wherever you need to get and it's but it's not happening every day or it may not be happening every day just like that but there is I'd have to ask the applicant I will you can see it's hard to see in the pictures you know relatively but like they do have some signage up about towing and that you aren't allowed to park there unless you're a resident are those street parking spaces are they free and public I know I'll be parking well that's on the not necessarily inside the property it's on the boulevard.

Right and there and so you can still park on the street they're still going to let you walk through yeah I gotta get you turned around I I just personally I I want our multifamily in the stockyards like this to be successful and we want more I mean there's more coming and and we want it to do well because it benefits the city as a whole we are huge international tourist destination I don't want to see things that punish tenants because of uh the developer should put in the cul-de-sac yeah I I think too with added security maybe that's something that they need to look at but I agree I'm sympathetic to the the you know all the mishaps but and they did a great job it looks amazing and it blends wonderfully within the district so kudos to them and I know that um they're working hard to fill it up commissioner ramsey makes a motion to recommend to the city plan commission city council uh to deny the uh request commissioner de bose I stuck that and just to make sure we're clear so denying the request means they need to retain the public access easement through their property yeah I still think the public access such time is probably what we're talking about is yes it's inconvenient for the apartments but just want to for that set of something different that would preclude that soon page you have until further development leaves this is my thought wanted to clarify all right so we have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from commissioner bows to deny the request uh for recommendation to CPC Chair Harper how do you vote nay commissioner West how do you vote um yes I agree with the motion yes didn't yes Commissioner Carr how do you vote aye commissioner reid how do you vote aye commissioner de Bose how do you vote?

Aye Commissioner Benner how do you vote?

Nay Commissioner Hughes how do you vote?

Aye Commissioner Halliday how do you vote?

Aye Commissioner Ramsey how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss how do you vote?

The applicants requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of two projecting signs with the following waiver requests from the Bear University form-based code waiver from the projecting assigned standards to allow projecting signs with a maximum sign placement of 62 feet above the sidewalk instead of the normally required 24, no more than 24 feet above the sidewalk, a waiver from the projecting sign standards to install projecting signs with a maximum signage area of 170 square feet per sign face instead of the maximum signage area of 36 feet square feet per sign face and a waiver from the projecting sign standards to install a projecting sign projecting signs that are 32 feet tall, instead of the required maximum height of six feet per sign.

Slides get moved Madam Chair.

I need to recuse myself from this one, so I'll do that now.

So real quick, there was an issue with saving the slides.

So I'm just gonna pull up the uh staff reports.

Just so you can see some visuals.

My apologies for that.

Okay.

So for background, this is on this is part of the Morado on Barrie project, which is a mixed use project on landowned by TCU and Endeavor Real Estate.

Um they took low density commercial, residential, and surface parking, and are building 300 538 units of uh apartments on there with ground floor retail.

Um the two buildings of this project were approved in 2025 under UDC 2025 043.

Um the signage package that they've proposed includes two projecting or what are sometimes called blade signs as well as three monument signs, two wall signs, and some directional signage, all in a unified look that plays with TCU colors and themes.

The Murado and Barrie development represents a substantial increase in density and building mass in the area, uh particularly on the West Barrie Street corridor to help facilitate a more walkable urban environment.

The applicant also used the stormwater bonus in the Barry University form-based code to increase the height and size of the project beyond the normal uh standard height requirements.

So we'll scroll down here.

So looking at the proposed signage.

Here's their two buildings.

The one on the east is the larger of the two, the one on the west is is a bit smaller.

Um the proposed signage today, we're just gonna be talking about the projecting signs of the blade signs.

Um they are 32 feet in height, five feet four inches in width, and one foot in depth, with uh one foot four inches from the building facade.

Each signage area is 170 square feet, so a combined signage area of 350 square feet.

Total allowable sign area for awning canopy and projecting wall signs on the 256 foot frontage of Berry Street is 370 feet, so they're within that for these projecting wall signs and all their other proposed signage.

So when looking at the standards, um, the standards do state that they were they really contemplate projecting signs that are significantly smaller in scale, ideally for individual uh retail tenants.

So you're looking at signs that have a maximum height of six feet where what's proposed is 32 feet.

Um individual signage area of 36 squeeze 36 square feet as opposed to the proposed 170 square feet per sign face, and um uh overall or clearance above the sidewalk of significantly uh less than what the applicant is seeking.

So just to go over some other facts, when we look at the the scale of the project as a whole, it is very large.

They're using the proposed projecting signs almost like crown signs, um, similar to what you see in Molly Reed Hall and the hotel, uh the TCU High Hotel that's further to the east of this project.

And for those kinds of signs, you do see very large signs uh similar to this in terms of of size.

So the location of the two signs.

There is one right here.

One right here on the kind of southwest corner, and then one here on the southeast corner.

The one on the southwest corner is perpendicular to the western facade, but it's very much viewable from the Barrie Street side.

Um it's really designed to kind of indicate to residents that Cockerell is going to be an activated invited kind of space.

The applicant, they've built they're building these two buildings under construction right now, and they have uh plans for a proposed retail space right there.

That staff is currently discussing with them those designs.

Um so this southwestern projecting sign is really designed to invite uh residents and pedestrians down Cockerel Street with the intent to activate it.

They have retail along Cockerel Street as main as well as the main leasing office and other pedestrian amenities.

The projecting sign on the southeast corner is uh perpendicular to the building, so it's designed to be viewed from West Berry Street by east and west traffic.

Um it serves a slightly different purpose, much more like the typical crown signs that you see in the other large buildings uh along the corridor.

So here's some kind of pictures from the south showing a bit of the scale.

Uh the buildings are uh six stories in height, they get up to eight stories with some of the towers.

But uh, this is looking from at the south facade.

So cockerel would be over here.

So pedestrians would be able to see that sign as they move northward or southward.

And then the projecting sign that's in the southeast.

You wouldn't necessarily be able to see it if you were standing looking directly north, but you'd see it going east to west.

So here are some more visuals showing just the size of the sign in relative scale to the building as a whole.

It's uh over 30 feet above the sidewalk, um, and you can see 32 feet for the height of the sign.

The staff report also includes some pictures of some of the other signage, all showing the Morado and Barry logo, morado Spanish for purple.

Um, so that's where the name comes from, in line with the TCU colors.

Um, they're working on monument signs as well.

That is going to be illuminated.

They also have some directional and parking signage all in the same style with the blue metal mesh with white illumination.

Here's some photos of the current site today.

It's it's well under construction.

Um, the eventual scale will be pretty similar to what you see.

It'll actually be a little bit larger than what you see with Amolly Reed Hall to the east, and not out of context with the institutional uh building size and scale of the TCU campus, where you get three, four, five-story buildings on campus.

Um, one other thing that we talked with the applicant about too was kind of looking at similar signage for other similar products in other districts.

So uh projecting signs of this scale.

You've seen quite a bit actually in the near south side and on west seventh, where we see these multi-story projecting signs, and it's been a pretty effective tool over there to help identify the buildings.

Here's one called Mag and May from the near south side.

Um, that you see it's over two stories for this projecting sign, uh, similar to what is proposed.

It doesn't necessarily look out of style or out of place.

And given what the applicant is proposing, um it's relatively in scale with the size of their building as well.

Here's another uh one from the near south side, Ramble and Rose.

This is two and a half story projecting uh sign.

Here's one from West 7th, which I think might have come to UDC a few years ago as well.

It's about two and a half stories, functioning very similar to a crown sign, designed to be viewed from a distance, and attempting to also complement the architecture, not distract from it.

And then here's a final one also from West 7th, that's a little bit over two stories.

So given all this, staff is recommending uh approval for the waivers waiver the from the waiver request for projecting sign standards to allow projecting signs with a maximum placement of 62 feet above the sidewalk, and that's measured from the sidewalk to the top of the sign.

Waiver from the projecting sign standards to install a projecting sign with a maximum signage area of 170 feet, um as opposed to the 36 required by the code, and approval for the waiver request from the projecting sign standards to install projecting signs that are 32 feet tall instead of the maximum six feet in height.

Apologies for the lack of slides.

They were created, I guess they just didn't get saved.

Thank you, Joe.

Any questions for staff right now?

Uh just a quick question, just to confirm that the overall amount of signage that they're allowed based on the size of the project is not being exceeded by what they're showing right now.

Correct.

Great.

The code kind of classifies projecting signs, wall signs, and canopy signs in like one bucket, and then monument signs and some other signs and others.

So when you look at the buckets individually according to the code, they're fine.

Okay.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes.

Hi, welcome.

Please state your name in the city in which you reside.

Good morning.

My name is Jake Newman.

I'm from Austin, Texas.

And I represent uh Endeavor Rural State, who is the applicant.

I'm here for any questions you may have.

Thanks for making the drive.

We'll let you know.

Thank you.

Are there any other registered speakers here to speak on this case?

In favor or against okay, we'll close the public portion and have discussion by the board.

It seems appropriate for the massing, like when you look at the other, when I first saw the slide, I was like, ugh.

But then when I looked at the other ones, I thought that does seem like it goes.

I really don't mind the corner condition on the south elevation because that portion of the building is actually indented in, so that blade sign probably will not project into any kind of like visual corridor up or down.

I don't have any problems with it.

Commissioner Ramsey makes a motion to approve second waivers.

All right.

We have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey to approve the waiver request, and a second from Commissioner Reed.

Chair Harper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Oh my apologies.

Uh Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

One more case for you.

Good morning, Commissioners.

And our final case is UDC 2025 294.

And the applicant request certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an auto repair service center with the following waivers from the nearest outside development standards and guidelines.

And a waiver for parking and driveway standards, Section 5E9 to allow two garage doors to be located on the street furnish instead of using rear driveways or detached garage at the rear.

As typically required for residential scare garages.

Okay, this is the current use of the area, which is N N S T5, which allows commercial uses as well.

This is the location of area view area view of the property.

Currently it's a vacant low, which is being used for an expansion of the current auto service shocks next door, which is also the same owner.

He owns the two parcels.

Currently it's just fence.

As you can see, is correct is currently used as uh vehicle storage or the main use here the all or all auto service shop and now they're proposing a new construction as well to spend the commercial use of the bill of the company.

And the proposal includes a two-story commercial building to serve as another movie mechanical service shop as well.

Cool.

Okay, this is the current elevations and use of cycles encouraged a pedestrian oriented development and generally discouraged garage door facing this tree.

You can see here.

And but these section is intended to prevent residential scale garage doors and from dominating the streetscape.

In this case, the applicant is requesting a waiver to allow those two garage doors.

Um alone Austin Avenue.

This is the main tree here.

So it's gonna be facing Austin Avenue.

And it's important to know the in this section of the code is primarily aimed for residential garage, and the proposed project is a commercial and outdoor repair facility where two garage door, one for vehicle entrance and the other one for exit, are essential for to support the of the fishing operation of the building, and this these doors are not necessary are not accessory residential garages, the necessary components for the primary use of the new construction.

Also, staff noted the there's no current alley on this block, which makes it even harder for the applicant to proposed like a different option for the entrance, garage door entrances.

And because of that, stuff is supportive of the garage door along the street, and also because they have transparent.

Let me just show some rendering.

So the two garage door um have transparency and visually integrated rather than appearing as a blank blank wall and blank walls.

And the doors together with the building glazing also meet the near society standard for transparency or non-residential uses on the first floor.

This is the current one, and the new proposal actually makes it looks like one big business.

And by providing additional service capacity on site, also you might also reduce can help to reduce the vehicle staging staging on parking pressures along the street, even though it's on street parking is allowed, but it's just a comment that we wanted to point that out.

And also the applicant will further enhance the pedestrian experience with sidewalk improvements, including street trees and pedestrian lighting, which is also a requirement on the standard and by code.

So given the above staff recommend the following motion, they have the request for certificate for properness with the waiver from parking and driveway standards to allow two garages doors to be located on the street frontish instead of using rear driveways or detached garage, be approved.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant here to speak?

Not sure.

But Austin is Austin here to the presentation from the SSI.

Yeah.

Good almost afternoon.

Uh, this is definitely unique.

I'm sorry, Austin James with Near South Siding.

Um, this is definitely an interesting one.

If I think if this had been somebody that was not already in the neighborhood and came to us and said, hey, we're planning a car repair shop, we would question them and suggest that this isn't the right place.

But given this is an existing business, has been for a long time.

We've our staff is all gone here.

Uh they're definitely making a large improvement to the site.

What's currently there is a mess.

And um, so this is a nice improvement.

The garage door, you know, really is trying to prevent like residential style garages along the streets.

They've done a nice work here of having a nice design with that transparency and everything.

Uh one thing we just want to make sure of is that they're they're not gonna be parking cars in the sidewalk like these renderings show.

So that's yeah, well, we they know that, so just don't don't take that rendering as is totally accurate there.

Yeah.

Um I'll mention to you, I like the sign.

If you ever notice the existing sign on the building, it's one of my favorite little urban Easter eggs because it's a non-compliant temporary sign that says on it the sign is temporary, which has always made me laugh.

So we've got an issue right here, too.

But we're in support of the uh of the waivers as well.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll close the public portion, have discussion by the board.

Looks like a vast improvement.

Commissioner Ramsey makes a motion to approve the waiver.

Commissioner West, second.

Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from Commissioner West.

Uh Chair Harper, how do you vote?

Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

And Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Thank you.

Motion passes then zero.

Thank you.

Hey Commissioners.

We I was talking with staff about possibly starting our meetings at nine instead of ten.

And I just kind of wanted to get people's takes on that.

Yes.

I'm in favor.

I'm in favor.

All right.

Well, staff.

Yeah, work session.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks, Sean.

Sorry if I was a little pushing on the last two.

I didn't see there's much discussion.

There were like three with those thick.