Welcome everybody.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the April 2nd, 2026 public meeting of Downtown Fort Worth Design Review Board.

May we please have the reading of the Open Meetings Act, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

And welcome to the April 2nd, 2026 Downtown Design Review Board Public Hearing.

Specific rules and procedures of these hearings are found in the Downtown Urban Design Standards and Guidelines, DDRB rules of procedure, and related provisions of Texas state law.

The Downtown Design Review Board requires a quorum of five members to be present and four available for voting.

The following board members are present today.

Paul Redma, Kirk Milliken, Leah Dunn, Ashley Johnson, Andrew Blake, Brandon Burns, and Terry Bailey.

Staff present today are Laura Young, Brandon Utterback, Francisco Vega, Trey Qualls, Stephanie Scott Sims, and Dave.

What's your last name?

Mike Corkin.

Apologies.

Copies of today's meeting agenda and speaker registration forms are provided at the desk near the conference room entrance.

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

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

Please turn off all cell phones.

Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair.

All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the board only.

After the staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be asked to speak.

The opposition may then speak.

A completed registration form must be turned in before addressing the board to ensure your appearance and presentation are officially recorded.

Please state your name in the city in which you reside before addressing the board.

Following the official close of each case hearing, the board will remain in open session to discuss and vote on the item in question.

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

A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the board 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 817-3928000.

Thank you for your attention.

Laura, thank you very much.

Francisco.

Yeah, we have we have uh some announcements.

Um, first uh uh board member Tony Fime.

Uh last term has concluded.

So uh today we are uh he is his uh he's not serving anymore in the in the DDOB board is today uh we're reading a resolution letter and presenting to him a certificate for serving in the under the ERB.

And uh we also have two new board members, uh Terry Bailey and Ashley Johnson serving under the DOB, so we finally have a full uh D VRB.

So uh please Terry, if you will like to start with that.

Thank you, Francisco.

I'd like to read DDRB resolution number 2026-01 resolution thanking Tony FAM for his dedication to and participation in the Downtown Design Review Board, whereas Tony Town was appointed to place seven of the downtown design review board by the mayor and city council in 2021, and whereas Tony Fowne has served with distinction on the downtown design review board since his appointment, and whereas Tony Tham used his knowledge of architecture and urban design to support and guide applicants within the downtown urban design district, and whereas Tony Fam's service on the downtown design review board concluded effective March 31st, 2026.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Downtown Design Review Board that the members of the Downtown Design Review Board hereby express their sincere appreciation and gratitude to Tony Pham for his dedication, leadership, and significant contributions to the downtown urban design district in the city of Fort Worth, Texas.

Approved the second day of April 2026.

Kirk Milliken Chair.

Thank you.

Tony Thank you, Francisco.

Thank you, Francisco.

Thank you, Laura.

Thank you, Brandon.

Thank you, trade calls.

Thank you, everyone.

It's been a pleasure serving uh the team, and especially thank you to the board members.

Uh those that have serving those just joined.

Congratulations, and uh, hope you get to serve these amazing people.

And uh thank you very much just for this insights, good conversations and this has been a pleasure serving with you and serving my community.

Thank you, and uh good luck.

It's been a pleasure serving with you through these years.

Thank you, Tony.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

And I would like to invite the board if you uh we would like to take a picture in the front just to have the background, and if you would like to come in here with us.

Hey, downtown.

All right, one more sorry.

Brandon Francisco, please.

Sorry, guys.

One more.

Hey.

Beautiful.

All righty.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

Continuing with announcements, uh, one week from today is April the 9th, and it's the annual meeting of downtown Fort Worth Inc.

at the Omni.

So hopefully everyone has already made reservations.

All right.

Are there any other announcements today?

Board Francisco?

None from staff.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Next on the agenda is approval of the March 5th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Hopefully, uh, we all received a copy of those.

We've re read them and reviewed them.

We have a motion to approve, and we have a second.

Any further comments.

Okay.

Mr.

Ritima, how do you vote?

In favor.

Mr.

Milliken, have you vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Dunn, have the vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Johnson, have the vote.

In favor.

Mr.

Blake, have the vote?

Favor.

Mr.

Burns, have the vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Bailey, how do you vote?

In favor.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Now we have our new cases.

Uh DG25-026R, 1612 Summit Avenue.

Yes.

This case was uh presented to the DDRB back in uh well, it was presented to the D we in three times in 2025.

Uh I will walk you through the timeline of this in a moment.

But um in the last presentation in September 2025, um, the board uh made a motion to deny the the sign.

Uh the motion passed with uh three votes in favor and to an opposition, and at that time we were reporting new board members and and all because of all those reasons.

Uh we couldn't have a full board, and the applicant later appealed the decision to the board of adjustment, um mentioning that probably uh having a full board will be uh better for them uh to act on their on their case.

Um so after several months of working with the uh Board of Adjustment team, we finally presented to uh in a special call meeting in March 11th.

Um staff uh myself was presenting uh representing DOV and responding to any questions about the case and how we review it and everything.

So after two and some hours of questions, uh the board uh decided to remand it back to the DRB.

So that's the reason why you see the big R on the case number.

Uh that that's what it means.

So it has been presented to you as originally was presented in September with the same uh requests, requests.

Um the applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a crown of building sign, and also requests the following wavers from the downtown urban design standards and guidelines.

Waiver from the crown of building sign standards to allow allow a sign with a different message instead of the requirement that crown signs have identical messages.

A waiver from the crown of building sign standards to install a sign with more than one horizontal line of letters or symbols instead of the maximum of one horizontal or vertical line of letters of or symbols.

So this is the location of the property.

This is how it looks, the building currently.

So the applicant is well, just going back with the timeline very briefly.

It was initially presented with on April 3rd, 2025 to the DDRB.

And at that time they were requesting four waivers.

And the case was continued to allow the applicant to work on that comprehensive signage plan.

A comprehensive signage plan essentially is a plan where you mention all the types of signs that are existing and those that you plan to install in the future.

So on August 7, the applicant presented the comprehensive signage plan with an alternative design.

And the motion, there was a motion to approve, but it failed because we only received three votes in favor and two in opposition.

So it then uh defaulted into denial because there was no other motion about the case.

Back in September, there was a revised proposal that was also submitted uh and there was a reduction with the waivers.

At that time, there was a new administration, and they uh they wanted to work with us and made some adjustments so they were not requesting the four waivers.

Um there was an initial motion to approve, but then after clarification from legal about if that was including all the waivers, uh the the second for that motion was uh withdraw.

So that motion couldn't make it to uh for voting because nobody else uh seconded it.

So then later was uh there was a motion to deny, and that motion passes with simple majority, three votes in favor and two in a position.

Also uh after the DDRB's decision, the applicant appealed the decision to the board of adjustment and everything else that I just mentioned just happened with this case.

Um the cases back to the DDRB.

Uh there was just one condition that we met, and it was uh to notify the applicant with 14 business days in advance and make the phone call with at least 72 hours in advance.

We do not have uh a notification system, but we send courtesy notices.

I think that was something that the board that the Board of Adjustment didn't feel comfortable with how we notify because they they thought that we should follow the same process as any other uh commission.

But it's just uh very complicated in downtown imaging a case and where it's uh two uh hotels, and then you will have to notify everybody around that.

So that's probably the reason why we don't have that system.

But we send those courtesy notices to everyone that is listed on our uh you know contact list.

Um something I forgot to mention, I'll I'll go back to the beginning is that the uh owner of the building, Nick Martin, has requested to uh remove the previous applicant, Cowtown signs from the application, and instead he will like us to include uh Frank Sellers from uh the seller's law firm to be included as the applicant.

So I just wanted to mention that because it's the case on the agenda is listed with Cowtown.

So moving forward, we we reflect this on the uh minutes, saying that we are changing the applicant and moving forward.

This case will have Frank Sellers as the applicant.

Um moving forward with the actual proposal.

Um what the applicant is requesting today is approval for the installation of the seller's law firm.

Currently, we have the DNM leasing sign, and essentially they will be removing it to install the seller's law firm.

There are two waivers they need.

One of them is that the maximum number of lines of uh horizontal line of uh letters or symbols should be one.

They have two vertically and horizontally, so that's a waiver.

But the most important one is that there is already another crown of building sign, as I mentioned, the uh on the south elevation of the building.

There is a merit price sign.

So all signage should have identical messages.

The idea of having identical messages is that the intention of the uh chronophiling sign standards is not to advertise every single business on uh on the building, but to probably uh name the building, for example, or one of the businesses could be advertised, but that's the intention is to name the building itself, not to advertise all uh businesses.

So that's that requires a waiver because the messages are different, a mere price seller's law firm.

Um this is the proposed design.

Um it meets all the other standards.

It's a revised version, but it was presented on the September meeting.

So I call it revised because at the beginning it was different, and they were requesting four waivers, they were exceeding the maximum square footage and other another elements.

So now they just need the two waivers.

Um this is what they are proposing.

These are just some of the key uh design regulations applicable applicable for criminal building signs, and we have both uh the two that we think are uh well the for the ones that they need uh the waiver.

And we we really think that the uh the intention of the design regulations is meant to have just one message to name the building, for example.

Um staff recommends denial of the certificate of appropriateness and associated waiver because we think that it does not meet that intent.

Um does the board has any questions for staff.

Yeah, the question I would have is just is there anything else that we need to know about the um board of adjustment decision?

But it was just based on not having enough folks here or not giving them enough notice.

I will say that it was not really a conversation, it was more asking for information because their role with the appeal is not to review the design of the sign.

It's just to uh review the case and make sure that the DDRB acted correctly on their decision.

It was the first appeal, uh I believe they have heard that specific board because they obviously uh uh change members with time.

So that specific board, I believe was the first time they heard an appeal from the DDRB.

So uh they had more questions, and they just asked uh several questions, what was related to the standards.

Uh for example, uh what was the intention of the standards, uh, how we work with the applicants, um you know, all sorts of questions about the process.

And at the end of the day, there was a question how we notify the applicant.

So that's when we responded that we don't really have a um notification uh requirement, so we only send courtesy notices, and we believe that's what triggered sending the case back to the DDRB because they they thought that we should notify just as any other boards or commissions with advance and sending the letters and all that, but we don't really have that requirement.

We tried to explain that, but the attorney's office was there, and they explained the legalities and you know, they were wondering where does it save that, and and essentially it was just kind of like responding questions.

Uh and then essentially that's what happened.

There was um, I believe there was some discussion between the board at the beginning about um if it was the correct decision or not, but uh I really don't think there is anything related to the design that is what we review here that could be beneficial.

Uh and we're in full compliance with the uh the notification requirements they imposed.

Yes, we sent um uh regular mail uh letter, and then we also sent a certified mail letter with 15 business days uh prior to meeting.

Uh we have the receipt saying that they received the letter.

We also send two emails, uh 15 business days in advance.

Then we call the applicant uh beyond the 72 hours.

I will say probably 100 hours or more before the public hearing.

We spoke over the phone, and um we send the regular notices again, so is it's an email that we sent to the applicant, the uh the business of the building, the owner of the building.

So yeah, we we comply with those regulations.

Thank you.

So uh just to clarify, going back to the sign.

Um our role here is to review the design.

Um the board, the BOA role wasn't more to review the process, like if if it was correctly followed.

So uh since they don't review the sign, that's the reason why they thought that the best board to review was the DDRB, so just to give it another opportunity.

Go over the staff's recommendation of denial, please.

The D DRB staff recommends denial of the proposed sign.

In reviewing the application, staff determined that the sign does not meet the intent of the crown of building sign standards, which are intended to encourage creativity and unique design while preventing clutter and an attractive streetscapes.

The princess of two signs with different messages is inconsistent with this intent as it introduces visual clutter to the building facade and the trucks from the character of the downtown district.

Additionally, the proposed sign does not function as an architectural feature and does not demonstrate a creative or unique uh design.

Um essentially what we're saying is it's uh logo of the company, and that's it.

But the intention is to advertise the business and not really to enhance the architecture of the building or try to name the building, which we believe it's what these standards are intending.

Um if we review the some of the key standards you see, we're very restrictive about everything.

Um we only allow more.

Um sorry, just one criminal building sign per facade.

Signs shall have identical messages, more than two signs are prohibited, um, maximum of one horizontal letters, uh hundred square feet for buildings uh below 100 feet tall.

So we're very restrictive about we what we want, and the reason for that is because what we want the intention of the standards is to have an architectural feature that complements the building more than just a commercial law.

It will be different if, for example, there was just one kernel building sign and the building was seller's law firm building.

That's that's meeting kind of like the intent.

But in this case, we have the Americze.

At some point we have the lawn start, uh, other uh financial institution, DNM, and now seller.

It's just that's what we believe is not meeting the standards.

Any other questions, Francisca?

Thank you, sir.

Is the applicant here to speak, please?

Come forward.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, thanks for having me.

Um, my name is Frank Sellers.

Uh I am guess the applicant now.

Um I made this presentation uh at our appeal for uh to the uh board of adjustment, and I had intended to make some changes, and there's there's some things to add to it, so I'll just do that verbally.

But just to kind of go back and give you a visual history.

When we started this process, I believe when we started this process, this building had three signs on it.

DM, Lone Star Ad Credit, and uh the other, the third was uh the Americze, which is still there.

Since that time, the Lone Star Ad Credit uh sign has come down.

Uh DNM leasing has not been in this building for seven years or more, right?

Not been in this building for seven years or more.

This is essentially a ghost sign.

Nobody uses it, don't even turn on, it's not functional, right?

There's no mechanism at this point for the city to take it down.

There's no way to force Martin Land seller's law firm or any future person to take this down.

When we moved into this building, and I remember this because when we moved into River Plaza in 2016, we toured 1612 Summit, and this was an option as well.

It's DNM is gone, y'all can replace the sign.

Um, this was very attractive to me, less so my law partner at the time, he's moved on to greener pastures.

He's moved on to Greener Pastures.

And so now here I am requesting to do what the lease that we signed in 20, I think it's 22 would uh have allowed.

So why we're here, and this would have been why we were there at the Board of Adjustment.

DN leasing's not been in there since 2017.

Three hearings, two votes.

This was wrong.

This was something I think I misinterpreted in an email from uh Francisco.

Uh three two vote both times in favor.

That's really not true.

First time was in favor, uh the second time was three to against granting the the COA.

Uh hearing number one, uh Nick was not involved, I was not involved.

It was, I think just Cowtown.

They came uh and basically were told you need a master sign plan, you're asking for too many variances.

Um, and so we changed the the the ask and came back, and I'll I'll show you the differences here in a minute.

Hearing two, master sign plan was provided, now asking for only two variances with two lines of text, and then to have two signs on the same building.

Uh, this hearing uh was on Zoom.

I was listening but not uh participating.

Uh Nick presented.

Um and so this is kind of the other side of the building, and to you know, to honor the uh the intent, right?

To present reduce visual clutter.

You cannot see both sides of this building.

There's virtually no way to see both signs at any one time.

This is a very oddly shaped building.

It's shaped, you know, to kind of run along the side of I-30.

Uh, and so it was sort of meant to have those two blocks and and multiple crowns that face different directions.

Um, this is what we're proposing to take down.

I mean, you drive by it at night, it's just off.

Um, it it's it's it's an eyesore, it's up there, it's dirty.

Uh this is what we have proposed to put on there.

Um it's it no longer exceeds too many, you know, um inches or or feet in height or too many inches or feet in width.

Uh hearing three.

So here's what happened.

It was not on Zoom.

This was the first time in September of last year that y'all had had hearings that were not on Zoom.

Uh, and so Nick and I are sitting at our computers like, hey, did you get the link?

Did you get the link?

No, you didn't get the link.

Oh my gosh.

Uh they we had gotten a notice that had uh some fine print, you know, not fine, it was the right same size as all the other, but it said uh we're you got to come in person, and it was two days before the actual hearing that we got this.

And so uh that was one issue.

Uh if you want my kind of interpretation from being there, that was one issue I think the BOA had uh an issue with, and and this should be still three two against or or just three two against approving the sign.

Um I want to address what's happened since then.

So at the BOA hearing, that was one issue that the notice, and and I'll tell you, Francisco has given us too much notice for this hearing.

With we are fully satisfied with our uh the process if we're due any here, uh, because we had full notice.

I mean, he called a hundred hours, I think he called 75 hours.

He called again at 72, so we we're here, all right.

Uh thank you, Francisco.

Uh the the other issue uh that um I think you know the board had, and a couple of people even said, you know, we're not here to redecide what we would have done on the DDRB.

Um, and even those who voted against us at the the BOA hearing said made comments, multiple of them.

I probably would have voted differently, but that's not our call here.

Our call here is to, and this was the question, determine whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support uh the the ask that we were making of of this board.

Um and they voted five to five, a lot of learning a lot about the city um uh voting uh and how it works, but five to five means you you if you're appealing, you win, right?

So that's why we're back here today.

And one of the issues that they had was there was you know four people, five people present, and it required a vote of four to approve what we're asking for.

Uh in other words, 80 percent to approve one of these COAs.

Uh and they said with simply just five people there, that's not really how they viewed in my mind that it was supposed to work, and that's kind of what I took away from it.

And so that's why we have all uh all of the members and and two new members uh here today.

So that's what's happened since.

Now we've gotten all the notice, we're here, we're back.

What also has changed is that um Nick and I have divided in Concord, and he went and actually presented this to the DFW uh Downtown Inc.

Uh, and at the previous hearings, their vote was you know, we we we side with Francisco, we don't think this should be approved.

Since then, I understand that they're now going to vote to approve what we're asking for in this COA.

So some additional intervening circumstances that have happened.

I want to address a couple of the things that were brought up before uh at this board.

And Miss Dunn, nice to see you again.

Uh, some of this was the things that I cited, but we're essentially told, hey, go back, bring us what we need.

We need a comprehensive uh master signage plan, and we need you to not ask for so much.

And I think kind of uh my takeaway, and I don't want to speak for her, she certainly seems to be able to speak for herself, but that she thought this was kind of a bait and switch.

And um, and so she's voted uh, you know twice now, I think, in our favor um at the the two hearings that have happened previously.

Um the skyline, you know, the argument is that we want to keep the skyline clean.

This is not a skyline issue, folks.

This is facing west.

This is a west facing building leaving downtown.

This is really not a skyline.

I mean, when you come downtown, you see the frost building, you see skyline, you see the tall buildings.

This is a four-story building headed west out of town.

Um, in addition, this is you know, the close-up.

There's no other sign.

You clearly cannot see uh the the sign that is facing west as you're headed west.

Um that would be the Americze sign.

One other issue that came up in front of this board is that hey, we want to have these, you know, these signs reflect so that emergency services know where to go, knows where to go, right?

And so right now you you're on you know, summit and and and I-30 at the corner, and you say, hey, um you look up, I'm at the DNM leasing building.

Um, and and uh my takeaway was that I view that some of the board thought that helpful, like we need to have that kind of thing be uh you know clear to to not only the collar but to the emergency services.

Problem with that is at seventh and summit, you have DNM leasing on two sides of the same building.

All right.

So we already have summit with DNM leasing at the corner of I-30, but you come down and take leave City Hall and take a right, and there's DNM leasing.

If you take a left on seventh, there's DNM leasing again.

So the argument about emergency services being improved, I think really kind of works in our favor that it's time to remove that relic of a sign and replace it with somebody who's in the building.

And here's um, you know, here's here's the difference.

So there's a map there that put together.

Here's the difference.

I'm willing to pay for the removal of this sign when I leave.

And I know a lot of this, the question's gonna be well, what mechanism of enforcement do you have?

You got my word.

I don't think there's any other thing to do other than to give you my word.

Uh, if there's a sort of you know, contract I could execute with the DDRB or the uh or or with Nick if that's required, I'm willing to do that.

But what this does is it offers the city and this board the chance to get to where it's trying to go.

One sign, one message, one building.

And without this offer, there's no other way.

And so with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Nick to uh tell you what I've missed.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Well afternoon, everyone.

Uh, my name is Nick Martin, uh, 6467 Crestmore Road, uh, and I'm the owner uh a partner in the 1612 Summit Avenue building.

Uh we purchased the building last June.

So, in essence, I kind of inherited this issue.

So the initial April presentation that occurred last year.

I was looking at the building, but uh was not a part of that.

Uh so when we came in uh actually immediately started speaking with Francisco, uh consulted with Frank, we looked at the presentation in April and said, okay, hold on, we got to work with this.

Uh we we did work a little bit with Cowtown Signs, but specifically with Francisco too, what can we do to improve upon the the sign that is being presented?

I mean, having four different variances when we when they originally came up just didn't work.

Uh so we worked exclusively with with Francisco to get it to a point where okay, this is reasonable.

Given the face on the building, it is it's a small side that that eastern side.

We wanted something that looked good that looked reasonable for for the size of uh the face there.

Uh so we did eventually come up with a new plan and and got it down.

It still has two layers, but uh actually originally it would have been longer, would have been a lot more to that.

So we feel like we have a reasonable sign, something that you know I could be proud to put up on my building.

Uh having two different crown signs, honestly, I'm totally okay with that.

Originally there were three, so we've gone from three crown signs down to two.

So, in essence, you know, what's what the original downtown review board has looked at, it has gone from three to two.

Uh given the facing that's an oddly shaped building, given the facing of these two signs, you really can't see both at any given time, maybe for uh split second.

Uh so I'm totally okay with having both of these up there.

Um Frank Sellers has covered most of the other points in terms of this removal.

Um, I don't know if there's anything that this this panel could do, but I can surely put something in place, have him, you know, add an additional amendment to his his renewal next time that says, hey, I will pay to have this sign removed.

Once the sign comes down, you know, then it would dole one sign on that.

Sorry, are you own the building?

So why is that sign still up?

The DNM leasing?

Yeah.

Uh it was it's been up for seven years.

Uh they never wanted to take I I believe that the previous ownership didn't want to pay the money to have it come down.

It's pretty, I don't know, probably about four or five thousand dollars to get up there, remove everything.

There's electrical um that has to be capped off, and I don't think they wanted to pay the money.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Great.

Thank you.

Have Melissa.

Hi, Melissa Quinn or representing the downtown Fort Worth Inc.

Design Review Committee.

As you've heard, um, everyone has seen this case multiple times, and we've historically looked at this building multiple times over the years.

Um at this point in time, the D FWI design review committee did recommend approval uh of this sign and this application.

The committee appreciated the edits that the applicant was willing to make to really simplify and deliver a clean message on the building.

Any questions for me?

Yes.

Yes.

We recommend approval of the application.

So what specifically were the changes that changed the mind of the committee?

Um it's in the same place where the DMM leasing sign is.

Um historically, as I mentioned, uh the sign has been allowed over time.

The site is relatively complicated with three facing facades, so you don't see the message at the same time anywhere.

Um there was concern that there's been discussion in the past about a monument sign versus a sign at the top of the building.

They felt that the monument sign in particular at this intersection was um was a little bit scary with people trying to re being able to read that from afar and get into the parking lot.

Um so it was a safety concern.

Um, and they as I mentioned the applicate applicant did reduce the scale and tried to really simplify and consolidate their message.

Yeah, so that that's what I was asking about.

So how was it changed?

You know, offhand.

I don't know off.

I mean, it's been this has been a couple of years.

I think they they made it smaller, I believe, and the font got a little smaller.

They took, I believe they took off trial trial and injury lawyers.

There was some additional text that they removed.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Melissa, what were the thoughts between the two faces not matching and the sign being different?

I mean, I I think it's accurate to say that Francisco and the staff report and the intent of the standards is that you know, at the top of the building, we like to see one message and let the architecture speak for itself.

I think um I would look at this building that it's a unique situation, and where there is no precedent, and we've got three facades facing three different directions, so you don't see that message anywhere at the same time, at least on these two facades.

Thank you.

So if this is if it's approved to have the two signs, uh-huh, and at some point when the occupant applicant leaves the building, and that individual does take down the sign, then the building only has one sign on it or impertuity, unless they take that one down.

There it cannot be unless it comes back for another hearing, another application for another uh board to approve another sign.

So would be back at one crown or one sign at the crown of the building.

That is accurate, I believe.

And uh applicants can come and ask for anything they want at any point in time.

And I would just clarify one thing that the DFWI design review board uh committee does not take away your authority.

You all we're a recommending uh body that works with you all, but you all have the votes.

Um yeah.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Let me rephrase.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the applicant and against the denial?

Okay.

If not anyone else like to speak on this motion.

Um on this application.

We don't have we we didn't receive one application.

Okay.

If not the public hearing is closed, discussion by the board.

Can I actually can we get staff's response to this idea that there's no way to get that signed down?

Sir, uh you say it again.

Can we get staff to respond to this concept that there's no way to get the DNM signed down?

Go ahead and ask.

Well, I don't know if we have to reopen the for comment.

No, this is uh what the public hearing is closed.

Yeah, you mean right now, like before the sellers like Yeah, yeah.

I mean, they haven't been there for seven years, right?

Why is it I mean we approve these signs?

Is there no way for the city to get that signed down?

So what I will say is uh there is no way for the board for the DVRB to remove it to enforce the removal, but the staff will, for example, fill out a complaint and send specters and you know, try to do that.

Um but I think that we shall have you know to demonstrate that the DNM is not you know using the uh space and you know there is is what I'm trying to say probably is we don't have the mechanism on our animal preservation on the sign.

It will be more like building code, building uh code compliance and all that, trying them to figure out how to remove it, but not really on our side.

Got it, thank you.

There are things that can be done, but things that are outside our purview we've chosen not to do because that's not appropriate at this time.

We're trying to work through.

So yes, we could we could you know we could have the signs removed eventually.

Yeah, Paul, I I assume that the rationale is that they're they've been working on replacing that sign, and it is cheaper to have somebody go up and and replace it all in one move as opposed to hiring somebody to remove it than hiring somebody to go and separately put one up.

So it might have just been optimistic on the case of the Yeah, I guess my view is like we're being asked to perpetuate a problem that you know maybe Americze leaves next, right?

And they don't want to pay to remove the Miraprice sign.

So a new tenant comes in and I say, Well, you know, we'd like a you know, we'd like to replace the Americze sign.

You know, we're a new tenant here, right?

This this is a defunct, you know, tenant.

The sign doesn't represent anybody, you know, nobody wants to pay to remove it, nobody ever wants to pay to remove signs, right?

Um wouldn't it, you know, shouldn't you grant us a waiver and allow us to have you know competing crown signs?

That's my concern.

I mean, I I I do hear the uh I I I appreciate the points that this is a this is like a pretty unique building and it did at one point have as many as three signs, and I don't know that was maybe consistent with the guidelines at the time, and maybe those changed.

Um, but that's a concern I have this is Terry Bailey, and I have a question since I was not here during the previous discussions.

I'm interested to hear who was for it and who was against it and your reasoning behind it.

I I can go back to that my conversation that I remember this was in my opinion something we we come across a lot as existing non-compliant, right?

It thankful for the applicant to come and explain maybe how we got here because we didn't understand why there wasn't something in the lease agreement that would make the tenant when they moved out to remove the sign.

So that helps explain that quite a bit.

But I think what I I motion to deny it last time is because it just didn't fall within the standards, not having matching messages or signed on uh for the crown sign.

But just for that simple fact, regardless if you can see it at the same time.

I don't know if there's anything in there that we talk about really if that's an issue on any other building.

It's not always the intent that you see it at the corner.

It's just that the clutter means that there's one or or two or more different opposing messages on a building.

It was a clear case for me.

I think I supported it because uh I just I'm not bothered by the design.

I think that just my personal opinion is that the building design tolerates uh the saw just it tolerates that aesthetically.

It would be the same if City Hall had a logo on this side of the of the building, but someone else had a different logo on the other side of the building.

It goes against the intent.

As Mr.

Sellers pointed out, because I didn't remember, I think I supported it because I don't have an issue because you can't see both of the signs at the same time.

And I think my bleeding heartness wanted to support the applicant because the landlord wrote a check is body couldn't cash.

And I wanted to honor what they thought they were getting into.

Right, wrong or indifferent, but that I think that's what I thought.

Right now, the DNM sign can remain for any length of time.

If the applic if the staff's recommendation is voted upon and it's denied, then the DNM sign can stay.

There's no obligation for it to come down.

Now here's an opportunity to hopefully put in a new sign or another sign, which we may not like, but there is the opportunity that when the tenant leaves in one or fifty years, and the tenant uh makes good on word that the sign will come down, then there will only be one sign on the building.

I mean, I'm on board with I think with the DFWI design committee.

Uh I don't know their exact logic, but uh I think they looked at the redesigned sellers sign, felt like it was aesthetically adequate, and I'm on board with that.

I'm ready to support the applicant.

Uh therefore uh was it double negative?

What's it got I'm in favor of the double negative.

Um I'm I'm ready to support the applicant's uh application to uh uh install the sign.

So I guess is that your motion?

I I should state that as a motion.

I'm sorry.

Uh my motion is to support the applicant's request to install the sign uh in line with DFWI design committee's recommendation.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

This is Terry Bailey, and I will make a second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Further discussion by the board, please.

I'll just go back to this.

Goes back to the intent of the uh the design guidelines that it shouldn't be a matching message on regardless which face of the building that's on.

And I 100% agree, but I also think we're here because sometimes we make exceptions.

I think that I think this is one of those times.

We're cleaning up a mess.

Well, we're cleaning up the mess to add some or replacing it with something else that doesn't comply.

Another mess, and I'm not gonna be on the board when it comes back.

That's the problem with existing non-compliance.

At some point in the future, the other sign may come down and it may become the seller's building.

Maybe I hope it does.

Sure, but we have the building owner here, and he hasn't committed that he won't grant another tenant an opportunity to put up a sign, right?

Maybe he'd make that representation.

I would love to hear that if he's willing to do that.

Right.

We have the building owner here, right?

Um yeah.

Uh we will need to reopen.

I'd like to ask the building owner if he'll commit not to grant another tenant a right to put up a sign.

You're an attorney, I think you have a better better grasp of this than I do, but I would imagine that might be difficult.

And I'm I'm gonna have to reopen the public hearing.

Well, yeah, and let me just clarify.

So as I understand it, what happened in this situation is they lost a tenant, they replaced the tenant, and they granted that tenant the right to replace the DNM sign with their logo, right?

What I want to be sure is not gonna happen is that a mayor prize is gonna leave, right?

And they're gonna grant the tenant that replaces a mayor prize the right to put up their sign.

If they don't have that right, is it necessary for us because I don't believe they do have that right?

If if it requires they come here and request it, then I think well it the last three signs required them to come, and they didn't.

I feel like we're trying to legislate morality.

I I don't disagree with you, Paul, but I feel like and let's say the owner sells it tomorrow.

We don't know how that owner's gonna feel.

I mean, they're not gonna be held to that.

I don't discuss it.

Well, it's impact it's yeah, it's impactful to my it would be impactful to my vote to to hear the owner of the building.

So can we reopen and have the owner come up and that's what I'm asking uh the chair if you'd if you would reopen and ask the owner that question.

Is that is it a question for legal as to whether we can attach something to the motion, uh a contingency?

Yeah, you can certainly reopen and ask the owner that and he may have reasons he would agree or not agree.

Uh as you probably know, we can't enforce that.

We can't hold him to that, but if you'd like to ask it and see what his response is, you can.

Doesn't the replacement of any of these signs require that they come back here?

Yes.

Yes, and uh that will be uh staff, you know, exercise of memory like giving the board the background of this, and so you I will make sure we'll make sure to share the background of this building, and that will be our part uh so you can have that information.

And it doesn't matter if it's a new owner, new tenant or whatever.

I will bring or we will bring that information to you.

Um yeah, certainly if you want to reopen the hearing.

Like to reopen the public hearing?

Would the applicant, the building owner, come forward, please?

Nick Martin, partnership of of building ownership.

Um with that question, if a mayor prize ever did come down, if they ever leave, uh the first thing that I would do would immediately go to Mr.

Sellers and offer that side to him to have the same messaging on either side.

Um I'm not familiar with the lease, a mayor prize's lease on whether I can mandate that they take down that sign or not.

Um but in terms of requesting another sign to go up, I can't give that.

So if I was gonna give them any legal advice, I would say I'm you know, I I can't approve that sign, and I would immediately give them basically some sort of background of what we've all gone through here and say, you know, you would have to go in front of this panel and ask if that would even be an option.

So I think that that's you know, I would I'd probably step back and just say, you know, hey, this is the history of it, this is what I can do, this is what I can't do, and you know, you would be on your own for that.

Um there wasn't another thing in let's see, in April, there was a request for this this master plan signage package.

Um, and I think the interpretation of that when I when I joined was a little little off because I wasn't there in April.

So we basically, you know, said it should we ask for anything and everything.

So in that August meeting, we kind of put, well, we could do this, we could do that, we could do that.

We had no intention at that time to really put up another monument sign.

We we we discussed this.

We had no intention of adding another um tenant right next to the 1612 summit that that kind of uh half wall that's right there on that intersection.

Um we said, hey, well, let's ask for everything and anything, not actually wanting to install that.

And then some of the back back uh the feedback that we got was well, especially from from um uh DFW Inc.

is we don't want any of this.

So we kind of rescinded that master plan.

So some of those things that we had asked for, we really have no plan, had no plan of ever asking for.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Any other questions by the board?

Yes, sir.

So if I may, it's a couple things I just want to point out is relevant to the code and and how we look at it and the intents and purposes on why these codes are written in the way they are.

With one message, a new singular sign comes down if it's replaced by another one.

So we wouldn't, we're not kicking this down the road if we only have one sign.

Because the tenant, the next tenant, the next person would come and replace the only sign that's up with another sign, and we don't have a sign that still exists.

So the clutter for multiple signs, the visual clutter, and it's not just on the building, it's all signs that you can see.

Could be other buildings, it could be you know, wherever.

Um multiple signs can be confusing.

People looking for a building, they're looking for the DNM building.

Well, one calls it the DN building, one calls it the Americas building.

It's kind of hard to connect even with emergency services.

I will say that you know we haven't done anything as far as trying to get the sign removed, but we will encourage the removal if it is denied here.

And that's all I have to say.

Excuse me.

Any other thank you very much.

Okay.

And seconded.

Further discussion.

My comment is I'll reiterate to what Brandon said.

We are we are absolutely creating the exact same situation.

Another board's gonna sit down and go for another variant next time this comes back around.

And maybe the next board will do something different.

Not I think I have a question when we vote the way you ask your question.

Are we saying we approve talk about that?

Yeah, the mo the motion will be um, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a motion to approve as written, the requested COA and two waivers.

So if your vote is to approve or for, then yes, it's a motion, a vote to approve.

To approve the COA.

Mr.

Richama, how do you vote?

Against.

Mr.

Millikan, how do you vote?

Approved.

Ms.

Dunn, have the vote?

Approved.

Ms.

Jensen, how do you vote?

Approved.

Mr.

Blake, how do you vote?

In favor.

Mr.

Burns, how do you vote?

Against.

Ms.

Bailey, how do you vote?

Approved.

So motion passes five versus two.

Okay.

Oh, thank you.

Okay.

Franciscan stop.

To the applicant and everyone building on room.

Thank you very much.

And uh Andrew is having to depart.

Okay.

So moving right along to our second case, DG 2026-005 at 1010 Euston Street.

Yes.

Um so uh yeah, just for the minutes, under Blake is uh departing from the meeting.

Um he has an R compromise, so we only have uh six board members present.

We still have Chrome, and we still can continue with the with the cases on the agenda.

Um the applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a new crown building sign and request the following waiver from the downtown normal design centers and guidelines.

A waiver from the carnal building sign centers to allow a chronic building sign with more than one horizontal or vertical line of uh letters or symbols where the standard allows a maximum of one horizontal or vertical line of letters or symbols.

Um this is the location of this building.

It is the uh Fairfield uh in, and so it's merried uh by Mary Hotel.

Um these are just um a couple of images of the but it's existing.

Um you can see um it was approved uh in the past, and just to mention something uh the problem is gonna make sense for everyone.

The Dunstan Stones and Gaussians were updated in uh 2016.

So I while I cannot remember when this case was presented, presumably it was presented probably before uh that that changes on the standards, so just just so you know that this was approved in the past under probably other standards.

And um just showing you some images.

Um they uh their project uh includes uh refing the poll signs, uh changing the wall sign and the chronobuilding sign.

Uh we approve it administratively.

The the changes on the poll sign and the wall sign because it meets the standards, there's no waivers, and that was something that we will approve.

We we would like to have approved the crown billing sign, but again, that's exceeding the the maximum of line of letters or symbols allowed.

So that's technically allowed.

Uh I mean uh waiver.

So uh there's the here's the proposal.

As you can see, they are uh changing the uh coronavirus sign from uh three lines of text to two, and it's the same uh location, and I think it's uh pretty much the same uh square footage and everything.

The difference of this building obviously is that the whole building is just the the fairfill hotel and it's not really like any other businesses or anything like that.

So that's um the other view, two messages, all of them are identical.

Um so here again the the design regulations, and in this case, the only waiver they need is uh for the number of vertical line of letters or symbols, which is one is the maximum, so they have two.

Um we recommend approval because in this case we think that it makes sense uh for this specific building.

Um and again, staff will reapprove administratively the wall sign and the refacing of the poll signs, and again, they are just refacing the poll signs, they are not changing the poll signs in any way.

Um yeah, that if you have any questions for staff about this.

The two lines still fall within the maximum signage square footage.

Yes, yeah, yeah.

So by going to two lines.

They are essentially reducing uh technically the score footage because in the previous one you see here is three lines of text, so the height of the overall height of the signage was greater, so now they are reducing it.

So um hopefully next time is just fair fill and just one line of text, and we can approve it administratively.

But this time they need that that waiver.

So uh you have any questions about the applicable standards.

Francisco.

Okay.

Is the applicant here, please?

Yes.

Like to speak, welcome.

Hi, my name is Marie Byron with Byron Sign and Lighting.

I'm the applicant.

Um, and what I want to say about this, uh if you'll notice um on the drawing here, it the the sign, the existing sign is 100.3 square feet, and the proposed sign is coming down to 50 square feet.

Um if you if you look at the two signs, I think you can see that this uh the proposed sign um is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye and easy um makes it easier to identify the building.

I think the existing signage is um is a little busy.

Um and also I want to mention that um I know that this is a a second line of copy, but Fairfield by Marriott is their rebranding, and that is um it's it's part of their brand and it's not a tagline.

Any questions?

Questions are the applicant.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Do we have anyone to speak in favor of this application?

Uh Melissa Conoa representing the DFWY Design Review Committee.

Um the committee recommends approval of the sign.

It's a much cleaner, simpler look for all the reasons the applicant needed.

Thank you, Melissa.

Anyone else to speak in favor of this application?

Do we have anyone to speak in opposition of this application?

If not, public hearing is closed.

Discussion by the board, please.

I move to approve uh the COA as proposed.

Second.

We have a motion.

Just want to clarify that's the COA and the waiver, right?

Yes, thanks.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Francisco, please.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Ritama, how do you vote?

In favor.

Mr.

Mellican, have they vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Dunn, have they vote?

Favor.

Ms.

Johnson, have the vote?

In favor.

Mr.

Blake.

Oh, he's he actually left.

Mr.

Burns, have you vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Bailey, have you voted?

In favor.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Moving right along.

DG 2026 008 300 West 7th Street.

Yes.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of four wall signs.

And also request the following waiver from the downtown Orange Science Standards and Guidelines.

A waiver from the allocation of sign area standards to allow four wall signs with a total square footage of 107.50 square feet when the maximum allowed is 70 square feet.

And essentially they will like to install uh wall sign here.

They will like to install, I think the other one is here, and the other one is the other side.

This is a very particular business because it's a corner, so they have the ability to install signs on both elevations.

So these are just another other views.

This is for the Texas bank.

And so here's the design.

We work with the applicant, and you may see in the staff report that we were recommending to continue working with staff, but they sent us a revised version after sending the staff report.

So now the the we are more in support of this application.

Essentially, at the beginning, when we start reviewing this application, the the two signs that are you know, like these two Texas bank signs, they were more like cabinet box signs.

There was no depth, and it was like trail lake.

So all of those things are not really allowed by the Dunstan Standards and Guidelines.

So we were with the applicant, and after uh that presentation to Downtown Forward Inc.

that decided to revise the the uh type of sign.

So you can see now it's it's not really like a box.

They just need that kind of thicker backer plate because they are in the way they are installing the sign.

Um it cannot be totally flat, but otherwise that will be the case.

So it's just housing the structure essentially.

But as you can see in this uh model here, the letters are protruding, so they they have some depth, and that no longer is uh uh it no longer reads as a cabinet box sign.

So just that clarification that happened uh while after presenting the uh the I'm sending the staff reports, and just with the spirit of moving forward with the application, we we think that this is uh correct direction.

This is the other uh wall sign is uh again the log is just the logos of the bank is uh um the the thing is they need a waiver because the square footage part of the reason why they need the square footage, and I'm gonna go back here for a moment, is because the sign will be attached in the top and on the columns.

So we were exploring different ideas of how to make it happen, but um otherwise they will have to you know place it probably here, and we didn't want it, you know, like detriment the architecture of the building.

So we're supportive of the square footage.

Uh previously it's it's it's probably relevant to mention that the DRB granted some waivers for previous banks, so it has been a bank uh uh kind of corner uh with different uh type of I think it was PNC previously there.

So uh we are in support of the the of the application and we uh recommend approval.

So um this is one of those situations where it makes sense to increase the you know square footage for to have it very well fixed to all the areas and all that.

So can you go back to the larger sign, please?

Yes.

What's illuminated?

The letters only and only Texas bank?

Yeah, probably um probably the logo as well.

Yeah, the the logo and the letters, yeah.

And then they are internally illuminated, so that's uh that's a lot in that the entire blue area.

Show us where again it would be on the elevation.

Yes, the blue, uh the blue background will show in the elevation, it will look probably something like this, and you will see the drawings in additional when the applicant show you all the details.

But yes, and the reason for that again uh is because they need more area to attach it.

I mean, we are not really sign persons, and and we know it's part of the background more than of the sign, but we can all the area of the sign as part of the square footage, so that's the reason why they need that waiver.

Um if they are other ways to install it, um, probably that's a good question for the applicant, and they can't they can give you more information, but at this time we think it we're supportive of the application as it is going to be basically suspended.

Uh yeah, it will be attached here and at the top and this here, but yeah, it will be it will look like suspended essentially.

And what's the back side of it?

The back suspended, it has an inside back side.

If you're walking out of the building.

Yeah, it's good.

Let me show you here.

Like this the housing is is there is the the back is just gonna be all flat and it's gonna be blue.

Like I uh I suspect, yeah.

That's kind of it's gonna look from the feeder.

I mean, that's pretty pertinent because when you walk out the bank door, you can look up and see the back of it.

Yeah, we haven't had conversation about that.

There needs to be.

Maybe the applicant or Melissa can address that.

Yeah, that's a good question.

Um probably cool.

Um I mean, that's a good question for the applicant, but probably cool just add the same logos and all that on the other side, maybe that's an opportunity for that.

Um but but yeah, the for current design facing the street, we are supportive of how it looks.

And um, and yeah, so we're recommend approval for the the proposed signage and the waiver for to exit this the score footage.

So the two signs are at right angle at each other.

Right.

Yeah.

Oops.

Yeah, so the other one will be here, and the other one here.

Going eastbound on 7th Street, and you're sitting at the light at Throckmorton, you're able to look underneath the first sign and see the back of the sign along Throckmorton.

Uh I'm not sure, but um I could question.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So is the applicant like to speak, please?

Yep.

Welcome.

Fine, thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Cale Moreland, representative of Mellow Signs.

I'm working with Texas Bank on on obviously the signage here.

Um of the things that I do want to address is you mentioned the back of the sign.

Um, this is a fully enclosed type cabinet.

You will not see any structure at all.

The way that the previous signs have been installed is we are following that exact same approach.

You're gonna have hardware that goes through the sign mounted directly, so there will not be any gaps around it.

The reason we are needing to do this is because like Francisco said, there is no other place that would architecturally allow us to add signage.

Don't even think where you would point it as part of the applicant's suite.

So I don't think we can even use that.

With these cabinets, they are the same size height-wise.

So when you're traveling down the street, you will not see the back side.

However, it is going to be completely covered in, it will look just like the rest of the building.

We could do a paint match to match the columns that are currently there or have it blue as it's currently shown.

Um also the illumination, the blue would not be illuminated at night.

You would only see the logo and the letters on both signs on the fronts only.

Nothing is on the back.

One of the other things is in order to fill that space, we can't have any kind of raceways.

Uh it would require a waiver as well.

So we feel that this is the best way to structurally keep the look of the Fort Worth Club uh and and working with them to make sure that we're not adding to their building or taken away from it.

Any questions?

Questions?

The applicant.

Thank you, sir.

Would you like me to go through this or or go go right ahead?

I didn't make it.

Okay.

It is basically what you saw.

So you can see here in this one, that shows that there will not be any reveal whatsoever around the blue box portion of the sign.

Another reason that we are doing the span across the columns on both Throckmorton and Taylor is because the power access for this is right behind where that sign is going to be located.

If we were to put the sign on the column or above it, you're gonna have exposed conduit.

There's no way to get power to that sign, which just makes it look ugly.

So this hides the all hardware, hides all power.

I think it fits perfectly within it.

It stays along the flush plane of the elevation.

We're doing that same thing on the other side.

Boom, there we go.

Now, as far as the column signage that you see down there at the bottom left, that's non-illuminated.

They're just acrylic pieces flush mounted straight to the column as part of just the regular branding.

But it is included in the square footage, which is why we're asking for the waiver.

So there's gonna be the sign on Throckmorton, the sign on seventh, as well as column signs on Throckmorton.

Correct.

And column signs on seventh.

Yes.

Four total.

Correct.

All the exact same.

You're gonna see a little bit of size difference on the main size, uh, the main signs, uh, just because the width of those openings is different.

Uh the 16 foot is the larger one, and then the other one, I think was very similar, but there is a bit of a difference.

Which also we were talking about seeing the back side of the same height, so it would be blocked.

And the Fort Worth Club building has approved this.

They have, yes.

Thank you, sir.

Excellent.

Appreciate it, guys.

We have anyone to speak in favor of this application.

It's worth noting that when we first saw this application, it sorry, it's worth noting that when we first saw this application, it was it read more like a traditional cabinet sign.

So the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to add depth to those letters um to give it more dimension, so it fits in with the downtown signage um guidelines for that reason.

We are supportive of the project and don't mind the square footage at all.

We understand the need to um fill that void.

I think there is maybe a question of relief, maybe from the the the plane versus the sign sitting in that square, and I appreciate the comments that you all made about the back side of the sign.

I will be honest, it didn't even come up.

We were so focused on the front of the sign and and the dimensions.

That's it, that's the other comment.

Questions?

Questions of Melissa?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have others who would like to speak in support of this application?

No, we don't have anyone.

We have anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to this application.

We don't have anyone.

Thank you, Francisca.

Discussion by the board, please.

Public hearing is closed.

Can I ask a question?

The overall square footage exceeds the allowed amount.

Does that include all four signs?

That's one end exceeds the amount.

That's correct.

Um there was this for the installation of four wall signs, and we are counting all signs as wall signs.

So that's the reason why they are exceeding this core footage.

But uh the maximum score footage will be 70.

So let's say that they only install the larger ones.

Still, I believe they are around the uh hundred score food.

So the the the column signs do not really contribute a lot to this score footage is the the larger ones.

And that's also because we're counting the background.

Um I think I guess that's the reason why we are supportive in this situation because in our review, we thought that uh what the applicant is requesting is uh um you know to have more uh surface to attach it properly so it doesn't fly away with the wings that we have in forward.

the the larger ones still I believe they are around the uh hundred square foot so the the the column signs do not really contribute a lot to this score footage is the the larger ones and that's also because we're counting the background um I think I guess that's the reason why we are supportive in this situation because in our review we thought that uh what the applicant is requesting is uh um you know to have more uh surface to attach it properly so it doesn't fly away with the winds that we have in forward and that's the reason why we think that it in this particular case it makes sense but I want to really damage the architecture or I don't know detrimand that the forward club the overall design of the building so uh but yeah it is exceeding the square footage yeah I agree go expanding from column to column seems to make the is the right move yes I'll just have a gap between everything yes and but the not a variance for them to have the four wall signs um no it's because we count them on the square footage so now there is a guideline that says that two wall signs per uh elevation should be enough but it doesn't say two is the maximum or anything like that and in this particular case since it's a corner so they could have two on each of the sides so it's you know it's a very particular uh location we don't really see typically you see one wall sign in general but it's just you know tenants and this is a corner is there any conversation about uh instead of putting the little signs on the columns just having signage on the doors right there as I understand why you want the signs on the columns for the street big ones are for the cars but is there was there any conversation about pushing those column signs back onto the doors where you can see no we didn't uh recommended that but I mean you that could be a recommendation from the board and we didn't explore that alternative when we were talking with the applicant at the beginning they wanted to stick to what uh they initially proposed and later just redesign the two box signs to have it you know uh more dip on the lettering but we didn't really explore other options um I think as Melissa mentioned we were very focused on how to touch it and how you over you know that overlook um yeah what did the PNC signs look like is it this was it the same or do we know what it looked like I I do not have the drawings I can um try to locate them but I think uh this is uh the reason why they came up with this proposal is because the PNC signs were exactly the same they had uh kind of like a wall sign there and then another cabinet uh sign there so uh I think they were also following that you know direction and I believe that before PNC there was another bank and the signs were exactly the same so you know uh revolving banks yeah Francisco they were positioned differently there were a box sign on the wall right the location was exactly the same it was just the design it was different in this specific case we've worked with the applicant so now you can see uh the depth is just four inches and uh in the past it was uh chunky box uh can't remember the the the dimensions but it was literally just a box and the the logo and all that it was just router letters and it was acrylic attached to the box so it was a box now they have the uh the structural element the the blue element and the letters are projecting at least half an inch um we can work in that uh depth for the letters actually the applicant asked us what will be a good dimension for the letters but we don't have really standard about that we just said that it should the letters should have some depth well but Francisco when you when you brought it to me originally I think it was up above the header or on the top of the header and you know I helped with the solution to move it down in between the headers in between the columns to kind of sit flat that would allow it to sit flat so yes we did we did work with them to get away from the box sign look and that was it and you know uh when the applicant got up here when the when the sign company got up here and explained that the sign was going to be the same and it would to look as a header that it was just a the header drop down a little bit that's that's the compromise that was made.

Can you go back to the elevation of the building please photo.

So the location that is shown in drawings that's the location we have always discussed is just the design change.

Thank you.

If the illumination works the way they're saying it is, I think that's a nice solution.

I'm not for sure that we need the smaller sign on top of the black granite.

I think that's detracting.

Yes.

Do we have the option of approving the large sign without approving the signs on the granite face?

Yes, you could you could uh make your motion to uh for the COA for two signs instead of four.

But uh and in that case, I don't know that well Francisco would have to do the measurements on whether a waiver would be needed in that case, but you could also still approve the waiver.

Yeah, yeah, it's still the waiver will be required to exceed the square footage because the small wall signs, I think they are adding around eight square feet or something like that.

So still the maximum will be 70.

So they need that waiver as well.

But yes, you can you can make the motion to approve only the other signs.

You can also make the motion to explore other alternatives like locating signs on the windows, for example.

We approve the boxes and make a motion to go back and maybe come with out the columns, putting it on the door, or do they have to come back if they put it on the door?

Um, I I think in that case, what needs to happen is to approve the the two large uh signs and deny the other ones, and then we staff can work with the applicant to figure out a different solution, adding you know, window signs or plaque signs, and if they need a waiver, then we will be back to the DDRB, but if they meet standards, it could be approved administratively, just like the fur filled uh hotel where the other signs were meeting the standards.

I mean personally, I think that's a really nice idea is to have the signage if you're walking just on that glass versus on those really cool kind of granite columns.

Like to me, it just kind of messes up the column, and you there's plenty of branding with that big sign that looks will look cool.

So in that case, I will make a motion that we approve the two large signs as described without the signs on the granite face.

Do I need more clarification on that?

That's fine.

So we have a approval for the COA for two signs, and including the waiver for the size.

Approximately 100 square feet for the two signs.

Yes, correct.

If that'll work, yeah.

Second, second?

Okay, we have a motion and we have a second.

Do we have further discussion, please?

If not, Francisco, please.

Mr.

Ridema, how the vote?

In favor.

Mr.

Milliken, how do you vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Dunn, how do you vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Johnson, how do you vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Burns, Mr.

Burns, have the vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Bailey, how do they vote?

In favor.

Motion to approve two of the four signs and the waiver passes.

Unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving right along.

Case number four, DG 2026-012 at 1400 Henderson Street.

Perfect.

Yes, the applicant request a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of two rooftop signs located on the east and the north elevations of the historic building.

And request the following Weber from the downtown Norwegian standards and gallons.

Just to clarify about this sign, we are only reviewing the design of the sign.

The building is historically designated.

So we're just looking at the overall design of the sign and not really, you know, uh how it's gonna be installed.

Um this is the location of the the we are talking about the public market.

Now the building itself, the public market is the um the structure that is historic, but the way historic designations were I believe is for the full site, so everything is just considered historic.

Um essentially they are proposing to install two signs, one here and another here.

Um this is another view, and it was very complicated to take pictures, so I have to take them from Google Earth.

This is one of the only cases that I couldn't take pictures that are still under construction and and it's complicated.

Um this is a view of uh one of the signs.

It's gonna be public market, and this is above uh the I think this is the north uh side of the uh building.

Let me just confirm that.

North build, yeah.

This is the north side of the building, and this is just you know some details about the sign.

And then this is the other side, uh looking at the east of the building.

Um this is some details.

This project was reviewed and approved by the DDRB.

I will say probably, I think it was a couple of months before I started working with the city, so it's gonna be around three and a half years.

It's a very complex project.

It included several components and signage was one of those, and they they mentioned during the approval that they were gonna be coming back with designage, but they still show some visuals of the conceptual ideas at that moment.

And uh so this is in alignment with that, it's just that it requires your approval.

Um again, the building is historic designated, it was also approved, reviewed and approved by the historic commission, and they were working together.

We work with the historic preservation officer.

And uh she mentioned that she doesn't see any issues with the installation because uh it is actually installed on the uh roof and not really to the walls, which is something they do not want to do just so they don't damage the elevations.

And uh while working in the old city hall every day, I was driving around, and the amount of work the developer uh spent taking care of the elevations was amazing.

Like they were every day trying to cover it, not to touch it at all, so this could remain historic.

So we think that the solution is appropriate again.

Uh the historic preservation officer also supports that.

And we think that in this particular uh situation, um the design it it uh it's one of those designs that actually complements the architecture of the building.

We don't really unfortunately we don't really see a lot of those.

And this is one of those.

Uh so we we're in support of this signage.

We recommend approval.

Um, we really think that it's gonna look good, and having the support from the historic preservation officers was uh something important for us.

The um I'm not sure if the applicant check in, and I will make sure see right now if if they are here or not, but I just want to let you know that they already received approval from two other historic uh entities.

I I cannot remember exactly the names of those entities, but essentially everybody has blessed the signs.

So the reason why we're presenting it to the DDRB, it's because uh rooftop signage uh is not allowed and they um we don't want to send the message saying that we're just allowing them.

This is a very specific location, a very particular type of structure, historic designatory um it's HSE, highly significant and the and danger.

So we don't really have a ton of those type of buildings around downtown.

So we really think that uh the message is it's gonna be correct for this particular type of building, it matches the architecture and it uh enhances it.

So we're recommending approval for this one.

Any questions about the the questions of Francisco?

We have the applicant or we don't.

Do we have the applicant?

Um they were present when we then they presented it to downtown for World Inc., but I don't know.

We don't we don't have them.

Um just so you know we can do then I do have a couple questions maybe for Francisco.

Then I do have a couple questions maybe for Francisco.

Could you go back uh to the images of the signs?

Uh that one is pretty self-explanatory.

You go to the other one.

Yeah, what is that?

What is that a gonna be a restaurant?

Yes, it's a restaurant, and it's uh I believe it's gonna be an Italian restaurant, and we didn't have the opportunity to discuss what's going on inside because they're keeping it a little bit confidential because of the big opening and all that.

But I recall the applicant mentioned it's gonna be an Italian restaurant.

But the justification for the different signage, we just had a case.

Uh so the justification for the different signage is because this is gonna be a restaurant, and they don't want to attach anything to the facade because it's a historic building.

Yes, yeah.

Uh the building, the idea when it was since the beginning reviewed by the DDRB, they were planning and preserving the structure while obviously giving it a new life.

And by giving it new life, they they intended the the restaurant.

Um I had the opportunity to visit the site, and the amount of work they have put in this building is amazing.

Like everything that has happened in this this project is it's amazing.

And they have worked with several teams around the the development services department because it's again a very complex project.

So yes, um that was intention from the beginning.

Okay, and this is considered a different, this is a different building than the other building that is on the contiguous site.

Right?

You can see it behind.

Okay, well that then that exactly then that spurs my next question, which is isn't there also signage?

There's different signage of building behind this building, the attached, as we just established attached building.

I mean the hot uh hotel port or apartment, the apartment complex.

Yeah, that's what it is considered.

Yes, signage on that.

Yes, they have a monument sign for that uh component of the building.

And uh I believe it is a uh monument sign that is uh at the very entrance of this um uh residential area, and I think they have also a wall sign.

Uh we did not review them at that time because uh it's historic designated, and we allow that type of signs.

It's just that in this case, rooftop signs are not allowed.

So that's the reason why we wanted to present it to the DDRB.

Um typically when this type of uh signage comes uh to downtown, it's in general only reviewed by the historic commission because you know they take care of the how they're gonna install it, how to preserve it, and they have their specific regulations, and the way it works is the stricter of the two uh apply.

Whenever it's a wall sign, the stricter are gonna be the preservation standards.

But in this case, since it's a rooftop, the stricter as the downtown standards because we don't allow them.

That's the reason why we're presenting this to you.

And the monument sign and the other thing was review and approved by the historic uh commission or preservation officer, the historic team eventually.

Can you go back to the other images?

That one then this one appears to be more or less horizontal, or the drawing appeared to have an arc in it.

Yeah.

Um probably is the perspective, yeah, of this rendering.

Um what controls the size of it?

Nothing really.

So do they have to come back with the final design or size, or could they stretch it a hundred feet long in order to cover the entire length of it?

So where determines that yeah, so we're we're in this case just discussing the uh location, not really the square footage.

Uh I mean that's something probably the historic commission could take a look at based on saying, for example, that is too heavy for the roof or something like that, and that not comp doesn't really comply with you know preservation standards, but in this case, the preservation officer found that it's appropriate.

So uh they cool, we we don't really review that.

The maximum square footage allowed, it wouldn't fall into those two, like the previous case we had Francisco, isn't it dimensioned?

Don't we have to mention?

But if we allow the rooftop sign, we have the dimensions.

It's also exceeding them to approve the location.

doesn't really comply with you know preservation standards but in this case the preservation officer found it that it's appropriate so uh they cool we we don't really review that the maximum square footage allowed it wouldn't fall into this two like the previous case we had Francisco isn't it dimensioned don't we have to mention but if we allow the rooftop sign we have the dimensions it's also exceeding the to approve the location fact that there are rooftop signs exactly yes okay and we specifically on the standard says that rooftop signs are not allowed it doesn't say that they are prohibited it just says that it's not allowed so if we don't have a specific rooftop design regulations we cannot really enforce any type of we are just approving the uh the the the type of sign and the location essentially and then they're gonna come back did you answer that I'm sorry are they gonna come back and we're gonna re approve the specifications no it you're just approving the location and the type of sign and after that is going to be reviewed by the historic commission or the historic preservation officer and they will do their diligence and making sure that the square footage is correct and all that unappropriate for the for the building we're just allowing the type of sign because it's listed as the type of the not allowed in the downtown district but the historic standards might not have anything to say about the size of the sign yeah presently that's how they review signage in historic uh buildings so yeah I will say they they should have some standards I I don't have them on the top of my head I don't really review historic designated buildings or signage for sort of designated buildings but uh we always have you know preservation standards about how to install them appropriate locations and all that so I presume that they should have that I guess my experience with historic buildings is typically that they'll have a bunch of requirements around yeah just that how to install but not necessarily how big the sign is that they're installing it in a way that doesn't damage the nature of the building agree with that on the Ashton depot it's the same kind of historic property and then they're not looking at downtown Fort Worth or how what it's gonna eventually look like in our community that we are we are just approving putting a sign any sign on the roof.

There's no specifications we don't regulate rooftop signs we just not allow them we can condition right we can condition our approval on yes that's that's what I was going to say is the board could always make a motion conditioned on some size your conditions of course are always aimed at trying to meet the downtown design standards and fit with those so you could certainly condition a motion on so the verbiage could be to for the motion to be approval of the signs based on the downtown specifications being utilized.

Well you I suppose you you may could condition it based on the proposal itself as it stands now size um or you could condition it subject to working with staff on size uh but there as Francisco said there are no specific for rooftops so I don't know if you want to just defer to the standards um you may have to be more specific than that.

So and the the historic preservation officer will consider this the contextual size and the appropriate size of what would have been what was appropriate going across the entire roof that was that would never been allowed it's not appropriate it's got to look like it belonged at one time like it was there.

So it's it's gotta fit so maybe it could be that you know the the size of it would yield to the HCLC that would be an option for their contextual um assessment of the size approximately and and just to add about the standards we cannot just create standards to regulate it and we can all also amend and the fly the standards and say now rooftop signs are subject to the we don't have any regulations I think in these cases is a matter of the location and if it's appropriate for for you know that location and the type of sign is not allowed and and that's what's been discussed everything else uh it's gonna be discussed and review by the again the historic uh commission or historic preservation officer be helpful to have the applicant here yeah um we always send the notices we always talk to the applicants and do our diligence but you never know what what could have happened we're still in discussion I do think the rooftop sign is a good look it's a good idea it's much better than putting something that is allowed on the side of that building I think it's a fun sign.

of the location and if it's appropriate for for you know that location and the type of sign is not allowed and and that's what's been discussed um everything else uh it's gonna be discussed and review by the uh again the historic uh commission or historic preservation officer it would be helpful to have the applicant here yeah um well lend the notices we'll always talk to the applicants and do our diligence but you never know what what will have happened we're still in discussion I do think the rooftop sign is a good look it's a good idea it's much better than putting something that is allowed on the side of that building I think it's a fun signal I'm surprised is along especially along I third surprise the historic officer usually if we add something to a historic building you're trying to make it look distinctively new separate not be confused that it was part of the original building this makes me feel like it's part of the original building so I'm surprised they were favor this yeah are we in public session did we close the sir if I think this is still open and just to uh add some uh regarding the standards if if you will um it will be review as a creative sign uh in that case creative signs we don't really have any regulations and they just need to be appropriate for the building and be you know artistic creative unique and I think uh we think in this case that the that sign is meaning that intent but we don't have any specific you know score footage or anything like that is the applicant here we uh we don't have the applicant we do okay I want it noted that the applicant is not here yes do we have anyone to speak in favor of this application yes thank you Melissa good afternoon everybody Melissa Connor representing the downtown Fort Worth in design review committee um I appreciate the conversation today uh the DFWI design review committee did recommend approval of these creative signs um and I I know Francisco just brought that up but the standards do say creative sign standards creative signs bring fun and vitality to downtown streets and are encouraged in general uniquely designed signage shall respond to the site landscape and architectural design context where they are located signs shall seek to become a piece of art or architect or an architectural feature creative sign shall be reviewed based on this criteria sign intent and guiding principles of the downtown urban standards and guidelines so if you look go back and look at our historic photos there are huge signs all over um you know from the 30s 40s that are no longer on our buildings for the most part um this in some ways is a nod to that although I don't believe it was ever historically on this building I think it was a variety of other awnings and such um but this helps elevate the building while at the same time protecting it as Francisco mentioned it has been to the National Park Service and Texas Historical Society.

So the committee was very comfortable um approving these creative signs for Melissa thank you for your insight do we have questions of Melissa thank you thank you very much do we have anyone else to speak in favor of this application no we don't have anybody uh do we have anyone to speak in opposition to this application we don't have anyone if not the public hearing is closed discussion by the board please I think we would regret not approving this so I move that we approve as requested so I guess my uh view is that um I I really like the signs and I love the development it's great it's great for that spot I'm excited for potentially a new Italian restaurant uh those 61 stereo is great um uh but um you know I I just am I am concerned that you know you end up with a sign that is twice as large as uh is being proposed today um uh which maybe maybe that's that works but I would certainly want them to come back and present that so um I don't know if I'm able to amend the motion but you know I I would amend it to say that you know to approve it you know provided that the you know total square footage of each sign doesn't exceed 150 square feet and I would second that however you would say that I would second that okay let me withdraw my motion and you may make a motion uh so I'd move to approve uh the certificate of appropriateness with the waiver uh conditioned on uh each sign not exceeding 150 square feet good second perfect we have a motion we have a second further discussion by the board by the excuse me by the board please

Excuse me, by the board, please.

In favor.

Mr.

Mellican, have you vote in favor?

Is done have the vote?

Ms.

Johnson, have you vote?

Motion passes five versus one.

Thank you.

Yeah.

The good thing is at least we can continue, and we're not going to sleep here.

We're going to have the doors open, so as soon as we finish, we can leave the building.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a phase two of the convention center, including renovation of existing convention center spaces, demolition of the 1916 arena, arena and expansion of the building with the addition of approximately 358,000 square feet to the north side of the facility.

And second, request the following waiver from the downtown urban design centers and guidelines, a waiver from the building location orientation and setback standards to allow a setback up to 130 feet instead of the maximum loud of five feet from the back of the sidewalk.

I will like to walk you through some images of the existing conditions.

So we all have the same information that we use to review and evaluate this proposal.

So just walking through the uh north elevation of the uh building, we have the streets and the can only the plaza, and on over Commerce Street, uh we have the recently concluded uh phase one of the convention center.

This is just a view of how the uh uh the the parking area for the uh trailers and and docks uh looks like um as you can see we have sidewalks and the pedestrian lights and those barriers between the sidewalk and the uh street.

Uh, this is a better image and uh for both of the uh things that I was talking about.

Um I'm gonna show you the uh phase one, just because the materials and the design uh language is very similar to uh what is being proposed uh for phase two.

Um you can see here uh the glass composition, the materials.

Uh the applicant, uh Mr.

Banner will walk you around about these materials and give you more information about them.

Um this is the inferior of the uh phase one, just to show you the other materials they have used.

And uh there's I believe there's a Starbucks there.

I it was not really paying attention when I took the picture, but um you can see it there, then there are these stirs that take you to this uh terrace level.

It's um on the phase one again.

So for phase two, uh the applicant is proposing going from what you have on the left to what you have on the right.

Um as I mentioned, phase one is on the dotted uh line with black, it says phase one.

That's completed.

That's that's not to discussion.

It was presented to the DDRB a couple of years ago and it was approved.

Um so what we are discussing today is what is within the red uh box.

Um to mention is, and I forget to mention that at the beginning is the presentation today is for the building, just for the building itself.

Uh the applicant is planning and coming back in the future presentation for the plaza improvements, but this uh the uh pedestrian lines, street trees, and all the other exterior improvements.

Um they are exploring several options for that plaza, and they just uh would like to have more uh time for that.

And I believe for now they just would like to move with the building.

They will explain the reasons probably for that.

Um for the concept, and hopefully I didn't mess with the name of these buildings.

I know some of them, but I don't know all of them, and I tried to find the name of those, but probably uh I got the right.

So, as inspiration for the concept of this proposed phase two of the convention center, they were using some historic towers uh that are were uh constructed around forward, as you can see, the public market that was just in discussion, the private case, the Dr.

Pepper building, the TNP depot.

This is the 1931 uh version that it was built after the other one.

I think there was a fire, so they replaced it, and then the Will Royals Memorial.

So uh this is another view, and the applicant will talk more in detail about the concept and the idea they use for this phase two.

But essentially they're saying that historically the turn curve were facing the north side of Main Street, and on the other side used to have the TNP deep, so kind of like the two towers looking at each other across Main Street.

So uh kind of like an elevation showing you that idea they're saying now has been blocked by the convention center.

So uh something they are proposing is you know, using that tower element for this new phase two as well.

It's facing the center of Main Street, and then you have this kind of like wings uh, you know, next to the tower.

Again, the applicant will tell you about the materials and what it's happening in the theater.

This is just a view of the site plan, just to show you why they need a waiver.

Typically at the standards, the way I they are written is to regulate, they are very focused on multifamily projects or mixed-use projects, and they don't really have a specific categories for, for example, plazas.

So we don't really have language.

So in this case, uh they are creating this plaza, and obviously the building is set back approximately 130 feet from the back of the sidewalk on West 9th Street.

So that's the reason why they need that waiver.

Um and the reason why the waiver reads is up to is because also that uh same waiver will be needed, for example, for here is just that the setback is it's closer to the sidewalk.

And I believe uh it was around 20 feet in that in that case.

But um this is just to show you the waiver that is needed for today.

And this is just another visual.

I am skipping several images of the applicant.

We'll get through all the details about this project.

Uh I think this project is so complex that I I know that probably 0.001% of what's going on here.

So uh, but it's important for me to show you this image because uh what I just showed you is very similar, what they are proposing.

You can see the component, the owning component, this uh element here, and you know, like the other area kind of floating over uh the other floors.

The only difference is uh I believe this rendering reads as like if you can walk just like this one, you can walk in the stairs, and I believe in this one, you cannot do it.

There is no roof over here.

I believe that's that's the area.

Well, there's a section, I believe, with roof, and then there's nothing because it's the docks.

So what happened on the docks is that they have so for example, here they are showing some uh plantings here, but those are probably not gonna be included on the final uh uh version of this the treatment along Commerce Street.

Uh but there is no roof here, it's just the screening element, you know, uh along uh the docks area.

And the applicant will explain you a little bit more of what they are trying to do with this perforated metal panels, but essentially you can see that they are kind of using, you know, the visual of the different mountains or texts, and they're kind of like drawing them here, you know, like the profile of mountains that's kind of like what they are doing with this metal.

Um obviously they are still studying what could happen there.

Uh one of the staff's recommendations is that this is a good opportunity to add, for example, art to probably break up that uh wall with different depth, probably different materials.

And uh the thing is obviously, again, as I mentioned, several pieces are moving here, so it's it's complicated to be very specific about the things, but we identified as a good area of opportunity for this uh project.

Uh, this is just to show you what is a kernel existing, how it's look, how it looks like.

And these screening elements and this elevation along commerce rates has been heavily discussed.

I think that whenever it was presented to you for phase one, it included some art and some screens elements and some awnings and some other elements.

Uh those have been probably removed from the question now, and we just have this uh perforated metal panel for now.

Um these are just some of the standards.

They meet all the standards.

Um again, there are some of them that really focus on mixed use, multifamily type of buildings.

So we don't really think that those standards are applicable, but um for saying one something we have the uh the guideline about long facet.

It's not a standard, meaning uh we cannot deny you know a project just because they have a blank wall, but uh it's always something we can uh mention to the applicant to work on blank walls and break them.

Um so we are recommending approval, just um staff recommends approval of the proposed convention center phase two, subject to continued coordination with staff.

Um the project is generally consistent with the intent of the Danton Urban Design Standards and Guidelines.

The building relates properly in scale and character, complements the JS instructors, and contributes possibly to the public real.

The proposal incorporates durable materials and a cohesive architectural expression, meeting the majority of applicable standards and working toward those not fully met.

Staff notes that there are some areas that will use some refinement.

That's the reason why we will like to continue working with them.

As I mentioned, uh for example, the plaza is going to be something that is going to come to uh be presented to the DRB in a later on a later date.

And we believe that probably some of the uh character elements of this building will be complemented with the plaza.

So we we think that we will be part of that conversation trying to understand how we can add something to that plaza and you know um uh make it more uh um adequate for for uh well more to establish a stronger sense of identity.

Um that's not being discussed today, so that's the reason why we recommend to continue working with those, but we recommend approval for the building for now.

Uh it's gonna be very interesting to see the plaza and pro man, the uh uh the street uh I'm sorry, the sidewalling programs, the street trees, and how that connects with the existing uh context.

Uh but yeah, that's that's uh staff's uh recommendation.

Does the board has any questions?

And I would like to focus on probably the standards because may you may have several questions about the the project itself, but I think that uh it will be more appropriate if you leave the applicant to respond to those questions.

Again, there's several things happening in the theater of the building.

There are several pieces that need to be taken in consideration, and uh we don't really look at the theater of the building, so we don't really know exactly uh probably all the answers.

Um questions.

Thank you.

Yes, we have the applicant.

Thank you.

You'll be disappointed that we're also deferring our signage discussion until later.

Uh, you guys have gone through a lot of signs today, and I appreciate your your fastidiousness to all that.

Yeah, signage signage on the crown.

We we are not proposing that.

But we will, as Francisco said, we will come back for the plaza and for the signage at probably not the same time, but at probably two later dates.

On the plaza itself, the just a little background on why that's bifurcated from the from the building, is as we've gotten into it.

We didn't originally expect to have that much of a north plaza uh on the north side.

Uh, as it's happened, the building is basically getting built to the budget, and so it's a little bit smaller than what we originally intended.

And so that's given us actually the advantage of having a bigger plaza on the north side, which we think uh the convention center is going to be able to rent out and and activate actually more often.

And then that brings to mind the question of General War Square, and so we're really starting to think about how those two spaces work either independently or sometimes together.

And so we have a meeting actually tomorrow morning working on the programming to think about what could happen in those spaces, either way independently or together, thinking about security because that's another aspect you're gonna see some images with a lot of bollards, and so we're thinking about how we mitigate some of that.

And then also thinking about from that standpoint how the landscape tries to reflect the landscape of Fort Worth in the prairie.

And so you'll see us talk about some of that sort of stuff.

Uh, you know where it is and all that kind of stuff.

Uh we all people of my my vintage have lots of great memories of the arena.

Uh, and so I'm not not uh not gonna dwell on that today.

Uh you've seen all of this.

This is is the new building.

Uh you see the bigger plaza, and I think I can go to the bigger plan.

Uh and if you can see those two blue lines, there are a few things that we're thinking about to try to help this building fit within the the historic Fort Worth context.

We we have a bit of a dichotomy that we're working through because on the one hand, we do want it to fit into the Fort Worth context and feel like Fort Worth.

Downtown Fort Worth, especially has a lot of historic buildings and a lot of buildings that were that were built new to look like historic buildings.

Uh, one of the things that happened during the programming process here was that a visit Fort Worth pulled the customers to the convention center and asked them what they thought, what they liked about the existing convention center, what was the challenge, and a couple things you're gonna see that get played out in our presentation here.

Uh one is that the existing convention center, we have a beautiful city and it doesn't have enough glass for them to be able to actually see our city.

And there are a lot of good reasons for that, but we're in a situation where we have a north facing uh elevation, so we're not so worried about uh a lot of sun and heat gain.

Uh but it also gives us the advantage to be rather transparent there, uh, to let convention goers actually see the city and then to let the city see the convention goers.

And so it's a way to engage them that that we thought was meaningful.

One of the other things you're gonna see on that north side is uh is another uh expression of us as Texans, and especially I think us as Fort Worthians, is you're gonna see a number of porches there, and there's nothing to me quite as welcoming as a Texas porch, having grown up on my grandparents' porch eating watermelon and chatting.

Uh, it's one of those things that we've tried to work into this.

Uh that's that's a then gets to be a question of scale, and I'll talk about that a little bit more as we as we get into that.

Any other questions or thoughts about any of that before?

Well, I know I'm not supposed to do that.

I'll keep going.

Sorry.

Uh what you see in the light yellow there is the extension.

Uh, if you look at the upper right, that's the phase one, which included a kitchen, which is in in the existing arena, so we had to build that in phases in that way.

You'll also see, and this is an important point that that Francisco brought up, uh, along the top of the drawing, along the east side, we had to add truck docks.

One of the challenges that the convention center has had is an inadequate number of truck docks to serve the exhibit space.

And so, in doing this, we we create, I think the number 17 now additional truck docks and service areas.

So very mundane thing, but when you have exhibitors coming in and serving the convention center, it's a very important thing that they're able to get in and get out and get their exhibit set up.

The light yellow area there is the footprint of the original uh arena.

Uh, that's it on this ground level, existing exhibit space, and you see just to the left of that in the lighter kind of buff color, uh, that's pre-function space outside the exhibit space.

This will be different kind of exhibit space because I know I don't need to talk about the interior, but I'm gonna do that a little bit as we go anyway.

Uh, and that this exhibit space can open up to that lobby in a way that the existing uh exhibit space can't, so all that can feel like one contiguous space instead of having to go through repair doors to get into that.

Uh as we go up, these things have to have a good bit of height.

That that uh space we just looked at is about 30 feet high.

And so we much like on the south end of the convention center, we end up with a mezzanine area for the escalators to to switch, and that gets us up to level three, which is a meeting room level.

Uh and at this level, uh there are a number we we basically uh increase the number of meeting rooms that we have.

We also have the advantage of adding to the top of the drawing there, you'll see a little bit of a bigger box.

That is a junior ballroom, which is something that we have not had, uh, and it will have glass looking out onto Commerce Street, so I think that's gonna be very popular.

And then if you see on the on the on the left-hand side, uh, at the kind of tips of those wings there, those are gonna be two boardrooms which will have glass on two sides, and so you'll really be able to see out onto the city.

And all of these, that uh little bump in the middle there uh is a tower element, and we'll talk more about that as we as we go through this presentation.

And then we get up to the top floor, and it's a uh a ballroom space that, as you can see there, is subdividable and in many different kinds of combinations.

All of this served with service from the back.

Uh but again at this level, you're you're up high.

There are some terraces off of this to afford you views back uh to the north towards the uh courthouse and towards the heart of the city.

So, as Francisco mentioned, we we spent a lot of time talking about Fort Worth, the Fort Worth architecture and the kind of range of architecture in Fort Worth.

But at the same time, one of the aspects that we're very cognizant of is being in the middle of the innovation district and thinking about this district contrasting with Sundance and the sort of historic architecture that's there, and but also really looking forward, really looking to the future uh to let Sundance and the stockyard speak to the past in Fort Worth, and to let this area, the innovation district and the convention center district really speak to the future of Fort Worth.

But at the same time, not forgetting some of the architectural elements.

So you're gonna see how we try to combine that.

Uh that image on the lower left is interesting.

That's TNP uh uh TMP Lofts today, but it was TNP station under construction.

And just to the right of that, that little tower you see was the original TNP station, which as Francisco mentioned, terminated the south end of Main Street.

Uh this is what that view looked like.

One of the one of the other things I'll point out is if you look in the middle there, you'll see towards the lower bottom, you'll see that original TNP station uh connecting all the way up.

Main Street has a a width of 80 feet.

And so the two points of those wings on the inside are also 80 feet wide to be recollective of all the buildings that got kind of torn down when this was made, and also to click it into kind of the urban fabric of that 80 foot width of of Main Street.

This is standing in the exact center between the two is important to us that the scale of what we're adding not overpowered the scale of the courthouse.

But at the same time, it was important to us that it have some scale relative to the existing uh arena that's there today.

So this probably a little bit hard to read drawing overlays all of that stuff.

On the bottom one, you'll see the existing arena.

So you'll see we have a little bit more mass than than the original building uh has had.

Uh but the drawing on the top shows that we're a little bit shorter than the convention center.

And it also shows that we considered some of the regulating architectural lines in the convention center when thinking about the proportions of that north facade.

I wish I had a pointer that I knew how to work, but I probably don't now that I'd do it, does it?

But I could show you that sort of 80-foot width between those two wings.

That's okay, Francisco.

We keep going.

It's late, we're gonna keep going.

Uh and then this is that north facade, and again, you'll see that uh there's a lot of emphasis on the public areas having glass.

At the same time, you if you look at the bottom, lower left and right, you're gonna see some areas of masonry.

Uh it's one of the other ties that we tried to bring in uh from our kind of more historic Fort Worth architecture is the use of of brick.

Uh and we also are trying to relate to the to the existing uh uh convention center that that uh that is remaining.

Uh this is the glass that's that that matches what you saw on the phase one uh portion of the building.

One of the comments from the downtown Fort Worth Inc.

meeting, uh, or a couple of meetings that we've had, but the last one, there was a comment about the scale of our porches on the ground level, uh, because they are rather high, about 30 feet.

And so one of the comments which we will do is come back with some brick patterning on those brick walls left and right to pull the scale of that down to a little bit more human dimension uh so that people feel more comfortable in that in that kind of environment.

And you see the tower there, which uh we're gonna mention a few places of public art.

At the top of that tower is in our mind a public art opportunity, and uh a committee is being put together to select uh artists and that sort of stuff.

So we may come back to you with some of that as it relates to to the architecture of the building at some point.

This is a rather boring drawing that I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on, but it tells you what materials are where.

I'm sure you've all studied that in great detail.

Uh and then this is the the uh site plan that shows that northern plaza, uh 9th Street to the north.

The thing I want to just, and we'll come back to you to talk about all this because this is not final yet, but what exists today is you'll see there are a few steps going up to sort of a plinth.

Obviously, we have to keep the the floor level of the exhibit space the same from north to south.

And so we're working a little bit with the grades that are there.

And so this particular uh uh grading plan has a few steps up, which we don't think is a bad thing for you to be able to set up on the porch, you're a few steps kind of above the plaza, you can oversee what's going there.

We'll have some furnishing there.

Uh, and so that'll give you a chance to do that.

And then if there are events, if there's a rally or whatever, those few steps let the speakers or or whoever is there be a few feet above uh the the rest of the crowd.

Uh you'll also see the landscape there.

We got some comments about really trying to maximize landscape.

Again, we'll come back to you with all of that.

Uh but I wanted to to make that note.

And I also wanted to note that that circle that you see there is the outline of the existing arena.

So our intent, uh, and again, we'll come back to you with the plaza.

I'm oozing into that and I shouldn't do.

But the intent is to provide some memory of the footprint of the original arena.

Of the original arena footprint.

Just it's the outline of the of the circle of the original arena.

Uh this is a section that shows you kind of that those grade differences.

Uh, and the the one on the right is of the uh northeast corner.

We'll show you a little bit more detail on that here in just a second.

And these are some renderings that I'm gonna go through rather quickly because I'm sure you have looked at this.

Here are materials.

Uh our our brick is is we're we're trying to do a couple things here.

If you look on the right where there's masonry, it is is the intent to try to match or get close to what is there from the masonry color standpoint.

Uh what is in the front, we're trying to do something that's a little different, and that's for a couple of reasons.

One is it's uh the the lighter color in our mind emphasizes the the kind of more uh modernity of the new of the new part of the building.

And also it gets kind of boring if you have the same thing for several hundred feet.

Um same glass as before, uh, some metal panels and and uh and that sort of stuff to to round out the the material palette.

One thing I want to go back to before to the plans before we get too far away that I want to mention because I'll come back to whoops, I went too far.

I didn't.

Sorry.

I don't remember my own presentation.

Uh going back to the to the footprint here.

Uh also in our meetings with D FWI, there were some questions about some of the little nooks and crannies that we have there.

Uh if you look at the bottom of that drawing on the left side, you'll see some kind of sawtooth stuff.

Those are some brisole elements that are meant to shade the the more western and and southwestern sun that we might get there.

Uh but those create, and then to the right, there's an you'll see another little notch in the blue color there.

Uh, some of those areas were of concern uh to DFWI about the potential of of people who shouldn't be there sleeping there or whatever.

Uh it's different.

Uh it's gonna be different when this facility is finished because they will have 24 hour security to help ameliorate some of those kinds of concerns.

Uh so we are cognizant of that, uh, just to point that out in advance.

Going back to the elevations, then uh talked about materials.

This is moving around to the west side.

It's a little bit hard to see, but you can see those those sawtooth elements there.

That notch that I was mentioning is actually where all the exit stairs from phase one or or or the original phase and phase two empty out.

So that area is a little bit difficult to to be able to fence off or anything.

This is the east side.

Couple things here is uh uh you see the plinth going up just to the top of that where you see the signage behind that.

We're gonna have a small cafe that's to be determined exactly what it is.

Uh Francisco is right on the on the north or southeast corner.

We do have a coffee shop there, belt buckle brews.

Here we're gonna have something different, but it will be another kind of grab and go.

So you're gonna see in a minute some of the dining area that's off that at that uh at that corner.

And then the wall that's on the on the the kind of pinkish colored on the slide there that continues uh back to the left, is becomes the wall that screens the loading docks.

And so a little bit more about that here in just a second.

This area here is you're looking at the right is an enlarged plan of that elevated dining area.

So again, it's up a few feet from the ground level, spills out of that little cafe space, and then has some terraced planning that goes up.

Uh the original original idea until until uh the design met the budget reality was for that those to be stairs that were similar to the ones you saw in phase one that would connect in the terrace all the way down to the south side.

Uh we didn't quite have the money to do that.

And so we've repurposed these as as planting areas, so you'll see some green area there as that as that steps up.

Um and then the other the other thing that that has meant is we end up with this really long wall.

Uh as Francisco mentioned, there's no longer that planting at the top of that uh wall.

But the idea here is that it's perforated metal wall, it's another public art opportunity.

Uh the idea reflected here on this drawing is is looking at at the drawing on the upper left, which or photograph on the upper left, uh, which is a photograph I took about probably almost 20 years ago of the area where Waltz Ranch is today.

And the idea is is the prairie is a vast place with lots of rolling hills, and it kind of seems to continue forever.

And so the idea here was could the patterning of the metal panel be reflective of sort of the vastness of that prairie because it it takes a long facade and makes that a an opportunity to express an idea that you would not have had on a shorter facade.

This facade also has the challenge of you'll never be more than like 60 feet away from it.

So what we do here has to be something that you you sort of see from the side in any event.

Uh, one of the other suggestions from DFWI was that we might undulate the metal part of this.

And so we we will look at that uh to to see what that does.

But again, this is maybe something that we will come back to you later because it is an element could be an element of public art if it gets selected to do that.

You'll see there we've raised this metal piece up a little bit.

We have masonry uh down at the human scale there, trying to maintain a little bit more scale along that east side, uh and also making it a little bit more difficult if it is a public art piece for people to get to it to touch it and that sort of thing.

Um to the left where all those trees are, that will be a future thing.

That's gonna be a convention center hotel that will be built there.

It will open hopefully at the same time as as the building opens.

So this is just to look at how much glazing we have.

Another concern that was mentioned is will the city be able to maintain that much glazing.

But there are some new new kind of methods.

We do have, as one does, we now have a a uh a uh a window washing consultant on the team.

And so they've made some interesting suggestions about how drones can now be used to clean glazing and that sort of thing.

So we did look at that.

One of the other comments on the glazing, too, by the way, while we're on this image, is that uh during the course of the design, uh we had one of our our uh uh members of our community ask about uh the impact of birds of uh hitting windows, and so that sort of led us down down a path of looking at that.

And you may have noticed on our material selection, it it's it mentioned bird-friendly.

Uh and so we've been consulting with a guy named Andrew Farnsworth with Cornell University, who is an expert in in bird-friendly building design.

And so we we will be doing some things to to uh that that make sense uh to do everything everywhere doesn't make sense because birds don't impact everything everywhere, but we're looking at areas of risk, and we're gonna see what we can do to address those areas of risk.

And it's mainly a window patterning thing and it's a lighting thing, it's controlling lighting during migration seasons.

So we're looking at ways to do that.

Uh I don't think that's going to change what the building looks like, but a little bit more to come on that.

One of the other things that that may do is if you look at the some of the other renderings that we had here.

Let me zip back to the renderings just for a second.

Sorry to keep going back and forth.

But if you look above those those brick sawtooths to the uh to the right of the image at the fourth floor, you'll see a little strip of green roof there.

Uh the idea of that is we've been working with the Botanical Research Institute to try to showcase a prairie plantings that that so that someone could get a feel and they could curate that and have an exhibit about it so that people feel connected to being in Fort Worth.

Uh they're not in you know somewhere else.

They feel connected to to being in Fort Worth and the landscape of Fort Worth.

Uh what we found out from our friend Mr.

Farnsworth is that is also a a higher risk area uh of bird impacting or birds impacting the glass because the birds are attracted to the vegetation.

And so that may all influence what we what we end up doing here.

Yeah.

It's outdoor but not accessible by the public.

It's just outside of a concourse area.

But again, the idea was to try to highlight our landscape, and maybe we still do that, but if we do do that, we have to do some other things to mitigate bird impacts if we do that.

And I think that's the last thing I had to say to you guys today.

I also wanted to say, too, we we did have during the course of this a number of public meetings uh that that were that were well attended by the public.

A lot of people who are, especially residents that live around there that wanted to know their their concerns were more about things like uh inconveniences during construction and that sort of stuff.

Uh, but we did do our best to get to get public input as we've gone through this process.

And we also did our best to to try to wait and show things to you guys that we knew we could afford.

Uh what we didn't want to do, because this is such a big building, and little tweaks in the budget can can be big numbers.

And so we wanted to be comfortable that our budget and our scope and the appearance of the building were all all balanced before we came and made this presentation to you guys.

So with that, I'll I'll entertain any questions you might have.

Yeah, let me go back to a drawing on that, Kurt.

It's uh it's a one-way affair.

And what they will do is they will come uh onto commerce to the south, and they will proceed up to oops.

I just passed it.

They'll proceed if you if you see where phase one is just to the left, you'll see the geometry break down a little bit.

There's a door there.

They'll turn in the door, then they will go to their selected bay and they will back into that bay.

And then when they get ready to leave, they will go out the other way.

And similarly, there's gonna be a large door down on that end.

There are actually a couple large doors down there.

There's one that is for trucks to exit.

There's another one that is is appropriately called the elephant door.

That if you need to move something really big, like a helicopter or something into the exhibit area, you would be able to do that.

Correct.

Correct.

And if you if you go look at the curb.

Yeah, we tried to hide them as much as we could.

If you look at the uh if you look at the curb on the west side of commerce, you will see that there's a little bump in it because all those dimensions, our side is so tight, all those dimensions got so tight that we could not maintain the same sidewalk width and street width there as we did everywhere else.

Uh AM was worried about having a curve in commerce.

Uh, and so to address that concern, the east side of commerce is completely straight all the way through.

But we did have to have a little bump out on that side, which we did uh lay this out.

We had professional truck drivers test backing in and out uh just to make sure that that all that geometry worked.

Did you say you were looking at the bollards?

Yeah, we would like to get rid of some of those bollards because there are a couple things about that plaza to again.

I know we're not supposed to talk about that, but since you ask a question, I'll gladly entertain it.

Uh let's go to that last rendering.

That no, not that one.

That guy.

Uh it's a personal thing for me, but I don't like the number of bollards that are there.

It feels like a lot.

It is a safety thing because there's a concern about somebody being able to start a start in a car uh at Sundance Square Plaza, and you know, how much speed can they get up in an event happening in the plaza?

So it's a realistic concern.

We're going to look at other ways to maybe address that.

Uh in this scheme right now today, those bollards, some of them are armored bollards, some of them are movable bollards to be able to allow uh access to get in there for events and that sort of thing.

One of the other things that I think we need to uh need to address in this plaza is more shade because we do live in a place, as you well know, that in the summer can get pretty miserable.

And generally speaking, when you look at events in in plazas like this, and when we did Sundance Square Plaza, we actually mapped the events that happened in the plaza.

So there are all these events in the spring, and then you get to the summer and it's totally dead.

So what we're gonna try to do is make a plaza here that can be more pleasant, and and we won't be able to do all the things that we did in Sunday Square Plaza with the arenas and the fountains and all that kind of stuff.

But the idea that we could bring back a sort of publicly accessible plaza uh downtown is is an important thing.

Right.

Happens in the old the old footprint of that, yeah.

Yeah.

It won't be quite the same, but we we have had some discussions about that.

That's gonna be part of this this group that's forming tomorrow to go through some of those kinds of things.

Uh right now, kind of the the idea uh is that that happen along Houston Street.

We have a little extra room in the paving there, and so we're working on a place there for valet for uh Uber drop off and pickup, and also one of the other things you have happen here is you have a lot of buses on tours for groups that are in that are in for you know whatever.

So it's a place for buses to line up.

So we're we're thinking about those kinds of of things.

Uh Trinity Metro uses that because that leads straight down to their station.

I I like the comments of the north end, not being Sundance Square, and being the innovation area, and with the glass and so forth.

I think that's very good.

And the plan here follows the 20 year 2000 overall master plan with the straightening of Commerce Street, the truck docks, uh ballroom at the north end.

As I said, looking out down Main Street, which is sometimes called the living room of Fort Worth.

That's all very positive.

The other thing that I really like is that the ballroom is not at the meeting room level, but you actually raise it up another level to get it higher.

And that I commend you for that.

Thanks.

There's some structural stuff we had to do there too, but I'm not gonna bore everybody else with all of the sure.

But yeah, no, one thing I didn't mention too.

Uh you just made me think of it, Kirk, is the the soffit of those of those porches that you see there is going to be a wood look material.

And so the idea of that's to try to warm it up a little bit rather than have it have it feel too cold.

The there are major the entries along Euston followed the old street grid at 11th, 12th, and 13th.

And so there doesn't seem that you I don't think you picked up on that same street grid at the time.

We did.

We have one entrance along Houston Street, which aligns with that same 200 grid.

We we did pick that up because that's a very strong element of the of the and I agree that the convention center along Easton now at street level is not as engaging except at the uh at the entrance at the street levels.

So that's very good.

Well what we're doing, we don't have as much grade to deal with as yeah, as the the team had then uh because you had probably four or five feet of grade to deal with there, it lessens as you head north.

Right.

And so what you'll see when we come back with the landscape is we we're stepping down so that there's actually landscape at the floor level down there to try to just blur the inside to outside line a little bit more.

And at along Euston Street, the brick sort of gauge, you know, grades from the blonde or beige at the south end and gets more more red or darker going to the north.

And when I was looking at it looked like on your elevations that you were continuing more of the beige brick further to the north.

We are not we have where I mentioned that exiting.

We have a little notch in the building, and we're changing materials at that notch so we don't we don't butt the new and the old up together just as a little bit more careful way to do that.

Other questions of the applicant?

I've done all the talking, I'm sorry.

I've done all the talking.

Oh, by the way, phase one and phase two were actually in the year two thousand.

This could be phase three and phase four.

So very good.

We have anyone else any more any questions of Michael Wouldn't Melissa like to say something on behalf of downtown Fort Worthing Design Committee.

Okay, good afternoon.

The DFWI Melissa Quinora representing the D FWI design review committee.

The committee recommended approval of the design and the requested waivers.

The committee appreciated the grand and civic nature of the building at the terminus of Main Street and understands the rationale for the requested setback and desire for programmable plaza.

The committee also added that the intimate spaces for gathering, such as the porch and um coffee shops are important to the use of the building.

Umward, the committee did have some suggestions, which I believe Michael covered most of them with respect to the grounding of the building, maybe um with the scale of the porch being what it was, adding some material or something to help humanize that scale with brick patterns or what have you.

Um the discussion about the panels replacing what had previously been reproved approved um with the digital piece and no objection to art or any of that, but perhaps breaking up the panels just to uh give it a sense of rhythm and decrease the scale.

Um and then there was also the mention of green roofs and glass and making sure we were being cognizant of the environment that we're in and the idea that maybe if there was a place to um add solar panels to offset maintenance costs that might be a good idea to think about going forward.

And then we certainly understood that signage in the plaza would come back at a later date.

There are any questions from me.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Yep.

Welcome to the two new members.

I should have said that earlier.

I'm sorry, thank you very much.

Have you?

Yeah, thank you.

Do we have anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application?

Do we have anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this application?

If not, the public hearing is closed.

Discussion by the board.

He seems to be well aware of the deficiencies in the design and he's working on it, such as the Bollards.

I would make a motion to approve the two requests as stated.

Does anybody want to second that?

If not, then I will withdraw the motion and leave it as it is.

All right.

I will once again make a motion to approve the two requests as stated.

I'll second.

We have a motion and we have a second.

Discussion by the board, please.

In favor.

Mr.

Milliken, how the vote?

In favor.

Ms.

Don, have your vote.

Ms.

Bailey, have the vote.

Oh, in favor.

And Ms.

Johnson, have you voted?

In favor.

Motion passes.

5-0.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Francisco.

Michael.

Thank you.

The next meeting of Downtown Fort Worth Inc.

Board.

Is Thursday, May the 7th.

And with that, I call adjournment of the April 2nd DDRB meeting.

Thanks everyone very much.

It's been a long afternoon.

Thank you.