All right, good morning.

Welcome to the Urban Design Commission meeting for Thursday, April 16.

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

The following members are present today.

Vice Chair Benner, Commissioner Carr, Commissioner DeBose, Commissioner Halliday, Commissioner Harrier, Commissioner Ramsey, Commissioner Reed, Commissioner Sanchez, and Commissioner West.

Did I miss anybody?

All right.

Staff present today are Anna Alvarez, Jefferson Prado Ortiz, Laura Young, Jacqueline Ingram, uh Brendan Utterback, Enrique Alvarez, Inca Rever, Chris Austria, and myself, Joseph Laws.

Today's meeting in DACA can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov.

Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting, and attendees can sign up to speak by completing the paper form or scanning the QR code outside.

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition may then be given seven minutes in response and continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chair's sole discretion and approval.

Number four, speakers may come to the podium to my left, the commissioner's right to present, and then staff will be staying at this podium.

Number five, all other meeting procedures will adhere to the UDC adopted rules of procedure to the extent practicable.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

Welcome to the Urban Design Commission meeting for April 16, 2026.

Mr.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Welcome to the April meeting of the Urban Design Commission.

All right.

So the first item on the agenda is the chair vice chair elections.

Um so uh for those of you who were who were here last time, you may have recalled that uh former chair Harper moved out of the city of Fort Worth.

Um so uh she had to leave the UDC, so that creates a vacancy in the chair position.

So uh today we're gonna uh vote on uh replacement chair, and just to kind of go over the mechanics of the way this works is anyone is able to nominate or self-nominate for the chair position.

And uh then following that uh motions required and a second.

The person who is uh the one uh being voted on cannot make the motion, but they the candidate requires a motion and a second, and then there's a vote.

If there's multiple nominations, then there could be multiple votes.

Is that correct?

Just to get yes.

So if there is person A nominated and then person B nominated, and that gets a motion and a second for both, then essentially we would just do um for those who wish to vote for person A, raise their hands, tally it up, and then for those who uh want uh person B raise your hand, tally that, and then whoever has the most votes that they they win.

You can vote more than once because there's no rules that prohibit it.

So just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that.

All right.

Any questions on from the commissioners on the the way that works?

Kind of kind of wonky, but that's what we're gonna do.

So um, do we have any nominees or self-nominees for the chair position?

All right.

Commissioner Ramsey nominates for for chair.

Is there a motion or any other nominations?

I'll nominate Vice Chair Benner.

All right, so there is one second.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Halliday to nominate Commissioner Benner and a second from Commissioner West.

So we'll first we'll do that vote.

Just confirm there was a self uh nomination.

Was there a motion or a second just to make sure that that isn't another nomination that makes it through?

So just I would clarify on the record.

Is there is there a motion or second for Commissioner Ramsey?

Okay.

So we'll move forward with the motion for Commissioner Benner.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Bose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 9-0.

So congratulations, Chair Benner now, but that requires a second vote for Vice Chair.

Um, so do we have any nominations for vice chair?

Do we have a second?

All right, we have a motion for Commissioner Ramsey for Vice Chair, and a second from Commissioner Reed.

Uh the person who nominates themselves can't be the initial motion.

So is Mr.

Mr.

Reed's uh is it is he the first motion for that?

Yes.

Okay.

So now just needs a second.

This is Commissioner Carl second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Reed for Commissioner Ramsey for vice chair and a second from Commissioner Carr.

Any other nominations for vice chair, any other motions?

All right.

Uh for Commissioner Ramsey as vice chair.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Bose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner or Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes nine zero.

Congratulations, both gentlemen on uh our new chair and vice chair.

So um transitioning to announcements now.

We do have one announcement.

She's uh not here, but uh Anna huh?

Ana Alvarez on our staff, uh, who's been one of our planners for about four years, presented to UDC dozens and upon dozens of times.

Uh was uh plucked slash scooped slash stole by the economic development department.

So next week she's transitioning upstairs to the 14th floor.

There is a better view up there than the sixth floor.

Um to go work with the revitalization team up there.

So she's not here, but I didn't want to call her out because she's done a lot of UDC presentations and done some great work uh for the Urban Design Commission and the form-based code districts.

So we wish Anna the best uh with that.

And now we have meeting minutes.

Um the meeting minutes are for March 19th, 2026.

So last month's there was a little typo on the agenda, but it's the March 19th uh UDC meeting minutes.

Commissioners had a chance to review the minutes from last month.

Yes.

Move approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve the minutes from Commissioner DeBose and a second from Commissioner Halliday.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed to the minutes are approved for the March 19th, UDC 90.

So before transitioning to new cases, would you have an update on one of the cases?

Um, which is UDC 2026 040.

It's all the way at the bottom of the agenda.

Um, the applicant submitted some revised plans this week.

So we are administratively withdrawing that case because it no longer needs waiver.

So just we've gone from 11 cases to 10.

Um, just to note that before the start of the meeting.

So at this time we'll transition to our first listed case on the agenda, UDC 2026 087.

Good morning.

Um so this one's a little different than our typical urban forestry ones.

Um is the reason why we don't like conditional approvals and we do not like bringing things before plotting.

Um urban forestry, we do not have the right to change or to approve a new a revised phase two after it's been stamped, unless it provides more canopy, is moving the trees, or is changing species.

So we are only allowed to do minor amendments.

So this is because it's considered a major amendment, not because it has previously come to UDC.

So I just wanted to clarify that before we got started on it.

Um the staff report did have a different section of our ordinance.

This is something we haven't seen before.

Um, well, with in my tenure at least, um, and so it is just a revision to an urban forestry that has already been pre-approved.

So this is UDC case 2026 087.

It has previously come to UDC as UDC 2025038.

It is for urban forestry permit 240208.

It is for a campus for Northwest ISD, so a school a school campus.

Um, the address is 11600 North Freeway, Council District 10, zoning I.

The owner is, of course, Northwest ISD, um, and the agent is Joe Madrid with Tnol and Perkins.

Um, so the request for this one, the applicant request an amendment to urban forestry uh UFC 240208, phase two that was previously approved based on UDC 2025 038 waiver approval allowing for 17% of tree preservation based on a proposed canopy coverage of 1,000, sorry, 1,548,07 square feet, be revised to allow for a 30.6 percent of NUFA canopy coverage.

So this is to allow for the coverage that they are providing to be based on percentage of NUFA instead of square feet provided.

Again, they just got their platting done, their platting changed, so we'd like to change it to percentage.

So this is the um parcel in question.

Um if you look at it, you probably can tell that this would now be a case that would not even have preservation.

Um all unprotected species on site, but this was with the old ordinance, they did come in for a 17% preservation instead of the 25%.

Um this is their existing tree canopy.

It was 45,240 square feet.

There were a couple significant trees on site, so that there was 6,299 square feet of significant mitigation, and so that is why we are asking for that 30.6 because of significant mitigation.

This is their proposed um UFC that was stamped approved, and it provided that one million five one million five hundred forty-eight thousand some odd square feet.

Sorry, don't remember it off the top of my head.

So the transition from this one to the new one.

I did go ahead and highlight the differences.

The big thing is that they now have an easement.

It is highlighted in yellow.

I believe it's a drainage easement or something like that.

They had to do some sort of infrastructure.

So they have moved trees, so there are trees that are all highlighted in orange.

Um, but because of them removing again that big L up where the now yellow is, they lost a good amount of trees from that.

And so they are now.

Oops.

They are now providing.

So their growth site is 6,383,998 square feet.

Their previous NUFA was 5,053,904 square feet because of the new platform their easements, their revised NUFA is 4,9184 square feet.

So decent jump.6% of NUFA.

Because the NUFA has shifted, they are still meeting that 30.6% of NUFA, but it has dropped from 1,547 666 square feet.

Sorry, their provided was 1,548,307 square feet.

And their new proposed is 1,516 182 square feet.

So they are actually now providing more than the required 30.6% and are actually providing 30.8% of NUFA.

Again, it's because the plating was changed and their NUFA changed.

Staff recommends approval because again, had this come through now, we wouldn't have even had preservation.

So it wouldn't have been a question.

They are meeting significant mitigation on trees that now wouldn't even be considered significant.

And as you can see from their plans, they are planting a whole lot of trees on the school campus.

And we don't want to require more because the areas that they don't have trees in do have future plans for buildings.

Do y'all have any questions for me?

Okay.

Do you have any questions for the applicants?

The applicant here to speak.

Yes.

They'd like to speak.

Would you like okay?

Very good.

More questions for staff.

Close the public comment section then.

Sorry, is any is anyone here to speak in opposition to this case?

No.

Okay, now we'll close the public uh comment section.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve from Commissioner Vice Chair Ramsey and a second from Commissioner Halliday.

Um I don't have my role in front of me, so I'm gonna go around the room.

Uh Commissioner DeVose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday.

I Commissioner West.

Aye.

Chairman Benner?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey.

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Aye.

Commissioner Carr.

Aye.

And Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

9-0.

Motion passes.

All right.

The next UDC case we have is UDC 2026.

This is kind of a funky one, so we wanted to put it at the top of the agenda.

So the applicant's requesting a certificate of appropriateness in the high-intensity mixed use MU2 district to allow a 40-foot-tall fireplace chimney.

As you could probably guess, we don't have a whole lot of design standards for gigantic chimneys.

So for a little bit of background, uh, this proposal is in the West Bend area along the Trinity River, uh, just off South University.

Um in 2025, the applicant obtained a COA.

They went through UDC as well as BOA and building permit for mixed-use multi-building building development called Merrimac.

Uh the UDC case was UDC 2025 078.

Um, so it's a 10-acre site.

There's five buildings on it.

Four of the buildings are single story retail commercial that front the river.

And then kind of set back more towards the university street.

University is a larger seven-story multifamily building with structured parking.

Um here's a site plan.

Uh university is plan north.

Um, and the large multifamily building is plan northwest.

You can see the structured parking on plan west, and then the Trinity River and Trinity River Trail run along the southwest portion, plan southwest portion of the site.

And then on the right, you can see uh a kind of zoom in of the site plan showing where the proposed fireplace is.

It's in the middle of this kind of courtyard area uh with these single-story retail commercial buildings around it.

And you can see from this version of the site plan, this landscape plan, how they're envisioning to make this as kind of like a little patio courtyard area off the trail so that way pedestrians and cyclists when they're on the trail can come into the development, and conversely, people can go from the development and engage with the trail.

Um the fireplace itself, here's probably the best rendering of it.

It's a 40-foot-tall freestanding gas fireplace chimney uh with a square tapered column wrapped in 1.5 inch stone veneer.

There's two fireplace uh openings.

One is centered on the column and the other one's kind of at the corner.

The one that's centered on the column is facing the building, so it's actually at a little bit of a higher elevation than the plaza that's directly abutting the river trail.

And then the one on the river trail is kind of at the corner.

There's seating and amenities around both of these.

Um so it's kind of a dual dual-phase fireplace.

Um, one important note for context the allowable building height in the MU2 district is up to five stories or 80 feet.

So this is within the allowable height of the district.

Um, but we don't really uh have any code for giant fireplaces, like I mentioned.

So we really looked at the spirit and intent of the MU-2 zoning district to see how this aligned and reinforced that.

And there were a couple things uh with this from the intent that kind of stood out to us, and we we as staff, our analysis field kind of advanced that um and this is noted in the staff report.

Uh really requiring excellence in design of the public realm and buildings that front public spaces.

The Trinity River is a very public space.

There's a lot of cyclists and people who uh go up and down that trail.

It connects to uh Trinity Park and the West Bend development to the south and the other developments along the river, they're really try to engage with that riverfront.

So this kind of helps the development as a whole better engage with the riverfront.

And then secondly, uh the MEU intent of encouraging creativity, architectural diversity, and exceptional design.

The uh applicant who is here can speak to how they're intending this to be kind of a place-making icon.

So when you're going along the river, you kind of know okay, this is where the Merrimack development is, you can spot it from afar, and you know that's kind of your entry point into and out of the development.

Conversely, as you come into the development off university, you know that's kind of where you can enter and leave the trail from.

So given the given all of this information, uh staff's recommending that the request for a certificate of appropriateness in the MU2 district to allow a 40-foot tall fireplace chimney be approved.

Questions for staff?

Uh I do have one question.

Is it our current understanding that that piece is purely an architectural piece and not intended to at some point in time have large signage or any kind of wayfinding or anything on it?

Uh it's our understanding is that it's an architectural piece.

Any signage would require a sign permit and review by the urban design staff.

All MEU signage goes through our our department now, too, so we can better regulate and make sure it is in line with the spirit and intent of that zoning district.

What's the height difference between the top of the chimney and the top of the buildings?

The tallest one, the tallest building is seven stories.

Um I'd have to reference the plans for the specific height, but typically that's 70 to 80 feet, and uh the chimney is at 40.

So it is below the tallest point on uh that multifamily building that's closer to South University.

So it'd be more seen from the Trinity River than it would be from university or something.

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have anybody here to speak in favor of this case?

Or is the applicant here to speak?

Sorry.

Any questions for the applicant?

Anybody else here to speak in favor?

Anyone here speak in opposition?

All right, we'll close the public comment portion for discussion by the commission.

I make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness.

Commissioner West, second.

All right.

We have a motion by Vice Chair Ramsey and a second from Commissioner West to approve the certificate of appropriateness to allow 40-foot tall fireplace chimney.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Car, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Bose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 9-0.

All right.

I'm gonna be up here for a little bit, so just to give you a heads up.

Um, the next case we have is UDC 2026 022.

This is at 660 uh Union Stockyards Boulevard.

This is within the stockyards district.

And the applicants requesting a certificate of appropriateness from the transition for a transitional parking lot or a temporary parking lot in the stockyards form based code with the following waivers.

Waiver from the parking lot room standards to allow parking rooms of 39 spaces by 10 rows, where the standard limit of parking spaces is five spaces by four rows, a waiver from the surface parking lot, tree canopy coverage requirements to allow zero parking lot, tree canopy coverage where 40% is required, and a waiver from the perimeter planting with shrubs requirements to allow a non-continuous strip of uh four-foot landscaping on the southern perimeter and continuous uh landscaping of five feet seven inches on the eastern perimeter where a continuous perimeter planting strip of at least six feet is required.

So as mentioned, this is within the stockyards uh form-based code.

And just to give you some orientation to the site, this is on the eastern uh kind of half of the stockyards up on the hill uh on the former armor uh meet plaque meat packing site.

It's a 3.5 acre site with Union Stockyards Boulevard to the north, East Exchange to the south, Swift Armor Boulevard to the east, and the armor building abuts the property on the west.

Um there is the real quick the zoning map online has not been fully updated.

There was a recent zoning change in the stockyards along East Exchange.

So this image is out of date, but with that recent rezoning, this site has two zonings, it's split zoning.

The southern 120 feet are zoned historic core, and the northern 387 feet are zoned uh transition swift armor.

So it's it's split zoning.

So part of this case is going to be running through HCLC next month as well.

Um in 2025, the parcel was acquired by the current applicant, White Lodging Hospitality.

They're a nationwide uh hospitality firm with over 60 hotels, and they've stated that their intent is to turn this into a hospitality destination, which makes a lot of sense in the stockyards, which is a large tourist uh uh attraction.

Um while they develop plans to redevelop the site into a hotel, uh they're seeking an interim use of a parking lot.

So in the stockyards form-based code, parking lots are not permitted by right.

So concurrent to them seeking development waivers for the transitional parking lot, they're also seeking a conditional use permit.

So last week on April 8th, I believe it was.

They went to zoning commission and received a recommendation to city council for a conditional use permit for up to three years for a transitional parking lot.

They're expecting their development time for the hotel to take about two, but they wanted a bit of buffer in case there was some issue in the approval or design process.

Um project also went through the stockyards uh inc design review committee on May 31st.

It was one of the first cases that that committee saw.

And uh Paul Payne, uh the president of Fort Road Stock Airs Inc.

isn't here, but uh staff was there and the DRC was generally supportive of the proposal and development waivers.

Just to note though, uh the commission the DRC is kind of figuring out their operations, so they didn't take a formal vote to approve or support at that at that meeting.

So here's an aerial of the site, so you can see the adjacent armor building to the west to the north and to the east is the Cairoy multifamily development, and then to the south is the SWIFT and uh a site that's owned by Heritage Development Company, and you can see the exchange building, the Coliseum, and all the attractions of East Exchange.

So the parking lot itself is 377 spaces, um including ADA spaces, van accessible spaces, all ADA spaces and van accessible spaces are paved, as well as having paved pedestrian access to the right of way.

The parking lot itself is gonna be gravel, dust-free gravel.

And um there is also on the western side up against the property line with the armor building, a pedestrian walkway that connects north to south of decomposed granite.

There's a three-foot-high pipe rail fence around the perimeter along the street frontage of the site.

They meet their 30-foot parking setback from the property line.

And there's also perimeter landscaping.

The open area you see in the northwest of the site plan, uh, they're kind of creating a little open area for the residents of the multifamily to walk dogs, you know, throw a baseball, things of that nature.

They wanted to make sure that they were contextually sensitive to those residents.

So here's a landscaping plan showing some of the perimeter landscaping and the undulating edge on the north and western sides.

One thing to also note is that the applicant is proposing solar lighting on the property because this is a temporary project.

The solar lighting will save them having to run conduit in the ground.

But because it's temporary as well, that necessitates some of the waivers.

Uh, for example, the uh parking lot trees.

Um, since this is time bound and that time is limited by the CUP, they uh the trees were not reached full maturity in a matter of two years to really provide much canopy coverage.

They are also proposing just a note from the site plan, some drainage improvements to the site so it doesn't get uh washed out.

And the parking lot spaces you see there, they're including the curb stops, but much like other gravel parking lots like Clear Fork, there is no actual striping of the gravel.

They're just using the wheel stops to delineate the spaces there, except the ADA spaces which are paved.

Here's a photometric and uh the cut sheet from the proposed lighting that they're gonna be putting on the site to make sure that the site's fully illuminated.

They've also uh I don't know if it's they officially signed the deal, but they've worked out to use the the same security and management firm as some adjacent stockyards parking lots to make sure that the site is secured.

There aren't any nuisances that could affect the neighboring residences in the chiroid development.

Here's some site photos of the site.

Today it's currently a vacant parcel.

There's already street trees and pedestrian lights, so those are remaining unchanged.

Um they're just keeping those as is.

The applicant is here, so I'm also available to answer any questions you have.

But given all this, staff uh for the given the request for a circular appropriateness for a transitional parking lot in the stockyards form-based code district with the following waivers, waiver from the parking lot room standards, waiver from the surface parking lot, tree canopy coverage requirements, and waiver from the perimeter planting and shrub standards.

Staff is recommending that all these waivers be approved.

What's the process at the end of three years if the development doesn't happen as planned?

So if the if the development doesn't happen as planned, the applicant needs to come back to if they want to continue the use of the parking lot, they have to go through the CUP extension process to go through zoning and city council and ask for an extension of that use.

Um, otherwise they would have to shut down.

Where's the entrance?

Is it on the west side?

The entrance is on the south.

Right there off the east exchange.

Um the applicant, I believe, was trying to direct make sure that traffic was not going closer to the multifamily and make sure that it's it kind of kept to exchange, um, which doesn't have any residential on that street.

Is there going to be construction for a hotel during while it's a parking lot?

No.

Will it be a paid parking lot?

I don't know.

Paid.

Paid, yeah.

Yes, it's a fee for service parking lot.

Yep.

Parking lot's paved.

It's you have to pay to use the parking lot.

Well, I thought it was paving versus pay.

Okay.

Yeah, the only parts that are paved are the ADA spots you see there.

So they can't develop, they can't.

Can they go through the process of getting a hotel put on here?

The design process and approval process before the three years is up.

Or does it have to be a parking lot for three years and then they can change to another use?

The parking lot use is up to three years for the CUP, and that's kind of zoning's uh consideration.

Um they you know, if they want to do it less than three years, uh, they said that they think they could probably do it in two.

Um, and then they would be able to stop using the parking lot for a parking lot and then break ground on the hotel.

Um, they just anticipated about two years to get through the design and development of the actual hotel destination itself.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes.

All right.

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

My name is Joshua Kennerly.

Um I live in Fort Worth, and I'm with uh Kimley Horn representing ownership side of this project.

Um I think Joseph covered it pretty well with all the uh um commissions we're going through and the plan for the site.

So I'll just be here to answer any questions you have.

So we had a case maybe a month or two ago uh for another parking lot, and they were trying to get access through a parking lot, and there was some issues with nuisances and um people sort of congregating in parking lots, drinking beer, you know, creating uh issues for the neighborhood.

Is there any plans for um for like uh security or how will you uh mitigate that issue?

Yes, there will be on-site security and parking management through United Protective Services.

They run similar parking lots in the stockyards, um, and they will be on site for larger events um as well as managing trash and everything on the uh parking lot.

This be gated.

Uh yes, it will have a gate, it'll be open um with pay to park, but it will have a a gate on the pipe rail fence that's able to be closed.

Would that gate close at like a certain time or is it open all overnight?

I guess does it close at two o'clock in the morning?

What what's the I believe it'd be open um overnight unless there's um just a closure of the lot.

It has a gate, but it doesn't really close.

Essentially, if needed, it can close if the parking lot needs to close.

But parking management would would cover any um security of the lot and making sure that the pay to park is is done.

Questions for the applicant.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in favor?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion for discussion by the commission.

Parking is an issue in the stockyards.

I can confirm that.

Yeah, it's completely degree.

Yeah.

I'm just curious about the construction too.

It's going to be the timing of the hotel.

Well, it sounds like regardless of what we do today, they're gonna move forward with that on their own timeline.

Right.

Just the opportunity to recoup some of those costs.

Right.

Yeah.

To be honest, I don't know what else they could do if they're gonna have security and and gay so even though uh uh agree, Paul can is bad as that, yeah, but they get a alpha in security, so I don't think it nothing else they could do.

And they are providing a green space in a corner.

They're there are trying to be friendly to their neighbors, the multi-family to the to the east and north.

Um in handling life safety and lighting and all that stuff too.

Yeah, I think it's I'll make a motion to approve.

I agree.

I'll um I'll move for approval.

Second.

I think Vice Chair Ramsey might have moved motion first.

You did.

Yeah, sorry.

Then I'll second.

All right.

Uh we have a motion to approve all three waivers just to be clear.

Uh staff recommended.

Uh Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Uh Commissioner Bose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

All right.

Last one in this set for me.

Uh UDC 2026 080 at 2901 Weisenberger Street.

Um, this is a UR vacation.

The applicant is requesting a recommendation to City Plan Commission and City Council to vacate a portion of the rights away, up to 1400 feet square feet in the urban residential district directly adjacent to block 18 of the Weisenberg edition at the intersection of Curry Street and Weisenberger Street.

So for a little bit of context, um, this is an area directly west of downtown.

That's kind of north of the West 7th area.

The parcel and abutting parcels are zoned.

UR urban residential, so that's why it's coming in front of the UDC before going to CPC.

Um the lot is at the intersection of Curry and Weisenberger Street and has kind of a weird history that's necessitating this uh you this request from the UDC.

Um here is the proposed vacation of the area abutting the property that they're looking to vacate and then replot and incorporate into their their uh lot.

So you can see here to the north, the property to the west has a northern property line that's about five feet to the north of their property line right there, and then for the property to the south, there's that discrepancy between the western or the eastern property line of the parcel to the south, it's about eight feet offset on that side.

So, Joe, how the heck did this happen?

Excellent question, Commissioners.

Thank you for asking.

So uh way back when the this parcel was platted, it was actually platted in the Weisenberg edition.

Um the rest of the block was plotted in the Linwood edition, so completely separate plots.

This is the only law on the block that was platted in the Weisenberg edition, and when the two editions were platted, they used different right-of-way widths.

So then that creates the discrepancy that you're seeing here.

So the Weisenberg edition used a 60-foot right-of-way, where the Linwood edition used a 50-foot right-of-way.

Um so the applicant's proposing to incorporate the right-of-way in a five by five corner clip to align the block.

Um, and then their ultimate goal is to build three multi-story uh town homes similar to other townhomes in the area, and I'll show you some pictures that kind of uh explain that here.

You can see there's three to four-story townhomes throughout the district as shown on the map.

You can kind of see one here on the right.

From the staff perspective, as we analyze the situation, uh, we thought carefully about how the property alignment can help create a better urban edge because by aligning the properties, it then creates a consistent setback along Curry Street.

So the buildings are likely to be have the same property line.

They'll have the similar they can have then similar setbacks instead of being forced to be set back.

So that consistent urban edge reinforces the UR intent, uh helps create a more consistent sense of enclosure when you're walking down Curry Street, and just for that block helps to make help it make a little bit more sense.

So for those reasons, uh staff is recommending that the request for a recommendation to City Plan Commission and City Council to vacate a portion of the right-of-way up to 1400 square feet in the urban residential district directly adjacent to block 18 of the Weisenberg edition at the intersection of Curry and Weisenberger Street be approved.

Any questions for staff?

Straightforward is the applicant here to speak.

Yes.

Okay, any questions for the applicant?

No.

Uh anyone here any else in here to speak in favor or an opposition.

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

Seems cut and dry.

Motion to approve.

Okay.

All right.

We have a motion to approve the request for recommendation of CPC and City Council to vacate a portion of the right-of-way in the UR district directly adjacent to block 18 of Weisenberger edition at the intersection of Curry and Weisenberger Street.

And at so a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from Commissioner Reed.

Uh Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Oh, correction.

Uh Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Now you all get to hear someone other than me speak for a little bit.

Chairman Benner.

Yes, sir.

Here's the next case.

We can take a five-minute break.

After the next, yeah.

Or no.

Actually, why don't we go ahead and take since we lost a couple anyway, go ahead and take a five-minute break.

Okay.

We have a long day today.

Is that right?

Yeah.

So five minute recess.

Well, I don't know about Steve.

How are you doing today, man?

That's good.

Likewise.

House in Aspen.

We're doing a five thing.

On the historic stuff, do you hire specialists for that or do you think that's a good idea?

Or does yeah, for the like the uh exactly actually consultant on the team.

There's uh the seven of us.

Oh my gosh.

I wish I had seven people.

Yeah.

I mean it's hard to do.

But then I'd have to pay them.

No, it's been it's just been the most bizarre year.

I mean, you know, we're pretty small.

I mean, it's really architecture, there's three of us, and then we've got about sixteen or so trim carpenters and framers and stuff, and guys.

But yeah, it's just been absolutely the year started off just crazy, and the next thing I know by the time we kind of fell on that button.

Yeah, by default, yeah.

Yeah.

Good work.

Good job.

I know it's like uh was really good at the uh worried about it.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I guess we're trying to ever give you and that's the stuff that surprised me is that the reshuffle that you have to be out.

You know, used to was like 10, 15 minutes.

I need 30.

Well, sure you can.

Oh, or you just gotta have like 30 percent of the square footage.

But then all the financing and mathematical modeling.

So yeah, it's it's crazy.

No, that's great for you guys.

I didn't realize you were that you guys are that diverse.

But anyway, so uh Yeah, it's uh I think a lot of it for us too is we were kind of I'll be honest.

Old school, so we watch it every last year.

We got our website all redone, we got all the graphics and everything all.

It was like literally like three percent of great.

I'm like, okay, so I get where this is coming from, right?

Well what's getting me right now is the diversity of distances traveled to points.

So like yesterday was Cannon Dale, and then tomorrow's PK Lake.

And then you start doing that location.

So fortunately most of the stuff for us still stays primarily.

Right, thanks everybody.

Yeah, we'll call us back to order.

Right, thank you, Commissioner Penner.

Uh your next case is UDC dash twenty twenty six twenty twenty-six dash zero five three fourteen Pennsylvania Avenue and the applicant is requesting two way better from linear society standards.

The first one is to allow aluminum as a background material and to permit to prevent a wall sign depth unless it sinks to six inches where the standards do not allow wall signs made of flat bino metal plant pens and require a minimum protecting depth of six inches.

The second waiver is to install two wall signs, one on the west elevation and one on the east elevation on walls that do not have public entrances where the standards only perm only allowed wall signs on side elevations that can take a public entrance.

This is the location, area view of the site.

And for that reason, he's requesting three signs.

One on the south elevation, which is the main entrance, and have the public entrance of the building, and two extra signs on the right and left elevation where public entrances are known.

Provided here are the standards where where it says the wall signs.

In this case, the half metal background material needs to have the letters needs to have at least six inches depth.

And currently the wall sign has less than well, it's like one and a one and a half inches, the total depth.

That's and this is the background, the background is the black part, is made of the proposing aluminum.

This is the design of the size elevations.

Again, they don't have any public entrances on the size elevations, which is against the standards when it says only size elevations.

We put the entrances can have the wall signs.

The applicant is proposing just to illuminate the actual letters, which that kind of missed the intent.

We don't like when and based on the standards, background shouldn't be illuminated.

Because it kind of would look like a cabinet signs and cabinet size are prohibited in the near south side.

Here, existing photo of the building.

This is the south elevation, which is the main entrance.

You can see on that photo, which they didn't get a permit yet, but maybe it's because they didn't know that temporary sign has to have permit as well.

Um here's the west elevation.

They're proposing to have their sign over here.

And this is the south, which basically sorry, the east elevation, they're proposing to have the other side and wall sign here next to the main one at the front edge.

And up and staff is recommending um because of the standard denial of both, like the overall design of the signs, both signage, and denial of the waiver to have um wall signs in the left and right elevation.

Any questions for stuff?

Questions for staff is the applicant here speak.

Yeah.

Back uh you can go back to that slide where they got the two sign, the larger version and the smaller version.

They are acting that the smaller version, take that down and make it and do the larger version.

Oh, yeah.

Are you asking for me, Commissioner, or for the applicant?

It's a question for the applicant.

Yes.

Okay, sorry.

Sir, go Jeremy Miller, go.

What was your question, sir?

Go back.

Now go right there.

Well, this one.

Oh yeah, right there.

Okay.

Are they the accent to change this bottom sign and make it compared to the larger sign?

Uh no, no, sir.

Those would be much much smaller than the larger ones on the east and west side is what we were asking for.

Right and right above the white rock there.

Okay.

What's the reason for requesting the signs on the east and west side?

Visibility as you as you come down Pennsylvania, it's a pretty busy fairly busy road.

And coming from the if you're as you're driving west, you can see the setback from the front entry there.

So if you're driving eastbound on Pennsylvania, looking at that one sign is going to be tough to see.

We've already kind of seen people miss the building and they're circling around, and it's it's been like that kind of for several of the businesses around there.

Um and as I've looked around, you see the building directly across from us has a very similar sign to the south location, same size, same fonts, and everything.

Um we've seen more people putting banners up, I guess, trying to just mark their businesses.

So we didn't want to go the banner out by any man, you know, by any means.

So that we have a professional looking sign.

We're hoping to get them on the east and west just to so people can find our business.

That was the reason for the east and west request.

Is it possible to meet the intent of the code with regards to the uh the setup of the sign and the the background and all of the east and west?

Uh it sounds like it's gonna be tough to meet.

It doesn't sound like that's from talking to everybody here.

Sounds like that's gonna be tough to meet those unless there was a text change to what the actual uh guidance was.

So I think that would be tough to meet that.

So you can't meet the depth of the signage and you can't meet the cabinet style sign.

I mean, uh Tim from Lee Science is here.

You can talk to that as far as you want me to pass around what you're doing.

Yeah, so the up and green like uh example, just the sign across the street.

There's kind of similar design of this one.

Does that have any impact on this case?

I mean, each case is individual.

Okay.

So we that's why we didn't bring it out because each case is a unique.

Yes, sir.

We could we can go with a six inch deep letter.

It just would it's kind of awkward when it sticks out.

I mean, the depth we originally built was about three inch cabinet with a one-inch protruding uh called a push-through sign.

We do them all the time, it looks very good.

It looks just like Lake View.

When we went out, we did the first survey, we got to talking to the people, we were like, okay, we can have this type of sign here, it looks good.

Sign that was there originally for the architect, is actually just a hand sign with vinyl on it.

So we're upgrading the look, we're going with an urban look, making it very look really nice, just presenting a company with an opportunity to let people know where they are.

We could meet the six inch depth, wouldn't recommend it because it sticks way far out, but we'll we'll gladly do whatever we need to do to make everyone happy.

It's just not a very attractive look.

If the look is to be very professional, very urban, six inch channel letters on a pen doesn't look urban.

But we'll do it if that's what we're asked to do.

Our our fear there too is it sticks up six inches that's sticking out actually into the sidewalk of where people are walking up into the business.

So that was a another fear of ours.

And I believe the some folks from the South Side group are here to talk about that as well.

And it's within the the guidelines, right?

What you what you what you're wanting to do.

I believe the six inches would be asking for a waiver on that, correct?

Yes, so the standard says they have to have six inches.

That's what we're bringing in here.

Just want to point something out that the reason for that six inches is it also kind of limits the amount of information because the you know, if you make a those letters that are small, six inches, it's gonna kind of muddy it a bit.

It would be best.

The ideal sign would be all injury rehab without the other stuff, and it just be six inches letters, you know, and a little bit bigger, and then it would read.

This is a little bit odd, you know, the way it's being presented, and those all those regulations look to decrease clutter, improve readability.

You know, you don't really want a phone book per se on the wall.

You want just hey, this is where it's at.

Are the clip art sort of uh six red squares?

So is that part of your logo?

Is that brand?

Every other location has that same sign, so we're trying to stay consistent with the signage.

And so that needs to be seen from the street.

Yeah, that's just kind of the branding as well of the of the of the clinic.

How how big are they?

The squares.

Um asking how big the squares overall total sign on the larger sign, it's five feet by six feet wide.

So each of those squares will be about a foot.

I could say we were asked to do branding, follow the that's what they have at every location they have.

So when we saw the other ones, we were like, okay, we'll do would you be able to see those from the street?

Hold on one second.

If you if you could uh speak into the mic, uh so in the event, I just thought I was too tall.

Thank you.

What can I re-answer for you?

I'm sorry, sir.

Uh I I guess the question was, would you be even be able to see a 12 by 12 uh golfer with uh from the street?

Is that gonna be legible as a sign from the street?

If visibility is your concern.

The other look the other locations that's it's not a problem at all that you can see them, they look nice from driving down any of the streets that are that we're on.

In this image, it's very difficult to see that, and it does sort of create clutter on the on the face of the building.

Uh yeah, the the banner is actually very small.

Um not reflective of what the actual sign will look like at all.

Steven, that's a temporary banner.

I understand, yeah, understood, but still the how how big are those squares.

It'll be something like this.

Unfortunately, didn't I didn't get to do the banner, so I'm just gonna do the stack.

I I think I think that was an Amazon purchase.

I don't have your other locations in the city of Fort Worth.

Uh no, sir, it's first one in Fort Worth.

Very cluttered sign.

I'm sympathetic to having a sign on the west elevation, I think.

Uh, just because if you are, I can see if you're headed east, the design of the building is gonna block your view of the south facing sign completely until you've blown past the building.

No, the other side.

Yeah, I mean I don't see how the yeah, the one on the east elevation, a little redundant, my opinion, personal opinion.

We agree.

I we agree.

If one was gonna get approved, we would ask for the side to get approved.

So if they reduce to two sides, we are and we are we're the only tenants in the whole whole building, so we'll have there won't be any other occupants ever in that building.

Our our business takes the whole whole it's two waivers that we're just seeing.

Yeah, we we still we cannot approve as a stuff.

They wall signs because they don't have public entrances, so that will be up to you as well.

Sounds like we have the clutter of the sign piece to discuss and also whether or not we want to approve one or both or neither of the east and west, yeah.

Relative relative to the cleared up that south side sign a little bit.

We went with a straight line all injury rehab instead of it being stacked like there, we resubmitted it, but it may have not made it in just because we changed our for that exact reason to try to promote more of the logos.

I don't have it on my drawing, so it's not as promotes more of the space than it does than if you just on that uh all injury rehab will be in one line and then the so like the smaller size that space for us a little bit more right in that area.

Is it gonna go higher on the building?

The sign will be about five feet tall by six feet wide, which is very similar to what mix across the street had just to try to stay with that view of what you were looking for in the area.

The other two will go actually a little higher in the red square on the east and west side, building up in those bands just for visibility and to be out of the way so people couldn't mess with them walking by, but they're also just for visibility because that street is hard to see the location.

Is there a reason why they didn't uh why you guys don't want to have a monument sign?

I was gonna ask that question.

That's a good point.

Pretty sure that they're that wasn't we we couldn't have one was the reason we went for the signs on the wall.

We weren't allowed to do a monument in application.

I mean, they just have to have proposal and they will have to come again to UDC because monument signs needs that UDC approval.

Gotcha.

Yeah, is that it's an auction?

They have multiple auctions.

One point of clarification.

We're we're voting to approve what's been submitted, but you're saying you've submitted to staff a different design.

Just change it.

I can bring everybody out the broadcast.

So it looks very similar to the one on the website already.

So instead of it being all injury rehab stacked, it would be all injury rehab in one line, which spaces out everything else to clutter.

So legally, how do we handle that?

For the if you look at the waiver request, um I don't think the waiver request really uh is discussing kind of the stacking issue.

So uh whatever you approve itself with regards to the waivers won't have any effect.

I mean, simply whatever they submit to um uh for approval.

Um you're only granting as to whether it's uh east or west sign and then the background material.

Um so long as whatever they submitted conforms to the design standards and no additional waivers are required, then they should be good to go.

Got it.

Yep.

See now as of now, this is the proposal that we have.

Yeah, I would also like to make the comment that if uh the all injury rehab is on one line, those letters will even get a little bit smaller within that the confines of that square they're proposing there, adding to the clutter.

Right.

You you'll have to respect the score footage of the face, right?

I I would think the best case scenario would be a what be a monument sign or raise it up with the one sign in between, you know, above the in between the first and second floors.

That's where it really wants to be.

That's why it's not in the walkway.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And that's something they have the applicant can work with staff.

Sure.

Later on.

It will be dependent on your decision.

And I believe Nier So is also here to speak.

So morning everybody, uh, commissioners.

Uh awesome James speaking on behalf of Near Southside.

Uh full disclosure, we did not have a near South Side Design Review Committee meeting on this.

We did uh share the plans via email and had some feedback there.

We are aligned with the staff on, I think it's the second waiver of not being in favor of them on the side entrances or the size at the entrances, uh, and just the south facade, no issue there, of course.

Um there wasn't any really strong feelings on the actual design itself.

Uh of the that south facing one.

It it does meet the intent or the intent for that the projection is that the signs aren't flat, whereas this this isn't flat.

It does have some dimensionality to it.

There's you know, it's it's not a it's not a flat panel or uh anything like that.

So that is what our take is so you would be okay with the waiver of it not being six inches and then not approve the signs on the east and west.

That's correct.

We didn't talk about anything like an alternative of them doing a monument sign or anything.

The next case is a monument sign waiver, so those of course do need waivers, but we didn't we didn't get in anything anything like that.

Are you okay with the aluminum material?

Uh we didn't discuss the material.

I I personally, yeah, I don't I don't mind that at all.

Okay.

The the commission might want to consider each of the waivers in turn.

Because this is kind of complicated and the discussion's been intersecting.

Before we move to that, is there anyone here to speak in additional opposition to either of the waivers?

We we did receive a letter of opposition from CNIC Fort Worth.

Um basically uh suggesting what the staff report and staff recommendation was to deny both waiver requests.

I'll make a motion to approve waiver one from science standards to allow aluminum as a background material into a permit of all sign depth of less than six inches.

Commissioner West, second.

I'm sorry.

Oh yeah, process is important.

Sorry.

Uh if there's no one else here to speak in favor or opposition, we'll close the public comment portion.

Chris, do you want to clarify if that's okay?

Because you're approving one waiver.

There was a mo there was a motion.

We probably need to remake that motion.

I think for purposes, I think right now they just are considering the first waiver.

Is that correct?

Okay.

So that that that so that is the motion on the floor as it relates to the first waiver request.

Thank you.

So question before we before a motion is made, if I may.

Um we are allowing the motion.

Well, the the waiver is asking for a wall sign depth of less than six inches.

Could we approve that, but also put a minimum on that so they don't come back and be legal?

Yes.

Hello, hello.

Yes.

So you can um if if it's less than six inches and you want to approve, let's say a minimum of something, that certainly is fine with with your motion itself.

There's there's nothing that prohibits that.

You will have to clarify what is the depth data one.

Yeah.

Specific about it, yeah.

Yeah.

So you may want to discuss and then re restate your motion if you want to.

Is everybody okay with an inch and a half depth for the sign as proposed?

No less than one and a half.

Redo that.

I'm gonna move approval of waiver one from sign standards to allow aluminum as a background material and to permit a wall sign depth of less than six inches with a minimum of one and one half inches uh projection from the aluminum background material.

Commissioner West seconds that motion.

Okay, we have a motion.

Chair Benett, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair, sorry.

Hi.

Commissioner West.

Aye.

Commission carr.

Aye.

Reed.

Are we in compliance?

Uh compliance.

Uh with the six, but uh what do you say it?

Yes, yes.

Yeah.

There's no motion.

Well, to be to be clear, so the motion is for a waiver from the standard of six inches to allow 1.5 inches from the background.

Yes.

Commissioner the bows.

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier.

Hi.

Commissioner Holliday.

Hi.

And Commissioner Sanchez.

Hi.

Okay.

Motion passes 9-0.

Now we got the second waiver.

Commissioner West, I uh make a motion that we deny the waiver to install two wall signs on west and east elevations.

I'll second.

So the motion is to follow staff recommendation, correct?

Okay.

Chair Bennett, how do you go?

Vice Chair Rancy.

How do you?

Aye.

Commissioner West.

Aye.

Commissioner Carr.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose.

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier.

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday.

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes zero.

Thank you.

Let's move forward to next case.

Next case is UDC-2026-088 1601 lipscom 3.

And the applicant is requesting certificate of appropriateness for two monument signs in the near cell size district.

We have waiver from the signage standard to allow monument signs.

Where monument signs require UDC approval.

And the second waiver is request a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow electronic changeable copy sign where electronic changeable copy signs are not allowed.

Okay, this is the location and the current zoning of this property.

It's a little bit of background.

This property is historic and also belongs to the near-sell-size standards.

Because it's a historical building, they went first to the historical commission, and what they're what they're proposing is an expansion of the fire community center.

And the expansion was approved, but because they're proposing monument signs and signage, you have to comply also with the near cell size standards.

That's what they hear.

So here's this is the location of the two monument signs.

One is the typical monument signs over here.

And the second monument sign, it's uh it's gonna be located in the retaining and uh proposed retaining wall, and because it's located in the returning wall, it's considered a monument sign.

Um the monument signs in general comply with their other standards like landscaping, height, um location.

So this is the design of the first monument sign, the typical monument sign, sign A.

And this is the second sign, which is located at the retaining wall.

Currently, they do have an existing monument sign, which has to be demolished because of the expansion.

That's what the new proposed monument sign will be over here.

Um building.

Um the current monument sign that they have is manual changeable letters, which is what we recommend in this in the near south side for this type of use.

However, they're proposing to have in the new monument sign design to have electronic changeable letters, which does not comply with the standard of the near South Sive.

For the two waivers, staff is recommending approval of the first one, which is to allow them to have the monument signs, but denial of the electronic electronic changeable copy letters for one of the monument signs.

Well, the applicant here to speak.

And they just have the applicant, which is a CD, they just want to have electronic changeable letters.

That was the only response that we got.

Okay.

Is that a standard that they do for every community center?

Not sure.

So my parents live on this street.

I drive to the city.

Talk about events coming up at the community center or guess so.

But currently they have a manual.

Yeah.

Manual changeable one.

That I think has been working.

Good.

I mean it it stinks to have to go change those letters, but it's just part of it.

Anyone here to speak?

Any else anyone else here in to speak in favor of this request?

All right, Austin James with Near Southside here again.

Um I do want to mention we got a letter from two of the staff at the community center.

Um that just of why they want to have it.

It just makes it easy for them.

They're really gonna be cautious about uh illumination levels, it won't be flashing or anything like that.

Um so they they have reinforced, you know, that they'll they'll be good community stewards with this, and um so they're they're not you know proposing animations or any of that.

Um we are are totally in support of the monument sign, both the one on the wall and uh the yeah, that one uh and the the standalone one.

One thing uh I'll mention too, we the monument signs are you hear me speak a lot about buildings that aren't designed for them originally, a fire station, of course.

Historic fire station is is a great example of an uh building where a setback allows that that sign to be the most sensible option here.

Uh one one thing we talked about kind of internally was what if it was at a better location on the property.

Jefferson, can you go to the overall?

I think there's one before here.

Uh so the far bottom right, it's actually the southwest corner of the property is on Allen, uh, which is obviously a little more high traffic.

So we were wondering if I wish the applicant was here.

We could kind of discuss this then too, but if that wouldn't be a more viable location, less impactful to the neighborhood itself and more visibility for the center as well.

Um that's kind of one of the things we brought up, is maybe y'all could discuss that a little bit too better location.

And again, I we can't design too much by committee, and they're not here, but that is a one consideration.

Also, I know that this is just first step uh recommendation to the the BOA too, so for the changeable copy of portion.

So is that gonna be go back go?

Is that gonna be a parking lot there in the south east corner, southwest corner?

Okay, and so Austin, that's where you're saying maybe putting the lighted sign on the street.

Yeah, that's Alan right there.

So of course there's uh they have the the corner clip that they kind of are restricted by it at the corner there, but is that convenience store gonna be gone?

Uh no, the one on hempill.

Yeah, it's uh not part of this project.

No, no, no, the one okay, so no, that's changing.

So it's just that green space between Lipscomb and the convenience store.

Okay.

That's right, yeah.

That'll be a part of it now.

Okay.

Part of the part of the community center.

I believe the location they're proposing, which is over here, is just because they currently have this one here and they just want to move it.

It'll be to the left.

It does seem like in really close proximity to the other sign.

So I'm looking at you can see both in one eye shot.

If you look at figure 10, it kind of gives the rendering.

Yeah.

So they're not as close.

Both of them at the same time.

Yeah, I hear you.

And they're both sort of sort of in the same right-of-way, basically.

Don't disagree with Austin's.

I'll mention too.

I can't imagine us ever supporting a changeable copy sign for anything besides a community center where you know there's a clear benefit, and we're close partners with them, of course.

We work with them all the time.

We help build the park, fireization park and the skate plaza right behind there.

So this is certainly not something we would otherwise support.

So Austin, are you are you saying that you're approving you would approve both?

You're supporting both waivers.

It's tricky for sure, yeah.

Okay.

Because we could you know make a motion to approve with a condition that the location of the signage be at a less I don't know, on another street.

Even Allen is still a residential screen.

There's a house directly across the phone.

I believe you'll have to decide where the location should be because we as a staff, we cannot tell them where.

So what you what you're saying, the second location you want on Alan.

That that seems like it would be less problematic and because why why have two locations that close to each other?

Why not put one?

Alan is a main screen too, a big screen.

So I agree with what what he's saying.

One should be on Allen.

That's what I add then.

We also got a little support from Seneca for War.

They were in supporting the staff recommendation.

Just to leave it there.

But to be clear, they were in support of the waiver request for the two monument signs, and they were aligned with staff on the denial of the changeable copy recommendation to BOA.

Correct.

I see we see that.

Approve one, deny second.

Is there anyone else to speak in favor or in opposition?

Further questions by the commission.

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

But what you what you'll say and staff agree to that, right?

Go back.

Um just staff agree to that right there.

Yes, because we can not tell them where to locate the monuments on the case.

That's understandable.

Can we suggest that they uh put it on Allen?

It will be up to you.

I believe the reason that they just proposing it here is because they currently have the existing one, like just like a five couple thieves away.

So the UDC is suggesting moving the monument sign, staff would recommend doing an approval to move the monument sign to a said.

Yeah, a specific location.

But the applicant would be able to put it wherever they wanted to if we approve this waiver.

Sorry.

If if you approve the waiver, it would be where it's shown on the plan.

But if you want a specific location, it will be on the location that you're suggesting.

That's what you're saying, Joe.

Well, you can approve here.

You can't approve it subject to a condition to move the monument sign to X location.

That's what if you want to move if you want the monument sign moved, you should do that, not just suggest to the applicant, because they put forward this proposal with a monument sign in a set location.

So unless they there's any uh requirement that they move it as part of the waiver approval, then it will stay right where that arrow is.

Can they condition in the location even though the standards doesn't base up our location?

Um generally speaking, um any approval of a waiver request, um the board can decide.

Uh I mean you're limited to design elements, correct?

Um and when taking into consideration some design elements um for a waiver, if there are issues that the board is concerned about as it relates to the design or kind of the the look and whether or not it fulfills or complies with the form-based code, you guys can impose uh conditions on the waiver to mitigate some of those concerns that the board feels needs to be addressed before approving it.

So if there are concerns as it relates to the location and it's tied to some design element itself, whether or not it would farther distance would capture more of what the intent of or the feel of the building or however, then certainly the board can impose that, but it would have to be specific as to the location of where that monument sign would be placed.

If that makes sense.

If it's right out front, they don't need electronic copy, they can just go out and change it.

So I think I'm okay with the staff has my opinion.

I will say so and city.

The standards near society says that they're not allowed for these kind of uses.

And Jefferson, correct, correct me if I'm wrong.

Fairmount design guidelines also address uh electronic changeable copy.

So yeah, the Fairman History District standards also they don't want to see flashing signs.

I make a motion to um approve uh to reappropriance for two monument signs and to deny the application for recommendations to the board of adjustment.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Rancy and second by Commissioner De Bose.

Um Chair Bennett, how do you vote?

I Vice Chair Rancy.

Aye.

Commissioner West.

Hi.

Commissioner Carr.

Hi.

Commissioner Reed.

No.

Commissioner De Bose.

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier.

Commissioner Holiday.

And just to be clear, this is for the location that is proposed.

So that was not based on any conditions of relocation.

So you're um yeah.

Uh no.

And Commissioner Sanchez.

Hi.

So we got six three motion passes.

Thank you.

Enrique Alvarez is is going to be presenting this next case.

He's with our zoning team.

So this is his first UDC case.

So you're encouraged to ask him all the tough questions.

Good thing is I can fake it till I make it.

And that's what I told Joe.

I have no idea what I'm talking about today.

I'm kidding.

Uh this application is actually it dates a little bit back to about February-ish.

Um, so yeah, so I've lived with this one for a minute.

Um, so the request is uh UDC 2026 050 056 uh council district two, it's currently zoned community facilities.

This is kind of a weird one.

Um it we all kind of scratched our heads when we when we came across it, but I think we're going the right direction processing it procedurally.

Um I can be throwing a pen or you guys can throw a pen at me legal, uh, if I'm we've gone uh astray, but here we are.

So this is a request um to zone the property from community facilities to plan development, um urban residential.

And so this is one where the what is it, the cart comes before the horse um necessarily here.

So the reason it's before the Urban Design Commission is that the urban uh urban residential regulations in there state that any proposed zoning change with a plan development with a urban residential base uh district has to receive a recommendation for approval by the Urban Design Commission.

So this is the end goal, but we have to we have to have Urban Design Commission recommend approval first.

And this is also one that has uh historical commission as well.

So that was on Monday.

UDC is today.

Uh if all goes well here, this one will see zoning commission next month in May, and then city council in June.

So they are getting their legislative education here.

Um so yes, so it's a plan development urban residential for multifamily development with all uses in urban residential, excluding the listed uses.

I don't have to say them all, do I?

No, maybe Joe.

I don't have to okay, cool.

Um, with three development waivers associated with this development.

This is going to be a development standards for rear yard setback of zero feet, a maximum parking of 93 spaces, and to allow street level unit entries to have shared entrance off primary street.

And we do have a site plan included with this application.

So the purpose and intent of the urban residential district is to provide residential uh density transition zones between single family neighborhoods and higher density commercial areas.

So we'll get to the location map here in a little bit that kind of shows that relation bit relationship a little bit, a little bit more in context.

And so the goal of this is also to provide um architectural diversity and allowing uh setbacks to frame the pedestrian environment with engaging building facades, improving visibility and safety of building entrances, and increased neighborhood vitality.

So and there's seven key goals here promote pedestrian fan pedestrian oriented urban form, require excellence and design, promote walkability, maximized connectivity and access, the seven listed uh purposes and intents here.

So one of the unique aspects of this application, and what I've noted in the staff report is most zoning districts or most proposed planned developments are ground up clean slate development where they have here's the here's the development standards, you know, design your building to fit this.

This one's kind of an oddball where the site is already existing, and so this is going to be an adaptive reuse, partially with the addition of a new building.

So this one touches both new construction and adaptive reuse of an existing building in the north side of the city.

So kind of a weird uh trying to fit to this form, and we'll go a little bit more in detail with that.

And so again, this is the requirement uh 417 4.713 B2D, which requires the urban design commission recommendation prior to seeing zoning commission and then city council.

So a little bit more thousand-foot perspective is that we have community facilities, is what this property is zoned as, and that in that includes churches, hospitals, stuff for the general welfare of the community.

And so kind of from being a land use zoning, that side of planning is we have to look at it from the perspective of does this use comply with the nearby neighborhood?

What are surrounding uses?

A little bit more in depth to the intent and character of urban residential.

And Joe, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the urban design commission focuses more on the actual location, the actual building, kind of how that engages that uh that uh character and intent of urban residential.

Correct.

Cool.

I'm learning.

Um my report card, hopefully they gave me good credit.

So again, one of the important aspects is the site's already developed, and so the existing building that's there, which I have pictures of uh here, a couple slides, will remain, but we're also gonna include a single story um unit that will or single-story building that will contain additional living units with other site enhancements to the property as well.

And so this is the site plan that the applicant has proposed.

So the existing building to the north northeast will remain.

There will be a new construction building to the southwest, southeast of the building, uh, and with some pedestrian open space, some energy space located to the southwestern part of the property.

So existing parking that's there will be improved, enhanced to uh meet all design standards, besides parking lot uh lane width, all the requirements that go with parking.

And so landscape plan to go with that.

So one of the other enhancements of the urban residential district is that they are required to provide street trees and pedestrian lighting.

So in a couple slides, we'll go through the pictures of the property, but some uh these components just don't exist right now on the property.

So the developer or the applicant will come in and have to add these enhancements to the site.

So from a if this were to have gone to a planned development or any other multifamily development, they wouldn't have had to do these improvements.

So the urban residential enhances the site characteristics and the built site from what it currently exists now.

And so here are some of the building elevations.

So I'm not sure if any of y'all are familiar or have seen the building.

It's been there for a minute.

Um it predates all of us in here.

Um and it was built in different stages.

I believe dating back from 1927, I believe is yeah, 1927.

So the site was constructed in 1927 to 1953, and that's kind of the different stages that the current building uh exists within.

And so a little bit of background on the property is that it developed as the North Fort Worth Baptist Church, and who maintained the ownership until 1985 when the church relocated to different location, and then the primer Iglesia Baptist Bautista Baptist Church acquired the site, and they currently operate and maintain the property.

And so the applicant and the developer is the one that's wanting to take this proposal and develop it later on for the multifamily use.

And so, and I believe on Monday, they received uh a recommendation from approval from the historic commission for the historic designation on the site.

So that then goes to City Council at some point.

The applicants requested that both the PD and the historic designation go to city council in June, just so they're aligned, and city council's hearing at once and considering both the PD, the use, the development standards, and the historic designation, all in kind of one shop.

So they are getting their civic education uh procedure with the city of Fort Worth.

Most applicants just see zoning and city council, these applicants are seeing all the Ruby bodies.

Um we welcome them and thank them for that.

And then so these are the elevations that they proposed.

So the current building, and sorry, they're a little tight, but the current elevate or the current building right now is 100% masonry on all sides.

And whilst we call out four stories, that's put a little asterisk there, and it's four stories, but on the northeast portion, the highest point of the church is that four story.

I can draw on this, I remember.

So the only portion that's actually four stories is going to be this part here, but that's only for a small part of the actual property.

The majority of the site is this two-story, two and a half story, um, and that's gonna be for the majority of the site that's there.

And so the proposed building elevations of what they have now are going to be it's gonna be a single-story building.

It's gonna contain additional units that aren't except additional units in the new building.

And this one's gonna be a single story, 100% masonry as well.

So we're the applicant is proposing and intending to match the current characteristics and design elements of the existing building that's there now.

So it won't be a new construction, 100% siding, and just look totally off.

So they're trying to meet that intent of match the character of what's currently there.

And so going in with that adaptive reuse component is they are trying to meet and match the elements that are there to not stick out, right?

To make it an enhancement to the property with everything else that they're gonna have to do and provide that um that uniformity across the across the entire site.

And so here's where we go with the existing or the requested uh waivers standards that we have here.

So the rear yard primary structure setback in the urban residential district is five feet.

They're requesting a zero-foot setback, um, that that's mainly due to the existing building being on constructed on the alleyway.

Um, I would reckon surveying building about 100 years ago was kind of questionable and where lot lines were, so here we are.

Um the other portion is the typical parking ratio for apartments and condominiums is one space per every one space per bedroom plus 20 plus two spaces per 500 square feet of leasing office and/or social rooms, they would be required 117 parking spaces, and the other one is they would only be able to provide 93 parking spaces maximum, just given the existing site and where they would be able to put parking and the open space requirements.

So they're limited on where parking could go there.

The only other one that they're requesting is the uh apartments, condominiums, and manor houses with street level units must provide individual street-oriented entries for each unit along the primary street frontage.

And so, again, going back to the existing site and the building that they're going to, the new construction building is when placed, all of these units would be interior accessed.

And so the difficulty there is you have the church that exists in its current condition.

And to be able to, if they wanted to provide street level units, you'd have to do major facade upgrades and uh chisel away at existing building.

So as opposed to not trying to have to do that and uh make some major enhancements to the outside of the the property, the new building is going to be constructed in that similar manner to not stick out, right?

You have one building that has these updated required UR standards, and then you have a building right next to it five feet away that has nothing.

So it it deviates from that requirement, but because of the current state and condition of the site as it exists right now.

So here's some current pictures of the property taken last week.

So again, the picture on the left uh shows the four story portion of it.

Again, that's a small component of it, so it's not a towering, it looks over the neighborhood.

It's existed, it's gonna stay at four stories.

Um it's just gonna consist of remodel on the interior side.

This is facing from Lincoln Avenue, the picture on the right.

So looking further into the property, and so that's that parking lot, that drive approach is going to be where the amenity community space is going to be.

Here's a picture from the uh neighbor's property adjacent to where that four story is.

Again, it does not tower over, it's not looming into their backyards.

It's it's existed and it's it's it's it is what it is.

The building exists and it's been there for about a hundred years.

And so here's one from the corner of 15th and Circle Park facing south.

So again, no enhancements or additions to the outside of that.

That's solely going to be remodeled on the interior.

Here is from Circle Park looking for the actual circle park, looking straight into the property behind me were some residential properties, and then here's one from Circle Park facing northwest.

And so, and this is uh facing northeast.

So this is the alleyway mentioned, so that's where the current building sits.

And again, that waiver request would keep the new construction building kind of in line with the current uh build line of that structure that exists right now.

And so all that to say is staff's recommendation is approval of the requested waivers.

One thing to note here from what at the beginning is this is an adaptive reuse project.

And so while other projects have the benefit of being able to come in and develop up to that standard and have that little pushback of well, why can't you meet that?

This is one where without making major alterations or you know, removing a chunk of the building would not be able to be something that would be met.

And so we found that three waivers given their current proposal and request a proposal were indicative that this is a project that meets the UR characteristics and purpose and intent.

Um again, from a zoning land use standpoint, that comes second, but this is one where we've looked at more of the building.

So I have to look at both, but for purposes of UDC, we're looking solely at the construction of the building and how that fits in with um kind of the built neighborhood.

So the applicants are here, um, and I'm open for questions if anybody has them.

The the existing building, it the primary floor or first floor appears to be elevated from existing grade.

So there's like steps up into that primary floor from the north side or circle drive.

Correct.

That would be so from the so the back kind of shows that we're at grade level, but if we go to the front by circle park, those go up, but they would be um leading, I believe what would be second floor in that that's primary entrance.

So the image on the left is uh sort of that uh northeast corner, I guess, and then the next image.

I think I have there shows stairs, sort of into that primary entrance.

Is that correct?

It yeah, so they would go into the building, but it's the way that you if I'm going the right direction, the UR requirement is that each individual apartment have I'm just trying to get the sense of the uh the primary entrances to the existing building and the way that you enter that existing historic structure and how we enter this new structure that they're proposing to uh to build.

It looks like the the new building is basically set on grade with no stoop, no elevation in relation to the street, whereas this this existing building has a prominence, it's has it sits up above the grade and you approach through stairs or even the the entrances on that elevation appear to be just kind of like mouse holes where they don't have um they're not centered on an architectural element and sort of uh uh if we look at the those primary elevations versus these proposed elevations.

And and I think the applicant can speak to that a bit more, but um I I don't know if you've you mentioned this Enrique, but I believe the intent is for either affordable or senior housing.

So that's why they were trying to make the new addition closer to grade than the existing uh building for the ground level entries.

It appears that the grades on the back side of the um the building are at grade.

Is that not correct?

On on the back side, correct.

Yeah, but on the circle park side.

Yeah.

So just so we're clear, we're what are we approving?

We're approving um the proposed design.

You're approving the recommendation for the PD with revised development standards to the zoning commission and city council.

So you're taking the design in as a whole, because for the PD, since the site plan is included, that locks the developer into that site plan.

Those setbacks technically the elevations don't get reviewed until building permit, but you're approving the PD and the development standards.

So they would then have for any elevations they submit any new construction and have to comply with the development standards as proposed is written in the PD and those not mentioned which are in the UR regulation.

These elevations will be reviewed by HCLC?

The elevat the elevations will get reviewed by building permit, but the new construction will get reviewed by HCLC, I believe.

I'd ask Chris that question.

That's that's that's why uh if it hasn't been designated historic just yet by council, then it it essentially you have you have to wait till the HC designation occurs.

And so that's that's why we've had this discussion as to whether or not an HC designation has actually been placed on the property itself.

Because until that happens, then HCLC doesn't technically have any review authority over the property until that HC designation actually occurs.

Correct.

And the current timeline for that, the applicant can speak to this, is that it went through HCLC for recommendation on Monday.

So that will go to city council for for approval in May or June, I believe June.

So as this kind of works its way through zoning for the use related considerations, then council will consider that later.

So that would be for designation of the existing structure, but is this considered an addition to that existing structure, or is this just a the PD site plan covers both the existing structure and the new structure?

So the entire site would be designated historic for the HCLC recommendation.

I'm asking about the new construction, yes.

Yes.

It falls under the HCLC purview.

Sorry, it's kind of confusing.

There's four different review bodies here.

So it's it's it this is a odd application.

Funny enough, we have another PD uh form-based code.

So yeah, this one, it's been kind of a game of figuring out which review body comes first.

And this is not your typic, this is not a typical application.

I believe Joe and I talked about this earlier, uh, early on in the process.

Um planned development with form-based districts are not common.

And I think it kind of speaks to the adaptive reuse component of this as we're trying to fit in kind of we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole into forming what's best.

And so given waiver type aside, given the fact that we have three um on a UR page that's like 20 some odd pages of different standards.

Uh we felt that this still met the the character and the intent of what urban residential requires.

Could there be tweaks to it?

Yes.

However, that's up to the applicant as to how their site design came.

Um, and so if you were to provide individual street uh entries for that new construction building, it would be something that would stand out as to kind of how the current building exists now.

So again, the reason this one looks the way it does is it was built in three or four different parts, so different architecture, different different engineers at different points.

So it's I wouldn't say the building has been piecemealed, but it's definitely been built in different stages in different uh years, and so this kind of adds into what can we do to blend some of the characteristics of the the primary building.

Who has the final say on the exterior look of the new building?

We don't because we're only deciding if it should change zoning and allow the three um very the three waivers.

So does the historic commissioner to the city council or does the uh building department determine um I think that some of our concern is that is that new building looks rather plain compared to the context of the historical building that's on site.

So we're just wanting to make sure that somebody is gonna maybe make the second building look a little more historic, a little better in context with the original historic building.

Just to clarify and revise my statements before I misspoke, it was the building that received the recommendation building structure to city council for 1516 Circle Park on Monday.

So not the site.

So yeah, so the building would be so this is pulled out of that historic component.

So there is a facade and correct me if I'm wrong that Inca can throw a pandemic if I'm wrong here.

Um, but there is a facade requirement and construction material requirement in UR.

And so I believe reviewing it, there's certain distances of entrances, certain distance or certain design characteristics, and those are then reviewed by uh Inca, which would be me.

So requirements, material requirements, and things like that.

So we'll it won't be able to be a plane building unless they seek waiver for those, and they're not.

So that would be reviewed under the building permit.

Yeah, and one of the things that we did, again, being that this is a atypical application, is that we have the urban residential standard, like the whole stand development standards.

We gave those to the applicant and said, review these, which ones are you guys not being able to adhere to?

And so those three were the ones that they highlighted and said that we won't be able to meet these.

And so anything else.

I believe at this point that the elevations are here included as kind of a hey, a heads up, here's what it's gonna look like.

But we could also run this application without those elevations being provided.

So this is more of kind of a hey, just a heads up.

This goes in line with what's being presented, but this could be tweaked.

But given that they didn't request the waiver for that, any sort of deviation from the UR standards would be then meant at building plan review.

Well, wouldn't it be a PD UR with a plan development the city has the ability to ask for regular architectural elements on the building, not a planar building?

I that's what a plan development thought was supposed to do is you you it's a give and take between you and the applicant to come up with the best solution or this it would be held to the UR design standards because that's the base of the PD.

Yes, except for any development standards that are in that agenda, that that huge paragraph of text, then it follows what's in in that text.

But the base UR requirements would apply except for the revised development standards in that request.

So the UR standards include fenestration, pedestrian entrances, they were seeking a revised development standard.

So does it include maybe using some historical context from the church building to put on it to make it seem to fit better into the context of the whole it's not a historic design guideline but it it does include things such as 70% masonry of that facade minimum.

Um I think it also would be good for the applicant to maybe see.

Yeah, the applicant has a presentation, they have a little bit more context as to kind of what they're proposing.

So we can we can blend in their presentation and kind of answer any gaps that may be left there.

But anything else as opposed to the requested waivers or so mind you, I've I look at it from a land use perspective.

So this is a little bit new, but I think I'm getting the grasp of hey, kind of what the UR uh UDC requirements are.

So just from that perspective, I think that we've zoning in actual land use aside um from a UDC standpoint from urban residential.

This building is not in the historical component, but during that building permit review, if there are any deficiencies or if they don't meet certain elements of that facade, that is something that would possibly have to come back later.

But given that they've only requested those three, not related to this, um, this would be outside of y'all's purview.

This would be then a building permit.

I I want to make sure that we're clear on this.

Okay.

The UDC has purview of whenever someone wants to deviate from the UR standards.

And so when you place a PD, uh you're either adding uses, eliminating uses, plus changing the development standards of UR.

They've requested three different development standards from UR.

Everything else with regards to UR, they will comply.

They will have to comply with.

If they're seeking additional development standards down the line, let's say something didn't work out, and they would need an additional development standard, they would need to come back to the UDC to amend their PDUR.

So that is, you know, it wouldn't change at the building permit stage.

They would have to come back and seek additional development standards from the UR.

So all they're seeking right now with regards to y'all's concern is those three development standards that are different from UR.

Everything else they're gonna have to comply with from the UR standards.

So your recommendation is just to the zoning commission of whether or not y'all are okay with the three development standards that are different from the UR that that's and changing the zoning.

No, you're for purposes of the changing of the zoning, obviously, yes, but really your purview is over the design standards, not the uses, as well as whether or not you find the zoning compatible or consistent with the comprehensive plan.

That is at the zoning commission that y'all will be really recommending.

But for purposes of the agenda, it has to it should match to kind of give you an idea of what they're going towards.

So I just want to make sure that the board is clear why it looks this way.

One more question for staff.

When we come back to the existing standards, there seems to be a deficit here from parking spaces maximums of somewhere around 20 to 25 spaces.

Is it the understanding that those spaces will be absorbed by the neighborhood and street parking?

So a big component of the required parking spaces that they do have would be tied to the uh kind of the uh the open space amenity space that they do have.

So that eats up the remaining portion of those.

So by this, they would be required to have 84 parking spaces if we went by the um actual units.

And so the remainder of those spaces would be tied to the what would be required, the right remainder of them are tied to that open amenity space.

So it's it's one of those, it exists, but kind of like a giant automated warehouse, right?

We require these many spaces, but in reality, they're probably not gonna be taken.

Any other questions for staff?

So I just wanted to also add to it, Chris was saying.

We typically for MUUR will review it before they get to building permits, is just so that we can make sure that all the waivers, because at this stage, they don't typically have everything ready.

So we kind of do a review before after they get the approval for the design waiver.

So there will be a second review before they get to building permits.

Cool.

The applicant here to speak.

Yes, they are and they have a presentation.

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

Afternoon.

Well, is this afternoon?

Morning.

Good morning.

Yeah, good morning, everyone.

My name is Reggie Jennings.

I live in Fort Worth.

All right, so just a quick overview of who we are.

We're owes the industries.

We're a Texas-based woman-known firm with uh long history of uh developing affordable housing here in Texas and preserving housing as well.

And we've helped well over 3,000 families across the DFW and Austin Metroplex.

Um, we have a vested interest in all these properties as far as maintaining ownership uh of these communities for 15 plus years.

So we're definitely um in it for the long haul.

We utilize the housing uh tax credit program, federal and historical uh tax credits as well, and we have seven developments in the city of Fort Worth currently.

So Yarma Park, as was mentioned by Enrique, who did a great job.

Thanks for the presentation.

Umly the North Fort Worth Baptist Church, um, currently right now the Premier Baptist Church, and we've received a determination of eligibility letter from um the historical commission.

And as mentioned as well, we're converting this to senior affordable housing.

So I'll get into some of those details here in a second in regards to parking and some of the um waivers we're requesting.

As was mentioned also on April 13th, we uh received approval from HCLC for a recommendation to the city council for our AC overlay.

Just wanted to share some quick photos with you all of Cielo Place.

This is a former uh Baptist church right off of Ray Street that was an adaptive reuse as well.

And just some of the images.

So as you can see, we've maintained the uh integrity of what that former church was, right?

So you see the stained glass and one of the units on the top right picture is what was the sanctuary and now is a community space that has um the fitness center, the leasing office, and things of that nature, uh business center as well.

And then coming soon, what we have in Fort Worth is Mirror and Grove, which is off of Shaw Street and Hemp Hill, and then Georgian Oaks, which is about two blocks west of the uh young women's leadership academy in downtown Fort Worth.

Do you want to note that Georgian Oaks is uh senior development as well, 100 units and Mayor and Grove will be for families, and that's gonna be 90 units.

And with Mayor and Grove, we maintain the historical integrity of the building that's close to the left of the screen, which is a historical building, the old uh arts, old Lady of Arts Victory School.

We add the new construction building that's uh perpendicular to that building as well, and the Binion O'Keefe building, which is Georgian Oaks now, um, is a historical um property as well.

Just some brief next steps in our development process.

Currently, right now we're here at the UDC meeting, which we thank you all for your time today.

And then next, we'll have um our neighborhood meeting.

We've met numerous times with the community um at different uh neighborhood association meetings.

We have our next design meeting next week on the 23rd, and we have already had one uh previously as well.

So we've heard a lot of feedback, and this is why we're bringing some of these things to the table, not only for the benefit of obviously properly developing and reusing this property for the community, but based on what we've heard from the residents of the community as well.

So zoning and the historical um overlay, nice drone shot of the building here, sea of parking, and we'll get into that here shortly as well.

So, as mentioned, um, it's already currently zoned, CF, and we're playing to um rezone to PD and UR with the three requested waivers that were mentioned um earlier in the conversation today.

So just speaking about just the building in itself, right?

So it's already four stories.

It's a four-story building that's been there since the beginning of time, and then there over the course of time there were two story buildings that were added, okay.

So just going forward as far as our request for waiver for um the setback, right?

We want a zero outline.

The existing four-story building that's at plan north was more than likely based on our uh research, has been there before um that alleyway was already present, right?

Um, and then obviously for us to create a setback, we would have to move the building, which doesn't necessarily it's not it's not gonna happen, right?

Uh it would it would hurt my pox and potentially y'all's, and I don't want to do that.

So um that's one of the reasons why we're requesting that waiver for that, and then just going back real quick to our second one with parking spaces.

As you saw here, it's a sea of parking, right?

And what we've heard from community meetings and things of that nature is safety, right?

A lot of folks have talked about, hey, we have seen in our community a lot of just unused vehicles, place certain places that they shouldn't be, and then just sitting there and it's just driving crime and all those things, right?

So, what better way to help with that is by one reducing parking and creating a community space, green space, which you'll see on some of the um slides here shortly for that.

Secondly, with this being a uh affordable housing for seniors amongst our properties, a lot of seniors they do not drive vehicles, they carpool, and within our developments that are senior for affordable housing, we're looking at roughly the age of 65 up.

Okay, and with that, it'll help obviously reduce the need for those parking spaces and obviously help continue to beautify what we're seeing right here.

And then last but not least, with the individual street-oriented entries, which let me go to a better site.

So on east, so Circle Park Boulevard to the right of the screen.

Um, there's number one, no parking allowed on Circle Park Boulevard.

Okay.

So the actual usage of those potential walkways and up to the actual units would not be more likely a case, right?

Because we'll have entrances coming around the back side of the building for residents to come through on.

Secondly, going back to safety.

We brought that to the community at our most recent design meeting, and they were not in favor of that because safety, right?

There's too many points of access for them.

And they said, hey, we would much rather have the access on the backside where it would be, kind of running like that.

Here are some images as you can see right here of the building, which we've seen before.

We've talked about these as well.

So once again, a lot of these comments that we've gotten have come from the community members and help as well.

You see this proposed landscaping plan, added tree shrubbery, uh, the community space down at the bottom, which we're still working through a design on that as well.

This elevations, right?

So once again, this is to match obviously and keep the architectural integrity of the historical buildings that are already in place, but also still give it, you know, a brush uh fresh facelift to the development as well, and also not have it be four stories, right?

To respect the neighbors that are next door and around the community.

Elevations here as well.

And that's our presentation.

I do want to add one last thing, though, when it comes to um having the access points off of Circle Park Boulevard.

The neighborhood has talked about traffic, right?

And obviously, if there's access points right there, and if there were not no parking signs there, that would increase traffic on Circle Park Boulevard, and we don't want to do that to the community.

So that concludes our presentation.

Questions for the applicant.

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Anyone in opposition?

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Yeah.

We don't do this in zoning commission.

Um said out.

All right.

So seeing that there's a first and a second for approval of sub waivers as presented.

Right?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Uh Commissioner Carr.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Uh Commissioner DeBose.

Aye.

Chairman Benner?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes.

Not here.

Okay.

I knew that.

Test Neil.

Uh Commissioner Halliday.

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey.

Aye.

Commissioner Moss.

Commissioner Harrier.

Aye.

And Commissioner Sanchez.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Before we get started, is anybody need a quick break?

No, keep rolling.

All right.

All righty.

Your next case.

And Commissioners, I want to thank you all.

It has been my privilege serving alongside you and the team too.

So started.

Um your next case is UDC 2026, 045 6104 Camp Bowie Boulevard.

And so the applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for an attached sign in the Camp Bow Camp Bowie Boulevard revitalization district with the following waivers.

A waiver from the attached sign allocation area standards to allow an attached wall sign for a tenant space that does not have a long facade along the public street frontage along Camp Bowie Boulevard, where one sign is allowed per tenant space, and the area is to be calculated at 1.5 square feet per linear foot of tenant space facade along the public street frontage.

A waiver from the attached sign allocation area standards to allow the attached wall sign area to be calculated at 1.5 square feet per linear foot of the tenant space width, being 21.5 square feet for a maximum sign area of 32.25 square feet.

So just some background on the property.

UDC case 2026 045 and a sign permit PS26-00002, which is uh waiting client reply because it has been put on hold for this uh case.

So the proposed signage is for a new tenant in a two-story multi-tenant mixed-use retail building.

The suite is tucked away on the first floor in the corner behind the uh the elevator and stairs, leaving it with no frontage along the boulevard.

Previous commercial tenants of this tenant space did have signage in this location.

And so reiterating just what the Camp Bowie uh form-based code allows, it's one attached sign per tenant uh with facade along a public street frontage up to a maximum of 100 square feet.

The applicant is requesting a waiver because the tenant space technically has no street frontage, and therefore a calculation of allowable signage is not possible.

The second waiver requested is to allow the attached wall sign area to be calculated at 1.5 square foot per linear foot of the tenant space width.

And this is just an example to show you.

According to the zoning ordinance, also uh awning uh attached signage are uh signage areas measured, only the commercial copy and graphic and not the area of the entire awning.

And so the proposed attached sign is an awning sign and is proposed to be located on the second floor over the stairwell.

The initial proposal was for an awning sign totaling 36 square feet.

There are already several awnings with signage along this facade, creating visual clutter for the mixed-use building, and it it is unclear as to which floor the tenants with signage currently occupy.

Staff have begun to analyze the total signage along this facade.

The estimated height of this portion of the building here is about 18 to 20 feet, and the approximate width is uh about 100 feet for a total of 2,000 square foot of front facade.

The total allowable signage for the facade would be approximately about 300 square feet.

Uh so just using the calculation that's in the code, one um 1.5 times whatever the width would be, which is 100, and then multiplying that by two for the two stories.

Um so using Google Street Views, and then also uh Chat GBT, which is an AI tool.

Um, we estimated that the current amount of attached signage is approximately at 196 square feet, not including the window signage uh you see there.

And so just to show you there on the table, you do see the awnings are calculated at about 243 square feet.

I didn't add the one that has a little asterisk by it because that one's actually coming in new, so it's not there yet, but that one's coming in here.

That's an awning that will be there for the NBT bank.

And so that one was approved under a different COA, uh different tenant and all that.

And so the proposed 30 36 square foot.

Sorry, let me the proposed 36 square foot sign is too large for this tenant space.

Also, staff need more time and uh collaboration from the building owner to conduct a more accurate assessment of all existing on-site signage to determine whether additional signage is permitted under the code.

The code does not clearly address tenant spaces without facade frontage, and staff are currently evaluating this situation for future code updates.

Staff also recommended that the applicant utilize the existing multi-tenant pylon sign, adding more signage would probably contribute to more over signage and visual clutter, particularly given that uh several large signs already occupy this the this facade.

Additionally, the pylon signs, which are visually here, uh located at either end of this strip center already provide duplicate signage for tenants on both sides of the center.

So, given the above, staff recommend the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for an attached sign in the Campoe Boulevard Revitalization District with the following waivers waivered from the attached sign allocation area standards to allow allow an attached wall sign for a tenant space that does not have facade along the public street frontage along Camp Bowie Boulevard, and waiver from the attached sign allocation area standards to allow the attached wall sign area to be calculated at 1.5 square foot per linear foot of the tenant space width for a maximum sign area of 32.25 square feet be denied.

And I did provide to you uh some documentation provided by the applicant or I'm sorry, the business owner.

Um, the first letter is from the signed company, which addresses several of the other signage on this in this area, and then the second page is the letter from the uh landlord, and then the other one I think is the lease agreement provided.

It's actually just the exhibit D, which shows what they were given per the agreement.

This concludes the staff report.

Any final questions for staff as building ownership reached back out to you, or are you going to get that opportunity, or is the city going to get that opportunity to look at signage for the entire building?

Building owner has not reached out to us.

Um, some of the form-based code districts have comprehensive sign plans.

Camp Bui does not.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes.

Good morning.

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

Good morning.

My name's Tara Chisholm, and I live in Port Worth.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Tara Chisholm, and I am the co-owner of Sloan Beauty Bar.

Thank you for your time and for considering our request today.

I would also like to thank Ms.

Alvarez for her professionalism and guidance throughout this process.

My wife and business partner Maddie Montez had planned to be here today, but earlier this week, she completed a stem cell donation to the National Marrow Donor Program for a child with leukemia.

She is still recovering from that procedure, so I am appearing on our behalf today.

Sloan Beauty Bar is especially personal to us.

Maddie and I are both from Fort Worth, and building a successful business in our hometown has meant a great deal to us.

We are proud to be an all-woman small business that has grown within Ridgeley Village for nearly five years.

During that time, we have built a strong reputation for our services and have been honored with multiple best in Fort Worth and best in DFW recognition.

For the previous four years, we operated from interior suites with very limited visibility.

We've recently made a major investment to expand into our new location within Ridgeley Village because we believe in our team, our vision, and the future of Sloan Beauty Bar.

We wanted the opportunity to grow our business, better serve our clients, and finally have meaningful exterior signage.

Exterior signage was a critical part of that decision.

We would not have moved forward with this expansion into this space without the ability to have proper signage.

Our request today is for approval of our proposed awning sign.

Our suite is uniquely difficult to locate.

We are tucked into the corner of the center behind the stairwell and elevator.

Customers regularly struggle to find us, and without exterior signage, many drive past the center or become confused once they arrive.

Unlike many other tenants, Sloan does not have practical visibility from Camp Bowie Boulevard and does not function like a traditional storefront directly fronting the street.

That distinction is important because the staff report expressly states that the current code does not clearly address tenant spaces without facade frontage, and that staff are evaluating future updates for situations like ours.

In other words, Sloan falls into a category the existing code was not directly written to address.

Because our suite lacks traditional frontage, the normal frontage-based sign calculation and square footage limitations in Section 9.1 cannot be cleanly or fairly applied in the same way as standard storefront.

Sorry, I'm a little nervous.

We respectfully believe this is exactly the type of circumstance where the commission's discretion is intended to be used, so that a unique tenant space is evaluated on its actual conditions rather than standards designed for a different type of property.

We also respectfully ask that Sloan not be penalized while future code updates are being considered.

We signed our lease, invested in this expansion, opened in November, and have now spent nearly five months trying to grow our business without signage.

We reasonably expected.

The entire awning was specifically given to us in our lease.

And because the previous tenant also utilized the full awning, we reasonably believe there would be no issue with similar signage.

The staff report suggests reducing our sign size and utilizing the pylon signs at either end of Ridgeley Village.

Respectfully, pylon signage is not available to Sloan per ownership, as those spaces are reserved for tenants without other signage options.

As former internal tenants ourselves, we understand the value of that approach.

That means this awning sign is our only meaningful exterior sign visible from the street.

In addition, our sign faces west rather than south toward the broader Camp Bowie corridor.

Its visibility is already more limited than signs with direct boulevard exposure.

Some referenced examples within the center have different orientations, visibility advantages, or different lease arrangements, which is why Sloan's unique location should be evaluated on its own facts.

We absolutely understand and respect the importance of preserving the Camp Bowie district and avoiding visual clutter.

We support those goals.

At the same time, clear and properly placed signage improves customer experience and reduces confusion.

In our case, one clear sign, identifying Sloan's actual location is less cluttered and more functional than forcing customers to rely on shared signage or guess where our business is located.

We are not asking for something flashy or out of character.

We are asking for practical visibility and clear wayfinding so customers can find our small business.

Since moving into the new space, we have spent nearly five months trying to grow and serve clients without proper exterior signage.

That affects our business, our employees, and our ability to continue creating opportunities for the women who work with us.

Even so, we have continued investing in this location and our community.

Just this past weekend, we held our grant opening and welcomed support from over 12 local small businesses, primarily from Camp Bowie area, including four fellow Ridgeley Village tenants.

Several letters of support were also submitted for this case, which we believe reflects the positive role Sloan plays within this community.

This decision impacts not only us, but also the six women who work for us and trust Sloan to help provide their livelihood while doing the work they love.

We have done everything we can to build something positive in this community.

We have invested deeply in this location.

We hope to continue growing in Ridgeley Village for many years to come.

We're simply asking for a fair chance to be seen and promote our small business.

For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval today.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

I wanted to know.

Um, so the the landlord stated that you couldn't have signage on the pylon because it's reserved for businesses that aren't visible, but yet there are businesses listed very visibly on the pylon.

Have you gone back to them and yes?

And we reached out and um in hopes that they would attend today.

Um, but we did not receive a response to that.

They um informed us that they expressed support through the signage company um directly to us and then to Miss Alvarez.

Which are the letters that are provided to you.

So the second letter from them is their letter of support.

Basically, where they make the statement that they were approved for the awning.

Okay, so they support this um the awning signage.

Other than adding you to the pylon.

Yes, ma'am.

And when asked about Ms.

Alvarez's idea for that, we were told that was not an option.

The awning is our only option.

How did the prior sign get approved?

The one that was there.

Yeah, then in one of the handouts here looks like it was regen.

That's correct.

Yes.

So that was approved in 2025 under uh different staff who is no longer here, and the application was submitted by the signed company as a reface.

Refaces typically do not come before you all because they're refaces.

But technically, the application was incorrect in stating a reface.

Um, because with these, you really can't do a reface on an awning.

And this signage would be allocated to the Camp Bowie facing facade when it actually is oriented in a different direction.

For Sloan Beauty.

Yes, I mean, well, for Sloan, isn't it?

Is it not facing west as opposed to correct?

So would it be allocated to that west facade, which doesn't appear to have any other signage facing west.

That's correct.

But uh the way that you could interpret that, so it depends on how you want to see it.

We're looking at it as this entire facade.

Aren't there this kind of signage allocated by the the orientation to the street?

So there's a another if you see it as a bump out, then that bump out elevation is technically about 22.5 uh linear feet.

And so you'd be calculating it based off of that.

So the way that they presented it under here, the west elevation is what they're showing.

Sign company submitted this, and they're saying 22 feet, and so they wanted to calculate it based off of that.

Including that entire portion of that the building that extends on the not the full portion, just this bump out, just this patio cover, essentially over the stairs.

So the main issue that staff has is the size.

The main issue is that there's just a lot of signage in this area already.

And size-wise, I think some of us were willing to consider something smaller, but really without being able to analyze the entire thing.

We don't really know if we can recommend that just yet.

Without being able to analyze the entire facade signage here, really to determine if there's too much, what's available, and really talking to the landlord about how to better plan this.

I completely agree with staff.

I think you're you're right, it's very visually cluttered.

It's it's a lot.

We're also sympathetic to business owners who would reasonably expect that that sign is for that uh that space.

And we have a precedent with the sign being there before with for the previous tenant.

Agree.

Well, I don't believe this commission should look at precedent.

What's the difference between the past uh sign and this sign?

Why you asked if uh this sign if they want to put up the be smaller when you had this sign right here that was the same size.

Essentially, the previous sign that was approved for region was incorrectly approved.

It was that why it was taken down.

No, that business is no longer there.

This is the new tenant for that suite.

Are there any signs facing west on that building?

There used to be uh Madeline had one, but that's since been removed.

There was an awning here that said La Madeline, but that's been removed.

If they were to come back to try to put that back, they would have to do the same thing.

They're only allowed the one.

So and just for clarity, that that bank is gonna have to do the same.

The new bank going in.

Yeah.

Um they want an awning, it will also have to be reviewed.

Yes.

Any new that that's been approved.

That bank awning has been approved because it has the frontage uh facing the boulevard.

Yeah.

I'm looking at I'm looking at this uh this picture.

I see some other signs.

This uh practically it's larger than what they are asking for.

So are the old signs gonna get taken down too?

Are they in you mean all of these signs here where they're shown?

Yes.

They're not gonna get taken down because they're already there.

Um we can really essentially do nothing about any existing signage that has already been approved.

What we're wanting to do is analyze the effects of all that signage.

So there's been things that have been decided in the past by staff that has allowed some of these things.

There's been some things that the property owner has done with the agreement.

I don't know if they're selling spaces out on the pylon sign, and maybe that's why there's not room or whatever, but that's really not the right of the business owner to sell those signs because we have regulations that govern all of that.

Um so we're trying to rein it in a bit.

There was, you know, there was a lot previous pictures of this, there was a lot more clutter.

And we're in a habit of putting up, you know, like these window signs, these window vinyl and temporary signs, and we just see stuff go up here all the time.

Trying to just rein it in a little bit.

We wanna be able to provide some proper signage or make sure that the salon gets gets some proper signage, but we really do it, it it would be since it doesn't have a facade to associate and to you know, kind of understand how big it would be.

Really, that pylon sign or that directory sign is where that is appropriate.

And you know, I I would I would really like to speak to the property owner to see if we could help her figure something out as far as like you know how she's selling her signage or what she's doing with her signage.

That would be so much more visible than the what we're you're requesting.

If you look at uh the the restaurant, the Campisi's I think it is, I don't remember the name.

You see there you got Campices, and then you got a big wall sign Campesis.

Well, at this point that's kind of redundant, you know.

That would be a great place for that salon sign.

I have a feeling there's a blank space there that I see underneath Rusty's taco.

Um I just think there's other things, and I would prefer to have this decided after staff discusses with the property owner proper steps forward.

Just make sure we have a good understanding.

Anna, did you say that you tried to reach out to the ten uh the landlord?

I've mostly spoken with the sign company who's been um the mediator since the sign company made the application.

They've been essentially the one that's been talking to the landlord communicating all of our comments, and then also with the um owner.

Is this letter just looks like it's passing it on to the tenant?

Technically, helping them out at all.

But when you were in a discussions with the space, did that come up?

Then I requested pylon signage in our letters of intent, and they said they would not approve our deal with that in there and removed it.

And so we were only promised the awning, and that was specifically given to us in the lease.

Um, but there is no language in our lease regarding the pylon signage.

Is there a restriction to your business sign in the alcove up against the white wall that's in there where you have the Sloan logo on that?

Is there a size requirement for that that's mandated or the circle?

Yes.

We had to get that approved.

That was given to us in the lease as well.

Through the lease.

The issue is you can't see that sign.

It's really tucked away and it's dark in that corner.

So even from the picture within the report standing where you can see our the awning, you can't read that sign.

You can't see it from the parking lot.

So you'd have to have your lease revised with the owner in order to put your sign on a pylon sign.

I am not sure about that, but they just um explained.

That's correct.

So it would make sense that you'd have to you and the owner would have to revise your lease in order to add you and your company on the pylon sign.

We had part of those conversations this week, and we were explicitly told no.

So with regard to regards to the uh any agreement to the lease itself, the board really doesn't have any purview over that.

So while it is unfortunate, and if that is how uh you know it's set up, you know, that that is that is kind of the way it with the tenants and how they manage their their signage on that pylon sign.

Um for the board itself is whether or not the proposed signage meets the intent and whether or not their um the the waiver request has met kind of the burden as to approve uh the sign is really what the board should be focusing on.

Whether or not there's a hardship, not a hardship, not a hardship that's that's that that's a little bit too high.

It's just a way because the hard a hardship is really uh a variance like the boa uh for for design elements themselves.

It's whether or not the proposed sign meets the intent of the the code itself, and so whether or not they've illustrated or demonstrated enough to the board that um uh that a waiver is appropriate in this matter staff had alluded earlier to the thought that a smaller sign on that awning might be acceptable.

Is there a calculation minimum that we could target for that?

I was personally thinking the width of the space by the 1.5 to get them at what their requested waiver is.

Now this proposal from the sign company is at 36 square feet, which is still more than I think about 32 point something is what I originally kind of offered.

But since then staff has been in discussions, and so I don't think that we have one right now.

Because currently we're calculating that area by the 22 feet based on the bump out of the top of the no, what we're calculating it based off of is the this the dimensions that they provided for the lease with the lease, okay yes, and so that's the 21.5 square feet times the 1.5 would give them 32.25, which is not that far from this 36 square foot sign that they proposed.

I'm sure that if uh the applicant and staff had a chance to talk along with the property owner, then we could come up with a solution and bring it back and provide something that makes sense to everybody.

No, can I just add to that?

Our concern is we've already been open for five months without any signage.

And it's only a three-year lease for us.

This was a major expansion on our business.

Um is only going to harm us and our staff.

Have you applied for a temporary banner?

Um no, we have not.

We didn't know that was an option.

We did communicate that to the sign company.

Um but not so much a banner because then that would still contribute to the uh the clutter along this facade.

We opted for maybe um one of those like A-frame signs or something temporary that's still you know, per code allowable.

That's 30 days though that they're allowed to have that, and then they have to take it down for 30 days and then apply again.

Do the banner signs have a time limit on them?

30 days.

Okay, so if they put up a banner sign, then it can only be there for 30 days, and then that might be enough time to get a meeting to see if we can get a more permanent solution, or do they have a chance to renew it one or two times?

They do.

They can come back.

Um, the standard state 30 days on, 30 days off, 30 days on, 30 days off with application.

At least they would have some signage that they would have up there in the meantime while we come to a more permanent solution.

They could see if that was an option.

Any more questions for the applicant?

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor?

Anyone here to speak against this case?

We we did receive seven letters of support for the applicant's requested waiver, and then one letter supporting the staff recommendation of denial from CNIC Fort Worth.

Okay, we'll close the uh public comment portion for discussion by the commission.

Sympathetic to the situation.

It doesn't feel out of character for for the building and for the district either.

I make a motion to approve both waivers as stated in the deal.

A second is the commission ready to take a vote.

Yeah, if we have a second, I think we would chair Benner.

How do you bag up just the man?

Is that Bob a sign?

Sorry, yes.

This is to allow the sign and also the size of the sign they're requesting, correct?

Both waivers.

That's correct.

To approve as requested.

Correct.

As noted in the maximum sign they can have is 32.25 feet.

Okay.

Based upon the way the two waivers.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Um Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

I.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 80.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Anna.

We'll miss you.

Thank you.

Staff might miss her more.

Um.

All right.

Uh next case.

Um is I'm gonna set lay a bit of context actually for the remaining two cases because they're geographically pretty proximate to each other, and it's in an area of the city that we don't see many cases uh from.

So there's some shared history.

Um both cases are towards Lake Arlington in District 5, just off 820.

One is on the east side of 820, one is on the west side of 820.

Both are in what are called urban villages, which are areas designated as revitalization areas by the city.

So they're intended to combine mixed-use zoning, NEZ incentives, and other economic development programs to help revitalize the areas, bring in jobs, commercial um, and various things to there.

So, first we're gonna deal with the one in the Barry Stall Cup Urban Village, and then in the Lake Arlington Urban Village.

So the first case or first case of the two that we have is UDC 2026 021, which is 3812 East Loop, 820 South Freeway.

Um in this case, the applicant is proposing a PD.

It's currently zoned MU1.

So, much like Enrique's case from earlier, they're proposing a PD, which then necessitates the Urban Design Commission to consider the development waivers and the recommendation to zoning commission and city council.

Um, so to kind of breeze through this quickly, they're requesting the recommendation as well as uh to for neighborhood commercial drive-through restaurants and retail for all uses in MU1, excluding liquor or package stores, gasoline sales, and credit access businesses, and they're seeking development standards for a 55-foot maximum primary street setback, surface parking allowed between the building front and the street, up to 70% parking lot frontage allowed along a street, street trees and pedestrian lights allowed on private property frontage within five feet of the right-of-way, principal building entrances not from the public sidewalk or plaza, uh principal primary entrances uh from a parking lot, drive-through window and stacking lanes allowed to be located along facades of buildings that face the street and driveways to be located within the front yard between the building front and the street, and the site plan is included.

So this is a site that's a little bit over three acres, it's pretty close to the corner of Barry and 820.

Um, you can see it there on the right.

It's this vacant parcel right here.

Directly at the corner is a gas station.

Um so uh the current zoning is ME1.

The applicant's pursuing a plan development with the base of MU1.

Their ultimate intent is to build three quick serve restaurants or QSRs, uh, which is just another word for drive-through restaurant.

I think fast food.

And they have identified a tenant for the northernmost of the three, which would be McDonald's.

The tenants for the southern two QSR sites are yet to be determined and will be developed later on.

So again, all PDs in MU1 have to go through the Urban Design Commission.

This is in the Barrie Stall Cup Urban Village.

So in 2007, the city did the Bury Stall Cup Urban Village Plan that kind of designated this area as a revitalization area and set the goal of rezoning to M to MU as well as laying on top NEZ incentives and revitalization target area incentives.

Per the urban village plan, the goal was to make this a mixed use district.

Here's the charrette sketch that came out of that initial plan.

Charrette sketches can be a bit deceiving.

Staff will recognize that.

Usually the city will work with designers and community members to lay out what a community could look like.

It's not necessarily a guarantee, but this is what the community was kind of expecting based off that initial planning effort about 20 years ago.

And not much of this has been built out either.

So there is that caveat.

The future land use is mixed use as well.

There was a previous attempt to rezone the site to e neighborhood commercial for a dollar general store in 2018, and that failed.

That was via ZC 18074, one ZC 18074.

So for us looking at the development standards that were proposed through the PD, we really kind of tried to tie it back to the MU purpose and intent, much like Enrique did with his.

So just to kind of recap some of those purposes and intents in the MU1 district, it includes promoting a pedestrian oriented urban form, requiring excellence in design of the public realm and buildings that front public spaces, encouraging creativity, architectural diversity, and exceptional design, promoting sustainable development that minimizes negative impact on natural resources, promoting walkability, maximizing connectivity and access, and promoting affordable housing in mixed income communities.

So real quick on this too.

We did ask the applicant why they wanted to retain the MU1 base.

Given the fact that they're doing three quick serve restaurants, the applicant did state they were that the property owner and the proposed tenant are requesting to keep the MU1 base for as much of the MU qualities as possible.

So stricter facade regulations as well as public realm improvements such as headlights and street trees.

They still wanted that to be a part of the development, which is why they were they decided to re to keep that MU1 base as opposed to going to a different base zoning of E or something like that.

So here is the site plan.

You can see the three quick serve restaurants.

Each has a drive-thru that encircles the restaurant, and then there's parking either behind or to the side of those.

On the north, plan north is East Barrie, and then on the southwest is East Loop 820, and then beyond that is the 820 highway.

So the applicants, like I kind of read in the request, is seeking a number of different revised development standards from the MU1 base.

Just to kind of go over those quickly, uh, those include a primary street setback of 55 feet, where the MU1 standards would normally require a max setback of 20 feet.

Um they're requesting to allow surface parking in the front setback where surface parking is prohibited between the front of the building and the street.

They're proposing to allow drive aisle frontage and parallel parking orientation along the primary road, where the max surface parking lot frontage is 40 on a primary and 70 on a side street.

Um they are proposing for uh street trees and pedestrian lights to be along the property line frontage and on their property instead of within the public right-of-way.

Um I will note on that uh some of this right-of-way is tech start and is controlled by tech stop.

Um they are seeking to allow entrance from the parking lot where main entrances and primary entrances should not be from the parking lot, it should be from the public sidewalk.

Um they're seeking to allow drive aisles to face the primary frontage, where drive-through windows and stacking lanes should be on a facade facing, not be on a facade facing a street or should be located at the rear, and they're seeking to allow drive aisles to be located primarily on the frontage.

So you it's hard to see from this one, but they do have pedestrian lights uh proposed along Barry on the property line right there.

And the landscape plan on a future slide will show that they're proposing berms along Barry to screen headlights and some of that parking.

And then on the south, the pedestrian lights and street trees are located on private property.

So mechanically, uh that would they would need a pedestrian light easement or a maintenance agreement with the city for that to go through so the city can make sure that those lights are maintained and still lighting the public realm.

Um they also have their landscape buffers, their residential setbacks as well as trash enclosures.

One other thing to note about the site plan is because this is near the highway and Text Dot is very involved in here.

Textile built the sidewalks that are shown on the plan, and we'll see site pictures in just a second.

And they have set the drive aisle or the the curb cut along Barrie Street and along East Loop 820, and the applicant has communicated to staff that TechStot is not giving them a lot of uh opportunity to move that drive aisle.

So uh the applicant did also submit revised site plans from what was in the staff report.

So this is the revised site plan of the northern QSR.

Um you can see the berms, you can see the uh street trees and pedestrian lights along the property line, where typically we would require them in the right-of-way.

And then here's the southern two QSRs, these are smaller in size and scale than the northern one, which is designated to be a McDonald's.

And here's some proposed elevations for what that northern QSR, the McDonald's will look like.

Um TechStots built the sidewalk on their property up to the property line.

And across the street is a former liquor store.

I'm not sure if it's still operating, but at one point it was a drive-thru uh liquor or beer store.

The site is relatively flat, and you can see this is a southwest side that abuts the highway service road.

So when staff was looking at this proposal, um, to be very honest, we had a hard time uh with this because the MU 1 district is really trying to achieve mixed use, it's trying to achieve walkability.

And three quick serve restaurants don't really do that.

Um, there's not much engagement between the proposed buildings and the public realm.

They're separated by the drive aisles.

Um granted, you know, this is where where it is next to the highway, but it the city's goal and the community's vision was that this could be a walkable urban node and try to mitigate some of those negative highway effects.

Also, there is a limited mix of uses.

So, as noted in the staff report, one of the downsides of the way that this is proposed with three QSRs with the drive-throughs is that you're gonna have peak traffic times around meal times like lunch, dinner, and outside of that, those parking lots are gonna be mostly empty.

So you're not able to achieve this the intent of the mixes of use of having shared uses where they can share the parking lot, where it's like, okay, you have an office using the parking lot from nine to five, and then the dinner time restaurant using it from six to eight.

So with three QSRs, you're not able to achieve that shared parking goal.

And then lastly, um the planned development zoning is intended to unify design of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, including combinations of usage uses that are not otherwise attainable under conventional base zoning districts.

While the proposal does exclude certain typically nuisance uses, such as uh liquor stores and gas stations, it doesn't really it's not really facilitating the mix of uses.

And then also, according to the zoning ordinance, it does state that planned development districts are not intended to circumvent decisions by the BOA or kind of get through going to BOA for hardship variances.

So for all of these reasons, uh staff recommends the following motion that the request for a recommendation to zoning commission and city council to rezone the property from MU1 to PDME one uh for neighborhood commercial drive-through restaurants and retail be denied.

Um I'm available to answer any questions, and we also have a presentation from the applicant as well.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah, I'm curious to go because I'm I'm I'm on my church was in that neighborhood.

I'm from that neighborhood.

And it ain't nothing, nothing been in that been in that area.

I'm talking about this been like this for 20 years.

You know, I'm I'm in favor for anything that can make it better.

Because it's it's like I say, it's been like that for years.

And it's just it's just a bad like a sore thumb in the neighborhood.

And it's and now somebody's coming in trying to do something, make it better.

I'm for that.

What would be a better use here?

If the quick serve is not in line with the MU, what would go?

What is the you know, when you did that planning back today, what was the intent for going in this corner?

So uh they didn't really specify exactly what we're gonna like specific uses, but the mixed use is designed to be a combination of uses.

So it could be it could be still some quick serve restaurant, but then also some other combination of uses that that is something different, as well as a development form.

Yes, as well as a development form that would allow for more flexibility.

So a storefront that could be a tax office, it could be a law office, it could be some of what we saw in Ridgley.

Um, but it with the current configuration of the proposed three quick serve restaurants, it's you're gonna it's gonna get locked in as drive-through food service.

And really, I think the question needs to be asked here is what do we want this neighborhood neighborhood to be when it grows up?

I understand there's nothing there right now, and I understand sometimes something is better than nothing, but you know, we may be you know robbing ourselves the opportunity to see a you know office with uh you know affordable housing on top.

That's all walkable neighborhood, and you know, kind of lives up to what that what that should be, what the comprehensive plan had planned that to be, you know, years ago, um, you know, to help to help lift this neighborhood up a bit.

Um, and that's that's really you know what's kind of being decided here is are are we going with the plan or are we turning or another um to what Brandon's saying?

There's actually sorry my voice.

There's actually several different developments that are happening now to go with that MU, that walkability.

So the more and more people that are, and there are a lot, I'm telling you, there's a lot of people developing in this area.

So the more and more people that develop, we're gonna get more of those uses that we're looking for.

So just to let you know.

Um, I think on off of like Style Cup and Eastberry, there's I don't know what's going on with my voice.

Oh, there it is.

Okay, so on East Berry and South Cup, there's uh there's a project going in there um in that corner, and there's also like a townhouse project going on the other side.

So there's multiple projects going on.

So the more development that are happening, um it's going to get what um Brandon was saying, more of that style.

And you know, we currently have that hard corner with the abandoned liquor store, I think it is there.

So I mean, we need to consider what that corner is in response to the rest of the use that's provided.

So just some other entity could pull this out of the farm-based code, but we're charged with implementing the farm-based code and the intent of that farm-based code.

And in my opinion, this can't, it's just not compatible with MDC.

Commissioner Reed, I we've heard from some of the folks in that neighborhood also, and they want something better.

They don't want just quick food stuff, they want clean, healthy options, um, food deserts.

I've heard were in that area.

So where is where the food deserts at in that, you know, I I hear what y'all saying, but I grew up over there, and ain't nothing been over there.

This has been like that since I was a child.

Ain't nothing been over there.

You we you we uh we grow, we uh stalk up in berries, getting the new town homes.

There's no a lot of them folks over there walk, they don't have cars.

A restaurant over there would be a good thing.

That that uh liquor store used to be a car wash.

Nothing but bad stuff happened there.

Nothing but bad stuff.

Behind that Severon is a hotel that's ran down.

I I'm I'm just looking at you bring restaurants to that area of the town.

I believe it would really really help help the uh the low probability folks that's living in that area right now.

Like I said, we got somebody want to come in to do something for years, for years, for years.

No one considered right there.

To put a development in because of the area.

Let's be honest.

That's a bad area.

And I just don't believe no law firms or nothing like that gonna come to that area.

I'm just being honest with you.

No, I I appreciate that.

I think you might have a point that a restaurant would be a good thing to have in that neighborhood.

But these are not restaurants.

These are these are destinations where people drive in with a car and they turn around and they drive out.

They don't spend time there, they go to wherever they came from.

There's no interaction happening at that point.

Oh, McDonald's have some well put key is to go in and play.

A PlayStation where they can go in.

This doesn't appear to be that way.

And it's completely completely surrounded by drive-thru lanes.

Um, I don't know.

I just think it might be the wrong approach.

Agree.

I think it's all right.

Do you have a presentation for the applicant?

The applicant, yeah, the applicant here speak, invite y'all up if you're ready.

Uh, I don't mean uh when the last time y'all drove over there in that area.

Like what TextDot has done to clean it up.

I think we need to keep that, keep that vision.

Good afternoon.

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

Hey everyone, my name is Leslie Ford.

I am from Uffi Cheeto, representing the owner, and uh I am here in Fort Worth on Macon Street.

So I know I've heard a lot of conversation today, and that's actually why I wanted to present.

I was actually gonna come up here and say, hey, Joseph, let me present, and then we can continue the conversation.

So I am actually very familiar with this area.

So I actually live in Woodhaven, so I live on the east side, and so I would love to see some development come over into the Barrie Street area.

So I want to talk real quickly.

I'm in a level set on the property and kind of the history, and then we'll talk a little bit about the waivers.

So the Barry Street Commercial Edition is three different lots, lot A, B, and C, which are currently approved in planning, but not yet recorded.

Um, the plating.

And so we want to retain the base MU zoning, as Joseph said, because we'd like to we'd like to retain some of the enhanced design intent and create good development.

So what we figured is if we came in and tried to rezone as an E or some kind of G general commercial, what we would do is basically not allow for future development to have to be held to the standards of the MU.

And so originally our intent was to install all of our lights, install of our trees, do everything we were supposed to.

Um, you'll hear about why that didn't happen here in a minute.

We recognize the incurrent the incongruent nature of the MU-1 zoning and the highway adjacency.

It's actually really funny because if you look at the original 2007 approved plan, um, the I know that was a charrette drawing, but the buildings actually oriented where the parking lot is adjacent to 820 because it doesn't make sense for pedestrian-oriented development along a highway frontage.

It's not safe.

And so we're presenting this with the hope that these projects can act as a catalyst for developer confidence because I can tell you, developers are not confident in developing over here.

Yes, there's a lot going on, but it's taken a very long time to get there, and it took significant financial investment from the city.

This is a project that is asking for no financial incentive from the city.

So it'll allow for continued growth for the an opportunity for area residents, and also we use the MU because I wanted to align with the council uh resolution recently when I was talking to councilwoman Martinez.

So this is a little bit interesting.

This side of Barriest Martinez, and then you go other.

So that way, just so y'all know, because there was some back and forth in planning about that.

But we spoke about it, and I said, what if I remove the um cash loan predatory finance businesses like y'all have done recently in the the council resolution you put out, and she said, I love that.

So that's why we put that in there because they're able to come in under financial services, and that is not the kind of development we need over here.

So that would be a mixed use, but it would not be the mixed use that we want.

I threw this one in here just because I wanted to show you guys.

This is the current kind of QSR that we have in the area.

It is a I block the view because I'm trying not to call anyone out on the front street.

Um, it's also acting as a beer, wine, liquor, cigar, and vape shop as well as a QSR.

So that's the kind of thing that's going on right now, and that exists currently today.

So, what we're trying to do is bring in good development with good nationwide known developers with good brands, and we'll show you what that looks like.

So, again, just kind of talking about what uh Joseph was talking about, these are the current conditions.

That uh old car wash is currently vacant.

There's actually a four-lease sign on the side of it.

So if you're interested, it is for you.

Um, and then also there are adjacent homes.

Interestingly enough, in the plan, these were supposed to be zoned mixed use one.

But what we've seen is as more and more developers are coming in and building homes, they are electing to come in in 2023 and in 2025 and ask for reduction in zoning to A10 and A5.

So the this is incongruent with the plan, but it has been approved in 2023 and 2025 because that is what the residents asked for.

Those houses right there were supposed to be torn down to be mixed use according to the original plan.

So the Textdot Southeast Connector project, you're gonna hear me say Text dot so many times that you're going to want me to never say it again.

The reason for that is because this is what is happening.

So the green lines there represent the Textdot Southeast Connector project, which if you live over here is a big deal.

It's good.

Um, the scope of this project affects both the property on Barrie Street and the properties with loop 820 frontages.

And so what's interesting is even though Barry Street is not a Text Dot road, Text Dot has retained a significant amount of frontage and a significant amount of right of way to add a future deceleration lane.

So they are controlling everything on this property adjacent to Barry.

And we'll talk about exactly what that looked like in the email communications with them soon.

So the continued expansion of uh the 820 frontage basically says that there is nothing else that can go here.

It has to be some sort of vehicle oriented use because it is right there.

So if you look at the picture where I showed you loop 820 frontage, that is the drive that's been installed by Textdot.

The frontage and the highway are right there.

That is not a safe place to orient pedestrians at all.

And so now Text Dots also requested that the street trees and pedestrian lighting that we are needing to install for the MU1 be located on our property, not in their right-of-way because they intend to tear them down later.

So what we thought is rather than say, let's waiver against them and say we're not doing them at all, we're gonna put them on our property.

We'll go through the SIP process and then we'll get them into city ownership so that city can take care of them, but it still meets the intent of what was trying to happen.

We still got those landscapes, we still got the trees, we've still got the pedestrian lining using the TPW standards, but we're putting them on the property so that we can retain them in perpetuity and not tear them down in five years whenever the deceleration lane gets put in.

And so that's kind of the waiver there.

So that waiver is a little bit of a weird waiver because it's let us put it in, but let us put on our own property and go then go through SIP.

So Text Dot dictated the location and width of the sidewalks and drive entrances for both Barrie Street and 820.

They did not give us any options.

So we have emails back and forth with our engineers where we actually put forth a plan that shows you right here.

We actually um put this plan forward, and it was a SNP with proposed two drive entrance layout for Berry Street from the McDonald's property.

And this is one that planning loved.

We loved it too.

Um, TextOt said absolutely not.

They said you are entirely too close to the uh entrance we're going to put in for the gas station.

And then they said, you cannot be that close to our beginning of our deceleration lane with your other entrance.

You have to go in the center, and we're going to install it.

And so they did, and it exists now.

So that is where we are sitting.

We did not have an option.

That is not something that is negotiable.

That will be in the middle.

So, because of the way that it works for orienting a drive-thru and to let for vehicle safety, vehicle turn radiuses and everything.

We basically have to put the building behind the entrance because there is no other way to do it.

And so Textdot also installed the um proposed Eastern Driveway for the uh for the gas station as well, which the gas station is there, it seems to be thriving.

I was there the other night, took some pictures.

Um, so they've installed all the drives, and that's really kind of where we're sitting with the drive locations on both of these properties.

I know the big kind of conversation here is around the property adjacent to East Barrie because that's the one that's really kind of the connectivity piece, just kind of explaining where we're sitting with TechSot on this one.

Also, interestingly enough, this is the floodplain.

So the uh Wildcat branch of the floodplain actually goes right here at Barrie and 820.

And so it is actually in the floodplain.

Um, the actual corner of our property, I show you there with the McDonald's M is clipped by the AE zone, which means that there can be no public structure, no private or no permanent structure.

They don't like landscaping in it.

They basically say we'd like for you to avoid it.

So again, that predicated the fact that Text Dot had even more ammunition to say you cannot put your drive here.

And so, coupled with the Text Dot right-of-way claim, this neutralized any efforts that we made to advocate for a relocated entrance drive, which would have allowed us to better meet the standards.

I want to talk a little bit about what our commissioner here was talking about about Barrie Street's development timeline.

So in 2007, the Barrie Stall Cup Urban Village was created.

I misspelled Stal Cup, I do apologize.

So in 2016, TechSdot underwent extreme studies.

They paid for a ton of things to figure out what the traffic's going to look like in this area.

And then they made their decisions nine years after the Barry Stall Cup Urban Village was created to go ahead and say we want to expand the highway.

We are going to add a deceleration lane.

And so they did all the studies and said this is necessary, we must do it after 2007.

So this is what happened here.

In 2023, we got the exciting Barry Street Corridor Plan, which I actually put a snip here, and I think it's interesting because it very much aligns with what you said.

The citizens during the Charette actually put a little sticker right on our property and said needs development badly.

So it's up there.

And so during the Barrie Street Corridor plan, it was identified that this was a blight.

This entire area is a blight on Barry Street.

And so then excitingly, innovative neighborhoods came in, and then the city did their initial Barry Stalcut project investment in 2024, which is happening and it's happening at Barry Stock Cup, which is great.

The only problem is is that currently I took this photo on 414.

Um it's a man who is disassembling a stolen vehicle on the property that will be the Barry Stock Cup uh urban village.

And that's currently what's out there.

So I know and I'm excited that they've gotten through their floodplain development and they have gotten their NIPRC currently.

It's coming, but it's not coming fast enough to keep this from happening on the property that this has been lauded by the city as we're going to be developing.

So today we're standing here asking you for this.

And I acknowledge this.

So I acknowledge um that the I'm sorry, I don't know your name.

Uh, the woman over here mentioned the Barrie Stalk Cup Town Home Development.

What I'm asking here is that these two pieces together can be a catalyst for development.

We're here at the highway adjacency, they are there at Barry and Stalk Cup.

There is a lot going on in between these two places that is pretty set in stone.

Unless you're gonna come in and tear down people's homes, or you're gonna come down and tear down their existing businesses and their existing buildings.

We're not redeveloping these right now.

And so what we have to figure out is can these two projects act as a catalyst?

Because I'm telling you, what I've seen happen, I actually work with McDonald's all over the nation.

And one of the things I've seen is that people follow them because if you're a developer or you're a brand, why in the world would you do your own uh demographics research?

Just follow the 60 plus years of McDonald's success and let them guide your development.

We will see that.

Also, um, I know that everyone talks about McDonald's, it's not a restaurant, it's a quick service place.

Here's the deal.

I mean, it is in fact a restaurant.

If you did not see the excitement of children about the uh demon hunters happy meals and the Grinch socks, these are things that normalize experiences for children.

So we're normalizing the experience of children who are living in this area.

They too get to come to school with their demon K-pop demon hunters cards.

They too get to come to school with whatever it is that was the coolest toy there at McDonald's.

And also, McDonald's creates jobs.

Each one of these puts in around 40 jobs, and these are not just like your nine to fiveers that are you know working at the front register.

These are managers, these are people who have opportunity.

There's tuition, there's things that we can cover, you know, whenever we're talking about learning English as a second language, there's finishing high school, there's a bridge to GED.

These are opportunities for folks that they can walk to here in the neighborhood on the sidewalks that Techstot has them solved.

So I think we're close to the seven minute mark.

Yeah, so let me go on site plan.

Um, you know, we covered that during the discussion.

Um, again, very much encumbered by Text Dot, the landscape plan, just trying to make sure that we're meeting those.

And I did want to point out as well, one of the standards of the um of the development is that the A adjacency, we are actually saying that we will put signs up that will not allow for after dusk parking or before dawn parking adjacent to those to meet the supplemental setback as we are A-adjacent.

There you go.

And then I also just threw in some information about sound impacts because it's something that always comes up.

We have a lot of information about the sound pressure and the things that happen on the speaker post and the distance to the properties, just showing you guys that this is not going to be a nuisance development.

Um, we're really excited to be here.

McDonald's is actually bringing a full masonry building.

Um, so it'll be brick stone.

And the great thing about this is because if we get all three of these approved in this PD, the future tenants will also have to do that, the speculative tenants.

So a lot of your less desirable QSRs will know money, they won't come here.

So you're guaranteed to get three people who are willing to three companies that are willing to spend the money.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Any any questions for the applicant was?

Um, just so is it gonna have the play zone?

It does not.

So um there's some regulations around the size usually of the lot, and especially because we're so encumbered on the zoning on this one and the setbacks.

Um, we weren't able to put one in.

So we don't have the room to do it.

I I just want to thank y'all.

Want to put something over there in that area?

Like I say, I grew up in that area since I was five years old and I know the area.

I uh I advocate for that area out.

You know, I I know a lot of folks in that area.

And I just I just feel like they are going to be happy and they're gonna be pleased.

Whatever is over there.

I just want to thank y'all for want to consider to do something.

Joseph, did we draw any?

Um I know that y'all noticed and we noticed, but we didn't draw anything.

We didn't.

Did y'all draw anything on y'all's?

Did you get any response?

Draw oh, uh oh, for opposition or support?

No.

We neither.

So anyone else here to speak in favor.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

Or any further discussion by the commission.

So feel that the vision and the future um opportunities are soon to come.

And maybe this isn't the right one.

And I agree with staff to to deny.

Well, uh, I'm going to motion that we move forward, like I'll say it.

So is that to be clear?

That's a recommendation to approve the request.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Reed, there's um there's eight.

Um waivers that we're requesting, right?

Yes, that are a part of the PD package.

Eight waivers.

So this as a community file cup in Bay Area of just this site.

Yes, this site will any future development on the site will be allowed what you see in the uh the right column there, the requested, the standard requested.

So that'll be the new standard for this site.

For any development moving forward, right?

Commissioner Reed, we're we're the urban design commission.

So we're this is a form-based code, right?

We're trying to implement the form-based code.

And so we're we would be approving eight waivers to the form-based code.

We're not the planning and zoning commission.

We don't get to rezone properties.

So we're approving eight waivers to mixed use and allowing a use that is not allowed in mixed use as the urban design commission.

And that's your that's the motion.

The use is is allowed.

USR?

Yes.

Yes.

Really?

Yes.

Quick quick serve restaurant would just be configured differently.

I see.

So is I guess can we ask the um applicant?

Have they looked at other configurations that that would reduce from eight waivers.

I know you made a long presentation.

Yeah.

So uh we didn't see any other site plans.

Yeah, so the um waivers, I can kind of run through them real quick.

So the um the waivers with pretty much every one of these are dictated because of the location of the entry points.

So um we were not able to.

So let's just go down the line.

It's easier this way.

So the primary street setback, um, it's a 20-foot max um on Barrie Street, and we're asking for 55 because we need that to allow for the the drive off of the middle of the property.

That's that one.

Surface parking prohibited between the building and the front of the street because of the way that drive is.

We have pulled the, I don't know if you want to open the site plan.

I can probably like run through these both at the same time.

Um, we have pulled the the parking back on the Barrie Street front.

This was actually the berms in the landscaping, but we've just put the two additional, the three additional there.

This is the interesting thing because Fort Worth still has standards regarding parking requirements, and we're still having to park because of the A adjacency next to us.

The MU code is a little bit modified.

So we are actually not allowed to have as much of a relief under the MU because of the A adjacency.

If those properties had stayed MU, we could have worked better with the parking, but we can't because they're A because they can't do that.

We allow the reduction in parking.

So it's within 250 feet of A zoning, so they need to meet the parking requirement of 75% of what's required in chapter 6201.

So we're trading you one waiver for another waiver if we were to do the other.

So we can there's no way for us with either one or the other.

Um and then the next waiver, hold on, let me open my thing.

I can pull it that way.

So then um the max surface parking, and again, it's just allowing the drive aisle frontage and the parallel oriented parking along the primary road frontage.

That's actually more for the um text dot-oriented look lanes.

So those basically getting those buildings right off of the um off of the tech stot frontage, allowing for the drives, and we oriented them in a way that if people wanted to come and walk, they could without going on the text dot frontage.

So we oriented them to the side, kind of the entrances are on the sides of the building rather than the text dot frontage because it's kind of weird in this situation.

Our frontage street on the two that are adjacent is the highway.

And so you don't want that oriented there for anybody's safety.

So those are oriented where the entrances are facing the side.

We also did that because it helps us put the most of the traffic and most of the nuisance kind of of a drive-thru away from the residences.

Street tier trees and pedestrians get lighting.

We talked about that.

We're putting them on our property, not in the right of way because Texot wouldn't allow us to put them in the right way.

So those that is actually a waiver to ask to put them on our private property rather than to put them in the right of way, is all that waiver is.

Right.

Yeah.

And then main entrance from a public sidewalk or plaza.

Again, for this one, this is mainly around the um the adjacency to 820.

So we would have to create a sidewalk entrance from the 820 frontage road and make a plaza off of the 820 frontage road for the main entrance.

And instead, we've oriented the main entrances to face each other so that they're not facing the 820 frontage.

Um primary interest is should not be from a parking lot.

That again is the same.

And then drive-thru windows and stacking lane shall not be facing a street and shall be located to the rear where possible.

Um again, we've located them facing 820 so that they're not facing the residents.

And then driveways shall not be in a front yard setback between the building and the front street.

This is the one that is dictated on Barry Street with the location of the uh the drive.

So um each of them, I mean, we would have loved to have reduced, trust me, I hate to bring that many waivers to UDC.

It's not ideal.

And that's actually why another reason we use the PD.

I just didn't want to do a rezone because I was just fearful in the future that it would like be a catalyst for there to be like G everywhere, and y'all would lose the MU one.

How many of these waivers are dictated by Text Dot?

Um, I mean, I guess if you count it because basically all of them I also want to mention to be clear, they're not necessarily required by Text Dot.

Text Dot is created the condition with the curb cut.

Uh the applicant says is therefore necessitates the waivers.

Yep.

Well, if you can't put your our our lights and our landscaping on their property, it's been dictated by text dot.

They're the 500-pound gorilla that tells you what to do, and you have no other choice.

So that's why we kind of we have eight waivers here.

If four of them are dictated by text dot, that's by a a state entity that overrules local government.

So I want to say really quickly, like Chris said earlier about like the what why UDC is here.

I also want to say like the use is what's dictating some of these waivers.

So like a drive-thru restaurant requires the additional parking and the drive aisles.

If it was a use that we felt more compatible with the intent, then we wouldn't have some of those waivers.

So and I'm not, and I understand count.

I mean, read, I completely get it.

I'm from Keys and Polk in Dallas.

We want revitalization, but what we also don't want to get away from is why we require the intent of the design of these ordinances.

And a drive-thru is why most of these things occur because they're related to parking access and drives.

So if it wasn't a drive-thru, we had an office building with a work live unit, you know, something like that.

We could make this work.

But I think we need to remember that the dictation of this is coming from the land use of a drive-thru.

And but also text.

So it's about the design of it, and then you're in the constraints you're given.

Then the constraints aren't just by the city, they're by a state entity, and they've told you where you can enter the street off of Barry and off of 820, and you have no other, you have no other option.

All I'm saying is, yeah, the waivers may be dictated by the QSR that they're using drive-throughs, but half of these are dictated by the state and has told you where to put this entrance, this entrance.

You can't put trees, you can't put street lights, you can't put this anywhere on our property.

And on Barry Street, which is not a state property, state street, they have I'm not saying we should approve it or not approve it.

I'm just saying the eight waivers are not all dictated by MU1.

So if we dictated partially if we voted for denial, could they still apply to rezone the property?

So if you vote for denial, it still goes to zoning commission without the recommendation from zoning commission and city council without the recommendation uh from the UDC.

So it's going to zoning commission.

It's just do you want to get on board or not?

Right.

And and and it's just the recommendations.

Right.

You should just deny it.

And zoning commission can say, yeah, we we move to approve.

Another question.

Uh you say you talked to Councilwama Martinez.

We did, yeah.

And she was uh happy about this.

Uh yeah, so she was actually pleased that there was development coming at this specific property because as much as there's been interest elsewhere, especially around Barry Stall Cup, and then the new bond package has interest around 287.

Um, there's not a lot of interest around this specific area.

Um it's kind of skipped over in a lot of the documents for planning actually.

Yeah, I'll talk to councilwoman people.

We did not.

She's not our councilwoman, so we did not speak to her on this one because we try to stay in out of the this in district five.

Am I correct?

So this side of Barry is councilwoman martinez, the other side of the is councilwoman.

It's like it's the split.

So we try to stay out of involving.

Yeah, I know both of that error.

And you did get with uh the community.

Yeah, I'll talk to the so we sent out notices as we're required to.

Um we were intending after kind of like to get the feeling from you guys, and then we would go and engage even further as we needed to before we went to zoning.

So it's been um I can tell you just in the people we've spoken to while we were out taking pictures.

Um, they were very pleased.

But that's you know, that's again just a conversation that happened while I was out there taking pictures.

So and for the zoning commission case, the zoning commission sends out notice for that public hearing.

So we're just we're just moving it.

We're just making a recommendation and move it.

Yes.

Yes.

In order for the zoning commission to consider the case, uh, generally speaking, the UDC needs to make a recommendation either to approve or deny.

So I'll second chairman.

Uh um can't Commissioner Reed's motion.

So to be clear, that is a motion to recommend motion to approve.

Recommend approval.

He made a motion to approve and I second it so we can vote on it and move forward.

Yes, uh, just for a point of order.

Uh to ensure because it's happened a handful of times.

Um, before making a motion, I would ask that the chair first ask the uh the the board if there are no further comments.

Do we have a motion on the floor?

And so because it does seem as if sometimes we're in the middle of a discussion and then a motion is thrown out there.

And to me, at least from the public's perspective, I'm not sure whether or not discussion was can concluded.

So for for for moving forward, I just asked that uh before a motion is made that the chair just confirm that there are no more the discussion is over, and now we need a motion on the floor.

So do we have any further discussion?

Okay.

If not, do we have a motion?

I make a motion that we move.

Move to approve okay, and is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Motion to approve the request for recommendation of zoning commission to city council to rezone from MU1 to PDMU1 with development standards and site plan included.

Motion by Commissioner Reed, second by Commissioner Ramsey.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Benner, how do you vote?

A commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

No.

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

A commissioner Sanchez, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion fails three to eight.

So at this time, a member of the prevailing party can make a counter motion.

Is that correct, Chris?

Three five.

Motion still fails.

Motion to read.

But right now it stands though.

As it stands right now, that motion fails.

And so the recommendation to the to the to the um to the zoning commission would be uh to deny.

Okay.

Uh we have our next 820 case.

So to present this one, we have actually our senior plans examiner, Inca, uh, who's gonna present this one?

It's right across the street from A20 from this previous case.

Um, so a whole lot of A20 Barry uh presentations today.

So this is her first UDC as well.

My first, and hopefully y'all don't get to see me again.

Um, so we have case UDC 2026 042 for 3225 East Loop 820 freeway.

It is council district five.

That was the mistake.

It is zoned MU.

Um, so the applicant is requesting certificate of proper units with waivers for the exterior warehouse, rebuild excuse me, rehabilitation.

Um the waivers for enhanced landscaping, it is for street trees, pedestrian lights, it's for fenestration for the facade less than 40%, and a waiver for the canopy coverage to be zero when 40% is required.

Okay.

Not like that.

So, like Joe said, Um, this is across directly across the freeway from the previous case.

It is an existing building that it's a warehouse.

Um, it was rezoned in 2018 by council initiative rezoning.

It went from I Light Industrial to MU2.

Okay, so this is the first figure that we have.

It is the front facade, which is the west that faces the 820 highway.

They're proposing a complete revitalization of the facade.

It was originally all brick masonry, they are changing it to metal, um, brick and stucco.

It is the same for the rest of the buildings.

The original brick changing to metal.

And the back is all metal.

The only thing difference in the rear of the building is that they're adding the the roll-up doors.

So this is the existing site with what the proposed improvements.

Um it is an industrial site, obviously, because it was zoned I prior to 2018.

Um, now they are proposing an additional drive before the access to the rear for the distribution portion of their land use.

Um, this is for the site visit, so we can see that that's the front of the building, it is a very large, long industrial building.

So I had to break it up in a couple of speed pieces.

Um they do have trees in the parking lot, the two in the front.

They are redoing the canopy and they are taking away all the big the brick facade.

Other side, so this metal has been added, but I was notified by the applicant.

The building is extremely old, and there was a storm, and the wall came down.

Um, so that metal is new, but they had to put a wall against the building.

So that is brand new.

This is the drive and the rear of the building.

So they are proposing to repave this.

That is directly from 820.

I'd also like to say the same thing that happened across the street at Barrie.

They Texas has also redone the frontage for this as well.

So there are new sidewalks, landscaping islands, and drive access for this building.

That one's not going, sorry.

Um, so the intent of mixed use district is to have excuse me.

The intent of mixed use district is to have light industrial uses, but mostly high density housing.

Um, clearly, this is not what the intent was.

This whole block actually 1,164 acres was rezoned from IAG to MU2 and UR.

The rear of this building in the back, they have revitalized and is actually being rezoned to UR, and they do have developments for UR.

So unfortunately, this is not meeting intent of the mixed use to district.

Um, and because of that, we're recommending denial for the finestration, the street trees, pad lights, and the canopy coverage in the parking lot.

Can you repeat that?

There, it's UR behind the process.

Yes, ma'am.

So 1,164 acres was rezoned in 2018.

This whole frontage and all the way back up to Lake Arlington was rezoned to residential mixed use and to UR.

There are development currently plans in the place to make Eastland Grayson, they're all currently duplexes of single family houses of mixed use townhomes.

So the intent for the rezoning for the council in 2018 was to make this all high density, low density, and single family residence properties, not commercial with industrial uses.

When when the city puts in place the urban village as part of that, they will rezone that area to MU1, MU2, or UR.

So this is on the Lake Arlington urban village.

Correct.

And currently there are the redevelopment for the bulk of the rear of this property, is duplexes.

There are town homes and there are manor homes.

Can you uh go to figure two?

Um that one and zoom in.

So that part behind that.

So this is in line.

Yes, there's there's a comp plant currently for MU to make this.

Well, it's MU to make it multifamily.

If you go further down Eastland, Grayson, it's all UR developed currently.

They demoed most of the block faces and they're rebuilding duplexes and townhomes.

I'd also like to mention the rezoning was due to the Lake Arlington comp plan to make it all residential properties and mixed use.

Thank you.

Sorry, what is the building facing?

The building faces 820.

So wait, this so directly it is fixed directly on day 20.

Correct.

The access to the building is directly off of 820 French road that's been redeveloped by Text Dot.

Thank you.

And just one more question, Sam.

So the staff is recommending denial because of pedestrian street lights, canopy.

We're recommending denial because the intent of the rezoning was to revitalize to make it a mixed use district that had the walkability, had the design penetration, things like that, not to revitalize to an industrial use building.

We do allow slight industrial uses and mixed use their light usually, but the intent per the comp plan and the rezoning done by council in 2018 in their staff reporting was to make this a mixed use live work, residential, high density, and single family residence is not a distribution center with warehousing.

And those standards had requirements, material requirements that this is not meeting.

They've removed brick from it, so we don't have the brick anymore.

It's going to metal siding.

And so all of those are there's a in my staff report, there's a table that shows the applicability of what they have to do.

The reason it's required is because they we had a our R TPW department do what is the ITA for how much traffic will increase due to the use.

They did exceed that 30% threshold and they are exceeding changing the front facade mostly almost completely.

So they did trigger those requirements per the ordinance.

Material is not in the ordinance for requirements.

It is if you do an addition or new building, they're not doing any new square footage to this building, but the other requirements for finestration, the ped lid, street trees, and the canopy are required per the table.

And when you shared this table with them, um they didn't want to change up what they were gonna do.

So we the this originally the case wasn't unfortunately mine.

It came to me later, is why y'all get to see me today.

Um so we had a meeting with them a couple of different times, and I don't know faces.

Sorry, it's been a month.

Brandon, nice to see you.

Um so we had a meeting with them and it and didn't explain to them that if they did exceed the threshold that they would be required to do these things.

I got the revision or the revision, the plan in, did the review, and because they exceeded the threshold, then all of those requirements had to be met.

The ones that don't have to be met, obviously the ones when they're expanding the footprint, and we're not requiring the sidewalks because CDS is not requiring sidewalks because tech stoc put them in.

And we've seen some cases like this where their frontage is along a text dot right of way.

So they wouldn't be allowed to install the pedestrian lights within the right-of-way, nor would they be allowed to plant street trees along that right-of-way.

So the location that we're we're seeing a waiver for.

We are seeing a waiver for that.

We don't have any information saying that Text Dot is not allowing them to put anything in the right-of-way though.

We have that for the Joe's case.

We do not have that for this case.

If it was, again, that would be in my staff report, but we have not got anything that Text has been reached out to any other questions for staff.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes, they are here.

State your name in the city in which you reside.

Yes, sir.

Brandon Bajanick.

Um, I live in Argyll, Texas, but we happily work in Fort Worth now.

We just moved from Grave Vine, so we're grateful to be a part of your community.

Umka, thank you for being a partner on this.

We appreciate you.

Um context here.

Um, this was a ministry prior to us purchasing the building.

Um we did not quote unquote kick out the church.

It's been for sale for about five years or so prior to us even engaging in Fort Worth.

Um the reality uh of the situation is that the exterior is failing.

Um it's a very poorly kept building.

Um the brick is very porous.

The mortar is failing by the day.

Um, Inca already explained on the north side.

Um what I've been in Texas for 36 years.

Um, I didn't think it was a really bad storm two weekends ago, but apparently it was to completely knock in about 60 feet of wall.

Um, so we need to replace that obviously for security purposes.

Um our recommendations um are simply to maintain the quality of the building.

We technically don't have any design preferences outside of what you see on the plans.

We could be open to anything that the board does recommend recommend from a fenestration perspective.

We are simply in Fort Worth and purchase this property for one reason and one reason only.

We are a family-owned business.

We want to employ locally.

Uh we want to bring jobs to the area.

We employ most of our warehouse workers from the area.

We'd just like to continue that trend.

So our intent is not to abuse code, change code to any of that kind of stuff.

I just want to provide that context.

Um when it comes to parking, we um uh are happy to comply with whatever needs to for um canopies and forest station.

Um I'm sorry I didn't put this in in my notes to Inca.

We have reached out to Textot multiple times.

We have not gotten a response.

Um so they have sidewalked our property, they have cut into our property multiple times.

We've emailed them, called them multiple times with no response.

So apologies that was not in my correspondent to do.

Um so yes, we are happy to comply, but the tech stot does make it very difficult for us to be able to understand even us having a north and south side exit.

Um, Techstot has told us keep both open.

The next week they'll tell us close this one, the next week they'll tell us close that one.

Yes, sir, commissioner, they are the 500-pound gorilla in the room.

Um, so we are making a lot of changes for them.

Um, and unfortunately, you know, can't can't get a response from them currently on on what to do with our our situation.

But just wanted to provide that context.

Questions for the applicant.

So uh I'm familiar with that with that building.

Uh by being a past uh uh I've been in that church and they have done uh some great stuff.

So whatever y'all are going to do, uh I think it's gonna be uh beneficial.

Yeah, I will own some uh good ground.

Yeah, I'll own some good ground because that church gave back to the community like crazy.

So whatever y'all are gonna do over there, um I'll maybe support whatever y'all gonna do.

Thank you, sir.

I will say just for the record, uh we've um supported and will continue to support the food pantry aspect that that church provided on a bi-weekly basis.

Uh we ensure that their next chapter of their life cycle was supported by us and continues to be supported by us because obviously we took away a service to the community and we don't want to do that without any kind of response from our our business.

Um so just for the record.

Is there anyone anyone else here to speak in favor?

Yes, sir.

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

Front Clark, uh, architect with APDG architects, and I'm from Flyer Mound.

And uh I've been helping Bjornstad and their group uh since they bought this property.

Uh one thing that we've been going through is the mixed use, and I understand the desire for mixed use, but if you drive up and down that entire area, you're not gonna you don't see townhomes, you know, up against 820.

No one wants to build a town home up against 820.

Uh it's industrial, and every building up along there looks horrible.

Uh and the building that we've created to try to re-facade this and make it look better is going to be the best looking building in that whole area of 820.

And so I know there's requirements.

There's requirements for a lot of masonry, which doesn't make sense for the area.

Uh there's requirements for finestration, a lot of glass.

This is a warehouse.

It's been a warehouse for a long time.

It's had a lot of uses.

So to say we need 40% glass so that you can just see pallets and uh stacking things on the inside of the building doesn't make a lot of sense either.

It's not right on the face of the face of the street.

Uh it's back a ways.

So uh I think the intent of the MU makes sense way down the road, kind of like Barrie Street, 20 years later, you're still trying to get that done.

Trying to force it on a building that's already there.

It's been originally built in the 70s as an industrial building in a warehousing building.

So it's continued doing that for a long time.

We're not trying to increase square footage, we're not trying to modify it greatly.

We're not trying to do something way outside the zoning.

Just trying to reuse it for a similar use that it's really been using, which is storing food.

Now it's going to be storing uh housing components and parts for building more homes.

And uh, and we're trying to make it look better.

But at the same time, the owner has a budget.

We can't, you know, build the Taj Mahal of you know, masonry buildings along an industrial area where every building is just horrible.

Even the newest building there along that street is painted uh tilt-up concrete.

There's nothing nice there, nothing's meeting any new standards.

But what we're trying to design is something that number one mixes and complements with the industrial character that's in the area, but steps it up a bar and makes it look better.

And this is a very solid company that wants to go in there and bring jobs and people in there.

So I think putting us to the restraints of this MU doesn't make any sense because we want uh multiple multiple multiple family housing in that area, which isn't going to happen.

I think we just need to think about really what works there.

You get a company that's willing to buy that depressed of a property that's in that bad a shape and fix it up and make it usable again and make it not a blight of the community, make it a part of the community that is a positive.

I think you need to consider that just as strongly as a future idea.

Thank you.

Just point of clarification.

There are no material requirements or masonry requirements for this.

They're not seeking waiver for one, and we don't require one.

So that's not an issue.

Um, no problem.

And then the finestration, the front of the building, which is the west facade, is not the warehousing portion, it's the office portion.

So the intent, I am completely understand what you're saying, but the intent is to have the visibility from the right of way into the into the business, obviously.

So the front of the building will also be office.

It won't be the distribution portion of the land use.

But to get to get to the 40%, we would have to, because the office is in part, not the entire width.

Correct.

I was just I was just clarifying why we want the intent.

And the the the proposed is 13% when 40% is required, but between the two and 12 feet for the front facade.

Correct.

Then we'd have to go down the entire side of it.

So the warehouse side, the industrial side that's on the each end, you'd be having to look into that.

It's just not good money spent to looking into glass, you know, and the people inside there don't need date lighting.

Um just storing pallets of material.

So um just trying to limit it and to architecturally make it look attractive.

Does it make sense for the we at least increased it from what it is now?

What does it currently have?

It's about eight percent.

If I'm correct, the uh it used to be uh fontages store before it became a church.

It was purchased in 1995 by a church, and then again in 2009 by another church.

The remote the last church did a food pantry in the back, but it it I don't think they ever had at least not official legal CO, they didn't have to.

Yeah, it was it used to be a fine agest door, and then they uh that the church bought it off uh off the wall, uh what was the name of that church?

But anyway, yeah.

The original building, we have the drawings of the front facade, and they were hand-drawn.

See, and it was a very ornate building at one point, but of course a very basic building behind it.

But from an architect standpoint, it's just been kind of vanilled out.

Every every new owner had just kind of taken more elements off and made it really plain.

So we're just trying to build it back up.

But the building itself, it has good bones, it has a really good structure.

Uh, but it's just the exterior facade is just crumbling.

And uh, we're just trying to build something that'll work good long term.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Okay, we'll close the public comment for discussion by the commission.

I kind of agree with you because it's you know what it's on that service road.

I get the future intent, but um I'm just very leery about a lot of town homes and family on on a busy 20.

I think industrial makes sense.

So just to clarify, MU1 is more of the mixed use commercial high density, so it wouldn't just be town homes, it it's we encourage the mixed use.

So if there was a uh development, I just wanted to clarify because I know that was said earlier that you know town homes, yeah, town homes can go there, but the idea is like more of the mixed use, especially like you said, that's just like not the greatest place for that.

So myself, I'm the senior planner for MU stuff.

So just you know, for the record.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the waivers.

A second so a motion to approve.

Um Sores.

Aye.

Commissioner Carr.

Aye.

Chair Brenner.

I commissioner Holiday.

Chair Ramsey.

I Commissioner Harrier.

Hi.

Commissioner Sanchez.

I eight zero.

I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Commissioner Reed, I'm so sorry.

Hi.

Okay, eight zero to approve.

And that concludes the cases for today.

Okay, we will wrap up the meeting.

Thanks, everyone, for a long one, and we'll see you next month.

It's like one o'clock and come back.

It is and I'm like, uh we're going back to the end of the next.