Do you have a Molly pan?

I sit down.

Is it true?

Yes, it's two.

All right, I think we have quorum, so if we can go ahead and call the May 11th meeting of the City of Fort Worth Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission to order, we'll proceed.

Thank you.

All right.

Welcome to the May 11th, 2026 Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission.

Our commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting.

The following board members are present today.

Chair Rick Herring, Vice Chairwoman Anna Katrina Kelly Gardner, Commissioner Walter Peoples, Commissioner Estris Tucker, Commissioner Roger Sheffalo, Commissioner Corey Malone, Commissioner Brian Kutcham, Commissioner Tim Haldin, and Commissioner Graham Bresentine.

Staff present today are Laura Lie Willett, Brandon Outerback, Andres Hernandez, Trey Qualls, Hi Won Kim, and myself Laura Young.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at WW.gov.

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

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

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

After each staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak.

Opposition may then speak for seven minutes.

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

A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the HCLC to receive advice from legal staff.

For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact a development services department by calling 817-392 8000.

Thank you for your attention.

Alright, thank you for that information.

And we've already called the meeting to order, so do we have announcements?

We do have a few.

Happy National Preservation Month to one and all.

You're a very important board.

Thank you for being here.

It is also Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

The city is hosting a event on May 21st.

I am also very excited to announce that we have received our final survey report for 10 resurveying 10 of our local historic districts.

You can see the list right there.

And we hope to have those up on our website soon for everyone's enjoyment and perusal.

Um for the Wedgewood Neighborhood Associate Neighborhood Association, and they received a grant to do a historic resources survey for their property.

Historic Fort Worth Inc.

also released their most endangered places list that you can find at their website.

And we also kicked off our preservation plan update meeting with our consultant Terracon.

And I hope to bring that uh more information on public meetings and surveys and all sorts of fun stuff for you in the coming months.

All right, thank you very much for those announcements.

Commissioners, any announcements?

Anyone?

All right, thank you.

Uh well, if not, we'll move on to the approval of the April 13th meeting minutes.

Uh we're open for a motion and a second.

Make a motion to approve the April 13th.

Second.

Maybe we have a motion and a second.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Okay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone, Commissioner Ketchum, Commissioner Shuffle.

Yes.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Commissioner Peoples.

Yay.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

All right.

Thank you for that.

And let's move on to our first case, please.

All right.

The first item before you is a resolution to support the application for and placement of a Texas historical marker for Marine Park at the city-owned park located at 303 Northwest 20th Street.

And I will read the resolution.

Resolution number 2026-04, supporting the placement of the Marine Park State Historical Marker at the city owned property at 303 Northwest 20th Street.

Whereas the property at 303 Northwest 20th Street is a city-owned property with the following legal description.

And subsequent annexation by the city of Fort Worth in 1909 and is identified as one of the first municipal parks in Tarrant County established in 1892.

Later developed through successive improvements, including the creation of a lake in 1910, a tennis court by 1915, the addition of a swimming pool in Bathhouse in 1926, and 1930s improvements, including a shelter, rose garden, and sidewalks designed by Heron Hare, as well as later additions such as a little league baseball diamond authorized in 1955 and whereas Marine Park has served as a longstanding community gathering place, including its role as a site for Northside community events such as Cinco de Mayo celebrations and documented performances by Selena Quintanilla Perez in 1991 and 1993.

And whereas the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission finds that the location of the State Historical Marker is appropriate.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission supports the proposed location of the state Historical marker for Marine Park at the city owned park located at 303 Northwest 20th Street Fort Worth, Texas.

Alright, thank you very much.

Is there anyone in the chamber who'd like to speak on this proposed resolution?

Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.

And commissioners, any discussion for opening for a motion.

If not, we're open for a motion and a second.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve resolution 2026-04.

I second the motion.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Haldon and a second by Commissioner Kelly Gardner.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Commissioner Shuffle.

Yeah.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Commissioner Peoples.

Yay.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Thank you very much.

Next case, please.

This is another resolution supporting the application for and placement of a Texas historical marker for the Park Hill neighborhood at the city-owned right-of-way located at approximately latitude 32.718620.

Longitude negative 97.356673.

I'll read the resolution.

Resolution number 2026-05 supporting the placement of the neighborhood of Park Hill State Historical Marker in the city owned property at approximately 32.718620, negative 97.356673 Fort Worth, Texas.

Whereas the triangular park located at the intersection of Lofton Terrace, Medville Court, East, and Westcott Road is a city owned property that is maintained by the neighborhood association.

And whereas the Park Hill subdivision was platted in 1925 by the Fairmount Land Company and designed by the prestigious Hair and Hero Landscape Architects of Kansas City.

And whereas the neighborhood's boundary starts with Park Hill Drive on the southern border and then travels north and curves east on Winton Terrace West to Winton Terrace East and then winds down south down back to Park Hill Drive and contains over 140 residences.

And whereas William Bryce, William Cranton Guthrie, and Joseph Pelleck were all prominent figures who contributed to the built environment of the neighborhood, and whereas the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission finds that the location of the State Historical Marker is appropriate.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission supports the proposed location of the State Historical Marker for the neighborhood of Park Hill located at approximately 32.718620, negative 97.356673 Fort Worth, Texas.

All right.

Thank you for that resolution.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this proposed resolution?

All right.

Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and commissioners.

We're open for discussion and/or motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the resolution HCLC-26-116.

Second.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Brisendine and a second by Commissioner Tucker for approval of the resolution.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardiner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Yay.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Yay.

Commissioner Shuffle.

Yes.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yes.

Commissioner Peoples.

Yay.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Alright, wonderful.

Thank you very much.

And let's move on to our next case, please.

Your next case is at 2141 Pembroke Drive, HCLC 26-117.

The applicant requests that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission certify that the eligible work undertaken meets the requirements of the City of Fort Worth zoning ordinance and recommend that City Council consider approving the request for this historic site tax exemption verification.

All right, thank you.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case?

Alright.

Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.

And commissioners, we're open for discussion and/or uh motion, and I'll just say by way of comment that uh this looks like a beautiful uh restoration job and appreciate the homeowners doing this.

And before I make a motion, I will say I have actually personally been in this house before the current owners acquired it, and the work that we've seen in the photos here is pretty remarkable.

That's great.

And I will also make a motion to approve tax verification case, HCLC-26-117.

I'll second the motion.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Brisendon and a second by Commissioner Callie Gardner.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner.

Yay.

Uh Commissioner Malone.

Okay.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Yay.

Commissioner Shuffle.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Commissioner Peoples.

Yay.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Alright.

Thank you for that.

And we can move on to our next case, please.

Your next case is 2200 Harrison Avenue.

The applicant requests that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission certify that the eligible work undertaken meets the requirements of the certificate of the City of Fort Worth zoning ordinance and recommend that city council consider approving the request for the historic site tax exemption verification.

Alright, is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case?

Alright, seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and commissioners open for discussion and or motion.

I would like to say before I make a motion, I live about 700 feet from this house.

I see it at least two times a day going to and from my own house, and the work that has been done on this is pretty remarkable.

And with that, I will make a motion to approve tax verification case HCLC-26-118.

Second.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Brisendine.

And a second by Commissioner Tucker.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Uh Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Commissioner Shuffle.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Commissioner Peoples.

And Commissioner Halton.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Thank you.

Now we can move into our continued cases.

Your continued case is at 2341 North Main Street in the stockyards.

HCLC-26-073.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness and waivers for the following at the non-contributing structure.

Install a pergola structure at the east entrance.

Waiver from sign standards 7.4.10 for projecting sign at the east facade to extend approximately nine feet above the building where projecting sign may normally extend only two feet above the building and angle the sign at an approximate 30 degree angle where normally a projecting sign is placed at a 90 degree angle.

And waiver from sign standards 7.4.10 for projecting sign at the north facade to extend approximately three feet above the building where projecting sign may normally extend only two feet above the building.

The project was continued from the April 13th HCLC meeting, and the applicant continued to work on the designs for the signage and pergola.

The front sign was has been reduced slightly and angled at a 30 degree angle rather than a 45 degrees.

The relocated boot sign on the side has been moved higher to allow for a maximum clearance from the sidewalk, and the pergola has been minimized and modernized so that it reads as a modern addition rather than a faux historic element.

The applicants have also agreed to stain it a color resembling the metal beam along the front.

Other elements like the mural, the painted sign on the south facade, and a canopy sign on top of the pergola are within the allowable square footage and sign standards.

While the majority of the alterations are considered appropriate, the proposed projecting sign on the north main street elevation is still a concern.

The angled roof line and position of the sign creates the condition that the sign will protrude above the lowest point of the roof line by eight feet ten inches where only two feet is allowed per code.

The sign is also angled at 30 degrees where a projecting sign should typically be angled at 90 90 degrees.

The Secretary of the Interior standards also recommend that new signs work with the existing building and respect the overall character and scale.

The this projecting sign as proposed in this location creates an inappropriate scale and placement of new signage on this structure is not compatible with the district.

Considering the uncommon roof line, the sign may look more in scale on one of the higher points of the facade where it can also be attached at a 90 degree angle.

Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following for the proposed alterations to the non-contributing building.

That the request for a certificate of appropriateness COA to install a mural on the front, install a paint and sign on the south facade, install a pergola structure with a stain to mimic the structural beam, and a waiver from sign standards 7.4.10 to install the relocated projecting sign approximately three feet above the parapet as opposed to the allowed two feet be approved, and the waiver from the sign standard 7.4.10 for projecting sign at the east front facade to extend eight foot ten inches above the building where projecting sign may extend only two feet above the building and angle a sign at a 30 degree angle where projecting sign is placed at a 90 degree angle be denied without prejudice.

Fort Worth Stockyards Inc.

has written a letter of support for the project, and I believe the applicant is here.

If you have any questions, this concludes the staff report.

Alright, thanks for that information.

And is there someone here to speak on this case?

So please come forward, sir, and give us your name and address the record.

Name's Theo Ariano.

I am the district manager for Tacobas addresses 1413 West Cleburne Road in Crawley, Texas.

I've been with Tacovas for seven years next month.

I was a store manager of this store when it opened back in June of 2020.

This expansion means a lot to us, not only to us, but I think to a community.

We are really excited about the expansion, mainly for the experience.

We have provided an experience since we opened up the store.

It's a big part, especially during big events.

We have a lot of traffic coming in.

We see about 250,000 customers a year in this store.

Anywhere from Billy Bob's to rodeo events to uh Parents Weekend, football games at TCU.

Everybody comes in, we create an experience, and I can show I want to show a little bit of the expansion on the inside.

Um one of the things that we're excited the most is we're doing a whole customization bar in the middle of the store.

This will give us more room to create a full experience in the location, be able to see a lot more customers.

I do want to note that all this that we do in the store is complimentary for all of our customers that walk in.

Doesn't matter if somebody buys something or it doesn't buy anything, we want to show the hospitality and the radical hospitality that are only our store, but for where it actually has to offer.

And I will pass it on to Lindsay, who's in charge of all of our development.

Thank you very much.

No, how are we?

Uh oh, I'm too tall for this microphone.

Yeah, there we go.

Um, I will just start by saying um basically what we want to do is create some visibility from the intersection at Exchange and Main.

And this building has a bit of a unique facade where it is sloped, um, but also we are set back from the public right-of-way.

Um, so we do have the patio out there that was done formally, but um our visibility is a little bit different than some of the other structures and uh businesses along Main Street because we are set back.

So the reason that we chose to put this neon sign on this corner was um to capture that visual traffic from uh there at the intersection.

Um, I think there are some updates that have been made.

So the sign that we're actually submitting for review is now less than 36 square feet, it's actually 30.

The overall sign height is eight foot ten, um, but it does not go above the um roof line eight foot ten total.

It actually is above the lowest point five foot six, and it's a and it's below the highest point five foot six.

And what we did is we made the top of the sign align with the midpoint of the building because we felt like that best reflected the overall size.

Um, and we talked about the boot sign.

What we really wanted to do was repurpose the sign that had been.

Oh, I should mention um that this neon sign, we have spoken to Evan Boyles, who will be making the sign should it be approved.

And I know that he does a lot of work in and around the stockyards.

So this has been updated to show that we're just five foot six.

It's eight foot ten um size overall, and the total sign area is 30 square feet, 30.54.

So it would be five something above the one at that point.

Yeah, so right.

So below above the lowest point of the roof, only five and a half feet, yes.

Right.

And then we can just go quickly through the pergola.

Um we really wanted to activate the deck.

Um to Covas as part of their radical hospitality.

Really wants this to be a destination where people come and can relax, and we want to create some shade for people to gather, and we could also um activate this for events, and so um we appreciate city staff's support uh working with us on getting to this current design.

These are just some examples.

We had originally proposed a walnut stain that would be more in line with the deck, but we're happy to match the stain to whatever anybody would like us to do.

And then this is just the neon brand sign that would go atop that uh pergola.

And we really wanted to reuse the boot that had formerly been custom made for this Fort Worth store.

Um, and so we are proposing to relocate it, and we also appreciate city staff support.

That's it.

All right, thank you very much.

Um other comments from the applicants or is there anyone else in favors?

Yes, please, couple.

Hi, uh my name is Kirby Smith.

Um I'm the owner of the building, and so I'm here to speak in favor of the applicant's uh application.

Um knowing the challenges that we we have, you know, just grabbing eyeballs from main and exchange is really important.

I think that's the approach they've taken, uh certainly sensitive to overall signage.

They started with a lot more signage than what you're seeing today.

Um we've we've really worked with them, they've been very responsive on that as a landlord.

Um I want to make sure the building's not uh incompatible with the with the district.

Um signage is very important, but also it can be overdone.

Um I think neon signs in the stockyards are are something that draw people to the district.

I think that's important and again the visibility to exchange.

I'm familiar with worked a lot in the stockyards and any any foot off exchange is a little bit less activity.

Certainly Exchange Avenue gets a lot of activity and uh but just having that visibility um I think the the unique nature of the of the building, you know, creates this height question that that certainly comes into play because we've got an angle building, and if you recall that you it's this is the little brother to the big wedge building that used to be there where the hotel is.

So we we're we're dealing with that.

I think we we've we've asked them to lower the the overall height than they they did, and they have they don't exceed the average, that's still exceeding the the point where it's mounted.

Again, the the north side is where a lot of the eyeballs are.

Um, and so that's what what what we're trying to or they're trying to accomplish, and I I respect that and and pulling pedestrians off uh exchange avenue.

So I'm in support of it.

Um I know we've gone through uh four stockyards inc review process.

Um they've sent in a letter of support.

Um so uh happy to support that today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward.

And we're gonna extend the time uh a little bit um since we've reached the seven minutes, but we want to hear from everyone, so please go ahead.

Uh Melissa White Hunter, um uh I'm speaking on the 2341 North Main.

I'm just asking that the proposal for the sign to extend um now as I understand it five feet six inches above that top of the roof line right there be denied and that staff's recommendations are followed that sign is big and bold and outspoken and it speaks for itself it's very visible so and that's not I'm not uh saying anything negative about that but as such where it is it uh does take away from the uh historic ISIS um vertical sign and even the horizontal marquee the ISIS was built in 1914 and as we all know quite a historical contribution to the stockyards.

So that was my only comment.

Thank you.

Alright thank you Ms.

Hunter will we close the public comment portion uh anyone else to speak on this case.

All right seeing none we will close the public portion uh commissioners may have questions for any of you and if so we'll call you back up but uh thank you everyone for your comments commissioners um discussion I think um my only comment is that the sign seems pretty massive it's a nine foot sign and that's a big big sign five feet above the the roof line is also a lot of space that's my only comment on the whole thing is that one sign is just way too large.

I do have a question um I'm sorry I didn't I don't recall your name Lindsay come on come on back up to the microphone please so have you researched have you thought about um making the sign smaller we've actually gone through uh two down sizes of the sign so we can start at 10 or at nine foot six and recently just r um reduced this to eight foot ten.

The overall square footage of the sign itself does meet the code requirements of it being under 36 square feet so I realize that it looks pretty big in the rendering and on that side of the the building it looks large but overall it's um it is meeting the requirements.

Well it it's not meeting the height requirements and you know I know that you're passionate about your sign it's a nice sign.

Um however have you explored decreasing the size more so that we it will be compatible with the ramifications of the dish what we require.

I think they yes I I think that Tacobas would be open to um potentially downsizing the sign again.

It is quite a large investment and so they want to make sure that um that they get the visibility um that's okay and so you are currently occupying the space we occupy technically half of the space we just took possession of the other half and completed demolition and we were just issued a building permit to start on our interior fit out.

Okay and so I I heard the district manager state that you all have quite a bit of traffic.

Okay.

So diminishing the sign won't take away from the people that you serve the traffic.

Understood this I'm I'm asking do you what are your thoughts on that?

Yeah I mean um I I think um the people tend to come to the store and I can let Tia um speak to this but um the people that know the tocova store is there I think they're trying to also just draw some work traffic that may not know that Jacobas is there.

Very well.

Thank you.

Yep.

Yeah thank you and stay with us one second because I just want to clarify something for my own understanding because from what I understood and this may take some staff input as well, but from what I understood in the uh uh pre-meeting and the staff report is that the sign in question would extend nine feet above the roof line.

Now I may have gotten that wrong, but what you're saying now, regardless of what I understood or misunderstood, you're saying it's gonna be about five and a half foot above that lowest point of the roof line on that corner.

That's correct.

If if you can see on the board there, yeah.

So and that would be and it's about uh mid of equal to the mid uh point of the roof line, the sloping roof line.

Correct.

Which was the recommendation from Fort Worth Stockyards Inc.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure I had that correct.

That was my fault.

I uh misread where the lines were.

So as it was presented is what she's saying.

It's five five six at the all right.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

Thank you.

I have a question for staff.

If this sign were on the uh other end of the building, would I mean it's not extending above the roof line of the building there?

So it does meet I think the thirty-six square foot.

I think their goal was to see it from the no, I no, I understand intersection.

Yeah, you're blocking it and it's on the other side.

Right, right, right.

Yeah, but that's what I've what I just wanted to validate though, is you know, this is a unique building that was I think motor bank, I don't remember.

If correct, uh if I remember, yeah, from way back.

Um yeah, and so given that perspective, and you know, I'm I uh I am glad that they adapted and reused that building.

Um those of us who have been here for a few years, we remember the old building, the wedge, and um this is uh kind of reminiscent of that.

It was built at the same time.

So um I just wanted to validate that if this were not that it should be, but if this were on the other end of the building, it wouldn't be above the height, and they have designed something that currently based on the current rendering that they've provided, um, if we take the average of that height from the left north to the south of the building, this does not extend above that average, right?

Where it's placed right now.

Yeah.

I mean it extends above the building there at that point, but if we're taking the full front facade of the building doesn't extend above average.

Right.

I believe where they where they put it um is kind of is kind of the midpoint and and Lindsay can um yes, midpoint, yeah.

So where they have it on the north side right now.

If it was moved to the higher end on the south side and angled at a 45 degree, then um it's very likely it would it would sit, you know, either below the roof line or be able to only be placed that two feet above whatever's allowed.

Um but as Commissioner Holden pointed out, there is that tree, which is I think part of their consideration.

So that begs the other question.

So once they get the sign up, are they gonna cut the tree down?

So otherwise you wouldn't see the sign.

So is that the plan is to cut down the tree after the sign goes up?

So how are you gonna see the sign of the trees in front of it?

I they they're proposing because they want the visual tree right in front of the sign.

Yes, but they're they're what their philosophy is is that the intersection, they want people that are going through the intersection to see the sign.

Is that correct?

If you can validate that.

Yeah, come come back to the microphone, please.

Sign is proposed on the north facade that is north of the tree.

Tree is not going anywhere.

That's the only tree on Main Street, really.

Um, and and yeah, if it was placed on the higher facade on the south end of the building, it would be blocked by the tree.

So that's the reason for looking at the north north end of the facade.

You're saying the tree's not gonna get cut down or anything.

Correct, absolutely not.

Yeah, absolutely not.

Um, but that's the reason we want it more visible on the north side, they want it more visible on the north side.

I want it more visible on the north side is because the tree does create a visible visual.

How many feet to the south would you have to move the sign to make it compliant with the code for the district?

Is that an option?

Middle.

In the middle of the building, because that's we've sort of selected the the midpoint of the slope and not exceed that.

I guess I guess it could it could move if it was sticking up two feet above, wouldn't I mean that would be a ideal location?

And this is a question for sir.

If you'll answer uh question, in the last photo, can we go back to the one that showed from the general, not quite the intersection, but this is uh somewhat from the intersection that you're attempting to target with this sign?

Right now, what is it that we see the corner of the building, the lowest corner of that building, which is approximately twelve feet if I remember correctly from the drawings, right?

Site sign drawing.

The what are we seeing behind that?

Because we're seeing the corner of the brick, but then we're seeing the white.

That's the roof.

It's the roof.

So the roof is and the parapet wall that's on the south side of the building, back side of the parapet wall is what we're looking at right there.

Yes.

You're just looking at the south parapet wall, you're looking at the top of the roof, um and the east facade.

Um, and so if that sign were located there, I mean I I don't know, I'm just looking at it from the perspective of right now.

If you're standing at the end of Main Street in exchange, you actually see the roof of the building, right?

We're at that present.

And from what I'm seeing right here, I I I mean we don't have a drawing here rendering of it, but from that intersection, I don't see that the sign is gonna actually exceed that parapet wall that we're already looking at.

That's a good point.

You're yeah, from that from the vantage point of main and exchange, you're the background of that sign is going to be the roof parapet of the in the in the background basically.

I beg to differ because in in looking at the go back to that other the slide with the sign.

If you look at the sign, it's above the roof line now.

Go back to the other the next one.

No, or the other way.

Yes.

So you're seeing the corner of the building.

It looks as though I don't know how long ago this picture was taken.

However, it looks as though the sign is going to be obstruct the the visual of the sign is going to be obstructed by the tree anyway.

Um however.

It it it's too high, basically.

It's the bottom line of why we're it's too high on that portion of the building because that's the lowest portion of the building.

And it has to be above a certain clear height for pedestrians to get underneath it as well.

That's another control, contributing factor.

The building's only twelve feet tall.

Yes.

And so we've got a deck that comes out the the finished floor of the grade is coming out much higher than the sidewalk.

The the finished floor of the grade of the building, and therefore the deck is just outside of the doors, and you've got to have a clear height over that uh underneath that sign.

Okay, commissioners, any other questions because I think we need to go ahead and close the public hearing and move on.

Okay, no more public comments, but thank you everyone for your contributions.

Um, I have a question for staff.

In and you stated I just want to be clear that you you all denied it without prejudice the second portion because we have two points.

One is approved, one is denied with or without prejudice.

Let's double check this.

So without prejudice, they could redo, come back to you next month.

Um, thank you.

Legal, if we make a motion, do I need to read off all the things that we are approving and then the one thing that would be deny without prejudice, or do I can I just say we recommend staff recommendations?

You could do it either way.

Let me make one note.

I think I heard um the reference to there being four things.

The agenda only has three items that you guys are reviewing.

That's a pergola sign is number two, different sign is number three.

Um so you can you can structure your motion, however, um as an approval of all, approval of one and three, um, or you can take the votes independently if you if you wish.

Yeah that's what I was going to say is can we just break it up.

Well if before we get to a motion I just I just want to add a comment I had some misgivings about the um sign in question when we were in work session because at that point my understanding what is it was that it was nine basically nine feet above the roof line.

Since then I've come to understand it's it's five and a half feet above the roof line um which somewhat lessens my concerns um so that's that's my thought process at this point.

However going back to Commissioner Ketchum's clarification from legal the there's four items that staff has recommended approval and the only item the only additional item that they've recommended a denial on is this particular neon sign that uh rises above the roof level there's only three items on the agenda um uh that being number one the pergola number two a sign extending nine feet number three a sign extending three feet above the building so those are the only things that are for you that's not what I see that that's what's on the public agenda yeah this one's different than what's on the screen that's for the confusion what's so the the mural and the painted sign on the south side um those can be approved administratively but they were just part of the whole package so I put them in your staff report.

Gotcha that's thank you very much.

Yeah so you can just vote on the three things that are the I'm looking at the staff report so thank you.

My clarification and let me address one more thing uh chair to your question about uh if the if the board so desires you can amend that number two to be five foot six inches if if that's the desire of the board so if you were to approve that you don't have to approve it at nine feet.

That's stated you can do less okay thank you could we not amend that from nine but it's saying we have that ability if we want to when someone makes the motion I understand should we not do that because I understand they said however um it was a typographical error and uh over site so when we make the motion we can um do the amendment then you just typographical error that's not my understanding yeah that was my fault the sign is nine feet but it's not nine feet above the roof line that makes sense okay we want to tackle these one at a time here yeah so there'll be uh clarity okay I'll make a motion on HCLC 26-073 number one install pergola structure on the east entrance for approval I second the motion okay on the item before us on the pergola we have a motion for approval by commissioner ketchup uh a second by vice chair kelly gardener Chair Herring how do you vote yay uh Vice Chair Kelly Gardner how do you Commissioner Malone Commissioner Ketchum Commissioner Shuffle Commissioner Brisendine Commissioner Tucker Commissioner Peoples and Commissioner Halton.

Okay nine zero on the pergola all right I'll do the second one uh uh make a motion on HCLC twenty six-073 a waiver from the sign standards, uh, but the only change would be instead of nine feet above the building to five and a half feet above the building.

Is that the correct way to phrase that legal?

Okay, that is my motion.

So uh number two as written except for changing it from nine feet to five and a half feet tall.

To do what, Commissioner Ketchin approved sorry.

Do we have a second on that motion?

I'll second it.

Is that Commissioner Bruce?

All right.

We have a motion on the question uh to approve on the question of the height of the sign to be no more than five and a half or excuse me, five and a half feet above the roof line at the uh projected location.

Um that motion is made by Commissioner Ketchum and seconded by Commissioner Rizendine.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Thank you.

Uh yay, based on the what we've stated.

Commissioner Malone?

Okay.

Commissioner Ketchen?

Commissioner Shuffle?

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Commissioner Peoples.

No.

And Commissioner Holden?

No.

I believe motion passes seven to two.

That sign.

And I that was the same count that I had.

And just to make sure I'm not missing anything, staff and legal, we've covered all of the items.

We need one more for the boots sign.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion for HCLC 26-073, a waiver from side standard or number three on there as written for approval.

Okay.

Alright, we have a on this item.

We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Ketchum and a second by Commissioner Tucker.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone?

Commissioner Ketchum?

A Commissioner Shuffle?

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Okay.

Commissioner Peoples.

Yes.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Thank you.

Motion passes 9-0.

Alright.

Thank you very much.

Staff, and thank you for those of you who attended and provided comments.

We appreciate you being here.

All right.

Before we move on to the next case, uh, does staff need a five-minute recess?

I'm good, let's roll.

Let's roll.

Okay.

Alright, then let's move on to the next case, please.

Your next case is HCLC-26-055 at 1615 East Hattie.

The applicant appeals the decision of the historic preservation officer and requests a certificate of appropriateness to install a front yard fence where front yard fences are not typically compatible.

The front yard fence was installed without a COA in February of 2026.

The applicant applied for a COA to retain the fence and was denied.

In April, the applicant appealed this decision to be heard at the HCLC.

The proposed request to retain and install a front yard fence at 1615 Hattie Street is inconsistent with the Terrell Heights design guidelines.

Front yard fences are not typically featured within the historic Terrell Heights district where the prevailing character is defined by open and transparent front yard conditions that maintain a strong visual relationship between the primary structures in the street.

The installation of a front yard fence disrupts the traditional pattern of site transparency and alters the historic spatial relationship between the building and the public realm.

Terrell Heights design guidelines emphasize that fences should be used primarily to define boundaries or enclose rear yards and when used should be constructed in materials and styles consistent with adjacent historic buildings.

Appropriate alternatives for front yard treatment include hedgerows, landscaping, or low knee walls that maintain the historic pattern of openness.

Front yard fencing, particularly when it's introduced when it introduces a visual barrier between the street and primary structure is not consistent with these guidelines.

Therefore, staff recommends the following that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to retain and install a front yard fence at 1615 East Hattie Street where front yard fences are not typically seen, would be denied with prejudice because the request is inconsistent with the Terrell Heights Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior standards for treatment of historic properties and that the applicant remove the existing fence.

This concludes the staff report.

Alright, thank you very much for that information.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case?

Alright, seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and commissioners.

We're open for discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice based on the staff report.

To be clear, staff was with prejudice on this one.

Well I'll make a motion to deny with prejudice.

Based on the staff report.

I'll second that.

Right.

We have a motion to deny with prejudice based on the staff report by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner and a second by Commissioner Kessler.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner.

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Commissioner Shuffle.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Commissioner Peoples.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to the next case.

Your next case is a new construction at 1020 East Loudoun Street, HCLC-26-089.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence and garage.

A contributing structure was previously located at this address.

However, a fire in 2024 completely destroyed that structure.

The proposed design for the one-story residence and garage reflects an orientation.

Excuse me, garage reflects an orientation consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape, including existing patterns of spacing, massing, and building orientation.

However, some design elements should be addressed in order to reflect a compatible new construction in the district.

Therefore, staff recommends the following: that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence and garage at 1020 East Loudoun Street be approved, subject to the following conditions that the front porch have a minimum depth of six feet, and the spacing of the front porch columns must be evenly distributed along the entire length of the porch, that additional windows be provided on the front facing portion of the west right elevation, that the sighting be changed to a smooth finished lap sighting with a six-inch reveal on all elevations and garage, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

This concludes the staff report.

Alright, thank you for that information.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case?

1020 East Loud.

All right.

Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and commissioners were open for discussion motion.

Move to approve HCLC-26-089.

With the staff conditions as I second.

Subject to staff conditions by Commissioner Tucker, and a second by Commissioner Vice Chair Kelly Gardner.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Yay.

Commissioner Sheffalo.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Yay.

Commissioner Peoples.

Yes.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Alright, thank you.

Next case, please.

1201 East Morningside Drive, HCLC-26 desk 100.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence and garage.

The proposed design for the one-story residence and garage reflects an orientation consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape, including existing patterns of spacing, massing, and building orientation.

However, some design elements should be addressed in order to reflect a compatible new construction in the district.

Therefore, staff recommends the following: that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence at 1201 East Morningside Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions: that a contextual site plan and elevation plan be submitted demonstrating compliance with the existing building setbacks, that the spacing of the front porch columns be evenly distributed along the entire length of the porch, that the proposed front door be modified to a solid or minimal traditional style door compatible with the historic context, that all windows maintain a two-to-one height-to-width ratio and include compatible projecting sill and trim, that additional windows be provided on the front facing portion of the west elevation, that the siding reveal be specified as six inches on all elevations and garage, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

This concludes the staff report.

Alright, thank you very much.

Is there anyone in the chamber to speak on this case at 1201 East Morning side?

If there is, just please come forward and give us your comments.

All right.

We're going to close the public portion of the uh case and move on, Commissioners, to discussion or motion.

I'll make a motion to approve with staff recommendations.

Second, all right.

We have a motion to approve with staff recommendations by Commissioner Ketchum and a second by Commissioner Sheffalo.

Oh, I apologize, Commissioner Brisbane.

See when I'm riding, I can't look up and see who's talking.

Your herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Malone.

Commissioner Ketchum.

Commissioner Sheffalo.

Yay.

Commissioner Brisendine.

Yay.

Commissioner Tucker.

Okay.

Commissioner Peoples.

And Commissioner Haldin.

Thank you.

Motion passes 9-0.

Alright, thank you.

All right, let's move on to the next case, please.

Next case before you is 660 Union Stockyards Boulevard, HCLC-26-045.

The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a transitional parking lot and request the following waivers from the stockyards form base code and design guidelines.

One waiver from the parking lot applicability standard 7.2.1.A to allow parking lot landscaping with parking rooms of 10 rows by 22 spaces without median islands where parking rooms are not to exceed four rows by five spaces with median islands to separate parking rooms.

Two, waiver from the parking lot canopy coverage standard 7.2.1b to allow 0% tree canopy coverage and a surface parking lot where 40% tree coverage, sorry, 40% tree canopy coverage is required for surface parking lots.

Three, waiver from the permit permitter perimeter planting standard 7.2.1 point C to provide only a four-foot-wide planting strip with a three-foot high continuous row of shrubs where a six-foot-wide planting strip with three-foot high continuous row of shrubs is required.

Four waiver from the parking standards for historic district 2.4.5C to not use brick as a paving material.

The applicant is proposing a transitional temporary parking lot on a 3.5 acre vacant lot in the stockyards district district adjacent to the armor building.

The proposed parking lot will be a fee-for-service parking lot intended for tourists and visitors to the stockyards.

The proposed parking lot will contain 377 total parking spaces.

While the ADA spots and associated pedestrian connections will be paved, most of the lot will be permeable crushed gravel surface.

The proposed lot will be surrounded by a three-foot high pipe rail fence with landscaping treatment of sage and decorative grass plantings.

The proposed transitional lot will include a north-south pedestrian connection of decomposed granite between Union Stockyards Boulevard and East Exchange to promote pedestrian connectivity.

Site improvements include drainage infrastructure and installation of solar lighting for illumination and safety.

In the northeast corner of the lot will be an open area unfenced green space intended for residents from the nearby multifamily development.

The applicant has been in communication with Fort Worth Stockyards Inc.

and its neighbors about the transitional parking lot and future hospitality development.

The project was reviewed by the Fort Worth Design Fort Worth Inc.

Design Review Committee on March 31st, 2026.

The DRC was generally supportive of the proposed use and development waivers.

And the Fort Worth Stockyards Inc.

Board is in support of the project as noted in an email dated May 7, 2026.

Zoning Commission heard the request for a conditional use permit on April 8th and voted 110 to recommend approval of the C UP with a three-year time limit to city council.

The Urban Design Commission approved the site plan at their April 16th, 2026 meeting 9 to 0.

Staff find that the uh request for a transitional parking lot to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the stockyard's form-based code and design guidelines.

The front of the lot was included in the historic district in order to capture the entirety of the exchange avenue from east to west and encourage compatible development with the historic district.

The temporary lot will maintain the corridor and views and add enhancements like plantings while offering additional parking for the area until a proposed development is completed.

Surface parking in the historic core should be visually subordinate to other uses and have buffer areas to screen parking from the street.

It is also encouraged to design surface parking with historic elements like brick pavers and a fence or low site wall with plantings to provide that screening.

The proposal does not include brick pavers, but is acceptable considering the temporary nature of the proposal.

The planting and screening methods along exchange and stockyards boulevard will help ensure the historic exchange corridor is maintained while the next stage of the development is in the planning phases.

Given the above, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for a transitional parking lot and the stockyards form-based code district with the following waivers.

One waiver from the parking lot room standards, section 7.2.1A to allow a parking room of 39 spaces by 10 rows, and two waiver from the surface parking lot tree canopy coverage requirements section 7.2.1 point B to allow zero parking lot tree canopy coverage and three waiver from the perimeter planting with shrub standards section seven 7.2.1 point C.1.

Two allow a non-continuous strip of four-foot landscaping on the southern perimeter and a continuous landscaping strip of a leak of at least five feet seven inches on the eastern perimeter and four waiver from the parking standards for historic district 2.4.5 C to not use brick as a paving material be approved.

This concludes the staff report.

Thank you very much for that information.

Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case?

Please come forward, sir, and give us your name and address for the record.

Uh good afternoon.

Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horn, representing the property owner.

Um very thorough uh staff report.

So thank you.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Commissioners, do we have any questions?

I noticed a slide that had the uh the light fixtures um noted there.

It would be all solar lights, yes, sir.

That's right.

This came up in the work session before, but what's the timeline you think before that turns into a hotel on that lot?

Uh the conditional use permit that the zoning commission approved.

We're asking for three years.

Uh, the permitting timelines around two or the ultimate plan.

Um the only entrance into this is off of exchange, is that right?

Correct.

Yeah, and the reason for that is we wanted a control access.

Uh so a single point of access was important to us.

I was actually glad when I saw it was not concrete going in that was going to be knocked out in a couple years, and you're doing the crush.

We are doing concrete around where the ADA spaces are, but everywhere else.

Yeah, that's a good use.

So the just the three-year cut from zoning commission is sort of a placeholder, lack of a better term, until you were ready to move forward with a more permanent project.

Absolutely.

Yeah, this is not the final or long-term use for this property.

So, uh, commissioners just clarification for everyone when property owner does get ready to do a more permanent project, whatever that may be, they will be uh coming back before the commission at that time.

I think that was very well thought out.

It's a good plan.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the chamber who wants to speak on this case?

Alright, seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing, and commissioners are open for uh further discussion or motion.

I make a motion to approve, second it.

All right.

On HELC 26-045, we have a motion to approve with staff comments by Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, and a second by Commissioner Haldeman.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Yay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote?

Commissioner Malone, Commissioner Ketchum, Commissioner Sheffalo, Commissioner Brisendine, Commissioner Tucker, Commissioner Peoples, and Commissioner Holden.

Thank you.

Motion passes 90.

Thank you.

All right, and if we're ready, we can move on to the next case, please.

Okay, 2414 Avenue, HCLC-26-108.

Applicant requests a COA to construct a new commercial property and request the following waivers from the form based code and design guidelines.

One waiver from the street standards to allow for the continuation of the West Exchange Avenue treatment 8.3.11 instead of the B Street existing treatment 8.3.7 as listed on the form in the form based code, which allows for the pedestrian zone to be 10 foot minimum as opposed to 8 foot minimum with a six minimum parkway depth.

The property was recently incorporated into the historic district to capture and maintain the integrity of the historic corridor of Exchange Avenue.

The project is in line with contributing structure located on the corner of 301 West Exchange.

The massing size, scale, materials, and details are compatible with the historic structures in the district.

The structure maintains the historic pedestrian relationship with streetscape by utilizing a canopy, commercial style shop front windows with a kick plate and transoms, and a zero lot line front setback with a wide pedestrian walkway underneath.

The proposal contains many elements that reference a historic structure, including appropriate windows with sills, brick cladding, and a decorative parapet.

Staff believe the elements will blend in with the historic surroundings.

Without reading is truly is a truly historical structure.

In regards to the street standards, if the property were to adhere to the B existing street, this would require the property to be set back further from the street and disrupt the historic rhythm set by the contributing structures on West Exchange.

It would also require a planting strip of trees that is not typical for West Exchange.

Therefore, staff agree that continuing the street treatment of a 10-foot wide pedestrian pathway without a planting strip to allow the building to sit closer to the street is compatible with the historical setbacks and treatments on West Exchange.

Otherwise, all setback requirements are met for the project.

Fort Worth Stockyard Inc.

has submitted a letter generally in support of the project.

Staff and the applicant will continue to work on future elements of the project, including signage and lighting as it progresses.

Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new commercial property at 2414 Clinton Avenue and for a waiver from the street standards and the stockyards form based code and design guidelines to allow for the continuation of the West Exchange Avenue treatment 8.3.11 instead of the B street existing treatment 8.3.7 as listed in the form base code be approved.

This concludes the staff report.

Alright, thank you for that.

Uh anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case, please come forward and give us your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you for being patient.

Anytime.

Uh afternoon.

My name is Hoyt Hammer.

I am an architect and principal with our architecture here for 464 Bailey Avenue.

We have worked very closely with the owner and with uh city staff in the development of the design of this building for the last couple of months.

The antenna is to as I believe that we've just captured everything.

Excuse me for interrupting, but will you pull your mic up just a little?

We're having some issues and we're all on TV, so we got to make sure we're heard.

Okay, any better?

Yes, thank you.

Uh we uh we appreciate staff report.

We think that uh she has captured uh most of the information very accurately.

We have worked very closely with the owner and uh with staff over the past few months in the development of this two-story 12,000 square foot mixed use project.

Um we feel like uh the waiver that we are requesting is in keeping more so with more so with the uh the existing uh context of the existing West Exchange and would ask for your uh consideration and approval.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions at this time?

All right, seeing none.

Thank you very much for that information.

Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to speak on this?

Please come forward.

Melissa Wade, Melissa Wade Hunter.

Um I can't see anywhere, and I've not heard of anywhere where notice went out to neighborhood businesses or property owners as a whole.

Fort Worth Stockyards Inc.

does not represent everywhere, everyone, and there are houses that abut the east side of Clinton, and there's a whole neighborhood on the west side of Clinton.

I mean, what notice went out?

I mean, maybe it uh well, no, I couldn't see notice, and I got questions this morning from a business uh person in that area going, what about this?

What about this?

What about parking?

And I'm couldn't I couldn't answer that.

I mean, because I didn't know the plan seems to be approved, but the plan does seem understand staff is always very good on its reports and its recommendations, but the parking seems woefully inadequate, particularly since uh right across the street on exchange, you've got a mass amount of a large amount of land on lots that are ripe for development.

So this is certain to this end of West Exchange is gonna bring a lot of construction, and all of those people are important, and I don't think they were consulted.

Well, that is a good point, and uh I will ask Steph staff to address it.

Uh what are there notice requirements for the commission, the historic preservation commission, and um how does that work?

Yes, so we are required to send out legal notices.

Um I believe a buffer of um what's the what's this footage?

Is that 300 feet?

300 feet from where the the property in question is, so everyone around that area.

Great, and as far as we know where the notice is sent, does that come from your office or development office?

Those notices are mailed to the owner's address of record, correct?

Not to the business that may be renting a space.

Um it would right, it's whoever is listed in TAD.

Whatever address that is.

Did do we ever figure out how big this building is?

The total square footage of the project is about 12,000 square feet.

It's sited up against the close to the uh right-away at West Exchange, and we have provided for some on-street parking on the western side of the property, approximately nine spaces, including ADA coverage.

Um we've also accounted for some parallel spaces along uh West Exchange.

So it's it states here that it's going to be um what usage is this building going to be?

Uh the lower level is contemplated as a restaurant.

Um potentially upstairs mixed use, could be office, it's yet to be fully determined what uh occupancy might take the upper level.

But oh, staff, I just want to reiterate here.

We're we're considering not parking waivers.

We're considering what we're considering today is strictly the form-based code and design guideline waivers.

Correct.

So since it's in the historic district, um it doesn't have to meet off street parking.

And that obviously is always a concern for neighbors and residents, but it's not something necessarily in overview of the landmarks.

There are certain parking requirements if they're going to have parking, and they have addressed it with um the kind of the planting strip on the side, and then there's a site wall around it.

So if they choose to have a parking uh parking spaces, then there are things that they need to do to mitigate it, and they've done that here.

And their their parking requirement is going to be determined based on what their use of the building is before the certificate of occupancy is issued, correct?

There's no parking requirement.

So yeah.

So the parking we may want more, but it's not what not what we're talking about.

It's out of our control.

Um, however, it's still a thought because what if they decide to turn it into um a housing or loss, and then you know, where are you where are the people going to park?

Yeah.

That's not our jurisdiction.

Ours is just the architecture, correct?

You just approve a parking lot up the street.

Oh, yeah, well, thank you, Parker.

It's a little way skinny.

Well, okay, let's close the public comments.

Thank you both for sharing your information.

We appreciate it.

Um else in the chamber to speak on this case.

Okay, we'll close a public hearing.

Commissioners' uh discussion.

I just want to say one thing.

Um I've seen a lot of these and was also on the commercial board of adjustments before.

I really appreciate the level of detail that was provided, at least from what we've seen in terms of renderings and everything.

I mean, it's to me seems very, very, very thought through uh process.

I'm I will vote and support.

All right, and just a uh comment from me uh directed toward Ms.

Hunter, your concerns are valid, and I'm sure the people who contacted you uh have those concerns.

Um, you know, unfortunately, I mean you heard what staff stated, so it's somewhat out of our control and to a certain extent, but thank you for sharing those concerns.

Other comments or discussion, Commissioners?

Just um that I will agree with you that uh Ms.

Hunter's comment about the neighborhood and their take on it is extremely valid, um, because with that, of course, the people in the neighborhood, there is no history, so yes, I will make a motion to approve HCLC twenty-six-108 with as it is.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Ketchum, a second by Commissioner Shefflow.

I got it right this time.

Chair Herring, how do you vote?

Okay.

Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, yay.

Commissioner Malone, Commissioner Ketchum, Commissioner Shuffle.

Yeah.

Commissioner Brisendine, Commissioner Tucker, Commissioner Peoples.

Yeah.

And Commissioner Holden.

Yay.

Thank you.

Motion passes nine zero.

All right, thank you.

And that being our last case, uh, Commissioners, thank you for your presence today.

Staff, thank you for all your hard work, and we stand adjourned.