Welcome everyone today to the Urban Design Commission meeting for June 18th.

Before the formal commission hearing begins, we do have a work session presentation.

So we'll do that work session and then we'll officially start the hearing.

But just for the record to show those who are in attendance, we have Chairman Benner, Commissioner DeBose, Commissioner Harrier, Commissioner Hughes, Commissioner Ramsey, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner West.

But right now I'm going to turn it over to planning manager Brandon Utterback, who is going to share an update on the Panther Island form-based code.

This is just an informational work session presentation.

Good morning, good morning.

It is a great day to live work and play in the city of Fort Worth.

All those in favor say aye.

Okay, I need to make sure I hear from you guys too.

Today I'll be presenting the proposed 2026 update to the Panther Island Form Based Code.

This update builds on Vision 2.0 and responds to real world development conditions.

This is still a work in progress.

We're tweaking some things, but want to get it out to you guys early as it moves up to chain for approval.

The purpose of the code, the main purpose of this code is to align development to vision 2.0, respond to actual development activity, improve connectivity, and the waterfront experience, and provide clearer, more predictable development standards.

It's taken a lot to get to this point.

This has been going on for decades, right?

Y'all have heard of Panther Island, been hearing about it for a long time.

When's it going to get here?

When's it going to be?

When's this going to start happening?

Well, it's it's it's happening.

We're really excited about that.

This is evolution of the code, not a complete rewrite.

The original code established a framework, vision 2.0, refine the priorities, and this 2026 update implements operationalizes and that vision into practical standards.

So Vision 2.0 priorities.

Um these five priorities from Vision 2.0 are driving the changes we're proposing.

Robust open space network, which I'm sure you'll be happy about.

Continuous waterfront and canal access.

I'm just absolutely thrilled about this.

Smaller blocks and walkable streets, that's what we're all about, form-based codes.

Um preservation of view corridors, and concentrated development intensity in the core.

There's an updated boundary.

We've refined the Panther Island form-based code zoning district boundary to better reflect current conditions and ownership.

Everything inside the red line will be subject to the new standards.

So on the left-hand side, you see where the old standards were, what it covered.

This is redefined just a little bit.

These three areas here that are in dark are coming out.

Okay, we focus the guiding principles, prioritize waterfront and open space.

Deemphasize a purely residential focus.

If you guys remember seeing this before, it was largely residential.

Um now we've embraced commercial, even some high-rise development in here.

So it uh strengthens connections, surrounding neighborhoods and protects key view corridors.

One of which I'll point out, I believe it's mentioned later, is you know how in downtown you look from the convention center to the courthouse, and you see that down Main Street, and it's an impressive view.

And if you go back on the other side of Panther Island, you get to see the other side of the courthouse.

That view down Main Street is really emphasized.

So, governance and administration.

Uh, this update clarifies roles and authority and strengthens coordination between uh program office, design review, the urban design committee.

It also formally aligns with TRW canal standards in the system manual.

So the regulating plan.

So this has uh been decluttered a bit as you can tell.

The plan on the left is the uh is the old plan, the plan on the new air plan on the right is the new plan.

Uh the new plan introduces two primary primary development zones, PI core and a high uh which is higher intensity development and the PI edge for more sensitive transitions at the edges of the district.

Streets and mobility.

We've refined the streets and mobility network with clearer hierarchy of streets designed to support walkability, multimodal movement, and better connections to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.

Sidewalks and streetscape standards.

This slide shows a proposed sidewalk zone framework.

We're defining three zones with furnishing zone immediately next to the buildings and seating and active uses, the pedestrian way as the clear central walking path, and frontage zones closest to the curb for trees, lighting, street furniture.

This organization better supports active building frontages while keeping the street edge functional.

And this flexes just a bit in this zone.

Some are wider, some are smaller, depending on setback and uh, you know, the street section uh depending on what the condition is.

But this is generally what you'll see throughout the at least this opportunity throughout the district.

Okay, the waterfront standards we've added, dedicated waterfront standards, including new waterfront transition zones on private property.

These standards integrate with DRWD Canal System Manual and ensure appropriate transitions along the water's edge.

Public open space.

The urban form standards establish clear height ranges by zone, four to twenty-four stories in PI Core, and three to fifteen stories in PI edge.

Along with build two zone and frontage build-out requirements.

Excuse me.

So you see on the left how you know the heights were you know associated with the colors here, and there's a you know it's just kind of a mishmash of things, and and you know it need to be clarified a little bit.

Um now we're moving to the right side where the darker pink in the middle is the PI core, the outside lighter pink is the PI edge, and then the parks here are just proposed location showing that 15% that may change.

That's just a that's just an idea of what we want to be able to provide, we've improved building design standards by strengthening facade articulation, glazing requirements, and parking structure design.

We've also added tower massing guidelines and removed exterior material requirements due to state law.

We've updated several supporting regulations, including stronger private landscape standards, improved parking approaches, clear fencing and screening rules, and signage standards that align with downtown uh standards and guidelines.

In summary, this update implements Vision 2.0, strengthens the waterfront and open space identity, improves walkability and connectivity, provides clear development guidance, and positions Panther Island for successful delivery.

We conducted stakeholder meetings, uh they are complete, and our adoption process uh goes through the summer and should hit council in October of 2026.

So, like I said, Panther Island is here.

Um this rendering illustrates a long-term vision of Panther Island that is code update and designed to help achieve.

Thank you for your time and willing to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

It's very exciting.

It has been in the work for a very long time.

So we're excited to see this coming to fruition.

Do you know the latest on the timing of the uh channels being dug?

Well, for that, I would refer to Susan Alanis, has been key to this development.

Hi there, I'm Susan Alanis.

I'm uh with the Tent Regional Water District.

I'm the Panther Island Program Director, and um uh basically, we are about to go, we're almost at 100% plans on phase one of the canals, which is east of North Main and between fourth and fifth, and there's a park in that area as well that we'll be doing three blocks of canals as well as a three-acre park.

We intend to go to bid uh late summer and then be under construction in early fall.

Um, the bypass channel, which is the core project piece of this, they actually um opened bids last week for the north half of the bypass channel, and the contract should go to award in August with construction and mobilization early next year.

So lots of progress.

Um, you may also have read in the paper that the city council also just considered an incentive package for a residential tower development.

Um, that's beautiful, it's very exciting.

So lots of pieces coming together at the moment, and getting this form-based code updated is really crucial to that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Very exciting.

Yeah, really excited to see you know, downtown north side all kind of tied together 20 years from now.

You know, that we're gonna look back and I believe be very, very proud of this of this development.

So thank you very much.

I have a question.

Uh, the contracts been already sent out to the developments.

The ones who've gone to development, it's even spread it out among uh different development companies.

So there's a combination of things.

So a lot of the land is privately owned, and the contract that was or the uh incentive package that was recently approved, that's on private property, so that that'll be at their discretion as to who their contractors are.

The water district also owns about 35 acres within the interior that's developable before the levies come down.

And we did go through an RFQ process um last fall to consider a development partner.

It was a little bit premature.

We're gonna re um re-enter that process this coming fall, and so we'll be looking for partners then.

And the intent is for us not to develop the properties ourselves, it'll be to turn it over to developers who will who will engage their teams.

But in terms of the um construction of the public infrastructure, we'll be doing a public RFP process for that to offer the opportunity out to the community and for construction.

Okay.

Anything else?

Will this come before us to make a recommendation or this is just information?

This is an informational presentation.

It'll be um sent up to zoning and council and they'll approve.

So once it's city council adopts it, then we'll have it in any cases that will be.

And then this will be the code that we're operating and and judging things on, checking weekends.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right, thank you.

All right, um.

So we'll transition to our call to order and begin the public hearing portion of this meeting.

Um, so good morning.

Welcome to the Urban Design Commission for Thursday, June 18th.

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

The following members are present today.

Chairman Benner, Commissioner DeBose, Commissioner Harrier, Commissioner Hughes, Commissioner Moss, Commissioner Ramsey, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner West.

Did I miss anyone?

All right.

Staff present today are Jefferson Prado Ortiz, Laura Young, Caleb Olson, Brandon Utterback, uh Trey Qualls, and myself, Joseph Laws.

Today's meeting agenda and DACA can be found online at Fort Worth Texas.gov.

Speaker registrations must have been turned in prior to the start of this meeting.

Attendees can sign up to speak by completing the paper form or scanning the QR code, which is outside the uh the room on the wall there.

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

To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the UDC requests 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, staff after staff presentation, the applicant and any other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak.

Opposition may then speak for a total of seven minutes.

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 where I'm standing, or the one to my left.

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

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

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

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 817-392-800.

Thank you for attention for your attention and welcome to the Fort Worth Urban Design Commission meeting for June 18th, 2026.

Mr.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Morning.

Welcome to the June meeting of UDC.

Do we have any announcements?

Staff has a couple.

All right.

First off, we want to welcome.

Well, we're going to take a step back for May.

Just one thing to note there were some technical issues with the recording of the May UDC, so we do not have a publicly available recording for that.

It was a technical issue.

We've confirmed with the IT staff and documented it.

So just if there's anyone looking for that recording, it's it's not available, it does not exist.

Um we've worked out those IT issues, we believe, so we don't think this is going to be a recurring thing.

Um but if it is, then we will certainly keep you posted.

And then secondly, we want to welcome our two next gen ambassadors for the design and preservation team.

So if you you two stand up, we have Jonathan Porter and Diego Vasquez.

Uh Jonathan is a rising senior at Texas Prairie Review AM, and he's studying architecture and construction science.

And Diego is a rising freshman at uh Texas AM, uh studying civil engineering.

So they're with us for the next couple months.

Uh they've been a great joy, and uh hopefully they're they're learning a lot about the urban design process and the way the department functions.

So welcome, Jonathan and Diego.

Welcome.

That's all the announcements that we have.

Very good.

Anybody else?

Any more announcements from the commission?

Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the May meeting?

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from Commissioner Bose.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes 80.

We don't have any continue cases, so we'll transition to our new cases now.

Good morning.

My name is Cale Bolson.

I'm the senior plans examiner on the Urban Forestry Team.

Um, we have one urban forestry item before you guys today for consideration.

It's UDC case number UDC-2026-127, and urban forestry permit number UFC 26-0119.

This project's located within council district seven.

It has three different zonings currently, A5, A21, and AGE.

Um, there are four separate owners because it's four different parcels.

Um, one's listed here.

The other two are owners of residential properties, and then another one owns the property just to the west.

And they're here for a request to reduce the preservation requirement from 25% of the protected species canopy down to zero.

So this is the project area here.

There's a property line about right here.

Um, so we have one over for this property, one over to this property, and then these two lots that are residential lots.

I believe they're both between one and three acres.

And then this is the existing canopy with the proposed lot layout.

Um, again, for about a year now, we've been under the current UF ordinance, which is all protected species.

So while there are some trees on these properties, they weren't any of the protected species trees under the current ordinance.

If it's not a protected species tree, it doesn't really exist.

So the only protected species trees are trees that were planted on those residential lots when they were constructed.

I believe there are 20 protected species trees on site, and three of them have health or structural issues that make them non-viable for preservation.

Two of them are located within proposed dedicated right away.

So for urban forestry, there's really 15 trees on this whole property that are being accounted for.

This is just a zoomed-in look.

All the trees were right next to each other, which was nice for this cutout.

We have the species here.

Any trees you see with this DDH exclusion, those are the trees that weren't viable for preservation for one reason or another.

And then any trees with this row exclusion are trees that are in the proposed right-away.

So the applicant submitted an existing canopy area of just under 1,800 square feet.

I did measurements on our zoning map, which usually takes pictures in winter, so normally not as much foliage.

I'm estimating the existing canopy for these 15 trees to be around 5,000 square feet.

So a little bit different, but considering how large the property is not a huge change.

And then this is the proposed lot layout for these new subdivision developments.

They actually have the option between two different final canopy requirements.

This one selected the more popular, which is 25% canopy coverage over the whole project with a certain required number of trees per lot.

So any lots that are between 5 and 10,000 square feet need to receive two trees.

That's what they're showing here.

They're proposing one large tree and one medium tree for every residential lot that's in that five to ten thousand range.

And then right now they have one lot, lot Q lot 4, that is between 10,000 and 15,000.

Those lots will require three trees.

They're proposing two large trees and one medium tree.

Typically for residential, one large and one medium is going to get you pretty good canopy coverage because most of these lot sizes, the cutoff is 5,000.

Most of the lots end up being around 55 to 6,000.

So putting two trees on there is normally going to bring the canopy coverage up over what it would normally be.

So everyone's favorite part will get into the numbers here.

So the total area of the property is 2,376,632 square feet.

That's a little over 54 and a half acres.

And that's just under 32 acres.

These new subdivisions normally have a lot of deductible area just because of how much proposed right-away is going to be in there.

We didn't have a form of the plat submitted yet to verify these areas, but with doing reviews on a lot of other new subdivisions, these percentages seem about right.

Typically, the required preservation would be 446 square feet, but they're here for a waiver to reduce that to zero percent.

The required tree canopy with the planting method that I described, 25% coverage, which is 348,169 square feet.

They're proposing no preservation, and their provided tree canopy is 552,800 square feet, and that's just with the proposed residential plantings.

So I don't know if they have plans to do some form of amenity center or any open space pant, open space plantings, but any of that would be on top of this.

With just residential plantings, they're hitting 39.7% coverage of the net urban forestry area, and for new subdivisions, that's a very good number to be at.

So urban forestry staff is recommending approval for this waiver, and that's based on the locations of the existing trees.

Two-fold, mostly the locations they're in would make it difficult to develop this kind of new subdivision.

And also the only reason these properties have any protected species trees are because these two homes were built and planted in the past.

If this were all undeveloped area, it's likely there would be no protected species trees on site.

Um that's pretty much it.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Yep.

Just to clarify, so each lot will be required to have two trees, right?

Yes, sir.

So every lot, if the lot is at least 5,000 square feet, needs to have two trees, and then they have one lot that's over 10,000.

That one will have three.

Just making sure that that it's it's confusing because it says up to their discretion.

I think that's on the locations, okay.

Gotcha.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes, we have a representative.

Great.

You're welcome to if you'd like to.

Um do you have any questions for me or any questions for the applicant?

No.

I mean, I think Caleb did a great job explaining, um, pretty much explained it pretty well.

Um, we're basically taking um those homes that are existing and they're gonna be demoed.

Um so we had concerns with preserving those trees, um, without damaging them.

And then yeah, we're planning well in excess of the requirement.

So I have a question.

Um, so the water that's there, is there gonna be more green space added and uh living that up like for public use?

So that's gonna be a park.

Um we don't have any plans right now that I know of for an amenity senator, an amenity center.

Um but there will definitely be trees planted in some of the open spaces.

I'll just make a suggestion um when y'all are picking your species.

I I diversify just so you've got it not all the same two species because if something goes through, it'll wipe it out.

So just pro tip.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else speak in favor?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

Correct to me.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second, motion to approve has been made and seconded.

Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Um Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

And Commissioner Moss, how do you vote?

Aye.

Alright, motion passes 8 0.

Thank you.

So, Commissioner Benny, I think we have to make the announcement to advance the Cambo week case to be presented first.

For your conversation with Joe, they would like to advance the Camboe case.

So you'll have to make the announcement.

It's case number four right now.

Okay, number four is going to number two, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, so we are moving number four on your agenda, UDC 2026-117 up to number two for this morning.

Okay, thank you.

So your next case is gonna be UDC 2026 117.

Um, the answer is 3347, we winter avenue, and the applicant is requesting um certificate of appropriateness for signage within Cambue Boulevard Revitalization Code District.

We have waiver to the attached sign requirements to allow two attached signs, one on each facade of a corner tenant space with a maximum sign allocation of 120 square footage combined.

We're only one sign per tenant space.

We have maximum sign allocation of 100 square footage per tenant.

It's permitted.

Okay, this is the Korean Sunning map of the location, which is Cambue District.

This is the aerial view of the property.

Um the applicant is requesting approval for two monument signs, sorry, sorry, wall signs and one for each facade.

This is the main facade which is facing um Wintroff Avenue, and is the facade they actually have the entrance to the tenant space.

This is the second facade that is facing um Sunset Drive and is also visible from Brian Irvine Road, which is the other one over here.

So this is the first proposed sign on the main facade.

Um meets the in this is the second one in a combined signal location and they have a combined of 120 square footage, and which is a little bit above what is currently allowed, which is 100 square footage.

Um, however, what the code doesn't address specifically this configuration for cornered tenant spaces to have um wall sign for each facade.

Um proposed amendments to the signing standards are currently under consideration to that will recognize and probably make more flexible for corner tenant spaces to have um wall signs in each facade instead of coming to the commission for that waiver.

Um the proposal responds to the unique conditions of a corner tenant space with two prominent and street facing facades and multiple public street furniture.

So that's why they the applicant, which is Highlands Church, is proposing to signage one for each facade.

Um stamp finds that proposed signs are appropriately scale to the building elevations and in an oriented towards adjacent publics right away and provide clear identification of the institutional use without creating visual clutter, um, giving the well staff recommend um approval of the waiver.

Um this is going to staff report.

So to clarify, the the proposed amendments would allow this without having to come before UDC.

Yes, for tech for a corner tenant spaces, they have multiple um elevation facades facing pool district.

We also have Lydia from Cambuwi District here that she can speak a little bit more about it too.

But do you have any more questions for me before we go to good morning?

My name is Lydia Wahardo Rickard.

I represent uh Campbury District Inc.

as their executive director.

Um we've been working with staff on this project and other projects similar to this.

Our future code, uh our proposed code that's under review right now, would allow for two signs if a business has two facing streets.

So this is a bound by both of those.

It is um obviously at the maximum proposal, which is 125 square feet, which is what the amendments would move forward with.

Um, this is a unique property aside from what the future code would allow for, as they do not have a campway face.

They have a face into Winthrop, which is an interior street separating the two properties both from the east and west.

It also has a face or the back side of their business would face Brian Irvin.

And so it provides a little bit of complexity when you look at trying to give them the maximum visibility while Campbell District isn't always in favor of more signage.

We understand the complications with a particular property like this.

So we would suggest and we align ourselves with the recommendation of staff.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here to speak?

You'd like to speak.

Okay.

I'm Stephen Klein.

I'm from Fort Worth, Texas.

So the part of the part of what that shows is actually a little bit off.

So that back corner of the building isn't technically ours either.

So uh I mean it seems like everybody's in favor of it, so I don't want to go into too much, but I can't put a sign on that side either.

So I really only have this frontage here in the in the uh side that faces sunset drive.

Uh the back side is is so close to uh Brian Irvin uh that it would be difficult for anybody to see it at all.

It wouldn't be worth it.

Uh not to mention that there's a lot of uh piping and other things because of the drainage, and there's just a lot on the back side of the building, so we would have to do more stuff.

So we thought the most innovative but best utilization of signage would be on this side that faces sunset, at least you know, because everybody going that way on Brian Irvin ends up going that way on Brian Urban.

So uh yeah, so thank you for your time and consideration.

Yeah, thanks.

Uh the oh uh I'm sorry, one more thing.

So uh the uh the reason for the size on the on the front uh that faces the what is that road there?

Winthrop.

Yeah, it it's it's odd because it almost isn't yes, uh this it's odd because that almost isn't a road.

I know it is a road, but it seems more like a parking lot.

Like if you've ever been there, like you know that.

Uh so people coming in uh to turn into the property to get to us, turn into the property near the uh theater, and so uh the bigger signage is so that people can see it from when they turn in uh to right there at the at the theater.

Uh, because you have a straight line of sight to our building, uh, but it would be great if we could have a a bigger sign there.

So that's the reason for the increase.

Thank you.

Any questions for me?

Okay, more.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in favor?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

Seems straightforward to me.

I make a motion to approve.

Second, we have a motion by commissioner Ramsey and a second by commissioner read.

Um, Chair Banner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chairman Z, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner West, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you?

Hi.

Commissioner Henrier, how do you vote?

Hi.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Hi.

And Commissioner Mose.

Hi.

Okay, motion passes A0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So now we're back on track with the agenda.

So objective number three.

So uh still have a quorum.

Commissioner DeBose and I both have to recuse for the TCU case.

So I think we we do have a quick update on the TCU case.

Um, staff has been discussing with the applicant, and there's some possible changes.

So we're gonna seek a withdrawal.

Okay.

So my recommendation, Chair.

If you're okay with it, is to hear this case, and if there's a conflict, you step out, we hear it administratively recuse it and UDC accept the withdrawal.

And then we go to the JPS case.

Okay.

So the next case we'll hear is UDC 2026 140 2950 West Barrie, and the we're gonna request that the UDC administratively withdraw that case.

Uh, just in terms of a point of procedure, the UDC does have to accept the withdrawal.

Uh Trey, do we need a formal vote on that?

If it's an administrative from staff, we don't we don't need to.

It's it's just withdrawn.

So we won't open the case, we won't hear the case today.

Okay.

You may hear it in the future.

All right.

With that, we're gonna skip through these slides and go straight to now.

We're gonna do UDC 2026-129 at 1300 South Main Street.

Commissioner DeBoes needs to recuse.

Yep.

Correct.

This is the last case of the day.

So you get to go home a little early.

All right.

Um so UDC 2026, 129-1300 South Main Street.

Um, the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for a 10-story medical outpatient building within the near-south side form based code with uh four waivers.

The first waiver is from the building height standards to allow mechanical to allow mechanical equipment to exceed the roof height by 20 feet, or mechanical equipment may not exceed the roof height by more than 20 feet.

Number two, waiver from the building height standards to allow mechanical equipment to occupy 65% of the roof area, or mechanical equipment shall not occupy more than 25% of the roof area.

Number three, waiver from the building height standards to allow mechanical equipment to be up to zero feet from the edge of the roof, where mechanical equipment must be set back at least 10 feet from the edge of the roof.

Number four, uh waiver from the rooftop equipment screening standards to allow rooftop rooftop equipment visible from neighboring properties at the same level where mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the street or neighboring properties at the same level or below.

No, that's a whole lot dealing with a lot of mechanical equipment on the top of the roofs, and usually we don't deal with that too much.

Um this parcel is in the near south side, it's an ST5I zoning.

Uh the lot is look is owned by Terrant County Hospital District, otherwise known as JPS Hospital.

Um, and it is just north of JPS's main facility, which includes a 580-bed hospital community clinics, and almost 5,000 staff who work here in Fort Worth.

Um, this site is part of JPS's broader campus expansion plans.

So here's the aerial, and it kind of shows it fairly well.

I just want to highlight a couple things.

The main hospital currently is in this area down here to the south of the subject site.

Uh the proposed building is here on the northeast corner of West Magnolia and South Main, and then uh directly to the west is the Main Street parking garage, and then to the southeast is the forthcoming hospital tower that JPS is looking to build.

Um, and as part of this large campus expansion, JPS did open up the psychiatric emergency center at the corner of South Jennings and West Allen Avenue just last year, and they've also opened up the Main Street parking garage, which uh adds 2500 spaces uh of parking and um uh just directly to the west there of the subject site, and then they have the upcoming pavilion, which is expected to open in 2030.

So a whole lot going on in this area.

Um, and the subject building is what's referred to as a medical outpatient building.

Um, and again, it's right there at the corner of West Magnolia and South Main.

You can see where it is here on the map, it's the dark gray.

Um, the flat work for the site was approved administratively by UDC 2026 031 earlier this year.

So that includes the building setbacks and the public realm, the streetscape, the sidewalks, pedestrian-like street trees, and all that was approved administratively.

So they could start construction because they have a long road ahead and an aggressive completion timeline.

So here's a kind of close-up of the site plan.

You can see the proposed building.

It's over gonna be over 300,000 square feet when you factor in all 10 floors, and it's designed for medical outpatient services.

So the way it was described to me as a non-medical person is there's kind of a spectrum of service care.

On one end, you have medical office building, which is a traditional office building where you can go and receive outpatient care, but there's not necessarily any surgical services.

And on the other end, you have a full-on chapter 241 general hospital license with the state where you can receive uh non-ambulatory care, you can get in-person treatment, surgeries, things like that.

The medical outpatient building is kind of in between that.

So there are some medical services offered that traditionally are not offered at uh medical office buildings, but um are traditionally housed at general hospitals.

So it requires a bit more equipment than a traditional medical office building, but it's not a full chapter 241 registered hospital.

That's forthcoming with the tower that's being built across the street.

Um, so here is a roof plan of the proposed building.

Um, you can see here the area in green is an enclosed mechanical addict.

So it has enclosure on all four sides, roof sides, and then inside houses equipment, but it's not intended for human habitation, it's just mechanical equipment.

That's really what it is.

It wouldn't be considered uh conditioned space.

Um, and then the area kind of to the north of it uh is screened open exposure mechanical equipment.

So this area in blue is the area that is mechanical equipment, including both the covered and screened, and then just the screened mechanical equipment.

So here is what the facade looks like from the east elevation.

You can see it has the 10 stories, and then the area on top, this area right here is the enclosed mechanical addict.

This area right here is the screened mechanical equipment.

And here's the north elevation.

A few things to note about the exterior of the building.

The building is clad in limestone uh stone panel at the base, and then the upper floors have a combination of ivory stone panel, pewter metal rib panel, and smooth champagne metal panel.

Um, and then here is the south elevation as well.

And here's the list of materials for the site.

The applicants provided a number of renderings that kind of help to illustrate how the building fits within the context and what the ultimate end vision of the site is.

Here's looking from the corner of South Main and uh West Magnolia, kind of looking towards the site, and then here's the view from the prospective hospital tower that's to the southeast of the building.

That hospital tower is expected to be 14 stories tall, so we'll kind of overlook some of the medical uh outpatient building.

And here's another perspective as well.

The applicant did provide a number of studies showing that the mechanical equipment on top of the roof is not visible from current adjacent buildings, but it is important to note that there is gonna be that 14-story tower built directly to the southeast of the site.

So a couple unique things about this site, or one unique thing in particular is the grade change.

So the site has a pretty significant 12-foot change in grade.

So on the northern side of the property on the northern property line along West West Magnolia, you have an elevation of about 645 feet, and then on the southern tip of the property, you have an elevation of 657 feet.

So there's this 12-foot change in grade on the site.

Um, so I'm gonna show you this this diagram represents it pretty well.

Part of the first level is actually subterranean.

So it creates this kind of interesting perspective where from the West Magnolia side, you really cannot see that mechanical addict at all.

It's set back to the southern side of the property.

Um from the curb up to the top of the parapet wall on the northern side of the property, it's 156 feet, nine inches, and then from the southern side, because of that change in grade from the curb to the top of the parapet wall in the mechanical addict, it's 162 feet, three inches, so a little more than six feet change.

Um, so just something to keep in mind that how that train impacts the site.

So again, the applicant seeking four waivers, one for the roof height of the mechanical addict because it's more than 10 feet, and currently they're at 18 feet 11 inches with a two-foot parapet wall.

Secondly, because the mechanical area occupies more than 25% of the roof area.

They're about 65% of the roof area when you include include the enclosed mechanical addict and the screened mechanical area.

Three, because part of that mechanical area is not set back 10 feet from the roof edge, just to kind of go to the roof plan, you can clearly see that in the southeast corner, it's less than the required 10 feet because of the curvature of the building, and that curvature of the building follows the curvature of South Main.

That's why the building curves there, and they're not able to achieve that 10 feet.

And then lastly, for the mechanical equipment on the top of the building not being screened, which you can see here, and that's mechanical equipment on top of the mechanical addict.

Um I will say when it comes to the mechanical mechanical equipment, it's pretty technical.

The applicant is here and could probably speak to more about what that is.

Um that's well beyond anything you learn in planning school.

Um so just I'll let them answer the details on that.

Uh but given the above, um, staff is recommending the following motions that the request for a certificate of appropriateness uh for a 10-story medical outpatient building within your south side form-based code with the following waivers.

Uh number one, waiver from the building height standards to allow a mechanical addict to exceed the roof height by 20 feet.

Number two, waiver from the building height standards to allow the mechanical equipment to occupy 65% of the roof area.

Number three, waiver from the building high standards to allow the mechanical equipment to be up to zero feet from the edge of the roof, and then number it that those three waivers be approved, and then the fourth waiver, staff is recommending uh denial on, and that's the waiver for the rooftop uh equipment screening.

So staff's in support of the first three waivers.

Uh we we think that the uh fourth one is relatively easy to be achieved through just a simple screening.

I know that's a whole lot.

Um, available to answer any questions and the applicant is here as well.

What's prohibiting the applicant from adding screening for that to get away from the fourth waiver so that it's not the equipment's not visible from at the same level?

Um I'll let the applicant speak to that, but I think their main justification is that from their studies you can see here from current adjacent buildings, it's not viewable.

But the letter of the code is that it's from the ground level or adjacent buildings.

So currently today, from any of the adjacent buildings, you would not be able to see it.

But when that 14-story hospital tower comes in at floors 11, 12, 13, and 14, you would be able to see it from at least uh a similar height from an adjacent property.

Joe, can you explain?

So if I'm looking at figure 11, so are you saying that it's on top of where that logo is?

The medical so it's on top.

Okay.

Yeah, this is the area that's unscreened and viewable from the same height.

This area kind of directly to the north is screened.

You can see that screen wall there, and then it's open air.

How much equipment is going to be on exposed and not outside the screen?

Do we see that on that diagram of the rooftop?

So this is this is the one that best shows it.

So this area right here is screened, but exposed.

Then additionally, there's some rooftop units on top of the mechanical addict, which are unscreened.

So it's big four big units up there, right?

At least four, I'd let the applicant speak to the specifics of the so that that's this is where the applicants provided to be clear.

It's the blue area 65.

When we're looking at total area uh taken up by mechanical equipment, the code allows 25%.

But when you factor in the mechanical attic itself, the area that is screened, it comes to 65%.

Thank you, Joe.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes.

And so is uh near Southside, I believe, as well.

Okay, great.

Morning.

We sp state your name in the city in which you reside.

Yeah, my name is uh Jaron Ricketts, principal architect.

I uh currently live in in Dallas, Texas.

But uh for the record, I grew up in Arlington, but I married a Dallas girl, so I'm in Dallas.

Um I appreciate Gerald's time today.

Uh so this project, Joe did a really good job at just explaining it.

Um, it is very uh critical for Tarrant County for uh just as he explained what is all inside of this, and so the big thing for us is the equipment that could that uh allows this building to operate is not what you normally uh see.

And so we put quite a bit of careful attention, the entire team from uh from uh the uh the ownership side as well as just the design team and everybody involved, um, as well as working with Joe and his team in the the city um to make sure that that we were good stewards of both what uh JPS is out to achieve, but also the taxpayers' dollars, and so with the equipment itself, that is all sitting mostly inside of the penthouse.

We carefully designed that so that it looked like it was just part of the building, and so that's why it's very difficult to tell that that's what that is.

Any of the larger pieces of equipment that are much taller to be able to support the surgery center and other things of that nature are behind the screen wall as Joe explained it.

Um that's the reason why we need that wall to be higher, is to screen the larger pieces of equipment that are necessary to support this type of building.

The smaller pieces of equipment that are things such as exhaust fans that are relief vents uh for stair pressurization, things of that nature, uh, for life safety, those are going on top of the the penthouse roof, and those range anywhere from two to five feet off the surface of the roof, including their curbs.

Um, and so trying to keep that in an area that is um not visible from the adjacent properties.

Yes, it would be visible from one of uh JPS's other buildings uh in the future, um, but it is not visible from the rest of the properties, and we carefully tried to lay that out as such.

And so we are requesting um waivers from all four uh for your consideration.

Is there a plan to maybe paint the units or paint it so it blends a little bit better?

It doesn't stick out so much if you have it exposed.

The units are coated with um with uh not necessarily a paint to try to blend it in with the building, but they're coated with um weather protection basically.

And so if we try to paint them, that's just going to affect it.

Remember, they're they're exhaust fans and things of that nature, and so we're we're we haven't explored anything of that nature just because it's not what normally happens with that type of equipment.

What is uh is there colors to the rooftop equipment?

Yeah, it's it's mostly going to be like a galvanized type of look.

Yeah, okay.

So what I'm hearing is that you out and did everything y'all could to adjust it, but this building can go up with that.

It it uh the fans being where they at.

Yes, sir.

Have you looked into adding some screening above the an house?

Yes, we have.

Um, and again, not that we're trying to focus too much on the cost of things, but we are trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

Um, it'll range anywhere from 200 to 250,000 to screen that, which which actually funny funny enough exceeds the value of the equipment itself.

That's why the majority of where the money is being spent in terms of screening is on the larger pieces of equipment on the lower roof.

Is it the new JPS building the only building that will be able to see the top of this?

Currently, yes.

Do we have future plans for other buildings to be taller in that area that would see it?

In the near south side NST5I district, a general hospital can be built up to 20 stories.

Uh other buildings would be capped at 10.

Um, and in order to get that 20 store, you have to be registered with the state as a general hospital.

So theoretically, yes, if JPS chose to build to the north of West Magnolia in the NST5I district, it could go up.

Um, but usually hospitals are somewhat constrained in terms of their general hospital footprint.

Nothing residential could be built in the area for P you know people to look out their windows and see rooftop equipment or something like that.

So this is all related to the hospital function in that part of the city.

Correct.

So if anything happens, it's just hospital buildings.

It'll be taller than this.

Yep.

Thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Near South Side.

Morning.

Good morning, Austin James with Near South Side.

We brought this to our uh design review committee last month that received unanimous support for for all four waivers at that.

We recognize that they had a lot of constraints due to the mechanical equipment that's that's needed, and they did a good job of screening almost all of it.

There's a little bit that sticks up that that y'all are talking about a little more in depth here.

I think kind of our thought was that it's it's so minor and you'd really need to be at a pretty extreme angle or in an adjacent building, which only would be JPS.

I have not, besides, you know, things at Texas Health Harris, which is probably at least a half mile or so away.

So nothing is particularly close to this, so I that's kind of our our sake.

And I want to echo the comments as well about this being just such a critical component to the master plan for JPS and for district anchor for for them.

So happy to expand on any of that, but thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in favor?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay, we'll close the uh public comment portion.

I'm not a fan of um having it exposed just because the even on 35 you can see the tops of those buildings, and when the I know that the other hospitals have done a really good job of trying to lend in the equipment, so it's not such an eye sore.

Um that's my only concern.

So I kind of agree with with what the staff is recommending, approving the first three and denying the fourth.

I wonder though, if from I-35 you're gonna be able to see that anyway, given how tall the building is.

Yeah.

Sounds like maybe from I-35 you would you would not be able to see the equipment probably because of the height of the building.

Uh I'll pull up the studies here.

It's being shaken.

Yeah, okay.

This kind of shows not exactly the I-35 perspective exactly, but adjacent buildings.

Um you cannot see the even the mechanical equipment that's unscreened on top of the mechanical addict.

Is even from 35, you've got to go across the tracks, another lot, or you then hit that and in 35 down slightly.

I don't know for sure, but it feels like it, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

I tend to agree with near South Side's position.

Uh just because it's such a minor, a minor issue, and the only folks that would be able to see this potentially someday would be uh hospital residents or occupants.

Uh, you're not gonna have to Commissioner Ramsey's point, doesn't sound like you'll have any kind of residential or general office development in that area that would be able to to see at the same level uh the equipment for the fourth waiver.

And I kind of look at trying to look at the value of that building being there in a minor uh.

So I'm kind of gone with uh south on.

Well, and I'll just add I it's funny that it the screens are more expensive than the equipment that they're they're hiding.

So I do appreciate the uh effort of putting the money into the building and not you know wasting on screens all of our tax dollars, yeah.

Um I'm in agreement with the south side.

So I'm gonna make a motion to approve all four waivers um on this project.

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from Commissioner Reed to approve waivers one through four so that's waiver from building height to allow mechanical equipment to exceed roof high by twenty feet waiver from building high standards to allow mechanical equipment to occupy sixty five percent of the roof area waiver from building high standards to allow mechanical equipment zero feet from the edge and waiver from rooftop equipment to allow from the rooftop equipment screening standards to allow rooftop equipment visible from neighboring properties at the same level chairman benner how do you vote aye commissioner west how do you vote aye commissioner reed how do you vote commissioner reed oh aye commissioner hughes how do you vote aye commissioner ramse how do you vote aye commissioner moss how do you vote aye commissioner harrier how do you vote aye motion passes seven zero to approve all four waivers and that is the last case we have today thank you Joe we are adjourned see you next month happy birthday America yes yes happy birthday america