Yes, I hope that's so how does it happen to check out that's what I was wanting to make sure that you're gonna start here in a couple minutes, uh, just in the interim for all the uh citizens in the room.

Uh, if you want to sign up to speak, please fill out the paper form and bring it up here to my right and hand it to Laura at the computer.

Um, you can fill out the paper form or scan the QR code, either one works.

We just ask that you do that before the commission meeting starts and before the case is heard.

We're gonna we're gonna get started.

The announcements usually take a few minutes, and we got some some announcements today.

Uh good morning.

Hope everyone had a good July 4th and is surviving the World Cup.

Uh welcome to the Urban Design Commission meeting for Thursday, July 16th.

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 Carr, Commissioner DeBose, Commissioner Halliday, Commissioner Hughes, Vice Chair Ramsey, and Commissioner Reed.

Did I miss anyone?

All right.

Staff present today are Jefferson Prado Ortiz, Laura Young, Caleb Olson, uh Francisco Vega, Inca Reer, Chris Austria, and uh myself, Joseph Laws.

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

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

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

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

Um not to diverge too much, but we are also live streaming right now too.

So you really can't cuss now.

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

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

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

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

Opposition may then speak for 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 to my left, the commission's right to present.

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

And uh 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.

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

For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the development services department by calling 817-39280.

Thank you for your attention and welcome to the Fort Worth Urban Design Commission meeting for July 16th, 2026.

Mr.

Chair, will you please call this meeting to order?

Good morning, everybody.

We are called to order.

Uh welcome to the July meeting of the UDC.

Any announcements this morning.

We do.

Um we have uh a bunch of announcements.

Umbassadors, our interns are not here.

They're running a bit late this morning, but our two interns, Jonathan and Diego, this is their last one.

That you may see them coming at uh part way through this hearing.

Uh the city's ambassador or internship program is only two months.

So they show up one meeting and then they're they're gone the next.

They grow up very fast.

Um we have some staff announcements as well.

We wanna welcome uh Nathan Bevel.

Uh he's back here in the blue.

He's our new senior planner for historic preservation, mostly focused in on historic preservation, but given the overlap with the urban design districts and form-based codes, you guys may see him uh present to you in the future.

Also, we want to welcome or rewelcome uh Francisco Vega, who's our new interim planning manager over here.

Um welcome.

I believe Francisco has presented to the UDC before uh related to Panther Island uh form-based code and some signage things.

Um he's still doing his other full-time job of being the senior planner for downtown, you know, doing what I do for the urban for the downtown review board.

He's still doing that in addition to the interim planning manager role.

Um a couple of other announcements.

I believe the commission you all should have received an email about this.

Uh APA Texas is doing a commissioner training in August uh over at North Richland Hills.

It's a good opportunity.

Uh did you guys receive the email?

Okay, cool.

Uh uh wasn't getting many visual cues there.

Um so uh it's a good opportunity to uh hear from APA Texas about the role of commissioners in the development process.

And additionally, kind of speaking to APA Texas, they have their uh annual conference October 14th through 16 in Irving.

Uh the call for proposals for that was pushed back to later this month.

So if anyone wants to uh present at that, we we certainly encourage that.

And uh lastly, community design Fort Worth, a local nonprofit is continuing their transit academy.

It happens, it shifts between the second and third Wednesday every month.

You can go to community design Fort Worth to find out more about that, but it's a good opportunity to learn about the region's local transit systems, the different uh programs, policies, and priorities that the community is taking to promote public transit.

So that's all the announcements we have.

All right, thank you.

Minutes from last month, we have a motion to approve those.

Move approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve the June 18th meeting minutes from Commissioner De Bose and a second from Commissioner Ramsey.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

All right, motion passes seven zero.

Uh we don't have any continuing cases, so we're gonna go on to new cases, and um today we're starting with a couple of UFC ones.

Um, I'm gonna bring up Caleb, who uh works with the urban forestry team to present these two.

Good morning.

My name is Kale Bolson.

I'm the senior plans examiner on the urban forestry team.

Um we have two items to present to you guys today.

The first one is UDC case number UDC-2026-135, and the urban forestry permit number is UFC 26 0054.

This is for 7901 Ederville Road, it's in Council District 5.

The zoning is G.

The owner and agent are 786 investment LL seed and Javid Hyder.

And the request is a request for certificate of appropriateness from urban forestry ordinances 25% preservation requirement for protected species trees to allow a 0% tree preservation requirement.

All right, so this is just an existing area of the site on our zoning map.

Um, you can see the adjacent zonings.

We get a lot of G, some E across Ederville, um PD 809 over here.

The property, it's 1.34 acres, and it's currently undeveloped with this existing drive that connects Ederville to this operating gas station here.

Um this is the existing canopy.

So there are 19 protected species trees on site.

You can see here the the actual canopy area on site is about 10,700 square feet, but the majority of those trees are non-protected species.

This is coming in under the current urban forestry ordinance.

So our ordinance takes into account species.

So there's really only 19 trees on site.

They are all a post oak trees, but they're all between the six to 10 inch diameter and breast height or dbH range.

Um, so not mature post oaks.

And the total canopy area for just the protected species trees is a little over 1400 square feet.

I'll pull the numbers up at the end.

That's 1,408.

Typically, they'd be required to preserve half of that area since all of the existing canopy is post-oaks.

Our current ordinance, post oaks and blackjack oaks, get treated a little special because those are trees that we can actively replace.

Effectively, all the post oaks we have in Fort Worth is all the post oaks we'll ever have in Fort Worth.

Um they get treated a little differently.

The requirement would be 50% preservation.

The main driving force behind the request.

Um the location, most of the trees are located pretty centrally, but the main driving force is the grading that's gonna be required.

So it's a little difficult to make out, but from the northwest corner to the southeast corner, the grade goes from 566 feet to like 548.

So there's the gradient over the site, it's basically 18 feet of grade change.

Um this plan in particular, it's a little bit tough to make out again because of the size, but we have retaining walls here, retaining wall here, this whole thing around here is a retaining wall.

So to develop the site, they're gonna have significant grading challenges that they're gonna have to face.

And again, based on the location of the existing trees, there's really no existing trees that are good candidates for preservation.

So we'll get into the proposed canopy coverage.

Um the required canopy coverage for the site is 17,474 square feet.

Um their proposed canopy is actually 24,550 square feet.

So we have eight proposed cedar elms in the green here.

Those are all large species trees that get 2,000 square feet of credit.

12 proposed Chinese pistache.

I believe this is fuchsia.

Um those are all medium species trees, they get 700 square feet of credit each, and then 15 crepe myrtles in the light blue.

Those are all small species trees, those each get 100 square feet of canopy credit each.

We'll get into the numbers here.

So again, the gross site area is 58,463 square feet.

The net urban forestry area, which is that growth site gross site area minus deductible areas like utility easements, that's 58,247 square feet.

The existing tree canopy area is 1,408 square feet.

All the existing trees are postos.

So the preservation requirement is actually 50% for the site, which is the 704 square feet.

Um the required tree canopy for the site, 17,474.

The applicant is proposing zero preservation, and they are providing 24,550 square feet of canopy.

So the required tree canopy for commercial use is 30% canopy coverage.

This site is coming in at 42.1, which is very good.

And their parking lot canopy requirement, 40% of your area of parking needs to have canopy coverage.

They exceed that requirement by 3,280 square feet.

So given the above, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a waiver from the City of Fort Worth zoning ordinance, section 6.302 J4, preservation requirements for protected tree species canopy be granted, reducing the 50% post oak tree preservation requirement from this development to 0%.

And I'm available if you guys have any additional questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Seems pretty straightforward.

Anyone here to in addition to speak in favor of this case?

Yes, there's a representative here for the applicant if you guys have any questions.

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

Oh, Commissioner Reed.

What?

What's staff?

Request for staff.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay, so you say and staff recommend approval.

Yes, sir.

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

Good morning, everybody.

Um, Daniel and I got in Mesquite, Texas.

Any specific comments or just open and answering questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay, well, thanks for coming up.

I think we're good.

Anyone to speak in opposition?

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

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Seem pretty straightforward to me, and I recommend approval of the request for the waiver from the CFW zone and order section 6.30.

Preservation requirement for a protective tree specimen canopy granite reducing 50% post oak tree preservation requirement for this development plan to zero.

A motion to approve has been made and seconded.

Chair Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

And Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes 70.

All right.

So our second case this morning is UDC case number UDC-2026-164.

And the urban forestry permit number is UFC 26-0147.

The site is currently two properties.

It'll be replatted in one.

So currently, this request covers 5301 and 5321 White Settlement Road.

It's in Council District 7.

The zoning is E.

The owner is 5305 White Settlement Road LLC.

The agent is Paul Kelly with Westwood Professional Services.

And the request for this site is the applicant requests a certificate certificate of appropriateness from the urban forestry ordinances, 25% preservation requirement for existing canopy to allow an 11.1 tree or tree preservation requirement.

This site's going to be a little different from the previous one, and I'll just give you a little bit of background information.

So this project originally came in for a pre-development conference.

I don't know if you guys are familiar, but I'll explain it.

Pre-development conference.

So this came in for pre-development conference that was hosted on January 7th, 2025.

That was before the urban forestry ordinance that we're currently in, got adopted in April of 2025.

So when applications for urban forestry come in where they have something like a pre-development conference from the previous ordinance, they can opt between which version of the urban forestry ordinance they'd like to utilize for their project.

This project chose to utilize the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance.

So it's gonna be the requirements are a little different from a lot of the cases we've been showing for the last year.

The two main changes that affect the site when using the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance is that that version of the ordinance did not have post oak specific preservation.

The site has a lot of post oak trees under the current ordinance.

They'd be required to preserve 50% of that under the previous ordinance, which they're permitting under.

There was no special post oak preservation requirement.

The second main difference is under the current ordinance, any post oak tree that's 18 inches in diameter at breast height or DBH is considered significant.

If you want to remove it, mitigation is required.

Under the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance, that 18-inch cutoff was only for sites east of I-35 West.

The site's located west of I-35 West, so post oaks don't become significant until they hit 27 inches DBH for this site.

See the two properties here, the property line between them is about right here.

We have this existing property, which appears to be an out-of-use gas station.

I believe they're just two small existing trees on the site.

And then this other property has four existing structures on it.

So there's a corner store here, there's a small residential structure here, another residential structure here, and then a larger residential structure here, and then there's also this gravel drive that comes through the property.

So both properties combined have an area of 1.31 acres, and there are five significant post oak trees on site.

Before we get into those, I'll just mention the zoning.

So there's a lot of different zoning types directly around these properties.

There's A5 located just to the south down here.

There is CF, which is just southeast.

There is E, which is both north and east on the other side of these roads.

There's FR, which is west, and then MU1, which is southwest, and then there's also a PD nearby, PD724.

The net urban forestry area or the NUFA for this site is 56,658 square feet.

The existing tree canopy area is 25,806 square feet, as you can see.

Almost all of the existing canopies on this property.

Again, there are five significant post oak trees on site.

This is the urban forestry phase one plan that they provided.

Another difference between the previous ordinance and this one.

Under the current ordinance, they did they did conduct a full tree survey.

Under the current ordinance, there that full tree survey would have been provided in the urban forestry plans under the previous ordinance.

They just need to show all the existing canopy, which they've done correctly, identify all of their significant trees, which they've done correctly, show the locations and provide species, DBH canopy area.

So we have that.

We have these five significant trees.

We have tree 4171.

We have some more pictures of that one later that'll be shown in the presentation.

That is a 30-inch post oak tree.

Tree 4169, that's a 27-inch post oak tree.

Tree 4172, that is a 30-inch post oak, tree 1967, which is a 27-inch post oak, and then tree 1955, which is a 36-inch post oak.

Tree 1955 is proposed to be preserved.

These other four are proposed to be removed.

I'll get into the methods of mitigation on those a little bit later.

This is the proposed site plan.

So again, tree 1955 is proposed to be preserved.

The symbol shows the tree protection.

Typically, the base requirement for tree protection on significant trees is to install chain link fencing either at around the critical root zone, which is calculated based on the DBH of the tree, or at the drip line, which is basically the edge of the branches.

As you can see from the overlay here, they can't quite maintain the tree protection for the entire drip line of the tree.

Speaking with the applicant, none of the proposed development will be done within 17 feet of the trunk of the tree.

And there they have some additional methods that they're going to use to better work around the root system here that I'll get into.

So number wise, again, the canopy requirement, the base canopy requirement for the site, it's commercial site, so 30% canopy coverage.

That would be just under 17,000 square feet.

So both tree 4171 and 4172.

They can be mitigated with additional planting, which is basically when you remove a significant tree, you can choose to plant in excess of your requirement at five times that removed canopy area.

So with the proposed planting, both of those trees can be mitigated with additional planting.

The other two trees will need to be mitigated via payment into the tree fund, and that payment into the tree fund, which that's fund controlled by parks to plant trees across the city.

There are five different districts in that tree fund.

So they make sure that a site that contributes to the tree fund, the trees are going in the general area of that project.

That payment would be $16,200.

And so with those two trees being mitigated with preservation, we'll get into the numbers here.

So the gross site area for both properties, 57,111 square feet.

The net urban forestry area, this is after easements have been deducted, is 56,658 square feet.

The existing tree canopy area is 25,806 square feet, or 45.5% of the NUFA.

The required tree preservation would be 6,452, which is 25%.

Their required tree canopy is 33,092 square feet.

And again, this includes an additional just over 6,000 of square feet from the mitigation.

So commercial sites normally have 30% canopy coverage with the mitigation.

This site's requirement is 58.4.

Their provided preservation is that tree 1955 that has a canopy area of 2,858, and it is a significant tree, so preserving it, they get an additional 50% credit that goes towards their planting.

So between that preservation and their proposed trees, they have a provided tree canopy coverage of 33,937, which is just over their requirement, but it's they're at 59.9% coverage on a commercial site where the requirement is 30.

So they're essentially double what a normal commercial use would need to provide.

Again, there's a requirement for 40% of the area of parking to have canopy coverage.

For this site, they have exceeded that parking canopy requirement by 11,652 square feet.

Obviously, oh sorry, we'll get into the photographs here.

So this is that tree 4171.

As I showed you guys, this tree here.

Again, as you can see, overhanging the existing building, extremely close proximity to demo work that'll need to be done to develop the site.

All of these pictures were taken during a site visit on July 9th.

And then this is the tree 1955.

This is the existing tree that's proposed to be preserved right down here.

That existing structure is within about three feet of that tree.

So the normal tree protection where you just kind of put a chain link fence around it and don't move it.

That can't quite happen during demolition.

So there is another set of tree protection that's going to be going in, which is bark strapping.

It's basically just taking a bunch of two by fours, wrapping them around the trunk to try and prevent trunk damage, and then the demolition of this structure, and I believe the pad are planned to be done without machinery.

So we shouldn't have anything driving through here, ripping everything up.

And then so given the above staff or sorry, give the above staff recommends the following that the request for a waiver from the City of Fort Worth zoning ordinance, section 6.302 G4, general provision methods of tree canopy be granted, reducing the 25% tree preservation requirement for this development plan to 11.1.

We are requesting conditional approval.

The condition is ensuring that the removed post oaks are provided to local woodworking and sawyer networks who will ensure that the wood is utilized for furniture and other products to avoid just being disposed of in a landfill.

We treated this case similarly to another one that we had, I believe it was about a year and a half ago.

Similar thing, it was a smaller site just over an acre.

The majority of the trees were mature post oak trees.

Um we had the same recommendation under that one, which was the conditional approval, making sure that the wood gets provided for second so it has a second life, and we're making the same recommendation here.

I'm available if you guys have any questions.

I have a question for staff.

Caleb, what happens in the unlikely event that that post oak gets damaged and dies during construction?

Sure.

So if for some reason the the warranty for any preserved trees is it needs to be viable, which means it's not in it's not dead or damaged or in declining health five years from the date of completion of construction.

So our whenever the site gets completed and the new trees get planted, our inspector goes out and does a final inspection, and then he sets a timer for both two years and five years.

That five year inspection comes if tree 1955 isn't viable for preserv or isn't is no longer viable for some reason related to the construction activities, then it would need to be replaced at five times its canopy area.

So that's going to be just under 15,000 square feet of canopy.

And because it's also a significant tree, it would need to have its normal mitigation.

So the site is fully planted with their proposed plan.

So what we would likely have to do in that case is we would have to switch the methods of mitigation, all five significant trees.

We need to switch all of those to mitigation via payment into the tree fund.

Um so two trees would have already been paid for and mitigated, the other three would need to be mitigated via payment into the tree fund.

I have that number written down somewhere.

So that would be an additional 28,800 dollars that would get paid into the parks tree fund, and then by switching the methods of mitigation on 4171 and 4172, that would allow the five times canopy requirement to replace this if it doesn't survive to be covered by this existing plan, assuming another large species tree gets planted here.

So if for some reason this tree doesn't make it five years from the end of construction, then there's a path to get plans that are approvable and meet requirements, and the trade-off would be additional payments into the parks tree fund.

Thank you.

What happens if the current owner no longer owns the property?

Urban forestry plans and permits run with the land.

So if this bosun passes today and the urban forestry phase one plan gets approved, the new owner needs to maintain that plan.

So the preservation shown in that plan would need to be maintained, or if the site plan changes or they can't meet that preservation, if they're not hitting 25%, we're coming right back to UDZ.

When you if you have to come back, which plan would they be on?

Would it be on the current plan?

So if the site plan changes, the reason this project is vested under the old ordinance.

This is the site plan that was presented during that pre-development conference.

So if someone comes in with a new use or new site plan, they're now under the current urban forestry ordinance, which for mature post oaks has much tougher requirements.

Are there any utilities on the site?

Um looks to me, I can't, I guess it's wide settlement on the north side or whatever.

Yeah, so the only two easements that they have called out right now are on the northeast and northwest corners.

That was a concern that we noted in the staff report.

Um typically when these plans come in, we're provided.

Sites can be in all different phases of platting when they come in for urban forestry.

Um, best case scenarios we have a draft of the final plat that they've either submitted or will be submitting.

We don't have that for this case.

I'll let the applicant speak on any information they already know about what easements would be required for this property.

Um yeah, the only two area of easements that we have shown right now are in this northwest corner and the northeast corner.

But it does seem like they've pushed all the trees to the perimeter of the property, and there are aerial power lines on the what looks like white settlement and then the road to the I guess that would be the west.

Right?

The west here?

Yes, I believe there's overhead power lines on the north and west side of this property.

So these are large canopy trees.

Will they be conflicting with those power lines?

Um, should we be concerned about?

So cedar ohm trees tend to get a little higher before they spread out like a live oak, but yes, there could be concerns with those trees if those overhead power lines are gonna remain during construction.

Typically encore, we'll just come in and hack them.

So we're right.

Yeah, that's possible.

Yeah.

I mean, is this an ideal planting scenario?

I guess that's the question.

Um planting locations again.

The site is basically as planted as you can get.

We even have some trees here.

Um these circles around the trees, they're 50-foot diameter circles.

That's the 2,000 square feet of canopy we give them.

There's a couple trees that are within 40 feet of each other, so they start getting spacing reductions.

Um without incurring more spacing reductions, this is basically as many trees as they can provide on site with the site plan.

And all the parking spaces, right?

Yes, sir.

So they will be overlap, the trees will be overlapping the parking spaces.

Yes, sir.

That's the goal eventually.

So these four parking spaces here, um, parking spaces out front, and then additional parking here.

Um, as you see, this is with the this is the the circles show the full credit of the canopy they're getting.

So the majority of the parking on site should have tree canopy coverage, not so much at the storefront, but all the other parking should have good canopy coverage over time.

Okay, so law for bid, FL scrum, win, uh, something calm, and you got cars, parking there.

Who would pay for the damage?

I'm not sure.

It's an insurance question.

Regarding the uh conditional recommendation, what's the mechanism for the applicant providing the um the wood to the woodworking network?

So with the other case we had um, I can't remember if it was a formal contract or just an agreement that they'd had with a local, I believe, I believe it was just a local wood worker.

I don't think it was a woodworking company.

Um, where they basically just submitted their agreement that they're gonna be removing these trees.

I believe the the people they're providing the wood to because they were getting a lot of mature post-oak woods.

I believe they actually came out and did the removals for them as part of that agreement.

We would be looking for something similar in this case.

We wouldn't approve typically after we go to the Urban Design Commission.

If you guys vote to approve a motion, we can approve the phase one plan that day.

For this site, it's conditional approval on something that has not been submitted yet.

So if the motion passes as recommended today, their urban forestry phase one plant and these removals are not going to be approved yet.

We're gonna wait for them to submit that information.

All right, any other questions for staff?

Is there anyone here to speak in favor?

Yes, the applicant.

One person here to speak in favor.

Paul, if you want to come up, name city where you're reside.

Welcome, Paul.

Please set your name in the uh city in which you reside.

Good morning.

My name is Paul Kelly.

I'm from Keller, Texas.

Any questions for are you the applicant?

Uh yes.

So I'm the agent on behalf of the applicant.

Um I'm a certified uh arborist with Westwood Professional Services.

I put the plan together, um, took into account.

Caleb did a great job on the presentation, uh, took into account all the constraints on the site that led us to the preservation of that that 1955 lack of preservation on the other post oaks just due to the site constraints, the existing buildings.

Um, one thing I like to reiterate so this is this is not a new development.

This is not just natural land.

This has already been developed.

There's there's uh various structures, retail, commercial, residential that are on site.

And that's why we identified tree number 1955 as at 36 inch post, which I mean that's a very significant post oaks inside the city of Fort Worth.

I mean you can talk estimates that that tree's anywhere from 180 to 250 years old.

Um so that that's very significant tree, but just due to the site constraints, we we don't really have the grading constraints, but it's all the the pavement utilities, structures there.

Um site constraints as far as uh city requirements, city setbacks, having to put that building towards the back of the site.

Um that all contributed to the lack of preservation on the site.

So I I can answer any questions regarding the trees over the parking.

The city has a requirement where 40% of the the uh parking area has to be provided, a canopy has to be provided for that parking area, and those trees, I believe it has to be within 15 feet of the parking space.

So there are city requirements for that, and what that does is that um basically protects those those spots.

It provides shade for the cars for the trees or for the uh the parking areas, things like that.

So there are city requirements regarding that parking um issue.

Mr.

Kelly, have y'all had any discussions about uh who will be taking the uh post oaks and using for our future use?

Yes, sir.

So I've been in contact with the North Texas woodworking uh wood turning group with wood turning association.

Uh talked to the president, the vice president, and a couple other members who are interested in in the wood, and so um we're working with them right now to to get them the wood so they could uh repurpose it, like Caleb was saying, into furniture, um, any other you know, woodworking products.

So they'll provide some type of agreement or some type of uh formal letter stating that yes, they're gonna take it in.

Yes, yes, we're gonna work with them on the details.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh just a quick question for you on the plan layout.

Um I to assume that the top left-hand corner or the northwest side of that, that is where the tanks are going to be located for the station?

Yes, um, near the the existing uh gas station.

All right, cool.

So all of that existing gas station, all those tanks have to come out, the the existing gas station, all the concrete has to come out.

Um and then, like Caleb was saying, I wanted to add to the the preservation and mitigation methods on the tree 1955.

Um, so there is that that shed that's close to that tree.

Um we will be wrapping it, like Caleb said, with the two by fours.

Um in addition, uh no machines will be in there, it will be all hand dug out.

Um so post oaks are very susceptible to root damage, uh root compaction.

And so preventing any type of uh uh mechanized equipment on there will ensure the survivability of that tree.

Um, in addition to that, as you can see here, we are getting, like Caleb said, we are getting into uh a portion of the root zone.

So there's there's uh methods within the uh arbicultural world to help mitigate for that.

So one of the the items we can do is uh uh air pruning, it's a pneumatic air pruning of the roots where we can actually go in properly prune those roots, where we're not just taking um like a bulldozer and excavator and ripping those roots out.

You're using it uh pneumatic tool to air excavate the roots, and then you can clean cut with clean tools.

You can you can clean cut the roots, seal them, which all you know goes into the survivability of that tree during the construction process.

Will you be documenting those techniques as you move through the project?

Is that something that the city will be able to trace that those tools were actually used to help mitigate any damage as it moves forward?

Yes, yeah, working with the urban forestry department, uh, we'll be going out there documenting, um, taking photos of the process.

And then working with Jose, I believe the inspector, um, he'd be going out there, I'm sure uh every so often and just checking up and inspecting the site, making sure that we are doing it properly.

Are you concerned about the perimeter park plantings and uh conflicts with the uh the power lines?

Uh over on the west side, um, I understand the concern.

So technically the easement is off-site off our property, but um as those trees grow, like Caleb was saying, they'll spread out the canopy.

Uh, there are pruning techniques that you can do to help train a tree, um, especially to stay out of power lines.

So the these uh um plans, we can ship those trees a little bit to to stay out of any type of overhead power line as needed.

Um we have more space there along that that southwest corner if we need to move those trees around any other questions for Mr.

Gilly.

Anyone else here to speak in favor?

Thank you, thank you.

So we received three letters of opposition for this one, two letters specifically dealt with the existing post oaks and concerns both on the preservation methods for 19195 and just general concern over the removal of so many mature post oaks.

I don't know if any of those people are here today and have registered to speak.

All right, here's we have one that's here.

All right, four, okay.

All right.

Um have you all registered to speak?

Uh we we have some forms we can have you guys fill out.

Um I know I know we spoke with a couple of those folks about filling out those forms.

If you do come up, we just ask that you you can go to the podium on the side there.

Um your left, the commission's right.

And then I'll just state who we received the three letters from.

I'm expecting some of them might be here today.

So we received one letter from Brandon Bloodsell.

Again, he had concerns with the new the existing trees, their removal, and then he also noted concerns with the applicant being able to use the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance.

Um another one is Margaret Johnson, she's the president of the River District Neighborhood Alliance.

She had a really real really large, well-written letter, similar concerns with the existing post oaks for this property and just generally across the area and across the city.

And then we received another email from Melinda Tattelbaum with the River District Neighborhood Alliance.

However, her concerns were mostly with land use and traffic, which is not something that's being considered today.

And Caleb, while while they fill out those forms, I believe those uh letters are on the tablets.

So if you want to read them, you can.

Um and like Caleb said, we're looking at the UFC waiver today.

Uh staff's also for those in opposition willing to sit down with any of those and hear their concerns outside of this form, but today we are just looking at the the trees.

Caleb, the um, whenever they calculate the overall uh canopy coverage, do they count the p coverage that's outside of the property?

So within the right-of-way, you've shown these circles.

Yeah, so with the urban forestry ordinance, it's all about the trunk.

So as you can see, a lot of this canopy is basically covering off of the property, but the trunks on their property, they need to maintain these trees so they get full canopy credit, even though some of the canopy being provided is over the street.

That canopy credit still counts towards their site.

Similarly, if the neighbor had a really big tree right here that gave a whole bunch of canopy, they don't get any credit for that, not their trunk, not their credit.

And then I will note I meant to mention this at the beginning, but because we're using the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance, um, I discussed the difference in significant trees with how the old ordinance handled it and how the current one handled it.

So I went out there with our inspector, Jose, as Paul mentioned on July 9th, and we taped a bunch of trees, and we located 11 trees that fall within that range of 18 inches to 20 or to just under 27 inches.

So under the current urban forestry ordinance, or under the previous ordinance, the site has five significant trees.

Um under the current ordinance, it would have 16.

We we do have the speaker forms, so Mr.

Chairman, if you want to start calling those folks up, you can just welcome up.

Thanks for being here.

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

My name is Margaret Johnson.

I live at 121 McGee Drive, Fort Worth, Texas.

And I've said you pull down that.

Can you pull down that mic just so they can hear you?

Perfect.

Thank you.

Is it working now?

Uh I did send in an information, and I hope that you got research that the one big thing on that we want you to see is the one that shows the 2024 canopy of the river district and the 2025 canopy of the river district.

That should be in your information.

We are concerned about the trees.

We have questions for you.

The first question is from state's applicant of elected for to the previous urban ordinance, 50% fussed oaks.

That's been apparently okay.

Um so we have 11 trees on site.

Um only five are being discussed.

So that means the other seven are being cut down too.

Um staff reports that the final plot has not been submitted.

It is unclear how the easements were.

Why don't we wait till we get in flat?

Um required canopy is 32 3,092 feet.

Proposed is 339 37.

The margin is 800 square foot tree difference.

1955 is the one left.

Uh it's short 3,400 feet of a canopy.

All right.

Um answered on what it does.

If my question was, what happens if it fails?

And you've answered that question.

Uh staff supports the waiver on the grounds that the post oaks do not fare well when impacted by construction.

This plan puts development inside trees, 1955 critical area.

15 nursery trees are created to today at a protected mature canopy.

How many trees?

Under that actual produces 6,000 29,600 square feet.

How many years will it take to get back to where you're talking about it giving them that access?

Decades, not years.

Does a city track canopy loss in the river district?

Which you received, I hope the photos of 2014 and 2025 from Google and Google Earth.

How many tree priorization waivers has the commission granted in Council District 7 in the last five years?

Many okay, let's see.

What we're asking today is if you plan on approving it is that we wait, you wait until the plat and the plan has been given.

We don't know what they're planning.

We don't know that the city's gonna okay it.

But uh my concern today is the trees, and like I said, if you go back and look at 2014, I moved in in 98.

Where are the trees gone?

Because somebody said we have to move this tree.

You have a picture of a tree that was cut down for the Sadie apartments that could have been saved and was supposed to be saved, and then they cut it down.

It was in the photo, you can see it was about four foot in diameter, and it was put in the dump.

All the trees we have cut down have been put in the dump.

Thank you.

You have any questions?

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Uh anyone else here to speak in opposition.

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

Caleb, the plan that we're seeing here is the final plan and cannot be deviated from even with the play that doesn't deal with trees, the play just deals with property and utility easements and things like that, right?

Correct.

So there can be slight changes like the changing of proposed species.

So if for some reason they wanted to do more live oaks and less cedar elms, that's something that we could do if they wanted to relocate some of the proposed plantings, as long as the provided canopy area is maintained or increase.

That's something we consider, or we could consider again significant changes with the land use or site plan would prevent the site from being vested under that pre-development conference, which brings it under the new urban forestry ordinance, which means we'd have to come back here again.

But minor changes like species and proposed locations, we could review and approve, assuming the canopy area is either the same or more than it is today.

Another question are these species that they're gonna be planting better than the post oaks in terms of uh you know all the things from uh trees in the city.

Sure.

So in Fort Worth, it's very difficult to plant a tree that's better than a post oak.

Um, especially mature post oaks.

Again, like I said with the previous case, there hasn't been a lot of success in nursery raising post oaks.

They're not really available nurseries to purchase for planting.

So we the city of Fort Worth probably has as many post oaks as we will ever have.

So sites that remove post oaks, those trees are essentially gone forever.

It's unlikely to be replaced.

Um their planting plan is excellent, but they're removing a lot of mature post oak trees.

Any site that is having to remove mature post oaks, it would be a difficult argument to say that the canopy is improving with the development, even though they're planting so well, it's just you have a lot of mature post oaks.

This is Commissioner Hughes.

How common is it to approve a tree preservation or or removal and then preservation too without knowing what the site plan will be projected to be.

So are you talking about concerns with how the plat may affect the plan?

The plat and the future use of the property.

Okay.

So again, we have the proposed site plan here, not expecting changes to this.

Um the only reason I brought up in my staff report concerns with the plat is certain easements are deductible area.

Um so you know, say if as they're going through the platting process, um, they call out that there needs to be a 10-foot utility easement here.

Well, now that tree can't get canopy credit, that impacts their whole plan.

It's likely a revised plan that comes in, wouldn't be able to meet.

We might have to go back to UDC.

That's my main concern with the stage of plating right now, is how it may impact their proposed tree locations, not so much the actual site plan itself.

Um again, any impacts that the plat could have.

Um, the reverse could also be true.

Maybe the plat comes through with an easement and some of these existing trees are now in a proposed exempt area.

It's unlikely based on their locations, but it certainly happens with other projects, especially like new neighborhoods where they'll have a bunch of right-a-ways cutting through existing canopy.

Um our preference when reviewing, especially when we're taking cases to UDC, is we would like to at least have either an existing preliminary plat that's been reviewed once, ideally approved, or a draft of the final plat, just so we have an idea on what the easements might look like on the site.

Um we don't have that in this case, which opens the applicant up to a little bit of risk.

If easements impact the tree planting, we got to come back to UDC again.

I can't make a motion.

I make a motion to approve.

And this is motion with the recommended conditional approval, correct?

Make a motion to approve with the can with conditions.

Oh, for the conditions.

Um, I'm assuming that those conditions at some point were stated uh verbally.

Yes.

I can restate them again if you like.

Yes, please.

That's clear for the record.

Staff's recommendation was that the request for a waiver from the City of Fort Worth zoning ordinance, section 6.302 G4.

Again, that's the previous ordinance reference.

General preservation methods of tree canopy be granted, reducing the 25% preservation requirement from this development plan to 11.1%.

Conditional upon ensuring that the removed post oaks are provided to local woodworking and sawyer networks who will ensure the wood is utilized for furniture and other products to avoid being disposed of in a landfill.

Can I ask a question now?

How does the before we there is a motion on the floor?

It needs a second for discussion purposes.

So without a second, it automatically will fail.

So I just wanted to make sure before discussion begins that to even entertain a question from the commissioner, it needs a second.

So this is Commissioner Carr, a second.

Okay, my question was you mentioned the plan that they had to complete the plan.

How will something start before you get that?

Or is it because that's not a part of the condition right here?

Correct.

So figure out how that ties into being sure you said something about having the plaque, and that might change something.

Yeah, so we would if the motion as requested is granted, we would only be able to approve these tree removals once they've provided the necessary documentation that the tree is going to be provided for second use.

Um however, before we could approve what we call their urban forestry phase two or their UFP2 plan, which is their site plan and proposed plantings, we cannot approve UFP2s until the final plat has been approved or recorded.

So this plan as you're seeing it will not get approved.

They will not receive building permits until that final plat has been submitted and approved.

I struggle to support this one, honestly.

Um I don't know that it's in uh best interest, and um I don't think I'm gonna vote for it, but um yeah.

I feel like I want to know more about what utilities are on site.

Um I see what looks like maybe a transformer even down here within the canopy.

The some of the plantings are within the canopy of another tree that's on this the adjacent property.

Um it seems like uh not ideal.

Okay.

Uh we have four people here that uh poll the dis and transparency.

I I haven't seen it.

I haven't seen it if it's in here.

I missed it.

The uh the four that opposed date um if it's in there, yeah.

Okay, uh they're listed.

They listed it separately, okay.

Well yes, come out today or before.

I believe they have to be submitted by 5 p.m.

the day before.

So we're gonna say twice because I'll have pictures with them, but it's pretty much the case in the scenario.

This is Commissioner Hughes.

Um Commissioner Ramsey made a motion, but um are we gonna vote on that motion or where are we at?

Yeah, give me the second there was a motion and a second, and then there was discussion.

So if the chair believes that there's no further discussion, then there's a call to to the vote.

So if there's no further discussion, then we're gonna vote.

Seems like there may be some additional questions.

All right, we'll call for a vote then.

All right, so a motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness to reduce the preservation requirement from 25% to 11.1%.

Conditional upon ensuring that the removed post oaks are provided to local woodworking and sawyer networks who will ensure that the wood is utilized for furniture and other products to avoid being disposed of in a landfill has been made and seconded.

Chairman Benner, how do you vote?

Nay.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Yay.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner DeBose, how do you vote?

No.

And Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Halliday.

How do you vote?

No.

Motion fails, five to two.

For purposes of the record, um, since a motion approved failed.

Um, it doesn't necessarily unlike the board of adjustment or the zoning.

The recommendation would be to deny in those cases.

In this instance, the motion is just not approved.

Is there a motion to deny just for the purposes of cleaning the record?

Is that presented and then second, and then there could be a call to vote?

Uh I'll make a motion for denial.

Commissioner Halliday.

I'll second.

All right.

A motion to deny has been made and seconded.

Umor, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey.

Commissioner Carr.

Nay.

Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose.

Uh I believe.

Yes.

Yeah.

Commissioner Hughes.

Aye.

And Commissioner Halliday.

Aye.

Motion to deny passes five two.

All right.

One thing we forgot to do at the outset.

Uh, we did have one case that was posted on the agenda, kind of towards the the tail end.

It was the last listed case.

Um this week, after discussions with um legal as well as the the applicant and staff internal.

Uh this is UDC 2026-128 at 2458 LS AV.

Um, we determined to administratively pull this case.

Some of this is kind of silly.

I honestly fat fingered one of the numbers on the agenda and was supposed to do 87, not 77.

Um, so there's that issue, and then we've received some revised legal legal guidance uh this week, and we've been kind of mulling through that with some recent plan changes from the applicant.

So we're administratively withdrawing in this case uh from the agenda.

So just if there is anyone here, I just wanted to make that that known.

But uh I did discuss with the chair.

We also do have food now that arrived part way through that that last case.

So Mr.

Chair, do you want to take a five-minute recess?

We'll take a five-minute recess.

Thanks.

Case number three for today.

Hi, good morning.

I'm Inka Revere.

I'm the senior plans down there for preservation and design.

I am presenting two cases today.

The first case is UDC 2026 144 for Camp Bowie Boulevard.

Council District number three, the zoning is Camp Bowie, but it's originally um sorry, Urban Village North.

Um, the applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for attached signage in the camp boulevard of our district with a waiver from the attached sign standards, table 9.1 to allow four attached signs where only one attached sign is permitted per tenant facade along a street frontage.

Um so this was the aerial map of the location, um, both the zoning map and the aerial image.

These are the existing site photos for the location.

It's I do not know if they have a CO for third fifth bank, but it is occupied.

These are the other two signs.

Um, there are two signs facing Camp Bowie Boulevard, and there is one side facing Hilldale Drive, and then a sign that does not face a right of way, it faces the rear of the property, and there's residential properties behind it.

Okay, these are the proposed signs.

These are the two signs that will face Camp Bowie Boulevard.

This is a sign that will face Hildale Drive, and the additional sign that will face the rear properties.

This is the view from my site visit for the rear elevation.

One is from the pedestrian access on Hilldale Drive or Road, excuse me, and the other one is from the vehicular view.

The sign is not visible from the street or from the pedestrian walkway.

I'm assuming due to canopy coverage.

This is the next.

This is the Bank of America that's down the way from this bank.

It's in the same parking lot essentially.

And they do have a fine sign facing the additional right-of-way on this side.

During my site visit, I noticed that the there was no need for the second sign facing Camp Bowie Boulevard.

They also have a monument sign that's proposed, but it's not in this case because it's allowed by right.

Um based off of the intent of the standard for Camp Bowie district.

I am recommending that.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Okay.

I'm recommending that nine table 9.1 be modified to allow a second attached sign facing Hilldale Road, in addition to that is allowed by Camp Bowie Boulevard.

Staff have questions for me.

So you may go back.

This this one or this are the two they're proposing facing Camp Bowie Boulevard.

Inka, can I hop in here just to be clear on the recommendation?

So the applicant is proposing four signs.

The code states that they are allowed one.

Staff is recommending that we allow two, one facing the boulevard and then one facing the side street.

So then that recommendation would not approve the other two signs that they are seeking a waiver for.

So staff's uh recommending approving the generally south facing sign and the west facing sign.

Correct.

There is access and visibility from Hilldale.

So a placing a sign on that side would give them an additional sign for identification from a right of way.

Um but there would not be a need for a second sign facing Camp Bowie Boulevard or a second or fourth sign facing a residential property that has no frontage access or visibility.

And the monument side sorry, the monument sign up by the street will remain or is allowed for right.

It is they live by right and it's facing Camp Bowie Boulevard.

So they have the sign facing Camp Bowie, they have the monument sign facing Camp Bowie, and I'm recommending allowing that, of course, but that also the additional sign facing Hilldale Road.

So three signs and uh it's two, but is two facing Campbell and one face in Hilldale Road.

One attached sign facing Camp Bowie, one detached monument sign facing Camp Bowie, and one attached sign facing Hilldale Road.

It looks like the existing conditions for the prior bank had all four that the current applicant is requesting.

Correct.

A lot of the businesses have not a lot, but most businesses that have their own building and not part of a strip center have multiple signs.

Um the Bank of America has like six signs.

The intent of Camp Bowie, though, is not to have that much signage just to have you know basic identification and to not have clutter.

Um so I use the two signs that they have as the ones I recommend for this project, but not all of the signage given that it's directly against the intent of the Camp Bowie code.

Retail banking is competitive, you gotta get an edge assignment.

No.

So the standalone bill is can it got got more signs because they'll stand alone buildings, and they see it is like a storefront.

So this is this this bank building is its own building on its own lot.

Let me go back.

It's its own building on its own lot in the same parking lot.

If you go down, there's a strip center building.

Those buildings clearly have the one beside facing the front of Camp Bowie.

On the other side of this building, is where the Bank of America is, they do have multiple signs, but again, that's I think this opportunity is to not have that clutter and to have just the signs they need for identification of the project.

Okay, I got jump filing.

Two more questions for staff.

Is the monument sign fairly visible if you're headed west on Camp Bowie?

So it's you can't really see it.

Where that white car is is adjacent to that in that landscaping island.

So it's if the car is there, not really um if a car is not there, then yes, they don't have an intent of moving the monument sign, they just have an intent of replacing the cabinet on top of the base.

Okay, but they probably won't have a lot of options to move it.

Okay, any other questions for staff.

Is the applicant here speak?

Yes.

All right.

Yes, ma'am.

And they have these handouts.

Yes, ma'am.

Welcome, please say your name in the city in which you reside.

Um, my name is Marie Byrum.

I'm the applicant.

Um, I live in Middle Oothean.

Um, and I'm representing the third bank.

And so if you'll look at um, I had supplied some additional Google map photos of um, yeah.

Of uh both fifth third and their signage and for handouts.

That right there.

So you can see on that page right there, that's traveling westbound.

And so from that point that you're this view is approximately 88 feet from the edge of the building.

And I can't see I can barely see the monument sign because of the the cars there, and you don't see any of the signage on the front of the building.

On um page two, I did an aerial view of the signage.

I didn't include the one that goes at the that was proposed at the back of the building because that that's kind of a given.

You I I could tell just doing a Google map that you can't see the sign, even just driving up.

So that's a given.

Um, so there on that uh tower feature in front of the building, you can see that um the signs are marked in red, uh the proposed signage, and so there's a side elevation sign on the um uh east elevation that um that staff has recommended to not approve, but I'm I'm asking that it be approved because of the lack of visibility of any of the signage coming down westward on Camp Bowie.

Um then if you'll go to page three, this is an aerial view of Bank of America and all of their signage, they actually have um side elevations, both the east and west have a sign on it, and there are two monument signs on the property that that face Camp Bowie, and then if you turn to page four and five um from east and westbound elevate um view on Camp Bowie.

Um this is the intersection, I believe, at Ridgely and Camp Bowie, and you can see that there are four signs, and then on page five, um heading eastbound, you can see that there are four signs, and that's viewed from about 165 to 175 feet away from the edge of the building, and they're in the same block.

I will say on your first photo, the requested east-facing sign would not be visible in this photo either.

It's not and neither is the Camp Bowie facing the main elevation, and that's this model sign, right?

No, the that's a that's a directional, that's not a part of that business.

The monument sign would be behind the white car in that far corner.

They are proposing to redo that cabinet on that sign, but the one by that light pole is a directional for something else, not for this business.

Okay, see monument sign that they're gonna redoes it have a height limitation, or can it there are height limitations?

Yes.

Um, this one's not exceeding it.

They can redo the design to meet the Camp Bowie code, but currently that's not being proposed.

They're keeping it almost exactly the same, just a new cabinet and in a different to match the third fourth or third fifth bank.

Do we know if this cabinet is at maximum height?

It's so currently it's at max height.

Okay, they would have to redo the sign to make it meet the current standard for Camp Bowie.

It wouldn't be able to be any higher.

They could relocate it and move it, maybe shift it, but again, currently that's not being proposed.

Can they add a second monument sign?

You cannot, no.

Because they're not an individual property.

If you only get one, it's it's per tenant for Camp Bowie, like most of our districts are.

You don't get to have multiple unless we have like a USA or they have enough street frontage.

Bank of America has two.

Correct, but as and again, I can say I've only been in this position for six months.

I've received lots of requests like this where they never permitted or got COAs and did it, and then we can't retroactily make them take it down.

But this again, I said it's an opportunity to make sure we don't continue to things that are messing up the code that we are trying to enforce.

I'm just trying to clarify.

Yeah, you know, that yeah, Bank America was to change, they lose a monument sign at some right if they came in and okay.

If they came in and okay, so they have two because they were already existing at that time.

Okay.

So we vote on today is the add addition assigned.

You're voting today to or our our recommendation is to allow the one by right facing Camp Bowie Boulevard, but to also allow only one additional sign facing Hilldale Road and not approve the second sign facing Camp Bowie and the other sign in the rear facing the residential properties.

And and to clarify, Commissioner Reed, we're not voting on the monument sign today.

And and uh I'm not asking for the one on the back.

I understand that that makes sense, but it doesn't really make sense for me on um you know the the fact that they've got limited visibility, and I even went further down the road, and trees just constantly block that view from the east elevation for westbound traffic.

And unless there weren't if there were no cars in the parking lot, you would see the monument sign.

I think this image is a little deceiving because if you click like one five feet further past the tree, then you have a clear shot of that tower, and you do see the signage.

Yeah, it's uh it's a blip.

You can see you can see the south facing sign, you mean go back.

Okay, uh thank you very much.

Anyone else here speak in favor?

No, we have one in opposition, then anyone here in opposition, please come forward, state your name in the city in which you reside.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Lydia Wahardo Rickard.

I'm the executive director of Campbury District Inc.

and I live in Footwork, Texas.

Um good morning to you, Commissioners.

So this sign application is a unique one in that it's being compared to other properties that are legal non-conforming or grandfathered, however that wants to be termed.

This does not fit the current intent of the code or the future intent of the code as well.

And as we've talked about at other cases, we are in the um kind of process of amending the code to make some exceptions and to be a little bit more generous on our signage.

The future intent would allow for a second sign facing a side street, should a side street present itself.

In this case, it does.

This is a single tenant building.

I do think that some of the images that have been used and presented are very misleading in the fact that that tower is a defining architectural detail of the building and does have visibility as you move east and west on the boulevard.

As a person who drives the boulevard probably 10 times a day, I'm very familiar with our existing signage.

Yes, Bank of America is oversigned, and so are the other 30 something banks on the boulevard.

So our banking industry is alive and well on Camp Bowie.

Um where we sit with this right now is to allow for the facing Camp Bowie side to receive a sign.

They can decide where to place that, whether it's on the tower or on the building, and then the Hilldale side, they can decide where they want that as well.

It must fall within 125 square feet of total space between the two signs, and the monument sign could be reconfigured to be you said it was at maximum height.

It's at max height.

Well, they have maximum space, but not max height.

They have a maybe seven inches taller.

They can reconfigure to use the space how they see fit.

We're not discussing that today because nothing has been proposed.

But I will tell you that that monument sign when the shrubs are trimmed, which is their responsibility, can be seen when at the intersection or approaching the intersection from the west, moving east.

So three signs when everyone else on the boulevard gets one sign is a consideration to consider as well.

And as we move towards the future amendments to the code, we want to minimize that signage because there is a clutter of signage and visual presence on the boulevard, which detracts from the aesthetic and the intent of the code.

And also, we haven't met with the applicant, just they've never reached out to our group.

The applicant never reached out to Camp Bowie District to discuss this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here's speaking opposition?

Okay, that's it.

All right, we'll close the uh public comment portion for our discussion.

I think I think staff's recommendation is uh is a good uh compromise.

I agree, I agree.

Second that thought I didn't, but I will.

Okay.

Okay.

How you stated it.

Motion made to be approved and seconded.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, we have made a modified to allow a second attached sign facing Hilldale Road, in addition to that allowed by right facing Cambue Boulevard.

Correct.

A second.

Okay.

All right.

So motion be approved has been made and seconded.

No, don't say that again.

Sorry, this is like my second time.

They're voting to modify the request and go with with the staff recommendation.

Okay.

So then Commissioner Tom Carr, how do you John Reed, Commissioner?

Sorry.

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose.

Aye.

Chair Brenner.

Aye.

Sorry.

Commissioner Hughes.

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday.

Hi.

Vice Chair Ramsey.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion to approve with modification.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Seven to zero.

Motion has been appressed.

Okay.

This is the fourth case today for UDC 2026 134 600 West Magnolia Avenue.

Council District 9 is zoning is near South.

Um, the owner is Danscape Inc.

And the agent today is Gary Johnson Sign Guys.

Applicant request certificate of appropriateness for a wall sign in the near South Side form-based co-district with a waiver from the window sign standards.

That's not right, actually.

It's a waiver from the sign standards 5F35 F 103 to install the sign on the side of the building elevation for a ground floor business that does not have does not contain a public entrance.

So this is the aerial zoning map of the location and the aerial image.

So this is the existing conditions of the site on West Magnolia facing the right of way.

So again, we can see that I'm assuming that they took out the tree for the rendering, and then there is a very large canopy tree in front of the building.

The request was made because they don't want to have their sign blanked by the tree.

It is facing hemp hill and magnolia at the corner.

Um it is an employee entrance.

It is noted as employee entrance only.

It's about 109 feet from the hemp hill right of way to the building where this location is.

It is not a public access for the company or for the patrons.

The door also specifies it's for deliveries and guests to go to the front of the building.

This is the pedestrian view for the sign at the very corner of Hemp Hill and West Magnolia.

The location they're proposing would not be visible to the very corner of the building.

This is the from the driveway of Hemp Hill Magnolia.

Again, it's very far from there, and I don't think it's the intent to have the access from that location of the building.

This is the proposed location uh for the sign.

It is in front of the employee entrance.

Um, and as you saw previously, it would be blocked by the canopy for this facade.

Um I am proposing an alternate location off of Granger and Magnolia.

There is currently construction all the way down Magnolia and Granger, but um that's the visibility from the pedestrian and across the street coming down West Magnolia.

So if they did want to have a side sign that did not have a public entrance, I am recommending this location.

And then for the intent, the intent is to have the sign to emphasize the public interest for wayfinding and having the sign adjacent to hemp hill and magnolia is against the intent of the standard for the location of the wall sign, and would it possibly possibly also confuse patrons to enter a door that they actually cannot access.

So the request for specific appropriateness for wall sign and the form based code district um for to install a wall sign on the side elevation that does not contain a public entrance for ground floor business be denied, or that the request for severe appropriateness for a wall sign in near South Side Forum-based co-district include a waiver from the sign standards to install a wall wall sign on a side building elevation does not contain a public entrance for ground floor businesses be approved, subject to the condition that the sign be relocated to Granger Street facade.

They're only requesting one sign.

They're only requesting one sign, yes.

There are two sign permits, but one is going to be withdrawn.

Okay.

Just to know for the commission, the applicant is allowed by right to put a sign on West Magnolia above the pedestrian entrance to that first denial.

If you choose to go with that recommendation, they would then have to locate the sign on the south of the building on West Magnolia.

Conversely, if you went with the second recommendation, then it would they would be allowed to put it on Granger Street on the east side of the building.

And the construction on the east is the UT Southwestern Oncology Center building.

So we we wanted to present both of those options to the commission.

So they're only allowed one sign either on Magnolia or if they want to.

Or any public entrance.

So if they had another entrance, they could have had a sign there as well, yes.

So every public entrance potentially they could have a sign at.

So you'd have to meet sala location, sign location and allowable area, but yes, sir.

Okay.

And if we approve subject that it goes on the the Granger Street side, they could still choose to put it on the Magnolia Street.

Correct.

Not coming before us again.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

No.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Johnson is here.

Yeah, welcome up.

Welcome.

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

Good morning, everyone.

Um basically what it is is uh when I started this project back in February, um, there was no there were no trees in the on Magnolia.

And in the process of renovating the property, they planted that tree right in front of the entrance.

And so my customer uh wanted to mount the sign on the corner of the building so that everyone could see it.

You can't see anything there, especially coming down.

And there was another, I'm sorry.

No, you're fine.

Sir, just for the record, could you set your name?

Oh, I'm sorry, Gary Johns.

And I'm the sign company that uh was hired to to do this project.

And uh as you can see from this picture, the they're fairly large trees and they won't go all the way down the uh street, so you can't see the sign coming either direction because the trees block everything.

And so that's basically he just wants to move the sign to the corner of the building so that you can people can see his business.

Otherwise, if if y'all are if y'all are unable to approve this, I gotta give him his money back.

Has he is there is has he looked at placing on the Granger Street side?

I'm sorry, what have you or the or your customer uh looked at f uh placing the sign on the Granger Street side as been discussed this morning?

Uh the the the east facing side.

Yeah, facing, you know.

No, I mean that's that's the only logical location to put the the sign would be on the other on the end of the building.

West the west side.

The west side, yeah.

Facing, in fact, um he has more visibility facing that intersection than he does if it even if it were on the magnolia, which you know would help, in my opinion, would help his business.

All I can say there are also provisions in the Near South uh code that allow for blade signs and sort of perpendicular signs to the facade that might be an option as well.

Have you looked at those?

Well, I didn't even think consider a blade sign.

They're very difficult, and they're and it'd be a lot more expensive for him than the sign that he's currently wanting.

He's a little frustrated, and thank God he's been really patient with me, you know, and uh trying to get this approved.

But this I started this a long time ago, and um go ahead.

Have you met with the near South Side and they uh typically can sort of help you through some of these um or what the near South Side Inc.

Um what the near South Side Inc.

Um Austin James, I believe is I I don't know how to work.

It's like I recognize the nearest Southside Design Committee is who we reach out to and we encourage the applicant to when they're for the I mean I looked over the packet that that was uh emailed to me at the various uh types of signage that are allowed, but um I didn't even made it that far, you know.

I mean I mean I like the idea of a blade sign, but you know, I've I've got I went and bought the materials.

I got half the materials already purchased to do the fabrication.

I mean, it doesn't matter either way, you know.

I prefer to build this sign for him.

That's unfortunate.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

We were I'm sorry, go ahead.

We received um from near South Side Design Committee.

Um Ames Fender was in favor of staff recommendation.

Debbie Fool Wheeler is that.

Thank you.

So I'm apologized to her.

She also was in favor of staff recommendation.

Um Jason Egenberger was in favor of staff recommendation, but he also did recommend possibly putting a blade sign at the corner if they still wanted something facing Magnolia but also facing Hempel.

Thank you.

Anyone else here speaking opposition or anyone speaking opposition?

I do think it's important that the applicant exhaust all opportunities if blade sign is an option.

Um before we look at granting any waivers, I would think.

We we do have near South Side Inc.

here as well.

Hi everybody, uh Austin James with representing near South Side Inc.

Just as a just disclaimer, we did not have time to take this to the the formal DRC, so I just distributed it by email, which she just read the everybody's input from that.

So pretty much Inca just said everything I was planning to say.

But I I also want to mention just as an alternative that shingle signs exist too.

We see a lot of real estate companies use those, and definitely I'll talk to him about what the trees we can work with printing them.

That's part of our organization's purview is maintaining Magnolia Street.

So we'll work with him on that.

So did the near South Side putting the trees, don't really fall.

It was not me.

I I I thought that they were had been there for a while.

I I wasn't aware of that one having been removed and replaced at any point.

But they were put in per building permit for the remodel and done done to the building for the new tenant.

The building had been unoccupied for three years when they got their permits for remodeling and change of views, the trees were put in part of the requirement.

I was looking on Street View.

It was there in January of 25.

But and had been since 2012 or so at least.

But I don't know if that wasn't new or when it happened exactly.

They had to replace it due to construction.

Thanks so much.

Yes, absolutely.

So Inca the building owner installed that tree?

I believe so.

It was had to be replaced during construction.

They yeah, it was there, and then apparently you can't take it and not put it back.

So they had to put it back.

This is a question for illegal.

What what are if we deny it, they cannot come back with the same request.

Is that correct?

So technically, I mean the rules would allow it.

Umlike zoning commission and the board of adjustment, there's uh denial with prejudice.

Um doesn't have the same effect on the UDC.

So I mean, technically, they could just re you know get denied and then resubmit it.

Uh it would not be wise for them to do that because they just got a denial.

So it it it would not make any sense.

Um so if you just deny or deny with prejudice.

Uh denial with prejudice probably sounds a stronger message to the applicant saying ple you know, please don't bring this back.

Um but uh a denial with prejudice uh for purposes of UDC, theoretically they could come back and resubmit the same same application.

Just would not be wise for them.

Yeah, please come up to the mic.

How about a solution like this?

It's putting putting the sign on the corner of the building and then making a smaller sign saying entrance.

Would that would that satisfy the the need to let people know that the entrance where the entrance is?

I mean, I could make them a small sign to put underneath the wall sign, another wall sign saying entrance, you know, maybe a little arrow or something like that.

Functionally, I understand what you're asking.

Well, I mean, the linear the frontage is humongous, so you know, whatever the I mean it should it will fit within the codes as far as the frontage and the size.

It just maybe putting a small sign underneath it saying entrance, like maybe an arrow or something pointing to the entrance in case you know if it's if there's an issue with the confusion, you know, about where the entrance is, because that's an employee entrance.

So the can I am I allowed to speak again?

Okay.

So the existing entrance for employees already specifies that it the entrance for patrons and deliveries are to the front.

They're already, yeah.

So there, I don't, I don't you could potentially put a sign there, but without review, I wouldn't want to say yes to the committee.

Um and then there is also already signage on the front of the building.

It's not in this because they don't need a CO well they needed, they don't need a permit for it, but there are already signs on the front of the building in the glass that says on demand reality on both sides.

So the again, the the issue is not um like wayfinding is gonna be an issue.

The issue is that it doesn't meet the intent, um, and the entrance is not for the public, it's for employees.

So even if we specify they go to the front, which it already does, it still wouldn't meet the intent of the ordinance for the sign.

Yeah, absolutely appreciate it.

We will close the public comment portion, so open discussion, yes.

I think I'm tempted to um make a motion uh along with staff's recommendation so that we give the the applicant the option to put a sign on the Granger side.

My preference would be that they just meet the sign ordinance and they can do that you know by right.

So whether that's over the entrance or uh you know a blade sign, but um that's kind of where my my head's at.

So staff gave us two options.

Yeah, staff gave us two options.

We can either deny, which then makes them go back and redesign the sign, which would be have to meet the signage ordinance.

Um DRC made multiple recommendations to allow for the sign to be on Granger Street, which is a frontage, so it's it's not ideal, it's not a pedestrian entrance, but it's still visible from the right-of-way.

So that's kind of what I'm thinking.

I have a question or two.

Yes, sir.

Can they relocate that sign that's in front of the main entrance, the tree left or right to allow visibility or that is not a question?

That's a question for our officer, Mr.

Loss.

I I think that's gonna cause a lot of issues.

That whole uh public realm on that block face is built out.

So the tree spacing and the pedestrian light spacing is set and it's been set for quite a while, so it'd be very impractical to do that and kind of throw off the spacing and the cadence of those things.

And Austin already said he would help with the pruning and maintaining of the tree because that's a near South Sides one of their I think responsibilities.

I was just looking for another way.

If you move the tree, you know, to the left to the right, then it opens that up.

I know there's a cadence, but um, yeah, I don't know what that would cost, but that's just a it just I'm looking for some other options that may help us comply with our ordinance, you know, and yeah, with that.

So one one thing is they do have the tree wells, it's not a parkway.

So moving the tree, you then have to not just move the tree but then redo the tree well around it.

So it's significant.

I understand that, but if it's you know something important to get it over there, you know, that's just a cost of getting what you what you want.

So um that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So I didn't make a motion, but I will make a motion.

Uh I I'll move for approval of the um recommendation of the certificate of appropriateness for a wall sign, um, subject to the condition that the sign be relocated to the Granger Street facade.

Second.

Okay.

Motion to approve for the recommendation has been approved or has been made and seconded.

Okay.

Commissioner Carr.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner DeBose.

Aye.

Chair Brenner.

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes.

Aye.

Commissioner Holiday.

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion to approve with the recommendation for the relocation of the sign to Granger Street has been approved, seven to zero.

Do I also have to do the denial portion too?

Okay.

Motion passed.

All right, two more cases.

And for all the architects, we finally get to discuss some architecture today.

Uh not just trees and signs.

All right.

Um, so for UDC 2026, 140.

This is located at 2950 West Barrie Street.

Uh, this is B UIX zoning.

Joe, I need to recuse myself from this one.

Oh, okay.

Make sure that's on the record.

Yep.

So Chairman Benner is recusing himself, which means Vice Chair Ramsey is now the chair.

Do we need a light device here for this case or no?

Okay.

All right.

Uh UDC 2026 140.

Uh, the applicants requesting a certificate of appropriateness for a commercial building in the Barry University form-based code district with the following waivers.

There's three waivers for this one.

Um, waiver from the requirement that occupiable space being closed to allow partially enclosed space without facade walls.

Uh, number two, waiver from the built-to zone standards to allow 28% of the building facade to be within the primary street built to zone and 0% along the secondary street built to zone, where 70% of the building facade along a primary street and 35% along a secondary street must be within the built-to zone.

And number three, waiver from the corner lot built to zone requirements to allow 0% of the building facade within the first 30 feet of the street extending from the the block corner where a building facade must be placed within the built-to zone for the first 30 feet off the street along the block corner.

I know that's a whole lot.

Really, it's it deals with the form of the building and the way that the second story is configured.

So I'll explain that here in just a second.

So this site, um, this is the zoning uh uh of the site.

Uh when you search the in our zoning map, it actually takes you to a parcel that fronts university.

This subject site is within the yellow here.

It's this kind of uh southwest corner of this large lot.

So looking at the area that kind of better shows it.

Um the lot was recently replotted and uh Cockerell Street was vacated, but it very functions very much like a public street.

You could drive down it, and I would gander that about 99% of people do not know it's a private street.

Um the land is owned by TCU, and TCU has been in partnership with Endeavor Real Estate uh group out of Austin, Texas, to redevelop this parcel as well as some other properties along West Barrie.

Um, one thing to note about this site at the very corner of Cockerell and Westbury is currently what's called the Allen Sachs Memorial Garden.

It's a nice little memorial wall with some plantings that the applicant is seeking to retain and relocate as a part of this project.

Um this whole parcel in yellow, uh most of it to the north of this site and to the east is the development that's known as Morado on Barrie.

I believe this has come before the UDC a couple of times, both for the building and for signage.

It is a large 538-unit mixed-use development with ground floor retail, really catered towards student housing of TCU, which is just a block away.

Um and there's two buildings that they rise up to seven stories between six and seven stories.

Um what the applicant's proposing is what they're calling a jewel box restaurant.

So it's a two-story restaurant designed to be a high-end dining experience with a lot of kind of public engagement and amenities with that.

Um the TCU has been working on a transformation plan for the north side of Westbury for a couple of years, um, including updates to Molly Reed Hall, which is kind of let me pull up the map, which is over here, and then the Morado on Barrie are two buildings in this area, one right here, and then another one right here.

And we'll see some uh renderings later on that show some future concepts for further development east.

All right.

So here's the the site plan.

You can see the Murado on Barry to the north and to the east, and then the applicant's proposal is located right here.

It's this this development here.

And the applicant's proposing uh it's again it's two stories, 9700 square feet of commercial space, um, geared towards restaurants.

Um the ground floor includes indoor seating and outdoor seating and a restaurant.

The upper floor has a bar and open air patio.

On the ground floor, you'll see there's 13-foot tall windows facing Barrie Street and also facing Cockerel.

And then on the upper story, you see that the upper story is not a traditional second story.

It's just a partial second story with the large area that is covered by a canopy, but it's open air.

There's no facade wall to it.

And that's what triggers the second and third waiver of the request since it doesn't have a facade wall, makes it tough to meet the BTZ requirements because the BTZ requires that the facade wall be within a certain area from the property line back or the two stories.

The applicant's using a white brick detail, as they also have landscaping around the perimeter in the in the rear, opposite of Barrie Street, kind of further down Cockerel, they do have an outdoor seating area as well with some nice tree canopy coverage.

And the applicant is again retaining the Alan Sachs Memorial.

They're just relocating it.

They are also redoing the plantings, of course, as a part of that.

So here is the floor plan.

So just to kind of walk you through it.

The first floor is on the on your right.

That's this area, takes up a good chunk of the site.

There's some outdoor seating to the north.

There's entries off Westbury and also off Cockerel where pedestrians can go into.

The second story is where things get a little bit unique.

So the applicant has an enclosed bar area here.

So that has facade walls.

It's conditioned space.

And then they have a canopy that extends out here in this area.

So there's no facade walls, but there is a roof to it.

It's covered.

So you can go out there and have your martini when it rains, basically.

And you'll be able to look out onto Barrie Street below, and people from Barrie Street and Cocker will be able to look up to you.

And there's a small portion further to the east that is not covered.

So if you want to kind of go to the edge and live on the wild side and lean over, you can do that too.

Here's the landscape plan that shows the robust plantings, the street trees they have as well.

And they're using the tree on the north side of the property also to help cover that outdoor seating area as well.

All right, so here's the renderings.

Here's the cool stuff.

So you can see here the renderings where they're utilizing the white brick, the canopies on the ground level, and then also the canopy on top.

The applicant stated to staff that they're really intending to activate that canopy and make it a sincerely occupiable space for it to be used for people to look out onto the street and then for people on the street to look up and see that it is being used.

Here's a couple more renderings.

You can see on the lower left of this one, they are relocating the Allen Sachs Memorial directly from the intersection further back, creating a little seating area.

Per the landscape plan, there are some more plantings than what are shown in this rendering.

But the uh intent is to retain the memorial as is.

Now, one thing to note, these two buildings here on the east portion have not been approved.

Um, these are just conceptual, kind of what the applicant is working on, but it's all uh the applicant's trying to show what the vision of uh West Barrie Street is that TCU is trying to create, and it all has common ownership, and TCU's been working on this plan for a number of years.

And then this building here in the lower left, that's the jewel box that the applicant is seeking these waiver requests for.

So you can see how the two stories fits within the uh the current and future development.

And here's from across the street, there's across the street south of the property along Westbury is a gas station.

Here's a picture of that gas station.

So you know, to be honest, staff was pretty impressed by the design of the building up front.

It looks very, very nice.

There's some great renderings.

So we looked at the waiver requests in context of the intent of the code.

So a couple things that stood out to staff and the intent of the code.

Number one, the code's really trying to get site design that addresses the public aspects of private development and how the building form placement and use contribute to the quality of the public realm.

So that includes public realm improvements, but then also how the building's designed.

Additionally, as you can see, number three here on the bottom, promoting innovative and landscape building design that advances function and beauty in Fort Worth.

So in some the code is really encouraging design excellence, and that's why this waiver process is in place.

Where if you have a square peg but it doesn't fit the round hole, but it's achieving this intent, that's something that's worthy for the commission to consider.

So to dive into the details of it, and some of this is like very, very specific.

So the code requires a minimum height in the zoning district of two stories of occupiable space.

Well, Joe, what's what's occupiable space?

Um, so when it comes to occupable space, Barry University form-based code does define it as enclosed space intended for human activity, excluding spaces intended primarily for other purposes such as storage and equipment.

Um so the second story is clearly not intended for storage and equipment.

It's clearly intended to be an activated patio, but it's not enclosed.

So that's why we have the waiver request for the enclosed spaces to clarify that.

So that way UDC gets weighing that this is indeed activated, it's achieving the intent that the space be occupiable.

Um then up above, you'll see that the code does specifically label that all development along Barrie Street will treat Bury Street as the primary street.

Um the second and third waivers dealed with the build two zone that classifies primary versus secondary streets as well as for corner lots.

So when it comes to uh build two zone, uh there's requirements for the primary street that 70% of the facade be within the primary street, and then 35% be from the side street.

So the intent of build two zones generally is to make sure the buildings push up to the street.

Um, to just to kind of show you uh earlier to tell you you looked at the gas station that was pushed back from the street.

Um build two zones are tried trying to prevent that.

They're trying to pull the buildings up to the street.

Um in extreme cases, you'll see in order to meet build two zone requirements or uh uh max setbacks, uh, architectual design like an L-shaped where a small portion of the facade is forward and within a max setback, but then most of the building is back.

Built two zones prevent against that by requiring a certain percentage of the lobby built up to uh within a certain range.

Um here's the definitions and the imagery that the code shows for build two zones on the north is just the regular primary second street, how that's measured.

They want to make sure that facade wall is in the shaded blue area, and then additionally, the code has a requirement for lots that are on a corner to make sure that the building is pulled to the corner, that hard uh urban edges are established at corners, it just creates a better streetscape and urban form.

Um, one thing to note, forgot to mention too, uh, there are some definition in the base zoning about building facades as well as floor area building facades are defined as the edge of condition space.

So because that second story does not have an edge of condition space within the build two zone, um, that's why it does not meet the build two zone requirements, um, even though it is activated, so then that kind of triggers the need for that.

Additionally, when the um the zoning ordinance talks about floor area, it does mention that uh courtyards and balconies open to the sky are not counted towards floor areas.

So, because this is a covered canopy that um is then not open to the sky, so it would be classified as floor area according to the zoning ordinance.

So there's a lot of kind of contradictions and and pinch points.

The applicant is trying to weigh through with their design.

Here's some more renderings.

I think some of these were already shown.

Again, here is what the applicant is is providing uh along the Barry Street side.

This the requirement is that 70% of the facade be within the build two zone.

Only 27% is within the uh build two zone formally because of the the second floor doesn't have that facade wall of condition space.

Um, and then along Cockerel, that's 35% is what's required.

Zero percent is, and that's because uh just to kind of show you that along the cockerel side, the condition space is pushed all the furthest back from cockerel for that enclosed bar area.

It really gets down to the fact that it's not fully enclosed, uh, but it's functionally occupied.

Uh, here's some of the some more renderings that show that.

Uh, and then here's the perspective looking down Westbury of how it fits within the larger context of the development.

So, given all this, um staff's recommending the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for a commercial berry in the Barry University form-based code with the following waivers, uh waiver from the requirement, the occupiable space being closed to allow partially occupiable space without facade walls, waiver from the build two zone standards to allow 28% of the building facade to be within the primary street uh BTZ and zero percent on the secondary street BTZ and waiver from the corner lot built to zone requirements to allow 0% of the building facade within the first 30 feet extending from the block corner, that all these waivers be approved.

I know that's mouthful and very technical.

Any questions for staff?

Uh, just a couple of quick questions, or maybe just one.

So we already have some pre existing conditions like this in that area with Dutch's and a couple of those others where they have essentially rooftop bar kind of situations.

Where all those in play before any of the other new zoning requirements have been put together for the form based code that's going through there?

We we didn't look at those specifically.

Um university that is a separate zoning district.

Okay, um, this is BUIX that has that uh two story requirement.

The different subdistricts have different minimum height requirements.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay.

I'll open the public uh portion of we do have the applicant here.

Uh if the advocate would like to come forward and the architect speech.

Uh use your name and and uh see what you reside in.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Shane Hesson.

Don't hold it against me.

I live in Austin, Texas.

Joseph already got that cat out of the bag.

But been working up here in Fort Worth for about a decade now and love to business here.

So grateful for the opportunity to talk to everybody.

Um Joseph, do you are we able to access our yes?

Thank you.

Sir, would you move the microphone a little bit closer to you?

Yes, sir.

Is that better?

Yes, it is, McVear.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

So I'm just here to talk a little bit uh background and context into the development, and then Hoyt Hammers here, our architect who can uh go into some of the architecture and design aspects of this.

So, and a lot of this is repeat information from Joseph's presentation, so bear with me.

But for some background, uh, so this building that we're talking about, the two-story building is part of a 2.9 acre project.

Uh the two other buildings are much larger in scale, those are six and seven stories.

So the building that we're talking about today is about plus or minus 10,000 feet usable.

The overall project's over 300,000 feet.

Um the use for the project is student housing and retail, so it's a mixed-use development.

Um, there's 780 beds that are being targeted towards predominantly upperclassmen students.

Um, but a big part of this development, and one of the big things we're trying to achieve is a really active ground floor plan to try to create a really nice public realm.

So there's 25,000 feet of retail between the three buildings.

Uh we're excited, we'll be announcing some of the lessies that have signed up with us here in the next month.

But to date, um, some of the uses that you'll see or coffee shop, fitness, wine bar, quick service restaurant.

So the goal here is to provide a lot of uh ground floor amenities that'll serve not only students and faculty but the larger community.

So trying to create kind of a hub of a retail district here on Barrie Street, which to date is pretty fragmented.

Um part of the development uh is a new structured parking garage.

So the the use prior to this was all service parking.

Um it'll be 550 space parking garage with 190 pieces open to the public.

Um Joseph mentioned on it too.

So we Endeavor Real Estate are working in a partnership with TCU.

Um, and it's been a great partnership, and we've been working with the city really since day one.

Um, and I'd say the both Endeavor and TCU take very seriously the merit and intent of the Barrie Street and University code.

So we're trying to be a good stakeholder of that and be respectful to neighbors and everything that goes along with that.

So the project is under construction and will be opening uh hopefully have first retailers opening for business summer 27, and then students moving in for the fall uh 27th semester.

Um so this is just to show you kind of what the site looks like today.

Y'all maybe have driven by it is a big construction project currently.

Um so right now we're just topped out the west building, which is six stories, the larger structure you see we call the east building or the main building.

The structure there will top out the six-level portion in August, the seven-story portion in September.

So it's starting to take shape, which is exciting.

Um we've been in here a few times to talk about the project.

I think going back to July 24, which is wild that that was two years ago.

Um, and so it's been a good collaborative process, not only with UDC but uh City of Fort Worth in general.

Um so the prior approval for this project would have been August to 24.

That was largely for the right-of-way abandonment.

There was an existing alley that split the site, and then like Joseph said, Cockerel is a public road.

Um we've abandoned that to where it's now a private road, but there's still an access agreement, and the idea is we want that to, you know, that's utilized for garage access and other things.

So it'll still function effectively like a um a road.

And then the other part of the prior UDC approval was I think we were actually the first applicant to uh move forward on the storm water density bonus.

Like Joseph said, this project is or this zoning is uh up to six stories, so about two-thirds of the development is actually up at seven stories, and so we achieved that by basically enhanced water quality standards for the 2.9 acres.

Um just some other milestone dates.

So we broke ground in May of 25.

Um I like to say we're in like the fifth inning of construction, about halfway, a little over halfway.

Um we were back in here this past spring for a uh variance for our signage, building signage, and then the other kind of key dates coming up or the top-out dates that again the West Building uh this month, the main building August and September.

Uh you'll start to see a lot of the retail fit outs starting Q1, that should be uh February 27.

And then again, uh first retailers opening for business, hopefully late summer, then moving kids in uh for fall 27.

Uh next slide, please.

And then this is just a site plan showing where the project sits, you know, kind of relative to TCU's campus.

So it's kind of on the southeast quadrant, uh northeast corner of Barrie Street and University.

And again, we're um uh it's been a pleasure working with TCU.

So they have a very long-term strategic plan that really uh talks about what their goals are with the overall campus master plan.

But a couple of the pillars within the strategic plan are community engagement.

They take very seriously that you know it's a big university, but they want to be a good steward of the community and engage with neighbors and residents, and the other portion of it is student-centered growth.

So Murado on Barrie, you know, ultimately it's a student housing project with ground floor retail.

So we're you know, we're hoping that we help advance those two um pillars within the strategic plan.

And then, you know, when it's all said and done, this is hopefully the first of a few phases to where you know, upon completion and call it five years, there's the 25,000 feet of retail within Murado on Barrie.

That hopefully when it's all said and done, there'll be another two or three X amount of retail to where it's creating more of a district, like some of the other vibrant areas of the city, be it the stockyards, be it near Southside, Culture R.

So the idea here is to give neighbors, students, faculty, you know, a alternate destination versus you know all the other great ones that are here in the city.

So and then I'll go through this quickly.

This is just a more zoomed-in site plan.

So the building that we're talking about is the freestanding building, kind of bottom left corner, uh, west of Cockerel.

The what we call the West Building is the one plan north of there.

Um, and then what we call the east building is the one caddy corner to Cockerel.

So from a functional standpoint, it's all the same development from a customer perspective.

The structured parking garage kind of sits within the east building.

So if you're coming to dine at this future building, you'll park within that garage.

And so the one thing this site plan helps to show is um 30 seconds left.

Okay, time to yep.

Uh well, I think that's these are a list of some of the other kind of public realm or community benefits that we've uh tried to achieve here with the project.

But basically the gist of it is um it's a very dense development.

The idea with this freestanding building is to help break up that density, and what we're trying to achieve is uh, you know, if you're someone that you want to dine, you come in off the street and you kind of get off Barrie, which is very high traffic.

So want it to be very visible from Barrie, but want the front door and activation to be kind of inwards towards the site.

Uh thank you.

Yep.

You know, have any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Are we gonna let the architect speak as well?

Or are we it's up to the chair.

If not, we'll bring up uh anybody else who's in favor though.

I think I just have a couple of technical questions, but not for you uh whoever who else is in favor of this project.

Your name and where you reside, please.

Good morning, Hoyt Hammer.

Uh represent uh Beck Architecture, uh, 464 Bailey Avenue here in Fort Worth, and we are the architect for the project working with uh Endeavor.

Um just to speak to the architecture here a little bit.

Um, you know, the the design of the building has evolved.

And first, I think uh Joseph Adunzer has done a very fantastic job kind of outlining very complicated uh details of the project.

Uh we're grateful for his assistance over this uh these last few months in getting to this point where we're putting this project in front of you.

Um the development of the project has really been uh from a design perspective, a balance of a number of different criteria.

As you can imagine, uh the design uh criteria or requirements for a retail project, very different from that of a higher uh education institution.

Um because this project is really the next component in the development or the redevelopment of very significant uh project along Barrie Avenue, you know, Barry's this this is really going to change um the the uh atmosphere of that whole project.

Um as Shane mentioned, uh the desire is to not only is to activate that corridor uh from a pedestrian activity, really kind of knit together the campus to the north with uh the new development along Barrie Avenue, and a number of aspects of the Murado project to the west have been done very strategically uh to try to accomplish this.

Uh the project as it's been contemplated uh tries to you know kind of extend that strategy.

Um it's been very um uh strategic in the in the massing of the project.

Um the height of the lower level uh is we feel like um uh conducive to trying to define as the code uh intends um the the urban aspect and the streetscape along not only Barrie Avenue but along Cockerel.

Uh we see Cockerel Avenue as being a very active environment during uh campus activities, games, trying to really bring out a lot of the students and the activity that would occur there during those uh key times of the year.

Um and because of that, from a retail perspective, uh the desire is to try to open up the building as much as possible at grade.

So we've increased uh the amount of transparency uh from what code uh dictates so that there's direct connectivity between the activity on the interior of the restaurant and what's happening on the street beyond.

There's ground level activity to the north with the patio uh which would engage with the pedestrian connectivity back to uh university on the north side of uh the TCU bookstore.

Um if you were to view the plan of a Maraudo to the west, uh there's a series of paseos that um intertwine in and around the retail.

So it's not your typical strip center, if you will, from a retail perspective, but yeah, there's a that's a good image of it.

Thank you, Joseph.

So the the building is is not a standalone, it's a part of a larger uh development and a much larger uh extension of the TCU community.

Um we do see it as a two-story building uh from a building code perspective.

It is equipped with uh all of the life safety measures, egress requirements, fire sprinklers that um uh are dictated by a building code.

It's the simple aspect within the form-based code that defines what is enclosure.

And so from our perspective, uh the canopy coverage is intended to provide um access for people uh during these events or just any time during the year, and again maintaining you know visual line of connectivity to uh to the adjacent urban uh district.

From a detailing standpoint, we we tried to hearken back a little bit to the architecture uh styles of the campus.

So from a masonry standpoint, from a masonry detailing and and articulation, it harkens back a little bit to other aspects of the TCU campus while trying to balance all of those other requirements from uh retail uh need.

So we feel like we have uh presented a design that is uh inspired by the code and meets the intent of the code.

We appreciate your consideration and uh of our requests.

Thank you.

Any questions for uh the architect?

Yeah, I um I appreciate the design.

I think it's a very nice building.

Um can you how tall is the building in relation to the bookstore adjacent?

Adjacent book.

Uh good question.

So the the top of our building to the parapet is in the 30 foot range.

Um if you were to measure in that image.

Zoom in for me, Joseph.

Sorry.

Uh yeah.

So if you were to measure to the top of the parapet of our two-story building, we're in a 30, 31 foot height range.

It does not exceed uh the height of the bookstore to the west.

Uh and I would call that to the to the top of say the masonry wall, just short of the roof extension.

Um and the setback uh from it, it looks like the building is set back from the face of that bookstore.

Uh what is that set back?

It seems like the right-of-way actually kind of skinnies up right there too, right?

Well, there are a number of aspects happening on the the site itself and the building we have pulled as close to Barrie and as close to Cockerel as we can.

There is an easement corner clip that comes across the southeast corner of the property.

Um, and it's in place, it's existing um low voltage um and uh connectivity or fiber connections uh through that area.

So we've pulled the building as far that direction as we possibly can to get it as close to the rideway as we as possible.

And then I don't know that this really impacts the decision, but uh how do you access the second floor?

Would it be a connected tenant space from the ground floor?

Or is it um so like what's the front door to get to this the rooftop?

Right.

Uh so there's there's a uh a couple different paths that one can take.

So we're we're trying to contemplate that um a restaurant tenant might take both levels.

It's possible that there could be two tenants, it could be separate operating um hours, operational hours for for each space.

So there is an entrance off of Cockerel just to the right of the uh cursor, correct?

Um but there's also access from the north through the ground level patio directly to the elevator, uh correct, and then also to the elevator there.

So we we're providing multiple means of access uh to that elevator and that access to the upper level so that that that upper level terrace could function at different times if necessary.

But the two spaces don't necessarily communicate uh internally that you have to go through a stair, an enclosed stair or through an elevator shaft.

That's correct.

There's no two-story volume or other open area, no, not at this time.

That might be something that the tenant contemplates if they take the whole building.

I think that's all my I had uh I just have a quick question.

So the the building itself kind of sits as its own separate piece, obviously, and it butts up against the back of the uh bookstore uh element back there.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of attention in in this plan right now and identifying what kind of transition is gonna happen there and and what that space becomes.

Uh we've got basically two flat surfaces that kind of create a canyon back there that are multiple stories tall.

Do you guys envision any kind of treatment of that area, lighting, planting, uh any kind of amenities that would help this thing kind of you know set itself apart from that backdrop of the existing bookstore?

Joseph, could you go to the site plan maybe for us?

Yeah, and so the area in between this this building and the bookstore is actually the loading dock for the bookstore.

It's the existing dock, uh, which will be shared with this building.

So that is purely a service area.

I I believe we have a site plan.

It may be in your package, the submission package.

Um you can see the landscaped area with the service alley kind of goes below grade a little bit, and they have the screening wall around it.

So the screen wall will be will be maintained, and we're bringing our building up within about six feet of that screen wall just to provide access back there.

Um so it's not intended to um be a very public area, and so therefore we've we essentially put all the service area back there to to uh group it together.

Anyone else have any questions for the okay?

Uh thank you.

Is there anybody in opposition to speak or you more in favor?

Anybody in opposition?

Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the commission.

I will accept a motion if anybody's got one.

Yeah, I think it's a is a really nice project.

And um it's it's kind of fun when um you use the code against itself to make something slightly different but unexpectedly good.

So um cheers to the design team for that.

I'll move for approval if second we have a motion to approve in a second.

Um faster than I thought and I was ready for.

Um so we have a motion from Commissioner Halliday to approve all three waivers as presented, and a second from Commissioner Hughes.

All right.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Bose, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

Thank you all.

Looks like a really great project.

And I'll turn it back over to Chairman Binner.

Thank you.

All right.

Um this is the sixth UDC case of today.

Just a reminder, we administratively poll number seven, so this should be the last one.

Uh UDC 2026 170.

Uh we addressed it 7979 Trinity Boulevard.

Uh this is a recommendation to City Council to approve an ordinance, amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Worth, being ordinance number 21653 as amended, codified in appendix A of the Code of the City of Fort Worth to amended sections of the Trinity Lake Development Code as provided by Section 4.1307 point D, other development standards of Section 4.1307, Trinity Lakes TL District of Article 13, form-based code, districts of chapter 4, district regulation regulations updating regulating plans, boundaries of character zones and appendices, revising appendix B maps, exhibit B.25 Trinity Lakes District and Exhibit B.26 Trinity Lakes District Character Zones to update the district's boundaries and character zones.

So please contain yourself after hearing that exciting uh request.

Um the the bottom line with this one before I even go into the presentation, is uh a couple months ago you guys heard a rezoning request from an applicant to rezone land that was AG to Trinity Lakes.

That rezoning went through City Council, so now we have to update our regulating plan maps and the zoning ordinance maps.

That's the bottom line with us.

Um and here's a picture of the 5.8 acre site that was rezoned uh from AG to Trinity Lakes neighborhood via ZC 2608.

Um it was referred to as UDC 2026 029 a few months ago as well.

Um that went through City Council in June.

So now we have to update our maps.

Um and then just for context, there is this parcel to the west, as you can see here, which is also Trinity Lakes neighborhood.

That went through a similar rezoning and amendment process in 2025.

That western parcel is 39 acres.

The developer of that western parcel was able to obtain this five-acre parcel to the east, and now they want to do a cohesive development with it all.

So here's an aerial kind of showing the existing development that's around it.

To the north, there is R1, which is pretty detached, uh low density single family residential zoning, and then directly to the east, there's A5, detached single family residential zoning.

The TLN district does allow for detached uh single family residential zoning with some more flexible development standards that allow for some more some more urban qualities than just traditional A5 or even R1 zoning.

Here's the entire Trinity Lakes Master Plan.

Um there's kind of three areas of Trinity Lakes.

There's the area to the west, which is by the train station, and it has the big lake in it.

Um there's the area to the east, uh, which is kind of this triangle.

Um that's mostly uh low density detached single family zoning, and then they've been working on this middle portion here, which is to the south of the existing uh Trinity Lakes of River Trails and Trinity Lakes neighborhoods.

So here's a five-point acre site, the plan for it.

Here's the aerial as is.

Um the red is the subject area.

Um and this kind of shows what it is we're doing on the left is the current, and on the right is what is proposed.

We're just just literally extending that tan line over a little bit.

And here's the uh zoning ordinance maps that we're changing.

You can see uh here we have this area that's now included, and then this area is shaded in.

There's the error pointing it out.

Um so given this, uh staff is recommending that the request for a recommendation to zoning commission city council on the proposed map or proposed text amendment uh to the Trinity Lakes Form Based Code and Design Guidelines as well as map exhibits to appendix B of the zoning ordinance be approved.

And uh I'm gonna save Chris the time.

This is technically classified as a text amendment, even though we're changing the maps, but it's a text amendment.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

No, do we need to ask if the public is in a for approval or opposition on this as well?

Anyway to speak in uh favor of this.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

The city is the applicant on this one as well.

Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

I make a motion to uh approve the second uh upgrading the maps and the text exhibits.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from Commissioner Reed to approve the request.

Chairman Benner, how do you vote?

Aye.

Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner DeBoes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

Aye.

Motion passes 7-0.

And that is the last case that we're gonna hear today.

Thanks, everyone.

We are adjourned.

See you next month.

Thank you.