 1 minute and we'll get we'll get started for the commissioners online if y'all could turn on your cameras just so we can include you as part of the quorum. That would be great and before we get started, I wanted to introduce 1 of our other new senior planners Robert Nunez. He wasn't here last month, but he's on our preservation and design team. So. He and a Stephanie will be your main points of contact for the urban design commission going forward. Not me. Don't don't contact me. So. Those those are the 2 people so we will jump right into the work session. I just wanted to give you guys a quick update on the Evans Rosdale development from last month. Um, I said, I would they said they would provide an update on the dumpster and the downspouts. They are actually going to remove that dumpster entirely the exterior dumpster and rethink how they're going to do trash collection for that building on site. And they're also going to daylight the downspouts through the curb. So, they're not going to sheet flow the water over the pedestrian sidewalk. So that I think addresses all of the comments and discussions from from last month. All right. Okay. Welcome everybody. This is the May 18th urban design commission 10 o'clock work session. We'll open it up for any staff comments unless we just received all we'll get in which case we'll close it and move on to the regular meeting. The urban design commission requires a quorum of 5 members to be present and available for voting members of the commission may be attending remotely in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The following members are present today. Jesse stamper Mike, Rattery, James Hook, Gareth Harrier, Dorothy DeBose, Aaron Thesman, Mary Kay Hughes and Gwen Harper staff present today are just a new heart and a Baker Nico Arias, Robert Nunez. Estefania Barretto, Jacqueline Ingram and Kayla Bolson. Mr. Chair, will you please call the meeting to order? We'll call the May 18th Urban Design Commission to order. And here any announcements? Well, are there none from staff? None from the commission? No announcements. We'll move on to approval of the April 20th meeting minutes. Has everybody had a chance to review? Do we have a motion? Second, we have a motion and a second staff. Would you like to do role? Welcome to the Fort Worth Urban Design Commission. Oh, sorry, sorry. Okay. Commissioner stamper. I commissioner Rattery. Commissioner hook. I commissioner Harrier. I commissioner DeBose. I commissioner Thesman. I commissioner Hughes. I commissioner Harper. I motion approved. Okay. Staff would introduce the first continued case, please. Okay. First, first case of the U. D. C. It's 20 U. D. C. 23 dash zero three nine J. P. A.'s garage at West Magnolia in St. Louis Avenue, the applicant requests a certificate or appropriateness for a waiver from the near south side development standards and guidelines. Excuse me, staff. Could we just pause for one moment? We have a recusal needs to leave the room. I just start. Thank you, staff. We wait. Yep. We wait until the attorneys in. Okay. Okay. First case is U. D. C. 23 dash zero three nine J. P. S. parking garage at West Magnolia in St. Louis Avenue. The applicant requests a certificate or appropriateness for a waiver from the near south side development standards and guidelines to allow for the following. A waiver to allow a multi level garage to be visible from the city right away. For the near south side development standards and guidelines structure parking and multi level garages shall be located at the interior of a block or underground and should not be visible from the public right away. An exceptional circumstances, the U. D. C. may consider garages the front, the public right away and for all those exceptions, the design standards and guidelines below apply. A whole parking structure facades to face the public right away shall be designed to incorporate architectural elements in materials that complement the building or buildings in the area. B. Incorporate screening on the ground level to minimize visual impact and C. Integrate ground floor commercial uses. The applicant met with the near south side design review committee in February 2023 in order to receive feedback on the project and proposed design. After receiving feedback from the D. R. C., the applicant revised the exterior elevations to address concerns, particularly in regards to the facade designs along Magnolia Avenue and St. Louis Avenue. After the applicant revised the elevations, the D. R. C. recommended approval. At the April U. D. C. meeting, the commission requested material samples for the parking garage screening in order to determine whether the proposed material is consistent with the near south side development standards and guidelines. The applicant provided photos of the samples for the proposed metal panels. The transparency material screening creates a unique building facade, especially along Magnolia Avenue. When used in conjunction with other materials, the proposed material enhances architectural variety along the streetscape. Therefore, staff recommends the following motion, that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for waiver from the near south side development standards and guidelines to allow a multi-level garage to be visible from the city right away be approved. These are the samples that client, sorry, the applicant provided. I believe he is here and he does have some of the samples with him. Okay, commission, do we have any questions for staff at this point before we open it up for the public discussion? Yeah. Being that we already discussed this at length last meeting, I think we'll just move on to hearing from the applicant and any in support. So we'll open the public portion of the meeting. You, Mr. Hoyt. Okay. Your application is, your presentation is in there. Please state your name and your city. Good morning all. It's good to be back with you today. I'm Hoyt Hammer. I'm a principal with the Beck Group and we are the designer and builder for this project for on behalf of JPS Health Network. Hopefully the information that we updated and provided last week address many of the concerns that were raised in the conversation last month. But we have put together just a brief stack of some images. I just wanted to try to address each one of those comments specifically and hopefully that will swage any concerns that the commission may have. Thank you. All right. Good laser pointer. Okay. Real briefly, we heard four general comments last month from the commission. These are comments also that were reiterated by Justin in an email asking us to provide additional information, which again we did last week. There was concern about the exterior materials, the metals that were being proposed. There were questions about the wall sections asking for more detail. I think it was related specifically to potential headlight projection into the multifamily project to the West. There were questions about the streetscape asking again for more detail as to what that streetscape elevation and character might be like. And then lastly, we were shared with you that the ground floor elevation along UDC would potentially be a urgent care center to serve JPS. There were questions about what that might ultimately look like. So we've we've progressed those elevations and just want to share that information with you here this morning. So just to speak quickly about materials. Again, the overall overriding direction that we have been trying to maintain here is to provide a parking garage. That matches the context of the future MOB, which will be located directly to the east of this building. So it's intended to marry in with the context not only of that future building, but as you know, there are a number of projects that are coming online on the JPS campus that will really recreate the vision and the character of that entire campus. And so we're trying to respond to and establish a character for the future buildings that are forthcoming. Similar requirements that we are working with the owners requested that we maintain a naturally ventilated garage. And what that means real, real technically or real briefly is that there's a portion of the garage on all sides. It has to be maintained very open. So 40% of the open of the area of the sod has to be open so that we get air moving through and across that deck. The other requirement that's really driving the design of the exterior is suicide prevention and enabling or incorporating some measures that would that would address that really means cladding the full area of the garage. Unfortunately, we do see instance incidents of suicide people taking their own life after after bad diagnosis. And so it's this is not uncommon to see in this type of environment in this type of project type. So utilizing a metal ornamental metals in this manner helps meet many of those criteria. It has an openness factor that will allow that natural ventilation while it maintains the security aspects to meet the suicide prevention. The other thing that we really like about metal is that it really lends itself to different appearances at different times of day depending on how the material is illuminated both internally and externally. And so one of the metals that we have we've talked about this occurs the lower level of the garage. It's an expanded metal. Now I know expanded metal has a lot of maybe images of grading or industrial components, but this metal is aluminum. The opening is approximately four to six inches in height. It's powder coated so it can be painted and finished to a color of any color that that we choose. And so it gives a much more transparent open area or visibility at that lower level where the pedestrians are really going to be in contact with this building on the two key facades Magnolia and St. Louis. So you can see the directional metal is here along the base of the building on the two faces. And because it's directional here along Magnolia it's oriented, the opening is oriented to the west. So from this viewpoint you can actually see into the garage. As you look down St. Louis the openings are oriented to the south so that visibility into the garage is limited. We also carry that same material up on the stairwell. And so we're trying to lighten up that corner and give visibility to that egress element. Another material that we're proposing this would be over the entry element on the ground floor. I'll speak to that in just a moment. This is a perforated flat panel. In this case the perforations can be in any particular pattern. The size of the openings can vary. The pattern can vary. We're using this in a very limited area. But again in the install photo that you can see over on the right it presents a very open and very transparent facade. One of the other key materials is a corrugated perforated material. We're also using a corrugated material that is opaque and we're using those in key areas to block some of the headlights that are in the garage. A blow up of that material. Again this material is aluminum and it's powder coated or counter coated so it's a custom finish for durability but also color matching of the other materials and a range of colors. It's unlimited. Another product that we are considering in lieu of the corrugated material is more of a standing seam shape. It too is perforated. But with all projects we are balancing budget and so at this point we are in the midst of BD and we're balancing design budget trying to get everything in alignment. But just try to give you an example of some of the other materials that we may be considering for this portion of the garage. This product along with the corrugated material would be on the upper portions of the garage itself. So with regard to wall sections let me point out briefly you saw the site plan that Robert shared earlier. The parking garage is situated here right at the corner of St. Louis and Magnolia. There is a large multi-story, multi-family project to the west. Campus, the balance of the JPS campus is all to the south. There are one and two story commercial projects across Magnolia to the north all of which are owned and the majority of which are owned by JPS. We've positioned the ramp, the vertical circulation for the garage on the opposite end of the elevators and the pedestrian connectivity to Magnolia. That's really done from a safety standpoint to keep the vertical circulation within the garage as far away from the pedestrians as possible. The field in between the two is the location for the majority of the parking. So against here along the ramp's side we have very few parking spaces that are along the exterior. Let me get to the next section. I'll come back to the ramp in just a moment. Here's the section for the main entry and a typical cross section through the typical wall configuration as well as the entry itself along Magnolia. I think one of the questions that was raised last month was about canopies, articulation at the entry, how do you denote the entry? We've denoted the entry with a recess for the main entry door. There is a canopy that's approximately seven feet deep, so the door is protected from the weather elements. There are metal panels to the right with signage opportunities to denote the clinical use. Here is the proposed M2 metal, the perforated metal that we noted earlier. And as we look at the typical parking area on the upper levels, we've denoted which portions are solid corrugated material versus perforated corrugated material that would align with the headlights of the vehicles. The ramp structure, we have a situation where the metal is running perpendicular or level with the grade, but the ramps are behind that running as ramps do. But along the length of the ramps, there is a continuous precast barrier that is to a height of about 42 inches that would prohibit or block any kind of headlights that would project west into the multifamily complex. So you can see in the elevation, the overlay of the metal, maintaining its horizontal nature consistent with the Magnolia elevation, but the ramp structure rising behind that, again, blocking any kind of headlight concern that may be projecting into the multifamily project. So from a streetscape section, as we mentioned, the parking area on the ground level is completely concealed from both St. Louis and from Magnolia. There has been a proposed urgent care facility here in this space, the full length of Magnolia. The entry to that single tenant use is centrally located. It is a pass through type entry for access from Magnolia, as well as from the garage. We've incorporated steps along the street to enable access from the street side parking up to the sidewalk and into the front entry of the urgent care facility. And here along St. Louis will be the parking operations office as well as some future retail uses for office uses for JPS. So we are currently meeting all of the near south side requirements for landscaping for trees for light placement for extended sidewalk width along Magnolia, as well as St. Louis. And in discussions with the near south side designer view committee, really I think that predicated or led us in the development of the entry element itself. It is again centrally located in the overall width of the garage. And it also corresponds urbanistically to the context of the streets across Magnolia. This is actually Galveston where it dead ends. So it's really drawn attention to where that front door is located within the garage. We do have a grade change issue that we're dealing with between the elevation level of ground level of the garage down to the curb. And you can see lovely in the renderings. We do have some storm inlet conditions and grading conditions along Magnolia that we're still having to contend with. And so we have proposed some burming of the landscaping, but also some retaining walls along there to help make that transition. And in some cases where we have a retaining wall, we have to have a guard rail because we're exceeding our 29 inch allowable height. So architecturally, we're trying to create something that incorporates and aligns with the architecture yet provides a code compliant response. And along the street, the sidewalk portion incorporating benches are street lighting and additional landscaping so that we have landscaping visible at the sidewalk level as well. Along St. Louis, the grades are a little bit more compatible with finished floor. So it's it's presented opportunity just for ground level cover and and ornamental trees. Here you can see the site, the steps that have been provided to provide access. And again, along at the sidewalk level, the bench seating and landscaping. So with regard to the ground level elevation, again, this will be an urgent care facility. So privacy modesty conditions do prevail here in the design of the elevation. There will be a number of exam rooms along this elevation. We did note in the discussion last week that JPS was willing to meet 40% requirement or minimum requirement for glazing at this lower level. So the elevation exceeds that 40% level. We have some high windows where some of the exam rooms may occur. There are full height windows in other areas that are a little bit more public or less private. And that pattern continues the length of the facade. The last thing that I would mention, and it's not part of the comments, but it was something that was raised was just the solid nature of the corner of the garage itself. We're talking about the corner at Magnolia and St. Louis. We went through and refined this. We actually redesigned the corner. You can probably understand that in a parking garage, the most efficient place to place a vertical circulation is in the corner of the garage maintains a efficient vehicle, vehicle flow and parking layout. But what we did do is we relocated the stair to the very corner of the garage, brought that all the way down to grade. We're surrounding it with glass. So we're trying to open that corner up as much as possible, respecting the adjacent intersection. I feel like we have, we heard your comments last month. A lot of them very valid. And we feel like we have made a lot of strides and a lot of refinement in the last 30 days and would respectfully ask for approval of the design. I'm available for any questions or any from the commission. Yes. Thanks for coming in and offering a lot of additional context to the project to open it up to the commission for questions of the applicant at this time. It's a really pretty building. I wasn't here last month, so I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Did you guys discuss the fence along Magnolia? That was the subject of my only questions regarding these revisions. It's a guard rail. So if you park along Magnolia in front of that, say you're in the middle, you need to walk along the road to get to the steps. Actually, what we have done, let me get back to, this is probably going to be as good as I can provide here. But there is, we have provided a decomposed granite or gravel plinth that runs the back of the curve. So if you are parked, let's just say here in the first 50 or 60 feet of the garage, you have the choice of either working along the sidewalk or along that plinth to the steps here, coming up the steps to the sidewalk. Or if you're closer to the corner, you can come back to the corner and gain access. Everything is below 5%, so it's not a ramp, it's just a slope sidewalk. Likewise on the eastern end of the entry itself, we have another set of steps, similar configuration of decomposed granite or gravel along the back of the curb. So there is an area for a person to debark out of the car, walk back to the steps or come down to the corner and come back up. You think that would be an opportunity for a handicap ramp somewhere in that area or would you expect for them to go all the way around? Well, handicap spaces are all provided on the interior of the garage. With that great access in, it's going to be a much better accommodation for that. Can you go back to the elevation that kind of showed the streetscape? I think there was one that was a little more zoomed in on, there you go. So my question related to the treatment you had as far as the stairs leading to the main entrance in the prior presentation. Excuse me. Have you determined that that treatment directly adjacent to the entry is not possible due to grade? It is not possible due to grade, that's correct. I think there were a couple of concerns with the stairs directly in front of the entry. One, we did not want to encourage after further conversation, we didn't want to encourage people to cross mid block across the street, across Magnolia. But also the rise from the back of curb, you get to a different view. The rise from back of curb here to elevation is almost five feet or right at five feet. So safely, there is not enough step or area for the incorporation of a frontal approach staircase in that area. And not to get too far into the weeds, but part of the reason that the finish floor is coming up is that we have a localized flooding issue on the corner of St. Louis and Magnolia, which is really due to capacity issues within the public system, which is raising our finish floor. So we would love to get this building down a little bit more and if we can, we will. But what's represented in the renderings is the minimum by understanding at this moment. So is that decomposed granite right along the curb? Is that what you're saying? That's correct. Can you see it here? That's what I'm sorry right here right there is decomposed granite. That's correct. So there is a place to get off the road when you get out of your car. That's correct. What's the dimension between back of curb and proposed retaining wall? It is. It's approximately five to six feet, I believe, from curb to wall. So you don't have a lot of room to work with there. We do not have a lot of room to work with. We're providing 10 feet of sidewalk from the face of our building. We pulled our building off the property line, but that 10 feet is straddling the property line. So we have quite a few things that are happening between face of building and back curb to make the transitions. And I noticed you had a letter from near south sides in support of this project this month. I don't know if all the commissioners have had a chance to look at that. It is provided on the laptop or the tablet. But was this specific aspect of the project presented to near south side? Yes, Michael saw it on Monday. So this possibility for retaining wall and guardrail was discussed with them. The comment that they had really were the amount of glazing that we were showing here at the ground floor elevation. So we actually made some modifications. You may have seen an update that came through sometime this week, but there were no comments related to the guardrail. I'd like to say I really appreciate what you've done with the transparency of the first floor, balancing what you need for privacy, given your use indoors and the pedestrian experience. I think the pattern really works well. I really like all the other contexts you've provided for the concerns that were brought up the last meeting. My only concerns at this point revolve around that retaining wall and guardrail. I'm inclined to believe we have a partnership between you and the near south side that will continue to work towards the very best outcome for this project. Are there other questions for the applicant? Well, last question I have just regarding decomposed granite was a discussion of like a concrete strip versus decomposed granite. Why was that the material you guys chose? No, and we can we can entertain either one. Just thinking walkability and what's easy is there, but yeah, I mean, honestly, from a maintenance standpoint, you may want the the hardscape there as well. Gravel as a tendency just to get spread all over and be difficult to maintain with the grass adjacent to it. Hard to walk in and heels. You said that the those little cutouts are stormwater currently or that's proposed. No, that's that's there. The entire block slopes to mid block two directions before the system picks it up and takes it north through Galveston. Is there any discussion of upgrading that system? We wish there would be more. There are some discussions about it. The the capacity issues are really offsite. They're actually over at Rosedale and 35 seems to be the pinch point. So there are a number of issues through there that we'd love to see upgraded, but it's not a part of the project at this time. Thank you so much for coming back in and lending all this context. The project really appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Do you have others in the audience that are in support of this project? Please approach the microphone. State your name in town. Hello, this is Austin. Sorry. This is Austin James. I'm with nearest outside ink. I see Mike's online. I don't know if he's traveling. I don't know if you'll be able to speak or not. He did send in a letter. I hope everybody's had a chance to read that. We're continuing to be in strong support. We've met with the applicant team since last month's meeting and even earlier this week they've they've made changes to this facade down here that we think are just well done. They took our feedback as well as y'all have really implemented it well. This is a critical project for them. It's one of the most important healthcare facilities in both the region and our neighborhood. So we just hope this can give it forward and the best way possible. Thank you. Thank you, Austin. Austin, did did you guys discuss this retaining wall and the way that that fence looks? We did or guardrail. Yeah, we did. So that I think we really focused on kind of the interior part here where we expect most of the people will be walking at. And we kind of mentioned that, you know, if it's a it's a garage, how many people are really going to be parking on the street and then going into it. So we imagine most people that will be actually going up those stairs, probably will just be parking in the garage anyway. So, but I agree with your point on the crush gravel. I think that's probably a good point to bring up to so. Thank you. Is there an additional reason for having the. The pointed bits sticking out of the top of the guardrail. Sorry. I'll let wait, address that. Yeah. I mean, is that a design element or is there like a safety or something that we're not. No, it was purely a design element and we can continue to, as you say, work with yourself side and refine that design. Yeah, I mean, if they're. I would defer to them. I just didn't know if there was some other unseen. No, thank you. Do we have anybody in the audience or online to speak in opposition to this waiver request. Staff. No. Okay. Seeing none. We'll close the public portion of the meeting and. Discuss this way of request amongst the commission. It's a really beautiful parking garage. My only concern is the guard rail fence. It just looks really foreboding and maybe. Again, to Gareth's point about. The spikes at the top. Maybe that could be. Revisited with that. Yeah, I agree. I also. I'm thinking that, you know, last time we saw this. We didn't realize that. And I don't think they did that they were going to raise the building from grade as much as they did. And so this part of the project I expect is still. Like a lot of it. Still a little fluid. We saw a lot of changes just since last month. There were big improvements that they kind of dug in on. And I think when they get a chance, they see what the realistic height of this building is going to be how low they can have place it. I expected they'll refine this. I'd love to see them take on board some of our comments about. Some concerns we've had about minimizing that guard rail and its presence. But I agree that that's an element that. We and they, I'm sure all wish wasn't a part of the project, but it is practically necessary. Any other discussion about the project? I would like to make a motion to approve. I would like to make a motion to approve with the applicant working with staff to. Minimize the appearance of the guard rail and maybe revisit the material along the parking. Along the street where the decompose granted is proposed. We have a motion that we have a second. I have a second. And staff, we have a motion on a second. Would you call role, please? We have a motion in a second. Chair, chair stamper. How do you vote? I. Commissioner. How do you vote? I. Commissioner hook. How do you vote? I. Commissioner to vote. How do you vote? She's recused. Thanks. Commissioner and test man. How do you vote? I. Commissioner Cooper. How do you vote? He's not here. Commissioner Harper. How do you vote? I. I. The motion passes. Seven to zero. And Harrier. Yes. Commissioner Hughes. Thank you very much. The motion passes for me as well. All right. I'll take it. You both out. I just well. I thank you. Thank you very much. The motion passes. I know. Under our first urban forestry case. UDC 23. 029. Let me get you set up. It is a continued case. I think this is yours. Go for it. Good morning commissioners. 2029 was continued from the April UDC meeting. There were concerns with the provided canopy on the phase two plans for urban forestry. So we're presenting it again this week. Again, they're requesting a certificate of appropriateness from the urban forestry ordinance for a waiver of the preservation requirement, reducing it from 25% of the existing canopy down to 0%. Again, this is the existing site plan, satellite aerial. The majority of the trees are on this western portion, more towards the north of the site. And then this mode area here is essentially all onsite easement. And then north would be on the left side for this image. Here is their urban forestry phase one plan. You can see all the individual existing trees. They're proposing to remove all of the trees. As far as the species go, it is there are no protected species trees. And the existing canopy, if you give me one second, is proposed or is composed exclusively of hackberry and mesquite trees. They're proposing to remove all trees. There is a little bit of fencing here for an offsite tree. It's very adjacent to the site. They're gonna put fencing up to preserve that tree, but it's considered offsite canopy so it doesn't count towards the preservation requirement. And here are their revised urban forestry phase two plan. So the only changes that have been made between the phase two plan now and the one that you guys viewed in April is the addition of nine large species trees on that eastern portion there. All nine of these trees are proposed to be cedar elms. Given the large species canopy credit of 2,000 square feet, they're all spaced appropriately, so we're not gonna need to do any spacing reductions. And then the rest of the plantings from the original phase two you viewed in April have been the same. So we can go ahead and get into the numbers here again. Most of these haven't changed except for the final one. The growth site area of the site is 234,000 square feet, but there is a lot of onsite easements. So the net urban forestry area is the portion of the property that they're responsible for. That's gonna be your growth site area minus the area of onsite easements. So their net urban forestry area is only 125,005. The existing tree canopy is just under 12,000 at 11,800. That's about 10.6% of their net urban forestry area. The 25% preservation requirement is just under 3,000 square feet at 2,950. And their canopy requirement for commercial land use is 30% of the net urban forestry area. For this site, that's gonna be 37,651 square feet. They are proposing to provide 0% preservation and they are proposing a final canopy area of 56,800, which is 45.3% of the net urban forestry area or 15.3% greater than their requirement. When this request came before the commission in April, I believe they were planting just 38, just a little over 38,000. They were coming in at like 30.9% of the requirement. So they've bumped that up significantly. They've added nine large species trees and they are significantly over planting over their requirement. And that was the main concern that was addressed in the continuation. I'm available for any questions that you guys might have. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. This is exactly what we were looking for last time. We saw this case. So I think if there are no questions for staff, we'll open it up to the public portion of the meeting. Listen to any comments from the applicant or any folks in support of this waiver. I believe the applicant is available. John, Drennan, Burleson, Texas. I'm available to answer questions and to apologize. We tried to log in three times and we're not able to be. We heard your comments, so we at least tried to incorporate them. So I'm available to answer any questions you got. Appreciate you coming, John, and appreciate the modifications that you've made. Absolutely, we just couldn't be heard. Yep. Are there any questions for the applicant? Thank you, John. Anyone else here to speak in support of this waiver? Anyone to speak in opposition to this waiver? Hearing none, we'll close the public portion of the meeting. Open it up for discussion and or emotion. Commissioner Harrier, do you like this? Yeah, I missed last meeting, but the species are longer lived species, better suited. They're gonna survive, so I make a motion that we approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Staff, would you call roll? Do you think? Chair Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Raddery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Harrier? Aye. Commissioner DeBose? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Harper? Aye. All right, the motion for the waiver of the preservation requirement from urban forestry has been approved. Eight zero. Thank you. We move on to the new cases this month, beginning with UDC 23040. Commissioner Harrier has recused himself for this case just to let you know. Okay, so first case, I guess I need to introduce myself. Jacqueline Ingram, urban forestry officer. Okay, UDC, the first case was UDC 23040. This is for 2200, Southeast Loop 820, or Highway 820, the SBIP campus. They are asking for a certificate of appropriateness from the urban forestry ordinance to waive the 25% tree preservation requirement, reducing the requirement to zero percent. So this is an aerial of the lot. It is a requirement given the species on site, mainly because if the lot had been maintained, these species really wouldn't be there. It's early successional trees and they're all weak wooded, low sprawling. So they are taking up a lot of space even though they aren't long-lived species. The applicants also had Bartlett come out and do an assessment. And I believe they have that on y'all's tablets. It was a letter from Bartlett just saying that they are early successional trees, giving the species variation across the site and reiterating the fact that they are proposing quite a lot of plantings. Excellent, thank you. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Hearing none, we'll open up the public portion of the meeting and listen to anyone in support of this waiver. Please state your name and city residents. Hi, my name is Christa McCall. I reside in Dallas, Texas. I'm the landscape architect with Papercite Studio. I thought you did too. It should be here. This mouse is like, yeah, he put it, sorry, he put it behind the other one. That's okay, would you like this? Sure, thank you. So just, there we go. So we are proposing 100% removal of existing trees. They are located throughout the site. Just wanted to give you a little bit of background about the project, who we are, or kind of what we're doing. So the campus is, we really are focusing on a design that is campus-like. So all of the existing plantings are native or well-adapted. We're really focusing on the experience of people that are viewing the landscape from Loop 820, but also from the interior of the buildings outward. So really looking to increase quality of work life. So these are three aerials. The top aerial, I believe, had been shown earlier. That's how the site is today. So the site is actually this larger portion here. And you can see that most of the ground cover is actually just a small amount of native grasses that have grown up over time because the property hadn't been maintained prior to our client owning the property. And then you can see this is an aerial from 2001 and this is an aerial from 2007. And so you can see that just over time, these few trees have sort of sporadically come up. This is the letter that staff was referring to earlier from Bartlett, which basically states that just the sporadic location of the trees obviously is not helpful for us to be able to preserve them. But in addition to that, the quality of the trees is fairly low, which is an indication that the soil quality is not quite right. So obviously long-term, these trees don't have a long lifespan. This is just a color rendering to better illustrate the existing trees that are on site and their locations. And then this is the proposed plan. So you can see we actually have an evergreen tree buffer along the highway here to give, obviously give more coverage year-round with live oaks, Arizona cypress and eastern red cedars. So again, trying to make a nod to existing natural vegetation but more quality species trees that have proper branching, proper structure. Oh, sorry. And then you can see we've also located deciduous trees and evergreen trees along the perimeter edge, again, to just sort of buffer the property from adjacent views and really give, again, a sense of being able to look out and see those overstory trees from work place. So really we focus a lot on diversity with trees in our projects. And we really do think feel like the tree diversity helps with pest control. It helps with longevity of all the species when we're not just doing a monoculture of trees along a streetscape. So we really do try to focus on tree diversity in terms of species. So again, this is the entire planting site. And then these are the species of trees. So we have cedar elm on the top right here, live oak, Arizona cypress, chinkapen oak, eastern red cedar, vi-tex, which is an understory tree and eaves necklace, which is also an understory tree. The project is broken down as staff mentioned earlier into five buildings, buildings A and B, base, the highway. So you can see we've got evergreen trees along this frontage area. And then as we start to get into these parking areas, we start to look at more deciduous trees so that we can focus on shade coverage in the summer and allowing some sun in in the winter. So we've got cedar elms and some chinkapen and some live oaks at this boundary. Building C also fronts on the highway. Again, we've got our evergreen plant material in front of Building C. And then again, our deciduous plant material here, as well as our chinkapen oaks, giving us a little bit of an alley as we enter our side entrance. Then these are just elevations, illustrating the sort of look and feel of the project, really focusing more on it feeling almost like a park setting instead of just a workplace setting. Buildings D and E are fairly large. They have a much larger footprint. So obviously cut and fill played an issue for us with topography and the existing trees and what we could maintain. So we've allocated chinkapen oaks again along the northern edge of Building E. And again, we have some evergreen and deciduous plant material along the property edge, as well as interior plantings of Vitex in the parking areas and at the corner. So we can sort of help shield this parking court. And then this is Building E, which mirrors Building D in terms of building structure. Again, we have evergreen and deciduous trees here and along the southern boundary of the property. And then deciduous trees on the interior court. And then to separate the two buildings, we've added Vitex and Eaves Necklace between the two buildings as well. And then this is just a rendering of Building D as you're looking at the north face, the chinkapen oaks that sort of mask that facade. Again, just illustrations showing you what that looks and feels like. Then when we talk about the evergreen plant material, we have detention facilities that we're utilizing on the northern section and the southern section to help cleanse stormwater, cleanse the effluent that's coming off of the parking lot. So obviously in those areas, all of the plant material is evergreen so that we have little leaf drop in those detention facilities. But we're also utilizing those as habitat corridors where we're doing native grasses, native seeding. That's one of the things that Paper Crisis known for and why we partnered with Empire. So you can see these are just mood images that illustrate the effect, the intent, the design intent. The detention facilities have gabion walls around them so that plant material can sort of migrate through those walls so it softens the appearance. Again, just giving you an overview of what that looks like. And then these are the evergreen species that are located in the detention areas on the north and the south. We've got our, oh, sorry. We've got our live oak, eastern red cedar and our blue Atlas cedar. The blue Atlas cedar we're using because they grow so rapidly and we can get a large canopy in a short period of time so that was an intentional selection. And then these are just illustrations showing the design intent of those detention facilities. And then just us asking for, you know, requesting zero percentage preservation. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. I just have to comment. This is one of the most thoughtful and robust solutions to an industrial site I think we've ever seen presented. So excellent work. Does the commission have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Excuse me. And it has nothing to do with the beautiful plantings that you've presented. What will the campus represent? What kind of business? That's an interesting question. Actually, Empire is here and I think they would probably be more suited to answer that question. All right. Thank you. If we could just keep it brief though, please. Bowie Holland, Fort Texas, the developer, good morning commissioners. The campus drive is right there. So it's approximately that area that hits the name campus drive. But also to Chris's point, we do strive to create kind of that campus atmosphere that's cohesive. These aren't one-off buildings that don't relate to one another and people who are using the facilities accessing their mailbox, Essex and parking, it's a great place to go to work. Commissioner Hughes, was your question as to the actual use of the tenants? So is it going to be leased to specific individuals? Absolutely. So we are light industrial. Primarily we target service and engineering companies. There may be some light distribution. Just as an example, we're talking to Siemens automation right now. So a variety of different professional companies. That is great. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone here or online to speak in opposition to this waiver request? No. We'll close the public portion of the meeting, open it up for discussion or motion. Move to approve. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Staff, could you please call roll? Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner DeBose? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Harper? Aye. Carries with an eight to zero? Seven zero, sorry. I forgot. Seven to zero. Thank you. We can move on to UDC case 23053. Thank you. So this next one is UDC 23-053. This is for 7300 Blue Mound Road. The applicant request a certificate of appropriateness from the urban forestry ordinance for a waiver from the 25% tree preservation requirement, reducing the requirement to zero percent. This lot is zoned neighborhood commercial. It is at the corner of Blue Mound and Victoria. It is a single phase commercial building with associated parks and drives and is proposed on only the southern half of the lot. Here is a copy of their phase one plans. Currently, there are six hackberries on site. Whenever we put their aerial, I noticed there's another one, so they are correcting their numbers for that. They went out and their surveyor missed it, I guess. So the existing tree canopy is slightly larger than what they have on their numbers. They are all hackberries and the tree that is not on there is another 20-inch hackberry. They are proposing removal of all the trees. The one that was missed in their survey would be where the building is proposed, so it would still be in the way. Their hackberry, is that mine? I'm sorry. Sorry about that. They are all hackberries which are quick growing trees prone to failure, tend to grow up whenever sites are not maintained. For this site, the NUFA is for the net urban area, the gross area is 121,000 square feet. This includes the top portion of their lot. Looking at their numbers, the existing tree canopy is 4,775 square feet, which is about 4% of the area. Their required preservation would be 1,194 square feet and their required planting back as a commercial site would be 30% of the NUFA, which would be 33,000 square feet. They are asking for zero preservation and with their proposed planting with trees along the bottom and along the side, we did have to do a couple spacing productions due to how close a few trees are. So their provided tree canopy, even with the spacing reductions, is still 34.5%. Questions for me? Yeah, so I have a question. Given that they're only developing half of this property, can we expect 30% of the NUFA on the site that's not being developed when it's developed? Good question for them. Because we kind of had the same thought. Because they are, I mean, the planting that has been proposed takes into consideration that upper half, so they are planting enough to cover that area as well, even slightly over, but I did go ahead and put that this is just Bermuda and Blackland Prairie mix in that upper portion. So the way it's presented today were waiver to be provided. They wouldn't be held to any additional planting standards for that other portion of the lot. Because their preservation has already been met, they would not be held to anything for that upper portion because UFC's do go with the land. Okay, that's good to know. So any additional planting that they do, should they decide to develop that later, would all just be in excess of their required for the entire lot. And also crucially voluntary. Yeah, okay, so we'll put that question to the applicant. Any other questions for staff at this time? Was there any discussion of moving some of the tightly spaced plantings to the street side on the north end or west end? I assume that they have some plan for that area since they did not put any spacing, or sorry, any plantings. We did mention to them after last month that you all prefer not to be right there at the 30%. And so they did add, there was actually one tree that they were talking about keeping right there in the middle of the parking lot. We recommended not keeping a hackberry in the middle of a parking lot and having a dedicated island for it. So they did remove that on this revision and added plantings along the bottom. So even with that revision, they stayed on the outer edges. So I'm assuming they have plans for the upper half. I have a question. Are those the trees that they're using for the barrier between the neighborhood? Are those the lacy oak or those live oak? I guess they're not live oak because it wouldn't be enough, right? No, those are the lacy oaks. Do those drop their leaves? I don't know. They do, okay. Okay, if we don't have further questions for the staff, we can open up the public portion of the meeting, listen to the applicant if he's in attendance. Good afternoon. This is Drew Denofki with Claymore Engineering, 1903 Central Drive Bedford, Texas. Appreciate everybody's time today. Heard some of the questions there from the commission and I may touch on some of those. Staff gave a good presentation. I appreciate that. This is a retail development that is gonna be phased. Phase one is centered on the south side of the property and they plan to do something very similar, if not the exact same on the north side. Well, this would all be one lot. It's a one property owner. Due to construction cost, he's elected to build this in phases. So as staff indicated, we are asking for a 0% preservation. We understand that that's an exception and so we are heavily overplanting this first phase in an effort to show good faith that we are meeting the requirements or exceeding the requirements for the overall lot, not just the half of the lot that's being developed today. That said, we are planning on doing pretty much a mirror image of this development on the north side. We just don't have a timeline for that yet given the current economic situation, but we are planning on additional landscape islands in the front parking lot. There'll be trees in those. We'll continue that street buffer with the shrubbery across the north. The client does want this to have a cohesive look and feel, so that is something that is being planned is additional landscape along with the phase two development. In regards to the question on the street frontage and why there are not additional trees along Blue Mountain Road, there is actually a waterline, a 24 inch concrete waterline that's owned by the City of Fort Worth that's just outside of text dots right away on our property. So to meet the water department requirements, we're not allowed to plant in that easement due to roots potentially being an issue for the waterline itself. So that's the reason why we've heavily planted the front parking lot and then gone with a shrubbery facade along that front buffer. And then the south and obviously the east residential buffers, we've heavily planted as well. The easement that you're speaking of, is that what we can see just in board of what looks like the property line? Yes, sir, that runs the entire length of the property. And so it's entirely on your property? Yes, sir, that's correct. And so maybe I would rephrase the question I was posed by someone else. Would it not be appropriate to plant outside of your property line, street trees in that area? I understand those wouldn't necessarily count for your forestry ordinance requirements, but I see none there, so. Yeah, given that this is not a city street, it's a state controlled right away. Planting in the right away is typically not allowed, nor is irrigation. Interesting, they're really particular about it. Even Kent Bowie, the trees that are there, great. Any new trees? No. Okay, good to know. Yeah, just from my perspective, I don't know that we've heard enough cause for this to be proposed as all the planting necessary has been done and all the planting that would be done on the second phase would be entirely voluntary. I hope you understand that just isn't the way we typically view these projects. I understand that you think you've over planted, but if this was really two phases and two separate lots, and you excluded the planting to the, I guess it's the north plan. Yeah, I think it's the. Phase two. The planting adjacent to phase two there. If that was excluded, you wouldn't meet your requirements, but by planting there, you barely meet the requirements for this phase, but you put us in a position of not being able to appropriately apply the ordinance to the second phase when the second phase happens. You understand the position you're putting us in? No, that does make sense. I don't know what conditions can be levied, but I mean, we don't have an issue with committing to planting additional landscape. Do you? Phase two develops. I just can't tell you when phase two will develop. I think that if we were presented an entire plan and phase one was going into an effect, but phase two would be something that they would be held to, I would be more likely to be able to move on it right now like commissioner Stamper said with everything on the, what I'm assuming is the south end and construction costs being a concern for phase two because that's why we're not doing it yet. The easiest thing to do is to cut out a tree here or there. So I think it would be more appropriate to have the entire plan put forth in order to grant a waiver. And maybe staff can comment on a plan that would include two phases and appropriate forestry ordinance applied even though only one phase is being completed initially. So whenever they pull permits for the second section, they will have to go back through urban forestry. This permit will have to be updated for any parking. They will have to have the 40% coverage. So they will be required to do additional planting. Okay. Yeah. I don't think that was clear when we posed that earlier. So any additional planting will be even more so even more so over the provided, I'm sorry, that there's currently there would be 34.5% provided. Should they put in any parking lots in the next phase, that will have to meet the 40% requirement for parks and drives currently because of the way the drives are that's addressed along the top portion but any parking would need the additional 40%. Right. So they would have to come back through. Yeah. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe also we'd be held to the front buffer requirements as well on Victoria. Yes. So there is going to be a significant amount of required planting with phase two that we are held to, but just looking at proposed today considering the entire land area are meeting the minimum and that's done in basically in good faith asking for this waiver. Phase two wouldn't require a preservation waiver, correct? There are no existing trees on phase two. But as it stands, it's all just one piece of property right now. So by granting this waiver, we're granting the waiver for the entire property. And we do sometimes, or we do artificial lots, but because of the amount of space this would be of the lot, we couldn't do an artificial lot because it's more than half of the property. So urban forestry, we do urban or artificial lots to address that. But in this instance, because of the amount of space that is being left untouched, we can't. Yeah, this is a good conversation to have because this is an unusual situation that I don't recall seeing as before. I remember doing this before. Yeah, so I hope the applicant can excuse some of our discussion and sorting out what sort of requirements you would be responsible for for the second phase, which ones you would not. I think staff has clarified that there would be looking at the way that southern portion of the property is planted. It seems to me like we would probably receive pretty much the same result based on the requirements for parking, planting, and... It wouldn't come back to us, right? Like that, it won't come back to us because it's only here for preservation waiver. So if we approve today, then anything for phase two would just have to follow what's required by permit. But I think the waiver we're granting today is what we're getting along that eastern boundary plan east anyway. And the work, the planting we would get in phase two would be under other requirements. And that was, I think, all of our concerns. When we first saw this was, are we just providing a... Blanket? Yeah, a blanket waiver with no other planting to... Well, all other planting to be voluntary. And that's not the case if they were to provide any parking, which of course they will. They will have additional plantings. And because this is for preservation, the only trees that are on site are in this southern section. So the waiver would apply to this part of the phase, or this part of the building. And then the, like Drew mentioned, there are no plantings in the northern half. Yeah, I think we understand each other now. Can I just ask, is it just a cost thing as to not planting, if you kind of know where at least the dryways are gonna be, not planting anything along Victoria? Is that just strictly cost and irrigation and having to run those lines? Is that sort of the apprehension there? That's definitely, there's an element of that in it. Obviously cost is a concern, which is why we've split the development into two phases. But on another note, constructability is also something that I'd point out. You obviously, you don't wanna add a bunch of nice landscaping in an area that could be a lay down yard or disturbed in the future with construction. There'd be a parking field up along Blue Mountain Road and parking along Victoria. And all of that grading and paving activity would, one, to plant means you also have to irrigate. So you'd have underground lines to contend with and are they set to grade? Are they not just phase two, just the plan change over the next two years? We don't know, what if that parking moves or it just pins you in to a point where you may end up having to remove trees that were planted in order to facilitate the phase two design. Yeah, and nobody wants that. I was just thinking in terms of letting some trees get established in the meantime, but if there's grading considerations and all that, I can see where that would be problematic, so. I have a question about the trees you're using for buffer. Wonder if you had a chance to speak to the neighborhood to your east to see if those type of trees that that species kind of fits with what they would expect with the leaves dropping every year, you know, that's could be a concern for people that live along that fence line, as well as losing the buffer, you know, during the winter, you know, I like the live oaks actually, but wondered if you had a chance to speak to them. We have not. Any reason why you wouldn't want to use live oak or something like that along there? I believe as staff mentioned, there was a spacing concern. Live oak needed additional spacing. One thing I'll say about the species is it's a pretty kind of slow growing, so it's not gonna impact their yard, whereas a live oak on that spacing, even if you could squeeze them in, might start creeping into their yard, killing the grass, you know, so there's pluses and minus both sides, but I can see how the lacy oak might be a better neighbor. See it from a privacy standpoint. Okay, do we have others interested in speaking in favor of this case? Do we have anyone online or in the audience to speak in opposition of this case? No, we'll close the public portion of the meeting and entertain discussion amongst the commissioners and a motion if there is. I think my concern and commissioner Stanford, I think it might have been what you were trying to speak to as well, is that by granting this, we weren't leaving the other phase open to just like building and building with nothing around it but dirt. Sounds like that's not the case, so I am in favor of approval. I will second. We have a motion and a second. Staff, would you call roll please? Commissioner Stanford. Aye. Commissioner Rattery. Aye. Commissioner Hook. Nay. Commissioner Harrier. Aye. Commissioner DeBoe. Aye. Commissioner Thesman. Commissioner Hughes. Aye. Commissioner Harper. Aye. Okay, the ayes have it, seven to one. Okay, staff, could you please call UDC 23057? Our next case is UDC 23057. This is for 4,800 Old Decatur Road. I do want to clarify that the pictures are a little bit better. 4,800 Old Decatur Road encompasses a large amount of area. And so we did say it is at the intersection of Old Decatur and Jim Wright freeway along the Frontage Road. This applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness from the urban forestry ordinance for a waiver to reduce the 25% tree preservation requirement to 18%. This is an aerial of the property. It does not include all the way to the corner. The next, this one has outlines of where their lot is. This has not been updated in GIS so I couldn't get a nice picture of an aerial. Outlined because we do not have a final plot yet. The applicant plans to construct a multi-family complex. It will be a single phase construction project and it is 35.7 acres. Here is the existing tree canopy. You'll notice that there are five trees up top. These are larger black willows and a cottonwood. And then along the fence line, along Old Decatur Road are all hackberries and gumber mellias. Applicant proposes preserving the larger trees in the northeast corner with the exception of... Where's my pointer? Sorry. This one right here. They are not taking credit for it and they are marking it as removed though they are going to try to preserve it. The only concern is there is a detention easement right here. So due to grading concerns, the tree may not be removed or may end up being removed. With their canopy and plantings, this has been mitigated for because it is a significant tree. So they are taking that into consideration with their planting and accounting for if that should be removed. The majority of the trees that they want to remove are all of these along here. I'm not sure why my plans made the second section opaque in the upper section not, but like I said, it is a multi-unit apartment complex with plantings that account for. So gross open space is 699,000 square feet. The net urban forestry area is 622,000 square feet. Their existing tree canopy accounts for 22,000 square feet and their required preservation would be 5,500 square feet. If that significant tree, because that significant tree is also in an easement, it wouldn't count for their credit, but because it is significant, they have to mitigate for it. Should it be removed? According to plans, it will be removed. So it's being mitigated for. That's why I have an asterisk there. So their required tree canopy is 51% because it's accounting for that significant tree. Their provided preservation would be 4,000 square feet with that one being removed and all the hacked berries and gumbam alias along the street. And their provided tree canopy to be planted back is 350,000 square feet. So 56.6% of the new fa. Any questions? Thanks, Steph. Do the commissioners have any questions for staff at this point? Approved. I do. Because the hacked berries and gumbam alias, they're a long offense line. More than likely they have metal inside. More than likely they're going to be graded. They are fast growing, successive trees that tend to pop up where birds like to roost. So, and they're also extremely prone to failure just because they are weaker joints. If we don't have further questions of staff, we'll open a public portion of the meeting. We'll listen to the, hear from the applicant or any in support. Please approach the microphone, state your name and city of residence. Welcome. I'm Dwayne Joyner, I'm with the MMA. We've heard of these plans and I'm really just here to answer any questions on my head. Okay, excellent. Does the commission have any questions for the applicant? Do we have a list of tree species? Is that, this is it, right? I can't. Just curious to see what's being replanted back. Yes, so it's really small. There are 80, no, sorry. Two burrokes, 46 cedar alms, 42 chinkapin oaks, 10 lace bark alms, eight live oaks, 34 pecans, 56 schumard red oaks and eight desert willows. I guess my only question is staff, you said that this was a single phase project and what are we seeing in the grade out? That's why I said, I'm not sure why it opaque one page. They actually do intend to build it in two phases. Okay, so we're looking at north of what looks like. Actually the first phase is gonna be this southern part. I'm not sure why the graphic came out like it did but the southern part's what's gonna be constructed first. Okay, so the waiver request is applying to all but the corner of the aerial we saw, I guess. There was a corner. Yes, currently it's one large piece of property. This will develop as commercial in the future. The area to the east, there was an old quarry there that's why this is called quarry falls and the developer's gonna be, his intent is to deed that to the city as park land. See, okay, that's good clarification because with the dotted line, I was under the impression the only portion of this property that was being developed was north of the dotted line but it's the entire parcel excluding what will be developed as commercial on the bottom left corner. Okay, and there's just the only trees that we're speaking of or north of that line so that was where our discussion centered. That makes sense. And their plans did come in as two separate pages and so I had to push them together to try to get them, get it so where we could address the entire lot since it is 35 acres. Okay. So, a bit of a nagling on that. Any other questions of the applicant? Hearing none. I'll ask if there is anyone registered to speak in opposition to this case? No. We'll close the public portion of the meeting. Open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners and emotion. I mean, I'm familiar with the site somewhat having driven by it a bunch. It is just a big hole in the ground where they used to quarry. So everything that's there is regrowth and are respectfully trash trees, first successional, pioneer species, whatever you want to call it. So I think they're planting great species to go back in and it's gonna transform, I mean, it's prairie. So they're transforming, they're foresting prairie but that's what we need if we're gonna make it pervious. And this is one of the rare cases we've seen where there is some preservation. Yeah. They're not asking for a complete waiver. Right. That's an interesting aspect to this one. Yeah, thanks for that context. And we did make sure that they would be able to preserve that 18%. And like I said, that other one that is being marked as removal. It's a possible. It's a possible. But it's also in an easement so they wouldn't get credit for it. Sure. As far as the canopy coverage. And is that gonna be part, oh, I can't ask. Is that part of, do we know if that's gonna be part of the park deeded or no? I don't believe so. I think that that was. That's all off. Yeah. I would believe that this offsite because there's a very large lake. Yeah, there's a big hole in the ground over here. It's a nice cliff. There's some water. Perky water. Yeah, there's a neighborhood on the north side. Yeah. Yeah. Would anyone be just. I mean, I'll make a motion to approve. We have a motion. Second. We have a second. Please call a roll step. Commissioner Stamper. Aye. Commissioner Rattery. Aye. Commissioner Hook. Aye. Commissioner Harrier. Aye. Commissioner DeBose. Aye. Commissioner Thesman. Aye. Commissioner Hughes. Aye. Commissioner Harper. Aye. Aye's Habit 8-0. And with that, we will adjourn the May 18th Urban Design Commission meeting. Thanks everyone. Thanks.