 The Urban Design Commission requires a quorum of five 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. Chairman Gannon Greese, Commissioner Jesse Stamper, Commissioner James Hook, Commissioner Mary Kay Hughes, Commissioner Gwynne Harper, Commissioner Steve McCune, Commissioner Erin Thesman, Commissioner Mike Rattery, Commissioner Douglas Cooper, and Commissioner Jose Diaz. Staff present today are Lorelei Willett, Jamie D'Angelo, Rich McCracken, Anna Baker, Christopher Austria, Brian Linus, and Randy Hutchinson. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov. Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting. Today's public hearing is being documented by video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the UDC requests that the following rules of procedure be respected. All participants will be muted when not speaking in order to avoid any potential background noise. Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the UDC only. After each staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak. Opposition may then speak for seven minutes. Continuation beyond the speakers a lot of time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval. For attendees, please remember to look directly at the webcam and not at the screen when speaking. All other meeting procedures will adhere to UDC-adapted rules of procedures to the extent practicable. Following the official close of each case hearing, the UDC will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair. A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the UDC to receive advice from legal staff. For any additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department at 817-392-8000. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Chair, will you please call the meeting to order? Turn on my microphone. Welcome to the September meeting of the Urban Design Commission. Are there any announcements from any of the commissioners? Nope. I'll make mention of a tour that's coming up at the Kimball Art Museum by architects and photographers on the 26th of this month. There's a morning session from 9 to 11 and an evening session from 5 to 7, and it's a great opportunity to see that building through the view of an architect and photographer and to see a lot of the back of the house stuff. So if you're interested in architecture and love that building, then please join us on the 26th. You know, I don't know if they're... Yeah, I think it would probably be both buildings. Yeah. Do you know what time that's gonna happen? There's two tours. One is in the morning from 9 to 11, and the one in the evening is 5 to 7 on the 26th. Do you need to RSVP for it or just show up? I believe you do have to RSVP. Yeah, I think check the Kimball's website and they should have some additional information. Thank you. Yeah, you bet. All right. Staff does not have any announcements either, and I did want to mention that we did fail to include last month's meeting minutes in the docket, so we will have to postpone approval of those meeting minutes to next month, and we'll just do August and September together as a vote. Are you sure? I remember downloading them and reviewing them. They were on your docket that was emailed, but not on your tablets, so how does... If there was an outing post, then you can go ahead. Okay, then it sounds like we can. Okay, I mean, I reviewed them, so. Okay. Okay. All right, so I guess have all the commissioners reviewed the meeting minutes. I'd like to make a motion. Move to approve. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. The motion and a second. Chairman Grease, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner McKeown? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. And then passes 10-0. All right, I understand that we wanted to shift one case up to the front, the urban forestry case. Yes, at your discretion, we would like to move the urban forestry case up to the first item. Okay. Morning, thank you for seeing this item first today. I appreciate it. I have a trip I'm trying to get going on, so thank you very much. Today we have a case, UDC 22-07-0 for the Highway 157 Simple Warehouse Development. I'm gonna get right to it. We are actually going to ask for a denial without prejudice. We are currently still working through the site plan, and we have not received the update. So it was hard for me to update this report from last month. We are actively searching for ways to meet the actual urban forestry requirement, so we don't know if we're actually gonna need UDC in the future, but that's why we are where we are right now. So I can go through the project if you wanna be familiar with it, but it's... You've got a big agenda and you've gotta get through a trip. Right, and it's just not ready just yet. So that's the request, if you would please denial without prejudice. Any commissioners wanna see any of the presentation or are we all right with the opening and closing the hearing? Okay, is there anybody here to speak in favor? I do not think so. Is there anybody here to speak against? Say good. Anybody to speak against? No. All right, and we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice. Thank you. Second. Who's second was that? James. Okay, great. We have a motion and a second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner McKeown? Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. Motion passes 10-0. Thank you very much. You all have a good day. Have a great trip. Good morning, commission. Your next case is item UDC 22065. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Yeah, right now. It's up to you. I mean, your list isn't up to you. Yeah. So just a quick procedural thing. We do have, we're only required, we're only allowed to have nine voting members present. We have 10. So there's an opportunity for somebody to leave the meeting if they'd like or you can stay and then just not vote. Is there anybody who would like to elect to leave? I wouldn't mind leaving. I've got some other things I can be doing. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity. Yeah. Hey, this is the first time this has ever happened on any commission that I've ever been on. So this is great. Well, I can remember when we had a problem, had problems even having a quorum. So this is welcome. This is very welcome. Thank you everybody and have a great day. Thank you. You too. Thank you. Take care, Commissioner McEwen. All right. Okay. First continued case, please. Everyone is very involved. It's great. Okay. The next case, UDC 22065 at Evans-Rosedale. It is a request for vacations of three unnamed alleys. The vacation is requested to support a mixed use development with retail, commercial and multifamily development at the southeast corner of I-35 West and E-Terrell Avenue. The vacation request includes three unnamed alleys, the north-south alley between I-35 and Missouri, which is approximately 1.151 acres, the north-south alley between Missouri and Evans, which is approximately 0.095 acres, and the east-west alley that runs roughly in line with Dashwood, which is 153.5 feet long and 11 feet wide. The vacated alleys will be incorporated into a replat of the block to support the site plan for a new development. The Urban Design Commission is charged with reviewing requests for street and alley vacations. The UDC makes a recommendation to the plan commission who in turn makes a recommendation to the city council. The vacation of the unnamed alleys does not represent a significant interruption of traffic patterns and circulation and allows for redevelopment of the vacant site. The applicant intends the vacated alleys to allow for parks, parking, multifamily and commercial spaces. The applicant is actively working with staff in near Southside, Inc. on finalizing development plans. And the site will also likely need a test to assess the mix of uses and staff will review the finalized building plans in accordance with the code. The vacation is supportable because there will be little impact to existing circulation. However, the applicant should provide a public access from east-west between Missouri and Evans. Given the above, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a recommendation to the city plan commission and city council on the vacation of the three alleys be approved with a condition that a public access easement be integrated into the plan for east-west access between Evans and Missouri. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Are there any questions of the staff before we open the case? Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? Good morning, commissioners. Mike Brennan representing near Southside, Inc. in our design review committee. We've been closely involved in the evolution of this project going back last year to when the design was first coming together and this connectivity between Evans and Missouri has always been something very important that we concur with staff that that needs to be a key part and a predictable part of the ultimate plan. We feel good in supporting this request in that the project does incorporate a connection between Evans and Missouri just south of the historic building that's located at southwest corner of Terrell and Evans. So that's one connection there. And then with the improvements planned to Evans Plaza and the adjacent park, we have the opportunity for that second connection. And so we think that, well, we understand that there's a park design process that will be closely coordinated with this effort. And so with that being a goal for that park design process, basically a connection just at the north end of the Plaza there. There's a parking lot there now. I think that that's still, the exact design of that is still in flux. Maybe there's an opportunity to have a nice wide pathway that's just on the north side of that parking lot next to the building and then next to the Plaza. But there's plenty of room to accommodate that. And to keep this process going, knowing how many parts it has, we're strongly in support of this waiver or recommendation to the Planning Commission. Okay. You mentioned about the park design around the Plaza. What, who owns all of that property around the Plaza? It's all city owned. Oh, okay. Except for that portion where they're putting the parking lot. Right, so there's all of this is, it's a partnership between the city's, the city's Economic Development Department and the development team. So, and what is being built, all is on city owned property today. Oh. So the drawing of those boundaries of what is park, what is parking lot, that's part of this process that is going to be underway soon. Okay. Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned that that's just not a very strong pedestrian connection. And then the connection up north of where the existing building is, doesn't have a sidewalk there or a crosswalk. So it seems like. There should be, I don't know, Lorelai, do you have a view? Maybe it's just shown in the site plan. Go back to the, okay, here. All right, so, do you have a lens? So this right here is a plaza connection that is part of their plan. So that's, if you've seen the renderings, it's a nice corridor with some public art and landscaping and so forth, nice wide walkway. So that's the one that I'm talking about that's already incorporated into the plan. And then doing something similar right here would provide that nice connection that obviously with, if this were all one just superblock with no connections, then that wouldn't be consistent with what we're trying to achieve. But with those two, it could be really nice. Okay, but you're saying there is another plan that wasn't submitted with the packet that shows that? I think that, well, this is just showing it in plan view. There's a rendering that shows exactly what that treatment would look like. Okay. Yeah, I guess we don't have that. Well, this is obviously the Urban Design Commission is one part of the review process. This has already gone to city council, various council committees and the TIF board with all of those drawings as part of those approved packages. So I can say with confidence that's part of a, I mean the TIF deal is $7 million that is tied to those drawings. Okay. All right, well, I guess we can take your word for that. It's, yeah, there's a lot, and we can provide all the documentation on that. But yeah, that's on solid ground. Okay. All right, yeah, I mean, I'm just a little bit concerned about that parking lot and its adjacency to the plaza. And it seems like that would want to be a little bit more of a celebrated public space. And I think if that was enhanced, then most pedestrians would probably use that as the through block connection. And then additionally having the one on the north side of the development south of that existing building, I think if it was shown in plan to be a nice space, that could also function well. If that were a condition of the approval to make sure that there's a strong connection here, then certainly we would support that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Thank you for coming today. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak against? Okay. We'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. Well, it sounds like there are additional exhibits that are publicly available that show these two connections. And so as the neighborhood association suggested, we could make a condition of the right of way vacation that those connections are, that there are strong connections, strong pedestrian connections, both on the south and north side of the new development. Would you want it to be noted that it should be two connections? I think that would be important. Instead of like a condition that it's two connections instead of just one on the east to west. I think that would be very important. I think I'm generally in favor too. The thing that I'm struggling with is what constitutes a strong connection without seeing it. Right. But they would work with staff. I think staff could help iron that out. Yeah. And near south side as well. Yeah, so we could make that a condition to work with staff and near south side. Because I think they both know what that strong connection would want to look like. Okay. Any more discussion? None here. You got a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the recommendation to city plan commission and city council the vacation with the condition that the public access easement be integrated into the plan for the east and west access between Evans and Missouri. And there are the applicant and developer continue to work with near south side and staff on the connection points as represented on plans that exist somewhere. Okay. And to clarify, it's two connections to east west. Two connections. Okay. I think the motion. Thank you. Yes, that's great. We have a motion and a second. Chairman Grease, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Was that an aye? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Harper? Aye. Passes nine to zero. Thank you. All right. Your first new case is at 2419 Westbury Street. It's the proposed Salon and Go Drive-Thru Restaurant, UDC 22, it should be 082. This was the previous case number from last month. As a reminder, the request was denied without prejudice and so is coming before you with a new case number. The applicant is requesting the following, a certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the Berry University form-based code for a waiver to allow vehicular access from a primary street, a waiver to reduce the minimum fenestration percentage for non-residential buildings from 50% to 5%, a waiver to exceed the 30-foot maximum blank wall space by up to four feet, and a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to reduce the minimum height from two stories to one story. This project is an approximately 0.28 acre lot located in the southeast corner of Berry Street in McCart. The character of the street is mixed use with commercial and institutional uses on the northern side of Berry and a mix of commercial and student housing to the south along McCart. The proposed project is a drive-through restaurant and this is allowed by right under the properties BUCX-6 based zoning. In the Berry University code, new developments are required to have a minimum of two stories of occupiable space. The proposed project does not have two full floors proposed. The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the BOA for a variance to allow a one-story structure in this location. They just don't need the second story as we've previously discussed. The project mitigates for the lack of a second story by providing a design with massing and height similar to a two-story structure with a very tall front street-facing facade which gives the appearance of multiple stories. BUCX also requires a minimum 50% fenestration on facades facing the right-of-way for non-residential structures and requires that blank area of wall space not exceed 30 linear feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver from both of these items in order to reduce their fenestration percentage from 50 down to 5% and to increase the permissible area of blank wall space to up to 34 feet. This is to reduce the visibility of back-of-house elements like kitchen and storage that would otherwise be visible if the project was meeting transparency requirements. And previously, we had discussed with them providing additional activation on the McCart facing side. So they did provide updated renderings that are showing their willingness to provide mural art on the side of the building that faces towards McCart. Finally, BUCX requires that vehicular access to new developments be provided on a side street or alley but not along the primary frontage of the development. The current project proposes to relocate an existing curb cut along Berry Street and exit on McCart. This request would typically be administrative if the curb cut was not moving, but it is so they're asking for it as a waiver item. There is an updated exhibit which I will have the applicant walk through that is providing some additional information about treatment of the street at that location and how queuing would work. Overall, the proposed project at 2419 West Berry somewhat consistent with the intent of the commercial mixed use BUCX code which is intended to provide a variety of residential retail, service and commercial uses at a variety of scales and intensities. The proposed project could also be considered an improvement over what is currently in place which is an office building with a 40 foot setback and parking at the front of the lot and is therefore representing a temporary activation of an important corner site with a site design and a building design that are more consistent with the code than what's there. Having regard to the foregoing staff recommends the following but the request for the following items are certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the Berry University form-based code to allow vehicular access from a primary street to reduce the fenestration percentage for non-residential buildings from 50 to 5% to exceed the 30 feet of blank wall space by four feet and to recommend to the Board of Adjustment that the minimum height for the project be reduced from two stories to one story be approved subject to the following conditions that a landscape plan be included that additional activation be provided on the McCart facing side and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? Hi, how are you guys doing? Thanks for your time. Ryan, I'll call on the applicant. Welcome to Salad and Go, the civil engineer on the project. I kind of went over last month, but I just want to another brief in case people weren't here to kind of describe Salad and Go. They are new to the DFW market, so it's a little different to see this kind of model. This is going to be like our fourth store within the city of Fort Worth. We have a couple in the north and then one down on Summer Creek in McPherson. Do you mind going to the layout just a little bit? Yeah, is this the correct? You can do the old site plan. I can talk through the old site plan first and then kind of talk about our... Oh, sure, yeah. Yeah. It's the mural you have at correct. It's just the old site plan. Okay, is this the site plan you want? Oh, if you have the email from... I do. This is the updated one, I believe, right? Yeah, there should have been another exhibit. It's okay, you can talk through the... Oh, show the old one. Oh, and kind of get it. Is this the one you want? Nope, that's a different... Sorry, that's a different project. That's the mural. But that's the mural, right? I'm trying to get the overall site plan. Oh, too. Okay. Do you want to zoom? Yeah, this doesn't look like it loaded... Oh, there you go. As long as she's pulling that up, I'll describe it. So, with Salad and Go, there's no dine-in whatsoever. So no one will be parking and eating inside. The operation is going to be all employees inside. They'll basically be assembling your salad or your wrap or breakfast burrito. So no dine-in whatsoever. So that's the idea of a way to keep our footprint small. And that makes it very hard for us to try to put any kind of windows towards our back of house. That's all gonna be your walk-in cooler, your restroom, your office or your mechanical room in the back. The orientation of the building is based on the code we have to have the building right up adjacent to the right-of-way. So in order to make our queuing and our operation work, we had to orientate it that way so that the back house is facing that intersection. Describing our, just last month, we talked about possibly wrapping that side with a mural. Right now, the mural doesn't really reflect, it's kind of an example art for us right now. I mean, we only had, just based on proprietary reasons, we didn't want to put anything like TCU or Caltown or anything worthwhile on there. That's something that we want to work with the community on putting something nice there on the back of house. The front, this is the updated site plan. So last month, we described off of Barrie going westbound, basically the traffic jam as far as people not having a diesel lane or some designated turn lane. So what we did is we're trying to create kind of a right-in, right-out only off of Barrie. So anybody heading westbound off of Barrie Street would have to come down McCart and then utilize the McCart entrance. McCart is one way. So if they needed to go back westbound, they would have to go down McCart and then exit or pull back around to get back on Barrie. So that was the idea to prevent people from parking and kind of are slowing down because I know y'all were talking about Waterberger having that issue right there. So we're trying to help prevent that by using westbound coming down McCart. So that helps the, basically the traffic circulation we described. I know you did mention about the dumpster. That was just a small thing I added, you know, putting that door off to the side for you. I remember just bringing that up. So we had a little sidewalk there. We will add door off to the sides that you can keep those doors closed and once the dump trucks come in to pick them up. And the two-story I think we described last month was we have no dine-in whatsoever. So creating that two-story would just be unutilized space. There just wouldn't work with our model on there. So we have still, we still have some height to it but we're not, we're not hitting that. I guess it was, it was at 30 feet that we were trying to, or the two-story you had to hit. I think we're at like 22 feet there. I also have Sal and Go representatives here. So if you all want to talk about operations or anything like that, they're here to help answer those questions. Okay. I do have a couple of questions. So the doors that are on the McCart facing side, what are those for? Those are just before your rooftop access for one on one, the other one would be like a mechanical room. Usually we have it basically fenced off but since it is facing that intersection we're actually enclosing it. And that example art was supposed to go all the way across the door. So we're trying to help camouflage those a little bit more. So with that art, and we'll work with the city on that trying to get some kind of art that we can put there but we plan to paint that over as well to help camouflage that from the corner. Yeah, that was my question as to how often that gets accessed. And if it's a trash door, I would just worry about it getting banged up and all that, okay. Okay, I know last month Commissioner Stamper had a concern about the traffic on Barrie. Do you want to talk to that at all? Or I guess, let me ask one more question related to that. Did you guys study any possibility of using the public alley as an access through the site either from McCart? The public alley on the backside, which it's a lot of the utilities through there but really trying to get access with water burger. We'd have to describe our memory all and mention that about trying to get full access with water burger there. We'd definitely be open to trying to get that but I'm not sure how water burger would feel about giving up the parking and creating that access point. Well, no, not necessarily that the people would enter from there. Oh, just getting access towards the public going southbound. Going southbound and then using that as an exit. Cause I would definitely open to that. Yes. Okay. I mean, we can our property of butts to it. So we're definitely open to having that drive access to there. But then again, it's a very narrow road and we'll just have to look at the utilities for that. But we're very open to it. Yeah, I was just trying to think about different scenarios where if you had access off McCart and you could come in and circulate, then you could circulate back out through the public alley and then you wouldn't need the access on Berry Street. Well, there's no curb cut to the north onto Berry. So you'd still have to go south. You'd still have to get on McCart. You'd still have to make your way around. But that would just be another point of exit to the south, I guess you would say. Most likely just be easier to get on McCart using that full access. Cause there's no curb cut to the north onto Berry from that public alley. Correct. I mean, that's the first waivers is access from the public street. That's the concern. So that's what we're trying to address is if it's possible to develop the site without having that access off of Berry, right? Because waivers are requested if there's a hardship not just because you want it. Right. I believe that's why we're trying to establish if there's a hardship here. I'm trying to get the curb cut off of Berry. I'm following you. If it's possible for you to have access off of McCart for both ingress and egress, then that's not a hardship. Okay. If you just want it off of Berry cause you want it, that doesn't meet the code. So that's what we're trying to figure out here. I mean, have you done studies to see how the site would work if you didn't have access off of Berry street? The problem with not having access off of Berry is that if anybody heading eastbound on Berry they miss McCart, then they miss the site completely. And it's just, and based on operations and sales they're really needing that access for the site. And cause if you miss, if you go past McCart there's really no way to backtrack because McCart's a one way. So you'd have to go, I guess northbound and then back and around. You'd have to go around there or you'd have to go back another whole street to go. I mean, that's true with any of those businesses along Berry street. If you happen to miss that block you've got to find a way to turn around. But that's why that driveway is pretty important to us where we're trying to do right in, right out only to help prevent anybody going westbound on Berry just with the traffic. And we currently have a curb cut there. It's just we're relocating it. Well, yeah, it's an existing non-conforming. It's not one that's thereby right. Commissioner Stamper, did you have any thoughts on the access to Berry? I guess the image is somewhat small on the computer here, I'm viewing remotely. But it looks like there's been some sort of a triangle, curb put in place along Berry. And is the intent that that would limit any westbound traffic from accessing the property at that location? And how would you communicate that? Yes, yes, that is the intent. And we can't control anybody going off westbound. But we are open to, I know we talked about last month using delineators or those plastic delineators there. We're open to that. But I remember y'all saying that that's not something we can approve at this moment. But that's something that we'd have to talk with TPW about. But we're definitely open to that. And yes, Jesse, that's the intent is trying to create some kind of porch up there where only right in and right out. So it's almost limit people from queuing up or trying to go westbound on Berry or come in from Berry Street. Yeah, I think that's the right way to solve that problem if it's needed. But I think what we need to see is that it's a demonstrated hardship. Like if you cannot develop the site with only access from a cart, then that would say, OK, we'll probably need to have access from Berry Street. I'm just looking at a public alley and using that as full access. I mean, based on its narrow and undeveloped towards the south, that's really, I feel like that is a hardship. There's a lot of utilities there. There's a dumpster located there already for, I don't know, who's actually utilizing that. It's not our site for that. It's just that's the hardship I see with that alley. It's just it's not full access for really all of our traffic to be coming through or half of it to be coming through. But you're also showing a driveway off of my cart that has both ingress and egress, so you don't need one off of Berry. Just utilizing one driveway only. Yeah. I mean, what the plan you've showed us demonstrates that you don't have a hardship. OK. Right. I understand you want one off of Berry Street, but it's just not allowed by the code. And we're only allowed to approve waivers if there's a hardship. You've got to demonstrate to us that there's a hardship. And that's fine. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, it's on. Yeah, on that was solid and go. You need address or anything to get just the city in which. OK, yeah, yeah, I think for us, I mean, the way I would think about it is in terms and I mean, and I and I understand that they're probably non conforming as well, but every single retail parcel along the entire street has access off of Berry. The reason that we typically do it is to try and prevent congestion. You're going to end up with more backup if you end up closing off a drive driveway up top because everybody's going to now be funneling in and out and you're going to create a major congestion point down at the bottom. First, if you have two ways in and out, because somebody can still leave through Berry, even with the right in, right out to Berger, but you're allowing traffic to flow more naturally. I think we've seen this across our portfolio that whenever we limit access, it causes a lot more trouble. I don't know how you guys look at fire either, but typically we're required to provide two ways in and out for a fire engine. Well, your building's not big enough to require that. Yeah, I'm just saying in general, we typically have been asked to provide more than one way in and out, both from a traffic concern as well as just general use of the property. Well, I could also make the argument that it's confusing when you have a car entering from Berry Street, you have a car entering from a cart, and then they have to decide who gets in line first. I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm just saying. Any argument you have, I've got a counteracting up. That assumes that, well, that assumes two people are arriving simultaneously, and it also assumes that we're backing up to the point where somebody's having to make that decision. I mean, yeah, I think it's a pretty small use case from what we've seen, but. Okay, but you haven't demonstrated that you need to have a curb cut off of Berry Street, that's what I'm saying. I guess, how would you expect us to demonstrate that? I mean, we can't, what we're suggesting is that the difficulty is if you close off an access point, you're actually gonna create more congestion, so that's why we're demonstrating multiple points of access to allow this to pre-flow, so that you don't end up with what Water Burger has as a concern, because they have a single point of access today, or actually they have two points of access today, but everybody's concern was them backing off of Berry, which is the primary road. So we're creating a way for you to get in and out on Berry and McCart to try and alleviate that concern, which is. I think the concern, though, is that you're encouraging people who are going westbound on Berry to enter the site from Berry Street. Well, I think that's why we're proposing a right-in, right-out pork chop diverter to prevent somebody from making that left turn. I understand, but I think that's the right way to solve it, but the code still says, and it doesn't matter what Water Burger or Wendy's or anybody else has, the code says you're not allowed to have an access off of Primary Street, right? So you've got to prove a hardship. What's your hardship? Free-flowing access of the site so that it's functional for the use. But you have both in and out on McCart, so how can you say that? Because I thought I did, but I'll say it. I think it's okay. I appreciate your time. I think we're done with that. We've got a lot of cases today, and so I don't want to run too far over. I did want to let the commission know that we did get a letter of opposition this morning, so I'm going to read it since we weren't able to distribute it. It's from Mike Coffey, who is the chair of the Berry Street Initiative. He writes, the Berry Street Initiative opposes UDC 22082 regarding 2419 West Berry Street. Allowing these waivers would break with the precedent of holding all construction to the Berry University form-based code. Even the new TCU hotel was required to modify its plans in order to comply with the form-based code. Berry Street Initiative has not been contacted by the developer about this variance. Thank you, Mike Coffey. So we received that today. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this case? Not here, anybody? Is there anyone here to speak opposition? Nope, okay. We'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. And I think you guys understand my opinion, but I don't get to make motions. So I think the concern is just that it needs to be fully vetted and I don't necessarily see it as a hardship. McCart's a one-way right there, right? It is a one-way. This is a commissioner stamper. I guess my comments on this project really haven't changed much from the first time it was presented. I guess I disagree with staff that this is closer to the intended use for... And I can't remember the exact terms they used, but I don't see it as a more appropriate use of the property than the current use. Yes, there's an office building there. You know, I think in the staff report, it was said that it was 40 feet back from the right-of-way, but part of the building butts the right-of-way on Barry. It's a parking lot portion that's set back from McCart. And I think of some revitalization of the facade that faces Barry and you have a much more desirable outcome than you have with this current project that's proposed. So I just don't see looking at this particular fast food concept as the way I would like to see all of the future development of Barry comply with our standards and guidelines. You know, I just... I don't see this as the desired outcome when the standards and guidelines were put in place. So I guess for this particular concept where there is no penetration, they don't see a need to comply with the two-story rule. We have the traffic congestion issues. It just seems like too heavy a lift to me. That's one commissioner's opinion. Any other thoughts? It's Commissioner Hughes. I think the letter from the Barry Street Initiative stating that the developer has not reached out, been reached out to the Barry Street Initiative. That's a very important group that goes up and down Barry Street, works with TCU. You know, the statement that the Hyatt Place Hotel, that's recently been, I think it's candy corner from this property or across the street. If they had to mitigate their entrance, I think more effort should be made to work with the Barry Street Initiative. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments? Can you turn into that alley from Barry right now? No. No, and I don't think that would probably be possible, but I think the intent of the alley is that depending on how the circulation is managed from the cart, you could also use that as an egress point. Since it'd be one way, it's only 16 feet. Okay. I think it'd be worth seeing a study. To come in that way. Yeah. Anybody prepared to make a motion? More discussion? I agree with Commissioner Hughes that reaching out to the Barry Street Initiative would probably help support waivers. Like Commissioner Stamper said, it's a heavy lift. But if there was more community support, especially from the initiative over there, then I think it would be easier. So. Excellent point. If we did deny, would it be so that they could come back? What's? Deny without prejudice. I moved to deny without prejudice. Great. Great. Do we have a second? You got a second? We have a motion and a second. Chairman Grease, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. Motion to deny the request passes 9-0. Your next case is also a previous case which was denied without prejudice and is back before you with a new case number. UDC 22081, the townhomes at 2505 and 2509, Benbrook Boulevard. The request for this property is as follows, a certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the Berry University form-based code to allow vehicular access from a primary street, to allow street-facing building length to exceed 100 feet by up to 22 feet, and a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to reduce the minimum setback from a side street from 10 feet to five feet, specifically along Grand Berry Road. This is the subject property at the intersection of Benbrook and where McCart turns into Grand Berry. The first waiver, which is requesting vehicular access from the front of the lot right at Benbrook is being requested because the conditions along Grand Berry are not desirable for adding a curb cut in the rear. The second waiver, which is to reduce the side setback from Grand Berry or McCart from 10 feet to five feet is essentially because the conversion of these two single-family lots to a townhome development creates a tightness of space at this site. So in order to maintain the habitable space along the frontage that they're required to have the square footages that they need to have the garages and then to have the dry vial, they're asking to push the setback about the setback five feet. They are providing the required street side elements, which includes a sidewalk and a landscape buffer with trees. Previously, they had inverted these items and the sidewalk was closer to Grand Berry at the UDC's request. They switched the location of these items to push the sidewalk away from the street and increase safety walking along Grand Berry for access to those units along Grand Berry. The last item is a request to exceed the building length. Along Grand Berry, the code limits the facade to 100 feet. They would like to go up to 122 feet. A previous version of this project showed a, something like less than six feet worth of space between two buildings, essentially in that location with a small area of egress. However, this separation really only provided access to the resident parking and vehicular area for the development. It wasn't going to support increased pedestrian circulation of non-residents into the development. It didn't provide any additional benefits. So they are requesting the waiver to extend that facade an additional 22 feet. Overall, the project at 2509 Benbrook Avenue is consistent with the intent of the residential attached district, which is intended to accommodate a mix of attached and detached housing options in a pedestrian-friendly environment. Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following motion. That the request for the following items, a certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the very university form-based code to allow vehicular access from a primary street to allow a street-facing building length to exceed 100 feet by 22 additional feet. And to recommend to the Board of Adjustment that the minimum setback be reduced from 10 feet to five feet be approved. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? I am. This is Wes Gustin, the architect. Can y'all hear me? Yes, we can hear you. All right, just checking. Yes, just a recap, good morning, everyone. Yeah, we closed the gap because I don't remember which gentleman brought it up, but it was a good point that I think they, you wanted us to kind of close the gap between the buildings and then of course flip the landscape and the sidewalk, which we've done and agreed to. And as far as the access, I just think, yeah, it kind of works better this way, given the nature of that alley behind there. And that's all I got. Thank you for hearing me. I don't know if my client, Centel, can speak either, but that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for coming today and for making the adjustments. I think this will be a great project and this is a good example of a hardship of why you wouldn't want to have access off of what would be considered a primary, or why you have access off of primary street, even though I think Grandbury is probably more primary street than Ben Brook is. But yeah, just because of this. So yeah, I appreciate all your work. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak against? All right, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. I think the conversation at the last hearing was overall positive and the denial was primarily to give the applicant an opportunity to make revisions at the request of the commission. So I'm prepared to make a motion to approve the waivers as presented. Thank you. For a second. Second. Okay, James. We have a motion and a second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. The motion passes 9-0. Jamie, I'd like to move up cases four and five next, just because I think they're going to be a little bit more straightforward than the parking lot in the last one. So the signage case? Yeah, 22-079 and 0-75. Can we do 0-75 first since I am in the room? Okay, great. Your next case is UDC 22-075. It's a project at 2403 Clinton Avenue. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness or a waiver from the UR Urban Residential District Development Standards for a one-family detached dwelling that requires the parking area or garage doors that face the street to be located a minimum of 20 feet behind any front wall plane of a structure facing a publicly accessible right-of-way. This is the subject property. It is in the UR Urban Residential District. The lot is located directly across from the stockyards, across Clinton. The rest of the block face along Clinton is primarily, this is the vacant lot, and then these are structures along the block that are existing single-family homes and some other, like maybe four or three plexus. The existing conditions here have garages or have garages that are located towards the rear of the property accessed by a driveway that runs along the side of the property line, or there's just a driveway with no accessory structure. But regardless, the primary character here is that the garages are in the rear. The property developer is proposing an 18-foot wide concrete drive accessed from the front of the lot that essentially ends in the building face, so this would not meet the requirements of the UR, which require the garage or parking area to be 20 feet behind. The front wall plane, and this is within that front 20 feet, which is why it is not meeting the requirements. This property did previously receive a waiver for pedestrian streetlights because the treatment along the street does not currently include those. So if they are denied, they would have to revise their plan to move that parking area elsewhere on the site. In August, when staff reviewed this iteration of the design, here are the elevations for this project, they proposed the applicant possible solutions for the placement of the parking to revise the floor plan to have a garage in the back, to shift the house to one side and provide that driveway along the side of the lot, or to just some other treatment that relocates the parking elsewhere, or they could ask for a waiver from the Urban Design Commission, so they chose the last option. Given what staff has seen along the block, it really doesn't meet the existing character of the block, so staff is recommending that the request for the waiver from this development standard to locate your garage doors or your parking area, a minimum of 20 feet behind any front wall plane for a structure facing a publicly accessible right-of-way be denied without prejudice. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? No, oh, yes. Good morning, so this actually, the old drawings for the house, we had some new ones because we had to incorporate a front garage, and then we came up with the issue that we had to be 20 foot behind any front wall, which that would push the house, I mean, the garage way in the middle of the lot, so we, I mean, the lots rule narrow, so if we try to push, I mean, try to make, I guess, access to the back, it would be just, the house would be too narrow, so we're trying to get the waiver to just keep it as is. Like I said, this, I mean, it's a rough idea how it is, but yeah, we changed that up, we had to get a garage in the front, so we're just trying to, like I said, it's real narrow if you all can see, as you all can see, so trying to get an entrance to the back, to the front, it'll be, I mean, pretty, the house will be, yeah, really narrow. But the adjacent houses have done it, right? So the next, the house to the side is my mom's, and we don't have, she doesn't have access as well to the back, through the side of it, and you can see it on the pictures, is the right one, yeah, we don't, they doesn't have access to the back, it's just the parking in the front, which is the other one to the right, yeah, the smaller one. Oh, I don't have that, well, I could probably treat you, maybe. Is there alley access on the back? There is in the back, which everybody pretty much on the back's, the street on the back uses, so I mean, there's an access back through there. Okay, well, I mean, that proves you don't have a hardship. Okay, so I mean, just a matter of us, how can I put it? I guess we draw the house and get the garage through the back, or how would it be? Yeah, exactly, that's just part of the zoning requirements, that's part of the code, and so. So if it's changed to the back, then it would be fine with what we're trying to do then, to have the parking, oh, okay. Well, no, you can't have any parking in the front, there's no driveways in the front, but if you have the parking in the back, then that meets the code. Or make the house narrower and get access through the front. Right, yeah, it looks like that's what some other properties did, is they probably just squeezed it. See that one, that's what it is. It's very narrow. Yeah, it's very, very narrow, so the house will be like 26 foot from the inside, from wall to wall, as it is, if we make an entrance to have access through the front. I mean, you can squeeze it down, I mean, you already have five feet as the required setback, you only need to go another three. Parking spaces are only eight feet wide. Oh, okay, so. Okay, so with eight foot, the access towards the back or changing the garage to the backside with that stuff applied, because we were thinking it would be a 10 foot that would have to leave onto the back. I mean, it's gonna be real narrow as it is anyways, but. Yeah, 10 foot is definitely preferable. Yeah. But you could get away with eight feet. Okay, because we have to have the five foot, you know, the setback on the other side as well, so. Yep, okay. Does your pavement need to be in that, out of the setback? I can't remember. On the 10, on the five foot, I'm not sure. I don't know if it does. Typically it doesn't. Yeah, yeah. So even in the UR district, they're subject to a five foot side yard setback to where they couldn't completely, like have a zero lot line to push. I will check on that. I think because they're a single family home, they're being treated like that style of development. I will look into whether or not you can squeeze over a little further. Squeeze so further. Yeah. They probably require a firewall on that side. And that's why they told us a prior as well. Yeah, so. Yeah. I don't think they'll let you go closer than three. It just looks like if you're pushing it towards that large White House, they have a driveway that has some good separation. Yeah, this is a commission hook. Would they allow a shared driveway with the White House to the left, adding to that driveway to make it wider? They have to coordinate with that property for that easement, but that's a possibility. You could technically pave overall. That's another way to do it. Like if there's a few feet there between that existing house, which I think you said was your mother's and the property line, and that'll also get you a little bit more driveway with there if you want to pave. Oh, yeah, because that's her lot as well. So, okay. Well, I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. Couple good options there. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming in. Right. Anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. We'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. I think the recommendation is to deny without or just be denied. And it sounds like the applicant's got some options that they can investigate. And I'll speak at once. I'll make a motion to deny the waiver request. Second. You have a motion and a second. Chairman Grease, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Sorry, one more time. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Can you turn your camera on? Yeah, sorry. It's okay. Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. Motion passes 9-0. Okay, your next case is, I remember UDC 22079 at 1008th Avenue. The applicant is proposing an approximately 49 square foot vertical sign on the south wall of the structure. The lease space for the business is located on the first floor of the east side of the building. The sign consists of one inch deep, flush-mounted letters. The size and material of the sign is allowed under the near south side design standards and guidelines. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the near south side design standards and guidelines to allow a sign on an elevation that does not contain a public entrance. Staff in near south side Inc. have worked with the applicant to achieve a design that attracts attention from Rosedale and relays that the business is located on the first floor. Digital location of the business at the southeast corner of the building, which is the closest unit in relation to the proposed signage, staff believes the location of the sign is supportable. Given the above, staff recommends the following motion that the request first certificate of appropriateness for a waiver from the near south side design standards and design guidelines be approved. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Senator, you're speaking in favor of this case. My name is Mike Gary. I'm with Giant Sign. We're the sign contractor for this tenant, Bokeh 31. We were also the sign contractor for Bucky Town Donuts that was there previous and some of the other tenants at this building that have now left. So the building doesn't really have a lot of sign space or this tenant doesn't have a lot of sign space being the bottom tenant on the southeast side of the building. They are mostly windows and doors there. So they don't have a lot of sign ban for them to be able to put signage there. And we originally had proposed doing a horizontal sign but staff had suggested that we'd tailored the sign to be closer to the entrance and thus we came forward with this vertical placement per their suggestion. Okay. So I now have a question just from my own curiosity. Why did Funky Town Donuts put their sign, their blade sign on that side of the building instead of perpendicular to 8th Avenue? That was a question that we were kind of unsure about as well. I think previous, we weren't the sign contractor for putting that sign up previously. We did the one down here in downtown. But we did kind of remove it for them. I think the code was different at that point and has been updated since then. Well, the reason I ask is, have you guys looked at the option of doing a blade sign on that 8th Street side? Unfortunately, cost prohibitive for this tenant to do that. A blade sign would be upwards of $15,000, $20,000, which is about $13,000 more than you're willing to pay for a sign. OK. Let me ask, because I understand the economic hardship on this one and it is a very small lease space and so probably doesn't warrant such an expensive sign. Is it possible to break the sign into two parts if you had the Boca 31 on the building, but maybe the Latin Street food or something became like a shingle sign that came off the side somewhere near the door to help clearly identify that that door is the entrance? Or are you planning on doing any graphics on the door like Funky Town did? Yeah, there was a possibility of doing just a vinyl that pretty much states their name on the door window, a portion, you know, facing east or that that is an option. The idea of doing, let's say a blade sign, a pedestrian sign as I think you're alluding to, our problem with that is we would definitely have to keep it up a little higher. But because there's pedestrian traffic underneath, we need to maintain clearance levels from ground grade to bottom of the sign. So it is something that we didn't think about or talk about doing. OK, and then I guess if a blade sign was allowed, what would be the allowable area for that versus what's being proposed with the Boca 31? I would have to double check that because this is a special zone area, not general business rules for this property. So I don't have that. This is still part of the near Southside District. Mike, OK, do you happen to know any of that up the top of your head? OK. That's where Savant Steiner was always very helpful to us. Yeah, no, she she could calculate that within. Yes, yeah. OK, yeah, I mean, my concern is just it's it's a giant sign. It is under, I mean, based on general business rules, it does meet the 10 percent rule you know, height and width. You get 10 percent of height and width for general wall signs. So it does meet that. And they always incorporate the first 15 feet of the of the height in that calculation. So high times width on that elevation times 10 percent were still way under that. So by by Fort Worth standards, it does meet the general business rules for wall signs. OK, but it's larger than the the adjacent business, the Jimmy Johns. Jimmy Johns has a different situation. They have channel letters going across their whole front facade. And I think on both elevations for that mistaken, because we had the same thing for the Jason Nagg signs above when they were there, the law officer Jason. OK, the other reason that we had a problem originally, they wanted to kind of possibly to do a light assembly, we don't have access to power. Originally, we had put another set of signs, had it horizontally aligned under tattoo and vape. But because that is the second story, there was no access to power or yeah. And it was kind of confusing for the staff. So I agree, tattoo and vape and Latin food. Yeah, and it really would be one stop shopping. OK, yeah, I mean, that's that's my only concern is that size wise, I'm just if a blade sign is allowed, then it would be good to know what that area allowable area is and see how that translates to this facade. Because I've been essentially I see it as like a one sided blade sign. It's unfortunate that, you know, they don't have the money to get visibility from the other side. But I imagine most of the visibility is going to be from that major intersection. Yeah, you know, the same thought, but I think if you were just to rotate the blade sign. To the east side of the building, that gray projection loose part of it is probably reducing southbound visibility. So you're really just left with northbound visibility on 8th and it's kind of what they're proposing. So yeah, I think you'd have to have a much larger blade sign that comes out from the wall to get that two way visibility. Would a waiver be requested if they were oversized? Since there's not a waiver, should we assume that it's within the rights were footage? Yeah, staff probably knows that. Yeah, they were not maxing out their square footage. The code doesn't allow wall signs on rear sides of the building that don't have pedestrian entrances. The blade sign would be OK. It's really just wall signs that get that treatment. OK, OK. So they're allowed that square footage. Yeah, OK. I believe we're well under the maximum. OK, it just seemed like a lot to me. Seems big. How is that calculated, though, per tenant or per building face? Because I mean, if Jimmy Johns has a whole bunch of signs. There's a calculation for the area of the building face. They have to be under 10 percent for that. And they're meeting that. And then there is an overall there's a per tenant and a overall site as well. OK, so the 10 percent of the building face includes Jimmy Johns and this one. It includes so the 10 percent would just be for this side that faces towards, I guess, Rosdale. And they are under 10 percent of that. Elevation with their total sign of Jerry. OK, I have a question. Is this illuminated in the evening? It is not, ma'am. Again, power issues, concerns, access was. So there's probably. There is no lighting on the site. OK, well, definitely want to support somebody going into that spot. And and it is supported by the near south side. Yes, ma'am. That's all my questions. Any other questions from the other commissioners? All right. Thank you very much for coming in. Anybody else like to speak in favor of this case? I just said yes. So that's that's the punch line. Thank you. Yes. We are we're strongly supportive of the of the restaurant going in and succeeding. And I think you all already pointed out the flaws on the the Funky Town Donut sign and its orientation. The waiver is specific to the location of the sign. The applicants were great in recognizing that that horizontal composition just it didn't look right. So this is a great outcome from our perspective. OK, thank you. All right. Is there anyone to speak in opposition? OK. We'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to commissioners for discussion. I'm supportive of the waiver. So if there's no discussion, I'm happy to make a motion to approve the waiver to allow a wall sign on the side of the facade without an entrance. OK. Second. All right. We have motion in second. Motion is second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Diaz. I. Commissioner Stamper. I. Commissioner Rattery. I. Commissioner Hook. I. Commissioner Thesman. May have sucked away. Yeah, we'll go. Commissioner Hughes. I. Commissioner Cooper. I. Commissioner Harper. I. And I think motion can pass. State. Yeah. Did the chair want to do all of the cases? There are two cases left. There is the mixed use M.U. and then the parking. I think we can do the parking and then the mixed use. Parking first mixed use next. OK. So I just knew those those two would be pretty easy. We could get them moving. Your next case is U.D.C. twenty two oh seven four. JPS transitional parking lots. The address is multiple locations, but primarily the Rosdale edition blocks C. R. and T. and the Tucker edition blocks thirty seven and thirty eight. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the near south side development code standards and guidelines for the following items. A waiver from the requirement to provide roadside elements such as street trees sidewalks and pedestrian lights. A waiver to allow surface parking lot frontage to exceed 40 percent of the development sites total frontage length along a project's primary streets and 70 percent of the development sites total frontage along secondary streets. A waiver from the requirement to screen parking lots fronting a public right of way. A waiver from the 40 percent canopy coverage requirement for parking lots. And for the proposed warehouse, a waiver from the first floor transparency requirements of 40 percent along a street facing facade for non residential projects and a waiver from the requirement to have primary pedestrian entrances along the street frontage of the building. JPS is requesting approval of waivers to allow the construction of six transitional parking lots within the near south side to support the implementation of their master plan. The chart on the next page identifies the size parking count and proposed conditions for each site as well as the applicable waivers. Additional details about the existing conditions. Conditions of each site were available in the application. Please note that lot E is not being considered in this request because of additional application materials needed relative to the historic and cultural zoning on the adjacent property. Recommended for approval by staff are all waivers for lots A and B on the following basis. Lots A and B are adjacent to and part of a primary campus. So the plan conversion to transitional parking continues to keep the impacts of these vehicles in and around JPS's primary project site. JPS will speak to the long term development plans for this site. These lots A and B are included in the master plan which lets staff know what the long term plan is for them. So they are truly transitional. The proposed paving site design and layout of site plans for lots A and B clearly meet the standards in our zoning ordinance for parking lot design which includes striped spaces, ADA spots and pavement. And the zoning in this area is NST 5 I which is the industrial zoning of the near south side which allows a lot more flexibility of uses than other sub districts. Also there is very little there are few gaps in the sidewalk network in this area. The only gap we identified was on the south side of Magnolia Ave on the north side of lot B there is a small sidewalk gap of about 115 feet so that's a fairly complete sidewalk network. The proposed design for these transitional parking lots is therefore generally consistent with general development principles principles to be one promote a pedestrian oriented urban form and to be to maximizing connectivity and access. Staff is recommending for denial without prejudice all waivers for lots CD and F on the following basis. Lots CD and F and I'll show them here. This is lot C. This is lot D. And this is lot F. These sites are approximately a quarter of a mile away from the primary JPS campus. So the employee parking located there will require some some walking and the impacts of vehicles parked there will not be directly adjacent to the master plan site as far as we know. Staff has not seen plans for long term redevelopment of these sites after they are no longer transitional parking lots. The proposed surface treatment of gravel does not clearly meet the zoning ordinances parking design requirements. And then the zoning in this area is nst 5 n so it is more neighborhood focused and not industrial. It is also adjacent to these sites are adjacent to multifamily on the east and the commercial walkable Brian Avenue district on the west. And so the treatment here just needs to be more thoughtful. There are also a significant amount of sidewalk gaps in this area. There's about 2000 plus linear feet of perimeter streets that are missing sidewalks in those areas and the ones that do exist are not in great condition. Staff is therefore recommending denial without prejudice of these waivers for CDNF. However additional documentation and minor changes would change this request or would change the recommendation of staff. So I'm going to briefly note those items that would help support this additional clarification for the number of parking spots proposed for each site that is currently gravel and supporting documentation documentation showing what parking spots are going away at JPS so that we know what's being replaced. And so that we can consider whether reduction in the overall parking provided is possible. Additional details about the treatment for the unpaved gravel only lots is a grid system provided. What is the sort of strategy for keeping the gravel on the site. A phasing plan showing a similar treatment for lots. A as was provided for lots and B and also clarifying which of these lots and perhaps all of them. But you know if public parking is going to be provided and off peak hours how will that be managed. And then identifying gaps in the sidewalk network which is actually something JPS will speak to because they've provided an updated exhibit. Overall staff is recommending that the request for certificate of appropriateness for all waivers from the near south side development code standards and guidelines for lots and B be approved subject to the following conditions that the sidewalk network along the perimeter streets of lots and B be completed and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness and that the request for certificate of appropriateness for all waivers from the near south side development code standards and guidelines for lots CD and F be denied without prejudice. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. One question for clarification. Do you know if it's in the zoning code or in the building code about dust free lots parking lots. There is in our standards for parking lot design in our zoning code. It does dust free is one of the items mentioned just for standard parking lot design. Okay, does gravel comply with that requirement? Potentially. We may need additional details to verify that. I don't I don't think it absolutely doesn't but because we've allowed it other places in the near south side. So I think that we would like to examine that further and just know more about the treatment. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? Hello. I'm Adam Lane. I'm the chief facility management officer. EPA at JPS. So I'm not going to speak directly to these. We thought it would be a good idea at JPS to inform the board of our master plan as we're going to be coming in front of you many more times in the future here as we unwound our one point five billion dollar redevelopment of JPS. So do you have a pointer? Yeah, I do. Awesome. So this is a campus as it currently exists with the west side of Maine in the tower. This was the site of the old St. Joe's Hospital. This is the eligibility center. Currently that is considered Lot A in the presentation. This is Lot B. These are J-POC office buildings and this lot is the J-POC lot. Currently this is the medical examiners building. The psychiatric hospital is down here. The Allen Street garage is over here. The main pavilion building is here with the pavilion garage. Allen Street is right here. Main Street runs this way. I know you're here. Let's go to the next slide. Thank you. Do I have it? No. I got it. So first off, all of these are not happening currently. But we want to show you the basic phase one of the master plan. And of course this being Texas, everything is predicated on parking because we love our cars and we are limited on parking. Currently, as I mentioned, we have the Allen Street garage, the pavilion garage and the Morphy Street garage. The Morphy Street garage has structural issues with it. We've done some repairs. It will be coming down in the future. It is an Iowa viable garage in the future. And we have a number of structural studies on that garage. So currently our parking lots are right here where the physicians park and staff for TSP. This parking lot for J-POC and the eligibility center has minimal parking that serves both the eligibility center and the foundation building that is right here. Again, the green space here is exactly that. The notion is that we need to alleviate the parking issue on the campus so that we can develop the rest of the campus, including a new parking garage. First pieces going up that you will see countywide are the Medical Home Southwest, which is not on this campus, over on Grandbury Road, and that's coming through the process as well and working through the city currently. And the PEC, which you see here, which is to alleviate our emergency center for the psychiatric care component, which is on the 10th floor of the tower. That's a very unusual setup in a hospital. We are alleviating that area and then increasing the key planning units, meaning the number of patients that we can see and joining that up to the GSB. That will take out a number of parking spaces as we redevelop that. What you will find as the plans come to you and they will be coming to you shortly, in fact, the parking in the front of the PEC along Allen will no longer exist. It will be a green space. And the reason it's a green space is it does not make efficient parking. We cannot get access from either side from the corners. It doesn't make sense to have parking there. And again, we were working with Mike on that because we want to reinvent some of the green spaces we have around the campus as this green space disappears or gets used up in the future. So that is one of the first green spaces we will have. Once those start, though, in the interim, we would like to build transitional parking in this area and this area to alleviate the parking. The reason they were doing that is because coming online shortly after we start this within the next year is a new parking garage. There are 530 spaces in this lot just in this rectangle. I'm not including this space right here. These two lots together are 530 spaces. Give or take a few spaces. This garage is intended to be 2,800 spaces. So an eight-story garage. We're working through that with Mike. The whole front face of the garage, separate project, but they will be developed in parallel, will be a large medical office building. So the front face of Magnolia still is in within keeping of the Magnolia Street District retail development on the lower floor, et cetera, so that we don't see a garage on that face. We don't want to see it. The nurse outside doesn't want to see it. Nobody wants to see your garage there. The facade of the M.O.B. will in fact wrap around the sides of the garage so that there will be no perception of that garage. It may be full facade. It may disintegrate some kind of art treatment in that base. The backside of the garage we will still leave open because we have the opportunity of future development here. The J-POP buildings are quite old at some point. That's an ideal property to redevelop for more medical office and possibly an extension of a garage again with more facade so that again we developed that over the time as we grow. What you see over in this area is an extension of the North Pavilion. We need to do this in order to build our new hospital towers. The back of the North Pavilion, if you've been in that area, is very crenellated. It's not conducive to attaching another full building to. This allows us to extend our level one trauma center on the first floor and our emergency areas as well as on the second floor extending our surgery suites which are all on the second floor of that building. Additionally, what that does is that will then connect to a second floor plant that runs the full length of this. And there's another master plan I think Mike has in here. I'd like to show you that after we get through this. In addition to all the other development, we have a development of a central utility plan. In fact, we are looking at a cogeneration plant to develop our own power. Currently, we have three plants on our campus and 14 megawatts of power scattered all over the place. Dating from 1934 all the way to the present there underground here. We have one over here that supports TSP. There's one in the garage. We're going to co-locate all of those with the new plant to be much more energy efficient as we build all these buildings. And I'll go to the other master plan. So if the two new towers intend to go here and in the future, there will be another office building here, support service building that will hold our administration, finance, human resources, all those components. In the back of this area where Morphe garage is, we intend to build a central loading dock area by medical waste stock. In essence, the design of the campus is all service functions back up to the railroad tracks so that they're no longer on Felix drive coming in the front off of Allen Street to the back. That's one component. The other component is that all the hospital functions align along main. Very convenient. Then the outpatient zone ends up in this area across the street. So you'll see Skybridge is coming across main, etc. What we're looking at, it's a very unique opportunity on this campus having built many hospital campuses before. It's almost like we're building a Greenfield hospital, but it's a mature hospital at the same time. So we're really able to separate our circulation as you would in a brand new hospital. We'll all visitor traffic will run along the front face along main through Skybridge is that all service traffic, meaning pedestrian patients, etc. will run interior on the backside of the hospital and then all vehicular service traffic runs along the back of the hospital. So that means that ambulances and normal visitor traffic run this way. And we in fact are inserting a drive this way in the back so that the ambulance bay has two means of ingress and egress, which it currently does not have right now, which is quite dangerous. If you've been in that area, you'll notice there's a loading dock in this area sometimes strokes block the ambulance drive. So that's an issue. Also with the new towers, you will see that we are inserting a park back on the front face of those buildings and if we can go to the other presentation so that we can show the floor plan of this. It's within Mike's presentation. This one right there. This this one right below it. Oh, sorry. Yeah. So here you'll see the PEC. It's actually sorry. The PEC is much larger than that now. It's about three times the size of that given the KPUs we have key cleaning units. So much of this parking will go away. In fact, only the parking in this face right here in the central lot will remain that is physician parking and will remain this physician parking for the PEC. So we are dependent on this garage and the temporary lots transitional lots. Once the garage is built, estimated timeline is less than three years from now. Then we will start construction on the towers as well. So that transitional parking truly is transitional. And as you can see, we are looking at inserting visitor excuse me, visitor access across the front face of all of this service along this. And you can see the sky bridge is indicated and then vehicular service along the back again, insertion of park spaces here in front of the PEC. The Allen Street Park remains and then insertion of park space here in the front. That is our current master plan timeline, including the towers is approximately six to seven years. So we're going to be busy. So I look forward to seeing you a lot. So I think I'll leave the rest to Anna and Mike. They are running this part of the transitional. So Anna, if you would. Just a question. So that address lots A and B. What about the other lots? I'm going to let this lady address. OK. All right. Fantastic. Good morning. All my name is Anna Corillo and I'm honored to be the civil engineer for JPS on this particular part of the program, which is very important, very critical because it lays the groundwork for a program that is several years long. And it's important that we lay the groundwork now and well so that this program can evolve during that timeframe. We have been working with Mike extensively also with different departments of city staff in every one of these because there's different things to keep in mind. And I'll talk about those a little bit more, whether it's stormwater run whether it's access or improving the network of sidewalk and pedestrian viability around the area. So this slide right here has the north area. So there is not a development plan. I know that that question has come up quite a bit. There is not, you know, Adam obviously showed all the 3D and all the rendering, the master plan for the campus itself. So there is not per se a development plan at this time. However, this is a transitional period. So there what we expect to see an evolution in that. And we are open to that. We'll speak to that a little bit more. So lot C is on the north side of Dashwood. Lot D is immediately north of that north of Tarrell. And then lot E, which we're not hearing today, but it's also going to be coming forward is on the west side of Brian and then lot F on the north side of Luda. And lot F is where we are proposing to relocate data at the warehouse. And this is that is the only lot that will at this time be fenced. But I think that's important to show some of the exhibits showed before like chain link fence. But there's been numerous conversations. And at this time it has been decided that that will be the only one that will be fenced for storage materials, primarily construction materials. That is a primary use of the warehouse. And that is one of the reasons that we don't have all the open and I'm not an architect, but all the fenestration and all of the the open windows and what have you on the warehouse itself. But however, we are proposing to do some artwork and continue to work with near south side and others to provide a very aesthetically pleasing elevation on that warehouse. So if we can a few points that I wanted to make of the toy not. Can you go on to the one that has the bullet points? Yeah, that is. So I'd like to, you know, speak to these bullet points in response to comments that we have received both from the near south side committee, as we have been working with Mike and that group, as well as on some on the staff report today. So again, I pointed out that only lot F is the one that will be store of a fence at this time. Also, before I before I go into these, I'd like to point out that interesting conversations with JPS, they have been very diligent and busy lately and determine that exact number of spaces that are being lost in that first phase of the development and implementation part of the program. And we lots a and B in terms of constructing those and providing the staff parking are at the top of the priority list. However, lots C and D are very near that and they are moving up in priority level. So today we ask, I know that those there's a recommendation for denial of those that we would like to do everything possible to get approval of those, even if it is with conditions, because we are very open to satisfying those conditions as need be. So there's been discussions and requests as to whether these lots can be used by the public during off hours of JPS. Obviously, that is something that is in discussion. JPS is very open to that understanding the need and that these lots are further up further north and they are in an area where there's quite a bit of pedestrian activity and need for parking. The details of that will continue to be worked out, whether it's signage and what those exact hours and off hours for JPS are that can be opened up to the public. So we continue those conversations, but that is something that is very much in the works. Why grab a lot? There's a couple of reasons. These truly are transitional lots and it's important to understand that they're all this the program duration will be somewhat of a dynamic process because of what Adam described earlier, there will be construction in different areas and that program will evolve and the needs of the program will evolve. So for example, at the beginning before the garage is constructed, obviously there's a higher need for parking. Once the parking garage is constructed and we have the supply then, then we won't need as much parking spaces on these slots. So I think it's important to understand that that dynamic process will evolve as time goes by and gravel will lend itself a lot better or removal and or transition transitional use. I think Mike has some examples later of some gravel parking lots that have been in the area and how they have evolved and it has been very successful. Somebody alluded earlier as to whether gravel can be clean and dust free. It can. It obviously requires it's a lot cleaner than then, for example, a road base that tends to be dusty and maybe get muddy, whereas gravel can be a lot cleaner. It can also compact very well and my JPS has a very strong maintenance plan for that. Another reason is a preservation of trees. Gravel lends itself a lot more to where we don't have to do as much braiding and impact the root systems of these significant and large trees that are in all of these lots and and they can even be used for shading, right? In terms of somebody parking there during the day and and so that's and we get to preserve the trees. I think it was on lot B as well that we were showing that we are trying our best to keep all of those perimeter trees around the side. So that's an initiative that is very important to us and we are working closely on that. So on these other lots that used to be old residential lots, there's interior trees and we will do our best to preserve some of those. Another reason is as you may have obviously seen very recently where we have had a very large storm event, that area is very challenged, especially the north. Those north blocks are very challenged by drainage issues that were that we just had an opportunity to to see. And there is the the October's apartment are right next to them and they're on downstream. So we are working very closely with their storm water group on doing some sort of on street, I mean on parking mitigation for the stormwater runoff in Bravo really lends itself to that much better than a hard surface parking. One of the concerns was at one point we were showing the warehouse further closer to Main Street and one of the things that we have done is moved it over to the back on Crawford Street. A couple of things that it pulls it away from Main Street, but it also allows its access from or pick up and delivery off of Crawford, which is a street that has actually been improved, whereas some of the other streets remain unimproved. In terms of development potential in the area, JPS has always been a partner that has been very open for development in the in the past. And I think Mike and others can attest to that and that will not be any different moving forward. If there is development opportunity for those lots, their JPS is open to allowing that to happen just like they have done at other times. Like I said, this is a dynamic program. It's it's going to be evolving over the next several years. And then the pedestrian connectivity, I think that's very important. And we have what we prepare. We prepare this slide. The green sidewalks are those that are there. We have walked them and those appear very they're in really decent shape. And a lot of the reason is because of the improvements that have already taken place on Main Street, Bryan and Crawford. So the handicapped ramps are there, but they're and they do have sidewalks. Same thing is for the handicapped ramps say at the intersection of Terrell and Crawford and Luda and Crawford. The ramps are there because they were put as part of the improvement of Crawford Street. But then the connectivity isn't there to Main Street. So JPS has made a commitment to complete that that sidewalk network and provide those areas in red at their own expense, even though that some of the projects do not touch those because we understand the the importance of providing that connectivity from the October's apartments, but also from a formal public standpoint. And then I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier that I think there was a question that came up about the distance from the parking lots to the JPS facility, and there will be shuttle service provided for each one of these blocks. So I think that's all I have. If there's any questions for me, I'd be happy to know. I guess on that slide, you're saying the red one, it was a little difficult to hear the red ones are the ones that are planning to be installed. Correct. The green ones we have analyzed and they are in decent condition. OK. And and so for those red ones, why wouldn't they extend all the way around the block? What was important and what was brought up was that the connectivity from Crawford to Maine was more critical. But we are extending that along the north side of Brian, which has a lot more activity. There is not as much pedestrian activity. Well, Crawford Street has is an improved street already. We identified these areas to be the most critical to provide that connection from the especially from the October's apartment where I think correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but it's I think it's the senior living and and affordable. So there is a great need to make that connection from east to west. And that was the primary priority put on this plan. But why only on one side of the street? Why only on the north side, not the south side? The the amount of of pedestrian traffic is not that great. There is need for that connection. But it's not like you really need the two, the two sides because the crosswalks are there. There are handicap ramps on every corner. And so the crosswalks are there and you can make your way with one side of the street. OK, it's not it's not like in a traffic operation for the vehicular activity where you actually have that many, that many cars that you need to or multiple lanes, right? In this case, it may be just one, one or two people at a time. I mean, if there's a peak hour, somebody's leaving or restaurants are closing or whatever and and they're getting they're leaving then in that case, you may have more people, but you're not going to have a significant that doesn't make any sense because you're you're encouraging people to park there. You're going to put more cars there. There's going to be more people. You're going to need more sidewalks. And even if this is elderly and you have one person that's having to cross the street again, it just it doesn't make sense to me that you don't do one side and not the other. Well, that's something that we can visit with with staff and with Mike and see, you know, look at those patterns of pedestrian activity and distribute accordingly. Obviously, we're trying to do everything that is, you know, that we can do and JPS is has that position as well within reason and obviously giving back to the community and to the public as much as possible. Well, absolutely. Usually when you come to ask for waivers, you try to mitigate with something else. And so I think just doing the bare minimum of sidewalks is not really the right gesture. We can certainly take a look at that. Like I mentioned earlier, it's it's very critical that we obtain approval. So we are open to having that approval with conditions. OK, it is. I'm sorry. I just can ask a question about the parking. So I know you mentioned that the 5 30 sort of washes out on the other side of campus, why are C and D critical? I think it's just based on the needs of the program. I think that's something that just came up. Lou, OK, can answer it. We've worked out a good morning or afternoon. My name is Lou Mattingly. I'm the director of planning, design and construction there, JPS. As we begin all these construction activities on our main campus, we've looked at a traffic impact study and not only of staff but contractors. So to the extent that we take up our our Jay Park, the large parking lot for the new parking garage and how we showed that we're looking at lots A and B for public, for staff, for physicians, for patients. You know, we want to keep them close, but in order for us to do that and also accommodate our operations with contractors, we're projecting a peak contractor of preliminary evaluation of up to 400 contractors or more. So when that parking lot is underway, although the new parking garage will relieve that parking, that's when we start our our new hospital. And that's that's when we're going to have the most contractors. So that overflow of parking also is going to require a lot C, D, E and F to the to the level that we're not using for material storage in the in the warehouse. And that's very limited for, you know, overflow of material storage for items that require like condition space. OK, so the intent for the warehouses materials used for construction or for JPS? For construction and for JPS, we'd like a little bit of flexibility. Like Anna was saying, it's going to be pretty dynamic. So as we go in to some of our existing areas, there's going to be we're going to need a space to put that. We would also we would like to have that opportunity to leverage some of our existing facilities. Yes, sir. OK. What what do you anticipate these lots transitioning into after the seven year plan is complete? So after we're done with these lots, we want to return to their current state, obviously in better condition and then we left them with the addition of sidewalks and and, you know, the conditions of this committee. So and this may be for Anna. There was a mention about the tree preservation. Has a layout been done for each of those parking lots to show which trees are going to be preserved and how the parking is going to work? Yes, there has been. So we actually submitted recently a progress of documents to the contractor for pricing purposes and in those those and also we submitted a drainage study for lots a and B. And then we're submitting one to for the rest of the lots to stormwater management group this this week. Or I think by the end of this week and in those we have done more grading because like I said, we are really working to do some onsite drainage mitigation and what we're trying to only grade at the lower areas of the lower meaning drain and downstream areas of those lots and then put somewhat of a curb barrier to slow down the runoff and wherever we are not grading. So we have identified those areas that we can preserve those trees. So yes, we have. In terms of parking, we actually did prepare some layouts as if they were striping to see how much how many parking spaces we could get from each one of those and still meet the city parking requirements, you know, drive aisle with if we have. Yeah, so we actually do want to do that and and we have prepared those lots and it was also important to present that to JPS so that they could take that into account into their overall drain parking counts. And there's a couple of different ways that we can delineate those spaces. I know that you can start with striping. It may not last very long because of the gravel movement, but wheel stops providing wheel stops is also a good way that sometimes you can pave a small area and just set a president of those first parking stripes. And so people as people come into the parking lot, those say that first three spaces. Park and then you have wheel stops and then that just sets the president for the rest of the aisles to be parked. So we have and we have the numbers that those lots would yield. If you're interested, I have them right here. Yeah, it just seems like it's going to be very complicated to preserve trees and have efficient parking on those small lots. Is the intent that the curb cuts are on the short sides of the blocks? The intent of the this one we are actually not the A and B that the gravel lots like D. There's a couple of different things. One is is efficiency circulation, right? For parking and and so with tree preservation, the layouts and all that. So that's one of the items to balance. The other one is the impact to adjacent streets. So we have also met with the streets department of TPW and see what what makes sense because we don't want to add more congestion to Brian per say we but they would make sense to put them more on Crawford also because those streets are improved, whereas maybe Luda is in it's in worse condition and we don't want to impact it as any more than it already is. So there's some moving elements there that we have been coordinating as to where to provide the access. Yes. OK, yeah, I know that there's a program that's improved some of those streets. Do we know is Luda on the schedule somewhere or OK? All right, but we have met with that group as well. OK. Is there any lighting? Yes, yes, there is. I believe I don't have the exact numbers with me, but I think that was just recently discussed and there is I think at least two to three like two, like two lights on each lot. Yes. And then also in addition to that, there's also code blue phones one on the north extreme and one on the south extreme. And I think that's very important, not just for JPS users, but also for the public cameras as well. That's another thing that will be added. OK. It's Commissioner Stamper. I had a question for the applicant. So I can certainly appreciate the long term planning and that, you know, you mentioned the dynamic nature or the use of these lots and wanting to have flexibility and some of the other reasons for pursuing the gravel on the interior. Obviously, if it's transitional use, you know, if we can mitigate the water runoff and all that, I'm in complete agreement on the flexibility of the interior of the lots and what you desire. I guess I'm curious why not comply with near south side right of way guidelines because presumably with with a long term plan, all of those guidelines, you know, the standards and guidelines to developing the right of way portions of these blocks would be complied with at some point. And for me, to have those done up front, when it doesn't impact the flexible use of the interior boundaries of the private private ownership land, it would drastically improve the just the overall user experience over there, including to have those pedestrian lights and street trees, it would just go a long way to improving the overall neighborhood experience and I think providing a safer, you know, usage experience for all of the contractors and potential employees that will be using these lots and still provide all the flexibility you want for future construction on the actual owned private property. So I'm curious about the reasons behind not doing those right of way improvements up front, along with the request for the gravel parking lots. I think the the short answer is these are really transitional lots. That's that's the the main goal of these lots is to be transition one to serve that transitional purpose. The other portion of that is that there is development potential in this area. This areas are significantly further north and there's been a whole lot. And I'm sure Mike can speak to that, you know, and obviously we all see it. There's a whole lot that's happening on the north side off of South Main Street and Brian and whenever those plans come in, it would make sense for those to coordinate that to the for the design of those streets. Elements, you know, the street, the trees, lights, you know, for those to be part of the design and to actually meet the design of each as each of one of these lots and blocks developed. Yeah, but there are but the standards and guidelines exist for for both the, you know, what you're expected to do with this property is you develop it and you're asking for a waiver from that. And those same standards and guidelines will exist for whoever comes along later. What I'm saying is the standard application of those right away improvements is just that. It's a standard. So if you were to improve the right of way, you would be improving it for everything that comes along later, with the exception of probably a curb cutter to, you know, to meet the individual needs of later development on the interior of the block. But what I'm saying is those sidewalks will be useful from day one, if you put them in from day one, the street trees will be that much bigger and useful for the seven years until maybe something happens on these on these blocks. There just doesn't seem much of a downside to doing those right away improvements. I understand and I am sympathetic with, you know, saying the addition of the coverage of the lots, screening of the lots, paving of the lots, I'm sympathetic with waivers associated with that aspect. Jesse, I might just add, during work session, I kind of had that initial thought and as they start to kind of peel back the layers of the, you know, the master plan and timeframe, you know, I'd agree it'd be nice to set the streetscape standards now, give time for the trees to mature, you know, create a more walkable setting. But I think as these develop, you know, whether it's the current developer or another future developer, the need for, you know, additional infrastructure improvements that may be, you know, subsurface, you know, we've already noted drainage issues in the area. There may be additional storm or water, cemetery sewer. So we might be just ripping those improvements out to put in a new streetscape. So Mike's obviously intimately familiar with the infrastructure here. So he could probably elaborate, but that was just maybe a point to add of why now may not be the right time to do that. Well, but I think when you look at the perimeter of the block to make a sewer tap, a water tap, a fire tap, you know, I mean, those kind of things, you're not going to disturb more than 10% of that streetscape. And I'm just talking if there's major, you know, main improvements that we're not entirely sure where they are, you know, it's, I'm not making the argument on behalf of them. It's just a point that I wanted to make. Yeah, thank you for that Douglas. I think that's a very valid point. The need for these lots, like we mentioned, is now. And the process to go, for example, one of a couple of these, because they were old residential lots, you know, have multiple driveways. So that would be an abandonment of multiple driveways that would need to take place. That can get into the improvement of a street, you know, to add curb and gutter, which in turn could add to working with the water department. And if they say, well, there's a size that is, there's a water line that is undersized and we've been planning to upsize it. So in that all takes time. So it doesn't mean that this cannot take place, but it does open it up to a whole lot bigger and broader scope than the immediate use of those these parking lots, which is really the hardship of the whole program, right, is to provide parking in a starting immediately. And I'll let Lou add to that. But from a practical standpoint and infrastructure standpoint, that is, that's a significant undertaking. The only comment I was going to make for the committee to just take into consideration on this topic is we do have a fixed budget and please don't hear this comment wrong. We want to balance those dollars, you know, the best that we can for the program. So so whatever additional dollars we we spend in this area, it'll be less than we spend towards patient care or something contributing to patient care. So I just wanted to make that comment. We do have a fixed budget and it just kind of balances. So more gets spent over here than let's get spent over there. Totally understand. But I think the first person said the budget was somewhere with a with a B, right? It was in every single one of those dollars are accounted for. OK, well, then it may not have been planned very well. All right, Mike, I think you have a presentation. Yes, thank you. And Jamie, I apologize. We're probably going to be jumping around a little bit. So I'll do my best to to keep us on track. Let's start with this slide here. So I'm going to make two major points and there'll be a lot of details that we'll get into. This is a case where obviously the commission is charged with with considering the details of particular waivers, but also taking into account sort of big picture context of this of what will be the the largest expansion project in the history of our medical innovation district in the near Southside. This is a great view of the the lots that we're talking about here. So I get the letters mixed up, but I think that the warehouse block is this that might have been block F C and D are here. So these were the the two main parking lots. You can see in this photograph if you look closely, Brian Avenue from Terrell going south to Rosdale has been reconstructed part of the near Southside street reconstruction program. You see the new sidewalks there, the accessibility ramps north of Terrell going this way is perhaps the worst street conditions that we still have in the near Southside. These streets were included in the program. The program is intended to to be closely coordinated with development projects so that we're rightsizing water lines because as soon as we start messing with these streets and I think Anna referred to this, the water department has to replace the water lines underneath because they're too old and they will they will break when the street is repaired. So all of these streets have been subject just to asphalt repair. This the city's done a really good job. There is there is a lot of truck traffic in the area, but any talk about the construction of sidewalks and more importantly, the construction of the full roadside elements that the near Southside code requires for new building construction. That all the dominoes that Anna referred to have to be taken into account. So we'll we'll we'll we'll get to to those details in a little bit. I wanted to to start with a related discussion about the long term development of the site. We are very confident that this this site and these the the transitional use of these lots sets up this area for the best long term development outcomes. We have been working with JPS over the last few years and Adam will probably be scared if we take this to literally, but this is a visioning exercise that looks at these properties. Great location within the Medical Innovation District as a great opportunity to take that innovation district to a higher level. So what you see here in concept is a biotech research park. You can see though that this is an incredible design, highly walkable, highly engaging, but also has some unique treatments of the street network, the road sides and so forth. We hope that there is the opportunity and we as an organization near Southside, Inc. We're working as the economic development community development organization leading the areas revitalization in partnership with partners like JPS. We want to continue to be leading that conversation over these six to seven years so that when that transition is ready for the next stage, there is something exciting coming to these parcels and we're confident with the market that we have in the near Southside today that that's a given, that these parcels will be developed and when they are developed, all of those elements that we're talking about, the street trees, the lights, the sidewalks and maybe even a special treatment of all of those public realm elements is possible. I can tell you if these parcels just were put on the market today for development, what we would get would be multi-family projects block by block filled up the would fill up the entire site. We have one that will be built just down here that'll that'll go to construction and we have a project that'll soon be announced north of Pennsylvania. This is a more desirable outcome than just more multi-family. All right, let's dive into the details a little bit. Jamie, if you'll jump to those transitional parking lot. Yeah, that should be next in the deck. If you want. Okay, it's very important that our districts remain as a in the adaptive mode so that we can respond to specific circumstances as they come on, as they come up. This was a great example. Back in, this is a shot from I think 2016 or so. People will remember this as just a grass lot behind the Sawyer lofts building. This is where stir crazy when stir crazy baked goods opened up they were first here. There was no parking on the site and then we decided to reconstruct South Main Street. So during the reconstruction of South Main Street this became a transitional parking lot. None of those requirements of street trees, lights, all of that were applied to this transitional parking lot. It filled a critical role of facilitating another project in that case, the reconstruction of South Main Street. Over time, it evolved into a more formal condition and in partnership with the street repair program which reconstructed Brian and put in these sidewalks here and some resurfacing and wheel stops and so forth. That has become a critical parking lot for the South Main Village area. That sort of evolution and adaptation is what we want these big projects to facilitate. It's not always apples to apples comparisons but generally two purposes are served by these transitional parking lots. They're either providing key parking for our urban village areas which that previous example is doing which I just showed or they're facilitating another sites redevelopment. In some cases a major redevelopment as we see with JPS. In this case, because JPS is willing to allow the public use of those lots in off or I guess non-business hours, evenings and weekends, this is sort of a dual purpose case. We can see at Connex that gravel is a great surface for parking lots. They have a grid system. That's probably the gold plated version of a gravel lot but just the type of rock that they use is clearly dust free. And we also have seen that without our really noticing it, what is proposed by JPS is a pretty common condition in the near South Side. If you drive along 8th Avenue at Pennsylvania today, Cook Children's has major projects under construction on the South Side of Pennsylvania. If you look at the old Westchester site, it is a transitional lot now. Now instead of the warehouses or the warehouse that JPS proposes, you'll see storage containers lined up on that site, storing construction materials. You'll see contractor parking there. It's a more conventional construction site type of environment. I think what JPS has proposed through working with us and the staff is an outcome that is the best that we could ever expect for this transitional use. The construction of sidewalks to fill gaps, the use of the lots for public parking, a partnership on the warehouse so that it's a friendly neighbor to the folks living across the street, gravel surface to mitigate against any runoff, preservation of trees, all of those boxes are being checked. It turns out that we have an opportunity, a policy opportunity to maybe keep some of these cases off of your agenda by having a more predictable set of standards for these transitional lots. As I said, this is not, it's not the first one of its kind. These things have happened. Sometimes the city of Fort Worth has said no permit is required. Other times they've said the full near south side roadside standards are required. We need to work together to get some clarity and more predictability. And certainly in this case, we don't want that sort of gray area that we're in now to slow down what is such an important project. So we're here strongly in favor and feel good about the terms that have been set. Obviously open to additional conversation from the commission to see if there are other things that might be added to make it even better. Thank you. All right. Yeah, I guess one question for me would be the details because I know tree preservation was mentioned but all of the trees that exist on that site are not going to be preserved if you're trying to park in and around them. So I think it'd be good to understand what that balance is between tree preservation and what's going to need to be removed to get an efficient parking lot because none of the other examples you showed had trees on them. That's true. There is a provision in the near south side code that I think is a 27 inch diameter tree classified as a significant tree. You're required to preserve those. And if you want to remove one, there's when the fees kick in or mitigation. So I'm confident that it seems like we should be confident that any tree of that size is gonna, they're gonna be able to work around but I agree the details of that should be worked out. Yeah, and I think that the sidewalks are still a concern for me. I understand that it may be difficult to try and develop those block faces without impacting curb and gutter and all that. But is the plan to remove all of the driveways that exist on those old residential lots? Eventually when the street program can include these streets and JPS owns all of these properties with their agreement, we would remove all of those driveways. Okay, but in the interim, they're just gonna remain and people are gonna be able to use them to access the lots. I would defer to Anna on the specific access design on each of the lots. Yeah, we can certainly provide that additional information. The plan was not to remove all of those but the understanding that the addition of those sidewalks or sidewalks will be handicapped accessible. So they need, so if there is any driveways that are in the way of the sidewalks or are too steep, that does not allow, for example, the required maximum cross slope, then those areas would be removed to make way for the sidewalks. In terms of access, they can be blocked off so that they are not used to gain. Like I said, we could use, through the, you saw a picture with the wheel stops and so their access can be controlled in a certain manner. Yeah, I understand. I think, as Wes said, I think we need a little bit more detail to get comfortable with this idea. I think in those examples that Mike had, they were very concise and very small and they worked out well. We're talking about multiple blocks here and multiple different conditions with where a tree is gonna be preserved, where are they not, where sidewalks exist, how their new ones are gonna be improved. I think, I mean, we just don't have that level of detail right now. Okay, that's something that can be provided. It's ready and it can be provided. Yeah, I think those would be my big concerns. It's just about circulation and safety. People are intended to park there and then either go to JPS or to South Main or wherever else they need to have a safe way to get there. Sure. I mean, I don't think you guys want any more business over JPS, do you? All right. Just for my understanding, by safety, you mean a safe pedestrian path, is that right? Okay, right. And so, I mean, I think that my interpretation of that, I think it's a little bit open. Well, you also have to deal with accessibility requirements too. I mean, once you provide a parking lot, you've got to have a number of accessible spaces, so those will have to be paved and then you have to have a, I mean, that's what I'm saying, this is all in the details that has to be worked out. Those sorts of details because of the, that's a basic code requirement. I would think we would be confident that that compliance is assumed. Is that right? Yes. Okay. You should be. We, all of the sidewalks, like I say, some of the curb ramps are there and they are compliant because there are recent. Some of them are not, some of them are old. They're broken up. We would remove and replace those because the sidewalks do need to be provide accessible routes per TALS and ADA requirements. So those will be very much so. Also as a function of number of park, total number of parking spaces, there is a need and a requirement, basic requirement to Mike's point of how many handicap accessible parking spaces with appropriate signage and striping need to be there and those will be. Okay. Well, I mean, it sounds like if there's already some of that information and development that it could be shared with us. Yeah. Like I mentioned earlier, we have been constantly working on this with the numerous departments at the city, you know, with Jamie and Mike, but also with streets department with the architect and the stormwater and everybody else. So that there's an evolution, but there's a lot of information available that we can provide to you. Okay. And Mike, I certainly appreciate your point about working together, you know, especially with the city and understanding, you know, this idea of a transitional lot and how it can be managed just to make sure that everybody's on the same page. We don't want people going rogue and doing different things. It'd be better to have a standard with the idea that whatever improvements are made can be done for the best long-term interest of that property. The main access points for the parking lots would be standard drive approaches for city standards. Okay. Where the city actually doesn't like to have, you know, the barrier free ramps on either side of the drive approach and so that they would exist at the ramps on the corner. So those would be standard drive approaches where you come up and then you have the flat sidewalk going across. So those will be standard. Yeah. Yeah, cause I know that that example you had on Brian Avenue, Mike, that was not accessible at all. Or to meet any city standards. Well, this is a step better than that. Yes, yes. Commissioner Stamper, I had a question at African. I'm wondering, you know, Mike's presentation really went a long way to helping me understand the reasons he feels the near south side standards and guidelines on the right-of-way improvements in particular might be best postponed. And that certainly helped a lot. I guess my question to the applicant is, I think for me, I would feel pretty comfortable approving the waiver requests as requested. If as a condition, the sidewalks on all frontages were completed under JPS's plan. That me seems like the minimum improvement that where JPS is leaving all these blocks in a better state than they're finding them and would also help, I think it would help in containing the gravel that gets applied to those lots as far as containing it from entering the roadway. It would give you a new concrete surround that you could then develop the gravel parking lot within. Does that make sense? And is that something that JPS would consider as a condition to this approval? Commissioner Stamper, that's no issue whatsoever. So what was proposed was proposed also from our consultants. So I'm happy to do that. That's not an issue whatsoever. Thank you very much. You bet. Any other questions of the applicant? Yeah, I would add on to what Commissioner just said about that, if that were to include some of that in an urban forestry study, a little bit more detail on the trees that are being removed and all of that, which it sounds like you already started to have on the way. All right. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners? I guess to clarify, Jamie, is there anyone else here to speak in favor or opposition to this case? Nobody online and it looks like no one in person. Okay. All right. Then I think we can close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission for discussion. I mean, it sounds like to me that they're willing to work on making these improvements and it sounds like some of us are already still underway. You know, I think it would be good just to, for, since this is a new thing and for our benefit to understand what the proposal is in terms of how these blocks are going to be developed for these temporary uses. So I think it might be good to do a continuance just so that material that's already available could be resubmitted for next month. Would you be, are you considering for lots A and B or are you just referring to CDNF? Mostly CDNF, yeah. So it would be. Because E has to come back anyway. Yeah, E's. It has to go through A, G, L, C. But yeah, and I think that was the staff's recommendation too was approval for A and B and then was it continuance or denial? If it's a denial without prejudice, it's effectively similar to a continuance. It just means they can come back whenever they want, but you can also continue it up to the commission. And it sounds like they have the answers to a lot of those questions. We just haven't seen it. Right. I do agree that, go ahead, Jesse. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. That's why I really wanted to ask the question of the applicant if they were amenable to the contingency of providing sidewalk on all frontages. Because I think for me, I just wanted to see them make the investment where it really seemed like JPS themselves was leaving the neighborhood better and they weren't just utilizing the land they own there as a temporary way to alleviate issues on their campus to the south. And to me, if they do that minimum improvement, it actually is a substantial improvement to the pedestrian experience in the area. And I think personally, I would be fine granting the waiver with that condition because that sort of meets the idea in my mind of keeping those lots really tidy and maintained by providing that concrete surround. Everyone has a sidewalk on all streets. And I think that the interior, for me, I expect that the plan, as far as the trees and the layout of those lots, I expect that to be done on a professional level, given who we're dealing with here. So I'd be happy moving this forward today. I can understand others wanting to see a little bit more of the documentation, but I just since I brought that up and I thought I should go ahead and make a comment on where I felt I was ready to vote today. I don't disagree. I guess I would have a question to you guys about how we would work with the trees if we did approve those with full sidewalks. And like he's saying, given the caliber of the applicant, do we, would we want a condition about trees or would we consider granting those waivers? I don't think that the trees are as important to me because I think eventually when those blocks get developed, the trees get removed and they get replaced by street trees. So I don't, I mean, preservation of trees doesn't really hold much for me. I certainly trust the applicant and the near south side, but since they've already said this is something that's already in process and there's just been a progress set submitted, I think it wouldn't hurt to just see the final when it's ready. I mean, it sounds like we're running on a parallel course. Yeah, I would agree. I think for me, it's hard to wrap my, because I'm on, you know, similar to Jesse, I would be prepared to make a vote to accept it as is what makes it for me a little bit difficult to wrap my head around is there's a lot that I would basically be assuming to happen. Yeah. And without actually seeing it, you know, there's just something, you know, more of a precedent type thing for me there. Exactly. For future developments and things like that. I think since this is the first one and this may be the case for this new modification of the near south side standards, it would be good just to see that level of detail. And especially if it's already, it sounds like a lot of it has been done or is in the works of being able to see it next month. Yeah. So would it be two motions? Mr. Hook, we're gonna say something. I was just gonna say, I think the good outweighs the bad here. I mean, this is a big project. It's gonna be an amazing facility once they're done with it and I think that a little leeway here to allow them some parking, it's something I would support because I think the good does definitely outweigh the bad. Long term. Yeah, I think after the presentations, it addressed some of the recommendations that staff had brought up and I think they were prepared and had good responses. It's not as if those plans don't exist. They're clearly working towards rectifying those situations. So with Jesse's recommendation to include at least the sidewalks, I'd be prepared to support the waivers for all the lots at this point. Same here. And if there's no further discussion, I will make a motion to approve the waivers as presented for lots A and B, C, D, and F, with the condition that the sidewalks are installed, the appropriate locations for the temporary or transitional parking lots. The entire perimeter. Yes. And does your motion also include approval of A and B with the completion of the sidewalks? Yes, just the sidewalks in terms of the right-of-way streets, cave standards. There's two parts. So there's the A and B and then there's that little bit of gap of sidewalk there that staff wanted to make sure we included. And then there's the whole C, D, and F. I think if you make a motion that you're including to a completion of the sidewalk network, it would include that. I would second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Diaz? Aye. Nay. Nay, okay. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Rattery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. Motion passes seven-one. Make sure that Jamie moves. I'm sorry, eight-one. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself from this case as well. Okay, yeah, so we have one recusal and then one departure. Okay. Do you have quorum without me? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, we're good. Oh, okay. I'm sorry, we have two departures. One, two, three. Yes, if we keep everybody online, we do. Who else is leaving? Okay. Commissioner Diaz? One, two, three, four. Yeah, okay. Good to see you too. See you next month. Your last case is UDC 22072. It's at 3879 Post Oak Boulevard and 13750 Trinity Boulevard. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for the following, a waiver from the requirement to plant street trees along Post Oak Boulevard, a waiver from the requirement to provide pedestrian-scale lighting along Post Oak Boulevard, a waiver from the requirement to provide individual street-oriented entrances for the first floor units along the following streets, Trinity Boulevard, seven units, Candle Drive seven units, and Post Oak Boulevard five units, a waiver from the maximum 20-foot setback from a street or public access easement to allow a setback of 23 feet and six inches. This site is located in Far Northeast Fort Worth across the American Airlines campus. The American Airlines campus was designed with extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails to promote better health and alternative forms of transportation to and from the campus, bike and pedestrian connections extend to adjacent streets, including Trinity Boulevard. The proposed development provides an opportunity to provide infill development near an employment center and incremental improvements to the long-term connectivity goals for pedestrians in this area. I'll go through the waiver requests one by one. The first request, the residential entry waivers, the applicant has requested a waiver from meeting individual street-oriented entrances for the first floor units along three street frontages. I'll note the entrances being provided versus those not being provided. On Trinity Boulevard, there are 13 first floor units, six of the units meet the code requirements, seven of the units do not meet the code requirements. Trinity Boulevard slopes at about 10% from east to west and there's a total of 21 feet of grade change along the face of the buildings that front Trinity Boulevard. There's also a gas line and a 10-foot easement along Trinity Boulevard, which runs adjacent to the building on that side. The recommendation for this item is that based on the constraints listed above, staff recommends approval. The candle drive public access easement request, there are eight first floor units in the building, one unit meets the code requirements, seven units do not meet the code requirements. The alignment of this drive results in a grade change of 11 feet along the face of the building. This is precluding the ability to meet the code requirement for all units. So based on these constraints, staff is recommending approval of this waiver request along candle drive. And then on Post Oak Boulevard, there are five first floor units in the building. None of these units meet the code requirements. The slope here is 11.5% from north to south and there's 11 feet of grade change along the face of the building. There's also a gas line and a 15-foot easement along Post Oak Boulevard. So based on these constraints, staff again recommends approval of this waiver request. Maximum front-front setback waiver recommendation, which is to Board of Adjustment. The applicant has requested a front setback waiver to increase their setback from 20 feet to 23.6 feet. This is to provide space for the pocket park that is proposed in that location. Based on the plan submitted for the pocket park, staff recommends this request. Finally, there is a request to waive the requirement for street trees and pedestrian lighting requirements along Post Oak Boulevard due to utility conflicts and topography. Despite this constraint along Post Oak Boulevard, staff supports the request to remove those items from the right-of-way. However, there appears to be space outside of these easements to potentially provide these items behind the sidewalk on private property to accommodate those existing utilities. So just to summarize, staff is requesting approval of all waiver requests with the condition that these street tree and pedestrian lights along Post Oak Boulevard be provided elsewhere, potentially behind the sidewalk line on private property. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. All right, so anyone here speak in favor of this case? Brandon Hopkins, 2726, Law the World Court in Dallas, Texas, representing the developer and owner of the Landstone Hawk Capital Partners. We've done a bunch of projects in Fort Worth to date, one of them being Bowery off of East Broadway right next to Commissioner Stamper, some of his properties there. We're actually looking at some of the street improvements that we did back in 1718 there. This is one called the Jameson over in Trinity Bluffs that's a good inspiration photo for what we're proposing here. We're under construction for the Huntley off of Weatherford Avenue as you exit the city and then we're in a dirt phase, grading phase right now, right next to Top Call for another one. So Love, Fort Worth, we want to bring another quality project here just south of American Airlines Center. And so a couple of these waivers were already highlighted mainly due to topography, easements, utilities, and we've gotten similar waivers with all of our projects. And still we're able to provide a good product here, but I mean, we can get into all the streets but just wanted to point out that on Kendall Drive, we do have, we do have stupes, we're not asking for a waiver there, we're just asking for a waiver because I think we only had one stoop along the north-south one. So most of, half of Kendall Drive does comply. So I wanted to point that out. And then the bigger one is right here along Post Oak where we do have about a 13% grade change. We have some standard elevation shots so we can, for section views, this is at Trinity Boulevard, this shows kind of where we have been able to provide stupes. You can see where the gas line easement runs and kind of a setback from where the, where the sidewalk is here. Here's another section here, the north-south section on Kendall Drive where I think we said we just had one stoop. Was that correct on that one? For Kendall, the waiver request was eight without one width. Is it the inverse? No, no, you're right. Yeah, one width. So it was tough. It's a lot of grade change there. And then the easement, proximity. There is the buildings at main building drops and has a couple of subterranean units as well. So a lot of grade change, a lot of rock, a lot of utilities. And then the one that we're looking at right here, this is kind of a middle ground sample of the one along Post Oak. This represents about a four foot elevation change. And just for a point of reference right here, you're about 10 and a half feet from the sidewalk to the building up here, I think it's closer to two or three. So again, we like stoops, we try and do them as much as we can. We've done them on all of our other projects, but sometimes it's just better to maybe do a little private yard enhanced landscape than a bunch of concrete stairs. We're also contending with, even if we were to try and fit some stairs there, here's some elevations of the actual real building we're proposing to do. There's a pretty good slide here. Right here, it's just gets real tight with that dash line, with that gas line easement. I think it's a jet fuel line here, jet fuel line there. So this is really the one that we're probably least compliant with, but has the most restrictions with the biggest grade change. So I don't wanna take too much more of your time, but if you have any other questions about the other specific waivers, wanna open it up, I know we're pushing towards one o'clock here. I have a question. So city staff is recommending on post oak that the lighting and trees go on private property. How would that be accomplished? So we looked at that, and we can talk through it. I don't want that to be a reason to deny we're open to thoughts. You all have good ideas here. Sometimes we don't see everything, but if we look at the section view, so right here is where we could put it. And our thoughts were, we like the lights. They do provide safety for the sidewalks. It makes the property look good. We think it's a great design standard. We love it on all other deals. There's just unfortunately no room to get them close to the sidewalk. We like the idea of putting downlights from the building, not frog lights or emergency lights, but some decorative sconces or decorative downlights or something we haven't seen before that would put light aesthetically pleasing on the sidewalk, on the building, rather than just sticking a Washington pole light here that's gonna shine light into bedroom windows and stuff. So we'd be open to approval with the condition we work with staff to provide some type of sconce lighting or down lighting from the building to eliminate the path. Because I think that is important. We just didn't really have time to get it in this presentation. And just, okay, I understand that. I think that could be a potentially good solution. But the concept of putting trees on land you don't own, how would that be accomplished, Jamie? We do that, I think through, we can do this through easements, I believe. So we, it's, yeah, we put trees in right of way and other areas all the time, but there are gas lines here, then there's an easement. So we can't put large shade canopy trees. We have tried to put as many smaller ornamental trees as close to our building as possible. Rob, you may be able, our civil engineer, speak to a little bit. We're not allowed to put large oaks or elms or any kind of, so safety issues, design issues with putting over the jet fuel lines that are right there in the easement. And there's a water line and a sewer line, I think. Or maybe just a water line there as well. Oh, so those two circles represent the water and sewer? Water and gas. Yeah, this is. So the utilities aren't in the easement. Right now, that's what they're depicted. You know, that, that gas line may be in the wrong spot. Apologies, it's probably in the, it's in the utility easement, the water lines outside of the utility easement in the right of way. Okay. No, it was drawn by, it was drawn by a landscaper. Yeah. Yeah, if we, if we flip through away. So stay there on the, on where it was shown. Okay. So then the sidewalk is adjacent to the roadway and it's outside of the easement. Correct, it's outside of the easement. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think that makes sense to me. And I like the suggestion of building mounted lighting to help enhance that experience. Is it, is it a very pedestrian friendly road post oak? Not stretch? No, but it, I mean, we were really, we worked with Mike Brennan in the past when we first started developing here in 16 and 17 sidewalks and trees are expensive, but we've seen the value time and time again. So even though we don't think it's going to be that pedestrian today in 20 years, who knows, but even day one, everyone else is being required to do it. It makes it look good. So we're on board now after six years of just, it looks good. Let's do it. I just want to make one really quick note in the past when we've always required sidewalks, but not always street trees and pedestrian lights. The trade off was removing a between a 10% and 20% open space requirement that developers would have met, had to meet. And over the years, we have removed those in return. We just asked for street trees and lights. There's no doubt it's expensive. Once again, the sidewalks required. So really street trees are required in most places. So really what you're looking at is the lighting. So I just want to clarify that for everyone that there was a trade. Okay. So on a lot, if you have MU, you are, many of our form-based districts, there is no open space requirement. Okay. So before it was 20% and 10% depending on what you had. So if we rewind the development clock and we go back to 2000 somewhere in that area, you would have been looking at reserving 20% of your property for open space. Oh, I see. But by having this set back. Now you don't have to. Right. You can do 100% developable. In return, we get street lights. Yeah, if you guys want me to put street lights. No, no, no, I'm not, I'm not, this has nothing to do with your project per se. You had just made the comment that it was expensive. I'm just making the comment from the public side that there was a trade-off. I got it. Yep. And yours was. I mean, it was, it was hard for us to stomach first, but we sure I was complimenting that we see the value, I guess. No, no, no, no, for sure. And I'm just clarifying for everyone that there was a trade-off. Yeah, thank you. Okay. So I guess question back to staff. Are you comfortable with the idea of building amount of lighting as? Yeah, if there's lighting being provided as an element, it can be an alternate form if it's doing its job. And then with the room available, planting some other more decorative trees close to the building. Okay. Yeah. I think you'd support this then. Sounds good. Any other questions of the applicant from the commissioners? All right, is there anybody else here to speak in favor or opposition? All right, we'll close the public portion and open it to the commission. Sounds like this developers work with the staff and they've made the best attempt at meeting all of the requirements. There's obviously a couple that don't work, but they're able to mitigate with some building amount of lighting. I think if, yeah, if a motion is made, I'll just maybe include that, that building amount of lighting be providing and the details be worked out with staff. This is commissioner Hughes. I'd like to make a motion to approve with the contingency that lighting on the building would be provided and decorative trees outside the easement closer to the building would be provided. Thank you. For a second. Second. A motion and a second. Chairman Grease, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Raddery? Aye. Commissioner Hook? Aye. Commissioner Thesman? Aye. Is that everybody who's left? One, two, three, four, five. Six. Oh, and commissioner Hughes. Aye. Motion passes six, zero. All right, thank you, everybody. We'll see you next month.