2026-09-17 - Urban Design Commission

00:11relatively large site. You see here we

00:13have two overlapping easements that

00:15basically run north south through the

00:17property. One of them is an 80ft utility

00:20easement on the right here and then a 25

00:24ft sanitary sewer easement on the left.

00:26They overlap a bit. It's about 86 feet

00:29cutting straight through the property of

00:31easement that they can't develop in and

00:33for urban forestry that area is

00:36considered exempt.

00:38So they're proposing to remove both of

00:40these trees which would leave them

00:42preservation of 0%.

00:45This is their proposed planting plan. Um

00:47it's multif family development, several

00:50exist or several proposed buildings,

00:52detention area down here, and then

00:55obviously all of the associated parking.

00:58Um these numbers are all of their

01:01plantings. It includes 23 proposed cedar

01:04elms. This plan shows these proposed

01:06cedar elms along the frontage for 820. I

01:08spoke with the applicant earlier today.

01:10Tex nixed those. So they weren't

01:13included in the urban forestry numbers

01:14anyways. They were just shown on the

01:16plan here and they were included in the

01:18staff report. As mentioned, they were

01:20being planted. Textile shut that down.

01:22So, those 23 trees are no longer going

01:24to be happening, but it doesn't affect

01:26any of our numbers. Um, we'll jump to

01:30the numbers here. So, like I said, the

01:33growth site area is 695,69

01:37square ft. For multif family

01:39developments, the urban forestry

01:40requirement isn't based on the area of

01:42the property. It's based on the provided

01:45open space. So the provided open space

01:48for the site minus deductible areas

01:51which is basically just that 86t

01:53easement is 201,752

01:57square feet. The existing tree canopy

02:00between those two trees 308 square feet.

02:03So of the net urban forestry area.15%

02:08almost nothing. The required

02:09preservation would be 77 square feet

02:13which is the 25%. The required tree

02:16canopy coverage for the site is 100,000

02:19square or 100,881

02:21square ft. They're proposing no

02:23preservation and they're proposing to

02:25provide 315,400

02:29in square feet which is just over three

02:31times their requirement. And then the

02:34parking lot canopy requirement. So the

02:37area of parking that they provided is

02:40236,687

02:43square feet of parking.

02:45The canopy requirement for that would be

02:4794,675

02:50and they're proposing 164,425

02:54which exceeds by just over or almost

02:5770,000 square feet. Um the parking

03:00canopy requirement is 40% they're at 69

03:03and a half. So

03:06based on the existing conditions

03:09um the difficulty that the easement

03:12because both of the existing trees are

03:14located in the northeast. So with that

03:16easement and preserving one of those

03:18trees could make developing that

03:20northeast portion difficult and the fact

03:23that the only two existing trees are

03:25both 7in trees. Um staff supports this

03:28waiver and we recommend approving the

03:33request to reduce the preservation

03:34requirement from 25% down to zero. And

03:38I'm available if you guys have any

03:40questions.

03:42>> Thank you. Any questions?

03:44>> Caleb, I'm curious. Did Text give a

03:47reason why they nixed those trees? Just

03:50>> I'll let the applicant answer that.

03:51Okay. Just curious.

03:57Are the cedar elms because they're in

03:59the easement not

04:02required to be included? Is is that the

04:04reason or we're not sure?

04:06>> So for urban forestry, these the 23 seed

04:09domes that they were showing, they're

04:10considered offsite.

04:12So they were shown on their plan. They

04:14weren't included in their urban forestry

04:16calculations. So the numbers I went

04:18through, those are still the correct

04:19numbers. They had already omitted those.

04:22The applicant was just electing to

04:24preserve them, I believe, for some

04:25enhanced landscaping credit and text

04:28shut that down.

04:34Good. Any other questions for staff?

04:37Is the applicant here to speak?

04:39>> Yes, Blackwell is here to speak on

04:42behalf of the applicant. If you guys

04:43have any questions,

04:44>> I have any questions for the applicant?

04:46>> If he's got reason from text, I'm just

04:48curious.

04:52doesn't impact my opinion. I just

04:54curious.

04:56>> Welcome. Please state your name, the

04:57city in which you reside.

05:00>> Hi. Yes. I'm Garrett Blackwell and I'm

05:02from Plano, Texas.

05:05>> Um, the reason for Tex Dot not wanting

05:08those trees there when I emailed them

05:09about it that said that they just do not

05:11want any trees in their ride of way.

05:14>> But it's it's the it's the right of way

05:16to the access road. Right.

05:18>> Right. So,

05:19>> I mean, it's essentially the on ramp.

05:21Uh,

05:23>> I guess it is the excess road.

05:25>> Yeah. Right. It's like it's not a major

05:28anyway. I It's not your problem. I'm

05:30just kind of curious because getting

05:31inside their heads was fine.

05:33>> Yeah. No, it's uh No, I wanted some

05:35there too because it was very barren and

05:37generally would look nicer for the

05:39property. But whenever I emailed them,

05:42they said at this time we do not want

05:43any trees on the rideway. I think it's

05:46probably just a maintenance issue on

05:47their end.

05:48But they didn't give me a real reason

05:50other than the fact that they just

05:53>> Right. Thank you.

05:58>> Anyone else here to speak in favor?

06:01Is anyone here to speak uh against an

06:04opposition to this case?

06:06Okay, we'll close the public comment

06:08portion or our discussion.

06:13I make a motion to uh

06:16that the request for the waiver from the

06:18CFW zoning ordinance section 6.302G.4-

06:22general preservation methods of can tree

06:24canopy be granted reducing 25% tree

06:26preservation requirement for this

06:28development to plan to 0%.

06:32>> Commissioner here seconds

06:36and motion to approve has been made and

06:39seconded. Chair Benner, how do you vote?

06:40I.

06:42>> Um, Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

06:45>> I,

06:47>> Commissioner West, how do you vote?

06:48>> I,

06:50>> Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

06:52>> I, Mr. Deose, how do you vote?

06:55>> I,

06:56>> Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

06:58>> I, Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

07:01>> I,

07:03>> Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you

07:04vote? I.

07:06>> And Commissioner Hobsa, how do you vote?

07:09I

07:11>> All right. Motion passes 90.

07:22All right. The applicant's here for the

07:23case that we skipped. So, we can address

07:25that now. Also, just to note on the

07:27record, we've been communicating with

07:29it. There might have been some audio

07:30issue issues during the first case. It

07:33doesn't affect what we're doing. We're

07:34just going to add a note to the

07:35recording. But if you're watching right

07:37now, that's why there was no audio for

07:39the first couple minutes. Just an IT

07:41issue

08:02better set up, I think. I still can't um

08:06So you guys could actually see me this

08:08time.

08:18I don't know if I need to get it closer.

08:19Yeah. All right. So, this is UDC uh case

08:24uh 2026137

08:27um located at Oh, I do I do need to

08:31bring it a little. Okay, now I feel how

08:34you guys feel.

08:36Um, so this is UDC case uh 2026 137

08:41located at 5812 Eastland Street. Um,

08:44good morning commissioners. Um, this UDC

08:46case uh um was seen before in the last

08:50UDC uh u meeting on August in the August

08:55UDC. The applicant resi uh with Hovering

08:58Estate Inc. is requesting a certificate

09:00of appropriateness for a proposed

09:03two-story duplex in the urban

09:05residential UR zoning district. The

09:07request uh before the commissioner today

09:09is a waiver of a uh pedestrian scale

09:13lighting requirement within the street

09:15sides uh street zone furnishing zone. Um

09:18the proposal uh does contain uh two

09:22three bedrooms, two ba two and a half

09:24baths.

09:26Um and the property um is located in an

09:30established UR uh neighborhood. Uh to

09:34the north of the property is zone MU2

09:37and there are FR zone located further

09:40west.

09:43The intent of the UR district, just kind

09:46of a reminder, I'm going to go over just

09:47like the history and like a little bit

09:49of the intent for the urban district,

09:52urban residential district, is to

09:54provide a a transitional between lower

09:57density residential neighborhoods and a

09:59more intense um commercial/mixeduse

10:03areas while promoting a walkable

10:05pedestrian oriented environment.

10:08Um the case just to go over the brief

10:10history of the case. The project

10:12originally entered uh to to the city and

10:16it was through a building permit process

10:18in 2025. The building permit was placed

10:20on hold because of the outstanding UR

10:22design standards requirements and

10:24because the required conceptual review

10:26had not occurred yet occurred. The

10:29applicant previously submitted um UDC

10:3220265

10:34in March of 2026 which was later voided

10:37at the applicant's request. Um the

10:40current UDC case number which is the one

10:42that we're seeing today was uh was

10:45submitted in May of 20 or sorry March of

10:482026. Um since then staff has

10:52coordinated with the applicant through

10:54several meetings discussion regarding

10:55the UR standards and potential design

10:58solutions. The applicant submitted the

11:00revised site plan that we see today in

11:03the updated um staff report and that was

11:06submitted on August uh 31st of 2026. Um

11:11there are still some outstanding things

11:13that staff was seeing on the the those

11:16site plans set. Um so

11:21with that said at this point we can't

11:24really determine if there will be

11:25additional waiverss. Um there are minor

11:28things but at the same time we never say

11:30that there's no waiverss until we can

11:32know that all the waiverss are dealt

11:34with. So with that said we uh we believe

11:37that we could get the applicant to to

11:41get those things done and updated. Um

11:43and so we're requesting a continuous to

11:45allow the applicant add additional time

11:48to be able to address those concerns. Um

11:50the applicant is here today. Um and he

11:53could uh just give you guys a scope of

11:56his project and and give you more

11:58information if needed.

12:03>> And that con

12:04>> Okay. Any questions for staff then?

12:08>> So can you uh the the site plan's a

12:10little difficult to to to see. Can you

12:12pull it up or kind of walk us through

12:14that because I'm trying to

12:15>> I thought it was

12:16>> understand the the ride ofway. So is

12:19there a public sidewalk here?

12:22>> So there there is no public sidewalk

12:24existing.

12:25>> Are we proposing the public sidewalk?

12:27>> So um whenever there's not a public

12:29sidewalk there has to you have to put a

12:32sidewalk a public sidewalk you have to

12:33put the street trees and pedlights. If

12:35there is existing street treep

12:36headlights or or sidewalk for instance,

12:39then um that's when you could utilize

12:43the existing conditions and then kind of

12:45go with it. In this situation, they do

12:47have an existing tree. So, we're using

12:49that and they're going to they are

12:52basically having that within they're

12:54going to include it into the public

12:55rightway so that uh city can maintain it

12:59as a street tree. So, it's a it's kind

13:01of a mature tree and I the picture

13:03before kind of shows that tree right

13:06there. That's the tree that they're

13:09going to consider into a street tree.

13:11So, that's the only thing that's

13:12existing with the conditions right now.

13:15Um,

13:17>> we've got basically a street with no

13:19curbs, a ditch, a tree, and then where

13:24does the sidewalk sit in relation to all

13:26of that? Because I'm not seeing it on

13:28the site plan. All I see is I see a

13:29light

13:30>> on the site plan.

13:33the sidewalk that this one is the older

13:37site plan that they submitted, but on

13:38this on the staff report, you'll see the

13:41updated version of it is kind of to look

13:43at this one. And this is what they

13:45produced um previously. Um but that one

13:49uh shows that they're proposing a

13:51sidewalk that will eventually connect to

13:53the other UR cases. And there are other

13:56UR cases that have been built and and

13:59they have put in sidewalks and street

14:01trees and ped lights and they're

14:03currently being built as we speak.

14:06>> Yeah, understood. And uh but uh what I'm

14:10seeing in this plan looks like the

14:11sidewalk is actually on private property

14:13like on the is it

14:15>> so they're going to dedicate they're

14:17going to put a public access easement so

14:18that way it's to the public.

14:20>> It's not it's not in public it's not in

14:22the rightway. It's on public it's on

14:24private property the sidewalk. They're

14:25going to put an easement and execute an

14:27easement to allow for city to maintain

14:30it and have access to it.

14:32>> But it's it's on the private side of the

14:34property line

14:37>> currently until they put an easement.

14:39Yeah.

14:40>> But it's it's private property.

14:43>> Currently until they put an ement. Yes.

14:45>> So the ride ofway is not large enough to

14:47hold a sidewalk currently.

14:50>> No. Like Well, no. There is a, as you

14:53can see, there is a um elevation and

14:56there's the ditch that you saw there.

14:58So, they're trying to um comply with the

15:01standards and make sure that nothing's

15:03being damaged or anything like that with

15:05the location.

15:07>> Okay.

15:11>> Have any more questions?

15:16>> Okay. Any more questions for staff?

15:20>> I do. Um so staff is recommending a

15:24continuance.

15:25>> Yes.

15:27>> Why?

15:27>> Um there are some outstanding um

15:30waiverss that we are not sure if they

15:32are going to be as of today in

15:35compliance with um so that's why we are

15:38just wanting to the applicant to have

15:40additional time to kind of address those

15:42things. Um and then get back to us and

15:45see if they want to add that to the list

15:47of waiverss.

15:50So there are more waivers coming

15:53>> there. There are potential waiverss that

15:56we I want to make sure that he has

15:58enough time to be able to address them.

16:01So that's why we're asking for a

16:03continuence

16:08>> more than the lighting and the

16:11pedestrian line.

16:12>> That is correct.

16:13>> So if we were to approve deny those

16:16potentially he's coming back in the

16:18future for additional waiverss anyway.

16:19So instead of like going really into it,

16:21we want to just make sure he has enough

16:23time to be able to address those things

16:25before and then we could figure out if

16:27there's additional ones and we'll

16:28properly like obviously place it on the

16:31agenda and stuff like that so that you

16:32guys have a time to

16:35>> to review it.

16:36>> And this has been in the planning since

16:382023.

16:40>> So it came into permitting um status uh

16:44in 2025.

16:45Um, and then it was uh then put on hold.

16:51I want to say

16:54look at my timeline.

17:00>> So it was in

17:02>> one second, sir. We'll be invited up in

17:03just a second. Thank you.

17:04>> So the building permit was uh created in

17:07August of 28, 2025.

17:10Um then it was uh put on hold during the

17:14outstating UR design standards

17:16requirements and the project had not

17:19gone under conceptual review according

17:21to our ordinances prior to permits. Then

17:25um another there was a there was an

17:28older one a UFC case and I think that's

17:31what the applicant saying um in the

17:33background is May 2 of 2023. However,

17:37those plans associated with that case

17:39does not reflect the current

17:40development. Um, and then in um March of

17:4620 2025, they uh undergo this the SIP

17:51program, which is a small scale

17:52infrastructure program to see if that's

17:55something that they would do as a like a

17:57kind of alternative to the pedestrian

17:59light requirement. Um, that application

18:03remains incomplete. Um

18:06the one that we're talking about today

18:09was applied for in March uh 16 of 2026.

18:16>> Thank you.

18:20>> Just one more quick question on my part

18:22just to confirm that the plan that is

18:24currently shown in the documents that we

18:26have here as a 3.3 site plan is the most

18:30current site plan.

18:34Uh the one that you're viewing is the

18:36previous one. The one in the staff

18:37report is the the most recent one.

18:40>> Okay.

18:40>> That's figure three on page six of their

18:43document.

18:44>> I believe so. Yeah, page six. So page

18:48six is the revision from the comments.

18:54>> It's quite blurry. So can what is the

18:56relationship of the that sidewalk to the

18:59building?

19:00>> So with the current

19:03Um with the current plan, there is a

19:08concrete of five feet um right behind

19:13the street tree that you see or the tree

19:15that you see that's highlighted in that

19:17those plans. Um then there is a planter

19:22box that um is in between the porch

19:26concrete pad and the the proposed 5T um

19:31uh sidewalk.

19:33>> And how wide is the Eastland rideway?

19:36>> Um

19:39that is a good question.

19:42Um I don't know off the top of my head.

19:46Give me one moment. Let me see if I can

19:47measure

19:49Yeah, all those plans is tough in in

19:51this condensed PDF.

19:59>> I do know that the building is set back

20:0112 ft from the property line,

20:06but let me measure really quickly.

20:36I have one question. Um,

20:38>> yes ma'am.

20:39>> Is the sidewalk continuous or is it just

20:42going to be on this property? So for

20:44this property there are a couple of

20:46properties that is located um a little

20:50bit

20:52that will eventually connect it will

20:54eventually connect to um and those are

20:57the ones I talked to you about are being

20:58built right as we speak and maybe

21:01there's a way to like share my screen

21:05>> but that sidewalk will connect to the

21:07adjacent properties owner's property

21:10which is will you'll need another access

21:13easement Correct. Like it won't be in a

21:16right of way. It would be

21:17>> they've they've just um fixed it by like

21:20uh leveling out the the land. So they're

21:23putting the sidewalk through that means.

21:25>> But a sidewalk has to sit in an access

21:27easement. So it would have to be on a on

21:29one second property.

21:31>> Do we do we have any outstanding

21:32questions for staff still?

21:34>> Yeah.

21:36>> Okay. Can you please?

21:48>> Okay. If we have no further questions

21:50for staff, um we will Is the applicant

21:54here to speak? Would you like to come up

21:56and speak, sir?

21:57>> Yes. Yes.

22:01>> Welcome.

22:05>> Tends to go that way sometimes.

22:09Yes, that'd be great. Please state your

22:11name and the city in which you reside.

22:14>> My name is uh Resa Safe. Uh I reside in

22:17Mansfield, Texas.

22:21I don't know where to start really. I've

22:23been working on this project for over

22:25four years, almost five years. U when I

22:28started this project, there was none of

22:30those houses, anything around adjacent

22:33street. So, everybody came in and they

22:36got their permit and everybody build

22:38those um duplexes except me.

22:41That's the one right there. Can you hold

22:43on that picture right there if you don't

22:44mind?

22:46Um the the piece of land that that I'm

22:49trying to put a duplex on is uh sitting

22:52right between two houses and the fences

22:56come all the way to that ditch. The

22:58water h the waterway that goes through

23:00and there is no way we can put a

23:03sidewalk in there so the people can

23:05really use it or pedestrian they can use

23:07it. As you can see, they put they build

23:11this new houses and they never did put

23:13any sidewalk on it or pedestrian light.

23:16They could have done that. I mean, there

23:17was a lot of space for them. They

23:18haven't done it. So, mine, if I want to

23:21put, by the way, I did get a waiver for

23:24that sidewalk.

23:26Uh that they said there is, you know,

23:29visible or physible way to can put that

23:31sidewalk could be usable to the public.

23:35So what happened was um u then we came

23:39to the pedestrian light which are

23:41telling me I have to go front of you

23:43folks to explain the situation. So the

23:46reason I say that is if if I want to put

23:48the sidewalk with the pedestrian light,

23:50the people who are walking along that

23:52side of the street, they have to jump

23:54over the ditch, use that about 50 ft of

23:59the sidewalk and then jump back on the

24:01ditch to keep on going on the street,

24:05which which is not visible. It doesn't

24:07make any sense.

24:09But if I do put uh my own little

24:12sidewalk on the front, it's going to

24:13look for the nice for the city, for the

24:16neighborhood. And as you can see, those

24:18fences are all the way down to the

24:20ditches right there.

24:22So right there, you can see it.

24:26And if I want to put the sidewalk in

24:28there, there is a water going through on

24:30that ditch. Uh and it's going to eat up

24:32the clay and all the dirt on that

24:35sidewalk.

24:37Eventually, it's going to collapse.

24:39But now if if you ru if you do things we

24:42have to put a sidewalk. I think the city

24:44got to come in and fill up those ditches

24:47or put some kind of a bridge over them.

24:50So we'll be able to put a a sidewalk all

24:52the way from the new construction that I

24:55showed you to the street all the way

24:57from down there to all the way to down

25:01where we are. So nobody has any

25:04sidewalk,

25:05no pedestrian light. And that new

25:08construction, I don't know how they got

25:10the permit. I mean,

25:14they didn't put no sidewalk and no

25:16pedestrian light. And they've done it. I

25:19mean, and they they build it within four

25:21or five months. And I'm still five years

25:24into this project. And I'm still uh

25:28going back and forth and and I'm I

25:30really appreciate uh Sandy Mitchell.

25:32She's trying to help me out, but things

25:35are getting more complicated the way uh

25:37she was explaining. I was trying to

25:39clarify a little more on the basis of

25:42what we see.

25:47Just to answer your question, is 13 feet

25:49approximately? I'm doing it off of a GIS

25:51map, so it may not be entirely like

25:54meshed out.

25:5813 feet from the right the roadway to

26:02the property line.

26:03>> Yes.

26:04>> And what's the overall ride of way?

26:07>> I don't know.

26:15>> Let me measure. Let me erase this.

26:17>> By the way, those houses are there in

26:19line. And if I do come forward, it's

26:22going to be awkward because the other

26:24houses are lined up this way. And I'm

26:26going to be coming

26:29>> 51 ft

26:36>> approximately of course

26:39>> 45 ft

26:40>> 51

26:41>> 50 ft. Yeah, 50 foot right away be

26:43standard.

26:44>> Um and just a reminder this is just for

26:46a waiver for the pedestrian lights.

26:50So,

26:51>> and the requirement is only for one

26:53pedestrian light because that would be

26:54the only requirement would he would have

26:56to put in one pedestrian light.

26:59>> Where would that pedestrian light go in

27:02in the middle of the

27:03>> This is why he's seeking a waiver.

27:05>> Okay.

27:05>> Yeah.

27:09So, the applicant's preference is to

27:11deal with the pedestrian light now, but

27:13there are still future waiverss

27:16according to staff that we

27:18>> I think we could

27:19>> I don't see really anything else can be

27:21done

27:22>> those things.

27:22>> Sorry.

27:23>> I I think we could work with him on

27:25those things, but we always to make sure

27:28we can't wave those things. So, I think

27:30he just needs time to be able to sort

27:32those things out.

27:33>> Um,

27:34>> what are those things? Oh. Um, I do have

27:37a list of them. Give me one moment.

27:41>> Yes. Yes, sir.

27:44>> I've got maybe about uh five different

27:47site plan or six site plan. I keep going

27:49back and forth to my engineer to to

27:51modify and I have about five different

27:55uh

27:57or or rather six different way of

27:59putting the sidewalk. as we were talking

28:02to Sandy, she was explaining probably

28:04this is the way to do it. But I really

28:07don't see anywhere we can put that uh

28:09pedestrian light. I don't see it

28:11anywhere in the property is isolated

28:14right between the two houses and

28:16nobody's ever going to use that. And

28:17there is a street light on the top of

28:20that if visibility is the issue. And

28:23also on the uh duplex that I'm going to

28:26put, I did modify it to put the two uh

28:30flood lights on each corner. So anyone

28:33who just pass by it, it's going to be

28:35plenty of light.

28:40>> I see this

28:56It's No, it's not. It's the other way.

28:58That's

29:12no sidewalk to be seen. And that's a

29:15small strip of a street. And on the

29:18other side is a business actually as you

29:19can see.

29:26You can't see. There you go.

29:28That's the one he's talking about.

29:30>> There's this to the right up there.

29:34>> Go ahead. Yeah. Did you have your list

29:36of what? Yeah.

29:37>> Um, so we have to kind of contend to the

29:39facade variation requirement. So for

29:42every new building less than 50 uh feet

29:44there is a requirement at least two

29:46elements uh that is either to be like

29:49floor blanding banding columns

29:52foundation or a wall plane variation of

29:55at least 3 ft depth and or projection.

29:58Um and it must be at least two stories

30:01in height. Uh material and color

30:04changes. uh they do have some sort of

30:07difference between the first and the

30:09second floor which is also part of the

30:11requirement. So it's it's it's those

30:12types of things. Um other outstanding

30:16things would be um the fencing material.

30:19They said that there's some existing

30:21one, but we noticed that there's one

30:22fencing that we just need to know like

30:24what material they're planning on using.

30:26Um and that showed up in the newer uh

30:29August 31st submission. So we just need

30:32more clarification on that. There is

30:34also some incorrect information on the

30:36calculations for the urban forestry in

30:39terms of 5% calculation. Um, so we just

30:42again we just need clarification on that

30:44as well. So these are these are

30:46outstanding things but I'll let

30:48Francisco Vega explain a little.

30:51>> Hi everyone, Francisco Vega plant

30:52manager for preservation and design

30:54team. I think part of the confusion

30:56comes to the uh situation of how this

31:00request is on the agenda but because

31:02it's for the approval of the whole

31:05project including the pedestrian lining

31:08that's the reason why staff is

31:10recommending to continue it the case in

31:13the agenda is not only for the light is

31:16for the whole project. So if you approve

31:19the case, you are essentially approving

31:21the whole project and staff will not

31:24have the the opportunity to work with

31:26the applicant on all those standing uh

31:29components of the project that are

31:31pending.

31:33>> I don't I don't think so.

31:35>> Uh yeah, I would agree with that as

31:37well. The the agenda is just is it the

31:39project is a duplex. I think that's

31:41that's clear. It's not it. You're only

31:44granting that specific waiver that is

31:47listed on the agenda, not the entire

31:48project. So,

31:50>> he'll get that waiver. If there are any

31:51additional waiverss that would be

31:53needed, it would come back to the UDC.

31:55It's not just,

31:57>> you know, if there there are ways to

31:58correct staff's oversight in the event

32:01that, hey, we forgot this waiver, we

32:03need to bring it back. It's not as if

32:04the UDC essentially gives a blanket

32:06approval of a project when there may be

32:09necessary waiverss down the line.

32:11For example, the site plan we're looking

32:13at may not be the most recent. We're not

32:14approving the site plan. We're just

32:16specifically addressing the pedestrian

32:18light waiver.

32:18>> That is correct. That is correct.

32:21>> Does the staff are you using guidance

32:24for an overall overlay for this district

32:28and their design? And if you are, is

32:32everyone who's building new being held

32:35to those standards?

32:37>> So, yes, ma'am. Um when we uh typically

32:40get cases like this uh we want to make

32:43sure that the standards are the same for

32:46everyone else. That's why we also had a

32:47pedestrian light waiver for last week

32:49and it's in the not in this specific

32:52area but in this general area. Um we do

32:55want to make sure that everything's

32:56being complied with. We do look at the

32:58overall scope, the future land use, the

33:01current zoning and what's the

33:02surrounding. um a lot of our standards

33:05are tied to that as well in terms of

33:07like um is this going to be is your next

33:10door neighbor is it going to be a one to

33:12two family so then the standards are not

33:14the same and we do evaluate that when we

33:17do our staff reports um in this case

33:19however there the UR and um it's on the

33:23staff report that it shows the UR is

33:25that whole block not just that area of

33:28the project and the uh the property to

33:32the north is MU2 So we do take it as

33:34like a like as soon as the single

33:38families are getting developed and there

33:40we also do have about four more projects

33:42right now in the peritting status on

33:44this street that is coming in UR so we

33:46do look at the overall scope and stuff

33:48like that when we're writing the staff

33:50report um he has been working on this

33:54for some time um we do understand that

33:56there is some drainage issues so we we

33:59we we haven't given our actually

34:01determination because we've requesting a

34:03continuous to deal with the other things

34:05but um given that time we could actually

34:08give you a staff's recommendation um

34:11once we review everything and all the

34:13items that are outstanding

34:15>> seems to me we are just going in cycle

34:19>> everything keep saying it some other

34:22points comes up

34:24>> understandably where you are

34:26>> we're going to focus on the lighting

34:27because that's what on that's what's on

34:29our agenda today and all the other

34:32staff. I'm in my opinion of fellow

34:35commissioners, I think that we just need

34:37to focus on what's on the agenda

34:40>> and hope that the planning and in the in

34:44the city will look at the overall help

34:47them everyone with the drainage,

34:49everyone with the street. We need curbs,

34:52you know, we need you want sidewalks,

34:55you've got to make it conducive. A

34:56>> lot of years a lot of works need to be

34:58done to really to put the sidewalks over

35:00there.

35:00>> Understood. Other things has been an

35:02ongoing

35:03>> that really surprises me is that other

35:05houses about three houses down they put

35:09the new duplexes over there and nobody

35:11ever I don't know they were supervising

35:13and somehow escaped their attention to

35:16putting the sidewalk over there which

35:18was very feasible to do it and put the

35:21uh what do you call uh pedestrian light

35:24and that wasn't happening

35:28>> your case? Yeah, that's that's what I'm

35:31saying. I mean the lighting

35:34appreciate that. Sure. Sure. Yeah,

35:36that's what I'm that's reference to the

35:38siding. I mean the lighting. How come

35:40there wasn't there is no lighting over

35:41there on the other side without other

35:44properties?

35:45>> So on that note, any additional

35:47questions for the applicant related to

35:50the agenda item.

35:53Um is anyone do you have any further

35:55further comments sir before we move on?

35:58Do I have any comment?

36:00>> Any anything else to say while you're up

36:01there?

36:01>> Oh. Oh. This site plan actually is the

36:04ultimate one that with the help of

36:06Sandy, we put that one out. So, it's

36:08kind of like

36:10be able to put a sidewalk which which

36:12really is not going to be usable. But

36:15for the sake of the argue, we're going

36:16to put the sidewalk over there.

36:19Actually, it's going to be a private

36:20sidewalk. And then we have to do the

36:22encroachment and stuff. It's going to

36:23complicate things if we just go straight

36:26with you know what is this the issue at

36:28hand. It should be I've done everything.

36:30Everything is done. I'm only stuck in

36:33this pedestrian light. The sidewalk

36:35waiver has already been issued as well.

36:37>> Okay. Thank you. Um is there anyone else

36:39here to speak in in favor of this case?

36:42>> Yeah.

36:43>> Anyone here to speak in opposition?

36:45>> No.

36:45>> Okay. We will close the public comment

36:47portion or discussion by the commission.

36:50>> Yeah. I I think we need to just really

36:54focus in on what's on the our agenda and

36:56not

36:58they're going to come up with other

37:00things that he's got to have waiverss

37:01for. That's on them and just case by

37:04case.

37:06>> We have to determine whether we want to

37:08continue the case or approve or or

37:11reject the lighting request. So that's

37:13what's

37:14>> agreed. I I don't see any grounds for um

37:17pushing it forward. Yeah. Continuing it.

37:20Um And I don't see where you would put a

37:22pedestrian light in the public realm. So

37:24it would have to any lighting would have

37:26to be on on the building.

37:28>> That's what I'm saying.

37:29>> It's not a pedestrian light. So it's a

37:31that's a roadway light. And then so it's

37:33it's not meeting the UR zoning. So UR

37:37zoning would say that, you know, needs

37:39to be in this public realm and there's

37:41supposed to be sidewalk, there's

37:42supposed to be street trees, there's

37:43supposed to be street lights and or

37:45pedestrian lights. Yeah. And he can't do

37:47that in on this site. But

37:50>> right,

37:51>> so that's why we're

37:53>> why we're here.

37:54>> We're here.

37:56>> Comments.

37:57>> Yeah.

38:00>> Any more comments?

38:01>> I was going to move to approve for

38:03approval of of the waiver

38:05>> waiver for no pedestrian light.

38:09>> This is Commissioner Carl. I'll second

38:11that.

38:15>> All right. So, we have a motion and a

38:16second to approve the waiver for a

38:18pedestrian scale lighting. Um, Chair

38:22Benner, how do you uh vote?

38:24>> I.

38:25>> Uh, Commissioner Wes, how do you,

38:29>> Commissioner Carr? How do you vote?

38:31>> I.

38:32>> Um, Commissioner Dose, how do you vote?

38:35>> I.

38:35>> Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote?

38:37>> I.

38:38>> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

38:41>> I.

38:42>> Uh, Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you

38:44vote? I

38:45>> Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote?

38:47>> I.

38:48>> And Commissioner Hamsy, is that correct?

38:50>> Yes.

38:51>> Yeah.

38:51>> I Okay, perfect. Thank you. So, we have

38:54a vote of 90 for the waiver of the

38:56production scale lighting for UDC case

38:59number 2026137

39:02um 5812 Eastland Street. Thank you.

39:06>> Thank you.

39:11>> Thank you folks. I appreciate it. After

39:125 years,

39:14people are making tons and tons of

39:16houses. No issues for me just for one

39:19house. Thank you. Thank you.

39:28All right. Our final case, UDC 2026 205.

39:33And one thing to note, the council

39:35district is actually district 6. about

39:3895% of the campoui form base code is

39:40within district three. So that was my

39:42mistake on on the agenda.

39:47All right. Good morning commissioners.

39:50Morning. Um last case is UDC 2026 205.

39:54Um the address is 5506 Levelville

39:57Avenue. Um the applicant is requesting a

40:00certificate of properness for a

40:02originally designed town home

40:04development for homes in the Kambooi

40:06Boulevard code transition district with

40:09a waiver from the first floor to floor

40:11height standard to allow a floor to

40:14floor height of 10 feet 8 in where a

40:18minimum of 15 feet first floor tofloor

40:21height is required. Um this is the Korea

40:25sunny map of the location. Um

40:29just as a little bit of background this

40:33um let me just

40:37so um the the project that we presenting

40:39today is as I said 556 Love Avenue. Uh

40:43it contains four platted lots but in

40:47overall this project um

40:51uh belongs to a more larger development

40:54which includes um the parcels of the

40:56northern portion as well of this block.

40:59Um

41:02but as of today uh we're just presenting

41:04waivers from the southern portion

41:06because we don't have um final drawing

41:08from the northern part and that's why

41:11we're just presenting the waiver for the

41:13southern um portion of the property the

41:17development. Uh here's the aerial

41:19imagery of the site

41:21and

41:24the as a little bit background as well

41:26about the prop the proposed project.

41:28consist of two Dless residential

41:30building um containing a total of four

41:32dwelling units and this other portion of

41:37the SA is located within the Camboui

41:39transition zone. So as you can see um

41:44even though it's one larger project it

41:47has two different um subunning from

41:50Kambooi the southern portion is

41:52transition and the northern part it's

41:55regally gateway

41:58and

42:01because the updated proposal which is

42:04the one that you're seeing right now um

42:08the what that we got from the applicant

42:10and and the proposed duplex building

42:13extend now across um plotted lot lines.

42:18Um you can see it here

42:20lot lines and it's no longer treated as

42:23a town home because to be treated as a

42:26town hall the building might extend

42:27across internal lot lines and with that

42:31being said um they cannot be treated as

42:33a separate individual lots the units

42:35because you have two units per building

42:38and due to this current design they

42:40could not be longer sell as individual

42:43property lots. So that's why it's not

42:45longer considered as a townhouse with

42:46this current design and the level

42:50development is as I say it's a part of

42:53the larger project and each duplex

42:56building contains two attached building

42:58units. You can see it here on this

43:00elevation facade and our two the two

43:04units are two story in height and

43:07include individual front entrances

43:10from porches attached garage and we

43:13access from the alley and residential

43:17scale architectural detail as you you're

43:19seeing on the elevations.

43:24Um the PU the building are primarily

43:26oriented

43:28uh towards Lobl Avenue and with the

43:30principal facas and the pedestrian

43:33entrances and the front porch address in

43:35the street. Um

43:38the project also includes associated

43:40pedestrian walkways and landscaping

43:42plans that will still working with the

43:46applicant on those kind of components.

43:48The landscape plan

43:56And the Kambooi

43:59co-established development standards

44:00intend to promote compatible building

44:03form appropriate transitions and

44:05pedestrian oriented development pattern

44:06with this district. um

44:12as a presenter today the the the entire

44:15um overall design and that the applicant

44:18still needs a waiver because Kamuico

44:21requires a 15 ft minimum height for the

44:25first floor for

44:28all the districts. And in this case, the

44:31applicant is just proposing a 10 ft 8 in

44:35first floor and staff

44:39believe the the current high design is

44:43appropriate for the residential use and

44:46surrounding neighborhood context. Um as

44:48of right now

44:52the property is um so this is the photo

44:54from the side busy. um the context

44:57around the property it's single home

45:00houses

45:01and

45:03as I believe that the scale that the

45:05applicant is proposing is appropriate

45:08and although the building

45:12size sebox that they're proposing with

45:14this new design um this is just a note

45:17and

45:18um it might have some building code um

45:23issues that the applicant might have to

45:26address once it goes through the general

45:29building permit process

45:31and due to fire and requirements of

45:34minimum segments between buildings.

45:39However, for the waiver that we are

45:41presenting today which is the height um

45:45we believe that it meets the the intent

45:49of the actual neighborhood which is the

45:52scale and

45:56Given the above and the staff recommend

45:58approval of the waiver but but subject

46:00to condition to resume final review plan

46:04showing compliance with the other

46:06standards like landscape plans and

46:10preparational locations and other items

46:13they will still want the applicant to

46:14address but we can work it internally as

46:18a staff. Um, and this comes to staff

46:20report.

46:25>> Thank you. Uh, any questions for staff?

46:29>> Were there any issues with the setback?

46:32>> Um, so when we started working with the

46:35applicant um, in the original proposed

46:38design, he didn't meet the cambooy

46:41sebox. So in order to avoid waiverss

46:44from the camboo of sebas that's why he

46:47presented this kind of new um location

46:49of the building units where are crossing

46:52a platted load lines but for doing that

46:56now he doesn't meet some fire code um

47:00requirements that he might have to

47:02address. uh and the applicant we we

47:06talked to him about this kind of issue

47:08but he's willing to continue that kind

47:11of situation later and we don't know if

47:14has to come back to us but as of right

47:15now he meets the setback stand up for

47:18the camboo we

47:21just I just wanted to give like a note

47:25about the building code issue that he

47:27might will have

47:29once he goes through the general

47:30building permit process Yes.

47:33>> Are these still four individually

47:35platted lots?

47:36>> So, as of right now, um they're

47:38individual plat, but because now the

47:41current design of the building cross um

47:45those plotted lot lines, uh it's no

47:47longer considered as a town hall. And

47:50with that being say, it cannot be sell

47:54as a individual units because it has it

47:57has cross the plat lines and the city

48:00doesn't

48:01>> well he's going to have problems with

48:02building code because you cannot put a

48:04building across a property line and

48:06>> you can property and if you got two he's

48:08going to put a firewall between those

48:09two because you're on a property line.

48:11So

48:11>> So the problem is not that he's crossing

48:13the property line. The problem is the

48:14setbacks that he's

48:16>> he's going to have problems in the

48:17building code because you cannot do

48:18that. Okay.

48:19>> You cannot I can't even put exit doors

48:21across property lines and buildings that

48:23I built.

48:24>> Space in order on your property. So,

48:26he's got some building code issues.

48:28>> Yeah. I think Joe want to

48:29>> Yeah. Commissioner Ramsey in the city of

48:30Fort Worth. The city does allow you to

48:32build across plot lines as long as it's

48:34common ownership.

48:36>> Well, if they're all owned by the same

48:37people.

48:37>> Yes.

48:38>> Yeah. It's the same owner.

48:41>> He just the utility taps have to be se.

48:45But as long as he can de deconlict that

48:47the city will allow him to build.

48:49>> That's fine. I just want to make sure

48:50>> y

48:57>> and I will just add his his waiver

48:59request today is just for the

49:00floortofloor height.

49:02>> Um the applicants looking to get this

49:05project moving. So after discussions

49:07with the applicant, we we agreed to move

49:09forward with just this waiver and that's

49:11why we're asking for the plans just to

49:13be resubmitted so we can continue to

49:14work on the landscape and the public

49:17realm. But the applicants verbally

49:19communicated to staff his willingness to

49:21meet the published standards as is. So

49:24he's just trying to make sure he can

49:26move along as expeditiously as possible.

49:29>> Yeah. Yeah. And also um we believe that

49:32the applicant will might come back for

49:34waiverss for height as well for the

49:36northern part later on. So because it's

49:39the same developer and also just to

49:43point that out the applicant has stated

49:44that he has worked with the KO

49:47neighborhood on the design to have the

49:50neighborhood approval and he has stated

49:52that the neighborhood is feeling

49:55in favor of the height waiver but we

49:58didn't receive any letter of support

50:01from the neighborhood yet so I think

50:03there's some common neighbors here

50:06present today to speak on behalf of the

50:08yet

50:10out of curiosity whether we simply

50:12approve or approve with these condition

50:15with these subject to the conditions of

50:17resubmitting that's the same effect has

50:18the same effect right

50:19>> it's it's the same effect we as staff

50:21just wanted to acknowledge like hey

50:22we're still working through this so like

50:24on the site plan I think you might see

50:25like a pedestrian light like right at

50:27the corner between the two crosswalks we

50:29know IPRC is not going to approve that

50:31so we just need to work on some of that

50:32spacing make sure it's meeting the

50:34intent of the landscape ordinance and

50:36the applicant's been very willing to

50:38work with staff. He's been very

50:39cooperative. So, you know, either way,

50:43it's the same path. We just kind of

50:44wanted to affirm that in our

50:46recommendation for the motion.

50:48>> Understood.

50:49>> Any other questions for staff?

50:53>> I I do. Um so, this is for both of you

50:56guys, Joe and um when we have more

51:00people coming for building in this in

51:03this particular area. So, are we going

51:05to have building codes for the Komo

51:08neighborhood or are we going to follow

51:09the Camp Buouie? Because Camp Buoy

51:12guidelines sounds like it's more

51:13commercial and less residential. So, how

51:17how are you working through all this?

51:19>> So, we're we actually we do have Campo

51:23forbased code update on the agenda later

51:24on. So, we'll address some of that.

51:26Okay.

51:26>> Um this is in the Camp Buouie transition

51:28district. The intent of the district is

51:30to transition that commercial corridor

51:32into the adjacent residential. Campway

51:34formbbased code is the only district we

51:36have that is linear along a sixlane

51:39commercial highway. So it's different

51:41from near southside bar university

51:44stockyards which are all this contiguous

51:46area and you can walk in two directions

51:49in camp where you walk in one direction

51:50and you're outside the district. So the

51:52intented transition is to transition

51:54that commercial into the residential and

51:57that's what this zoning is. Um we are in

52:00communications with the uh KOMO

52:02community and working very closely

52:04handinhand with uh Camp Buouie Inc.

52:06about code updates. So we'll actually

52:08address that later on in the work

52:09session.

52:10>> Fair enough. Good. Thank you.

52:11>> Yeah.

52:14And I think one of the just to give a

52:16little bit of background as well, one of

52:18the issues, well not issues, one of the

52:20reason why we don't have the northern

52:22portion um design ready yet is because

52:25it has to meet kind of different

52:26standards because it's actually part of

52:28the Kambooi corridor area on the

52:31northern portion. But this other portion

52:33is the part that's actually facing the

52:34KO community

52:39>> facing KO is in KO the residential side.

52:44Mhm.

52:47>> Okay. Is the applicant here to speak?

52:50Welcome up.

52:50>> Yes.

52:51>> Please state your name in the city in

52:52which you reside.

52:56>> Good morning. Uh my name is Corey

52:57Waldrip. I'm here with Motive Ventures

52:59to speak on behalf of the project. Um

53:01prepared a PowerPoint uh for you guys to

53:03walk you through a couple of things and

53:05just wanted to say thank you. Uh a

53:06couple points of clarity before we get

53:08started. Um, we have been very very uh

53:10graciously accepted to participate in

53:13the community meeting at KOMO and share

53:15about our project as far as having their

53:17support. Um, I hope we do. Um, but we

53:19don't have anything definitive. So,

53:20we'll let them speak as to their um to

53:23their feelings about the project and and

53:25their viewpoint. Um, but anyway, um

53:30u just introduce myself. Uh, my wife and

53:34I uh are Fort Worth residents. I was

53:36born and raised in Fort Worth. Uh Fort

53:37Worth is home. Um and we're grateful for

53:39the opportunity to create something that

53:41will serve this community for years to

53:42come. Uh thank you as well for the Fort

53:45Worth Development Services uh team and

53:47for their collaboration and to the KOMO

53:50community for welcoming us, allowing us

53:52to share the project and helping us

53:54better understand the neighborhood. Um

53:56our uh the project's straightforward. Uh

53:59build quality homes that give families

54:01stability in a place they're proud to

54:03call home.

54:06Uh the location provides important

54:07context uh for the project. Uh the level

54:10property is site sits just south of the

54:13Camp Buouie corridor uh within the Lake

54:15Ko community area and the Camp Buouie

54:17transition district. As Jefferson

54:19pointed out, uh the property front Level

54:22Avenue uh and with a corner frontage on

54:24Borin Street uh both close classified as

54:28local streets uh under the Camp Buouie

54:31framework. Uh the project is part of a

54:33larger initiative that we are planning

54:35for this area including the luck and

54:38actually the Rosedale properties to the

54:39north um as well.

54:46Levelville consists of approximately

54:48four 1,800 square ft four-bedroom

54:50residents and two duplex buildings. Uh,

54:53Miss Jefferson pointed out um

54:56earlier on the site plan, we do

54:58recognize that there are life safety um

55:03codes that we will comply with. I think

55:04that site plan showed an inherent line

55:07to line between the the roof uh fascia

55:10and not inherently the uh building

55:13setback itself. So, we will work with

55:15staff on correcting um and complying

55:17with all life safety um related code. Uh

55:21long-term ownership creates a different

55:23approach to construction. Um well

55:25selected materials, thoughtful layouts,

55:28and durable construction reduce

55:29long-term maintenance while protecting

55:31the value of the property. Uh it's our

55:33belief affordability should not require

55:35sacrificing quality. Uh we are pursuing

55:38opportunities that can assist housing

55:39affordability while also supporting the

55:42investment required for thoughtful

55:43design.

55:46This rendering shows how the project

55:48reflects the Camp Buouie standards

55:50through a residential design. Along the

55:53street, we're providing the sixoot

55:55sidewalks, uh, pedestrian lighting,

55:58landscaping, and front porches that

56:01create a defined and walkable

56:02streetscape, durable materials, and the

56:04design reflect the historic residential

56:07character of the neighborhood. the homes

56:09face uh and engage the street while the

56:12garages and vehicular access remain

56:14secondary and to the rear through the

56:16alley. So while the building is new, the

56:19scale materials in relationship to the

56:21street reflect both the camp standards

56:23um and the residential character of the

56:25neighborhood.

56:28The requested waiver is appropriate for

56:30three simple reasons.

56:33First is use. The code defines these as

56:36residential buildings. It separately

56:38defines commercial ready space

56:41designed for conversion to commercial

56:43use. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show that

56:47residential use and commercial ready

56:49requirements depend on use and street

56:51frontage. Level is residential and it

56:54fronts a local street. Sections 6.25 and

56:586.85 identify first floor height as part

57:01of the commercial ready standards and

57:03tie standards to Camp Buouie Boulevard

57:06frontage.

57:07levelvel is exclusively residential,

57:10contains no commercial ready space, and

57:13does not have the frontage condition

57:14requiring commercial ready construction.

57:17Therefore,

57:19the 15 ft first floor height is part of

57:21the commercial ready framework and does

57:24not apply to the residential condition

57:25at level.

57:27Second, the proposed first floor to

57:30floor height is approximately 11'2 in.

57:33Jefferson, I know you discussed 10 feet.

57:35Uh I think that's floor to ceiling. Uh

57:37and I might not have been clear on how

57:38we represented that information. But

57:40when we include the floor joist and the

57:42subfloor, that's how we're coming up

57:43with our floor to floor. So just to

57:45clarify um that from an point of view.

57:47Um providing a 10-ft plate plus height

57:50uh in the floor system. Increasing that

57:53dimension to 15t adds almost 4 feet of

57:55vertical space. Um, and why that's

57:58important is the additional height would

58:00lengthen the staircase configuration and

58:03consumes usable uh residential area

58:06within these lots. Accommodating that

58:08additional run would push the building

58:10width beyond the frontage requirements

58:12and plated lot uh the platted lot can

58:14accommodate. Um, more specifically, if

58:17we're going up four feet, then our run's

58:20going to increase by roughly 3' 11 in.

58:22Okay, so if we're doing that for four

58:24duplex units, which just simple math,

58:26four units, four feet, that's 16 feet of

58:28additional building space that we would

58:30need, and it just pushes the project

58:31entirely off our capacity with what the

58:34the platted lots and then we'd be in

58:36here asking for waiverss on frontage.

58:39And so I think that the Camp Buouie uh

58:41code is clear that the frontage

58:42requirements would require a

58:44reasonzoning. And so I think that is a

58:46higher ask uh than what we're here to

58:48discuss with you today.

58:53Uh third's the scale. Uh this is

58:55designed as a traditional two-story

58:57residential building that fits the scale

58:59and character of the surrounding

59:00neighborhood. Um adding additional 4

59:03feet to the vertical would create an

59:04unnecessarily tall first story or at

59:07least in my opinion. Um increase the

59:09building's mass and change those

59:10residential proportions. The waiver

59:12allows the building to maintain the

59:14scale, proportion, and residential

59:15character the KUI standards are intended

59:17to support.

59:22Uh clarity on how the 15 foot standard

59:24applies to exclusively residential

59:26projects would be very valuable for

59:28future development. However, for level,

59:31we are requesting approval of the

59:33proposed residential floor to floor

59:34height through this waiver. I'm thankful

59:37for city staff um and their support of

59:39the request.

59:44And this was just a a video that was

59:47running through the different

59:48elevations. Um there's some additional

59:50information on the back side of this if

59:52you guys have any questions. Uh so

59:54respectfully uh we request the waiver uh

59:56for the floor to floor height and um we

1:00:00believe this is a limited and reasonable

1:00:02request that preserves the neighborhood

1:00:04character of KOMO while maintaining the

1:00:06functional quality and intent of the

1:00:08Camp Buouie code um which allows us to

1:00:10build a beautiful place for families to

1:00:12call home. Thank you for everyone who's

1:00:14been a part of the project and to the

1:00:16commission for your time and

1:00:17consideration. Um, happy to answer any

1:00:19questions you guys might have.

1:00:20>> Thank you very much.

1:00:22>> Staff can provide a little bit of

1:00:24clarity on the the measure. So, there's

1:00:26a weird diagram in the code that

1:00:28suggests the floor tofloor measure is to

1:00:29the top of the ceiling. So, we as staff

1:00:32put in the agenda request to the top of

1:00:35the ceiling. So, he regardless of how

1:00:37you measure what's in the agenda would

1:00:39get him to achieve his plans. So, just

1:00:41note that. That's why we put the 10 feet

1:00:438 inches. It's the more conservative of

1:00:45the of the two options we had dealing

1:00:48through that interpretation and how

1:00:49that's commonly uh applied.

1:00:55Thank you. Any questions for the

1:00:57applicant?

1:01:01>> Okay. Thank you.

1:01:04Uh anyone else here to speak in favor of

1:01:06this case?

1:01:11welcome up.

1:01:16>> Thank you. Please state your name.

1:01:19>> Good day. I'm Sandra Stanley from Como.

1:01:21I'm a stakeholder resident and I'm the

1:01:23current uh Knack president. And so um I

1:01:27wanted to say that this um developer,

1:01:30they have uh really done their due

1:01:32diligence with us. They've met with us

1:01:34three times on site at our NAC meeting.

1:01:37And then some of the people that didn't

1:01:40get to come to the net meeting, we had a

1:01:41third meeting on Zoom. So some of our

1:01:45concerns, initial concerns with the

1:01:48Cambouie and I guess for me being the

1:01:50new president, not knowing that that

1:01:54zoning over there on the veil,

1:01:56especially on the veil is considered

1:01:59Camp Buouie. then knowing that the

1:02:02street the block that backs up to it is

1:02:05considered Camp Buouie. So that's when I

1:02:08started answering asking lots and lots

1:02:11of questions. Okay, that's residential.

1:02:15Those other um zonings aren't going to

1:02:17fit for KOMO. If you look at the new

1:02:22bill across the street from this

1:02:24property, and I don't know if y'all have

1:02:26a picture of that, the new bill across

1:02:28the street from that property. It's a

1:02:30new bill and they didn't come under that

1:02:32under those restrictions and it's very

1:02:35nice. But this project complements this.

1:02:38But what what won us over was most

1:02:42developers when they come to KOMO, they

1:02:44tell us what they're going to do. Of

1:02:46course, it's their property. uh and they

1:02:49never talk about affordable housing.

1:02:51Well, this developer came out the shoot

1:02:53talking about developer uh affordable

1:02:56housing and had a discussion with us

1:02:58about it and we even came back again on

1:03:00that third meeting to say uh some of the

1:03:04um residents said we want that in

1:03:06writing because we have so many

1:03:08developers come and they don't uh honor

1:03:12they get what they need and they forget.

1:03:14So, they did make a ver a written

1:03:16commitment to us to have uh uh at least

1:03:20two of those uh of their properties uh

1:03:25as affordable housing. And they had

1:03:27already the conversation we didn't have

1:03:29to prompt them. We didn't have to ask

1:03:31them. She uh uh Meg had already went and

1:03:34talked to housing and got on schedule

1:03:36and got ideas for that and very open to

1:03:39what we were saying and what we wanted.

1:03:41And um they stayed for our NAG meeting

1:03:43to the end and got to um meet the uh the

1:03:47um community and they were available for

1:03:50questions and no uh questions negative

1:03:53questions came up at the meeting there.

1:03:55If there are some uh questions then uh

1:03:58we don't know about that. But I would I

1:04:01am concerned and I've been talking to

1:04:02the city. We met with Mr. um Mr. uh DJ.

1:04:06We've met with him. I've talked to

1:04:08Joseph has been very helpful in when did

1:04:11Komo become that part of Komo become um

1:04:15uh Cambouie and they're helping us

1:04:18navigate through that and Camboo uh horn

1:04:23you know summer horn yes but not the

1:04:25residential so it doesn't it's apples

1:04:28and oranges for that even when they come

1:04:30back for this second development having

1:04:33the lavel the um the lavell street and

1:04:37then have lock doing something different

1:04:40is going to be weird and it's to me it's

1:04:44going to never be commercial now some

1:04:46kind of way that big storage building is

1:04:48there it's there and we know

1:04:50gentriification well in Ko we can't

1:04:54control people we can't control uh

1:04:57investors a lot of the investors in Ko

1:05:00uh don't live here they're from out of

1:05:02state cuz I stop and ask them where are

1:05:03you from and get that information so Uh

1:05:07uh they live here. That's wonderful.

1:05:09They live We I've asked a lot of

1:05:11questions. They live here in Fort Worth.

1:05:13We like that. And so um we're in

1:05:17majority is in favor of this project. We

1:05:20want it to look like

1:05:23a neighborhood, not commercial. It's not

1:05:26going to ever be commercial right there

1:05:28on those two streets. So when you come

1:05:30back when they come back for their other

1:05:32one, and I know they've had to change

1:05:33the design. I understand the Rosedale

1:05:36part because she shared the whole vision

1:05:39uh and that looks really nice, but um I

1:05:43just don't see how they match up and

1:05:45hopefully we can uh the city will

1:05:47continue to work with us and you guys

1:05:49will work with us to get us on track on

1:05:51what we need and we're working forward

1:05:53on that. Thank you very much.

1:05:55>> Thank you.

1:05:57Anyone else here to speak in favor?

1:06:02Good morning. welcome up.

1:06:06>> Good morning. My name is Wanda Bohannan

1:06:08and I'm a long-term resident of the Lake

1:06:10Homo area. We have met several times

1:06:13with the uh builders. We do appreciate

1:06:17the fact that we want our I hope you

1:06:20appreciate the fact that we want our

1:06:21community to remain a community that

1:06:25looks like a community. We are currently

1:06:28also in progress of working with the

1:06:31conservation to ensure that the inside

1:06:33part of the Lecomo uh community stays

1:06:36the same. As we've looked at these

1:06:39buildings and we as we've talked to the

1:06:41builder too, it sounds like we are um

1:06:46looking forward to them being here. not

1:06:48just because of the affordable um um

1:06:52housing but also because it's going to

1:06:55conform to our neighborhood. What we

1:06:58don't want to do is destroy the concept

1:07:02of family uh s uh residential area. And

1:07:06so as a resident of KO, I can't speak

1:07:10for everyone, but I can speak for what I

1:07:13saw at the meetings, the comments that

1:07:15I've heard. We are in favor of working

1:07:18with this builder. And by the way, they

1:07:20are probably

1:07:22uh one in a long time one of the ones

1:07:27that have actually come to us, worked

1:07:30with us and considered what we as a

1:07:33community would like to have.

1:07:36>> Thank you.

1:07:37>> Thank you.

1:07:39In favor? Yes. Welcome up.

1:07:44>> Good morning. My name is Shavina Miss

1:07:46Peacock Taylor and I am a Lake Ko

1:07:50resident and I am also the program

1:07:53director of keep lake como beautiful. Uh

1:07:56that's a program of proof of life

1:07:58community development corporation. I

1:08:00reviewed the record for UDC 2026205

1:08:04and I want to limit my comment to the

1:08:06decision before the commission today.

1:08:08the four-unit lavel portion and the

1:08:11requested waiver from the 15 foot floor

1:08:15tofloor standard I'm sorry 15 foot first

1:08:20floor floor to floor standard to 10 ft 8

1:08:25in based on the staff's findings that

1:08:28the reduced height is more compatible

1:08:29with the surrounding residential context

1:08:32I support the waiver with the staff

1:08:34recommended conditions requiring final

1:08:36compliance with the remaining Campboy

1:08:38standards and revised enhanced

1:08:40landscaping. I also understand that

1:08:43separate building code and permitting

1:08:45review remains outstanding. Thank you.

1:08:48>> Thank you.

1:08:52Anyone else here to speak in favor?

1:08:55Is anyone here to speak in opposition?

1:08:58Okay, we'll close the public comment

1:08:59portion for discussion by the

1:09:01commission.

1:09:04I think the the developer has done a

1:09:07good job working with the community. I

1:09:09think his design fits in with the

1:09:12character of our neighborhood. Um and so

1:09:15I think they've done an excellent job

1:09:17and I'm recommending approval.

1:09:20>> I have a question just um

1:09:24it blends right with the area and you

1:09:28support the design.

1:09:30Did you through that process do you feel

1:09:33like everyone all the others the you

1:09:37know future people that are coming to

1:09:39purchase the land and come in is this

1:09:41kind of the standard you're wanting the

1:09:44whole neighborhood and KOMO to become?

1:09:46>> I do I'm not encouraging us to have a

1:09:50lot of duplexes throughout our

1:09:51neighborhood. We're having houses. It's

1:09:53mostly it's single family, but this

1:09:57duplex fits in with the other designs of

1:10:01houses that they built. It really

1:10:03doesn't look like a no part a do it

1:10:07looks more like a house. And it

1:10:09>> it's going to expand. You're talking a

1:10:11whole block now behind that public

1:10:12storage. behind that public storage is

1:10:15on lock side and it should looks like a

1:10:19um the neighborhood too because it's not

1:10:23going to be a business corridor on that

1:10:26side. It walks right down into the

1:10:28neighborhood which is houses. So I don't

1:10:32see lock ever becoming a commercial

1:10:36corridor and if you just go to the next

1:10:38block they've built some new houses all

1:10:40along there.

1:10:42>> Thank you.

1:10:45And I think we've seen some of these

1:10:47cases with the 10 foot versus 15 foot.

1:10:49And there are there are commercial

1:10:52spaces with 10ft ceilings. So it doesn't

1:10:56preempt that you can't use this space as

1:10:58like a live work where the downstairs

1:11:01would be um if that was the future

1:11:04growth of the of the neighborhood if it

1:11:06became an area that that was uh feasible

1:11:10or the neighborhood wanted it. Um, but I

1:11:12do think that they have some work to do

1:11:14on the site plan. Uh, specifically you

1:11:16got bedroom windows on property lines uh

1:11:19that need setbacks. So, um, I think we

1:11:23should if we move for approval and we

1:11:26should, uh, have them continue to work

1:11:28with staff.

1:11:32>> So, I would like to make a motion to

1:11:34approve if there are any other comments

1:11:36by

1:11:39um, move for approval.

1:11:41provided subject to a resubmission of

1:11:44final review of the plans showing

1:11:47compliance with all other camp form base

1:11:50code standards.

1:11:53>> Second.

1:11:56>> Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner

1:11:57West and a second by Commissioner Deose.

1:12:00Um, Chair Benner, how do you vote? I

1:12:04>> Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote? I

1:12:08>> Commissioner West, how do you vote? Hi,

1:12:11>> Commissioner Carr. How do you vote?

1:12:13>> Hi,

1:12:15>> Commissioner Deose.

1:12:17>> I

1:12:18Commissioner Harrier. How do you vote?

1:12:20>> Hi.

1:12:21>> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote?

1:12:23>> I

1:12:26Commissioner Holidayiday.

1:12:30>> And Commissioner Hamsy, how do you vote?

1:12:32>> I motion passes 90. Thank you.

1:12:44All right, that concludes our cases

1:12:46today. We're going to this UDC, we

1:12:48decided to try something a little bit

1:12:49different and put work session at the

1:12:51end. Number one, so we can work on

1:12:53getting applicants through the

1:12:55commission process. They're not having

1:12:57to wait um you know, two, three hours

1:12:59for their case to be heard. And then um

1:13:02also just kind of to kind of you know be

1:13:04able to talk about these things a little

1:13:05bit more freely without the pressure of

1:13:07having to rush through them. Um so we

1:13:09have three work session topics today.

1:13:12The first is just a quick status update

1:13:14on the Panther Island formbbased code.

1:13:17So my colleague Francisco has been

1:13:18working on that. So I may um pull him in

1:13:21here on this. Um we presented this code

1:13:24update to you back in June and it's been

1:13:27working through the legislative process

1:13:28for the last few months. Um, so with

1:13:32that, it's getting ready to go to city

1:13:34council. So, we just wanted to remind

1:13:35you about some of the things that you

1:13:36guys may see in the newspaper over the

1:13:39next couple weeks. Um, so here's a

1:13:41quick, it's kind of a long summary of

1:13:43changes. There are some pretty

1:13:44substantial changes, but just to hit

1:13:46some of the high points, we are

1:13:47consolidating the multiple subjects

1:13:50districts into two, Panther Island Core

1:13:52and Panther Island Edge. We're adding

1:13:54some of our some guiding principles and

1:13:57development objectives based off of uh

1:13:59some community engagement and networking

1:14:01and uh visioning for the district. Um

1:14:03we're also updating some of our

1:14:05administrative procedures and regulating

1:14:06plans. We're revising and expanding some

1:14:09of our waterfront and public open space

1:14:11standards to account for updates in the

1:14:14canal work that's being done in Panther

1:14:16Island. Um, we're also modifying some of

1:14:19the district boundaries that relates to

1:14:20the subdist consolidation

1:14:23and making some uh simplification to the

1:14:26maximum height limits given that now

1:14:28we're just moving to two subdists. The

1:14:31the original code had various height

1:14:33limits based off the various subdists.

1:14:36Um, so if you uh paid attention to the

1:14:40last zoning commission hearing, you'll

1:14:41notice you would have noticed that

1:14:42there's actually two zoning cases that

1:14:44we put in front regarding Panther

1:14:46Island. One is to update the code

1:14:48document and the map what's called a map

1:14:51amendment in zoning speak and then the

1:14:53other one is to reszone some of the

1:14:55properties into those two subdists that

1:14:56we're creating.

1:14:59So really the genesis of the code update

1:15:01again is to implement the vision 2.0

1:15:04plan that uh TRWD Taran County Regional

1:15:08Water District put together between 2023

1:15:10and 2024. So this is the

1:15:11operationalizing of that making sure the

1:15:13code comes up to speed with it. Um so

1:15:17here's a kind of summary of the district

1:15:19consolidation. On the left you can see

1:15:20the current district map with the nine

1:15:22districts, the various heights and then

1:15:24on the right you can see a couple of

1:15:26things. Number one you can see the

1:15:28consolidation into two subd districts

1:15:30and then additionally a change in the

1:15:32overall boundary. So there are some

1:15:34parcels that are kind of on the opposite

1:15:35sides of the river here and uh once the

1:15:39bypass channels complete there'll be

1:15:41kind of a clear delineation. So, those

1:15:43are going to actually we're working on

1:15:44reszoning those to other things. The the

1:15:47yellow that you hear that you see here

1:15:48by Henderson Street, there's actually an

1:15:50active zoning application for that site

1:15:52already. So, we're kind of adjusting the

1:15:54boundaries of Panther Island, pulling it

1:15:56in, making sure it better aligns with

1:15:57TRWD and public land ownership. Um, and

1:16:02also in the areas that are abudding

1:16:04downtown, uh, in this area, there's some

1:16:06conflicts with the downtown overlay too

1:16:09that make it just a little bit tough to

1:16:11work through. So, we're hoping that this

1:16:13new boundary line will simplify things.

1:16:15Then, as you can see on the right, we're

1:16:17also moving just to the two subd

1:16:19districts. The core, which is the darker

1:16:21pink on that map, and the edge, which is

1:16:23the lighter pink.

1:16:24>> Joe, I have a question. When did it go

1:16:26up to 24? I thought it was at 20 on the

1:16:29max uh height

1:16:31>> on on this one.

1:16:32>> Yeah, the core. I thought I saw

1:16:34something in a public thing. It was 20

1:16:37feet. So, so the north main subdist is

1:16:4020. The N3 subd district, neighborhood

1:16:43three has been 24.

1:16:49I I'd have to go back into the history

1:16:50of Panther to look up exactly when that

1:16:52was. Um, but that's we're kind of just

1:16:56simplifying that across the board. Do

1:16:58you want to hop in on that at all,

1:17:03Francisco Vega, planning manager?

1:17:06No, I I I know that there is an

1:17:09amendment that happened uh probably I

1:17:12don't know five years or something ago

1:17:14where there was a revision to the

1:17:16maximum height. Um in the past 10 years

1:17:18I think that we have been updating this

1:17:20district probably seven times. And so I

1:17:25remember when I was reviewing the uh the

1:17:28background of the district, I saw one of

1:17:30those ordinances to increase the height,

1:17:33but I just can't remember the year.

1:17:36>> Thank you.

1:17:40>> Uh speaking of height, that

1:17:42simplification of the height, we oftent

1:17:44times get questions like, "Oh, you're

1:17:45just going to slap a bunch of big

1:17:47buildings in. Is it going to look out of

1:17:48scale?" So one of the things Vision 2.0

1:17:510 did was they did some broader

1:17:52neighborhood context analysis. Looked at

1:17:54Panther Island and the maximum heights

1:17:56in context to the north side as well as

1:17:58to downtown. And I think the important

1:18:00thing here is to note the change in

1:18:02elevations between those three

1:18:03districts. Downtown obviously we're on a

1:18:06bluff. I mean not this site but you know

1:18:08a few blocks away is on a bluff. So that

1:18:12district where there's already tall

1:18:14buildings will still be downtown and be

1:18:17recognized as such. And then Panther

1:18:19Island actually transitions down due to

1:18:21the lower elevation and that kind of

1:18:23provides a transition between north side

1:18:25and some of the the increase in density

1:18:26that's happening in like the stockyards

1:18:28area.

1:18:31Um again here's a huge list of updates.

1:18:33We've we presented this previously. A

1:18:35lot of this is from the vision 2.0 the

1:18:38work that TRWD has been doing with the

1:18:40Army Corps of Engineers for the bypass

1:18:42channel and the canal work. Um here's

1:18:45some more updates. One thing to note, I

1:18:47do want to call out on this slide. The

1:18:48Panther Island formbbased code is going

1:18:50to be moving from a prohibited use table

1:18:52to a permitted use table, which is the

1:18:54way all the other formbbased codes work,

1:18:56just because sometimes there's new uses

1:18:58that come about, and then unless we

1:19:00update the code in time, that use would

1:19:02be allowed by write. Um, so kind of just

1:19:06going through this. Here's one of the

1:19:08concept drawings that came out of Vision

1:19:102.0. Panther Island's not going to look

1:19:12like this. These concept drawings is

1:19:15really intended to show the maximum

1:19:17building envelopes that could be built

1:19:19if everything was maxed out. Um, so

1:19:23that's kind of some of the intent of

1:19:24this just to kind of give people a

1:19:26vision for what it could be, not

1:19:27necessarily a definitive plan for what

1:19:29it is going to be.

1:19:31So in terms of status update, um, which

1:19:34is really the the purpose of this

1:19:35presentation, uh, we presented to the

1:19:37UDC in June. We went through zoning

1:19:39commission and city plan commission

1:19:40informational briefs as well. And then

1:19:43um uh earlier this month, we went to

1:19:45zoning commission for a vote for

1:19:46recommendation to city council. Um we're

1:19:49going to CPC for a vote for

1:19:50recommendation early next month and then

1:19:52to zoning or to city council for

1:19:54adoption on October 13th. So if you all

1:19:57see it in the news, we've reminded you

1:20:00uh more currently than that. Any

1:20:03questions on this?

1:20:07Cool.

1:20:08All right. We're we're in a code

1:20:10updating frenzy over here on the

1:20:12historic preservation and design side.

1:20:14We've been working on another large code

1:20:16update to the camp buoy formbbased code

1:20:18and Lydia is here from Campoi Inc. She's

1:20:20really our partner like out on the

1:20:22street um for this project.

1:20:26So the the campaign forbased code was

1:20:29adopted in 2012. There has not been

1:20:31significant

1:20:32uh changes to the development standards

1:20:34or the use standards over that time. So,

1:20:37uh, a few years ago, Campo, Inc. started

1:20:39working with city staff to develop a

1:20:41list of proposed changes. This is the

1:20:44first of what we hope was going to be at

1:20:45least two or three other changes to the

1:20:47code that we're making. We talked about

1:20:48working with KOMO and addressing Horn

1:20:50Street. Um, again, this is the first of

1:20:53more things to come. And this code

1:20:54update is really focused in on five

1:20:58things. Uh, number one, removing some of

1:21:00the non-conforming standards that create

1:21:02conflicts with the base zoning

1:21:03ordinance. And as I'll explain in a

1:21:06second, just build a little bit out of

1:21:08date. Second, removing the use table

1:21:10completely from this formbbased code and

1:21:12referring back to the base zoning

1:21:14ordinance. So, currently all formbbased

1:21:16codes have two use tables, which is

1:21:18very, very confusing. There's one in the

1:21:20form-based code document and then one

1:21:22online in the zoning ordinance. And

1:21:25updating both of those has been a

1:21:27challenge for the city to be honest. So

1:21:30transitioning to the point where we only

1:21:32have the use tables in the zoning

1:21:34ordinance should make it a lot easier

1:21:36for developers as well as for staff. Um

1:21:38so this is the first uh code that we're

1:21:40trying to do this with and hopefully

1:21:42we'll eventually spread this to the

1:21:43other codes as well.

1:21:45Um we're going to be uh revising some of

1:21:48our supplemental standards uh

1:21:50particularly for drive-throughs uh sales

1:21:52from kiosks and mobile vendors which is

1:21:54uh Campo is an auto oriented corridor.

1:21:57That's a those are issues that

1:21:58consistently come up. And also

1:22:00clarifying some language around uh parts

1:22:02of the district that are within the NAS

1:22:04JRB uh overlay area, the APZ2,

1:22:08um because that limits some of the uses.

1:22:10So, we're providing more clarity in the

1:22:11use table. So, if someone's purchasing a

1:22:14property within that, they know to be

1:22:16checking that overlay and those overlay

1:22:18standards. Um, we're also took a stab at

1:22:21rewriting and completely updating our

1:22:23signage standards using some of the best

1:22:25practices from downtown. Um, given that

1:22:27Camp Buouie is very autooriented,

1:22:29signage is a big issue along the

1:22:32district. And as you know, probably the

1:22:34majority of cases within the district

1:22:36that come before the urban design

1:22:37commission relate to signage in Camp

1:22:39Buouie. Um, and then lastly, removing

1:22:41some redundant definitions and referring

1:22:43back to chapter 9 of the zoning

1:22:45ordinance for definitions. Again, just

1:22:47trying to simplify and make this code a

1:22:49little bit easier to use both for city

1:22:50staff and applicants looking to uh build

1:22:53and do business in Camp Buouie. So,

1:22:56here's a map of the corridor. As you can

1:22:58see, it starts from I30 and then it

1:23:02moves along Camp Buouie Boulevard

1:23:04southwest and then around Lackland. It

1:23:07kind of pivots and moves along uh Camp

1:23:09Buouie West almost to I30. It stops a

1:23:12little bit short of I30, but you can see

1:23:13the various subdists here. Um you can

1:23:16kind of see a little bit to the north

1:23:18how NASJRB is directly to the north. So

1:23:20that overlay impacts particularly this

1:23:23area right here and some of the uses

1:23:25that can be there.

1:23:29So I mentioned before that we're

1:23:31updating the non-conforming standards.

1:23:33One of the you might call quirks or

1:23:35unique aspects of the campoui form-based

1:23:37code is that some of the

1:23:38non-conformities are tied to uh value of

1:23:41improvements which was set in 2012 and

1:23:44construction costs and renovation costs

1:23:46have changed significantly since 2012.

1:23:48So it's really not achieving the intent

1:23:50that it was supposed to. So what we're

1:23:53doing is we're simplifying the language

1:23:54just to refer to the non-conforming

1:23:56standards that are in the base zoning.

1:23:58So it's similar to other projects within

1:24:01the city. So if you're a developer and

1:24:02you want to do something in Campoi form

1:24:04base code for the first time, you have

1:24:06that context and can refer back to that.

1:24:09For the use table, again, we're removing

1:24:11the use table from the campoui

1:24:12formbbased code, referring back to the

1:24:15use table in the zoning ordinance,

1:24:17sometimes what we call American Legal,

1:24:18which is the hosting website for the uh

1:24:21zoning ordinance. Yeah, I know this is

1:24:22visually not the best. Um yeah, uh just

1:24:26basically this picture is just showing

1:24:28we're crossing out the use table. Um,

1:24:32and we're making some changes to some of

1:24:34the allowable uses to clarify some

1:24:37things, uh, as well as advance some of

1:24:40the economic revitalization efforts the

1:24:42city has, particularly along Camp Buouie

1:24:44West, uh, Camp Buouie formbbased code is

1:24:47actually called the Camp Buouie

1:24:48Boulevard revitalization code. So,

1:24:51there's always been that strong economic

1:24:52development and revitalization focus to

1:24:54the district. So, as mentioned before,

1:24:57we're adding some clarifying language

1:24:59about the APZ overlay um with the with

1:25:02the base. Um we're distinguishing

1:25:04between massage therapy spa and massage

1:25:07parlor. Um the current use table has

1:25:10very broad categories and that's, you

1:25:13know, those are two very different

1:25:15things. Um we're adjusting some of the

1:25:18uses to have bars be by a CUP,

1:25:23conditional use permit. So currently

1:25:25bars are not permitted in a lot of the

1:25:27district. We think there are

1:25:29circumstances where a bar could be a

1:25:31good thing, but that would have to go

1:25:32through the public process for that. So

1:25:35it's giving a little bit more

1:25:36flexibility for that and making sure

1:25:38that for issu for uses such as home

1:25:40improvement stores and liquor stores.

1:25:42There's some controls on where those

1:25:44take place, but while providing a case

1:25:46by case approval for that. We're moving

1:25:49things such as bingo parlors, retail

1:25:51smoke shops, furniture cabinet repair,

1:25:53aluminum manufacturer, and many

1:25:55warehouse uses. So like self- storage.

1:25:57Um, and uh things like retail smoke

1:26:01shops have things or that have been

1:26:03updated in the base zoning ordinance,

1:26:04but then we never updated the formbbased

1:26:06code forum. So we're just trying to come

1:26:08up to speed with that. And then we're

1:26:10removing most vehicle sales and service

1:26:13as well as aviation transportation uses.

1:26:15Um when you read the intent of the

1:26:17campoui formbbased code, it was really

1:26:19to create a robust commercial, retail

1:26:22and economic corridor that could

1:26:24transition into the adjoining

1:26:26neighborhoods. That was the intent

1:26:28behind the initial passage of it. So

1:26:32things like vehicle sales sometimes make

1:26:34that very difficult because they require

1:26:36large lots that are not very pedestrian

1:26:39friendly. So, we're trying to limit that

1:26:41um and prevent that from spreading

1:26:43throughout the the whole district.

1:26:46Um as mentioned before, we're updating

1:26:48some of our supplemental uses. Uh you

1:26:51can see here how we're consolidating

1:26:52some of the supplemental standards for

1:26:53autorelated uses and then um making a

1:26:57note about uh driveway stacking and

1:27:00making sure that it's aligned with the

1:27:01traffic engineering manual as well

1:27:03because it is an auto corridor. That's a

1:27:05consistent issue that we come across. or

1:27:08we've also added I'm not going to read

1:27:09this whole thing. Uh supplemental

1:27:11standards for sales from kiosks and

1:27:13mobile vendors which we see a lot of

1:27:15within the district. Um we are removing

1:27:18the current sign standards and replacing

1:27:21them with new sign standards that mostly

1:27:22come from downtown. Uh here's a list of

1:27:25the new categories of signs that are

1:27:27going to be in the revised code. Um so

1:27:30we're trying to take the best practices

1:27:32from downtown and bring them to Camp

1:27:34Buouie. Um, one thing we brought

1:27:36>> signs on there,

1:27:37>> huh?

1:27:38>> Digital signs.

1:27:39>> Uh, so ECC's

1:27:43>> uh, so electronic changeable copy that

1:27:46would still have to go through board of

1:27:47adjustment.

1:27:49>> Board of adjustment.

1:27:52>> Uh, that might be a broader zoning

1:27:54question.

1:27:57Yeah,

1:28:00>> it's just a pet of mine

1:28:04adjustment

1:28:06and I put scrollers on. I can't put

1:28:08digital signs, but I can put them on my

1:28:09monument sign that's out front.

1:28:13I think everybody uses digital signs on

1:28:15every gas station.

1:28:26It's not a picture. I can't change it

1:28:28from here.

1:28:28>> On on signage, one thing we brought in

1:28:30front of UDC several times is for sites

1:28:34that are on corner lots. So, because the

1:28:37boulevard bisects the street grid,

1:28:39there's a lot of properties on corner

1:28:40lots. The current code only allows one

1:28:42sign per tenant, but we get a lot of

1:28:44requests from tenants to request two

1:28:45signs on those corner lots. So, we're

1:28:48updating some of these sign allocation

1:28:49area standards to uh allow folks to have

1:28:52two signs as long as they stay within

1:28:53the total allocation area.

1:28:57Um, we've we're also removing a bunch of

1:28:59redundant definitions, definitions that

1:29:01exist either verbatim or slightly

1:29:03different in the code and the zoning

1:29:06ordinance. Um, so we're just referring

1:29:09both folks back to the zoning ordinance

1:29:10for those definitions. And then in the

1:29:12current code, all the sign types are

1:29:14separately defined, which is a bit

1:29:17confusing because then you look at the

1:29:18sign standards and you the definition

1:29:20also then defines it. So we're moving

1:29:22those definitions for signage and just

1:29:24having folks refer to the sign standards

1:29:26so it's a little bit more user friendly.

1:29:28And then in terms of schedule of

1:29:29adoption, so this is the first stop on

1:29:31our road tour for the legislative

1:29:32process for this code. Um, we're going

1:29:35to be doingformational briefs to uh

1:29:37zoning commission next month and then

1:29:39we'll do an IR to city council to keep

1:29:42them up to date on this. We've already

1:29:43been speaking with uh council member

1:29:45Crane and we have a meeting next week

1:29:46with uh council member Hall. Um and then

1:29:50we'll bring it back to the urban design

1:29:52commission for a vote on October 22nd

1:29:54followed by zoning commission on uh

1:29:57November 11th and city council we hope

1:29:59on December 8th. Uh we do have a

1:30:02redlinined version of the code that we

1:30:05will send out prior to the October

1:30:07meeting so you can see the how what's

1:30:10changing and how that looks. Um we were

1:30:13also going to probably end up

1:30:14reformatting the code just for ease of

1:30:15use from a landscape version to a

1:30:17portrait version. Um so you you'll see

1:30:20that in the final copy as well, but I

1:30:22think really the red line is what is

1:30:23most important to you so you can

1:30:25understand what is changing in terms of

1:30:26the text and standards. Uh, I'm happy to

1:30:29answer any questions. Francisco's been

1:30:31working on this longer than I have. And

1:30:32we also have Lydia here from Camp

1:30:34Buouie, Inc. who's been our a real

1:30:35partner in this effort.

1:30:37>> I'm curious, when is the public, like

1:30:39the residents and folks in that area

1:30:42going to be informed?

1:30:43>> So, uh, there's a few different methods

1:30:45for that. Um, we've been working with

1:30:47Camp, Inc. on setting up some community

1:30:49meetings in late September, early

1:30:50October to start getting the word out,

1:30:53allow folks opportunities to ask

1:30:55questions. Additionally, before zoning

1:30:57commission, they'll get a mailed public

1:30:59notice.

1:31:01And we've been going through the the

1:31:04district. I was there earlier this week

1:31:05driving around identifying all potential

1:31:07nonconformities. So, we have a list of

1:31:09those folks and can address some of

1:31:11their questions about that. That was a

1:31:12request from the council member and I

1:31:14believe it's also a requirement for the

1:31:15the zoning. Um, it's it's a long

1:31:18corridor and it's a little bit tedious

1:31:21going property by property. Uh, but

1:31:23we're working through that. We've gotten

1:31:24all the way to uh Altameir from the from

1:31:27the west. So, we've done camp uh western

1:31:30business and industrial arts and we're

1:31:32going to keep working our way east on

1:31:33that.

1:31:34>> As you work through that, the Horn

1:31:37Street corridor is still in that.

1:31:39>> Yes, the Horn Street corridor is still

1:31:41in the code. Um that is zone transition.

1:31:44These changes particularly related to

1:31:45use, none of those address the

1:31:47transition district. So, we're keeping

1:31:50that as is. We do have a meeting uh on

1:31:53Monday, I believe, with the Knack

1:31:55leadership to kind of go over that. And

1:31:57one of the things that we want to start

1:31:59talking about with the Knack is we

1:32:01understand that there might be a request

1:32:02for reszoning of Horn or rethinking

1:32:04that. So, we'll we're hoping to start

1:32:06that really in November once we kind of

1:32:07get through this legislative process and

1:32:10then be working on that November,

1:32:11December, and into 2027. I just want to

1:32:14be sure that there are not any surprises

1:32:16come to KOMO that we are not aware of

1:32:19because when they start changing and

1:32:22plopping stuff in, it does affect the

1:32:24neighborhood.

1:32:29>> Will those changes come in our next uh

1:32:32packet? Will we get to see those prior

1:32:34to the 22nd?

1:32:36>> Yes, you're going to get a redline

1:32:38version of the code. It'll I'm hopefully

1:32:40by the end of this month. Uh, but we'll

1:32:42make sure that you have ample time to

1:32:43review that and compare and contrast.

1:32:45>> Awesome. Thanks.

1:32:46>> That was pretty quick, by the way,

1:32:48updating your uh, presentation to show

1:32:50the October 22nd

1:32:51>> wishful thinking. Yeah, considering we

1:32:54just voted on it about an hour.

1:32:58>> Like those Super Bowl teams, they all

1:32:59print them up anyway, then whoever wins

1:33:05>> Thank you, Joe. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Um,

1:33:09one final work session item and this is

1:33:11really to prepare for next month. So,

1:33:13every year we bring beforeward bring

1:33:15forward our rules of procedure for

1:33:16annual adoption. Um, so we're going to

1:33:19do that in advance of next month. It's

1:33:21largely going to stay the same. We're

1:33:23going to be making some small changes. I

1:33:24just want to go over. So, we're moving

1:33:26away from the term urban design officer

1:33:28to executive secretary, which is what a

1:33:30lot of the other boards and commissions

1:33:32utilize. Um, we're clarifying some of

1:33:35the filing deadlines. Um, also we've

1:33:39moved from 10 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. time.

1:33:41So, that's all getting updated.

1:33:43Simplifying some of the withdrawal

1:33:44language, the current rules of procedure

1:33:47that kind of separate out immediate

1:33:48versus delayed withdrawal. But really,

1:33:50in the end of the day, if someone's

1:33:51requesting a withdrawal of a case, it's

1:33:54just easier for to withdraw it. Um, and

1:33:57then transitioning from filing deadline

1:33:58language to filing requirements language

1:34:01to, you know, we deal with with cases

1:34:03that are as simple as an individual

1:34:05business wall sign. And the largest case

1:34:07we have right now is a 1.4 billion

1:34:0914story hospital tower. So the review

1:34:12timelines for those are drastically

1:34:13different. Um, and really the I think

1:34:16the most important thing is making sure

1:34:18that the case is reviewed by staff and

1:34:21uh really ready to be filed before you,

1:34:25not necessarily, oh, did you meet X or Y

1:34:27deadline? Um, and then we're removing

1:34:30language about denying with or without

1:34:32prejudice um after consulting with legal

1:34:35because design is so contextually based.

1:34:38you know, if you deny with prejudice one

1:34:41application, they can come back slightly

1:34:42tweak it and technically that's a new

1:34:44application because you're taking into

1:34:45consideration the whole context. So,

1:34:48it's really just you're denying it. They

1:34:50can come back and resubmit with an with

1:34:53a change design, but it just kind of

1:34:55clarifies that with the updated legal

1:34:57guidance. So, our hope is to bring this

1:35:01in front of you on October 22nd. Um, and

1:35:04again, this will send out in advance of

1:35:06next UDC, so you have time to review.

1:35:10Very good. Thank you very much. Anything

1:35:12else?

1:35:15That's all we got. Okay. Well, I want to

1:35:18thank Commissioner Hughes for your

1:35:19service

1:35:21and uh, welcome, Commissioner Hamza.

1:35:23And, uh,

1:35:26we will see everybody October 22nd. Have

1:35:28a great rest of your month. Thank you.