I guess we don't have a onoff. We're coming right now. Oh, one of the oh, the molly pen? Probably got a stash on him. He's probably hoarding them. Them. He knows he's got the power. He's got them in his pocket. Hey. Digging on to him. I'm going upstairs as soon as we leave here. The trick is be sure he gives you one of the one of the gold. Okay. One minute. Or a lot, tell me when you're ready. And Laura. Mhmm. Mhmm. Click the radio. Do you ever have a cooler?
Ready, Rock? Ready? Okay. Alright. We have 02:02PM, and I'm gonna call the 02/09/2026, the storm cultural landmarks, possession of Fort Worth to order, and we'll have the statement regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. Thank you. Welcome to the February. Our commission requires a quorum of six member members to be present and available for voting. The following board members are present today.
Chair Rick Herring, Vice Chairwoman Anna Katrina Kelly Gardner, Commissioner Stephanie Muzi, Commissioner Corey Malone, Commissioner Brian Ketchum, Commissioner Tim Holden, and Commissioner Graham Breisendeen. Staff present today are Laura Lai Willett, Brandon Utterback, Anna Alvarez, Jefferson Prado, Andres Hernandez, Trey Quall, Hyewon Kim, and myself, Laura Young. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortwoodtexas.gov.
Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting. Today's public hearing is being documented by video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the HCLC requested the following rules of procedure be respected. Each case will be called in the sequence listed in the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the HCLC only. After each staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be given a total of
seven minutes to speak. Opposition may then speak for seven minutes. Continuation beyond the speakers allotted time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval. All other meeting procedures will adhere to HCLC adopted rules of procedures to the extent practicable. Following the official close of each case hearing, the HCLC will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair.
A closed ex executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the HCLC to receive advice from legal staff. For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the development services department by calling (817) 392-8000. Thank you for your attention. And, chair Herring, will you please call the meeting to order? Thank you very much for that information. And, yes, we will call the meeting to order. Do we have any announcements from staff? Just one. Happy Black History Month, commissioners.
Yes. Thank you for that. Thank you. Reminder, are there any announcements from commissioners or anyone else? Alright. Thank you very much. Move on to the approval of the January minutes. If you've had a chance to look at those, do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Motion by Commissioner Ketchum and a second by Commissioner Vice Chair Kelly Gardner. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Muzie?
Yay. Commissioner Halden? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yes. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. And commissioner Malone? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes seven zero. Alright. Thank you very much. Let's call the first case then. Your first case today is a resolution. This is a resolution to support the installation of a state historical marker at the future Downtown Library location at 512 West 4th Street, and I will read the resolution to you. Resolution number 2026DashO1, supporting the placement of the Fort Worth Poetry Society state historical marker
at the city owned property at 512 West 4th Street. Whereas the property at 512 West 4th Street is a city property located at Fort Worth original Town Block 47, Lot 3. Whereas the state historical marker was recommended for approval by the Texas Historical Commission in 2022. Whereas the Fort Worth Poetry Society is one of the oldest continuous literary organizations in Texas, established 1910 as the Rhymers and Composers Club. In 1922, the name of the organization was changed to the Fort Worth Poetry Society. Members met once a month from October to May and were required to bring two poems to share.
The purpose according to the constitution and bylaws was to serve as a medium of association for poets and as a clearinghouse through which poetry members may pass before being offered to a larger audience, and whereas the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission finds that the location of the state historical marker is appropriate, now therefore be it resolved by the state oops. Sorry. Resolved by the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission, At the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission supports the proposed location of the state historical marker for the Fort Worth Poetry Society located in the yard space facing 4th Street at 512 West 4th Street, Fort Worth,
Texas. Alright. Thank you for that resolution and information. Commissioners, any discussion or do we have a motion? And the motion would be to adopt the resolution. Correct? Correct. Before we go, I just wanna confirm there were no speakers in opposition. I told you. Yes. Thank you, mister Qualls. I appreciate that. I did not I neglected to call for any public, comment from the chamber. Is there any? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the public oh, alright. I do apologize.
Miss Tracy, please come down. Good afternoon, chairman, hearing, and commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm Jerry Tracy, executive director of, Historic Fort Worth, and this is a very friendly mic. It's it's a pleasure to support, the placement and location of a state historical marker recommended in 2022 by the Texas Historical Commission. The marker will commemorate the Fort Worth Poetry Society for its longevity starting in 1910 as the Rhymers and Composers Club.
History markers like these connect the citizens and tourists of today to the people who established Fort Worth into their stories. We appreciate that. Absolutely. And thank you for those, comments. Again, my apologies for neglecting to call for public comments, but we appreciate those. Anyone else to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And, commissioners, again, I will offer a motion. I believe we had a motion. Alright.
We have a motion by commissioner Holden and a second by commissioner Brisendine. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Muzie? Yay. Commissioner Holden? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes seven zero. Alright. Thank you. Next case, please. Your next case is very similar to your last one. It is a resolution. This is a resolution to just to support the installation of a state historical marker at Veterans Memorial Park. I will read the second resolution to you. Resolution number 2026DashO2, supporting the placement of the Choctaw code talkers and World War one
state historical marker in the city owned Veterans Memorial Park at 4120 Camp Bowie Boulevard. Whereas the Veterans Memorial Park, 4120 Camp Bowie Boulevard is located at Hammond FM, sub of Hillcrest, Block 22 A, Lot City Park. Whereas an undertold state historical marker was recommended for approval by the Texas Historical Commission in 2011, whereas during World War one, the thirty sixth Infantry Division included Choctaw Nation soldiers training at Fort Bowie. Allied officers realized their soldiers had a secret code likely unknown to the Germans, the
Choctaw language. Choctaw soldiers transmitted messages in the Choctaw language between headquarters and the front lines. The Germans were never able to decipher Choctaw messages. The Choctaw code talkers were recognized by the Choctaw Medal of Valor by the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma in 1986, the Knight of the National Order of Merit by the French government in 1989, the Lone Star Medal of Valor by the State of Texas in 2007, and the Code Talker Recognition Act by the US government in 2008. In 2010, the Code Talker star was placed on the Texas Trail Of Fame, and
whereas the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission finds that the location of the state historical marker is appropriate, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission supports the proposed location of the state historical marker where the Choctaw code talkers of World War one located in the Veterans Memorial Park at 4120 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas. Okay. Thank you for that, information. I do have a question, but I'm gonna wait till we hear from anyone in
the audience that may want to speak on this case. Please come forward. Jerry Tracy, Historic Fort Worth. This is one of those cool stories that I think people will just be most intrigued to read about. And I'm glad since this has been on the docket somewhere around the state of Texas since 2011, I believe it is, that it is before you today. Thank you so much. Anyone else in the chamber to speak on this particular resolution or case? Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.
I do have a question, Lorelei, and this may be a technicality in, military terminology, but in the resolution and also on the text for the historical marker, marker, it says Fort Bowie. Mhmm. Is that accurate? I'm going to assume yes. I know I should know these things. Because I've never heard it referred to that. I don't know if anyone else has, but this does I'm the at least the language that, verbiage on the historical markers made it through a number of layers of,
you know, review to get to this point. But I would hate to to be, you know, immortalized with the wrong, terminology. But having said that, commissioners any other comments or questions? It looks like I see that Fort Bowie is in Arizona. Just so you know. So how do we resolve this conundrum or do we? I don't I don't think you do. It's been approved by the state. It might already be forged too.
Yeah. Yeah. So If it's if if it's been approved by the state, I'm sure that they went through it with a fine tooth comb. You would think so. Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, there's various, you know, like I said, I'm no expert on military terminology, but, even Fort Worth versus Camp Worth has been debated for over a hundred years. Sure. I think Rick Selser wrote an article in the Star Telegram, and it was over by Arlington Heights in 1917, right around World War one, which which tracks.
And I think that's when Yeah. I but I I'm pretty sure I read that. So I I think there was a Fort Bowie. Oh, there was definitely a Camp Bowie from which the Yeah. Boulevard takes its name and all of our English and so forth. But anyway, be that as it may, we have the resolution before us and, those of us who may be interested can follow-up on this afterwards. But we have the resolution. So any other discussion or do we have a motion? Second. Okay. We have a motion by commissioner Brisendine and a second by commissioner Muzi. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay.
Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Muzie? Yay. Commissioner Holden? Yay. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. And commissioner Malone? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you so much. Next case, please. Okay. The next item before you is a designation case. This is HCLCDash26Dash020. The city request a recommendation to city council to add the highly significant endangered overlay to the structure located at 411 North Main Street, AKA the TXU Power plant. On 01/13/2026, city council passed a resolution instructing the historic preservation officer to prepare an
application to add the highly significant endangered landmark overlay to the power plant building and its additions. The former Fort Worth Power and Light plant slash Texas Electric Service Company, or Tesco, North Main plant was initially constructed from 1911 through 1913 by the Cleveland Construction Company, being placed into service in late December nineteen twelve before the plant was completed. Sympathetic additions were constructed in 1913 and 1922, accommodated this expanding needs of the plant
and its customers. The large industrial building served as a primary source of electric power in Fort Worth, Texas for nearly forty years. The Beaux Arts style power plant is situated in a very prominent location. It lies on the North Side of the Trinity River at the confluence of the Clear And West Forks. The eastern boundary of the property is defined high North Main Street and the Paddock Viaduct, connecting Downtown Fort Worth and North Fort Worth. Although many of the external components of the plant were demolished circa 2005, including the smoke stacks, cooling towers, and related buildings, some foundations remain giving a visual sense of
their interdependence with the Power Plant Building. The plant was enlarged in 1913 and again in 1922. Each addition to the Power Plant Building carefully replicated the Beaux Arts style, detailing of the original structures. These details included abandoned concrete base replicating rustication, brick walls, large rounded arched window openings filled with the multiple light industrial still windows, a stone cornice, and stone coins used to recreate a piloster effect at the 3rd Level. The plant closed only once in its history in 1922 after the Trinity River flooded
the building. Afterwards, the flood wall on the south side of the property was constructed. The plant closed for good in 2004 and has remained vacant. The structure meets four of eight significance criteria. The subject property is distinctive in character, interest, and value, and it exemplifies the cultural, economic, social, establishment that served the city of Fort Worth power needs for over forty years and comprises an impressive site in the overall makeup of the area below the bluff. The structure is an important example of a particular architectural type or specimen or embodies
elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation in Fort Worth due to its iconic Beaux Arts architectural style and as a lasting example of an early twentieth century industrial complex, which followed the City Beautiful movement that encouraged orderly grandeur in the construction of cities beginning in the late 1890s. The property has been identified with Joseph Randall Nutt Rand Alsnutt, excuse me, of Cleveland, Ohio, who financed the power plant and consolidated electrical power across Fort Worth and significantly
contributed to the development of City Of Fort Worth. The subject property shares a significant relationship to other building structures and the setting at the confluence of the West and Clear Forks of the Trinity River, including the Paddock Viaduct to the East and the Tarrant County Courthouse. The structure maintains all seven aspects of integrity despite the absence of use and deferred maintenance. Staff conducted a site visit in October 2025 to review the condition of the property. The property is under threat of irretrievable loss and damage for several reasons. It has been vacant for almost two decades with minimal maintenance and financial investment, which
has led to some damage, like water intrusion, broken windows, and some cracking masonry. While the building appears structurally sound from a cursory exterior review, a thorough structural engagement assessment should be conducted. The increased development pressures of the North Side Of Fort Worth and potential redevelopment of the surrounding areas like Panther Island and downtown also places the plant at risk for demolition for redevelopment purposes. Therefore, staff recommends the following motion, that the HCLC recommend that city council consider designating the structure buildings and additions only at 411 North Main Street as highly significant and
endangered, and that the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties be used when evaluating any proposed future change to the property. This concludes the staff report. Alright. Thank you very much for that information. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case? Please come forward. See one hand, maybe more. Thank you very much, commissioner Herring. It's, wonderful to be back. I can tell you that Historic Fort Worth has has felt like a mother hen about this power plant.
It started when the smoke stacks were being demolished and we contacted an expert in the Northeast and were willing to hire them and fly them here to put them back. And that was not popular, so we moved on like we always happen to do in preservation. And then we started putting the the power plant on our endangered list. And I think it's the power plant that deserves the greatest credit for helping citizens
understand it's a positive when a charity like Historic Fort Worth puts a most endangered category on a building because people can now talk about it and think about it. It gives permission for that. In a way, a spin off of that is the great way our city has been working with the leaders of Tarrant County College. Designation can be unparalleled in its positive, connections to a building, but until you know
that, you don't know that. And so we are thrilled to see this highly endangered application before the city here in at Landmarks where it should be. Thank you all. Thank you very much, and thank you for the valiant efforts of Historic Fort Worth to bring this to the public's attention for many, many years. Anyone else in the chamber who would like to speak on this, please come forward And give us your name and address for the record, please. Thank you, chairman and commissioners.
I'm Pam Anglin. I'm the chief financial officer at Tarrant County College. I live here in Fort Worth at 856 Legacy Oak Drive, 76102. Last fall, TCC advertised the TXU Power Plant building and the eight point o seven acres on which it sits for sale through the RFP bid process. The college had the land appraised and as required by statute, sought that value as the minimum price.
Why did we put the building out for bids at that time? The college had struggled with people vandalizing it. We sent crews over on a weekly basis to clean up any recent graffiti visible to the public. Even though there was a fence, trespassers cut holes in the fence or pushed it down with vehicles. Last spring, a group broke into the site late at night, and subsequently, a young woman tragically lost her life.
She fell to her death. Meanwhile, multiple developers had approached the college with ideas of purchasing the building and developing the site. A number of those developers would have sought a historical landmark designation to seek federal and state grant funding and tax credits. With the prop property no longer fitting TCC's education mission, a growing need to maintain
site security, wanting to get the property back on the tax rolls, and having interested developers, the college chose to advertise it for sale. And we chose to allow the selected buyer to seek the historical designation if they desired. Throughout the process, TCC's top priority has been responsible stewardship of our resources. TCC has since added an additional six foot fence with razor wire on top and
hired a security firm to patrol the site at night. The college did not sell the property and has chosen to hold the building and the land until the water is rerouted and at a time when TCC can recoup its initial investment. I can answer a a few of the questions that were raised earlier in the work session. It has been environmentally remediated at an industrial level. There has been a structural assessment completed on the facility, and ready kilowatt from the
building resides protected in storage at TCC. Thank you very much. Thank you, miss Anglin. Hold on just a second just to see if we have any questions for you. But thank you for that information, and many thanks to Tarrant County College for their custodianship and stewardship of this property for the past couple of decades and for not allowing it to be demolished in in that time frame. Commissioners, any questions at this point? Yes.
I do have a question. I'm just curious as to the upkeep of the building. I did hear you state that, you know, you guys have washed the graffiti off, put a fence around it, and what have you. However, the building I in from my visual Mhmm. Building has not been kept up. You know? I don't know. I'm not familiar with the state it was in when you purchased it. However, based on the appearance of the building currently, it seems as though it was
just left to decay. Would that be accurate? Or I would say that, if you you see the building concrete bricks, it hasn't changed a lot. Yes. The windows have been broken, But because of the vandalism that is regular there, it would be hard not to to keep that from from happening. Structurally, the building is is sound.
It was a power plant. There was coal there, other natural resources in the building. It our resources are used to educate students. And when that is outside of our core mission, This is We're putting our resources into our our core mission. Well, I'm a part of your core mission. I am an alumni. So I get it. I just want to have a divine understanding about, you know, what we have before
us. Yeah. I I love the building. And I've I've been in it several times, and it it is it is quite a fascinating, interesting building. Thank you so much. I have a question. How much do you think, to your best knowledge, have you guys spent on security and and repairs and upkeep on it since you've acquired it? My estimate, back when we looked at putting it on the market and or advertising it for bids was about 200,000 a year. So in twenty years, that's about $4,000,000.
I'm just speculating. I think it's been about twenty years, something like that, maybe more. Yeah. And that was more recent years. So the earlier years, if it probably wasn't. Probably not. Over time. Yeah. Alright. Thank you very much, for your comments. We appreciate you being here. Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber who would like to speak on this particular case? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And, commissioners, do we have additional questions for staff or comments?
I think we have some questions. I would just like to personally thank TCC, for allowing and engaging in the process of designating the TXU power plant, with the HSE overlay. To me this is an important step towards protecting a true Fort Worth landmark. So thank you. Absolutely. Thank you for that statement. Commissioners, other comments or questions for staff? Staff, do you have additional comments? I do not. Okay. Well, with that, we will open it to, for a motion.
I'll second the motion. Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Brisendine and a second by commissioner vice chair Kelly Gardner. Chair Herring, how do you vote? K. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Musick? Yay. Commissioner Holden? Yay. Commissioner Brindeine? Yay. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. And commissioner Malone? K. Thank you so much. Motion pass motion passes seven zero. Thank you. And we'll hear the next case now, please. Your next case is, HCLC 26013 for 141 East Exchange Avenue.
The applicant requests a waiver from the Stockyards Historic and Form Based Code District design guidelines and standards, and a certificate of appropriateness to install an attached wall sign on a non contributing structure, which, the sign exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of 36 square feet by 69.9 square feet for a total of 105.9 square feet and exceeds the maximum allowed height placement of 24 feet by 13.25 feet for a height of 37.25
feet in the Stockyards Historic And Form Base Code District. Bear with me as I read this staff report. So under our findings and recommendations, the subject sign is proposed on an existing 40 foot tall water tower located north of East Exchange Avenue where the railroad intersects East Exchange. There is a parking lot just west of the water tower, and the Cowtown cattle pen maze is to the east. The water tower was installed circa 1995, which is not a historic structure. There is currently signage on the water tower that includes a sign with stockyard station
lettering. It's unclear as to the type of sign this is, and an electronic changeable copy sign that was installed circa 2007, which will be removed. The applicant is seeking waivers to install a new wall sign on the water tower that exceeds the maximum allowed square footage and the maximum height allowed for wall signs. The Stockyards Historic District and Farm Base Code states that wall signs are allocated a combined sign area of 36 square feet or 1.5 square feet per linear foot of building facade, whichever is greater, if they face a
street with a designated frontage included here in the figure three. For the Division 1.4 district and frontage map, it is a pedestrian frontage. Therefore, properties along the street are allocated a combined sign area of 36 square feet or the 1.5 square foot per sorry, square feet per linear foot of building facade. The tower has a cylindrical shape, thus the horizontal measurement, the diameter, was used to calculate the allowable sign area in accordance with the city zoning ordinance. The water tower, which is 15, feet six inch wide yields 23.25
square feet. This is less than the 36 square feet, so the larger value is applied as the maximum sign area. The proposed sign exceeds the allowable sign area by 69.9 square feet, measuring 135 inches tall and 113 inches wide, for a total of 105.9 square feet. The Stockyards Historic District and farm based code also states that a wall sign must be placed no higher than 24 feet above the sidewalk, measured from the top of
the sidewalk to the highest point on of the sign. The height of the proposed sign is 37.25 feet measured from the top of the sidewalk to the highest point, exceeding the maximum allowed by 13.25 feet. The sign consists of faux neon exposed LED lighting mounted on framed antique patina metal backer panels displaying the Bush Lite logo and a cowboy touching his hat. The illumination is created using red and blue faux neon LED flex material operating at
24 volts volts powered by remotely mounted 24 volt power supplies housed behind the wall in UL listed enclosures with disconnect switches and lock off plates. The Becker panels are fabricated from point one two five inch aluminum, seamed horizontally, and finished with an antique patina. These panels are supported by a welded two inch by two inch square tube frame, painted brown or finished with a matching patina. The sign will be installed using through bolted aluminum angle clips.
Bushlight is proposing to lease the water tower for signage. They are also using a small vendor station for beverage sales, which is approximately 33 feet from the water tower to the east along East Exchange. The small vendor station already has signage associated with Bushlight with painted signage along the front of the facade, both top and bottom, an a an a frame sign on the sidewalk, an illuminated cabinet sign on the front facade of the structure, and signs inside of the structure. Exhibit c and then also pictured here in figure seven.
The primary purpose of the wall sign on the water tower is to provide branding for bush light. While branding and location identification are important for easy pedestrian access throughout stockyards, there is already a way finding signage program within the district that visitors can utilize to find the vendor station. Although the proposal before the h c l t HCLC today is just for the water tower signage, it is imperative that all bush light signage be taken into consideration as a package to assess the implications along this important corridor. Here's the corridor information.
So under size and scale, both the stockyards form base code and design guidelines and the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties for new additions require that new work shall be compatible with the massing size and scale of existing historic structures. The size and scale of the proposed sign and all other signage associated creates a significant amount of visual clutter within a very small space, which is inconsistent with the installation of traditional signage along East Exchange Avenue. Additionally, the stockyards form base code and design guidelines for non contributing buildings and new
construction require that new construction and alterations contribute to a consistent sense of character and respect the historic context of the district. The proposed sign is inconsistent with the standards as its scale, overall height, and appearance would result in a billboard like sign that that is incompatible with the historic character of the stockyards. For this reason, the height of the proposed sign is not supportable. Under Design and Installation, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Standard nine, calls on new additions to be differentiated from the old and to
be designed and installed in such a way as to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed sign is clearly differentiated from the surrounding historic context in color, materials, materials, and texture. However, the proposed additional signage is not compatible with the massing, the size, scale, and architectural features of the Stockyard Station Corridor and would create an adverse visual impact on the historic integrity of the environment. Additionally, the request is incompatible with the traditional nature of signage within Stockyard Station, which was typically limited to smaller signage and one sign per suite slash business location.
In this regard, the request to install a wall sign on the water tower is inconsistent with with standard nine. Under the stockyards form base code and design guidelines analysis, it's important to consider the design the sign design and placement as well as its relationship to the surrounding historic context. The maximum height for wall signs within the Stockyards historic core is 24 feet tall. As such, any new signage should be consistent with the maximum height limit to be compatible with and subordinate to nearby contributing structures and the setting of the historic core.
The proposed wall sign does not meet section two point four point four of the Stockyards Farm Base Code because it does not complement the character of the streetscape in the historic context. In fact, it creates a very intrusive effect of the overall character of East Exchange Avenue and the historic core district. Many noteworthy views exist throughout the Stockyards area that enrich the experience of visitors, residents, and employees. They offer opportunities to be used for more formally organized interpretation programs, which could include historical markers and other station points to be used in walking tours and other heritage
tourism events and activities. Some of the key viewpoints are indicated on the view opportunities map. Figure seven. I'll go back to that. East Exchange Avenue, is one of the view corridors that offers key opportunities to view the sheep and hog sheds at Stockyard Station. The water tower should not be used for business branding. Instead, similar to the existing Stockyard Station sign, it could serve as an introduction to the Stockyard Station for pedestrians walking along the corridor pictured here in figure two. Secretary of the interior standards analysis.
So under the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, specifically historic character for of a property must be retained and preserved. New additions must not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property and must be compatible with yet differentiated from the historic resource so as to protect its historic integrity. While the sign does not destroy historic material, the scale is inconsistent with the tower and surrounding context. Standard under standards for site and setting of the secretary of interior standards for the
treatment of historic properties, it states that introducing new construction on the building site, which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design materials, and color and texture, which destroyed historic relationships on the site, or which damage or destroy important landscape features is not recommended. As stated prior, using the water tower for billboard style brand signage is not appropriate and would would damage the historic relationships on the site between the cattle pen, riding the trail station, and the historic corridor.
Under preservation brief number 25, for new signs and historic buildings, it emphasizes the importance of signs on historic properties and historic districts. They often reflect the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood and its character, as well as the social and business activities carried out there. In this case, the proposed wall sign does not meet several key principles referenced in referenced in the report above. Additionally, new signage should work with historic buildings and not sorry, and their surroundings rather than compete with them. The proposed wall sign prioritizes contemporary business branding, and due to its scale, graphic treatment,
and placement, draws attention away from the the district's historic form and materials. The sign is oversized and out of scale with the facade and does not relate to the architectural rhythm or character defining features of the historic district. Additionally, its modern style and materials are incompatible with the surrounding historic environment and detract from the district's cohesive character. Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following motion, that the request for waivers from the Stockyards Form Base Code and design guidelines and a certificate of appropriateness to
install a sign on a non contributing structure that exceeds the maximum allowed square footage and height placement in the Stockyards Historic And Farm Base Code District be denied with prejudice. Just some of the rest of the pictures here. Site photos taken, the renderings, and a site map provided with sign details, the rendering side by side, and additional photos of the site. This concludes the staff report. Okay. Thank you, Anna, very much for, the report and the, visuals.
They they help with that, and we owe you a bush light after this. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak to this case? Please come forward, sir, and give us your name and address for the record and we'll be happy to hear from you. Hello. I'm Michael Gary with Giant Sign. 11226 Abels Lane, Dallas, Texas 75229. Okay. If you'll share any information you would like to, we'd like to I'm representing the sign company that was hired by, you know, as a sub for another sign company
elsewhere who represents OutFront Media, who is the original client, I guess, with Busch Light, beer who was trying to put this together. During the work session below, I heard, the commission speaking about, whether or not the Stockyards Heritage, Development Co company or corporation has provided any of their feedback or if they're supporting this. And, I don't know if anybody is here with that group, but I was told
that both Dina Newell, who's the VP of marketing operations and tourism, and Paul Payne, the president, were behind this effort to, to get this done. So I just wanted to throw that in there because I didn't know if anybody was able to speak on their behalf. And then, the other thing I was gonna talk about was, we're willing to work in terms of color and, you know, materials. That's obviously all we can work with that in terms of trying to make that a little more, in line. But, you know, understand that, you know, there are standards here, then I thank the
staff and the commission for their time on this issue. Alright. Thank you. We may have some questions for you, and I do have one. The, you're representing the sign company. That's right. And I understand there's probably a lot of levels between you and the actual, developer and so forth. However, regarding the existing LED sign, do you have any information on that? Do you have a contract for its operation or anything? No. We don't have any historic, relationships with that. I do know it's currently in a nonworking, situation.
It hasn't worked, I I believe for a little while, at least when as long as we've been looking at it for the last several months. Okay. Thank you. And, just a comment before other commissioners may have questions. You know, we're tasked with looking at the overall historic district The aura, if you want to use that terminology of the entire stockyards and how signage and so forth comes into play.
So thank you for your information. Commissioners, other questions? Existing, existing sign that's up there, aluminum the electronics. I don't have that information. It's it's pretty wide. I think it's definitely wider than what's being proposed. Height wise, it's not as tall, but definitely on the width, it's wider. Okay. And then what's being proposed? I saw there's a cross section view in what was submitted. This sign is all on one plane or curved around It it was proposed as one rectangular plane, and, there there'd have to be a welded, you know, unseen frame
on the backside. It'll allow us to through bolt, and we would put some extra structural stuff on the back. We'd have that all engineered for you guys. Okay. And then to kinda go along with that question, so the sign that's being proposed is a 113 inches wide. Correct. The current dimension of the water tower itself is basically a 180 inches. 186. 15 foot diameter. Yes, sir. So I I think, you know, just out of, you know, trying to clarify, I
wanted to make sure there was some understanding of perspective. You know, you're you're placing a flat plane on a cylinder. Right. Even if that surface of the of the cylinder were flat and parallel to the back of the sign, there would still only be 33 inches on either side. But we have a curved cylinder, and so from a line of sight perspective, I guess I mean, would you agree that from a line of sight perspective, if you place a flat sign on a cylinder, that dimension of what's perceived as 33 inches
is actually gonna be fade away even more as that cylinder falls away when you're looking from a a point of perspective of anywhere that anybody could be on the ground looking up at this. You know, that 33 inches is actually gonna appear even less. I just wanna, you know, validate is that my assumption of of a, you know, of that point. Yes. I believe that the the the proposed sign is orientated or proposed to be orientated south, you know, facing south.
So that's primarily perpendicular to the pedestrian walkway. And, you know, the sides are really kind of only gonna be visible from, where the cattle yards are or the parking lot, you know, from angles that people don't really walk through. Right. Well, right. But there would be some structure. My concern is that from a a standpoint of the point of view, I mean, we're talking about inches and we're talking about dimensions on, you know, essentially approving a sign, based on size that's already excessive, based on their standards currently.
But it's gonna appear even more so based on your statement that if you're standing on the pedestrian walkway on exchange either immediately adjacent on that side of the street or across the street, your line of sight perspective from that close of a distance, the the water tower itself is gonna almost disappear. It's gonna appear to float as a sign. Now, you know, if this were pointed one way or another down exchange, you would have a much further line of sight, and you might actually see those sides of the cylinder of the water tower.
But, I mean, I you know, the the problem that I see is that it it, I mean, essentially, it feels to me like it's gonna hide the water tower. I I understand your point, sir. And I believe that the size that was, you know, that we're proposing was obviously passed down as as as somebody's idea Yeah. As to how far we can go. Appreciate it. They would obviously take into consideration or would love to do anything larger than 36 square feet if it was shrunk down a bit. If the commission thought that maybe that another size was, better than 36, but still
Okay. Larger than allowed. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Alright. Commissioners, other questions for the applicant or representative? Alright. Thank you very much, sir. No samples? Never mind. Okay. Are there others in the chamber who yes. Please come forward, miss Hunter, and give us your name, for the record. My name is Melissa Wade Hunter. My mailing address is PO Box 470243 Fort Worth 76147. I'm here to speak in objection to the waiver request in this case in, twenty
six thousand and thirteen. As a thirty plus, year volunteer down in the stockyards with North Fort Worth Historical Society, This sign does not meet many requirements of the form based code. As we sat through, and it took quite a while to get the form based code into place. The proposal does not protect historic integrity of the district. It does not meet many requirements of the four, base code that I mentioned, and also competes with historic buildings and the surroundings.
This corridor is heavy with bush like signage in branding. I had a hand in it exhibit one. Do we have someone on staff who can show that? Okay. When I handed my speaker's form in. Thank you. Sorry. No. You're good. We wanna see it. Thank you for the elimination of the possibility of you being taken back. Okay. Thank you. Well, technology is great when it works. It does. We'll be patient. I was saying that, this corridor, this main corridor on Exchange Boulevard East Exchange Avenue,
excuse me, is heavy with bush lights, signage, and branding. This is it. I put this in as exhibit one. These are banners hanging off of light poles, just one block west, the bottom two signs, and the top two photos are signs that are adjacent to the street that are in front of buildings. So it's it's just all over for bush light.
So all over the area. So I ask that this request be denied with prejudice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for that information. For those visuals, it was worth the wait. Commissioners or excuse me. Is there anyone else in the audience? Please come forward, miss Tracy. Jerry Tracy of Storick Fort Worth. I want to thank the city staff for their detailed report, which was most instructive. Like miss Hunter, I was there when the form based codes were being discussed, and
design guidelines for our stockyards were being discussed. Our organization raised the funds, I think it was 10,000, to hire a consultant to do an intensive survey of the stockyards before form based codes and the historic design guidelines. So out of respect for the city staff who works hard for the North Fort Worth Historic Society and also for you, I hope you will agree that this application should be denied with prejudice.
Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else in the chamber who would like to speak on this case? Alright. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And commissioners, we're open for questions and or discussion before a motion. Well, I just, in in my granny voice say that I knew good and well that Historic Fort Worth did not agree, to this signage based on the facts. So I I'm in total agreeance with the fact that it as, commissioner Brendan Dodd
stated, that it covers up the water tower. The water tower is the historic landmark. You know? The water tower should be preserved, and Bush already has millions of signs And banners. And banners. Thank you. There. So there you have it. Well, one thing that I would like to mention, we are tasked with following the ordinance and the guidelines that are already in place. The applicant has requested a waiver to those guidelines.
That's what we're talking about. We all appreciate our sponsors and all the many events and organizations that we're involved in, but there does seem to be a quite a bit amount of signage which doesn't necessarily have an overall bearing on the case. But I did like one of the comments that, miss Zunner made that, signage of this size that exceeds the approved allotment, approved sign of, that they can have competes
with the historic authenticity of the stockyards. And I like that statement, and that's kinda one thing that we're all sensitive about. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but, thank you for that, and that's a good way to to phrase it. So for myself, I would be voting to uphold the staff recommendation. Other comments from commissioners? I just wanna make a comment because, I mean, I, as well, am gonna go with the staff's recommendation on this one. I'm not going to, approve this waiver.
It it again, I mean, I don't need to rehash what what Rick just said, but, you know, in that same vein, I mean, to me, it just isn't applicable. I would also, like to thank those who came to speak, regarding this and also city staff for putting together this comprehensive report, on this application. It's important for us to hear so that we have full context of what we are making a decision on. So but I I will be voting against, this waiver, and, that's all I gotta
say. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no other comments at this time, we're open for a motion. I'll make a motion for case h c l c 26013 to deny with prejudice. Second. Okay. We have a motion to deny with prejudice by commissioner Ketchum and a second by commissioner Musi. Thank you, chair Herring. How do you vote? Yay. Vice chair, Kelly Gardner. How do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Musi, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Ketchum, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Malone, how do you vote?
Yeah. Commissioner Brissendine, how do you vote? Commissioner Holden, how do you vote? Yay. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. And, next case, please. Mister Jay, come on up. Alright. Now we got the new constructions, New cases. Your next your next next case is HLC26004, and the address is 909 East Mollikey Street. And the applicant requested a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence.
Property is the only vacant lot located on the North Side of the block between Mokey Street and New Year Avenue. And in overall, the proposed one story resident is appropriate for the historic Morning Side District as its placement, masking, orientation, and proportions align with existing context. To ensure compatibility with the traditional character of the block in compliance with the guidelines and standards, the following revisions are required. A front porch with a minimum depth of six feet, a two step elevation on
the front porch, and also eight by eight inches columns, modifications on the front door to a solid of minimal tradition style, inclusion of additional single pair windows on the front facing portions of both left and right elevations, and submission of a dimensional contextual side line. In addition, the applicant shall provide complete information regarding the driveway materials and total paving area. Having regard to the foregoing staff recommend the following motion, The request for a certificate
of appropriateness to construct a new residence of 909 East Mulkey Street be approved subject to the following conditions. Number one, that the front porch have a minimum depth of six feet including a two step elevation and utilize eight by eight inches columns with a design that reflects the traditional and architectural character of the block face. Second, that the proposed front door be modified to a solid minimal traditional style door compatible with the historic context. The additional single or pair one one zero one windows be provided on the front
facing portions of both the left and right elevations, and the all pair windows include a four inch million. The design and reveal be specific as six inches. That dimension and contextual site plan be submitted demonstrating compliance with existing block face, sack box, and the complete information regarding the driveway materials, internal paving area be provided to be consistent with the guidance and standards. And last lastly, that any adjustment made by the drawings be submitted to development services
department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to conclude staff report. And we also I wanna point it out that we received an email this morning from the applicant saying that he he would like to comply with the conditions for the approval. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for that information. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And commissioners, we're open for discussion or a motion. I'll make a motion to approve, HCLC twenty six zero zero four with, subject to
staff conditions. Okay. We have a motion to approve with staff conditions by commissioner Ketchum with a second by commissioner Brissendine. Okay. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly. How do you vote? I got you in the garden. Yay. Oh, thank you. Sorry. Commissioner Musi, are you? Commissioner Malone, are you both? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Halden, are you both? Yay. And commissioner Graham present time. Motion passes seven zero. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Next case, please.
Alright. Your last case, 1227 Verbena Street, HCLC 26 Dash 007. The applicant request a certificate of appropriateness to to construct a new multifamily residence. On 12/08/2025, the HCLC denied without prejudice, the previous design. While the design has improved, the current design consisting of three dwelling units and the elongated massing, unconventional form, architectural style facade, and features are inconsistent with the context of the historic district. The overall form is complex with several roof lines, and the massing and scale are
larger than the properties along the block that results in a negative and overwhelming impact on the streetscape. And with regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following, that the request for a COA to construct a new residence at 1227 Verbena be denied without prejudice so that the applicant can continue to address the following issues with the proposed design. That the building's design, especially the roof form and massing be modified to be compatible with traditional architectural style along the streetscape, The rear driveway be modified to comply with the transportation code and that the specifications and details of exterior materials be be provided.
Since this was posted, the applicant did, clarify that they were fine with doing tandem parking in the back. So a driveway from the side street and then having kinda stacked parking there. They did provide the exterior materials provided, and I believe they're also here to speak. And we did receive one letter of opposition to this plan that's in your packet. That, concludes the staff report. Okay. Question real quick. On the letter of opposition, was it from a neighbor, an individual?
I believe yes. It looks like a neighbor. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case? If so, please come forward and, just give us your name and address for the record and share any information you would like to. Yes. My name is Miguel Vargas, and, me and my brother, as we were here last time, we made all the changes that you guys asked. I know they're still saying it's out of portion, which, that's why we have those three pictures there where you guys can see the existing buildings.
One is right behind it. The other one is around the corner, I believe. So Those buildings are only a single story home. Ours is supposed to be a duplex where it will provide three units. And the height of those, existing buildings are 28 feet, I think, somewhere around. Ours is 30, so it's off by two. Obviously, it's it's a little bigger. Why? Because we tried to fit in three houses. These are their houses.
They're they're not new. I need homes. They're around thirteen, fourteen hundred square feet homes, which will be three bedrooms and their kitchen and bedrooms. So, I don't see who or how they're saying it's over oversized. And if they can provide me which what will be the perfect size for you guys to be. Because last time, it was the same. I spent money on doing the plans. I spent money on the architect.
Last time, it was a completely different completely different picture. We changed the roof lines that you ask, and we changed the windows. I like I I previously said, I I I did our house already. Probably, like, four lots that we that I've been no. Three lots that I've been buying. Me and my brother is we're not trying to buy and sell. We're trying to make this neighborhood a little better. I kept my other house, and I'm just trying to just to provide more living
for hospital. Just to the hospital, as you see, is one street over Rosedale, which is has multifamily, has businesses. It's not in the middle of the neighborhood, and it's allowed for us to build a duplex there. And I'm willing to work with you guys. I made most of the changes that you asked me to do. We have been in communication with, them, and as you see the building in the back, you guys have a lot of pictures, a lot of renderings, so you guys
can see clearly what I'm talking about. We try to make this as clear as we can, and that's what what else to say. Well, no. Thank you, mister Vargas, very much for being here, at least for the second time and and sharing that information with us. I I got a couple of questions for you. Okay. Is this the building what you're proposing to build, is it gonna be two units or three? Three. Okay. So it'll be three units. You're okay with the parking recommendations that staff has come up with.
Is that what I just heard a moment ago? Yes. They have proposed to us doing the back of the alley to pave the alley. So we would have to do that. Is does it cost you we're willing to do it. And the okay. The issue that we're the staff is having, I think, that we're having getting our minds around is what you're proposing to build kinda towers over everything else on that street. Now is the building behind you, you said it was the are you talking when you said the building near you The house behind you. The one behind you is 28 feet high?
Yeah. Those are You're proposing 30 feet. Okay. Which does have obviously some bearing on probably all of our decision making. We can see the the pictures. Yeah. There. Is that one on Pulaski, the one behind you? And it's okay if you don't know offhand, but there is a a big building that's behind you. Yes. It is. I'm not sure if it's that one, but Yeah. It's it's fine. It's okay. Alright. But on on Verbena, on your street, they're all one story structures as far as
you're aware. My neighbor right next door is is one one story structure. Okay. One story structure. The other is the street. It's a corner lot. In the front, there's two empty lots, which they're ends into Rosedale. And on the other corner, on the opposite corner, it's an empty lot. Okay. So And we do have pictures of the streetscape, so that's fine. Don't worry about it. I was just asking. Okay. That's all that I had. Commissioners, other questions for mister Vargas at this time? Okay. Not seeing any. Thank you very much for being here.
We may call you back up, but thanks at this time. Appreciate it. Staff comments or you're just waiting to hear from us? It's up to you. You're you're ball. I'd like to speak. Alright. Commissioners, questions, comments, discussion? You wanna see if anyone else would like to speak? Yes. Is there a yes. Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber to speak on this case? I didn't think so, but we need to ask for sure. Alright. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and then, discussion, commissioner. So I I have a question because, I think this is one thing that a
lot of people are oftentimes confused by with code is when we're talking about massing and, size of properties. Does city staff have any record of when, like, for example, the structure behind the subject property was actually done in relationship to when the historic overlay was put in place. I believe that both of those that are, up on your screen right now, I believe they're both considered contributing properties, I'm pretty sure. So they've been in place.
Obviously, the one, on 1300 Pulaski, that does that's that's an addition on the back. It is kind of a queen Anne. It has a little bit of a taller roof, but that's the addition. But I believe that the one at 1212 East Pulaski, I believe that's a contributing two story structure. Okay. So I'd I'd one thing, and, I mean, for the applicant to also, you know, understand about the way the the code it it it's just like with with building code on, you know, electrical systems. You know, just because the house next door was done at code, you know, the
the code from a few years ago doesn't mean that the current structure can be built to that code when you're building something new even though everything around you is that way. In this situation, just so you understand what we're looking at and what we have to consider, we're looking at the historic overlay as it's implemented today. And that that, I understand, is a certainly for those who are not, like, sitting here, you know, all the time hearing it, it is not a common thing to have to deal with. But that's what we're looking at, and I think that, you know, city staff could
maybe elaborate more talking about massing and size and how that pertains to the historic overlay, in terms of what we are then required to look at when we make a decision one way or another. Yeah. Thank you. Other comments from commissioners? I mean, I just don't think it fits in with the architecture of the neighborhood, and it sounds like that's what the staff's saying. Mhmm. And I think with the size of it, I think the issue you're gonna run across is you want it three three I guess, some really duplex or triplex. Right? And I think that's great.
We need more housing. However, I think you're gonna have a hard time getting three residents in a house that will fit the size of that neighborhood in the architectural style because you have to do all these, like, on this example here, these weird niches and windows to make egress. I think you're gonna I'm not an architect, but I think you're gonna struggle to do that with the size of the lot and in the neighborhood to fit the size. I just don't think it fits the neighborhood architecture, and I think that's the biggest issue. Okay. Are we ready for a motion?
Alright. Last year. Ellie Gardner says yes. I make a motion to deny without prejudice HCLC26Dash007 with the property located at 1227 Verbena Street. Second. Alright. We have a motion and a second to deny without prejudice by vice chair Kelly Gardner and a second by commissioner Musing. Yes, please. You know, the applicant I know this is not an enjoyable process.
I've been in your seat. I would encourage while we make comments up here, we do not or are not the city staff who are making these recommendations. I don't know what correspondence you have had with, the city staff between the last meeting and this meeting. The and, again, speaking from experience, being in in your seat, the best thing that can be done, between now and the next meeting, which is probably the way this
is gonna go, please, don't necessarily take our comments as what you need to do. Please engage with city staff to make sure that they are happy because they are the ones that are gonna read the report, next time, and they're gonna tell us whether or not something should be approved or whether it should be approved with certain conditions. Ultimately, I would prefer that this be approved. You know, I'd prefer that you build and add, you know, more residential living, in this area. I think probably all of us feel that same way.
We just have to look at what we're responsible for as the HCLC. You know, and I just wanna state that please do that. I'm I'm not gonna vote to approve it just because I kinda have some of the same feelings. But please work with cities make sure we work with city staff. Thank you. Okay. Other comments? And as commissioner Brisenbaum has, pointed out, the correct procedure is after you have a motion, a second to also have a the opportunity for additional comments.
So, excuse me for not asking for those, but I don't think any of you are shy about speaking up, so please do. Any other comments? If someone in the audience would like to make a comment on the link there in that back. Okay. Pardon? Someone in the audience would like to make a comment. Thank you. I did not see that. Alright. Yes. We'll put the motion on hold, and we'll open it up for additional public comments. So please come forward, ma'am, and give us your, name for the record. Hi. My name is Geraldine Velasquez. And so, by the way, I'm seeing things.
What is really, like, the problem that why this wouldn't go through? Is there, like, a change that if it would have been a duplex, would that make a difference? No. I don't think it's the fact that it's with the height three units. But so many changes based on the architecture of this of your plans in contrast to the architecture of the houses that are in the neighborhood. So as you can see, it's totally not the same. It's not, you know what I mean, uniform to what's already there.
So I'm sure if you, work with staff as that's been previously stated to modify those because they are willing to work with you. They did put the motion to deny without prejudice, which means that you can go back to your, blueprints and make the modifications that they are requiring and then come back. Okay. We, city staff, made comment towards. It's something that's considered, is not just applicable to this historic overlay. This is applicable if you're in Mistletoe Heights.
There are a lot of a lot of lots that appear to be single family that are actually b two family zoning in Mistletoe Heights. Most of the homes that are on those lots are single family homes that are one story, 1,500 square feet. You know, the way that the city historic of you know? And, I mean, it it's I get it. The way that the overlay is written, you know, we have to consider the massing and scale, as compared to the majority of the other properties that are there with it. It's just like in Mistletoe Heights. You're pretty much even though residential building would allow you to build a 35 foot
tall structure So is it pretty much, like, the height that the elements? The the massing and scale, I would say, as well as, you know, there's comments to some of the design as well. And I think that's where, you know, there is some back and forth. I mean, I I for clarity, I built a house in a historic neighborhood. I went back and forth with not this current city staff, but with other city staff to get a COA just like this process. It it's it's back and forth. And, I mean, ultimately, so what we need is the city staff's blessing, so that
you know? And so that's why I would say our comments are what they are. Ultimately, the city staff comments are what carry more weight, in this situation in terms of the city. This case, but, you know, by the way I'm looking at it, I'm like, okay. So if let's just say if it would have been a duplex, and it could have been instead of, you know, saying that it was, like, a three, a pop Three unit. Yeah. A three unit property if it would have stated as a two unit but with more bedrooms.
Well, I I think that the the problem is the volume. Yeah. I made the comment about the duplex. I know what I meant by that. I don't I think you're gonna have a hard time fitting enough room for three people if scale's too big. Now if you can do it, great. But I think me me thinking, it's not gonna match what the city wants unless you can get smaller. And if you make it smaller, I don't think you can fit three units in there. May you do I understand. I think at the scale, like, he's talking about. As as an example in Mistletoe Heights, one of the things that's commonly done is people try to add a second floor, to a existing single family home that's, say,
1,600 square feet, in nearly all instances in the neighborhood. When somebody comes to try to approve get an approval of a 2nd Floor addition, that 2nd Floor addition is typically because most of the homes are craftsmen. That 2nd Floor addition is typically the front face of the addition is not at the front building line of the 1st Floor. It's typically stepped back because it creates a different massing appearance and feel. It's, you know, it's like taking a single family home versus a downtown high rise. You know, you have a different massing scale. I understand this is certainly a much more, condensed version of that, but, that's why
I would just say that I I agree with the comment that the volume is probably gonna be where there's difficulty. You know, but I would say that, you know, again, I think my, you know, kinda nexus of all of this is city staff ultimately, I mean, has some good input and some good comments and some, you know, great ideas on ways to potentially, you know, probably, you know, make this work as best as possible. I would encourage, you know, talking to them so that you can, you know, have them in their report say that they recommend approval, for x, y, and z, whatever
reasons. So our comments are our comments, but our comments are not the city's professional comments that's coming from their side. So I understand. Okay. Well, I'll let Thank you, miss Vlachs quiz. But I think you understand where we're coming from. It's just it's too big. Oh, I understand. The overall perspective whether it's a duplex, triplex, fourplex, whatever. Okay. Thank you very much. We're gonna close the public portion. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Thank you, commissioner. We have a motion to deny without prejudice.
Thank you. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Muzie? Yay. Commissioner Holden? Yay. Commissioner Brindendine? Yay. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. And commissioner Malone? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes to deny without prejudice. Thank you, staff and commissioners. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.