Stuff inside there. Do you have a molly pin? And sit down. Is it two? Yes. It's 2. Alright. I think we have quorum. So if we can go ahead and call the May 11 meeting of the City of Fort Worth Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission to order, we'll proceed. Thank you. Just a friendly reminder, commissioners, please keep your microphones on. Let's not turn them off. We wanna be able to hear your big booming beautiful voices on our recording.
Okay? Alrighty. Welcome to the 05/11/2026, Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission. Our commission requires a quorum of six 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 Walter Peebles, Commissioner Estrus Tucker, Commissioner Roger Sheffalo, Commissioner Cory Malone, Commissioner Brian Ketchum, Commissioner Tim Holden, and Commissioner Graham
Brezendine. Staff present today are Lorelai Willett, Brandon Utterback, Andres Hernandez, Trey Qualls, Haiwon Kim, and myself, Laura Young. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov. Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting. Today's public hearing is being by video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the HCLC requests that the following rules of
procedure be respected. Each case will be called in sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. All answering 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 procedure 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 exec 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. Alright. Thank you for that information. And, we've already called the meeting to order, so do we have announcements? We do have a few. Happy National Preservation Month to one and all. You're a very important board. Thank you for being here. It is also Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. The city is hosting a event on May 21. I'm also very excited to announce that we have received our final survey report for 10, resurveying surveying 10 of our local historic districts.
You can see the list right there. And, we hope to have those up on our website soon for everyone's enjoyment and perusal. The city has also signed a support letter, for the Wedgwood Neighborhood Associate Neighborhood Association, and they received a grant to do a historic resources survey for their property. Historic Fort Worth Inc also released their most endangered places list that you can find at their website. And we also kicked off our preservation plan update meeting, with our consultant, Terracon.
And I hope to bring that, more information on public meetings and, surveys and all sorts of fun stuff for you, in the coming months. Alright. Thank you very much for those announcements. Commissioners, any announcements? Anyone? Alright. Thank you. Well if not, we'll move on to the approval of the April 13 meeting minutes. We're open for a motion and a second. I make a motion to approve the April 13. Second. Alright. We have a motion and a second. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? Yay.
Commissioner Malone? No vote. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Sheppalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you for that. And let's move on to our first case, please. Alright. The first item before you is a resolution to support the application for and placement of a Texas historical marker for Marine Park at the city owned park located at 303 Northwest 20th Street. And I will read the resolution.
Resolution number 2026DashO4, supporting the placement of the Marine Park State historical marker at the city owned property at 303 Northwest 20 20th Street. Whereas the property at 303 Northwest 20th Street is a city owned property with the following legal description, Baujohn survey, abstract 115, Tract 9 A, Marine Park. And whereas Marine Park emerged from the early development of the community historically known as Marine, North Of The Trinity River with roots dating to the eighteen nineties and the later incorporation of North Fort Worth in nineteen o two and subsequent annexation by the
city of Fort Worth in nineteen o nine and is identified as one of the first municipal parks in Tarrant County established in 1892, later developed through successive improvements, including the creation of a lake in 1910, a tennis court by 1915, the addition of a swimming pool and bathhouse in 1926, and nineteen thirties improvements including a shelter, rose garden, and sidewalks designed by Hair and Hair, as well as later additions such as a little league baseball diamond authorized in 1955. And whereas Marine Park has served as a long standing community gathering place, including its
role as a site for North Side community events such as Cinco de Mayo celebrations and documented performances by Selena Quintanilla Perez in 1981 and 1993, 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 for Marine Park at the city owned park located at 303 Northwest 20th Street, Fort Worth, Texas. Alright. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the chamber who'd like to speak on this proposed resolution?
Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And commissioners, any discussion or opening for a motion? If not, we're open for a motion and a second. I'd like to make a motion that we approve, resolution twenty twenty six dash o four. I second the motion. Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Holden and a second by commissioner Kelly Gardner. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice Chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine?
Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And Commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Thank you very much. Next case please. This is another resolution supporting the application for and placement of a Texas historical marker for the Park Hill neighborhood at the city owned right of way located at approximately latitude thirty two point seven one eight six two zero, longitude negative ninety seven point three five six six seven three. I'll read the resolution. Resolution number 2026DashO5, Supporting the placement of the neighborhood of Park Hill State Historical Marker
in the city owned property at approximately thirty two point seven one eight six two zero, negative ninety seven point three five six six seven three, Fort Worth, Texas. Whereas the triangular park located at the intersection of Lofton Terrace, Medford Court East, and Westcott Road is a city owned property that is maintained by the neighborhood association. And whereas the Park Hill subdivision was platted in 1925 by the Fairmount Land Company and designed by the prestigious hair and hair landscape architects of Kansas City. And whereas the neighborhood's boundary starts with Park Hill Drive on the southern border and then travels north and curves east on Winton Terrace West to Winton Terrace East and
then winds down south down back to Park Hill Drive and contains over a 140 residences. And whereas William Bryce, William Cranton Guthrie, and Joseph Pelick were all prominent figures who contributed to the built environment of the neighborhood. 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 for the neighborhood of Park Hill located at approximately thirty two point seven one eight six two zero, negative ninety seven point three five six six seven three, Fort Worth, Texas.
Alright. Thank you for that resolution. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this proposed resolution? Alright. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And commissioners, we're open for discussion and or motion. I'll make a motion to approve the resolution HCLC dash 26Dash116. Second. Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Brisendine and a second by commissioner Tucker, for approval of the resolution. Chair Herring, how do you vote?
Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Yay. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Sheafalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Wonderful. Thank you very much. And let's move on to our next case, please. Your next case is at 2141 Pembroke Drive HCLC 20 Six-one Hundred And 17. The applicant requests that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission certify that the eligible work
undertaken meets the requirements of the City Of Fort Worth zoning ordinance and recommend that City Council consider approving the request for this historic site tax exemption verification. Alright. Thank you. Is there anyone 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 discussion and or, motion. And I'll just say by way of comment that, this looks like a a beautiful, restoration job and appreciate the homeowners doing this. And before I make a motion, I will say I have actually personally been in
this house before the current owners, acquired it, and the work that we've seen in the photos here is pretty remarkable. That's great. Thank you very much. And I will also make a motion to approve tax verification case HCLC dash two six dash one one seven. I'll second the motion. Alright. We have a motion to approve by commissioner Brissendine and a second by commissioner Kelly Gardner. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Malone? K. Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay.
Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you for that. And we can move on to our next case, please. Your next case is 2200 Harrison Avenue. The applicant requests that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission certify that the eligible work undertaken meets the requirements of the cert of the City Of Fort Worth zoning ordinance and recommend that city council consider approving the request for the historic site tax exemption verification. Alright. Is there anyone 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 open for discussion and or motion. I would like to say before I make a motion, I live about seven hundred feet from this house. I see see it at least two times a day going to and from my own house, and the work that has been done on this is pretty remarkable. And with that, I will make a motion to approve tax verification case HCLC dash two six dash one one eight. Second. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion to approve by commissioner Brisenstein and a second by commissioner Tucker.
Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you. Now we can move into our continued cases. Your continued case is at 2341 North Main Street in the Stockyards, HCLC Dash 26 Dash 073. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness and waivers for the following at the non
contributing structure. Install a pergola structure at the east entrance. Waiver from sign standards seven point four point ten for projecting sign at the east facade to extend approximately nine feet above the building where projecting sign may normally extend only two feet above the building and angle the sign at an approximate 30 degree angle, where normally a projecting sign is placed at a 90 degree angle, and waiver from sign standards seven point four point ten for projecting sign at the north facade to extend approximately three feet above the building where projecting sign may normally extend only
two feet above the building. The project was continued from the April 13 HCLC meeting, and the applicant continued to work on the designs for the signage and pergola. The front sign was has been reduced slightly and angled at a 30 degree angle rather than a 45 degrees. The relocated boot sign on the side has been moved higher to allow for a maximum clearance from the sidewalk, and the pergola has been minimized and modernized so that it reads as a modern addition rather than a faux historic element. The applicants have also agreed to stain it a color resembling the metal beam along the front. Other elements like the mural, the painted sign on the south facade, and a canopy
sign on top top of the pergola are within the allowable square footage and sign standards. While the majority of the alterations are considered appropriate, the proposed projecting sign on the North Main Street elevation is still a concern. The angled roof line and position of the sign creates the condition that the sign will protrude above the lowest point of the roof line by eight feet, 10 inches where only two feet is allowed per code. The sign is also angled at 30 degrees where a projecting sign should typically be angled at ninety ninety degrees. The secretary of the interior standards also recommend that new signs work with the existing building and respect overall character and scale.
The this projection sign as proposed in this location creates an inappropriate scale and placement of new signage on this structure is not compatible with the district. Considering the uncommon roof line, the sign may look more in scale on one of the higher points of the facade where it can also be attached at a 90 degree angle. Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following for the proposed alterations to the non contributing building. That the request for a certificate of appropriateness, COA to install a mural on the front, install a paint and sign on the south facade, install a pergola structure with a stain to mimic the structural beam, and a waiver from sign standard seven point
four point ten to install the relocated projecting sign approximately three feet above the pair as opposed to the allowed two feet be approved, and the waiver from the sign standard seven point four point ten for projecting sign at the east front facade to extend eight foot 10 inches above the building where a projecting sign may extend only two feet above the building and angle the sign at a 30 degree angle where a projecting sign is placed at a 90 degree angle be denied without prejudice. Fort Worth Stockyards Inc has written a letter of support for the project, and I believe the applicant is here if you have any questions. This concludes staff report.
Alright. Thank you for that information. And is there someone here to speak on this case? Please come forward, sir, and give us your name and address for the record. Name's Theo Arellano. I am the district manager for Tacovas. Address is 1413 West Cleburne Road in Crowley, Texas. I've been with Tacovas for seven years next month. I was the store manager of this store when it opened back in June 2020. This expansion means a lot to us, not only to us, but I think to our community. We are really excited about, the expansion mainly for the experience.
We have provided an experience since we opened up the store. It's a big part, especially during big events. We have a lot of traffic coming in. You see about 250,000 customers a year in this store. Anywhere from Billy Bob's to rodeo events, to, parents weekend, football games at TCU, everybody comes in. We create an experience and, I can show I wanna show a little bit of
the expansion on the inside. One of the things that we're excited the most is we're doing a whole customization bar in the middle of the store. This will give us more room to create a full experience in in the location. You're able to see a lot more customers. I do wanna note that all this that we do in the store is complimentary for all of our customers that walk in. Doesn't matter if somebody buys something or doesn't buy anything. We wanna show the hospitality and the radical hospitality and are only our store, but Fort Worth actually has to offer. And I will pass it on to Lindsey who's in charge of all of our
development. Great. Thank you very much. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? No. Not really. I don't Uh-oh. I'm too tall for this microphone. Oh, there you go. Yeah. There we go. I will just start by saying, basically, what we wanna do is create some visibility from the intersection at Exchange And Main. And this building has, a bit of a unique facade where it is sloped, but also we are set back from the public right of way. So we do have the patio out there that was done orally, but, our visibility
is a little bit different than some of the other structures and, businesses along Main Street because we are set back. So, the reason that we chose to put this neon sign on this corner was, to capture that visual traffic from, up there at that main intersection. I think there are some updates that have been made. So the sign that we're actually submitting for review is now less than 36 square feet. It's actually 30. The overall sign height is eight foot 10, but it does not go above the,
roof line eight foot 10 total. It actually is above the lowest point five foot six, and it's a and it's below the highest point five foot six. And what we did is we made the top of the sign align with the midpoint of the building because we felt like, that best reflected the overall size of the building. And we talked about the boot sign. What we really wanted to do was repurpose the sign that had been oh, I should mention, that this neon sign, we have spoken to Evan Boyles, who will be making the sign should it be approved.
I know that he does a lot of work in and around the, the stockyards. Yeah. So this has been updated to show that we're just five foot six. It's eight foot ten, size overall, and the total sign area is 30 square feet, 30.54. So it would be five something above the roof on that point. Yeah. Yeah. So right. So below above the lowest point of the roof, only five and a half feet. Yes. And then we can just go quickly through, the pergola.
We really wanted to activate the deck. Tacovas is part of their radical hospitality. Really wants this to be a destination where people come and can relax, and we wanna create some shade for people to gather. And we could also, activate this for events. And so, we appreciate city staff's support, working with us on getting to this current design. These are just some examples. We had originally proposed a walnut stain that would be more in line with the deck, but we're happy to match the stain to whatever anybody would like us to do. And then this is just the neon brand sign that would go atop that, pergola.
And we really wanted to reuse the boot that had formally been custom made for this Fort Worth store, And so we are proposing to relocate it, and we also appreciate city staff support. That's it. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other comments from the applicants or are is there anyone else in the chamber to speak on this particular text? Yes. Please. Couple more. Hi. My name is Kirby Smith. I'm the owner of the building. And so I'm here to speak in favor of the applicant's, application.
Knowing the challenges that we we have, you know, just grabbing eyeballs from Maine and Exchange is really important, and I think that's the the approach they've taken. Certainly sensitive to this overall signage, They started with a lot more signs than what you're seeing today. We've we've really worked with them. They've been very responsive on that. As a landlord, I I wanna make sure the building's not incompatible with the with the district. Signage is very important, but, also, it can be overdone. I think, you know, neon signs in the stockyards are are some that draw people
to the district. I think that's important. And, again, the visibility to exchange, I'm familiar with worked a lot in the stockyards, and any any foot off exchange is is a little bit less of activity. Certainly, Exchange Avenue gets a lot of activity and, but just having that visibility. I think the the unique nature of the of the building, you know, creates this height question, that that certainly comes into play. I guess we've got an angle building, and if you recall, it used it's this is the little brother to the big wedge building that used to be there where
the hotel is. So we we're we're dealing with that. I think we we've we've asked them to lower the the the overall height than they they did, and they have they don't exceed the average. That's still exceeding the the the point where it's mounted. Again, the the the North Side is where a lot of the eyeballs are, and so that's what what what we're trying to they're trying to accomplish, and I I respect that in in in pulling pedestrians off, Exchange Avenue. So I'm in support of it. I know we've gone through, the Fort Worth Stockyards Inc, review process.
They've sent in a letter of support, and so, happy to support that today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward. And we're gonna extend the time a little bit, since we've reached the seven minutes, but we wanna hear from everyone. So please go ahead. Melissa Wade Hunter. I'm speaking on the 2341 North Main. I'm just asking that the proposal for the sign to extend, now as I understand
it, five feet six inches above that top of the roof line right there be denied, and that staff's recommendations are followed. That sign is big and bold and outspoken, and it speaks for itself. It's very visible. So and and that's not I'm not, saying anything negative about that. But as such where it is, it, does take away from the, historic Isis, vertical sign and even the horizontal marquee. Isis was built in 1914, and as we all know, quite a historical contribution to
the stockyards. So that was my only comment. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, miss Hunter. Before we close the public comment portion, anyone else to speak on this case? Alright. Seeing none, we will close the public portion. Commissioners may have questions for any of you. And if so, we'll call you back up. But, thank you everyone for your comments. Commissioners, discussion? I think, my only comment is that the the sign seems pretty massive. It's a nine foot sign, and that's a big, big sign.
Five feet above the the roof line is also a lot of space. That's my only comment on the whole thing is that one sign is just way too large. I do have a question. I'm sorry. I didn't I don't recall your name. Lindsey. Come on come on back up to the microphone, please. So have you researched? Have you thought about making the sign smaller? We've actually gone through, two downsizes of the sign. So it did start at 10. We were at nine foot six, and recently just, reduced this to eight foot 10.
The overall square footage of the sign itself does meet the code requirements of being under 36 square feet. So I realized that it looks pretty big in the rendering, and on that side of the the building, it looks large. But, overall, it's, it is meeting the requirements. Requirements. Well, it it's not meeting the height requirements. And, you know, I know that you're passionate about your sign. It's a nice sign. Mhmm. However, have you explored decreasing the size more so that it will be compatible with
the ramifications of dish what we require? I think they yes. I I think that Tacovas would be open to, potentially downsizing the sign again. It is quite a large investment, and so they wanna make sure that, that they get the visibility, from that investment. Okay. And so you are currently occupying the space? We occupy, technically, half of the space. We just took possession of the other half and completed demolition, and we were just issued a building permit to start on our interior fit out.
Okay. And so I I heard the district manager state that you all have quite a bit of traffic. Okay. So diminishing the sign won't take away from the people that you serve, the traffic. Mhmm. Understood. Just I'm I'm asking, do you what are your thoughts on that? Yeah. I mean, I think, the people tend to come to the store, and I can let Tia, speak to this. But, the people that know the to Tokova store is there, I think they're trying
to also just draw some more foot traffic for people that may not know that Tokova's is there. Very well. Thank you. Yep. Yeah. Thank you. And stay with us one second because I just wanna clarify something from my own understanding. Because from what I understood and this may take some staff input as well. But from what I understood in the, pre meeting and the staff report is that the sign in question would extend nine feet above the roof line. Now I may have gotten that wrong. But what you're saying now, regardless of what I understood or misunderstood Yep.
You're saying it's gonna be about five and a half foot above the lowest point of the roof line on that corner. That's correct. If if you can see on the Yes. Board there. Yeah. Yep. So and that would be and it's about, mid equal to the mid, point of the roof line, the sloping roof line. Correct. Which was the recommendation from Fort Worth Stockyards Inc. Okay. Alright. Thank you. I just wanna make sure I had that correct. Sure. Sure. All the way. Hearing. And that that was my fault. I, misread where the lines were.
So, as it was presented is what she's saying. It's 556. But Okay. Yeah. Alright. Thank you very much for the clarification. Thank you. And I have I have a question for staff. If this sign were on the, other end of the building, would there be an I mean, it's not extending above the roof line of the building there. So it does meet, I think, a 36 square foot. I think their goal was to see it from the No. I'd No. I understand. Intersection. Yeah. They're blocking it if Right.
It's on the other side. Mhmm. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. But that's what I what I just wanted to validate though is, you know, this is a unique building that was, I think, Motor Bank. I don't remember if correct, if I remember. Yeah. From way back. Yeah. And so given that perspective and, you know, I'm I, I am glad that they adapted and reused that building. I for those of us who have been here for a few years, we remember the old building, the wedge, and, this is, kinda reminiscent of that.
It was built at same time. So, I just wanted to validate that if this were, not that it should be, but if this were on the other end of the building, it wouldn't be above the height. And they have designed something that currently, based on the current rendering that they provided, if we take the average of that height from the the left to the north to the south of the building, This does not extend above that average height. Where The full where it's placed right now?
Yeah. I mean, it extends above the building there at that point, but if we're taking the full front facade of the building, as an extent above the average. Right. I believe where they where they put it, is kind of is kind of the midpoint, and and Lindsay can, double yes. Midpoint. Yeah. So where they have it on the north side right now. If it was moved to the higher end on the south side and angled at a 45 degree, then, it's very likely it would it would sit, you know, either
below the roof line or be able to only be placed that two feet above whatever's allowed. But as commissioner Holden pointed out, there is that tree, which is, I think, part of their consideration. So so that begs the other question. So once they get the sign up, are they gonna cut the tree down? Mhmm. So otherwise, you wouldn't see the sign because the tree is sitting in front of it. Sure. So is that the plan is to cut down the tree after the sign goes up? So how are you gonna see the sign if the trees in front of it? They they they are proposing because they want the visual to be There's a tree
right in front of the sign. Yes. But their their what their philosophy is is that the intersection they want people that are going through the intersection to see the sign. Is that correct? If you can validate that. Yeah. Come come back to the microphone, please. Sign is proposed on the north facade that is north of the tree. The tree is not going anywhere. That's the only tree on Main Street, really. And and, yeah, if it was placed on the higher facade on the south end of the building, it would be blocked by the tree. So that's the reason for looking at the north north end of the facade.
You're saying the tree is not gonna get cut down or anything? Absolutely not. Yeah. Absolutely not. But and that's the reason we want it more visible on the north side, they want it more visible on the north side. I want it more visible on the north side is because the tree does create a visible visual How many feet to the south would you have to move the sign to make it compliant with the code for the district? Is that an option? In the middle? That would In the middle of the building? Because that's we've sort of selected the the midpoint of the slope and not exceed
that. I guess I guess it could it could move if it's sticking up two feet above, it could move a little bit further to the south or I'm sorry, to the north. But that would be on the it wouldn't I mean, that wouldn't be an ideal location. And this is a question for sir, if you'll answer I've got a question. In the last photo, can we go back to the one that showed this from the general well, not quite the intersection, but this is, somewhat from the intersection that you're attempting to target with this sign. Right now, what is it that we see the corner of the building, the lowest
corner of that building, which is approximately 12 feet if I remember correctly from the drawings. Right. Site site drawing. The what are we seeing behind that? Because we're seeing the corner of the brick, but then we're seeing the white That's the roof. It's the roof. So the roof is in the parapet wall that's on the south side of the building. The backside of the parapet wall is what we're looking at right there. Yes. You're you're looking at the south parapet wall. You're looking at the top of the roof, and the east facade.
Yeah. And so if that sign were located there I mean, I I don't know. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of right now if you're standing at the at Main Street And Exchange, you actually see the roof of the building Right. Through it at present. And from what I'm seeing right here, I I I mean, we don't have a drawing here, you know, rendering of it. But from that intersection, I don't see that the sign is gonna actually exceed that parapet wall that we're already looking at. It's a good point. You're yeah. From that from the vantage point of Main And Exchange, you're the background of that
sign is gonna be the roof parapet of the in the in the background, basically. I beg to differ. Because in in looking at the go back to that others the slide with the sign. If you look at the sign, it's above the roofline. Now go back to the other, the next one. No. Go the other way. Yes. So you're seeing the corner of the building. It looks as though I don't know how long ago this picture was taken. However, it looks as though the sign is going to be obstruct the the visual of the sign is going to be obstructed by the tree anyway.
However, it it it's too high, basically. It's the bottom line of why we're here. Too high on that portion of the building because that's the lowest portion of the building. And it has to be above a certain clear height for pedestrians to get underneath it as well. That's another contributing factor. The building's only 12 feet tall. Yes. And so we've got a deck that comes out. The the finished floor of the gray is coming out much higher than the sidewalk. The the the finished floor of the gray of the building, and therefore, the deck is just outside of the doors, and you've gotta have a clear height over that,
underneath that sign. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Because I think we need to go ahead and close the public hearing and move on. Go ahead and close it. Okay. No more public comments, but thank you everyone for your contributions. Discussion. A question for staff. And and you stated I just wanna be clear that you you all denied it without prejudice. The second portion because we have two points. One is approved, one is denied with or without prejudice. Just double check myself. Yeah. I think we approved the first one. Prejudice. Yes. Right. So without prejudice, they could okay.
Redo, come back to you next month, is the thought. Thank you, Lorelai. Legal, if we make a motion, do I need to read off all the things that we are approving and then the one thing that would be denial without prejudice? Or do I can I just say we recommend staff recommendations? Yeah. You could do it either way. Let me make one note. I think I heard the reference to there being four things. The agenda only has three items that you guys are reviewing. That's a pergola. Sign is number two. Different sign is number three. So you can you can structure your motion.
However, as an approval of all, approval of one and three, or you can take the votes independently if you if you wish. Yeah. That's what I was gonna say is can we just break it up? Well, if before we get to a motion, just I just wanna add a comment. I've had some misgivings about the sign in question when we were in work session because at that point, my understanding, what is it, was that it was nine basically, nine feet above the roof line.
Since then, I've come to understand it's it's five and a half feet above the roof line, which somewhat lessens my concerns. So that's that's my thought process at this point. However, going back to commissioner Ketchum's clarification from legal, the there's four items that staff has recommended approval, and the only item the only additional item that they've recommended a
denial on is this particular neon sign that, rises above the roof level. So There's only three items on the agenda, that being number one, the pergola, number two, a sign extending nine feet, number three, a sign extending three feet above the building. So those are the only things that before you. That's not what I see. That that's what's on the public agenda. Yeah. This one's different than what's on the screen. That's for the confusion. What So the the mural and the painted sign on the south side, those can
be approved administratively, but they were just part of the whole package. So I put them in your staff report. Gotcha. That's Yeah. So you can very much. Yeah. So you can just vote on the three things that are in there. I'm looking at the staff report. So thank you. My clarification. My my mistake. And, let me address one more thing, chair to your question about, if the if the board so desires, you can amend that number two to be five foot six inches if if that's the desire of the board. So if you were to approve that, you don't have to approve it at nine
feet Right. That's stated. You can do less. Okay. Thank you. Should we not amend that from nine feet to five? That's what he is saying. We have that ability if we want to when someone makes a motion. I understand. But should we not do that? Because my understanding is that You are correct. However, it was a typographical error and a oversight. So when we make the motion, we can, do the amendment then.
The nine feet is a typographical error. That's not my understanding. Yeah. That was my fault. Okay. The sign is nine feet, but it's not nine feet above the roof line. That make sense? Okay. Alright. Do we wanna tackle these one at a time here? Yeah. So there'll be, clarity. Mhmm. Okay. I'll make a motion on HCLC 26Dash073Number 1, install a pergola structure on the East entrance for approval. I second the motion. Okay. On the item before us on the pergola, we have a motion for approval by
commissioner Ketchum, a second by vice chair Kelly Gardner. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner, how do you Yay. Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yes. Commissioner Brisendine. Yes. Commissioner Tucker. Yes. Commissioner Peoples. Yes. And Commissioner Holden. Yay. Nine zero on the pergola. Alright. I'll do the second one. Make a motion on HCLC 26 Dash073. A waiver from the sign standards, but the only change would be instead of nine feet above the building to five and a half feet above the building.
Is that the correct way to phrase that legal? Okay. That is my motion. So, number two as written except for changing it from nine feet to five and a half feet tall. To do what, commissioner Ketchum? Approve. Sorry. Do we have a second on that motion? I'll second it. And was that commissioner Brisenbaum? Thank you. Alright. We have a motion on the question, to approve on the question of the height of the sign to be no more than five and a half or excuse me, five and a half feet above the roof line at the, projected location.
That motion is made by commissioner Ketchum and seconded by commissioner Brisennein. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair, Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? I'm thinking. Yay. Based on the what we've stated. Commissioner Malone? Oh, yay. Commissioner Ketchum? Yeah. Commissioner Sheffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? No. And commissioner Holden? No. I believe motion passes seven to two for that sign. And I that was the same count that I had.
And just to make sure I'm not missing anything, staff and legal, we've covered all of the items. You need you need one more for the boots sign? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'll make a motion. Why I asked. I'll make a motion for HCLC 26Dash073, a waiver from side stand perfect. Number three on there as written, for approval. Okay. Alright. We have a on this item, we have a motion for approval by commissioner Ketchum and a second by commissioner Tucker. If you're hearing, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair, Kelly Gardner? Yay.
Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yes. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you very much, staff, and thank you for those of you who attended and provided comments. We appreciate you being here. Alright. Before we move on to the next case, does staff need, five minute recess? I'm good. Let's roll. Keep going. It's up to you.
Let's roll. Okay. Alright. Then let's move on to the next case, please. Your next case is HCLCDash26Dash055 at 1615 East Hattie. The applicant appeals the decision of the historic preservation officer and requests their certificate of appropriateness to install a front yard fence where front yard fences are not typically compatible. The front yard fence was installed without a COA in February 2026. The applicant applied for a COA to retain the fence and was denied. In April, the applicant appealed this decision to be heard at the HCLC. The proposed request to retain and install a front yard fence at 1615 Hattie Street
is inconsistent with the Terrell Heights design guidelines. Front yard fences are not typically featured within the historic Terrell Heights district where the prevailing character is defined by open and transparent front yard conditions that maintain a strong visual relationship between the primary structures in the street. The installation of a front yard fence disrupts the traditional pattern of site transparency and alters the historic spatial relationship between the building and the public realm. Carroll Heights design guidelines emphasized that fences should be used primarily to define boundaries or enclosed rear yards and when used, should be constructed in materials and styles consistent with
adjacent historic buildings. Appropriate alternatives for front yard treatment include hedgerows, landscaping, or low knee walls that maintain the historic pattern of openness. Front yard fencing, particularly when it's introduced when it introduces a visual barrier between the street and primary structure, is not consistent with these guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends the following. At the request for a certificate of appropriateness to retain and install a front yard fence at 1615 East Hattie Street, where front yard fences are not typically seen, would be denied with prejudice because the request is inconsistent with the Terrell Heights Historic District
guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior standards for treatment of historic properties and that the applicant remove the existing fence. 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? Alright. 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 deny without prejudice based on the staff report. To be clear, staff was with prejudice on this one? Well, I'll make a motion to deny with prejudice Thank you.
Based on the staff report. Forgive the error. I'll second that. Alright. We have a motion to deny with prejudice based on the staff report by vice chair Kelly Gardner and a second by commissioner Keshav. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next case. Your next case is a new construction at 1020 East Loudoun Street, HCLC Dash 26
Dash 089. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence and garage. A contributing structure was previously located at this address. However, a fire in 2024 completely destroyed that structure. The proposed design for the one story residence and garage reflects an orientation and, so excuse me. Garage reflects an orientation consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape, including existing patterns of spacing, massing, and building orientation. However, some design elements should be addressed in order to reflect a compatible new construction
in the district. Therefore, staff recommends the following, that the request for certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence and garage at 1020 East Loudoun Street be approved subject to the following conditions. That the front porch have a minimum depth of six feet, and the spacing of the front porch columns must be evenly distributed along the entire length of the porch. That additional windows be provided on the front facing portion of the west right elevation. That the siding be changed to a smooth finish lap siding with a six inch reveal on all elevations and garage, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.
This concludes the staff report. Alright. Thank you for that information. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case at 10:20 East Loudoun? Alright. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing, and commissioners, we're open for discussion motion. I move to approve HCLC dash 26 dash o eight nine with the staff conditions as identified. I second. Alright. We have a motion to approve subject to staff conditions by commissioner Tucker and a
second by commissioner vice chair Kelly Gardner. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Cheffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yes. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you. Next case, please. 1201 East Morningside Drive, HCLC Dash 26 Dash 100. The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence and garage. The proposed design for the one story residence and garage reflects an orientation consistent with
the predominant character of the streetscape, including existing patterns of spacing, massing, and building orientation. However, some design elements should be addressed in order to reflect a compatible new construction in the district. Therefore, staff recommends the following, that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new residence at 1201 East Morningside Drive be approved subject to the following conditions, That a contextual site plan and elevation plan be submitted demonstrating compliance with the existing building setbacks. That the spacing of the front porch columns be evenly distributed along the entire length of the porch. That the proposed front door be modified to a solid or minimal traditional style door
compatible with the historic context. That all windows maintain a two to one height to width ratio and include compatible projecting sill and trim, that additional windows be provided on the front facing portion of the west elevation, that the siding reveal be specified to six inches on all elevations and garage, and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to development services department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. This concludes the staff report. Alright. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the chamber to speak on this case at 1201 East Morningside?
If there is, just please come forward and give us your comments. Alright. Seeing none, we're gonna close the public portion of the, case and move on, commissioners, to discussion or motion. I'll make a motion to approve with staff recommendations. Second. Alright. We have a motion to approve with staff recommendations by commissioner Ketchum and a second by commissioner Cefalo. Brisenne. Oh, I apologize. Commissioner Brisenne. See, when I'm writing, I can't look up and see who's talking to me. Mister Herring, how do you vote?
Yay. Vice chair Tilly Gardner, how do you vote? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine. Yay. Commissioner Tucker. Yay. Commissioner Peoples. Yay. And commissioner Holden. Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Let's move on to the next case, please. The next case before you is 660 Union Stockyards Boulevard, HCLC Dash 26 Dash 045.
The applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness to construct a transitional parking lot and request the following waivers from the stockyards form base code and design guidelines. One, waiver from the parking lot applicability standard seven point two point one point a to allow parking lot landscaping with parking rooms of 10 rows by 22 spaces without median islands where parking rooms are not to exceed four rows by five spaces with median islands to separate prep parking rooms. Two, waiver from the mark parking lot canopy coverage standard seven point two point one
b to allow 0% tree canopy coverage in a surface parking lot where 40% tree coverage sorry. 40% tree canopy coverage is required for surface parking lots. Three, waiver from the permit perimeter perimeter planting standard seven point two point one point c to provide only a four foot wide planting strip with a three foot high continuous row of shrubs where a six foot wide planting strip with three foot high continuous row of shrubs is required. Four, waiver from the parking standards for Historic District 2.40.5 C to not use brick as a paving material.
The applicant is proposing a transitional temporary parking lot on a 3.5 acre vacant lot in the Stockyards District District adjacent to the Armor Building. The proposed parking lot will be a fee for service parking lot intended for tourists and visitors to the Stockyards. The proposed parking lot will contain 377 total parking spaces. While the ADA spots and associated pedestrian connections will be paved, most of the lot will be permeable crushed gravel surface. The proposed lot will be surrounded by a three foot high pipe rail fence with landscaping treatment of sage and decorative grass plantings.
The proposed transitional lot will include a north south pedestrian connection of decomposed granite between Union Stockyards Boulevard and East Exchange to promote pedestrian connectivity. Site improvements include drainage infrastructure and installation of solar lighting for illumination and safety. In the northeast corner of the lot will be an open area, unfenced green space intended for residents from the nearby multifamily development. The applicant has been in communication with Fort Worth Stockyards Inc. And its neighbors about the transitional parking lot and future hospitality development.
The project was reviewed by the Fort Worth Fort Worth Inc. Design Review Committee on 03/31/2026. The DRC was generally supportive of the proposed use and development waivers. And the Fort Worth Stockyards, Inc. Board is in support of the project as noted in an email dated 05/07/2026. The Zoning Commission heard the request for a conditional use permit on April 8 and voted eleven zero to recommend approval of the CUP with a a three year time limit to city council. The Urban Design Commission approved the site plan at their 04/16/2026 meeting nine to zero. Staff find that the, request for a transitional parking lot to be consistent with the
spirit and intent of the stockyards form base code and design guidelines. The front of the lot was included in the historic district in order to capture the entirety of the Exchange Avenue from east to west and encourage compatible development with the historic district. The temporary lot will maintain the corridor and views and add enhancements like plantings while offering additional parking for the area until a proposed development is completed. Surface parking in the historic core should be visually subordinate to other uses and have buffer areas to screen parking from the street. It is also encouraged to design surface parking with historic elements like brick pavers and
a fence or low site wall with plantings to provide that screening. The proposal does not include brick pavers, but is acceptable considering the temporary nature of the proposal. The planting and screening methods along Exchange And Stockyards Boulevard will help ensure the historic Exchange Corridor is maintained while the next stage of the development is in the planning phases. Given the above, staff recommends the following motion, that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for a transitional parking lot and the Stockyards form based code district with the following waivers. One, waiver from the parking lot room standards section seven point two point one a
to allow a parking room of 39 spaces by 10 rows, And two, waiver from the surface parking lot tree canopy coverage requirements section seven point two point one point b to allow zero parking lot tree canopy coverage. And three, waiver from the perimeter planting with shrub standard section seven point two point one point c point one. Two, allow a non continuous strip of four foot landscaping on the southern perimeter and a continuous landscaping strip of a of at least five feet seven inches on the eastern perimeter. And four, waiver from the parking standards for Historic District 2.40.5
C to not use brick as a paving material be approved. 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, sir, and give us your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horn, representing the property owner. Very thorough, staff report, so thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Commissioners, do we have any questions? You noticed I noticed the slide that had the, light fixtures, noted.
Are there what you intend to have the solar light lighting system? It would be all solar lights. Yes, sir. Reminiscent of the Little West. That's right. Yeah. This came up in the the work session before, but what's the time line you think before that turns into a hotel in that lot? The conditional use permit that zoning commission approved, we're asking for three years. The permitting timeline's around two for the ultimate plan. The only entrance into this is off of exchange. Is that right? Correct. Yeah. And the reason for that is we wanted to control access. So a single point of access was important to us for a temporary use.
K. I I was actually glad when I saw it was not concrete going in. That was gonna be knocked out in a couple years, and you're doing the crush. We are doing concrete around where the ADA Right. Spaces are, but everywhere else. Yeah. That's that's a good use. So the just the three year cup from zoning commission is sort of a placeholder, for lack of a better term, until you are ready to move forward with a more permanent project. Absolutely. Yeah. This is not the final or long term use for this property. So, commissioners, just clarification for everyone.
When the property owner does get ready to do a more permanent project, whatever that may be, they will be, coming back before the commission at that time. I think that was very well thought out. That's a good plan. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the chamber who wants to speak on this case? Alright. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing, and commissioners are open for, further discussion or a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it.
Alright. On HCLC twenty six dash o forty five, we have a motion to approve with staff comments, by vice chair Kelly Gardner and a second by commissioner Holland. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner, how do you vote? Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Thank you. Alright. And if we're ready, we can move on to the next case, please.
2414 Clinton Avenue, HCLC Dash 26 Dash 108. Applicant requests a COA to construct a new commercial property and request the following waivers from the form based code and design guidelines. One, waiver from the street standards to allow for the continuation of the West Exchange Avenue treatment, 8.30.11, instead of the B Street existing treatment, 8.30.7, as listed on the form in the form based code, which allows for the pedestrian zone to be 10 foot minimum as opposed to eight foot minimum with a six
minimum parkway depth. The property was recently incorporated into the historic district to capture and maintain the integrity of the historic corridor of Exchange Avenue. The project is in line with the contributing structure located on the corner of 301 West Exchange. The massing size, scale, materials, and details are compatible with the historic structures in the district. The structure maintains the historic pedestrian relationship with streetscape by utilizing a canopy, commercial style shop front windows with a kick plate and transoms, and a zero lot line front setback with a wide pedestrian walkway underneath.
The proposal contains many elements that reference a historic structure, including appropriate windows with sills, brick cladding, and a decorative parapet. Staff believed that the elements will blend in with the historic surroundings without reading as truly is a truly historical structure. In regards to the street standards, if the property were to adhere to the b existing street, this would require the property to be set back further from the street and disrupt the historic rhythm set by the contributing structures on West Exchange. It would also require a planting strip of trees that is not typical for West Exchange. Therefore, staff agree that continuing the street treatment of a 10 foot wide pedestrian pathway
without a planting strip to allow the building to sit closer to the street is compatible with the historical setbacks and treatments on West Exchange. Otherwise, all setback requirements are met for the project. Fort Worth Stockyard Inc has submitted a letter generally in support of the project. Staff and the applicant will continue to work on future elements of the project, including signage and lighting as it progresses. Having regard to the foregoing, staff recommends the following motion, that the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new commercial property at 2414 Clinton Avenue and for a waiver from the street standards in the stockyards form base code and design guidelines
to allow for the continuation of the West Exchange Avenue treatment eight point three point eleven instead of the B Street existing treatment eight point three point seven as listed in the form base code be approved. This concludes the staff report. Alright. Thank you for that. Anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on this case, please come forward and give us your name and address for the record, please. And thank you for being patient. Anytime. Afternoon. My name is Hoyt Hammer. I am an architect and principal with the Deck Architecture here in 4464 Bailey Avenue. We have worked, very closely with the owner and with, city staff on the development
of the design of this building for the last couple of months. The intent is to as I believe that she's captured everything in Excuse me for interrupting, but will you pull your mic up just a little? We're having some issues, and we're all on TV, so we gotta make sure we're heard. Okay. Any better? Yes. Thank you. We, we appreciate staff report. We think that, she has captured, most of the information very accurately. We have worked very closely with the owner and, with staff over the past few months in the development of this two story, 12,000 square foot mixed use project.
We feel like, the waiver that we are requesting is in keeping more so with more so with the, existing, context of the existing West Exchange, and would ask for your consideration and approval. Alright. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions at this time? Alright. Seeing none. Thank you very much for that information. Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to speak on this? Please come forward. Melissa Wade Melissa Wade Hunter. I can't see anywhere and I've not heard of anywhere or notice went out to
neighborhood businesses or property owners as a whole. Fort Worth Stockyards Inc does not represent everywhere, everyone. And there are houses that abut the East Side Of Clinton, and there's a whole neighborhood on the West Side Of Clinton. I mean, what notice went out? I mean, maybe it, well, no. I couldn't see notice, and I got questions this morning from a business, person in that area going, what about this?
What about this? What about parking? And I couldn't I couldn't answer that. I mean, because I didn't know. The plan seems to be approved, but the plan does seem understand staff is always very good on its reports and its recommendations. But the parking seems woefully inadequate, particularly since right across the street on Exchange, you've got a mass amount of a large amount of land on lots that are ripe for development. So this is certain to this end of West Exchange is gonna bring a lot
of construction, and all of those people are important. And I don't think they were consulted. So Right. Well, that is a good point. And, I will ask staff staff to address it. What are are there notice requirements for the commission Historic Preservation Commission? And, how does that work? Yes. So we are required to send out legal notices. I believe a buffer of, what's the what's the footage?
It's like 300 feet 300 feet from where the the property in question is. So everyone around that area. Okay. And as far as we know where the notice is sent, does that come from your office or Yes. That's our office. Office? Mhmm. Okay. Yeah. Those notices are mailed to the owner's address of record. Correct? Not to the business that may be renting a space. It would right. It's whoever is listed in TAD. Yeah. Whatever address that is. Did did we ever figure out how big this building is?
The total square footage of the project is about 12,000 square feet. It's sited up against the close to the, right of way at West Exchange, and we have provided for some on street parking on the western side of the property, approximately nine spaces, including ADA coverage. We've also accounted for some parallel spaces along, West Exchange. So it it states here that it's going to be what usage is this building going to be? The lower level is contemplated as a restaurant.
Potentially upstairs, mixed use could be office. It's yet to be fully determined what, occupancy might take the upper level. But, staff, I just wanna kinda reiterate here. We're we're considering not parking waivers. We're considering what we're considering today is strictly the form based code and design guideline waiver? Correct. So since it's in the historic district, it doesn't have to be off street parking. And that obviously is always a concern for neighbors and residents, but it's not something necessarily in our view of the Landmarks Commission.
There are certain parking requirements if they're going to have parking, and they have addressed it with, the kind of the planting strip on the side, and then there's a site wall around it. So if they choose to have a parking, a parking spaces, then there are things that they need to do to mitigate it, and they've done that here. Well, and and their their parking requirement is gonna be determined based on what their use of the building is before the certificate of occupancy is issued. Correct? There's no parking requirement? Requirement anyway. So yeah. So the parking, we may want more, but it's not what not what we're talking
about. Yeah. Yeah. It's out of our control. However, it's still a thought because what if they decide to turn it into a housing or lofts and then, you know, where you where are the people gonna park? That's not our Yeah. That's not our jurisdiction. Ours is just the architecture. Correct? We did disapprove a parking lot up the street. Oh, yeah. Well, they can park right there. You have a point. It's a little waste. Skinny. Well, okay. Let's close the public comments. Thank you, both for sharing your information.
We appreciate it. Anyone else in the chamber to speak on this case? Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, discussion? I just wanna say one thing. I've seen a lot of these and was also on the commercial board of adjustments before. I really appreciate the level of detail that was provided, at least from what we've seen, in terms of renderings and every I mean, it's to me, it seems very, very, very thought through, process. I'm I will vote, to support. Alright. And just a comment from me, direct toward miss Hunter, your concerns are valid, and
I'm sure the people who contacted you, have those concerns. You know, unfortunately I mean, you heard what staff stated, so it's somewhat out of our control in to a certain extent. But thank you for sharing those concerns. Other comments or discussion, commissioners? Just, that I will agree with you that, miss Hunter's comment about the neighborhood and their take on it is extremely valid, because without, of course, the people in the neighborhood, there is no history. So yes.
Alright. I will make a motion to approve h CLC26Dash108 with as it is. Second. Alright. We have a motion to approve by commissioner Ketchum, a second by commissioner Kefalow. I got it right this time. Chair Herring, how do you vote? Yay. Vice chair Kelly Gardner? Yay. Commissioner Malone? Commissioner Ketchum? Yay. Commissioner Shuffalo? Yay. Commissioner Brisendine? Yay. Commissioner Tucker? Yay. Commissioner Peoples? Yay. And commissioner Holden? Yay. Thank you. Motion passes nine zero. Alright. Thank you. And that being our last case, commissioners, thank you for your presence today.
Staff, thank you for all your hard work, and we stand adjourned.