Urban Design Commission | September 17, 2026

relatively large site. You see here we have two overlapping easements that basically run north south through the property. One of them is an 80ft utility easement on the right here and then a 25 ft sanitary sewer easement on the left. They overlap a bit. It's about 86 feet cutting straight through the property of easement that they can't develop in and for urban forestry that area is considered exempt. So they're proposing to remove both of these trees which would leave them preservation of 0%. This is their proposed planting plan. Um it's multif family development, several exist or several proposed buildings, detention area down here, and then obviously all of the associated parking. Um these numbers are all of their plantings. It includes 23 proposed cedar elms. This plan shows these proposed cedar elms along the frontage for 820. I spoke with the applicant earlier today. Tex nixed those. So they weren't included in the urban forestry numbers anyways. They were just shown on the plan here and they were included in the staff report. As mentioned, they were being planted. Textile shut that down. So, those 23 trees are no longer going to be happening, but it doesn't affect any of our numbers. Um, we'll jump to the numbers here. So, like I said, the growth site area is 695,69 square ft. For multif family developments, the urban forestry requirement isn't based on the area of the property. It's based on the provided open space. So the provided open space for the site minus deductible areas which is basically just that 86t easement is 201,752 square feet. The existing tree canopy between those two trees 308 square feet. So of the net urban forestry area.15% almost nothing. The required preservation would be 77 square feet which is the 25%. The required tree canopy coverage for the site is 100,000 square or 100,881 square ft. They're proposing no preservation and they're proposing to provide 315,400 in square feet which is just over three times their requirement. And then the parking lot canopy requirement. So the area of parking that they provided is 236,687 square feet of parking. The canopy requirement for that would be 94,675 and they're proposing 164,425 which exceeds by just over or almost 70,000 square feet. Um the parking canopy requirement is 40% they're at 69 and a half. So based on the existing conditions um the difficulty that the easement because both of the existing trees are located in the northeast. So with that easement and preserving one of those trees could make developing that northeast portion difficult and the fact that the only two existing trees are both 7in trees. Um staff supports this waiver and we recommend approving the request to reduce the preservation requirement from 25% down to zero. And I'm available if you guys have any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> Caleb, I'm curious. Did Text give a reason why they nixed those trees? Just >> I'll let the applicant answer that. Okay. Just curious. Are the cedar elms because they're in the easement not required to be included? Is is that the reason or we're not sure? >> So for urban forestry, these the 23 seed domes that they were showing, they're considered offsite. So they were shown on their plan. They weren't included in their urban forestry calculations. So the numbers I went through, those are still the correct numbers. They had already omitted those. The applicant was just electing to preserve them, I believe, for some enhanced landscaping credit and text shut that down. Good. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here to speak? >> Yes, Blackwell is here to speak on behalf of the applicant. If you guys have any questions, >> I have any questions for the applicant? >> If he's got reason from text, I'm just curious. doesn't impact my opinion. I just curious. >> Welcome. Please state your name, the city in which you reside. >> Hi. Yes. I'm Garrett Blackwell and I'm from Plano, Texas. >> Um, the reason for Tex Dot not wanting those trees there when I emailed them about it that said that they just do not want any trees in their ride of way. >> But it's it's the it's the right of way to the access road. Right. >> Right. So, >> I mean, it's essentially the on ramp. Uh, >> I guess it is the excess road. >> Yeah. Right. It's like it's not a major anyway. I It's not your problem. I'm just kind of curious because getting inside their heads was fine. >> Yeah. No, it's uh No, I wanted some there too because it was very barren and generally would look nicer for the property. But whenever I emailed them, they said at this time we do not want any trees on the rideway. I think it's probably just a maintenance issue on their end. But they didn't give me a real reason other than the fact that they just >> Right. Thank you. >> Anyone else here to speak in favor? Is anyone here to speak uh against an opposition to this case? Okay, we'll close the public comment portion or our discussion. I make a motion to uh that the request for the waiver from the CFW zoning ordinance section 6.302G.4- general preservation methods of can tree canopy be granted reducing 25% tree preservation requirement for this development to plan to 0%. >> Commissioner here seconds and motion to approve has been made and seconded. Chair Benner, how do you vote? I. >> Um, Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote? >> I, >> Commissioner West, how do you vote? >> I, >> Commissioner Carr, how do you vote? >> I, Mr. Deose, how do you vote? >> I, >> Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote? >> I, Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> I, >> Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you vote? I. >> And Commissioner Hobsa, how do you vote? I >> All right. Motion passes 90. All right. The applicant's here for the case that we skipped. So, we can address that now. Also, just to note on the record, we've been communicating with it. There might have been some audio issue issues during the first case. It doesn't affect what we're doing. We're just going to add a note to the recording. But if you're watching right now, that's why there was no audio for the first couple minutes. Just an IT issue better set up, I think. I still can't um So you guys could actually see me this time. I don't know if I need to get it closer. Yeah. All right. So, this is UDC uh case uh 2026137 um located at Oh, I do I do need to bring it a little. Okay, now I feel how you guys feel. Um, so this is UDC case uh 2026 137 located at 5812 Eastland Street. Um, good morning commissioners. Um, this UDC case uh um was seen before in the last UDC uh u meeting on August in the August UDC. The applicant resi uh with Hovering Estate Inc. is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed two-story duplex in the urban residential UR zoning district. The request uh before the commissioner today is a waiver of a uh pedestrian scale lighting requirement within the street sides uh street zone furnishing zone. Um the proposal uh does contain uh two three bedrooms, two ba two and a half baths. Um and the property um is located in an established UR uh neighborhood. Uh to the north of the property is zone MU2 and there are FR zone located further west. The intent of the UR district, just kind of a reminder, I'm going to go over just like the history and like a little bit of the intent for the urban district, urban residential district, is to provide a a transitional between lower density residential neighborhoods and a more intense um commercial/mixeduse areas while promoting a walkable pedestrian oriented environment. Um the case just to go over the brief history of the case. The project originally entered uh to to the city and it was through a building permit process in 2025. The building permit was placed on hold because of the outstanding UR design standards requirements and because the required conceptual review had not occurred yet occurred. The applicant previously submitted um UDC 20265 in March of 2026 which was later voided at the applicant's request. Um the current UDC case number which is the one that we're seeing today was uh was submitted in May of 20 or sorry March of 2026. Um since then staff has coordinated with the applicant through several meetings discussion regarding the UR standards and potential design solutions. The applicant submitted the revised site plan that we see today in the updated um staff report and that was submitted on August uh 31st of 2026. Um there are still some outstanding things that staff was seeing on the the those site plans set. Um so with that said at this point we can't really determine if there will be additional waiverss. Um there are minor things but at the same time we never say that there's no waiverss until we can know that all the waiverss are dealt with. So with that said we uh we believe that we could get the applicant to to get those things done and updated. Um and so we're requesting a continuous to allow the applicant add additional time to be able to address those concerns. Um the applicant is here today. Um and he could uh just give you guys a scope of his project and and give you more information if needed. >> And that con >> Okay. Any questions for staff then? >> So can you uh the the site plan's a little difficult to to to see. Can you pull it up or kind of walk us through that because I'm trying to >> I thought it was >> understand the the ride ofway. So is there a public sidewalk here? >> So there there is no public sidewalk existing. >> Are we proposing the public sidewalk? >> So um whenever there's not a public sidewalk there has to you have to put a sidewalk a public sidewalk you have to put the street trees and pedlights. If there is existing street treep headlights or or sidewalk for instance, then um that's when you could utilize the existing conditions and then kind of go with it. In this situation, they do have an existing tree. So, we're using that and they're going to they are basically having that within they're going to include it into the public rightway so that uh city can maintain it as a street tree. So, it's a it's kind of a mature tree and I the picture before kind of shows that tree right there. That's the tree that they're going to consider into a street tree. So, that's the only thing that's existing with the conditions right now. Um, >> we've got basically a street with no curbs, a ditch, a tree, and then where does the sidewalk sit in relation to all of that? Because I'm not seeing it on the site plan. All I see is I see a light >> on the site plan. the sidewalk that this one is the older site plan that they submitted, but on this on the staff report, you'll see the updated version of it is kind of to look at this one. And this is what they produced um previously. Um but that one uh shows that they're proposing a sidewalk that will eventually connect to the other UR cases. And there are other UR cases that have been built and and they have put in sidewalks and street trees and ped lights and they're currently being built as we speak. >> Yeah, understood. And uh but uh what I'm seeing in this plan looks like the sidewalk is actually on private property like on the is it >> so they're going to dedicate they're going to put a public access easement so that way it's to the public. >> It's not it's not in public it's not in the rightway. It's on public it's on private property the sidewalk. They're going to put an easement and execute an easement to allow for city to maintain it and have access to it. >> But it's it's on the private side of the property line >> currently until they put an easement. Yeah. >> But it's it's private property. >> Currently until they put an ement. Yes. >> So the ride ofway is not large enough to hold a sidewalk currently. >> No. Like Well, no. There is a, as you can see, there is a um elevation and there's the ditch that you saw there. So, they're trying to um comply with the standards and make sure that nothing's being damaged or anything like that with the location. >> Okay. >> Have any more questions? >> Okay. Any more questions for staff? >> I do. Um so staff is recommending a continuance. >> Yes. >> Why? >> Um there are some outstanding um waiverss that we are not sure if they are going to be as of today in compliance with um so that's why we are just wanting to the applicant to have additional time to kind of address those things. Um and then get back to us and see if they want to add that to the list of waiverss. So there are more waivers coming >> there. There are potential waiverss that we I want to make sure that he has enough time to be able to address them. So that's why we're asking for a continuence >> more than the lighting and the pedestrian line. >> That is correct. >> So if we were to approve deny those potentially he's coming back in the future for additional waiverss anyway. So instead of like going really into it, we want to just make sure he has enough time to be able to address those things before and then we could figure out if there's additional ones and we'll properly like obviously place it on the agenda and stuff like that so that you guys have a time to >> to review it. >> And this has been in the planning since 2023. >> So it came into permitting um status uh in 2025. Um, and then it was uh then put on hold. I want to say look at my timeline. >> So it was in >> one second, sir. We'll be invited up in just a second. Thank you. >> So the building permit was uh created in August of 28, 2025. Um then it was uh put on hold during the outstating UR design standards requirements and the project had not gone under conceptual review according to our ordinances prior to permits. Then um another there was a there was an older one a UFC case and I think that's what the applicant saying um in the background is May 2 of 2023. However, those plans associated with that case does not reflect the current development. Um, and then in um March of 20 2025, they uh undergo this the SIP program, which is a small scale infrastructure program to see if that's something that they would do as a like a kind of alternative to the pedestrian light requirement. Um, that application remains incomplete. Um the one that we're talking about today was applied for in March uh 16 of 2026. >> Thank you. >> Just one more quick question on my part just to confirm that the plan that is currently shown in the documents that we have here as a 3.3 site plan is the most current site plan. Uh the one that you're viewing is the previous one. The one in the staff report is the the most recent one. >> Okay. >> That's figure three on page six of their document. >> I believe so. Yeah, page six. So page six is the revision from the comments. >> It's quite blurry. So can what is the relationship of the that sidewalk to the building? >> So with the current Um with the current plan, there is a concrete of five feet um right behind the street tree that you see or the tree that you see that's highlighted in that those plans. Um then there is a planter box that um is in between the porch concrete pad and the the proposed 5T um uh sidewalk. >> And how wide is the Eastland rideway? >> Um that is a good question. Um I don't know off the top of my head. Give me one moment. Let me see if I can measure Yeah, all those plans is tough in in this condensed PDF. >> I do know that the building is set back 12 ft from the property line, but let me measure really quickly. I have one question. Um, >> yes ma'am. >> Is the sidewalk continuous or is it just going to be on this property? So for this property there are a couple of properties that is located um a little bit that will eventually connect it will eventually connect to um and those are the ones I talked to you about are being built right as we speak and maybe there's a way to like share my screen >> but that sidewalk will connect to the adjacent properties owner's property which is will you'll need another access easement Correct. Like it won't be in a right of way. It would be >> they've they've just um fixed it by like uh leveling out the the land. So they're putting the sidewalk through that means. >> But a sidewalk has to sit in an access easement. So it would have to be on a on one second property. >> Do we do we have any outstanding questions for staff still? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can you please? >> Okay. If we have no further questions for staff, um we will Is the applicant here to speak? Would you like to come up and speak, sir? >> Yes. Yes. >> Welcome. >> Tends to go that way sometimes. Yes, that'd be great. Please state your name and the city in which you reside. >> My name is uh Resa Safe. Uh I reside in Mansfield, Texas. I don't know where to start really. I've been working on this project for over four years, almost five years. U when I started this project, there was none of those houses, anything around adjacent street. So, everybody came in and they got their permit and everybody build those um duplexes except me. That's the one right there. Can you hold on that picture right there if you don't mind? Um the the piece of land that that I'm trying to put a duplex on is uh sitting right between two houses and the fences come all the way to that ditch. The water h the waterway that goes through and there is no way we can put a sidewalk in there so the people can really use it or pedestrian they can use it. As you can see, they put they build this new houses and they never did put any sidewalk on it or pedestrian light. They could have done that. I mean, there was a lot of space for them. They haven't done it. So, mine, if I want to put, by the way, I did get a waiver for that sidewalk. Uh that they said there is, you know, visible or physible way to can put that sidewalk could be usable to the public. So what happened was um u then we came to the pedestrian light which are telling me I have to go front of you folks to explain the situation. So the reason I say that is if if I want to put the sidewalk with the pedestrian light, the people who are walking along that side of the street, they have to jump over the ditch, use that about 50 ft of the sidewalk and then jump back on the ditch to keep on going on the street, which which is not visible. It doesn't make any sense. But if I do put uh my own little sidewalk on the front, it's going to look for the nice for the city, for the neighborhood. And as you can see, those fences are all the way down to the ditches right there. So right there, you can see it. And if I want to put the sidewalk in there, there is a water going through on that ditch. Uh and it's going to eat up the clay and all the dirt on that sidewalk. Eventually, it's going to collapse. But now if if you ru if you do things we have to put a sidewalk. I think the city got to come in and fill up those ditches or put some kind of a bridge over them. So we'll be able to put a a sidewalk all the way from the new construction that I showed you to the street all the way from down there to all the way to down where we are. So nobody has any sidewalk, no pedestrian light. And that new construction, I don't know how they got the permit. I mean, they didn't put no sidewalk and no pedestrian light. And they've done it. I mean, and they they build it within four or five months. And I'm still five years into this project. And I'm still uh going back and forth and and I'm I really appreciate uh Sandy Mitchell. She's trying to help me out, but things are getting more complicated the way uh she was explaining. I was trying to clarify a little more on the basis of what we see. Just to answer your question, is 13 feet approximately? I'm doing it off of a GIS map, so it may not be entirely like meshed out. 13 feet from the right the roadway to the property line. >> Yes. >> And what's the overall ride of way? >> I don't know. >> Let me measure. Let me erase this. >> By the way, those houses are there in line. And if I do come forward, it's going to be awkward because the other houses are lined up this way. And I'm going to be coming >> 51 ft >> approximately of course >> 45 ft >> 51 >> 50 ft. Yeah, 50 foot right away be standard. >> Um and just a reminder this is just for a waiver for the pedestrian lights. So, >> and the requirement is only for one pedestrian light because that would be the only requirement would he would have to put in one pedestrian light. >> Where would that pedestrian light go in in the middle of the >> This is why he's seeking a waiver. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, the applicant's preference is to deal with the pedestrian light now, but there are still future waiverss according to staff that we >> I think we could >> I don't see really anything else can be done >> those things. >> Sorry. >> I I think we could work with him on those things, but we always to make sure we can't wave those things. So, I think he just needs time to be able to sort those things out. >> Um, >> what are those things? Oh. Um, I do have a list of them. Give me one moment. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> I've got maybe about uh five different site plan or six site plan. I keep going back and forth to my engineer to to modify and I have about five different uh or or rather six different way of putting the sidewalk. as we were talking to Sandy, she was explaining probably this is the way to do it. But I really don't see anywhere we can put that uh pedestrian light. I don't see it anywhere in the property is isolated right between the two houses and nobody's ever going to use that. And there is a street light on the top of that if visibility is the issue. And also on the uh duplex that I'm going to put, I did modify it to put the two uh flood lights on each corner. So anyone who just pass by it, it's going to be plenty of light. >> I see this It's No, it's not. It's the other way. That's no sidewalk to be seen. And that's a small strip of a street. And on the other side is a business actually as you can see. You can't see. There you go. That's the one he's talking about. >> There's this to the right up there. >> Go ahead. Yeah. Did you have your list of what? Yeah. >> Um, so we have to kind of contend to the facade variation requirement. So for every new building less than 50 uh feet there is a requirement at least two elements uh that is either to be like floor blanding banding columns foundation or a wall plane variation of at least 3 ft depth and or projection. Um and it must be at least two stories in height. Uh material and color changes. uh they do have some sort of difference between the first and the second floor which is also part of the requirement. So it's it's it's those types of things. Um other outstanding things would be um the fencing material. They said that there's some existing one, but we noticed that there's one fencing that we just need to know like what material they're planning on using. Um and that showed up in the newer uh August 31st submission. So we just need more clarification on that. There is also some incorrect information on the calculations for the urban forestry in terms of 5% calculation. Um, so we just again we just need clarification on that as well. So these are these are outstanding things but I'll let Francisco Vega explain a little. >> Hi everyone, Francisco Vega plant manager for preservation and design team. I think part of the confusion comes to the uh situation of how this request is on the agenda but because it's for the approval of the whole project including the pedestrian lining that's the reason why staff is recommending to continue it the case in the agenda is not only for the light is for the whole project. So if you approve the case, you are essentially approving the whole project and staff will not have the the opportunity to work with the applicant on all those standing uh components of the project that are pending. >> I don't I don't think so. >> Uh yeah, I would agree with that as well. The the agenda is just is it the project is a duplex. I think that's that's clear. It's not it. You're only granting that specific waiver that is listed on the agenda, not the entire project. So, >> he'll get that waiver. If there are any additional waiverss that would be needed, it would come back to the UDC. It's not just, >> you know, if there there are ways to correct staff's oversight in the event that, hey, we forgot this waiver, we need to bring it back. It's not as if the UDC essentially gives a blanket approval of a project when there may be necessary waiverss down the line. For example, the site plan we're looking at may not be the most recent. We're not approving the site plan. We're just specifically addressing the pedestrian light waiver. >> That is correct. That is correct. >> Does the staff are you using guidance for an overall overlay for this district and their design? And if you are, is everyone who's building new being held to those standards? >> So, yes, ma'am. Um when we uh typically get cases like this uh we want to make sure that the standards are the same for everyone else. That's why we also had a pedestrian light waiver for last week and it's in the not in this specific area but in this general area. Um we do want to make sure that everything's being complied with. We do look at the overall scope, the future land use, the current zoning and what's the surrounding. um a lot of our standards are tied to that as well in terms of like um is this going to be is your next door neighbor is it going to be a one to two family so then the standards are not the same and we do evaluate that when we do our staff reports um in this case however there the UR and um it's on the staff report that it shows the UR is that whole block not just that area of the project and the uh the property to the north is MU2 So we do take it as like a like as soon as the single families are getting developed and there we also do have about four more projects right now in the peritting status on this street that is coming in UR so we do look at the overall scope and stuff like that when we're writing the staff report um he has been working on this for some time um we do understand that there is some drainage issues so we we we we haven't given our actually determination because we've requesting a continuous to deal with the other things but um given that time we could actually give you a staff's recommendation um once we review everything and all the items that are outstanding >> seems to me we are just going in cycle >> everything keep saying it some other points comes up >> understandably where you are >> we're going to focus on the lighting because that's what on that's what's on our agenda today and all the other staff. I'm in my opinion of fellow commissioners, I think that we just need to focus on what's on the agenda >> and hope that the planning and in the in the city will look at the overall help them everyone with the drainage, everyone with the street. We need curbs, you know, we need you want sidewalks, you've got to make it conducive. A >> lot of years a lot of works need to be done to really to put the sidewalks over there. >> Understood. Other things has been an ongoing >> that really surprises me is that other houses about three houses down they put the new duplexes over there and nobody ever I don't know they were supervising and somehow escaped their attention to putting the sidewalk over there which was very feasible to do it and put the uh what do you call uh pedestrian light and that wasn't happening >> your case? Yeah, that's that's what I'm saying. I mean the lighting appreciate that. Sure. Sure. Yeah, that's what I'm that's reference to the siding. I mean the lighting. How come there wasn't there is no lighting over there on the other side without other properties? >> So on that note, any additional questions for the applicant related to the agenda item. Um is anyone do you have any further further comments sir before we move on? Do I have any comment? >> Any anything else to say while you're up there? >> Oh. Oh. This site plan actually is the ultimate one that with the help of Sandy, we put that one out. So, it's kind of like be able to put a sidewalk which which really is not going to be usable. But for the sake of the argue, we're going to put the sidewalk over there. Actually, it's going to be a private sidewalk. And then we have to do the encroachment and stuff. It's going to complicate things if we just go straight with you know what is this the issue at hand. It should be I've done everything. Everything is done. I'm only stuck in this pedestrian light. The sidewalk waiver has already been issued as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Um is there anyone else here to speak in in favor of this case? >> Yeah. >> Anyone here to speak in opposition? >> No. >> Okay. We will close the public comment portion or discussion by the commission. >> Yeah. I I think we need to just really focus in on what's on the our agenda and not they're going to come up with other things that he's got to have waiverss for. That's on them and just case by case. >> We have to determine whether we want to continue the case or approve or or reject the lighting request. So that's what's >> agreed. I I don't see any grounds for um pushing it forward. Yeah. Continuing it. Um And I don't see where you would put a pedestrian light in the public realm. So it would have to any lighting would have to be on on the building. >> That's what I'm saying. >> It's not a pedestrian light. So it's a that's a roadway light. And then so it's it's not meeting the UR zoning. So UR zoning would say that, you know, needs to be in this public realm and there's supposed to be sidewalk, there's supposed to be street trees, there's supposed to be street lights and or pedestrian lights. Yeah. And he can't do that in on this site. But >> right, >> so that's why we're >> why we're here. >> We're here. >> Comments. >> Yeah. >> Any more comments? >> I was going to move to approve for approval of of the waiver >> waiver for no pedestrian light. >> This is Commissioner Carl. I'll second that. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second to approve the waiver for a pedestrian scale lighting. Um, Chair Benner, how do you uh vote? >> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Wes, how do you, >> Commissioner Carr? How do you vote? >> I. >> Um, Commissioner Dose, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Harrier, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you vote? I >> Commissioner Ramsey, how do you vote? >> I. >> And Commissioner Hamsy, is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I Okay, perfect. Thank you. So, we have a vote of 90 for the waiver of the production scale lighting for UDC case number 2026137 um 5812 Eastland Street. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you folks. I appreciate it. After 5 years, people are making tons and tons of houses. No issues for me just for one house. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our final case, UDC 2026 205. And one thing to note, the council district is actually district 6. about 95% of the campoui form base code is within district three. So that was my mistake on on the agenda. All right. Good morning commissioners. Morning. Um last case is UDC 2026 205. Um the address is 5506 Levelville Avenue. Um the applicant is requesting a certificate of properness for a originally designed town home development for homes in the Kambooi Boulevard code transition district with a waiver from the first floor to floor height standard to allow a floor to floor height of 10 feet 8 in where a minimum of 15 feet first floor tofloor height is required. Um this is the Korea sunny map of the location. Um just as a little bit of background this um let me just so um the the project that we presenting today is as I said 556 Love Avenue. Uh it contains four platted lots but in overall this project um uh belongs to a more larger development which includes um the parcels of the northern portion as well of this block. Um but as of today uh we're just presenting waivers from the southern portion because we don't have um final drawing from the northern part and that's why we're just presenting the waiver for the southern um portion of the property the development. Uh here's the aerial imagery of the site and the as a little bit background as well about the prop the proposed project. consist of two Dless residential building um containing a total of four dwelling units and this other portion of the SA is located within the Camboui transition zone. So as you can see um even though it's one larger project it has two different um subunning from Kambooi the southern portion is transition and the northern part it's regally gateway and because the updated proposal which is the one that you're seeing right now um the what that we got from the applicant and and the proposed duplex building extend now across um plotted lot lines. Um you can see it here lot lines and it's no longer treated as a town home because to be treated as a town hall the building might extend across internal lot lines and with that being said um they cannot be treated as a separate individual lots the units because you have two units per building and due to this current design they could not be longer sell as individual property lots. So that's why it's not longer considered as a townhouse with this current design and the level development is as I say it's a part of the larger project and each duplex building contains two attached building units. You can see it here on this elevation facade and our two the two units are two story in height and include individual front entrances from porches attached garage and we access from the alley and residential scale architectural detail as you you're seeing on the elevations. Um the PU the building are primarily oriented uh towards Lobl Avenue and with the principal facas and the pedestrian entrances and the front porch address in the street. Um the project also includes associated pedestrian walkways and landscaping plans that will still working with the applicant on those kind of components. The landscape plan And the Kambooi co-established development standards intend to promote compatible building form appropriate transitions and pedestrian oriented development pattern with this district. um as a presenter today the the the entire um overall design and that the applicant still needs a waiver because Kamuico requires a 15 ft minimum height for the first floor for all the districts. And in this case, the applicant is just proposing a 10 ft 8 in first floor and staff believe the the current high design is appropriate for the residential use and surrounding neighborhood context. Um as of right now the property is um so this is the photo from the side busy. um the context around the property it's single home houses and as I believe that the scale that the applicant is proposing is appropriate and although the building size sebox that they're proposing with this new design um this is just a note and um it might have some building code um issues that the applicant might have to address once it goes through the general building permit process and due to fire and requirements of minimum segments between buildings. However, for the waiver that we are presenting today which is the height um we believe that it meets the the intent of the actual neighborhood which is the scale and Given the above and the staff recommend approval of the waiver but but subject to condition to resume final review plan showing compliance with the other standards like landscape plans and preparational locations and other items they will still want the applicant to address but we can work it internally as a staff. Um, and this comes to staff report. >> Thank you. Uh, any questions for staff? >> Were there any issues with the setback? >> Um, so when we started working with the applicant um, in the original proposed design, he didn't meet the cambooy sebox. So in order to avoid waiverss from the camboo of sebas that's why he presented this kind of new um location of the building units where are crossing a platted load lines but for doing that now he doesn't meet some fire code um requirements that he might have to address. uh and the applicant we we talked to him about this kind of issue but he's willing to continue that kind of situation later and we don't know if has to come back to us but as of right now he meets the setback stand up for the camboo we just I just wanted to give like a note about the building code issue that he might will have once he goes through the general building permit process Yes. >> Are these still four individually platted lots? >> So, as of right now, um they're individual plat, but because now the current design of the building cross um those plotted lot lines, uh it's no longer considered as a town hall. And with that being say, it cannot be sell as a individual units because it has it has cross the plat lines and the city doesn't >> well he's going to have problems with building code because you cannot put a building across a property line and >> you can property and if you got two he's going to put a firewall between those two because you're on a property line. So >> So the problem is not that he's crossing the property line. The problem is the setbacks that he's >> he's going to have problems in the building code because you cannot do that. Okay. >> You cannot I can't even put exit doors across property lines and buildings that I built. >> Space in order on your property. So, he's got some building code issues. >> Yeah. I think Joe want to >> Yeah. Commissioner Ramsey in the city of Fort Worth. The city does allow you to build across plot lines as long as it's common ownership. >> Well, if they're all owned by the same people. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's the same owner. >> He just the utility taps have to be se. But as long as he can de deconlict that the city will allow him to build. >> That's fine. I just want to make sure >> y >> and I will just add his his waiver request today is just for the floortofloor height. >> Um the applicants looking to get this project moving. So after discussions with the applicant, we we agreed to move forward with just this waiver and that's why we're asking for the plans just to be resubmitted so we can continue to work on the landscape and the public realm. But the applicants verbally communicated to staff his willingness to meet the published standards as is. So he's just trying to make sure he can move along as expeditiously as possible. >> Yeah. Yeah. And also um we believe that the applicant will might come back for waiverss for height as well for the northern part later on. So because it's the same developer and also just to point that out the applicant has stated that he has worked with the KO neighborhood on the design to have the neighborhood approval and he has stated that the neighborhood is feeling in favor of the height waiver but we didn't receive any letter of support from the neighborhood yet so I think there's some common neighbors here present today to speak on behalf of the yet out of curiosity whether we simply approve or approve with these condition with these subject to the conditions of resubmitting that's the same effect has the same effect right >> it's it's the same effect we as staff just wanted to acknowledge like hey we're still working through this so like on the site plan I think you might see like a pedestrian light like right at the corner between the two crosswalks we know IPRC is not going to approve that so we just need to work on some of that spacing make sure it's meeting the intent of the landscape ordinance and the applicant's been very willing to work with staff. He's been very cooperative. So, you know, either way, it's the same path. We just kind of wanted to affirm that in our recommendation for the motion. >> Understood. >> Any other questions for staff? >> I I do. Um so, this is for both of you guys, Joe and um when we have more people coming for building in this in this particular area. So, are we going to have building codes for the Komo neighborhood or are we going to follow the Camp Buouie? Because Camp Buoy guidelines sounds like it's more commercial and less residential. So, how how are you working through all this? >> So, we're we actually we do have Campo forbased code update on the agenda later on. So, we'll address some of that. Okay. >> Um this is in the Camp Buouie transition district. The intent of the district is to transition that commercial corridor into the adjacent residential. Campway formbbased code is the only district we have that is linear along a sixlane commercial highway. So it's different from near southside bar university stockyards which are all this contiguous area and you can walk in two directions in camp where you walk in one direction and you're outside the district. So the intented transition is to transition that commercial into the residential and that's what this zoning is. Um we are in communications with the uh KOMO community and working very closely handinhand with uh Camp Buouie Inc. about code updates. So we'll actually address that later on in the work session. >> Fair enough. Good. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I think one of the just to give a little bit of background as well, one of the issues, well not issues, one of the reason why we don't have the northern portion um design ready yet is because it has to meet kind of different standards because it's actually part of the Kambooi corridor area on the northern portion. But this other portion is the part that's actually facing the KO community >> facing KO is in KO the residential side. Mhm. >> Okay. Is the applicant here to speak? Welcome up. >> Yes. >> Please state your name in the city in which you reside. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Corey Waldrip. I'm here with Motive Ventures to speak on behalf of the project. Um prepared a PowerPoint uh for you guys to walk you through a couple of things and just wanted to say thank you. Uh a couple points of clarity before we get started. Um, we have been very very uh graciously accepted to participate in the community meeting at KOMO and share about our project as far as having their support. Um, I hope we do. Um, but we don't have anything definitive. So, we'll let them speak as to their um to their feelings about the project and and their viewpoint. Um, but anyway, um u just introduce myself. Uh, my wife and I uh are Fort Worth residents. I was born and raised in Fort Worth. Uh Fort Worth is home. Um and we're grateful for the opportunity to create something that will serve this community for years to come. Uh thank you as well for the Fort Worth Development Services uh team and for their collaboration and to the KOMO community for welcoming us, allowing us to share the project and helping us better understand the neighborhood. Um our uh the project's straightforward. Uh build quality homes that give families stability in a place they're proud to call home. Uh the location provides important context uh for the project. Uh the level property is site sits just south of the Camp Buouie corridor uh within the Lake Ko community area and the Camp Buouie transition district. As Jefferson pointed out, uh the property front Level Avenue uh and with a corner frontage on Borin Street uh both close classified as local streets uh under the Camp Buouie framework. Uh the project is part of a larger initiative that we are planning for this area including the luck and actually the Rosedale properties to the north um as well. Levelville consists of approximately four 1,800 square ft four-bedroom residents and two duplex buildings. Uh, Miss Jefferson pointed out um earlier on the site plan, we do recognize that there are life safety um codes that we will comply with. I think that site plan showed an inherent line to line between the the roof uh fascia and not inherently the uh building setback itself. So, we will work with staff on correcting um and complying with all life safety um related code. Uh long-term ownership creates a different approach to construction. Um well selected materials, thoughtful layouts, and durable construction reduce long-term maintenance while protecting the value of the property. Uh it's our belief affordability should not require sacrificing quality. Uh we are pursuing opportunities that can assist housing affordability while also supporting the investment required for thoughtful design. This rendering shows how the project reflects the Camp Buouie standards through a residential design. Along the street, we're providing the sixoot sidewalks, uh, pedestrian lighting, landscaping, and front porches that create a defined and walkable streetscape, durable materials, and the design reflect the historic residential character of the neighborhood. the homes face uh and engage the street while the garages and vehicular access remain secondary and to the rear through the alley. So while the building is new, the scale materials in relationship to the street reflect both the camp standards um and the residential character of the neighborhood. The requested waiver is appropriate for three simple reasons. First is use. The code defines these as residential buildings. It separately defines commercial ready space designed for conversion to commercial use. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show that residential use and commercial ready requirements depend on use and street frontage. Level is residential and it fronts a local street. Sections 6.25 and 6.85 identify first floor height as part of the commercial ready standards and tie standards to Camp Buouie Boulevard frontage. levelvel is exclusively residential, contains no commercial ready space, and does not have the frontage condition requiring commercial ready construction. Therefore, the 15 ft first floor height is part of the commercial ready framework and does not apply to the residential condition at level. Second, the proposed first floor to floor height is approximately 11'2 in. Jefferson, I know you discussed 10 feet. Uh I think that's floor to ceiling. Uh and I might not have been clear on how we represented that information. But when we include the floor joist and the subfloor, that's how we're coming up with our floor to floor. So just to clarify um that from an point of view. Um providing a 10-ft plate plus height uh in the floor system. Increasing that dimension to 15t adds almost 4 feet of vertical space. Um, and why that's important is the additional height would lengthen the staircase configuration and consumes usable uh residential area within these lots. Accommodating that additional run would push the building width beyond the frontage requirements and plated lot uh the platted lot can accommodate. Um, more specifically, if we're going up four feet, then our run's going to increase by roughly 3' 11 in. Okay, so if we're doing that for four duplex units, which just simple math, four units, four feet, that's 16 feet of additional building space that we would need, and it just pushes the project entirely off our capacity with what the the platted lots and then we'd be in here asking for waiverss on frontage. And so I think that the Camp Buouie uh code is clear that the frontage requirements would require a reasonzoning. And so I think that is a higher ask uh than what we're here to discuss with you today. Uh third's the scale. Uh this is designed as a traditional two-story residential building that fits the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Um adding additional 4 feet to the vertical would create an unnecessarily tall first story or at least in my opinion. Um increase the building's mass and change those residential proportions. The waiver allows the building to maintain the scale, proportion, and residential character the KUI standards are intended to support. Uh clarity on how the 15 foot standard applies to exclusively residential projects would be very valuable for future development. However, for level, we are requesting approval of the proposed residential floor to floor height through this waiver. I'm thankful for city staff um and their support of the request. And this was just a a video that was running through the different elevations. Um there's some additional information on the back side of this if you guys have any questions. Uh so respectfully uh we request the waiver uh for the floor to floor height and um we believe this is a limited and reasonable request that preserves the neighborhood character of KOMO while maintaining the functional quality and intent of the Camp Buouie code um which allows us to build a beautiful place for families to call home. Thank you for everyone who's been a part of the project and to the commission for your time and consideration. Um, happy to answer any questions you guys might have. >> Thank you very much. >> Staff can provide a little bit of clarity on the the measure. So, there's a weird diagram in the code that suggests the floor tofloor measure is to the top of the ceiling. So, we as staff put in the agenda request to the top of the ceiling. So, he regardless of how you measure what's in the agenda would get him to achieve his plans. So, just note that. That's why we put the 10 feet 8 inches. It's the more conservative of the of the two options we had dealing through that interpretation and how that's commonly uh applied. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? >> Okay. Thank you. Uh anyone else here to speak in favor of this case? welcome up. >> Thank you. Please state your name. >> Good day. I'm Sandra Stanley from Como. I'm a stakeholder resident and I'm the current uh Knack president. And so um I wanted to say that this um developer, they have uh really done their due diligence with us. They've met with us three times on site at our NAC meeting. And then some of the people that didn't get to come to the net meeting, we had a third meeting on Zoom. So some of our concerns, initial concerns with the Cambouie and I guess for me being the new president, not knowing that that zoning over there on the veil, especially on the veil is considered Camp Buouie. then knowing that the street the block that backs up to it is considered Camp Buouie. So that's when I started answering asking lots and lots of questions. Okay, that's residential. Those other um zonings aren't going to fit for KOMO. If you look at the new bill across the street from this property, and I don't know if y'all have a picture of that, the new bill across the street from that property. It's a new bill and they didn't come under that under those restrictions and it's very nice. But this project complements this. But what what won us over was most developers when they come to KOMO, they tell us what they're going to do. Of course, it's their property. uh and they never talk about affordable housing. Well, this developer came out the shoot talking about developer uh affordable housing and had a discussion with us about it and we even came back again on that third meeting to say uh some of the um residents said we want that in writing because we have so many developers come and they don't uh honor they get what they need and they forget. So, they did make a ver a written commitment to us to have uh uh at least two of those uh of their properties uh as affordable housing. And they had already the conversation we didn't have to prompt them. We didn't have to ask them. She uh uh Meg had already went and talked to housing and got on schedule and got ideas for that and very open to what we were saying and what we wanted. And um they stayed for our NAG meeting to the end and got to um meet the uh the um community and they were available for questions and no uh questions negative questions came up at the meeting there. If there are some uh questions then uh we don't know about that. But I would I am concerned and I've been talking to the city. We met with Mr. um Mr. uh DJ. We've met with him. I've talked to Joseph has been very helpful in when did Komo become that part of Komo become um uh Cambouie and they're helping us navigate through that and Camboo uh horn you know summer horn yes but not the residential so it doesn't it's apples and oranges for that even when they come back for this second development having the lavel the um the lavell street and then have lock doing something different is going to be weird and it's to me it's going to never be commercial now some kind of way that big storage building is there it's there and we know gentriification well in Ko we can't control people we can't control uh investors a lot of the investors in Ko uh don't live here they're from out of state cuz I stop and ask them where are you from and get that information so Uh uh they live here. That's wonderful. They live We I've asked a lot of questions. They live here in Fort Worth. We like that. And so um we're in majority is in favor of this project. We want it to look like a neighborhood, not commercial. It's not going to ever be commercial right there on those two streets. So when you come back when they come back for their other one, and I know they've had to change the design. I understand the Rosedale part because she shared the whole vision uh and that looks really nice, but um I just don't see how they match up and hopefully we can uh the city will continue to work with us and you guys will work with us to get us on track on what we need and we're working forward on that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in favor? Good morning. welcome up. >> Good morning. My name is Wanda Bohannan and I'm a long-term resident of the Lake Homo area. We have met several times with the uh builders. We do appreciate the fact that we want our I hope you appreciate the fact that we want our community to remain a community that looks like a community. We are currently also in progress of working with the conservation to ensure that the inside part of the Lecomo uh community stays the same. As we've looked at these buildings and we as we've talked to the builder too, it sounds like we are um looking forward to them being here. not just because of the affordable um um housing but also because it's going to conform to our neighborhood. What we don't want to do is destroy the concept of family uh s uh residential area. And so as a resident of KO, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for what I saw at the meetings, the comments that I've heard. We are in favor of working with this builder. And by the way, they are probably uh one in a long time one of the ones that have actually come to us, worked with us and considered what we as a community would like to have. >> Thank you. In favor? Yes. Welcome up. >> Good morning. My name is Shavina Miss Peacock Taylor and I am a Lake Ko resident and I am also the program director of keep lake como beautiful. Uh that's a program of proof of life community development corporation. I reviewed the record for UDC 2026205 and I want to limit my comment to the decision before the commission today. the four-unit lavel portion and the requested waiver from the 15 foot floor tofloor standard I'm sorry 15 foot first floor floor to floor standard to 10 ft 8 in based on the staff's findings that the reduced height is more compatible with the surrounding residential context I support the waiver with the staff recommended conditions requiring final compliance with the remaining Campboy standards and revised enhanced landscaping. I also understand that separate building code and permitting review remains outstanding. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else here to speak in favor? Is anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, we'll close the public comment portion for discussion by the commission. I think the the developer has done a good job working with the community. I think his design fits in with the character of our neighborhood. Um and so I think they've done an excellent job and I'm recommending approval. >> I have a question just um it blends right with the area and you support the design. Did you through that process do you feel like everyone all the others the you know future people that are coming to purchase the land and come in is this kind of the standard you're wanting the whole neighborhood and KOMO to become? >> I do I'm not encouraging us to have a lot of duplexes throughout our neighborhood. We're having houses. It's mostly it's single family, but this duplex fits in with the other designs of houses that they built. It really doesn't look like a no part a do it looks more like a house. And it >> it's going to expand. You're talking a whole block now behind that public storage. behind that public storage is on lock side and it should looks like a um the neighborhood too because it's not going to be a business corridor on that side. It walks right down into the neighborhood which is houses. So I don't see lock ever becoming a commercial corridor and if you just go to the next block they've built some new houses all along there. >> Thank you. And I think we've seen some of these cases with the 10 foot versus 15 foot. And there are there are commercial spaces with 10ft ceilings. So it doesn't preempt that you can't use this space as like a live work where the downstairs would be um if that was the future growth of the of the neighborhood if it became an area that that was uh feasible or the neighborhood wanted it. Um, but I do think that they have some work to do on the site plan. Uh, specifically you got bedroom windows on property lines uh that need setbacks. So, um, I think we should if we move for approval and we should, uh, have them continue to work with staff. >> So, I would like to make a motion to approve if there are any other comments by um, move for approval. provided subject to a resubmission of final review of the plans showing compliance with all other camp form base code standards. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner West and a second by Commissioner Deose. Um, Chair Benner, how do you vote? I >> Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote? I >> Commissioner West, how do you vote? Hi, >> Commissioner Carr. How do you vote? >> Hi, >> Commissioner Deose. >> I Commissioner Harrier. How do you vote? >> Hi. >> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> I Commissioner Holidayiday. >> And Commissioner Hamsy, how do you vote? >> I motion passes 90. Thank you. All right, that concludes our cases today. We're going to this UDC, we decided to try something a little bit different and put work session at the end. Number one, so we can work on getting applicants through the commission process. They're not having to wait um you know, two, three hours for their case to be heard. And then um also just kind of to kind of you know be able to talk about these things a little bit more freely without the pressure of having to rush through them. Um so we have three work session topics today. The first is just a quick status update on the Panther Island formbbased code. So my colleague Francisco has been working on that. So I may um pull him in here on this. Um we presented this code update to you back in June and it's been working through the legislative process for the last few months. Um, so with that, it's getting ready to go to city council. So, we just wanted to remind you about some of the things that you guys may see in the newspaper over the next couple weeks. Um, so here's a quick, it's kind of a long summary of changes. There are some pretty substantial changes, but just to hit some of the high points, we are consolidating the multiple subjects districts into two, Panther Island Core and Panther Island Edge. We're adding some of our some guiding principles and development objectives based off of uh some community engagement and networking and uh visioning for the district. Um we're also updating some of our administrative procedures and regulating plans. We're revising and expanding some of our waterfront and public open space standards to account for updates in the canal work that's being done in Panther Island. Um, we're also modifying some of the district boundaries that relates to the subdist consolidation and making some uh simplification to the maximum height limits given that now we're just moving to two subdists. The the original code had various height limits based off the various subdists. Um, so if you uh paid attention to the last zoning commission hearing, you'll notice you would have noticed that there's actually two zoning cases that we put in front regarding Panther Island. One is to update the code document and the map what's called a map amendment in zoning speak and then the other one is to reszone some of the properties into those two subdists that we're creating. So really the genesis of the code update again is to implement the vision 2.0 plan that uh TRWD Taran County Regional Water District put together between 2023 and 2024. So this is the operationalizing of that making sure the code comes up to speed with it. Um so here's a kind of summary of the district consolidation. On the left you can see the current district map with the nine districts, the various heights and then on the right you can see a couple of things. Number one you can see the consolidation into two subd districts and then additionally a change in the overall boundary. So there are some parcels that are kind of on the opposite sides of the river here and uh once the bypass channels complete there'll be kind of a clear delineation. So, those are going to actually we're working on reszoning those to other things. The the yellow that you hear that you see here by Henderson Street, there's actually an active zoning application for that site already. So, we're kind of adjusting the boundaries of Panther Island, pulling it in, making sure it better aligns with TRWD and public land ownership. Um, and also in the areas that are abudding downtown, uh, in this area, there's some conflicts with the downtown overlay too that make it just a little bit tough to work through. So, we're hoping that this new boundary line will simplify things. Then, as you can see on the right, we're also moving just to the two subd districts. The core, which is the darker pink on that map, and the edge, which is the lighter pink. >> Joe, I have a question. When did it go up to 24? I thought it was at 20 on the max uh height >> on on this one. >> Yeah, the core. I thought I saw something in a public thing. It was 20 feet. So, so the north main subdist is 20. The N3 subd district, neighborhood three has been 24. I I'd have to go back into the history of Panther to look up exactly when that was. Um, but that's we're kind of just simplifying that across the board. Do you want to hop in on that at all, Francisco Vega, planning manager? No, I I I know that there is an amendment that happened uh probably I don't know five years or something ago where there was a revision to the maximum height. Um in the past 10 years I think that we have been updating this district probably seven times. And so I remember when I was reviewing the uh the background of the district, I saw one of those ordinances to increase the height, but I just can't remember the year. >> Thank you. >> Uh speaking of height, that simplification of the height, we oftent times get questions like, "Oh, you're just going to slap a bunch of big buildings in. Is it going to look out of scale?" So one of the things Vision 2.0 0 did was they did some broader neighborhood context analysis. Looked at Panther Island and the maximum heights in context to the north side as well as to downtown. And I think the important thing here is to note the change in elevations between those three districts. Downtown obviously we're on a bluff. I mean not this site but you know a few blocks away is on a bluff. So that district where there's already tall buildings will still be downtown and be recognized as such. And then Panther Island actually transitions down due to the lower elevation and that kind of provides a transition between north side and some of the the increase in density that's happening in like the stockyards area. Um again here's a huge list of updates. We've we presented this previously. A lot of this is from the vision 2.0 the work that TRWD has been doing with the Army Corps of Engineers for the bypass channel and the canal work. Um here's some more updates. One thing to note, I do want to call out on this slide. The Panther Island formbbased code is going to be moving from a prohibited use table to a permitted use table, which is the way all the other formbbased codes work, just because sometimes there's new uses that come about, and then unless we update the code in time, that use would be allowed by write. Um, so kind of just going through this. Here's one of the concept drawings that came out of Vision 2.0. Panther Island's not going to look like this. These concept drawings is really intended to show the maximum building envelopes that could be built if everything was maxed out. Um, so that's kind of some of the intent of this just to kind of give people a vision for what it could be, not necessarily a definitive plan for what it is going to be. So in terms of status update, um, which is really the the purpose of this presentation, uh, we presented to the UDC in June. We went through zoning commission and city plan commission informational briefs as well. And then um uh earlier this month, we went to zoning commission for a vote for recommendation to city council. Um we're going to CPC for a vote for recommendation early next month and then to zoning or to city council for adoption on October 13th. So if you all see it in the news, we've reminded you uh more currently than that. Any questions on this? Cool. All right. We're we're in a code updating frenzy over here on the historic preservation and design side. We've been working on another large code update to the camp buoy formbbased code and Lydia is here from Campoi Inc. She's really our partner like out on the street um for this project. So the the campaign forbased code was adopted in 2012. There has not been significant uh changes to the development standards or the use standards over that time. So, uh, a few years ago, Campo, Inc. started working with city staff to develop a list of proposed changes. This is the first of what we hope was going to be at least two or three other changes to the code that we're making. We talked about working with KOMO and addressing Horn Street. Um, again, this is the first of more things to come. And this code update is really focused in on five things. Uh, number one, removing some of the non-conforming standards that create conflicts with the base zoning ordinance. And as I'll explain in a second, just build a little bit out of date. Second, removing the use table completely from this formbbased code and referring back to the base zoning ordinance. So, currently all formbbased codes have two use tables, which is very, very confusing. There's one in the form-based code document and then one online in the zoning ordinance. And updating both of those has been a challenge for the city to be honest. So transitioning to the point where we only have the use tables in the zoning ordinance should make it a lot easier for developers as well as for staff. Um so this is the first uh code that we're trying to do this with and hopefully we'll eventually spread this to the other codes as well. Um we're going to be uh revising some of our supplemental standards uh particularly for drive-throughs uh sales from kiosks and mobile vendors which is uh Campo is an auto oriented corridor. That's a those are issues that consistently come up. And also clarifying some language around uh parts of the district that are within the NAS JRB uh overlay area, the APZ2, um because that limits some of the uses. So, we're providing more clarity in the use table. So, if someone's purchasing a property within that, they know to be checking that overlay and those overlay standards. Um, we're also took a stab at rewriting and completely updating our signage standards using some of the best practices from downtown. Um, given that Camp Buouie is very autooriented, signage is a big issue along the district. And as you know, probably the majority of cases within the district that come before the urban design commission relate to signage in Camp Buouie. Um, and then lastly, removing some redundant definitions and referring back to chapter 9 of the zoning ordinance for definitions. Again, just trying to simplify and make this code a little bit easier to use both for city staff and applicants looking to uh build and do business in Camp Buouie. So, here's a map of the corridor. As you can see, it starts from I30 and then it moves along Camp Buouie Boulevard southwest and then around Lackland. It kind of pivots and moves along uh Camp Buouie West almost to I30. It stops a little bit short of I30, but you can see the various subdists here. Um you can kind of see a little bit to the north how NASJRB is directly to the north. So that overlay impacts particularly this area right here and some of the uses that can be there. So I mentioned before that we're updating the non-conforming standards. One of the you might call quirks or unique aspects of the campoui form-based code is that some of the non-conformities are tied to uh value of improvements which was set in 2012 and construction costs and renovation costs have changed significantly since 2012. So it's really not achieving the intent that it was supposed to. So what we're doing is we're simplifying the language just to refer to the non-conforming standards that are in the base zoning. So it's similar to other projects within the city. So if you're a developer and you want to do something in Campoi form base code for the first time, you have that context and can refer back to that. For the use table, again, we're removing the use table from the campoui formbbased code, referring back to the use table in the zoning ordinance, sometimes what we call American Legal, which is the hosting website for the uh zoning ordinance. Yeah, I know this is visually not the best. Um yeah, uh just basically this picture is just showing we're crossing out the use table. Um, and we're making some changes to some of the allowable uses to clarify some things, uh, as well as advance some of the economic revitalization efforts the city has, particularly along Camp Buouie West, uh, Camp Buouie formbbased code is actually called the Camp Buouie Boulevard revitalization code. So, there's always been that strong economic development and revitalization focus to the district. So, as mentioned before, we're adding some clarifying language about the APZ overlay um with the with the base. Um we're distinguishing between massage therapy spa and massage parlor. Um the current use table has very broad categories and that's, you know, those are two very different things. Um we're adjusting some of the uses to have bars be by a CUP, conditional use permit. So currently bars are not permitted in a lot of the district. We think there are circumstances where a bar could be a good thing, but that would have to go through the public process for that. So it's giving a little bit more flexibility for that and making sure that for issu for uses such as home improvement stores and liquor stores. There's some controls on where those take place, but while providing a case by case approval for that. We're moving things such as bingo parlors, retail smoke shops, furniture cabinet repair, aluminum manufacturer, and many warehouse uses. So like self- storage. Um, and uh things like retail smoke shops have things or that have been updated in the base zoning ordinance, but then we never updated the formbbased code forum. So we're just trying to come up to speed with that. And then we're removing most vehicle sales and service as well as aviation transportation uses. Um when you read the intent of the campoui formbbased code, it was really to create a robust commercial, retail and economic corridor that could transition into the adjoining neighborhoods. That was the intent behind the initial passage of it. So things like vehicle sales sometimes make that very difficult because they require large lots that are not very pedestrian friendly. So, we're trying to limit that um and prevent that from spreading throughout the the whole district. Um as mentioned before, we're updating some of our supplemental uses. Uh you can see here how we're consolidating some of the supplemental standards for autorelated uses and then um making a note about uh driveway stacking and making sure that it's aligned with the traffic engineering manual as well because it is an auto corridor. That's a consistent issue that we come across. or we've also added I'm not going to read this whole thing. Uh supplemental standards for sales from kiosks and mobile vendors which we see a lot of within the district. Um we are removing the current sign standards and replacing them with new sign standards that mostly come from downtown. Uh here's a list of the new categories of signs that are going to be in the revised code. Um so we're trying to take the best practices from downtown and bring them to Camp Buouie. Um, one thing we brought >> signs on there, >> huh? >> Digital signs. >> Uh, so ECC's >> uh, so electronic changeable copy that would still have to go through board of adjustment. >> Board of adjustment. >> Uh, that might be a broader zoning question. Yeah, >> it's just a pet of mine adjustment and I put scrollers on. I can't put digital signs, but I can put them on my monument sign that's out front. I think everybody uses digital signs on every gas station. It's not a picture. I can't change it from here. >> On on signage, one thing we brought in front of UDC several times is for sites that are on corner lots. So, because the boulevard bisects the street grid, there's a lot of properties on corner lots. The current code only allows one sign per tenant, but we get a lot of requests from tenants to request two signs on those corner lots. So, we're updating some of these sign allocation area standards to uh allow folks to have two signs as long as they stay within the total allocation area. Um, we've we're also removing a bunch of redundant definitions, definitions that exist either verbatim or slightly different in the code and the zoning ordinance. Um, so we're just referring both folks back to the zoning ordinance for those definitions. And then in the current code, all the sign types are separately defined, which is a bit confusing because then you look at the sign standards and you the definition also then defines it. So we're moving those definitions for signage and just having folks refer to the sign standards so it's a little bit more user friendly. And then in terms of schedule of adoption, so this is the first stop on our road tour for the legislative process for this code. Um, we're going to be doingformational briefs to uh zoning commission next month and then we'll do an IR to city council to keep them up to date on this. We've already been speaking with uh council member Crane and we have a meeting next week with uh council member Hall. Um and then we'll bring it back to the urban design commission for a vote on October 22nd followed by zoning commission on uh November 11th and city council we hope on December 8th. Uh we do have a redlinined version of the code that we will send out prior to the October meeting so you can see the how what's changing and how that looks. Um we were also going to probably end up reformatting the code just for ease of use from a landscape version to a portrait version. Um so you you'll see that in the final copy as well, but I think really the red line is what is most important to you so you can understand what is changing in terms of the text and standards. Uh, I'm happy to answer any questions. Francisco's been working on this longer than I have. And we also have Lydia here from Camp Buouie, Inc. who's been our a real partner in this effort. >> I'm curious, when is the public, like the residents and folks in that area going to be informed? >> So, uh, there's a few different methods for that. Um, we've been working with Camp, Inc. on setting up some community meetings in late September, early October to start getting the word out, allow folks opportunities to ask questions. Additionally, before zoning commission, they'll get a mailed public notice. And we've been going through the the district. I was there earlier this week driving around identifying all potential nonconformities. So, we have a list of those folks and can address some of their questions about that. That was a request from the council member and I believe it's also a requirement for the the zoning. Um, it's it's a long corridor and it's a little bit tedious going property by property. Uh, but we're working through that. We've gotten all the way to uh Altameir from the from the west. So, we've done camp uh western business and industrial arts and we're going to keep working our way east on that. >> As you work through that, the Horn Street corridor is still in that. >> Yes, the Horn Street corridor is still in the code. Um that is zone transition. These changes particularly related to use, none of those address the transition district. So, we're keeping that as is. We do have a meeting uh on Monday, I believe, with the Knack leadership to kind of go over that. And one of the things that we want to start talking about with the Knack is we understand that there might be a request for reszoning of Horn or rethinking that. So, we'll we're hoping to start that really in November once we kind of get through this legislative process and then be working on that November, December, and into 2027. I just want to be sure that there are not any surprises come to KOMO that we are not aware of because when they start changing and plopping stuff in, it does affect the neighborhood. >> Will those changes come in our next uh packet? Will we get to see those prior to the 22nd? >> Yes, you're going to get a redline version of the code. It'll I'm hopefully by the end of this month. Uh, but we'll make sure that you have ample time to review that and compare and contrast. >> Awesome. Thanks. >> That was pretty quick, by the way, updating your uh, presentation to show the October 22nd >> wishful thinking. Yeah, considering we just voted on it about an hour. >> Like those Super Bowl teams, they all print them up anyway, then whoever wins >> Thank you, Joe. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Um, one final work session item and this is really to prepare for next month. So, every year we bring beforeward bring forward our rules of procedure for annual adoption. Um, so we're going to do that in advance of next month. It's largely going to stay the same. We're going to be making some small changes. I just want to go over. So, we're moving away from the term urban design officer to executive secretary, which is what a lot of the other boards and commissions utilize. Um, we're clarifying some of the filing deadlines. Um, also we've moved from 10 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. time. So, that's all getting updated. Simplifying some of the withdrawal language, the current rules of procedure that kind of separate out immediate versus delayed withdrawal. But really, in the end of the day, if someone's requesting a withdrawal of a case, it's just easier for to withdraw it. Um, and then transitioning from filing deadline language to filing requirements language to, you know, we deal with with cases that are as simple as an individual business wall sign. And the largest case we have right now is a 1.4 billion 14story hospital tower. So the review timelines for those are drastically different. Um, and really the I think the most important thing is making sure that the case is reviewed by staff and uh really ready to be filed before you, not necessarily, oh, did you meet X or Y deadline? Um, and then we're removing language about denying with or without prejudice um after consulting with legal because design is so contextually based. you know, if you deny with prejudice one application, they can come back slightly tweak it and technically that's a new application because you're taking into consideration the whole context. So, it's really just you're denying it. They can come back and resubmit with an with a change design, but it just kind of clarifies that with the updated legal guidance. So, our hope is to bring this in front of you on October 22nd. Um, and again, this will send out in advance of next UDC, so you have time to review. Very good. Thank you very much. Anything else? That's all we got. Okay. Well, I want to thank Commissioner Hughes for your service and uh, welcome, Commissioner Hamza. And, uh, we will see everybody October 22nd. Have a great rest of your month. Thank you.