The meeting of the zoning commission.

This meeting is now officially called to order.

It is March 11th, 2026.

It is 105 p.m.

Uh, thank you all for coming.

Um, really appreciate all of you in the audience being here.

Uh, this is what it looks like to have a voice in your community.

So thank you for being here.

We appreciate it.

There are a bunch of you, and I'll probably say this again.

I know a lot of you are here for one case in particular.

Um, and this is a little bit different than and Stephanie's gonna regurgitate some other stuff that I'm saying right now, too, in a second that she has to read.

Um, but uh in city council, you know you all get you know your specific time to have your comments for zoning, that's a little bit different if you haven't been here before, um, but each side has seven minutes.

So if you're presenting, you have five minutes, and if you're in opposition, you have seven minutes.

That seven minutes is for the entire opposition, it's not a piece.

Um, that being said, uh it looks like there are probably 20 so or so of you that want to speak about one case, so we'll give you some additional time.

But uh just knowing that if a point is brought up that uh someone says before you and you were gonna bring up that point, just let that point if it's already been said, maybe just let it be said and give us some more information because uh what we're trying to do is take all the information, new information uh to help make the most responsible decision that we can or the most responsible recommendation to counsel that we can on your case, um, and then we'll give two minutes to the opposition or to the opposition to the uh applicant to rebut or counter anything that was said uh during the seven minutes.

So uh again, thank you for being here.

Uh Commissioners, thanks for being here as always, and Stephanie.

All right, thank you.

Welcome everyone to the March 11th, uh March 11th, 2026 zoning commission meeting public hearing.

Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov.

Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting.

Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website.

Cases heard at this public hearing are to be heard at the April 28th council hearing.

And I please note that date because um the date of the April council meeting has changed.

Um, it was originally April 14th, and it is now April 28th.

So please make note of that.

Um, unless otherwise stated on the agenda.

And I do want to note there are a few cases that will be going to the March 31st council meeting.

So if you have any questions about that, please ask staff.

To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the commission requests that the following rules of procedure be respected.

Each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair.

All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the commission only.

After staff presentation, the applicant and support will be given a maximum total of five minutes to present their case.

Opposition may then speak for a maximum total of seven minutes.

At the conclusion of opposition, the applicant will be provided two minutes for rebuttal.

Those that are not able to speak today are encouraged to submit comments or sign up to speak at city council.

Sign-ups to comment or speak at city council begin the Friday before the scheduled council hearing.

Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval.

All other meeting procedures will adhere to board adopted rules of procedures to the extent possible.

Following the official close of each case hearing, the commission will remain an open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question.

During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair.

A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the commission 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 area code 817-392-8028.

Mr.

Chair, the first order of business is roll call.

The zoning commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting.

Please be advised that it takes six members to approve a zoning case.

The following members are present today.

Commissioner Mayo.

Commissioner's Oh, he's not here.

That's right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioner Welch.

Commissioner McCoy.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioner Werman and Commissioner Castro.

There are 10 uh zoning commission members present.

And Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum.

The next item on the agenda is the approval of the previous month's minutes.

We are open for a motion.

Chairman, I move approval of the minutes.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds to approve.

Any second by Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chair person, Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

The zoning commission votes to approve the meeting minutes.

Next item of business are the continued cases.

First up on the docket is ZC 26 005.

Case manager is Dave McCorcadel, Council District 2.

Site location is 4001 Ohio Garden Road.

Owner Applicant at Stockyards North LLC slash Sean Sanklin PE and Chris Rapcoch Kimley Horn.

The request is to rezone from PD69 slash PDSU for a temporary vehicle storage facility as amended, site plan approved to PDI plan development for all uses in ILIT Industrial, excluding boarding home facility, correctional facility, electrical power substation, gas lift compressor station, gas line compressor station, wastewater sewage treatment facility, outdoor amusement, massage parlor, sexually oriented business, a saying, blacksmithing or wagon shop, chicken battery or brooder, coal or coke yard, electroplating, food processing, galvanizing, machine shops, paint mixing or spraying, paper box manufacturing, pattern shop, rubber stamp manufacturing, asphalt or concrete batch plant, gas and drilling production with development standards for front yard landscaping, outdoor storage within the 50-foot supplemental building setback, not providing the 20-foot landscape buffer yard and use of an existing eight-foot tall metal screening fence with a two-foot height extension to match the existing material for a total of 10 feet in place of required masonry screening wall or wood fence and restricting hours of operation from 7 o'clock a.m.

to 7 o'clock p.m.

site plan included.

That's a mouthful.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

We were not then aware of any opposition since then.

We knew about it.

And this property is just over seven acres.

It's concrete, 100% concrete with a fence around it.

We were trying to expand it from the tow yard to also just a lay down yard or a fence yard.

Specifically, we have a film crew that most of us see around Fort Worth that wants to store some of their filming trucks and equipment when they're not filming, and that would require the zoning change.

So I think we've we've done, I think, a pretty good job of the outreach to the neighbors.

I'm not uh aware of any opposition.

The uh only thing that's a little different is the uh community to our to the east.

It's two to three feet.

We would like the uh fence that's in the back to stay the same height all the way to the front, and I think Heather's gonna come visit with y'all, but we've worked closely with them.

We've had an engineer look at the fence.

We won't disrupt for any of the floodplain issues.

We would just be an extension on the fence to accommodate the neighbors that would be uh affected by it.

Noise and sight.

So you're saying that this is still gonna be used for temporary storage of film equipment.

We yes, sir.

We've got a three-year proposal from this group.

I told them we couldn't uh move forward with them till we had the zoning change.

It would be trucks, uh like bobtail trucks, cars, whatever the equipment for filming the the TV shows.

So it's currently zoned for temporary vehicle storage.

Why would they not be able to do that as it exists?

Well, to two two things that I understand we would like to put uh on the site plane you see a building up at the corner for security.

Uh the back side, you see the hatch line at the bottom.

That's there's lots of homeless.

It's a big issue.

So if you get this fenced yard, people we fixed it two weeks ago.

Heather and I were out there two days ago, they've already cut the fence.

So we believe adding some lights, at least motion lights, and a structure at the front would help kind of deter the homeless people from getting in.

Is that a metal fence in the back as well to match the it's a chain link fence to the west?

It's a chain link fence on the riverside, uh, and we've got to allow for the water to shed, and then to the east side, it's a it's a solid fence, metal fence.

And that's the fence we'd like to raise to accommodate the neighbors, the metal fence on the east.

Okay.

And you said this is a three-year contract you're trying to get.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And this is a question for staff.

Since it's a PD, could we do a three-year if we wanted to?

Could we approve this for three years?

I I would I would not recommend doing that.

You would not recommend doing that.

I would not recommend doing that.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant?

And I believe we have Heather signed up to speak as well.

Heather.

Esteemed zoning commissioners.

I am Heather Marinello, resident since 1997 at Texas Gardens Mobile Home Park of 81 homes, 70 of which are located immediately on the east side of 4001's property.

I was surprised to not see like that.

No homes are even pictured there.

Therefore, I am requesting that you allow Mr.

Kyle Pulson to vertically extend further upward and for its full length, the current corrugated metal screening on the east side of the 4001 property so that its upper edge is on a consistent horizontal level of 10 feet above the ground, because sections of their current fence actually sit three feet under ground level, while we residents have to stand in our homes three feet above ground level because our floors are elevated to accommodate the three-foot skirted empty area under each of our dwellings to house heating and cooling ducts, insulation, water pipes, home repairs, etc.

While these residents are in their kitchen standing three feet tall, and that fence is three feet low.

Uh we're hearing noise and we're seeing and want that fence as high as you will all allow because it's affecting um uh 18 homes directly, some of which are in literally zero inches of their fence.

The house, the corner of the house is sitting against their fence.

And then there's other homes that are sitting uh three, five, six, and nine feet away, and then there's another four homes that are 14, 15, and 16 feet away.

So there's 12 homes that are immediately con uh immediately affected by the fact that this fence is not at a consistent height or a height enough.

So please elevate it as evenly and as high as possible so that we residents can accept their presence and not be worried about seeing and hearing things even during the day.

Uh some of them sleep at daytime because they have work at night.

I would ask that you consider this request very important to make that fence tall and sound varying.

Thank you.

Thank you, Heather.

And John, you signed up.

Uh, do you have anything to add or okay?

All right, very good.

Uh, and there is no opposition signed up to speak uh in regards to this case.

Um, so questions for any of the applicants, commissioners.

So if they're adding lighting, I would just be concerned with where they place that in regards to the neighboring Oklahoma Park, so it's not overshooting into them.

It's on yeah.

So we we planned once we raise the fence is to put the lighting below the fence, shining back to the west.

And then if there were some motion lights in case some of the homeless people came on, they would come on for three minutes, four minutes, and then shut back off.

And those motion lights, those would be down by the river kind of down that on that far side.

You would put them anywhere that would adversely affect if you were asleep in your in your home, they would shut back off.

Okay, I would think for sure on the east side, shining back to the west.

Okay, not shining at their house.

Okay, all right.

Commissioners, I believe you could add that requirement for the lighting, though.

Is it that correct?

Chris.

Uh yes, as part of the development.

And yes, you could you could add that as a requirement.

I have a question.

So something stating that the facing in the motion lights wouldn't the property stay on longer than a certain amount of time, or that they would face in a certain direction.

Or either.

So yes, if you wanted the lights to be more downward facing, as well as limited in uh for the motion centers to be limited in time to three minutes, then yeah, then you can craft uh some language for you have any opposition to that, sir.

All right.

We we've tried to uh take the approach like we live there, so what would be fair reasonable?

It's and it's already zoned through the PD to have a tow yard, which I don't think's great.

Um right next to home.

So we've tried to work with the neighbors uh and have the lens that like we live there too.

So I think that'd be reasonable.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners?

All right, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion or a vote.

Is the crux of the issue here the fence or the usage?

I'm confused by the description on our so it's actually both.

Um so as the applicant mentioned, the current use is for vehicle storage, uh vehicle storage facility, they're requesting to rezone it.

Um just the building that they want to build.

I'm sorry, a little building that they want to build is the issue.

They could still store doesn't matter if they're film trucks or tow trucks.

Well, that's true.

And I think at the time we weren't really sure what they were gonna be storing there.

Um but um so they're doing that, and then most of the issues are just that they're not meeting the um the buffer yard requirement, um the metal screen the screening or fencing requirements, yeah.

And they're asking for a two-foot extension on the height of the fence.

Uh and you know Heather addressed that part.

It sounds like and they're restricting the hours of operation there too.

So they're actually while they're requesting some things, they're kind of you know, also restricting self-restricting the self-restricting, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Ryan, would you want to add any language if you're yes?

I want to add language basically requiring all lighting to face inwards towards the center of the property, and then any motion lighting has a maximum of three minutes that it can be on before it shuts back off.

Okay.

Just when you make your motion, add that.

Yep.

Any other discussion, commissioners?

Well, if they keep moving, it'll stay on.

So it's when motion stops that that three minutes timer would shut off.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm ready.

So for ZZ26-005, I move to approve with additional language, adding that all lighting will be facing inwards towards the center of the property, and any motion lighting will shut off after three minutes of no motion.

Okay, do we have a second?

A second.

All right, we have a motion uh to approve by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner Welch.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Rains?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

All right, Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

With a vote of 10 to 0, the zoning commission votes to approve this case.

And our next case has been withdrawn.

Yes.

Um, next case is ZC26-006, which the applicant has requested to withdraw.

And Stephanie, before we move on to the next case with our new cases, uh, commissioners, would there be any opposition to us moving case 001 to the top?

Since at least looks like most people are here for that, they wouldn't have to stay so late.

Anyone be opposed to that?

Okay.

Then Stephanie, if we would just reorder 001 to the top, um, so we can let the folks that are here for that case um do that one first.

And just uh as a reminder um of this case, uh, if you are here to speak in opposition, once I start calling the opposition, just to uh help move things along.

If you would just line up together, and then when you get up to speak, if you'll just state your name and your address real quick.

Um, and if you did not have a chance to fill out one of those, um Lynn, if you'll raise your hand, she'll get you a uh a sheet to fill that out because we've got to have that on file.

So that'll just help move things along.

So we appreciate your cooperation with that.

All right.

Next case on the docket.

Um, our well, next next order of business are new cases.

And then the case next case on the docket is ZC-2601.

Case manager is Lynn Jordan, Council District 10.

Site location is 3553 Lottic Lane.

Owner and applicant is BB House LLC slash fifth gear automotive.

Ricky Jordan and Jacob Morris.

Uh Wes Hoblet of Master Plan Consultants.

Request this from PD rezoning from PD 894, PDSU, plan development specific use for warehouse outdoor storage, greenhouse showroom, retail sales, office, and up to 15 temporary portable storage containers, not to exceed six months use in a 12 month period.

Um site plan waived.

Two PD slash SU plan development specific use for warehouse outdoor storage incidental to the primary use, greenhouse showroom, retail sales, office, and automotive repair, excluding paint and body shop developed to e-neighborhood commercial standards with development standards for automotive repairs conducted on premises that adjoin a residential district boundary, automotive repair adjacent to a one or two family district, and automotive repair with bay doors facing a one or two family district with a site plan included.

Just a reminder that this case will be heard by the city council on March 31st.

All right, is the applicant here?

And welcome to the zoning commission.

Thank you.

So obviously, you guys know the zoning.

Uh, PD 894 next to us is 895, kind of shows when both of these came into the city around 2010, 2011, as staff mentioned before.

So, right now, you know, the the use allows for um some pretty open-ended uh PD right now with specific uses, but obviously outdoor storage, you know, without a C UP just as in a uh use by itself, temporary storage containers uh for limited months, and you know, just kind of open-ended, no site plan, no restrictions on this property except for the uses listed.

We're looking to add uh outdoor storage tied with the primary use, as well as getting rid of the storage containers that can be there for six months, as well as uh staff's recommendation do the development standards of neighborhood E, just so there's future protections on the property, and we're also adding a site plan for any future changes.

We need to come before you guys again.

So, really it's just the storage containers, uh outdoor storage by itself, so you couldn't just have you know stuff lying around in the yard as it is as it could be allowed today.

Site plan that kind of shows what's gonna be on the property and any changes of that would need to go back through the zoning process and then development standards.

Below is a photo.

I think this is when the penguin patch was operating on the site, you know, in uh November, December, uh, you know, there's storage containers on the site, which can just be put on the property.

So a little bit of kind of how we got here.

Uh, you know, uh there was so a little bit of backstory, you know, the uh the lease.

I guess the lee C, you know, the property owner uh worked with fifth grade automotive on trying to you know lease the property.

They you know contacted the city, thought that they could do it, they filed for a CO, they got a CO, then it turned out that they couldn't in fact operate on this property by right.

Uh during that time, you know, they went through, got rid of the septic system, added a fence and screening, and you know, put a lot of money and uh equity honestly into the property trying to improve it, but kind of got bogged down by you know having a permit and not having a permit, and so then you know, we kind of stopped all work on the site as you can see some through some of the photos a little bit later on, and you know, we started discussions with the neighborhood, uh talking with staff, talking with council member, and you know, just had a neighborhood meeting pretty quickly after we filed and on the 11th, and then emailed the site plan as soon as it was sent to staff uh to a representative at Hudson Oaks, who's kind of I think he's gonna speak after me.

So here's the site plan.

Um, you know, we went ahead, you know, this is what we're gonna be locked into.

Uh we had like a tentative site plan that didn't really meet the standards of staff, so we had to go back and do another one.

And so there's fencing on the property on the other side.

You know, here's what we've done so far.

I'll come back to the site plan, but the screening, uh, remove the septic system, and the rest is what we're going to do.

You know, the drainage, I've there were kind of some concerns about drainage in the back of the property uh from some of the neighbors.

You know, we'd go ahead and take care of that, obviously.

We would pave it, it's gravel for most of it right now.

Uh our traffic numbers are you know pretty low.

I don't know if you guys are familiar with uh single family traffic numbers, it's about 10 a house.

We're looking at 20 cars a week uh for customers, that's about four a day.

We are not open on the weekends, so this is eight to six Monday through Friday, and we're gonna landscape the property too.

So yellow is where we're looking to put in some trees.

The purple is where we've done the fence, so screening that um, you know, lot that we keep the cars that are done with maintenance in the back or waiting for pickup.

Uh the water in the sewer system, you know, we added that, had to move the main line over from Alta Vista, and then looking to put more trees and screening on the site that are just not there today.

So here's a little bit more operational details.

You know, everything's indoors, um, you know, no outside storage of anything at all.

One bay door, so it's AC climate controlled, so we're not gonna be you know, like a discount tire where there's like six bay doors and they're open all the time.

You know, we are paying to obviously AC the unit.

We have one door that's open.

We want to keep the techs and people working on site cool during you know, all times in the summer.

Um, a third of customers actually use the concierge pickup.

That's a service that Fifth Gear offers where they will go and pick up your car and they will drive it to the shop, so you don't even have to go to the shop if you don't want to.

We don't do any sort of commercial vehicles, anything like that, no auto paying auto body prepare, anything like that.

Intent more intensive, you could say, and you know, we work on higher-end cars, but also any other cars that are available.

I think uh staff showed this photo.

This is kind of on the rear of the property, the arrows denoting you know which direction we're looking.

Uh, kind of on a rise, a little bit of a hill.

Um, you know, got the landscaping the trees back there.

There's about five existing oak trees, AC pads uh directly to the west.

This is a landscape like contracting company.

Uh they've been there uh for quite some time as well.

I think they were also there uh, you know, during the annexation period prior to the city bringing them in the C4 Worth.

Here's the fence that uh we were in the process of building.

We finished in December because we already had the permit, and that was you know, we just went ahead and finished the fence uh since we had that in process.

Here's another view looking, I guess, uh northeast.

And then you can see the set the the dirt turned dirt is the sewer line that we put in as well.

So that's you know, we were in the process of doing all these things and then kind of had to stop the work.

So this is what the inside looks like.

You know, it's all inside.

You can see the two by fours in the back.

That's more uh like a mechanics wall and more insulation.

It is insulated for sound just because it is a seed, and then just some more photos really quickly, and then this is the fencing match the neighborhood, uh, discussions with staff over the fencing, landscaping.

Um, we do have some neighborhood support and children's lighthouse does support us as well as our neighborhood uh to the west.

So our neighbor to the west, not the neighbor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Us.

Um, do Ricky or Bill want to speak now, or do you want to hold their time?

We're gonna hold their time probably till the end to answer more operational questions, things like that.

All right, any questions uh for the applicant before we hear from the opposition.

I got all jumbled.

Thank you, us.

Yep.

Uh and now, if you're here to speak in opposition in this case, if you would uh go ahead and line up, and when it is your turn, whoever gets here first, you can speak first.

If you'll just say your name uh and your address and uh tell us what you think.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, commissioners and chairman.

Uh my name's Eric Woolhite.

I live at 12012 Lostwood Trail.

I am within 200 feet of this subject property.

I'm also the Hudson Oaks um HOA VP, so I'm here to represent a lot of my um neighbors as well.

So before I uh purchased this property, I checked being an AI CP certified planner and doing community development planning for 30 years.

My first instinct was to check what those land uses were, and I did so.

And at that time, it was the PDSU with the limited uses that have been mentioned before.

And so it included automotive use then, and I don't believe it should now, or why should it now?

And uh back in uh when Penguin Patch, who is a um school supply distribution center was there.

Some of the photos you saw show a lot of containers.

Those containers were hardly ever there except at the peak times.

So it was very undisruptive to the neighborhood, and everybody knew that was what was there when we bought our homes and we were okay with it and dealt with it.

Now, there were some times where the containers stayed there longer than they were supposed to, and we had to call code services because we knew what the zoning allowed.

So once the current operations ceased to uh operate, it went on the market and we were watching it and started noticing that there was a change of land use.

Um so my first instinct being a planner was to call the city and find out, you know, seeing the vehicles that were coming and going and a small sign that went up dedicating automotive use that we knew was not a permitted use.

I contacted this city.

Some uh mid-level staff planners told me yes, automotive isn't allowed, so it would require a zoning change.

From that point on, for about six weeks, I went back and forth with certain city staff, you know, delay deliberating on how this could be allowed, that it's not um permitted under the current CU and the PD.

And after about six weeks, staff did opine that a zoning change would be required.

Um, with that, I'm just gonna real quickly go over you know what we see is a planned development purpose and intent and described in Article 3 of the Fort Worth zoning, is to encourage the unified design of different land uses.

This land use kind of popped in there, and being a PD, um, the site plan that we prevented been presented seems somewhat inadequate.

I don't see anything that offsets or mitigates any of the negative impacts that this type of land use could have or how it becomes more compatible with our residential neighborhood.

Um so as I mentioned, the site plan um what protections and features are included to ensure the development will be compatible with existing and liable development on the adjacent land uses, but more importantly, is the city of Fort Worth has chapter five supplemental use standards 5.104 automotive repair paint and body, which specifically talks about um to me, to us, there's no ambiguity to it.

It says that the district proposed use of automotive repair and land adjoining residential districts is not permitted, it's specifically prohibited.

This isn't only a join by one neighborhood, it's adjoined by two on the north and the south.

So and as well as no automotive can have any overhead doors spacing residential, which it does.

At first, when we started talking to staff, I don't think they were necessarily cognizant of or paying attention to the fact that there was that chapter five in that specific um portions of the code relating to automotive uses adjacent to and adjoining residential.

Then, as we went on and the zoning case came through, staff uh added a provision for the additional zoning for development standards.

But in the provisions of section 5C and D, it applies to any automotive repair facility and any district between F R to K.

So, therefore, regardless of what staff or the applicant put and classify the zoning district for development standards, that still applies.

You know, when I look at this as a professional planner, I don't think the PD should be utilized as a vehicle or a means to circumvent um or grant waivers as it's stated in the uh description.

Obviously, these supplemental standards are put in place for various land uses in chapter five for a reason, and doing so seemingly waiving those through a PD vehicle seems to be um could be interpreted as spot zoning and certainly can start setting a precedent.

Anytime an automotive use wants to come in next to residential, they can just ask for a PD and try to waive those requirements.

The proximity to the homes, I believe, was asked during the work session.

I believe they're around 50 to 75 feet from the structure to the actual dwelling units.

That's close enough, and based on the development the supplemental standards that there's a concern that there would be noise issues and types of things.

We can't control unless there's something in the ordinance that controls having noise attenuation inside the building.

That's not part of the ordinance.

Um and the site plan, as I mentioned, we saw I didn't see anything that showed any extra vegetation or landscaping on the front or the back.

So there, and then and recently we look back, and there seems to appear to be two recent automotive land uses that came through for rezoning, and they were both denied, and they were in less of a pocket or in the middle in the midst of a residential single family district, and those were denied.

Um the homeowners, me included, bought this.

Um there's no way that we could have reasonably expected that sooner or later an automotive use was would come in and ask for this to be zoned in this PD and the CU be completely changed.

That includes the people on uh dwarf nettles drive portion and valves and the residents obviously in Hudson Oaks.

Access to this property is through residential streets.

There's no other way to get to it.

All other automotive uses that I've seen around in our neighborhoods are on a more major collector type street, so there's that issue too.

We're gonna debate and argue about the traffic counts and those types of things, but those traffic aren't records bringing in the vehicles from other places.

Um they're operationally makes sense, it's just contextually in the wrong place.

They're coming in, bringing in cars from other places to be serviced here.

Why not service them in South Lake where their concierge services?

Um, so uh we've heard the you you might hear the applicant speak to, and they've told us they want they would be a good neighbor.

Well, the zoning ordinance doesn't speak to being a good neighbor, and the land use runs with the land, and that's our biggest concern too is fifth gear.

We have nothing, it's not about them necessarily as an operator.

They could be good and everything, but it runs with the land, and we don't know who could come in next, and they might not care about the neighborhood at all.

And we've already seen that the city of Fort Worth is very busy, it's hard to keep up with code enforcement and those types of things, and we just don't need that type of issue.

So, based on the previous mentioned facts and the zoning criteria, we're requesting that the application be denied with prejudice.

Thank you, Eric.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Thank you.

Uh, my name is Josh Allison, 12005 Shady Brook Drive in Fort Worth.

Um, I represent the village of Woodland Springs HOA, the neighborhood to the north.

We're actually to the um east across Alta Vista, as well as if you go, we wrap around some of the adjoining properties to the west and our RHOA is on that side as well.

So we have about 4600 residents.

Um this use is I'm gonna speak to it from a safety issue.

Um I'll let the professional planner kind of speak to the zoning side of things.

Um, you know, you're 28 feet from the property line for to the back of the to the building.

Um, you know, it's a 12,000 something square foot building.

I don't believe it needs to be sprinklered, but you're souring toxic materials at an automotive shop during the day when work's going on and you're only 28 feet from an additional property from residential property.

Um, you know, 50 feet, 50 to 75 from a building.

That's that's just not a smart thing, if you ask me.

I do understand there was an issue in Fort Worth, I believe South Fort Worth recently, where there's an automotive place that caught fire, and I believe it was multiple dwellings, it was a two-alarm fire at one point.

Um, this is really close to be able to do that.

Um, I just don't think that's safe.

No matter what mitigation you can do or or how you want to operate and be a friendly neighbor, um, I just don't think that that's a smart thing.

Secondly, the traffic.

I know on the presentation they mentioned 20 cars per week for customers.

Um, they're building a 96-car um storage facility right there.

Um, at we hosted a meeting, or I'm sorry, we didn't host uh fifth gear hosted a meeting at our HOA amenity center.

They mentioned that they would be servicing 100 cars a week from this facility.

So 100 cars coming and going, that's 200 trips.

Um you got 15 employees coming and going every single day, that's another 30 per day.

That's 350 trips going for between, you know, I believe it's eight and five PM.

That's a ton of cars.

To enter this property from the south, you've got to go through Hudson Oaks Drive.

Um, you got to pass 12 residential properties on a residential road to get there from the north.

Actually, I'm sorry, you can also go and do a U-turn right in front of Children's Lighthouse, which is actually where I exit our neighborhood at.

Um, and so there's already some people turning left right there onto children's lighthouse in the mornings.

It would be an absolute disaster for vehicles if you have another uh 350 per week, either doing a U-turn if well, half of them assuming they come from the South, doing a U-turn at that facility or going through the neighborhood.

Um North, I think I just said north, but south is that way.

Um coming from the north, you're going right in front of children's lighthouse.

You're going through, I think at least three different school zones.

Um, but when you from 170 coming south to that property, it's just not smart.

Um, the closest fire hydrant is 700 feet away, um, is my understanding.

And so it's just it's just not intelligent to put something that's gonna be this close and this encumbered upon the neighbors to be able to do that.

So, but I appreciate your time.

Thanks, Joshua.

Welcome.

Yes, I'm the last one.

Uh my name's Stephen Carlton.

I live less than 700 feet away from the property in question on 11900 June Wood.

Uh I'm a lifelong resident of Fort Worth, yet completely embarrassed how far this zoning department is willing to go to protect itself and this business while completely disregarding residents, and that's why everyone's here today.

We are all aware fifth gear was makes mistakenly told by city staff that auto repair was allowed at this property.

According to internal emails obtained by open records, on November 18th, staff was in agreement that a mistake had been made and rezoning would be required.

However, that was only the beginning of this story.

After the mistake was caught, we were first told by staff that the PD has a base zoning of light industrial, which allows auto repair.

Eric Willheid fought to prove them wrong.

After the mistake was caught, the now ex-assistant director of zoning told us that rezoning is not required because auto repair is an accessory use.

Open records showed that this scheme was designed devised a week after homeowner complaints and a week after staff was in already in agreement that rezoning would be required.

A month after the mistake was caught, we were told by DJ Harrell that staff thought this was a warehouse, not auto repair.

Even though the original change of use application from September clearly stated auto repair, and again, open records laid later proved that staff is aware of the auto repair use for over a month.

After the mistake was caught, the applicant acknowledged in an open meeting with homeowners that the inter interim assistant director coached them on how to word the PD language in their application.

Wording that now attempts to use the PD to circumvent clearly written zoning ordinance that protects residents from auto repair.

This is not a cut and dry zoning fight, and that's why everyone is here today.

This was a concerted effort by city zoning staff to sneak auto repair into this building and in-run residents, this commission, and city council.

We have been told many times to trust the process, but Eric had to fight for over four months to get the city to enforce its own processes.

A simple denial of this case is not enough protection for residents.

So I ask, please be the first voice to stand up for these residents and set precedent that this is unacceptable behavior by city staff.

Please choose to deny this case with prejudice so residents can finally believe someone is on their side.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steven.

Is that everyone who wanted to speak on this case?

I had a Rusty Fuller and also Barbara Brewer, but if you want to hold your time, that is fine.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um if we will get the applicant back up for their rebuttal.

All right, I'm gonna have to kind of work through this a little bit.

Had some slides on the end here, but I know there was you know conversations obviously about you know, kind of how we got here, but you know, we we do believe that the existing you know property is compatible.

I mean, these are two other sites that they they operate right now, they've been in those locations for you know, I think well over a decade for Lewisville and you know, about the same time for McKinney.

They are near residential neighborhoods.

Um, you know, they operate inside, they're safe, um, you know, it's secure, they don't have any you know crimes, anything like that coming in there, and you know, the these neighbors are in supportive of them.

And we had letters of support for them, but they're in Louisville, McKinney.

They're not Fort Worth residents, so why would I show that to you guys?

But they don't mind them as neighbors and they actually like them.

They're you know, closed on the weekends, they're quiet.

Another location you know, we're next to a school.

This one, aerial's not done yet.

They just had ground opening or breaking a couple weeks ago, but you know, office, medical office, and schools right next door.

You know, it's not unheard of to have automotive near residential.

In my neighborhood, there's automotive near residential.

Um, you know, it's actually in my opinion, something a little bit more aggressive with the open bay doors, you know, backing up and open directly to the neighborhood's fences, which you know, we're operating a building.

This is an existing building that we're taking over uh the bay doors, we're not moving anything, we're just going and occupying the space.

It was there uh in 2003.

I mean, this building's been there longer than really anything else around it.

Uh, you know, you can see the lots getting platted in 2005.

You know, all of the homes were you know getting platted and getting built, but this has been here a long time, and you know, it's always had the use since 2010 uh when these homes are kind of constructed at the same time.

And I think Commissioner Worman mentioned that there was uh you know an annexation prior the uh to the north to this property, but you know, it has been industrial as long as it's been technically in the city of Fort Worth.

And so, you know, traffic, you know, we're honestly expecting like 20 a week.

It can go up to that.

We do have we can go up, but you know, right now, you know, new businesses, new location.

That's not really gonna be something that's gonna have a hundred cars day one, they're gonna be pouring in from 8 a.m.

to nine o'clock in the morning.

The school next door doesn't see it as a problem.

They're uh children's right house send us a letter of support.

They don't see us as inferring on their operations or uh for safety reasons, anything like that.

Uh 30% of the customers do use the concierge service, so that's something that you know we think people will utilize.

And as far as you know, vehicles coming in from other locations.

This is one of the smallest of locations that they operate.

So the biggest one is in uh crossroads, they have other locations in South Lake that are you know about five to ten thousand, you know, more square feet, they're a little bit bigger, so there's not really a need for cars to come in out of the city or out of the area to be operated on here.

So, you know, we have enough parking on site.

Our intent is to park employee cars in that lot as well.

It's not just gonna be filled to the brim like a junkyard or anything like that.

It's just car people that are getting their cars, they park them there, they come to get their car, and then they weave.

And the employees park back there as well, so there's not a visual impairment, and we're looking to do that with the trees.

I know there was a comment about how we're not supplying trees.

We left it open-ended just because we don't know the type of tree that needs to go in there, but we're working to plant there's about five on the back end, and then in the front, more screening.

You know, we don't know how exactly we know there's water lines, there's things like that.

We didn't want to put the exact number of trees or the type just yet, but this is tied to the site plan.

We're looking to add more landscaping on the front, furnish out the uh portion in the back on top of it being screened from the uh right-of-way of Lotics.

So I think there was another comment about uh, you know, new users, you know, this is limiting the site.

You can't have more intensive automotive users like the guys that do the quick serve, you know, one hour changes.

This is gonna be tied.

And if they would need to come back and change anything, they're gonna be in front of you guys and you know, meeting meeting with the neighbors to discuss it.

And so the lease agreements are you know, 10-year deal and two five years.

So we're looking to be here a long time.

This isn't like we're gonna put all this money into a building and be here for a year, and then we're moving on to the next.

You know, this is an investment that this company is looking to do in this building and in the community, and they just really want to be in this area.

The neighbors mentioned a lot of times in our meeting that they you know they moved here for a reason, they like it.

That's why they pick the site too.

You know, I know that you know, businesses and neighbors sometimes don't really work together well, but you know, that is a reason why they pick this site, is because they do like this neighborhood, they like that part of Fort Worth, and they want to be good neighbors.

And so I know that's not in the zoning code as presented, but you know, that's something that you know I think uh can be said because it's true.

So we're happy to answer any operational questions too.

And the the two owners, Bill and Ricky, you're in the back.

I don't know, there's a kind of a photo of them I put over here.

They're over there somewhere.

So thank you, Wes.

Uh Commissioners, we have questions for the applicant.

I have a quick question, Wes.

Uh there's no at least I haven't seen yet, and I might have missed it, but there's nothing about uh lighting map.

So I assume there's gonna be that big parking lot uh to the west.

Yes.

Correct.

And if it were gonna light it, it would be ballard lighting.

So nothing that would you know be taller than the fences, wouldn't have like the large kind of stadium pole would be something that's like downcast and ballard lighting and shielded.

So that's you know, we don't want to impose on anything.

But and for the record, there's never been a break-in at one of their locations ever for cars.

That was a comment that we heard, and it's never been one.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you, Wes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, I'm sorry, did you have a question?

I just wanted to hear from the from the opponents.

Oh, you have a question for the from one of the opponents?

Do you know which one the one that did the planning?

Yeah, the first one.

Right, yeah, you share.

Eric, Eric, thank you, sir.

Yes, so question.

Did you talk to Wes about all your concerns about the planning and the plotting and what could be put there versus what can be put there?

Did you have that conversation with him?

Not specifically, because it was up to them and presenting us, telling us they were gonna do that stuff to provide a site plan to us to see if we thought it was acceptable or not.

I wasn't gonna sit there and design it for them like I could have.

Um I thought it was incumbent on them to show what they were willing to do, knowing that there was those concerns.

But that any of that I always preface with that still doesn't alleviate the fact that it's a land use issue.

It's just a portion of it.

So did I ever no, I didn't.

Do I know what kind of trees having worked in this kind of you know projects before and done site planning and development?

I know what I would do to try to make it, but I would have shown people this before I brought it forward to a public hearing.

So then I could answer your question.

So he didn't show you that.

No, all I've seen is less than the site plan that was sent to me in my public notice since I'm within the 300 foot notification, which to me resembled more of just an existing um conditions survey than a PD site plan based on the criteria and the one to 15 items that are in the PD site plan that are to be required aren't there.

I mean, fire hide is one issue, landscaping mitigation, what paving is gonna be, because early on in our discussions when we had a meeting with staff, once it was decided opine that it had to have a zoning change.

We were looking at the phasing plans that had been submitted in order to get the CEO or to do the work that they were doing, and we kept being told, well, they don't have to pave this yet.

This could be phase two, or this is gonna be you know, later on, they don't have to do that.

And then I would go to the code and say, Well, why does it say this in the code?

Then how are you interpreting that on whether it needs to be done or not now before they get their CO and start operating?

So, right then, the faith of whether or not the site plan, unless it's tied to the PD, and it's in the site plan ordinance showing us the landscape vegetation, trees.

That's plural.

Okay, it's two trees unless it's shown on the site plan, right?

I mean, the PD site plan can be very specific and should be when it comes to something like this.

So there's no question we don't have to go back to the minute the minutes of the meeting and see you know what they did or didn't commit to, in my opinion.

Is that an answer question?

Yeah.

Basically, so this one.

Yeah, so basically, yeah, you answered all those questions.

So when so he never met with you, all you folks back there and had this in-depth conversation about what was going to be planned for this this uh facility.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Uh thank you all very much.

And at this time I will close the public hearing and leave it open uh for some discussion and vote.

Uh Commissioner Warman, do you have anything you wanted to say, or you want to hear some discussion from us?

I have a question for staff first.

Um this the PDE specific use that we're doing as a base zoning of E.

Why not use something to show a little bit more of an intense use that also um already accommodates the the setback that's on the back side of that building?

Because it's 25 feet now.

So why not move to something like F that already has that in place?

That way there's not even a temptation, and it kind of leads toward the comment that Eric was making that um it gives us an opportunity to restore a little faith in them that we know we're putting this up to the boundary line to really kind of show this is our best guess and how we can handle this.

Um, Commissioner Mormon.

So we chose E because the setbacks for that was the only one that really accommodates the existing building.

So any of the higher more intense commercial districts required a larger setback then and so then that building would be nonconforming because it doesn't it wouldn't meet those rear yard setbacks.

Is it F or is it F R that has 25 feet?

One of them does FR.

But I don't believe it's 25 feet from the property line.

It is I measure well, I don't have a I don't have a survey.

But that's my question is that why not?

I mean, if we're gonna use PDs to clean up the mess, let's clean up the mess.

And let's if it's 26 feet, if it's 27 feet.

I don't know.

I just I want to, you know, if there's a a path forward for the applicant that's gonna show it being, you know, potentially approved at council, I think finding a way to constrict the site as much as possible to you know match the plans to keep it basically the way that it is now would go a long way with these guys.

Um, on top of that, that's me saying I also don't know that this is the most appropriate land use um or the highest and best use that we can do for this facility, looking at fifth gear um across the Metroplex.

They do indeed have locations adjacent to residential everywhere.

The one key difference that I've noticed is that they are all nearly on a major access road.

They're not using residential streets, they may be using a neighborhood collector, right?

So maybe a 50-foot right-of-way, but they're not using 30s.

Um, because the only for me, the only way that I see forward is tricky.

It involves basically shutting Lotick Lane down to the neighborhood, and it becomes a business drive.

And now they all have to go through one entrance.

But the way that this area was constructed and piecemealed together, Bray Birch at Alta Vista is supposed to be a major intersection, but this piece of property is in the way.

So from a design and planning standpoint, we've created traffic concerns, we've created a need to U-turn.

We've we're adding space and capacity or don't have enough capacity for what's you know coming down the line.

So just understanding that there are two paths forward.

I want to know the easiest way to get it approved and make it constricted, but also I don't think it's the best use, but it's not our decision.

We're just gonna make a recommendation and let council do this.

Um, like I said, I think it would make more sense, you know, off of a major road, like another site that we had on Keller Hicks across from the element the uh intermediate school would almost be a better fit because it has that direct access, but now it's in front of a school, and that's creates a whole other set of issues.

Um the other kind of worry that I have is that you know, yes, it's restrictive for the future, but it doesn't keep another business from coming in later on and deciding to do something slightly different.

Um, you know, do we have the ability to restrict site plans such that they're harder to amend?

Because one of the big sticking points is are we gonna add more buildings?

Are we gonna add more of this, more of that?

What can we do to kind of protect ourselves?

Can I make a to add on to what you're saying?

I mean, are we the highest issue here is the fact that it had staff caught that the CO shouldn't have been issued to begin with?

Would we even be here?

And the second point is is I agree with everything that you've said, but are we really just taking a tank of water that is filled with swamp water and trying to put duct tape on all the holes here by saying tying a timeline, tying a special plan?

I mean, I think I don't agree with the usage either.

I'd say welcome to district 10.

Yeah, I just you know sometimes the the crime is where the cover up is worse than the crime here, which is unfortunate in the situation that all the things that happened through the city.

I don't haven't read them firsthand, but according to the third gentleman that spoke.

Um I don't know.

I just yeah, I think you know, obviously, you know, a mistake was made.

Um we've all made mistakes at our jobs before.

I made a mistake this morning uh if you were here during our uh pre-session hearing about the date of the next council meeting.

So mistakes happen.

So we're not here to berate anybody about a mistake.

Um but um I mean that's part of our job is to make a recommendation about whether or not that zoning decision is the right one or not.

Um and when looking at that, um just looking at the land use and how we um typically look at a case like this, um, we would never put an automotive use um in a neighborhood.

Certainly there would have to be some big exception as to why we would want to do that.

And in this case, I don't find one.

I mean, there's again it's completely surrounded.

You could make an argument on four sides uh by residential.

Uh so it in the way that I'm viewing this, it it's it's not a good land use for automotive, and it doesn't follow the comp.

Uh so I don't see how I could in good faith uh approve this and feel like I'm doing right by the neighborhood.

I agree.

I I just don't see the use of Firestone.

I can look at I'll just use them as an example.

I don't see a Firestone in a neighborhood.

Well, you see them it is in commercial areas where they belong.

Discount tires, same thing.

They belong in commercial areas, it shouldn't be long smack dab into a neighborhood.

I I've never seen that.

I've never seen it.

So that's a concern to mine that it's impacting the neighbors, they're upset about it.

And the way this, I don't know, the mistake was made, but it was made, and they gotta own it.

We have to own those mistakes.

We have to make that right with the citizens of Fort Worth to say, hey, we made a mistake and we need to fix it.

We need to own it.

Yeah, and that this this again, you know, and I don't know.

I think if some at least one other person said it, this says nothing about you know fifth gear automotive.

It sounds like they're an awesome company.

Yeah.

Um, but uh, and I hope they find another site if this doesn't get approved uh in Fort Worth.

I think we want them here.

Uh I just don't think we should do it at the expense of the residents uh in this case.

So I appreciate what Commissioner Worman's trying to do, figure out a way out of this uh for both parties, it sounds like um, but I kind of side with with Commissioner Welch um coming down on are we just trying to kind of put some duct tape around here to hold this together?

And when maybe it just kind of gotta throw it out, but so just to do like an informal poll of my my friends up here and and you, Jeremy.

Um notice I'm not the friend make that clear.

My uh supreme personal attack there, Commissioner Supreme, Jeremy Rains.

Um in my most people pleasing manner, um I still think I'd like to see more conversation had.

But I I think it's way more in-depth than these guys talking to each other.

I think there's got to be more involvement.

I just don't know what that looks like.

So, Mike, my question to you is um commissioners if we did a continuance until May, does that afford in your mind enough time for people to get together?

Or do you think kind of where I I'm I'm here today, I don't think there's any more forward for either side.

I think they've hit the wall, and that further time, you know, may yield some fruit.

Yeah, I just don't know if it's there right now.

So my personal opinion on that is, and and we've talked about this in previous meetings before about feedback.

And again, thank you all for coming.

I wish more people cared enough about their neighborhood and what was happening in it.

Um because we we do want to hear that feedback.

It doesn't mean we can always take it.

It doesn't mean we're always gonna side with you.

Uh you're sometimes you're gonna love us and sometimes you're not.

Um, but that's okay.

We'll try and at least explain our reasoning.

Um, but uh it at least in my mind, if they were to come back and say, okay, we're kind of okay with it.

It in my mind it doesn't change the land use at all.

I still don't think it's a good.

I think the land use is all wrong in a neighborhood.

And I think doesn't again it doesn't fall the complaint.

It's just smack dab in the middle of a neighborhood.

So that's just my opinion though.

So I would open to the rest of you guys.

Also, I guess at the end of the day, I mean, this is going to council, it's the council rep's decision to make, and that person's constituents are all sitting right here.

So speak to your council representative.

I have a feeling for my I have a feeling well for my part.

I I support the chairman.

Uh I think um it just doesn't seem like a delay would do anything for us.

Um it doesn't change the location, doesn't change the access, doesn't change the proximity.

I mean, nothing changes.

And once we make this change, we don't know what will happen after that.

Why support the chairman?

Yeah, so even if this doesn't go in based on what it's currently zoned for, you know, a nursery could go in there today, and your traffic would actually ramp up tremendously.

So until somebody buys this property and tries to rezone it residential the way it should be, you know, there's always that open window for somebody to come in with that type of business.

Um I agree with our chair, uh Jeremy Reigns.

I also agree with Mr.

Robinson that uh the land use is not I mean a continuance is still gonna be the same.

I I don't agree with the the land use.

So commissioner, I think uh continuance is just kicking the can down the road.

I agree with the other uh commissioners.

Um from what I saw in the staff report, it looks like a six-foot fence along the back of the property.

Um it looks like, and I might be mistaken that the uh site is elevated higher than the residential um homes behind it.

Um there was an aerial up previously, and it doesn't really appear that those backyards are are very big.

And so the reality of it is that you know you could have somebody sitting in their kitchen drinking their coffee in the morning waving to automotive technicians uh out their back windows.

Um and so at the end of the day, um for what appears to me is just a bad lease has been signed for this um and work done prior to getting the C O codified uh and finalized, it just seems like there's a lot of mistakes made down the line, and and at the end of the day, it's it's not gonna be a compatible land use for ZC-26-001.

I move for denial with prejudice.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to deny with uh prejudice by Commissioner Warman and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye, Commissioner Trujillo.

I commissioner Welch.

Aye, Commissioner McCoy, aye, Commissioner Edmonds, Commissioner Robinson.

Aye, Commissioner Pierce, aye, Commissioner Rogers, aye.

Commissioner Werman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to zero, the zoning commission votes to recommend denial with prejudice for this case.

Jeremy next case on the docket.

Stephanie, one second.

Hey, everybody who came here for that last case, uh, you should stay for the next two things as well.

If you want to learn more about what's about to happen where you live, you should pay attention to these next two cases.

Okay.

Um next case on the docket is ZC-25-171.

Uh case manager Stephanie Scott Sims.

Site location, none.

This is a text amendment um to the zoning ordinance uh regarding the S B 840, 2477 and 15.

Um zoning or uh state laws um and the zoning ordinance amendments regarding those state laws.

Take are you taking this one step and can't get my mic to work?

I get fine.

This is a um city initiated or staff initiated um zoning text amendment uh regarding the um to um reg uh excuse me an amendment um to the zoning ordinance to um um to address the recent changes to state law regarding SB 840 um HB 2477 and SB 15 and staff is recommending approval and just a reminder that this case will also be heard by city council on March 31st, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Anyone have any questions for staff?

Did you want to add anything that you didn't add earlier?

Okay, we do have three.

I think Chris handed it.

I think Chris covered it all.

Okay.

Uh we do have three people signed up to speak uh in opposition of this case.

Um so if that is you, Brian, Josh, or I'm gonna mess up this other name.

Okay if if you'll go ahead and line up and uh and give us your your testimony here.

And just as a reminder, if you uh heard me earlier, um you guys have seven minutes combined, so if you could keep it as brief as possible and uh try not to repeat points that someone else made.

But uh if you'll just yeah, come up and uh give us your name and address and uh tell us why you're in opposition.

So my name is Joshua Galvest.

I live at 3212 Meadowbrook Drive here in Fort Worth.

Uh you guys have seen me many times rezoning stuff and asking for uh considerations.

Uh I actually had a meeting this Monday with the staff about this particular bill, and I wanted to come here to to really offer insight.

I think based on what I was told on Monday, I will be the first and only one who gets it pushed through before there's additional challenges.

And I would say the last case that just went through where you guys are trying to figure out how to accommodate the ER neighborhood stuff, you're going to um I would use that as a case study for why the SB 840 bill is a good thing.

Uh, because that's going to be what affects us.

So my only complaint at this point on the SB 840 is essentially considering the base zoning being switched to CR.

So if we're familiar with base zoning CR, that is a 60% green space to 40% build space.

To me, that completely undercuts and undermines the entire purpose of the SB 840 bill.

Considering we could have used the multifamily zoning for D or C that limitation really is what's causing my personal issues.

So if you want to fix a lot of these commercial lots, these in-field commercial lots next to neighborhoods by allowing this to go through and not considering a less green space requirement.

That's gonna allow you all to build on some of these commercial lots, in my opinion.

I gave everybody a letter, and I hope you guys consider it, and that's really my only feedback.

Thank you.

Any questions, commissioners?

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Uh next, we had two other speakers.

Did anyone else want to speak on this case?

We had two other people signed up.

Oh, y'all were together.

Okay.

All right.

Um Stephanie, did you want to address that or Chris?

Did you want to address that?

Whether or not using a CR base or C or D, that's really a policy decision from the city management as well as staff, whether or not we want more green space or less green space.

I mean, that's it's not a really a legal question.

So I mean, what chosen is primarily I believe a policy decision more so than anything.

Okay.

Thanks, Chris.

And so just uh as Chris said, he's absolutely right.

So the CR district, um, which is our um lowest intensity single family dish or multifamily district, does have a 60% um minimum open space requirement.

The next highest density is our C district, um, which has a 45% um minimum open space requirement.

So really um it is up to you know, this to zoning commission and council to decide how much green space do you want on a project or on these projects.

Um staff took the approach of using CR, which was our lowest density um district.

Um that's but it again it's up to to you all if you want less green space um or open space on a pro on these projects.

Thoughts, commissioners?

I would say I'm I'm an advocate for green space.

You know, when you travel to um other parts of the country, the east coast, and all you see are large buildings, you don't see very much landscaping or um so I'm I'm a proponent, I love nature, and it uh I will you know I would like to see more green space versus concrete yeah um yeah I I tend to agree with you.

I just want to definitely make sure that we balance that with you know giving uh someone who buys a piece of land the ability to develop it.

Um 60 percent is a lot.

Uh one of our other options is 45, 55, 45.

So uh yeah, so the C district um regulations we have a 45 percent um maximum or I'm sorry, minimum.

So if you use that as the base they would have a 45 instead of a 60.

Correct.

So 45% of the property would need to be green space.

That's correct.

And the rest they could build on it.

Yes.

Okay.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I mean, more green spaces, I'm like you, I love it.

I want to see it, and certainly, you know, we talk about flooding a lot of times, and that's becoming more and more of an issue.

So certainly the more impervious services we have in this city, the more flooding.

Inner city flooding is gonna be an issue.

Um so green spaces help protect.

I'm sorry that that public comment portion is is closed, but we can we can still ask questions of you in a minute.

Um but uh yeah, I also don't want to discourage development, you know.

So just balance the two.

I don't know which is right, just worth the discussion.

So I think the discouraging development to me just seems like speculation at this point.

We don't have any data that that shows 60 versus 45.

CR is uh an established base district, and I would be more prone to supporting that.

Okay.

And can't waivers be applied for at the time and Stephanie?

And you have to prove proper landscaping and plans and things um so the can they go they can go to the building?

The gist under the the gist of of building under SBA 40 is that you don't have to go and get special approvals.

It's administratively approved.

So then when you add that, you know, those waivers in that there's no there's no there's no use in and uh trying to build under that the SB 840 because it just adds an extra layer of approval requirements.

So the whole purpose of this is for or one of the purposes is to make development easier on stuff that doesn't need shouldn't need a whole bunch of approvals.

Right.

Yes.

Um now Stephanie, if I may, um the I'm kind of leaning toward um the comments about using the 45% figure because uh what we're trying the five goals that the city council is set, one is affordable housing and so on and so forth.

That is one of their key goals.

And it seems to me that the more you put requirements on it, like 60 percent versus 45 percent, um, that you're not moving toward your goal, you're just creating um another cost feature for the developer in that they can't develop as much on the property as they would otherwise.

So I would tend to like lean toward the 45 percent if the council decides that green space is more important um then their goal of affordable housing, then they can make that decision.

I I guess I would like to add so if you all are concerned about open space, well, you know, what we could do is we could take a look at this again, broach this subject, um, and determine what might be most appropriate for the green space because I I hear what you all are saying.

You want green space, but 60 percent may be too much.

And so I don't typically like kind of legislating from the dais.

I really prefer honestly for staff to kind of take it back to ingest your comments and come back with something that may be more palatable for you all.

Um maybe we could do that and then come back in April.

I would I would be for that personally, yeah.

Yeah, because I'd love some more feedback from staff as far, you know.

Can't we do 50 percent at least?

Because if you come back and say, no, we still think 45, okay.

Why what did y'all discuss?

Well, and the other thing too is I want to make sure that we're if we're making these changes, how does that affect other things, other requirements?

Um and so I don't want to there's no reason for us to make a rush decision then there really is not and I you know Texas is such a beautiful state, it's a beautiful, and so when you travel other places, and I'll I'm always appreciative when I come back home, and I see that the beauty of um of Texas and Fort and Fort Worth is a very beautiful city, so I'm I I'm good with 60 percent, but I am a team player, so we can we can continue this okay we'll request a continue um to next month.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Mr.

Chairman, I move that we can let me close the public hearing.

Sorry, I don't think I did that.

Did anyone all right before I do that?

I apologize.

Did anyone have a question for any of the opposition or another question for Stephanie before we move?

Okay.

Uh at this time I will close the public hearing and leave it open for a motion.

Sounded like chairman, I move I move that we um continue this case until the next hearing.

This is the case DC 25171 second.

All right, we have a motion to continue until our April zoning commission meeting by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Romiston.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Uh Chairperson Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

I commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

He's gone.

Oh, I didn't know he left.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

All right, with the vote of nine to zero, the zoning commission votes to recommend a continuance of this case to next month's meeting.

All right.

Next case on the docket is ZC-25-172.

Uh case manager Stephanie Scott Sims.

This is also a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to update the floodplain 01 district to amend the purpose of the district and the uses that are allowed therein.

And just a reminder that this case will also be heard by city council on March 31st, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Commissioners.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of nine to zero.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval for this case.

Next case on the docket is ZC-25-199.

Case manager is Enrique Alvarez.

Case Council District 8.

Site location is 1904 McCurdy Street.

Owner Applicant is Jose Ortez Redondo.

Request from I Light Industrial to B Two Family Residential.

Commissioners, you know me.

Laura Reese, I will be translating for the applicant.

Excellent.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Stamos at the tratando de cambio de zona in este lote que to be must uh those announce.

Okay, so he introduced himself and he said that they bought this property about two years ago, and they're requesting to change it from commercial to residential because they would like to construct a duplex.

He would like for you to consider his request, and he thinks that this would be a compatible fit since there is residential and duplex use around this area.

Um the part of nosotros that's it, and thank you for hearing uh me today and taking this into consideration.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

Okay, seeing there is no sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Pierce.

I don't recall.

Did the city recommend this?

Yes approval.

They did.

Yes.

Yeah, land use compatible comp plan consistency.

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah, this is the one that uh it's in the middle.

All this is residential all around, and this is this one left over industrial property.

It's just kind of left over.

This is almost like a cleanup case in some regards.

Um there is no opposition for this case.

Um so if there are no questions, thank you very much.

Um we will close the public hearing and commissioner Pierce.

This is yours.

Okay.

Is there any feedback from fellow commissioners?

No.

Okay.

In the case of ZC25172.

I'm sorry, wrong case.

In the case of ZC25199, I move for approval.

Second second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Pierce and a second by Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of nine to zero.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval for this case.

Oh.

Where am I?

That's the next case.

Okay.

Perfect.

Sorry, I messed up the order of the cases.

So yes.

Okay.

Sorry.

Next case on the docket is ZC-26-009.

Case manager is Dave McCorkadell, Council District 8.

Site location is 4826 Wichita Street.

Owner Applicant is Vernon L.

McCoy and Beatrice Ordorica.

Request from PD 1354, Plan Development for All Us in E neighborhood commercial, excluding ambulance, dispatch station, massage therapy, and spa, golf course, gas lift compressor station, stealth telecommunications tower, telecommunications antenna on structure, utility transmission or distribution line, indoor amusement, event center or rental hall, commercial swimming pool, movie theater or auditorium, short-term home rental, feed store, no processing or milling, liquor or package store, parking area or garage, store commercial storage commercial or auxiliary, day case day care center plus waiver to supplemental setback, site plan approved.

Two amend PD 1354 to add massage therapy and spa, indoor amusement, event center or rental hall, short-term home rental, feed store, no processing or milling, liquor or package store as permitted uses, and exclude ambulance dispatch station, golf course, gas lift compressor station, South Telecommunications Tower, telecommunications antenna on structure, utility transmission or distribution line, commercial swimming pool, movie theater or auditorium, parking area or garage, storage, commercial or auxiliary, daycare center, and a development standard for supplemental setback and buffer yard.

Site plan included.

Is the applicant present?

Applicant, are you here?

Okay, it appears the applicant is not present for this case.

And Commissioner Pierce said there is no one signed up for opposition either.

Uh so at this time we'll close the public hearing and let's just discuss.

It looks like they're basically trying to take everything that it was originally took out, they're trying to put back in uh with no real plan.

I I don't know, this one would be hard for me to approve personally.

Yeah, I don't know what y'all think.

I agree.

Yeah, you definitely need a site plan if they're adding all this back in with no clear direction as far as what they plan to do with it.

Being that they're not here to speak, doesn't help.

And it's there's houses right below it on rodeo there.

That's difficult and it doesn't follow the future use map.

No, it didn't sound commissioner Pierce.

All right, any other comments?

No.

Okay.

I I agree with my fellow commissioners, and I move uh to deny case ZC 26009.

Second, we have a motion by Commissioner Pierce to deny and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Rains, aye, Commissioner Trujillo, aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of nine to zero.

The zoning commission votes to recommend denial for this case.

Next case on the docket is ZC-26-011.

Case manager is Enrique Alvarez, Council District 8.

Site location is 1205 Blodgett Avenue.

Owner and applicant is Jose Bernal.

Request request is from E neighborhood commercial to B two family residential.

All right, is the applicant present?

Oh no, two in a row.

All right.

Applicant is not present.

I don't believe we have anybody here to speak in opposition of this case.

I'm not seeing any.

And no one's raising their hand.

So at this time we will close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion.

This one's kind of the opposite of the last one.

This one looks pretty easy.

Surprised the applicant's not here.

It does.

If it's the land use, uh neighborhood commercial to two family, so I don't see any issue with it.

Okay.

I move for approval.

Um case ZC 2601.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion by Commissioner Pierce to approve, and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioner Welch.

Hi.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Hi.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of nine to zero, the zoning commission votes to recommend approval of this case.

Next case on the docket is ZC-26-014.

Case manager is Lynn Jordan, Council District 7.

Site location is 8640 Bryson Lane.

Owner applicant is Richard D.

Altman of CR Fitness Holdings LLC and Tyler Wallach of Jackson Walker LLP.

Request this from is rezoning from A4 A43 One Family Residential to E neighborhood commercial.

Just a note that this case will be heard by the city council on March 31st.

Is the applicant present.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Oh, I just want to say I've seen a lot of children here today more than I've ever seen at any zoning commission meeting.

And as a fellow parent, I give kudos to the parents because my kids would not have acted that way.

They would have been a disaster.

So I don't know if they're listening, if they're gonna come back and listen, but kudos to the parents who brought the children.

The children were well behaved.

Anyways, Tyler Wallack, uh Jackson Walker, uh LLP.

So I'm here representing uh the development group that's developing Crunch Fitness uh addresses, my address is 777 Main Street, suite 2100 Fort Worth, Texas.

Um so I wanted to show these pictures up front uh because uh Crunch Fitness is a national brand and they build quality uh products, quality development.

So you can see that uh, and this is just one example, but uh they they they give nice articulation on their buildings and they maintain their buildings both inside and outside uh to a very high degree, uh and they're very proud of that.

Um they're a no-judgment philosophy, uh meaning you can be anyone, uh doesn't matter your size, doesn't matter anything else.

Uh they will accept you as you are, and you can work out inside of Crunch Fitness.

Uh they have more than 500 locations nationwide.

Uh and on that map you can see there's about 20 of them uh in and around DFW, and they're expanding uh with more.

Uh they offer all sorts of uh personal training, uh Zumba, Pilates, yoga, and I'm not sure still how to say that fourth one, H I I T, I think, hit uh and ride.

So if anybody knows how to say it, let me know.

Uh close.

Um so anyways, uh, y'all seen the site.

Uh this is an updated, so um the this is an updated aerial.

Uh so across on the if you look going east to west is uh Bailey Boswell, that's a collector street going north-south uh on the far uh east side over there is old Decatur Road.

Um and you have Bryson Lane, which uh divides our property highlighted in yellow with the uh Bryson Elementary to the south and the neighborhood to the west.

Um our opinion, and we agree with staff.

Uh we'd recommend approval.

Uh we're requesting a recommendation of approval.

We think it's compatible with surrounding land uses.

We also think it's consistent with the comprehensive plan uh with that minor boundary adjustment.

I'm gonna take you through a um kind of a history of this property so that way you can kind of see how it's become uh this area has become compatible with uh uh commercial uses over time.

So this is 2001 when this was all designated A43, and you see Bryson Elementary there.

2007, uh still that way, but you can see Bryson Elementary's kind of put together a bus yard off to the uh west side there.

Uh 2016, that's when everything starts to kind of redevelop in this area.

Uh so it went uh from A43 to general commercial 2018.

Then you have a huge block that goes from general commercial or it goes from A43 to general commercial and e-neighborhood commercial.

Move forward to 2019, then you have the next block that was e-neighborhood commercial, and then beginning in 2020, we start getting some actual development on these.

Uh so you see a lot of businesses starting to move in.

2023, you get a Burger King, Dutch Bros, Canes, uh, I think it's called Chicken Alley over there.

Uh Sprouts uh moves in.

It is developed.

And there's kind of an office park plus a breakfast place.

And that think that's going to keep developing to the south right there.

This is the proposed site plan.

I know it's not before y'all today, but uh this, you know, maybe reconfigured over time slightly, but this is generally what we're going for here.

Uh the entrances uh will not be facing the neighborhood, and they will not be facing the elementary school.

The entrance will be facing the parking lot, uh, going out east towards old Decatur.

Um we have met with the uh, and we when we we've met with the neighborhood, we've uh addressed some of their concerns on kind of the articulation and the what the building uh potentially is gonna look like over facing the neighborhood uh on the uh east side of ours and west side to the west side of the neighborhood.

The red area is the it's kind of the large detention pond over there, and we're actually overparked on this property by 44 spaces.

Uh so that's gonna keep people out of the neighborhood into uh uh our our our lots.

So again, uh this has been a steady transition over the last 10 years uh to a commercial use.

Uh this is exactly what you would expect out of a neighborhood commercial use.

Uh there's a neighborhood just a little bit further to the west uh that has a lot, uh A5 houses, so it gives them the ability in those neighbors uh to either drive over or walk over uh to this facility to work out.

Um, and plus, if you're gonna be driving, uh dropping off your kids, picking up your kids from the elementary school and the intermediate school that's over there.

Uh parents can do a little workout before they pick up the kids, be nice.

Uh cooperative plan, we think it's consistent with the minor boundary adjustment.

Uh we have the two connector roads, uh, and so those commercial uses that we have, that's gonna that's near those connector roads.

Uh the neighborhood services, they are within walking distance of a lot of uh a lot of things that are over there.

Uh and we can tie in kind of existing utilities in and around the area to our development, especially because it's the last one kind of coming in in that block.

Uh, and there are this Bryson Avenue, Bryson Lane does create some buffers between our final thoughts.

Final thoughts.

We have approval.

Uh no, we got a uh we got um uh recommendation for approval uh from Eagle Mountain Sack and all ISD.

We met with uh their superintendent, he was uh fully on board.

Um, and then Northwest Wortworth Neighborhood Association deferred to Eagle Mountain.

Uh so we have two there, and then uh I think one of the individuals we met with at the neighborhood meeting is here uh to speak as well.

So any questions?

Um I just I have one before we hear from the opposition.

Um you're asking to go to E.

I'm assuming that's because of the hype.

Is that why you didn't go for ER?

Um I don't I'm not exactly sure why we went from E to ER or E as opposed to ER.

But I'll let our civil engineers speak on that.

Sorry, John Ainsworth came in.

Oh, you're John, sorry.

Yeah, uh Johnny.

I think E is limited on um square footage.

I think it's limited.

There's a height restriction.

Uh there's the max height is 35 on ER and 45 on E.

But a big difference is alcohol sales is prohibited and ER, not E.

I think there's a square footage restriction.

Square footage staff.

Is there I think it's a 10,000 square foot max in E.

There is.

Okay, okay.

All right.

I just want a clarification as to why, because you're a fitness.

I don't think there's any attempt to sell alcohol.

Yeah.

It would be nice, but yeah.

Well, we just we when we get straight zoning cases.

One of the things we like to think about is um obviously we want your business to succeed, but if it doesn't, what comes next?

So okay, that explains that.

Thank you very much.

And uh now we did have, and it looks like you've got Lance.

Is it are you just here just in case?

Or did you have anything?

Okay.

Well, you're out of time, but on on the I'll give you time.

I just want to make sure I knew which side you were on.

And then I've got Carl Johnson here to speak in opposition.

Come on up.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Chairman and members in the zoning commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak for you.

My name's Carl Johnson, and I reside at 8625 Bryson Lane, which has been my residence since 2018.

Intended to be my last move to my retirement home slash nursing home slash funeral home.

I would like to validate my comments based on experience, 25 years of military service, followed by 25 years of municipal police law enforcement retiring as a patrol division captain.

As a homeowner, I'm opposed to the rezoning of 8640 Bryson Lane from residential to commercial.

This is based on quality of life issues.

This is based on quality of life issues, such as sit on my front porch enjoying the morning cup of coffee while watching the sunrise of my neighbor's white southern plantation style home will be replaced by standard 35 book wall back over the intended fitness center.

Additional residence street traffic drawn to the fitness center, especially during peak morning hours when traffic flow is already heavy due to the Bryson elementary school on weekday mornings.

We already have become a great hand turn lane for Beatty Boswell and traffic trying to go south on old Decatur Road.

Although not scheduled for 24 hour operation, increase in evening traffic, which is a top use time for modern fitness centers.

The degradation of a residential street caused by initial construction and future commercial traffic.

I don't know if they gave you the handout with a picture attached to that.

Is uh the weird tail on a residential street and I've waited for heavy whitman and trucking has caused a lot of damage there.

I understand the progress support the community due to the influx people or great city.

In in the past seven years, I've seen a neighborhood reduced from five from excuse me, from eight families to four, and now the entire east side of once quiet street will be fully commercial.

I imagine it's only a matter of time before they knock on my door to place my house with doctor's offices or other professional buildings, but until then I would ask for a restriction on the construction traffic this settlement to direct access from old decided road and the week east west section of Bryce Lane that faces the delivery area of Bryson Elementary and not the north-south section of Bracel Lane that for instance the four of the main family residents.

Thank you again for your time, and I'm glad to answer any questions as best I can.

Thank you for your comments.

Any questions?

All right.

Also thank you for your service.

Yeah.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Now we have uh two minutes uh for the applicant to come back and speak to any of that or any final thoughts.

Good afternoon.

Uh Lance Cooper, 537, Morning Dove Circle, Lake Mary, Florida.

Uh, I'm the developer for this uh crunch fitness.

Um I do understand the concern.

Um we are our intent is not to impact the neighborhood.

I can say all the things to that, but it is a you know, it is a retail use, commercial retail use.

We do intend to overlandscape uh on both sides.

As Tyler said, the access will be internal to the lot, not facing the neighborhood, so our traffic is kind of funneled to the inside of the lot, not behind um to the landscaping, and then all of our lighting will be internal to the lot, and the lights on the outside will be you know per code downlit so that they don't impose on the neighborhood.

I can answer any questions and and speak to that as well.

Um that block is commercial.

Uh that will be the last holdout of residential in in the block.

Um, and it complies with the future use.

So you already own the lot, or are you we do not know?

Okay.

We're under contract on the lot.

We intend to close once we get the permit.

Okay, okay.

But you will be the owner operator, you're not least.

Uh CR will be the owner operator.

We'll we'll be the interim developer and then CR will be the ultimate leasehold.

Okay.

CR is the largest franchise in the country for Crunch, and Crunch Fitness develops through two, well, two large and several other smaller franchises.

Okay.

Any questions?

Commissioners.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Uh sorry, one more point.

Uh, this is to tell our point is overpart, and it's substantially overpart from what our typical data criteria shows.

So we we tend to overpark for taking cars off of the neighborhoods that we go into.

So that is our intent too.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

If there are no questions, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion.

Uh, this one's uh mine, so we'll I've asked one of my fellow commissioners here to take this one.

Um I do have some comments, and I'm certainly open to hearing yours too.

Um I feel for for Carl, because I know when he moved there, I'm sure you know when we saw the pictures, we went through the timeline, it didn't look like that.

Umfortunately, that whole block has already all been developed, and now there's just this one piece.

Um, and I'd and it to me it it is a good use of the land uh to put in something like this, especially where the rest of the block is now.

Um, but I do feel for for Carl the same way, and when the day comes, and I hope it's not any time soon, Carl, that you do need to move into that nursing home.

I want you to be able to sell your house and your lot for uh the highest uh value possible, and if that means that getting rezoned, I certainly wouldn't want to set some precedent to restrict that.

Um yeah, I tend to be in favor of this zoning change for case uh Mr.

Chairman for KZC 26014.

I move for approval.

Second.

We have a uh motion to approve by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chair person Rains.

Aye, Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye, Commissioner Welch.

Aye, Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Werman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 11, I mean 10 to zero.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval for this case.

One comment.

Mr.

Waller, for future reference, you pronounce that hit.

And it stands for high intensity interval training.

So hit like it like hit.

Okay, good to know.

Thank you.

You have your hit workout coming after this, Judge.

You never know.

Next case on the docket is ZC-26-014.

I'm sorry, 015.

Thank you.

Case manager is Beth Knight, Council District 5.

Site location is 3524 and 3528 Fraser Court.

Owner Applicant, the CG Superb Homes LLC and Cesar Gonzalez.

Request is from A51 Family Residential to R10 Lot Line Cluster Residential.

All right, is the applicant present?

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Thanks.

Good morning, everyone.

I want to form and express my strong support for the proposed rezoning from A5 to R1 Duplex Residential, the Moser Valley neighborhood.

As for Warfund that goes a period of rapid expansion expansion, it is important that our land use policies reflect a commitment to flexible urban development.

I believe this transition offers substantial benefits for both the Moser Valley community and the city at large.

By diversifying our housing stock, we can foster a more equitable equitable urban landscape.

Expanding housing options allows residents of very social economic backgrounds to access desirable neighborhoods without the negative extremities of displacement or increased residential segregation.

While I recognize that rezoning amendments necessitate regular rigorously evaluation, I view this proposal as a productive forward thinking strategy.

It represents a vital opportunity for Fort Worth to ensure its growth remains inclusive, sustainable, and adaptive to the evolving needs of a diverse population.

Introducing duplexes will help increase the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood where additional options are urgently needed.

This two-block neighborhood has many smaller homes under 1200 square feet, which would be close in size to duplexes.

There's already four duplexes in this uh two-block neighborhood.

I've built several houses in this neighborhood and am the owner to the house right next door.

Uh and I have the uh recommendation letter of uh the owner of the other house on the other side.

I think this uh rezoning to R1 is a reasonable request.

Uh thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh any questions for the applicant, commissioners.

Okay, and we also have a uh Jeff Pointer signed up to speak.

In favor?

Hello everyone, how y'all doing?

Glad to be here in front of y'all.

My name is Jeff Pointer.

I am a true descendant from Mosher Valley from the Parker family.

I am the chairman of the Moser Valley Property Owners Association, and believe me, I know what needs to be in Moser Valley.

Um, and I do approve of it because we've had a lot of uh things go through in Mosulley on, and it's all is basically was all um uh uh ag.

We have people out there now occupying egg that has stuff that shouldn't be there.

So all residential from this point forward, you're gonna see me.

If it's some commercial there, I'm going to not.

We don't want any more of that there, but with this, what he's doing with the new part that's coming.

Uh we just had the groundbreaking.

We miss people and everything there was great.

Um it's gonna be great for the community.

Um more residents is great with us.

You know, me growing up there and watching it, it you know, where it is now, and it should be it should be more evolved, being that's you know, the first Freeman town in you know, Texas, and one of the oldest communities in the country.

So the residents mean a lot to us to come back there and be there so they can enjoy the the fruits that we did when we was kid able to fruits grew naturally there, you know.

So they'll come, they will enjoy it, you know, and having a new park come in the community center.

Um the uh school uh that was there that my grandmother, uh great grandmother uh first attended the first Negro school in Texas, uh the way they put it.

Um the land was donated to HEB.

So believe me, I know the history and know it should be there, and I know that right there.

Because my grandmother that that whole area there was deeded from my ancestors on the deeds, the original deeds.

So I approve it and uh those duplexes be great for us.

So uh thank you for your comments.

Um one of the I think one of the concerns that staff have why they're recommending a denial um is just going from A5 to R1 is a big change.

It's a lot of levels uh to get there.

Um it's it's just really dense, like you would typically see that in more of like an urban setting, not so much in a more residential setting like you've got here.

Um and you you keep you you mentioned the word duplex, and I believe the applicant mentioned it too, and I would love his thoughts on this too, but wondering if uh like a two-family uh like a B zoning makes more sense here uh where it's not so dense because you're talking about zero lot line, like cluster, very like this is all house, there's no yard anywhere.

Um so I'm just wondering if that might be a better fit if he's only planning on doing a duplex.

Anyway, I'm curious why he went from A5 all the way down to R1.

Can you help us understand that?

Uh I went to R1 because the uh part of the block is already R1, so I thought it would be uh more easier for you to approve.

But yeah, B would work for me also.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That works.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

I I think one thing was pointed out in the um workshop was that it changes the boundaries.

I I didn't see is there it may ask the staff, is there another R1 lot on that block?

I I didn't see it.

Oh, there it is.

I don't see I don't see it either, but Beth.

Uh it's not a north of it.

There's R1, it's some duplexes.

Maybe it's off the map.

It is off the map.

It's the one of the reasons um I believe why they did that is because it's immediately adjacent to precinct line road, which is an arterial instead of this site that is more interior to the neighborhood that creates a spot of more intensive zoning than anything else that you see in the area.

Okay.

I also want to uh say that uh this is like uh one one block uh neighborhood.

It ends at uh with this block.

And uh right next to it is uh truck uh parking spot and also a social club in the K.

Okay.

All right, thank y'all very much.

Appreciate it.

Yes, um I could ask Stephanie.

Yes.

Stephanie, is there a way that we could accommodate this and and um yeah, provide for a better consistent future?

I I um so I think I don't think he wants to build from he's not talking about constructing something with a zero lot line.

He's talking about Well, I don't I don't know.

He's he said he was happy with a B.

He said he said he would be happy with B.

He thought it would be easier for us to approve R1 because there was R1 up there.

Yeah, but that doesn't that doesn't that isn't the way it sifts out.

Um he's not wanting to build a zero lot line building.

So he doesn't need zero lot line.

So maybe we could approve something for him that would let him do what he wants to do and and still have a consistent face on the block.

If we go to B though, doesn't have to be renoticed.

No, no, because it's less intensive, I believe.

Do you have uh a question for the applicant?

Um Caesar, right?

Is it Caesar?

Yes.

Uh do you uh do you have a site plan already?

Uh I don't have a site plan.

I uh mentioned to her that uh we would be building something similar to the duplexes uh already uh in the same block.

Well I do have like a uh small little um let me ask you this, Caesar.

How close are you to wanting to break ground on this?

Uh probably well that actually that would work.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is kind of somewhat I don't want I didn't bring the site plan, but uh it would have all the same setbacks as uh the house was already in place.

I wonder if it would make sense to to do a continuum.

Yes, so that staff can work.

Are you in a rush to get this pushed through for any reason?

I mean, I would uh like to push it through, but if I I could wait also if there's any details that need to be more thoroughly discussed.

Because it sounds like I don't want to speak out of turn, but it you might have a better chance of getting this approved of a recommendation from us if we get a more appropriate zoning uh down.

So maybe if you had 30 more days to speak with staff and perhaps uh choose a different zoning category uh might have an easier time.

Oh, okay.

Yes.

Uh uh definitely I would like to uh work with that option that way I can further explain to her what I'm trying to do.

Okay.

Any other thoughts?

So do we do we need a continuance if it's it's less intense, right?

Yeah, I guess my only thought.

I'm then okay.

I know what you're about to say now, I think, but uh yeah, that he would still have 30 days to the April still continue.

I'm just trying to think I just hate to approve something that he can't actually work with.

That's my only thought.

Right.

For for our purposes, though, like are we good with R1 or B or whatever we're gonna do?

If he says he can work with either one, and then we can have an opportunity to push the less intense one through.

It might make sense.

I mean, I guess if we approved B.

I'm just thinking out loud.

If we approve B and it turns out OB actually won't work, I do need R1.

Um, you would just have to come back anyway, right?

Uh B would definitely work for me.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that keeps us from having to come back.

So and I agree, the area is a historic area, and I saw uh councilwoman people's just um dedicated a beautiful park, and it's it is a uh Freeman's area.

So that's what the slaves for us relocated uh into Fort Worth into that area and parts of that area still has septic takes, and so they they need a lot of housing development in Mosier Valley.

So I commend you for what you're doing.

That area needs a lot of work, and uh hopefully this will be the anchor for more development to come.

I hope so.

So thank you.

Uh if you're willing to accept um B2 zoning, uh, I think we can just move ahead.

Yes, sir.

Would that be all right?

Uh yes.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

I move that we approve this with B2 zoning.

Second.

I'm sorry, I I need to tell you the case number.

Um ZC 26.

Sorry, it's just B, not B2.

Yeah, B.

Okay, B.

Yeah, sorry.

Yeah.

Okay.

Here we're here.

15?

Uh yes.

Very ZC26015.

I recommend that we uh that we approve this for B zoning.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve uh B zoning uh by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Warman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval for B zoning on this case.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See y'all soon.

All right.

Next case on the docket is ZC-26-016.

Case manager is Enrique Alvarez.

Council District 5.

Site location is 5002 Pollard Smith Avenue.

Owner Applicant is Texas for Land LLC and Cooper Conquer.

Request is to rezone from A5 SSO or one family stop six overlay to URSSO urban residential stop six overlay.

Good afternoon.

Welcome back to the zoning commissioner.

Do you mind if I they don't have an overhead and I didn't realize we were going to be down here today?

Can I this we can pass it around?

Yeah.

That works great.

We didn't know we were meeting down here either.

Surprised us too.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Marionale Pool Town Site 2918 Wingate here in Fort Worth.

I'm here today representing the owner.

This site is located within the Stop 6 Design District and across the street from the Fort Worth Hughes House project, which spans four blocks and approximately 14 acres.

The two blocks facing Pollard Smith Avenue are zoned PD 1260 with a base zoning of UR for multifamily.

My client proposes to develop 10 attached townhomes in one and two bedroom configurations.

The buildings will be two-story with a front porch and front doors facing Pollard Smith Avenue in order to blend with the surrounding neighborhood.

Parking spaces are provided in the rear and on the side behind the building line.

The alley along the western border will be paved and provide access for one-way traffic through the site.

As required in UR, there's a five-foot landscape buffer yard along the southern border adjacent to the A5 zoning.

There will be street trees and street lights along Pollard Smith Avenue, adding to the pedestrian scaled streetscape that will also be developed on the opposite side of the street by Fort Worth Hughes House.

These units will be for rent and provide needed workforce housing with clean design and sustainable materials.

These two towns, these two-story townhomes will not only provide additional housing options, but also create a buffer to the single story homes along the Eda Street from the more intense development across Pollard Smith Avenue.

I did reach out to the historic Stop Six Neighborhood Association.

I have not heard back from them.

I've worked with them in the past, but excuse me, have not heard back.

Thank you, Mary Nell.

We have no one signed up to speak in opposition.

Commissioner, is there any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Edmonds, this one is yours again.

Mr.

Chairman, um for case ZC26016.

I move approval.

Second.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Worman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval of this case.

Next case on the docket is ZC-26-017.

Case manager is Lynn Jordan, Council District 6.

Site location is 5332, Sycamore School Road.

Owner Applicant is Polish Dimes Real Estate LLC Series 2011.

Carl Hulton AutoZone Parts Incorporated.

Wesley R.

Berlin, Spartan Engineering Solutions LLC.

Request is to rezone from PD823A.

Plan development for all uses in e neighborhood commercial excluding alcohol sales.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Is the applicant present?

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Wesley Berlin.

I'm with Spartan Engineering.

Addresses 2583 Pine Bluffs Court Highland, Michigan, 48357.

First of all, I would like to thank you all for your time and discussion for our project today.

When PD 823 was originally established under uh PD 08-122, it had an MU1 underlying as the base zoning.

Based on the excuse me one second.

Based on the city of Fort Worth code, uh table 4.120 forum based code uh districts use table.

Auto parts supply retail is actually a use by right or permitted use in MU1.

Umsequent to the uh PD being established as part of the Dutch Brothers that was developed uh immediately to the east of this property back in 2020.

Um they actually went in for a zoning change request under case number ZC20-112.

And based on the staff report uh for that zoning case, the request for the uh underlying zoning change to E was based on the dimensional difficulties, setbacks, parking lot location.

Um, with that zoning change, the uses were also attached to E from MU1.

So again, I want to make the distinction.

We're we're requesting for an addition of our use uh to this district, but it's based on that E underlying zoning change, whereas we were compatible with that uh the original M U1 that this PD was established.

Um it kind of seems this is my opinion.

It seems to me that when this uh underlying zoning was changed from the MU1 to the E, it really is set up more really like a more of a commercial development in this case.

So as you can see on the screen, we're that basically a pad ready site.

It's it's set up with the cross axis in the front.

It's it's basically determined where the building is going to be and it's really set up.

The framework and the dimensional criteria is set up based on the E zoning district, which really supports commercial development uh for this particular property.

Immediately to our east is a Dutch Brothers drive-thru coffee, which is a standalone non-mixed use commercial to the east of that.

Uh also within this PD is a 711 convenience store and gas station.

Uh so we're basically we're we're we're trying to follow the the the framework of the development uh that has been set before us with uh how our site's going to be configured, which is basically commercial in nature.

Um it's been my understanding there's been several uh attempts to develop this property uh due to the setback issues and and different things with the MU1.

Uh, those are some of the reasons that the E underlying was adopted.

Um there was mentioned in the staff report that our our and it's listed on the screen there that our development would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um I do feel that we're consistent with the original framework of the PD since MU1 is is uh what was the actual uh the original underlying zoning.

Um the original staff report from uh the Dutch Brothers KZC2112 actually lists that development as compatible with a comprehensive plan.

So I guess it's not really clear to me why maybe that would have been compatible, and auto zone in particular would not be.

Um maybe a clarification on that would be helpful for us to understand.

Um auto zone has actually successfully we've we've developed uh numerous projects in the e-zoning district elsewhere in the city.

Um, and we have done that through a conditional use permit.

Here, being part of a PD, the correct avenue instead of uh or in lieu of a conditional use permit would be to add our use to the PD.

So essentially we're trying to arrive at the same situation, our use within an e-zoning district, just the avenue to get there is uh is a PD use amendment instead.

Um we feel that we're a lower intensity use being retail in nature than uh than both uh a drive-through and a uh gas station convenience store.

Certainly less traffic generation, um, less use on public uh public utilities infrastructure, and I think from a visual standpoint, I think we would be less intrusive to the uh adjacent surrounding developments as well.

We've really positioned our site to kind of buffer um buffer our main customer and parking area from the adjacent surrounding uh mixed use developments.

Um proposing an attractive building.

There's kind of a mixture of materials and color schemes and building uh building appearances, all very beautiful in their own regard, and I think that we are are blending in as best we can.

I do have a sample elevation that I can I can pass around if anybody's interested.

It's not part of the packet, but essentially it's uh it's an earth tone uh color building, uh lighter browns, um tan color.

We have a nice um stone accent materials to kind of blend in with some of the other businesses.

So I think from a visual perspective, it'll be a very attractive development as well.

Um you're almost at time, so final thoughts.

Okay.

Uh just I'm not aware of any opposition.

We've had a lot of dialogue with the council six district office had neighborhood meetings, and we're not aware of any opposition or outstanding issues.

So um thank you for your time.

We feel that we're compatible here and look forward to your approval.

Recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, Wesley.

Um, okay.

Uh we don't have anybody signed up to speak in opposition.

Uh we did have uh Trey Williams signed up.

Is he just here just in case we've got questions?

Okay.

I mean, you know, CEO.

I mean, we grow, you know, Texas Rose, yeah, God's bless me to be the real estate manager here, and I'm out here just trying to put stuff so the PC on cars or taking some more nowadays.

All right.

Thank you, Trey.

Um and this is yours, Commissioner Robinson.

Um, I do have a question.

Um, and you might have one too.

Uh this may be for staff, and then it may be for you too.

Um so on the original PD, they excluded alcohol sales on the amendment.

Does that automatically get drawn in there?

Do we need to include that again?

Because I don't think auto zone is trying to sell alcohol.

Could we put that back in if they don't uh just uh for purposes of what how I would read this and how I interpret this is that they are only just adding the auto parts supply and retail to their existing.

So when it's just saying amending it, they're not removing anything, it's just amending it to include.

So whatever exactly.

So the wording that says all uses in E, that should not scare us.

It just mirrors kind of what exactly occurred before.

So I think that would stays with it.

Yeah, everything that would stay, it just goes it's just included in the auto.

Thanks, Chris.

That was all I had, Commissioner.

Any questions or thoughts?

The only concern I know what this plot is because I've seen it, because I go to that Dusk Brothers.

The only concern I have is that parking and people getting in and out because that Dust Brothers right there gets contested, especially in the mornings.

Because it's it's it I see competing traffic issues.

And then the apartments that are behind it, I can't think named the Dillon, those apartments behind it.

Uh, what is those residents think about a building?

They look out their door and there's a building right there.

Because now they're used to seeing nothing but a lot there.

That that's the concern I have is that parking.

How is that parking gonna be configured because I think that's what the issue was staff before is the parking situation?

Is that what the issue was for this product of the property not being developed?

There's parking and something else.

Yeah, yes.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Yes, it was par parking and that the building orientation because you had to set the building closer up to the street.

Yeah, see, that's the other thing because that that little, I guess that egress from them, they built that little pad to go out of the uh Dust Brothers and the 7 Eleven, that was already there.

So now you're gonna take that away and put a parking lot there.

I think that's gonna call congestion with Dutch Brothers, especially because they are congested.

So there's uh that's a good point.

Um something I was looking at is because by right this is you know, all uses in E minus alcohol sales.

So by right, somebody could put in a gas station, which would be even more cause more congestion than like uh an auto zone would.

Um then it they could do uh a restaurant, you know, a McDonald's could go in right there, and that would be even more traffic.

Uh by right.

Okay, Burger King, you know how they're feuding right now.

McDonald's on the cra across the street from me.

I would say that auto zone would be a lot less traffic intensive than any restaurant would be or gas.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Uh just the parking situation.

I'm concerned about that.

Uh I know they don't, I I I've gone to auto zone.

Um a member, the club member, so there you go.

And and sometimes it's busy, sometimes it's not.

So there is some uh lull in traffic.

So I don't know.

I'm I'm kind of complex on that traffic issue.

I don't know if anybody else got any feedback on that.

Um I I'm good with doing it as it is, but the only concern is that traffic and that's that corner between Summer Creek and some and uh Sycamore School Road at is very congested in the evenings.

It is really congested between three and five.

Oh, it's it's Murder Road trying to get out of there, get in there.

And now they're trying to build a light further down Sycamore School Road, and that's gonna just back up traffic even further.

So that's my concern.

I think it's a good point to bring up.

Um, but again, I I would point back to if you know this were to be developed as a fast food joint, that would cause even more congestion, and they could do that by right without having to come back to us at all.

So I think this may actually be better.

I don't know.

Oh I'm fine with it either way.

I mean, it doesn't.

I think it'll benefit that land is needs to be something done with it because it's been sitting there since I moved in the neighborhood.

It's been sitting there for at least seven years, empty.

So ready to make a motion?

All right, we'll close the public hearing.

Thank you very much.

Anybody has got the feedback for us A?

Nope.

Okay.

All of yours, Commissioner.

All right.

In the case of Z C26017, I move for approval.

Second.

I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Robinson and a second by Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval of this case.

Thank you, sir.

Next next case on the agenda is ZC-26-020.

Case manager is Dave McCorcadel, Council of District 11.

Site location is 5329 and 5355 First Street.

Owner applicant.

Did I skip one?

I'm sorry.

Sorry about that.

Um ZC-26-019.

Case manager is Beth Knight, Council District 9.

Site location is 2837 and 2841 8th Avenue.

Owner applicant is Terrent Properties Incorporated and Texas for land LLC.

Request is to rezone from E neighborhood commercial to B two family residential.

All right.

Welcome to Zoning Commission.

Thank you.

My name is Cooper Conger.

I'm the owner of Newpad Building Company.

Terrant Properties Inc.

was the former owner.

I'm also part of Texas4 Land LLC, kind of interchangeable with Newpad.

Um 251 Sunset Lane Fort Worth, Texas.

So I own this site here at 2841 8th Avenue.

And as you can see, it's currently zoned e-commercial with A5 straight uh east of it and A5 straight south of it, and then a gas station commercial straight west of it.

Further further north along 8th Avenue, where it turns into an actual four-lane road instead of that residential road like mine fronts on.

There is a lot of commercial and it's a it's a great commercial area.

Um I bring a proposal to change this to duplex to to match that uh residential uh neighborhood that it currently sits in.

Um so first some of the local engagement we did.

I did meet with the Ryan Place Neighborhood Association that is very active in this area.

I brought them this project and just showed them the pros, the pros and cons of hey, this is what a commercial project that someone could bring here versus this is the residential scale project that I would be proposing.

Um and then I also went door to door and did outreach on that street and on the street directly behind it.

I probably knocked on about 20 doors, I probably got 10 answers, I think.

Uh four of them decided not to sign uh my support letter, and six did decide to sign my support letter.

Um I also met with Councilman Beck and reviewed the project details.

Um and and we both agreed that it aligned with the district's housing goals, specifically on this local residential type street.

Uh I wanted to show y'all what the commercial zoning for allows today.

Uh so that hatched area would be the building, uh, pretty much takes up the entire width of the lot.

Um, and then the single family homes, the A5.

Um, so the top of that where it says single family homes would be the single family homes of the east.

And then essentially just a parking lot in the front, because as you know, there's parking requirements.

And so this would essentially turn into a parking lot, which was the exact opposite of what the Ryan Place Neighborhood Association wanted to happen in their land, or on their in their neighborhood, excuse me.

And then also the neighbors that I spoke to directly behind were not too fond of a built commercial building being 15 foot from their backyards.

So this is our proposed development.

We want to build two duplexes here.

Each side of this duplex would have three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, about 1,400 square feet.

And being a TCU student, I realized that these being three bedroom units will not attract students.

So as you guys can see, it's residential and orientation.

They've got great backyards.

We're putting backyards next to backyards and residential next to residential, which is why I think it's such a great fit.

As you can see on the the right side of your screen, we are we are a really solid fit in and around all these houses around there.

In the staff report, it mentions that we may limit commercial development directly north and directly south of us.

I do not foresee this being an issue because it's already a residential house to the north of us and it's already a residential house to the south of us.

Um so we're actually fitting in well with them.

Um that house you see to the north actually used to be a business, and then they went out of business, and so now it's a residential house.

Um and so it's a re it's a single family um homeowner living in there.

Um and and like I mentioned, it's not student housing.

We sell our duplexes to typically end buyers.

We get a ton of VA buyers in Fort Worth, uh, a ton of FHA, people that want to live in one side and run out the other.

They see it as an investment long term, they like the neighborhood, they want to own things in Fort Worth.

Um, and it's an awesome opportunity.

Some of the the crazy good deals we get these people.

Um then, you know, just wrapping up, it's uh we see it as a logical buffer between the commercial that is to the west and to the north, that gas station, um, a good solid buffer from the low lower density single family to that high density or high intense use commercial, um, and it'll be a a small, a quieter uh residential use that that will greatly uh benefit the neighborhood.

Um and with that, I'll open up to any questions.

Thank you, Cooper.

Uh, and we don't have anybody signed up to speak in opposition of this case.

Uh I'll say from the outset, uh, we always appreciate it when developers go out and speak to the community uh try and get some feedback being being engaged.

So thank you for doing that.

Uh it looks like you got six letters of support and only one in opposition, so that may have paid off.

Um questions, commissioners.

I have a couple of questions.

So the the property that you're proposing, that's for sale, not for rent.

That's correct.

So how we do it is we build a duplex and then we'll sell the duplex.

Um, and typically someone will live in one side and rent out the other.

And that's not to say an investor won't buy it.

You know, we we get more primary occupants than investors, but at the end of the day, there's I mean, that's as someone that has the right to buy property.

And that note that was that was in our in our preparation.

You have talked to the person that lives to the north.

Yes, sir.

And they own that property and they live there.

Yes, sir.

And the same to the south?

Um, I couldn't get a hold of the person in the south.

All I know is it's a residential house.

I couldn't, they didn't answer their door.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Sorry, where are you going on?

Well, there's another no on the staff report about SB 840 and the ability to develop multifamily here.

I want to be very upfront that the Ryan Place Neighborhood Association, which multifamily is three units or more.

They would not be a fan of anything three units or more on this site.

They were happy with the the duplexes I proposed.

Um, not well, they were happy, but they wanted me to do more open space in the driveways, which I did.

Um, and so they would not be in favor of multifamily here, and I want like to honor them as well.

I would like to follow up on our chairman what he said about we very much appreciate the fact that you went and talked to people in the neighborhood, knocked on doors.

Actually, that could be that can be Brave and Ryan Place.

You never know.

Um, you didn't get any real serious opposition.

We don't see anybody here, and nobody filed anything.

So any feedback from then that was negative on your from your thought?

With the Ryan place, the only negative feedback was we went originally with a site plan that showed bigger driveways, and there's only so small a driveway can be.

So we we reduced them a little bit to do more open space.

Um and and we did that, but really there wasn't any negative feedback, especially knocking on doors around the street.

They were all excited that somebody was going to develop that property was the was the main feedback.

And now that it looks like in the background we have, I don't see a lot of people rushing forward to develop this property for decades.

Exactly right.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Think any other questions for Cooper.

All right, thank you for my.

If you'll go, will you go back to the slide that showed uh all the the lots?

There it is.

That one.

I'm not gonna be able to speak.

But it's interesting.

This is very similar to the right here.

So yeah.

Yeah, that's all he thought.

So I don't know.

Just thought that was interesting.

Yeah, I am I'm very open to to your thoughts as well.

I was initially looking more towards denial, but but after the presentation, looking back over the uh information we have, I'm leaning much more towards approval.

Um, just from what he showed us from the feedback he got from the neighborhood.

Um talk to a person that lives to the north in the house.

So evidently someone's living there and someone lives to the south.

So I don't see that as a as a detriment to going forward.

And again, like I said, as it points out in our background and description, there's not been a lot of folks rushing forward to develop this property.

Yeah, I think it's kind of unique.

I understand why staff is recommending denial, but I think it's unique.

And I think it's worth us considering.

I do too.

I understand it completely, sure.

Any thoughts?

Anybody?

The neighbors behind directly behind it were good with this, correct?

That's what I believe that's what he said, yeah, because he'll have a backyard to a backyard.

Yeah, I got a hold of two of them, and both of them are in support.

I knocked on every every one of their doors t three times, and I only got two of them, but the one directly behind me was very supportive for it.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd rather have residential than a commercial property right up against our bank.

Yeah, and as Commissioner Edmonds, you know, brings up often, and this may be what you were about to say, so maybe I should stop.

But you know, uh one of the goals of you know the city council right now is is more affordable housing and more housing stock in general, and so this certainly helps them meet that goal.

So you've made a motion.

Not yet.

Waiting more comments, anybody?

Okay, very good.

So on case number ZC26019, I move approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Rogers, and a second by Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With the vote of 10 to 0.

Does any commission votes to recommend approval for this case?

All right.

Next case on the docket is now ZC-26-020.

Case manager is Dave McCorkadell, Council District 11.

Site location is at 5329 and 5355 First Street.

Owner applicant, West Fork Properties / City of Fort Worth.

Request is rezoning from C medium density multifamily, D H R1 multifamily high rise, E neighborhood commercial, and G instance of commercial.

I light industrial and K heavy industrial to O one floodplain.

Is the applicant present?

Is this the city or that?

Okay.

I'll also have someone signed up to speak in favor.

Do you want to say anything first?

Do you have anything?

I I don't have anything to say.

Okay.

Uh Carol Peters, are you here?

Hi, Carol.

Welcome.

Short.

Hi, my name is Carol Peters.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and commissioners.

I represent the West Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association.

I'm speaking in support of the council initiated rezoning of properties on East First Street.

Case Z C 26020.

The staff recommendation to rezone almost 30, 300 acres near the Trinity River, and the entrance of Gateway Park is essential to protect the Trinity River from industrial development.

Thank you to the assistant city manager, Dana Bergdoff, for acting swiftly to recommend protection of this land for future generations.

This case is long overdue.

Correction of the mix of uses left over from bygone years.

My only regret is it was not part of a larger, more comprehensive review of what the Trinity River could become.

The Trinity River is the city's lifeblood.

Therefore, we need to be more proactive about protecting it.

Thank you, and please vote to approve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Peters.

All right.

This is if there is any questions for staff.

Okay.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and Commissioner Castro.

Do you have any discussion?

Do you want to make a motion?

Hi.

Um, thank you for being here.

Uh I too uh am in favor of the city focusing and bringing back uh green space and safety for potential uh increased flooding.

Should anything else be tried to develop here?

Uh anyone else have any other discussion?

If not.

All right.

So with that, I move for C C 26-020 for approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Castro and a second by Commissioner Warman.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0, the zoning commission votes to recommend approval for this case.

Next case.

Next and last case on the docket is ZC-26-028.

Case manager is Beth Knight, Council District 11.

Site location is at 3717-3721 and 3725 McCart Avenue.

Owner applicant is Igor Oz Ozigovich.

Glenn Paul Lemon and City of Fort Worth.

Rezoning from E neighborhood commercial with conditional use permit for auto sales and repair.

Site plan waived to E neighborhood commercial.

Before you come up, sorry, does the city have anything to add?

I don't think so.

Okay.

It was all covered during the work session.

Okay.

We do have one person here to speak in opposition.

So this time uh Glenn.

If you wouldn't come up.

Hello, I'm Glenn Paul Lemon.

I go by Paul.

A little bit about myself.

I'm a lifelong resident of Fort Worth, Texas.

I grew up here in Southwest Fort Worth, J.T.

Stevens Elementary, Wedgewood Middle, Southwest High School, TCC, Texas Tech, TCU.

Anyway, uh started out as a young man and built a lawn and landscape maintenance company that's been uh in business for over 40 years.

I've been in business so long that I had customers that would start dying or moving into assisted living, so I started a home investment company buying the homes of my deceased customers or customers that would move.

And I know a thing or two about maintaining neighborhoods and improving neighborhoods to historical accuracy.

Um I've owned this property, this historic St.

Clair gas station.

I bought it, it was dilapidated, run down and disrepair.

Uh went to pressure washing it to clean it up, and several layers of paint came off, and the word Sinclair appeared.

And I've got ties to Sinclair Oil with my family.

But uh the building structure was built in 1950 by Sinclair Oil Refining Company, and I have spent a lot of money and sweat equity restoring this for what is a neighborhood drive-by experience.

I I keep some of my toys over there, and uh I've owned it for over 25 years.

I then purchased the property next to my property.

Um based on the zoning and the uh the conditional use permit.

Um it's important to me for the things that I want to do.

I want to build a building next door to the Sinclair Station to house uh a classic auto collection that I have, and I want to do it.

Uh I don't want to build some ugly building that looks like it's on somebody's back 40 and ASL.

I want to do something of googie architecture that's uh conducive and complements my my building.

And uh so I it's it's important to me that uh the existing zoning maintains uh what it's already zoned for.

Um let's see here.

The rezoning was uh staff initiated to correct a newspaper notice error in a prior case, ZC25168, not for legitimate planning purposes.

The city's own application acknowledges this.

Property owners should not lose rights due to the city's administrative error.

Since acquiring these properties, I've invested a significant amount of money, and as the property owner, it's meaningful uh that uh I was not consulted before the rezoning was initiated.

The Rosemont Neighborhood Association uh was met with four times, but I was not directly engaged.

I mean is it Rosemont or is it Fairmount?

Rosemont, okay.

Um the application was filed without my signature consent.

Uh the newspaper notice for the prior case indicated with the CUP would remain giving property owners no reason to object at all those hearings.

My silence at those hearings should not be used to justify remove removing my property rights now, and I respectfully request that the uh zoning commission recommend denial of this case and that the city council deny the proposed rezoning.

Um I've saved money for 10 years, over 10 years to to build a building next to the Sinclair station to do what I want to do, and now I'm being told uh Mr.

Lemon, you're not gonna be able to do what you want to do, or if you try to do what you want to do, uh we're gonna trigger all of these setbacks, landscape things, and and we're gonna limit the use of you know you're not gonna be able to put cars in it, you're not gonna be able to put some of your historic porcelain signs.

Uh and I'm like, okay, there goes 10 years down the drain of I don't know if any of you have driven by this.

It's on Makard Avenue, but uh it's it's polished to the nines, it shines like a diamond.

I I keep it freshly painted and maintained, I maintain the property.

Uh it's it's mowed once a week, the trash is picked up.

I mean, uh as far as the neighborhood goes, and not to sound tacky, but uh the the properties behind my historic St.

Clair gas station look like a third world conflict zone.

Uh boarded up houses, dilapidated houses, um coat violations out the wazoo.

So I'm someone who's gone into this area and put a lot of sweat equity and time into it and and is making it shine.

So with that, I'll leave it to you guys.

Thank you for coming and sharing that with us.

Uh the city, do you want to say anything uh with your two minutes?

Beth would you like to come up because it it was my understanding that we are just making him whole again.

We're we're rezoning to make him to what he was originally zoned, so I guess now I'm a little confused.

You're no, you're correct.

Um of the Rosemont um neighborhood meetings that we had over 2025, it was shown as a neighborhood commercial.

And when the Rosemont rezoning case went forward, it was noticed as a neighborhood commercial.

The CUP would not allow him to have, even if it remains, is not going to allow him to have a building where he houses um vehicles because that's storage.

That's a warehouse that's not auto repair.

So as even leaving the CUP, it does not get him where he needs to go.

Um the other thing too is that the CUP was waived because the sites that they were uh uh proposed for have existing buildings on them.

So you knew what you were getting.

With this to put in a auto repair facility on what is really a residential size lot because it's exactly the same as the lot behind it, is still going to be really tight because it of the setbacks on the back and parking and those sorts of things would still be required.

If he is interested in doing storage for his signs or his autos, then he should come back and do his own CUP for those uses specifically as well as tying it in with the lot to the south where there is more room to do those sorts of things.

So you're saying if I'm understanding you correctly, if we were to deny this and it went back to the E with the with the C UP, he still wouldn't be able to put that warehouse up and store cars.

That is still have to come back to us with a different C UP.

That's correct.

Okay.

So okay.

So wouldn't it?

Wouldn't he be better off to approve it today and then let him come back?

And then him come back and ask for a C UP what he actually wants.

So we can actually build a warehouse and do that.

So okay.

Yep.

Yes.

That makes sense.

I just want to make sure we're not hurting him or injuring the property.

But do anything distracting or take away for my one side of us.

Sure, yeah.

No, I get I get you.

So and that's what we're trying to figure out here, but it sounds like uh the only way for you forward is um is for you have to for you to come back and apply for a C UP that allows for vehicle storage.

I own both properties might be built over the building when you put it on the property line, is that correct?

Um we would need to discuss kind of the proposal of what you're doing with the setbacks that would be required and how the and how that would work.

So um there is a process that the city has called a pre-development conference that is a free opportunity for um people who are looking at building to come in and talk to us and get kind of the um different departments um input on how the their proposed development would work.

Okay, well I I would I just want to recap for everyone for the sake of everyone.

So council initiated a rezoning of a large area of land, we which we call the Rosemond rezoning, and it included these properties.

Um council has the ability to do that without approval or any type of without getting the approval of property owners, they have that ability to do that.

His property, um Mr.

Lemon's property was part of that rezoning, and um his initial zoning was e neighborhood commercial okay, and so then with the Rosamond rezoning, it was mistakenly accidentally rezoned to e-neighborhood commercial with conditional use permit for auto sales and repair site plan waived.

We are now just trying to clean that up and take him back to what he originally was zoned as, which is e-neighborhood commercial.

There's another auto sales right there, those are both auto sales.

Yes, and those sites, because they have existing auto-oriented uses on them, did have the CPP added to it.

These were accidentally included in that block range, but they don't have they don't and are not proposed for auto sales or auto repair.

Okay, all right, very good.

Any questions for Beth?

Okay, thank you, Beth.

And we will close the public hearing at this point.

Um it it sounds like uh if Paul wants to do what he wants to do, it doesn't matter if we approve this or denied it, he's still gonna have to go back and get a C UP that allows for auto storage.

So that's so you'll just have to come to staff and uh we're go to that development meeting that uh Beth plugged for us for anyone watching.

All right, uh Commissioner Castro, do you want to make a recommendation or have some more discussion?

Sure.

No, I appreciate the recap.

This one certainly ended up being a curveball.

Uh but thank you for all the background and clarifications.

I think recognizing that this is just a correction to an accidental newspaper notice.

I vote to uh approve C Z 23028.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Castro and a second by Commissioner Welch.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye, Commissioner Trujillo, Commissioner Welch, aye, Commissioner McCoy.

I one second, Stephanie, hold on.

Sorry.

Um Chris, when she made her motion, she said ZC Z C 23.

Yep.

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that we were correct on that.

Approval for CC-26-028 for approval.

Thank you for catching that.

Do I need to restart?

Okay.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Castro and a second by Commissioner Worman.

Thank you for that catch.

Commissioner Worman.

Uh Chairperson Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

The zoning commission votes to recommend approval for this case.

Stephanie, is it possible that um Mr.

Lemon could visit with the staff after the meeting and figure out what he needs to do?

Absolutely.

All right.

Thank you all very much for being here.

Appreciate your service and uh you all have a good week.

Uh Judge Rogers, enjoy your hit workout.

Yeah, yeah.

And we are adjourned.