All right.

Welcome everybody to the uh meeting of the zoning commission.

I'll now officially call this meeting to order.

Uh today is May 13th, 2026.

Uh don't really have any special announcements today, uh, but I do again want to welcome y'all here.

Thanks for taking part in this, whether you're coming to present a case to us or you're just watching, or you've got uh uh something to say about one of the cases.

I think it's important that we participate in government when you can.

So this is your city.

I'm glad you're here when you care about it.

Um note to remind all of us up here, commissioners.

Remember that these mics are just always on, so just don't press anything, just be mindful that they're on and then whenever you want to speak, speak.

So Dave.

Welcome to the May 13th, 2026 zoning commission meeting and 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 a recording will be available on the city's website.

Cases heard at this public hearing are to be heard at the June 9th City Council hearing unless otherwise stated on the agenda 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 of 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 a 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 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 procedure 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 comment, 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 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.

Chairperson Reigns.

Mr.

Chair, we do have a quorum.

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

Do we have a motion to approve last month's minutes?

Mr.

Chairman, I move approval of the last month's minutes.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Werman.

Members of the Commission.

How do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Werman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0, the minutes are approved.

Alright, we'll uh go ahead and get started with our first case.

The first case on this afternoon's agenda is a continued case, which is ZC-26-039.

The address is 2801 Northwest Loop 820.

The applicant is Marion Sampson Co.

Steve Riordan, Westwood Professional Services.

The request is from A5, one family residential, and AG or agricultural, excuse me, to I Light Industrial.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Is this on?

Okay, good.

Travis Clegg with Westwood Professional Services.

We are the consulting engineer on this project.

Quickly give you an overview of the project.

The property has been owned and owned by the Marion Sanson family for more than a century.

The Samson family has played an important role in the Fort Worth community through significant civic and land contributions, including the Marion Sanson Park, the Buck Sanson Park, Fort Worth Stock Show, and the Fort Worth Rodeo.

The Samson family is actually a partner in this development, along with the developer today.

Next slide, please.

So the proposal is for four buildings, all for roughly 200,000 square feet or less on the property.

Our proposed zoning is going from AG to HD light industrial.

We continued the case last month because we wanted to have further dialogue with our councilman Carlos Flores and with some neighborhood groups in the area.

Along with the PD, we decided to remove many of the unsavory uses, including data center, on this site, but because of its nearby uh industrial to the east and the which was rezoned, I believe, last year.

Uh we are also asking for an industrial use along the highway here.

So some of our benefits versus what's happened already along the highway.

Um we are nearly doubling our setback to any proposed residential use that would be near us.

Um we are proposing 35% minimum open space on the site, unlike our neighbors.

Um we have zero access along any residential street or other street outside of the highway and access road.

We believe that's a benefit versus putting truck traffic and residential traffic mixing together, unlike our partners or our neighbors.

Um we're also working with the land on this proposed site.

So one of the issues being site lines and site vision.

Um fast forward here to the next.

So here's kind of a general site plan.

The green is the open space we're we're planning on preserving.

Uh the blue buildings are what we are preparing or proposing on the site.

The orange, red orange is existing, already approved zoning for industrial immediately adjacent to us.

Here's another site plan of how those buildings would look versus what's out there today.

This is would be a sight line from the existing neighborhood main entrance off of 820, looking at what our proposed buildings would look like versus the tree canopy that blocks site.

Our site drops a roughly 50 feet across the site, and so we are working with the land to drop our site below what we think is a visible horizon from the existing neighborhood.

This would be an example of the exterior uh view of the proposed buildings.

I got two slides of these, just kind of show you, give you an idea of what would be on the site.

Obviously, unless you were actually on the site, you wouldn't see this from the road because of the topography in the trees.

Here's a rendering of what the site would look like.

So again, we're proposing 35% open space.

We're looking at doubling our setbacks that we would be required to have to an existing residential use.

So we're doubling our setbacks and we're taking away all of the uses you see on here that were kind of unsavory to typical uh neighborhoods uh at the request of of the councilman to be very clear.

So I'll go back to the site real quick.

So meetings.

We've had several meetings with councilman Flores.

Again we continued the case at his request to have these conversations we recently met with last week the far greater Northside Historical Neighborhood Association and presented our case they had zero formal opposition to this case and that is the overlaid neighborhood association for this area.

We've also met with Cabalito del Mar HOA and they have supported us that is the residential use back to an overall site plan here.

The neighborhood to the West that is Cabalito del Mar and they have supported our industrial case we've also reached out to the Northwest Fort Worth Neighborhood Alliance and the Marine Creek Community Association both don't overlay the site at all they actually start north of 820 and go further north but we reached out with zero opposition as well the only comment we heard was they may be able to see the site from the trail that's on the north side of the highway they may be able to see the buildings which I think may be a stretch it does sit up higher but our site sits down pretty low you know 50 feet below below the highway so um again our project is adjacent to recently approved industrial that's already been done by this commission we have better benefits we have better setbacks we have better open space we have restricted our uses including data centers and we have support from our neighborhood association to the west and have not received any formal opposition to the state that's my presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thanks Travis if you would hang out for a minute I don't have any opposition I know of if I'm speaking out of term I have a stack full of papers up here if you're wondering why you have an Save this you know the the large truck traffic that this would add to that area.

Yes the truck traffic would be highway based only unlike the industrial to the east which would conflict with neighborhood uh multifamily and residential that already use those access roads are all already use those public city streets we would be impacting zero city streets zero impact to neighborhood streets that the city would maintain only highway access on and off the highway the problem is with Azel Avenue right there currently those that live on the north side if they have to use the service road to get to Avenue to get on 820 at any point so once you're intersection you're talking about 20 minutes on any average day just to get on the highway from there because of the traffic that's backed up already.

Again operating in business hours I think would be a little bit different on how the the traffic the residential traffic hits but I do understand your point when you get to the intersection of where H Avenue hits the the access road that there will be truck traffic and residential traffic there.

Different from putting traffic on city streets which is what's already out there today.

Travis just for clarification your presentation shows PD light industrial but the staff report just has light industrial is that because you're excluding so the original notification that went out was light industrial and we continued it because we haven't re-notified for PD Light industrial we're requesting a more restrictive use here today to be PD light industrial with the uses removed.

And we can do that without having to have another hearing or continue it now since it's more restricted as light industrial I'm asking for more.

Sure, do not asking for a waiver for site plan or anything like this.

Uh no.

Okay, and on that uh this is for staff.

Um since they are restricting all these uses.

Is there's echo or is that just me?

Um or are we we or is would staff be more uh open to something like this now that they're restricting?

You want to comment on because we d obviously this has changed since we talked about it in the work session.

Right.

I would uh suggest that if you are excluding um additional uses in your increasing setbacks that I do not believe that staff would would um would uh support this less or or be in a you know um have a stronger opposition.

Obviously it's still not aligning with the comprehensive plan, but um with the increased setbacks with the um excluded uses.

Certainly just objectively you feel like this is a more um I suppose there's less risk in the uh potential developments, just on the surface of what the ask is.

Uh can we go back to the restricted uses real quick?

Okay, there it is.

Yeah, I mean uh that it's certainly, at least for me, uh more appealing is the idea just supposed to be this is just warehouse.

It's all it is.

Right.

Okay, now there's no chance that a new owner takes over and they can put a you know all these uh start galvanizing uh yeah, or any other things that people don't necessarily want to live by.

So will anyone have any questions?

Uh just one question quickly.

Um this access road that provides access to the site, is that two way or one way?

It is one way, east and eastbound only.

It's one way?

Correct.

And is it one way from the west?

It goes westbound to eastbound.

So it's eastbound traffic only.

So this road of blue pay twenty, basically.

You see a gas well site on the on the exhibit.

So it would be going to the left on this on this picture to the on the bottom.

The access road is one way, right?

Where do you gain access?

Previous intersection.

We'd have to get off the highway.

How far is that?

Uh half a mile.

Okay.

What I'm what I'm looking what I'm asking about really is uh what kind of mixes are gonna be between traffic coming to and from this site and the nearby residential development.

So you already have Richie Brothers, which is on the north side of 820 right there, which any time they have an auction going or getting ready to go, they always have to hire Fort Rip D to handle traffic flow because it's so bad.

Okay, any additional traffic.

That's on the other side of the highway.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Travis, I don't know if he mentioned it or I missed it.

It looks like it would fit maybe in accessory use or ancillary business in the front there.

Is that an available pad site that's still treated?

It's right there.

Is that set to be a buffer?

We're we're setting our our site plan back.

So we can't it's kind of at an angle because of the with a topo works with a site works, but the front corner of that building is about as close as we can get to the highway, which means the backside of that building's a little skewed further away.

Plus there's a gas well site that restricts our building being any closer to the gas well setbacks.

Any other questions?

Travis, you have a plan for lighting.

I don't see it on your rendering.

I don't have a plan for light, probably typical down lighting, obviously not to impact any residents nearby, obviously.

This is uh 24-7 facility.

I would believe this is 24-7 facilities.

Thank you.

Got one last question.

Would you have any uh an issue if we uh decided to require a site plan?

Uh no.

I mean, it just has us come back.

We do site plans up front.

Yeah, we tweak anything, we're back in front of you every time we want to add a party.

If it comes up when you're after you sit down, just serious.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks, Travis.

Uh at this point, since we don't have any opposition, we'll close the public hearing and uh have some discussion uh and a motion.

Commissioner Trujillo, do you uh have any comments you want to lay out first?

So if they add the exclusions, we can still move this forward to council.

Yeah, we would just need the the motion would need to to say that uh you know it's a PDI.

Um we wouldn't need to list the restrictions, would we?

Uh yes.

We would okay.

So basically, you would have to read that slide.

So it'd be a PDI with development standards for open space and building setbacks, and you would have to read those and then excluding the following uses and then read all those uses.

So if you if you feel like this is something you want to try and approve, yeah, you're gonna Chris's point, read all that.

Uh my uh my comment now is with all these exclusions, it it certainly sounds better, and with your, I know the traffic uh is a concern.

It's currently A5, and so if this was developed as A5, I mean you could probably argue that that adds more traffic.

It's not 18 wheeler traffic, but it's more cars, more traffic, so um, and to me, like at a comment I made on something else uh in our work session.

Seems like this is where you would want like an industrial building right off the freeway.

But uh, yeah, as long as they have the good setback to the west, because that's where A5 is currently going to be built up to by that gas.

Yeah, and they're you know, adding that step back.

An open space, so yeah.

Yes, I would I would recommend it with all these exclusions.

Anybody else have any uh comments or opinions?

Oh yeah, sorry.

Oh, yeah.

Go ahead, Chris, sorry.

If the commissioner is uncomfortable reading it, I can read it and then just confirm that is gonna be the motion, and then you guys can vote.

I'm good with that.

Are you are you okay not requiring a site plan?

It's n it's not on there, it was just an option.

Yeah, I think we're good as long as we list the exclusions.

Perfect.

Okay.

So the site plan is gonna be waived or required.

The the setback he's got on there, but just requiring a site plan is not something we want to add, so okay.

So it's just it was just an option.

I just wanted to make sure because with a PD, by default, the requirement is that a site plan would be required.

Even if it's side, okay.

The default rule would be a side plan would be required.

So I just wanted to.

Yeah, let's do a site plan then.

Okay.

I want to make sure.

So uh as it uh the motion would be for a PDI um with development standards for open space, which would be a minimum of 35% of the total site area.

Uh increase setbacks, uh 90 feet along uh the southwest property line, 80 feet along the southeast property line, all other per current code, and then exclude the following uses, correctional facility, SOBs, massage podders, data centers, uh crematorium, tattoo parlors, probation apparel office, coal, coke, or woodyard, taxidermist shop, bar, tavern, dance hall, towing yard with office, massage therapy and spa, machine shops, galvanizing, essaying, water treatment facility, transient food venture, a site plan required.

Is that the motion that you wish to approve?

Correct, that is the motion.

Right.

We have a motion to approve.

Uh we have a second.

Okay.

Uh we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner Werman.

Okay, Commissioners.

How do you vote?

Chairman Rains.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Alright.

Commissioner Robinson.

I will need to extend from this vote.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of nine to zero, the zoning commission recommends to approve the request.

Next case.

ZC-26-042.

The address is 100 to 500 blocks of Armor Road, which is FM 3325 at I 20.

The applicant is John Henry Dean and the Shirley Lawson Foundation.

Michael Trenner, Standridge Companies, Westwood Professional Services.

The request is from Unzoned with an annexation companion case of AX-25-006.

Tract 1, which is 60.023 acres to G Intensive Commercial, and Track 2 that totals 124.365 acres to PD plan development for all uses in G Intensive Commercial, I Light Industrial, R1, Zero Lot Line Cluster, R2, Townhouse Cluster, UR, Urban Residential, D, High Density Multifamily with a maximum of 2,000 multifamily dwelling units and excluding A5 one-family residential development, permanent asphalt or concrete etch plants and data centers, plus development standards for multifamily uses to have a maximum height of 48 feet within 250 feet of one-family uses, light industrial fences, walls screening fences, and railings allowed on or near the property line.

Chain link fencing not permitted, MFD site plan waiver requested PD site plan required.

Welcome back, Travis.

Again, Travis Clegg with Westwood Professional Services for the consulting engineering firm working on this case before you.

So this site is roughly it's on I-20 on the highway and farmer road, a very high growth area.

Obviously, Walsh Ranch and the successes of Walsh Ranch are to our east.

Uh Morningstar to our north.

And obviously the Dean Ranch conversations on the south side of the properties that you guys are probably aware of.

This case we'll have a companion case for annexation as well.

So we are not currently in the city of Fort Worth, we're in the ETJ, so we are voluntarily annexing the property into the city of Fort Worth for service for water and sewer and zoning uh for the site.

Um a comprehensive plan calls for that corner to be a commercial corner.

That's what we want to do, general uh G-commercial or visions probably for some large retail big box type retail on the corner.

Um, that is our goal there, but it's also our vision that the backside of the property have a mix of the options because we don't have an end user at this time, and so in working with the city, we kind of came up with some ideas on limiting some uses and one of those being single family detached residential units, mainly because it's a valuable commercial corner.

We don't want uh single-family housing, in my opinion, from a land use perspective, on the highways, running our highways, and so uh so our uses we wanted to have were an industrial option, limiting um certain uses.

The city allowed for some UR, some compact dense residential.

If that would be the case, I would say that's our least likely option.

It's kind of a fallback position.

Um, and we wanted the ability to do uh some multifamily back there in case we wanted to do some residential, dense residential, which makes sense on a high volume highway and road like farmer road.

So uh we wanted a commercial use of commercial tax base, which the city is favorable on.

Uh we just kind of get a little bit different when it comes to uh what the city wants to see on the frontage of the highway, which is more of a mixed-use site.

Our struggle is that I've got a million square foot of mixed use to the east to walsh to compare to compete with.

I've got 200 acres of Dean Ranch Bell property of mixed use across the highway to the south, and I've got Willow Park with their mixed use program a mile down the road.

It's a struggle to put that much mixed use on the ground and if we're to be anything compatible.

Um, so that is why we have industrial as an option.

Um obviously with the conversations regarding data centers here lately.

I was called uh immediately by Michael Crane, Councilman Michael Crane, and requested to remove the data center use specifically for this site, which we volunteered to do.

And so we continued the case last month so that we could formally notify that to make sure the residents in the area knew that we were not going for a data center.

Uh and so our zoning case is gonna be a PD on the back end of allowing eye industrial, light industrial, but not allowing data centers on the site, period.

Data centers were ever contemplated, we'd have to come back before uh this zoning commission and city council to have that conversation.

So um our goal moving forward um is the track one being your commercial frontage along farmer and the highway, and we call it the back half of the property, the western most side, the side towards Willow Park, uh being uh a mix of options of uses, including industrial and some UR dense residential and multifamily.

Again, the goal right now is not to do a residential use.

The goal is to have a commercial tax base on this corner, which is desperately needed uh in Fort Worth, as we all know.

So uh that that's our request today is to move forward with uh approval of our zoning with those uses.

I can't think of any better uses than commercial on the corner and industrial along a highway with access right off the access road on the outskirts of our city.

Thank you.

Any questions before we bring up the opposition?

Okay.

Um we do have one person signed up to speak in opposition.

Is that correct?

Is anybody else here?

Okay.

Um and while you're walking up here, just to just again to clarify, um, because there are two different tracks with different zoning, but uh if this were to be approved, um a data center would not be able to be built on this property.

I know sometimes the wording of this stuff is confusing, and uh maybe you don't trust the applicant, but I can I can tell you we talked about it uh earlier, and there's there's no way in its current zoning that that could happen.

So welcome.

Hi, and I I'm also very new to this, and I'm sorry for the ruckus week class.

Um I live in Walsh Ranch and you know we're we're a picture of Walsh Ranch.

We're just young families and you know, we're just here trying to protect our way of life.

Um we don't get involved a lot, you don't see a lot of us because we're doing this during the day.

Um, and so you know, Travis is a good guy.

We've we've spoken about this land.

Um, but you know, this is the land that we live right next door to and and we look at every day, and um I think our biggest issue as a community is the light industrial.

I know data centers have come out, which thank you, Travis.

That was a big you know, we were all very worried about that, but um, I you know, we don't really want any of the industrial, and I know that that may be naive, um, but we're all just here uh trying our best, um, trying to protect our kids' features and and our way of life.

So, I think our issue is with the the light industrial and what that means exactly, and and I know he said warehouses, but what happens if they go?

Um, you know, and as well as you know, the commercial's gonna come regardless, but do we need another dicks?

Do we need another Home Depot down the exit from another Home Depot across the street?

You know, there's an ace down the road.

Um, I'm so sorry.

Oh, you're you're fine, don't worry about it.

Yeah, we're glad you're here.

All I had to say is we're just trying to ask that this land is some of the most beautiful land.

I don't know if you guys are familiar or if you've seen it.

Um, but it's just the most beautiful land.

Um, all those rolling hills out in West Fort Worth.

So I think we're just encouraging you guys to be really thoughtful about that land and you know what it means for kids and sorry, I don't know why it makes me emotional.

It's just it's such a an important part of my kids' lives.

We see the cows every day and um I know the cows can't stay, but all the all that to say, I just um as I sit here thinking about our future and our way of life and and my boys' future, I just want us to be really thoughtful of of what that land really looks like and what that means for all the families that look like.

I'm so sorry, I don't know, don't apologize.

You're doing great, it's so silly.

You're fine.

Anyways, so that that light industrial is my biggest beef.

Um the secondary being I think we should be really thoughtful with that commercial and and again you know we've got a Kroger coming across the street from an H E down the street from a Brooksher down the street from another H E B in a central market so I'm trying to avoid if best I can what's happening already on the other corner of Dean and and you know be thoughtful with this land and you know make a really beautiful land something if it's got to be something that's not the beautiful cows um something that adds to our lives not just another dicks you know what I mean so that's all thank you.

Thank you for your your comments um any questions for the opposition okay great job by the way Travis uh you're you got two minutes to rebut if you want it I think there was another opposition I was this sorry sorry Travis did someone else sign up okay okay um would you mind yeah uh you can come speak but then uh when you're done if you would fill out one of those forms we have uh it looks like we have about two minutes so to have to make it quick but let's hear what you have to say.

Um my name is Dorothy Willingham my zip code is Weatherford but I live just north of this tract of land um and I'm also opposed to the light industrial zoning um my reasons are mainly a lot of what the the lady just spoke about but the south side of 20 already has quite a bit of industrial use and it already has it's zoned for industrial both light and heavier so my feeling is is rather than doing both sides of the freeway let's keep all the industry on the south um the commercial's gonna come the residential's going to come um but I don't think we need to put the industrial on both sides.

So I don't think the traffic that the roads in the area will not support that type of traffic that we're talking about with the warehousing and that type of um situation.

And the third reason that I have that I'm opposed is because Dean Ranch already owns three of the four corners of this intersection.

They've got industrial on the other side of the freeway they don't need to put industrial on the north side of the freeway um so keep it south.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments all right Travis uh yes so a couple things real quick that were mentioned um so the Dean property to the south of the highway I'm also working on uh it was put into Wheel of Park um it's going through some litigation right now as to what city it should be in but Robert Bell's plan for that is a mixed use site with multifamily and commercial and and what have you so it's a true mixed use site.

There may be some small industrial but that's not the the it's 90% going to be a commercial mixed use site.

Southeast part the main 1500 acres of Dean ranch has been proposed single family has been proposed commercial along frontage for for Alito but I've not seen any land plans yet as I've worked on the site for industrial uh to date that doesn't mean it can't happen it's just not kerneling in the cars on the south side there is some industrial west southwest that's existing today some kind of small warehousing type not not really high end industrial that's in I believe will a park or ETJ Willow Park not in the city um but in our case we want to come into the city of Fort Worth.

We want to be a viable tax base.

We think the highest and best use is strong commercial corner, strong industrial, but using light industrial and limiting the type of industrial because we do understand that there are other cars and traffic in the area.

Our traffic, guys, is off the highway.

We're not using city streets um to get truck traffic in and out of this.

What we're coming in on off the highway, going back on the highway.

There may be a requirement to have another access point, but we don't have that site plan yet.

We don't have any end users yet to understand exactly what that traffic looks like.

In any case, a traffic study will be required at the time of plating.

A flood study will be required at the time of plating.

Water and sewer studies will be required at the time of plating.

We are just looking at land use, and is it appropriate to have a commercial corner and industrial along our highway at this location?

That's my response.

I hang out for a second in case there are questions, questions for Travis.

Could we go back to the slide that shows the intersection and both sides of the highway?

Is that one or you want to differ?

This is okay.

On this exhibit, by the way, the HEB is proposed to go directly east of that yellow highlighted area.

That is their commercial mixed use area east east of the yellow block.

So a lot of traffic.

East of the proposed where it's highlighted in yellow or blurred in yellow there.

Are you good?

Um I'm gonna ask a similar question that I asked you earlier.

Um, since there is opposition about the industrial part, and I know you're trying to leave your options open since you don't have a buyer for that part yet.

Um, and might have to check with Chris uh if in the event that uh we all like this minus that, can we remove that?

Because that makes it more restrictive without re-noticing.

I don't know that he would let us do it.

What's that?

So just remove the I.

Uh-huh.

Well, I mean, the staff recommendation is denial of track too.

Right, right.

I'm just curious if um I I just wanted to ask to have options, so I was just curious.

I mean, I guess you could do um approve excluding, you know, approve all of the uh the zoning excluding the I.

I just wanted to make sure legally we could do that without pre-noticing.

Now, as Travis, he might say I don't want that.

Obviously, I believe Travis.

Yeah.

But from a legal standpoint on your motion, if you wanted to uh exclude the I, then I I I don't I don't say anything wrong.

Thank you, Chris.

So now that comes back to you.

In the event that we have our discussion, if if that were an option, like we like this minus that.

I think we want to keep the I just deny it.

I'd be happy to move uh volunteer a site plan.

Okay.

Uh if that would help uh this commission make a decision.

Uh because I think we're excluding a site plan in our application, but for track two, uh, where the industrial is, I'd be happy to submit a site plan for review.

And then the other part is if you want to put mixed use on this thing, you're gonna have twice the traffic and twice the cars.

And if we're gonna do that, then traffic is the issue.

You're gonna have way more, especially on the weekends.

Sure.

Because I I live in Alliance and I live in Alliance Town Center, and it's worse on Saturday and Sunday because of the mixed use part of it than it is during the work week.

Okay.

Any other questions for Travis?

But one point I'd like to make is that mixed use normally provides some services and some integration of the property with the nearby neighborhood, for instance, providing an office space or whatever.

So it's somewhat more attractive, even though you're correct in making the point it might be more traffic.

It is, but I've also got Walsh Ranch to 7,000 acre development with half of it being commercial and mixed use.

The only residential piece of Walsh Ranch is already built.

The rest of it, the 4,000 acres is going to be commercial mixed use.

Make sure you to compete with that is difficult.

All right.

Thank you, Travis.

Appreciate it.

Uh we'll close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion.

Sorry if that was confusing, Beth.

I was just trying to give us some if in the event we're like because we heard all those comments about the industrial.

Trying to see if we had a window there.

I appreciate that.

I wouldn't mind getting um fellow commissioners' opinions on a site plan required for track two.

Keeping it as a high, but site plan required.

It's actually on uh staff was just pointing this out.

Track two already, they already have a PD site plan required, so it's there.

It's there.

And better.

Um, did you have a who had a comment?

Sorry.

Commissioner Pierce.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Orman.

I had a question for Travis.

Yeah.

Travis, do you anticipate any um roadway improvements from you guys on any of this?

I know because you're not, you know, using a bunch of city stuff, but is there an a future need for volume?

I know TechSot's gonna have to redesign the bridge, the intersection at some point down the line.

But yeah.

Good point.

Very good point.

So because we are volunteering to come into the city of Fort Worth, um, traffic impact fees will be required.

Because of these uses, significant traffic impact fees will be part of that program.

And the city's gonna want us to build infrastructure versus writing checks to the city that they'll hold for future construction.

So I would imagine there's gonna be significant roadway improvements to farmer road.

We can't do anything to text out, right?

Uh, unless they direct us to, and we'll want to have that conversation at flating.

But for I would expect farmer road to be expanded to a four-lane road.

I think we would be responsible for probably the two lanes on our side, uh, and and part of that would be the traffic impact fees.

So if we don't spend all that money on farmer, we'll be paying traffic impact fees to the city uh to make to make them whole for our impacts.

So, yes, I expect uh infrastructure improvements.

Thank you.

Do you have any other comments?

No, just I mean, just for us, if we talk for a minute, but just we have a lot of warehouse space in light industrial in District 10.

Um I think the last maybe seven years, five, seven years, it's been planned out really well, and it's been very useful.

Um, building the tax base but limiting city services.

You know, we don't have students for the school district to worry about either.

Um, and we've also seen a s a huge amount of money for our district from impact fees.

I mean, enough to cover significant roadway improvements.

And being where this is and knowing that there's more that's coming out there, um, I am supportive of that because it helped get stuff done quicker as opposed to what happened in 10, what's happening in six.

We can prevent it in three by being ahead of the curve because we can't do the roads without the businesses.

Um and the businesses aren't gonna aren't gonna just show up one day because we spent millions of dollars building roads.

They're gonna go somewhere else and do their own thing, waiting for us to build our roads.

I had a so I where I am right now, like uh, you know, track one seems kind of like slam dunk there.

Um so it's track two that you know gives me a little pause.

Um but I'll I'll go back to um the traffic thing.

So I mean, if you if you've driven through here, I mean there's under construction right now, so it's really bad, but um certainly more people are moving west.

It's you know it's gonna get heavier and heavier and heavier.

Um, and it's I think sometimes light industrial gets a bad rap, you know, the like now I don't want manufacturing going on next to my house.

Um, and there I think there are good concerns, good reasons why that gets brought up because people are afraid of noise, they're afraid of you know pollution and stuff like that being close to a residential area or um, but uh, you know, there are existing regulations outside of what would we do um that uh would keep the neighbors safe from the noise from potential pollution.

Um and this is again there's a big difference between light manufacturing and heavy manufacturing.

Um so uh and I you know I definitely heard the comments about that, and um, you know, you're raising your family and you're you're wanting to keep your kids safe.

I understand that um and then balance that with all the people and all the traffic and um and the we talk about like working close to where you live.

If we take out all the places like light manufacturing that provide jobs, people could work, somebody could live in Walshrance and drive right down the road to their job, you know.

So there's that stuff too.

I just want to I'm not trying to um convince you of anything.

I just want you to uh like hear another side of it, and then the traffic part too.

I mean, if we if there's if we know if we were to deny that and they would come back and say okay, we'll we'll do more commercial, which is what's you know, the city is recommending with uh comp plan.

But uh I mean the traffic's gonna be way worse than you know, some uh light industrial or you know, something like that.

So I'm just something to think about, you know.

I think I'm ready to make a motion.

Um I do know as the applicant had stated.

Um I do know Councilman Crane wanted to make sure that his um constituents' voices were heard with removal of the data center and the other uses as they're listed here.

I also think that with the PD site plan required for track two, adds that extra layer here.

So um with all of that, I would move to approve ZC260.

As requested.

As requested.

Okay.

Uh, do we have a second?

I'll second the motion.

All right.

We have a motion to approve this case by Commissioner Welch and a second by Commissioner Edmonds.

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.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Werman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 10 to 0.

The vote passes.

And before we call the next case, just uh I know we're we're talking a lot up here, but uh I hope that is important to you that we're discussing these things.

But uh, if if you would help us if uh when you hear your case called, if you would just come up to the mic uh while he's reading the case, and that will help move things along a little quicker on that end.

So go ahead.

Next slide, please.

Next case is SB-26-006.

The address is 15801 Championship Parkway.

The applicant is Roanoke 35-11 Partners LP, Bill Becker, Circo Development Inc., Zach Johnston, KFM Engineering and Design, and David Pitcher.

The request is to amend PD 1432 site plan to remove detached multifamily dwelling units.

There you are, the applicant here.

Welcome.

I'm Zach Johnston with uh Endeavor Real Estate Group.

Um I think we have a quick presentation loaded.

Um we'll try to be pretty brief today, just respect of everybody's time, but if you have time to listen to us.

Um a little bit of our presentation includes some information about a dead real estate group.

We are out of uh Austin, Texas.

We're real estate investment firm.

Uh we also do a lot of development, capitalized over five and a half billion dollars for projects.

Speaking of the microphone, please.

Sorry?

Could you speak into the microphone, please?

Sorry.

Um we've uh we've actually done some development in Forth Worth on uh the left bank side.

We've built some multifamily projects down there.

Um and the first couple slides just gives you some information about our company, but uh the essence of time we'll move to the actual project.

Uh we're talking about a piece of land today just south of Texas Motor Local Speedway, um, part of a larger mixed-use development that's been for the most part uh relatively built out.

We're just on the southwest intersection of uh I-35 West and 114.

Uh, this is a zoomed-in view.

Uh, we we're talking about 17.2 acres.

Uh, this has already been approved for multifamily and residential use.

Uh, there's a previous site plan that was approved, um, which I will go to.

Uh this is actually just a side-by-side comparison.

On the right is the previous site plan, on the left is the proposed site plan.

The previous site plan was for residential use, um, and that and that site plan was approved.

It includes, as you can see, a number of sort of cottage-style two-story structures that line the periphery of the site.

Um, this site never got built, and we've picked the site up and are working with the owners.

Our uh perspective is that the the two-story cottage townhomes aren't really viable in today's market, at least not for us economically, and so we're proposing to come back and build a more typical multifamily flats.

In doing so though, we're we're we've attempted to keep the general integrity of the site very similar with pushing buildings to the frontage of the roads, internalizing the parking.

Uh we've lessened some of the previously approved uh standards.

So all of our buildings are proposed to be three stories.

Previously, uh the multifamily buildings that were in the center of the site were proposed to be four stories.

Uh, and then we've worked with kind of the local or with the local neighborhood association to pull those buildings further away from the golf course to the west.

Uh, you can see in the previous application, they had buildings right up on that southwestern border.

We've pulled our buildings off of that and put in more amenities to kind of sit in between that.

Um so just as a quick overview, I mean, to date, the beginning of the year we met with staff to go through this.

We we had originally anticipated this was going to be an administrative approval, uh, but we just but it was decided that we would go through the full process here.

Um so since then we've met with the North Fort Worth Alliance uh group, they've support they're supportive of us and provided a letter of support.

We've met with the Beachwood Park Association uh and talked spoken with them.

They've also are supportive and provided us with the letter of support.

Uh staff is recommending approval, and so you know, again, we'll we're we're certainly here to answer questions that you guys may have, but in the essence of time, you know, that's that's the general idea.

And I don't have anyone signed up to speak in opposition, so um questions, commissioners.

So I'd like to know how you're gonna protect the dogs from all of the golf balls that are going on.

We trust that everybody in Fort Worth can hit it straight.

So no, they don't, I promise.

I've actually when we had this case last year, I asked the same question.

You're putting buildings up against where people who suck at golf are gonna hit the ball like every day.

So it's not anything that has to do with land use in case the attorney's listening.

I'm just telling you, man, don't be that guy on the news who killed all the dogs with the title list, okay?

Sure.

Um I don't necessarily like the huge increase in the units.

I mean, when you look at it on paper, it's a pretty substantial increase.

Um the four-story component actually don't mind because it adds uh a different class typically of apartments as far as price goes when you get more of those things.

Like when we're doing density and adding it to other developments, we're putting in four story buildings because we can charge a little bit more rent for those.

Those are more expensive to maintain.

Helps build the whole area up a little bit more.

Um those, you know, those are components of it, I think that were nice.

That area is starting to get congested up quite a bit.

Um, what's your timeline?

I think if we say yes today.

Goal would probably be to start construction towards the end of this year, beginning of next year.

Um, from that point, it's usually around 12 to 15 months to getting the first deliveries.

So you're gonna be into 2028 really before you get new units.

Um on the density side, we really looked at the existing density caps.

And so uh in at least in discussions, we weren't aware that they were really a concern on the density side.

What we were looking at and what the um zoning talks about is uh rentable square footage and then overall FAR and first floor usage.

And so we've decreased both of those significantly, but we're doing them in, you know, again more dense building structures.

Because I think what you're proposing now is more than two or two and a half times the original density that was zoned when it was rezoned last year.

No, I think it was 352 units to 396 units.

So you're talking about 10% more.

But from where you started before all this.

Last year I was reluctant for the previous one to go through.

It's more dense, it keeps getting more dense.

I realize that it's commercial corner.

We just had the same case in Walsh.

I get it.

I'm just, you know, curious about some of the decisions that were made to take out, you know, the four story buildings.

Um is there a an impact to what you're offering versus uh, or is it just fit better in the area you feel?

I mean, it's certainly a cost issue.

Four story buildings require elevators, and in order to do the elevator buildings, you're going to a corridor style product.

And so it's just a more urban design.

When you have 17 acres, I mean, for us, we really obviously you can see we didn't max the site out in terms of density.

And so we really just tried to lay out something we thought was thoughtful that kept in line with what the previous um project was.

If we were to eliminate one of those buildings, that would probably get you to a similar unit count, and then you just have additional open space because again you'd be eliminating more and more parking.

And so we really just tried to thoughtfully design it.

We didn't design it to a unit count, we designed it more so based on laying out what we thought made sense on the site.

Um we wouldn't in this case necessarily look to a four-story corridor product because that would just again it would uh bring more density stacked on top of each other and build a more expensive product that yes, it would require higher rents, but those rents don't exist in that market, so we don't necessarily see the ability to charge the rents for the higher more expensive product there.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Um one question.

Um, I think the the only thing that um is of concern is the proposed building on the northwest um part of the site, and it's proximity to residential and the setback.

Um looks like maybe you could redesign that so that uh and solve that problem easily by extending the building just south of it on the west side and make that a smaller building on the northwest side and have better sight lines, and uh you wouldn't be looking over people's backyards.

So the way that the and that's a great point.

The way that I don't know if I have a pointer on this, the way that that building orients um the units face north and south of the plan, not east and west.

And so when you talk about units looking over somebody's backyard, we wouldn't have a case where you have balconies or you have unit or people sitting out actually looking into those backyards.

That would be the side of the unit.

Um we really that connection point off collection was previously identified in the previous site plan, as was the same off of Champion Parkway.

So again, in an effort to keep the character of the building the same, we kept the uh entrances at the same point.

Um we can look at what the setback is, but we're I mean we're still obviously in line with the setbacks required under the zoning, and so we can certainly look at uh redesigning that building if that's a concern.

Okay, looking at it, isn't it a sight line problem on that building?

And you're speaking of looking down from the uh uh uh from the upper units.

And I believe it was just a third story, but to but uh to your point there, I I can see what you're you know, looking at there, yes.

All right.

Uh thank you very much for your time.

Sure.

And uh I'll close the public hearing and leave it open for some discussion uh or a motion.

Uh Commissioner Warman, this is your case.

Yeah, these are the the tricky ones when we got in and start.

I remember we got this the first time and you were you start amending site plans and like, oh, it's not so bad.

Oh, it's just a little bit more.

You know, I mean, look, it's gonna go through it council, it doesn't matter what we do up here.

I'll be real honest.

There is more open space.

Yeah, I mean, there's that part.

There's definitely benefits to it.

Don't get me wrong.

Yeah.

Like I I'm not opposed to the idea of this being there at all.

It's just the concern was raised last year, the year before that.

Are we making this just like Presidio?

Where it is just five thousand units right down there.

And it is traffic held, seven days a week.

And this is a very tight spot, and they're about to rip on fourteen part.

So, um, just you know, always trying to preserve that commercial land when we can.

We lost this one.

Now we're losing it a little bit more.

I do I do like the open space for sure.

I'm not upset about it.

I just wish it was less units.

So I don't I don't have much to say about it beyond that.

I'm ready to make a motion.

All right.

Go for it.

For SP 26-006, I move for approval.

Exactly.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Worman and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chair Person Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

All right.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 10 to 0.

The motion passes.

Next case.

ZC-26-013.

The address is 1509-1521 Circle Park Boulevard.

And 1506 through 1520 Lincoln Avenue.

The applicant is Premier Baptist Church, Irma Park LLC.

Megan Lash and Abbey Penner.

The request is from CF Community Facilities to PDUR.

Plan development for all uses in urban residential, excluding government office facility, museum, library, or fine arts center, hospice, country club, private.

Golf course, one family detached dwellings, one family attached dwellings, one family zero lot line attached or detached dwellings, two family detached dwellings and or duplex slash two-family attached dwellings with development standards for no rear yard setback, no individual entries for street level residential units, and 93 parking spaces, site plan included.

Welcome to the zoning commission and thank you for uh stepping up here early.

I follow the instructions as well, so I want to make sure I date that correctly.

Okay, so good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Reggie Jennings.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

So we'll go ahead and get started and get to our application presentation.

Alright, so here we have Irma Park.

And just a brief uh background on the applicant.

So OZA Industries is a Texas-based um and woman-owned firm with a long history of experience when it comes to affordable housing and the preservation of different asset uh types when it comes to affordable housing.

We're not foreign to Fort Worth, have seven developments, and you'll see some of those within our presentation as well.

We utilize the housing tax credit program, federal and state tax credits, and uh we're proud to announce and just say in general that we have housed over 3,000 families across Texas, as we know affordable housing is important um in this landscape that we're living today.

And when it comes to just our overall company just standards and how we go about doing business, uh we maintain long-term ownership within our communities, right?

So we're just not in and out developers.

We're here to make sure these uh properties stay up to code, stay up to speed, and are well served for those residents.

Um, we use um federal and state best practices when it comes to hiring local contracts to continue to have those communities thrive and have those residents in that community be what's best for what they need to be.

Alright, so Irma Park, I know there's a lot written in the um docket package, so I won't go through all of these, but just some highlight points here.

So Irma Park currently is uh Premier Baptist Church.

Um it's gonna be uh converse, it's an adaptive reuse um to senior affordable housing, which will be fifty-five years of age and older um across our portfolio when it comes to um our senior housing.

We're looking at roughly an age of 67 years of age and older.

We're going to keep the three, and you'll see on the site plan, the three buildings that are on the site, plus have a uh new one-story construction building.

I'll get into that here in a second.

There'll be 84 units made up of one and two bedroom units, and the majority of that unit count will be one-bedroom units.

So, 75% of the unit count will be one-bedroom units.

From a historic standpoint, we're actually in the process of uh getting our registered on the national historic uh designation registry, and we have our determination of eligibility letter from the historic commission as well.

So I'll pause here for a second, let you all look at obviously the three buildings, but there's a sea of parking right there, and I'll talk about that here in a second, um, and just how this will all play out as we move forward in this conversation.

So, just some of the feedback you heard over in work session from Enrique, who did a great job with this presentation.

Um, we've been through an extensive process when it comes to getting to this point today.

Um, we've met with ACLC and the UDC, and from both of those uh commissions, we've received uh unanimous approval when it comes to the AC overlay and for the requested waivers.

And as mentioned in work session, not gonna dive too deep in them, but the three requested waivers we have was a rear yard primary structure setback, which in lamest terms, we would have to move the building physically to do that, and I'm not sure that the community will want that, and I know for sure as developers we don't want to do that as well.

That'll take quite a bit of time.

Parking spaces, we've asked for that reduction because historically, seniors don't drive or have cars that often, right?

Or they carpool, so and as you saw on the previous slide, a sea of parking, having that many parking slots there just wouldn't be advantageous for the development.

And then from an individual street-oriented uh entry points, we've had numerous meetings with community members, and the seniors spoke up and spoke out and said, hey, safety is a concern.

But having those walk-up units directly into our actual units off the street is not something that we're a fan of.

We heard them, we listened, we requested that waiver, we're happy to announce and say that we got that uh approved by the UDC.

As you know, in your packet, we're currently zoned community facilities and are looking to be uh rezoned to plan development urban residential and obviously here today, pending a vote from you all, and then this will along with the um UDC and ACLC will be packaged together and it will go to City Council for a vote in June.

So while we rezoning to the PD and UR, um, first and foremost, to continue to expand the housing options within the North South, right?

Majority of the housing options in North Side are single family homes.

We got some towns from here and there, so just continuing to just be able to enhance and make sure residents have an opportunity to uh stay there, right?

We know that sometimes when seniors are living in single-family homes, they want to downsize, and some for most, but not for most, but for a good portion of them, going down to an apartment complex is the best use for them as well.

So provide them with that opportunity.

Um, and what we've come to learn and know about the north side, they're big on their history.

They have a very strong cultural and uh community-based foundation.

So understanding that this church has been around for quite some time, 1900 time frame, right?

So it's seen the test of time across in America from the Great Depression, World War, things of that nature, and if I'm not mistaken, um, it was there prior, it was annexed if I'm not mistaken, Megan, um, from Fort Worth before it got actually became a part of Fort Worth.

So it's a long history of uh there for that community, so we want to make sure we preserve that and keep that site intact.

Um, one of the things we want to do with the plan development portion is protect the community, right?

So by restricting certain uses, um, and you see that there, and it was listed obviously in the packet, and there's an asterisk, as you can see next to single-family duplex and townhomes, throughout our numerous meetings that we have had with community members, they speak about our properties has it going to go up.

Our direct answer is no because you can't compare a multifamily apartment complex to a single family home.

It doesn't go like that.

So, in order to ensure that, you know, God forbid this is not go forward.

Whoever came in behind us would have to adhere to something that wouldn't negatively impact them going down the line.

Urban residential as noted in section 4.713A.

We're looking to promote walkability, architectural diversity, which is going to be there because of the when it was constructed and all those things, and then providing affordable housing in mixed income communities.

And just from the simplest term, the CF designation, our proposed development does not obviously fit its primary use, which is based in health, safety, and education.

One of the more please go ahead.

Sorry, you uh no you you've got about a minute left.

I was just gonna warn you in case you wanted to speed up or something.

Yeah, I can do that, yes.

So uh good thing we'll be on a tax roll, so we're adding to the tax base.

I know that's always a good thing to say when we help you here as well.

So that's a fact.

So here's the proposed uh site plan.

I'll speed through this real quick.

You'll see that in the purple dark blue with it on the right side of the plan, those uh existing bills will stay and there will be uh renovated key additions.

We're adding uh plenty of trees, proper lighting across the property and drive aisles.

It's gonna be green space down there that we're actually actively working with the community to uh figure out how to best program that for them and for those seniors.

Once again, landscaping plan, plenty of trees, lighting, good function and flow when it comes in to be in and out of the property, some elevations, and this part of uh the development um is right next to a single film development, and it'll be able to be at a uh reasonable height.

Now your final thoughts, final thoughts.

Obviously, we're here to um best support and uh provide an opportunity for the residents to stay within um north side, um keeping a historic aspect of this building is important and uh just making sure that we're here to best uh support and hear from the community members.

So thanks for your time.

Thank you, Reggie.

And uh maybe we just here for questions.

Okay.

And we don't have anybody here in opposition, so um do y'all have any uh questions?

You guys pursuing local historical designation as well?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Did I miss it?

But is the new proposed building, the one-story building is that for common space, living units?

Uh living units, ma'am.

All yes, ma'am.

There will be common space within the development, so within some other uh buildings, yes, ma'am.

Great question.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh we'll close the public hearing at this time, and you want some comments or any other commissioners have comments.

I think it's great.

It's a good project.

I love the fact they added a little park in there that the whole community can use, so yeah.

I like it.

Okay, for Z 26-013, I move for approval.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

I'm Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Werman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of ten to zero.

The motion passes.

Next case, CC-26-043.

The applicant, the address is 18500 to 19,300 blocks of old FM 156.

The applicant is Omas Louane Peterson, Brad Judge, Jeff Judge, Eric Peterson, and Kevin Peterson with Valley Industrial Partners.

Kimley Hornan Associates, Brandon Middleton.

The request is from unzoned to tract one, which is 2.57 acres, to in IAO Light Industrial with Airport Overlay.

Track 2A, which is 8.66 acres, to IAO Light Industrial Airport Overlay.

And track two B, 37.36 acres to KAO, Heavy Industrial with Airport Overlay.

Welcome to the zoning Commission.

Afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horn here in Fort Worth.

Thank you, sir.

Representing the uh judge family and the uh uh developer on this on this project.

Um this project currently is in the ETJ, kind of it's in a hole in the current city limits.

Um we have reached out to council uh district ten um and with uh the new council member transitioning.

Um we were asked to reach out to Rusty Fuller, have further conversations with him on the North Fort Worth Alliance.

Uh we've we've done that.

Uh, feel like we've alleviated any concerns he would have, um, and happy answering questions you may have.

Okay, great.

Um we have no opposition signed up to speak for this case, so uh leave it open for uh questions.

You good, Commissioner Mormon?

All right, very good, thank you so much.

Uh at this time we'll close the uh close the public hearing and leave it up for some discussion or a vote.

We just see what they're gonna build on all those little stripy lines right there.

Lighting ought to take care of that.

Um for ZC 26-043, I move for approval.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion by Commissioner Worman and a second by Commissioner Trujillo uh to approve this case.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Hi.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Hi.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Hi.

The vote of 10 to 0.

The motion passes.

Next case, ZC-26-044.

The address is 16250, Old Weatherford Road.

The applicant is Kevin W.

Van, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth and Master Plan Consultants.

Wes Hoblet.

The request is from Unzoned to CF Community Facilities.

Hi, good afternoon, Commission.

Wes Aubwood Master Plan Consultants.

You're representing Holy Redeemer Catholic Parish.

Really just uh annexation to absorb the existing church into the city of Fort Worth, looking to get utilities, water, and sewer.

So we are requesting about a little under 31 acres to be annexed into the city.

The star is where it is right now.

Obviously, we are abutted on three sides by City of Fort Worth uh current right now with the two Alito schools to the north, Walsh Ranch to the southwest, and then also to the uh direct south as morning star to our direct east.

We've been around since 2008 and just want to go to CF.

So hopefully to conform around to the two existing CF zoning.

We went to CPC a couple weeks ago.

They approved us unanimously for uh CF, changing it from the residential.

So this is what it looked like in 2008 when we were starting construction, and uh it's pretty lonely out there, so uh we added some residential a little bit with uh Morningstar to the east, and then you can see Walsh Ranch, and then really here in 2026 it's become a lot more developed with more development on the way as you saw with the previous cases today.

So we reached out to the uh three groups that are most affected or impacted here.

Morningstar, no concerns.

Walsh Ranch did not want to hold a neighborhood meeting, they didn't warrant it.

Uh they figured it was not really worth their time for an annexation for a church.

So I've asked a couple times and got the same answer.

Also reached out to Uito ISD, talked to their CFO and their chief facilities and construction officer, talked to them multiple times on the phone.

They did not have any issues with this at all, not going to affect their current operations.

Here's the property as it exists today facing to the north.

Uh facing east, we can see the Uedo property, weedow ISD school.

Facing to the west where it's pretty open, you can't even see the existing development over there with Morningstar.

And uh that's it.

So we're pretty straightforward and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

And Wes, is uh looks like you have someone else signed up.

Is that just for questions?

Yes, that's correct.

All right, very good.

And uh surprise surprise, there's no opposition for this case.

Uh so uh we are open for questions if you have any.

So it's like a pretty cut and dry case.

Uh all right.

Uh seeing none, we'll close this part of the hearing.

Uh, thank you, Wes.

Um, and Commissioner Welches, I believe this is yours.

All right, and in the case of ZC-26-044, I move for approval.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Welch and a second by Commissioner McCoy.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Hi.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Hi.

Commissioner Edmonds.

All right.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Hi.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of 10 to 0.

The motion passes.

Next case.

TC-26-048.

The address is 1800 Alto Mesa Boulevard.

Applicant is Hillcrest LLC.

Mac and Hoover Engineering and Surveying.

Dylan Marshall.

The request is to add a conditional use permit for an automated car wash in FR General Commercial Restricted and F General Commercial Site Plan included.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Brandon Osmeyer, I'm with Quick Trip.

Uh Bubble Bath is our new venture or new ish venture.

We're looking for a C UP here.

I didn't get my presentation in time, so she's going to put it on the slideshow for me, Beth is.

So this is going to be our proposed bubble bath car wash.

It's part of the Quick Trip brand.

This is something we've started here in the last 10 years.

We've really done our research and move forward with this before we've got heavy into this.

If we can go to the next uh slide.

Some of the new stuff we're or the stuff we're doing for this, each location will create about 15 jobs.

And we do a lot of promoting within.

I'd say probably 80% of the company is when you get out of the stores or in the bubble bath will be the same.

Is all former store employees as of right now.

We commit to 100% of retail profits from the grand opening to a local charity, which will work with the neighbors and the HOAs and see who that bus should go to.

Uh Bubble Bath Car Works will work with uh the local field should uh officials to continue helping the community it serves.

As far as any of the environmental stuff, it's pretty standard here from what we're doing.

Uh we reclaim most of all the water that we can here.

Standard car wash that we do is 14 to 22 gallons.

If you do it at your house, it's around 116 gallons.

And that's with the uh standard 20 minute car wash.

The reclaim water is used to lubricate the brushes and rinse the vehicles all the way through.

We use bridal grade with soaps and waxes, you know, by the national standards, uh, car solution standards.

I know some of the questions.

Can you go to the next slide, please, but I always have are about the blowers and the noise.

The rollers do not run all day, they only run when a car is going through there at the end.

If there's no cars there, they're not running.

Uh we close when the sun goes down at the latest.

This isn't an open car wash that's there uh for people to wash their cars 24 7.

Uh we enclose our dryers in the building to reduce the noise.

We are less than 80% decimal at the street.

You can see what the uh elevations look like here for the car wash.

We've done all masonry on this one to blend in with the area and upgrade this one from our standard EPIS that we usually use.

Site plan here.

We do uh we ended up flipping this site.

We did have the tunnel up against the 25 foot setback.

We flipped this to get the tunnel away, and with this being part of the quick Trip family.

You know, we're blowing most of that noise from the tunnel out onto our own property.

I know there was some concerns about uh sound barriers from the 25 foot to the residential here.

That's something we're definitely willing to work with.

We're putting any sort of sound barrier up.

Or right now we show proposed eight foot fence double-sided, like we have behind the quick trip.

Uh what we would be proposed to do is any sort of sound wall that would, you know, help move this along and as much landscaping as needed there to deaden any sound from the residential behind there to the north of us.

Uh I know we talked there was some talk about maybe flipping this north and south.

We looked at that, we just couldn't make it work with the tunnel configuration we have.

There's just not enough turn radius there for that.

Uh this is QuickTrip's first submittal on this.

You know, the gap or the you know gas stations over bar bread and butter, and we've just started the bell blaff stuff recently, so I don't think we have but four or five in development in the DFW area.

We have a lot more down south.

The company we bought was out of San Antonio, so we've got about 30 or 40 down there right now.

Um we said we're willing to work with any residential stuff to help with this to any sound deadening to help that that's easy stuff to give there.

We're more than willing to work with that.

Our store's been there for 26 years.

We've never had any residential complaints from anybody.

Um thing we did do, we did speak to the school next door.

Our initial conversation has been very good.

There's no opposition there, and they're working on writing us a letter.

And we do not have a fence on that side.

There is a fence that they have there, but that's something we'd be willing to work with there also.

Very good.

Any questions for the applicant before we bring in the opposition?

One quick question in the workshop.

Um we were told the uh mean on it would be like we open seven to seven or eight.

Yes, sir.

So distribution is on the time of time of year.

We're not gonna open at dark.

People usually don't wash their cars and everything at night.

So in the winter time we'll close earlier, in the summertime we'll have longer hours.

All right, very good.

Thank you very much.

Uh and at this time we'll bring up the opposition.

We believe we have three people signed up to speak.

Um and just a reminder to the opposition, y'all have a total of seven minutes shared.

So just if uh somebody brings up a point, you know, you may just skip that uh if it's already been said.

Uh but uh we'll bring up uh Steve.

Welcome.

My name is Steve Epstein.

I'm representing the Hallmark Camelette Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association.

Uh I you should have uh something in your correspondence from us.

Uh we have several uh reservations about this.

We we hope that there will be a denial of this request.

Uh uh when um we met with the Mr.

Osby area on March 19th.

Um we voted as a neighborhood, and it was a unanimous vote to oppose this.

Much like we opposed the Z 21-146, which was a case in 2021 at the same location.

That that was denied also, and we hope the same today.

Um we're concerned that the proposed car wash is too close to existing residents along Limestone Trail, just north of the parcel.

Um, there are uh second there are four existing car washes in our neighborhood.

One of them is less than a thousand feet away.

It's in the 2100 block of Altamesa Boulevard.

So we are we're oversubscribed with car washes, and I just want to make sure I want to leave time for other Pete speakers, but you should have something in your correspondence from another neighborhood association, Edgecliff, uh, getting the signatures of many residents immediately affected to the north of this site.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you very much for your comments.

And I've got a uh Veronica.

I'll condense myself and mayor Bartley.

So my name's Veronica Gamboa, and I'm the city administrator for the town of Edgecliff Village.

Um we're here to speak on behalf of our residents that back up to that property.

Uh their concern is their property value is going to be going down because of this or the potential of it going down.

Um the noise and also the increase of traffic.

Uh so we are here today just to ask for you to consider them and their property, um, and deny this request.

Very good.

And are you Sammy?

I'm Sammy Barkley.

Very good.

I'm the mayor of Edgecliffe.

And yes, uh, I will say this.

Uh QT has been a very good neighbor to us, and we have the school, but I am concerned about our residents and the noise.

And he said that it would be open according to uh how much it was used, and a lot of our people don't they need to have their rest.

A lot of we have a lot of elderly people, and then we have young couples also that are moving in.

And if it's open late at night, um it can draw music and crowds, and we're just asking that the city of Fort Worth continue to make that a good neighbor as they have been in the past.

We would appreciate it if you would deny this for that reason.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for your service.

May I ask before you sit down, Mayor?

Um, gentlemen, the applicant mentioned that he would be willing to do a couple of things that aren't really uh were not presented to us in the workshop.

One was that he would build a sound wall between the development and the neighborhood, and second that he would entertain um, and we could make it a part of our motion if we needed to.

Um, it'd be properly landscaped.

Would that change your feelings about the project?

Um, not necessarily because of as Mr.

Epstein said, we already have all of the car washes, uh, but I would have a lot of reservations about that to see what he was really gonna do.

May I add also add that we're we're not opposed to businesses being there, but we do have a car wash that is in Edgecliffe and it will impact that business, and it does impact our sales tax as well, which you know we are a small city, so all right, thank you for your comments.

Uh any other questions, the opposite.

You guys have any current complaints related to noise with the existing quick trip there from residents?

Not no, we don't.

I mean, we do have some uh complaints in reference to some problems every once in a while where Terrant County has to respond because that's who our policing services are through.

So that's right.

All right.

Very good, thank you very much.

Uh and then now you've got uh two minutes to uh have your final comments if you want to counter any of that.

Uh I would like to focus a little bit on our security system too.

They talked about that.

We have a state-of-the-art security system that an actual ex-colonel, he just retired last week developed, and the FBI's investigated this and looked at our security system.

That's going to be tied in directly to our quick trip, it's part of the whole thing.

We're not going to even bring a new fiber line in.

We'll run that straight to the quick trip next door and tie into that system.

So there is 24 hour surveillance here.

That's one of the good things as far as you know, there's uh car wash a thousand feet from there.

Yes, there is.

We've done our research here.

I mean, the demand is for a car wash.

We're not, you know, bringing traffic there.

It's we're coming to the traffic, is what we're looking for.

Uh, and as far as that we're willing to work with anybody and you know do anything we can to you know, help move this along.

There's a you know, there's a demand for a car wash here, and that's why we're here.

And you know, we link heavily on our quick trip.

Like I said, it's been there twenty-six years.

You can look at the condition it is and the kind of care we do, and you know, they're talking about community.

Yes, we're providing a lot of jobs here with the ability to move up, and that is crucial to me to my community where I live at.

I mean, it's easy to get promoted here with a little hard work.

That's all I got.

Is there any other thing?

And it's Mr.

Pierre can too.

Well, somebody, you hit your buttons.

Okay, hello.

There you go.

Thank you for it.

Okay, so you were saying that um it's a couple of things that in the 15 jobs, so I understand that a borderline is an edge clip, but you're in the city of Fort Worth, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh the corridor of Alta Mesa is extremely busy, and you said something significant is that the traffic is already there.

Um, have you spoken to I didn't I don't recall, but have you had a lot of engagement with the the neighborhood associations that are in the area or we've worked with Steve.

We had we did have one meeting, and I've gone back to the million, but that is the stint we've had with that, and I've spoken with the school next door.

And I have not spoke to the initial residents to the north.

And you said that you did a traffic study, correct?

We have not done a traffic study.

What we do is our research for traffic counts.

So we have not done a true TIA as of this point, but what we do internally for our process to pick sites, and we look at to see if we're willing to invest that type of money.

We look at the traffic that's already there.

If the traffic's not there, we're not a destination site.

We're looking for a place that already has the traffic that's gonna come.

What about marketing marketing and feasibility studies?

Yes, we do that internally.

Did you share that with the neighborhoods?

No, that's stuff that's proprietary.

Right, Jerry.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, and then uh you were saying uh one of the neighborhoods made a comment about the hours of operation, so you'll be open from 7 a.m.

to 8 p.m., correct?

Up to hang out after and work on your car or vacuum your car.

Once we close, the whole facility is closed.

We'll have employees there that will shut everything down and that'll be the end of it.

And QT, I mean, we're gonna be the same business.

So we will have the store employees there that are there twenty-four-seven and the twenty-four seven uh surveillance monitor.

Right.

And that was my next point.

The QT is open twenty-four hours a day with traffic, and I I know their corridor well and the noise and the busy Alta Mesa, they're there seven days a week, and you will be there open from seven to eight.

Generally, but the neighborhoods don't have a problem with QT.

Okay, thank you.

Right.

Any other questions?

I just got one.

Um, so this site has been tallied to re redevelop and then denied.

Um so what do you what's gonna make the difference what you're doing with the previous uh Africans done?

Uh being part of the quick trip family.

It's gonna be under our umbrella.

So we're gonna take care of this site differently.

Like I said, right off the bat from security.

We're not buying this land and building a car wash to turn around and flip in a few years.

This is a whole business development we have with our quick trip.

Like I said, we're gonna work, you know, within and have our own employees to and build the community and help the community with jobs and everything else.

This isn't something that's you know, a fly-by-night deal or something.

Like I said, we bought this about 10 years ago in uh in San Antonio, I think there was 12 stores.

We've really done a lot of research before we decided to gear up and really put this for.

Here's the concern I have is that ideal school you're talking about.

I I've gone through there and kids walk from that to go to that neighborhood behind that's behind the QT.

So how are you gonna prevent from those kids getting into some kind of accident with a car coming out?

Because even I've had an issue out of this QT you guys I've shopped there.

Cars coming out of there, that long little s road and going back on Alta Mesa, they are flying through there.

And my other concern is the egress going in and out with cars going in and out of there.

How are you gonna manage that?

I mean, as far as that goes, like I said, the traffic's there, I don't think we're really generating any traffic.

But I mean it's the traffic for the crossing here, and we put striping and possible mirrors up for the people to see and warning signs as far as that.

I mean, this isn't a true walkway through this person's property right here as of right now.

And then through here's the true walkway, is down Alta Mesa and up to get to the neighborhood.

We'll do anything we need to to, you know, satisfy any sort of safety concerns.

That's you know, one of our number one's concerns is safety.

Yeah, because that's school, a lot of CK is walking from that ideal school, and there's no sidewalks over there.

And that is one of the things I talked about with Jason Fitzgerald, the principal, is making sure that this is safety and working out stuff to make sure every kid's safe.

Okay.

There's a sidewalk that goes all the way down and all the way up to the neighborhood, yeah, right there on this side of ours.

Here's a here's a maybe my suggestion.

Maybe you might want to reconsider, go back to the neighborhood, bring all the people involved, the homeowner association ideal edgewood and say, hey, what do you want to how can we make this go forward?

Because right now you got a lot of opposition on it.

And for me sitting here, I I can't say yay or nay on it because I can see what the impact is.

You get you're bumped up against the house that's and you got traffic coming in and out of Alta Mesa.

And I mean, e I know not how to avoid this in the evenings.

So I that's just my suggestion to you.

All right.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh, this time we will uh close the public hearing and uh leave it up for some discussion or a vote.

Uh Commissioner Pierce, you know, do you want some comments or do you you ready?

I don't see an issue with it.

I mean, they're gonna create 15 jobs, and that those could be jobs for the kids in the summer.

But I'm sorry.

What what um what would be the age requirements for uh to work at the get at the car wash?

Right, because there's a car wash in my neighborhood, and I love how they do a lot of things in the community and they employ a lot of the teenagers in the summertime.

So I'm looking at it as a progressive move forward.

I know that area well, and it's already a lot of traffic.

I don't see the difference, and no disrespect to the city of Edgewood, but this is a city of Fort Worth.

And I'm I'm looking at the fact that a QT has been there over 20 years with all the noise, the loud music, uh, you name it, you know what goes on at QT.

Uh, and they don't have a problem with that.

And I don't see I don't I don't see the problem with uh you've gone through the due diligence with the city of Fort Worth.

Okay, and the jobs that you would bring to that area, I feel that it will be asset to the community to be able to have a car wash and be able to create jobs for the kids, and as far as there being so many car washes, we know the population growth with the city of Fort Worth, and that area is growing and the traffic is going to continue to grow.

So I move for approval.

Uh is that is that a motion or something I would recommend is ensuring in the site plan that there is adequate screening and fencing on that voting houses.

Yeah, can we amend that to adequately provide?

Do you want to do want to go with the as you already made the motion?

I did, I made the question.

All right, so I'm out.

Well, there's a motion on the floor, so if we don't have a second, it'll go away.

All right.

Well, we have a motion on the floor, so uh motion to approve um by Commissioner Pierce and seconded by uh Commissioner Edmonds.

Me.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chair person reigns.

Nay.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Nay.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Nay.

Commissioner Edmonds.

All right.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Commissioner Robinson.

Nay.

Commissioner Pierce.

Yes.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Nay.

With a vote.

Of five to six.

The motion fails.

No.

I'm sorry.

With a vote of five to five.

The motion fails.

Double checked at five-five.

Okay.

Real quick, before we move on.

She made a motion, and I just wanted to point out for everybody that's here.

There's a whole list of other things that can go on this site.

They're not there yet because it's not the greatest site.

But somebody will try at some point.

And this feels like the very best option.

It's a national change.

As far as the screening and everything else goes, I was going to ask that question just real quick just to make sure we know what the standards are.

But there's no waivers being requested.

There's like they're ready to build it as we require.

And it's the very best and highest that's available.

To your point, it's something eventually is going to be built.

Yeah.

No, it's I just and it makes logical sense.

And then again, like I said, to be able to employ those children.

Kids need something to do in the summertime, right?

And so I, you know, it's already, but I so we can run do another motion.

No, no, it's alright it's already done.

It's already done.

That's okay.

All I wanted to do is a point of order.

Hold on one second.

Let's make sure.

I believe under if unless we have some internal rule, the the um rules of um procedure um are that uh someone from the um declining side can make a motion to approve.

No, hold on.

One second.

Well it's legal.

Robert's rules of order.

One second, please.

Uh so the rule is as stated is a member of the prevailing party, so the motion to deny, someone who voted uh nay, would have to make a motion to reconsider.

Once that motion to reconsider is then put on the table, it would need a second and then a vote.

If the vote moves forward, that motion to reconsider gets approved, then a new motion to approve can be offered to the board.

So that is the process it goes.

So you need someone from the denial to offer a motion to reconsider.

So that is gonna be the question.

So if we do an offer reconsider, can we add anything to that motion?

So it's just for the motion to reconsider.

So we can add that is the first part in order to even entertain a new motion to approve with additional conditions.

So there needs to be a motion to appro uh reconsider from the prevailing party.

Someone from the denominator.

So did somebody that voted to deny.

Would you like to I'd like to make a motion to reconsider for Z Z 26-04?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to reconsider uh by Commissioner Trujillo and a second by Commissioner.

Um how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Hi.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch?

Hi.

Commissioner McCoy.

Nay.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of nine to one, motion passes.

Okay.

So now we can just there can be if there's someone, one you could do uh a new motion with any conditions.

There can be a discussion prior to making that motion.

Um but those are your two options as it stands right now.

So if someone has a motion ready or if there's any further discussion to make a motion, that that is where we're at right now in the process.

Yeah, I finished my discussion point.

Sorry, I I couldn't let you because uh because there was already a motion on the floor.

We had to vote on that.

So no, that's fine.

After we voted, I just wanted to say like I do want to make sure that the reasoning why we make any sort of recommendation is very transparent to everybody out here.

And sometimes the very best fit is not what is what we would all love to see, but it's what we're gonna get.

I just wanted to make sure that it was clear as to why there may have been um more people voting for it than you would normally think in a car wash case.

Those are not the most popular in the city of Fort Worth.

Um this just happens to be one of those times when it is the best fit, and I I thought it was warranted.

Uh and I appreciate Commissioner Edmonds for kind of beating me to my point of I think we need to talk about this.

Um I appreciate you guys willing to listen and um under the also appreciating the transparency.

I love up here.

Sometimes it's too much, but um so to kind of elaborate, do you want to you mentioned and I think it was a good point about all the uses that could go in there uh if this continues to fail.

Um did you want to comment on that?

No, because I'll get some of them wrong.

Uh no, and with the school there too, it does limit, you know, with the distances and all of those things.

There's just, you know, everything from barbershops, banks, bakeries, I mean hotels.

I mean, it could be a it could be a nightclub, it could be bar.

It's all alcohol.

I mean, it's too close to the school for all that.

But yeah.

Oh, that's true.

Good point.

No, there but there's things that can be done there, and this is attached to the other business.

It's one big piece.

It's one business, it's not two businesses.

It was two, now it's gonna be one.

Um I just think it is the very best use that we're gonna get out of this unless somebody knows of one that we haven't done.

And with the jobs, like I said, uh it gives me something to do in the summertime to make a a decent wage for school clothes.

You know, I think that's a that's a plus.

Well, the other concern I got is just making sure that the neighborhood is also protected.

Um we can add some comments about maybe putting a barrier to sound proof there at the uh the back of the where the uh car wash is I think that'll go a long way to satisfy some of the the issues and concern with the neighborhood behind it.

I mean, you know, unfortunately, uh doing what we do and you all know this, um we're gonna make someone happy and somebody unhappy, you know, on on either side.

But uh I uh I'm I I agree with you about the neighbors, that's why I've voted to deny I just I just hate hate that's wrong word.

I don't like uh uh you know these things right up against a house.

Um but I understand the other points, I get it.

Um, so um I would have less heartburn about this if we did include something in there about having some soundproofing, having some additional um landscaping.

If we included that, I would I would certainly be more inclined.

Can like I was saying about about I agree with you, but you've got a car wash there.

I mean, I don't understand that I mean we know the noise, the chatter, the music that's oh you mean the gas station?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

I think I mean there's already a car wash there.

So I could see if there wasn't, you know but and car washes are extremely loud.

You know, and and they're open seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, which is my point.

And they're and they won't even be open twenty four hours, seven days a week.

Well, seven days a week, but not twenty four hours.

Yeah.

Sun up, sundown.

Yeah.

So it also would depend on daylight savings time.

Your car wash with folks, wait between daylight savings time and then wearing a fall and winter in the spring.

So the times will be different.

What what kind of language would you like to to add to your I would just say uh or no to I'm sorry, Commissioner Pierce.

What kind of Fred, but you know, you you're quarterback in it, so I don't know.

I'm just throwing some things up.

I mean, Commissioners, if if I may, at the neighborhoods.

Like to talk a little bit about this um before we proceed with language.

Um this is not allowed by right, and it's this is something that has been considered and analyzed, and there's a reason that it's not allowed by right.

Car washes are very loud.

This is right up against people's backyards, their homes.

You'll be able to hear this inside their house.

This is a extremely disturbing business that's not allowed by right, that is much different than a convenience store.

Convenience store does not make the type of noise in the light and the traffic that you would have from a car wash.

And so for whatever reasons that may seem like a good idea, there's a lot more bad reasons to put something like this right in people's backyards and a tunnel that faces east-west directly at a school.

So this is uh a noisy business in a tunnel, which is a speaker that amplifies and shoots out sound of both sides at a school while school's in session.

So there are many reasons that this just does not make good sense as proper land use in my opinion.

Well, I'm I'm curious.

Now when you say not by right, what do you mean not by right?

I don't I'm but that's why they're going to get uh C U P 'cause they have come here for a conditional use permit.

Right.

Allow for a wash.

A business that is not allowed.

Right.

But I'm going back to my original point.

There's a QT there.

I don't know if anybody's lived anywhere close to a QT.

It's the same.

I mean, I know we used to talk about tunnels and and what have you, but if that's the case, then the neighborhoods, they shouldn't have they should never have allowed that to sit there for twenty six years to begin with.

So that I mean, and that's my argument is that if there's already a certain amount of noise and that is an extremely important.

There's a big difference between a convenience store, people coming in, purchasing something, and going away.

Okay.

Where is it actually demographic study that works?

Let me take over for a second.

Um y'all are all making very good valid points.

And we can disagree and certainly that's okay.

And the good news is is that, you know, council, they're gonna have to actually vote on this.

You know, we're gonna make a recommendation, and then they're gonna do what they want to do.

I think we've given them a lot to think about.

So I appreciate everybody being so vocal about this because now they'll have this stuff to when they consider what they're gonna do.

Um but uh Commissioner McCoy, valid points.

Commissioner Pierce, valid points.

Uh you know, I think all of us are making valid points, but uh I I think we're I don't know that we're gonna get anywhere.

I think it's it's okay that we disagree.

We're that's it's good.

Good debate.

But uh, I think we need to go ahead and vote.

Yeah, one point.

Oh, Commissioner McClorri, I know there's a cobbars by my house that butts up against someone's back of their house.

And I mean it's saying it's gonna be the same scenario.

I mean it's right there on the corner of Sycamore School Road and uh Granberry Road.

It has a car where it's but up and they're and it kind of runs right there just like that.

So it's the same scenario there.

Okay, uh it's two more speakers.

We need to I agree with you, uh Chairman Reigns.

We need to move forward, and as far as language or additions or subtractions, I have faith that council will make those decisions that will be the most beneficial.

I think the framework that we're trying to deliver them, whether it's approved or denied, this is the correct framework.

Let's let them fight over another brick or a bush or something like that.

Well, let me say Mr.

Warsman, I disagree with you.

I think uh the applicant has agreed that he that he would add to this um his application the sound wall and landscaping, which are not in the application.

So I would suggest to the maker of the motion that we add those two provisions in there, um, because he's already volunteered to do it.

And those are two of the concerns that uh our fellow commissioner has.

Commissioner, I would add that I don't think any of the commissioners on this commission have domain expertise on sound dampening, and whether it's gonna be some shrubbery or a six-foot wood fence versus an eight foot wood fence, it's gonna be pretty inconsequential.

Um it's gonna require ten foot masonry wall at the least to make a difference.

I think uh I think Commissioner's point, I I certainly none of us are I don't think have degrees in that.

Uh, but uh, you know, there's also, you know, there's like I said earlier about I think it was the the manufacturing stuff, uh, they can't make so much noise that it's uh I mean this they're there are regulations uh that you can only be so loud, you know, and then they're they're gonna face fines and stuff like that.

But these homes are Edgecliffe village, correct?

Correct, okay.

But they they use there's an overlap.

But hold on, just so I I think his point uh is that they're they're already volunteering to do something, even if it doesn't solve the problem, they're already willing to do something, so we might as well put it in the motion and it gives council something to look at.

That's you don't have to do it.

You can make your motion however you want, but uh that's the point I was trying to make.

But I think we need to uh go ahead and make a motion and Commissioner Pierce make it however you would like.

Your call.

Okay.

In the case of ZC 26048, I move for approval.

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

Commissioners, how do you vote?

May I ask I'd like to make a uh substitute motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve and include in the motion that the uh applicant has agreed to install a sound wall and landscaping not shown in the original application.

Do we need a second on that?

Okay, there's no second, we'll go to the original motion.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns, aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Nay.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Worman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of nine to one.

Motion passes.

So you all didn't know you were going to get a show today, did you?

So this is a government at work here.

Uh good job, Commissioners.

We'll have a healthy debate.

Next case.

Advance the slide, please.

ZC-26-049.

The address is 5700 Lenore Street.

The applicant is Summy Estate Holdings Corporation.

Abbey Sunmanu.

The request is from ER, neighborhood commercial restricted to B two family residential.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Go ahead.

You can present your case.

If you'll speak into the mic so we can catch it.

Oh, do you want it?

You have to speak right into it.

Yeah.

The property is currently zone in our neighborhood commercial.

The building was originally constructed as a house where the prior owner lived.

She used these as a home and an accounting business office.

So the current owner purchased the property in 2017.

And the property design matches all other homes in the community around the street.

For the last eight years, the building has been used as a health care related business.

The health care business closed down last yeah, July 2025.

The request reason, the property to be residential so the building can be used as for residential purposes.

Thank you very much.

Sir.

Just in an effort to possibly save some time.

We don't have anyone in opposition.

Do you plan to approve this?

Okay.

I mean it's really just kind of a clean-up case.

There are two other people signed up to speak.

Commissioner is going to make a motion to approve.

You're still welcome to speak, but you don't have to.

So do you all have any questions or any discussion?

This is a cleanup case really.

It matches all the other zoning.

Okay.

We're gonna thank you so much for being here.

Um and we will close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Robinson, it's all yours.

In the case of ZC 26049, I move for approval.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Robinson and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

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 Warman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case, ZC-26-052.

The address is 648 East Bonds Ranch Road.

Applicant is H E B L Paird Hampton and Brown Inc.

and Joe LaCroix.

The request is from AG Agricultural to I Light Industrial.

Welcome.

Chair members commission, good afternoon.

My name is Joe LaCroix.

I'm with Barry's Ground Engineering.

Engineers and surveyors on this project.

Again, pretty straightforward kind of cleanup case.

The developer HEB had purchased the adjacent property back in 2015.

Closed on this property, the additional five acres about a year ago, simply transitioning just to match the zoning of the adjacent property.

Okay.

Very good.

Um unsurprisingly, there is no opposition for this case.

Do you have any questions?

Do you want some discussion?

Okay.

Alright.

Thank you all for being here.

Again, there's no opposition, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Warman, this is yours.

I didn't even bring tortillas today.

I don't want to be the one to deny H E BM.

He didn't bring tortillas.

I have to live here.

For ZC 26-052, I move for approval.

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

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson.

Aye.

Hi.

Hi.

Can someone turn his mic back on?

Okay.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Hi.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case.

ZC-26-053.

The address is the 1400 block of Marion Avenue.

I guess Carmen Chavez and Kelly Harton Hallman, LLP, Rayo Jeski, and Jeff Whitfield.

The request is from A5, one family residential to I Light Industrial.

Welcome, Ray.

Hey, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh members of the Commission Ray O'Jeski representing uh Lone Star Demolition Services.

Uh Carmen and Crystal Chavez.

Uh this is a certified women-owned and minority-owned business that has utilized the property for outside storage of its equipment.

Oops.

Can you get me back to it?

Thank you, guys.

For outside storage for its equipment since 2006, albeit in uh contrary to the A5 zoning that is currently on the property.

The ultimate goal for this one is to go to a C UP for limited to the outside storage of the company's equipment on the property, but uh in terms of the compliance with uh the zoning ordinance, we first of all have to go into an I zoning category first, and then we can ultimately go into a CUP for the property.

It didn't look like that.

Okay.

Okay.

We can put it uh under the overhead projector, as they used to be called.

Now I'm dating myself.

So what I want you to see on the side is essentially uh what is already owned by this property owner.

Uh the property owner owns a significant number of lots that are just south of this location.

Uh first of all, I'd like to point out that this is only a 1.14-acre site.

Uh, it's very small, and uh it utilized it was previously utilized by the property owner.

Everywhere you see a pink uh shaded lot, uh that whole area was originally utilized by the property owner for the outside storage activities that they have.

There's one orange colored lot that you see there in the middle that they are in the process of seeking to own by adverse possession.

Uh again, that's a lot that they've utilized, they pay taxes on, and they're in the process again of acquiring the ownership of that lot.

And then uh as far as neighborhood outreach went, uh the property owner went door to door uh to property owners that are there in the vicinity, and you have uh in your possession, maybe not, but now you will after today, you will have letters of support from 14 of those property owners that are in the green color that are in support of the property owner's request for the outside zoning here on this property.

We did receive all that as well.

Did receive those.

Okay, okay?

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um at the end of the day, uh, with the use that's gone on for a considerable period of time on this property, uh, pretty much anybody that lives in this area has seen this use go on for many many years.

And uh again, with the number of lots that the property owner owns, they will be able to buffer any of the uses that are outside of their ownership, either by not developing those lots or by just choosing to develop a portion of those lots.

And as a matter of fact, the space that you see between the area being rezoned and the pink lots to the south that is actually a platted street called Marion, uh, but it was it's never been built, it's never been finished out.

So to the extent that the zoning is approved and they are able to use this property for the outside storage, uh essentially they will likely abandon that portion of Marion Drive that is just south of their property, and they would also choose not to develop the lots that you see immediately to the south because there wouldn't be a street that would essentially access those lots.

So the only lots that they would realistically develop would be the ones where you see multi drive, so the lots just to the north of that would be lots that they could develop into residential lots under the current A5 zoning if they so proved, but the buffer would still be maintained with the lots that you see on just to the immediate south of the property that's being rezoned.

So if I'm making sense, they've got the ability to buffer any use that essentially is going to be south of this property.

Now the property just to the north, they've not been able to get in contact with the owner of that property, but the owner that owner occup he they own that land right there, and then the two lots immediately to uh to the left or to the west of that large piece of property right there.

And that um owner also owns a couple of the lots over there to the right that running up against time.

Just let me wrap up right now and say I think you've got the gist of what we're trying to do here with this property.

Happy to answer any questions.

Right, thank you, Ray.

Um we don't have any opposition here, and you want to hang out right just in case there are any questions?

I have a question.

So you were saying that um the landowner, so it's currently zoned for A5-1 family residential.

So you were saying that he's been storing his equipment on the land for for a long time.

That that's correct.

Residential land.

Yes, that is correct.

And so he's wanting to move to light industrial, and this is it's in a neighborhood, correct?

Granted, that portion of the property, again, most of it is undeveloped as a neighborhood commissioner, I would argue.

I mean, you do certainly have some lots that have been developed uh along Mulky Street, but the again, and and some lots over there obviously to the west.

Uh, but but yes, I I would say if you look at the industrial that is north and east of that property, uh you've got a considerable amount of industrial in the area as well.

Right.

So here's my issue, a lot of uh of what's going on in district eight.

You have a lot of these neighborhoods, because as you know, there's a lot of new housing development as there's a lot of uh how can I say this, uh, a resurgence of the southeast side of Fort Worth.

So they're coming back later on.

Everybody's complaining.

Um I don't know if it's at the council meeting yesterday, but everybody's complaining about all this industrial in the middle and around neighborhoods and that are around housing.

Um, did you talk with the uh, well you said you have 14 letters of support with those from residents or businesses or those those would be residents.

Now, a lot of that property that you see that's been developed along Mulkia, a lot of that is rental housing.

So some of it was owner occupied, some of it is just simply rental uh occupants of that property.

But again, uh trying to go up and down a street, you know, to try to get doors knocked and talk to people can be challenging, but but uh she was able to get a considerable number of those people, you know, that live along that area to show their support.

And what about the businesses?

Were there any businesses in the area that you talked about?

There was one business that was just over there to the west and they're already owned, uh they're already zoned industrial, so they did not have any issue with it.

It it would be the one that uh uh if you could put well anyway, the slide that I showed you, there was one business there just on the other side of Riverside Drive there that did sign a consent form as well.

And they can uh Commissioner, they can go ahead and develop uh the rest of those lots there on Mulky that are just to the north of what has already been developed.

They can still develop those.

They're not residential builders, so they would sell it, you know, to a residential uh developer, but they could provide housing to that area right there.

The challenge for them is the area that you see that they're attempting to rezone, that street is gonna have to be completely built out in order for those lots to be developed and to incur the cost of being able to develop a residential street in order to you know go forward with those residential lots.

It's expensive to do that.

Is there a developer out there that might do it?

We don't know.

Uh but because they've they need a location to put their equipment.

They've owned the property for a long time.

It it was important enough for them to come before you and ask for that permission to be able to continue to use the property as they have because it can be hard to find locations to store equipment for their business.

Commissioner Pierce, do you have any other questions?

I guess one more.

And um in our uh in our meeting earlier, it was stated that they want to put a eventually a public storage there.

No, not correct.

There is no building on the property right now, and they would need a C UP, even if the I zoning was approved today.

They would still need a C UP because they don't have a functional building on the property, and to have outside storage without a C UP, you have to have a building.

They don't have a functional building right now, but they would like to put a building on the property that would essentially serve as their office for their uh for their equipment that they would store there.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other questions for Ray?

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um there is no one here to speak in opposition, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

Um I don't know what you're thinking right now, I guess, but uh I um I tend to really stick with what staff wanted to do on this one, deny this case and it's because uh it's I feel like the district that you live in you represent uh kind of there's enough, you know, an industrial right next to all these houses.

Just because there's already some to the north, doesn't I don't think it means we need to continue it.

This is not it's not a place for industrial, you know.

I own an industrial business, but I I wouldn't want to be right next to the homes.

Uh it's just I don't think it's fair to the neighbors.

I think their District 8 deserves more housing and they yes, there's nothing there now, but and and yeah, it's it may take some time because Ray brought up a good point, you know, building out those roads.

Um I but I have faith that some developer will figure that out.

We've got a bunch of smart ones here.

I I would like to see it stay uh single family residential.

But certainly there are some neighbors that you know but think that this is great.

Um so I won't deny that, but uh I think in the long run, I think we might look back on this and go why in the world do we make that industrial access to be housing?

I don't know that's just my thoughts.

I'm s I think any other same?

Yeah, I concur on that.

I don't I don't see the value of that.

All right.

Well, well uh, Mr.

Pierce, it's yours.

Okay, thank you, fellow commissioners.

In the case of ZC 26053, I move for denial.

Second.

I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Pierce and a second by Commissioner Robinson.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Hi.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

I Commissioner Edmonds.

Alright.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioner Warman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

Motion passes.

Next case.

CC-26-054.

The address is 115 Northwest 25th Street and 2458 Ellis Avenue.

Applicant is Franklin Letty Corporation and W Real Estate Holdings LLC.

The request is to add a conditional use permit in stockyards transition neighborhood mixed use.

Welcome to the zoning commission.

Did you say finally under your breath when you heard that's called your case?

Notice you all have been here all day.

Is this better?

Yep, we can hear you.

Um I didn't, but I bet you guys did.

Um we do have a presentation.

We know if it was added.

It came in just a little late, and I'm sorry that it's not in there.

I tried to get it in in between the work session and here.

Here we go.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, uh, good afternoon.

My name is Shannon Beardon.

I am an architect and vice president with Highway.

I'm here on behalf of MLEDs, the parking systems of America.

Um, as you guys noted, we are requesting a conditional use permit to replace an existing surface parking lot, existing surface parking lot with structured parking, which will have commercial office or retail at the ground floor.

So you can see in the photo from the corner that this is the existing surface lot.

Um I'm not gonna read all of this, but it is important to us to note that for more than 80 years, MLEDIs has been a staple and a landmark, if you will, of Fort Worth and certainly the stockyards located at North Main in Exchange.

Um, you guys, we have all seen the growth of the stockyards and successful growth at that.

I'm sorry, I keep backing away from this.

Um but successful growth of the stockyards, adding retail, residential, multifamily, um hospitality, and restaurants and bars.

And with that successful growth has also brought congestion to the area, notably vehicles.

Um the Franklins have recognized this and realize this as an opportunity to help uh take their site and ease congestion by converting it from surface parking to structured parking.

A 2023 traffic study commissioned by the city of Fort Worth noted that all four streets along our site.

Um that would be North Main Exchange, Ellis, and Northwest 25th, are all over and exceeding 100% capacity with congestion, meaning that people are continuously circling the block looking for parking.

They're illegally parking, they're double parking, they're making up parking spots.

So parking is needed.

Um, furthermore, that study, and I quote recommended improving parking utilization and leveraging parking resources specifically on the western side of the district to help reduce congestion.

It's also important to note that um upcoming there will be improvements made to North Main and in the Southbound direction, parking will be removed from the street.

So there will be less available parking on North Main.

Okay, this is a site plan and ground floor plan of the proposed garage.

The site will continue to have multiple ingress and egress points as it does today from North Main from Ellis, and we're adding a entrance from Northwest 25th Street.

As noted, um, we are within the transition district, um, surrounded by the historic district.

We are going to replace the existing buildings that are currently vacant have been vacant along Northwest 25th that cover approximately 2,000 square feet.

We will replace them and add commercial space in the northwest corner of the garage.

So you can see that in the top of the plan.

Today the site houses 55 parking spaces on that surface lot.

The garage will improve parking, approximately 245 spaces for a total of uh 300 spaces.

And the height of it is four and a half stories.

This uh this site, I know you can't see it from this.

Maybe you could see it from the photo, but it is a complicated site.

There's 10 feet of fall from the north and south and the east and west.

So it it makes a great space for a parking structure.

It would be really hard for anything other than parking to be on this site, which is why that small amount of commercial that we can add is on that northwest corner.

It truly is the only viable spot that is flat for commercial uh use.

We understand that this hearing is strictly for use and not design, but we felt it prudent to share the concept renderings, and we have three of them of what this building will look like.

The family set some pretty high expectations for us going forward before we even started to make sure that this building did not look like parking garage.

Um which is beautifully screened, but the goal was to make it not look like a parking structure to make it blend in with the historic fabric.

They have a historic building that they have taken pride in again for over 80 years.

It is on the national register, so it was important to them that the materiality of this building match.

So we are proposing brick, sucko, and wood paneling, all of which is found within the stockyards today.

Um yes, okay.

One more one more view from North Main.

And then we wanted to bring up the project schedule.

So prior to today, we did meet um the clients met with all of the neighboring buildings, mate with the neighborhood association, the Fort Worth Hispanic Chamber, um council, and we also prepared a presentation and presented to the newly formed Fort Worth Stockyards Inc.

Design Review Committee.

That committee, after our presentation, noted that they recommended approval for the conditional use permit.

Um after today with success, we plan to move forward with submitting to the UDC and BOA because as noted earlier in the workshop, we do have some waivers and some variances in order to make a parking structure work on this site.

Um we have been we have been in the news, we've been in the forums, all of the comments we have received has been successful.

Everyone knows that we need parking here.

We are hosting an open house today at five o'clock at the Spring Hill Suites in the stockyards.

Anyone is welcome to come.

We are talking about the project design.

Any questions, happy to answer them.

Okay.

Um probably no surprise, but there's no opposition here.

Um we uh certainly can open up to questions, but uh I have a feeling that uh, you know, she just said it all.

There's uh, there's any place that needs more parking in Fort Worth, it's uh it's the stockyards.

Um and if you don't know much about uh why there aren't parking garages there now, parking garages are very expensive.

Uh so kudos to the franklines for figuring it out.

Um and uh there's no doubt in my mind, and probably I would guess everyone up here would concur that when you have somebody like the Franklins with this has such a legendary business here and people that we're very involved in the community.

Uh we didn't even have to show me that rendering, and I knew they were gonna build something that matches the district, and it's looks western and it and it fits.

It's not just gonna be a big uh you know concrete structure like that.

But you know, to defend the city, this is your taxpayer dollar, so you know if we built something fancy, you probably wouldn't like it.

So uh all that said, um, does anybody have any questions or any any probably just move this along?

Trujillo, it will close a public hearing and leave it open for a vote.

I'm sorry, I'm big staff wants to say something.

Um Fort Worth Stockyards is here, and there was a letter of opposition or a letter received from them.

No, there's uh there's no one here to speak in opposition, is what I said.

You're right.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

You ready to make a motion?

Yeah, I'm ready to make a motion.

Uh for ZZ 26-054, I move for approval.

Second.

Who's that second?

Sorry, didn't he?

Is that McCoy?

Or is that who's that?

Sorry.

Okay, we have a uh motion to approve by Commissioner Trujillo 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 Warman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0, motion passes.

Next case.

CC-26-056.

This case has been withdrawn.

No action is needed, and no public hearing will be held.

Next case.

ZC-25-026.

The address is 3812 East Loop 820 South.

The applicant is East Loop 820 LLC, Leslie Ford, Ofichito.

The request is from MU1, low intensity mixed use to PDMU1, Plan Development, Low-intensity Mixed Use for neighborhood commercial drive-through restaurants and retail with all uses in MU1, excluding liquor or package store, gasoline sales, and credit access business, development standards for 55 foot maximum primary street setback, surface parking allowed between front building and the street, up to 70% of the parking lot frontage allowed along a street.

Street trees and pedestrian lighting allowed on private property frontage within five feet of the right-of-way.

Principal building entrances may not be from a public sidewalk or plaza, primary entrances may be from a parking lot.

Drive-through windows and stacking lanes allowed to be located along the facades of buildings that face a street.

Driveways may be located within the front yard setback between the building front and the street, and passenger car parking allowed in the supplemental building setback at all times of day.

Got your pamphlets.

So just to move through this really quickly, you guys have access to our site plan and everything, but I want to talk really quickly about this because I think we don't see a lot of development over off of Barrie Street, especially on the east side over here.

So what we're asking for is to retain the base MU ones outing to uphold some forms of enhancement design and to create good development.

So we are retaining things like the street trees, retaining things like the pedestrian lights.

Making sure that we can retain the um requirements for some of the better finishes on the building to make sure that we're really kind of keeping that that MU nature with asking for some concessions.

I wanted to show you this photo because this is an existing quick service restaurant in the area.

This is something that's going on right now.

It's also a combo beer, wine, lotto, and cigarette and vape store.

Um, and so that's currently what is going on in the area, and what we're trying to do is bring national brands with good QSR business, good franchisee-driven business that actually has pride, and we'll have all of the uh all of the amenities and all of the things that you would expect on a nationwide brand to come to town or to this area.

So I want to point out too the ME1 zoning does allow for drive-through restaurant use by right, so this is not a request for special use, this is a by-right use.

And we're hoping that these projects can be a catalyst for development in this area.

These are our current conditions.

So facing north on Barrie, we have the Cowboy Beer Drive through, which is currently closed and abandoned.

Um, the Great Western Inn, and then we do in front of our property have the uh 820 frontage, which is part of the new tech program, and then adjacent homes, most are zone MU1, but summer A5 and A10.

We'll get into that in a second.

Again, you'll have a copy of our site plan and a copy of our landscape plan.

So I'm gonna jump through these really quickly because we'll talk about them in a second.

So, site plan, landscape plan.

And so we did attempt some community engagement.

Um, obviously, the notices were sent out to the property owners, but something I've always heard from zoning commission and also BOA is sometimes we're not reaching the people who actually live in the homes because they may be a rental product.

So we actually went and did some um actual canvassing.

We talked to some folks that were out in their yards.

We actually talked to uh the person who lives directly behind our property, and we gave them this flyer.

So we gave them the opportunity to reach out to we gave them a link to the zoning so they could make a card.

I didn't receive anything back personally.

I don't know if y'all did or not, I haven't heard.

So that's just what we gave out.

It was an eight and a half by 11.

What's really interesting is there is some catalytic development in the area.

So this house here at the bottom is zoned A10, and it's a new development, so it's new house.

And I actually ran into the man who is building the house while I was there, and they were talking to me a little bit about how they are trying really hard to kind of bring up the neighborhood.

But what's interesting is in order to do that, they had to zone out of the MU1 and into A10, which creates a place where it doesn't make that contiguous MU1 work.

So if you see here, we've actually got two properties, A10 and A5, that are zoned out of the MU1.

So we've already broken it, it's already happened in the development.

What we're asking for is a little bit of agreement that we can continue the development without the MU1.

So we're asking for some modifications of the MU1, and I'm going to tell you the vast majority of them are caused by the fact that we have TechStot as our biggest competitor of development here.

So Techstot does have a right-of-way access all the way on Barrie Street, even though they do not own Barrie Street.

So Barrie Street is a city of Fort Worth Street, but they do have the availability to add their right-of-way all the way in front of the McDonald's property.

So whenever we were talking with them, they actually went through the process with us of trying to say, hey, we cannot put two entrances.

We cannot put this.

We cannot put an entrance right where the McDonald's is for them to have two entrances and circle around the building.

We are going to plop one entrance right there in the middle.

We're going to put our sidewalks and we're going to do the same at the properties to the south.

So we are encumbered by that.

That's our biggest encumbrance here.

I want to point out too that we are keeping the street trees and the pedestrian scale lighting on the properties.

The reason we have to ask for a variance is because we have to keep them on our property, not in the right-of-way because Text.

So we're not allowed to do that.

I have a ton more information about Text Dot, which was also in your your uh your packet, the floodplain, and then I want to talk really quickly about the Barrie Street timelines.

So currently on our site, there is some illegal dumping, including a handgun holster.

And then the current Barrie Saw Cut project, there was a man disassembling a car.

So that's what we're looking at right now.

So we are really trying to do some good development that is not funded by the city.

We're very excited about the Barrie Stallcut project, but that took a huge investment from the city of Fort Worth 4.6 million dollars.

These are private dollars to develop these properties.

So one thing I want to talk about real quick too is the Barrie Street Connector Plan.

I know this is a huge point of contention for a lot of the folks here in zoning, but the Barrie Street Connector Plan kind of doesn't mention this site at all.

There's one specific mention of this site where it says that it needs to be part of segment D, which is the US 287 to Miller Avenue segment.

They basically want the development to look the same.

That's the only place we're mentioned.

We're skipped over from mixed use recommendations and we're skipped over for focus areas for ideas for improvement.

So, really and truly what we're asking is to allow this project to be a catalyst for development.

Each McDonald's restaurant, I know I can actually attest to that, brings between 30 and 40 jobs to the area where people can walk.

We're very close to Dunbar that will allow for us to have jobs where these kids can walk and actually have those jobs during the summer after school.

And then also we're hoping we can be a catalyst for development for other developers, residents and government officials.

If we can develop these private dollars into this area, hopefully other people will follow.

I know it's not ideal.

I know that the MU is not exactly what we're putting here, but it's up against the highway, and we're doing the best that we can.

So overall, I think I'm out of time, but I just want to make sure that y'all know.

I think I'm pretty close to time.

You've got about a minute.

Yeah, so overall, I mean, really, we just want to make sure that we're acting as a catalyst for development.

McDonald's specifically is my client, and they are someone who has committed if we can get this zoning change done to come into this property.

And just some information here about things that are happening.

McDonald's did an entire economic impact analysis to the impact analysis of McDonald's on DFW.

And this is what you see here.

The GDP of the impact is 563 million dollars.

They're bringing in 4,800 new jobs.

And that's something we can bring to Barry Street.

It's something that we can do that I know at the beginning, whenever we were making this plan in 2006, it was not the intent.

The intent was for us to do a great mixed use, and it was to have walkable access.

We also didn't expect that Techstop was going to come and take right of way from all the way to the basically the street behind us.

Um, you know, at this point, the street behind us has multiple properties that have been zoned out of the MU.

And so I think right now what we can do that's best for Barry, and I got some buy-in from some people at UDC for this, and then also having spoken to our council members, this one's interesting because it's Barry Street, um, it's Deborah Peoples to the top, and then it's Jeanette Martinez where we are.

Um, and we've spoken with both of them.

And at this point, the big thing for us is that this is development that's here now.

It's development people are willing to do, and they're willing to do it with private dollars.

So we really appreciate your time, and I hope you guys are good.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Great, thank you.

Uh there is no opposition on this case, so we can go right into questions if you all have any.

What's your name?

Oh, it looks like it's in favor.

Were you speaking in opposition?

Okay.

One second.

I I thank you for raising your hand.

Uh yes, you you can come up, we'll hear from the opposition.

Hi.

Welcome.

Sorry about that.

No, no, no, it's fine.

Um, my name's Valerie Ventura.

I actually, my house is directly behind the proposed development.

And actually, no one actually went by my house to talk to me or anything like that.

Um, but I just want to start out with Fort Worth has been my home for many years.

Um, as much as I would love for it to stay an empty lot, obviously that's not gonna happen.

And I'm all for um, you know, developing the area.

Um, obviously, stop six is not a great, like, you know, neighborhood.

Um, but the concerns that I have is with these retail or you know, drive-through that is being added, it's literally touching my property.

So I'm concerned about noise, I'm concerned about lighting.

Um, obviously, the the chevron that's there in the corner.

There's, you know, questionable characters that kind of hang out there.

So I'm concerned this is gonna be the same case at my house.

Um, right now, the motel that's at the corner of my house, actually just put up a new light, and that actually goes straight into my bedroom.

So that would be my only concern is how would we need to protect us as a homeowners that are behind these properties.

Okay, thank you.

And now uh you can come up uh and rebut that.

You have two minutes if you want to come back up and speak to any of that.

Yeah, no problem.

Um, actually, so the last slide of the presentation um addresses the noise and also some of the lights.

So I don't know if we want to pull that back out, but um I'll do that real quick.

I didn't think we had opposition, so I wasn't, I didn't talk about it.

So, um so it's interesting because there is a supplemental setback for a zoning adjacency, and because we have allowed for properties that are adjacent to this property to be zoned out of the mixed use, we have now triggered the supplemental setback.

And so what we have done is non-daylight hour parking is actually prohibited and enforced by signage as shown on the site plan.

And so the signage that we do is actually the same signage that we are using at the Basswood location that we did for McDonald's.

It's right here beneath the A5.

No parking is allowed between 10 PM and 6 a.m.

This was originally approved by staff whenever we tried to figure out what to do with this supplemental setback.

And so this is what we have at that location.

It allows for there to be if there's a light problem, call code, and then they can come and they can deal with it.

They will ticket the owner, and that's how we take care of the light.

So as it pertains to the sound, which I think is also probably a concern.

Um so we actually have um some we actually have a sound study where we have the sound pressure levels, and depending upon how far you are from the speaker, the um speaker is at these decibel levels, and so uh the speakers are also equipped with for any national brand at this point adaptive uh sound technology, which during ambient hours will actually reduce the decibels, and so from the point in which these properties are engaging with these uh these quick service restaurants, the decibels will not be able to be heard is the equivalent of a whisper.

Um, and we have the sound study that shows that if we need to.

So I think that addresses both the lighting and the sound, and so those are things that we've already said yes to, and there's also a proposed six foot minimum board on board wood fits.

Okay, very good.

Um you might hang out for just a second in case there's questions.

Um commissioners, the dumpster right there.

I believe that is that a dumpster enclosure should.

Um if you'll come back up, we're gonna have some questions for you.

Could you help uh Commissioner Warman has a question about the dumpster, the location, it's right up against the house.

Is there a better location for that?

So we actually I realize now between the point in which we went to um UDC and now we've actually made a change to the site plan.

I realize we have our old site plan in here.

So we actually moved the dumpster to the um adjacency to the uh to the gas station because we wanted to make sure we were mindful of that, and so we uh moved it over um basically in the top corner of there, kind of lit us over there, and so I can send that to staff and make sure they have it.

In fact, I think staff may have it, and the one in your packet may actually be the new one.

So this is one from my old presentation from UDC.

Did you also get off the five-foot setback that's on here with the additional parking spaces?

Five foot the southwest, like the southwest corner of the the top space.

The parking spots are on top of the property lines.

Yeah, so those are actually moved out now because we don't have the dumpster there, so it re-angled that entire area.

So, whenever uh, yes, it was the staff planner Joseph and I spoke about it, that was the thing he pointed out, and we did make a change.

So I'm sorry that I have the wrong side plan there.

And we're perfectly fine to take that if we need to like as an official comment to say those things need to be moved and officially done, and then we'll just send the site plan over to staff if they don't have it.

Go ahead.

Steph, would you mind pulling up the uh site plan that's included in in our uh presentation?

So if we switch from this to our presentation and let's look at that site plan that's in it.

While you're looking that up, uh Commissioner Castro, what uh what are you thinking?

Yeah, yeah, curious to see the updated uh plan.

Yeah, so this one's not the update either.

So we'll this is not we went to um UDC on the 15th.

So we just need to get the updated one to you guys and get everything moved around.

So um we have an encumbrance over in that corner.

We're gonna have to figure out exactly where it goes if it's not already represented because we have the floodplain actually touches the property, and we're not allowed to put any dumpster enclosure in the floodplain, so we'll have to figure out where to put that in that top corner if it's not already there.

But I am pretty sure from what we've moved around that we um already addressed it whenever we talked to count to uh staff member laws.

I'm sorry that we didn't bring the right one.

Okay, hold on one moment.

Uh Chris, or can we even accept that?

Because there's nothing in our you can honestly just make it as part of your motion to uh approve to move the dumpster and remove those parking spots.

Side plan with a dumpster as she's indicated where it would be okay uh obviously you can continue the case if you want to but uh moving forward uh obviously approve a revised side plan I just turned around and go ahead yes for that um all right um other questions uh Commissioner Castro do you have any questions with regards to any additional signage uh you've mentioned that uh Mickey D's is a potential one like is there anything that's gonna be high that would lock or be in the window view of the residents in the back.

So the only signage that we're actually proposing does this have a laser at my point.

Okay so the only signage that we're actually proposing is kind of in the um lower corner of the property that's on East Loop A20.

So we are actually for any kind of higher signage we are actually more constrained and controlled by text dot because of its location next to the highway than we even are by the city standards.

And so city standards are actually not even allowed because text dot is more restrictive than the city.

And so what'll happen is there will be a shared multi-tenant probably pylon sign because it's not going to be something that um the city really y'all would approve it straight out because it's exactly what we need.

But um we also spoke with our staff member about doing um what we call a USA like a unified sign agreement to use with three properties together.

So all three of the properties would use the one sign that is whatever text dot says it can be height wise that is what will flow for all of that.

What about illuminated building signs do they face the residents?

So currently there is um there would be a McDonald's M located on the side facing the um properties to the northwest there.

So in the corner um it's tricky because I mean what we've run into is since there's zoned M U one then there's not really a lot of this is where this gets weird is because the MU1 zoning doesn't require for there to be any kind of like mitigation of that but we understand that it's actually M U1 zoning with houses.

It's not really M U1 zoning.

So all that we've got facing that right now is the single McDonald's M, but that's something we can definitely discuss if we need to I think signage is not something we bring through here but we can if it needs to be a condition that's fine.

We'll go to BOA unless we've got our new language please don't bring workers here.

Let's see uh so uh one more question uh drive through hours are we talking it closes at some point or 24 hours yeah so usually these are not 24 hours um it's not something that's being done as often as it used to in the past um it's really kind of up to the owner operator and I don't know specifically what the hours will be of this one but um I believe that in another area where we had kind of a similar adjacency we closed the dining room generally around nine or ten and then the drive through um has different hours for the weekdays and the weekends just kind of like you would see normally um and I believe I want to say it's midnight I think is what is set for Basswood, but I don't remember exactly.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Um thank you very much.

Thanks for being here at this point we'll close the public hearing and leave it up for some discussion.

So Commissioner what I was gonna ask you um I'm just curious where you're at with like during the work session I I mentioned that uh I think this is the type of stuff that you know goes uh off a highway you know that that's where you see these type things.

Um however, you know, the other side of that coin is um especially this pro this uh with the for the McDonald's is gonna be right off of uh you know buried against these houses um you know a fast food restaurant or uh you know with a fair amount of traffic I'm assuming um or they wouldn't build it there.

Uh yeah I have a little bit of concern about that.

Um and uh you know getting and the the security concern you know you put that stuff there more people are gonna be walking you know that's I mean that's not something that you know we really look at but it's certainly you could it's in my head but uh I think from a land use perspective it it makes sense obviously though have our comp plan it's not really wanting that there's a it's a tricky little site.

I'm just wondering how how you're thinking like balancing you know improving the site because certainly it could use them improvement um but also it's right up against those houses.

How are you feeling about that?

So I want to acknowledge the economic development attempt and also the renegotiation and moving the dumpster but it feels like we're trying to do a lot somewhere where it's doesn't seem feasible and we're infringing on the residents right behind there.

Um so my thoughts are still in line with the staff recommendation at this point.

Anybody else if I may add I'm extremely familiar with the area they call it area of the creek.

And they've hit multiple for you I'm talking about barbershops you just saw Louisiana Fry do have multiple businesses for fifty years in and out of the area it's on the other side of Dunbar and at Chase Bank.

So that area is not unfamiliar with commercial development of all this has been there on and off but because of the highway expansion a lot of that a lot of the businesses have left but that's been zone for commercial and commercial business have been in that area for 30 years.

Any other thoughts now that you know what commissioner castro is thinking any other comments.

Alright uh well it seems to me if we're going to if we're gonna have a motion to approve that we need to include in there all the changes they've talked about making it make it more desirable for the adjacent property owners like you know Chris mentioned uh earlier I want to maybe comment about this site plan uh since they don't have the updated one um if you are on the oh this is the updated one on the screen just kidding um we need to note how could we note that now that we have this pulled up uh it was my understanding that wasn't the updated site plan is that correct is the this one has the dumpster moved so it has the parking as the parking they said that they were going to move in the southeast if no if north is at the top of the screen then on the site at the top of their site uh on the McDonald's um I thought they said they were going to move some of that parking in the southwest corner.

Well looks like they adjusted something because it's like it's not it's like missing the property line but it's not over it.

If I if I may real quick so this was the one that was sent out in the currency notice.

So this was the one that's going forward.

So I would just confirm with the applicant that this is the most current site plan that okay we got a thumbs up this is the most current site plan.

So if I was if if there is going to be uh if this was the site plan that's included in the staff report is that correct as well because then then there doesn't need to be an amended language if this is if this is the site plan included as notated in the agenda.

And I'm sorry commissioners just give me one second to verify what was in the staff report.

I do apologize for the confusion here.

Am I remembering our conversation with the applicant correctly that the corner where it's touching the property line that was going to be adjusted when the dumpster was moved over does it still look like it's touching the property line.

It looks like it's it looks like it's kind of touching it to me, but uh I mean the staff correct me if I'm wrong, they would have that would they wouldn't be able to actually if it was actually over the property line that would happen during plating, they wouldn't let them do that, right?

I don't mean over, but see the line with the boxes, is that now showing a setback, which I don't want that should be the setback right?

It's five feet.

Yeah.

They left the utility easement only.

So there's none of what we would kind of see in a traditional setup, but I think this has been changed quite a bit because of the MU.

That's across the f face of Barrie and kind of winds down to the top two properties right there.

It's only A5 once you get to the third lot.

Oh, I touched my screen again.

So that one is A5, the one that actually has it five feet away.

I don't know if you know, and that's obviously gonna have to get approved elsewhere.

Yeah.

Um, not gonna be able to build into the setback or they would have to fix it.

I'm just not I off the top of my head, I don't know what would need to be there, Dave.

With that being A5, is it is five feet as close as they can get, or is that just kind of out of sorts for this?

It it seems peculiar that the fence is not on the on the property line, mainly in terms of a maintenance issue.

If you have uh property outside of your fence, who maintains that?

Um, but just to note they are still asking they do still need a supplemental uh setback uh development standard, which is um included in the request because they would normally not be allowed to park um any vehicles in that supplemental building setback um outside of daylight hours, but uh just of note that is um included in the request.

And to clarify on the site plan, the uh packet had the original site plan, not the site plan that you see on the screen.

So you would need to if you choose to approve it, it wouldn't need to be amended to include the the updated site plan as shown uh during we say that, Chris.

The updated site plan that we saw that was shown during the hearing?

Okay.

You hear that, Commissioner Kestra?

Sorry.

All right.

There's no more discussion.

We are Dave does uh A5 trigger at least a five-yard buffer yard because it looks like the parking goes almost directly to the fence.

Right.

They are within the supplemental building setback.

So again, there's a five foot uh buffer yard within um that's within the supplemental building setback, and here it looks like the issue is that the fence is on the wrong side of that buffer yard.

It looks like they're putting that buffer yard on the neighbors or on the residential side of the fence to maintain.

And again, it's just a peculiar layout that doesn't look like to me it's would that be because of an easement?

You typically don't have to fence out of an easement, but again, I don't know the details of the easement.

Can the easement and the buffer yard overlap, or is it have to be an addition?

The easement and the buffer yard can overlap, and and again that buffer yard is included within the supplemental building setback.

Um it's just typically that landscape buffer yard is on the business side of the fence and the fence is usually on the property line, not not five feet off the property line.

So what's dividing this is a six-foot wood fence with no space for any type of landscaping?

R as shown here um on this site plan.

Now, uh PD site plans don't have the landscape in them, but again, they're not showing the room for the five foot buffer yard there.

Thank you.

Since this is a PD, could we instead of uh site plan included like to let y'all handle that and say site plan required?

I believe so, but I'll defer to Chris on uh and and Chris the mo or the request is or the question is could the motion be site plan required to remote.

That way that staff could have a they could have a last look at it, go, Oh, you need to move this, and then we're not up here trying to figure out which.

So essentially what you're saying is that there's issue that you you'll you all are rejecting this site.

Well, I mean, as is, if the the fence is in the wrong place.

Like it's just not right.

So because if it goes to council and say side plan required, they're gonna have to come back through the zoning process and resubmit a new site plan.

The applicant address is for us.

Sure.

Yeah.

So the situation with the fence is that we do have a five foot utility easement that runs.

You can actually see it noted on the second MU property if you look on your screen.

And historically, what we've been told is that without an encroachment agreement with the city, we cannot put a fence into that.

Since we haven't gotten to the point where we can file encroachment agreements because we don't have a case to file it with, we can't put it there right now.

So then if we want to show it in the site plan where like up against the property line, we can, but then the contingency will be that we will have to seek an encroachment agreement from the city in order to do that.

In reality, how close is that the closest parking lot to that property line?

Well, so the the utility easement is five feet itself, and so there's five feet between the property line and the fence currently, and then there's probably an additional like right up on that, like an initial two feet.

So we're probably seven feet, and we're more than happy.

We can literally straighten that out and get more in between whatever we need to do to kind of keep that the distance.

So I think the actual setback requirement is only that the supplemental setback parking has to not be non-day daylight hours and cannot include the trash enclosure.

So we'll have to figure out exactly what the requirements are.

Because it again it's weird because it's like M U M U A5.

So we just have to kind of figure out how to work the two different zonings that are adjacent.

But that's not a big deal at all.

We can move it, and then we can also move the fence if you'd like, with the contingency that the approval of that fence will be contingent on the city issuing us an encroachment agreement to encroach into that utility easement.

I'm tempted to that this is your call, but uh yeah, this is the tough.

I think we're making it more complicated.

I know, yeah, that's what I'm saying.

I mean we're starting to like look at stuff that's the applicant is obviously very willing to work with when she took the woman's the opposition's name and number, and I mean Yeah, I mean my my bigger question again was you know, balancing the land use of balancing, hey, there's neighbors right there, but hey, it's also this area needs development, nothing's happening there.

Uh this is you know a lot better than what's I think the residents would love it.

Would yeah, exactly.

I think this is good, it's a good amenity for the people that live over there, and it's uh, you know, not a vacant lot anymore.

And it's it's not exactly what um, you know, is on our on our comp plan, but it's close, you know.

Um, and it's something that someone's willing to build today and start getting some stuff done.

I was just curious how you're gonna balance like I don't know why we got the weeds so much, but I mean there's a the the dumpster made a lot of sense and then uh yeah it just started looking funny.

So I guess we're uh what yeah, to make this site plan, do we still have to include the wording of with site plan required since we don't we can't have this in?

No, I think that that then because if they that's what Chris was saying.

If we say required, um they're gonna have to go back.

Uh because we'll have to get one to for council to approve, so that'll just delay things.

So um it's I mean, it's your call, but they have to provide one at some point because of the PD, correct?

Right.

Right, it's it's included.

And then I'm the the reason I'm not like so worried about exactly where this parking spot is is because they're not the I mean once they go to plating, they're not gonna allow them to build it where it can't be done.

So that's I I'm I appreciate the comments and noticing that, but I think now we're just getting too far in the weeds.

So if you I was just, yeah.

If if you like it, go for it.

If you don't, I'll go ahead and make a motion.

And for CC-25-206, I move to approve.

Okay.

Alright, we have a motion by second budget.

Uh Commissioner Castro to approve and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy.

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

Aye.

Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

Commissioner Werman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0.

Motion passes.

And before we go to the next case, just real quick for the opposition of that last case.

You mentioned some light.

Download the MyFort Worth app if you haven't already, and you can report that and take care of that.

I'll recommend doing that.

That'll help you.

And then any future issues you end up having.

Thank you for being here.

All right.

Dave?

Next case, ZC 26-057.

This is a text amendment related to Senate bills 840 and 2477.

The applicant is the City of Fort Worth.

The request is an ordinance amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance being ordinance number 21653 as amended of the City of Fort Worth codified code codified as appendix A of the Code of the City of Fort Worth 2015 by amending chapter 4 District Regulations Article 8, Section 4.803, non-residential district use table, and Article 12, Section 4.1203, form based code district use table to add mixed use residential of Chapter 218 of the Texas Local Government Code and Multifamily Residential.

Also referenced in Chapter 218 of the Texas Local Government Code as new uses and allow such uses in all commercial districts in certain form-based districts.

Amending Chapter 5 Supplemental Use Standards, Article 1, Standards for Selected Uses to add Section 5.5.159 titled Mixed Use Residential and Multifamily Residential Developments Pursuant to Chapter 218 of the Texas Local Government Code and to establish regulations and development standards consistent with Chapter 218 of the local government code concerning mixed use and multifamily residential developments and conversion of buildings to multifamily or mixed-use residential.

Amending Chapter 4, district regulations, Article 13, form-based districts, Section 4.1305, the Near South Side Development Standards and Guidelines, Section 4.1306, Camp Bowie District, Boulevard Revitalization Code, Section 4.1307, Trinity Lakes Development Code, and Section 4.1308.402, Urban Design District, Downtown, Section 4.403, Panther Island Peripheral Zone Overlay District, and 4.404, I-35 West Corridor Design Overlay District to revise the downtown urban design standards and guidelines, Panther Island Peripheral Zone Overlay Zoning Standards and Guidelines, and I-35 Development Standards and Guidelines by adding an appendix to those overlay districts standards and guidelines establishing regulations and development standards consistent with chapter 218 of the local government code concerning multifamily residential, mixed use residential, and conversion of buildings to multifamily residential or mixed use residential.

Alright, good job.

Alright, uh any questions for staff about this?

That weren't answered during the work session.

Mr.

Chairman, there's no discussion, I'd like to make a motion to approve CC 26057.

Alright, we have a motion to approve.

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

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 Warman?

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 to 0, motion passes.

Next case.

ZC-26-058.

This is also a text amendment, and the applicant is the City of Fort Worth.

The request is an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Worth, being ordinance number 21653 as amended, codified as appendix A of the Code of the City of Fort Worth, amending Chapter 4, District Regulations, Article 4 Overlay Districts, Section 4.401, Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Overlays, Subsection 4.401 C5, Procedures for Designation and Removal, and Amending Chapter 2, Review Bodies, Section 2.100, Zoning Commission, Subsection 2.100 H.

Powers and Duties to clarify that the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission is the exclusive authority for recommending historic designations or removals thereof to the city council.

Very good.

Alright, any questions for staff?

Mr.

Chairman, if there are no questions, um I'd like to move approval of ZC 260580.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Rogers.

Or sorry, not Rogers.

Um Robinson to approve this.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Chairperson Reigns.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo.

Aye.

Commissioner Welch.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds.

All right.

Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Werman.

Aye.

Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10 0, motion passes.

Alright, at this time we will adjourn.

Thank you all for uh being here.

Good night.

Doing this service for your your districts.

Thank y'all.