All right, it's nine o'clock.

We'll go ahead and get started.

This is the July 9th, 2026 meeting of the City Plan Commission of the City of Fort Worth.

I'll turn it over to Mr.

Murray to read announcements.

Good morning, and welcome to the July 9th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth City Plan Commission.

The Commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public hearings on advertised cases.

Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the city subdivision ordinance, city plan commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law.

The Commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, street and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom are appointed by the city council.

A quorum of six members, six of the eleven members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business.

10 members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed.

See at the center of the table is Miss Caroline Kranz, the Chair of the City Plan Commission.

Other commission members present are Commissioner Beardon, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Turner, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Farda, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette.

Staff members present today are Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Ridge McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Fenya, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, Chris Dorton, and David Hood is here.

And are available on the city's website.

The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development and review committee to inform the commission and applicants on city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard today.

Today's public hearing are being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet.

All cases that are called, applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony for a total of five minutes.

Opposing testimony will follow and be giving a total of seven minutes.

The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal.

Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for presentations.

We have Barbara Soltero keeping time today.

Prior to addressing the commission, clearly state your name.

All dialogue will occur between the speaker and the commission.

Upon the chairman's initial closure of the case, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the case.

No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed.

Action on other docket items constitute a recommendation to the city council.

If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the development services department at 817 392 8027.

Thank you for your attention.

Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes for June 9th meeting.

We'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Motion from Commissioner Turner.

Second from Commissioner Johnson.

We'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Turner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farada, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Grants, how do you vote?

Abstain.

And motion pass it.

Okay.

First case, AX 26007 annexation request.

Brewer Boulevard 2.0 proposed feature commercial and mixed use development.

ETJ Tarrant County Future Council District 6.

General locations, North Corner of State Highway 114, West of Farm to Market 1187 and Chisholm Trail Parkway in Terran County.

Good morning, everybody.

Uh Leo Valence here.

Stephen said, this is annexation case AX26007.

Robo Lard 2.0.

It is adjacent to City Council District 6.

And it is a full purpose annexation, meaning that if it is approved for annexation, we'll receive all services from the city of Fort Worth.

Police fire, it'll fall under all our jurisdiction for ordinances, codes, and stuff like that.

The reason that is here is falls into one of those cases where it is a recommendation.

The recommendation, I'll let Anthony Cisnetos talk about that, but the it is here because it deviates from the future land use, meaning the proposed land uses that are going to go on to this property will be slightly different than what is in our comprehensive plan.

It's approximately a hundred and eleven acres.

It'll also include the adjacent right-of-ways of FM 1147 and Chisholm Trail.

And we are looking to go to City Council on this on September 29th.

If you notice on the first slide, it actually said target date is the 15th.

I've already discussed that change with the applicant and the property owner, which are present at this at this.

And right now I'll just hand it over to Anthony to go over the land use aspect of it.

Good morning.

Commissioner Anthony Cisneros City Manager's Office.

So the proposed use is commercial, mixed use, but also institutional.

And then in the northern part of the property where the floodplain lies, uh is actually park and open space.

So here's a map of the current future land use as it's adopted in the comprehensive plan.

Then surrounding zoning is on the right hand side.

And as you can see, currently we have the MTP that kind of bisects the property.

So that's Brewer Road.

Um in the new MTP, that'll be uh four-lane um minor arterial.

I just wanted to give you guys an idea of the proposed site plan that's been that's been attached to the application.

And here's just the schedule and just a um uh subject property boundaries.

Um so here we go to the the proposed land use change.

So right now, as it stands, um on the left you have the adopted feature land use, so it's uh proposed or we have adopted mixed use, and then we have uh significant floodplain that goes from east to west on both the north side and um part of the middle of the property, so the proposed future land use based on the site plan, it would still maintain um a lot of the mixed use character um and uses.

Um, as you can see in the red, that would be the um pretty significant land use change from mixed use to general commercial.

So we have a grocery store and then large retail, also restaurants and um office and retail.

Um, and then on the bottom or southwest portion of the property, you have um institutional, which is proposed to be uh medical facility.

Um so based on that, um, we haven't completed the fiscal impact analysis fully, but um in keeping with the mixed use character, it does uh still provide a pretty significant positive fiscal impact.

Uh so this is our recommendation.

Just to clear up maybe a little confusion on the slide.

You notice a different AX number.

This project was a resubmittal, so the previous slide showed something different.

Was the original case number and the resubmitted is updated there 26007?

Any questions for staff?

I had a couple questions.

So um the the mixed use conference of plan here.

This is kind of a big diversion.

It puts a giant parking lot in between the mixed use spaces that they're even putting on the plan, so it's that becomes not walkable for a lot of the folks there across the floodplain across the way from grocery.

I'm just wondering.

I seen a lot of other cities.

They keep the mixed use by having parking and garages up above uh retail.

You know, is there being discussion with the developer on that sort of?

Yeah, we've had significant discussions with the developer, and initially we didn't have as much mixed use.

So what we've done is uh provided kind of a mixed use component towards eleven eighty-seven and up to the northwest, and then um kind of as a uh buffer between the uh the floodplain we allowed for the general commercial.

So we're still getting a lot of the mixed use that we wanted, but we're also allowing for maybe a larger grocery store or something to that nature if they so choose.

I have a question as well.

Um, has um it may be premature.

Has any conversations been had with any of the homeowner associations that are gonna abut this plan use?

This goes to zoning commission, I think next month.

So as part of this uh annexation, they still have to go to zoning commission and they still have to go to city council.

So most of that discussion will occur at that time.

And then the applicant should be talking to their council member as well as well as part of those processes.

Um my question is is there any implications for the city by annexing a portion of the Chisholm Trail Parkway?

Are we taking on uh added expense, added responsibility, anything like that?

Not in this scenario, no, sir.

My question was similar to Commissioner Beardon's.

If we're not taking over maintenance costs for the Chisholm Trail Parkway or eleven eighty-seven from from uh Text Dot, that that swath on the on the north boundary of the proposed development that's left open, it's not um contiguous with the rest of this of this of the city.

That part does connect along the toll way, but then there's that open space that uh that separates it from the rest of the city.

Would there be any trouble connecting city services across that or there's certain protocols we have to follow because that's not part of Fort Worth that brewer's gonna cross to get to this plan development?

Ideally that area sh would be coming in, but my understanding is actually part in plans for a future Fort Worth Park.

So I believe that the city already has some jurisdiction over ownership on that, which means the city could provide on that area.

I think from uh uh annexation perspective, um we want the land to be continuous, contiguous, and we do have a portion that's contiguous that would allow for the services to be provided.

And that contiguity would be made along that little portion of uh Chisholm Trail Parkway.

Since we're talking about the contiguous, there was I know it looks like there's a section that's triangular to the north of this tract that's not uh that's still EGJ and not city.

Um I'm not sure which map I saw it on.

See here, yeah.

Let's what's it's what it looks like on the future land use map that there's that uh sort of triangular parallelogram to the northeast.

Is that indeed not city in the city of Fort Worth right now?

No, the the area that's right above the bolt blue.

Yeah, that little segment is not within the city of Fort Worth where it says medium density residential, that would be in the city of Fort Worth.

Right, so that little area between on the eastern part of the right.

And that is the area that is um, I believe is slotted for some future parks along with the area to the west and a little bit northwest.

Yes, I think it's what it says on the land plan, but the city doesn't own that tract, right?

The the larger portion to the west, no, but I believe least the east northeast.

Yeah, I I I was under impression that they did, or were trying to acquire it somehow.

Yeah, there's been a lot of talks with our parks department for that development.

Thank you.

I have a question.

If uh Commissioner Turner, is that okay?

Mr.

Turner, you know, this is your district.

Oh, how are you feeling?

What's what what's your take on this?

I think my question was answered earlier um with regard to next steps in zoning.

Um I just want to make sure that the communities that will abut this property are very much in involved in the decision making.

So as I said earlier, maybe my question was a bit premature, but I certainly wanted to be known that these communities at a butt brewer very much need to be involved in this decision making.

I don't think I don't think no, not about questions.

It uh premature, but that's what I want to know.

I'm glad you asked.

I live on brewer, and I'm I'm eagerly awaiting the the notices going out to the HOAs to to hear more about this.

It's gonna be probably a spirited discussion.

So those notices will go out um sometime soon, I would imagine there is a zoning application that was recently submitted for the August 12th zoning commission.

Okay, um I think we will um hear from our speakers on this.

Anyone here to speak on this matter?

State your name and city, please.

My name is Andrea Taylor with MMA, uh addresses 519 East Border Street, Arlington, Texas.

Here on behalf of the applicant.

Uh just to give a little background, um, Mr.

Cutler, the property owner, does own this property, it's about a hundred and eleven acres as discussed, and there is significant floodplains, so maybe about 70 acres of developable lands over 30 acres of floodplain on this property.

And it was not intended to be developed anytime soon until Texas Health Resources approached him for to buy 10 acres along pro along 1187, which is that institutional section that you saw.

And so in order to do that, has to provide city services so they can go ahead and uh build their facility there.

And so that's what has spurred this.

Um the development plan has shown is a big concept.

You know, he the property owner is generally a commercial developer, not multifamily, the land is for sale, and so ideally does want to work with the community and neighborhood on what they want to see and how does it get there?

Um but generally I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Yes, thank you.

I'm glad to see her speaking about this.

Is there already a uh a tenant for the grocery store and big box retail?

Uh not set in stone, no.

There have been several discussions with um, you know, a Walmart, uh, Lowe's, Kroger, Home Depot, all kind of the big box folks, uh, but nothing is uh signed.

So if if this were to move forward with that is still mixed use rather than the commercial, it wouldn't stop the THR development if that was institutional, which I'm great with, right?

Um, no, I don't believe so now.

Thank you.

I did see there was not a development agreement attached to this currently.

That's correct.

Okay, so um as part of the city infrastructure, this is a huge investment in city infrastructure to to make it possible for any of these things to happen.

Uh, this may also be a question for staff when this infrastructure is is put into place.

Is there any is there any threat or danger that the that it might not happen and this would be a waste of city resources to put infrastructure in this location and the development doesn't happen for whatever reason, because there's no agreement.

The infrastructure is typically developer-led, so as the developer brings in the commercial or whatever, they'll have to bring their infrastructure.

Yeah, and to add on that, you're correct.

There's about um a mile of water line that needs to be extended from the north.

That's what I mean.

And about half a mile of sewer, uh along with you know, Brewer Boulevard itself has to be extended uh to 1187, which the developer is will be responsible for.

Okay.

Yeah, that would be a concern.

I know it would come from HOAs because a lot of surrounding communities use these north-south running arteries to not have to get on the tollway.

It's a pretty expensive gate right across from the college on the tollway right there that many of us myself included try to bypass by going through side streets.

Love the idea of brewer extending.

Wish it was north, not south, but um this it could be a a huge boon to the area.

I was just wondering, you know, if there's any possibility that the development might fall through after breweries extended and the water lines are put in, the sewers put in.

That it's it's quite a ways to extend all these things down to 1187.

So the investment is not going to be a small one.

Correct.

And our and you know how we see the project being taken down, right?

We go through uh annexation zoning, we will have to preliminary plot the property, um, go through the infrastructure plan review to get the public infrastructure reviewed approved and then built, and then at that time the properties can final plot and build.

So we're still probably looking into maybe 2028 before any buildings are being built out here.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you for being here today.

Anyone else here to speak on this item?

Okay, then we will close the public hearing and entertain further discussion or a motion.

Well, I know we don't usually discuss like this, but I see this and think, okay, there's not much reason to grant the uh entitlement to the commercial from the mixed use that they have to change here.

Of course, you to meet the institutional makes perfect sense.

It's driving the development and definitely need hospital space down there for the residents in the future when there is uh an applicant that I don't know about a business that's needing to do the large grocery large retail and wants to try to ask for that large parking lot rather than what like I've seen uh HCP do on Lake Austin Boulevard off of OPAC, which was a fantastic development.

You know, the parking is underneath, there's mixed use all around it, on top of the grocery store.

Uh, and here we're kind of cutting it off uh early on in the process with annexation if we do it that way.

So I just want to state that way.

Wait, I'm not seeing any other discussion.

I just want to say, I don't know, it's it kind of seems like from what I'm looking at at the map, there's a lot of traffic that's gonna be coming into this way, and I'm only seeing aside from the toll road in 1187, and then brewer road only being like a small, what do you say?

Um medium-sized thoroughfare.

It just kind of seems like there might be another way to get in or out with bringing all the traffic in.

I don't know, I just kind of see I kind of see a gridlock there.

As part of their preliminary plat, they'll have to uh make sure they do a traffic study to show where the traffic is going and how they're going to serve all the folks coming to this development.

Madam Chairman, I I just want to clarify, and I I kind of agree with with um Commissioner Kelly and Commissioner Anderson.

Uh, you know, I think we have a vision of where we want the city to go, but in this case, we're just talking about annexation or not annexation, right?

In in it annexation, knowing that they may um have a different plan than the master plan, correct?

I think in this scenario, the whole thing was to allow for mixed use in certain portions of the overall area.

So the south uh east corner and the northwest corner would have mixed use uh zoning and for development in the future, and then that one portion would have general commercial.

So uh it's what they've provided has by no means like what exactly is gonna be on the ground, but we're setting in place, we're setting the table for what could come in the future.

I don't know if that answered your question.

Which still has to meet the hurdle of zoning, just talking about it from a land use designation at this point.

Correct.

We're looking at it from a future land use perspective.

Yeah, so Commissioner Beard and I see it as we're making a recommendation to change that future land use for the northeast corner as well as the annexation recommendation.

Even though we're not the zoning commissioner.

There's that.

There's that.

Yes, no, good.

I'd like to make a motion that um we accept staff's recommendation of AX 26007 annexation requests of Brewer Boulevard 2.0 proposed for commercial and mixed use development.

ETJ Terrent County Future Council, which is in District Six.

And I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Turner, a second from Commissioner Farda.

If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Turner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Tillett's how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

And Grant, how do you vote?

Yes.

Okay, the motion passes.

The next case that's on the agenda has been withdrawn, so we'll move over to the other matters of business number two.

OMB waiver request section 31, one fifty A1 issuance of building permit, Tarrant Regional Water District.

Good morning, Commissioners.

So this one's a uh not very unique.

It's just it's unique in its location is uh more of what I would say.

Um as you can see by the yellow boundary there, this piece of property is literally an island that sits adjacent to the Colonial Country Club.

TRWD historically has leased this piece of property to colonial for them to operate their maintenance facility on this piece of land.

They are now seeking to expand that facility and would have to get a building permit.

In order to get a building permit, they have to have the property platted.

And as you can see, it literally is an island in the middle of nowhere.

No access, no water and sewer, no nothing.

So rather than having to go through the plating gymnastics of trying to figure out how to make this a plattable piece of property, uh staff's recommendation was to them was to waive the plating requirement for the issuance of a building permit.

And so that's what we're here for.

Anyone have any questions or concerns about this?

Don't see any.

Is there anyone here to speak on this matter?

Okay.

Then we'll close the public hearing on this and entertain discussion or a motion.

Uh Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the O and B waiver on the issuance of a building permit for TRWD colonial country club making the facility.

Second.

A motion from Commissioner Henderson, a second from Commissioner Johnson.

Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Turner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Jillats, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Cronz, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right, that is our final item, so we will adjourn.