Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll go ahead and read our statement. Good morning and welcome to the December 17th, 2025 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth Planning Commission. 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 planning commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law. Commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and flats, streets and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom is appointed by the city council. A quorum of six of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Eight members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Mr. Jim Tidwell, the chair of the City Planning Commission. Other commissioners present today are Commissioner Kranz, Commissioner Bearden, Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Reicher, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette. Staff present today are Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, sorry about that, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Stu Brissette, Robin Stevens, and representation from FIRE. My name is Stephen Murray, interim planning manager, well, actually planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. Staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of the city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard. Today's public hearings are being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet. To achieve an orderly, timely hearing, we request that you observe the following rules and procedures. All cases, are called, applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony first for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective seven total minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara keeping time today. Whenever you come up, please clearly state your name and city prior to addressing the commission. All dialogue will only occur between the speaker and the commission. On 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. We advise that the commission's decision on plotting matters is final. Action on the 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. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes from December 3rd meeting.

If everyone's had an opportunity, excuse me, to review the minutes, are there any changes or discussion on the minutes? Can I have a motion, please?

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. Those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That's unanimous. So, first case, Mr. Parks.

Let me call it real quick. First case is FS 25295, Pearson Grove, waiver request section 31106A8, cul-de-sac serving mixed use in section 31106D2, block face length and block perimeter, Council District 3. General location is north of the Trinity River, south east of Mumpack Road and west of Rogers Road. Applicant is Sean Shanklin, Kimberly Horn, and Alex.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. So what we have before us today is a mixed-use development. Normally, our mixed-use developments have some sort of connection to the general public realm. If you take a look at this site, looking at that on the aerial there, you can clearly see that this site is isolated away from basically everything. To the north and surrounding the property is mostly Union Pacific-owned land. And specifically to the north and west of the property, that's a Union Pacific rail yard. So although it's zoned MU2, which normally requires lots of walkability and pedestrian mobility and all these things that you would normally see within a mixed-use development, they have to go with what the zoning is on the property. And the challenge is trying to make that square peg fit in our little round hole. So that's why there's so many waivers for the long block faces, the long block perimeters, and the distance between publicly accessible streets, because there's no other opportunity to extend a street or additional access to break up the distance between MOPAC and Rogers Road. This is one of those where it just kind of is what it is, and so we're just having to do what we need to do in order to make it work to move the project forward. The other issue is because this site is isolated and there's no roads for it to front on, A public access easement needs to be extended to this site. It will be coming from Rogers Road and coming into the property, and then it terminates in this location right here in a hammerhead. And because it terminates in a hammerhead, and this is one way in and one way out, that's essentially the exact definition of a cul-de-sac. cul-de-sacs per the subdivision ordinance are only intended to serve low density residential and limited public facilities in this instance this is mixed use development so that's the reason for this waiver they can't extend it through the site and back out into the rail yard to connect to mopac because union pacific doesn't want public access running through their private rail yard those two the general public running through a private rail yard kind of makes sense to me why we don't want that happening so Here we are taking an air square peg, or we'll call it their trapezoid, and sticking it in our little round hole. This has access to the Trinity River, correct, Alex? And there's a sidewalk right there. There is a trail down there, and one of the comments from transportation is to make sure there's a pedestrian connection between the development and the trail system to try and help. Integrate this into the public realm a little bit. There's no other real linkages to the public realm other than this, and then there are public access easements that will lead back to Rogers Road. That is one of the comments that transportation has provided on this in an effort to try and integrate it in the active transportation plan.

You look along the riverfront, a lot of the time buildings and stuff are facing the river because that's how they want it. So if you look along where, kind of further down the river, you'll see sites where it's fronting the river and still meeting the intent of the mixed use.

I mean, it's really an ideal location for their proposed office and retail development. looking out across the Trinity River to the Colonial. I mean, that's a pretty ideal location, not to mention the lucky 28 people, residents, that get to live in the multifamily development that's gonna come later on lot two. So it's a very, very, very unique site, and it's the only reason we have so many waivers. If it had any connectivity to any of the pedestrian realm or anything else, maybe we would have sought to try and break this up in a more traditional sense like you would see in a mixed-use development. But given its isolated nature, we just have to essentially waive our subdivision ordinance related to this development in order to make it fit. so the this is one way in one way out yes sir i'm how are we accommodating the need for shutting that down at some point so there is emergency access from the end of the public access easement that extends through and out to mopac so there will be an emergency access route that way so There will be two points of ingress and egos for emergency services, but for the general public, they only have the one way in.

And I'm assuming if they get a line break or something happens to that entrance that OPAC will accommodate whoever's...

I would imagine there's probably ways that they'll be able to get out of there. There is access there. It's just not going to... It's not going to be normal. I'm sure in emergency situations, there's always going to be a way to get out.

Is Mopac private?

No, it's a public road. But the property between the public road and their property is owned by the Union Pacific.

I just ask because if it were owned by the railroad, then there would be no control in the future of how to get this second point of access. I appreciate that. Thanks, Alex.

Yes, sir. Questions? Did you say that you guys are going to have them do an access to the trails? Is that part of their approval?

That's one of the comments that our Transportation Development Services Division has specifically requested to help conform this development to the active transportation plan. That's one of the things that they try to do is provide those pedestrian connections to trail systems when they're available. I'll let you ask the applicant. I haven't confirmed that with them to determine if that's something they're going to do. But it seems like a no-brainer. They would obviously want that connection between at least their multifamily development, if not their office development, to provide that activity opportunity.

Any other questions from staff? Is the applicant here, please?

Yes, hello, my name is Sean Shanklin, Grapevine, Texas. So, give you a quick background, civil engineer on the project with Kimley Horn, representing the owner on this development. As Alec mentioned, this is roughly a seven-acre site, so mixed-use development. We plan to plot it into two lots, as he was mentioning. We are requesting the two waivers, the first waiver being the Hammerhead turnaround at the end of the public access easement that will act as a cul-de-sac. Kind of the design intent for this is to allow vehicles to safely turn around and get back out to Rogers Road and not have to encroach onto the Union Pacific Railroad property that the emergency access easement will be based off of. We've kind of discussed this with Union Pacific, and they're okay with emergency access easement. However, public access will be limited in that area. Second waiver, I know kind of the block phase, block perimeter and the minimum distance between the public street and the site. I think the main thing this is walkability, promoting pedestrian access. Kind of one thing y'all mentioned was connecting to the trail. So we do plan to have a sidewalk and a trail connection from both developments for the mixed use kind of office commercial building as well as the future kind of apartment condo building as well. Those are kind of the two waivers discussed. Happy to answer any questions you all have, and thank you for your time.

Other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else here in support of the waiver? Weavers? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. This is in District 3, so I'll need somebody to make a motion.

Can I ask one more question before we proceed to that? What authority does the city have in, for instance, a main break in that scenario to leverage that emergency access easement to allow public to get out? Is there any, or is it just how we hope the railroad will have?

I'm going to reopen the public hearing. I'm sorry? I'm going to reopen the public hearing for that discussion. So if anybody has a... an issue or a response. Alex?

Adam, could you please respond to that? I'm not sure what happens in emergency situations where we don't have a way to get the general public out. If you had an emergency access easement that was granting you access across railroad right-of-way, would the fire department be able to leverage that to get people out that way?

Yes, we would contact the railroad and have all the rail lines shut down to get through.

So essentially, once everybody's out, it would be vacated until the regular access is restored?

Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes. Ms. Grants, does that answer your question?

It does. Thank you.

Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion, please.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve a waiver to Section 31106A8 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a mixed-use development to be served by a cul-de-sac Two, approval of a waiver to section 31106D2 to allow lots one and two to have a block face exceeding 500 feet, a block perimeter exceeding 1600 feet, and more than 1000 feet between publicly accessible streets. And three, conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve these waivers in accordance with the staff report. Any discussion on that motion? Please call the roll. Call the vote.

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Risher, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

No.

Tidwell, how do you vote?

Yes.

Neville passes.

6-2 vote, and I believe the rule is it's majority of voting, members present voting.

That motion carries.

Thank you. Next item. VA 25025.

Next case, VA 25025, vacation of a portion of McCurdy Street between East Richmond Avenue and East Arlington Avenue and vacation of an alley between McCurdy Street and East Richmond Avenue, Council District 8. General location is Northeast Arlington Avenue and south of East Richmond Avenue. Applicant is Cassandra Huggins, Dynamic Engineering Consultants.

Yes, sir. Morning, commissioners. So we have VA 25025. It's a vacation of the street right away, McCurdy Street, and then an alley right away just to the east of that. So just to give you an idea, this is a street view here of that alley. As you can see, it's an undeveloped alley, but technically still is an alley. And this is the McCurdy Street right away that they're looking to vacate in my discussions with the applicant the reasons why they're looking to do this is basically to increase some parking on their site and also create Safer access for the trucks to go in and out of that site for daily operations They own both sides of the street, correct? They do, yes. And just to show you the plat exhibits that were submitted. So when this went to DRC, we are recommending approval of city planning, or to make a recommendation to city council. Let me start over. Approval for city planning commission to make a recommendation to city council for this street and alley right-of-way. And that's what we're hoping to do today.

Any questions? Questions of staff? Thank you. Is the applicant present? Morning.

I'm Cassandra Huggins with Dynamic Engineering. I am the site civil for the project, Allen, Texas. We are requesting a vacation of McCurdy from East Richmond down to East Arlington, as well as an alley that's off of McCurdy and connects to East Richmond. The request is, as staff noted, from the property owner who owns both the east and the west side. He's here today. He operates a business called ArchFab. It's a local city of Fort Worth business that manufactures metal solutions like awning canopies, So he has facilities on both sides of McCurdy. So you imagine there's a lot of foot traffic that goes in between both as well as transporting materials on forklifts. He's had multiple experiences where people will just be going through that McCurdy Avenue and it's become safety concern for them. There will be some additional parking, but the main emphasis is safety in this case. We have coordinated with city staff. We submitted a TIA and that has been reviewed and approved by city staff. We've also coordinated with the infrastructure groups that contain infrastructure within McCurdy. From a on-course perspective, Water, City of Fort Worth Water, City of Fort Worth Storm. And we plan to dedicate easements for their infrastructure that will remain. So overall, the ArchFab owner would like to combine his facilities for operations for the safety of his staff and some additional parking as well as logistics for vendors to drop off and things like that. It is an industrial area. You'll see it's light industrial zoned with a PDU for manufacturing on the east side. So, you know, in support of combining those two uses, we'd like to request the vacation of the right-of-way and alley. And we're here if you have any questions. Again, ownership for our job is also here.

Thank you. Are there questions of the applicant? I don't see any. Is anyone here to speak in support? Anyone here to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. And this is in District 8, so I need a motion.

I'll go to a motion to recommend approval for the vacation of the McCurdy Street right of way located between lot one R block 23 and lot one block 24-A of Graham Park addition and the vacation of alley right of way located within lot one block 24-A of Graham Park addition.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second to make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the staff recommendation. Any discussion? Yes. Yes, sir.

I just want to point out, I'm looking at the aerial, and this McCurdy comes right off of the service road of 287, and then goes south, and then just south of this property is a, kind of a nice subdivision, some other housing. And so if we agree to this, then we're telling residents that they have to exit, go to another street. They almost have to go all the way over to Ash Crescent. Well, that's not even through street. They're gonna have to go all the way over to Business 287 to come down to their property. And I don't know if everybody wants to see the aerial and see the streets, but we're asking those residents to take a major detour from the freeway.

I'd like to see the aerial.

Is McCurdy Street an exit from 287? Or just accessed from the service road?

It's not an exit, it's just an access from the service road.

Just go to Google Maps.

You know what I'm talking about? That's the turn. And then because these adjacent streets are all dead end streets, we're gonna have to go all the way over to business 287 to go south of this and then come back up Roberts. You know, if all the streets in that area weren't also dead ends, I wouldn't have an issue, but we're now creating another dead end in a neighborhood that, Doesn't need more dead ends. Yeah, we're blocking access to that whole ball. So if you'll go north to the service road so we can see that. So see how it just comes off the service road. And then due south of the abandonment we're talking about, keep going south. See, we've got that subdivision there. So for those residents to access, they're gonna have to go all the way over to 287 and back because all the rest of the roads are dead ends. Okay, so they can go around that way, go around the building.

So they can access Richmond Avenue. Richmond Avenue accesses 287. Belsease Terrace is a north-south connector to Richmond and Arlington. Folks coming from the south can go to East Arlington Avenue to access 287. Should we have the applicant come speak on this?

Yeah, let's reopen the hearing. It looks like it's about a block detour.

Yeah, it's a block. You're right, I stand corrected, it's a block detour.

Yeah, and I would, I know Stu's here, as far as the transportation, we did prepare a full TIA for this project. So it was reviewed by our engineering staff as well as city engineering staff, and that was approved. I think there's a note about pedestrian connectivity, but. As far as the vehicular paths, there's alternate routes when we looked at the trip generation. And I'm sure city staff can also speak to that since there is an approval on note.

And TPW reviewed this, right?

Correct. Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

I don't know if there's a way to quantify what the traffic flow is by the public through that thoroughfare. I mean, is it a lot? Is it occasional? Is it overwhelming? There's a reason why they're applying to vacate that right away.

Yeah, from a quantification standpoint, I'd have to defer to the TIA, but I think if we think from the user, that's going and just flying down the street. That's not necessarily a volume perspective. That's an end user who's operating unsafely and that's what we're trying to avoid. It's not like there's a high traffic that's going through there. It's more so it's being used as like a drag strip right now. So from the perspective of the TIAs, quantifying that, again, city staff has approved the DIA. So from a regulation standpoint, the city felt comfortable with the amount of detour, quote, detour that would be required. But if we think about where we'd want to probably place those users, Bell's Eye Terrace is a lot better than going through an industrial use as far as keeping the traffic within the traffic uses.

So if the issue is people speeding through the, it's just one block, right? Would some sort of traffic calming measure address the issue?

I think another major aspect to it is that they own both sides and they wanna ensure that both sides of their business and combine it into one or two lots, but they want to get rid of the potential for access for folks because it's two lots, they own both sides, they wanna have it all as one combined area.

And that's one of my questions is if it remains two lots and they sell one off, then how does that impact access in the future? if they were replanting into one lot?

The access on this, if we want to pull up as far as what the ultimate plan is for the 2000 side, which is the west side, to acquire McCurdy, and that'll be one lot.

And then- Can you speak up just a little bit?

Oh, sorry. So McCurdy East and West on the 2000 side, which is the Western side, will acquire the McCurdy right-of-way, and that'll be plotted as one lot. And then the Eastern side, which is the 2100 side, will be another lot, If you look at where the access is, there's direct access from Richmond and East Arlington on the south side and the north side, and they are both actually addressed to East Richmond. So, from an addressing perspective, it's not an issue. From an access perspective, it's not an issue because the prominent drives are off of right-of-ways that will remain. It's not the main promenade for the access for this facility. So from an access perspective, let's say Western Lot is sold off. Eastern Lot still has their access north and south. It's really a connectivity for the overall operations. Staff going, forklifts going across that area with hauling larger materials. So I think from a future perspective, we're setting ourselves up for success for any potential future sale. has not been even envisioned at the time.

So they're planted into two lots and McCurdy becomes part of one lot, one of the two. Each of those lots would still have access from two different streets?

Correct, and the western lot actually has access from Belzise Terrace as well, potentially.

Thank you.

I had one quick question. Yes, so you mentioned earlier, can you point out on the diagram where the additional parking is proposed?

So it's just parking on the street. I think you probably even saw in some of the photos that there's parking on the street as it is. So the intent is really to keep McCurdy as far as just a path from east to west with the ability for staff to park on there if needed.

On the street?

Yes.

Any other questions?

I'm going to. My question is, why not just put speed bumps through there to slow people down?

Yeah, so from a safety concern, I don't know if you guys have been over here recently.

Can you speak up? I can't hear you.

Yeah, so from a safety perspective, having the ability to fence this off with the potential for Knox Box for fire access and things like that. But having that ability to actually fence off that area is very conducive to the ultimate plan for this development because then there's another security aspect as well. So from that perspective of not just including some traffic calming or traffic, you know, from a speed bump perspective, but also securing it off so nefarious acts can happen as well.

Staff was also saying that there's a desire on the part of the owner to, it's gonna be two different lots, but it's gonna be a consolidated property. It sounds like they're crossing that street a lot already. I think that's part of the reason. Other questions?

Have there been any comments received by staff from surrounding properties?

None. OK, thank you.

More questions?

So the staff, when they reviewed this application, obviously took in consideration the closing of the thoroughfare of that street and passed on that, correct?

That's correct, yeah. So when TPW reviewed it, they did not have any issues with that as it did not impact any thoroughfare streets or anything like that.

Yeah, they provided a traffic study and then it was reviewed by our staff and they found no issue.

More questions? I will again close the public hearing. We have a motion and second already on the floor for approving a recommendation of council in accordance with the staff recommendation. Is there any more discussion? Seeing none, would you call the vote please?

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Tidwell, how do you vote? Yes.

Thank you. All right, last case is OMB, Other Matters of Business, PA-25002, Swift Lots Addition, Platte Abandonment, Council District 2. General location is northeast 23rd Street, south of Exchange Avenue and west of Packers Avenue. Applicant is Brandon Middleton, Kimley Horn.

Is the applicant here, please? I'm sorry. That's okay. I'll make it brief. So this is a unique one. Plat abandonments, we've done those in the past. Not a big deal. Normally it's just a couple of lots of them replatted together. Lots of times it happens in Miravis or other places like that, and they just want to resubdivide this thing, sell one off or give one to their children or something of that nature. In this instance, this is essentially a one-off for me. In the 21 years I've been here, I've never seen this happen. The project went forward. They recorded everything. They executed a CFA for the realignment of Niles City Boulevard, which is what that has shown. The hatched area was the original alignment. The new one is what's shown on there. bearing off to the right um so when they started the project they thought that you know they were ready to move forward and then for whatever reason I don't know if it's the economy or what but the project fell through and now the developer wants their money wants their bond back well we have the city won't just relinquish or release the bond unless they unless they get rid of the unless they abandon the CFA contract. And in abandoning the CFA contract, the plat is a part of that, and so they have to abandon the plat that's associated with it. That thing that Rich mentioned that never happens, here it is. But needless to say, that's what's going on here. I have another one of these coming in January, and according to our CFA office, we have about three or four more in the queue coming up. Not sure if that's a sign of the economy or what it is, but here we are. Interesting. I do know that the property has also changed ownership since then as well.

Are there questions of staff?

I'll let you tell me. I apologize. I don't know the stock.

This one's over there near the Swift Armor building. Remember where the spaghetti warehouse was? It's kind of right behind. Right.

The barns are that reddish building to the left.

Is the applicant?

Good morning, commissioners. Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horne here in Fort Worth. I think Alex and I started at about the same time, so this is also the first PLAT abandonment I've done in 21 years. This PLAT and associated CFA was tied to a very specific higher-end multifamily project. We just missed the market. We held onto the CFA. CFA is good for two years, and we asked for a one-year extension. Now we're approaching that three-year term, and the developer for World Heritage is just not in a place to where they're willing and wanting to move forward with the project that's currently designed, so we're seeking a flat abandonment. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the Commission?

I did want to make one more point. With the abandonment, that would abandon the new alignment of the road. So the applicant is dedicating by separate instrument a road back in its original location.

Thank you. I will, if there are no more questions, I will close the public hearing and Mr. Bearden.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the vote.

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Tidwell, how do you vote?

Yes. Thank you, everyone. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. And we'll see you guys in a couple of weeks. We're adjourned.

Can I ask?

Yes, sir.

I'd like to ask everybody to keep the Moss family lifted in prayer. We lost a great legend here in Fort Worth, City Councilman Frank Moss. So let's keep that family lifted in prayer.

Thank you, Mr. Reed. I appreciate that.