Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think we're gonna get started here. Welcome to the Zoning Commission, September 9th, 2026. I'm going to be calling this meeting into order. I'd like to, before I call it to order, I wanna just thank you all for showing up and doing your civic duty to take care of our community. Your participation is appreciated. So before we get into opening, calling the order, the meeting to order, we're going to go over approving the minutes from last month.

Welcome to the September 9th, 2026 Zoning Commission 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 October 13th 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 in support will be given a maximum total of five minutes to present their case. Opposition may then speak for a maximum total of seven minutes. At the conclusion of opposition, the applicant will be provided two minutes for rebuttal. At the conclusion of the opposition, excuse me, those that are not able to speak today are encouraged to submit comments or sign up to speak at city council. Sign ups to comment or speak at city council begin the Friday before the scheduled council hearing. Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval. All other meeting procedures will adhere to board adopted rules of procedure to the extent possible. Following the close of each case hearing, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair. A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items to enable the commission to receive advice from legal staff. For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department by calling 817-392-2222. Mr. Chair, the first order of business is roll call. The Zoning Commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting. Please be advised that it takes six members to approve a zoning case. The following members are present today. Commissioner Mayo, Commissioner Trujillo, Commissioner Welch, Commissioner McCoy, Commissioner Edmonds, Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Pierce, Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner Wurman and Commissioner Castro. We have a total of 10 out of 11 commissioners present and Mr. Chair we do have a quorum. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the previous month's minutes.

State a motion to approve the minutes.

Mr. Chairman I move approval of the minutes.

Okay. Okay, so the motion to approve the minutes was brought into a motion by Commissioner Edmonds and Commissioner Warman seconded it. I'll ask staff to go ahead.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch?

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce? Aye. Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Commissioner Wurman? Aye. And Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

With a vote of 10-0, motion carries. Next item on the agenda is ZC-26-064. The address is 1401 Alameda Street. The applicant is Taco LLC, Ray Ojeski with Kelly Hart and Hallman LLP, Zach Racoosin with Rack Equities. The request is from A5, One Family Residential and F, General Commercial to PDI plan development for all uses in iLight Industrial excluding massage parlor and tattoo parlor, site plan included.

Okay, I'll ask the applicant to address the podium.

I do want to note for the record that there are additional uses that we ask to be removed from the PD in the application that don't show up before you here today. That would be the removal of an auto auction facility and the removal of a possible data center. So back in July, the Chapel Creek Neighborhood Association held a meeting that was attended by many residents of the Highlands at Chapel Creek Development across the street from this site. At that time, the developer explained that based on the PD site plan, the development will support electricians, roofers, local suppliers, and subcontractors as opposed to large distribution companies. You'll have box trucks that will dominate over 18 wheelers due to the reduced size of the parking that is available for trucks on the site and the warehouse sizes themselves. But the primary concern we heard from residents at that time was access to the site from West Point Boulevard. And in response to that, the developer relocated the access from West Point Boulevard to Amber Ridge Drive, which is basically on the other side of the property. And as a result of that outreach, we had 10 residents who produced support emails for city staff. I should point out that the current property owner is an auto auction company, and I represented them a while back. They didn't ultimately need a zoning change because they have entitlement to do an auto auction on this site. The residents understand that. They don't want an auto auction on this site, but that's what will happen if this property isn't sold to another user. We have other speakers here today. You heard some things at the workshop with regard to the site that we'd be happy to respond to when you ask questions. But this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reserve time for Mr. Gary Hogan to speak.

Okay, we have a speaker. support of this application Please introduce yourself.

And yes, my name is Gary Hogan. I'm president of the Chapel Creek neighborhood association. I also want to tell this board that we formed the Chapel Creek neighborhood association in 1998 and our mission from the very beginning was to not just represent our neighborhood association, but the bigger community at large. And that has been our mission since 1998, to reach out to the community, to invite them to our community meetings. We always call them community meetings. And we always invited people of the city. And if we had an issue of concern at that time, Now, I first learned about this case in the first of June. And that was partly because I've told every council representative that I've ever worked for that if they hear about something coming our way, please let me know so I can help inform the community at large. And that's what happened in this case, that she informed the applicant that he needed to reach out to the community through me. And we had a July meeting coming up of our neighborhood community meeting. So I asked them to come there and present their plan and to listen to the community's concerns and so forth. And they did that. That's why they postponed their July 8th meeting to attend our meeting on July 23rd for the outreach to the community. Now they have been quite diligent working with me over all these months to address the concerns and that first concern was the biggest concern for the community was the traffic impact to West Point Boulevard which is very very congested especially during school season when Traffic to pick up their kids and so forth goes through that route. But it also is getting higher with the increased population growth that we got out there. Over the years, the one thing that people did not want to see at that location was more multifamily because of, again, the increased traffic that would bring. And when we did have that case about the auto auction, yes, we appeared in opposition to that, considering seeing big semi trucks bringing cars in and out of that auto auction all the time would have been horrific for our community. So we were glad to not see that ever happen in our community. I will say this group, RAK, has been quite responsive to the community. They have answered every question I've ever posted and I post all this information. I have a well over 150 email alert list that I have established over all these years to the community at large. and I have presented their presentation that they did for me after they changed the location of the West Point. And I believe there's gonna be an entrance on Loop 822 Frontage Road, which would take a lot of traffic from that location on West Point, which was the biggest concern. Now, when people heard about warehouses that created a lot of concern until we told them the types of businesses that this would be marketed to. And they actually saw the video presentation that I was able to share with the community. It showed what this was gonna look like and what it was gonna be marketed to. And I think after my first postings, there were about nine people that wrote the zoning commission in opposition to this. And I think the community's been educated more, and from what I hear from the community now is that they'd much rather see this development than the other potentials that could happen to that land in the future. like the auto auction trying to come back or something else that could come in there under F, zoning. There is a little piece of A that that's going to become over here near the point where that's going to be more for drainage and so forth. area below the warehouses that was at one point an overlap of an A zoning that really isn't pertinent much. It's less than an acre, I think, of the total land. But I just want to say that we've been working with this group since June. I have posted this information over 15 times next door to help inform the community about this and present their plan to the community and overall what I've been hearing from the people is that this would be a much better use than what we thought we could have in the future So according to what I'm hearing from the community, I think this is something that we should proceed with. I don't think the people want to try to fight another battle down the road for somebody that wants to come in, develop, and doesn't want to be as upfront as these people have been with the community. So I'd like to present that to you all for your consideration. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any questions from the board for the applicant?

No, I just request we be mindful of the clock.

Okay. What do we have on the clock? All right, we have three people in support. I'd like to call the first person, Jonathan Scheindler. If you're here, please come to the podium. Gary Hogan. Oh, that's Gary, okay. Brandon Middleton.

good afternoon commissioners brandon middleton with kimley horn civil engineer here in fort worth i was at the work session earlier today commissioner edmunds great question on the transition current zoning commercial allows for up to 45 feet we're trying to use the site and the topo drop that we have from the frontage road down to alta alta meta amber ridge uh So we're purposely restricting our building height to much less than 45. I think we're approximately 30 foot in height. And then we are saving all the trees along Alameda and Amber Ridge. Just to reiterate what Gary said, very loud and clear, the neighborhood was concerned about traffic on West Point. Our main entrance is going to be on the frontage road. That's where all of our signage is going to be. This is going to be a single lot addressed off of the frontage road. And then our additional connection is to a arterial roadway. And if there needs to be any improvements to that road, we're happy to do that as part of our traffic study. I'm here to answer any questions you have.

I don't know if you can do anything about it, but one problem that the staff pointed out in their report was the line of sight that the topography of the lot is going to put whatever is developed on there within a clear line of sight of the residential area. Any comments on that?

Yes, sir. In the work session, it noted residential on the north and the west side. Just a point of clarification, on the north side is high density multifamily zoning along with commercial. And then we've site planned around the trees on Alameda. Our intent is to use the trees and it's if you look at an aerial. It's pretty dense along that corridor keeping as many of those as we can to alleviate that view corridor We can't change the topo across the site I would say any commercial use You know would would have similar problems as we have. So we're trying to site plan and accommodate a challenging site from a topical standpoint.

I think we have some time. Go ahead and ask your question.

Again, in my study of this project, to address that concern about the sight line, I'm also on the West Point Chapel Creek Citizens on Patrol. So to appease some of those concerns about that neighborhood that's right across on the west side of Alameda, I drove up and down those streets, and at the very highest point within the neighborhood, you can just barely see over that treetop. The lower end of the spectrum, you can't see past those trees at all. So I think the sightline impact to the adjacent neighborhood would be fairly minimal. from those homes that are on the higher parts of like, I think it's High Ridge Court and all those other streets that run up the hill from that location to the highest points. It would be away from the development. So the tree line buffer that is in place is an asset. Thank you.

Okay, are there any opposition to this applicant? Any questions from the board, the commission of this applicant? Okay, at this time, I'm gonna close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion, but I want to ask the commissioners, my fellow commissioners, if you have any thoughts on this, because the staff has recommended for denial, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

How do we recommend that that tree line stays in place? Because, I mean, nothing guarantees that they don't go in and just clear cut the whole thing and do what they want, based on what they're approved to zone for. And that's kind of a challenge we see with a lot of these warehouses going in, is they just go in, clear cut everything, pay the fines after the fact, and that land is now leveled. That's my only concern.

I agree.

So your point is that you think the mitigation of the trees will be sufficient to cut the sight line? going to leave the trees on the on the way.

I mean, they can tell us they're going to leave the trees, but there's nothing requiring them to based on the zoning that gets approved.

Right.

So then, you know, they say they're going to keep the trees next thing you know, they're all gone and neighbors are like, what's going on?

I have a question for the applicant. Sorry, Ray. I apologize if you mentioned this two weeks ago or whenever it was we saw you last. Is it possible for the access to be up to the north instead of right adjacent the residential, like the single family?

So we have to have two points of access for this site. Unfortunately, Jacob, and so here we are definitely utilizing what is on the north side, you know, which is that access road up there, but we had to come from either West Point or Amber Ridge, and obviously they didn't want West Point, so we've tried to locate it at the best opposite spot we can.

I just don't understand how that's a better spot down there at

And I will tell you, that's what we heard unequivocally from just about everybody that was at the workshop. We heard that unequivocally. And it's primarily, I think, because these folks out of Chapel Creek use West Point Boulevard to get to the access road, to get to I-30. Is that pretty much it? Okay. Yeah, I appreciate it.

Yeah, it just, it doesn't, I mean, I don't know the area all that well, but it seems like that's prohibitive to getting the trucks out of the neighborhood and getting them to move around. And it's on a much smaller, less, I don't know. It just, it seems like it's not what we would normally see from you guys to make things easier.

Yeah, let me let my engineer,

Commissioner, that was our original thought. Also, we had our single access point on West Point on the north side. What was communicated to us during drop off and pick up for schools, it's just really busy queues up on West Point. The restriction point is on the TxDOT right-of-way. So until TxDOT improves the bridge that goes over 820, that's the restriction point. So our original request was going to be to make improvements to West Point and have that as our drive. loud and clear we heard at the neighborhood, and we had probably 100 people in attendance, we will not support any access on West Point because of the restriction of the bridge and the queuing that occurs there. later, 10 years from now, you know, like when TxDOT improves that, we would also like a connection at that point, and we'll have to come back because as part of this PD site plan, you'll have jurisdiction to make that approval if you choose to do so. Yeah, 10 years is awfully optimistic, though.

I appreciate that positivity in the meeting today. All right. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it.

We might also mention that the tree line is on the site plan, so we are bound on the site plan to keep that tree line in place, Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, I have a motion on ZC26064. I think that the applicants made a good faith effort to try to overcome the problems of this site.

It's unfortunate that we can't have a transition

zoning transition to the residential side. But given the fact that the topography and the testimony from the neighborhood association and a lack of opposition, I'd like to make a motion that we approve.

Second. All right, given the fact that we do not have a second on that, this motion in the case of ZC26064 dies on the floor.

We can make a substitute motion, right, with no second?

If the primary motion fails, there needs to be some type of motion because it just failed. It wasn't denied, so there needs to be a motion.

So for ZC26-064, I move for denial. Second.

Okay. We have Commissioner McCoy stating a motion and second by, I believe, Commissioner Welch. Motion was made by Commissioner Worman. Mr. Chair. Motion is to deny ZC26-064.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce? Aye. Commissioner Rogers? Aye.

Commissioner Wurman? Aye. And Commissioner Castro? Aye.

With a vote of 10-0, zoning commission recommends denial of ZC-26-064. Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-071. The address is 1297 to 1309 Odds, Cantrell-Sampson Road. The applicant is MC and Janet Brister. Hopewell Development II, LP, Emily Horne and Associates, Brandon Middleton. The request is from F, General Commercial and K, Heavy Industrial to PDF. Plan development for all uses in F, general commercial, plus assembly of pre-manufactured parts except for vehicles, trailers, airplanes, or mobile homes, bottling works, milk or soft drinks, food processing with no slaughtering, furniture or cabinet repair or construction, machine shops, monument, marble works, finishing and carving only, monument works, stone, sheet metal shop, warehouse or bulk storage, and wholesale office or sample room, site plan included. Welcome to the zoning commission. Please introduce your name and again, you have five minutes.

Tommy Mann with Winstead representing the applicant. And we have a presentation that I think may be loaded for you. One second. Here we go. Sorry for the red mark. If I knew how to erase that, I would. Okay. Thank you for bearing with us for a couple of meetings as we've worked to refine this request. That was for two reasons. One was to address staff concerns with approaching this as a straight zoning request. It's now a PD of the site plan. The next was to go meet with the neighbors who had showed up at the last meeting with questions. And so we've completed both of those. And we're happy to present the request to you today. First, just starting with an aerial to orient you and point out a couple of important things. Existing heavier industrial development surrounds the site on three sides. Actually, the property to the west is in Blue Mount in another city and developed for industrial. From that perspective, an industrial type use makes some sense, but of course, there are existing homes to the north and to the east. That certainly calls for something less intense than a traditional or heavier industrial type execution for the site. The existing zoning of the site reflects some of this same tension. Actually, a portion of it is zoned K. heavy industrial today but the remainder is owned f general commercial and so here is how we're proposing to develop it as a pd for f general commercial plus those additional uses but it is essentially as a flex industrial or office park type development in which all the activities of the tenants is contained with inside the buildings themselves these types of projects are Distinguishable from traditional heavier industrial in the sense that the buildings are much smaller. The tenants have a larger percentage of office or showroom type space. The trucks are generally smaller. The amount of traffic and the patterns are lesser than you would see in a larger in traditional warehouse development. You can see on this plan. We've done some important things. We've pulled the two buildings as far. away from the neighborhood as we can, resulting in a separation of several hundred feet on the other side of an existing creek, which has a substantial existing tree buffer to separate our uses. And all of the access comes off Cantrell-Samson to the south. And with the development, if it proceeds, we would be dedicating substantial right of way for improvement of Cantrell-Samson to have additional lanes and match the existing sections to the east. This is just a colored up view so you can get a sense of that existing tree canopy in the creek from an aerial perspective and how we've separated the project from it. These are actual shots on the ground to give you a sense of how those trees exist today. And again, we're not touching any of them, but they certainly form a meaningful helpful existing buffer in our project of the neighborhood so I handed out to you some 40 foot sections which is the height we're proposing and our architects drew on there you can compare those to these at 45 and so this is what the existing zoning allows what you have in your hands is where we are and what you'll see is that our 40 feet high with this separation A large portion of the buildings are covered by the existing trees in very minimal places where they pop slightly above, which adds, we think, to the important separation between the two uses. The truck routes to the site, again, entirely from Cantrell-Samson. We think the combination of all these factors, the feedback we've received from staff, and just the reality of this site with what exists around it, how it's zoned today, The natural buffer is that this use does strike a balance between the heavier uses in the area and what is realistic for a cohesive development of this site. For that reason, we would request your support, and our design and development team is here to answer any specific questions that you have. Thank you.

Okay, are there any questions?

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay, so we're gonna go into the speakers that are in support of this. Wait, let me see. There are no speakers in support. Is there any opposition to ZZ26-071? Okay. Are there any questions of the commission?

So for ZZ26-071, I move motion for approval.

Second.

Okay. So in the case of ZZ26-071, Commissioner Trejo has called a motion and it was seconded by Commissioner McCoy. Roll call. Executive Secretary, roll call, please.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner McCoy. Aye. Commissioner Edmunds. Aye. Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Rogers. Aye. Commissioner Wurman.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

With a vote of 10-0, motion carries. Next case on the agenda is ZC-26-084. The address is 2800 Cleburne Road. The applicant is FW Triple Net No. 2, 8th Avenue, LLC. Quick Trip, Ben Williams, and Westwood Professional Services, and Jonathan Schindler. The request is to add a conditional use permit in E Neighborhood Commercial for an automated car wash, site plan included.

So is the applicant present for ZZ26084? Okay.

I'm Ben Williams. I'm the real estate project manager for this site. We have a presentation. So last meeting, I asked for continuance due to the feedback that we've gotten from the neighbors. We wanted to take another look at our site plan and make sure that we're covering all of our bases, that there's nothing else that we can do on our end to make it more appealing to the neighborhood that's nearby to the west of us and to the east of us. With that, we did make some small site plan changes as well as had a sound study that was conducted. Here's a few different site perspectives. just showing how it's laid out on the property. There's that building elevation. And this is our latest site plan. So since the last time we were here, we've added a few more trees along that western property line where we are closest to the residential. We also added some trees in the northwest corner on the top right of the screen. And that was all in an effort to help with buffering. We're happy to add more trees if that is what's needed here. The problem is there's several easements and that we would need approval from the city to do so. We've also added a masonry screening wall at the end of the tunnel. It's kind of hard to see on here, but there's a little call out at the right side of that tunnel. Adding that masonry wall helped direct the noise a little bit further away from the residential and projects it more into the commercial sites kind of across the street. Being environmentally friendly is something that we're very conscious of. All of our locations do have a water reclamation system. We save about 80% of the water that is used. We're only using about 14 to 22 gallons per vehicle, and to put that in comparison, the average homeowner that watches their vehicle in their driveway, it's about 116 gallons, and that's just a 20-minute period of There's been a lot of concern about noise, as I've already kind of mentioned, but a couple things to note. The blowers don't stay on for the duration of the workday, only when vehicles are coming through. We close when the sun goes down, so our hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. We enclose our equipment, the dryers, compressors, and pumps, they're all inside the building, further reducing noise pollution. And then for this location, one other change that we made was when we opened that tunnel door, the exit door, we're gonna limit it to only be raised at 10 feet. What that does is gonna shield the blowers. It'll sit right in front of those blowers, so that way it's helping further reduce. According to the sound study that we had done, that reduced about three to five more decibels on top of what we were already showing. This is probably a little bit tough to read here, but the sound study that we did do, basically they took worst case scenarios, they put five sound receptors around the sites, and what they found was that all of the receptors are within the city of Fort Worth's noise ordinance. The closest invariance to the ordinance was just under by three decibels. And they put this heat map together They put this heat mat together for us to kind of model what that sound level looks like. So as you can see that receptor number two on the northwest corner, one thing to note there is that's not entirely accurate. This aerial that the company used doing the sound study, they did not take into account the residential that is currently being built there. So they can't really model something that's not there today. However, one thing to note is that there's going to be a fence there that will match the apartments to the south. So that will further reduce the sound that this is showing today. But as you can see, our highest level was the 69 on the number one on the top right of the page. For commercial, we're allowed 80 decibels and residential is 70. So all of our receptors were well within those limits. Happy to answer any questions.

okay no questions from the commission there are two people that are supporting this application i'd like to ask corey vaughn and also uh james lawless if i'm pronouncing your name correctly sir to approach the podium and please uh speak your name and speak clearly and keep all your comments should be addressed to the hearing body and should be relevant to the application

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Corey Vaughn, 8700 Freeport Parkway, Irving, Texas. I'm a real estate project manager for Quick Trip. I'm here to speak in support of the car washes, and I've also developed a couple in development in the city of Fort Worth, and I'm basically just here to answer any questions if you need it.

Good afternoon. My name is James Lawless. I'm our Community Affairs Coordinator here for the Dallas-Fort Worth Market. I'm here to speak in support of the car wash and kind of give you a little bit of an idea of what my role is here in this market. I serve as the liaison for culture between local nonprofits, organizations, law enforcement agencies, and communities that we serve to build strong, impactful relationships. Since 1958, Kutcher has believed that being a good neighbor means more than providing a job, quality service, and a convenient place to fill up your car. It also means giving back. Throughout our almost 70 year history, we've donated 5% of our annual net profits to organizations where our employees live and work, focused on investing in our communities and public safety initiatives, such as partnering with homeless street outreach teams and supporting our local law enforcement agencies. The biggest thing I hope that you take away is that Quitrip doesn't just build stores. We build careers for our employees and we invest in our communities. Thank you.

Chairman, I do have a question of the original gentleman. Yes, if you can make your way back to the podium, please. I noted that there were over 100 letters of support. Can you talk to me about that? How did that happen?

So we reached out to one of our local quick trips just to the north of this site, about two miles to the north. We basically kind of educated the store team on what we're trying to do. They're not necessarily in the know on this type of stuff on the development side. So let them know that we're trying to get a car wash zoned. We provided a site plan with some letters for them to put out on the counters and talk to the customers as they come in. We did get 102 letters in support. One thing to note is that not all 102 were from Fort Worth. We understood that, but we thought it was still important to include them as it shows the support from the community. Whether they live here or not, I would say about 75% of our letters were from Fort Worth. And I didn't go through every single address, but the ones that I did look up were within maybe three to five mile range. So they may not be from these specific neighborhoods that may be affected, but they are members of this community.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from the commission? Okay, we have two people signed up to oppose this. I'd like to call up Anita Horky and Dustin Massey. You have seven minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Anita Horky and I'm president of the Paschall Neighborhood Association. We ask you to deny the conditional use permit for the proposed car wash at Canty Street and Cleburne Road in our neighborhood. I've asked city staff to show a photo Sometimes when we see things from a pedestrian perspective or an oversight or an aerial, it's a little bit different. But this photo shows the car wash site. It's on the right. It's the concrete. There's a curb down the middle. So the car wash site's on the right where there's concrete in that building, which originally was a Luby's. You can see then if you go to the left, which is toward the west, and again, I'm sorry, I didn't mention I'm facing north here. If you go to the left, there's a railroad track. On the opposite side of that, to the left, is some of the northern buildings of the Addison Townhome complex. You can see that their second and third stories extend over their masonry wall. There's a white building in the background there. That is the southernmost point of a brand-new facility called M25 on the rail. It's townhomes. It's a block long. You can't see how long it is there, but it's a block long, and occupancy began in August. So we have a lot more traffic on Stanley Avenue now. This is all very close to the car wash site, which, again, you can see here on the right. We are not opposing redevelopment of this property, the convenience store, or gasoline sales. Our concern is specifically whether a car wash located here is compatible with the nearby residential properties. We think it is not. Quit Trip has now provided a site-specific noise study, And we acknowledge that it concludes that the project remains below the city's daytime residential noise limit. The highest project only noise level predicted at a residential sound receptor is 60 decibels, excuse me, 66 decibels. But the same study predicts something else that we think is important when considering compatibility. At two residential sound receptor locations, the study predicts that the project will increase the existing noise environment by approximately nine and 11 decibels. The consultant's own report explains that a five decimal change is readily perceptible and a 10 decibel change is perceived as approximately twice as loud. The question for this cup is not simply whether the project stays below a maximum sound limit, a decimal limit. The question is whether that level of increase is compatible with the nearby residential environment. Traffic also remains a concern. The traffic impact analysis gives the overall Canty Street and 8th Avenue intersection a level of service C under build conditions. But its movement level analysis shows the westbound Canty approach reaching level of service F with more than 100 seconds of delay during the AM build condition. QuickTrip's own materials state that its car washes can process more than 100 vehicles an hour. We think the Commission should also be satisfied that the proposed car wash site can safely contain that level of activity without creating additional circulation or stacking problems. Commissioners, we support responsible redevelopment, but meeting minimum development standards is not the same as demonstrating compatibility for a discretionary cup. Based on the applicant's own studies, we do not believe that compatibility has been demonstrated at this location. For these reasons, we respectfully ask you to deny the cup. Thank you.

good afternoon council members uh thank you for the time today my name is dustin massey i own a home at the addison town homes as well as help with and serve on the hoa community i'm here for our president caitlyn hein who couldn't make it today our other members of the hoa including our president who spoke at the last zoning meeting have attended previous community meetings and zoom calls as far back as february with qt regarding the cup and sharing our concerns since the last meeting where 23 letters of opposition were shared, our direct community nor HOA received any communication from QT until they sent over an email with their updated plans as of 313 p.m. yesterday. This gave our neighborhood less than 24 hours to review. And although the additional landscaping and masonry and trees may beautify the project, it will not change the significant noise produced by the large scale tunnel in the video I will be sharing shortly. There was also no request for community collaboration from QT. We're a community of 36 individually owned townhomes zoned UR, but function like single family. We have over 100 residents that are directly adjacent to the CUP that will be impacted daily with the 13 hours of extreme noise. Our concern is the huge number of cars that will be serviced and how this study will downgrade the level of service C to F in some areas. Directly from QT's presentation, they are anticipating washing 100 plus cars an hour, which is a car every 36 seconds. The blowers and machinery to run the car wash will be incessant while We appreciate the sound study conducted. We've also had the ability to experience the QT car wash on 28th Street. This is a large-scale building with operating systems that are higher than our privacy fence, which you could see that wall behind the townhomes. Additionally, the bedrooms and living areas of the Addison townhomes are on the second and third floors, well above the fence line. Our daily living and sleeping will be directly changed with this excessive noise as well as light pollution. There are two areas from the sound study that predict noise. While we do have a train that is loud at times, as you can see the tracks, it's for two to three minutes once or twice a day, sometimes not at all, which in short is nothing compared to the nonstop hours of the car wash. Our last meeting, our HOA president shared a video of the noise coming from the QT on 28th. This would be the noise our 100 neighbors would hear 13 hours a day from less than 150 feet from our doors. It would be helpful if I could get that to work. Distance from the exit does not seem to change the noise levels much. We cannot imagine the sound outside of the front doors of our home from sunup to sundown. There's also three other car washes less than half a mile away. We're in support of the development, but believe that the space is not compatible with our car wash CUP and it has been demonstrated by the applicant that it will not jeopardize the direct quality of life for over 100 residents across the pascal neighborhood we respectfully ask the zoning department related city officials deny the cup and preserve the quality integrity of our neighborhood and maintain responsible growth I also would imagine there's not a single letter of support from anybody you can see on the west side of that picture where we all live thank you

Thank you. Good use of time. You had 14 seconds left. Are there, I guess, two minutes for the rebuttal with the applicant. I'd like to call the applicant back up and address any of the concerns that were stated.

Can we ask a question? Oh, a question. Should I wait? Can I ask? I was just curious, the two, Paschal Neighborhood and the other gentleman that spoke, so did you say that the applicant had not met with you all at all? And then my second question, too, is are you all, obviously you're speaking on behalf of your membership, but have you also consulted with the Frisco Railroad and Frisco Heights and the other, I forgot what the third neighborhood association is in that little neighborhood?

Again, I'm Anita Horky with the Paschal Neighborhood, and our eastern boundary is the east side of Forest Park. So Forest, Frisco Heights, I think is what you referred to. Yeah, and Frisco Railroad. So we first started meeting with QTV, reached out to us in February. So that was one meeting with executive level leaders from Ryan Place Improvement Association, the Addison Town Homes, and the Paschal Neighborhood. Frisco Heights was not included.

It's Frisco Railroad, which is like Wayside Avenue, Frazier.

I'm not familiar. That may be south of here. I'm not familiar with that neighborhood association. Okay. And we're north of Barry, so I'm not sure where that is, but it's not here. And then what Dustin was referring to, so at our last zoning commission hearing, the applicant requested a continuance of 30 days. On, I think it was August 21st, I called Ben Williams with QT to say, What happens now? And he said he was looking at revising the site plan and doing a sound study. And I said, do you need anything from the Paschal neighborhood? And he said no. And that's what I heard between last meeting and this meeting until yesterday when we got the email with the revised or edited site plan and sound study. Thank you. We've been meeting since February.

Hey, I got a question, though. So to the applicant.

so applicant uh so when you did the sound study did you reach back out to the neighborhood to release that study to them so that was a little bit last minute we just got it back late last week and with the holiday it was a little bit late i i agree with that we have been trying to share as much information as we can through the development the fact that we said we didn't try to reach back out to them and meet with them is is not true i actually reached out to anita for a third meeting and i was denied So the effort has been made on the Quick Trip side to meet with them. When we learned that there was 23 letters in opposition, before we made the call to actually table the item, I reached out and tried to get another meeting where again, I was denied. A few other points. I don't have that picture that was shared just now, but one thing to note is that we have a 20-foot landscape buffer, and we're over 50 feet away from that railway. So the building is actually, our building is gonna be further away than the existing dentist office that's there. We do have some presentation material that says that we can handle up to 100 or plus cars per hour. That is up to, that is best case scenario. That is not what we're expecting in this situation. That's just showing our ability and how much volume we can run. Again, this is not expected at this location. There was a comment about the TIA. We have kicked off the TIA. We do have that in our hands. We have not submitted to the city yet, but we plan to submit that to the city and whatever feedback comes from that or whatever requirements come from that, we're happy to meet those requirements. That's routine for us for every single site. We have to run a TIA and usually we'll have to add some improvements around the site. There was also a video that was allowed to be shared that wasn't, I guess he didn't share it just now, from another location where they took a decibel reader, and I can't recall the exact number, but I want to say it was over 85 decibels. So they took a decibel reader just like this and stood out there and admitted it's the busiest, loudest highway of I-35 and 28th Street. Doing that, it doesn't accurately take your decibel reading. Right now, this is spiking anywhere from 60 to about 88, just with me speaking. You have to take into account ambient noise for that site. When we got the sound study done, what they can do is isolate how that equipment performs. They will take ambient readings of that site, and they will use software to kind of predict and put this model together. So just simply taking a decibel reader is not an accurate representation of it. along with highway noise, wind noise, any other passing traffic. I mean, all those things have to be included in studies like this. I'm happy to answer any other further questions.

What's the level of error on these readings that are modeled?

I'm sorry.

You have some readings, your decibel readings, but how accurate are those? Is it within three decibels?

I believe that that was the range is one to three decibels, according to the MD acoustics representative that I discussed this with.

So one that's showing near these townhomes at 65, that could be 68. Potentially, potentially. And then the noise ordinance says 70. So 68, 69 is okay. 70 would be too much. You have one that's 69 that would possibly be over the noise ordinance.

You're talking about number one on the heat map?

Yes, sir.

That would be commercial, so we'd be allowed up to 80. Okay. Thank you.

And this is from City Legal. I just want to remind the Commission itself is that the noise ordinance is outside of the actual zoning ordinance. So for purposes of the Zoning Commission and their authority on regulating sound itself, it's limited to setbacks, height, landscaping, or whatnot. With regards to the decibel levels or anything like that, that is not within the purview of the Zoning Commission. So I do want to remind the Commission to not delve too much into the details of a sound study where the zoning commission doesn't have any authority to regulate the sound itself. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris, for that clarification. Are there any more questions for the applicant?

Just one question. One of the pictures that we saw today in the testimony was the height of the adjacent HOA three-story units and their height above the fence level. And the testimony was that bedrooms in those units were in the top two levels, which, just by any imagination, means that the line of sight and the sound would be traveling above the fence level. Any comments on that?

There will be some sound. I mean, we can't get around that. We purposely positioned the site plan as it is today with the tunnel facing north and south to direct that sound away from the residential. We're currently showing an eight-foot double-sided wooden fence. We're happy to increase that to if we could do a 10-foot or a masonry wall or the combination of the two. add more landscaping. There's only so much we can do about the vertical path of that noise, but that was purposeful the way we built the site plan was to try to get around that the best we could with facing the exit towards commercial and away from the residential.

Any other questions from the commission? Okay, at this time, I'd like to close the public hearing on ZZ26-084 and call for a motion or continued discussion. I'm prepared to make a motion, but I'm certainly open to hearing any reservations from my fellow commissioners.

I got one. I mean, he waited to the last minute. We gave him a 30-day continuous, and they just now given out. The study, the sound study at the last minute, even though we cannot talk about that, I understand that, but he promised the neighborhood he would work with them, and he waited until the last minute to give it to them. We gave you enough time to get this done.

Anybody else? Judge, I'm concerned about the proximity to those homes, and as mentioned, the line of sight. Just noise radiates out. And I see that as just being a disturbance to the people who live there.

I concur.

There's a little bit of an issue, I think, in that there's industrial on both or on the west side of those townhomes that we're talking about. It's already there. Light industrial zoning.

Yeah, but it's become all event centers. Right. Restaurants and bars.

These are more or less built on an infill lot next to a train track, next to a busy street, next to a neighborhood commercial center that existed before the townhouses were even developed. A piece of that, I think, does need to creep into the discussion. It's urban residential. Get more urban residential than having noise near you. That's the whole... know urban point you're just going to hear ambient noise all the time um you know looking at the site too it's not just a car wash right i'm sure there's another piece behind it um and there's more development i would assume coming through all these parking lots that are right there there's the need for more neighborhood commercial space and things like this exist but when it's put into a space or you're dropping residential into a space that is already a center that's working, it's hard for me to say, no, we can't continue in that process. Because we're doing it the reverse in other areas in the city too, over the last several years where we don't want to just drop industrial into our residential space to fill the gap. There's enough, at least to me, enough of a setback from the railroad tracks, from the property lines for it to make sense. It's not ideal. I accept that. I know it's noisier than what people preferred. But that was built there with the knowledge that there's going to be some sort of residential, or not residential, but commercial development happening back over here, up to and including car washes, banks, grocery stores, if they get the zoning for that.

The lot is zoned for E, and they need a conditional use permit to put a car wash. It's not allowed by right. Correct. But it was allowed by right when it was- So the people that bought those townhomes or built those townhomes, they were there now. You made the point that these industrial buildings were for that, so everything cascades upon each other and the people who built those and bought those understood this lot as being E, which would be more preferential to a car wash, in my opinion, which is not allowed by right.

But in 2020, you could put a car wash there without needing the CUP. That was an ordinance change that we all made to put things, to make it harder to put them close. But the buffer of the railroad track is a big piece. I know there's a distance that we have to follow, but the railroad track itself a big enough piece that's it's a breaker for me it's like crossing a street where we did a gas station case on avondale has it last month near one of the cases we're doing today it's across the street from residential and we were told that it shouldn't matter what's across that street i do disagree i'm extremely familiar with this neighborhood and that railroad track is

It's not wide. It's not elevated. It's not valley. It's flat. It's a very high traffic area. I also don't think the support letters, 102 support letters, are reliable, just considering they're from all over and not from the actual neighbor, the people who are directly impacted by this. I just don't think that this is the highest and best use.

Okay, I think I know where this is gonna go and I'm gonna make the motion anyway. ZC26084, I move approval. Second.

We have a motion and a second for approval. Motion by Commissioner Rogers, second by Commissioner Worman. Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch?

Nay.

Commissioner McCoy?

Nay.

Commissioner Edmonds? Nay. Commissioner Robinson?

Nay.

Commissioner Pierce? Approve. Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Wurman? Aye. And Commissioner Castro?

Nay.

Give me a moment to tally up the votes there with a vote of five to five. Motion fails. Let me ask legal here, do we, we don't need to? Next item. All right. Next item on the agenda is ZC-26-119. The address is 6345 Alta Mesa Boulevard. Applicant is Kettleman's Bank, 4C Engineers, John Hamilton. The request is to amend PD. 1063, which is a PDG with a development standard to allow an accessory structure in front of the building, site plan included. And if the applicant is present today, you can come up and address the commission. You may need to use the center one there. That mic may be off, and if you'll just introduce your name or state your name before you speak.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the zoning commission.

My name's John Hamilton with 4C Engineers. We're representing Cattlemen's Bank. One thing I do want to say is the zoning staff has been very helpful in this process, getting us to this point. But this request is for a screening in front of the front building line with respect to Bryant-Irvin Road. We are behind the front building line of Alta Mesa Boulevard. Excuse me. of Alta Mesa Boulevard. If you have any questions, I'm happy to field them.

Any questions from the commission? Okay, we don't have any questions and we don't have any opposition signed up. So I guess I'm going to close this public hearing and Commissioner Robinson to make a motion or continued discussion.

Any continued discussion? No? Very good. I motion that ZC26-11 approved. Second. Thank you.

Okay. We got a motion for ZC 26-119 from Commissioner Robinson and also seconded by Commissioner Rogers.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo. Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner McCoy. Aye. Commissioner Edmonds. Aye. Commissioner Robinson.

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce. Aye. Commissioner Rogers. Aye. Commissioner Wurman. Aye. And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of ten zero motion carries. Next item on the agenda ZC dash two six dash zero nine one. The address is five one zero zero Hazel Avenue. The applicant is fifty fifty Hazel Lab storage LLC Brian Sullivan and Karen Tellez. The request is from E neighborhood commercial to PDE plan development for all uses in the neighborhood commercial plus many warehouses, warehouses and outdoor storage site plan included.

Welcome to the zoning commission. Please speak directly into the mic.

My name is Karen Telles with District 1 Studio and I am the applicant for the owner of the property. And we have a printed presentation. So the first page. It's the revised site plan. It's not the site plan that was shown at the briefing. It's not the correct site plan. The one you have now, it's the latest. And that site plan covers most of the comments. So that will be the latest revised site plan. Okay, so if you go to the presentation, I want to start with some history on the property. It used to be two tracts of land. It's been plotted into lot one, block one. So it's a full complete lot now. The request, it's for a PDE plus mini-workhouses. One side of the property will be exclusively retail, which is allowed by right. The other side of the property will be 10 by 20 mini-workhouses, a one-story freestanding building for the AC condition storage units with the office. The parking required for the mini warehouses used, it's one for every four employees with a minimum of four spaces. And we are planning to comply with all landscaping and parking regulations. I also included a Google Drive image that shows where our site is. And then directly across from our site, there's commercial. And then behind us, it's multifamily. And in the corner, it's also multifamily. We are the only big site that it's not developed yet. And then I also included a image of the aerial. I also believe that it's safer for the neighborhood to have a developed property than a vacant land. I included some renderings. So the first one shows the retail site. That site, it was mentioned in the briefing that it's gonna be storage and retail. It's not gonna be storage, it's only gonna be retail. And it's gonna be like a strip center which will have suites. It shows four buildings, but each building is gonna have separate suites depending on how it's designed. The next one shows the building for the warehouse for the condition space and the office in the corner. And then the next one shows the entire site. And so it shows all of the mini warehouses. The orange it's the mini warehouses and then behind it's the RV parking I'm not sure that's considered outside storage, but there's not going to be open outside storage whatsoever the only Outside storage will be the RV parking and it's what you see with the cover part carport that's the only outside storage that we will have everything else for the storage will be in the mini warehouses and then in the building inside. Which is one that has AC in its condition. It also shows the cycling doesn't show it it's supposed to show it and I apologize it doesn't show it on this one. But it shows a landscape buffer in the back and we are also proposing a fence. And the trees are going to be tall enough to be covered, to cover the entire site. So it can be separated from the residential multifamily in the back. The next one shows the mini warehouses, elevations at the mini warehouses. And again, they're called mini warehouses because they are mini. They're only 10 by 20. There's not going to be big warehouses besides the big building that is gonna only have the small mini warehouses, but they're gonna have AC. We have the support of all three neighborhood associations. And so I attach those letters. So after that page, the following three pages, it's the letters that we have in support from those associations. As far as the land use compatibility, the mini-workhouses will be convenient to serve the existing multifamily uses currently surrounding the area of request. This site is a crucial location in the larger neighborhoods surrounding the Loop 820 West and West Freeway.

Ma'am, your time is up. I'm sorry.

Okay. Can I get more time or no?

I'm almost done. You only have the five minutes. Unless there's questions from the commission and then. Well, okay.

The owner is also here to speak in favor of the case. And so I wanted for him to speak first and then do questions at the end, both of us.

Yeah, I'm sorry. We have to adhere to a certain.

Okay.

Just one quick question. Is this the current site plan? Does this represent what you're... Well, it doesn't show the landscape buffer.

The property, it's completely undeveloped. So any requirements needed as far as landscape will be provided on the site plan and then eventually on site. So that site plan that you're seeing now, it's not the final site plan.

We don't have a current site plan.

That's correct. This, to my understanding, was sent to staff this morning. Staff has obviously not had time to review or provide any input on this site plan.

We approve this with a site plan. We don't have a site plan.

Right. In terms of what we advertised, what we published was not this site plan. I'll defer to legal, but to me, I don't know if you can use an amended or a substitute site plan.

You could if the revised site plan would be... basically displayed on the overhead to illustrate the revisions. However, if the commission wanted to continue this to allow staff to have any additional comments, obviously that is well within the authority of the commission. But if staff looks at this or had reviewed it from this morning until now and said, yeah, there's no issues with this, then you could make a motion to approve with the amended site plan as displayed at the zoning commission to move forward to council. That's how you would resolve that.

Thank you, Chris. And to the commission staff would appreciate an opportunity to be able to review the site plan further.

All right. Are there any other questions for the applicant from the commission? There are no oppositions. Folks signed up and if that we're going to close the public hearing and ask a motion from Commissioner Trujillo to a motion or continue the discussion.

Yeah, so I think if you read into these letters a little bit more, it sounds like the neighborhood's in favor of the retail portion of it, but not really so much on the storage part. The other concerning thing is it doesn't really show what type of retail it might be. And like she said, the site plan was just submitted. You know, we can either do a continuance so they can get that reviewed by staff to look at that new site plan and also get maybe possibly further feedback from the community as far as the storage itself. Because as it is right now, you know, the retail's not detailed enough from the pictures. It looks like basically auto shop garages on that side with the rendering that they have, which really isn't retail per se in the form of you know, restaurants and stuff that the neighborhood has listed in their letter.

I would agree with you on that, sir.

I would support a continuance.

I would support a continuance to give the staff the time to review that updated site plan.

Can you state that motion?

Yeah. So for ZZ26-091, I move for a continuance to our next month's meeting. Second.

And that was a Roger set second. Okay.

No, it was McCoy.

Oh, it was McCoy. Okay.

He has the warm voice.

Okay, for ZZ-26-091, we have a motion from Commissioner Trujillo and a second from Commissioner McCoy to bring that to a continuance. And that would be, when would we look at that?

October 8th. October meeting. Okay, October.

So we want to write that date into record.

We have a motion and a second. Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce? Aye. Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Commissioner Worman? Aye. And Commissioner Castro? Aye. With a vote of 10-0, motion for continuance carries. Next case ZC dash two six dash one zero one. The address is two one zero one to twenty two hundred evens of Avondale Haslett Road applicant is Hunter Crossroads LP Kelly Hart and Hallman LLP and Ray Ojeski. The request is to amend PD eight twenty nine, which is a PDF. to add outdoor storage with the development standard to allow outdoor storage less than 200 feet from the northern and eastern property lines, site plan included.

on behalf of the applicant here. Ministers, as you can see, the shape of the lot is somewhat challenging for any type of commercial development here at this side because of the limited access there on Avondale-Hasslet. This is part of a larger commercial development that's anchored by a Walmart at this location. The property immediately to the west there is already zoned as a PD with a base of light industrial The applicant here is proposing just a RV storage facility with a site plan so there will be certainty is exactly what it will be. The use again is probably the lowest traffic generating use that you could have on this property. These types of uses just don't generate traffic flow up and down the primary street that feeds the development. And to the opposition that you saw, their complaint was primarily about traffic. And again, this is just not a traffic-generating use. It's actually a better use than what could possibly be here under the base zoning of F at this location. So we would ask for your recommendation for approval, and I'll answer any questions you have.

All right, do we have any questions from the commissioners?

Yeah, it's District 10. I have a question. I always have a question for Ray. Yes. Actually, I brought it up a little bit in the work session. So to the south, there is that open access point. Would you anticipate heavier use off of the other road there? Sorry. What's that road called? North South Road, Ray. Sorry.

Oh, gosh. Is that the Evandale Farms you're talking about, Jacob?

Do you anticipate there being directed access going that way, or would it just serve as an emergency access gate for that project?

You know, at this point, they've really got the office located up there on the north side of the property, which they felt like was the best location for that. So I would say it's primarily still going to come off of Avondale-Hasslet because of the office location. But there probably is a way that they could look at another access point off of that other street that you just mentioned.

I was just curious because, you know, of the stuff that's coming behind it where, you know, we're trying to help. transition pieces and keep things close to each other that need to be next to each other, that it would make sense that potentially there's another way to use that access point to alleviate issues that may come up while we're in practice.

I'll tell you what we'll do. Between the time we go to council, I'll get them to look at that site plan and see if there's maybe a modification they can make that would allow additional access to come through.

I don't even know if it's a modification as much as just a question because the gate's there. Somebody's going to go, well, I want to use it. And then presto chango, there's a working gate that we hadn't kind of anticipated and the traffic or things that it may cause later. It's not an issue today. I think it's just something to keep in mind for whatever comes next, whether or not you're helping the next landowner or not.

Gotcha.

Very good. I don't have any other questions beyond that.

Okay. All right. There are no... opposition folks signed up so at this point in time unless the commissioners have a question i'm going to close a public hearing and ask commissioner warman to make a motion or continue discussion for zc26-101 i move for approval second Okay, so in the case of ZC26101, Commissioner Warman has made a motion and Commissioner Trujillo has seconded.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo? 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. Aye. With a vote of 10-0, motion carries. Next case, ZC-26-103. The address is 3416 South Raider Drive and 11099 Trinity Boulevard. The applicant is the Trinity River Authority of Texas, Quiddity Engineering, LLC, Jennifer Franklin. The request is from Ag... agricultural and pd1234 which is a pdi for all uses in eyelight industrial plus outdoor storage with no primary use and reduced landscaping requirements to j medium industrial

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Jennifer Franklin with Quiddity Engineering and representing the owner, the Trinity River Authority of Texas. The Trinity River Authority currently owns the adjacent property and maintains and operates the Tarrant County Water Supply Project Water Treatment Plant, which treats and provides water for several communities in North Texas. to be able to provide future improvements and maintain the necessary water demand and keep up with water quality standards as we move forward. The TRA would like to rezone the adjacent properties which they own to be able to expand the facilities onto that land as well. So they would like to rezone to J, medium industrial, which is what the current property to the east is zoned as. Is there any questions that we have to provide more information?

Are there any questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you. We do have one person that would like to represent the opposition for the application. And that person is Jeffrey Pointer. If Jeffrey Pointer could come up. And you have seven minutes, sir.

Good evening, everyone. How y'all doing? Good evening. Good to see y'all again. Thank y'all for having me. First, I want to start out with... I represent the Moses Valley Property Owners Association and the Historic District, which we hold agriculture, I mean, oversight over Moses Valley Historic District. Conditions, covenants, restrictions, we fully are registered with the city of Fort Worth, so we're kind of wondering why we're not getting a lot of contacts when these things are coming about to meet with us. Um, brief history on the property. It was Uncle Ali or Uncle Dad. Um, it was 22 acres originally. Um, I am a direct descendant, still engaged with the community. Um, the zoning board, you know, actually is making a decision not just on, um, the, um, changing the zone. This is historic property. Um, and we, we still, you know, we still are there paying attention to what's going on. We get more, um, attention at it because we have a lot of land there, like this particular land right here. We have title issues, heirs that weren't contacted, the quick claim, special warranty deeds, things like that where heirs were not contacted. Another thing is that regardless of when they bought it, When it came about, we still have oversight to see and make sure that the heirs were contacted in the right capacity. The issues, especially with the deed and what we found out is that the way it was transferred, it was clouded. And if we had a new before we got here, I could have spoke with them and kind of, you know, brought them up to speed on. So we will see what we actually has been trying to contact the Trinity Reader Authority for a little while. But you never can get in touch with them. But now I see now as we move on with Moser Valley, the more they come in here and we're rezoning, we catching them. hey, we want to talk to you about this land, how you got it, things like that. So I'm requesting a denial so the River Authority can come and sit down with us and submit their plans and let the board look at it, provide proof of the easements. It's easements all over that property that we've witnessed there in Moses Valley. They're coming repatented. and replanting them and just ignoring the easements. And these easements come from my family. And just address and clear up the airships and claims and things like that. So I would really like for you to just deny it for now and We want to sit down with them, make sure that all the heirs that has questions about the property, the easements and things like that, are all across the board is taken care of the way it should be. That's about all I have to say for right now. And also, the addresses are different. You got Mojo Valley Road is one address. You got another address on Trinity Boulevard. So we got like three different addresses on the same property. We run into a lot of that in Moses Valley also. So that's all I have to say for right now. Okay.

Are there any questions for this?

Mr. Pointer, just a second.

Yes, sir.

I'm not sure that that's within our purview, title problems and easement problems. I don't think that's part of what the Zoning Commission would be considering in our recommendation. I just want you to know that. I mean, sometimes people bring to us something that we can deal with by the ordinance, and sometimes we can't. Could you give me some advice on this?

Sure. The title authority or the title issues that have been raised today are not before the commission to determine. Your authority is to determine whether or not the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land use and whether or not it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. So a title issue could take years to resolve. And so that should not be the basis for denial. Again, any approval or denial should be based on what the zoning commission has purview over. It is not to be based on any title discrepancies.

And Chris, likewise, the easement problem, that's something to be resolved in the processing of the applications.

That has no bearing on whether or not the proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding land uses as well as the consistency, whether or not there's any issues with surrounding easements or easements on the property.

We still have oversight on any construction, any designs in the historic district. And Trinity River Authority could sit down with us and talk to us about the plan, because there's really no clear understanding of what they want. They want this is in their future, maybe this, but none of it, what we can see right now, benefits the historic district of Mojavella. And that's why I'm asking for a denial, a continuance, if anything, to sit down with them and they can explain to us exactly what they're planning on doing. Because I can raise more issues on the area where it sits at, but I'd rather discuss that with them because it's going to bring up something that will hit the news and it really wouldn't be good right now. So I really would like to sit down with them. Because you already said the title has no issue, but what's up underground has an issue. that we're concerned with also. But I wanted to speak with them on that about what's there. Because you have a huge hole right here that they haven't addressed in years. You have a hole deeper than this building there that hasn't been addressed. They could have came many times before and said, hey, we want to clean this up and get this together. But we haven't heard anything on that either. So we just want to deny it and just sit down and see what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I have a couple of questions. Yes, ma'am. This is a tough case because I know the history. You always say that, but you never tell it. You were here last time. Motion Valley is what they called a freeman's land. Yes. As spontaneous as slavery was, Fort Worth, earmarked land where slaves walked from all over the United States and could live there free. And so it is deemed a historical landmark. So it's deemed agriculture right now, correct? So as far as land use, what are your plans for that land? Or what does the neighborhood association want?

We want more something that's going to help the communities because we have no grocery stores. It's nothing there for us. We have to go quite a little ways to go to any kind of doing any kind of groceries. More development as far as living. We want bodies there. We want more people back in our community instead of just completely commercial in that area. And that area right there, from what I spoke to some of my older cousins and things like that, That area up under that water plant, it was dug out there, and it was many, many gallons and tons of trash and waste there, and they built on top of it. And it's still a big hole there that has to be dealt with itself. They're trying to fill in some here, but it's right there where they're speaking of. That area right there, it really needs to be tested and seeing what's going on with it because we found out historically they dug and put a lot of waste there. So this helps us get to the Trinity River Authority and talk to them about what's going on with that property because we never can get in touch with them. But we'd rather see something that benefits the community instead of, you know, we're going to just extend it and nobody ever, ever acknowledges the community. it's always let's come build something there or i can imagine what my um my answers was what they were like when everybody was coming every week can we get this easy can we get that easement can we put something here can nobody ever give anything to the community so my thing is that we're we're being overlooked as far as any anything done for the community it's always uh we're gonna send some water to bedford we're gonna send something over there but what are we doing in mozavala the historic community matter of fact the gentleman my uncle that owned that He was an indigenous man. All of that property, going back 20, 40 acres that way, under both ways, he's an indigenous. And he had signed an affidavit stating he didn't want that sold. And we found it. So that's why I want to just really just deny this. I really want to sit down with them and see what's going on with that property, what actually was really dumped there. Because we know it was because we got people behind there that's still there. They say they witnessed it. The stuff, and it's caving in in the back. This yellow line at the back, the big one, is caving in. Where the water throwed in, it's starting to cave in right there. The water's driving down in the hole. That area in the back is caving in where the residents are. So it gets pretty deep. I just didn't get all the way into it, but it gets pretty deep on the reason why we wanted to know it. I understand we need to get water flowing here and water flowing there, but let's see what's going on with the property first. Let's dig a little deeper. That's all I'm asking.

Okay, so I have a question for the applicant. So are you, according to what he's saying, has the Trinity River Association done all the proper due diligence and done a proper survey to see what's underneath that land, under the ground?

Yes, I do believe they have and I can share that information. So in phase two environmental assessment report was completed and they are aware of that kind of the larger property previously being used as kind of like a dumping site. So we did the geotech reports and environmental assessment to get a plan of how they're going to deal with it in construction. So we're planning to put, there's several things we're working through for the expansions that are necessary, but one of that is a high-service pump station building that will be dug pretty deep, and so there's plans on how they're gonna remove the soil that may be contaminated and dispose of that properly for the building. Regarding title or deeds, I'm not aware, or easements, I'm not aware of how that was handled.

Setting aside some of the issues that were brought up for a second, can you address some of his questions? One was, what are your plans to do something with the site and actually begin construction or something?

Yes, so the larger site is what really has kind of active plans on it at this time. There's at least three engineering consultants that are different projects, one of which is PFAS facility and high source pump station building, electrical building. liquidity is designing a replacement for their existing high source pump station, which serves the city of ULIS and Bedford, as well as an emergency interconnect pump for the city of Fort Worth. The existing building on site has reached its useful life and is prone to flooding where it's currently located, basically in a basement. So kind of one of the first improvements planned for that site is the high source pump station and necessary electrical buildings.

And how soon would that begin?

The earliest construction would begin should be 2028 and 2029 is when design plans are working towards getting a bid-ready package for contractors.

Okay. Are there any?

That's my district.

So is it your position that Use of this site is a public necessity for the transmission, for the constant transmission of water within the system?

Yes, I do believe it's necessary for maintaining even the existing capabilities of TRA's water treatment plant, as well as keeping up with future water demands of growing North Texas.

I have a question for Chris. So Chris, with it deemed a historical landmark from the city, is there restrictions as far as land use when land has been deemed historic?

I would ask staff to confirm whether or not this property is deemed historic, because if it was deemed historic, it would have been notated on the agenda itself.

Zoning staff is not aware of any city designated historical designations for the property.

And that was my assumption whether or not it got a city designated historic. It may have a state designated. With that in mind, there may be some restrictions But off the top of my head, I'm unaware of any restrictions from the state. But since it's not designated by the city, at least it's from what a staff has told me, there would not be any from the city side, any prohibited uses that would prohibit it from what's allowed in J or under their current zoning ag or even industrial.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Oh, ma'am. I just wanted to ask you, did you want to address anything from the opposition at what they had stated? You have two minutes to address directly those.

Sure, yes. I guess I was not aware, I don't know if TRA is aware of the historical technician of the property, but we have been doing our due diligence to make sure we're aware of kind of the existing conditions of the site, how it needs to be treated in design and construction. And even for the aesthetics of the buildings, it's really just continuing the existing facility across, trying to keep minimal disturbance. I do have a question of, I guess, which property may be more of a concern because these were two separate cases at one point that they were able to combine. And so that larger property that is really needed in the more immediate future is currently designated as PD1234 for light industrial. I don't know if TRA would be open to talking about any of the use that's out there, but I'd be happy to coordinate that leading up to the city council meeting if necessary. That's all I have.

Are there any questions for the applicant? Okay, at this time, I'd like to go ahead and close the public hearing and ask a motion from our Councilman Edmunds for either a continuance or a motion today.

With all due respect for the opposition, I think that the points that you are concerned about are not within the purview of the Zoning Commission. And certainly, this is being recorded and our council person We'll be well aware of your remarks, and you're also welcome to give those same remarks to the city council at their hearing. Ours is a recommendation. We don't approve or deny. We make motions to approve or deny, but actually ours is a recommendation to the city council. So for that recommendation, I would like to, in the case of ZC26103, make a motion to approve.

Second.

All righty, we have a on in the order of ZC 26 dash 103. We have a motion by Commissioner Edmonds and a second by Commissioner Trujillo. Roll call, please.

Commissioner, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo?

Aye.

Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce? No. Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Commissioner Wurman? Aye. Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

With a vote of 9-1, motion carries. Next case, ZC-26-105. The address is 9201 Northwest US Highway 287. Applicant is Dickies FWDC Holdings LLC, represented by Kelly Harden-Hallman, Ray Ojeski. The request is from G, Intensive Commercial, and I, Light Industrial II. I, Light Industrial.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, Ray Ojeski representing the property owner. We just have a split piece of property, split zoning on this piece of property. About half of it is G, half of it is I. We're just coming to you today to ask to change the G portion to I to make it consistent across the board. Land uses and surrounding zoning all the way around this property is aye. So I think, again, I get a compatible and a consistent recommendation. So we would ask for your recommendation of approval.

Okay. Are there any questions on this particular application from the board? There is no one has signed up for opposition. If there is no questions from the board, I will close a public hearing and ask a motion from Commissioner Worman or a continued discussion.

For ZC26-105, I move for approval.

Second.

Okay, so in case of ZC26-105, Commissioner Warman has made a motion and Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Robinson had seconded. So with that, Executive Secretary, roll call.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce? Aye. Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Aye. With a vote of 10-0, motion carries. Next item on the agenda is ZC-26-106. The address is 7911 Meadowbrook Drive. The applicant is the Elbias Family Foundation, four-star Landry Stewart. SHIELD ENGINEERING WITH LANDRINGUIRE. THE REQUEST IS FROM A, 7.51 FAMILY. C, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY. E, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. TO A51 FAMILY FOR TRACT 1, WHICH IS 33.116 ACRES. AND R1 ZERO LOT LINE CLUSTER FOR TRACT 2, WHICH IS 1.717.815 ACRES.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I've got a quick presentation for you all. My name is Landry Stewart. I'm with Four Star. I've also got Landon Geary from Shield Engineering. This piece of property is located south of 30, east of 820 at the heart intersection of Meadowbrook and Cooks Lane. The current zoning is a blend of multifamily, a 7.5 and E neighborhood commercial that would allow up to 366 units. Now, the bulk of that would be from the multifamily units, which would come out to a total density of roughly seven units per acre. Our proposed zoning is splitting that to be A5 and R1 zero lot line cluster residential. Now the caveat to that is it would not be zero lot line. We would just do R1 one family detached for a total proposed unit count of 185. So we would be significantly decreasing the density to roughly three and a half units per acre by doing so. And some positive impacts to this is like I just mentioned reducing reducing overall density We would be extending Meadowbrook Road as it is a master thoroughfare planned road in the city of Fort Worth and they would also support future investments in growth for the commercial retail on the hard corner of Meadowbrook and cooks Now, here's just a quick exhibit. Current zoning is, like I said, kind of piecemealed together, A75E commercial, so on and so forth. What we're proposing is splitting it. Everything north of the Meadowbrook extension will be R1, so the 30-foot lots, and then the A5 will be south of that. I guess switching to some of the city engagement and the back story of this project. About a year ago at this point, we had met with Councilmember Deborah Peebles and her staff and just talked high level, this area, this piece of property specifically, and asked what she saw for the future here. And they were very adamant that this is for sale single family homes is a need in this district. So we got back with the team with SHIELD, went to the drawing board, had multiple meetings with Council Member Peebles and her staff again in October, December, February, and then July before we submitted our application. Up until we submitted the application, it was it was still very prevalent that single family homes were needed. So here we are today on top of meeting with council member people, council member peoples. Wow. Fort Worth. We also met with the Fort Worth staff for a PDC back in October of last year. And we've had various meetings with staff for transportation and public works, talking about any unique alignments for North Meadowbrook Drive, anything that we can do. And I think at this point we've settled on an alignment with them moving forward. So on top of that, we have done some neighborhood and community outreach. We had got a list from city staff. And we had sent out emails and correspondence. From the emails and correspondence that we had sent out, we had received two emails back, one of them from the Far East Fort Worth Homeowners Association, and one of them was Redemption Story Church. With the church, we had sat down and had an in-person meeting at the end of August, and they had followed up with an email stating that they are excited for this project. With the HOA, they had just responded to our original email blast and said, hey, we think single family is the most optimal development path for this tract of land. Now, since this presentation was created, I believe staff has had some opposition and emails, and I've had the chance to read through those, and it's trees, transportation, so traffic, storm runoff, things like that, which I can have Landon and the engineer kind of address. But outside of that, that's really it in a high level. More than happy to answer any questions. Yeah, thank you, guys.

One of the concerns is that's one of the largest tracts of land in East Fort Worth that's heavily forested. And I want to tell the people that wrote us on that issue that... We have a forestry department and we have requirements. It's very specific. Certain trees are protected or mitigated at 50%. Some trees are protected or mitigated at 40%. And so when you do your development, I would encourage you to keep as many trees as possible for your own sake. but as well as protecting the piece of property because it is a beautiful piece of property. I pass it all the time, and the thing I notice about it is it's so dense you couldn't walk through it, much less drive through it. So I applaud you having a plan for it, and I'm sure you'll do a good job.

Thank you, sir. Yeah, we've had a tree surveyor out there for over a month now. So to say that it's heavily wooded is an understatement.

Many post oaks and none of them.

You know, it's funny. I had sent an email to the arborist asking for any sort of insight as to what's out there and he just wouldn't respond. So I don't know if that's a good sign or a bad sign. But yeah, there's a lot of trees, lots and lots of trees. I have yet to walk the property myself. I probably should.

I have a question.

Are there any other? I have a question. Go ahead.

So in an area I'm familiar with, it's a lot, it's dense. And there's a road, it's Meadowbrook, it blends into Cook's Lane. The road is in poor condition, very poor condition. And the traffic, did you perform a traffic study? Because if you put more single-family homes, there are single-family homes already there. to the north and south, and then there's apartment complexes, as far as doing eight o'clock, where people are going to work, dropping off kids. Did you do a traffic study to see how that would work with all of the, it's very dense.

Yeah, great question. So right now, the zoning case is the first domino to fall. So after this, we will then go release the engineers to do the numerous studies. So that would include traffic study, drainage study, the whole nine yards. And if it comes back that there needs to be turn lanes on Cooks or Meadowbrook or whatever the TIA indicates, we would be obligated to build. So I can let Landon speak on that a little bit more, but we haven't done it yet, but it is in the works.

Yeah, because there are no drainage ditches that are not buried. However, there are issues with flooding, but it rains heavy.

Yes, ma'am. Great issues. Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Landon Geary, Shield Engineering. Just to add on to what Landry was saying, we do intend to do a full drainage analysis, like per the City of Fort Worth criteria, which we're very familiar with, TIA as well. That will be required per our meetings with the City of Fort Worth, as well as a water study, drainage study. All of those will be conducted. We will follow the recommendations, and staff, obviously, will have to approve all of those items before we move forward.

Thank you. For commissioners that may not be familiar with the site, if you can see on the map, there is a creek that runs across the property at the top of the edge of the property from the northeast to the southwest, and then Actually, you can't see it on this, but there is a street that runs through there, and actually there's a drainage ditch on the south side of that street as well. And it's been there forever, I think. And otherwise, it's surrounded by residential properties, and this will be a residential property. And it will be a single-family residential property. So if you're familiar with it, to the east are large lots, large homes. And to the northwest, they're very nice, very well-kept homes. And then, of course, there's the community facility, which is the church. Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you all.

All right, we have about a minute still with support. Is a Kandon, Gary? Oh, you've already. Landon, Gary, but yes. Okay, Landon, sorry about that. All right, so are there any questions for the applicant? Okay, if there's no questions, and I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and call on Commissioner Edmonds for a motion or a continued discussion.

Fellow Commissioners, I make a motion to approve ZC-26-106. Second. Okay.

So in the case of ZC-26-106, we have a motion by Commissioner Edmunds and a second by Commissioner Warren.

Rogers.

Warren.

Rogers.

Rogers.

Was it Rogers? Where is he? Yeah, I'm sorry.

Can you speak into your mic when you do that, please? When you talk, okay.

So it was, let me start all over. For the record, ZZ-26-106 was, the motion was established by Commissioner Edmunds and it was- We approve. And it was seconded by Commissioner Rogers. So with that, roll call, Executive Secretary.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Commissioner Wurman? Aye. And Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

The vote of 10-0, motion carries. Next case on the agenda, ZC-26-107. The address is 1125 East Broadway Avenue. Applicant, Newpad Building Company, Cooper Conger and Casey Dudley. The request is from A5HC District, one family within a historic and cultural overlay district, to BHC District, two family within a historic and cultural overlay district.

My name is Cooper Conger, 251 Sunset Lane, Yes, my name is Cooper Conger. I'm the owner of Newpad Building Company. We build quality and affordable infill houses and duplexes solely in the Fort Worth area. We have another project that got approved through Yall and Council literally directly across the street on this Broadway on those vacant lots you can see there. And we built three duplexes there that are all sold to primary occupants that are living in one side and leasing out the other. We went and spoke with the Historic Southside Neighborhood Association about this project, and they were thrilled, excited about it, just as we are. And we agree with staff's recommendation for approval based on this infill development. That'll be a great improvement to the neighborhood. As you can see, it currently uses a walking path, so it'll be a welcome stop to that as well. And with that, I'll take any questions.

Any questions from the commission? Thank you Cooper.

Thank you.

We have one speaker in opposition, Michael Green. Welcome to the zoning commission, you have seven minutes total opposition.

Of course, like you just said, I'm the next door neighbor to that property, and I recently bought solar panels to the west side, I mean to the east side of that building, that house, and with them building two-story houses, I'm afraid I'm going to have a lot of loss of use of that, of a lot of hours of direct sunlight to that side of the building. I bought the solar panels on the on the west side of the house first, and it wasn't really giving me a lot of savings. But it wasn't until I got the one on the east side that it started giving me some relief. So I cannot afford to negate that savings and also pay this expense of our solar panels. So that's why I stand in opposition of that.

Are there any questions?

Yes, I do. So how are you confident that that will happen? I mean, is there any particular study, or how do you know that will happen?

Okay, I was observing, because they did say that they built it across the street as well, those two stories, and I was observing my neighbor's house is short like my house, and so I can see a lot of the shade. It's a lot of shade on that side. of where the house is. So it's a lot of loss of direct sunlight from there.

So your neighbor told you that they had issues from talking to your neighbors, but you're not sure that that would happen, correct?

Well, I just can't afford to take that chance. I mean, the solar panels are very expensive, and I can't afford that expense, plus a high electric bill again, which is the reason why I got solar panels in the first place.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any more questions?

Can staff confirm whether or not even under an A5 you can build a two-story house?

You can build a two-story under 85, yes. That's a challenge.

With the existing, they can still do a two-story and have the same problem.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Can we get the applicant back up here? I just want to ask him a question. Okay.

He said, yeah, he says it's a duplex. Commissioner Robinson, you want to speak into the mic?

So question, you said you're building duplexes. Are these going to be two-story or single-story?

It will be two-story. Okay. And I do apologize. I meant to come and door knock my neighbors before this, but I talked to the Neighborhood Association. It just completely set my mind. So I'll meet up with you afterwards. We can do a little bit more studying into this. I don't know. You know, in the hours of the most direct sunlight, the hardest sunlight at 2 o'clock or noon, It will be directly above, and I'm guessing we'll hit the majority of the solar panels. I'm no expert on it, but there's... Yeah, I'll have to just look more into it. I would assume solar sales would be in a tough business if they couldn't sell to a house that was next to a two-story, so I'll have to do a little more research.

All of the panels have southern exposure.

Yeah.

I mean, it's not a... I don't think it's as much of an issue as if he had, the houses were turned where he was completely blocked from the south. So he is like, he just did it. He's gonna get a lot of direct sunlight. You're still gonna get it the whole rest of the day on the southern end and a little bit from the north. It might be slightly obscured, but I wouldn't see that as a problem. No, it's cool. I mean, it's just, it's a different thing. But, you know, as Trujillo wanted out and go build a 3,500 square foot two-story house right next door, that's a way bigger behemoth than what this may be. Especially with the support of the neighborhood. I mean, this is, it's great that they're on board and we're getting kind of a quality product to infill on some of these lots. and they're willing to retain the character and really keep up what we're trying to do in this, or what they're trying to do in this spot. It's an easier case for us, too, as opposed to some of the past today. It just feels like a good idea.

So you've already built on the three lots to the south there? Is that yours? Built and sold, yes, sir. We got those approved last year. Yeah, and if you go, I had a presentation. I have the before and after as well for that. There it is.

Okay.

It wasn't easy. Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you all for your time. Thank you, sir. All right, at this time, I'd like to close the public hearing and call for a motion or continued discussion from Commissioner Pierce.

Yes, considering that the applicant has the full support of the Historic Southside Neighborhood Association, and I commend you for building, as my fellow commissioner said, in that area. They need housing extremely bad, and what you've done looks absolutely beautiful. However, taking into consideration in regards to the issue with the The light bill that necessarily can't be proven the speculation that if him You know building two-story duplexes that it would hurt your electrical bill and on the zoning commission We have to look at land use and so in regards to the the land use I feel that this is appropriate So I move to approve ZC 2 6 1 0 7 second

Okay, all right, in the order of, on the order of ZC-26-107, I'm looking for Commissioner Pierce to make a motion or, oh, you already made the motion. Oh, sorry, she made the motion to approve and we had a second by... Robinson. Robinson. Robinson.

Commissioners, how do you vote?

Second by Robinson. Secretary, please roll call.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch? Aye. Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce? Aye. Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Commissioner Wurman? Aye. And Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

With a vote of 10-0, motion carries. Next case, ZC-26-110. Address is 2300... Merrick Street, 5201 and 5209 Collinwood Avenue. Applicant is RPFW Properties, LLC, represented by Jackson Walker, LLP, and Tyler Wallet. The request is to amend PD 1226, which is a PDSU for a grocery store with cafe and site alcohol sales to add restaurant, cafe, and cafeteria as a permitted use with a development standard for a reduction in required parking site plan included. Welcome to the commission, Tyler.

Tyler Wallach with Jackson Walker LLP representing the landowner RPFW Properties LLC. With me today, I have Mark Harris, who represents the ownership group, along with Burke Harvey and Gigi Howell, who represent Westland Hospitality.

Let me see if I can get to our PowerPoint presentation here. Here we go.

All right. So I think staff has already kind of brought you up to speed, but the location is just north of Camp Bowie Boulevard on the bricks at the crossroads of Mary Merrick Street and Collinwood Avenue. This property is it's interesting and it's distinct from all others because. This is the home of Roy Pope Grocery. And Roy Pope Grocery has actually been around for nearly or over 83 years. During that time, it's operated as a grocery store. But not only that, it's also operated with food service as well. And it's not a full-blown restaurant, never has been a full-blown restaurant. But they have provided deli service. They provided alcohol service and sales services. Coffee, I know that I've been there before and I've had coffee and deli sandwiches on the patio out there. So food service is not something that is new to Roy Pope. And what we're requesting today is really just to kind of, we have a tenant in tow over here with Westland Hospitality. So we're asking that for the PD, right now it's grocery store only. What we want to do is just add one use, and that one use is restaurant, right? And because we're changing to a restaurant use, it does affect the ratio for parking. And as staff said before, it was four per 1,000 with the grocery store. It's really kind of your Tom Thumbs or Albertsons or much larger grocery stores. And what we want is to keep and retain those parking standards with 24 parking spaces onsite and 10 parking spaces that are on the street. Everything else remains the same. The approved site plan remains the same, and there are other certain development standards with PD 1226 that all will remain the same as well. And at this point, I'm gonna hand it over to Burke, and Burke's gonna give you a little bit of information on Westland Hospitality.

If I can interject just real quick, Tyler, we've got eight folks signed up to speak in favor of it. We've got about three minutes on the five-minute clock left, so take as much time as you need, but just know that it is going to impact some of those that are here in favor to speak. We'll extend that time as able. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Hi, Burke Harvey, Westland Hospitality. I'll try to be brief. Born and raised in Fort Worth, still live in Fort Worth. Been in the restaurant business for 33 years. Did my first Jason's Deli in Denton, Texas in 94. Took it to Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, all the way up to Springfield. For 33 years I've done this. I can't be more happy to be coming back to my hometown and doing restaurants in my hometown. Our goal is to make the moment special. This lady standing next to me, Gigi Howell, her background was one of the best front of the house managers that we got at restaurants forever. We think we know how to make this a really cool neighborhood concept. We're blessed to already have some success stories in our hometowns of Fort Worth. We have JD's Hamburgers out west, Margie's Italian Gardens. If you hadn't been there, go there. Culture there and the food beverage mix will be very similar to what we're talking about here at Roy Pope's. Close at 9 o'clock during the week, 10 o'clock. We are a neighborhood restaurant. You can drive your tractor. You can walk there. This is what we want to do here. The last thing we want to do is to be a bar. A couple other concepts that we're also involved with is Polito's. Instead of letting Polito's die, we chose to bring it back. Another important Fort Worth historical concept, the truth of our roots, Carly's Frozen Custard. I opened that 23 years ago before I had any gray hair, right around the corner. We think we're a good neighborhood. We support the schools. We have a PIE program, which is Partners in Education. Every dollar we have left over, we give back to our public schools. So I'm going to turn it over to Gigi that can talk more about the concept, but we are so excited about being here. I grew up bagging groceries during the summertime at Royal Pope Grocery. I know the neighborhood. I lived there. I lived right down the block on Byers for three years. We're super excited, really, really about being back in Fort Worth and bringing back an iconic Roy Pokes grocery. Last thing I will tell you is look at Kincaid's. There's a really good example. Kincaid's was a grocery store. As these big box groceries came online, it couldn't work anymore. So now it is a restaurant serving beer, no groceries whatsoever. Very similar, iconic Fort Worth concept that, thank goodness, is still here. I'll turn it over to Gigi.

Before you come on, Gigi, it's Gigi, right? Yes, sir. Okay. I'd like to call the other witnesses, like was said before. We have several witnesses, so I'd like to see if everybody is at least getting key. We have Jordan Johnson, I believe. Malia Hubbard. Brooke Harvey.

That was me.

Okay. Mark Harris. Okay. And that's it, I believe, Linda, Richard. Okay. Eat. He hardened car not can. Okay. And Jamie Harper. Okay, so if you all can be ready to speak to the commission and be as brief as possible and try to utilize independent new ideas, okay? Perfect.

I'll be very quick. I'm Gigi Howell, and I am the operating partner of Westland Hospitality. Several restaurants in town that Burke already mentioned. My passion is to come into neighborhoods, build a spot where families feel safe to come and dine. There is... There's a give back program in all of our restaurants. We always want to make sure that kids who are less fortunate in the school systems that cannot afford to do sports or art or anything like that, we like to give back to that. Roy Pope would be no different. It will be a little more upscale. Steaks, seafood, pork, chicken. We will have a bar with wine and alcohol. We look so forward to being part of this neighborhood. We, I can't express enough the hospitality. We used to be called Westland Restaurant Group. Thereafter, we decided we are not just a restaurant group. We create an experience for our guests. We create community. So we are now Westland Hospitality. We want nothing more than be in this neighborhood and make an impact. So I just look forward to what everyone has to say on both sides. And thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm Mark Harris representing RPFW Properties LLC. We have done many good faith effort meetings with the neighborhood and put up 11 different commitments that were all denied. Adjusting parking, adjusting hours, adjusting types of sales between alcohol or TABC regulated 50, 25 to 75. So Let everybody else talk, but we have gone above and beyond to reach out to the neighborhood and get support from them.

Hello, my name is Jordan Johnson and I heard about this just a couple of days ago. I don't live close enough to this location, but I grew up right around the corner on Bryce and have been going to Roy Pope ever since I was born. And I was sad to hear that Roy Pope wasn't going to be staying. I'm actually a 30-year commercial real estate person, so I'm in the business. I'm not attached to this real estate project at all. But I did want to come down. I felt compelled to testify that I do know Gigi and Burke and Mark, and I am a big fan of all their businesses and what they've done to save a lot of our iconic brands in Fort Worth. And I am positive that whatever they're planning on doing at this location is a positive addition to the neighborhood. So when I heard about that happening at Roy Pope, I was very excited as well as everybody I know in the neighborhood. And I'm frankly shocked that there is any criticism of this. I do understand these zoning ordinances very well. And I know it does require a little bit of massaging to fit it into the proper box. But I do think that in this case, it is very warranted to accept those adjustments and vote to recommend and approve this application. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, all of my commissioners. This is my first time speaking in an avenue such as this, although I'm not afraid or averse to public speaking. This is my first, so pardon my, I'm a little bit of nerves here. I just wanted to say that I heard about this recently. I am a resident of Arlington Heights neighborhood. I have many friends that are in surrounding neighborhoods and of the neighborhoods Monticello and all of those surrounding areas. And I just want to say that it already exists. This location for all intents and purposes for the residents in that area, we use it as a restaurant. When we're there and we order our sandwiches and our bottles of wine and sit on the patio, we are using it as a restaurant. We might buy a bag of chips or some pork chops to take home to our families because maybe we feel a little bit guilty for eating and drinking away from them. But mostly, the residents use this location already as a restaurant. It's not the place that we go for groceries. We have Central Market. We have Target. We have all of these other places that have served as our grocery for the longest time. So it's really kind of like, do I want a cup of coffee before I leave my neighborhood? Do I want to grab a glass of wine before I go home? So in essence, it's serving that purpose already. It hasn't been largely a problem for parking for any of us. A lot of us walk there, just the same as we walk to Curly's, just the same as we walk to Kincaid's and all of the local restaurants. If I were going to put my money on any one developer or any one restaurateur, it would be this group because they do understand the neighborhood and they do truly value our area. We don't want these developers coming in from outside our area that don't understand developing, I don't know, another Starbucks, another bank. What else do we want? We want walkable, enjoyable neighborhoods, things that promote community. I have here, Pete Cardenas was to speak today. He had a family emergency. I think someone ended up in the hospital. So I can provide this. This is his speech. in we actually develop our own neighborhood improvement organization because we do want these walkable restaurants. We do want these places. There are other neighborhood organizations that don't speak for us and don't give us a voice, and that's why we are here. This is what we have created. I don't know how to show you all. It's within the last 24 hours, We have over 35 resident signatures of people who live in this area and want this kind of development. So regardless of what you might hear as people who represent us with these neighborhood organizations, they don't have the numbers that we do. I would ask at the very least to consider this new restaurant, this group, as someone who really does care about us and something that the residents genuinely want en masse. And if you gave the residents like me time, I could prove that with all the signatures to back that up. The last thing I will say is that these restaurants are an asset to our community. They are something we want even if a minority does not. Largely, we want these places and we're tired of them getting denied based on the word of neighborhood organizations that haven't ever taken our vote, haven't ever asked the community, haven't ever gone out to poll or to find out opposed or like yay or nay. how many on each side, and given us an actual voice. And that's what I'm asking for. I'm obviously in support of this restaurant.

Good afternoon. My name is Lydia Wajardo-Rickard, and I reside at 4237 Kalmont Avenue in Arlington Heights neighborhood. But by day, I am the Executive Director of Camp Bowie District, Inc. We are the management company for the Public Improvement District, number 19, and we are an advocacy group focused on economic development and urban planning in the Camp Bowie Boulevard area. In 2024, the organization partnered with Main Street America to identify a strategic approach focused on the BRICS area, a sub-district of Camp Bowie District. The study surveyed residents, commercial property owners, and business operators, and revealed that residents and visitors to the area wanted more dining options. Since then, CBDI has worked with property owners and developers to find opportunities for responsible and intentional development. We understand that parking continues to be an issue with new developments, and we are committed to trying to find reasonable solutions and support these conversations and facilitate those introductions with other business operators and property owners. Today I am here to speak on behalf of Canterbury District Inc's Economic Development and Design Review Committee and its Board of Directors. As you see referenced in the letter in your package from our group, the committee met with the ownership of Westland Hospitality Group and the property owner to better understand the proposed plan for the restaurant concept. After discussions and a better understanding of proposed shared parking with adjacent properties, the redevelopment opportunity represents exactly what our Main Street study revealed to us. There is a pathway to responsible development. The committee voted on that day six to one to support this effort to continue to work with property owners surrounding the area to offset excuse me, parking with businesses that operate offsetting hours. It's just basic urban planning at that point. You as a commission are tasked with voting to guide the growth of our city, manage land use, to appropriately approve developments that will enhance the quality of life for our residents. We as an organization believe this redevelopment of a property that has operated for more than 80 years as a neighborhood grocery store with food service can respectfully transition into its next chapter as a restaurant. I would ask you to vote to support this amendment and continue to encourage strong neighborhood commercial development that encourages the local ecosystem of Camp Bay Boulevard.

My name is Janie Harper. Good afternoon. My husband and I have lived in the Monticello-Crestline area neighborhood for 46 years. And for the last 30, we've lived in walkable distance of Roy Pope's. We have a very special neighborhood. I'm sure everybody thinks theirs is the most special. But the first question I would ask is, if we don't go ahead with this development, then what then? Because the research I did said that it's also zoned for a liquor store. Do we want a liquor store there? This is a very mixed use area. And my daughter and my son-in-law and my granddaughter walk to Roy Pope's, and you'll see their stroller parked outside. So I also come to you as a user and somebody that's in that neighborhood a lot. It's on my path, probably average five times a week. going by Roy Pope's, when they changed the concept, there's a seating area inside, there's a coffee bar, there's a food service area, and then there was a grocery store. And then the patio outside, as somebody else mentioned. As time went on, the grocery store dwindled because most of the business was the deli and the prepared foods. And It's been used for that, and I am not a professional, but I've never seen a parking problem there. I also want to point out that across the street from Roy Pope's, there's a city park that has parking all around it that could take up the slack there, and it's not going to inconvenience anybody. Roy Pope's was already being utilized, and there was no parking problem, and I don't really see that there will be in the future. We love our neighborhood. We love to walk to Roy Pope's, and it's incidentally, when Charles Kincaid was in business, he was in business with Mr. Pope, and they split, and then he started Kincaid's, and these are two iconic parts of our Fort Worth history. And I have also seen Westland take these one-off restaurants like Margie's Italian Gardens, things that would have disappeared from our history, and they have revitalized them, which only helps to revitalize our neighborhoods. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Thank you.

A lot of you don't approach and testify with the zoning commission very often.

You turned your mic off.

Mic's off.

You don't appear before the zoning commission very often and you're not familiar with how we operate, but there's some things that you should be aware of. Number one, we're not supposed to consider the operation, the operator of the property, because what we're doing is we're changing the use of the property. And so, as fine an organization as Westland is, that's really not something that we consider in making a decision. Second, you probably don't know these numbers, but we received 64 letters of opposition and seven letters in favor of this application. So when we talk about numbers, those numbers are pretty large. And third, as the staff pointed out in their report, we're not talking about, are we five parking places short? Are we 10 parking places short? of application leaves you 37 parking places short, which is a sizable number, not 50%, but probably almost 50% of the total requirement. Now, there is a way out here. You could come to us with a mitigating factor for the parking. You could find some agreed upon written agreements for people that would let you use their parking jointly. And you could come much closer to the number that you need. And that would be very favorable, I think. Excuse me. Let me finish, please. It's not just this application that we have to consider. We have applications all the time from people who have different parking requirements. And if we set a precedent of approving a parking requirement without mitigation of 40% of the requirement, which this represents, Then the next applicant that comes in will point this out as an example to us. So I just wanted to kind of let you know that one, it's not personal. Two, it has nothing to do with Westland. Three, it does have something to do with the parking deficit, and I think that is curable. It's not curable today. To do that, you would probably have to ask for a continuance. Then you go about setting this right on the parking spaces and then come back 30 days with an application that's improved and much more acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, can we move forward with the testimony of those who are waiting?

We haven't even heard from opposition yet and leave this kind of discussion for- Well, in the package that we've sent the city, we did address soft site parking. And it's in the packet that we presented to the city. And we are blessed to be partners with Randall Stepp that owns properties that can't be up and down. And in the package we presented to the city, it says we have more than 40 additional parkings for with Randall's staff and the property owners on Camp Bowie, so that's what I was trying to point out.

That's not reflected in our report. I'm sorry? We had a workshop prior to this meeting, and the staff represented that we were 37 places short.

We weren't allowed to talk during the workshop, but we had submitted a package to the city.

David, do you want to address that? Am I right on this?

Tyler, was that in the application documents that y'all made or did you submit that later?

So I think we're trying to say is that we have been working with, so you see that if you go down El Campo and then Merrick Street where Gold Waves is right there, we are working with the property owner right there to secure some ballet spots. They haven't been secured yet, and I think this parking overview is kind of telling as well. If you look at the purple, that's the approved parking spaces that we have so far, And I think what's being lost here is, you know, not all of this is completely residential. It's been conveyed that we're surrounded by residential, but that's not necessarily true, right? You have a large park right there, Sanguinet Park, and it is very low impact to be able to park if you're going to go to the restaurant, to be able to park on either El Campo, where you have a higher intensity commercial or next to Sanguinet Park as well. So I think those should be considered in the parking calculations. One thing as well is that, you know, I think it's worth noting that you're in the urban core, right? And so your parking ratios, they're not made for the urban core. Your parking ratios of one for 100 are made for a Chili's where everybody is driving to, you know, a local Chili's that's down the street on Hewland Street, right? This is not the case here. Being in a neighborhood actually helps with the parking scenario because... there are going to be a lot of people that end up walking to this. The one for 100 should actually be a little bit higher because of that fact. Not to mention a lot of people now, they don't take cars and they don't park at restaurants anymore. They take Uber, they take Lyft, they take rideshares, and that has drastically reduced the amount of parking spaces that are necessary, especially for a neighborhood commercial for this. I think our opinion is we have a set of parking standards and regulations that don't really fit what we're doing right here. And this is changing this to a restaurant use. And just real quick, so that's part of our parking mitigation. In terms of the letters of opposition, it's really one organization that got those letters of opposition. And I think that everybody... everybody that signed those are actually all a part of the same neighborhood organization. And one thing worth noting is that we have several neighborhood organizations that represent a lot of people. We didn't go and get individual letters of support from each one of those. We went and got them from the actual organization itself who represents uh a lot of uh property owners and so that's camp buoy district inc crestline area neighborhood association we got will be a no objection letter coming from north crest neighborhood association and then kind of the informal arlington heights residents association uh they're not individuals it's not just one property group there i mean you're looking at hundreds of uh potential property owners if not more than that who have all said we support this Right. And if we're talking about numbers, that's more than 64. It's more than one property organization. And so, you know, it I think that matters. And in this this group, they want this right. They want to be able to to to walk to a neighborhood restaurant. And I know that staff said that. It's not, I think you said it's not compatible, but I think we would disagree with that as well. You know, this is a transition point for the neighborhood. If you're going along Camp Bowie, you know, you got intense commercial going north right there with the park. That park transitions into a single family residential with a neighborhood community use right there. That is a great transitional point.

Tyler, can I use the, will you agree to use this as your two-minute rebuttal after we let the opposition speak? We do need to get to, we are still in the middle of receiving comments. We do need to keep prosecuting this meeting agenda.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right. Let's also note for the record that they were interrupted by a commissioner. They were, it wasn't.

derailed. Okay. Are there any questions before we move on to the to hearing from the public testimony on the application by the opponents? Okay, I have a couple of opponents, Lisa Gilbert, and Tommy Stanley, if you all could come up and introduce yourselves and you have seven minutes total. Please be mindful of time. We are. I bet I go to the middle.

Hello, everybody. It's good to speak with you. My name is Lisa Gilbert, and I actually live on Collinwood. I am three doors away from Roy Pope. I'm a member of the board of the West Byers Neighborhood Association, and I'm speaking on behalf of that organization, as well as many of the adjacent property owners who are opposed to ZC26110 at 2300 Merrick at Collinwood Avenue. For the public record, I'd like to turn in actually these 81 signatures that are opposed to the zoning case from the neighborhood within the strictures here. before i explain why so many of us are opposed to this case i want to make clear how indebted we are to owner mark harris for saving this historic grocery store that's been an integral part of our neighborhood since 1943. many in our neighborhood grew up going to roy pope grocery we've worked closely with mark since he purchased it in 2018 and we hope to continue enjoying an amiable relationship with him we supporting the zoning change in 2018 to a pd that allowed alcohol sales for on-premise consumption and an existing grocery. We also supported the waivers for front and two side yard setbacks, as well as a waiver to provide zero landscaping with no buffer yard, and a waiver for providing enough required parking. We all supported it and we wanted it to work. The change was minimal enough that it didn't impact our community negatively. We understand that COVID probably took a toll on Roy Pope's arc of success. The grocery is at the corner of Merrick Street and Collinwood Avenue, both residential streets. Residential homes, almost all single family, completely surround Roy Pope on all sides. This is not on Camp Bowie or in a commercial district. This is in the middle of our well-established and highly valued Westside neighborhood. Some of the homes across the street are valued on TAD for $1 million plus. We all care very much about what will go into the Roy Pope space now that it's been closed for several months. For almost 80 years, this building was occupied by a daytime business that closed around 7 or 8 p.m. The negative impact of having a commercial business in the middle of a residential neighborhood was minimal. It was a neighborhood hangout, not just for us, but for many Westsiders. The current proposal for the building to turn into a full service lunch and dinner restaurant and bar with beer, wine and mixed drinks is a step too far. The site plan presented to us shows a bar area that's bigger than the dining area. We do not want a bar that serves mixed drinks in the middle of our neighborhood or the late night hours associated with it. Our biggest concern about this project is the lack of parking, as noted. There are only 24 on-site parking spaces that worked for Roy Pope the Grocery. However, it will not work for Roy Pope the Restaurant and Bar. The zoning ordinance of Fort Worth requires restaurants to provide 10 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building. This building is 7,500 square feet, which means 75 parking spaces are required. Given that Westland Hospitality is the proposed tenant, we assume this venture will be successful and popular, and they will need more than the required 75 spaces. Could we please project the first slide? This is based, oop, not that one, parking. Sorry, I'll keep talking and then they can bring it up. This the slide when it comes up is going to show you the parking reality at three nearby popular restaurants all on Camp Bowie. Hudson House is very popular but is well known to be parking challenged even though it provides 60 on site there we go 60 on site parking spaces. Its building is 6,200 square feet, smaller than Roy Pope's 7,500, and also consider Lucille's, another nearby popular restaurant. Its building is even smaller at 5,300 square feet, but they provide 81 parking spots and often fill every single one of them. Uncle Julio's is larger than Roy Pope by almost 1,300 square feet, but it has more than 100 spots. And I would say none of the other restaurants that were mentioned are actually in a neighborhood, they are in commercial zones. This next slide, there we go, shows that it's not realistic to think that ROYPOPE can solve their parking deficit by providing valet parking and or potentially leasing 40 offsite parking spaces in a shopping center almost two blocks away. A lot that already serves the customers and employees of 10 existing retail businesses. Based on the Fort Worth zoning ordinances that require four spaces per thousand square feet of retail, this 17,085 square foot shopping center already has a parking shortfall of the 24 required spaces. Relying on the availability of public on-street parking on Merrick is also unrealistic. During the day, parking on Merrick and Collinwood is often unavailable due to the nearby school that services children with various disabilities. After 4 p.m. and until 8.30 p.m., the public on-street parking is used by T-ball practice parents. We have met with Mr. Harris twice and were introduced to Gigi Howell of Westland at the last meeting. They are wonderful and talented people. But after discussing the project with the nearby neighbors, we cannot support the concept on the table today. The negative impacts on our community are too great for us to support this. We would welcome a concept that is more daytime oriented and one that provides the required parking spaces to support it. Please take note of the staff report for this case and join us in opposing this case. And I do want to note, we do have additional people who would like to speak in opposition because of parking. Some people got in a little late, but we do have all the speaker forms if that's acceptable. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Tommy Stanley.

I've eaten at your restaurants, all of them. That's why my stomach's a little bit larger.

Um, I've been a resident on Collinwood for 25 years. Our neighborhood takes pride in being welcoming and inclusive businesses and residents alike. We have an eclectic assortment of single family homes, but we also have many compatible duplexes and small apartment buildings that coexist happily with those single family residences. In short, our neighborhood exemplifies the kind of walkable mixed-use urbanism that Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan has long sought to promote. The Roy Pope building is a cherished icon in our neighborhood. We enjoy patronizing it for generations as a grocery store and in more recent years as a combination of grocery store and cafe. We would like to support it in the future as a small family oriented restaurant that respects our neighborhood's character. Accordingly, we have worked with the applicant in good faith to find common ground upon which to support the proposed zoning change. A meeting on September 2nd, a tentative agreement was reached that would enable bar restaurants to succeed while protecting the neighborhood from adverse impact. It would be associated with lunch late, night bar activity, overflow parking in the neighborhood streets, and other disruptions. We're disappointed to learn that the next day the company's managing partner declined to accept the agreement. In the absence of reasonable and enforceable conditions that protect our neighborhood, we cannot support the proposed zoning change. We urge you today to recommend denial of the zoning change or to continue this case 30 to 60 day period so that we might work further with the applicant toward a mutual agreement.

Thank you. You're at your seven minutes. I'm sorry. All right. I'd like to bring the applicant back up. Applicant back up to address anything that the opposition.

Yeah, thank you. I'm on two minutes. I'll try to make it quick. Yes, we had very productive meetings, phone calls with all the neighbors, everybody. And the meeting that they just referenced on September 2nd, they said we couldn't agree to their demands. One of them was to close at 8 o'clock at night. I responded back and I said, that's a recipe for failure, no pun intended. No restaurant closes at 8. The demands that they asked from us were way, way crazy. We did tell them we'd be willing to try to reduce the seating in the bar. So we have responded back in writing to them, to all the associations, and most of the neighbors support us around there. As far as the late night hours, simply doesn't happen. We close at 9 o'clock. And we, the last manager leaving is about 45 minutes, and we make everyone leave the parking lot. I get it. Go down to Hudson House. They're hanging out there late at night. We're not Hudson House. We're a neighborhood restaurant. Go by any of our restaurants. Parking. Randall Stepp is my partner. He owns the vintage floor property where the carriage house is now. I've met with him in person. We can provide offsite parking for all our employees. We've met and we've gone over that with the neighborhood association. They know that. This is not news to them. Lastly, right now the building is empty. I got a call last week from the neighbor directly across the alley and they said, hey, the restaurant is empty. Our neighbors and the vagrants around here are dumping trash and mattresses in our parking lot. Can you help us? I said, absolutely. I got out there. We hauled that mattress out, and I called her, and she said, thank you very much. We really, really appreciate it, but boy, it's a problem. When the restaurant is closed, that's what's going to happen. Because it's happening right now. We are paying to have the trash picked up Keep it landscaped and clean because we want to be a good neighbor So I I just I have a hard time when someone comes up here and says we're gonna be open late night hours It's simply not true, and I want to encourage anybody sir your two minutes are up the concern to please visit our restaurants Thank you very much All right were there any

I'd like to ask a question, if I may. Earlier, maybe it wasn't the time to say it, but I said there is a way to address this, and that is if you could bring back to the staff some written agreements on shared parking and so on and so forth, and we got closer to the number that we need, and if the neighborhood knew that you had provided additional parking, I think would probably bring you more support from the neighbors as well. But that would take some time, and I'm wondering if you would be interested in asking for more time to arrange for this mitigation.

The neighbors do know that. We've told them that in person and in writing. I really don't think we need any more time. We're anxious to get going. The building is sitting empty. It's a magnet for vagrants and trash. We really want to get going. We have our staff hard. The building shouldn't be sitting there dilapidated and empty. Believe it or not, we're really excited about being part of the neighborhood, and we're proud of what we've already done with other concepts in Fort Worth.

And I just want to make sure that I'm not to go down that rabbit hole. Any requests or any suggestions of the applicant getting into any agreements with the neighborhood would then allow the zoning commission to then support a zoning proposal. I would caution the zoning commission to even suggest that in a sense of garnering more support if there's more agreements made. I would hate for the zoning commission to... to fall into any type of contract zoning, where it's basically, hey, if you can get these agreements in place, then we would be more supportive of the zoning change. So I don't think that should be part of the actual approval or denial itself. Whether or not they get any agreement itself, that's separate and apart from the actual zoning authority that you all have. We would not have any basis to enforce those agreements themselves, so they should not play a part into your approval or denial of this case.

Chris, do I understand you say to say that When the staff made the recommendation for denial, one of the basis for the recommendation was that there wasn't sufficient parking. Now are you now saying that the commission can not consider there being sufficient parking as a condition?

One of your statements was if you can get into more written agreements with the neighborhood, then we would consider supporting this. That is something that I would discourage the zoning commission to offer or require the applicant to make. Whether or not they have the, you can take into consideration that, but to encourage that is something that, again, I would not impose from the zoning commission onto the applicant. whether or not they have that, then yes, you could take that in consideration of whether or not they have the parking, but to encourage that as, yeah, why don't you go ahead and get that? Then maybe we can support it some more. I don't think that's really appropriate itself. So that is my caution to the commission.

I think a clarification for everybody in the room, because I know I'm now confused, probably from your attorney or representative in the suit, I'm not sure if attorney, Just to clarify, the parking plan as it stands today and what you are working on for tomorrow. If you could clarify that for me, please.

I'm happy to answer that. Oh, okay. Go ahead.

So, great question. Let me see if I can find where we were at again. No, I'm in a different case now. Okay, there we go. So the purple area, that's what we have, right? So that's the off-street parking or on-site parking, that's 24 spaces. And then the purple up on the street right there, the sidewalk, those are the 10 additional spaces that were approved in a site plan from 2021. So we total right now have 34 spaces that count towards our zoning that we can utilize for day-to-day activities. We would also utilize and encourage our customers to use THE AREAS IN YELLOW MOSTLY SURROUNDING THE PARK BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A LOW IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, LOW IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS AND THEN SOUTH ON EL CAMPO AS YOU GET MORE TOWARDS THE INTENSIVE WHERE YOU SEE CARSON'S HEARING SOUTHWEST GOLD AND SILVER INITIALLY AND THEN WHAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS IS AN OFF-SITE BALLET AGREEMENT ROUGHLY AROUND 40 SPACES OR SO WITH THAT SAME GROUP THAT IS WHERE YOU SEE THE CARSON HEARING AND THE GOLD WAVES.

And then you had, somebody had mentioned something about your employee parking was offsite.

You know where Vintage Floors is?

Which is, it would just be below where Gold Waves is right there. That's Vintage Floors. Burke is partners with the owner of that building and property where we would have employee parking that he's approved already.

How many spaces was that?

40. That one includes some of the valet as well. We won't have 40 employees at work at the same time. Yeah.

Okay. Hey, Tyler, where are the people going to the park? Where are they parking right now? I don't see, is there a lot there?

I mean, I think by and large, it's a community, or it's a neighborhood park. So, I mean, my guess is I think most of the people are probably walking to that park.

I don't, definitely, and for school use as well, all students don't drive. It is a transitional school.

Okay.

What about the Roy Pope dumpster? Where is that at?

It's in the middle of the parking lot currently. It always has been. No enclosure was needed.

And you're proposing to move it to the back?

We'd love to do an enclosure.

It looks like it's about 16 feet from the backyard of the folks that live there.

That's right. And most of those residents moved in after we already occupied and were operating that way. So they're well aware of the condition they moved into. Yeah, and we're happy to enclose it. We would love to enclose it.

Just to clarify, you said that the dumpster Is it the current location where it's always been the proposed location? They're the same?

That's right. It's operated 80 years in that location. That's what.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask you a question of the staff? I just want to make sure I understand. When you say that there are 37 places short of parking, but it could be mitigated, you're not talking about employee parking, are you?

The zoning ordinance doesn't make a distinction. And for clarity, we also cannot count on street parking. So the 10 spaces that are on street, their current zoning approval is for 24 spaces because the 10 on street spaces... Did not count then and cannot count now there obviously ten spaces to be used for parking under zoning calculations We cannot count those on street spaces and if I Dave I can I'd like to make this work I'm not not against the project but but the problem is parking and

You know, we make these calculations every month. Do people have sufficient parking? And the rules are always the same. And what the staff is telling you is that by the way we count parking places, you have 24 parking places, and you're required to have 75 in total. I'm not familiar with the number of it.

I think it's 72, because it's actually 7,200 square feet.

72 parking places. So, you know, we like to be consistent.

Can I add in?

And I think you can overcome this. I really do. But you have to overcome it in a way that we can explain to other people. If you have an agreement for additional parking, then it needs to be in writing. The staff needs to incorporate it into their report, and that will help you. And then you eventually could maybe overcome this parking problem with just a little more time to work on it. But it's entirely up to you. We very seldom see a restaurant come in of any size with 24 parking places on site. So this isn't personal. We're just trying to be consistent.

I can. I think it's important as well, because remember, we're in a PD. And when you do PDs, you kind of take it case by case, right? And when you're looking at the restaurant, if you were looking at a restaurant on, you know, Hewlin Street, where that's difficult to get to, that's across five lanes of traffic and that everybody's going to drive to. The one for 100, I think makes perfect sense, right? So if you have a 7,500 square foot restaurant, you need 75 parking spaces because everybody's driving there. That's just not the case here. Case by case, this is in a neighborhood. And so automatically, you're going to get less people driving to that location. You're going to get a lot more people walking to that restaurant there and back. And I think that should be taken into consideration when looking at this specific PD.

Can we call the question on this at some point?

I think this is one that I think it's worth just getting a motion out there and getting a vote because this stuff is not, we're not going to get this worked out. We can't go back and say, fix your parking, we'll approve it. Council can do whatever they want. There are restaurants in other nearby districts that are set up the exact same way as what they're proposing. Some of them are set up like H or Central Business District district where they have no onsite parking except for some ADA spots. Magnolia is full of it. LRB is a good example of how they've handled parking in that district. But I would be supportive of getting a motion on the floor and getting this forward either to a continuance or denial or approval to let council do what they need to do.

And we'd like to proceed. We'd like a decision today to proceed to council. We want to give you one too.

Mr. Chairman, in the case of ZC26110, I'm sorry, in the case of ZC26110, right? I make a motion to deny.

Second.

Where did the second come from over here?

Commissioner.

These speakers make it really hard for me. Okay, in the case of ZC26-110, a motion was made by Commissioner Edmunds and then supported by Commissioner Trevino.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner Welch?

Nay.

Commissioner McCoy?

Aye.

Commissioner Edmonds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson?

Aye.

Commissioner Pierce? Aye. Commissioner Rogers?

No.

Commissioner Wurman?

Aye.

Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

With a vote of eight to two, motion carries. Next case on the agenda, ZC-26-112. The address is 3608 and 3612 Dexter Avenue. Applicant is Leslie K. and Doris J. and Arlen Purvis Jr., Texas Survey and Engineering, Theresa McGee. The request is to amend PD 1468, to add development standards for reductions in required parking, projected front yard setback, and rear yard supplemental setback, site plan included.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, or good afternoon, Council.

It's going to be evening soon if we don't.

Yeah, it's soon to be good evening. Good afternoon, Chairpersons. I'm Teresa McGee with Texas Surveying and Engineering. I'm the applicant on this file, but I would like to hand this presentation over to the owner and designer, Carl Hanfeld.

Good afternoon. My name is Carl Hanfeld. I'm with HGC Development, 4624 St. Amand Circle, Fort Worth, 76126. We're here to ask for some parking. It makes me a little nervous after that. But we have four requests we're asking for. This property was recently rezoned to commercial. We need to see if we could get A reprieve from 16 to 12 parking places is one request. We are also requesting that the rear 20-foot setback of the building can be utilized for part of that parking lot and the front setback of the building can be used for the front part of that parking lot. And then the last request is if we can align Our building, 20 feet off the front property line, due to the setback of the house next door, which we own, is much further off the street than the 20 foot. I'm here for questions.

I have a question. Yes, sir. What was your name again? I didn't. Carl Honfeld. Got it. And then Teresa is with you? Yes. Yes, okay. Just wanted to make sure I have everything straight. All the players. Are there any questions from the commissioners to the applicant at this time?

I missed one of the waivers. What was the waiver in the back?

The waiver in the rear is to allow us to have our parking lot closer to the rear property line than the back of the building is probably the best example. Currently, we're required because we are up against the residential behind us across the alley. to be 20 foot off the rear property line for any development, parking lot, building, anything.

Any questions? There is one person signed up in support.

That's probably me. Thank you.

Who was that?

Okay. He might be the person that signed up in support.

Well, the person that signed up is Leslie Purvis.

I'm Leslie Purvis. I'm going to pass to Carl in the light of what we've been all going through this afternoon.

Understood.

We'll go back to you.

All right. So it doesn't look like we have any opposition. So we're going to move on to.

There's opposition.

There is one.

Oh, there is one opposition. Ma'am, come on in.

What's your name? Did you give us a sheet?

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Sorry, I didn't see it.

That's all right. Good afternoon, evening, commission. Good evening. My name is Brenda Helmer. I'm a lifetime board member of Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association, and I'm speaking today on behalf of that organization. Last May, the city council approved changing the zoning of these two residentially zoned lots for a two-story office building even though city staff and zoning commission both recommended denial. A PDER for an office only with site plan was negotiated. I am here today to oppose on behalf of Arlington Heights Neighborhood Associations and the resident neighborhood The three requested variances to the ER zoning ordinance, all three involve parking spaces on the lot next to the building. We object to an under-parked 6,350 square foot office building located on a residential street with residential zoning behind it and residential zoning next door to it. If cars are parked on both sides of Dexter, only one car can get down the street. I personally find it appalling that zoning might allow any variances for first responders impediment to any neighborhood access. And any zoning that would permit same would be reckless. Approved under-parking commercial buildings in this area is just not a good idea because this entire area is already severely under-parked. The Premier Gardens apartment building across the street from the subject property covers almost the whole block south face and is grandfathered in with a severe parking shortage. Then there's Dickey's Arena that's right across the street from this on Montgomery. All the resident streets intersecting Montgomery Street required adopting mandatory residential permit parking. In addition, approving a parking deficit for this proposed new building creates future challenges for the next set of tenants whose parking needs might require more than the current tenants. We in Arlington Heights Neighborhoodization take the city's parking requirements very seriously and have seen how even the current zoning requirements still don't provide enough parking to support some of the uses. For example, WeWork office space could go into the space tomorrow with no variances needed. 13 parking spaces requested by this applicant wouldn't even come close to supporting that use. Also allowing necessary and required parking to encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks is a bad idea, especially since the only reason is because there's not enough room to provide required parking spaces for the square footage of the building they want to build. These required setbacks are essential for orderly development and provide a visual organization to the buildings in relation to one another. Allowing parking in the front yard setback creates a visual mismatch from the street view when it's next to a residential setback that's already established for the rest of the block. A simple solution for all these requested variances is to decrease the square footage of the building. Two tenants for 6,350 square feet between them, they're gonna need to provide eventually for parking, if not now, when? In Arlington Heights, our mantra, if you can't park it, don't build it. As we stated in our position letter that should be in your packet, these variances requests are wants, not needs. The building has not been built yet. The applicant has stated the only encumbrance is the zoning ordinance itself. Again, regarding zoning, these rules sometimes appear to be fluid. Stick with the zoning currently in place for this property on parking and setbacks. It is the best use for the neighborhood and surrounding properties. Any exception to the required zoning for this space would be irresponsible. We would hope that the developers of this office building would respect the zoning ordinance, as well as the scale and compatibility with the residential neighborhood abutting it. Your vote on this is bigger than just this case. Approving these variances will set a precedent that will impact the compatibility of commercial and residential development in this area for a very long time. Thank you for your support in denying these variances. Thank you.

Okay.

Regarding the setbacks, one detail I didn't allude to in my presentation is we either own or have under contract the next four or five lots to our west to for those to be redeveloped into um town homes so the setback of the lots next door will align with the setback of this building when we're done developing those lots so i don't think that should be and there will all be front entry garages because the alley on that city block is almost unusable there's so much fall and topography to it so that will create some consistency between this new building and then the projects next door. One other thing. The building's going to be two stories. All the houses next door will be two stories. So we'll be in alignment with what the new developments will be. OK.

But earlier testimony was that you wanted to use the back property for three, the setback change for three more parking places, right?

I don't remember stating a number. I just know that we need a relief of four parking places. I think we're required 16 and we have 14, I believe. I'm sorry, 12.

I show you need 16 and you have 12.

Yes, sir.

And that includes changing the setback, right?

Correct. Are there any other questions from the Commission? All right. With that, I'm going to close this public hearing and ask for a motion from Commissioner Edmunds.

I'm prepared to make a motion, but there are some questions here, and I'd like to have a little discussion with my fellow commissioners about how you feel about these waivers. This is a parking issue. Mm-hmm.

I like the statement that this request are wants, not necessarily needs. There are ways to, I think, still develop this lot, especially since it was to their advantage that it was rezoned. It kind of encroaches into the neighborhood a little bit.

I agree. We've got to set a precedent. We just had a case just a moment ago. So you gotta be consistent. You gotta be consistent. You gotta be consistent.

Mr. Chairman, I think what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners, and I agree with them, we come down to wants and needs. And it appears that the building square footage is not compatible with the parking plan. So you have some opportunities here to, if you wanted a continuance, you could probably change your plan, make it compatible and move ahead. But without the change, you're talking about fitting into a residential neighborhood. And there I think parking is very important. You want to speak to that? We can vote it up or down, but I mean, I just thought I'd give you the opportunity.

The public hearing has been closed.

It's closed.

Well, I make a motion we reopen the hearing so that the gentleman can answer the question.

Chairman? I have a second. I don't know that you need a motion. Let me just ask, I don't know if legal real quick.

Yeah, you don't need a motion. It's up to the chairman, the discretion of the chair to reopen the public hearing.

All right, I'll reopen the hearing to hear, to continue this discussion with the applicants.

Okay. I'll try to be brief. I know it's late. So from the standpoint of parking, this street, I don't know if y'all are familiar with the street. Across the street, there is on street parking for an apartment complex. Montgomery Street Cafe is directly across the street. It's all on street parking. So this is on the cusp of commercial. The lot next door to us is commercial that is on the corner of Dexter and Montgomery. So we are continuing, it's a continuation of the commercial. And then we are developing the lots next door to us. So we wouldn't do anything I think that would hurt the value of the properties that we're about to develop next door as well, so The building is in scale with everything that we're developing and everything in my mind that is around there I know that Montgomery and these streets are in transition, and I know it's an emotional Case for the community which I respect We're trying to do something that is well built well designed and is in It works with the community, but the parking is challenging with the setbacks that are required based on where we sit.

If you own the lots next to you, could you adjust? If you own the lots next to you, could you do a little adjustment there?

In what way?

Just to shimmy in four spaces?

That would be tough. I'd have to basically replant the entire lot into the economics of that just don't work. So I appreciate the idea One other thing I would like to say We are allowed to park. We're only a daytime business. So one of the aspects that was brought up was parking with with Dickies and all that we're daytime business. We close at five o'clock. We get to work at eight o'clock We are allowed to park at the rear of the building. We can't stripe it. So during the day I I'm allowed to use those by the rules, but I just can't park there at night and I can't stripe it. So we, by the book, we don't have enough parking, but by reality, I have enough parking on that site to do this. It's just, we're trying to, we have to follow or go by the setback rules for the parking.

Are there any other questions?

Can I change my mind? Sure. So one of the things, Carl, is that- Can you speak into the mic, ma'am?

Yeah, sorry.

One of the things is on the property where you're going to build the building, that building, that property already has something right up to the alley line. There's already, it's past the setback. There's something that was built there 50 years ago. And so it's already- There's already something built there, so when it gets torn down, it's not like he's gonna be putting something in a space where there's not an existing building. There's already an existing building there, and he's gonna scrape it and have these unofficial parking places, which I think that's a good move to get it off the alley, because the way it is right now, it backs up to an alley with A duplex that's being built right behind it. I mean, I think that's a good move on y'all's part to do that.

Thank you, sir.

All right. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to close the hearing again. Okay. So the public hearing is closed. I'm going to leave it up to Commissioner Edmonds to either make a motion or continue the discussion.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if the applicant wanted to continue the case, I'd be inclined to support a continuance, but since he's not interested in trying to make any kind of adaptation to the plan that would provide enough parking, I'm prepared to make a motion to deny ZC26112. Second.

Trujillo.

Okay. So in the case of ZC-26-112, Commissioner Edmonds has made the motion to deny and Commissioner Trujillo has seconded.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo?

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo? Aye. Commissioner McCoy? Aye. Commissioner Edmunds? Aye. Commissioner Robinson? Aye. Commissioner Pierce?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers? No. And Commissioner Castro?

Aye.

With a vote of nine, I'm sorry, eight to one, motion to deny carries. Next case, ZC-26-113. The address is 2801 Shoshone Drive, applicant Eagle Mountain, Saginaw ISD, Dwayne Jones, Teague, Nolan Perkins, Inc., Phillip Varghese. Request is from A5, one family residential and R10 lot line cluster to PDCF. Plan development for all uses in CF community facilities, excluding golf course and country club to allow an electronic changeable copy sign with development standards to be located across the street from A5 or B zoning district With an area of 20 square feet, which is 37% of the total sign area, site plan waiver requested.

Good evening. I think I'm at the threshold for saying good evening, right? All right. Good evening, chairperson and commission members. My name is Phillip Burgese with Tignall and Perkins. I also have Hunter Lee with Eagle Mountain Saginaw ISD with me. As mentioned, this is a zoning case to go to a PDCF zoning as recommended by staff for a signage that we would like to install as per school district requirements and as has been done on various other school district property within the city of Fort Worth. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Are there any questions for the applicant?

Yes, for a site plan waiver. Can you speak to that?

Yeah, the site plan has already been submitted to the city, and it's been provided. We already have a building permit, so we're already under construction. So the main reason for the site plan waiver is the site plan's already submitted with the city.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, hold on one second. Let me get organized here. Yeah, it looks like we don't have any opposition. So I'm going to move it to closing the hearing and making a motion.

Mr. Chairman, in case is EC26113, I make a motion to approve.

Second.

Okay. Commissioner Edmund, in the case of ZC-26-113, Commissioner Edmunds made a motion to approve and it was seconded by Robinson.

Commissioners, how do you vote? Commissioner Mayo.

Aye.

Commissioner Trujillo. Aye. Commissioner Welch. Aye. Commissioner McCoy. Aye. Commissioner Edmonds. Aye. Commissioner Robinson. Aye. Commissioner Pierce. Aye. Commissioner Rogers.

Aye.

And Commissioner Castro.

Aye.

The vote of nine zero, motion carries. next case cc-26-114 the address is generally bound to buyer along the union pacific railroad 29th street hampton street 32nd street glendora stroll schwartz avenue 31st street schott street dewey street weber street 28th street hutchinson street ohio street Glendale Avenue, Brennan Avenue, and Peak Street. The applicant is City of Fort Worth. The property is owned by multiple owners. The request is from CUP 29, I Light Industrial, J Medium Industrial, K Heavy Industrial, B2 Family, A51 Family, ER Neighborhood Commercial Restricted, and E Neighborhood Commercial II. MU2 high intensity mixed use, UR urban residential, B2 family, A51 family, E neighborhood commercial, and O1 floodplain.

Is that it? Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tony Harold. I'm the planning manager in the city manager's office. ZC26-114 is a council-initiated zoning change. We've been working with Mayor Portem Flores on this project. As you can see, the project area is just due northeast of the stockyards. Anchoring the site is Trinity Metro's north side Texrail station. This station provides an important stop along the Trinity Metro Texrail line that extends from DFW Airport to downtown. And this zoning change is meant to lay the groundwork for transit-oriented development and mixed-use growth center as designated by the 2023 Comprehensive Plan. So some background, the current zoning, as we mentioned earlier, is primarily industrial. You see that purple. And you see the black outline for the zoning case boundary alongside the location in the middle for the north side text rail station. The future land use, as I mentioned earlier, this area is designated in 2023 Comprehensive Plan as a mixed-use growth center, which is intended to provide a walkable, mixed-use, higher-intensity location for residents, visitors, employees, etc. And the idea of this site is to incorporate the transit station into a mixed-use, transit-oriented development for this site. The proposed zoning, we see there's quite a bit of mixed use directly around the station. We also have proposed urban residential along the edges, and you'll see the blue along the eastern edge of the mixed use area. That is city-owned property. That is the Lebeau Channel. It's floodplain, and we are looking to rezone that to 01, alongside with the park land, the city-owned park land being rezoned to A5. in this area. Just going back to the comprehensive plan, we see a snippet right here on the right side. But this north side Texrail station is identified as a future TOD site in the comprehensive plan. It's transit oriented development. The current zoning within the immediate vicinity consists mostly of heavy and light industrial districts. And this zoning case lays the groundwork again for the future transit oriented development in this site by rezoning to mixed use MU2 UR, B and E zoning districts alongside A5 and 01 for the preservation of open space and parkland. We recommend approval.

Any questions? Okay. All right, I don't have anyone on opposition. One person opposition? Okay. Did you fill out some paperwork? Okay, you may have to fill out one of these sheets after you're done, okay? We'll allow you. Are you opposition? Are you support?

My name is Herbert Gears. And, you know, I'm an old man now, but I used to be the youngest person I knew. And back then, when I was young, I had the blessing to be able to serve as the planning zoning commissioner out in Irving. And in 1999, like you all work hard, we worked hard and created a TOD, transit-oriented development in the urban center in Las Clinas. And now we have the music factory and all kinds of $4 billion worth of development around the station and understand the value of that. The reason I'm here is is I'm representing that property owner that's out there on the island in that picture. That's a family-owned and operated business that's been there for over 20 years, and we're worried that we're going to lose our business if the anchor's owning out. And we've heard things like that it becomes a legal nonconforming use, which means we can keep it and be fine. It caught my attention. Generally, TODs are sort of contiguous areas. And there's a lot in between us and where the TOD is going to really be concentrated by the station. You could say that the development from the transit will never reach us way out there, but that's okay. We don't want to interfere with... what staff's got on his mind to accomplish. We understand the value of increasing the tax base. It lessens the burden on all of us. And that's what happens when you get rail lines. You spend a lot of money, usually somebody does, on building them. And ridership doesn't really... uh bring all up the value but that's okay it's an amenity but what does bring high value is the development that occurs around the station so we support that so so to answer your question a long way are we for it or against it you know generally before it we just are looking for some kind of assurance you know that we'll have um you know a legal we'll be able to keep our business That's why I wanted to come up here, is to just, you know, are we looking at that right with regards to being able to keep our business if the zoning passes? That's all I have, unless you have questions for me.

Yes. Any questions?

I think staff can confirm that it would be legal non-conforming, correct? Correct.

Staff has met both with the business owner and the applicant along with Mayor Pro Tem Flores, zoning staff and planning staff, Mayor Pro Tem with the business owner and the property owner. It's a nuanced situation, but yes, there is discussion about ensuring that what he has can continue, but I don't have the details to be able to say, yep, you would be legal non-conforming.

If we voted to approve this today, does that mean that they could be possibly shut out?

That particular property, I believe, would be going to ER, neighborhood commercial. If I'm understanding right, the business is auto repair?

It's Williamson Tire Company. We sell tires for autos and trucks and do some maintenance stuff there.

if he if he's operating legally today then yes there is a path to continue that operation after the rezoning but your vote here today again is only going to recommend the zoning to the council district or council member are you saying that he's grandfathered No, I'm saying that if he is non-conforming and operating legally today, that there is a path to legal non-conforming status. But again, I've not been in those meetings and just don't have the specific info to be able to on the spot tell someone, yep, I'm confident you would be legal non-conforming. I am confident in the guidance that staff has given them thus far though.