August 22, 2017 P & Z Minutes




August 22, 2017


Chair Adam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.


Previous absences were excused.

PRESENT MEMBERS: Adam, Bowman, Hilliard, Tidwell



MEMBERS ABSENT: Pearson, Teague



Glenna Batchelor, Planning & Community Development


July 11, 2017, minutes were approved as presented.


Regular Agenda Items

Conditional Use Permit (CU-011-17) – 5126 Broadway (units A-N)

Application of David Barber, on behalf of Alrito Properties Corporation, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for office warehouse, automobile and light truck repair shop and contractor’s office (w/shop and garage) uses in the “C-3” Commercial District located on W126.5’ of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 32, Meadow Oaks Addition-Haltom, being approximately 0.73 acres south of Broadway Avenue, east of Haltom Road and west of Rita Lane, having the approximate address of 5126 Broadway Avenue (units A-N).

The legal notice regarding the public hearing was published in the August 5, 2017, Fort Worth Star Telegram. Notification was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet on August 5, 2017, and fifteen (15) property owners were notified. City staff received none

(0) returned in favor or having no objections, none (0) opposed or having objections, and one (1) returned to sender at the time of the P&Z meeting.

Staff presented and clarified the request.

Commissioner Hilliard asked to clarify that any of the units could have the requested uses.

Ms. Batchelor stated that there are existing tenants that fall into the requested uses that are currently nonconforming.

Commissioner Chapman asked about the units that are nonconforming, if they were to approve the CU with modifications as was discussed in precouncil, is there a way to address those nonconforming units which would not fall into the conditions of the CU.

Ms. Batchelor stated those units would remain nonconforming until the tenant vacates the unit.

Commissioner Tidwell asked about Exhibit A regarding the landscaping, would concrete have to be removed and has this been discussed with the applicant.

Ms. Batchelor stated that concrete fifteen feet (15’) from the property line would need to be removed to install the landscaping and applicant is aware of this item.

Chair Adam asked the applicant to come to the podium.

David Barber/leasing agent stated he has leased multitenant properties for a number of years. When they bought this property back in April, they have a budget to make some improvements and his job as a leasing agent was to try and get more office warehouse type users. They don’t want any more automobile users and automobile related users. The reason they didn’t ask for a zoning change is because it would allow those people to come in and frankly as a leasing agent he wants to be able to tell the prospects that come in that they cannot lease to automotive users. So maybe some of the confusion could be on his part that they have existing tenants that have an automotive related use that might be working on fenders or doing some restoration or doing some accessories but his charge from the ownership is to restrict any sort of automotive repair that would involve any fluids or cause a potential hazard moving forward. He realizes as a leasing agent current ownership can only promise what he wants to do now, but City has to realize what happens if they sell the property, what’s the use moving forward. So if it’s okay for him to reference what he overhead before the meeting, they are in total agreement with that, if the Commission would like to restrict any automotive uses moving forward to where their existing tenants that have that nonconforming use could stay there until they move out then they could lease to the traditional office warehouse user, that is really what they want. They think that is the best thing for the park and he has gone over with Ms. Batchelor all the improvements. They have a budget to spend some money on restriping. He is glad pictures taken recently that is not three months ago because there were a lot of abandoned cars when they bought the property, think people had dropped off boats. They went through a process of notifying all the tenants they had thirty (30) days to mark which vehicles were theirs. He didn’t hear anything prior to this meeting that they don’t fully agree with, so if the Commission removes the automotive use they are okay with that because the automotive uses they don’t think are the high and best use for the property. It’s just with the zoning matrix the way it is, as his letter indicates, has doctor offices, accounting offices, dentist offices and things like that, think you can tell by looking at the property those aren’t the kind of uses that are attracted there. It’s a great use for a typical office warehouse that doesn’t have any outside storage. Some of the tenants aren’t even

there every day, Andy’s Lawnmower is the only one that is there every day. Even though there is a conditional use permit there currently for the auto body shop that’s there, don’t necessarily want those uses allowed in the conditional use permit that the ownership is requesting. Again, they are in full agreement, went over again with Ms. Batchelor this morning the requirements for the setback, the monument sign they want to put up. They didn’t want to go spend a bunch of money before they came to the City and figured out what City wanted for the property and to be in compliance in that manner.

Commissioner Chapman said outstanding and appreciates the information. The most concern he has as was overheard in precouncil, so they are completely okay with this conditional use permit being revised to remove that language of automobile and light truck repair shop.

Mr. Barber replied in the affirmative.

Commissioner Chapman also asked that he had indicated that they did not want any outdoor storage.

Mr. Barber again replied in the affirmative.

Commissioner Chapman said that was a concern as was seen in the photographic evidence at the dumpster, doesn’t want to add to that because quite frankly it’s not good for the neighborhood.

Commissioner Hilliard said that after Mr. Barber explained what he really wants to do, if the Commission can structure that language that would eliminate that because the conditional use permit continues so the future owners would have to obey this that they issue now.

Commission Bowman asked if he had seen the Exhibit A, design standards, and is good with doing all the items.

Mr. Barber stated he didn’t see any conflicts. Did have a question about a truck that belongs to an electrical contractor that just uses that for storage for this supplies and they have multiple trucks but this truck is here sometimes but it is an operative truck. Is this considered outside storage because it has supplies with the business name (Lee-Lectric) on it and it parks there. Is that okay for a tenant to have a truck like that.

Commissioner Bowman mentioned that it says there is no outside storage of vehicles overnight in the actual standard, it doesn’t specify whether it is business related or not.

Commissioner Tidwell said a lot of these standards refer to the automobile and light truck repair shop uses..

Mr. Barber said that was his question.

Commissioner Tidwell said that with a few others, does the Commission need to remove some of them, i.e. if no outside life station isn’t really applicable.

Ms. Batchelor said that was regarding the auto repair so some of those could be eliminated if requested and the Commission wants to go over the list of ones to eliminate from the Exhibit A, but Mr. Barber is fine with them remaining.

Commissioner Bowman asked about the storage of vehicles that are not company vehicles or the tenant’s actual property. Like the truck identified earlier, that is the tenant’s vehicles, they are not storing someone else’s vehicle for them.

Ms. Batchelor said that would be allowed to remain as long as it is currently tagged, inspected and road-worthy, would be more concerned about the trailers stored on the property.

Mr. Barber said that is in the spirit of the kind of tenant they are looking for, if you have a contractor that has a service vehicle that they use in their business then they would be okay with that, under no circumstances would they want any user to be able to store a vehicle that didn’t specifically relate to their business, even if it was a personal vehicle. Especially not a repair vehicle because they don’t want those type of uses. That would benefit him currently in negotiating with his existing tenants that have the nonconforming use if this conditional use permit has the specification that you cannot store cars that are being worked on under the automotive auspices cause that benefits him and we achieve the same goal. Don’t want these cars sitting out there that they have been trying to get rid of.

Commissioner Tidwell said he thinks a few of these, like Mr. Barber said, could be used as a tool even though they are grandfathered in you could say this new CUP says you can’t do this you could use this as a tool even though some of these don’t really apply in the conditional use.

Mr. Barber said he agrees with that 100%.

Commissioner Tidwell said maybe they don’t really need to remove any of the standards. Chair Adam asked Commission if okay with leaving the standards as written.

Commissioner Chapman asked about potentially removing item 7 in it’s entirety so that there is no storage; either removing it in it’s entirety or stipulate no storage of used oil, used oil filters or other fluids regulated by TCEQ.

Commissioner Tidwell asked if there were other uses besides repair shops that may have fluids that may be regulated by TCEQ.

Commissioner Bowman said there are several business types that are regulated by TCEQ besides just automotive, like air conditioning/heating that use all kinds of fluids.

Chair Adam reminded that there would be open discussion among the Commission after the public hearing is closed.

Ms. Batchelor reminded that there is the existing lawn repair business that has fluids and is an allowed use.

Chair Adam opened the Public Hearing to those desiring to speak.

No one was in the audience to speak on the request.

Chair Adam closed the Public Hearing. Discussion by the Commission

Discussion amongst Commission about stipulating that company vehicles would be allowed to remain overnight on property and removing automotive and light truck repair shop use.


Commissioner Tidwell made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Chapman, to approve CU-011-17 with the following stipulations: 1) remove the automobile and light truck repair shop use; 2) modify Exhibit “A”, Item 1 to add to end of sentence “except operational company vehicles”. Motion to approve passed by a vote of 5-0-0.

Replat (P-006-17) – 6340 North Beach Street

Application of Matt Maly for approval of a replat creating Lots 12-R1, 12-R2 and 12-R3, Block 1, Gray Addition from Lots 6, 7 and 12R, Block 1, Gray Addition, located in the “C-2” Commercial District, containing approximately 5.542 acres, and locally known as 6340 North Beach Street.

Staff presented and clarified the request.

Chair Adam asked the applicant to come to the podium.

Chris Biggers with Dunaway Associates stated he didn’t really have a whole lot to add as it relates to the replat but he would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have.

Chair Adam asked if this is a specialty grocery store.

Mr. Biggers said you could call it that, they certainly call themselves or see themselves as a specialty grocery store. It is about 36,000sf in size and they are actually one of the largest grocers in Europe, they have over 10,000 stores. They are moving into the US now or started about four (4) years ago. Actually their first 25 stores opened on the east coast within the last two (2) months so they are moving into the DFW market. This would be one of their first stores coming in and it’s one of their standard. They don’t view themselves as a discount grocer. A lot of people compare them to Aldi just because they are tied to the European area. They don’t see themselves as a direct competitor to Aldi,

they are a little bit higher quality but their goal is high quality at low prices. Commissioner Hilliard asked the name of the business.

Mr. Biggers said Lidl, pronounced “leedle”.

Commissioner Hilliard asked if their product line would be similar to Hen House.

Mr. Biggers said they are compared to Trader Joe’s. It’s a real modern building, all glass front façade and very modern looking, very sleek. They have a lot of their own single brands as well as some national brands that are available. They have pretty much everything available that you would need in a grocery store but in a much more confined space because they don’t have six (6) different brands of an item.

Chair Adam opened the Public Hearing to those desiring to speak.

No one was in the audience to speak on the request.

Chair Adam closed the Public Hearing. Discussion by the Commission

No discussion among Commission


Commissioner Hilliard made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Tidwell, to approve the replat of Lot 12R1, Block 1 of the Gray Addition as presented. Motion to approved passed by a vote of 5-0-0.

Rezone (Z-007-17) – 4803 NE 28th Street (TAD shows 4807 NE 28th Street)

Application of Hudson’s Mobile Glass Service, Inc.l for a Zoning Change request from “C- 3” Commercial District to “C-4” Commercial District located on Lot 4 W54’3, Block 3, Earles Addition, being approximately 0.3928 acres located north of NE 28th Street and east of Harris Lane, locally known as 4803 NE 28th Street (TAD shows 4807 NE 28th Street).

The legal notice regarding the public hearing was published in the August 3, 2017, Fort Worth Star Telegram. Notification was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet on August 3, 2017, and twenty-three (23) property owners were notified. City staff received one (1) returned in favor or having no objections, none (0) opposed or having objections, and one (1) returned to sender at the time of the P&Z meeting.

Staff presented and clarified the request.

Commissioner Chapman asked if square footage of Hudson’s building is known versus the square footage of the facility where the pawn shop is in now.

Ms. Batchelor stated that would be a good question for the applicant.

Commissioner Tidwell asked about Haltom City’s engineer requiring removal of the parking on 28th Street.

Ms. Batchelor said as far as removal of the one approach directly in front of the building, that would be an engineering call on requiring curbing to be in place there and eliminating the drive approach because 28th Street is 183 which is TXDOT.

Commissioner Tidwell asked if this could be a PD request.

Ms. Batchelor said that since pawn shop is an allowed us in C-4, a rezone was requested.

Commissioner Hilliard asked about the landscaping since that area is already paved, how do we propose that is going to happen.

Ms. Batchelor stated that would be part of their development when they submit for their building permit. If they don’t do any modifications, which they will have to make the ADA requirements, then that is when we would address that. It is a change of use so that is why it can be required.

Commissioner Hilliard said then we would expect for a lot of concrete to be removed.

Ms. Batchelor said they would saw cut the concrete, much like when the car lots zoning changed to C-5 several years ago and they were required to install landscaping.

Commissioner Furrie asked about closing off one of the drive approaches in front.

Ms. Batchelor explained that they currently have two (2) drive approaches in front and like previously stated, 28th Street is 183 which is a TXDOT right-of-way. It is not an allowed maneuvering, per Engineering, to back out onto a roadway. So what we would propose is that curbing be installed along the front of the building as opposed to the approach, that would also allow them to be able to saw cut the concrete to be able to put in that fifteen foot (15’) landscaping.

Commissioner Furrie asked who would be responsible for the landscaping. Ms. Batchelor stated that would be the tenant or property owner.

Chair Adam asked the applicant to come to the podium.

Karen Hudson stated their building wasn’t for sale but Cash America wants to buy their building because the building they are in they’ve outgrown and wanted to know if Hudson wanted to sell their building. Hudson doesn’t use their building for anything besides office and to store their trucks because they are a mobile service. Hudson found a building on Carson and Cash America wanted their building. Ms. Hudson’s understanding is that the Hudson building is bigger than the Cash America building. They also have more parking needs and they have more use they can do with the Hudson building as far as storage

cause they have run out of storage. Also their lease is up where they are located. Cash American has been contacting Ms. Hudson’s daughter on emails for about a year and a half and really wanted the Hudson building. Ms. Hudson’s brother came in town and they agreed on selling but what they found out is that they are a C-3 and not a C-4 when they started doing the contract on it, so they contact the City about pursuing rezone.

Commissioner Chapman asked if anyone was here from Cash America. Ms. Hudson said no, she is the only one here.

Commissioner Chapman said he didn’t know if she could speak on their behalf but don’t anticipate they would have any problems with the proposed changes that would be necessary as far as closing off the front drive approach, installing curb and parking only along the west side of building, do you think that would impact the contract with the pawn shop.

Ms. Hudson said she was talking with their realtor and their attorney last Friday. Having been on 28th Street for the last twenty-five (25) years, she had been telling them about the changes that have to be made when you do anything, you’ve got to have some kind of greenery or something out front to spiff up the place is what she was telling them and she wished 28th would get nicer businesses. When they redid their storefront, that is what they were hoping for all of 28th but of course that didn’t happen. Their attorneys and realtors have been scoping out all of Haltom City for a place to move.

Commissioner Bowman said this is not a lease, they are buying the property from Hudson. Ms. Hudson said yes they are buying it.

Commissioner Bowman said it would be up to them to address the building and requirements.

Ms. Hudson said she had already told them that their building is so old, it was the original Kissinger’s building, they would have to come in a put restrooms in to meet ADA. Their building, the inside of their building is probably from the 50s. Not the office, but the warehouse part is bad, there’s not a men and women restroom or anything.

Ms. Batchelor advised that one of the questions that was asked earlier was the Hudson building size and their building is 5000sf.

Commissioner Tidwell thanked Ms. Hudson for giving them a heads up on the improvements that would be required.

Ms. Hudson said she hopes it goes through and would go onto Carson too.

Commissioner Chapman said while he doesn’t want to impact their contract and certainly wants to give them the chance to be successful with this, from his perspective he does

have concerns with signing off on something that we don’t have guarantees as far as the pawn shop living up to these standards because basically what they are doing is approving a rezone before the contract is complete. He personally has some issues with that transaction without having someone from the pawn shop here to speak of their willingness to make sure they live up to the conditions. If they change this and move this to C-4, don’t know who is coming in there next if you don’t have a contract and they decide to back out. They will have that conversation in just a moment.

Chair Adam opened the Public Hearing to those desiring to speak.

No one was in the audience to speak on the request.

Chair Adam closed the Public Hearing. Discussion by the Commission

Commissioner Chapman said since there is not a completed contract at this point with the

pawn shop, what would be the obligation on Ms. Hudson’s behalf if they change this zoning and they back out of the contract. Is she going to have a responsibility to live up to the rezone conditions and make all these modifications.

Ms. Batchelor said no, there would be no burden on her because the use would not be changing at that point. Her business would continue there and they wouldn’t relocate to Carson.

Commissioner Chapman said the rezone would be there.

Ms. Batchelor said the rezone would go with the property but her as a tenant, she would not be required to do the abandonment of the approach, the landscaping and all that was previously mentioned, that would be for the pawn shop.

Commissioner Chapman said any future contracts that would be made on behalf of Hudson’s, they wouldn’t have to come to the Commission because the zoning would have already been done but they would still have to live up to all those engineering standards in order for them to effect the contract.

Ms. Batchelor said yes.

Commissioner Tidwell asked Commissioner Chapman for clarification.

Commissioner Chapman said if the contract falls through, then Hudson is not required to live up to the rezone standards because that puts a burden on them, basically they are not changing their business but any contract coming forward, if they signed a contract to sell that business, any business coming in would have to meet all these standards.

Commissioner Bowman said they would be nonconforming because they remain and when they started the business it was zoned that way. They could attract businesses that are allowed in C-4 if that didn’t come in but she needs this to make it happen, that’s part of

the contract. Think the standards behind it is actually a good thing and think they will need that in order to occupy the building, can’t see them occupying a building without putting in proper restrooms and doing these things.

Commissioner Chapman said his concern was that Hudson did not have undue burden or responsibility.

Commissioner Tidwell said it is change of use that prompts the requirements.

Ms. Batchelor said this is much the same as an applicant down the street that had an open approach and not only had to put in a fire hydrant across the street at Eastridge but also redo the approach where it wasn’t all open, do landscaping and all that. That’s when that comes in, is when there is a change of use.

Commissioner Tidwell asked if they don’t sell the property, any concern about it being C-4 for future tenants.

Commissioner Chapman said he is not, the uses he saw within C-4 did not concern him. The only concern he has is two-fold; one that the Hudson’s did not have to bear the responsibility of making those changes; secondly and most importantly is that any new tenant that the property would be sold to would have all those conditions for the engineering changes.

Commissioner Hilliard wanted to restated and confirm one more time because if this deal didn’t work out and Hudson stayed there for a couple of years or so and then they decided to sell it, only if a change of use occurred would the new buyer need to come before the Commission right, if the new buyer had a business similar to this or something cause they could go in the C-4 and not have to come before the Commission. So from a future perspective

Commissioner Chapman said they would not have to come before the Commission because the zoning would carry over because it is being allowed to change to C-4. What they would have to do is meet city standards and engineering standards which would eliminate the front parking along TXDOT at 28th.

Commissioner Hilliard said if it is already C-4 how would we know that they are going to be moving in there, what would prompt us to know that this new company who bought it would have to adjust the design standards to meet the C-4 design standards.

Ms. Batchelor advised that any new tenant has to apply for a new certificate of occupancy.


Commissioner Chapman, made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Bowman, to approve Z-007-17 Motion to approve passed by a vote of 4-0-1.


Ms. Batchelor advised tattoo shop passed first reading and 5617 Midway requires site plan.


Chair Adam adjourned the meeting at 8:21PM. Respectfully submitted,

Glenna Batchelor, Interim Director Planning & Community Development

Juanita Adam, Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission