City Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, it's nine o'clock, so we will go ahead and get started. This is the Thursday, August 13th, 2026 City Plan Commission for the City of Fort Worth.

Good morning and welcome to the August 13th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City Council of Fort Worth City Plan Commission. The commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public hearings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these include the city subdivision ordinance, city plan commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the state law. The commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, street and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The Commission is made up of 11 members, Fort Worth citizens, each of whom are appointed by the City Council. A quorum of six of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the Commission's business. Seven members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Carolyn Kranz, the Chair of the City Planning Commission. Other Commission members present are Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Sims, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Rusher, Commissioner Reed. Staff members present today are Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, Christopher Thornton, Stu Rosette, and David, I don't see David. My name is Stephen Murray and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of the city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard. Today's public hearings are being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet. To achieve an orderly and timely hearing, we request that you observe the following rules and procedures. All cases are called. Applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara Soltero keeping time today. Prior to addressing the commission, clearly state your name. Remember that all dialogue will only occur between the speaker and the commission. Upon the chairman's initial closure of the case, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the case. No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed. Be advised that the Commission's decisions on platting matters is final. Action on the other docket items constitute a recommendation to the City Council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call Development Services Department at 817-392-8027. Thank you for your attention. Madam Chairman, Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes for the previous meeting.

Commissioners, if you've had a chance to review the minutes, we'll entertain a motion or discussion.

I move to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Second.

You have a motion from Commissioner Johnson, a second from Commissioner Kelly. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Commissioner Richard? Yes. Commissioner Rigg?

Yes.

Vice Chair Krantz? Abstain.

Okay, motion passes. All right, first case, FS 26057, Alliance Center North, Lots 1R and 2R, Block 3. Waiver requests section 31106C3, Street Design Standards, Council District 10. General location is south of Elizabethtown Cemetery Road, east of North Beach Street and west of Gatehouse Drive. Applicant is Westwood Professional Services Incorporated.

Good morning, Commission. So the case before you today is centered around Elizabethtown Cemetery Road. It's an undeveloped, unconstructed, previously prescriptive right-of-way. It's only 34 feet in width, and the standard width for a local street is a 50-foot wide cross-section, which means it's shy of 16 feet. Their half of that dedication would be 8 feet, so that's why the waiver request is for an 8-foot dedication along Elizabethtown Cemetery Road. All that being said, there's a lot of correspondence that you've received related to this case, but it centers around the land use that would go on the property. Land use, as you know, is not a discussion item or something we take into consideration when considering waivers. All the zoning is already in place and established on the property, and as long as whatever they're proposing on the piece of property conforms to the zoning, then that's not really an issue. What's at hand is the dedication of the additional eight feet of right-of-way for Elizabethtown Cemetery Road. Given that all their access is planned to come off of North Beach Street, an existing and fully constructed arterial roadway adjacent to their site, staff has no reason but to support their waiver request. Here's a unique fact. This is a replat. If you notice, these are two platted lots. Well, when this plat originally came through, we didn't make them get a waiver for this roadway, even though at that time it was substandard still. So I thought it was kind of interesting that we're now requiring them to get the waiver for this substandard street section. Needless to say, it wasn't an issue then. It's still not an issue now. Staff supports the waiver.

Any questions, commissioners? Okay, I believe we may have a speaker for this. Anyone here to speak in support of this item? If you'll come forward over on this side, please, and state your name and city, please.

Good morning, Cole Weber with Westwood Professional Services, office at 98 Hillwood Parkway in Fort Worth, Texas.

I'm just here as the applicant, here to answer any questions. I don't really have much to add from what Alex pointed out, so if there are questions, happy to answer them.

Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? I don't see any. Thank you for being here. Anyone else here to speak on this matter? Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Would you mind please stating your name and your city?

My name is Daisy. I own property in the vicinity of the location in which this would be existing.

Thank you.

I am within that few meters of where we should have received notification. I never received any notification along with several other residents that live in the community. The question is whether or not the HOA was notified of this existing property in advance so that we could be prepared for this case in general. I understand that you were saying that land use is outside the scope of today's plot proceedings, and I'm not asking you to rezone the property today. I'm asking to identify exactly what 31-106 requires. That requirement, the applicant is asking you to waive. And what findings you must make to legally grant that waiver. Part of this is a lack of information that's been shared. Previously there was information on that this does not meet some of the traffic or the roads do not meet the industrial type of traffic and so being that we're asking for this waiver in all the general plan, does this still exist as far as that road construction and is it still shown to believe as previously stated that it will not have any impact on the traffic that is planned for the future? Has a stormwater drainage study requires for this final plat been accepted? What is the number? What is its number so that I can properly identify that information? Does it establish an adequate outfall and evaluation downstream impacts to Elizabeth Creek? I'm asking about infrastructure necessary to support the plat, not the permitted land use. For each concern you determine is outside of the jurisdiction today, I'd like to identify Fort Worth's body or proceeding that does not have jurisdiction, whether that approval has already occurred, especially prior to this current endeavor. and whether residents still have an opportunity to be heard on you know, the the general issue not just now but This is just the beginning of much more to come and so I would make an estimation of that this is not going to be the end of This type of request and so with With the Solitica data centers from previous concerns about what they do and just want to identify what type of relationship that there may have in the overall comprehensive plan and why it does not currently meet the standards of comprehensive the city's Fort Worth comprehensive plan and why that was previously denied that would bring us to this, would bring us to this points in general.

Thank you.

Regarding the stormwater aspect of things, stormwater must be approved prior for the overall plat to be approved. The overall plat has not been approved yet. It's still under review, but stormwater would have to be approved prior to allowing the final plat to be approved.

Drainage and H&H studies as well.

Right.

And traffic impact analysis.

Yes.

And we'll receive a comprehensive...

information for the neighborhood to be able to see what types of um permits have been already completed to make this project um yeah you know what we can do is afterwards if you want to grab one of my staff or whatnot and we can kind of see what exactly what you want we can try to grab it for you

Thank you very much for being here. Please connect with somebody from staff. We want to make sure that you do get the information that you're looking for today. If the applicant has anything to add to that, there's an opportunity for a rebuttal. If you'd like, you don't have to.

But I would say if anything that you can't get from staff, if I can provide you my information, I'm happy to also support whatever Stephen's team is trying to provide you.

Thank you. I appreciate you making that connection. Anyone else to speak on this matter?

Okay.

Then we will close the public hearing and commissioners entertain discussion or a motion. And Commissioner Kelly, I believe this is in your district.

I want to make a motion to approve the waiver to section 31-106C3 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement to dedicate eight additional feet of the right-of-way for Elizabethtown Cemetery Road and conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting the platting comments in the staff report. I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Kelly, a second from Commissioner Risher. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Next case, FS26157, Union Depot Edition, Waiver Requests, Section 31106C9, Street Alley Intersection, Corner Clips, and Section 31106G2, Alley Width Requirements, One Lot, Council District 8. General location is north of Tucker Street, south of Bessey Street, east of Illinois Avenue, and west of Tennessee Avenue. Applicant is CBG, surveying Texas LLC.

All right, so the reason this plot is in here, the applicant, well, this is one of those old parts of town where essentially there was a conveyance that created a deeded parcel that wasn't consistent with the plotted lot. So to make it consistent again, they're plotting a single lot here. What's requiring waivers though is typically alleys, I believe with infill it's a bit different, but for residential, the subdivision ordinance points out that they need to be 16 feet in width. Currently it's 11 feet, I believe. And since their proposed lot is exactly 5,000 square feet, they have an option to either dedicate the right-of-way and have to go to BOA or request the waivers to the right-of-way dedication requirements and come to us. And just to simplify the process, they're coming through CPC to request a waiver so they can maintain the minimum lot size.

The main concern

I'll go back to the aerial. The main concern that there would have been on this one is from transportation, if there was any issues with alley use. But as you can see here, it's an unimproved alley. And since most of the properties there access from the front, they didn't see any issues with the applicant requesting to waive the right-of-way dedication requirements. And as for the corner clip, which is also required when an alley intersects with the street, in place of not dedicating the right of way for the corner clip, they're gonna dedicate a 10 by 10 public open space easement for visibility for any cars theoretically down the line if there was an alley that would need to turn there.

But again, at this time, we're recommending approval.

As I said, the main issue would have been transportation, but they don't have any issues with the request, so again, we're recommending approval.

Thank you, any questions for staff? Great, anyone here to speak on this matter?

Good morning, my name is Alexis Iracheta. I am one of the owners of the lots. So I would be directly affected by the replotting of this. In replotting these two lots to make them now face Turner, I believe. Is there any kind of choice in the matter or how do we go about selecting who gets which lot? Isn't that part of this?

Alex? Which lot do you own?

I own the one that's on the corner of both Tennessee and Turner. As per the replotting, it would rotate them so that they both now face Turner, correct?

No, it's not impacting your lot. It's only impacting the lots in red or the area in red. The reason why you were notified is because you're within 300 feet of the proposed replot.

Okay.

Yeah, so your lot is remaining the way it is. Yeah, okay. And if we need to, after the meeting, if we can kind of go into it in a little bit more detail. This is a reply to someone else's lot. The reason why you were notified was because of your proximity. But we can kind of talk about your options for your lots if you choose to do so.

Maybe after this meeting. They had notified me that in order for them to be buildable, they'd have to be rotated. So this isn't for that?

This is just for their lot. Yeah, not your lots.

I apologize.

No, that's okay, no. If you'll hold on afterwards, we can discuss it for sure.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this matter? I don't see anyone, so we'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. Commissioner Sims, I believe this is your district, and it's a long motion.

I'm with you. I motion for the approval of waiver to section 31-106C9 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement for a 10 foot by 10 foot triangular corner clip right of way dedication at the intersection of the alley along lot 11R, block 22 in Tennessee Avenue, as well as approval of waiver to section 31-106G2 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement to dedicate three additional feet of right of way for the 10-foot rear alley and conditional approval of the final plan upon meeting the planning comments in the staff report.

I second.

A motion by Commissioner Sims, a second from Commissioner Reed. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Alex, do you mind? Meeting with the gentleman right now. Yeah, I'm kind of going over everything. All right next case is FS 26 167 ECX South lot 1 block 1 waiver request section 31 102 B 2 interconnectivity of neighborhoods council district 8 North of Bluebell Drive south of Arnold Drive and east of Fossil Hill Drive. The applicant is Kim Lee Horne

Good morning, Commission. So just to kind of help clarify where this roadway is, Southway Drive is right there, coming out of Everman, subbing into the subject property. That's the reason for the waiver request, is normally we would require these roadways to be extended through the property to the plat boundaries. In this instance, given the industrial land use that's proposed on this property and the residential property to the south, staff is supportive of the waiver request to not extend the roadway.

Any questions for staff? Anyone here to speak on this matter? Please come forward.

Hi, my name is Ren Willis. I live in Fort Worth. I'm here as the applicant, just to help answer any questions.

Any questions for the applicant? None at the moment, thank you. Anyone else here to speak on this matter? Please come forward.

My name is Sue Weston. I'm with Weston Gardens. I live at 8100 Anglin Drive. I got notification of this because I am within 300 feet of this huge data center. I'm going to read what I have. I normally speak from the heart, and I may say something at the end, but I wanna read it because I wanna make sure it all gets into reading. And this, I don't have a problem with the waiver, but I have a problem with the final platting, and I understand that's part of it today. I want you to consider this as my formal objection to approval of FS 26167. This case is ineligible for the short plat administrative approval. I own the property at 8100 Anglin Drive that is directly to the west and the north of this proposed property. The city staff completely missed the bordering historic and cultural landmark on my property during the September 2025 rezoning. The development requires complex structural buffers, heavy environmental drainage reviews, and specialized easements. Since I share a property line with the data center plat, I must insist that the developer meet the absolute strictest technical requirements under Fort Worth 31 subsection regulations. Stormwater runoff data centers require massive impervious acreage, concrete roofs, concrete roofs and parking lots. The flooding in our area already can reach dangerous levels and landlock the property during excessive rain. says seasons we demand a copy of the developers downstream assessment under Texas state law the development cannot increase the peak roof runoff rate onto our historic property I don't believe that this is possible vibration and structural protections my hundred year old historic structure stone structures older foundations and stone Garden water features are highly vulnerable to heavy construction machinery, as well as ongoing cooling fans. Once the data center is operational, we demand a pre-construction vibration monitoring plan and strict construction easements along the shared property line. We also demand to see a formal site plan of the property and the buildings to be at least a mile from this historic property to limit the vibration damage to the structures. We demand to see all environmental impact studies. We're very concerned about the heat from the data center, wildlife, lack of bees, pollination of the garden. As an endangered historic asset, any plotting on case FS 26167 requires a mandatory review by the Historic and Cultural Commission before an administrative or CPC action can legally occur. All of the requirements for a heavy industrial hyperscale data center to share a property line with a historic designated property automatic disqualifies this case and requires it not to be a simple case. And we also wanted to add that we have contacted, the community leaders have contacted the city attorney's office about whether Black Mountain and Edge Connect is actually vested to where this case is not under the new moratorium. So we would like that to be addressed and also we would like this case to be forwarded to the new data center task force. Thank you.

Thank you.

This plot is up for administrative approval. If there are any outstanding stormwater requirements that still have to be completed, then they will have to do so. Any traffic impact studies and things to that nature that aren't already approved will need to be approved. From a legal perspective, legal can be done. discuss whatever they need to discuss based on what was said. So right now we're just kind of focusing on that waiver request. And that's all I really have to say right now.

Any questions for that speaker before we move on to?

I have a question, I have a concern. So if legal is involved, especially if there's concern that historical markers and whatnot were missed in the original planning, should we put a hold on this until legal has an opportunity to address those issues or would everything continue to?

Yeah, let's have legal opine on that particular point.

Especially if they've notified and turned something over to legal, if that's being reviewed, I don't know if we should just continue to move forward.

I'll give you the response I always have to give you. State law does not allow this body to continue a plat unless the applicant requests that continuance. So you have no authority to continue. Your only options are to approve it, approve it with conditions, or disapprove it.

Can I ask a question? I know this week council adopted a certain provision on proof of public utility commission or caught either I guess approval as a prerequisite for plat approval. Does this project fall within that new requirement and are we in any gray area by granting conditional approval?

You're not, so this application and this project was already in process before council adopted that ordinance Tuesday night. Okay, thank you.

So, but would we not want to be in alignment with something that the council has since recommended?

So the council is aware, actually I stood up at that meeting and explained to them that ordinance does not stop projects from vesting. And if a project is already in the door, already has its application here with the city, the city can't impose new requirements on that project. The rules that were in place when they submitted their applications are the rules that apply to that project throughout the life of the project.

Okay.

Let's move on to our next speaker. If you'll state your name and city, please.

My name is Jackson Weston, Fort Worth, Texas. I'm with Weston Gardens too, and I'll make my comments brief. Some of them are similar, but just wanted to say thank you all for taking the time to listen. This case requires a comprehensive flood study of the entire property and surrounding area. This property and surrounding area includes Chambers Creek, Our property at Weston Gardens has flooded during heavy rains multiple times over the 42 years that Weston Gardens has been in existence on the property at 8100 England Drive. Most recently in 2018, the creek jumped its banks and swept away hundreds of plants we were growing on the property. We are a plant nursery and landscaping company, but as she mentioned before, we have historic gardens that are located near this property in question and we were given a historic designation in 04 by the city of Fort Worth. The 2018 flood caused devastation along the creek and inventory loss in our property. It also caused multiple fatalities in the nearby city of Everman. This flood occurred during our current conditions in the neighborhood which contains lots of green space. A data center campus with multiple buildings and parking lots may exacerbate this flooding issue and will certainly not help the flooding situation. So I implore all of y'all to require a comprehensive flood study of this area. This is a hyperscale 500 acre AI data center going in near us and not just one small piece of land. There's multiple pieces to this that seem to be introduced at different times. So please give yourself the gift of time to just consider this, protect our beautiful part of Fort Worth. And before approving the, the platting. Again, we have no issue with the waiver for the road, but just wanted to make my concerns voiced there. Thank you all.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this matter? Okay, we'll close the public hearing and commissioners have a discussion or motion.

So I understand that we can't... This body cannot offer a continuance for this case. Only the applicant can. I would compel the applicant to ask for a continuance if possible. until some of these things are cleared up, the litigation portion of it, the drainage studies, so on and so forth, some of the concerns that the residents or the people who have spoken today have. Because I can't say that I would be in favor of voting to approve the waiver at this point without that.

Thank you. Clarification, the second part of the motion with the conditional approval, does that, necessarily require those things to be addressed before the approval.

Yeah, conditional approval means it's conditioned on meeting all the requirements for stormwater, for TPW, for platting, and all those other things.

The legal questions that may be open.

That's correct.

I would just echo. I think the concerns may be legitimate. I view this as a very narrow vote on the waiver for the stub out. and creating the context for all of those things to be addressed in the normal course of review. And so I think the vote today on this narrow waiver, I'm comfortable with, so long as we know that that normal process is gonna carry out.

Great points, thank you.

I'm still not 100% comfortable with it. I guess maybe I'm not completely understanding. I think that's especially with the legal aspect is considering the historical nature of the properties involved. I'm leery about moving forward with this waiver. everything not completely being addressed properly. So in the time we have.

Question on that and then Commissioner Reed.

So if I'm hearing right, the plaintiffs are all right with the waiver. It's just the other part that they're not okay with, which have nothing to do with what we're going to be voting on today. Am I correct with that?

I mean, what's going to be addressed with stormwater, floodplain, and things to that nature will have to be addressed, but not with us. The plat will not be approved without stormwater approval, without floodplain approval, if there's an historic component, without the historic approvals. What we're considering is a conditional approval of this plat with a waiver for that street stub out. Everything else that's required for a plat, the stormwater, the floodplain, everything will need to still be addressed prior to being recorded, prior to being approved. All those things need to be addressed prior to approval. And the reason why they're here, otherwise they wouldn't need to come here, is because of the street stub out aspect.

Okay, so what I'm hearing, I'm with Commissioner Adams. I'm in favor of the waiver.

The applicant never got a chance to provide any rebuttal.

Thank you. Would the applicant like to provide a rebuttal?

Yes, and I would just like to hit on that all the drainage studies, they'll be very thorough, but we cannot proceed with them. Part of the city of Fort Worth public improvement process, you have to have your plat submitted first and accepted for review, and this is part of that. Once the plat is accepted, then we'll start our public studies, including the drainage study, stormwater improvements, all of the concerns about the land use and flooding, we can't increase runoff to our neighbors it's not how drainage works here and so we'll we'll make sure nothing gets worse we'll seek to improve it I just wanted to reiterate that this is the first step in the process. We don't have the completed drainage study yet because that doesn't, that's not how it fits in the for work development timeline. But again, we cannot construct until the plat is approved. Plat won't be approved until the drainage study is approved by city staff. So hopefully any concerns there, they will be mitigated by city staff later.

Thank you, any follow-up questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Are we allowed to ask those that were in opposition if that answers their questions, if that meets their concerns?

Sorry, I can't see you behind the light turn here, but those who spoke in opposition, we would like to hear from you if this response has addressed your concerns regarding the conditional nature of the approval. At least make sure we have an understanding on how the process works at this point.

I understand. Yeah, the stub out, the little road, we went out there and looked at it, and I don't have a problem with that. But it also says that this is the approval for the plat.

This is the conditional approval, and that's the part we want to clarify and make sure you understand that the approval is conditional upon all of the other things that you mentioned.

Okay, and I will send you an email to that, do all of those so that you have it. But yes, the historic and cultural, it has just been totally ignored from the city council on, even though it is valid and it needs to go to the cultural and historic officer because there's lots of implications with a data center being directly next to us with the vibrations. These are 100-year-old walls. and they are also like done with lime mortar whereas now they use Portland. So if you have all these vibrations from construction and some of the prior meetings that we've had with when it was Black Mountain was that we're not gonna be taking any of this stuff out because there's a lot of flood area but now things are, have been, like large trees have been tagged to be removed and stuff. So we're very concerned about what's going to happen. We want, you know, today I was just like, I'm just praying to make sure I could come in here and explain to y'all because it seems so complicated, and that's why I wrote it down. And then I was watching on the moratorium, and one young man was on there just about to cry that he had a five-month-old daughter and wants to raise her in Fort Worth. and wants the area to be clear, and wants all these things to be addressed. And I thought, I have to go and explain it to y'all. And y'all seem to be very reasonable people that want to do the right thing. So I'm okay with that south way, even though the notice, and there isn't anybody here from that neighborhood, and it's going to have a data center. It's going to sandwich in one community. The public notice had the wrong description on it. It says fossil... instead of Forest Hill. And so some of these people may not even be able to find it. But if all these things are addressed that I send you in an email, but I still think it needs to go to the data task force, the new data task force, to determine where we are on data centers and development, because most of the people in this city don't want it. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate you being here. I'd have.

Yes. So ma'am, just to be clear in my mind, you are okay with the waiver that we're here for today, the conditional waiver?

Just the waiver.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Sims.

I motion the approval of the waiver to section 31-102 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement to extend the stub out of Southway Drive and the conditional approval of the final plan upon meeting the planning comments in the staff report.

Second.

A motion from Commissioner Sims, a second from Commissioner Johnson. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Next case, PB 2501A, Lake Worth Leases, waiver request, section 3181B2B1, street access, lot 9R1 and 9R2, Council District 7, general location, north of Malta, east of French Road, and west of Jacksboro Highway. Applicant is Sam LLC.

Morning, Chair, Commissioners. So, we looked at this plat back in July of 2025, Some waivers had been approved based on the current configuration and layout. Previous waivers were that it would front on an access easement and that the lots were less than 100 feet. So that's been approved as of July 2025. Since then, staff has been working diligently to try to work towards the final plat and recordation, things like that. In that process, we realized that there was a minor oversight and the original plat had called for a lot 10, which had included part of lot nine. But what we realized was that lot nine had never been platted. So now we are coming back to, look at lot nine as you can see on the west side towards the southern portion. We're coming back to plot lot nine. And that's what we're here for today. In doing that, lot nine doesn't actually have direct access. And so we're requesting a waiver to plot lot nine without direct access. Be more specific, lot nine will be split up into two lots. The southern portion of lot nine is gonna be used for open space. The northern portion of lot nine will be used, or will be purchased by the owner of lot 10 and will become part of that person's lot. So technically speaking, we're bringing this because it doesn't have direct access, but those are just some details surrounding that.

Since that portion will be purchased by the property owner on plot 10, will those two be plotted together so that a future property owner wouldn't have an access issue?

There's no immediate plans for that that I've seen. That may happen in the future. I don't know for sure right now, though.

What would, if they were not replotted together, what would happen in the future if that property owner wanted to, say, sell that plot or... Just how could that potentially play out?

Yeah, I mean, at that point, they would have to consider platting it because if they were to sell it, then it would essentially be landlocked. But at the present time, if that current owner stays in place and they own both lots, to my knowledge, they don't plan on building on that northern portion of lot nine. So that being said, I mean, it's okay to remain as two. But again, once they come to that point where they're looking to sell, it might be beneficial for them to replat.

Do they currently hold the lease on both of those properties or are they under contract in any way for that portion of lot nine?

I will defer to property management. I don't know the specifics on that.

Sorry. Hi, I'm Nita Shinsky. I'm actually in Fort Worth property management. So the leaseholder has a lease on lot 10 and he has been diligently trying to get to the point where he can purchase. There is some improvement on the lot nine that essentially he is interested in purchasing. However, we have to get him the simple to lot 10, which is hopefully what this plat will do. And then his intention is to purchase the top portion of lot nine And he does have some plans to do some improvements, some permanent improvements there. Obviously right now he can't do that because of the way the lease is set up. Initially when he purchased, it was already at that point where we had decided that Lake Worth was going to be sold off to those leaseholders, but we were not entering into any additional leases. And because he was able to tie into city services when he purchased and took over lot 10, He did not extend that to lot nine, which is kind of what created our concerns here. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? All right, is there anyone here to speak on this item? Please come forward.

My name is Michael Barnard. I reside at 4237 Wells Drive, lot 10. So when we purchased our leasehold right 24 years ago, the land agent at that time, long before NEDA, had told us we could use lot 9 because it was landlocked. Now, half of lot nine is a 45 degree angle down to the lake, so that's what they're now saying.

That's just gonna be a city open space.

But the flat area that's level with my property, our driveway is on that.

We really need that space.

We've been back and forth with city attorney's office.

I think as of yesterday, we have,

probably the fourth or fifth iteration of it, and we have agreement on the wording of that contract. It's not signed yet, but we wanna get this step done. And is there one other thing we're waiting on? A revised appraisal. So we're this close of a 24-year journey to get to this point. All that to say is that we are in support of approval of this. I'm glad to answer any questions. It is super complicated. The fact that it took 24 years, I still think it could have been faster, but I think we're here, assuming that you're in agreement with this plan.

Thank you, I appreciate that additional detail on the process. That's helpful for me to understand how far along you are in the process.

Any other questions from commissioners?

I just got 24 years, you deserve this. I've been pretty patient.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this matter? All right, we will close the public hearing then and entertain discussion or a motion. This is in Council District 7, so this is open for anyone to move on this item today.

I motion for approval of waiver to Section 31-81B2 and B1 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement for direct access to lots 9R1 and 9R2 and conditional approval of the final plan upon the meeting comments in the staff report.

Second.

Motion from Commissioner Sims. Second from Commissioner Johnson. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

A big yes.

Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Okay, next case, PP25017, Mockingbird West, waiver request section 31106D2, block face length in section 31101D1, internal roadway network connectivity, Council District 5, general location is north of Sandy Brook Drive, south of Randall Mill Road, east of Manhattan Boulevard and west of Bluff Ranch Way, applicant is Kimley Horne.

Good morning, Chair, Commissioners. We are here for a couple waivers on this one. Specifically, so this is a 74 lot residential subdivision. And one of the waivers is because they have a long block face that exceeds the maximum amount. So subdivision ordinance says that the maximum amount for lots 50 feet in width has to be 1,320. They've exceeded that on the northern portion along Block A. So as you can see my cursor here, all along this one here. There's essentially no breaks, and it just goes all the way down here. There's really no way for them to kind of mediate that. There's some development to the north. It's really just impossible for them to get a break in there and continue on. There's already existing development, like I said, to the north. That's one waiver the other waiver is that for their internal connectivity index required to be 1.4 or greater in this case, based on their layout here they show 1.3 internal connectivity index for links and nodes. So that's that's pretty much it on what they're requesting the waivers for.

Any questions. Is there anyone here to speak on this matter?

Good morning. My name is Aaron Franklin. I'm with the applicant, Kimley Horne. I'm here to answer any questions.

Any questions for the applicant's representative? I don't see any. Thank you for being here. Anyone else here to speak on this matter? See anyone? So we will close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. Commissioner Johnson, I believe this is in District 5.

Any questions? Discussion? Seeing none, I move to approve PP26017 as noted on screen by the DRC comments and recommendations today. I second.

Motion from Commissioner Johnson, a second from Commissioner Reed. If you'll call the vote, please. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Vice Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Next case, MT26001, Old Weatherford Road, Major Arterial and Walsh Ranch Parkway, Minor Arterial, ETJ Parker County. I just want to say that the Old Weatherford Road portion has been withdrawn, and the only item under consideration is the Walsh Ranch Parkway. General location is south of Future West Point Boulevard, east of Indigo Sky Drive, and north of Walsh Avenue, applicant, City of Fort Worth.

One other thing to note about this case that's a little unique is the Walsh Ranch Parkway portion of this should not have even been included in the notice. The alignment change that's happening with Walsh Ranch Parkway is within 1,000 feet of its original location. It's all contained within one property owner's property and they're maintaining the endpoints as it currently exists on the existing master road network. So normally that should have been something that could have been administratively approved. However, it's on your docket, so we're asking for your approval of this minor shift in alignment.

Why can't it simply be withdrawn if our approval's not required?

because it was noticed and we wanna make sure that citizens have opportunity to speak on the matter.

Because you do have a lot of late correspondence in there. Now granted, all the late correspondence centers around Old Weatherford Road and that one's a little different. We do have Armand Bryant from Transportation Public Works here who helps to administer the Mass Therafare Plan. I'm sure he'd like to speak. He has plenty of more background information about how all this came into being and so it'd be nice to hear from him.

Thank you.

My name is arm on Bryant I am the multimodal transportation manager for transportation and public works for the city of Fort worth. And as Alex stated I administer our newly adopted master transportation plan, which includes the roadway alignments for it within our master roadway network. As you are aware, Old Weatherford Road, that alignment request has been withdrawn, leaving only Walsh Ranch Parkway on the docket for your viewing here. However, I thought in the interest of transparency and because we've had such significant correspondence, I thought a little bit of background information might be appropriate at this time. So anybody who's been out to this part of the Metroplex knows that the current Walsh Ranch Parkway north of Old Weatherford Road, it doesn't exist. It's just pasture land. It's just pasture land and creek and it's undeveloped. And Old Weatherford Road is largely outside of the city at the moment. and it is currently development by development being brought into the city, but it's largely built to a rural standard, and it dips, it curves, it has sharp turns, it has site distance issues, and that's the existing conditions. And so as development turns the operation of that road into a suburban function with suburban traffic, It is the city's position that when development builds a road, even as much as the alignment, we want to make sure meets our safety, operation and maintenance goals and requirements as outlined in our master transportation plan. And so with that, during our process, we met with the developers many times. We met with a lot of the big ranch owners out west because Old Rutherford Road is one of many roads where it doesn't meet our city standards. It's not in the city. It's not maintained by us. And so we wanted to meet with them to make sure that as development comes in, it meets our standards and goals. And when we brought to them these issues, they agreed. And so in June, when they were meeting and finalizing the development agreement with the terms of their development, Council had asked staff to initiate an amendment to the alignment of Old Weatherford Road and Walsh Ranch Parkway consistent with the, consistent with the Background research that the development had done to find the safest as well as the most efficient way for for addressing their impact to the transportation system. And so. And so staff initiated the process, which by the way, I wanna make clear is the very first step in the process. This is before design, this is before something is actually tangible. Right now it's just a line on the map. And so we wanted to go to the public first in accordance with state and local laws to make sure that the adjacent property owners knew what was happening, And so notices were sent out to the adjacent property owners for this public hearing and here we are. Having said that, Walsh Ranch Parkway, which is up before you, in our initial discussions with them and the other developers and the developers and the property owners here, We had tried moving it, but we had moved it too far in our zeal to move it out of near the floodplain as much as we could. And so it ended up going into that development's footprint. And so we're moving it back in order to make sure we're not impacting future development and other property owners and whatnot. And so with that, I'm here if you have any questions.

Can you speak to the withdrawal of the Old Weatherford Road portion of this and kind of what led to that and what the next steps are there?

And so there was significant feedback about the road. There was a lot of questions. And so we'd like to withdraw the request in order to provide more information to the public and to meet with developers again to get more information from them on how they were able to assess this alignment. There's things about here that we wanna make clear, because there were some questions we wanted to make sure people had the chance to hear, how we got here with this in terms of it being a smaller bridge, in terms of the actual floodway versus the floodplain and how the alignment changes will actually move it out of the flood, parts of the floodway which is closer to where the creek is. So things like that. We wanna make sure people have had a chance to get their questions answered as well as other questions like, Is the trail going away? No, the trail's not going away. Things like that.

Thank you. So we would anticipate then, I think I'm hearing that this would come back to us at a later date with some reconsideration based on some of the feedback and correspondence that have been received. Is that right?

That is correct. It would come back at a future time after we've had a chance to be able to answer people's questions and make sure everyone understands what's going on before here.

Thank you. Any other questions for Armand?

I have just kind of a procedural question, maybe for legal. I appreciate the information and the desire for transparency. I am concerned about us voting on things that don't require our vote. and any type of precedent that sets. So is that concern legitimate from legal or should our vote be to affirm the administrative approval of this rather than to approve it outright?

With the withdrawal of Old Weatherford Road, I'll leave it to the Planning Commission. I think you could choose not to take any action because this is not a plat. So you're not required by state law to take action on it. And as staff indicated, under the policy, they have the administrative authority to approve the Walsh Ranch realignment.

Does that answer your question?

It does, and I don't want to short circuit anyone here to speak for or against if there's anyone else, but I would be in favor of whatever mechanism we need to use to just withdraw this and defer to staff to approve this administratively.

That's a good point. That being said, I do know we have a fair number of public who have shown up, but I want to make sure they have an opportunity to speak since they've taken the time to be here. Before we open the public hearing, any other questions for staff? Okay, I know there are a handful, so whoever wants to go first, if you'd like to come forward. If you'll come to this one over here, please. Yes, and state your name and city, and we'll, for the sake of time, I do want everyone to say what they have to say, but we will be keeping time.

Hi, my name's Josh. I'm a resident at 12771 Old Weatherford Road. On the picture displayed on the screen, I'm in the far right corner, right below Old Weatherford Road. And pardon me, sir, I didn't get your introduction. Who are you with? City of Fort Worth. City of Fort Worth, okay. I just couldn't tell if he was a Walsh Ranch attorney or engineer or something.

Sorry, if you wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone.

Closer? Okay, there you go. Sorry, I couldn't tell if it was an attorney or somebody representing the Walshes. So there's about... 12 to 14 property owners right here to the south of old weatherford road and and through the uh years on all the plans it showed that the new road would go to the north of the creek and um as the it's been stated the minor shift in alignment I think crossing a creek and going through a floodplain and then down a creek and through someone's backyard within 80 feet of their house is in a minor shift. It pretty much, where the intersection of the old Weatherford Road, like the new location and the Walsh Parkway on that map, Just to the northeast of that is a home that it'd be the easement would be about 80 feet off their back porch and you can't tell from the map but like where the road is is over the creek with a cut bank to the south with very limited access only you'd have to crane in all the parts of the road or go through the gentleman's house and there's a high likelihood it would condemn his house. And as it stated in the public notice it was sent out, it's a minor shift in alignment. It's hard to believe that this is a minor shift in alignment, that notices were sent out on the 31st of August. And the Fort Worth Neighborhood Services has no record of this notice, and we weren't, our neighborhood association was not emailed and notified. and then we called the neighborhood services to figure out why, and they don't have it in their record. But we did get the notices in the mail, obviously, and that's why we're here. To my knowledge, I don't think any of the Walsh Ranch owners live on their property. The Creel family that's next to it, they don't live at that house. The Brown Ranch, no owners live at that property. so yes these are the major landowners like the city has said here that they talk to the major landowners in the area but they no one has approached or talked to the people that actually live here and they're going to have to deal with this and we know that development's coming and there's it is it is what it is but um we'd like a lot more in uh opportunities to be a part of the planning just to know what's going on so we can access our homes and make sure our neighbors are taken care of and it's um like this road is for the benefit of the walsh ranch the brown ranch and the developments that are happening and it just doesn't seem fair that like on that map on the south side of the green old weatherford road part right there there's a red horse ranch and that's 60 acres and that'd go across and then it go across the heads property and they own 40 and they go across the keys house and they own six or seven acres and so it's like we're taking property from the small landowners for the benefit of the large landowners when the whole plan was to cut across their property and not to take the small parts of stuff that we have. And it could easily go across the Walshes and the Browns to the north of the road. Just the problem is it's going to decrease the amount of lots that they could sell. That's what it is. And that, I understand. And it's a money thing. They want to do what, you know, sell more lots and build less road. But it's just been a little disappointing that it would affect. As you see on the map, like I'm on the far side. It doesn't cross my property and it doesn't directly affect me. But it does. our community as a whole, it just kind of, it's been a little disappointing that it feels like this was slipped in and just thrown into, you know, within a week. Like, oh, we got to go defend our neighborhood. So it's, yeah, that's kind of where we're at. So, and, you know, we know there's been meetings between the Browns, the Creels, the Walshes, and it's like when the notice that was sent out, there's a tri-party agreement and the Creel's name's on it. It doesn't touch the Creel's property. It didn't go through their property. Why is their name on it? Why were they invited to the table? We weren't. And so it's just kind of a little silly. But we've been in touch with a whole lot of people, the Heinz engineers, the Heinz Corporation. the landowners of the Brown Ranch, a lot of people like that. But it's just, we would like to request a community meeting where we're actually showed and talked to and explained why they think that this is the best option. Because it's hard to believe that this is the best option for everyone. That's all I got. That's all I got, if that's okay.

Thank you.

I was waiting for somebody to say something, but...

Next person to speak, please.

I'm Darren. This is my wife and some of our kids. We live in the impacted area. And thank you for showing up today, actually, do your duty and hear from residents. That is more than we can say for Todd Creel, Walsh Ranch, Brown Ranch, and Councilman Crane, I don't see here. These are the parties who, in Councilman Crane's words, spent, quote, months working on what Todd Creel described as, quote, a lot of things happening behind closed doors. Months of meetings behind closed doors culminated the June 23rd City Council meeting, when Councilman Crane brought forth the development agreement with Hines for Brown Ranch. At that time, city staff acknowledged the, quote, hours spent with neighboring ranch owners with respect to how the roadways will flow through those properties and where future intersections will be located. Then at the last minute before the vote, Councilman Crane slipped in an amendment to move the location of Walsh Ranch Parkway and Old Weatherford Road without even naming the roads. First time a small portion of the public became aware of this was on August 1st, when some of us received this commission's notice of public hearing, although strangely many impacted properties did not even receive the notice. And so it is surprising that at the first opportunity for the public to weigh in on this backroom scheme, Councilman Crane has discouraged people from turning out by saying the item was withdrawn from the agenda. Forgive me for not trusting that there will be another opportunity for the public to weigh in. And to the commission, I am empathetic. You were thrust into an awkward position by Councilman Crane to rubber stamp a secret plan concocted out of public view. And he's not here to defend his actions or listen to residents. That's not fair to you or to the public. Finally, the proposed route is careless, costly, and controversial. It's careless because it would destroy green spaces and walking trails and the fragile Mary's Creek wildlife habitat. It's costly because, as the engineer who drew up the plan confirmed, it is by far the most costly of 12 to 15 alternatives that were proposed. And it's controversial because of the secret process that excluded neighbors and the public to benefit wealthy property owners who, coincidentally, are large campaign donors to Councilman Crane. As residents, we will ensure the parties responsible are held accountable.

Thank you. Thank you. You can come forward and then fill out a green sheet after you speak, please.

Good morning.

I'm Eric Barron in Aledo. I'm a resident of Walsh Ranch. And I just wanted to go on record supporting the previous two speakers. And I'd also like to ask if there's any way for Councilman Crane to go on record to if he has entered into any NDAs with any of the other property owners regarding this. I don't know if there's a process for to hear that question or to ask that question on record. I think it's one that deserves to be asked.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Hello, I'm Mark Ryan. I live on Mary's Ridge Way. We moved there in February with a two and a four year old. And I just wanted to say moving Old Weatherford Road into the neighborhood is gonna endanger the 75 families, kids that live there. That trail and that river is frequently used by the kids. So I think priorities should be on the safety of the families and the safety of the kids when you decide the route of Old Weatherford Road and not of the concern of the three land owners that are political donors.

Thank you.

Hello, Andy Friedrichs. I live in Walsh Ranch as well. Similar to the other speakers, I just want to voice my opposition to the Old Weatherford Road expansion. Not the expansion, just the movement and the way that it was brought about. I think just having more voices here lets the committee know that there is opposition to this, and we just wanted to make that known. Thank you.

Thank you, and I do think we're missing a sheet from you, if you don't mind. Thank you so much.

Thank you, guys. My name is Daniel. I'm a concerned resident in the impacted area. Before I start, I'd like to say that for the record, the staff information that you guys received contained several inaccurate entries. First, it mentions Everman ISD was notified, which is 45 minutes away from this location. And second, under the Walsh Ranch Parkway section, the rationale given was to avoid the creek as much as possible. And I'm not an expert, but I think if you look, you can see that the proposed changes would actually move Walsh Ranch Parkway closer to the creek rather than further away from it. That being said, when I first saw the proposal and the changes suggested I thought whoever made it must have been drunk. Of course, after connecting the dots, it was no surprise to find that it was Councilman Crane. Many residents got a reply to their concerns from Councilman Crane in reference to the case today saying, the item will not be up for discussion at the meeting because he believes the community needs more time and opportunity to weigh in. Whether this was an honest mistake or another deceptive attempt to mislead the public is unclear. But isn't the exact purpose of this public hearing to give the community more time and opportunity to weigh in? Why would Councilman Crane seek to cancel this opportunity for the public to give their opinion? Statements like these are the reason I feel compelled to come out today. It's a shame that our elected officials feel the need to accommodate private, backroom requests from campaign donors while simultaneously misleading the public. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you all for being here today to speak on this.

Can I ask a question of the staff? Can somebody shed a little light on this process? We've heard kind of the allegations that these were backroom deals. Was this a staff-led process, and has staff been involved with this? And with this being removed from the agenda today, what will the process be going forward?

Amon, do you want to tackle some of those?

To answer your question about the process, in general, In general, when a development comes in, they meet with staff, they meet with elected officials, they meet with the city and its various departments to discuss their proposed development, and this situation is no different. They met with us, they met with our staff, they met with the elected officials, Certain concerns were brought up, and that's what caused more discussion, was staff showed the size of their development. It had what we would call more of a regional impact. it allowed for or it caused us to have more detailed discussions about how this development would occur. How are you going to build the infrastructure to support the development that you're going to build? How is your development gonna get enough infrastructure, like water, sewer, things like that? And so as part of that, those things were then discussed with us. They brought us their preliminary ideas, and that part was kind of crystallized in something called the development agreement, which is kind of our way of being able to make sure that when a development comes in, they're gonna be able to, something of this size will be able to meet the infrastructure required to support it so that other people aren't having to support it. And so that is how it happened. Staff has met with the proposed developers as well as the other big ranches adjacent to it because one of the things we want to do is make sure that there's symmetry between developments. And so that's how it happened.

And then from our perspective, whenever we get a case, it's a case for the change of an alignment. That's why it's here. So from a future perspective, since this is withdrawn next steps will be to if you do plan on moving forward with uh possibly moving old weatherford road you're going to meet with the neighborhoods and stuff prior to knowing that you have a lot of opposition correct that's probably the next step if if you decide to even move forward with that that that is correct um

I imagine we'll have, I mean, we're going to be meeting with the public in general anyway. This is one of many initiatives we're looking at for the west side in terms of addressing safety capacity and such as it develops. It's developing in one of the fastest rates in the city. And so one of our charges is making sure there's adequate capacity to handle all of that. And so as part of that, our goal will be to make sure the public is informed with what our plans are, as well as eliciting feedback from them before we would move forward with that.

What is the mechanism of that process, the mechanism for meeting with the neighborhoods? How will that work?

So normally the way it happens is it happens from, normally it happens when our elected official would say, hey, we're going to have a meeting, and then it gets organized, and then it gets advertised out to the neighborhood associations, and then it happens at a set time and place. Sometimes separately it can happen when a development is coming in it's usually directed by by staff to say hey have you met with the neighborhoods and then they also have a mechanism for meeting with. With the neighborhoods that at their choosing.

And whenever we have a pre-development conference or whatnot and we're showing an MTP alignment that they're showing a road in a different location, then they're directed that this is going to likely have to go to city plan commission and that any public hearings would require, will not require, we think it's a good idea to meet with the neighborhood associations.

Did that happen before this one, before this hearing?

It wasn't developer-led.

I have concerns about what I've heard today, and I'm troubled by it. And I know we're not voting on this, but if we had to vote on this, I would be voting no.

Any other questions for Armand?

Yeah, can I just clarify with any of the speakers who spoke against, what I heard was the concern was about Old Weatherford Road as it was originally proposed, not the Walsh Ranch Parkway, is that correct? Anybody? Were there concerns about Walsh Ranch Parkway, the north-south portion, or the concerns exclusively about the Old Weatherford Road portion?

Well, yeah, thanks for the clarification. The hundreds of neighbors we've heard from, I think the biggest concern is around the alignment of old Weatherford Road. But when it was withdrawn from consideration, I mean, Walsh Ranch Parkway was still on the agenda. And so we had to orient our comments around that.

But there are no specific issues.

Well, Walsh Ranch Parkway is, I think, a bit different It's generally always planned to be in this similar alignment. It's over Walsh Ranch property. And it's significantly different from Old Weatherford Road that's gonna impact hundreds of property owners.

But just to confirm, this plan for Old Weatherford Road is off the table, that's right?

Correct, it's off the table for now until we come back with community and get community input and make adjustments from there.

Incorrect. No issue with the north-south. And to the council's question about the backroom meetings, it was like on the tri-party agreement that was on the notice that was sent out. It has the Walsh, Browns, and Creels. The Creels property is in between the road going into the Hines-Brown Ranch development and the Walsh Parkway. It's right in the middle of that. It's 63 acres. And they were... They met together, apparently, is what different sources and people have told us. And if I'm looking at it right, it pretty much seems like it was just a meeting to figure out a way to have it not go across the Creel property, which has been the plan on the Master Thoroughfare Plan for 10 or 15 years now. And so it's just... Yeah, and like you said, the Neighborhood Association, you know, planning to meet with the Neighborhood Association. Thank you for your question about how it's going to move forward, because that's the question we have, because we haven't been very involved in it. But the Fort Worth Neighborhood Association, her neighborhood services area, does not even have record that they were notified to send out the email to the, it's not HOA, but it's the Neighborhood Association. But thank you very much.

Thank you.

I would say I oppose it just on the basis of it being done in back rooms with donors to the councilmen.

Right, but just to make sure I heard correctly, this was a process that involved staff, what was a normal process per se, wasn't something different, a backroom deal outside of staff. This is kind of the normal course of business. Now we're course correcting, but this was not absent of staff involvement.

That is correct. Staff was involved the entire time. This is a normal process. When someone comes to develop, you come to the city and you meet with staff, you meet with those permitting agencies, right? As a permitting agency, you meet with us and then we will help you through your process. And so that's true with every development in the city. and our extraterritorial jurisdiction where we have applicable jurisdiction.

Thank you. Do we need to vote or do I need to make a motion to have this withdrawn on the Walsh Ranch portion?

Staff can either request a withdrawal the Walsh Ranch Parkway piece, or if you want, plan commission can take a vote to take no action.

Well, let's close the public hearing and have that discussion with staff and figure out how we move forward.

That's great.

For MT-26-001, Old Weatherford Road and Walsh Ranch Parkway, ETJ Parker County, staff has withdrawn the case.

I have a question. I think some of those guys in the audience still wanted to ask questions. Can we do that? I'd like to allow them the opportunity to speak if they wanted to.

We've closed the public hearing.

We've closed the public hearing. We can reopen it if there's something additional that needs to be said. If we're reiterating what other speakers have said, I would ask that we go ahead and keep the public hearing.

Is this something that's new or is this something that was already said?

Maybe we can meet afterwards or something.

Yeah, I think that might be helpful. Yeah, I know there's plenty of staff in the room. We definitely want there to be communication between the neighborhoods and staff. Please take the opportunity while you're here to have those conversations. Okay, so that item has been withdrawn.

The next case is, will I have other matters of business? We have a presentation on the Panther Island form-based code. And then Armand, if there's anyone that wants to have a discussion, maybe pull them aside.

All right. Good morning. Excuse me. My name is Joseph Laws. I'm senior planner with the Preservation and Design Commission. This is my first time in front of CPC, so it's nice to meet you all. I work with Commissioner Reid on UDC matters as well pretty frequently, so he's used to me. But it's nice to meet all of you and thank you for your work. In our job on the design side, what you guys do in plotting is really, really influential in creating good urban form in the city of Fort Worth. So our work is very much tied together. And today I'm here to present on a Panther Island form-based code update. So the Panther Island form-based code is the form-based zoning code in the Panther Island area just north here of downtown. And what I wanna do today is kinda give you a little bit of context, tell you specifically how it relates to you, and I'm gonna kinda go through these slides pretty quickly, because a lot of it doesn't necessarily relate to your work, and I'm gonna try to focus my comments on how it relates to your work, what parts of this you'll end up seeing come forward, and then just a quick note on timeline. So we're updating the Panther Island form-based code. It was originally adopted in 2006 and revised substantially in 2016. In 2023, TRWD and the city started to kind of reassess what had happened, what hadn't happened over the last 20 years of the Panther Island form-based code project. And they created what they called Vision 2.0, which is kind of reassessing how things were going, what still needed to be done, and where adjustments should be made going forward. And it included a whole host of new things, including a new urban design framework, revised open space, network and standards. revised considerations for the waterfront trwd over the last i think it was about 2016 they released a new canal system manual so we had to update the code to reflect that we also looked at the transit network the pedestrian network and bike network and several other things so here's kind of a quick kind of rendering of some of the allowable heights within the district and what uh The zoning's trying to create, doesn't necessarily mean that it's gonna get built out this way. This is just a concept showing what can be built in the allowable proposed zoning. Again, the big purpose of this is to align with Vision 2.0 and that whole process, that was a multi-year process that involved a lot of engagement and analysis. And I'm gonna show you some of that analysis and how it relates to the subdivision process later on. And we've also adjusted the boundary of Panther Island a bit. This map's a little bit out of date. On the left, you can see the current boundary with the dark gray being the Panther Island form-based code area and the light gray being what's called the Panther Island peripheral overlay. That's a design overlay. Then on the right is the proposed district minus this piece right here. So it's the red minus the area north of the Trinity River that you see there. So we're pulling it in a bit to concentrate the design regulations within that area. We also address some of the governance and roles and responsibilities. I mentioned TRWD. They own about 85% of the land. I'm sorry, 85% of the land is publicly owned. The vast majority of that is TRWD. The city owns some, Encore owns some as well. So TRWD has been a huge partner and lead in this effort. We have Susan Alaniz here, who's the program officer from TRWD. She's really the brains behind the operation. I'm just the person with the city badge who lets her into the building. We're changing some of the regulating plan to simplify some of the zoning. So you can see we're going from nine different zones down to two, a core and an edge zone, which I think would be better, make it a bit simpler to kind of navigate through. And you'll see on the north side, along the bypass channel, there is an area that is gonna be requiring TRWD ownership, just to make sure that is consistent along that frontage. We're also adjusting the regulating plan and some of the kind of intent to some of the streets. We have now a new kind of green street for pedestrian access. I believe it's along Fourth Street. There's designated streets for bicycle lanes and pedestrian traffic and north-south pedestrian thoroughfare they're trying to create just to provide different multi-modes of transportation within the district. We update some of our sidewalk and street standards. As mentioned before, we're also trying to align with TRWD's canal system manual. Vision 2.0 set a lofty goal of 15% open space, so the revised code will help to achieve that. We revised our standards for canopies, landscaping, and public amenities as well. Urban form standards, this is more of a zoning thing relating to height. Again, we're simplifying the zoning, so that image with all the towers before, this is what can be built up to the districts, within districts, but doesn't necessarily guarantee that it's gonna get built out in that way. We have improvements to our building design standards. So a lot of those are heard by the Urban Design Commission. And then also regulations relating to private landscaping, parking garages, which are a big issue in zoning, as well as signage. So we're aligning some of the signage standards to downtown. Again, the big thing is that we're aligning or implementing Vision 2.0. We're strengthening some of our waterfront open space standards, working to improve walkability and connectivity, and providing clear development guidance. I'm gonna switch slides quickly and head over to this one. So one of the standards that's changing in the Panther Island form-based code update relates to block length. So that's something you all will hear as plots and requests for subdivision waivers come through. So currently the code allows blocks up to 400 feet of frontage, and if it's greater than 400 feet of frontage, you need to have a pedestrian passageway through. So we're changing some of those standards to have a max block length of 300 feet on any side with a max block perimeter of 1,200 feet. And just for context, most of downtown Fort worth is around 200 to 220 feet per per block line side so they're relatively small and from an urban design perspective that's important to helping to promote walkability. So people can easily navigate the the street grid so vision 2.0 identified some areas where the existing. plan and zoning had some pretty large blocks, so what that is proposing the new standards are going to do is help to shorten some of those blocks, create more walkability and connectivity throughout the district. And they did a lot of analysis looking at, okay, If you were to overlay the downtown grid pattern within the Panther Island area, how would that look? And they looked at both downtown Fort Worth and Portland, Oregon, also have the same kind of block length patterns. They kind of looked at that, and they compared it with other cities such as Austin, Texas, and Vancouver. So Vision 2.0, which is publicly available, did a lot of that analysis. The what we're proposing with the code update is to kind of shorten some of those block lengths and parameters, so I know this is a whole lot of information and not all of it applies to CPC, but I didn't want to make sure that we brought this in front of you today moving forward. So we're going to City Council on the on the 25th of this month. for a resolution, then we're gonna start our legislative process for adopting the Panther Island form-based code update. We're hoping to go to zoning commission in September and then city council in October. CPC won't vote on this, but we wanna make you all aware the subdivision ordinance adopts the Panther Island form-based code by reference. So eventually once it's adopted by city council, then you may action some of these block length standards if there's any waivers or anything like that. Any questions of me at this time or Susan?

I have a couple of quick questions. I know most of the land here is publicly owned. Is there any privately owned property that will be within this form-based code district? And if so, what's the process for grandfathering that in and not imposing compliance on them, but having consistency across?

Yes, so there is private property. Here's the map that kind of delineates that. On the left in the orange area is all the publicly owned land. On the right in the kind of purple-esque colors are the privately owned land. Again, there's a lot more public land than privately owned land. Because this is form-based code and zoning, it applies to both public and privately owned land. If someone were to start a project today on one of the privately owned parcels, they would be vested in the current Panther Island form-based code. But if they apply after it's adopted by a city council, then they would have to adhere to the new code, both public and private. And part of the intent of that is to make sure that there is a consistent urban form and fabric throughout the district and creating a good sense of place, whether it be public or private. TRWD is a public agency. They're a public authority. Their intent is to help know create a good uh good space they're not necessarily real estate developers but they're working with and partnering with real estate developers all that susan can speak more true but i believe their intent is to issue rfps for some of this and the panther island form-based code provides a framework to make sure that the development is all going to be compatible it's going to be a good urban form and a good opportunity for a city of fort worth residents are those private landowners engaged in the process of developing this this updated form-based code I believe so. Vision 2.0 online lists a lot of the different stakeholders that they outreach to. Oh, Susan's here.

She's done more. Yeah, so there's a business called Seiko, Panther Island Partners, that owns a substantial interest within the interior of the island that's developable now. They own about 30 plus acres, and they've actually recently announced a project and achieved an incentive agreement with the city, and they've been actively involved. In fact, we've been, still some of the more recent changes that we continue to make to the code have been influenced by They're a real life example of us figuring out how constructible what the code would dictate is. So that's been a lot of engagement. We also had a public meeting in June for all the property owners out there. We recently stood up a public improvement district as well, so we've been engaging. And to add to what Joe was saying is that we do own a lot of property. A lot of it's for the purpose of constructing the bypass channel. as well as the canals. We've acquired a lot of other property that will be disposed of to developers. We don't intend to develop it ourselves. We issued an RFQ last year to find a partner. It was a little premature based on the timing of everything else that's happening. We intend to re-engage in that in the upcoming year, but that'll give us another opportunity to have development agreements with them as well to ensure the quality of the development from our end.

All right. Second question. I know we have kind of an increasing number of form-based code districts in the city, and I think that's great. How does this structurally compare? I know you mentioned going from nine types or classes down to two. Is there a consistency in how all those districts are structured? And I'm just thinking from a development perspective, if somebody's looking at different areas and trying to figure out and read the playbook of what's permitted, what's not, How is all that coordinated across those form-based code districts?

So that's my job, which makes it really spicy and fun. Simplifying the zoning, I think, from an administrative standpoint is a lot better and nicer, makes it a lot simpler. So again, putting my zoning hat on, when the state passed legislation affecting zoning last year, I had to review 35 different zoning sub-districts just as much as the base zoning team. So it's quite a lot simplifying it does help there is a lot of differences between the different districts and part of the intent of that is to help create unique senses of place. So just north of this, we have a form based code district in the stockyards which is a very, very unique sense of place and that's very different from the panther island. What panther island is trying to create and it's different from downtown or even the cultural district. So there is certainly, we as staff have talked about kind of like the sustainability of our form-based codes, how we make things easier both for us, kind of get some scale as the city continues to grow, continues to get unique senses of place, and also just for, like you said, for developers, having to navigate six different administrative sections is confusing. I definitely hear that. It adds a lot of time to us as staff, and that's kind of our challenge. Long-term, we're thinking about that. For this form-based code update, it doesn't, It helps simplify things a little bit, going from nine to two. But that's kind of some of our staff challenges.

And part of the reason I ask that is we had that presentation a couple months ago on the update on the comprehensive plan. And one of the models in there was this model where you have a variety of urban villages. And I would imagine if that's the direction we go, you're going to have even more areas that have their own form-based code. I don't envy your job, but I think it's going to be even more essential going forward if we do have this model of kind of urban villages scattered throughout.

And I'll add one thing. During the process of the update, we actually were very sensitive to that question. So we studied extensively the near south side and downtown to adopt similar language and regulations because we think it's important for plan reviewers and code compliance and everybody else who's out there helping us manage this. And for example, we largely adopted the sign code from downtown because we think that's tried and tested and and so on, but it's not perfect in terms of having that alignment. But we were also sensitive to the effort not to make it even more difficult to develop on Panther Island than it is in the other form-based codes. There's enough challenges as it is with the drainage solution that we're implementing. So we did as much as we could in this iteration, but there are still some differences.

Thank you all. This was very helpful.

Any other questions? Not a question, but a request. Could we, this presentation, the second one you switched to, would it be possible for that to be sent out to the commissioners?

Yes, yeah.

Thank you. It's a great presentation. The visuals are really helpful. Thank you.

The Vision 2.0 plan was really good. It was not done by staff. It was done by HRNA and Lake Flatow, who are top-notch, world-class consultants. So TRWD invested a lot of time and money into it, and the city invested a lot of time, because we're trying to really create the best city possible, and Panther Island's a huge opportunity. We don't want to squander it and we want to do right by the residents of Fort Worth.

Thank you for the update and thank you for the explanation as to how this may affect cases we see in the future. That's helpful as well. Appreciate it. All right, that's our last item today. So thank you all for hanging in there and we are adjourned.