City Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it's nine o'clock, we'll get started. This is the City Plan Commission meeting for the City of Fort Worth on Thursday, September 10th, 2026.

Good morning and welcome to the September 9th in-person meeting of the City Fort Worth Plan Commission. The Commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public hearings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the City's subdivision ordinance, City Plan Commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law. The Commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans in Platts, street and alley right-of-way vacations, enclosures, annexation, comprehensive planning of their land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom have been appointed by the city council. A quorum of six members of the 11 must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. 10 members are present today, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Carolyn Kranz, the chair of the City Plan Commission. Other commissioners present today are Commissioner Bearden, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Turner, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Farta, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette. Staff present today, Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, Christopher Thornton, and David Hood. My name is Stephen Murray, planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of 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 presentations. We have Barbara Siltero keeping time today. Prior to addressing the commission, clearly state your name. 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 Planning Commission's decision on plotting matters is final. Action on other document items constitutes a recommendation to the City Council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the Development Services Department at 817-392-8027. Thank you for your attention. Madam Chairman, Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes for the August 13th meeting.

Commissioners, any discussion or motion?

So moved. Second.

Motion from Commissioner Turner, second from Commissioner Johnson. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote?

Abstain.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Okay, vote passes.

All right, first case is FS26002, Hassett Gardens Edition lots 144R1 and 144R2. Waiver request, section 31106C13, residential driveway access limitation. General location, north of White Settlement Road, east of Roberts Cut-Off, south of Melbourne, and west of Merritt Street. Applicant is ANA Consultants LLC.

Morning, Chair, Commissioners. So today we have, this final short plat for Hassett Gardens addition. Basically they are presenting, they're subdividing an already platted lot into two smaller lots. And this site presents a little bit of challenges. The subdivision ordinance basically says that if you have a lot less than 50 feet that you need to have shared driveway access or rear entry access. As you can see, they don't have an alley on this site, so the next best option would be to do shared driveway. Unfortunately, though, they cannot do that because they already went vertical in construction, and so their only other option would be to do front entry driveway access. So they are requesting a waiver to not have to do the shared driveway, and they can't do the rear entry access because they don't have an alley, so they wanna do the front entry. So this is site plan here. Some elevations. And that's basically the street view here showing that construction has already begun.

Why were permits issued for construction to begin on this without the driveway access limitation being recognized?

I'm not exactly sure.

I can answer that question because we kind of looked into it. It looked like whenever they came into it, they came into, and we'll also probably need to talk to the applicant about this. but it's B zoned, and correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, and in B zoning, you could have a duplex on a single family lot, which whenever they came in for permitting, they met all the requirements for B2 family. Now, they've already gone vertical. They wanna split the lot into two in order to have two separate lots. Hence the not being able to meet the requirements.

And if I may, just real quick, when they did apply for building permits, they did submit the recorded plat for when this was originally recorded, and I believe that was January of 1952, but it was one single lot.

With the B zoning, is the front entry acceptable? Okay, thank you for that clarification.

They had 50 foot of frontage so they could have front driveway access.

Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Is anyone else present to speak on this matter? Does not seem to be, so we will close the public hearing and have discussion on this. This is in District 7, and Commissioner Henderson's not present, so open to anyone.

I move to approve FS 26002, final short plat as written and recommended by staff.

Second. Second.

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

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Next case, FS26118, Chapel Hill, Lots 1R1 and 1R2, Block 1, waiver requests. Section 31106A8, Street Design Standards, two lots, Council District 7. General location, south of Cibolo Hills Parkway, east of Fleming Ranch Road and west of Saginaw. Applicant is Pape Dolson.

Good morning, commissioners. So FS 26118, it is a replat of an existing multifamily development. When this was originally planted, it was all one large lot. The multifamily developer is wishing to subdivide off the gas well property. As you can see, that gas well property sits like an island at the back of the multifamily complex. So in order to provide access to that lot, the subdivision ordinance provides three means of access that are acceptable, a public street, a private street, or a public access easement. Since that lot has no access to any streets, all those internal access roadways or emergency access easements, the applicant has chosen to provide a public access easement. It comes in here, comes down this way, and terminates in a cul-de-sac. The subdivision ordinance states that cul-de-sacs are limited for low density residential and some institutional uses. Since these land uses don't conform to the subdivision ordinance requirements for cul-de-sacs, they're required to get a waiver. That's the reason they're here. Any questions?

All right, if there are no questions for staff, we'll see if the applicant or representative is present to speak on this. If you'll come forward over here and state your name and city, please.

James Marlett with Pape Dawson, Fort Worth. I live at 6113 Florence Road in North Lake. Just here to, I guess, answer any questions if y'all have with regards to this application. The situation is how it is currently with access down into that gas well site. The owner, all they're trying to do is basically sever out that gas well pad site from their multi-family site for finance purposes, that's it. There is no plans for developing that gas well site. It has been and it will be.

Commissioners, any questions?

Has there been any objection to this waiver, sir? No, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anyone else here to speak on this matter? See anyone? We'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. This one's also in District 7, so it's open.

I recommend approval of that FS26118 for approval of a waiver to Section 31106AA to the subdivision ordinance to permit a multifamily development to be served by a cul-de-sac and conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting the plating comments in the staff report. Second that.

Motion from Commissioner Lamberth, and I think that was a second from Commissioner Farda.

Call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Florida, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Next case, FS26174, Grand Park Edition, waiver request section 31106C13, residential driveway access limitation, two lots, Council District 8. General location is north of Elmwood, south of East Maddox, and east of Belcee Terrace and west of Logan Street. Alpha Family Group is the applicant.

All right, so with this one, we have another situation where the applicant is replatting their property and The proposed lots are less than 50 feet in width, so they're requesting a waiver to the rear access requirement.

With this one, let's see.

Yes, staff is in support of the requested waiver just due to the site constraints. And there is an existing alley, but it's unimproved. And again, as you can see in the Elmwood picture here, the elevation, just actually constructing the rear access would be a bit difficult for the applicant. So again, the staff is in support of the requested waiver.

Yeah, it sits on a hill and it really goes down far and that site is built up, I would say maybe eight to 10 feet. So it'd be hard to put a access drive through that alley right there.

And one other thing I forgot to mention as well, Pretty much an identical case on the exact same block, same street and everything, and it was approved around two years ago just for precedent. Any questions?

So that elevation that is causing the constraint for the alley entrance is not present on the front?

No, if you can see on the right, it's completely flat in the front on the Belzis Terrace, but that's the rear of the property on the left side picture where you can see the drop-off. And basically where those trees are to the right of those trees is where the actual alley, if it existed, would be.

Any other questions? Thank you. Is the applicant present or representative?

Please come forward.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak on this one? All right, we'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. This is in District 8. Commissioner Sims is absent, so this one's open as well.

You got it. I'm a second.

I move to approve FS-26174 as recommended by staff.

I second that. A motion from Commissioner Johnson, a second from Commissioner Turner. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, next case, PP25052, Commerce Center, lot 9R1 and 9R2, three industrial lots and two private open space lots. Waiver request, section 31102B2, interconnectivity of neighborhoods in section 31106A8, street design standards, council district 10. General location is south of Semolo Hills, east of Fleming Ranch, and west of Saginaw Boulevard. Applicant is Pape Dawson.

Alrighty, so here we have a preliminary plat PP25052. I know that's an older case number, but they've been diligently working to get all their studies approved. That's why it's taken a little while to bring this to CPC for the waiver request. That being said, you can see here on the aerial that there are some physical constraints for this property, a large amount of floodplain that flows through the property. So when laying out lots for this development, it was a bit of a challenge to find viable means of providing access to the lot since access is really limited just to this this portion right there for the lots that are up there on the corner they had to get a little creative with how they provided access and you can see there is a public access easement that comes into the property then loops around and comes back out for this industrial warehouse development The purpose of that is threefold. It provides access to three different lots. There's a gas well lot on the corner, there's the large industrial property back here, and then this large open space area in here. That public access easement is providing access to those three lots. Really the access is mainly for this one large industrial property here. reason it's looked around like it is just is just so that they can make the access conform to the requirements the subdivision orders for providing at least a hundred fear frontage for those other two lots uh... so once again we've got a cul-de-sac within a industrial development as opposed to low density residential and the other waiver is related to

Streets Fire Ridge that comes out here and Whispering Pines that comes out there.

Those two streets are stubbed into this industrial development and the incompatibility between the land uses and the unlikelihood that those streets could actually be extended to provide any additional connectivity is unlikely. So staff supports the waivers for both the cul-de-sac and the non-extension of those two stub outs. Does anyone have any questions?

I have a question. What is your response to the concern of the citizen about the 24-foot wide easement?

The subdivision ordinance only requires 24 feet. We can't require anything over and above that. So you can ask the applicant that. I don't know how their paving is going to look internal in their site and if it's going to be any wider than that, but that will be a question that you can address with the applicant. I've sent the same correspondence to them, so hopefully they'll have a response to that.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

Is the applicant present or representative for the applicant?

Morning. Paul Webber with Westwood Professional Services representing the owner, address 9800 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas. Alex hit on it pretty well. There's a lot of constraints here. Our access points, we didn't want to extend the right-of-ways through the single family just because of the incompatibilities. We wouldn't want any truck traffic, any of our site intermingling with the single family, so that's the reason for that variance. The other variance, obviously, being the turnaround of this access easement, and we did get the email, Alex sent us the email from the resident, and it's a valid concern. Quite honestly, our site plan, as far off as it may be, because it's just preliminary plat, and that lot is going to be very hard to develop, but understanding that at some point it could be, typically our standard would be a 36-foot wide drive, so we would be we'd be willing to entertain the idea of doing a 36 foot wide access easement here rather than showing the 24 that meets the fire code in the subdivision ordinance. But that 36 foot wide is pretty standard for what the developer does up in that area, so that would be a three lane. It essentially would be a drive, but with a public access easement. Quite honestly, Alex hit on it, we would just be serving that one lot for the subdivision ordinance. We have to provide access to the public access easement, which is just gonna be, or excuse me, the open space, which is just gonna be the floodplain, and then the gas well pad site. So really that one lot's the only thing being developed. But again, we'd be willing to entertain a 36 foot wide access even on this flat.

Yes, go ahead.

I had a question for you, sir. So have you been in communication with the resident who had the concern?

We haven't reached out. Happy to do that.

So you'd be willing to work with that resident?

Yeah, we can communicate offline, or I didn't know if they'd be here today, and I'd be happy to talk to them then, too.

Thank you.

This is a staff question, but it looks like on the agenda, the general location for this is incorrect. It looks like it's copied from the previous Chapel Hill case. I just want to make sure that that doesn't, that error doesn't have any impact on the sufficiency of the notice requirement.

I think it was noticed properly. I think it had the correct notification. Maybe the agenda, maybe have the wrong wording on it. But I think the meets and bounds and plat information should suffice in this scenario. Because it's just a general location. Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

So the applicant is willing to have a wider street. Is that something that we add to a motion or does the city add that to a request or? How can we benefit from that?

We can't request anything that exceeds the limits of the subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance states that public access easements are required to be 24 feet wide. So you can't then ask for things over and above whatever.

No, we're not asking. He's volunteering. So is there a way to document that is my question.

I would clarify real quick, too, that he, if I heard correctly, said they're willing to entertain that. I don't think he was committing to anything that we necessarily want to.

Just to clarify, I mean, we will go back and we will update the access.

Whether it's a requirement from CPC or not, we don't want to be bad neighbors here, so.

I mean, you can notate it in a motion, but as Alex said, we can't require anything more than what's required in the ordinance.

Thank you for that question.

Any other questions?

Is that resident here? Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter for or against? It doesn't look like it, Commissioner Kelley. Okay, I think we will close the public hearing then and if there's any further discussion among the commission or proceed to a motion. This is in District 10.

Okay, I move to approve a waiver to Section 31-102 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement to extend the sub out of Whispering Pines Drive and Fire Ridge Drive and approval of waiver Section 31-106 to approve an industrial zone property to be served by a cul-de-sac and conditional approval of the preliminary upon meeting.

Planning comments for staff second a motion from Commissioner Kelly a second from Commissioner Gillette Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

All right, next case, VA 26017, vacation of a portion of Helmick Avenue, Little Page, an alley located south of Lake Como Cemetery in Council District 6, general location south of Farnsworth, east of Bryan-Irvin Road, and west of Halloran Street. Applicant is Fuller Engineering and Land Surveying Incorporated.

Okay, so this is a very interesting case. Sorry for the incorrect number up there, but VA 26017 is a vacation to help make the Lake Como Cemetery whole again. They've done ground-penetrating radar and identified these areas that are included in this vacation as areas where actual grave sites currently exist outside the boundaries of that Block 509, which is what is currently the Lake Como Cemetery. obviously this cemetery was established long before this property was ever platted and They basically laid a bunch of lines down on property that was Previously designated as a cemetery and so in order to rectify that These vacations have been requested to make the cemetery hold again Commissioners any questions

Pretty straightforward.

Unfortunately so, yes.

Anyone here to speak on this matter? If you would like to, please come forward. You're not obligated to, but I'd love to hear from you.

Eloise Burrell, president of the Lake Como Cemetery Association. And I just received a text message that Engineer Fuller and his son are both ill so he will not be here but I'm only available in case you have any questions. I also just want to let you know that the Lake Como Cemetery is a state of Texas registered recognized historical cemetery and of course the objective as was stated was just to make sure that we are covering the grounds that may possibly have remains, but we cannot do anything in it until we see permission to be the property owners. We conducted an entire ground penetration radar assessment of the whole cemetery to see where all the remains are, but we weren't able to go into that area. And so the objective, of course, is just to make the cemetery whole.

former president of the Lake Como Advisory Committee, and I am a trustee on the council. And from the inception of us restoring it and bringing it back to life, of course, it's over 100 years old. We just appreciate the sacredness of it and that this be done. So I'm just here to ditto.

And you said it clearly, it's put before you clearly.

So if there are any questions of us, really, that's the reason I'm standing.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? I don't see any. Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this matter? Anyone? We will close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion. This is in District 6.

A motion that we approve the...

Sorry to interrupt you. I think we may have had a question.

No, I was just saying, we abandoned a lot of alleys, but I'm glad that we can abandon this one.

Sorry for interrupting you.

Okay, I move that we approve the recommendation to City Council for the vacation of portion of Hemlock Avenue, Little Page Street, and an alley south of Lake Como Cemetery in block 509, Chamberlain, Arlington Heights addition.

Second.

Motion from Commissioner Turner, second from Commissioner Johnson.

Yes, absolutely.

So call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Next case, AX2608, Maverick Golf Ranch Club Annexation Request, Proposed Residential Development, UTJ Tarrant County, Future Council District 3. General location is northwest of Highway 377, west of Farm to Market Road, south of Aledo Road, and east of Farm to Market 1187.

Good morning, Commissioners. Anthony Cisneros with the City Manager's Office. I'm a senior planner. So here's our general location this annexation that we bring to you it's really for a minor or maybe not minor but i'm just an adjustment to our future land use map and so we're. location is in far southwest Fort worth this annexation is part of an existing veal ranch development agreement, so it is a kind of a continuing development phase with the ranch. The development agreement can be referenced right there at the bottom, the very last bullet point of 59003 the proposed use and the future land use is residential single family. But as you'll see in a later slide there is actually a country club that's going to be incorporated into a golf course, so it is about 443 acres. There is a Jason bear creek parkway acreage about seven a little over seven. It is in our 20 year PSA or plan service area. So on the left, you have our future land use as as adopted today, the 2023 comprehensive plan. And then on the right, you have surrounding zoning. So as you could see to the east of this annexation location, you do have a lot of single family residential. I know they say PD there, but those are part of the Veal Ranch development. And this is just a timeline of, you know, to take action on this annexation. So we're looking at Tuesday, November 17th for city council consideration. Just for some context, this is what the Veal Ranch development boundaries look like. It's kind of a little hard to see, but the boundary in orange is the actual boundary for the whole development. What you see in purple is what's been annexed already. And then in that kind of teal, that's what we're looking at today. And I'll give a little bit more context because the part of the golf course has actually already been annexed. And I'll show a little bit what that looks like in this next slide. So this is really the adjustment we're making. The proposed annexation was all just single family, and we're really just making adjustment for accuracy on what we're calling, or what we call in our comprehensive plan, private park, recreation, and open space. And so that talks about not only the open space on the property, but the golf course. And as you could see kind of in that lower right hand corner, that box, you could see that the golf course has already been underway in development. And so that's part of this overall golf course too. So the proposed land use changes from single family residential to single family residential and private park recreation and open space. And that concludes my presentation.

Question, in the staff report, the ARC recommendation includes language about amending the comprehensive plan. The CPC recommendation only deals with the annexation. So are we just approving the annexation or recommending the annexation, or do we also need language to amend the comprehensive plan to deal with the future land use?

Yeah.

You're just looking at the recommendation today. You don't need to worry about amending the comp plan.

What is the process for resolving the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan? How will that future land use be changed?

So what Fort Worth does is come back later and update the comp plan based on the actions council takes. So Really your role gets limited to just making a recommendation to council where you have a property coming in. We see it's inconsistent. Is the plan commission okay with what they're proposing to do? And then council later goes back and does updates to the comp plan. In some municipalities, you actually have to amend your comp plan first. and then you can bring forward an annexation. We do it backwards. We do cleanup later. And so the staff will look at all the approvals city council made throughout each year, and then they'll come back with a cleanup to tell council, here's all the changes that you asked to make. And so then we need to update the comp plan to match what council's already done. So it's just a little bit different than other cities.

Okay.

Any other questions? Is there anyone here to speak on this matter? I don't see anyone, so we will close public hearing, entertain discussion, or motion.

I move the recommendation of approval to city council for the Maverick Golf and Ranch Club annexation application AX26008, which is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. I'll second.

Motion from Commissioner Adams, a second from Commissioner Reed. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes. Motion passes.

Our next case is in other matters of business. We have two of them. The first one is Panther Island form-based code amendment.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Francisco Vega, Planning Manager for the Preservation and Design Team, and I'm presenting today a form-based cut update that we're proposing for the Panther Island District. Just to provide a brief history of how we concluded with this update today, going back to the 80s and the 90s, there was a study done toward the Trinidad River. That multidisciplinary group started working on how to take care of the river. In 2001 from 2001 to 2003 the city to more consciousness about this and started cooperating with this group and created an adopted in 2003 the master plan for the trench of river. which essentially is an analysis of eight segments of the river. One of those segments is the central one that at that time it was called the Trinity Uptown. So the city wanted to go beyond that study and take care of the district and understand more about the existing conditions and how to take care of the river, but also thinking in the future of the district. and I started working on the project that it was later concluded and adopted as the Trinity Uptown Plan that you can see here. That was the first vision for the district, really trying to understand where we were at that point and where we wanted to be and how we can take care of the Trinity River. From there, different updates to the district happened. In 2010, the City Council finally created and adopted a district for this area and called it Trinity Upton. In 2012, they changed the name from Trinity Upton to Panther Island. In 2016, they finally adopted a form-based code, and since there are continuous improvements and updates to the district happened, in 2024, the city completed a Vision 2.0, which essentially 20 years later, they wanted to refresh the initial vision for the district. So what is this Vision 2.0? Essentially, it's a work done by a partnership with Toronto Regional Water District, City for Work, Tarrant County, TCC, Streams and Valleys, DFWI, and Real Estate Council to refresh some of the urban design framework, open space network, and waterfront conditions, which is something that it was somehow missing in the 2016 form-based code, and also refresh all other networks, like road, transit, pedestrian, and bike. And this vision, which is not the form based code is just the analysis of the district or refresh analysis of the district, they there are several recommendations. Some of those is to have a most robust open space network, how to access the waterfront and how to take care of the river. And then there's a proposal to a more compact block structure and proposing, for example, reducing from 1600 feet to 1200 feet of maximum block perimeter. And then for the block length from 400 feet to 300 feet and also having some additional considerations for the view corridor preservation and development intensity. So one of the other recommendations is to reshape the boundary of the district. As you can see to the left, that's the current FarmBase code district, and to the right is the proposed boundary. The idea is that whenever the bypass channel is created, finally are gonna be an island, like surrounded by, bounded by the river. So it makes more sense to take care of that central area as the pantra island and leave the other properties to other districts such as, for example, downtown. What are those key revisions? I will go first on this general revisions and I will focus on those that pertain to the City Plan Commission, but essentially we added principles that are, again, these at some point started with how to take care of the river, so we needed to add more consciousness to how we can develop the district, but also take care of the district. Also, it defines administrative authorities, such as the form-based code administrator. That's something that we are missing in some of the form-based codes. It typically just calls for a director of designee, but it doesn't really... It specifies what their roles are and what their authority is with, for example, waivers or administrative approving projects that actually meet all design regulations. Just to give an example, in downtown new construction, no matter what, because of new construction needs to go to the DDRB, even if they meet all design regulations. So in this code, the intention is to expedite those projects that already meet the design regulations and not presenting to, for example, the UDC. One of the key revisions not only is the boundary, but also is reorganizing the district. As you can see to your left, that's the current regulating plan adopted in the form based code from 2016. Each color represents a sub-district that is not really recognized as such character zone with a specific design regulations or anything. It really just tells you what the maximum height is in each of this. So form-based codes are born from the context and they try to preserve and take care of the context by adding design regulations for development that is conscious of what we have in place. In the Panther Island District, we do not have nine different character zones. Urban Lakes 2 is the same as Urban Lakes 1 and Urban Lakes 3 and so on. So one of the recommendations on Vision 2.0 is to simplify this structure and we are proposing a simplification of these sub-districts moving from nine to just two. So that way we can take care of just two conditions that actually need specific design regulations. To your right, you see the proposed update to the regulating plan. It includes in the darker pink what we are calling Panther Island Core and in the lighter pink what we call Panther Island Edge. The differentiation between these two districts is that the idea is on the core area, we can have a higher, more intense, and denser type of development. And on the Panther Island edge, we can have a less intense type of uses, but also accomplish two things. One is to create a buffer between development and how we connect that development to the water. and also to act as a transition between other districts like downtown and the north area with stockyards. Some other adjustments that we're proposing to the code is identifying specific frontages. So it means that depending on where a property is located and how the building is proposed, development will have a specific design regulations. For example, for the Type A type of classification frontage, you will have a more pedestrian-oriented form that will focus 100% on activating a ground floor and giving all the attention to pedestrians. While in type B, we also want the same, but it will include also, for example, garage entrances, documentation of some mechanical equipment or sort of other service areas that are needed for the functionality of buildings. But also we added other classifications like water frontage. that it includes the canal, the bypass channel, and the trench of river. And essentially the idea is to add supplemental setbacks, being a little bit more straight with the built to zone areas, and creating a buffer between development, pedestrian ways, and the river. We will see these standards in a moment, but essentially the idea is that development is not built all the way to where the river is going to be, so that way we can take care of the river. These are some of the regulations that I was talking about, the pedestrian-oriented form on those A-type frontages. And essentially the idea is to activate all those ground floors by having sidewalks, the furnishing zone, and trying to have some sort of activity on the ground floor that whenever you visit the district, you feel that you are walking through an area that has different uses. Now, one of the reasons why we want to reduce the block length and the maximum block perimeter is because we will also allow structure parking. So let's say that you park somewhere in this area and then you start walking by the core area. By having a mix of uses you keep walking then you get to the river and you feel that you didn't feel that you walk this three or four blocks to get into the river and in the river you can have more commercial uses or recreational uses and then open space green areas and more pedestrian ways. So that's the intention to create a more compact form with the block lands and the bulk block perimeters. And also on the right, on the image on the right, you can see how we are adding some on street parking regulations and how they should implement canopy coverage and street trees and pedestrian lights. This is what I was talking about, the water frontage. As you can see, the image that is on the right exemplifies how development is not being built all the way to the proper line on all the way to the river. but the intention is to create this buffer between development where the pedestrians walk and the river. So that way, there are some quality that we can implement for taking care of the river. That works in collaboration with TRWD's design models and all that that we have been working together for this project. It also includes other key revisions to open space, adding more canopy coverage for parking and plazas and open spaces. The idea is that if you have a surface parking, then they will have to add more trees. And 50% can sound like a lot of area, but we only really take in consideration the canopy of the trees. So sometimes it's really two or six trees in a parking area. But that helps with this, you know, the conditions of the city. Here, just to revisit that... previous classification that we had and how it impacts the height. We're also, when we are adjusting the, reorganizing the district, it will have now just two height requirements that previously were nine or even more in some cases, just to simplify and again, to have a denser, taller, and more intense type of uses on the core and a less intense on the edge area. Just talking about the urban forum standards, I also mentioned about this transition between the districts. By having on the H area more commercial uses and less intense and open space, green areas, and recreational uses, when you come south from downtown, when you enter into the Panther Island District, you will see all these uses from the bridge. And then you get into the core area where you will see again all tall buildings. And the more you drive north, then you will see that transition again. This also, the graphic in the bottom shows you the difference in the heights. Downtown does not really have a high limit. And then in Panther Island, the maximum height for the core area will be 24 floors. Some other design regulations, as I mentioned, we're taking care of the core area and the edge, and we are adding some massing design regulations, setbacks, built to zone, glazing and all that because we want to create that pedestrian environment. Just other regulations that we're. Including is also the permitted uses and the current code, we have a not permitted use table which is not typically what we have on a form based code. So we are reorganizing that into an actual permitted use table we're not changing any uses, but just reorganizing how the information is presented. Everything else is really a refresh and we are just adding a couple of additional standards. One of those chapters that is new is signage. We don't have a signage chapter in the current code. It essentially just includes images. This is what we would like to see, but it doesn't really have any parameters. So the new code includes a chapter for that. This is just another rendering showing the vision for this area where you can see close to the edge some of those recreational uses and how that intensity could look like. This is something that I was talking about, the water frontage and how to take care of the river. We're encouraging more open spaces, green areas, and plazas in connection to the river. So this is another idea of how development could look like with these new design regulations. And essentially, that's the update. This is another view. Does the Commission has any questions for staff?

Are we being asked, what is our role in this? Are we recommending this to council for approval and update to an amendment to the code language? I know this had to go before zoning as well. What role do they play versus the role we play?

These are both recommendations to city council.

My concern is most of the actions we take are one-off. They're specific cases, and we're approving waivers. This is an amendment to code. I appreciate the presentation, and it all sounds great, but nowhere are we provided the actual text of the code that we're voting to amend. If someone were to ask us, well, did you read the code that you recommended amending? We can't say that we did because nowhere is the actual text. We just have a summary and a slide deck. And so are we being asked to vote before we can actually read the text of the code that we're recommending the amendment of?

I can respond to that comment. In reality, the subdivision ordinance already has a provision that says that whatever form-based code update city council adopts, it gets adopted by reference by the subdivision ordinance. This presentation today is to make you aware about this coming too, but it was not really a requirement to receive the approval in order to go to the city to City Council. But this recommendation has been something that we have been done for other form-based code objects, because we are making modifications to block lands, parameters, and all that. So with those two recommendations, the action taken by City Council is really what mattered the most. We presented yesterday to Southern Commission and also recommend the approval, but City Council is who is taking action on this, and it's adopted by reference on the subdivision ordinance.

I appreciate that, and I think this is helpful, and I'm comfortable with that. I think my issue is voting on a recommendation to city council to amend code that we haven't had the opportunity to actually read.

I would agree with that. I mean, I don't think it's obviously a very different situation, but when we reviewed the infill ordinance, it was very beneficial to dig into the language and be able to know what we were actually voting on.

terms of the language which is not at all to discount this presentation which is great that's just right going step beyond that I think the presentation in this scenario provides the major differences so there's not maybe an ordinance per se that you're going through whereas clauses and things to that nature but it provided all the changes that are happening to the actual document. So I think in this scenario we have kind of provided you what is needed to make a recommendation because we've shown the changes that are being made in the PowerPoint, the exact changes that are happening within the ordinance. You may not have the specific ordinance language, but this is kind of a different scenario in my opinion.

I think I'd push back on that a little. It's a code. There is language, and these are amendments to that language. If we're voting to recommend them, speaking for myself, I'd like to see what the language says and what it's changing to, in addition to seeing a summary of what those changes are.

And I would just add, if our recommendation is not necessary, then we don't need to vote. But if we are being asked to recommend language a change to code, we should have the opportunity to see what that change is. For example, and this is something that's simple, but a transition from a prohibited use table to a permitted use table. And I know there was a comment that, well, there are no changes in what's allowed and what's not. we should at least have the opportunity to see the difference in those two and be able to read it if we're being asked to recommend it for city council, to city council, because I would like to be able to say that I've actually read what I'm voting on.

Commissioners, any other comment or discussion?

One, I'm going to just encourage the city before you do this presentation for council to fix the street names because you have White Settlement Road on most of your exhibits and it's been changed to West Side Drive. And so that's just encouragement to fix that. I guess the biggest change that I see, and tell me if I'm wrong, is that we have pieces of land that are now going to be excluded from Panther Island. And that dramatically affects the value of that land. And so, has there been any outreach to landowners? Because it's not all owned by the Water District, because the part that was excluded is the Mercado and the Golden Gloves. I mean, has outreach been made to those landowners that their future is changing?

Yes, yeah, we hold a community meeting with the property owners. Also, when you said Mercado, you referred to the Bazaar area? Yes. Okay, yeah. Yeah, the property owner, for example, in that case, didn't want to be part of Banter Island. They are rezoning their property. They already submitted a zoning application to rezone their property. They already have designed a project for their property, and they want to go with mixed use. So we have been working with these entities. Certainly there are some portions of the district that are being out of this revision. And the reason why we didn't include them is because we wanna take a look at those specific districts. One of those is TCC, for example, and we wanna see exactly what they need in that area. So because we use Vision 2.0, those properties were not really included on that evaluation, so we will have to take a look at that. We have already some alternatives like just making them part of downtown, but that doesn't really satisfy the need for having a specific design regulations for those properties. So we took a step back with that and we were going through this process again with those with those properties. There are other properties owners and design those neighborhood that we have been in communication. In fact, they were yesterday in the signing commission. They spoke in asking if anything was going to be changed on their property. And we explained to them that nothing was really being proposed. That property owner also attended the public hearing. So we have been in coordination with this. We have received phone calls and been meeting with property owners, essentially.

And then to the point of the other commissioners, is there language that delineates the boundaries of panther island that we are now changing that language to reflect this picture or is it all just a map.

it's it's a map, yes exhibit be 17 I think that's how we included on the staff report now i'm seeing in the in the code that it's a map, yes, it will be a map, yes.

Commissioners, any other questions?

I'm kind of leading with Commissioner Adams, where he teaches me in all things, get our understanding. And I'm like him. I can't vote on nothing that I don't have understanding on.

Are we able to continue this item and request to see a red line of the amendments?

Yes, when does this go to council or supposed to go to council?

October 13, I believe that's the, yeah, October 13.

So I guess we can just bring it back on October 8th and then.

Yep. Do you have a better understanding of the request? What would you like to see?

We'd like to see the form-based code redlined to show the amendments. And if possible, with ample time to review that prior to our next meeting.

My question would be, is it required or necessary for us to even vote on this? Or is it just informational?

So it was posted for a recommendation. I think that's been our practice over the years with the form-based code since form-based codes are a mixture of both zoning and plotting. And so there's certainly concerns you could have in looking at that form-based code on some of the things they're doing. And so that's just been a historical practice. I can't say there's an ordinance that says that this commission has to vote on it. They've just historically taken them to the Planning Commission for your review and comments for council before council considers it.

It sounds like if they're asking us to approve it, they're asking us to vote on something we hadn't read. That's my understanding of this.

What would the action be to continue this? Do we need to make a motion to continue or is it just?

Just a motion to continue to the October 8th public hearing. Yes.

So I move to continue the amendment to the Panther Island form-based code to the October 8th, 2026 meeting. Second. The city plan commission.

Second.

Motion from Commissioner Adams. Second from Commissioner Bearden. Call the vote, please.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, last OMB is the presentation of the McCart Corridor Avenue project.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS KEVIN ISSU. I'M A SENIOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF TPW.

CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW?

I'M HERE TO PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF THE MCCART AVENUE HUB OF TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY CORRIDOR PROJECT. On this project includes a 10 mile corridor of mccart avenue extending from I 20 the future county road 920 and was initiated as part of the 2022 bond program. The purpose is to create a long term vision that prioritizes safety and technological improvements and also advancing projects from engineering to construction, the project also includes a segment of altamasa boulevard from South healing street to him hill street. It's just an overview of the timeline. Right now we are in the public comments period that extends from September 1st to September 25th. Informal report to City Council, September 29th. City Plan Commission public hearing and recommendation, October 8th. And adoption by City Council, October 27th. Right now, the full report is posted on the website shown presentation, www.movingthemillion.org. You also have the ability to view the entire project report as well as add comments to the report or any inquiries you have. We will make sure that those inquiries are forwarded to the appropriate departments and that you get a response. Current challenges on McCart Avenue, as we know, McCart Avenue is part of the high injury network for all modes of transportation, including vehicular traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, and even school buses. We have high crash rates and safety concerns, traffic congestion issues, gaps in sidewalks, bike facilities and transit access, aging commercial areas, as well as fragmented land use. As part of this study we conducted for public open house meetings extended from march 25 of last year till February 5 of this year. And three top concerns from the feedback we received from these open houses included safety and congestion lack of walkability and multimodal access bicycle and transit and need for more retail dining and gathering spaces.

Pardon me, would you please pull the mic up closer to your mouth, please? Thank you.

A little bit better? All right, I'll just go ahead and redo this slide. Okay, so as part of the study and this project, we conducted four open house meetings extending from March of last year all through February of this year. And three top concerns received from feedback from those open houses included safety and congestion concerns, lack of walkability and multimodal access, and need for more retail, dining, and gathering spaces. Here we have a list of all the stakeholders that were involved in development of this project and this report. I'm not going through the whole list, but some key stakeholders include the Texas Department of Transportation, Tarrant County, cities of Crowley and Burleson, neighborhood associations in the three council districts affected by this project, which is Council District 6, 8, and 9, and Fort Worth Independent School District. Here you can see our vision statement showing the priority and the focus on the economic growth, connected communities and safety. Here we have a snapshot of a schematic from the report showing a section of Alta Mesa Boulevard. The point of this slide is just to highlight two focus areas of the project, which includes safety and smart technology. On the safety side of things, some of our focus areas include continuous side paths, sidewalks, and wider sidewalks, protected crossings, pedestrian lighting, landscape medians, and traffic common measures, and transit improvements. On the smart technology side, we have initiatives such as adaptive signals, hawk beacons, real-time traffic systems, AI-assisted traffic upgrades, transit priorities, as well as fiber duct infrastructure along the corridor. Also, as part of the study, we identified three what we call catalytic sites. These are areas that could be potential drivers of economic growth. The first would be at the intersection of McCart and Alta Mesa Boulevard. The second schematic, I believe, is the intersection of McCart and Reisinger. And the third would be McCart and Cleveland Crowley Road. We worked with our economic development services as well as our parks departments to identify these catalytic sites. As I mentioned earlier in the presentation, any questions you have or inquiries concerning any of these sites, the report is open right now for public comment. So please feel free to add your comments to the report and make sure those are forwarded to the appropriate departments for response. This is also talking about some key recommendations of the study and the report as well. Some key feedback and recommendations we've gotten from our public open houses as well as the stakeholders include mid-block crossings at high schools with pedestrian signals, McCart Avenue reconstruction south of Park Lake Drive, shared used paths recommendations, bus pullouts, fiber duct banks, transit priority signals, pedestrian enhancements, and interchange design at I-20 and McCart. Also, as mentioned earlier in the presentation, the study area includes a segment of Alta Mesa Boulevard. Some short-term recommendations for Alta Mesa Boulevard include the McCart Avenue and Alta Mesa intersection project, which was recently completed. Alta Mesa and Woodway intersection design, which is currently in progress with our capital delivery division. Conceptual roadway design is also complete for Alta Mesa between Fiesta Circle and McCart Avenue. pedestrian crossings, shared use paths, and lightning improvements, as well as some technological upgrade recommendations. Long-term priorities include major roadway reconstruction, narrower medians so that we can extend the width of the lanes or add more lanes, pedestrian and bike trails around high school areas, as well as a few other long-term recommendations, funding permitted. And post-adoption, our goal is to roll out the implementation of the recommendations of this report in a phased approach. Some near-term priorities include the McCart Avenue and McPherson Boulevard project, which is currently under construction. Our division recently completed the schematic design for McCart Avenue between I-20 and Sycamore School Road. Roadway safety analysis recently completed by NCT COG and intersection improvements. Some long-term priorities include major roadway reconstructions from schematic. These are going to be potential 2030 bond candidates, redevelopment of catalytic sites, which would be spearheaded by a development services department, Kraus-Baker Park improvements spearheaded by a parks department, and pedestrian improvements along Alta Mesa Boulevard near Southwest High School. And I believe that's it. Any questions you might have?

Great presentation, sir. Thank you, sir. I did have a quick question for you. Yes, sir. Is FiberDuck Bank a real bank?

No, it's not. Okay.

I got a question. Again, great presentation. Was there any action that was needed by the commission here today? I ask that because I think we would have been a lot more comfortable in item number one, the Panther Island action, request had we had a primer like this at a previous meeting to go over some, well, this is where we are, this is where we plan to go, get ready for a request coming up the pike in the future that would ask you to change or amend some form-based coding. Again, it was really strong. So now I feel totally comfortable if you come back in the future and ask the commission to take action on an item regarding the McCart corridor project, I'll feel a lot more comfortable with knowing where we've come from and be able to take action at that time without continuing something.

We did have a primer for the other one.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for this presentation.

This is a great project and much needed.

Just curious, are there any future plans to extend these improvements north of 20 and kind of that section of McHart between 20 and, say, Benbrook? Because a lot of the same issues that are being addressed here exist there in that kind of two-mile stretch.

Short answer is yes, but nothing concrete, there are other factors that would determine our ability to extend some of these initiatives to other segments of the corridor. Funding approval prioritization of projects, but the short answer is yes, we are evaluating the entire city for opportunities to make improvements, such as these, thank you.

I want to go back to what you had referred to before with the engagement with the community. I saw that there is several districts that are part of this conversation. So I know you had community input through February. Is there any plans to continue forth with having additional community inputs or forums where people can express their opinions, other than going online and saying, what about this, what about this? Are you planning to have additional meetings like this that are available to the public?

Right now, no. But as I mentioned, the report is available for comments. If you commissioners recommend additional public meetings, we're not opposed to doing that.

Okay. I would recommend additional.

Okay.

Yeah.

I understand where she's coming from because you got some major churches in that area, and I didn't see none of them up there. And I know that they would want to be a part of this.

particularly at that McCart and Hewlin intersection.

Taking some notes.

Isn't there a church called Great Commission over there?

There is.

You know she'll remember that. You saw it in St. John's.

And I'm very active in it.

Commissioners, any other questions or comments? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And that's our last item. So we are adjourned.