Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, now it's nine o'clock. I'm gonna call the meeting to order and ask staff to read the rules of procedure, if you will.

Watching that door, see if it pops open. All right, good morning and welcome to the January 8th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth Planning Commission. The commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public meetings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the city subdivision ordinance, city plan commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of Texas state law. The commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plots, 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 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom are appointed by the city council. A quorum of six members of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct business. 10 members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Mr. Jim Tidwell, the chair of the City Planning Commission. Other commission members present are Commissioner Kranz, Commissioner Bearden, Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Sims, Commissioner Reicher, Commissioner Farta, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette. Staff members present today are Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, and representation from FIRE. My name is Steven Murray, intern planning manager, well, actually planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. 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 a timely and orderly meeting, 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 a two-minute rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara Soltero keeping time today. Clearly state your name and city prior to addressing the commission. 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 decision on plotting matters as final action, other docket items constitute a recommendation to the city council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the Development Services Department at 817-392-8027. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the meeting minutes from the December 17th meeting.

Good morning. If everyone's had an opportunity to review the minutes, are there any changes to the minutes? Can I get a motion, please?

A motion that the minutes be approved.

We have a motion for approval. Second. And a second. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous. So would you call the first case, please?

Yes, sir. First case, FS25136, Graystower Old Decatur. Waiver request, Section 31102B2, Interconnectivity of Neighborhoods, Lot 1, Council District 2. General location is north of Woodbine Cliff Drive, south of Longhorn Road, and east of Marine Creek Creek Parkway, and west of Old Decatur Road. Opcon is Kimley Horn.

Staff report.

FS 25136, they're requesting a waiver for interconnectivity to not extend Denton Morrow Drive to the south. As you can see on the plot here on the southern portion, you'll see Denton Morrow called out and they're requesting a waiver not to extend that street since the subdivision ordinance requires interconnectivity and for them to extend it through the site to connect into the neighborhood. Here's the zoning. The site is owned medium industrial, and the street in the neighborhood to the south is A5 single family. And also, they had a separate UDC submittal a few months back, and this is a site plan that they've submitted that kind of gives you an idea of what they're proposing for the site. And again, so they're requesting, or DRC is recommending approval of the waiver for the non-extendance and moral and conditional approval of the plot.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Is there anyone here in support? Is the applicant available? The applicant is not here. Is there anyone in support? Is there anyone that wants to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and I will ask for a motion. Mr. Bearden. We have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and second to approve FS-25-136 in accordance with the staff recommendation. Please call the vote.

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

Yes.

That will pass us.

Okay.

Next case is PA 25003.

Yes, sir, this is a plat abandonment. This is for Behavioral North Addition. Similar to the case we heard last month, or the last time we were here, this is an applicant who has put together a development bond for a project that apparently fell through. In order to refund the development bond, the plat was an exhibit as a part of that CFA contract. Therefore, it is required that the plat be abandoned before they will release the development bond back to the applicant. This is the site here. It's this piece of property here. Apparently my yellow boundary didn't come through when I exported the document, but it's just a big square. There's a couple of existing easements that were dedicated by Plat for one for water and one for sewer that the water departments requested them to retain. They'll have to retain those by separate instrument for the recording of Plat. Does anybody have any questions? If not, we're seeking conditional approval of the plot abandoned upon meeting the plotting comments in the staff report.

Thank you. If there aren't any questions, is the applicant present?

Yes, sir. Sorry. Yes, sir.

Jared Halpenny representing Caliber, who is the owner of this plot. We would request that this gets approved so we can go back to our drawing board to see how we're going to build on this lot and do a little further detail with it.

Thank you. Is anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. Lambert.

On PA-25-003, I motion for conditional approval of the plat abandonment upon meeting the platting comments in the staff report. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Would you please call the roll?

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

Yes.

The motion passes. That brings us to the next case.

Next case, PA-2504, Behavioral Glenwood Edition, Lot 8R, Block 23, Platt Abandonment, Council District 8. General location, north of Tucker Street, south of Bessie Street, east of Loney Street, and west of Exeter Street. The applicant has burned surveying.

So this is another plot abandonment. However, this one is not associated with CFA. This one here is a good old-fashioned, someone plotted three lots together and is now seeking to undo what was previously done so they can return to three lots and then redevelop the site for three residential homes. Zone day five, the three lots conform to the underlying zoning, so it's pretty straightforward. Here is the previous plot of record where you can see the three lots were combined into one. This will simply return it back to the three lots that were there previously. ERC is recommending approval of the plat abandon upon meeting the plotting comments in the staff report. Anybody have any questions?

Thank you. I'm not seeing any questions. Alex, is the applicant here? Yes, sir.

Hello? Yes. They just told me to show up, so I don't know if you all have any questions for me.

Name and city, please.

Taylor Cullivitz, and I live in Dallas.

You're representing the applicant?

Yes, sir. Taylor Ryan Holmes.

Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Anyone else in support? In opposition? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

A motion for recommendation of a conditional approval of the planned vacation upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for approval. Any discussion? Please call the vote.

Commissioner Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richer, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Tidwell, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Next case, VA 25026, Vacation of Portions of 10th Avenue, Pruitt Street and West Cannon Street in an alley located south of Pennsylvania Avenue, west of 9th Avenue and north of Cooper Street in Block 7, Edward Ayers Edition, Council District 9. General location is north of Cooper Street, south of Pennsylvania Avenue, west of 9th and east of 12th Avenue. Applicant is Denaway & Associates.

Thank you. Mr. Parks? Yes, sir. So as Mr. Murray mentioned, there's a collection of rights of way here that are seeking to vacate. It's a little bit easier when you look at this exhibit here. Kind of puts it in perspective. Essentially, you have two property owners here. You have Cook Children's on the east side and Medical City on the west, and they're essentially doing a little land swap to clean up the boundary between the two sites so that there'll be a straight linear line between the two developments. That line will essentially go It's not 100% accurate, but it's pretty much that. And Cook's owns some of it over there, and the others own it. So they're just trying to clean up their properties. Somewhere in that location, they're going to also dedicate a private access easement that will be maintained by Cook's and Medical City together that will help to provide circulation once these rights-of-way have been removed in a north-south pattern through the site. They weren't interested in doing it in public. There's no requirement for them to do it in public, but their intent is to provide access, but they just didn't want to have the inability to ever close it off or restrict access there if they ever needed to in the future. But their intent is to keep it open to provide that vehicular access to the site. If you have any questions about those types of things, you can ask the applicant.

They're here to speak on behalf of both entities.

This site is a little unique. Portions of the property were zoned near Southside. It's about the western half of that cul-de-sac and the southern half of Pruitt Street on the west side of that line. Those are all in near Southside zoning districts. Therefore, the UDC had to act prior to CPC to provide recommendation for the validity of the vacations of these rights-of-way, and they made that positive recommendation on December 18th. So that's why we're here before you today. So they're gonna replant everything together. They have future plans for future hospital expansions in these areas and to improve the overall parking in the area.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Yes, sir. Mr. Bearden.

So on Cannon, going west on 9th, is that just dead end?

Oh, this portion of Cannon is already vacated. Yeah, these two lots are already planted together as one.

And then, Mr. Chairman, just rumor. Rumor is that Cook wants to build like a hotel for parents, similar to Ronald McDonald House, but that's just a rumor.

We need all the rumors we can get. So, any more questions of staff? Is the applicant here, please?

Good morning.

Good morning, Commission. My name is Justin Wells with Dunaway Associates, 550 Bailey Avenue, Fort Worth, Texas. Speaking on behalf of the applicant, which in this case is both Cook Children's and Medical City, as Alex mentioned, both parties are teaming up for this land swap, replat vacation. with really the main purpose of cleaning up property. As you can see, even with the vacations, there's some odd configurations, some lot configurations, or some unique shapes, and so with this land swap, And these vacations, it just helps clean up everything with a cleaner, more direct lot line, consolidating the property, making everything more square. And as a result, it makes it more usable for both parties. As far as development plans, with this, there will be shared private access drive With it being shared, it will not be closed off, so it will not be gated and would allow still circulation through. Benefit of it being private is both parties are able to fully maintain the road without a lot of city participation opportunities, things like that. So there's a little bit more control and freedom with that. Like always, with it being Cook involved on this, there's that high level of standard as far as how it will ultimately look and function, and we always partner with Near Southside on that as well, which on this case, we do have their support. I believe they're here present to speak on this case as well. With regard to the rumor, the only development planned here are parking lots, and it's, like Alex mentioned, to address the parking need in the area. Some parking will be eliminated with land swap, but additional parking spaces are planned to be added with connectivity through that private access drive. With that, I believe that pretty much covers everything. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. As Alex mentioned, we did go before UDC and did get their approval back in December. So with that, I kindly request your approval for these vacations.

Thank you. Any questions for you? Oh, sorry. I have one, and it has to do with the difference between a private access easement and a public access easement. A private access easement gives control to the landowner. Is that correct?

Yes, and so how this would operate is actually very similar to the private street of 6th Avenue between Terrell and Pennsylvania, which is in between THR and Cook today. So what this would look like is the property line actually splits right down the middle. Access is granted to both parties, so they all use it together, but with it being private, essentially they're responsible for maintaining their half of the street.

If it were a public access, would someone else be responsible?

So if it was public access, in order to construct anything on that portion of the street, such as if a utility needed to be run that only serves that party, we would then have to be subject to encroachment agreements and there's additional city processes with that. So it opens up additional reviews if it was a public access easement.

So if the owners decided to close that for some reason and build a building on it or whatever, is that something that could happen, I guess? I mean, we're sitting here talking about circulation in the area, and I get that the two healthcare facilities probably have a really good reason to maintain that circulation. At some point in the future, if they chose to close that and alter the circulation in that area, is that something someone could be concerned about?

With the property line being down the middle of the drive, Doesn't fully prevent it, but it makes it more challenging, right? Because both parties would have to fully agree to the closure of that drive. With the property line down the middle, both each have their right and access to half the road, and so you wouldn't be able to fully close without both parties agreeing to it.

Okay.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in support? Yes, sir.

Good morning, commissioners. Mike Brennan with Near South Side Inc. As the applicant indicated, we've worked closely with Cook Children's and Medical City and all the hospitals to facilitate thoughtful expansion on each of the medical center campuses. There's unprecedented pressure on growth at all the facilities, and we're very grateful that each of the hospitals is putting very thoughtful planning in place. I would encourage anybody that hasn't been over to this immediate area to go see the new construction of the childcare center that is on the western side of 9th there, north of Cooper. You can see this area sort of taking shape. As far as the street grid, This area has never really had a well-connected grid, mainly because of that old railroad easement or right of way to the west. So we don't see any adverse impact to general circulation. We're grateful that the private easement would allow for that north-south circulation that really doesn't even exist today in that area. So that's a bonus. There are urban village areas in the near south side Vacations of streets are something we would strongly discourage because there are a lot of people living in those areas, and generally we want to retain the street grid. This is sort of the other end of the spectrum where we don't have a real robust grid. We need to have the flexibility, infrastructure flexibility, to allow for the thoughtful expansion for these facilities. So this is one where we strongly recommend approval of these vacations.

Thank you, Mr. Redding. Would you please fill out a green sheet?

Yes, I will. Thank you.

Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition? Is Mr. Purcell here?

Good morning. My name is Davis Purcell. I'm one of the property owners right across the street from 9th Avenue. My property is across the street from the land that apparently is subject to the land swap. I'm not really here in opposition, more just to find out what's going on. I acknowledge Cook's has done a lot for the Fort Worth community over the years. However, when it comes to communication, they're a very poor neighbor. And it's virtually impossible to find out what they intend for this property. So really, I just wanted to find out why they were asking to abandon the existing streets and how it was going to be used. Now, of course, I wonder if it's going to be used for the medical city helipad that they requested the zoning change for. But after owning the property across the street for 25 years, I can tell you I can't ever get cooks to tell me anything that's going on. I would note on one of the streets they're asking the city to vacate, they've already put down a really nice new road surface. And I've been wondering all this time, why have they done that? But thank you for your time.

That's my only purpose, trying to find out what in the world they're doing.

Thank you. Can we get the applicant to respond?

Yes, so as far as communication, we have been in communication, sorry, not with you individually, but with one of the other residents over there, Jason Smith. I know in the past he has reached out to all the other residents and users of that block specifically. As far as communication, though ongoing, ensure that that is improved so that any other future cases in this area, we loop in this individual. As far as the new asphalt and plans, like I said, the only projects planned over here are the parking lots. The Hellas stop, that was actually being planned ahead of the land swap discussions. And so that is not directly impacted by this land swap, It is a little bit further west, west of these vacations, and so that project would still proceed regardless of these vacations. So it is a separate project, completely independent of this. On the asphalt that was placed, again, it was a timing issue. item where we have a CFA that requires asphalt pavement and that all needed to proceed in order to close out the project because as Mike Brennan mentioned, where Cannon used to be, the section that's vacated, that is right now a child daycare center that's being built by Cook for medical staff. And so with that, it had the CFA tied to that, which then forced the replacement of that asphalt. Since then, now we're at the point where we're working through these land swaps and the vacation right away to ultimately clean up the property.

Thank you. So if he has any more questions, he can get with you about what the plan is for the land. Is there anyone else in opposition to this case? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Yes, sir.

I'll make a motion to approve VA 25026, vacation of portions of 10th Avenue, Perch Street, and West Cannon Street in an alley located south of Pennsylvania Avenue. west of 9th Avenue and north of Cooper Street and Block 7, Edward Ayers Edition.

Second. We have a motion and a second for approval as outlined in the staff report. Is there any discussion?

I think that the big question was about circulation in the area that came up and between the traffic circulation analysis that was noted in the file and what we heard here. Feel pretty good that those questions are answered. So long as the communication loop can also be closed before you leave here today, then I was good with it.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing none, please call the vote.

Commissioner Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Tidwell, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

Thank you. That passes unanimously. Next case.

Next case, VA 25027, vacation of a portion of a right-of-way easement for Avondale-Hazlitt Road, Council District 10. General location is north of 34th Street, south of Northwest 36th Street, east of Meacham Airport, and west of Clinton Avenue. Applicant is Westwood Professional Services.

Mr.

Parks. So not unlike a lot of my other ones here, apparently my yellow exhibits didn't pop up on here, but this is somewhere right about there. There's a little small box of like 80 by 90 foot portion of what was the right-of-way easement that was dedicated for the southern half of Avondale-Hazlitt that extended into this private property. Why? I don't know, but there it is. It's this little tiny little square piece of excess right-of-way that isn't really needed for the construction of the road. And really the sole purpose of this is they're gonna consolidate it with their approved preliminary plat that's already been approved to the south for Nance Ranch PP23-001, which is also on this agenda for preliminary plat revision unrelated to this. And within it, and you can't really see from the exhibit, but there's an existing drainage channel that flows to that, and I think there's an existing headwall and other improvements that are already there, so essentially it's gonna be vacated and then retained as a drainage easement. They're not vacating part of the road, they're not eliminating the road. When I first saw this, I was like, hang on a second, you can't vacate this. I need this for the road. And then I quickly realized what they were doing. Does anybody have any questions?

Any questions of staff? Thank you. Is the- I had one question. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Johnson.

Just wanted to know if someone on the staff could help Alex use the highlight tool for the PowerPoint next time?

I did it. They all had yellow boxes when I exported it out of GIA.

Just kidding. Thanks, Alex. Good job.

Thank you.

Thank you. The applicant appears to be present. Go ahead, Mr. Clare.

Happy New Year. Travis Clegg with Westwood Professional Services. We're the engineering consultant on this project. I can help Alex out with a little bit of background. So Avondale has been on the bond program for the past two or three bond programs. It's a complex road to build. It's finally about to go to construction. I'm sure everybody up there is gonna be excited once that gets finished. Part of the issue is acquiring right of way. So when they, went to acquire additional right-of-way for Avondale Hazlet, the typical 120, 130 feet. There's also a drainage easement or drainage portion of that. You can kind of see the trees on the north side of the road. That drainage kind of crosses the road there. That box was set aside so the city would have room for a headwall to capture the drainage going south Typically you don't acquire right-of-way for that. You usually get an easement. So my client now purchased that corner property and is going to develop it as a commercial retail center. And if right-of-way is sitting in there, then they can't utilize the property efficiently. And we can't modify how we're going to do drainage. So we are going to vacate that right-of-way and we're going to modify the drainage, capture it, put it in an easement instead of a right-of-way, and move on with our development. So step one is vacating that right-of-way, and then I can work with staff on the design of the stormwater. So that was the reason why the box is there. A little bit awkward, usually don't do right-of-ways, but that was how we did this one, to move Avondale-Hazlitt project along to get the road built. So any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, is there anyone else here in support? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. That's in Council District 10, and that's a vacant slot.

I'll move to recommend to City Council vacation of a portion of the right-of-way easement for Avondale-Haslet Road.

Second.

We have a motion and second to recommend the city council to approve the vacation. Any discussion? Please call the vote.

Commissioner Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richer, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Tidwell, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

It passes unanimously. Can we call the last case, please?

Last case, BP 23001, Nance Ranch, revision. Waiver request, section 311062, block face length, multi-family lots, one commercial lot, 792 residential lots, four proposed public park lots, and 102 private open space lots, Council District 10. General location is south of Avondale-Hazlitt Road, west of John Day Road, and north of Blue Mound Road. Applicant is LJA Engineering. Mr. Parks.

Okay, so essentially, that's the boundary of the preliminary plot. Wanted to make it easier for you. It's basically everything on the screen. But yes, it's adjacent to the city of Hazlitt there. It's an existing approved preliminary plot. I think when the notice went out, for whatever reason, people thought that this was a new project. Apparently there's people that have not lived there since the last time this came through and was approved by city planning commission in 2023.

And shortly thereafter, there was a small revision that was done. And this is now the third revision.

The focus of the discussion is really on this area right here. So let me clear that off so we can go look at that a little bit more closely. So here's the overall preliminary plan as mentioned. This, the box up there in the northeast corner, that's the purpose of the revision. That area is currently zoned a combination of UR, urban residential, and MU1 mixed use, low intensity mixed use. And initially, all the northern portion of the development, they had shown for multifamily development. They have decided to down zone this area. They have an existing zoning case under review at ZC25200. Um, I don't know the dates on that is when it's going January 14th. Thank you. Uh, so January 14th, it's set to go to zoning commission and we'll go to city council later. Um, it's, I think it's consistent with the zone consistent with the future language plan. So it seems to be. something that the city would be supportive of. With this new revision, however, they have created a long block face. It's that one there. So that block face on that exterior there, it's bound by the existing platy development for Latara and Hazlitt, so they can't stub out that direction. Going south, clearly there's nothing to connect to. It's a bunch of gas hole sites and other natural features that make it difficult to extend a street further through there. Otherwise they would have already put lots in that area and created an actual development. So that area is gonna stay pretty much open. So given the fact that they have limited ability to really break that up, staff is supportive of this long block phase. And that's really the only reason this revised preliminary plot is here, other than the fact that with this revision, they've increased the lot yield of the subdivision 12%. residential lot yield, not the overall lot yield, because they used to have 1,400 or 1,800 multi-family lots, and that's gone down multi-units, multi-family units, and that number has gone down significantly. So really the delta between the number of dwelling units, if you want to call them multi-family dwelling units, has actually gone down, but the number of residential lots, and that's what the subdivision ordinance cares about, has gone up past the administrative threshold. But that's just one of the comments on the case. It's not a waiver. It's not going to require special action. So if you recommend approval of the preliminary plot, you'll also be recommending approval of that increase in law.

Thank you, Alex. Are there questions, staff? Is the applicant here? Mr. Clegg.

Commissioners, good morning. Landon King, LJA Engineering. Alex, I think you did a great job explaining kind of what's going on here.

I'm here to answer any questions you have, but like I said, I think you did a pretty good job of kind of explaining the situation.

You can see the geometric restrictions we're dealing with, and so this was just one of those conditions that we couldn't really work around. So I hope you understand our situation, and we'll kindly

Thank you, are there questions of the applicant? Seeing none, is there anyone else here in support? Anyone here in opposition? We do have correspondence speaking to the traffic issue, but I think with an actual reduction in the number of dwelling units in the case, I think that's been addressed. So, any questions? If none, I will close the public hearing. And again, this is in District 10, so I need a motion from someone here.

I'll make a motion.

Motion to approve PP23001, Nance Ranch Revision, waiver request section 31106D2, block face length and three multifamily lots, one commercial lot, 792 residential lots, four proposed public park lots, and 102 private open space lots.

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second.

We have to make sure that we make the approval conditional on the rezoning.

You'd like to revise your quote? I would like to revise my.

Mr. Chairman, before he revises that, I guess three or four times in the staff notes it mentions that the Planning Commission has to approve the change in density. You mentioned that. So should that be part of the motion?

No, like I said, that's a standard, it's just a standard comment. So if you're conditionally approving the preliminary plot, then you're approving that with that action. The only time we bring that forward as a separate action is if a preliminary plat revision is done, and that's the only thing that is different. If it's beyond the 5% threshold, we'll bring that to you as a special condition. But because that's just part of the action, it didn't seem to be necessary to call it out as a separate approval.

Thank you. So I believe we have a motion to approve the waivers in accordance with the staff recommendation. And is that okay with a second?

Yes.

Agenda.

Point two on that. So it's already there.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. Is there any discussion, any further discussion? Seeing none, would you call the vote please?

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Tidwell, how do you vote? Yes. That motion passes.

That is a unanimous vote for approval. It's not on the agenda, but I wanted to make an announcement. I, as most of you know, I am beyond my term limit on the plan commission, and my council member has nominated someone to replace me, and that's on the agenda, I think, which agenda, Rich? Next week's agenda for council. So it's very likely, I think, that you're going to have a new chairman next meeting, and that's gonna be his friends. I appreciate everybody that's showed up and participated. It's been fun and it's been real, but it hasn't always been real fun. We are adjourned, thank you.

Jim, thank you. Go ahead. Is there any way that we can give you a plaque or have a party or something for him?

Okay. I prefer the party. Okay.