Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. It's nine o'clock. We'll call to order the meeting of the City Plan Commission of Fort Worth meeting for February 12th, 2026.

Good morning and welcome to the February 12th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of 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 responsibility are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, streets and alleyway 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 appointed by the city council. A quorum of six members of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. 10 members are currently present, so therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Ms. Carolyn Kranz, chair of the city planning commission. Other commission members present today are Andrew Bearden, Colby Adams, Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Turner, Commissioner Risher, Commissioner Farta, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Kelly. Staff present today are Alex Rodriguez, Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, and representation from FIRE and TPW. My name is Stephen Murray, plotting 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 will be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara Soltero keeping time today. Clearly state your names and city prior to addressing the commission. All dialogue will occur between the speaker and commission. Upon the chairman's initial close 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 is final. Action on other docket items constitute a recommendation to 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, Ms. Chairman. And commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes for the January 29th meeting.

Thank you. All right, if you've had a chance to review the minutes, I'll welcome a motion or discussion.

I move to approve minutes from the previous CPC meeting.

I second. A motion by Commissioner Johnson and a second by Commissioner Turner. Let's just do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Yes, before we move on to our agenda items, I want to introduce our newest commissioner, representing Council District 10, Laura Kelly. Would you like to give a brief introduction for yourself?

Hello. Hi, my name is Laura Kelly. I am a realtor here in Fort Worth. I am also serving on the Board of Realtors for the Greater Fort Worth Association of Realtors. And I've been a resident here since 2011, but I definitely intend to stay here. I love Fort Worth, so I definitely look forward to serving my community. Thanks for having me.

Thanks for being here. Glad to have you.

All right. First case, FS25236, Beach 170, northeast corner of Lot 1X, Block 1. Waiver request, Section 31-63E6A, street vacation recommendation expiration. One lot, Council District 11. General location is north of Alliance Gateway, west of Alta Vista, and east of Westport Parkway. The applicant is Westwood Professional Services, Incorporated.

Good morning. So this is one you probably won't ever see other than this time. The reason being is normally when we vacate right of way, the property owners of both the north and the south or east and west, they're all in agreement and they're all ready to move forward with vacating and replanting it away. However, in this unique instance, getting to the point of getting the vacation done was a challenge in of itself, trying to get the property owner to the north to agree and actually sign something. We also got to the same point here with the replat. We finally got them to agree to sign a plat, however, they're not willing to plat the property as part of their land. And they're also not willing to sign something to deed their rights to their half of the road to the property and enter to the south. So basically it's holding this plat from moving forward and ultimately vacating the right-of-way because of their lack of want to participate in the process. They were okay with vacating it, but we have talked with them, met with them over and over and over again. And it just, for whatever reason, every single time it's a new thing. So in order to help facilitate moving this project forward, The whole purpose of vacating this road was the vast, that big empty space you see down there was proposed for a multifamily development. Keller Haslett Road was a border street. I know it says Westport Parkway, but really Westport Parkway is what runs up to the northwest. Keller Haslett Road was a border street, and it was not up to city standard. And as part of their rough proportionality, they were required to improve that street. They didn't want to do that. And half of that road was included within the boundary of their preliminary plot. So they were going to have to make improvements to that road as a part of their development. So in order to avoid that, I worked with transportation and we all kind of agreed that if they were willing to vacate that right-of-way, then there would no longer be a street there for them to improve because they weren't intending on using it for access. Even the proposed development to the north didn't show any access off of that either. So there was no real need for the roadway. So in order to remove the requirement to improve the road, they took that out of their preliminary plot and simply are developing the property to the south and are vacating this right-of-way. But here we are trying to follow the rules as enacted by the City Planning Commission and the Subdivision Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance says, with 180 days of your action, the vacated right-of-way is to be included in a replat. Well, it was, but they can only include the portion that they have control over, which is the southern half. So they're seeking a waiver to allow, or to not include the northern half of the right-of-way in a replat within 180 days of the City Planning Commission action.

And TPW is okay with this, correct?

Transportation is okay with this course of action, yes. DRC supports the waiver. Yes, sir?

Can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. Is it because of cost that they don't want to replat, or do you know?

It's hard to say. You can ask the applicant, but myself and one of the representatives of Hillwood AIL Investments Eric Elrod and I have tried in numerous occasions of talking to the representative of the Catholic Diocese to the north, and every time it seems like we keep talking in circles and circles and circles. It's not about money. It could be, but that's never been mentioned. And there's been all kinds of different reasons given, but none of them have really been concrete. Well, maybe about this and maybe about this and maybe about that. Some concerns were about maintenance of the road or having to deal with the chuck-hold asphalt that's already out there. How are we going to afford to clean that up? Hillwood's offered to clean up the entire roadway and take on the full responsibility of it, but they can't physically plat it without the consent of that property owner to include all that right-of-way as part of their plat. And so it keeps layering on itself. And in order to relieve the development to the south of the challenges that the development to the north is presenting, the waivers seem to be the best option. This way it can be vacated. And when the development to the north is ready to move forward, they can include that little sliver as part of their plat. It'll be formally platted away at that time. But the city has no interest in the road. We don't want to improve it. We don't want to use it for access. So once this is vacated, it can be barricaded at both ends. And it'll just be what it is for now. And hopefully, when the property of the north develops, it'll just be an afterthought at that point. Any other questions? No, they're actually plotting that little sliver as an HOA lot for the development to the south. So as you can see on this plot, that's just the southern half of the road because it was prescriptive right-of-way before. And prescriptive right-of-way, unlike regular dedicated right-of-way, their fee-simple ownership goes to the middle of the road. And so they own that area in fee. There just happened to be a prescriptive right-of-way on top that had to be relieved to remove that encumbrance from the land. I thought I included the plat in here. I think I put it in the docket for what the overall development to the south is, but it's all multifamily to the south. The church has sent me exhibits of what they want to do, but they will never commit to actually doing anything. I don't know. It could be money. It could be anything. But Given the size and scope of the development, it didn't seem like money was the issue because it had several buildings, and it was the entire piece of property up there being fully developed.

I think bottom line is this allows the southern property to move forward with what they need to do, and it gives the northern property time to figure out how they want to proceed.

So we're not voting just to waive the 180 days. We're voting to waive the requirement.

So... The way the subdivision ordinance reads is that you're required to include the vacated right-of-way within a replat within 180 days of your action. So we're waiving the need to include it in a replat. Because once it's included in a replat, then you have the time in which a replat is alive, essentially, which is two years from the date of submittal, to get it to city council for approvals.

Any other questions for staff?

One other, Alex. I was looking at the satellite view. It appears that just north of this there's, I don't know, is there a chemical pond or something? Do you know what that is on the western part of the northern property? Don't have any clue.

Okay. That's on the Catholic Diocese property, so I'm not sure.

So that whole triangle is the Catholic Diocese?

Yes, sir. Everything between Alta Vista, Westport Parkway, and then Keller has it on the south. That's all Catholic Diocese property.

Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Alex. Is the applicant present to speak? Please come forward. This one over here. Right there, yeah. If you'll state your name and city, please.

Good morning. Jonathan Ragsdale with Westwood Professional Services here in Fort Worth. I think Alex did a great job of giving the history of this. So if you all have any other questions, I can try to address those.

Questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in favor? Anyone here to speak in opposition? Appears not, so we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion or discussion. I believe this is in Council District 11.

All right, pending any discussion? I think we're good. I'll go ahead and motion for the approval of waiver of section 31-61 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement of that a replat application incorporating the northern half of the proposed vacated right-of-way Keller Hazlitt Road be submitted within 180 days of the City Planning Commission recommendation to vacate a portion of Keller Hazlitt Road. I second.

Motion by Commissioner Risher, second by 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 Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Risher, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Double passes.

We'll call the next case, please.

Next case, FS26008, Gemini Landing. Waiver request section 31102B2, interconnectivity of neighborhoods in section 31106E1A, street design standards, one lot, Council District 2. General location is north of Meacham Boulevard, southwest Parkway, east of Mark 4 Parkway, and west of Gemini Place. Applicant is Matt Wright, Foundry Commercial.

All right. So with this one, they're proposing one lot. It's an industrial lot. And the main reason we're here, as you can see in the middle of this aerial, there's a street that dead ends in the site. And because of that, they're required two waivers to not extend that street. This one, the first waiver that they're requesting is interconnectivity. So whenever you have a dead-end street, that dead-end's an unplotted property, you're required to extend it. But with this one, since it's industrial and the areas around it are built out and there's not really a material benefit, that's the reason they're requesting the first waiver. And since they're not extending the street, And Saturn Place is 150 feet or more in length. They're also required typically to construct a cul-de-sac, but they're requesting a waiver to the cul-de-sac requirement. There was an email that should have been provided from FIRE, and this site plan kind of corresponds with that, but FIRE took a look at this, and they were fine with the waiver request, just with the way they're orienting the site with their public access easements and whatnot.

Should be it on this one.

Requesting approval of the two waivers.

Any questions?

So this essentially becomes a driveway to this industrial plot, right? Essentially, yes.

Commissioner Bearden, did you have a question?

No, I just motioned approval of a waiver to section 31-102 .

I actually need to do the public hearing first. Then I will welcome your motion.

I use my limited voice.

Is there anyone here to speak in favor? of what is this, FS-26-008. Anyone to speak in opposition? Okay, so we'll close the public hearing, and now we'll take a motion.

I would like to make a motion for approval to the waiver to Section 31-102B2 of the subdivision ordinance to not require the extension of Saturn Place to the western Platte boundary. Approval of the waiver to Section 31-106E1A of the subdivision ordinance to not require a cul-de-sac at the termination of Saturn Place and conditional approval of the final plat on meeting the comments of the staff report. I'll second.

A motion by Commissioner Bearden, a second by Commissioner Risher. 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 Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farda, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Call the next please.

Next case, VA 26001, vacation of a portion of East of Forest Avenue right away between East Lancaster Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad, Council District 5. General location is north of Union Pacific Railroad, south of East Lancaster Avenue and east of Erie Street and west of Hanley Drive. Applicant is dig contracting, Dante Williams.

Morning, Chair, Commissioners. Today we have a vacation of a 30-foot wide portion of Forest Avenue just south of Lancaster Avenue. So originally the plan was for the applicant to vacate the entire right-of-way. What we ended up finding was that, according to our transportation folks, that street, Forest Avenue, is only required to be a minimum of 50 feet wide. And currently the right-of-way stands at 80 feet wide. So the applicant was able to vacate 30 feet of that right-of-way and still save the 50 feet that's still required. So this is the original plot here.

This is a street view showing what it currently looks like.

We got an aerial shot right here. And so essentially what their goal is to is to replant with that vacated area or that proposed vacated area. To allow for a retail business for their funeral use they're going to be selling the headstones and things like that and it's essentially to allow for more parking on their lot. showing their vacation exhibit here, 30 feet wide, still leaving the 50 feet that's required for right-of-way on Forest Avenue. And so in DRC, we recommend the Planning Commission to make an approval to City Council. Any questions?

Is that the lot that Tree of Life is?

That's correct.

when they put through the application, was there any talk of how to connect this proposed annex or this expansion lot that they're thinking of back to their main parking lot area? Because it's very tight in those side streets.

Yeah, yesterday they just submitted a replat to include that this proposed vacated right away with their existing lot. And so that's the goal is to bring that all together.

Obviously, the city is giving them a value, a benefit. Did we ask for anything in return, improve curbs or, you know, improve any improvements that would benefit the community?

To my knowledge, no.

Well, whenever they develop the property, like let's say they're replatting and whatnot and developing the property, they'll have to make sure that it meets our current standards, curb gutter, sidewalk, and all that good stuff.

Commissioner Bearden. So when we vacate right-of-way, right-of-way, as long as it's dedicated by plat, like this one was, whenever it's dedicated by plat, the city only holds that right-of-way, we only hold an easement estate over the property. So we don't own it in fee, so we can't really ask for any compensation on that land. So the development that they're going to bring to the city and the improvement of the land, that's the return that we're getting for this right-of-way. Even though this is really what we look at as excess right-of-way in this one location. It's kind of unique.

Well, I will add that I've driven by the land you're talking about, and it looks like crap now. So any improvement will be great improvement. It will.

Going back to what he said, and Stephen, I mentioned it to you, the vast majority of easements we vacate, and we're in the vacate business. That's what our committee does. The vast majority are what we said that the city just has an easement. And I think you and I talked about is the city starting to look a little closer, particularly in our older areas, to see if there is a fee, simple ownership by the city and not just an easement.

Not likely, but we can have discussions.

I think it's important. That's the purpose of the plat. The way the plat dedicates the right-of-way indicates whether or not the city owns or has a fee interest in the property. So if it's just simply dedicated to the public's use forever, which is what 99% of all plots are like. All we hold is an easement estate. There are some unique examples of where rights-of-way have been dedicated in fee simple. In those instances, yes, we do charge fair market value for the return of that land to the city.

That's the answer to my question.

Thank you. What they're going to put this up at, it needs some development real bad.

Can I ask a TBW question real quick?

Okay. Okay.

real quick so like let's say the property owner to the east wanted to vacate a portion of forest and because forest is kind of like little access to nowhere to be honest because there's that railroad right away would they have that same opportunity to vacate the portion of forest and then the western portion be able to vacate the remainder of forest in the future is that a possibility yes

Yeah, it would go through the typical vacation process.

One of the challenges with vacating the right-of-way in this unique situation is the right-of-way has already been vacated to the south side of the railroad tracks. And obviously you can see there's a building where the street used to go through. However, the right-of-way still goes through what is the railroad right-of-way. The city currently has a sanitary sewer line that is located within that right-of-way. If we were to vacate the rest of the road, the problem is then we would end up with this isolated island of public right-of-way within the railroad right-of-way. And I'm not sure, I'm not going to speak for transportation, but somehow or another I don't think that's something we'd want. But then if we vacated that and then ended up with this weird island, I would think that we'd want to clean up all of it. But then if we vacated all the right-of-way, then we lose the ability to maintain our sewer line that's currently under the railroad tracks. So I won't speak for transportation, but the whole idea was to eliminate the possibility of creating that weird island of right-of-way. That's why we limited this to the 30 feet, because from my understanding, they've put parking along that portion of the right-of-way, and the purpose of the vacation was to permit them to actually maintain the parking within the right-of-way today.

Last question, both. Property owners from the east and west can access forests to their properties and use that as access to their sites?

Yes, they can. Okay.

All right. So, Stephen, you actually asked part of my question, so thank you. I didn't know about the sanitary sewer. It seems like a situation where it's still going to end up with a 50-foot sliver that's not maintained and Looks like something that CJ mentioned, Chris Johnson mentioned. Is there any solution staff could think of where we're not leaving this unmaintained junk on East Lancaster or 50 foot wide while we're improving 30 feet better than nothing? I'm wondering if there's a solution down the road. I'm not sure he addressed that one too, honestly.

I don't know if there's a solution to that.

It's a maintenance thing. You'd need to City Council Chambers, Go through tpw specifically for a request to maintain that section of forest avenue I agree it doesn't look very great but. City Council Chambers, Given how little it gets used they'll get used more now with this development. City Council Chambers, That would need to be a discussion with the maintenance team over there, but am I correct to say that, like whenever the Western portion.

City Council Chambers, is redoing their property and getting building permits and stuff they'll have to do curb and gutter or whatever.

Yeah, so they'll be required by ordinance to do curb, gutter, sidewalk. Probably not streetlights, but yeah, curb, gutter, sidewalk.

At least part of it will be better maintained.

And the follow-up to this is, staff spoke about how we have to maintain this right-of-way because the utility is underneath. Is there a way to have the vacation while retaining the easement for the sanitary sewer, though?

Yes, and when this was originally submitted, they tried to... vacate the entire right-of-way, and that was one of Stormwater's comments, is that they would need to retain that manhole that's to the northeast. But essentially, we went and changed that, so that's no longer a valid comment.

All right, so what I'm understanding is because of the working with staff, we end up with still retaining this 50-foot unmaintained, whereas they were willing to do the entire 80 feet.

Correct. The railroad won't grant us an easement through their right-of-way. They allow us to maintain it because we have an existing right-of-way that they place their right-of-way on top of. So when the railroad came in, all this was existing. You already saw the old plot. The railroad comes in and says, we're putting our line there. And that's just what it is. So it ends up being a different layer on top of the cake. If we take off our layer underneath, their layer supersedes everything that's underneath it. And then we're no longer able to maintain that infrastructure.

Thank you.

Great questions. Anything else for staff?

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone here to speak? Excuse me, in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Right over here, sir. And if you'll state your name and city, please.

My name is Hugh Moore. I reside in Arlington, Texas. Can everybody hear me? First, let me say that I'm a retired attorney and a long-time real estate developer. I've developed a number of projects in Fort Worth over the years. My biggest project was a mid-rise office building at I-30 in Cooper in Arlington. that has a pyramid top that lights up at night. So I'm not new to the development game. But I'm here today as the owner of a tract on the east side of the to be abandoned Forest Avenue. And when we acquired the track, a number of years ago, we had 300 feet of linear frontage on East Lancaster slash highway at, depending on how you want to look at it. And the property has been. We had some users for the property because we felt like we could get a curb cut somewhere along our 300 feet of frontage. But as we were about to sign a contract with a user for half of the property that would be a retail user and would bring credibility to an area that's in somewhat of a decay, We had an unfortunate, from our standpoint, occurrence, and that was that former Congressman Kay Granger had earmarked some federal grant funds for beautification of this little area in the old township of Hanley. and these beautification funds were used by the city to build a sidewalk a curb the entire frontage of our 300 feet along with the installation of six different antique looking lamp posts to fit the genre of the area. And when that happened, and also landscaping with plants and shrubs that are now all dead. When all of that happened, we lost our frontage because if we tried to put a driveway In one spot, we'd be hitting the lamppost if we tried to put it. And so that killed our deal. Now, the irony of ironies, I think, is that recently, within the last 18 months, the State Highway Department has decided to widen Highway 80 very slightly, and they can only widen it on the south side of Highway 80, and they're gonna wipe out the entire beautification money that Kay Granger got for this property. And so the lack of communication between the state agency and the federal grant is really tragic, because that's gonna be wasted money. It will give us another opportunity, though, once it's all torn out, to have a median cut, or not a median cut, a driveway somewhere along our 300 feet of frontage on a corner lot. We do intend to develop the property. We were told shortly after we bought it that the city's intention ultimately was to abandon Forest Avenue in this slight little area that only affected two people. and they said to us that we tried to buy the feed store that the city considered a historic building and we weren't able to because it didn't have well for various reasons and then it burned down once it burned down it was bought by the funeral home that's the applicant here I visited with the funeral home director, our owner, when he called me and asked me to support this program. We sat down about three weeks ago and he said, we're getting this abandoned. You're going to get half of the right-of-way. We're going to get half of the right-of-way. Can I tell the committee that you're in support? And I said, well, let me check it out. I came down to the city. I met with a lady in the planning department and she said, well, that's probably what would happen. But in these kinds of abandonment cases, if one property owner that has frontage on the abandoned site is objecting to it, it won't get approved. And I wasn't necessarily objecting to it at that point. I was just trying to get information so that I would know how it was going to affect my property. Later, I found out after being innocently misled I think by the funeral director that it was no longer going to be a 50-50 split of all the right-of-way that the only right-of-way that was going to be abandoned was for the benefit of his property and as 30 feet on the west side of the road. Now, as late as 3 o'clock yesterday, when I was meeting with Paul Rodriguez in his office area, he was still awaiting a drawing that I have never seen that showed this new alignment. So I think it's a very, very, very least this matter ought to be tabled until we can actually see documents that weren't delivered to the city until after three o'clock yesterday and may still not be here. That's number one.

Number two, we are quite a bit past time. If you wouldn't mind wrapping up your statement, please.

Okay, my main objection is that when the city allowed this building to be built, and allowed the parking lot spaces that are there in existence to be built, and it's been built and permitted, I don't think that it's proper to let that person come back in, get some free land for more parking that he really doesn't need, especially when there's space available on the backside of his property, brand new building that could be achieved for additional parking if it was needed. Now, I'm from a third generation funeral home family, ironically, who maintained a funeral home for many years in Hanley. And I can tell you from personal experience that if you sell two or three headstones, which is the purpose of this building to sell cemetery monuments and headstones, if you sell two or three a week, you're doing good. You don't need more than eight spaces that are already poured in effect and permitted. You don't need that to operate a monument selling and storage location. This is a grab for free land, and it's being done without any consultation of me as the adjoining property.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. We appreciate you being here.

Yes, ma'am.

Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Don't see anyone else. We will close the public hearing. I think we may have some discussion on this one.

I had a couple questions for Mr. Moore. Oh, it's okay. Thank you for your.

Glad to hear from you. Thank you.

So just a couple of clarifying questions. First of all, thank you. It sounds like you're a longstanding member of the Fort Worth community.

Yes, sir, since my family's been here since the 1890s.

That is a long time. And you are fully aware of some of the, I guess, the improvements that have happened over time?

Yes, sir.

Now, you've been concerned about the development of this area for quite some time, is that correct? Yes, sir. Do you currently have any plans that you could provide to us of how you plan to improve the lot or the land in that area?

Well, we have not replanted, but we have a site plan that we show to real estate brokers who are interested in showing it to a user, but we have not replanted. Right now, we really feel like we can't replant and get two freestanding retail uses on the property because of the limited access

But you were aware that you could replant or repurpose that land for quite some time?

Yes, sir.

The discussion that you had with the existing owner that's applying for this vacation, would you say that was a good meeting that you had with him?

I thought it was all right, but I was told that I was getting half of the land.

When did you have that meeting?

About two weeks ago.

When did you meet with Fort Worth about the meeting that you had with the owner?

Well, I had two meetings. The first one was with a lady from the department about two weeks ago. Okay. And the second one was yesterday with Paul Rodriguez.

So after the first meeting that you had with the young lady with the city, what was the result of that meeting?

She said, if you don't like what's being done there and object to it, the project will not go ahead because normally when someone objects to an abandonment and they're part of the frontage, the commissions don't go forward with it. That's what she told me. Now, yesterday I was told differently by Paul Rodriguez.

What was the purpose of the second meeting?

When I learned that I wasn't getting half of the right-of-way abandonment, which I had been told by the funeral home we would be getting. When I learned that was not the case, I felt like I needed to object to the project. And then when I found out that it wasn't even completely turned into the city as of yesterday afternoon, I was really concerned.

Thank you, sir.

A point of clarification regarding turning into the city. I think he's mentioning the plat. So our filing deadline was yesterday, so at 3 p.m. So we can verify with Paul that the plat was actually submitted yesterday on the filing deadline date for that vacation.

That's correct. It was submitted yesterday.

I got a quick comment. having sat through what is already a parking lot two times a day along that stretch of South Hanley Drive between Lancaster and Rosedale every single day, it's already a parking lot. And it can only hope to be a parking lot, perhaps on the corner that this gentleman owns and maintains. What I know to be true, watching them attempt to operate at Tree of Life when passing by daily, expansion is desperately needed for them. They're under-parked for what they do when they try to conduct their business. Maybe others have seen the same thing that I've seen daily. And so an expansion lot for them is totally understandable. They're under parked for what they're trying to do and operate their business on that corner. What we also know to be true after listening to Mr. Moore is other businesses and real estate owners are also being impacted with their attempt to get expansion lots and try to expand their operations to satisfy their customers. But sitting through it, it's already a parking lot and traffic's backed up at two signals twice a day in that area. And so thinking about how to facilitate this and get this to work, Definitely, I can understand where Tree of Life is coming from in their attempt to get this vacation. Transportation may have already studied this area and how it gets congested with traffic two times a day and may have some ideas about how to, when they attempt this expansion, what it should look like. how the replat should be drawn up and not impact the adjacent businesses or real estate owners. I don't know.

I have something to also say. Thank you for those comments. And maybe I can get Alex or Paul to respond to this, but the property to the east has two points of access currently. It has access on Forest and and it has access on Hanley. So let's say the property owner on the eastern side wanted to split that property in two. They could provide a public access easement to the rear of the property that exits off of Forest and exits off of Hanley, provide parking, and would allow him to divide his 300-foot lot into multiple lots. So by the vacation of this, The request of vacation does not cause loss of access to the property owner to the east.

And just to kind of touch on that point, if we were to potentially get a plat for the eastern property, we would then make an effort to make a comment that the access easement would have to be driveway to driveway, especially because they can't get access off of Lancaster.

Mr. Moore also mentioned the upcoming Lancaster corridor project and that this whole area was gonna be expanded. Following that corridor discussion from the beginning all the way through its passage, I think council assured that this four lanes was gonna stay four lanes and none of the, this was not gonna be expanded. The Hanley Business District was not gonna be impacted by, I know I'm opening an old can of worms here, but just, I realize I'm doing that, but is there a connection to this? Is there some truth to what he's saying?

Let me just pop in there on that note. Like, let's say there is, like, let's say they do tear out the sidewalks or whatnot and they need to do something for a statewide project. It kind of has no bearing into what we're kind of talking about today, but that's a good question. Let's say they do come in and do that. They would most likely, like, provide improvements. They wouldn't just leave it as, like, a curb and gutter. They would most likely try to put it back very similar to the way it was.

So it's nothing we need to think about today for these purposes?

No, sir.

Okay.

Commissioner Beard?

You know, our criterion always is, you know, what's best for the city. But there's also an issue of fairness. And let me see if I understand the process. That originally landowners thought we were going to abandon and give 40 foot to one and 40 foot to the other. But then we realized there's an easement that wasn't possible. So now we've settled on giving 30 to one and zero to another. Correct? Correct.

Well, when we looked at it, they had provided some renderings of what their site was going to look like, and they did have some parking to the east. And I believe they were going to use the rear as kind of a loading area, drop-off, things like that for their business. That being said... we decided that it would be, I guess, a more efficient way of doing things to allow for them to do that 30-foot portion to the east since that Forest Avenue really only needs to be a minimum of 50. So we're still maintaining that 50-foot right-of-way that's necessary and then allowing for them to have that parking area.

Right. Would 15-foot be adequate for their needs? I don't know.

Just a point of order the parking lot that's there was not permitted Okay, they built those spaces within the existing right-of-way So the sole the purpose of getting this right-of-way vacated was to remove the encroachment of their parking within the public right-of-way and So where the 30 feet came up from that was me Because when I looked at this I saw the right-of-way was excessively wide. And so in an effort to help facilitate the project, because there was challenges. At the time when the application originally came in, as the opposition had stated, there was disagreement about vacating the whole right-of-way. So in an effort to help this person out, the city had decided this was an opportunity important enough project that we needed to assist them with their development in an effort to keep them on track, to alleviate the need to consult with the property owner across the street. Whether that's right or fair or not, in order to help the process along, this was a solution that I'd come up with myself. In addition to that, with the knowledge of the existing infrastructure in the right-of-way, I noticed that we would have trouble trying to vacate the entire thing. So rather than throw the entire project out and not be able to do anything here, it seemed like the better of the two solutions because we can't vacate all of the right-of-way because of the challenges that exist because of the railroad right-of-way to the south. as mentioned previously. So if we vacate the whole thing, then we lose the ability to maintain infrastructure that's necessary. So unless someone's paying to remove and relocate that infrastructure, vacation of the whole right-of-way is not an option. And it doesn't appear that that's something that Tree of Life or maybe the property owner that spoke earlier are willing to do. So it's up to you all to decide how you wish to proceed. You might want to ask legal. I don't know if we can consider anything less than what's already on the agenda. And I don't know if 15 feet would be enough. to alleviate the problem they already have. That's my question. So I don't know the answer to that question because I don't know where their parking sits within that 30 feet of right-of-way. If it's all the way to the edge, is it halfway across? Don't know the answer to that. So without a survey and knowing exactly where the limits are of everything, it's hard to say what would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Because we don't want to vacate 15 feet and three feet of their parking still sits in the right-of-way, and we don't want that anyways. And I don't know if 18 feet covers it, because I don't know how big they made their parking spaces or where they started them at. So that was the idea. There was no nefarious attempt by the property owner to exclude him from the process. This was a solution that I came up with on my own, knowing all the other factors. I didn't know about the conversations with the property owner, was not aware of anything that was ongoing behind the scenes. So this wasn't a property owner conversation. ploy to try and eliminate him from the process. It was literally an attempt by us to help move this development along because we were challenged by our upper management to try and figure out a way to create an opportunity for this development to be successful. Thank you.

I'm in favor with moving along with this process unless somebody else has a plan for redevelopment of this area. I mean, I don't know if, I mean, you guys are welcome to drive by it. It needs help, right? So I don't see any other plans of this area being developed. So I don't know if we need any more discussion on this.

I do want to add a comment that, I mean, I appreciate the efforts for redevelopment. I understand there's a need for, There's a project attempting to move forward on one side of the property, but I appreciate Commissioner Bearden's comment as well. Absolutely. Ideally, the whole stretch could be vacated and could be split between the two property owners, but when only a certain portion can, why should it go entirely to one of the property owners? So I think that's an important question we have to consider as we vote.

I would agree. Unless we have other plans in place before us here today, I don't know what we'd be voting on.

I would say that from my perspective, I don't know that plans necessarily factor into it. I think the property ownership, and I think there's an element of fairness here in what the property owners on both sides entitled to on a vacation. I would agree.

I would agree. This has sat for quite some time, and both owners were fully aware of the condition of the property that's adjacent to those two streets. And if we have something in place now, that's going to make that area better or that plot of land better, I'd say we take advantage of that. But if we feel like that there's other opportunities that's gonna come up in the near future and we wanna take advantage of that, I'm okay with that as well. But what's here before me today, I'm in favor with moving forward with.

I had a question for Commissioner Bearden, just to understand. What you were saying is moving that right-of-way to the middle, right, and having the minimum right-of-way and allowing both properties ultimately to vacate.

I was just wondering if that had been considered.

And then also there's been a question raised about we don't know where their parking extends today, whether it's the full 30 feet or if it's only half of it or three-quarters of it, correct? Correct. So what we're trying to do here is we're trying to, after the fact, make that right. Because they've already extended their parking out into the right-of-way, so we're trying to make that

I think that was a question that remained unanswered. How far out does the current parking and its usage go? Staff said they don't know the answer to that question.

There is parking there.

We don't have a figure. Because we're not reviewing the building permit, but I feel like that whoever's reviewing the building permit, that 30 foot would suffice in this situation.

Yeah.

And what was I going to say? I just wanted to remind y'all that this is a recommendation to City Council.

Question.

Why, what's your point there?

We're not making the final decision.

Right.

We're just, it's so that our decision's not final. Council still has the opportunity to.

We know that, I mean, we know that because we're on the council, so I was just trying to figure out why that comment is appropriate right now.

Just to make sure we understand the process, right?

Right.

Yeah.

That's my job, you know, to remind people of certain facts.

So if we want to put this on hold, is there a way to put this on hold?

My understanding, Rich, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if we feel we don't have all the information or if the applicant isn't present to present the case that we can table. Is that correct?

I'm in agreement with CJ in going forward with this here today.

Let's get a response from...

Unlike the state law in Platts, this is a street vacation, so you're not under a shot clock, and you do have the legal ability to continue the case without any request from the applicant.

So it seems like the outstanding question is, would 15 feet suffice for parking? That's a pretty straightforward answer to get, I would think. Why can't we continue this for 30 days, get an answer to that question, and come back and see if there's an equitable solution to divide it 15 to 15?

I think so.

Sorry, I know it's going on for a while, but... encroachment has already occurred it always troubles me that it happens and sometimes it happens mistakes whatever happens um is what is is there is there a penalty that the property might be facing for having this parking lot on there are they going to get code compliance or what is what's the that i don't know i don't have any knowledge i'm not sure what happens here yeah so in scenarios like that the code compliance would go out there and say hey you're encroaching into the right-of-way and that you need to get off of the right-of-way and then

Part of that may be, well, you need to come into compliance. So this may be what they're trying to do to come into

So I know this is not a, I don't know if this is the right time to talk about this, but why stop now, right? It's not like we're talking about a business that is bad for the community. This is a necessary business, right? And when people do business at this facility, it's not because they're doing it for pleasure. They have to be there, right? Somebody's lost a loved one. And for us to come in and say, hey guys, you need to stop parking over here and send your family members on about their way. I know you're grieving, but the city of Fort Worth doesn't really care about that. And yeah, we don't have any other plans, but we might at some point have other plans for this property. I just don't think that's the right way to go, guys. I think we need to move forward with what's already going on right now. I mean, it's just maybe not legal, but let's make it legal for these guys that have property that are trying to do business in the right way and allow them to be able to do that.

I've got one question for TPW. What's the minimum width of the right-of-way for this street?

50 feet is the minimum width for a standard local street.

And they just asking for 30, am I correct?

They're just removing excess right away.

So tell me if I'm correct, whether we decide or not decide, pass this for a month, approve it today, nothing changes. They're already parking in those spaces.

That's correct.

Well, I think what they're trying to do is rectify the situation to ensure that they're meeting current regulations.

Right, but the comment was made that if we were to reject it today, we're somehow hurting Fort Worth families. They're going to be here today, they're going to park there tomorrow, regardless of our decision.

Yeah, but, I mean, if you drive by that land we're talking about, guys, if these guys are going to develop it in a better state than it is right now today, I think we should move forward with that. Right now they're not doing anything, but there's lines there and they're parking. But if they're going to develop the area and make it better than it is today, why not move forward with that?

I've got another question for Council. If 30 feet is the maximum that can be vacated here, is it legal for one property owner to get the entirety of that 30 feet without the other property owner consenting?

This raises kind of an interesting legal question. With us leaving the 50 feet, he actually is not abutting what is being vacated, the owner to the east. I'm not, I can't remember just trying to think of all the cases that have come up, if that situation has played out. I mean, the standard rule is abutting owners can object, and even over council's approval. That's an interesting one. I don't know if there's a case on point.

Thank you.

I don't think that anyone here today disagrees with the idea of development. I think everyone was in alignment that this area needs development. It needs to be improved. What I'm hearing a lot is, are all the relevant questions to get us on to the next step answered? That appears to be no. Based on what council just said, based on what staff said earlier, are we sure about 30 feet? Are we sure about how much they're parking? Would that be over 30 feet? They're already parking there. It hasn't been enforced. Code enforcement hasn't hurt this business or these customers who've parked there. That will likely continue to happen that way, not hurt the business, not hurt the customers who park there. While we get the... footage the sizing the lines on them on the plats get all of that perfect to where it won't come back and get us and and again after this a continuance to work all of that stuff out is not a bad idea um development will happen it is coming we just want to get it right am i hearing kind of the the consensus of the table i'm okay with that i'd like to throw out one more thing is that is

not sure that we know what the property owner's intent is with those spaces if they're going to improve that property or i mean they're not here so that's that would be an interesting question too to find out what they intend to do with this it's it's it's a big deal that they're not here today to me and and when we revisit this they need to be

I think you have to take into consideration the nature of the business that they're in. We're not talking about a restaurant. We're talking about a funeral home. That is a business that is an everyday business, and they very rarely go out of business. So I think we need to take that into consideration and give them some grace for the fact that they are not here because, more than likely— They are probably accommodating someone who just lost a loved one. So I think we need to take that in consideration. I am okay with the continuance as well. I understand that the business owner would like to get this right. I'm certain that they do not want to continue to have people parking their with the understanding that they may be subject to code compliance issues. I don't know that we can help them in that way, but I would not feel, I don't know that that's the right thing to do, to hold off and asking them to do the right thing, right? So I'm okay either way. I would much rather prefer we move forward because I know what that, lot looks like. I have been there more times than I can count in the last month alone for personal reasons. So I would really like to see us help them. So my vote, I guess, ultimately is to move forward with this. Again, I think we also have to consider the nature of this business. We're not talking about a bagel shop here. We're talking about something that all of us are subject to one day. So let's take that into consideration.

And is it a requirement for them to be here? No.

Okay. No, but staff should not be the one making the case for this. Staff should be presenting facts. The applicant needs to be here to present their case.

I think you presented the facts, right?

Okay, I think we've had a bit of discussion. I think some of us would like to move forward, some of us would like to continue, but this is in Council District 5, so Commissioner Johnson, if we wanna make a motion one way or the other.

Well, I think you guys know my thoughts, but we are a body, a team here, and I want to make sure that we get it right. So I'm in favor of continuing the vacation of VA 26001 to March 12th of 2026. Nothing beyond that. I second that.

A motion by Commissioner Johnson, a second by Commissioner Henderson. Will you 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 Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Turner, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

No.

Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Neville passes.

Hi, y'all. Next up is training for the platting process. Last year we agreed that it would be really important to kind of go over the facts of platting and get training. We have a lot of new commissioners, so that's what we're going to do in this scenario.

We try to have it on a monthly basis. Is our official meeting ended? I'm moving to the training.

No, training on the plot process is part of the agenda for today, so we'll adjourn after that.

So I understand we're gonna remain in the public hearing and for the training as well.

Since we no longer have work sessions. Yeah, okay.

Yes. That was what I was asking.

Thank you for asking.

There we go. Sorry about that.

We're still trying to figure out how to work all the technology in our new city hall. So I know we've got a couple new members and some of you may have been out. We gave a from annexation to building permit presentation a while back on the process to give you a full process. We wanted to dive a little more into plotting today, just to give you some specifics. I promise this is really brief. I did not do a whole bunch of slides, so I won't keep you here a long time. So y'all hear me harp on this often, that under the state law, you as the municipal authority that's responsible for approving plots has 30 days to either approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions. And that 30 days starts when the plot is filed with the city. And of course, if we fail to act within 30 days, then the law says that plot is deemed approved by operational law. So we're under that shot clock. Then I also, from time to time, remind you that when we don't approve a plat, we either disapprove it or conditionally approve it, then we have to provide the applicant with a written list of reasons. Of course, staff is nice enough to take care of that for you so you don't have to worry about that. After each meeting, they prepare that letter to go back to the applicant to let them know what are the conditions that you need to meet for approval or what were the reasons that the Planning Commission disapproved the plat. Not only do you have to get your plat filed on a filing date, it needs to be a complete application. We actually don't require a lot here in the city of Fort Worth, unlike other jurisdictions do. That was something that was studied when the state law changed. We moved to minimal plat filing requirements. Some cities have a whole laundry list of everything you have to have on our plat. kind of the approach Fort Worth took is let's get the plots in the door and then we'll deal with the problems on them as we review them instead of just continue telling applicants you're not filed you're not filed your application is not complete because that can go on for months we'd rather get them reviewed give them a full set of comments let them understand what they need to do on their with their plot to get it into compliance and After the shot clock law was passed two years later, they came back with some clarifications and this is something City of Fort Worth pushed for. We wanted to make sure that cities have the authority to establish under the shot clock a calendar with submittal dates of when we'll accept your application. Otherwise, that shot clock would start every day of the month, and it would be very hard to keep track of all that, especially with how much we have. So, of course, you all have seen the plan commission schedules with all our boxes and green boxes and green circles, and that's our attempt to figure out what is your filing date when your applications are considered filed, and to line up with your plan commission dates so we don't mess up the shot clock and violate it. I know Steven worked with his staff this time to try to reduce the number of meetings you have to come to every month. So of course, we are no longer meeting every two weeks like we used to. So you can thank Steven for doing that work with his staff to try to give you all a little bit of relief because we all understand you have a regular job.

Maybe thank me in a couple months once we see if this works out. We still do have, like Rich was mentioning, eight out of the months are once a month, but then four of the months we still have two meetings just the way the calendar aligned.

So quite a bit of back and forth. So we tried to accommodate your request as much as we could. That's our filing calendar. I had shown you the process tree and provided a link, and those are all maintained on Development Services' website. I think last time we showed a picture of the entire chart. And then for each of those aspects, we've broken it down into the specifics. So this is the one specific to plotting. We are not gonna go through all of it today, but I will highlight a few things just to kind of give you an idea of what occurs, because I've gotten some requests to kind of dive down and kind of give you an idea of what staff's facing and kind of what the process is before you see a plat here before you. And so this is the top part of that chart. So of course we set on the calendar, here's our filing dates, doesn't mean, I mean a lot of applicants are gonna submit before the filing deadline. Our filing date is really a deadline to get it in. So once all those plats come in for that month, And staff's gotta quickly get them sent out to all the reviewers, assign case managers to those plots, and start the reviewing under that shot clock. And I think one of the most important marks is our seven-day calendar day mark. And I know you can't read all this, but really what we're trying to do at that point is triage these plots and make sure they have approved studies. Because the goal is to not bring plots forward to the Planning Commission, if it doesn't have an approved study, because that just could end up resulting in a lot of back and forth and a lot of delays. So that's one of the first things that is reviewed is whether we have studies. But in addition to that, staff is doing a full review of that plat. And so at the 14 day mark after that filing date is when staff's trying to get complete review of the plat. You see a lot of the staff that come to your meetings. There's other staff members that don't come all the time. They have what you'll hear referred to as the PRT team. That's the team that helps review the plots with the plotting staff case managers that kind of oversee that process. And you see those comments that are attached to the agenda if you go through the docket each time. They've got all the plotting comments that those team members are putting on each of those plots. And then, of course, sometimes there needs to be coordination meetings that have to be held. So at the 14-day mark, is when we're trying to get everything complete so the applicants have an idea of what are the comments on my case, what do I need to deal with. The other issue at that point is a staff decision of are these plats moving forward to plan commission or are they eligible for administrative approval. So as you've seen normally on plats, what y'all hear are waiver requests. If the state law says if it meets all our requirements, we're required to approve the plot. And what had happened years ago, we used to take all plots to plan commission. The problem that the city faced was A, it's just volume. There's tons of plots. And then B, we had a lot of members of the public coming in opposition to the plot and then that put the plan commission in a bad position because the only thing you can tell them is it meets our rules, we have to approve it. So it's just kind of wasting everybody's time on something that you don't have any authority over. So that's the decision point. Is there a waiver that's requested that the planning commission needs to hear? And then they have what is called the DRC review. So that development review committee is gonna have a meeting. The applicants can meet with the staff as part of DRC to go over the comments on the plat. before the plan commission hearing so that they can work through anything that needs to be worked through. So that's the one track. If it's coming to you, it's gonna go to DRC. If not, then staff's gonna administratively issue any corrections, right? There's always, you forgot to label something. You know, those minor cleanup things that you often hear us talk about on the administrative track that needs to get done. Then, of course, it comes to plan commission. We send out, of course, the notices that have to be sent out for the cases that are coming before you preparing the agenda, and then, of course, you act, and then you have the three options I always harp on you about. So that's kind of just a little bit drilling down a little bit more in what happens on the plot process. I pulled this report that went to council. This is the quarter three report, and I just wanted to pull it out to highlight some statistics that we see. If you look in quarter three, there was 117 plats that came in for review. So you're averaging about 30 or so plats or more every month on average. And y'all see about two or three per case of actual plats. So that tells you the volume that staff is in general reviewing. And then kind of importantly, too, is looking at the plotted lots line and seeing the year-to-year change. So while year-to-year the number of actual individual plots had gone down about 11.4%, the number of lots that are included in each plot had gone up by 92%. So there's more and more things to review even though there might be less actual plots submitted and that's kind of a trend we've been seeing. So just kind of gives you an idea of the volume that staff is trying to get through about 30 plots a month within a two week time frame to get comments done and then getting through the hearing and all these other processes before starting again and then We didn't even cover today really what happens after we issue those decision letters, because then the applicants are responding with the corrections to their plat and fixing things, and that's a whole separate process that the same staff is having to review and check on. So that's really all I had today. Just kind of wanted to delve in and give you a little bit of idea of that process.

Thank you, Rich. Any questions?

I didn't have any questions on that, but I had questions on something else.

I have a question on this. I really enjoyed seeing the data there on what the volume was. I was curious, could we see, because these plattings always handle batches, right? We have the deadline, boom, it's done. I would really like to see just a quick number every meeting. How many were administratively approved in the same period? Just to kind of understand what the volume is. I really appreciate also the residential, the lots per full volume, too. That's good information.

Yeah, I know that's come up before, so I appreciate you bringing it up, that the commission would like to see some statistics, at least, on what's been administratively approved.

Okay, Stevens.

Yeah, we do KPIs that kind of show how many plots are going, how many decision letters were submitted as part of that. And then we can definitely get that information. So like, for example, in let's say December, you had 40 total cases that came in that needed to be reviewed. And then let's say we had five total cases in December. So you're looking at maybe like 35 cases that were reviewed administratively. But I can get that information.

Yeah, and I think what you're getting at is maybe some breakdown on what just met all the requirements, what was a waiver that was administratively approved, things like that. Yeah, I understand that.

And somewhat related to what Lee just mentioned, the ordinance changes that we passed through at our last meeting, is there a way that we could put some analytics to that and track how many things we can now just pass through with the department head as opposed to coming to the commission here?

I can add that as part of the periodic updates.

Sorry, Lee, I think I cut you off there.

No, and mine was a separate question from that part of it, and that is, I just, what is the requirement of the, how often do we have to have these plotting deadlines? Because I look at the calendar, I'm like, sometimes they're 30 days apart, sometimes they're two weeks apart on our calendar. I was like, how do we do that?

Right, so there's, it's an issue of timing, but what throws it off is state law has the 30-day deadline for an initial plot submittal. It also has a 15-day deadline for a response. So once you maybe conditionally approve a plat or staff administratively conditionally approves a plat and gives that list of things that you see that need to be corrected, once they resubmit that plat saying I've corrected some or all of these things, we only have 15 days to review that and give them a response of okay, you're good to go or all right, you fixed five of the seven things and you got, Two more things that you need to clear up, and once you come back, you get another 15-day round for us to respond to that.

Well, I think I understood that part. I think that's very helpful for the rest of the commission. But on our actual calendar, we have the platting deadlines. We have the circles on Wednesdays. I'm just wondering, how is it that we're able to do 30 days in between those deadlines, sometimes on this calendar, and sometimes it's two weeks or sometimes it's three weeks?

The ones on the two-week aren't going. They're going on, and I can kind of walk you through it from a monthly perspective. But the impetus for that was that, like, I don't know, November and December have 31 days. So in order to get the deadlines, the actual day that we wanted to have the public hearing, on four of those months, in order to do that, there's still a deadline day and then 30 days before those go for the public hearing. But in order to make the numbers work, we had to make it kind of hybrid. And I'll show you what I'm talking about after the meeting.

Okay, thank you. And then I want to make more of a soapbox than a question, but it's positive. You know, I was in a meeting almost 10 years ago with the city because this process was just archaic and slow 10 years ago. And as the city has improved that process, the state and everybody else has dumped additional steps and requirements on the city. And so simultaneously as the city become more efficient, they've also had more demands put upon them and made that whole process more complicated. And I think it's part of our role as the members of this commission when we're out in the community. If we want to encourage development in our city, if we want to encourage more of the positive things we like, we just need to get that message out that the city is improving every single day, and with Stephen's leadership part of that, in efficiently getting things out the door, but yet outside parties keep dumping additional things on the checklist. And we as a planning commission, if we can get that out to the community, how well the city does, that'd be great. Yes, you can go to Saginaw, and get it done in half the amount of time, but it's Saginaw, and they've got one plat, right? So.

Thank you, all right, anything else? Did you have a?

I did, we're still in public.

We are?

All right, I wanted to go backwards, and I'm sorry to take you guys back, but for Alex and Mr. Moore, I had a question for you.

I don't think we can revisit at this point.

Okay. Well, Alex, is there a plat in place from Tree of Life for that new?

There is. The application that Stephen had mentioned came in yesterday on our filing deadline.

Okay. And are there any other plats?

I don't think we can. We can't.

We shouldn't be discussing this case right now.

Well, you guys can. I mean, I thought we're still in the same public meeting.

Yeah, but we've already continued that. We've already did action on that case, which was continued.

Okay, all right. Thank you.

We'll look forward to further discussion in a month and hopefully a lot more information.

Thank you.

Yeah, and with those questions, we kind of understand what's needed during the next session.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that there was already a plat on file for the existing applicant. All right, thank you.

Stephen, one point of order. We used to include the plat ratification list in the city plan commission docket and for whatever reason stopped. And that has a list of all the cases, breaks it down by lots and land use as far as non-residential or residential. So they would at least be able to get a recap every month of all the stuff that's getting recorded. So those are the ones that are actually formally approved. So just keep in mind that usually it takes six months to sometimes to a year for some applications to materialize and so if you imagine one of the case planners has you know a third of that caseload and so that's quickly adds up to two or three hundred cases that are open and active any one year and if those roll over and you can see how the list gets bigger and bigger so that that's that's that's our real workload is all the cases that pile on top and on top and on top and we're actively responsible for those at any point in time.

That's a good point. And what I'll do is I'll present something to you next month and then see if you like it and then see if there's any additional information that you need. We'll build upon that. That's a good point, Alex. So for example, in 2025, we had 348 total cases, and then some of those went to y'all, some of them didn't, and then some of them were conditionally approved, but like Alex had mentioned, some of them are still in the process because we're waiting on them to bring back a revised plat, so. We're juggling a lot sometimes.

A lot going on. We appreciate all the work, staff, that you guys are doing. Thank you. All right. With that, we will adjourn. Thank you all.