Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning. It's nine o'clock. We'll get started. We'll call to order the March 12th, 2026 meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Fort Worth. Turn to Stephen to make announcements.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the March 12th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth Planning Commission. The City Commission meets monthly in open session to conduct meetings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings Hearings include the city subdivision ordinance, city planning 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, street and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. Commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom is appointed by the city council. A quorum of six members of the 11 must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Nine members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Ms. Caroline Krantz, the chair of the City Planning Commission. Other commission members present today are Andrew Bearden, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Farda, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette, and Commissioner Kelly. Staff present today are Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, and representatives from FIRE. And if I missed some folks, I'm sorry. My name is Steven Murray. I'm the planning manager for the facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of the city code requirements and technical issues associated with cases to be heard. Today's public hearings are being documented by, well, today's public hearing is live. To achieve an orderly and timely hearing, we request that you observe the following rules and procedures. All cases are called. Applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara Sotero keeping time today. And whenever you come up, please clearly state your name and city prior to addressing the commission. All dialogue will occur between the speaker and the 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 are 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. I'm Ms. Chairman. Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the February 12th meeting minutes.

All right, I know some revised minutes were emailed out yesterday. I believe you've had a chance to read them. Need a motion, please.

Move to approve the meeting minutes from February 12th.

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Lamberth. And we'll do a voice vote. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

That passes.

Okay, first case was VC26001. That was the vacation of a portion of Forest Avenue right away between East Ancaster and Union Pacific Railroad. This case has actually been withdrawn. They met the requirements for their permit without having to take additional right away. So no public hearing will be held on this case. We can just move forward to the next case. But they did meet their requirements. They don't need additional right away, hence the case was withdrawn. All right, y'all, next case is FS 26018, MG Ellis Edition, Lot 13R, Block 37, Waiver Request, Section 31103B3, Lot Platting Arrangement. The general location is north of Cliff Street, east of Ross Avenue, south of Northwest 27th Street, and west of Clinton Avenue. So FYI, Alex is out today, so I'll be presenting his cases. I'll do a quick rundown of the cases and then let the applicant pick up anything where I may have missed. So the lock configuration, if you go back to the previous slide, he was sold off. that configuration and whenever he came in to want to rebuild the site, the lot configuration didn't match what he was provided. So now he's coming into Platte in this configuration. Now the issue is, is that he has access off of two streets. So he's requesting a waiver to have access on one of the streets and not have access on both of the streets. So the waiver request is to approve this plat with actual frontage on two right-of-ways. However, if you look at this next slide, keep going, one more slide, he's only taking access off of 27th Street. So we're recommending approval for this case. Any questions?

Thank you. Is the applicant present? All right. Anyone else here to speak on this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Any discussion before we call for a motion?

I just had a question. So he's declaring a front, right? That's correct. But the ordinance requires, even though he's bounded by two streets, that's the reason for the waiver, even though he's declaring a front?

Yes, sir. That's correct. And I don't know if you're going to know this since Alex is out, but since there's two other lots on either side, Assumably, if somebody's going to build on those, are they already platted? They'll have to replat. They are? Yeah. Okay.

They will have to replat. They are not yet, though? Not right now. But if you look, I think there's an existing single-family home to the left or to the west, and then I think it's vacant to the right. So whenever it comes in to be developed, they'll have to replat in a similar configuration. Thank you.

Okay, it looks like we have a speaker for this one, so we will reopen the public hearing and allow that speaker to come forward, please. If you'll go to the podium off to the side here, please, and state your name and your city.

Hannah Hennin. City is Hearst. So the reason why I'm here is just because we need to have the driveway is from the back of the lot. That's all what I'm here for.

Thank you for being here. Any questions? Commissioners? I don't see any. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We'll reclose the public hearing. Any further discussion, questions, or a motion? This is in Council District 2.

I motion approval of a waiver to Section 31-103 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow residential lot to be platted with frontage on two residential streets rather than being platted as two tiers between parallel and opposite residential streets and conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

I second that.

Sorry, who was that? Commissioner Ford has seconded that with the motion made by Commissioner Bearden. If you'll call for a vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farah, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

All right. Next case, PP 25033, La Funtera Heights. Waiver requests section 31106D2, block face length, and section 31102B2, interconnectivity of neighborhoods, 200 single-family detached residential lots and four private open space lots, Council District 7. General location is north of Boat Club Road, south of West Bonds Ranch Road. Applicant is Kirkman Engineering, LLC. All right, if you go to the next one, they're requesting a waiver for block length perimeter. There's a couple of issues with this. Not issues, but staff is actually supporting this. But the reason why they have the block length is because they can't really stub out to the north because of an encore easement. And they can't really stub out to the east because of floodplain. And they're actually meeting the requirements by stubbing out to the south. And because of the south, they have that long continuous block length due to the encore easement to the north so that's the reason why they're requesting um that waiver and they're also requesting that waiver not to step out to the north due to the encore easement that's the gist of the proposal here i'll let the applicant fill in the blanks as needed give us the applicant present come forward please state your name and your city

Michael Heimlich, City of Colleyville. I'm here if you have any questions.

Any questions for the applicant? Don't see any. Appreciate you being here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak either in favor or in opposition to this item? Okay, seeing none, close the public hearing. Any questions, discussion, or we'll entertain a motion, and this is in Council District 7.

Sorry, I was looking at the map in more detail.

I did have a, just a, Not a question, but a comment. I didn't realize that the block length also include cul-de-sac, cul-de-sacs.

It didn't in this scenario. I think their exhibit is not correct. It should end at the cul-de-sac. Okay.

Move approval for PP 25033. Approval of one subdivision ordinance waiver to permit a long block face exceeds the maximum allowed length of 1,320 feet. Approval of one subdivision ordinance waiver to ride sub-outstage winning on planted tracts of land to the northeast of the proposed development. Any conditional approval of the plenary plat upon meeting the comments and staff report?

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Henderson, second by Commissioner Johnson. If you'll call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote?

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

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

Next case, PP25060, Zion Townhomes Addition. Waiver request, section 31101C1, Secondary Ingress and Egress to Subdivision, Council District 6. General location is north of Risinger Road, south of Dew Platte Way, east of Brewer Boulevard, and west of Chisholm Trail Parkway. Applicant is filing in land surveying, Nick Russell.

Morning chair, commissioners. What we have here is a residential subdivision comprised of 48 lots. Essentially what they are proposing is to have only one point of egress and ingress. Just kind of run through it here. So on this development, it's it's impossible for them to do a second point of access to the east because you have Chisholm Trail Highway. And then there's also like a floodplain channel right adjacent to that. What they do have though, as you can see on the plot here to the west, they have a stub out to the northwest corner that will be leading into the adjacent neighboring property to the west. I DON'T BELIEVE, AND I'LL LET THE APPLICANT KIND OF SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN DO A CONTINUANCE ON THAT STUB OUT ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE A DRIVEWAY ON THE STREET RIGHT THERE AND THAT WOULD JUST KIND OF CREATE A BIG TRAFFIC JAM GOING ON TO THE PROPERTIES. SO ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY OPTION IS TO HAVE THAT ONE POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT THEY'RE SHOWING And so at DRC, we recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance to allow for one point of access. Because it's over 30 lots, by the subdivision ordinance, they are required to have two points of access. But like I said, with the geographical layout of this, it's pretty much impossible for them to have two points of access.

So I just want to jump in, too, to say technically they do have two points of access. They have one going to the west with that public access easement, but that's not from a subdivision ordinance. It's something that we can't say, yeah, that's okay. But technically they have two points of access, but for this case, it's one. because of the one on, what's that street down there, Risinger?

Yeah, correct. Risinger. Yeah, and that's actually it. So the subdivision ordinance says that it has to be on a public or private ropes, but technically they're not meeting that, so that's why they're requesting the waiver. Thank you, Paul.

Is the applicant present? Anyone else to speak on this matter? Okay, close the public hearing. Any questions, discussion, or a motion?

Over there in those neighborhoods, it's not unusual to be bound by either a floodplain or the tollway. There's several developments that are in the same boat. I live off of Rising or not far from there, so we see it often. Understandable.

We do not have a commissioner here from Council District 6 today.

I live in 6, I'll do it. A motion to approve. PP 25060, approval of a waiver to section 31-101C1 of the subdivision ordinance to allow a subdivision containing 48 one-family and two-family dwellings units to have only one point of ingress and egress to a public street where the maximum allowed is 30 units and two, conditional approval of preliminary plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report. Second.

Motion by Commissioner Farta, second by Commissioner Reid. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. And that motion passes.

All right, next case is actually VA-26003. It's a vacation of a portion of Curry Street right away and a portion of Weisenberger Street right away adjacent to block 18, Weisenberger addition, Council District 9. This general location is north of Whitmore Street, south of Wingate Street and east of Boat Street and west of Wiberly Street. Applicant is Logan Ellis. Staff is recommending a continuance for this case because it needs to go to Urban Design Commission first. So it'll go to Urban Design Commission this month and be on y'all's docket next month. So motion here would be for a continuance to the, I don't have the exact date, Andy, what's the next date for CPC meeting?

Can I just inquire, did anybody else miss this from their docket packet? I don't see it in my stack.

Yeah, that's because they needed to go to UDC first. Okay. We didn't put it in there. Yeah. Thank you. So the next date is April 9th, so continuance to the April 9th meeting. What council district is it in? This one is District 9.

A motion that we continue this matter. VA 26-003 to the April 9th meeting.

Second.

Sorry, who was that second? I missed it. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Lambert, second by Commissioner Bearden. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Hanserson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Simms, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Florida, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

I have a question. You say it's going to USD? UDC, Urban Design Commission.

UDC, yeah.

Do I recuse myself from this vote because I said on that committee I can vote on this?

Yes, I would recuse.

Okay, I recuse.

Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

All right, next case, VA 26004, vacation of a portion of Ring Road, a prescriptive right-of-way located south of West Risinger Road, Council District 6. General location is west of North Crowley Road and south of West Risinger Road. Applicant is Kimley Horne. If you look at this exhibit, there's a small portion of prescriptive right-of-way. The applicant would like to vacate that small prescriptive right-of-way and put a public access easement. So the vacation is first, and then a public access easement would follow on their plat. So the applicant is here for any questions. We're recommending approval.

Can you give me the definition of prescriptive easement?

Basically, that may have been a portion of an easement that had been there for a long time. Maybe the stuff had been split apart and things to that nature, or it was put on somebody else's plat and it was a leftover remainder or something to that nature. There's just some right away hanging out there that we need to clean up.

All right, I think I'd understand that this is not part of the streets right away for North Crowley Road. That's the streets like off just to the side of it. That's correct. On the drawing, it looks like it's on top of the road. So very good. I guess I didn't have a detailed enough drawing to understand that. Okay.

Is the applicant present? Come forward, please. State your name and city.

Good morning, Cory Vaughn, Irving, city of Irving, Texas. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for the applicant? Thank you for being here. Anyone else to speak on this matter? Close the public hearing, entertain further discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion on this to approve VA 26004, approval of recommendation to City Council for the vacation of a portion of Ring Road and a parent prescriptive right-of-way.

Any dissent? All right, motion by Commissioner Farta, second by Commissioner Kelly.

Call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farah, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

Next case is VA-2605, vacation of a portion of Sanchelle Boulevard right away, north of Basswood Boulevard, and a waiver request for section 3163E6A, street vacation recommendation, expiration, Council District 4. Applicant is Dunaway & Associates. This case would also like to request a continuance. And the reason is, is because we have a master transportation plan that we're gonna hear about today. And part of their plan shows a right-of-way going through their portions. So we thought that we needed to get together a little bit more prior to moving forward with this vacation, hence we're requesting a continuance for this case, and the applicant has agreed for that continuance.

Okay, anyone here to speak on this matter? We'll close the public hearing. We'll entertain a motion. This is Council District 4.

I motion for the approval of the continuance of VA 26-005 until the April 9th City Planning Commission meeting. Second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Lambert and a second from Commissioner Henderson. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Simms, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farda, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

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

All right, next cases are annexations. So AX25006, Dean North annexation request proposed for a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential development, ETJ Parker County, Future Council District 3, General location is northwest corner of intersection of Farmer Road, NIH 20 in Parker County. Applicant Bo Treanor, Travis Clegg, Raymond Kelly, and Stacy Stanbridge.

Morning, Chair, Commissioners. Here we have the Dean North annexation request. This will be a full-purpose annexation. What they're essentially proposing is commercial and industrial and some residential uses. This is in the 20-year plan service area. There is a development agreement on it. And I will let Anthony Cisneros speak to the land use.

While he's coming up, I kind of want to brief you on, sometimes you'll see annexations come up. You don't see all of them. But the reason why they come up here is because the future land use may not match so that's what we're really focused on and that's what Anthony is going to talk about right now.

Good morning, so you have the proposed land use change on the left you'll see the current adopted as far as the comprehensive plan goes so suburban residential on the West side and medium density residential. and then also general commercial along the farmer road. The change would be the amendment to the comprehensive plan would be from suburban residential to light industrial, and then also urban residential along the frontage. So the annexation would be from general commercial, suburban residential, medium density residential to light residential, urban residential, and general commercial. We have a slight change recommendation to the urban residential. So that would, the change would be from, to mixed use. And mixed use would still encompass urban residential zoning and a lot of other types of zoning, including commercial, all commercial and MU2. So our recommendation is approval to city council for AX25006, which currently is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. with the recommendation of general commercial, light industrial, and high-intensity mixed use.

Does that include data centers?

The data center would be consistent with light industrial. Light industrial, okay. Thank you.

So just to kind of recap the process here, does this also go through zoning, since there is a zoning need here?

Even though it's annexation, or is it?

When it's annexed, does it all happen together because the council approves it as a unit?

This is a three-step process. So in this scenario, because the future land use doesn't match, they're coming to CPC. On a normal pathway, it would go to zoning commission and then to city council, and the annexation and the zoning would be looked at kind of at the same time. So in this scenario, it comes to us first, CPC. Then the zoning change request is reviewed. And then both the zoning change request and council is reviewed at the same time at the council hearing.

I believe in the docket materials, staff raised some concerns about the data center possible usage here. Can you speak to that, please?

Yeah, I believe, I don't know if the applicant wants to speak to that. So a data center is one of the scenarios but I believe that there's a couple of scenarios that the applicant is looking to do.

I know there's some specific concern, I think, that staff raised, though, that's in the materials. Can you talk about what those concerns are, or is that someone else on staff that would speak to those?

Just some of the conversations that I've had in the past with the city manager, other staff members, I think the biggest concern is high water usage, and that's really the one that stands out the most. I don't know the ins and outs of all that and why it uses so much, but that's just kind of the gist of it really.

I think the thing that we're focused on is the comprehensive plan and the future land use. I think zoning will really take a look at the proposed uses to see if they're okay with that. But from a data center perspective, I think upper management is really reviewing the policies on that. So it hasn't trickled down to us yet, but maybe in the future we'll be able to speak a little bit more.

Just to be clear, I'm raising the topic because it is included in the docket. It's mentioned pretty lengthy concerns, so I wanted to make sure we understood kind of the context there.

That's a good point, because that's where I was going with the data center question.

Thank you. And kind of a related question on that related to land use more broadly. Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan for residential and light industrial to be adjacent? And I know this isn't necessarily residential, but mixed use, which could include some of that urban residential.

Yeah, it wouldn't necessarily be consistent. Usually we like to have a buffer. I believe that's why we were recommending mixed use. So we didn't have as much urban residential right next to a data center. But having that mixed use would kind of give the option to do mixed use along the frontage, which we believe would be a really good future land use. It also gives more options for commercial, too, as well.

Any other discussions before we open the public hearing? Okay. I have a question.

Is this, what my understanding is about 41 acres of space?

That's the adjacent right-of-way.

That's the adjacent, okay.

Thank you. All right, is the applicant present?

Good morning, commissioners. Travis Clegg with Westwood Professional Services here in Fort Worth. We're the consulting engineers on the project for the developer. The whole project's 185 acres. I think we've kind of documented the intent of the annexation. We'd like to bring in 185 acres of really viable, amazing commercial property on I-20 and Farmer Road, directly west of Walsh, who just kicked off the next phase of their development to our east, which has G commercial zoning to it as well. So the goal originally was to do an industrial commercial corner. That was the entire goal. And speaking with staff and speaking with leadership here at the City of Fort Worth, we wanted to preserve the commercial corner as commercial. We asked for an industrial possibility over the entire property with the possibility of doing data centers. Data centers are out there. It's an issue that's got power concerns, it's got water concerns. Those will all be flushed out over a long period of time, I think. The city staff and the city leadership requested that we do a more commercial based corner, directly on the corner. They wanted more of a mixed use for the entire deal, so we added in some residential uses. The comprehensive plan currently shows low density single family. one of the most viable corners in our city and that just didn't make a lot of sense to anybody including city staff so we agreed we went to a more hired if we did residential it would be a very dense type of residential if that even happens the goal is to do commercial industrial on a very important corner for us to create a commercial tax base not a residential tax base So our goal going forward is to have a commercial corner, and then have a mix of uses on the backside of the property, which would include commercial, it would include dense residential, possibly some industrial, and all that would be worked out through a zoning program with the city, and then that would require, at the time of development, we would be doing site plans specific to If we did residential and industrial, they would have necessary setbacks, and no one wants to mix those two uses in the reality. We need the flexibility to be able to go to the market with a very, very viable commercial corner here in Fort Worth. So that's the purpose of the annexation. That's the purpose of the comp plan change request, and that's why we're here today.

Any questions?

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Clegg?

I don't know if it's a question for the applicant or not, but to me, I look at this parcel of land and think this should all be general commercial. Even though current land use is tagged as, well, rural, residential, and medium density, to me, it looks like it should all be general commercial and not really light industrial at all is appropriate, but that's just my take on it.

Can I make a comment along those lines? When you get... back that far in a track, it's very difficult to put commercial that far away from the road. If you can't see it, you can't lease it. So it would make sense to me to have some warehouse or something back there that's screened by other commercial. I mean, it's needed in the area.

Can you put the comprehensive plan map on so we can, for our discussions? The future, yeah, right there.

But the proposed future land use is not what we're agreeing to. We're agreeing to switching the urban residential to mixed use, correct? Right. That's what we're agreeing to.

But also the rural residential behind that to the light industrial. I'm also worried about what is going to be happening because right now agricultural is the land use in that ETJ just north of it. Obviously, it's not going to stay that way. I think things are going to move on. I would think that would probably be single-family residential, much like Walsh Ranch is across the street. If you put light industrial back there, it's not gonna be that. We need places for people to live as well.

If I'm following the discussion, trying to, there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of variables to it. The original idea was to go heavier industrial, and the compromise that is on the table currently is to mix in the mixed use as a way to kind of lighten that or as a compromise in between the two. Is that? That's correct. Is that pretty much it? Okay.

The original intent was to do the whole thing industrial with data center being allowed on the entire thing. This is the compromise of allowing to keep a hard commercial corner, to allow a mix of residential if that were to happen. I think our preference is that would not happen on this property at all. And yes, there's property around us that is contemplating development as well. And I would imagine at one of the most viable I-20 corridors with access ramps, on ramps, off ramps, they're going to be looking at industrial, commercial, more intense uses than just residential. Residential would be a fallback.

And as a follow-up question, what's in front of us today is just a change to the comprehensive plan. It's not getting involved with any of the future zoning conversations, staff conversations, council conversations. Do we in any way inhibit those by taking action here today?

Yours is just a recommendation on amending the comprehensive plan and whenever it goes before zoning, zoning will have your recommendation to be considered by both council and zoning commission.

Okay.

Just to add this, I guess, when I look and see that the comprehensive plan doesn't really consider what should be out here beyond this parcel of land very well. It looks like there's some work that needs to be done pretty soon because this development is going to happen soon all over this area. Probably going to be looking at more annexation.

I think that's a great point, Lee, and I think if Anthony wants to speak to what they're doing from a comprehensive plan perspective for the future, there's a new comprehensive plan coming up, correct?

Yeah, so we're in the middle of our 2050 comprehensive plan, and we are looking at future land use a little bit differently, or not a little bit, a lot differently, whereas kind of traditionally it's a parcel by parcel basis. And so now we're incorporating what we call place types And if that's something we all want to know more about, we could give you some information on what those play types are looking like. We've been all over the city doing a lot of public engagement. So if y'all seen us out there, we've been kind of explaining what play types look like, but really incorporating public and private realm into that type of land, future land use. But, you know, we're calling them play types.

That might be good to have Anthony's team come and do a presentation to y'all. But number two, I think the main point is that the overall future land use is being looked at right now.

Anyone else to speak on this matter? I don't see any. We'll close the public hearing. Any further discussion or a motion? And this is future council district three. We don't have a representative from three here today. Somebody else? To make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion for the recommendation of approval of the city council for the Dean North development annexation application AX25006. Second.

All right, motion by Commissioner Bearden, second by Commissioner Lambert. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Simms, how do you vote?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

Okay, next case, AX26001, Mary's Creek annexation request proposed for industrial development, ETJ, Tarrant County, future council district three and seven. General location is north of Interstate 30, south of Chapin Road, east of Walsh Ranch Road, and west of Chapel Creek Boulevard. Applicant, Kim Lee Horne. Brandon Middleson.

Morning, Chair, Commissioners. We have another full-purpose annexation here with Mary's Creek. see here it's north of interstate highway 30 south of chapman road east of walsh ranch parkway proposed use is light industrial zoning site acreage is just shy of 53 acres they are in a 20-year planned service area no development agreement on file i believe this one we also have a deviation from the future land use plan i will let anthony speak to that

So yeah, as you can see, currently the adopted future land use and the comprehensive plan is single family residential. So the proposed land use change would need to be light industrial. And so one thing to kind of note, just to the west is a drop-off station. So we feel that maybe when this future land use was adopted, considering that the drop-off station would be right next to a single family subdivision. So I feel like currently maybe that's not the best land use, future land use for this area. Yeah, just to the west. It's supposed to be in gray, but kind of hard to see because of the transparency. So our recommendation is approval to council for the Mary's Creek Parcel 1 annexation AX26001, which is inconsistent with the current adopted comprehensive plan.

I had a quick question. I noticed on the previous annexation request there were concerns from the staff about data centers. Are there any on this one? No. I didn't notice any.

The applicant did not indicate that a data center would not be going on the site.

Perfect, thank you. Any other discussion on this matter? Any questions?

I believe that's correct. This is a targeted area that we would like to have in the city at some point, so yes.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Good morning, Commission Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horn here in Fort Worth. I think staff did a great job of describing our request. We do have the transfer station to our west, and then we are subdivided by Mary's Creek from the residential to the north, and our only vehicular or access to the site is the I-20 frontage road, so no connectivity to any adjacent use. Do you want to answer any questions?

Any questions of the applicant? Anyone else here to speak in favor of the annexation? Anyone opposed? Go ahead.

I have a question for the applicant. You're asking for this to be light industrial. Have you considered commercial? Seems like a nice spot for heavy frontage and all that. Yes, sir.

I'm representing the landowner. There's been really no interest from the market for commercial in this location. Thank you. It also, just something to point out, it has pretty extreme topo challenges. There's about 75 feet of fall between the frontage road and the creek, so commercial will be very difficult here.

I appreciate that, thank you. Any other discussion? Anyone here to speak in favor of? Anyone here to speak against? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Open for a motion.

I move on case AX26001, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL FOR THE MARY'S CREEK PARCEL 01 ANNEXATION APPLICATION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CRIME PREVENTION PLAN.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HENDERSON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIMS. CALL FOR A VOTE.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Simms, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, 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.

Vice Chair Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right, y'all, thank you. We're gonna move over to the other matters of business. The first one is OMB PP21075, Rio Claro, waiver request section 31150, issuance of a building permit. General location is south of West Bonds Ranch Road, east of Morris-Dyto-Newark Road, west of proposed Fleming Ranch Road and north of Harborview Lane and West Fork Trail. Applicant is actually the city of Fort Worth in this scenario. Let me give a brief overview. Currently, The site is not platted and we're the applicant and we wanna put a lift station in. So we're requesting the approval to allow it to move forward without getting a building permit. And the actual next two are very similar, but I'll get into those later. I think we have the applicant here to speak on this.

Morning, commissioners. My name's Vic Tornero. I represent the City of Fort Worth Water Department, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, see no questions. Anyone else to speak on this matter? Don't see anyone. Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Any discussion, questions, or motion? And I think this is just open, not really assigned to council districts.

That's correct.

Okay.

Oh, wait. Yeah, this one's seven, actually. Yep, sorry.

I move on, case PP21075, approval of one subdivision ordinance waiver to permit the issuance of a building permit for a lift station prior to the recordation of a final plat.

Second. Second.

A motion from Commissioner Henderson, second from Commissioner Johnson. Call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote?

Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

All right, next OMB is OMBFP24047, Lone Star Liberty Trails, waiver request section 31150, issuance of an irrigation meter. Basically, they've already final platted a portion adjacent. However, they want to extend the irrigation meters into an unplatted portion of their development, which is phased, which is soon to come. So their request is to... get irrigation meters without having a platted lot.

The applicant present.

Kevin Murphy.

I'm here with Dawson Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas. Steven did a great job explaining it, so if you have any questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you for being here.

Anyone else to speak? All right, close the public hearing, entertain discussion or a motion.

On other matter of business, FP-24-047, I move for approval of a waiver to section 31-150 of the subdivision ordinance to allow the issuance of irrigation meters without a recorded final plat. Second.

A motion by Commissioner Lambert, second by Commissioner Johnson. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, 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 Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, 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 Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Our last OMB is OMB 6809, Randall Mill Road, waiver request section 31, 150, issuance of irrigation meters. General location is north of Randall Mill Road, south of old Randall Mill Road, and east of East Loop 820 North Railway. The applicant is Hannah, surveying and engineering. On this one, they're doing a thing called a land use certificate of occupancy, which means for commercial districts and industrial districts, you're allowed to put a parking lot as long as they're within 500 feet of the business. So in this scenario, they want to put a parking lot on the location, but as part of that, you have to have urban forestry. So in order to get urban forestry and ensure that those trees are watered, they're requesting irrigation meter because the lot's not platted. So for most of the parking lots that you may see within the City of Fort Worth, they may be on a platted piece of property.

That's why you don't see this very often.

But in this scenario, they're actually not applied a piece of property, but we would still allow them to get a land use CEO or certificate of occupancy to put a parking lot, but they still need to get the urban forestry and they need to irrigate it. So we're requesting in that waiver for the irrigation meters.

Next slide shows where all the trees are gonna be.

Is the applicant present?

Any questions for the applicant? I don't see any. Thank you very much for being here. Close the public hearing, entertain discussion or a motion.

I move to approve a waiver, excuse me, waiver to section 31-150 of the subdivision Ordinance to allow issuance of irrigation meters without a recorded plat for OMB 6809 Randall Mill Road, waiver request section 31-150. Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Johnson, a second by Commissioner Sims. Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Hanserson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, before we call the next case, our audio-visual team will need about five minutes to set up, so if we could take a short recess and allow them to do that.

We'll move to recess. Thank you.

All right, recess. I just want to bring your attention to this paper that I've provided. I know in our last public hearing we had discussed, well, how many cases do you usually get? How many go to, should I wait until, okay, never mind. I'll wait to give this bill until after. All right, cool. I'm done. All right, y'all, we're gonna go ahead and get started. So our last item of business for City Planning Commission today is the presentation on the Master Roadway Network. We have Armand and staff taking care of that.

Okay. so uh good good morning my name is armand bryant i'm the multimodal transportation manager for the city of fort worth and today i'm here to along with my consultant kelly duggan are here to give you an update on the master transportation plan we've been working hard and diligently for the past 20 plus months talking to the state, talking to counties, talking to residents, neighborhood associations, businesses, and anybody else who would talk to us, business owners, to really find out and to get some really good information about what needs to happen over the next 25 years from the transportation side. not just transportation as you'll see, but transit as well as active transportation, freight and other things as well. What we're doing today is just a briefing, so there'll be no vote, we're planning to come back in April to ask for a recommendation, but we wanted to make sure and give you this chance to see where we're at, as well as we're going to give you at the end, we're gonna show you how you can also look at everything and be able to comment and review before you go ahead and make a vote in April. And with that, I give you Kelly Duggan.

Great, thank you, Armand. Thank you all very much for the opportunity to brief you. As Armand said, this is, you know, almost two years of work that I'm going to try to boil down in 10 minutes. So forgive me for kind of speeding through this, but want to be cognizant of everyone's time. And also just really want to orient y'all with the plan documents so that when we share the draft for y'all to comment on, you have a good idea of where everything is and the particular areas that interest you so you can zoom in and and dig deeper. So think of this as kind of a little executive summary level overview of the plan. Okay, so first, why a master transportation plan? I think it's no surprise to anyone in the room, Fort Worth is growing quickly, obviously, but one of the things that we really wanted to, zero in on over the course of this work is also the regional travel demand that the city is absorbing. So the geography you see on the screen is what we're calling the greater Fort Worth geography. It's home to about 2.1 million people and is projected to reach closer to five by 2050. So, you know, while the city itself is anchoring a million residents, that broader regional demand that the city is anchoring, of course, has a great impact on the transportation system. So we wanted to make sure we were considering the pressures that are created on the transportation system because of that role as the sort of anchor of the western half of the Metroplex. Next slide. And what the slide shows is essentially the different scales of projects that we looked at and programmed through the course of this plan. So it shows really how we're moving from long-term needs to funded, deliverable projects. So on the left, we have our ultimate system needs. Those are the result of our tribal demand modeling that we've been working with COG on. Um, you know, and this is, uh, not a, a funded or prioritized list. This is, you know, essentially the, the ultimate build out and, and what the system needs to function optimally. And then from there we have our constrained program, which turns those needs into a long range prioritized list. Um, from there we have our transportation investment program, which is really looking at the next 10 years and, and how we can move those long-term needs. from planning to delivery, and then start to align these projects with bond cycles and funding. And then finally, we have that four-year timeframe looking at CIP and bond program, also other sources of funding, which we'll talk about in the next couple of slides. But these are the projects that are ready to move into design and ultimately construction. So from left to right, that project list gets smaller, but readiness and certainty increase. Next slide. So this is really just showing the full scope of our work. What we looked at, as Armand mentioned, it's not just roads. We wanted to look at the entire transportation system. So including, of course, roadway and intersection improvements But also considering freight routes and strategic railroad grade separations to support that safe and efficient movement of goods. Transit as another important component, how we can make some improvements to the existing service that can move people more effectively. And then as well, focusing on closing gaps in sidewalk, bikeway, and trail networks. And finally, the plan also identifies some technology corridors where, you know, emerging transportation technologies can play a critical role in the future. Next slide. Okay, so this is a quick little overview of how needs were identified. And, you know, in sum, we wanted to really balance the technical analysis This involved things like our state of the system report, our multimodal gap analysis, our transportation supportive index, and our transit propensity index, alongside community engagement and feedback from the public through the many, many open houses and surveys and stakeholder meetings that we conducted to confirm and refine those priorities. So the result of kind of synthesizing those two inputs is this prioritized project list, which really creates the backbone of the transportation plan. Next slide. Okay, great. In terms of what's not working today, some of the key problems that we sought to address Again, no surprises to anyone in this room, but of course, congestion and longer travel times. Also, you know, one of the key things that emerged through the analysis was the fact that freight is using local roads. And that's often because trucks don't have appropriate alternative routes when the primary route fails. Another big issue being, you know, gaps in the sidewalk and bike network. And then finally, you know, access to transit can be challenging. both from a first and last mile perspective, but also just some tweaks that we've recommended in terms of frequency, reliability, transfers, those types of improvements to the existing transit service. And next slide. Okay, so this one is just talking about what the plan recommends so. You know, for roadways we really wanted to focus on these targeted gap closures so small segments of roadway that when filled could. create a more contiguous corridor and provide operational and capacity improvements, particularly in congested areas.

Real quick, Kelly, can you turn on your camera for the public hearing purposes? Thank you.

Of course. Of course. I'm sorry. I thought that I wouldn't be. I thought that I wasn't able to. Happy to. Can you all see me? We good?

Good. Yep. Okay.

Great. Great. And then, you know, in addition for freight investments, as I mentioned, you know, creating these safer, more direct routes. And then, of course, those key rail grade separations to keep goods moving as efficiently as possible. And in our active transportation network, again, filling those strategic gaps, similar to the strategy for roadway. Where can small segment gap closures really provide a more contiguous network and provide for a more efficient system that can actually get folks from point A to point B without having to encounter those gaps? and find themselves in an unsafe or unprotected roadway. Again, transit, we really looked at some of these low-hanging fruit type improvements with working closely with Trinity Metro in first and last mile access, service frequency, and transfers to make the system function a little bit more efficiently. A lot of these improvements are smaller targeted projects that deliver big gains, but a lot of them are large complex projects as well. So there's a broad range of scales.

Okay, next slide.

Great, so once we had this universe of projects developed, we needed a clear and consistent way to prioritize them. The projects were scored using this framework that we developed. It was a direct outcome of the values that we heard from the public as we worked through all of our open houses and surveys and all of the great feedback we received from the public. The criteria include things like congestion relief, safety, cost effectiveness, access and connectivity, economic access, and plan consistency. And this diagram shows how we standardized some of those values into things that we could actually measure and score to eventually get the results to rank that list of projects and phase them realistically with available funding capacities. Next slide. So once we understood how these projects ranked, then the next question is, what can realistically be funded and when? So that's where our fiscal forecasting comes in. This slide shows some of the inputs and outputs associated with the model that helped us estimate funding capacities for that 10-year time frame that I mentioned. So this really gives us an idea of not just debt capacity, but also other sources of funding that the city has historically received. And as a sort of snapshot, if things continued in the same way, what could we realistically expect for the next two investment cycles? And gives us some overall capacities and helps us understand what we can slot, what we can afford. based on the cost estimates that we've developed out of that whole project list over the next 10 year and 25 year horizon.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so at this point, we've talked about three things. We have that full universe of projects. We have how they are prioritized. And then we have what funding capacity is available for each cycle. So the Transportation Investment Program, which I mentioned in one of the first slides, being that 10-year program framework, that really is how we bring those pieces together and bridge planning to delivery. So it's the fiscally constrained programmatic framework A big emphasis on readiness and sequencing and projects are organized into near and medium term investment cycles and aligned again with bonds, but also with grants, other sources of funding, potential partnerships with other jurisdictions. And it's essentially how the city can move from some of these planning decisions to projects that can actually be built. The next slide. So some of the components of the Transportation Investment Program schematic design is a huge part of that. For many of the projects, we did 15 percent schematic design. We advanced them through cost estimates and risk reviews, took a look at approval pipelines to really get a good understanding of what it is going to take to implement some of these projects. The funding alignment piece ties these projects to bond cycles and grants and other sources of funding, as I mentioned previously. And then there's this whole cash flow and phasing component that looks at how these different activities associated with each project can be spread across bond cycles, if appropriate. So, for example, if we have a complex grade separation over a rail or a roadway going through environmentally sensitive areas, We know that that's likely not going to be designed, right-of-way acquired, environmental clearance, and constructed all in a four-year cycle. So thinking strategically about how we can phase these projects realistically and what can really happen in that four-year window. Next slide. And this is really essentially one of the big recommendations of the plan is that this be the core work of the Regional Transportation and Innovation Division. So focusing really on that project development piece that I just outlined. That's what the dark blue on this diagram outlines. So, you know, early project development, focusing on programming, schematic design, risk analysis, funding partnerships, all of the front end work that identifies constraints and refines costs and aligns projects with funding before they move forward. We really believe that investing in these steps early is gonna reduce risk and prevent delays further down the road. Okay, next slide. Okay, so next we have the Projects the different scales of projects that you know, I showed in some of those diagrams previously we have some maps to show them We have as Armand mentioned an interactive map where you can zoom in and take a closer look at some of these I realize it's difficult to absorb or digest at the scale on a screen but I will as I said just kind of orient you with the different project lists so that you can take a closer look whenever you review the plan and The first is that four-year window. So that's the 2026 investment cycle projects. This essentially just shows the roadway projects included in the 2026 bond cycle. So of course, this list is consistent with the list that has been shared with leadership and ultimately will be shared with the public and ultimately what will be voted on in the bond election. And we're Coordinating closely with other departments to make sure this list gets updated as it gets refined over the next couple months and Then next slide This is moving into that 10-year time frame so for the 2030 investment cycle projects a lot of these projects are construction of the projects that were designed and developed in the 2026 cycle. So, you know, we have that overall capacity that we've estimated from our fiscal forecast. And to determine what can actually fit within that capacity, it's looking like if things continue the way that the forecast has estimated that It's going to essentially be just a lot of shovels in the ground, completing a lot of the work that was begun in 2026. Next slide is our 2034. So this is, you know, again, moving from the top of that ranked list, just moving down the line. And of course, within those guardrails of what the funding capacity estimates are. And this shows, different from the previous project list, we've got a mix of some of the projects are planned for design and construction, some are planned for just design and right-of-way. So again, making use of that incorporation of project complexity to help really be strategic about planning which bond cycle activities can realistically happen within that four-year window. I should also add that the prioritization of the projects and the rank is not carved in stone. It's meant to be at this point in time how these projects ranked. One of the recommendations of the plan is to update that regularly and also to allow for some flexibility. For example, if a new funding opportunity becomes available that really aligns with one of the projects that's further down the list, there's the opportunity to make use of that funding opportunity and move the project So it's not carved in stone, but it really does create a baseline and somewhere to start when each of these investment cycle planning activities get closer to, you know, when these bond cycles will actually occur. And next slide, please. These are our long-term projects. So that's that 25-year horizon. There are a lot. These are the results of our gap analysis that I mentioned and also all of the bond candidates that did not rank high enough for the previous investment cycles and or did not fit within those funding capacities. But we do have cost estimates for all of these projects. and they are in a ranked list, they're mapped and ready to be advanced as soon as funding becomes available. Okay, next slide. The next couple of slides are the active transportation update. As you all know, the city has a great active transportation plan and network from the 2019 plan. And, you know, we didn't want to reinvent the wheel, but we did want to take a closer look at, you know, how to arrive at a more priority network. So what are some key segments, key projects by mode that can realistically be built in that 25-year horizon, really with the goal of creating a more contiguous network, as I mentioned earlier. So, rather than building a small segment somewhere out on the fringe that is not going to really connect to any other active transportation facilities. How can we focus on extending as much of the existing network as possible and arriving at a more complete network? Again, focusing on that contiguousness of the network. So we created the top 20 by mode. And of course, the active transportation plan for 2019 relied on You know pre pandemic data, so we of course updated the data and re ranked everything. If our mon if you could just flip through the next few slides, these are those top 25 mode, so we have our top 20 bikeway projects trails projects and then sidewalk and crossing projects.

Okay.

And then I know it's difficult to absorb all of this information at this scale, so that's where those interactive maps that y'all have a chance to review and you can zoom into will come in handy. Okay, next slide. Okay, and then the last piece is the roadway network. So this is that ultimate bucket of projects that I mentioned early on, the ultimate system needs. not with any planning horizon in mind, but ultimately at full build out, what does the system need to function as efficiently as possible? So that is our roadway network. The roadway network replaces the previous master thoroughfare plan. All of those links were carried forward into the roadway network, but they have been reclassified into a functional classification system like you see here on the screen. So principal arterial, major arterial, minor arterials, and one big addition is the inclusion of major collectors in the network. And the process that you see here on the screen is really the methodology that we use to determine how those links are to be classified. And it's based on a combination of access, so what does the roadway connect to, what What classification, what hierarchy of roadway does it connect to? And then what are the capacity needs for 2050? And that helped us classify them and also determine the ultimate number of lanes that will be needed. Next slide. These are the roadway network maps. Again, much more useful whenever you'll be able to zoom into the interactive map. But on the left is the functional classification. So you can click on one of the links and see what the classification is. And then on the right is the lane map. So not all major arterials, for example, have the same ultimate cross-section assignment or the same ultimate number of lanes. That's where the lane map comes into play to show exactly the lane counts for ultimate build-out. And then... Just this last slide, because the Master Thoroughfare Plan utilized the street type classification system that really had a nice land use component integrated into the classification of streets, and we went to a kind of lumpier, more federal classification system, we didn't want to lose that land use element. So we have what we are calling the supporting roadway classifications or multimodal roadway classifications where we've identified transit priority areas. This includes areas where potential high-capacity transit could be considered in the future, areas where, you know, in our conversations with Charney Metro, we wanted to memorialize the potential for transit priority measures, things like potentially dedicated lanes or transit signal priority, queue jumps. Obviously, there would be additional study required to determine which of those enhancements are appropriate for the corridor. But just to mark those as the potential and to kind of memorialize the fact that the city and Trinity Metro agree on some of these corridor's We also have mapped all of the design districts to, you know, indicate areas where more compact design, more walkable type environments would dictate a different type of cross-section treatment. Similarly for freight, you know, when there's an overlap with one of our freight corridors or the industrial growth centers, you know, some of the some of those districts that, you know, a different cross-section, for example, that would remove bicycle and pedestrians into a shared use path completely separated from the roadway would be a more appropriate way to accommodate all of the modes. So this was just our attempt to make sure that the new classification system didn't, all of that land use and contextual considerations that were part of the master thoroughfare plan were carried forward. And then the last slide, I think Armand. I mentioned the transportation technology areas as well. This memorializes a lot of the work that regional transportation innovation have been doing on the hot corridors and some of the other work to indicate where transportation technology enhancements are planned for the future. And this final map is a kind of additional project map that looks at the top 20 corridors where recapitalization. So, you know, most of these have a poor PCI operational. So they have, you know, they're above capacity. And then they're also on that high injury network, which was the result of the safety action plan. So when those three indicators come together, these 20 corridors emerge to the top for the city to consider for recapitalization moving forward. OK, I'm sure that was not 10 minutes, but hopefully I didn't go too much over. I know that Arman wanted to pull up the interactive map. but happy to answer any questions. before or after, however you wanna do it, Armand.

I just wanted to add a few notes. So this is the movingamillion.org webpage. We're in our public comment period, so for until the 27th, the public, anybody will be able to come here and this, they'll be able to click on this button and they'll be able to review the actual master transportation plan document to see the updates, the things that we talked about, and you can really dig into the details. I definitely encourage you all to look at it over this next month, place your comments, and that will go directly to our consultant who will be able to address them. This is the Master Roadway Network, which will be taking the place of the which will be taking the place of the current master thoroughfare plan. As you can see, you can look at all the roadway alignments that we are proposing. And what's nice is you just click this little button here and you can pretty much click anywhere you want and place a comment. That comment will go directly to our consultant who will then be able to... Address that comment what what's been nice is we've been able to share this with a lot of the development community for them to be able to review this and make sure that it's consistent obviously with the development within the city. um. But yes, so definitely come and make your review comments. The other thing you should know is that the action you'll take place at the public hearing in April will be for the master transportation plan adoption as well as it updates the active transportation plan with the projects that Kelly Dee had just talked about. And it came out in our conversations with legal that as a result of the new roadway classifications, because all of the current ones, neighborhood connector, commercial connector, All of that's going away and is being replaced with a classification system that's consistent with TxDOT. It will help allow us to have more roads that are eligible for regional, state, and federal funding. that that new classification system is not in our subdivision ordinance or access management policy so with that we would be making a very light um textual update we're just going to redline all of those classifications and change it so that it it references the master transportation plan so that we can update one without having to update the other in the future we can just we can have them work independently, but together. And with that, I did wanna give time if you had any questions.

I had a question. How are you guys identifying or prioritizing underserved or lower income neighborhoods for these improvements?

Arman, would you like me to take that one?

Sure. That's fine.

Sure. I'll mention some of the technical ways that we did that. So we have our transit propensity index that I mentioned that looks at a number of factors, you know, income, English as second language, zero-car households, You know, there's one more indicator that I can't quite remember, but it's all in the plan that we have synthesized together to create this index. And it's typically used to assess transit propensity, but we have incorporated that index into all of the planning and all of the prioritization for, you know, how these projects rank. So when I listed that, so that was one of just sort of our original process of developing our gap projects. That's how that input was used. And then secondly, in our prioritization criteria that I went over, one of those criterion is opportunity. And that also factors in these four indicators that we synthesized together into this index. So making sure that those areas are served and also making sure that those connections are provided. So the connection and access to employment criterion ranks projects that link areas to opportunities like employment areas and major growth centers and other types of services that can more efficiently link folks.

Um, along with your question, I represent district two, which is historically underserved. And I'm, I'm looking at the planning maps right now, and I can't seem to find my answer. And so the, the issue in our district, I personally live in the historical North side 18th and, and, uh, Maine, and we have luxurious world-class trails on all four sides of our community with zero access because there's a river. There's multiple railroad crossings. So the historic north side has no access at all to the Trinity Trail system. But I can't find in the area where I can make comments information about trying to get our community to have access to these wonderful trails that we have. So is there a spot to go to see where you're addressing that?

Absolutely. So I would say there's two opportunities that you have. If you see an area where you would like to see a trail, like, hey, I would like to have access from here to the Trinity River, then that is where you would place the dot and say, we would like trail access to this area. The other way that, not just you, but the public can do it as well, is before you get to this page, there's an email address that goes directly to me, and if you had a comment that doesn't necessarily fit within where you feel comfortable, you or the public can also send that comment in an email. I will make sure that our consultant gets it and that it gets addressed.

Okay, great, thank you.

I have a question. Well, actually, the amount of expertise and data collection and analysis and modeling that went into this, I feel illy qualified to even ask a question, but I'll try. Much was said about increased capacity, capacity of roadways. And so when I'm looking through here and I'm looking at all the data points, what in your forecasting and maybe it's even risk assessing, what potential obstacles do you see when you're going from greater capacity roadways down to lesser capacity roadways at certain strategic points around the city where today's congestion just becomes tomorrow's congestion with more lanes, if that makes sense. Where do you see some sticking points possibly working with other departments or working with the community or just troubleshooting in general with those capacities and transfers meet around the city? General question is not district specific or anything.

Sure, I can take the first stab, Armand, and then I'll let you follow up. Um, one of the big things I think I mentioned in the presentation is creating these strategic gap closures. Um, so we focused heavily and we, we developed a model and a script that looked at the network and generated, um, those gap closures that will provide for the greatest, um, operational improvements. So it will, in effect, provide more capacity, again, because you're creating a more contiguous corridor, but also will just improve operational efficiency on all of the adjacent roadways. So the modeling and the effort in that gap analysis also focused on areas where these roadways are at capacity. So the volumes exceed the capacity of the roadway for traffic to flow at the posted speed. So those were all targeted to provide these parallel facilities that will relieve some of that, absorb some of the volume that those existing facilities are being forced to carry now. And then if I understood your question correctly, kind of the transition from a higher capacity road to a lower capacity road. Is that correct? So if you're going from a six lane to a four lane or something like that, how is that handled? We took a lot of care in the Master Roadway Network to make sure that we were planning for contiguousness of the network. And that's largely one of the reasons that we wanted to go to this kind of lumpier classification system so that we could ensure that as much as possible a corridor for as long as possible has the same capacity needs and cross-section assignment to prevent those bottlenecks from happening where you have a six down to a four and the associated delays with that. Again, the risk there is losing the land use and the contextual sensitivity that that we had in the master thoroughfare plan. And that's why we have those overlay districts that are making use of your existing overlay districts essentially to ensure that the cross sections are appropriate and are accommodating all of the modes. And then lastly, I would just say that because this is a multimodal plan, there's a lot of roadway projects, of course, but we really did look at these transit improvements that we believe will, with, you know, I don't want to say low effort, but without building, you know, a new route, you know, are sort of this low hanging fruit type improvements that are going to make transit more attractive and potentially attract some choice riders in addition to those who rely on transit. And then again, the active transportation strategy of creating these more contiguous active transportation networks really are going to open up more feasible trips for people to walk or bike. And all of that together, in addition to the freight considerations and some of those great separated crossings that are going to keep traffic moving more freely without inhibiting goods movement, kind of all of these modes coming together to provide for better capacity. Thank you.

When y'all are talking about capacity of a road, are you talking about capacity at 5.30 on a Friday, or are you talking about capacity at 3 o'clock? Because, I mean, there's a big difference.

Absolutely. Yeah. So we looked at it all. We looked at a.m. peak, p.m. peak, midday. And then there's also an indicator, which is the worst. So it looks at whether that is a.m., p.m. or midday. It finds the worst conditions where speeds are the slowest.

But Kelly, is that what we're building for is worst case conditions? scenarios, right? I mean, it just seems a waste to make capacity for 530 on a Friday when we could spend that money other places.

Sure, sure, sure. No, and I should be clear, that's not what we're building for. When we talk about capacity and that diagram that we had up earlier that showed the ultimate lane configurations, those are based on the vehicles per day that the roadway will need to accommodate. But when we did look at some of the, as I mentioned, you know, which projects could improve volume over capacity or, you know, it's just a measure for congestion, we did look at those worst case scenarios. But the ultimate build out is for total vehicles per day.

I have a question. I noticed that there was a lack of light rail in the plan from downtown connecting north and specifically north and west. Is that something that there's a vision for or not an appetite for? How's that being addressed?

Sure, that's something that we've really been working closely with Trinity Metro on. Trinity Metro is about to embark on their system plan So, you know, it was a little bit of a chicken and an egg for us to make those types of recommendations before they've had the chance to fully, you know, work through their planning process. I will say that a lot of the data that we provided, they are excited to utilize in their upcoming work. And, you know, I talked a good bit about improvements to the existing system, you know, that we've carried forward. But we also did look at And I touched on it briefly, future high capacity and have identified some of those catchment areas based on our origin destination analysis. So it's definitely, it has not been forgotten. And it is something that TPW is continuing to work closely with Trinity Metro on.

I have a couple questions on this. And this is maybe just because it's executive summary. Is there a recommended project list in the three bond cycles for the active transportation and micromobility? It looked to me like it was all pushed to the 25.

Right, so there are project lists. Those are in the Vision Zero category for bond. What we have is a priority network from the 2019 Active Transportation Plan. So that's what was shared today is that priority network. The actual list is a separate list. It is actually not in this version because we're still working with the different divisions to make sure that we have captured all of their needs. And the different divisions have different methods for ranking and different ways of assessing costs. So we're still sort of working through some of those last few different mode project lists, but those will be included in the final plan.

Okay, very good. Kind of related to that, I have a question. Is the full list of the long-term projects that didn't rank high enough also available currently? It is. Is it on the website in the PDF? It is. Yes, sir. So on the presentation that we shared,

yeah we didn't have the table um in that presentation that we shared because it's like several slides long but that's it's slide 16 um is the oh sorry i'm looking at a slightly different version of the of the PowerPoint, that's it there, but we have the associated table with each of those keys that shows you what each project is.

It's a lot of projects that didn't make the cut.

Right. Yeah, there's a, you know, and a lot of that has to do with the funding capacities and the fiscal forecast that we did was very conservative because we thought it was better to be conservative and, you know, have a good idea of what could realistically be funded rather than a super aspirationalist um in our fiscal forecast we do have um a lot of other strategies that the city could look at to increase those capacities but we didn't want to you know include that in the fiscal constraint all right sorry i have two more hopefully they're short so i noticed there's two projects that are expensive bridges over floodplain and i'm just wondering how those got ranked in into the bond packages and what

It's expensive, you know, 120, 116. How do they benefit the overall movement?

Sure. You know, I can speak just sort of generally in terms of, you know, we have those six criteria for the prioritization. Cost effectiveness is one. but the others are congestion relief. So as I mentioned, if it's a strategic gap closure that is going to open up a much more contiguous corridor and is going to result in volume reduction on adjacent roadways, then it's going to score higher for that purpose. If it is adjacent to a roadway on the high-end drain network, that's going to help score higher if it's connecting to one of our Employment areas or growth centers, you know, so there are a lot of factors that come into play. You know, one of the things that Kelly Porter, our client, often says is that all the easy projects are done. So we are left with a lot of these really complex projects. And that one in particular, the other criteria, you know, scored high enough to move it up.

I swear this is the last one. And I don't know if the MTP tries to address this in working with TxDOT, but we have a couple of highway checkpoints that are real problems that designs, I don't know why they ended up this way. I want to highlight two of them. North 35 east of downtown, there's a checkpoint of lane capacity that seems like, okay, they did this, the toll roads did this when they were built. Also eastbound I-30 over the Trinity River and the Rosedale exit's a really bad checkpoint You know, when guests come in, they're like, why did the city let them do this? But I'm just wondering, is MTP going to include any of those highway improvements that are still TxDOT funded?

Armand, do you want to speak to the TxDOT coordination piece?

Certainly. And so what you'll notice in the new Master Roadway Network is we have... pretty much all of the roads from major collectors onto even the interstate highway system that are part of the Master Roadway Network. That was done in close collaboration with TxDOT and the local and regional offices to make sure that we included that in the plan so that we could coordinate on them with planning for their improvement. So we could look at things like right-of-way preservation and however else we could help coordinate with them to be able to help them expedite their projects. So an answer, yes, we have looked at their right-of-way constraints. We have a connecting the core type project portion of this plan, which you will see, which shows some of our recommendations. Right now, we're still working with TxDOT on their schematics for how the 35 and 30, and how those roadway improvements are going to work. We're trying to get some of our Transportation Investment Program work into their schematic so that it can address the city's needs, as well as address some of the operational and functional capacity issues.

Excellent, so those recommendations for connecting the core are part of the document that'll be, MTP plan that'll be presented for approval?

Yeah, yeah, we're gonna have a section that's just about the core of the city, just the downtown area, that goes north, south, east, and west of downtown so that we can address the core needs of the city.

I have a question. When discussing the key problems to address, are we working with any other departments or agencies? I see little information as it relates to safety because with the growth in city capacity as well as construction and highway projects, fatalities are skyrocketing as well. And so are we working with any other agencies to make sure that we're including those numbers to know where major fatalities are more prominent in certain areas than maybe others, as well as just as other projects kind of overlapping. Something I see in District 5 on a regular basis, there's a major construction going on on highway on A20. And then there's a train track on Hanley in between Rosedale and Lancaster where a train stops every single day and sits there sometimes for 45 minutes. I've seen ambulances stuck behind this train, you know, so which slows down response. Everyone doesn't have alternate routes to go to get to their destination. So are we really working with other Just to make sure these projects not overlapping to where it causes not just a congestion it completely causes blocks.

Absolutely, yeah. Go ahead, Armand.

I was going to say the short answer is yes. We've been working with the other departments as well as we've been working with our MPO, NCTCOG, as well as TxDOT on the assessment of operational and safety improvements that can be made. The first part of the master transportation plan was our vision zero safety action plan, which their goal was to eliminate all fatalities within the city. And so we have, and that plan was adopted this past fall, and it has a lot of great recommendations on how we can make safety improvements. We're also coordinating with the railroads on how we can help improve those congestion and blockage timing for when they're blocking the railroads. And lastly, you'll see on our, as one of our project lists, our grade separated crossings for where we see major congestion choke points, where we've looked at where we could feasibly be able to put a grade-separated crossing, because it's not feasible in every area, just due to constraints and whatnot, but we do have a list of recommended grade-separated crossings to provide that relief.

Real quick.

I'll just add one. Oh, I'm sorry. Just one last thing I'll add. Also, one of the outcomes of the Safety Action Plan is the high injury network, and that has been really crucial in all of our prioritization. Any projects that overlap with that high injury network are going to score higher as a result. And then in addition, in the technology section, there are opportunities for those rail crossings that may be not appropriate for a grade separation to use technology to alert folks that there is a blockage before they get stuck. And that's part of the recommendations of the plan as well.

I was gonna add that that train that our commission is talking about, it only don't affect Hanley, it affect Miller, errors, that train affect all of those. So when they stop, all of those areas are congested. But overall, it's our job to ask the tough question, but I just wanna recommend, y'all have given a good presentation and look like y'all uncovered all the areas So I just want to recommend and thank you all for that awesome presentation.

Thank you, sir. Dare I ask any more questions? No, appreciate all of the clearly a lot of hard work and analysis went into this. Thank you for the detailed presentation. Did you have something else? I think that's the last item on the agenda. I know you had a handout here. Do we adjourn first and then talk about this?

We can just talk about it real quick. I mean, you guys in the past wanted to have maybe kind of a rough estimate of what's going on. How many cases are we getting? How many cases are going to CBC? So put together this handy-dandy sheet here. It kind of shows you 25 versus 26 regarding meetings. If you notice, there'll be 27. There was 27 total meetings in 2025. In 2026, we're going to only have 16 meetings. We have two meetings next month, just as an FYI. So out of the cases, you could see, for example, in January, we had 37 cases that came in altogether, but only seven of those 37 came to y'all. So it gives you a good idea of what's coming to you and how many cases we're getting. What I plan to do is probably give you something like this quarterly, and then any additional information that you might want, just holler at me, and we'll see if I can get it to you. So that's all I have. Thank y'all very much.

We're adjourned.