Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will go ahead and get started. It's nine o'clock. This is the City Planning Commission meeting for the City of Fort Worth on Thursday, May 14th, 2026. Started with announcements.

Good morning and welcome to the May 14th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth City Planning 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 subdivision ordinance, city plan commission rules, regulations and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law. The commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, street and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom are appointed by the city of council. A quorum of six members of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Ten members are present. Therefore, the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the tables, Ms. Caroline Kranz, the chair of the City Planning Commission. Other commission members present are Mr. Andrew Bearden, Colby Adams, Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Sims, Commissioner Farda, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette. Staff members present today are Alex Sparks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Saltero, Leo Valencia, Christopher Thornton, and Stu Brissette. My name is Stephen Murray, planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting's agenda and staff report are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of the city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard. Today's public hearings are being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet. To achieve an orderly and timely hearing, we request that you observe the following rules and procedures. All cases are heard and applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations. We have Barbara Soltero keeping time today. Prior to addressing the commission, clearly state your name and all dialogue will only occur between the speaker and the commission. Upon the chairman's initial closure of the case, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the case. No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed. Be advised that the Commission's decision on plotting matters is final. Action on other docket items constitute a recommendation to the City Council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the Development Services Department at 817-392-8027. Thank you for your attention. Madam Chairman, Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes for the April 30th meeting.

If you've had a chance to review the minutes, we'll entertain discussion or a motion. Move to approve the previous meeting minutes from April 30th. A motion from Commissioner Johnson, a second from Commissioner Gillette.

We'll do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye

Hey, first case, VA 26005, vacation of a portion of Sandshell Boulevard right away, located north of Basswood Boulevard. In a waiver request, section 3163E6A, street vacation recommendation expiration, Council District 4. General location is north of Basswood Boulevard, south of Thompson Road, east of I-35W, and west of Old Denton Road. Applicant is Denaway Associates, Mauro Santos.

All right.

I'm not going to get too deep into this one. Unfortunately, we're going to recommend a continuance again on this case because the applicant's still working through with transportation. And even though they're not bound by it, they said they wanted to see the discussion on the MRN, how that plays out. So at this time, we're going to recommend a continuance to the July 30th meeting.

Alexander, what did you mean by MRN?

The transportation plan that Armand's going to be presenting. Okay. The Master Roadway Network.

I believe that's the terminology for it.

All right. Well, unless there's anyone.

I did have a question. Go ahead. Is there any reason to approve the waiver to date of 3163E6A that basically mandates a waiver to unless they submit a reply within 180 days?

I mean, it would probably make the most sense just to go through all of it at the same time, since if they're not going to go forward with the vacation, then the waiver wouldn't really mean anything. Again, I had discussion with them, and they seem like there's also a possibility they may withdraw. So again, at this point, I mean, it would probably make the most sense just to approve it all in one go.

Any other questions or discussion? Okay, unless there's anyone here who wants to speak on this, we will go ahead and proceed to a motion.

I move to continue case VA 26-005 to the June 30th meeting. July 30th? July 30th.

Second.

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

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

Yes.

The motion passes.

Next case, FS 26044, Hughley Industrial Lots 1 through 4, Block 1. Waiver request Section 31102B2, Interconnectivity of Neighborhoods, Section 31106C3. street design standards, and section 31106E1, cul-de-sac street design standards, council district eight. General location is east of South Freeway, south of Garden Acres Drive, and west of Stone Road. Applicant is Kenley Horne.

Good morning, commissioners. This case, although it says in that CPC recommendation approval the requested waivers, there's one that we're supportive of and the rest of them We'll get into the details of that here in just a second. If you can see where this property is located, you can see how it is in between South Freeway and Stone Road. And there's not a lot of really effective east-west connectivity here. And we saw this case as an opportunity to potentially establish a corridor between those two roads. that could help to increase that east-west mobility in this area. So let me get to what's going on here. This is our final plot. The pink that you're seeing on there is a loop of a public access easement that's being provided by the applicant. When we met with them, this east-west connectivity was one of the sticking points that we had for support of a lot of the waivers. Currently, on the south side of lots one, two, and three, there's a 30-foot right-of-way that had been previously dedicated. We wanted them to expand that right-of-way, dedicate their 30 feet, and then continue it through the stub out to the property to the east so that when that property was platted, they would have to dedicate the remainder of the road, and we would have our east-west connectivity established. When we met with the applicant, Transportation and myself, we met with the applicant. At this time, dedication of a public road, essentially in that location, wasn't the best solution because there apparently is a 36 inch gas pipeline that runs through there and constructing a public road over a gas pipeline, there's a lot of things that have to happen. Typically they want you to lower the road and that can be very costly. Public access easement doesn't have the same requirements as a public road, and so they were wanting to leave it as a public access easement. When we talked with them, they seemed agreeable that they were gonna work with their client to provide a public access easement in a similar loop to where it's shown today, and include a stub out to the property to the east. They were going to dedicate the portion on the south side as 40 feet wide with a minimum pavement service of 36 feet, which is similar to the pavement section we would have in our industrial collector. So that in the future, the city could come back and potentially claim that property through eminent domain and convert their public access easement into a public road. And then when the property to the East is platted. They would have to dedicate a section of public right-of-way for this east-west roadway. We took it a step further and met with Armand Bryant, who will be here later, who is presenting on the Master Road Network to see if he could establish a right-of-way on the Master Road Network for this future roadway that we had seemingly agreed upon. based on all that we were supportive of all the waivers that would normally be associated with the unnamed road to the south the fact that it's an existing substandard cross-section that it terminates in the property without a cul-de-sac and that it's not extended through the property to the flat boundary those three waivers were no longer supportive of because they decided they don't want to do the things that we had discussed during our meeting There is also a street that stubs out to them from the north coming from a residential subdivision. And because those land uses are incompatible between industrial and residential, we're supportive of their request to not extend that road. But the big crux of this all centers around that unnamed road there to the south. And the mitigation that they were gonna provide allowed us to establish some real east-west connectivity in here. So with that, I'll allow the applicant to come up, unless y'all have any specific questions.

Any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant?

Yeah, when was the last time we met with the applicant?

Two weeks ago.

So it's in those two weeks that you came back?

Correct. So we met with them. We never received a formal revision or anything from them. I had reached out, realized he wasn't in the office, so I reached out to other folks that work at Kimley Horn, and they informed me that they are no longer moving forward with this, and so then we had to go back and change all of our recommendations. That's why the staff report's written a little different.

Quick question for you. So the overall gist of your recommendations was to help with the orderly future development of the surrounding areas by making that accessibility and that through fair.

Correct. We were actually trying, we actually were, in my personal opinion, it's hard sometimes to put on our actual true planning hats when discussing our cases. But in this case, we actually had a little foresight here and were hopeful that we had an applicant that was going to work with us so that we could potentially create better east-west connectivity, specifically between a thoroughfare and South Freeway. The only other east-west connectivity is 1187, and that road is going to be under construction for probably the next 20 years. It already floods and is impassable, but this would help to alleviate some of that east-west connectivity that is struggling with just 1187 to the south. Thank you.

I think the applicant or representative of the applicant may be present to speak. If you'll come forward, please, and state your name and city.

Good morning, Commission. Tyler Reeves with Kimley Horn, representing the applicant on this case. Do we have the ability to get the master thoroughfare plan shown on the screen? Or I have a printout of that. if we're able to get that on the screen. Or at least an aerial of the area. I think that's helpful. We did meet with Alex and we discussed the possibility of a of extending the public access easement through the property. When we subsequently met with the client, it was not something that they were interested in providing. We've looked at this area and we don't believe that this east-west connectivity is needed. The stone road to the east is on the master thoroughfare plan, which then connects to Garden Acres Drive and 1187 to the south. So the primary users of this potential east-west connection would be the neighborhood to the east, as well as our development specifically. So the neighborhood to the east has access to the master thoroughfare plan, to Stone Road, to an arterial. We don't believe that allowing that east-west connectivity, having the truck traffic of our development mixed with the residential traffic

to the east is necessary.

So those two reasons, mixing of truck traffic, as well as the adequate connectivity that already exists. And in addition to that kind of minor point is the gas line that's there as well. Those are the reasons that the applicant, the owner of the land doesn't want this.

This is Cody Brewer with Kimley Horn as well. Another point to further that Tyler mentioned, providing that connectivity over to Stone Road would allow for truck traffic to be able to go east back to Stone Road, in which that has potential of mixing with the neighborhood. There's going to be trucks that take wrong turns. They're going to bleed back through the neighborhood. So we think that that's a negative to make a connection back to Stone Road. We would rather concentrate our industrial traffic directly to the service road and keep it contained on I-35. We think that's gonna be seen as a huge negative to the neighborhood, first off. Second off, if there was connectivity that was made through the property, if the neighborhood was to try to get to the service road, it's a northbound only. It's gonna take them up to McPherson or up to Garden Acres, in which they currently have access up Stone Road and to Garden Acres. So we don't think that, Based on the master thoroughfare plan currently establishing access for them via Stone Road as well as Oak Grove Road that's to the east of all the neighborhoods, we think that that provides adequate access for them.

We think it's a negative impact to the neighborhood, frankly, if we make a connection through our property over to the east.

So what's changed from the initial agreement that you made with city staff now?

The initial discussion with staff was that this was a possibility and we saw it as something that the client, the owner, could potentially entertain. And when we took it back to them, it was just not something that they were interested in.

Are we able to flip back to the graphic that showed the current plot? So what's shown in red, that's the current public access easement that we're providing for the development. This property is currently proposed as four lots. This public access easement in red provides the public access necessary for all four lots and that has access back to the frontage road. The discussion was could we provide a small extension from call it the southeast corner of that public access easement over to the eastern edge of our property And then in the future, when the property further to the east of us that's between us and Stone Road, when they developed, they could hypothetically extend that public access easement. I think in concept it can make sense, but I think, again, for the points I made, I think there's a lot of negatives for having our truck traffic bleed back into the neighborhood utilizing Stone Road. I think that's a negative. I think the property that's to the east of this, They're going to have a difficult time from a development standpoint in the first place. There's a significant amount of floodplain. What's not shown clearly on this is TRWD has an easement that runs through the property in this similar alignment. You can see it running kind of at a 45 degree angle on the page. That's a triple barrel, 96 inch set of water lines that TRWD is planning to install at some point in the future. Coordinating with TRWD to get adequate crossings that don't go at 90 degree angles across their easement is very complicated. They're very opposed to that. So there's a lot of things that we feel are, the benefit is not there. And I think in fact it's more of a detriment to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Mr. Bearden. You mentioned that the owner is not interested in the street. I find it hard to believe that they're so concerned about the neighborhood behind them that they don't want to put it. So what is their objection? Why don't they want this street?

I know it was mentioned there's a 36-inch gas line that's currently there. That's in the way of being able to expand the right-of-way to a 60-foot right-of-way. Right now that easement for the 36-inch gas line is pressed right up against the existing right-of-way that was referenced. And so we can't force the hand of the gas company to relocate their gas line or to lower it. It's a third party that's privately owned. We can't regulate that. I think having truck traffic come through on it, or sorry, having residential traffic coming through on a public access easement, if it was kept as a public access easement, you're now forcing the property owner to maintain a public access easement in which it's little benefit to them, significant benefit to the public, in which now they're required to maintain that. I think the city has seen scenarios across the city where that's a problem, where you have large amounts of neighborhoods utilizing a public access easement where the city can't enforce maintenance. So I think there's just a lot of reasons that it does not work well in our opinion, and it doesn't provide much benefit.

I guess my follow-up question is to staff. How would you respond to some of these objections that have been raised?

So I'll also call on Stu, who's our transportation representative, to speak as well. But the idea is to establish a corridor that could be later converted to a public road, not expanding on the existing right-of-way. Because we agree with the applicant about the fact that expanding the existing right-of-way is problematic. That's why we were trying to choose a pathway that maneuvered through their site in such a way that we could in the future, come back and claim it by eminent domain and convert it to a public road rather than trying to construct a public road in this location with the encumbrance of the 36 inch gas pipeline. I'll let Stu further talk about it.

Yeah, good morning folks.

So like Alex said, it's, a release valve for when it's necessary from the city's perspective. It wouldn't be something that has to happen immediately. You can look around the area and see there's a lot of vacant land, a lot of less dense land that, given how Fort Worth is developing, could get denser and traffic It could get worse. I expect it to get worse. And I don't think Garden Acres can handle a whole lot right now, if you look at the intersections and the number of lanes up there. 1187 is obviously not great now, and that's never gonna get better, because there's always development along there, and TxDOT is working on expanding it, but it takes a while. So having the opportunity to have a release valve when necessary, we felt was very vital for the health and safety of Fort Worth residents in that area.

May I respond to that? In my opinion, are we able to go back to the previous image? There's not a great image that zooms out even further, but again, the residential neighborhood that's to the east currently has Stone Road on their west, they have Oak Grove Road on their east. straddled by two arterials that are on the master thoroughfare plan. The master thoroughfare plan also has Garden Acres and it has Rendon Crowley down to the south as the primary connectors to the neighborhoods to the east. So the neighborhoods have relief valves both on their west side on Stone Road and on their east side on Oak Grove Road. It's not necessary for them to have a third relief valve that comes through an industrial park. They already have two relief valves via Stone Road and Oak Grove Road.

From what I'm hearing, I wanna make sure I understand, at this point today, you're not putting a huge burden on the developer to try to develop across the easements and gas lines. This is future planning.

Correct, that's the whole idea, is to coordinate with the existing development to try and create a corridor that could potentially become the relief valve. It's not a matter of enforcing them to build it and construct it today. It's to help establish the pathway that when the future property to the east there develops, then when they would develop, hopefully at the time they develop, the Master Road Network is adopted, and then as opposed to a public access easement, they would dedicate actual public right-of-way. And at that time, the city would evaluate the efficacy of going in and claiming that corridor that was formally established with this plat and converting it to a public road to provide that relief valve that Steve was talking about. But it would only be at that point. It wouldn't be an immediate thing. This is simply just trying to create a placeholder so that we can plan for the future, just as you mentioned, Commissioner Baird.

May I respond to that? Well, and Madam Chairman, can I just say real quick that development to the east, when you zoom in, those are currently one acre lots with houses.

I think just if I can restate what I think I'm hearing is that some great arguments for connectivity being maybe appropriate for what's there today, but the city's perspective on this may be that we're trying to make sure that we're also addressing the potential of greater connectivity needs in the future. Is that correct?

That was the original intent, that's correct.

Any other questions for the applicant's representative? Thank you for being here, appreciate it. Anyone else to speak on this item?

Okay, well. Question for Alex, I'm sorry. Have we heard anything from the neighborhood to the east?

No, I'm not sure why, but it was very few in between when we do get correspondence. I do believe I talked to one person about what was going on here, and he just kind of wanted to know what the development was. Thank you.

And what is the usage going to be? I mean, it's not our purvey, but...

I believe it's industrial warehouse.

I question the public access easement maintenance requirement is on the owner, right?

That's correct. That's why we would have to go back and claim it by eminent domain if we wanted to switch it to a city street.

Can I make one final point? My concern is if we are required to extend a public access easement to our eastern property line that the future connection can be made to. There is no retroactive way that we can go back and restrict anyone from ever accessing it.

And we also can't force the city to take it over as right of way.

So if we are required to extend a public access easement to our eastern property line and a future extension's made, we would have, our client would be forced to maintain that public access easement unless the city decided upon their evaluation that they wanted to take the right of way.

So in order for, oh sorry, am I allowed to speak right now? Please. Thank you. So there's lots of things we can do to restrict access through the site. including geometric access restrictions on the connection to Stone Road. We can also look at when we build that connection to Stone Road or how that occurs and various other restrictions and mitigation. So I'm personally not overly concerned with that. And like I said, this is a public health and safety issue, in my opinion. and that makes it important for the city. Thank you.

I have a question. So if the concern for the community is being factored, the negative aspect that it would have towards the community, if that factors now, what would be the difference in the future moving forward with it if we're voting to leave that open? Would that same concern would be there or would that change?

Well, it's just like any other street connection. I mean, the thought that the 18-wheelers are gonna somehow or another decide to go down Stone Road that's not fully constructed and then up to Garden Acres or down to 1187 that's a traffic nightmare and not just out there public access easement to the service road. I don't think that that makes a lot of sense, but I'm not an 18-wheeler driver, so I have no idea. But I would imagine, that the vast majority of the traffic that would be here would be in the instance in which there's a heavy rain event and 1187 is flooded and people can't get back and forth to their neighborhood. They would then have the ability to come up to this entrance here and easily access their neighborhood or otherwise get out because Garden Acres is backed up for miles because of the same situation to the south. So that's really what this will probably end up serving as more, in my personal opinion, than 18-wheelers choosing to take the more circuitous route to the service road of going through a residential neighborhood on Stone Road that's not fully developed or constructed onto Garden Acres or down to 1187 that's heavily traversed today.

But what I'm hearing is seem like the community is not really want to get involved with this. You say you only spoke to one somebody.

It's not uncommon to not get a lot of community engagement for this process. I'm not sure why, but really what we're seeking Everybody will have their own opinion as to what impact it has.

But I said that to say that whatever the city is recommending, I think that's what we ought to go with.

And, Commissioner Reed, I agree with you. In looking at the aerial, if I live in that neighborhood, I do want this extra safety valve to get to the freeway to go north. They talked about Oak Grove being an arterial. Yes, but it leads you into the quagmire of traffic on both ends. I think that if we were talking to the neighborhood, they wouldn't consider it a negative, in my opinion.

We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll continue with our discussion. I think Commissioner Gillette.

I got a question. Do people drive on this road now? Are there people accessing it now? It doesn't exist. Okay, because the question is you still have that 36 inch gas line and if semi trucks are running across it, what's that going to do to that gas line?

So that's going to be a challenge for the applicant. They have to be able to figure out a way to construct their public access easement in such a way that it's not going to impact that.

But if the city's going to go back and claim eminent domain, you're going to have to take care of it.

But it will be fully constructed already. So we won't have to address this situation either.

Okay.

I'm not a structural engineer, but I can't imagine they're going to decide to place their public access easement on top of it based on this information that you just provided. Like I said, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Same reason we don't want to expand the existing right-of-way because of the proximity to that pipeline. Based on that, it seems to make sense to work with them to figure out the best corridor for a public access easement that ultimately could become a public right-of-way in the future.

Hey, thanks. Madam Chair, so I find it highly credible that that area of Garden Acres over 20 years will end up with higher density development, especially considering what we see just to the south of it and to the east of it that's not, I don't know if that's a different city or it's unincorporated ETJ just to the east where we have development going on right now. Do you know what city boundaries that to the Oak Grove?

I know when you go down 1187, eventually you get to the city of Fort Worth ETJ, but I don't know if it projects north.

Development's happening there anyway, and they need a way in and out as well. I find it incredible that we need to look forward 20 years from now.

Don't they consider that as Highland Hills? Yeah, Highland Hills.

I'm feeling like this is kind of a conflict between the short-term versus the long-term here. Hearing a lot of long-term planning from the city versus some short-term development here with this site in question, short-term construction traffic. Where do we want it to go? Where do we not want it to go? In my reading of the thoroughfare plan, more relief valves is more. More is more when it comes to relief valves, especially when you consider development in this area, increase in population, increase in traffic. Thinking long term for me right now is outweighing the short term, just based on what I've heard up to this point. So I do, I see it as a struggle. There's definitely some merit to both sides on it, but I'm erring on the side of the long term just based on the plans that I've read and the thoroughfare, the way that I'm reading it. And one of the themes is when it comes to release valves, more is more in the next two decades.

Just building on that and bringing in some counterpoints that I'm struggling with here, and I agree with all that, and I think the long-term planning and mindset is important here. I'm struggling a little bit with the burden for the engineering and the cost of that being placed on a single developer of an industrial lot for what we're looking at as long-term, kind of the residential need and all of that, I don't really know what to do with that thought, but that's what I'm thinking through here on this. I would like to hear some discussion on that.

One question. So if you put aside the idea of a potential east-west connector, are these waivers we would typically approve if that wasn't in play?

Yeah. Yeah.

So that's part of my struggle is we're putting that burden on the developer because we think maybe one day there'll be this need and we're kind of holding a replat hostage because it could be. My second question is, why is this action necessary as a prerequisite for if one day that becomes a reality, exercising eminent domain, why is it necessary to take this action now rather than to let it proceed as is?

If they don't provide the east-west connectivity all the way to the property boundary, then it's more difficult for us to come back through and do that. I'll let Stu, he has a little bit more transportation experience than I do, but the extent of them building it today is no different than the water line that they have to extend all the way through their property so that it provides access for future connection as time goes on because that's how we develop in the city of Fort Worth. We develop as a community. We don't come in and retroactively develop things. We develop things as a community so that the next person then has the ability to pick it up and extend it, move it on to the next development, and so on and so forth. And that's how the infrastructure that we all love to use every day is provided, is provided by each individual development, and then it's extended and extended and extended and extended. So in this instance here, the fact that they're coming in and constructing the public access easement and providing us that pathway is what, that's their share of the need for this east-west connectivity. So they build their portion and the next guy comes in and he builds his portion and that's how these extensions happen. Same thing you'd have along any other arterial corridor throughout the city. Each person builds their individual piece and then it eventually gets extended from point A to point B to provide that connectivity.

Isn't there a little bit of conflict though in saying that, but also saying that we will not require connectivity from the, I think it was residential area to the north because it's residential when what's on the east is also residential.

So on the east, it would connect to Stone Road, which is an arterial, which is meant to handle more traffic than Deer Creek Drive. Additionally, Deer Creek, or yeah, if we extended Deer Creek Drive down, that would provide a lot less benefit from a connectivity standpoint because Stone Road is right there. It's a parallel facility, right?

Madam Chairman, I think what he's trying to say is that if you, attached to Deer Creek, you have trucks driving right in front of people's houses. If you're connecting to Stone Drive, it's an arterial, not their front yards. I want to make sure I understand what we are asking of the developer. I understand that the burden of development is on every developer. We put the burden on everybody. The burden here is, I understand it is, that they're going to set aside land they're going to, and what else? What else is on the burden of the developer here if what you want to do is done?

Forgive my poor drawing skills. That's it. We want them to extend the public access easement to the boundary of the property. Do they have to build it today? No, but they at least have to do something to provide us a corridor And I don't know, it's probably not exactly in that location, so let's remember I'm not an artist. But essentially, that's the idea, is that we want to be able to have that connectivity established through a dedicated public access easement. Does it have to be constructed? No. But at least we have to provide that corridor so that if and when it's a possibility that the property to the east develops, then it's easier to justify them providing a right-of-way dedication that's associated with our master road network because it would closely follow that corridor alignment. And then in the future, if after it's constructed with all of the conditions as mentioned by Mr. Brissette, then... the city would have the opportunity to come in and claim that area by eminent domain and do what's necessary to establish that as a public thoroughfare. Once all of those hurdles are crossed, there may never be any development on that little piece of property over there and there may never be any east-west connectivity here. But if we don't plan for it now, the opportunity for it to be established, the threshold for doing that will be much more difficult.

Any other questions or discussion?

What is the effect of denying these two waivers today?

Does that mean they can't move forward with the replat

They would have to redesign the site in conformance with the subdivision ordinance. Or, if they were willing to revise their plan, as we previously discussed, staff may be supportive of those waiver requests and be able to come back before you to rehear the case. But it'll be up to the applicant to decide how they want to mitigate their property or do what's necessary to address needing to revise the plat to fall into conformance with the subdivision ordinance.

And based on your drawing and quick explanation there, there are options, quick modifications that could be made and fall into compliance and you would support it?

It wouldn't necessarily fall into compliance, but it would be something that would support, yeah, correct.

Sorry, one more question. Is there, there's a component here, even if they did move forward adjustments made, there still needs to be at least one waiver on the plat.

All the waivers would then still apply. All the waivers that are currently on their day would still apply. It would just modify our recommendation on the three that aren't associated with Deer Creek Drive to recommendation for approval.

I guess my question I should have asked is if they were to, if we were to do what the DRC recommends, it sounds like they might have to come back through once they've made adjustments to their plan and get new waivers. That's correct.

Yes, they would still have to come back because if the commission denies them, they decide to revise their plan and resubmit to us, then we have 15 days based on the resubmittal to then bring that back before you to adjudicate the waivers that would still exist.

Is there any benefit to the developer in terms of timeline of that process if this were to be continued and discussions continued?

That would be up to the applicant. The applicant would have to choose to continue the application.

Does it benefit them on the timeline, though, if they did that versus what we just discussed?

The next public hearing we have is a month from now. Either way, it's a month. I would assume that they would have plenty of time between now and then to address the concerns if they were willing to continue the application.

So the act today is for us to put this off until the third.

No, the motion on the, or the recommendation from staff on the table is, I don't have the language up there, if you might.

To approve.

Do we have the revised language? So the recommendation is to deny the requested waivers.

Approval of the first waiver. Denial. But denial of the rest of them. Two, three, and four.

Denial of an unnamed right-of-way, extension of an unnamed right-of-way, denial of the substandard cross-section, and denial of the requirement to provide a home section. And they'll have to redesign the plat.

Just to clarify on that, the plat's drawn with the waivers in mind. And so if we're going to deny the waivers, then you also need to make it conditional approval on redesign of the plat to address the waivers that were denied. And as y'all were discussing, as a reminder, only the applicant can request an extension. So plan commission can't grant an extension unless the applicant asks for it.

I would like to ask the applicant if that's something they would like to consider, if they'd like us to proceed to a vote.

Well, I think I would like to understand if the action is denial of the waiver, if we were to bring it back in, we'll say, for example, Deer Creek, we're currently not showing a connection, and so the recommendation was for approval of that waiver, it would be the same type of waiver request again, Right, so we would not need to come back in and show that we're connecting to Deer Creek.

So the way state law is written, the applicant can submit whatever written response they want to in response to any action Planning Commission takes today. So they could come back in with the exact same plot with whatever waivers they were already asking for and submit their rationale for why they wanted to do it and the Planning Commission would have to hear the case again.

Is there an alternative to where if all three waivers were approved today with conditions that we provide the public access easement extension? Is that a condition that can be imposed on the case?

So basically they're agreeing with what we're proposing. So in essence, we approve the recommendation to allow it to move forward with them amending the plat to reflect that public access has been extended, correct? That's what you're saying?

Planning Commission could put that on there. As I've told you time and again, a conditional approval is the same thing as a dial. put conditions on, and again, they can respond with whatever response they want to as a result of either a conditional approval or any conditions you place.

But we wouldn't need to come back to CPC? Potentially, no. I think if there's, from a timing perspective, I think we would prefer to go that route, and we'll still have discussions with our client, but if there's an ability to approve it with the conditions, we would rather go that route. Thank you.

Approve with the condition of extending that public access easement, okay.

I guess I have a question about that. So we would do a motion say it's contingent upon that, but yet we don't have any documentation of what it's gonna look like or what they're actually committing to, and they could just do a 180 again, right? I mean, I think, in my opinion, they need to start over in the process. If they wanna play ball and look from a long-term point of view, we need to have the plat drawn that way. and submitted that way and approved that way.

It would still have to be correct before getting final approval?

If you added that condition to this recommendation, or your action today, if you added that condition to it, then before the plaque could be recorded, they would have to do it, and then obviously staff would have to agree to it. If for whatever reason they extended the public access easement in such a way that it didn't provide what we were agreeing upon, then we would still have the opportunity whenever they actually do make their formal resubmittal, as Rich has mentioned, they make their formal resubmittal and they do it in X configuration, we still have the opportunity to bring that back to City Planning Commission because they may not have adequately addressed staff's concerns. And then we can have a discussion about it here at City Planning Commission. But I would assume, assume, that's a dangerous word.

So staff's comfortable with a handshake agreement here, even though the owner may object when they bring it to him this afternoon?

If they still object, then they won't be in conformance with the recommendation or the action by City Planning Commission. And any resubmittal that they make that doesn't conform to the action by City Planning Commission would still have to come back before this board.

And I'll just add, to address any potential issues, any additional conditional approval about the extension needs to be very specific as to what that's supposed to look like, what width, where, so there's no confusion as to what this body wants to see when the plaque comes back to staff to review. I think staff could probably help you craft that language if that's where the Planning Commission wants to go with this.

I think that's what makes conditional approval difficult, because there's no width or location or specific identification, any of that.

Rich, I'm sorry, you stepped away, but is there a way to craft this language where Planning Commission is leading up for administrative approval to figure out those specifics?

Maybe difficult. Okay. We're to the point where we'd probably need to take a recess or go to the next case and come back while we work out specifics on this case. And I'm doing that if that's where the Planning Commission wants to go.

Is that possible if we move on to some other cases for staff to craft some language for us?

As long as we come back to this case today, yes, we can do that. We can go ahead and call the next case. We can step out and try to work out some language.

It seems like just looking around the table, it seems like we would all like to move forward with that. Thank you. Appreciate everyone's patience on this, trying to work through it the best we can. We'll go ahead and call the next case for now.

And next case, FS26052, Fire Station Park Waiver Request, Section 31106C3, streets to conform with city design standards, Council District 9, general location is north of Allen Avenue, south of Maddox, east of Lipscomb, and west of Hemphill Street. Applicant is Britton Crawford, LLC.

Good morning, Chair, Commissioners. Today we have a Fire Station Park where they are requesting a waiver basically to... not have to dedicate additional right-of-way on East Maddox Avenue to the north. So essentially the plot is to combine two lots into one to make way for a new fire station for the city. Currently, East Maddox Avenue measures at about 43 feet wide, and per discussions with Transportation Public Works, this is a local road that requires a minimum of 50 feet wide for that road. In talks with the applicant, they do not wish to dedicate additional right of way because it would present some challenges with regards to storm water infrastructure and the location of a new trash enclosure when they redesign the site. And so that's why they're requesting the waiver to not have to dedicate the additional three and a half feet on their side.

Also, to the west of the site, it's a smaller right-of-way. Is that correct? If you look over to the west? They want to match the right-of-way that's already existing to the west.

Is that correct? I think it was more along the lines of the stormwater infrastructure and the traffic closure.

A question for staff, since this is public park, do we typically don't have plats for the public park land? I was wondering why this one would.

I think it's a fire station, but we can let the applicant kind of speak to why they're replatting the site.

So just a quick aerial view of the site. And then currently showing what Maddox Avenue looks like today. So in discussion with Transportation Public Works, they had no issues with it remaining at 43 feet wide. And so, yeah, I'll hand it over to the applicant if you have any questions for him.

Good morning. My name is Anna Carrillo, and I'm with Carrillo Engineering, and we're the civil engineer for the city on this project. It's a city-owned facility, and as you all probably know, there is an existing fire station community center that is being renovated with new buildings, and we're working together in conjunction with parks. So it's not just a park project. The park portion is actually to the south, so it does not front Maddox. What it does is the community center itself. As previously stated, the right-of-way, the existing right-of-way is only 43 feet. So in order to make it 50 feet for a local street, it would require a total of seven feet additional. Three and a half for dedicated by the community center and three and a half by the preservation hall if that were ever to be redone, which I seriously doubt because that's a very significant historic structure in the city. To the east, if we can go back to the plat, lies the skate park, which is also a city facility. And that is, so the dedication for the previous plat, not this plat, but the previous plat was to match that 43 feet. And that stays in alignment with that, with the skate park throughout this block. Maddox does not connect. It does not connect very far into the neighborhood to the west. I think it's a few blocks. But in any case, because this is a renovation project, the site is very constrained. So we have utilities. And as some of you may know, this near Southside District is challenged with stormwater infrastructure. There's not any flooding on this particular site, but it is challenging to design drainage. And in this case, we don't want that drainage to come onto the facility. We want it to stay in the street. So for that reason, we're not changing the street cross section. To the point as to why we are replatting, there is an alley, an existing alley that is between this property and the skate property. And we are planning to abandon that alley because it's not serving any purpose other than it has a public sanitary sewer line and a public utility easement in which we are retaining the easements, the sanitary sewer to the south, a little bit from Maddox, from the north property line. and that it just serves a water fountain from the skate park. So it's a relatively minor utility, but it's a public utility because it serves multiple lots. So we're retaining that utility or the sewer easement and then also the utility easement for Encore. So there's what's happening in the alley. It just makes sense to clean this plat up, to abandon the alleyway, to put some of the improvements there and maintain the easements for what they are needing. That's the reason why we're replanting.

Thank you, any questions for the applicant? Thank you for being here. If you don't mind, would you please fill out a green sheet? Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this matter? All right, we'll close the public hearing. Any discussion? Are we ready to move to a vote?

Madam Chair, make a motion for approval on FS 26052 of a waiver to Section 3116C3 of the subdivision ordinance to waive the requirement to dedicate three and a half additional feet of right-of-way from Maddox Avenue and to conform to city design standards for a local street. and to conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting plotting comments and staff report.

A motion from Commissioner Henderson, a second from, was that Commissioner Reid? Yes, Commissioner Reid. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reid, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. The motion passes.

All right, next case, PP26019, Walsh Industrial Conditional Approval. Nine commercial lots, 10 industrial lots, and three open space lots. Council District 3, general location is north of Aledo Road, south of West Freeway, and west of Markham Ranch Road. And if somebody will run the PowerPoint, I'll kind of go over this real quick. If somebody will run the PowerPoint. Yeah, so basically this is located on the west side of Fort Worth. It's a preliminary plat. And the gist of the reason why it needs to be here is because there are current alignments don't match the master thoroughfare plan, our current master thoroughfare plan. So what they've done is designed it to match the new master roadway network. So they're kind of getting ahead of themselves in trying to do that in order to match the master roadway network, which is fine by us because Hopefully this gets approved and the master thoroughfare plan goes away. So they were being good stewards and decided to match their alignments with the master roadway network as opposed to the master thoroughfare plan. Hence the reason to come here for the city of Fort Worth.

So to be clear, there's no waivers being asked for here. These are amendments to the existing MTP to match the new MRN? That's correct.

Is there any concern with putting the cart before the horse on this? I think that's a question for staff, though, of voting on this before council's approved that MRN.

The preliminary, it's a preliminary plat. The final plats haven't come through yet, so we're still pretty.

So if for some reason that were to not get approved, they would revise. Okay, thank you for that clarification. All right, is the applicant here to speak on this? Or anyone to speak? Does not seem like it. Any discussion or shall we move to a vote?

I'll make a motion for conditional approval on PP26-019 of the preliminary plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

Second.

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

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

All right, y'all, next case, VA-26008, vacation of a portion of an alley in Block 7, Town of Tarrant Edition, Council District 5. General location is south of Eula Street, west of Pete Street, and east of Tarrant Main Street. The applicant is Hannah Surveying and Engineering. So basically, there's an alley, and the applicant would like to vacate it. Taking it to DRC, we found that we didn't have an issue with what was being proposed. So we'll let the applicant speak on any additional items for this case.

Is there anyone here to speak on this one?

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Drew Linegro. I'm with Hanna Surveying and Engineering. I'm here to answer any questions. The owner is also here in the room. He would like to develop, there's a short plat going in side by side with this. They would develop a number of lots adjacent to that as 50 foot single-family residential, and abandoning the alleyway facilitates that.

Can you hit the next slide, please? That kind of shows the configuration of what they're proposing by abandoning the alleyway allows for those three northern lots.

The alleyways here are in use or observed.

Speak into the mics, please.

Any of the alleyways there, as you saw in the aerial, none of them are constructed or in use or observable in any way.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you for being here. Anyone else to speak on this one? All right, we'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion.

I move to approve VA 26008, approval of the recommendation to the city council for the vacation of a portion of the north-south alley in block seven, town of Tarrant County. I'll second.

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

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

Next case, VA-26009, Vacation of a Portion of Tex Rail Drive Right-of-Way Mercantile Center Addition, Council District 11. General location is north of Chester Boyer Road, south of East Long Avenue. East of North Sylvania Avenue and west of Beach Street. Applicant is Westwood Professional Services.

Morning, Commissioner. So we have a vacation of the Texrail Drive right away. This is going to be on the southern portion, just north of that, going east to west is East Long Avenue. So essentially there's a plat that has been submitted for this. And currently that plat shows a driveway, which is what you're seeing here in yellow. This is the plat that came in. And they're looking to basically vacate that or abandon it. The reason for this is because, as you can see here, the connectivity of building that Texrail drive to the south would be limited based off of the railroad going, I guess, kind of in a diagonal way. So they really wouldn't be able to build it out completely, and so they just felt the need to vacate it and get rid of it, and the plot that would be revised would encompass that area. And so that's essentially it.

Thank you. Any questions? Anyone here to speak on this one? Forward state your name and city.

Morning. I'm Jonathan Schindler with Westwood and just here for any questions. I think staff kind of covered it. It's pretty straightforward.

Any questions for the applicant?

straightforward thank you for being here sorry actually i did one questions maybe for staff i'm just looking at uh what textual drive how it was constructed from long to the north is this part of a planned arterial on the mrn or at any point in time? Because it just seems like it's way more street.

Yeah, when I looked at it, I didn't see anything on there.

I wonder why.

I don't really know, to be quite honest.

Okay, because they have like a full intersection constructed at nine degree turn. Yeah, I didn't see any indication of that.

Seems like it would go to nowhere.

Not available land, but okay, thank you.

Are you saying that that rail line was probably there when this massive, Boulevard stub out was created. Yeah, I think both. And they would have had this question come up.

So I'm wondering. Same thing. What required this, because it's a lot of extra money that was spent to build that short boulevard size road. Was there some sort of plan to have a bridge over the railroad into the south?

I don't have the history, we don't have the history on that. Okay. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much. Close the public hearing. Any further discussion or we'll move to a motion. This is in District 11. And we do not have a commissioner here from District 11, so fair game.

I'll make a motion to approve a recommendation to City Council for vacation of VA 26009, vacation of a portion of Texas Rail Drive right away, mercantile center addition. Second.

You have a motion from Commissioner Farda, a second from Commissioner Sims.

If you'll call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Adams, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Sims, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farda, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes.

All right, next case is the other matters of business. We have the master transportation plan, general location, citywide and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Applicant is the city of Fort Worth. All right, here we go. So we have an OMB. I'm gonna call the case again or do I need, no?

Yeah, we're on the OMBs. The agenda has it in a different order than the docket. or which one comes first, I think. In the docket order, it's the public park project, but in our agenda, it's MTP first.

Yeah, we'll do MTP first.

What?

MTP.

We just got to other matters of business. If you don't mind, let's go ahead and do the public art first.

that one real quick uh i'm to sequoia vasquez public park art project waiver request 31 150a issuance of the building permit council district 11. and this is general location north of echo lake drive east of south freeway west of south pacific railroad and south of shaw street so this one should be fairly quick we have a public park it's an unplatted piece of property they want to put in an art installation

And in order to do that, they have to get a building permit because what they're doing requires a permit. Normally you have to have a recorded final plat in order to get a building permit. They are seeking a waiver of the requirement to record a final plat without a record, get a building permit without a recorded plat. This is an example of what the art installation will look like Does anyone have any questions?

I believe we may have someone to speak this one. If you'll come forward, please.

Good morning. I don't really have a lot more to add unless you have more questions. I'm the project manager for this project for Arts Fort Worth.

Do you mind stating your name and city for the record?

Thank you. It's my first meeting. Adam Neese, Fort Worth, Texas.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Doesn't look like we have any. Thank you for being here. Close the public hearing then and entertain discussion or a motion. This is in Council District 11. Again, we don't have a commissioner present from 11.

I motion to approve a waiver to section 31-150A of the subdivision ordinance to permit the issuance of a building permit for public art installation without a recorded final plot.

Second.

You have a motion from Commissioner Lambert, the second from Commissioner Johnson. If you'll call the vote, please. Commissioner Bearden, how do you vote?

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

All right, y'all, let's go back to the master transportation plan. General location is citywide in extraterritorial jurisdiction. Applicant is city of Fort Worth.

Good morning. Is it okay if I request a five-minute recess real quick? We want to have our... the consultant who was integral in putting the plan together to help answer questions for the public hearing.

Sure. All right, recess for five minutes.

About time to get going. We're gonna restart the meeting here in a second. Apologies, CJ's still talking. All right, let's go ahead and

Yes, we'll call the meeting back to order, and I think we're going to go ahead and go back to the earlier case, FS 26044. Recall that one.

Sure. FS 26044, Hughley Industrial Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Waiver Request Section 31102B2, Interconnectivity of Neighborhoods, Section 31106C3, Street Design Standards. and Section 31106E1, Cul-de-sac Street Design Standards, Council District 8. General location is east of South Freeway, south of Garden Acres Drive, and west of Stone Road, applicants Kimley Horn.

All right, Commission. As soon as they allow the exhibits to show back up there, I'll be able to show you. There we go. Here we are, so here is the compromise that was provided by the applicant staff. They'll be constructing a 40 foot wide public access easement along the south, and then on the east and north, it'll be 30 feet wide, but the 40 foot section is what we're most concerned with, and then they have specific language that will be tied to the recommendation, which I'll show you here shortly. It's a full page, so whomever's gonna read it Take a deep breath. That's all I'll say. So here's the recommendation now. We recommend approval of a waiver of section 31-102-B2 subdivision ordinance to not require the extension of Deer Creek Drive and the unnamed right-of-way to the Platte boundary. Two, approval of a waiver of section 31-106-C3 of the subdivision ordinance to permit a 30-foot cross section rather than the minimum required 60-foot cross section for the unnamed right-of-way along the southern boundaries of lots one through three. Approval of a waiver to section 31106E1 of the subdivision ordinance to not require a cul-de-sac at the permanent terminus of the unnamed right of way which is greater than 150 feet in length. And four, conditional approval of the final plot upon meeting the comments in the staff report. Five, conditional approval of the final plot upon dedication but not construction of a 40 foot wide public access easement from the currently proposed public access easement to the eastern boundary of a lot four within 100 feet of the northeast corner of Lot 4.

Do they have to read it, or can we just say what Alex just read?

Quick question, just to make sure I understand. So, number 2 doesn't conflict with number 5 on here?

No, sir.

Okay.

Because that is a cross-section for a roadway, and this is not a roadway. Maybe a roadway in the future, but that's a future problem, not a current problem. We're not creating a new problem by only doing this at 40 feet wide. The purpose of doing it at 40 feet wide is so when they build it, they're gonna build the full width of what the pavement section would be within an industrial street. And we have the ability then to come back and we may convert it to a right-of-way easement. We may not specifically convert it to a public road, but it will be for public maintenance we're going to court we're going to work with the applicant to craft development agreement between the city and the applicant to then memorialize what's happening here so that it certain time whatever that specific time is getting on uh... construction so forth of the stuff to the east then x will happen with with their existing easement so We're not there yet. This is our placeholder so that we can then get to that.

I did have a question on the fifth bullet point where it says in parentheses, but not construction. Is that, would that be better to say possible future construction? No.

They're essentially dedicating a placeholder for the city to then have the opportunity to come back and extend this road. This is a little give and take. Their main operation is the ring road. That's for their main operation. This little extra piece isn't part of their operation, and this is part of our planning effort. So we at least want them to dedicate it. We may have to come back and construct it later, but really it's just a matter of trying to get this in place and get us a placeholder. So this is where we work together. They give us a little bit, and we give them a little bit. So this is the compromise we came to. So according to the consultant, the owner's concern was the long-term maintenance of this and how does it become the city's responsibility. So they still have to obviously go back and get this alignment approved by the owner. They're confident that they would be accepting of this provided we're able to enter into some formalized agreement. It'll happen outside of the outside of this body, but know that we're working together and this is something that they feel they can work with their client on. If for whatever reason things change and they have to modify the alignment for whatever reason and it doesn't meet what the original intent was, they may have to come back before this body to ask for additional approval.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I'm sorry, Alex. What's the reason that the one cross section is 30 foot and then it's 40 foot as it continues on to the east? Is that what I'm hearing in this proposed?

So the minimum width for a public access easement is defined by the subdivision ordinance as 24 feet wide. We can't enforce anything over 24. The fact that they want to provide anything bigger and wider than that is preferred. Typically, we are, I'm going to start speaking outside of my area of expertise, but it's my understanding that the fire department typically wants those easements to be a little bit wider because sometimes 18-wheelers will stage along them, and when they park along them, This also tends to be the same route that the fire department will take when they come in and respond in an emergency. And if there's two of them parked out there, if it's not wide enough, then they don't have enough room to get the fire truck through in an emergency. So that's why they're the width they are.

Thank you all for taking the time to work through that and bring this back to us. So I think at this point, we're probably ready to move forward with a motion and a vote. I need the language back up on the screen. Thank you.

Are we reading all of it or just?

You don't have to. You can just say move to approve based on what Alex had read and what's on the screen.

Make a motion to approve the waivers as well as the conditional approval of the final plan as discussed by Alex.

Second.

A motion from Commissioner Sims, a second from Commissioner Johnson. Call the vote, please.

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

All right, so let's go back to the master transportation plan. General location is citywide and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Applicant is City of Fort Worth.

Good morning, everyone. Hey there, I'm Kelly Porter. I'm Assistant Director for Transportation and Public Works. I'm gonna do your presentation today on the Master Transportation Plan. I'm over the regional transportation innovation team. So we do all the project development and project readiness for the department to get things done. And that's really what this whole capital program that we're gonna present to you today is about. So we're ready to bring up the slides. And of course, I think everybody knows Armand Bryant, who's on my team, a critical member. So this is the city's first transportation capital delivery program. Why master transportation plan? Well, y'all know we're growing like crazy. It was even hard to do a infrastructure plan with the amount of growth that we're seeing just because every time you thought you were on the way with something, there's a new development popping up and all these other things. And so we know with all this growth and success that we have in the region that our major corridors are going to continue to be. congested over time. So we need to be strategic about how do we try to solve that and also create a program that is based on reality and based on things that we can implement over years. So that's a lot of what this is founded in, as well as some of our federal and state regulations that many times we're going to apply for funding on or whatnot. But do remember that Back last summer, we did adopt a safety action plan, which is the first component of this document. So what's different about the framework that we work under now? So currently, we have separate plans. There's a master thoroughfare plan and an active transportation plan, which you were just talking to Mr. Bearden about. This now creates a unified program with active transportation, with roadways, but we're also able to consider freight and transit and technology as part of our full suite of capital improvements over the short, mid and long term. Before the plan really focused on build out. Now we've really been able to take those projects in the document or as we've developed them over the last two years and break those out into projects that we know that we'd be able to reasonably cash flow and afford over the next several years. These are data driven priorities. It's tied back to project readiness. And it really is a comprehensive network of a suite of operational as well as capacity and other types of improvements and whatnot. And I also want to caveat that transportation planning and programming in Texas and the US and in Fort Worth is really under a performance-based set of criteria. And so that's what we're required to do. And so a lot of what you're seeing in our plan is reflective of that best practice. So comparing the two roadway networks, so we're going from a master thoroughfare plan to now what is a component of a larger master transportation plan called the master roadway network. We are moving from a street typology system to back into a functional classification system, which allows us to be much more better coordinated with our state and federal partners, as well as other local governments. And then any work that we do as a department, we've gotta have an equivalency to functional class. And so this takes a step out of that when it comes to funding, when it comes to identifying safe speeds, when it comes to a whole host of things, this helps us a whole lot. However, we didn't wanna lose some of the breadth of what was in that typology system with land use. And so we've worked really hard over the last several months to get us to where we wanna be, to be able to blend more of those pieces back in there. Current thoroughfare plan does not include collectors. Major collectors are considered federal aid, so we've included those on this network as well that you'll see in the Master Roadway Network. And then we went from 80 cross sections down to about 21. So we simplified it quite a bit, but provided some flexibility as well to get what we want. And then we've done, I think, a better job of integrating operations and other needs into the document as well. So how that roadway network is structured is kind of a three-prong process. We have a master roadway network.

So can everybody say with me, Mr. N, one, two, three, Mr. N?

Like for real, one, two, three? Mr. N, that's gonna be the master roadway network now. And so that's defining this full build out. It includes TxDOT corridors on there as well. That's the program that Armand and I are gonna use as we're working with our regional partners as we're looking at developing capital projects, as development services even works with TxDOT to let them know how they need to be working with developers. We wanna make sure that the data across all these agencies is gonna be the same in our document just like other documents. A good example of that's like SH-114. We need that on the map. That's got right-of-way needs. We don't want a US-380 situation going on where we're having to go back and retroactively do those things. So we have that back on there. And then for Master Roadway, network City Road, CR, that's the network that Jennifer Roberts and Cannon are going to be dealing with as they work with developers. Those are the ones we have her view over that we'll work with the development committee on. So those will be two specific networks that we broke out. There'll be good metadata with them or whatnot. And there's a whole host of network overlays with this that deal with both freight and then also some of the more walkable areas. So let's talk a bit about that, these overlays. So we have a standard spec that we'll use generally citywide, but in areas that have been identified through zoning or in the comp plan as freight priority areas, we are going to require in those areas a certain spec of roadway, which may have a higher durability for how the concrete Or the pavement depth is so it's not torn up really quickly there'll be certain technologies that we assign to those dealing with like weights and other things. There also will be wider lanes potentially so those trucks can make those turns not tearing up our curbs so that would be like something in a freight area. And then a compact development area, we would design those areas where there's owned for mixed use and other things. specifically with that, that we would allow for different types of features to be constructed either by developed community or with a bond project, we would leave the envelope for those improvements. Something we really want to toggle with this is the maintenance concern. And so we want to make sure that whatever we're putting on these roads, we can actually maintain. So there's a whole host of things that can go on with that, but maintenance is a big part of this. So this is the Freight Priority Network. You can see where Alliance, other places in this area in Fort Worth are included in that Centerport area out west where we have a future freight area. Those roads are gonna be built to a higher freight standard. And this network not only includes those roads that are connecting to those major state routes that are trunk routes or whatnot, we also included great separate railroad crossings as part of this network. Many of these, we have costs now developed for those, because we know those are coming. but this kind of gives you kind of a laundry list that I already went over on how those roads would be designed and why we did it like this. And then these are the compact development areas. We're really tying those back to either urban villages or the zoning to ensure that we're building the right specs for those areas as well. So there's quite a few text amendments to support the roadway network. We did update the access management policy to be reflective, so there's a lot of master thoroughfare in that. We had to change that to match the roadway network. So there's some text amendments in with that. And we want to make sure that we aligned those documents. And of course, we also aligned the subdivision regulations to also account for functional class versus typologies that are currently in there.

Can I ask a question? So reviewing that ordinance that's proposed, it moved all the definitions out of the city ordinance into the MRN, and I just want to know what process would then be required in the future for changes to those definitions. Does it still go to mayor and council as changes to the MRN, or is it up to development services, or what?

I'm going to look over at our legal team. This is when I look at my lawyer.

So are you talking about what we call the streets, that section?

Yeah, it's section 24 in the proposed ordinance.

So yes, I mean, it's all subject to city council approval, both the plan and the ordinance changes we did to the subdivision ordinance and other portions of the code. City council has to approve any amendments.

Right, so future changes, the MRN that would be changing the definitions also would go to city council?

Yes, I mean, if they make major changes to what we call things in the overall plan, now, to be clear, there is some administrative authority, right, to grant some sort of relief from width and other things that staff has some authority and then the plan commission has some authority to entertain those as well. But, yeah, modifying what you're talking about would take city council action. Thank you.

So as I said before, we had an active transportation plan. Now that's integrated into this master transportation plan. And now we're introducing all the ATM. So another acronym, active transportation and micro mobility network. It includes much of the work that was done as part of the last plan, a master transportation plan, but really brings that forward. On the left, you'll see that there's actual project priorities tied to it that now TPW can go through and start to scope and get ready for eventual delivery or whatnot. But we also want to acknowledge with this update of the plan that it's not just going to be pets and bikes using this network. It's also we've got now scooters. We've got e-bikes. We've got the little delivery robots and all those things. And so we're trying to make sure we're getting prepared for that. So now it's an ATM. So we're not talking about money, getting cash from a machine. We're talking about our active transportation and micromobility network as we go forward with that. And now we have set priorities that we can move forward with. So projects were prioritized using the screening criteria. I won't go into deep detail about it because it's pretty self-explanatory, but it ties back to the goals that were developed as part of the pretty robust, actually very robust public outreach process that we went through. And then I think what makes this plan very unique and especially new for the city is not only the consolidation of these documents and looking at freight and these other elements of it, but it's also the fact that we took this and really develop what we're calling our transportation investment program. This is consistent with our state and federal partners, where they have a four-year program and a 10-year program, and then a long-range program. We have all those things, but this allows us to basically, in that four-year window, we're saying, hey, those projects better be pretty darn ready and funded. 10 years, we need to be getting those projects developed, and then those out years are projects that we can kind of pick and choose from as far as the council goes, as priorities continue to kind of, and needs continue to go in flux, but Basically, this also ties back to this plan being fiscally constrained and we've slotted projects for the four 10-year windows that could fit into that fiscal constraint. And so these are components of the TIP in addition to putting them in actual proper project program that's ranked. We've also done schematic design on many of the major roadways in this area. So that helps us really do a lot of cost, estimating risk assessments, some degree of public outreach, and other things to get these projects ready to go for funding. We've also been able to develop some degree of funding profiles with each of these and develop financial stacks with them. Essentially, our bond is going to now be essentially a part of a bigger pie that we're going to use to fund projects because they are becoming bigger and more complex, and we're just going to have to be more thoughtful about leveraging those funds. But having these projects through schematic design does help that. And so we've also done cash flow. We're being able to slot the funds in different years. So we'll know, hey, I need $2 this year, $3 the next year to be able to move the project forward versus I need everything up front. And this fits into a nice capital program for us and it is multimodal in nature. And this does line up very nicely with our state and federal partners as well. And then this gets in a bit more detail about the fiscal forecasting and fiscal constraint that we did. Basically, we took all the reasonably expected and historic sources of revenue We're able to calculate that with finance and go forward into kind of our, we had our 2026 bond. Now we're able to look at our 2030 bond and then 2034. We're calling those now investment cycles because it's not just bond money in those. And then project out and slot projects with them. Now, fiscal constraint doesn't mean this is what's going to have to happen. This just means it's a snapshot in time. And based on our best information today, this is what we think we can reasonably expect in the coming years. And this is the same process that TxDOT and COG and other transportation departments use. And then this kind of goes into what I basically described to you as kind of how TPW, we work together on the project development and my team getting the projects ready, doing the financial stacks for them, doing the schematics and the environmental clearance. And then I'm able to hand something over to our capital delivery department as we continue to work and develop on these through the 30, 60, 90 design process. So this plan is really about readiness and about getting things done. So this is just kind of a snapshot of the major roadways in the first investment cycle, which is our bond. You'll notice that there's also some projects on here that weren't necessarily in the bond, but they're getting delivered. We want to be able to show those clearly. So like Forest Hill Drive and Wichita Street are projects that COG and Tarrant County are going to be delivering for us. We want to be able to show that full suite of transportation projects that will get delivered. A lot of projects that we're forecasting out for the 2030 bond are really continuations from this bond because they're in design in this bond. And then the next bond, we're gonna fund them for construction. So maybe we do 26, you'll see a lot of right-of-way design type things. The next bond will take force to construction. And then we've also done that in 2034. And then this is our long-range suite of projects. So essentially, council and any body that, any body of people that does, any governing body that does project selection, like with COG, the RTC, Staff can recommend whatever projects we want, but at the end of the day, it's up to them to decide what actually gets programmed and funded going forward. And so this is another longer range list, but also a data-driven suite of projects that they can now choose from versus it kind of being, what do y'all want to do? Now we have a list we can say, here's what we've already vetted. And then this is the priorities for active transportation and micromobility network. And we have our top 20 bikeway projects on here. And the good thing is I do want to take a bit of a victory lap because some of the projects on this list, as well as others, have already been funded through this process. So we're already making progress. And then I showed you a bunch of stuff there. We also have a railroad, a set of railroad projects as well that I have on another slide deck. So grade separations, quiet zones, technology improvements we're going to do at railroads. And this is the whole suite of of different projects in our program in the document. Oh, I'm going backwards. Let's keep going forward. That's the point. So with tools and transparency, this is, we have a whole hub site that y'all probably been to several times that has the documents on there and the networks on. And then of course, now I'll be happy to take any questions.

Thank you for the work that went into this and for the presentation.

Thank you.

Any questions?

I do have one additional one. It goes to moving parkway and buffer zones to possibly being subject to administrative waiver rather than CPC review. I just was wondering if you could talk a little bit about why we're doing that, if there's been problems with having to bring that to CPC. Is it clear the part I'm asking about the question?

Kelly, I could speak to that.

Rich was gonna say something real quick. Go ahead, Rich.

Well, I didn't hear the full question, so I apologize.

Okay, so one of the things that was being amended and changed was that for parkway and buffer zones, it's talking about having a reduction of widths. Necessary removals are now subject to administrative waiver rather than CPC review. So I just was wanting some context around why that change was being made.

Yeah, I will probably defer to one of the two Kellys on that.

I'll let the Kelly D go. It's part of Kelly Square. Sure.

Sure. That was in the first iteration of the plan. We had it going to CPC, which was a change from how it is currently administered. And so in consultation with development services, you know, they handle sidewalk waivers, and there's a potential conflict with that. So we reverted it back to the way the current master thoroughfare plan and the way it's currently administered, which is that That is one of those elements that can be administratively waived, provided it meets all the other criteria for an administrative waiver.

All right. Thank you.

Any other questions or discussion?

Go ahead. As I understand what we're approving today is really a new way to manage the transportation growth, these are not all new projects that we came up with, correct? It's not the projects as much as the process and the tools. Is that what we're approving today?

It's getting confirmation on the suite of projects in there. A lot of those have moved forward, so they're not new. Now, anything beyond that four-year window might be a little bit newer the way we're describing it. I think the way you're describing is generally right. It is a capital program. It is a new way of doing things. And it is a new framework for what Stu deals with on development. So it is pretty forward-thinking and broad, but as far as the projects go, I mean, it's just part of it. It gives TPW a path forward on what we're getting developed and ready.

And then my second question is really, I guess, what was the process that went in to make sure that we're being equitable across the city when it comes to dealing with the issues of transportation, connectivity, congestion. A lot of the projects were concentrated in the far north part of the city, which I understand. It's growing so fast and there's a lot. But was there any work done as far as making sure that every part of the city gets attention? And what was that work?

Yeah, so we did some very, very, very extensive public outreach as part of that work. I think to get to your point with some of the older parts of the city. So also remember, too, we had some changes in the way we talk about that because in the middle of this, we had a new administration, new federal rules that came out on how we discuss different on opportunity and equity issues in the city and looking at different parts of it. But one thing I don't think was on this slide that I think we get to your your point is that we, on the roadway side especially, we looked at what we're calling ROS corridors, so Recapitalization Operations and Safety. That gets to those corridors that may not necessarily, there's not really any room to do additional capacity on them, but we do know that we're going to need to recapitalize those, especially in different parts of town. And so we've added that into our analysis to get to some of those roads that may not necessarily have the same congestion issues or have something that we can expand on, but actually just need to be recapitalized fully like Ryan Urban or certain roles like that. So we did go back in there and add those in as part of our work with our departments and then also the folks in the public. If there's a specific area of town, we can talk about it, but I think everybody does get something in this one. But if there's a specific area, we can talk through that. One thing we didn't show you on the map is also all the improvements that TxDOT's doing, and that also is a big player. There's the major project along 287, which will be billions of dollars, which will improve the arterials across there. That's probably another fast-growing area of town, as you're thinking. But there's other improvements that they're also recapitalizing on that we're not capturing here that do get to some of those areas of town.

There's also, I don't know if this speaks directly to the question, there's one slide, I know you went through it pretty quickly, but where you highlighted the various factors that were considered and then how they were weighted. I know it was one slide, but just from having worked through projects in my professional life, I know the process that goes into something like that of all the little factors that go into a project and the weighting that goes into it and kind of the formula that goes into that I think is probably an important part of your process to highlight that went into the process.

Oh absolutely, so we did we did look at that equity issue we're just looking at strictly from infrastructure perspective it's the new capacity versus the recapitalization. We toggle that a lot to make sure that, like you know we're getting very street mccart a lot of these corridors that aren't necessarily new capacity you're in there. you've got out to me so you've got wichita you got for sale drive that's why I want to show those things too, because there's so much going on outside of our bond. that we want to be able to show that full picture and suite of improvements are going to happen really across the city. I think we got to quite a bit of that because some of those aren't going to be capacity. Some places that can only, and really what you're going to see too with kind of some of the financial constraints we're all dealing with, it's probably leaning more into technology in managing these corridors that are congested to keep people moving and safe. So yeah, you'll see, there's quite a bit of that in here. So Berry Street's on our technology hot corridor list, hub of transportation technology corridor. McCarter's one of those as well. Lancaster's another one. Rosedale and working with COG on those. So in the document, you'll get more of that meat and all that. We can share some of those things.

Thank you. Thanks for the questions. Anything else?

Add Miller to that list.

Miller, okay. I just want to make sure that the document I looked at is what we're actually voting on. Because in our docket, it was distributed as draft review. I just want to make sure this is the final dated document we're voting on and not just a previous version.

No, this is a new document. And I think we did share an errata sheet that shows all the changes. I appreciate that.

Thank you for providing that. That was helpful.

No problem. Miller's actually going through some safety improvements. You'll see that kicked off this next year, Oakland and Miller. So we got you on Miller.

All right, final call for questions. Okay, thank you very much. I think we are ready to move to the vote on this one, the approval of recommendation to city council.

I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the recommendation to the city council for the adoption of the master transportation plan and an ordinance amending the city code, including revisions to the subdivision ordinance. Second.

A motion from Commissioner Adams and a second from Commissioner Henderson. 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 Hanserson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Simms, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Farta, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? Yes. Chair Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you all. Last OMB is our presentation of the 2050 Conference of Plan Update.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Eric Flodiger.

I'm the Assistant Planning Director in the City Manager's Office. Planning Division moves from the LAMP to the City Manager's Office, so that's where we are. Chris, could you move to the microphone, please?

Thank you.

All right. Sorry about that. So I'm here with Tony Harold. He's planning manager in the planning division. Again, moved to the city manager's office. We're here today to bring you an update on the development of the new 2050 comprehensive plan. So when Steven mentioned a list of things that you all were responsible for, that were in your purview, comprehensive planning was one of those items. So we have a 2023 comprehensive plan that's in place that's sort of governing decisions, providing the guidance that you all use, that zoning commission uses, the council uses. We're in the midst of recreating that plan. So we want to give you an update on where we're at with that. So the Coverage Plan is really the city's guide for making decisions about growth and development. It's a community-driven effort. We've been engaging a lot of folks in this discussion about what the future of Fort Worth needs to be and how we're going to get there. Tony will actually come up and give a little bit on that activity for you. It contains, if you've looked at the chapters that we have in an existing coverage plan, it contains some things that are required by state law. They're required to work with the zoning ordinance. The coverage plan provides that policy basis for the zoning ordinance. ordinance and the map that's accompanying it. So land use, housing, economic development, parks, open space, transportation, arts and culture, and more, those are the things that the comprehensive plan addresses. So again, it's looking out for the next 25 years, the year 2050, how we're going to grow, what kind of policy framework do we need to get there. So just as a reminder, and I think you probably all know this pretty well, the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and maps are linked very much, but they're not the same thing. So the comprehensive plan provides that policy guidance as an advisory document. It provides goals objectives Actions and strategies to get us where we want to be in the next 20 25 years it also creates a future land-use map Which uses some of the same colors in the same system that the zoning map does it provides that sort of policy guidance the zoning is intended to implement a the comprehensive plan, which thus the importance of the comprehensive plan and engaging the community in what that future needs to be. So it describes different land use types, provides the characteristics of those places. On the regulatory side is where the zoning implements that. So zoning ordinance, the map, and the zoning districts get into specificity that's regulatory. So in the process, we've been engaged in this for over a year. It's really been focused on engaging the community and getting their input on what they want to see for the future. Right now, we're working on comprehensive planned growth framework. So that's really sort of the construct of the document itself, the starting with the vision and the goals and moving through objectives and policies and so forth. So that's the process that we're in right now. So we're gonna be next moving into identifying a place-based scenario, and I'll show you some information about that shortly. In addition to that, later in the summer, we've been working with our consultants Actually, our team is working on a return on public investment analysis. that we're intending to use with the conference plan and other things that the city makes decisions about. So we're gonna be creating that strategy and implementation plan in the summer. That's gonna be followed by transformative strategies and action. So that's those pieces that really get to the meat of how we're going to make the changes that we need to make to get to where we wanna be as a community. And then review and adoption will be taking place essentially in 2027. I'm going to step down and let Tony talk a little bit about the engagement process, and I'll be back.

Good morning, everybody. Tony Harold, Planning Manager, the Planning Division of the City Manager's Office. And as Eric mentioned, before we go into some more new interesting details of the plan, we wanted to walk through and showcase some incredible public engagement that's occurred since 2024 when we began this process. So before I even start with these numbers, I wanted to give a shout out to our communication and public engagement department, and my team as well, and their continued collaboration, because I think we've done some incredible public engagement, both in person and online through this process. So as you see there, we have over 9,700 people engaged in person. That is people we've actually talked to, people we have discussed and who participated in our activities, all in person that we're taking, and we're taking their input into the plan. going to be easily over 10,000 this summer, I believe. We have 211,000 plus event attendees. So that's the number of attendees at larger events that we've been at, such as Arts Goggle. So who may have seen our information, but we didn't necessarily communicate with them directly. And so moving on to online, since we began this process, developed a few separate online surveys, online engagement activities. So we have over 2,400 survey respondents there, and then over 230,000 plus website visits and email recipients. So again, I think that our team has worked with CPE amazingly over the past couple of years to get community input.

Here's some images. So not only are we going to...

registered events, large events. You can see some photos like in the middle. We're also popping up at regular places where people kind of are day-to-day. So there's a couple photos on there from a couple pop-ups from La Grande Plaza. Part of this process has really been meeting people where they are, getting people in comfortable situations where we can really get great conversations started about what the comprehensive plan does, how it's a tool for them to use in the future, how it's a tool the city uses, et cetera. So throughout the process, through our online engagement, we've seen some top community priorities starting to emerge. So we see public safety there at number one, multimodal transportation, preservation of open space, housing affordability, and so on. And a point here is not to say that these are going to be ranked necessarily as part of the plan, but we really wanted just to show what the community has been talking to us about over these past couple of years. And one of the fun things we've done lately is we've developed this reimagined city personality quiz. So if you can imagine online, you may have been able to take a quiz that says something along the lines of which Harry Potter character are you or something like that. We wanted to sort of gamify this process to get people engaged, not only to kind of slip in some information about what the plan is, but really get their input on what aspects of cities they like the most, whether it's walkability, open space, et cetera. So through that online quiz, users, respondents were kind of given a primary and a secondary, which reimagined city are you? So we have cities like Walkersville, you can imagine where that's high walkability, small urban village type centers. Some folks might be interested in John Potter, sort of transit oriented development to D type city so links didn't maybe their personality type greenhaven texanova so there's quite a few of these and we wanted to. John Potter, We will show you the results of our. John Potter, engagement, but we also wanted to showcase some specifics that came out. John Potter, of answers from respondents that we felt were quite interesting. So out of 1,000 plus survey respondents to date, it's still going. This survey is live through the end of May. We saw that 90% preferred to develop where infrastructure already exists rather than letting growth happen regardless of infrastructure. And so these are sort of, people were given 30 A or B questions and they had to choose one. So another one was 90% of folks responding preferred preserving open space as opposed to creating new housing in certain open spaces. 78% preferred infill development compared to building on undeveloped land, et cetera. So there's quite a few of these. I'll leave it up for a second. And then some more responses. 67% preferred multiple downtown centers as opposed to one main downtown, sort of thinking about polycentricity in a way. 65% preferred living close to shops and services rather than living in a big house. It's this type of information that we get from these surveys on the back end that are going to play into our scenario building, our future land use building that Eric's going to kind of walk through a little bit later on in this presentation. So for the results, our top three reimagined city results from survey respondents are Walkersville, Langston, and Greenhaven. So Walkersville, at 25%, it prioritizes walkability, of course, with neighborhoods that combine housing, jobs, shops, parks, and other cultural activities. It focuses on revitalizing underused areas by bringing local businesses and housing into abandoned buildings and aging streets. So you can imagine the aspects of this that people kind of chose as part of their 30 question survey. In second place is Linkston. So this is sort of the TOD-specific, TOD-tied development type. It concentrates new development around major rail transit hubs and other high-frequency routes. It's higher-density housing, jobs, shops, and public gathering spaces. They're clustered near these transit cores. Finally, rounding out the top three is Greenhaven. So this is, as you can imagine, a development type that focuses on developing around parks, rivers, trails, and other green corridors. Housing and development, it says, are thoughtfully placed along these corridors, not only to preserve the spaces, but allow connectivity and use of these spaces from the public. So out of these, we're seeing an emerging vision being developed. And I say emerging because we had a poster up last week at our citywide open house in the lobby upstairs, and next to it we had a board with a million different sticky notes on it, comments about this emerging vision. So we've ran this vision through, we're workshopping it through the public, through leadership, staff leadership, as well as through our advisory committees as part of this process. So, so far, and at this point, the emerging vision statement states, Fort Worth is a world-class city of thriving and connected neighborhoods, innovative businesses and industries, and vibrant places that enhance quality of life and opportunity for all. The city's continued growth and evolution is guided by its frontier spirit, commitment to people and community, and thoughtful integration of green space. So we want to make this a vision statement for Fort Worth, too, and not just something that you can plop on any city. And we're going to continue to develop and refine this vision statement through the summer. Emerging vision elements as part of the plan. Number one is complete and vibrant neighborhoods, which is sort of a continuation from the existing comprehensive plan. Strategic growth and development, which is really thinking about how to grow Fort Worth. You know, I think we just saw recently it's the 10th biggest city in the country. So how do we really grow in a way that's sustainable, both for residents and people who are going to be using the city and coming here to work? connected mobility and infrastructure. So this is roadways, active transportation infrastructure, but also this takes into account pipes and other infrastructure and other public facilities across the city. Economic opportunity and vitality. Of course, everything sort of ties into each other naturally, but we also want to think about how to continue to grow the city, not only for residents living here, but also for people and for businesses locating here as well. And then Hang into that as well as vibrant public spaces, not only for those people who already work here from a resident focus, but also how do we attract not only businesses, but people coming to Fort Worth to visit and enjoy themselves. So that's that, and I will hand it off to Eric to talk about really interesting new place types approach as part of the comprehensive plan.

Okay, so one of those elements that you saw on that slide as far as what the comprehensive plan does, what the zoning does, and how decisions get made relates to the future land use map. So we're taking a different approach to creating that future land use map for the city. It will be developing a new one, essentially, and similar to the zoning districts that you'll see on the existing zoning map and the existing future land use map, Often that's been taken as a sort of parcel by parcel basis, not really looking at the sort of broader context as much as it could. So we're moving in from that context standpoint and then sort of drilling in from there. So this is depicting the place types that we're gonna be using. So this is essentially a palette. So on the left side are areas that are sort of live Place types. So predominantly living there. The top one neighborhood, low neighborhood, medium neighborhood, high. As you get down that list, the opportunity for density increases the opportunity for mixing of uses increases as well. So really focused on creating sort of livable, vital, walkable neighborhoods. The middle column is place, so that's really our mixed-use place type. So neighborhood mixed-use, community, and regional. Regional, you can see in the images, we're talking about downtown, something that's very significant in terms of density, in terms of energy and vitality. The community version is a little bit less than that. It's similar to, say, West 7th out here. or South Main, some existing places that people recognize when you tell them about it and they have a picture in their head of what's there and they want to go there. So that's kind of what that column is looking at. Work obviously we want to continue to grow our jobs in the city of Fort Worth commercial campus innovation flex and manufacturing are different ways to do that. And then on the bottom, you can see preserve and conserve and then regional parks active spaces, those are the green spaces that provide the framework around which growth is intended to occur. So for each of these place types, we're moving through sort of imagery to show folks what that really is intended to mean. So these are just sort of examples of what that might look like. So starting from the neighborhood low category, and these are sort of aspirational images, obviously they're not snapshots of individual places. But examples of what might look like this in the future might be Alamo Heights, Fairmount, Vintage Riverside. The colors that you see reflect sort of the uses contained within that. The very light, sort of very pale yellow is residential. Darker residential is sort of the more compact Development forms like townhouses would be an example of that. And then the red boxes are commercial. Blue is institutional. You can see there's beginning to be a little bit of mixing in this low density neighborhood intended to be essentially walkable and give people places to go. That's one of the things we hear from rapidly growing areas is that we have nowhere to go and we have to drive wherever we do go. So a different place type example is this community mixed use. An example of this, as I said, is South Main Urban Village. West Seventh is another. And you can see that there's essentially a mixing of uses based on the colors. The bright pink that you see is mixed use, which is, again, a component in places like our urban villages. Of course downtown But you can see that the the framework Here is providing density providing a mix of uses in a street grid system. That's very walkable It's using that darker green area that park space as a focal point so bringing Opportunity for people to live work and shop near that green space to make best use of it also to bring more eyes on the park just like eyes on the street and makes places safer and more well used. So if you're thinking about the Alliance corridor, this is the kind of example that place types envisions, and that is you'll have those larger industrial uses, but you'll also have a mixing of some very small-scale commercial activity provided for employees in that area particularly, as well as sort of making better use of the green space opportunities that do occur. Innovation Flex is an interesting example. It's intended to be an employment location, but with a mixing of different uses. And there are examples of this in Fort Worth. Foundry District is one of those where an older, redeveloped light industrial place is now becoming a mix of residential types, of commercial types, in that sort of walkable, compact framework. And then the last one, just as an example, is preserve and conserve and that's really focused on protecting floodplains and providing green space linkages around which we can have development occur so they can take advantage of trail opportunities and access to nature and so forth. So that's just a few examples of the place types approach. Again, it's multiple uses intended to create a different kind of future land use map. So just a little bit about findings related to economics that I think are important. Obviously we just passed recently a million people in the city of Fort Worth. We are now the 10th largest city officially based on census So, we've been growing a lot. The image on the right shows Fort Worth in comparison to Dallas, Houston, and Austin, and there will be a couple of other ones that are like that. So, we've grown a lot. Fort Worth has added sort of more jobs than Dallas, for instance. The total jobs is that black column on the left. White-color jobs, which are sort of higher-paying jobs, is in the green. blue collar, obviously blue, and then service jobs. So we have added a fair amount of jobs in Fort Worth, which is good news. However, that job growth has still left us with fewer jobs than the other communities that we're comparing ourselves to. So we're not developing jobs the way that we really want to, which is to be keeping pace. And from a tax standpoint, we want to be able to balance residential versus commercial. So that's still something that needs to be addressed. So on the right, one of the causes that we're concerned about is that in comparison to these other cities, in terms of premier industries, so the higher paying industries, we don't have as many as these other communities do. In the region, we're doing fine, but we're losing a lot of people who drive to Dallas or drive to Frisco or something because that's where those jobs are. We need to bring them here. Another area of interest is sort of the housing types that we have in the city of Fort Worth. Again, compared to some of these other communities, the top bar is Fort Worth, and I'll call your attention to that green color particularly. So most of our existing housing units are designed for families. So they're single family, detached units, usually two or three bedrooms or more. So that's what we have provided. When you compare it to the other cities, we are far more focused on single family in terms of what we have in the city of Fort Worth. However, when you look at the actual population of the city and the families that we do have, they skew, as they do in other places now, and I'm sure you've heard much about this, towards smaller household sizes, lots of individuals, lots of couples, lots of roommates even situations. our population of actual nuclear families has reduced over time and is smaller than our housing stock would imagine. One of the things that relates to some of the transportation stuff that you've heard, some of the return on public investment and basically the fiscal health of the city issues is the location-efficient neighborhoods, which is where you have the opportunity to not have to drive your car everywhere you go. You have walkable neighborhoods. You've got transit. You've got trails, other ways to get around. Those kind of more compact places are much more pronounced in the other communities than they are in Fort Worth. We're much more spread out. So again, we have that mismatch between housing supply, which is on the left, 70% or so of homes are designed for those families. And then on the right is the small number of actual sort of nuclear families with children that we have. And that gap has sort of grown over time. So that creates the need to develop other types of housing products and have those available in the city of Fort Worth. So what we're doing right now is we're working on how we're going to grow to accommodate the expected population increase, job increase. So we've got scenarios that we're working through. This is the first one, business as usual. It continues the pattern of development that we've had so far. So if we just don't do anything different, this is kind of what we would expect to happen. So low density growth continues. So sprawl, outward growth, low densities. very car-oriented and stand-alone locations. So things aren't mixing, you can't easily get from one place to another, again, without a car. Center number two is the monocentric core, and this is if we focus development around downtown, So more density is occurring in downtown, in sort of the near south side area, west seventh area, those kinds of near downtown places, that becomes the dominant core. This scenario allows for more transit area development. So more development, higher density, mix of use of walkable around trend rail stations. So that is another way to provide more opportunity for different housing choices within the community. So the green spaces really focused on the center and creating that strong regional identity. The third scenario is network of villages. So we have urban villages in the city right now. We have suburban ones that are potential. So we like to move towards that. And this scenario of future development looks particularly at that. So urban villages, suburban villages, they're mixed-use hubs that serve the local community that surrounds them. Um, transit and trails are intended to connect these places again, the green network that connects these walkable communities, uh, and then inclusion of missing middle housing. I'm sure you've heard that term quite a bit, uh, neighborhood scale, um, and walkable environments. So mixing of housing choices for, again, those different types of family arrangements. And then the last one is polycentric city. So this is looking at multiple growth centers, mixed use growth centers. We have them in the future land use plan right now. This sort of keeps that effort, but really sort of redoubles on that. Corridors, centers are where we expect to see most of that growth and density mix of uses. So regional assets and keeping local amenities an important part of how these places develop. So high density housing, medium density housing, cluster around centers and corridors. Again, providing that mix of housing choices so that people have the opportunity to choose different ways to live, okay?

So next steps. I mentioned earlier our comprehensive plan open house. That happened already last week, last Monday, and it was a super, super big success. We had an incredible shoulder-to-shoulder crowd. It was great to see, a lot of great questions, a lot of great conversations with the public. Out of that though, we have a virtual open house that we're developing right now. This is a virtual version of that physical open house that we had last week. We're actually in the final stages of that development. That's gonna be open to the public. People can go in, see the exact boards that we had at the open house, add comments, add any suggestions, any questions they have. Our Reimagine, which Reimagine City RU personality quiz is closing at the end of May. So if you haven't already, please scan that QR code if you have your cell phones with you and share it with as many people as possible. Because as we continue this plan, we still want to bring in people's input. We're kind of never stopping. And then We're actually beginning to develop the plan itself this June. As Eric mentioned with the scenarios, we're really getting into that deep at this point, starting this summer. Here's a preview of the virtual open house, and it says couldn't attend yesterday's open house, should have said last week. But yeah, we're excited about that, and once that's live, we'll have links for that as well that will be available on our website for the public to view. I want to say thank you all for taking the time to listen to us.

We're here to answer any questions you have. I appreciate the effort going into this and the process. I want to understand clearly, from the four scenarios presented for growth, is city staff asking mayor and council to choose one of those four and go with one path, or is it really a mix that's going to include all those four?

That's a great question. So we would expect that there actually is going to be a little mixing going on. We're not having folks just choose between those four. And just thinking about the mixed use place types, those were very well received by the community. They want to see mixing of uses. They want walkability. They they want opportunities to have sort of a real Community kind of close knit sort of feel and where they live and work. So that's so we would expect that there would be some mixing of different elements, but we're looking for which elements, you want to pull together into the final.

One comment that I would make, and this is just an encouragement for you all to be careful, and what I mean is that the people that attended the open house, I'm glad that was a success, but they probably are some of the more engaged, some of the more educated about development, more concerned about development, because their numbers showed a preference for 65% of them wanted more mass transit, but Today on the street, we don't see 65% of the people of Fort Worth enthusiastic about mass transit. And so I just think we have to be careful with confirmation bias because we are engaging the most educated, engaged, urban, friendly people at these kinds of events and this kind of feedback.

Well, that's a good point. And one of the things that we're doing to combat that concern is that Tony mentioned going out to places where people are. So we're wanting to engage members of the community across the city. You're right, there are some folks that'll come to public meetings, particularly if they're at City Hall. They're accustomed to that, they're comfortable with that. There are others that are not comfortable with that kind of a, so we're going to where they are. we're asking them the same questions. And interestingly enough, we're getting very similar feedback from wherever we're going. So I think there's this, there seems to be a recognition that number one, if we continue to develop the way we have been, that's problematic. You know, people will be stuffing traffic and we won't be able to, from a city standpoint, a big concern is that return on public investment. Are we gonna be able to afford to maintain the infrastructure we have? and very low-density development tends to not generate enough tax revenue to actually do that. So there are some members of the public that kind of get that idea, but they very much are interested in sort of a walkable mixed-use environment and just different housing choices, regardless of what their situation is now or maybe come in the future.

One last thing. I can't remember which article I was reading this week talking about the city of Fort Worth. We built all this infrastructure for all this low-density housing, and it is going to be a challenge for us to keep up with it over the next 50 years and maintain it. And so I'm glad that we're thinking through that.

Yeah, great point, great point.

How are you guys – marketing the Fort Worth app, like the Connect Fort Worth. I know I've been on there and there's a couple of areas that ask, you know, how would you like your city to grow? And then you have some feeds below it. You know, you click on those feeds and share your input. Are there people actually participating in those, in that app? And to what extent?

So, yes, the numbers that we showed you, we have another slide that we didn't include because we didn't want to make it very long that includes all the different forms of social media and online engagement that we have done. So, yes, we're getting a lot. We want more. The more we can hear from people, the more we can sort of target in on what the community wants for its future.

So how are you marketing that Fort Worth app or the Connect Fort Worth? Are you telling people about it via mailers that you're sending out? Or when you go to your meetings, how are you saying, hey, you can connect with us here?

Yes, everything. So we have email blasts. So we've gotten on. We worked with communications, the communications department, and we're sending emails. We are marketing through social media, through Instagram and Facebook as well. Links to Connect Fort Worth as well as the actual live surveys, interactive tools, and then telling everybody about it as well in public. When we go out to the public, we have QR codes. We talk about this too. And there's actually asking folks about how they heard about the open house when they were there. a lot of folks said word of mouth. Their friends told them about it. So sort of trying to get at everything on all fronts, always trying to build it on all more fronts. But at this point, we're doing through social media, emails, and word of mouth.

Okay, thank you.

I want to follow up on that question. Is any of that component paid advertising, paid digital advertising, or is it all organic?

So, yeah, we have used paid social media to reach out and get more people. And we've actually used some of that to target communities that have not come to a meeting that we've held. So we're using all the different tools we have. Again, our communication public engagement department has been very helpful with that. But we're trying to reach everybody in whatever way best works for them.

So I've been to some of these, I've been to a couple of these planning meetings.

Thank you.

And you guys have done a great job, but my concern is that based on your numbers, less than 1% of our population has made any input. And those numbers look really good, but when you base it against 1% over a million, how do we know we're making the right decisions for the city when we're... Who makes the decisions that... a particular plan should go the way it goes. It can't be based on that 1%.

So to a great extent it is, and that's why we're trying to grow that number. But there are also people like you that occupy positions at the City of Fort Worth that provide access to your own networks, essentially. So you're able to share information and learn from them, share that information with us. Typically in these kinds of efforts, you're right. If you look at the population of the city, it tends to be a small number in terms of just that percentage. That's why it's important to continue that outreach and make use of the networks we already have. So we have our technical advisory committee, we have a community advisory committee, they have folks that they're sharing information with. We're running through sort of activities, exercises with them to help us sort of hone in on things like the scenarios and like the place types and so forth. But Point well taken. We haven't got, you know, half a million people that have come to a meeting. So I don't think we can handle that, but we sure would be able to take more in the online engagement. So we're continuing to push on that. Thank you.

All right. Seems like that's it. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for the update and all the work that's going into this.

Thank you for your engagement. And just as I said, you are the body that is going to make a recommendation to council to adopt the plan when it's at that time. We do plan to come back to you with sort of more meat so that you're kind of tracking the development of the conference plan over time. And when we get to that point where it's public hearing and we're asking you to make a recommendation, you'll have full knowledge of how we got there, what's contained in the plan.

One more question. Are you doing this kind of engagement with any other city boards and commissions like zoning?

So, yes, actually. Yesterday we were on the agenda for zoning, but they ran out of time, so we're going to have to do that next month. But, yes, we want to engage multiple boards in this. We actually presented with our consultants at the work session that council had just a couple weeks ago.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, with that we are adjourned.