Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Twenty twenty five in person teleconference meeting of the City of Fort Worth Plan Commission. The commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public hearings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the city subdivision ordinance, city plan commission rules and regulations and bylaws, and related provisions to Texas state law. The commission's primary responsibility are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, street and alley right away vacation enclosures, annexation, 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 them is appointed by the city council.

A quorum of six of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Nine are present. Therefore, the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table was mister Don Boren, the chair of the city plan commission. Other commission members present are commissioner Kranz, commissioner Tidwell, commissioner Landberth, commissioner Johnson, commissioner Henderson, commissioner Singletary, commissioner Curian, and commissioner Reed.

Staff present today are Alex Barks, Paul Rodriguez, Christine Ross, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, and a host of others. My name is Steven Murray, interim planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard. Today's public hearing are being documented by cable television and streamed on the Internet.

To achieve an orderly and timely hearing, we request that you observe their following rules and procedures. All teleconference participants will be muted when not speaking in order to avoid any potential background noise. All cases are heard. Applicants in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony first for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and will give 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 Christine Ross keeping time today. Clearly, state your name and city prior to addressing the commission. All dialogue will only occur between the speaker and the commission.

Upon the chairman's initial closure of the case, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the case. No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed. Be advised that the commission's decision on plotting matters is final. Action on the other docket items constitute a recommendation to city council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the development services department at (817) 392-8027. And thank you for your attention. Mr. Chair, commissioners, the order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.

Thank you very much, Steven. Commissioners, if you've had an opportunity to review the minutes from the meeting from last month's twentieth date, I'll entertain discussion or a motion.

I'll move to approve the minutes.

I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Singletary, the second by Commissioner Henderson. Henderson. Okay. If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Tidwell, 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 Singletary, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Carrion, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Boren, how do you vote?

Yes.

That vote passes.

Thank you very much. That passes unanimously. Okay. Steven, if you'll call the first case, please.

Sir, VA twenty five thousand and sixteen vacation of an alley and Block 51, North Of Fort Worth addition, Council District 2 being a vacation of alley and Block 51 North Fort Worth edition and addition of the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in volume 63 page one fifty nine plat records, Tarrant County, Texas located in the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. General location is North Of East Northside Drive, South Of East Central Avenue and West Of North Commerce Street, East Of North Main Street. The applicant is Nicholas Martin.

Okay.

Is the applicant present? Okay. Wait. State your name and city for the record, please, sir.

Reese Flanagan. Address is 306 West Seventh Street, civil engineer

on the project.

Okay. Yep. For

a for

a high level summary, we are requesting to abandon the alley. Nick Horn here with the development team has been working on redeveloping this area in the buildings adjacent to the alley. We worked with the adjacent homeowners and QuickTrip. The ultimate goal is to abandon the alley, make it a little more of a walkable lit up space to activate that development, but you also have the ability to secure it at night for the tenants and the people living at this development.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant?

Yes. So is the the purpose to renovate the existing structures that are on North Main or is it a demolish and rebuild?

So we we currently own the entire block from Central all the way to the quick trip. We've been consulting with all the homeowners behind it, the quick trip itself with which they're actually anxious to combine their two parcels there. We've also been working with the general historic North Side safety community that which represents business owners, members of the community, the NPO, other members of of the police. And so since we we own that entire block along Main Street there, over the last year and a half, it's been pretty consistent with individuals experiencing homeless have set up campsites in the area. We've had some some crime and some other drug use.

Same thing actually that's happening on the North Side Of Central. So there's a a city alleyway there that actually culminates in it's called there's a plaza there. Those homeowners and those business owners continue to have issues. So what we did on our side, since we only have five five homeowners homeowners in the QuickTrip, we said, well, let's we've also been community communicating with the Main Street, the the Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that's right across the street from us. So we've been working with all those groups.

Initially, we wanted to just kinda do some improvements, basically put down pavers, somewhat matching what's north of us. But because of the the consistent issues that night primarily, we would like to close it down. Our development, the Southern portion portion of it has 16 apartments that are gonna go in there. Sorry about that. 16 apartments that that will be going in there. So we do want them to feel safe at night. But during the day, since we're gonna have a restaurant, there's a Mexican ice cream store, a couple other. There's a Mercado that's going in there. We want it to be open during the day, but then be able to close it down at night because of security concerns.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, any additional questions for the applicant? I see none. Thank you very much for being here today. Appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else to speak, on the VA 25016 vacation of an alley or or against? Okay. I see none. So commissioners, I'll close the public hearing at this point. And this is in Council District 2, which is open. So I'll need motion, please.

I'll move to approve a row the recommendation to city council for the vacation of the alley in Block 51 North Fort Worth addition between East Northside Drive and East Central Avenue.

Thank you very much. Councilman Singletary has a motion for recommendation to city council for approval with a second by commissioner Okay. If you will call the vote, please.

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Tidwell, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you

vote? Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Singletary, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Carrion, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Boren, how do you vote? Yes. That vote passes.

Thank you very much.

Next case, VA 25,017, physical closure of Farnsworth Avenue on the east and west side of Merrick Street, Council District 6. Being a physical closure of Farnsworth Avenue on the east and west sides of Merrick Street located in the city of Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. General location North of Helmick Avenue, South Of Blackmore Avenue, West of Navelle Street, and East of Provost. Applicant is the city of Fort Worth.

Yes. The applicant is the city of Fort Worth. Is anybody representing the city here? I didn't think so. Okay. I do have one person to speak in favor. Mister Stafford? Welcome, mister Stafford. If you'll, state your name and city for the record, please, sir.

Mister Stafford. K.

And I assume you're in favor, Jose?

Yes. I'm in favor of it. And but I am also curious about how they're gonna do the cul de sac because there's a house that's been built and also purchased, and that's someone living it on the east side

of that closure.

Okay. Go ahead and pull the mic up a little bit there and there you go. Thank you.

There's been a house that's been built on the east side of the block

there.

And someone's living in there right now, so I'm just kinda curious on just how would they be able to do the cul de sac.

Okay. Alex, so this exhibit here is for the East Side Of Farnsworth Avenue. And our yeah. That's that says it's for the East Side. It might be might be flip flop, but this one here, they've acquired an easement from the properties to the north in order to create the cul de sac.

But you can see here that the the pavement is contained wholly within the existing right of way for the roadway. On the opposite side, they've had they're having to dip down a little bit outside of the right of way and acquire additional land from some of the properties on the south side for the for that cul de sac that they're proposing on the West side.

Yeah. And also another question that there's also a creek that runs through there also. Just curious how that I mean, how that's gonna be navigated with that creek that runs through there. It also has a blockage there.

They're physically closing the road, so they won't they're not doing anything to I don't know what the plans are for the road down the middle specifically, but the the the purpose of this is to eliminate the ability for someone if they unintentionally traversed past where the barricades apparently seem to have washed out. So they're gonna have physical barricades up there that will prevent someone from in the future of traversing into that into that area.

Okay. So they do need some be some more barricades. Because the barricades there now, they're all gone. Right. Need some there in a hurry.

I I think that's what we're planning on doing is actually closing off any access there. So yeah. So is there

any kind of timetable on when they get the barricades out there real soon?

Once this goes to council and is formally approved by council, they'll have the ability to go out there and do that. It'll probably be a few months from now. I don't have a specific date. Months?

Well, like I said, it's just that, you know, the barricades are all gone and there's nothing there right now.

I had a quick question.

Is there anybody from TPW here that might be able to comment on this? Maybe something temporary until a permanent closure?

Stubers at Transportation Development Services. I'm unaware of any short term plans, but there is a three one one system that I can I can show you how to use that, where you can report that issue and it can be a work order can be made and TPW can respond?

Great. Thank

you. I think think if possible, Stu, you can get his contact information and then figure it out and then go from

there. Yeah. Thank you very much. Hopefully, we'll get that closed off and we'll stop any any more danger there. K. Thank you very much for being here, miss Stafford. K. Is there anyone else to speak on, the physical closure of this portion of Farnsworth Avenue? VA 25017. I see no one else, so I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this point. And commissioner Turner is not here today, so we'll I'll need a motion. A

motion that we recommend to the city council the physical closure of the Farnsworth Avenue on the east and west sides of Merrick Street. Second.

I have a motion for recommendation to city council for approval by commissioner Lambert with a second by commissioner Okay. Call the vote, please, Michelle.

Commissioner Krantz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Tidwell, 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 Singletary, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Carrion, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Boren, how do you vote?

Yes.

That vote passes.

That is unanimous. Thank you very much. And before we call the third case, as stay I stated in our work session, I am recusing myself from the Woodhaven case. Vice chair commissioner Tidwell will be maintaining it. This was done after consultation with legal staff. I made the decision to recuse. Thank you very much.

So with that, we'll call p P25019.

P P 25019 Woodhaven GC Redevelopment Subdivision Golf Course, Texas local government code 2120155. Waiver request 31106 d two block length, 31 dash one zero one d internal roadway network connectivity, 12 mixed use lots, six multifamily lots, 10 single family detached residential lots, and one private space lot, Council District 5. General location North Of Booker Tone Boulevard, South Of Randall Mill Road, East Of Woodhaven Boulevard, and West Of Highwoods Trail. Applicant is Darryl Darryl Howard. Dunaway.

Thank you. To kinda set the stage, I'd like our our city attorney's office to to provide their input so we can get started.

Thank you. Rich McCracken, senior assistant city attorney. So as you will recall, this is a continuation of the initial public hearing that was held on 08/20/2025. As we talked about last time, your rules provide seven minutes for each side to present their case, three minutes for rebuttal, but it's at the chair's discretion to grant additional time for due cause. And so my recommendation with the number of people and potential speakers here that the chair grant additional time if needed to make sure we have a full hearing today.

At your table for each of you is a copy of section two twelve point zero one five five of the Texas Local Government Code like we did last time, we're gonna go through that again today to make sure you understand the statutory requirements and hopefully answer some questions you may have. I'm just gonna highlight some important parts, certainly if you have other questions we can address though. Those under subsection d, a new plat that is subject to this section may not be approved until each municipal authority reviewing the new plat conducts a public hearing on the matter at which the parties and interest and citizens have an adequate opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and submit statements or petitions for consideration by the municipal authority. And continuing on, you may abate, continue, or reschedule as the municipal authority considers appropriate any public hearing in order to receive a full and complete record on which to make a decision, which is how we landed here today since you continued the case last time and asked for some additional information. Believe we had gotten some questions.

In the city of Fort Worth, the plan commission is the municipal authority responsible for approving plots. The plot itself does not go to the city council for any approval. You are the final decision making authority on this matter. Moving on to subsection e, the municipal authority may not approve a new plat without adequate consideration of testimony and the record from the public hearings and make the findings required by subsection k. It goes on to discuss having thirty days after all proceedings in order to make a decision.

As we talked about last time, there's no real way to comply with the Open Meetings Act and render a later decision without calling another public hearing for you to deliberate and vote on that decision. So I don't I don't think we need to worry ourselves too much with that provision today. There's been a number of questions about subsection f that have come up since the last hearing, so I think it would be good to cover that. The municipality may provide notice of the initial hearing required by subsection D only after the requirements of subsection M and N are met, and the notice shall be given before the fifteenth day before the date of the hearing. Now that's of the initial hearing, and the initial hearing was held back on 08/20/2025.

And then it lays out the the manner in which that notice is provided, is publishing it in the official newspaper, providing written notice with a copy of this section of the local government code to each property owner's association for each neighborhood benefited by the subdivision golf course as indicated in the most recently filed management certificate and then there's a lots within 200 feet of the area subject to the new plat as indicated on the most recently approved municipal tax roll and in the most recent online records of the central appraisal district of the county in which lots are located. And any other manner determined by the municipal authority to be necessary to ensure the full and fair notice is provided to all owners of residential single family lots in the general vicinity of the subdivision Golf Course. So you're required to provide the notice letter and the city is required to provide a copy of this section of the local government code before the initial hearing, which was the hearing we held back on August 20. Under subsection I, this is a protest provision if written instruments protesting the proposed new platter signed by the owners of at least 20% of the area of the lots or land immediately adjacent to the area covered by a proposed new plat and extending 200 feet from that area and are filed with the municipal planning commission or municipality's governing body before the conclusion of the public hearings, the proposed new plat must receive to be approved the affirmative vote of at least three fifths of the members of the municipal planning commissioner governing body.

I have not been made aware of any petitions that have been delivered, so I don't believe that three fifths vote requirement has been triggered. Importantly for today, and I would ask that you put a star next to subsection k because I will recommend you come back to it after the public hearing today. And this is the the special findings. The Municipal Planning Commission or the governing body may not approve a new plat under this section unless it determines that. Number one, there is adequate existing or planned infrastructure to support the future development of the subdivision golf course.

Two, based on existing or planned facilities, the development of the subdivision golf course will not have a material adverse effect on a, traffic parking, drainage, water sewer, or other utilities. B, the health, safety, or general welfare of persons in the municipality. Or c, the safe, early, and healthful development of the municipality. Number three, the development of the subdivision golf course will not have a material adverse effect on existing single family property values. Number four, the new plot is consistent with all applicable land use regulations and restrictive covenants in the municipality's land use policies as described by the municipality's comprehensive plan or other appropriate public policy documents.

And number five, if any portion of a previous plat reflected restriction on the subdivision golf course, whether a, that restriction is an implied covenant or easement benefiting adjacent residential properties or b, the restriction or covenant or easement has been legally released or has expired. So as we discussed last time, my recommendation is that you return to this subsection after you you hear all the public testimony today and you may be looking at it as the testimony and any documents are submitted to you and that you go through and deliberate on each of these items to make a determination on whether or not you can make the determination required by these items. So moving on to subsection n, I wanna cover this briefly because there was questions on this item as well. A plan for development or a new plat application for a subdivision golf course is not considered to provide fair notice of the project and nature of the permit sought unless it contains the following information complete in all material respects. Number one, the street layout.

Number two, the lot and block layout. Three, the number of residential units. Four, location of non residential development by type of development. Five, the drainage, detention and retention plans. Six is screening plan for adjacent residential properties including landscaping or fencing.

And seven, an analysis of the effect of the project on values in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. So those are the requirements to consider your application filed. So staff made that determination at the August 20 meeting and set the case on your agenda. That is not really something that the plan commission itself can make a determination on because you'd have to hold the public hearing to make that determination under the open meetings act. So that's something the staff has to do on your behalf is make that determination, then send out the notices and set the case for the public hearing.

That's it as far as addressing the items specifically in the statute. Kind of reminds you, you know, most plots, you all have a ministerial duty. You don't get a lot of discretion. If the plat conforms with the requirements of state law and the city subdivision ordinance, you have to approve it. This special statute gives you certain determinations that you do have to make and so it's a little bit different than your regular plat.

I'll also remind you this is a preliminary plat. So this is just step one in the plotting process. We have to have this special hearing under the local government code. Assuming the preliminary plat were to be approved and the applicant still has to go through engineering, maybe additional studies and final plotting that may or may not come back before this commission depending on whether the plot conforms with the preliminary plot. So it's certainly not the end of what an applicant has to do in order to get a final plotted lot on the ground in order to do a development.

I will address very briefly, there was some correspondence regarding request for information that were made under the Public Information Act and in fact both a resident of the neighborhood and the applicant themselves made requests under the Public Information Act. I became aware on Monday that information had not been released, and so we worked diligently the last couple days to get it reviewed and get the staff to release it. So it is my understanding now that the information that was requested was released as of last night or late yesterday afternoon to both sides. That's about all I have to cover. I will answer any specific questions and I think staff will then go into their normal presentation that we give during the work session.

Plus we've got members from each of the infrastructure disciplines here to address briefly on the studies to answer your questions because that was the one major thing the plan commission inquired about last time was about the studies and what was in them and the status of them. So they'll be here to talk about the studies and hopefully answer your questions on those. So do you have any questions of me at this point?

Mr. Henderson. Rich, so language in here about what is materially adverse in section k, do we have any guidance from case law or anything guide us to what is or isn't materially adverse? Obviously there's increased traffic in the traffic study, so how much would be materially

Right, and so I'm not aware of any case law that answers that question, so when it's not answerable by the case law, generally what we do is use the common ordinary meaning of the words in the statute.

Yes, sir.

Yes, you made a statement that this is not the end of it, but if this body vote yes, it won't come back to us.

It may or may not.

So that's chance we have. It's a fiftyfifty chance.

So, if the preliminary plat is approved today, you make the findings you're required to make, and you find that the plat conforms with our rules and you approve it, that's just the preliminary plat. Then they have to go through engineering to actually design all the public infrastructure, the water, the sewer lines, the streets, the storm drainage that is necessary. And then they have to come back and apply for a final plat of that property. Recall And with the waivers you get, you cannot get a building permit without a final plat in the city unless the Planning Commission grants a waiver of that. So, the point of the conversation is this is the beginning, they certainly would not be finished before you see buildings go up.

It's a preliminary plat. It's preliminary in nature. You would not have the same hearing again though if you approve the plat today.

Mr. Singletary. So

if we as the commission found the subsection K findings and determine those did exist here. Does that cover the additional requirements we have under the city ordinance to make approvals of waivers to the

Right. Good question. So you have a couple things to do, right? You have the plot itself and whether there's any questions about whether or not it complies with our rules and regulations and that any plot comment should be addressed in the plot comments that are in the packet that was prepared for you from staff. It would tell you whether they're cleared or not and I'm sure they can answer those questions.

So that's one thing you have to decide. Another thing you have to decide is you have two waivers that are being presented to you, so you've gotta make a determination on those two waivers. And then additionally under the subsection you need to go through and make a determination on those items. Certainly it makes no sense to approve the plat if you could not make that positive determination on each of those items. So my recommendation is you start with those items, deliberate on those, make some determinations and then we'll go from there. But yes, we'll have to turn to the plot itself and the waivers that need to be considered today.

As for the commission's benefit, my plan is to entertain the question on the facts first, the finding of fact under that subsection. And depending on that vote, we may or may not move to the waivers. If we don't come to a conclusion on those that's positive, then there's no reason to entertain the waivers.

And you plan to have the full hearing of facts before we have the votes on the subsection K findings. Is that Will we? Yes. Yes, okay.

Good. I'm not gonna vote on anything until everybody has their say.

I had a question for Rich as well. Do you know what information was released last night?

So the I believe everything has been released to my knowledge that had been asked for. So it should be the studies, the plat, the waiver support letters, the economic impact analysis that I think there was two of those now that have been submitted. One, the initial and then later a new one that got provided.

Was there a, on the information that was supplied yesterday to those that requested it, was there a timeframe that's allotted to be able to review that information for those people that received it?

So there's nothing under this specific section to 12.0155 of the local government code. It doesn't speak on giving documents to anybody. It speaks on the application to the city being complete.

Thank you.

Any more questions for attorneys? Okay. We'll get started. You have staff reports you want to present first?

Alex is gonna go first and then we'll go into the people for and against.

All right, hello everybody. So again, we have PP2519 was continued from August month. So again, it's the Woodhaven Golf Course Development.

Can you get in the mic?

What's that? Sorry, not talking loud enough. Apologize. So basically what's being proposed here is a plat for a development that has mixed use, multi family and single family residence, and they're requesting waivers for interconnectivity and block based length. Just to give you context again on this one, there was a zoning case back earlier this year, ZC24147.

They initially requested just straight zonings for MU, A21, A5, CF, and UR, And when it went to city council, they amended what they approved there to be PDs. And in addition to what Rich said earlier where, you know, he said the process isn't complete after today, they also have requirements from zoning for both of these PD sites. They are PD site plan required. So with those, the site plans, they have to go to zoning commission and then city council approval for each of those PD sites. They didn't make a small update to the preliminary plat since the last meeting.

I'll go to the next page. On the Southwestern portion of the site, the Street A where there's the PD UR portion, They did remove the connection to Doral because I know there was a lot of opposition to the connection there. And I did ask the applicant, by eliminating that connection, they lost their second point of access. So with one point of access, they're only allowed to have up to 99 and they did tell me they're not going to request a waiver, so they're not gonna have more than 99 multifamily units from what I'm aware of on this portion of the site. And with the other I'll go back to the first page.

With the block face links, they were requesting them initially for the mixed use portion down the center of the site there. We did ask them or we recommended denial for that center portion just because because the mixed use ordinance calls for more of an urban small block design, and they have since broken it up into smaller blocks with public access easements and public use easements. And the rest of the site is still pretty much the same since the last time they have the A21 large residential lots that they're proposing for the rest of the site. And again, that subdivision golf course ordinance I put on here. I don't have an up to date site plan, so I just decided not to put it on this slide.

The only thing I currently have at the moment is the landscape plan that shows how they're screening their site. Also, again, they provided an updated economic impact analysis. I'm gonna defer to the applicant who will go more into detail on what they've submitted here, but they did provide two examples where a golf course was developed into residential and I see there's commercial here as well. And I'll defer to transportation on the first presentation here.

Before you do that, can I just ask a question about the recommendation of DRC? What I have in front of us in my packet is that they're recommending approvals and I don't see a denial.

Right, initially we had recommend, yes, because they changed their site up to kind of meet us in the middle on our recommendations, so we're recommending approval for the waivers this time. It's slightly different from before, but we're recommending approval, yes.

All right, thanks

for clearing that up.

Do have one question. So do we know the number of residential units being planned?

So I did receive a document, I believe I think yeah. Maybe Rich can talk to it, but I think it might have been a transportation study that they stated how many units they're providing. Stu might be able

to tell you, but. The top of my head, I can't remember what the number was.

I'm not concerned with a number. I'm concerned with a document that shows how many units they're planning.

Right, so that based on my discussions with the applicant, that information is only within their transportation improvement analysis, their TIA, which you should have a copy of. If you look at the first few pages, I'm sure we can pull it up, there's a summary of the proposed units for that development.

So since it isn't shown on the plat, the number of residential units, is that transportation study then binding?

So it is. The transportation study is a plot application requirement of the city. You cannot get your plot approved unless you have an approved study. We will not approve that plot. And so as you'll recall for every case that comes before you hear that they've submitted their studies and what the status of the study is and whether it's been approved or not. And so that is a requirement of the city to get approved plat.

I apologize, but I'm probably not being clear enough. If in the past, people have submitted transportation studies, changed their plans from the preliminary to the final plat, conducted a new transportation analysis, gotten it approved by staff and it doesn't come back to us. My question is, if they said a 100 units or whatever the number is, is that going to be binding on the developer?

So what's ultimately binding gets bound on the developer is a, they're showing you single family residential lots in the a five areas. That's pretty easy to count up the number of lots and you're not gonna be able to do anything without revising that plot. For the other areas, it's based on their zoning. Right? There's a maximum density that you can do for multifamily mixed use as far as what our zoning ordinance allows you to do.

And so we would assume maximum density on those with the caveat that as we would just discuss, they are capped at 99 units on that one street with one point of access for multifamily. They can't do anymore. And also as part of their zoning, they are limited I believe is to two stories in certain areas. And so they've got some height limits that would theoretically cap them at the number of units they can bring.

Rich, I'm looking at the criteria in the statute. And one of the criteria for us hearing this is a plan that states the number of residential units. And that's where I'm trying to get to is do we have that number?

And my understanding is those numbers are provided in the transportation improvement analysis, the TIA. They've provided those numbers.

And if those numbers change,

what's Right. So if those numbers change, as you recall, would have to submit a revision or a memo or something on their TIA. If they're changing the number of their lot layouts, as you will recall under the ordinance, staff has certain ability to approve minor revisions to apply to add less than 5% more of the lots. Otherwise, it comes back to you. So.

This isn't this isn't the subdivision ordinance.

Right.

And that's my.

Right. And so if if they got to that point, my recommendation would be bring it back potentially just on that item.

Thank you. Sorry to

ask a follow-up on that because I had

Mr. Henderson.

Because this statute says providing fair notice includes the number of residential units. Are we sure we've met that because that was flat and it was part of the transportation study that wasn't available for the public?

Right, so their application included their transportation impact analysis that included those numbers. So staff made the determination that they had met the statutory requirement because of that.

Thank you. Thank you, Rich. Any more questions for Rich?

Yes. Everything that we talked about at the last meeting, were they able to get it out to the public in the correct timing?

So I I think you will hear from the public that no, their position is they've not gotten that. I will let them present that information to you during the hearing.

Questions? Thank you.

Alright.

Stu?

Yeah. Alright, guys. So they submitted a traffic study earlier this year. We accepted it in March. I have three slides that kinda summarizes the study and its conclusions.

So at the very front end of this, the development is projected to generate about 400 trips in the morning commute time and about 500 trips in the evening commute time. In both instances, about 100 of those trips are internally captured within the development. And generally, the study assumed trips would be primarily to and from I eight twenty for North South trips and 30 for East West trips. Two key intersections of this development where it connects to the existing transportation system is the intersection of Country Club in Boca Raton and the intersection of Randle Mill and what I believe is called Street B on their preliminary plat. It's called, like, Driveway B in the study, but same thing.

Currently at the Country Club and Boca Raton intersection, there are about 600 trips in both commute periods. In the forecasted trip the fork the the forecasted analysis, this development generates a 160 trips in the morning peak hour and a hundred hundred and nineteen in the PM peak hour. That's a small a relatively small percentage of the total trips forecasted for that intersection, and it maintains level of service, which means it operates appropriately. The Random Mill Street B to the north is much busier. In the morning, it has 800 trips, and the evening, it has about 1,200 trips.

So very busy. Again, this development adds one hundred and sixty and one hundred and thirty trips in two peak hours. Again, a relatively small percentage of the total trips forecasted. So the conclusions of this were that the Reindle Mill and Hanley Ederville Intersection fails or sorry, I had I amended this slide after the fact. But it has a level of service e, which is at maximum capacity in the PM peak hour and then currently it has LOSE in the morning peak hour. So it's already at maximum capacity in the morning now, and then in the forecast, it is at maximum capacity in the evening peak hour.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that.

Yeah, so the intersection is at capacity currently. And in the future, if if this development proceeds, it will be at capacity in the evening. That makes sense? And so yeah. So so was that clear? I probably explained that poorly.

So it's at capacity now?

Traffic capacity. Yeah. LOSE. And then I I also have my engineering manager here to explain engineering principles to you more if needed.

So the level of service is basically a concept that identifies how the intersections or the street segments operates. And, it's, basically different levels from a up to f, with f being the failing conditions. We didn't reach that level yet. We are at e, which is the maximum capacity at which an intersection or a corridor can operate. And we are at e with with the existing without the the development traffic. When the development traffic is added to the intersection, it's gonna still operate at e as well.

Thank you. A few

more a few more bullets.

I'm sorry.

So unsignalized intersections in the study perform an acceptable level of service at build out. If it's signalized, it can be optimized later on by TPW if if they determine there to be a need. And the the overall general conclusion of the traffic study is that compared to the existing traffic at study intersections, the development has minimal impact to the surrounding network. After the internal circulation changes were made when the preliminary plat, we requested a update memo from the from the applicant, and that was given to you all this morning or this at noon. And that, again, shows that the changes did not impact the conclusions of the study.

That's what I got for you. Any questions?

Yes. So thank you. Question is what I was not able to really determine is what the forecast is for cut through trips along Street A, down Country Club Lane on the Newton portion all the way to Random Mill. Do you have a summary of that? Sure. So what I was trying to understand is how many trips we expect to cut through the neighborhood along Country Club Lane and then on Street A through Durano Mill.

Yeah. So I guess we can get back. Do you have

the

exhibits? Okay. So I will have to use my engineering I don't have the numbers. So with the two intersections being impacted very slightly compared to the existing with maybe 17% to 20%, I will say if we divided this equally on the four directions, north south, east, and west, that will be maybe close to 5% to 7% cut through traffic.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yes,

sir. So if I understand the study's findings, it's that these two major intersections are currently at capacity.

Yeah. I'm sorry.

They're not at capacity today.

One of them one of them is at capacity today. Okay. One is operating properly.

And then after the development, the expectation is that they they will then both be marginally increased in traffic, putting both at at capacity. Still only one is at at capacity.

Are you referring to Boca Raton and Country Club and Random Mill and Street b?

Yes.

Okay. So those ones are operating fine right now and they'll continue to operate fine in the future. They're not they're not capacity.

So what was the at capacity?

Mendel Mill and Hanley, Ederville.

Okay. Okay.

Questions? So my my last question is, it goes back to the discussion we were having earlier. We need to know the number of residential units that has been submitted.

Yeah, the number is also is not on the top of my head. But if I will have to use my engineering guess being with the side generating close to four thirty traps in the morning, I would say that's going to be maximum 600 units.

600 units?

Maximum. But we do have that number in the study. And when that number gets changed significantly, we request a new TI for sure.

Thank you.

I have another few slides for drainage. They'll speak on these.

Hello. Robin Stevens with Stormwater Development Services. So they have submitted and have an accepted preliminary drainage study DS twenty five forty two. The study took a look at the zone of influence for the project and the overall development at a preliminary level. So that means that they still have to go through final drainage studies in order to to the rest of the processes. So right now the study that we have accepted on file does support the overall layout for the preliminary plat with the proposed site usage and zoning.

They do have an approved drainage

study? They have an approved drainage study for the preliminary plat only. There will be additional studies to support the phases moving forward.

Any questions on drainage study?

There is also an accepted preliminary flood study that looked at the overall development in relation to the floodplain and any proposed grading changes along with the valley storage relating to the West Fork Trinity River. Overall development from a high standard is not showing an increase in that water surface elevation so the preliminary flood study supports this overall preliminary layout with the floodplain easements.

So in staff's opinion they have provided drainage detention and retention plans? Plans?

Yes. Okay,

thank you.

Do you have any more questions for me?

I don't see any.

Okay, thank you.

So going back to the recommendation, we are recommending approval for the four block face waivers due to the fact that they amended their site to kind of meet the requirements we had in the last meeting. And then we are recommending approval of the interconnectivity waiver.

That's it.

Will say I am sorry. I'm going to lean on the public and the applicant just to and y'all make the determination on the subdivision golf course aspect of this because I know they're going provide a lot of information on this.

Can I ask one other question real quick? Looking through the staff comments, I know, Rich, you mentioned there's a cap of 99 multifamily units when there are only two points of ingress or egress. In the comments, it looks like there's also maybe a cap at 29 or 30 for single family units when there's only two points of ingress egress. Is that accurate?

It depends on the way it's built out. If we go with the assumption that they're building it multifamily, it would be a 99 unit cap. But if they built it out like single or two family, it would be a 30 unit cap. It's a requirement from fire but it depends on how they build it out.

So I was looking at the traffic impact analysis, and it does state in here that the multi family housing, the assumptions are two eighty nine units. Are you saying that's been revised down or is it a different?

So to answer Commissioner Kranz's question, if you look at Street A here, that's what's on the slide. See how it's basically a cul de sac. So there's a large amount of development around that. It's all zoned UR. And in UR, can do a multitude of different development types.

They could do single family all the way up to multi family. And so depending on what type of development type they decide to do there dictate how many units they can have. If they decide to go with multifamily throughout that entire area, they can have up to 99 units. If they decided to go with a single family typology or plexes, it would be up to a 30 unit cap. So it depends on the development typology they decide to choose within that UR section. That's the reason why it's stated that way in the staff report because they have multiple typologies within that same zoning category.

And if they include both types of development, are they capped at both?

They can't do both. They can't do 30 single family dwelling units and 99 units on the same point of access. Fire will not

Got it. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Commissioner Henderson.

Okay. Thank you for that. So I was looking at what the number of units was in the application just to understand. So in that traffic impact analysis, it does state 29 single family detached housing, 28 single family attached housing, and two eighty nine multifamily housing will rise. So, that seems like maybe it's more than what they're now saying with the limits they're changing, right?

I believe I'd have to go to the assumption that they're going to put those additional multifamily units on the mixed use portion of the site. But they explicitly told me they wouldn't be going over the 99 unit cap on the

PDU R portion. Okay. Alright, thank you.

Thank you. Any more questions?

Alright. I guess the sorry. And no more questions. Alright. Sorry. Thank you.

Is that all of the staff reports? Okay. Thanks. We're gonna move into the public comment portion. We're gonna divide it into those in favor and those opposed.

I'd like to start with the developer, mister Norman. Mister Northern? There was some discussion you heard earlier about the seven minute criteria and I realized that we're not gonna get this done in seven minutes. I I would like to ask everyone before we start that we keep to a minimum the number of repeat points that are made and bring new information when you speak. Thank you. Mr. Northern. Hold on.

I'm to trying make sure that You want me to come grab that?

We just lost thirty seconds.

Well, if we can grab the other clicker. Anyways, I'll go ahead and do my intro. First of all, I wanna thank y'all. I know it's kinda been a long process, both for staff, both for the board. So we really do appreciate it. My name is Tyler Wallach. I am an attorney with Jackson Walker, and I represent the applicant. So we're gonna kinda take a team approach on this. So I'll start it off, and I think the assistant city attorney kind of stole my thunder on a lot of the that I was gonna present. But I'll go ahead and reiterate some of it for y'all anyways. The next person up after me will be Darrell Howard. He's with Dunaway and Associates. He's our civil engineer, he can help go through all the plotting information. And then we have Jason Klontz as well. He's with Catalyst and he did the economic impact analysis.

And then you'll see me come back up after that.

We're gonna need green sheets on everybody.

Yes. I think everybody has a okay. Yes. Everybody has a green sheet. So in terms of, like, a summary of this request, I think the first thing that we need to remember for kind of everybody is that zoning for this has already been done. Right? City Council did that. They did that back in February 2025. It was a long process. And then City Council approved the zoning, four different zoning, so I think you'll see here. And so what we're asking for here is really just approval of the preliminary plat. One thing to remember as well is that the applicant here is a horizontal developer. Right? He's not the vertical developer. And so in terms of, like, unit count and all those things that we've discussed before, those things, they will be governed by the the zoning.

They will be governed by the building code as well. And we won't they we we can't go over the amounts of of units that are allowed by law. But what we have here today is a preliminary plat with the waiver. And it's worth noting that these approvals are supported by city staff and the development review committee. So brief history, some of the stuff I found out as well.

So this is actually a 149 acre Woodhaven Golf Course. It's actually part of a much larger development with the Woodhaven Country Club Estates. It's actually 740 acres that was purchased back in 1969. It was a mixed use development predominantly mixed use with single family, multifamily, and commercial, with multifamily actually being the dominant use in that area. It was built out over 13 phases across sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and into the February as well.

Skipping through some history, the current owner purchased the property back in 02/2024. And I've said before, rezoned it with city council approval back February 2025. We have four zoning categories. We have urban residential, MU one which is low intensity mixed use, a 21 which is 21,000 square foot lots, and agricultural as well. So as your assistant city attorney was saying, you know, this isn't your normal process and this and what I can tell, this is probably one of the first times, if not the first time, this has been done in the city of Fort Worth.

So this is precedent setting for everybody in this room, I think that's worth noting. And I know we were talking about the plat application earlier, and so we have different rules that have to apply to this plat application and different rules that y'all have to apply when looking at this application. And what I want to point out in this is that we submitted everything to the city that was required by law in order for the city to send out notice in order for the public to have adequate notice of this hearing. And those are all the things that were included. You already know your powers and duties, so I'm not gonna reiterate those.

So, again, your assistant city attorney went over all of these as well. So I'm not gonna go over them again, but what I will say is when we go through this presentation, we're gonna do this very systematically. We're gonna go through each of the elements. We're gonna hit each of the elements one by one and show you how we meet them. So that way, if you have questions later on, happy to answer them.

But you can follow it with the elements as we're going down, a b c d e. And I would say, right, that with regard to number one, what you'll see is and what we'll show with both the testimony and the evidence is that there is adequate infrastructure. There will be adequate infrastructure to serve this development. There's no material adverse effect on either the infrastructure, public health safety, existing single family property values as well. That the plat is consistent with land use regulations and with the comprehensive plan, and that there are a few easements out there.

They traverse the the development. There are utility easements mostly. So you got water, sewer, electric. But the good thing is that whoever's gonna get in there and develop, the city's gonna require if they're clay, that those have to be improved. They have to be enhanced from clay. They have to be enhanced up to PVC pipe, and there would be no disruption in service either. Y'all had asked earlier about the Platte waivers. So yes. So you have our our interpretation, I think, the assistant city attorneys as well, is that have to find for those elements that are in the statute in addition to the elements that we have in the city code for the plat waivers. And one of the reasons why this this presentation is is is gonna take a little bit longer than you're used to.

But what we'll show again is that each one of those waivers, there's a reasonable difficulty from strict compliance with the code, not detrimental to the public health and safety, or it's not gonna injure other properties as well, and that will not prevent the use or orderly development of any other tracks. And at this point, I'm gonna hand it off to Darrell Howard, again, who is with Dunaway and Associates. He's gonna take you through a lot of the technical aspects.

Everyone. Darrell Howard with Dunaway Associates in Fort Worth. Thanks city staff for going over the the studies and where we are today. So I'll be going over just the development plan and hopefully answer some of your your questions that that you have. So, again, this is the development plan.

The the areas that are highlighted in the in the different colors show that the separate zoning areas. So the yellow is a 21. You've got the M U 1 in pink along Street C that that connects to Randall Mill, and then you have the UR residential in blue there. The the red hatched areas are areas that are undevelopable. That's due to floodplain limits and topography limits adjacent to the the apartment complex.

The apartment complex is is lifted up on on a hill. Big takeaway from from this map is, again, the Doral Street was was removed, you could see that here. The the dark dash line is the proposed public right away through the property. So you could see connection from Randall Mill down to Country Club Lane. And maybe to address the the question on the the number of units.

So the area in blue, that would be limited to the 99 units or the or the 30 single family family units, just that area in particular. The the unit count that's addressed into the in the traffic study is for the whole whole development. I'll go to the next slide. Sorry. Okay.

This is just an overview of the existing zoning. Big takeaway here is that there is a 200 foot this is in green on the screen. There's a 200 foot buffer setback from Oakmont Lane North Street. So from those a five units, there's a 200 foot setback there. That's in again, in the green area.

And then this was mentioned. Two story height restriction is adjacent to Doral and the Oakmont, southern portion of Oakmont to the south. This is the landscape plan. Just briefly, proposed street trees along the public right of way as proposed on the site. So, again, I said the dash line is the proposed public right of way.

There are other access points via public access easements and public use easements. And then the there's existing tree canopy that's shown on here. That's kind of the splotching of of green areas that you see there. Another requirement is that there's required screening from residential units. So from there's a 20 foot buffer yard required as well as proposed trees and screening screening fences.

This is just a snapshot of the drainage study that drainage studies have been going over, so I'll skip through this. Again, the plat has been reviewed by city staff. But just briefly, you could see the proposed public accesses. Those are the dash lines that you you see on the map. Street A was reviewed.

This is a portion side. It's Random Mill. Street C ties into Random Mill. That's the eight twenty one lots, large lots. Dash lines going through our sanitary sewer easement easements that exist on the property, some of which need to be upgraded from clay pipe to PVC.

This is a southern quadrant of the development. Quick overview of the the block based waivers that we are requesting. So they range from 500 feet to 2,200 feet. So whether those occur. So this is Block 1.

You can see it's very linear. Length there. To break up the blocks, you you need, in this case, east and west access to break up the blocks, which we we don't have because of the floodplain to the to the west and lighted lots to the east. This is Block 3. This block faces about only a little over the 500 foot requirement minimum.

Sorry. Maximum. So we're unable to break up this lot just because of reduced access to the south and because of topography. There's extreme slopes through that lot. And there's Block 7 here.

This is the existing country club. So this one is about 900 foot block face length along Street C. So that's that exceeds the 500 foot. So we're asking for a waiver for that. However, we are providing a public access easement along the northern portion of this lot as well as a public use easement down the western side of the lot for pedestrian access to sidewalk that's on Country Club Lane to the south.

Then lastly, for the block face waivers, this is Block 8. It's a very linear, irregular layout. Unable to break this one up because of, you know, no access to the east because of the existing existing planet lots. It's a very long block. However, there is varying uses along this block.

And then north, there's a 200 foot buffer yard setback. Then further south, there's some extensions of the existing lots that would tie into the proposed street c. And then further down, the block actually transitions into the a 21 lots. Going over some of these bullet points already, but these are the reasons for the the waiver request. So former golf course bound by the single family, multi family, light at lots, floodplain.

Again, it's no detriment to the public for the waivers that we're requesting. And this is just a snippet of the inter internal connectivity index. So, generally, to meet this requirement well, over what we have. So it's it's calculated as point eight. The requirement is a minimum of 1.4.

The reason we're unable to hit that is because, generally, you would need cross streets and and more t intersections, which are unable to provide just because of the existing plat of lots. So, again, you could see the proposed public right away with no east west access, very limited east west access. Again, topographical constraints due to the floodplain, irregular geometry. Public. So this goes back into the studies which Steph has discussed already.

So, again, these studies are are accepted and they each of them do require I I don't know that this was stated, but there is some planned signal timing updates for a couple of the of the intersections on Woodhaven Boulevard at the intersection of I-thirty. I believe it's Bridge Street and Brentwood. Those intersections will require some timing updates. And then this just goes over that no adverse impacts due to the proposed development. So adequate water and sewer, there's proposed water and public right of way.

There'll be another water connection to Randall Mill. So it'd be another access point for public water. There's proposed detention ponds that are required. There will be additional studies on those. Traffic study. Talked about that.

You have a much more? Sorry? How much longer?

Oh, right now, I'll be passing over to Jason Claunch to go over the economic impact analysis.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Thanks.

Commission, Jason Klanche with Catalyst Commercial. We were in charge of conducting the economic impact analysis and also the study on the adjacency. In essence, the economic impact study is pretty straightforward. We used REMS data, looked at the investment and the spend both on construction and operations. Obviously, there would be economic output associated with that. We do believe that that would have positive impact on the adjacent neighborhood, just providing amenities, additional investment, and access to jobs. We looked at a second study,

and

we looked at about 189 golf courses. There's no perfect analog out there. A number of the golf courses have still remained closed. Those that we saw that were in a closed condition and weren't maintained, most of those have declined in value. I understand this course is at least being cleaned up and at least some level of low maintenance. The two case studies that we looked at were Willow Springs and another project down in Bryan, Texas that we're actually been involved in with the city activate. So we're familiar with those two projects. They were both close to this. One, Willow Springs, primarily residential. Bryan is obviously primarily commercial.

And so that gave us two different perspectives to look at. We looked at both values adjacent to the golf course. We also looked at values from one mile to the course just to see if there's any deviation between declines maybe increases outside of that adjacency in the one mile region. And essentially in both studies, we found both increases in values adjacent to the courses after development compared to their values prior to the closure. And we also found that the area in one mile also increased.

So we feel like that based on at least the statistical evidence that in this case there would be no adverse impact to value from the redevelopment of the proposed Woodhaven Golf Course based on at least the evidence we found.

I had a quick question for you. So when you did the study on the other two golf courses, were they similar to the Woodhaven Golf Courses?

They were somewhat similar to Woodhaven. I know that obviously Woodhaven has a proposed probably more open space than the Willow Springs Golf Course. That's primarily majority of residential that's been included within the infill. There are some pocket parks what you'd find in a traditional residential development, but I believe Woodhaven would have more open space, at least as proposed. On the other hand, I think the City of Bryan desires that they're maintaining that park atmosphere.

They're activating that with purely commercial uses, more around sports tourism. And so they've maintained a substantial amount of open space, but they've been programming that along the internal spine very similar to this. Unfortunately, there's no exact replica of this golf course geometric conditions and market conditions. A number of the courses have remained closed. A number of those sort of remain in a state of disrepair.

And those are declining in values, which definitely would hurt the neighborhood. The other courses we've seen have sort of gravitated towards public uses, maybe parks or increased storm water detention. There were a number of facilities that we looked at that maybe had multifamily, but there were very few there was very few data sets in terms of sample size that we could really get an idea of what's happening adjacent to the golf course that we felt like would be more statistical than the two proposals that we provided in the analysis.

Thank you.

I will say that there's been other analysis similar to this and the results are very similar, that there was no adverse impact to the adjacent neighborhood. I think the majority of the studies have been done in Florida and those are consistent with our findings as well.

Thank you. Any more questions? Seeing none.

It's okay. I'm gonna wrap up real quick. There's two more elements. I'll get through them quickly. Don't worry. I appreciate your patience. So the fourth one is if the plat's consistent with applicable land use regulations in the comp plan. And based on the information, the evidence that you've seen so far, which is the preliminary plat, development plan, plan for required buffers, landscape plan. The answer is yes. All of that is compliant. And with the waivers, yes, it absolutely will be compliant. The restrictions and the easements, we've gone over this before. Here's a map that kind of outlines where those utility easements are, both over water and sewer. As we said, you know, if they're clay, they'll be enhanced and upgraded up to PVC. There'll be no interruptions in service.

There'll be workarounds to keep providing service. Here's the conclusion, and we hope that y'all approve our preliminary plat with the waivers. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more questions?

Okay. I had a question.

Sorry. Go ahead, mister.

From the last time last time we're here, remember there's a big discussion about Doral Drive. And my question was, and I can't remember, but was this preliminary plat changed to cause that to be a dead end and not a pass through.

That was my understanding. Can we hear from staff? I want to hear from staff.

Right. With the newest submittal, they removed that connection to Dorril, and that's where the issue of the 99 unit limit came up because they only had

the one point of access off country club now. That was done after the last Okay. Break

Thank you. Any other questions? We have a stack of folks that are wanting to speak in support. Is Mr. Northern here?

Afternoon, Commissioners. Will Northern. I submitted a printed out presentation for you that I would ask that you get in front of you as we kind of go through this and so I'm going to take a step back and kind of discuss the project at a high level kind of from a macro standpoint. But first I want to thank you for being on the Planning Commission. I served on Fort Worth's Zoning Commission for eight years and presided over 1,500 cases so I've been in your seat and appreciate your service.

I've been a licensed real estate broker for fifteen years and served on the zoning commission for eight years and so collectively that skill set whenever I began learning about Woodhaven and the fact that the golf course had been closed for five years I thought I could add value to the property and to the neighborhood. Golf ceased five years ago in 2020 during the pandemic and storm Uri broke the pipes throughout the entire golf course and the clubhouse. The insurance proceeds that could have been available to try to remediate property not make it to the property and so the state of the property when we acquired it in 2024 it was in pretty rough shape. Had not been mowed parts had not been mowed for years. That is a picture of me next to eight foot tall weeds.

The ponds are in rough shape. Going on to slide number two. So lots of overgrowth. We began mowing the property which took candidly months to tame. It was a very wet spring last year.

We're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars mowing annually simply to maintain the property and you add on taxes and insurance and code compliance it really starts to add up. So something needs to happen with this property. The third slide the clubhouse building itself has been vandalized numerous times even before we took ownership. It's been broken into almost a dozen times since we've owned it. We've worked closely with law enforcement to secure the property however all valuable copper etc.

Has been stripped from inside the building from the breakers to the HVAC. We put up glass whenever glass is broken and we really have worked to re stabilize the property from a mowing standpoint and just securing the structure and trying to make it look better. The next page highlighting a few studies that have been done by various organizations in the city. This is a 2023 conservation plan that the Fort Worth neighborhood conservation plan was done. And you'll note that Woodhaven is labeled as challenged and influx by its two orange and dark red categories there.

And there on the bottom left, that legend, you'll see that the recommendation for action to be taken for neighborhoods in that state is to first stabilize the property, which is what we've done by mowing and securing it. And the next is targeted investment. That is why we're here. We are seeking to bring targeted investment to Woodhaven which desperately needs it. Next slide.

I think it's worth addressing that the various local governments including the county and all of the taxing jurisdictions in Fort Worth Tarrant County have come together and created a TIF number 13 for Woodhaven. They are sacrificing tax revenue in hopes of promoting development in the neighborhood. You'll note the golf course land is included in that and so that is a tool that hopes to attract private investment and so the TIF is there to help subsidize the public infrastructure that would be built to try to encourage the private development community to take the risk to build anything here. Next slide. In addition, the city of Fort Worth has created a neighborhood empowerment zone for Woodhaven.

Neighborhood empowerment zone does several things to reduce the burden on the development community. There's a lot of costs doing development so NEZ is the city's way to signal to developers come here and we will waive various fees such as permitting fees. There's a tax abatement for the city component taxes to freeze those. There's impact fee waivers and a litany of other waivers trying to encourage the development community to come build here. Next slide.

As I mentioned there's a TIFF and a TIFF board. That TIFF board hired an independent third party to conduct an economic analysis of Woodhaven. They hired Interface Studios, which is an outfit that has done a handful of studies in Fort Worth in the past, including the Downtown 2030 plan and a couple others I can't think off the top of my head. So this Woodhaven conservation plan came from that and what's important to note is that this independent study assembled a task force that was mostly comprised of Woodhaven residents that live in Woodhaven. Many of them were handpicked by then Councilwoman Gina Bivens to ensure that there was equitable representation by those in the community.

They wanted a breadth of voices. And I want to highlight on this slide the quote that came from that report that the study in its analysis welcomes a mix of uses to drive quality redevelopment of the clubhouse and grounds in line with community priorities in a walkable hub straight from the report. The next slide is also contained within that report. You'll see a proposed road that runs from Randall Mill to Country Club and denotes medium density mixed use development along that road that runs not too dissimilar from ours. We have a different location of the road, but the sentiment is the same.

This firm Interface Studios has a planning background with planners, so that's where they're creating this analysis. So there's many similarities. But that new road there's a mix of green space which we also have in our plan mixed use development and housing as we have in our plan. The next slide just to reiterate we were serving on zoning commission for eight years. This is a rather creative zoning that has been applied that we worked in collaboration with the community over nine months and the zoning commission voted unanimously to approve it and then the City Council voted unanimously to approve our zoning request.

And the final slide so I like to think that this has been a very collaborative process. We've had lots of public meetings and we've made changes. We've adapted our plan. I've hired I'll say some of the best consultants around and really appreciate the team's work and city staff as well to pull this together. This is not a simple development to say the least.

We were intentional in choosing form based code for MU1 and UR. Those are flexible zoning categories but they also require a higher architectural aesthetic. They require street trees, street lights and encourage a walkable walkable environment we worked with the community also on the planning phase as you can see we removed the connection from Doral trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood. We can't make everyone happy. So I ask humbly ask that you please approve this preliminary plat so that Woodhaven and all of East Fort Worth can receive the investment that it desperately needs and deserves.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Northern, I wanna thank you for your thoroughness of the various presentations. I appreciate the effort to comply or at least get us the information so that we can be sure we're in compliance with the state statute as well as the city ordinance going forward. From my perspective, there's still one question related to the state statute that I haven't gotten a solid number yet. I suspect you have that number and that's the number of residential units in this subdivision.

So again as stated by my attorney our role in this is as the horizontal developer and we're relying upon the zoning and all of the code to give that flexibility to the final vertical developer but in creating all of our assumptions we did provide numbers within the traffic study as is required.

There's a requirement in the state law that the developer provide the number of residential units. Do So we have that number?

Yes, those numbers are in the traffic study. And so I'm gonna ask Mr. Harrell Howard to come and read those off. Thank you. Absolutely.

Mr. Howard.

Yes. Excuse me while I pull this up. I'll read this off. Sorry we don't have a snippet of this. So the the study for single family detached, we were estimating 29 units.

Single family attached, we're estimating 28 units. Multifamily, this would be low rise. We were assuming two eighty nine units. And the rest of these are just recreational facility. The rest of these numbers are generated to its multi purpose recreational facility, general office building, strip retail. So there's numbers

I'm in interested in making sure that we're in compliance with the statute and the statute calls for the number of residential units. Is that

Right. It would be 29 single family detached, 28 single family attached, and then two eighty nine multifamily.

Thank you. Mr. Martin? Here in favor. John Wood.

Good afternoon. I am in favor personally, but I'm here as a resident. I'm in favor because I think it will promote the tax base. But I'm here in my capacity, as a founder of a nonprofit working in the neighborhood. And in that capacity, we do not, wanna influence any political decision making.

I just wanna to give you information about the work that we are doing in the neighborhood and take that context. Economics is working with Woodhaven's ILT charter school leadership and students as well as volunteers from Texas Christian University to run an agricultural education program, and we are seeking to obtain site control of a parcel G that was described, a piece of land that is absolutely perfect for our charitable mission. Mission. To conserve important natural resources like a scenic hillside, a freshwater pond that lie at the heart of the historic Woodhaven Golf Course. The idea to preserve some of the beauty and accessibility of this course, to host field trips with an experiential outdoor classroom, grow food for the benefit of income eligible families in that neighborhood, supplementing the food bank with fresh produce, ensuring a safe place to play on the grass and under shade that is specifically lacking in Woodhaven.

There is one park, Quanah Parker Park. It is concrete and metal. It's not safe for children in the Texas heat, so green space would be more suitable. To preserve some of the old growth tree planting orchards, designing an educational corridor like a walking path with interpretation signage, and collaborating with universities on water, soil, crop science, and public health research as we steward this land for the public benefit. And that parcel does have pre existing maintenance sheds that were used to take care of this 150 acres that are already there, so our land use would not require any new buildings.

It has frontage on Randall Mill so it would not pull any traffic through the residential portions of that neighborhood. That farming equipment or whatever we end up needing would be completely out of sight of there. We believe our programs on Parcel G would provide the youth in the neighborhood a safe place to learn and play outdoors and our mission would benefit from Platt approval because it would allow us steward, beautify and seek beneficial uses of this piece of land. So I cannot speak to other parcels or the general decision that you have in front of you but just to let you know that is our vision for Parcel G and making that a reality depends on the plat being approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Next we have Paul Kerpo. I hope I didn't butcher your name too badly.

Good afternoon. I'm Paul Kerpo, a Fort Worth resident and a member of the Woodhaven Community Development Corporation's Board of Directors. You have on file a letter from the corporation supporting this. I'd like to add a few comments beyond that letter. Last month, you heard from five Woodhaven residents opposing this proposal.

They spoke of issues of safety and quality of life, which are relevant here. They also spoke of issues of zoning and land use, which are not. Even though Crexendo has made significant concessions regarding the relevant issues since that meeting, I suspect you'll hear from them again today. You will not hear from any residents of Woodhaven, including the owners of the other eight zero eight single family homes or any of the owners of the commercial businesses there. In your considerations, I'd like you to act in the greater good of Woodhaven and the city of Fort Worth, and not to those who are in opposition.

I'd like to mention that over the course of the last eighteen months, the developer has held nearly a dozen public meetings, each attended, except for the last, by between one hundred and two hundred residents presenting them to oppose or comment on proposals. I request that you evaluate this application on the technical merits of its integrity and its regulatory compliance and approve it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Mr. Keith Larson.

Hello and thank you. My name is Larson. I live on Oak Hollow Lane in Woodhaven. I believe that the Crescendo development as laid out in the planning application is a benefit to all members of the Woodhaven community. The MU 1 and UR zone portions have significantly improved entitled land usages compared to the prior zoning CF, with the associated benefits to the adjacent property values.

However, our focus today should be based on the blocking and facing of new plats and the positioning of compliant access roads to, to these plats. By process, all these plans are supported by civil engineering. In our specific instance, a welcome state statute brings specific additional requirements to the platting of this large and complicated piece of property near our homes. One specific requirement is related to the assessment of adverse impact to the adjacent property values from the development. Some specific platting options can induce adverse impacts when compared to other specific platting options.

However, the assessment of an adverse impact should be against a specific alternative platting option, not against a a different version of the land usage or denial altogether of that entitled usage by right. If the state statute was intended to restrict or deny land usage, usage, it would have been directed at the zoning process, not the plotting process. Homeowners understandably raised concerns, in the in the prior review about a connection of the cul de sac on Doral. Now a modified plotting application addresses that connectivity concern. This review and feedback process is working.

Thank you for conducting it. However, access to land is fundamental to its usage and should not, in general, be assessed as posing an adverse impact to adjacent properties. The roadway positions shown in this application deliberately leverage the setbacks and line of sight aesthetics driven from the form based and considerably applied UR and MU1 zoning. Moving roadway positions away from this plan would reorient the facing of Platts in the M 1 MU one area to orient the least aesthetic faces towards the adjacent homes. Directing views to parking lots, dumpsters, utility connections, and loading docks would create an adverse impact, not remediate one.

Discussions of denying connectivity to Randall Mill Road are out of line with the city guidelines for neighborhoods in general and many elements of the East Side transportation plan in specific. Active communities require connectivity. Woodhaven residents will benefit from the improved connectivity to Quanta Parker Park and the Trinity Trail on the other side of Randall Mill Road. I asked the commissioners to move forward with p p two five zero nineteen as expeditiously as possible with a focus on planting alternatives. Please resist any request to use the state statute on planting as a mechanism to unfairly deny or delay land usage rights and hold back the much needed redevelopment of this property in Woodhaven. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone have questions? Mister Phil Dorcas?

My name is Phil Dorcas. My wife and I live at 900 Country Club Lane. We lived there seventeen years. It's across the street from the X Tennis Court to the country Club. Fairway Number 10 is our backyard.

We're in the western portion of the plat proposal, and we are in favor of your approving this plat application. I'm here to provide additional information development. We've attended many city neighborhood meetings organized by the city, Jeff thirteen, our city council rep, Woodhaven Neighborhood Neighborhood Association in Crescendo Development. One of those meetings, about a year ago, we met Will Northern of Crescendo Development. I was bold enough to tell him face to face that I do not like developers who would buy a wooded area and remove all the trees, leaving it bare.

We've seen that all too often. Will Northern told us of a wooded property that he recently cleared near Random Mill and Bridgewood in Woodhaven. It was dense with trees and also had homeless people living in it. He said the Crescendo development cleared the area but did not cut down any tree with a trunk diameter of two inches or more. Now, that's a tree policy that would be the envy of any arborist or nature lover.

It was hard to believe, so we went to look for ourselves. Indeed, the area was cleared of underbrush and trash, but the trees remained, even down to those two inches in diameter. Will Northern was true to his word. But what happened to the homeless population living in those woods? Did Crescendo Development just drive them out?

No. Crescendo Development provided all the homeless people with the resources they need to help them in their their challenging plight to improve their lives. Will Northern did not seek credit for these actions. It is what we found out for ourselves. No news media were contacted and is not not posted on their website.

I support the plant application from Crexendo Development, and I am proud to know a developer with that kind of character. Thank you, Will Northern, and Christian Development. Thank you, City Plan Commission, for listening.

Thank you. Doctor Patel?

Afternoon, commissioners and city staff. My name is doctor Sunil Patel. I'm a resident at Woodhaven Country Club. Get a

little closer to the microphone, please.

I'm a resident at the Country Club or formerly the Country Club now, property owned by Will Norton and Crescendo Development. I am in favor of this development altogether. The reason for that is because if there is development in our area, it will enhance the property and it will also enhance our area rather than just having weeds grow all over the development. So please go ahead and approve it at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Thank you. Beth Dorcas.

My name is Beth Dorcas. Thank you. Thank you for all the considerations and all the studies and everything that you do for us. I'm Phil's wife. We live at 900 Country Club Lane. We live in the house furthest north on Country Club at the little traffic circle. If you've been there, we are the last house before the entrance to the Spur Canyon Apartments that used to be called

The

Heights. Road A is right behind us. It will be right behind us going through the green. And we think it's a good idea. We are in full support of of PP twenty five point zero one nine.

I appreciate the work of Dunaway in the creation of the plat for Woodhaven and especially the updated plat. I do understand the concerns that the Doral people had Doral Street people had. That has been mitigated in that the two cul de sacs are separate from each other. Just for your own information, if you haven't seen, there's an extremely short but steep hill between those two would have been cul de sacs. The topography, if you haven't been on a golf cart and run around the Woodhaven Country Club, the topography is extremely challenging lots of hills and valleys, lots of greenery, which we like very much.

I really feel like when we attended, as my husband said, we've attended all of the meetings from the very beginning. If we were aware of a meeting, we went to it. And we appreciate very, very much that Woodhaven neighborhood rescued. And I'm very interested in it being rescued while the TIF 13 money is still still will come to us. I don't know what the deadlines are, the rules are, but it would be very important for this plat to to pass, for the TIF 13 funds to be applied.

Before all of this started developing and we had meetings and everything, we were a very sleepy neighborhood. The golf course had closed. We were surrounded by weeds. And it felt like we were going downhill. That was my own personal feeling.

As far as the traffic, we are on Country Club Lane at the Trafford Saint Clair, as I told you. And the public alley passes within a few feet of our house on the North and goes down right behind our house in the back. And then the next thing over is the tenth green. So we already have every single vehicle that ever comes and goes out of the Heights apartment now, Spur Canyon Apartments, passes our house. We have the roar of the city from one side, and we have the trains on the other side.

I can hear when the dumpster goes through the Spur Canyon Apartments when we're outside the house. Inside the house, we don't. But you know what? I I like living in a city, and I like that Fort Worth is alive, and I like that there are people and that people are coming and going and doing things. We have visited cities and parts of cities where that got left behind, and it was terribly sad. And I'm just very pleased to live here. I thank you for your work and totally support this plat and go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Orkus. Justin Jackson.

Evening. I'm Justin Jackson. Live at 5601 Oakmont Lane. I'm against this plat proposal. Even hearing the market analysis, we're not Bryan, Texas. We're Fort Worth. They stated about the commercial and residential. I live on the Oakmont Lane water. They're about putting multi level apartments, two level apartments behind in my, in essence, in my backyard. So, I don't see nowhere where that would increase my property value at all. That cannot have an adverse effect.

And my

own Marx analysis didn't speak to that because there's none out there. Once again, this is Fort Worth, not Brian. But anybody seeing apartments in your backyard that you know that would affect your property value adversely. Please don't approve the plat. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Jackson. Mister Kelly, Trafton Kelly.

Thank you. My name is Trafden Kelly. I live at, 5817 Oakmont Lane. My backyard is, adjacent to the Ninth Fairway, and there's nice homes all around the Ninth Fairway. And I just, there's so many places to build homes, and and I'm against building homes on that fairway. And and I don't see how in the world it could appreciate the value of my house. And it there's gonna be more traffic, and there's a lot of issues over there that need to be addressed. But, for that reason, I'm against it. Thank you, sir.

Erica Graham?

Good afternoon commissioners. Thank you for drafted a very upbeat, very positive letter. But after hearing all of this today, I think what I'd like to do is come back to what we believe as neighbors has not been fair notice. So with that, I will begin. My name again is Erica Graham.

I'm a homeowner in the Woodhaven neighborhood at 512 Oakmont Lane North. And I'm here today on behalf of my many neighbors who share a single goal. That is that we welcome progress. We do. We insist that progress be lawful, transparent, and protective of the community that we call home.

We are not opposed to development. We want to work with the developer. But when the developer has said that he has collaborated, he has collaborated with those people who live in the A21 zoning and those people who do not oppose him. He has not had conversations with those of us that are facing MU1 or UR that have been productive in any way. The Texas Local Government Code 212.0155 I think we're all getting tired of hearing about that was written precisely for situations like this one, obviously.

It gives residents and the decision makers you the gift of time and the right to complete and accurate information before a golf course property can be replatted. The law requires that a complete preliminary plat application be submitted and made publicly available at least fifteen days before any hearing. In this case, that task is impossible. The applicant was still submitting documentation regarding the Platte Lot changes and the market impact study as late as last week. Mr.

McCracken may argue that fair notice occurred because the city sent out notice of the meeting. We, as neighbors of Woodhaven, disagree. Why? Well, commissioners, we'd like you to imagine being arrested but not told what the charges are. The prosecutor has months to prepare, yet you're only given sixteen hours before the trial to see the case against you and begin your defense.

The judge states that you had fair notice since they told you the trial date fifteen days ago. You think that's fair notice? Law states that the municipality may provide notice of the initial hearing required by subsection D only after the requirements of subsection M and N are met. We've gone through subsections N, that is the lot size, the number of lots, the number of residential units, etcetera. The statute requires both notice and access.

Mr. McCracken has already explained to you that access was not provided through the Open Records Act. It was provided yesterday morning. Mr. McCracken's office told me, a representative from their office told me that no one from the city attorney would speak to me because I had threatened them with litigation and engaged attorney representation.

None of that was true, although that has come from applicant in the past. And I wrote a letter, which I believe you all have seen the email, that said that regardless, although that is not true, I have certainly not threatened any of those or retained legal counsel. Even if I had, I still have rights as a homeowner under the Open Records Act. Amazingly, last night, all of those files were reinstated. However, they were still missing the new plat map and the market analysis.

So I was able to garner from other city sources two of the many documents that you saw today. I put that into our report. But I have been given less than twenty four hours to rebut something that the applicant has had six months to put together. And none of my neighbors, none of them here, none of them that I am in contact with have an opportunity to see any of this because the city has not replied to the Open Records Act within the ten day statutory limit. Limit.

In In fact, they still haven't complied. So we've covered the city responsibility and despite the Open Records request being in August, we still have not seen, as I have said before, the entire Platt application or the corresponding reports. So yesterday, again, our neighborhood submitted a detailed rebuttal report documenting the deficiencies on the traffic study and on the market analysis. Those are the only two reports that I was able to receive, and I received those outside of the Open Records portal. So I hope that each one of you has had time to review it.

I know it went in last minute because it provides the statutory framework and the factual record showing why this application cannot lawfully move forward today. Unlike the applicant, again, who has had seven minutes today per section to address the study by using different experts, we're provided only seven minutes to address all of the Platt application reports, including those that we received less than twenty four hours ago. So beyond these procedural violations, we are equally concerned about the economic impact that will occur on our existing homeowners. Independent research and even the applicant's own limited data show that the homes bordering golf courses typically carry a price premium. We've all paid a price premium.

I paid a price premium two years ago. Since Woodhaven Course closed, appreciation in our neighborhood has already slowed. And by introducing high density mixed use development without strong buffers, drainage planning or careful screening, none of which we have seen, that threatens and erodes our property values even more. The developers required market impact analysis and I will just say that I have a Master's in Economics, did PhD work in finance and real estate so I am well qualified to speak to this. Rather than forecasting how the proposed plat and its dense mix of residential office and retail uses will affect surrounding home values, it just looks backwards.

It looks at sales data from when the golf course closed. It uses non comparable neighborhoods with lower price points. It excludes key qualitative factors such as traffic, noise, and view changes. And it withholds the raw data needed so that there is no way to independently verify their results. Most concerning of all though, the analysis was prepared by a real estate agent, not a state certified appraiser.

And it does not follow the forward looking appraisal methodology that the Texas law and the standard professional practices require. Even its limited model shows a measurable slowdown in the appreciation for adjacent homes, yet it incorrectly identifies and dismisses that slowdown as being immaterial. Without a qualified forward looking analysis, the commission cannot credibly determine that the surrounding property values will be protected as the statute demands. Our request today is straightforward and constructive. We ask you to deny this application.

Not to block redevelopment forever, not at all, but to require the lawful process that the Texas legislature envisioned by insisting on complete and compliant application and by restarting the notice period to give residents, those impacted the most, the full fifteen days of public access guaranteed by law, you will create the clarity and certainty that both the public and the developer need to craft a plan that truly benefits everyone. Commissioners, this is not just about Woodhaven. Your decision today will set a precedent for how Fort Worth handles every future replat of sensitive land. By upholding the requirements of 212.0155, you affirm the principle that development in our city must be built on fairness, transparency, and respect for the people who live here. The public deserves nothing less, and this commission should accept nothing less.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Krista Daniels?

Alright. In all that getting, let's get an understanding. My name is Christa Daniels. I reside at 812 Oakmont Lane North. Both my husband and I, which I am a widow now, purchased our home May 1998.

And when we purchased our home, we purchased our home because my husband was a golfer. I'm the tennis player. My husband passed away December 2631. I'm not from here, and I have no family here, but I loved my home. And when we purchased our home, we purchased our home because we had the intent to stay together for the rest of our lives.

That's why we purchased the home in Woodhaven. Beautiful place. No one mentioned how it looked when I purchased my home. It was very beautiful trees, the golf course. It was just simply, simply beautiful. A lot of things that have been said here today, I sat there baffled because, once again, in all that getting, please get an understanding. And I want you I wanna trust that you're telling me the truth. So I was one of the ones that was chosen to be on the advisory board. I was. I met mister Northern.

So I I stood in one of the meetings. As a matter of fact, I think it was the very first. And I asked him, what are your plans? He had nothing. No plans at that time. That's what was said. He said, we would hear from you all, and we will get back with you all. We will come together. We will collaborate. We will do what we need to do to see the betterment of Woodhaven. What are your thoughts? Well, you were talking about, number one, revitalization. I don't have a problem with that. Yes. Do we need it?

Yes. Now, when I purchased my home, I didn't expect for nobody to come and mow my lawn. I didn't expect for anyone to come and do the necessary upkeeps. I bought that, my husband and I. So it was our responsibility.

So when I asked the question, if you do not do anything else, at least keep the lawn mowed in the back. But I hear him say today, it costs this, this, this, and this. Well, I purchased my home, and I knew what it cost. So when my husband passed, since the lawn was not being mowed, I went out and I bought a Toro lawnmower. Not knowing what I was doing, but I wanted it to look nice.

So I asked him. But I hear him stand and say, it would cost this, it will do this, but you purchased that. So that was your responsibility to keep. So I just started mowing, and then I started noticing other neighbors around me doing the same thing until he was right. Yes.

It was you had rodents and all. Do what you need to do until you come back and tell us your plan. I wouldn't buy anything, and that's bible. I wouldn't buy anything, especially spending all that money and you don't have a plan and you never shared it with us? And every time we met up, we were always asking questions but never got answers and we had policing come and taking the mics from us.

And they said, no. Answer her question. All we wanted was for you to just tell us what you were going to do. That's it. I sit out on my lanai, and I look out, and I see the beautiful homes across from me. I live on the Ninth Fairway. Beautiful homes. I see the families. I see the little children laughing playing, hearing them. That's what I like.

But if you're telling me now that you're gonna block that with all of these homes, and we kept asking, and I thank you, sir. You kept saying, how many? How you don't know how many times we have asked that question and we haven't gotten an answer. Thank you for asking it. So now, we have an answer as to how many homes they planning on building. Well, why didn't we get that information? All of the information that all of them are putting out today, we begged for that information. Once again, I was on the advisory board. Woah. Nothing.

So I just stepped back. So the last meeting we had, I stood up. I stood up because I was upset with mister Northern because that gentleman back there, he raised the question. He said, if you build these homes in five years, we just want to know what kind of homes you're going to build because then Section eight is going to come in. And mister Northern laughed.

That scratched the very core of my being. And I stood up and I said, mister Northern, with all due respect, I don't think anything is funny because you don't live here. You live over on Elizabeth. Beautiful home. All of you all that's making decisions for Woodhaven, you don't live here.

So let's come together, and let's reason, let's sit down, and let's do what we need to do to make Woodhaven better. We were told that they just redid Meadowbrook's golf course. I didn't move on Meadowbrook's side. I moved to Woodhaven. So my thing is, what can we do?

Now right now, I'm I'm I'm totally against it. I'm totally against it now. But the only thing that I want us to do, we can come across the aisle and we can talk, but just don't put people up here for it because you have a vested interest in it. Me? I just wanna live peacefully. I wanna hear children laughing. I wanna see a park. This is what I want to see. I want to see grandparents just slowly walking like I see now. Just keep it.

Just keep it, and then let's do what we need to do. Now, if if you want to do something because I I even ask him, who are your investors? Because every time we ask him, he never gave us any information about it. But if you don't know what you're going to do, let's talk to the investors then. Bring somebody in here to ask answer these questions if you don't know.

So now, there's an array of people now. I wish we had had that then. Then I don't think we would have been here today. And then this zoning, the one that approved the zoning, she's no longer in the seat. We don't even know what happened because I was not privy.

We were not privy to the information. We were not. And if the truth be known, just let all I'm asking is just let us all let's just be truthful about this Because I know you made a purchase and I know you're to want a return on your purchase. And I know probably a golf course won't get it for you, maybe a little park won't get it for you, but this is what you purchased. So, let's sit down.

Don't build just a laundromat and say, oh, we got you a business and then you have all of these houses, shared driveways. Come on now. Too intelligent for that. So let's see what we can do. So I ask you, I don't know where any of you live.

Would you want that in your neighborhood? And in closing, my parents, they told me, Krista, if you want the house with the white picket fence, you know what you have to do to get it. And I worked my behind off me and my husband, and I love my home. As a matter of fact, I do upkeep on my home. I get up on my house and blow leaves out of my gutters.

I mow my own lawn past by 812 Oakmont, and you'll see, as a matter of fact, I have a group. I came in late because I have a group that's redoing my patio. But now one one person said, and I don't I don't knock her, but at the last meeting, she told us that her house is at the last last house. She said she had weeds growing everywhere. She don't care.

But I care because I don't wanna live next door to no one like that. Then she gets up and she says, you know, I said, Lord, what's going on here? So I hope and I pray that if you just close your eyes and think, where would you want to live? Would you want that in your neighborhood? Would you? No. We're trying to make Fort Worth better. We're trying to make Fort Worth better. Straight from the heart. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any more speaker cards. Mister Northern. Okay. Here's here's the deal. We're not going through a whole list of people. We're gonna hear from one person. If you're the one mister Dorthern has appointed, that's fine with me. You got three minutes.

I think I can make this fairly quick.

Thank

you. I wanna thank everybody for coming out. I think that's what this process is for. It's for people to to come out and and express either their their their whether they are in favor, whether they impose, or whether they are opposed, whether, you know, whatever it may be. We appreciate those in favor coming out. You know, we appreciate those, you know, who are not in favor coming out as well. I guess that just for our purposes gets to inform y'all of what's going on in the neighborhood. I would like to reiterate that mister Northern has he's held multiple multiple multiple community meetings. These documents, they they did get out. I don't know how they got out, but they did get out.

But that's okay. That that does not concern us that they were released from the city. That that does add to transparency. There is no obligation. There is no legal obligation for us to release those out to the public. Our obligation is to submit those to the city as part of the Plaid application. And then once that Plaid application is deemed complete by the city, then the city then takes over the process. Right? So the city then deemed it complete. And then so here we are.

Right? They send out the notices the way that they were supposed to send out the notices. The notices are intended to give the public notice of this hearing so that way they can come to this hearing and they can express their opinions. And this is why we're here today. But I I don't know of any legal obligation to for the developer at least to to to send these documents out any to anybody other than the city of Fort Worth.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Questions from the commissioners of the applicant or anyone else that spoke?

I have a question. I've heard both sides, and I'm troubled because was these residents given the from the city, everything that we're supposed to do and obligated to do? Was they given a fair amount of time and notice?

That's to the city staff?

Yes.

Okay. I'm gonna hold that till after we close the public hearing and then we can have that discussion separately. Right now, there are any questions of the applicant, his team, or the opposition, I'd like to hear those now because I'm getting ready to close the public hearing.

Did y'all communicate with everybody in the community regarding what y'all was going to do in a fair way?

Yes. Yes, we did. We held multiple public hearings where we invited anyone and everyone to attend that would give us their contact information. The city has its own notification process as well for these meetings. We have PowerPoint slides that I review with people.

I take field questions from the audience during the meetings that I held. As you heard, there were over a dozen, maybe 20 some odd meetings during this entire process where we incorporated feedback into our plan. I would stay after the meetings and talk with people one on one. We would follow-up with people that emailed us directly. Anyone that has called me I've spoken to I have talked to. Everyone that will have a conversation with me. They may not like what I have to say but yes.

Thank you.

May I respond to that?

Sure.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Northern has been very good about holding public meetings that we do not dispute and most of them have been informational. As we get closer and closer to the plat date, mister Northern has chosen to exclude some of us from those communications through email. And his excuse again has been that he claims threatened litigation. This has been a falsehood that has been used to exclude those who oppose from having information.

So, yes, he's held informative meetings. Yes, he has engaged and collaborated with some Woodhaven residents, but not with the residents that are mostly negatively impacted by this plat proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Carreon.

I'm not ready. Go ahead. I got one. So, Aldi told us to mark out K, number four and n. Is this a question for the city or is a question for them? Have all the needs been met? I'm sorry.

Are you talking about the statute, whether that's what we're gonna talk about after we close the public hearing. Mr. Johnson.

Yes, so Ms. Graham, I had a quick question for You mentioned that developer has communicated to some of your neighbors, but not all of them. Is there information that you currently have or don't have that you would like to be provided?

I would like access to the full application, the corresponding reports, everything that I requested in the open portal or the open records portal on August 20 that the city did not respond to until last night. And for the record, again, we are still missing the documents that were submitted last week through the open portal. So the revised plat map and the economic analysis was not in the portal as Mr. McCracken earlier said it was.

So you're missing those two studies?

I'm missing those two studies. I have not had an opportunity since it was less than twenty four hours ago to determine whether the application documents that I received are complete.

Thank you.

Sir. Mr. Carreon.

I guess while you're there, two questions. Number one was of the 20 ish meetings either respond how many people do we think we actually spoke to?

Well, of course, many of these meetings had repeat customers. The interesting thing is there was much feedback last time from Doral residents. What I received from Mr. Northern was the statement that he did not have contact information for those people, so that's why they didn't know about it. However, these are people that I met at those meetings that were invited by, crescendo. So I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Do you have a number by chance, an estimate?

So the first meeting we held had about two seventy five people and that was in the very beginning of a year ago and then it usually fluctuates between 30 to 75 people give or take.

Great.

That's fine.

Yeah, yeah, great.

Thank

you. My other question, since you're there's like this picture right here, this one right here with all the possibilities, it seems like some of the residents' concerns is about investment or, and I guess I want to know like how much of this is a vision that's like 10% real? Or how much of it's like can you give me a scale of how close are you to doing something like this for the residents?

So that is a graphic that was prepared by Interface Studios that was hired by the TIF. When we were going through the zoning process we did prepare a concept plan to just help people visualize the scale and scope scope of what could be built within the zoning categories. It was very clearly marked a conceptual plan, disclosed this could be one of a thousand iterations, but just to try to convey visually what could happen and continually worked to educate the neighborhood that my role in this is as a horizontal developer to take the land through the entitlement process and working collaboratively with the wants and desires of the neighborhood and incorporating that into something that isn't going to make everybody happy but complies with all of the city and state statutes, etc. So we actively have all of this land listed for sale right now that we're talking with prospective vertical developers that would build.

So you answered your question, Mr. Curryon.

It sounds like 10%. Conceptual. All good. I just was just making sure.

Thank you. Mr. Henderson.

Okay, so I just wanna understand on what M and M require. I'm gonna ask this a staff later too, but for Ms. Graham, have you seen the landscape

screening No, we're gonna do that. I'm sorry. What's

script screen?

Yes, it's script screen. Have you seen the landscaping screening plan that's required? No. On there.

I received it last night, but I have not had an opportunity to review it.

No. That was one of items you said you received last night. Okay, thank you.

I guess another question for Mr. Graham as well is what are you ideally looking to see from if you did get this all the things you wanted a week ago, what you have 24? What are you looking for and trying to figure out?

What should have been available to me on August 5, which was fifteen days prior to the August 20 meeting, What I want is what the Texas statute says that I as a homeowner that is within 200 feet abutting the golf course have a right to and that is defined in Section N.

Any other questions for the applicant or for anyone else before I close the public hearing?

I guess there's one quick, I don't know if this is for us or for them, but there was numbers thrown out at the beginning of this around like 90 was the number of potential residential that wasn't single family and then there was 30 was the number for single family. But then I'm just making sure that doesn't either

That's in our discussion.

It's in our discussion? Okay.

Okay, cool.

I promise. Okay, I'm gonna close the public hearing and entertain discussion or emotion. Do you wanna ask a question about the ninety, ninety nine, 30?

Yeah, does anyone have more context?

Different numbers than are in the transportation study, but there are lower numbers than are in the transportation study. So as I understand it, and someone staff correct me if I'm wrong, but the 99 to 30, those smaller numbers are based upon access requirements that are set out in billion fire codes. So they're maxed out at those numbers according to the code. The transportation study used a much larger number for the traffic study. And because that's what was entered into the record here, Rich, and correct me if I'm wrong, what statutorily, that's what they could do.

But they still have to meet the city requirements for access. I screwed that up, didn't I? So, we're probably looking at the 99 and the 30 number.

So the ninety nine and thirty is limits you have when you only have one point of access to a site. There's additional subdivision ordinance limits on that. While their numbers in their traffic study may be looking at all these areas, I think it was one area we were looking at where they'd be capped because of the one point of access.

So the traffic study says two eighty nine multifamily. My understanding is there could still be two eighty nine multifamily overall, but in certain areas where there's only one point in those areas, it has limited to 99. Is that right?

That would be correct. Thanks.

And then the single family one had twenty nine and twenty eight, I guess that's okay. He had 129.

But I think that's the same answer because that's only based upon the areas with a single point of access. If there were another area that had two points of access, it could be the number that's in the traffic study. Alex, did you want to

add something? So the areas that are zoned mixed use can have a variety of land use typologies. Just like the UR area can have a variety of land use typologies. So depending on how they like to distribute whatever they've mentioned in their traffic study is where it'll end up. We don't know because once again, they haven't provided an actual plan that shows exactly where everything's going. But in general, they say that the development is gonna generate they're gonna have that number of units based on what they see as viable for this area.

Thank you. So I have a question, Rich. And going back to trying to make sure that we have complied with the statutory requirements in state law regarding the numbers that are set out in the traffic study.

Study, we have entered those into the record here today as being the number of residential units, and that would be a maximum number of residential units that can be added to this development. Is that accurate? Set

I think that is correct. Those are the numbers they gave you in their study. So that's where we're at today. They've provided you their residential unit numbers, and they've provided you a plot showing how they intend to develop the property.

I guess my question is, are those maximum numbers in stone? If they came up with a larger number, do they have to come back?

Right. If they're gonna produce a new plat to you changing something, that's gonna be an issue. Unfortunately, your statute you're dealing with has a lot of questions, as y'all have discovered over the last two days of public hearing. So it's hard to give you a definitive answer on something where the legislature hasn't told us how to handle everything. We know they've provided a number of residential units. We know they've provided us with a plat. And that's where we're at. Now, if they're revising the plat to do something different, that could potentially trigger us to have to revisit this if they're wanting to go above the number of units they provided.

I can tell you that that my decision is going to be based in part on that number. So if that number changes and goes up, if it goes down, I don't think anybody cares. But if that number changes and goes up, my belief is that that should come back to the commission for another hearing.

I comment. Have Yes, sir. I don't know that okay. So I've read through the statute over and over again. Right?

When you look at section n, the only reference back to section n is back up in a subletter f where it says the municipality may provide notice of the initial hearing as required by d only after m and n are met. The municipality, I assume, is not us because we didn't provide notice of the hearing that was done by Fort Worth, correct? And then when they provided notice of the initial hearing, they determined that M and N were met at that point. Staff.

And

so Section N deals with fair notice, but I'm not even sure that that's within our purview. I don't even know that we take that into consideration because that determination was already met when they gave the notice of the initial hearing. That was determined by somebody else, not this body.

I would agree with that, but I'm not an attorney. Well, I'm not a

good one, so I guess it doesn't matter. But when I read through the statute, don't even think that we necessarily have to consider subsection n, which deals with all of what we're talking about right now. I think that we have to look at section k.

I think you're correct, but I think subsection N is a requirement of the law that they have to provide that as part of their submittal for a public hearing. And when they provide that, it needs to be accurate. And we can certainly consider that information in

making a decision on whether to approve the plat or not. That was my only point is I just wanna be sure we have all the information we're supposed to have and then we consider that information. I guess my question really was am I seeing that correctly? Because I don't see any reference to section N other than the one that talks about the initial meeting, and that's the municipality that made that determination before, and that didn't have anything to do with us.

That's correct, Commissioner Lambert.

Thank you.

Along those lines, can I ask on what date the single family value analysis was provided to the city? Because I know that was a newer item. Sorry, So had

there's two analysis, right? You've got your initial one that was before the date of the initial public hearing. Yep. And then based on, I'm gonna presume, based on the feedback that the applicant heard at the last meeting about wanting more information on that item to help you make a determination, they provided an additional study. I'll have to defer to staff to give you exact dates.

Okay. And the reason I'm asking is, to your point, and also to yours, because I think it matters that that part was done correctly, is that is part of N. So that if I'm under interpreting this correctly, that would have had to have been provided to the city prior to notice of this meeting in order for that M and N to have been met?

So it's a little difficult. They provided the initial study. Staff determined it was submitted timely for the initial public hearing we held on August 20. There has been an additional study provided. The statute doesn't really tell us what happens when additional information is asked for or provided between the date of the initial public hearing and any other public hearings. Because you certainly have the right continue to ask for more information. The notice provision only talks about the initial public hearing. It doesn't talk about any notice for any subsequent hearings.

Right. I understand. But I think the reason we continued is because we determined determined at the last meeting that the application did not appear to be complete, which means that at that time we thought that n was not met. Does that re trigger an analysis of completeness? Completeness?

I would add that K is not met. Because under K, it requires the developer to come in and requires us to find as fact that the development of the golf course will not have a material adverse effect on existing single family property values. We can't do that without some kind of a study or some kind of an analysis. And we didn't have that.

So I wanna take you back to the first hearing. So it's something I told you at the beginning of that, which has been a while. They have certain things they have to file with us as part of the application. And you can consider that information and review it and should look at it. In addition to that information, the plan commission should consider all testimony and additional documents presented during the public hearings in order to make those findings under Kay.

So I don't wanna limit you to just the documents they're supposed to file. You can consider everything that you've heard in the hearings. Again, I'll just go back and reiterate. Staff looked at the initial application before the August 20 hearing and determined it was complete. They had provided each of the items. We're not saying it's a 100% the best documents ever in the world. Staff is just saying you provided us documents show that meet each of these elements. It's up to the plan commission to review those documents and all other testimony and give whatever weight you wanna give to each thing that you're reviewing. That's for you to decide. I think we talked about that a little bit last time.

But the statute does not does not require additional notice other than the initial public hearing. That's what it talks about, the initial public hearing. And so we had additional information submitted, plus you asked staff to give you some additional information that's not on that list that they were required to provide. And so that's where we're at today.

Mr. Henderson.

Okay, so I think what I'm struggling with this on is there's other state law that says what we have to do for notice on public hearings. Oh, I'm sorry. I turned to Rich to say this. So since there's other state law that says what we have to do in general public hearings and notice, and this is referencing fair notice in this case must constitute this and that, are we at risk for not being in compliance with law because we're not looking at what fair notice is defined especially for these cases in conjunction with other public openings that requires?

Right, so you've got different laws and what we talked about earlier today is I can't hold a public hearing for you to review the application requirements to make a determination that they met that. We have to rely on the staff because those two Open Meetings Act and this statute do not mesh well together as far as what happens. So the staff, being the municipality, has to make the determination that the application requirements were met and then send out the public notices for the hearing. And then you get to hear the hearing.

Rich, in in in your opinion, have all of the timeliness issues required been met by the city? Notifications and so on.

As far as I've been informed and I'm aware, I believe they've met the notice requirements.

Thank you.

Mr. Johnson. So our job is, Rich, you might wanna confirm if that I'm understanding correctly what my role here today is. It's fairly simple. We are to take the plat, review it, consider the additional information that has been supplied by city staff and consider the comments that are made by all the residents, developer, analyze that data and make a determination whether it lives up to the developmental standards set forth by the local and state government.

So that be accurately stated or am I missing something?

Yes, sir. That is accurate. I would again urge you to go through the items in subsection K that you have to make a determination on and have some discussion voting or whatever you need to do on those items, then turn to the waivers, turn to the plot itself. I will remind you, and it's something we cover in our training a lot with this plan commission, you can't make your decisions based on the presence of opposition or support for any application. But what you can do is take the information that you've received from the opposition and support to try to make the determinations you have to make.

So it's not whether or not anybody's opposed, it's what did they tell you in the hearing, how are you applying that information to the decision you have to make.

Okay. Has there been anything said in the meeting today in your opinion from a legal perspective that goes outside of what we can or cannot approve?

I'll just remind you that the uses of the property is outside the purview of this body. The city council determines what uses are allowed and have already made that determination.

And so our determination here is final. There's not a recommendation for the city council. This is our decision to make.

That's correct, sir.

Mr. Lamberth. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we focus on subsection K, which says that we may not approve unless. And then I recommend if you deem it advisable to go through one through five and talk about those individually.

That's exactly what I plan to do. I think this dates back about three or four years ago when the city's policy was not longer than that. Seven years ago when the city's policy on the statute was developed. But anyway, I don't want anybody to be left out of this discussion. If there are ideas, concepts, things you want to say, now's time to say it because I'm about to ask for a motion.

Well, I'll say this, and it's not really a question for staff. I'm a little uncomfortable that some of the members of the neighborhood that are most greatly impacted did not have the documents that were the full application, so they could make a reason rebuttal at the time. That concerns me. It's a fair concern. I just wanna put that on the record.

I agree with that. I'm not exactly sure why that happened, but here we are and I think we've had, we have heard comments from everyone and I think we know what was missing. Unfortunate, but I'm ready. And I agree with Commissioner Lambert that what we need to do is go through these elements.

Let's go through these elements.

I agree. So I guess I would like a motion on each one of the elements as to whether this body believes that the applicant has met their burden under the statute. And item number one is whether there's existing or planned infrastructure to support the future development of the subdivision golf course. Someone wanna make that motion whether they did or did not meet that.

I move that the applicant met subsection K1 regarding the infrastructure.

I second.