Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'm going to open the Land Commission meeting for today, Wednesday, October 1. We have two cases on the agenda today. First, I'd like to turn it over to staff for the instructions.

Good morning and welcome to the October 1, 2025, in-person teleconference meeting of the City of Fort Worth Land Commission. The Commission meets in monthly in open session to conduct public hearings on advertised cases. Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the city's subdivision ordinance, city plan commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law. The commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plots, streets and alley right-of-way, vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area. The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom are appointed by the city council. A quorum of six of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Eight members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Mr. Jim Tidwell, chair of the city plan commission. Other members present today are Commissioner Kranz, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Carrion, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette. staff present today are alex parks paul rodriguez christine ross alex johnson michelle pena barbara soltero leo is not here and lachandra stringfellow my name is stephen murray interim planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting copy 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 is being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, we have requested that you observe the following rules and procedures. All cases are called, applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony first for a total of five minutes. Opposing testimony will follow and will be given a total of seven minutes. The applicant will be allowed a two-minute rebuttal. Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for their presentations. We have Christina Ross keeping time today. When speaking, 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 close of the case, the commission will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the case. No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed. Be advised that the Commission's decision on planning matters is final. Actions on the other docket items constitute a recommendation to the City Council. If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the Development Services Department at 817-392-8027. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on the minutes?

I'd like to note that there's an error in here. I know some revisions were sent out, but on page seven of the minutes, it notes that we voted on section 212.0155K3. That motion was actually withdrawn by Commissioner Johnson, so we did not vote on that one. And then the final vote was on the continuance. I don't know that it's necessarily material to this, but that motion was to continue specific to that section 212.0155 and the plat related recommendations. So not continuing the entire item.

We'll get it taken care of. Any objection to those changes?

I also had a comment on the minutes. Just to clarify the record, Commissioner Johnson voted both for and against the action on item B on page six. I think that we need to get his for or against vote noted. Guy's on the fence. There's just a clerical error there that could be corrected. It doesn't have any materiality on the actual vote.

So that would be on the health, safety, or general welfare.

That is four.

The motion was to make the finding that.

The total is 531 is correct.

Okay.

It's correct. The against is the error, I believe.

So just remove the notation that Commissioner Johnson voted against.

Thank you for holding him accountable for his vote.

Are there any objections to any of those changes to the minutes? Hearing none, can I get a motion for the amended minutes?

Move to approve the amended minutes.

I second.

Motion by Commissioner Crenn, second by Commissioner Johnson. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed? The vote is unanimous. Okay, next case.

PP 25019, Woodhaven GC Redevelopment Subdivision Golf Course, Texas Local Government Code 2120155. Waiver request, 31106D2, block length, 31101D, internal roadway network connectivity, 12 mixed-use lots, six multifamily lots, and 10 single-family detached residential lots, and one private open space lot, Council District 5. General location, north of Boca Raton, south of Randall Mill Road, east of Woodhaven Boulevard, and west of Highwoods Trail.

All right. I'm sure you all are very familiar with this case, but we're going to go through it one more time. So this is the Woodhaven Golf Course Redevelopment plot. They are requesting waivers for connectivity and block-based length. Of course, to give context again, the zoning case was approved back earlier this year. There's two different PDs. Both of them have site plan required, so anybody seeking to develop this site would still need to go through zoning and city council for approval. In addition to those requirements, there are 200 foot buffers. For tract A, there's a 200 foot buffer from any one family property. And the buffer outlines that there's a two story height limit for any structures being built there. And then for track to be there's a 200 foot buffer from any one family property. And it only allows open space or urban agriculture uses just to give some context. And here's the preliminary plot. From the initial submittal again, they had updated it the mixed use portion with easements to break up the blocks, because initially we had recommended denial of one of their waiver requests, but at this moment we're recommending approval of all their waiver requests. Again, some more of the pages. Again, their economic impact analysis, which I'll be deferring to the applicant to kind of go into more detail on the analysis they submitted. Again, I don't know if y'all wanna have the studies. Okay, gotcha. As explained last time though, each of the studies that were submitted by the applicant. And again, our recommendation is approval of the waivers and the plat conditional on the Texas state statute. Yeah, on this one, again, We didn't receive anything new in terms of the PLAAD or any update to the economic analysis, so I'm kind of deferring to the applicant and the opposition to kind of help y'all make y'all's decision, but that's all.

Thank you.

And question for staff, just to make it clear. The staff does not have a position on whether findings of fact are found, right? Especially given... There's no opinion from staff on that, only on the waiver, right?

We're only hearing one today. That's the... the effect on property values. I think staff may have had an opinion because they analyzed the drainage report, the traffic study, those kind of things. Rich, you wanna just kind of go through

Certainly, to answer your question, Mr. Commissioner, the staff can provide you, they can't make that ultimate determination on any of the factors that this plan commission has to decide because that's only in your purview. So they can only provide, answer your questions and things like that. But as far as having a recommendation on those, that's really up to this body to make that decision. Again, brief overview and reminder. Once again, at your seat, I have provided you with a copy of the state statute, section 212.0155 of the Texas Local Government Code that applies to this application. As a reminder, this is the third day of the public hearing on this specific case. At the last meeting, there was... certain findings found, so there's one left that the Planning Commission has to make before it can approve the plot, and that's specifically the development of the subdivision golf course will not have a material adverse effect on existing single family property values. So that's the one finding you have left to make a decision on today, and then of course you have the two waivers in front of you that have not had any action taken on them yet, and then the overall plot itself. So, to recap, that would be four things that we have to consider today. There was some discussion last time in legal questions regarding the definition of material adverse effects. I want to make sure we cover that. It is not defined in the statute. So when words are not defined, we use their common ordinary meaning, you can use the dictionary meaning to determine that, but you have to give effect to every word and I think that was the statements that were made last time. The word material is in existence in the statute and so you have to give effect to that word, you can't ignore it. I'll be happy to answer any questions as far as that's concerned. That's really, I'm not gonna go through and bore y'all reading all the state law to you again. We can address questions as they come up.

Thank you, any questions for Rich at this point?

I guess the one clarifying, since we've discussed this a little bit, is there any case law or such that makes us have to consider any one given individual property value versus the group of property values?

There is no case law I'm aware of on that issue. And so it's A, talking about property values in plural, and B, material adverse effect. So that's about as much guidance as I can give you, unfortunately. Thank you.

Any more questions? Hearing none, as we get started today, I think I've read consensus in the room that none of us want to have dinner brought in at 6 o'clock tonight. So the normal course in a planned commission hearing you heard before is essentially seven minutes for each side and then we go into discussion and start talking about it. We understand that there's more to this case and we're gonna hear more than seven minutes on each side. But here's the way we're going to conduct the meeting today. The proponent will have seven minutes. The opposition will have seven minutes. Anything beyond seven minutes on either side, a speaker will be limited to one minute per person. I believe this will cut down on some of the repetitive remarks that we tend to hear in these things. I think it gives plenty of time for the support and the opposition to state their case. And we're only dealing with the one issue, and that has to do with the material adverse effect on single family home property values. So with that, did you have anything to add? I'm gonna call Will Northern.

Commissioner, members of the commission, thank y'all. Tyler Wallach, attorney with Jackson-Walker representing Woodhaven Concerto No. 1, the applicant in this process. So I know we have seven minutes total, so I will make my portion brief. I think the Assistant City Attorney for the second meeting in a row has stolen my thunder. And so I think I can roll through mine quickly. We're gonna take another team approach on this, similar to last time. I'll present, then Jason Klontz with Catalyst will come up and give his impressions of the economic impact analysis. Then we'll have Dr. Stone, who is an independent, gave his independent analysis of the economic analysis. And he'll be giving his approach as well. And then we'll have Darrell Howard. He's a civil engineer with Dunaway & Associates, and he'll be going over the preliminary plat and the waivers as well. The takeaway from this slide right here is really what the City Council approved. And so the land uses that were approved, they're community land uses, right? So they are for multifamily, single family. You're looking at townhomes, condos, a mix of retail, a mix of restaurants, commercial, office space. And so the takeaway from this is that the land use the City Council approved You're not putting in industrial. You're not putting in any type of cell communication towers, no gas, no manufacturing, no warehouses. This is really intended to be a community-based, livable, walkable community.

If we can go to, I don't have a clicker.

So with the summary of the request, so you're gonna hear a lot of things from the opposition. I think you're probably gonna hear some delay tactics similar to the last meeting. But I think as Rich said, the focus is really on two things. One is the effect of the development on existing single family property values, the evidence before you and the testimony that's gonna come from Mr. Clonch and Dr. Stone, that's going to prove that not only is there not a materially adverse effect on property values, but the effect is actually positive. And you will see this from the evidence. And the second issue is the approval of the preliminary plat with the weight. Next, procedural history. Y'all have gone over that, so I won't belabor that. Next. And as Rich said, last week, y'all had determined and made the findings on A, B, D, and E in our favor, and all we're asking is that... that y'all find in favor of this last element as well, that the subdivision golf court does not have a materially adverse effect on the property values. Now I'm gonna hand it over to Mr. Clonch.

Thank you, Tyler. Jason Clonch with Catalyst Commercial. So just wanted to introduce myself. We've been involved in doing the economic studies. We did both the fiscal impact analysis and also the study in terms of values In terms of our firm, we've conducted more than 1,800 studies and projects around North Texas and other municipalities, which has created $3 billion or more in value, both in terms of the public and private sector. This is just a small representation of the types of clients that we've worked with, DFW Airport, Frisco, and a number of other cities. Probably 60% of our work is done on the public sector side on behalf of municipalities, and the other 40% is done with the private sector. As you read in the report, we did a fiscal impact analysis looking at the economic impacts of the project based on the investment. This study essentially supports that there'd be no material adverse impact on single family values. In fact, it would actually increase based on the economic investment. And then as discussed in the last meeting, we did two separate analysis on two independent golf courses. One was a residential focus up in North Fort Worth, the other one is in Bryan, so that we got a full perspective of both residential and commercial values. Both of these essentially pre and post closure showed that the new investment did not have a material adverse impact, actually values increased in both of these case studies. And so we also believe that that's relevant in terms of this hearing. From a professional standpoint, we feel like this would be a creative for the development. I'll turn it over to Mr. Stone.

Thank you, Jeremy Stone. I was approached by Will and his team to review Jason's work, a little bit about me, my experience of education in land development. Actually, my thesis for my master's was golf course development, and since then, I've got a PhD in urban and regional science. I've moved on to professional work in the area of appraisal. I did appraisal for a while, commercial support, financial feasibility, adding value to developments. I work with developers. Litigation support and real estate development, financial modeling. The question I was asked was to review the material, review the studies by Catalyst and I had done that. Typically when I'm, you know, the term as was mentioned by staff, material adverse effect is not a defined term really in any industry it's just more of a phrase that is used and when you hear it you typically think of things like you know heavy metal refineries wastewater treatment landfills you know I have done work with a group that found gas and energy production the noise being an adverse impact or power lines and So those are the things that you typically think of when you think of an adverse effect. And of course, none of that is proposed in this property. The study that they did on reviewing case studies, single family analysis, my experience with golf course, single family, mastermind communities.

Got a minute left, just a heads up, you've got one more minute.

Okay. With master plan communities, it suggests that any investment, you know, real estate goes through cycles. This is a community where the golf course has gone through the cycle and has entered into gentrification. Now it's requiring investment to resupply the community. And that has been done. So no adverse material impact is visible. observed. In fact, the positive impact of redevelopment of the community and the investment that's required to do that suggests that property values will increase. If not significantly, they will not reduce any further than they have, and they've not reduced at all.

Understood. Darrell Howard. So yes, thank you, commissioners, staff. My name is Darrell Howard, civil engineer with Dunway Associates. So I'll go through. So just briefly, the waivers that are requested. I'll go to the next slide.

Where's the?

Okay, so yeah, this is block one, so 1100 feet along the proposed street A, you can go to the next slide. This is block three, slightly over the 500 foot limitation on the block lengths. 905 foot for this one. This is where the existing clubhouse is. Yeah, this is block A. Just irregular block shape and limited access to the east and west developments. So, you know, just due to the irregular geometry of the layout, this is why we're asking for the... Hello, all.

My name is Sandra McLaughlin. I live in Riverbend. I've been there since 2000. I've seen, watched the neighborhood lose anchors, the grocery store, restaurants, clubhouse, golf course, charter school all closed. The residents have shouldered decades of decline, slipping property values. Luckily we have Will Northern that came and wanted to do something there. He's raised the bar in our community, engagement, meeting every phase, integrating feedback. He's made numerous changes that were not in his financial interest, but clearly in the best interest of the neighborhood. Woodhaven is a great location. It's just that it keeps going down. The topography, this is why I moved there, is the topography, natural beauty, the trails. This plan preserves the spirit of the original vision, open space, community connectivity, natural features, adapting to its modern. Anyway, the golf course, one minute isn't enough to tell the story, but the golf course, it's been failed for 20 years. And thank you to Will for giving us a handout because we're gonna go just worse than it already was.

Good morning and thank you. My name is Keith Larson. I live at 505 Ocala Lane. I believe that the approval of PP 25019 will benefit adjacent property values. Independent of the state statute associated with this case, the standard Fort Worth processes are designed to deliver value to both the municipality as a whole and adjacent properties in specific. The statute isn't an onerous additional requirement for the commission. It triggers a process check for any Texas municipality faced with the redevelopment of land previously used as a golf course. Some municipalities may not have the processes that are as thorough, well-developed, and time-tested as those in Fort Worth. Fort Worth's zoning, planning, permitting, and code compliance processes safeguard property rights and property values. During our two prior sessions, the focus has been around compliance to the statute without pre-measuring compliance to the Fort Worth standards. I believe that the compliance of this application to the state statute is actually a systemic question. Is there a specific concern related to this application which indicates that standard Fort Worth planning processes do not adequately protect the value of adjacent properties? I submit that is not the case. Please approve this. It is valuable to the municipality in general, the Woodhaven community in specific.

Good morning commissioners and thank you for your time and attention you've given this case. My name is Bowie Holland. I'm a fourth resident and a professional local developer. Our company is owner of five acres in Woodhaven near the recently closed charter school campus. I'm just gonna make four quick points on the question left before you. Point one, the export record. Two, economic impact analysis as an independent appraisal review by the doctor, a licensed appraiser all reach the same conclusion. There is no indication or information suggesting the redevelopment will deliver any material adverse effects on adjacent single family properties. There is expert testimony on the exact statutory test. By contrast, the opposition will offer no quantified data, no appraiser, and no market evidence, only speculation. Point two, long-term vacancy is what drags down home values. Overgrown land, boarded up structures, and encampments don't add value to stability. They erode it. Reinvestment, especially when paired with maintained green space and updated infrastructure, does the opposite. It restores confidence and protects value. Reinvestment is the remedy, not the risk.

Point three, the alternatives.

Keep it a golf course, turn it into a public park, wait for a better plan. But those are ideas, not options. Thank you, commissioners.

Good morning, Nicholas Martin. You may remember me from last time on a different account. I'm also an investor in this project. I've known Will for a long time, and I've been very impressed with the level of outreach from the very beginning of the project through now. It's gone above and beyond. If the Woodhaven area is going to improve, it needs additional investment, and this development does just that.

Hello, I'm a resident of Oakmont Lane. I've lived in New York City, Boston, Miami, New Orleans, and I've downtown in those cities. I've never felt as unsafe as I do living in my hometown here in Fort Worth. When I first bought my house in Oakmont Lane, it was robbed. I lost a bunch of power tools and equipment. Somebody just broke a window, came in and took my stuff. Last week, my car was ransacked in my driveway. I have security cameras up. I have lights that are on. They just walk into the driveway and pull on door handles. I can see the country clubhouse from my backyard, so I'm a yimby. Yes, in my backyard. Please, let's do something for this neighborhood, because it's not safe. The status quo is having a material adverse impact on property values here. Almost anything would be better than what we have now, and especially a project that's been subject to so much public input and feedback. So yes, please support this plan. As a resident, I'm asking you to do the right thing.

My name is Beth Dorcas. We live at 900 Country Club Lane. We agree with these comments about more people, more economic development, more roads connectivity means greater security, more eyes, less hidden places, less dark places under bushes and trees. The state of Texas has many opportunities for country living. But that is probably not realistic anymore for Woodhaven neighborhood, just a short drive from downtown Fort Worth. The connectivity and the economic development that will result from the passing of PP25019 is an incredible advantage to our neighborhood. to everything about being able to stay here, be safe, enjoy our city. Fort Worth is a living city. We're grateful. Thank you.

Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask a question of the speaker. I understand that our rules were allowed to. Ms. Dorcas, do I understand that you actually have a house you own that backs up to where that new street and new development will be?

Yes, sir. We are in the last house between the Canyon Spur apartments with defunct tennis courts across the traffic circle from us and the cul-de-sac in the fairway 10 right behind our house, the one that will pass if we get the plat passed.

Do you have concerns that the development behind your home is going to reduce your property values?

Oh, no. Because more eyes, more people. The zoning makes it so that only certain things can be built there in certain ways. And they have distances from this and that and where the parking is. It also includes trails going down that really steep hill down to the flood zone. And, yeah, more people of higher value. Probably higher economics, more eyes. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Phil Dorcas, known in the area as Beth's husband. I live at 900 Country Club Lane, across the street from the defunct tennis courts. We've been to almost all the meetings, the city planning for the east side of Fort Worth, the Woodhaven Conservation Neighborhood Plan. We've been to meetings for the city plans into the year 2050 for the 25-year plan. We've been to the Move a Million Transportation Plan, parks plans, and Will Northern's plan. is an integral part of the improvement of east side of Fort Worth. We want to see a better east side. We want to see a better Woodhaven. This is the way to do it. I'm in favor. Please vote in favor. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Leslie Ford. I live at 400 Canyon Creek Trail in Fort Worth. I am a Woodhaven resident. I want to talk a little bit about the impact of the east side for the entire city. So whenever we're talking about this and talking about material and adverse impact, I want to tell you about a chamber luncheon I was at two years ago. And they showed us a map. And the west side went all the way to Walsh. The north side went all the way to Texas Motor Speedway. The south side went all the way to Burleson. Do you know where the east side stopped? At Wesleyan. So the chamber, they're not worried about what we're doing over in Woodhaven. The EDC folks will tell you that the east side is not a priority. So what I'm telling you is that this is the kind of development we need and we're not getting a lot of it from elsewhere, it's just not a priority right now. The north and the west side are growing, I get that, the south side is too. We've gotta have thoughtful development in the east side and this is the way we do it. Golf courses are a dying breed. The Urban Land Institute will tell you that they are going to either develop them into parks, which the city has said no to, or they're going to develop them into thoughtful mixed use, which is what Will has proposed. So we either can sit here and we can say this is adverse material impact to the people who are living here, or we can recognize that this is actually good development that we need in the east side. If you'd like to play golf, please go play at Meadowbrook. They just reopened it. It's beautiful. It's right down the street. And so I think it's really important for us to recognize that this is good development and this is what we need. Thank you.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, how will we determine who will have the seven minutes that you have laid out?

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I think there's one more in favor. Okay, excuse me.

Good morning. My name is Becky Haskin, and I am not a resident of Woodhaven anymore, but I'm still a property owner and investor there. I lived in Woodhaven for 23 years, and I wanted to thank you each personally for allowing me to speak and allowing me to understand or know that I understand what it's like to be a public servant. I did it for 14 years on the city council. This is not a redevelopment plan. Woodaven is already developed. This is a plan where a broker is coming in, dismembering a neighborhood, and selling it to the highest bidder. There is no plan. Honestly, I don't think anyone would be in opposition if they knew what we were gonna get at the end of the day. But by passing this plan today, We don't know what we're gonna get. I can tell you what I got when I sold my house in Woodhaven. I built another house in another city for the exact same square footage at four times the price. Woodhaven has the cheapest square footage prices ever, and I know y'all discussed that, but I can tell you, look on Zillow. Every property for sale in Woodhaven right now, with exclusion of the land, is asking for reduced prices now because they can't sell for what they have. The takeaway is that you're taking away our community. You asked me what the impact is and what the effect is. You're taking away our community. You're taking away our golf course. You've taken away our country club. You're taking away that sense of nature and open streets and such. What we've got here is somebody that just wants to dismember our neighborhood. We've been working and have worked in Woodhaven for years trying for a redevelopment plan. And part of this plan, and you want to know what's going to impact more than anything, is the multifamily. There are over 4,400 units still existing. You want to know what the impact is? Drive through that to try to get to your house. We already heard someone mention about the crime. In fact, I've delivered Meals on Wheels for 19 years in East Fort Worth. And Meals on Wheels of Tarrant County no longer allows volunteers to deliver in Woodhaven because of the crime in the apartments. And if you add what this plan does, up to 1,800 more apartments to the 4,400 that are already existing, you're just putting the last nail in the coffin.

Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for having us. My name is Erica Graham. I'm at 512 Oakmont Lane North, and I do abut what will be road C in the proposed plat. So I will be materially adversely affected. One of the things that we would like to point out is one of the opposition, there was only one person, the Dorcas's, that got up and will be affected by this on the west side. Everyone else is either riverbend or will be on the east side and be looking at A21 or a golf course. So they're not going to experience these negative effects. The second thing is material adverse. When we talk about material adverse, we're not just talking about negative growth. We're talking about positive growth that happens slower than a comparable property. So I'd ask you to keep that in mind in terms of effect. If we are growing at a slower rate in terms of equity, than comparable properties, then we have been materially adversely affected. I'd like, you all got our presentation was sent to you on Monday regarding the MIA, so I'm not gonna go into that too much. But I would like to also point out that this plan is indirect, it does not follow the conservation plan that the City of Fort Worth has laid out. This is proposing 326 new apartment And the conservation plan is saying that what we really need are duplexes, multiplexes, senior living, that type of thing. So this is not following the conservation plan. And finally, although the opposition has said that we have not proven anything quantitatively, the onus is not on us to prove it quantitatively that this will cause material adverse effect. The onus is on the applicant to prove that it won't. Thank you.

Elizabeth Lane- Hello, my name is Elizabeth lane i'm a former litigation attorney and municipal law attorney I represented municipalities and boards, just like yourself i'm also. Elizabeth Lane- Sure sorry, can you hear me better. Elizabeth Lane- Can you hear me all right sorry i'm a former litigation attorney also municipal law attorney representing boards, just like yourself, I am also a currently. For the last six years, a licensed Texas realtor is serving the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex buyers and sellers all over the Metroplex at all different price points. I'm here today to request that the board deny the applicant for two basic reasons, and I'll try and keep it very short. Number one, I should also mention I work for the Missouri Attorney General's Office, so I'm very familiar with statutory law and working with municipalities. We cannot overlook that you should deny this application because fair notice was not met under the statute. As your city attorney mentioned, you must follow the plain, ordinary language of the statute. It is unambiguous that the applicant at the time he filed it was required to submit all of his documentation, which was not done. Number two, today, if you decide to overlook that portion of the statute and focus on the market analysis, then I'm here to tell you, I'm not an appraiser, but I would suggest that you ask the appraiser here, how many lawsuits has he testified in, and how many times was his analysis challenged by a different appraiser? It happens all the time. As a big picture, everyday, ordinary public knowledge, I have yet to have a buyer or a seller come to me and say, Elizabeth, I'm looking for a house in this price range that backs up to commercial property, that backs up to an apartment building. If I looked, if I showed anybody in this audience or on the street two side-by-side pictures, identical houses, One backs up to a golf course, and the other one backs up to a four-story apartment building. And I asked the public, which house do you think costs more, and which house would you rather live in? The answer would be the one with a view. It doesn't matter what city you live in, what state you live in. It's common public knowledge that a view of some sort is valued higher than those other lots. There's a lot more that we could go into, and I want to let others speak if they would like to. But if anyone has any questions, I'm willing to respond.

Hi, my name is Amanda Peterson. I'm a resident of Woodhaven, and I also am a licensed realtor. I do believe that you have some pictures and some information regarding a case study for 6112 Lantana Lane. Oh, thank you, okay. If you can go ahead and direct your attention to that last page. and also look at the aerial views of the property that abut the Caden apartment complex. This house was listed on the market for 235 days. It had multiple price reductions, had to be listed with two different brokerages. The sellers purchased an appraisal before they went on market and the appraisal deemed that value at $750,000. When it came time to it being closed in April of this year, after 235 days on the market, they accepted an offer of $618,000 with $15,000 in seller concessions. I have feedback provided by the listing agent. On March 11th, nice house and client liked it for the most part, didn't like the apartments behind it. March 9th, they love the house but have concerns about the apartment in the back. Thank you for providing more information and answering my questions. I will be in touch. January 25th.

Thank you.

Steve Howard, I live at 900 Larkspur Lane in Woodhaven. And I just want to support the notion of less apartments and more opportunities for home ownership, people that will invest in the community, both financially and morally. And I think it's pretty much apparent that the problems of the neighborhood come from the apartments. And drive down Bridgewood Lane near Country Club, and I think you'll see what we're referring to. That's all. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Any questions? Mr. Trafton Kelly.

My name is Trafton Kelly. I live at 5817 Oakmont Lane. My backyard is next to the 9th fairway. And I agree that something needs to be done to the clubhouse. However, there's a big parking lot there. There's the land that the club is on. There's a swimming pool, tennis court. There's a big driving range. And there's a lot of fairways, or several, that don't have homes around them. And for that reason, there's plenty of land there to be developed without putting apartments and homes on the fairways that have nice homes around them. And I'm just asking you to ask Crescendo to submit a revised plot without the homes and apartments on the fairways that are surrounded by nice homes. I hope you can see my perspective. And I just feel like you don't build homes and apartments in parks or golf fairways. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions? Jimmy Graham.

Morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you for your service to the city and to the community.

I live at 512 Oakmont Lane North, and we would be directly impacted by this. There's no need for a cut through in Woodhaven. I can get to Randall Mill. I can get to I-30 now with no problem, and I'm deep into Woodhaven, okay? There's no need for a cut-through. It would increase traffic. It would increase noise. It would increase adverse effect. The examples that Crescendo provided for Bryant, Texas, and Hazlitt, it's like comparing apples to oranges. This has happened to me. I lived on a golf course community in North Carolina, similar to Woodhaven. I lived on the number, my house backed up to the number 1T and the number 2. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Crystal Daniels.

Good morning to you all. My name is Krista Daniels. I have one minute. Okay. I understand Mr. Norlin and what he said he was going to do. In the very beginning, once again, we asked him. He said he didn't know. We got an advisory board. We came together. We still were just in the clouds with what was going on. I took a drive on yesterday and I went over where Mr. Northern lives. Beautiful. They were out. They were walking. Children were laughing. They were playing. And I was like, wow, this is something that, you know, we want. So then the young lady and I don't like because I wasn't taught this, but I have to say this. You ask her a question. She says she lives at 900 Country Club. If you go to her home, you can't see it because grass is probably taller than the house. I asked Mr. Northern, when are you going to mow the lawn again? Since we were here last time, the lawn on the golf course has not been mowed. So my thing is addressing the lady. She says, if we want to play golf, go to Meadowbrook. I didn't purchase my home in Meadowbrook. I purchased my home in Woodhaven.

Thank you very much. Janelle Joles, is that right?

Thank you for listening to us. Everybody's got stats. I've got heart I want you to consider. It is really true. that a home is where the heart is. And we have chosen Woodhaven. I was one of the first people to live in Lake Ridge, in Cedar Hill. I was the president of the Chamber of Commerce. It was my job to go and cajole, beg, plead with businesses to please locate in Cedar Hill. Well, be careful what you ask for, because they did. Apartments were everywhere. And I stood in my front yard in Cedar Hill and realized, I don't like this place anymore. My custom-built home in Lake Ridge, I sold it. And what did I look for? I looked for a place in Fort Worth that would not change, would not change. It's completely developed. These people are established. And now, because of the golf course, I understand things have to change. But what they don't have to do is build more apartments, which is where 90% of the crime in Woodhaven comes from, makes our lives miserable, depletes our values, and the connectivity that is so fond in planning and zoning is going to be the death of what we currently enjoy in Woodhaven. I wish you'd consider that. It's not about developers. Thank you. It's about the people that live there. I've got nowhere else to go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all of the speaker cards that I have. Have I missed anyone? You can fill one out after the meeting. Come on up. We're not cutting anybody off. We will after a minute.

Justin Jackson, 5601 Oakmont Lane. I live right behind where the potential multifamily building will happen. I spoke before, I don't believe any type of multi-filling structure in my backyard would increase anybody's property value. I'm sure the gentleman asked the other ladies, I don't know his name right here. Your name? Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson. Would you feel apartment complex in your backyard would increase your property value, have an adverse effect on your property value? How do you feel about that? You asked that same question.

We're not here to answer questions.

I thought we was interacting with each other.

No.

We don't interact, okay. But I think his answer would be no. As far as the violence in the neighborhood compared to New Orleans, nowhere close. But yeah, this will adversely affect our values, our properties. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Again, I don't have any more. Oh, sir, would you mind filling out one of these before you leave? Sure. We have no more green cards. Have I missed anyone? Last call. Any questions or comments before we close the public hearing and start discussion by the commission? No. No. We set up front, everybody has seven minutes, and then it was going to one minute apiece. I think if I change those rules at this point, Rich, tell me, are we safe in moving forward? I'll leave it to the discretion of the chair. Thank you. I think we set the rules up front. Very honestly, I believe this commission has has heard more than enough debate and more than enough information on both sides. And I can only speak for myself, but this is a real struggle, folks. So I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing, open the discussion, or for a motion from the Commission.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if I can still address a question to staff, but I just want to understand, because I've heard two different things on what the PD allows, the zoning put there, where they're talking about having Street C come through. So what is the PD actually limit? Because I heard two-story, I've also heard four-story, and I'm just wondering what the facts are.

So there's two PDs. One of them is PDUR, and it's site plan required, so they have to go through a zoning commission and Council. And then there is a section at the bottom there what says there's a 200 foot buffer where the height limitation is two stories from one family properties. And then there's the PDMU, which is the middle of the site. And it's also site plan required, like I said. And then there's a 200 foot buffer from one family properties. And the only thing you can do in that 200 foot buffer is open space or urban agriculture. All right. That's what I understood. Thank you.

Questions, comments, discussion, or a motion? Mr. Johnson?

I'd just like to first of all say thank you to all the residents that are here that are for and against the redevelopment and also to the developer for being here and providing the information regarding the economic impact study. I think it's essential that when you're developing a community or redeveloping a community that you are inclusive as you can be. And although I believe our role as commissioners are limited in scope here in the planning commission, I will always move towards a more inclusive environment because I think when you partner a developer with a community that you rephrase development and being something that's done to a neighborhood to something that's being done with a neighborhood. And so I encourage you guys to continue to work together in collaboration to to get what everybody, I guess, a win-win for all the neighbors. Everybody's not going to be happy, but I think you should continue to work together. I would like to ask any of my fellow commissioners if they have comments or questions before I move to a motion.

Mr. Reid? Yes. I'm going to... I lived in Woodhaven for a long time. And I know what those apartments does to the community. I was a victim in those apartments. One thing about Woodhaven When the community speak, I'm gonna always listen. So therefore, I cannot see myself. I wanna make a motion.

Would you mind holding off on the motion right now? I want to hear any other discussion that may come up. I do have one question of staff. Rich, there was a proponent that said that the applicant had not met the statutory requirements for notice. Can you speak to that?

Certainly the and we've discussed this issue I think twice before the statute lays out certain things that have to be submitted to the city in order for the application to be considered filed and Therefore be put on the Planning Commission's agenda of course You don't as a Planning Commission have the opportunity to review that and make that determination yourselves Because we have to schedule a meeting in order to do that My understanding from the first meeting from staff is that the applicant had provided all information necessary to have a complete application. I do also understand that in response to the prior meeting there was additional information provided. and a revision to the plot provided as well, and an updated memo regarding the traffic impact analysis based on the changes made to the plot as a result of the initial meetings. So certainly there was additional information provided later, but my understanding from staff is that the applicant met their burden before the initial first public hearing we held in providing everything that was required.

So as this process evolved, we got a lot more information, but that does not necessarily mean that the required notice wasn't met.

That's correct. Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, for Rich, I think, we've had this discussion before as well, but since there isn't anything in state law that requires notice for additional information in a number of days ahead of a public hearing, right?

Right, there's a specific notice requirement that the city has to meet as far as notifying the people within the surrounding area of the hearing and providing under this statute a copy of the actual statute. That's something that's unusual and specific to this statute. So that's the notice that the city's required to provide to the residents under this specific statute and then the general just Open Meetings Act posting requirements.

Since we have comments available, the state legislature of Texas doesn't always pass the best laws for us to interpret. And I would put on the record and submit that the state legislature probably ought to consider revising this one to make sure it's fair for everyone.

It would be nice to have a definition of material adverse in the statute, but that's what we have to work with.

So comments, concerns?

I do have some comments. Material adverse effect, is such a subjective terminology, as we know. And I think there's a lot of assumptions that go into the future of this development. There's been assumptions that there's gonna be a lot of apartments built. There's gonna be assumptions about the development. There's gonna be assumptions about the traffic flow, things like that. And there's opinions on both sides of the issue. From my own personal standpoint, I see that the developer has provided an expert with documentation showing that in his opinion, that there will not be a material adverse effect on property values, and I know that there can be some disagreement as to the veracity of that argument. However, I think that we have to look at that and give that a lot of weight in our determination. And because of that, because they provided proof or provided evidence of their research from an expert, I think that they've met their burden showing that they will not have a material adverse effect on property values. Thank you.

Mr. Frans?

One thing that is specified in here that we have to look at is the effect on those property values, on the existing property values. So there's been a lot of discussion about losing the golf course frontage and golf course premium. I think we just need to keep in mind that we're talking about the existing values today as it is, not as it used to be in the past. So just some, at least for me, just reminding myself that that's the context we're working within here.

Thank you. Comments, discussion?

Yes, so I think I've, hearing from everybody who lives in the neighborhood is concerned about their property values, because that's the one thing we're here to decide right now before we decide on the plat. It seems like we have a lot of conjecture about it, but I also find moved that if we do nothing, if we halt this process, then Woodhaven's gonna suffer even more. I have friends that live in Woodhaven, and are concerned as well that if no development happens, then it just continues to decline in value, and that's gonna affect property values. I heard the concerns about slower growth, if there isn't a golf course a fair way behind you, but I'm not sure that there's an option now that the city council's acted in their zoning decisions to do anything but make sure that your property values are increased in whatever way they can be through more development for doing something instead of nothing. So I think I'm finding, after much deliberation, I wasn't sure about this for a while, probably gonna support that defining the property values is not gonna be materially adversely affected.

Thank you.

Yeah. So yeah, I think the challenge that I have, one, there's, so again, I live in Meadowbrook, West Meadowbrook, go to that, I was literally at the Albertsons yesterday. you know, over there. I think what caught me today is what the lady who ran the chamber at Cedar Hill, because I'm annoyed by a lot of things from this, right? One, the state pressures. That's only going to continue, by the way. You know, even people like us being able to do this in the future is becoming more limited. The talk about renters and how we talk about renters and people and apartments, We live in the loop of Fort Worth, Texas. That means we need to start looking like an 11th largest city. And so we have to come to grips with what density and multi-living looks like in our loop. And so, but the other part that's concerning is what the lady said as well is about like, you know, the difference between horizontal and vertical. She didn't use those terms, but she talked about the commercial and the broker. And like, this is a brokerage deal to... to take something which we really don't know, right? I'm still like, isn't there still a golf course? Isn't there still going to be a nine hole golf course? I'm still like, there's so much going on there around people talking golf courses are bad, golf courses are good. And so then there's that confusion. And what I feel about the business part is this, looking at the articles, Northern acquired this property for 8.5 million in May 7th out of a foreclosure auction. So for me, it's just like, I, the challenge for me is like, do we have the economic partnerships, the things behind us and to actually execute on anything? Or is this, that feels like that broker move that this lady mentioned that someone bought something for cheap. Do they have the money? And that's the part. Do they have the partnerships to do the things? And so I say all this as an East Sider, why I'm voting no is they mentioned the charter school. We are constantly using the East Side to try to do grab and goes or pit things in and they then lose. The charter school lost because of predatory styles of trying to bring things to the East Side and make it look as good. And this is a constant history and for me, I can't vote yes on something that could potentially be an article that says, you know, big dreams of Woodhaven became a disaster. And that is the part that I, as a person, just don't feel comfortable, that I feel like we do need the development. We do need density. We do need those things. But I'm just not convinced that the partners are aligned and the things that we need answers to are there. And I'm happy to have a rebuttal or some type of feedback if that's needed from the applicant. That's just the part where I'm currently at in all of this that's keeping me a no.

Mr. Chairman, so I don't know how we can do this or what the format would be. I think there's still some discussion that needs to take place on this issue because we seem to have some disagreement in what our role is here today and some information that's gonna be needed from the developer. I'm okay with a rebuttal format being enacted here today so that we can wrap this up. So how do we do that? I mean, I know that you've said that there's only a minute and you'd rather not, but I think it's needed.

Let's talk about it because, again, I don't think any of us want to be here at dinner, and that's certainly a possibility. So I'll do a straw poll. If the commission would like to reopen the hearing to hear rebuttal from the developer, I'm willing to do that, but I think we need to put a time limit on it. And would we also then want to hear a re-rebuttal?

Absolutely.

Okay. Is a three minute for each one gonna be sufficient, do you think?

I think five would be more sufficient.

Everybody wanna extend it for 10 more minutes? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, we're gonna reopen the public hearing. And I think everybody heard the rule.

Wait, wait. I'm sorry. I didn't hear from my administrative staff.

What was your?

It was a straw poll, not a formal vote. It's the chairman's prerogative. But the rules are we're going to give the applicant another five minutes. And we're going to give the opposition five minutes. And you guys decide how to split that time up among yourselves.

Good morning. Will Northern, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'll give some comments, but encourage dialogue. Please ask me questions. So there has not been a golf course for five years. It is raw land. There is no economic activity going on. Not passing this plat will continue to stymie development and will have a negative adverse effect on property values, I can assure you. There's lots of opinions of the opposition with zero data. We've brought gobs of data and the best real estate minds out there. Value is in the eye of the beholder and I think that it's important that you separate that value from the current ownership versus that of market value. So what do I mean by that? So just as people bought a property because there was a golf course decades ago, If this project moves forward and there is new development, there will be buyers that will want to buy because of those amenities which have been asked for by the community. So because we are the fastest growing city, whatever we are, that phenomenal growth comes with tremendous demand. That means that the value of the property will appreciate if we invest in it, but we have to invest in it. And that requires outside investment from outside of Woodhaven. Bringing that investment will combat crime, it will improve values, it will bring amenities, it will draw the outside in. It will look different, right? It will, but our plan, when we went through zoning over nine months, was meticulous, lots and lots of community engagement, over 24 meetings or something, to determine land use. This state statute is like blurring the lines and blending in land use to platting, and so it's making platting less objective, which it typically is, and so I am empathetic to the position that you're in, because as a former zoning commissioner, this was my every day, right? We had this amount of opposition, And it's important to sift through the noise and remain objective. We've provided a packet with all of our slides. We weren't able to get through our PowerPoint to kind of speak through the platting components. But my role in this as a land developer, not a broker, I don't know any real estate brokers that do what I'm doing. is to add certainty one step at a time. The Fort Worth separating P and Z, the land development process for Fort Worth, it's not a great process, right? What I'm doing here by adding certainty, by incorporating new zoning and doing the entitlement step first and then reaching out to the development community to come in once we've established these boundary lines and increased certainty with community feedback, the process that we have in Fort Worth isn't really set up for that. So it's been challenging. We're all sitting here. I can assure you that by adding certainty through the zoning and taking one step at a time here, we are narrowing that scope of what will be delivered while also leaving a little bit of flexibility for that development, the future developers to build something. There is the development services processes they're gonna have to go through. Remember, when property is sold to a vertical developer, they're gonna have to go back through zoning to have a site plan. And everybody in this room will have another opportunity to talk through and nitpick that plan site by site. Additionally, there will have to be a final plat that will have to be done. So there's going to be a lot more public engagement on top of the extensive engagement that we've already done. Many of the opposition here I've never seen before. They haven't engaged with us I can't reach out to you if I don't know who you are. The city of Fort Worth has sent notifications through their process, through zoning. Everybody knew about it. If they didn't choose to participate then I can't do anything about that. I wanna also mention, Mr. Kerrien, when we acquired the land, we also acquired the water rights. So that's how the golf course was watered when it was in operation. So know that there's no negative impact to the city's water infrastructure. I wanna make sure I convey that to you.

And thanks for your comments yesterday at City Council. So questions here. I would like to just, as if I was, an investor at the Fort Worth Club, you had your pitch deck. I want to know where are we currently on the sense of potential partners or people interested? What is the actual number that you would look at that would need to be invested by the people who would participate as outside investors? That would be like what kind of money we'll be putting in to the projects that we desire to see there. Sure.

Is this something we can ask? Is it relevant to the planning aspect?

Just wanna make sure we're staying on track. Thank you, yep, no worries.

As long as it's relevant to the determination to be made today, part of which is the impact on existing single family property. Which I feel like it is, perfect.

I think it's a valid question. Great, and then lastly is the second, my final question is, with the next planning and zoning, are you planning to still be involved and still be here when that is happening?

Thank you so much for those questions. To date $3 million of cash has been spent just to get before you to be here to have this opportunity that's not including the debt that's just cash. So it is challenging for the development community to even like come in. do speculative projects. In one of our, in our Platts study, it wrote in there in the economic analysis, I believe it was $163 million worth of investment, right? It may be more, it may be less. Again, I don't know, because I don't know exactly what is going to be built there. But with the cost of construction that it is today, the cost of labor, the cost of capital, the cost of materials. It's going to be a whole lot. And keep in mind that it's going to be built by today's standards and codes. It's going to be brand new, really nice stuff on top of the PD zoning that we self-imposed that requires a higher architectural standard.

Trying to remember what your other question was. Were you gonna be here? I think you said you were.

Yes, yes, absolutely. You have to bear in mind that in going through this plat, we're creating several different parcels with different zoning categories. That was intentional. This is not one monolithic use, right? It is creative. It is allowing for flexibility. And so because of that, there's not one developer that is gonna buy this whole thing, likely, right? because they're all different kinds of uses and those builders focus on a specific type of asset class or property type. So for me, as the land developer, I have to be really intentional about who I choose to work with because they are gonna set a precedent for everything else. I want to see that developer successful and I wanna see the community successful because when I sell a piece of property to a selected vertical developer, that's gonna impact everything else. that I have left to sell. And so I'm going to be very involved in that process. And I've even told the community during my meetings, I'm going to set future meetings for them to meet and engage with those developers so that they have dialogue in working through their site plans, their material selection, the placement of the property, all of which is required by the PD zoning that we selected. The form-based code zoning that we selected requires that they have a site plan. There will be a lot more engagement. This is one step in a very multiple step process.

I have two for you. You stated earlier that you couldn't speak to the folks that haven't reached out to you to find out about development. How many residents in that Woodhaven area were you gonna do the development?

How many residents are in Woodhaven?

Yes. I believe there's- Surrounding the development.

I believe there's something to the tune of, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, four or 500 houses and 22 apartment complexes with about 2,400 apartment units.

How many residents did you speak with about the development?

So when we had our public meetings, we did door knocking. We... put advertisements out. We had about three, excuse me, it's really rude. We had about 285 people come to our first town hall.

So you spoke to 285 relatives?

That's how many people attended our first town hall meeting, and that was an open invitation to whoever could come. We worked with Pavlik and Associates is a local PR firm to help us get the word out. And during the zoning process, Councilwoman Bivens then continued our zoning case, asking that I meet with every single HOA and neighborhood association surrounding Woodhaven. And so I literally met with every community around Woodhaven at her request, and received support letters from every single neighborhood or HOA. Literally every single one. They're all on our website right now.

How many is that?

Oh, gosh. I mean, collectively... Over 1,000 people plus. I mean, each meeting, I would reach out to the neighborhood association president. They would then reach out to their membership, and we would schedule a meeting, and I went and presented to that meeting. So we had groups as small as 10 meeting at people's houses to meeting at schools or community centers where there were hundreds of people. So I genuinely made an effort to reach out to as many people as I could on top of the city's notification process during public meetings. So we had multiple mechanisms to get the word out. In addition to Interface Studio's public engagement, which is the third party consultant that TIFF hired to do a redevelopment plan. Plus it was in the news a lot. So you would be living under a rock if you didn't know that things were going on. Again, I sincerely made every effort to try to meet with whoever would talk to me.

The reason I ask that, we done had three different meetings on this, and I observed stuff, and I have seen the crowds of the opposition and the far. And that ain't adding up. The math ain't matching to me.

Did you watch any of the zoning cases?

I done been to a lot of the meetings, but I sit in the background.

Thank you, do we have other questions?

I just had one quick question, Chair.

Johnson.

Yes, sir. Is there a priority order or strategic plan that you have as far as reaching out to your vertical directors as to multi-family versus single-family homes?

Sure, so we have all of the properties listed for sale right now on various websites like CoStar, Crexie, LoopNet, et cetera, to get the word out to anyone that wants to search. You can pull it up right now and see those tracks for sale. And we loosely have used those parcels that we're asking to plat into based on their zoning, et cetera, so that when a developer is looking for land, some of those websites have features where you can put in the type of asset class you want, and so it'll populate. I'm looking for four acres of X, Y, Z. And so if it meets that criteria, it'll populate. If there's interest, they'll reach out to us, and we'll send them all of the information that we've provided. We have a marketing packet that includes a lot of the stuff that you all have seen in that imagery and drone photography. And then we kind of talk them through where we're at in the entitlement process. Then if there's continued interest, we'll keep a dialogue going ultimately where a developer typically sends what's called an LOI, which is a letter of intent to purchase. And then there's some negotiation going back and forth on what the terms of that transaction would be. And then ultimately, if there's an agreement, it would come and turn into a contract. Because we haven't completed and gotten all the way through the entitlement process, some of those developers want to wait and see and get past this hurdle before they take that next step. Although we have received a good amount of interest from a lot of really quality developers. We've had interest from folks that I'm not interested in working with because they're not experienced enough or a reputable firm or what have you. I really want to bring quality development to Woodhaven, something that the neighborhood and the east side can be proud of and something that's going to stand the test of time.

Are you finding that there's more interest in multifamily or single-family homes?

They're different. There's been the most interest in the UR, urban residential portion, but there too I think there's more builders that build that type of product because it's smaller and less risky, and not risky is the right word, but it's just easier to finance something that's a few million dollars as opposed to tens of millions of dollars like an apartment would be. And to the apartment, point as a use, the apartments that are in Woodhaven are 40 to 50 years old and they've changed hands tons of times. The values were driven up when we had low interest rates and so now there's less money being invested in those apartments and so the value of them is going down. They can't keep renters and so that's less money to reinvest in those properties and so it's created a downward spiral where it breeds crime and it breeds deferred maintenance. Introducing new product, even multifamily product, is going to set a higher comp and will communicate to the owner investment community like, hey, Woodhaven is ready for change, and now it's financeable. The bank's going to look at the rental rates of the new product that was built that's going to be higher and greater than what is existing there today, and that will then create upward pressure, and you'll start to see some revitalization. But it takes that. There hasn't been reinvestment from the existing owners in, like, decades, and so this will be a catalyst.

Thank you.

Thank you. More questions? Yes. So I understand that you need growth, and Fort Worth is the second largest growing city in America right now, and that brings a lot of people in. And so dead land does nothing for them, but it just needs to be developed well. And I know you're the main developer and you're going to bring people in, but my question is when I'm looking at the Thursday, August 7th, It's approved zoning and I'm looking at your, you have agriculture in one place and a multi-use one in another place but then when I look at the buffer incorporated into the zoning, you don't include that green space in the track B and it's missing over next to track A. And I understand about, I live in a single family home and I would hate to have a huge apartment complex in my backyard. My concern, for like with the neighbors, the owners there, is that buffer space, how large is that buffer space going to be between their homes where that golf course is to where the new building is going to be? Sure. Is it 20 feet, 30 feet, 100 feet?

200 feet is the buffer that we self-imposed at the request of the neighborhood in the MU-1. So from every existing single family home's backyard along Oakmont Lane North, we self-imposed a 200 foot buffer that was part of what made it a PD MU-1, planned development MU-1. When you create a PD, you're customizing what the zoning is and so those customizations that we made were incorporating the 200 foot buffer and removing a lot of the perceived negative uses that the neighborhood wouldn't want.

What would be in that buffer?

I'm sorry?

What's gonna be in that buffer? Are they gonna put a park in there or?

It's zoned ag is the only use that's allowed within that 200 foot buffer. And so there wouldn't be, that was intentional so that nothing would get built. And additionally, we placed the road where we did so that it would push the buildings as far away from the existing single family homes as possible. And because we used a form based code, which is MU1, it pushes the parking to the rear side. And so these residents that live on Oakmont Lane North, they are sitting up higher, right, because it's a lower topography where the driving range and Hole 18 are. So they have a forest of trees right behind their backyard. We're also working with a user, Econautics, that would be planting additional trees. Then you have the road, but because we have a form-based code, the MU1, that requires additional street trees, so there will be trees along the road. Then you have the actual pad site where something would be built. It calls for an urban form, meaning it requires that the building be closer to the sidewalk and the road, pushing that parking to the rear, and that also has additional landscape requirements. So you have like tons and tons of nature that's going to be between the existing single family home and before they get to see a building.

And so again, and then on the approved one, your AG is next to track A, but it's now in the buffer incorporated, it's not there. It's just, there's no markings with it.

So tract A is zoned ag and it's all flood plains so nothing will be built. Can I see what you're looking at? Just to make sure I know what you're, okay. So the top image is the zoning categories. The bottom image shows our two PD overlays. The one in pink that I described is for the MU1 which is the 200 foot buffer where in that 200-foot buffer it's zoned ag, so nothing would be built. On the other, in tract B, that's zoned urban residential, and we self-imposed a 200-foot two-story height cap. So 200 feet away from existing homes, builders can only go up two stories. Mind you, without that, Building a home in the city of Fort Worth, you can build three stories by right. We self-imposed a two. So that is what is within the 200-foot buffer within the UR.

So are those single-family homes or apartments?

So urban residential is a flexible zoning category, and it's a form-based code. It was very intentional that we chose that, and it has to do with the makeup of the land and what that builder wants to do. In reality, because of the site constraints, topography, location of the road, location of properties, lines behind it, it will likely end up being something like a cottage community. Like two-story, detached, single-family, duplex, four-plex stuff.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the questions. Keep them coming. Get you all educated.

Other questions of Mr. Northern?

All right. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you.

Now I'm going to spend five minutes with the opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, that was a lot to digest. The first thing that I'd like to address is Will Northern's statement that he has never seen the people that are opposing him today. Has anyone been to any of Will's meetings that is opposing it? So they've been there. Has anyone been removed from Will's email list because you oppose it? So thank you for that. So there has been a considerable amount of engagement that has occurred between the community and between Will. Most of that engagement has occurred again with people on the west side, excuse me, the east side of the golf course where they are getting the preferable zoning. There's been very little engagement unless you count this is what we're going to do and that has not included our opinions of what we feel is inappropriate for the main fairway, yes sir.

Can I interject, and we'll give you a couple of seconds, and I want you to say whatever it is you want to say. You should understand that we're only looking at one thing, and that's the impact on property values. So if you can help us with that, it would be great.

I can. Let's just get straight to it then. The UR zoning, he's right. There is a 200-foot setback. But when you look at the properties on Doral, Doral sits down in a canyon. So that means that anything between five feet and 200 feet is a maximum of two stories. That's fine, but they sit 10 feet below the land that we'll be built upon. which means that they're not gonna be looking at two stories. They're gonna be looking at three stories that may loom over their backyards. The second thing is that Woodhaven is fairly unique in our golf course design. Our golf course is not built in a square. Our homes are actually within the golf course, and the vast majority of us do not have fences, is why you hear neighbors talking about it's happening in my backyard. The third thing I'd like to say is Will says that most of us bought decades ago for the golf course. Well, my husband and I didn't. We bought two years ago. The golf course was already defunct, but we bought because of the peace, the quiet, the birds chirping, the views. And you are, the proposal right now with the plat is looking at putting a major thoroughfare, major thoroughfare within 200 yards. feet of our property line at the bottom of our hill. Because we sit up, and where he's doing this development is in a valley, that means all that noise is going to travel up the walls of that valley, which is where most of the homes on Oakmont Lane North are. So that is a major issue, and an issue that is strong enough that we would probably consider selling the house. And we'll have to take a discount on it, which I believe shows an adverse effect, a material adverse effect. So that's where we're coming from. We have not collaborated with Mr. Northern we have been told what was going to happen. We have had non-stakeholders, people who will not be negatively affected, making the decisions for us. And we have not received the information in a timely way so that we can rebut it fully and completely and have you have the full picture. And finally, I would like to add that the expert that Mr. Northern has called in on the MIA is neither a licensed appraiser nor is he a real estate agent. He is a consultant to the hospitality industry and doesn't know anything about residential valuation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? Is there anyone else that would like to speak and rebuttal? Yes, sir.

Excuse me. Could I add one last thing, sir? Sure. We have received in the last seven business days, nine business days, over 100 people signing the petition. There are 58 homes, to answer your question that Mr. Northern would not, there are 58 homes that abut the golf course along UR and MU1. 100 signatures, and that includes all of the people that are against it, on the east side of the course, including Mark Veazey and his wife, including Nicole Collier. So we have had a great deal of activism from the community. We have geared up and done things in a very short period of time where the applicant has had six months to have this discussion with you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

I would just like to say that the clubhouse needs redevelopment, and there's room around there for redevelopment. I'm opposed to building apartments and homes on the fairways that have nice homes around them. And is it possible for Crescendo to submit a revised plot?

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Questions or comments? Mr. Carrion?

Okay.

All right. I'm going to again close the public hearing and open it for discussion among the commission members. Mr. Johnson, do you want to?

Well, this is very, very hard for me. It's a difficult decision to make, but I have to refer to my duty here today. And I think that the developer has met the requirements to be able to approve this redevelopment. Are there things that he could have done differently? Of course so. I believe that's the case. I can't go backwards and fix things that haven't happened. But I do know that as recent as yesterday, I did drive through Woodhaven and It is a bit in disarray, and I was a bit concerned about some of the things that are going on in the neighborhood, especially around the apartment complexes. Lots of laundromats, lots of convenience stores with alcohol, people hanging outside. So I would like to see some revitalization in that neighborhood. And although I don't know who the vertical developer's going to be, I would hope that anything new in that neighborhood would add some value to the neighborhood. I think if nothing is done, I think it's going to continue to decline. Those are my thoughts.

Yeah. Yeah, I'd like to add, I appreciate Will Northern for presenting. I'm possibly at the end of my tenure. I've done this for two years. I don't know how long I get to do this. But we've had a lot of different people come in. And I'm just not sure what the opposition is going to get more passion, more conviction for what he's trying to do here. And so we have another stop. like a chance to hear from more people. And in my opinion, hearing what I heard, there is, to me, the right chances for him and whatever he's looking to do with the community here to see what the next chapter looks like. So I am also going to support you, Commissioner Johnson.

I hear a motion.

I move that we approve case PP25019, the Woodhaven Golf Course Redevelopment.

This particular motion is gonna be a finding of fact. And the state statute verbiage, I think Ty has it there. You have to move that the commission finds that

So I move that the commission finds that the development of the subdivision golf course will not have a materially adverse effect on the existing single family property values in case number PP25019.

Second. Second.

Second by Ms. Franz. Further discussion? Hearing none, would you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Kranz, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Hanserson, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Carrion, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

No.

Vice Chair Tidwell, how do you vote?

No.

That vote passes.

That motion passes. One, two, three. 62? OK, then we move to the waivers. Same case. OK, this is, you want to call this?

Do I need to call the case again, Rich, or the actual flat, or it's open since I called it previously?

No, you don't have to call the case again. I think you or the chair can restate the waivers that are up on the screen, actually.

Well, why don't you just tell us the two waivers? Sure.

It's for, the waivers are for block length 31-101, internal roadway network connectivity. And I think, that's it.

31-106D2.

Yep, block length link. Block faces.

And 31-101D, internal roadway network connectivity.

Does everybody understand what the waivers are?

I have one question of staff I'd like just to clarify. When we're talking about the cut through that connects around the mill, is any part of the waiver actually concerning that part of the plat?

Yes, I mean, when we're considering connectivity, we have to account for how many links and nodes there are with the streets, so that is being accounted for.

So the waivers are to allow four block faces to exceed the maximum allowed block face length. Second waiver is to allow a residential subdivision with an internal connectivity of 0.8 instead of 1.4. Third is conditional approval of the preliminary plan upon meeting the comments of the staff There's two waivers and then a conditional. Question?

Do we have a map of that so we can see it?

Do you have a question, staff?

So is this what they're talking about, the thruway on the one street?

Right, they're proposing a road that's cutting through the middle of the site. Let me see if I can find something a little bit. Not really a good page that shows it, but it basically goes from Randall Mill to the north down and connects into Country Club.

Thank you. Questions, comments? Motion.

I move that we approve the two waivers as stated by the chair and the conditional approval of the preliminary plat as stated by the chair.

I second.

We have a motion by Mr. Johnson, a second by Mr. Lamberth to approve the two waivers and to have conditional approval contingent on meeting the staff comments. Call the roll, please.

Commissioner Krantz, 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 Carrion, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

No.

Vice Tidwell, how do you vote? Yes. Okay, that vote passes.

That is the end of the planned commission hearing. We stand adjourned.