One minute warning, y'all.

One minute warning.

All right.

Good morning.

We'll call this meeting to order.

This is the January twenty-ninth, twenty twenty six meeting of the City Plan Commission.

Um, before we get started, want to introduce Colby Adams, uh, new commissioner representing Council District Three.

Uh Colby, do you want to give a brief introduction to yourself?

Sorry, uh Colby Adams, uh, happy to uh to serve and represent Council District Three.

Uh I have uh been a Fort Worth resident for coming up on seven years now.

Uh, have uh my wife, three uh kids, ten, eight, and four, and so uh, we stay busy and uh are happy they're back in school today.

Uh but uh glad to serve with you all and look forward to to being here.

Thanks, Colby, and welcome.

All right, turn it over for announcements.

Good morning, and welcome to the January twenty twenty-nine, twenty twenty-six in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth City 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, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of the Texas state law.

The Commission's primary responsibility are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, streets and alley right-of-way vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction area.

The commission is made up of eleven forward citizens, each of whom is appointed by the city council.

A quorum of six of the eleven members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business.

Nine members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed.

Seated at the center of the table is Miss Caroline Cranz, the Vice Chair of the City Planning Commission.

Other commission members present are Colby Adams, Commissioner Lambert, uh, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Sins, Commissioner Ryscher Richer, Commissioner Farda, and Commissioner Gillette.

And last but not least, Commissioner Johnson.

Uh staff members uh present today are Alex Parks, Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pinya, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, and other representatives from DSD.

My name is Stephen Murray, and planning plating manager of the and facilitator of today's meetings.

Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the Commission's docket and are available on the city's website.

The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of city code requirements and technical issues associated with the cases to be heard.

Today's public hearings are being documented by cable television and streamed on the internet.

To achieve an orderly and timely hearing, we request that the U observe the following rules of procedure.

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 be given a total of seven minutes.

The applicant will be allowed a two minutes for rebuttal.

Each side will be allowed a collective total of seven minutes for initial presentations.

We have Barbara Soltero keeping the time today.

And when you're up here, um presenting your case, clearly state your name and city prior to addressing the commission.

All dialogue will occur between the speaker and the commission only.

Upon the chairman's initial closure of the case, the commission will remain an 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 plating matters is final.

Action on the other docket items constitutes a recommendation to city council.

If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the development services department at 817-392-8027.

Thank you for your attention.

Commissioners, an order of business is the first order of business, the approval of the January 8th meeting minutes.

Second motion from Commissioner Johnson and a second from Commissioner Gillette.

Sims.

Okay.

All right.

Um we'll just do a voice vote on this.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That passes.

All right.

If we'll call the first case, please.

First case, V825029, vacation of portions of an alley located north of West Seminary Drive, south of West Anthony Street with the west of Union Pacific Railroad and east of Hempel Street and Block 8, South Side Edition, Council District 11.

General location is north of West Seminary Drive, south of Anthony Street, west of Union Pacific Railroad, and east of Hempel Street.

The applicant is Britton and Crawford.

Good morning, Commission.

As mentioned by Steven, this is VA 25029.

It's a vacation of this alley, as you can clearly see in the yellow highlighted boundary.

Yes, the yellow highlights are back.

Yes, you're welcome.

So normally the subdivision ordinance is clear that we cannot create any dead end alleys.

Take a look at the exhibit here.

The existing alley comes in off of West Seminary Drive, comes up, and it currently dead ends at the railroad track.

When they vacated this portion here, it would have terminated the alley on this location.

In order to prevent the termination of the alley, they have rededicated it back to the south out to West Seminary Drive.

So staff is supportive of the waiver request right now.

This is simply a matter of land consolidation for future commercial development, but there are no plans at this time.

Anyone have any questions?

I hope this is simple and so uh the applicant owns the property on both sides of the alley in this case.

That is correct.

So I note that Anthony Street kind of seems like it's abandoned at that point behind it.

It has a large drainage channel running through it today.

Ah, that's what that is.

Okay.

That's it's it's drain it essentially a drain drainage infrastructure and outfall to the railroad.

I guess what I was coming to do they also own the land on the other side of Anthony or no?

That's that's owned by that's owned by another uh another property owner.

Thank you.

Believe that property owner also owns this business here.

Neither questions for staff.

Okay, thank you, Alex.

Um, is the applicant present?

If you'll come forward, have you filled out a green sheet?

Good.

All right, if you'll state your name and city, please.

Uh good morning, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Christian Golobievsky.

Uh, I live at 7136 Wind Time Drive, Fort Worth, Texas.

Um, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Any questions for the applicant?

Maybe just to add to uh what Mr.

Parks have said.

So the the connector that we're proposing is uh an actual paved parking lot, and it uh on the south side, it ties in directly to existing driveway that'll make really easy access for utility companies to access the uh the power lines that are still within the alley.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak in favor?

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay.

Close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion.

This is in council district 11.

Pending discussion, I'll go ahead and motion to approve uh recommendation of the vacation of portion of the alley in block eight and south side edition.

I second.

Right.

Motion by Commissioner Richard and a second by Commissioner Gillette.

Um Michelle, if you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Vice Chair Cranes, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Next case VA 25031, vacation of portions of Growth Street, Iron Street, and Wallace Street, located north of the Trinity River, and on the east side and west side of Beach Street and Page Company's East Side Edition, second filing, Council District 11.

General locations north of the Trinity River, and on the east and west sides of Beach Street.

Applicants have an associates.

Okay, so this one is uh a little different than stuff we normally see.

These are essentially just paper streets only.

The remainders of these right-of-ways that these used to adjoin uh used to join have all already been previously vacated.

For whatever reason, these portions of right-of-way never were, and so this is simply to clean up the two properties on either side of Beach Street uh for future plating.

This is what the grid used to look like in this area.

Um and it is now much different, obviously.

So staff recommends the vacation of these right-of-ways to city council.

Does anyone have any questions?

Okay, don't see any.

Um is the applicant present.

Anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition?

Doesn't seem to be.

Okay.

Um then we will close the public hearing and entertain discussion or a motion.

Just like to um commend the uh staff for such lovely presentations today.

Well done, Alex.

Thank you.

All right, I believe this one is also in Council District 11.

All right, I'm gonna um motion to approve the vacation of the sections of Gross Street, uh, Iran, Irinian uh street, and Wallace Street rights of way located on the east and west sides of Beach Street.

Second, we have a motion by Commissioner Misher, a second by Commissioner Johnson.

Michelle, if you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Vice Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right.

Next on the agenda is other matters of business.

We have an election of officers, but did we want to do the infill first?

Chair.

Let's go ahead and jump to that and take care of the agenda business.

Okay.

And then we'll do that.

Okay.

So we have uh staff here to present the uh revised infill ordinance information.

Thank you, Alex.

Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you again.

Uh the Commissioners um CPC for providing us the opportunity to come back to you guys again.

Um with the Ravan, can I trouble you to get a little closer to the mic, please?

Thank you.

Okay.

Is it better now?

Better.

Thank you.

So we have had a chance to walk this document through various levels of our leadership to fine-tune our amendments and bring it to this shape as we present before the CPC today.

Hopefully all the commissioners got a chance to look at the document that we had shared last week.

So we already spoke about the background and everything.

So I would take some time out to summarize the document is about since we have new commissioners joining the CPC today.

Starting with the definition, so we have kind we have attempted to further uh streamline the definition, uh, taking into the consideration and comments and feedbacks from CPC as well as from the uh leadership, the city leadership.

So we have confined it to infull development where any development is one criteria, it is within the one-mile loop of A20 in the city limits and platted before uh January 1 of 2000.

So that is one criteria to define an infull development in the city, or if the development is within the UR, that is urban residential, any form-based code district, historic districts, or within the quarter mile of frequent transit routes.

So, what are frequent transit routes?

Are those transit roads which are bus lanes which have a headway or a frequency of less than 15 minutes or and including all the passenger rail stations?

So we understand those are potential areas for transit-oriented development or compact development, which is as well a good candidate for infill development.

Moving along, uh the role of development uh role of our director development services as we had discussed um before in our um last meeting would remain all the same.

Uh we haven't had much back and forth communication on this one.

Uh, only think we have uh we have addressed a few of the um comments uh that the commissioners have raised on this section.

So there are not much changes to what we have presented before on this particular section.

Um a summary of all the infill amendments uh moving with the first amendment on the connectivity index.

We are happy to accommodate the request of one of the commissioners or collectively uh to remove the blanket waiver.

So we have in induced the language that for infill developments, the director of development services or his designee uh may waive or reduce the connectivity index requirement based upon the prevailing set site condition, topography, and existing neighborhood character.

So if you would appreciate earlier, it was a blanket waiver, so we have tried to accommodate that.

On the lot lines, um it is for a normal uh development, it has to be perpendicular to the streets, streets um center line.

For infull developments, we will factor into the existing conditions, including but not limited to the topography, easements, neighborhood character, utilities, uh built conditions.

So various factors that would come to the uh review of the staff uh factoring all those conditions.

We could even have uh for infill developments, those uh platts which are not uh perpendicular maybe to the street center line.

For lot platting arrangement, um so for infill development, um we are providing that uh flexibility for those lots to front on to uh private excessement or an HOA designated lot.

So that is an added inducement.

There has been um a conversation on how we uh try to prevent uh some design um or address some design challenges uh on what we see with the turntown homes.

So we have uh introduced a language for turntown home lots with access ways perpendicular to a public street, the end lot fronting both the public street and the access way shall have its front yard design to face the public street.

So basically, it tries to address or prevent turn town town homes to be permitted.

So uh if there is any um any plan proposal for a downtown home, the end unit will always have to face the public street uh in order to face the um in order to improve the eyes on the street uh design consideration as the staff follows.

So that is an added language we have introduced in this particular section.

On the access ways, we have maintained a five-foot paved service for the designated private lot or private easement of common ownership for access to lots for infill development.

We have other criteria defined for other developments which are not in fill.

Specifically for infill, we only require a five-foot paved access way easement.

On the posse, that is the public open space easement.

So at the intersection of an emergency excess easement with the alley, usually it is 10 by 10 for a normal development.

For infill development, it could be reduced to a five by five easement unless and until the staff or the director feels the need for a greater dedication, considering the stopping site distance parameter.

On the additional right-of-way requirement, if at all an infill development or a high density infill development is trying to induce more traffic or more intensity and traffic in a particular lane, we would best try to look for or optimize engineering solutions to improve the lane traffic or the signal traffic.

But if it if at all it is determined that we need to have to provide adequate public facilities for the development, a lane dedication would be required.

We have two tools to do that.

One is through the separate instrument or through a replat.

So if the infill development generates a traffic that degrades the level of surface of a road, the it would be the honors of the developer to provide or to put in the cost of the roadway improvements.

Moving on with the street naming and addressing, currently a typical lot takes the name of from the public street.

For the infill development, we are providing or widening the canvas of it by also taking it from the rare access easement and the alleys.

On the corner clips, that is intersection with the street and an alley.

Currently it is 10 by 10.

For infill development, we have reduced it to 5 by 5 again if it adequately provides the required stopping site distance.

This is the section on residential driveway access limitation.

So as you see on the screen is what currently the subdivision ordinance states that is for any lot which is less than 50 feet and wide fronting onto a public street, it can only get access by two means.

One, it has to be from an abetting side or a rare alley or a right driveway within an appropriate access easement, that is from the rare.

So if it has a if it has an existing driveway, it would be under the consideration of the staff to evaluate whether this should be a candidate for administrative waiver.

If he's not in a position to provide the common shared access ways from the end of his property line up till the uh up till to the end of the nearest street, as you see on the screen, with a material which is asphalt or concrete or higher grade material.

So that is the second scenario.

The third scenario is in which if a redevelopment is happening partially less than 50% of the block.

Um it would be it would be treated to some kind of a feasibility test by the staff.

So if there are any uh conditions or topographical conditions that prevents um or deems the construction of the alley infeasible, then um it would be up for an administrative review, or if under that review it is um deemed feasible that uh the and the developer is not in a position to provide the common shared driveways, then he is subjected to build the alley.

Okay.

So he is responsible to build the alley from the edge of his property lines that you see in the uh high intense gray uh marked with air strikes alley.

Um whatever is remaining from the edge of the property line to the street is what we introduce a term called interim public alley.

That would be um that would be paved with the material which is able to substantially withhold uh 10,000 pounds or more of vehicle load, and which would be of reduced grade material.

Um that is even explained in another section in alley's paving.

Uh we had touched upon all of these um in our previous um presentation um back in November.

So I'm just reiterating for the brevity of all present today.

Uh on the um on the alley bits, um, I remember there was that conversation whether it is 20 feet or 25.

So we have tried to address that in the comments response.

And we have maintained the same um standards and also proposed the reduced standards for infill development as you see on the screen.

Um towards towards the last of the league of um major infill amendments is the block face length.

So except for infill developments zoned UR from based code and edge block, uh the block phase long standards doesn't apply to infill, which is less than two um acres.

The reason we excluded uh those um zones, particularly they have the their own standards to ensure or promote better walkability in those neighborhoods.

So that is taken care of.

Um with that, um I'd like to also um refresh the memory so of um all of us present today.

So when we presented last time in um November to here, what all changes what we had introduced?

One is on the infill development uh definition.

So now we have the one mile buffer that applies to all the developments in the city limits platted before 2000.

Uh we have tried to remove the NAZ and the urban villages because we uh when we found in multi-clare criteria analysis and GIS, we found that most of these are already included within uh this one of the overlays.

So there was no re-need to duplicate the offers.

We have introduced um something called a quarter mile buffer of frequent transit routes.

That is the definition of any bus bus lanes which have uh headway of 15 minutes or less that is frequently transited, so quarter mile buffer from that bus lanes, and also all passenger uh rail stations we have in the city limits.

And we have the urban residential and uh sorry, just looking to care if I can take a question here.

Um so this is part that really surprised me about the frequent transit routes.

Can you give an example of where something that's now covered that wouldn't have been covered before, like a corridor you're thinking of?

Is that like an interstate highway or Ontario?

Yeah.

So the TRE stop that is in Trinity Lakes is outside of loop A is outside the one mile buffer of loop A20, I believe.

So there's one there, there's there's a few to the north.

We have some uh we have we have some that are further north, an alliance airport and those areas up there that are frequented more often.

And so that those are those are some of the areas that are further out that would be that would not have been encapsulated in that one mile buffer.

Okay.

And I guess is there a legal definition for frequent transit route that is in here or otherwise cited?

So uh this definition is actually um taken Q out of the APA, American Planning Association, how they define it, and also transit-oriented development, which actually originated out of Canada.

So there are various principles and uh uh definitions that is universally accepted and also adopted by World Bank for how they define the transit oriented development.

So we have taken cue out of that.

Well, also if you look into the uh Trinity Metro rail, they also define the high frequency routes, taking the headway of 15 minute or less into the picture.

Sorry, I do have one more question.

You have an example of a current forum-based district that's outside the current definition that we're trying to bring in.

Like is there an area of town that's got a form-based co-district that wouldn't have otherwise been included?

The reason we didn't limit it to just stuff within the loop is anybody can create a form-based code.

Those form-based codes are usually generated by the public and then adopted by the city.

So if someone were to create a master plan community, someone somewhere further away from the central city than currently today, then we would like to be able to offer that flexibility and create those pedestrian walkable friend uh friendly pedestrian-friendly uh opportunities within their development and still give them the same flexibility we would to other ones that are located within the one-mile loop.

There are certain master plan communities like Walsh Ranch that has that has some opportunities for urban village uh zoning tradition, has some opportunities for mixed use and urban village development as well.

So there's there's lots of them that are further away from the central city that we didn't want to just limit just this one area and isolate those opportunities.

We wanted to be able to give that flexibility depending on where they were, because just it makes sense within the central city doesn't mean it doesn't make sense in other areas if they're willing to adopt those zoning classifications and the design requirements to come with them.

Can we move to the next?

Thank you.

On the connectivity index, as we discussed in the previous slide, we have uh introduced that subjected to the uh consideration of the staff or um uh the director or his designee to wave off or uh to reduce the requirement of connectivity index.

That is one change that is from what we discussed last time, Emperor on the load plotting arrangement as we introduced a language to regulate the town homes and attempt through the subdivision ordinance.

We would also do through uh zoning ordinance, which would follow suit uh just to ensure and prevent and ease the degradation of the neighborhood.

And last but not the least, block face length.

Um so uh we had MU or other form-based code districts, so MU is already under the form-based code, so we would just like to remove the duplicity in that.

Um that's our plan for February, and we are open to more questions.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Yeah, so one of the things that came up before is there was some uh staff had said, oh, there were some mistakes, some typos types of things in the ordinance presented before.

Is there a review of what those were just so I'm not having to nitpick?

Can you all um I think the typos were basically on those and or in the definition criteria which we um kind of explained right now, and the other thing was on the 20 feet and 25 feet on the alley widths, which we also rectified.

So those those are well taken care of.

I guess whatever Rich had shared has um addressed all those typos and um if they are more, we are happy to look at them.

Commissioner Henderson, are you asking if there's a red line?

Excuse me, available.

Well, I mean a red line would be nice to see, yes, of what we looked at before in depth, and we have now.

Uh sorry.

There is there were some other questions that several of us have put to staff about uh the ordinance too.

I'm not sure if I didn't get a response on this, did you?

I didn't get a response, but my questions have all been addressed in this.

I was gonna ask if if yours have as well.

I'm reviewing mine right now, make sure.

That was my question, Commissioner.

There was a red line prepared to show you all changes that were made since November.

I'm not sure if that got shared or if y'all just got the clean version that was sent out last Friday.

Yeah, I think what I got was it's it's uh a red line compared to what the old subdivisional rinse is, not what the changes were.

Did anybody see that?

That's that's what I'm seeing as well.

Okay.

I don't suppose we could have a printed copy we could read real quick.

Let me look and see if I can do that.

Other questions?

Well, we can do it right.

Any other questions or discussion while we're waiting on that?

Yeah, my my one concern on this was the uh the form based code going fully administrative in what is newer development areas.

It doesn't seem like that's really the intent of infill.

But I think it was explaining what they're trying to do here.

So I was a little surprised.

This doesn't necessarily matter for making a decision today, but unless I missed it in the emails, the presentation I got was I think an older version of what was presented.

Would it be possible for us to get just for our records?

The version that was presented here today.

Mine stops on slide 21 where it says discussion.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead and just kept going with some more good information.

Yes, which I appreciate being in there.

Yeah, sure.

Definitely it's in detail, study.

Because it kind of seemed like the agenda said schedule, yes.

My understanding is that that Steph is asking for a vote today.

Um I guess where we left it last time was you know, we we wanted the opportunity to provide comments, see the changes.

Um I guess question to to the group, maybe some discussion on whether or not we feel comfortable proceeding with a vote today, or if we feel that there are additional items we need to see or questions that need to be hashed out.

I know that they captured all the questions that I had.

I'm not certain to what extent we need to discuss it further, but if there was there were issues that weren't addressed today, then we can certainly discuss those, but they've captured mine.

Thank you.

Any other comments.

Commissioner Henderson, do you think we need to wait to see uh the red line on that?

Or do you think were your questions substantially addressed?

Any remaining concerns?

There was a couple of them.

I was trying to figure out if they have been addressed or not on uh the code.

Maybe we can look at them.

I think I think I can pull that sort of I would really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um you mean to say that the document you had received didn't have any red lines or I think the document we received to as Commissioner Henderson stated compares the original or the prior final version of the subdivision ordinance to the currently proposed amendments.

It doesn't show the changes between what we saw in November and what we're seeing today.

Yeah, it's just strike throughs of the original document.

It's not showing the interim updates.

Yes, shall we do a five-minute recess while we're looking for that?

I'm logged in.

Okay, let's do that.

Rich is gonna send me the document.

I'll pull it up out of my email.

Yeah, we're gonna take a five minute and then uh reconvene.

So if y'all want to get some coffee or whatnot.

Okay, we're gonna call the meeting back into session.

We're having so much Wi-Fi doesn't have to be.

Oh, you don't want me to do that.

I think we should do karaoke.

Let's go.

Yeah, I think you should do very okay.

Okay.

Well, that's right.

Sometimes I get up on stage.

Or paper towels.

Yes.

Okay.

Call this meeting back to order.

What this document is supposed to be is a red line to the version you saw back in November.

So I'm not sure where where the, you know, where the specific questions are, we did a l a little bit of uh maybe we grammar.

But this maybe we go to Lee's questions regarding the red line.

It's not super long award.

Okay, and so this was something I think this came from Tidwell uh wanting to have you know some of the rationale behind doing infill.

That was the main change there.

This was our definition of infill where we've made some changes.

So that was that was something uh in the initial ordinance there was a process built in where with the first application the applicant would submit an application saying I'm in Phil.

It's just not gonna be workable because development projects come in at all different stages, and so to try to do that would kind of be a nightmare to try to administer.

Um the the key to that is the staff will be trained to understand that um they have to watch out for infill just like they do on other things they watch out for.

Oh the applicant wouldn't be saying I want to that doesn't exist in Phil.

It would just so happens to the process city staff wouldn't.

It could happen through the process, and certainly you know, if staff chooses, they can update all the the documents to have a checkbox to say is this infill.

Uh though they would still have to check against that.

But you know, you you may have a development that's only coming in for a building permit, it doesn't need a plat versus one that needs a plat, whether it be preliminary or final or a replat.

And so there's so many different touches along the way.

Um it's kind of difficult to have a separate process created just to process whether or not you're an infill.

This is on the connectivity index where we had some back and forth um where I believe some of you wanted to uh put some language in that DJ had agreed to last time on the limiting the director's authority to grant waivers on connectivity index to certain situations.

So to what should be new from what you last saw is in red.

So the underlined part there that starts with foreign fill developments, that should have been in the version you saw last time, and it's newly proposed language because it's underlined.

A and B section of five is consolidated to one.

Yeah, it's it's I think that has to do with the red line and just how it's showing.

So there was a proposal to do this additional right right-of-way requirements at high volume intersections, and as staff worked through that, it was determined we don't need to add that to the ordinance.

Okay.

Almost halfway through.

You're half only halfway.

I'm sorry, I I couldn't hear you, Commissioner.

I wanted to make sure we don't have any more questions before I don't have any more on this section.

I was just stating we're almost halfway through.

Yeah, just capitalization.

Great for me.

Anybody I appreciate the addition of the asphalt here as an option.

Um is the is the asphalt or concrete requirement at the direction of development director services, or is that a developer option?

So it'll it will be at the developers' discretion.

They can do either or if they are gonna build the alley.

I appreciate that.

That would be it as far as that changes.

Can you scroll back to the interim public alley?

I think it's two two pages up down.

Section 21.

This one.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thanks staff for uh getting that pulled up to go through it.

Yeah, thank you for walking through that.

That was helpful for me as well.

Okay.

Um open it up if there's anyone here to speak in favor.

Anyone here to speak in opposition?

Okay.

We will close the public hearing on that.

Um and I I think at this point, reading the room, I believe we're ready to proceed with with a vote on this.

Um so I will entertain further discussion or a motion, and I believe anyone can make a motion on this one as it's applicable to all districts.

I'll make a motion to approve the subdivision ordinance textual amendments as they were presented here today.

I'll second a motion from Commissioner Farda and a second from Commissioner Risher.

Uh Michelle, if you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Adams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Hendzerson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Vice Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Congratulations on getting past this step.

I'd like to uh really thank um Aravon and Alex uh for putting the work through.

There was some transition that happened, and Arvon took took this up upon himself to to finish.

So Alex and Aravan, I really appreciate all your efforts in this.

So thank you so much.

Great job, guys.

I think the uh next item of business is to do uh vote for the chair.

So um do we have anybody who wants to do the chair?

Do you want to continue doing the chair role?

I would be honored to serve as the chair if if you'll have me.

Anyone else want to run for chair?

All right, let's go ahead and do a vote.

Um all in favor of Ms.

Cranz as chair, say aye.

All right, who would like to do a vice?

Oh, anybody opposed?

Um, this is new to me whenever I'm uh CBC Commissioner.

Okay.

Uh so less uh anybody want to do vice chair or nominate themselves or nominate somebody for vice chair.

I'll make a nomination.

I want to nominate Commissioner Johnson for the position of vice chair.

And I'll second.

Anyone else want to throw their hat in the ring?

Commissioner Johnson accept the nomination.

I'll accept that nomination.

All right.

Uh let's do a vote.

All in favor of Commissioner Johnson as the vice chair, say aye.

Anyone opposed?

Okay, so we have Caroline Cranz as the chair and CJ Johnson as the vice chair.

So good job, y'all.

And that's our final order of business.

So I believe we are adjourned, and we will see you next month.