All right, good morning.

It's nine o'clock.

We'll get started.

Um call to order the March 12th, 2026 meeting of the City Plan Commission of the City of Fort Worth.

Turn to Steven to make announcements.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the March 12th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth Plan Commission.

The City Commission meets monthly in open session to conduct meetings in on advertised cases.

Specific rules and procedures governing these hearings include the city subdivision ordinance, city planning commission rules, regulations, and bylaws, and related provisions of this Texas state law.

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

The commission is made up of 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom is appointed by the city council.

A quorum of six members of the 11 must be present in order to conduct the commission's business.

Nine members are present, therefore the hearing may proceed.

Seated at the center of the table is Ms.

Caroline Kranz, the chair of the City Plan Commission.

Other commission members present today are Andy Bill Andrew Beardon, Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Farda, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Gillette, and Commissioner Kelly.

Staff present today are Paul Rodriguez, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Alex Johnson, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, Leo Valencia, and representatives from FIRE.

And if I missed some folks, I'm sorry.

My name is Stephen Murray, and turn um the plating manager for the facilitator of today's meeting.

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

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

Today's public hearings are being documented by well, today's public hearing is live.

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

All cases are called.

Applicants and others others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony for a total of five minutes.

The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal.

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

We have Barbara Siltero keeping time today.

And uh, whenever you come up, please clearly state your name and city prior to addressing the commission.

All dialogue will occur between the speaker and the commission.

Come on, the upon the chairman's initial close 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 are final.

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

If you need additional information about a particular case, please call the Development Services Department at 817-392-8027.

Thank you for the your attention.

Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the February 12th meeting minutes.

All right.

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Lambert, and we'll do a voice vote.

All in favor.

Okay.

First case was VC 26001.

That was the vacation of a portion of Forest Avenue right away between East Lancaster and Union Pacific Pacific Railroad.

This case has actually been withdrawn.

They met the requirements for their permit without having to take additional right-away.

So no public hearing will be held on this case.

All right, y'all.

Next case is FS 26018, MG Ellis Edition Lot 13R, block 37, waiver request section 31103B3, lot plating arrangement.

The general location is north of Cliff Street, east of Ross Avenue, south of North Northwest 27th Street, and west of Clinton Avenue.

So FYI Alex is out today, so I'll be presenting his cases.

So the lock configuration, uh, if you go back to the previous slide, um, he was sold off that configuration.

Um whenever he came in to want to rebuild the site, the lock configuration didn't match what he was provided.

So now he's coming in to plat in this configuration.

Now the issue is is that he has access off of two streets.

So he's requesting a waiver uh to have access um one of the streets and not have access on both of the streets.

So the waiver request is um is to approve um this plat with actual frontage on two lot two uh right-aways.

However, if you look at this next uh uh slide, keep going.

One more slide.

He's only taking access off of 27th street, so uh we're recommending approval for this case.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

All right, anyone else here to speak on this case?

Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Um discussion before we call for a motion.

I just had a question.

So he's declaring a front, right?

That's correct.

Even though, but the ordinance requires, even though he's bounded by two streets, that that's the reason for the waiver, even though he's declaring a correct.

And I don't know if you're gonna notice since Alex is out, but since there's two other lots on either side, I assumably if somebody's gonna build on those, are they already platted for the replat?

They are, yeah.

Okay, they will have to replatt in that system.

They are not yet though.

Yeah, not right, not right now.

But if you look, I think there's uh an existing single family home to the left or to the west, and then I think it's vacant to the right.

So whenever it comes in to be developed, they'll have to reply in the similar configuration.

Thank you.

Okay, it looks like we have a speaker for this one, so we will reopen the public hearing and allow that speaker to come forward, please.

If you'll go to the the podium off to the side here, please and state your name and your city.

Anna Henin.

City is hers.

So the reason why I'm here is just because we need to have the driveway is from the back of the lot.

That's that's all what I'm here for.

Thank you for being here.

Any questions from the commissioners?

Don't see any.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, we'll reclose the public hearing.

Any further discussion questions or a or a motion?

This is in council district two.

Thank you very much.

Um motion approval of a waiver to section 31-103 of the subdivision ordinance to allow residential law to be platted with frontage on two residential streets rather than being platted.

There's two tiers between parallel and opposite residential streets and conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

Second that's who was that commissioner Fardas.

Second that uh with the motion made by Commissioner Beardon.

Um, if you'll call for a vote, please.

Commissioner Buden, how do you vote?

Yes, Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Crance, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right.

Next case, PP 2503, Law Funterra Heights.

General location is north of Bo Club Road, south of West Bonds Ranch Road.

Applicant is Kirkman Engineering LLC.

All right.

Uh if you go to the next one, they're requesting a waiver for block block length perimeter.

There's a couple of uh issues with this, not issues, but uh staff is actually supporting this.

But the reason why they have the block length is because they can't really stub out to the north because of an encore easement, and they can't really step out to the east because of floodplain, and they're actually meeting the requirements by stubbing out to the south.

And uh because of the south, they have that long continuous uh block length due to uh the encore easement to the north.

So that's the reason why they're requesting um that waiver, and they're also requesting that waiver not to step out to the north due to the encore easement.

That's the gist of the the proposal here.

And I'll let the applicant fill in uh the blanks as needed.

Thank you.

Come forward, please.

State your name in your city.

Uh Michael Heimlich, City of Colleyville.

I'm here if you have any questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

I don't see any.

Appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to speak, either in favor or in opposition to this item?

Okay.

Seeing none, close the public hearing.

Uh any questions, discussion, or we'll entertain a motion.

And this is in council district seven.

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

Uh I did have a uh just a not a question but a comment.

I didn't realize that the block link dots also include call-de-sac.

Cold of sacks.

It didn't in this scenario.

I think their exhibit is not correct.

It should end at the cul-de-sac.

Okay.

Um move approval for PPE 25033.

Uh, one approval of one subdivision ordinance waiver to permit a long block face.

Uh exceeds the maximum loud length of 1320 feet.

Approval of one subdivision ordinance waiver through requirement to ride sub-out stage one planet tracks of land to the northeast of the proposed development and conditional approval of the preliminary plat upon meeting the comments and staff report.

Second motion by Commissioner Henderson, second by Commissioner Johnson.

If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Jalat, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Crantz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Next case, PP2506 and townhomes edition.

Waiver request, section 31101 C1.

Secondary ingress and egress to subdivision, Council District 6.

General location is north of Rising Road, south of Dew Platte Way, East of Brewer Boulevard, and west of Chisholm Trail Parkway.

Applicant is flying in land surveying Nick Russell.

Morning, Chair Commissioners.

Essentially, what they are proposing is to have only one point of uh egress and ingress.

Um just kind of run through it here.

So on this development, um, it's it's impossible for them to do uh a second point of access to the east because you have Chisholm Trail Parkway or highway.

Um, and then there's also like a floodplain channel right adjacent to that.

Um, what they do have though, uh, as you can see on the plat here, um, to the west, um, they have uh a stub out to the to the northwest corner that will be leading into the uh adjacent um neighboring property to the west.

Um I don't believe, and I'll I'll let the applicant kind of speak to that, but I I don't believe that they can do a um a continuance on that stub out on the on the southwest side um because they also have a driveway on the on the street right there, and that would just kind of create a big uh traffic jam going on to the properties.

So essentially um this is really the only option is to have that one point of ingress and egress that they're showing um, and so uh DRC we recommend a comproval uh approval of the subdivision ordinance to allow for one point of access.

Um they do have because it's it's over 30 lots um by the subdivision ordinance, they are required to have two points of access.

But like I said, um with the the geographical layout of this, it's pretty much impossible for them to have two points of access.

So I just want to jump in too to say technically they do have two points of access.

They have one going to the west with that public access easement, but that's not from a subdivision ordinance.

It's something that we can't like say, yeah, that's that's okay.

But technically they have two points of access, but for this case, uh it's one because of the one on what's that street down there, risinger?

Uh yeah, correct.

Yeah, and and that's that's actually it.

So the the subdivision ordinance says that it has to be on a public or private ropes, but technically um they're not meeting that, so that's why they're requesting the waiver.

Thank you, Paul.

The applicant present.

Anyone else to speak on this matter?

Okay, close the public hearing.

Um any questions, discussion, or a motion?

Oh, there in that those neighborhoods, it's not unusual to be bound by either a floodplain or the the toll way that there's several developments are in the in the same boat.

I live off of risinger, not far from there, so we we see it often.

Understandable.

We do not have a commission or uh commissioner here from council district six today, so we'll need to motion 11-6.

I'll do it.

Uh a motion to approve uh PP 25060, uh approval of a waiver to section 31101c1 of the subdivision ordinance to allow a subdivision containing 48 one family and two family dwellings units to have only one point of ingress and egress to a public street where the maximum allowed is 30 units and two conditional approval of preliminary plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

Second motion by Commissioner Farda, second by Commissioner Reed.

Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Simps, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Kranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

That motion passes.

All right, next case is actually VA 26003.

It's a vacation of a portion of Curry Street right away and a portion of Weisenberger Street right away, adjacent to block 18th Weisenberg edition, Council District 9.

This general location is North Whitmore Street, south of Wingate Street, and east of Oates Street and West of Weberly Street.

Applicant is Logan Ellis.

Uh staff is recommending a continuance for this case because it needs to go to Urban Design Commission first.

So uh it'll go to Urban Design Commission this month and be on y'all's um applicate or y'all's docket next month.

So um motion here would be for a continuance to the I don't have the exact date.

Andy, what's the next date for CPC meeting?

Oh my god.

Uh I just inquire.

Did anybody else miss this from their docket packet?

I didn't I don't see it in my yeah, it's um that's because it would they needed to go to UDC first.

Okay, we didn't put it in there.

Yeah, thank you.

So the next date is April 9th, so continuance to the April 9th meeting.

Well, council district is it in the next one is district nine.

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

Second.

Sorry, who was that second?

I missed it.

Okay.

Motion by uh Commissioner Lambert, second by Commissioner Beardon.

Call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Simps, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

I have a question.

You say it's going to USD.

Um U D C urbanization.

Do I recruise myself from this vote?

Because I said on that committee, I can vote on this.

Yes.

I would recuse.

Okay.

I recruit.

Chair Crants, how do you vote?

Yes, the motion passes.

All right, next case, VA 26004, vacation of a portion of Ring Road, a prescriptive right away located south of West Risinger Road, Council District 6.

General locations west of North Crowley Road and south of West Risinger Road.

Uh applicant is Kimley Horn.

If you look um at this exhibit, there's a small uh portion of prescriptive right away.

Uh the applicant is gonna would like to vacate that small prescriptive right away and put a public access easement.

So the vacation is first and then a public access easement would follow uh on their plat.

So the applicant is here for any questions.

We're recommending approval.

Can you give me the definition of prescriptive easement?

So basically, like that may have been a portion of an easement that had been there uh for a long time.

Maybe the stuff had been split apart and things to that nature, or it was put on somebody else's platover remainder or something to that nature.

So there's there's just some right-of-way hanging out there that we need to clean up.

All right, I I think I'd understand that this is not part of the streets right away for North Crowley Road.

That's the streets like off just to the side of it.

That's correct.

Okay, because on the drawing, it looks like it's on top of the road.

So very good.

Yes, I didn't have a detailed enough drawing to understand that.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

Come forward, please.

State your name and city.

Good morning.

Uh Corey Vaughn, Irving, City of Irving, Texas.

I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this matter?

Okay, we'll close the public hearing, entertain further discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion on this to approve uh VA2604 approval of recommendation to city council for the vacation of a portion of ring road and a parent prescribed prescriptive right away.

All right, motion by Commissioner Farda, second by Commissioner Kelly.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillad, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Next case is VA 26005 vacation of a portion of San Shell Boulevard right away, north of Basswood Boulevard and a waiver request for section 3163 E6A, street vacation recommendation.

Expiration, Council District 4.

Applicant is Denaway and Associates.

This case uh would also like to request a continuance.

And the reason is is because we have a master transportation plan that we're gonna hear about today.

And part of their plan shows a right-of-way uh going through their portions.

So we thought that we needed to uh get together a little bit more prior to um moving forward with this vacation, hence we're requesting a continuance for this case, and the applicant has agreed to for that continuance.

Okay, um anyone here to speak on this matter.

Okay, close the public hearing.

Entertain a motion.

A motion for the approval of a continuance of VA26-005 until the April 9th City Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

A motion from Commissioner Lambert and a second.

Commissioner Henderson, call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Simps, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Jalat, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reid, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Kranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, next cases are annexations.

So AX25006 Dean North annexation request proposed for a mix of commercial industrial and residential development.

ETJ Parker County, future council district three.

General location is northwest corner of intersection of Farm Road.

And IH20 in Parker County applicant uh Bo Trainer, Travis Clegg, Raymond Kelly, and Stacey Stanbridge.

Morning, Chair Commissioners.

Um here we have the um Dean North annexation request.

Uh be a full purpose annexation.

So what they're they're essentially proposing is uh some condu or commercial and industrial and some residential uses.

Um this is in the 20-year planned service area.

Uh there is a development agreement on it.

And uh I will let uh Anthony Cisneral speak to the land use.

And while he's coming up, I kind of want to brief you on.

Sometimes y'all see annexations come up.

You don't see all of them, but the reason why they come up here is because the future land use may not match.

So that's what we're really uh focusing on, and that's what Anthony's gonna talk about right now.

Morning.

Um so yeah, the proposed land use change um on the left, you'll see the current adopted as far as the comprehensive plan goes.

So uh suburban residential on the west side and medium density residential, um, and then also general commercial along the um farmer road.

Um the change would be uh the amendment to the comprehensive plan would be um from suburban residential to light res light industrial and then also urban residential along the frontage.

Um so um the annexation would be from general commercial, suburban residential, medium density residential to light residential, urban residential, and general commercial.

Um we have a slight change um recommendation um to the urban residential.

Um so that would um the change would be from uh to mixed use and mixed use would still encompass urban residential zoning um and a lot of other types of zoning, um including uh commercial, all commercial and um2.

Um so our recommendation is approval to city council for um AX25006, um which is currently is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan uh with the recommendation of general commercial, light industrial and uh high intensity mixed use.

Does that include data centers?

Uh the light and uh data center would be consistent with light industrial.

Light industrial, okay.

Thank you.

So just a kind of recap the process here.

Does this also go through zoning since there's a zoning need here?

Slide, though it's annexation, or is it this is the all happen together because the council approves it as a unit?

This is a three-step process.

So in this scenario, because the future land use doesn't match, they're coming to CPC on a normal pathway.

It would go to zoning commission and then to city council and the uh annexation and the zoning would be looked at kind of at the same time.

So in this scenario, it comes to us first, CPC, then the zoning change request is reviewed, and then both the zoning change request and council is reviewed at the same time at the council hearing the docket materials staff raised some concerns about um the data center possible usage here.

Can you speak to that, please?

Uh yeah, I believe um, I mean, I don't know if the applicant wants to speak to that.

Um so a data center is one of the scenarios.

Um, but I believe that there's a couple of scenarios that the applicant is looking to do.

Um I know there's some specific concern I think that staff raised though that's in the materials.

Can you talk about what those concerns are, or is that someone else on staff that would speak to those?

I just some of the conversations that I've had in the past with um assistant city manager, uh, other staff members.

I think the biggest concern is high water usage.

Um, and I that's really the one that stands out the most.

Um I I don't know the the ins and outs of all that and why it uses so much, but I that's just kind of the gist of it, really.

I I think the thing kind of though we're focused on is the the comprehensive plan and the the future language.

I think zoning will really look take a look at the proposed uses to see if they're okay with that.

But um from a data center perspective, I think upper management is really reviewing um the policies on that.

So um it hasn't trickled down to us yet, but maybe in the future we'll we'll be able to speak a little bit more to data centers.

Okay, just to be clear, I'm raising the topic because it is included in the docket.

It's mentioned pretty lengthy concerns.

So wanted to make sure we understood kind of the context there.

Um that's a good point.

Thank you.

Um, and kind of a related question on on that related to land use more broadly.

Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan for residential and light industrial to be adjacent?

And I know this isn't necessarily residential, but mixed use, which could include some of that urban residential.

Oh, yeah, it um it wouldn't necessarily be uh consistent.

Um, usually we like to have a buffer.

Um, I believe that's why we were recommending mixed use.

Um, so we didn't have um as much urban residential right next to a data center.

Um, but having that mixed use would kind of give the option to do mixed use along the front, which we believe would be a really good um future land use, um, and also gives more options for commercial too as well.

Any other discussions before we open the public hearing?

Okay.

I have a question, please.

Um, is this what am I understanding is about 41 acres of space.

That's the uh adjacent right away.

It's the adjacent okay.

Thank you.

All right, is the applicant present?

Good morning, commissioners.

Uh Travis Clegg with uh Westwood Professional Services here in Fort Worth.

Uh we're the consulting engineers on the project um for the developer.

Um project's 185 acres.

I think we've kind of documented the the intent of the uh annexation.

We'd like to bring in 185 acres of really viable, amazing commercial property um on I-20 and uh farmer road, uh, directly west of of Walsh, who just kicked off the next phase of their development to our east, which has G commercial zoning uh to it as well.

Um so the goal originally was to do an industrial commercial corner.

That was the entire goal.

Um, and speaking with staff and speaking with leadership here at uh the city of Fort Worth, we wanted to preserve the commercial corner as commercial.

We asked for an industrial possibility over the entire property uh with the possibility of doing data centers.

Data centers are out there, it's a issue that's got power concerns, it's got water concerns.

Those will all be flushed out over a long period of time, I think.

Um the city staff and the city leadership requested that we do a more commercial-based corner, uh directly on the corner.

Um they wanted more of a mixed use for the entire deal.

Uh so we added in some residential uses.

Uh the comprehensive plan currently shows like low density single family on one of the most viable corners in our city.

And that just didn't make a lot of sense to anybody, including city staff.

So we agreed.

We went to a more higher if we did residential, it would be a very dense type of residential if that even happens.

The goal is to do commercial industrial on a very important corner for us to create a commercial tax base, not a residential tax base.

So our goal going forward is to have a commercial corner and then having mix of uses on the backside of the property, uh, which would include commercial, it would include dense residential, uh possibly some industrial, uh and all that would be worked out through a zoning program with the city.

Uh, and then that would require at the time of development, we would be doing site plans specific to if we did residential and industrial, they would have net necessary setbacks, and no one wants to mix those two uses in the reality.

We need the flexibility to be able to go to the market with a very viable commercial corner here in Fort Worth.

So that's the purpose of the annexation.

Uh that's the purpose of the comp plan change request, and that's why we're here today.

So ask any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions from Mr.

Clegg?

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

Can I make a comment along those lines?

When you get back that far in a track, it's very difficult to put commercial that far away from the road.

If you can't see it, you can't lease it.

So it would make sense to me to you know to have some warehouse or something back there that's screened by other commercial.

I mean, it's needed in the area.

Can you put the comprehensive plan map on so we can for our discussions?

The future, yeah, right there.

But the proposed future land use is not what we're agreeing to.

We're agreeing to switching the urban residential to mixed use, correct?

Yeah, that's the next slide.

Right.

That's what we're agreeing to.

But also the the rural residential behind that to the light industrial.

I'm also worried about like what is going to be happening because right now agricultural is the land use that that ETJ just north of it.

Obviously, it's not gonna stay that way.

I think things are gonna move on.

Uh I would think that would probably be single family residential, much like Walsh Ranch is across the street that's planned there.

I if you put light industrial back there, it's not gonna be that.

That's we need places for people to live as well.

If I'm if I'm following the discussion, trying to, there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of variables to it.

The original idea was to go heavier industrial, and the compromise that is is on the table currently is to mix in the mixed use to the mixed use as a way to kind of lighten that or as a compromise in between the two.

Um is that that's correct?

Is that pretty much it?

Okay.

The original intent was to do the whole thing industrial with data center being allowed on the entire thing.

This is the compromise of allowing to keep a hard commercial corner.

Um, to allow a mix of residential if that were to happen.

I think our preferences would that would not happen on this property at all.

Um, and yes, there's property around us that is contemplating development as well, and I would imagine at one of the most viable I-20 corridors with access ramps, on ramps, off ramps, they're gonna be looking at industrial commercial, more intense uses than just residential residential would be a fallback.

And as a follow-up question, what's in front of us today is just a change to the comprehensive plan.

It's not getting involved with any of the future zoning conversations, staff conversations, council conversations.

Do we in any way inhibit those by taking action here today?

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

Okay.

Well, just to add this, I guess uh when I look and see that the comprehensive plan doesn't really consider what should be out here beyond this parcel of land very well.

It looks like there's some work that needs to be done pretty soon because it's development's gonna happen soon all over this area, probably looking at more annexation.

I think that's a great point, Lee.

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

Yeah, so we're in the middle of a 2050 comprehensive plan.

Um and we we are at looking at future land use a little bit differently, or not a little bit a lot differently.

Um whereas kind of traditionally it's look at that on a parcel by parcel basis.

Um and so now we're incorporating what we call place types.

Um, and um, if that's something we you all want to know more about, um we could give you some information on what those place types are looking like.

Um we've been all over the city doing a lot of public engagement, so if y'all seen us out there, um we've been kind of explaining what place types look like, but really incorporating public and private realm into into that type of land, future land use, but you know, we're calling them place types.

Yeah, that might be good to have uh Anthony's team come and do a presentation to y'all.

Um but number two, I think the the main point is is that the overall future land use is being looked at right now, so please anyone else to speak on this matter?

Don't see any.

We'll close the public hearing.

Any further discussion or a motion?

And this is future future council district three.

We don't have a representative from three here today.

Somebody else to make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion for the recommendation of approval of the city council for the Dean North Development Annexation application, AX25006.

Second.

All right, motion by Commissioner Beardon, second by Commissioner Lambert.

If you'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Simpson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Jillette, how do you vote?

No.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Crens, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Okay, next case, AX 26001, Mary's Creek annexation requests proposed for industrial development, ETJ Terrant County, future council district three and seven.

ETJ Terrant County, future Council District 3 and 7.

General location is north of Interstate 30, south of Chapin Road, east of Walsh Ranch Road, and west of Chapel Creek Boulevard.

Applicant Kimley Horn.

Brandon Middlesen.

Morning, Chair.

Commissioners, we have another uh full purpose annexation here with Mary's Creek.

So we can see here it's north of Interstate Highway 30, south of Chapman Road, east of Walsh Ranch Parkway.

Proposed use is light industrial zoning.

Um site acreage is just shy of 53 acres.

Um they are in a 20-year planned service area, no development agreement on file.

Um leave this one we also have a deviation from the um future land use plan.

Um I will let Anthony speak to that.

Um so yeah, as you can see, um currently the the adopted future land use in the comprehensive plan is single family residential.

Um so the proposed land use change would need to be light res or light industrial.

Um thing that to kind of know um just to the west is a drop-off station.

So we feel that um maybe when this future land use was adopted, um was it considering that the drop-off station was right next would be right next to a uh single family um subdivision.

Um so feel like currently maybe that's not the best land use future land use for this area.

So yeah, you said that's the west, yeah.

Just to the west.

It's it's it's supposed to be in gray.

Um what do you kind of hard to see because of the transparency?

Um so our recommendation is approval to council for the Mary's Creek Parcel 1 annexation uh AX 26001, which is inconsistent with the current adopted comprehensive plan.

I had a quick question.

I noticed on the uh previous annexation request there were concerns from the staff about uh data centers.

Uh are there any on this one?

I didn't see I didn't notice any.

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

Perfect, thank you.

Any other uh discussion on this matter?

Any questions?

That means that we've already here for utilities to go to that.

I believe that's correct.

That this is uh a targeted area that we would like to have in the city at some point, so yes.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Uh good morning.

Uh Commission Brandon Middleton with Kimley Horn here in Forth.

Um I think staff did a great job of describing our request.

Um we do have the waste state or the transfer station to our west.

Um, and then we are subdivided by Mary's Creek from the residential to the north, and our only vehicular or access to the site is the I-20 front edge road.

So no connectivity to any adjacent use.

Here to answer any questions.

Any questions of the applicant?

Anyone else here to speak in favor of the annexation?

Anyone opposed?

Any further go ahead.

I have a question for the applicant.

So uh you're you're asking for this to be light industrial.

Had you considered commercial?

Uh seems like a nice nice spot for your highway frontage and all that traffic.

Yes, sir.

Um, I'm representing the landowner.

Uh there's been really no interest from the market for commercial in this location.

Okay, thank you.

Um it also just something to point out, it has pretty extreme topo challenges.

There's about 75 feet of fall between the frontage road and the creek.

So commercial will be very difficult here.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Anyone here to speak in favor of anyone here to speak against?

Okay, we'll close the uh public hearing.

Open for a uh motion.

Um I move a uh on case AX2601, uh recommendation of approval city council for the Mary's Creek Parcel Zero One annexation application, which is currently consistent with the adopted correct manager plan.

Second.

Okay, we have we have a motion by Commissioner Henderson and a second by Commissioner Sims.

Call for a vote.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Oh, yes.

Vice Chair Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right, y'all.

Thank you.

We're gonna move over to the other matters of business.

The first one is other OMB PP 21075, right?

Rio Claro, waiver request section 31150 issuance of a building permit.

General location is south of West Bonds Ranch Road, east of Moore's Dido, Newark Road, West of proposed Fleming Ranch Road and North of Harbor View Lane and West Fork Trail.

Applicant is actually the city of Fort Worth in this scenario.

Let me give a brief overview.

Um currently um the site is not platted, and we're the applicant and we want to put a lift station in.

So we're requesting um the uh approval for to allow it to move forward without getting a building permit.

And the actual next two are very similar that, but I'll get into those later.

I think we have an uh the applicant here to speak on on this.

Good morning, Commissioners.

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

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

See no questions.

Anyone else to speak on this matter?

Don't see anyone.

Okay, we'll close the public hearing.

Any discussion questions or motion?

And I think this is just open, not really assigned to council districts.

That's correct.

Okay, so wait.

Yeah, this one's seven actually.

Yep.

Sorry.

Um I move on, case PP 21075, uh, approval of one subdivision orders waiver met to the issuance of a building permit for listation prior to the recordation of a final plat.

Second.

A motion from Commissioner Henderson, second from Commissioner Johnson.

Please, Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Kranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, next OMB is OMB FP 24047, Lone Star Liberty Trails, waiver request, Section 31150 issuance of an irrigation meter.

Um basically, um there they've already final platted a portion uh adjacent.

However, they want to extend the irrigation meters into an unplatted portion of their development, which is phased, which is soon to come.

So their request is to uh get irrigation meters without having a um platted lot.

The applicant present feel tired Kevin Murphy.

Um I'm here with Boston Engineers for Worth Texas.

Um Stephen did a great job of explaining it.

So if you'll have any questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you for being here.

Anyone else to speak?

All right, close the public hearing, entertain discussion or a motion.

On other matter of business, FP-24-047.

I move for approval of a waiver to section 31-150 of the subdivision ordinance to allow the issuance of irrigation meters without a recorded final plat.

Second motion by Commissioner Lambert, second by Commissioner Johnson.

If you call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardin, 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?

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Crantz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Our last OMB is OMB 6809, uh, Randall Mill Road, waiver request section 31, 150 issuance of irrigation meters.

General locations north of Randall Mill Road, south of old Randall Mill Road, and east of East Lu Bay 20 North Freeway.

On this one, they're doing a thing called a land use certificate of occupancy, which means uh for commercial districts and industrial districts.

You're allowed to put a parking lot as long as they're within 500 feet of the business.

So in this scenario, they want to put a parking lot on the location, but as part of that, you have to have uh urban forestry.

So in order to get urban forestry um and ensure that uh those trees are watered, they're requesting irrigation meter because the lot's not platted.

So for most of the parking lots uh that you may see within the city for what they may be on a platted piece of property.

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

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

So we're um requesting in that waiver for the irrigation meters.

Go to the next slide.

Kind of shows uh where all the shoes are gonna be.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

That's some new software.

Morning.

My name is Drew Lonicro with Hannah Surveying Engineering.

What's his name?

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

I don't see any.

Thank you very much for being here.

Close the public hearing, um, entertain discussion or a motion.

I moved to approve a waiver waiver to section 31150 of the subdivision ordinance to allow issuance of irrigation meters without a required platform for OMB 6809 Randall Mill Road, waiver request section 31-150.

Second Commissioner Sims?

Yes.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Johnson, the second by Commissioner Sims.

If you call the vote, please.

Commissioner Beardon, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Hanserson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Sims, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Jadletz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Reed, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Kranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, before we call the next case, our audio visual team will need about five minutes to set up.

So if we could take a short recess and allow them to do that.

Okay.

We'll move to a recess.

Thank you.

All right, recess.

I just want to bring your attention to the this paper that I provided.

I know in our last um public hearing we had discussed.

Well, how many cases do you usually get on?

And how many go to see?

Should I wait till okay?

Never mind.

I'll wait to give this spill till after.

All right, cool.

I'm done.

All right, y'all.

We're gonna go ahead and get started.

Um our last item of business for City Plan Commission today is the presentation on the master roadway network.

We have Armand and staff uh taking care of that.

Okay.

So uh good morning.

My name is Armand Bryant.

I'm the multimodal transportation manager for the city of Fort Worth.

And today I'm here to uh along with my um consultant Kelly Duggan are here to uh give you an update on the master transportation plan.

We've been working hard and diligently for the past 20 plus months, talking to the state, talking to counties, talking to residents, neighborhood associations, businesses, and anybody else who would talk to us, business owners, to really find out and get uh to get some really good information about what needs to happen over the next 25 years about the from the transportation side, not just not just transportation as you'll see, but um transit as well as active transportation, freight and other things as well.

Um what we're doing today is just a briefing, so there will be no vote.

We're planning to come back in April to ask for a recommendation, but we wanted to make sure and give you this chance to um see where we're at, as well as we're going to give you at the end, we're going to show you how you can also look at everything and be able to uh comment and review before you go ahead and make a vote in uh April.

And with that, I give you uh Kelly Duggan.

Great.

Thank you, Armand.

Thank you all very much for the opportunity to brief you.

Um as Armand said, this is you know, almost two years of work that I'm gonna try to boil down in 10 minutes.

So forgive me for kind of uh speeding through this, um, but want to be cognizant of everyone's time and also just really want to orient y'all with the plan document so that um when we share the draft for y'all to comment on, um you have a good idea of where everything is and and the particular areas that interest you so you can zoom in and and dig deeper.

So think of this as kind of a little executive summary level overview of the plan.

Okay, so um first, you know, why a master transportation plan.

Um, I think it's it's no surprise to ever anyone in the room.

You know, Fort Worth is is growing quickly, obviously, but one of the things that um we really wanted to zero in on um over the course of of this work is also the the regional travel demand that the city is absorbing.

So the geography you see on the screen is what we're calling the greater Fort Worth geography.

Um it's home to about 2.00 people and is projected to reach closer to five by 2050.

Um so you know, while the city itself is is anchoring a million residents that that broader regional demand that the city is anchoring, of course, has a great impact on the transportation system.

So we wanted to make sure we were considering the the pressures that are created on the transportation system because of that role as the sort of anchor of the western half of the Metroplex.

Next slide.

And uh what the slide shows is um essentially the different scales of projects that we looked at and programmed through the course of this plan.

So it shows really how we're moving from long-term needs to uh funded deliverable projects.

So on the left, you know, we have our ultimate system needs.

Um, those are the result of our travel demand modeling that we've been working with COG on.

Um, you know, and this is a not a funded or prioritized list.

This is you know, essentially the the ultimate build out and what the system needs to function optimally.

And then from there we have our constraints program, which turns those needs into a long-range prioritize list.

Um there we have our transportation investment program, which is really looking at the next 10 years and how we can move those long-term needs uh from planning to delivery, and then start to align these projects with bond cycles and funding.

And then finally, we have you know that that four-year time frame, uh looking at CIP and bond program, um, also other sources of funding, which we'll talk about in in the next couple of slides.

Um, but you know, these are the projects that are ready to move into design and ultimately construction.

So from left to right, you know, you that project list gets smaller, um, but readiness and certainty increase.

Next slide.

So this is really just showing um, you know, the the full scope um of the of our work, what we looked at is as Armand mentions, it's not just roads.

Um, you know, we wanted to look at the entire transportation system.

Uh so including, of course, roadway and and intersection improvements, um, but also considering freight routes and strategic um uh railroad grade separations to support that safe and efficient movement of goods, transit as another important component, how we can you know make some improvements to the existing service that can move people more effectively, um, and then as well focusing on closing gaps and insidewalk bikeway and trail networks.

And finally, the plan also identifies some technology corridors where you know emerging transportation technologies can play a critical role in the future.

Next slide.

Okay, so this is a quick little overview of how needs were identified.

And you know, in some, we wanted to really balance the technical analysis.

This involved things like our state of the system report, our multimodal gap analysis, our transportation supportive index and a transit propensity index, um, alongside community engagement and feedback from the public through the many, many open houses and surveys and stakeholder meetings that we conducted to confirm and refine those priorities.

So the result of kind of synthesizing those two inputs is this uh prioritized project list, which really you know creates the the backbone of the transportation plan.

Next slide.

Okay, great.

Um you know, in terms of of what's not working today, uh some of the key problems that we uh sought to address.

Uh again, and no surprises to anyone in this room, but of course, congestion and longer travel times.

Um, also, you know, one of the the key things that emerged through the analysis was the fact that freight is is using local roads, um and that's often because uh trucks don't have appropriate alternative routes when the primary route fails.

Another big issue being you know, gaps in the sidewalk and bike network, um, and then finally uh you know, access to transit can be challenging.

Um for both from a uh you know first and last mile perspective, but uh also just you know, some tweaks that we've recommended in terms of of frequency, um, reliability, transfers, um, those types of improvements to the existing uh transit service.

And next slide.

Okay, so um this one is just talking about what the plan recommends.

Um you know, for roadways, we really wanted to focus on these targeted gap closures.

Um small segments of roadway that went filled, um, could create a more contiguous corridor and provide you know operational and capacity improvements, um, particularly in congested areas.

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

Thank you.

Of course, of course.

I'm sorry, I thought that um I wouldn't be.

I thought that I wasn't able to.

Happy to.

Can y'all see me?

We good?

Good.

Yep.

Okay, great, great.

Um, and then uh, you know, in addition for freight investments, as I mentioned, you know, creating these safer, more direct routes, um, and then of course those those key uh rail grade separations to keep uh goods moving as efficiently as possible.

And in our active transportation network, um, you know, again, filling those the strategic gaps, similar to the strategy for roadway, you know, where can small segment um gap closures really provide a more contiguous network and provide for a more um efficient system that can actually get folks from point A to point B without having to encounter those gaps and you know find themselves uh in a roadway in an unsafe or unprotected roadway.

Um, and uh yeah, again, transit, you know, we really looked at some of these kind of low-hanging fruit type improvements uh with working closely with Trinity Metro in first and last mile access, service frequency, and transfers to make the system function a little bit more efficiently.

So a lot of these improvements are smaller targeted projects that deliver big gains, but a lot of them are large, complex projects as well.

So there's a broad range of scales.

Okay, next slide.

Great.

So once we had this universe of projects developed, um, we needed a clear and consistent way to prioritize them.

Uh so the projects were scored uh using this framework that we developed.

It was a direct outcome of the values that we heard from the public as we uh worked through all of our open houses and surveys and all of the great feedback we received from the public.

And this diagram shows how we standardize some of those values into things that we could actually measure and score to eventually get the results to rank that list of projects and phase them realistically with available funding capacities.

Next slide.

So once we understood how these projects ranked, you know, then the next question is what can realistically be funded and when.

So that's where our fiscal forecasting comes in.

This slide shows some of the inputs and outputs associated with the model that helped us estimate funding capacities for that 10-year time frame that I mentioned.

So you know, this really gives us an idea of not just debt capacity, but also other sources of funding that the city has historically received, and is a sort of snapshot if things continued in the same way.

You know, what could we realistically expect for the next two investment cycles?

And gives us some overall capacities and helps us understand what we can slot, what we can afford based on the cost estimates that we've developed out of that whole project list over the next 10 year and 25 year horizon.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so at this point, we've talked about three things.

We have that full universe of projects, we have how they are prioritized, and then we have what funding capacity is available for each cycle.

So the transportation investment program, which I mentioned in one of the first slides being that 10-year program framework, that really is how we bring those pieces together and bridge planning to delivery.

So it's the fiscally constrained programmatic framework, a big emphasis on readiness and sequencing, and projects are organized into near and medium term investment cycles and aligned again with bonds, but also with grants, other sources of funding, potential partnerships with other jurisdictions.

And you know, it's essentially how the cities can move from some of these planning decisions to projects that can actually be built.

The next slide.

So some of the components of the transportation investment program schematic design is a huge part of that for many of the projects.

We advanced them through cost estimates and risk reviews, uh, took a look at approval pipelines to really get a good understanding of what it is going to take to implement some of these projects.

The funding alignment piece ties these projects to bond cycles and grants and other sources of funding, as I mentioned previously.

And then there's this whole you know, cash flow and phasing component that looks at how these different activities associated with each project can be spread across bond cycles if appropriate.

So for example, if we have a complex grade separation, you know, over a rail or a roadway going through environmentally sensitive area, we know that that's likely not going to be designed right-of-way acquired, you know, environmental clearance and constructed all in a four-year cycle.

So thinking strategically about how we can phase these projects realistically, um, and what can really happen in that in that four-year window.

Next slide.

Um essentially, you know, one of the big recommendations of the plan is that this be the core work of the regional transportation and innovation division.

So focusing really on that project development piece that I just outlined.

That's what the dark blue on this diagram outlines.

Um, so you know, early project development, focusing on programming, schematic design, risk analysis, funding partnerships, all of the front-end work that identifies constraints and refines costs and aligns projects with funding before they move forward.

Um, you know, we really believe that investing in these steps early is going to reduce risk and prevent delays further down the road.

Okay, next slide.

Okay, so next we have the projects, the different scales of projects that you know I showed in some of those diagrams previously.

We have some maps to show them.

We have, as Armand mentioned, an interactive map where you can zoom in and take a closer look at some of these.

I realize it's difficult to absorb or digest at the scale on a screen.

But I will, as I said, just kind of orient you with the different project lists so that you can take a closer look whenever you review the plan.

The first is that four-year window.

So that's the 2026 investment cycle projects.

This essentially just shows the roadway projects included in the 2026 bond cycle.

So of course, this list is consistent with the list that has been shared with leadership and ultimately will be shared with the public and ultimately what will be voted on in the bond election.

And you know, we're coordinating closely with other departments to make sure this list gets updated as it gets refined over the next couple months.

And then next slide.

This is moving into that 10-year time frame.

So for the 2030 investment cycle projects, um a lot of these projects are construction of the projects that were designed and developed in the 2026 cycle.

Um so you know, we have that overall capacity that we've estimated from our fiscal forecast and to determine what can actually fit within that that capacity.

Um it's looking like if if things continue the way that the forecast has estimated that it's going to essentially be just a lot of shovels in the ground, completing a lot of the work that was begun in 2026.

Next slide is our 2034.

Um, so this is you know, again, moving from the the top of that ranked list, just moving down uh the line and um, and of course, within those those guardrails of what the funding capacity estimates are.

Um, and this you know shows uh different from the previous uh project list.

You know, we've got a mix of some of the projects are planned for design and construction, some are planned for just design and right-of-way.

So again, making use of that uh incorporation of project complexity to help really be strategic about planning which bond cycle activities can realistically happen within that four-year window.

I I should also add that you know, the the prioritization of the projects and the rank is not you know carved in stone.

Um, it's meant to be at this point in time, uh, how these projects ranked.

Uh, one of the recommendations of the plan is to update that regularly and also to allow for some flexibility.

For example, if a new funding opportunity becomes available that really aligns with one of the projects that's further down the list, there's the opportunity to make use of that funding uh opportunity and move the project up.

So it's not carved in stone, um, but it really does create a baseline and a somewhere to start when each of these investment cycle planning activities get get closer to when these bond cycles will actually occur.

And next slide, please.

These are our long-term projects, so that's that 25-year horizon.

Um, there are a lot.

Um, you know, these are the results of our gap analysis that I mentioned, um, and also all of the bond candidates that did not rank high enough for the previous investment cycles and or you know, did not fit within those funding capacities.

Um, but we do have uh cost estimates for for all of these projects, um, and they are in a ranked list, you know, they're mapped and uh ready to be advanced as soon as funding becomes available.

Okay, next slide.

The next couple of slides are the active transportation um update.

As you all know, you know, the city has a great active transportation plan and network from the 2019 uh plan.

Um, and you know, we we didn't want to reinvent the wheel, um, but we did want to take a closer look at um, you know, how to arrive at a more priority network.

Um so what are some key segments, uh key projects by mode that can realistically be built in that 25-year horizon, um, really with the goal of um of creating a more contiguous network, as I mentioned earlier.

So rather than building a small segment, you know, somewhere out on the fringe that is not gonna really connect to any other active transportation facilities.

How can we focus on extending as much of the existing network as possible and arriving at a more complete network?

Again, focusing on that contiguousness of the network.

So we created the top 20 by mode.

And of course, the active transportation plan for 2019 relied on pre-pandemic data.

So we of course updated the data and re-ranked everything.

These are those top 20 by mode.

So we have our top 20 bikeway projects, trails projects, and then sidewalk and crossing projects.

Okay.

And then I know it's difficult to absorb all of this information at this scale.

So that's that's where those interactive maps that y'all have a chance to review and you can zoom into will come in handy.

Okay, next slide.

Okay, and then the last piece is the roadway network.

So this is that that ultimate bucket of projects that I mentioned early on, you know, the ultimate system needs, not with any planning horizon in mind, but you know, ultimately at full build out, what does the system need to function as efficiently as as possible?

So that is our roadway network.

Um the roadway network replaces the previous master thoroughfare plan.

Um all of those links were carried forward into the roadway network, but they have been reclassified into a functional classification system, like you see here on the screen.

Um so you know, principal arterial, major arterial, minor arterials, and one big addition is uh the inclusion of major collectors in the network.

Um, and the the process that you see here on the screen is really the the methodology that we use to determine um how those links are to be classified.

Um, and it's based on a combination of access.

So, what does the roadway connect to?

What what what classification, what hierarchy of roadway does it connect to, and then what are the capacity needs for 2050?

Um and that helped us classify them and also determine the ultimate number of lanes that will be needed.

Next slide.

These are the roadway network maps.

Um again, um, much more useful whenever you'll be able to zoom into the interactive map.

Um, but on the left is the functional classification, so you can click on one of the links and see what the classification is.

And then on the right is the lane map.

So not all major arterials, for example, have the same ultimate cross-section assignment or the same ultimate number of lanes.

Uh, that's where the lane map uh comes into play to show exactly the lane counts for ultimate build-out.

And then it's just this last slide.

Um, you know, because the the master thoroughfare plan um utilized the street type classification system that really had a nice land use component integrated into the classification of streets, and we went to a uh kind of lumpier, more federal classification system.

We didn't want to lose that that land use element.

Um so we have what we are calling the supporting roadway classifications or multimodal roadway classifications where we've identified transit priority areas.

Uh this includes areas where potential high capacity transit could be considered in the future, areas where you know, in our conversations with Charney Metro, um we wanted to memorialize as a potential for uh transit priority measures, things like potentially dedicated lanes or transit signal priority, um, Q jumps, obviously, there would be additional study required to determine which of those enhancements are appropriate for the corridor, um, but just to um you know, mark those as the potential and to kind of memorialize the fact that the city and and um Trinity Metro agree on on some of these corridors.

We also have mapped all of the design districts to you know indicate areas where more compact design, uh more walkable type environments would uh dictate a different type of cross-section treatment, similarly for freight, um, you know, when when there's an overlap with one of our freight corridors or the industrial growth centers, um, you know, some of the the districts that you know, a different cross section, for example, that would uh remove uh bicycle and pedestrians into a shared use path completely separated from the roadway would be a more appropriate way to accommodate all of the modes.

Similarly for freight, um, you know, when when there's an overlap with one of our freight corridors or the industrial growth centers, um, you know, some of the the um an alliance, some of those districts, um, that you know, uh a different cross-section, for example, that would uh remove uh bicycle and pedestrians into a shared use path completely separated from the roadway would be uh a more appropriate way to accommodate all of the modes.

So this was just um our uh our attempt to make sure that the new classification system didn't all of that that land use and contextual considerations that were part of the master thoroughfare plan were were carried forward.

And then the last slide, I think, Armand.

Um I just I mentioned the transportation technology areas as well.

This um, you know, memorializes a lot of the work that uh regional transportation innovation have been doing on the hot corridors, um, and some of the other work to um indicate where transportation technology enhancements um are planned for the future.

Um and this final map is uh a kind of uh additional project map um that looks at um the top 20 corridors where recapitalization.

Um so you know, the most of these have uh a poor PCI um operational, so they have you know they are they're above capacity, and then they're also um on that high-endary network, which was the result of of the safety action plan.

So when those three indicators come together, these uh 20 corridors emerge to the top for the city to consider for recapitalization moving forward.

Okay, I'm sure I'm sure that was not 10 minutes, but uh hopefully uh I didn't go too much over.

Um I know that Armand wanted to pull up the interactive map.

Um, but happy to answer any questions um before or after, however, you want to do it, Armand.

I just wanted to add a few notes.

Uh so this is the uh moving a million.org web page.

Um we're in our public comment period, so for until the 27th, um the public um anybody will be able to come here and this they'll be able to click on this button and they'll be able to review the actual master transportation plan document to see um the updates, the things that we talked about, and you can really dig into the details.

I definitely encourage you all to look at it over this next month, uh at place your comments and and uh so that and that will go directly to our consultant who will be able to address them.

This is the master roadway network, which will be taking the place of the um, which will be taking the place of the current master thoroughfare plan.

As you can see, you can look at all the roadway alignments that we um are proposing.

And what's nice is you just click this little button here, and you can pretty much click anywhere you want and place a comment.

That comment will go sh will go directly to our consultant who will then be able to um address that comment.

What's what's been nice is we've been able to share this with a lot of the development community for them to be able to review this and make sure that it's consistent, obviously, with the development within the city.

Um but yes, so definitely come and uh make your review comments.

The other thing you should know is that the action you'll take place uh at the public hearing in April will be for the uh master transportation plan adoption, as well as it updates the active transportation plan with the um with the projects that um Kelly D had just uh talked about as and um it came out in our uh conversations with legal that um as a result of the new roadway classifications because all of the current ones, you know, neighborhood connector, commercial connector, all of that's going away and is being replaced with a classification system that's consistent with Techstot.

It will allow us uh it will help allow us to uh have more roads that are eligible for regional, state, and federal funding.

And so um that that new classification system is not in our subdivision ordinance or access management policy.

So with that, we would be making a very light um textual update.

We're just gonna red line all of those classifications and change it so that it references the master transportation plan so that we can update one without having to update the other in the future.

We can just we can uh have them work independently but together.

Um I did want to give time if you had any questions.

I had a question.

How are you guys identifying um or prioritizing like underserved or lower income neighborhoods for these improvements?

Armand, you I would you like me to take that one?

Sure.

That's fine.

Sure.

I'll I'll mention um some of the the technical ways that that we did that.

So um we have our transit propensity index that I mentioned that looks at a number of factors.

Um you know um uh income, um, English of second language, um, zero car households, um, you know, those there's one more indicator that I can't quite remember, but it's it's all in the plan um that we have synthesized together to create this index.

Um, and it's it's typically used to assess transit propensity, um, but we have incorporated that index into um all of the planning and all of the prioritization for you know how these projects rank.

Um so when I listed the so that was one of just sort of our our original process of developing our our gap projects, that's how that input was used.

And then secondly, in our um prioritization criteria that I went over, one of those criterion is opportunity, um, and that also factors in uh these these four indicators that we synthesize together into this index.

So um making sure that those areas are served and also making sure that those connections are provided.

Um the connection uh and access to employment criterion uh ranks projects that link areas to uh opportunities like um employment areas and um major growth centers and other types of services that that you know can more efficiently link folks.

Um along with your question, I I represent district two, which is historically underserved, and I'm I'm looking at the planning maps right now, and I can't seem to find my answer.

And so the the issue in our district, I I personally live in the historical north side, 18th and and uh Maine, and we have luxurious world-class trails on all four sides of our community with zero access because there's a river, there's multiple uh railroad crossings, so so the historic north side has no access at all to the Trinity Trail System, but I can't find in the area where I can make comments information about trying to get our community to have access to these wonderful trails that we have.

So is there a spot to go to see where you're addressing that?

Absolutely.

So I would say there's two opportunities that you have.

If you see an area where you would like to see a trail, like hey, I would like to have access from here to the Trinity River, then that is where you would place the dot and say, we would like trail access to this area.

The other way that not just you, but the public can do it as well, is um before you get to this page, there's an email address that goes directly to um that goes directly to me.

And um, if you had a comment that doesn't necessarily fit within where you feel comfortable, you could you or the public can also um email send that comment in an email?

I will make sure that our consultant gets it and that it gets addressed.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Well, actually, the amount of expertise and data collection and analysis and modeling that went into this, I feel illy qualified to even ask a question, but I'll try.

Um when it there are much was said about increased capacity, capacity of roadways.

And so when I'm looking through here and and I'm looking at all the data points, um what in your forecasting and maybe it's even risk assessing, what potential obstacles do you see when you're going from greater capacity roadways down to lesser capacity roadways at certain strategic points around the city where today's congestion just becomes tomorrow's congestion with more lanes, if that makes sense.

Where do you see some sticking points possibly working with other departments or working with the community or just troubleshooting in general with those capacities and transfers meet around the city?

General question, it's not district specific or anything.

Sure.

I'll I I can take the first stab, Armand, and then I'll let you follow up.

One of the big things, and I think I mentioned in the presentation is creating these strategic gap closures.

So we focused heavily and we we developed a model and a script that looked at the network and generated those gap closures that will provide for the greatest operational improvements.

So it it will in effect provide more capacity, um, again, because you're creating a more contiguous corridor.

Um, but also will just improve operational efficiency on all of the adjacent roadways.

Um so the modeling and and and the effort in that gap analysis also focused on areas where the these roadways are at capacity.

Um so you know, the volumes exceed the capacity of the roadway to for traffic to flow at uh you know the posted speed.

Um so those were all targeted to provide these parallel facilities that will relieve some of that um the absorb some of the volume that those existing facilities are um being forced to carry now.

Um and then if I understood your question correctly, kind of the transition from a higher capacity road to a lower capacity road.

Um is that correct?

So if if you're going from a six-lane to a four-lane or something like that, how is that handled?

Um we took a lot of care in the master roadway network to um make sure that we were planning for contiguousness of the network.

Um and that's largely one of the reasons that we wanted to go to this uh kind of lumpier classification system so that we could ensure that as much as possible a corridor for as long as possible has the same capacity needs and and cross-section assignment to prevent those bottlenecks from happening where you have you know a six down to a four and and you and the associated delays with that.

Uh again, though, you know, the risk there is um losing the land use and the contextual sensitivity that that we had in the master uh thoroughfare plan, and that's why we have those overlay districts that um are making use of your existing overlay districts essentially to ensure that the cross sections are appropriate and are accommodating all of the modes.

And then lastly, I would just say that you know, uh because this is a multimodal plan, um, you know, there's a lot of roadway projects, uh, of course, but we really did look at these transit improvements um that we believe will with you know, uh I don't want to say low effort, um, but without building you know a new route uh you know, are sort of this low-hanging fruit type improvements that are going to make transit more attractive um and and potentially uh attract some choice riders in addition to those who who rely on transit.

Um and then again, the you know, active transportation strategy of creating these more contiguous active transportation networks really are gonna open up uh more feasible trips for people to walk or bike.

Um and you know, all of that together in addition to the the freight um considerations and some of those grade separated crossings that are gonna keep traffic moving more freely without inhibiting goods movement, kind of all of these modes coming together to um to provide for uh better capacity.

Thank you.

Um when y'all are talking about capacity of a road, are you talking about capacity at 530 on a Friday?

Or are you talking about capacity at three o'clock?

Because I mean there's a big difference.

Absolutely.

Yeah, so we looked at it all.

We looked at AM peak, PM peak, midday, and then there's also um an indicator which is the worse.

Um so it looks at whether that is AM, PM, um, or midday, it it finds the the worst conditions where speeds are the slowest.

But but is that is but Kelly, is that what we're building for is worst case scenarios, right?

I mean, just it would see it just seems a waste to make capacity for 530 on a Friday when we can spend that money other places.

Sure, sure, sure.

No, and and I should be clear, that's not, you know, what we're building for.

When we talk about capacity in that that diagram that we had up earlier that showed um the ultimate lane configurations, those are based on the vehicles per day that the roadway will need to accommodate.

But when we did look at some of the, as I mentioned, you know, which projects could improve volume over capacity, or you know, it's just a measure for congestion.

Uh, we did look at those worst-case scenarios.

But the ultimate build out is is for uh total vehicles per day.

I have a question.

I noticed that there was a lack of light rail in the plan from downtown connecting north and specifically north and west.

Is that something that it uh there's a vision for or not an appetite for?

How's that being addressed?

Sure, that's something that we've really um been working closely with Trinity Metro on.

Trinity Metro is um about to embark on their system plan.

Uh so you know, it was a little bit of a chicken and an egg for us to make those types of recommendations before they've had the chance to fully um you know work through their planning process.

I will say that a lot of the data that we provided, they are excited to utilize in their um in their upcoming work.

Um, and you know, I talked a good bit about improvements to the existing system um, you know, that we've carried forward, but we also did did look at um and I touched on it briefly, uh future high capacity and have identified some of those catchment areas based on our origin destination analysis.

Um so it's definitely um it has not been forgotten, um, and it is something that um TBW is is continuing to work closely with Trinity Metro on.

Uh I have a couple of questions on this, and this is maybe just because it's executive summary.

Is there a recommended project list in the three bond cycles for the active transportation and micromobility?

It looked to me like it was all pushed to the 25.

Uh not so right.

So um there are there are um project lists, those are um in the vision zero um category for bond.

Um what what we have is a priority network from the 2019 active transportation plan.

Um so that's what was shared today, is that that priority network?

The actual list um is a separate list.

Uh it is actually not in this version because we're still working with the different divisions to make sure that we have captured all of their needs and uh the different divisions have different methods for ranking and different you know ways of assessing costs.

So we're still sort of working through some of those last few um uh different mode project lists, but those will be included in the final plan.

Okay, very good.

Uh kind of related to that, I have a question is are is the full list of the long-term projects that didn't rank high enough uh also available currently.

Are you still that documentation together?

Is it on the is it on the website in the PDF?

It is, yes, sir.

Um so um on the on the presentation that we shared.

Um yeah, we didn't have the table um in that presentation that we shared because it's like several slides long, but that's it's slide 16.

Um sorry, I'm looking at a slightly different version of the of the PowerPoint.

That's it there, but we have the associated table with each of those keys that that shows you what each project is.

It's a lot of projects that didn't make uh the cut for those three cycles.

Right.

Yeah.

Um there's a you know, and and a lot of that has to do with the funding capacities and the fiscal forecast that that we did was very conservative because we thought it was better to be conservative and you know have a good uh idea of what could realistically be funded rather than a super aspirational list.

Um in our fiscal forecast, we do have um a lot of other strategies that the city could look at to increase those capacities, but we didn't want to you know include that in the fiscal constraint.

All right, sorry, I I have two more, hopefully they're short.

So I noticed there's two projects that are expensive bridges over a floodplain.

And I'm just wondering how those got ranked in into the bond packages and what it's expensive, you know, 120, 116.

How do they benefit uh the overall movement?

Sure.

Um, you know, I can speak just sort of generally in terms of uh, you know, we have those six criteria for the prioritization, cost effectiveness is one, um, but the others are congestion relief.

So as I mentioned, if it's a strategic gap closure that is going to open up a much more contiguous corridor and is going to result in volume reduction on adjacent roadways, um, then it's gonna score higher for that purpose.

If it is adjacent to a um a roadway on the high injury network, you know, that's gonna help score higher if it's connecting to uh one of our um employment areas or growth centers, you know.

So there are a lot of factors that that come into play.

Um, you know, one of the things that uh Kelly Porter, um, our client often says is that all the easy projects are done.

Um so we we are left with a lot of these really complex projects.

Um and and that one in particular, uh, the other criteria, you know, scored high enough to to move it up.

I swear this is the last one.

Um, and I don't know if the MTP tries to address this and working with TechSot, but we have a couple of of highway checkpoints that are real problems that uh designs, I don't know why they ended up this way.

Uh I want to highlight two of them North 35 east of downtown.

There's a truck point of lane capacity that seems like okay, this they did this, the toll roads did this when they were built.

Uh also eastbound uh 30 over the Trinity River and the Roseville exits a really bad checkpoint.

And you know, when guests come in, they're like, why did the city let them do this?

But I'm just wondering, is MTP uh going to include any of those highway improvements that are still tech funded?

Uh Arman, do you want to speak to the Text Dot coordination piece?

Certainly.

And so what you'll notice in the new master roadway network is we have um pretty much all of the roads from major collectors on to even the interstate highway system that are in uh that are part of the master roadway network.

That was done in close collaboration with TechStot and um the local and regional offices to make sure that we included um to included that in the plan so that we could coordinate on them with planning for um their improvement.

So we could look at things like right-of-way preservation and however else we could help coordinate with them to be able to help them expedite their projects.

Um but so an answer, yes.

We we have looked at their right-of-way constraints.

Um we have a uh connecting the core type uh portion of this of this plan, which you will uh see, which shows some of our uh recommendations and um right now um we're still working with TechStot on their schematics for how um the 35 and 30 and uh and how those roadway improvements were are going to work.

We're trying to get some of our transportation investment program work into their schematic so that it can address the city's needs as well as address some of the operational and functional uh capacity issues.

Excellent.

So those recommendations for connecting the core are part of the document that'll be MTP plan that'll be presented for approval.

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

I have a question in this when we when discussing the key problems to address, are we working with any other departments of agency?

I see little information as it relates to safety.

Um with the growth in city capacity as well as uh construction and and highway projects, fatalities are skyrocketing as well.

And so are we working with any other agencies to make sure that we're including those numbers to know where major fatalities are are more prominent in certain areas than maybe others, as well as the just as other projects kind of overlapping.

Something I see in District 5 on a regular basis, there's a major construction going on on highway on uh A20, and then there's a train trek on Hanley in between uh Rosedale and Lancaster, where a train stops every single day and sits there sometimes for 45 minutes.

I've seen ambulances stuck behind this train, you know, so which slows down response.

Uh everyone doesn't have alternate routes to go to get to their destination.

So are we really working with other agencies to make sure these projects are not overlapping to where it causes not just a congestion, it completely causes blocks.

Go ahead, Armand.

I was gonna say the short answer is yes.

Um we've been working with uh the other departments as well as we've been working with um our uh MPO NCT Cog on the assessment as well as TextOt on uh the assessment of um operational and safety improvements that can be made.

The first part of the master transportation plan was our vision zero safety action plan, which their goal was to eliminate all fatalities within the city.

And so we have and that plan was adopted this past fall, and it has a lot of great recommendations on how we can make uh safety improvements.

We're also coordinating with the railroads on how we can um help improve those congestion and blockage time uh timing uh uh for when they're blocking the railroads, and um lastly that you'll see on our uh as one of our project lists are uh great separated crossings for where we see major congestion choke points where we we we've looked at where we could feasibly be able to put a grade separated crossing because it's not feasible in every area just due to constraints and uh whatnot, but we we do have a list of recommended grade separated crossings to provide that relief.

Uh real quick.

I'll just add one.

Oh, I'm sorry, just one last thing I'll add.

It also the one of the outcomes of the safety action plan is the high injury network.

Um, and that has been really uh uh crucial in all of our prioritization.

Any projects that overlap with that high injury network um are going to score higher as a result, and then in addition in the technology section, um, you know, there are opportunities for those rail crossings that may be not appropriate for a grade separation to use technology to alert folks that there is a blockage uh before they get stuck, and and that's part of the recommendations of the plan as well.

I was I was gonna add that that train that uh commission is talking about, it only don't affect Hanley, it affects Miller errors that that train affect all of those, so when they stop, all of those areas are congested.

But uh overall, you know, it's our it's our job to ask the tough question, but I just want to recommend y'all have y'all have given a good good presentation, and look like y'all uncovered all the areas.

So I just want to recommend and thank y'all for that awesome presentation.

Thank you, sir.

Dare I ask any more questions.

No, appreciate all of the clearly a lot of hard work and analysis went into this.

Um thank you for the detailed presentation.

Um did you have something else?

Um I think that's the last item on the agenda.

Um I know you had a handout here.

Do we adjourn first and then talk about this?

Uh we can or no, we can just talk about it real quick.

I mean, uh, you guys in the past wanted to have maybe uh kind of a rough estimate of what's going on.

How many cases are we getting?

How many cases are going to CBC?

So uh put put together this handy-dandy sheet here.

It kind of shows you uh 25 versus 26 regarding meetings.

If you notice, uh there'll be 27, there was 27 total meetings in 2025.

In 2026, we're gonna only have 16 meetings.

We have two meetings next month just as an FYI.

Um so out of the the cases, you could see, like, for example, in January, we had 37 cases that came in all together, but only seven of those 37 uh came to y'all.

So it gives you a good idea of of what's coming to you and how many cases we're getting.

What I plan to do is probably give the give you something like this quarterly, um, and then any additional information that you might want, just holler at me and we'll see if I can get it to you.

So that's all I have.

Thank you all very much.

We're adjourned.