Good morning.

We'll go ahead and uh call the meeting to order.

This is the April 30th, 2026 meeting of the City Plan Commission for the City of Fort Worth.

We'll go ahead and begin with announcements.

Good morning and welcome to the April 30th, 2026 in-person meeting of the City of Fort Worth City Plan Commission.

The commission meets monthly in open session to conduct public hearing on advertised cases.

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

The commission's primary responsibilities are to review and act upon subdivision plans and plats, 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 11 Fort Worth citizens, each of whom are 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 Ms.

Caroline Cranz, the chair of the City Plan Commission.

Other commissioners present are Colby Adams.

I don't see him.

So uh Commissioner Lamberth, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Sims, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Risher, Commissioner Fardeck, and Commissioner Gillette.

Staff present today are Alex Parks, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Michelle Pena, Barbara Soltero, and Christopher Thornton.

My name is Stephen Murray, Platte Manager and Facilitator of today's meeting.

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

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

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

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

All cases are called and the applicants and others in support of the case will be asked to present their testimony first for a total of five minutes.

Opposing testimony will follow and will be given a total of seven minutes.

The applicant will be allowed two minutes for rebuttal.

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

Today we have Barbara Soltero keeping time.

When you come up prior to addressing the commission, clearly state your name and remember that all dialogue will only occur between the speaker and the commission.

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 other document 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.

Madam Chairman, Commissioners, the first order of business is the approval of the April 9th meeting minutes.

Unless there's any discussion, I'll entertain a motion.

Chair make a motion to approve the minutes for the April 9th City Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

The motion from Commissioner Henderson, second from Commissioner Johnson.

Um then we'll take a voice uh voice vote if everyone's okay with that.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any mace?

All right, first case, VA 26003, vacation of a portion of Curry Street right-away and a portion of Weissenberger Street right-away, adjacent block 18th Weisenberger Edition, Council District 9.

General location is north of Wingate Street, south of Whitmore Street, west of Floch Street, and east of Wimberley Street.

The applicant is Logan Ellis.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Um the case manager for this is out and absent, so I'll step in on his behalf.

Um they're vacating uh slivers of right-of-way.

This will help to align this piece of property with the other surrounding lots.

Um I believe they're seeking to develop some single family townhomes on this piece of property.

Um not really sure what all the documents and exhibits are in here because I didn't put these in, but essentially, as I described, you can see where the adjoining lots are to the west and to the south.

By vacating these rights of way, it more closely conforms to the existing right-of-ways that are already established by the existing plat that's already been developed nearby.

So all they're doing is trying to reclaim that right-of-way so that it's consistent throughout the block.

Alex, what does that leave the uh the right-of-way distance uh width of Curry Street there?

It's 50 feet.

Um adjacent to the plat specifically here.

Um it's well, let me see if I can get to get to zoom in on this here.

I don't know what the uh I don't know how to zoom in, but it's let's see, no, doesn't that work either?

It's 50 feet there for the development.

Okay, so we conform to the 50 foot minimum.

Yes, okay.

I I can't read that.

It's it's zoomed in there on that on that other slide.

I can't see 50.

Sorry, my eyes follow us fails.

We can have the applicant come up and answer those questions for us here in a second.

Any other questions for staff?

It looks like there's still a corner clip there, correct?

That's correct.

They're they're they're preserving the five uh I believe five by five corner clips that's required.

Anything further in the staff presentation?

No, ma'am.

I'm sorry.

I I wish there was more to say, but that it's no, that's fine.

Pretty straightforward.

Um is the applicant present?

Would you mind coming forward, please?

State your name and city.

And um, so I can maybe speak to the particulars of the plat.

The reason for this is essentially work and the plating that happened in the road of years ago when these uh subdivisions were laid out.

The property that I have is part of the Weisenberger edition, and that was platted, it was platted with a 60-foot right-of-way.

Fortunately, my property is all the way in the southwest corner of the feet, and it butts up against the index to it.

And as you can see on this flat, um, since it's kind of zoomed out, it's hard to make out, but my property is the only property on this entire block that is and so it's resulted in this awkward offset between mine and the chasing.

So as Alex said, we're looking to proceed with this townhome, and this wouldn't see the leading residential principles looking to align that street scan as much as possible so that everything is consistent and uniform.

So we earlier this month we went to the Urban Design Commission.

They approved that it is maintaining the urban residential principle.

But the actual street layout lines up with the what you see there in Linwood where the center line is, and so we will still have 25 foot line of that right-of-way up to the revised property boundary line.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might see.

Have you received any objection from any of the neighbors?

Um I believe that um a neighbor expressed concern because it's really hard to see with the ability to pull it up here.

I'm not what exhibitor you want to see.

I'm just on the actual user finger.

I don't I don't see anything on this screen, so that's okay.

Um a neighbor did express some concern because there is a power law.

Um yeah.

So if that sidewalk it's there on the east side of the lot, it turns north-south.

Uh that is part of the adjacent lot that is under the jurisdiction of that townhome development.

Directly upon that is a power line.

And I know that there was a neighbor who submitted a uh feedback to Paul.

I guess expresses that column line.

I'm not really sure how it was related to the vacation itself.

Um that he made.

This action helps the power line issue because the uh property boundary line would shift.

So they would be farther away from that power line.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I don't see any.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else to speak on this matter?

Don't see anyone.

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

And this is in district nine.

I just want to thank the applicant for really clearing up the history on that.

Thank you very much.

We don't have a district nine representative here.

Uh I make a motion to uh recommend to city council VA 2603 for the vacation apportion of Weisenberg Street right-of-way and a portion of Curry Street right of way.

Second.

Motion from Commissioner Henderson, second from Commissioner Johnson.

Call the vote, please.

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 Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillets, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Fodder, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

The motion passes.

Next case VA 26005 vacation of a portion of Sand Shell Boulevard right away.

North of Basswood's north of Basswood Boulevard and waiver request section 3163 E6A.

Street vacation recommended recommendation expiration council district four.

General locations north of Basswood Boulevard, south of Thompson Road, east of I-35W, and west of Old Denton Road.

Applicant is done away associates.

One more time.

So I'm I'm pretty sure that next month, I think they're almost there that they'll have that the specific information needed to move forward with the case.

And I'd like to ask if staff could provide information on if there's a right of way to the north vacation for St.

Michelle Boulevard, or if there's anything in the third for a plan that would have continued no.

Okay.

Not currently.

Um the right-of-way here, the reason for the continuance is specifically that they did a traffic study, and their traffic study warranted a signal in this location.

And in order for them to put it in the signal, they would have to rededicate right-of-way that they're showing within their vacation.

So in order to avoid having to do this twice, we're doing it once and we're gonna do it right.

They're gonna revise that's what Steven's specifically mentioning.

They need to revise their exhibit is so that they can lop off the area that they want to reserve so that they have a place to put the new signal that's gonna go at this location within existing right-of-way rather than vac rather than getting a vacation approved and then having to come back and rededicate it later.

Can we proceed directly to vote on this since continuance or do we open the only reason why I would say no is because we don't have the correct exhibit showing what they actually need to do?

No, I'm just to the the vote on the continuance.

Oh, yes, you can see.

We don't have a public hearing for that.

Okay, we can proceed.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Um if we can have a motion then please a motion to approve uh VA 26-005 for continuance to the May 14th, 2006 City Plan Commission meeting.

Second.

Thank you.

Have a motion from Commissioner Lamberth, second from Commissioner Johnson.

If you'll call the vote, please.

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 Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillets, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Crance, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, next case, FS25309, GTB Business Park Lots, 5R, 6 and 7, block 1.

Waiver request Section 31106A8, Call SAC serving mixed use and section 31106I1A.

Access management design standards.

General locations north of Golden Triangle Boulevard, east of Park Vista Boulevard, south of Keller Hicks Road, and west of Katie Road.

Applicant is Westwood Professional Services.

All right, Commissioner.

So this is a replat of an existing plated lot along Golden Triangle Boulevard.

Part of the part of the replat is to create a small lot for a cell tower that'll sit at that southwest corner of the site.

And that is the crux of the waivers that are being requested here.

In order to serve that tiny lot there, what is shown on here is lot 5R1, I think.

Um it necessitates access in order for it to have access.

The subdivision ordinance states that all final plated lots shall have paved direct access to a public street by private street or a public access easement.

And there's a lot of elevation change between the road and that piece of property, and a driveway is not practical in that location.

So since it can't have a driveway directly to the road, it has to have a public access easement.

Given the minuscule nature of the lot because they're trying to preserve most of the land for commercial development there, they don't have a lot of ability to provide it with the necessary 100 feet of frontage, hence the one waiver.

The other waiver is because of that previously shown slide there and the difficulty to provide driveway access out to Golden Triangle due to the changes in elevation there.

The only viable place for a driveway is what's shown here on the exhibit.

They could get another one further down Golden Triangle, but that doesn't prevent the same problem that we have here.

And so with this one way in and one way out scenario, if you think about a cul-de-sac, that's one way in, one way out.

So this creates a de facto cul-de-sac serving commercial commercially zoned property, therefore the hence the need for the other waiver.

Do y'all have any questions?

Uh yes, so I looked at I understand that the landowner is the same at the adjacent lot to the west, sort of southwest there, that has access to that traffic circle.

Um understand it's two different lots right now as it's platted, uh, but it seems like if the developer wanted to provide the access, they could do so off that traffic circle, uh, which would probably be a much better and safer way in and out uh of both properties.

That's just my feeling on it.

So that's something that's that's a big piece of the I'll let them explain it to you why that's probably not questionable and as as uh in addition to if you've ever driven down Golden Triangle Boulevard and driven around those traffic circles, more access off of that.

I I'd it I don't know.

I'll let them I'll let I'll let the applicant speak.

The intention of the small lot was to be used for a cell phone tower.

Cell tower.

So it's not as if somebody's needing to get there all the time.

They just need to get there for the one few times they have to come by and check on the site and then leave.

So if this was actually a commercial business where other people where the general public is coming, then obviously a driveway and proper access would would be more desirable.

But given the unique nature of this property, staff will supportive of the limited access.

Any other questions for staff?

All right, thank you.

I do want to I do want to point out just in case if there's somebody in the audience, uh there was correspondence between a uh citizen and our stormwater division, because as you can see, there's a lot of floodplain that goes through here, and there was they they had concerns, but it seems like that that was alleviated between staff and the and the uh and the person that had the inquiry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you'll please state your name in your city.

Commission, my name is can you hear and rape with 1900?

Um I'm representing the uh on the subdivider of the property.

So the purpose of these waivers related to that tiny little lot that's um on our and which we are proposing this to be some sort of cell or sewer service and the access for vehicles will be minimal over time.

Um installed the very infrequent use of the there is access there.

There is cost of legally massive property.

Um it just doesn't uh the rule or the perfect requirements or regulations.

So hit on the question from the accessing it from that's a great idea because they already have buildings over there.

Other than golden triangle, there is no cross access.

So thank you.

Um could you hear me on the on the cross access point?

Yeah, I could hear you, thank you.

It's real helpful.

So any other thoughts or questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

Anyone else here to speak on this my this matter?

Please come forward.

State your name and city, please.

My name is John Devine.

I'm in Fort Worth, just right next door to this proposed development.

And uh just have some concerns.

I was uh mainly getting more information.

I didn't really see a cul-de-sac on there on any of the like the plat.

So it was kind of hard for me to think about uh a waiver, like and then I was a little uh uh unclear why uh a cul-de-sac wouldn't be allowed there.

I didn't know about that.

And uh then just beyond that, we have a lot of concerns about drainage in this area.

We've lived there quite a while and know that it floods already, so there was maybe not related to this proposal, but we are concerned about drainage from this development.

So is there any further plans or a different uh zoom in of the plat to show where a cul-de-sac would be?

I I really can't determine from what I got the cul de site is the access season that comes in and deads in into that cell phone tower lot, therefore it's one way in and one way out, just like a standard cul de cyclo be in a residential development.

So that's the dotted line on the plat that goes across two lots right there.

That's correct.

Yep.

And then again, where does it come out?

Both entrance from golden triangle and exits on the golden triangle?

That's correct.

Okay.

And then I I tend to agree with access similar to the development that's there, where you've got uh a lane off of Golden Triangle, and in this case it would go across the creek, but I just that seems like a really much better option.

Uh when they were building the there's a little cut in on the driveway, I guess where the cul de sac's gonna be, and those cause quite a bit of traffic back up, and I assume having this cul de sac is access to the commercial area will do the same.

Whereas if you do come off of the the existing uh roundabout uh roundabout, uh that gets people out of golden triangle and kind of out of the mad traffic.

I just think it would be a safer access to have a uh continuation of the access that's there on the existing buildings.

And then uh maybe that's not part of this discussion, but uh I'm curious to like what other types of buildings will be there.

Maybe that's too early to tell that.

Yeah, does the applicant will have a two-minute rebuttal here after this, and he can answer some of those questions for you?

Okay.

Um but from a uh platting perspective, and we're kind of looking at um the plat and not the the uses in this scenario from a stormwater perspective.

Uh prior to uh approval and recordation of the plat, they will have to comply with their stormwater requirements and make sure that they're not creating any negative impact on to other folks' property.

Fair enough.

Okay.

I I guess just to make sure I understand clearly.

Currently, uh this property is one tract.

This is a question for the applicant.

It's one platted lot.

It's being split into three, one of which is a cell phone.

Right, correct, not just thank you.

Yes, before we go back to the applicant, um, I'll just ask if there's anyone else here to speak in opposition.

If you'll come forward, please.

Yeah, if if you don't mind holding off, we'll just wait until we've heard all the opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate you being here.

Good morning.

If you'll please state your name and city.

Yeah, good morning.

Uh Quentin Weinteer.

Uh I'm president of the Pine Tree Estates to um neighborhood, neighbor to uh John Devine.

And so our neighborhoods are um directly to the north of the property here.

And so um really um similar concerns um to where uh the majority of our um concerns for our neighborhood is the fact uh related to drainage.

So I have a couple of or a few specific questions and um so let me go ahead and lead with those, and then the other would be um just the requirement of the um separation wall between uh the property, the development, and our neighborhood.

So uh with regards to the drainage and flooding, you know, um the you know, when I was reading through the um the agenda or the proposal um parth Patel was the drainage engineer, and um you know, so I contacted to try and get studies um was made those were made available to me, but I'm not sure if those are the final.

But um, you know, without going through the details of those, my question that I want to to find out um for our neighborhood is you know what is the detention capacity being added to the development?

Will post-development uh runoff be equal to or less than the current conditions?

Where does the water flow uh from this uh from this site flow downstream?

Has drainage impact study been completed for adjacent neighborhoods, including ours and John Devine's.

Will this project in increase a flooding risk to Pine Tree Estates one and two?

These are our primary concerns.

We already have some flooding, you know, low area uh issues in our neighborhood, out our neighborhood, potentially in Pine Tree Estates one.

Um don't want to exacerbate the the flooding drainage issues we have um which you know do occur directly, you know, directly on the southwest corner for sure of our neighborhood that borders this uh this proposed development.

So you know, those are essentially you know, those are our questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Okay, Zini, thank you very much.

All right, thank you for the time.

Oh, fr from a drainage perspective, I'll let the engineer kind of talk to that.

Uh from uh you may mention the fencing aspect.

Uh whenever there's a commercial from a zoning perspective, whenever there's a commercial um structure built um next adjacent to a one or two family, there is a screening fence required.

Um that's kind of out of our purview though.

So um in the rebuttal, I'll ask that then uh take care of those questions regarding the stormwater.

Okay, anyone else to speak in opposition?

Don't see anyone.

So if the applicant would come back forward, please.

John and Quentin, uh, thank you for those questions.

And um, we would be glad to meet afterwards too, just to walk through the development so you guys can get some more information.

I know like the little postcard you get in the mail doesn't really explain all of it.

So um, but just a reminder, we're we're just talking about the access easement here today.

So there's a lot of development and engineering that that's gone into this property to prep it for development.

So I don't want to rehash all of that here today, but uh the it sounds like one of the main concerns with John and Gwen is with is drainage, and I agree we are along a floodplain.

Um, and it's actually I would say the reverse of their concern.

Our concern is the flooding caused by them.

So all of all of their drainage and floodwater is coming south onto our property.

And and I would say about half of this that lot that abuts the floodplain is actually gonna have to deal with that and then get it into the creek.

So all the water is coming from the top of the page down through this property, and then we'll be um addressed, diverted, whatever you call it into the floodplain.

So um we're basically having to handle all the development upstream that's already been developed and and whatever existing issues are there today.

Um, whatever retail goes in here is gonna have to address that appropriately.

So um, so there will be no concerns up north and into their their developments, but uh so um any other questions.

I just have a I guess a comment question.

Sure.

So basically, you're saying you're gonna be helping the trench for the subdivision.

Exactly.

Okay, and uh on on the driveway approaches there, there's already been some improvements to um golden triangle.

There's been a median cut that's been put in and dry um um driveways that have been paid paved for this platted area.

So the driveways and the traffic configuration has already been installed, it's been approved by by the development groups here at the city of Owar.

So we're just trying to get this plat in compliance with what's kind of already been done.

So thank you all.

Thank you.

I'll just make one comment too.

I know there's a lot of pieces in this one, so it can be kind of confusing what all we're addressing here.

Just to kind of be clear about what we are addressing the first two items in this.

There's three pieces.

The first two are related to um the waivers just for that small tiny lot because of its size, what's use, and then the conditional approval, the final plat.

Obviously, any the conditional approval piece of that, if there are any um concerns or requirements related to drainage that staff has brought up, those must be met in order for that approval to be considered final.

Um I have one more question for staff.

If they weren't subdividing uh six and seven, would we even be here in front of the commission?

Because it would still be more than a hundred.

Well, the entire piece of property was platted as one lot by dividing off the little piece in the corner, that's subdividing the property.

So yes, we'd still be here.

Okay.

So it's one of those instances where we have to kind of take and fit their little square their square peg in our round hole.

And so this is how we massage their development to fit within our regulations.

Um their requirements from a stormwater perspective, they don't they're not allowed to make things worse upstream or downstream.

So if it already flows to the north today, when it rains again, it's gonna flood again.

Not any worn not any worse because of this development.

It might get better.

I don't know.

Ben can tell you, he's the engineer, but they're not allowed to make it worse anywhere in any one direction.

Any other questions or discussion?

All right, we'll close the public hearing then and entertain a motion.

And this is in district 10.

All three.

Okay, I make a motion for FS25-309.

Approval of a waiver to section 31-106 of the subdivision ordinance to allow a mixed-use development to be served by a cul-de-sac approval of a waiver to section 31-106i 1A of the subdivision ordinance to allow lots served by a public access easement to have less than the minimum required 100 feet of foot frontage and conditional approval of the final plat upon meeting the comments in the staff report.

Second.

A motion from Commissioner Kelly and a second from Commissioner Visher.

If you call the vote, please.

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 Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillett, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Crantz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

And next case, FS 26044, Hughley Industrial Lots 124, Block 1, waiver requests Section 31102B2 interconnectivity of neighborhoods.

Section 3116C3 street design standards and section 3116 E1 cult SAC Street Design Standards.

The location is east of South Freeway, south of Garden Acres, and west of Stone Road.

Applicant is Kimley Horn.

They're requesting a continuance.

I didn't put anything in the presentation because everything's changing.

We've had a we've had an internal discussion with them, and in order to present this adequately, need to see what their revised plat's gonna look like in order to present it to you effectively.

I know there's lots of waivers on this one.

Don't be alarmed.

What they're ultimately going to be designing in coordination with staff, the waivers will make sense when we do present this to you.

So while there might be a lot of waivers that are associated with it, it's not as bad as it may seem.

I'll just say it that way.

We'll hear more on the 14th, hopefully.

Thanks for the warning.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, we'll proceed to a vote on this.

If I can have a motion, please.

I make a motion for the uh approval of a continuance for FS26044 until the May 14th, 2026 CD Plan Commission meeting.

Second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Sims, a second from Commissioner Johnson.

If you call the vote, please.

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 Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Jillats, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Next case, PP 26011, SO Moody subdivision, waiver request section 31106 C3 Street Design Standards, 16 Family Attached Lots, Council of District 9.

General location is north of West Morphe Street, East of Jennings Avenue, and West of May Street.

The applicant is ARA surveying.

All right, Commissioners.

This one here.

It's recusing from this one.

Does he have to look if he's recusing it away for him?

All righty.

So PP 26011, SO Moody Subdivision.

They're taking this one lot, plating it into six lots.

If you look directly to the west, I don't know what the specific design is going to be, but I would anticipate it'd be something similar to that.

Um they're asking for a waiver of a cross sec uh a non-standard cross section, Morphe when it was originally dedicated was only 25 feet wide.

Um, however, when the property to this directly to the south of them was re-plated, they dedicated their 12 feet, bringing it up to approximately 38 feet wide.

They simply want to be able to develop their property in a similar con similar configuration to the property that's already been developed the same way to the west, and that one was developed on a 25-foot wide street.

They're still gonna be able to put in all the pedestrian and streetscape improvements that are required in the near south side.

That won't be any different for their development.

They simply just don't want to have to dedicate that additional 12 feet because it essentially would render their site undevelopable, given the small skinny nature of the lot as it is exist today.

So staff was supportive of the cross-section waiver, provided they still provide all the amenities that are required for near South Side.

Questions for staff.

I don't, I don't, I didn't research that.

I don't know.

Um it appears from the correspondence that some of the folks that are provided correspondence live over there.

And or at least in close proximity to this.

And they have uh varying wide array of complaints.

A lot of them seem to be broad brush complaints for the entire area of near South Side, not specific to this development, and not so much specific to this specific waiver.

Um based on the narrow width of the street, uh transportation wouldn't permit any on-street parking.

Um unless the street is 50 feet in width or greater, they don't permit on-street parking.

So the concerns of on-street parking and creating inaccessibility and those those things, I don't think they're I don't really think they're as big a concern is maybe are stressed in those letters, but we'll leave that up to y'all to deliberate on and decide how you want to feel how you feel about that.

Yes, there's lots of construction out here already, and lots of the streets are torn up, but that's because this is one of the hottest areas for development in the city, and so it's constantly under redevelopment.

So here's another opportunity for additional redevelopment within the area.

That's this is what this is what the idea was when they created this district.

They don't have any parking standards within near South Side.

There's no parking requirement.

Zero off-street parking is required, unlike any it's all market-driven.

So if someone decides to provide lots of parking grade, if they just if they decide to provide no parking, still okay.

So that it's it's a it's unique in that aspect.

So some of the concerns that they have, while they may be more founded in other areas of town where there's specific standards and things that specific developments meant to meet.

This one here is a little different because they're more concerned about the form of the development as opposed to the standard things we get in standard zoning districts with off-street parking requirements and so on and so forth.

I believe you you say that in your letters that may not be stressed.

I I'm literally in that area every day, and that is one of the major concerns is parking.

You have the construction with JPS, you have a brand new parking garage that that they're still that they're utilizing now, but they're still working on you have that entire street of Magnolia almost down one lane with construction on the entire street.

That whole complex is under construction, and now they're getting ready to do something else on the other side of Main Street, which is adjacent to to this particular area.

So I mean I I don't I don't I don't I don't disagree that the the whole area is under redevelopment.

Yeah, and it's gonna be that way for a while, and even long after JPS is redone, they're gonna redo something else out there.

It always seems like the near south side is under a constant state of redevelopment.

That's the all I was mentioning.

I'd not disagreeing with what's written in the letter, just that the near south side always seems to always be under redevelopment.

So the the concern about parking just in general because of the lack of regulatory requirements for this particular area, it's it's bigger than this case.

Correct.

It's not you shouldn't be trying to disadjudicate parking with this case today.

So can that's where I'm gonna stroll because I'm looking at some of the letters and some of the concerns.

Can you help us separate what we should have on the table right now versus what are concerns that are beyond this group, beyond our scope, beyond today that would require a lot of other stakeholders being involved in just general, there's no parking here, or they're just general, it's congested here.

That might be symptomatic of all the construction that you mentioned and have nothing to do with this.

Correct.

It's it's like a problem that eventually will go away.

It's like any other area, like Dr.

Gillette was mentioning earlier, she lives on a street that's been under construction for two and a half years.

At some point, the problems will go away, but they're gonna there, there's there's existing problems that are there, and just like you said, it's more probably more system uh more widespread than just this one specific development.

This specific development is requesting a waiver to maintain an existing cross section for their redevelopment and just their redevelopment only, not for the overall not for the overall near South Side.

There's already existing precedent for development of this exact same nature directly across the street from them.

They're not directly down Morphe Street from them.

Yeah, agreed.

And and they're not requesting like a waiver to parking, they're not requesting, we're not really looking at that.

We're just looking, we're snapshot focused on their waiver, which is they want to build a substandard street which can't have on-street parking anyways.

So whatever parking they are gonna uh comply with, they're gonna comply with what we're looking at here today is this the cross section of the street.

Is it appropriate to reduce uh the cross section or is it not otherwise?

Like a lot of those, like Alex had mentioned uh there's probably is some stress to the streets.

There's probably is uh stress to um uh parking, but that's not really what we're focused on for this plat.

Okay, that's what I was after.

Sorry if this is going back or circular, but if the the waivers to permit a substandard cross section, just to be clear, what would a standard cross section be right here?

So for local streets, the minimum width is a 50 foot right-of-way.

So the ask would be to dedicate 12 feet of right of way.

I can't tell you how big the property is.

But it that would it would be a sign it would be a significant portion of the entire width of the lot to reduce it by 12 feet.

And the property immediately to the west is developed in the exact same pattern that with the substandard cross section.

Okay.

With a 25-foot wide street.

But if we approve this waiver, then the two properties would have the same.

No.

38 already exists in front of their property.

25 exists to the west.

It was originally dedicated at 25.

Then this property right here.

Sorry, this property right here replatted and dedicated additional right of way.

Gotcha.

Making it 38 along this stretch of the road right here.

It's 38.

Over here, in my in my area, it's a little older.

The north side is developed, and if you saw from the picture, the south side is also developed with single family town homes fronting both sides of the street.

And so it's if it was viable for development at 25 feet wide, it seems like it would be viable for development at 38 feet.

That's that's the that's the viewpoint that staff has.

And from just a use perspective, if you've got a street that's going in and out like that, it's in Morphe, the way it's dedicated, it's it it looks pretty straight up straight on my exhibit here, but it it it's does this, it doesn't go straight through the block.

So anybody that's really I don't anybody that's using Morphe is probably using Morphe because they live in this area.

I mean, I guess you could use this as a cut through and a back package road or something for the existing conditions out there, as uh Commissioner Sims had explained, but in the long run, that's not what this that's not what this street would be intended for.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, is there currently parking on the street uh where this where the site is?

There's no parking on the street.

Parking on the like said parking on uh the minimum width for a street must be 50 feet in width for transportation to permit on street parking.

And I just want to make a note that property that's to the west, it has if you look at the street view, they actually have garages that they've built underneath, so that's where they park.

And then all the way to the left or to the west.

Morphe ends right there, right?

It kind of it kind of not ends, but it ends where you have to take a right or left.

I believe that's the case, yes.

So is there already an issue there for emergency vehicles accessing any of those properties?

If they were permitted, then someone must have signed off in that perspective in that respect.

I I'm not an I'm not an expert on that.

I'll let you no, as long as they're like the uh ones on the west side that are two-story, they park underneath, we get fire trucks in and out of there, no problem.

And by this approval of the vacation or waiver development of this future uh land development, these six town homes.

Will that make matters any worse or the same as long as they build them just like they did the ones to the west, it'll be fine because there's no we have we have no problems getting up and down that street part of Morphe right now as is.

Six more townhomes won't affect it as long as they're parking underneath ground level parking, not on the street.

So if they park on the street, then it would be a problem.

Yeah.

But the ones to the west have been there a couple years.

I used to work over in this area.

We'd go up and down Morphe right there, and I've never seen a car parked on it.

But if I understood you correctly, regardless of whether or not this waiver is granted, there's no on-street parking.

Correct.

It wouldn't be it would not be permitted based on the width of the street.

So there is no on-street parking.

Yeah, correct.

I can't say that someone wouldn't, you know, park there illegally.

But what happens if they park there illegally?

It would not be permitted.

Is anybody parking there?

Have you you said you drive that area?

Do you see cars parked on the street?

Do you see cars parked on the street?

I've seen vehicles probably uh visiting one of those townhomes where they park parallel to the building, like where they kind of pull up blocking their driveway, the garage, and so it's not directly on the street, but the street is so narrow, it still limits will limit access one through if someone does that.

Now it's not something that I see every day.

Um like you said it would it would be be legal, but I mean that's something we do almost daily in that area is have to call for traffic control to come out with the cars, and it's not just that particular street, it's a few of the streets in that whole little general general area.

So is the applicant present.

Is the applicant present?

I'm sorry, I was asking you.

I'm asking the audience.

I don't think so.

We don't have a green card from paper from anyone on this case.

Well, I'm not familiar with the area, so that's why I'm asking all these questions.

So I want to make sure.

Is there anyone here to speak?

I don't on this one.

Doesn't look like it.

Looks like we will need to proceed with the information we have.

I think a lot of what was what has been said by staff is the concerns that were voiced.

We we can't adjudicate a lot of these.

A lot of these are bigger concerns, and we'll remain concerns long after today that are not in front of us at the moment.

And based on what I've heard, the request is consistent with other properties in the area and hasn't added in any undue stress on the code itself, the building code itself, the planning code itself, by making this change.

And so I'm trying to I'm trying to just remain focused on what we what we should have in front of us separated from the things we cannot fix today.

Thank you for those comments.

Any further discussion or a motion?

And this is in council district nine.

Um we do not have a commissioner present from that district.

I'll do it.

Motion to approve PP 2601, uh SO Moody Subdivision waiver request 31-106 C3 street design standards, six single family attached lots.

Um motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you.

Second from Commissioner Sims.

You'll call the vote, please.

Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote?

Undersons recused.

Commissioner Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Simpson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillett, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, last case is OMB, AX 2603, Holy Redeemer Catholic Parish annexation request proposed for continued institutional use as a church.

It's in the ETJ Parker County, future council district three.

Uh general location is north of Old Weatherford Road, west of Walsh Drive, and east of Farmer Road in Parker County.

Applicant is Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth.

Uh, this case right here.

Um so whenever annexations come and they're not consistent with the comprehensive plan, then they come before us and we vote on or we provide a recommendation to city council on whether uh we think it should move forward, even though the comprehensive plan is not consistent.

In this case, it's a church.

Churches are allowed within any zoning district.

Uh what we're trying to do is just match up the comprehensive plan with institutional um in this scenario.

So staff is recommending approval.

And then Anthony, did you have anything else you wanted to add?

Okay.

And then I think the applicants here, if there's any further questions.

Any questions from staff or for staff first?

Okay.

If the applicant is present, please come forward.

State your name and city.

West Hobwood, Fort Worth, Texas, is this thing?

Yeah, hold on.

It's been a long time since I've had choir.

Just here to answer any questions we have about the annexation.

We've been here since 2008, and so we've been just here before really all that development's gone around, contacted all the recent, you know, development, Walsh Ranch, uh, Morningstar, and then a weedow ISD, they're all fine with a request, and so we're just here to match it up with future land use plan.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

I don't see any.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this one?

All right, close the public hearing then.

Any discussion or a motion?

This is in future council district three.

Um, and our commissioner from that district is not here today.

I will go ahead and motion for recommendation of approval uh to adopt the comprehensive future land use uh map amendments from single family to is this the right one?

Yeah, to institutional for the holy uh redeemer Catholic Parish annexation application AX2603 to support future land use request, which is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.

Second you have a motion from Commissioner Richard, and was that a second from Commissioner Lambert?

Yes.

If you'll call the vote, please.

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 Richard, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Gillatz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Farda, how do you vote?

Yes.

Chair Cranz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Motion passes.

That's our final item.

So I believe we are ready to adjourn.

We will see you next time.

Thank you.