We we'll get started in about a minute or so. Y'all Okay, good morning. We'll go ahead and 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 plat streets and alley rightaway vacations and closures, annexations, comprehensive planning, and other land development issues affecting the city's extr territorial jurisdiction area. Commission is made up of 11 Fort citizens, each of whom are appointed by the city council. A quorum of six of the 11 members must be present in order to conduct the commission's business. Nine members are present. Therefore, the hearing may proceed. Seated at the center of the table is Miss Caroline Cray, the chair of the city plan commission. Other commissioners present are Colobby Adams. I don't see him. So, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Henderson, Commissioner Sims, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Richer, Commissioner Fararda, and Commissioner Gillette. Staff present today are Alex Parks, Rich McCracken, Jessica Williams, Michelle Pena, Barbara Sult, and Christopher Thornton. My name is Stephen Murray, planning manager and facilitator of today's meeting. Copies of the meeting agenda and staff reports are included in the commission's docket and are available on the city's website. The staff reports have been compiled by the city's development review committee to inform the commission and applicants of 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 Sulttero keeping time. Uh 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 in open session to discuss and vote upon the case. No further public testimony or commentary will be allowed. Be advised that the commission's decision on platting 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 8173928027. 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. A motion from Commissioner Henderson, second from Commissioner Johnson, then we'll take V a voice vote. If everyone's okay with that, all in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. First case, VA2603, vacation of a portion of Curry Street Rideway in a portion of Weisenberger Street Rideway adjacent block 18th Weisenberger Edition, Council District 9. General location is north of Windgate Street, south of Whitmore Street, west of Foch Street, and east of Wimberly 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 half. Um they're vacating slivers of rightway. This will help to align this piece of property with the other surrounding lots. Um believe they're seeking to develop some single family town homes on this piece of property. Um, not really sure what all the documents and exhibits are in here because I I didn't put these in. But essentially, as I described, you can see where the adjoining lots are uh to the west and to the south. By vacating these rights of way, it more closely conforms to the existing rightaways that are already established by the existing plat that's already been developed nearby. So, all they're doing is trying to reclaim that ride ofway so that it's consistent throughout the block. Alex, what does that leave the uh the rideway distance width of Curry Street there? >> 50 feet um on adjacent to the plat specifically here. Um it's It's 50 feet there. The development. >> Okay. So, we conform to the 50 foot minimum. >> Yes. >> I can't read that. It's It's zoomed in there on that on that other slide. I can't And if all else 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 I believe 5x5 corner clip is required. >> Anything further in the staff presentation? No, ma'am. I'm sorry. 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. >> Morning. My name is Logan Ellis. And so, I can maybe speak to the particulars of the plaid. The reason for this work and the platting that years ago when these subdivisions were laid out, the property that I have is part of the Weisenberger edition that was platted. It was platted with a 60 foot right inwood edition right of way. Fortunately, my property is all the way in the southwest corner of As you can see on this plot. It's kind of zoomed out. It's hard to make out, but my property is the only property on this entire block. And so it's resulted in this awkward offset between mine and so as home in accordance with residential principles looking to align that street principle so that everything is consistent and uniformed going to be very difficult to accomplish that. So earlier this month we went to the urban design commission. They maintain residential just with the platting and I aspect of it. But the actual street layout lines up with you see there in Lynwood where the center line is. And so we will still have 25 foot line of that ride of way. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Have you received any objection from any of the neighbors? >> I believe that um a neighbor expressed concern because um they're really hard to see with What exhibit are you wanting to see? >> Use your finger. >> I don't I don't see anything on the screen. So, um uh a neighbor did express some concern because there is a power. Yeah. So if that sidewalk that's there on the east side lots north south of adjacent lot that is under the jurisdiction of that town home development. Directly above that is a and we know that there was a neighbor who submitted a feedback to Paul guess expressing really to the vacation itself. Um that he made um this actually helps with the power line issue because because the property boundary line would shift accordingly. So they would be farther away from that power law to achieve greater clearance. >> 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 very much. >> We don't have a district 9 representative here. Uh, I make a motion to uh recommend to city council VA2603 for the vacation of portion of Weisenberg Street rightway and a portion of Curry Street right away. >> I'll second. >> Motion from Commissioner Henderson, a 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 Sims, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. >> Commissioner Far, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Chair CR, how do you vote? >> Yes. The motion passes. >> Next case, VA 2605, vacation of a portion of Sand Shell Boulevard rightaway north of Basswood, north of Basswood Boulevard and waiver request section 3163E6A Street Vacation recommended recommendation expiration council district 4. Um journal location is north of Basswood Boulevard, south of Thompson Road, east of I35W and west of Old Denton Road. Applicant is Denway Associates. Uh this case they're requesting a continuence one more time. Um they need to provide an exhibit of how much exactly vacating they need. Um they thought they had it down uh initially, but in working with TPW, they found that they didn't need as much. So they're narrowing down exactly what they need for the vacation. Hence the request for a continuence for this case. So I'm I'm pretty sure that next month I think they're almost there that they'll have that specific information needed to move forward with the case. >> And I' I'd like to ask if staff could provide information on if there's rightway to the north of the forell boulevard or if there's anything in the thorough for a plan that would continue. >> No. >> Okay. >> Not currently. Um the right ofway here, the reason for the continuence is specifically that they did a traffic study and their traffic study warranted a signal at this location. And in order for them to put in the signal, they would have to rededicate rightway 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 going to do it right. They're going to revise. That's what Stephen'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 going to go at this location within existing rideway rather than ve 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. >> No, I'm just the the vote on the continuence. >> Oh, yes. >> We don't have a public hearing for that. Okay, >> proceed. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. Um, if we can have a a motion then, please. A motion to approve uh VA26-00005 for continuence to the May 14th, 2006 city plan commission meeting. >> Second. >> You have a motion. Commissioner Lambert, 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 Sims, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kelly, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Richard, how do you vote? >> Yes. Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Far, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Chair CR, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> All right. Next case. FS25309 GTB business park lots 5R 6 and 7 block one. Waiver request section 31106A Colts serving mixed use in section 31106 I1A. Access management design standards. General location is north of Golden Triangle Boulevard, east of Park Vista Boulevard, south of Keller Hicks Road, and west of Katy Road. Applicant is Westwood Professional Services. All right, commissioner. So, this is a replat of an existing platted lot along Golden Triangle Boulevard. Part of the part of the replat is to create a small lot for a cell tower that will sit at that southwest corner of the site. And that is the crux of the waiverss 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 plotted lots shall have paved direct access to a public street a private street or a public access. Even there's no private streets nearby. The only public street is Golden Triangle. And as you can see by the previous exhibit, where that lot sits is mainly in the flood plane. 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 ft 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 culde-sac, that's one way in, one way out. So this creates a deacto culde-sac serving commercial commercially zoned property. Therefore, hence the need for the other waiver. Y'all have any questions? Uh yes. So I looked at I understand it the land owner is the same at the adjacent lot to the west sort of southwest there that has access to that traffic circle. Um I 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 a big piece of >> I'll let them explain it to you why that's probably notable. as as 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 it I let them I'll let I'll let the applicant speak. Okay. >> The intention of the small lot was to be used for a cell phone tower. >> Cell 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 this was actually a commercial business where other people where the general public is coming then obviously a driveway proper access would would be more desirable given the unique nature this property staff was supportive of the limited access. Any other questions for staff? All right. Thank you. The >> 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 citizen and our storm water division because as you can see there's a lot of flood plane that goes through here and there was they they had concerns but it seems like that that was alleviated between staff and and the the person that had the inquiry. >> Thank you. Thank you. If you'll please state your name and your city. >> Morning. My name is >> Can you hear I'm representing the subdivider of the property. of these waivers is all hinges on the axle. South open most of those for you know the purpose of these waivers related to that little lot that's um owner and which we are proposing this to be some sort of seller to be water sewer service um and the the access for vehicles will be minimal over time and installed very infrequent use. There is access there. There is property. It just doesn't rule or be invision. And to hit on the question from the accessing it from west that's a great idea because they already have buildings over there a mapping other than golden triangle there is no cross access I'll be screaming into this thing So, thank you. Um, yeah. Could you hear me on the on the cross access point? >> Yeah, I can hear you. Thank you. It's very helpful. So, any other thoughts or questions? >> Don't see any. Thank you very much. >> Thank you all. >> Anyone else here to speak on this m this matter? Please come forward. State your name and city, please. >> My name is John Divine. 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 culde-sac on there on any of the like the plat. So, it was kind of hard for me to think about a waiver like and then I was a little uh unclear why a culde-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 zoom in of the plat to show where a culde-sac would be? I I really can't determine from what I got. The culde-sac is the access easement that comes in at dead's end into that cell phone tower lot. Therefore, it's one way in and one way out just like a standard culde-sac would be in a residential development. >> So, that's the dotted line on the plat that goes across two lots right there. >> That's correct. Y >> and then again where does it come out? Both entrance from Golden Triangle and exits onto 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 a 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. when they were building the there's a little cut in on the driveway I guess where the culde-sac's going to be and those caused quite a bit of traffic backup and I assume having this culde-sac as access to the commercial area will do the same whereas if you do come off of the the existing uh roundabout 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 a continuation of the access that's there on the existing buildings. And then uh maybe that's not part of this discussion, but 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 We'll have a two-minute rebuttal here after this and he can answer some of those questions for you. >> Okay. Um but from a platting perspective and we're kind of looking at um the plat and not the the uses >> in this scenario from a storm water perspective uh prior to uh approval and recordation of the plat. They will have to comply with their storm water requirements and make sure that they're not creating any negative impact on to other folks property. Any rebuttal from the applicant or maybe just comments? >> I I guess just to make sure I understand clearly. Currently, uh, this property is one tracked. This is a question for the applicant. >> It's one planted lot >> and it's being split into three. One of which is a cell phone. Right. Correct. Not just Thank you. >> Guess 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 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 Quinton Weier. Uh I'm president of the Pine Tree Estates to um neighborhood neighbor to uh John Divine. 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, 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 postdevelopment 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 Deines? 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 issues in our neighborhood, our neighborhood potentially in Pineree 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? Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you for the time. >> Oh, from a drainage perspective, I'll let the engineer kind of talk to that from a you mentioned the fencing aspect. Uh whenever there's a commercial from a zoning perspective, whenever there's a commercial um structure built um ne 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 Ben uh take care of those questions regarding storm water. All right. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Don't see anyone. So if the applicant would come back forward please. >> John and Quinn. 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 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 it sounds like one of the main concerns with John and Gwen is is drainage. And I agree we are along a flood plane. 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 flood water is coming south onto our property and and I would say about half of this that lot that abutts the flood plane is actually going to have to deal with that and then get it into the creek. So, all the water's coming from the top of the page down through this property and then will be um addressed, diverted, whatever you call it, into the flood plane. 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 going to have to address that appropriately. So, um, so there there will be no concerns up north and into their their developments. But, so, um, any other questions? >> I just have a I guess a comment question. Sure. So, basically, you're saying you're going to be helping >> Yes. >> the drench 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 drive um driveways that have been paid paved for this platted area. So, the driveways and the the traffic configuration has already been installed. it's been approved by by the development groups here at the city of OR. So, um 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 waiverss just for that small tiny lot um because of its size, its use and then the conditional approval of 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. >> 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 I? >> So the entire piece of property was platted as one lot by dividing all the little piece in the corner. That's subdividing the property. So yes, we'd still be here. >> Okay. >> So it it's one of those instances where we have to kind of take and fit their little square their square peg and our round hole. And so this is how we massage their development to fit within our regulations. their their requirements from a storm water perspective, they don't they're not allowed to make things worse upstream or downstream. So, if it already floods to the north today, when it rains again, it's going to flood again. Not any wor not any worse because of this development. 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 A8 of the subdivision ordinance to allow a mixeduse development to be served by a culde-sac approval of a waiver to section 31-1061A of the subdivision ordinance to allow lots served by a public access easement to have less than the minimum require. ired 100 ft 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 Richer. If you call the vote, please. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Henserson, 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 Gillette, how do you vote? Yes. >> Commissioner fart, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Chair CR, how do you vote? >> Yes. Motion passes. >> Right. Next case, FS26044, Hugley Industrial Lots 124, block one, waiver request section 31102 B2, Interconnectivity of Neighborhoods. Section 31106 C3 Street Design Standards and section 31106E1 Colts Street Design Standards Council Council District 8. The location is east of South Freeway, south of Garden Acres, and west of Stone Road. Applicant is Kimley Horn. >> The they're requesting a continuence. It should be indicated in the 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 going to look like in order to present it to you effectively. The 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 waiverss 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 continuence for FS26044 until the May 14th, 2026 city 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 Henserson, 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 Richer, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Gillette, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Far, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Chair CR, how do you vote? >> Yes. Motion passes. >> Next case, PP 26011. S O Moody subdivision waiver request section 31106C3 street design standards six family attached lots council district 9 general location is north of west Morphy Street east of Jennings Avenue and west of May Street the applicants are surveying >> all right commissioners this one here >> it's recusing from this He's recusing. I wait for him. All righty. So, PP26 011 SOS Moody subdivision single family attached residential. They're taking this one lot platting it into six lots. you look directly to the west, I don't know what the specific design is going to be, but I would anticipate it be something similar to that. Um, they're asking for a waiver of a cross se uh a non-standard cross-section. Morphe, when it was originally dedicated, was only 25 ft wide. Um, however, when the property to the directly to the south of them was replatted, 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 going to be able to put in all the pedestrian and streetscape improvements that are required in the near southside. 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 undeveloped given the small skinny nature of the lot as exists today. Staff was supportive of the cross-section waiver provided they still provide all the amenities are required for >> questions for staff. Is there any idea when that property to the west was developed? >> 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 provided correspondence live over there and at least in close proximity to this and they have uh a varying wide array of complaints. A lot of them seem to be broad brush complaints for the entire area of near southside, 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 as maybe are stressed in those letters. We'll leave that up to y'all to deliberate on and decide how you want to 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, and 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 southside. There's no parking requirement. Zero off- streetet parking is required. Unlike any, it's all market driven. So, if someone decides to provide lots of parking, great. If they if they decide to provide no parking still okay it's all driven by the market. So it's it's a it's unique in that aspect. 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 specific developments may have 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, off streetet parking requirements and so on and so I believe you said 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 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 just adjacent to to to this particular area. So, I mean, >> I I I don't I don't I don't disagree that the the whole area is under redevelopment. >> Yeah. >> And it's going to be that way for a while. And even long after JPS is redone, they're going to redo something else out there. It it always seems like the near southside is under a constant state of redevelopment. That's all I was mentioning. I'm not disagreeing with what's written in the letter, just that near Southside 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 bigger than this case. >> Correct. It's not >> we shouldn't be trying to adjudicate parking with this case today. >> So can that's where I'm going to struggle 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 there 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. Uh 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 like you said, it's more probably more system more widespread than just this one specific development. 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 southside. There's already existing precedent for development of this exact same nature directly across the street from them. >> They're not down Morphe Street from them. >> Yeah, agreed. And and they're not requesting like a waiver to parking. They're not request 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 going to uh comply with, they're going to comply with. Um 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 stress to um uh parking, but that's not really what we're focused on for this plat. That's what I was after. Sorry if this is going back or circular, but if the the waiver is 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 50ft rideway. So the ask would be to dedicate 12 feet of rideway. I can't tell you how big the property is. It would be a sign it would be a significant portion of the entire width of the lot to reduce it by 12 ft. >> And the property immediately to the west >> is developed in the exact same pattern >> with the substandard cross. Okay. >> With a 25 foot wide street there is 38. 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 rideway. >> Making it 38 along this stretch of the road right here. 38. Over here in 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 this. And so it's if it was viable for development at 25 ft wide, it seems like it would be viable for development at 38 ft. That's that's the that's the viewpoint that staff has. >> And from just a use perspective, you've got a straight that's going in and out like that. It's >> in Morphe, the way it's dedicated, it's it it it looks pretty straight straight on my exhibit here, but it it it >> 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 as a cut through and a backage 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. >> 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, like I 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 perspect in that respect. I'm not I'm not an expert on that. I'll let No, as long as they're like the uh ones on the west side that are twotory, 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, the 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 there's no we we have no problems getting up and down that street part of Morphe right right now as is. Six more town homes won't affect as long as they're parking underneath ground level parking not on the street. >> So if they park on the street then it would >> Oh yeah. >> 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 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? >> Would not be permitted other than somebody would call to tow them, but Just like any other place where you park it legally. >> Is anybody parking there? Have 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 town homes where they park parallel to the building like where they kind of pull up blocking their driveway, their garage. So, it's not directly on the street, but the street is so narrow, it still limit will limit access going through if someone does that. Now, it's not something that I see every day. Um, but like you said, it would it would be be illegal, but I mean, that's something we do almost daily in that area is have to call for traffic control to come out ours. And it's not just that particular street, it's a few of the streets in that whole 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 Okay. >> paper from anyone. >> All right. >> On this case, >> well, I'm not familiar with the area, so that's why I'm asking all these questions. 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 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 will 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 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 9. Um we do not have a commissioner present from that district. >> Motion to approve PP26011. Uh so Moody subdivision waiver request 31-106 C3 street design standards six single family attached lots. Um motion to approve. >> Second. Thank you. Have a motion from Commissioner Farta, a second from Commissioner Sims. Call the vote, please. Commissioner Lambert, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Henderson, how do you vote? >> Recused. >> 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 Gillette, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Far, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Chair CR, how do you vote? >> Yes. Motion passes. Our last case is OM AX2603 Holy Redeemer Catholic Parish annexation request proposed for continued institutional use as a church. It's in the ETJ Parker County future council district 3. A general location is north of old Weatherford Road west of Walsh Drive and east of Farmer Road in Parker County. Applicants Catholic Dascese 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 applicant's 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 Hobblet, 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, Morning Star, and then Aido ISD. They're all fine with the request. And so we're just here to match it up with Future Wu's plan. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? >> 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 AX26003 to support feature land use request which is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Second. >> A motion from Commissioner Richer. And was that a second from Commissioner Lambert? Yes. 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 Gillette, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Florida, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Chair CR, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Motion passes. It's our final item. So I believe we are ready to adjourn. We will see you next time. Thank you.