pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible. OK? First Thank you guys getting here early getting seated. This is new for all of us. So If we'll all be like patient with each other. I'm sure we'll get through this and it'll work just fine. Um Other than staff. All of us on the commission. This is new, too. And uh, I. I kind of. I said something earlier about this feels like old school right instead of the big auditorium and stuff, just the rows of chairs and, uh, it feels like old school which I kinda like so Um, some housekeeping stuff. So the first two rows you should be sitting in one of the in the one of the first two rows if you've signed up to speak And if you signed up to speak in the first two rows are full. What we're going to do is as you called to speak and you come to the podium and speak when you're done speaking instead of going back to those first two rows, please find a seat. Somewhere else, And so we're gonna be calling people's names to come forward, and they'll grab a seat up there and so just for efficiency to try to keep us moving along and what? Not, Um We will let you know. Hey your your turn's coming up, so she'll be calling them as as seats get empty in the front row, she'll be calling For people to come and fill those seats. Um If you're registered as a speaker, and I don't know, do we? Do we have any idea? Are we in the overflow room? Is there anybody in there or do we know This is again. How we find out right day one. So for future reference, I guess, cause I'm looking in the it looks pretty full. There may be some chairs in the back. But again I can't see from here. But I see people standing. Which makes me think. Can you not hear me back there? All right. I'm gonna try to get a little closer to the mic. How's that? OK see, we're making progress together. We're gonna get this straight. So commissioners keep that in mind, Pull the mics a little closer to you as we as we have a dialogue. Um so we're gonna need to figure out how we can know in here if there's somebody in the overflow room so Do we have? Do we know right now? We don't know yet. OK A As of the beginning of the meeting. I did ask if there are people in overflow and there were not when we came in here, But if there's been someone going in the last few minutes, we're double checking. OK, great. Uh because people continue to flow in here now, which is good. OK, Not yet. All right. If you were for future reference Because council is going to be meeting just like this, right? OK so I'm assuming some of you will be coming to council meetings. So this is a good dry run for you. So uh, it's likely at the council meeting that there will be people having to go to the overflow room because council always has a lot more people at it for a variety of reasons. So just know that if you're in the overflow room and you're registered to speak on an item that somebody from staff will be telling you in advance. Hey, it's time to come to the Real room or the main room for, um for questions or for presentations or for your speaking Um OK. Let's talk about Commission. So you have two buttons on your On your mic. You have one on the left, which is a mute button. Don't worry about that. The one on the right that has a little guy with the voice. Push that to speak. And then push it again when you're done speaking OK on and off. We don't have the electronic voting and we don't have the electronic who's next in line for questions, so I'm just gonna try to Raise your hand. If you want to speak, I'll call on you. I'll try to do it in the order that I see the hands. Um The other thing is that all of our votes will be hand votes. OK they want there's no electronic voting, so it'll just be a hand boat. Are we clear there? OK? We're good. OK so let's start with our comments of public interest. As of right now we're using the overflow room. We are using the overflow room, OK? Do we? Is there a way for Staff in the overflow room to stay in constant communication with one of you to let us know that there are speakers in the overflow room, so as people are coming into the overflow room, I think it would be a good idea for staff to ask them. Are they planning on speaking or not? So we know that there's somebody there. OK, we have a system set up where there are people there to cover and they will be telling people they they have a television monitor, and we're in communication and they will be sending people over. Speakers are called. Excellent. Thank you. OK? That You still can't hear me. Oh, OK. Well, it was really related to whether there were people in the overflow room , so, but it's obvious that we're gonna have to all of us. Probably pull these mics right up. Up against US and Just keep reminding us, OK, because here you're you're in the middle of stuff, and we're not used to it yet. In time, we'll all get used to the idea that we need to be like on the mic for everyone to hear. So thanks for the feedback, we need it. We need it so that this becomes routine for all of us. OK? Let's move on comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per Speaker Louder louder, they said. I think you're going to have to Not quite do like a prima donna on the mic, but really close. OK, I've done one thing right tonight. Is this better? OK thank you. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker with 30 total minutes of items of interest or concern and not of items that are on the current agenda. The Planning and Zoning commission may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The planning and zoning commission may choose to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Do we have any speakers on this item? We do not Thank you. Let's move to consent. Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically, non controversial items may be removed from the agenda from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff. Does anyone want to pull an item from the consent agenda? I move that we approve the consent agenda as submitted. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second that. So I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with a second by Commissioner Ali to approve the consent agenda. Please vote. That carries 8 to 0. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing evidence and less instruct, instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30. Total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per per speaker . The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary administrative consideration. Items must be approved if Meet City development regulations. Legislative consideration. Items are more discretionary except us constrained by legal considerations. Agenda Item number one public hearing zoning case 2024-008 request to amend Article eight Definitions article 14 allowed uses in use classifications article 15 View specific regulations and related sections of the zoning ordinance to extend Repeal the interim ban of short term rentals and permanently regulate short term rentals and related land uses, including Associated Development regulations. Petitioner city of Plano. This is for legislative consideration. Good evening Commission. And how is the audio volume? Um It's scary. Just get in there close. It's gonna be a long presentation. Uh, Also hunched over, um And we change this. How is this OK? Good. All right. I am Christina Sebastian. I am land records planning manager with the planning department. So as you know, we are holding our public hearing tonight on the proposed zoning regulations for short term rentals. Before we begin. I want to note that there are some typos in the packet in regards to the allowance for Heritage properties. Those are those errors are in the summary tables. And then the off-site management STR maps. But the proposed ordinance amendment text in attachment A is correct. OK? As you know, this study for short term rentals began in November. 2022 and the outreach and data collection portion began this past April. That included appointment of a short term rental task force, Uh, community survey and two open houses. Uh, we are now at the end the end of that part of the project and are considering permanent measures. Sorry. There is a delay. On the slides. We were told that she goes to push the button for a slide to move is about a three second delay. We'll see if that's accurate. Is a Does anyone ever stop Watch with him? Oh, there it goes. Oh, All right. Here comes the guy that fixes everything. All right, Let's keep going. Let me know if the problem go ahead advance If there's a promo if you OK? So we've had two meetings. We've had many meetings about short term rentals, but we've had two meetings about these proposed ordinance amendments. So on March 4th we presented the short term rental study Phase two report and you called a public hearing for the zoning case, and we get had a brief overview of the proposed amendments. At our last meeting on March 18th. We had a workshop where you provided us more de. We went into things more detailed, and you provided us direction that we will be discussing here tonight. OK, she pushed the button. There it goes. All right. This one. All right, so on this slide, and the next one, which I'll go ahead and press the button for, um we have, uh, the recommendations from the task force regarding land use and zoning. Uh, they are here for reference. Um, they are also available in attachment a in your packet. Multiple times. Has not moved. There it goes. Now you want to go to the next one, right? OK? I didn't press it. OK, um so This is a short summary of the proposed amendments there in attachment a of your packet. Um all short term rentals must be registered under the registration ordinance . That council will be considering a plan is for April 22nd. Short term marital uses that were operating before the interim ban are allowed to continue operating. There are multiple types of short-term rentals identified based on the scale and impact of the rental and then we have three options with different location restrictions for new short term rentals that we will be discussing tonight. So this slide has a brief overview of the changes that generally apply to all three options. Um from the last meeting so limited seasonal STRS are removed. We renamed the short term rental types. There are some revised definitions. The minimum stay for STRS with live in management has been removed. There's some clarification on backyard cottages and some special allowances for short term rentals in multifamily buildings. Things are working a lot better. Um so for limited or seasonal, short term rentals per your your direction at the last meeting, this has been removed from all three options in the proposal. We updated the names. These are more descriptive and more technical, um, just to the point. So bed and breakfast. One room is live in management, STR single room bed and breakfast. 2 to 5 rooms live in management, STR multiple rooms and vacation rental became off site management STR. We'll talk more about those So Another change in regards to live in management. We gave it a definition, so live in management. Means that the operator identified on the registration stays in the dwelling overnight when guests are present at the short term rental, and that may be the owner or the operator. So then building on that. With the name change. Uh, we have live in management STR single room here. There's one room available for rental and the host lives on site and that live in management helps retain and build the community fabric. For live in management STR multiple rooms again. The host lives on site. But in this case there are two or more rooms available. Um, this is a change from what we had last time where we had a cap on the number of rooms. Uh, but that seemed to create some complexity and made challenges for enforcement. So we have have lifted that cap. Um, but Along with that. The previous proposal had them allowed in urban residential by right because bed and breakfast in was allowed by right. We are proposing to remove that so that now they are allowed by a specific use permit only for this multiple room type in urban residential, Um, which would be the same as other residential zoning districts, though, um most a large part of urban residential is a heritage district where these are, um allowed by right in all three options, which will discuss more. So then we have, um Off-site management, Short-term rental STR. So here there's no host in the dwelling. There is off site management. This can be, um, a single family home. Any of these could be any of these types of units. Uh, it could be a single apartment unit. Not necessarily. It's not the complex. It's each dwelling unit. This is a summary of the three types and comparison. They're all required to register . They're all residences. They either have Live-In management or off site management, and then it varies based on the number of rooms or whether the full unit is available, and also the length of stay, which we'll talk about here in just a second. Though the minimum stay based on direction we remove the minimum stay requirement for Live-In management ST RS, but we did leave the two night minimum for off site management STRS. We also had some questions about backyard cottages. These are, um small accessory residences in the backyard of a single family home. And, um With the changes to the definitions and a slight change to the text regarding backyard cottages. We feel like this. This clarifies things more , and it's basically just does it have Live-In management or off site management? And how many rooms are they renting out for the live in management? And again, uh, the As before the main home and the backyard cottage cannot be too separate STRS. All right. Um, so then we have short term rentals in multifamily residences. Um For these. This is again based on some conversation at the at the last meeting, and also some public feedback. We heard where, um we found that some apartment complexes will provide a temporary apartment to tenants as they're waiting for their permanent apartment to be vacated. Um, and also that some are provided as an amenity for the tenants for their visiting family or friends, So we wanted to Acknowledge that and give a little flexibility for the situations where we have multifamily with Um, property management on the premises that up to 5% of the units in that complex can be used as short term rentals. This would apply in multifamily and residential zoning districts. As in the Non-residential zoning districts. These the short term rentals are allowed by right All right, so we have three options here. Um Yes, kind of the bulk of what we need to talk about tonight. So option one. This is all three of these regard live in management single room as STRS. So for Option one. It's the most similar to what you saw at the last meeting they allowed in single family residential zoning by right, um as well as, uh, non-residential zoning basically any residence in the city. Um for Option two. It's very similar. However there is a restriction to in single family residential zoning to a 600 ft density buffer. And if you are in if you are within 600 ft of another short term rental of any type, you would need a specific use permit. And then option three is the most changed and this restricts single family residential zoning to a specific use permit. It doesn't have that 600 ft requirement. It's just across the board specific use permits in single family residential zoning. All right, so a little closer at option one. Again. Livid management permitted in any resident citywide, but with a restriction of two adults, uh plus minor Children because these are allowed anywhere, uh, a slight occupancy. A requirement. It can be part of that definition. Ah, live in management. ASR multiple rooms would be permitted in any residence in Non-residential zoning districts, Heritage Properties or some multifamily under that 5% allowance. And then in all other residences permitted by SEP as before. And then for the off site management, short term rentals. These will be permitted in any residence in most non-residential zoning districts and some multifamily again for that 5% allowance. This is a place where we had an error in the packet. But um, in the table that looks like this in the packet, but updated here. All right. So these are some maps. Um Due to our new venue. They don't have a lot of detail. They are, um in the packet, and the attachment numbers are are listed there in the top Left corner. Um again, a couple of notes to keep in mind when we look at any of these maps. Is that for planned developments, uh, that there are underlying permissions or restrictions that may vary from what's shown here, so it's difficult to show those on a map. Um we're also trying to show where new residents, uh, may be built in Plano, either by right by specific use permit or where it's not permitted. So on this map, the dark green shows locations where the zoning only allows new housing by specific use permit. The light green shows locations where housing can be allowed by right And then the white areas show where new housing is not permitted by right and for these maps, we've also added in white, uh, areas denoted open space network or social network in the future land use map. These are largely going to be parks and school properties that are not expected to change over time. And then the pink areas are areas where residential uses exist, Um in non-residential zoning districts , So we just wanted to call those out because it's another exception. The takeaway on this particular map for option one for live in management. STR is that Housing in areas in all of the green, both the light and the dark green. Um, would allow for live management STR single room by right? So next. We have Live in management STR multiple rooms. This is for Option one. It's also the same as option two attachment D two in your packet. Um there is some yellow on this map. It is very difficult to see here but hopefully printed or on your device. You can see it. Um, the yellow shows areas where the multiple room types are only allowed by specific use permit. The Brown shows multifamily zoning, so areas where we anticipate you may see that 5% allowance. And then the dark green is similar to the last one housing A lot is allowed by Um, but this type of STR would be allowed by right. And then light green housing is allowed by right as is this STR type. Pink is existing housing and non-residential and white which is hard to see. But is there uh, is areas where, uh, housing is not permitted. And then we have our map. I'm only hitting it once. Oh, OK? Even better. So again on this map. It is kind of hard to see the difference between the gray and the white. But hopefully you can see it better in your Pack it. Um The Gray is area where Off site management STRS would be disallowed. None of them would be allowed, uh, any no new ones would be allowed. And then all the other colors are essentially the same. So brown is multifamily green is, uh, these are allowed by right and Both shades of green and then the pink is existing housing. This map is the same for all three options. So looking at option one look at the existing short term rentals that were known at the time of the interim ban on May 15th 2023. These numbers may change as we find more information through registration , but this is what we have found at at this point. We can estimate that all of the live in management STR single rooms would be conforming. There are 50 of those All of the Live in management. Str multiple rooms are actually non conforming. There are only seven of those citywide. And then off site management str There would be 78 shown as conforming and 323 as non conforming. And then there are a few STRS that we do not know the type at this time. I do have a map of that. I know it's very hard to see on the screen. But Blue is conforming. Um, red is non conforming and all of these STRS would be required to register under the registration ordinance as proposed. All right. So option number two. So this is Very similar to option one, but it adds a density buffer. So this in this case for living in management STR single room again, the definition would be restricted to allow a rental to two adults plus minor Children. And the would be in allowed by right in most non residents, Districts Heritage Properties, the 5% multifamily allowance and then elsewhere when at 600 ft, or more from another short term rental of any type. And then with when you are within 600 ft of another short term rental and not in any of those other categories, then, uh this use would be allowed by specific use permit. For the multiple rooms. Live in management. This is the same as with Option number one. And most non-residential zoning districts , heritage, some multifamily and then elsewhere by specific use permit. Off-site Management Sr is the same in all three options , non-residential zoning districts and some multifamily. So this map is for option Number two Live in management STR single room. It's attachment, E one in your packet. Um again apologize. It is difficult to see these colors. Uh, but the yellow color is kind of dotted throughout the core of the city is Uh, areas where housing is allowed by right, but this type of STR would be required to get a specific use permit for new rentals. The brown is multifamily. The light green and the dark green are areas where these would be permitted by right And again, white. No housing. Pink is existing housing. Then we have option number two Live-In management multiple rooms. This is the same map as we had for option number one. Um so SUP for The majority of the city there in yellow and all the other colors are the same as before. And then off site management STR. Same in all three options. So the effect on the existing STRS If we Go with option number two. We estimate that there would be 29 live in management single rooms that would be conforming if they register. 21 that would be non conforming. Seven live management, multiple rooms. The next numbers don't change, so the multiple rooms that remain non conforming the off-site management 78 conforming 323 non conforming. And here is a map of that. Again Red is non conforming and blue is conforming. All right, so option Number three. This is the most changed from the version. You saw last. In this case, both live in management, STR single room and live in management. STR multiple rooms would be treated the same so we would just call them live in management STR. In this case they would be permitted in It's pretty much a pattern from what we saw before. Most non-residential zoning districts, heritage properties, some multifamily and then in all other residences in the city, permitted by SUP. Off-site management is the same here. One note on this one is that the Live-In management STR would not have the occupancy restriction of the two adults in minor Children, uh, because they'd be allowed by a specific use permit . That would be a time that any occupancy restrictions could be added, if appropriate. Um Want to make sure that was my main note. Yes. All right, so this map is Actually very similar to Um, the live in management multiple rooms in the previous it isn't the same actually, as the previous two options, but it would apply to single room and multiple room ST live in management STRS so most of the city would be required to get a specific use permit for these types. Then Off-site management STR is again the same in all three options. So the effect of option number three on our existing ST RS. We estimate that five of our live in management STRS would be conforming under this. 52 Of the live in management. ST RS would be non conforming. And then the numbers for Off-site management. STRS remain the same. And here is a map of those STRS red is non conforming and blue is conforming. So, as I mentioned with specific use permits, there is some flexibility for any type of specific use permit for the commission and council to impose additional development standards when they consider the SEP request, so to help provide guidance to everyone in the future. In the ordinance, we outlined a couple Items that may be considered. A additional things could be considered that are not listed here, but we wanted to have some things to reference whenever an SEP comes in, so At the time of CP request and consideration at PNZ and Council we provide, we would provide information on the locations of other STRS in the area. Um the re remainder of these are things that could be restricted at the time of granting the SEP so the maximum number of occupants at one time the minimum number of nights per rental. If you wanted to put a restriction on the maximum number of rental nights per year that could be done and then parking standards and any other site doesn't considerations that were appropriate. I think I failed to mention all these green circles. Um reference the task force recommendations that may be associated with these. Um So we talked about this briefly last time. There's no change from what we've talked about before that the definitions for assembly hall indoor commercial amusement and boarding rooming house a proposed to be updated and a small update to parking in regard to bed and breakfast Inn and then the, uh the task force recommendation was to do a full consideration of parking citywide as a separate project so that we are not, uh, missing our chance to get this done before the interim ban expires. Next month. Um Real quick. I do want to note that the staff report also includes some information on calls for service for single family, ST RS, and I do not have a slide for that. I apologize. Um, it is on page 12 of your staff report. Calls for service. Our citizen generated reports to Plano police, but they do not necessarily indicate that there was a violation and they also do not necessarily indicate that the property was being used as a short term rental at the time of the call. But it is essentially the best DA data that we have. So in the year of data we have before the time of the interim ban, there were five single-family Live-In management STRS that had one call for service and then for the live in management, multiple rooms. I'm I'm sorry. On that one back there. The single family live in management. STRS was for single rooms. There were five that had one call for service each Um For living management, multiple rooms. There were zero calls for service. Um Yes. That's correct. Um and then for Off-site management STRS that had one or two calls for service. There were 42 of those. All of the short term rentals that had three or more calls for service are off-site management STRS. There are 15 of those. All right , so this zoning case was found to be in compliance with a number of components of the comprehensive plan, the guiding principles, the future land use map and dashboards, land use, policy and land use action, one neighborhood conservation policy and actions. NC one and NC six. We did get a number of responses for this case. This slide shows the number of online responses as of noon on Friday. Um, Since that time, we have had quite a few additional responses online. Uh, we printed out the responses received before three o'clock and provided them to the commission in your packet. Or in your paper handout. We've also received a number of email responses both before the march 18th meeting, and then for today's meeting and again, we've had quite a few responses since we published the packet that we also provided to the commission. Again in summary, proposed amendments, All STRS need to be registered those that were operating before the interim ban are allowed to continue operating. There are different types identified based on scale and impact of the rental and we have three options to discuss tonight. There are some additional minor changes on related land uses, and these amendments are based on the task force recommendations, PNZ discussion and public feedback to date. I also have a slide here of A comparison of the three options in regards to live and management single room. That we can pull up. As for discussion. And then our recommendation to the commission is to approve either option 12 or three as provided in attachment, a Available for any questions. Question. OK Hang on. Hang it says No, No, you have to wait. This is this is commissions having their discussion and then hopefully you've signed up to speak. If not, then find someone who has signed up to speak to ask your question. OK? Um Thank you staff . I mean, this. There's a tremendous amount of detail in here and all the maps took a long time to kind of get those figured out. So thank you to staff for that. So questions from the commission to Christina. Mr Ratliff. Thank you, Chairman, Um Christina just to clarify the cottage portion, because there have been some small changes. Uh in a conversation before this meeting . My understanding is that basically a backyard cottage or a excels dwelling unit. If I said that, right, Um, is going to be considered as if it was attached to the house. So if it's a one room cottage, it's a one room rental. If it's a multi room cottage, it's a multi room situation. Is that the correct understanding? Essentially, yes. If they wanted to rent out the backyard cottage and some rooms in the house. It would be the total number of rooms that are being rented as short term rentals that would categorize the type of rental they are. So for all practical purposes, it's like every other category. It's just two structures that may have a little yard in between them, but they're still one facility by definition. OK, um And then on the off site management Just to be clear. There is not an SUP process for off site management in residential zoning, correct. That's right. No SP process for any type of zoning only allowed in the non-residential. Um except for 01 and the Heritage districts. OK, so the SUP would only be for one and or multi room live in management, depending on which option we pick. OK, Great. Thank you very much. I did a lot of work since the last meeting, and it's appreciated. OK? Mr Ali. Um In Europe through the statistics on the calls for service again. I was trying to jot them down, but don't ride that fast. Yes and it's on page 12 of the staff report. If you have that available, um so for living, this is all for single family. I'll note too multifamily. Um, just due to the nature of the property, it's difficult to tie those to the actual units being used as short term rentals. So this is only for single family uses. So for live in management STR for A single room. There are 45 of those that have had no calls for service in that year. There are five of those that have had one call for service. And then none have had two or three or more. OK, thank you. Other questions. Yes, Commissioner Tom. Thank you. Chair. Mr Chairman. This thank you, Christina. That was wonderful. I have only two questions. One is that, um, a lot of slides that says that That's for most non residential areas. Can you give us an example that is kind of outside that most When you say most, I mean, there are some areas that are non residential. But also not a applicable, I guess here is that right? Essentially So for the allowance for these all the STR types to be allowed in Non-residential zoning districts. Except for one. All some of those districts allow for multifamily. So uh, urban mixed use as an example. Uh, BG. The downtown district is another example. And so those would allow for these different short term rentals to be allowed by right so they would not need that 5. Um, allowance, so this would apply mostly just to the three multifamily districts. Um or if there were some existing multifamily That's been there for a long time. It's grandfathered or something. OK Thank you. The second question I had was, um my understanding is based on what we're seeing tonight. Basically. All the off site management. Short term rentals are Band pretty much Except for if they are in the most non residential districts. That's that's Partially right? Yes. Um so Just go to, um, one of the maps here. Um So it's hard to see the different types on this map, but you can see in the like the Legacy area. There's a lot of blue dots, so those are largely going to be they're not all. Vic Um, the off site management STRS. Some of them will be live in management STRS. But that is an area where, um, these would be permitted by right as a new use as well. OK so, uh, as a result of that there'll be, uh there was. There's a number like 232 non conforming uses right now. Would they be grandfathered in or no, That's right. These these numbers here on the screen, um the they become conforming if they register, Um the non conforming, um, also needs to register as well. Um, but the 323 offs Management STRS that are in that are existing. Under these proposals, they would be grandfathered in and but would be required to register and remain an active short term rental essentially to keep that grandfathered status. OK, thank you. OK Um, quick question for you. You just mentioned something, and I think for everyone's clarity So if we look up there we have conforming and non conforming uses currently. STRS If they register because their grandfather essentially they all become conforming. They remain as non conforming uses. That's a different status than a conforming use. OK I think I misheard you a while ago. I thought you said Once they register, they become conforming . Sorry for the conforming in order to beat those five and 78 to become they have to register. OK, I just wanted to clarify that because what I heard sounded like you said. Once they register, they become conforming . OK thank you for clarifying Very good, OK, Any other questions, Mr Law? Thank you, Christina. Thank you, Christina. Sorry. I'll do better. Um For the SPS. When I go to Article six in our zoning ordinance. 6.100 0.1 is the beginning of the sup, and it says that the specific use permits for the uses indicated by an S in the use tables of section 14 114.200 . But when I look at Our packets. There's no s's. In any of those charts for option 12 or three So are we just missing an S or these documented in some way That's different than our zoning ordinance currently documents them. So it is common. Or it is not uncommon in our zoning ordinance, where the numbers in the use chart refer to another section or an end note and Because of the nuance of some of these allowances. You we can't necessarily just put an S and people think it's always an us That's one concern about putting an S in there. Um so we want to refer people to section 15.2300. I think, um, so that they can read the requirements to find out if a specific use permit is required in their, um Specific scenario. I think the 6.100 is Something that would probably be good to clean up a little bit in the future. But that is common in our day. You follow note 56 to the 15. Chapter 15 dot I don't know how 23 It talks about the SU. P requirement there you'd go there. Figure out the type of short term rental you are talking about, and then see if an SEP is required. Second question. We refer in conversation and then also in the staff right up to grandfathering. And then grandfathering. In in our clean up or our in our additions and subtractions to Article eight. I don't see where we're defining that word I see in the staff write up that it's telling us to go to Article seven, which is non conforming uses. But if you look at stipulation 12 and three in non conforming uses, none of them describe what has happened to make. SRS Conforming or non conforming uses. And so it seems like They're getting slid in under non conforming uses, but the stipulations there that allow it to become a non conforming use are not being met. And so I thought y'all were using the word grandfathering. And we're going to define it. So we understood what it was. But it looks to me like grandfathering is pointing us. Article seven and Article seven. This isn't the way you create a non conforming use. From my reading of it. And so I just wondered what I was misunderstanding or So, uh, for on a couple of comments, um on grandfathering. We're using that as kind of a common term. But when we say that, we mean a non conforming use, So we're we're using that interchangeably. But in the zoning ordinance, we call it non conforming use on in 15.2300. The very last standard of I think it's either number 10 or nine, depending on the option . That's where we say that existing short term rentals are nonconformer uses. And so we've defined it there. Um As far as what Article seven has. I don't have it in front of me, so I'm not sure the specific language that you're looking at. But, um Means 7 100 non conforming status. And then it says non conforming status shall exist under the following provisions of this ordinance, and then it goes through 1.1 0.2 and three and it's either it either existed before 1956 or it was effective on the date. This ordinance or structure was in existence or lawfully constructed. I'm abbreviating here and then the third one when a structure use does not conform to the regulations prescribed in the district, in which such a youth or structure is located, was in existence at the time of annexation. And so I just think it do it. It clearly doesn't fit in 12 or three and so. I think there's Room. It's just confusing to me when there's a AAA. Chapter that's titled non Conforming Status. And we're saying these are non conforming statuses. But then you go there in this doesn't fit. I. I would suggest that it May fit just reading this just now very quickly under 0.2 where it says when the effective date of this ordinance, or, um This ordinance , the use or structure was in existence and lawfully constructed, located and operating in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. For which was a non conforming use they're under and which use or structure does not now conform in the regulations prescribed for the district, So it's been a legal use. And then the ordinance has changed. And it's no longer Considered legal under the effective date of this ordinance. We don't I don't have the ordinance yet, right and right. This is the ordinance. I don't I That's a definition. I think it's not a It's the current the current ordinance, and so whenever it's adopted, then that sets the Yes. That that is the provision. We're looking at 0.2. OK and certainly there could be agreement or disagreement on whether or not it fits under there. But that's your that's where you're saying it fits I. I would say that if it's a registered short term rental Prior to the date of Well No, They can't be registered prior to this right because we don't have the registration ordinance yet. They have to be in existence. And then they have to. Probably I don't want to speak for counsel. But counsel will put some time frame on registration right. They have to be registered by some certain date to consider registered under the ordinance. If they miss that date now they're not grandfathered so That would be my guess. I think that is the general idea. Yes. Thank you. That's my last question. I'm getting a crick in my neck, leaning into the mic, so I'm going to pull it even closer. All right. Any other questions for staff? OK one more time. Thanks for the work. Done a great job. I like that. You've made it kind of simpler for us. We have three options. We can have dialogue around those OK? Thank you. No other questions, OK? This is going to sound weird. Somebody get me like a drum or something. Get you an oak. An oak stump. That'll work. OK I'm gonna open the public hearing. Uh, before we get started a couple of comments, um , New venue. Everything works a little different. We're all gonna We're gonna work together and figure this out. Um I want to thank you because you guys have been before us. I don't know how many times now and you're always respectful. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Uh, if you haven't a desire to say something about someone who opposes your opinion, do not make it personal. We all care about the city. That's what we're here about All of us and all of you, Um We have 20 some odd speakers. Uh, most of you, I think probably have something to say similar to what you've said before. So I'm gonna ask you again. Keep it brief so that we're not all sitting here very late tonight. Um I would love for your comments to be specific around. I support this option or this option or this option because we've all read through the options kind of get a good feel for it, and staff did a fantastic job really kind of narrowing it down to this is the real difference between option one and Option two. This is the difference between option two and option three. So Um We do have we don't have anybody in the overflow room as far as we know that's the speaker, but we do have people in the overflow room. So, um We're gonna start with, uh, I think we have one speaker that, uh, ESL English second language that we're gonna let her go first. And uh, we'll cut her a little slack on the time and then, um, like a like I asked if you would keep it to a couple of minutes. Uh, and let's move through this, OK? Let's get started. That two or three minute two minutes, two minutes, OK? Just for the record. I wanted to state there's lean into the mic. There's 23 registered opinions. 12 in support, 11 opposed and we have 20 registered speakers. The first speaker will be Danella Santana letter. Followed by Bill France. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Daniela Leather. I live in 1608 as red trail. After the two big unfortunate incidents of 2022 and 2023. Almost a year ago, and nothing bad happened. Thank God in all of that period from 2023 to now. Um I agree that have been a high concern regarding the, uh, regulation of short term rentals in Plano. Is crucial to address concerns but is equally important to do in a way that is fair, effective and base on actual data. In this public, um, knowledge that the people that are working in this assignment are using the model of the city of Arlington. But Plano is not Arlington. We don't have the tourist attraction like AT&T Stadium. Six flags Yan Harbor. Neither we have entertainment District. Plano is a suburb of daa, with the only attraction being a few blocks of some town, Plano that by the way, I love it that They propose a change A AC RS ordinance, and Sony appears to be a rush to judgment and lacking substantial data to support such drastic measures. Making sweeping changes without a clear understanding of the problem could lead to cause um, less consequence for both residents and short term rental operators. To address these issues, I suggest extending the ban of new short term rental. This will maintain the status quo allowed for implement implementation of the registration process for existing grandfathers. SRS The registration process should be simple, fair and include a three strike system with penalties and possible suspension for no complaints. This approach will allow you to monitor and regular existing SDR effectively by implement this, we can gather important data over the next year. This data will help you understand the true extent of the issue related to SDRs with the information you can then make inform decision of any necessary ordinance change by extending the ban of new short term rental, implementing a fare registration process and gathering data over the next year. We can address the issues relate to SDRs in a clear and effective manner. The approach will ensure that any change made to the ordinances are based on real data and will lead to long term solutions that benefits our community. Thank you so much. Thank you. OK, call the next three just so that they're aware because all of our speakers are in this room, And when she calls your name, there are empty seats up front. So if you're not sitting in one of the first two rows and she calls your name, please come forward to one of the first two rows. The first speaker is Bill France, followed by Bill Baker and then Stephen Caracas. Good evening, sir. Good evening. Can everyone hear me? Ok? Yes. Thank you. Uh, good evening, members of the Plano Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Bill France. I'm representing the Plano, Texas Neighborhood coalition. We strongly oppose the proliferation of short term rentals in our residential neighborhoods. I ask at this time for all supporters to please stand. We lend our full support to option three of the proposed zoning ordinance. This option addresses both the existing STR situation and the future preservation of our residential neighborhoods. Option three allows existing short term rentals to apply for grandfathered status while restricting new ones to specific areas, excluding single family residential neighborhoods. This ensures the tranquility and integrity of these areas. Options one and two would open the floodgates to many hotels throughout Plano, destroying the fabric of single family neighborhoods. Austin's the city of Austin's experience with about 18,000 short term rentals teaches us the difficulty of reversing such mistakes. We trust you to protect our communities and uphold our zoning laws which afford us the right to live free from transient lodging establishments. Option three strikes the necessary balance, allowing for responsible economic development while preserving neighborhood character. Your service to our community is invaluable. Please consider the long term implications and choose the path the best serves our entire community. Let's work toward future where responsible growth coexists harmoniously with our city's residential fabric. Thank you. Thank you. Bill Baker. Stephen Kako and then Mark Asher. Good evening. Mr Chairman in commission closer to the MIC. There you go. I'll try again. Good evening. There you go. Mr Chairman and Commission members. My name is Bill Baker. Obviously I live in Plano while I do support Option three. I do not support having new STRS in single family neighborhoods. While it is the intent of the ordinance to allow existing short term rentals to continue the language that I noticed at the very top of the document says all short term rentals that are operating before the interim ban are allowed to continue operating. How exactly or what exactly does that mean? I don't know. We should add some language. Perhaps that says, but Must adhere to the provisions of this updated ordinance. Let's be clear what we mean. Additionally the definition of room bothers me. To some extent, it is a sleeping quarter, which must include a place for people to sleep is too vague. I could put 12 people in my living room if I chose To call it a sleeping quarter. I don't think that's the intent, so why not add some language? Room is a bedroom with beds where guests Can't sleep. It does not include rooms that are traditionally called kitchens Bathrooms hallways living rooms, dens, offices, patios or porches. Let's be clear. I think we all think, 30 seconds of a bedroom, but it doesn't say that. I doubt these suggestions would interfere with any of the existing short term rentals. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Stephen Caracas, Mark Asher and Mark Polian. Good evening. My name is Steven Kyriakos. I live at 2617 Barrington Drive. I'm a 21 year resident of Plano first Thank you for your time and dedication in developing the latest draft of the zoning ordinance for short term rentals. As David Downs mentioned in our last meeting. We don't have time to make it perfect, but we can make it right. I believe that goal was met. I like the three options presented and I'm in favor of option three. It best supports the findings of the task force, multiple open houses and multiple public surveys. It's simple, concise and, most importantly, easily enforceable. After all, what good is an ordinance if it's not enforceable or defendable Thank you again for your hard work and your dedication in making this right. Thank you. Mark Asher, Mark Pulliam and then Lynn McLean. Good evening members of the plan of Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Mark Asher and I've been a resident of Plano for 14 years. I would like to specifically address the location restrictions proposed in all three options regarding Ho Ho. Whole House off site managed SRS. The total number and distribution of Whole house SRS throughout Plano is very low . There are roughly 400 whole house SDRS out of 75,000 single family dwellings attached and detached. This constitutes approximately one half of 1% of the single family housing stock. Likewise str deity is near or below 1% of housing units. Nearly every census tract in Plano, with the exception being the census tract near Legacy area, which would already be allowed in all three options. This data contradicts claims that neighborhoods are being overrun by SRS. Despite that, I do acknowledge that density in terms of relative proximity of STRS to each other may still be an issue. I would like to propose that instead of taking an extreme position that effectively bans whole house STRS from almost all areas in Plano, the commission should instead consider implementing density and proximity limits for new whole house STRS to prevent clustering of STRS near each other. Like what is what it has already been proposed in Option two for single room. ST RS minimum separation requirements would seem to be appropriate to address such a concern and could be evaluated as part of a public hearing. An example would be to specify that in single family residential zoned areas, there would be a 1% cap on SDR housing units per census tract and that each whole house STRB at least 600 ft, away from another short term rental or likewise be allowed by special exemption. I think this type of approach would allow for both fair and reasonable use of single family dwellings as Off-site managed ST RS and residential areas while providing safeguards to maintain the overall fabric of the neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mr Asher. Mark Polian. Lynn McLean via Zoom and then Greg Pitillo. Ready. Good evening. Hi, Mark. Pulliam. Uh, 24 8 London Drive, been a resident of Plano continuously since 1989 plus some years before then. Uh, my family lives in a single family house. In a single family neighborhood without an HOA. And so we have to rely on the city for enforcement of ordinances that are supposed to protect our family and our property. And I'm in favor of Option three and only option three and we'll get to that, in a second. Three best reflects the STR task force findings and, more importantly, represents the property safety and lifestyle. Interest of the supermajority of Citizens, which were 79% that either did not want an STR or we're uncomfortable with STRS near them. That's that's data that y'all have. Option three is not a taking and does not infringe on an existing Str owners property rights Those existing owners would be grandfathered and so are protected. Option three does limit new STRS to only appropriately zoned districts. In the city or by SP Options one and two. Would basically say every single house in Plano could be an ST R. That's clearly not what anyone wants. Option and the and options one and two also the 2 to 5. Is a very, uh It's a slippery slope on that one. I was just looking on Zillow. And they have you can look on an app and just type in an address that you know is a rental. And he goes. I was actually looking at one a minute ago, and it's like we have five bedrooms. It was a four bedroom house. They converted the garage into another bedroom, ready for seven or $50 a piece. That's not what we want to be going to cities not gonna be able to enforce that or regulate it. Did they permit it? How about the wiring in goes on and on, so you don't want to do option one or two. You're gonna hear a lot from STR supporters tonight. They're a small and They used to be an organized group. They seem to be reflecting their arguments reflect almost exactly Airbnb's current advertising. So basically, we have The opponents. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have Lyn McLean via zoom and then followed by Greg Patella and then Cindy Patel. Good evening, Lynne. Go ahead. You are muted. Ma'am, your M Your mic is muted. If you could unmute thank you. Good evening. I'm Lynn McLean. OK we're not going to be able to hear you Hang on one sec. Let's see if we can solve this. I think it's on our end. Not yours. So let it give us a second here to see if we can Can you say something? Good evening. We? We can barely hear you. But we're we're trying to resolve it. Hang on. Try one more time. Good evening. There you go. OK great. I am Lynn McLean and I've lived at 4021 Elm Hill drive for the past 28 years. I only support Option three. There's been a lot of talk over the past years about a variety of problems with STRS, and I don't want you to lose sight of the real issue and that is safety. People no longer feel safe in their own neighborhoods because of S RSI have an STR three doors down from me. Short term renters are strangers, and they change every couple of days. I moved out of an apartment in Dallas to Plano because I wanted to know my neighbors and I didn't wanna live in a place that people were moving in and out of every couple of months. Now there are strangers moving in and out every couple of days. We used to have a neighborhood crime watch a neighborhood crime watch is impossible now because we don't know who belongs in our neighborhood And who doesn't? We feel our safety has been jeopardized in our neighborhood because of the str. The city of Plano used to pride itself on being one of the safest cities in America, and it's one of the reasons why I moved here. But if somebody asked me today if I feel safe in my Plano neighborhood, I would say no. I would like the city of Plano to live up to, um, the vision to keep residential neighborhoods safe and to foster a shared sense of community. Please bring back safety and a sense of shared community to single family residential neighborhoods . Please vote for Option three. Thank you. Thank you. Greg Patella, Cindy Pitillo and then Jennifer Asher. Good evening members of planning and zoning Commission and staff. My name is Greg Pitillo. I live at 6229 West Chester Lane 75093. While it is fair to include, uh live in management STRS and the so called sharing economy. It is not accurate to suggest that Airbnb is no different than uber or lyft. If my neighbor wants to drive for uber, then the extra 10 to 15,000 miles they put on their car have no impact to the value of my car. My neighbor and their passenger both assume the risk associated with placing themselves in an automobile with someone they do not know and have little control over their behavior, and the risk generally extends to no further than the automobile. When my neighbor is in a when my neighbor is a short term rental host that brings a stranger into my neighborhood. I have not agreed to those risk associated with someone, and neither, they know or neither of us have any control over their behavior. My neighbors with small Children would certainly not accept such risk. And in case you're unfamiliar with Texas law notification is not required by sex offenders unless they are going to be at a location for more than seven days. And while consumers have benefited from the disruption of the taxi industry by the Rideshare platforms, the short term rental platforms have not have not significantly disrupted the hotel industry. In fact, between 2019 and 2023, the price for the average Airbnb rose by 30% 36% While prices across major hotels chains such as Hilton and Marriott rose by 12.8 and 7.8, respectively. Centennial obviously does not consider the end a threat, given their plans to, uh for a large hotel in the redevelopment of the shops at Willow Bend. The response for the hotel industry has been to focus on providing amenities and reward programs that properties operated at a short term rentals cannot offer And launch short term rental vacation platforms of their own to address the one area where they did feel the disruption and that is in longer stays. And while it's about five years late , governor Abbott is now waking up to the reality of the consequences of this trend. It's not just it's not just to increase in housing costs of both home prices and rent associated with the lack of housing inventory, But the loss of homeownership opportunities I have historically been so crucial for the middle class to build and, uh transfer generational wealth. I'm in for option three because it, uh because it offers the city the opportunity to limit the cost required to administer and enforce the registration and regulation of short term rentals , as well as the loss of housing inventory and eliminates the need for future consideration of an industry that could have a significant impact on housing inventory that is unaccounted for in the city's comprehensive plan. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. And while we're waiting on our next speaker, what's your name, sir? Yes. Parker. Oh, thanks for being the doorman over there. I appreciate that. All right, go ahead. Have Cindy Pella, Jennifer Asher and followed by Katherine Parker. Good evening. Um if you have this close by, this is just an illustration of what I'm going to talk about. Um my name is Cindy Patillo. Sorry I live at 6229 Westchester Lane. I'm in favor of Option three due to its impact on the density of short term rentals in single family residential neighborhoods. Option one outright allows new live in single room short term rentals in our neighborhoods with no limits on density. Option two also allows for these same new single room short terminals in our neighborhoods at intervals of every 600 ft. While that's better, that's still a lot of new short term rentals in our neighborhoods. And honestly, I don't know what need we're trying to meet with that option. Another note about Option two. In case you're tempted to consider it as a compromise between options one and three. Please know that it is not Option two is simply a mini version of Option one in that both allow new short term rentals in our neighborhoods, which is not something our community is asking for. A supermajority of residents who participated in the publicly available well responded to short term rental survey so they would not be comfortable with a short term rental on their block. They did. They did not say it would be OK, as long as there are only 600 ft apart. In closing Option three is the only one that prohibits new short term rentals in our single family residential neighborhoods. I ask you, respectfully to please vote. Yes to Option three. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Asher, Katherine Parker and Ashley McDaniel. Hi. I'm Jennifer Asher. The research on short term rentals in Plano seems to be exceedingly weak beyond account of listings, the geographic locations and a rough classification of type. There is very little data. In the record, no evidence was developed that would indicate who owns and manages the, uh, the short term rentals where short term rental owners live. Plano residents versus out of town How many properties in an owner operates or conversely, how many properties Are the sole listing of their owner. How often short term rentals are booked. Total nights booked average length of bookings. Average occupancy rates average nights price per night. Any information whatsoever about guests why they visit how long they visit the size of groups or the nature of their visits? The CFS data indicates. Repeal repeat problems at a handful of at as a handful of listings rules tailored to address it to address such nuisances are appropriate. The community survey is deeply flawed in many aspects and should not be relied upon as representing anything more than the views of those who responded to it. The few high profile incidents at short term rentals are certainly troubling, but they are not indicative of a deeper pattern of more wide, a more widespread problem, Chief Dane Stated as much to the task force. Similar incidents might have occurred at long term rentals and owner occupied properties. Detailed data on the rates of such serious crimes was requested by the task force but was not provided prior to the sunsetting of the body on March 25th. Lacking sufficient data, the various iterations of the proposed zoning ordinances are simply guessing as to how short term rentals operate and what would constitute a fair and reasonable balancing of the interests of short term rental owners and their neighbors. One example of this was perfectly given, Um as far as the calls to the police. There was no comparison of how many calls to the police at other residences there were in the year and How that would compare to at the short term. Rental houses. Thank you. Thank you. Katherine Parker , followed by Ashley McDaniel and then Gina, Mo. Good evening Commissioners. City staff. I'm Katherine Q Parker, My husband and I live at 2112 Willow Brook Way in Plano. I'm a member of the Plano chapter of the Texas Neighborhood Coalition, and I'm asking you to recommend Option three to City Council. As the short term rental zoning ordinance for the city. I grew up in Plano when this town was 17,000 people and 544 was a two lane road. In fact, I often came to this library when I was a child. My husband and I have lived in many cities throughout this country 10 years ago, we returned to Plano and purchased our home in a single family neighborhood. When we made this purchase. The biggest investment of our lives. We expected to live with neighbors. Not transients who are paying for overnight lodging. Plano is a great city with thriving, healthy neighborhoods and excellent city services. But great cities do not happen by accident. They happen with careful planning and a focus on what's best for its residents. And what's best for Plano is getting short term rentals out of our single family neighborhoods. Option three is the right way to accomplish this. Thank you. Thank you. Ashley McDaniel, followed by Jenna Moray and then Eddie Letterer. You don't look like an Ashley. That's what a lot of people think. My name is Ashley McDaniel. I live with my wife and kids at 36 04 Stagecoach trail. Facts are what matter, not feelings. Just because somebody feels scared doesn't mean they're actually in danger. Less than 1. Of houses. Short term rentals and the calls for service prove That it's a tiny number of calls less than 60 seems like a big term number. But not when you compare the total number of calls given In addition, Basic property rights. Are the foundation of both the economy and personal freedom. There is a 1 to 1 correlation. Taking those away reduces both the freedom and the economy of everybody. This has been proven around the world and other nations as well as the United States. None of these three options is a good term. None of them is a good solution. All it does is weaken the rights of property owners for the feeling of threat. None of these are good options, and none of them should be passed. When you ban 80% of current uses, that's not regulation. That's a ban. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Gina Moray Eddie Letterer, followed by Barbara, France. I'm I'm not Gina. She's gonna pass. Eddie letter. Hi I'm Eddie Letterer. I live at 1608 Asher Right Trail 40 Year resident of Plano 34 years in my current residence, seven years sure, in my home with wonderful guests. Um I do this about 45% of the time. The rest of the time. I I use my home myself. It provides a source of, uh, retirement income for me. I have no plans on buying another home in Plano. I have no plans of extending my STR footprint if you will. Um I guess why do I care about this new band so much? Um I guess not . Allowing other short term rentals would create less competition for me. Reason I care about it is because I believe that this outright ban is very heavy handed measure, and it's not balanced. It's not fair. And it's not supported by the data. Um I think that I think of the retirees in the years to come, and I think that they should have a right to offset their income if they need to rent out a room in their home or if they need to rent out their home. Uh why not allow STRS with density restrictions? We talked about 400 Total STRS 75,000 homes, one half percent. Implementing blanket res, uh, rezoning regulations that punish responsible residents. I do not think is the solution. Uh, I think we really should, um Focus on the 7 to 10 bad actors that are out there. And we've only got 400 STRS out there and that's with no regulations, no registration whatsoever. And I don't think those this will be a AAA big group of people coming in to do STRS locally, Um, 30 seconds. I had a question about the summary proposed changes. There was one word about that. It said all short term rentals that were operating before the interim ban are allowed to continue. I've rented one room I've rented a two room whole house three room whole house, So my question is, if my circumstances In medically I've got to stay here. Now Am I able to rent one room two rooms or three rooms without all of the new restrictions associated with it? And lastly, regarding the proposed two day minimum. Uh on even though I choose not to do a one day booking is the PNC seeking to impose regulations that would restrict my grandfathered rights. Thank you. Thank you. Barbara France, Anne Hill and then Alina Burke. Good evening commissioners. My name is Barbara, France. I live at 27. Good evening commissioners. My name is Barbara, France. I live at 2712 Barrington Drive. You've heard arguments against zoning STRS here in Plano? Because we are not like Arlington. We are not a vacation destination, and it's true. We are not exactly like Arlington or Richardson or Frisco or Allen . We are Plano. We are suburban city with a unique identity. In fact, Plano has adopted a new comprehensive plan in order to maintain our distinct character guiding future development with principles which include enhancing the quality of life, striving to meet the needs and priorities of current residents promoting safety, viability and vibrancy in Plano's existing neighborhoods and respecting the suburban character of Plano. So even though we are not like Arlington, we do want to follow the Arlington model because they were successful. Successful in implementing an ordinance that was logical, enforceable and defensible and that work for their city. In following this model, our city has taken a thoughtful, well researched and measured approach to the issues surrounding short term rentals. Our city leaders have listened to the concerns of the citizens. They have collected vast amounts of data they have reached out to the residents for feedback through surveys and open houses. And they put together a balanced task force for recommendations. It is now time to pass an ordinance that's custom fit for Plano. Only Option three reflects the guiding principles of the comprehensive plan the expectations of the citizens of Plano and supports the thorough research conducted by the city. Please support Option three by sending this solution to the City Council for consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Anne Hill, Elena Burke and Kristen Reinecker. Good evening chair and commission members and city staff. I wanna thank you for your thoughtful, extensive and rigorous study of this issue. My name is Anna Hill. I am a homeowner in Plano and have lived here for 20 years. I'm here to support Option three. As an attorney, I am compelled to return this conversation to one about the law. Emotions aside at the end of the day, this is a legal question. As I've said before. Property law at its core is nothing but a basis of expectation. As you well know, zoning laws are created to set and protect these expectations. Plano thoughtfully created a master plan that defined its residential neighborhoods. Plano Zoning zoning ordinance carefully lays out the purpose of each zoned district Article nine states clearly that the purpose of every single family district within the city is and I quote for single family development. This is SF 29 7 and six The stated purpose goes even further to state that these districts should be free from a list of things, including and I quote again excessive noise and objectionable influences to family living. This language is clear and not subject to interpretation. Short term rentals are not single families and as you have heard over the last year, they present many objectionable influences to family living. They are simply easily on their face. 100% inconsistent with the stated purpose of Plano's single family, residential zoning. People who bought homes, seconds people who bought homes in Plano's single family residential neighborhoods have investment backed expectations that the city will maintain the plan it created to keep single family residential neighborhoods for single family development. Recent court cases, including the Grapevine case, made clear the Plano has a legal grounds to prohibit all new short term rentals from the city. Please send option three to City Council. Thank you. Elena Burke, Kristen Reinecker, followed by Corey Reinecker. Good evening, members of the Planning and zoning committee. My name is Elena Burke. I've lived in Plano in my home. Um, for 30 years now. I'm here to support. Uh, the selection of Option three. Which I believe to be a reasonable compromise. The original tent of our zoning laws are obvious in the language used at the time. Lodging was to be kept out of single family residential neighborhoods even as the concept And the term short term rental did not even exist at that time, but really does match the description of a boarding house, Um, in my neighborhood of 100 and 85 homes . There are three short term rentals and to say that the small percentage of short term rentals don't affect a lot of homeowners is not true. Living in a neighborhood with just three and there's a lot of been a lot of misery in my neighborhood. Um the folks who own them, uh, can be grandfathered in. They will exist for folks who come house hunting. The families who come to support a hospitalized loved one. The Plano residents whose homes flood um There is city police, um Plan of city well. City of Plano. Uh police data from one year ago, which showed the large percentage of calls to STRS as compared with owner occupied homes. That data does exist. It's been presented to council no matter what STR lobbyist may say Airbnb and IPO documents filed with the SEC on November 16th 2020 states, We have no control over our ability to predict the actions of our users and other third parties. The actions of host guests and others have resulted and can further Result in fatalities. Injuries fraud, invasion of privacy, property damage We do not verify or screen third parties who may be present during a reservation made through our platform. SRS provide opportunities for bad things. Thank you for your time and your due diligence and please support Option three. Thank you. Kristen Reiner, Corey Reinecker, and then last I had Stacy Matthews. Good evening commissioners. My name is Kristen Reiner and I live at 1814 N Place. 75074 Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts this evening. I want to start by acknowledging one thing . Option One's approach to one bedroom on site managed short term rentals is a spot of wisdom in an otherwise problematic plan rather than expanding short term rentals Citywide. It simply recognizes the existing right of residence to rent out their spare space for less than 30 days. This isn't about flooding. City with rentals. It's about respecting property rights and making efficient use of underutilized space. In reality, one bedroom on site managed short term rentals aren't going to suddenly overrun the city just because we acknowledge their existence. This type of rental is niche with limitations on both supply and demand you need you need hosts willing to welcome strangers into their homes and guests willing to stay with someone they've never met. The numbers speak for themselves out of nearly 100 and 18,000 housing units citywide. Only about 50 offer this type of listing. Under the definition of live in management. It's overly restrictive and lacks any real rationale requiring operators to be present overnight whenever guests are on site, so there's little purpose beyond unnecessary micromanagement Speaking from personal experience, what we're usually around during our guest stay, there are times when we're not. But our guests understand the rules and can reach us if needed. We even provide our guests with their neighbor with our neighbors, Contacts information in case of emergencies. Enforcing such a strict definition would be a logistical nightmare and not practical and unnecessary. The city needs to redefine live in management to clarify its meaning without mandating hosts physical presence overnight. Furthermore there has been very little evidence presented throughout this process, suggesting any problems with these types of listings, no significant nuisances incidents or negative impacts on neighbors on the contrary, having the primary resident on site can benefit both occupants and guests while enhancing community fabric in conclusion. Let's stick to what works and revise what doesn't which I, in my opinion, is all three. Let's dispense with unfounded fears and respect property rights, embrace sensible regulations and base our decisions on evidence. Thank you for your time. For hearing us out. Thank you. Corey Reinecker and then Stacy Matthews. Good evening commissioners. My name is Corey Reiner. I'm a resident at 1814 and place Option One is the closest to the mark, but needs work. Uh I believe that the proposals lack the necessary precision when it comes to reflecting the actual facts and evidence, the blanket ban on new whole house STRS and single family neighborhoods is overly broad affecting the rights of approximately 75,000 property owners due to the actions of a few bad actors. A more tailored approach would consider the development of STR overlay districts. These districts initiated either by the city or individual neighborhoods would empower residents at the most local level to make decisions. STRS while preventing one neighborhood from imposing its preferences on others. Further the use of an SSUP process as discussed at the March 18th meeting is complex and burdensome, particularly for individual homeowners unfamiliar with zoning procedures to address this, I suggest the introduction of a special exception process similar to those used in other cities. This streamlined approach evaluated through the board of Adjustment. Words simplify the application process, provide for neighbor notification and input and place the burden on the applicant to demonstrate the proposed STR would not adversely affect neighboring properties. In conclusion, any regulations adopted must be firmly grounded in the facts and data that have been accumulated. Having closely observed the task force process. I'm concerned that the current proposal does not meet the standard, the Plano short term rental alliance, representing responsible STR operators, is eager to collaborate with city leaders to develop compre. Of rules that satisfy all parties. We welcome the opportunity opportunity to engage directly and ensure our views are fairly considered. Thank you. Thank you. Daisy Matthews. Are we done? We are done OK? Yep All right, so I'm gonna close the public hearing. And we're gonna take a five minute recess. There's a couple of folks that need, uh A break and stretch so It's 830. We'll be back at 835. So. OK? OK? OK, let's start getting our seats. Hopefully not too good. Well, it got quiet in a hurry. That was that was good. And we've lost a few folks, that's all right. Um They're all in the bathroom. The line in the men's bathroom. Not used to that, ladies. You're all too familiar with that. That's fantastic. Uh, OK. Um we will reconvene into our regular session at 8:38 P.m. And, um So commission we We've heard from our Our constituents here and we've heard from staff. I think before I Let let's start with this. Does anyone have like specific questions for staff? Okay, So, um, we have a Oh, Hang on. We all right? Oh, water. That water OK, great. All right. Um Mr Carey, You have a question for staff. I do. I just want to be sure that I understand something. So um, once once one of these, um ordinances is enacted. And the people that if we want to call them, I ask grandfathered if they do not register, then I think what I understand is that they will lose their grandfathered rights. Did I? Did I hear that correctly? Is that true or not true? So that's close. Um, they have to abandon for six months and they have to intend to abandon And so if they intend to abandon for six months, then they are no longer grandfathered . But But if something happens like, um, say, a storm burns down their short term rental and it takes them a while to build it back. Um they can still be grandfathered even if it takes them more than six months because they didn't intend to abandon it. So I think What I just heard you say is they do not have to register then is that They have well, they have to register to be a legal Sr. But Rights don't go away as a non conforming use. For failing to register. It's just two different processes. There's a process for losing your non conforming rights. That through the zoning ordinance, and then there's a process for, um, punishment if you don't register. OK, All right. Thank you. Yes. Go ahead. Um I'd like to confirm with the attorney that you could registration failure to register could affect it could be considered evidence towards loss of non conforming rights Exactly. It would be one of the things considered. Thank you. Uh, it's my guess, because registration is again purview of the council that that will probably be made clear during the council's, uh, discussions and Yes, sir. Yeah Just one more question. Um, is it once we grant an SUP? How is it possible to put a time limit on that or once it's granted? Is it for perpetuity? Into that we have rarely. There's one occasion. I'm aware of that the city has granted a temporary specific use permit, but that is has not been the practice. Uh, throughout the tenure of the city that it is a permanent land use right? Yeah, I guess I'm asking more from a legal perspective than than a historic perspective. So sus as zoning run with the land. That's how they're constructed legally. So that's the process we want to follow. Um you know, there are other kinds of things that don't run with the land. But an SUP does. OK? Mr Tong. Thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is regarding the one of the suggestions actually came out of from one of the speakers regarding the UM three strike system. Um I understand that the staff has tried very hard and run, you know, suggested these three options. Um but for all the grandfathered Str operators Is there still a way for us to, um, implement this strike system So once they are grandfathered in Will will there be a way for us to take their ride? If Have violated, you know, rules and certain things that, um is it already in place, or is it something that we have to implement after the council approves it? What's the process on that? Well, uh, Again. That's probably going to be council's call on how to how to administer that. Um I think it will get tricky. Uh, to say we're going to create a special system for existing SDRS. And there's still some question that was asked earlier about well to the new restrictions, Uh, in terms of number of guests or number of nights, et cetera. Are they going to apply to grandfather or not? Those are decisions for counsel to make versus us. The registration and the enforcement mechanisms are are councils. Uh, purview? Thank you. Questions for other questions, Mr Ali Uh, probably more of a question for cons more than anything trying to get at the heart of, uh Rights, so established a couple of things. Property owners have a right to lease that's by law. Yes. Um Proper property rights are attached to The plot of land. Or the structure. I am I correct in that is it's most likely the land that you own comes with a certain in the In alienable rights attached to it correct. Right We have property rights in the US and they're tied to land itself the ownership of land and there's a fundamental right to lease that's been discussed in the short term rental cases in Texas. But essentially property rights do not go beyond the bounds of the land. Or the boundaries of the land you own. I'd say that's typical, but you know there's minerals and water under and so but generally. Yeah, OK, so I'm just trying to get, uh, the Is not necessarily anything like neighborhood rights, necessarily, right? So there's a contrast. Um you know, like, um, sometimes you hear of a right of quiet enjoyment that comes with a lease. Sometimes you know you you have that kind of a right, but but the Constitution doesn't protect that, right. Like it. Does property rights. Um and you know, we have zoning that determines what use is appropriate. Certain area and then we have nuisance laws that, um, can be enforced to prevent noise or, um, trash issues, smoke odor, those sorts of things and then those can either be city imposed or people can bring a nuisance claim against their neighbor in a private action. As well. But we impose those thresholds using noise ordinances. Uh, Uh, particulate matter with we've had many a discussion about EH a one and two and what have you and Most likely this registration ordinance will Bring in some language to Help govern. Things that are not necessarily attached to property. Right? They're they're more, um, the registration ordinance was supplement. And the other kinds of nuisance ordinances that apply across the city. And they're they're outside your purview, Of course, right now, but But I can see you know the interest and the fact that they're brought in tandem and the council does plan to hear them the same night. Thank you. But I just wanted to point out that zoning does allow some additional rights to adjacent property owners. If you think about the notice requirements we have for the 200 Ft, uh, you can push up to a super majority vote at council so that Uh, can be a significant right if you own Property adjacent. You can influence how many votes are required at City Council. In order for that owner to change their Their zoning on the property, So there are that's one example I can think of where an adjacent owner does have some rights related to Zoning on their neighbor's property. That's a good point in the specific use permits as well, you know, and the signposting that go up so there is an effort to notice people and allow them to attend hearings and exercise influence. It's just different than having a fundamental right. Mr Bronski. So I also have a legal question. Uh, In the city Ordinance chapter 14 that speaks of sex offenders. What is, uh, what's the application for that As far as Uh, Moving into a place in Plano. OK I didn't. I didn't hear all of that. Could you repeat it in chapter 14 of the 0.0 Ordinance? It refers to sex offenders. And they're requirements to register. I was wondering if you could, uh, just go over that a little bit so that we could better understand how that Could or could not apply to Airbnb's statement. Quote because of our background checks are limited. We cannot guarantee that they'll identify all past criminal convictions or sex offenders registered, uh By a guest or a host. Therefore you should not rely on them as a guarantee that the user has no criminal background or other red flags. OK I'm gonna defer that question to, um Curtis Howard, would you Because, um, I think he's more. Maybe you can or that . Maybe introduce yourself and, uh, let those present understand your role and asked and current OK, Can you hear me now? Speak louder. All right. Can you hear me now? Yes. So I shouldn't have stayed after the break is what you're telling me. Uh, So, uh, to my name is Curtis Howard. So I'm the director of Neighborhood services. I was the former legal advisor, uh, with the Plano Police department, and it was a prosecutor for 14 years at the DAS office dealing with sex offenders and sex offender registration, so I might be able to kind of help you out here as far as our our Our registration ordinance. City of Plano has a requirement that if you are a register if you're a sex offender if you meet certain requirements Uh, under state law that you that you register here when you move in, so usually you have to move into a place. So if you, uh, stay at a place for I think it's seven days without looking so then then, at that point, you may have a duty to register failure to do that, under state law can subject you to criminal penalties. We also have a AAA registration process here that restricts where you can move into. Plano If it's by certain parks based upon how close you are so two separate things registration under state law and then the requirements, uh, of, uh, where you live in in , uh, in the city of Plano under their ordinance, so the requirements as far as the 1000 ft and so forth. Uh, is that immediate That they should notify as soon as they move next door to a school. Or is that seven days as well? I I would have to look at the ordinance. Uh uh. So if, um whatever the whatever the look, I didn't get a chance to look at it. I apologize. That's OK. I appreciate you. Uh And, uh, whenever I thought about the question I had to figure I respect that. We've been friends for a long time and appreciate your service to the community. But I, I have some concerns about, uh, now that that's brought up. I hadn't even thought about it before, But, um thank you very much for your help. So is the concern sex offenders staying at an STR OK, so that the state Law or the Ordinance Ordinance, and Plato would not have any impact on that if they're here, short term, right if they don't move here, so if they're here Days if I if they live in a place then at that point, then, uh, they may be required to register but you know, And the problem is you have sex offenders that come and visit relatives and that sort of thing. And so, uh, but, uh but generally with the short term rental issue if they're here for 29 days, two nights or three nights or, however long they're probably not going to be required to register. Uh here in this place if it's long term a seven days or longer. They might Required to register and if they fail to do so, under state law, it may be a criminal offense. So then you're saying that should someone live in a short term rental for longer than seven days, they probably would need to register. It starts getting real real hinky where, if they because our short term rental ordinances are talking about 29 days. And that's what I'm trying to understand. So yeah, if they live in a place for a certain period of time, they may be required to register. Uh again that starts getting real. You know what? What? What is taking up residency? That sort of thing. What's visiting relatives ? Uh you know, those are all gonna be, uh, fact specific situations that would have to be ferreted out before we charge them. Criminally. All right. Thank you very much. OK? Thank you and I apologize. He's leaving now. He's done his duty. Uh, that mic is still on so we might turn it off. Just in case there's feedback or anything, Mr Ratliff. Thank you, Chairman. Um question for legal, um, looking at 15 700 home occupations. Oh, looking at 15 700 home occupations. Um I'm trying to find if any contrast between an STR versus any home occupation, somebody that's generating income out of their home. Um and we're an STR. Would violate any of these clauses. And I'm not finding one. They don't have occupants reporting to their residents. They don't have signage. Um it says a home occupation can be conducted within a principal dwelling, but not more than 20% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling is one of the requirements. Merchandise not offered for sale. No outdoor storage, no building alterations . No servicing of vehicles produces no offensive noise. Vibration Smoke, electrical interference do os odors, et cetera, and no traffic in greater volumes than normally expected in a residential neighborhood. I know we've had some issues with some of the Off site management with the party houses. But with those exceptions, set aside. How if, anyway, does a one room rental Not fall under a home occupation. So you're saying you think it should I'm saying, I think it does. Am I missing something? Well I know that the courts consider short term rentals to be residential uses, essentially residential because people were versus commercial because people are there, sleeping, eating, Um You know, doing all the things that you do in a residence? That's that's what The opinions are saying from the courts. They aren't saying it's a commercial use like a home occupation is at least partially a commercial use . So, um, I think You know, trying to apply at this point those those residential kind of occupancy, or I'm sorry. The those those types of standards probably is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. OK I'm just the reason I the reason that that occurred to me is because the zoning ordinance on home occupations is written to protect the fabric of the residential neighborhoods. With limiting traffic noise, et cetera, et cetera, and is very specific 10 bullet items about protecting the fabric of the neighborhood. And I guess if that's the intent of that portion of the ordinance, I'm not. I'm not finding any place where a one room rental, for example, is violating that same intent. And so that's what I was looking for. If there was a league or something I'm missing legally. I don't think you're missing anything legally. I think I think that there can be you know various kinds of things that create similar types of nuisances that you might regulate differently, or you might think of them as the same in some ways, And you just do that analysis and come up with what you think. Best fits. Thank you. Yes. Uh, I just wanna kind of respond to what the commissioner said about the Sorry. I just wanna respond to the comments. Uh Commissioner just mentioned about a one room rental. I think we're I am personally still confused of the about the definition of what a room is, Um, uh, some of the speakers mentioned that, uh, we don't really have a good definition. I I think we probably need to do that somehow . Um For example, would you consider a living room, A room, A bedroom, A Or how many beds consi constitute a room. Um, if we don't have that definition I don't think we can differentiate a room from multiple rooms, so I think if we are going to diff, uh, differentiate the treatment Between one room versus multiple room. We really need to have a better definition of what a room is. OK? Yes. The proposed ordinance does include a specific definition of room under living in management, short term rental it states. Uh, For this definition, a room is a sleeping quarter, which must include a place that people sleep but can also include kitchen bathrooms and hallways, which function as one unit. So that teams to separate out like a living room. Right? So would you. Please say that again? The definition it's a room is a sleeping quarter, which must include a place that people sleep but can also include kitchen bathroom and hallways, which function as one unit. But with the living room be considered sleeping quarters. Yeah, but that's exactly to me. Slipping quarters traditionally sounds like a bedroom, not a living room. In an efficiency. Exactly Well, if you were in an efficiency apartment, would you be living there and renting out a room? I don't know. What if you converted your garage? Let's go. Go ahead. It is. It is specifically a sleeping quarter and then further in the well, that's in the single In the single occupancy. There's a occupancy registry limitation. Uh, the two adults and any minor Children. But that's option two That's the option Well, Well, all of them option one and two. Not three. So And it's your opinion, then sleeping quarters doesn't define the room clearly enough. So would you call it a bedroom? I don't know. Is there an issue with that? You don't have any Do we not address that with the definition of a one room, It's basically the one room as two adults and minor Children. Does that not solve that, because if it's one room, it doesn't matter what room it is. It's still limited to two adults and their Children. It could be the basement of the garage. It's still two adults and their kids. Yeah. Are we splitting hairs? That's my question versus the intent, which is a one room rental is One room, whether it's the living room, or it's the bedroom . It's limited to two adults with minor Children. I, I think we're accomplishing the spirit of what we were trying to get to here, which was limiting, you know the activity. A number of people in a in a rental. Uh, Mr Bronski. I know you wanted to make a comment. No I was gonna acknowledge exactly what you said you it could certainly be a living room. It could be AD. Uh, it could be a garage that's converted. So, uh, I understand where you're coming from. But I, I do tend to side with Commissioner Tong on this. I think we do need a little bit more firm definition personally. Well a again without us getting into The weeds a little bit. The intent is for one bedroom or one room rental is limited by two adults and a minor child. So does it matter if those two adults and minor child are sleeping in the living room in a converted den in a converted garage? Does it matter if it's still one room? Does it matter? Uh, it could if it exceeds in in the options that Exceed five rooms. Or exceed six rooms, then Yes, it could. OK, So now we're we're talking about a different thing. So let's focus on one room. The definition says sleeping quarters when we get to the more than one room What is the definition? Say for that? Does it stay? Stays the same. But it's under an SP. So we're eliminating it by. They have to make an application and they have to decide or they have to define. Here's the rooms that are being, uh, being used, etcetera. So again. Are we getting too deep into this when we're accomplishing? What the language means, anyway, In terms of Reducing or limiting the occupancy in the one room. One room STRS. So I. I guess I'll I'll just, uh, we can move on with this because, uh, I, I struggle with this, along with a couple other points that are in both options one and two. So I guess I'll I'll reserve more comments for later. But I think this is in my opinion, one of the flaws with the first two options Is just the definition of a room. OK? All right. Just trying to get clarity. So All right, and we could, we could probably We can pick these apart. I'm gonna make this recommendation to the commission. That we have three options in front of us. Um, they cover in my mind anyway. Kind of both ends of the spectrum. If you look at what the task force was recommending, Um, I think we're we're getting there with these three options. Um I. I think I was slightly misquoted earlier. But you know, let's not let perfect get in the way of good. And our job is to send something good to council for them to make their recommendations and decisions on So, I. I would like us to focus on selecting option 12 or three And sending that to council. Um, We certainly don't want to delay our decision any longer based on what counsel is wanting us to do. So With Yes. This is for Michelle as well. Just standing on the language of our zoning ordinance and saying these are residential districts. They're single family districts. Um Standing on our definition of a hotel and motel being transient in nature. What What is the case Law? What is the problem with just saying no to all short term rentals based on the language that's already in our zoning ordinance. And I think the answer is case law. I just wanted to have it come from you. I can refer you to the case of Grapevine B, Ms. And if you'd like to discuss further, we should move into executive session. Oh, I thought we could ask legal questions here. That's what we're all doing. Yeah, and I've been answering as many of them publicly as I can. And I'm comfortable saying Grapevine versus mens. But if you want to discuss it further You know? OK? I. I think also, we've had that discussion previously around the challenges with just simply banning short term rentals. I mean, So Yes, sir. Um we're talking property rights and I just want to make sure I understand. It's I think we've talked here before that HOAS have the ability to forbid short term rentals, and that kind of is in in conflict with some of the other conversations. We've had that people have the property right to rent or lease. So can you clarify that for me? Because I'm confused by tho. Those are conflicting things in my mind. We should go into exact session if we're Seriously. Okay? If we're OK? So I. I actually would like to hear her answer, so I'd like to move. We go to executive session. If that's something I'm allowed to do. Are there any other questions? OK? I'm sorry, guys. All right. It's 906. We are going to recess from our prelim our regular meeting and reconvene an executive session in our, uh, early meeting room. At this point. I can't tell you when we'll be back. Um Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Yeah. How. Yeah. Councilor marks Yes. Well. Oh yeah. Yeah, I know. I right, because I've seen it. Thank you. No. I know. E. Yeah. Yeah. Not I. All the rest. So Yes. Everything. Trying to get There's Yeah. There. So that everybody. I'm like they should have it here. I think There was OK? One man. Yeah. Are you up near, like Creek area? Yeah, yeah. My boyfriend lives up there and he gets his every signal. Yeah. Yeah. Just text me like I like it. Not Like No. Yeah, He's After Like this side is out there like nothing is happening. That Side. Yeah. So. You get Yeah. I was I was Richards. I think Oh, Pass. Oh, wow. OK, so that Yeah, because his dog is a challenger, and it was al outside. So Very sad. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. You know? Yeah, I. Oh, yeah. Yes. Yeah, I just got in. Yeah, and they C. Yeah. They told me that you can't make the choices that You just That's what Yeah. Yeah. Because I have. Yeah, I was about to like I was Hammering into a few times. And then I. For chicken. More coffee. Oh, I was told that. Oh, We got. Yeah. Yes. The fact that. Right here. As I always say. My house. As well. OK? This. She's still wears this I won't I. Yeah. Without running. Right? No. Get a new one after. Lies there. Yeah, my mom. The new ones. Yeah. It. Yeah. I So Yeah. You know, this is with us. Hey. Yeah, yeah. OK? Yeah. Yeah. Guys. Yeah. I Earlier. OK Every time we take a break, we lose about 20. Yeah. We're still waiting on Commissioner Carey. Thank you for your patience. You're good. OK I said we would reconvene at 930, but everyone's in their seats, so we will Reconvene into our regular session at 928. We had some legal questions answered, which hopefully clarified some things for some of the commissioners. Um Where do we go from here again? I. I We've done a lot of work. Staff's done a lot of work. We're we're at a position where I think we have options that we can send to council. Um Council is going to have much of the exact same discussions that we're having. They're gonna have to evaluate some of the exact same Legal hurdles. Definitions Um, nuances that are in these I think it would It would be good for us. At this time. We have three options in front of us. I don't think any of them are bad in terms of if we send them to council. We've sent them something that they can't work with. So rather than us, try to redesign these and make more changes to them because we've given staff feedback on numerous numerous occasions. I think we'd we'd We had some discussion if need be, But we should pick one of these three and agree to send this to council. I think that would be a good start for us. If counsel receives this And after their deliberations and their legal advice. They determined that they would like to, for example, extend the interim ban and send it back to us for additional consideration. Based on new information, maybe data you guys want more data. You guys want more data. Trust me. All of us. Wish we had more data . It would help us make the best decision, But we're not getting that data just yet. OK? So Um I would like to, I think approach it from this standpoint. Is there anyone here and we're gonna go? I think we go through option 12 and three And we're gonna go option one. Is there anyone here that would like to make a motion? To accept option one. And if we can get a second on that we will then Have some discussion around it and then take a vote. OK? And we discussed the other options as well. Or are we gonna be stuck with one option to discuss No, Here's the thing. I think if we start with option one. If it doesn't pass, then we can go to option two. And if that doesn't pass, we'll go to option three and we'll just go until we get one where everybody can agree. Because there's to me and A majority. Excuse me, Not everybody. A majority. Um I think we start at one. And if it fails, it fails there. There would be no difference if we started at three. If it fails, then we go to option two. But we just We need to get started somewhere so As I suggested. Option one, and I saw two or three hands, but Mr Brunhoff Mr Chairman, I make a motion that we, uh, forward option one to the council with a favorable recommendation. I'm prepared to speak on that if you wish. OK, I have a motion for Option one. Do I have a second? OK I have a second for option one. So I have a motion and a second for option one. I'm I'm open to Dialogue, comments, feedback if anyone wants to make it, Mr Ratliff Thank you, Chairman. Um Looking at the options on the table. It looks to me It seems to me that option One is the most reasonable and meets a couple of things. I'll sorry, I gotta lean into my microphone. Um a couple of things, um, number one. The fabric of the neighborhood, which I know is one of our prevailing considerations is if I've got full time residents that live there. That are that are running a house that has an extra bedroom. To me. That is no different than the guest room in my house that my kids come to that my mother in law visits that coworkers use on the weekends occasionally, Um, I it is it is no different than that, as far as an impact on the fabric of the neighborhood. Um my neighbors don't know my coworkers. My neighbors don't know my kids. They do. Sometimes some of them do now, but um, but it's no different from a traffic perspective from a, uh, land use perspective. It is still a residential use. Uh, it's just a matter of who's sleeping in the guest room. So We put the Oh, it says there we go. Thank you. Yeah So, um and like I asked earlier, Um I also feel like it's not dissimilar to a home based business where I've got, you know, customers that come I've got, um, I've got traffic. That is not differential from a residential area. Uh, I feel like it's very similar to a home based business, which also is designed to maintain the fabric of the community by limiting the impact on the neighborhood, um, with How much you can do out of your home in a residential area. So um, for those reasons, I feel like that is the most appropriate level of Um, regulation. Um, also the fact that a homeowner that has a spare room going through the SP process is cumbersome. Uh, it's time consuming. It's difficult and for the for the little bit of income they may be generating. It's not really proportional. Uh, if you're gonna try to rent 2345 bedrooms, the whole house going through the SUP process to my in my book is not cumbersome because you're gonna generate a lot more income that generate that that supports the effort necessary to go through the S process. So that's why I feel like that's the compromise. Um position that that allows some limited use of one bedroom in your house for a few a few visitors. That's not dissimilar than any other house guest, um, without blowing open the door to, Um uh, the what? We have the unregulated situation we have today. OK, Mr Law. I just wanted to point out since you're comparing it to home day, two adults and minor Children will just say they have three. That's five people and it I do think it's different from you inviting your daughter or son or Neighbor from a city used to live in. Versus perfect strangers. And so the problem that I have with option one is that we're giving the option for every house in Plano to become an STR. That's my understanding of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. And so I don't think this provides appropriate protections for our single family neighborhoods, and I think it's important that we get to two or three. And that we don't stay here. OK? Mr Ali. A come back to What our purview is, and our purview is essentially to Adjudicate the correct use of land, right? Um And To the question I asked before is to ensure that Within the boundaries of the law that property rights are upheld. Um I don't think we have the purview or the ability to regulate the behavior of property owners. Uh, I do believe one of the property rights that I have is the right to use my asset. To my benefit. In some way, shape or form. Um I also believe and legal can correct me if I'm wrong that the law does make distinctions for residency, a property who is an owner who is resident and a property owner who is non residents. Tax laws make distinction. There are different areas of the law that makes those distinction. So I think it's appropriate that we have attempted To make that kind of distinction within the two types of the classifications living versus non living. Um And to the more intangible question of community fabric. What is a neighborhood? What is a good neighbor? Um I have lived in Plano for almost a decade. I've had a neighbor pull a gun out on me and my son. I have had neighbors, um, drunk. 223 AM continuously during the summer, Um, cursing out his wife and I can hear it in the backyard. Right I have had a neighbor curse out at another neighbor who happened to be of Asian descent by using an ethnic slur. I didn't call the cops on them. Right? Been transient or been in place does not make you a good neighbor and does not contribute to committed fabric. Good neighbor is a good neighbor is a good neighbor. Um. Don't you don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good Option one. Feels like it. Addresses what we're here to do, which is to ensure that property rights rights attached to the land are Um What's the word I'm looking for? Held And I believe the registration ordinance The Nuisance ordinance, the Noise Ordinance calls for service and everything else that we have in our city code will be the tool we use to govern the behavior. Of property owners. With that said, I am in favor of option one. Thank you. Yeah, Let's just Let's just go around the horn. Kind of like we would do. Sorry, Mr Bronski. So Um Uh, I take very seriously the idea of property rights because, well, I'm from a state that had quite a few less. And, uh, I'm very happy to be here in Texas. But I do believe there's a balance. And I believe that the task force made it very clear, at least from my reading and understanding. Uh, of everything that I've seen. And The task force. Did not. I believe intend for us to make available STRS in almost every residence in the city. Uh And that said Um I don't believe that, Um The ability for somebody to rent their home out. Uh, to rent one room out. As a matter of fact, I have a friend that does that. Greater than 30 days to college students. He doesn't seem to have a problem having it greater than 30 days. And so he is using his right to do so. I don't believe option one. Is the best option to choose because I believe that, uh, our community fabric and the findings of our task force, uh, call for a more limited approach to the STR. Question as opposed to option one. So I will not support Option one. Thank you, Mr Kerry. Yeah I'm gonna echo a bit. What Uh, Commissioner Bronsky just said, you know, we had a task force. And um our, uh, City Council asked them to put together the thoughts and I don't think option One really mirrors the real direction of the task force. Just for starters, um, And so it opens up every home in Plano to be in a short term rental. And while I think all of us care about property rights, I think property rights also So, um or can affect our neighbors, and I think we have to consider that and I'm not sure this does. And you know, we can talk about all the great short term rentals that happen and I'm I'm sure they're all great, but I don't think anybody moved into a single family neighborhood. Thinking that every house there could be turned into a mini hotel with one room. So you know , um, I think that, um you know, we've got Governor Abbott looking at this, and I think that there's likely to be more legislation down the road. Um once this is implemented, we don't know what the effects are. I um I urge us I think to be cautious, and I think there are other options here that allow us to do much of what we need and I think align more with what the task force had in mind and really kind of what the fabric. And the direction of our community have been historically at at, you know, as as our neighborhood here in Plano, and so I am. You know, I think what we're doing here will increase the challenge of enforcement and it might make some other things more difficult as well. But I think it might increase the challenge of enforcement and, um so I urge the commission to move cautiously here. Um as we do this and I, I don't I'm not sure that number one is doing that option one and so, I. I won't be in support of option one. Thank you. Do you want to speak? Um, sure. Uh, Just briefly, My, uh, understanding of option one. A again I've said this many times. I just don't see the difference between Having one room and having multiple rooms. Um The difference between those two. So if we were having another option , saying, you know, they're all with no. You know, uh so I may go for that option, however, right now because we're differentiating one room versus versus multiple rooms. Um I don't. I don't agree the treatment between those two and I also kind of side with Commissioner Lyle Bronsky and Kerry regarding the, um Open up. Almost Probably all the residences to the, uh, short term rental is not helping with the neighborhood of fabric. Um we I don't I don't think that's gonna help and also, um I don't really agree with the example that the Commissioner in our Ra, Um said about his daughter in law, or, um, family members coming to visit. Um I know that to renters. We do, Uh, is it long term rentals? We do excessive background checks and criminal checks and everything but for short term rentals. I don't believe that's exist. That process exists. Um so It. That's definitely not helping with the neighborhood. Um, fabric. That's my opinion, Mr. Burn. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Um Let me say I'm a homeowner and I live in a neighborhood. And I understand the mic, please. And I'm I'm a homeowner and I live in a neighborhood and I understand where both of these groups are coming from. Because I experience it personally from both sides. I do think that on the one hand there are property rights. There is a right to lease that we cannot Uh, wipe off the map. We have to respect it. Neighborhood integrity is also a vital interest. We have to respect that. The key here is not to prohibit Or to grant license but to regulate and to regulate in a reasonable manner. In the least restrictive manner possible. In a way that allows both rights to be respected. In my opinion. The best way to do that is to target the regulation that we adopt. To as closely as possible to the source of the problem. I am looking at the calls for service. Data. That was collected by the task force. In the Live-In management, single room group. Over a one year period ending approximately a year ago, There were five Calls for service. Five Properties, five calls there's one call per property. Out of 50 properties. In the live in management, multiple room category. There were only six properties at that time in the whole city. I understand. Maybe now there's 1/7 1. There were no calls for service to the police department. On the other hand on the Off-site managed properties. Where there is no one resident to oversee the functioning. Of the property. This is a total of 401 properties. There were 42 properties that had one or two calls for service and 15 properties that had three or more This data tells me that the problem Of the threats to neighborhood integrity is pretty much centered. On the Off-site managed properties. The other categories of properties have caused little or no interference with with neighborhood integrity. Option one. Regulates Off-site managed properties by restricting their location. To most non-residential zoning districts and some multifamily That keeps them out of the res. At least the future ones that we understand. The present ones are gonna be grandfather, but the future ones will be kept out of residential neighborhoods. That's where most of the problem is, and that is the most targeted solution. With respect to the Live-In management. I am satisfied that a homeowner Renting out a bedroom or two or three or however many Being on site. Will effectively control and prevent the types of abuses that our neighborhood groups are afraid of. Simply because if those if those abuses occur, noise parties or whatever. While um While the resident manager who's Let's face it is going to be the owner. Is present will impact the owner as much as anybody else. The owner will be just as disturbed by the noise by the parties by the parking by the trash by whatever else goes on as anybody living in the neighborhood and probably more affected because the owner is right there and the neighbors are down the straightaways. Um, the owner will not tolerate Unsavory or unlawful activities on his property. He could have legal exposure for, you know. Illegal activities. Um Activities that violate city ordinances on his property. He could be the one getting into trouble. I think that having the categories of Live-In management is an effective control to preserve neighborhood integrity. I am also I know Last last meeting, I expressed some support for the concept of SUP SI have reconsidered. Based on the presentations from the public we had two weeks ago and tonight It is obvious to me that The groups on both sides of this issue. The operators and the neighborhood groups are organized. And my fear is that if we require the live in single room live in management, single room owners to get a specific use permit in order to operate. We will put ourselves in the city in the position of fighting the short term rental war over and over and over again. Because the organized neighborhoods will come to oppose it, and the organized operators will come in to support it, and they may bring the people from Airbnb with them. And I don't think it's healthy for this city to subject the city to an ongoing to ongoing strife. Over future applications for specific use permits. For a single room live in management property. Now, with respect to the multiple room properties. There are so few of them. I don't think it makes any difference anyway. That So I support option one. For all those reasons. Thank you. Excuse me. Mr Chair. Thank you. One clarification. Uh, all three options. Uh, address the off-site management, uh, not just option one just for clarity, OK? So My two cents There was a comparison made earlier to Austin. 18,000 Airbnbs. Or short term rentals. The population of 974,000 people that Breaks down to 0.0185 short term rentals. Per person, I guess. Roughly 12% of the housing stock is short term rentals. Why would that be the case? It's Austin College Town political capital. There's so much demand for it there that you have that number of them. Now. Those have been around the ability to open a short term rental has been around for the same amount of time for Austin and has been for us And with a population of 300,000 people, we have 500 of them. Only 500. That works out to 0.0016 Per population. There is a fear that we're gonna get overrun with these and there's a fear that they're going to get opened in every possible residential home in the city. The market. The demand is going to Resolve that issue. It isn't going to be a case that we're going to get overrun with short term rentals. In my opinion, the task force Clearly made an exception for the live in One room. In their comments. They anticipated and said that they didn't see the issues there that they saw elsewhere. And it almost every case. It was the offside management. That's our problem, And we have to, I think approach this from the standpoint of what's truly causing a problem with the community fabric. Do we want to? Paint. Good neighbors. As we've heard. Are retired or young, trying to afford their house in Plano. And rent out a room. Because that allows them to stay here. Are we gonna paint them with the same brush that we paint somebody who buys a house with five brooms in it and says I'm gonna rent this out, and I'm not gonna be there. I'm gonna have some quasi rules that I have to, you know, follow They're not the same. And just like none of us like being painted with a brush. Oh, You're older, gray haired suit and tie. You must be exactly this kind of person. We don't know that the next 51 room rentals that come in, won't be one of the favorite people in their neighborhood. Is that more likely to happen? Then the next 50 that come in are gonna be problem. For the neighborhood. I think it's far more likely that they're going to settle into the neighborhood and be a part of that fabric and bring something to the neighborhood. I think that's more likely than what we're afraid of. It was talked a little bit about You know visitors versus paying visitors. And I can kind of Agree with that. But I, I also lean on what you talked about, which is more than likely if you're living in that home. The people that you're going to invite into it, and I've heard, it said from the owners of the, uh Airbnbs here in town that have spoke that they have a vetting process. They go through. OK, now can we be respectful? Was I respectful? Was I respectful? When you were making your remarks If I was then I asked that you be respectful when I make mine. So. I think we don't have the data to support. Hey, everyone that comes in here has gotta go through an SUP. The other thing is Well. I think I think we know where we're at at this point. So we have a motion in the second. We've had our discussion. So if you're in favor of option one, please raise your hand. And we have four if you're opposed. Four and four, So no recommendation. I'd like to make a motion. OK? I like to make a motion that we adopt. Um Option three and send that to the City Council. Second OK, so we have an A motion for option three by commissioner carry with a second by Commissioner Bronsky. Comment. In favor against I think it captures much of what we've talked about are the benefits of option one. And it gives us a little bit more opportunity to learn more and control more and I think, do it in a more disciplined manner. And um, I think we've heard loud and clear from a lot of the community that that they're in favor of this. Not that That should be even our guiding principle, but But it certainly should be something we take into account and I think it accomplishes most of what we need without giving up much that everybody found good about option. One and you know, uh, some comments have been made about the fabric of renters, and I would suggest people that are coming in for two days. Probably aren't bringing much fabric to any community, Frankly, so, but But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about short term rentals. And I think, um, the people that do bring fabric in a good way to the neighborhood or probably people that are running for a little bit longer. Also I. I think as we look at this, Um even if we have live in management, we don't know that they're homeowners. I could look at a home. Rent it as a as a financial benefit to me, and then come in and get my SUPS for 125 rooms. So there's a lot of different things that we don't know is my point. And for that reason, I think I urge us to move forward cautiously, and I also think it would be fantastic if we could all vote for one proposal and send that to council and to that end, I suggest we do that, with number three. OK? I will go. Do it like we did last time. We'll start. Mr Law. Do you have anything to comment? Or Nope. You're good, Mr Ali. My issue with Option three again goes back to when I bought my home. Um There's a reason why I don't live in a community. Um Because I did not sign up for somebody else to tell me what to do with my house. So unless it was delineated. When I bought my home. For regulation to come over the top. And tell me what to do with my house. I have a fundamental issue with that. That's 12. Um. We've talked about the logistics of Essentially having every residential homeowner run through an SP process, which is what option three is going to suggest. Uh huh. You know, we are term limited. I pity, Miss Day. We will have to sit through all of those, Um It's just not feasible. Um The third is, you know we are in Plano, Plano is a relatively well resourced community. If you make me Confide you for something. I have the resources to go fight you for it. And we open this community this city. To multiple points of litigation. Um That I believe that we don't necessarily need to. So Um, option three is to me. Essentially a non starter because it violates Things that I feel are fundamental. Um once I made that purchase of my largest asset Uh, there were some things that were attached to it and Taking it away will cause an issue. Mr Bronski. Well, we'll go back to you, then. Yes. Yeah, I would just Say to Commissioner Ali. Your the fundamental rights are all limited by zoning. Zoning is a regulation on land. Everything You can't build your house one inch closer to your property line. You can't build it one inch closer to the street. There's all these regulations on what you can and can't do there and this transient occupancy is not single family residential use like we have a zoning ordinance. We have every Piece of land in our city regulated by these laws. And no one on either side has had any issue with doing SRS in areas that hotels are allowed. Why is that because their hotels These SRS collect hotel taxes and pay them. Why? Because their hotels And so I am a huge property rights proponent. Mistake can tell you I have a history of fighting for More freedom. But we're on a zoning commission and the zoning commission regulates land use. And so the question before us is what land use makes sense in our single family neighborhoods. And the closer we get To someone living in their home and having a guest the closer we are to a single family use. And I believe that that's option three. Thank you. Mister Browns. You May very quickly. I agree. The book for three, but There is no zoning language. That tells me I could not use that. I could not have that land use. It's not. It's not in the audience. It's not spelled out and it's not. It's not clearly spelt out. Then I have a gap. And that's right where I'd like to start. Because I believe options one and two. Open that gate up to every Place in the city. And then permits. SDRS to be In every neighborhood across the city, and like you I do not live in an area that has an HO, a But had I realized When I was buying my home that this was gonna be an issue. And that I knew that in H a would be able to say no, you can't have People in your neighborhood that are not long term people or that in HO a would be able to say no, no ST RS. I wouldn't have bought my house. In addition to that, I've got to agree with Bill. Uh, Zoning is designed to make limits. And. To that point. I believe that That wasn't the intention. To allow the ST RS throughout the entire city. Secondly, I believe that we've got to come to a consensus. On one of these three options. I don't believe that option one. I believe option one is basically a nonstarter. And I think Option three is the best course forward because I believe that it protects what we have as findings. From the committee that did this for us. Additionally uh it provides limits and protections for those of us. That don't have the option of an HOA to pro protect us from certain things. Thirdly, The comment was made about background checks and from my understanding of Airbnb. I don't believe these guys are permitted. To have extensive background checks and be able to tell me whether they've got sex offenders lodging in their properties for Well beyond the seven day limit that the state has put in place. Uh, And for that. I believe that three is the most targeted and the wisest course for us to move forward to be able to implement something and have a starting point to present the council. You want to come in or not? I do. I'm just Forming my Discussion. Um. While you're thinking about that, can I make a suggestion? Rather than us all have our say here. I think I know which way this is going. Maybe I'm wrong. Um I'm I'm just wondering if we should just call the vote on on option three. Uh And then we can see that we do We it passes or it doesn't. If it doesn't. Then we have option two to consider. And maybe somewhere in there, we find something we can work with. So um, if you're OK with that, I'd rather call the vote. OK? All those in favor of option three. For All those opposed. That's what I thought, OK? I need a motion on option two. OK, so we You know, we have a We have a job and if you recall on the short term on the interim ban We actually sent no recommendation to counsel. I felt like we didn't do our job. So here we are. And we've got three options provided by staff. And we have two of them that are You know what Um, we're we're in a tie, and I don't see us moving off of that. Based on where we're at Option two. Kind of gives us the option of limiting where they can go because it gives us a Separation, right? It helps with the density. You're not going to wind up with a whole bunch of them on your street. Matter of fact, you're not going to wind up with a bunch of them on your street or across the street from you or behind you. So clarify what permitted in any residence means then. Which one are you looking at? What are you looking at? Option two. So there is a 600 ft separation. So you can't have them right next to each other. So this I've heard this over and over that. Mm. Any house could have them. But if they pulled the map up, you can see That option two on the law on the live in management SSTRS because it says, right there right elsewhere when 600 ft from another STR only only for the one room The two. The multiple room does not have that limitation. The multiple No. The multiple room is by SUP already. So that's how we control the density. Option two for the live in management, single room occupancy is saying you can't have another one closer than 600 ft to an existing one, and that even includes the existing short-term rentals in place. You just eliminated at least half Half the residential areas in the city. Now. Can I ask you a question? Yes How do we measure the 600 ft property line to property line. The way the bird flies. Property line to property sidewalk or the bird line. The way the bird flies, OK, SOS and structures. OK Yes. In all four directions. And then do we have stipulations on to guide this committee on what would allow an SP and what wouldn't allow an SUP and is the 600 ft requirement. Set in stone, or can it be waived by this committee in the future? Or this. Whatever you wanna call us. The commission. The uh, SUP requirement would stand be part of the zoning ordinance. There's no waiver provision as written today. Um, but I mean, If someone was applying for an SUP. Can the 600 FT requirement be waived by the people that are issuing the SUP? Not as the language is written today? How do I get to the stipulations for the SUP? Um And then there are stipulations that are recommended for consideration of a specific use permit. If you look in option two It's Starts on page 16, but of the hard copy . I'm not. Yes I don't know if the electronic copies probably a little different. Um, but The Page 25 in our packets. Sorry It's page 14 of attachment, a talks about the specific use permits for Well, it's for option two here, but it's for all the options. 45 Right. But it says maybe imposed not Shelby. What are you looking at? Page 14 of 46 specific use permit for short term rentals. Consistent with 6 100. Additional Deve Development standards may be imposed. Including but not limited to, But it doesn't say where. Where is what shall be imposed? You're you're saying the 600 ft requirement or are you talking about something? These are considerations that these are listed a list of cons additional considerations. So when an SUP applicant is coming before the commission, you might wanna look at these items. Right so this is recommending things that they could look at. But where are the things that they have to look at? The things that are going to be required. Are would be the 600 FT separation and I, And Where does it say that? I will try to find that for you unless Christina can find it faster. On page 13 at the bottom. And essentially Anything within 600 ft. Is required to get an SP. So that SUP is essentially what it would allow that waiver of that distance. If that makes sense. I'm looking at page 13. Elsewhere where more than 600 ft. The 600. FT is a Seven. I'm looking at. Can you repeat that? There? There's no need for a waiver when for the requirement When these live in management, single rooms are requesting an SEP. It is because they are within 600 ft. And so that If you are considering an SUP in for these locations. That that is. The SUP does waive the 600 ft requirement. That's what she just said. Yeah. Let let me read it if you don't mind, but that's what you just said Leave in management single room. Elsewhere when at least 600 ft, away from another short term rental. Or otherwise by specific use permit. So it is by special use permit. You can SUP around all the feet, right? Yes absolutely. If they want to set up a single room, long term or short term rental. And they're within 600 ft of any other short term rental, not just another single, but any other short term rental. They can if they so desire apply for a special use permit that would come before this commission to determine whether or not it was worth waving that 600 beat requirement . We do this all the time with a lot of different uses in the city, and then it has to go to the City Council, and they have to also waive it. Right Right. So we were just talking about? I'm sorry, Miss. I'm sorry. I just I should have been more specific. The buy right standard . There's no waiver it. It's only the SUP process or the 600 ft separation. Right, so you can sup around the 600 ft requirement. Just so that the point of it? Yes absolutely. And then that we were just talking about one room. What about multiple rooms or what about they're required by sup no matter where they're going to go in the residential area could also SUP around it. There's no It's just by SU. It's only by sup. That's correct. Except in the hotel areas. Yes and then the hotel areas. We all agree you can do it in the hotel areas because they're little hotels. Um but to be clear, Make sure I'm not make this but you cannot SUP around a off-site management. Right, right, And there is no SP to allow off site management in a single family residential neighborhood because all three options are treated the same for that. Correct. That's only for multi room on-site management. Would be SUP. And so the list of things that should or that could be considered. That we that I went to first on 14 out of 16. It doesn't say they have it. Just this. This committee would consider those things would evaluate the request. But then the 600 ft requirement. Yes well, they would have to because they wouldn't be coming forward with it unless they were within 600 ft of another SSDR. Yeah, And I'm sure everyone can II. I still am for the most limited. I understand, OK? OK? So I make a motion that we Prove Option two with the limitations set forward in the proposal and send that to council for consideration where they can make adjustments as they deem fit, and I have a second by Commissioner Brunhoff. All right. Let's see what happens here. I I really hope we can get this because I'm tempted to say that we're going to stay here until we get something we can forward. OK? So we have a motion and second on Option two. Which limits where they can go. They can't go in any residential without going through an SP process, which is what's being asked for. We're just trying to Read that needle between Getting sued by one side or the other so I'm just being honest here, all right? And again What we do here is not the final, but we're sending counsel something for them to work with. OK guys, So we have a motion to second on option two. All those in favor. It's four. All those opposed. OK? We're tied again, and the roles have reversed. I mean, we have people that are for voting for different things for different reasons. Mr Ali. Would it make a difference if the separation was 300 ft. 300 FT is a common separation that we use from other uses around residential neighborhoods. We use 1000 FT, for example. For alcohol and those uses from a church or a school. But council has the ability to waive those just like we do so. 300 ft, Or at least getting pretty close to. Hey, you know what? We're recognizing property rights and again as my intention was my intention here for this commission is to forward something to council versus a We can't make up our minds. Question. The registration ordinance whenever it's framed to cancel well. Essentially put Some kind of burden. On folks who want To operate short term short term rental. My Issue with the SP. Is you've now layered another burden. If I want to operate as a live in management. So there's a duality of burden for lack of a better word. Um, which. In some ways. Almost speaks winners and losers. Right? At a certain income bracket. I can go through all the hoops. You want me to go through? But if, um We've heard a couple of people, um, make these comments If I'm a Retiree on a fixed income. I am a New homeowner. I just happened to grab the 7% mortgage. Good Lord. To my margins are gone. For me to now go through two additional layers of burden. To be able to use this asset. To my benefit is where I struggle, So it's not even it's not a buffer that I'm struggling with is that additional layer of burden and I understand that I think it's important to understand that the ones that are here they're they grandfathered anyway. Anyone buying now moving forward will know the requirements coming in. And I think that's that's helpful. In this case, but we're not being too restrictive. Um, I struggle with it too. I mean, my starting point was option one, but I can't. We can't completely ignore. The voices of You know a fair number of people, regardless of whether We're going to have a whole bunch of disruptive short-term rentals or not. Their perception is it's a problem. And in some cases, it is So is it reasonable and part of governance to suggest we meet somewhere in the middle? And again we're not forcing somebody already here out of a potential I personally would be far more in favor of 300 ft than 600 ft. But again, I was willing to go to 600 just to get there. One sec. Can we put up the other? Possible considerations on the Well, it would be option three or two. Option one. There was no Su P process for One room, short term rentals live in management. Most of what you want. What's the same thing? And so if you change your vote, you pass three and you get what you want. You push something through the console, which is what you I wanna push something through to council that is more likely to probably fit where we'll wind up in the end, which is unlikely to be one far one direction or the other. And I say that only having sat there before. Well, they will. But I want to give them a starting point. That isn't where they have to move a long way. I would rather have somewhere in the middle, and then they can move which direction they want. I know, but that that's Again work. We're we're gonna have a another boat and I'm looking at it going. All right. What Where can we find? Where can we meet in the middle? Not Where do we wind up on one end or the other? Where do we meet in the middle? Because we're not going to meet on the middle. If we go to one or the other options, they were written up and designed that way to be one least restrictive and one most restrictive and then something in the middle government is compromised, looking for a way to meet the needs of the residents of the city. And we have residents. That what the SR and the property rights and everything that goes along with it, And we have residents that don't want that to be an option. So where should we be on the one way or on the other, And you can say Oh, but we got the SP process. Who's gonna go through that? And to Mr Bruno's point is that a good thing for the city to do go through an SUP process every time someone wants to open up a short term rental. So Mr Lyle. One thing I just want to point out is that You. You talk about being in the middle, but you started with number one. I did so And so I'm moving toward the middle. I understand, but We didn't start there. If that was the goal, we could have started there. And that would have been more convincing. And then I wanted to address Mr Ali as well. And because the new homeowner the, um, the retirement folks, there is still an option. My neighbor across the street has two roommates. There's nothing that says you can't generate revenue and share the utilities and those guys that share that that rent those two rooms. They're my neighbors. I see him on my dog walks. They live there. So there are other Normal residential uses that aren't this short term in and out with strangers. But what if you're a retiree who require who would like to have the house to themselves for weeks at a time? My point is not that it's a perfect situation for everyone, right. My point is that there are other options to help offset the expenses of a single family home that are available and acceptable in a single family neighborhood. Thank you. Mr Ling. I can jive with the 300. Um. Because 600 from all four corners. Will very quickly Eliminate a lot of Plano. Very, very quickly. Um An A N, a I hear your point I get I get your point. But I again I still. I'm trying to balance The rights of the property owner. With Um Quite frankly, been a good neighbor. Right And that's a tension. I'm trying to hold here. Um Maybe I'm tinged a little bit with The experiences I mentioned That, quite frankly, been a good neighbor is not Um. Some kind of indelible character that has that is attached to somebody who owns and lives somewhere. Right III I it just it. It just is not. It's. It's a similar Um, tone that comes when we talk about multifamily. Right And I would tell you that I often go and pay for a day pass so I can hang out with the people at the pool at the hotel. One of the things you have to mix into your equation Here is zoning. Oh, it is the single family neighborhood zone for there are wonderful people at hotels and motels all over our city again. I think you you are, um A single family is zoned for single families. We can go into the ways of what is residential What is sleep? What is beds? What is other? It's not cleanly written, and I'm sure the courts will figure out that. Um if we can change to the 300, I will. I will change my vote. Can I just real quick? Uh, a neighbor, I think is somebody that lives beside you for more than a day, probably by everybody's definition, and a live in management is going to be somebody that lives there for more than a day. Exactly. There's no way Some person lives there. Even management is my neighbor. We can talk about the parable of the Good Samaritan. What is a neighbor? Right? All right, So let's I'm gonna modify my emotion. A move we approve Option two with the modification of changing 600 ft to 300 ft. Second All those in favor. OK? Well we'll be here for another, however long we're gonna take a five minute break. We will reconvene at 1030. Suddenly, What is Yeah. OK as we continue to work through. Trying to find a middle ground somewhere. One of the, uh Concerns that was expressed was treating one room versus multi room. STRS differently. Um. And I don't know. Uh, Commissioner Tong, Do you wanna elaborate on why you You feel that way? And why? Only because I think there's gonna be some pushback because the number of folks that could be in a multi room versus a one room. It's is substantially different because we don't really T that room number anymore. And so I think that the challenge is going to be that You could have even more people coming in that are unknown to the neighbor, even if you have a live in manager What I think it's not fair to treat them differently because living in one house most of the houses in Plano have 345 bedrooms if they are willing to lease out one room for, uh Airbnb or certain rental. They will probably do more than that, and there's no way to enforce the person who lives or who rents out one room versus multiple rooms it at the real, um Online process is just number of beds. They're living. Uh, they're renting out, so I think it will put a burden on the city if we put a difference between the one room versus multiple rooms to, um, verify that information, and there's really no way to enforce it. So I'm Really again against I. I know I voted one way any other. I um I was hoping that we can meet someone somewhere in the in the middle. Um but I'm really against treating them differently. Because I don't think they're enforceable and having a regulation that's not enforceable. Uh, It's worse than not having one. So that that's just my personal opinion is Correct me if I'm wrong, but the difference between the one room and the multi room in the data that we have there there's actually no Calls for service on the multi room live in management. None. OK, um OK? So. I'm gonna I'm gonna try this because we failed it so We're going to try another motion here. Can I make one comment? I make a motion. OK I just Mr Brunhoff. A lot of the comments that you made were based on the calls for service. And I understand that that's an important Thing to look at. But What do you do with The single family residential use and the fact that people purchased property in single family neighborhoods. Believing that they weren't going to have a hotel next door. And so I just I just trying to understand. I understand your point on the calls to service, but I. I think there's another argument here, which is that our zoning ordinance Says single family residential And These people are required to collect and pay a hotel motel tax. And so what do you do with those facts as you process your decision? A lot of my comments were based upon Targeting the source. Of the, uh, behavior that was causing the problem with the regulation. And I? My comments were that Uh, restricting The off site managed properties to essentially non-residential areas and some multifamily areas. Targeted the overwhelming source of the of the calls for service to the police department. The, um the multifamily, um Of resident manager properties were completely free of calls for service and the um uh, the single fed and the single bedroom properties with a with a resident manager had a had a had a very low number. So I did not see a, um, an overwhelming problem that required us to start slapping a bunch of restrictions on the single room or the multiple room so long as there was a resident manager. And so long as the neighborhoods essentially were not being impacted negatively. I saw a situation where the neighbors could get along with a homeowner renting out a spare bedroom in his house or two Uh, without impacting the neighbors. This is not a new idea. People have been renting bedrooms out in their house for ages. This has been going on forever and has not been You know a national problem. It became a problem here because there were some aggravated situations. I think mostly traceable to the, uh, the Off-site managed properties. That are somehow being magnified to Uh, To reflect on Uh, the average homeowner renting out a spare bedroom. I didn't see a problem where the, Um the homeowner. Is going to tolerate the type of behavior that was the cause of the complaints. Because the manager is there. And is impacted by it. And has to live with his neighbors. And you know, so I so I see that the resident manager has every incentive to keep everything copacetic. And I would just say that it's I don't know how we can make sure that the resident manager is actually there. There's there, they have to live there. But they don't have to be there. For one. The ordinance says they have to be there overnight. When the when, when there is a rental going on. Yeah, OK, I think that's very hard. So how do we verify that, but well, there's a lot of things in this. I like to finish this conversation. OK, make Uh And then, you you made a comment that this has been going on for ages, but it has been going on this way for ages where it's short term where it could be someone different. Tuesday Wednesday night, Thursday, Friday, Saturday night it this This is actually a new phenomenon. That's come about us , which is what makes it not work in a single family neighborhood. Just like I made in my comments with Commissioner Ali earlier. I have Three men that all have a bedroom across the street of the house. And when I walk my dog, I know their names and I visit with them and they're my neighbors, but they're not a different person. Every night or the potential to be. I know that they're going to be there for the next year or two or three or how long they stay, and so One of the things you didn't address in your comments was, what do you do with the fact that it's zoned single family residential because on the other side of The neighborhood concerns are the fact the person owns property and should have and has a right legally to lease the property out if he wants to, just as they've done for ages. But this is different. Well you're you're what we're talking about. Here is the Clash. Sort of, like, uh, I don't know what's the geographic term when you have these giant plates in the Earth that tectonic plates are moving together and causing earthquakes, OK? Um I think the right of property management and the right of neighborhood integrity are both substantial interests and I want I'm trying to respect them both. By allowing them both to continue. Let me just also say that You know? When Option one didn't pass. I went ahead and went with Option two. It was not my first choice. OK, I compromised. In the interest of getting something done. Because I thought it was It is better that we send something to the council and then sending nothing to the council. So I went with a less preferred option was Option two in order to try to get something through. You know, the definition of politics is the art of the possible. It's not the art of the ideal. And compromise is an essential element of politics in order to make government work, and that's something that I think we as a society have been losing sight of. In recent years. It requires the willingness to have a little bit of give And a little give and take. Give a little here. Expect your, uh uh, colleagues to give a little on their end and try to find something that both can live with, rather than something that they both desperately want. OK so I'm looking for something that we can all live with Option two. I have found a way within my heart to live with it, OK? So I supported it. I hope some of you could also do the same. Thank you. So I again? I'm gonna I'm gonna try to make a motion here and it's gonna be different than what we did last time. And Because I have some agreement with Commissioner Tong in the treatment of a live in versus a off site. Why are they necessarily have to be substantially different? I appreciate the staff's effort to kind of separate those out. But the Information there looks like it's not those are no more of a detraction to the neighborhood than the single family or or the single room. So my motion is this That we approve. And send a council. Option two with the changes being That both live in management Sr single room and live in management STR multiple rooms. Are allowed in residential districts. As long as there's 300 FT separation, any closer would require an SUP. So we're treating them both the same. And we are giving some property rights there. So that's that's my motion. Can I get a second? David I'd like to make a comment if I could. All right. So we have a motion in a second comment. Yeah, um So, um, Gosh, I think I just forgot my comment. So essentially, what we're doing now is opening up all, um, homes to short term rentals. But my question is this. It's not a common It's a question the data we're talking about exactly how many multifamily rooms with a live in person Did we have what? What's the number that we're quoting? We're as our data. How How many six II, I find that no data at all. I mean that that you can't take Six of anything and say that that's a piece of data. It's not so that's all I'll say about it. OK, thank you. All right. Can we try this? We have a motion in a second. And do you have my motion clearly written down? Uh are we clear? CLA clarification so We essentially going to The motion. Basically breaks things into two classifications. And to live in management, live in management and management and management, and added the 300 FT. Separation to Each of those are are or excuse me to live in management. So essentially, what is on the screen right now about 300 ft, not 600. That's correct for living in management. That's correct. Can I ask a clarifying question as well? Ok Um, Mr Howard, Mr. Howard, um As the director of the Neighborhood services are well your department be responsible for Enforcement of this ordinance. Us to be determined. I By the department. Microphone. No sorry , my department will be responsible for the enforcement of the registration ordinance. Normally the, uh, the zoning stuff that we get. I mean, if we find something, uh, I'm sure we will probably forward it on. But uh uh, I'm not exactly sure When you say let me back up. You say responsible for the zoning. Are you talking about how many people are staying overnight? How many people and if they're if they really live there don't live there and the right to privacy. And I mean the police. Certainly If there's not a criminal offense can't ask questions. And so I'm just trying to get wrap my head around the practical side of how this is going to work if we're requiring somebody to live on site Are you gonna be able to guarantee me every night that they're following through with that? Nope. But I can't guarantee anything. Right. I mean, thank you. Chairman of clarification. Does your motion also include? Uh all other residences permitted by SUPF If they're within the 300 Ft. Oops Sorry. Does your motion include the SUP procedure, if as to properties within 300 ft, OK. OK, we have a motion in a second. And I think we've clarified it. Please vote. That item carries Opposed. I didn't see Mr Bronsky your vote. Was it opposed? OK? So that motion carries 5 to 3. OK? Um we don't have any nonpublic hearing items. We do not OK? Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Obviously not easy discussions. We're adjourned at 1045. Mhm.