>> Chair Downs: THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US TONIGHT FOR OUR OCTOBER 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IT'S 7:00 AND WE ARE CONVENED INTO OUR REGULAR SESSION. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST IS PTIONF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. LISLE, IS YOU WANTED TO MAKE SOME ALRIGHT.? >> Lisle: I HAVE FRAMED THESE COMMENTS AS IF I WAS AT THE LECTERN AND TAKING MY THREE MINUTES, SO THAT'S THE STYLE THAT YOU'LL SEE. MY NAME IS BILL LISLE, I RESIDE AT 1725 [INDISCERNIBLE]. AT OUR SEPTEMBER 5 MEETING I MADE A VERY SPECIFIC REQUEST. THIS REQUEST CALLED FOR A REVIEW OF ARTICLE 21, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND HOW THEY ARE APPLIED. I REQUESTED THAT THIS CONVERSATION BE ADDED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY-SCHEDULED MEETING. I STATED THAT THIS CONVERSATON SHOULD REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AS APPLIED IN ZONING CASE 2021-021 AND THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2021-9-26. I STATED THAT THIS REQUEST IS AN APPEAL UNDER 1.1.110 INTERPRETATIONS OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. IN THE MEETING NOTES FROM SEPTEMBER 5 THE NOTES FOR ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA STATED: COMMISSIONER LISLE REQUESTED A DISCUSSION ON RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THE REQUEST WAS SECONDED BY FIRST VICE CHAIR CARY. STAFF RECOMMENDED BRINGING THIS BK AS A WORK PROAM TOPIC TO THE COMMISSION FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION. IT WAS NOT PLACED ON THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR THE MEETING AFTER THAT. WHAT WAS RECORDED IS THE MOST DUMBED DOWN ITERATION OF THE REQUEST POSSIBLE. EACH OF US AS COMMISSIONERS HAS TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND PLANO. WE OPEN WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THAT CONCLUDES WITH JUSTICE FOR ALL. PART OF OUR DUTIES AS COMMISSIONERS INCLUDE SECTION 13.800 AND 12900 WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. NOW FOR A BIT OF HISTORY. I BROUGHT THE ALLEGED SITE PLAN ERROR IN THE ORDINANCE TO MARK ISRAELSONAND- AND JACK CARR IN 2022. THIS LED TO TWO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS LAST FALL WHERE I REASSERTED MY CONCERNS . FOLLOWING THE MEETING NOTHING HAPPENED UNTIL I BECAME A COMMISSIONER. SHORTLYAFTER BEING SWORN IN I REACHED OUT TO OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND ERIC HILL AND REMINDED THEM THAT I HAD NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE ON MY CONCERN AT THE HOME DEPOT SITE PLAN THAT WAS PART OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDINANCE AND ZONING CASE. THESE ORDINANCES IN NO WAY INVOLVE ME. THIS CE REQUIRES NOT EXTENDING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS TO THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY. I AM REQUESTING THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THIS COMMISSION AND OUR ADOPTED ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THIS COMMISSION CALLS AN IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF 2021-021 AND ORDINANCE NO. 2021-9-26. THESE CASES SHOULD BE REVIEWED AGAINST OUR ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 12, AND ARTICLE 21. FINALLY, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INFORM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT I WAS ASKED BY A CITY COUNCILMEMBER TODAY TO RESIGN MY POSITION ON THIS COMMISSION AND TO DO SO BY WEDNESDAY EVENING, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. THE REASON GIVEN TO ME WHEN REQUESTING MY RESIGNATION, WAS THAT I HAVE TOO MANY CONFLICTS WITH LAND OWNERSHIP IN PLANO. IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME TO LET EACH OF YOU KNOW THESE FACTS AND TO BE CLEAR, I HAVE NOT RESIGNED MY POSITION. IN CLOSING, THERE'S NOTHING MORE FOUNDATIONAL TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAN FOR THE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO QUESTION THEIR GOVERNMENT AND TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE LAW. I WOULD IMPLORE EACH OF YOU THAT IT IS NUR RIGHT TO DO THIS REVIEW AS I HAVE REQUESTED, IT IS OUR DUTY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. 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 NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE ITEM A. >> Chair Downs: WE WILL REMOVE ITEM A FROM CONSENT. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REMOVE ANYTHING ELSE FROM CONSENT? >> Bronsky: I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED WITH ITEM A REMOVED. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM A. PLEASE VOTE. THAT CARRIES 8-0. ITEM A. IT'S JUST THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 18th MEETING. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE -- GO AHEAD, MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM A WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FINDINGS SUMMARIES THAT EACH MEMBER FILLED OUT AS AN ADDITION TO THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A, THE MINUTES, WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE FINDINGS FORM PROVIDED TO US THIS EVENING, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT CARRIES 8-0. SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS AN UPDATE ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY PHASE 1 REPORT, WHICH IS ITEM 6, ACTUALLY, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT UP SO WE CAN GET THAT PRESENTATION OUT OF THE WAY FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE FOR THAT. >> NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPO THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE TOT TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. DISCUSSION: SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY PHASE I REPORT - PRESENTATION OF THE RENTAL STUDY PHASE I REPORT AND TASK FORCE FINDINGS. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN, LAND RECORDS PLANNING MANAGER. WE HAVE AN UPDATE FOR YOU ABOUT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY AND THE PHASE 1 REPORT AND THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS. AS YOU KNOW THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY WAS INITIATED BY COUNCIL NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF STEPS TO THIS STUDY. YOU, WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, HELPED ENACT AN INTERIM BAN ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS BACK IN MAY AS AN INTERIM MEASURE. AND THEN IN OUR OUTREACH AND DATA COLLECTION WE HAVE TWO PHASES. WE'RE HERE TO REPORT ON PHASE 1 AND THEN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THAT PHASE, IT WILL MOVE TO THE PERMANENT MEASURES WHERE WE'LL BE BRINGING POTENTIAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS IN TIME BEFORE THE INTERIM BAN EXPIRES. AS PART OF PHASE 1 IN THE OUTREACH AND DATA COLLECTION, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH DECKER TECHNOLOGIES TO PROCURE THIRD-PARTY DATA. THEY MONITOR PLATFORMS AND CROSS REFERENCE WITH PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE DATA AND THEN THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN AGAIN CROSS-REFERENCED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY, COMMUNICATIONS, CALL FOR SERVICE DATA. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO BEEN WORKING WITH GAP STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH SUPPORT. WE HAVE HAD A COMMUNITY SURVEY AND AN OPEN HOUSE OVER THE SPRING AND SUMMER. AND THEN THERE IS A TASK FORCE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL MADE UP OF 22 PLANO RESIDENTS. THEY'VE HAD THREE MEETINGS TO DATE. PHASE 1 IS FOCUSED ON DEFINING THE PROBLEM. PHASE 2 WILL BE FOCUSED ON OUTLINING POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE DRAFTED AS PART OF THE PERMANENT MEASURES PHASE. SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS TONIGHT. JEFF BARTON HERE WITH GAP STRATEGIES, AS WELL AS OUR CHAIR FOR THE TASK FORCE, PHIL DYER, WHO WILL BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. >> Chair Downs: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, COMMISSION MEMBERS. PLEASURE TO BE HERE. FOR THE RECORD, JEFF BARTON WITH GAP STRATEGIES. I'M HERE WITH MY BUSINESS PARTNER, CARA BUFFINGTON AND ALSO WITH CHAIR DYE. THERE ARE SOME OTHER TASK FORCE MEMBERS HERE AS WELL. CARA AND I, ALONG WITH YOUR STAFF, HAVE BEEN LEADING THIS FACILITATION EFFORT AND WE WANT TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THAT VERY BRIEFLY TONIGHT TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. SO WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU VERY QUICKLY ABOUT THE TIMELINE SELF, ABO WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THE TASK FORCE. REMIND YOU WHO THOSE MEMBERS ARE. CHAIR DYER WILL PRESENT SOME FINDINGS. I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH SOME THINGS THAT HAVE GROWN OUT OF THOSE FINDINGS AND WE WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ABOUT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND LET YOU KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEPS OF THIS STUDY WILL BE. SO THE STUDY SO FAR, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THIS BEGAN LAST SPRING AND WAS KICKED OFF WITH A COMMUNITY SURVEY. WE GOT GOOD RESNSE ON THA COMMUNITY SURVEY. THERE WAS A CITY TASK FORCE APPOINTED THAT WENT TO WORK IN JUNE. THEY HAD GIVEN A LOT OF TIME TO THIS. IT'S BEEN A VERY STRONG TASK FORCE. AND THEN WE'RE HERE TO REPORT TO YOU ALL. WE'LL BE AT COUNCIL NEXT WEEK AND THAT WILL MOVE US TOWARD PHASE 2 THAT YOU HEARD CHRISTINA TALK ABOUT WHERE WE BEGIN TO LOOK AT SOLUTIONS. THAT WILL HAPPEN LATER THIS FALL AND THROUGH THE WINTER, GIVING YOU TIME TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE INTERIM BAN MIGHT EXPIRE LER NEXT SPRING. YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE TIMELINES LAID OUT HERE IN GRAPHIC FORM. THE TASK FORCE MET FIRST ON JUNE 29th. THERE HAVE BEEN THREE MEETINGS SO FAR. THERE'S ALSO BEEN A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE. I THINK A FEW OF YOU WERE THERE. AGAIN, GOT GOOD RESPONSE AT THAT IN LIVE AND IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE. BUT WE ALSO HAD A VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE THAT HAD EVEN MORE PARTICIPATION. AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. FIRST,HE TK FORCE ITSELF. YOU ALL ARE AWARE, BUT JUST TO REMIND YOU WHO THE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN ON THAT TASK FORCE. CHAIRED BY PHIL DYER, WHO YOU'LL HEAR FROM IN JUST A MOMENT. WE'VE HAD GOOD ATTENDANCE. WE'VE HAD GOOD PARTICIPATION AND A LOT OF VERY FRANK DISCUSSION WITHIN THE TASK FORCE. THE IDEA IS TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE ISSUES ARE SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN CRAFTING SOLUTIONS. BEGIN THINKING ABOUT SOLUTIONS. AND WE TRY TO KEEP THAT PRETTY NARROW IN THIS FIRST PHASE. REALLY FOCUS ON WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS, IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS, FIRST OF ALL, AND THEN WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS MIGHT BE. ADDED ADDITIONAL DATA WITH SOME PRESENTATIONS FROM YOUR POLICE CHIEF, FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR STAFF. THE CITIZEN OPEN HOUSE AND THE SURVEY, WHICH REALLY HELPED INFORM SOME OF THE DELIBERATIONS. AND THEN CAME BACK IN A FINAL MEETING AND REALLY HAMMERED OUT SOME EARLY FINDINGS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT A FEW TL TIMES. THE REPORT THAT COMES TO YOU TONIGHT IS UNANIMOUS FROM THE TASK FORCE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE ON THE TASK FORCE AGREED WITH EVERY FINDING OR EVERY SUPPORT CLAUSE OF THOSE FINDINGS -- AND WE'LL ELABORATE ON THAT FOR YOU AS WE GO. JUST TO REFRESH YOU ABOUT PUBLIC OUTREACH, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A CRITICAL PART OF THIS TO TRY AND GET AS MANY CITIZENS IN PLANO INVOLVED AS POSSIBLE. THERE WAS A SURVEY AVAILABLE FOR CITIZENS FOR ABOUT A MONTH FROM APRIL 17 TO MAY 17. IT WAS PRIMARILY DIGITAL BUT THERE WERE ALSO PAPER COPIES AVAILABLE AND WE DID HAVE SOME PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PAPER COPIES. MORE THAN 6100 PEOPLE PARTICIPATED. WE ALSO HAD THE IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE. 109 FOLKS SHOWED UP FOR THAT. THAT IS EXCLUSIVE OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS. THERE WERE TASK FORCE MEMBERS, CONSULTANTS BUT ONCE YOU TAKE THOSE OUT OF THE PIE, THERE WERE 109 CIVILIANS WHO SHOWED UP FOR THE EVENING. AN N ALL OF THOSE TOOK POLLING QUESTIONS BUT WE HAD SOME DETAILED QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOWED UP ON THE SURVEY THERE. ANOTHER 18 PROVIDED ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS AND ONLINE WE HAD ALMOST 2,000 PARTICIPATE IN THAT SAME EXERCISE. ONLINE, FOLKS COULD REALLY WALK THROUGH THE OPEN HOUSE AND REALLY SEE THE KINDS OF EXHIBITS THAT WERE THERE AT THE OPEN HOUSE, GET THAT SAME KIND OF INFORMATION, AND THEN PARTICIPATE IN A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT CED TM INTO THE EARLY DELIBERATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE AND THE DIRECTION THAT THE TASK FORCE WAS HEADED SO THEY COULD SEE IF THEY GENERALLY AGREE. AND THAT LED US TO A FINAL MEETING WHERE WE WALKED THROUGH THE EARLY DELIBERATIONS AND THE EARLY TENTATIVE FINDINGS THAT THE TASK FORCE DEVELOPED, MATCHED THOSE AGAINST WHAT WE HEARD FROM CITIZENS IN THE OPEN HOUSE. LOOKED AT DATA FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. A LOT OF FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS. AND WHILE MEMBERS DID NOT COME TO UNANIMITY, THERE WAS A STRONG CONSENSUS AROUND KEY ISSUES. IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW THERE WERE STRONG DIVERGENCE OF OPINION BUT ALSO SOME STRONG CONSENSUS AROUND SOME KEY ISSUES. AND I THINK PHIL DYER IS GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THESE FINDINGS. CHAIR DYER. >> THANKS VERY MUCH, GOOD TO SEE YOU. PHIL DYER, 39-YEAR RESIDENT OF PLANO. AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE THAT YOU GIVE TO US. THE TASK FORCE HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING GROUP. NOT EASY. WE'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE MICHELLE D'ANDREA DOING A GREAT JOB, TRULY KEEPING US ON TRACK ON THE LEGAL ISSUES. CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN, CHRISTINA DAY, AND THE WHOLE PLANNING PARTMENT HAVE GIVEN US REAMS OF INFORMATION AND DATA. IT'S MIND BOGGLING. THEY'VE BEEN TREMENDOUSLY HELPFUL AS WE'VE GONE FORWARD. AND JEFF BARTON AND HIS TEAM AT GAP STRATEGIES HAVE BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB SO WE HAVE TRULY BEEN GREAT. THE TASK FORCE WAS SELECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FROM APPLICANTS AND IT'S A BROAD CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MAJORITY OF THEIR INCOME OR A GOOD PART OF THEIR INCOME FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL INDUSTRY. AND SO THEY HAVE A VERY PASSIONATE VIEW ABOUT IT ON ONE SIDE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE CITIZENS, PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, VERY NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND SO AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE, WE'VE GOT TWO VERY BROAD ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM THERE. AND IF YOU THINK IT'S DIFFICULT SOMETES GETNG ANIMY OUT OF EIGHT, TRY TRYING TO GET IT OUT OF 22. BUT THAT'S OKAY. THAT WAS NOT OUR PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE IS THE INPUT AND I THINK MICHELLE CAN TELL YOU THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCES THAT ARE STANDING UP TO LEGAL CHALLENGES ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE THIS OF EXTREME DATA GATHERING, GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS SLOWLY, ALLOWING INPUT FROM ALL PARTIES, RATHER THAN JUST LEAPING FORWARD INTO A NEW ORDINANCE. THE COURTS DON'T LIKE THAT. SO THIS PROCESS, WHILE MANY OF US FEEL THAT IT'S GOING TOO SLOWLY, IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A PRODUCT THAT WILL STAND UP TO LEGAL CHALLENGES, WHICH ARE HAPPENING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. SO YOUR PATIENCE WITH IT IS APPRECIATED. WE'RE ALL TRYING TO BE PATIENT WITH IT BECAUSE I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY. DESPITE THE DIVERSITY ON OUR PANEL OF VIEWPOINTS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN STRONG. BUT THRGHOUT I'VE BEEN VERY PLEASED WITH THE GROUP'S COURTESY TO EACH OTHER, EVEN WHEN THERE'S EXTREME DISAGREEMENT. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A BAD MOMENT UP THERE OF PERSONAL ATTACKS OR INSULTS. SO IT'S BEEN REALLY GREAT AND WE'RE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS. AND I THINK WE'RE ON TRACK TO DELIVER WHAT YOU NEED AND WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO GO FORWARD WITH A NEW ORDINANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS. SO, I WANT TO GET JEFF BACK UP HERE TO DRILL DOWN BUT WE HE THREE MAINTAINED AT THIS POINT. AND WHEN I SAY "FINDINGS" A COUPLE OF THEM WERE UNANIMOUS BUT THE FACT THAT ONE MIGHT NOT BE UNANIMOUS DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T STRONG CONSENSUS AND SOMETIMES CONSENSUS AND YOU UNANIMITY ARE CONFUSED AS BEING THE SAME PHRASE AND THEY'RE NOT. ONE, DO STRs AFFECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN PLANO? THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS A NEGATIVE THING FOR O CITY. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN OUR CITY THAT ARE BEING RENTED OUT A THOUSAND NIGHTS A YEAR AND A VAST MAJORITY OCCUR WITHOUT INCIDENT AND IF YOU LIVED WITHIN TWO OR THREE HOUSES OF IT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. BUT THERE ARE INCIDENTS AND SOME OF THOSE INCIDENTS GO TO PROPERTY STANDARDS. SOME OF THOSE END UP WITH THE POLICE DEPARTENT. BUT THERE ARE OTHER INCIDENTS THAT DON'T MAKE EITHER ONE OF THOSE AND PEOPLE JUST HAVE LIVING WITH IT. WHILE THEY'RE NOT ALL NEGATIVE , THE IMPACT FOR MOST PEOPLE WHO FEEL AN IMPACT FROM SHORT-TERM RENTALS WOULD SAY THAT IMPACT IS NEGATIVE. AND SO THAT'S FINDING NUMBER ONE, WE ESTABLISHED THAT AS A BASELINE. NUMBER TWO, THERE COULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN PLANO UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT ALREADY EXISTS, SOMETHING NEW TO BE CREATED. WE DON'T KNOW BUT IT'S POSSIBLE, EVEN THOUGH THAT ARE MOST STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THEORY SAY MAY THERE'S PLACE. THERE COULD BE A PLACE. SO THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE ON THAT ISSUE RIGHT THERE. THERE WAS SURPRISING SUPPORT FOR THAT. SURPRISING BECAUSE IF YOU HAD TAKEN A VOTE THE FIRST NIGHT WE GATHERED AND SAID HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BAN SHORT-TERM RENTALS ALL TOGETHER, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE PASSED. NOT UNANIMOUSLY BUT IT WOULD HAVE PASSED. THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT AMONGST THE COMMITTEE TOWARDS SAYING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE. MAYBE THERE'S A PLACE WHERE THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE. ANHEN, FINALLY, THE CITY SHOULD DUOCOMPREHENSIVE PERMANENT REGULATIONS TO GOVERN SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN PLANO. THAT WAS UNANIMOUS. EVERYBODY AGREED THOSE WHO OWN OR OPERATE AND MANAGE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AGREE THERE SHOULD BE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT. AND EVEN THOSE THAT ARE MOST OPPOSED TO THEM SAY, YES, THERE SHOULD BE REGULATIONS. THOSE ARE THE THREE CORE LEGS OF THE TRIPOD, IF YOU WILL, FROM WHICH WE WILL BE GOING FORWARD AND TAKING THE NEXT STEPS. AND, AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME TONIGHT BUT FOR A LITTLE FURTHER DRILL DOWN ON THOSE THREE KEY FINDINGS, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL JEFF BACK UP HERE, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME AT THIS MOMENT. >> Chair Downs: NO QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT, BUT MAYOR DYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR STEPPING UP AND LEADING THE COMMITTEE. WE APPRECIATE IT. >> IT'S MY HONOR. THANK YOU. >> WELL, OUR JOB IS A LOT EASIER WITH SOMEBODY LIKE MAYOR DYER RUNNING IT, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. HE ASKED ME TO DRILL DOWNND WE'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE JUST VERY QUICKLY. I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A LONG AGENDA TONIGHT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT FINDINGS 1 AND 3 WE SAW SOME SIMILARITY BETWEEN THOSE. THEY REALLY SPEAK TO THE NEED FOR REGULATION OR POTENTIAL REGULATION. AND THERE WERE SOME CRITICAL ISSUES THAT THE TASK FORCE AGREED GROW OUT OF THOSE TWO FINDINGS. INCONSIDERATE OWNERS, USERS, AND GUESTS CURRENTLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A LACK OF REGULATION. LACK OF STRONG MANAGEMENT AND ON-SITE MANAGEMENT CAN MAKE NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR DISCUSSIONS CHALLENGING. EFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT UNKNOWN PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE HEARD. AND FREQUENT TURNOVER. UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND/OR OVERCROWDING THEIR PROPERTY AND OBNOXIOUS USES, LATE-NIGHT PARTIES, THAT SORT OF THING. INCIDENTS OF UNSAFE FIREARMS, WHILE RELATIVELY RARE, OTHER FELONIES CONTRIBUTE TO BROADER CONCERNS ABOUT FEARS FOR SAFETY AND CHARACTER. THOSE KINDS OF SERIOUS INCIDENCES ARE INDEED RARE BUT DO POSE A PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY AND POSE A PERCEPTION PROBLEM, BOTH. LACK OF REGISTRATION PROGRAM LIMITS ENFORCEMENT. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A KEY FINDING FOR THE COMMITTEE, THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME KIND OF REGULATION AND REGISTRATION THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. THE COMMUNITY FABRIC IS A CORE VALUE FOR THEITYF PLANO. AND ALSO THAT THERE IS BROAD CONCERN THAT STRs IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH THAT CORE VALUE OF COMMUNITY FABRIC. NOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING EVERYBODY I THINK ON THE TASK FORCE SEES BUT EVERYBODY COULD SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES, PARTICULARLY IN THE UNREGULATED ENVIRONMENT. AND THEN JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU HEARD CHAIR DYER MENTION IT. THERE WAS A LOT OFISCUSSION IN THE TASK FORCE ABOUT TS IDEA OF MOSTLY NEGATIVE. THE EFFECT BEING MOSTLY NEGATIVE. AND AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION, I THINK A CLEAR MAJORITY, A SUPERMAJORITY OF TASK FORCE FELT THAT THE OVERALL EFFECT IS IN FACT QUOTE, UNQUOTE MOSTLY NEGATIVE. EVEN SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED OFF ON THAT SEE SOME ADVANTAGES OR DON'T THINK IT IS WHOLLY NEGATIVE BUT, AGAIN, MOSTLY NEGATIVE. AND THEN, TO BE FAIR, WE HAD SOME TASK FORCE MEMBERS WHO FELT STRONGLY THAT THAT WAS A STEP TOO FAR. THAT WHILE THERE WERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF STRs, THAT IT WAS UNFAIR TO DESCRIBE THEM AS MOSTLY NEGATIVE. THERE WERE ALSO SOME CONSIDERATIONS THAT FLOW FROM THIS FINDING NO. 2 THAT THERE COULD BE -- AGAIN, COULD BE APPROPRIATE PLACES OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOR STRs. THE FIRST FINDING WAS THE STRONGEST CONCERNS AND PROBLEMS VOICED IN THE TASK FORCE IN MEETINGS AND OPEN HOUSE WERE FOCUSED ON RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY SINGLE-FMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CONFLICTS WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS THERE. THAT A SMALL NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS. AND THAT SEEMS TO BE VALIDATED THROUGH YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR RECORDS. THAT RESPONSIBLE LOCAL OWNERS AND OPERATORS ACTUALLY SUPPORT REGULATION AT THIS POINT. AND THAT SOME LOCAL FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES DERIVE SIGNIFICANT INCOME FROM STRs AND STRs PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR LODGING THAT SOME VISITORS AND LOCAL RESIDENTS FIND USEFUL FOR TOURISM, HOSTING FAMILY AND FRIENDS. AND THERE WAS, AT THE MEETING, UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON THOSE FINDINGS FOR FINDING 2, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GREW OUT OF FINDING NO. 2. FINALLY, THAT THERE IS SOME HOT TAX AND REVENUE THAT GROWS OUT FROM STRs AND THAT SOME PLANO RESIDENTS SEE REGULATIONS, ESPECIALLY BANNED WITHOUT EXCEPTION, AS INFRINGEMENTS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS OR PERSONAL LIBERTIES. SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE TASK FORCE IS AT THIS POINT. I THINK WE HAVE DONE SOME REALLY GOOD WORK ABOUT IDENTIFYING SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROBLEMS THAT FACE THE CITY. SOME CORE FINDINGS THAT WILL LEAD INTO THIS NEXT PHASE WHERE THE TASK FORCE WILL BE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS. TO BE CLEAR, ONCE AGAIN, THE TASK FORCE ISN'T CHARGED WITH DRAFTING ORDINANCES, LEGISLATION, ZONING MAPS, BUT WITH HELPING DIRECT AND GUIDE STAFF IN A GENERAL WAY AND COME TO GENERAL CONSENSUS ABOUT DIRECTION FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY CAN RECOMMEND T STAFF THAT WILL BE TURNED INTO MORE DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL CAN REVIEW. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE NOVEMBER 15th. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER MEETING RIGHT AFTER THE HOLIDAYS IN JANUARY. THEN ANOTHER OPEN HOUSE TO LET CITIZENS GET ANOTHER CRACK AT SOME COMMENT, ESPECIALLY TO SEE THE DIRECTION THE TASK FORCE IS MOVING IN TERMS OF SOLUTIONS. AND THEN WHAT IS NOW SCHEDULED TO BE A FINAL MEETING IN MID TO LATE MARCH, GIVING, AGAIN, TIME TO COME BACK TO YOU BEFORE THE INTERIM BAN EXPIRES. I HOPE THAT JUST GIVES YOU A SENSE OUT OF, YOU KNOW, SOME NUANCED AND PRETTY VIGOROUS DISCUSSION THAT'S GONE ON. IT SEEMS AS YOUR FACILITATOR THAT IT'S BEEN A VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THAT END PRODUCT WILL BE AND ABOUT SOME OF THE FINER POINTS, BUT WE HAVE REACHED, AS THE CHAIR SAID, SOME CONSENSUS ON KEY FINDINGS. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY, OR YIELD BACK. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE HARD WORK AND I GUESS LONG, DRAWN PRACTICE OF THIS SURVEYING AND GETTING THE REPORTS TO US. IT LOOKS WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOUR GROUP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTREACH EFFORT IN COLLECTING THE RESPONSES TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> Tong: OKAY. SO ONE QUESTION IS REGARDING THE POPULATION AND THE NUMBER OF RESPONSES. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO SEE -- I THINK IT'S LOW RESPONSES. I READ A COUPLE OF NUMBERS. FIRST IS THE OVERALL RESPONSES WAS LIKE 6,000 OR SOMETHING. AND THE OPEN HOUSES HAD ONLY A TOTAL OF -- A LITTLE OVER 2,000 COUNTS. I'M THINKING THE POPULATION IN PLANO IS ABOUT 288,000 AND THAT'S LESS THAN 2%. ABOUT 2% RESPONSES AND LESS THAN 1% PARTICIPANTS AT THE OPEN HOUSE. DO YOU SEE ANY REASONS WHY, WITH THE SLOW PARTICIPATION? I THINK THIS IS A BIG ISSUE TO THE CITY. IF WE PUT ANY REGULATIONS TO IT, IF WE PUT ANY ORDINANCE TOWARDS THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IT'S A HUGE DEAL TO ME. BUT I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO SEE THE LOW NUMBERS OF PARTICIPATION. IS THERE ANYEASON U CAN SEE WHY? >> COMMISSIONER, I THINK THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE THAT SEEMS LOW, WHEN YOU THINK OF A CITY OF 300,000. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF SURVEY RESULTS, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY VERY GOOD. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CITIES GET, WHAT YOU'VE GOTTEN ON OTHER SURVEYS HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY, THAT'S A REALLY STRONG RESPONSE AND I THINK YOU AND I BOTH WISH THAT MORE PEOPLE FOUND GOVERNMENT AS INTERESTING AS IT SHOULD BE. >> Tong: PROBABLY. [LAUGHTER] >> BUT IN TRUTH, THAT'S A STRONG RESPONSE. WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU ABOUT THAT RESPONSE, THI IS AN OPT-IN SURVEY. THAT'S ONE THING TO REMEMBER. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC, RANDOM SURVEY WHERE YOU WOULD TAKE EVERY 100th NAME OUT OF THE PHONE LISTINGS AND CALL THOSE. AND YOU WOULD GET WHAT'S CALLED A RANDOM SAMPLE. THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE INVITED PEOPLE TO OPT IN. YOU HAD TO BE MOTIVATED TO COME OUT AND DO IT. MOTIVATED IN THE SENSE YOU'RE INVITED TO BUT WE DIDN'T CALL YOU ON THE PHONE, FOR& EXAMPLE. SO WITHOUT GETTING TOO MUCH IN THE WEEDS THERE, THAT'S A STRONG -- IF YOU'RE USING A RANDOM SURVEY, THIS WOULD BE A REALLY, REALLY STRONG RESPONSE FOR THIS OPT-IN SURVEY. IT'S STILL A GOOD RESPONSE. IT GIVES YOU WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER STATISTICALLY VALID NUMBER OF RESPONSES, TO LOOK NOT ONLY AT THE BIG PICTURE BUT AT SOME OF THE SLICES IN BETWEEN. WHAT DO OLDER RESIDENTS THINK? WHAT DO RESIDENTS IN CERTAIN AREAS THINK? I WOULD CAUTION YOU, WE WOULDN'T SAY THAT THESE ARE PRECISE. I KNOW THAT SOME OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH POLLING ON THIS DAIS. WE WOULDN'T SAY THIS IS A 2 OR 3 POINT SPREAD. THIS IS A GENERAL DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF SURVEY THAT IT IS. BUT IT GIVES YOU A REALLY GOOD INDICATOR OF WHERE PEOPLE ARE. AND, AS YOU SAW ON THIS, MANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED PRETTY OVERWHELMINGLY. 60% 70%. AND I THINK THAT GIVES YOU A STRONG STATISTICALLY-VALID SENSE OF WHERE YOUR COMMUNITY IS. BUT, YOU KNOW, HAVING SAID THAT, IF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT WERE 50, 49, YOU SHOULDN'T RELY ON A SURVEY LIKE THIS TO CONSIDER THOSE DETERMINATIVE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> Tong: SURE. I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION. ONE OF THE POINTS, FINDINGS 1, 2, 3, AND FINDING 2. YOU MENTIONED ONE OF THE POSITIVE VALUES OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS TO BE -- THAT PEOPLE FIND IT TO BE USEFUL. THE WORD I THINK I FOUND IN THE REPORT SAID USEFUL FOR HOSTING FAMILIES OR FRIENDS OUT OF TOWN. BUT DID WE ACTUALLY HAVE -- I DON'T OW. YBEHAT' A QUESTION TO THE OTHER GROUP. I KNOW WE HAD TWO GROUPS. DID WE DO ANY STUDY ABOUT THE ACTUAL NEEDS? I MEAN, USEFUL IS ONE THING BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE NEED FOR EXTRA LODGING IN PLANO? BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE HOTELS AND OTHER TYPES OF LODGING FOR VISITORS AND FRIENDS. IS THERE ANY STUDY AROUND THAT? >> WE DID NOT -- YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOLKS MAY HAVE THAT OR YOUR HOTELIERS. OUR TASK FORCE DID NOT ADDRESS NEED, PER SE. BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMENT FROM CITIZENS, BOTH AT THE OPEN HOUSE AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE, WHO GAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF PEOPLE COMING TO STAY WITH LARGER FAMILIES THAT DON'T WORK WELL IN A HOTEL BECAUSE THEY WANT A LIVING ROOM OR SOMEPLACE TO GET TOGETHER. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A PARTY OF 200. BUT, YOU KNOW, 10 PEOPLE HERE FOR CHRISTMAS. THERE WERE SOME EXAMPLES PRESENTED IN THE TASK FORCE AND IN COMMENTS THAT WE GOT BACK ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING, OF PEOPLE, LOCAL RESIDENTS WHO ARE HAVING SOMEBODY GET MARRIED OR BAR MITZV OR WHATEVER IT IS, WANTED A PLACE TO STAY AND GATHER. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: FIRST OF ALL, I ECHO COMMISSIONER TONG'S COMMENTS ON THE SURVEY. IT SEEMS VERY WELL DONE AND COMPLETE. I WENT THROUGH IT OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS AND THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT DATA IN THERE. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU. HAVE YOU FOLKS DONE THIS TYPE OF EFFORT WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES IN TERMS OF STRs? COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OURS. SIMILAR OR DIFFERENT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY? >> WE'VE DONE A LOT. THIS IS THE ONLY TASK FORCE THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT'S FOCUSED ONLY ON STRs WITHOUT REGULATIONS IN PLACE. WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OR STUDIES WHERE STRs FIGURED IN AS ONE COMPONENT. AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO PEOPLE -- AND SOME MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM HAVE DONE IT IN AUSTIN AND ALSO IN GEORGIA ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH. I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM YOUR PLANNING STAFF IT IS REALLY ALL OVER THE PLACE IN THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, PLACES LIKE NEW YORK HY FOR MAKING IT HARDER. THEY ACTUALLY TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET THAT ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS AND TO GET IT RIGHT. IT WAS AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS THERE. IN TEXAS, I MEAN, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS DONE A GREAT JOB ABOUT TALKING TO THE TASK FORCE ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN TEXAS AND IN THE DIFFERENT COURT SYSTEMS THAT ARE GOING ON. SO IN PLANNING CIRCLES IN CONFERENCES WE GO TO, IT IS A BIG TOPIC ALL OVER THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. IN CITIES WE WORK WITH, IT'S A BIG TOPIC RIGHT NOW. I CAN'T TELL YOU OF ANYBODY THAT I THINK HAS THE MAGIC BULLET YET. BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES OUT THERE. >> Cary: OKAY. >> I THINK IT VARIES, WHETHER YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A TOURISM TOWN. THERE ARE A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS THERE. >> Cary: THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ON THE EFFECT OF STRs ON PROPERTY VALUES. AND SO WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OUT THERE OF WHAT THESE ACTUALLY DO TO PROPERTY VALUES? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN BUT WHAT DO WE KNOW FROM A DATA PERSPECTIVEBOUT IT? >> I WOULD HESITATE TO GIVE YOU ANY STATEWIDE DATA. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE REALLY STRONG DATA. WE HAVE LOOKED AT DATA. MAYBE SOMEBODY ON THE STAFF WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT MORE FULLY. BUT I WOULD SAY WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT IN SOME COMMUNITIES AND TO A LIMITED EXTENT. IT'S MIXED. A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL LIKE STRs DRIVE DOWN THEIR PROPERTY VALUES AND I AM WILLING TO BELIEVE THAT. WE HAD SOME PEOPLE ON THE TASK FORCE WHO SAID THEY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THEY FELT LIKE THAT WAS GOING TO DRIVE DOWN THEIR PROPERTY VALUES. WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE IT CAN DRIVE UP PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO REFINANCE YOUR HOME, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AN INCOME SOURCE ON THAT HOME. IF YOU'RE DOING AN INCOME-BASED APPRAISAL ON A PROPERTY, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE THE APPRAISAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. >> Cary: OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT COMMUNITY YOU'RE IN. MY FINAL THING IS KIND OF A COMMENT AND THEN A QUESTION. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE DOING AN EXHAUSTIVE APPROACH TO IT, BRINGING IN ALL DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THI RIGHT. AS I LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE, I JUST WANT TO REGISTER A BIT OF A CONCERN. AND I KNOW THE CITIZENS OF PLANO WOULD LIKE THIS DONE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE ALL WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, SITTING ON THIS DAIS, I HAVE A BIT OF A CONCERN WITH A LATE MARCH PRESENTATION AND THEN A MAY 15th, I THINK IT IS, EXPIRATION OF THE BAN. MY CONCERN -- IT'S NOT A QUESTION. IT'S JUST A CONCERN. WILL IT GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO UP HERE AND THEN WITH CITY COUNCIL IF WE STICK TO THOSEATES? BUT I ARECIE IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD WORK. I ECHO WHAT EVERYONE SAID. I WAS ACTUALLY SURPRISED YOU GOT 109 PEOPLE ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT IN AUGUST IN THE HEAT IN A TWO-HOUR TIME PERIOD. I JUST WANT TO GROUND MYSELF IN THE MAKEUP OF THE TASK FORCE. WE HAD 19 MEMBERS, THREE ALTERNATES. IF YOU COULD ROUGHLY SPLIT PRO-STR AND NOT STRALF AND HALF 10-9? >> COMMISSIONER, I WOULD ANSWER THAT TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. SOME OF THE VOTES WERE ON THE FINAL DAY THERE WERE 16 MEMBERS AT THE LAST MEETING AND THE VOTES, WHERE THERE WAS SOME CONTENTIOUSNESS, 13-3, FOLKS THAT HAD LESS EMPATHY FOR STRs AND FOLKS THAT HAD MORE SYMPATHY BEING THE THREE. I THINK, GENERALLY SPEAKING, SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO WERE PRO-STR FEEL LIKE A LOT OF FOLKS CAME IN WITH, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY SKEPTICAL, AT LEAST OF STRs. I THINK WE HAVE HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATION WHERE PEOPLE HAVE REALLY RECOGNIZED EACH OTHER AS HUMAN BEINGS INSTEAD OF JUST CATEGORIES. THAT'S BEEN A BIG STEP. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS WE'VE HEARD DATA, AS WE'VE BEGUN TO MAKE DECISIONS, THAT THERE'S A MAJORITY AND A STRONG MAJORITY THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME COERNS ABOUT STRs, ESPECIALLY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. >> Olley: SO CAN YOU SPEAK MORE OF THAT ISSUE ON THAT CONCERN AROUND STRs, IMPUGNING THE VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY FABRIC. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT ISSUE? >> THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THAT AND THERE'S NOT UNANIMITY AROUND THAT QUESTION WITHIN THE TASK FORCE BUT I THINK THE WAS A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY WHO FELT LIKE THE CHALLENGES POSED BY STRs DID, IN GENERAL, HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AS COMMUNITY FABRIC. AND THAT MIGHT BE TRASH. IT MIGHT BE NOISE. IT MIGHT BE INTERRUPTIONS LATER AT NIGHT. THERE WAS ALSO A SENSE FROM A NUMBER OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS THAT YOU SHOULD -- THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO KNOW YOUR NEIGHBS IF THEY WERE CHANGING OUT THROUGH VACANCIES OR THROUGH TURNOVER IN AN STR. AND, AGAIN, I THINK THERE WERE OTHER FOLKS WHO POINTED OUT THAT IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD YOU MIGHT HAVE TURNOVER. YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT THERE WERE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO FELT LIKE THAT CONSTANT TURNOVER LIMITED THE ABILITY TO REALLY BUILD COMMUNITY FABRIC. DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION? >> Olley: IT DOES. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE OPEN HOUSE. IT WAS VERY WELL ATTENDED, TO THE POINT OF ALMOST TOO CROWDED TO MOVE AROUND WHEN I WAS THERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WAS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED AT HOW MANY PEOPLE TURNED OUT FOR IT. BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, KIND OF ON POLLING. I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE SOME OF THE CROSS TABS IN YOUR DATA. YOU GAVE US SOME GOOD TOP-LINE INFORMATION DEMOGRAPHICS GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THERE'S A VARIATION IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF TOWN. YOU GAVE US SOME DEMOGRAPHIC SUPPORT IN THE YOUNGER POPULATION. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCE OR IF THAT WAS -- IF Y'ALL EVEN LOOKED AT THAT. AND I'M NOT ASKING NECESSARILY FOR THAT ANSWER TONIGHT BUT I WOULD BE CURIOUS JUST TO HAVE A FOLLOW UP OR MAYBE FOR THE NEXT PRESENTATION TO LOOK AT SOME OF THAT KIND OF HEAT MAP-TYPE OF PRESENTATION. >> WE WOULD BE GLAD TO SHARE SOME CROSS TABS. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF FINDINGS THAT I WOULD HIGHLIGHT. ONE IS THAT YOUNGER PLANO RESIDENTS TEND TO HAVE A MORE FAVORABLE VIEW OF STRs THAN OLDER PLANO RESIDENTS. AND SEE THEM AS LESS OF A PROBLEM THAN OLDER PLANO REDENT AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS THAT FROM WHAT WE COULD SEE IN THE CROSS TABS -- CARA IS GOING TO CORRECT ME. BUT WE DID NOT SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE GEOGRAPHICALLY ACROSS THE CITY. WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT SEE SOME BUT WE REALLY DID NOT SEE MUCH DIFFERE DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW, EAST, WEST, NORTH, SOUTH. >> Ratliff: THAT FRANKLY SURPRISES ME. I WOULD THINK IN THE MORE URBANIZED, WALKABLE AREAS THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. >> KEEP IN MIND IT'S HARD TO GET DOWN TO THAT. IF YOU WERE TO REALLY TAKEUT THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN, I WOULD ALSO EXPECT THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENCE THERE. SO THESE WERE BROADER GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. BUT WE DID NOT SEE MUCH. >> Ratliff: OKAY. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S RESULTS. VERY THOROUGH SO FAR. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME ADD MY THANKS TO THOSE OF MY COLLEAGUES' HERE FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND DILIGENCE IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. I HOPE YOU CONTINUE TO FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, THE DILIGENT PATH, GET ALL THE DUCKS LINED UP, GET ALL YOUR DATA IN ROW SO THAT WHATEVER CONCLUSIONS YOU DRAW AT THE END ARE WELL SUPPORTED, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE IS, AS PART OF YOUR STUDY, DID YOU REACH OUT TO PEOPLE LIKE AIRBNB AND OTHER MAJOR PLATFORMS IN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL INDUSTRY FOR THEIR INPUT, NOT ONLY TO GET THEIR INPUT AS TO WHAT THEY SEE AS THE STATE OF THINGS, WHETHER REGULATION IS NEEDED, BUT ALSO TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY HAV BEEN DOING AND WHAT MORE, IF ANYTHING, THEY COULD BE DOING TO EXERCISE OVERSIGHT OVER THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTAL CLIENTS TO PREVENT ABUSES, TO REGULATE THE INDUSTRY? >> I KNOW -- GO AHEAD, CHRISTINA. . >> I CAN ANSWER IN GENERAL ABOUT OUTREACH IN THE P PLATFORMS. WE DID INVITE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TASK FORCE AND INITIALLY I THINK SOME SAID, YES, BUT THEN DIDN'T SUBMIT THE APPLICATION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HEARD BACK FROM ALL OF THEM. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE THAT REPRESENT -- WORK WITH LOCAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATING, KIND OF GROUPS. SO THERE'S SOME LOCAL PLATFORM BUT NOT THE BIG PLATFORMS. >> WE DID HEAR FROM SOME LOCAL PLANO CITIZENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE AND WORK IN THE INDUSTRY WHO DESCRIBED BEST PRACTICES AND WHAT THEY DO AND WHAT THEY FEEL LIKE RESPONSIBLE OWNERS DO. SUCH AS SCREENING GUESTS, FOLLOWING UP VERY QUICKLY IF THERE ARE NOISE COMPLAINTS. MONITORING RESIDENCES. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE STR. YOU KNOW, WHO LIVE IN THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THEY'RE RENTING OUT A ROOM. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO SOLUTIONS BUT THERE HAS BEEN A GOOD BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THE TASK FORCE ABOUT THERE IS, I THINK, A DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION IN LOT THEASK FORCE MEMBERS IF YOU'RE RENTING OUT A HOUSE AND YOU'RE FROM SOMEPLACE FAR AWAY AND DON'T MONITOR IT VERY CLOSELY, VERSUS IF YOU'RE RENTING OUT A ROOM OF YOUR OWN HOME TO MAYBE INTERNATIONAL VISITORS WHO'VE COME TO SEE TEXAS. >> Brounoff: HAVE ANY OF YOUR PARTICIPANTS OFFERED, AS A SUGGESTION, A REQUIREMENT FOR IF NOT RESIDENT OWNER REQUIREMENT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE COURTS HAVE VIEWED NEGATIVELY. AT LEAST A REQUIREMENT TO APPOINT SOME SORT OF MANAGING AGENT LOCALLY WITH AN EMERGENCY NUMBER THAT COULD BE CONTACTED? >> I THINK YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. BUT YES THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION OF THAT BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT BASED ON THIS DILIGENT PROCESS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE REALLY DISCOURAGED ANY DEEP CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT REALLY FALLS INTO THE NATURE OF SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS. SO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THE FACT THAT THE LACK OF ON-SITE MANAGEMENT AND THE LAN OR REGISTRATION THAT PUNISHES THAT SMALL NUMBER OF BAD ACTORS THAT ARE LEADING TO A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE. THAT, I THINK COULD POTENTIALLY -- YOU COULD SEE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE IT ADDRESSED IN THE WAY YOU'RE DESCRIBING. BUT FOR THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS, WE REALLY ASKED THEM TOTO STAY AWAY FROM SOLUTIONS UNTIL WE IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEMS AND MOVED FORWARD IN THIS. AS YOU HAVE SAID A PURPOSEFULLY DELIBERATIVE MANNER. >> Brounoff: AT SOME POINT YOU WILL REACH THE SOLUTION STAGE OF YOUR INQUIRY. I MENTIONED THE MANAGEMENT AGENT IDEA TO ANALOGOUS TO OUT OF STATE CORPORATIONS WHO DO BUSINESS AND ARE REQUIRED TO APPOINT REGISTERED AGENTS TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF LEGAL PROCESS, FOR EXAMPLE. THIS IS NOT A DIFFERENT CONCEPT THAN THAT. MY OTHER QUESTION IS YOU BROKE DOWN LOCATIONS WHERE THE POLICE HAD RECEIVED CALLS FOR SERVICE BY STREET. AND THERE'S ONE STREET THAT GOT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CALLS AND THAT'S SANDPIPER LANE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS WHY THERE'S SO MANY CALLS GOING TO THAT ONE PARTICULAR STREET? >> I'M GOING TO TRY AND DO JUSTICE TO YOUR CHIEF, WHO GAVE A GREAT PRESENTATION AND ANSWERED SOME OF THIS DATA. I DON'T THINK WE KNOW PRECISELY. I THINK THE CHIEF REFERENCED THAT IN SOME CASES YOU MAY HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FEELS PARTICULARLY AGGRIEVED. THIS JUST REALLY BOTHERS THEM SO THEY MAKE A LOT OF CALLS AND THOSE CALLS MIGHT BE VALID OR THEY MIGHT BE INVALID. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE DATA TONO THA IN OTHER CASES, THERE DO SEEM TO BE, YOU KNOW, A SMALL NUMBER OF OPERATORS WHO ARE UNRESPONSIVE TO THEIR NEIGHBORS AND CREATE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CALLS. >> Brounoff: IT SO HAPPENS I HAVE A FRIEND WHO LIVES RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER OF THERE AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT MY CONVERSATION WITH MY FRIEND WAS ABOUT. I CAN DO THAT LATER, IF THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE. >> WE HAVE CERTAINLY HEARD FIRSTHAND TESTIMONY FROM SOME FOLKS, BOTH AT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WITHIN THE TASK WA THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEIR ABILITY TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY HAS REALLY BEEN IMPINGED ON BY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPERATING. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. TO YOUR POINT, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO ANALYZE OR RECOMMEND ANYTHING TONIGHT. THIS IS JUST A FEEDBACK REPORT. WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT SOME POINT WHEN A REGULATION OR WHATEVER'S BROUGHT FORWARD FOR US TO HAVE A LOT OF DIALOGUE AROUND EXPERIENCES. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: THIS MAY BE FOR STAFF. IT MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION BUT I THINK RIGHT A THE END OF THE COMMENTS WITH ANSWER. Y'ALL ARE IN THE IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM STAGE, YOU'RE NOT IN A SOLUTION STAGE AT ALL. >> WE ARE COMPLETING -- THIS REPORT TO YOU REPRESENTS THE COMPLETION OF THAT FIRST STAGE WHERE WE HAVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS AND ISSUES THAT GROW OUT OF THOSE PROBLEMS. THEN WE WILL COME BACK IN NOVEMBER, AS A TASK FORCE, AND BEGIN TO APPLY SOLUTIONS TO THOSE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. >> Lisle: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK A SIMILAR QUESTION. BUT MORE TO THAT IS I WONDER WHAT YOUR NEXT STEPS ARE. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS YOUR COMPLETION OF IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN GET MORE PARTICIPATION? BECAUSE I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I THINK THIS IS A BIG DEAL TO ME OR TO ANY CITIZEN IN THE CITY OF PLAN NEIGHBOR OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY ON THE STREET. MY CONCERN ABOUT MY NEIGHBOR BECOMING A HOTEL? YES, I'M CONCERNED. AS A PROPERTY OWNER, AS A RENTAL PROPERTY, DO I WANT TO INCREASE MY INCOME SO THAT I CAN MAKE MONEY? YES, I DO. SO I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOW PARTICIPATION. EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY THIS IS NORMAL OR MAYBE COMMISSIONER RATLIFF ID TY WE CROWDED IN A ROOM. BEING CROWDED DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, IT JUST MEANS THE ROOM IS SMALL. [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY. BUT I WOULD LIKE -- >> Chair Downs: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> Tong: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE PARTICIPATION. IS THERE A PLAN FROM YOUR GROUP OR FROM THE CITY OR THE& COMMISSION THAT WE CAN ALLOW FOR MORE ACTIVITIES TO ENCOURAGE MORE PARTICIPATION TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM? >> THE ANSWER IS YES, COMMISSIONER. NOT TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM, BUT AS WE -- IEAN, WE'RE SUBJECT TO DIRECTION FROM THE LEADERS OF THE CITY. BUT AT THIS POINT THE IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM PHASE IS REALLY COMPLETE. AND YET, LET ME SAY THAT YOUR UNDERLYING QUESTION IS WILL THERE BE MORE CHANCES FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION? THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE ANOTHER OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULED FOR THE SPRING. WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO PUBLICIZE THAT WIDELY. WE WOULD LOVE HELP FROM ANYBODY ON THE DAIS WHO HAS, YOU KNOW, IDEAS ABOUT THAT OR HAS -- MANY OF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN LIST OF CONTACTS. SO WE'LL BE LETTING YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE ABOUT THAT. I WILL --S GOING TO PUT YOU AT EASE BUT IT'S NOT JUST NORMAL, THIS IS A GOOD RESULT FOR WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN. 6,000 IS GOOD FEEDBACK FOR THIS TYPE OF SURVEY THAT COMMUNITIES MAKE DECISIONS ON. YOU'LL SEE, IF YOU START RESEARCHING THIS, YOU SEE CITIES MAKING DECISION ON JUST A FEW HUNDRED FOLKS. HAVING SAID THAT, WE AGREE WITH YOU. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. WE WANT TO URGE ANYBODY WHO IS WATCHING TONIGHT OR PAYING ATTENTION TONIGHT TO GO TO THE LEARN WHAT THEYAN, AND TOITE,- GET BACK TO US AND TO THE TASK FORCE TO THE OPEN HOUSE IN THE SPRING. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: MR. BARTON, FIRST I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. I KNOW WHEN YOU FIRST CAME IN I MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT GATHERING DATA WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. FOR BEING PURPOSEFUL. AND TO COMMISSIONER TONG'S POINT, I WAS ACTUALLY READY TO ASK ABOUT THE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SURVEY. AND SO I'M VERY ENCOURAGED. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO MAYOR DYER AND YOUR ENTIRE COMMITTEE. WE ARE A CITY THAT STRIVES TO BE A CITY OF EXCELLENCE. AND A COMMUNITY THAT RESPECTS EACH OTHER'S VALUES AND TRIES TO MOVE FORWARD IN A WHOLESOME DIRECTION. AND I'M VERY ENCOURAGED BY EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID THAT WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD TO TACKLE THIS ISSUE IN RESPECTFUL WAY, IN A WAY THAT IS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT TO EVERY CITIZEN, WHETHER YOU'RE A PRO OR CON ON THIS ISSUE. SO I'M REALLY, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE SAID. THAT BEING SAID, I DO WANT TO JOIN COMMISSIONER CARY'S CONCERN ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND THE SCHEDULE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR COMMISSION, AS WELL AS COUNCIL, HAS THE TIME TO BE THOROUGH. AND TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS FOR US. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAN GO BUT I DO SHARE THAT CONCERN. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. OKAY. >> WE'LL BE MINDFUL OF THAT AND WE'LL BE WORKING WITH YOUR STAFF. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR TASK FORCE HAS TIME TO REALLY& DIG INTO SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND WE HAVE THE SECOND CHANCE FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK. BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND WE'LL BE VERY MINDFUL OF THAT AND WORK WITH YOUR STAFF ON THESE ISSUES. >> Chair Downs: I THOUGHT WE WERE DONE. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I WAS SCROLLING THROUGH MY NOTES. I APOLOGIZE. I WAS LOOKING FOR A NOTE ON ONE OF YOUR SLIDES. YOU WENT INTO A LOT OF DETAILS ON CALLS FOR SERVICE IN THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS VERSUS CALLS FOR SERVICE ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. ONE THING I DIDN'T SEE AND I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO KNOW. IT APPEARS, FROM COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF'S COMMENTS AS WELL, THAT WE HAVE ONE OR TWO BAD ACTORS THAT ARE SKEWING THE DATA. I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THOSE ONE OR TWO OR 10% BAD ACTORS WEREN'T PART OF THE DATA, HOW WOULD THAT DATA COMPARE? BECAUSE I'M AFRAID THAT YOU'VE GOT ONE OR TWO OR -- 1% OR 2% OR 10% OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT ARE REALLY SKEWING THE DATA AGAINST THE REMAINDER. AND SO IF THERE WAS A WAY TO REIN IN THE BAD PLAYERS OR ELIMINATE THE BAD PLAYERS, WHAT WOULD THE DATA LOOK LIKE FOR EVERYBODY ELS AS A SUBSET? I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE THAT. >> WORKING WITH DATA AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT AND TRY AND DICE THAT. I KNOW YOUR CHIEF, YOU KNOW, SPOKE TO THE FACT THAT REALLY OVERALL IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CALLS. IT JUST IS. IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF FELONIES. I THINK YOU HAD SOME TASK FORCE MEMBERS WHO LIKENED IT TO A PEBBLE IN A SHOE. IT MAY SEEM LIKE A PEBBLE IN A SHOE BUT IF THE PEBBLE IS IN YOUR SHOE, IT'S A REAL IRRITAON. I THINK THAT WAS A REAL POINT OF INTERESTING DISCUSSION BETWEEN TASK FORCE MEMBERS BECAUSE YOU HAD SOME PEOPLE WHO OPERATE STRs OR BELIEVE IN THEM. YOU SAY, WELL, LOOK, IT REALLY IS A FEW BAD ACTORS. YOU SHOULDN'T SAY IT'S MOSTLY NEGATIVE. THE DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT. YOU HAD OTHER PEOPLE ON THE TASK FORCE WHO FELT LIKE THEY CAN'T LOOK ONLY AT POLICE DATA BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO NEVER MAKE THAT CALL OR WHO LIVE WITH THE PROBLEM BUT NEVER CALL IN. OR SOME PEOPLE ON THE TASK FORCE FEEL LIKE CITIZENS MIGHT BE INTIMIDATED ABOUT CALLING. SO I THINK YOUR STAFF IS WORKING ON THAT. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT TO TRY AND GET MORE DATA, TO REALLY TEASE OUT THAT QUESTION. THE DATA IS DIFFICULT TO COME BY, SOMETIMES, BUT WE'LL KEEP YOU INFORMED ON THAT. >> Ratliff: THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MR. BELL. >> ONE COMMENT FOR CONTEXT ON THE PUBLIC OUTREACH. AS YOU HEARD, THE SURVEY FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS HAD OVER 6,000 RESPONSES. FOR COMPARISON, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW DRAFT SURVEY HAD 1100 RESPONSES AND THAT INCLUDE SENDING OUT A POSTCARD TO EVERY ADDRESS IN TOWN. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT MORE INTEREST IN THIS >> WE KNOW WHY, TOO. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> I WILL SAY WE WORKED PRETTY HARD TO DO A VERY TARGETED ADVERTISING. WE DID A LOT OF OUTREACH. WE'D BE GLAD TO FILL YOU IN MORE ON THAT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND I ECHO MR. DIRE, MAYOR DIRE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. I THINK YOU'RE THE PERFECT PERSON TO LEAD THIS OPERATION. SO, WE APPRECIATE THE REPORT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT YOU BRING US NEXT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: AND IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, BUT I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO SPEAK? >> YES, WE DO. COREY RENNEKER. >> DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO BE THE ONLY ONE. DO I GET THE VISUAL? >> Chair Downs: YEAH, OVERHEAD. THERE WE GO. >> OKAY. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS KOREY. I'VE LIVED IN PLANO SINCE GRADUATING COLLEGE AND I'VE BEEN A HOMEOWNER HERE FOR 12 YEARS. MY WIFE IS A TASK FORCE MEMBER. HER AND I HAVE HOSTED A GUEST BEDROOM AT OUR HOUSE SINCE 2017 AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. RUNNING AN STR HAS BEEN REWARDING. WE'VE MET PEOPLE, MADE FRIENDS. WE'VE HAD FEW ISSUES WITH GUESTS. THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS I'VE ATTENDED ALL OF THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS. CITY STAFF HAVE GOT STRATEGIES, SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR THE HARD WORK ON THIS CHALLENGING ISSUE. THAT SAID, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE STATEMENT OF FINDING BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. SPECIFICALLY, FROM WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED, FINDING NUMBER 1 BEARS LITTLE RELATION TO THE FACTS. THE FACTS ARE THERE ARE VERY FEW STRs IN PLANO RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS. THIS SMALL NUMBER OF STRs IS RELATIVELY EVENLY DISTRIBUTED. THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT CONCENTRATIONS IN ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THE LEGACY AREA IS THE ONLY PART OF TOWN WITH A HIGHER CONCENTRATION. AND THOSE LISTINGS ARE PRIMARILY MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS. I HAVE THAT MAP ON THERE. IT'S PROBABLY TOO SMALL TO SEE. THE NUMBER OF CALLS FOR SERVICE IS A T TINY FRACTION OF THE TOTL CALLS. STRs ARE A VERY SMALL AREA OF CONCERN. THEY HAVE NO CHALLENGES DEALING WITH THE ISSUES THAT DO ARISE. THE DATA SHOWS WHERE THERE ARE PROBLEMS, THEY ARE CONCENTRATED AMONG A HANDFUL OF PROBLEM LISTINGS. WHEN READ CORRECT, THE FACTS INDICATE THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF STRs ARE LIMITED AND DIFFUSE, BUT WHERE SERIOUS PROBLEMS OCCUR, THEY ARE ACUTE. MORE BROADLY, THE CONSENSUSES THAT HAVE BEEN REACHED ARE DRIVEN BY THE FACT THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS A BUILT-IN BIAS. ANYONENINE MEMBERS OR SPOUSES AE MEMBERS OF THE COALITION DEDICATED TO BANNING STRs. FURTHER, THE VERY FIRSTEETI OF THE TASK FORCE, OVER HALF OF THE MEMBERS EXPRESSED ANTI-STR SENTIMENT FROM THE OUTSET. THIS BIAS IMPEDES THE FUNCTIONING OF THE TASK FORCE AS A VEHICLE OF FAIR AND DELIBERATE PROCESS. IT UNDERMINES THE PRODUCTS AND WILL WEAKEN THE DEFENSIBILITY OF ANY SUBSEQUENT REGULATIONS. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE TASK FORCE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER, REFINE, AND REVISE SOME OF THESE FINDINGS SO THEY ARE BETTER-ALIGNED WITH THE DATA THE TASK FORCE IS UNCOVERING. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. OKAY ANY RE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITE? >> WE DO NOT. I DO WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT REGISTERED THEIR OPINION AS OPPOSED TO THE ITEM 6. >> Chair Downs: OPPOSED TO A REPORT ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS. >> YES. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE YOUR REPORT WE WILL RETURN TO ITEM 1, OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, PLEASE. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF FIFTEEN (15) MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE (5) MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THIRTY (30) TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE (3) MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-006 - REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMITS FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PARK ON 0.8 ACRE LOCATED 524 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD AND 940 FEET EAST OF PRESTON ROAD. ZONED RETAIL. PETITIONER: AMREIT SSPF PRESTON GOLD LP. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M RAHA, LEA PLANNER WIT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO NOVEMBER 6TH OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPTS THE REQUEST. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: CAN YOU ELABORATE AS TO WHY THE TABLING? >> SURE. IN THIS LOT WE HAVE CURRENTLY A USE. AND THE INTENSIVE USE. AND THE PROPOSED USE WILL REQUIRE SOME PARKING SPACES THAT STAFF IS TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THIS SITE. >> Bronsky: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE CMISSION. >> I MOVE WE TABLE THIS CASE, 2023-006 UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2023 MEETING. >> I DON'T OPPOSE THE MOTION, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THE COMMISSION ASK THE STAFF, SINCE THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THEY'RE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT, THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD THE NEXT TIME THIS CASE IS SET. >> Chair Downs: ARE YOU GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION WITH THAT PROVISO. >> Chair Downs: YOU CAN'T MAKE A PROVISION ON THE MOTION, BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE DO IS WE'RE EITHER GOING TO TABLE IT OR WE'RE NOT. IF WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT THE NEXT TIME THEY BRING IT BACK WE COULD CHOOSE NOT TO TABLE IT AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION. WE'RE AGREEING TO TABLE IT. THE MOTION IS TO TABLE. WE HAVE A SECOND. >> OKAY. >> Chair Downs: WITH THAT, LET'S VOTE, PLEASE. THAT CARRIES 8-0. IF THE APPLICANT IS WATCHING -- THEY'RE WORKING WITH STAFF. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BURDEN ON STAFF HERE, TOO, OBVIOUSLY, TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAK THIS WORK. OKAY. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-022 - REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 8 (DEFINITIONS), ARTICLE 14 (ALLOWED USES AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS), ARTICLE 15 (USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS), ARTICLE 16 (PARKING AND LOADING), AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PET FUNERAL HOMES AND TO ADD A LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND ASSOCIATED RESTRICTIONS FOR CREMATORIES. PETITIONER: ALAN AND RENE BLACKMORE. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, I I'M MELISSA FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS TO ADD A NEW LAND VIUSEDEFINITION, AS WELL AS AMED MORTUARY TO ALLOW FOR PET FUNERAL HOMES. THE REQUEST WAS INITIATED BE A PROPOSAL TO OPERATE A PET FUNERAL HOME IN PLANO. AT THE JUNE 19TH COMMISSION MEETING, STAFF PRESENTED INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE REQUEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A NEW LAND USE SHOULD BE O REGULATE PET FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY SERVICES. THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO INCLUDE PET FUNERAL HOMES IN THE MORTUARY FUNERAL HOME USE AND ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. AT THE AUGUST 21ST COMMISSION MEETING, STAFF PRESENTED INFORMATION RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AT THAT JUNE 19TH MEETING AND REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DIRECTION. THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO ADD A CREMATORY USE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATION, AS WELL AS CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CURRENT MORTUARY/FUNERAL PARLOR DEFINITION IS SPECIFIC TO HUMAN BODIES. THE COMBI DEFINITION IS PROPOSEE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ANIMAL REMAINS. PET FUNERAL HOMES WILL BE TREATED THE SAME AS HUMAN AND FOLLOW ALL REGULATIONS FOR THE USE CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. BOTH HUMAN AND ANIMAL CREMATORIES ARE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE PERMITS FROM THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY UNDER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. BOTH CREMATORY TYPES HAVE CAPACITY LIMITS. HOWEVER, ANIMAL CREMATORIES HAVE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING ASH CONTROL, DISTANCE SEPARATION FROM PROPERTY LINES, AND OTHER NUISANCE ABATEMENT. IN ADDITION, ALL HUMAN AND ANIMAL INCINERATORS MUST BE OPERATED PER CHAPTER 111 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, WHICH PERTAINS TO VISIBLE EMISSIONS THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES REGULATIONS REGARDING SMOKE, PARTICULATE MATTER AND ODOROUS MATTER, WHICH ALL USES THE CITY DOES HAVE A GOVERNMENT FACILITY CREMATORIUM CONNECTED TO PLANO ANIMAL SERVICES. WHILE ANIMAL SERVICES HAS NOT RECEIVED PUBLIC COMPLAINTS REGARDING THEIR CREMATION FACILITY, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED REPORTS FROM EMPLOYEES AND OTHER CITY FACILITIES UP TO 1400 FEET AWAY. THESE ISSUES GENERALLY CONCERN ODOR AND/OR SMOKE AND ARE LINKED TO MALFUNCTIONING EQUIPMENT OR EQUIPMENT IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE. FOR THIS REASONING, THE DRAFT REQUIREMENTS.LUDE MAINTENANCE A NEW DEFINITION AND LAND USE IS PROPOSED FOR CREMATORY USES. DUE TO THE ANTICIPATED POTENTIAL CONCERNS THAT MIGHT OCCUR WITH THE CREMATORY USE, THE USE IS PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE AND TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. IN ADDITION, THE USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS ARE PROPOSED FOR CREMATORIES WHICH WILL INCLUDE THAT CREMATORIES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE. THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE DISTANCE AND COULD BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE IF APPROPRIATE. REIRED TO BE CONSISTENTLYBE MAINTAINED TO MINIMIZE ISSUES REGARDING ODOR OR SMOKE AND CREMATORIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO OPERATE FULLY INDOORS WITH NO OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR MATERIALS TO REDUCE POTENTIAL NUISANCES. IN A MAP SHOWING THE 2,000-FOOT BUFFER, THE BUFFER IS IN BLUE AND THE LI1 AND 2 DISTRICTS ARE PURPLE. THE PURPLE AREAS NOT OVERLAPPED ARE WHERE THE USE WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THESE PROPOSED CHANGES. STAFF REVIEWED CREMATORY REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, LISTED HERE. MANY LIMIT THE USE TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. IT IS MOST COMMON FOR THE USE TO BE PERMITTED BY A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A FUNERAL HOME OR CEMETERY. THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, PLAN USE POLICY AND LAND USE ACTION ONE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FOR THIS ITEM. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS SHOWIN THE STAFF REPORT. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: I WANT TO SAY THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK, ALL THE DATA, ALL THE RESEARCH. I REALLY LIKE THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. SO, THE BOARD'S LIT UP. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. DITTO ABOUT THE RESEARCH. VERY THOROUGH, WHICH ACTUALLY CREATED MORE THOUGHTS IN MY HEAD, WHICH I APPRECIATE, BECAUSE THAT WAS KIND OF THE PURPOSE. SO, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS INITIALLY. THERE ARE LOTS OF INDUSTRIES THAT HAVE TCEQ PERMITS. THE TWO THAT IMMEDIATELY COME TO MIND ARE CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS AND AUTO COLLISION CENTERS THAT HAVE EMISSION STANDARDS ASSOCIATED. DO WE HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS FOR OTHER USES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIKE OUR TATTOO SHOPS, PRIVATE CLUBS, THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS LIKE FOR CAR WASHES. >> Ratliff: I READ MOST OF THOSE IN THE ORDINANCE. MOST OF THEM SEEM TO BE RELATED TO NOISE AS OPPOSED TO EMISSIONS. ANSO -- BUT I DIDN'T FIND ANY INDUSTRIES THAT IT WAS OBVIOUS, ANYWAY, THAT WERE REGULATED DUE TO EMISSIONS VERSUS NOISE. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT THE ZONES AROUND THE FREEWAYS, THE HEALTH ZONES. BUT I WAS -- DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY EXAMPLES THAT YOU COULD THINK OF THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THIS CASE, OR THIS USE. >> NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, NO. >> Ratliff: OKAY. >> THERE ARE ODOROUS USES THAT ARE UNDER HEAVY MANUFACTURING WHICH REQUIRE S.U.P.s. IT'S HANDLED IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY. >> Ratliff: MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. SO THERE MIGHT BE A CASE UNDER HEAVY INDUSTRY WHERE THERE IS A CLAUSE IN THERE TO REQUIRE AN S.U.P. >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: OKAY. I DIDN'T READ THAT PART, SO I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT. THE SECOND QUESTION -- I POSED IT TO A COUPLE OF STAFF MEMBERS. I'M GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ANSWER. I WANT TO HAVE IT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. A 2,000-FOOT BUFFER. IN LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT YOU PREPARED, IF YOU CAN PUT IT BACK UP THERE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. I NOTE TWO PARTICULAR -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE ONLY THREE AREAS IN TOWN THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS RULE. OF THOSE THREE AREAS, ALL THREE OF THEM ARE WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE CITY ADJACENT TO US. AND SO MY QUESTION FOR THE STAFF THAT NOBODY HAS HAD THE CHANCE TO RESEARCH BECAUSE I JUST ASKED IT TONIGHT WAS, ARE WE PROHIBITED FROM CONSIDERING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IN OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES? I KNOW WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, BUT UNDER A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE IF THEY DID IT RIGHT ACROSS THE CITY LIMITS ON THEIR SIDE. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DEFINITELY CONSIDER AS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IF WE ARE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY EVEN TO OUR NEIGHBORS. I KNOW THERE'S SOME PRACTICAL ISSUES ABOUT KNOWING WHAT THE ZONING IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A APARTMENT COMPLEX LITERALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ONE OF THESE AREAS, IT IS VERY OBVIOUS IT'S WITHIN THE 2,000-FOOT BUFFER AND ANOTHER IN EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES, THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL AREA WITHIN 2,000 FEET. THAT CONCERNS ME AS BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO OUR ADJACENT CITIES. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST CONSIDER IF WE DO A 2,000-FOOT BUFFER. AND THAT'S MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION, I GUESS. >> Chair Downs: IT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD QUESTION. AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER. I'M WONDERING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS ONLY HAPPENING Y UNDER AN S.U.P. THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY, IF IT'S BROUGHT FORWARD. MY CONCERN WOULD BE AN APPLICANT UNDERSTANDING THAT I'M NOT WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA IN PLANO, BUT I AM OUTSIDE. ARE THEY GOING TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? SO I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO RESOLVE THIS. AND IT COULD BE LEGALLY, CAN WE ENFORCE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO. I THINK I'M GOING TO LEAN ON YOU A LITTLE BIT HERE WHETHER WE SHOULD KIND OF MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OR IS THAT A QUESTIN THAT WE SHOULD GET ANSWERED VERSUS HAVING TO MODIFY THIS LATER? >> IF YOU'RE JUST DEALING WITH POTENTIAL S.U.P.s GOING FORWARD THOSE ARE ALL CASE BY CASE. SO YOU COULD DEAL WITH IT AT THAT TIME AS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER YOU THINK THE S.U.P. IS APPROPRIATE. >> Chair Downs: A AND I CAN SEE THAT PATH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PETITIONER WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING TO ADD THIS. IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE WITHIN 2,000 FEET AND WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN THERE AND THEY THINK THEY'RE GOOD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A RESIDENCE IN PLANO BUT IT'S OUR CITY POLICY AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO CONSIDER THAT -- I'M CURIOUS ABOUT -- I'M CAUTIOUS ABOUT SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS. I KNOW IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. I'M CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE -- DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE HERE. OKAY. SO TO YOUR POINT, IT'S UNDER AN S.U.P. BUT THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND DO THAT. IF WE'VE SET THEM UP FOR FAILURE FROM THE START, WE MAYBE HAD ALL OF THIS EXERCISE FOR NOTHING. WOW. VERY QUIET. WELL, MR. LISLE, YOU'RE NEXT. I'LL GO THROUGH OUR SYSTEM HERE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO THINK THIS THROUGH. YES, MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF -- I'M CURIOUS WHY THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE, FOR ONE. AM I CORRECT THAT THEY'RE NOT HERE? >> NO, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT. >> Lisle: OKAY. HE'S STILL INTERESTED? >> YES. >> Lisle: OKAY. THANK YOU. OF THE THREE AREAS THAT THIS USE WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN THAT IS UP THERE, AM I RIGHT OR CAN YOU TELL ME IS THE MIDDLE AREA, IS THAT WHERE THE CITY OF PLANO'S CREMATORY IS? DO WE FOLLOW OURWN POLICY, IS MY QUESTION. DO WE FOLLOW THE POLICY THAT WE'RE WRITING TODAY IS MY QUESTION. >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MAP. I CAN'T SAY WITHOUT IT IN FRONT OF ME. >> Chair Downs: IT'S REALLY CLOSE. >> Lisle: IT'S CLOSE TO THERE. BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF PLANO, I THINK IT IS CLOSE. BUT I WOULD SAY IF WE'RE WRITING A POLICY AND WE'RE NOT EVEN FOLLOWING IT ON THE OUTSET WE SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. AND THEN I WOULD JUST SAY I RECENTLY LOST A PET AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS LARGEST PERMISSIBLE AREA IN EAST PLANO. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD WANT TO TAKE MY YOUNG KIDS AND GO TO THIS WAREHOUSE DISTRICT TO DO THIS ANYWAY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE LIKE A FRONT END PLACE WHERE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO TAKE A FAMILY AND MOURN THE LOSS AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS OFF-SITE, BECAUSE THESE AREAS SEEM MORE LIKE WE'VE OFF-SITE AND MY UNDERSTANDIG FROM THE APPLICANT IN THE PAST, IT'S ALL ONE -- IT'S ALL DONE ON-SITE. YOUR PET'S COMING HER THIS IS WHO PERFORM THE SERVICE THAT YOU REQUESTED AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THE REMAINS BACK. AND SO . . . >> Chair Downs: LET'S BOIL IT DOWN TO A QUESTION. >> Lisle: WHAT I WOULD BOIL IT DOWN TO IS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH A BUNCH OF POLICY AND A BUNCH OF WORK WITH STAFF. AND IF THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT AND YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE S.U.P. PROCESS, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY JUST SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT IN PLANO. >> Chair Downs: IS THAT A QUESTION FOR STAFF? >> Lisle: RIGHT? >> QUESTION MARK? [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY? >> Bronsky: I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. [ LAUGHING ] >> Bronsky: OUT OF ALL THE CITIES THAT YOU SURVEYED, WHAT WAS THEIR BUFFER? >> SO MOST CITIES DO NOT HAVE A BUFFER. I BELIEVE DALLAS HAD ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. I WOULD NEED TO LOOK AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE. BU NO OTHERITIES HAD A BUFFER. >> Bronsky: SO NO OTHER CITIES HAD A BUFFER. AND HOW DID WE COME UP WITH THE 2,000 FEET? >> SO WE BASED IT BASED OFF OF THE CURRENT LOCATION OF ANIMAL SERVICES AND THE COMPLAINTS THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM OTHER CITY STAFF FACILITIES. >> Bronsky: SO I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE COMPLAINTS THEY HAD WERE WITHIN 1400 FEET. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> Bronsky: SO WHERE DID WE COME UP WITH THE OTHER 600? >> WE WANTED TO TAKE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH, JUST NOT KNOWING. SINCE THAT'S OUR ONLY EXAMPLE, IMCT WLD BE, IF THERE ARETHE OTHER FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE THERE ARE MAINTENANCE ISSUES WITH THEIR INCINERATORS CAUSING ODOR OR SMOKE. SO WE WENT FOR THE MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH ON THE HIGHER END NOW. IF IT PROVES TO NOT BE A PROBLEM, IF WE RECEIVE DIRECTION LATER TO LOWER THAT, IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK INTO. >> YOU'VE ALSO MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE MAINTENANCE CONCERNS, YOU WROTE THAT IN, CORRECT? >> WE DID. >> Bronsky: OKAY. SO . . . >> Chair Downs: LET'S STICK TO QUESTIONS FOR NOW, AND THEN WE WILL GET AROUND TO DIALOGUE, SO. >> Bronsky: OKAY. ACCORDING TO THE TCEQ PARTICULATE AND ODORS, WHAT'S THE CONCERN RADIUS FOR THAT? >> SO THEY DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RADIUS FOR ANIMAL CREMATORIES. THEY HAVE TO BE I BELIEVE IT'S 50EET FROM THE PROPERTY LINES WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PARTICULAR, LIKE, RADIUS AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONCERNED. >> Bronsky: SO TCEQ HAS NONE, HAS NO BUFFER. >> CORRECT. >> Bronsky: MOST OTHER CITIES DON'T HAVE A BUFFER. AND WE TALKED TO ANIMAL SERVICES AND THEY TOLD US THEY WERE GETTING PROBLEMS 1400 FEET AWAY SO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE 2,000, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU >> Chair Downs: SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON, AND BECAUSE WE SEEM TO BE FOCUSED ON THIS DISTANCE THING, UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN S.U.P. PROCESS, WE COULD SET IT WITH ZERO BOUNDARIES AND THEN AT EACH S.U.P. DECIDE TO CREATE A BOUNDARY, OKAY? >> THAT SOUNDS MUCH MORE LOGICAL TO ME. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY. >> [ OFF MIC ] >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. I UNDERSTD. MR. BROUNOFF, QUESTIONS. LET'S JUST FOCUS ON TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. >> Brounoff: IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION, I UNDERSTAND. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: TECHNICAL FOR STAFF. >> Brounoff: DID YOU DRAW AN ALTERNATIVE MAP OF WHAT THE AVAILABLE AREAS WOULD BE IF THE BUFFER WERE 1500 FEET, OR 1400 FEET? >> WE DID. WE LOOKED AT 1,000, 1500, AND 2,000. >> Brounoff: BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANOTHER MAP. THE ONLY MAP I SAW WAS THE 2,000-FOOT MAP. IS THERE ANOTHER ONE? >> WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE OTHER MAPS IN THE REPORT OR PRESENTAON,S WE WERE LOOKING AT THEM TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT DISTANCE WE WANTED TO PROPOSE. AND SINCE WE WENT WITH THE 2,000 WE ONLY INCLUDED THE 2,000-FOOT MAP. >> AND WHEN WE COMPARED THE THREE MAPS, THOSE BUFFERS DIDN'T REALLY MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S MORE LAND, BUT IT WASN'T -- IT DIDN'T OPEN UP A SIGNIFICANT -- >> Chair Downs: SIX AREAS, THERE'S STILL THOSE THREE. >> EXACTLY. AND WE WANTED TO TAKE THAT CONSERVATIVE APPROACH SO THAT WE WEREN'T POTENTIALLY WANTING TO MAKE IT A SHORTER DISTANCE IN THE FUTURE BUT HAVING CREMATORIES NOW IN PLACE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO. >> Brounoff: I UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINTS THE CITY DID RECEIVE WERE TIED TO MALFUNCTIONING EQUIPMENT THAT WAS IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT, YES. >> Brounoff: I ASSUME THE REPAIRS WERE THEN COMPLETED? >> YES. >> Brounoff: HAVE THERE BEEN COMPLAINTS AFTER THE REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. >> Brounoff: OKAY. SO PERHAPS KEEPI THE EQUIPMENT IN GOOD REPAIR IS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. A QUESTION. >> Lisle: INSTEAD OF RIGHT, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A REAL QUESTION. DO WE KNOW WHAT YEAR AND BRAND EQUIPMENT THE CITY OF PLANO IS USING? >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. >> Lisle: DO WE KNOW IF IT'S GOT TECHNOLOGY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TELLING US THEY'RE GOING TO USE? >> I DO NOT KNOW THE DETAILS OF >> Chair Downs: I DON'T THINK -- FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT WE'RE GETTINGINTO THE OPERATIONS PIECE AND IT'S MORE ABOUT TO THE POINT OF ARE WE CREATING TOO BIG A BUFFER, RIGHT? >> Lisle: SO THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY BASED ON CHRISTINA'S RECENT COMMENT WAS THAT I THINK SHE SAID IT DIDN'T OPEN UP THAT MUCH MORE OF AN AREA. IS THAT BECAUSE THE OTHER RESTRICTION IS LI1 AND LI2? SO EVEN IF YOU REDUCE IT, LI1 AND LI2 HAS ALREADY GOTT REDUCED. >> Chair Downs: YES. >> RIGHT. WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT LI1 AND LI2. >> Lisle: SO MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT OTHER ZONING CATEGORIES WHERE THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: A QUICK QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT HERE, I THINK YOU SAID THEY WERE FROM CITY SERVICES? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> YES. SO THERE ARE OTHER CITY FACILITIESURROUNDING THE ANIMAL SHELTER. AND THE COMPLAINTS CAME FROM OTHER CITY WORKERS AT THOSE FACILITIES. >> Cary: THESE COMPLAINTS WEREN'T COMING FROM CITIZENS, HOMEOWNERS? >> NO, THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THE POINT IS IF THE EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTIONS AND YOU'RE WITHIN 1400 FEET OF A CREMATORIUM AND YOU WERE A RESIDENT YOU MIGHT HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF ODOR, SMELL WHATEVER. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS CAME UP FROM. IF WE PUT IN THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AND SOMEBODY FAILS THOSE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS EVEN ON -- FOR A DAY OR TWO, UNLESS THE REQUIREMENTS ALSO STATE THAT THE MACHINERY CANNOT OPERATE UNTIL IT'S FULLY FUNCTIONAL, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? TECHNICAL. NO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON IT? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, WE HAVE SOME OPTIONS HERE. WE CAN CHANGE THE DISTANCING IF WE WANT. I THINK GOING DOWN THE PATH OF SAYING WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO OTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS IS A BIGGER DISCUSSION, BUT LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SORRY. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. I'LL WAIT. >> Chair Downs: OH. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I THINK DISCUSSION-WISE IT STILL MAKES SENSE TO KEEP IT LI1/LI2 BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE OPERATION. IT GENERATES WASTE THAT DOESN'T SEEM AROPRIATE IN ANY OTHER LAND USE CATEGORY. TO THE NEIGHBORING CITY, YOU KNOW, BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR KIND OF DEAL, IF WE MAINTAIN OUR 2,000 BUFFER AND WE BRING THAT IN, WE MIGHT AS WELL -- I BELIEVE WE MIGHT AS WELL ELIMINATE IT. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING IN PLANO. MY ONLY QUESTION FROM AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE -- AND I KNOW THAT DOESN'T FALL IN OUR PURVIEW -- HOW DO WENFORCE WHATEVER STANDARDS WE PUT INTO THE S.U.P. FROM A MAINTENANCE, IF YOUR EQUIPMENT BREAKS DOWN, YOU CAN'T OPERATE? WHAT IS THE MACHINERY WE HAVE TO ENSURE OUTSIDE OF TCEQ, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER? >> Chair Downs: I'M ASSUMING IT'S BASED ON A COMPLAINT BASIS AND THEN AN INSPECTION BY PROPERTY STANDARDS. >> RIGHT. IT COULD BE THROUGH MISDEMEANOR PROSECUTION IF THEY AREN'T MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THR S.U.P. YEAH. AS FAR AS TCEQ, THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN COMPLAINT PROCESS. OR IF IT'S A REPEATED PROBLEM WE COULD LOOK AT AN INJUNCTION FOR NUISANCE FOR BEING OUT OF VIOLATION WITH THE S.U.P. AND THE INJUNCTION WOULD ACTUALLY STOP THE USE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME ACCORDING TO WHAT A YOUA -- JUDGE WOULD ORDER. >> Olley: WE COULD WRITE LANGUAGE INTO THE S.U.P., TWO STRIKES YOU'RE OUT, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. YEAH. I MEAN, IT MIGHT NEED TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT ODOR CONTROL OR OTHER KIND OF NUISANCE CONTROL SO THAT IT COULD BE PROVED THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION. >> Olley: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S DESIRE TO CONTROL THE ODOR AND PARTICULATE. I REALLY DO. BUT WITH THAT SAID, I THI A BLANKET RADIUS IS A LITTLE BROAD. AND THE REASON I THINK THAT IS QUICK STORY, MY OFFICE USED TO BE 300 FEET FROM AN OPEN BIT BARBECUE STAND BUT WE WERE IMMEDIATELY EAST OF IT. WE NEVER GOT SMOKE, EVER. BUT THE BUSINESSES NORTH OF IT WENT HOME SMELLING LIKE HICKORY EVERY NIGHT. [ LAUGHING ] >> Ratliff: AND SO MY POINT BEING THAT IF I'M TRYING TO LOCATE THIS FACILITY 200 FEET SOUTH OF A RESIDENAL ARE WHERE THE PREVAILING WINDS ARE GOING TO BLOW OVER THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ALL DAY EVERY DAY NINE MONTHS A YEAR, MAYBE THE S.U.P.'S NOT APPROPRIATE. BUT IF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS EAST OR WEST, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY A BLANKET RADIUS DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE TO ME WHEN WE HAVE AN S.U.P. PROCESS. IF IT WAS STRAIGHT ZONING, MAYBE. BUT SINCE WE HAVE AN S.U.P. ANYWAY, I THINK IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN AS A CONSIDERATION, PREVAILING WINDS AND DISTANCE TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL, IT'S OFFICE BUILDINGS, IT'S COMMERCIAL USE, BECAUSE IF THERE IS AN ODOR, IT'S AN ODOR. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU LIVE, WORK, PLAY, OR PRAY THERE, AN ODOR IS A PROBLEM. SO WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF THE NEIGHBORS REGARDLESS OF THE LAND USE IN MY MIND, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OTHER LI HEAVY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORS, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY THERE FOR A REASON. BUT -- SO I THINK IF WE CAN BE CLEAR IN THE S.U.P. PROCESS THAT ADJACENCY IS IMPORTANT AND IT'S NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, IT'S ALL ADJACENCY AND THAT'S A FACTOR IN THE REVIEW OF THE SITE, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT THAN A BLANKET RADIUS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RATLIFF ABOUT NOT HAVING A BLANKET RADIUS. I ALSO AGREE WITH TOSEN CONCERNING THE BREAKDOWN, THE OPERATIONS, AND BUILDING THOSE KIND OF THINGS INTO THE S.U.P. TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE DELIVERING FOR A QUALITY PRODUCT, OR A QUALITY S.U.P. FOR OUR CITIZENS. SO THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS AND ALLOW THE CITY SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO REFINE WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO US. >> Chair Downs: HANG ON A SECOND. GO AHEAD. >> I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH TABLING TO CLARIFY, BUT I THINK WE NEED CLEAR DIRECTION. IF IT'S JUST REMOVE THE BUFFER, THAT'S EASY. IF YOU WANT SOME ALLOWANCES TO REDUCE THE BUFFER OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED SOME CLEAR DIRECTION. >> Chair Downs: I WAS GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT RATHER THAN TABLE, WE COULD ALWAYS REMOVE THE BUFFER AND THEN UNDER THE S.U.P. PROCESS DECIDE, YOU KNOW, IS IT APPROPRIATE. RIGHT? >> I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING IN THE LANGUAGE. I WASN'T SURE -- >> Chair Downs: IT'S STILL IN THE ORDINANCE, IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR MAINTENANCE, ETC. >> BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT PRODUCES THAT THEY HAVE TO STOP OPERATIONS AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. >> Chair Downs: THAT COULD ALSO BE UNDER AN S.U.P. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT WRITTEN INTO THIS ORDINANCE. WE CAN WRITE THAT INTO THE S.U.P. >> OKAY. >> FOR THE S.U.P., THE S.U.P. CAN BE PROSCRIPTIVE. >> Chair Downs: YES. >> OKAY. SO I SINCERELY BELIEVE - >> [ OFF MIC ] >> Chair Downs: WE DO. SO, I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE THEN IF YOU WANT TO TABLE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT? FAILING A SECOND, I CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION OR WE CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. OH, YOU DO HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. >> SO MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE S.U.P.'S PROCESS. BECAUSE I HEAR ALL THE COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING THIS 2,000 FEET BUFFER AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WE KIND OF RULE OUT EVERYBODY IN THE CITY, WHY DO WE HAVE IT, RIGHT. SO MY QUESTION IS DURING THE S.U.P. APPLICATION PROCESS, ARE WE STILL GOING TO DO THE SAME EXERCISE EVERY TIME SO STAFF MAY STILL BRING THE SAME REPORTS SAYING WE HAVE A REPORT, A COMPLAINT, 1400 SQUARE FEET, 30. DO WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME EXERCISE? >> Chair Downs: SO IF THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT HAVE A BUFFER AND WE JUST SAY THEY'RE ALLOWED UNDER THE S.U.P. PROCESS IN L1, OR LI1 AND 2, RIGHT. SO THEN AN APPLICNT COMES FORWARD TO MAKE THE S.U.P. THEY APPLY FOR AN S.U.P., FOR A PERMIT TO OPERATE IN THERE. BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE ZONING IN LI1 AND 2. AS PART OF STAFF'S DEVELOPMENT OF THAT, WE WILL GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AROUND ITS LOCATION TO OTHER PROPERTIES AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON AROUND IT. WE'LL GET INFORMATION AROUND THEIR OPERATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR EXCEPT WE'LL BE ABLE TO BE MORE DEFINED IN OUR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT -- OF THE PROJECT. >> Tong: I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT I GET THE IDEA THAT IF A SPECIFIC S.U.P. APPLICATION COMES IN, WE HAVE MORE OF A LOCATION, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION TO DISCUSS. BUT THE DATA WE HAVE WILL NOT CHANGE. THE DATA IS STILL THAT WE CAN TELL AT 1400 FEET WE CAN STILL SMELL THE ODOR IF THERE'S A MALFUNCTION OF THE EQUIPMENT OR IF ANYTHING HAPPENS. HOW DO WE MAKE A DECISION? ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE EVERY TIME THERE'S AN S.U.P. APPLICATION? >> Chair Downs: MY GUESS IS THERE WON'T BE A LOT OF THEM. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: MR. BELL, WOULD YOU CHIME IN HERE? >> SURE. I THINK THIS IS A PTICULAR TYPE OF LAND USE FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, STAFF IS GOING TO USE A LOT OF CAUTION. ANYTIME WE TALK ABOUT ODOR OR FUMES WE'RE EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS. AND MY GUESS IS IT WILL NOT BE AS FREQUENT EITHER THAT WE WILL BE COMING BACK AND LOOKING AT WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING, WHAT ARE OTHER S.U.P. STIPULATIONS THAT WE CAN BORROW FROM FROM OTHER CITIES, WHAT ARE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND TECHNOLOGY THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT, MAYBE FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THERE'S SOMETHING NEW WE CAN INCORPORATE NEW TECHNOLOGY. ALL THAT GETS CONSIDERED WITH WEO THROU THAT WITH APPLICANTS TO TRY TO GET THEM AS CLOSE TO APPROVAL AS THEY CAN BEFORE THEY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE'RE CONSIDERING ALL THOSE FACTORS AND THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE WRITEUPS. THAT'S THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF -- NO, WE'VE GOT MR. OLLEY NOW. >> Olley: MIKE JUST MADE A GREAT POINT THAT THE TECHNOLOGY THAT THIS APPLICANT USES IS ALREADY LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF WHAT THE CITY'S FACILITY USES. I THINK WITHIN THE AMENDMENTS THAT REPLACED, WE'VE WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE PROTECTIONS AROUND ODOR, SMOKE, AND VISIBLE PARTICULATES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO WITH THAT IN MIND I WOULD ACTUALLY MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S AMENDMENTS AND STIPULATIONS EXCEPT THE 2,000 SQUARE FEET BUFFER, STRIKING THAT THROUGH. 2,000 FEET. >> LINEAR. >> Chair Downs: 2,000-FOOT RADIUS. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 2,000-FOOT BUFFER. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION MINUS THE 2,000-FOOT RADIUS. ANY DISCUSSION, OR MORE DISCUSSION? MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: WILL THE AUTHOR CONSIDER ONE SMALL AMENDMENT? THAT WE ASK THE STAFF TO CONSIDER ADJACENT USES IN THE S.U.P. PROCESS AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE WRITE IN TO CONSIDER ADJACENT USES. JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT, NOT TO THE STAFF, BUT THAT IT IS CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WILL BE NEEDING TO CONSIDER ADJACENT . . . >> I THINK IT'S IN -- IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY IN 15.220, ARTICLE THREE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN ARTICLE 24. >> Cir Downs: YES. >> Olley: I THINK THAT COVERS -- >> Chair Downs: YES. >> THEN I WILL RETRACT MY REQUEST. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY'S READY TO GO HOME. HE'S ALREADY VOTED. EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE VOTE. >> 45 MINUTES AGO. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT SEVEN YESES AND ONE NO. BUT THAT ITEM CARRIES. OKAY. THAT TOOK 28 MINUTES. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE 2023-014 - REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 8 (DEFINITIONS), ARTICLE 14 (ALLOWED USES AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS), ARTICLE 15 (USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS), AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUBS AND TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY AIRCRAFT. PETITIONER: CITY OF PLANO (LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION). >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO UPDATE THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW LAND USE FOR COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUBBS AND TO UPDATE TWO DEFINITIONS TO ALLOW ADVANCED MOBILITY AIRCRAFT. THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY TABLED THIS ITEM AT THE AUGUST 21ST MEETING AFTER DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDED SOME MODIFICATIONS TO STAFF TO BRING BACK AT THIS MEETING. PREVIOUS MEETINGS ON THE TOPIC WERE HELD IN JUNE OF IN YEAR AND OCTOBER OF 2022. SO THE DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE AUGUST 21ST MEETING INCLUDED REVIEWING THE PROPOSED STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO SMALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, REMOVING THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND DETERMINING WHETHER PARKING REDUCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUB LAND USE. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM STAKEHOLDERS AT THAT MEETING INCLUDED REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS AND CERTAIN STANDARDS, A CONCERN THAT THE STANDARDS MAY LIMIT WHERE THESE HUBS COLD BE LOCATED, A PREFERENCE FOR LESS PROSCRIPTIVE STANDARDS AND A DESIRE TO HAVE CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PROCESS. STAFF REVIVED THE PROPOSED STANDARDS AS A RESULT OF FEEDBACK. THESE CHANGES ARE LIMITED TO THE COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUB LANDSE AND NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE HELIPORT AND PAD DEFINITIONS FROM AUGUST. THE PACKET INCLUDES A VERSION OF THE CHANGES TO HELP YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT WHAT IS DIFFERENT. SO THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS A RENAMING OF THE TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREA. WE ARE NOW REFERRING TO THIS AS THE DRONE STAGING AREA. THIS WAS DONE TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH SIMILAR TERMS USED IN INDUSTRY AND BY THE FAA, ONE OF THE REQUESTS FROM OUR STAKEHOLDERS. THE DEFINITION NOW INCLUDES A STATEMENT CLARIFYING WHAT ALL SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINED DRONE STAGING AREA. IT'S THE LANDING PAD, ANY CLEAR SAFETY AREAS AROUND THE LANDING PAD PLUS IF THERE'S ANY DESIRED STORAGE AREA, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE LOCATED IN THE DRONE STAGING AREA TO BE EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN OPEN STORAGE REQUIREMENTS WHICH WE'LL GET TO LATER. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. >> SO OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY REQUIRES SCREENING FOR ALL OPEN STORAGE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SCREENG IS EITHER A MASONRY WALL OR AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN. THIS IS A LONG-STANDING REQUIREMENT IN THE CITY. IT'S MOSTLY INTENDED FOR AESTHETIC REASONS, BUT IT ALSO HELPS TO CONTAIN STORAGE WITHIN A DEFINED SPACE AND TO KEEP THAT AREA SECURE. FOR COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUBS, WE HEARD FROM BOTH THE COMMISSION AND FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT SOLID SCREENING WOULD POSE A NAVIGATIONAL HAZARD. THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO EXEMPT UP TO ONE TRAILER AND ONE SHIPPING CONTAINER FROM THE SCREEN REQUIREMENT PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THAT DESIGNATED DRONE STAGING AREA. TO BE VERY CLEAR, THE ENTIRETY OF THE DRONE STAGING AREA NEVER NEEDS TO BE FULLY SCREENED. THE LANDING PADS CONTINUE TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT. YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT A WALL AROUND YOUR LANDING PADS. IF YOU WANT TO FENCE IT, SURE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FENCE IT, THAT'S OKAY. THE SCREENING ONLY APPLIES TO OP STORAGE AND ONLY IF IT'S ABOVE THAT EXEMPTION OF THE ONE TRAILER AND THE ONE SHIPPING CONTAINER. THE S INTENT IS TO APPLY OUR EXISTING OPEN STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FAIRLY ACROSS THE CITY AND NOT TO CREATE TOO MUCH CONFUSION FOR OUR STAFF IN THE FIELD WHO ARE HAVING TO ENFORCE OUR ORDINANCES. ALSO ON THE TOPIC OF SCREENING IS ROOFTOPS. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS CITYWIDE TO SCREEN MECNICAEQUIENT LOCATED ON THE ROOF. IT NEEDS TO BE SCREENED WHEN IT IS A VISIBLE FROM 5.5 FEET ABOVE GROUND AT THE PROPERTY LINES. SO THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS THAT. THE BLUE LINE, WHICH IS A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, SHOWS YOUR SIGHTLINE. THE RED LINE IS WITHOUT. THIS SHOWS YOU ONLY NEED TO SCREEN SOMETHING IF YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE GROUND. AND THAT'S THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT TODAY. SO FOR DRONE DELIVERY HUBS, WE HA MOSTLY KEPT THE RECOMMENDATION THE SAME. WE HAVE HOWEVER ADDED AN EXPLICIT EXEMPTION FOR LANDING PADS TO SAY THE LANDING PADS ARE NOT CONSIDERED ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE SCREENED, BUT SEEING AS THEY'RE FLAT, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NEED TO SEE THEM FROM THE GROUND. THE INTENT IS TO MAKE OUR EXISTING STANDARDS APPLY FAIRLY ACROSS THE CITY. THE NEXT CHANGE IS FOR THE DRONE STAGING AREA. SO, FORMERLY TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREA, RELATING TO THE SIZE. 5% OF LOT AREA AS THE MAXIMUMA SIZE. WE HAVE BUMPED THAT UP TO 10% OF LOT AREA. 10% WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE THEY ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE TYPICALLY INTERPRET AN ACCESSORY USE TO BE. WE HAVE THROWN IN A 1,000-SQUARE FOOT FLOOR. SO IT'S THE GREATER OF 10% OF LOT AREA OR 1,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY DRONE DELIVERY HUB. AS A PRIMARY USE, THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH LIMITATION. [ CLEARING THROAT ] TALKING ABOUT BUFFERS AGAIN. SO, WE HEARD THAT DUE TO THE MIXED USE NATURE OF A LOT OF OUR RETAIL CORNERS, THERE WAS CONCERN WITH CERTAIN LAND USES REQUIRING A BUFFER, SPECIFICALLY RELIGIOUS FACILITIES AND DAYCARE CENTERS. WE DO SEE THOSE LOCATED IN OUR COMMERCIAL AREAS. SO THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED AS NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES FOR DRONE DELIVERY HUBS. TE REVISED STANDARD WOULD SET A NOISE BUFFER ONLY FROM DWELLINGS, RETIREMENT AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FIGHTINGS AND CITY PARKS. SO WE'VE REMOVED THE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES, THE SCHOOLS, AND THE DAYCARE CENTERS FROM THAT LIST. FINALLY, THERE ARE TWO CHANGES TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST WAS AN OVERSIGHT IN THE FIRST ROUND. WE NEGLECTED TO INCLUDE A LOADING RETIREMENT FOR DRONE FACILITIES AS A PRIMARY USE. SO WE'VE ADDED THAT IN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RATE CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE SECOND THING THAT WE HAVE CHANGED IS THE COMMISSION ASKED US TO INCLUDE PARKING REDUCTIONS. SO WE HAVE INCLUDED AN ABILITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO REDUCE THE TOTAL SITE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY 10% THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE THAT IS POSSIBLE TO BE GRANTED FOR STORM WATER CONSERVATION AS WELL AS FOR THE GRANTING OF EASEMENTS. THOSE ARE THE TWO OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS THE DISCRETION TO REDUCE PARKING AND FOR BOTH IT'S 10%. SO WE STAYED CONSISTENT WITH THAT NUMBER. SO IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED STANDARDS HAVE BEEN UPDATED IN RESPONSE TO THE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION AND THE FEEDBACK FROM OUR STAKEHOLDERS. THESE REVISIONS INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE DEFINITIONS, USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND PARKING STANDARDS FOR THE COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY HUB LAND USE. THE STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY, TO ADDRESS NOISE IMPACTS AND TO MAINTAIN USES AND OTHER STANDARDS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN THE CITY. THE PROPOSED USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN. STAFF HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF FOUR UNIQUE RESPONSES. THIS INCLUDES TWO DUPLICATE RESPONSES FOR A TOTAL OF SIX. THREE RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FOR THE AUGUST 21ST MEETING. THREE RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FOR THE MEETING TONIGHT. YOUR PACKET.HOSE ARE INCDED IN STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, DREW. APPRECIATE STAFF'S PATIENCE ON THIS. WE'RE KIND OF BREAKING NEW GROUND EVEN THOUGH ESSENTIALLY APPROVING THE USE OF AN OLD PARKING LOT, PERHAPS. SO WE WILL LOOK. THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION. I WOULD JUST -- LET'S STAY ON POINT WITH THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT. SO, MR. LISLE IS FIRST. >> Lisle: YOU HAD MENTIONED THERE'S PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR A 10% PARKING REDUCTION FOR EASEMENTS AND STORM WATER COLLECTION, I'M PRESUMING. WHAT IF BOTH OF THOSE HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED? CAN YOU DO ANOTHER 10% REDUCTION OR ARE YOU PRECLUDED BECAUSE ONE OR BOTH ALREADY EXIST? >> THAT MIGHT BE A LEGAL QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN STACK MULTIPLE EXEMPTIONS, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN MY CAPACITY, SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT. >> Chair Downs: SO THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY GRANTED A 10% REDUCTION IN PARKING, STORM WATER, NOW THERE'S AN APPLICATION FOR ANOTHER 10% REDUCTION -- >> NOW THERE'S ANOTHER. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. >> Lisle: WHAT HAPPENS? WE'RE 30% REDUCTION. >> I THINK IF WE DON'T PUT ANY LANGUAGE ADDRESSING IT WE MAY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT. WE MAY WANT TO WRITE IN THAT ONLY ONE COULD APPLY. >> Chair Downs: 10% REDUCTION IS APPLIED PER -- >> IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION. >> Lisle: OR THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. >> Chair Downs: OF STAFF. >> I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU DON'T WANT THEM STACKED, BETTER TO BE CLEAR SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON INTERPRETATIONS. >> Lisle: OKAY. >> I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT IN ALL -- IN BOTH OF THE TWO EXISTING CLAUSES IN THERE, IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SO IF YOU CHOOSE -- IF YOU SEE AN APPLICATION WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE A 10% REDUCTION YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DENY THE FURTHER 10% REDUCTION BECAUSE IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION. IT'S NOT A BY RIGHT REDUCTION. IT'S THE SAME IN THIS CASE. IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION YOU MAY GRANT A 10% REDUCTION. >> Chair Downs: AND THIS ORDINANCE MIRRORS THAT. >> YES. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN IT'S A COPY AND PASTE WITH SOME WORDS TAKEN. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. >> Lisle: I BELIEVE YOU CALLED THIS OUT. I HAVEN'T FOUND IT. BUT YOU CALLED OUT THE PROBLEMS WITH TAKING A DRONE HUB AND EXEMPTING A TRAILER AND A STORAGE CONTAINER IN THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU CALL IT OUT WITH. IT'S IDENTICAL TO OUR DEFINITION OF OPEN STORAGE. THEN YOU SAY HEY, THE COMMISSIOY THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THIS IS GOING TO MAKE THINGS HARD TO ENFORCE. AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY DANGEROUS TERRITORY. AND THERE'S OTHER PROVISIONS WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALREADY DO THIS THAT -- YOU SAID FAIRLY ACROSS S THE CITY TWICE, AESTHETICS, EQUAL ENFORCEMENT. WHEN WE START CARVING OUT HEY, YOU CAN HAVE A TRAILER BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THIS BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRAILER BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THIS, THIS JUST IS REALLY BAD POLICY. AND I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION FOR RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT IF IT'S OPEN STORAGE IT SHOULD BE OPEN STORAGE. IF WE'RE TW DEFININ OPEN STORAGE AS TRAILERS AND THEN GO BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THIS YOU CAN HAVE THIS STUFF, IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH GOOD POLICY IN MY OPINION. AND YOU POINTED THAT OUT. I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. >> Chair Downs: THAT WASN'T A QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> Lisle: GREAT. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: WELL THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF CONCUR OF WHAT COMMISSIONER LISLE SAID. THOSE POINTS ARE ALSO IN MY NOTES TOO. I ASKED YOU IF YOU CAN TAKE THOSE EXCEPTIONS OUT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE NECESSARY. WHY DO WE GIVE THEM EXCEPTIONS FOR THOSE THAT ARE POTENTIALLY WILL HARM? THERE WAS A REASON WHY WE HAD AN ORDINANCE THERE AND WHY ARE WE CARVING OUT EXCEPTIONS? RIGHT. HAVE WE LOOKED AT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, WHY DO WE HAVE RULES FOR THOSE, RIGHT? WHY DO WE HAVE TO PUT AN EXCEPTION THERE JUST TO ALLOW THE DRONE TO FLY IN? SO MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE ELIMINATE THOSE EXCEPTIONS. JUST ALLOW THEM, BUT FOLLOW THE REGULAR ORDINANCE. FOLLOW THE REGULAR RULES OF THE LAND USE. >> YES. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WE COULD REMOVE THE EXCEPTIONS AND GO BACK TO WHAT WE PRESENTED ON AUGUST 21ST. >> Tong: NOT ALL OF THEM. I'M JUST SAYING THE TWO THAT MRE THAT'S ON MY NOTES, TOO. I HAD A THIRD QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOF IS REGARDING THE EXCEPTION OF THE LANDINGAD ON THE ROOFTOP. WE ALREADY HAVE THE REGULAR ORDINANCE OF HAVING . . . I CAN'T REMEMBER THE TERM. YEAH. SO SINCE -- IF IT'S ON THE ROOF YOU CAN'T SEE IT ANYWAY, WHY PUT AN EXCEPTION THERE? WHAT IF THEY ELEVATED THE LANDING PAD? NOW WE CAN SEE IT, RIGHT? THEN YOU HAVE NO CONTROL TO THAT BECAUSE YOU ACCEPTED IT. YOU PUT IN AN EXCEPTION. SO I SAY CAN WE REMEHAT? THAT'S THREE THINGS I WOULD ASK. >> IF I MAY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION LAST MEETING WHEN WE PROPOSED NO EXCEPTIONS WERE IT NEEDS AN EXCEPTION. SO WE WROTE THAT INTO THE ORDINANCE PER THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION. >> Chair Downs: YES. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I AGREE, YES. WE DID ASK FOR IT. THAT WAS A SLIGHT JOKE. I WAS WONDERING WHY IT WAS 5.5 5. IT ALMOST MAKES IT 5.5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ALMOST MAKES IT SUGGEST THAT FOLKS WHO ARE TALLER THAN 5.5 FEET, THEIR EYES WILL BURN. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE EXCEPTION FOR THE TRAILER. WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT? IT'S JUST PROXIMITY AND ACCESS TO YOUR EQUIPMENT? >> SO WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR THE TRAILER, AND VERY SPECIFICALLY IN THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IT'S NARROWED DOWN. THE WORD THAT THE CITY USES IS A SPECIAL VEHICLE. AND IT'S A SPECIAL VEHICLE TRAILER UNDER 22 FEET. SO IT'S THE SMALLER ONES. SO WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH OUR PROPERTY STANDARDS DIVISION THEY WANTED US TO REALLY HONE IN ON EXACTLY THE THING THAT WE WANT TO EXEMPT. SO WE LANDED ON THOSE 22-FOOT TRAILERS, UP TO 22-FOOT TRAILERS AND THE SINGLE SHIPPING CONTAINER. THAT WAS BASED OFF OF WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED IN THE FIELD OF HOW THESE OPERATORS ARE CURRENTLY CONDUCTING AND WHAT THEIR NEAR-TERM EXPANSIONS LOOK LIKE. ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, TOP PHOTO IS THEIR LITTLE ELM LOCATION. THEY HAVE A VERY SMALL SHIPPING CONTAINER. ONLY ABOUT A QUARTER SIZE. I HAD A CHANCE TO VISIT THEIR NEW FRISCO LOCATION AND THEY HAVE A FULL-SIZE SHIPPING CONTAINER AND A GENERATOR ON THE TRAILER AND THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR 18 DRONES THEY HAVE OPERATING AT THAT SITE. SPEAKING WIT WING, THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY WOULD NEED MORE THAN A SINGLING TRAILER AND A SINGLING SHIPPING CONTAINER. THEY'RE USING THE CONTAINER FOR STORAGE OF THEIR AIRCRAFT AT NIGHT. THE BOTTOM PHOTO IS DRONE UP AND THEY USE A SINGLING GENERATOR ON A TRAILER . I BELIEVE THEIR STORAGE IS -- THEY BRING TO ANOTHER FACILITY SO THEY HAVE A VAN PARKED ON SITE. >> Olley: SECOND QUESTION -- AND THIS IS MORE TO CORRECT MY MEMORY. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT SCREENING THE LAST TIME, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY UNEXEMPTING THE NEED FOR SCREENING, IT WAS MORE ON THE TYPE OF SCREENING. A MASONRY WALL OR LIVING SCREEN. I THINK MY CONCERN, IF I REMEMBER CLEARLY, WAS NOT PERFORATED ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR AIR FLOW AND WHATHAVE YOU BUT IT WASN'T TO ELIMINATE SCREENING, IT WAS JUST FOR THIS KIND OF USE IS THERE AN ALLOWANCE FOR A PERFORATED GATE AND WHAT HAVE YOU, MORE SECURITY-MINDED VERSUS AESTHETICS. BUT IT FEELS LIKE WE HAVE GONE AWAY FROM THERE. THAT WE WERE JUST THINKING OF ELIMINATING THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT. >> I COULD CLARIFY. I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION AT THE LAST DISCUSSION. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT TO SCREEN THE LANDING PADS AND EVERYTHING ALL TOGETHER. IT WAS JUST TO SCREEN THE STORAGE CONTAINER A THE& TRAILER. I THINK THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN CONFUSED THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING SCREENING OF THE LANDING PADS OF THE ENTIRE SITE. THAT WAS NOT THE PROPOSAL LAST TIME. IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS IS TO SCREEN JUST THE STORAGE AREAS, THAT IS WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING LAST TIME. WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING THAT BACK. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ARE YOU DONE, MR. OLLEY? >> Olley: LAST QUESTION ON SENSITIVE USES. I'M STILL TRYING TO -- AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POSE THIS. THE REASON WHY DAY CARE CENTERS AND RELIGIOUS FACILITIES AND SCHOOLS ARE CONSIDERED SENSITIVE IS DUE TO A NOISE DISTURBANCE, I PRESUME. CONSIDERING THAT THE TAKEOFF AND LANDING OF THE OPERATIONS OF THESE VEHICLES WILL GENERATE NOISE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE REMOVING THEM AS A SENSITIVE USE. THE NUISANCE DOES NOT DISAPPEAR, SO WHAT'S DRIVING THAT? >> SO DRIVING THAT WAS THE CONCERN FROM THE COMMISSION AROUND PARTICULARLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CORNERS AND WE'RE INCREASINGLY SEEING THOSE STRIP CENTERS DIVERSIFYING THEIR LAND USE BEYOND RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS. WE'RE NOW GETTING RELIGIOUS FACILITIES IN THERE. WE'RE GETTING DAY CARES IN THERE. IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE HAVING THIS 150-FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT YOU MIGHT ELIMINATE AN ENTIRE RETAIL CORNER JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DAY CARE. WE HAVE HEARD THERE'S THAT CONCERN THAT WE MIGHT BE EXCLUDING SOME AREAS OF THE CITY BY HAVING THOSE USES LISTED AS SENSITIVE. WHEREAS WITH RESIDENCES, WE'RE FAIRLY CERTAIN THOSE AREN'T GOING TO SHOW UP IN A SHOPPING CENTER. THEY'RE VERY SEPARATE. >> Olley: THAT'S FAIR. LAST QUESTION. WHAT'S THE THRESHOLD THAT DESIGNATES A SITE AS A COMMERCIAL DRONE FACILITY? KIND OF PICKING ON BILL'S POINT. IF I OPERATE A WASTE OIL MANAGEME -- I'M MAKING STUFF UP -- AND I PUT TWO DRONES THERE. DO I GET ALL THE EXEMPTIONS ON SCREENING, ON WHATEVER ELSE WE ARE PROPOSING. IS THERE A THRESHOLD THAT WOULD HELP US JUDGE ACCURATELY THAT THIS IS THE PRIMARY USE FOR THAT SITE? >> SO THE EXEMPTION WOULD APPLY ONLY TO WHATEVER IS ON THE SITE PLAN AS THE DESIGNATED DRONE STAGING AREA. IF IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A DRONE STAGING AREA, THEN WE COULD EFFECTIVELY SAY THAT THE ND USE HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED AND I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IN THERE IS IT HAS TO BE ASSOCIAED WITH A DRONE DELIVERY HUB SO IF THE DRONE DELIVERY HUB IS NO LONGER THERE, THEN IT'S NO LONGER EXEMPT. AND -- >> Olley: WHAT QUALIFIES AS A DRONE DELIVERY HUB? TWO DRONES, THREE DRONES, 20 DRONES? >> ONE. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, THANKS. Y'ALL HEARD A LOT OF OUR CONCERNS. MINE WERE PRIMARILY ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES. AND IT LOOK LE, IN READING THROUGH THE LETTERS THAT YOU'VE GOT IN THE PACKET FROM THE DRONE OPERATORS AND TRYING TO LOOK AT THE DATES AND THE REVISIONS YOU MADE, I COULDN'T FOLLOW IT EXACTLY CHRONOLOGICALLY AND SO MY CLARIFYING QUESTION IS IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN ALL OF THEIR FEEDBACK AND TRIED TO INCORPORATE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR CONCERNS, OR AT LEAST ADDRESS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR CONCERNS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? >> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. >> Ratliff: HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANY MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE DRONE OPERATORS, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE SMA SITES, THE SMALL COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, THE CORNER PAD WHERE THE THOUSAND -- IS THE THOUSAND FEET ENOUGH ON A SMALL SITE TO OPERATE HOWEVER MANY DRONE OPERATION FOR A FOOD DELIVERY OR WHATEVER? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE OTHER ORDINANCES BUT IS THE THOUSAND FEET ADEQUATE IF IT IS A SMALL SITE TO ACTUALLY RUN A DRONE OPERATION? >> A THOUSAND FEET WOULD BE HALF OF THE YELLOW BOX ON THIS SCREEN. THIS, AGAIN, IS THE OPERATION OUT IN LITTLE ELM. THIS LOCATIO I THINK IS ABOUT 1900 SQUARE FEET FOR THEIR DRONE STAGING AREA. 2% OF THE LOT. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1,000 SQUARE FEET, I DON'T KNOW HOW USEFUL IT WOULD BE BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT'S THE 10% OF 1,000, FOR 1,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S A VERY SMALL LOT. I BELIEVE IN YOUR PACKET THERE'S A MOCK-UP GRAPHIC THAT I DID OF A SAMPLE SMALL SITE AND THEY CAN BARELY FIT A 300 OR 600 SQUARE FOOT LANDING AREA ON THERE. AND THAT'S USING THAT 10% EXEMPTION FOR PARKING. THERE'S JUST SO MANY SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT IT GETS DIFFICULT ON THOSE SMALL SITES. >> Ratliff: YEAH. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION. IT SEEMS TO ME YOUR AVERAGE FAST FOOD PAD IS AN ACRE, GIVE OR TAKE. SO 1,000 FOOT IS NOT GOING TO COME INTO PLAY EXCEPT ON THE -- I MEAN, THAT'S A REALLY SMALL PHOTOMAT, FOR THOSE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THEM. REALLY SMALL COFFEE SHOP OR SOMETHING. BUT THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS WHERE THE 1,000 FEET CAME FROM. AND MAKING SURE THAT WAS ENOUGH. IF WE'RE GOING TO SET A FLOOR, LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S A FUNCTIONAL FLOOR. THAT'S FIVE PARKING SPACES, BASICALLY. YOU'RE CONFIDENT THAT THAT WOULD BE FOR A REALLY SMALL SITE, ADEQUATE FOR A TWO OR THREE-DRONE OPERATION, IF TH'S WA SMALL SITE. >> YEAH, I BELIEVE THEIR SWEET SPOT WAS A LITTLE OVER THAT IN THE 1,100, 1,200 BUT WE WANTED A ROUND NUMBER, SO 1,000 IT WAS. >> Ratliff: IT MAKES SENSE. YEAH. SO THAT WAS IT. I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY CALL IT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE SURE THESE SMALL SITES, THESE SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, IF THEY SO CHOOSE, TO HAVE A DRONE OPERATION. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I WANT TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO THIS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. ON THE FACILITIES THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT SO FAR, AS FAR AS THE -- NOT THE DRONE OPERATIONS BUT THE ACTUAL BUSINESS THAT'S OPERATING THERE SEPARATE FROM THE DRONES. WHAT'S THE LARGEST ONE YOU'VE LOOKED AT? >> LIKE IN PERSON OR IN GENERAL? >> Bronsky: IN GENERAL. >> I MEAN, THE LARGEST ONE WOULD BE AMAZON PRIME'S FACILITY DOWN IN COLLEGE STATION WHERE IT'S A FULL WAREHOUSE. THEY ARE NOT VERY SUCCESSFUL, THOUGH. THEY'RE BARELY DOING ANY OPERATIONS. IN TERMS OF THE MOST -- THE LARGEST OPERATION WHO IS ACTIVE, THAT WOULD BE WING, WHO IS, AGAIN, THEY'RE UP IN FRISCO AND LITTLE ELM AS WELL ASUT IN VIRGINIA. >> Bronsky WHA LOCATIONS WERE THEY OPERATING? LIKE A CVS OR A WALMART? >> IN LITTLE ELM IT'S WITH A WALGREENS. IN FRISCO STATION, THEY'RE ON AN ABANDONED HELIPAD AND THEY'RE ASSOCIATED WITH A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. THEIR NEW LOCATION IS AT A WALMART SUPERCENTER AND THEY HAVE AN APPLICATION WITH THE FAA RIGHT NOW TO ADD ANOTHER 23 WALMART SUPERCENTER LOCATIONS IN THE DFW. >> Bronsky: ON THE WALMART LOCATIONS, WHAT -- YOU TALK OUT THE CURREN AND NEAR-TERM EXPANSIONS, RIGHT? WHEN I VISITED WITH DRONE UP, MY INTERPRETATION OF WHERE THEY WERE CURRENTLY AND EVEN WHERE THEY MIGHT BE GOING NEAR TERM WERE NOT GOING TO BE ADEQUATE TO WHERE THEY'RE EXPECTING TO GO LONG TERM. WOULD THAT BE WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THEM AS WELL? >> I MEAN, THE INDUSTRY IS CHANGING CONSTANTLY. TALKING TO, AGAIN, WING A YEAR AGO THEY WERE VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT ROOOP OPERATIONS. THAT'S KIND OF DROPPED OFF THEIR RADAR BECAUSE IT'S SO RESTRICTIVE FROM A BUILDING CODE PERSPECTIVE.& THE LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH WING ON SITE IN FRISCO, THEY'RE LOOKING AT A NETWORK APPROACH. SO THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR LARGE HUB SITES WHERE THEY COULD DISPATCH DRONE FROM BUT THE DRONE COULD THEN TRAVEL TO ANOTHER LOCATION THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE A HUB. SAME AS, YOU KNOW, AN UBER EATS DRIVER. SO THE DRONE WOULD GO TO ANOTHER BUSINESS, PICK UP THE GOODS, AND THEN GO FROM THERE. SO THE BUSINESS WOULDN'T EVEN NEEDO HAVE A DRONE HUB IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN DRONE DELIVERIES IN THEIR KIND OF FUTURE-CASE SCENARIOS. >> Bronsky: HAVE YOU TALKED TO DRONE UP RATHER THAN WING? >> YES, WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH DRONE UP. >> Bronsky: RELATED TO MY QUESTION ABOUT EXPANSIONS FOR THEM, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE BEING VASTLY OVERPRESCRIPTIVE ON A LOT OF THIS AND THE BASIS FOR THAT IS I FEEL LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT A VERY NEW TECHNOLOGY AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PEOPLE AT THE FRONT OF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CURRENT AND NEAR-TERM OPERATIONS, THAT'S NOT WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING. THEY'RE LOOKING LONG-TERM OPERATIONS AND IN ORDER TO MAKE LONG-TERM OPERATIONS SUCCESSFUL, WE'VE GOT TO BE CONSIDERING THEIR EXPANSIONS, NOT JUST NOW OR IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, BUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN THEY ARE FULL-BLOWN OPERATIONS. AND WE COULD REALLY BE LIMITING THE CAPACITY TO WHAT THEY COULD DELIVER, ESPECIALLY IF THE FAA PERMITS THEM TO BE ABLE TO GO BEYOND SOME OF THE DISTANCES THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING AT. SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT WE GET DRONE DELIVERY IN PLANO BUT THAT DRONE DELIVERY, ALL OF THOSE SALES THAT WOULD BE OCCURRING AT THOSE LOCATIONS IN PLANO, WE NO LONGER COLLECT ANY OF THE SALES TAX BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SO PURPOSELY PRESCRIPTIVE THAT WE HAVE BASICALLY PUSHED THEM OUT OF OUR CITY. AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT THINGS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE -- >> Chair Downs: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> Bronsky: I'M GETTING THERE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> Bronsky: WHENEVER I LOOK AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE IN THEIR LETTER AND THEN I HEAR US TALKING ABOUTHE EXEMPTIONS, DO YOU REALLY FEEL THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE ON THIS OR ARE WE REALLY JUST RIGHT NOW, IN A YEAR OR TWO? >> Chair Downs: I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHAT THEY'RE BRINGING TO US IS AFTER US GIVING THEM FEEDBACK AT LEAST TWICE. >> Bronsky: I UNDERSTAND. >> Chair Downs: SO LET'S -- WE'VE BEEN AS GUILTY OF DESIGNING THIS THING AS THEY WILL HAVE BEEN. AND ASKING FOR THEIR OPINION ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE DOING THIS, I THINK WE'RE GETTING WAY, WAY OFF BASE HERE. WE EITHER LIKE WHAT THEY'VE GIVEN US OR WE SAY REMOVE THE 10%, 1,000 FOOT AND LET THEM OPERATE WHEREVER THEY WANT. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE MORE DECISION-ORIENTED TONIGHT VERSUS A LOT OF QUESTIONS. BECAUSE EVERYTHING HERE -- NOW MAYBE WE MISUNDERSTOOD THE STORAGE DISCUSSION. I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE, MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THIS THING AND MOVE ON. WE CAN ALWAYS UPDATE IT. IF WE PUT THE DESCRIPTIONS IN AND SOMEBODY COMES TO US, AN OPERATOR, AND SAYS WE JUST CAN'T OPERATE BECAUSE OF THIS, THEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET RID OF SOMETHING THEN. BUT WE'VE ALWAYS KIND OF OPERATED A LITTLE BIT UNDER A CAUTION, MOVE CAUTIOUSLY. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE CHANGE IN THIS CITY. WE'VE SEEN THAT. I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT MAYBE WE ARE BEING TOO -- AND IF WE ARE, WE AGREE RIGHT NOW, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF SOME OF THIS STUFF, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT DOES CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF THE WILD WEST FOR THIS KIND OF OPERATION. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, HEY, I WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT'S GREAT, BUT LET'S FOCUS QUESTIONS ON HIM, NOT ON IDEAS OS THERE A PROBLEM WITH ELIMINATING THAT. AND IF HE SAYS UNDER THE ORDINANCE IT CREATES A CHALLENGE HERE, GREAT. THAT'S A GOOD TECHNICAL QUESTION. >> Bronsky: MR. RATLIFF ASKED THIS QUESTION ABOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE OPERATORS, I LOOK AT THE DATES ON THOSE LETTERS, SEPTEMBER 29th -- AND I'M NOT SURE HOW THE OTHER ONE IS DATED OCTOBER 2nd BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE. >> Chair Downs: MAYBE FROM LAST YEAR. >> Bronsky: NO, 2023. I'M NOT SURE HOW WE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE BECAUSE W HAVEN'T HAD THE PACKET BY THEN. >> [OFF MIC] >> Bronsky: IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE DONE THAT. >> Chair Downs: YOUR QUESTION IS DID WE INCLUDE THAT -- AND MR. RATLIFF ASKED DID WE INCLUDE THE OPERATORS' REQUEST IN SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE? THAT WAS A FAIR QUESTION AND I THINK HE ANSWERED IT. >> YES. TO ANSWER THE UNDERLYING QUESTION ABOUT THE SIX RESPONSES RECEIVED, THREE WERE RECEIVED ON FRIDAY. THE TWO ON TH 29th. THE ONE DATED THE SECOND WAS RECEIVED ON FRIDAY, THEY JUST POST DATED IT TO TODAY'S MEETING. THE THREE WERE RECEIVED BY THE FRIDAY BEFORE THAT PUBLIC HEARING, BEFORE THE 21st. AND AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 21st, STAFF DID CONTACT ALL THREE OF THE OPERATORS IN DFW AS WELL AS THE TWO INDUSTRY GROUPS THAT PROVIDED LETTERS. WE DID PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH STAFF AND EVERY TIME THAT WE HAD DRAFT OF STANDARDS, WE DID FORWARD THOSE TO THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS SO WE COULD FURTHER REFINE WHAT WE WERE ULTIMATELY BRINGING TODAY. >> Bronsky: LAST QUESTION. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON ANY DETAILS THAT THEY SUGGESTED THAT JUST WERE NOT DOABLE FOR US? >> SO THE -- IF YOU'RE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DRONE UP -- >> Bronsky: ALL THREE OF THEM BUT DRONE UP IS THE ONE THAT I'VE SEEN. >> THE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED AT NOON ON FRIDAY AFTER WE HAD FINISHED THE REPORT AND MADE THE PACKET. SO I COULD NOT MAKE ANY THE PACKET. WING -- THE REASON WHY I KEEP BRINGING UP WING IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE IN TERMS OF THEIR FEEDBACK. AND TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, WITH WHAT WAS RECEIVED AT THE AUGUST 21st MEETING, WE HAVE TRIED TO INCLUDE RESPONSES TO THOSE CONCERNS IN THIS SET. SPECIFICALLY THAT THE UPDATE TO THE NAME OF THE TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREA BEING CHANGED. THE ADDITION OF THE CLARIFICATION STATEMENTS IN SOME AREAS, SUCH AS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS. THAT'S IN A SEPARATE SECTION. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS BROUGHT UP. WE HAVE TRIED TO ADD THOSE CLARIFYING STATEMENTS INTO THE ORDINANCE, WHERE POSSIBLE. >> Bronsky: YEAH. I'VE READ THROUGH SOME OF THEIRS AND I SEE THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THEY'VE MADE CONCERNING TAKEOFF AND LANNG THE DRONES AND IT BEING A PROBLEM TO HAVE IT SURROUNDED, WE HAVE ADDRESSED. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. AGAIN, REALLY I'M HOPEFUL FOR THIS. I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT BEING TOO PRESCRIPTIVE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: A QUICK QUESTION AND I WILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS. MY QUESTION IS THIS: WOULD WE BE THE FIRST -- OR ONE OF THE FIRST COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS TO WRITE ORDINANCE? >> WE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO HAVE THESE STANDARDS IN OUR MAIN ORDINANCE. COLLEGE STATION HAS A VERY SMALL SET OF STANDARDS IN A PD FOR THE AMAZON PRIME LOCATION. BUT WE WOULD BE THE FIRST WITH STANDARDS IN OUR ORDINANCE. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT THE INFORMATION WE NEED. AS I SAID, MOST OF THE STUFF IN HERE HAS COME FROM OUR FEEDBACK AND FROM -- IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OPERATORS GAVE YOU A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK AS WELL. I'M SURE THEY WOULD PREFER TO NOT HAVE A STANDARD AND JUST DO WHAT THEY WANT. BUT WE HAVE SEEN WE'RE A CITY THAT DOESN'T REALLY OPERATE THAT WAY. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. >> Lisle: DO YOU BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE FIRST WRITTEN STANDARD BECAUSE WE'RE FIRST? OR DO YOU BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE FIRST WRITTEN STANDARD BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE PREEMPTED BY THE PREEMPTION LAWS AND THE FAA AND SO THEY'RE NOT EVEN MESSING WITH WRITING IT? >> SO WHEN STAFF LOOKED INTO OTHER COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS AND HOW THEY'RE APPROACHING DRONES, THEY WERE KIND OF -- I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THREE PADS. HAVING A DEFINED LAND USE FOR DRONE DELIVERY HUBS WAS BY FAR THE MINORITY. IT WAS COLLEGE STATION. THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES. THE OTHER PATH THAT A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES HAD TAKEN IS TO SAY THIS IS NOT A LAND USE , IT FUNCTIONS THE SE WAY AS ANY OTHER DELIVERY OPERATION. IT'S JUST PART OF THE OPERATION OF A RETAIL STORE. IT'S NOT ITS OWN SEPARATE THING. IT'S JUST PART OF OTHER LAND USES. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THE MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE PATH THAT THE COLONY HAS TAKEN. I BELIEVE THAT ALLEN HAS ALSO TAKEN. THAT A DRONE IS A ROTARY WING AIRCRAFT, THEREFORE A DRONE IS A HELICOPTER. THEREFORE YOU NEED AN SUP FOR A HELIPAD IN ORDER TO OPERATE A DRONE HUB. THOSE ARE THE THREE FLAVORS IN TEXAS AND AT THE MOMENT COLLEGE STATION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS DEFINED IT AS A DISTINCT LAND USE AND WE WOULD BE THE SECOND. >> Lisle: SO WE'RE FOLLOWING THE AGGIES? >> I'M NOT FROM TEXAS, SO DON'T BLAME ME. >> Lisle: THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: ONLY AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? HE SAID AFTER WE'RE DONE. THANK YOU, DREW. APPRECIATE IT. >> JORDAN. >> Chair Downs: MR. CARY, GO AHEAD. . >> Cary: I THINK THE WORK WE HAVE DONE ON THIS IS WELL DONE BUT AS I LOOK AT THIS WHOLE THING -- I THINK DRONE DELIVERY WILL BE IMPORTANT AND I SOMEWHAT ECHO -- >> WAIT A MINUTE. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE APPLICANTS YET. PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY GUYS. WE RATTLED ON FOR 30 MINUTES. I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS? I DIDN'T THINK WE DID. >> WE DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS WHO WOULD LIKE T ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T THINK THEY WERE ON THE LIST ORIGINALLY, WERE THEY? >> FIRST IS KINDLE PROSACK AND NEXT IS ERIC BREMMER. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. I LITERALLY MOVED ON. >> HI. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I'M AVAILABLE. HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> Chair Downs: YOU'RE A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT IS WHAT YOU ARE. >> YES, I KNOW. >> Chair Downs: SO YOU D'T VE A PRESENTATION? >> NO. >> MR. BREMMER, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? >> NO, JUST AVAILABLE FOR COMMENTS QUESTIONS CONCERNS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: SO MR. LISLE HAS A QUESTION AND MR. BROUNOFF HAS A QUESTION. WHO DO YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION OF? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: WHO FEELS LIKE STANDING UP? COME ON UP. >> Lisle: CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR 30-SECOND OR THREE-MINUTE THOUGHTS ON IF YOU PLAN TO FOLLOW THIS, IF YOU THINK YOU'RE PREEMPTED, WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT IT, WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT? >> LADIES FIRST. >> YEAH, OF COURSE. IDEALLY WE WOULDN'T WANT THE ORDINANCE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. BUT JORDAN HAS BEEN REALLY GREAT TO WORK WITH SO FAR SO WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE COMMUNICATION. STAFF HAS BEEN REALLY RECEPTIVE, COMING OUT TO THE SITE, SEEING EVERYTHING, ASKING THE QUESTIONS AS WELL AS YOU ALL ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. I THINK FOR US THE TWO HARDEST THINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IN THE ORDINANCE IS THE SCREENING BECAUSE WE HAVE SCREENING OVER OUR TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREA. YOU'LL HEAR FROM DRONE UP IN A SECOND BUT WE HAVE THAT THERE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AND SECURITY SO PEOPLE CAN'T JUST WALK UP TO AN ACTIVE FLIGHTLINE. WITH THE MASONRY, THAT WOULD BE USED NORMALLY IN PLANO, THAT IS OUR BIGGEST CONCERN. THAT POSES A HUGE ISSUE FOR US TO HAVE OUR OPERATIONS RUN PROPERLY THEN. SO THAT'S OUR BIGGEST ISSUE. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS ALSO -- WENT RIGHT OUT OF MY HEAD. WELL, THAT'S IT. YEAH, SQUARE FOOTAGE. THANK YOU. THE LITTLE ELM NEST THAT JORDAN HAD BROUGHT UP, THAT WAS ABOUT 1900 SQUARE FEET AND WE ONLY HAVE SIX PADS AT THAT LOCATION. SO TO HAVE IT DOWN TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST TWO DRONES. IT WOULD BE A VERY INCREDIBLY SMALL OPERATION. LIKELY WE WOULD NOT HAVE SOMETHING THAT SMALL UNLESS WE WERE ABLE TO SHARE WITH MULTIPLE VENDORS AT THAT LOCATION. >> Chair Downs: GO AHEAD. >> I WOULD AGREE. OUR TWO MAJOR CONCERNS ALSO INCLUDE SCREENING AS WELL AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AVAILABLE SPACE. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR OPERATING FACILITY IN PLANO, IT SITS ON EIGHT PARKING SPACES, WHICH MATH TELLS ME THAT'S 1700, 1800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE SMALLEST WE COULD EVER CONSIDER FOR A TEMPORARY OPERATION. WHEN WE BRING OUR PERMANENT STRUCTURES IN THAT ARE PURPOSE-BUILT MODULAR STRUCTURES, WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE LIKE 5,000 OR 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT TO TEN OR MORE TAKEOFF AND LANDING PADS. >> Chair Downs: SO THE ORDINANCE READS 10% OF THE LOT OR 1,000 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. BUT IN THOSE LOCATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE 18, 1900 SQUARE FEET, I THINK THE NUMBER THAT CAME UP WAS THAT'S 2%. WE COULD GO UP TO 10. YOU COULD HAVE UP TO 19,000 SQUARE FEET POTENTIALLY IN THAT LOCATION WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH ROOM TO OPERATE A PRETTY LARGE FACILITY, I WOULD THINK. SO THE 1,000 FOO COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, IS IT MEANINGFUL OR IS IT NECESSARY? >> I DO GET CONCERNED ABOUT SMALLER OPERATIONS. WE HAVE CRUMBLE COOKIE, ANYONE THAT OCCUPIES A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STORE FRONT WON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PLATFORM OR SYSTEM WITHOUT THE ENTIRE COMPLEX SIGNING UP AND BEING A CLIENT BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ENTIRE COMPLEX TO BUILD A MEANINGFUL FACILITY. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR PRESENTATION EARLIER THAT YOU'RE NOT CHARGING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT CAN GO ON FOREVER. IS SOMEONE OPERATING A 2,000 FOOT CRUMBLE COOKIE OPERATION GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD YOU AT THE POINT WHERE YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO OPERATE THERE? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: I AGREE BUT I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IF IT'S 10%, IT'S 10% AND IS THERE GOING TO BE ENOUGH DEMAND. I'M ALSO A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT YOU HAVE A FACILITY LIKE THIS IN ONE CORNER. YOU WIND UP WITH FOUR DIFFERENT PADS GOING BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING ONE, THEY'RE DOING ONE. THEY'RE DOING IT WITH WING. THEY'RE DOING IT WITH DRONE UP. AND YOU WIND UP WH FOUR OF THESE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THIS ARRANGEMENT ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT COULD BECOME PROBLEMATIC. SO MR. BRONSKY, QUESTION? >> Bronsky: SO MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF RELATED TO A COMMENT THEY MADE. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE MASONRY SCREENING BEING A PROBLEM FOR THE TAKEOFF AND LANDING BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE REMOVED THAT. AM I RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> THE PROPOSAL AT THE LAST MEETING WAS SCREENING ONLY OF THE STORAGE AREA, NOT T TAKEOFF AND LANDING. >> Bronsky: OKAY. TO BOTH OF YOU, NOW THAT WE'VE REMOVED THAT FROM THE OPERATIONS OF WHERE THE DRONES ARE TAKING OFF FROM, ARE YOU ACCEPTABLE WITH THE OTHER SCREENING THAT WE'VE PUT IN THIS? >> YES. >> I'D STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CURRENT OPERATING FACILITY THAT EXISTS OF A TRAILER WITH A GENERATOR AND 4x6. THEY CURRENTLY SIT IN A SINGLING PARKING SPACE AND BUILDING MASONRY SCREENING OR LIVE SCREENING OVER A SINGLING PARKING SPACE FEELS ODD, WOULD BE THE WORD THAT I USED. SO IF WE REMOVED THAT AS A REQUIREMENT, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF THIS AFTERNOON FOR, YOU KNOW, HAVING UP TO A 22-FOOT TRAILER OR A SINGLING STRUCTURE. I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK. BUT IF I'VE GOT TO PUT A MASONRY SCREEN UP FOR A 4x6 BOX TRAILER AND A GENERATOR OF SIMILAR SIZE IN A SINGLE PARKING SPACE, THAT WOULD BE TOUGH. >> Bronsky: YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT SMALL. >> CORRECT. >> Bronsky: SO IN A FUTURE STATE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT. >> CORRECT. I'M AS CONCERNED ABOUT TODAY AS I AM TOMORROW. >> Bronsky: I TOTALLY GET THAT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT AS BEST WE CAN IN BOTH WAYS. >> SURE. APPRECIATE THAT. >> Chair Downs: MRRATLF. >> Ratliff: SO NOW I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD THIS. I THOUGHT WE ELIMINATED ALL SCREENING. >> THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO EXEMPT ONE TRAILER AND ONE STORAGE CONTAINER FROM THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. >> Ratliff: SO WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS ONE TRAILER AND SAYING THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR HIM BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS. IT SAYS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO SCREEN THAT, CORRECT? >> I'M GOING BACK TO THE COMMENTS EARLIER THIS EVENING THAT UNDID THAT DECISION. >> Ratliff: WE HAVEN'T UNDONE ANYTHING. THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. THE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE IS THAT WOULDN'T BE SCREENED. WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS PLEASE DON'T ADD IT BACK. >> PLEASE. >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: I GOT THAT. BACK TO YOUR OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE 1,000 SQUARE FEET -- I'M GOING TO USE YOUR CRUMBLE COOKIE AS AN EXAMPLE AND IT IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE THAT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE OWN THEIR OWN LOT. THEY'RE USUALLY A PART OF A STRIP CENTER. THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR STAFF, TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. IT'S 10% OF THE LOT AREA, NOT OF THE INDIVIDUAL USER CONTRACTING WITH THEM. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? >>ORRECT. IT READS 10% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA. >> Ratliff: SO IF YOU'RE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER THAT SITS ON A 10-ACRE CORNER, THEY CAN USE AN ACRE OF IT, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE SIZE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. >> IT'S LIMITED TO 10% OR 1,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IN THAT CASE THE 1,000 SQUARE FEET. >> Chair Downs: NO, 10% IS GREATER THAN 1,000. >> YOU ARE CORRECT. I APOLOGIZE. >> Chair Downs: IT'S LATE. IT'S VERY LATE. >> Ratliff: THAT ADDRESSES THEIR CONCERN. A DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IN ONE OF THESE STOREFRONT BUSINESSES BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A PARKING LOT ANYWAY, THEY DON'T HAVE A BUILDING. THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE ON THE ROOF ANYHOW. >> AS LONG AS THE LOT IS DEFINED AS THE ENTIRE PARCEL AND NOT THE BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD BE PARTNERED WITH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY. >> Ratliff: THAT'S THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS ON A LEGAL LOT SO IT'S NOT ON THE USER, IT'S ON THE LOT. SO I HOPE THAT ADDRESSES -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS, THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE SCREENING ISSUE. WE HAVE ADDSSED THE SMALL SITE ISSUE, IF YOU HAVE A SMALL RETAIL CUSTOMER. AND SO THOSE WERE YOUR -- BOTH OF Y'ALL, THOSE WERE YOUR TWO ISSUES. WITH THAT SAID, ARE WE GOOD? >> DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> Ratliff: NO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR CONCERNS. WITH THOSE SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOOD. >> YES. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO I HAVE -- NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS BUT OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF. IN SOME CASES, THERE ARE LOTS ON AREAS -- THEY'RE DIVIDED. I'M THINKING OF THE CORNER AT CUSTER AND PARKER, THE NORTHWEST CORNER. THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT OR FOUR DIFFERENT LOTS THAT ALL MEET TOGETHER THERE. AND SO FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE THREE DIFFERENT DRONE DELIVERY COMPANIES ALL WITHIN A VERY SMALL AREA OF EACH OTHER ON THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL, SINCE IT'S THREE DIFFERENT PARCELS MAKING UP THAT CORNER? >> TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OPERATORS ON A SITE. IT ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY REQUIRED BUFFER DISTANCES BETWEEN OPERATORS TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. YES, YOU COULD END UP WITH A DIFFERENT OPERATOR OPERATING THEIR OWN TAKEOFF AND DRONE STAGING AREA ON THREE LOTS ALL RIGHT BESIDE EACH OTHER AND THAT WOULD BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH OUR ORDINANCE. >> Bronsky: I HAD A SECOND QUESTION BUT IT COMPLETELY LEFT ME. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO FROM HERE? I THINK WE DETERMINED THAT THE NEW ORDANCE IS -- >> PUBLIC HEARING. >> Chair Downs: AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE SPEAKING. SOMEBODY ELSE WANT TO SIT HERE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOT A CHANCE. OKAY. >> YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. >> Chair Downs: YEAH, UH-HUH. IT'S 9:30. ALL RIGHT. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: I KNOW. OKAY. MR. CARY. >> Cary: I'D LIKE TO GO BACK BEFORE -- >> Chair Downs: YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS. >> Cary: I DO. A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE BEEN ID. SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT WE'RE BEING EARLY IN THE PROCESS HERE. THIS IS A QUICKLY-DEVELOPING INDUSTRY. AND SO I THINK THOSE THINGS MATTER. AS I LOOK AT THIS, THE ONE THING THAT MATTERS TO ME -- AND THE LADY TALKED ABOUT SCREENING OFF THE LANDING AREA. AFTER VISITING ONE OF THESE -- NOT A MASONRY SCREENING BUT FOR SAFETY. TO ME, I THINK WE'RE TOO EARLY ON THIS AND I HOPE THAT'S NOT INSULTING TO THE STAFF THAT'S DONE A GREAT JOB. BUT THIS IS ALL MOVING SO FAST AND I DO THINK WE MAY BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW. I KNOW I SHOULD HAVE SAID IT SIX MONTHS AGO BUT AS I HAVE LEARNED MORE ABOUT THIS I'M NOT SEEING THE DEMAND FOR US DOING THIS AND, OH, BY THE WAY, WE'RE GOING TO BE THE FIRST CITY IN TEXAS TO DO IT AND SOMETIMES IT'S NOT GREAT TO BE THE FIRST TO DO THINGS. AND SO MY COMMENTS ARE I JUST -- OTHER THAN MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S A SAFETY ELEMENT TO PEOPLE WALKING INTO THESE DRONE DELIVERY AREAS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO PRESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS RIGHT NOW. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS A NEW AND EMERGING INDUSTRY. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT YET HAVE THE BENEFIT OF EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO WRITE A PERFECT ORDINANCE. WHAT IS OPEN FOR US TO DO RIGHT NOW, HOWEVER, IS NOT TO FALL BEHIND THE CURVE OF THE FUTURE BECAUSE THIS I AN EMERGING INDUSTRY WHICH WILL TAKE OFF AND IS GOING TO GAIN TRACTION NATIONWIDE AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO BE LEFT BEHIND. WE COULD SPEND ALL NIGHT, ALL WEEK, ALL MONTH, ALL YEAR TRYING TO NIT-PICK THIS PROPOSAL AND IN THE PROCESS NIT-PICK IT TO DEATH UNTIL WE'VE GOT NOTHING. WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF PARALYZING OURSELVES WITH TRYING TO GUESS AT WHAT A PERFECT ORDINANCE WOULD BE. MY SUGGESTION IS WE PASS IT AS IS AND GAIN THE BENEFIT OF EXPERIENCE. LET THESE PEOPLE GET THEIR BUSINESS UNDERWAY, GET SOME DRONES OPERATING, OBSERVE THE RESULTS, AND BASED ON OUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESULTS, IF THE ORDINANCE THEN NEEDS TWEAKING WE CAN DO IT AND WE'LL HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE ON WHICH TO BASE THE TWEAKS. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE. I THINK THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS PASS THIS, LET IT GO, SEE WHERE IT GOES, AND THEN IF IT WORKS, FINE. WE'LL LEAVE IT ALONE. IF IT DOESN'T, WE CAN THEN CHANGE IT. WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING, WE POINTED OUT LAST TIM THAT DRONE DELIVERY SERVICES TAKE CARS OFF THE ROADS AND THEREFORE OUT OF PARKING SPACES. WE WOULD NOT NEED AS MANY PARKING SPACES, GIVEN A DRONE DELIVERY SERVICE. THE BUSINESSES THAT WOULD HAVE TO SET UP STAGING AREAS WOULD HAVE TO DO IT ON WHAT ARE NOW PARKING SPACES SO THERE'S A LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN GIVING US THE DISCRETION TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, BASED UPON THE REDUCTION OF DEMAND FOR PARKING AND THE NEED OF THE BUSINESS TO TAKE EXISTING PARKING SPACES AND DIVERT IT TO DRONE USE. I THINK THAT THE MAXIMUM -- THE GREATER OF 10% OF THE LOT AREA OR 1,000 FEET IS AN ADEQUATE STARTING AMOUNT OF AREA. IF IT NEEDS TO BE INCREASED LATER, WE CAN INCREASE IT LATER. I'M ALSO WONDERING WHETHER WITH REGARD TO THE DRONE DELIVERY HUBSMALLWHICH CAN IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS, WHETHER THAT RESTRICTION WOULD APPLY BECAUSE IT WOULD NOW BE A PRIMARY USE AND NOT MERELY AN ACCESSORY USE. IF IT WOULDN'T APPLY, THERE WOULD BE LAND USES IN WHICH THAT WOULDN'T EVEN APPLY AND THEY COULD TAKE THE WHOLE LOT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE AS IS, IT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: CONCUR WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF JUST STATED. HAVING BEEN PART OF AN INDUSTRY CURRENTLY WHERE LAND IS A CRITICAL INPUT AND THE TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED SO RAPIDLY WITH THE ADVENT OF A.I., WHEN I'M PLANNING FIVE YEARS OUT I WOULD APPRECIATE CLARITY OF HOW I CAN USE THAT INPUT. SO BEING FIRST DOES NOT SCARE ME AT ALL. ONE. TWO, I'M NOT GOING TO DELUDE MYSELF INTO THINKING THAT I CAN -- I HAVE THE PLANNING SKILLS AND/OR THE FORESIGHT OF HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO EVOLVE IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS TO BE ABLE TO WRITE A PERFECT ORDINANCE. THIS FEELS GOOD ENOUGH AND I THINK THE APPROACH STAFF TOOK IN INCORPORATING, HOWEVER CONFUSING AT TIMES, OUR INPUT AND ESPECIALLY THE OPERATORS' INPUT SHOULD BE COMMENDED AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF'S STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD PASS THIS AS IS. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: KIND OF PIGGYBACKING ON THAT COMMENT. AGAIN, IN MY INDUSTRY, REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY IS AS BAD AS REGULATORY CERTAINTY AND IF YOU'RE IN THE WILD WILD WEST WITH REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY, YOU MIGHT MAKE DIFFERENT BUSINESS DECISIONS NOT KNOWING IF DAY AFTER TOMORROW YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT ANYMORE. AND SO I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF HAVING SOME REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CERTAINTY FOR THESE OPERATORS TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO DO AND WHAT THEY'RE WALKING INTO. AND IT GIVES ME SOME COMFORT TO HAVE THE TWO OF THEM STAND AT THE MICROPHONE AND WE CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED THEIR ISSUES. THAT THERE AREN'T ANY DEAL KILLERS OUT THERE THAT ARE GOING TO KEEP THEM FROM COMING TO PLANO. WHAT ALSO GIVES ME A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IS THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE FOR DECADES PLANO HAS BEEN A LEADERN DEVELOPING THIS EXA TYPE OF ORDINANCE. BEING ON THE FRONT EDGE OF FIGURING OUT THESE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS AND THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE GREAT JOB THAT THE PLANO STAFF HAS DONE FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER OF NOT SHYING AWAY FROM THESE HARD PROBLEMS. AND SOLVING THEM. I WILL PREDICT FOR YOU THAT YOU WILL SEE THIS ORDINANCE DUPLICATED IN, IF NOT DOZENS, HUNDREDS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE BEFORE THIS IS OVER, BECAUSE OUR STAFF HAS DONE THIS DEEP DIVE, HARD WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE IN SUCH AN EXCELLENT MANNER. AND SO WITH THAT SAID, I FALL ON THE SIDE OF PROVIDING THIS INDUSTRY REGULATORY CERTAINTY AND FRAMEWORK THAT I'M CONFIDENT THE STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB DEFINING AND I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THAT CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN MOVE INTO PLANO AND KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE. WITH THAT SAID, I'M ALL FOR THIS. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I FIND MYSELF UNABLE TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE, MERELY FOR THE INCONSISTENC IN THE OPEN STORAGE RESTRICTIONS. AND WHILE I MAY, IN THE LAST MEETING, HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE PROPONENTS FOR REDUCING THEM, REDUCING THEM JUST FOR SOMEBODY AND NOT FOR EVERYBODY DOESN'T WORK FOR ME. WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE TODAY, WE HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR RESTAURANTS. IT'S NOT OPEN STORAGE IF THEY STORE FIREWOOD. WE HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR RESTAURANTS, YOU CAN HAVE A TRAILER OUTSIDE AS LONG AS THERE'S RESTRICTIONS THAT GO WITH IT. FOR PEOPLE WITH COLLECTION UNITS, I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN HAVE A STORAGE CONTAINER FOR A COLLECTION UNIT, LIKE AT A TOM THUMB OR SOMETHING, IF IT'S ONE CONTAINER. IS THAT CLOSE? >> [OFF MIC] >> Lisle: YEAH. NOW, IF YOU'RE OPERATING DRONES, WELL, THERE'S NO THREAT TO HAVE A STORAGE CONTAINER AND A TRAILER. AND SO I WENT BACK TO JULY 24TH MEETING AND THERE'S A PIE GRAPH THAT TALKS ABOUT OPEN STORAGE RESTRICTIONS AND WHY WE HAVE THEM AND IT'S HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. AND SO THE BULLET POINTS HERE ARE VISUAL APPEANCE, NUISANCES, AND POLLUTION. YOU'VE GOT SOME YOUNG BUSINESS OWNER TRYING TO RUN A CONSTRUCTION OR LANDSCAPE COMPANY AND THEY GO THROUGH WALMART'S PARKING LOT AND THERE'S A 20-FOOT SHIPPING CONTAINER THERE OR A 20-FOOT TRAILER AND THEY THINK, OH, MAN, I'M IN THE CLEAR. AND THEY RENT A LITTLE OFFICE BUILDING SOMEWHERE AND THEY THINK THEY CAN PUT A SHIPPING CONTAINER OUT THERE AND A TRAILER NEXT TO IT AND THERE'S NO BASIS FOR DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WHAT WE ALLOW AND SAY IS NOT A THREAT AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS TO COME AND ENFORCE ON SOMEBODY ELSE. AND SO IT'S JUST COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT. FOR THAT REASON I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS TONIGHT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE STAFF MEMBERS. BECAUSE I REALIZE THAT WE MAY HAVE GIVEN YOU CONFUSING INSTRUCTIONS WITHOUT US REALIZING WHAT WE DID. BUT WE REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. IT'S A TREMENDOUS WORK AND WORKING WITH THE VENDOR AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EVERYTHING, SO IT WAS A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR DOING EVERYTHING. AND I CONCUR OR WANT TO SAY, AGAIN, AGREE TO MOST OF OUR COMMISSIONERS SAID TONIGHT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES TO DO THIS, SINCE IT'S A FAST-DEVELOPING INDUSTRY AND THEY NEED US TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. WE PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO NEW THINGS COMING TO THE CITY. AS AITY OF EXCELLENCE. WE NEED TO DO THIS. THE ONLY THINGS -- THE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULDN'T AGREE ON THIS PROPOSAL IS THE ONE THING THE COMMISSIONER LISLE MENTIONED ABOUT THE SCREENING AROUND THE STORAGE OR THE CONTAINER OR TRAILER. I'M OPPOSED TO THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THAT EXCEPTION. REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE THE SCREENING ON A TRAILER OR CONTAINER IN AN OPEN AREA. THAT'S JUST BEING CONSISTEN AND ALSO KIND OF FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S A BIG CHANGE. PLUS WE DON'T HAVE -- RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO THE STAFF, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RULES TO REGULATE THEM TO HAVE MULTIPLE VENDORS OR OPERATORS IN THE SAME CORNER. AND EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS A TRAILER ON THE CORNER, THEN OUR CORNER SHOPPING CENTERS OR AREA, WE DON'T KNOW THERE ARE THREE LOTS THERE. WE JUST SEE, AS A CITIZEN, AT THE CORNER IT USED TO BE A NICE SHOING CENTER OR DIFFERENT BUILDINGS. NOW WE HAVE THREE PARCELS AND THREE OPERATORS AND THREE TRAILERS. I DO NOT AGREE TO THAT. THAT'S ONE THING. THE SECOND THING IS REGARDING THE SCREENING ON THE ROOFTOP. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A DEAL BREAKER BUT I THINK IF THEY ARE GOING TO OPERATE ON THE ROOFTOP ANYWAY, HAVING THAT SCREENING OR NOT HAVING THAT SCREENING DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM AND WHY PUT AN EXCEPTION THERE WHEN WE DON'T NEED IT? SO BASED ON THOSE TWO THINGS, I'M OPPOSING TO THE PROPOSAL. >> SO, COMMISSION, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF NOT REGULATING AND JUST GIVING THEM FREE REIN TO DO WHAT THEY WISH, RIGHT NOW THERE'S AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING. SO YOU WOULD WANT TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE TO SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THEM RATHER THAN JUST DOING NOTHING. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO I'M REALLY TORN ON THIS BECAUSE I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING TO THE OPERATORS, AND THEY FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOI. I ORIGINALLY WAS IN THE COURT WHERE MR. CARY SITS BUT I'M REALLY FEELING MOVED IN THE DIRECTION OF WE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE. HOWEVER, I THINK MR. LISLE MAKES A POINT AND MS. TONG, I AGREE. AT THE CORNER OF CUSTER AND PARKER ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER, WE COULD SEE THREE DIFFERENT DELIVERY COMPANIES, THREE DIFFERENT STORAGE CONTAINERS AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. THE IDEA THAT THAT POSSIBILITY -- AND THAT COULD BE ALL OVER THE CITY. AND SO I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE WAY THAT IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN WITH THAT. THAT SAID, I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE IN IT IS GOOD AND I THINK I COULD SUPPORT IT OTHERWISE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO CAN I SAY A FEW WORDS, MR. OLLEY? IN TERMS OF GETTING OUT IN FRONT OF THIS, KEEP IN MIND THAT WE DO HAVE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE REACHED OUT AND UNHAPPY ABOUT DRONES FLYING AND CONCERNED ABOUT DRONES FLYING OVER THEIR HOUSES. AND THEY HAVE A BELIEF THAT, OH, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. I THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO BE TAKING ACTION, AS A CITY, FOR THE CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND THAT, HEY, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND WE ARE FOLLING E RES AND WE ARE CREATING SOME GUIDELINES FOR THE OPERATION OF THESE. SO I THINK IT'S WORTH GETTING OUT THERE. WE TEND TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF, OH, NO, THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE THREE OPERATORS ALL NEEDING 22-FOOT STORAGE CONTAINERS AND TRAILERS WITH GENERATORS IN THAT ONE CORNER BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A DEMAND FOR IT IN TERMS OF THE RETAIL THERE, WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT ACTIVE RIGHT NOW. I GUESS -- I'LL ASK THIS QUESTION OF STAFF REAL QUICK. OUR DEFINITION OF SCREENING HAS BEEN HAS BEEN A MASONRY WALL OR LIVING SCREEN. IS THERE ANOTHER TYPE OF SCREENING THAT COULD BE PUT UP? IS IT 8-FOOT CHAIN LINK WITH THE STUFF ON IT? AND IS THAT ANY PRETTIER THAN JUST THE CONTAINER, RIGHT? IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR AN OPERATOR TO COME IN AND BUILD A MASONRY SCREENING WALL AND BUILD A LIVE SCREEN WHEN THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE IN NINE MONTHS OR A YEAR BECAUSE OF DEMAND IN THAT LOCATION. >> Bronsky: OR IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT. >> Chair Downs: OR IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT. ARE THERE OTHER SCREENING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE COULD USE THAT MIGHT FUNCTION, THAT THEN MIGHT HELP SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WON'T BE JUST AN EMPTY OR A CONTAINER SITTING IN A PARKING LOT? >> IT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD EXPLORE. IN TERMS OF WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S EITHER REFORCED MASONRY WALL OR AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN. IT DOES SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT THAT WOODEN FENCES AND CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS CANNOT BE USED AS SCREENING. THOSE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE AS SCREENING WALLS. I BELIEVE THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE BUT I GUESS IF STAFF WERE DIRECTED TO LOOK AT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN GENERAL, SINCE THAT IS ITS OWN ARTICLE IN THE ORDINANCE FOR OPEN STORAGE, WHICH, AGAIN, IS ITS OWN ARTICLE IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD POSSIBLY TAKE AWAY. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> WE DO HAVE, IN THE STAFF REPORT, TWO ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR SCREENING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED. SO ONE OF THEM IS FOR JUST A SECURE METAL FENCE. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY DRAFTED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE AN OPTION. BUT AGAIN CONSISTENCY CONVERSATION. >> Chair Downs: SO LET'S TAKE THIS PATH. I MOVE WE ACCEPT THETAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ORDINANCE AND REGULATION OF DRONE OPERATION AS PRESENTED. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A SECOND -- WE HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY. LET'S SEE IF THIS WILL FLY. IF IT FLIES, GOOD. IF NOT, THEN WE'LL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AND FIGURE OUT WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. SO PLEASE VOTE. THAT IS 4-4. NO ACTION. OKAY. CAN WE CHAE THIS TO APPROVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS FOR SECURITY AND AESTHETICS AROUND THE CONTAINER AND TRAILER OPERATIONS? I KNOW THOSE CAN BE PUT UP RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVELY. THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE TO BE PERMANENT. IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE WITHOUT CHANGING THE SCREENING ORDINANCE? YES? NO? ANYONE? LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN ANSWER THIS. >> I'M GOING TO SUGGEST TO THE TEAM OVER HERE -- I KNOW THEY'RE HUDDLING OVER THERE. THE REQUIREMENT FOR WHEN LOCATED AT GRADE, THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECON OPEN STORAGE EXCEPT THAT CHAIN LINK IS A PERMITTED MATERIAL OR CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS. >> Chair Downs: CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS. THE IDEA IS TO SHIELD IT VERSUS JUST BEING A SECURITY FEATURE. BEFORE WE GO TOO MUCH FURTHER DOWN THAT PATH, MR. BRONSKY, WOULD THAT MEET YOUR NEED FOR SOME TE OF SHIELDING? >> Bronsky: I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THEY HAD SOME OPTIONS AS TO WHAT THEY CAN PUT IN THERE. >> Chair Downs: WELL, OUR OPTIONS ARE -- >> Bronsky: I'M WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM THEM BUT IT COULD. >> Chair Downs: IF CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS IS AN OPTION. >> THAT'S TEMPORARY. >> I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S NOT THE MOST AESTHETIC. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANOTHER OPTION, THOUGH? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE STUCK. >> WROUGHT IRON METAL IS TYPICALLY THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S AN ARM AND A LEG. >> Broky: MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE PERMANENCY IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT. THE HONEST TRUTH IS I DON'T THINK THAT MOST OF THESE ARE GOING TO OPERATE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT BUT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE CONCRETE STRUCTURES IN THE MIDDLE OF A WALMART PARKING LOT. >> Chair Downs: AGREED BUT YOU WANT THE CONTAINER SHIELDED? >> CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? JUST AN IDEA. I THINK WE TYPICALLY SHY AWAY FROM THIS. THERE ARE TEMPORARY USES WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE LIKE A CONSTRUCTION YARD, A SERVN YARD. AND SO BECAUSE THIS IS SO UP AND COMING, WHAT IF WE MADE IT A TEMPORARY USE, KNOWING IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REVISED. BUT THEN WE HAVE A WAY IN 12 OR 24 MONTHS TO SAY, OKAY, NOW IT'S GOT TO STOP AND WE'RE GOING TO EDIT IT AT THAT POINT TO AS WE GET MORE INFORMATION, WE JUST MAKE IT A TEMPORARY USE. IT'S JUST AN IDE >> Ratliff: I WAS KIND OF GOING DOWN THE SAME PATH. WHAT MY QUESTION IS FOR THE STAFF, WE HAVE SEASONAL OUTDOOR STORAGE TODAY, RIGHT? GO TO ANY GROCERY STORE AND THEY'VE GOT A FENCED OFF AREA WITH BAGS OF MULCH. >> Lisle: IT'S CALLED MERCHANDISE DISPLAY. >> Ratliff: WHAT IS THE ALLOWABLE DURATION OF THAT IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE? WHILE THEY LOOK THAT UP, I'LL ASK MY QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE I'M LEADING. BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH AN EMERGING CONCEPT, SUCH AN EMERGING BUSINESS, IF WE SAID WHATEVER THAT DURATION IS -- AND I'M GOING TO SAY IT'S SIX MONTHS. IF WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF ESTABLISHING A DRONE OPERATION IN A CERTAIN LOCATION, THEY MUST THEN BUILD PERMANENT SCREENING. BECAUSE IF THEY'VE GOT A NEW CLIENT AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A TEMPORARY OPERATION UP, WITHIN SIX MONTHS THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO GO OR NOT. AT THAT POINT THEY'VE GOT TO MAKE A COMMITMENT, UP OR OUT. WE'RE GOING TO BE PERMANENT HERE. >> Chair Downs: YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO 12 MONTHS. >> Bronsky: IOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT BUT I WOULD PROBABLY WANT IT TO BE MINIMUM 12 TO 24 MONTHS. BUT I COULD DEFINITELY DO THAT. >> PERHAPS THERE'S ANOTHER SUGGESTION, LIKE WITH THE PARKING. WE CAN PUT IT AT P&Z'S DISCRETION TO WAIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE SITE PLAN. >> Bronsky: I COULD DEFINITELY DO THAT. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. >> Bronsky: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> Lisle: THAT DOESN'T GET US AROUND MY MAIN PROBLEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENCY. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTOOD. >> Lisle: THE LITTLE CONSTRUCTION GUY THAT RENTS AN NTAINER AND ARAIL OUTUT A THERE, HE'S GOING TO GET THE LAW BROUGHT DOWN ON HIM AND HE'S GOING TO GO RIGHT THERE THEY DO IT AND IT'S ALLOWED? WHERE'S THE CONSISTENCY? >> Chair Downs: IT'S ALLOWED TEMPORARILY. >> Lisle: THEN HE'S GOING TO WATCH THIS AND KNOW IT WASN'T ME. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT MOTION TO READ? MOVE WE APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NO REQUIRED SCREENING IS GOOD FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS? >> Olley: REMOVING THE TIMELINE AND PUT IT AT P&Z'S DISCRETION. >> Ratliff: SCREENING MAY BE WAIVED AT P&Z'S DISCRETION. >> Chair Downs: WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH COUNCIL. >> SORRY. IN SECTION 19.200, ITEM 7, IT IS ALREADY STATED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY WAIVE THESE REQUIREMENTS IF NO PUBLIC PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REQUIRED SCREEN. >> Cir Dns: SO IT'S ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE? >> WHICH IS WHAT WE DID FOR THE CITY. >> ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION, THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF PLACING THOSE CONTAINERS BEHIND A PRIMARY BUILDING. SO IF HAVING A SCREENING WALL OR LIVING SCREENING IS NOT AN OPTION BEHIND A PRIMARY BUILDING WOULD BE AN OPTION. >> Lisle: MY UNDERSTANDING OF ARTICLE 19 IS THAT THERE'S SPECIFIC THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR US TO EXEMPT IT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WHAT IS THE QUESTION? >> Lisle: MY UNDERSTANDING IN ARTICLE 19 IS THAT THERE'S SPECIFIC REASONS -- LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT IT DOESN'T SERVE ANY USE. THAT THE SCREENING ISN'T REQUIRED BECAUSE OF AN ELEVATION CHANGE. IT'S THE SAME PROVISION THAT WE WROTE IN TO EXEMPT, I DON'T KNOW, 125 FEET OF LIVING SCREEN OVER AT LEGACY AND ALMA. BUT THERE IT MET ARTICLE 19, WHICH IS WHY I RECOMMENDED IT. BUT PUTTING IT RIGHT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN ARTICLE 19. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Lisle: IT'S THERE BUT IT'S NOT THERE, RIGHT? IT'S THERE BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS SITUATION. >> I THINK IT COULD BE -- IT COULD BE A MORE DIFFICULT DECISION BECAUSE OF THE WORDING IN THE CURRENT ARTICLE. >> Lisle: IF WE FOLLOWED THE WORDING THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DENY IT. WE WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE THE SCREENING. >> SO AN OPTION MIGHT BE TO JUST GO THE PATH OF ADDING THE ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION WITHIN THE DRONE STANDARDS. WITH APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN, VERY SIMILAR TO THAT 10% PARKING REDUCTION. P&Z HAS THE DISCRETION SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE TIED IN THE SAME WAY THAT ARTICLE 19 IS TO THE PUBLIC PURPOSE. >> Chair Downs: YES. IT'S A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH WITHIN THE ORDINANCE GIVING P&Z THE OPPORTUNITY TO WAIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. >> BASED ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS DISCUSSION, WOULD IT BE WISE FOR THESE GUYS TO DO SOME WORK AND COME BACK TO US WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION? ULTIMATELY I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO VOTE BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE AND IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT WE'RE DOING AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S WISE TONIGHT. I SUGGEST WE LET THEM GO BACK TO WORK ON THE CHALLENGES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AS OPPOSED TO CRAMMING THIS THROUGH TONIGHT. >> Lisle: I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND LET STAFF CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT AND BRING IT BACK. >> Chair Downs: WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE HAD A VOTE. >> Lisle: SO NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION AND A SECOND. >> Chair Downs: SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY. PLEASE VOTE. LET'S DO THE VOTE AND SEE WHERE WE GO FROM THERE. THAT ITEM FAILS 3-5. I MOVE WE APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION SUBJE TO THE ADDITION O A PARAGRAPH GIVING P&Z THE ABILITY TO WAIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVIEW. >> SECOND. >> AND CAN I CLARIFY? IS THAT WITH THE ORIGINAL OPEN STORAGE SCREENING REQUIREMENT OR THE ONE IN THE DRAFT TONIGHT? >> Chair Downs: THE ONE THAT'S IN THE DRAFT TONIGHT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT RIGHT? >> YES. AGAIN, ALLOWS THE ONE TRAILER AND THE ONE STORAGE CONTAINER WITHOUT ANY SCREENING AT ALL. ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING COULD BE WAIVED BY P&Z. >> Chair Downs: ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING. >> AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT, CHRISTINA? >> I THOUGHT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS HEADED TOWARDS REQUIRING THE SCREENING AND THEN ALLOWING P&Z TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. I'LL CLARIFY THE MOTION THAT THE ORDINANCE WILL REQUIREúSCRED IN OUR STANDARD ORDINANCE. BUT P&Z HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW. IS THAT SUFFICIENT? DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: BASICALLY HERE'S THE THING, GUYS. THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SCREENING. SO WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT FROM IT AND SAY THAT SCREENING IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE MOTION THAT I'M MAKING. AND THEY'RE GOING TO ADJUST THE ORDINANCE TO WAIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS BASED UPON THE OPERATIONS WHERE THEY'RE SET. WHERE'S THAT CONTAINER GOING TO BE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INFORMATION THAT WILL ALLOW US TO WAIVE IT OR NOT WAIVE IT. RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO EITHER REQUIRE THE SCREENING OR WAIVE IT. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: WE'RE DEFAULTING TO SCREENING WITH THE ABILITY TO WAIVE IT AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW. >> Lisle: RIGHT. BUT THE PROBLEM, CHAIRMAN DOWNS, IS THERE'S ALREADY PROVISIONS WITHIN ARTICLE 19 THAT ALLOW US TO WAIVE IT SO WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS TO WAIVE IT FOR THIS, AND THAT'S JUST A MESS. WE WOULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO EXEMPT OURSELVES FROM REQUIRING WHAT WE SAY IS NECESSARY FOR A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. AND FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE A MESS. AM I RIGHT, MR. BELL? WE WOULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO EXEMPT SOMEONE FROM DOING SOMETHING. BECAUSE IF WE FOLLOW THE FIRST STANDARD, THE FIRST STANDARD THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO IT BASED ON THE STANDARD THAT'SHERE >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S MANY PROVISIONS WHERE WE HAVE MULTIPLE STANDARDS. I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS A CONCERN WITH TREATING IT DIFFERENTLY. WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK. >> I SECOND THE MOTION. [LAUGHTER] >> Chair Downs: OH, GOOD GRIEF. WE HAVE A -- NO, WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS DONE TONIGHT. I DON'T CARE IF WE'RE HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT. WE HAVE PUT STAFF THROUGH -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOURS OF THIS GUYS. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT. TO BE CLEAR, THE RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT SAYS TH THERE ARE NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE SCRATCHING THAT FROM THE RECOMMENDATION. THERE ARE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, WE ARE ADDING IN A PARAGRAPH THAT GIVES P&Z THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE SCREENING DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'LL GET TO SEE EVERY INSTANCE THAT COMES FORWARD AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE IS THAT IN THE RIGHT PLACE WHERE IT DOESN'T NEED SCREENING OR IS IT IN A PLACE THAT DOES NEED SCREENING? IS IT A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INSTALLATION? >> Ratliff: CAN WE CLARIFY THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ONLY FOR THE STORAGE PART OF THE INSTALLATION AND NOT THE FLIGHT OPERATIONS PART?& I THINK THAT'S THE PART THAT REALLY GIVES THEM PROBLEMS. >> Chair Downs: WELL, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS, RIGHT, IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCREENING FOR STORAGE NOT FOR OPERATION. >> Ratliff: JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. SECOND AS CLARIFIED. >> IF I CAN ZOOM IN HERE. IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO SEE. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE FROM THE LAST MEETING. WHEN LOCATED AT GRADE, ANY GOODS MATERIALS CONTAINERS TRAILERS, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN STORAGE IN SECTION 19.200. LANDING PADS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT. SO LANDING PADS -- >> Chair Downs: THAT'S COVERED ALREADY THEN. THEY'RE ALREADY EXEMPT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIAL -- >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING WE'RE DOING. WE'RE GOING BACK TO THIS AND THEN WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES THE AUTHORITY AT SITE PLAN REVIEW TO WAIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE. >> SO WE COULD ADD TO THE END OF THAT SOMETHING LIKE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY WAIVE THIS REQUIREMENT WITH APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN. >> OR MODIFY. >> Bronsky: THESE DRONE OPERATING COMPANIES WILL COME BACK TO US WHENEVER THEY'RE READY TO SUBMIT PLANS TO ACTUALLY START OPERATING WITHIN OUR CITY? >> Chair Downs: THAT'S THE IDEA RIGHT? YEAH. THEY'RE GOING TO SET UP A DEAL. THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO SET UP A DRONE OPERATION. BY THE WAY, WE ASKED YOU TO WAIVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PLACE OUR STORAGE CONTAINER BEHIND THE MAIN BUILDING. >> Bronsky: I SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: SO HE ALREADY SECONDED IT. >> Bronsky: OKAY. >> I SECONDED IT. >> Chair Downs: BEFORE WE VOTE, I'M GOING TO ASK OUR LEGAL PERSON, IS THE MOTION CLEAR ENOUGH OR DO YOU WANT ME TO RESTATE IT? >> I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT. IT REALLY HELPED THAT CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN PUT THE LANGGE UP ON THE PROJECTOR. >> Chair Downs: NOW WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE AGAIN. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-2. THANK YOU. DO WE NEED A BREAK? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES. [FIVE-MINUTE BREAK] >> Chair Downs: WE ARE RECONVENED AT 10:14. THANK YOU FOR TURNING MY MIC ON SIR. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-023 - REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 8 (D ARTICLE 15 (USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS), AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANC TO ALLOW TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SHELTERS DURING LIFE-THREATENIN WEATHER EVENTS. PETITIONER: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGI. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CONNOR CAMPBELL AND I'M A PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. TONIGHT WE ARE HERE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW EMERGENCY SHELTERS DURING LIFE-THREATENING WEATHER EVENTS. SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS ISSUE. STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER OF INTENT FROM THE SALVATION ARMY OPERATOR OF THE PLANO OVERNIGHT WARMING STATION TO OPERATE DURING THE DAYTIME HOURS IN THE WINTER. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER AT THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 MEETING. SO SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PLANO OVERNIGHT WARMING STATION REGULATIONS. RIGHT NOW THE PLANO OVERNIGHT WARMING STATION OPERATES UNDER SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT 90 FOR HOUSEHOLD CARE INSTITUTIONS. WITH THAT SUPHERERE A NUMBER OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SERVED AND ITS OPERATING HOURS. RIGHT NOW, AS IT STANDS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEED HAS OUTSTRIPPED THE ALLOWANCES UNDER THAT SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT. AND RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ARE FACED WITH EITHER TURNING INDIVIDUALS AWAY OR BEING NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE THESE CHANGES ARE TO THE TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTERS REGULATIONS. AST EXISTS, TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTERS ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO RELIGIOUS FACILITIES WITH RESTRICTIONS ON THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SERVED AND THEIR OPERATING DAYS. THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO 14 PEOPLE MAXIMUM AND THEY ARE CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE MORE THAN 30 CALENDAR DAYS PER YEAR. SO THE PROPOSED CHANGES. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO EXEMPT THE RESTRICTIONS ON NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND OPERATING DAYS OF TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTERS DURING LIFE-THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS, AS DTERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DURING DECLARED DISASTERS IN THE CITY OF PLANO THAT CREATE A NEED FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING UNTIL SUCH DISASTER STATUS IS RESCINDED. THE RESTRICTIONS DURING NON-EMERGENCY WOULD STAY IN PLACE. YOU WOULD SEE SOME SMALLER CHANGES. RIGHT NOW, AS IT SITS, THE REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTERS SIT IN THE DEFINITION. WE WOULD MOVE THAT TO ARTICLE 15 UNDER USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS, JUST AS BEST PRACTICE. WE ALSO MADE SOME SMALL CHANGES IN SOME OF THE WORDING. YOU'LL SEE WE REMOVED THE WORDS INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS JUST TO ALLOW BROADER INDIVIDUALS TO BE SERVED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THEN WE ALSO REMOVED SOME REDUNDANT LANGUAGE AROUND NONPROFITS TO REDUCE IT TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ONLY. SO STAFF REVIEWED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SHELTER REQUIREMENTS IN A FEW CITIES IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA. DALLAS IRVING AND McKINNEY. THESE ARE CITIES THAT HAVE THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO PLANO OR HAVE MORE ROBUST PROGRAMS AND THERE'S NO ONE CLEAR DIRECTION WHEN IT COMES TO LAND USE POLICIES IN THESE CITIES SO THERE'S NO SET DECISION IN THE AREA. WHEN IT COMES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE COORMANCE WITH THE GUIDING POLICIES, THE LAND USE USE, LAND USE ACTION 1, THE SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING POLICY, AND SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS ACTION 5. THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT POLICY, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTION 3, 4, 6, AND THE SOCIAL SERVICES POLICY. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES TO THIS ZONING CASE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WE APPROVE AS PER THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. JUST QUICKLY. THIS IS FOCUSED PURELY ON EMERGENCY DISASTER DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR, I GUESS, PROBABLY SOMETHING DECLARED BY THE GOVERNOR OR SOMETHING? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: I'M ASSUMING THE GOVERNOR WOULD LEAD THE WAY. >> YEAH, WE'RE THINKING SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE WARMING STATION AND THEN WE'RE ALSO THINKING TO KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR EVENTS LIKE -- SAY A TORNADO COMES TOUGH PLA AND THERE'S A NEED FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING TO ALLOW THESE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES TO OPEN THEIR DOORS TO THESE FOLKS WHO NEED ASSISTANCE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. AND FOR THE STANDARD TEMPORARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THOSE? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: THIS IS ONLY FOR EMERGENCIES. >> THIS IS ONLY FOR EMERGENCIES. THE TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING IS ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE FOR RELIGIOUS USES ALREADY. WE ARE JUST MAKING AN EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES. >> Chair Downs: I WAS ON COUNCIL AND WE SPENT THREE MEETINGS GOING OVER THAT LIMIT . GOOD TO HEAR THAT'S NOT CHANGING. ULTIMATELY, THIS IS MEANT TO BENEFIT CITIZENS OF PLANO IN TIME OF AN EMERGENCY THAT CERTAIN REGULATIONS ARE EASED SO THAT THERE IS MORE ROOM FOR THEM IN EITHER A CHURCH OR THROUGH LIKE THE WARMING STATION OPERATIONS. >> YES, EXACTLY. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. SO THIS IS WHERE I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE. UNDER AN EMERGENCY DECLARATION GOVERNOR OR THE MAYOR OR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ALL OF THIS ANYWAY, CORRECT? >> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. MS. SEBASTIAN, DO YOU HAVE -- >> Chair Downs: GO AHEAD. >> I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE DID UNDER COVID, AND THAT WAS THAT THE COUNCIL GAVE THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ORDINANCES WHEN REQUIRED DURING THE COVID EMERGENCY. I BELIEVE THE MAYOR HAS SOME AUTHORITY BEFORE A COUNCIL MEETING. AND ALSO THE -- THERE'S AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORDER TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER ORDINANCES IN THE CITY. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW IMMEDIATE ACTION AND GIVE CLEAR HE AND LET THEM MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING COUNCIL AUTHORITY FIRST OR HAVING TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING IN ORDER TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR A MAYOR'S ACTION. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN COVID AND I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT AT THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE EMERGENCY POWERS AND I HAVE NOT BRUSHED UP ON IT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME. >> Ratliff: THE REASON I ASK IS I SEE THIS ORDINANCE TRYING TO REALLY ADDRESS TWO, T ME, VERY CLEARLY DIFFERENT ISSUES. THE SALVATION ARMY'S WARMING STATION IS, TO ME, COMPLETELY A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN A 72-HOUR POWER BLACKOUT AND EVERYBODY'S FREEZING IN THEIR HOUSE OR A TORNADO. TO ME, THOSE ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUES AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THEM WITH THE SAME -- WE'RE TRYING TO USE ONE OF THEM TO JUSTIFY THE OTHER AND VICE VERSA. THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH. I FEEL LIKE IN THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK EVERYBODY, A TORNADO COMES THROUGH AND WE GET AROUND WINTER ARMAGEDDON PROBLEM, WE DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. MY CONCERN IS WE'RE OPENING A DOOR AND WE'RE PUTTING THE SALVATION ARMY'S PROGRAM INTO THIS WHEN WE OUGHT TO JUST BE AMENDING THEIR SUP. MY QUESTION IS SHOULDN'T WE SEPARATE THESE TWO ISSUES HAND ADDRESS AN SUP SEPARATELY FROM A CITYWIDE ORDINANCE? WOULD THAT BE CLEANER? >> I MEAN, SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE WANTED TO BRING THIS IS IN THIS IS WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED -- IT'S NO LONGER JUST THE SALVATION ARMY WANTING TO OPERATE. WE'VE SPECIFICALLY HEARD EXPRESSED INTEREST FROM THE PLANO ISLAMIC CENTER WANTING TO OPERATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND SO IT'S KIND OF ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE RATHER THAN JUST ADJUSTING THE SUP, WE CAN LET THEM WORK TOGETHER AND THEN THEY HAVE SOLID LEGAL GROUNDING TO BOTH OPERATE AT THE SAME TIME. >> Ratliff: I'LL RESERVE MY COMMENTS. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I'M PROBABLY AS CONFUSED AS HE IS. TELL ME IF I'M NOT STATING THIS CLEARLY. SALVATION ARMY'S ISSUE IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO -- RIGHT NOW TH DON REQUIRE AN EMERGENCY DECLARATION TO OPERATE THEIR WARMING STATION. THE SUP HAS LIMITS AND CAPS ON IT. BUT IF WE BRING IN THIS TEMPORARY HOUSING ORDINANCE, HOW DOES THAT HELP THEM? WELL, I GUESS THE SALVATION ARMY IS A RELIGIOUS FACILITY. >> YES. THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A RELIGIOUS FACILITY. >> Olley: BUT THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. BUT IF A CASE HAPPENS WHERE THERE IS A NEED THAT THEY USUALLY WOULD ADDRESS BUT NOBODY HAS DECLARED THIS AN EMERGENCY, THEY'RE STILL OUT OF LUCK? >> Chair Downs: I THINK THIS WAS DRIVEN -- I MAY BE WRONG -- BY SOME OF THE WEATHER WE'VE HAD THE PAST TWO FEBRUARIES. BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNED FOR BEING AN OVERNIGHT WARMING STATION AND DURING THE DAY IT WAS SO COLD BUT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ORATE AND HAVE PEOPLE RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS KIND OF, I THINK, BOILED INTO THIS. MS. DAY. >> I'M GOING TO TRY TO CLARIFY. THERE'S REALLY TWO ISSUES HERE. ONE IS WORKING WITH THE PLANO OVERNIGHT WARMING STATION. THAT'S A GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS THAT WORK IN THE CITY. THEY CURRENTLY ARE CONTRACTED WITH THE SALVATION ARMY. THEY'RE OUT OF CAPACITY. AND SO THAT'S REALLY BEEN THE URGENT DRIVING ISSUE WITH THE CITY BECAUSE W WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO TRY TO FIND AN ALTERNATE LOCATION. THE LOCATION WE FOUND HAS A ZONING PROBLEM. THE PLANO ISLAMIC CENTER. THIS IS THE ZONING PROPOSAL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO REALLY HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE BECAUSE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES ARE ALLOWED IN MOST ANY LAND USE CATEGORY, THIS TEMPORARY HOUSING FACILITY ALLOWS US MORE FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE A PARTNER WITH OTHER RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION CITYWIDE IN PROVIDING WHAT'S ESSENTIALLY EMERGENCY SERVICES TO PEOPLE DURING REALLY CRISIS WEATHER EVENTS. WHETHER IT'S TOO HOT OR TOO COLD. WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE DYING ON THE STREETS OF PLANO SO WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE AND IT GIVES US OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH WHOEVER'S AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE IN THE CITY. THAT'S KIND OF SOLUTION NUMBER ONE. AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE THOUGHT DURING A DISASTER SITUATION, WHICH WE'VE HAD REALLY, I THINK MOST MEMORABLY PERHAPS WITH THE HURRICANE KATRINA. WE HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE COMING INTO THE CITY. IF WE HAVE A URGENT NEED TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY HOUSING IN THE CITY -- THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN -- BUT SHOULD THAT ARISE, WE HAVE CAPACITY IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. WE PARTNER WITH CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE HOUSING. AND THE CITY PREPARES FOR THAT THROUGH PARTNERSHIP WITH FEMA, THROUGH OUR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE THAT. IT'S PREPARED AND SET UP IN ADVANCE. IT'S A PROCESS. IT'S NOT AS THOUGH WE ARE KNOCKING ON DOORS, WHO CAN DO THIS. WE GIST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PREPARED FOR THAT AND WE DON'T HAVE ZONING CONCERNS OR ANYTHING THAT'S REALLY HINDERING US. THAT'S THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS REQUEST. I'M AVAILABLE FOR OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I HAVE SEEN YOU ON THAT SIDE OF THE DAIS. >> COME TO A COUNCIL MEETING. >> Chair Downs: YEAH, BUT I'M NOT SITTING THERE LIKE I AM HERE. DON'T RUN AWAY BECAUSE THIS POPPED UP. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: TWO QUESTIONS. AGAIN S WRONG BUT THIS WOULD STILL REQUIRE A -- THE TRIGGERING EVENT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND/OR SOME OTHER LEGAL ENTITY TO DECLARE SOMETHING A DISASTER. I'M NOT SURE THE LAST TWO IF HE SAID WERE THE COLD. I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANYTHING DECLARED AS AN EMERGENCY. IT WAS JUST FREAKING COLD. [ LAUGHTER ] >> Chair Downs: THAT'S CORRECT. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, IN THE PAST, WE HAD A SET TEMPERATURE. >> 35 DEGREES. >> AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER -- OR DESIGNEE ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE WOULD JUST ALLOW CITY MANAGER OR STAFF, ESSENTIALLY, IS WHAT THAT MEANS. WE HAVE A STANDARD THAT'S MAINTAINED BY STAFF. THAT'S CODE WORD FOR STAFF IS THE CITY MANAGER TO DETERMINE WHEN IT'S TOO COLD OR WHEN IT'S TOO HOT. >> Olley: SO THE SECOND THERE'S A STRIKETHROUGH ON THE WORD "ONLY" RELIGIOUS FACILITY. DOES THIS GIVE ALLOWANCE FOR, A, A NONPROFIT ENTITY. LET'S SAY THE SALVATION ARMY STOPS BEING A PARTNER WITH THE WARMING STATION AND OLLEY GROUP COMES IN AS A NOT FOR PROFIT, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. DOES THAT STRIKE-THROUGH, IS THAT ENOUGH TO ALLOW A NOT FOR PROFIT ENTITY? >> NO, IT WOULD BE ONLY A RELIGIOUS FACILITY. >> HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS AND THEY HAVE TO OFFER IT FOR FREE. SO IF YOU CAN TURN A PROFIT WHILE OPERATING IT FOR FREE, MORE POWER TO YOU. >> Olley: NOT FOR PROFIT. >> IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE A RELIGIOUS FACILITY BUT I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IN THERE IS THAT IT'S FREE HOUSING. AND THAT'S WHY WE THOUGHT IT WAS SOMEWHAT DUPLICATIVE -- DO WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN THE SLIDES? I WAS LISTENING BUT ALSO WORKING. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S FREE LODGING. SO WE THOUGHT IF YOU'RE OFFERING FREE LODGING, HOW ARE YOU TURNING A PROFIT? >> Olley: NO. >> Chair Downs: HE'S ASKING ABOUT IF SOMEBODY OPENS UP A NONPROFIT. >> Olley: ROTARY CLUB. I THINK THEY'RE NONPROFIT. >> THEN -- OH, YOU'RE JUST SAYING -- >> Olley: I'M NON-RELIGIOUS. >> I'M SORRY. I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION. THEN THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY BECAUSE I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS REALLY ABOUT LEVERAGING THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE BECAUSE OF ITS APPLICABILITY CITYWIDE. BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE LUPA, RELIOUS LAND USES HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND SO IT IS ALLOWED PRETTY MUCH CITYWIDE AND WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD GIVE US MORE FLEXIBILITY. >> Olley: I WILL LEAVE THE LEGAL SCHOLARS TO YOU, WHAT IS RELIGIOUS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS THAT ONCE WE DECLARE THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTERS AND WE -- ALL THE ELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS, HOW DO WE STOP IT? I MEAN, IF IT'S -- EVERYBODY CAN LIVE THERE FOREVER FOR FREE. HOW DO WE STOP IT? HOW DO WE SAY, THIS IS OVER. YOU'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO YOUR HOMES. >> IT'S ONLY DURING THAT PERIOD OF THE DISASTER. SO THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE STOPPED IS ONCE THE DISASTER'S OVER. >> Tong: DO WE HAVE A PROTOCOL RIGHT NOW TO DEFINE WHEN IS THE DISASTER OVER? WILL THE CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCE, OKAY, NOW THE DISASTER IS OVER. EVERYBODY SHOULD GO HOME. IS THERE A PROTOCOL RIGHT NOW? >> YES. I MEAN, THE CITY MANAGER I THINK IS ONLY DETERMINING THE TIME OF THE HOT AND COLD TIMES. AND THEN THE DISASTER TIME-FRAME IS DETERMINED BY -- I THINK DISASTER TIME FRAMES ARE -- I'M SORRY. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. >> Chair Downs: IT WAS ON THE SCREEN. TWO OPTIONS. >> AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER. SO THE LIFE-THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER. AND THEN DECLARED DISASTERS IN THE CITY OF PLANO. SO A DECLARED DISASTER IS DETERMINED BY THE STATE AND THERE ARE DEFINITIONS IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. THAT'S A DEFINITION IN THE STATE. >> Tong: RIGHT. THEY WILL DECLARE, OKAY, WE ARE IN A DISASTER. AND IT'S FROM THAT MOMENT ON ALL THE FACILITIES WILL OPEN TO AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS FOR AN UNLIMITED TIME OF STAY. >> IT'S NOT UNLIMITED. THERE'S AN END TO THE DISASTER DECLARATION. >> Tong: BUT OUR ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW READS IS LIKE IT' AN EXCEPTION, RIGHT? SO IF IT'S DECLARED A DISASTER, THEN ALL THE RESTRICTIONS ARE EXEMPT. >> Chair Downs: I THINK THAT WE HEAR ALL THE TIME THE GOVERNOR'S DECLARED A STATE OF DISASTER. >> RIGHT. >> Chair Downs: BUT YOU NEVER HEAR THE GOVERNOR HAS NOW DECLARED THAT THE STATE OF DISASTER IS OVER. >> RIGHT. >> Chair Downs: SO IT FEELS LIKE IT'S OPEN ENDED BUT THERE IS ACTUALLY AN END. >> A TIME-FRAME. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING TO THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IS THAT THAT'S A SET TIME-AME. YOU DON'T GET FUNDING FOREVER. YOU DON'T GET, YOU KNOW -- JUST LIKE THEY BRING IN FEMA TRAILERS FOR HOUSING. THEY DON'T GET TO STAY THERE FOREVER. THERE'S SET TIME FRAMES WHEN YOU'RE QUALIFIED FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE. >> Chair Downs: AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING TO TALK HERE BUT KEEP IN MIND, GUYS, THIS IS THE WAY WE ALREADY OPERATE. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE THE CITY MORE EFFICIENT WHEN WE'RE OPERATING IN A TIME OF EMERGENCY. THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS MAKE US MORE EFFICIENT. WE CAN GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS WITH THIS AND ASSUME SOMETHING NEFARIOUS IS GOING ON BUT ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE CITY TO OPERATE IN TIMES OF NEED FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT. THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO THE SALVATION ARMY MAKES THE COMMENT IN THEIR LETTER ABOUT PROVIDING SERVICES INCLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED TO MEDICAL SCREENING, SECURING EACH INDIVIDUAL'S BELONGINGS. ARE WE TAKING THE HEALTH CODES AND THINGS LIKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE DIFFERENT FACILITIES TO BE SURE THAT IF WE'RE DOING MEDICAL SCREENINGS AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES, WHAT THAT COULD BE AND HOW THAT COULD -- AS FAR AS HOSPITAL? >> RIGHT. I CANNOT SAY THAT I AM ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH THAT PROCESS. I KNOW THAT IT DOES INVOLVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT DOES INVOLVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OUR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. SO IT IS A COLLECTION OF QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH VOLUNTEERS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. SO, AGAIN, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS NOT PART OF THAT TEAM SO I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THE DETAILS. BUT I DO KNOW IT'S A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S INVOLVED WITH PROVIDING THOSE PROGRAMS. >> Bronsky: SO THEY WOULD BE INSPECTING THOSE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES THAT WISH TO PROVIDE THIS, TO MAKE SURE THAT IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO BE UP TO CODE? >> I DO KNOW THAT THAT HAS BEEN A PART OF THE PROCESS. I'VE BEEN ON PHONE CALLS WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND PROPERTY STANDARDS, WORKING ON SPECIFIC CODE-RELATED ISSUES FOR THE SALVATION ARMY, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO PROVIDING THOSE SERVICES. >> Bronsky: SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT 35 DEGREES BEING A COLD POINT. WHAT'S THE UPPER POINT FOR THE EMERGENCY? >> I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD IS THEY'RE USING. I DOT KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT. >> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ONE IN PLANO. >> Chair Downs: WHEN IT'S TOO HOT? >> Bronsky: THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. THEY SAID IT WOULD BE HOT OR COLD. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION HERE. WHAT RELEVANCE DOES THAT HAVE TO US DETERMINING WHETHER THE CITY MANAGER, RUNNING OUR CITY, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IT'S HOT ENOUGH THAT WE WANT TO OPEN THESE SHELTERS AND PROVIDE? SO ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT BECAUSE UNDER THE CURRENT DEAL HE'S GOT TO GET COUNCIL TOGETHER TO GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO DOHAT. THIS ALLOWS US TO SAY, HEY, YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. >> WHY DON'T WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> Chair Downs: THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS. MR. RATLIFF. >> Rtliff: I MEAN, I WAS GOING TO ASK KIND OF THE SAME QUESTIONS BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT IN THE WINTER WE GET 20 DAYS, 15 DAYS BELOW 35. BUT THIS YEAR WE HAD 90 DAYS OVER 100 DEGREES AND THAT HAPPENS PRETTY MUCH EVERY SUMMER. AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IF -- AND THOSE ARE LIFE-THREATENING WEATHER CONDITIONS BUTAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH HAVING A 90-DAY SHELTER EVERY SUMMER IN POTENTIALLY EVERY CHURCH IN TOWN. THAT DOES CONCERN ME. FOLLOWING UP ON ONE OF MR. BRONSKY'S QUESTIONS, AT LEAST THE CHURCHES I'M FAMILIAR WITH, NONE OF THEM HAVE ADEQUATE FACILITIES TO HOUSE PEOPLE FOR 30 OR 90 DAYS. THEY DON'T HAVE KITCHENS AND SHOWERS AND ALL THOSE THINGS. AND SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, CHAIRMAN, I REALLY DO, BUT I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OPENING UP -- >> Chair Downs: THAT'S OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE -- THE CITY MANAGER COULD HAVE BEEN DOING THAT RIGHT? BUT HE HASN'T BEEN DOING IT. IT MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT BY PASSING THIS SOMEHOW NOW HE'S GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY DO THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GIVE THE CITY MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MORE EFFICIENCY IN THE WAY IT OPERATES. LET'S DO THIS. MR. CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF REAL QUICK QUESTIONS. ONE IS WHAT WILL QUALIFY AS A RELIGIOUS FACILITY? I MEAN, WHAT'S THAT HURDLE? >> THERE'S A DEFINITION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE NOW. ANYTHING THAT MEETS THE CURRENT DEFINITION WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. >> Cary: OKAY. YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT KATRINA. LET'S SAY THERE'S ANOTHER KATRINA. THEN OUR CITY MANAGER WOULD BE ABLE TO DECLARE THAT AN EMERGENCY? I MEAN, WHAT COULD THEY DECLARE AS AN EMEENCY? NOT WITHSTANDING THE COMPETENCY OF OUR CITY MANAGER BUT I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THIS GROUP UP HERE IS TO ASK THE TOUGH QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF, YOU KNOW, THE CITY SOMETIMES. AND NOT JUST TO ASSUME EVERYTHING. >> RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SO THAT'S NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. THAT'S THE ONE EMERGENCY THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE WHERE THE CITY ACTUALLY HELPED TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PEOPL DURING THAT EMERGENCY. SO THAT'S THE ONE EXAMPLE THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH. >> Cary: IT'S A GOOD ONE. I WAS RUNNING A COMPANY AND WE ACTUALLY HIRED A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM THE NINTH WARD THAT CAME OVER THAT NO LONGER HAD HOMES FROM KATRINA. I THINK, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, THERE'S A LOT OF WISDOM IN THE QUESTIONS HE'S ASKING AND I SHARE THOSE QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I WAS JUST TRYING MR. BRONSKY, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE UPPER END. AND SO THE HEAT. BUT HEAT IN TEXAS, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THOSE ARE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS BUT I CAN'T -- CAN ANYBODY THINK OF A TIME WHERE THE CITY MANAGER HAS DECLARED THAT AN EMERGENCY? >> [OFF MIC] >> Bronsky: THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY SAID. >> RIGHT. I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NIGHTTIME TEMPERATURES NOT FALLING BELOW A CERTAIN LEVEL. >> WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT DALLAS, I WANT TO SAY 85 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, MAYBE 90. IT'S HOT. >> Lisle: I MEAN, WE HAVE A REALLY, REALLY HOT SUMMER. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS WERE ISSUED. AM I WRONG? >> Chair Downs: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY. >> Lisle: BECAUSE I SHARE MR. RATLIFF'S POINT. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S AN EXTREME THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BUT IF EVERY CHURCH IN PLANO BECOMES A SHELTER FOR 90 DAYS DURING THE SUMMER AND THEY DOT HAVE ADEQUATE FACILITIES, CLEARLY THAT'S A PROBLEM. BUT I DON'T SEE THAT'S WHERE THIS IS GOING. I THINK THAT KATRINA OR A TORNADO COMES THROUGH, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING WE DO TONIGHT MATTERS. WE'RE AMERICANS. WE'RE GOING TO STEP UP AND HELP PEOPLE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE OUT THERE ENFORCING THE LAW ON THEM. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THERE'S A BIG CONVERSATION ABOUT NOT MUCH. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I THINK I SETTLED THE QUESTION IN MY HEAD. WHAT WE'RE -- I THINK WE'RE RUNNING AROUND, IT SEEMS TO ME THE CITY MANAGER HAS UNCHECKED POWER AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THIS JUST GIVES THE CITY MANAGER SPEED, IF NEEDED. >> Chair Downs: YES. COUNCIL CAN ALWAYS CALL A SESSION. >> Olley: IF THE CITY MANAGER DECLARES AN EMERGENCY AND DECIDES HE WANTS TO HOLD IT FOR 30 DAYS, COUNCIL CAN OVERRULE HIM IN TWO SECONDS. THERE IS A CHECK ON THE CITY MANAGER AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT. >> Chair Downs: YES. YES. >> Olley: THIS JUST GIVES HIM THE ABILITY TO MOVE QUICKLY. >> Chair Downs: TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RESOURCES THAT THE CITY HAS. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER OLLEY. HOWEVER, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS CHANGE OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING, WHETHER IT WILL HELP WHAT THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER OLLEY IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE. BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE WHEN THE EMERGENCY IS DECLARED. THAT MEANS THE FACILITY OR WHATEVER ORDINANCE THAT SHOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN THERE. ONE, THIS IS DECLARED. NOW WE'RE ONLY CHANGING THE TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTER DEFINITION FROM A STRICT NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND TIME TO A REGULAR DEFINITION WITHIN AN EXCEPTION. AND THE EXCEPTION IS WHEN THE EMERGENCY IS DECLARED, THEN ALL THE RESTRICTIONS ARE EXEMPT. BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PROCEDURE OF GIVING THE TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING ORDINANCE TO DIFFERENT FACILITIES WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT. I'M NOT SURE IF I MADE IT CLEAR. I'M THINKING THAT THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE -- AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING IS -- TRYING TO MAKE THIS TEMPORARY HOUSING SHELTER AVAILABLE TO ALL THE FACILITIES WHEN THE EMERGENCY IS DECLARED. BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS NOT MAKING IT AVAILABLE. WE'RE MAKING ONE SPECIFIC ALREADY-EXISTING TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTER BIGGER. OR LONGER. >> IT'S POTENTIALLY D DOING A NUMBER OF THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S SOLVING THE CURRENT PROBLEM FOR SALVATION ARMY. IT'S HELPING EPIC TO GET ITS PERMITS, WHICH IT CURRENTLY DOESN'T HAVE ZONING FOR. AND THEN IT'S ALLOWING POTENTIAL FOR OTHER FACILITIES IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD THERE BE A NEED. >> Tong: SO MAYBE I DIDN'T MAKE IT CLEAR. LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION. SO RIGHT NOW DOES EVERY RELIGIOUS FACILITY HAVE THIS TEMPORARY ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTER PERMIT OR ORDINANCE ALREADY? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE FACILITIES OPERATING. THE ONLY ONE THAT WE'VE REALLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS THE WARMING SHELTER. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS OPERATING WITH A DIFFERENT NONPROFIT. >> Tong: SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF TOMORROW THE TEMPERATURE DROPS TO 0 DEGREES AND THE CITY MANAGER DECLARES AN EMERGENCY, HOW MANY RELIGIOUS -- BASED ON CURRENT REGULATIONS OR ORDINANCE -- HOW MANY FACILITIES IN THE CITY CAN BE USED AS A TEMPORARY HOUSING SHELTER? DO THEY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO GET THIS TEMPORARY SHELTER PERMIT? >> BASED ON THE CURRENT DEFINITION, WHAT THE CURRENT -- SALVATION ARMY IS CURRENTLY USING A DIFFERENT DEFINITION UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THEY'RE USING THE HOUSEHOLD CARE INSTITUTION DEFINITION, NOT THIS TEMPORARY HOUSING, ACCESSORY HOUSING SHELTER. THEY'RE USING A DIFFERENT DEFINITION. >> Tong: HOW ABOUT THE CHURCH NEXT DOOR? DO THEY HAVE THIS RIGHT NOW? CAN THEY JUST OPEN THE DOOR AND ALLOW PPLE TO USE A TEMPORARY HOUSING SHELTER? IS IT ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THEIR RELIGIOUS FACILITY ORDINANCE? THAT'S THE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND. CHANGING THIS WILL NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES. CHANGING THIS, IN MY MIND, IS ONLY ALLOWING WHATEVER IS ALLOWED NOW BIGGER. >> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. BECAUSE ANY EXISTING ACCESSORY, IT'S ALLOWED CURRENTLY AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO ANY RELIGIOUS FACILITY. >> Chair Downs: ANY CHURCH CAN HOUSE UP TO 14 INDIVIDUALS AT ONE TIME FOR A MAXIM OF 30 DAYS PER CALENDAR YEAR. ANY CHURCH. WITHOUT ADDING A PERMIT OR ANYTHING. WE WENT THROUGH THIS -- AGAIN, WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL. AND WE HAD A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THIS. AND THE BOTTOM LINE BOILED DOWN TO ARE WE AGAINST HELPING OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY? úBECAUSE WE'RE AFRAIDY GOD -- THIS HAS BEEN EIGHT YEARS AGO. WE'RE GOING TO SUDDENLY HAVE CHURCHES FULL OF HOMELESS PEOPLE. THAT'S NOT HAPPENED AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT IF A TORNADO COMES THROUGH HERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CARE IF SCHOOLS OPEN UP THEIR GYMNASIUMS AND LET PEOPLE IN. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BRINGING IN A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND LETTING THEM LIVE IN CHURCHES WITHOUT PROPER CARE FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. THIS IS ABOUT LETTING THE CITY OPERATE EFFICIENTLY WITHOUT HAVING -- I THINK I'M REPEATING MYSELF I'M SORRY. >> Tong: I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHANGES WE'RE MAKING IS GOING TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. >> Chair Downs: THEY WOULDN'T HAVE WRITTEN IT. GUYS, ARE WE SMARTER ABOUT TTHIS IN HOW THE CITY OPERATES THAN THESE PEOPLE ARE? >> I'M NOT SURE OF THE RELEVANCE. >> Chair Downs: HERE'S THE THING. WE HAVE A ROLE IN THIS, GUYS, BUT SERIOUSLY. ARE WE GOING TO SAY, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. BUT WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS WHEN THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS IS ABOUT CREATING EFFICIENCY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND THEIR TEAM. ANYTHING THAT THAT CITY MANAGER DOES, IF COUNCIL IS NOT IN APPROVAL OF IT, THEY CAN QUICKLY CALL A MEETING AND PUT AN END TO IT AND ALL OF THIS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE REINS ON THE CITY MANAGER IF THEY DON'T LIKE THIS BUT MY GUESS IS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT IT IS. THEY'RE JUST ALLOWING US TO USE OUR CITY OF EXCELLENCE RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S REALLY ALL THIS IS ABOUT. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NO. 3 IS IT? ITEM 3. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVEN'T HAD OUR PUBLIC HEARING YET. >> Brounoff: OH, YEAH. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. OLLEY, DO YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR STAFF? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: MS. DAY? I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I MOVE WE APPRE ITEM NO. 4. >> I'LL SECOND. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LISLE TO APPROVE ITEM 4. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 5-3. THANK YOU. LET'S GO TO ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT & REVISED SITE PLAN: WILLOW BEND POLO ESTATES PHASE B, BLK, LOT 8R - ONE PIO HOME LOT ON 0.2 ACRE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHADDOCK BOULEVARD, 30 FEET SOUTH OF CASTLE GATE DRIVE. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-423- PATIO HOME. APPLICANT: SHERYL T THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> THANK YOU, MS. BRIDGES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. YOU HAVE BEEN WITNESSING A SERIES OF THESE LOTS. THAT'S THE SAME THING. >> Chair Downs: AND THERE'S MORE COMING, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOPE? OKAY. MR. BRONSKY WAS LIKE -- THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I AM NOT SURPRISED. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [MULTIPLE VOICES] >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 5 TO APPROVE. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. I HATE TO ASK. DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA? >> YES, WE DO. SHOULD I GO NOW? >> Chair Downs: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE JOKING. >> Lisle: NO, I'M BEING SERIOUS. CONSISTENT WITH MY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, I AM REQUESTING 2021-021 AND ORDINANCE NO.- 20-9-26. AGAINST OUR ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 12, AND ARTICLE 21 SHOULD BE INCLUDED . >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: YES? >> Olley: IS THE STAFF'S PLAN STILL TO BRING THIS AS PART OF A WORK PROGRAM? >> DIRECTION, AS WE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE COMMISSION, WAS TO BRING BACK A DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK PLAN. BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE OF THE ZONG FORWARD AND HELP Y'ALL PRIORITIZE WHETHER THAT FITS IN THE GREATER SCHEME OF THINGS TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE WORK PLAN. THAT IS PLANNED -- THAT DISCUSSION IS PLANNED FOR NOVEMBER 6th P&Z MEETING. >> Chair Downs: THAT WILL COVER -- >> THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. >> Chair Downs: IT'S SCHEDULED FOR THE NOVEMBER 6th MEETING. >> Lisle: AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IT FEELS TO ME LIKE MY REQUEST IS BEING TURNED INTO A CONVERSATION JUST ABOUT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS WHEN I AM SAYING SPECIFICALLY THAT THE ZONING CASE THAT WAS PASSED AND THE ORNAE WERE PASSED WITHTHE ERROR AND BASED ON THREE -- >> Olley: WE CAN REVISIT. >> Lisle: YES, WE CAN. THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE -- I'M READING 3.8. THE CITY COUNCIL OR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY REVOKE A SITE PLAN IF IT DETERMINES THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL HAVE NOT BEEN MET OR IF THE PLAN CONTAINS OR IS BASED UPON INCORRECT INFORMATION. MY -- WHAT I'M TELLING YOU GUYS IS THAT APPROVAL WAS BAD ON INCORRECT INFORMATION. AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE GIVES US SPECIFIC ABILITY TO REVOKE THAT APPROVAL BASED ON 3.8. ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU GO TO 12.170.2, ERROR AND AMBIGUITY ARE REASONS THAT YOU CAN REVIEW A PD. >> Olley: SO THIS SOUNDS LIKE IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE WORK PLAN. IT'S A SPECIFIC -- >> Lisle: IT'S A SPECIFIC REVIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THATTTHAT ZONING CASE IN THAT PD. >> Chair Dow: I GOING TO ASK STAFF TO DO THIS. THEN I'M GOING TO ASK LEGAL TO TAKE A LOOK AND THEN GIVE US AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IF POSSIBLE. >> SO YOU'RE JUST SECONDING MR. LISLE'S REQUEST? >> Chair Downs: YES, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. HE'S QUOTING SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEALS. LET'S JUST HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> JUST AN EXEC SESSION? NO OTHER AGENDA? >> Lisle: I DON'T WANT IT IN EXEC SESSION, I WANT IT HERE. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR BUT I THINK WE SHOULD BE EDUCATED ABOUT ALL THAT YOU JUST READ. AND A LOT OF THAT IS LEGAL BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE PRECEDENCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. LET'S GET THE EDUCATION AND WE CAN BRING IT OUT HERE TO THE DAIS, IF WE NEED TO. >> Lisle: IN EXEC, ARE WE JUST GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM OR WILL I HAVE A CHANCE TO PRESENT WHAT I THINK Y'ALL NEED TO HEAR AS WELL? >> Chair Downs: WE'LL HAVE DIALOGUE LIKE WE DID TODAY. >> EXECUTIVE SESSION IS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. YOU CAN ASK ME QUESTIONS BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A DIALOGUE. >> Lisle: BUT DISCUSSION WON'T BE HERE, IT WILL BE THERE AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK. >> NO, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS MORE FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS. >> HE'S ALREADY SECONDED IT. >> Olley: WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO BRING UP ANOTHER MOTION. SO BRING THAT DISCUSSION HERE BUT NOW WE'RE ALL EQUIPPED TO HAVE A FAIR DISCUSSION THAT ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERNS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> Olley: MAKE SENSE? >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD? WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 10:56. [MEETING ADJOURNED]