[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] we'll call the planning and zoning commission meeting to order please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all if it pleases the commission we do not have anyone signed up for public interest uh comments of public interest so i'll refrain from from reading that's fine we'll go right to the consent agenda the consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically non-controversial items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff thank you does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent agenda nope yes no okay i'd like to make i like the move that we approve the consent agenda second okay i have a motion by commissioner horn with the second by commissioner bronski to approve the consent agenda please vote that item carries by a vote of 7-0 please note that commissioner ratliff was not able to join us this evening items for kids individual consideration public hearing items applicants are limited to 15 minutes of presentation time with a five-minute rebuttal if needed remaining speakers are limited to 30 minutes total of total minutes of testimony time with three minutes assigned per speaker 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 is constrained by legal considerations agenda item number one is public hearing zoning case 2021-030 request for a specific use permit for a trade school on point one acre on one lot on on one lot located 224 feet east of coit road and 325 feet north of parker road zoned retail applicant is munir bata llc legislative consideration good evening mr chair members of the commission i'm raha pulati lee planner of the planning department this is an existing 2500 square foot lisa space within a multi-tenant retail shopping center the applicant is requesting for an sup for trade school that will provide instruction in barber education the property is zoned retailed and is surrounded by retail zoning on all sides the aerial shows the location of the request within the building as you can see it is an existing site and is surrounded with commercial uses the subject property is designated neighborhood corners on the future land use map of the newly adopted comprehensive plan as highlighted on the screen this category applies to the small to medium retail sites on the corners of major art arterial roadways that have traditionally served the convenience retail service office and institutional needs of surrounding neighborhoods as shown in this exhibit the subject property is classified as retail types in the land use and housing inventory tool staff evaluated this request with conformance to the neighborhood corners dashboard as shown on the right there are no changes to any of the land use mixes your request conforms to the mix of uses section of the neighborhood corners dashboard and does not require findings as for the consideration the proposed trade school requires less parking than retail or restaurant use the subject property has adequate parking to accommodate the additional use the request would complement the existing shopping center which includes a variety of non-residential uses additionally the trade school will be a minor addition to the existing development and will benefit future students through and career training we did not receive any responses regarding this zoning case i'm happy to answer any questions you might have thank you very much does anyone have any technical questions for staff on this issue i have a couple i think they're pretty simple um my first question is if this sup is approved does it have any effect beyond the 2500 square foot site that we're looking at here so no sir it'll be just on this site right yes and the second thing is is if we approve a sup for this site is there any what kind of flexibility might this site have in the future versus what it has today currently the trade school which is dedicated to barber education is not allowed in this premises but with this sup that will be allowed okay thank you any other questions for staff thank you very much i'll open the public hearing and i'm assuming this is not someone to speak on this item this is the applicant who's available to answer any questions otherwise we do not have any speakers okay great are there questions for the applicant oh so we do have a question for the applicant you're welcome to bring everything in your arms with you [Laughter] oh look at here we're gonna there you go full-service city staff will hold we'll hold babies during the during the whole hearing yeah commissioner horn you have a question for the applicant thank you um you're open you're hoping to open up a barber college i guess yes sir how many chairs will be in this barber college total right now i have 10 but i'm looking to only have about six students at a time just to focus on directly each student it's about an eight-month turnover process so we get them in and out pretty fast okay so you will have 12 chairs so you you could work up to 12 students we could yes sir we could and during this is it uh what's the duration of the class time is it a four-hour class time that you have these students in there or is it a one hour at a time i'm kind of trying to figure out how many classes you're going to run through this yes per day so the texas department of license regulation requires that each student mandate 25 to 30 hours during the first two to four months and they call this the probation period generally after this they require at least 25 hours to be mandated if not met that's when they ask us to either drop the current enrollee or try to get them to come in and get some more hours in but typically we're looking to be open tuesday through saturday and we're going to be from 10 to 8 so we have two classes one at 10 30 and it's a two hour theory class once they exit the class they're left to go on the floor where we do haircuts and mannequin heads and things like that just practicals and then there's another class that will be at uh 5 30 so we have a morning class in the evening class and they're required to meet at least one theory class a day okay will there be a time where you will not be working on mannequins and guys with full-headed hair like me will be coming in getting haircuts yes sir and they are hands-on but they have they have me with them training them so it's not like they'll be left alone completely with the client but yes they will be allowed to service on the civilians and you'll be producing a revenue stream from these clients i will be producing revenue the students technically aren't allowed to receive any formal payment for tdlr regulations but the school we still have to charge so it'll be a anywhere from 10 to 15 it's just a regular school-sized haircut so we're not really looking to profit any margin really off of um the civilians it really really comes in off of just the tuition and stuff like that okay so at best case scenario how many students will you be running through there per day per day uh i'm looking at around six total the thing about it is each class generally will have a size probably of two to four so with there being two theory classes i won't have six in each class specifically uh tdlr regulates you to have at least 15 students max per one instructor i'm the only instructor currently in there right now so i'd like to keep the classes i'd like to split them up just so i can have a two in one class or three in one class and three in the other class just so i can kind of focus more and hit the court points that we need to hit okay that's all i have thank you anyone else commissioner stone just have a comment i drive past this corner every time i go to the post office yes sir i'll be glad to see somebody in there doing business yes sir thank you commissioner kerry um what effect do you think your students and then ultimately customers will have on parking like commissioner stone i'm over in this area quite a bit at the post office and um it i don't think there's a parking challenge but i wonder what your perspective is well i'm wanting all my students and and future employees if i decide to bring any within the next couple months for everybody to park in the back to leave the front parking lot open specifically for the customers and typically keep everybody out of the post office i want to not use the post office parking lot as much as i can and designate the parking we have in the back of the store um but i'd focus on keeping everybody out of the out of the front unless they were just customers coming in okay great thank you anyone else of course mr bronski i have a couple questions yes sir um will are you going to be offering just the [Music] um the barber class a or are you going to also be offering the barber slash manicurist and the uh barber slash hair weave special specialties yes sir so we are also uh besides the class a barber license we are doing a nail manicurist and we are doing uh cosmetologists the the only uh requirement tdlr says they just passed that uh september of 20 september of 2021 um that used to be um they had it be in separate buildings they just passed it this past year but with that being said they just don't want both students and curriculums to run into each other they wanted to be separate so what i'm doing is the nail curriculum the so the barber curriculum sits at a thousand hours so we can finish that in about uh they require us to finish in a minimum 26 weeks but i'm stretching it out to eight months so the cosmetologist program is a thousand hours and the nail program is 700 hours so the nail program and the cosmetologist program can be ran at the same time so what i'm doing is full day eight to eight monday we're doing the manicurist and we're doing the cosmetologist tuesday and wednesday we're doing it from 8 o'clock to 2 30 and then once those class ends that's when we're bringing the barbers to get their class a certificates throughout the rest of the week so really the cosmetologists and the manicurists are only going to be in there three days a week okay my second question um i seem to have lost my paper oh there is just a separate note of inquiry i noticed in your letter that you mentioned that you were going after the state licensing for the texas department of license and regulation you also plan on seeking your accreditation through the commission and council on occupational education um i would like to pursue that i'm not i'm not too uh informed on actually how to pursue that but i would like to pursue that and um once i get back to getting a more understanding of what that is i could probably answer that question better for you but right now i'm not too sure yeah that's all i have thank you okay almost afraid to ask anyone else that's fine i know no it's all good it's all good thank you so much sir thank you thank you okay no other speakers no we do not close the public hearing confined discussion to the commission you were first you were first i would like to move that we approve agenda item number one and grant the sup as recommended by staff i'd like to second that motion but also commend you for taking this adventure out there i think it's a really good use of that piece of property i think it's something we more need in neighborhood centers but i'll second that motion okay so i have a motion in a second a motion by commissioner ollie second by commissioner horn any discussion please vote that item carries 7-0 congratulations sir good luck bring the baby back any time item two agenda item number two public hearing re-plat revise site plan and revised preliminary site plan hunter's glen 5 block a lots 3r and 7r retail and personal service shop on lot 3r and kennel indoor pens commercial pet sitting on lot 3r on 2.3 acres located on the north side of spring creek parkway 272 feet west of custer road zoned retail applicant is missing group administrative consideration thank you miss bridges staff recommends the approval of the repla revised site plan and the preliminary revised preliminary site plan as submitted and i believe the applicant is here and they are happy to answer any questions i'm happy to answer any questions as well thank you any questions for staff technical questions brought on item two thank you very much i'll open the public hearing do we have any speakers on this item sorry i didn't sign up uh david bond with spires engineering uh here on behalf of the proposed purchaser of the property just available for questions if you all have any okay thank you make sure you check in with her to get your name address et cetera do we have questions from the item okay seeing none we'll close up here find discussion to the commission i move that we approve agenda item number two the replant revise that plan revised preliminary site plan as submitted second have a motion by commissioner horne second by commissioner bronski to approve item number two please vote not item carry 7-0 thank you we do not have any uh non-public hearing items other than agenda item number three so if it's all right i will refrain from reading the speaker information agenda item number three is discussion and direction arcades and city initiated zoning notice requirements requests for discussion and direction pertaining to land use classification and restrictions for arcades and noticing requirements for city-initiated zoning applicant is city of plano hello i'm robin kirk a planner in the planning department this is a request for discussion and direction pertaining to two topics um if it pleases the commission we'll present them first arcades and then the noticing requirements that's fine thank you okay um this is a png word program item for several months if not years now the zoning ordinance has included regulations specific to arcades since 1981 that arcade definition came about from a case where the indoor commercial amusement classification that was previously used didn't work for a situation um so there were arcades in the city prior to 1981. those regulations have been modified slightly excuse us for a second two or three of us are having trouble hearing you so either you want me to speak up yeah maybe he can boost the mic a little bit whoa not that much let's see if we can get your light on because without the light then people watching can't hear you either try it again you can bend that up toward you a little bit if you want i'm sorry i don't understand you can bend the mic there you go now try that again can you hear me better a little closer can you hear me better a little bit just a little bit yeah believe it or not that's all right go ahead thank you okay we threw her off her game am i muted you're not muted you're fine okay um currently arcades require a specific use permit in 11 of our 15 non-residential zoning districts they're prohibited in three of these districts and permitted by right in only one district which is our newest zoning district the neighborhood business design we're not seeing what's on the big screen on our monitors you're not seeing on the monitor what's on my monitor yeah television put the slides on my uh pay grade right at the dice please can you see it now nope we're just seeing you i'm not sure i'm not sure it's not i don't think it's you ptn i believe is controlling this right there we go there we go thank you problem solved we can hear you and now we can see what you're talking about did that all happen because i moved the microphone uh no it's good now go ahead okay so we talked about the zoning districts the arcade definition is produced in full in your packet uh the short version is six or more player operated scale or amusement machines make an arcade they're also subject to distancing requirements in our article 15 in the zoning ordinance staff has actually found that computers qualify for this definition as scalar amusement machines when they're used to play games uh one concern that staff has in this is that our indoor commercial amusement definition encompasses arcades in the text the bold is our edition that's not produced in the zoning ordinance but typical uses listed in our indoor commercial amusement definition are bowling alleys ice or roller skating rinks arcades and bingo parlors this does create some confusion for applicants when arcades is both a separate land use and listed as an example of a different land use indoor commercial amusement is significantly less restricted it's permitted by right in 11 of the 15 non-residential zoning districts and not subject to any distancing requirements we did surveys surrounding communities in north texas to see whether our arcade regulations are typical plano is the only area city that specifically defines arcades exclusively for gaming machines we did find two of the 12 communities we surveyed have separate arcades definitions but they include bar games like billiards darts but the other 10 neighboring cities we looked at classified arcades just under the indoor amusement and or commercial amusement or amusement center definitions that are very similar to our indoor commercial amusement definition our current arcade sup information what's actually on the ground we did do pretty extensive research both in what sups we have and how they are currently being used by the land we have 29 sups in the city and you can refer to map or sorry exhibit 3 for kind of a visual of where those sups are located of the 29 11 are oversights that meet our arcade definition most of them were sought by businesses that have long since vacated some of them have literally been destroyed like one in colin creek mall and the 11 that we have remaining none of them are traditional sort of video or pinball arcades we've got three indoor play spaces we have three bowling alleys two sports bars with some golfing games inside them that are video operated one movie theater that has some arcade games in the lobby a video game store and that's actually in the photo here where you can try before you buy there's no money exchanged for the use of those computer monitors um and then an esports venue and i know that pnz got to hear and approve an sup request for another esports venue recently um that has not gone to council yet so we got some photos to actually illustrate how these arcade scps are being used now due to changes through the games entertainment industries we have not received an sup application for any traditional coin operated video or pinball arcade in years the last one i could find was over 20 years ago the recent sups that we've gotten we are getting fall into two broad categories accessory uses and then esports venues 10 of the 11 currently operating are accessory uses um so these are two plano businesses these are bowling alleys that have arcade games laser tag pinstack on the side there has a ropes chorus that you can see these both had to get arcade sups to operate here's another one that we have um is children's entertainment you have chuck e cheese and then safari run are two plano businesses that needed sups to operate the primary use here is indoor commercial amusement and then arcade because it's being used as an accessory use with the video animatronic machines here was required to get an sup these are two plano sports bars that we have um it was difficult to find photos this is a golfing game where uh because it's video operated it required an sup um and then the other sports bar there i think has the same golfing game i wasn't able to find a photo of the only one that we have that has arcade as a primary use is the only operating esports facility in plano right now and you can see the way that esports looks and this is a point that we did want to touch on is our new requests for sups have been heavily focused on esports this is a new type of venue where players wear headsets a lot of them do streaming as an income source where they play games and record themselves it is a more isolated activity you're sitting at a computer with the headset on it's not highly social it doesn't involve alcohol consumption and we expect that more esports permissions will come through if you refer to the staff report we've uh sorry where am i yeah most of the recent sups that we've looked at and that we've kind of fielded inquiries on were these esports venues just to compare the two related land uses in the zoning ordinance arcade land use and the indoor commercial amusement land use again you can see the distancing requirements are very different arcade currently has some of the strictest distancing requirements from residential zoning from public and parochial schools and from religious facilities in the city so staff requests discussion and direction from the commission on a potential ordinance update that reflects current trends in the entertainment industry we're also looking to eliminate that contradiction within the zoning ordinance where arcade is mentioned in the indoor commercial amusement definition these are the questions there's two main ones one should arcade remain a distinct land use from other indoor commercial amusements we have some questions if so we want to field discussion and future research direction on distance separations on esports business classifications and on the definitions of arcade and indoor commercial amusement overlapping if the commission does not want to keep arcade a distinct land use we would look at whether the current arcade sup should be rescinded if that land use were added back into indoor commercial amusement use and also any potential text amendments to the indoor commercial amusement definition and use chart and we're happy to take any other research issues um you can tell us now or you can certainly contact staff with those at this point uh requests discussion and direction okay so um i think eric be helpful maybe just kind of run through real quick and kind of boil it down for us a little bit and say what kind of direction you want for us sure so uh miss kirk specifically presented the arcade issue right now we have two issues that we're looking at in this request for discussion direction arcades you know should they continue to be a distinct use or should they be part of a commercial amusement use we've seen commercial amusement in other cities and that seems to be more the typical practice in our area and also as you can see from the regulations there are more strict distance requirements on arcades than there are on commercial amusement uses even though they do overlap so i think in general how do you all see arcades moving forward we're getting a lot of esports requests which are different from the traditional coin operated arcades less socialization loitering those sorts of issues we've heard in the past so it seems like this type of business has changed and perhaps our definitions and regulations could change as well to keep pace that's the question that we're asking i'd wager there's more uh pinball machines privately held than in arcades at the moment they're cool retro item right to you know all right several people kind of popped up but commissioner horn i do have a question with regards to we're talking about uh arcade sup and as it's applicable to an indoor commercial amusement but i'm also wondering um such as what we've seen at sports bars you know where they have they have darts and they have pinball machines now they're going to probably have esports there or and they have amusements there are we still going to need if they have a restaurant and then all of a sudden they want to bring in the pinball they all they would have to get an sup at this point right to amend that is that the only avenue they had if we take that away then it's kind of like we have an indoor commercial it's the only other approach we would have i i don't know how that would work sure i think the question is where does this arcade type of use or operation in the city fit in the zoning ordinance right now we have it as a distinct arcade use however it's also covered under commercial amusement indoor commercial amusement and many other cities are handling it not as a distinct use necessarily just under the amusement heading so if you all wanted to go that route we could basically remove our arcade use or amend it to be you know these sorts of uses as falls under the commercial amusement uh broader heading so then it would be someone could do axe throwing as christopher stone was talking earlier or other sorts of amusement operations and that's just one of the one of the flavors that they have to choose from so but likely we would probably i don't know if we've gone through the options yet miss sebastian maybe remove the arcade use and just have it underneath the heading of commercial amusement can you go back one slide to the slide that has this one yeah so and that's what's kind of struck me as odd that the indoor commercial amusement ordinance doesn't have all those um distance restrictions even though you could probably argue they bring as much quote unquote otherwise offensive you know to the neighborhood so it it it it's it strikes me as odd odd that we are zeroing in on okay i guess another question i have regarding in the commercial um the definition does it have to be fee based for it to fall under an indo-commercial tagging like if the bar for instance that was not charging for the games that they were paying was just an add-on accessory that the patrons of the bar of the sports bar could use does that trigger is is it i don't think we would necessarily have to have it be based on a fee it could just be part of the the bar operation or you know if you have a a barber shop and they want to have pinball machines in the barber shop you know um could that just be you get a haircut and you get to play pinball right skip my kids so you know yeah that's occupied we typically don't get into the the fee operations in our ordinances i think it's really the use itself as an amusement or arcade situation how should the city really regulate this type of operation so the fees could be in your barbershop um example if a barbershop brought in two or three arcade games used to keep they would have to apply for an sup on the current so right the way that we've applied it if you have six or more machines or five or more machines whatever the number is six or more machines thank you then they would have to apply for an sup even if there's another use on site as well so if you go into you know kroger and they have six arcade machines in kroger they would need an sup to have that number of machines commissioner paul i have a question regarding just on this slide here that we can see that the there are more stringent requirements on the arcade than the indoor commercial amusements for example the they're prohibited within a thousand feet of public or schools um so what's the original intent of that requirements is there anything that we're defining the concept of arcade that's kind of offending the school zones or why is it prohibited within a thousand feet i'm just trying to understand the difference between these two uses yeah we can we can provide some more context on it i think as you look at the regulations you know we've had regulations since the 80s so it's been long-standing regulations and i think historically there was more community sensitivity over these types of uses you know that youths would be hanging there and causing trouble those sorts of things and i think as things have changed over time um it doesn't seem to be quite as big of an issue as it is and the business itself seems to have changed also if you think about really where people hang out now it's probably more in the bowling alley or you know at the axe throwing location than at the arcade i just if you think about axe brought it up does that help i think it's it's really these are just long-standing regulations that haven't been um refreshed or considered in a long time and you know the community was very sensitive to them you know in the 80s and 90s when they were coming forward but now we're asking the question do we still need to maintain those restrictions especially based upon how it seems the business is going the business model is going right now right right so that's important to me to understand the the reasons behind the original um restrictions because if we are going to determine the arcade can be kind of classified in the bigger umbrella of indoor amusement that mean that means all the restrictions will be gone then they can you know there's no restrictions for them anymore so if we think that's kind of already obsolete then i i mean include them into the commercial amusement usp can be an option for us right well the council had the ability on these sups to waive those distances or at least the 300 feet to residential they could waive that requirement and the thousand feet could be dropped to 300 feet so there was already the the tool in there to do that so i don't expect that is probably as applicable i think to mr hill's comments and again going back i've been doing this too long i can remember some of these discussions um it was just a different environment it really was truly uh the arcade it really brought in this vision of you know not a nice place for kids to hang out you know it attracted the wrong kind of people etc in today's environment that's not really what happens uh we've had you know a presentation to us about an esports and that's the current arcade right as an esports environment um so anyway i heard buttons popping over here so commissioner bronski i've got a couple and uh so first i'd like to say i'm one of those kids who actually grew up in an arcade okay so what was your favorite game well pac-man yes okay and my wife was galaga okay so i've got several questions related to the slide 29 there actually slide 29 and 21 combined and first is for eric the distance requirements for schools i notice it lists public and parochial but doesn't list private schools is there a reason for that i i don't know offhand do you all know if there was a reason i don't think we're aware but we can research that i'm just curious it struck me as interesting and odd but neither here nor there i just curious why that was second question is um on the zoning districts where the use is permitted by wright i see arcades are one and the indoor commercial is 11. does the indoor commercial amusement already incorporate the one where arcade is permitted by right yes it does okay on the zoning districts where sups are required uh there are four where it's not required for arcade and 13 where it's not required for indoor amusement do those also overlap the same way yes there is nowhere you can have an arcade and not have an indoor commercial amusement park okay the prohibited districts for indoor commercial amusement are o1 and the research technology district and those two are prohibited for arcades in addition to light industrial too and so it would um moving it over as frankly i'm in favor of uh getting rid of the arcade but moving it over the um the li1 use would then no longer be prohibited there right if arcade were incorporated into the indoor commercial amusement unless that were changed in the ordinance it would just be prohibited in o1 and the research technology okay yeah thank you very much as somebody who um favored arcades and didn't think it brought the wrong kind of people uh i um i don't know that we need motion or votes on this okay it's my it's my i'm very much in favor of getting rid of the arcade sup altogether okay and uh incorporating arcades uh as it's currently languaged to a great extent under the uh indoor commercial amusement okay question uh are the requirements for a liquor license basically the same for the definition of arcade and indoor commercial amusement or is there some some difference there if someone wanted to obtain a liquor license do they each have to do basically the same thing the or is or is that even our business right so those are that's a different use altogether and the question i think is with if you're asking about consumption on-site correct not just retail sales so consumption on-site the city has two methods for handling consumption one is through a specific use permit for a private club that's what that use is called um another is through a mixed beverage permit so those are essentially separate from the arcades or indoor commercial amusement places like main event also seeks their liquor license they work through tabc and with the city okay to make sure that that is handled but it is distinct but being being defined as an arcade does not automatically make it more restrictive or more difficult to get a liquor license not not from the city's perspective no and i think tabc has restrictions on there are distance restrictions for consumption in state law as well as requirements for food and beverage thresholds but i don't think uh miss d'andrea feel free to weigh in if i you know any different i don't know of any restriction based upon arcade good thank you commissioner yeah i have just a couple quick questions and a comment um i'd like to understand they're mentioned that there are operational hurdles at times for some of these arcades um do you mind sharing with us what some of those are or what the most significant ones are i think just getting together the zoning sign that was required these are typically very small businesses people who aren't as familiar with city regulations uh they come to us generally because they applied for a certificate of occupancy a lot of the time they've already gotten a lease at that time they find out that they meet the arcade definition which was unexpected because they're so different from a traditional pinball arcade and at that time staff has to really slow down and work them through this entire process it's fairly expensive if you're doing a small business especially if you already have a lease space and can't move into it until you meet the city's requirements okay great um my second thing is this uh anticipates the rescinding of current sups and so what might that effect be um especially one that we might need to be concerned about if we rescind those or do you think there's not an effect of that if we move to this new uh approach uh so currently of the 11 businesses that have that are operating as arcades 10 of them are accessory uses those places would simply be defined by their primary uses indoor commercial amusement private club for the two sports bars our main ones there would not be any non-conforming condition created because there is complete overlap of the places where indoor commercial amusement is permitted the only issue is the single esports venue that currently has the primary use arcade would be shifted to i assume indoor commercial amusement land use and we may have to alter the certificate of occupancy to reflect that okay and then my next question is uh private clubs i i don't know that i'm completely familiar with what what that means in this instance so can you quickly educate at least me on what what the private club has going on that's different from a regular bar private club is just a type of alcohol permit for consumption that tabc has you can do a variety of permits under state law and for the city's purposes for consumption we have um required properties to get a private club permit in the past for consumption and we had specific requirements under those especially like a food to beverage ratio in the past 10 years there have been changes where we've now allowed folks to operate under basically the tabc requirements which is a different type of permit it's a mixed beverage permit and a food and beverage certificate so it's it's just a type of permit that they're getting there's a little bit of change in regards to the food to beverage ratio and if you're using the city's private club permit there are some distance restrictions to uses such as religious facilities so it's it just depends on how you want to operate um specifically as you're operating your business a private club is more cumbersome to keep records and okay great so thank you i appreciate that and then i just have a couple comments um um there's some things and and commissioner tong was talking about this i if if we move ahead and by the way like commissioner bronski i personally think i'm in favor of that based on what i hear at this point but if we're going to move ahead i think there's a couple questions we should try to get answers to and one is again back to the distance uh issue that commissioner tong talked about and why was it set in and if we move to this are there concerns we should have about that going away um and i think uh i guess that's my my primary concern and also um in the indoor commercial amusement we're hearing that there's not a concern going forward in terms of why some of these um things were in place previously and because we have other communities around us that are doing this i think it might make sense to talk to them to see are there any issues they have especially with proximity to schools and other things because if they don't have those restrictions on on distance but other than those things which i think we should see if we can learn more about i i think i'm in favor of this as commissioner bronsky so um carrollton has some interesting language as it relates to arcades and indoor commercial amusement uh is there anything under the indoor commercial amusement or arcade that um [Music] has anything to do with simulated gambling so uh in their ordinances they talk about um uh arcades uh having a carve out saying that uh it has to do with simulated gambling so in uh in an environment where you would get an arcade uh that would be for for an in well let me rephrase that uh an indoor commercial use where you would get a simulated gambling versus an arcade that you would not be permitted or any is that how is that a fact i would recommend against calling out these particular kinds of uses because they may or may not be legal um and and so i i think that we would want to just stick with simulated or video games and not call these out because i don't want to imply through our zoning ordinance that these are legal when they may not actually be okay no i was i just happened to was looking at their their ordinance and so i just i thought maybe that was a reason that uh that that might be tied in there somewhere i'm not trying to imply that we should or shouldn't do it that way but wondering if that was something to do with the distances so let me say this first off if we agree and it sounds like most of us are in agreement we'll just move arcade under indoor commercial amusement that's a change to that ordinance it's going to come back to us for discussion etc so we'll have time to dig into that a little bit so let's in the interest of moving along are we all generally speaking in favor of moving arcade under indoor okay great so uh if we're going to do that then the next question is are we okay with this commission rescinding existing sups cleaning up the books so that we're not 10 years from now some other commission trying to figure out why we still have an sup for arcade somewhere are we okay with with moving forward with that are we okay with rescinding the sups on the arcade designation yes okay are you talking about those that have existing suvs that's correct that's correct that's correct that's correct and then the next one is are there any amendments needed to the indoor commercial amusement definition and use chart that's one where i i don't know that i want to answer yes or no i want you to bring back these modifications and then we'll have a discussion does that make sense because i don't think any of us right now could say for sure we understand what that looks like i think one part we need to look at is particularly the distance requirements okay though i'm sure they'll under are there any additional issues we'd like to see after research before i think it would be what's the history of that are there issues with it and surrounding communities is that sufficient direction on this item yes okay great let's move on to the uh posting requirements city initiated zoning yes um so the sign posting requirements for zoning cases were added to the zoning ordinance in 2015 can you hear me a little bit a little bit louder thank you they were added in 2015. the city is permitted by state law to initiate zoning changes on private property such as rescinding unwanted stps the signposting requirements for this have added difficulty and costs to this process for the city the cost of posting a sign we calculated at about 950 per case the even bigger hurdle is placing signs on private property that does present additional legal hurdles for staff we do have questions for direction and discussion staff is committed to transparency on noticing these um there were these are the proposals for replacing that signage with additional notice for rescinding those unused sups we'll notice the owner the standard research on that and look for any additional communications that are necessary and then for rezoning we would defer to the commission on reasonable outreach this doesn't apply to calls for public hearings requested by property owners at this time staff requests discussion and direction from the commission on a potential ordinance amendment exempting city-initiated zoning changes from signposting requirements we had a single question would the commission support making these changes okay thank you um eric i'd asked you a question earlier just to try to narrow this down are we talking about all city-initiated zoning cases are only city-initiated zoning cases that are rescinding sups that was the question i had regarding this we're talking about all city-initiated zoning cases for property not posting signs for those however the city the staff can reach out and discuss with the commission a specific communications strategy just to make sure that we're being fully transparent with any requests but yes removing the sign requirement for those situations and again specifically for city initiated zoning um commissioner tom that's um i just want to clarify the definition of city initiated zoning cases are those the cases that is like a planning zone in our city that we without any public application we wanted to rezone the place because for example we're changing the sop we're seeing the sop and that's a city general change instead of having a a private owner applying first owning change is that is that correct that's the difference between the city initiated or now city initiated that that's correct um the the main question here is in regards to private property um if it if the city owns the property then we'd be able to place the signs as as usual but the access to the private property is where we have the problem and the um this would be for say um i actually i think we have done this in the past but i don't know um specific examples but for um the downtown plan if if in the future we decide that it makes sense to do a new zoning district or like maybe bg would be an example when that was that zoning district was created it would have likely been a city-initiated case um but we would do outreach in the newspaper um that's that's the legally required notice from the zoning ordinance but what we propose here is that we would um potentially if if you support this idea when we call a public hearing because we would always call a public hearing for all of these here at the commission and have you look at a communications plan specific for the case that we're talking about so that way if it's a very small project it could be scalable and if it's if it's larger we could we could scale it up to whatever is appropriate for the level of zoning changes the scale of the zoning change that we're looking at so working with our communications department creating a website outlining those steps and having you approve that as part of the call for public hearing that's an idea there may be lots of other ideas we could pursue too thank you commissioner kerry yeah thanks um i've got a quick question and then a quick comment um so one of the things that was mentioned is the cost of this so over the last couple years what's the average cost that the city is actually spending on these to my knowledge we haven't done many sap rescissions in quite a while we have a handful that we would like to do including the private clubs um that we have out there that's on the pnc work program as well but i don't know that we have we have had many opportunities we did rescind an scp in the fall and that's where that thousand dollar cost came from in that case it was for a zoning case there was a zoning case right before it and so we were working closely with the property owner and had that relationship already established so what i think i'm hearing and correct me if i'm wrong it's it's probably not a cost in terms of the signage really is it it's probably other issues is that correct i mean is the primary driver of this right i think the staff time involved in trying to get the the permission from the private property owner is is probably the the larger resource okay well thanks i appreciate that and then my quick comment is um you know as we uh move forward and and the the different media and different ways to contact people or notify the um the community about some of these things um i i just and maybe we are maybe you guys already know this i wonder if our approach is using the best practices today to notify the widest group of people possible that that at least are interested about this and well this probably doesn't relate necessarily to what we're talking about here as we look forward i would urge us to uh to look at the ability without incurring a lot of cost to expand our ability to contact citizens when we have zoning cases come up because sometimes i look and we say hey and i think we're doing things with good intent but sometimes hey we've got a 300 foot or 500 foot and when you really look at it it's not contacting very many people and so i wonder if as we look forward if there are cost-effective simple ways we can expand that and that's and maybe this does come back to this i don't know but anyway thank you very much i think it's important uh commissioner i'll get to you in just a second this initiative was kind of driven by the fact that we're looking at 29 or however many recessions of sup and again as it was pointed out in the arcade situation it's a small location they don't really have a place to put a sign so if this is cleaning things up for us well a little bit even though we haven't used it a lot recently i know in the past sitting on both council and pmz we've had discussions around sups that were floating out there that probably should be cleaned up and she mentioned private clubs um so i i i think it's a it's a good idea i just want to make sure to kind of your point that no one can interpret this as us trying to be less than transparent that's my primary concern and i think based on the notifications that you've talked about the willingness to bring and say before us or that zoning and public hearing here's how we notified everybody i feel comfortable that we're going to develop a program that will allow us to do this commissioner horn go ahead yeah i'm i'm back here looking here i'm i'm thinking that for us to post a sign for rescinding and sup is kind of be honest with you a waste of a waste of money yeah i i think that but i think we have to be careful when we talk about for rezoning and if it's applicable to what we're talking about with the subject with arcades and the changes we'll make with that i don't have any issue with that but um one of the things about a sign that's for rezoning people drive by there and that's the kind of the first time they see that there's a rezoning case and with what we went through with the comprehensive plan where we're trying to initiate significant amount of transparency to our to our citizens uh i think we got to be careful there i don't know what direct should go certainly with sup we don't need the sides are we sending that but if are we going to talk about how many cases are we talking about with res rezoning that we would have to do this is it i don't think we have a number for you but you know i think if you're thinking about a rezoning request it's really a broader type of request so if you have a you know like back in the 90s we re-zoned the entirety of the tollway but we did that working with the neighbors they helped us develop the ordinance we brought it forward you know through multiple discussions and hearings but where do you post a zoning sign along the tollway you know or you post 20 zoning signs long toll way so i think it's looking at those specific broader zoning situations and working with you all to see okay maybe we do need to sign here here or there we don't know but more specifically what type of communication plan should we establish to ensure there's transparency and just not necessarily be so tied into we've got the sign we're good to go and perhaps we don't even need the sign because it's it's a very large area and maybe it's even more distracting to have a sign because it focuses them on a certain location when it's it's not there so i think that's what we're talking about but if we have a city property as mr sebastian was saying you know that's very distinct and we will definitely continue to post science in those directions i think the other issue we have with our signage and this is one i see all the time on legacy we got signs out there from cases from 2019 that need to be removed now that's you at that point you become blind to it and again i'm just trying to make sure that when we talk about rezoning cases that we offer as much transparency to the citizens as possible and well can we can we kind of focus in on it says you know are we going to support changes to the sign posting requirements for city-initiated zoning cases it's not saying what specific changes so i think in general we're okay with some form of change and maybe the devil's in the details a little bit it's already been expressed clearly that there's a concern that no matter what we do the citizens don't interpret that as anything other than being as transparent as possible and as long as we all agree that whatever action we take that's a primary motivator i don't know why we would be opposed to this commissioner ali agreed and especially since we have in our toolkit now the alert system might what we like to always brings up we have in our toolkit those tools and systems that should increase transparency i think uh the to your point we're moving in that that right direction um always being meeting people where they can be met so to speak um and as long as that's our primary motivator um this the area of putting the specific signs and you know having access to private property and that restriction i'm sure the the public can understand how it's actually not an inconvenience to them to be knocking down no trespassing on someone's land trying to stick a sign on their yard without them knowing so we have the toolkit so this is a good time to deploy it okay mr yeah so um as you mentioned i think uh transparency is really really important um i am very excited and very hopeful that uh the alert system that we've been developing is certainly heading in that direction and i can see and understand where a lot of times the signage can run into a difficulty have have we done any surveying of the community or anything about any changes to removing the signs or [Music] making changes along that line i think we need to again let's be specific we're not talking about getting rid of zoning signs we're talking about very specific types of cases so i i just i don't want us to be getting off in areas where really that's not what's being discussed here yeah i think this is really our first touch on this subject with us and i think it really came about as we were looking through this information tonight in the past we've gone back and rescinded private clubs private club supes we did that during the recession we didn't have sign posting requirements at the time but as we thought about going and rescinding these sups and then posting signs and the cost and difficulty doing that this is why this came about so we have not approached the public about this this is really just floating this out to you as the commission and i think the question to tear downs this point is do you support us looking at this further and just exploring options with you again with the absolute goal of being completely transparent as we are now would making changes similar to that line would we ever be able to get to where we're addressing the concern that i share with vice chair horn about the removal of the signs it we might be able to look at that while we are looking at this question but staff has as of recently taken more initiative to follow up with uh the applicants of previous zoning cases and started including information and our communication with them after things are approved or denied and also following up with letters so that hopefully we start to see them removed and also we're monitoring to confirm if they are removed or not so hopefully you will see some changes as we continue to do that so one of the big savings is staff time do you know of any negative consequences to what we're looking at i mean our goal is not to have negative consequences so i think we will analyze this closely and just you know we we don't want to remove any transparency and we want to be absolutely everything's above board with the community but we also want to just use our time efficiently and be able to you know especially for rescinding sups since that's not granting a situation it's really a cleanup the use is no longer there or needed it just it really does seem like a not a good use of staff's time to do that but for the other situations i don't see a downside right now and our goal release to have improved communication and improved regulations yes so uh you know i agree with absolutely everything you've said uh you know during the cprc dr solomon made the comment that the city would uh put a mechanism in place to share information proactively and broadly and intentionally collect input and so long as we're living up to those values in all areas whether it's very specific on some of the issues we're talking about or we look at it even more broadly i want to make sure that we maintain that directionality commissioner tom i just like to say that i would definitely support making changes to the sign posting requirements uh it's not i just want to make sure that that we're not trying to eliminate the signs we're trying to come up with a better idea or a better solution to post the signs maybe instead of having the wood board sign on the ground we can have an electronic sign somewhere on the city property so that we don't have to go through the contacting the private landowners or it can be changed you know right regularly with the electronic sign instead of having a board there it just said johnny change it doesn't have any information for people driving by they don't know that's receiving a sup or they're really changing a uh empty land to a multi-family sometimes there's just not enough information i think uh i definitely would support making changes to assign requirements but i know this one's specific for city initiated um however when you talk about zoning changes even city initiated it may not be only suv descending it could be something else that could be important that the citizens would want to know so i'd say that we need to dig into more details and then we want to make the changes we want to make sure that we have everything covered on that you know we have a better solution so well that's fine i'm just again as he's as i suggested and he's asked they're just asking permission to start looking at the sign ordinance is everybody okay with that yes okay very good i don't know if that was much direction but uh let's let's do as you pointed out which i think is important and and i have no doubt you guys are daily looking to make sure that we're transparent in every action that the city takes and and there's no effort to try to keep anybody from finding out anything they want to find anyone who's called in and talk to you knows this it's about being more efficient with city dollars and staff time absolutely so and i just wanted to mention we'll be happy to look at the content of the sign as well if you all would like to do that during this process we haven't updated that in a few years so i'm happy to visit that as well so i think our balance is as someone's driving by how much to provide you know we've talked about a qr code but you want somebody getting their phone out so we'll be happy to look at that issue as well yeah yeah i'm sure the police though okay anything else just one additional question obviously we're going to bring this back for more discussion um but are you ready to call up for a public hearing now or would you like to do that at a future meeting future meeting i believe would be best on this particular item let's see what you come back with and just so that when we call the public hearing we're all educated we all know exactly what it is that we're going to be discussing i think yes okay agreed lots of nods thank you for the question that was dangerous asking for more input feedback okay anybody else did you get what you needed yes okay thank you all we are adjourned at 8 ten people [Music] [Music] you