May 05, 2026 City Planning Commission Meetings

[00:00:08]

CINCO DE MAYO WITH THE QUORUM PRESIDENT. I WILL NOW CALL THE REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE RICHARDSON CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO ORDER ON TUESDAY, MAY 5TH, 2026 AT 6 P.M. THE PLAN COMMISSION CONSISTS OF RICHARDSON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES ON THE COMMISSION. ONLY SEVEN MEMBERS WILL VOTE ON AN ISSUE, ALTHOUGH ALL MEMBERS WILL PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE ABSENCE OF A REGULAR MEMBER, A DESIGNATED ALTERNATE WILL VOTE ON THE ISSUE. THIS MEETING IS. A BUSINESS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED AS SUCH IN THAT REGARD, AS A COURTESY TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, WE REQUEST THAT ALL DEVICES EMIT SOUND, BE TURNED OFF OR ADJUSTED SO AS NOT TO INTERRUPT THIS MEETING. OUR PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD WHEN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION. THEY MAY RESERVE ANY PORTION OF THIS TIME FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL. TIME SPENT ANSWERING QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT COUNTED AGAINST THE APPLICANT. ALL SPEAKERS ARE REQUESTED TO COLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD AND SUBMIT IT TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTESH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WHEN THE TIMER BEEPS, THE SPEAKER SHOULD CONCLUDE THEIR COMMENTS PROMPTLY. SPEAKERS MUST NOT PHYSICALLY APPROACH MEMBERS OF THE CPC OR STAFF, AND SHOULD REMAIN AT THE LECTERN DURING THEIR COMMENTS. SPEAKERS WITH HANDOUTS MUST PROVIDE THEM TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY FOR DISTRIBUTION. IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR OBJECTIONS. THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN GATHERING NEW AND RELEVANT INFORMATION. WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN REPETITION. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. AFTER A BRIEF REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT, THE HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED. SO NOW WE'LL GET ON WITH THE AGENDA. AND THE FIRST ITEM IS OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? SEEING

[1. Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of April 21, 2026. ]

COMMISSIONER. I'LL SECOND WITH A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, THE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL

[2. Zoning File 26-06 – Back Nine Golf: Consider and act on a request for a Special Permit for a Commercial Amusement Center (Indoor Golf Simulator) in an existing approximately 3,000-square-foot lease space at 1920 N. Coit Road, Suite 220, on the east side of Coit Road, south of Campbell Road, and currently zoned LR-M(2) Local Retail. Owner: Pavillion East, Ltd. Staff: Christine Ross. (Requesting continuation to the May 19, 2026, meeting)]

[3. Zoning File 26-09 – CZO Text Amendments – Definition of “Family” and Property Owner Protests for Special Permits and Zoning Changes: Consider and act on City-initiated amendments to Appendix A (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Richardson’s Code of Ordinances: Article 1, Sec. 2 (Definitions, Family), Article XXII-A, Sec. 4 (Special Permits, Property owner protest), and Article XXIX, Sec. 6 (Changes and Amendments, Property owner protest). Staff: Andrew Bogda]

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND AND COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I JUST WANT TO INTRODUCE YOU ALL TO KEVIN LAUGHLIN. HE'S WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO HE'S BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING US THROUGH THESE LEGISLATIVE RELATED AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE

[00:05:05]

AND THEN JUST TO REMIND YOU ALL, WE HAD WORK SESSIONS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 6TH, AS WELL AS WITH WITH YOU ALL ON APRIL 21ST, WHERE THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION GENERALLY CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S PROPOSED APPROACH. IN ADDITION, AT THE LAST MEETING, THE COMMISSION SOUGHT CLARIFICATION REGARDING A MIXED USE. DEVELOPMENTS WERE DEFINED IN THE STATUTE AND ALSO THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE BY COUNCIL. HOW. THAT WAS CALCULATED UNDER DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. SO I WILL GET. I WILL GET INTO THAT LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION. BUT AS FAR AS SENATE BILL 1567, THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY, AGAIN, THIS STATUTE IS PREEMPTIVE ON CITIES THAT SATISFY CERTAIN THRESHOLD CRITERIA. CITIES MAY NOT RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS BASED ON FAMILIAL RELATIONS AND BUT. BUT CITIES MAY CONTINUE TO ENFORCE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS. SINCE RICHARDSON IS BELOW THE POPULATION THRESHOLD OF THE BILL, AS WELL AS THE PRESENCE OF UTD MEETING THE THRESHOLD FOR THEIR ENROLLMENT SIZE, IT APPLIES TO RICHARDSON. AND AS A REMINDER, THE STATUTE ALLOWS FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS TO STILL APPLY AND BE MORE RESTRICTIVE. SO CURRENTLY THE DEFINITION FAMILY WE HAVE THE THE RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF OF UNRELATED OCCUPANT LIMITATIONS. SO AS A RESULT, WE'RE CURRENTLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE. SO THE NEW DEFINITION BRINGS US INTO COMPLIANCE BECAUSE IT REMOVES THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS FROM THAT DEFINITION. AND THEN IT ALSO MENTIONS THE TWO OR SPEAKS TO THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT TYPICALLY CONSTITUTE A FAMILY. BUT IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY LIMIT TO THOSE RELATION REQUIREMENTS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ZONING PROTESTS? COMMISSIONER BEACH, DOES THIS HAVE ANY IMPACT ON LIKE A SHORT TERM RENTALS LIKE AIRBNB? BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES YOU'LL HAVE MAYBE 15 PEOPLE STAYING IN THE HOUSE, OBVIOUSLY NOT FAMILY, NOT RELATED. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THIS CRITERIA, IT WOULD FIT WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF, OH, WELL, THEY'RE NOT FAMILY, BUT THEY MAY ALL EAT AT THE SAME TIME OR WHATNOT. YEAH. SO SHORT TERM RENTALS FALL UNDER A DIFFERENT USE CATEGORY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A RESIDENCE. IT'S BEING USED MORE AS LODGING. AND SO WE HAVE SEPARATE REGULATIONS THAT DEAL WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND SO THOSE STILL APPLY. THE BILL ALSO, I THINK, EXPLICITLY ALLOWS FOR CITIES TO STILL REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WELL, MOVING ON TO HOUSE BILL 24 AND ITS IMPACTS ON ZONING PROTEST PROCEDURES. SO PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL, OBJECTION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS COMPRISING 20% OF THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY OR PROPERTY WITHIN 200FT TRIGGERED A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT OF COUNCIL IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT REQUEST. HOUSE BILL 24. WHAT IT DOES IS IT INCREASES THE THRESHOLD TO 60% FOR REZONING REQUEST THAT ALLOW FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND ALLOWS FOR A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE TO APPROVE FOR SUCH REQUESTS THAT ALLOW FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ESSENTIALLY, THE GOAL OF THE LEGISLATION, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER BILLS THAT CAME OUT OF THE SESSION, WAS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. ALL OTHER REZONING REQUESTS, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ETC. WOULD MAINTAIN THE 20% AND REQUIRE THE SUPERMAJORITY OF COUNCIL TO APPROVE. SO SINCE OUR CURRENTLY

[00:10:03]

CONVERSELY, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REQUESTS THAT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR SPECIFIC MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS. SO IF YOU READ TOWARDS THE END OF THIS.

THE USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR. IF IT'S A MIXED USE, THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 35% OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. OTHERWISE, IF IT DOES EXCEED THAT REQUIREMENT, IT'S ■CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AND WOULD BE AND WOULD FALL INTO THAT 20% THRESHOLD AND REQUIRING THE THREE FOURTHS MAJORITY. OTHERWISE, IF IF IT PROVIDES FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL USE OR IF IT'S A MORE LIMITED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, IT IT ONLY REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IN ORDER TO TAKE EFFECT. AND AGAIN, FOR REGULAR ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS, THE SAME CRITERIA APPLY. IF IT'S. A COMMERCIAL OR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OR A INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, ONLY 20% ONLY 20% THRESHOLD IS REQUIRED AND A THREE FOURTHS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IS REQUIRED. AND THEN FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, 60% THRESHOLD IS REQUIRED. AND THEN IT ONLY REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO APPROVE. AND THEN THIS TABLE OUTLINES IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR EVERYONE. SO CURRENTLY ALL LAND BASED ZONING CHANGES ANDPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRE THAT THAT SUPERMAJORITY OF COUNCIL. BUT AS PROPOSED, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. SO FOR LAND BASED ZONING CHANGES AND SPECIAL PERMITS, ALLOWING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A 60% PROTEST IN ORDER TO APPROVE AND ONLY REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO APPROVE. AND THEN FOR ALL OTHER LAND BASED ZONING CHANGES IN SPECIAL PERMITS, SUCH AS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, IT ONLY REQUIRES A 20% THRESHOLD, AND IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY OF COUNCIL TO APPROVE AND THEN FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGES, SUCH AS TEXT AMENDMENTS SUCH AS WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO YOU TONIGHT, THERE'S NO PROTEST ABILITY. AND THEN TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUPERMAJORITY. SO WE'VE OUTLINED THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS HERE. AFTER AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, READING THE BILL A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, AGAIN, IS BASED ON ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE. SO IF THERE ARE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEN THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE IS BASED ON SEVEN. THUS, MINIMUM SIX OUT OF SEVEN IS REQUIRED IF YOU DO THE MATH. AND WHAT 75% IS, AND IF THERE'S AN ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBER SUCH AS SUCH THAT ONLY SIX MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. SO, FOR INSTANCE, SOMEBODY IS NOT PRESENT THAT EVENING, THEN THE SIX OUT OF SIX ARE STILL REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR IF THERE'S A VACANT SEAT ON THE COUNCIL. SO IF SOMEBODY HAS TO RESIGN THEIR SEAT ON THE COUNCIL, AND COUNCIL ONLY COMPRISES SIX CURRENTLY, OR IF A COUNCIL MEMBER IS DISQUALIFIED FROM VOTING ON THE REQUEST DUE TO A LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT THERE'S ALSO AN OUT FOR THAT, THEN THAT VACANT SEAT OR THAT THAT SEAT THAT'S MADE VACANT BECAUSE OF THAT CONFLICT CAN BE DEDUCTED. SO THUS, ONLY FIVE OUT OF THE SIX VOTES WOULD BE REQUIRED. SO BEFORE I

[00:15:07]

ARE YOU GOING TO GO INTO THE ACTUAL TEXT OR NOT? YEAH, SO I DID EARLIER. SO OKAY. WELL THEN I'LL ASK MY QUESTION NOW. OKAY. SO I, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS IS RELATED TO. THE PROTESTS WHEN IT'S AT LEAST 20% OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS ARE LAND TO WHICH THE SPECIAL PERMIT WILL APPLY, OR AT LEAST 20% OF THE AREA ARE LOTS TO WHICH THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING WOULD APPLY.

SO YOU GOT THAT IN BOTH PLACES. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK I ON A SPECIAL PERMIT, I GUESS IT'S MORE RELEVANT USUALLY. USUALLY A SPECIAL PERMIT IS FOR A SINGLE PROPERTY OR LOT IN WHICH THE OWNER IS USUALLY AT LEAST IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT, RIGHT, FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT. SO I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THAT 20% OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS OR LAND TO WHICH THE SPECIAL PERMIT WILL APPLY.

COULD YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? COULD IT BE SOMETHING LIKE MAYBE A, YOU KNOW, A UNIVERSITY OR A CAR LOT OR SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IS OVER DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS AND DIFFERENT DIFFERENT TRACKS? YEAH. IT IS RARE. I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD COME UP VERY MUCH AT ALL, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SCENARIOS WHERE IT COULD HAPPEN. I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME DISTRICTS WHERE WE ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, FOR INSTANCE, BY SPECIAL PERMIT.

AND SO SAY, FOR INSTANCE, A DEVELOPER WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, ASSEMBLE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, AND THEN MAYBE YOU HAD ONE HOLDOUT AND THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY DID WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY FIRST SIGNED ON. BUT MAYBE AS THINGS WENT ON AND THE CITY WAS RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH, I CAN SEE IT. I CAN SEE IT MORE IN A LIKE A REZONING CASE. YEAH. RIGHT. WHERE IT'S A BROADER, BIGGER AREA. BUT. THE I Q IS AN EXAMPLE WAS 1200 ACRES REZONING, RIGHT? WE HAD A LOT OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN THERE, BUT I GUESS IT WAS MORE MORE READILY APPLIES TO LIKE A SPECIAL PERMIT. AND I WAS JUST HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE FIGURING OUT AN EXAMPLE THERE. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY IF I COULD OFFER AN EXAMPLE. SO I THINK HERE IN RICHARDSON, PROBABLY MOST LIKELY WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THIS SITUATION COMING INTO PLAY IS, IS LIKE A CITY INITIATED ZONING AMENDMENT, RIGHT? BECAUSE NORMALLY IF YOU HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION, EVEN IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEN IN ALL LIKELIHOOD THEY WERE GOING TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED BECAUSE WE REQUIRE THEIR SIGNATURE ON THE APPLICATION IF SOMEBODY IS REPRESENTING THEM. SO I THINK IN THE CASE OF ACTUAL PROPERTY WHERE WHERE AN APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING IT, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HAVE THAT SITUATION. IT'S TRULY GOING TO BE MORE OF LIKE A CITY INITIATED TYPE SITUATION, BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION WHERE SOMEBODY ELSE IS TRYING TO GO REZONE SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY IF WE DON'T HAVE THEIR CONCURRENCE.

SO THE IQ, THE COLLINS ARAPAHOE ZONING WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE WHERE THE CITY INITIATED A ZONING AMENDMENT ON ALL THOSE PROPERTIES. IF 20%, IF PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATION OF 20% OF THE LAND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COLLINS ARAPAHOE DISTRICT WAS SUBMITTED, THEN THAT COULD HAVE TRIGGERED THAT INTO A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL. YEAH, AND I GET IT ON THE REZONING. IT'S THE SPECIAL PERMIT. SO THAT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT HARDER TEST, I WOULD AGREE, BUT I THINK THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, WE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE THE 20% WOULD COME INTO PLAY. BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN WE GET A SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST, IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AN APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER SIGNING AND HAVING THE CONSENT TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. SO I AGREE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE THAT SCENARIO, BUT WE INCLUDED IN OUR ORDINANCE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COVERED BECAUSE A SPECIAL PERMIT IS CONSIDERED A ZONING ACTION. YEAH. KEVIN, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING. NO. I MEAN, SHE ACTUALLY HIT THE ONES I WAS GOING TO SAY PARTICULARLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A CITY INITIATED ZONING CASE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY OF OUR OVERLAY ZONING CASES, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD 20% OF THE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT PROTESTING, THEN IT WOULD TRIGGER THAT SUPERMAJORITY AS WELL. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN REALLY, THIS IS GOING INTO WHEN

[00:20:09]

BUT IN THE AGGREGATE, FOR ALL TRACTS OF LAND, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIAL PERMIT OR AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AS APPLICABLE.

SO AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, LIKE IF I'M A LAYMAN READING THAT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW REALLY HOW, YOU KNOW, IS IT IS IT LITERALLY WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE ABLE TO CALCULATE THAT LAND AREA? YES. YEAH. SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOPHISTICATED GIS SOFTWARE THAT WE USE THAT CAN RUN THOSE CALCULATIONS FOR US.

AND SO WE WILL DRAW THE 200 FOOT RADIUS AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO CARVE OUT THE AREA OF LAND THAT'S WITHIN 200FT AND ONLY THAT AREA OF LAND. AND THEN ALL THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, STREETS AND ALLEYS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. RIGHT? SO IF I'M A ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER AND THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY IS HALFWAY CUTS HALFWAY ACROSS MY LOT, IT'S ONLY HALF, MY LOT IS GOING TO COUNT TOWARDS THE AGGREGATE LAND AREA. THAT'S CORRECT.

RIGHT. SO OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THE SUPERMAJORITY. REQUIREMENTS, IS THAT ALREADY IN THE CC OR IS THAT YOUR YOUR INTERPRETATION, LEGAL CITY ATTORNEY'S LEGAL INTERPRETATION OR STAFF'S INTERPRETATION? YEAH. THAT'S BASED ON LEGAL INTERPRETATION. OKAY. AND JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SAY THREE FOURTHS OF SEVEN, THAT'S 5.25. SO YOU'RE ROUNDING UP NOT DOWN.

YOU HAVE TO ROUND UP. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER KIRK? WELL, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY ON ON THAT SAME SUBJECT, WHAT HAPPENED IF THERE WERE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAPPENED TO BE ABSENT THAT NIGHT? YOU JUST CAN'T YOU CAN'T VOTE. YEAH. I THINK THE ITEM WOULD WOULD LIKELY NEED TO BE TABLED. CONTINUE TO ANOTHER MEETING WHEN THE YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER, THE NEEDED NUMBER OF VOTES WAS THERE. THAT THAT'S PRETTY COMMON BECAUSE AN APPLICANT IS GOING TO WANT TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT'LL BE PRESENT. AND SO BY DEFAULT, THEY WOULD WANT THE CONTINUANCE.

SO I MEAN, COUNCIL, I GUESS TECHNICALLY COULD TAKE A VOTE IF THEY DID NOT WANT TO ACCOMMODATE A CONTINUANCE. BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUESTING IT. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS. SO JUST AS A REMINDER PROCEDURES. SO FOR THE PROPOSED ZONG TEXT AMENDMENTS, MAILED NOTICES OR PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPER IS NOT REQUIRED FOR CPC. HOWEVER, NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER FOR COUNCIL CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 15TH. SO THOSE WILL THAT WILL LIKELY RUN TOWARDS THE END OF MAY. AND THEN. ADDITIONALLY, NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS, AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE.

THE REQUEST. SHOULD THE CPC CONCUR WITH THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, THE MOTION SHOULD BE MADE AS FOLLOWS. TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE ONE. SECTION TWO DEFINITIONS. FAMILY ARTICLE 22 A SECTION FOUR SPECIAL PERMITS, PROPERTY OWNER PROTEST AND ARTICLE 29. SECTION SIX CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS. PROPERTY OWNER PROTEST AS PRESENTED. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AS A REMINDER, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER POINTER, WHAT'S THE NEWSPAPER OF RECORD? THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. OKAY, THANKS. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS. CAN WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE? OH, I'M SORRY, WE DIDN'T EVEN. I'M SORRY. OKAY.

WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY ANY SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE ONE. SECTION TWO DEFINITIONS. FAMILY ARTICLE 22

[00:25:05]

[4. Staff report on pending development, zoning permits, and planning matters.]

[5. Present and discuss potential updates to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance related to home occupation and no-impact home-based business uses.]

SO I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THAT TONIGHT. JUST AS FAR AS WHAT THE THE STATE HAS PREEMPTED US ON AND STAFF'S PROPOSED APPROACH. AND AS IT RELATES TO THE C, Z, O. SO THE CO CURRENTLY ALLOWS HOME OCCUPATIONS BY RIGHT WITHIN ALL OF THE CITY'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. AND GIVEN THE CUMULATIVE NATURE OF THE C, Z, O HOME, OCCUPATIONS ARE ALSO ALLOWED IN ALL THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SUCH AS TOWNHOMES, PATIOS, PATIO HOMES, DUPLEXES AND APARTMENT DISTRICTS. BECAUSE THERE'S A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER USES ALLOWED IN OUR 1500 M IN EACH OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS, THE TERM HOME OCCUPATION IS LISTED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE C, Z, O, AND AS PART OF THAT DEFINITION, THERE ARE 13 CRITERIA TO ENSURE THAT THE HOME OCCUPATION USES HAS POTENTIALLY NO ADVERSE IMPACTS AND IS THEREFORE COMPATIBLE WITHESIDENTIAL USES IN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THESE CRITERIA GENERALLY RELATE TO BEING ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN RESIDENTIAL USE, NOT EXCEEDING 20% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA BEING WITHIN A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. NO OUTSIDE STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR GOODS, NO BUILDING ALTERATIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD INDICATE A BUSINESS FROM THE EXTERIOR. NO EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FAMILY OR LAWFUL OCCUPANTS.

NO NOXIOUS CONDITIONS OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. AND THEN THAT BUSINESSES MAY NOT GENERATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC OR PARKING. SO I'M GOING TO BREAK THINGS DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER

[00:30:05]

AND TO PROVIDE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOME OCCUPATION AND NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS. AND THEN ALSO WE THOUGHT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE THE CRITERIA OUT OF THE DEFINITION AND, AND TRANSFER IT OVER TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN USES. ARTICLE 22 E IN ADDITION, ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WILL NEED TO BE AMENDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR BOTH HOME OCCUPATION AS AN ALLOWED USE, AS WELL AS NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE IN THE CO HOME OCCUPATION MEANS AN OCCUPATION THAT IS INCIDENTAL AND SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PREMISES AS A RESIDENCE, AND CUSTOMARILY CONDUCTED IN A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT BY A MEMBER OF THE OCCUPANTS FAMILY ENTIRELY WITHIN THE MAIN STRUCTURE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH USE IS NOT DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY. AND THEN IT ALSO LISTS OUT THE 13 CRITERIA THAT I SUMMARIZED EARLIER. AND LATER ON, I'LL DIFFERENTIATE HOW HOW A HOME OCCUPATION CRITERIA WILL WORK, AND THEN WHAT A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS, WHAT THOSE CRITERIA WILL BE. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THE THE DEFINITION SECTION IS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION FOR HOME OCCUPATION, AND THEN ALSO PROVIDE FOR A NEW DEFINITION FOR A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THESE DEFINITIONS, THEY LOOK VERY SIMILAR. BUT I'M GOING TO POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCES. SO HOME OCCUPATION MEANS A BUSINESS OPERATING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 22 SECTION TEN A. SO TEN A IS A SET OF CRITERIA DEALING WITH HOME OCCUPATION. AND THEN FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS. ARTICLE 22, SECTION TEN B. THOSE ARE THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS DEALING WITH THAT PARTICULAR USE. AND THEN THE OTHER AREA THAT THAT'S DIFFERENT IS A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. SO FOR HOME OCCUPATION IT'S LIMITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. WHEREAS A HOME BASED BUSINESS, NO IMPACT ACCORDING TO THE STATE STATUTE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO USE YOUR ENTIRE PROPERTY. SO IT SAYS OPERATED FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AND THEN FINALLY, WE'VE ADDED THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AT THE END OF THE NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS DEFINITION THAT IT IS FURTHER DEFINED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS AMENDED.

AND THAT COVERS US AS IT RELATES TO SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN THE STATUTE THAT MIGHT NOT BE SPECIFICALLY IN OUR. AND THEN THESE ARE ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

SO IT HAS A LIST OF ALLOWED USES. SO IN ADDITION TO HOME OCCUPATION, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO ADD HOME BASED BUSINESS. NO IMPACT RIGHT BEFORE IT. AND THEN THESE ARE THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS OR THE CRITERIA THAT HOME OCCUPATIONS AND NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESSES WILL NEED TO MEET. SO FOR HOME OCCUPATION THESE ARE THE CRITERIA. SO WE'VE LISTED OUT 15. CURRENTLY WE HAVE 13 SO WE'VE REWORKED SOME THINGS A LITTLE BIT. SO I'M GOING TO POINT THOSE OUT TO YOU. SO THE FIRST CRITERIA THAT'S CURRENTLY PART OF THE BASE DEFINITION. SO WE'VE TAKEN THAT OUT OF THE BASE DEFINITION AND INSERTED IT AS A NEW CRITERIA THAT IT SHALL BE INCIDENTAL AND SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY USE AS A DWELLING AND CUSTOMARILY CONDUCTED IN A DWELLING. IN ADDITION, WE WE'VE OUTLINED THAT THE HOME OCCUPATION NUMBER THREE SHALL BE CONDUCTED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE ENCLOSED PRINCIPAL BUILDING. WE'VE ADDED

[00:35:01]

SO AGAIN, THE HOME BASED BUSINESS, NO IMPACT. THESE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED. SO THE STATE LIMITS US ON WHAT WE CAN DO WITH NO IMPACT. HOME BASED BUSINESSES ONE THROUGH THREE YOU'LL SEE THOSE ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR TO THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE FOR HOME OCCUPATION, BECAUSE THE STATE ALLOWS US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND A SECONDARY, AND THAT BUILDING MODIFICATION SHALL NOT OCCUR.

THAT'S THAT ENSURES RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY. NUMBER FOUR. NUMBER FIVE. THESE ARE ARE THINGS THAT DIFFERENTIATE THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE. SO A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS SHALL OPERATE IN A MANNER IN WHICH NONE OF ITS ACTIVITIES ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. SO THIS IS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS BEHIND A FENCE IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE THE STATE ALLOWS A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS TO USE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, AND BECAUSE ALL IT STATES IS THAT AS LONG AS THERE'S NO ACTIVITY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, IT'S PRESUMABLY COMPATIBLE AND THOSE ACTIVITIES CAN OCCUR. AND THEN NUMBER FIVE, THIS IS A AN OCCUPANCY DIFFERENCE FROM THE HOME OCCUPATION CATEGORY. SO FOR A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS AT ANY TIME ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE BUSINESS IS OPERATED, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS OR PATRONS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR THE PROPERTY ESTABLISHED BY THE FIRE CODE, AS AMENDED, SO YOU CAN HAVE A LARGER NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS FOR A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS, AS LONG AS IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRE CODE AND THEN NOISE. THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE NOISE REQUIREMENT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION. AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS SHALL NOT GENERATE ON STREET PARKING. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE AREA THAT'S REALLY GOING TO MAKE IT LIMITING FOR SOMEONE TO CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PARK ON THE STREET, YOU HAVE TO PARK ON THE DRIVEWAY. AND SO GIVEN HOW A LOT OF OUR LOTS ARE CONFIGURED AND RICHARDSON, THAT'S, I THINK GOING TO LIMIT A LOT OF A LOT OF HOME BASED BUSINESSES FROM FALLING UNDER THIS NO IMPACT CRITERIA. AND AS SUCH, THERE'S A LOT MORE PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE CURRENTLY THAT

[00:40:01]

MERCHANDISE FOR SALE. SO THIS DOES NOT REALLY APPLY TO NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS FOR FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS, WE HAVE THAT PROTECTION. MERCHANDISE SHALL NOT BE OFFERED OR DISPLAYED FOR SALE ON THE PREMISES. IT'S IT'S INCIDENTAL SALES AND FULFILLMENT OF PREVIOUSLY PLACED ORDERS ARE ALLOWED. AND THEN NOISE IS GENERALLY THE SAME FOR EACH JUST WORDED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. AND THEN OTHER IMPACTS. SO WE HAVE MORE DETAILED CRITERIA FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN. AS IT RELATES TO NO TOXIC, EXPLOSIVE, FLAMMABLE, COMBUSTIBLE, RADIOACTIVE, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, NO OFFENSIVE ODOR, SMOKE, VIBRATION, ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE, DIRT SHALL NOT CREATE A FIRE HAZARD, EXPLOSION OR ACCUMULATION OF PESTS, AND THEN THE REPAIR OR SERVICE OF VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, ETC. IS PROHIBITED FOR NO IMPACT. HOME BASED BUSINESS. THE CITY CAN STILL ENFORCE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HEALTH AND SANITATION, SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE, POLLUTION OR NOISE CONTROL. SO THERE'S STILL SOME PROTECTIONS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE STATE STATUTE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT AS DETAILED AS WHAT WE PROVIDED FOR CURRENTLY AND IN HOME OCCUPATIONS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I KNOW IT'S A LOT TO DIGEST.

COMMISSIONER. THIS MAY BE A MISINTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER ABOUT A POTENTIAL PERSON WORKING OUT OF THEIR HOME, NOT HAVING TO APPLY OR GET A LICENSE OR ANYTHING THROUGH THE CITY. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW DOES EACH BUSINESS THEN GET CLASSIFIED WHEN AND BY WHO? SO JUST FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, HOW DO YOU KNOW IF I'M A HOME OCCUPATION OR A NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS? AND WHO MAKES THAT DESIGNATION AND WHEN IF THEY'RE NOT APPLYING WITH THE CITY? YEAH. SO WITH THAT, I THINK IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN, IF WE RECEIVE A COMPLAINT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT DRIVE AROUND AND THEY SE THINGS, YOU KNO WE'LL, YOU KNOW, THE TYPICAL INVESTIGATION HAPPENS AND TAKES PLACE. AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THAT INVESTIGATION, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT CRITERIA FALLS UNDER. BUT REALLY, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE THE STATE STATUTE, YOU KNOW, HAS PREEMPTED US. AND SO WE HAVE TO DRAW THAT DISTINCTION. AND SO AND WHAT

[00:45:04]

AND AS ANDREW POINTED OUT IN HIS PRESENTATION, REALISTICALLY, IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO PROBABLY THE PARKING ASPECT TO DETERMINE, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PUBLIC STREET IN FRONT OF THEIR RESIDENCE. RIGHT. AND SO BECAUSE THAT MIGHT AFFORD THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY AND NOT HAVING TO ADD ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT TO THEIR PROPERTY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEN THE TRADE OFF IS WELL, BUT YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE STILL GOING TO COME INTO PLAY COMPARED TO WHAT YOU COULD GET UNDER THE OTHER OPTION. SO HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION. ALSO, COMMISSIONER PURDY, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF CONTINUE IN THAT VEIN OF QUESTIONING THAT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE RULE IN DRIVING THIS REDEFINITION FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION AND THE ON NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THESE AMENDMENTS IS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE. VICE CHAIRMAN SO IT'S BUILDING ON THAT QUESTION. I PAID ATTENTION TO 89TH. I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS ONE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WHY WE'RE GETTING PREEMPTED ON THIS.

SO THAT'S QUESTION NUMBER ONE. AND THEN I WAS TRYING AS I WAS SITTING HERE, YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB TRYING TO THINK OF TRUE USAGE CASES THAT MIGHT APPLY. THE TWO THAT I CAME UP WITH THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE WORTH SORT OF BATTING AROUND ARE THE THE HOMEOWNER THAT TEACHES SWIMMING LESSONS. OUT OF HIS BACKYARD OR HER BACKYARD. AND THE OTHER WAS A LIKE A, LIKE A DOG SITTER KIND OF PERSON. THAT DOG SITS A DOZEN DOGS OR WHATEVER WE HAVE. I THINK WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO USAGE CASES THAT I WAS JUST THINKING THAT MIGHT APPLY TO THIS, AND WANTED TO GET YOUR COMMENT ON THAT. IF YOU DO HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FIRST POINT ABOUT WHY IN THE WORLD THIS CAME UP TO BEGIN WITH, I'D LOVE TO KNOW. YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO SOME SOME DIGGING AND SEE IF I CAN FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR ALL OF THIS? BUT AS IT RELATES TO YOUR, YOUR POINT ABOUT THE OUTDOOR TYPE USES, I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE CONCERN THAT I THINK PEOPLE WHO OPERATE THESE SORTS OF BUSINESSES WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR BACKYARD. AND THIS ALLOWS THEM TO DO SO LEGALLY, EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, PER OUR, YOU KNOW, CODE ENFORCEMENT, WE CAN'T GO IN AND LOOK IN PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS ANYWAYS. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ACTIVITIES AND LOTS OF PEOPLE COMING AND ALL OF THAT, THAT'S PROBABLY MORE IMPACTFUL, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE, MORE SO, BUT, BUT YEAH, THIS, THIS NO IMPACT DEFINITION ALLOWS FOR THOSE USES TO OCCUR.

I THINK THE OTHER THING IS I THINK THERE WERE SOME CITIES THAT WERE BEING, YOU KNOW, REAL STICKLERS WITH REQUIRING PEOPLE TO PUT IN SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I CAN THINK OF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE LIKE FIREARMS DEALERS AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE'RE SOMEBODY CONDUCTS THAT SORT OF BUSINESS IN THEIR HOUSE. AND BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, THEY MIGHT NEED TO PUT IN A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. THE STATE STATUTE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. WE STILL CAN ENFORCE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES, BUT WE CANNOT REQUIRE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. SO I THINK FOR SOME OF THOSE SORTS OF USES THAT ARE MAYBE NOT AS IMPACTFUL THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE, BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT COULD BE SOMEWHAT POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS. I THINK THERE WAS PROBABLY SOME CONCERN WITH THAT. SO BUT I CAN DO SOME MORE DIGGING AT THE NEXT MEETING, YOU KNOW, SEE, SEE WHAT WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHAT TRIGGERED THIS OUT THERE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS, I WAS GOING TO SAY, AND I JUST LOOKED AT THE LEGISLATURE'S WEBSITE BECAUSE THERE IS A SECTION ON THE ON THE WEBSITE THAT WILL ACKNOWLEDGE, LIKE, IF THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS OR REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH WHEN THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED AND THERE WAS NOTHING INCLUDED. SO. THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IT. SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AT TIMES IF WE IF WE DID RECEIVE IT. SO THERE WAS

[00:50:01]

YEAH. TO ME, I, I THINK WE'VE ALMOST GOT THESE LABELED BACKWARDS. YEAH. OUR, OUR DEFINITION OF HOME OCCUPATION IS PROBABLY MORE NO IMPACT THAN THE STATE'S DEFINITION OF A NO IMPACT. RIGHT. YEAH. NO FAIR POINT. I MEAN, THE WAY, THE WAY, ALL THE, ALL THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE PUT ON IT MEANS IT HAS LESS OF AN IMPACT THAN THE WAY THE STATE DEFINES A NO IMPACT HOME OCCUPATION OTHER THAN THE, THE PARKING. PARKING. YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY THING. BUT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, IT APPEARS OUR DEFINITION OF A HOME OCCUPATION IS LESS OF AN IMPACT ON A NEIGHBORHOOD THAN WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. RIGHT. SO. YOU KNOW, IS THE STATE, IF THE STATE CONTROLS IS I MEAN, ULTIMATELY. YES. I MEAN, WHY NOT JUST GO WITH THE STATE, THE, THE, THE, THE REPORT SAID THAT, WELL, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL NON-CONFORMING USES. SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? YEAH. SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALLOWED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS UNDER OUR CURRENT CRITERIA CURRENTLY. AND SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LEGALLY CONFORMING ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AND, AND STILL BE CONFORMING WITH THE, BY RETAINING THOSE 13 CRITERIA, MODIFYING IT A LITTLE BIT. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO PARKING ON STREET PARKING, YOU KNOW, IF A, A DAYCARE BUSINESS IS OPERATING OUT OF A HOME, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED TO, PEOPLE ARE STILL ALLOWED TO COME AND DROP OFF THEIR KIDS AND PICK UP THEIR KIDS AND PARK ON THE STREET. AND SO THEY WOULD STILL BE CONFORMING IF WE JUST WENT WITH THE STATE'S DEFINITION OF NO IMPACT, THEN WE WOULD TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS FOR THOSE DAYCARE BUSINESSES AND ANY OTHER SORT OF HOME BASED BUSINESS THAT MAY HAVE TRAFFIC AND ON STREET PARKING GENERATED.

IF I COULD KIND OF SUPPLEMENT WHAT ANDREW STATED. SO I CONCUR WITH HIS REMARKS. I THINK OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE POTENTIAL OF MAKING SOMEBODY NON-CONFORMING. AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT ISSUE CEOS OR ANY SORT OF LICENSE FOR AN EXISTING HOME OCCUPATION, WE REALLY HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO BE ABLE TO TRACK THAT. RIGHT. AND NOW THE STATE'S TELLING US, YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYWAY, AT LEAST ON YOUR NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS. SO IF WE DID AWAY WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION USE AND SOMEBODY WAS NOT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS, THEN WE POTENTIALLY SUBJECT OURSELVES TO SOME LEGAL CHALLENGES, PARTICULARLY AS A RESULT OF A LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT THAT OCCURRED. 2021 2023, SENATE BILL 929, WHICH HAS AN ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND SO WE FIGURED THIS WAS A REASONABLE APPROACH TO BE ABLE TO TAKE. I DON'T DISAGREE. OUR HOME OCCUPATION USE DOES SEEM TO BE MORE LIMITING, BUT THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, WE KEPT THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NOT MAKING ANYBODY NONCONFORMING, BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO POTENTIALLY SUBJECT OURSELVES TO SOME OTHER LEGAL CHALLENGES. WELL, WHAT YOU SAID RIGHT THERE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE THAT WE'VE GOT A DEFINITION THAT'S MORE CONSTRAINING. AND THE STATE'S VERSION ALLOWS FOR MORE, GREATER THINGS. BUT YET WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S MORE CONSTRAINING BEING THE NON-CONFORMING. WELL, SO KEEP IN MIND. SO THINK OF THIS IN

[00:55:02]

WOULD YOU EVER I MEAN, I JUST THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET IN THIS SITUATION WHERE IF SOMEBODY GETS CALLED OUT AS NOT BEING IN COMPLIANCE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO SWITCH OVER TO THE NO IMPACT BECAUSE THAT'S LESS RESTRICTIVE. IF THEY CAN MEET. I MEAN, YOU'RE SAYING THE ONLY THING REALLY IS THE PARKING AT THIS TIME. YES. THAT'S THE BEST THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY. AND WE'VE WE'VE ALSO LOOKED TO OTHER CITIES TO SEAT THEY'VE DONE BECAUSE WE'RE THAT THAT THAT IS THE, THE PRINCIPAL DISTINGUISHING FEATURE, EXCUSE ME, BETWEEN THE TWO. IF I WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF THE ALLOWANCES THAT ARE ALLOWED FOR UNDER THE WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS NO IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESS, THEN SOMEONE HAS THE ABILITY TO DO SO, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR PARKING ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND SO IF THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT EXPENSE, THEN THERE'S THIS OTHER OPTION THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR YOU. BUT NO, IT HAS SOME OTHER CONTROLS. I THINK PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF HOME BASED BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATING PROBABLY ARE ALREADY LIKELY COMPLYING WITH OUR EXISTING HOME OCCUPATION REQUIREMENTS. AND I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR COMMUNITY SERVICES TEAM. I'M NOT AWARE OF THIS BEING A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ALSO FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, LET'S

[01:00:01]

ANYTHING ELSE FOR ANDREW? ALL RIGHT. SEEING WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS. SO I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING THEN

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.