[A. Call to Order and Announce that a Quorum is Present.]
[00:00:08]
P.M, AND I CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 17TH,
[B. Approval of Minutes]
2025. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 20TH, 2025 JOINT MEETING. MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION BY RICK SECOND. SECONDED BY AINSLEY. YOU MAY VOTE NOW. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. NEXT ITEM FOR BUSINESS IS A PUBLIC[C. Public Hearings]
HEARING CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURING MEDIUM DENSITY ON APPROXIMATELY 5.157 ACRES. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT ONE BLOCK, A RED RIVER BUSINESS PARK ADDITION LOCATED AT 900 ARTHURS LANE. ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY ANGELA HUNT. MUNCH, HEART, COUGH AND HARR ON BEHALF OF FAST PHOTONICS USA, INCORPORATED. THE TENANT AND ARTHUR'S LANE BUSINESS PARK LLC, THE PROPERTY OWNER. 20 5-04-7 SUPP. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. LILY SUTTON, PLANNER. THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 900 ARTHURS LANE.IT IS IN BUILDING ONE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE KIND OF THE TIP OF THIS TRIANGLE. ALL THREE OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER. THERE IS AN EXISTING SOUP FOR MEDIUM INTENSITY MANUFACTURING ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH. THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MEDIUM INTENSITY MANUFACTURING SUPPLY AS WELL. THE BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OPTICAL TRANSCEIVERS, WHICH IS A PRODUCTS THAT ARE SMALL DEVICES THAT BOTH TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE DATA USED IN TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS. THE PROCESS OF THEIR MANUFACTURING INCLUDES BOTH LIKE GLUING COMPONENTS TO CIRCUIT BOARDS, AS WELL AS MELTING METALS AND TESTING AND INSPECTING THE PRODUCTS. BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE OF THE WORK, IT GOES BEYOND LIGHT ASSEMBLY, WHICH IS WHY IT FALLS UNDER THE MEDIUM INTENSITY CATEGORY AND THEREFORE AN SCP IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. GIVEN THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SCP FOR THE SAME USE ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT THE PNC OR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS SUB AS PRESENTED. I AM ALSO AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AS WELL. THEY HAVE PREPARED A BRIEF PRESENTATION, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUICK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFOREHAND. STAFF QUESTIONS. WAS THERE ANY COORDINATION NEEDED WITH THE LEVY DISTRICT BEHIND THE PROPERTY? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AS IT WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING ON AN EXISTING SITE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, GOOD. ABSOLUTELY. I WILL INVITE THE APPLICANT UP HERE FOR THE PRESENTATION. RICHARD, SHOULD I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? YOU COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ANGELA HUNT. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT TODAY. MY ADDRESS IS 500 NORTH AKARD STREET IN DALLAS. 75201. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS MANUFACTURING PROCESS. I THINK WHEN WE HEAR MEDIUM INTENSITY MANUFACTURING, WE KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA IN OUR HEAD ABOUT WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS QUITE THAT. SO I WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT PROCESS IS. I'M ALSO JOINED THIS EVENING BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE TEAM AT FAST PHOTONICS USA. WE HAVE JOHN MARTIN AND GARY SEAGRAVES HERE. SO AS MISS SUTTON EXPLAINED, THIS IS THE LOCATION. THIS IS AN EXISTING LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE, INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK THAT WAS BUILT ABOUT A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF AGO. NOW, TO TELL YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FAST PHOTONICS USA. THEY WERE ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR. THEY'RE AN OFFSHOOT OF A CHINESE COMPANY, A SINGAPORE COMPANY
[00:05:05]
THAT ALREADY MANUFACTURES OPTICAL TRANSCEIVERS. NOW, I BROUGHT AN OPTICAL TRANSCEIVER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO SEE. AND IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL HAND IT TO YOU AND Y'ALL CAN PASS IT AROUND AND LOOK AT IT WHILE I'M TALKING. THANK YOU. SO, AS MISS SUTTON EXPLAINED, OPTICAL TRANSCEIVERS ARE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT TRANSCRIBE LIGHT INTO INFORMATION AND THEN BACK AGAIN. THEY TRANSLATE IT BACK AND FORTH. THESE TRANSCEIVERS ARE HEAVILY USED IN DATA CENTERS, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE AND MORE DATA CENTERS. THAT MEANS THERE'S MORE AND MORE NEED FOR THIS EXACT PRODUCT. AND SO THE CUSTOMERS OF FAST PHOTONICS ARE HAVE A LOT OF DATA CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN EUROPE. AND THEY COMMUNICATED THAT THEY WANTED MORE PRODUCT THAT WAS ACTUALLY MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES. SO FAST.PHOTONICS USA WAS CREATED WITH THE INTENT OF BRINGING A MANUFACTURING PLANT ONE OR MORE TO THE UNITED STATES. LEWISVILLE IS THEIR FIRST CHOICE OF LOCATION, WHICH I THINK SPEAKS WELL OF THE CITY. AND SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT ESTABLISHING A FACTORY HERE. THE OPTICAL TRANSCEIVER MARKET WAS 3.3 BILLION LAST YEAR. IN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS, THAT'S ESTIMATED TO BE OVER $10 BILLION. SO HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE FOR MANUFACTURING. SO FIRST OF ALL, THESE TRANSCEIVERS ARE MANUFACTURED IN WHAT'S CALLED A CLEAN ROOM. IT MEANS THEY CANNOT HAVE ANY CONTAMINANTS WHEN THEY'RE BOTH BEING WHEN THEY'RE BEING MANUFACTURED. AND ALSO AT MULTIPLE STEPS IN THE PROCESS THEY GET TESTED. SO EVERY PART OF THAT PROCESS HAS TO BE SUPER CLEAN. THERE ARE 30 STEPS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS, 27 OF WHICH ARE AUTOMATED. AND JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THOSE PIECES OF THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE, THEY'RE GLUING DIFFERENT COMPONENTS ONTO THE MICROCHIP WITH AN ADHESIVE AND EPOXY ADHESIVE. THEY APPLY HEAT AND UV AT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PROCESS TO ADHERE THE ADHESIVE.
THEY ARE MELTING GOLD WIRE ONTO AND ADHERING IT TO THE MICROCHIP. THEN THEY PACK AND LABEL THIS. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, THERE ARE NO HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS USED OR DISPENSED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. THERE IS NO AIR PARTICULATES. THERE IS NO CONTAMINATION TO THE WATER. NONE OF THAT. IT IS ALL SELF-CONTAINED AND NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THERE'S NO NOISE. AND I WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES FROM ANOTHER FACTORY SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THESE LOOK LIKE. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE JUST A LOT OF PIECES OF LARGE MACHINERY, AND THE PIECES ARE TAKEN FROM MACHINERY TO MACHINERY FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE PROCESS. HERE'S THE CLEAN ROOM YOU CAN SEE EVERYONE YOU KNOW IS IN STERILE MASKS AND EQUIPMENT, JUST TO KEEP FROM GETTING ANY CONTAMINANTS ONTO THE OPTICAL TRANSCEIVERS. AND HERE'S THIS I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THIS. THIS IS A PICTURE OF WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN THE SHELL THAT I GAVE YOU THAT'S INSIDE IT. SO THEY PUT THAT INSIDE THE SHELL, THEN ENCASE IT IN INSIDE THEIR FOR TIMELINE PURPOSES. THEY'RE HOPING TO BEGIN PRODUCTION THIS SEPTEMBER. THEY'RE PLANNING AN INITIAL INVESTMENT OF 12.5 MILLION WITH 22 EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE HOPING TO PRODUCE ABOUT 25,000 TRANSCEIVERS A MONTH. WITHIN ABOUT 18 MONTHS, THEY'RE GOING TO INVEST ANOTHER $7.7 MILLION.
THEY'RE GOING TO INCREASE THEIR EMPLOYEES UP TO ABOUT 188 EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE HOPING TO QUADRUPLE THE NUMBER OF TRANSCEIVERS TO 100,000 PER MONTH. AND LASTLY, JUST TO PUT A FINE, FINE POINT ON IT, THIS DOES NOT IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE WATER, VERY THOUGHTFUL QUESTION. NOTHING IS DISCHARGED INTO THE WATER. THERE IS A CHILLER ON THE ROOF. JUST AS YOU KNOW. YOU GOT TO KEEP THIS EQUIPMENT COLD. EVEN THAT WATER IS NOT DISCHARGED INTO THE WASTEWATER OF THE CITY. IT IS ACTUALLY CARRIED OFF SITE AND IT'S RECIRCULATED. AND ONCE A YEAR IT'S CARRIED OFF SITE SO THEY CAN FLUSH IT OUT AND START AGAIN. SO THIS IS A CLOSED SYSTEM. NOTHING NEGATIVE IS PRODUCED. AND WE THINK IT WILL BE A GREAT THING FOR THE CITY AND A VERY APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE. NOW I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND ALSO GARY AND JOHN ARE HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS HUNT. COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS OF MISS HUNT, SIMILAR QUESTION TO THE WATER ISSUE.
[00:10:02]
POWER TO THE AREA. IS THERE GOING TO BE IS THIS WITHIN THE CURRENT CAPACITY? YES IT IS.WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY NEED FOR LIKE A SUBSTATION THAT YOU MIGHT SEE WITH A DATA CENTER.
NO. AND WHILE I'M UP HERE, I DID WANT TO SHOW YOU GUYS THIS IS WHAT THESE LOOK LIKE PACKAGED.
THIS IS ACTUALLY PRODUCT AND I CAN'T OPEN IT. OR I'M GOING TO BE THE CONTAMINATOR AND I'LL GET FIRED. AND I LIKE MY JOB, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. SO THIS IS JUST TAKEN OUT. AND TRUCKS THAT ARE LIKE LITTLE AMAZON VANS, NOT EVEN BIG TRUCKS WILL BE COMING TO THE SITE. SO THERE IS GOING TO BE THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK MAY COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. WE'LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU. HAVING NO ONE COME FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS. IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. MOTION BY JACK. SECOND BY JOSH. SECOND BY JOSHUA. YOU MAY VOTE NOW. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. COMMISSIONERS.
THIS ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHO WILL HOLD A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON MONDAY, JULY THE 7TH, 2025 AT 7:00 PM. THANK YOU, THANK YOU RICHARD. NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS. CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION 2.2.1 DEFINITIONS TO ADD A DEFINITION OF SHORT TERM RENTAL UNIT. AMENDING ARTICLE FOUR USES PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATION, AND CERTAIN DISTANCE REGULATIONS TO AMEND THE HEADING OF ARTICLE SEVEN TO USES PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS, AND CERTAIN DISTANCE AND DENSITY REGULATIONS, AND THE HEADING OF CHAPTER 7.4 TO CERTAIN DISTANCES AND DENSITY REGULATIONS. TO ADD A NEW SECTION. SECTION 7.4.3 ESTABLISHING DISTANCE AND DENSITY LOCATION REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL UNITS, AND TO REPEAL AND DELETE SECTION 7.2.1.5 INTERIM PROHIBITION ON SHORT TERM RENTAL OF DWELLING UNITS TO YOU, RICHARD. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION. IF WE COULD PUT THAT UP ON THE SCREEN, THAT WILL BE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THIS ITEM. GIVE US ONE MOMENT. WE'LL WAIT FOR THE MIRRORING MODE.
SORRY. SORRY. THANK YOU. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO. MAKE THIS A LITTLE LARGER FOR EVERYONE. MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT. IS THERE A FULL SCREEN BUTTON UP THERE? HERE WE GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME. FIRST SLIDE IS JUST KIND OF A BRIEF TIMELINE ON THE HISTORY OF THIS TOPIC. THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST TIME THIS WAS DISCUSSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS IN JANUARY OF 2020 AT ONE OF THEIR WORKSHOPS, AND THEN AGAIN, ANOTHER WORKSHOP WAS HELD IN SEPTEMBER OF 23 ON THE. I THINK THE IMPACT WAS INCREASING WITHIN THE CITY OF SHORT TERM RENTALS.
MORE IT WAS MORE AND MORE WERE WERE BEING NOTICED AND THE DIALOG WAS CONTINUING. THE NOVEMBER OR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, THERE WAS A SERIES OF PUBLIC INPUT HEARINGS RELATED TO STRS
[00:15:01]
SHORT AFTER THAT, IN JANUARY 24TH, THE COUNCIL APPROVED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING STR PERMITS AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX REMITTANCE THE VERY NEXT MONTH. IN FEBRUARY, THE COUNCIL APPROVED A ONE YEAR INTERIM PROHIBITION ON NEW STRS TO FURTHER STUDY AND OBSERVE HOW THE PERMITTING PROCESS WAS WAS HANDLING THIS ISSUE. AND OF COURSE, THAT IN JULY OF 2024 IS WHEN THAT PERMITTING PROCESS TOOK EFFECT. THEN IN FEBRUARY OF 25, STAFF MADE ANOTHER PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR RETREAT. IT KIND OF GAVE THEM AN UPDATE ON THIS TOPIC, AND IT WAS ABOUT THE SAME TIME A COMMUNITY SURVEY COMMUNITY SURVEY HAD HAD OPENED.AND AGAIN IN MARCH, THE COUNCIL ADOPTED A LIMIT OF 130 ACTIVE PERMITS. THE SURVEY CLOSED THAT MONTH. STAFF CONDUCTED AN OPEN HOUSE TO GET FURTHER INPUT IN APRIL, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER FOLLOW UP SURVEY AFTER THAT OPEN HOUSE AND THEN AN APRIL 21ST COUNCIL WORKSHOP WHERE STAFF OR COUNCIL GAVE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. SO THIS IS KIND OF A SNAPSHOT OF WHERE WE ARE WITH STRS. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE ABOUT 132 THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
22 ARE NOT PERMITTED, 16 ARE IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND 94 HAVE BEEN PERMITTED. SO WE HAVE ABOUT 110 THAT ARE EITHER PERMITTED OR IN PROCESS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY ARE SCATTERED MOSTLY WEST OF I-35. AND THEN THERE'S A FEW ALONG IN EAST LEWISVILLE ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE SAM RAYBURN TOLLWAY. SO TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WAS CONDUCTED, THERE WAS A SURVEY THAT WAS CONDUCTED FEBRUARY, MARCH OF 2025. WE HAD 602 SUBMISSIONS. THE OPEN HOUSE HAD 20 ATTENDEES. AND THEN THE FOLLOW UP SURVEY IN APRIL HAD 29 SUBMISSIONS. SO THE HIGHLIGHTS TO THE FIRST SIN CITY SURVEY, ABOUT 65% AGREED THAT STR SHOULD BE LIMITED TO CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, 64% AGREED THAT LEWISVILLE SHOULD SET A MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRS. ABOUT 71% AGREED THAT THE CITY SHOULD SET A LIMIT ON THE PERCENTAGE OF STR, AN APARTMENT COMPLEXES, AND ABOUT 79% AGREED THAT THE CITY SHOULD LIMIT SET A LIMIT ON THE PERCENT OR THE NUMBER OF STARS ON A STREET OR BLOCK. AS FAR AS THE OPEN HOUSE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE HAD ABOUT 20 ATTENDEES THAT WAS CONDUCTED ON MARCH 27TH AT THRIVE, AND THE MAP IS ILLUSTRATING THE DOTS INDICATE WHERE THOSE 20 ATTENDEES LIVE. SO YOU CAN SEE IT WAS PRETTY WELL DISTRIBUTED ON THE WESTERN TWO THIRDS OF THE CITY. OR YOU COULD SAY BASICALLY WEST OF THE ELM FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER. THE FOLLOW UP SURVEY, WE HAD 29 RESPONDENTS, AND THAT WAS OPEN FOR ABOUT A WEEK IN EARLY APRIL. SOME OF THE KEY RESULTS FROM BOTH THE OPEN HOUSE AND THE FOLLOW UP SURVEY. WE HAD ABOUT A THIRD THAT DISAGREED. AS FAR AS BEING SATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS AT THAT TIME, ABOUT A THIRD WERE NEUTRAL AND ABOUT ANOTHER THIRD AGREED THAT THEY WERE ADEQUATE. THE NEXT QUESTION WAS IF STR SHOULD BE ALLOWED MULTIFAMILY UNITS, ABOUT 38% DISAGREED, ABOUT 14% WAS NEUTRAL, AND ABOUT 48% AGREED.
THE NEXT QUESTION SHOULD MULTIPLY STR COUNT TOWARDS A TOTAL LIMIT, AND THE VAST MAJORITY THERE, 61% RESPONDED YES. THESE NEXT SERIES OF SLIDES ARE SNAPSHOTS OF SOME OF THE INTERACTIVE BOARDS THAT WERE ON DISPLAY AT THE OPEN HOUSE, AND THAT THE PARTICIPANTS GOT TO ADD THEIR INPUT. AND ON THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, THE QUESTION WAS THIS BOARD CONTAINED INFORMATION ON LIMITING STRS PER BLOCK PHASE. SO THOSE THOUGHTS WERE THAT IF ADOPTED, 1 OR 2 STARS PER BLOCK WERE THE RESPONDENT'S PREFERENCE. IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO CALCULATE THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF STR UNITS WITH THAT RULE, BUT IT COULD WORK IN TANDEM WITH THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AND WHICH COULD BE HELPFUL ON PARTICULARLY LONG BLOCKS. THE INPUT ON THE POSSIBILITY LIMITING STRS BY DISTANCE. SO GENERALLY MORE SUPPORT FOR DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN THE BLOCK PHASE. THE NEXT ONE. THE NEXT QUESTION WAS IF THE CITY
[00:20:04]
SET A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN SHORT TERM RENTALS, WHAT WOULD IT BE? SO THIS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE. AND AS YOU COULD SEE, 500FT WOULD BE THE RESULT WITH A POSSIBILITY OF 3200 STRS IN THE COMMUNITY, A CITYWIDE 1000 FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT WOULD RESULT IN ABOUT 841. SO YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS. IT'S KIND OF SPLIT WITH ABOUT 32 ON ON BOTH THE LOWER END AND THE HIGHER END, ABOUT 20% IN THE MIDDLE. AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION, SHOULD THE CITY RECONSIDER THE 130 PERMIT LIMIT? IF A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT IS SET A LITTLE A LITTLE BIT BELOW HALF A STATED YES, THAT THE MAX SHOULD BE LOWER, AND THEN ABOUT 24% SAID THERE SHOULD NOT BE A MAX, 16%, THAT THE MAX SHOULD BE HIGHER, AND 12% SAID IT SHOULD STAY AS IT IS. SO THERE WAS A PRETTY GOOD DISTRIBUTION IN THAT QUESTION. THIS IS JUST A SNAPSHOT ON HOW WE COMPARE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES. TWO CITIES USE THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE AND MAXIMUM BLOCK MAXIMUM PER BLOCK FACE. THAT INCLUDES SAN MARCOS. BERNIE, NONE OF OUR SURVEY CITIES INCLUDED LINEAR DISTANCE AND BLOCK FACE. DIDN'T REQUIRE A 100 FOOT FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARY. CITIES THAT LIMIT STRS AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS INCLUDES AUSTIN, ROCKWALL AND SAN ANTONIO AND EULESS. AND AS FAR AS OUR SURVEY CITIES, DALLAS, GRAPEVINE HAVE A 3% LIMIT, PLANO OF 5% AND DENTON TEN. SO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE UDC THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO REMOVE THE INTERIM PROHIBITION LANGUAGE TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR STRS. AND THAT IS THE SAME DEFINITION THAT'S USED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH THE PERMITTING PERMITTING LANGUAGE. WE'RE ALSO ADDING THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN IN THE CERTAIN DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS SECTION OF THE UDC.STRS THAT ALREADY HAVE AN ACTIVE PERMIT WILL BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATING WITHOUT MEETING THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. SO THE DISTANCE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A 1000 FOOT MINIMUM. AND AS FAR AS MULTIFAMILY LIMITATIONS, IT'S PROPOSED AS 3% OF THE TOTAL UNITS OF A COMPLEX OR TWO UNITS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM FOR THAT COMPLEX, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS. IT'S BASICALLY THE COMPLEX AS A WHOLE. SO AS FAR AS OUR NEXT STEPS TONIGHT, WE'RE HAVING OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. WE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT ONCE DISCUSSION IS COMPLETE AND AFTER THE PUBLIC HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT YOU CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JULY 1ST PRNS. AND THAT WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AND GIVE US SOME INPUT. AND THEN WE WILL ASK YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AT THAT MEETING. THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION WOULD GO ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY THE 21ST, WHERE THEY'LL HAVE A THIRD PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIALLY MAKE A FINAL DECISION. AND THEN WE ANTICIPATE JULY, LATE JULY OR SOMETIME IN AUGUST WOULD BE A GO LIVE DATE FOR THE NEW PORTAL. ALSO IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT IS CHRIS MCGINN, OUR DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD INSPECTION SERVICES. HIS DEPARTMENT OVERSEES THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND HE WILL BE CARRYING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE 21ST AS WELL, THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR THOSE AMENDMENTS DO NOT HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE PNC. ONLY UDC AMENDMENTS GO BEFORE THE PNC FOR A RECOMMENDATION, BEFORE IT GOES ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO WITH THAT, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND IF NOT, WE YOU CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS. I GOT QUESTIONS. IS THERE. SO IN A CURRENT UDC LANGUAGE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TRANSFER PERMITS BETWEEN UNITS OR OWNERS. IS THERE A LEGAL REASON WHY WE'RE ALLOWING THAT IN THE LANGUAGE? I IN THE PACKAGE I READ TODAY? I THINK A LOT OF ITS ENFORCEMENT. AND I'LL ASK MR. MCGINN AS WELL IF HE HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT.
THAT SEEMS CONTRADICTORY. AND AGAIN, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION AGAIN? THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW TRANSFERENCE OF OWNERSHIP, THE PERMITTING SECTION, BUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN OUR PACKAGE SAID THAT IF AN STR THAT'S PERMITTED SHOULD SELL, IT COULD
[00:25:04]
SELL AS AN STR, THUS MAKING THE PROPERTY AND THE PERMIT LIKE FOR SALE AND CONTRADICTING CURRENT ORDINANCE. THIS WOULD BE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE UDC. SO THE YOU KNOW, THE UDC DOES.ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY AND ITS OPERATIONS. SO THEREFORE IF IT SELLS TO A NEW OWNER, THAT PERMIT COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE USE, IT WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF THAT USE. ALSO SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND TOO THAT. YEAH, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN OR RENEW THEIR PERMITS. THE EXISTING PERMIT PERMIT HOLDERS THAT MAY BE LESS THAN 1000FT FROM EXISTING. AGAIN, THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING NEW BUYERS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THOSE PERMITS OF THOSE STRS AS WELL. BUT IF A IF A IF THE USE OF A PROPERTY FOR AN STR JUST CONTINUED FOR SIX MONTHS OR SWITCHED TO LONG TERM OR OWNER OCCUPANCY AGAIN, THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN AN STR PERMIT. IF THERE'S ANOTHER STR WITHIN 1000FT. THAT STILL SEEMS CONTRARY. SO FOR THE LIFE OF THE PERMIT, THE TIME STAMP THAT'S LEFT ON THAT, IT COULD CONTINUE. BUT IF THE USE CHANGED TO A LONG TERM OR OWNER OCCUPANT, THAT PERMIT WOULD BE NULL AND VOID AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY. AND IF THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE WITHIN 1000FT, IT WOULDN'T BE APPROVED. CHRIS, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO. OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER THAT KIND OF CONTRADICTORY OF THE TRANSFERENCE CLAUSE THAT'S ALREADY THERE? IF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE PERMITTING CHAPTER, YES. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AMENDMENTS TO THAT? WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TRANSFER OF A PERMIT, BECAUSE BASICALLY THE PROCESS THAT RICHARD'S EXPLAINING WAS WOULD BE THE DIRECTION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GO THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE WHAT'S CORRECT. THE CHAPTER FOUR ORDINANCE CHANGES ARE CURRENTLY UNDER DRAFT WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S STILL IN PROCESS. SO KEEP IN MIND THOSE AMENDMENTS WILL NOT COME BEFORE YOU. THEY'LL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THERE'S A STAFF IS WORKING WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND HER STAFF ON BRINGING THAT, BRINGING ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE IN ALIGNMENT. OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION. I KNOW THAT SOME APARTMENTS HAVE. QUANTITIES BLOCKED OUT FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES, WHETHER IT'S 10%, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, AGI, LIKE 30%, 40%, 50%. IS THERE A IS THERE A LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT CAN PREVENT THOSE LOWER INCOME UNITS FROM BECOMING SHORT TERM RENTAL? WE CAN CHECK INTO THAT FOR ONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT POPULATION. YEAH, THOSE UNITS ARE PRETTY MUCH SET AND THOSE ARE CONSIDERED LONG TERM. SO THEY'RE IN THE LONG TERM CATEGORY. THE WOULD BE BEYOND THOSE COMMITMENTS AND THOSE AND THOSE CERTAIN COMPLEXES THAT HAVE THOSE ADJUST THOSE ALLOWANCES, THOSE THOSE PERCENTAGES PROTECTED IS ALL OKAY. RICHARD, THIS I GOT A QUESTION. GO AHEAD. THE SIZE OF THE SURVEY IS THE 602 SUBMISSION FROM ZEN CITY. AND THEN THE OPEN HOUSES. THAT KIND OF SEEMS LOW COMPARED TO THE TOTAL CITY POPULATION. CAN YOU GIVE ME CONTEXT ON HOW WE SOUGHT THAT INPUT? I SAID WE COUNCIL DIRECTORS TO TRY TO GET AS MUCH INPUT AS WE AS WE CAN. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS TYPE OF AN ISSUE FOR A LAND USE TYPE OF TOPIC, IT'S NOT A BAD RESPONSE. THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF AN ONGOING AND TOPIC NOW FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS.
AND WE DO HAVE KIND OF A GROUP WITHIN THE CITY THAT THAT THAT'S BEEN IMPACTED BY. THOSE ARE THE USUALLY THE RESIDENTS THAT WE DO HEAR FROM THE MOST THAT HAVE BEEN KIND OF FOLLOWING THIS TOPIC. AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, THE 620, I WOULD EXPECT THAT. YES. SO AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE WE'VE YOU KNOW, REALLY WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS MUCH RESPONSE AS WE POSSIBLY COULD. BUT THIS IS, I THINK, A TOPIC THAT DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT A LOT OF OUR 140,000 RESIDENTS.
KEEP IN MIND, ABOUT HALF OF OUR POPULATION IS IN MULTIFAMILY, AND THAT'S KIND OF A DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHIC, A LITTLE BIT MORE TRANSIENT. AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE REALLY GOT MUCH RESPONSES.
[00:30:04]
IT'S PRIMARILY THE ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE AND WHERE WE HAVE RECEIVED MOST FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS. IF NOT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU RICHARD. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK BEFORE US, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU. HELLO. PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS JOY MORALES. ADDRESS 1325 CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE. I'LL KEEP IT REALLY BRIEF AND SIMPLE. I'M SPECIFICALLY JUST FOR SPEAKING REGARDING ON THE SINGLE FAMILY SIDE, NOT THE MULTIFAMILY. I DON'T THINK WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING IS RIGHT.JUST BECAUSE I HAVE AN STR DOESN'T MEAN MY NEIGHBOR SHOULDN'T NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE. MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHTS DO NOT TRIUMPH SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS. THAT'S SIMPLE. SO JUST TO KEEP IT SIMPLE AGAIN, I SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE CITY OF DALLAS. I SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE CITY OF CARROLLTON. YOU GUYS CAN LOOK ME UP. I'M ON EVERY LEGAL TRANSCRIPT WE CAN FIND ME, AND YOU GUYS ARE NEXT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. SO NEXT TIME YOU GUYS HAVE AN OPEN HEARING LIKE THIS, I WANT YOU GUYS TO HAVE THAT IN CONSIDERATION, SAYING THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS FIGHTING PROPERTY RIGHTS. THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO US BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. SO YOU GUYS ARE DOING JUST WASTEFUL SPENDING AS ALWAYS. SO HAVE A GOOD ONE.
THANK YOU SIR. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JEFF WOODS, 1001 FOREST PARK DRIVE, LEWISVILLE, TEXAS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS AND CITY STAFF FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK HERE TONIGHT. MY COMMENTS WILL BE ACCORDING TO THE PACKET THAT WAS SENT OUT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM AND DISCUSSION OF THE DENSITY CLAUSE, AS WELL AS THE TRANSFERABLE. IT WAS THE TRANSFERABILITY PROSPECT OF THAT WAS LISTED IN THAT PACKET. BUT AS A LONG TERM RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER IN A NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY IMPACTED BY SHORT TERM RENTALS, I AM HERE THIS EVENING TO EXPRESS MY EXPRESS. MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED 1000 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN STRS AND TO FORMALLY OPPOSE THE PRACTICE OF ALLOWING NEW PURCHASERS OF STR PROPERTIES TO AUTOMATICALLY OBTAIN A LICENSE TO CONTINUE STR OPERATIONS, EFFECTIVELY BYPASSING THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY CLAUSE. ONE POINT THAT I WANTED TO BRING OUT WAS THAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE STATES THAT STR PERMITS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. THIS NON-TRANSFERABILITY IS A CLEAR POLICY DECISION MEANT TO ENSURE THAT STR LICENSES ARE TIED TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND ARE NOT TREATED AS PART OF THE MARKETABLE VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY, ALLOWING A PURCHASER TO IMMEDIATELY APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE A NEW STR PERMIT AT THE SAME PROPERTY WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL REVIEW OF THE DENSITY AND IMPACT ON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS VIOLATES THE SPIRIT, IF NOT THE LETTER OF THAT PROVISION. IN PRACTICE, THIS PROCESS CREATES A DE FACTO TRANSFERABILITY, ALLOWING THE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY TO CONTINUE TO PROPERTY TO CONTINUE UNINTERRUPTED, AND THUS ENCOURAGING SPECULATIVE PURCHASING OF STR PROPERTIES. THIS UNDERMINES THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK INTENDED TO LIMIT AND CONTROL THE PROLIFERATION OF STR AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. SECOND POINT WAS THAT THE DENSITY CLAUSE OBJECTIVE IS BEING SUBVERTED. IN MY 20 HOME NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE CURRENTLY TWO STRS LOCATED DIRECTLY NEXT TO EACH OTHER. UNDER THE PROPOSED 1000 FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT, ONLY ONE OF THESE STRS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE MOVING FORWARD. HOWEVER, IF A CURRENT STR OWNER SELLS THEIR HOME AND THE BUYER IS ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE A NEW LICENSE WITHOUT REGARD TO SPACING, THIS DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE DENSITY CLAUSE.
THE INTENT OF THIS CLAUSE IS TO REDUCE OVERCONCENTRATION AND RESTORE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER TO NEIGHBORHOODS, PERMITTING NEW BUYERS TO RESTART THE CLOCK ON STR USE WITHOUT EVALUATING SPACING RESTRICTIONS RENDERS THE DENSITY PROTECTIONS MEANINGLESS IN PRACTICE, AND FRUSTRATES THE GOAL OF RETURNING SOME HOMES TO A FULL TIME RESIDENTIAL USE. THE THIRD ITEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION IS THAT LONG TERM HOMEOWNERS ARE BEARING THE BURDEN OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY, PARKING CONGESTION, NOISE DISTURBANCES, AND DIMINISHED SENSE OF COMMUNITY COHESION.
THIS CONCERNS. THESE CONCERNS ARE ONLY EXACERBATED WHEN STR USE BECOMES A REVOLVING DOOR
[00:35:03]
OPERATION WHERE THE PROPERTY ITSELF, NOT THE OWNER, BECOMES A PERMANENT COMMERCIAL LODGING SITE. THIS CREATES A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT THAN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH OWNER OCCUPANTS OR LONG TERM TENANTS. BY ALLOWING NEW PURCHASERS TO IMMEDIATELY RELICENSE STRS, THE CITY RISKS INSTITUTIONALIZING COMMERCIAL USE IN AREAS NOT ZONED OR INTENDED FOR, WITHOUT PROVIDING EXISTING RESIDENTS ANY MEANINGFUL RELIEF. THE FOURTH THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY URGE THAT COMMISSIONERS AND CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A MANDATORY WAITING PERIOD AND REEVALUATION OF THE SPACING AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT BEFORE A PROPERTY MAY BE RELICENSED FOR STR USE AFTER SALE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE CITY COULD REQUIRE THAT UPON THE SALE, ANY STR LICENSE FOR THAT PROPERTY BE EXTINGUISHED AND SUBJECT TO ALL CURRENT DISTANCE AND DENSITY REGULATIONS BEFORE ANY NEW LICENSE APPLICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED. THE CITY HAS MADE COMMENDABLE EFFORTS TO REGULATE STR THROUGH REASONABLE DENSITY CONTROLS AND LICENSED NON-TRANSFERABILITY. HOWEVER, PERMITTING AUTOMATIC OR ASSUMED RELICENSING OF STRS UPON SALE UNDERMINES BOTH PROVISIONS AND PERPETUATES THE VERY PROBLEMS THIS ORDINANCE SEEKS TO SOLVE FOR THE HEALTH AND INTEGRITY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS LOOPHOLE MUST BE CLOSED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GARY DAVIS. I HAVE PROPERTIES AT FIVE 5554, 558 AND 562 HARVEST HILL. IT'S THREE STREETS BASICALLY, THAT ARE DUPLEXES. AND I MADE MY FIRST PURCHASE BACK IN 2005 AND SLOWLY WAS ABLE TO BUY THE PROPERTIES NEXT DOOR. SO THEY'RE BASICALLY ALL CONNECTED. SO THIS WOULD I STARTED OUT AS RENTALS, SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY OPINION ON RENTALS VERSUS AIRBNB. AND BUT FROM THE SURVEY THAT HE MENTIONED A FEW MOMENTS AGO, I TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO MAKING ANY CHANGES. FOR ONE THING, CURRENTLY WE HAVE A LIMIT AT 130. BASED OFF OF HIS SURVEY. IF THEY DO THE 500FT OR 1000FT, I MEAN, IT POTENTIALLY COULD GO FROM 500 TO EVEN HIGHER IF I READ THOSE NUMBERS CORRECTLY. MY CONTENTION IS IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. WE HAVE 130 THAT THE LIMIT IS SET, AND THERE'S NOT EVEN 130 AIRBNBS IN THE CITY. I BELIEVE THERE'S CURRENTLY 110. MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE YEARS. 550 WHEN I BOUGHT IT IN 2005, I HAD IT AS A RENTAL TILL 2018. THAT'S WHEN I DECIDED TO MAKE THE SWITCH TO AIRBNB. AND THEN AT ONE POINT ON THE STREET, I HAD ALL THREE AS THREE AS AIRBNBS, AND I HAD ONE AS A RENTER, AND MY RENTERS BEEN IN THERE FOR 18 YEARS. OF THE 20 YEARS THAT I'VE HAD IT. AND WHEN I DID HAVE SOME OF THE PROPERTIES AS RENTALS, IT WAS MUCH MORE OF A HEADACHE BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A RENTAL, YOU HAVE A CONTRACT AND YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THERE FOR A YEAR AND YOU'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH IT, WHETHER THE NEIGHBORS LIKE IT OR NOT, THEY'VE GOT THAT CONTRACT. WHEN I'VE GOT A BED, A BAD AIRBNB GUEST, I MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT FOR ONE NIGHT. I CAN GIVE THEM A ONE STAR RATING, BUT OR TWO NIGHTS. BUT THEN THEY'RE GONE AND I'M IN THERE ON A CONSTANT BASIS. I CAN REGULATE THAT MUCH EASIER THAN A THAN A RENTER, BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS IN THERE MAKING SURE THAT THE PLACE IS CLEAN, THAT I DON'T GET COCKROACHES, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.EXCUSE ME, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I COVER EVERYTHING HERE. SO MY BASIC OPINION IS THAT. IF IT'S NOT FIXED, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT. THE 1000FT IF THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED OR 500FT IS GOING TO AFFECT ME BECAUSE I HAVE FOUR AIRBNBS OR ONE OF THEM NOW IS A OWNER FINANCE PROPERTY, ONE IS A RENTAL. AND THEN I HAVE TWO CURRENTLY AS AIRBNBS. SO THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT.
SO IF THE PROVISION WAS DONE, I WOULD PREFER THAT IT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FOR YEARS SINCE 2018, I'VE HAD THEM AS AIRBNBS WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS OTHER THAN OCCASIONAL
[00:40:05]
PARTY. BUT IT'S VERY EASY FOR A HOST TO GO IN THERE AND TAKE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION.CURRENTLY, THE CITY, WHEN THEY COME AND DO AN INSPECTION, THEY COME OUT THERE AND I HAD ONE OF THEM LISTED WITH SIX PEOPLE COULD STAY THERE. AND WHEN THE CITY CAME OUT AND DID THE INSPECTION TO GET THE PERMIT, THEY SAID, THIS ROOM CAN ONLY YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE BED IN HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH. SO THEY AUTOMATICALLY TOLD ME WHEN I, IN MY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY, I HAD TO REDUCE THE NUMBER FROM 6 TO 5. SO IT'S EASY FOR THE CITY.
INSTEAD OF CREATING NEW ZONING AND TYPE OF THING THEY CAN DO AS PART OF THE INSPECTION, THEY CAN SAY, WELL, THIS PROPERTY SHOULDN'T HAVE MORE THAN TWO CARS AND SO WE CAN PUT THAT IN THERE. I'VE HAD MANY SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE SAY, OH, WE WANT TO DO A BABY SHOWER, WE WANT TO HAVE A BIRTHDAY PARTY. I SAY, WE DON'T HAVE I DON'T ALLOW PARTIES, I DON'T ALLOW ANY TYPE OF EVENT BECAUSE IT'S STREET PARKING ONLY AND I DON'T WANT TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS. SO LET US MANAGE OUR BUSINESS. WE DON'T NEED TO BE MICROMANAGED. WHEN LEWISVILLE STARTED WITH THE PERMIT PROCESS FOR AIRBNB, I DECIDED, OKAY, I'M GOING TO SEE HOW THIS IS. I DECIDED TO ONLY HAVE ONE AIRBNB, SO I SWITCHED ONE OF THE AIRBNBS BACK THIS PAST YEAR TO RENTERS. AND AT THE END OF THE MARCH, AT THE END OF MARCH, I SAID NO MORE BECAUSE IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH RENTERS, AND I SWITCHED IT BACK AGAIN TO AIRBNB. AND IT'S MUCH EASIER TO CONTROL BECAUSE REGARDLESS IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT HAVE INVESTED IN PROPERTIES, IT'S NOT ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY PERSON BECAUSE I'VE MADE AN INVESTMENT AS PART OF MY RETIREMENT. THAT I'M REAL ESTATE IS PART OF MY RETIREMENT PLAN, SO IT'S NOT ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO EITHER HAVE A RENTER OR IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTER. AND MY CONTENTION IS A SHORT TERM RENTER IS 100 TIMES BETTER THAN A BAD LONG TERM RENTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK DO SO NOW. WITH NO ONE COMING FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT'S CORRECT. WE ARE CONTINUING. CONTINUING. I DID NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU COULD TAKE A VOTE ON CONTINUING. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 1ST, 2025 MEETING MOTION BY ADAM, SECOND, SECONDED BY JOSHUA. VOTE NOW TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. THANKS FOR REMINDING ME, RICHARD. OKAY, THAT BRINGS US TO ANNOUNCEMENTS. AND I BET THERE'S A COUPLE. THE ONLY
[D. Announcements]
ANNOUNCEMENT I HAVE TONIGHT IS TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE 2035 PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE CLOSES ON FRIDAY THE 20TH, THIS COMING FRIDAY. SO IF I'VE SEEN MANY OF YOUR NAMES ON THAT ON THAT LIST ALREADY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE INTERESTED AND THAT WOULD COULD SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE, ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO AHEAD AND FILL OUT THE APPLICATION. WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THEM. IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT PROCESS. IT WILL REDEFINE THE FUTURE OF LEWISVILLE. AND THAT WILL CLOSE ON AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, THE 20TH NEXT FRIDAY, AND I BELIEVE IT'LL BE GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS ON JULY THE 7TH. THANK YOU. DON'T WE HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW AWARDS IN THE CABINET? I SURE DO. THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER. LAST FRIDAY, OUR CITY MANAGER AND THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FIVE STAFF MEMBERS APPEARED BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. AS PART OF THAT PROGRAM, THEY HAVE THEIR ANNUAL AWARDS CEREMONY, AND ONE OF THEIR REALLY GREAT AWARDS THAT THEY DO PROVIDE IS CALLED THE CLYDE AWARD. THAT STANDS FOR CELEBRATING LEADERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT EXCELLENCE. AND THERE'S VARIOUS CATEGORIES THIS YEAR, I THINK, OUT OF ABOUT 36 SUBMISSIONS, SIX WERE SELECTED FOR THE AWARD, AND LEWISVILLE RECEIVED TWO OF THOSE. THE FIRST WAS FOR THE BUSINESS 121 CORRIDOR PLAN, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS FOR THE BACKYARD COTTAGE DESIGN COMPETITION. SO WE CAME[00:45:01]
AWAY WITH TWO AWARDS THAT THAT VERY, VERY RARELY HAPPENS. SO WE'RE VERY PROUD OF ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE. AND I THINK THE PNC, FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT FOR ALL OF OUR ACTIVITIES AND LIKE I SAID, BOTH, BOTH, BOTH THE PLAN AND THE DESIGN COMPETITION WERE REALLY, REALLY PUT US ON THE MAP AND GOT A, GOT A REALLY A LOT OF ATTENTION FROM OUR, OUR PEER COMMUNITIES IN THE REGION. OKAY.WE'RE ALWAYS PROUD OF YOU, BUT IT'S COOL FOR OTHERS TO RECOGNIZE THAT. ABSOLUTELY. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOVE TO ADJOURN BY RICK. SECOND.
SECOND BY AINSLEY. VOTE NOW. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. WE CAN NOW GO SEE TAYLOR. YEAH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.