The Richardson City Plan Commission spent the final portion of its Jan. 7 meeting debating a proposed amendment to the Collins‑Arapahoe TOD and Innovation District zoning (zoning file 24‑33) that would add a defined “drone operations and maintenance center” use to the employment subdistrict.

Staff presented the proposal as a narrowly scoped land‑use category intended to allow a facility used for storage, staging, maintenance and other ground‑based support for commercial unmanned aircraft systems. Staff described three supplemental conditions proposed with the use: 1) a minimum 300‑foot separation between a drone operations and maintenance center and any single‑family residentially zoned property; 2) that maintenance and repair activities must occur inside a building (not in the open); and 3) that any equipment or apertures associated with the center may not extend more than 10 feet above the primary structure where the center is located. Staff said the 300‑foot buffer reflected an approach used in several other Texas jurisdictions and that once a drone is airborne, federal rules (FAA) govern the flight operation.

Staff also noted the state has adopted privacy and related legislation affecting drone operations, and explained that the federal government regulates in‑air operations — for example, some carriers operate under Part 135 approvals — so local land‑use controls are limited to ground‑side facilities and infrastructure.

Public comment split the room. Lehi Ma, representing a data‑center campus tenant, told the commission data centers are critical infrastructure and warned about security, privacy and operational risks if drone facilities are located near data campus operations. Ma requested protection of existing investments and said data‑center operators chose locations specifically to avoid flight routes and similar exposures.

A representative of a drone delivery operator, Stephanie Cook with Zipline, told the commission the company operates delivery services in other markets and that the kind of facility described by staff is a maintenance/support center rather than a delivery hub. Zipline said their operations include outreach and community education, that maintenance activities occur indoors, and that the firm uses sensors for obstacle avoidance rather than persistent video surveillance.

Commission discussion focused on several recurring concerns: whether to allow the new use “by right” across the employment subdistrict or require a case‑by‑case special‑permit process; how the proposed land‑use language would interact with FAA regulation of flight paths; whether the proposed definition was sufficiently specific (for example, the transcript shows multiple commissioners asking whether the use would allow delivery operations, photography businesses or other drone activities that do not involve maintenance); and how the city would enforce any on‑site restrictions. Several commissioners said they supported innovation and attracting new technology employers to the innovation district; other commissioners said the city should retain the ability to review and limit proposed locations via a discretionary special‑permit process until more technical and operational details are established.

The transcript records a motion to recommend approval of ZF24‑33 as a special permit (rather than adding the use as a permitted right across the employment subdistrict). The final voting record in the transcript is ambiguous: commissioners on the record described a 4–4 split at one point and other statements in the record conflict about whether the motion carried. Because the transcript contains conflicting statements about the tally and outcome, the record here does not assert a definitive final recommendation outcome; the transcript shows a motion to advance the amendment under a special‑permit pathway and multi‑member debate about whether additional drafting or processes (registration, tighter definitions or a special permit) would better address the concerns raised.

Key details included in the staff presentation and discussion: the proposed definition (unmanned aircraft = aircraft without human occupants), a recommended 300‑foot separation from single‑family residentially zoned property, and a 10‑foot maximum for any equipment or apertures above the primary structure at the maintenance site. Staff also noted that only a small number of U.S. operators are currently certified under Part 135 for package delivery and that FAA and state rules address in‑flight rules and some privacy protections.

Speakers included planning staff (Holland and other staff), city engineering staff (Goff), a representative of data‑center interests (Lehi Ma), a Zipline representative (Stephanie Cook), and multiple commissioners. Written public comments and staff packet materials were referenced during the hearing.

Clarifying details: staff proposed a 300‑foot minimum separation from single‑family residential zoning; maintenance/repair activities to take place inside a building; and a limit of 10 feet above the primary structure for any exterior drone‑related equipment or apertures. Staff referenced FAA oversight of flight operations and Part 135 carrier approvals; staff also cited Texas state privacy legislation enacted recently as relevant to local concerns.

Actions: the transcript records a motion and discussion about recommending approval as a special permit rather than making the use permitted by right. The voting record and final outcome are not consistently recorded in the available transcript: at one point the transcript shows a 4–4 vote split and later remarks in the room indicated differing interpretations of the tally. Because the transcript contains conflicting, ambiguous statements about the final tally and whether a recommendation advanced, the article records the motion text and the recorded tally in the transcript as ambiguous and notes that the commission debated but did not produce an unambiguous, unanimous record in the transcript excerpt provided.

Authorities and statutes referenced in the hearing included the Collins‑Arapahoe TOD and Innovation District PD, FAA regulations for unmanned aircraft and Part 135 carrier approvals, and recent Texas state legislation addressing drone privacy and related issues.

Next steps: staff and the commission discussed options including tightening the proposed ordinance language, requiring a special permit or registration process, and further outreach to affected stakeholders (notably data‑center operators). Any amendment advanced to Council will include the commission’s recommended pathway (permitted use vs special permit) and the precise supplemental regulations to be applied.

Note on transcript evidence and vote: the transcript contains inconsistent statements about the final numeric tally for the motion at the end of the hearing and an explicit list of opposing members in one place but contradictory statements elsewhere. This article therefore reports that the commission debated and voted on a motion to advance the amendment as a special permit, but the final recommendation outcome is recorded in the meeting transcript as unclear; the City Clerk’s office or the official meeting minutes should be consulted for the definitive recorded vote and final Commission recommendation.