[00:00:01]
[Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee on January 30, 2024. ]
THE JANUARY 30TH, UH, 2024 ZAC HEARING.UH, IT'S 9:06 AM AND I BELIEVE WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL.
UH, CHAIR HOUSEWRIGHT, VICE CHAIR.
UH, MR. REEVES HERE, AND COMMISSIONER RUBIN HERE.
AND I THINK WE'RE WAITING ON MR. MCGREGOR NOT WAITING ON, YOU'LL BE HERE SOON.
SORRY YOU WEREN'T ON MY ROLL CALL LAST TIME.
HERE THE RECORD REFLECT, UH, MR. MCGREGOR HAS ARRIVED.
SO WE, WE HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT ATTENDANCE TODAY.
LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
SO MY NAME IS MICHAEL WADE, SENIOR PLANNER WITH PLANNING URBAN DESIGN FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CODE AMENDMENT DCA 1 9 0 0 0 2, UH, OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING.
WE WILL MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THE STUDY BACKGROUND.
WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON, UH, WHERE THIS HAS COME FROM AND THE PROPOSAL AS IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST OAC MEETING ON DECEMBER 5TH.
WE HAVE SOME UPDATES THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OUT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, A COUPLE OF REVISIONS, SMALL THINGS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED TODAY, AND THEN SOME DISCUSSION ITEMS. AND WE WILL, UH, KICK IT RIGHT BACK OVER TO THE COMMITTEE FOR, UH, DISCUSSION TODAY.
UM, WE'D LOVE TO BE VOTING ON A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
THE STUDY BEGAN IN 2019, WAS INITIATED, UH, AND FOR TWO YEARS IT CAME TO ZO OAC 25 MEETINGS WITH SOME DEPARTMENTAL, UH, RESTRUCTURING.
IT TOOK A PAUSE, AND THEN CAME BACK IN AUGUST OF 2023.
WE'VE HAD TWO ADDITIONAL ZO OAC MEETINGS, CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING AND PUBLIC LISTENING SESSIONS SINCE THEN.
TALKING BRIEFLY ABOUT, UH, WHERE THE STUDY COMES FROM AND WHY, UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT OFF STREET PARKING.
WE'VE GOT AN ARRAY OF ADOPTED OR IN THE WORKS CITY PLANS, HOW FOR PRIORITIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY, BY HOW WE MANAGE OFF STREET PARKING AND HOW WE REGULATE IT.
THOSE GOALS INCLUDE SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS, UH, REDUCING THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.
IT IS HOW MUCH WE DRIVE IN THE CITY, ENHANCING OUR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY WITH WHICH WE USE OUR LIMITED LAND RESOURCES, AN EFFICIENT HIGH QUALITY PERMITTING PROCESS.
AN E EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY, OFF STREET PARKING MINIMUMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS OUTDATED AND DYSFUNCTIONAL, INFLEXIBLE IN CREATING BARRIERS TO EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT, CAUSING CUMBERSOME PERMITTING PROCESSES, BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENTS, BURNING SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENTREPRENEURS WORKING AGAINST WALKABILITY, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS.
THEY PRESERVE THE FINANCIALLY UNDERPERFORMING LAND FORM IN TERMS OF TAX REVENUE AND THEN INCREASED DANGER AND DECREASED ACCESS FOR PEDESTRIANS.
THE PROPOSAL IS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT TODAY, IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME AS WE BROUGHT IN DECEMBER OF 2023.
WE ARE STILL PROPOSING THIS IS THE STAFF PROPOSAL, REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS TO ZERO PARKING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PROGRAM.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THERE ARE, UM, ADDITIONAL JUST STRUCTURAL AND READABILITY REVISIONS.
THE STAFF PROPOSAL, UH, IS REALLY INTENDED TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS AS LAID OUT IN THE CITY PLANS.
AND SO, UM, AS WE ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, OF COURSE, UH, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR THE GOALS THAT THE CITY IS ADOPTING.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME UPDATES THAT I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH.
SOME ARE PRETTY EASY TO DIGEST.
THESE ARE UPDATES SINCE THE DECEMBER 5TH PROPOSAL, UH, OFF STREET LOADING AMENDMENTS IN THE PROPOSAL
[00:05:01]
VERSION THAT WE BROUGHT LAST TIME.GENERALLY, THESE WERE ENTIRELY DELETED.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF AND WE REALIZE, EXCUSE ME.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MIGHT BE ONLINE, UM, I HAVE A COMMENT FROM SOMEONE THAT SAYS THEY CAN'T HEAR US.
CAN ANYONE HEAR US ON ONLINE? YOU CAN SEND IT IN THE CHAT AND I'LL SEE IT.
OFF STREET LOADING AMENDMENTS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'VE REINSTATED, UH, OFF STREET LOADING PROVISIONS AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE CODE.
UH, REALLY WE'RE JUST FOCUSING ON THE MULTIFAMILY LAND USE, MAKING SURE THAT DEVELOPERS AND MULTIFAMILY DO PLAN, UH, FOR ADEQUATE LOADING AND UNLOADING.
WE'VE ALSO CREATED, UH, OR ARE PROPOSING TO CREATE A SHARED AND REMOTE AGREEMENTS PROPOSED FOR LOADING, EXCUSE ME, SHARED AND REMOTE LOADING.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A NONSENSICAL SENTENCE ON THE SLIDE THERE, AND THAT IS JUST TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR SMALL, SMALLER USES, SMALLER BUILDINGS, UH, DENSER AREAS.
A REVISION THAT WE'RE, UM, JUST MENTIONING RIGHT NOW.
AS THIS UPDATE WAS MADE, THE CA DISTRICTS FOR DOWNTOWN CA ONE AND CA TWO WEREN'T REVERTED, UH, TO THE CURRENT FORM IN, UH, THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS SENT TO YOU IN THE UPDATED PROPOSAL.
AND SO, UH, WE ARE RECOMMENDING ALONG WITH THE UPDATED PROPOSAL THAT THE CA DISTRICTS STILL, UM, REMAIN AS THEY ARE IN THE CODE TODAY.
AND WE CAN CLARIFY THAT AS NEED BE.
CLARIFICATION THAT OUR TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN THRESHOLDS APPLY TO PHASED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, NOT JUST, UH, ONE-OFF MOMENTS AND THEN SPECIFYING THAT A MAJOR REVIEW WILL APPLY TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
UH, CURRENTLY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE PROPOSED TO, UH, HIT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THRESHOLD.
AND, UH, A MINOR REVIEW WOULD BE APPLIED IN THE TDMP.
A MINOR REVIEW SIMPLY WOULD APPLY, UH, TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, UM, BUT NOT APPLY A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BY APPLYING THE MAJOR REVIEW, UH, A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
UM, AND A SCHOOL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED OF ANY SCHOOLS.
CURRENTLY, WE HANDLE THIS JUST THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PHASE, AND THAT'S ONLY FOR THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE LOCATED IN DISTRICTS, UH, WHERE THEY REQUIRE IT AN SEP.
THIS WOULD, UM, REALLY, UH, BRING CONSISTENCY AND, UM, TRANSPARENCY TO OUR PROCESSES FOR WHEN SCHOOLS ARE BEING ESTABLISHED.
THE CLARIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATH REQUIREMENT, THE BASE REQUIREMENTS ARE THE SAME.
UH, EVERY PARKING SPACE NEEDS TO BE WITHIN 65 FEET OF THE PEDESTRIAN PATH SIDEWALKS COUNT, AND, UM, ANY PATHS CROSSING DRY VIALS NEED TO BE DIFFERENTIATED BY COLOR OR TEXTURE.
THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE'RE BRINGING TODAY IS THAT JUST ONE PATH MUST BE RAISED, THE LEVEL OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE CURB, UM, AS IT CROSSES DRY VIALS.
WE'VE GOT SOME VISUALS FOR CLARITY THERE.
I WON'T LINGER ON THIS TOO MUCH, BUT JUST WANT TO VISUALLY DEPICT, UH, HOW THIS REQUIREMENT COULD PLAY OUT IN AN EXAMPLE PARKING LOT.
SO IN THIS ONE, WE HAVE THREE, UH, PATHS CROSSING A LOT TO A STORE.
SEE THE MAIN ENTRANCE KIND OF ON THE RIGHT THERE.
MAIN PATH WITH THE RAISED CROSSINGS IS IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THEN TWO, ONE ON EITHER SIDE.
AN EXAMPLE OF THE SAME PARKING LOT.
YOU HAVE THE MAIN PATH TOWARD THE RIGHT.
SO LEANING TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE WITH THE RAISED CROSSING, ONE OTHER PATH WITHIN 65 FEET OF, UH, THE PARKING SPACES AROUND IT.
AND IN THIS ILLUSTRATION, THE SIDEWALK IS ALSO COUNTED AS A PATH, AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE RAISED CROSSING, AND A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
THIS IS A CROSSING, VERY GENTLE SLOPE, GENTLE INCLINE, UH, DIFFERENTIATED BY BRICK TEXTURE AND A RED COLOR.
THIS IS AN HEB AND AUSTIN, WHERE THE PATH, MAIN PATH, UH, IS STREET LEVEL STILL PROTECTED BY, UM, UH, CURB BUMPS.
AND THEN, UH, IT INCORPORATES IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND TREE COVERAGE.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING, UH, TO PROHIBIT DRAINAGE ACROSS PUBLIC SIDEWALKS.
[00:10:01]
OFTEN.GENERALLY, OUR REVIEW STAFF ARE CATCHING THIS, BUT, UH, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THIS CODIFIED WATER RUNNING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK CAN MAKE FOR A REALLY SLOPPY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND, UH, DANGEROUS WHEN TEMPERATURES DROP.
AND JUST A REMINDER THAT DESIGN STANDARDS IN 4.301 ARE ALL SUBJECT TO A PROPOSED, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER AND OTHER RELIEF IN SITUATIONS OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OR SAFETY ISSUES.
SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, THESE ARE FOR THE BASE CODE, THIS IS WHERE WE START.
AND THEN, UH, TAILOR AS, UM, NEED BE PER SITE.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING A REDUCTION OF THE 30 FOOT DEATH REQUIREMENT TO 20 FEET FOR ACTIVE USES ALONG THE GROUND STORY OF PARKING STRUCTURES IN ARTICLE 13 DISTRICTS.
THE 30 FOOT DEPTH, UH, HAS BEEN FLAGGED AS JUST A BIT ONEROUS WHEN WE CAN STILL ACHIEVE THE INTENDED VITALITY, UH, WITH A 20 FOOT DEPTH.
ONE THING THAT WAS FLAGGED FOR US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS, IS PROHIBITING WAVE STYLE BIKE RACKS.
THESE, UH, ARE REALLY UNUSABLE.
WE GENERALLY ABIDE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROFESSIONALS.
THEY FLAGGED IT AS A RACK TO AVOID, IT'S NOT INTUITIVE OR USE OF FRIENDLY.
OFTEN FALLS SHORT OF EXPECTATIONS, SUPPORTS THE BIKE FRAME AT ONLY ONE LOCATION WHEN USED AS INTENDED.
AND REALLY THE, THE SUPPORTING THE BIKE FRAME AT ONLY ONE LOCATION WHEN USED AS INTENDED.
REALLY, THAT'S ALSO, UH, SUGGESTING THAT IT CAN'T BE, THAT A BIKE CAN'T BE LOCKED TO IT IN THE MOST OPTIMAL WAY.
THAT INCLUDES THE FRAME AND BICYCLE WHEEL.
AND SO THIS IS A REVISION THAT WE'RE BRINGING TODAY.
WE WANT TO ADDRESS SOME, UH, FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HEARD.
THESE ARE JUST, UH, STAFF'S THOUGHTS AND HOW WE CAME TO BRING THE PROPOSAL AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN, THEN, UH, AFTER WE ADDRESS SOME OF THESE DISCUSSION ITEMS, WE WANT TO KICK IT RIGHT BACK OVER TO THE ZO OAC FOR DISCUSSION, INCREMENTAL CHANGE.
SO IN OUR UPDATED PROPOSAL, WE'RE STILL RECOMMENDING CITYWIDE FULL REDUCTION OF PARKING MINIMUMS. UH, SOME RESPONSES THAT WE'VE HEARD, UH, ONE IS PARTIAL REDUCTION TO MINIMUMS, MAYBE JUST REDUCE THEM BY THREE QUARTERS OR BY A HALF.
GENERALLY, WE'RE STILL COUNTING PARKING SPACES.
IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE CUMBERSOME PERMITTING PROCESS.
UH, IF THESE ARE SET TOO HIGH, THEY'RE STILL INCENTIVIZING VEHICLE MILES.
IF THEY'RE SET TOO LOW, THEN THEY'RE REALLY INEFFECTIVE.
THIS STILL JUST KEEPS US IN THE WORLD OF, UH, THROWING A DART AND HOPING THAT IT'S A RIGHT RATIO.
AND WE DO WANNA, UH, REMIND EVERYONE THAT FULL REDUCTION ITSELF REALLY WILL ONLY PRODUCE SLOW INCREMENTAL PROGRESS TOWARD CITY ADOPTED GOALS.
PEOPLE HAVE, UH, BROUGHT UP GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED REDUCTIONS TO MINIMUMS JUST IN CERTAIN AREAS, UH, STAFF LINES THAT THESE IGNORE THE REGIONAL SCALE OF AUTOMOTIVE TRANSPORTATION.
THAT IS, IF YOU ONLY ARE RELAXING REGULATIONS FOR DESTINATION END USES, NOT HOME END USES, ET CETERA, UH, IT'S NOT ENOUGH REALLY FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN COMMUTING AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.
TRANSPORTATION ALWAYS INCLUDES A, AN ORIGIN AND A DESTINATION POINT.
UH, GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED REDUCTIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE AT CURBING VEHICLE MILES DRIVEN AT A MEANINGFUL SCALE WITH THE RATE THAT THE CITY'S GROWING AND THE SIZE OF THE CITY.
ISOLATED REDUCTIONS, UH, HAVE ALREADY BEEN OCCURRING THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THROUGH MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS DEVELOPMENTS AND DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICTS.
WE'VE BEEN DOING INCREMENTAL REDUCTIONS FOR A LONG TIME NOW.
AGAIN, A REMINDER REWORDED, BUT THE SAME, THE CITYWIDE REDUCTION ITSELF STILL WILL ONLY PRODUCE SLOW INCREMENTAL PROGRESS TOWARDS CITY ADOPTED GOALS.
AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE WORKING ON THE BASE CODE HERE.
THIS SHOULD BE THE STARTING POINT.
THIS WILL AFFECT THE CITY BROADLY.
THE BASE CODE SHOULD BE A CRAFTED TO APPLY CITYWIDE.
UH, OTHER ZONING TOOLS DO EXIST TO TARGET SPECIFIC AREAS LIKE PARKING MANAGEMENT AREAS AS THEY EXIST AND ARE BEING UPDATED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S, UH, CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.
WE'VE HEARD, UH, THE IDEA OF TYING PARKING MINIMUMS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
UH, STAFF FINDS THAT THAT WOULD APPLY ANY REDUCTIONS IN ACTUAL PARKING SUPPLY TO ROADS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN KIND OF SELECTED AS BEING THE MOST AUTO ORIENTED, RATHER THAN THOSE THAT ARE MEANT TO BE MORE WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE.
AND SO, AS WE IMAGINE, UM, REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS, THE, THE IMPACTS OF THAT WILL LEAD TOWARD GREATER WALKABILITY.
UM, WHEREAS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN LENDS ITSELF TO AN AUTO ORIENTATION.
UH, MORE CARS MOVING MORE QUICKLY, REDUCTIONS IN LAND FORMS THAT ACCOMMODATE AND INCENTIVIZE DRIVING LIKE PARKING LOTS, DO MOST BENEFIT PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AREAS.
[00:15:01]
UH, ALSO TYING PARKING MINIMUMS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN CAUSE PARKING REGULATIONS AND DELTA CREDITS TO DEPEND ON A PLAN THAT CHANGES INDEPENDENTLY OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WOULD INTRODUCE QUITE A BIT OF AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION INTO A PROPERTY ZONING REQUIREMENTS.ALSO, IT WOULD INTRODUCE, UH, ARBITRARY DIFFERENCES IN HOW SOME SIMILAR LAND USES IN DISTRICTS ARE REGULATED.
AN EXAMPLE THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IS BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT IN LOWER GREENVILLE, SIMILAR, UM, MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, WOULD END UP BEING REGULATED DIFFERENTLY.
AND SO FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF DOESN'T RECOMMEND TYING PARKING MINIMUMS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD ABOUT EXCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY ZONES IN AREAS, UH, EXCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY AREAS REALLY WOULD MAINTAIN MINIMUMS ON DEVELOPMENT TYPES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, LOWER DENSITY HOUSING, WHERE WE MOST EXPECT THE MARKET TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE PARKING.
UM, WE KNOW THAT WE LIVE IN DALLAS.
THIS IS CAR CULTURE DOWN HERE.
UM, PEOPLE WILL WANT TO STORE THOSE AT HOME.
AND WE KNOW THAT THE, UH, MARKET WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE.
IN THE CASES WHERE IT DOESN'T, WHEN A DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUILD MORE, UH, TRADITIONAL URBAN HOUSING, LESS PARKING ON THE LOT, WE DON'T WANT TO PROHIBIT OR BURDEN THEM TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE DESIRING TO TRADE IN PARKING SPACES FOR LIVING SPACES.
AND THEN ONE MORE ADDITIONAL NOTE ON WHERE, UH, STAFF PROPOSAL HAS COME FROM.
AVOIDING STREET PARKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS REALLY HASN'T BEEN A GOAL OF THIS PROPOSAL.
WE HAVE, UH, MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES THE CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS WORKING ON RIGHT NOW, I THINK IS, UH, COMING TO COUNCIL WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO, UH, PARKING ALONG THE CURB IN LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS.
ALSO IN OUR, UH, URBAN PLANNING BEST PRACTICES, UM, KNOWN TO SLOW VEHICLES, MAKING THE STREETS SAFER FOR PEOPLE ON THE STREETS, CROSSING THE STREETS.
UM, IT GUARDS PEDESTRIANS ON THE SIDEWALKS MAKING A SAFER, UH, SIDEWALK, UM, PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE, EXCUSE ME.
THESE ARE ALREADY PLANNED FOR IN STREET DESIGNS.
AND SO, UH, WE'RE NOT EXPECTING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING ALONG THE CURB TO REALLY PRODUCE CHAOS OR, UM, SOME OF THE MORE DIRE PREDICTIONS.
AND THEN AGAIN, THESE WON'T CHANGE OVERNIGHT.
UH, MANY OF OUR STABLE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS TRULY ARE STABLE, UH, AND THEY CHANGE ONE HOME AT A TIME OVER A LONG COURSE.
SO WITH THAT, WE JUST COME TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF FORWARDING THE AMENDMENTS WITH TODAY'S, UH, REVISIONS TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
AT THIS POINT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO, UH, THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, AND A REMINDER THAT THIS HAS BEEN AT Z OAC 27 TIMES NOW, AND, UH, WE WOULD LOVE FOR OUR FRIENDS ON THE COMMISSION TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS AS WELL.
YEAH, I, I WAS THINKING WE WOULD DO SPEAKERS NEXT.
UM, LET'S DO THE IN PERSON FIRST.
THANKS FOR, UH, THE SPEAKERS IN PERSON.
UM, WE'LL, WE'LL START TO, UM, START TO HEAR YOUR, UM, TESTIMONY, IF YOU WILL.
UM, DID YOU WANNA DO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON OR ONE MINUTE? LET'S DO, LET'S DO TWO, TWO MINUTES.
SO, UM, THIS WILL GO FOR BOTH PEOPLE IN PERSON AND ONLINE.
UM, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE, UM, START BY STATING YOUR NAME AND AN ADDRESS.
UM, AND LATER ON, UM, WE'RE GETTING OUR LITTLE SIGNUP SHEETS, UM, SO THAT I CAN GET THE MINUTES CORRECT AND SPELL YOUR NAME CORRECTLY.
UM, WE'RE GONNA GRAB SOME YELLOW SIGN IN SHEETS, AND WE'LL PUT IT ON THE TABLE OVER THERE.
AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST DROPPING IT BACK ON THE SAME TABLE SO I CAN PICK IT UP, UH, TO HAVE THE MINUTES CORRECT WITH YOUR NAMES SPELLED CORRECTLY.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, UH, IF THE FIRST PERSON THAT'S IN, IN PERSON WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON TO SPEAK AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON.
AND, UM, DID YOU WANNA DO THE, AND VICE CHAIR? BLAIR WAS GOING TO KEEP TIME.
AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU'RE JUST HERE TO OBSERVE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK.
ZARA, 1003 VALENCIA, DALLAS, 7 5 2 2 3, DISTRICT 14.
IT'S OBVIOUS THESE AMENDMENTS ARE TRYING TO FORCE RESIDENTS TO WALK, BIKE, USE DISMAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR TAXI BY MAKING IT
[00:20:01]
VERY EXPENSIVE TO USE PRIVATE VEHICLE, AS IS CALLED AVERAGE VICTORIAN CAR STAFF FORGETS THAT THIS IS TEXAS LAND OF A WIDE OPEN SPACES CAR CENTRIC AND A HUNDRED DEGREE TEMPERATURES FOR A THIRD OF THE YEAR, WHICH ELIMINATES MASS USAGE AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE FIRST FOUR OF THE ABOVE.THIS IS NOT AMSTERDAM, MINNEAPOLIS, OR NEW YORK CITY THAT ARE LAND RESTRICTED.
AS AN OWNER OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IS THE COMPETITION THAT DETERMINES WHAT AMOUNT OF PARKING IS NEEDED, NOT TOOL BOXES OR STUDIES CASE IN POINT OFFICE.
IF I DON'T HAVE HIGH ON SITE RESERVE PARKING RATIOS, I LOSE TENANTS TO BUILDINGS THAT DO RETAIL CUSTOMERS VOTE WITH THEIR WALLET.
IF PARKING HAS A PERCEPTION THAT IS DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE, THEY GO ELSEWHERE.
IF A SIMPLE TRIP NOW BECOMES COMPETITION FOR THE CURB NEIGHBORHOODS, IF UNREGULATED OVERFLOW PARKING BECOMES A NUISANCE AND IMPACTS THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THOSE WHO PAY TAXES AND LIVE THERE FULL TIME, IF DALLAS LEADERSHIP DOESN'T HAVE THEIR BACKS, THE SUBURBS WILL BY DESIGN CURRENT PARKING MINIMUMS LIMIT HOW MUCH DENSITY CAN BE DEVELOPED ON A SPACE WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THEY NEED TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ANY NEW PARKING MANAGEMENT POLICY INSTEAD OF BEING KICKED TO THE CURB.
MY NAME IS MELISSA KINGSTON, 59 0 1 PAL PENTO.
LET ME START BY SAYING, GENERALLY I SUPPORT, UM, A LOT OF THE PARKING, UH, MINIMUM CONCEPTS WE'RE TALKING HERE.
UM, BUT I HAVE SOME CONCERN ACCORDING TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I AGREE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT.
IF WE ELIMINATE ALL PARKING MINIMUMS, WE ARE, AND WE DECIDE THAT IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME IN REINSTATING THOSE.
AND SO MY PROPOSAL IS THAT WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS IN ALL CATEGORIES EXCEPT A HANDFUL OF THE CATEGORIES UNDER, UM, 51, A 4.210.
RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES I WOULD RELIEVE AS THEY ARE TODAY, AND TAKE THIS AS A TWO-STEP APPROACH RESTAURANT WITH AND WITHOUT DRIVE-THROUGH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, THEATERS, MORTUARY, FUNERAL AND COMMERCIAL WEDDING CHAPEL.
AND I HAD TRUCK STOP BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF CASES COME THROUGH THE PLAN COMMISSION WHERE TRUCK PARKING IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CITY CAN BE PROBLEMATIC.
THAT'S NOT REALLY A PROBLEM IN MY DISTRICT, BUT I THINK THAT WARRANTS SOME DISCUSSION.
AND I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MINIMUM GUEST PARKING FOR CERTAIN SIZE, MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, I'M NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT THINKS THE STREETS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE BELONG TO ME.
I THINK THE STREETS BELONG TO EVERYONE.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PARKING ON THE STREETS.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO USE PARKING, UM, THAT THEY CAN AFFORD.
WE DON'T HAVE THE TYPE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WE NEED TO MAKE NO PARKING MINIMUMS IN EVERYWHERE WORK AND IN PLACES LIKE LOWER GREENVILLE OR BISHOP ARTS, OR A LARGE SWATH OF PD 1 93, WHICH THOSE PEOPLE WERE TOLD THIS WOULDN'T IMPACT.
BUT NOW I, I SEE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GOING AFTER PDS AS WELL.
WE HAVE A SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY THAT IS WORKING WELL THE WAY IT IS.
MY NAME IS AN SANDRA 34 32 SPRUCE VALLEY LANE DISTRICT THREE.
THIS IS A SOLUTION AND SEARCH OF A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST AS YOU WERE WAITING IN YOUR CAR FOR SOME JERK TO PULL OUT OF THE PARKING SPACE THAT YOU WERE WORK WAITING FOR, AND HE DECIDED TO DO THE NEW YORK TIMES CROSSWORD PUZZLE TO MAKE YOU WAIT.
AT WHAT POINT DID YOU SAY, OH MY GOD, I WISH THIS STORE HAD LESS PARKING.
YOU DID NOT PARKING LOTS, FIRST OF ALL, WERE THE HEROES OF COVID.
YOU REMEMBER OUR RECENT PANDEMIC WHEN PARKING LOTS WERE FEATURED TO USE DOZENS SCORES, HUNDREDS OF CARS BACKED UP TO RECEIVE VACCINES.
IS THIS THE LAST PANDEMIC? WE HOPE SO.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD FORCE BUSINESSES TO CLOSE.
IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN AT WORK AND HAD A SHORT TIME TO RUN AND GRAB YOUR LUNCH, YOU CALL IN YOUR ORDER, YOU GO TRY TO GRAB YOUR LUNCH AND GO WITH NO PARKING SPACE.
ANY DEVELOPER WOULD BE INSANE TO BUILD A BUILDING WITH INSUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF PARKING.
THEY WOULD LOSE TENANTS AND THE CITY WOULD
[00:25:01]
LOSE BUSINESS AS THOSE PLACES MOVED TO THE SUBURBS.PLANO, FRISCO, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS AS YOU ELIMINATE OR SEVERELY RESTRICT DIS DISABLED PARKING.
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE ON WALKERS WITH CANES? WHAT ABOUT PREGNANT WOMEN WHO ARE TRYING TO WALK TO A RESTAURANT TO SIT DOWN? DALLAS IS NOT A WALKABLE CITY.
WHAT ABOUT ON STREET PARKING, WHICH WILL BECOME PREVALENT AS CARS LINED BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET? AMBULANCES, FIRE TRUCKS CAN'T GET DOWN THEIR BIKE.
BIKERS WILL DIE AS THEY ARE FORCED TO BE RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE THE STREETS HAVE BEEN NARROWED BY ON STREET PARKING.
THIS ISN'T AMSTERDAM, IT ISN'T OSLO, IT'S NOT SOUTH KOREA THAT HAS A FANTASTIC PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TIME.
DALLAS DOES NOT PLEASE KILL THIS AMENDMENT.
I WORK LIVE AT 9 9 2 5 LAKE DALE DRIVE.
UM, I GREW UP IN DISTRICT 10, PRESENTLY LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE AND CURRENTLY WORK IN DISTRICT FOUR.
I'M AN ENTREPRENEURIAL FOUNDER OF SMART LIVING RESIDENTIAL, A REAL ESTATE, UH, COMPANY FOCUSED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITABLE ATTAINABLE WORKFORCE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
I'M HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT OF A MARKET-CENTRIC SOLUTION TO THE CITY'S CURRENT PARKING CODE FOR SEVERAL REASONS, BUT PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ONE, THE OPPORTUNITY LOSS FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USES, AND TWO, THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS THE CITY'S CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS PLACE ON THE DEVELOPING, UH, ATTAINABLE ON DEVELOPING ATTAINABLE HOUSING PRIMARILY IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.
HAVING GROWN UP IN D 10, I CAN POINT TO MULTIPLE BIG ROCKS RETAIL CENTERS WITH EXPANSIVE CONCRETE PARKING LOTS THAT SIT NEARLY EMPTY, 365 DAYS A YEAR.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE SUPER TARGET CENTER AT THE INTERSECTION OF SKILLMAN AND ABRAMS. ADDITIONALLY, I SPENT EIGHT YEARS IN AN OFFICE OVERLOOKING A PARKING GARAGE SERVICING A HUNDRED PERCENT OCCUPIED RETAIL CENTER IN PRESTON CENTER.
THAT SIMILARLY WAS MORE THAN 60% VACANT, 365 DAYS A YEAR.
THE ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THAT, THOSE SPACES OR THE COST OF THOSE STRUCTURES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEFRAYED MATERIAL.
BUT THE BIGGEST REASON FOR MY SUPPORT IS THE BURDEN, THE PARKING CODE PLACES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE PLACES TO LIVE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTAINABLE HOUSING BEGINS AND ENDS WITH PARKING, NOT WITH HOW MANY ADDITIONAL UNITS WE CAN BUILD, NOT WITH THE ADDITIONAL EQUITABLE AMENITIES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE, NOT WITH THE TYPE AND QUALITY OF UNIT FURNISHINGS, BUT WITH THE NUMBER OF CONCRETE PARKING SPACES WE MUST PROVIDE.
WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON 153 UNIT PROJECT IN THE CEDAR CREST NEIGHBORHOOD OF D FOUR.
SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE, ONE ADDITIONAL UNNECESSARY PARKING SPACE IS ONE LESS HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE UNIT THAT WE CAN ADD TO THE MARKET.
THAT'S ONE LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR A TEACHER.
ONE LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR A PUBLIC SERVANT.
ONE LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR A CITY OF DALLAS EMPLOYEE.
ONE LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR A SINGLE MOTHER TO LIVE IN A NEWLY BUILT EQUITABLY PRICED HOUSING UNIT IN A CITY WITH AN ESTIMATED 20,000 UNIT ATTAINABLE UNIT SHORTFALL.
THERE'S A HUGE OPPORTUNITY COST TO NOT ADJUSTING THE CURRENT PARKING CODE.
EVERY ADDITIONAL DOLLAR THAT I MUST SPEND ON PARKING AND IS ONE LESS DOLLAR THAT I HAVE TO SPEND ON BUILDING.
THANK VERY MUCH ACTUAL THANK YOU.
UM, I DON'T REALLY CARE FOR PARKING LOTS, ESPECIALLY IF I'M BIKING OR WALKING.
UH, IT'S JUST, UH, ONE MORE THING I HAVE TO CROSS THAT CONTAINS CARS.
UM, I DISAGREE WITH MOST OF THE SENTIMENTS HERE ABOUT, UH, DALLAS HAVING TO BE A PARACENTRIC CITY AND DALLAS HAVING FOUR PUBLIC TRANSIT.
I THINK IF MORE PEOPLE USED IT, WE COULD INCREASE FREQUENCIES AND THEREBY ELIMINATE MORE, UH, VEHICLE MILES DRIVEN IN THE CITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, DALLAS IS A HOT PLACE, BUT LIKE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO PEOPLE WALKED ALL OVER DALLAS AND IT WAS A HOT PLACE THEN AS WELL.
SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO BE A CAR-CENTRIC CITY.
I THINK, UM, PEOPLE WOULD BE HAPPY TO, UH, WALK AND BIKE PLACES AND WE SEE THAT IN LIKE FISHER PARKS AND DOWNTOWN AND LOWER GREENVILLE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
UM, ONE MORE THING I'LL SAY IS, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
WELL, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF PROPERTY DEVELOPERS WANT TO ADD PARKING, I DON'T THINK THIS AMENDMENT, UH, REQUIRES THEM TO NOT HAVE PARKING LOTS.
SO ALL THESE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS THAT ARE GONNA BE LIKE, PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING SPOTS, WELL, THEY CAN BUILD AS MANY PARKING SPOTS AS
[00:30:01]
THEY WANT TO.AND THEN SOMEONE WHO'S BUILDING AN APARTMENT WHO MAYBE HAS TENANTS THAT DON'T DRIVE OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE FEWER THAN ONE CAR PER BEDROOM, UM, THEY CAN BE BUILT FEWER SPOTS.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN HOUSER AND, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I LIVE AT 4 4 3 7 COLE AVENUE, WHICH IS IN KNOX, COLE AND ARMSTRONG.
AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE.
SO I WANTED TO COME TODAY TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
AND THE FIRST IS THAT I, MYSELF AND OTHERS HAVE ATTENDED NUMEROUS MEETINGS.
AND WE HAVE BEEN TOLD POINT BLANK THAT PD 1 93 IS NOT IMPACTED BY THESE CHANGES, BUT NOW I'M HEARING THAT THAT IS IN FACT INCORRECT.
SO I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARITY ON THAT PIECE.
AS WE KNOW, PD 1 93 ALREADY HAS REDUCED PARKING, AND IT'S PART OF THE OAK LAWN PLAN.
IT SAYS IN, UH, BLACK AND WHITE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CAUSE THE, THE, UM, OFF STREET PARKING TO COME FROM THE COMMERCIAL AREAS AND CLOG UP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE.
AND IF SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN KNOX, IF YOU'VE BEEN OVER THERE, YOU KNOW, IT IS EXPLODING AND THE DENSITY IS INCREASING, BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT.
SO, ONE OTHER AREA THAT I THINK IS REALLY CRITICAL IS LOADING AND HOW THE LOADING IS DONE, BECAUSE CURRENTLY WITH THE RIDE SHARE, UBER EATS AMAZON, THE STREETS HAVE BECOME THE LOADING ZONES AND THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT PROVIDING WHAT IS NEEDED.
AND YOU TALK TO THE DRIVERS, WHY ARE YOU PARKING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET? THEY SAY IT'S EASIER.
AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT THAT'S GONNA BE THE WAY FORWARD.
IT'S NOT THE WAY, WAY PATH AFTER THE PANDEMIC.
EVERYBODY IS USING THESE TYPE THINGS.
BUT, UM, OUR MEMBERS LIVE, WORK, AND OWN PROPERTY IN PD 1 93, AND WE WOULD HAVE APPROVED, APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT IF IN FACT PD 1 93 WAS INCLUDED.
AND I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE.
COULD I INTERRUPT WITH THE CLARIFICATION? I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UM, AND WE APOLOGIZE FOR ANY, UH, CONFUSION THAT WE'VE PUT OUT THERE.
PD 1 93 WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THIS AMENDMENT.
THERE, THERE, UM, WAS A SECTION ADDED TO THE REPORT SAYING FURTHER CON CONSIDERATIONS AND IT LISTS PDS FOR THE FUTURE FUTURE, UH, FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER THE, THE, UM, PARKING MINIMUMS DURING THAT.
SO THAT WAS JUST A, UH, LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD, WHAT ELSE CAN WE EXAMINE THAT HAS TO DO WITH PARKING? THAT'S ALL THAT, THAT WAS.
I BELIEVE VICE CHAIR BLAIR HAS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
SO IF YOU'RE EXCLUDING PD 1 93, DOES THAT EXCLUDE ALL OTHER PDS OR JUST PD 1 93? AND HOW WILL IT IMPACT PDS MOVING FORWARD? WILL THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO, UH, THIS AMENDMENT, OR WILL THEY BE ABLE TO NOT? I'LL, I'LL TAKE A SHOT AT AN ANSWER AND SARAH CAN WEIGH IN.
I'LL, I'LL TRY AND DO SOME BULLET POINTS AND MAYBE WE CAN GET INTO THE DETAILS IF WE NEED TO.
SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF PDS.
SOME LIKE PD 1 93 ENTIRELY HOLD THEIR OWN PARKING MINIMUMS. THEY DESCRIBE, UH, THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT PARKING REGULATIONS, INCLUDING MINIMUMS, ANY PD THAT DOES THAT, OR ANY, ANY TIME A PD DOES THAT, THAT WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.
THERE ARE SOME PDS WHERE PARKING MINIMUMS ARE COMPLETELY BASED ON THE BASED ZONING CODE, WHICH WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY.
CHAPTER 51 A, WHERE A PD JUST REFERS THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS TO CHAPTER 51 A.
THOSE WILL BE IMPACTED BY WHAT WE DO.
AND THEN HONESTLY, MOST PDS ARE SOME MIX OF THAT.
THEY'LL SAY PARKING REGULATIONS, UH, FOR PARKING REGULATIONS, C CHAPTER 51, A SECTION, ET CETERA, EXCEPT FOR THIS LAND USE AND THIS LAND USE AND THAT LAND USE IN THOSE HYBRID SITUATIONS WHERE IT REFERS TO CHAPTER 51 A CHAPTER 51 A WILL REGULATE PARKING, UH, BUT WHERE IT SPECIFICALLY MODIFIES PARKING FOR CERTAIN LAND USES, ET CETERA, THOSE WILL REMAIN IN PLAY.
UM, SO DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING? DOES THAT, I'M SORRY, DOES THAT ANSWER MOVING FORWARD, A PD WOULD HAVE TO EITHER ADDRESS 51 A AS IF, IF THIS IS PASSED AS IT IS AMENDED OR WRITE THEIR OWN PARKING STANDARDS.
[00:35:01]
BUT JUST MOVING FORWARD IN FUTURE PDS, THERE IS AN OPTION TO SPECIFY A MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT IN A NEW PD.YOU KNOW, AS THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE CURRENTLY THEY CAN INCREASE OR DECREASE OR ELIMINATE OR COME UP WITH HOW MANY CHICKENS ARE THERE OR WHATEVER THE, THE RATIO MAY BE.
BUT UM, YES, SO THAT WILL STILL BE AN OPTION.
NONE OF OUR CODE AMENDMENTS CHANGED THAT.
IF THE PARKING MINIMUMS WERE TO BE ADDRESSED OR, OR MODIFIED AND THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING, WOULD IT NOT TO GET THAT ON THE DOCKET OF THE PLAN? IT WOULD BE A LONG AND LENGTHY PROCESS.
IT WOULD NOT CHANGE OVERNIGHT, IF EVER, BUT THAT, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE THERE.
IT, IT'S NOT JUST GONNA HAPPEN.
THAT'S NOT LIKE NEXT ON THE AGENDA OF ZAC OR ANYTHING.
AND, AND I ALSO, UM, HEARD A VERY GREAT POINT THAT, UM, SHE MADE THAT, UM, LOADING HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE IN PD 1 93 AND UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE PD 1 93 HAS ITS OWN LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN REALLY DO IN THIS CODE AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS LOADING.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS, I'M SURE, PLENTY OF DISCUSSION TO BE HAD, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALLY OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY TO SEE IF THEY WANTED TO SEEK OUT AN AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS.
ALRIGHT, I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE SPEAKERS.
UM, DID WE HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS HERE IN THE ROOM THIS MORNING THAT WISH TO SPEAK? HELLO, GOOD MORNING.
I LIVE AT 1 0 3 0 CEDAR HILL AVENUE IN OAK, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE, UH, 2 0 8.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THAT I'M JUST TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES.
I TOO, UH, CAME ON MICRO MOBILITY TO CITY HALL AND I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FIVE YEARS, UH, GOING ON ONLY USING PUBLIC TRANSIT HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, SUMMERS, WINTERS ICE, WHATEVER.
IT IS HARD, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY DOABLE.
UM, I RESPECT ALL WORK THAT STAFF HAS BEEN DOING TO SUPPORT SOME SORT OF PARKING CHANGES.
UH, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT DALLAS HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
UM, WE HAVE OTHER NORTH TEXAS CITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY DONE REFORM, SO, UM, APPLAUSE TO THEM.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST NOT MOVING AT THE SPEED THAT WE NEED TO AS FAR AS CHANGING SOMETHING ABOUT PARKING.
UH, ONE LAST THING I DO WANT TO ADD.
WHENEVER I'M ON MY, I HAVE GOTTEN INTO SEVERAL ACCIDENTS ON MY BICYCLE SCOOTER OR WHAT HAVE YOU, MICRO MOBILITY.
AND ALL OF THESE ACCIDENTS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AT A INTERSECTION WHERE IT GOES INTO A PARKING LOT.
SO MINIMIZING THAT, ELIMINATING THAT WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATED.
SO IT ACTUALLY MAKES BIKEABLE AND WALKING INFRASTRUCTURE MORE SAFE AS OPPOSED TO HAVING MORE PARKING, NOT.
UM, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
ANOTHER SPEAKER WE'RE WE CAN'T HEAR YOU VERY WELL.
SHOULD I START OVER? YEAH, IT MIGHT BE GOOD IF YOU DID.
I RESIDE AT NINE 11 NORTH MADISON AVENUE, DISTRICT ONE.
I LIVE IN THE AREA THAT EVERYONE CALLS BISHOP ARTS.
WE ALREADY HAVE TWO BDS THAT SURROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT INCLUDE PARKING REDUCTIONS.
I WOULD INVITE YOU TO COME DOWN AND GO DOWN OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.
I CAN SHOW YOU AREAS IN WHICH WE HAVE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPERATING AND BECAUSE OF REDUCED, NOT ELIMINATED, BUT REDUCED PARKING, WE HAVE THEM PARKING ON SIDEWALKS, WE HAVE THEM PARKING
[00:40:01]
IN FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS.WE HAVE THEM PARKING UP AND DOWN OUR STREETS SO THAT NOT EVEN A FIRETRUCK COULD GET DOWN THEM.
YOU CAN REPORT IT, BUT DON'T EXPECT A RESPONSE THAT DAY.
IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST A WEEK BEFORE YOU GET A RESPONSE.
WE NEED TO HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS TO HELP ENSURE A, A PLAN IN ORDER TO HAVE DIFFERENT USES WITHIN AN AREA.
WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT BY INTRODUCING THE PARKING REDUCTIONS, THAT INVITES OUR LANDLORDS TO INSIST ON PUTTING RESTAURANTS AND ONLY RESTAURANTS INTO OUR BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THAT GIVES THEM THE HIGHEST RETURN.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORS, FLAT OUT THEY DON'T.
SO WE ARE ASKING YOU AS THE CITY TO HELP PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS VICE PRESIDENT OFFICER, WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE PARKING IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REDUCED AND IT HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
AND I'M NOT HEARING QUALITY OF LIFE MENTIONED ENOUGH BY THIS GROUP.
KEEP IN MIND, I SET ON THE LAST REVIEW OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS HOW MANY YEARS AGO AND I ATTENDED, I BELIEVE EVERY ZAC MEETING.
SOME CHANGES MIGHT NEED TO BE MADE, BUT DOING AWAY WITH THEM IS RIDICULOUS.
IT DESTROYS THE FLEXIBILITY IN OUR BUSINESS AREA.
WE DON'T HAVE THE SMALLER BUSINESSES THAT DON'T DRIVE, DO AS MUCH BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY BY PUTTING THEM IN RESTAURANTS.
BISHOP ARTS, YOU SEE ANY VARIETY THERE.
YOU SEE A WHOLE BUNCH OF RESTAURANTS AND YOU DO SEE SOME BOUTIQUES, BUT YOU DO NOT SEE EVERYDAY SHOPPING THAT A COMMUNITY NEEDS.
AND AS FAR AS TRANSPORTATION IS CONCERNED, I HAD TO USE A BUS RECENTLY, SEVERAL TIMES TO GET DOWN HERE.
I WALK THREE BLOCKS OVER TO BECKLEY, I RIDE THE BUS DOWN TO UNION STATION, AND THEN I WALK FROM UNION STATION UP TO HERE.
NOW, IF WE CAN'T GET DECENT TRANSPORTATION TO CITY HALL, WHERE DO YOU THINK WE'RE GONNA GET GOOD TRANSPORTATION? IT DOES NOT EXIST UNTIL THE CITY OF DALLAS ADDRESSES THAT.
THEN WHAT Y'ALL DO HERE IS JUST A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR US.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME BECAUSE I KNOW IT HAS TAKEN A LOT OF TIME, BUT WE'RE SPENDING ENTIRELY TOO MUCH TIME DOWN HERE, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OF YOU THAT ARE AWARE OF HOW MUCH TIME WE SPEND DOWN HERE ON ALL KINDS OF EFFORTS, AND WE'RE TIRED OF BEING DOWN HERE TRYING TO LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE LOSING SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF THIS.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY, SO I THINK WE'RE READY FOR OUR ONLINE SPEAKERS.
UM, I ORDERED THESE BASED ON, UM, THE EARLIEST SIGNED UP, UM, WOULD BE, UH, MR. NORTHROP, IF YOU COULD TURN ON YOUR CAMERA AND, UM, UNMUTE YOURSELF.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA.
PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MIKE NORTHROP 9 0 1 MAIN STREET, SUITE 3,900.
I'M OPPOSED TO THIS PARKING AMENDMENT FOR COUNTLESS REASONS.
I'LL FOCUS MY REMARKS TODAY ON TWO OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
ONE IMPACT GUARANTEED TO OCCUR AND ONE IMPACT PROMISE TO INCUR TO OCCUR.
THE PROPOSAL IS BOTH ELITIST AND RACIST.
THE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU BY ITS VERY DESIGN, IS GUARANTEED TO HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON LOWER INCOME MOTORIST.
THE WHOLE DESIGN HERE IS TO SHIP THE COST OF PROVIDING PARKING FROM LANDOWNERS TO THE DRIVERS.
YOU WANT FEWER CARS ONTO THE ROAD.
HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? YOU HAVE FEWER SPACES AVAILABLE AND MOTORISTS START HAVING TO PAY FOR
[00:45:01]
ACCESS TO THOSE SPACES.TODD LIPMAN, EXPERT ON PARKING OBSERVES LARGER IMPACTS ARE LIKELY TO RESULT FROM LOWER INCOME TO LOW WITH LOWER INCOME MOTORISTS.
A GIVEN PARKING FEE REPRESENTS A GREATER SHARE OF INCOME TO A LOWER INCOME MOTORIST THAN A HIGHER INCOME MOTORIST.
BLACKS AND HISPANICS HAVE THE HIGHEST COMMUTE TIMES IN THIS CITY AND ARE MOST LIKELY TO WORK MULTIPLE JOBS WHILE STILL NOT MAKING ENDS MEET.
THEY DEPEND ON THEIR VEHICLES.
THESE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED MOST.
THE CITY'S RACIAL EQUALITY EQUITY PLAN COMMITS TO ADDRESSING DISPARITIES AND OUTCOMES ALONG RACIAL, ETHNIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC LINES.
SECTION FIVE OF THE CITY'S 2 20 21 RESOLUTION COMMITS TO MAKING EQUITY A PRIORITY OF EVERY INITIATIVE, POLICY, OR PROGRAM.
THIS PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN VETTED AS THE CITY HAS UNDER IN CONNECTION WITH THAT POLICY.
AND IT NEEDS TO BE THE SECOND IMPACT IS ONE THAT'S PROMISED THAT THAT IS, THAT IT WILL, THIS WILL RESULT IN LOWER INCOME HOUSING BEING AVAILABLE.
IN FACT, A REPORTER FOR GRIST RE REPORTED A MONTH AGO THAT THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH CLAIMS IS ANECDOTAL AT BEST.
BUT HERE'S THE ICING ON THE CAKE.
UM, THAT THIS PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS HAS THE EFFECT OF EVISCERATING WHAT THE CITY ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS HOUSING PLAN LAST YEAR THAT INCENTIVIZES LOWER INCOME HOUSING.
ALLOWING FOR LOWER, LOWER PERMITS.
UH, NEXT UP, I BELIEVE, UM, WE ALREADY HAD MR. ZARA SPEAK TO US AND MS. SANDERS, UH, NEXT WE HAVE MR. JACOBS, ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA, MR. JACOBS? OKAY.
UH, MR. TONY, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE, UH, MR. COLORADO, BUT I SEE MR. COLORADO IS HERE.
SO, UM, UH, FOR MATTHEW JACOBS AND BRIAN TONY, IF YOU WOULD, UH, WORK ON JUST SEEING IF YOU CAN GET YOUR CAMERA TO WORK AND, UH, WE'LL COME, UH, ROUND UP, UM, AFTER MR. COLORADO'S TESTIMONY.
SORRY, WHEN YOU SAID HERE, YOU KNOW, I'M ONLINE, NOT, UH, IN PERSON.
UM, UH, THE OTHER TWO SPEAKERS ARE, ARE ONLINE.
I MADE THE PANELISTS, BUT WE'RE JUST GONNA WAIT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THEIR CAMERA ON.
UH, WE LIVE AT 1 5 0 9 MAIN STREET IN DALLAS, DISTRICT 14.
I WANNA COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT AND REMIND THE COMMITTEE TWO THINGS.
FIRST, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT AN ABOLISHMENT OF ALL PARKING.
THIS IS JUST A REMOVAL OF THE MINIMUMS AND ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT REMOVING ALL PARKING.
HAS ANYONE EVER MET A DEVELOPER OR BUSINESS PERSON WHO IS EAGER TO GET RID OF ALL OF THEIR PARKING? SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT CONTEXT IN MIND.
THE SECOND THING I'D LIKE TO NOTE IS THAT AS SOMEONE WHO'S LIVED IN DALLAS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS WITHOUT A CAR, AND AS ANOTHER PERSON WHO SPOKE HAVE ALSO BEEN HIT BY A CAR WHILE WALKING NEAR A, A PARKING LOT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS AND KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY IN DALLAS.
AND WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT NOBODY WALKS, NOBODY TAKES CHANCE, NOBODY BIKES.
THAT IS NOT A REFLECTION OF THE LACK OF PEOPLE AND FACILITIES WILLING TO DO THAT.
THAT IS A REFLECTION ON THE IGNORANCE OF THE FEW MOTORISTS WHO ARE NOT WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF US EXIST IN THIS CITY.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COUNCIL RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT ARE PORTRAYED AS PROBLEMS ARE ACTUALLY THINGS THAT ARE ULTIMATELY GOOD FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR EVERYBODY.
AND THERE WAS A STORY THAT WAS SHARED BY A CERTAIN COUNCIL PERSON ON A OL THAT HAD THE HEADLINE OF BUSINESSES IN A QUOTE, VIBRANT, WALKABLE, HIGHER FOOT TRAFFIC, INCREASED, UH, UH, UH, CONSUMER ACTIVITY DISTRICT IN FORT WORTH.
THE BUSINESSES WERE SUPPOSEDLY STRUGGLING IN THAT AREA.
WELL, RESTAURANTS HAVE A 30% RATE OF FAILURE OR CLOSURE WITHIN THEIR FIRST YEAR AND AN 80% CLOSURE OVER FIVE YEARS.
SO THE LACK OF PARKING IS THE EASIEST THING TO BLAME WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE OR TWO PEOPLE OR BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT ENJOYING THE BENEFITS THAT WALKABILITY PROVIDES.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE EXIST.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, CITY, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
[00:50:01]
OR MR. TONY THERE WE ARE.MR. JACOBS, PLEASE, PLEASE BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
IS EVERYTHING COMING THROUGH? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
MY NAME IS MATT JACOBS, 10 40 CHEROKEE ROAD.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS AND MOVING THE REVISION TO THE NEXT STAGE.
AFTER FOUR YEARS, THIS CHANGE WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS IN THIS DECADE, IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE PROCESS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS.
BUT ABOUT FOUR NOW, UH, FROM THE FIRST CITY MEETING, UH, WE HAD RIGHT BEFORE THE WORLD SHUT DOWN TO NOW AND EVEN CARVING OUT THE TIME TO TUNE IN FROM SINGAPORE, WHILE THE REST OF THE CITY SLEEPS, THE CITY HAS ALREADY EXPERIMENTED WITH REDUCING OR ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS THE LAST FEW DECADES THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS DELTA CREDITS OR SPECIAL WAIVERS, PARTICULARLY IN OUR MOST THRIVING TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE LOWER GREENVILLE OAK, CLIFF OAK LAWN.
HALF THE SHOPS WRONG LOWER GREENVILLE WOULD'VE BEEN TORN DOWN FOR PARKING OR SAT EMPTY, HAD THE CITY NOT GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ONSITE PARKING STANDARDS.
IT'S TIME THE REST OF THE CITY, PARTICULARLY THOSE AREAS LIKE FAIR PARK, WHERE BUSINESSES WERE OUTLAWED BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE GIVEN THE SAME CHANCE PARKING WON'T DISAPPEAR.
NOTHING ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE MAKES PARKING ILLEGAL.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT GIVE IT BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SIDE THEIR OWN NEEDS.
ELIMINATE THE OBSCENE AMOUNT OF TIME THE CITY TAKES ENFORCING IT, WHICH WILL FREE UP STAFF TO FOCUS ON THE AMOUNT OF OTHER ISSUES THAT PLANNING AND PERMITTINGS, UH, HAVE RIGHT NOW, THAT ARE CRIPPLING SMALL BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY IN THE POOR AREAS THAT DON'T HAVE THE SOPHISTICATION TO DEAL WITH THE COMPLICATED SYSTEM LIKE PLEASANT GROVE PARKDALE.
AND ALL THE REST STAFF, IN FACT, HAS ALREADY PROVIDED MANY EXAMPLES OF BUILDINGS FROM THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES THAT SHOW THAT PARKING LOTS WERE BEING BUILT AT SIMILAR RATIOS BEFORE THE CURRENT MINIMUMS WERE CREATED.
WHETHER OAK CLIFF OR OFF ABRAMS ROAD, WE KNOW LOWE'S DOESN'T EXPECT US TO TAKE A PILE OF TWO BY FOUR SOLD ON A BICYCLE.
SO WHY SHOULD OUR TAXES GO TO PAY THE CITY TO COUNT ITS PARKING SPACES AND TELL US HOW MUCH THEY NEED BASED ON AN ARBITRARY NUMBER FROM 60 YEARS AGO THAT NO ONE REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHERE IT CAME FROM.
UM, I KNOW THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT STILL NEED TO BE WORKED OUT, BUT REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S TIME TO MOVE IT ON TO THE NEXT STAGE AND LET THAT BROADER DISCUSSION HAPPEN.
IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN FROM AREAS WHERE THERE'S AN OVER CONCENTRATION OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS AND THEY'RE WORRIED THAT THIS MAY PRODUCE MORE OF THAT, NOT ALLOW OTHER AREAS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, MORE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
AND STAFF HAS COMPLETELY STATED THE MECHANISMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM.
OKAY, MR. TONY, UH, THANK YOU, UH, FOR JOINING US.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UM, MY ADDRESS IS 1 5 0 0 PECO STREET.
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE DALLAS HOUSING COALITION.
WE'RE A COALITION OF OVER 200 DIVERSE MEMBERS REPRESENTED COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION, NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS, UH, FAITH INSTITUTIONS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE ALL COMMITTED TO OUR MISSION OF, UH, DEVELOPING AND PRESERVING ATTAINABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR ALL.
WE JUST DID A MEMBERSHIP SURVEY, UH, OF OUR MEMBERS.
OUR TOP PRIORITY, UH, TO SUPPORT THIS YEAR IS PARKING REFORM AND, UH, REMOVING PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
WE'VE BEEN LEADING THE ADVOCACY CAMPAIGN FOR, UH, $200 MILLION INVESTMENT IN THE 2 20 24 HOUSING BOND.
UH, THIS PAIRS NICELY, UH, WITH THAT AND OTHER REFORMS COMING THROUGH FORWARD DALLAS TO MAKE, UH, DALLAS A MORE INCLUSIVE, UH, VIBRANT, WALKABLE CITY.
UH, WE KNOW WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS IN, IN PARKING AND ITS EFFECTS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND COSTS.
UH, THAT THERE'S AN ECONOMIC CASE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, VACANT BUILDINGS AND OTHERS THAT CAN HELP OUR TAX BASE BASED GROWTH THROUGH EFFECTIVE HOUSING REFORM.
AND WE SEE THIS AS A KEY WAY TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT HOUSING COSTS AND PASS THOSE SAVINGS ON TO OUR RENTERS AND OUR HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET RIGHT NOW.
UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING FURTHER, UH, WITH THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND ENCOURAGE, UH, THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE ADOPTED TODAY.
SO MR. CHAIR, THAT'S THE, UM, THE END OF OUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS LIST.
UM, SO, UM, IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA ASK QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS OR STAFF.
UM, I THINK WE'RE READY TO GO INTO DISCUSSION HERE.
SO, UH, THANK THE SPEAKERS FOR THEIR INPUT THIS MORNING.
I APPRECIATE THEIR, THEIR TIME COMING DOWN AND TALKING TO US OR GETTING ONLINE.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I GUESS I WOULD OPEN IT TO OUR, UM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR, OR THE SPEAKERS IF THEY WISH.
UM, I ACTUALLY HAVE, UH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, THE FIRST TWO RELATE TO THE, UH, CHANGES MADE TO THE, UM, ORDINANCE ITSELF.
UH, THERE'S A REFERENCE IN A COUPLE PLACES TO SUB PARAGRAPH E UH, IF TO, TO SHOW YOU WHERE ONE IS, IF YOU GO TO 51 A, UH, 4.27,
[00:55:03]
THREE C.UH, AND I'LL OPEN THAT UP MYSELF HERE.
UM, WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT SECTION NUMBER PLEASE? YES, OF COURSE.
WHAT PAGE IS IT? OH, THANK YOU.
SO YEAH, THREE C FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW.
AND I MEAN, THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE 'CAUSE IT SHOWS UP IN A COUPLE PLACES.
UM, REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING, NONE EXCEPT AS REQUIRED IN SUBPARAGRAPH E AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT SUBPARAGRAPH IS.
THAT'S PROBABLY REFERRING TO THE STACKING SPACE REQ REQUIREMENT BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS FOR A FINANCIAL WITH A DRIVE THROUGH.
YES, I THINK THAT'S WHAT E IS THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THAT LAND USE.
SO THERE IS, SO WE DO HAVE STACKING SPACE REQUIREMENT THAT STAYS IN THE REGS.
EACH DRIVE THROUGH USE THAT WE HAVE HAS A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF, UM, STACKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THAT DRIVE-THROUGH WHATEVER USE THAT MIGHT BE.
THANK YOU THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
UH, SECOND QUESTION, UH, SINCE I DON'T HAVE THE DEFINITION OF THE USES, AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I READ THROUGH THEM, UH, IN SECTION 5.1, UH, WE HAVE A, UH, USE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL.
WHAT IS THAT EXACTLY? UM, I DON'T HAVE THE DEFINITION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT, UM, USUALLY RESIDENTIAL HOTELS ARE USUALLY REFERRED TO AS LIKE BOARDING HOMES OF, YOU KNOW, THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS WHERE YOU'D HAVE, YOU KNOW, LADIES THAT ARE TRAVELING TO THE CITY AND HAVING TO STAY IN A CHAPERONE PLACE.
ANYWAY, THAT'S WHERE IT ALL CAME, CAME FROM.
THAT'S WHAT RESIDENTIAL HOTELS ARE.
I THINK IT'S, UM, THEY HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST SIX GUEST ROOMS, UH, WITHIN A STRUCTURE.
BUT I THINK GENERALLY, I THINK THE DEFINITION DESCRIBES THEM AS HAVING LIKE COMMUNAL KITCHEN AND POSSIBLY BATHROOM AREAS.
I DON'T THINK I'VE COME ACROSS THAT BEFORE, BUT I, I WAS JUST CURIOUS.
UH, MY LAST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED, UH, MR. WADE, THE 150 OR SO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, UM, THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT THAN WHAT I'M USED TO SEEING BY THE WAY.
'CAUSE IN A SINGLE DOCUMENT I CAN READ EVERYTHING, BUT IT'S, SO IT'S NOT, THESE WERE NOT EMAILS THAT WERE SENT IN.
PEOPLE FILL OUT A FORM ONLINE OR CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE PROCESS FOR PEOPLE TO, TO UH, SUBMIT THAT INPUT? SURE.
UH, SO IT'S A FORM THAT'S ONLINE.
IT'S BUILT WITH MICROSOFT FORMS. UH, WE INTRODUCED THIS PRIOR TO THE LAST ZAC MEETING, THE DECEMBER 5TH ZAC MEETING, UH, LEGAL, A LINK WAS SENT OUT WITH, UM, THE MATERIALS.
IT MIGHT, I THINK IT'S ON THE AGENDA AS WELL, AGENDA FOR THAT MEETING AND THIS MEETING.
UM, AND IT'S REALLY JUST A, A SURVEY, ASK SOME BASIC QUESTIONS AS YOU GO DOWN AND THEN HAS AN OPEN ANSWER SECTION FOR COMMENTS.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT LINK TO, THAT WAS SENT OUT IN THE MATERIALS IN THE AGENDA FOR BOTH MEETINGS.
AND THEN COMMENT ON HOW IT WAS SENT OUT, UM, PERTAINING TO THE LAST MEETING, I THINK THERE WERE 146 COMMENTS.
AND THEN SINCE THEN, CLOSER TO THIS STATE, THERE WERE A FEW MORE.
WELL, THAT'S A GREAT TOOL AND UH, IT MAKES OUR JOB A LOT EASIER.
I, I'LL, I'LL HAVE COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.
QUESTIONS? YES, MR. BARRETT? YEAH, I HAVE, UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, PARTICULARLY ON THE OFF STREET LOADING.
UM, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO, UM, THE MULTIFAMILY.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE REVISIONS THAT WERE REVER, LIKE REVERSIONS BACK TO THE, WHAT WAS THE WAS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THE MULTIFAMILY HAS A REFERENCE JUST SAYING THEY NEED TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE DIRECTOR.
UM, CAN YOU REFRESH US ON WHAT, UM, ENGINEERING AND IS THINKING OF? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO PROVIDE AN OFF STREET LOADING SPACE FOR LIKE BOX TRUCKS FOR PEOPLE DOING MOVE, MOVE-INS? OR IS IT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO HAVE A LARGE ON THE STREET SPACE THAT COULD BE USED FOR THIS OR WHATEVER, BE REMINDED OF WHAT STAFF IS IMAGINING HERE? SURE.
I'LL GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY AND THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK DAVE NAVARRE ALSO TO COME UP.
UM, RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO OFF STREET LOADING AND UNLOADING REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE.
AND SO ANY MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT BY STAFF NEGOTIATED WITH AND BASICALLY CONVINCED THAT, UH, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF SPACE THAT'S NOT ON THE STREET, UH, FOR ALL STREET LOADING TO BE PROVIDED.
GENERALLY IT IS MEANT TO BE FOR, UM, WHATEVER THEIR NEEDS ARE.
SO UNDERSTANDING THAT A A 40 UNIT BUILDING IS DIFFERENT THAN A 200 UNIT BUILDING, ET CETERA.
UM, WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF DAVID NAVAREZ WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT MORE ON KIND OF SPECIFIC.
[01:00:04]
THANK YOU, MICHAEL.UM, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH THIS MORNING FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, DAVID NAVARRES ON BEHALF OF ENGINEERING, WE REVIEW PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS AND I'D LIKE, I WANTED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT IN CONSOLIDATING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU.
UM, IT'S A LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILIES AND IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
ESSENTIALLY, THERE IS NO LOADING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN DALLAS TODAY.
AND FOR AS LONG AS I REMEMBER FOR HOW LONG, I GUESS, UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A LOADING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY.
THAT'S INCORRECT, BUT IT, I WOULD HAVE TO DATE THAT DATE.
UM, UM, AND SO WHAT HAPPENS AT PERMITTING WHEN A MULTI-FAMILY DOES NOT PROVIDE A, UH, LOADING SPACE? UM, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO THINK THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO LOADING REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR LOADING TRUCKS OUTTA MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE BRING UP AT THE TABLE.
EVERY TIME WE REVIEW MULTIFAMILY, WE ASK THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, WHERE ARE YOU LOADING? THE ENGINEER SAYS, OH, DAVID, WE'RE LOADING OVER HERE.
AND THEN WE ASK, WHERE'S YOUR FREIGHT ELEVATOR? OH, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T CONSIDERED IN DESIGN FOR THE MOST PART IN MANY INSTANCES.
UH, WE BRING IN THE ARCHITECTS.
THE ARCHITECTS, UM, WILL SAY, AND I'VE REPEATEDLY HEARD THIS, DAVID, A CD THAT HAS NO LOADING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD EXPECT THEM TO BE ON THE STREETS.
AND WHILE THAT IS INCORRECT IN NATURE, UH, THE REASON WHY WE'RE BRINGING UP, UH, THAT PER DIRECTORS OF, OF, OR THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PROPOSED IS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE WANT TO CONTINUE DOING BUSINESS THE WAY WE HAVE.
WE COLLABORATE WITH DEVELOPERS FIGURING OUT WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
WE CITY STAFF ARE REQUIRED TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THAT PROPERTY, UH, TO THEIR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS IN FIGURING OUT WHAT, WHAT WORKS BEST FOR ALL.
UM, THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE'RE DOING IT WITHOUT ANY GUIDANCE.
THE DEVELOPERS WE'RE SURPRISING YOU BY LETTING YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE YOU LOADING, WHERE, WHERE ARE YOUR LOADING REQUIREMENTS? UM, AND, AND WE COME UP WITH AN ANSWER.
WE SURPRISE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR TEAM IN WITH THAT QUESTION.
WE, WE WANT THEM TO BE AWARE THAT A LOADING REQUIREMENT WHILE NOT REQUIRED, EXCUSE ME, A LOADING SPACE WHILE NOT REQUIRED, IT'S STILL NEEDED TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
UM, NOW IMPOSING LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CITY IN MANY WAYS.
AND I'M OFF SUBJECT NOW 'CAUSE WE COULD GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE.
BUT, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE GIST OF, OF HOW WE'RE DOING BUSINESS.
AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE, UH, DOING THE SAME WE'VE BEEN DOING.
BUT, BUT FORMALIZING IT WITH JUST A SIMPLE STATEMENT, LETTING THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT WE NEED AN ANSWER FOR WHERE THEY'RE LOADING AND HOW AND IF IT'S GONNA BE ON THE STREET, THE CITY THEN NEEDS TO BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION AND FIGURE OUT WHAT, HOW TO MANAGE THAT FOR WHEN THAT LOADING TRUCK SHOWS UP.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A SIGN THAT SAYS, UH, NO PARKING HERE BECAUSE IT'S RESERVED FOR LOADING.
UM, SO YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
UM, LET SEE, IN THE DEEP, IN EMPTY BE IN THE CASE BUILDING ABOUT LIKE 17 STORIES TALL, ABOUT A HUNDRED PERCENT LOT COVERAGE.
UM, SEE A LOADING TRUCK THERE BASICALLY EVERY WEEKEND AS NEW TENANTS MOVE IN AND OUT, UM, WHAT WOULD THE CITY'S APPROACH BE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION LIKE THAT? WHEN I LOOK AT THE OFF STREET LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, LIKE A 14 HALL FOOT TALL PARKING SPACE IS NOT GONNA BE FEASIBLE IN A PARKING DECK.
BUT WHAT IS THE CITY'S EXPECTATION FOR HYPOTHETICALLY? THANK YOU.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BRINGING YOU TODAY TO THE TABLE.
FIGURING OUT A PROCEDURE THAT IS GUIDING STAFF, NOT JUST THE THE DESIGNER, BUT ALSO STAFF IN HOW TO ENFORCE, UH, ANY EVALUATION OF THOSE NEEDS.
LET ME BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING OR RECOMMENDING IMPLEMENTING LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WHAT WE WANNA DO IS, UM, ALERT THE DESIGNER THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHERE THEIR LOADING NEEDS ARE.
THE CITY MAY SAY AT THE DISCRETION OF THAT DIRECTOR, WE MAY SAY, YOU CAN'T PARK YOUR TRUCKS THERE AND THEREFORE IT, YOUR DEVELOP, YOUR DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T BELONG THERE.
IN SOME INSTANCES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SEE, WE'RE NOT USING LOADING REQUIREMENTS TO, AS SOME INDIVIDUALS MAY CLAIM THAT THE PARKING IS DICTATING THE LAND USE.
UH, INSTEAD WE'RE, WE'RE USING A EVALUATION OF DEMAND OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND, WHICH INCLUDES WALKERS, BICYCLISTS,
[01:05:01]
MOTORIST, AND LOADING TRUCKS IN THIS INSTANCE, UH, TO DETERMINE IF A SITE IS DEEMED FEASIBLE FOR A SPECIFIC LOCATION.NOW THE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING, UM, THEN THE CITY HAS TO FIGURE OUT A WAY, WAY TO, UM, IMPLEMENT CURVE MANAGEMENT AND FIND OUT A WAY TO CREATE PLACES WHERE A TRUCK CAN SERVE THE NEEDS OF NOT JUST ONE SITE, BUT MULTIPLE SITES.
AND BY MEANS OF PUTTING A SIGN THAT SAYS LOADING SPACE, UM, COMMUNAL OF SOME SORT.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T DO TODAY.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
WE DON'T, NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE DESIGNER NOR THE NEIGHBORS UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.
SO YOU IMAGINE THAT IN SOME CASES ON STREET LOADING SPACE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN? THAT INSTEAD OF THAT THE LOADING NEEDS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE MET WITH OFF STREET LOADING.
THAT IN ON STREET LOADING MAY BE SUFFICIENT IN ABSOLUTELY.
THERE ARE PLACES WHERE ON STREET, UH, LOADING IS WHAT IS, HOW THE CITY'S FUNCTIONING TODAY.
AND, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE TOO.
UM, CAN WE MAKE THAT EXPLICIT IN THE MULTIFAMILY SECTION REFERENCE ON THE CONSULTATION OF OFF STREET LOAD OR STREET OR LOADING REQUIREMENTS THAT ON STREET CAN BE CONSIDERED INTO THIS? YES.
THAT VERY MUCH MEETS THE INTENT OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS THOUGH.
UM, I HAVE MORE, BUT I DON'T WANNA DOMINATE THE DISCUSSION FOR NOW.
WHAT WOULD BE, I'LL SUPPOSED TO JUMP IN WITH ANOTHER COMMENT I CAN COME BACK TO MORE LATER.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MS. BLAIR? UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UM, WHEN I LOOKED AT 51, A 4.204, EXCUSE ME, AND IT SAYS NO OFF STREET OR UM, HALFWAY HOUSES, CHURCHES, UM, CHILDCARE FACILITIES, UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, SEMINARIES AT ALL, ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THAT MEANS THAT WHEN YOU SAY THERE IS NO OFF STREET PARKING, THAT ALL PARKING MUST BE HOUSED OR HELD WITH INSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT? NO, WE'RE JUST REMOVING THE MANDATORY MINIMUMS SO THEY CAN STILL, ANY CHURCHES THAT HAVE PARKING, ANY, UM, CHILDCARE FACILITIES, ET CETERA, UH, CAN BUILD THEM EXACTLY LIKE THEY WERE BUILT TODAY.
WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THEY DON'T NEED TWO SPACES OR THEY DON'T NEED ONE PER 333 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO THIS IS AGNOSTIC TO WHERE THOSE PARKING SPACES ARE.
SO WHEN WE HAVE, I GO TO A CHURCH, THEY GOT A MEMBERSHIP OF 9,000, WE HAVE PARKING ON-PREM, PARKING ACROSS THE STREET, PARKING AT THE STREET, PARKING AT THE RETAIL, PARKING UP THE STREET, ON THE RETAIL, UM, INSIDE WE HOLD WELL OVER 4,000 AND WE UTILIZE ALL THOSE SPACES.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF REGULATIONS, THAT IT'S OKAY TO PARK ON RESIDENTIAL AND BLOCK RESIDENTIAL USE? SURE, SURE.
SO, UM, ALSO THINGS THAT ARE NOT CHANGING WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OFF STREET PARKING, WHETHER IT'S REQUIRED OR IT'S EXCESS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
REALLY NOT EVEN RESIDENTIAL USES CAN HAVE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ALSO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHO DON'T ALLOW A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR, OR GARAGE BY.
SO THEY CANNOT HAVE THIS FLOATING PARKING LOT THAT'S DISCONNECTED FROM THE MAIN USE.
IT'LL NEED TO BE ON THE SAME LOT AS THE MAIN USE IF IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN HAVE AS MUCH PARKING AS THEY LIKE, THAT MEETS ALL THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND, YOU KNOW, AND THEY CAN MAINTAIN WHAT THEY HAVE.
UM, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING.
IT'S NOT PUTTING A CAP ON THEIR REQUIRED, ON THEIR PARKING LOT.
[01:10:01]
SO I ALSO LIVE BETWEEN TWO MEGACHURCHES.SO AS IT STANDS BASED ON OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS THEY ARE TODAY, SUNDAYS AT BETWEEN 10 30 AND NOON, I CAN'T GET IN OR GET OUT OF MY HOUSE.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO STANDARDS AND THEY CAN OVERFLOW ONTO RESIDENTIAL AND BECAUSE YOU, WHEN YOU CALL, IF YOU CALL, IF YOU PUT IN A 3 1 1 'CAUSE THEY DONE BLOCKED YOU AND YOU CAN'T GET OUT, THEY DONE PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR, YOUR, YOUR DRIVEWAY AND YOU CAN'T GET OUT IT'S FOUR HOURS MINIMUM.
AND BECAUSE THEIR CHURCH MEMBERS TRAFFIC DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE THEM TICKETS OF TOTAL.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IF WE'RE OVERFLOWING ONTO RESIDENTIAL, THE RES THE, THE RESIDENTS ARE THAT FOR A BETTER WORD.
UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS THAT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SO MANY PARKING SPOTS FOR FLOOR AREA.
SO, UM, SO I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT AND WHAT THE CITY SAYS YOU MUST BILL.
AND THEN WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE USE PARKING LOTS AND MAYBE A THIRD BUCKET OF HOW TRANSPORTATION AND 3 1 1 CAN RESPOND TO OVERFLOW.
SO LET'S FORGET ABOUT 3 1 1 AND LET'S JUST SAY HOW CHURCHES USE THEIR LOTS ON PROPERTY AND THEY OVERFLOW.
EVERY MEGA CHURCH THAT I LIVE AROUND HAS PARKING ON PROPERTY A PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET AND THEY STILL OVERFLOW ONTO RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO BASICALLY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING REQUIRED NOW IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
AND IF YOU RE AND, AND I'M SAYING HOW DO YOU GUYS PROPOSE THE MANAGEMENT OF PARKING FOR THESE LARGE MEGA CHURCHES WHO ALREADY DON'T HAVE A PARKING? I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS SINCE THEY, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT REGULATE THE ON STREET, UM, PART OF OUR CITIES.
UM, I PERSONALLY LIVE ON A STREET THAT GETS A LOT OF OVERFLOW PARKING.
ONE SIDE OF THE STREET IS A NO PARKING ONLY, AND WE HAVE ROUTINELY CALLED PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND THEY HAVE COME OUT AND GIVEN TICKETS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S JUST A SPECIAL CONDITION OF WHERE I AM, BUT
BUT, UM, BUT THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CAN PUT UP NO PARKING SIGNS IF IT'S WARRANTED, UH, RESIDENT ONLY PARKING THERE, THERE ARE TOOLS THAT COULD BE EXPLORED.
THE QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU MANAGE IT TODAY AND HOW WILL THIS CHANGE MANAGE IT TOMORROW? THAT'S BASICALLY THE QUESTION.
SO IF YOU ARE, IF THE MANAGEMENT TODAY IS NOT SUFFICIENT, HOW WILL IT, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE INEQUITIES AND THE INEFFICIENCIES THAT WILL BE, UH, BE REALIZED TOMORROW ONCE YOU SAY CHURCHES DON'T HAVE ANY MINIMUMS? LET'S GO TO SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, LET'S GO TO, UM, AND, AND I READ, I, I WAS READING SOME, SOME LITERATURE THAT'S TALKED ABOUT, UM, MAKING THINGS NONCONFORMING WHEN PARKING, THEY GET PARKING DELTA CREDITS AND IF, IF THINGS CHANGE AND THEIR DELTA CREDITS ARE ALTERED AND THEY, AND PARKING BECOMES A NON-CONFORMING ISSUE.
ARE, ARE YOU SAYING, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE WILL NOT BE AN ANSWER TO NON-CONFORMING WHEN THINGS ARE BEING MADE NON-CONFORMING? HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A CHANGE THAT YOU WILL CORRECT THE NON-CONFORMING USES THAT ARE BROUGHT ABOUT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU DO THE NON, THE DELTA CREDITS FOR NON, I MEAN FOR, UH, AFFORDABILITY, YOU KNOW, YOU GET AFFORDABLE PARKING AND YOU GET TO REDUCE YOUR PARKING.
AND IF LEGAL COMES BACK AND SAYS THAT IT, IT, IT GOES THROUGH A COURT SYSTEM AND LEGAL COMES BACK AND SAYS, YOU MUST GIVE BACK THAT PARKING AND YOU MUST HAVE THAT PARKING BACK.
AND NOW YOU HAVE NON-CONFORMING USE.
HOW DO YOU ALL, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE CORRECT THE NON-CONFORMING
[01:15:01]
USES THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE, BE REALIZED IN ANY CHANGES? UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UM, MS. KINGSTON HAD ASKED, AND IT WENT TO THE LEGAL AND LEGAL SAID THAT, UM, THINGS COULD BE, COULD CONCEIVABLY BE MADE NONCONFORMING.AND THERE WAS, AND I HAD NOT SEEN AN ANSWER AS TO WHAT STAFF'S PROPOSAL ON THE FIX FOR THAT.
CAN I JUST SAY WE'VE HAD DELTA CREDITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SINCE WE CREATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND IT'S NOT EVER REALLY CREATED A LEGAL QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, SINCE 1947 WHEN IT WAS FIRST ADOPTED, IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING AND SOMEONE, UM, CHOOSES TO BUILD NO PARKING SPACES, WHICH I THINK IS GOING TO BE A RARE CIRCUMSTANCE, AND THEN FOR SOME REASON WE DECIDE TO GO RIGHT BACK TO 2023 STANDARDS, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE THE NUMBER OF DELTA CREDITS BASED ON HOW MANY ARE PROVIDED AND HOW MANY ARE REQUIRED.
NOW, IT, WE HAVE SEEN EXAMPLES FROM, UM, OUR MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
SO A CODE AMENDMENT WAS DONE A FEW YEARS AGO AND THAT PARKING WAS REDUCED TO 0.5 SPACES PER UNIT.
AND WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES FROM COMMITTEE MEMBER BEARING THAT SHOWS THAT IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES OR IN ALL EXAMPLES PROVIDED THAT THERE WAS JUST A SLIGHT REDUCTION OFF OF WHAT THE CODE CURRENTLY REQUIRES, WHICH IS ONE PER BEDROOM.
SO, UM, I DON'T EXPECT FOR NOBODY TO NOT BUILD PARKING EVER.
AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN WE REMOVE EVERY PARKING SPACE IN THE CITY.
SO THE ONLY DELTA CREDIT SOMEONE WOULD GET BY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT AND REINSTATING IT, IT'S GOING TO BE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE ANY PARKING OR PROVIDE LESS PARKING THAN WHAT THE RESTORED NUMBER MIGHT BE.
AND WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, SPENT ALL THE STAFF TIME, YOU KNOW, CALCULATING DELTA CREDITS AND IT'S A FLEXIBLE NUMBER BASED ON WHAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS AND HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED.
TECH DOT AND THE CITY WIDENS RIGHT OF WAY ALL THE TIME, AND THOSE LINING HEADED PARKING SPACES, ABUTTING THOSE RIGHTS OF WAY ARE NO LONGER COMPLIANT PARKING SPACES 'CAUSE THEY DON'T OWN THAT PROPERTY ANYMORE.
AND SO THOSE GET DELTA CREDITS, BUT THERE'S NO COMPENSATION FROM THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WELL, UNLESS, EXCEPT FOR THE TAKING OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, BUT THERE'S NO REAL MAJOR RISK IN MY OPINION.
AND, AND WE CAN HAVE, UM, MS.
BUT SINCE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED SPACES IN THE FIRST PLACE, UM, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT, UM, THEY'RE NOT DELTA CREDITS JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE PARKING SPACES.
UM, IT'S A COMP, IT'S REALLY NOT THAT COMPLICATED.
IT'S JUST A SIMPLE FORMULA OF REQUIRED MINUS PROVIDED EQUALS NUMBER OF DELTA CREDIT.
SO, UM, ANYWAY, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA, MAY I TAKE ON A QUICK QUESTION? WELL, LET'S, LET'S FINISH FIRST ROUND.
UH, ANYBODY NOT? OKAY, MR. BEARING, THANK YOU.
I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT, UM, THE, UH, UH, THE PDS GOING FORWARD WOULD BE STILL A VERY VIABLE TOOL TO CUSTOMIZE PARKING REQUIREMENTS RIGHT? IN THE PROLIFERATE PROLIFERATION OF PDS THAT WE HAVE.
I THINK, IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT THAT THAT WOULD STILL, YOU COULD CUSTOMIZE IT? YES, THAT'S TRUE.
SO, UM, I I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT, UM, I'M JUST ENVISIONING A SCENARIO WHERE SOMEONE PROPOSES LIKE A NF ZONING OR A CR ZONING AND YOU HAVE TO, THERE'S ZONING NOTIFICATION SENT OUT, RIGHT? AND THERE'S A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THEN MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THAT CHANGES INTO PD.
UM, SO I, IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S NOT, I THINK TO, TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE COMMENTERS.
I THINK IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S NOT A PATH FORWARD.
[01:20:01]
IN SPOT AREAS WHERE IT'S DESIRED BY THE COMMUNITY.UM, I WANNA, I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT MI UH, MR. REEVE'S, UH, PROPOSALS, WHICH I REALLY MENTIONED.
I APPRECIATE HIM TAKING THE TIME TO PUT TOGETHER, UM, WOULD, I THINK IT IS OPTION FIVE IN HIS NOTES, OR MAYBE SEVERAL OF THEM, BUT IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE, MAYBE THIS IS A LEGAL QUESTION TO TIE IF, AGAIN, IN SPOT AREAS WE WANTED TO TIE PARKING TO LIKE HOURS OF OPERATION.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO? I THINK YOU PROPOSED AN AFTER MIDNIGHT TYPE USE DISCUSSED.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WE COULD DO FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE? YEAH, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS AT OUR OFFICE.
UM, AND THEN I'VE, I'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS.
UM, JUST A LOT OF IT REHASHING MY NORMAL STUFF.
I CAN SPARE FOLKS MY ARCHITECTURAL SOAPBOX.
BUT, YOU KNOW, AS MS. MAY MENTIONED, I THINK, UH, I AT LEAST HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH A NUMBER OF PROJECTS WHERE, UM, THE OWNERS WANT TO PROVIDE PARKING AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY NEED TO, TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
UM, AND, AND MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF MEETING THE MINIMUMS, UM, FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, HOWEVER, NOT BEING TIED TO THOSE MINIMUMS ALLOWS FOR BETTER BUILDINGS.
UH, A MORE CREATIVE PROCESS WITH THE CLIENT WOULD BE, UH, ARGUABLY A, A MORE WELL DESIGNED CITY THAT IS, UH, GOT BUILDINGS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE BY VEHICLE, BUT ALSO BY OTHER MEANS.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S MY MAIN POINT IS JUST THAT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS VERY INFLEXIBLE, RIGHT? AND WE HAVE A CITY THAT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER.
WE HAVE A CITY THAT LOOKS DIFFERENT IN A LOT OF PLACES.
AND BY ELIMINATING THE MINIMUMS, WE ALLOW OURSELVES ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES, PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE CREATIVE, TRUST THEM, THAT IF THEY WANNA STAY IN BUSINESS, THEY'RE GONNA PROVIDE IT.
UM, AND THEN LASTLY, I'LL JUST TOUCH ON, UM, SAY LASTLY, UM, A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTERS.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE STILL HERE, BUT, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY HAD INTENDED, UM, BUT I THOUGHT MR. ZARA MADE A VERY INTERESTING POINT THAT, UM, IT IS HIS COMPETITION THAT DETER DETERMINES THE NEEDED PARKING.
AND I WOULD SAY IMPLICITLY, HE SAID, NOT THE MINIMUMS. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS HIS INTENTION, BUT IT'S, IT'S THE MARKET THAT'S GONNA DECIDE ULTIMATELY ANYWAY, RIGHT? I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A REQUIRED MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, UM, IT'S JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE A WAY OF COMPETITION, HAS A WAY OF WORKING ITSELF OUT.
THE OTHER COMMENT, I, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WHAT SHE INTENDED, BUT MS. UH, SANDERS, UM, SAID ANY DEVELOPER WOULD BE INSANE TO NOT INCLUDE ENOUGH PARKING.
UM, AND AGAIN, THAT'S A CONVERSATION ABOUT PROVIDED PARKING, OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A MANDATORY REQUIRED PARKING.
AND AGAIN, BRIEFLY, MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN THE SMALL TO MID-SIZE MULTIFAMILY, WE'VE GOT 30 AND 40 UNIT PROJECTS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM THAT ARE THEN ONLY REQUIRED 15 UNITS.
THEY'RE PROVIDING 20 OR 15 PARKING SPACES.
THEY'RE PROVIDING 29 PARKING SPACES FOR 28.
AND WITH THE GUEST, THEY WOULD'VE OTHERWISE, GUEST PARKING WOULD'VE OTHERWISE BEEN REQUIRED, SAY 33 SPACES.
AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST THOSE COUPLE OF SPACES THAT ALLOW US TO TRULY DO ARCHITECTURE AND ALL THE ARCHITECTS ONLINE.
BUT YEAH, SO, UM, IT, IT HURTS SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT'S AN IMPEDIMENT AND ANOTHER BARRIER.
UM, I THINK LASTLY, LASTLY, TRULY, UM, PRESERVATION IS NOT SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT REALLY.
UM, I THINK ALMOST ALL OF US UNIVERSALLY BEMOAN BUILDINGS BEING DEMOLISHED, BUT HOW OFTEN ARE THEY DEMOLISHED FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS? IF A BUILDING IS PURCHASED ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE BUILDING, BUT IT'S A VERY OLD BUILDING AND IT DOESN'T MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WELL, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO MEET IT? SO I IT'S MULTI-LAYERED, OF COURSE, AS WE ALL KNOW.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN ENOUGH DISCUSSION, IN MY OPINION.
UH, MORE QUESTIONS, MR. REEVES? YES.
UH, MR. WADE, WOULD YOU MIND BRINGING UP YOUR PRESENTATION AND GO TO THE PARKING LOT, UM, SLIDE THAT WAS DESCRIBING THE PATHWAYS? IT'S A GOOD VISUAL.
I THINK I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT 20, BUT IT WAS THE ONE WITH THE, THE PATH GOING THROUGH THE YES.
IF YOU COULD BLOW THAT UP FOR US, PLEASE.
THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD WORLD, UH, REAL WORLD EXAMPLE HERE.
I'M GONNA TRY TO DRAW THE PICTURE HERE.
[01:25:01]
FIRST OF ALL, UM, I, I'M ALWAYS KIND OF CONFUSED WHY THIS IS AN ALL OR NOTHING PARKING DISCUSSION.IT'S EITHER LIKE, SCORCHED EARTH, ELIMINATE EVERYTHING, AND THOSE OF US, LIKE MYSELF THAT WANT A 5% TWEAK OR VIEWED AS THE VILLAGE IDIOTS HERE, AND I'M GETTING A LITTLE TIRED OF THAT, BUT HERE'S A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE.
THAT GRAY UP THERE IS THE BLUE WHERE THE BLUE GOOSE USED TO BE ON GREENVILLE AVENUE AND IN ON TOP OF THAT, WHICH WOULD BE ACTUALLY TO THE EAST IN THE REAL WORLD SITUATION, BUT ON TOP OF THAT GRAY BLOCK IS GREENVILLE AVENUE.
AND TODAY THAT BUILDING IS JUST LIKE THAT.
WHAT USED TO BE THE BLUE GOOSE GONNA BE ANOTHER RESTAURANT IS GONNA TAKE OVER HALF OF THAT.
AND ON THE OTHER HALF OF THAT IS A TATTOO SHOP, A JEWELRY STORE, AND WHAT USED TO BE A LITTLE GIFT SHOP, SO IT WAS ABOUT 55% BLUE GOOSE, AND THE OTHER WAS RETAIL, RIGHT DIRECTLY BEHIND THE BLUE GOOSE.
THEY HAVE THEIR PARKING PARKING LOT, THERE'S A FENCE.
AND THEN RIGHT BEHIND THAT IS A MONSTROUS PARKING LOT FOR TERRELL'S DODI'S AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO GREENVILLE AVENUE ON TOP, THE BLUE GOOSE STRIP IS WHAT I CALL IT.
AND BASICALLY ALL PARKING LOT, WELL, TO THE LEFT OF THAT IS AN ALLEY, JUST LIKE WHAT LOOKS DRAWN THERE.
AND ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT ALLEY IS A EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
AND THEN THERE'S SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD, THERE'S 1, 2, 3, THERE'S ABOUT FOUR PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS OFF TO THE LEFT THAT ARE ABUTTING.
THE ALLEY ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE'S SIDE YARD.
CAN HOUSING BE BUILT ON THAT PARKING LOT? IT IS ZONED CR CAN HOUSING BE BUILT ON THAT PARKING LOT WHEN IT'S ZONED CR IT CANNOT.
RIGHT? IN THE, WHENEVER WE ADOPTED 51 A, IT REMOVED A LOT OF OUR PYRAMIDAL ZONING THAT ALLOWS, UH, RESIDENTIAL USES BASICALLY IN ALL DISTRICTS.
SO, SO THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED? WE, WE HAVE, AND I DISAGREE WITH STAFF.
UM, MY, I WAS NOT CLEAR THE LAST MEETING WITH LIKE INCREMENTAL STEPS.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T WANT A HISTORY LESSON.
I REALLY WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT WE COULD DO GOING FORWARD.
I THREW OUT MULTIPLE, YOU KNOW, IDEAS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOOD OR NOT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DISCUSSED.
UM, I WOULD DISAGREE IN THAT WE HAVE THOSE MONSTER PARKING LOTS, WHICH ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN THIS ON WALNUT HILL, ON FOREST, ON JEFFERSON, UH, WE, WE HAVE 'EM ALL OVER TOWN.
AND I WAS SAYING, OKAY, WELL TO ME, WE WOULD WANT TO TARGET THOSE BECAUSE THEY CAN HANDLE IT.
BUT IF RESIDENTIAL CAN'T GO THERE, WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS, THESE HUGE PARKING LOTS THAT ARE CR BUT WE CAN'T PUT HOUSING ON 'EM.
WHY ARE WE, WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THAT? WHY, WHY AREN'T WE SAYING, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, FIRST OF ALL, WE GOTTA BE ABLE TO PUT HOUSING ON CR BECAUSE THEN THAT FREES UP THAT PARKING LOT TO POTENTIALLY HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON IT, OR JUST MORE HOUSING TO GET MORE AFFORDABLE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PART.
WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY JUST, YOU KNOW, BLOCK AND A HALF FROM THIS, IT WAS ONE AND A HALF TIMES MY SALARY, MY DIRT IS NOW FOUR TIMES MY SALARY.
BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM HERE.
SO WHAT CAN GO HERE IN THAT PARKING LOT? WHAT CAN BE BUILT IF WE ELIMINATE ALL THAT PARKING RIGHT THERE? AND THEY DON'T NEED THAT BECAUSE IT IS REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE, FOR THAT RESTAURANT AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO WHAT CAN BE BUILT THERE TODAY IF WE GET RID OF PARKING? WHAT? EXCUSE ME.
UH, RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE.
COULD A, COULD IT BE A ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT THAT'S ALLOWED IN CR NOT WITHOUT AN SUP.
COULD IT BE A RESTAURANT? YES.
DO ALL RESTAURANTS CLOSE AT MIDNIGHT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR SOME OF 'EM STAY OPEN AND HAVE BARS? ZONING GENERALLY DOESN'T REGULATE HOURS OF OPERATION.
UM, COULD THEY EXPAND OFF OF THAT AND PUT A BIG PATIO BACK THERE? ACTUALLY, YES.
AND I WOULD ADD ON THE RESTAURANT, BECAUSE THERE'S, UH, RE RESIDENTIAL WITHIN 330 FEET, A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW WOULD BE REQUIRED.
IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROHIBIT A RESTAURANT OR LIMIT ITS SIZE, BUT IT COULD, UM, MAKE SOME CONDITIONS TO MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE.
BUT IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE OUTSIDE SPEAKERS WERE THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, RIGHT.
THE, THE, I MEAN THE RESI, YES, THERE'S A REVIEW, BUT IT IS A PERSON DETERMINING IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN OUTDOOR PATIO BACK THERE OR NOT.
RIGHT? IT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY DONE
[01:30:01]
IN BUILDING INSPECTIONS.UM, BUT THEY DO HAVE GENERAL STANDARD TERMS THAT THEY APPLY TO RESTAURANTS NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL.
AND IF THE, UM, APPLICANT IS, UH, FEELS THAT IT'S TOO STRICT, THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
AND IF CITY PLAN COMMISSION UPHOLDS IT, THEY CANNOT APPEAL THAT TO COUNCIL.
SO I COULD PUT A PATIO BACK THERE AND BECAUSE I CAN SHOW YOU MULTIPLE PLACES WHERE THERE'S PATIOS BACK THERE, AND I GUESS THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW AND THEY COULD STAY OPEN TILL TWO IN THE MORNING.
A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW CAN PUT HOURS OF OPERATION CAN, BUT IT'S NOT SOLID.
IT'S TYPICALLY DONE THESE DAYS.
TYPICALLY DONE THESE DAYS AS FAR AS, I MEAN, WE CAN GET SOMEONE, AND I DO WANNA KNOW BUILDING GOOD WHEN YOU CALL PARKING ENFORCEMENT, THEY COME IN TO YOU BECAUSE WHEN I CALL AND I LIVE FOUR OR FIVE BLOCKS FROM YOU, THEY DON'T COME.
OH, UM, SO MAYBE I JUST HAVE THE MAGIC 3 1 1, MY APP.
YOU MUST HAVE A MAGIC, MAGIC OR SOMETHING OR ANOTHER.
SO, UM, SO MY POINT IS, IS THAT IF I AM THAT BLUE GOOSE STRIP RIGHT THERE, I AM GOING TO BUILD A PATIO BACK THERE.
FIRST THING I DO, IT'S A NO BRAINER.
I DON'T HAVE TO SERVICE IT WHEN THE WEATHER'S CRAPPY.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THERE'S A NOISE OR IS A BAND, THEY'RE PLAYING LOUD MUSIC AND YOU CALL, NOBODY'S COMING OUT THERE AND, AND UNTIL THE NEXT DAY.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, A, WE CAN'T PUT HOUSING THERE.
B WE HAVE THIS KLUGY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN STOP THIS HAVING, AND ALL I'M ASKING IS WHY DO WE HAVE TO SUBJECT POTENTIAL? AND THIS IS GREENVILLE.
THIS IS HENDERSON LOOK ON INWOOD ACROSS FROM THE INWOOD THEATER, THE, THE, THE LITTLE STRIP BUILDINGS ARE IN THE BACK, BUT THERE'S A LITTLE NARROW PARKING LOT RIGHT THERE THAT IT COULD JUST BE RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT.
AND THAT, AND A USE, THAT'S ESPECIALLY AN OUTDOOR USE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARK IT NOW.
IT JUST GENERATES MORE TRAFFIC.
TRY GOING TO THE TRUCK YARD, TRYING TO GO TO TR TRADER JOE'S ON A SUNDAY, LIKE THIS PAST SUNDAY.
SO THE PEOPLE ON BICYCLES ARE STILL GONNA GET HIT BECAUSE OF ALL THE UBERS OR IT'S, YOU KNOW, SO I'M, I'M JUST SAYING YES ON SO MUCH OF THIS, BUT WHY CAN'T WE DO A LITTLE BIT OF COMPROMISE HERE AND WHY IS IT NOT EVEN BEING CONSIDERED? I THINK THAT'S RECKLESS.
I BELIEVE MR. RUBIN HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE IS, IS PURELY HOUSEKEEPING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME IS, UM, MR. WADE, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MENTIONED SOME REVISIONS.
THERE'S ALSO, UH, UH, ORDINANCE, UH, MARKUP THAT'S BEEN CIRCULATED TO ZAC AND POSTED ON THE ZAC WEBSITE.
ARE ALL OF THOSE REVISIONS YOU REFERENCED IN YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY IN THE, UH, ORDINANCE MARKUP THAT WE HAVE? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT, THAT'S BEEN CHANGED SINCE WE'VE RECEIVED THAT? THE ORDINANCE MARKUP YOU RECEIVED CONTAINS EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE REVISIONS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD IN MY, UH, PRESENTATION.
SO THAT IS THE PROHIBIT, UH, PROHIBITION OF THE WAVE BICYCLE, UM, UH, BIKE RACKS.
THE, I CAN TURN TO THEM, UH, MAKING SURE THAT CA DISTRICTS ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT WE ARE STILL REQUIRING OFF STREET LOADING.
AND THEN FOR SCHOOLS, UH, SPECIFICALLY CALLING OUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SCHOOL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE TDMP, UH, SECTION OF 4.804.
SO IF I, IF SOMEONE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD, INCLUDING THE REVISIONS THAT YOU MADE TODAY, IT WOULD BE THE CODE AMENDMENT AS BRIEFED, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, JUST A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD FROM SPEAKERS, PARTICULARLY GOING TO SOME OF THE, UM, CIVIL RIGHTS AND, AND EQUITY ISSUES.
I HEARD A SPEAKER TODAY EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT, UM, POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
UM, WOULD THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, UM, STILL APPLY EVEN IF WE ADOPTED STAFF'S CODE AMENDMENT? IT WOULD.
UM, THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING.
AND DO WE NEED INDEPENDENT LANGUAGE IN THE CODE AMENDMENT TO ENSURE THAT IT APPLIES OR DOES IT APPLY AUTOMATICALLY TO REQUIRE DISABLED PARKING? IT APPLIES AUTOMATICALLY.
I ALSO HEARD A COMMENT FROM A SPEAKER TALKING ABOUT HOW WHEN WE ADOPTED THE, OR
[01:35:01]
REVISED THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS, WE DROPPED THE, UM, REQUIRED NUMBERS OF UNITS TO, UH, 0.5 OR PARKING SPACES TO 0.5 SPACES PER UNIT.WHEN A DEVELOPMENTS MEETING THE M-I-H-D-B REQUIREMENTS, IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, WHICH IS LOWER THAN WHAT THE M-I-H-D-B REQUIRES.
NOW, ARE THERE OTHER TOOLS IN THE M-I-H-D-B TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE TOOLS? THERE ARE, I THINK I WOULD LOOK TO SOME OF OUR STAFF OVER AT THE SIDE TABLE WHO MIGHT, OR SARAH, GO AHEAD.
YES, SO THERE'S, UM, UH, THERE'S DENSITY INCREASES THAT ARE ALLOWED WHEN YOU, UM, ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT BONUSES.
UM, SOME DISTRICTS, UM, ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, OBVIOUSLY HAS TO COMPLY WITH RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, BUT THEY DO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS, UM, ADDITIONAL LOT COVERAGE, UM, IN WHENEVER IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE STRICT.
SO LIKE IN THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, IT GOES FROM 60% TO 80%.
UM, SO THERE'S SOME LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHTENED DENSITY BONUSES.
UH, PARKING REDUCTION IS ALSO A BONUS IN EXCHANGE OF MIXED INCOME HOUSING, UH, MIXED INCOME HOUSING.
UM, IF YOU PROVIDE MIXED INCOME HOUSING AT ANY LEVEL, ANY, UM, MVA, ANY, UM, MFI CATEGORY, YOU CAN GET A REDUCTION TO HALF SPACE PER YEAR.
AND IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT THAT THAT PARTICULAR PARKING BONUS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ANYMORE, BUT THOSE OTHER BONUSES IN THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE.
UM, THE LAST QUESTION, OR OR ROUND OF QUESTIONS, I, I HAVE, UM, RELATE TO A COMMENT BY A SPEAKER, UM, SUGGESTING THAT BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD STOP PROVIDING PARKING FOR THEIR LOW INCOME WORKERS, PUTTING THOSE LOWER INCOME WORKERS IN A, IN A DIFFICULT SPOT.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE OR EXPERIENCE IN OTHER CITIES WHERE PARKING MINIMUMS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED WHERE THAT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE? I'M NOT AWARE.
I THINK, UM, SARAH, LAURIE, ANDREA, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CASES LIKE THIS? NO, BUT IT GOES BACK TO PARKING MANAGEMENT.
AND I'M THINKING, AND THAT WAS OUR REASONING FOR PROPOSING A TDM, UH, HOW TO DEAL WITH, UH, PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES.
AND EVEN LIKE, UM, OTHER TYPE OF SITUATION CAN BE EASILY ADDRESSED IN A, IN A TDM.
UM, WHERE, WHERE DO YOU PLACE THAT TO BE SECURE? HOW DO YOU TRANSPORT THE EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEES TO THE WORKPLACE AND ALL OF THAT? RIGHT NOW, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH A LOT OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND LOOKING INTO IT, UM, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERLAP BETWEEN, UH, EMPLOYEE PARKING AND VISITORS PARKING BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEES GET THERE FIRST, THEREFORE THEY TAKE THE PLACE, THE SPOTS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS, THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE DOOR.
SO THEREFORE IT AFFECTS A LITTLE BIT THE AVAILABILITY FOR VISITORS PARKING.
AND THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT TO SAY, LET'S DO A TDM, WE'LL SIT DOWN WITH EACH BUSINESS AND WE WILL LOOK AT THE WAY YOU OPERATE AND WE CAN OFFER SUGGESTIONS AND, UM, UM, AND SOLUTIONS.
THE CODE RIGHT NOW, AND I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF RATIOS, THIS IS A MATTER OF MANAGEMENT.
THE CODE RIGHT NOW DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT.
SO THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO ADDRESS IT VIA THE T DM, NOT VIA RATIOS.
IF I COULD ADD SOMETHING TO, UH, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, UH, FORGOT IN THE, UH, MOMENT.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS, THEN WE CAN GO TO SECOND ROUND.
UM, IN, UM, SECTIONS 4.3 11, 3 12, 3 13, AND THREE 14, UH, THOSE ARE DEVOTED TO, UM, PARKING REDUCTIONS.
UM, UH, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IF WE'VE ELIMINATED PARKING MINIMUMS, WHAT THE FUNCTION OF THOSE SECTIONS ARE.
PDS, PDS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.
SO THOSE WOULD STILL APPLY TO, UH, MANY OF THE
[01:40:01]
PDS WHERE, YOU KNOW, JUST A HANDFUL OF LAND USES WILL HAVE A RATIO APPLIED TO THEM, BUT THEN ALL OTHER PARKING STANDARDS ARE SOURCED OUT TO CHAPTER 51.I ALSO JUST WANNA ADD TO THAT, UM, I, I HEAR, UH, COMMISSIONER REE, NOT COMMISSIONER, UM, MEMBER REEVES,
AND WE HAVE, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE HAVE REDUCTIONS.
LIKE IN THE EVENT, IF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT MOVES FORWARD IS TO RETAIN SOME, FOR CERTAIN USES, THEN THOSE CERTAIN USES COULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REDUCTIONS, WHICH A LOT OF THEM ARE, UM, BASED IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN FURTHER REDUCE PARKING.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE SOME, WE, IT'S NOT A COMPLETE ELIMINATION, THAT WE STILL HAVE A REMNANTS OF SOME MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THEN WE DO HAVE OTHER AVENUES TO REDUCE PARKING IF, IF NEEDED OR DESIRED.
AND THEN, UM, 4.324, UH, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL PARKING IS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT SPECIAL PARKING IS.
UH, SPECIAL PARKING IS JUST OUR TERM FOR REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENTS FOR WHEN PROPERTY OWNERS AND USES SHARE PARKING.
UH, BUT IT'S BASICALLY A PARKING AGREEMENT.
UM, SO LET'S, WE CAN GO TO SECOND ROUND.
UM, I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, IN THIS DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING, ARE WE ALSO DISCUSSING THIS DRAFT TDMP GUIDE AS WELL THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE AMENDMENTS, PROPOSAL AMENDMENTS? SO THAT GUIDE, UH, WOULDN'T BE ADOPTED INTO CODE, BUT IT WILL NEED TO BE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION.
SO, UM, WE WOULD LOVE BY, BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE WOULD LOVE FOR THESE TO TRAVEL, UM, SIMULTANEOUSLY.
RIGHT NOW THE GUIDE IS IN VERY DRAFT FORM.
WE SENT IT OUT ACTUALLY MAYBE JUST BEFORE YOU JOINED THE COMMITTEE, WE SENT IT OUT TO THE COMMITTEE, SO I'M HAPPY TO, UM, SEND IT TO YOU IN ITS CURRENT FORM, ACTUALLY ON THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY, WE'RE TAKING IT TO THE GREATER DALLAS PLANNING COUNCIL'S MOBILITY TASK FORCE FOR REVIEW BY THEM.
AND SO THEY WILL LOOK AT SOME OF THE TDM STRATEGIES SPECIFICALLY.
UM, THE TDM UH, REQUIREMENT IS A POINTS SYSTEM THAT, UH, KIND OF APPLIES POINTS BY HOW EFFECTIVE, UH, THE STRATEGY MIGHT BE TO INCENTIVIZE FEWER, UH, VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.
AND SO THEY'LL LOOK AT THAT, THEY'LL LOOK AT SOME OF THE, UH, SOME OF THE PROCESSES ALONG WITH IT.
AND SO, UM, THAT WOULDN'T BE ADOPTED INTO CODE WITH THE SECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW.
UM, BUT IT IS A PART OF THE GREATER TOTAL, UH, PROGRAM.
UM, ALSO JUST FOR CLARITY, UM, THIS IS AN FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE.
IF YOU HAVE, UM, A RESTAURANT THAT IS INVITE ONLY, CURRENT PARKING WOULD REQUIRE ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE, CORRECT? UH, YES, I BELIEVE SO.
AND IF I HAD A, UM, LET'S SAY RAISIN CANES, FOR EXAMPLE, A VERY POPULAR RESTAURANT, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE SAME PARKING, UH, ONE PER 100.
AND FOR GENERAL MERCHANDISE, UH, THRIFT STORE THAT SELLS GENERAL MERCHANDISE IN AN APPLE STORE THAT SELLS GENERAL APPLE MERCHANDISE, BOTH HAVE THE SAME REQUIRED PARKING, CORRECT? YES.
YOU WANNA, I, I ASKED THIS JUST TO CONFIRM BECAUSE AS LISTENING TO THIS AND GOING THROUGH A LOT OF VIDEO AND A LOT OF REVIEW, IS WE'RE SEEING THAT THE CODE AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW LACKS THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH NUANCE IN A CITY AS LARGE AS DALLAS, UM, HAS A LOT OF NUANCE FROM DISTRICT TO DISTRICT TO NEIGHBORHOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THE CODE SIMPLY DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO REACT FAST ENOUGH TO THE NUANCE, PARTICULARLY OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANT, REALLY ALL ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE TWO.
UM, AND THERE'S ALSO, FOR BACKGROUND, I COME PRIMARILY FROM A RETAIL AND MIXED USE BACKGROUND.
THAT IS RETAIL IS WHERE I'M STRONGEST.
UM, I DEAL WITH THIS EVERY DAY.
UM, I'VE SPENT ACTUALLY LAST ABOUT AN HOUR LAST NIGHT GOING THROUGH VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS.
RETAILERS HAVE REQUIRING PARKING REQUIREMENTS REGARDLESS OF CITY CODE.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING, IF ONE, IF ONE SINGLE RESTAURANT OR ONE SINGLE AREA HAS REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS, WOULD YOU, WOULD STAFF BELIEVE THAT WOULD GIVE THAT AREA A SPECIFIC ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO ADD MORE RESTAURANTS IN TERMS OF SORT OF THE ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF THE AREA?
[01:45:01]
YES, CORRECT.I WOULDN'T WANT TO GIVE A COMPREHENSIVE WORD, BUT YES.
BUT IF THAT ADVANTAGE IS GIVEN TO ALL RESTAURANTS AND ALL RETAIL, THAT ADVANTAGE AND THE NEED TO CONCENTRATE INTO SUCH A SMALL AREA WOULD BE POSSIBLY REDUCED.
AND MY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT, THAT, THAT THAT IS WHAT APPEARS, WHAT WHAT I BELIEVE IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
UM, I'VE NOTICED WE HAD SOME COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY, UM, AND OTHERS ABOUT, PARTICULARLY FOR SOME OF OUR CLOSE END NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, AND ALSO FOR SOME OF OUR KIND OF FURTHER OUT NEIGHBORHOODS FOR MOST OF DALLAS, I'VE LOOKED THROUGH EXTENSIVELY THROUGH THE MAPS HERE.
MOST OF DALLAS DOESN'T HAVE, MOST OF ITS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SIMPLY AREN'T IN WALKING RANGE OF ANY COMMERCIAL USE TO BEGIN WITH.
AND WALKING RANGE BEING TYPICALLY BEING ONE EIGHTH TO ONE QUARTER OF A MILE IS ABOUT HOW FAR PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO WALK, YOU KNOW, UM, TO THEIR COMMERCIAL USE.
AND SO FOR LARGE SECTIONS OF DALLAS, BECAUSE OF THE BROKEN UP STREET STRUCTURE, AND EVEN IF SOMETHING IS PHYSICALLY ADJACENT, AS THE CROW FLIES, THE PEDESTRIAN DOESN'T FLY AND THE CAR DOESN'T FLY, SO THEY GO A VERY CONVOLUTED OR CIRCUITOUS ROUTE TO ACTUALLY APPROACH THE RETAIL.
UM, I'VE, THAT'S ONE THING I'VE NOTICED HERE.
AND THEN FOR THESE, AND THEN FOR THESE CLOSE END NEIGHBORHOODS, IT APPEARS, I THINK THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT RESTAURANTS IN RETAIL, IF THIS, THESE PARKING MINIMUMS ARE REMOVED, THAT A SINGLE RESTAURANT AND BLUE GOOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, WOULD IMMEDIATELY OPEN A PATIO, BUT THE CALCULUS IS NO LONGER THAT BLUE GOOSE OR ONE PARTICULAR RESTAURANT HAS THE ABILITY TO EXPAND ITS PATIO, IT MUST NOW ACCOUNT FOR EVERY BUILDING AND EVERY RESTAURANT HAS THAT ABILITY, AND THERE IS STILL ONLY A FINITE AMOUNT OF SPACE PARKING SPACE, STREET SPACE, OR OTHERWISE TO THAT IS WITHIN A WALKING RANGE OF THAT LOCATION.
AND SO, COUNTERINTUITIVELY, MY INDICATIONS ACTUALLY WOULD SAY THAT YOU WON'T SEE NEARLY AS MUCH CONSTRUCTION OR NEARLY AS MUCH EXPANSION AS YOU WOULD EXPECT, BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN DO IT.
AND BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN DO IT, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE THE GAMBLE OF SAYING, WELL, I'VE OVERBUILT AND I HAVE 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT, AND REGARDLESS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, I PHYSICALLY CAN'T BRING IN ENOUGH CUSTOMERS.
THERE SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, UBER CAPACITY OR TRANSIT CAPACITY OR CUSTOMERS WITHIN WALKING RANGE SUPPORT THAT MUCH RESTAURANT.
AND SO THE MARKET WOULD ADJUST.
AND THEN ACTUALLY, I WOULD EXPECT THAT RESTAURANT RENTAL RATES AND RESTAURANT COSTS WILL GO DOWN BECAUSE THE OPTIONS OF THEM WILL HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY.
AND THAT WOULD ENABLE, ACTUALLY, I, I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO ENABLE A, A MORE DISTRIBUTED, UM, PROLIFERATION OF RESTAURANTS.
AND THIS ALSO APPLIES TO OUR OUTER RANGE DISTRICTS IN PARTICULAR, UM, WHEN COMPETING, WHEN RESTAURANTS IN THE CITY IS COMPETING, UM, AGAINST ITS NEIGHBORS, ADDISON DUNCANVILLE AND SO ON.
UM, THE DIFFERENCE TO MANY RETAIL DEVELOPERS CAN VERY WELL BE, AND I'VE SEEN THIS PLAY OUT IN DUNCANVILLE, IS, WHICH HAS SOME MORE RELAXED PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THUS, WHICH, WHICH ENTITY WITH DUNCANVILLE OR DALLAS IN THIS CASE, WILL CAPTURE THAT SALES TAX REVENUE AND THOSE JOBS.
SO THESE ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERATIONS.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WERE RELEVANT TO A LOT OF THE, THE, THE CONVERSATION THAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR TODAY.
UM, WE CAN DO SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
LET'S, LET'S FOCUS ON, ON QUESTIONS AND THEN WE HAVE DISCUSSION PRIOR TO A MOTION.
SO, UH, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, MR. GRAYER? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UH, I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND ONE, UH, CLARIFICATION COMMENT.
UM, UH, THE QUESTION IS ABOUT, UH, DELTA CREDITS.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT DELTA CREDITS ONLY EXISTED WITHIN PDS, OR ARE THEY DEFINED IN 52 A AS WELL? UH, THEY'RE DEFINED IN OUR, UH, DEVELOPMENT CODE ON HOW TO CALCULATE THEM IN THE INSTANCES WHERE THEY GO AWAY, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST A FORMULA OF, UH, THEY'RE CALCULATED AS THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THE EXISTING USE.
NOT WHATEVER DREAM SOMEONE HAS, BUT FOR THE EXISTING USE.
MINUS THE PROVIDED IS THE DELTA CREDITS.
SO THAT, THAT, UM, THAT CLEARS THAT.
UM, I DO HAVE ONE, UM, ONE IMPORTANT POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
SOMEBODY FROM THE, UM, PUBLIC QUOTED, TODD LITMAN.
TODD LITMAN IS A, UM, AN EXPERT IN TRANSPORTATION AND WRITES QUITE A BIT ABOUT, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PARKING
[01:50:01]
MINIMUMS AND INEQUITY.AND, UH, SO IN THE PUBLIC, AND, AND THIS HAS TO BE CLARIFIED, SAID THAT, UH, TODD LIDMAN SAYS THAT ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, WOULD DISPROPORTIONATELY HURT MINORITIES LOWER INCOME.
AND EVEN, UH, HE THREW IN, AND I DON'T, CAN'T QUOTE EXACTLY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, HAS A, UH, RACIALLY DISADVANTAGED EFFECT ON CERTAIN GROUPS.
UM, THE FACT IS TODD LITMAN SAYS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
TODD LITMAN'S COMMENTS, AND, AND HE WRITES ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT, IS THAT, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS DISPROPORTIONATELY HURT LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES.
UM, AND, UH, JUST IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE IN TERMS OF EQUITY AND, AND RACIAL EQUITY, UH, THIS HAS TO BE REALLY, REALLY CLEAR.
AND I THINK, UH, MR. NVA MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
'CAUSE I, I, I KNOW THAT YOU, YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH HIS WORK AS WELL.
I'VE BEEN TOLD, UH, UH, HIS NAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AND WITH DIFFERENT ANGLES AND DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
I WANNA CLARIFY, I WORKED WITH TODD, WE'RE, UH, CHAIRS OF A PARKING STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.
UM, WE RECENTLY HAD A MEETING.
UH, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT HE WOULD LOVE TO SPEAK, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THIS SUBJECT.
HE'S ALL ABOUT BEING RESPECTFUL OF, UH, COMMUNITIES AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDS THERE'S A PROCESS TO GET TO THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UH, BUT HE'D BE THE FIRST ONE TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS WORK THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING.
UM, CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT WORKING WITH HIM.
AND PLEASE LET HIM KNOW THAT WE'RE, UH, WE'RE CLARIFYING, UH,
MS. BLAIR HAD, UM, I WANNA ASK A, A QUESTION THAT, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO ONTO MIXED USE AND, AND PAY AND PAY FOR PARKING, DOES OUR MIX, DOES OUR MIXED USE, UH, REQUIREMENTS AND DOES IT SAY THAT THAT, UH, THAT YOU CANNOT REQUIRE A RE A RESIDENT TO PAY FOR THEIR PARKING SPOT WHEN THEY HAVE, UH, A PARKING REDUCTIONS? WHEN THEY HAVE PARKING REDUCTIONS? I'M NOT SURE IT, WHAT WE SAY IS THAT I THINK, UM, CANNOT CHARGE WHAT IS IT, HOURLY AND DAILY, BUT THEY CAN CHARGE BY MONTH, UH, BY ANNUAL LEASE IF IT'S BY CONTRACT.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT WHEN IN, IN, IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THAT THAT WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT MIXED USE OR YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT THE PARKING CAN BE SO UNAFFORDABLE THAT IT CHANGES THE DYNAMICS OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE UNIT THAT YOU HAVE? IF YOU HAVE A CAR, I ASSUME THAT THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE ABOUT MANY MULTIFAMILY AND MANY OR ALL CITIES.
UM, I WOULD CALL THAT PROBABLY A FAILURE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, AND I WOULD, I DON'T KNOW, CONSULT THE PEOPLE WHO DEVELOPED THAT AND ASK IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE DOING THAT.
WE, WE TALKED TO SAN DIEGO A FEW YEARS BACK BECAUSE THEY, UM, PER STATE LAW, AND THEY ALSO ADOPTED A LOCAL, UH, REGULATION REGARDING UNBUNDLED PARKING WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM, UH, THEIR TRANSIT STATION, WHICH MEANS YOU CANNOT FORCE, UH, FORCEFULLY PASS THE COST OF A PARKING SPOT ONTO THE RENTER.
SO YOU NEED TO LIKE, HAVE THEM SHOWN THIS IS YOUR RENT FOR THE UNIT YOU LIVE IN, AND THIS IS THE RENT FOR YOUR PARKING SPOT.
SO SAN DIEGO, A FEW YEARS BACK, I THINK IT WAS TWO, THREE YEARS BACK, THEY JUST STARTED AND WE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I KNOW.
SO HAS CONSIDERATION BEEN GIVEN THAT IF THERE IS, HAS NOT BEEN A STUDY OR ANYTHING THAT IF, IF, IF, IF THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE COST AT A MINIMUM THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE AFFORDABILITY OF A UNIT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS SEEN IN, IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
[01:55:01]
AREA? I CAN TRY AND TAKE A STAB AT THAT.UH, ONE, I THINK WE CANNOT REGULATE THE PRICE OF UNITS VIA PARKING, UH, AND VIA ZONING AS WELL.
UH, THE WAY WE LOOK AT THE COST OF PARKING IS THE INFERRED COST THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY EMBEDDED IN THE COST OF THE UNIT OR THE COST OF THE SERVICE.
SO KEEP IN MIND, TO BUILD A SURFACE PARKING LOT, YOU HAVE TO PAY 5,000.
THAT'S THE COST OF BUILDING IT.
$5,000 PER SPOT FOR AN ABOVE GROUND.
IT'S EVEN MORE ABOVE GROUND PARKING GARAGE.
IT'S BETWEEN 20 TO 40,000 PER SPOT UNDERGROUND IS WAY ABOVE 60,000.
THAT COST AUTOMATICALLY BY A DEVELOPER IS TRANSLATED INTO THE PRICE OF THE UNIT OR THE SERVICES.
YOU AND I WILL, THAT'S, THAT'S, AGAIN, IT'S INFERRED, IT'S EMBEDDED IN THE COST OF THE UNIT.
AND WE NEED TO BE, FROM AN EQUITY POINT OF VIEW, WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF HOW MUCH WE'RE RAISING THE COST WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT TIED TO THE REAL WORLD.
THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, IT, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD CASE TO SAY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE USED FOR THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUS, BUT I WOULD BE VERY CAUTIOUS TO EXPLORE EVEN, UM, DISCUSS MORE ABOUT CAPPING THE PRICE OF UNITS WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING AND ZONING.
'CAUSE I, I DON'T SEE ALAN'S RATIONALE IN IT.
UH, MY QUESTIONS TO, UM, UH, DARK COVERAGE.
WE HEARD, UM, SPEAKERS TALK ABOUT HOW THEY ONLY USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN ORDER TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B.
I DON'T SEE IN, AND, AND CAN YOU HELP ME SEE IN YOUR PRESENTATION OR, OR IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION WHERE THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO AREAS, UM, THAT HAVE NO DARK OR HAVE NONE OR VERY LITTLE DARK COVERAGE THAT IS STILL TRYING TO BE URBANIZED AND WALKABLE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE SERVICES TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B? SURE.
I THINK I'LL TAKE A CRACK AT THAT.
THE MAIN THING IS, AND ACTUALLY THIS WAS GOING TO BE MY POINT TO, UH, COMMISSIONER RUBIN EARLIER, IS THAT PARKING SPACES WON'T DISAPPEAR IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS, ANYWHERE THAT, UH, DOESN'T HAVE TRANSIT.
UM, IF THERE'S A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE, UH, PROVIDING PARKING FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE IN SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, WE'RE DRIVING FROM OUR HOME TO OUR FAVORITE DESTINATIONS.
UM, THIS IS GOING TO BE A CHANGE WITH IMPACTS OVER THE NEXT GENERATION OF TWO GENERATIONS OVER THAT TIME, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR DART, BUT LOOKING AT THEIR PLANS, THEY ARE, UH, CONSISTENTLY EXPANDING.
UM, AND, UH, ALSO BRINGING, UM, UH, EXCUSE ME, I FORGOT MY SECOND POINT, BUT THEY, THEY'RE EXPANDING THEIR INCREASE IN FREQUENCIES.
UM, AGAIN, CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM.
UM, BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION WITH THESE, UH, THIS PARKING PROPOSAL WILL REALLY NOT CHANGE THE DAILY LIFE FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE OUT IN, UM, BROAD SINGLE FAMILY AREAS, UH, IN IN UN UN WALKABLE AREAS.
SORRY, I WAS A LITTLE DISTRACTED ALSO.
SO I, I'M SORRY IF I'M REPEATING ANYTHING, BUT, UM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE TDMP ALSO CAN CONSIDER THE, THE PROXIMITY OF TRANSIT IN ITS CONSIDERATIONS OF, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND, UM, POSSIBLY SOME DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE ELIMINATING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, BUT ADDING A TD AND P, IT DOES GIVE SOME, UM, TIME TO SPEND ON WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT? IS IT IN A RURAL COMMUNITY? IS IT IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY? IS IT LIKE A, A SUBURBAN CONTEXT? IS THERE ANY TRANSIT NEARBY? SO THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO FURTHER DISCUSS IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THAT CONTEXT.
MS. MOORE, UM, BASED ON THAT ONE QUICK QUESTION.
TDM UH, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FOR PLANS ARE TYPICALLY WRITTEN BY THE DEVELOPER, NOT BY THE CITY.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? AND IT'S BASED ON WHAT THE DEVELOPER SEES AS WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE OPPOSED TO WHAT
[02:00:01]
ACTUALLY MAY BE IT'S THE NEEDS OF THAT PARTICULAR COMMUNITY? WELL, I'LL GIVE AN ANSWER AND THEN I SEE ANDREA BACK THERE.THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROGRAM IS SO THAT THE CITY DOES
WELL, AND I I TEND TO FIT MINE MORE IN A BULLET POINTER TOO.
UM, OVERALL THE T DMP IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO WEIGH IN FOR OUR REVIEW STAFF OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF TO WEIGH IN.
AND SO, UH, YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IT STARTS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM SAYING, HEY, WHAT ABOUT THIS? HERE'S A PLAN.
UH, AT WHICH POINT OUR REVIEW STAFF CAN SAY, THAT WON'T WORK AT ALL.
YOU KNOW, SHOW US YOUR SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS.
SHOW US YOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, SHOW US YOUR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
UM, AND IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE APPROVED AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE APPROVE YEAH.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ADD TO SAY THAT THIS IS GONNA HAVE AN ENGINEERING REVIEW WITH OUR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS, THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND UH, UH, PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL.
UM, WHO'S NEXT? MR. BARRY? OKAY.
UM, I WAS HERE ALL THE WAY BACK IN, WHEN DID WE START THIS? 2019.
UM, AND I RECALL THERE WAS A MEETING WHERE WE HAD A DART VP HERE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE ACRES OF PARKING RIDES THAT GO ON PARK UN USE.
UM, AND I, I RECALL SOME DISCUSSION OR CALCULATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT COULD BE PUT ON THAT LAND IF PUT TO USE, I THINK TO MR. REEVE'S POINT, THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT A ZONING CHANGE.
BUT IF WE WERE TO REMOVE MINIMUMS, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE IF THE ZONING CHANGE, WHEREAS EVEN NOW WITH THE ZONING CHANGE BY DOING IT FOR, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HOW, I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE DOCUMENT.
HOW ARE, HOW ARE DART'S REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY CALCULATED? LIKE, ARE THEY REQUIRED PER, UH, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK, BUT LIKE FOR A PARKING RIDE, HOW MANY? OH, THEY ARE LIKE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IS IT A BUS TERMINAL? IS IT A BUS STATION? THEY ARE LIKE, PER NUMBER OF PASSENGERS THAT ARE IN THE WAITING AREAS, LIKE I THINK THERE ARE LIKE THREE OR FOUR TYPE OF USES THAT DART CAN USE, AND ALL OF THEM ARE RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY USE START.
UH, IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
SO IT SEEMS PSEUDOSCIENCE AT BEST IS, IS WHAT I'M HEARING.
UM, SO FOUR YEARS LATER THAT REALLY STOOD OUT TO ME.
THE OPPORTUNITY THAT IS, UM, AGAIN, THE FLEXIBILITY OF LAND USE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO MISS BLAIR'S POINT, WHAT I HEAR IS, UM, IF EVENTUALLY WE WANT AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT ACCESSIBLE BY DART, WE NEED TO FREE UP THE LAND USE TO BE USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
AND, AND THAT'S NOT JUST A STATEMENT ON PARKING.
I MEAN, THAT'S, I THINK SIMPLIFYING THE ZONING CODE, WHICH I THINK IS A BIG, I KNOW, A BIG, UH, INITIATIVE ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO, UH, YEAH, THAT WAS MY MAIN, MY MAIN QUESTION WAS HOW, HOW ARE DART UH, REQUIREMENTS CALCULATED FOR THEIR PARKING AND THEIR PARKING RIDES.
UM, THE OTHER POINT I WOULD JUST MAKE IS, I, I THINK I'M TRYING TO MAINTAIN A VERY GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE HERE.
I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE OUR PRIVATE INTERESTS, OUR HOMES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE ALL HEAR THE STATISTICS OF HOW MANY, HOW MANY HOMES WE FLAT IN THE CITY.
UM, I THINK WE'RE, AS WE'RE AS IT'S, UH, REGARDING COST, UM, TO HAVE A CITY IN WHICH YOU'RE DARN NEAR REQUIRED TO OWN A VEHICLE TO PARTICIPATE TO GET TO YOUR JOB IS A HIGH BARRIER OF ENTRY TO LIVE IN DALLAS.
UM, OWNING A CAR ROUGHLY COSTS ABOUT $12,000 A YEAR.
UH, THE AVERAGE INCOME IN DFW AS A WHOLE IS 63, 60 4,000.
SO THAT'S ABOUT A 19% OF YOUR INCOME IS GOING TO MAINTAINING A CAR.
AND THEN OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, POVERTY IS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE, RIGHT? IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN THAT, YOU'RE 25 TO 30% OF YOUR INCOME.
SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ANYONE WHO THINKS IT'S EQUITABLE TO HAVE A CAR THAT'S, OR THE CITY THAT'S ONLY ACCESSIBLE BY CAR.
I, I'M ECHOING SOMEBODY ELSE'S COMMENT FROM EARLIER, BUT IT JUST SEEMS, UM, THE MOST INEQUITABLE THING WE COULD DO, WHICH IS WHAT, MORE OR LESS WHAT WE HAVE.
UM, SPEAKING OF BEING FAIR AND EQUITABLE, WE'VE BEEN RUNNING FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS.
[02:05:01]
I THINK WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BREAK FOR A FEW MINUTES AND, UM, RECONVENE AT 1120.UM, WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION.
I'M GONNA, UH, EXERCISE CHAIR'S PRIVILEGE TO, UH, ASK, UH, MAKE A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS, UH, AND A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UM, ON THE, UM, UH, DESIGN COMPONENTS TO THIS.
AND I THINK OF TWO, UM, THAT RELATE TO DESIGN OF PARKING LOTS THAT, UM, I, I WOULD PREFER THIS ORDINANCE BE FOCUSED ON REDUCTION OF PARKING MINIMUMS AND NOT REDESIGN OUR PARKING LOTS.
AND I'LL, I'LL GIVE THE TWO, THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT, UM, COME TO MY MIND.
ONE IS THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS THROUGH PARKING LOTS.
UM, THAT REQUIREMENT WILL ADD BY MY MATH, ABOUT 3% IMPERIAL SURFACES IN PARKING LOTS IN THE NAME OF PEDESTRIAN, UH, ENVIRONMENTS.
IT WILL, UM, INCREASE PAVEMENT, INCREASE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
IT ALSO ELIMINATES 50% OF THE AREA OF A PARKING LOT THAT COULD BE REPURPOSED FOR CREATIVE STORMWATER STRATEGIES LIKE, UH, UH, SWALES AND GRASS STRIPS, ET CETERA.
AND SO I'M JUST NOT A BIG FAN OF THAT.
UM, I LIKE THE IDEA IN THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HEB STORE IN AUSTIN WHERE YOU HAVE THAT AISLE, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THAT AISLE IS NOT FOR THE PARKERS TO GET TO THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.
THE PURPOSE OF THAT AISLE IS FOR THE PUBLIC THAT IS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK AT THE STREET TO GET TO THE STORE.
SO I THINK WE, I JUST THINK LET'S JUST KEEP THIS ORDINANCE FOCUSED.
I'D BE VERY PLEASED IF, IF WE COULD NOT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND THEN FURTHERMORE, IF YOU'VE READ CAREFULLY, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT BASICALLY THAT BUILDINGS BE MOVED TO THE STREET AND PARKING LOTS BE PUT BEHIND THE BUILDING.
WELL, WE HEAR A LOT IN, UM, IN ZONING AND, AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FOOD DESERTS IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN ABOUT LACK OF RETAIL, ET CETERA.
IF WE BURDEN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WITH THAT REQUIREMENT WHERE, UH, THE RETAIL BUILDING HAS TO BE ON THE STREET PARKING LOT HAS TO BE IN THE BACK, UM, WE WON'T GET GROCERY STORES IN FOOD DESERTS.
WE WON'T GET NEW RETAIL IN NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THE TENANTS WON'T ACCEPT IT.
UM, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPER, IT'S A QUESTION OF THE TENANT.
UH, WE APPROVED ON, UH, CPC AT THE LAST MEETING, A BRAND NEW HEB GROCERY STORE AT BUCKNER AND SAMUEL BOULEVARD.
AND, UH, WERE WE, TO HAVE HAD THAT REQUIREMENT, HEB WOULD'VE WALKED THAT DEAL.
THEY WOULD NOT, THEY, THEY JUST WOULDN'T DO IT.
I'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF MEETINGS WITH HEB, I'VE DESIGNED PROJECTS WITH HEB AND, AND THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
SO I, I THINK THERE'S PLACES TO, TO, UM, UM, ENCOURAGE BETTER DEVELOPMENT, UH, PATTERNS IN RETAIL AND IN PARKING LOTS.
I, I'M JUST NOT SURE THIS ORDINANCE IS THE PLACE TO DO THAT.
UM, I THINK OF, UM, PD SEVEN 14, I BELIEVE IT IS.
THAT'S ON UP IN, YEAH, ON UH, FORT WORTH AVENUE.
IT'S HAVING SOME REALLY NICE IMPACT ON HOW THE RELATIONSHIP OF BUILDINGS TO THE STREET.
NEVERTHELESS, WE GOT TO THE SPROUTS CASE AT, I BELIEVE IT'S WESTMORELAND AND, UH, FORT WORTH, UH, AVENUE IN THAT CASE CIRCLE PLAN COMMISSION FOR ALMOST A YEAR.
AND WE ULTIMATELY HAD TO, HAD TO CAVE TO, UM, A PARKING LOT IN THE FRONT, UM, WITH NOT MUCH CREATIVITY TO THAT.
AND, UH, WE WERE EVEN CRITICIZED BY THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER FOR HOLDING THAT ONE UP.
SO, UM, AT THIS WHERE I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, MY, MY EXPERIENCE WITH WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS AND AS AN ARCHITECT, THAT WE COULD, WE COULD DO WITHOUT THOSE IN, IN THIS ORDINANCE.
UM, I'VE GOT RESERVATIONS ABOUT, UH, PERSONAL RESERVATIONS ABOUT ELIMINATING, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND, UM, UM, FOR DUPLEX.
UH, I THINK IT, UH, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT IT GIVES THE DEVELOPER FLEXIBILITY AND IT GIVES THE TENANT OR THE RESIDENT THE FLEXIBILITY.
LIKE I'D RATHER HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN A PARKING SPACE.
BUT YOU DO THAT, UM, BY, UM, DECIDING YOU'RE GONNA PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE INDEFINITELY, PERMANENTLY.
AND SO YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION THAT'S AFFECTING YOUR NEIGHBORS.
THAT I'M NOT SURE IS, IS QUITE FAIR.
AND, UH, FURTHERMORE, UM, IT REDUCES A SAFETY FACTOR.
IF THERE IS OVERFLOW PARKING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SOME OTHER USE, THEN IT, IT JUST MAKES IT THAT MUCH WORSE FOR THAT, THAT RESIDENT.
SO, UM, SHOULD THIS, SHOULD THIS ORDINANCE PASS TODAY, I THINK SOME ROBUST, UM,
[02:10:01]
DEBATE NEEDS TO OCCUR ON ALL OF THE ITEMS I MENTIONED.SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA REST MY COMMENTS, SEE IF WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, BUT I THINK, UM, I, I DO LOOK FORWARD TO A MOTION TODAY.
UM, YEAH, I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE PARTS ABOUT THE PARKING AND BUILDING ORIENTATION THAT'S IN 4 3 0 1 3 DI JUST DON'T THINK IT'S PRACTICAL TO HAVE FORBID PARKING BETWEEN THE FRONT SETBACK IN THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING.
IT JUST USES UP A LOT OF LAND ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, WHICH ARE QUITE THE PREMIUM AND THEN MORE FORCE TIME SPENT ON CIRCULATION AND MORE PAVEMENT OVERALL, UH, PO QUITE POSSIBLY.
AND IT JUST DOESN'T WORK FOR WHERE WE ARE.
WE'LL TRANSITION THAT AND THERE'S PLENTY OF TOOLS WE HAVE ABOUT SHOPFRONT OVERLAYS AND THROUGH THE ZONING AND LAND USE TOOLS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE KINDS OF AESTHETIC AND ASPIRATIONAL URBAN, URBAN GOALS.
BUT I DON'T THINK THROUGH THE PARKING POLICY TODAY IS WHERE WE NEED TO DO THAT.
UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS.
UM, THERE ARE WAYS I GUESS WE COULD GET LIKE, YEAH, THERE, THERE JUST SEEMS COMPLICATED A LOT TO, TO WORK WITH.
I THINK THE SYSTEM WE HAVE WORKS OKAY FOR WHAT WE'VE DONE AND THAT THE PARKING RE SIMPLY ELIMINATING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS GONNA GET US MOST OF THE WAY OF THOSE GOALS WE'RE SEEKING.
I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND THE DRAINAGE QUESTION ITEM YOU HAD IN THERE.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO DRAIN ACROSS THE SIDEWALK OR, UM, PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY.
IS THAT ENVISIONED AS LIKE A, AN ENGINEERING LIKE CERTAIN GALLONS PER HOUR? 'CAUSE ALWAYS SOME WATER'S GOTTA COME JUST RAIN, RIGHT? BUT HOW MUCH, LIKE WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS WE'RE IMAGINING HERE FOR THE WATER FLOWING ACROSS PUBLIC SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS? SURE.
WELL, YOU'VE PROBABLY NOTICED THERE AREN'T DETAILED STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE PROPOSAL.
UM, THE PURPOSE WAS JUST SO THAT IT'S NOT, UH, INTENTIONALLY DUMPED ACROSS SIDEWALKS.
SO WHEN IT RAINS, WHEN TRICKLES OF WATER MOVE HERE AND THERE, UH, WE'RE NOT SETTING UP MEASUREMENT DEVICES, UH, TO KEEP WATER.
WE'RE NOT PUTTING UP UMBRELLAS TO KEEP WATER OFF OF THE SIDEWALKS.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE DEVELOPMENTS COME IN EVERY NOW AND AGAIN WHERE THE DEVELOPER WILL INTEND FOR THE WATER TO DRAIN FROM THE PARKING AREA ACROSS THE, UM, PEDESTRIAN WAY, WHETHER IT'S SIDEWALK OR A CONNECTION TO A PEDESTRIAN PATH.
UM, AND OUR STAFF ARE ALREADY ENGAGED IN SAYING, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT.
LET'S FIGURE OUT A BETTER WAY.
AND SO THIS AGAIN, IS JUST ANOTHER CASE WHERE WE'RE CODIFYING WHAT STAFF ARE ALREADY DOING.
UM, AND IF YOU COULD SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THE COORDINATION BETWEEN PLANNING HERE AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ON THE CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY.
A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WE GOT FROM BOTH THE PUBLIC AND SOME QUESTION FROM PEOPLE HERE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE REVOLVED AROUND THE, OKAY, IF THE OFF STREETT PARKING RULES ARE REMOVED, WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE MEANS BY WHICH THE CITY MANAGES SPILLOVER AND OVERFLOW PARKING, UM, IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OR OTHER, OTHER AREAS AS WELL.
I'LL, UH, START WITH A STATEMENT.
SO WE DID REQUEST SOMEONE FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO BE HERE, AND THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO, THEY, UH, JUST UPDATED US AS FAR AS SCHEDULING, UH, ANTICIPATED TIMELINE AS A CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING FOR THE, UM, ON STREET POLICY PLAN.
AND THEN CITY COUNCIL VOTE FOR ADOPTION ON MARCH 27TH.
UM, AS FAR AS DETAILS, OH, NO.
UH, WE, WE WOULD JUST WANNA DIRECT YOU TO, UH, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF.
UM, YOU, SO FOLLOWING THOSE BRIEFINGS, UH, SOUNDED LIKE THAT THEY, WE HAVE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO US OUT, SOME OF WHICH WE SEE IN PLACE NOW, LIKE RESIDENT PARKING ONLY.
UM, I THINK A STAFF PRESENTATIONS FROM 2019 TO 2021 BASE HAD SOME REFERENCE 3 1 1 COMPLAINTS RELATED TO PARKING, UM, AROUND THE LOWER GREENVILLE AREAS THAT WERE UNDER RPOS RESIDENT PARKING ONLY AREAS, AND THEY WERE VERY MINIMAL.
UM, SO THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO PARKING ZONES, RESIDENT PARKING, PAID PARKING, UM, ARE THOSE TOOL THE TOOLS THAT YOU'RE IMAGINING TO USE TO MANAGE OVER SPILLOVER PARKING? SURE, SURE.
AND, UH, WE CAN AT LEAST HIGHLIGHT ONE OTHER ONE IS PARKING MANAGEMENT AREAS.
AND RECENTLY, UM, APPARENTLY THE, THE DETAILS OF THAT HAVE BEEN THROWN INTO SOME AMBIGUITY.
I THINK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAD PROPOSED, UM, PAR MAYBE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS, OR THEY WERE GONNA CHANGE THE NAME.
THEY'RE GONNA CHANGE THE DETAILS.
UH, RECENTLY THERE'S A NEW PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE BACK.
SO, UM, THE IDEA THERE THOUGH IS MANAGING IT FOR A DISTRICT, UM, WHETHER IT'S A, A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, A MIXED USE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
UM, BUT AGAIN, ACTUALLY I WOULD, I LOOK FORWARD TO GOING TO THEIR, UH, BRIEFING ON FEBRUARY 7TH.
[02:15:04]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, MR. MCGREGOR, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE TIME.MAY I REACT TO, UH, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT NOT INCLUDING 'EM IN, UH, NOT ELIMINATING MINIMUMS IN SINGLE FAMILY? OR DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT TILL AFTER THE MOTION IS MADE? UM, THAT'S UP UP TO YOU.
I DON'T KNOW IF I, IF ANYONE, IF I PERSUADED ANYONE OR NOT, SO WE'LL JUST SAY, ALL RIGHT.
WELL, NO, UM, I, I, I JUST TO, TO THAT, UH, POINT, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT THE FACT THAT YOU REQUIRE A NUMBER OF PARKING BAY IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S GONNA BE USED FOR PARKING.
UM, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR PEOPLE TO USE, UH, A PARKING SPOT FOR STORAGE OR WHATEVER, AND THEN STILL PARK ON THE STREET.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD REALLY, UM, FIX AN ISSUE.
AND ON THE, UH, ON THE DUPLEX ISSUE, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SEVERAL OBSERVED TO ME IS THAT WE'RE REALLY REQUIRED TO DO FOUR SPACES ON A DUPLEX, TWO FOR EACH SIDE, WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO BE AMENDED DOWN.
I, I, I WOULD NOT ADVOCATE STATUS QUO ON THAT.
I, I COULD BE HAPPY WITH, WITH ONE ON EACH SIDE OR TOTAL OF TWO.
UM, BUT, UM, YEAH, IT'S JUST A, THAT'S JUST A, A CONCERN I HAVE.
AND JUST TO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO WHETHER OR NOT WE, WE WANT TO, UM, ALLOW THAT AS PART OF OUR CHANGE.
I WANTED TO JUMP IN AS MY COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO THAT AS WELL.
UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX IS, UH, I BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE, BUT IS IT, UM, IT'S ALLOWED TO COUNT ON THE, THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN TANDEM SPACES? DO THOSE ALSO COUNT, OR NO? UM, OUR CODE DOES NOT COUNT TANDEM SPACES.
EACH SPACE HAS TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER INDEPENDENTLY.
SO, BUT IF ON A SINGLE FAMILY, IF, IS IT JUST ONE SPACE OR TWO SPACE YOU REQUIRED? UM, THERE'S ONE SPACE REQUIRED IN THE R FIVE AND R SEVEN FIVE A DISTRICTS.
AND TWO SPACES IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS.
SO IN THOSE LARGER LOTS, THEN THEY COULDN'T BE TANDEM, BUT YOU COULD COUNT ONE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE ONE OTHER SO SEPARATE THEY, YES.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE, UM, ABLE TO OPERATE IT TO BE OPERATED IN INDEPENDENTLY UHHUH
BUT, UM, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A REAR ENTRY OR, OR YOUR DETACHED PARKING GARAGE IS IN THE REAR OF A, UM, OF A LOT, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S NOT IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BECAUSE WE CAN'T COUNT, UM, ANYTHING IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TOWARDS REQUIRED PARKING.
SO EVEN IF IT IS SOME PAVEMENT ON A DRIVEWAY, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO PAST THE FRONT YARD AND HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO INDEPENDENTLY MOVE ONE OR TWO CARS, DEPENDING ON THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
UM, YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TANDEM PARKING ALLOWED IN THOSE DISTRICTS.
I, ESPECIALLY IN A SINGLE UNIT.
I MEAN, WHY NOT IN A SINGLE HOME? UM, AND THEN RELATEDLY, I'D, I'D ASSUME THAT A DRIVEWAY IS REQUIRED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY.
I DON'T, I DON'T DO SINGLE FAMILY, BUT, UM, IT'S, YOU CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE WITHOUT A DRIVEWAY.
SO, UM, TO COMPLY WITH OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, YOU HAVE TO GET A VEHICLE ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AND THE MANEUVERING ALL HAS TO OCCUR IN PRIVATE PROPERTY.
CAN I MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE? UH, REGARDING YOUR COMMENT REGARDING TANDEM PARKING, UM, IF ONLY ONE IS REQUIRED, WE CANNOT INCLUDE LANGUAGE ABOUT TANDEM BECAUSE FOR CODE, ONLY ONE IS REQUIRED, OR IF NONE IS REQUIRED.
AGAIN, IT'S UP TO, WE INCLUDE LANGUAGE DESIGN STANDARDS TO SAY YOUR PARKING NEEDS TO BE BEHIND THE BUILDING.
UM, I DON'T SEE ANY MICROPHONES LIT UP WITH QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO I WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE A MOTION IN THE OFFING IN THE MATTER OF DCA 1 9 0 0 2.
I MOVE THAT WE, UM, SEND THE ITEM ONTO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, UM, AS BRIEF BY STAFF TODAY.
UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO MOVE THE ITEM, UM, AS BRIEFED.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? MR. UH, MR. REEVES? THANK YOU.
UM, YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A OFFER UP A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT IN, UM, IT'S BASICALLY
[02:20:01]
ON MY DOCK THAT I SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY.UM, WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD EXCLUDE, UH, SECTION 51, A 4.2 0.1, RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES FOR FOUR C ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, SEVEN C COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE EIGHT C COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE 18 C MORTUARY FUNERAL HOME OR COMMERCIAL WEDDING CHAPEL, 24 C RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE 25 C RESTAURANT WITH, WITH DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE 30 C THEATER AND 30.1 C TRUCK STOP.
AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY, I'M NOT GONNA BE ACCEPTING THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT IF YOU WANNA PROPOSE THAT AS AN ORDINARY AMENDMENT, OF COURSE, THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE.
OKAY, MR. REEVES, MEANING WE NEED A SECOND IN AN AFFIRMA, AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
SO COM UH, COMMITTEE MEMBER BLAIR HAS SECONDED THAT, UM, IT'S KIND OF A BALLOON, MR. CHAIR CLARIFICATION.
THE, THE, UH, THE SECONDING, UH, BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR IS, IS, IS SECONDING HIS REJECTION OF THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? NO, IT'S A SECOND OF MR. REEVE'S AMENDMENT.
UM, ALRIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, I THINK WE JUST TAKE A VOTE ON I, BUT WE DO HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE, ON THE AMENDMENT.
UM, I, I COULD NOT SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT.
UH, I ALSO WOULD NOT, COULD NOT SUPPORT ANY, UH, OF THE, UH, OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, UH, WHICH RELATE TO DOING THIS IN A PROGRESSIVE OVER STEP WAY.
UH, BECAUSE THESE AMENDMENTS AND THOSE IDEAS ARE FAIRLY, UM, ARBITRARY.
UH, WHEN I LISTENED TO ARCHITECTS LIKE MR. BARING, UH, OR, UH, MR. CARDIN AS WELL, WHO HAS EXPERIENCED IN DEVELOPING, WHEN I LISTENED TO DEVELOPERS, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE, UH, PUBLISHED BY KRA YESTERDAY.
UM, A COUPLE BIG DEVELOPERS SAID THAT, UH, THEY, THEY WAY OVER PARK LUC PENA FROM BUILDING OF DEVELOPMENT, WHOM I KNOW SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DID A STUDY, UH, PARKING STUDY, AND THEY, THEY KNOW THAT THEY OVER PARK OR THAT 30 OR 40% OF THEIR PARKING SPACE IS EMPTY.
AND THEN THIS MORNING HE SENT ME A TEXT SAYING, UH, THAT, THAT WAS BEFORE COVID.
DURING COVID, 60 TO 70% OF THE PARKING IS EMPTY.
UH, MR. WADE JOHNS TALKED ABOUT, UM, HE'S WITH ALL MANHATTAN, I KNOW HIM AS WELL FOR MY DAYS AT CPC.
UH, IN, IN THAT SAME INTERVIEW, IN THAT ARTICLE, HE, HE TALKS ABOUT A MARRIOTT HOTEL IN UPTOWN THAT, THAT HIS COMPANY DEVELOPED, THAT IT'S INTENDED FOR TRAVELERS WHO DO NOT NEED A CAR.
HE SAID SOMEBODY THAT FLIES INTO DALLAS LOVE FIELD, SAY, COMING INTO DALLAS TO TO SEE A GAME THEY COULD RIDE SHARE TO THAT HOTEL IN SEVEN MINUTES.
AND THEY WILL NEED A CAR THE REST OF THE TIME AS A RESULT OF, OF THE CODE.
THEY'VE HAD TO, UH, THEY HAVE 60 TO 7%, 60 TO 70% OF THE PARKING IN THAT HOTEL.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY HERE IS THAT I, I, THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED, UH, IS, IS, IS JUST, I, I DON'T SEE THE LOGIC TO IT.
I, I I, I REALLY AM FOCUSED ON LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE GROUND, UH, DEVELOPING AND SEEING THE, THE COST AS WELL AS, UM, URBAN PLANNERS, ALL OF WHOM UNIFORMLY, UH, AGREE THAT ELIMINATING MINIMUMS IS, IS, IS AN IMPERATIVE.
OTHER COMMENTS? MR. BAR? UM, OH, SORRY.
UM, THOUGH, I, I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE AMENDMENT IS COMING FROM.
I ALSO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE, UM, USING PARKING POLICY, UH, OFF STREET PARKING POLICY AS A PRETEXT TO ACHIEVE OTHER NUISANCE CONTROL GOALS IS NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH.
WE HAVE OTHER TOOLS THAT WE NEED TO USE AND WE SHOULD USE, WHETHER THAT'S BETTER ENFORCEMENT, LATE NIGHT OVER HOUR LAYS REZONING PROPERTIES USING THE LAND USE TOOLS AND NUISANCE ENFORCEMENT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ADDRESS NUISANCES DIRECTLY RATHER THAN USING AN OFF STREET PARKING POLICY AS A PRETEXT TO ACHIEVE THOSE SAME GOALS.
UM, I NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO AFTER MY SECOND TO SAY ANYTHING.
SO, UM, GROWING UP THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST I'LL RICH RIP ON BAPTIST IS THAT AS I LEARNED, THAT EVERYBODY INTERPRETS THE BIBLE DIFFERENTLY AND THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT AND EXCLUDE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN.
AND IN THIS, WE'VE USED LITMAN AS THE BIBLE, AND LITMAN SAYS, AS, UH, MR. NORTHWOOD POINTS OUT, ONCE THE COMPONENTS OF THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLANNER SELECTED, THE NEXT STEP IS THE DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
THIS MAY INCLUDE VARIOUS PHASES AND CONTINGENCY BASED OPTIONS.
[02:25:01]
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME STRATEGIES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED THE FIRST YEAR, OTHERS WITHIN THREE YEARS, AND SO ON.WE'VE CHOSEN TO THROW THAT OUT THE WINDOW HERE.
SO WE'VE, WE'VE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE, QUOTE THE BIBLE, BUT YET WE'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THIS PASSAGE OF, OF, OF THE BIBLE THERE.
SO, UM, I'M NOT, I I, I HAVE TUR TALKED, MY NEIGHBORS OUT OF RESIDENT ONLY PARKING ON MY STREET.
THE PEOPLE HAVE PARKED ON MY STREET SINCE DAY ONE.
I DON'T MIND THEM PARKING ON MY STREET.
MATTER OF FACT, IT'S REALLY GOOD BECAUSE THE BARTENDERS AND THE WAIT STAFF NOW PARK ON MY STREET.
AND THAT'S AWESOME BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE.
THEY GO UP THE STREET AND THEN THEY LEAVE.
IT'S NOT THIS CONSTANT CIRCULATION.
SO MY POINT IS, SINCE WE CANNOT PUT ANYTHING ON THAT COMMERCIAL SERVICES AREA, WE'RE JUST GOING TO PUT MORE RETAIL.
IF WE PUT MORE RETAIL BAR, RESTAURANT, OUTDOOR, INDOOR AMUSEMENT, IT'S GOING TO CREATE MORE TRAFFIC.
'CAUSE EVERYBODY CAN'T WALK THERE.
SO, TO ME, THIS IS A VERY LOGICAL FIRST STEP THAT A PASSAGE OF THE BIBLE THAT I'M READING SAYS WE SHOULD DO, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK THIS GROUP IS IGNORING THAT.
MR. CARDEN, LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT.
UM, YES, I DID HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY, I, I CANNOT, UH, SUPPORT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AS MUCH AS I, I'D LIKE TO.
THE, THE, THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THAT BY SELECTING THESE INDIVIDUAL USES, IT CREATES A DISTORTION IN THE MARKET.
AND THAT DISTORTION, OVERLY CONCENTRATES USES THAT OVERLY CONSUME PARKING INTO SMALL AREAS.
UM, AND THAT CAUSES A LOT OF THE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES THAT I, THAT I BELIEVE WE SEE HERE.
UM, THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY AND, UM, ENABLING, YOU KNOW, EQUITY WITHIN OUR CITY, I LIVE WITHIN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.
I SPEND THE VAST BULK OF MY TIME WITHIN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.
UH, I SEE ALL TOO MANY RETAIL BUILDINGS IN, IN VARIOUS BUILDINGS THAT COULD HAVE JOBS, THAT COULD HAVE RETAIL, THAT COULD HAVE BUSINESS.
BUT THE FIRST THING THAT WE SEE IS WE CAN'T PARK THE RESTAURANT THAT WOULD WANT TO BE THERE.
WE CAN'T PARK, WE CAN'T, YOU CAN'T PUT THE RESTAURANT, YOU CAN'T PUT THE BUSINESS.
NOT THE QUESTION OF WOULD THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT IT? NOT THE QUESTION OF WOULD THE JOBS BE APPRECIATED.
IT IS SIMPLY A QUESTION OF CAN WE PARK THIS USE? AND THAT DISTORTION ACTUALLY OVERLY PUTS A, PUTS IN EXCESSIVE DISADVANTAGE, PARTICULARLY TO THE SOUTHERN SECTOR WHOSE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT PRIMARILY PRE-WORLD WAR II AND PUTS IN UN AN UNNECESSARY STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE TO POST WORLD WAR II CONSTRUCTION AREAS, PARTICULARLY IN THE NORTHERN SECTOR, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE EXCESS PARKING AND EXCESS CAPACITY.
UM, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I UNFORTUNATELY CANNOT SUPPORT THIS, UH, AMENDMENT.
UM, DID YOU HAVE COMMENT? OF COURSE, I SECONDED.
UM, BUT I AM ALSO GONNA SAY THAT THIS WHOLE PARKING DOES NOT REFLECT THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS NOT
IT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT IT, FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE PARADIGM TO A TRANSPORTATION PARADIGM, THE CITY IS JUST NOT EQUITABLE.
UM, I STILL HAVE A MAJOR SECTION OF MY, MY DISTRICT, A BUS CAN'T EVEN RUN DOWN THE STREET.
UM, WE JUST GOT A TEST FIXED, BUT IT'S STILL INEQUITABLE.
THE, THE STREETS ARE INEQUITABLE AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE.
AND DART IS INEQUITABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NOWHERE EXCEPT FOR ONE DART LINE AND OVER 50 SQUARE MILES THAT IS SERVICED IN MY DISTRICT.
YOU CANNOT COME TO MY SECTION, OR YOU CANNOT COME TO MY DISTRICT AND GO EAST AND WEST.
IF YOU, IF YOU START ON CAMP WISDOM, WHICH IS MY STIMSON STEWARD CAMP WISDOM, ONCE YOU START AT 45 AT PAUL QUINN COLLEGE, YOU CAN'T GET TO UNTB BECAUSE DART DOESN'T SERVICE IT.
IF YOU, IF YOU, SO IF, AND IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE ONLY RETAILS THAT IS, SERVES THE
[02:30:01]
MAJORITY OF THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AS WELL AS THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT, THAT ARE SURROUNDING IT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE A CAR, YOU GOTTA GO.IT TAKES YOU TWO HOURS TO DRIVE 10 MINUTES BECAUSE YOU GOTTA GO DOWNTOWN, CATCH, GET OFF THE BUS, CATCH ANOTHER BUS, AND GO BACK SOUTH IN ORDER TO GO A 10 MINUTE DRIVE, EAST OR WEST.
SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING, SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING REFORMS, YOU, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THE MINIMUMS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEING INEQUITABLE BECAUSE THE CITY OF DALLAS DOES NOT APPLY EQUITY AS FAR AS HOW IT SERVICED THE WHOLE ENTIRE CITY, PERIOD.
SO, AND LIKE I SAID, I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO MAJOR MEGACHURCHES AND AND I GO THROUGH THEM.
BUT IF I DON'T GET OUT OF THE HOUSE AT THE RIGHT TIME, I CAN'T BECAUSE I'M, I'M STRANDED.
I'M, I'M LOCKED IN AND I CAN'T GET OUT.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.
AND, AND THIS IS SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND THEIR PARKING LOT, THEY CAN REDO, THEY CAN REPURPOSE IT.
AND WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO AS RESIDENTS? THEY GOT DOUBLE CAR.
WE ALREADY CAN'T GET A, A FIRE TRUCK.
AND I HAVE THE FIRE STATION 40 RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.
AND, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO GET RID OF, UH, A CAR.
BUT IF YOU GET RID OF A CAR, I'M A BA, I AM THE, THE, THE POSTER CHILD OF BEING AN A, BA PERSON.
I CAN'T IN, IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET TO A BUS, I HAVE TO WALK A 30 MINUTE WALK JUST TO GET TO A BUS.
SO IF I DON'T HAVE A CAR, NOT ONLY AM I AM AM I RELEGATED TO MY HOUSE? I'M, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND THIS, AND, AND THE, THE, THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE US DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF EQUITY.
IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF WHAT REALLY A TRUE A BA PERSON LOOKS LIKE.
UNTIL I HAD MY KNEES REPLACED, I DIDN'T KNOW, I, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT AN A, B, A RE, UH, KNEE WAS.
IF I CAN'T GET IN THE CAR, I CAN'T GO AND I CAN'T GO ON UBER BECAUSE THE CARS ARE TOO SMALL AND I CAN'T GET IN THE BACK SEAT.
SO I STILL HAVE TO GET ME A BIG A, A A, A BLACK CAR IN ORDER TO, IN ORDER TO, TO RIDE BECAUSE I CAN'T BEND MY KNEES.
SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING IS NORMAL, IS NOT NORMAL.
IF YOU LIVE UP NORTH, IT'S NORMAL IF YOU HAVE THE SERVICES.
AND IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
I'M SUPPORTING THAT BECAUSE, AND WHEN IT GETS TO CPC, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE GONNA PASS IT, BUT WHEN WE GET TO CPC, I HOPE WE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE COMMISSIONERS AT CPC HAVE A REAL TRUE MIND TO REALLY LOOK AT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SENDING IF IT'S NOT THERE.
LET'S, LET'S VOTE ON THE, UM, AMENDED MOTION, UH, MR. REEVES MOTION TO EXEMPT CERTAIN USES.
UM, SO I GUESS WE'LL TAKE A VOICE VOTE AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF WE NEED TO TAKE A RECORDED VOTE AFTER THAT.
BUT, UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MCGREGOR? NO, NO, NO, SIR.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDED MOTION, SAY, AYE.
IS THAT, UH, OKAY, THAT'S, THAT'S TWO, I BELIEVE.
THOSE, UH, OPPOSED? AYE OR NAY? NAY.
SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
WE HAD TWO IN FAVOR, AND THAT WOULD BE SIX NAYS.
SO WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UH, MADE BY MR. RUBIN.
UM, ANY OTHER, UM, COMMENTS OR AMENDMENTS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED? HERE ARE, YOU CAN COMMENT THE TYPE FOR AUDIO RATHER MY CARD? YEAH, I, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE.
UM, YEAH, I WOULD MOVE THAT INSTEAD OF MOVING IT FORWARD AS, AS PRESENTED THAT WE REMOVE THE PART ON THE SECTION 51 A, UH, THAT WE WOULD REMOVE THE SECTION ON, UM, ON THE BILL PARKING AND BUILDING ORIENTATION THAT THE PER THAT OFF STREET PARKING IS PROHIBITED BETWEEN THE STREET FACING FACADE OF THE MAIN BUILDING AND ONE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, UH, THAT'S I THINK LISTED IN 51 A 4, 3 0 1, 3 B.
IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE UP ALL THE AMENDMENTS AS, AS ORDINARY AMENDMENTS? I DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH YOU'RE FRIENDLY AND WHICH AREN'T.
[02:35:01]
IS THAT, ARE, ARE YOU, IS THAT IT ON THE, UH, F 51? A 4 3 0 1 3D? WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT.UH, DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION AFTER THAT OR YEAH, WE, WE MAY HAVE DISCUSSION.
IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THAT? YEAH, I LIKE, I THINK I MENTIONED IT PREVIOUSLY, BUT THIS WILL, THIS WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES.
I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WILL BE A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THIS AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OF CREATES A LOT OF SITE PLANNING ISSUES.
UH, I CONSIDER THIS A WORTHY AESTHETIC GOAL FOR DEVELOPERS EVERYWHERE TO ATTEMPT TO, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL NEED TO TRANSITION TO OVER TIME AND SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS ELSEWHERE, NOT RELATED TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WANNA CALL A VOTE.
CAN I, CAN I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF? YES.
MR. RUBIN, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT, WOULD IT COME TO CPC WITH THE BOX, INCLUDING THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND NOT INCLUDING THE DESIGN STANDARDS? I THINK I HEARD A YES IN THE BACKGROUND.
I WAS GONNA SAY, HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT, UM, BUT I HEAR YOU.
BUT, SO IT'S LIKELY I WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
I WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT TODAY IF WE DO GET A BOX AND WE CAN, I CAN SIT DOWN AND, AND DIG THROUGH THE DESIGN STANDARDS ISSUES WITH, WITH, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE ON CITY STAFF OR ANOTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONAL WHO I TRUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS.
YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY RESPECT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND, AND MR. BARRETT, AND I'M FINE SUPPORTING THEM.
THIS MOTION TODAY PROVIDED THAT THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM CONTINUES SO I CAN FULLY WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT.
YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN EXPLAIN
I WOULD JUST SAY LIKE, GENERALLY LIKE STAFF'S METHODOLOGY, WHENEVER, UM, AN ITEM MOVES FROM ONE BODY TO THE OTHER, UM, AND, AND THERE'S A PARTICULAR BOX OF ONE RECOMMENDATION THAT MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH SAS RECOMMENDATION, UM, IT ALLOWS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IN THE STAFF REPORT WHY, UM, STAFF MAY NOT SUPPORT, UM, THE OTHER BOX.
UM, AND GENERALLY WE KIND OF GIVE UP, OR AT LEAST IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR AS MUCH DISCUSSION TO HAPPEN WHEN WE, UM, YOU KNOW, DECIDE TO JUST GO WITH THE FLOW AND GO WITH IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF IT WILL BE A BOX, BUT WE WILL CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT, UH, THE BODY RECOMMENDS AND WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO, YOU KNOW, FIND A GOOD COMMON GROUND AS BEST AS WE CAN.
UM, NOT TO LEAVE THE CONVERSATION TOO MUCH, MR. BARRETT, BUT THE, UH, THE CONCEPT OF THE, UH, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS IN THE PARKING LOTS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD JUST REMAIN THE SAME? UM, I HAVE FURTHER AMENDMENTS AFTER THIS ONE.
WHY DON'T WE JUST, CAN WE JUST DO ALL OF THEM? OKAY.
UM, THEN, THEN I WOULD ALSO, UM, 4.301 3D ON 3D.
UM, CONTINUING, I HAVE, UH, ISSUES WITH THE TDMP AS PROPOSED.
I, DO I JUST NEED TO JUMP INTO THE AMENDMENT OR DO I TALK ABOUT IT FIRST? UH, YEAH, I JUST OFFER THE AMENDMENT, PLEASE.
I WOULD LIKE TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE PDMP PROGRAM, UH, SECTION 8 0 4, UM, TO APPLY ONLY TO USES UNDER 51 A 2 0 4, WHICH ARE INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNITY USES, WHICH INCLUDE CHURCHES AND HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITIES.
UM, AND, AND ONLY THOSE THAT'S, UM, UM, GET THAT A THOUSAND TRIPS PER DAY RECOMMENDED BY ENGINEERING.
DID, DID YOU SAY TO EXCLUDE THOSE USES OR TO ADD THESE USES TO INCLUDE ONLY THOSE USES? OH, TO ONLY INCLUDE THOSE USES.
SO THE USES THAT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.
AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE, THAT WOULD INCLUDE EVERY USE ASIDE FROM CHURCHES, UNIVERSITIES, HOSPITALS, UM, AND SO ALL OF RETAILS, ALL OF THE OFFICE THAT, SO, SO YOU WOULD HAVE A LIMITED SET OF USES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE TD MP CORRECT REQUIREMENT.
[02:40:01]
I SEE.NOW I SEE WHY YOU WERE GONNA MAKE A SEPARATE LIMIT.
I, I'M REALLY NOT COMFORTABLE COMBINING THESE TWO IF THAT'S THE, THE WILL OF THE CHAIR.
BUT, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE WISE TO DO THESE AS SEPARATE OPTIONS, BUT THE, UH, THE WISDOM, WISDOM OF MR. RUBIN PREVAILS AGAIN.
SO WHAT I WANT TO LET, I WANNA BACKTRACK JUST A LITTLE BIT.
SO LET'S TAKE THAT FIRST AMENDMENT FROM MR. BARRETT, WHICH WAS THE ELIMINATION OF, UH, 4.301 3D PERTAINING TO, UM, THE POSITION OF THE PARKING RELATIVE TO THE BUILDING.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, WE GOT TO, TO AN OPPOSITION SIX IN FAVOR.
SO WE WILL STRIKE THAT, UH, FROM, UM, THE UPCOMING VOTE ON MR. RUBIN'S MOTION.
SO, MR. BARRETT, YOU WERE SUGGESTING A, A SECOND AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE TDMP.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT AS A SEPARATE YES, I WOULD LIKE TO APPLY THE TDMP PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN THE PRESENTATION AND THAT ARE IN SECTION 8 0 4 TO ONLY THE USES LISTED IN 51 A 2 0 4, WHICH ARE COMMUNITY, UM, AND INSTITUTIONAL USES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I'M SORRY.
CAN I HAVE THE SECTION AGAIN? I BELIEVE IT'S 51 A I FOR FOUR.
CAN I HAVE IT JUST A SECOND TO READ A MOMENT TO ABSORB THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MOTION? YEAH, THAT IT HAVE IT IN FRONT OF HERE.
IT'S CEMETERIES AND MONTHLY LIAMS CHILDCARE FACILITIES, UM, AND CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTERS.
LOOKING AT THE CODE SECTION, UM, THERE, THAT'S F IT'S SECTION FOUR 800 IS THE OH, NO, NO.
I MEAN, IN, IN THE, UH, IN THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY STAFF WITH THE MARKUPS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT PAGE IT'S ON? YES.
I'M LOOKING AT THE WEB WEB VERSION ONE MOMENT.
WELL, I WAS PRETTY FAR, UH, I UNDERSTAND.
SO, UM, I, WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SECOND ON MR. BARRETT'S MOTION ABOUT TD MPS.
SO ANOTHER QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION, UM, WAS THE INTENTION, UM, IF YOUR MOTION IS TO ELIMINATE ALL THE OTHER, UM, TIERS THAT ARE LISTED IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO JUST THE INSTITUTIONAL USES, WOULD IT BE A MINOR TDMP OR A MAJOR TDMP OR TO APPLY THE TDMP TO ONLY THOSE USES LISTED IN THAT SECTION? SO ALL OF THE SECTIONS, THE ITEMS PRESENT IN SECTION 800 THERE MM-HMM.
SO, SO THE DIFFERENCE, UM, BETWEEN THE MINOR AND MAJOR AND THE TDMP, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I SAY THIS INCORRECTLY, BUT A MINOR TDMP WOULD BE MORE FOCUSED ON DESIGN STANDARDS AND, AND THINGS TO ENCOURAGE MULTIMODAL.
UH, AND THE ADDITIONAL, UM, REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD BE APPLIED FOR MAJOR, UH, TD MPS WOULD BE TO ALSO REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
SO FOR ALL THE CHURCHES THEY NEEDED TIA AND THE MINOR ELEMENTS OF THE TDMP, ARE YOU ASKING ME IF I'M SAYING THAT MAJORS SHOULD APPLY TO CHURCHES? YES.
NO, I DID ALL THE OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USERS, IS IT A MINOR OR IS IT NO, I'M SAYING THOSE THINGS ARE ALL SUBJECT TO THE TDMP USES.
AS LONG AS IF THEY HIT THE TRIP CALCULATIONS.
IF, IF I CAN CLARIFY IT, UM, IF THEY, UM, IF YOU'RE WANTING TO DO IT BY TRIP CALCULATIONS, THAT'S NOT AT ALL, UM, SAID IN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WE'VE JUST GOT SQUARE FOOTAGE OR DWELLING UNITS, AND SO WE WOULD SORT OF NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHICH THRESHOLDS THOSE WOULD BE.
AND THEN, UM, AND WE'RE LOOKING ON PAGE 61 OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS AT THE TABLE.
UM, EACH OF THOSE THRESHOLDS, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL FROM
[02:45:01]
20 TO 49 DWELLING UNITS, NON-RESIDENTIAL, UH, THAT'S EXPANDING A DRIVE THROUGH, ET CETERA, UM, IS APPLIED EITHER A MINOR REVIEW OR A MAJOR REVIEW.THERE ARE, THERE ARE NO THRESHOLDS, UM, THAT HAVE NEITHER SORT OF, AND SO, OKAY, TO CLARIFY, MY INTENT IS THAT THE ENTIRE SECTION OF, OF 8 0 4, THE TDMP SHOULD APPLY ONLY TO THOSE USES IN THAT LISTING AND ONLY IF THEY HIT THE THOUSAND TRIPS DAILY.
AND WHEN IT APPLIES, WOULD WE ALSO APPLY A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS? UM, I BELIEVE ISN'T THAT ALREADY DEFINED IN THE WIND, THOSE MINOR AND MAJOR COMING INTO PLAY? YES, THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR.
SO, UM, SO ANY OF THESE USES WHEN THEY HIT THE MINOR? YEAH.
UM, I SEE, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO YES, JUST APPLY THE TDMP UM, SECTION, UH, TO THOSE USES IN 2 0 4 WITHOUT ALTERING THE THRESHOLDS WHERE THE MAJOR VERSUS MITRE APPLY.
IN ORDER TO ACT ON THIS, WE'RE GONNA NEED A SECOND, AND I DON'T HAVE A SECOND.
LET'S, UH, LET'S, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT REGARDING TD AND P, SAY AYE.
UH, ALL OPPOSED, NAY, NAY, NAY, NAY.
UM, SO WE'RE BACK TO FUNDAMENTALLY AN ORIGINAL MOTION WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE 4.301 3D AMENDMENT.
SO, UM, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT BE READY TO VOTE ON THAT ONE.
UM, JUST AS WE GO TOWARDS THE, THE END OF THIS CASE, THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO SAY.
UM, UH, ALL ALONG THE, THE, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTING PARKING REFORM HAS BEEN THE MISCONCEPTION THAT'S OUT THERE THAT I WOULD SUMMARIZE AS PEOPLE HERE ELIMINATING MINIMUMS AND THEY THINK YOU'RE ELIMINATING PARKING, AND, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT WHAT IT IS AT ALL.
UM, ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS DOES NOT NEED TO TAKE A SINGLE PARKING SPOT.
IT DOES NOT NEED TO REDUCE ANY PARKING ANYWHERE.
ALL IT'S DOING, IT'S SAYING, UH, TO, TO BORROW FROM A POINT THAT MR. CARDIN MADE EARLIER WHEN HE SAID, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CODE DOES NOT PICK UP ON THE NUANCES OF A SPECIFIC LOCATION.
ALL THIS IS DOING IS ALLOWING THE MARKET TO USE THOSE NUANCES TO DETERMINE WHAT THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF PARKING IS.
UM, I WAS VERY, VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SENT IN THROUGH THE WEBSITE.
UH, THERE WERE 150 OR MORE, UH, BUT NOT ONLY WERE THEY IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING MINIMUMS, BUT THEY PROVIDED AN PROVIDED COMMENTS AND SUPPORT THAT WERE WELL THOUGHT OUT.
IT TELLS ME THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT REALLY DO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS PORTION OF URBAN DESIGN MEANS.
UM, I'M JUST GOING TO REDUCE TO A FEW POINTS.
UH, THE IMPACT, UH, OF HAVING SO MUCH WASTE, UH, IN AN EMPTY PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS CAUSED DIRECTLY BY THE CODE THAT WE HAVE, IS THAT A LOT OF VALUABLE REAL ESTATE SITS IDLE AND UNPRODUCTIVE.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT ARE TIED UP TO PARKING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PRODUCTIVE OPPORTUNITIES.
LESS HOUSING, LODGING UNITS, UH, HOUSING OR LODGING UNITS ARE BUILT IN A SITE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING THAT WILL NEVER BE USED.
UH, IT ALSO REDUCES THE TAX BASE IN THE CITY THAT STRUGGLES TO PROVIDE CITY SERVICES.
IT INCREASES HOUSING COSTS, WHICH EXACERBATES THE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THEN THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, OF COURSE, RELATED TO THE UNNECESSARY USE OF CONCRETE AND ASPHALT, UH, AND PERMEABILITY.
UH, AND OUR LAST ONE, AND THIS IS MY OWN, UH, EDITORIAL.
YOU KNOW, IT MAKES OUR CITY UGLY.
UH, A PARKING SPACE IS UGLY, BUT AN EMPTY PARKING SPACE IS NOT JUST UGLY, IT'S ALSO DOWN.
SO I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS IS, UM, THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
UM, I WILL JUST SAY THAT I, I SUPPORT, UM, THIS ORDINANCE IN GENERAL.
I THINK THERE'S SOME WORK TO BE DONE ON SOME OF THE SPECIFICS.
UM, TO ME IT'S AN ISSUE OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF OUR LAND AND, UH, THE ABILITY TO, UH, CREATE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT RESPONDS TO THE WORLD WE'RE IN NOT A WORLD OF THE 1960S.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, MR. MCGREGOR'S POINTS ABOUT THESE, THIS IS ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS. THIS IS NOT AN ELIMINATION OF PARKING.
THIS IS NOT A, A, UH, PROHIBITION ON PARKING BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
AND I THINK WHAT, WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND IS THERE ARE MANY, MANY CHECKS
[02:50:01]
AND BALANCES THAT REMAIN IN THE SYSTEM FOR ADEQUATE PARKING.UH, NAMELY LENDERS, TENANTS, THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF DEVELOPERS, AND ON AND ON.
AND SO THIS IS NOT, UM, A TOTAL REMOVAL ON CHECKS AND BALANCES IN, UH, THE PLANNING SYSTEM BY, BY, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
UM, I WANNA THANK, UH, STAFF FOR THEIR, UH, THEIR, UH, WORK ON THIS OVER MANY, MANY MONTHS AND YEARS AND MEETINGS.
AND I THANK THE, THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
UH, I'VE HEARD IT SAID IT'S BETTER TO BE LUCKY, UH, THAN GOOD.
UM, THERE'S APPARENTLY BEEN 27 MEETINGS ABOUT THIS, UH, AND, UH, TRUE CONFESSIONS.
AND, UH, SO, UH, I GUESS I, I HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE OF PRESIDING OVER SOMETHING THAT'S, UM, WAY, WAY DOWN THE ROAD, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO, UH, ENGAGING FURTHER ON THIS AT PLAN COMMISSION.
SHOULD WE GET AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE HERE IN A MINUTE? SO, UH, IF THERE'S NO MORE COMMENTS, I'M GONNA CALL THE QUESTION.
ALL IN FAVOR OF MR. RUBIN'S MOTION? AYE.
UH, STAFF, DO WE NEED TO DO MINUTES? ALRIGHT.
AND SO ON THAT TOPIC, UH, WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
SECOND FROM, UH, MR. MS. BLAIR.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? AYE.
UM, MS. MAY, MR. WADE, ARE WE DONE FOR TODAY? PERMISSION TO ADJOURN? OKAY.
UH, WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED AT, UH, 12:09 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH.