[00:00:03]
GEORGE, ARE WE RECORDING, SIR? OKAY.
[CALL TO ORDER]
FOR THE ROLL CALL? GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, JANUARY 16TH, 2025, 11:09 AM UH, WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION, SPECIALLY CALLED HEARING.
UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
IT IS MY PLEASURE TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER FLARE AND COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, UH, TO THE HORSESHOE.
UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.
AND AS ALWAYS, ANY HELP THAT YOU NEED, WE'RE ALL HERE TO, TO HELP YOU OUT.
UH, AND FOR THE RECORD, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS HERE IN THE CHAMBER, UH, AND I KNOW THAT DR.
UYA HAS A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT AS WELL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ALLOWING ME JUST A LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UM, MEGAN WEIMER, UM, OUR FEARLESS MEGAN WYER IS NOW PERMANENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING.
SO YOU CAN ALWAYS, AND I THINK SHE'S HERE,
SHE HAS A VAST EXPERIENCE ON ALL AREAS OF ZONING, PERMITTING, REZONING, CODE AMENDMENT, AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.
SHE'S A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
PLEASE, AS ALWAYS, ANYTHING HAPPENS, DO NOT HESITATE TO REACH OUT TO ME AND, UH, MEGAN WEER.
AND THEN ANOTHER LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT.
UH, JASON PAUL WAS OUR, UH, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
HE'S A NEW ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE, SO HE'S NO LONGER INVOLVED IN THE ZONING TEAM.
AND OUR WONDERFUL FEARLESS SARAH MAY IS AN INTERIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE TEAM THAT HANDLES CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY IN HER PORTFOLIO.
SO SAME FOR THE INTEREST OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION, ALWAYS ME, MEGAN WEER, SARAH MAY, UH, ARE GO-TO PEOPLE.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND, UH, CONGRATULATIONS TO MS. WEER, MR. POOLE, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE JUST GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA AND BEGIN WITH MR. WAITE.
[BRIEFINGS]
TO YOU.AND I ALSO WANT TO CONGRATULATE MY COLLEAGUES ON THEIR NEW POSITIONS.
UM, MICHAEL WADE, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DCA 1 9 0 0 0 2 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING CODE AMENDMENT.
WE'VE HAD, UM, A COUPLE OF BRIEFINGS ON THIS AND A PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING IS JUST GOING TO BE A SUMMARY.
IT'S THE SAME BASIC INFORMATION, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME NEW MEMBERS AND POTENTIALLY SOME NEW PEOPLE JOINING VIRTUALLY.
SO, UH, WE'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THE BASICS OF THIS PROPOSAL.
THIS WAS AUTHORIZED IN OCTOBER OF 2019.
SPENT A COUPLE OF YEARS AT OUR ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, UM, DOING ALL OF THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH, TRYING OUT DIFFERENT FRAMEWORKS AND PUTTING TOGETHER DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
UH, EVERY ZAC MEETING DOUBLED AS A PLACE FOR PUBLIC INPUT, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC LISTENING SESSIONS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DURING THAT TIME.
AND THEN WHEN WE PICKED IT UP AGAIN IN 2023, ZAC MADE THE RECOMMENDATION ON JANUARY 30TH, 2024.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EVALUATING TODAY.
AND THEN IT HAS BEEN TO THIS BODY ON NOVEMBER 21ST, DECEMBER 5TH, AND NOW TODAY, JANUARY 16TH.
THERE'S SORT OF THREE ELEMENTS TO THIS.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, PARKING MINIMUMS, AND PARKING DESIGN.
SO I'LL JUST SPEND A SECOND ON EACH.
THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, CAUSING DEVELOPERS TO PLAN FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND TO INCENTIVIZE REDUCTIONS IN VEHICLE TRIPS.
THE PROCESS GENERALLY, THERE ARE JUST A COUPLE PARTS TO IT.
UM, PART OF THE EXISTING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES.
[00:05:01]
APPROVAL PROCESS.THIS ISN'T INTENDED TO ADD ANY TIME TO.
UH, WHEN A DEVELOPMENT IS SPENDING TIME WITH OUR STAFF, GENERALLY, IT INVOLVES SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS THAT IS TAKING INVENTORY OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALKS AROUND A DEVELOPMENT SITE, TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE, BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND, UH, JUST PLANNING ON HOW A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATES INTO THAT.
AND THEN CHOOSING TDM STRATEGIES, THERE'S ALSO A TDM GUIDE THAT ACCOMPANIES THE CODE PORTION THAT'S, UH, IN THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.
A DEVELOPMENT TEAM CHOOSES STRATEGIES ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO INCENTIVIZE, UM, RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, VISITORS TO THINK ABOUT NOT DRIVING ALONE IN THEIR VEHICLE, BUT MAYBE CARPOOL, MAYBE RIDE A BIKE, MAYBE LOOK AT TRANSIT, THAT KIND OF A THING.
FOR PARKING MINIMUMS, THE BASICS OF THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REDUCE REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS TO ZERO.
UH, THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT REMOVING PARKING SPACES.
UH, WE'RE ALSO NOT INCLUDING MAXIMUMS. WE'RE NOT LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES SOMEBODY CAN BUILD IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
UH, THOSE EXPLICITLY MODIFIED PARKING MINIMUMS AND PDS WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT.
SO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE MANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
SOME, UH, HAVE ALL OF THEIR LAND USES PARKING MINIMUMS SPELLED OUT IN THAT PD.
THERE ARE SOME THAT REFER ALL OF THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS TO CHAPTER 51, A BASE CODE THAT'S SUBJECT TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.
THOSE WOULD BE CHANGED ALONG WITH THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.
AND THEN THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE COMPLICATED.
ONE OR TWO LAND USES ARE MODIFIED, THE REST REFER THAT KIND OF A THING.
AND THEN PARKING DESIGN, JUST A HANDFUL OF STRATEGIES TO TRY TO EMPHASIZE THE QUALITY OF THE PARKING LOTS THAT WE BUILD OVER.
UH, THE QUANTITY, TALKING ABOUT CURB CUT LIMITS ON THE WIDTH AND NUMBER FOR ONE TO FOUR UNIT DWELLINGS, ALLOWING THE USE OF ANY ALLEYWAYS FOR ENTRANCES, REQUIRING PEDESTRIAN PATHS THROUGH OR AROUND PARKING LOTS, PROHIBITING PARKING IN ONE FRONT, SETBACK, CLARIFYING AND UPDATING BICYCLE PARKING REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITING SURFACE WATER FROM PARKING LOTS FROM DRAINING ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SIDEWALKS.
SO THAT'S THE QUICK, UM, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE SEVERAL STAFF HERE WHO ARE AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE START US OFF.
UH, SO MR. WADE, I HAD SENT YOU A FEW OF THESE AND, UM, I JUST WILL START GOING THROUGH THEM IN ORDER IF I MAY, AND I'LL TRY TO SPEAK MORE CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.
SO FIRST QUESTION IS, AS STAFF WAS EVALUATING THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, I KNOW ONE OF THE EARLIER ZO OAC, UM, REVIEWS, AND THIS WAS PROBABLY TWO YEARS AGO, WAS TRYING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HISTORIC OR LEGACY BUILDINGS.
COULD YOU SPEAK TO HOW THAT IS INTEGRATED IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US? SURE.
SO YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US ENCOMPASSES THAT WITHOUT SAYING IT.
UM, DURING THE ZAC FRAMEWORK THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED IN 2021, THERE WERE JUST CERTAIN LAND USES CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIES WITH ELIMINATED OR REDUCED MINIMUMS. UH, THE IDEA AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A BUFFER AROUND SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND WITHIN THAT BUFFER, JUST ABOUT ANY LAND USES WOULD KEEP THEIR MINIMUMS EXCEPT FOR A MINIMUM SIZE.
UH, I THINK IT WAS BUILDINGS OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET, OR IT WAS THE FIRST 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF ANY BUILDING.
AND THEN CERTAIN HISTORIC CATEGORIES AND AGES OF BUILDINGS WERE CALLED OUT.
ANY BUILDING BUILT BEFORE THAT TIME WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUMS. AND THEN THERE WERE CERTAIN CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT.
UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
SO BUILDINGS THAT WERE CONTRIBUTING TO THOSE, UH, RECORDED, RECORDED TEXAS HISTORY LANDMARKS, STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARKS, NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS, UH, OR BUILDINGS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
UM, AS WE LOOKED BACK ON THAT, WHILE PUTTING THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL TOGETHER, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT REALLY THOSE WOULD ACT AS INCENTIVES TO ALLOW FEWER MINIMUMS FOR THOSE.
AND SO THE IDEA IS TO INCENTIVIZE THE PROTECTION OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
UH, WE KNOW THOUGH THAT SO MANY OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE SO MUCH SMALLER OR JUST, UH, WERE BUILT BEFORE SOME MODERN INTERIOR LAYOUTS, ET CETERA.
AND SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE HISTORIC, UH, STATUS DOES MAKE THEM DESIRABLE TO USE AND TO REUSE, ESPECIALLY WE KNOW THAT INCENTIVES AROUND PARKING MINIMUMS FOR REUSE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS HAS TO INTERACT WITH THE ECONOMICS OF REUSE OF THAT BUILDING.
AND SO, UM, BECAUSE THE CURRENT,
[00:10:01]
UH, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS ELIMINATING MINIMUMS FOR ALL LAND USE OF CITYWIDE, THAT INCLUDES THOSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.SO IF I THINK, IF I UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSES, IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINED.
SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PROACTIVELY PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC FABRIC.
IT'S NOT PRECLUDED EITHER, BECAUSE BY ELIMINATING MINIMUMS, THEY'RE POTENTIALLY REDEVELOP.
BUT ALL USE THE EXAMPLE OF DEEP EUM THAT EMBEDDED THE IDEA OF MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES.
I KNOW WE DO THIS IN MANY OF OTHER, UM, AREAS OF OUR, UM, CITY AS WELL VIA PDS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT PROACTIVELY ENSURES THAT THE, UM, HISTORIC FABRIC IS MAINTAINED VERSUS, YOU KNOW, BEING REDEVELOPED.
AND I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THAT NEXT WAVE IN DEEP EL WHERE WE'RE LOSING SOME OF THAT FABRIC BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING OUR DENSER BUILDINGS, WHICH WE ALSO NEED.
SO IS THERE ANY, ANY CONSIDERATION OF HOW WE, UM, THINK ABOUT THAT BALANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS OUR CITY CONTINUES TO GROW, THAT WE'RE MORE PROACTIVELY, UM, KEEPING OUR HISTORIC BUILDING STOCK? I THINK ONE CONCURRENT ACTIVITY, OUR DEMOLITION, DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY, UM, HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO COVER MORE BUILDINGS AS FAR AS THE USE OF PARKING.
THAT CAN ONLY EVER REALLY BE AN INCENTIVE.
IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR US TO REALLY CALL THAT A PROTECTION AND UNDERSTOOD.
AND I HAVE A SERIES, IF I MAY CONTINUE.
UM, SO AS ZAC WAS, UM, CONSIDERING THIS AMENDMENT AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, WERE THERE EVALUATION OF OTHER POTENTIAL MODELS SUCH AS USING TRANSIT CORRIDORS? UM, AND AGAIN, I, I REALIZE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A MORE INCREMENTAL STEP VERSUS THE CITYWIDE NO MINIMUMS THAT'S BEFORE US WITH THE T-D-M-M-P, BUT WAS THERE DISCUSSION ABOUT CORRIDORS, TRANSIT STATIONS, HIGH FREQUENCY BUS, THOSE TYPES OF CONCEPTS THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN OTHER CITIES? SURE, AND I'LL GIVE A TWO PART ANSWER TO THAT.
THERE WAS THE EXPLICIT CONVERSATION AT ZO OAC AND THEN, UM, THE BROADER CONVERSATION PRECEDENT IN OTHER CITIES.
SO ZAC EXPLICITLY WAS LOOKING AT ELEMENTS SUCH AS THE BUFFER THAT I DESCRIBED, 330 FEET OUT FROM SINGLE FAMILY AREAS.
UM, RAIL HAS GENERALLY SEEN POPULARITY EITHER A QUARTER MILE, HALF MILE, AROUND RAIL STATIONS.
THOSE ARE VERY POPULAR, UH, EXCUSE ME, VERY PERMANENT, ALSO VERY POPULAR.
UM, AS AREAS WHERE GENERALLY PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH INCREASED DENSITY.
THE ONE IDEA THAT WAS BROUGHT UP NEAR THE END OF THE TIME AT THE ZO OAC, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF IDEAS.
ONE WAS A LIST OF LAND USES THAT TEND TO BE THE MOST EGREGIOUS IN TERMS OF SPILLOVER BARS, RESTAURANTS, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, THAT KIND OF A THING.
AND SO JUST PINPOINTING CERTAIN LAND USES TO MAINTAIN MINIMUMS. UH, ONE IDEA THAT WAS THOUGHT UP WAS ATTACHING IT IN SOME WAY TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
WE HAVE A THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS LAST, UH, UPDATED IN 1993.
IT'S ABOUT TO BE UPDATED AGAIN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT CORRIDORS FOR PARKING MINIMUM REDUCTIONS OR ELIMINATION MAKES SENSE IN THEORY.
BUT OPERATIONALIZING THAT GAVE STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE A LOT OF HEARTBURN ABOUT HOW EXACTLY TO ATTACH THAT, UM, TO A PLAN IN, IN THE WORLD OF PLANNING AND ZONING.
OUR PLANS DO GUIDE DECISIONS, BUT TO REALLY EXPLICITLY ATTACH IT IN SOME WAY, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IN THE CODE.
UM, THE, THE BROADER RATIONALE ABOUT WHY WE'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT TOO IS THAT THOROUGHFARES GENERALLY ARE CALLED OUT AS THE ROADS THAT ARE PREPARED NICELY FOR VEHICLE VEHICULAR TRAVEL.
THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE WE'RE SAYING IF THERE ARE GONNA BE CARS IN DALLAS, IT'S THOROUGHFARES.
AND SO FOR US TO MAKE A MOVE THAT WOULD, UM, SORT OF RIGHT SIZE PARKING AROUND THOSE THOROUGHFARES, THOSE ROADS AND NOT IN OTHER AREAS SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT WAS THE RESPONSE GIVEN AT ZAC AND WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE PRESENT PROPOSAL.
AND SO, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, I KNOW WE NOW HAVE OUR COMPLETE STREETS MANUAL, UM, COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, I BELIEVE IS THE TERMINOLOGY THAT WAS UTILIZED IN FOR DALLAS THAT AGAIN, ARE SIMILAR CONCEPTS, BUT START TO SPEAK TO MULTIMODAL ALTERNATE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PROGRESSING ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, THE CONVERSATION AROUND HOW WE THINK ABOUT OUR ROADWAYS, ROADWAYS ARE FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR CARS.
YOU KNOW, THE THINGS WE, I THINK ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH, BUT IS IT A QUESTION OF TERMINOLOGY IN THE PLAN OR IS IT A QUESTION OF IMPLEMENTATION? IN THINKING ABOUT CORRIDORS, I AM GOING TO GIVE AN ANSWER AND I MIGHT INVITE, UH, SOMEONE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON THIS.
[00:15:01]
PLANNING AROUND CORRIDORS CAN MAKE SENSE WHEN IT COMES TO CORRIDOR PLANS AND THEN MAYBE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, I KNOW THAT OUR, UM, SMALL AREA PLANNING DIVISION IN OUR GROUP IS, UM, INCORPORATING, SORT OF EXPANDING THEIR REALM FROM JUST DOING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS OR DISTRICT PLANS SPECIFICALLY TO CORRIDOR PLANS.
AND THEN THE TYPICAL PROCESS IS FOLLOWING THAT UP WITH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING WHERE MAYBE PARKING MINIMUMS CAN BE ADDRESSED.
UM, IF IT'S IMPORTANT TO ATTACH THOSE TO CORRIDORS.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S REALLY THE, THE TERMINOLOGY IT COMES DOWN TO THE NUT, THE SORT OF LEGAL NUTS AND BOLTS OF ATTACHING IT.
WE'VE WORKSHOPPED A COUPLE OF IDEAS, HOWEVER, THE, THE DEPTH AT WHICH SORT OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN APART AND RECONSIDERED, UM, COULD, COULD SEE A PRETTY MAJOR DELAY FOR THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
UM, I MIGHT INVITE SOMEONE FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IF THEY HAVE ANY EXTRA THOUGHTS TO ADD.
WAS THE QUESTION HOW THE CITY CAN TIE PARKING MINIMUMS TO CERTAIN STREET CORRIDORS IN DALLAS? WELL, I GUESS, SO THE, THE QUESTION THAT I HAD ASKED WAS SPECIFIC TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, AND I UNDERSTAND, UH, FOR MR. WADE THAT THERE MAY BE A FUNCTIONAL CHALLENGE WITH THAT MECHANISM.
SO THE QUESTION FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE WAS IF IT UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, WHICH ARE I BELIEVE THE, UM, TERMINOLOGY WITHIN FOR DALLAS THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED OR OTHER PLANS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE OTHER MECHANISMS WHERE WE SPEAK ABOUT CORRIDORS.
IT JUST, THE QUESTION WAS IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT PLAN OR A DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY, DOES THAT CHANGE THE CONSIDERATION, UM, FOR STAFF AND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE ON IMPLEMENTATION? RIGHT.
WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, UM, IN DETAIL.
ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ARTICLE FOUR, I THINK, BECAUSE THAT'S OUR ZONING CODE.
WE COULDN'T TIE PARKING MINIMUMS IN ARTICLE FOUR TO AMENDMENTS TO OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS A SECOND.
UM, IT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT HAS ITS OWN, UM, METHOD AND PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE AMENDMENTS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN CHANGE PARKING MINIMUMS IN ARTICLE FOUR, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND, YOU KNOW, TO CHANGE ONE COULDN'T THEN CHANGE THE OTHER.
IF YOU WANTED TO, TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE FOUR.
AND I GUESS MY ONLY REASON WHY I MIGHT ASK, AND I'M GLAD TO TAKE THIS OFFLINE 'CAUSE I IMAGINE THERE'S OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS, BUT THE, UM, SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVES THOROUGH FAIR AMENDMENTS.
SO IT COMES BACK BEFORE THIS BODY, WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE TIED TO ARTICLE FOUR.
WELL, IT'S NOT TIED TO ARTICLE FOUR AT ALL.
IT'S NOT TIED TO THE ZONING CODE.
IT'S TIED TO, WELL, SORRY, I STATED THAT POORLY, ARTICLE NINE.
IT'S, IT'S WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
BUT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A FUNCTION OF ZONING.
I'LL LEAVE THAT WHEN I MAY HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
UM, THERE'S OTHER PLANS THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED, A CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOME OF THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD, UM, FOR THE COMMISSION JUST TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS AMENDMENT WOULD WORK MORE GLOBALLY.
UM, ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, ITEMS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME WAS THAT IT WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF OUR MORE HIGH INTENSITY USES ARE ANTICIPATED TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT ON-STREET PARKING NUISANCE.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW STAFF EVALUATED SOME OF THE OTHER PLANS RELATIVE TO, UM, THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE US AND, AND CORRELATING WITH THOSE OTHER PLANS? I SHOULD, YES.
SO MUCH OF OUR TIME SPENT WITH OTHER PLANS, NOT AS EXPLICITLY, UM, IMPACTING PARKING AS THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN INVOLVED.
IN WHAT WAY DOES OFF STREET PARKING AFFECT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS, OUR HOUSING GOALS, UM, OUR CCAP GOALS, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE, WE ALSO SOUGHT THE EXPERTISE FROM THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS OPERATIONALIZING THESE DIFFERENT PLANS.
I WON'T SAY IT WAS UNANIMOUS, BUT IT WAS PRETTY WIDESPREAD THAT PARKING MINIMUMS TOUCH ON ALL OF THESE AND AT THE PRESENT LEVEL CREATE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO, UM, SOME OF THESE GOALS WHEN EVALUATED IN SILOS.
SO MORE HOUSING UNITS OF, UH, DIFFERENT KINDS FOR THE
[00:20:01]
HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND OUR HOUSING PLAN.UM, THE ABILITY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO SET UP AND RUN, UM, AND REALLY BUILD COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, CA AGAIN, THE, NOT ONLY HAVE OUR CURRENT PARKING LOTS AND PARKING SPACES BEEN BUILT JUST WITH BLANKET CONCRETE, NO, UH, NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT.
NOTHING TO MITIGATE, UM, SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AND POLLUTION, THAT KIND OF A THING.
SO, UM, NOT ONLY DO OUR CURRENT PARKING LOTS SORT OF SIT UNDEVELOPED BECAUSE OF OUR CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS, UM, AND UNRENEWED YOU MIGHT SAY UN UN REDESIGNED, UM, BUT IN GENERAL, NEW DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ROLL BACK SOME OF THE CONCRETE AND THAT KIND OF A THING.
THINKING IN, IN TERMS OF ZO OAC AND THEN, I'M SORRY, CCA.
UM, AND THEN ON, ON THE CCAP LEVEL TWO, JUST THE, THE BROADER STUDIES THAT SHOW CAUSALITY BETWEEN PROVISION OF PARKING SPACES AND HOW MUCH WE DRIVE ALONE IN GAS POWERED VEHICLES CREATING EMISSIONS.
SO THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF BROADER CITY POLICIES THAT ARE SORT OF ONE OR TWO STEPS OUT FROM HOW WE MANAGE PARKING.
THE CURB MANAGEMENT, UH, ON STREETE PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN REALLY IS THE ONE THAT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
THAT OF COURSE INCLUDES THE PAID PARKING AREA, THE RESIDENT PARKING PER RESIDENT PARKING ONLY PERMIT PROGRAM, THAT KIND OF A THING.
UM, UPDATING CHARGES AND COSTS FOR METERS.
AND, UM, IT FORESEES WHETHER WE DO ANYTHING WITH PARKING OR NOT A GROWING DALLAS DENSIFYING DALLAS.
AND SO MANAGEMENT WILL NEED TO BE A STRATEGY THAT THE CITY USES REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO WITH THIS TODAY.
UM, I THINK IT'S, THAT'S SORT OF A, A HARD STOP TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, BECAUSE, UM, WE REALLY DON'T EXPECT THE PROPOSAL AS EVALUATED BEFORE US TODAY TO HAVE A MASSIVE CATACLYSMIC CHANGE TO THE CITY'S URBAN FABRIC.
THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE TAKES TIME AND, UH, DURING THAT TIME, OUR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS IS BEEFING UP A LOT OF THE POLICIES THAT THEY CALL FOR AND PLAN FOR IN THEIR POLICY DOCUMENT.
AM I ANSWERING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? UM, NOT FULLY, BUT, UM, I'M GONNA ASK TWO MORE QUESTIONS AND THEN I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR WHAT MY, UM, COLLEAGUES, UM, QUESTIONS MAY HAVE.
IN THE STAFF REPORT IN NOVEMBER, THERE WERE FOUR REFERENCE CITIES THAT WERE, UM, INCLUDED.
UM, BUFFALO, SEATTLE, UM, I'M FORGETTING ONE.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, I MEAN, ARE THOSE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON, UM, WITH OUR CITY? IS THERE DATA ABOUT HOW THEY ROLLED OUT THEIR, UM, PARKING AMENDMENTS AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND, AND JUST HOW THOSE WERE THOUGHT ABOUT VERSUS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE TODAY? SURE.
I, I'VE NEVER HEARD A CITY LEADER OR A CITY PLANNER SAY THAT ANOTHER CITY IS AN EXACT, UH, REPLICA OF THEIRS.
UM, OF THOSE PLUS DALLAS, WE'D BE THE BIGGEST CITY, UM, BY LAND AREA AND BY POPULATION THERE IS DATA.
I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE LINKS TO THE STUDIES, STUDIES THAT PRODUCE SOME OF THOSE, UM, PERCENTAGES AND SOME OF THOSE RESULTS.
THREE OF THOSE FOUR, MINNEAPOLIS, BUFFALO, SEATTLE, UM, THE RESULTS, AND I CAN I CAN DESCRIBE THOSE HERE IN A MOMENT, WERE THE PRODUCT OF MASSIVE PARKING REFORM IN AUSTIN, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID JUST ELIMINATE MINIMUM CITYWIDE, UH, THOSE, THE DATA THAT I REPRODUCED THERE CAME FROM THEIR EQUIVALENT TO OUR M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM.
THEY CALL IT AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED.
AND INSTEAD OF OFFERING A HALF PARKING SPACE PER UNIT AS AN INCENTIVE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY OFFERED ZERO PARKING, UH, OR THEY DID AT THE TIME.
AND SO THAT WAS STILL STUDIED IN, I'LL, I'LL JUST TICK THROUGH THE RESULTS VERY QUICKLY.
IN MINNEAPOLIS, THEY ACTUALLY STARTED PARKING REFORM IN 20 12, 20 13, AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT INCREMENTALLY UNTIL I THINK 2021 WHEN THEY FULLY ELIMINATED MINIMUMS. AND YOU CAN SEE A SLOW REDUCTION IN THE RATIO OF, UM, PARKING PER NEW DEVELOPMENT.
THE STUDY THAT I READ OR PARKING PER UNIT IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE STUDY THAT I READ DIDN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHETHER THE HOUSING WAS PURELY MULTIFAMILY
[00:25:01]
OR WHETHER IT WAS MIXED USE.SOME OF THE OTHER STUDIES FOR OTHER CITIES DO THAT.
UM, I I CAN SAY ANECDOTALLY FROM LIVING THERE FOR SEVEN YEARS, I SAW A LOT OF MIXED USE GO UP.
UM, BUT THAT SAW A REDUCTION I THINK FROM, WAS IT 1.3, 1.4 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO 0.7 0.8 PER UNIT AFTER FULLY ELIMINATING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENTS, I THINK IT WAS 35, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS SAW A REDUCTION OF ABOUT 25% IN PARKING SPACES BUILT FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT USED THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROGRAM IN SEATTLE.
SO IN SEATTLE THERE WERE TWO CONCURRENT STUDIES THAT PAINT A PICTURE.
UM, KING COUNTY, WHERE SEATTLE IS LOCATED DID A, AN INVENTORY OF ALL OF THE PARKING SPACES IN THEIR COUNTY, WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN A, A WILD LIFT FOR SOME YOUNG INTERNS PERFORMING THAT STUDY.
UM, AND THEY SAW THAT 40% OF PARKING SPACES ARE NEVER USED ACROSS THE COUNTY SINCE THEN.
I, I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS BEFORE SEATTLE ENACTED THEIR PARKING REFORM.
IT WASN'T ELIMINATION CITYWIDE, BUT IT WAS MUCH OF THE CITY, UH, REDUCED OR ELIMINATED.
THEY SAW EXACTLY THAT NUMBER, 40% DROP IN HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WERE CONSTRUCTED.
AND THEN IN, UH, BUFFALO CITYWIDE ELIMINATION, THEY SAW, I THINK IT WAS 23, 20 5% FEWER SPACES CONSTRUCTED.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD ANECDOTALLY FROM OUR PARTNERS AT TREK AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING, UH, GROUPS THAT IT'S IN, IT'S IN THE TWENTIES.
UM, AS FAR AS THE PERCENT OF PARKING THAT WE'RE OVER BUILDING, I THINK ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS ESTIMATED 20 TO 30%.
AND THAT, THAT SEEMS TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD.
IS IT CORRECT THAT BOTH FOR SEATTLE AND FOR MINNEAPOLIS, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS FOR MINNEAPOLIS, THAT IT WAS AN INCREMENTAL, UM, REVISION.
THEY STARTED, I THINK WITH TRANSIT STATION AND AREA, UM, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
UM, THEN THEY MOVED INTO COMMERCIAL USES, THEN THEY STARTED LOOKING AT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
UM, AND I, FULL DISCLOSURE, I ACTUALLY FOUND THEIR REPORT TO THEIR CITY PLAN COMMISSION THAT KIND OF OUTLINED THEIR REVIEW.
AND IT JUST SOUNDED LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF TRANSIT CORRIDORS, MULTIMODAL CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE THEY GOT TO WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS A MORE ROBUST, UM, AND SIMILAR TO, UM, SEATTLE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WAS ALSO ORIENTED AROUND TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND AS YOU NOTED, IS NOT A, A CITYWIDE, IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? I WOULD SAY IT'S FAIR.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT BOTH OF THOSE CITIES CAN ACT A LITTLE BIT AS TEST CASES FOR US TOO.
SO AS WE THINK FORWARD ABOUT US POTENTIALLY DOING SOMETHING MORE INCREMENTAL THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED, WE CAN DRAW ON WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE INCREMENTALLY AND DON'T HAVE TO BE BOUND TO EXACTLY THE SAME BABY STEPS THAT SOME OF THESE CITIES HAVE.
WE'VE, WE'VE ALSO SEEN, IT'S MORE WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN, THESE CITIES HAVEN'T DESCENDED INTO CHAOS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UM, THE, THE EXPECTATIONS, THE CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS DO EVOLVE OF COURSE, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN SLOW IN, IN SLOWISH IN THOSE CITIES.
I MEAN IT, UM, I THINK WE CAN USE THOSE AS EXAMPLES.
AND JUST ONE FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IS IT ALSO CORRECT, I THINK FROM WHAT I WAS READING AS I WAS TRYING TO DO SOME RESEARCH ONLINE THAT PREDOMINANTLY THE REDUCTIONS OCCURRED IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.
UH, COMMISSIONER HARA, BEFORE I GO TO YOU SIR, I HAVE JUST ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP TO, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S.
FIRST QUESTION, UH, MR. WADE, AS, AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE ZO IAC RECOMMENDATION, AND IF THIS BODY DECIDES TO MOVE, MOVE ON A HYBRID ON THAT, UH, WITH A SERIES OF ADJUSTMENTS, COULD ONE OF 'EM BE, UH, IN REGARDS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UH, LANGUAGE SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, A HISTORIC BUILDING THAT IS, AND OR, YOU KNOW, 50 YEARS, LET'S SAY 50 YEARS OR OLDER IS NOT SUBJECT TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS? WOULD THAT BE A POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENT? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT ZOAX, SO THERE'S, THERE'S DISCUSSION AROUND IT.
THERE'S PRECEDENT IN OTHER CITIES.
WELL, MY, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS SAME TOPIC 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S INTERESTING.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, MY TENURE ON ZO OAC IS FAIRLY BRIEF IN THE, IN THE PAST AT ZO OAC.
WAS THIS ISSUE DISCUSSED ABOUT PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDING STOCK OR PRESERVING SMALLER, UH, BUILDINGS
[00:30:01]
IN OLDER AREAS? WAS THERE, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISCUSSION OF, OF ZAC ON THIS ISSUE? SURE.AGAIN, THE, THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN 2020 AND 2021, WHILE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WAS CHAIR ALSO DID, UM, BRING UP THE IDEA.
IT WASN'T A FORMAL PROPOSAL, BUT THE IDEA THAT BUILDINGS OLDER THAN BUILT IN 1967, JULY OF 1967, UH, WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUMS. AND THEN THOSE, UH, WHERE DID MY LIST GO? THOSE WITH SORT OF A FORMAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION, WHETHER IT'S, UM, NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, ONE OF THOSE THAT ARE IN CITY OF DALLAS, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THERE ARE A FEW THAT COULD, UM, TRIGGER A NO NO MINIMUM SITUATION.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT OAC IS THAT THERE ARE, WHAT ABOUT THE BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN AUGUST OF 1967 INSTEAD OF JULY? UM, WE, WE HAVE A FEW GREAT AREAS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT WE LOVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN OLDER BUILT FORM AND OLDER URBAN FABRIC, AND OUR STAFF RUN IN CIRCLES TO KEEP TRACK OF DELTA CREDITS OR SPECIAL PDS OR THAT KIND OF A THING.
AND SO, UM, WE WE'RE ALREADY ENGAGED IN TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE THE PRESERVATION OF THESE BUILDINGS, HOW THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE ON THIS TODAY WILL MAKE THAT EASIER OR MAKE IT HARDER.
SO, UM, WHAT I UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE ISSUES TO BE IS THAT, UM, A BUSINESS OWNER PURCHASES A BUILDING THAT IS IDEAL FOR A SMALL RESTAURANT, A SMALL BAR, AND CAN'T MEET THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THAT BUYS THE STRUCTURE NEXT DOOR AND TEARS IT DOWN AND TURNS IT INTO A PARKING LOT.
UM, WOULD IT, WOULD WE PERHAPS ADDRESS THE PROBLEM JUST AS READILY AND MAYBE MORE SIMPLY BY, UM, EXEMPTING SMALLER STRUCTURES FROM PARKING MINIMUMS AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO IDENTIFY A DATE THAT WE WORK WITH? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE 1967 DATE WAS, WAS SELECTED.
I MEAN, IT, MAYBE IT'S FINE, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT, UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE ARE THESE, THESE REALLY MORE ORGANIC, MORE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALED LAND USES THAT MAKE A NEIGHBORHOOD RICH AND INTERESTING AND SERVES ITS RESIDENTS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'D BE, I'D BE INTERESTED IN, IN LOOKING AT IT MAYBE THROUGH THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LENS AS OPPOSED TO SOME DATE, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCES AND INCENTIVES AND THINGS ELSEWHERE.
UM, AND IT, UM, AS YOU POINT OUT, UM, I DO LIKE, YOU KNOW, I, I'M FINE WITH, UM, UM, USING EXISTING DEFINITIONS IF YOU, YOU KNOW, EXISTING DESIGNATIONS, I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE, BUT I DON'T, I, I WANT US TO AVOID COMING UP WITH SOME OTHER DESIGNATION HERE IN THIS THAT MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF THE OTHER.
SO I DUNNO IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE TO YOU.
UM, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR SORT OF A SQUARE FOOTAGE FLOOR LIKE THAT.
UM, I KNOW THAT, AGAIN, IN THE TWIN CITIES, I THINK IT'S 2,500.
I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A VARIETY, AGAIN, IN OUR, THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN, THERE ARE SOME REALLY NARROW SHOPS.
USED TO BE A SODA FOUNTAIN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S 790 SQUARE FEET, UM, THERE JUST EIGHT AT A RESTAURANT THAT I THINK WAS ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET.
THESE ARE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE SMALL ENOUGH THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTED ON THE DOLLARS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THEY'RE NOT REGIONAL DESTINATIONS, UH, WHERE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING FROM ADDISON TO EAT, EAT, OR, YOU KNOW, PATRONIZE THESE PLACES.
I, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
AGAIN, THE, THE PRECEDENT TENDS TO BE BETWEEN 1,520 500 SQUARE FEET.
CAN I, CAN I JUMP IN? UM, SORRY.
SO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION IS FOUR YEARS AGO HAD BOTH, UM, AN EXEMPTION FOR THE FIRST 5,000 FEET AND THE 1967, THE 1967, SO I CAN GIVE AN EXPLANATION, CAME FROM THAT WAS THE DATE WHEN WE INVENTED PARKING MINIMUMS PER USE PER CITY OF DALLAS.
SO WE SAID THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT UP TO THAT DATE ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS.
WE WERE TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL.
UM, AND THEN I WOULD SAY I WOULD MOVE IT EVEN MORE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE PDS THAT DO BOTH, BOTH EAR OF THE PD PASSING AND SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND DOWNTOWN HAS ALSO EXISTING BUILDINGS.
SO YOU CAN DO A COMBINATION OF THOSE.
SOME OF US ARE OF AIDS AT 1967.
DETERMINES HISTORIC, I BELIEVE.
[00:35:02]
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE.I HAVE A, I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.
UM, AND I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING, UH, MICHAEL FRIS WORK ON THIS.
I KNOW YOU PUT A LOT INTO IT, AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME THINGS ABOUT THIS PACKAGE THAT I LIKE, INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN PASS AND THE DESIGN ELEMENTS.
AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE OVER PARK, UM, A NUMBER OF OUR USES AND, AND, AND IT IMPACTS A LOT OF THE WAY THAT WE LIVE.
UM, ARE THERE ANY USES THAT YOU'D THINK THAT WE DO NOT OVER PARK? THERE'S WHAT I THINK, AND THERE'S WHAT I HEAR, UM, I, WHAT I HEAR TENDS TO BE, UM, SOME BARS AND RESTAURANTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE BUILT IN MORE SUBURBAN CONTEXTS THAT ARE BUILT TO RECEIVE INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS, ONE PER CAR COMING FROM ALL OVER THE METROPLEX.
UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT'S GONE INTO USING RATIOS FROM THE ITE PARKING DEMAND MANUAL.
UM, THAT MANUAL IS BEING IMPROVED, BUT ONE OF THE BIG FLAWS WAS THAT THEY SORT OF GROUPED THE LAND USE INTO ONE PARKING RATIO REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT.
AND SO, UM, I HEAR FROM, UM, THE WORLD OF REALTORS REAL ESTATE ATTORNEYS, BARS AND RESTAURANTS ESPECIALLY, UM, RESTAURANTS, REGIONAL DESTINATIONS CAN, UM, SOMETIMES BE PARKED AT EXACTLY THE RIGHT RATIO.
UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SEPARATE THE LAND USE FROM THE CONTEXT FROM THE URBAN FORM.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON PARKING MINIMUMS, AT LEAST AS ASSIGNED TO A LAND USE BAR, NONE TODAY.
SO THE RESTAURANTS, REGIONAL RESTAURANTS ARE THE MAIN ONE THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT.
SO I'M GONNA ASK SOME, SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS BASED ON USE, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE CODE HAS TYPICALLY BEEN USED.
AND IN THE INTEREST OF ACHIEVING THE GOOD INSTEAD OF THE PERFECT.
UM, WHAT DATA DO YOU SUPPORT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER USES THAT YOU THINK WE ARE MORE OR LESS PARKING OR REQUIRE THE REQUIRED PARKING IS MORE OR LESS WHERE IT SHOULD BE? SO YOU'VE HIT BAR, RESTAURANT, ANYTHING ELSE? WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT CHURCH? AGAIN, A A MEGA CHURCH IS DIFFERENT THAN A NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH.
A MOVIE THEATER WITH 13 SCREENS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE SCREEN.
AND SO I THINK SIZE IS JUST A MASSIVE, MASSIVE VARIABLE THERE.
WE KNOW THAT AS SMALL PLACES MAYBE GROUP INTO AN EN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THEN THEY CHANGE FORM.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL LAND USE, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE DISTRICT AT THAT POINT.
UM, BUT IN THE END, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PROVIDING PARKING, ESPECIALLY FREE AND ABUNDANT PARKING CAUSES MORE PEOPLE TO DRIVE, WE KNOW THAT AS SOON AS SOMETHING IS PARKED CORRECTLY, THEN IT'S PARKED INADEQUATELY.
AND AS WE LOOK TO 2040 BEFORE DALLAS, AS WE LOOK AHEAD OF THAT, UM, I REALLY THINK THAT THE ARRIVING AT A PERFECT RATIO INCENTIVIZES MORE DRIVING AND IT'S NO LONGER THE PERFECT RATIO.
AND SO WE NEED TO SORT OF LEAN IN THE DIRECTION THAT, THAT WE WANT TO GO.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, BACK TO MY LAST ANSWER, THE ONLY REAL LAND USE THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT FROM, UM, PEOPLE WHO ARE SORT OF JUDGING FROM THE MARKET PERSPECTIVE IS RESTAURANTS.
UM,
I AM IMAGINING ALL OF MY GIS LAYERS AND ALL OF, UM, THE 365 SQUARE MILES OF LAND USES IN DALLAS.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SOME TIME TO PREPARE BETTER FOR THAT QUESTION.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU WHAT YOUR DATA IS TOO.
SO, UM, ONCE MINIMUM PARKING RESTRICTIONS ARE LIFTED, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE CITY CANNOT REIMPOSE THEM LEGALLY IF WE GET THIS WRONG? IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA ELIMINATE MINIMUM PARKING RESTRICTIONS EITHER ACROSS THE BOARD OR WITH CERTAIN USES OR IN CERTAIN AREAS, WE CAN'T TAKE A LOOK FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY, HMM, THAT'S NOT WORKING FOR
[00:40:01]
US.WE NEED TO REIMPOSE SOME MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS.
WE CAN'T DO THAT, CAN WE? UH, I WOULD NEED TO BRING UP THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY PAYING ATTENTION? SO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE COULD BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE TO REINSTATE, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS, UM, SAY IN A YEAR OR FIVE OR 10.
BUT SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE DELTA CREDITS ALL OVER THE CITY FOR USES ALL OVER THE CITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO PARK, BUT NOW ACCORDING TO THE CODE, DO HAVE TO PARK AND THEY WOULD BE GRANTED THOSE DELTA CREDITS.
SO WHEN WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY CREATING A VESTED RIGHT FOR ALL OF THOSE PARKING OWNER, ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CURRENTLY DO HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS. RIGHT.
AND THE ONLY WAY TO REIMPOSE NEW PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY USE IN ANY PART OF THE CITY IS TO DO WHAT WE DID BACK IN THE SIXTIES, WHICH WAS TO CREATE THIS FICTIONAL THEORY OF DELTA CREDITS.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS? SO A DELTA CREDIT IS CREDIT THAT A, A BUSINESS OR A, A LAND USE IN DALLAS GETS AN ESTABLISHMENT IN DALLAS GETS FOR NOT HAVING TO PARK IT BEFORE, BUT NOW THE CODE SAYS YOU HAVE TO PARK IT, BUT SINCE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PARK IT BEFORE YOU'RE CREDITED WITH THAT PARKING SPACE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD A RESTAURANT THAT WAS A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND THEY HAD TO HAVE ONE PARKING SPOT FOR EVERY 10, FOR EVERY 100 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 10 PARKING SPOTS.
AND IF THEY ONLY HAD FIVE, THEY COULD HAVE FIVE DELTA CREDITS TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE TO GET TO THEIR PARKING MINIMUM.
AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY, AND THEN MAYBE THE COMMUNITY HAS TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THOSE PARKING CREDITS.
HOW MANY AREAS IN THE CITY HAVE ANY KIND OF MECHANISM FOR REMOVING DELTA CREDITS? I GUESS MY, MY ANSWER WOULD BE THE, THE MD ONE DISTRICT.
I, I THINK JUST THE ONE LOWER GREENVILLE.
JUST LOWER GREENVILLE, MM-HMM
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION, UM, IN DEVELOPING THIS PLAN FOR EITHER EXEMPTING OR HAVING SOME DIFFERENT RULES FOR AREAS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DELTA CREDITS OR ARE SUBJECT TO A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF, OF OPINION, SHORT STORY, NOT IN DEPTH.
THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF OPINIONS THAT HAVE KIND OF KEPT US FROM GOING TOO DEEP ON THAT.
UM, THE TWO MAIN SORT OF CONFLICTING OPINIONS BEING, UH, IN THIS POTENTIAL WHERE WE ADD BACK LATER AFTERWARDS, IT WOULD CREATE A SITUATION LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE ARE EXACTLY THE AREAS THAT STAFF SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRACKING AND COUNTING AND WORKING ON SHARED USE, UH, OR SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS, THAT KIND OF A THING.
AND SO, UM, THESE ARE SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE, UH, COULD SEE SOME BENEFIT IN REMOVING OR REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS EVEN MORE.
AND SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE TWO, UH, WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT USING A MECHANISM LIKE THE MD ONE, UM, AS, UH, REALLY A PIVOTAL PLACE TO, UM, PROTECT OR CUSTOMIZED PARKING MINIMUMS. WE WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE, IN WHAT RATIONALLY MAKES SORT OF ONE UNIQUE PLACE LIKE THE AREA COVERED IN MD ONE DIFFERENT THAN SOME OTHER SIMILAR, UM, COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, COMMERCIAL AREAS, BISHOP ARTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT DON'T HAVE THAT.
AND SO IT, THAT'S, THAT'S SORT OF A EXISTENTIAL QUESTION WE WOULD ASK, ASK OURSELVES AS WE DECIDE WHETHER TO USE THAT TOOL, WHAT CONSIDERATIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE IMPACTS THIS PROPOSAL HAS ON THE INCENTIVES WE JUST WROTE INTO OUR M-H-M-I-H-D-P PROGRAM.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US WOULD JUST MAKE THAT PARKING INCENTIVE IN M-I-H-D-B, UM, NO LONGER NECESSARY OR NO LONGER A NEGOTIATING TOOL.
IT WOULD, UH, SHIFT TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE IN, IN MY HT P.
YEAH, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT
[00:45:01]
DOESN'T IT SEEM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE PARKING INCENTIVES INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM.AND IF WE ELIMINATE THAT AS AN INCENTIVE, WE'RE ELIMINATING AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM AND, AND SPECIFICALLY DEED RESTRICT UNITS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AT A, AT A DEFINED LOWER RENT RATE.
WHAT, WHAT FACTORS DID YOU CONSIDER OR HOW DID YOU BALANCE TAKING THAT NEGOTIATION TOOL AWAY FROM OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM? I WOULD SAY THERE WERE TWO OTHER SOFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TOOLS THAT WOULD BE OPENED UP BY THIS.
ONE IS, UM, JUST SHEER QUANTITY OF UNITS THAT WE THINK ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS WOULD CREATE.
SO THAT WOULD BE AT EVERY LEVEL, ESPECIALLY MARKET.
A LOT OF NEW ONES, UH, TEND TO BE, A LOT OF NEW UNITS TEND TO BE MARKET RATE THAT PRODUCES THE UPWARD FILTRATION RATE.
AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND I THINK STUDIES IN MINNEAPOLIS, IN LONDON AND MAYBE SWEDEN OR LUXEMBOURG HAVE SHOWN AN UPWARD FILTRATION.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST LIVING, UM, BENEATH THEIR MEANS IN A SENSE.
THEY CAN'T AFFORD A, UH, A NICER, MORE EXPENSIVE APARTMENT.
AND SO BY PROVI PROVIDING THOSE, WE SEE A TRAIL OF FOLKS, UH, MOVING UP.
AND THAT INCLUDES AT THE BOTTOM END, EXISTING NATURALLY OCCURRING.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPENS UP WHEN PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD MORE MOVE UP INTO THOSE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRIMARY THAT THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF TWO THINGS THAT WOULD BE OPENED UP BY THIS PROPOSAL.
THE OTHER ONE, UM, JUST IN GENERAL, WE'RE NOT ONLY LOOKING FOR DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS, SOMETHING THAT'S AFFORDABLE TO FOLKS AT 30% A MI, 50% A MI WE'RE ALSO JUST LOOKING FOR A STABILIZED HOUSING MARKET AND ATTAINABLE HOUSING.
AND SO BACK TO THE STUDIES WITH MINNEAPOLIS, UM, WHAT THEY SAW WAS THAT AFTER THEY HAD ELIMINATED MINIMUMS, THEY HAD A COUPLE OTHER ZONING CHANGES AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, WHILE THE REST OF THE HOUSING MARKET IN ACROSS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA CONTINUED TO INCREASE IN PRICE, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FLATLINED IT STABILIZED.
UM, AND THEIR CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR FAMOUSLY HAS ATTRIBUTED THAT SPECIFICALLY TO ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS. AND SO THAT'S NOT A, A TOOL NECESSARILY FOR A 30% A MI UNIT, BUT IT MEANS HOUSING STABILITY AND HOUSING AT OBTAINABILITY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DATA THAT YOU LOOKED AT IN SUPPORTING THAT ULTIMATE DECISION? I CAN'T THINK OF ANY BECAUSE THESE SEEM A LITTLE, AN ADO ADO TO ME.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE CITIES THAT YOU USE AS BENCHMARKS AND THEIR GEOGRAPHIC SIZE COMPARED TO DALLAS, THEIR CLIMATE COMPARED TO DALLAS, THE AVAILABILITY OF OTHER TRANSIT OPTIONS COMPARED TO DALLAS AND THE YEAR THAT THEY IMPLEMENTED THESE CHANGES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ACTUAL DATA, IT CONCERNS ME.
SO IS THERE DATA THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US TO SUPPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS QUESTION ABOUT GIVING UP THE INCENTIVES IN OUR MIHD PROGRAM WITH THE IDEA THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE ALL OF THIS OTHER HOUSING IN A CITY LIKE DALLAS? BECAUSE IN FAIRNESS, MINNEAPOLIS IS NOT DALLAS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND THE MOST ANALOGOUS CITY YOU'VE POINTED OUT TO AND THE FOUR THAT YOU MENTIONED IS AUSTIN.
AND I KNOW THAT, THAT YOU'LL AGREE THAT THEIR CHANGES ARE SO RECENT THAT THERE'S NO REAL DATA TO SAY, YES, THIS IS WORKING, OR NO, IT'S NOT.
AND MAYBE IT SHOULD BE TWEAKED, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES EVEN BETWEEN DALLAS AND AUSTIN, RIGHT? I MEAN, AUSTIN ALSO JUST VOTED TO, UM, PAY FOR OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, A LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM THAT DOVETAILS IN WITH THESE TRANSIT DECISIONS.
RIGHT? THAT'S MY, MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT AUSTIN.
AND DALLAS JUST VOTED TO SUE OURSELVES AND PAY FOR COPS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYS WE DON'T NEED.
RIGHT? SO WE'RE KIND OF GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND WE CAN'T IGNORE WHAT THE VOTERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, WHAT, WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES ARE.
I MEAN, EVEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LAST BOND PACKAGE, EVERY TIME THEY GOT
[00:50:01]
A CHANCE, THEY MOVE MONEY TO STREETS AWAY FROM THINGS LIKE HOUSING.RIGHT? I NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK THOSE PACKAGES.
I I'M JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT DATA WE'RE RELYING ON WHEN WE TAKE AWAY A TOOL LIKE THIS AT OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PROGRAM BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT ONE, THAT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT INCENTIVE TO GET PEOPLE TO BUILD IN OUR MIHD PROGRAM.
AND IF IT'S WORTH GIVING UP, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WITH SOME REAL DATA BEHIND IT.
I CAN PROVIDE STUDIES AS FAR AS THE FILTRATION EFFECT.
I THINK, UM, IF WE ARE GOING TO SEARCH FOR CRITERIA ABOUT WHAT CITY IS TRULY LIKE DALLAS ENOUGH, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO SORT OF HAVE A PUBLIC CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
'CAUSE NO CITY IS EXACTLY THE SAME.
I KNOW THAT, UM, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT COME SOON.
ATLANTA, UH, ELIMINATED MINIMUMS FOR A MASSIVE SWATH OF THEIR CITY.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF DATA TRACKING THEY'RE DOING THAT WAS STILL RECENT.
LIKE AUSTIN, I WOULD CALL AUSTIN'S AFFORDABILITY ON LOCK PROGRAM, UM, REAL DATA.
BUT OUTSIDE OF SORT OF THESE SOFT CONSIDERATIONS, THERE'S, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO LOOK FOR DATA BEHIND THESE POLICY MOVES.
WE ALSO NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHEN ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND, UM, PULL THE TRIGGER ON SOMETHING.
BUT A LOT OF THESE CITIES HAVE JUST IMPLEMENTED THIS STUFF IN THE LAST, YOU KNOW, TWO TO THREE, TWO TO THREE YEARS.
SO IF THERE'S DATA, MAYBE YOU CAN PROVIDE IT TO US BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING A LOT OF THAT ONLINE.
UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO GIVEN TO INCLUDING AN RER ANALYSIS TO ENSURE THE REDUCTIONS WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT ESTABLISHED STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO HIGH INTENSITY USES, LIKE BAR RESTAURANT, INDOOR OUTDOOR, AMUSEMENT, AMUSEMENT, CHURCH MORTUARY, CERTAIN TRUCKING INDUSTRIES, THAT KIND OF STUFF? I THINK THE, THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS THAT THE TDMP WOULD ACT AS THE ENHANCED REVIEW.
AND I THINK, UM, I'D INVITE MY COLLEAGUES TO WEIGH IN.
BUT THE TDMP, HOWEVER THE THRESHOLDS ARE ARRANGED, THE LAND USES, ARE ARRANGED, IS INTENDED TO BE THAT, UM, MORE IN DEPTH LOOK AT WHAT ARE CARS DOING, HOW ARE PEOPLE TRANSPORTING THEMSELVES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS USE.
ANDREA TO, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THAT, THAT DIRECTLY UTILIZE THE TYPE OF ANALYSIS WE DO IN AN RAR REVIEW.
AND SORRY, I HAVE TO INTERJECT.
OUR, OUR REVIEWS DOESN'T INVOLVE PARKING, SO IT DOES INVOLVE LOUD SPEAKERS AND OPERATIONAL THINGS, NOT PARKING.
AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND I THINK MICHAEL ALREADY DID OUR RECOMMENDATION AT SOME POINT OR DISCUSS BIG ROBUST DISCUSSION AT ZAC A FEW YEARS BACK, WAS TO HAVE A RES, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN, A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY BUFFER.
UM, THAT PROPOSAL DID NOT WORK.
UM, AND STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTIVE.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMMU AND THE USERS, THE, THE LEASE OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR COMMERCIALS DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE RATIOS OR NOT.
SO WE DECIDED TO ABANDON THAT.
WE TALKED TO FOR WORTH AS WELL.
THEY GAVE US THEIR, UM, OPINION.
IT SAYS THAT IT'S BARELY WORKING FOR THEIR CITY AS WELL.
AND ALSO IT DOESN'T COVER MUCH LAND IN THE CITY.
SO BASICALLY WE FALL BACK ON RATIOS EVERYWHERE.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO EXCLUDING THE MOST INTENSIVE USES FROM THE REDUCTIONS AND BY MOST INTENSIVE USES? I'M TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE BAR, RESTAURANT, UM, LET'S JUST TAKE THAT ONE FOR STARTS.
WE ALREADY DON'T PARK PATIOS, WE DON'T PARK ROOFTOPS THAT ARE UNCOVERED.
UM, WE DON'T PARK PARKLETS, WHICH IN FACT TAKE PARKING AWAY FROM AVAL AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, AVAILABLE PARKING OUT OF THE MIX.
UM, AND MANY OF THESE PLACES ARE WHERE DELTA CREDITS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE AND THEY TEND TO BE ADJACENT TO TO NEIGHBORHOODS.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO TAKING
[00:55:01]
THOSE INTENSIVE USES OUT OF THE REDUCTION OR THE MINIMUM ELIMINATION? SURE.THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT ZAC AT, UM, THE LAST, OR ONE OF THE LAST TWO ZAC MEETINGS.
AND I THINK IN A, IN A SITUATION, UM, LESS THAN THE PROPOSAL TODAY OR, OR MORE, UM, NUANCED THAN THE PROPOSAL TODAY, UM, THOSE WOULD PROBABLY BE THE FIRST BARS AND RESTAURANTS WOULD BE THE FIRST LAND USE THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT FOR MORE NUANCED MINIMUMS. ARE THERE OTHER INTENSIVE USE LAND USES THAT YOU WOULD WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT BESIDES BAR, RESTAURANT? PROBABLY COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR.
THOSE, THOSE AGAIN ARE VARIED, BUT ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY REACH ANY REAL SIZE, UH, THOSE WOULD BE THE FIRST THAT TO REVISIT IF WE WERE DIRECTED TO THAT.
SO, UM, CHURCHES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.
IT'S BEEN MEGA CHURCHES THAT HAVE SEEN THE PARKING ISSUES.
UM, SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.
WE HAVE OUR SCHOOL TMP TO MANAGE QUEUING, THAT KIND OF A THING.
AND SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D BE QUICK TO WANT TO REVISIT THAT, BUT PROBABLY COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT BARS AND RESTAURANTS, UM, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN, HAVE VOICED CONCERN ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S SO MANY VARIABLES THERE, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT IS IN RELATION TO LOW DENSITY HOUSING AND, UM, THE SIZE AND SCALE.
SO, UM, THAT'S, BUT THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP AS A CONCERN.
WELL, I WOULD AGREE THAT SIZE PROBABLY DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
IS GUEST PARKING IN THE MULTIFAMILY AREA SOMETHING THAT YOU HEAR IS THE MOST COMMON COMPLAINT WE DO? UM, IT'S TOUGH TO VERIFY HOW PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.
KIND OF KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN A MIXED USE AREA, KIND OF KNOW WHO'S DRIVING WHAT CAR AND WHO'S GOING TO WHICH PLACES, ESPECIALLY IN MIXED USE AREAS.
UM, THESE ARE PAR PARK ONCE DISTRICTS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE CALLED WHERE SOMEONE WILL PARK AND THEN GO GET AN ICE CREAM AND THEN VISIT THEIR FRIEND AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GO TO A FEW DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
UM, WE'VE HEARD THAT CONCERN ABOUT KIND OF MULTIFAMILY, JUST, UM, IN RESIDENTIAL, PURELY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WE'VE SORT OF GONE DOWN THE PATH OF, UM, WHAT IF WE HAD EITHER NO MINIMUMS OR REDUCED MINIMUMS AND CONTINUED TO REQUIRE GUESTS PARKING OPERATIONALIZING.
BUT WE THINK THAT SOME LANGUAGE KIND OF LIKE, UM, YOU NEED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, 10% OF YOUR PARKING UNRESERVED TO WHERE IT'S STILL ATTACHED TO THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING.
AND THEN OUR CITY INTERPRETATION RIGHT NOW IS THAT IF IT'S BEHIND A GATE, YOU NEED TO HAVE A CALL BOX SO THAT THE PERSON YOU'RE VISITING CAN LET YOU IN.
SO THERE, THERE ARE TOOLS TO DO THAT, UM, IF THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
AND DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF MULTIFAMILY GUESTS COULD ALSO INCLUDE WORKERS, HOUSEKEEPING STAFF, THAT KIND OF STUFF TOO.
RIGHT? I MEAN, CONDOS CERTAINLY HAVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF GUEST INVITES.
AND THERE, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF GUEST, IF THE REGULATION WANTS TO GET THERE, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD WANT TO GO THERE, BUT WE CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT TIME LIMITS ON IT, YOU CAN ALLOW THEM TO CHARGE FOR THOSE SPACES, THAT KIND OF A THING.
AND YOUR CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY HAS A SPECIFIC CALL OUT FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO, UM, GIVING POINTS OR, OR, OR TREATING EMPLOYEE PARKING DIFFERENTLY? UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF PEOPLE PROVIDED OFFSITE EMPLOYEE PARKING, I THINK THAT THERE'S STRATEGIES, WE HAVEN'T EXPLORED THAT AS DEEPLY AS WE DID WITH GUEST PARKING OR SOME OF THE OTHERS, BUT WE KNOW THAT, UM, EMPLOYEE PARKING IS IMPORTANT.
WE, WE ALSO KNOW THAT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR PARKING LOTS.
THEY CAN, UM, YOU KNOW, RESERVE SPACES RIGHT NOW FOR EMPLOYEES IF THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, UM, SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT.
UM, BUT I THINK OVERALL THE TOOLS ARE ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.
AND VERY OFTEN WHAT I'VE HEARD JUST ANECDOTALLY FROM OUR ENGINEERING STAFF IS THAT IF THERE'S AN ODD BUSINESS, UM, IT'S PRODUCING A LITTLE OVERFLOW PARKING INTO A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ONE OF OUR FIRST RESPONSES TO THEM WILL BE WHERE ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES PARKING? YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOUR EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE A LOT EASIER TO ACCEPT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD AND LESS LIKELY TO CAUSE NUISANCES, BLOCK DRIVEWAYS, THAT KIND OF A THING THAN THE ODD CUSTOMER OR VISITOR.
WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, UM,
[01:00:01]
SORT OF NUANCED PLAN WHERE LARGER PROJECTS HAVE TO COME TO STAFF AND WORK ON THIS POINT SYSTEM, COULD PART OF THAT INCLUDE POINTS FOR ADDRESSING EMPLOYEE PARKING? 'CAUSE EMPLOYEE PARKING TENDS TO BE STATIC PARKING.AND WHILE IT'S NICE TO THINK THAT EMPLOYERS GIVE A LOT OF THOUGHT TO THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS OFTEN TRUE AND THEY TEND TO PARK THE MOST CONVENIENT PARKING AND THEN THEY'RE PARKING PIGS.
AND WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE, I DON'T BLAME THEM.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT TENDS TO TAKE UP, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF AVAILABLE PARKING AND, AND MANY TIMES THEY DRIVE TO WORK.
UM, SO I JUST SOMETHING TO PUT IN THE BACK OF YOUR YES.
SOMETHING WORTH FACTORING INTO THE TDMP.
UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LESSENING RESTRICTIONS FOR ONSITE PARKING AGREEMENTS, OR, I'M SORRY, OFFSITE PARKING AGREEMENTS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO UTILIZE ADJACENT OR NEARBY PARKING? YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY WE BASICALLY REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S THE DURATION OF THE LEASE.
AND SO ADJACENT BUILDINGS DON'T WANNA COMMIT THEMSELVES TO A LONG-TERM PARKING AGREEMENT.
IT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO LESSENING THAT SOMEHOW SO THAT WE COULD OPEN UP SOME OF THAT PARKING AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF IF YOUR PARKING AGREEMENT GOES AWAY IMMEDIATELY PULLING YOUR CO HAVING SOME KIND OF PERIOD OF TIME, LIKE SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING WHERE SOMEONE HAS THE ABILITY TO GO GET SUBSTITUTE PARKING BEFORE THEY LOSE THEIR CO, WE DIDN'T EXPLORE THAT.
UM, I'M CLANCY AND MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE INITIAL REACTIONS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ROOM FOR CREATIVITY AND ROOM FOR ANALYSIS IF SOMEONE CAN REALLY ARTICULATE SORT OF THE ISSUES, UH, THAT FOLKS ARE SEEING.
I'M, I'M TOLD BY A LOT OF BROKERS THAT IF WE HAD LESS STRINGENT STANDARDS IN THAT AREA, WE WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE PARKING AGREEMENTS AND WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE SPACES GO UNDERUTILIZED.
ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS IN YOUR OFFICE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A NATURAL DOUBLE USE OF YOUR, YOUR PARKING.
CAN I JUMP INTO THAT? I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE A COMMENT.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS TO, FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, UH, FOR A NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT, THAT TYPE OF AGREEMENT, IT BECOMES A CIVIL AGREEMENT AND THE SHARING WILL NATURALLY OCCUR.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE AND ALLOW THE SHARING TO NATURALLY OCCUR AND BE DRIVEN BY THE USERS.
AND WE DON'T WANT THE CITY TO BECOME, UM, SOME SORT OF A REFEREE IN THE WAY PARKING IS BEING SHARED BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS.
BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS, UH, RATIOS RIGHT NOW, WE KIND OF ARE FORCED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE UNREALISTIC AND NOT RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THE MARKET, HOW THE MARKET FUNCTIONS.
WELL, WE WOULD STILL HAVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THOUGH THAT HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS. OKAY.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REQUIRING SHORT-TERM PARKING FOR THINGS LIKE UBER EATS AND AMAZON, PARTICULARLY FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, GIVEN THE REALITY THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE SPOTS ON SITE, THEY WILL USE THE STREET? IT WAS FACTORED INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE TDMP MM-HMM
UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.
I WAS JUST SPEAKING TO A PLANNER IN MINNEAPOLIS TODAY, AND THEY HAVE SORT OF A, A MINIMUM OF ONE OF, UM, THESE SPACES REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S PRECEDENT AND I THINK IT'S NOT OFF THE TABLE.
SIMILARLY, AND, AND, AND SOME OF THIS IS KIND OF IN LINE WITH VISION ZERO AND TRYING TO, AS WE REDESIGN OUR STREETS TO INCORPORATE MULTIMODAL MORE AND DO MORE TRAFFIC CALMING THINGS IN OUR STREETS, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE DELIVERY TRUCKS PARKING IN