[00:00:01]
ARE YOU READY TO GO? ALRIGHT.[BRIEFINGS]
CALL.DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK.
DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I THINK SHE, SHE MIGHT BE ALL LINE DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE HERE.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN, I'M HERE.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025, 9:07 AM WELCOME TO, UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING THIS MORNING.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE THEM AROUND A LITTLE BIT AND BEGIN WITH THE, THE PARK LANE DEDICATION PIECE, AND THEN GO TO THE PARKING PIECE.
AND WE'LL ALSO, UH, FOLLOW THAT ORDER AT THE HEARING THIS AFTERNOON, AND I SEE OUR FOLKS ARE READY TO GO.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UH, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION.
AS I MENTIONED, WHEN WE PRESENTED TO ZO OAC, UM, THIS IS REALLY ONE OF THE VERY FEW INTERSECTIONS OF, UM, THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND, AND, UH, THE REASON OF COURSE WE'RE HERE TODAY IS, IS PARKLAND DEDICATION.
SO WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND PRESENT TO YOU ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ORDINANCE THAT, UH, IS HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM, UH, FOR THE CONTINUED, UH, GROWTH AND PROVIDING THE SERVICES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A FEW REMARKS AND THEN I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MS. GARDNER, WHO'S GONNA RUN THROUGH A, A SLIDE DECK.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
BUT THE, THE REAL REASON WE'RE HERE, OF COURSE, IS, UH, THE STATE LAW HAS CHANGED.
UH, HOUSE BILL 1526 WAS APPROVED IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND IT, UH, GREATLY AFFECTED, UM, FIVE CITIES IN TEXAS.
UH, OF COURSE, DALLAS IS ONE OF THEM.
THESE ARE THE LARGEST CITIES IN TEXAS, FORT WORTH, DALLAS, SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN, AND HOUSTON.
AND THERE ARE NEW RULES RELATED TO PART DEDICATION.
AND OF COURSE OUR ORDINANCE MUST CONFORM WITH STATE LAW.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING OVER THE PAST YEAR TO BRING THAT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
BUT IT WAS ALSO SOMEWHAT CONVENIENT BECAUSE, UM, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE BOOKS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, IN MY OPINION, UH, WAS VERY COLLABORATIVE, BUT IT WAS ALSO A LITTLE COMPLICATED.
THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF MECHANISMS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED FOR CREDITS AND VARIOUS PERMUTATIONS THAT FRANKLY JUST HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED AT ALL BY ANYONE.
AND SO WE HAVE TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW CHANGE TO GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE TO THE POINT WHERE ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT, WHETHER YOU'RE IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY OR NOT.
SO, UM, WITH THAT VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION, I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO, TO MS. DER WHO'S GONNA RUN THROUGH THE SLIDE DECK.
AND AGAIN, VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR, UH, TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION.
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONER AND MR. CHAIR.
MY NAME IS LAKEISHA GIER AND I'M A MANAGER IN PARK PLANNING.
I'M WITH THE PARTNERSHIP AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES DIVISION OF DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION.
UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A LIST OF STAFF WHO HAVE HELPED SUPPORT ME IN ACQUIRING THE INFORMATION TO AMEND THIS ORDINANCE.
AND SO YOU HAVE RYAN O'CONNOR, WHO'S DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ALSO MY BOSS, UH, ROBIN STEIN SCHNEIDER, WHO CANNOT BE HERE.
SHE'S A SUPERINTENDENT AND LAWRENCE BERGER, WHO IS A GIS GIS THREE ANALYST AND WHO'S MADE MAPS AND ALSO PROVIDES SUPPORT IN MANAGING A PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS.
ALRIGHT, THE PROPOSAL IS A CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 51 A, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 51, A DASH FOUR
[00:05:01]
POINT ARTICLE FOUR 1000 PARKLAND DEDICATION AND RELATED SECTIONS.AND IT'S PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS HOUSE BILL 1526.
LOCATION MAP, WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS APPLICABLE TO EVERY PARCEL IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, THE MAP THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT IS, UM, EXHIBIT A.
AND SO THIS SHOWS OUR CBD, WHICH IS IN GREEN, OUR URBAN AREA, WHICH IS IN BLUE.
AND THEN THE ORANGE IS LAND THAT IS OWNED AND MANAGED BY DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION.
WE HAD TO SUBMIT THIS MAP AS A PARTY REQUIREMENT FOR HB 1526.
AND THIS WAS APPROVED BY COUNSEL LAST JANUARY.
AND SO SOME BACKGROUND IN OUR ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, IT WAS APPROVED IN 2018.
WE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2019 AND WE HAD TWO TYPES OF FEES THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION COULD BE FULFILLED.
WE HAD A FEE IN LIEU AND A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE.
AND THEN WE ALSO ESTABLISHED SEVEN NEXUS ZONES TO GENERATE FEES.
AND THE EXPENDITURES OF THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ARE LIMITED TO LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT.
WE ONLY CHARGE, UM, PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL AND MOTEL DEVELOPMENTS RIGHT NOW.
THE CURRENT CODE ALSO ALLOWS US TO CHARGE FOR COLLEGE AND, UM, FRATERNITY DORMITORY FEES, BUT WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANYONE WITH THAT USE PAY PARK LAND DEDICATION.
UH, WE ALSO OFFER CREDITS FOR CERTAIN AMENITIES AND FLEXIBILITY FOR DEDICATING LAND AND DEVELOPING PARKS WITHIN DEVELOPMENTS.
THE ORDINANCE AS UM, MR. O'CONNOR STATED EARLIER WAS, UM, CREATED THROUGH ADVICE WITH PARK ADVOCATES AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
AND SO TODAY'S UPDATE OF THE ORDINANCE IS A REFLECTION OF NOT ONLY THE STATE BILL THAT WAS PASSED IN 2023, BUT OUR EXPERIENCES WITH IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PAST SIX YEARS.
AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE AND FOR GOING FORWARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENFORCE, I MEAN, WELL, WE WOULD LIKE, WELL, WE WOULD PREFER THAT THE FEE IN LIEU IS COLLECTED OVER DOING LAND DEDICATION.
AND SO THIS IS SOME BACKGROUND.
ONCE AGAIN, THE ORDINANCE IMPACTS FIVE CITIES.
AND SO ANY DALLAS, HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN, AND FORT WORTH.
THIS APPLIES TO ANY, UH, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2024.
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN THE REPORT, SO I WILL SKIP THIS PORTION AS I STATED BEFORE, UM, WELL THIS, IN TERMS OF HB 1526, THIS AFFECTS MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL AND MOTEL DEVELOPMENTS.
THE STATE LAW ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY, UM, INFORMATION TELLING US THAT HOW WE HAVE TO CHANGE HOW WE REGULATE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THEN IT GIVES MUNICIPALITIES THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN REQUIRE A FEE IN LIEU LAND DEDICATION, OR BOTH.
THE, THE STATE LAW ALSO GIVES US TWO WAYS WHERE WE CAN CALCULATE THE FEES.
WE COULD USE SOMETHING THAT THEY CALL THE STANDARD CALCULATION, WHICH IS THIS COMPLEX FORMULA THAT INVOLVES AVERAGE ACRE, AVERAGE VALUE ACRE PER, I MEAN AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE AND DENSITY AND DWELLING FACTORS.
WE HAVE ADDED THIS INTO THE NEW ORDINANCE TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW, BUT THIS IS NOT THE COURSE OF ACTION WE WOULD RECOMMEND.
WE ACTUALLY WOULD PREFER THE FLAT PER UNIT COST, WHICH THE STATE GIVES US THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO DO THIS FEE CALCULATION.
AND THAT IS NO MORE THAN 2% AND MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME.
THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS IS $65,400 BASED ON A FIVE YEAR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY AVERAGE.
AND SO 2% OF THAT FEE IS $1,308.
AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT CALCULATION.
IT LIMITS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO NOT TO ACQUIRE LAND WHERE WE CANNOT TAKE MORE THAN 10% OF THE LAND.
AND IF WE CHOOSE TO ACQUIRE DEDICATION, WE HAVE TO PURCHASE THE LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE
[00:10:01]
MINUS THE FEE CALCULATION FOR THE LAND THAT WE ACQUIRE.UH, THE FEES AND LAND DEDICATION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR MULTIFAMILY AND CITY, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL AND MOTEL USES.
GOING FORWARD AT THE CURRENT TIME UNTIL THE STATE LAW WENT INTO EFFECT, WE WERE COLLECTING THESE FEES AT THE TIME, A PERMIT REGARDLESS OF USE.
UM, THE LAW IS ALSO SILENT ON THE NEXUS PRINCIPLES, THE USE OF FEES, REIMBURSEMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS.
AND THEN WE ALSO WERE ALREADY EXCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I MEAN AFFORDABLE UNITS.
WE, THE DALLAS VOTING CODE CALLS THAT RESERVE DWELLING UNITS, BUT WE, THE STATE DOESN'T TOUCH ON THIS.
AND YOU'LL SEE LATER ON IN THE UM, PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS, WE ALREADY WERE NOT CHARGING AFFORDABLE UNITS AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO NOT CHARGE AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND SO, UM, AS YOU, THIS IS ANOTHER SUMMARY OF STATE LAW.
WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A SUBURBAN URBAN AND CBD AREA.
WE DO NOT HAVE A SUBURBAN AREA AND THEN WE HAVE TO TURN OVER THESE APPRAISAL VALUES EVERY 10 YEARS.
AND THEN YOU SEE THE DW UNIT FACTORS AND THE DWELLING UNIT AND DENSITY FACTORS.
WE'RE NOT USING THIS INFORMATION, BUT WE'RE ADDING IN IN OUR ORDINANCE JUST TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
AND SO OUR NEW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE THAT WE UTILIZE THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE LAND DEDICATIONS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND BASICALLY CHARGE YOUR FEE FOR ALL PARKLAND DEDICATION.
WE WILL ONLY PURSUE LAND DEDICATION IN AREAS OF HIGH NEED OF PARK ACCESS.
UH, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO REDRAW THE PARK DEDICATION ZONES BY CRAFTING FIVE FROM NOW.
WE HAVE SEVEN THAT RECRUIT CREATE LARGER GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL ALLOW THE FUND TO ACCRUE UM, MONEY MORE QUICKLY SINCE WE HAVE LESS ZONES.
WE ALSO RECOMMEND UTILIZING THE MAXIMUM TO 2% FLAT FEE METHODOLOGY.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHARGE 2% FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY USES.
SO ANY MULTI-FAMILY UNIT THAT'S TWO BEDROOMS OR MORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CHARGE 2% AND 1% FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES.
THERE ARE ONE BEDROOM AND 1% FOR HOTEL AND MOTEL USES.
WE ALSO WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER OTHER USES FOR THE FUND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE CAN ONLY USE IT FOR ACQUISITION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BUILD IN CALLS FOR OVERSIGHT AND INCREASED INDIRECT COSTS DEALING, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD RISING ACQUISITION COSTS AND OTHER DUE DILIGENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED WHEN WE DECIDE TO ACQUIRE LAND.
THIS IS THE CURRENT MAP AND THEN YOU SEE THE FIVE ZONES MAP THAT IS PROPOSED HERE.
WE DECIDED TO HAVE MORE NATURAL BUFFERS THAT WERE BREAKING UP THE AREA, I MEAN THE ZONES BASED ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UH, RIGHT NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MAP THAT SHOWS THE LOCATIONS WHERE PARKLAND DEDICATION HAVE BEEN COLLECTED.
THE CITY HAS APPROXIMATELY 300,000 PARCELS TOTAL.
WE'VE COLLECTED PARKLAND DEDICATION ON 4,300 PARCELS SINCE 2019.
AND SO THE MAP RIGHT HERE IS OUR PREFERRED SCENARIO, ONE WITH THE FIVE ZONES.
AND THEN ONCE AGAIN, THE DODGE JUST REPRESENT AND THEN THE OTHER TWO MOUNTS WERE PROVIDED AS A COURTESY BASED ON SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ZAC.
AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE PLAYED AROUND WITH THE BORDERS A LITTLE BIT, HOW THAT WOULD CHANGE THE FUNDING FOR THE ZONES, WHICH IS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM.
AND SO WE SAW THAT IT WAS PRETTY MUCH RELATIVELY THE SAME, BUT WE WOULD STILL PREFER MAP ONE.
AND THEN THIS IS A TABLE OF OUR FEE CALCULATIONS THAT I TOUCHED UPON EARLIER WHERE I'M BREAKING DOWN HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE $1,308 PER DWELLING UNIT OR $654 PER DWELLING UNIT.
THIS TABLE THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING SHOWN IS SHOWING WHAT ARE THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY HB 1526 ARE CHARGING AUSTIN.
AND AUSTIN HAS DECIDED TO NOT USE THE SIMPLE FEE OR THE FLAT FEE CALCULATION.
THEY HAVE DECIDED TO GO THROUGH THE STANDARD CALCULATION, WHICH WE FELT WAS HONORS.
WE KNOW THAT THAT FORT WORTH IS CHARGING 1800 PER UNIT AND HOUSTON HASN'T MADE ANY
[00:15:01]
CHANGES AT THEIR TIME.I DON'T HAVE A FEE FOR SAN ANTONIO BECAUSE SAN ANTONIO DOES NOT CHARGE PARKLAND ON HOTEL MOTEL USES AND MULTIFAMILY.
ALSO, SAN ANTONIO HASN'T COLLECTED A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE SINCE MARCH OF 2022.
AND SO THE TABLE PROVIDED HERE ALSO SHOWS WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS ARE SHOWING.
THERE ARE A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 28 OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE METROPLEX THAT CHARGE A PARKLAND FEE.
WE ACTUALLY ARE ONE OF THE CITIES WITH THE YOUNGEST PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE
WE CAN ALSO SEE THAT PLANO CHARGES 2,865 AND OTHER PLACES CHARGE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
AND SO WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHARGE OUR FEES WILL PUT US IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE OTHER, UM, MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE AREA WOULD CHARGE FOR THE FEES.
AND SO OUR RATIONALE FOR THE LOW FEE CALCULATION IS THAT IT'S SIMPLER MATHEMATIC FORMULA.
IT'S GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT 2% OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT WOULD, IT IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIGURE OUT THAT AMOUNT.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REMOVES THE POTENTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR APPEALS BASED ON APPRAISAL DISTRICT VALUES.
AND WE FEEL THAT IT IS FAIR THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY TWO BEDROOM WOULD PAY THE SAME RATE.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT HOTEL MOTEL USES WOULD PAY A LOWER RATE BECAUSE THEY ARE TEMPORARY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PARK SYSTEM.
AND BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY UNITS DEVELOP OUR ONE BEDROOM UNITS, WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH CHARGING THEM 1% INSTEAD OF THE FULL TWO.
AND THEN AS A RESULT OF THE STATE LAW, THIS SIMPLIFIES OUR FEE STRUCTURE.
INSTEAD OF US CHARGING TWO FEES, WE WOULD ONLY JUST CHARGE ONE FEE.
AND SO THE REST OF THESE SLIDES JUST SHOW THE DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ORDINANCE.
UM, SO THESE ARE THE FEES OF $900.
WE DECIDE TO CHARGE AN APPLICATION FEE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT TAKES STAFF RESOURCES AT TIMES TO REVIEW AND PREPARE REPORTS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARDS OF POP WHEN IF AN APPEAL COMES TO PARK AND RECREATION, UH, WE'RE SHOWING RIGHT NOW THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COLLECTS THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.
THAT WAS WHAT WAS INITIALLY WORKED OUT IN 2019.
PARK AND RECREATION COLLECTS THAT FEE.
AND THEN YOU ALSO SEE THAT THE FEE STRUCTURE WHERE WE HAD THE AMOUNTS BROKEN UP IS GOING TO JUST READ EITHER 2% OR 1% IMMEDIATE FAMILY INCOME.
AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE COLLEGE GER DORMITORY PATERNITY IS SORORITY HOUSE.
YOU ALSO SEE ON THE CURRENT TEXT, WE WERE TRYING TO CALCULATE THE FEE ON OCTOBER.
I MEAN INCREASE THE FEE ON OCTOBER ONE BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE FISCAL YEAR STARTS IN DALLAS.
BUT WE RECOGNIZED THAT WE WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE NEW MFI WOULD BE UNTIL MID-SEPTEMBER, AND THAT ISN'T ENOUGH TIME FOR STAFF TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN DO THE INPUTS AND GIVE PROPER NOTICE AND INCREASE THE FEES.
AND SO WE DECIDED TO MAKE THE FEE INCREASES TIED TO THE CALENDAR YEAR INSTEAD OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
UH, OUR CURRENT, WE ALSO ARE PROPOSING LANGUAGE WHERE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR CPI.
WE WANT TO GET RID OF THAT DEFINITION AND PUT MFI INSTEAD BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATE THAT MFI WILL GO UP EVERY YEAR AND SO OUR FEE WOULD INCREASE MORE LIKELY IF WE TIED IT TO MFI VERSUS CPI.
AND WE ARE BASING OUR FEE ON MFI ANYWAY.
SO CPEI IS NOT REALLY A RELEVANT FACTOR.
UH, THESE ARE THE DEFINITIONS WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD.
SO THE DENSITY FACTOR AND THE DWELLING UNIT FACTOR, WHAT WE MEAN BY PLAN AND THE RESERVE DWELLING UNITS, WHICH IS BASICALLY DALLAS'S WAY OF SAYING AFFORDABLE UNITS.
UH, THIS SLIDE, I'VE JUST ADDED THIS LAST MINUTE TO SHOW THAT INITIALLY STAFF DID RECOMMEND A MINIMUM LAND DEDICATION OF ONE ACRE, AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.
ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT WE REDUCE THAT, UM, MINIMUM DEDICATION TO HALF AN ACRE.
I DID NOT HIGHLIGHT THAT CHANGE IN THE REPORT, BUT UM, I ACCEPTED, I, I MEAN I ACCEPT ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION
[00:20:01]
AND WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO ACCEPT ZAC RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.WHAT TERMS NEED TO BE DEFINED AND EVERYTHING.
SO, UH, THIS IS JUST CONFRONTATION AND TIME.
AND THEN INFORMATION REGARDING THE FEE IN LIEU.
RIGHT NOW WHAT, WELL, THIS LANGUAGE SHOWS THAT WE CHANGED THE ZONE RIGHT NOW DOWNTOWN AND A PORTION AND UPTOWN PRETTY MUCH MAKE UP ZONE SEVEN.
WE, SINCE WE'RE REDUCING DOWNTOWN TO WHERE WE FEEL THE CBD IS, WE CHANGED THE PARK ZONE FROM SEVEN TO ONE.
AND THEN WE WANT TO USE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED WITHIN DOWNTOWN TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY IN THE CITY'S TRAIL SYSTEM AND HELP USE THAT MONEY TO APPLY FOR OTHER ZONES.
AND BECAUSE DOWNTOWN TOUCHES ALL OTHER ZONES, WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S AN APPLICABLE USE BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY MORE SPACE TO BUILD PARKS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
UH, STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING CHANGES FOR HOW WE USE EXPENDITURES.
AT THIS POINT, WE CANNOT USE PARKLAND FOR ANY STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES, AND WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 10% FOR INDIRECT COSTS.
STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT WE INCREASE THAT TO 20% TOTAL FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT COSTS RELATED TO INDIRECT COSTS.
AND EVEN THOUGH THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT REFLECTED TODAY, WE WOULD LIKE TO USE NO MORE THAN 10% FOR STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES BECAUSE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS, REVIEWING THE ACCOUNT, MANAGING THE FUND, THE TRACKING, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE 10 YEARS TO EXPEND THE FUNDS WE WOULD LIKE IF CPC WOULD PREFER, WE WOULD RECOMMEND ALSO THAT WE CAP THE STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES BECAUSE THAT IS TIME AND RESOURCES THAT STAFF HAS TO USE TO BANISH THE FUND.
UH, LASTLY THIS IS, I MEAN, WELL ACTUALLY THIS IS ALSO SHOWING THAT RIGHT NOW WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT ANYONE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY USE OR DUPLEX USE, THEY PAY THEIR PARKLAND FEE WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THEIR PERMIT.
AND WE ARE SHOWING THE CHANGE LANGUAGE FOR THE PARKLAND DEDICATION DETERMINATION.
THIS IS TO MAKE US IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND THEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW THIS REQUEST.
AND SO THAT'S JUST THE LANGUAGE.
AND THEN THE STATE LAW MANDATES THAT WE HAVE 30 DAYS FROM WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST A LETTER OF DETERMINATION THAT WE HAVE TO ISSUE THAT LETTER TO THEM.
AND SO THESE ARE HOW THE TIMELINES ARE CALCULATED AND WHAT THE AND OF, UM, LETTER IS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS OR WHENEVER THE PERSON APPLIES FOR PERMITS, WHICHEVER IS LESS TIME.
UH, THIS IS JUST A STANDARD LANGUAGE ABOUT THE CBD, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SHOWN A MAP AND HOW THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CALCULATED.
THIS IS PRETTY MUCH LANGUAGE THAT'S SIMILAR TO HB 1526.
AND THEN THIS IS ALSO THE INFORMATION FOR THE DWELLING UNIT FACTOR AND DENSITY FACTORS ESTABLISHED, WHICH WE'RE STATING WE'RE ADDING IT BECAUSE OF STATE LAW.
WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF USING THIS TO CALCULATE FEES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, AN APPEAL PROCESS THAT'S MANDATED BY THE STATE LAW, EVEN THOUGH A PERSON CAN APPEAL TO CPC BASED ON CPCS, UM, APPEAL PROCESS, THE, OR, WE DECIDED TO MODEL THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THAT.
WE KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION CPC, THEY CAN APPEAL TO COUNCIL AND THEN EVENTUALLY TO A COURT.
AND SO WE DECIDE TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS VERSUS MAKING WHATEVER APPEALS JUST STAND AT CPC AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND SO THIS, THE LANGUAGE ON THE NEXT FLU SLIDES JUST REFLECTS THAT.
UM, OUR NEXT STEPS IS THAT WE PLAN ON CONTINUE TO WORK WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND ALL PRIVATE CITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF TO UPDATE THE PLAN APPLICATION PROCESS TO REFLECT THE NEW PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.
WE ALSO WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH, UM, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ON ACELA AND CARDIOGRAPH, WHICH WE ARE SCHEDULING TO MANAGE, I MEAN, LAUNCH THAT SOFTWARE IN 2025.
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF UPCOMING CHANGES AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR WEBSITE AS WELL.
[00:25:01]
PARK LAND DEDICATION LANDING PAGE ON A PARK AND RECREATION NEW WEBSITE WHEN WE LAUNCH IN SPRING OF 2025.OTHERWISE, WE JUST WANT TO CONTINUE SHARING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN PUBLIC.
AND WE WERE APPROVED BY ZAC IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
AND NOW WE ARE BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY.
AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE A FINAL COMMENT, YOU KNOW, OUR GENERAL APPROACH IN THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM IS, IS COLLABORATION.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT WE HAVE, UH, BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
UM, I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THEIR TIME AND ENERGY THEY'VE PUT IN THIS AND THEIR THINKING.
UM, I'M, I CAN'T TELL YOU WE AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE DETAIL OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT I JUST WANT TO, UH, PUBLICLY THANK, UH, OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO GETTING US TO THIS POINT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, UH, A COUPLE THINGS THAT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE CLEAR IN MY MIND, 65,000 IS THE A MI IS THAT A FA WHAT FAMILY SIZE IS THAT? AND SO A MI AND MFI GET USED INTERCHANGEABLY, BUT IT'S USUALLY TYPICALLY FOR THE SIZE OF A FAMILY OF FOUR FOUR, YES.
I WAS THINKING IT WAS MUCH HIGHER FOR A FAMILY OF LIKE 90,000 OR SOMETHING.
AND SO ACTUALLY THE DALLAS MFI BASED, IF WE LOOKED AT IT FROM A YEARLY PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT NOW IT SITS AROUND 72,800.
BUT THE STATE LAW MANDATES THAT WE USE THE FIVE YEAR AVERAGE.
AND SO WE HAD TO TAKE THE MFI FROM 2020 TO 2024.
AND SO THE AVERAGE OF THOSE FIVE YEARS IS 65,400.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT NUMBER.
AND FOR PERSPECTIVE, FORT WORTH IS ABOUT 90,000 MM-HMM
WHICH IS CONSEQUENTLY WHY THEY'RE CHARGING $1,800 PER UNIT USING 2% OF 90,000.
NOW, THE PROCESS, I'M A DEVELOPER.
I'M GOING TO BUILD A HUNDRED HOMES.
UH, SUPPOSE THAT I DEDICATE, SUPPOSE THAT I SAY AS PART OF THE AMENITIES OF MY DEVELOPMENT, I'M GONNA PUT IN TWO ACRES OF, OF OPEN LAND FOR THE OWNERS.
DOES THAT COUNT TOWARDS PARKLAND DEDICATION? IT DOES NOT.
AND IT, IT DOES CURRENTLY TODAY.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAD THOSE CREDIT MECHANISMS BUILT INTO THE OLD ORDINANCE, I'M GOING TO REFER TO IT AS NOT A SINGLE TIME IN ALL THE YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS ORDINANCE HAS A DEVELOPER SOUGHT THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO AGAIN, AS UM, SEEING THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIMPLIFY THINGS, WE'VE REMOVED THOSE CREDIT MECHANISMS BECAUSE THEY FRANKLY JUST HAVEN'T BEEN UTILIZED.
OUR DAUGHTER LIVES DOWN IN MANSFIELD AND THEY'VE BUILT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS DOWN THERE WITH TRAILS AND PARKS AND LAKES.
AND SO I'M, WHAT I'M USED TO SEEING IS NEW HOMES BEING BUILT AND THEY'RE BUILDING ALL THIS PARKLAND IN THERE, BUT IT IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN DALLAS.
AND I WOULD TELL YOU, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, BEING IN THE, IN THE ROLE THAT YOU'RE IN, A LOT OF WHAT WE SEE IN DALLAS IS INFILL.
YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T REALLY SEE THOSE TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN LARGE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE PUTTING IN LAKES AND ALL THESE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, AMENITIES IN THEIR SUBDIVISIONS.
WE JUST DON'T REALLY SEE THAT HERE IN TOWN.
AND SO IT'S PROBABLY, UH, I'M GUESSING WHAT I'M HEARING, IT'S CHEAPER FOR A DEVELOPER TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF THAN TO ACTUALLY ACQUIRE OR DEDICATE YES, SIR.
EXISTING LAND IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
I I'M SURE YOU CAN ASK ANY DEVELOPER AND THEY'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO US IS TIME AND BY, BY PAYING THE, THE PAYING THE RELATIVELY, UH, AFFORDABLE FEE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO MOVE QUICKLY AND THE, THE PROCESS BY WHICH TAKES TO CONSIDER DEDICATING LAND AND THAT SORT OF THING.
JUST, THAT'S BEEN THEIR, THAT HAS BEEN THEIR PREFERENCE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE.
THE FUNDS THAT GO INTO THIS CAN BE USED IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, YOU HAVE TO APPLY THE NEXUS PRINCIPLE, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE ZONES.
SO THE, THE LOGIC THERE IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHERE THE FEE IS GENERATED AND THE FEE IS EXPENDED.
AND SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE HAVE CREATED THESE ZONES THAT LAKEISHA SHARED WITH Y'ALL THAT THE, THE FEES GENERATED IN THAT ZONE NEED TO BE SPENT IN THAT ZONE.
THERE IS OUR, THERE ARE A COUPLE, UH, EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S IT.
BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY SPACE LEFT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OR, WELL, AS YOU MAY KNOW, WE HAVE IN THE DALLAS PARK SYSTEM, WE HAVE SPENT YEARS, UH, REALLY IMPROVING THE, THE PARK ENVIRONMENT DOWNTOWN RECENTLY WITH THE, THE MOST RECENT COMPLETION OF HARWOOD PARK.
AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PARK EXECUTIVE, WE HAVE REALLY, UM,
[00:30:01]
BUILT OUT THE, THE, THE PARK SPACE THAT WILL, UH, BE REQUIRED IN DOWNTOWN FOR YEARS TO COME.AND SO FOR THAT REASON, UH, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED DOWNTOWN BE ABLE TO BE USED IN THE OTHER ZONES TO MAKE KEY TRAIL CONNECTIONS, WHICH DOWNTOWN IS KIND OF THE HUB OF THE SPOKE, SO TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
UM, YEAH, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
WHAT'S THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO USE THIS, UH, TO REQUIRE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO PAY INTO THIS FUND? SO, AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE, THE HOUSE BILL WAS SILENT ON SINGLE FAMILY, UH, ANY SORT OF SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO I, I MAY ASK MY COLLEAGUES IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO CHIME IN, BUT THE, UM, THE LEGAL THINKING IS THAT, UM, SINCE THE LAW WAS SILENT, CITIES HAD THE DISCRETION ON HOW THEY WANT TO TREAT SINGLE FAMILY.
AND WE'VE SEEN EVERY SINGLE CITY, UM, THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS HOUSE BILL CONTINUE TO ASSESS A FEE OR A DEDICATION REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
HAS THERE BEEN A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THAT? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
'CAUSE I'M, I'M AWARE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS BILL AND THAT IT WAS INCLUDED AND THEN EXCLUDED.
SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME? MORNING COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND EVERYONE ELSE? UH, SO I WOULD, FOR THE LEGAL AUTHORITY, I WOULD POINT YOU TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION TWO 12.203, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT CHAPTER, UM, THAT, THAT THE SUB-CHAPTER THAT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION IS IN THAT YOU SHOULD NOT INTERPRET THAT CHAPTER, TO PROHIBIT A CITY FROM REQUIRING A DEDICATION OF LAND OR FEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY USES IS WHAT THE, UH, STATUTE SAYS.
SO SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX USES.
SO CITIES CAN CONTINUE TO REQUIRE PARKLAND DEDICATION OR PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES.
UM, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE IN THE FUND NOW AND ARE THERE PLANS TO USE IT CLOSE TO 13 MILLION APPROXIMATELY? AND WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THAT? WELL, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT IS, UH, THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS IS REALLY THE, WELL, FRANKLY, WE HAVEN'T, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY, UM, LAND ACQUISITION FUNDING IN THE BOND PROGRAM, THE CURRENT 2024 BOND PROGRAM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO KIND OF SIGNATURE INITIATIVES.
SO THIS SOURCE OF FUNDS WILL BE, UM, THE WAY THAT WE ACQUIRE PARKLAND OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS.
SO AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THOSE OPPORTUNITIES KIND OF PRESENT THEMSELVES IN ORGANIC WAY.
AND SO WHEN WE SEE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY ACQUIRE PROPERTY, THIS WILL BE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT WE UTILIZE.
IF A DEVELOPER DEDICATES LIKE A TRAILHEAD OR TRAIL FACILITY, THAT DOESN'T COUNT, DOES IT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WHY NOT? WELL, AGAIN, IS, IS WHAT I SAID WITH THE GENTLEMAN, UH, TO MY LEFT, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE CREDIT MECHANISMS WERE IN PLACE IN THE OLD ORDINANCE, BUT WE FOUND OVER THE COURSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE ORDINANCE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THOSE MECHANISMS JUST SIMPLY WEREN'T USED.
AND SO, AGAIN, IN AN EFFORT TO REALLY SIMPLIFY THIS THING SO EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT VERY CLEARLY AND NOT TRY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND PRIVATELY ACCESSIBLE PARKLAND AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, WE HAVE JUST SIMPLY SAID, WE WILL CHARGE A FEE OR REQUIRE, I I REFER TO IT AS AN ACQUISITION OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO TO SATISFY THE ORDINANCE.
DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO INCLUDING A PROVISION THAT IF A DEVELOPER, UM, PROVIDES KEY TRAIL AMENITIES AND DEDICATES THEM TO THE CITY, THAT THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL? I ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY FROM THEIR DEVELOPMENTS TO THE TRAIL NETWORK.
WE WANT TO SEE THAT ALL OVER THE CITY.
SHOULD THERE BE A CREDIT MECHANISM FOR THAT WHEN GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IS AN AMENITY TO THAT DEVELOPMENT? THEY'RE PROBABLY BUILDING THAT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF ITS ADJACENCY TO THE TRAIL NETWORK.
UM, THAT IS, UH, THAT'S REALLY KIND OF A POLICY DECISION.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO THE SAME THING.
I'M GONNA BE A BIT OF A BROKEN RECORD ON THE RESPONSE TODAY IS THAT WE JUST HAVEN'T SEEN DEVELOPERS SEEK THOSE TYPES OF CREDITS THAT JUST SIMPLY WANT TO PAY THE FEE.
WELL, WE'RE SEEING MORE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TRAIL, PARTICULARLY IN UPTOWN.
AND SO IF WE PRECLUDE THAT AS AN OPTION, WE CERTAINLY WON'T
[00:35:01]
SEE IT IN THE FUTURE, WILL WE? I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THAT.I I WOULD, UH, I WOULD GUESS THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE IT BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THE RE UM, WHEN YOU HAVE A TRAIL AND IT'S HIGHLY USED DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS IT, WE'RE SEEING THAT ALL OVER THE CITY.
UM, I KNOW, UH, YOU REPRESENT DISTRICT 14 AND YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE SEEING AROUND OUR TRAIL NETWORKS AND THE, AND THE ACTIVITY THAT DEVELOPERS ARE, ARE PURSUING ON THE TRAIL NETWORKS.
SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
YOU DON'T AGREE THAT DEVELOPERS MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILL THEIR PARKLAND DEDICATION BY DEDICATING TRAIL FACILITY AND AMENITIES? I, I DISAGREE THAT IF WE HAVE A CREDIT MECHANISM IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD STOP BUILDING TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN.
I THINK THEY WILL, I THINK REGARDLESS IF THERE'S A CREDIT MECHANISM, I THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE DENSITY AROUND THE TRAIL NETWORK.
BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THEM DEDICATING IT TO THE CITY.
AGAIN, WE VERY MUCH ENCOURAGE THAT.
IT'S JUST SIMPLY A QUESTION OF DO THEY GET CREDIT FOR IT IN THE ORDINANCE OR NOT.
YEAH, AGAIN, UH, THAT'S, THAT WOULD VERY MUCH BE A, A POLICY DECISION.
AND WE'RE THE POLICY BOARD A HUNDRED PERCENT.
WE WELCOME YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK.
WHY DID THIS TAKE A YEAR TO GET TO US? UM, I WOULD SAY THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, CODE AMENDMENTS ARE SOMEWHAT, UH, CHALLENGING PROCESSES AND IT REQUIRES COLLABORATION WITH ALL SORTS OF PARTIES.
UM, AND IT, IT JUST TAKES TIME.
THAT'S REALLY ALL, THAT'S ONLY THE WAY I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY, HOW MUCH PARK DEDICATION MONEY WE DIDN'T COLLECT IN THE YEAR IT TOOK TO GET TO US? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE THAT ANALYSIS.
WHY NOT? WE'D BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.
I FEEL SURE SOMEONE ON COUNSEL'S GONNA ASK THAT QUESTION, SO YOU PROBABLY OUGHT TO KNOW IT.
UM, CAN YOU GO OVER WITH ME AGAIN WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS ON HOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE HOW FUNDS WOULD BE USED? WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT WE LARGELY INTEND TO USE THEM IN THE SAME WAY, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AS WELL AS PARK DEVELOPMENT AND A, UM, RELATIVELY MODEST INCREASE IN THE, UM, IN THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH, UM, ACQUIRING THE LAND.
AND THEN A, AGAIN, A MODEST INCREASE FOR THE STAFF TIME TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.
WELL, I DON'T CALL DOUBLE A MODEST INCREASE, I WANNA BE REAL SPECIFIC ON WHAT IT IS YOU WANT APPROVAL OF BECAUSE 10% IS PRETTY STANDARD AND YOU WANNA DOUBLE THAT.
AND I WANNA UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO IMPROVE, TO APPROVE, BECAUSE TAKING THE MONEY OUT OF THE, BUYING THE PARKLAND KITTY AND PUTTING IT INTO THE STAFF CAN USE IT HOWEVER THEY WANT.
WELL, AND I WANNA KNOW HOW EXACTLY YOU'RE PROPOSING TO USE THAT 20%.
I THINK, I GUESS THE SIMPLEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WOULD BE WE PROPOSE TO USE THE INCREASE TO COVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STAFF EXPENSES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING EXPENSES THAT WE OCCUR WHEN WE DO ACQUIRE PARKLAND.
I'M GONNA OBJECT TO THAT AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE.
I WANNA KNOW THE CATEGORY OF THINGS YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY ON.
HOW DO YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY? WE WANNA SPEND THE MONEY ON THE, AGAIN, THE EXPENSES THAT ARE WE TYPICALLY, WE TYPICALLY SEE WHEN WE'RE ACQUIRING PARKLAND.
THOSE ARE THINGS SUCH AS THE PREPARATION OF FIELD NOTES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, ANY SORT OF OTHER DUE DILIGENCE THAT'S REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY, WHICH IS A, A NORMAL CITY PROCESS.
AND THE A PERCENTAGE WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD FRANKLY, THE ENTIRE COST OF THE STAFF TIME TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.
BUT SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE STAFF COST TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM CA AT 20%.
HOW MANY STAFF MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE CURRENTLY THAT ADMINISTER THE PARK DEDICATION PROGRAM? WE HAVE A, A MANAGER.
[00:40:01]
A GIS ANALYST AND A, AND A PERCENTAGE OF A FINANCIAL ANALYST.AND ON AVERAGE, HOW MUCH PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS DO WE COLLECT AS A CITY? EVERY YEAR? ON AVERAGE, WE'VE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF MILLION.
AND SO THE, UM, $12 MILLION THAT WE HAVE NOW, THAT'S NOT, WE HAVE 15 MILLION.
WE ACTUALLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY ON 1 0 3 4 5 CHAPEL WEB CHAPEL ROAD.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE FUND BALANCE DECREASED.
BUT ADDING THE SIX YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE, WE'VE ONLY ACQUIRED ONE PROPERTY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE 10 YEARS TO EXPAND THE FUNDS.
AND SO WE EVENTUALLY, ONCE WE GET THE ORDINANCE UPDATE, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP WITH A FUNDING PLAN ON HOW WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY, BUT ALSO GENERATE MORE FEES IN THE FUTURE.
SO ON AVERAGE, YOUR 10% IS ABOUT $350,000 FOR STAFF FOR TWO AND A HALF STAFF MEMBERS? WELL, I SHOULD CLARIFY.
WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY DOING THAT.
WE'RE NOT, THE STAFF COST TODAY IS NOT BEING, IT'S NOT BEING, UM, CHARGED TO THE FUND.
WHY NOT? BECAUSE THERE WAS GUIDANCE GIVEN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT STAFF COSTS WOULD BE AN EXPENSE THAT WOULD BE A BIT OF A GRAY AREA.
SO BEING CONSERVATIVE, WE HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO, UH, HAVE THOSE COSTS REFLECTED AGAINST THE FUND.
UH, TO TRY TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE, UM, TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS SPENDING ANY OF THE PARKLAND IDENTIFICATION FEES ON STAFF.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I'M READING HERE.
THIS SAYS THIS MAY NOT BE USED FOR CITY STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND THAT INDIRECT COSTS REASONABLY INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH PARK ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENT, LEGAL EXPENSE, ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL COSTS, AND ENGINEERING AND DESIGN COSTS ARE LIMITED TO 10%.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING NOW IS FOR THE INDIRECT COSTS SPECIFICALLY TO BE INCREASED TO 20% PLUS, YOU'RE AT ADDING AN ADDI, IF I UNDERSTOOD THE, UH, AMENDMENT CORRECTLY, YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10% TO BE STAFF, SO THAT WOULD BE 30% OF THE AMOUNT? NO MA'AM.
IT WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20% TOTAL.
WELL THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THE, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS WORDED IS THERE'S NO CAP AT ALL ON THE AMOUNT THAT COULD BE USED FOR CITY STAFF OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND THE INDIRECT COST WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20%.
SO I THINK THERE'D BE NEEDS TO BE A, A LANGUAGE CHANGE THERE IF THAT IS THE INTENTION.
AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN WITHIN THAT 20%, HOW MUCH OF THAT 20% COULD BE ALLOCATED TO STAFF? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY HELP IF IT WERE CLARIFIED.
UM, WERE THERE OTHER, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT I I PLEASE GO AHEAD OR OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER.
NO, COMMISSIONER, HOUSE COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON CLEARED UP ALL MY QUESTIONS, SO THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK, THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR STAFF, BUT I THINK YOU GUYS COULD PROBABLY ANSWER AS WELL.
IT, UM, DOES THIS GET LOOKED AT, IS THERE SOMETHING INTO THE STATUTE THAT SAYS WE LOOK AT THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS OR TWO YEARS, OR, YES SIR, THERE IS.
AND SO IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THE CHANGE IN STATE LAW COINCIDED WITH THAT TIME PERIOD, SO YES.
WOULD IT, WHEN, WHEN WOULD WE LOOK, DEPENDING ON HOW WE, UH, VOTE TODAY, WHEN WOULD THIS BE LOOKED AT AGAIN? I I BELIEVE IT'S FIVE YEARS, CORRECT? YES.
WE WOULD LOOK AT IT IN 2029 AGAIN.
UH, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY IN PART IN LINE WITH OUR FIRST REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE AND NEXT QUESTION IS THAT THE 2% IS A, IS A, IS A STATE MAXIMUM, BUT WE COULD TODAY LOOK AT A DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE, CORRECT? YES SIR.
THAT'S CERTAINLY A POLICY DECISION, BUT AS YOU MAY RECALL FROM THE PRESENTATION, WE ARE, UH, RECOMMENDING A PERCENTAGE, LESS THAN 2% FOR HOTEL MOTEL UNIT AND MULTIFAMILY, ONE BED OR LESS.
SORRY, THIS MAY BE A SLIGHTLY IGNORANT QUESTION, BUT THE $900 FEE THAT
[00:45:01]
PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY, UM, FOR THIS, DOES THAT $900 GO TO STAFF FOR THE REPORTS AND PREPARATION OF THE REPORTS? YOU COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? THE, YOU HAVE TO PAY A $900 FEE CORRECT.FOR AN APPEAL? SO THAT'S FOR AN APPEAL.
RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY FEES OR MECHANISMS TO HANDLE APPEALS IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
AND SO THE APPEAL SECTION WAS MANDATED BY HB 1526 AND WE DECIDED AT $900 BECAUSE THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SETS THEIR FEES.
AND SO THAT'S, WE DID FEES THAT WERE SIMILAR TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY.
OKAY, SO THE ADDITIONAL 10% THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR STAFF, THAT GOES TOWARD THE INITIAL REPORTS AND RESEARCH AND FIELD WORK? YES, BECAUSE I, AS A STAFF PERSON, I HAVE TO FILL QUESTIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY HA IS REQUIRED TO, UM, PAY DEDICATION.
I ALSO HAVE TO DO HISTORICAL RESEARCH BECAUSE WE SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE PAID AND DEPENDING ON IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE REPLACEMENT OF A BUILDING OR TEAR DOWN, LIKE IF SOMEONE'S HOUSE CATCHES FIRE AND THEY PAY PARKLAND IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I WOULD NOT CHARGE THEM TO REBUILD THEIR HOUSE.
AND IF IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE REPLACEMENT, NOW IF IT'S ONE PERSON COMING IN AND SAYING WE HAD 10 UNITS, WE TORE IT DOWN, WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD 50, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE NET DENSITY BECAUSE IT'S AN INCREASE IN DENSITY THAT RESULTS IN THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN APPEAL TO THE ORDINANCE SINCE IT'S BEEN IN PLACE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO SECOND ROUND? SECOND ROUND.
UM, WHILE THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY, UM, ASSESSES THE FEE AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX AND MULTI-FAMILY AND, UH, MOTELS AND HOTELS, UM, WAS THERE ANY, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING OR DOES IT NOT APPLY TO TOWN HOMES AND CLUSTERED HOUSING AND RETIREMENT HOUSING? I MEAN, IF WE'RE ADDING DENSER RESIDENTIAL AND UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES, IT, UM, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
WAS THERE A DECISION MADE TO EXCLUDE THOSE OR NO, THERE WASN'T.
UM, I WOULD IT, THIS I MAY ASK FOR SOME LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THIS QUESTION, BUT REALLY THE, THE, UM, MULTI-FAMILY FEE WAS, UH, MEANT TO, UH, BE A BIT OF A GENERIC TERM.
AND SO ANY SORT OF MULTIUNIT, OKAY, SO HOUSING WOULD BE, PEOPLE ARE ADDING HOUSING UNDER TH THREE ZONING THAT THAT'S BEING ASSESSED, THE FEE THAT IS CHARGED FOR MULTIFAMILY? CORRECT.
IS THAT SOMETHING I GUESS I'D WANNA ASK, UH, MR. MOORE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPEALABLE? I MEAN, IT, IT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY TO WHAT THE, UM, I MEAN THERE'S NOT MUCH TO APPEAL, IT SEEMS TO ME ABOUT FEE IN LIEU IF YOU FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES.
BUT IF YOU'RE IN ONE OF THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES, COULD SOMEONE SAY, WELL, THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY TO ME.
I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, I MISSED THE BEGINNING OF THE QUESTION.
UH, CAN YOU SORT OF, IT STARTED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE REPORT AND THE ORDINANCE SEEMED TO SPECIFICALLY APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING THAT WE'RE ADDING UNDER TOWN HOMES, CLUSTERED HOUSING, RETIREMENT HOUSING, WERE, WAS THE DECISION MADE TO EXCLUDE THOSE OR ARE THOSE SOMEHOW ASSUMED TO BE, UH, ACCESSIBLE UNDER THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES? GOTCHA.
SO THOSE, UH, MORE DENSE, ANYTHING MORE DENSE THAN A DUPLEX DISTRICT WOULD BE A MULTIFAMILY.
AND THAT'S JUST BASED ON THE WAY, UH, THE LEGISLATURE DEFINED MULTIFAMILY IN THE BILL AND IT WAS DEFINED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNIT.
I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
UM, WOULD FEE IN LIEU AND PARKLAND DEDICATION EVER BE ASSESSED AGAINST, UH, THE SAME PROJECT? SO THE, THE STATE LAW GIVES CITIES THE, THE FIVE CITIES, THE ABILITY TO ASSESS A FEE REQUIRE A DEDICATION, WHICH I'VE REALLY BEEN REFERRING TO IT AS AN ACQUISITION BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO PAY, PAY FAIR MARKET VALUE, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
UM, AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES, UH, TO, TO ANYONE WHO ASKS, THE, THE CITY IS ONLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THAT DEDICATION OR ACQUISITION IN PRETTY RARE INSTANCES BECAUSE IN A LOT OF CASES, UM, THE COST TO ACQUIRE THAT 10% IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN, OF COURSE COULD BE VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE.
AND IT REALLY WILL BECOME A FACTOR OF WHAT'S THE PRICE, WHAT'S THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY, WHERE IS IT EXACTLY WHAT IS THE ADJACENCY TO EXISTING PARKLAND?
[00:50:01]
IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE NEED IT? SO I WOULD, I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE IN, IN TELLING ANYONE WHO ASKS THAT THE CITY IS ONLY GOING TO REQUIRE A DEDICATION OR AN ACQUISITION IN VERY LIMITED INSTANCES WHERE IN THE PARTS OF TOWN THAT WERE HIGHLY DEFICIENT IN PARKLAND, AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME OF THOSE PARTS OF TOWN.SO IT'S REALLY GONNA BE KIND OF A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BUT IN VERY LIMITED INSTANCES, I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THEN THE CITY WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE 10% OF THE LAND, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE SUBTRACTING FROM THAT THE FEE IN LIEU THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ASSESSED OTHERWISE.
THEORETICALLY, THEY'RE BEING MADE WHOLE.
ARE YOU ANTICIPATING IF THERE ARE ANY APPEALS? IT WOULD BE FROM DEVELOPERS WHO DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THE LAND? ABSOLUTELY.
NOW, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT SOMEONE COULD APPEAL, WANTING TO GIVE LAND TO THE CITY, SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS LAND, HALF OF IT'S IN THE FLOOD PLAN OVER HERE, I WANT TO MAKE THE CITY TAKE IT IS.
WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
SO OF, OF COURSE THERE'S MANY PARKS AROUND THE CITY THAT ARE ON THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT WE, WE TRY TO AVOID ACCEPTING LAND THAT IS GOING TO BE A MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
UM, FLOODPLAIN LAND IS VERY CHALLENGING.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THE CONVERSATION, WE WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN GIVING SOME SORT OF OUR RECOMMENDATION ANYWAY IS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN GIVING A CREDIT WITHIN THE ORDINANCE IN THOSE CASES WHERE SOMEONE DID WANT TO DEDICATE FLOODPLAIN, FOR INSTANCE.
AND THE, IS IT 4,300 PARCELS THAT IT'S BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST SO FAR? HAS ANYONE WANTED TO DEDICATE LAND? WE AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE HASN'T BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE.
UM, WHERE A DEVELOPER HAS SOUGHT A CREDIT MECHANISM IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S JUST ALWAYS BEEN THEY'VE WANTED TO PAY THE FEE SO THEY CAN GET THEIR PERMIT.
THE, UM, ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS THAT THE, THIS PROGRAM DOES NOT APPLY TO DEVELOPMENTS IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS EXISTING ON JULY 1ST, 2019 WITH OPEN SPACE OR PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THAT WOULD SEEM PRETTY BROAD, ESPECIALLY FOR AREAS OF TOWN WHERE WE'RE GETTING EXTREMELY DENSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON, YOU KNOW, PRETTY SMALL PIECES OF LAND WHERE THE EXISTING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT WOULD REALLY BE PRETTY SMALL AREAS OF GREEN SPACE.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OF SOME SORT OF, I DON'T KNOW, OFFSET OR SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW.
SO THAT, THAT IS, UH, THE CONTEXT THERE IS WHEN WE WERE CRAFTING THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, THAT WAS, UM, AGAIN, IT WAS A VERY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND THAT WAS, UM, A CREDIT IF YOU WILL MM-HMM
YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS FELT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN MY ZONING DISTRICT, MY PD MM-HMM
THAT IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT OF A DOUBLE DIP.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE FOUND THOUGH, TO YOUR POINT IS THAT IN A LOT OF CASES THESE, YOU KNOW, THESE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE RELATIVELY SMALL AND MODEST AND DON'T REALLY FUNCTION AS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF EFFECTIVE RECREATIONAL SPACE.
THEY MIGHT BE A, A PATIO OR A PLAZA OR SOMETHING, OR EVEN NOT AT GROUND LEVEL.
AND SO, UM, THAT HAS REMAINED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT LAKEISHA AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONTINUING TO, TO THINK ABOUT THAT IF THAT, UM, IS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO REMAIN EXPECT D 14, WHAT I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT, BUT, UM, ANYWAY, I I JUST WONDERED IF THERE HAD BEEN A, ANY ONGOING DISCUSSION OF, OF, OF MODIFYING THAT SOMEHOW THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING DISCUSSION, BUT AGAIN FROM, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, BUT I'M QUITE SURE THEY WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S A DOUBLE ASSESSMENT OR SOMETHING.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR EXEMPTING AFFORDABLE UNITS, BUT GIVEN THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE, UH, TIME LIMITED, IS THE FEE ASSESSED OR AT THE TIME THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS, I MEAN I KNOW THE RESERVE UNITS BECOME AFFORDABLE UNITS DOWN THE ROAD.
I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S SOME MECHANISM IN HERE IF YOU ADD DENSITY, UM, OVER TIME YOU CAN BE ASSESSED.
SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S AFFORDABLE FROM THE GET GO, THEN THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT.
UM, IF IT'S AFFORDABLE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY SATISFIED THE ORDINANCE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO KIND OF CLAW BACK THAT IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL DENSITY IF THEY WERE AS FAR AS MARKET RATE
[00:55:01]
DENSITY, IF THEY WERE TO ADD ADDITIONAL DENSITY TO AN EXISTING AFFORDABLE COMPLEX.NO, BUT WHAT I MEAN, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE, THE RESERVED UNITS THAT CAME COME OFF OF AFFORDABILITY ARE TECHNICALLY ADDING MORE AFFORDABLE DENSITY.
I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW THAT QUESTION.
YOU BUILD A HUNDRED UNITS OF HOUSING MM-HMM
SO YOU'RE COLLECTING THE FEE ON THE 80 CORRECT UNITS.
THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THE RESERVE UNITS, LEMME USE THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY, ONLY STAY THESE RESERVED UNITS FOR HALF 15 YEARS OR WHATEVER IT'S I SEE.
AND SO AFTER THAT 15 YEARS IS EXPIRED, THEN, THEN THEY REALLY HAVE A HUNDRED UNITS, SO THERE'S AN INCREASE FROM 80 TO A HUNDRED IN, IN THAT SCENARIO WE WOULD NOT, UM, WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO TRY TO ASSESS THOSE UNITS AFTER THE FACT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
YEAH, I'VE GOT SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
SO WHAT IS SECTION 4.1010? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THAT DESIGNATION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS? UH, WOULD YOU REPEAT THE SECTION? YEAH.
4.1010 DESIGNATION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SUBURBAN AND URBAN AREAS.
AND SO THAT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS FROM HB 1526.
HB 1526 MANDATED THAT WE CREATE A MAP THAT HAS SUBURBAN URBAN AND A CBD DESIGNATION.
AND SO THAT'S THE MAP THAT I SHOWED AT THE BEGINNING, THAT'S EXHIBIT A THAT REFLECTS THE STATE LAW.
WE ONLY DID IT BECAUSE THE STATE LAW REQUIRED US TO DO THAT, I MEAN TO CREATE THAT MAP.
AND I WOULD ADD THAT, THAT THAT DESIGNATION IS A FACTOR IN THE STANDARD CALCULATION THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING NOT TO UTILIZE.
NOW IT'S YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT WHAT DOWNTOWN AND UPTOWN HAVE ENOUGH PARKS AND YOU WANNA TAKE THE MONEY FROM THAT NEW LITTLE, UH, UM, DISTRICT AND SPREAD IT AROUND.
SO THE, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, UM, SHOWS THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOLLOWING THE, THE DOWNTOWN 360 MAP.
AND THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR, I'M GONNA, SORRY, I SHOULD REFER TO IT AS THE OLD ORDINANCE.
IT ALLOWED FOR FEES THAT WERE ACCUMULATED WITHIN THAT ZONE TO BE USED IN OTHER ZONES FOR TRAIL CONNECTIVITY.
UM, SO WE ARE PROPOSING A, UH, A SIMILAR MECHANISM IN THIS ORDINANCE.
OF COURSE, THE DOWNTOWN AREA HAS SHR INTO STRICTLY THE CBD, UM, BUT WE WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT, THE OLD ORDINANCE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE FUNDS GENERATED WITHIN THE CBD IN OTHER ZONES, UM, LARGELY BECAUSE OF WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DON'T SEE A, UM, A CONTINUED, UH, NEED FOR, FOR MORE PARKS DOWNTOWN WITH A COMPLETION OF OUR MOST RECENT FOUR PARKS.
I CAN SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A LINEAR PARK ON HARWOOD.
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? YOU WOULD BE HEADING EAST ON YOUNG STREET FROM HARWOOD PARK TOWARDS THE FARMER'S MARKET AND OVER TO CLYDE WARREN, UM, CONNECTING FARMERS MARKET.
THERE'S CERTAINLY TO UPTOWN AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULDN'T REALLY PRECLUDE THAT FROM OCCURRING.
THIS WOULD JUST BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY UTILIZE FEES THAT WERE GENERATED WITHIN THE CBD FOR TRAIL CONNECTIVITY IN OTHER AREAS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN.
THIS IS BASICALLY A ROBINHOOD PLAN.
YOU WANNA TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AREA AND USE IT IN THE REST OF THE CITY, PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEEING THAT IT DOESN'T GET USED IN THE AREA THAT'S GENERATING THE FUNDS.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT'S A CONTINUATION OF THE, OF THE METHODOLOGY THAT HAS EXISTED IN THE OLD ORDINANCE AND GIMME SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
UM, IF THERE IS A, I MEAN, YOU COULD PICK REALLY ANY TRAIL PROJECT ANYWHERE.
IF THERE IS A, UM, A SEGMENT OF A TRAIL THAT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO CONNECT TO AN ADDITIONAL TRAIL, CONCEIVABLY YOU COULD IDENTIFY FUNDING WITHIN CURRENT ZONE SEVEN AND UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS
[01:00:01]
FOR THAT CONNECTION IN ANOTHER PART OF TOWN.IT HASN'T OCCURRED, BUT THAT IS POSSIBLE.
SO YOU CAN'T GIVE ME A SINGLE EXAMPLE, REAL EXAMPLE, BUT YOU WANNA MAINTAIN THAT.
I I ACTUALLY CAN GIVE YOU A REAL EXAMPLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE SANTA FE TRAIL, IT STOPS IN ODS DALLAS, AND THERE'S A BIG GAP BETWEEN, UM, WHERE SANTA FE TRAIL STOPS CURRENTLY, WHICH IS WHERE, UH, I CAN'T THINK OF THAT INTERSECTION, BUT I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH MY TRAIL PERSON IN PARK AND THEN WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A GAP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN SANTA FE TRAIL AND WHERE THE TRAIL NEAR RIVERFRONT AND WHERE CERTAIN PARTS THAT START TO PICK UP IN WEST DALLAS, THERE'S A GAP.
AND WE WERE, WHEN WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST, WE WERE SAYING, HEY, IF, BECAUSE THIS TRAIL PATH WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH DOWNTOWN TO GET TO WEST DALLAS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE FUNDS FROM THE DOWNTOWN ZONE TO HELP COMPLETE THAT GAP.
BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN WITH IMPLEMENTING TRAILS, SOMEONE WILL COME IN AND IMPROVE THE STREET AND SAY, OH, WE NEED A TRAIL.
BUT IF THE TRAIL CAN'T MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOMEBODY TO GO EAST AND WEST OR NORTH AND SOUTH, WE JUST KIND OF BUILD THE LITTLE WALKING PATH THAT'S NOT REALLY HELPING IN THE OVERALL BIKE NETWORK.
AND SO THE EMPHASIS ON CONNECTIVITY IS BASED ON US HELPING TO ASPIRING TO COMPLETE THE CITY'S BIKING NETWORK.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT MECHANISM.
WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SPENDING PLAN.
BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE WITH ACCESSIBILITY TO PARKS IS THAT TRAILS DEAD END AND IT MIGHT TAKE THEM TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OR A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, BUT IT, THEY WANNA BIKE DOWNTOWN.
THEY HAVE TO GO ON A LOOP ALL THE WAY AROUND IT VERSUS GOING A STRAIGHT LINE.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING THAT, THAT FLEXIBILITY STAY IN THE NEW ORDINANCE, BUT IT ALSO CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE OLD ORDINANCE.
AND HOW MUCH OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING HELD ARE IN CURRENT ZONE SEVEN RIGHT NOW IN ZONE SEVEN? LET ME GO TO THE MAP.
SO ZONE SEVEN HAS APPROXIMATELY $1.7 MILLION IN IT.
NOW I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE STATEMENT BECAUSE WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE LOSING AS A RESULT OF NOT COLLECTING ON ORDINANCE BECAUSE UPTOWN HAS A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF PD 1 93 AND PD 1 93 HAS BEEN EXEMPT.
WE HAVE WHY? WELL, THAT WAS HOW THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS CREATED.
I DID STAY IN MY STAFF REPORT THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE REMOVE THOSE EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT WE DIDN'T MANAGE THE OPEN SPACE FUND.
WE FEEL THAT ADDING, CHANGING SOME OF THE ZONES, WHICH WE WOULD WANNA PUT UPTOWN IN ZONE FIVE AND WE WOULD WANT TO GET RID OF THE EXEMPTION FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
WE FEEL THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE MORE MONEY SINCE WE KNOW THAT DENSITY IS INCREASING IN UPTOWN, BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONNECT FUNDS FOR WHEN IT'S IN A P DARY.
AND THE SANTA FE TRAIL CONNECTOR THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO, WHAT ZONE IS THAT IN THE SANTA FE? UM, TRAIL RIGHT NOW IS IN ZONE TWO.
AND HOW MUCH MONEY IS IT SITTING THERE IS IN ZONE TWO, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 1.4 MILLION.
AND HOW MUCH IS NEEDED TO DO THAT CONNECTOR? WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH COST SPECS.
WE WERE IDENTIFYING TARGET AREAS.
WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED BIGS AND CAME UP WITH PROJECT COSTS.
AND SO IT WAS JUST WHEN WE WERE HAVING A GENERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS ONE.
OKAY, SO YOU WANNA TAKE MONEY OUTTA MY SECTION TO SPEND AT OTHER PLACES? BUT YOU CAN BARELY GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE A PRO, YOU DON'T HAVE A COST.
I I MEAN I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET.
WE'RE NOT ONLY PROPOSING TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF DOWNTOWN AND FARM IT TO THE OTHER SECTIONS, THE NEXUS PRINCIPLES WORK
[01:05:01]
THAT MONEY CAN FLOW BETWEEN ZONES THAT THEY TOUCH.AND SO JUST LIKE IF WE CAN SAY WE WANT TO TAKE MONEY FROM DOWNTOWN, AND IF IT'S ON THE PROXIMITY OF THE DOWNTOWN ZONE AND THE OLD EAST DALLAS ZONE, WE CAN TAKE MONEY FROM THAT ZONE CURRENTLY AND PUT IT IN DOWNTOWN.
OR WE COULD TAKE THE MONEY FROM DOWNTOWN AND PUT IT IN THAT ZONE.
IT'S NOT DISPERSING THE FUNDS WHERE WE WOULD USE MONEY, WHERE IT WASN'T GENERATED, THAT WASN'T BENEFICIAL TO WHEREVER WE FLOWED THE MONEY TO.
IT'S, IT IS NOT A ONE WAY IN, IT IS A TWO-WAY STREET.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS A SPECIAL RULE FOR THE DOWNTOWN ZONE WHERE YOU COULD TAKE MONEY OUTTA THAT FUND AND USE IT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
YOU ARE, YOU'RE PROPOSING AN AN EXCEPTION TO THE NEXUS RULE, RIGHT? YES.
BECAUSE IN YOUR ESTIMATION, DOWNTOWN'S GOOD ENOUGH.
IT IS NOT THAT IT STANDS GOOD ENOUGH.
WE RECOGNIZE THERE MIGHT BE CHALLENGES GOING FORWARD WITH ACQUIRING LAND BECAUSE MOST OF DOWNTOWN IS BUILT OUT.
WE ALSO, LIKE I SAID, ALWAYS LOOKING AT THINGS AT THE CASE BY CASE.
WE'RE NOT ASSUMING THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER ASK FOR ADDITIONAL PARK IN, UM, DOWNTOWN.
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS ONE FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS, THERE ARE MONIES THAT ARE BEGINNING TO AGE.
AND SO WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEND THE MONEY WITHIN THE 10 YEAR TIMEFRAME THAT WILL PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF BENEFIT TO WHEREVER IT WAS GENERATED IN THE OVERALL CITY.
AND I WOULD JUST ALSO ADD TO THAT, I MEAN THAT I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT JUST FOR ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, YOU KNOW THAT THIS QUESTION OR THIS THIS ISSUE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY, REALLY DISCUSSED TO, TO A, TO A GREAT EXTENT OF WHEN THE ORDINANCE, THE OLD ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THOROUGHLY VETTED THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
WELL, THINGS CHANGE AND DOWNTOWN IS BECOMING MORE HABITED BY RESIDENTS.
AND IF WE EXPECT DOWNTOWN TO THRIVE, WE HAVE TO STOP TREATING IT LIKE IT'S A SECOND CHOICE.
LIKE IT'S GOOD ENOUGH OR IT'S JUST DOWNTOWN.
SO WE EXPECT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CRIME, WE EXPECT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER.
WE HAVE TO GIVE IT A FAIR CHANCE.
I, I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE CITY HAS MADE TREMENDOUS GAINS FROM A PARK PERSPECTIVE IN DOWNTOWN.
UM, BETWEEN THE LAST BOND PROGRAM, I'VE PROBABLY SPENT NORTH OF A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ON DEVELOPING NEW PARKS FOR DOWNTOWN.
SO VERY MUCH UNDER SENIOR POINT.
BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE CITY HAS MADE A GREAT EFFORT IN IMPROVING THE, THE PARK SPACE DOWNTOWN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
AND YOU DON'T SEE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY WITH DOWNTOWN AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY USING THESE PARK FUNDS.
UM, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE, UH, MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO.
AGAIN, THIS PROVISION IS JUST SIMPLY, UH, AN OPTION.
BUT TO, TO YOUR POINT, YES, I, I, I, UH, I DO SEE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE TO UTILIZE FUNDS FROM THAT ZONE TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY TO OTHER PARTS OF TOWN.
YEAH, JUST, JUST FOLLOWING UP WITH THAT, THE CENTER FE TRAIL DEAD ENDS AT ELM STREET, RIGHT? UM, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I, I'M NOT SURE WHERE DEAD END, I BIKE IT FAIRLY, FAIRLY FREQUENTLY.
AND ELM STREET DOES NOT HAVE A PROTECTED BIKE LANE, RIGHT? IT DOES NOT.
AND THERE'S IN FACT NO TRAIL THAT GOES THROUGH DEEP ELLUM TO DOWNTOWN AND ACROSS DOWNTOWN, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THERE EVENTUALLY WILL BE, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT.
AND THAT TRAIL THAT WILL INCLUDE DOWNTOWN AND DEEP ELLUM AND PROBABLY GOING WEST AS WELL, WOULD, WOULD SERVE NOT ONLY PEOPLE COMING INTO DOWNTOWN, BUT ALSO DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS LOOKING TO GET OUT FOR ENTERTAINMENT JOBS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO IF WE HAVE, IF WE ALLOW THOSE DOWNTOWN ZONE SEVEN FUNDS TO BE USED FOR TECH, UH, CONNECTIVITY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD BE USED FOR IS, IS THAT TRAIL THAT NOT ONLY INCLUDES DOWNTOWN, BUT ALSO PROVIDES NODES GOING OUTWARDS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER CHERNIK, PAGE THREE DASH 20 ON THE, UH, CASE REPORT HAS A TABLE.
IT SAYS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FEES ARE CALCULATED
[01:10:01]
AND IT GIVES, UM, COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THERE WOULD BE A 42 OVER 42% INCREASE IN THIS IMPACT FEE.MY QUESTION IS, AT A TIME WHEN THIS AN IMPACT FEES DRIVE UP THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION GOES UP, THE COST OF LEASES GO UP.
SO AT A TIME WHEN OUR CITY IS IN THE MIDST OF A HOUSING CRISIS, DON'T YOU THINK THE ASK TO INCREASE THE IMPACT FEE BY 42% IS EGREGIOUS? UM, I WOULD RESPOND.
I UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY AROUND THE ISSUE.
I WOULD SAY THERE HAVE BEEN NO INCREASES TO THESE FEES SINCE THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, AS WE SHARED PREVIOUSLY, THE FEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE STILL VERY MUCH IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, IN FACT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN MANY SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES, UM, THAT WE ARE IN COMPETITION WITH.
SO, AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY AROUND THE ISSUE, UM, WE FELT AS THOUGH THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE REASONABLE.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE, THE CONCERN.
SECOND AROUND COMMISSIONER AL, SORRY, NOT TO KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS, BUT AS A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT, I, I APPRECIATE THE PARKS AND MY DOGS AND I USE THEM DAILY, AND WE APPRECIATE, UM, THAT THEY'RE THERE.
UM, SO WITH WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED WITH THE FUNDS BEING DIVERTED TO THESE CONNECTIONS AND TO THESE TRAILS, IS THERE, ARE WE SAYING THAT THOSE TRAILS AND THOSE CONNECTIONS DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH DOWNTOWN? THEY COULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PART OF THE CITY.
SO THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY'RE GOING THROUGH DOWNTOWN CON CONCEIVABLY, THEY, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TOUCH DOWNTOWN, BUT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE TRAILS ARE EVENTUALLY GOING TO FIND THEIR WAY TO DOWNTOWN.
SO, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE, THAT WAS REALLY THE, UM, KIND OF ORIGINAL THOUGHT AROUND THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE FEEDS GENERATED DOWNTOWN.
BECAUSE EVENTUALLY, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, UM, THE TRAIL NETWORK THAT'S CURRENTLY 170, 180 MILES DEVELOPED, THE FULL BUILD OUT WILL BE TWO 50 TO 300.
THOSE WILL ALL FIND THEIR WAY DOWNTOWN.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, THERE WOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT NECESSARILY CONNECT TO DOWNTOWN TODAY.
WOULD THERE BE A WAY TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT? UM, THAT IS A, A POLICY DECISION THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE, UM, CONTEMPLATED.
UH, DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE ABOUT $13 MILLION IN THIS FUND? YES, SIR.
AND OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, YOU'VE ONLY USED MONIES TO FOR ONE, ONE PROJECT? YES, SIR.
UH, UH, IS THERE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT YOU CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LAND ACQUISITION? YES, SIR.
AND BEFORE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I'D LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT TO THE, TO THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE FOUND IS BY HAVING THE SEVEN ZONES, UM, AND GIVEN THE, THE ACQUISITION COST OF LAND IN, IN TOWN, UM, WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO AGGREGATE THE FUNDING AS QUICKLY AS WE WOULD HAVE LIKED IN ORDER TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN ACQUIRING PROPERTY.
SO THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING FIVE ZONES AS OPPOSED TO SEVEN TO HOPEFULLY AGGREGATE FUNDS MORE QUICKLY AND, AND PUT ENOUGH MONEY TOGETHER TO BE A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN ACQUIRING PROPERTY.
BUT, UM, THE, UH, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE, THE SECOND PART, IS THERE A MINIMUM LIFE SIZE OR PARTIAL SIZE? SO, YOU KNOW, UM, WE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE TRY TO AVOID ACQUIRING PROPERTIES THAT ARE LESS THAN A HALF ACRE TO AN ACRE.
UM, FROM A MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S CHALLENGING TO, AND IT'S NOT AS FUNCTIONAL TO HAVE A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT GREEN SPACE OR A, OR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT GREEN SPACE.
SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, A HALF ACRE TO AN ACRE, UM, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN CAN BE A MEANINGFUL PARK SPACE.
UM, BUT KIND OF THE, THE NORMAL STANDARD FOR US FOR A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WOULD BE IN THAT RANGE.
UH, KNOWING WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT THE COST OF REAL ESTATE IN MY DISTRICT, $13 MILLION, IT'S NOT GONNA BUY YOU A
[01:15:01]
LOT OF LANDAND IF LAND DOES BECOME AVAILABLE, IT'S GONNA BE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT SIZE.
AND SO I, I CAN'T IMAGINE YOU WOULD BUY SINGLE FAMILY LOT HERE, HERE, HERE.
I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, IT HAS TO HAVE SOME SIZE TO IT, TO, TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT.
YOU KNOW, AT SOME, A WEIRD INTERSECTION.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT HALF ACRE TO ACRE PLUS.
THOSE ARE THE, THE SIZE ACQUISITIONS WE TRY TO ACQUIRE.
THE, THE ONE THAT WE HAVE ACQUIRED, UH, FROM THIS FUND WAS 4.2 ACRES.
AND I'M ALSO WONDERING IF, IF YOU COLLECT MANY OF MUCH OF THIS MONEY FROM MY DISTRICT 13, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO REAL ESTATE LEFT
WELL, YOU SAW THE DISTRIBUTION OF, OF THE MAP THERE, YOU CAN PRETTY CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE'S NOT A, THERE'S NOT A TON OF FEES THAT HAVE BEEN GENERATED FROM DISTRICT 13.
I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT YOU, ROBIN HOODING MY FUNDS FROM MY DISTRICT.
I, I JUST THINK THEY'RE NOT THERE.
I I, TO ME IT SEEMS WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IS JUST, THERE'S JUST A LACK OF USABLE REAL ESTATE IN MUCH OF THE CITY.
UH, IT'S, AND A LOT OF THAT REAL ESTATE IS VERY, VERY PRICEY.
UM, YEAH, LOOKING AT THE MAP, LOOKING AT THE RESEARCH, RIGHT? UH, WOULD YOU SAY DISTRICT THREE IS PROBABLY MOST STARVED OF PARKS? UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, SIR? YEAH.
UM, OR, OR THE SUB-DISTRICT FOUR? I BELIEVE IT IS ON, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD SAY THAT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE RECENTLY ACQUIRED, UM, BIG CEDAR WILDERNESS.
OF COURSE WE HAVE CEDAR RIDGE PRESERVERS.
I WAS GETTING TO THAT, BUT YEAH,
UM, SO I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT PROBABLY HAVE A GREATER NEED FROM A, FROM A ADDITIONAL PART PERSPECTIVE THAN DISTRICT THREE.
I KNOW THAT, UM, DISTRICT THREE REALLY HAS SOME, SOME LOVELY PARKS.
UM, AND, AND THE QUESTION IS, RIGHT, WE HAVE LOVELY PARKS, BUT HOW CLOSE ARE THEY TO THE RESIDENTS? RIGHT? HOW MANY OF US ARE FURTHER THAN THAT 10 MINUTE WALK? YES, SIR.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A, UM, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PROVIDE IT TO YOU TODAY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE, THE PARK ACCESS, UH, PERCENTAGE BY DISTRICT.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
I CAN'T, I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER OFF, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT, WHAT THE DISTRICT THREE PARK ACCESS, UH, METRIC IS, BUT IT'S NOT ONE OF THE, IT'S NOT ONE OF THE LOWEST.
UM, NEXT QUESTION WE HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT? BEING PRACTICAL, WE HAVE A PARK OR A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S THE ROC NLO MM-HMM
UM, MILLION DOLLAR RESTORATION WAS DONE.
COULD THIS, THESE FUNDS BE USED FOR THAT? THEY CAN.
SO THE FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR ACQUISITION OR PARK DEVELOPMENT, PARK IMPROVEMENT.
UM, AND, AND REALLY THE, THE ORIGINAL LOGIC THERE WAS WHEN YOU ACQUIRE A PARKLAND, A PIECE OF PARKLAND, YOU WANT TO HAVE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT AS WELL.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THOSE TWO USES HAVE BEEN KIND OF ATTACHED TO THIS ORDINANCE ALL ALONG.
WELL, THE MASTER PLAN FOR THAT PARK IS ALREADY CREATED, SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IMPLEMENTED.
UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INUNDATION OF WAREHOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND AREAS.
HOW, HOW ARE THESE CALCULATED IN REGARDS TO PARKLAND? SORRY IF I MISSED THAT EARLIER WAREHOUSES.
LARGE MILLION SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES BEING BUILT IN DISTRICT THREE WHEN THEY, WELL, THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T, UM, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS NOT AS, UH, SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A CONNECTION BETWEEN GOTCHA.
SO POLICY WISE, HOW DO WE INTRODUCE THAT? OH, THE CONCEPT OF A COMMERCIAL FEE.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY ONE CITY IN TEXAS THAT ASSESSES, UM, A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, AND I SEE DANIEL, OH, CRAP, COMING TO THE TABLE.
I'M ALSO GONNA SAY ADDISON, BUT INSTEAD OF THE FLAT FEE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO CHARGE BY STATE ADDISON CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES BY SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, AND THEY ALSO RECENTLY HAVE PASSED THEIR ORDINANCE LAST YEAR.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, YOU CAN DALLAS CANNOT, BECAUSE DALLAS IS SUBJECT TO THE BILL.
IT'S ONLY AUSTIN, SAN ANTONIO HOUSTON FOR POPULATION.
THE, THE BIG CITIES OF MORE THAN 800,000.
THE BILL SAYS THAT CI THOSE CITIES CANNOT, UH, CREATE A FEE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
[01:20:01]
TO, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS BILL, WAS TO TELL AUSTIN NO, THAT IT CANNOT DO THAT.BUT IF YOU ARE A CITY OF 799,999, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THE BIG CITIES CANNOT.
WE, WE HAVE ACQUIRED BIG BEND.
UM, HOW, HOW COULD THESE FEES BE USED TO DEVELOP BIG BEND, IF THAT MAKES SENSE? UH, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THEY CAN BE USED TO HELP DEVELOP THAT, THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT.
I'M WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH TRUST REPUBLIC LAND, WHO IS PROVIDING A KIND OF AN INITIAL, UH, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT PARK.
UM, THEY HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED $600,000 TOWARDS THAT SAL IMPLEMENTATION.
BUT YES, WE CAN UTILIZE, UH, THE FEES THAT ARE GENERATED BY THIS ORDINANCE FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THAT PARK OR ANY PARK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
MR. GARDNER, MR. O'CONNOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL SEE YOU THIS AFTERNOON, UH, COMMISSIONERS 10 27.
LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE GET TO THE PARKING PIECE.
UH, IT IS 10:47 AM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.
UH, WE HAVE MR. WADE AND THE TEAM IS HERE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR MICHAEL WADE, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
I'M HERE WITH ANDREA AUDREA AND SARAH MAY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
THIS BRIEFING IS GONNA BE PRETTY SHORT.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A SUMMARY TO CATCH EVERYONE UP, AND THEN WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN.
UM, WE'RE JUST GOING TO, AGAIN, DO A, A QUICK BACKGROUND OF THIS.
REMIND OURSELVES WHAT THE ZO OAC PROPOSAL WAS.
UH, REMIND OURSELVES OF THE JANUARY 16 CPC MEMO.
UM, AND THEN SUMMARIZE A LITTLE BIT OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMENT THE STAFF RECEIVED.
I DO WANT TO TAKE A POINT JUST TO, UM, NOT EULOGIZED, BUT REMEMBER, DONALD SCHOUP IS A VERY IMPORTANT CHARACTER IN THE WORLD OF, UH, CITY PLANNING.
HE BROUGHT A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE OF OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
HE WAS A TRAINED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND ECONOMIST WHO TURNED HIS ATTENTION TO THE ECONOMICS AND THE, ALL OF THE EXTERNALITIES OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
HE PASSED ON FEBRUARY 6TH AT THE AGE OF 86.
AND SO, IN HIS HONOR, WE'VE SCHEDULED THIS MEETING TO TALK ABOUT PARKING A LOT.
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS, UM, PARTICULAR PROPOSAL AUTHORIZED IN 2019 DISCUSSED AT ZAC QUITE A BIT.
ZAC MADE THE RECOMMENDATION OF FULLY FLEXIBLE PARKING, TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND SOME DESIGN ELEMENTS IN 2024.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN THREE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MEETINGS ON THIS TOPIC BRIEFLY, THE ZAC PROPOSAL, FULLY FLEXIBLE PARKING, THAT IS NO PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY LAND USE.
CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, REQUIRING ANALYSIS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS.
AND THEN DESIGN ELEMENTS, UH, LIMITING ADDING LIMITATIONS TO CURB CUTS, UH, FOR LOTS WITH ONE TO FOUR UNIT DWELLINGS, ALLOWING THE USE OF ANY ALLEYWAYS FOR ENTRANCE TO PARKING LOTS 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 ON JANUARY 16TH.
UH, AN ADDITIONAL LIST OF CONSIDERATIONS, UM, THAT WOULD BE MODIFICATIONS TO XX RECOMMENDATION WAS INTRODUCED.
I'LL RUN THROUGH THOSE BULLET POINTS QUICKLY, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR OUR D AND TH DISTRICTS, BUT REDUCING OUR RESIDENTIAL MINIMUMS TO ONE SPACE BRIDGE.
ONE UNIT, AND I'LL, LET ME STOP REALLY QUICKLY AND SAY, THIS IS CLARIFIED THROUGH CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT WHO INTRODUCED THE MEMO, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEARLY STATING THE INTENT OF THOSE BULLET POINTS.
SECOND BULLET, UH, KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR MULTIFAMILY LAND USES WITHIN 300 FEET OF OUR ZONE PROPERTIES.
KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESTAURANTS OR BARS AND RESTAURANTS WITH AND WITHOUT DRIVE THROUGH.
UH, BUT REDUCING MINIMUMS FROM ONE TO 100 SQUARE FEET TO ONE PER 200 SQUARE FEET.
ALSO EXCLUDING BARS AND RESTAURANTS, LESS THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET AND FLOOR AREA, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES, KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE, EXCLUDING A RADIUS OF ONE HALF MILE AROUND RAIL AND STREETCAR STATIONS FROM ANY OF THE KEPT PARKING MINIMUMS. SO FULLY ELIMINATING ALL MINIMUMS IN THOSE AREAS, REDUCING THE MIH TO B PARKING MINIMUM BONUS FROM 0.5 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TO ZERO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT.
[01:25:01]
ZO OAC PROPOSED REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN PATHS THROUGH PARKING LOTS WITHIN 65 FEET OF ANY PARKING SPACE TO REQUIRING ONLY ONE PEDESTRIAN PATH DIRECTLY FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SIDEWALK ACROSS THE PARKING LOT AND DELETING THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENT.AND AGAIN, THESE ARE, UH, INTRODUCED AS MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION.
UM, SO IF A LAND USE DISTRICT, ET CETERA ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THAT LIST, THE INTENT WAS THAT ZAC, UH, ZAC C'S PROPOSAL OF NO MINIMUMS WOULD APPLY.
WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL COMMENT TOTAL OF SIX COMMISSIONERS, UM, SENT IN COMMENT TO STAFF JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS.
THOSE IDEAS WERE REMOVING MINIMUMS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, ADUS, AND SMALL MULTIFAMILY REDUCING MINIMUMS FOR ANY MULTIFAMILY THAT WOULD STILL HAVE MINIMUMS UNDER THE MEMO, REMOVING OR REDUCING THE PROPOSED 300 FOOT BUFFER AROUND SINGLE FAMILY OR AROUND OUR DISTRICTS IN WHICH MULTIFAMILY KEEPS PARKING MINIMUMS REQUIRING VISITOR PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY REQUIRING, UH, UH, REGARDLESS OF PARKING MINIMUMS, REQUIRING LOADING SPACES FOR MULTIFAMILY REGARDLESS OF PARKING MINIMUMS, ELIMINATING PARKING AROUND HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES SIMILAR TO RAIL, AND EITHER RAISING OR TOTALLY GETTING RID OF THE SIZE EXCLUSION FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
SO, JUST A BLITZ SUMMARY OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE CONVERSATION.
UH, AND WE ARE HERE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
BLITZ QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS FOR MR. WAITER, STAFF COMMISSIONER HALL.
MR. WADE, WOULD, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THE 300 FOOT THING, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD RATHER WAIT AND DISCUSS THIS AFTERNOON? I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
I THINK, UM, MOSTLY STAFF IS ARRIVING TODAY READY FOR CPC MEMBERS TO DISCUSS SORT OF DIRECTION.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER SORT OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
SO LET ME ASK YOU, BACK IN 2021, WE DISCUSSED, I THINK WE SAID IT ON ZAC, AT THE TIME, WE WERE REVIEWING PARKING 330 FEET.
AND I BELIEVE I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION, WHERE DID THIS NUMBER COME FROM? AND I HAD A FEELING IT HAD, IT WAS MAYBE THE LENGTH OF A BLOCK IN THE LOWER GREENVILLE M STREET AREA,
BUT, UH, BUT I, IT NEVER, I NEVER HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE, WHAT, WHAT'S THE, UH, SIGNIFICANCE OF 300 FEET.
I'LL START WITH THREE 30, UH, 300 WAS INTRODUCED BY A COMMISSIONER, AND THEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.
UM, THREE 30 I THINK IS, IS THAT A 16TH OF A MILE OR THAT, SO THAT'S RAR BUT IT ALSO EXISTS IN BROADER PLANNING.
SO OUR, OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW USES 330 FEET, UM, TO HAVE A, A LITTLE HIGHER CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENTS, UM, LIGHTING NOISE, THAT KIND OF A THING.
SO THERE'S PRECEDENT IN OUR CODE, BROADER PLANNING.
IT'S GENERALLY THE, THE RULE OF THUMB FOR A TRADITIONAL KIND OF CLASSIC MAIN STREET AMERICAN BLOCK, 3, 330, UM, 300 FEET.
I LET COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, OTHER DISTANCES THAT WE'VE SEEN, FORT WORTH USES 250 FEET.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION.
UM, SO THAT'S WHERE 330 FEET CAME FROM ORIGINALLY IN, IN OUR 2021 CONVERSATION.
SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF EMAILS FROM COALITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT STUDY PARKING AND ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING.
AND SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM THINK THAT THAT NUMBER 300 IS ARBITRARY.
I MEAN, 2 50, 300, UH, I'VE SEEN THE NUMBER 100 THROWN OUT THERE.
UH, BUT FREQUENTLY PEOPLE ARE DEFAULTING TO ZERO FEET.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? I MEAN, 300.
I UNDERSTAND IT MAYBE IS IN THE CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEWS, AND THAT'S A REASONABLE EXPLANATION IN MY MIND.
UH, BUT ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS IF, IF I WOULD ADD ANY BREADTH TO THAT AT ALL? UM, WHEN YOU GET UP TO THE REALM OF 300, 330, UM, THEN YOU'RE STARTING TO SAY, GENERALLY IF SOMETHING IS IN THE BLOCK ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY, THEN IT WILL HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS OR IT WILL BE REVIEWED.
UM, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S GENERAL BECAUSE NOT EVERY BLOCK IS EXACTLY 330 FEET, ET CETERA.
SO, UM, OUR, I KNOW THAT OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES WHEN THEY'RE CALLED IN TO REVIEW THE OVER SPILL IMPACTS OF A PROPERTY, THEY WILL LOOK AT, UM,
[01:30:01]
300.I THINK THEY'LL LOOK EVEN MORE THAN THAT.
THEY'LL, THEY'LL GO UP TO A COUPLE OF BLOCKS IN DISTANCE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE CAPTURING AN ENTIRE AREA.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, WE KNOW THAT KIND OF ANY, ANY MEASUREMENT, UM, IS 330 DIFFERENT THAN 331, PROBABLY NOT.
UM, BUT WE, WE CONSIDER THESE IN CATEGORIES.
MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. CHAIR? ABSOLUTELY.
UH, WHEN YOU SAY THE WORD BICYCLE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IS IT STRICTLY A TWO WHEELED, UH, TRADITIONAL BICYCLE? THAT IS THE INTENT? YEAH.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE'VE DEFINED IT IN OUR CODE, BUT, UM, THAT OUR INTENT IS TWO WHEEL AND MANUAL POWERED.
UH, I THINK MAYBE OUR, OUR STOPS OUR, UM, UM, EXCUSE ME, OUR, OUR, WHY AM I FORGETTING THE NAME? WHERE DID YOU LIKE A BIKE TO ANYWAY, OUR, OUR BIKE PARKING SPACES, A BIKE RACK, EXCUSE ME, FORGETTING A BIKE RACK.
UM, IF SOMEONE RIDES THEIR MANUAL POWERED THREE WHEELED VEHICLE THERE, IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT BIKE RACK ALSO.
BUT GENERALLY, I THINK, UH, THE WORLD OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IS FOCUSED ON TWO WHEELED MANUAL POWERED VEHICLES.
WELL, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE THREE WHEELER, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA ASK, WELL, WHAT ABOUT A THREE WHEEL RECUMBENT? YOU KNOW? AND, UH, ALSO TOO, THERE'S THREE WHEEL TRICYCLE TYPE BIKES THAT YOU SOMETIMES SEE OLDER PEOPLE DRIVING IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A SCOOTER, A BICYCLE, IT'S A TWO WHEELED.
UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO, UH, JUST I WAS CURIOUS BECAUSE BICYCLE COULD MEAN SEVERAL DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, NOT JUST A TWO WHEELER.
NON, IF THAT'S A QUESTION, NOT NON-MOTORIZED IS AN IMPORTANT PART.
OF COURSE, THEY'RE NON-MOTORIZED SCOOTERS.
BUT GENERALLY WHAT WE'VE WRITTEN AND WHAT'S PROPOSED, I THINK, IN ZAK'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO HIT THE, THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A BIKE IS AND SOME OF THE OUTLIERS.
IF WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE IN CODE, WE CAN THANK YOU, MR. TURNOCK.
UH, WHILE WE'RE ON THE, UM, THE 300 FOOT, SO, SO I UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY, THE, IT'S TYPICALLY DONE AS THE CROW FLIES CORRECTLY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO, SO, BUT THE INTENT IS IF YOU HAVE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, YOU DON'T WANT SPILLOVER PARKING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THE, THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT THERE'S, THERE'S, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE VERY CREATIVE TO, TO THINK OF USE CASE SCENARIOS WHERE THAT JUST DOESN'T APPLY.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE SIX LANE ROADS, SO PEOPLE AREN'T SPILLING OVER ACROSS A SIX LANE ROAD TO GO PARK THE CAR AND THEN WALK ACROSS.
YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE CREEKS, YOU HAVE GREEN SPACES.
UM, SO TO ME THAT REALLY DOES UNDERSCORE THE ARBITRARINESS OF USING A RADIUS.
AND, AND REALLY, IF WE WERE GONNA USE A RADIUS, IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT CORRECTLY, IT SHOULD BE A PERCENTAGE, ALMOST LIKE THE NOTICING RADIUS.
IF 25% SINGLE FAMILY WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE THAN IF ONE LITTLE TINY PARCEL OF LAND IS IN THAT 300 FOOT RADIUS AND THEN TRIGGERS A PARKING REQUIREMENT.
DO, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF A SEPARATE TOPIC IF WE WERE GOING INTO THE DISCUSSION, BUT THE 300 FOOT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ON A MULTITUDE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT, LIKE, A LOT OF OUR PARKLAND, OR I THINK ALL OF PARKLAND HAS THE, IS R SEVEN FIVE.
SO IF YOU'RE UP AGAINST A CITY PARK, THAT'S GONNA TRIGGER A PARKING MINIMUM BECAUSE IT'S R SEVEN FIVE AND THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY BEING USED THERE.
THAT'S THE SAME THING WITH PROXIMITY SLOPE.
AND AGAIN, THERE'S A WHOLE, THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE TOPIC, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS THAT THIS, THAT RADIUS JUST REALLY STARTS TO BREAK DOWN ON ACHIEVING ITS INTENT.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR EVERYBODY TO THINK ON.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DO, IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT OR MERIT TO JUST USING LIKE A SHARED PROPERTY BOUNDARY? SO IF A, A MULTIFAMILY SITE SHARES A PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITH SINGLE FAMILY, THEN THAT MAY TRIGGER IT, THAT THEN I CAN START TO SEE, OKAY, THAT MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE BECAUSE IT'S GONNA ACHIEVE ITS INTENT IN A MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF CASES.
I, I CAN JUST SPEAK TO IT FROM A STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE.
IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER TO FACILITATE, TO ADMINISTER, UM, JUST USING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
I STILL, LIKE, I WILL BE EVEN FURTHER.
BUT IF YOU SHARE A PROPERTY LINE WITH
[01:35:01]
A PARK THAT'S ZONED, R SEVEN FIVE IS THE SAME.SO WE NEED TO KIND OF LIKE SPECIFY THE END IS OCCUPIED BY A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND THEN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE MAY LEAVE AND IT MAY BE A CHURCH OR A DAYCARE, AND THEN THINGS CHANGE.
SO I AM, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN, LIKE PROBABLY I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE AND WHY THIS IS A SOLUTION THAT IS WORTH CONSIDERING.
HOWEVER, LIKE IN REALITY, IT MAY WARRANT THINGS THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT.
YEAH, I, I, I AGREE WITH THAT.
I MEAN, I, I'M NOT REALLY FOR THE RADIUS AT ALL.
UM, I JUST DON'T THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
AND, YOU KNOW, SO, UH, I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS AND I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THEM.
I, I, I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE, THE VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT MAKE, MAKE YOUR, UH, SHOPPING LIST OF ITEMS TO INCLUDE.
UM, I, I JUST WONDER IF, AND, AND, AND CONCEPT, IF, IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED COUPLING THAT WITH MAKING THOSE SPACES ACTUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING VISITOR SPACES WHICH ARE BURIED BEHIND A GATE SOMEWHERE THAT NO ONE CAN, UH, ACCESS.
UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO SAYING THAT THOSE SPACES AS VISITOR SPACES NEED TO BE OUTSIDE A GATE ARE CURRENT INTERPRETATION, OF COURSE, IS THAT, UM, YOU CAN PUT IT BEHIND A GATE IF THERE IS A REMOTE, UM, OPTION FOR RESIDENTS TO OPEN THE GATE.
BUT OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT TRACKING THE QUALITY OF THOSE REMOTE OPENINGS, ET CETERA.
SO I THINK, UM, WITH SOME OF THE, THE IDEAS THAT WE'VE HAD, FOR INSTANCE, 10% OF, UM, PROVIDED PARKING NEEDS TO BE ACCESSIBLE OR OUTSIDE A GATE, WE COULD SAY THAT AND CLEARLY SIGNED AT THE ENTRANCE.
UM, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THAT WITH OTHER CITIES.
SO, UM, DOES THIS, UH, PARKING ORDINANCE, ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PASSED, WILL THIS APPLY, UH, UH, PROSPECTIVELY TO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT? OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS? BOTH.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY, ANY PROPERTIES AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE, YES, I WOULD.
LET ME CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN BY BOTH.
OBVIOUSLY IT APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USES, OTHER USES, UH, THAT REQUIRES CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, USUALLY IT'S CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU WOULD, IF YOU CHANGE THE USE INTO ONE THAT REQUIRES PARKING, YOU WOULD APPLY THE REQUIRED RATIO.
SO TO BE VERY CLEAR, IT APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.
BUT IF YOU WANNA USE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR USE, THAT REQUIRES PARKING, YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR PARKING WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF A, LIKE A RESTAURANT THAT HAS A CURRENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THEY HAVE A CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF PARKING, THAT THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, OPERATE UNDER THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IS THAT RESTAURANT OR IF A RESTAURANT WANTS TO COME INTO A BUILDING, THEY NEED TO SHOW THEIR PARKING WHEN THEY INTO AN EXISTING BUILDING, THEY NEED TO SHOW THEIR PARKING WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, I WANNA MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE USE OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
BECAUSE IF WE'RE PUTTING PARKING RATIOS PER USE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY PER BUILDING, RIGHT? THE USE IS THE ONE THAT TRIGGERS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, AND YOU CAN OCCUPY AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH A NEW USE.
HENCE THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH THE PARKING RATIOS, AND THAT'S WHY IT HINDERS, USES CHANGE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UM, UM, A MIX OF, A HEALTHY MIX OF USES.
IT DOESN'T RESPOND TO THE MARKET DEMAND AND ALL OF THAT.
DOES, UH, THE CODE, UH, UH, AMENDMENT, OR ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PASS, UH, APPLY TO EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS? IT DEPENDS ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
SO THERE ARE, THERE'S A WHOLE ARRAY OF THEIR DEPENDENCIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ABOUT PD 1 93, PD 1 93 ENTIRELY ENCODES ITS OWN, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OF ITS LAND USES.
SO THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE AT ALL WITH ANYTHING THAT'S PASSED TODAY.
THERE ARE PDS THAT FOR ALL OF THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THEY JUST SAY, LOOK AT CHAPTER 51 A AND DO THAT.
BUT THEN THERE'S A WHOLE SUBSET IN THE MIDDLE WHERE, UH, CERTAIN LAND USES ARE CARVED OUT.
FOR INSTANCE, IF THE PD WAS CREATED AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOSPITAL, THEN THE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET CETERA, MIGHT HAVE SPECIFIC MODIFIED PARKING MINIMUMS
[01:40:01]
IN THE PD, THOSE REMAIN.AND THEN FOR ALL OTHER LAND USES, THE PD WOULD SAY, JUST LOOK AT CHAPTER 51 A.
SO THERE'S A, A GOOD AMOUNT OF NUANCE IN THE MIDDLE, BUT ESPECIALLY AROUND THE CITY CENTER, SOME OF THE OLDER, BIGGER PDS ARE PRETTY INDEPENDENT, SO THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS WOULD REMAIN.
WHAT ABOUT ANY ESTABLISHMENT WITH AN SUP? I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE SUP, WHETHER THE SUP HAS PARKING MINIMUMS WRITTEN INTO IT DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S WRITTEN.
UM, ON THE, UH, UH, UH, AMENDMENT TO, UH, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT IS PROPOSED, WHICH WOULD, UH, UH, ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY BAR OR RESTAURANT THAT'S UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
AM I STATING THAT CORRECTLY? OKAY.
UH, HOW MANY BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN, IN DALLAS, OR WHAT IS THE AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, SQUARE FOOT OF, OF, OF MOST RESTAURANTS IN DALLAS? HOW MANY, UH, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF RESTAURANTS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT, UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET WHERE YOU'D BE EXEMPTING? I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
DO YOU THINK IT'S HALF? I I REALLY AM UNPREPARED TO ASK THAT WE COULD, WE COULD DO A SURVEY THAT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
UM, THEN, UH, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS, UM, A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE WRITTEN TO US WITH SUGGESTIONS.
LIKE A ONE LADY WROTE WAS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PARKING CODE FOR MEDICAL CLINICS CURRENTLY REQUIRES FIVE PARKING SPACES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS THAT A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CLINIC WOULD REQUIRE 50 PARKING SPACES.
UH, AND THEN TREK, UH, WROTE IN A PROPOSAL THAT WE REDUCE THE MINIMUM FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS TO A RATIO OF ONE FOR EVERY 200 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN I'VE ALSO HEARD, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION ON REDUCING THE MINIMUM FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET, UH, FROM, UH, 200 SQUARE ONE TO, FOR EVERY 200 SQUARE FEET TO ONE TO 1, 1 1 FOR ONE, EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET.
SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, I MEAN, DOESN'T HAVE, HAVE Y'ALL CONSIDERED REDUCING THE MINIMUMS AND LOOKING AT EACH, UH, OF, OF THESE, UH, CASES IN THE ZONING CODE AND, AND, AND LOOKING AT REDUCING THE MINIMUMS AS OPPOSED TO GETTING RID OF THEM ALL TOGETHER? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE TO ME, WE'RE MAKING A REALLY DRACONIAN DECISION HERE IN TERMS OF CHANGING OUR PARKING CODE.
SO I, I JUST KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT IT SELECTIVELY.
HOW ABOUT I START AND WE, CAN YOU START, I'LL GIVE A HISTORICAL NOTE, AND I THINK WE'LL SING IN HARMONY ON THIS ONE.
UM, SO WE DID LOOK, ESPECIALLY AT REDUCTIONS 2020 AND 2021, UM, WE HAD A PRETTY EXTENSIVE FRAMEWORK.
WE HAD A WHOLE NEW, UM, TABLE OF MINIMUMS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED.
THE, UM, I THINK THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP, UM, THAT SORT OF ARE INSTIGATING THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMO AND KEEPING SOME MINIMUMS ARE ESPECIALLY PROTECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY BEEN THE CHIEF CONCERN OF, OF CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
UM, AND THERE ARE SO MANY LAND USES, SO MANY DISTRICTS, UM, AND ONE OF THE MAPS THAT I SENT OUT HAS SOME PURPLE AND YELLOW, AND YOU SEE HOW MUCH PURPLE IS NOWHERE NEAR SINGLE FAMILY AT ALL.
UM, WHAT WE WANT TO DO, A COUPLE OF THE ADDITIONAL GOALS ARE FRANKLY, SIMPLIFY STAFF'S LIFE.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A HUGE NUMBER OF SQUARE MILES WHERE STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE COUNTING PARKING SPACES, UM, UNTIL YOU GET CLOSE TO A SINGLE FAMILY AREA.
ANOTHER, I FORGOT MY SECOND POINT, BUT, UM, WE, FOR 2020 AND 2021, WE DID LOOK, ESPECIALLY AT REDUCTIONS.
UM, IN THE END, WE REALLY WANT TO FREE UP SPACE FOR QUALITY, WALKABLE, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
AND SO WHETHER THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING SOMETHING INDUSTRIAL THAT'S NOWHERE NEAR A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILDING A, A SPECTACULAR NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH A RESTAURANT AND WITH DWELLING UNITS AND WITH THE CLINIC, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, WE JUST WOULDN'T NEED TO ADDRESS THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION CONCERN WITH THAT.
AND SO, BY, UM, REIGNING IN THE CONSIDERATIONS GEOGRAPHICALLY OR BY DISTRICT, UH, WE CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE TARGETED, UH, RESPONSE TO THE CONCERN.
SO YOU ASKED ABOUT FULL ELIMINATION.
WHY WOULD WE CONSIDER FULL ELIMINATION INSTEAD OF SOME OF THESE NUANCES? WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT
[01:45:01]
IS, IS FULL ELIMINATION, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.THERE'S OAC ORDINANCE, RIGHT? RECOMMENDATION.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS OX RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
ALSO, WHILE IT LOOKS ON PAPER LIKE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL TREATMENT, WE KNOW THAT BUILDERS OF ANY GIVEN PROPERTY LOOK AT THE CONTEXT, THEY LOOK AT THEIR INTENT, THEY LOOK AT THE CUSTOMER BASE.
UH, ARE THEY SELLING SANDWICHES TO THE TOWN HOME NEXT DOOR, OR ARE THEY DRAWING IN CUSTOMERS FROM ACROSS THE CITY ACROSS THE REGION, AND THEY, UH, PROVIDE PARKING THAT MEETS THE NEED OF THAT CONTEXT AND THAT DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO, UM, WE REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET REGULATES ITSELF.
WE SEE VERY OFTEN THAT IN SITUATIONS USING OUR M-I-H-T-B PROGRAM, OR IN OTHER CITIES, UH, WHERE DEVELOPERS CAN BUILD MUCH LESS PARKING, THEY MIGHT ONLY BUILD TWO FEWER SPACES OR THREE FEWER SPACES.
THEY, THEY OFTEN ALSO BUILD A LOT MORE THAN REQUIRED, EVEN IN A SITUATION WITH NO MINIMUMS. AND SO, UM, I'VE RAMBLED A LITTLE BIT, ANDREA, UH, WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
SO, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE US TO UNDERSTAND THAT A RATIO FOR A USE, REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION, IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL A RATIO IN ITSELF.
SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THE CODE IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
UH, WHEN WE SAY ELIMINATION IS NOT AN ELIMINATION OF PARKING, IT'S JUST ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY.
SO YOU CAN HAVE NUANCES TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOCATION AND CERTAIN TYPE OF USES.
SO BASICALLY, I CAN EXPLAIN FOR INSTANCE, FOR MULTIFAMILY, A MULTIFAMILY IN DOWNTOWN IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN, AND A MULTIFAMILY IN DOWNTOWN IN A HIGH RISE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN A FOURPLEX IN, UM, I DON'T KNOW, CLOSE TO BELTLINE, RIGHT? IT FUNCTIONS DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT HAS THE SAME REQUIREMENT.
SO TO ME, THAT'S THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
A RESTAURANT MAY BE A DONUT SHOP, OR IT MAY BE A RESTAURANT, A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT.
SO THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT USES, BUT THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME USE UMBRELLA, AND YOU PARK THEM THE SAME.
UH, IT MAY BE A SMALL OPERATOR THAT IS HERE FOR A YEAR, OR IT MAY BE AN OPERATOR THAT IS HERE FOR A LONGER TIME.
UM, GENERAL MERCHANDISE, YOU MAY HAVE A BIG GENERAL MERCHANDISE THAT HAS ITS OWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THEIR USE AND THEIR DEMAND DURING PEAK TIME, WHICH IS USUALLY, YOU KNOW, BLACK FRIDAY, THANKSGIVING OR, UM, CHRISTMAS, OR IT MAY BE JUST A SMALL, UH, UH, GENERAL MERCHANDISE THAT SELLS, I DON'T KNOW, BREAD.
SO IT'S JUST TO PUT A BLANK ONE PER 200 FOR EVERY GENERAL MERCHANDISE.
TO ME, THAT'S THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL, AND THAT'S WHAT DOESN'T WORK.
UM, SO ELIMINATION OF MINIMUMS THAT I KEEP ON SAYING, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU PROHIBIT PARKING.
IT MEANS THAT THEY WILL GET TO PROVIDE AS MUCH AS THEY NEED, UM, AND IT WILL BETTER SERVE THE MAR THE, THE CITY.
AND IT, I ALWAYS LOVE TO GO BACK TO THIS, WHAT DO WE WANT FOR OUR CITY? WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT NOW THE CITY IS DEVELOPED AND THE, THE BEHAVIOR OF USERS AND OF PROVIDERS IS TOWARDS CARS.
UM, THIS IS HOW INDUCED DEMAND WORKS.
LIKE WE ALREADY INDUCE THE DEMAND FOR CARS.
IT, THAT'S WHY IT'S VERY EASY TO TAKE THE TRAINING WHEELS OFF, AND YOU JUST SAY, OKAY, NOW YOU'RE GOOD TO RUN ON YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THE BEHAVIOR.
SO WE HAVE TO GO BACK, WHAT DO WE WANT FOR OUR CITY? DO WE WANT FOR OUR CITY TO CORRECT THIS CAR-CENTRIC BEHAVIOR AND MAKE IT SAFER, MORE WALKABLE, MORE PLEASANT, MORE BEAUTIFUL, OR DO WE WANNA CONTINUE TO INDUCE THIS DEMAND AND TO MAKE IT WIDER STREETS, HIGHER SPEEDS, NO TREES, NO SAFE SIDEWALKS.
SO THAT'S THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU.
STAFF RECOMMENDED TO YOU THE VISION.
AND AS LONG AS YOU CAN MAKE A RATIONALE AND EXPLAIN THAT THIS CODE WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS VISION AND THIS DIVISION FOR MY CITY, WE'RE FINE.
AND THEN I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE NUMBERS.
YES, WE LOOKED AT REDUCTIONS, WE COULDN'T FIND ANY SCIENCE BETWEEN THEM BEHIND THE NUMBERS.
WE LOOKED INTO IT, WHICH IS THE MANUAL OF ENGINEERS.
UH, DAVID HERE, DAVID NEVAREZ IS, I THINK HE WAS THE CHAIR OF THE PARKING COMMITTEE OF THE, UH, INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, UM, ASSOCIATION.
SO HE IS VERY WELL AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING PARKING NATIONWIDE, AND THEY ARE BASICALLY THE ONES WHO ARE ESTABLISHING THE PARKING RATIOS THAT THE ENGINEERS RECOMMEND FOR THEIR DEVELOPERS.
AND THERE IS NO SCIENCE, LIKE DAVID LOOKED AT THAT.
HE LOOKED HISTORICALLY, THEIR PARKING COMMITTEE AT INTER AT NATIONAL LEVEL LOOKED AT WHAT IS A GOOD RATIO FOR RETAIL.
[01:50:01]
LIKE ANYWHERE BETWEEN, I DON'T KNOW, ONE PER 200 TO ONE PER THOUSAND.THERE ISN'T ANY SCIENCE BE BEHIND THE NUMBERS.
AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PREMISE THAT PROFESSORSHIP SHOW SHOWED US AS WELL.
SO I WOULD SAY, IF YOU WANNA CHOOSE A NUMBER, CHOOSE A NUMBER, WE COULDN'T PROFESSIONALLY BASED ON OUR, UH, EXPERTISE FROM A PLANNER AND FROM AN ENGINEER PERSPECTIVE, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR REDUCTION AND FOR A NUMBER, BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN BASICALLY US JUST RANDOMLY CHOOSING THINGS.
I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, OF COURSE, BUT YOU WANT ME TO OFF? OF COURSE.
MY, MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION WAS, UH, WHAT, UH, HOW, HOW, HOW DO YOU BACKTRACK IF, IF WE FIND THAT REMOVING THESE PARKING MINIMUMS HAVE HAD AN ADVERSE OR DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE, AND PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH REGARD TO THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON SINGLE FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS? MULTIFAMILY, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I WOULD ASK YOU TO DEFINE WHAT THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECT IS.
WHAT WE HEARD FROM MOST OFTEN IS THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE TOO MUCH ON STREET PARKING.
AND THE ON STREET PARKING DOES.
AGAIN, WE HAVE A CURB MANAGEMENT, UM, PLAN.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT THAT ENFORCES CURB MANAGEMENT.
UM, AND I WILL SAY, I KNOW, PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT MORE THAN IT IS, THERE'S ONLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PARKING AT THE CURB.
YOU CAN, IN FRONT OF A HOUSE, YOU CAN PARK TWO CARS.
HOW MANY CARS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN PARK? YOU THINK YOU CAN PARK CARS ON THE ENTIRE RIGHT OF WAY AND NOBODY'S GONNA PASS.
THAT'S ALSO NOT A REALITY, BECAUSE AGAIN, TALKING TO TRANSPORTATION, THEY EXPLAIN TO US WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WHEN IT COMES TO AN AMBULANCE, A FIRE TRUCK, THEY WILL PUT A NO PARKING AND THEY WILL ENFORCE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S PUBLIC SAFETY IS THEIR DUTY.
THAT'S NOT QUESTION, THAT'S NOT A QUESTION IF AN AMBULANCE CANNOT MAKE IT THROUGH, IF A FIRE TRUCK CANNOT MAKE IT THROUGH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT USES THEIR POWER TO COME AND PUT NO PARKING SIGNS AND ENFORCE IT.
SO I, AGAIN, WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IS THE DETRIMENTAL, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA FIND THE TOOLS TO ADDRESS IT.
BUT JUST REQUIRING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL IN THE ENTIRE CITY, I THINK IT DOES WAY MORE HARM.
GO BACK TO THE COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND THEN DECIDE BASED ON THAT.
WELL, I, I WOULD CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, UH, THEY HAVE OVERFLOW PARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM NEARBY RESTAURANTS, UH, THAT DIDN'T HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING.
THERE'S, UH, OVERFLOW PARKING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD FROM APARTMENTS WHERE THE PEOPLE, UH, CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE PARKING PERMIT.
SO THEY JUST PARK IT ON THE STREET, UH, OVERFLOWING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE WINDWOOD HEIGHTS WHERE YOU, YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH AND DRIVE WITH A A, A VEHICLE LIKE YOU DESCRIBED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
AND THE LANE IN THE ROAD IS VERY NARROW ROAD.
AND, AND NO ONE'S, UH, OUT THERE TRYING TO, UH, ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS THAT THEY FACE.
SO MY QUESTION, TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST PART OF MY QUESTION, WAS IT, HOW DO YOU BACKTRACK ON THIS ONCE YOU REMOVE THESE PARKING MINIMUMS AND, AND IN THE FUTURE, POLICY MAKERS DECIDE THIS ISN'T WORKING.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN NOW THAT WE'VE GRANTED THIS, UH, UH, THESE EXCEPTIONS TO ALL THESE PEOPLE FOR THESE MANY YEARS? UH, HOW, HOW DO WE EVER, UH, YOU KNOW, GO BACK AND, AND, AND MAKE THIS RIGHT? IF THIS DOES, DOES TURN OUT TO BE A BAD POLICY DECISION? UH, YES.
I, I STILL LIKE, WHAT I HEAR IS THAT THE DETRIMENT IS THAT PEOPLE WILL PARK ON THE STREET ON BOTH SIDES.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S A CURB MANAGEMENT ALWAYS.
IF WE, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE NEED, THAT'S THE REACTION, NOT THE PROACTIVE, RIGHT? IF WE RE, IF WE REALIZE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER PARKING ENFORCEMENT IN THOSE AREAS, I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.
AND THERE ARE MECHANISM, YOU CAN PUT NO STREET PARKING AND IT THAT CAN BE ENFORCED.
I THINK THE USE OF THE CURB, WE ARE DEVIATING, BUT I DO LIKE THIS DEVIATION.
THERE IS A CONCEPT THAT'S CALLED COMPETITION TO THE CURB.
THE USE OF THE CURB HAS TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN JUST PARKING.
UM, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR BIKE LANES, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR TRANSIT, THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN HAVE YOUR LANDSCAPING.
SO I WOULD SAY IT'S IN OUR ALL BENEFIT TO ENFORCE TO NOT USE THE CURB JUST FOR PARKING CARS.
SO, UM, I WOULD SAY IF THE, IF THE USE ITSELF REQUIRES MORE PARKING BECAUSE IT'S SO POPULAR, IT'S GONNA HAVE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIND SOLUTIONS.
THEY MAY DO SHARED AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER USES NEARBY AND PARK THERE.
THEY MAY, UH, SIMPLY ENFORCE AND TELL THEIR PATRONS, WE DON'T HAVE PARKING SPOTS FOR YOU, SO PLEASE DON'T COME IN HERE.
[01:55:01]
IS A MANAGEMENT ISSUE AND IT CAN BE ADDRESSED.THE INTENT IS, AGAIN, DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO DRIVE THERE OR DO YOU WANT THE USE TO START MANAGING THE WAY THEY OPERATE? SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT IF WE DO GET RID OF THESE PARKING MINIMUMS, THERE'S NO WAY TO GO BACK, GO BACK.
THERE'S NO WAY TO, TO GO, TO GO BACK AND RECTIFY THE PROBLEM LATER.
I DID NOT SAY THAT, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE WELL, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER QUESTION MY QUESTION THOUGH.
YOU NEVER, NEVER ANSWERED THAT PART OF THE QUESTION I EXPLAINED TO YOU.
THERE IS ENFORCEMENT, IF THERE ARE, THERE ARE ISSUES.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE THE MARKET DECIDES IF THE USE DOESN'T BELONG THERE, IT DOESN'T.
IF THEY CAN FIND PARKING BECAUSE THEY NEED MORE PARKING TO OPERATE AT THAT LOCATION, FINE.
IF NOT, THEY CANNOT PARK ON THE STREET.
I, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
I, IF WE GIVE A RESTAURANT THAT'S 2,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, UH, THE EXEMPTION FROM PARKING, AND LATER ON WE DECIDE THIS ISN'T WORKING, AND NOW WE NEED TO GO BACK AND TELL THAT RESTAURANT THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
HOW DO WE DO THAT? IF, IF LATER ON WE DECIDE AS A, AS A CITY THAT THIS ISN'T WORKING, HOW DO WE GO BACK AND, AND, AND TELL THESE BUSINESSES, HEY, BEFORE WE SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY PARKING, NOW WE'RE SAYING, HEY, WE MADE A MISTAKE AND, AND WE NEED TO HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM PARKING FOR THIS RESTAURANT.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY, UH, WITH OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
WE STARTED ADDING AND REQUIRING OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN 1947.
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT 1947 WAS, WE HAD ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, OLD CARS SPEWING OUT, UM, LOTS OF SMOKE AND PEOPLE WERE DOUBLE PARKING AND THERE'S PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, JUST CHAOS.
NOBODY HAD OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ANYWHERE.
AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED TO ADD IT IN.
AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S PRECEDENT.
WE HAVE, UM, INCREMENTALLY INCREASED OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS OVER TIME.
AND YOU MIGHT ASSUME, OR, OR LIKE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT INCREASING OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT, ENCOURAGING OFF STREET PARKING CREATES A MORE SPRAWLING CITY.
THERE'S MORE CARS, THERE'S MORE AIR POLLUTION, AND IT REALLY IS A DETRIMENT TO KEEP ENCOURAGING MORE AND MORE PARKING, MORE SURFACE SPACES.
AND SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A NEW IDEA EVOLVE OUT OF A BASIC NUMBER OF, NUMBER OF SPACES PER SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN INSTEAD, I MEAN, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO HAVE THE PR TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS TO TAKE THAT SITE IN ITS CONTEXT AND SEE WHAT KIND OF STRATEGIES WE CAN ENCOURAGE TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS APPROPRIATE, MEETS, MEETS ALL OF OUR GOALS.
AND YOU KNOW, MICHAEL'S REALLY GREAT AT EXPLAINING THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE WE DID IN 1947 AND WE, AND WE HAVE DONE EVER SINCE, THERE'S, THE CITY CAN ALWAYS ADD PARKING BACK INTO THE, THE PICTURE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE CANNOT DO IT.
IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING ALL CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE ADDED AND INCREASED OVER TIME.
SO THERE'S NO PROHIBITION FOR US TO ELIMINATE IT AND ADD IT BACK IN LATER IF WE SUDDENLY DECIDE THAT WE WERE WRONG.
BUT IF WE ADD ITS AVAILABLE, BUT ADD IT BACK AGAIN, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THAT RESTAURANT THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT? DOES THAT RESTAURANT NOW HAVE TO GO AND PROVIDE SPACES OR DO WE HAVE TO, BECAUSE WE GAVE THAT RESTAURANT THE ABILITY TO OPERATE WITHOUT SPACES? DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOME KIND OF CREDIT? YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, I, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I WILL GO BACK TO MY ANSWER AND I WOULD SAY, UM, NO, THEY WILL HAVE TO, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THEIR NONCONFORMING CREDITS IF WE ADD IT BACK IN.
BUT AGAIN, QUESTION, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE? SO THEY HAVE NONCONFORMING CREDITS.
WE WE'RE NOT TELLING THE RESTAURANT THAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE PARKING BECAUSE THEY WILL PROVIDE IT FOR THEIR PATRONS.
WE TELL THE RESTAURANT, YOU CANNOT PARK ON OUR STREETS AND YOU CANNOT DISTURB THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT'S THEIR BUSINESS ON HOW TO DO IT.
THAT'S THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S EMBEDDED IN THIS.
AS LONG AS WE SET THE RULES AND YOU, WE SAY YOU CANNOT PARK ON THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S DISTURBING ON THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE HAVE SO MANY COMPLAINTS, IT'S YOUR BUSINESS AND YOU CONDUCT IT IN A WAY THAT IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE.
THAT'S THE FLEXIBILITY EMBEDDED IN IT.
BECAUSE THEY CAN ADJUST THEIR HOURS, THEY CAN ADJUST, AGAIN, AS I SAID, THEIR OCCUPANCY.
I CANNOT COME AS A CITY AND TELL AN A RESTAURANT, OH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE LESS TABLES BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY DRIVES HERE.
WHAT IF PEOPLE COME BY BIKE? THAT'S US
[02:00:01]
GETTING INTERFERING TO THEIR OPERATION AND LEND DOESN'T DO THAT.MEGAN, DID YOU WANNA RESPOND ALSO? OKAY.
YEAH, I GUESS I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY TO, TO ANSWER YOUR, YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH WAS YEAH, WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT THIS EXERCISE.
THIS WOULD BE THE SAME, YOU KNOW, THE SAME PROCESS.
IF FOR SOME REASON IT DOESN'T WORK AND WE NEED TO REVISIT, THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITIES TO AMEND IN THE FUTURE.
BUT I THINK SARAH ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
SO, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO END UP ISSUING CREDITS, NOT NONCONFORMING CREDITS, RIGHT.
TO THESE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT, THAT OPERATED UNDER THE OLD, THAT WHEN THE PARKING MINIMUMS WERE GONE.
THEY WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS, AND THAT'S GONNA BE AN EXTRA MANAGEMENT TYPE OF BURDEN, RIGHT, ON THE PART OF YOUR, YOUR DEPARTMENT.
IT'S, IT'S THE COMPLICATION OF DELTA CREDITS THAT WE DEAL WITH TODAY.
SO IT'S, IT'S A VERY TIME CONSUMING EXERCISE AND ELIMINATION, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY WOULD ALSO VERY MUCH HELP US AT REVIEW.
JUST, UH, A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT YOUR MIC IS ON, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH.
UM, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK COMMISSIONER FORSYTH ASKED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE ANSWER TO ON THE RECORD, WHICH IS, IF I HAVE A USE TODAY AND I HAVE A CEO WITH X AMOUNT OF NUMBER OF PARKINGS ATTACHED TO MY CO AND THAT THAT NUMBER GETS CHANGED WHEN WE FINALLY VOTE ON THIS ITEM, WHETHER IT'S TODAY OR ON THE ON THE SIXTH, UH, WHAT HAPPENS TO ME AND MY CO, DID I AUTOMATICALLY GET A DIFFERENT, UH, RIGHT SPRINKLED ON MY, MY CO? OR DOES THAT HAPPEN IF I HAPPEN TO GO BACK THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND COME BACK TO THE CITY? AND DOES IT WORK THE OTHER WAY WHERE IF IN FACT, THIS BODY MIGHT CHOOSE TO, TO RAISE A PARKING REQUIREMENT ON A CERTAIN USE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT I, THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM NOW WITH MY CO SO I'M GONNA ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I THINK YOU MIGHT BE ASKING, BUT THEN PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M, IF I'M NOT INTERPRETING CORRECTLY.
SO IF A RESTAURANT, I GUESS TO ADDRESS IT THIS WAY TO START, IF A RESTAURANT WAS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF O OCCUPANCY UNDER TODAY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY NEED 50 SPACES BASED ON THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN THE RE THE ELIMINATION OR THE PROPOSAL THAT LET'S SAY THEY'RE 2,500 SQUARE FEET, SO THEY'RE, THEY DON'T REQUIRE PARKING, I GUESS DOING THAT MATH, THEY WOULDN'T REQUIRE 50 SPACES.
BUT
WHETHER THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD REMAIN UNLESS THEY, THE RESTAURANT EXPANDS OR SOMETHING AND HAS MORE LAND AREA TO WORK WITH, NOW THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED ALL THE PARKING SPACES, UM, THEN YEAH, THEY, THEY JUST, I MEAN, I GUESS, I'M SORRY, I'M RAMBLING NOW.
WAS THE QUESTION, WELL, DO THEY NEED TO GET A NEW CO OR WAS THE QUEST, I MEAN, FOR CLEANUP PURPOSES YEAH, THEY COULD COME IN AND DO A RECORD CHANGE AND A GET A NEW CO THAT SAYS THEIR CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, OR WAS THE QUESTION MORE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE, LIKE IF BOTH WAYS.
YOU WANNA TRY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YEAH, I, I THINK IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT, YEAH.
ARE, IS THE, THE RESTAURANT, THE HYPOTHETICAL RESTAURANT THAT REQUIRES SOME AMOUNT OF PARKING, ARE THEY LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN THAT PARKING IF WE, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CO THEY HAVE NOW IF THE PARKING, UH, MINIMUMS GET ELIMINATED OR REDUCED OR REDUCED OR REDUCED, THEY WOULD BE, ARE THEY TIED TO THAT AMOUNT THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY GOT THEIR CO THAT'S THE QUESTION.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK THAT TECHNICALLY THEY WOULD BE, DO YOU WANNA ANSWER IT, SARAH? SURE.
LET'S, IF IT'S AN SUP, IT'S TIED TO A SITE PLAN, RIGHT? IF THERE'S, IF AN SUP SAYS 10 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED, THEN TAR 10 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS ORDINANCE ALSO GIVES US SEVERAL IN RUNS AROUND THAT, WHICH IS NEW RIGHT NOW IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CANNOT TOUCH A PD OR AN SUP, BUT UNDER THIS NEW, UM, ORDINANCE THAT'S PROPOSED, THEY COULD REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON A PD OR AN SUP BY A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHAT, YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
AND ALSO THERE'S A, A REQUIREMENT HERE OR A MODIFICATION THAT
[02:05:01]
A PARKING REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION CAN BE CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT.'CAUSE I DO LOVE ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.
LIKE, I REALLY WANNA HEAR HER ABOUT THE WHAT HAPPENS TO A CO AND THEN I LOVE THE QUESTION ABOUT BDA, AND WE'LL ANSWER THAT.
I, SO THE ANSWER TO THE CO QUESTION IS, IF OUR, IF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS CHANGED AND LESS OR NO PARKING IS REQUIRED, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO FORCE THEM TO DO ANYTHING.
BUT IF THEY WANT TO COME IN AND LET'S SAY THAT HALF OF THEIR PARKING WAS IN A PARKING AGREEMENT, THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP CLOUDING THE DEED AS THEY SAY, THEY CAN COME TERMINATE THAT PARKING AGREEMENT, FIX THEIR CO TO REFLECT WHAT THE CURRENT CODE SAYS, AND THEN THEY CAN BE ON THEIR MERRY WAY.
AND THEN LATER, IF THE, IF THE CODE HAS CHANGED TO NOW REQUIRE MORE PARKING THAN THEY DID WHEN THEY TERMINATED THE PARKING AGREEMENT AND UPDATED THEIR CO, THEN THEY WOULD BE GRANTED DELTA CREDITS FOR THAT DIFFERENCE IN PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM WHAT THEY HAVE AND WHAT'S REQUIRED.
NOW, IF THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, IF THE CODE SAYS THEY NEEDED 50 PARKING SPACES AND THEN IT WAS CHANGED TO NONE, THEN THEY CAN, UM, AND, BUT THEY HAD A HUNDRED, THEN, YOU KNOW, NONE OF THIS REALLY MATTERS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE COMPLIANT IN ANY OF THESE SCENARIOS.
SO, UM, THE CHANCES AND THE QUANTITY OF US HAVING THE SITUATION WHERE AN EXISTING PARK, AN EXISTING BUSINESS IS GONNA HAVE, IS SOMEHOW GOING TO DIVORCE ALL OF THEIR PARKING SPACES, I THINK IS, IT'S KIND OF THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE NORMAL STANDARD OF WHAT WE EXPECT TO HAPPEN.
CERTAINLY IT COULD HAPPEN, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO BE A, A PROBLEMATIC SITUATION NOW FOR THE BDA AND CPC, UH, DO LIKE IT, AND I THINK IT CAN BECOME A VERY BIG CONVERSATION.
IT IS AN ADDITION OF POWER THAT BDA MAY HAVE.
BDA AND CPC ARE TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CPC WILL LOSE THEIR POWER TO ALLOW ZERO MINIMUMS IN PDS AND SUVS.
IT JUST MEANS THAT PDA CAN EVALUATE BY THEIR LIMITATIONS AND BY THEIR CRITERIA.
IF, AGAIN, IF WE WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION JUST ABOUT THAT, FINE.
I THINK IT'S A VERY INTERESTING ONE.
WE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY CONSIDERING THE FACT, AGAIN THAT BDA HAS VERY STRICT, UH, PURVIEW AND VERY RIGID CRITERIA THAT THEY HAVE TO CONSIDER FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
CPC IS WIDER AND IS DISCRETIONARY.
SO WE SAID YOU MAY HAVE A, AN OPTION THAT IS NOT SO DISCRETIONARY AS LONG AS YOU HAVE FACTS AND DATA AND YOU CAN MEET THE, THAT CRITERIA.
SO IT'S NOT A, I JUST WANNA SAY THIS, IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL OPTION THAT DEVELOPERS, OPERATORS HAVE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ARGUMENT TO A DIFFERENT BODY IN A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND, AND I WOULD ADD ON TO THAT, PART OF THEIR CRITERIA AT THE BOARD TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE PARKING IS THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT GONNA CAUSE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SO THAT OFTEN ENTAILS A TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO WRITE A REPORT, TALK ABOUT THE DEMAND, AND THEY HAVE A VERY LENGTHY DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THEY'RE GOING TO CONSIDER SOME REDUCTION IN PARKING.
SO THAT'S WHY THE PROPOSAL DOES INCLUDE AN OPTION FOR THEM TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MAKE SOME SORT OF TRAFFIC DEMAND ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THOUSAND 50 PARKING SPACES MIGHT BE BETTER AT A THOUSAND.
SO, UM, SO THAT IS PART OF THE PROPOSAL AND HOW WE CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH CPC AND COUNSEL TO, TO CHANGE THAT IF THAT'S THE ONLY THING THEY NEED TO CHANGE.
UM, AND AS FAR AS THE MINOR AMENDMENT, UM, CHANGE THAT WA FROM MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WAS REALLY JUST TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSION.
UM, IF THERE, IF PARKING IS REDUCED TO NO REQUIRED PARKING, UM, TO, TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURE, UM, WHAT TO DO, WHAT QUALIFIES WHAT DOESN'T.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT INTERNALLY IS DOES THIS QUALIFY FOR A MINOR OR NOT? SO IT WAS REALLY TO NOT TO CHANGE WHAT'S A MINOR AMENDMENT, WHAT'S NOT.
IT WAS FOR CLARIFICATION, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS IN MINOR AMENDMENTS, UH, REGARDING ANY CHANGE TO PARKING? I'LL READ IT IN A
[02:10:01]
SECOND.IT'S, IT SAYS THAT A MINOR AMENDMENT, UH, AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND THAT THE TEXT RULES, SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MINOR AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CIRCUMVENT THE TEXT.
IF THE TEXT OF THE PD REQUIRES PARKING, THAT STANDS, A MINOR AMENDMENT IS JUST A CHANGE TO THE PLAN.
SO THE CRITERIA RIGHT NOW, LET ME READ IT TO YOU IN A SECOND.
I'LL, I'LL SAY IT OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, IS BASICALLY SAYS, UM, REDUCTION.
YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR MINOR IF YOU HAVE A REDUCTION IN PARKING AS TO CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SO IT AGAIN, GOES BACK TO OUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEW SPOTS AND STILL COMPLYING WITH YOUR RATIO.
SO IT GOES BACK TO THE ENGINEER ASSESSING IF IT CREATES A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR NOT.
SO IT DOES HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY.
AND I'LL READ YOU THE, THE EXACT, UM, LANGUAGE IN A SEC.
THIS WAS, WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE AT A LOT HIGHER LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THAN I AM.
SO IN THIS EXAMPLE OF THAT RESTAURANT THAT'S 2,500 SQUARE FEET THAT TODAY HAS TO HAVE 25 PARKING SPACES, LET'S SAY, RIGHT.
ONE FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET.
UH, AND THEY'VE GOT A CO FOR THAT.
AND NOW WE PASSED, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS AMENDMENT THAT, UH, SAYS THAT THAT 2,500 SQUARE FEET, UH, RESTAURANT DOES, HAS TO HAVE, DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANY PARKING SPACES.
ARE, AM I HEARING YOU CORRECTLY THAT THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO GET A CHANGE IN THE CO OR AS LONG AS THEY'RE OPERATING UNDER THAT CO THEY THEY HAVE TO HAVE THOSE 25 PARKING SPACES AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE 25 PARKING SPACES.
OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CITY TO GET A DISPENSATION? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
SO IF I CAN AGGREGATE A LOT OF THE RESPONSES NO, UM, TO A LOT OF THE SCENARIOS YOU JUST SAID.
SO IF, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF ANY SEP, SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, PD, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST A BASE ZONE, 25 SPACES REQUIRED UNDER THE NEW, UM, UH, MEMO OR AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD NO LONGER NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE.
THE CEOI THINK IS JUST A RECORD OF THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
SO IT'S NOT A, A UNIQUE AGREEMENT TO THE CODE.
SO EVEN THOUGH ON THE DAY THAT IT'S ADOPTED, THAT CO WOULD STILL READ 25, IT'S JUST, IT WOULD NEED A RECORDS CLEANUP.
SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THOSE 25 SPACES.
THE, THE CONVERSATION JUST MOVED AT LIGHT SPEED.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, AND THEY GOT, WE GOT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC ABOUT, UM, MINOR AMENDMENT IN PD, THAT KIND OF A THING.
SO, SO BASICALLY THEY CAN, IF THEY'VE GOT FIVE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THEIR, UH, THEIR BUILDING RIGHT NOW, THEY CAN GO AND, AND, AND, AND START PUTTING UP TABLES AND THOSE FIVE PARKING SPACES IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS, UH, THIS CODE CHANGE.
WITHOUT COMING BACK TO THE CITY.
AND THEN, UH, IF WE CHANGE IT LATER ON TO GO BACK TO THE 25 PARKING SPACES, THEN WE'D HAVE TO GIVE THEM, YOU'RE SAYING 25, UH, DELTA CREDITS? SURE.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING PARKING, WHATEVER THAT DIFFERENCE IS.
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
AND THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH ME.
'CAUSE I, AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, FOLLOWED BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN, THEN COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE AND OCK.
UM, YOU KNOW, ON ON COMMISSIONER FORAYS POINT, DR.
ANDREA, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS, WE WOULD APPRECIATE A DIRECT AND FORTHRIGHT ANSWER, DON'T YOU? ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE A FULL ANSWER, NOT A PARTIAL ANSWER.
OKAY, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT JUST MEANT THE LAST 30 MINUTES GETTING AN ANSWER THAT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE TO GET IN THREE MINUTES FOR YES OR NO QUESTIONS.
NOW, NOW YOU SAY THAT MINIMUMS ARE ARBITRARY, BUT AREN'T THE ELIMINATION OF ALL OF THE MINIMUMS EQUALLY ARBITRARY? I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH PER, AS I SAID, PER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND JUDGMENT, THERE IS ENOUGH, UH, RECOMMENDATION FROM BOTH PROFESSIONS PLANNING AND ENGINEERING TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT.
UM, NO MINIMUMS, IT'S NOT ELIMINATION.
NO MINIMUMS IS BETTER SUPPORTED BY PROFESSIONS.
DID STAFF MAKE ANY EFFORT TO RIGHT SIZE PARKING FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CITY? WE THINK THAT A NO MINIMUM IS THE RIGHT SIZE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT, UH, IT IS,
[02:15:01]
UH, FLEXIBLE.SO THAT'S A NO, IT IS A NO, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT YOU MEAN BY YOUR QUESTION WITH BRIGHT SIZING.
SO IF YOU WANNA CLARIFY, I CAN CLARIFY TOO.
WELL, THIS CAN BE FOR ANY STAFF MEMBER.
WAS THERE ANY EFFORT TO LOOK AT VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY AND SAY, MAYBE THIS PART OF THE CITY DOES NEED PARKING MINIMUMS, WHEREAS OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY DON'T.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT, YEAH, YOU SEE THE TDMP WAS THE INTENT OF THAT.
UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS CODE, OTHER THAN VIA PDS, I DON'T KNOW, JUST TO LIKE, I DON'T KNOW.
I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT JUST TO PICK AREAS OF THE CITY AND JUST MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON AREAS OF THE CITY TO BASICALLY JUST GO AND LOOK AT EACH, USE HOW IT FUNCTIONS IN EACH AREA OF THE CITY AND RECOMMEND AN ARBITRARY RATIO.
A COMPLICATION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT HAD COME OUT ABOUT HOW THE PROVISION OF PARKING AND FURTHERMORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF PARKING INFLUENCES BEHAVIOR IS THAT IT, IT'S APPEARING IN SOME NEW STUDIES, UM, FROM SAN FRANCISCO, FROM UCLA.
UH, I THINK BERKELEY HAS ONE TOO, THAT BASICALLY WHEN YOU GET TO YOUR RIGHT SIZE, YOU'RE INFLUENCING PEOPLE TO DRIVE AND YOU CREATE MORE DEMAND AND IT'S NO LONGER THE RIGHT SIZE.
AND SO THAT CREATES A LOT OF AMBIGUITY.
UM, IT CREATES A LOT OF THE, THE, UM, PSEUDOSCIENCE IS, IS, DONALD SCHU HAS CALLED IT THAT KIND OF A THING ABOUT EXACTLY HOW MANY SPACES ARE THE CORRECT SPACES.
SO I THINK NO ONE IS TRYING TO GET AROUND THE QUESTION, SHOULD A, SHOULD A LAND USE BE CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT THE PARKING DEMAND THAT THEY'RE CREATING? AND THAT WAS THE, THE THRUST BEHIND CREATING A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROGRAM.
AND THESE HAVE BEEN, UM, INSTATED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, EUROPE AND AMERICA ESPECIALLY.
UM, BUT AGAIN, LANDING ON THE RIGHT NUMBER, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S CAUSING US TO DRIVE MORE AND NEED MORE PARKING? THAT'S TOUGH FOR US TO ANSWER.
WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD YOU SAY REPEATEDLY IS THAT THE LANDOWNER HAS TO SOLVE FOR PARKING, AND THE CITY CAN FIND TOOLS TO ADDRESS IT, OR WE CAN ENFORCE PARKING.
BUT IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, WE'RE NOT REALLY GONNA DO THAT.
ARE WE? I THINK WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND OUR TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON BUILDING RIGHT NOW WITH PROTOTYPE PROGRAMS. YEAH.
BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY REALLY DO CODE ENFORCEMENT ON PARKING VERY WELL, DO WE? UM, I'LL LET, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE DO.
LIKE, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
THE CITY HAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE CITY HAS A PARKING ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT.
BUT IT'S A FALSE PROMISE TO THESE COMMUNITIES TO SAY, IF BUSINESSES DON'T PARK THEIR USES, THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO MAKE 'EM DO IT.
THAT'S A FALSE PROMISE TO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, THAT THE CITY IS GONNA DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY BECAUSE WE NEVER HAVE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE? UM, NO, IT'S NOT.
AND IF I AM TO ARGUE THE OTHER, IT'S A FALSE PROMISE TO TELL THE COMMUNITIES THAT ONE PER 200 IS ADEQUATE PARKING AT THAT LOCATION WITHOUT GOING INTO OPERATIONS.
SO IT CAN BE ARGUE EITHER WAY.
AND I WOULD SAY NO, THE CITY DOESN'T MAKE FALSE PROMISES.
WELL, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD BEG TO DIFFER.
NOW, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION THIS MORNING WITH, UM, A RECOGNITION THAT DR.
I'M, I'M SURE IF HE'S A DOCTOR, DONALD SCHU PASSED THIS WEEK.
HE'S ONE OF THE MORE RESPECTED PARKING THEORISTS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND, UM, TODD LIPMAN IS ONE OF HIS PEERS.
UM, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT MR. SCHU SUGGEST SUGGESTS REPLACING PARKING MINIMUMS WITH PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS? CORRECT.
AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL, IS IT? IT'S INCLUDED IN THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN.
UM, NOW BOTH MR. SHOUP AND MR. LIPMAN RECOMMEND IMPLEMENTING PARKING REFORM PIECEMEAL OVER TIME AND, AND NOT ALL AT ONCE.
THEY RECOMMEND FULL ELIMINATION.
AND IF, UH, FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE SKEPTICAL CITY LEADERS THAT, UH,
[02:20:01]
DO BETTER IN A SITUATION OF DEAL MAKING AND NEGOTIATION, THEN MAYBE THOSE CITY LEADERS CAN BE WON OVER BY AN, UH, SLOWER APPROACH.NO, THEY SPECIFICALLY RECOMMEND DOING PILOT PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET IT RIGHT, DON'T THEY? WE REACHED OUT TO BOTH.
I REMEMBER YOU ARE ALSO PART OF THE PANEL.
WHEN DONORSHIP CAME TO DALLAS, UM, WE TALKED TO HIM, HE RECOMMENDED ELIMINATION.
WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO TODD LIDMAN.
HE ALSO RECOMMENDED ELIMINATION.
SO EVERYTHING THAT MICHAEL JUST SAID IS CORRECT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN THEIR WRITTEN MATERIAL THOUGH.
IF YOU CAN SHOW US EXAMPLES, UM, WHERE, WHERE IT'S WRONG, AND I, I WILL, I HAVE IT.
UM, NOW, MR. LIPMAN ALSO RECOMMENDS AGAINST ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR RESIDENTIAL, DOESN'T IT? DOESN'T HE? I DON'T KNOW.
I HAVEN'T READ OR HEARD THAT FROM HIM.
HE SAYS ON STREET PARKING USES LESS LAND PER SPACE THAN OFF STREET PARKING BECAUSE IT REQUIRES NO DRIVEWAY.
BUT THE LAND IT USES OFTEN HAS A HIGHER OPPORTUNITY COST ROAD SPACE TO PARKING, DISPLACES TRAFFIC LANES, BICYCLE LANES, SIDEWALKS AND GREEN SPACES.
AND FOR THAT REASON, HE RECOMMENDS IT AGAINST ELIMINATING MINIMUM PARKINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
WHEN WE INTERVIEWED HIM, HE WAS HIGHLY SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF THE CURB SPACE THAT YOU CAN GET FOUR LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY NOT INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY AND NOT INCLUDING OFF STREET PARKING.
SO I, I SHOULDN'T RELY ON HIS WRITTEN WORK.
IS THAT YOUR SUGGESTION? I CAN GIVE YOU HIS EMAIL ADDRESS.
IS IS IT PERHAPS, DEPENDING ON WHO ASKED THEM THE QUESTION, WHAT ANSWER WE'RE GONNA GET? I KNOW I CAN'T ANSWER FOR HIM.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT BOTH OF THESE GENTLEMEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PAID MAN, UH, PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SHIFT THE BURDEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS THAT PAID BARKING PROGRAMS SHIFT THE BURDEN FROM BUSINESS FOR TWO BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS? NO PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SHIFT THE BURDEN OF MANAGING THOSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES RESIDENTS? I, I THINK, OH, THAT'S A VERY, VERY INTERESTING ANGLE.
I THINK THE WAY THE PARKING BENEFITS DISTRICT WORK AND ALL THESE ARE BASICALLY WITH GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP.
SO IT'S NOT A SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN.
IT'S BASICALLY A BETTER PARTNERSHIP.
SO THE BUSINESSES OR WHOMEVER IS, UM, DISTURBING THE CURB SHARES A LITTLE BIT OF RESPONSIBILITY, EVEN JUST BY ACKNOWLEDGING.
SO WE KNOW THAT THE PLAN, THE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS THAT I LOOKED AT, THEY HAD LIKE A JOINT, UM, AUTHORITY FROM NEIGHBORS, BUSINESSES AND THE CITY, AND THEN THEY SPLIT THE REVENUE, AND THEN THE CITY HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN AND PROVIDE BENEFITS.
I I DIDN'T SAY PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT, I SAID PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN GENERAL.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO COUNT PARKING SPACES ANYMORE, AND BUSINESSES DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACES PER CODE.
BUT NOW RESIDENTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHETHER THAT, THAT RESIDENTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH A FALLOUT FROM THAT, RIGHT? OH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING.
I WAS LOOKING IN, IN THE GREATER CONTEXT OF A PARKING BENEFIT OR A PARKING MANAGEMENT FOR THE AREA.
THE BUSINESS ITSELF IS ALWAYS THE ONE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THEIR OPERATION.
THE THE BURDEN IS NOT ON THE RESIDENTS MORE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING, CALL 3 1 1, LET US KNOW WHEN WE ARE GONNA PARTNER TO ENFORCE.
I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OR THE, THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANYTHING IS CHANGING THE BUSINESS ITSELF OR WHOMEVER OWNS THE PROPERTY AND OPERATES IT, IT'S STILL THE ONE RESPONSIBLE.
THE CITY HAS THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY, THE NEIGHBOR'S THE SAME.
WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT? A REDUCTION IN RESTAURANT BAR PA PARKING IS JUSTIFIED.
WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT REDUCTION IN BAR AND RESTAURANT PARKING IS JUSTIFIED? THAT'S PRETTY, PRETTY
[02:25:01]
TOUGH.I THINK THE BODY HERE IS, UM, DISCUSSING WHETHER IT'S JUSTIFIED OR NOT.
IF YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER THERE'S DATA TO SUPPORT THAT, UM, BARS AND RESTAURANTS WOULD BUILD LESS PARKING OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING CONCRETE.
BUT I THINK TO ASK WHETHER IT'S JUSTIFIED OR NOT, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE FOLLOWING OUR ARRAY OF PLANS THAT, UM, ENVISION A CITY OF MIXED USE, WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, UH, BARS AND RESTAURANTS AREN'T SPACED OUT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSOLIDATED INTO ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS.
NOT AS MANY PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ACROSS THE CITY TO GO TO THE ONE AREA THAT HAS A FANTASTIC, UM, BUILT FORM AND STREET PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT WITHOUT PARKING MINIMUMS. AND SO, UM, IN LIGHT OF OUR PLANS, OUR CITY PLANS, UH, WE THINK THAT FULL ELIMINATION IS JUSTIFIED.
UM, THAT'S WHY WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION.
LET ME ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT SUPPORTS THAT WE CURRENTLY OVER PARK BARS AND RESTAURANTS? DAVID, GOOD MORNING, OR ALMOST AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS, DAVID NAVARRE, UM, ENGINEERING.
WE, I'M LOOKING AT THE DATA THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED ACROSS THE, THE STATES, UH, FOR, SPECIFICALLY FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS.
THE DATA RANGES FROM ONE SPACE PER 15 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S 10 TIMES MORE THAN THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT.
UM, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ONE SPACE PER 340.
THAT'S A THIRD OF OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENT.
THO THOSE ARE DATA POINTS FROM EXISTING BARS AND RESTAURANTS.
AND GRANTED, UH, THE SIZE OF THE COLLECTED DATA POINTS ALSO RANGES FROM, UM, WELL WIDELY.
UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, THERE, THERE IS DATA THAT SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO ONE RATIO.
UM, BARS AND RESTAURANTS VARY DRASTICALLY FROM A VERY HIGH DEMAND, MUCH HIGHER THAN OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENT, DOWN TO A VERY LOW REQUIREMENT, MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE.
UM, BUT, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THOUGH THAT TALKING ABOUT PARKING A BAR IN A RESTAURANT, IT SOUNDS TO ME, UM, AND I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME AND WORDS, UH, WHY, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DRINK AND DRIVE AND PARK? THAT'S PROBABLY ONE ITEM THAT I, I KEEP JUST RE KEEPS RESONATING WITH ME, THAT IF WE WANT TO ELIMINATE A LAND USE AT A SPECIFIC LOCATION, PERHAPS PARKING AND DRIVING IS NOT THE, THE RIGHT MECHANISM TO DO SO.
SOME BARS AND RESTAURANTS DON'T BELONG IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS.
100% USING PARKING TO REGULATE THEIR LOCATION, UH, PROBABLY IS MISSING AND FALLING SHORT OF WHERE WE WANT TO BE.
SO I'M FOCUSING ON THE THINGS WE DO HAVE CONTROL OVER, AND I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
FOR DALLAS, TEXAS, I RECOGNIZE THAT MANHATTAN PROBABLY DOESN'T NEED AS MUCH PARKING FOR BAR AND RESTAURANTS AS WE NEED IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND SO WHILE IT'S INTERESTING THAT THERE'S A GAMUT OF PARKING REGULATIONS FOR BAR AND RESTAURANTS AROUND THE COUNTRY, I'M ASKING WHAT DATA DID YOU RELY ON TO RECOMMEND THE REDUCTION OF PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BAR AND RESTAURANT IN DALLAS, TEXAS, OR CITIES THAT ARE COMPARABLE TO DALLAS, TEXAS? AND I'M NOT REALLY HEARING YOU ANSWER IT, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, JUST TELL ME YOU DON'T HAVE IT AND I'LL MOVE ON.
I THINK IT HAD MORE TO DO WITH THE LACK OF DATA SHOWING THAT WE NEED IT.
BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO GET AT LEAST EMPIRICAL DATA FROM OWNERS OF PROPERTY, FROM OPERATORS, EXPERIENCED OPERATORS, FROM LEASING AGENTS BY CALLING THESE PEOPLE AND ASKING THE QUESTION.
AND THE OVERWHELMING RESULT THAT I GOT WAS THAT THEY THINK WE GOT IT ABOUT RIGHT AS WE HAVE IT TODAY.
IN FACT, SEVERAL OF THEM THINK WE PROBABLY UNDER PARK IT.
DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU? I DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION AS I TRIED TO EXPLAIN EARLY, IT'S A COMBINATION OF VISION, DATA, PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WHAT DO WE WANT
[02:30:01]
FOR THE CITY? AND THEN AGAIN, A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH.DO WE THINK THAT MINIMUMS WORK? IF YOU WANNA CHOOSE NUMBERS, BY ALL MEANS DO AND FIND A JUSTIFICATION.
AND, AND I WOULD ADD THAT UNDER THIS FLEXIBLE PROPOSAL, THE OWNERS, OPERATORS, LEASING AGENTS CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OF HOW MANY SPACES THE USE NEEDS AND CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT SINCE WE'RE NOT PROPOSING MAXIMUMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WOULD YOU ALL AGREE THAT LOWER GREENVILLE IS A SUCCESS STORY? UH, WHICH METRICS? AS FAR AS ECONOMIC SUCCESS? ABSOLUTELY.
AS FAR AS A WALKABLE ENTERTAINMENT DESTINATION? ABSOLUTELY.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AVERAGE SIZE OF A BAR OR RESTAURANT ON LOWER GREENVILLE IS? NOT THE AVERAGE.
I KNOW THAT THEY GET DOWN TO AS SMALL AS 768 SQUARE FEET.
UM, UP TO, I THINK, WHAT DID I SEE? IT GETS UP TO 2,500.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT GETS TO 30.
SO UNDER COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS CURRENT PROPOSAL, WE WOULD ELIMINATE ALL PARKING FOR ALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN LOWER GREENVILLE.
JUST THE ONES UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET? I BELIEVE SO.
I DON'T KNOW THE AVERAGE OR THE RANGE, SO I CAN'T SAY ALMOST ALL.
DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THOUGH THAT THE RANGE IS COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT 7 68, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? WE'RE ON COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE.
DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? YEAH.
DO YOU KNOW HOW LOWER GREENVILLE GOT TO BE THE SUCCESS STORY? IT IS.
DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT? OUR ZAC MEMBER COMMISSIONER REEFS HAS SHARED A WHOLE LOT OF, UH, ARTICLES AND WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS AND EVEN A TOUR.
I KNOW THAT YOUR NAME CAME UP IN THAT STORY.
UM, SO I'VE, I'VE TRIED TO LEARN THE NARRATIVE AS, AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
YOU KNOW THAT IT'S NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT LOWER GREENVILLE IS THE SUCCESS THAT IT IS TODAY, RIGHT? YES.
IN FACT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT TOOK THE COOPERATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE CITY, THE OPERATORS, THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF WORK TO GET TO WHERE IT IS TODAY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I'D EVEN THROW IN THE ARCHITECTS OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE 1920S TO DESIGN THAT LAND FORM IN SUCH A WAY.
AND YOU KNOW, AT ONE POINT WE HAD THE INTERURBAN LINE THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT TAKES THE COMMUNITY HUNDREDS OF HOURS EVERY YEAR TO MAINTAIN THAT BALANCE.
I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THE DETAILS OF THAT ACTIVITY.
UM, SUFFICE IT TO SAY IT'S A CURATED PROCESS, NOT SOME CITYWIDE, UH, POLICY THAT HAS CREATED AND MAINTAINS THE SUCCESS.
THAT'S LOWER GREENVILLE, RIGHT? I BELIEVE IT.
HOW DOES WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING UNDER THIS PARKING MANAGEMENT GOING TO CHANGE LOWER GREENVILLE? MY, MY, MY EXPECTATION, I'M GONNA START THIS OFF, AND THEN I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ANSWERS.
MY EXPECTATION IS THAT, UM, IN, I THINK IT'LL BE SLOW, AND THIS IS, UM, CONJECTURE.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF, UM, STOREFRONTS THAT MAY CAN BECOME A RESTAURANT OR MAY COME BEFORE YOU FOR AN SUP FOR A BAR, WHICH YOU CAN, UM, APPROVE OR DENY OR APPROVE OF CONDITIONS.
OVERALL, IT'S, IT'S A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DESTINATION THAT MOST RECENTLY HAS SEEN, UH, HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY COMING IN.
I THINK IT'S THE, THE L UM, AND REALLY AS IT FILLS OUT A, AS AN INCREASINGLY MATURE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S ONE WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WE THINK WILL BE, UM, THE ANY REAL ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ITS HISTORY IN THE 2008, 2009, 2010 ERA? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHEN THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF UNREST AND VIOLENCE AND, UM, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF BARS THAT ARE NO LONGER THERE ANYMORE.
AND THE CITY WAS SPENDING OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN POLICE RESOURCES AND NOT CONTROLLING THE CRIME.
[02:35:01]
FAMILIAR WITH THAT, I BELIEVE? YEAH.THAT'S WHEN WE PUT IN PD 8 42.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT HISTORY? UH, I BELIEVE THAT I KNEW IT WAS IN THE AREA.
MY POINT IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT BY ELIMINATING THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN THAT AREA, IT OPENS UP THAT AREA TO A REPEAT OF WHAT WE'VE SPENT THE LAST 15 YEARS CORRECTING.
AND THAT'S GONNA IMPACT THAT COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
COULD I INTERJECT REAL QUICK? ALSO, I THINK ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IS THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE HAD WHERE THEY'RE SHARING THEIR PARKING, PROVIDING VALET SERVICES.
AND I THINK THAT HAS ALSO MADE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT TO THE LOWER GREEN, THE LOWEST LOWER GREENVILLE, UM, PARKING OPERATIONS.
ALSO, THERE WAS A MAJOR REINVESTMENT IN THE STREETSCAPE, AND I THINK THAT ENCOURAGED MORE WALKING THE TREES HAVE BEEN VERY NICE.
UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO INTERJECT THAT REAL QUICK JUST TO WELL, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL BUILDINGS DOWN THERE THAT DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING.
AND WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THE OWNERS OF THE PARKING LOTS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SUBSIDIZING ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT DON'T HAVE PARKING.
TAKING CARE OF THEIR OWN NEEDS.
WELL, SO THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PARKING, WHO BOUGHT THE LOTS, WHO INSURE THE LOTS, WHO MAINTAIN THE LOTS, WHO MAY OCCASIONALLY GET SUED FOR INCIDENTS ON THE LOTS ARE, WILL NOW BE SUBSIDIZING THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE NO PARKING AND WILL SUDDENLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF REQUIRED PARKING, BE ABLE TO OPEN BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT WILL COMPETE WITH THE TENANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PARKING UNDER THIS SCENARIO.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS THE SAME SCENARIO FOR EVERY OLD AREA IN THE CITY THAT WAS BUILT TO DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
IT'S THE SAME IN DOWNTOWN, IT'S THE SAME IN
WHATEVER IS LEFT OF IT, IT'S THE SAME SCENARIO.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY.
LIKE, UNLESS WE ALLOW THOSE, THAT BUILT FORM THAT WAS BUILT AT THAT, THAT POINT TO SURVIVE, JUST ALLOW IT TO SURVIVE AND IT'S GONNA TAKE ITS OWN LIFE, OR IF WE WANNA CONTINUE PARKING IT, WE ARE GONNA PROBABLY END UP WITH EVEN MORE PARKING LOTS.
IT'S A QUESTION OF VISION, AND THAT'S OUR QUESTION FOR THE BODY.
WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR THE CITY AND THESE OLD AREAS? I I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE, THE OPERATORS AND OWNERS DOWN THERE THAT OWN THE PARKING DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SEE PARKING MINIMUMS GO AWAY BECAUSE THEN THEY ARE SUBSIDIZING ALL OF THE OWNERS WHO DON'T HAVE PARKING.
THEN THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR PARKING LOTS.
WE'RE NOT SAYING MAXIMUMS, WE'RE NOT SAYING PARKING LOTS SHOULD DISAPPEAR.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S THEIR DECISION.
AND THEY CAN OF COURSE LIMIT WHO PARKS IN THEIR PARKING LOTS TOO.
SO I WANNA TOUCH ON SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FOCUS ON SINGLE FAMILY IN THIS DISCUSSION.
WHAT ABOUT RENTERS? THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE SAME ATTITUDE ABOUT PROTECTING MULTIFAMILY AND RENTERS.
WHY? UH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION REGARDING RENTERS.
I THINK OUR, OUR RESPONSES FOR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WHETHER THEY'RE OCCUPIED BY OWNERS OR RENTERS, HAS BEEN IN RESPONSE TO FOLKS FOCUSING ON THAT LAND USE TYPE AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE.
SO IF WE HAVEN'T HEARD CONCERNS FOR RENTERS, I THINK, UM, FROM OUR SIDE, THE, THE, UH, ATTENTION TO RENTERS HAS MOSTLY BEEN ON COST.
AND THAT, UM, MULTIFAMILY, WHETHER IT'S MAINTAINING OR IN FACT BUILDING NEW PARKING SPACES, THOSE COSTS GET PASSED DOWN TO RENTERS.
SO THAT'S BEEN OUR CONSIDERATION OF RENTERS.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS OVER SPILL IMPACTS, PEOPLE HAVE MOSTLY JUST BROUGHT UP THE, THE LAND FORM OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THE OVER SPILL AND, AND HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT RENTERS.
THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE MUCH FOCUS ON THAT.
WHY I'M SORT OF STRAINING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WOULD DIFFERENTIATE THE, THE IMPACT ON OWNER OCCUPANTS VERSUS
[02:40:01]
RENTER OCCUPANTS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.I YOU'RE JUST FOCUSING ON SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT ABOUT MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITIES? WELL, I GUESS, SURE.
I BROUGHT UP SINGLE FAMILY 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT WAS, UM, BROUGHT TO US AS FAR AS THE RENTERS AND MULTI-FAMILY.
AGAIN, UM, WE'VE CONSIDERED THAT IN TERMS OF THE COST BURDEN FOR THEM, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, A RENTER'S INABILITY TO HAVE A PARKING SPACE IN A, WHAT, WHAT'S THE CONCERN THAT NO, IT'S HARD TO RESPOND TO THIS.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT AREAS THAT ARE MORE DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO USES WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING PARKING AND HOW THAT MIGHT IMPACT THEIR, THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.
THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE MUCH DISCUSSION ON THAT OR ANY FOCUS ON THOSE FOLKS, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY.
LET, I THINK I'M STARTING TO UNDERSTAND.
SO, UM, I THINK IT'S THE CONCEPT OF MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HIGHER DENSITY MIXED USE.
UM, EXACTLY THAT ACTUALLY INVITES SHARED.
SO WE SAY IF THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT PER CODE, THEN PARKING CAN BE SHARED BETWEEN THESE USES.
AND THEN WE ALSO, WHEN YOU GET ADDED DENSITY NEAR THIS USES, WHICH IS MIXED USE, THE USERS ARE KIND OF THERE.
SO WE, THAT'S HOW USUALLY THESE TYPE OF AREAS WORK.
AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG PILLAR OF, IN GENERAL OF MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS AND AREAS.
SHIFTING GEARS AGAIN, IS THERE A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED? AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT? I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN, UH, 2021 AND WHAT I'VE HEARD, UM, RUMBLINGS ABOUT, IF I HAVE THE LANGUAGE HERE.
UM, ONE IS TO USE SORT OF HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS AND ONE IS TO USE EITHER A DATE OR A TIME PERIOD.
UH, WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN 2021 AND DISCUSSED ON JANUARY 16TH WAS JULY 26TH, 1967, THAT ANY BUILDINGS BEFORE THAT WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUMS. UM, ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED IS JUST SAYING 50 YEARS PRIOR.
UM, AND I THINK WE COULD SORT OF FINE TUNE THAT PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIOR TO SOMETHING.
UM, AND THEN ON THE DESIGNATION SIDE, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THE DOCUMENT HERE WITH ME, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL DESIGNATIONS FOR TEXAS LANDMARKS NATIONAL REGISTRY, THAT KIND OF A THING.
UM, AND SO BOTH OF THOSE CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMO HAD ONE OF THOSE, AND WE DIDN'T IN OUR, IN, UH, THE STAFF OR ZAC RECOMMENDATION.
BUT WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION? THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO, TO NOT HAVE ANY MINIMUM.
SO THAT WILL CAPTURE THE HISTORICAL AND OLDER BUILDINGS AS WELL.
IS HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, INCLUDING AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR THAT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT IF THERE ARE NO MINIMUMS OR AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN USES TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON ADJACENT COMMUNITIES? YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THE CODE, THE, THE WAY IT'S AUTHORIZED.
WE DID CONSIDER, FOR INSTANCE, BARS, THEY DO REQUIRE SUVS.
AND I, I KNOW SOME RESTAURANTS I, I KNOW ALL OF THAT.
SO THERE ARE USES THAT REQUIRE SUVS.
AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUP CAN ESTABLISH AND CAN ACTUALLY BE A, A GOOD, UH, TOOL TO REQUIRE PARKING.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO REQUIRE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW FOR CERTAIN OF THESE CERTAIN USES THAT ARE NEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES? WE'LL GO BACK TO MY SONG.
TDMP, THE, THE RATIONALE BETWEEN BEHIND REQUIRING OR, UH, REQUIRING A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW.
LET'S ASSUME THAT THIS BODY DOESN'T WANT THAT, THEN IS THERE A CONSIDERATION FOR REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW? IT'S WHATEVER THIS BODY CAN PROPOSE IN LEO.
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO, UH, PROVIDE ANY KIND OF ASSISTANCE IF THE BODY NEEDS ONE.
BUT FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE DIALED IT DOWN, WE ADJUSTED IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
IF YOU WANT, IF YOU DON'T WANNA CALL IT TDMP AND WANNA CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE, PLEASE DO AND TELL US AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU.
CAN, CAN I CLARIFY, UH, ASK CLARITY?
[02:45:01]
UM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, A BUILDING BUILT BEFORE 1967, ESTABLISHING AN SUP OR RER FOR THAT BEFORE NOT ALLOW OR BEFORE ELIMINATING OR REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WELL, I'M, I'M, I'M ALL FOR PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF 'EM HAVE LAND USE LANDLOCKED CHALLENGES, BUT I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO, THEY'RE OFTEN LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.AND SO IF WE SAID THAT THEY HAVE REDUCTION IN PARKING OR NO PARKING FOR CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY USES, IT MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE OF US TO REQUIRE EITHER AN SUP OR A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS OFFERED.
I JUST, YES, I, I UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER NOW, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.
UH, A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS FOR USE ITSELF, WE CANNOT ADD SUP.
SO I WOULD SAY LET'S RELY ON WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW.
IF WE WANNA OPEN UP A CODE AMENDMENT, I WOULDN'T TIE AN SUP TO THE HOW OLD THE BUILDING IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, LIKE WE'D NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
UH, AS I SAID, IF YOU WANNA, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, I THINK THE SAME WITH THE RAR.
LET, LET US THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL FALL UNDER WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED.
THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE CODE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN TO ONLY LOOK INTO THESE CHAPTERS AND NOT GO INTO LIKE REDEFINING SUVS, ADDING SUVS TO USES.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN.
UM, I HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER THAT, UM, PDS LIKE 1 93 WITH THEIR OWN PARKING SCHEMATICS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS CODE AMENDMENT, CORRECT? YEAH.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A LIST OF DISTRICTS THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY? WE'VE DONE SOME ANALYSIS OF ABOUT 116 PDS GENERALLY CLOSE TO THE CENTRAL CITY.
IT, IT WAS, UM, THERE, I CAN LOOK AT THAT NUMBER.
I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME RIGHT NOW.
GENERALLY, THERE ARE A LOT MORE, AND I'M SORRY, THIS IS VAGUE.
THERE ARE MORE THAT SORT OF ARE SPECIALIZED.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE HOSPITAL EXAMPLE I BROUGHT UP EARLIER, IT'S CREATED FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF LAND USE AND, YOU KNOW, 100% OF THE LAND USE WITHIN THAT PD WOULD KEEP ITS MINIMUMS. UM, BUT NONE OF THE REST WOULD, BUT NONE OF THE OTHER LAND USES ARE IN THAT.
SO THERE ARE MORE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, MIXED PDS.
UM, BUT I CAN, I CAN FIND SOME NUMBERS OF WHAT WE'VE ANALYZED.
AND WHEN YOU SAY PD 1 93, THAT INCLUDES ALL OF ITS SUBDISTRICTS? CORRECT.
DOES THAT INCLUDE AN AREA THAT'S SUBJECT TO A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? IF THERE ARE PARKING MINIMUMS SPECIFIED IN THE PD, IT SHOULD, WELL, IT'S NOT A PD RIGHT? IT'S A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAY ON TOP OF A PD? IS IT, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE LOCATION FOR AN OVERLAY THAT WE HAVE THAT'S ON TOP OF A PD THAT REFERENCES CR, WHICH I THINK 8 42 DOES.
8 42 COVERS PART OF LOWER GREENVILLE.
THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY COVERS ALL OF LOWER GREENVILLE.
UM, MY QUESTION IS A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY IS A CHANGE TO THE BASE CODE, RIGHT? YES.
SO IS THAT ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A DIFFERENT PARKING SCHEMATIC THAT WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF 51 A? I THINK IF I'M TRYING TO CATCH UP, THAT'S IN THE OVERLAY SECTION.
IT WASN'T ESPECIALLY OPENED WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
IF YOU WANNA DO AN AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN THAT UP AND REWRITE IT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO.
HOWEVER, LIKE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, I THINK IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
KEEP IN MIND, WE, THIS IS NOT INITIATED BY STAFF.
THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW, IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THIS BODY WITH A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
WE WORKED WITH THE BODY AT THAT POINT TO HAVE THE LANGUAGE WIDE ENOUGH, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAPTURED
[02:50:01]
THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY.WELL, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY.
I'M SAYING IF, IF YOUR POSITION IS THAT CHANGES TO 51 A ONLY APPLY TO DISTRICTS THAT ARE GOVERNED BY 51 A AND IF YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF OVERLAY, LIKE A PD THAT CHANGED THAT, DOES THAT INCLUDE AN AREA COVERED BY A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? YES.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE CHANGE YOU'RE ASKING.
SO YOU'RE ASKING IF WE'RE CHANGING THE 51 A PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHAT IS THAT IMPACT ON THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY? MM-HMM
AND JUST, I WANNA, AND YEAH, LET SARAH, I JUST WANNA ADD IN HERE, PDS ARE NOT OVERLAYS, THOSE ARE REGULATIONS.
I, THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY, THE, THE ONE AND ONLY ONE WE HAVE IN IN DALLAS, I'M LAURA GREENVILLE, MODIFIES ABOUT SIX THINGS.
THERE'S THREE WAYS TO LOSE DELTA CREDITS AND THREE OTHER THINGS LIKE EXTENSION OF WALKING DISTANCE, WAYS TO RE AND STATE DELTA CREDITS IF THEY WERE LOST.
AND I THINK THE ADDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR DINING WAS ANOTHER, UM, ITEM THAT THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY MODIFIED.
AND, AND SO IT DIDN'T DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE EXACT RATIOS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY, UM, TIE IN TO WHAT THE PROPOSAL CURRENTLY HAS.
RE SAID, IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF OUR AUTHORIZED AREAS IN THE CODE.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE, BUT MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO IN THE FUTURE AND MAYBE WITH CODE REFORM THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT TIES IN WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZATION.
AND SORRY IF WE, I'M, WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT.
LIKE I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION WAY, WAY BETTER NOW.
AND LET ME, LET US REVISIT A LITTLE BIT THE MD OVER LAT TO SEE, WE DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES TO 51 WILL IMPACT THAT, BUT LET US' LOOK AT IT AGAIN.
YOU WANNA CIRCLE BACK TO THAT LATER? COMMISSIONER KEYSTON? UM, YES, I HAVE ABOUT FIVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE WANT TO TALK NOW.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, I COME BACK TO YOU.
MAYBE IT'S WARNING ME, BUT I SHOULDN'T SPEAK, BUT I'M, I'M NOT GONNA HATE THAT WARNING.
UM, WE, WE'VE BEEN OVER A LOT, UM, THIS MORNING AND I GUESS NOW EARLY AFTERNOON THAT I COULD ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT A BUNCH OF IT, BUT I JUST WANNA HONE IN ON A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT MINOR AMENDMENTS TO, UM, PARKING REDUCTIONS THROUGH, THROUGH MINOR AMENDMENTS.
AND RIGHT NOW MOST MINOR AMENDMENTS THAT WE SEE ARE MINISTERIAL.
IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD OR THE, YOU KNOW, SUP THE DEFINITION.
THEN IF IT MEETS THE DEFINITION AND IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD, THEN WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT.
WOULD THERE BE A WAY THAT CPC COULD CONSIDER MINOR AMENDMENTS, UM, FOR PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR PD OR AN SUP SITE PLAN? THAT WOULD GIVE US THE DISCRETION, LET'S JUST SAY OUT UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE THE PLAN COMMISSION COULD REDUCE PARKING THROUGH A MINOR AMENDMENT, MINOR AMENDMENT TO IS TO THE PLAN, NOT TO THE TEXT.
BECAUSE IF IT'S AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT, SO LET ME READ YOU THE LANGUAGE EXACTLY, BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCRETION HERE.
UM, IT SAYS MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY IS NECESSARY TO MEET CONTINGENCIES OF DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS THAT DO NOT QUALIFY MUST BE A ZONING AMENDMENT.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED MINOR CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN OTHERWISE THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE, IS THE SAME FOR SUP AND UM, DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
AND ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS DECREASE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN IS TO CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT CPC HAS THAT AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW, IF THE MINOR AMENDMENT IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE AND IT COMES IN FRONT OF YOU AS LONG AS IT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE TEXT AND THE TEXT, WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, SET A RATIO RIGHT NOW OF ONE TO 200 OR, OR, OR SOMETHING? YES.
AND IF THEY ARE OVER PARKED AND THEY WANNA TAKE OUT SOME OF THE PARKING SPOTS, AS LONG AS IT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE TEXT, THAT'S THE SITUATION WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
[02:55:01]
OKAY.AND AND UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL, IT WOULD BE THE SAME OR THE SAME.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT PIECE.
SO THAT IS NOT CHANGES TO CHAPTER 51 OR CHAPTER 51 A, RIGHT? I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE SUE.
I GUESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS? YES.
IN, UM, THE CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN OFF ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD MANIFEST IN CHAPTER 51 A YET.
I MEAN, UM, AM I WRONG THERE WOULDN'T BE A ZONING THERE PORTION TO THAT? YES, ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE IT, IT, IT DOESN'T KEEP IN MIND I THINK A GOOD DISTINCTION IS 51 AND 51 A IS PRIVATE PRIVATE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO LIKE PARKING BENEFITS DISTRICT AND STUFF THAT INVOLVES THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.
ZONING DOESN'T HAVE A PURVIEW ON THAT.
AND, AND JUST, SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR US TO SEE, YOU KNOW, CODE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE TOUCH THE 51 A OR 51 A PIECE AND THERE ARE OTHER BODIES OR, OR DEPARTMENTS THAT, THAT DEAL WITH IT.
I CAN THINK OF, UM, WHAT WAS IT, MIXED INCOME HOUSING.
WE ONLY DEALT WITH A PART OF THAT.
AND ANOTHER PART OF THAT WAS WAS THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
AND CHANGES TO LIKE, WHAT, WHAT WAS IT? 28 WENT THROUGH THE HOUSING COMMITTEE AND THEN UP TO COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO US, RIGHT? YES.
SO NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL TO HAVE US WORKING ON A PIECE OF THINGS AND, AND OTHERS WORKING ON OTHER PIECES AS WE ALL, AND IT ALL COMES TOGETHER IN HARMONY AT COUNCIL, CORRECT, CORRECT.
UM, WE'VE SPENT, YOU KNOW, A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT LOWER GREENVILLE, UM, THIS MORNING AND, AND I THINK LOWER GREENVILLE IS, IS WONDERFUL AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THEM, UM, THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS PREVENT MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOLD OF, OF LOWER GREENVILLE AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY? IT DOES, AND I WOULD, I'LL GIVE TWO LEVELS OF ANSWERS.
SO LOWER GREENVILLE IS, UH, I THINK UNIQUE IN HOW EXTENSIVE IT IS.
I MEAN, THE, THE SIZE OF IT IS VERY CLEARLY BECOMING A A, AN ENTERTAINMENT DESTINATION.
MOST CLASSIC NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THE COUNTRY, YOU'LL HAVE A BLOCK THAT'S LIKE THAT.
YOU'LL HAVE ONE BLOCK, TWO BLOCKS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND IT FUNCTIONS AS MAYBE A TOWN CENTER, MAYBE A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT DOESN'T DRAW CROSS TRAFFIC, UH, FROM ACROSS THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYONE HAS ONE THAT'S CLOSER TO THEM.
YOU HAVE YOUR BURGER PLACE, YOU HAVE YOUR THEATER, AND YOU HAVE YOUR, UH, LAWYER AND YOU HAVE YOUR DENTIST.
UM, AND SO YES, UH, IT, IT IS A, UM, A POPULAR AREA AND IT'S BECOME, IT'S, UM, PARKING MINIMUMS DO PREVENT AREAS LIKE THAT, WHETHER IT'S AT A LARGE SCALE OR JUST A SMALL MORE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTED SCALE FROM BEING BUILT AROUND THE CITY.
I WANNA JUST LIKE PUT OUT UNDER YOUR RADAR YET, FOR INSTANCE, WE JUST HAD AN AUTHORIZED HEARING ON DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD.
THERE WAS A CR AND THEY COULDN'T USE THOSE BUILDINGS BECAUSE OF PARKING RATIOS.
AND THIS BODY RECOMMENDED, I THINK, TO GET RID OF THOSE.
OH NO, WE RECOMMENDED FORM BASE AND WE'RE WAITING TO GET RID SO WE CAN ENABLE THAT AREA TO FLOURISH.
AND THEN JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, I WANNA MAKE SURE I AM NOT THE PD 8 42 EXPERT AT THIS HORSESHOE, I THINK COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS, AND YOU KNOW, THERE WAS REFERENCE TO PD 8 42, UM, ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT, THAT LOWER GREENVILLE OR THAT PART OF LOWER GREENVILLE SAW, UM, BACK 2008, 2009, 2010.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT PD 8 42 DEPLOYED MULTIPLE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE AREA.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT THAT PARKING IS A, ONE OF THE STRATEGIES THAT 8 42 DEPLOYS.
WHAT OTHER THINGS DOES 8 42 DEPLOY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PAST HISTORIC CHALLENGES THAT LOWER GREENVILLE SAW? UH, THE ORIGINAL PD 8 42 WAS LITERALLY ITS CR ZONED, WHICH WAS THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT, AND IT ADDED AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR LATE ESTABLISHMENTS, LATE HOUR ESTABLISHMENTS.
AND, UM, OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, AND US WOULD LIKE US NOT TO REPEAT THAT.
UM, AND IT REQUIRED S'S AND, UM, PROHIBITED OR DID NOT ALLOW PROPERTIES THAT WERE OPERATING AFTER MIDNIGHT TO CARRY FORWARD THEIR NONCONFORMING RIGHTS.
[03:00:01]
THE MAJOR SLEDGEHAMMER THAT PD 8 42 USED, UM, IN ORDER TO, UH, GET SOME MORE ENFORCEMENT ON SOME OF THOSE LATE NIGHT OPERATING BUSINESSES.UM, AND MAN, I WAS ONE MORE THING.
ANYWAY, MA MAINLY THE LATE HOURS WAS, WAS THE, THE MAJOR THING, UH, ONE THING THAT I THINK STAFF OFFERED AND IT WAS DECLINED, WAS TO, UM, KIND OF ADD IN SOME MORE LIKE URBAN DESIGN, UM, ELEMENTS TO PD 8 42.
UM, FROM THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE I WAS IN BUILDING INSPECTION WHEN IT WAS FIRST CREATED, THERE WAS A LOT OF PROBLEMS. UM, WHEN THE STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WERE GOING ON, THEY HAD TO TAKE DOWN SOME FIRE ACCESS STAIRS AND CANOPIES, AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD, THE CR DISTRICT REQUIRES A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE PD, BUT IT WAS REALLY JUST CR AND THEN PROHIBITING LATE HOURS ESTABLISHMENTS AND SET BY SUP.
UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, SCHOCK, FRANKLIN WHEELER, COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE.
UM, OKAY, GOING BACK TO THE VERY BEGINNING, TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS A BICYCLE, YOU MENTIONED NON-MOTORIZED.
WHERE DO E-BIKES FALL IN THAT? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
REALLY WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK TO WHAT IS A BICYCLE AND WHAT'S NOT.
UM, AND THEN CURIOUS, I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED SOMEWHERE, HOW MUCH TIME DOES STAFF SPEND REVIEWING PARKING AS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS GO THROUGH WITH PERMITTING? CURRENTLY? A LOT WE SAID IN, IS IT SARAH, UH, WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT TEAM AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT TEAM RIGHT NOW TOO.
MORE, WE SAID MORE THAN 50%, 70% OF THEIR TIME.
BUT I JUST WANNA, SORRY FOR GIVING LONG, LONG-WINDED ANSWERS.
I JUST WANNA EXPLAIN, IT'S JUST MEASURING, UH, GOING BACK TO SEE HOW MANY AGREEMENTS DO YOU HAVE? WHAT IS YOUR, DO YOU, DO YOU CALL, DO YOU NEED A REDUCTION IN ONE SPACE? WHERE CAN YOU FIND THAT? LIKE IT'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH.
AND EVEN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS IT IS, HOW MUCH TIME WILL BE SAVED REVIEWING THOSE PLANS? THE BIG SAVE WILL BE WITH THE NUMBERS, BUT STAFF WILL STILL REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT YOUR PARKING IS CORRECT, YOUR IT'S DIMENSIONALLY CORRECT.
IT'S LOCATED WHERE IT'S ACCESSIBLE.
SO WE WILL STILL REVIEW IT, IT'S JUST THAT WE WON'T GO BACK AND FORTH TO KIND OF LIKE HUNT ONE PARKING SPACE OR, OH, NOW YOU NEED TO REDRAW YOUR CYCLING TO DO SMALLER PARKING SPOTS SO YOU CAN SQUEEZE TWO MORE AND NOW GO BACK AND REDRAW IT SO YOU CAN SQUEEZE TWO MORE.
SO IT WILL, I THINK IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE STAFF'S TIME, BUT ALSO TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC.
AND, AND I WOULD ADD ON THE, THE TIME ASPECT.
JUST GETTING A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU KNOW, THAT MAYBE WANTS TO OPEN UP A DONUT SHOP AND MAYBE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR A RETAIL STORE, BUT THAT'S A CHANGE IN USE FROM RETAIL TO RESTAURANT.
UM, HAVING TO TELL THOSE, THOSE OPERATORS, HEY, I NEED YOU TO FIND OR PROVIDE A PARKING ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER, THEN WE WILL GOING, WE'RE GONNA CHECK EVERY SINGLE SUITE AND MAKE SURE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PRO PROVIDED IS CORRECT AND THE LAND USE IS CORRECT AND THE RATIOS AND YOUR NUMBERS AND COUNTING UP ALL YOUR SPACES AND JUST HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE OF EXPLAINING TO THAT PERSON THAT IS GONNA OPEN UP A USE THAT IS ONLY OPEN IN THE MORNINGS WHEN THERE'S A SEA OF PARKING.
YOU KNOW, JUST GETTING THEM ON BOARD AND EXPLAINING THAT, I'M SORRY, IT IS REQUIRED, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THIS.
UM, THAT, THAT WOULD IS A HUGE TIME
UM, I GUESS IN DEFENSE OF ON STREET PARKING, CAN YOU ALL TALK ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'VE GOT CARS ON A STREET, THEY SHRINK IN THE WIDTH OF THE LANE AND THEN HOW THAT LEADS TO SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS? I'M SORRY, YOU ASKED IF WE COULD DESCRIBE THAT? YEAH, IF YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT PHILOSOPHY THERE WHERE WHEN YOU HAVE LESS LANE WIDTH, CARS ARE GONNA GO AND YOU HAVE SOME FRICTION, CARS ARE GONNA GO SLOWER, SO IT'S SAFER FOR THE COMMUNITY.
YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY THE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE SAFETY ASPECT.
YOU CAN ADDRESS IT IN MANY WAYS AND YOU CAN DO IT BY DESIGN.
UH, WE'VE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES.
THERE ARE STUDIES OUT THERE, DON'T ASK ME TO QUOTE THEM.
UH, EVEN ON STREET PARKING SLOWS THE, THE SPEED.
AND WE KNOW FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN THAT IN DALLAS, WE DO
[03:05:01]
HAVE A, UH, PROBABLY DALLAS IS THE CITY THAT HAS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT, MORE EDUCATED.WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEDESTRIAN DEATHS AND THEY ARE USUALLY MOSTLY BECAUSE OF SPEED.
SO YES, UH, WIDTHS OF LANES, UM, ON STREET PARKING, UH, LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND, AND THE, AND THE CURB.
ALL OF THESE, OR EVEN SHE CANES OF, OF THE DRIVEWAYS.
ALL OF THESE ARE DESIGN ASPECTS TO DECREASE SPEED AND MAKE IT SAFER FOR BOTH THE CAR AND THE PEDESTRIANS.
UM, I KNOW BARS AND RESTAURANTS WERE BROUGHT UP AND THERE WASN'T DATA NECESSARILY TO SAY WHY, UM, BUT YOU MENTIONED, UM, DRUNK DRIVING AND KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THAT.
I WAS CURIOUS IF Y'ALL HAD SEEN THE, UM, TDOT CRASH REPORTING REPORT FROM LAST YEAR AT ALL? IF WE DID, WE CAN'T BRING IT TO MIND.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING FROM IT GOT SOME DATA ON IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN, UM, SYNTHESIZE IT WELL.
UM, BUT BASICALLY IT'S SAYING, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR 76 PEOPLE DIED IN CRASHES, 57 SUFFERED LIFE CHANGING SERIOUS INJURIES.
UM, THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT WAS 178 MILLION.
WHEN YOU ADD IN LIKE FUTURE YEARS OF LIFE LOST, THAT'S 1.2 MILLION.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF TALKING TO DRUNK DRIVING AND SHOULD WE BE PROVIDING PARKING SPOTS FOR BARS? SO I'M JUST CURIOUS YOUR ALL'S THOUGHTS ON THAT OR IF THAT'S A A POINT THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE.
YES, AS DAVID SAID, AND SORRY MICHAEL, YOU CAN TAKE IT AFTER ME.
UM, YES, FROM A, FROM A PLANNER'S POINT OF VIEW, WE ALSO CONSIDER THAT NOT JUST THE RATIO ITSELF.
BASICALLY WE ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE WHO USED BARS, MEANING, UM, YOU GO TO THE BAR TO CON TO TO DRINK ALCOHOL, TO DRIVE.
AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR ALL OF US IS LIKE, WHAT IS MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, DRUNK DRIVER OR A CAR PARKED ON, ON ON THE CURB.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK WE HAVE SOME, SOME HUNGRY COLLEAGUES AND SOME FOLKS THAT WANT TO TAKE A BREAK.
LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND END THE BRIEFING HERE.
WE'LL TAKE A, A QUICK 20 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK, UH, WITH THE HEARING AND UH, START BACK TO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, IT'S 1234, WE'LL TAKE A 20 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK.
JORGE, ARE WE RECORDING, SIR? OKAY, LET'S
[CALL TO ORDER]
START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PRESENT DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT AND ALL LINE DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE, CHAIR SHA DID PRESENT DISTRICT SIX.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT, DISTRICT SEVEN.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, DISTRICT EIGHT, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT DISTRICT NINE.
COMMISSIONER SLEEPER HERE, DISTRICT 10, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PRESENT DISTRICT 11.
COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE HERE.
DISTRICT 12, COMMISSIONER HAWK DISTRICT 13.
COMMISSIONER HALL HERE, DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, UH, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025 1:19 PM WELCOME TO THE SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
UM, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY, UH, BUT COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA HEAD BACK TO QUESTIONS.
OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES ARE THOSE, UH, THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE.
EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
WE'LL ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WE DO HAVE SOME REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE.
UH, FOR OUR FOLKS ONLINE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING AS STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UH, AND WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL GO RIGHT BACK TO QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK IS NEXT, FOLLOWED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN WHEELER WHO WAS ONLINE.
I THINK SHE, SHE WILL BE BACK ONLINE HERE SHORTLY.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND HAMPTON.
I HAD A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS WERE WORKED OUT AT THE BREAK.
I JUST HAD, UM, BUT ONE I WANNA CIRCLE BACK ON.
WE HAD TALKED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER OR TALKED A LOT EARLIER, ABOUT 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
I'M LOOKING AT, UM, A LIST, UH, HERE THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT COULD BE 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
[03:10:01]
BEEN CHANGED FROM TWO WEEKS AGO.UM, I KNOW IN OUR DISTRICT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BARS THAT HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACQUIRED ADJACENT LOTS AND THEN, UH, TORN DOWN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN TURNED THOSE INTO PARKING LOTS.
THAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO AT THE GLORIOUS SITE HAPPENED BEFORE 10 BELLS WAS DEMOED.
IT'S, IT'S A, A PATTERN WHERE WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF OUR BILL INFRASTRUCTURE BE TORN DOWN.
SO I DO LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT WE ARE, UM, MAKING SOME MODIFICATIONS FOR SMALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS.
AND THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE, IT SEEMED LIKE IF IT WERE 2500, 25 10 WOULD STILL HAVE TO PARK IT.
I, I'D LIKE TO SEE, I'M, I'M GLAD TO SEE, TO SEE THE CHANGE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGE.
THE CHANGE, UM, CURRENTLY IS, UH, ALL, UM, PARKING DOESN'T KICK IN UNTIL 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
SO TO BE CLEAR, A PAGE THAT SOME OF YOU FOUND IN FRONT OF YOU, THIS IS AN UPDATED LIST FROM COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT OF HIS JANUARY 16TH MEMO.
AND SO I I READ THAT THE SAME, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER FOUR THERE.
UM, AND I, I READ THAT AS, UM, FOR THE FIRST 3,500 NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE 3501ST SQUARE FOOT, THEN YOU START COUNTING.
SO YOU'RE STILL NOT COUNTING THAT 3,500.
UH, I THINK IT'S A, UM, AN APPROPRIATE CHANGE.
IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME NOW.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
AND FORGIVE ME IF MY VOICE GOES IN AND OUT AND IF YOU NEED ME, NEED FOR ME TO SAY IT AGAIN, RE REPEAT MY QUESTION.
UH, SINCE I, I'M NEW, UH, TO THIS, UH, PARKING DISCUSSION AND I DON'T WANNA PRESUME ANYTHING.
AND SO FAR, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO RIGHTSIZE PARKING IN DALLAS.
IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? YES, YES.
UH, BUT THERE IS ALSO AN ANCILLARY GOAL OF, UH, REDUCING CAR USE WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IS THAT ALSO CORRECT THAT NO, NO.
SO THE, THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PORTION WAS INTENDED TO INCENTIVIZE FOLKS TO TAKE TRIPS, UM, BEYOND JUST A SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIP.
UM, THIS, THE CODE AROUND PARKING MINIMUMS IS NOT DIRECTLY EXPECTED TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO STOP DRIVING THAT KIND OF A THING.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S NAUTICAL GOAL.
SO SORRY TO, TO GET INTO THAT.
I JUST WANNA ENSURE THAT NO, THIS IS JUST A REGULATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACHIEVE OUR OTHER POLICIES.
NO, THIS IS NOT SAYING YOU CANNOT DRIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IT'S JUST SAYING, UH, PEOPLE WHO WANNA USE OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY HAVING THEIR AMENITIES PROVIDED AT SITE.
BECAUSE MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING HAS CENTERED AROUND THE DEVELOPERS AND BEING FLEXIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPERS, BUT NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THEIR RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF ENSURING THAT WE HAVE PROTECTIONS OF OFF STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTS.
UH, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL CONSIDERED, OR HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, I KNOW I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT POPULATION OF THE CITY WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON VEHICLES NOW, I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN.
THEY ARE DEPENDENT, NOT THAT THEY WANT TO, SO ANY AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE OF, YOU KNOW, CHANGING THE CODE IS NOT GONNA CHANGE THE DYNAMIC AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHY THEY NEED A VEHICLE.
AND I GIVE A A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
UM, AS A PART OF DISTRICT EIGHT, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, CLAYBROOK RILEY, UH, WHICH THERE ISN'T MUCH IF ALL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT WAY.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 30, CLOSE TO 30,000 RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA ALONE, UM, THAT DEPEND ON THEIR VEHICLES AND ON THE WEEKENDS THEY COME UP TO NORTH DALLAS OR OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY IN ORDER TO DO THEIR BUSINESS.
NOW THE REDUCTION OF, OF PARKING WILL LIKELY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THOSE WHO DEPEND ON, ON THEIR CARS.
AND YOU MAY HAVE CONSIDERED THAT AND, AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THERE MAY BE A UNINTENDED
[03:15:01]
CONSEQUENCE IN THAT IF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAR DEPENDENT, UH, CANNOT PARK IN CERTAIN AREAS BECAUSE OF, I MEAN THEY'VE REACHED MATCH CAPACITY FOR WHATEVER THE REDUCTION MAY BE, THAT THEY'LL TAKE THEIR DOLLARS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO DO THEIR SHOPPING.SO HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED AS A COMPONENT WHEN WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPING THIS AMENDMENT HISTORICALLY? SURE.
I'LL START OFF AND THEN I THINK ANDREA HAS SOMETHING AS WELL.
IT WAS CONSIDERED IN TWO WAYS.
ONE, THE, THE TIME SPAN OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE DEVELOPED EVEN FIRSTHAND.
IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TERM CHANGE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE, UM, BEGINS A, A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SOMETIME THIS YEAR, IF, IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS ADOPTED, IT'S GOING TO BE A MATTER OF YEARS BEFORE A SINGLE BUILDING IS BUILT WITH, UM, MAYBE 20% LESS PARKING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND SO THE SHOPS THAT PEOPLE SHOP AT, UH, WILL NOT SEE WHEREVER THEY'RE COMING FROM AT THE CITY BY CAR ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SEE A RADICAL TURNOVER.
I MEAN, WE, WE REALLY SEE THIS ON A, A GENERATIONAL, UM, CHANGE WHEN IT AFFECTS THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.
THAT'S, THAT'S ONE, UM, GENERAL ANSWER.
I MEAN, THIS IS NOT GONNA BE A QUICK THING, QUICK, QUICK RESULTS.
THE OTHER GENERAL ANSWER IS THAT PEOPLE ARE DRIVING TO ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY BECAUSE OF HOW WE ZONE.
AND VERY OFTEN OUR LOW DENSITY AREAS ARE ZONED THROUGH PARKING REGULATIONS AND OTHERS THAT AREN'T A PART OF THIS, TO WHERE THEY, THEY NEED TO DRIVE FAR AWAY BECAUSE THE LOCAL GROCERY STORE, THE LOCAL SPOTS AREN'T WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, AREN'T WITHIN BIKING DISTANCE.
AND THAT'S A DIRECT RESULT OF HOW WE ZONE.
AND SO FOR PARKING, UM, A LOT OF THE, UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF SOME EXAMPLES THAT WE LOOKED AT IN 2021, AND THEN AGAIN IN 2023, WE LOOK AT THESE GROCERY STORES THAT ARE JUST SEAS OF PARKING LOTS.
EVEN THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CLOSEST WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT DEAD WALKING ACROSS THAT PARKING LOT OR DOWN THAT STREET TO THAT GROCERY STORE BECAUSE OF THE PARKING REGULATION.
AND SO WE'VE, IN THAT MICROCOSM EXAMPLE, WE'VE MADE THAT PERSON EVEN MORE AUTO DEPENDENT.
UM, AND SO THOSE ARE JUST A, A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT HOW OUR, OUR ZONING CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE MORE, UM, AUTO DEPENDENT.
AND FOR THOSE THAT TRULY ARE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE RADICAL CHANGE OR CATASTROPHIC CHANGE.
UH, ONE IS, UM, THIS IS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPERS.
I JUST WANNA CORRECT THIS ON THE RECORD.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT URBAN FOREIGN USERS.
THE DEVELOPERS HAPPEN TO BE THE ONES WHO DEVELOP SOME OF THESE USES OR BUILDINGS.
SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT DEVELOPERS.
THIS IS ABOUT WHAT DO WE WANT OUR CITY TO LOOK LIKE AND HOW DO WE WANT THE USERS OF THE CITY, NOT JUST THE RESIDENTS, DAYTIME POPULATION, ANY USER OF THE CITY TO ACTUALLY BEHAVE OR HAVE OPPORTUNITIES OR OPTIONS WITHIN THE CITY.
SO I JUST WANNA CORRECT THAT SECOND, UM, ALLOWING AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT DEPEND ON CARS AND HAVE OPTIONS TO CHOOSE.
THAT'S WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? IT'S NOT ABOUT NOT PROVIDING OR DOING AWAY WITH EXISTING OR EVEN PROVIDED PARKING.
THIS IS, IT WORKS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF PEOPLE WANNA HAVE A DIFFERENT CHOICE, THEY CAN.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANNA TAKE TRANSIT, BUT THEY CANNOT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS SO CAR-CENTRIC THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO TRANSIT.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANNA BIKE, BUT IT'S NOT SAFE TO BIKE BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE ARE SO MANY CARS ON THE STREET.
THE ASSUMPTION IS ALWAYS, IF THE PEOPLE COULD, WHO CAN MAKE A CHOICE TO USE OTHER MEANS OF TRANSIT, THEY HAVE A VIABLE OPTION TO DO THAT.
IT MEANS THAT THEY WILL LEAVE MORE PARKING AND MORE ROOM ON THE ROAD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO TRULY NEED IT.
SO THIS WILL BENEFIT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DEPEND ON CARS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO USE THE CARS BE, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T WANT TO.
I HAVE TONS OF EXAMPLES OF WHY, AGAIN, IT'S NOT SAFE, IT'S NOT VIABLE, AND PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE TO USE SOMETHING OTHER THAN CARS.
AND THEN THE THIRD IS, UM, IF PEOPLE DEPEND ON CARS, IT MEANS THAT THE MARKET WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE IT, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE THESIS OF THIS TYPE OF APPROACH, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, RIGHT? SIZING.
IF, IF YOU KNOW THAT YOUR USER ARRIVES HERE BY CAR IN ORDER FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU DO, A HOUSE, UH, ANY TYPE OF HOUSE, A BUSINESS, UH, A RETAIL, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING BECAUSE
[03:20:01]
THAT'S YOUR USER.THAT'S THE MARKET BASICALLY TAKING CARE OF IT.
IF YOU DON'T, IT MEANS THAT YOUR USE IS NOT GONNA SUR SURVIVE, SURVIVE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN.
LET'S NOT GET INTO LIKE TELLING RESTAURANTS HOW BIG THEY CAN BE, OR THEY CANNOT BE ON HOW THEY OPERATE THEIR, THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY IF THEY DON'T HAVE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS CAN'T PARK.
THEY WON'T, THEY WILL SEE HIS OPERATION.
I HAVE ONE LITTLE THING TO ADD.
UM, DURING ZAC, UM, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR ONE OF THE MEMBERS, UM, BROUGHT UP THAT, UH, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS, THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT RIGHT SIZING PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
MANY CITIES, MANY SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES.
AND THERE WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DALLAS CITY LIMITS THAT ARE ALSO CONSIDERING ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND, UM, THIS, THIS MEMBER POINTED OUT THAT IF WE STILL HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN DALLAS, BUT WE DON'T, IN MESQUITE OR DUNCANVILLE OR ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, IT DEVALUES THE PROPERTY IN DALLAS BECAUSE WE REQUIRE MORE PARKING THAN OUR SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES.
SO IT IN HIS, IN HIS COMMENTS, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY INTERESTING THING TO POINT OUT.
AND I DO APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT'S QUESTIONS EARLIER BECAUSE, UM, THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE AND LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND TAKING IT, TAKING THE APPROACH FOR THE ENTIRE CITY MAY PROVE THAT WE MAY NOT BE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BASED ON YOUR STATEMENT EARLIER, THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR US TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE AND CHANGE WHATEVER DETRIMENTAL, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT MAY HAVE, MAY OCCUR AFTER WE MAKE THIS AMENDMENT.
CAN I GET AN ORAL VERBAL, YEAH.
I SAY CITY COUNCIL AND CPC HAVE THE ZONING POWER, SO THE SAME, WE OPENED UP THIS CODE AMENDMENT, IT CAN BE OPENED UP AT A LATER DAY IF IT HAS ISSUES.
AND AGAIN, CITY COUNCIL ALSO HAS PURVIEW OF ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY.
SO IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH OTHER TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT, IF COUNCIL NEEDS TO OPEN UP OTHER CODES, THEY CAN.
AND THEN, UH, I HAVE MORE OF A, A TECHNICAL QUESTION ON ONE OF THE ITEMS ON COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S, UH, MEMO, SINCE I KNOW THAT YOU'VE ALL DISCUSSED IT, BUT IN PARTICULAR, UH, ITEM EIGHT, UM, WHICH SAYS, ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS OF R AND TOD STATIONS.
AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE RATIONALE FOR, UM, FOR HAVING IT BE A ONE AND A HALF MILE RADIUS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, TOD HIGH DENSITY, SO WE, THERE'D BE AN EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE, UH, HIGHER DENSITY, UH, DEVELOPMENTS AND MAYBE A WALK AROUND DISTRICT.
SO WHILE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE RATIONALE IS, AND LET ME ALSO GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT OF WHY I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS.
IN DISTRICT A, WE HAVE A, THE LIGHT RAIL THAT COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO UNT DALLAS STATION, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, THE SINKING HILLS, UH, STATION.
SO THOSE ARE THE LAST TWO STOPS, UH, GOING SOUTH.
AND I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING AROUND THERE.
IF YOU STOP IN THERE, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO UNT DALLAS OR YOU'RE GOING TO, UM, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND SINKING THE HILLS.
SO FOR THE, THE HALF MILE RADIUS, WHAT DO, WHAT WOULD THAT ACCOMPLISH BY TAKING OUT THE MINIMUMS FROM THAT AREA? SURE.
GENERALLY, A HALF MILE IS ACCEPTED AS THE, UM, THE DISTANCE THAT SOMEONE WILL BIKE, UH, TO GO USE TRANSIT, TRANSIT AND THEN, UM, ESPECIALLY WALK.
BUT I THINK THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE BIKE IN 15 MINUTES.
UM, DISTANCE, IT'S, IT'S A RULE OF THUMB.
IS IT A HALF MILE OR IS IT FIVE, UH, YOU KNOW, SEVEN 16TH OF A MILE.
BUT, UM, REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS WITHIN THAT AREA WOULDN'T CHANGE THE ZONING.
UM, DISTRICTS, OF COURSE, IT, IT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, REZONE A SINGLE FAMILY IN OUR DISTRICT TO AN MF DISTRICT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND SO THE IDEA WAS THAT, UM, TOD AND THE CONCEPT OF TOD IS GRADUAL.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORKING ON DART RIGHT NOW, UH, ON PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY
[03:25:01]
ADJACENT TO STATIONS FOR HIGHER DENSITY, MULTIFAMILY.UM, BUT AS YOU EXTEND OUT OVER THE COURSE OF THAT HALF MILE RADIUS, YOU MIGHT, UM, HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT FITS ON A LOT THAT IT WOULD'VE JUST BEEN EED OUT OF, UH, WITH PARKING