Mar 04, 2025 Special Called City Planning Commission

YOUR TIME IS UP.

IS ABEL WETA NOT ONLINE? HOW ABOUT MR. COLORADO? ARE YOU ONLINE SIR? ALRIGHT.

GOOD MORNING.

CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME ALL RIGHT, MR. COLORADO? READY? GREAT COMMENT, SIR.

SPECIFICALLY MR. COLORADO.

MY NAME IS HEEL, COLORADO 15 0 9 MAIN STREET DISTRICT 14 HERE, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT.

IF YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT, IT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR YOU.

ONE MOMENT.

HOPEFULLY THERE'S APPARENTLY ONLY ONE SPEAKER WORKING IN THE ROOM TODAY.

SO YEAH, OUR SPEAKER'S ONLINE.

IF YOU MIGHT HAVE TO ALMOST YELL UNDER YOUR SPEAKER.

OKAY, I'LL TRY GETTING CLOSER.

MY NAME'S HEEL, COLORADO 15 0 9 MAIN STREET, UH, DALLAS DISTRICT 14.

AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CITYWIDE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MEETING YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO CONSIDER A SWISS CHEESE APPROACH.

YOU'RE GONNA CONSIDER HOLES AND EXCEPTIONS WHERE YOU WANT TO KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS BECAUSE YOU NEED IT FOR THIS REASON OR THAT REASON.

BUT I WANNA MAKE THIS POINT THAT WHEN YOU HEAR ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHY YOU NEED PARKING MINIMUMS IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS, PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ARE ALL REASONS THAT THE PARKING MINIMUMS WE HAVE TODAY HAVE ALREADY FAILED FOR THE PAST 60 YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD PARKING MINIMUMS. WHETHER IT'S REDUCED OR WHETHER IT'S STANDARD, THERE IS NO NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN SAY THANKS TO

[00:05:01]

PARKING MINIMUMS. WE HAVE GUARANTEED THAT NO ONE PARKS IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE THANKS TO PARKING MINIMUMS. WE HAVE GUARANTEED THAT NOBODY DRIVES TO A BAR AND NO ONE DRIVES HOME DRUNK.

WE HAVE GUARANTEED THANKS TO PARKING MINIMUMS. PARKING MINIMUMS ARE AN EXPERIMENT THAT HAS FAILED.

AND SO WHEN, IF, IF ANY COMMISSIONER CAN RAISE THEIR HAND AND SAY, HEY, PARKING MINIMUMS HAVE WORKED, WE HAVE SEEN THE FRUITFUL, YOU KNOW, VALUE OF HAVING PARKING MINIMUMS OF ALL THESE MEETINGS.

NO ONE HAS SAID THAT.

ALL OF THESE EXCUSES ARE JUST REASONS THAT THE CURRENT PARKING MINIMUMS HAVE FAILED IN WAY THEY, WHERE THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IS INDUCING DRIVING.

AT THE LAST COMMISSION HEARING WE HAD COMMISSIONER HERBERT SAY, IF HE KNOWS THAT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY PARKING SOMEWHERE, HE WILL NOT GO PARKING MINIMUMS. DO NOT GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE ENOUGH PARKING.

IT, IT ONLY GUARANTEES THAT THERE WILL BE PARKING.

AND BY GUARANTEEING THAT THERE WILL BE PARKING, YOU GUARANTEE THAT PEOPLE DRIVE.

BUT MULTIPLE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION HAVE STATED THAT IF THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE PARKING, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO, OR AT LEAST NOT GO BY CAR.

TWO WEEKS FROM THE SATURDAY, THE LOWER GREENVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE GONNA PUT THOUSANDS OF NO PARKING SIGNS FOR THE BIGGEST EVENT OF THE YEAR.

AND IT WORKS PERFECTLY.

NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT THE NO PARKING SIGNS THAT GO UP BY THE THOUSANDS.

IF WE CAN DO THIS EVERY YEAR ON A CONSISTENT SCHEDULE WITHOUT FAIL, THEN WHY NOT DO IT EVERYWHERE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY? WE HAVE SO MANY ACCIDENTAL, UH, AND DELIBERATE STUDIES AND THE CITY AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ST.

PATRICK'S DAY, THAT'S STILL DAY EASTER IN NEW RELIC AND THE NEWELL AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD HOLLYWOOD SANTA MONICA NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ALREADY GET RID OF PARKING ALL THE TIME, AND EVERY TIME WE GET RID OF PARKING, WE DON'T GET CARMAGEDDON.

YOUR TIME IS THAT WE FRIEND THAT THEY WALK AND IT WORKS.

THANK YOU MR. CAR.

SO RECOGNIZE THE EXCUSE FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

24 HOUR DALLAS ASKS THAT YOU SUPPORT REDUCING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR RESTAURANTS TO ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF ENCLOSED AREA AND ELIMINATING MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

UH, I THINK, UH, ABEL MULTA IS ONLINE NOW.

OKAY? YES, SIR.

GOOD MORNING.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, ABEL MULTA OR ABTA, UH, FOUR THIRD DAY.

UM, WANNA JUST THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, FOR, UH, PROVIDING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS.

UH, MY NAME IS ABEL MULTA.

I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 24 HOUR DALLAS AND ALSO REPRESENT THE GREATER DALLAS CHAPTER OF THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.

AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT MODERNIZING THE CITY OF DALLAS' APPROACH TO PARKING MANAGEMENT.

UH, WE RECENTLY, AS AN ORGANIZATION PUT OUT A SMALL UNSCIENTIFIC SURVEY TO RESTAURANT COFFEE SHOP AND BAR OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH PARKING MANDATES.

ONE OF THE RESTAURANT OWNERS IN THE SURVEY, UH, HAD A PRETTY INTERESTING RESPONSE THAT I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL ABOUT, UH, THE DIFFICULTY THAT THIS ISSUE CAN PRESENT FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

UH, HE SAID, MY HOURS AND MY SEATING CAPACITY ARE LIMITED BY MY PARKING.

SO MY REVENUE CAN'T INCREASE YET MY RENT ALWAYS GOES UP.

THESE TWO FACTORS ARE ELIMINATING LOCAL, SMALL BUSINESSES FROM DALLAS RECENTLY VISIT DALLAS AND THE CITY OF DALLAS COMMISSIONED TOURISM ECONOMICS, AN OXFORD ECONOMICS COMPANY TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NIGHTLIFE ECONOMY IN DALLAS.

THEY FOUND THAT NIGHTLIFE CREATED $24.4 BILLION OF TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT IN 2023, SUPPORTING 256,000 JOBS AND GENERATED APPROXIMATELY $864 MILLION IN TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUES.

THE BUSINESSES I REPRESENT ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY, BUT PARKING MANDATES HAVE LIMITED THE OPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO GROW AND THRIVE.

DICTATING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO HOW PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE, DINE, AND PLAY IN DALLAS KEEPS US FROM ENJOYING THE DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS WE WANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE REASONABLE POLICY SOLUTIONS TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS OUR PARKING ISSUES LIKE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS AND OTHER PROVEN CURB MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN SUPPORT OF THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ENTREPRENEURS THAT WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DALLAS ECONOMY AND WANT THE CHANCE TO PROVIDE ALL OF US WITH DELICIOUS FOOD AND DRINKS AND A FUN NIGHT OUT OUT ON THE TOWN.

I'M HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT TWO OF THE PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY, THE GREATER DALLAS CHAPTER OF THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION AND

[00:10:01]

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES.

ANOTHER 57 SUFFERED LIFE-CHANGING SERIOUS INJURIES.

UH, JAY CROSSLEY.

HELLO.

UM, HELLO CHAIR SHADI AND COMMISSIONERS.

UH, THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS AND FOR YOUR TIME.

MY NAME IS JAY BLAZER CROSSLEY, AND I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF A 5 0 1 C3 NONPROFIT FARM AND CITY.

UM, AND A MAJORITY OF OUR WORK IS LEADING VISION ZERO, TEXAS, THE MOVEMENT TO END TRAFFIC DEATHS, BUT WE ALSO WORK ON LEGALIZING HOUSING ABUNDANCE, IMPROVING REGIONAL PLANNING, AND INCREASING MODAL FREEDOM BY IMPROVING POLICY PUBLIC POLICIES.

UH, AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COMPLETELY ELIMINATED THE USE OF MINIMUM PARKING MANDATES.

UH, IN NOVEMBER, 2023, WE HOSTED THE AUSTIN PARKING REFORM COALITION THAT WORKED TOGETHER TO BRING ABOUT THOSE REFORMS. AND WE HOPE TO SHARE THE BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS FROM AUSTIN'S EXPERIENCE TO HELP THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS.

BROADLY, I CAN REPORT AUSTIN IS DOING WELL WITHOUT ANY PARKING MANDATES AT ALL, THAT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING PROVIDED IN NEW PROJECTS HAS BEEN REDUCED BY ABOUT 20% COMPARED TO BEFORE THE REFORMS. WHILE THE AMOUNT PROVIDED IN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON AFFORDABLE INCOME, RESTRICTED HOUSING HAS BEEN REDUCED BY ABOUT 40%.

SO NEW PROJECTS IN AUSTIN ARE STILL PROVIDING PARKING JUST NOT AS MUCH ON AVERAGE.

AND DURING THAT TIME, AUSTIN'S RENTS HAVE GONE DOWN WHILE DALLAS RENTS CONTINUE RISING WITH DALLAS, NOW LESS AFFORDABLE THAN AUSTIN.

SO I URGE YOU TO END MINIMUM PARKING MANDATES AND ESPECIALLY THE DANGEROUS PRACTICE OF REQUIRING BARS TO PROVIDE DRUNK PARKING.

I BELIEVE A PRIMARY DETERMINANT OF THE HIGH RATES OF DRUNK DRIVING DEATHS IN TEXAS ARE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES.

OUR WORK AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION LED US TO START QUESTIONING THE DANGEROUS PRACTICE OF REQUIRING THAT ALCOHOL SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS PROVIDE FOR THEIR PATRONS TO DRIVE HOME DRUNK.

FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, WE'VE CALLED FOR THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF THIS DEADLY PRACTICE.

A DRAFT BILL IS READY TO BE FILED AT THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE TO BAN THE PRACTICE STATEWIDE.

ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ELIMINATED ALL PARKING MANDATES, THEY ACTUALLY CHOSE TO END DRUNK PARKING MANDATES.

FIRST MOTIVATED BY DESIRE TO ADDRESS DRUNK DRIVING.

ACCORDING TO THE TX CRASH REPORTING INFORMATION SYSTEM, 1080 PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN AN ALCOHOL RELATED CRASH LAST YEAR IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, ON AVERAGE, THREE PEOPLE EVERY DAY, 76 PEOPLE DIED IN THESE CRASHES.

THE TOTAL ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THESE CRASHES WAS $178 MILLION.

AND IF YOU DO THE COMPREHENSIVE COST WHERE YOU ADD IN FUTURE YEARS OF LIFE LOSS AND PAIN AND SUFFERING, THE COST OF THESE CRASHES WAS A STAGGERING $1.2 BILLION OR ABOUT $3 MILLION A DAY.

SO THE PROBLEM OF DRUNK DRIVING IS CAUSING AT LEAST THAT MUCH DAMAGE IN PEOPLE'S LIVES AND PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

ARE THE OTHER CONCERNS BEING EXPRESSED CLOSE TO AS BIG AS A PROBLEM AS THAT? AND ISN'T IT TIME TO CONSIDER PROVEN STRATEGIES THAT ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF THE FAILED POLICY OF PARKING MANDATES? SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS ON THESE REALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

AND CITY PLAN COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ADAM MURPHY AND I LIVED AT 3 4 3 5 DICKSON AVENUE.

I CURRENTLY SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE.

OVER 40 YEARS AGO, COMMUNITY LEADERS RECOGNIZED THAT OAK LAWN'S UNIQUE CHARACTER REQUIRED A TAILORED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT, REDUCED PARK REDUCING PARKING MINIMUMS. A BOLD AND FORWARD-THINKING MOVE AT THE TIME BECAME A KEY PART OF THE OKLAHOMA PLAN LEADING TO THE CREATION OF THE PD 1 93 ORDINANCE.

WE APPRECIATE THAT PD 1 93 IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CURRENT CODE AMENDMENT.

MAINTAINING OUR REVISED REDUCED PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS IS ESSENTIAL AS THESE BALANCE ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, UM, I'M SORRY, THEY BALANCE ACCESSIBILITY WITH THE DISTINCT CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THESE STANDARDS ENSURE FUNCTIONALITY FOR RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, AND VISITORS ALIKE WHILE SUPPORTING GROWTH AND PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT MAKES PD 1 93 SUCH A, A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.

[00:15:14]

THANK YOU SIR.

COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? YES, COMM COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE.

I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING, SO I'M NOT SURE IF ABEL IS STILL ON THE LINE VIRTUALLY.

IS HE OKAY.

YEAH, I, THERE'S NO REAL MAGIC TO THAT NUMBER.

I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR A QUOTE THAT HE HAD SAID.

YES, COMMISSIONER.

HI THERE.

SORRY, I WAS KIND OF HARD OF HEARING.

UM, I BELIEVE YOU SAID FROM THAT SURVEY YOU GOT THAT ONE OF THE BUSINESSES SAID, MY HOURS AND MY CAPACITY ARE LIMITED BY PARKING, SO REVENUE CAN'T GO UP, BUT MY RENT KEEPS INCREASING.

WAS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT WAS THE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM ONE OF OUR BUSINESS OPERATOR, FROM OUR, UH, RESTAURANT OPERATORS.

I WAS WONDERING IF WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO INVITE MR. HETZEL BACK UP AND SEE IF HE HAD ANY MORE ANECDOTES ABOUT, UM, OPERATING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, PARTICULARLY BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

HAPPY TO, UM, ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR OR JUST KIND OF GENERAL? WELL, YOUR, YOUR HUDSON HOUSE EXAMPLE WAS REALLY ENLIGHTENING.

UM, TELL ME ABOUT, UH, YOUR TENANTS THAT OPERATE BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

WHAT, WHAT DO THEY NEED? WHAT ARE THEY TALKING TO YOU ABOUT? UM, WHAT, HOW DO OUR, UM, HOW DOES OUR ORDINANCE TODAY HELP THEM OR HURT THEM? YEAH.

UH, IT, I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SOMEWHAT BRIEF AND FEEL FREE TO CUT ME OFF IF I GO A LITTLE TOO LONG.

SO IT, IT RUNS A WHOLE GAMBIT, RIGHT? SO I USE THE EXAMPLE OF HUDSON HOUSE AND IN THAT SHAME SHOPPING CENTER, UM, WE HAVE A LITTLE WINE BAR CALLED, UH, BODEGA.

AND WE NEED TO CONVERT THEIR CO FROM A RETAIL STORE TO A RESTAURANT BECAUSE THEY SERVE MEAT AND CHEESE BOARDS.

UM, APPARENTLY THAT'S ENOUGH TO QUALIFY AS A RESTAURANT, BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T DO THAT 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CODE PARKING FOR THEM TO DO THAT CO TRANSFER.

IT CREATES OTHER WEIRD ISSUES TOO, IN, IN TIGHTER NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE DEBU AND LOWER GREENVILLE, BECAUSE THERE'S DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT MAKES IT REALLY HARD FOR CUSTOMERS TO FIND THEIR SPACES.

UM, AND I THINK A KEY COMPONENT OF LETTING THE MARKET DECIDE IS, YOU KNOW, LATER ON IN, IN YOUR MOTION THAT YOU DID IS THE PROVISION AROUND PAID PARKING.

SO I'LL USE DEEP EL AS AN EXAMPLE.

THE DEEP ELLUM ZONING, WHICH I WORKED ON WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS 12 YEARS AGO OR SO, ALREADY HAS A LOT OF THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN IT.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE PARKING FOR RESTAURANTS UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN OLDER BUILDINGS OR RETAIL STORES UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, BARS, RESTAURANTS, IT'S AT 2,500 BECAUSE I'M PERSONALLY A BIG BELIEVER THAT THERE'S A VERY DIFF BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SMALL FORMAT RESTAURANT AND BAR AND ITS IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA IN A LARGE FORMAT RESTAURANT BAR.

UM, YOU HAVE YOUR BASELINE BATHROOMS AND KITCHEN AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THERE'S JUST AN INTENSITY OF IMPACT.

UM, AND WE ALSO INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT ALLOWED PAID PARKING ON CODE PARKING.

FAST FORWARD 12 YEARS NOW WHAT YOU SEE IN DE BEUM IS I THINK WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC PAID PARKING GARAGES THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY THE PRIVATE SIDE OF OVER 500 SPACES.

THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RECENTLY DID A PARKING STUDY IN D BEUM, AND OUR MAX PARKING UTILIZATION FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT ON A SATURDAY NIGHT WAS 80 SOMETHING PERCENT.

AND SO, I KNOW THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT PARKING IS HARD TO FIND A BE BEUM, BUT THE MARKET DOES CATCH UP OVER TIME.

UM, AND SO THAT, THAT HAS REALLY HELPED US IN, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

AND SO IT, IT, IT'S, IT GOES ALL OVER THE BOARD.

BUT, UM, UM, THAT'S A KEY PART OF IT FOR, FOR US AS WELL, IS GIVE THE MARKET THE, THE TOOLS TO RESPOND, UM, TO IT.

AND ONE OTHER ANECDOTE ACTUALLY IS, AND HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT UPSET WITH ME BRINGING THIS UP, IS, UH, WE BUILT AND OWN THE TRADER JOE'S ON LOWER GREENVILLE.

THE TENANT THAT WANTS ME TO INSTITUTE PAID PARKING THE MOST ON LOWER GREENVILLE IS TRADER JOE'S BECAUSE THEIR PARKING LOT IS THE MOST ABUSED.

AND SO, UNLESS I HAVE THE TOOLS TO DO PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT WITH CURRENT MODERN TECHNOLOGY WITH VALIDATION AND THINGS OF THAT SORT, I CAN'T KEEP TRADER JOE'S PARKING AVAILABLE FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS.

UM, AND SO IT'S, IT'S GOTTEN A LOT MORE SOPHISTICATED OVER THE LAST 10, 20 YEARS IN TERMS OF, OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO MANAGE IT ON THE GROUND.

UM, THANK YOU.

THAT'S HELPFUL.

DID, DID I HEAR YOU IN YOUR REMARKS, UH, REFERENCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT FOR AN EXEMPTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENT? I I HEARD 5,000.

I HEARD 2,500.

I CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE

[00:20:01]

UH, 20 505,000.

I THINK THE SPIRIT OF RESTAURANTS AND BARS CAUSE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS IS TRUE.

UM, AND, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION FOR SOME LEVEL OF MITIGATION.

I THINK HAVING, UM, SOME DIFFERENTIAL OF, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE AND OFFICE, WHICH HAS VERY LITTLE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING AREAS AND RESTAURANTS AND BARS, MAKE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SENSE.

PERSONALLY, I HAVE YET TO HEAR SOMEBODY COMPLAIN ABOUT A, UH, A WOMEN'S CLOTHING BOUTIQUE CAUSING MASSIVE OVERFLOW PARKING OR PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT A MEN'S BARBER SHOP CAUSING BIG, UH, OVERFLOW PARKING ISSUES.

A LOT OF IT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE IS THE RESTAURANTS AND BARS.

AND AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE TALKING A, A LARGE FORMAT NIGHTCLUB THAT'S 10 20 PLUS THOUSAND SQUARE FEETS, THAT IS JUST THE VERY DIFFERENT LIVED EXPERIENCE THAN, YOU KNOW, TEN TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT OR 1500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE LESS PARKING, UH, RELATED TO IT.

UM, UH, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANTS, NEIGHBORHOOD BARS, BISTROS SANDWICH SHOPS, THINGS OF THAT SORT THAT JUST, YOU KNOW, IT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE UBER, AND WHEN PARKING'S TIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO DO THIRD PARTY RIDE SHARE.

UM, AND YOU GOTTA LET THE CUSTOMERS CATCH UP WITH, WITH WHAT'S THERE AND LET MARKET DEMAND.

THANKS VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN.

MY PLEASURE.

RICHARD KEON.

BUT YOU WOULD AGREE THAT A COLLECTION OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, EVEN IF THEY'RE SMALL, CAN HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON A NEIGHBORHOOD IF THINGS AREN'T MANAGED CORRECT.

DEFINE ADVERSE IMPACT.

UM, TO ME PERSONALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE CARS PARKED ON A PUBLIC STREET WHERE PARKING'S AVAILABLE IS NOT THAT BIG OF A NEGATIVE OF IMPACT.

PEOPLE ARE WELCOME TO DISAGREE.

UM, AND BUT HAVING IT OVERFLOW FOR BLOCKS AND BLOCKS AND BLOCKS, YEAH, IT, IT CAN, AND THERE'S OTHER TOOLS AVAILABLE SUCH AS RPO, RESIDENT PARKING ONLY, WHICH I KNOW LAURA GREENVILLE HAS A LOT OF.

UM, AND THERE'S DISCUSSIONS THAT CAN BE HAD AROUND THAT ENFORCEMENT.

UM, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE AREN'T TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX.

AND OUR POSITION ON LAURA GREENVILLE HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME, AND I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STREETS AROUND LAURA GREENVILLE BEING CLOSED TO RPO.

THAT DOESN'T BOTHER US.

AND IF WE CAN'T MEET OUR COMMERCIAL PARKING DEMAND ON OUR OWN PROPERTY, WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT WITH OUR TENANTS.

UM, UH, SO SOME OF IT JUST COMES DOWN TO USING THE RIGHT TOOLS AND PROPERLY ENFORCING 'EM.

BUT YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT THERE ARE LANDLORDS THAT DON'T OPERATE AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT YOU DO.

RIGHT? THERE ARE VARYING DEGREES OF LANDLORDS THAT OPERATE AT DIFFERENT LEVELS AND HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CONSIDERATION.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL WHEN I TAKE THESE POSITIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE OPERATE IN.

WE DON'T OWN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF DEEP EL, WE DON'T OWN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF LOWER GREENVILLE.

WE HAVE PROPERTY ON OAK LAWN AVENUE, AND, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, TRADITIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS.

AND SO IF SOMEBODY WHO'S A ONE-OFF OWNER PUTS IN A RESTAURANT WITH NO PARKING, YEAH, THAT DOES HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ME AND MY TENANTS.

THAT'S A TRADE OFF I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT.

'CAUSE EVERYTHING IN LIFE HAS A TRADE OFF.

AND I THINK THERE'S A GREATER GOOD TO BE HAD HERE RELATIVE TO THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF IT.

AND THAT'S, AGAIN, WHERE PROPER MANAGEMENT REALLY COMES INTO PLAY.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PROPER MANAGEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE? YOU KNOW, THERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO TO THE CRESCENT TO GO TO ASCENSION COFFEE OR ANY PLACE LIKE THAT, OR WE'RE ACTUALLY ABOUT TO IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM OVER AN EXPOSITION PARK OUTSIDE THE FAIR PARK DART STATION.

OF THE LOTS BETTER MAINTAIN LOTS.

PEOPLE USE OUR PARKING IN EXPOSITION PARK, UH, ALL THE TIME TO GO TO DALLAS SUMMER MUSICAL FESTIVAL EVENTS AND THE WHOLE NINE YARDS.

AND, YOU KNOW, OUR BUSINESSES DON'T LOVE IT.

UH, BUT IT IS THE REAL WORLD.

IT IS PARKING THAT'S AVAILABLE.

AND SO WITH THINGS LIKE QR CODES, UH, AND SMARTPHONES, YOU CAN PARK IN LOTS IN OUR CA WHETHER IT'S LOWER GREENVILLE POSITION PARK.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO ONE, ONE OF OUR BUSINESSES, WE CAN COME UP WITH OUR OWN CUSTOM VALIDATION PROGRAM WITH OUR BUSINESSES, WITH THE PARKING FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS IS FREE OR SIGNIFICANTLY DISCOUNTED.

WHEREAS IF SOMEBODY'S UTILIZING OUR LOTS TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, THERE'S A PRICING MECHANISM IN PLACE THAT DERIVES REVENUE.

AND THAT REVENUE WOULD RESULT IN MORE PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT

[00:25:01]

AND IF THE REVENUE GETS HIGH ENOUGH, SUCH AS IT HAS IN DEEP EL BECAUSE OF OUR LOOSER PARKING RULES AND OUR ABILITY TO CHARGE FOR PARKING, SOMEBODY EVENTUALLY WILL BUILD A PARKING GARAGE AND THE ISSUE GETS SOLVED.

UM, AND SO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THE REAL WORLD GETS A LITTLE MESSY SOMETIMES, BUT, UM, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT AN AERIAL OF LOWER GREENVILLE VERSUS DE BEUM, LOWER GREENVILLE, WHERE WE HAVE PRETTY CLOSE TO FULL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S STILL A FEW DELTA CREDITS HANGING OUT THERE, BUT MOST OF 'EM HAVE GONE AWAY A LONG TIME AGO.

DEEP BEUM WHERE WE HAVE THE CUSTOM PARKING RULES, UM, THAT AERIAL WILL SHOW LOWER GREENVILLE.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN BRIEFING PACKETS IS ALMOST ALL THE OLD STRUCTURES EXCEPT THOSE DIRECTLY ON GREENVILLE HAVE BEEN WIPED OUT FOR SURFACE PARKING.

YOU LOOK AT AERIAL DEVELOP, MOST OF THE OLD BUILDINGS STILL EXISTS, WHICH IS WHY WE JUST GOT NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

UH, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IF WE HAD NOT ALLEVIATED CODE PARKING IN THAT DISTRICT.

AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER COMMISSIONER.

I, I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT PARK OF THE PARKING MINIMUM AND ALSO SETBACKS.

AND, UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT, UM, AS YOU JUST STATED, CERTAIN, CERTAIN AREAS LIKE NORTH GREENVILLE HAVE LOST THEIR, THEIR, UM, SOME OF THEIR HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THAT THAT SAME THING HAS HAPPENED IN AREAS LIKE SOUTH DALLAS WHO HAS TO MEET THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND HAVE LOST DELTA CRITICS DUE TO THE SAME REASON.

AND, AND IT WOULD BENEFIT AREAS LIKE SOUTH DALLAS THAT ARE NOT THE, THAT ARE THE NORM, THAT IF WE, UH, IF PARKING MINIMUMS ARE EITHER NOT REQUIRED OR THAT THEY GIVE SOME RELIEF IN THAT, THAT ASPECT YEAH, THAT, THAT'S A FANTASTIC POINT.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S SO CRITICAL THAT THERE'S A BROAD, EVEN IF SOME PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS AND BARS ARE MAIN, BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO MUCH POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT, THAT'S FOR THIS BODY AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A BROAD SWATH OF USES THAT HAVE NO PARKING REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER.

THAT'S WHY I USED THE EXAMPLE OF THE WOMEN'S BOUTIQUE, THE HAIR SALON, UH, USES SUCH AS THAT.

SO IF YOU HAVE AN OLDER VACANT BUILDING WITH NO PARKING, YOU AT LEAST HAVE SOME OPTIONS TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO WITH THAT BUILDING OTHER THAN JUST TEAR IT DOWN.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY USING, IF THERE IS A, IF THERE'S A, SAY THERE'S A BUILDING THAT HAS MULTIPLE SUITES, UM, THAT THEY GET THE LANDLORD TO SIGN A A, A PRETTY MUCH A DOCUMENT SAYING THAT THEY WON'T, THEY WON'T RENT THE, THE REST OF THE SUITES OUT, UM, DUE TO PARKING MIDDLE? YES, I AM.

AND I'VE, UH, I'VE HAD SIMILAR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ON A NUMBER OF MY PROPERTIES, AND WE HAVE HAD TO KEEP BUILDINGS FALLOW FOR MULTIPLE DECADES BECAUSE WE COULD NOT GO PARK THEM.

UM, AND THEN ONE OTHER, UM, DO YOU BELIEVE, SO AREAS SUCH AS LOWER GREENVILLE AND, AND OAK LAWN, THOSE AREAS AND EVEN BISHOP PARK THAT HAVE A TIGHTER, UM, KIND MORE BUILDINGS, TIGHTER NET STREETS THAT THEY WOULD BENEFIT FROM INCLUDING THE PARKING MINIMUMS IN THEIR PD INSTEAD OF REVERTING BACK TO THE GENERAL CODE.

WHEREAS THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY CAN BENEFIT, ESPECIALLY IN SOUTHERN SECTOR, CAN BENEFIT PHARMACY RELEASE, SUCH AS WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THE WINE.

WE HAVE THAT SAME ISSUE ABOUT THE WINE SHOP THAT NOW INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO CONVERT OVER TO JUST A FOOD AND BEVERAGE COFFEE STORE, UM, THEY'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF A, OF A RESTAURANT WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN PROBABLY SEEK THAT MANY PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S IN LARGE PART WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IN MY OPINION.

I, I, I, UH, IF I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION CORRECTLY, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE.

I MEAN, THIS IS A CITYWIDE ISSUE.

NOT EVERY AREA OF TOWN HAS SOPHISTICATED, CONSOLIDATED PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, WILLING TO PAY CONSULTANTS AND ATTORNEYS AND NEGOTIATE CUSTOM PARKING RULES THROUGH PDS AND GO THROUGH THAT YEARS LONG PROCESS TO GET IT RIGHT FOR THEIR AREA AND ACTIVATE THE BUILDINGS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR CITY DOES NOT HAVE THAT CAPABILITY, NOR SHOULD THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE AREAS LIKE DEEP LUM BENEFITED FROM US DOING THAT A WHILE AGO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THIS OVERALL CITY AND THERE'S A LOT OF AREAS THAT COULD BENEFIT, BENEFIT FROM IT.

ABSOLUTELY.

UM,

[00:30:01]

SO, SO ONE LAST PORTION.

SO HAVE YOU, UM, 'CAUSE TO ME IT SEEMS AS IF YOU, I'M NOT IN PERSON RIGHT NOW, BUT THINGS THAT YOU KIND OF HAVE, HAVE HAD SOME EXPERTISE IN HELPING ON SOME TYPE OF, OF, OF, OF PARKING REFORM.

HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO OR HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED THE OTHER AREAS IN SOUTHERN SECTOR THAT ARE, ARE PRETTY MUCH BEING CHOKED OUT BECAUSE OF THESE PARKING MINIMUMS? UM, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS BE, IS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO, TO, UM, BLOOM BECAUSE OF SUCH PARKING, UH, REQUIREMENTS? I HAVE NOT ANALYZED IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT I WILL, I MEAN, IT, IT, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ZONING CODE.

I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE IT EXISTS ALL THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN DALLAS.

UH, THE ONE AREA IN SOUTHERN DALLAS THAT WE OPERATE IN, WHICH IS AGAIN, THE ACQUISITION PARK NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE OUTSIDE OF FAIR PARK, UM, THANKFULLY THAT AREA IS INCLUDED IN THE DEEP ELM ZONING THAT I REFERENCED BEFORE.

SO IT WAS ABLE TO BENEFIT AND DRAFT OFF OF ALL THE WORK WE DID ON OUR CUSTOM DEEP ELM ZONING.

UM, BUT YOU GET, YOU GET A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF US, UH, SUCH AS ON MLK AND WHATNOT, AND YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, WHAT'S HAPPENED THERE VERSUS THE EXPO PARK AREA.

IT'S A, IT'S DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS AND BIG PARKING FIELDS, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THINGS OF THAT SORT AS OPPOSED TO THE OLD HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND MIX OF USES AND ART STUDIOS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT THAT WE HAVE AN EXPOSITION PARK 'CAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO FILL THOSE OLD BUILDINGS BECAUSE OF THE CUSTOM REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

WELL, YOU'RE BRINGING UP MLK ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES, UM, IN SOUTH DALLAS IS THAT TYPE OF PARKING THAT EXISTS IN DEEP EXISTS IN MUCH OF THE OLDER DISTRICTS IN DALLAS, JEFFERSON, UM, SOME OF, OF DEEP L SOME OF BISHOP ARTS.

UM, WHAT WOULD YOUR PROPOSAL BE AS FAR AS NOT EVEN BEING ABLE TO INCLUDE THAT TYPE OF PARKING, WHICH THEY'RE CONSENTING ON STREET PARKING, WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE TYPE OF DISTRICTS IN SOUTH DALLAS, ST.

MARTIN, LUTHER KING, MALCOLM X, SECOND AVENUE, THEY'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO EVEN USE THOSE PARKING THAT THEIR PATRONS USE IN THEIR PARKING AGREEMENTS THAT PULL IN FRONT, FRONT FACING PARKING.

THAT, THAT EXIST IN MUCH OF OUR OLDER CITY, OLDER, UH, PORTIONS OF THE CITY THAT IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE PARKING AGREEMENTS.

UM, WHICH MOST DEFINITELY CUTS OUT THE AMOUNT OF, UH, MAKES THE, MAKES THE PROPERTY ONLY HAVE TO ADD MORE PARKING, UM, BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT REGULATION.

AND, AND I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION, BUT I'LL ANSWER BASED ON WHAT I THINK IT WAS.

AND, AND IT, AND IT GOES ALSO TO MY COMMENTS RELATED TO, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE ONE USE AND ONE PARKING LOT FOR THAT USE, IT'S EXCLUSIVELY FOR THAT USE.

IT'S VERY INEFFICIENT USE OF PARKING.

VERY INEFFICIENT USE OF PARKING.

WHEREAS PARTICULARLY YOU HAVE A DISTRICT AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO VALIDATIONS AND CHARGING FOR PARKING, THEN YOU GET MUCH MORE FLEXIBLE USES.

RIGHT? AND SO YOU THINK OF THINGS LIKE A COFFEE SHOP WHOSE PRIME HOURS OR OPERATIONS ARE IN THE MORNING VERSUS A SANDWICH SHOP MIDDLE OF THE DAY VERSUS A, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD BISTRO WOULD BE AT DINNER VERSUS A WINE BAR A LITTLE BIT AFTER DINNER.

SHOULD ALL THOSE BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE PARKING LOTS? THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

SO I WAS, HOW ABOUT WE HAVE ONE PARKING LOT FOR ALL THOSE USES THAT DOESN'T MEET CURRENT CODE AND THE PARKING FLEXES UP AND DOWN.

AND IF YOU HAVE A PAID INVALIDATION MECHANISM, MAYBE SOMEBODY HAS FOUR USES IN THEIR BUILDING THAT ARE GENERALLY DONE BY THE EVENING AND THERE'S A PROPERTY OWNER NEXT DOOR THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PARKING AND DOES HAVE A BAR OR A RESTAURANT.

YOU CAN LET US CUSTOMERS USE THE SPACES AND THEY PAY AS THEY USE IT.

THE, THE WHOLE POINT OF, IN MY MIND OF ELIMINATING OR SEVERELY REDUCING AND KEEPING THE RULES SIMPLE ABOUT CO PARKING MINIMUMS IS TO LET THE MARKET FLEX AND ADAPT AND RESPOND TO THE REAL LIFE LIVED EXPERIENCE FOR EVERY MICROCOSM EXAMPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

'CAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO PREDICT EXACTLY HOW EVERYTHING'S GONNA WORK OUT.

I MEAN, WHAT IS IT THE FAMOUS, UH, EISENHOWER QUOTE, NO PLAN, SURVIVE, FIRST CONTACT, UH, BEFORE HE SAID D-DAY.

YOU KNOW? SO IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE EVERY SITUATION'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT.

UM, SO BAKING IN THE FLEXIBILITY TO, UH, DEAL WITH THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS, I THINK IS, IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF, OF NOT HAVING TOO MUCH PARKING.

UM, BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T DO A LOT DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, THE MARKET WILL ADD PARKING DOWNTOWN DOESN'T HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT.

IF YOU DRIVE AROUND DOWNTOWN, THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY 2 CENTS ON IT.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

UH, MR. HETZEL,

[00:35:01]

THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR, UH, EXPERIENCE WITH US.

I'M, I'M CURIOUS, UM, IT, AT LEAST ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT'S BEEN FLOATED AROUND HAS, UM, RETAIL PARKING REDUCED TO ZERO AND RESTAURANT PARKING REDUCED TO ONE PER 200 SQUARE FEET.

IF THAT WERE THE CASE, YOUR SITUATION AT GREENVILLE AVENUE, WOULD THAT SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM THERE? YEAH, I MEAN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S, I'M NOT GONNA PUT IN A RESTAURANT WITH NO PARKING AND, AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO NECESSARILY EITHER.

AND SO THAT, THAT WOULD ALLOW, IN MY OPINION, ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND BASED ON ACTUAL MARKET DEMAND.

THANK YOU MR. HAMPTON.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MR. HUTZEL.

UM, JUST TWO QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

REALLY FOCUSING ON DEEP BALANCE, BUT I THINK AS WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE OUR OPPORTUNITIES ARE THINKING, UM, FOR OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE REDUCTION IN THE, UM, PARKING FOR THE, WELL, THE EXEMPTIONS FOR WHETHER IT'S 2,500, WHATEVER THE NUMBER MAY BE, ARE THOSE TIED TO LEGACY BUILDINGS AGAIN, TRYING TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC BUILDING STOCK? YEAH, WELL, IT, IT'S DEEP EL WAS CRAFTED.

THE DEEP ELM ZONING WAS CRAFTED PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF RIDESHARE AND VARIOUS OTHER TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE COME INTO PLACE SINCE THEN.

AND WE'RE ALSO STARING DOWN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ALREADY STARTING TO HIT THE ROADS.

BUT BACK WHEN WE DID IT, YES, THAT WAS A PRIMARY MOTIVATION, UH, WAS THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UM, AND THE ACTIVATING OF THE BUILDINGS.

BUT IT WAS ALSO JUST A GENERAL NEW URBANISM ETHOS OF THE DISTRICT.

AT THE TIME.

WE, WE DID IT, WE DID, UH, INCLUDE PARKING AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT EVEN THEN, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS BEFORE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, UM, WE REDUCED THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY TO ONE PER UNIT INSTEAD OF ONE PER BEDROOM, YOU KNOW? SO, UM, EVEN ON NEW CONSTRUCTION WE DID, WE DID PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF, OF RELIEF AS WELL.

WELL, RIGHT.

AND, AND I THINK EVEN IN CONVERSIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY, IT WAS EVEN FURTHER REDUCED AGAIN.

TRYING TO LOOK AHEAD.

IS IT, UM, ALSO CORRECT THAT ON THE MORE INTENSE USES COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT BAR, LOUNGE, TAVERN, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO SUP.

SO WHILE THERE MAY BE REDUCTIONS ALLOWED, THEY GET A CLOSER REVIEW JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS ADJACENCIES AND OVERALL IMPACTS.

IS IS THAT CORRECT? A HUNDRED PERCENT.

AND I THINK THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, UH, AT LEAST AS IT RELATES TO DEBELL.

UM, AND IN THAT SAME VEIN, THE, WE PURPOSEFULLY, UH, IN THE CASE OF DEBELL 12 YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, THINGS CHANGE, BUT WE, UM, WE GAVE THE CARVE OUT FOR RESTAURANTS, RETAIL STORES, AND PERSONAL SERVICE UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WHEREAS OUR CARVE OUT FOR BARS AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT WAS ONLY 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

SO AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S MORE INTENSE USES, THAT IT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE.

I I DON'T THINK YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH IT, BUT, UM, DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL IF, UM, WHEN THE CEDARS, AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE OF OUR EVOLVING AREAS, YOU KNOW, USED A LOT OF THE TOOLS FROM DEEP EUM, A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE, BUT DID START INTEGRATING RIDESHARE, SHARED PARKING, UM, DARK PROXIMITY.

UM, ARE THERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ENSURING THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE CONNECTIONS TO THOSE SERVICES AS AS WELL? HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS? SO AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE THE REDUCTION RELATED TO ANY OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TYPES OF MODES THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS ON HOW YOU ACTUALLY WOULD ACCESS THOSE AS REDEVELOPMENT OCCURS.

UH, WELL, NOTHING IN THE ZONING OTHER THAN A GENERAL, AT LEAST IN CASE OF DEBELL, YOU CAN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A 25% REDUCTION IF YOU'RE WITHIN WHATEVER DISTANCE FROM A A DART STATION.

THOUGH I WILL SAY AS A DISTRICT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WORK, UH, WITH THE CITY AND, YOU KNOW, THE PIT THAT I'VE BEEN LONG-TERM PRESIDENT OF IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, CROSSWALK ENHANCEMENTS AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE PROPER SIDEWALKS AND, AND THINGS OF THAT SORT TOWARDS THE DART STATIONS, UH, THAT WE HAVE IN DISTRICT.

CUSTOMER MIGHT, LET'S SAY YOU'RE GOING OUT FOR A NIGHT IN DEPOT AND A LOWER GREEN BULL, AND IT COSTS 20, $30 TO PARK, WHEREAS AN UBER COSTS $10 EACH WAY, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE THE SMART CHOICE AND TAKE THE UBER, AVOID A POTENTIAL DUI AND THEN NOT SUCK UP A PARKING SPACE AS AN EXAMPLE.

THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CHERNO, YOU HAD MADE A, EXCUSE ME.

UH, YOU HAD MADE A COMMENT EARLIER, UH, WITH REMARK REMARKS REGARDING DE ELEM WHERE THE MARKET NEEDS TO CATCH UP.

AND, AND I, I TOOK THAT TO MEAN AS PATRONS LEARN THEIR PARKING OPTIONS, THEY ADAPT THEIR TRANSPORTATION CHOICE.

DID, CAN YOU EXPAND ON, WHAT AM I INTERPRETING THAT CORRECT ABOUT YOUR TERM? CORRECTLY? A PART OF IT.

A PART OF IT, RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU MAKE, WE ALL KNOW THE PHRASE, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE PARKING.

WE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS LONG ENOUGH, RIGHT? AND SO WHEN YOU MAKE A, UH, PARKING A COST TO THE CUSTOMER, THEN THE CUSTOMER'S DECISION MAKING CHANGES OVER TIME.

AND SO THE

[00:40:01]

YOU KNOW, KIND OF TO YOUR POINT.

SO THE, THE CUSTOMER TRAFFIC PATTERNS DO CHANGE OVER TIME BASED ON THE LIVED EXPERIENCE.

UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF YOU CREATE ENOUGH PARKING DEMAND AND ENOUGH REVENUE OVER TIME, THE, THE, THE MEDIUM OVER TIME IS SOMEBODY WILL INCLUDE A PARKING GARAGE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE REVENUE JUSTIFIES THE COST TO BUILD IT.

THE STACK IS A GREAT EXAMPLE IN DEEP ELLUM, THAT'S THE HEINZ DEVELOPED OFFICE TOWER.

ON COMMERCE STREETS, MORE THAN HALF OF THE BUILDING IS A PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE THAT'S PAID.

I MEAN, THE OFFICE USERS USE IT DURING THE DAY, BUT IT SITS EMPTY MOSTLY DURING THE DAY ANYWAY.

AND THAT WAS A MASSIVE PART OF THEIR UNDERWRITING WAS THE PARKING REVENUE BEING GENERATED ON THAT GARAGE, PARTICULARLY WITH ITS PROXIMITY TO THE BOMB FACTORY LIVE MUSIC VENUE, UM, THAT THEY REALLY, I MEAN, DIDN'T TAKE MUCH SUBSIDY TO GET THAT THING BUILT AT ALL.

AND FRANKLY, NONE OF THE SUBSIDY WENT TO THE PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE.

IT WAS FOR ENHANCED FACADE MATERIALS AND IMPROVING THE STREETSCAPE COMMISSIONER FORSYTH LAURA, UH, FROM THE, UH, KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD.

COULD YOU COME UP? YES.

YOU'VE HEARD TODAY, LAURA, THAT YOU KNOW, UM, IF WE, YOU KNOW, PASS THIS, UH, PARKING CODE AMENDMENT AND GET RID OF ALL THE PARKING MINIMUMS THAT THE MARKET'S GONNA BASICALLY TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING FOR, FOR, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

UH, I, I, I'M CURIOUS IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, UH, LIVING, UH, NEXT TO THE BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT, UH, WITH ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CAUSED WITH PARKING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR BISHOP ARTS, WHAT HAS THE MARKET DONE TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM FOR YOU? UH, OR WHAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT DONE TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM FOR YOU? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS WE HAVE A BUNCH OF SMALL OPERATORS IN OUR AREA, UM, UNLIKE, UM, THE GENTLEMAN HERE WHO OWNS MASS AREAS, WE HAVE A LOT OF SMALL OPERATORS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY WORK TOGETHER.

WHAT WE'VE FOUND, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I'VE GIVEN YOU, UM, AT 4 51 WEST DAVIS EL GORDO'S, IT WAS A RESTAURANT BEFORE THIS, THEY HAD PROBLEMS WITH PARKING AT THAT POINT.

THEY ENDED UP NOT RENEWING THEIR LEASE.

IT SAT VACANT, UM, BECAUSE THE LANDLORD WANTS A RESTAURANT THERE.

THAT'S ALL HE WANTS THERE.

AND THEN SOMEBODY COMES ALONG WHO MAY NOT BE AS FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS.

THEY SIGN A FIVE YEAR LEASE.

WE HAVE ANOTHER RESTAURANT THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO DEAL WITH AGAIN.

SO I'M NOT THE MARKET WE ARE, I, I SAT HERE AND ALL I HEARD WAS ABOUT THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, THE, HOW WE MUST DO THIS FOR BUSINESS.

I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THROUGHOUT THIS.

WHILE THE MARKET DETERMINES WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE.

AND CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? SURE.

UH, WOULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU STATED, I BELIEVE IN YOUR TESTIMONY, OR MAYBE WITH THE TESTIMONY OF SOMEONE ELSE FROM KIDS SPRINGS, IF WE, UH, PASSED THIS AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO UH, UH, GET RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALL BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT ARE UNDER 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON THE, THE BARS AND RESTAURANTS AND, AND BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT? I WILL SAY THIS, THAT RIGHT NOW, THE, UM, WE DO HAVE PDS.

WE HAVE A MISHMASH OF PDS THAT SURROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE PD EIGHT 30 AND WE HAVE PD 4, 6 7.

THOSE TWO HAVE BUILT IN PARKING, UM, REDUCTIONS.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE WILL STAY, UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THINGS CAN'T CHANGE.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UM, THE PUSH WILL

[00:45:01]

BE TO PERHAPS LOOK AT THESE AGAIN.

UM, BUT I THINK FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT PDS RIGHT NOW, OUR, OUR, THE PRIMARY PD THAT PROTECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS PD ONE 60, THAT IS WHAT WE PUT INTO PLACE BACK IN THE EIGHTIES.

RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THIS WOULD BE PROPOSED IS WE ARE, THAT PD IS TIED TO THE CURRENT, TO THE CHAPTER 51 A ORDINANCE.

AND SO WE WOULD LOSE THE PROTECTIONS WITHIN PD ONE 60 WHEN IT COMES TO THE PARKING MINIMUMS. SO THAT IS WHY WE, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE STREETCAR TO NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A TO OD.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY.

BUT, UM, I, I THOUGHT I HAD, UH, TYPED, UH, IN MY NOTES, UH, FROM LISTENING TO YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU, UH, THAT YOU OR ONE OF THE, UH, MEMBERS FROM KE, THE KEY PARK KIDS SPRINGS DELEGATION HERE TODAY HAD SAID THAT, UH, IF, IF WE DID, UH, PASS THIS PARKING AMENDMENT TO, UM, ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS OR BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT ARE UNDER 3,500 SQUARE FEET, THAT THAT WOULD PRETTY MUCH GET RID OF, UH, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL RESTAURANTS THAT ARE IN BISHOP PARKS.

NO, I'M SORRY IF I, IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT, I DID NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT, BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE PARKING REDUCTIONS, AS YOU SAY, BAKED IN TO THE VARIOUS PDS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, THE POINT I THINK I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THIS IS AN ORDINANCE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY.

AND SO WHAT I, I'M ACTUALLY SPEAKING, WE MAY HAVE SOME PROTECTIONS THERE, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THESE PROCESSES ALREADY WITH PUTTING IN A PD.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT HAVE NOT HAD THAT BENEFIT, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THIS.

THANK YOU LAW.

MR. SO DO YOU HAVE RPO PROTECTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? WE HAVE LIMITED RPO.

WE HAVE HAD LIMITED SUCCESS IN GETTING THAT PUT INTO PLACE.

AND FOR THE, AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS? UM, BECAUSE THE PROCESS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH FIRST, THE PROCESS OF PUTTING THE PETITION TOGETHER, GETTING THE BLOCK ON, EVERYBODY SIGNING UP ON THE, THEN THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS OF THE CITY COMING OUT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE PARKING SITUATION IS.

AND HONESTLY, THEY DON'T COME OUT AT THE RIGHT TIMES TO SEE WHEN WE'RE HAVING THE PROBLEMS. UM, AND SO WE'VE HAD TIMES WHERE WE'VE SUBMITTED REQUESTS FOR RPOS THAT THEY'VE BEEN REJECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE OVERALL PICTURE.

AND IN THE PLACES WHERE YOU DO HAVE RPO, IS IT ENFORCED BY THE CITY? NO.

OUR, SOME OF OUR STREETS ARE VERY NARROW.

RP O'S KIND OF A JOKE, ISN'T IT? IT IS.

SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY RP O'S A TOOL IN A TOOLBOX, IT REALLY ISN'T MUCH OF A TOOL, IS IT? NO.

AND ANOTHER ISSUE WE HAVE, IF I MAY, IS THE USE OF VALET PARKING IN OUR, IN OUR, IN, IN THE RESTAURANTS AROUND US.

UM, THEY, TO TRY TO GET AROUND THE RPO, I MEAN, WHAT THEY'LL DO IS, UM, THEY'LL HAVE A VALET, WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PERMIT, AND THEN THEY'LL DRIVE IT AROUND THE BLOCK TO THE BLOCK NEXT TO THE RPO AND PARK IT ON THE STREET.

AND CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE OF ISSUES YOU ALL FACE BEING CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY? WELL, I MEAN, THE BIG ONE, UM, I MEAN, MY NEIGHBOR WHO WAS HERE, THEY, THEY HAVE THE ISSUE OF, UH, THEIR DRIVEWAYS BEING BLOCKED.

YOU CANNOT GET SOMEBODY OUT THERE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.

UM, A LOT OF OUR HOMES WERE BUILT WITHOUT DRIVEWAYS AND OFF STREET PARKING.

SO OUR RESIDENTS, THEIR ONLY OPTION TO PARK IS ON THE STREET.

AND WHEN THOSE ARE TAKEN AWAY BY INDIVIDUALS FROM OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY, THEY HAVE, THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING.

UM, WE HAVE, UM,

[00:50:01]

IF YOU GET PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, MAYBE ONE CAR CAN GO DOWN THE MIDDLE AT A TIME.

UM, I KNOW IN A BLOCK THAT I USE REGULARLY, PARKING ON BOTH SIDES.

WHEN I TRIED TO TURN OFF OF ZANG, WHICH IS A 35 MILE PER HOUR STREET, AND I TRIED TO TURN ONTO A SIDE STREET, I HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE PARKING ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE CORNER.

I CAN EASILY HIT A CAR THAT'S PARKED ON THE STREET.

UM, AND THAT COMES A LOT WHEN WE HAVE, UM, A BUILDING THERE THAT'S USED FOR EVENTS.

UM, AND WE GET A LOT OF CARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. FRANKLIN.

UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YEAH.

AND WHAT'S YOUR NAME AGAIN? MY NAME IS LAURA PALMER.

MS. PALMER, UH, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND PRESENTING, UH, YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY.

AND I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS ABOUT GUARDRAILS BEING FOUND IN THE MARKET FORCES MM-HMM .

AND IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY CORRECTLY, YOU'RE SAID IN YOUR PARTICULAR AREA, THE MARKET FORCES HAVE FAILED.

I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY ABOUT STREET CARS.

UH, WE DON'T HAVE STREET CARS IN MY PARTICULAR AREA OF MY DISTRICT.

SO WHAT MY QUESTION IS FOR YOU IS HOW MANY HOMES ARE NEARBY OR RESIDENCE ARE NEARBY THE STREET CARS? WELL, THE STREETCAR THAT RUNS RIGHT NOW, UM, THERE'S HOMES THAT ARE ON ZANG RIGHT THERE.

I LIVE TWO BLOCKS WITHIN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE STREETCAR.

SO RIGHT NOW, OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE A SINGLE, WE'RE A PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT AREA NEXT TO THE STREETCAR.

SO IF THE AMENDMENT PASSES AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ELIMINATED FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR, FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH REGARDS TO OUR PD ONE 60.

AND SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE ASKING THAT THE STREET CAR NOT BE INCLUDED AND BE CONSIDERED AT THE AT.

IF YOU DO AGREE, I WILL SAY THIS, IF YOU DO AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A TOD OKAY.

WHICH I WOULD SUGGEST YOU REALLY, REALLY THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE THAT WILL AFFECT A LOT OF OTHER SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE AROUND THOSE TODS.

THEY'RE NOT STANDING UP HERE.

THEY MAY NOT NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEIR PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN THE CROSS HAIRS OF THIS.

UM, THAT I, I WOULD, I, AND I HAVE SAID BEFORE, I STRONGLY SUGGEST IF YOU DO THAT, THAT YOU GO OUT AND YOU IDENTIFY THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS AND WORK A PLAN FOR A SELECT VIEW TO SEE HOW THEY WORK OUT, RATHER THAN TO DO THIS IN A BLANKET MANNER.

I HAVE ASKED THAT REPEATEDLY.

HOWEVER, I ALSO REALIZE WE'RE AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS.

AND FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I AM SPEAKING TODAY, NOT JUST FROM RESPECT NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT PLEASE RESPECT MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

MS. PALMER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER KNIGHT? YEAH.

UM, THANK YOU.

UM, MR. CARDIN, I'M GONNA SWITCH.

I'M SO SORRY.

UM, MR. CARDIN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

ONES, WAS A PROJECT THAT AT THE BORDER OF DALLAS AND DUNCANVILLE, UM, THERE'S A WALMART SUPER CENTER ON THE DALLAS SIDE, UM, COUPLE VACANT INTERSECTIONS.

I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU COULD EXPAND JUST A BIT ON THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE AND HOW IT RELATES TO PARKING, AND NOT ONLY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT PERHAPS OTHER CITIES WHERE YOU'VE WORKED ON IT AND SEEN THE DIFFERENT CODES AND KIND OF HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

SURE.

SO, UM, I DEAL WITH PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, UH, PRIMARILY IN RETAIL, MIXED USE AND MULTIFAMILY, PRIMARILY AROUND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.

I'VE DONE TRADITIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS, UH, AND NEARBY SUBURBS.

I'VE DONE CONVERT, WORKED ON CONVERSION PROJECTS FOR NEAR, UM, OF OLD SHOPPING CENTERS.

AND I'VE SEEN IN SEVERAL SITUATIONS WHERE PARKING HAS BECOME VERY CRITICAL TO, UH, ENABLING THE PROJECT TO, TO WORK OPTIMALLY.

ONE GOOD EXAMPLE, ONE MORE RECENT

[00:55:01]

THERE'S AT CLARK AND WHEATLAND.

DUNCANVILLE, UH, WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROJECT, ORIGINALLY HAD A PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT WAS QUITE A BIT GREATER THAN DALLAS'.

AND BOTH INTERSECTIONS, DALLAS AND DUNCANVILLE WERE PARALYZED BECAUSE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS EFFECTIVELY RULED OUT THE ABILITY TO PUT IN THE RESTAURANTS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED.

UM, OVER TIME, HOWEVER, AROUND 2020 DUNCANVILLE DID REFORM THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND RELAXED THEM.

AND DUNCANVILLE WAS ABLE TO GET A CHIPOTLE, A DUNKING DONUTS, LITTLE CAESARS, YOU KNOW, THIS FULL STRIP.

AND IF WE HAD MORE SPACE TO WORK WITH ON THE DUNCANVILLE SIDE, WE WOULD'VE PRODUCED MORE RESTAURANTS.

WE WERE SIMPLY JUST CAPACITY LIMITED JUST THROUGH A SPACE, BUT NOT DUE TO PARKING.

UM, THE DALLAS SIDE HUB, OR CONTINUES TO STAND VACANT BECAUSE IT IS LITERALLY EASIER TO PRODUCE THAT SAME RESTAURANT, THAT SAME UNIT IN DUNCANVILLE RIGHT NOW AS IT IS IN DALLAS.

AND DALLAS SPECIFICALLY, UH, CAN GET SHIPPED, NOT JUST IN DUNCANVILLE.

IT IT, WE LOSE OUT TO CARROLLTON ON PARTY REQUIREMENTS.

I BELIEVE WE ALSO LOSE OUT TO RICHARDSON ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

UM, THE BORDER REGIONS ARE VERY PARTICULARLY PRONE TO THIS BECAUSE SINCE THEY TEND TO BE MORE CAR DEPENDENT, THERE ISN'T A REAL DIFFERENCE FROM CAPTURING THE MARKET IF YOU'RE ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET OR THE OTHER.

SO REGULATORY DIFFERENCES CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING, OKAY, UM, IF I CAN PUT IN THREE RESTAURANTS ON THE DUNCANVILLE SIDE AND ONLY TWO ON THE DALLAS SIDE, DUNCANVILLE MAY ACTUALLY GET UP, GET ALL THE RESTAURANTS.

'CAUSE THERE WAS ONLY DEMAND FOR THREE.

SO I MISSED THE LIST.

WE'RE BEHIND DUNCANVILLE, RICHARDSON, CARON AND CARROLLTON.

GREAT.

AND, UM, THIS, THAT ISSUE GETS ACTUALLY AUGMENTED MUCH FURTHER IN THE INNER CORE OF DALLAS, UH, PARTICULARLY AROUND TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, PARTICULARLY IN NON PD, UH, UH, UH, NON PD NEIGHBORHOODS IN, IN, UH, SOUTHERN DALLAS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? THE SECOND ROUND? UH, YES.

UH, UH, THANK YOU FOR, FOR COMING, UH, THIS MORNING.

UH, IF I UNDERSTAND, YOU DO DEVELOPMENT AROUND TODS, CORRECT.

UH, AROUND YOUR DEVELOPMENTS.

ARE THERE ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR OR MULTI-FAMILY? YES.

AND HOW CLOSE IN PROXIMITY ARE THERE TO THE TODS? OFTEN THEY'RE WITHIN A BLOCK AWAY OR LITERALLY ACROSS THE STREET.

I DEAL WITH PRIMARILY TOD IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

UM, AND IN THE PART OF SOUTHERN DALLAS THAT DOES, DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE TECHNICAL PDS THAT WERE CREATED FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND SO OFTEN I HAVE TO CREATE CUSTOM PDS JUST TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL.

BUT THAT BARRIER IS MUCH, MUCH HIGHER TO CREATE PDS FOR, UH, COMMERCIAL AND, UH, RESTAURANT USES IN PARTICULAR.

AND IT IS PARTICULARLY PENALIZING TO THOSE SITES, UH, NEAR TOD FOR RETAIL, FOR RE, UH, COMMERCIAL USES ON THE DUNCANVILLE SIDE.

ARE THERE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES NEAR THE TOD? UH, DUNCANVILLE DOESN'T HAVE TOD, BUT IN THE INNER, IN THE INNER CORE, SO I DEAL WITH PRIMARILY SUBURBAN, LIKE BORDERLINE ENTERING SUBURBS.

THAT'S ONE PART SET OF CATEGORY I WORK WITH.

AND THEN WITHIN THE CITY ITSELF, I DEAL WITH A LOT OF TOD.

I UNDERSTAND.

I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE MIXED THAT UP.

BUT DUNCANVILLE DOES HAVE RELAXED PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

IN FACT, THE CHIPOTLE DUNCANVILLE, UH, DUNKING DONUT STEEL WAS, UH, IT BACKS UP DIRECTLY TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY RELAXED PARKING STANDARDS? SO THERE, I WANNA SAY FOR DUNCANVILLE, THEIR PARKING STANDARDS FOR RESTAURANT, IT MIGHT BE ONE SPACE PER 400 PER 400 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT.

I THINK FOR DRIVING REST, FOR, UH, SIT DOWN RESTAURANTS, UM, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S RELAXED TO THE POINT THAT FROM A ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, FOR NON, AGAIN, JUST TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN, WE WOULD NEVER ACTUALLY RELAX IT TO THAT POINT.

THERE'S NO, THE MARKET DOESN'T TELL US TO SAY, OKAY, ONLY PUT IN ONE SPACE PER 400 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT.

WE PROBABLY WOULD GET IT DOWN TO LIKE ONE PER ONE 50 OR ONE PER 200, SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE.

UM, BUT MARKETS DO SHIFT AND THERE ARE SOME MARKETS WE MIGHT GET CLOSER TO ONE TO TWO 50 OR ONE TO 300 IF THE DEMAND IS THERE.

THERE'S PROBABLY SOME CASES OF THAT.

UM, YOU GO TO CARROLLTON AND NOLTON ROAD WHERE THE EFFECTIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND JUST THE DEMAND FOR PARKING AND RESTAURANTS IN THAT AREA IS SO GREAT.

THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE YOU WOULD CONSIDER GOING BEYOND JUST ONE TO 200, UH, FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? I DO HAVE A QUESTION, NOT FOR THIS GENTLEMAN, BUT FOR THE, IS THIS NAVY VETERAN FROM DISTRICT SIX? I THINK IT'S DISTRICT SIX, WEST DALLAS.

MR. CHAIR,

[01:00:01]

I'VE HAD AN INFECTION IN MY EAR, SO, AND IF IT'S ME OVER HERE IN THE CORNER, IF YOU NEED ME TO REPEAT THE QUESTION, I, I'LL DO THAT FOR YOU IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME CORRECTLY.

UH, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT, UH, YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, UH, FAMILIES, GRANDPARENTS, AND PARENTS WALKING THEIR KIDS, UH, TO SCHOOL.

UH, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF, LEMME REPHRASE THAT QUESTION.

ARE THERE MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? OF COURSE, YES, SIR.

UH, WE'RE A LOT.

UH, SOMETIMES IT IS, IT IS KIND OF CONFUSING FOR, UH, COMMUNITY MEETINGS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE OF, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE UNDER-RESOURCED AND A LOT OF GRANT WRITING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT TO CONSIDER US NORTH OF 30.

SO WE'RE LIKE IN A ELITE AREA.

ONCE YOU, YOU PASS NORTH OF 30, YOU'RE NOT THE SOUTHERN SECTOR OR, OR YOU'RE, SO WE'RE CONSIDERED A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT SAME, THAT SAME, UH, I, I'M GONNA CALL IT, UH, DILEMMA, UH, GRANDPARENTS RAISING GRANDCHILDREN.

YOU KNOW? 'CAUSE CHILDREN EITHER HAVE DRUG HABITS, UH, NOT MAKING KNOW FINANCIALLY, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTIVE, YOU KNOW, OR, OR CAN RAISE CHILDREN.

SO I, I SEE, I SAW IT THIS MORNING.

EVEN WITH THE WEATHER, YOU KNOW, THE GRANDPARENTS, YOU KNOW, WALKING THE DRIVE.

I, I'M, LEMME GO BACK A LITTLE BIT.

I, I HELP ORGANIZE, UH, WHAT'S CALLED WEST DALLAS, ONE 13 NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT WEST DALLAS.

7 5 2 1 2.

THAT'S WEST DALLAS.

BUT I, I'M FAMILIAR THROUGH WALKMAN LAKE, UH, ELM THICK AT PARK, YOU KNOW, SO I, I KNOW OUR COMMUNITY.

I KNOW THAT AREA.

AND, UH, IT, IT IS JUST, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE DILEMMA THAT WE'RE IN, THAT GRANDPARENTS ARE RAISING GRANDCHILDREN.

AND I SEE 'EM WHEN THEY GO TO THOSE SCHOOLS.

'CAUSE I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T LIVE OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I SEE 'EM EVERY DAY.

I, I DRIVE, YOU KNOW, I, I'M DRIVING BACK AND FORTH EVERY DAY, YOU KNOW, AND I SEE 'EM IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY GO HOME ALSO.

AND YEAH.

AND THEN WHEN I SIT ABOUT THE NO SIDEWALKS, SOME OF THE STREETS ARE SO NARROW, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY HAVE TO GET OUT ON THE STREET, YOU KNOW, TO WALK AROUND, YOU KNOW, JUST THE, THE DRAINAGE IS NOT REALLY GREAT.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE NUANCES LIKE THAT FOR OUR, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ALSO IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.

AND I HOPE I DIDN'T NO, NO, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S A GOOD ANSWER.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMETIMES IN MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOMES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE CARS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THOSE WHO LIVE IN THE HOMES.

ON AVERAGE, HOW MANY VEHICLES WOULD YOU SAY THAT A STANDARD HOME WOULD HAVE IN, IN YOUR PARTICULAR AREA? I, I WOULD SAY AT THE MINIMUM THREE.

'CAUSE ONE'S USUALLY NOT WORKING, SO IT'S PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY.

UH, YOU MAY HAVE ONE OUT IN THE STREET, BUT YOU KNOW, NORMALLY THE OTHER ONE IS USED, YOU KNOW, FOR EITHER GOING TO GROCERIES OR WHATEVER.

BUT, UH, I WOULD SAY THE AVERAGE IS, UH, I, I WOULD SAY ABOUT THREE CARS, MINIMUM.

I HAVE TWO.

AND I, I'VE HEARD THIS QUESTION COME UP, UH, QUITE A BIT, BECAUSE THERE ARE HOMES WITH GARAGES.

UH, WHY AREN'T GARAGES BEING USED TO STORE VEHICLES IN YOUR AREA AGAIN? SO WHY AREN'T, UH, DO THE HOMES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE GARAGES? SOME OF 'EM DO.

SOME OF 'EM HAVE THE MAKESHIFT CARPORTS, AND THEN THE OTHERS JUST, UH, THEY PUT GRAVEL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PARK ON GRASS AND YOU PUT GRAVEL IN THE DRIVEWAY, OR YOU MAKE YOUR OWN DRIVEWAY, UH, FOR THE HOMES WITH GARAGES.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHY THEY WOULD NOT PARK THEIR CARS IN THE GARAGE? THE ONES WITH THE GARAGES? UH, USUALLY, UH, I WOULD CALL 'EM ADUS.

UH, YOU KNOW, IT IS A FAMILY MEMBER IN THERE WITH THEIR CHILDREN, OR, OR, UH, MAYBE A, A GRANDPARENT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SOMEBODY THAT'S TOO OLD OR, OR ELDERLY, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S AN A DU MAKES NOT MAYBE AN ATTACHMENT TO THE BACK, BUT IT'S ATTACHMENT TO THE HOUSE.

SO THE HOME.

SO THE GARAGE IS BEING USED FOR ANOTHER LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

ANOTHER BEDROOM, ANOTHER, YEAH.

ANOTHER, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION LAST ROUND.

YOU KNOW, AND I I YOU TRY TO, THEY, THEY DIFFERENTIATE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT TRINITY GROVES NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD.

HEY, RONNIE, DURING YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR TRINITY GROVES, UH, OUR BURDEN WITH OVERFLOW PARKING, I THINK YOU REFERRED TO A BAHAA AS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.

AND TRINITY GROVES IS IN LA BAHALA,

[01:05:01]

IT IT'S IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION THAT I ASKED LAURA PALMER EARLIER ABOUT KID SPRINGS.

UM, UH, YOU'VE, YOU HEARD TODAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THE MARKET'S GONNA SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF OVERFLOW PARKING IN, IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN WE GET RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS. I'M CURIOUS, UH, HAS THE MARKET OR GOVERNMENT DONE ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PARKING PROBLEM IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? ARE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, UH, ARE GETTING OVERFLOW PARKING, UH, FROM THE RESTAURANTS AT TRINITY GROVES? UH, THE PARKING IN TRINITY GROVE DURING THE WEEK, YOU KNOW, LATE LATER ON IN THE EVENINGS, YOU KIND OF CAN GET IN AND OUT OF YOUR, OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE'S TWO STREETS.

THERE'S GOLDEN, AND THERE'S HERBERT, AND THERE'S BATAN.

THOSE STREETS, YOU CAN, ON THE WEEKENDS, YOU CAN'T GET IN, IN AND OUT OF THERE.

THERE'S ONLY ONE TRAFFIC LIGHT RIGHT OFF THE BRIDGE.

IT STOPS TRAFFIC RIGHT THERE.

AND, AND YOU GOT CARS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN THERE BEFORE, BUT YOU GOT CARS ALL THE WAY AROUND TO CANADA TRYING TO GET THROUGH THAT ONE LIGHT.

IF NOT, THEY GOTTA COME THROUGH THE, THE, THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

A LOT OF TIMES THERE'S, UM, I, I DON'T, I'LL BRING THIS UP, BUT THERE WAS A SHOOTING, SOMEONE WAS KILLED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, OR, OR NOT LONG AGO.

UH, BUT IT'S A LOT OF THOSE DRIVE-BYS, YOU KNOW, JUST PEOPLE CRUISING THROUGH THERE AND, AND NOT, YOU KNOW, IT IS JUST, THEY DON'T LIVE THERE.

THEY JUST COME TO CRUISE OR MAYBE COME AND EAT AT THE RESTAURANT AND THE RESTAURANTS NIGHT.

I, I GO TO THE RESTAURANTS MYSELF, UM, AND THEY'RE NOT OVERPRICED, BUT, UH, TRINITY GROVES WAS KIND OF LIKE THE SAME THING AS BISHOP ARTS.

AND, UH, THE PARKING IS HORRIBLE.

BISHOP ART, AND THAT'S MY FAVORITE CIGAR SHOP IS IN BISHOP ARTS.

SO I GO THERE TOO, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND TRINITY GROVES IS EVEN TIGHTER, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I COULD SEE THE CHANGE IN BRIDGE PARKS WHERE THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE SITTING RIGHT ON TOP OF THE, THE, THE RESIDENTS AND THEY'RE PUSHING THE RESIDENTS OUT.

AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO US, THAT A LOT OF THE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA BE A RESTAURANT.

WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA BE A HOME, AN OFFICE BUILDING.

WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED A CHIHUAHUA HOUSE, AND YOU GOTTA GOOGLE THAT, YOU KNOW? IT'S FOR SALES.

IT'S BEEN FOR SALES SINCE THEY BUILT IT.

UM, I TALKED TO THE OWNERS AND HE, HE TOLD ME IT COULD BE AN OFFICE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE AN OFFICE, YOU KNOW, SO YOU HAVE AN OFFICE, WHAT, MAYBE YOU'LL MIGHT RENT THREE OR FOUR ROOMS OR SOMETHING.

SO THAT'S THREE OR FOUR CARS AT THE MINIMUM.

SO, AND THEY ONLY HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE, SO EVERYBODY ELSE IS GONNA HAVE TO BE AROUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STREET.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE STREETS I MENTIONED THAT YOU CAN'T PUT TWO CARS, YOU KNOW, COMING ONE WAY AND THE OTHER, AND THEN AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE THROUGH THERE.

IT, IT WON'T FIT.

AND, YOU KNOW, SO, UM, THEY HAD TO ALIGN THAT STREET.

SO ALL THE TRAFFIC IS GOING ONE WAY, NEXT ONE MAY COMING THIS WAY, THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET, BUT THE OTHER SIDE COMING BACK DOWN SO YOU CAN GET AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPEN DOWN THE STREETS.

'CAUSE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIRD GENERATION LEGACY FAMILIES THERE THAT, UM, AT NIGHT, MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, MY NEIGHBOR PASSED AWAY, YOU KNOW, FROM HEART ATTACK, IF THERE'S ALWAYS EMERGENCY VEHICLES COMING IN AND OUTTA THERE, YOU KNOW, LATE AT NIGHT, YOU KNOW.

THANK YOU, RONNIE, FOR DESCRIBING THE PROBLEMS THAT Y'ALL DEAL WITH IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND EMPHASIZING THE FACT THAT NOTHING'S BEING DONE TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

YOU COMMISSIONERS, IT IS 10 49.

UH, LET'S TAKE A 20 MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL GO DOWNSTAIRS TO THE CHAMBER AND WE'LL BEGIN OUR WORK OVER IN 20 MINUTES.

DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.

PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.

COMMISSIONER FORSYTH.

HERE.

DISTRICT FIVE, CHAIR SHAAD.

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.

COMMISSIONER HALL HERE.

DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBEN? I'M HERE.

YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, I DIDN'T CATCH IT.

IS COMMISSIONER WHEELER ONLINE? SHE'S NOT ONLINE.

YOU, YOU ALREADY CHECKED.

AND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

'CAUSE I THINK SHE, SHE WAS, UH, SHE WANTED TO BE ONLINE FOR THIS PIECE.

UH, COMMISSIONER 1123.

WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

UH, WE ARE, UH, GONNA FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS WE DID THE LAST TIME WE HAVE THE LIST.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE, UH, ANOTHER POTENTIAL LIST OF ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE SENT IN BY, UH, A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS STAFF IS HERE.

UH, SO WE'LL, WE WILL TAKE OUR TIME AND MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE, I, I READ MULTIPLE TIMES TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THEM.

AND I, I WILL PROBABLY ASK STAFF AT SOME POINT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

THAT IN FACT, I AM UNDERSTANDING, UH, THE CONSEQUENCES AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES POTENTIALLY

[01:10:01]

OF WHAT WE TALK ABOUT.

UM, AS WE HAVE SAID MANY TIMES, ONCE IT, THE SLOW LIGHT TURNS ON HERE TO THIS MICROPHONE, YOU KNOW, THE AIR GETS A LITTLE LIGHTER.

UH, AND SO MAYBE WE SLOW IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT TODAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE GET IT RIGHT.

UH, SO WE'RE GONNA START RIGHT BACK IN ORDER AND WE'LL GO TO NUMBER THREE.

UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, IN THE MATTER OF DCA 1 9 0 DASH 0 0 2, UH, I MOVE, WE, UM, FOLLOW ZAC RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE, UM, REVISION THAT WE MAINTAIN PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS, BUT WE REDUCE THAT MINIMUM TO ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF COVERED AREA.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN, FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.

ANY COMMENTS? UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

YEAH, I, UM, I HOPE THAT BY NOW THAT SOME OF THE, THE LOGIC HERE IS SORT OF SELF-EVIDENT THAT, UM, UM, WE NEED TO CREATE, UH, MORE FLEXIBILITY, UH, FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS, UH, WE, WE TO, AND TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF VACANCY IN SOME OF OUR OLDER DISTRICTS.

UM, WE NEED TO, UM, GIVE, UH, CONSIDERATION TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE BURDENED UNNECESSARILY BY OUR PARKING REGULATIONS.

UM, WE NEED TO HAVE A PARKING ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS, UH, THE TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS AFFECTED ALL OF OUR LIVES WITH RESPECT TO RIDE SHARE AND, UH, OTHER PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOLS.

UM, SO, UM, I'M, I'M QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH THE, THE ONE TO 200 AND, UH, THE, UH, THE BENEFITS THAT IT WILL PROVIDE OUR CITY.

RESTAURANTS THAT CAN OPERATE UNDER OUR CODE, THAT CAN AFFORD TO OPERATE AND CAN VANTAGE AND CAN HAVE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO BE A RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS OPERATING IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

I HAVE COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HANTON.

I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

I THINK BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE THE MOST INTENSIVE USE WE HAVE IN THE CITY, AND I THINK THAT PROXIMITY, THEY'RE OFTEN, UM, ADJACENT OR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENCES, AND THEY CREATE A LOT OF CONFLICT WITH THE RESIDENCES.

I ALSO DON'T THINK WE'RE RELYING ON ANY DATA HERE.

UM, IN TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, I TALKED TO, UM, LANDLORDS.

I TALKED TO, UM, LEASE BROKERS, AND EVERYONE I TALKED TO SAID THAT WE'RE PARKING IT.

WE'RE EITHER UNDER PARKING IT TO CODE CURRENTLY, OR WE'RE PARKING IT ABOUT, RIGHT.

I COULDN'T FIND A PROFESSIONAL WHO HONESTLY SAID THEY THOUGHT WE WERE PARKING.

WE WERE OVER PARKING BARS AND RESTAURANTS IN THIS CITY.

AND, UM, I ALSO LOOKED AT WHAT OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE DOING, HOW LONG THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT, WHAT THEIR, UH, RESULTS HAVE BEEN.

AND I COULDN'T FIND ANY DATA TO SUPPORT THIS REDUCTION, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO OUR MOST INTENSIVE USES.

AND THE FACT THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID THAT ONCE WE ELIMINATE THESE PARKING MINIMUMS, WE CANNOT EASILY REINSTATE THEM.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THEM RIGHT.

AND AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND CONSIDER ELIMINATING OTHER PARKING MINIMUMS FOR OTHER USES THAT ARE OFTEN ADJACENT TO BARS AND RESTAURANTS, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE, UM, KEEP THE BREAKS ON TO PROTECT SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND I THINK THAT THESE INFILL NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT JUST PLACES LIKE BISHOP ARTS IN LOWER GREENVILLE AND DEEP AUM THAT MAYBE HAVE SOME PROTECTIONS ALREADY, UM, BUT ALSO THE EMERGING PLACES IN DISTRICT SIX AND DISTRICT SEVEN, OTHER PLACES IN DISTRICT ONE, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE PRESSURE FOR THESE TYPE OF INTENSIVE USES COMING ONLINE.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAY, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, THESE SMALL BUSINESSES, THEY JUST CAN'T OPERATE UNDER THESE CONSTRAINTS.

I'M NOT SYMPATHETIC.

I DON'T WANT AN UNDERFUNDED SMALL BUSINESS COMING IN AND OPERATING NEXT TO MY HOUSE, BECAUSE WHEN THEY CAN'T OPERATE AS A COFFEE SHOP OR A SMALL BAR RESTAURANT AND MEET THE RENT, THEN THE NEXT THING THEY DO IS INTENSIFY THE USE.

IF IT'S A COFFEE SHOP TODAY THAT CAN'T OPERATE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK IT, THEN THEY TRY TO GET A BEER AND WINE LICENSE SO THEY CAN BE A WINE SHOP.

AND THEN WHEN THEY STILL CAN'T OPERATE, THEN THEY GET A LIQUOR LICENSE.

AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THAT COFFEE SHOP IS A BAR THAT'S OPERATING TILL 2:00 PM AND IT NEVER HAD A PARKING SPOT ONE.

AND IT'S A NUISANCE THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I WANT BARS AND

[01:15:01]

AND IF WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE SOME KIND OF, UM, BUMPERS ON WHERE THESE THINGS CAN OPERATE, WHICH THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THAT IN HERE, THEN I THINK THEY NEED TO BE PARKED AT A HUNDRED TO ONE.

UH, I HAVE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER AND THEN BY CHAIR RUBIN.

UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW WE ARE DISCUSSING LOWERING THE STANDARDS FOR BAR AND RESTAURANT.

I THINK WE HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY.

I KNOW I SEE IT THROUGHOUT VARIOUS AREAS OF MY DISTRICT, FROM DEEP EL TO THE CEDARS, UM, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, OTHER SMALLER BUSINESSES THAT THERE'S A LOT OF ADJACENCY ISSUES, UM, SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS MENTIONED.

AND WE DO HAVE OTHER TOOLS THAT I THINK COULD PERHAPS ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL, EITHER THROUGH BUILDING IN PROVISIONS FOR RIDESHARE, UM, HOW WE HANDLE, WE HAVE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.

THOSE ARE LAYERED IN, IN MANY OF THE, UM, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THAT WE HAVE VETTED.

WE UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WORK.

YOU'RE, WE ALREADY ARE TALKING ABOUT, UM, REDUCTIONS IN PROXIMITY TO DART RAIL, UM, TO OTHER TRANSIT MEASURES.

SO I THINK CUMULATIVE, WE MAY BE MEETING, UM, SOME OF THE INTENT BEHIND REDUCING THIS THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER MEASURES THAT WE'RE GONNA GET TO LATER TODAY.

BUT I THINK WE COULD EVEN LAYER ON REDUCTIONS FOR RIDESHARE, UM, ADDRESSING, LOADING, UM, ADDRESSING, UM, HOW WE ARE THINKING ABOUT PICKUP DROP OFF, JUST GENERAL COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED DURING OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING WAS REGARDING THE SUP, BECAUSE MANY TIMES WHERE WE HAVE THE REDUCTIONS IN PARKING, THEY ARE ALREADY COUPLED WITH AN SUP PROCESS, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS A DETAILED REVIEW THAT HAPPENS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT LOWERING OF THE STANDARD.

AND I THINK THAT THOSE ARE TWO CRITICAL WAYS TO ENSURING THE SUCCESS, NOT JUST OF THE BUSINESSES, BUT OF THE OVERALL SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS, AND AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO THAT MORE DETAILED REVIEW, IT'S THE HOURS OF OPERATION.

SOMETHING THAT CLOSES AT 10, SOMETHING THAT CLOSES AT 11 IS NOT THE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL COMMUNITY TO SOMETHING THAT'S OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM I DON'T THINK THAT WE WANNA THINK ABOUT LAYERING IN THAT COMPLEXITY AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.

I'VE HEARD A LOT OF, UM, THOUGHT ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE THE STREAMLINE MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE.

I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD ALL, UM, HOPE IS ONE OF THE GOALS THAT COMES OUT OF THIS, BUT IT ALSO, FOR ME, NEEDS TO BE COUPLED WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND SIMPLY STREAMLINING OF OUR CODE PROCESS.

SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

HAD PARKING ISSUES WHERE THIS ONE PER 100, UM, ON A SMALL BUSINESS THAT, AND, AND THE SETBACKS MADE US LOSE OUT ON THOSE TYPE OF BUSINESSES.

I AM SO SORRY FOR THIS.

I'M NOT THERE IN PERSON.

I'M LITERALLY IN THE HALLWAY FROM SCHOOL, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN GET ON THIS, UM, I, WHEN I FIRST STARTED EVEN LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT ZONING AND, AND, UM, ANY TYPE OF ZONING PERMITS, UM, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES, THIS WAS THE FIRST HURDLE THAT I CAME UP UNDER.

AND IT WAS THESE PARKING MINIMUMS. SO I CAN'T SAY IN UNIQUE AREAS LIKE LITTLE GREENVILLE, BISHOP ARTS, THOSE TYPE OF AREAS THAT ARE SO LANDLOCKED BECAUSE OF THE, THE HOUSES THAT, AND, AND THE, AND, AND, AND, UM, HOW THOSE BUSINESSES WERE BUILT, UM, AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT 100% I HAVE HAD TO GO BACK AND TELL A PROPERTY OWNER, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU CANNOT, UM, YOU CANNOT RENT OUT TWO OF YOUR SPACES BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.

AND I CAN DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET EVERY SINGLE DAY.

AND YOU SEE THAT THE PARKING THAT THEY HAVE IN THE REAR OF THEIR BUILDING NEVER USED.

NOT ONLY THE PARKING OUT FRONT THAT HAS A SETBACK REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT'S WITHIN 51 A SAYS THAT 25 FEET FROM THE CURB, AND THAT'S HALF OF THEIR BUILDING.

I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY PROBABLY TO START, BUT IF ONCE THEY GET IN THERE, THEY BEGIN TO MAKE MONEY.

BECAUSE I WAS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, MOST OF MY FRIENDS ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAD JUST ENOUGH CAPITAL TO START UP.

AND THEY, THEY'RE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE YOUNG LADIES AND YOUNG MEN WHO AFTER DOING COVID, HAD TO FIND ALTERNATE WAYS TO MAKE MONEY.

AND THEY WERE GOOD COOKS, AND WE DIDN'T GET TO GET THEM IN SOUTH DALLAS WHERE THEY LIVED AT BECAUSE WE

[01:20:01]

A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE END UP GOING TO PLEASANT GROVE AND OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESTAURANTS AND BARS WHERE SOUTH DALLAS ONLY HAS ONE ROW, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE, UM, SOME OF OUR, OUR RETAIL SPACES ARE NOT RENTED FOR YEARS ON TOP OF YEARS, WHICH LEAD TO CRIME BECAUSE OF PARKING MINIMUMS. NOT JUST THE PD, BUT THE PARKING MINIMUMS. MY BUILDING, I HAVE AN OUT FRONT.

I CAN, I ONLY PARKED THE MAJORITY OF TIME, TIME IN FRONT OF MY BUILDING.

WHEN I WENT TO GET MY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR MY SALON, WHEN IT WAS A SALON AT THAT TIME, I HAD TO USE, I HAD TO GET AN ADDITIONAL LOT TO PUT PARKING ON.

AND TO THIS DAY, UNLESS I HAVE SOMETHING MAJOR AT MY BUILDING, WE NEVER PARK IN THE BACK.

WE NEVER PARK ON THE SIDE.

WE ONLY PARK OUT FRONT.

AND THESE PARKING REQUIREMENTS CHOKE OUT BUSINESSES.

MARTIN LUTHER KING HAD A FARM DISTRICT RECREATED, SO THEY CAN ALLOW SOME OF THAT FOR THE SHOP FRONT.

SO WHEN I GO TO HEARING ABOUT HEARING SOMEONE SAY THAT THEY, THE, THE, THE, THE PRO THE BUSINESS OWNER WHO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CAPITAL TO SUSTAIN OR WHATEVER, LIKE, THAT'S A HIT TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT BECAUSE PEOPLE OPEN BUSINESSES SOMETIMES SO THEY CAN STAY AT HOME WITH THEIR CHILDREN.

SOMETIMES THEY OPEN THESE BUSINESSES SO THAT THEY CAN DIRECT RENT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.

THAT'S YOUR TIME.

HANG ON TIGHT, COMMISSIONER FOR OUR SECOND ROUND, UH, VICE CHAIR RUBEN.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UM, I AM GONNA SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

I THINK IT IS A IMPORTANT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

I HEAR THE CONCERNS ABOUT LOWER GREENVILLE AND BISHOP ARTS LOUD AND CLEAR, AND I THINK THEY'RE TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT.

UM, WHAT I ALSO SEE IS THERE ARE TOO FEW AREAS LIKE THAT ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHERE THERE ARE RESTAURANTS AND BARS AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE THAT ARE REALLY SHIFT, UH, YOU KNOW, STITCHED INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS APPROPRIATELY.

AND MY BELIEF IS THAT OUR REALLY STRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS PREVENT THESE PLACES FROM DEVELOPING IN TANDEM WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY REALLY COULD BE TREMENDOUS ASSETS TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I THINK AA CITYWIDE APPROACH LOWERING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE TWO USES WITHOUT ELIMINATING THEM, GIVEN THE, THE CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THEM, IS THE RIGHT APPROACH.

ULTIMATELY, HAVING COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR CITY IS, IS SO IMPORTANT WHERE THEY'RE NOT JUST A MONOCULTURE OF RESIDENTIAL USES SEPARATED FROM RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL, I, I THINK, IS A, A VERY 20TH CENTURY WAY OF THINKING, OR MAYBE LATE 20TH CENTURY WAY OF THINKING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EARLIER 20TH CENTURY WHERE, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL AND BARS WERE, WERE STITCHED INTO NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND I THINK THAT EASING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS TO ALLOW MORE WALKABLE BARS AND RESTAURANTS TO BE INTEGRATED ACROSS OUR CITY, UM, IS THE RIGHT CHOICE THERE.

UM, I'LL ADD THAT I ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERABLE ANGST ABOUT ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS, CONSIDERING THAT ALCOHOL AND DRIVING DON'T MIX, IN MY VIEW, AND HOPEFULLY MOST OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS AROUND THIS HORSESHOE.

BUT IN THE EFFORT TO FIND A COMPROMISE HERE, UM, I THINK ONE PER 200 FOR BARS IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN PROBABLY LIVE WITH.

UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

UH, I, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.

UM, IT'S NOT AN ANSWER THAT'S GONNA BE PERFECT FOR EVERY SINGLE RESTAURANT AND EVERY LOCATION, BUT THE ONE THING THAT I KNOW FROM, AT LEAST FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IS THAT WE, WE DO SIGNIFICANTLY OVER PARK MOST USES, AND THAT INCLUDES RESTAURANTS AND BARS, AND MORE AND MORE OF THE, UH, POPULATION IS LEARNING TO, UH, TO GET TO RESTAURANTS AND BARS, UM, IN, IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TAKING UBER, THEY'RE TAKING, THEY MAY TAKE MASS TRANSIT, BUT THEY, THEY, THEY RECOGNIZE THE DANGERS OF DRINKING AND DRIVING.

SO I THINK IN ORDER TO KEEP US FROM BEING STUCK WITH AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE, WHERE WE WEIGH OVER PARK USES, THIS IS ONE THAT COULD BE REDUCED.

AND I THINK THE, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ONE TO 200 IS A GOOD SOLUTION.

APPLYING ALL ACROSS THE CITY.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I HAVE, EXCUSE ME.

I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE BROAD BRUSH APPROACH

[01:25:01]

UM, FOR ONE REASON, BARS AND RESTAURANTS LOVE TO AGGREGATE AND CONGREGATE.

YOU KNOW, ONCE AN AREA IS ESTABLISHED AS AN ENTERTAINMENT AREA, THEN THAT'S, IT ALMOST EXERTS A MAGNETIC ATTRACTION TO OTHERS OF THE SAME KIND.

IT CAUSES A, A, A, A VERY DISPROPORTIONATE, UH, NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

AND I THINK ONE THAT WE NEED TO, TO KEEP IN MIND, I UNDERSTAND THE APPEAL OF, OF SIMPLICITY, BUT I'M, I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY BALANCING, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE EFFECT IS GOING TO BE.

I UNDERSTAND IN AREAS, UM, THAT WE HEARD ABOUT TODAY, YOU KNOW, DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD AND PARTS OF, UM, SOUTH DALLAS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE BUILDINGS THAT REALLY HAVE NO FUNCTIONAL USE BECAUSE OF LACK OF PARKING.

BUT I THINK ONE THING WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THE GENERAL, UM, ELIMINATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT SEEM TO BE ABOUT TO GO FORWARD FOR OTHER TYPES OF USES, OFFICES, PERSONAL SERVICE, GENERAL RETAIL, THAT SORT OF THING.

THAT IS GOING TO BRING LIFE TO A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO BECOME ACTIVE.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE STRUGGLE I'M HAVING WITH THIS.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THE STRUGGLES.

UM, DEFINITELY THE SAME FOR ME, UM, FOR MY DISTRICT AND DISTRICTS NEIGHBORING, TO ME, OUR FUTURE PLANS INCLUDE A LOT OF THESE CORRIDORS, UM, OF ENTERTAINMENT, UM, AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.

UM, PART OF THE FEAR IS WE DON'T WANT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE NORTH WHERE EVERYTHING WAS PAVED OVER, RIGHT? WE WANT TO CREATE MORE GREEN SPACE.

WE WANNA BUILD AROUND THE GREEN SPACES AND KEEP THOSE SPACES GREEN.

UM, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I THINK A REDUCTION OF PARKING FOR SOME OF OUR, UH, BARS AND RESTAURANTS MAY, UM, BE TALKED ABOUT AS WE BUILD OUT NEW DEVELOPMENT, UM, IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM, RIGHT? PUTTING A A A TURNING A HOME INTO A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, A COMMERCIAL COFFEE SHOP, FOR INSTANCE.

UM, IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR THAT AND WANT IT.

UM, THEN WHEN THEY GET IT, THEY GET THE PARKING AND IT'S LIKE, HOLD ON.

I DIDN'T WANT THAT PART.

RIGHT? UM, SO I THINK A BLANKET APPROACH MAY NOT BE, UH, THE BEST BET, UM, BUT THAT, UM, MORE DISCUSSION IS NEEDED.

COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK, STEAL FIRST ROUND.

UH, I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, AT, UH, PREVIOUS POINTS OF DISCUSSION, WE HAD, UM, TALKED ABOUT BUILDINGS, BARS UP TO A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT REQUIRING PARKING.

IS THAT GONNA BE LOOKED AT AT ANY OTHER TIME TODAY IN A MOTION, OR IS THIS SORT OF THE TIME THAT WE'RE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT IT? IT WOULD BE ANOTHER MOTION.

IT WOULD BE ANOTHER, YES, SIR.

UM, MOTION.

UM, OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER NIGHT ANDAL FILED BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN.

UM, I DO THINK THIS WOULD BE A BIG COMPROMISE.

UM, I WOULDN'T BE ENTIRELY HAPPY WITH IT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE.

UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAKE OF COMPROMISE, I, I SEE IT AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.

UM, I WAS PART OF A PROJECT THAT DID SOME SURVEYS OF A COMMUNITY ALONG, UH, MLK ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO.

AND OVERWHELMINGLY, THE RESPONSE OF WHAT PEOPLE WANTED WAS A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT.

THEY WERE TIRED OF DRIVE-THROUGHS.

SO FAST FORWARD FOR VERY, VERY LONG, UM, YEARS, UM, A RESTAURANT HAS FINALLY OPENED UP, AND THERE WAS A YOUNG MAN IN THERE THE OTHER DAY WHO SAID, I GREW UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND ENJOY A MEAL.

BUT IT ALMOST DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

THE RESTAURANT IS 3000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY HAD TO HAVE 30 PARKING SPOTS.

THERE WERE NOT 30 PARKING SPOTS ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.

THERE WAS A CORRIDOR, A COUPLE OTHER BUSINESSES.

SO THE, THE OPTION WAS THEY TAKE ALL THE PARKING, ALLOWING NO OTHER RESTAURANTS OR NO OTHER BUSINESSES TO COME IN.

SO THEY ARE THE ONLY SIT DOWN RESTAURANT, OR YOU START TO TEAR DOWN BUILDINGS, AND THEN YOU PAVE OVER THE GREEN SPACES TO GET TO THOSE 30 PARKING SPACES.

SO I THINK IF WE CAN AT LEAST START TO MAKE A CHANGE, WE WILL GREATLY HELP THESE LOCAL BUSINESSES WHO LIVE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WHO WANT TO SURVIVE AND PROVIDE SERVICES AND AMENITIES FOR THE COMMUNITY AROUND THEM, SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN HAVE OPTIONS, SUCH AS A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT.

IT GIVES ME PAUSE THAT WE TRY TO APPLY A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER FORAY.

UH, UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, LIKE OTHERS ON THIS COMMISSION, I, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERN, UH, ON THEIR APPROACH.

AND IN THEORY, I AM FOREIGN IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS IN RESTAURANTS.

AND EVERYONE WHO SPOKE IN THE SUPPORT OF, OR AN OPPOSITION THEREOF HAS HAD MERIT.

AND

[01:30:01]

SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, WE'RE GONNA CREATE WINNERS AND LOSERS AS A PART OF THIS WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, CONSIDERATION.

I THINK THIS BODY IS SMART ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT'S MORE TARGETED TO WHERE, AND THERE'S AREAS THAT, THAT DON'T NEED THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND LET THE MARKET FORCES GO.

THIS, HISTORICALLY, THE MARKET FORCES HASN'T WORKED OUT FOR THEM, BUT THEN WHEN THE AREAS WHERE THERE'S MARKET FAILURE REPEATEDLY, LET'S TRY TO PUT SOME GUARDRAILS AROUND THAT.

AND SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND MAYBE CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

UH, BUT I STILL NEED TO CHEW ON WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH FOR THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.

I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN, UH, SUPPORT IT.

UM, BUT CONCEPTUALLY, I THINK THAT I CAN COME AROUND TO, UH, TO SORT SUPPORTING SOMETHING THAT'S SIMILAR TO IT.

I UNDERSTAND DISTRICT SEVEN HAS DISTRICT NEEDS THAN DISTRICT EIGHT, DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR, AND WE'RE JUST DIFFERENTLY SITUATED.

AND WE ALL WANT EFFICIENT LAND USE.

WE ALL WANT THAT, BUT TO IMPOSE THE WILL ON OTHERS WHO MAY NOT WANT THAT OR NEED THAT FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND THEIR RESIDENTS DON'T WANT IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ANSWER EITHER.

COMMISSIONER FORZA? ACTUALLY, I, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, IF IT'S OKAY.

UM, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, UM, THE CURRENT, UH, CODE IS THAT THE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS IS, IS, IS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT'S COVERED SPACE, RIGHT? THAT, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE UNCOVERED LIKE PATIOS OR NON PERMEABLE SURFACES.

I CAN EXPLAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO THE RATIO IS ONE PARKING SPOT REQUIRED FOR EVERY A HUNDRED FEET OF FLOOR AREA.

AND THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA INCLUDES COVERED AREAS.

SO IF YOU HAVE AN OUTDOOR PATIO THAT HAS A COVER, IF THE RAIN DOESN'T GO THROUGH, THAT NEEDS TO BE PARKED.

IF THE RAIN GOES THROUGH, IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA AND DOES NOT NEED TO BE PARKED.

SO IF IT'S AN OUTDOOR AREA, BUT IT'S COVERED, IT, IT IS INCLUDED IN THAT REQUIREMENT? YES.

AND, UM, WHAT ARE THE, ARE THERE, UH, WAYS THAT A RESTAURANT TODAY IS TRYING TO OPEN UP AND HAS A, A, A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, MAYBE WHERE THEY CAN HAVE SHARED SPACES OR, OR, OR WHERE IT'S DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO OPEN AND, AND TO MEET THE FULL REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST TODAY IN THE CODE? ARE THERE WAYS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO GET EXCEPTIONS RIGHT NOW, GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WORKING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? THERE ARE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTIONS, BUT THERE ARE ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE.

I THINK THE BIGGEST REDUCTION, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT GOES UP TO 20%, BUT IT MAY BE, AND THERE'S ALSO THE OPTION TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, AND DAVID IS HERE, AND HE CAN EXPLAIN IF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THE LATITUDE TO ACTUALLY, UM, ALLOW AN EXCEPTION FOR THE ENTIRE, I THINK THEY ONLY ARE KEPT BY A PERCENTAGE.

I, I NEED DAVID TO CONFIRM WITH ME.

SO DAVID IS CONFIRMING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THE PURVIEW, AND THEY CAN CONSIDER EXCEPTIONS OR REDUCTIONS UP TO 50%, SO NOT IN TOTALITY, AND THEY NEED TO COME PREPARED WITH PARKING STUDIES OR IF IT'S A VARIANCE OR MORE, IF IT'S A VARIANCE.

SO YOU, YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE WAYS THAT THE BUSINESSES CAN, CAN GET AROUND THE CODE IF THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY HAVE, AND WE COULD BE FLEXIBLE IN MEETING THEIR NEEDS AS A CITY.

THERE IS AN OPTION TO ASK FOR IT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS THE SAME OPTION IS TO COME IN FRONT A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND ASK FOR A REZONING, AND TO GET AN NOT AN EXCEPTION, TO GET A DIFFERENT PARKING RATIO VIA REZONING.

OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A PROCESS FOR ANY KIND OF CHANGES TO THE CODE.

ON, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER MOTION TO BASICALLY GET RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALL RESTAURANTS THAT ARE UNDER 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

AND, UM, AND, AND JUST TO UNDERSTAND, HAS, UH, COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK SAID AFTER THIS MOTION IS, IS, IS VOTED

[01:35:01]

THAT'S GONNA BE ANOTHER MOTION THAT'S GONNA BE ON THE TABLE.

IT, I THINK THAT WAS ON THE LIST.

AND, AND I THINK THERE WAS ALSO POSSIBLY ANOTHER MOTION TO PARK UNCOVERED, UH, PATIOS AS WELL.

SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE 'EM, YOU KNOW, ON BOTH SIDES.

THAT WILL BE COMING UP.

GONNA BE TOLD MY TIME IS UP.

UH, FIRST ROUND STILL ANYONE? COMMISSIONER TURLOCK? UM, I'M, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED ON THE MOTION.

I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF IT GOES FAR ENOUGH.

I GUESS THE, THE OTHER, WE CANNOT DO IT, NOT MOVE THE NEEDLE AT ALL.

AND THE OTHER END OF THE EXTREME WOULD BE TO REMOVE PARKING MINIMUMS. UM, I THINK WHAT'S ALSO KIND OF INFLUENCED MY THINKING AS WELL IS THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING HERE THAT'S PIONEERING.

THERE'S, THERE'S OTHER CITIES IN THAT ARE CLOSE TO, UH, TO US IN MAKEUP, CLOSE ENOUGH TO US IN MAKEUP THAT WE COULD SEE HOW THIS HAS PLAYED OUT.

UM, OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE THIS GOING BACK ALMOST EIGHT YEARS, AND THEY'VE DONE IT IN STEP CHANGES.

AND I DIDN'T, IN MY RESEARCH, AND I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT, UH, SIGNALED TO ME THAT IT CREATED, UH, THE PROBLEMS, UM, THAT MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT IT WOULD.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ALSO A BODY THAT WORKS TOWARDS SOLUTIONS BY COMPROMISE, AND I COULD PROBABLY GET ON BOARD WITH THIS, UM, BUT I'M STILL NOT SURE IF IT GOES FAR ENOUGH.

I, UH, IF NO ONE ELSE ON THE FIRST ROUND, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A QUICK LITTLE COMMENT, UH, THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

UM, UH, FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

I THINK THE FIRST IS JUST, IT'S, IT'S A KIND OF AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH THAT, UH, A LOT OF US HAVE TALKED ABOUT, UH, AROUND THE HORSESHOE.

UM, ALSO, AS, AS SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED, IT, IT IS A COMPROMISE.

I, I APPRECIATE COMPROMISES.

I THINK BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM, FROM ZAC, UH, THIS IS A, A MORE, UH, CONSTRICTED, UH, LITTLE WRINKLE, UH, THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS INTRODUCED.

AND LASTLY, I THINK FOR ME, UH, ALMOST MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RATIO IS, IS THE SIMPLICITY OF IT.

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AFTER GOING THROUGH DOZENS OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS OVER THE YEARS, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK BACK ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN BROUGHT UP ABOUT TRYING TO HONE THESE IN TO PARTICULAR AREAS AND GOING BACK AT PARKING AT ZAC, AND EVEN AT THIS BODY.

AND WE TRY SO HARD TO FIND THAT KIND OF SOLUTION.

AND I THINK WE, WE COULD, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WHAT HAPPENS MOST OF THE TIME IS WE END UP MAKING A PROCESS THAT'S MORE COMPLEX.

UH, AND THEN WHEN WE DO THAT, I THINK NOBODY WINS.

UH, BECAUSE IT CREATES, UH, CONFUSION, IT CREATES A BACKLOG.

IT, IT PERMITTING.

AND THEN ALSO IT JUST CREATES, UH, OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS TO KIND OF GAME THE SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THE WORDS, ONCE THEY'RE ON THE PAGE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GET INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

AND SO, UH, FOR ME, I THINK THIS IS A SIMPLE COMPROMISE AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT.

THIS ONE, UM, SECOND ROUND COMMISSIONER KINGSTONE, FOLLOWED BY VICE CHAIR RUBEN.

YEAH, I DON'T, I JUST DON'T THINK, WE'RE I GIVING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, TO THESE BUSINESSES? SOMEBODY'S LIVED ON A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO'S DEALT WITH THESE FOR 25 YEARS.

I MEAN, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DEALT WITH IT LONGER THAN I'VE LIVED THERE.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 25 YEARS.

I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND WHAT THESE TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENTS, HOW DISRUPTIVE THEY CAN BE.

AND TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S POINT, WHEN YOU GET ONE, YOU GET MANY, AND THIS IS GONNA GO TO THE NEXT MOTION.

I THINK IT, IT, IT, YES, THE LARGER ONES ARE PROBLEMATIC, BUT MANY SMALL ONES ARE ALSO PROBLEMATIC.

AND IF YOU DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO PARK, THEY WILL PARK IN THE STREET.

THEY WILL BLOCK YOUR ALLEYS, THEY WILL BLOCK YOUR DRIVEWAYS.

HAVING A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING HELPS KEEP THESE USES UNDER SOME CHECK AND BALANCE.

AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T, UM, REGULATE THE SALE OF ALCOHOL IN THIS CITY, IT'S ONE OF THE TOOLS WE HAVE TO REGULATE, REGULATE USES IN THESE OLDER BUILDINGS OR IN BUILDINGS IN GENERAL IN THE CITY.

SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN USE.

I'M THINK I'M

[01:40:01]

UH, VICE CHAIR RUBEN, FOLLOW UP.

SOME VERY QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION BY STAFF, THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS, RIGHT? NO.

IF I MAY, UM, I'M READING VERBATIM.

UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION APPLIES TO A LIST OF USES, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE, RETAIL, AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES, EXCEPT FOR RESTAURANTS AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

SO, UM, THE ALCOHOLIC AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, RESTAURANTS AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ACCEPTED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND THEN, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THE MAXIMUM REDUCTION THERE IS 25%, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

YOU HAVE TO PRESENT A STUDY TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.

25 IS THE MAXIMUM FOR RESTAURANTS, AND THEN A VARIANCE TO GET A VARIANCE OF YOUR PARKING STANDARDS, YOU HAVE TO MEET A VERY HIGH STANDARD SHOWING AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, AND IT CAN'T BE SOLELY FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES.

THERE, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF, UH, APPLICATIONS THAT AN APPLICANT FOR A RESTAURANT USE MAY OR RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USE MAY APPLY FOR.

ONE IS A NEXT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH IS CAPPED AT 25%.

THOSE ARE LIMITED TO APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE A DESIRE TO REDUCE THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AN ALTERNATIVE IS A VARIANCE, WHICH IT, WHICH CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THOSE, THE BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE TO EVALUATE THE REQUEST BASED ON HARDSHIP, BUT NOT MERIT.

SO HARDSHIP IS REQUIRED AND THERE'S A LIST OF THOSE ITEMS. OKAY.

AND THEN THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU CAN'T JUST GET A VARIANCE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.

THAT IS VERY EXPLICITLY STATED.

UH, COMMISSIONER , YOUR APOLOGIES.

I HAVE A TEXT FROM COMMISSIONER WHEELER THAT'S LIKE 10 MINUTES OLD , SO IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL LET HER GO NEXT.

I DON'T, I THINK SHE MIGHT NOT BE ONLINE.

UH, DID WE LOSE COMMISSIONER WHEELER? I DON'T SEE HER.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.

SO ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IF I MAY.

UM, MR. NAVAREZ, IS IT CORRECT, YOU'RE READING FROM THE CURRENT CODE NOT IN THE PROPOSED ZO OAC AMENDMENTS.

SO ARE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS STILL IN THE, I I BELIEVE THEY'VE BEEN STRUCK IN THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION? THAT'S CORRECT.

THEY'VE BEEN STRUCK.

SO THEY WOULD NEED TO, THERE WOULD BE, NEED A MOTION NEEDED, I GUESS, AN AMENDING MOTION TO RETAIN THOSE.

AND, AND AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR BECAUSE I, I KNOW WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MOVING PARTS WITH THIS BEFORE.

SO, UM, WHAT I ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO WAS TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE CURRENT MOTION TO MAINTAIN BAR AT A PARKING MINIMUM OF ONE SPACE PER HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AND MAINTAIN THE PROPOSED REDUCTION FOR RESTAURANTS OF ONE TO 200.

AND I HAVE COMMENTS, IF I HAVE A SECOND.

YOU DO HAVE A SECOND, BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR, YOUR MOTION? I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE, SO WE'LL SEE.

WELL, AND I GUESS I'M, I'M AMENDING, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BAR AND RESTAURANTS, BOTH GOING TO ONE TO 200, AND I'M SUGGESTING THAT BARS ARE ONE TO 100.

SO KEEP THE MINIMUM AND NO CHANGE TO, I GUESS, THE BASE OF RESTAURANTS AT ONE TO 200.

SO THAT TO ME SEEMED TO BE NOT AN OPPOSITION, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THE RULING IS WE'RE GOOD.

IT'S IN ORDER.

AND AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO SOME OF THE EARLIER COMMENTS THAT I MADE.

UM, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY THINK WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS, BUT WANNA RECOGNIZE MY COMMISSIONERS WHO DO SEE THE NEED FOR SIMPLICITY.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IN OUR BASE CODE, UM, SIMPLICITY IS HELPFUL, BUT THERE IS A TRUE DIFFERENCE IN HOW BARS, RESTAURANT BARS OPERATE VERSUS RESTAURANTS.

AND I CAN SEE ALLOWING ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR RESTAURANTS, UM, WHILE ADDRESSING THE INTENSITY OF THE USE.

I LIVE NEAR BARS, I WALK TO THEM FREQUENTLY.

THEY STAY OPEN LATE.

UM, THEY ARE, THEY JUST FUNCTION DIFFERENTLY.

AND I THINK THIS IS A WAY FOR US TO MAYBE CONSIDER AN INCREMENTAL STEP ON WHERE WE WANT TO.

WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT A SLEW OF OTHER USES THAT WOULD LIKELY HAVE NONE.

WE GIVE AN ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE FOR RESTAURANT USES WHILE RECOGNIZING THE INTENSITY OF A BAR THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT OTHER MOTIONS THAT ARE COMING AFTER THIS, SO I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THE COMMENTS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU,

[01:45:02]

COMMISSIONER.

FIRST ROUND ON THE, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, ALL THAT.

COMMISSIONER, UH, I'M, I'M SORRY.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE.

SHE'S BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH, I SECOND THE MOTION MAINLY FOR THE CONVERSATION.

UM, LIKE I SAID, IN IN, IN MY DISTRICTS WHERE THE BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE, UM, THEY'RE IN AREAS THAT ARE IN KIND OF SHOPPING CENTERS WHO, WHO ARE STILL OVER PARKED.

UM, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN HOW BARS ARE OPERATING AND HOW RESTAURANTS ARE OPERATING.

UM, MY ONLY CONCERN THERE IS WHERE WE HAVE RESTAURANTS WHERE THE MAIN FOCUS IS THE BAR, UM, SLASH PAPA DO'S.

UM, SO OPERATIONS LIKE THOSE STILL GIVE ME SOME PAUSE.

COMMISSIONER HALL.

IS IT ALWAYS CLEAR CUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BAR AND A RESTAURANT.

RESTAURANTS HAVE FULL SERVICE BARS AND YOU MIGHT GO TO PAPA'S OR WHEREVER JUST TO DRINK, UH, A BAR COULD SERVE, COULD THEY SERVE APPETIZERS, UH, WHICH MIGHT SERVE AS A MEAL? I MEAN, SO IS IS IT CLEAR CUT? WHAT'S A BAR AND WHAT'S A RESTAURANT? YEAH.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PER OUR CODE, IT IS A BAR IS, UH, AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT GETS AT LEAST 75% REVENUE FOR, FOR THE SALES OF ALCOHOL AS OPPOSED TO A RESTAURANT WHO'S UNDER.

SO PER THE CODE, YES.

UM, IS NOT JUST THAT YOU HAVE A KITCHEN AND YOU'RE SERVING SOME FOOD, IS ALSO HOW MUCH OF YOUR REVENUE DERIVES FROM THE SALE OF ALCOHOL.

NOW, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PROBABLY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I WOULD, I APOLOGIZE IF SORRY ABOUT THAT TO MENTION, UM, BARS ARE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO SUP, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT? SO THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

AND I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED THIS MORNING BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND THE SUP IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE HOURS OF OPERATION AND EVEN IF NEED BE, ASK FOR MORE PARKING.

SO, UM, I HAVE A GR A GRATEFUL, A A MAJOR PAUSE BECAUSE OFTENTIMES, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO SEPARATE RESTAURANTS AND BARS, BUT DEFINITELY RESTAURANTS, SOMETIMES A RESTAURANT, UH, TAKE OUT ONLY RESTAURANT IS EVEN HAVE, HAS TO HAVE ONE TO 100 WHEN NO ONE IS EVER GONNA SIT IN THERE BECAUSE, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE A FULL, A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT.

OR IF YOU HAVE ONE TABLE, ONE CHAIR, IT MAKES YOU A RESTAURANT.

I, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS AND, AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO CAN'T EVEN OPEN IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

ONE TO 200 IS NOT A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

IT IS NOT A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.

I, I, I BEG MY, THE, THE, UM, COMMISSIONERS THAT, THAT ARE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR WHEN THEY COME TO BARS, I CAN UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE A SEPARATION, BUT THE, A RESTAURANT THAT IS PRIMARY OR RESTAURANT, THE REASON THAT WE DON'T HAVE THEM IN A LOT OF OUR AREAS IS BECAUSE WE ARE LANDLOCKED.

AND THAT ONE TO 200, IF THAT, IF AREAS THAT HAVE, HAVE PDS WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PD BECAUSE IT'S A BAR AREA AND THEY WANT TO MAKE IT HAVE SOME, SOME TYPE OF CONTROL OVER THEIR PARKING.

BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL CITY, WHEN WE DRIVE THROUGH OUR CITY IN THESE AREAS THAT, THAT CURRENTLY HAVE MORE PARKING THAN THEY EVER USE, EVEN IF IT, IF THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE COULD HAVE MORE RESTAURANTS, RESTAURANTS BRING RETAIL, UM, IT, IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO SHOP.

IT BUILDS UP NEIGHBORHOODS.

I CAN'T EVEN GO, I CAN NAME PROBABLY HOW MANY RESTAURANTS IN SOUTH DALLAS RIGHT NOW, AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT IT'S OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF ANYONE IS HERE FROM OUR, THAT'S REPRESENTING, UM, EVEN OUR AREA PLAN THAT HAS BEEN A CALL FROM PAUSE THAT OUR BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BECAUSE THE RESTAURANT OWNERS CAN'T OPEN IN THE, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN AREAS LIKE SOUTH DALLAS THAT SHOULD BE BENEFITING, BENEFITING FROM HAVING THAT, THAT HAVING RESTAURANTS AND, AND PLACES TO SIT DOWN AND

[01:50:01]

EAT.

I HAVE TO GO ACROSS TOWN TO GET SOMETHING TO EAT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL, UM, MCDONALD'S OR, OR CHECK IN THE BOX.

THIS IS, THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

THE ONE 200 IS NOT A BIG, UM, CHANGE.

I UNDERSTAND SAYING ABSOLUTELY NO PARKING, BUT ONE TO 200 IS NOT GONNA CAUSE THAT MUCH CAUSE OR PAUSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

UH, IT'S RETAIL STORES THAT ACTUALLY HAS MORE, THE RETAIL STORES ARE ONE 200 THAT HAVE MORE TRAFFIC OFF SOME TIME THAN THE RESTAURANTS.

UH, BEFORE I GO TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF OR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

CAN, CAN SOMEONE PLEASE SUMMARIZE WHAT'S ON THE TABLE VERSUS WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS? WHAT IS CURRENT CODE AND WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, GONNA CHANGE OR NOT CHANGE? SO AS FAR AS THE MOTIONS, THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

AS FAR AS THE MOTIONS, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HAMPTON THAT AMENDS COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS MOTION TO KEEP BARS AT ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET.

UM, BUT THEN, UH, FOR RESTAURANTS IT WOULD BE ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION OF NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND CORRECT.

THE CURRENT CODE AS IT STANDS TODAY IS, UH, ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET FOR BOTH OF THOSE USES.

LET'S SAY, 500 FEET OF ANOTHER RESTAURANT? THAT WOULD SEEM LIKE IN, I'VE BEEN TO CONVENTIONS, YOU KNOW, ZONING CONVENTIONS WHERE THEY SAY WHAT'S NEEDED TO STABILIZE LOWER INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS OR THINGS THAT OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS TAKE FOR GRANTED.

I THINK WE'RE STILL ON THE FIRST ROUND FOR THIS ONE FOR COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

WHILE I LIKE THE ATTEMPT AT A RESOLUTION, I'M GONNA HOLD STEADY IT, MY BELIEF THAT WE SHOULD MAINTAIN BARS AND RESTAURANTS AT ONE TO 100.

UM, I UNDERSTAND ALL TOO WELL WHAT IT MEANS TO INVEST A RIGHT IN PROPERTY.

UM, AND I THINK AS WE MOVE THROUGH OTHER CODE CHANGES WHERE WE ARE ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR OTHER USES, WE'RE GONNA SOLVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS OF AGING SHOPPING CENTERS.

FOR EX FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU SAY, WELL, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER USES LIKE, UH, PET SITTERS OR DOG GROOMERS OR GROCERY STORES OR DRY CLEANERS WHERE WE'RE NOT GONNA REQUIRE PARKING MINIMUMS ANYMORE.

ALL OF A SUDDEN THE SHOPPING CENTER AT MOCKINGBIRD AND ABRAMS CAN HAVE THE BODEGA WITH A RESTAURANT, CO CAN HAVE THE PATIO AT WHATEVER THAT RESTAURANT WAS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE YOU'VE FREED UP ALL THAT PARKING AT THAT SHOPPING CENTER.

AND THE SAME IS GONNA BE TRUE ON LOWER GREENVILLE IF WE ALLOW, UM, A RELAXATION IN ALL THESE OTHER USES, BUT MAINTAIN A STRICTER, UH, PARKING REGULATION FOR OUR HIGHEST INTENSITY USES.

WE'RE PROVIDING THAT PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY FOR ALL OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES IN ALL OF THESE OTHER AREAS.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, ENCOURAGING LANDLORDS TO DO MIX OF USES TO DO PROVIDE THOSE MIXES LIKE WE HAVE ON LOWER GREENVILLE TO CREATE THOSE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS SERVING USES LIKE DRY CLEANERS, PET STORES, UM, RETAIL SHOPS, BOUTIQUES, AND BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

THE WAY THAT GREENVILLE GOT TO BE THE WAY IT IS, IS BECAUSE IT'S HEMMED IN BY ITS PARKING.

IF YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN GET RID OF THAT, THEN YOU ENCOURAGE THE LANDLORDS TO REPLACE THOSE BOUTIQUES WITH RESTAURANTS BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN GET A PERCENTAGE OF THE RENTS, WHICH ARE HIGHER FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THESE COMMERCIAL LEASES OPERATE, WHEN YOU GET RID OF THE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS, YOU ARE JUST ENCOURAGING THE DEMISE OF SO MANY OF THE SMALLER BUSINESSES BECAUSE THE LANDLORDS WILL RAISE THOSE RENTS AND THEY WILL GET RID OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY YOU WANT IN THESE COMMUNITIES.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ON THE AMENDMENT, , I'M OKAY.

I'M NOT SURE I'M DIRECTLY DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENT, BUT YOU CAN STOP ME IF I'M NOT.

BUT TRYING TO, UM, RECONCILE THE, THE FLOOD OR FAMINE ISSUE, HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO SEVERELY REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR RESTAURANTS IF IT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN

[01:55:01]

A RESTAURANT WHERE YOU CAN SIT DOWN AND HAVE A MEAL, YOU KNOW, A GYM, A DAYCARE, A A A HAIR SALON, THAT SORT OF THING.

IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IF WE, IT WOULD SOLVE, I I KNOW THERE ARE AREAS IN WEST DALLAS WHERE THERE'S NOT A, THERE'S NOT A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT.

THERE ARE VAST AREAS IN, IN SOUTH DALLAS WHERE, AND, AND TO, UH, ADDRESS SOMEWHAT WHAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S TALKING ABOUT WITH, WITH, UH, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF, OF, UM, YOU KNOW, DOING AWAY WITH THESE, UH, MIXES WHERE YOU HAVE WALKABLE MIXED USE BY, UH, CUTTING THE, UM, REQUIREMENT FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

IT, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGES LANDLORDS TO, YOU KNOW, TO CRAMM IN MORE BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

IF WE DID LOOK AT SOMETHING WHERE ARE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR, UM, A RESTAURANT THAT WAS FARTHER AWAY THAN 500 FEET FROM ANOTHER RESTAURANT.

ANYWAY, JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE AS AN IDEA, AS POSSIBLY A WAY TO ADDRESS THE, THE DESERTS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY.

AND THEN THE AREAS, IT WOULD MAKE IT BETTER FOR ONE, BUT NOT MAKE IT WORSE FOR THE OTHERS THAT ALREADY HAVE CONCENTRATIONS.

UH, IT JUST, THERE'S, ON A CERTAIN LEVEL, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

UH, COMMISSIONER HARA FIRST ROUND, UM, SPEAKING REALLY RELATIVE TO THE AMENDMENT AND TO THE, THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UM, ONE TO 100, ONE TO 200 I KNOW ARE SORT OF ABSTRACT TERMS. AND SO I'D LIKE TO TRY TO PUT, UH, AN ILLUSTRATION TO YOU ON THAT.

AS A, AS AN ARCHITECT AND A PLANNER, WHEN WE SAY YOU HAVE TO PARK AT ONE TO 100, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IT IS ILLEGAL TO OPEN A BAR OR RESTAURANT UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE FOUR TIMES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ASPHALT AS YOU DO USABLE SPACE.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO.

AND SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT FOR A GROSS SITE AREA, IN ORDER TO HAVE A RESTAURANT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 80% OF THAT PAVED TO SERVE THE 20% OF USABLE AREA.

AND SO IN THAT SCENARIO, THE, THE PARKING IS NOT SERVING THE USE.

THE USE IS SERVING THE PARKING, AND WE NEED TO BUILD A CITY WHERE PARKING IS OUR SERVANT, NOT OUR SLAVE OR OUR MASTER.

UH, NOT, NO, NOT OUR MASTER.

AND SO, UM, GOING TO ONE TO 200 STILL MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWICE AS MUCH ASPHALT AS USABLE AREA.

IT'S JUST GOING FROM A FACTOR OF FOUR TO A FACTOR OF TWO.

I THINK TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE SAID, MAYBE THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

I'M COMPLETELY SYMPATHETIC TO THAT POINT OF VIEW, BUT, UM, OUTTA RESPECT FOR SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING HERE, I THINK ONE TO 200 IS A, IS A MARVELOUS PLACE TO LAND ACROSS THE BOARD, AND WHICH CONVENIENTLY IS THE HISTORIC, UM, RATIO FOR RETAIL.

AND SO IT JUST TENDS TO PUT THOSE ON EQUAL FOOTING AND, UM, I THINK PROVIDE A BETTER OUTCOME, UH, FOR LANDLORDS AND FOR RESIDENTS.

IN TERMS OF, OF MORE AMENITIES.

UM, THE, THE, THE NOTION OF PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IS SOMETHING WE'RE ALL COMMITTED TO AND WE ALL WANNA DO, BUT IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DEFINE OR QUANTIFY.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN OUR RUSHED AT TIMES TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS, WHAT WE DO IS WE PREVENT NEIGHBORHOODS OR WE DISALLOW NEIGHBORHOODS FROM HAVING A, A, A VIBRANT MIXED USE CHARACTER.

WE DISALLOW THEM FROM HAVING A 700 FOOT BAR ON THE CORNER.

WE DISALLOW THEM FROM HAVING A 1200 SQUARE FOOT, UH, GROCER, BODEGA, WHATEVER.

UM, WE, WE TAKE AWAY AS MUCH FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE GIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SOME OF THESE IN SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS.

AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ADJACENT USES AND WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL.

COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT, UH, VERY BRIEFLY FOR ME, FOR FIRST ROUND, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

I'LL, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

UH, AND YOU KNOW, JUST INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT AND I, UH, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT COUNTERINTUITIVE THAT WE REQUIRE PARKING FOR BARS.

[02:00:02]

UH, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, UH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF CITY NOW THAT I THINK, UH, THE, THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF BARS, I DON'T THINK WE'RE READY FOR THAT.

WE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF CITY FOR LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF REASONS THAT WE WON'T GET INTO TODAY.

AND SO I THINK THIS IS JUST, AGAIN, THAT SMALL INCREMENTAL MOVE HERE, UH, TO MOVE INTO THE FUTURE, TO MOVE INTO THE KIND OF CITY THAT I THINK JUST ORGANICALLY WE'RE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND THIS IS JUST ONE LITTLE STEP FORWARD IN THAT, IN THAT DIRECTION.

UH, SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE, UH, THE AMENDMENT, BUT WOULD SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

UH, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT.

AGAIN, NOT A STATEMENT, BUT A QUESTION.

IF WE FAIL TO PASS EITHER OF THESE AMENDMENTS, THEN CORRECT ME, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEN THE ORIGINAL ZAC RE RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT THEN STANDS, WHICH IS GETTING RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS, PERIOD.

UM, THEN I, I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING BOTH THE AMENDMENT, UH, UH, THE, THE, THAT, THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HAS OFFERED, AS WELL AS ALSO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HAS OFFERED.

UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS OFFERED, UH, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I FEEL THAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS WORSE.

UM, I, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS IN PLACE, SO THEREFORE I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTIONS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE TAKE A RECORD VOTE? UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECOND ROUND.

UM, UM, I, I, I, SO THANK COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, FOR EXPLAINING WHAT, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

LITERALLY, UM, FROM THE ONE TO 100 TO ONE TO 200, I I'M SOMEONE THAT MY SPECIALTY IS COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES.

THAT'S WHAT I DO.

I I HELP THAT SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, UM, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THEM INTO THAT.

AND I CAN TELL YOU IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DON'T HAVE THAT MANY RESTAURANTS, AND WE HAVE SOME BARS, THE HISTORICAL BARS THAT HAVE TO HAVE SUVS.

SO I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT ARE THEY GONNA GET OUTTA HAND.

BUT WHAT I DO HAVE, BECAUSE RESTAURANT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LIMITED BY THEIR PARKING.

I HAVE A BUNCH OF BEAUTY SHOPS.

I'M, I CAN'T COMPLAIN.

I AM A FIR I AM MY FIRST JOB, FIRST THING I EVER DID, THE FIRST LICENSE I EVER GOT IS A COSMETOLOGIST LICENSE.

BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND MOST URBAN PLACES IN AMERICA, THERE IS BEAUTY SHOPS, THERE IS BARBERSHOPS, THERE IS TOBACCO STORES, CONVENIENCE STORES.

THAT'S, WE GET THE, WE GET BECAUSE OF THESE TYPE OF PARKING .

THAT'S YOUR TIME.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER? YES.

UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, BEFORE WE TAKE A RECORD VOTE, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, THE, THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT WAS TO GO TO ONE TO 200 ON BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

THE AMENDMENT MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IS TO SPLIT THOSE, KEEP THE ONE TO 100 FOR BARS AND GO TO ONE TO 200 ON RESTAURANTS.

WE'LL TAKE A RECORD VOTE PLEASE.

SO, SO THE, THE VOTE, PARDON ME? YES.

THIS IS A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO GO ONE TO 100 ON BARS.

ONE TO 200 ON RESTAURANT? CORRECT.

NO, I HAVE IT FAILING.

IT FAILED.

SO COMMISSIONERS, WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE.

[02:05:01]

WHAT HAPPENED TO NUMBER FOUR? WHICH WAS THAT MOTION FOR THE ONE TO 200? YES.

THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE MOTION FOR ONE TO 200 FOR BOTH, UH, BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

NOW WE'RE JUST OPEN.

NOW WE GO TO NUMBER THREE, DON'T WE? I MEAN, TECHNICALLY THE FLOOR'S JUST OPEN.

SO WE COULD GO TO NUMBER THREE NOW, OR, UH, ENTERTAIN SOME OTHER LANGUAGE.

PARDON ME? THAT WAS THREE.

SORRY, I CAN'T READ HIS, IT WAS THROUGH.

UM, COMMISSIONERS HAVE A REQUEST TO HAVE LUNCH, MR. CHAIR, WHERE? YEAH.

COULD I PROPOSE A WORKING LUNCH? SURE.

SO WE NOT CAN GET OUTTA HERE AT A REASONABLE HOUR.

WHY NOT? LET'S GO, LET'S TAKE, UH, 15 MINUTES AND GO GET OUR LUNCH AND COME RIGHT BACK AT, UH, 11.

WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD WITH OUR LUNCH.

AND BY MY COUNT WE ARE ON NUMBER THREE, FOUR.

OH, THAT'S CORRECT.

WE JUST DID THREE NUMBER FOUR.

UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSE.

THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY HAVE CONSIDERED OR REVIEWED.

UH, AGAIN, IN, UH, MATTER OF DCA 1 9 0 DASH ZERO TWO, I PROPOSE THAT WE AMEND THE, UM, ZAC RECOMMENDATION WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON OUR LIST.

THAT PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS ONLY APPLY TO BUILDING AREA OVER 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHERLOCK, FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? YES.

COMMISSIONER CHER? UH, YEAH, I SECOND THE MOTION.

I, I THINK THIS IS, UM, SOMETHING THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND, AND, AND, UH, AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HEARD IN OUR DISTRICT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, UM, THAT THAT IS, UH, NEEDED FOR SOME RELIEF.

UM, MANY OF THE AREAS OF OUR, OUR CITY THAT, THAT GET THE MOST ATTENTION FOR THEIR SENSE OF, UH, SENSE OF PLACE ARE SOME OF THE OLDER AREAS OF EAST DALLAS BISHOP ARTS, WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING BUILDING STOCK, UH, AND A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES THAT END UP GETTING PLACED INTO OLDER HOMES AND SMALLER COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT WERE BUILT IN A DIFFERENT ERA.

UH, I THINK AT ONE POINT THE, UM, BISHOP ARTS AREA HAD THE NUMBER ONE STARTUPS IN THE ENTIRE METROPLEX OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES.

AND, UM, SO IT'S DEFINITELY THOSE, THOSE SMALL BOUTIQUE ONE-OFF BUSINESSES AS OPPOSED TO LARGE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES ARE SOMETHING THAT WE VALUE VERY MUCH IN OUR DISTRICT.

AND, AND I KNOW THAT BASED ON ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME TO THE, THE, TO OUR DISTRICT FOR, TO USE THESE PLACES ALSO VALUE THEM A LOT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE, UH, THE BISHOP ARTS AND PLACES LIKE LOWER GREENVILLE ACTUALLY NOT BE QUITE AS UNIQUE AS THEY ARE.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM PROLIFERATE THROUGH THE REST OF THE, THE CITY.

AND I THINK THAT THIS GOES, UM, TO, TO, UH, THE HEART OF, OF AN ISSUE THAT PLAGUES A LOT OF STARTUP BUSINESSES AS THIS PARKING OF, OF, UH, SPACES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN LARGE COMMERCIAL SPACES THAT ARE OVER 3,500.

UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DEBATE ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE 5,000.

I THINK WE HEARD FROM MR. HEEL THIS MORNING THAT THEY USED A FIGURE OF 10,000, UH, IN THE, IN, IN THE, UM, UH, DRAWING A BLANK.

NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE.

2,500.

UM, SO, UH, THAT'S SOME OF THE REASON WHY I SUPPORT THIS.

I HOPE OTHER PLAN COMMISSIONERS DO AS WELL.

WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT BEHIND, UM, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND, AND I THINK WHAT IT'S TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF FOLKS, UM, I KNOW WE HAVE A CONDITION FURTHER DOWN ON OUR LIST THAT STARTS TO TALK ABOUT OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES, AND THAT'S REALLY HOW THIS EXCEPTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN MODELED AS A WAY TO ADDRESS BUILDING STOCK.

UM, THIS I THINK, IS MORE BROADLY STRUCTURED AND I THINK THE SIZE OF IT HAS A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS, UM, GREATER

[02:10:01]

UM, I, IT JUST GIVES ME PAUSE ON THE SIDE OF THIS.

I KNOW WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY IN OUR OTHER EARLIER MEETINGS THAT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET, EVEN 2,500 SQUARE FEET, IS JUST GREATER THAN SOMETHING THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH.

UM, I COULD PERHAPS SUPPORT A LOWER NUMBER, UM, BUT AS, AS IT'S PROPOSED, I'M, I'M NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.

UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO IMPOSING AN RAR, UM, REQUIREMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT AN RIR? RIGHT.

WE WERE TRYING TO LIKE REWIND.

UM, I THINK THAT WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE BEGINNING REGARDING BUFFERS, BUT IT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT, UM, USE I JUST A SECOND.

YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ATTACHING PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO THE RAR UM, REVIEW.

SO IF SOMETHING UNDERGOES AN RAR REVIEW, THEN IT WOULD ALSO HAVE SOME SORT OF DIFFERENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

NO, THIS AMENDMENT IS, THERE WOULD BE NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS UNDER 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

MY QUESTION WAS, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO INCLUDING AN RAR REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING A PERMIT IN THAT SITUATION? OKAY.

I, I, UM, MEGAN WEER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

UM, SO THE RESTAURANT USE ALREADY REQUIRES AN RER.

SO WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THERE IF A NEW RESTAURANT'S BEING PERMITTED AND IS EXEMPT FROM PARKING.

DOES A RESTAURANT ALWAYS REQUIRE AN RAR? I BELIEVE IN MOST INSTANCES, YES.

I CAN DOUBLE CHECK.

BUT WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES WHEN A RESTAURANT DOESN'T REQUIRE AN RAR? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AND GET BACK.

WELL, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, IT WOULDN'T BE, IF IT, IF IT WAS, UM, YOU LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW THE ANSWER, I CAN GO CHECK AND GET BACK WITH YOU.

BUT I BUT THERE IS AN RER REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY THAT COULD BE UTILIZED TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT OF INCOMPATIBILITY.

I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN RAR REVIEW FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS ONLY.

NOT IN CA YEAH.

I CAN THINK OF ONE.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN ARE THE OTHERS.

SO AN RER FOR RESTAURANT IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE CA DISTRICTS, UM, OR IN THE URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICTS.

ARE THERE PDS WHERE IT'S EXEMPTED? I DUNNO THAT ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

IT DEPENDS.

UH, DAVID MAY WANNA CHIME IN ON THAT.

I MEAN, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE PD TO DETERMINE THAT.

SAY THAT KEEP, I'LL LOOK IN 8 42.

BUT THE DEFAULT, THE LOWER GREENVILLE ONE THAT DEFAULTS TO CR SO I'M ASSUMING THAT IT WILL PICK UP THE RAR AND YES.

PER CODE, THE R-A-R-D-I-R IS REQUIRED IN FOR RESTAURANTS IN CR RR WHAT MEGAN SAID.

WHATEVER SAY, BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A GAME CHANGER FOR THOSE COMMUNITIES.

AND I'LL LOOK P IN, UH, LOWER GREENFIELD PD.

WELL, I'M JUST THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THERE SHOULD BE SOME PROTECTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND R-A-R-S-U-P MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, A TOOL THAT YOU COULD USE MS. WAER.

DID YOU, DID YOU NEED MORE TIME TO LOOK ANYTHING ELSE UP THAT YOU SAW? NO, I MEAN, THAT, THAT IS AN EXISTING TOOL THAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY.

SO STAFF HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE PD ALONG HENDERSON AVENUE DOESN'T REQUIRE RAR REVIEW.

SO I'M JUST THINKING THERE'S PROBABLY OTHERS.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S ONE OF THE TYPES OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

SO IF THERE ARE OTHERS, IF ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO PARK IT 3,500 SQUARE FEET, IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF THOSE, THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES? AND SHOULD, SHOULD THERE BE SOME IMPOSITION FOR ENSURING THERE IS AN RER REVIEW REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PDS OR

[02:15:01]

COMMISSIONER, I'LL LOOK IN THOSE TWO PDS RIGHT NOW AND I'LL READ THE RAR SECTION AND SEE IF, AND OBVIOUSLY I'LL TALK TO THE ATTORNEY IF THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY.

PD 42 REQUIRES IT.

AND TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS TO SEE IF A MOTION CAN BE MADE TO BASICALLY ADD INTO THE RAR SOME LANGUAGE TO, IN RESPECT TO PARKING COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAPPEN TO, IS IT 4 62? DO YOU KNOW THE PD NUMBER? PD 4 62? I BELIEVE THAT'S NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

I'M TRYING TO LOOK IT UP.

WE CAN, WE'LL, CAN, CAN I ASK IF THAT'LL ADD PDS? UH, EIGHT 30 AND 4 67.

WHICH ARE THE PDS NEAR BISHOP HARTS TO THAT LIST TOO? SO THE, TO THE RESEARCH, OKAY.

YES, I HAD A COMMENT TO THAT.

UH, YES, PLEASE.

RAR IS NOT ALWAYS TRIGGERED ON A RESTAURANT UNLESS IT HAS A DRIVE THROUGH THE MAJORITY.

THE MAJORITY TIME WHEN, AND I GET QUITE A BIT OF COS OR RAR DOES NOT TRIGGER UNLESS THERE'S A DRIVE THROUGH COMPONENT TO IT.

UM, UNLESS IT'S, IT'S SPECIFICALLY IN A PD THAT REQUIRES IT.

BUT FROM THE ONES THAT I GO GET ON A REGULAR BASIS, VERY SELDOM AM I EVER TRIGGERED A RAR UNLESS THERE'S A DRIVE THROUGH COMPONENT.

MAY, MAY I SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? UM, C COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I BELIEVE YOU MIGHT BE THINKING OF A-D-I-R-A-D-I-R IS, UM, APPLICABLE TO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES TO MAKE SURE THEIR STACKING IS OCCURRING ON SITE AND NOT IMPEDING THE RIGHT OF WAY.

HAVE SOME THAT SAYS THAT, THAT THAT IS RESIDE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT, BUT IT'S, IT COULD BE BOTH.

BUT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE RESTAURANTS THAT I GO GET COS FOR, I I, I HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED TO GET THAT AT ALL UNLESS THEY WERE IN A PD THAT, THAT ACTUALLY ASKED FOR.

GOTCHA.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, CAN WE GET AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE, UM, PARAMETERS OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW ARE? YES.

I WOULD NEED TO GO GRAB MY CODE TO LOOK AT THE CRITERIA THAT'S LISTED, BUT WE CAN GET BACK WITH YOU ON THAT.

WE'RE CLEAN IT UP RIGHT NOW.

CAN I PROPOSE THEN THAT WE DROP THIS AMENDMENT FOR NOW AND COME GO TO ANOTHER AMENDMENT AND UNTIL WE, WE COULD, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T REQUIRE QUESTIONS FROM STAFF.

'CAUSE THEY'RE BUSY.

SO , IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THEM, THEY'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO.

HOW MANY PDS ARE WE RESEARCHING? I THINK IT WAS THREE FEW.

IT, IT'S FINE.

WE, WE GOT IT.

LET ME LOOK IN THE RAR AND SEE IF SARAH MASERA MAY DID A LOT OF RAR REVIEWS.

SHE CAN EXPLAIN IT SO NICE.

SO SHE'S AVAILABLE.

I CAN SPEAK ON DI BUT WE DON'T BOTHERED ME.

I PROMISE YOU THAT I GOT THREE DOGS CHAIR.

SHE DID, SIR.

WELL, PLEASE, WHILE WE'RE KILLING TIME YES, I CAN SPEAK ON DIR.

EVEN CLOSE DRIVEWAYS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE, UH, WHAT COULD BE PERCEIVED AS A, UM, A MITIGATION EFFORT.

WHICH IS THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER WAS ALLUDING TO WHAT WE REVIEW FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES.

UM, THE DRIVE, THE DIR APPLIES TO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS.

AND ESSENTIALLY A DIR IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.

AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UM, VERY TRAFFIC RELATED, UH, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC RELATED.

WE, WE, WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A MITIGATION PLAN FOR IF AND WHEN, UH, A QUEUE BACKS UP ONTO THE STREET.

SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S A PRACTICAL EXERCISE WHERE WE WANT TO SEE A DOCUMENT THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS CAN TAKE TO A STORE OPERATOR, SOMEONE WHO'S VERY HAPPY TO SEE THEIR TRAFFIC BACKING UP ON THE STREET, BECAUSE THAT MEANS THEIR BUSINESS IS DOING WELL.

WE SHOW, THE STAFF SHOWS UP AND THEY SHOW THE DOCUMENT THAT WE PREPARED AT PERMITTING.

THEY SPEAK TO THE STORE MANAGER AND THEY FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PLACE CONES OR SIGNS, UH,

[02:20:01]

UH, THAT'S DIRA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW.

IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF OPERATIONS FOR A PROPOSAL DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY RAR.

THAT'S, THAT'S, THANK YOU, DAVID.

I HAVE IT OPEN IN MY CODE.

SO AN RAR IS TRIGGERED, UH, WHEN THE LOT IS ADJACENT OR DIRECTLY ACROSS A STREET THAT'S, UH, LESS THAN 64 FEET IN RIGHT AWAY OR AN ALLEY.

UH, AND AN EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ON THE LOT IS WITHIN 330 FEET OF A LOT IN AN RDTH AND CH H DISTRICT.

UM, NOW THE RAR REVIEW IS THE SAME, A STAFF LEVEL REVIEW AND YOU'RE SPO UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT AIP PLAN AND THE SIP PLAN.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO SHOW ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED POINTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS, UH, BUILDING ENTRANCES, EXIT SERVICE AREAS AND WINDOWS.

UM, LOCATION TYPE OF FENCING, SCREENING, BUFFERING, UM, STORM WATER, UM, ILLUMINATION, SO LIGHTING ON THE SIDE, THE LOCATION, UH, OF PROPOSED SIGNS, UH, WHAT ELSE? LOUD SPEAKERS AND SOUND AMPLIFIERS.

SO BASICALLY THEY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WOULD OVER SPILL INTO A, INTO A RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS ORIENTED AWAY, UM, AND OTHER MECHANICAL, UH, EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING HIGH LEVEL NOISE AND CONTAIN ANY OTHER REASONABLE AND PERTINENT INFORMATION THAT THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY.

SO IT'S, UM, IT'S AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF REVIEW THAT IS DONE WITH THE ZONING TEAM, UM, AND PERMITTING.

AND IT'S TRIGGERED BY A DISTANCE FROM SINGLE FAMILY TYPE OF DISTRICT.

AND YOU JUST NEED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN AND WE CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WOULD INTERFERE OR PROJECT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS IS ORIENTED AWAY.

AND NOW, PD WISE, IT IS TRUE THE HENDERSON PD, PD FOUR SIXTY TWO, UM, DOES CALL USES SPECIFICALLY AND FOR BAR LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND FOR RESTAURANTS, IT DOESN'T SHOW THE SIGN RAR.

SO FOR THAT PD FOR SURE, PER THE PD, RAR IS NOT, UH, REQUIRED.

WE LOOKED INTO A 30 A PDA 30, WHICH IS IN, UM, UM, WEST DALLAS THAT DOES REQUIRE, AND THEN 4 68 DOESN'T REQUIRE.

ASK ONE FOLLOW UP PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IS IT CORRECT ON 4 62 THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RAR, BUT IT DOES DEFAULT TO CHAPTER 51 A FOR PARKING? THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YES, ALL THE USES ARE PARKED PER CODE.

COMMISSIONER FORSYTH.

I, I I WILL JUST SAY IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THIS AMENDMENT THAT I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I VOTED FOR THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AS A COMPROMISE, UH, TO, UH, REDUCE THE PARKING MINIMUMS. BUT I, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, GETTING RID OF THE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS THAT ARE UNDER 25, 3500 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE, UH, UH, UH, A DETRIMENT TO, UH, THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, YOU KNOW, IF I RECALL IN THE, UH, LAST HEARING, UH, MR. WHITE, I THINK I ASKED YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE SIZE ARE, I THINK YOU MADE A STATEMENT OF THE SIZES OF, OF THE RESTAURANTS THAT WERE IN BISHOP, I'M SORRY, IN, IN GREENVILLE OR GREENVILLE.

AND YOU, YOU INDICATED THAT THEY RANGE FROM 768 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

UH, AND I, I, SO, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY YOU, YOU, YOU WOULD BE EXEMPTING ALL THE RESTAURANTS IN LOWER GREENVILLE FROM, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF, IF WE, IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT.

IF I CAN CLARIFY THAT STATEMENT, THAT'S MOSTLY STILL TRUE.

I HAD MISSPOKEN, I MEANT 25,000 IN THOSE TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE LARGER THEATERS, THAT KIND OF A THING.

BUT I WOULD SAY OVERALL, THE SPACES DID COME OUT TO THE LOWER END.

SO THE SUBSTANCE IS TRUE.

I MEAN, WOULD YOU SAY 90% OF THE RESTAURANTS PROBABLY ARE FIT INTO THAT RANGE? I TOOK A SMATTERING, UH, THAT, THAT'S THE IMPRESSION.

SURE.

AND, AND I THINK WE HEARD TODAY, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE PD GIVES SOME PROTECTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR BISHOP ARTS, MOST OF THE RESTAURANTS IN BISHOP ARTS ARE ALSO SIMILARLY UNDER 2,500 SQUARE FEET AS WELL.

RIGHT? I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT IN PARTICULAR, BUT THERE ARE SOME SMALL ONES.

SO AT ONE POINT IN TIME IN OUR, UH, DISCUSSIONS OF THIS ISSUE IN RECENT WEEKS, THE, THE NUMBER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS 2,500 SQUARE FEET, NOT 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.

[02:25:04]

I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHEN THAT GOT CHANGED, BUT, UM, I FELT VERY COMFORTABLE.

I MEAN, FROM MY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE AT LEAST A LOT OF RESTAURANT SPACE.

AND WE TEND TO THINK OF RESTAURANTS THAT ARE 2,500 AND LESS AS GENERALLY BEING SMALLER RESTAURANTS.

AND, AND 3,500 WOULD CERTAINLY BE AT THE LARGER RESTAURANT SIZE.

SO, UH, I I, I WOULD, UH, IF THERE WAS SUPPORT TO DOING IT, I, I, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER CHANGING THAT NUMBER FROM 20, FROM 3,500 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

SOUNDED LIKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSER, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO 2,500? OKAY.

UH, IT WAS ACCEPTED.

SO, UH, 2,500 SQUARE FEET, COMMISSIONER CHERNO, UH, IF THE, IF THAT WAS A COMPROMISE, IF THAT COMPROMISE WOULD, UH, MAKE MY OTHER FELLOW COMMISSIONERS MORE COMFORTABLE, I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING IT.

UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.

PARDON ME, PLEASE.

UM, I, I, SO IN THIS SITUATION, I HAVE CAUSED THE CAUSE ON SEPARATION OF RESTAURANTS AND BARS WHEN IT COMES TO NOTE PARKING.

I KNOW THAT WE SAY, WELL, LAURA SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH PARKING, BUT, UM, UNLESS WE, WE CAN PUT A RAR IN PLACE.

UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT WONDER, IT'S PARKING ON THE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT NO PARKING AND THEY'RE LEAVING A BAR AND THEY'RE, UM, AND THEY'RE LEAVING A BAR THAT, AND THEIR CAR IS PARKED ON THE STREET.

SO, I, I DON'T, I I I ON THIS, CAUSE I THINK THAT A, A BAR REQUIRED NEED SOME TYPE OF PARKING.

I, I'M, I'M SPLIT ON THAT ONE.

UM, 2,500 SQUARE FEET OR, OR EVEN 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

THAT ONE'S HARD WHEN YOU GO TO TALKING ABOUT HAVING MORE BARS THAN RESTAURANTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WOULD MAINTAIN PARKING MINIMUMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR THE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR BARS AND RESTAURANT ONLY APPLIES TO BUILDINGS OVER 2,500 SQUARE FEET.

UH, CAN WE TAKE A RECORD VOTE PLEASE.

DISTRICT ONE? YES.

DISTRICT TWO? NO.

DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR? NO.

I HAVE MOTION PASSES.

WHY WAS THREE MOTION PASSES? WE'LL GO TO NUMBER FIVE, MR. CHAIR IN DCA, UH, 1 9 0 DASH ZERO TWO, I, UH, MOVE AN AMENDMENT TO KEEP THE EXISTING PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SCHOOLS AND TO ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR CHURCHES OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET IN GROSS AREA OR LESS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND? WELL, NO, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T SECOND I HAD A QUESTION.

PARDON ME THEN, UH, VICE CHAIR RUBIN, FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

OH, I'M SORRY.

WELL, I, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO WHERE THE 30, HOW WAS THE 30,000 SQUARE FEET FOR CHURCHES, UM, ESTABLISHED? WHAT, WHAT'S THE THINKING? IT FELT LIKE THE RIGHT NUMBER.

I'M OPEN TO, UH, HOW, HOW WE MAKE, I THINK THAT THE, THE SPIRIT OF IT, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS, UM, OUR SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCHES, UM, COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REMOVAL OF MINIMUMS. LARGER CHURCHES, UM, THAT PERHAPS ARE A LITTLE MORE REGIONAL IN THEIR NATURE

[02:30:01]

IT, IT'S WEEDING OUT THE MEGA CHURCHES.

I JUST, I CAN'T VISUALIZE NOT BEING AN ARCHITECT.

WHAT A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH.

WHAT, WHAT, IS THERE AN EXAMPLE YOU CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD GIVE ME SOMETHING TO, WELL, BECAUSE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN IS DRIVEN BY PARKING, A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH IS GOING TO BE 120 OR 150,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THREE TO FOUR ACRES.

UH, WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THIS IS JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

COMM COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, FOR THE PART OF YOUR MOTION THAT ELIMINATES PARKING MINIMUMS FOR CHURCHES, UM, 30, 30,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, WOULDN'T SINCE THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION IS TO ELIMINATE ALL PARKING MINIMUMS, WOULDN'T IT BE MORE ACCURATE TO JUST SAY, TO KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR CHURCHES GREATER THAN 30,000? I THINK THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE CLEAR.

I THINK THAT WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THAT.

COMMISSIONER.

UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, 30,004 FEET.

CHURCH IS STILL MEGA CHURCH.

UM, 21 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE REDUCED IT TO 20,000 MAYBE, UNLESS, I DON'T KNOW.

I NEED TO THINK ABOUT .

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER HALL, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WOULD YOU CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REDUCE IT TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET? THANK YOU.

YES, THAT WAS A YES.

MOTION, UH, IS NOW, UH, KEEP THE EXISTING PARKING MINERALS FOR SCHOOLS AND ELIMINATE PARKING MINERALS FOR CHURCHES 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN GROSS AREA OR LESS.

SO IT IS REALLY A QUESTION THAT, UH, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, OR, BUT WHEN I THINK OF CHURCHES, I TEND TO THINK OF CONGREGATION SIZE MEMBERSHIP.

UH, IS THERE ANY WAY TO ESTIMATE WHAT A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH'S MEMBERSHIP WOULD BE? NO, NOT REALLY.

I MEAN, THE WAY THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WORKS IS YOU'RE PARKING ON SEAT COUNT IN THE WORSHIP SPACE.

UM, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS AREA OF THE, OF THE CHURCH IS GONNA DEPEND ON THE DENOMINATION OR THE TYPE OF CHURCH AND THE AGE OF THE CONGREGATION AS TO HOW THEY MIX THE, THE USE OF THEIR SPACES.

BUT, UM, I DUNNO IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT'S NO, IT DOES.

IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT HARD TO VISUALIZE PARKING FOR 20,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET.

BUT IT'S EASIER TO VISUALIZE IT IF THE CONGREGATION'S ONLY A HUNDRED MEMBERS OR 200, YOU KNOW.

YEAH, THE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF CHURCH ARCHITECTURE AND WHAT HAPPENS IS, UM, THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FACILITY MAY NOT BE DIRECT CORRELATION TO THE MEMBERSHIP, BECAUSE WHAT YOU CAN DO IS DO MULTIPLE SERVICES ON A SUNDAY.

YOU KNOW? CORRECT.

IF YOU, IF YOU DO HAVE A SMALLER POPULATION, SMALLER CONGREGATION, YOU DO ONE SERVICE, IF ALL OF A SUDDEN IT STARTS GROWING, WELL, IT'S A LOT MORE PRACTICAL TO START HAVING TWO SERVICES AND THREE SERVICES BEFORE YOU START BUILDING.

SO IT'S GONNA BE PRETTY DIFFICULT TO, TO TAKE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ASSUME A CERTAIN SIZE CONGREGATION.

AND YEAH, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

I, I, I APPRECIATE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT PARTICULARLY AS TO CHURCHES AND OTHER HOUSES OF WORSHIP, WHICH I THINK THE OFFICIAL USE NAME IN OUR CODIS CHURCH, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY.

UM, YOU KNOW, IN MY EXPERIENCE, MOST HOUSES OF WORSHIP ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR PARKING LOTS OCCUPIED, OCCUPIED, ONE OR TWO DAYS A WEEK WHERE THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE IS A LOT OF PARKING GOING ON.

AND I THINK IN TERMS OF TRADE-OFFS, I'D RATHER SEE OVERFLOW PARKING FROM HOUSES OF WORSHIP A COUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK, UM, AND PRODUCTIVE USES OF THEIR PARKING LOTS.

UM, OR WHAT, WHAT WAS PARKING LOTS? UM, SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A MUCH HIGHER CAP FOR HOUSES OF WORSHIP OR ELIMINATING IT ALTOGETHER.

SO I APPRECIATE WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE, BUT I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION,

[02:35:01]

UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS.

TO THE POINT ABOUT, UM, A MORE PRODUCTIVE USE OF THE PARKING SPACES.

I HAVE TALKED TO A LOT OF, UM, CHURCH LEADERS ABOUT THEIR PARKING AND ABOUT THEIR SPACES.

AND, UM, IT'S VERY OVER PARKED AND LIKE WE'RE ALL SAYING, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S BUSY, YOU KNOW, ONE DAY OUTTA THE YEAR OR OUT OF THE WEEK.

UM, AND SO THESE NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCHES, IT'S A BIG PROBLEM.

SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE A HIGHER, A HIGHER NUMBER.

UM, BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, IF WE CAN AT LEAST GET THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING.

SO, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UM, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCHES, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS WHERE I SPEND A LOT OF MY TIME COMMISSIONER HOUSE, I PLEASE, SECOND ROUND.

THIS IS REALLY A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, LET, LET'S SAY THAT WE PASSED IT AT 20,000 FEET ON CHURCHES HERE IN A MOMENT, AND A CHURCH COMES IN AND THEY'RE 25,000 OR 30,000.

SO THEY'RE GONNA PARK JUST THE, THE EXCESS.

WHAT'S THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF THIS? OR IF THEY'RE 25,000, THEN THEY HAVE, SO THE RATIO THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW IS, UH, LET'S SEE IF THEY HAVE FIXED BENCHES IS LIKE PER IT'S TWO TYPE OF RATIO YEAH.

IS PER THE LENGTH OF THE FIXED BENCH 18 INCHES.

EXACTLY.

OR THE FI OR THE, OR PEW CONSTITUTE CONSTITUTES ONE FIXED SEAT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH.

UM, OR LET'S SEE IF PORTIONS OF THE SITTING IN THE SANCTUARY OR AUDITORIUM ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH FIXED ANYTHING IS ONE SPACE FOR 28 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA ARE, ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL HERE FOR THE 20,001 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH? THE RIGHT, THE WAY THAT I, THE WAY THAT I THINK IT'S WRITTEN OF KEEPING MINIMUMS OVER THAT CERTAIN SIZE, THEN THE ENTIRE CHURCH WOULD BE PARKED AS SOON AS YOU HAVE THAT ONE EXTRA SQUARE FOOT.

I DO, YES.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YEAH, I THINK COMMISSIONER HOUSER, THAT WAS THE, THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT WE FORGOT TO ASK ABOUT.

AND I, I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT IS, I, I THINK, UH, YOU, IN, IN SOME OF OUR OTHER DISCUSSIONS, WE SPOKE ABOUT YOU DON'T PARK THE FIRST X SQUARE NUMBER A SQUARE FEET, AND I'M NOT SURE IF MAYBE YOU ASSUME THAT THAT LANGUAGE MEANT THAT OR NOT.

AND EITHER WAY IS FINE.

IS IT CORRECT THAT WE COULD AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THE SPIRIT OF THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT DEFAULTS TO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CURRENT CODE? YES, THAT'S VERY POSSIBLE.

THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.

IT BASED ON SEAT COUNT, SINCE THAT'S HOW THE CODE CURRENTLY ADDRESSES PARKING FOR CHURCHES, THAT WOULD BE PREFERRED IF ANY PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR CHURCHES.

PRECEDENT.

UM, SINCE WE'RE, WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF JUST KIND OF WORKING THIS OUT HERE AT THE HORSESHOE, LEMME UM, YOU KNOW, FOR YEARS AND YEARS, OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON CHURCHES HAVE BEEN TIED TO SEEK COUNT IN THE PRIMARY WORSHIP SPACE.

AND SO I'M WONDERING IF, WOULD IT BE MORE PRODUCTIVE IF WE WERE TALKING, IF WE GAVE A SEAT COUNT NUMBER RATHER THAN A SQUARE FOOTAGE NUMBER BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE KIND OF DIFFERENT ANIMALS HERE.

OR I KIND OF, I'M KIND OF ASKING STAFF, THEY'RE QUESTION, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? DO YOU WANT US TO, TO CHANGE THE PARAMETER HERE FROM SQUARE FOOTAGE TO SEAT COUNT? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WORKS, IS SEAT COUNT.

YOU HAVE TO THINK IN TERMS OF LIKE, HOW ARE WE GONNA FIGURE OUT THE REQUIRED PARKING AT PERMITTING? THE EASIER IS TO LIKE JUST MEASURE FLOOR AREA.

BUT, BUT YEAH, YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, COMMISSIONER.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WHISPERING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

BUT THEN, RIGHT.

GET A REDUCTION, BUT THEN THE SEAT COUNT IS HOW WE CALCULATE IT.

HOW DO YOU GET THAT AT PERMITTING? HOW DO WE GET TO THAT? SO THE FLOOR AREA OF THE SANCTUARY SIZE? UM, I THINK IT, I DO THINK THAT WILL BE COMPLICATED, WHICH IS, IS NOT THE PURPOSE I KNOW, IS TO MAKE THINGS LESS COMPLICATED.

SO, YOU KNOW, ADMITTING THAT THIS ISN'T, NONE OF THIS IS ENTIRELY SCIENTIFIC, BUT, UM, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, I COULD SAY 300 SEATS, FOR EXAMPLE, AS THE CUTOFF.

AND THAT IF 300 SEATS AND LOWER, YOU'RE INTO MORE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE CHURCH, YOU GO ABOVE 300.

YOU START TO GET INTO THIS.

JUST, JUST MY OPINION, SOMEONE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER HERE AT THE HORSESHOE, BUT I DUNNO IF THAT SOUNDS LIKE A BETTER DIRECTION, MEGAN.

I THINK IF WE DID

[02:40:01]

DR.

UDRA IS UNCONVINCED.

DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE FLOOR AREA OF THE CHURCH CORRELATES TO.

I I IT'S, IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO I THINK MY BOTH ARE GREAT SYSTEMS. I THINK IT'S, IT'S WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CHOOSE.

WE DO ALREADY USE THE SEAT COUNT, SO WE HAVE A PROCESS ATTACHED TO THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA THROW A WRENCH IN ANY, UH, OPERATIONS, WHETHER IT'S 300 OR 290.

UM, I THINK THE CATEGORICALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE IN THAT RANGE.

I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE I DO APPRECIATE THE INTENT TO SAY THE FIRST 20,000 IS NOT PARKED, I DON'T THINK IT WORKS.

SO WE MAY SAY CHURCHES THERE ARE LESS THAN 20,000 OR WHATEVER NUMBER YOU WANNA LAND ON.

THOSE ARE NOT PARKED.

AND THE ONES THAT ARE BIGGER WILL BE PARKED.

'CAUSE IT'S EASIER.

'CAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE WITH BARS AND RESTAURANTS WHERE YOU DON'T PARK THE FIRST 20,000, NOW THE RATIO IS TIED TO SOMETHING ELSE AND IT'S VERY HARD TO UNPACK THAT AT PERMITTING.

SO THAT'S PROBABLY BETTER TO, UH, DISCUSS IF 20,000 IS A SWEET SPOT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH OR 30,000, IS YOUR ORIGINAL BETTER DISPUTE THAT NUMBER RATHER THAN YES.

AND SO AT 20,001 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE GOING TO STILL PARK IT ON SEAT COUNT.

BASED ON THE TOTAL SEAT COUNT.

COMMISSIONER TURNOCK? COMMISSIONER HALL.

WELL, I, I THINK YEAH, RATHER THAN CHANGING THIS MEMO, YOU KNOW, AND START DOING, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN REVIEWING IT AS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT'S BEEN SORT OF SOCIALIZED AS SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO I, I THINK BASED ON CONVERSATION WITH STAFF, WE JUST LEAVE IT LIKE THAT AND THEN STAY WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AT 20.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

UH, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

YEAH, THIS IS JUST A, SOME CLARIFICATION MAYBE FROM COUNCILLOR MORRIS.

UH, WE SAY CHURCH, BUT IT COULD BE MOSQUE, TEMPLE, SYNAGOGUE.

IT'S A HOUSE OF WORSHIP.

ALL HOUSES OF WORSHIP FALL UNDER OUR DEFINITION OF CHURCH IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, IT'S BY RIGHT IN CR AND RR.

ANY OPPOSED? ANY OPPOSED? ONE IN OPPOSITION, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN.

MOTION PASSES.

WE'LL GO TO NUMBER SIX.

NUMBER SIX.

UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

UM, ITEM SIX ON OUR DISCUSSION LIST.

I, I MOVE THAT WE, UM, AMEND THE ZO OAC PROPOSAL BY KEEPING PARKING MINIMUMS ON INDOOR AND OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AND THAT WE REDUCE THE MINIMUM FOR THESE USES TO ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONERS AND VICE RUBEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, SECOND DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER SEN, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FIRST.

WHAT ARE THE RAR REQUIREMENTS FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT? I WOULD JUST ANSWER TOP OF MY HEAD.

THIS USE RE IS ALLOWABLE BY SUP.

UM, AND LET ME SEE IF IT'S ALLOWED ANYWHERE BY, RIGHT.

IF IT TRIGGERS THE R-A-R-R-A-R IS REQUIRED FOR ANY DENSE HOLD THAT, THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN SUP, BUT IT'S LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

NOW, DENSE HALL, UH, IS BY SUP IN A-C-R-C-S UC, WHICH WE DON'T SEE, UM, ARE OUR INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL AREA MIXED USE AND MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL, IF IT'S LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, THIS TYPE OF USES GENERALLY ARE BY SUP.

EXCUSE ME.

BUT IN CS IT'S JUST DIR.

AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT MY CHART SAYS FOR THE OUTSIDE BYR.

WELL, IF IT'S,

[02:45:01]

IF NOT, IF IT'S NOT A DENSE HALL OR A BINGO PARLOR, IF IT'S SOMETHING ELSE LIKE A CHILDREN AMUSEMENT CENTER FOR INSTANCE, IT'S COMPLICATED AT COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPE OF USES AND EACH TYPE OF USE WITHIN THE MAIN USE HAS DIFFERENT ALLOWANCES.

SO TRUCK YARD FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

UM, OKAY, LET ME LOOK INTO THEIR CO I DON'T KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S A RESTAURANT USE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USE.

I DON'T KNOW IT BY HEART, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE YOU'VE GOT A LARGE OUTDOOR COMPONENT OR LIKE THE RUSTIC, SO COMMERCIAL, A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE.

UM, IT'S BY RIDING CS IN CENTRAL AREA DISTRICTS, UH, AND BY SUP AND CR.

SO, UM, AND THEN IT'S A DRN CS.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE USE WITH A CO LIKE THAT, IT IS BY SUP.

AS I SAID, IN A LOT OF THESE, UH, DISTRICTS, WHICH IS CRRR IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT.

FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU BY ANY CHANCE THERE IS A ADJACENCY OF A CS WITH A RESIDENTIAL, THEN JUST, IT IS ALLOWED ONLY BY DIR TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S POINT.

UH, OKAY.

AND IT'S ALSO FOR BOTH THE, SORRY, I KEEP ON LIKE READING FROM THE CODE.

IF THE SUP IS REQUIRED FOR THE USE, THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY THE SUP.

AND IF WE GO TO COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, IT HAS REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME OF THE USES.

BUT IF THE SUP IS REQUIRED, THE OFF STREET PARKING MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY THE SUP.

SO I WOULD SAY THE, THESE, THESE ARE USES THAT ARE HEAVILY REGULATED BY AN SUP.

BUT IF YOU REDUCE THE PARKING UNDER THE CODE, COULD AN SUP INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING NEEDED? I WOULD SAY SO DON'T WE DO IT WITH SUVS ALL THE TIME? LIKE FOR SCHOOLS, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE WE DO SUVS OR PDS, THE RATIO STAYS THE SAME, BUT IT'S ILLUSTRATED AROUND SITE PLAN AND IT'S MORE THAN WHAT'S MINIMUM REQUIRED.

COUNSEL? THAT'S CORRECT.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ANSWER? NO, THAT'S CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, JUST ONE FOLLOW UP.

UM, I WAS SEARCHING THROUGH PDS IN MY DISTRICT, UM, SINCE WE WERE HAVING THE DISCUSSION EARLIER.

AND I SEE A NUMBER WHERE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN SUP, UM, WHERE THOSE PDS DEFAULT TO BASE CODE, THIS WILL THEN REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF THE PD DOESN'T HAVE A RATIO FOR THAT USE, YES, IT DEFAULTS TO THE CODE.

BUT, UH, I AM VERY CURIOUS ABOUT THOSE PDS THOUGH.

4 62.

THE CITY HAS, IS NOT IN THE BASE CODE WITH CLOSING TIME.

OH, THE HENDERSON.

I WOULD, SO THERE'S THE HENDERSON PD.

UH, I'VE BEEN WHISPERED BY, UH, A LONG TIME STAFFER THAT THAT PD WAS CREATED WITH THE COMMUNITY.

SO ALL OF THOSE WERE ACTUALLY THE NOT AN RAR AND ALL OF THESE WERE DECIDED.

AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE RECENTLY THAT REMOVED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING THAT USED TO EXIST IN THAT PD? I WISH I KNEW ALL THE REZONINGS IN THE CITY BY HARBOR.

I BELIEVE YOU .

I, I AM NOT, I I BELIEVE YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER, ISN'T IT THAT IF, IF A, UM, THE OUTSIDE AMUSEMENT IS, UM, HAD, IS IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENT, THAT IT HAS TO BE CLOSED AT 11:00 PM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT THERE'S A TIME, THERE'S A TIMEFRAME IF IT'S ADJACENT TO A, UM, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD YOU MIND LEANING INTO THE MIC A LITTLE BIT? WE'RE JUST HAVING TROUBLE HEARING ISN'T THAT IF IT, IF IT'S A OUTSIDE AMUSEMENT, UM, UM, THAT IT OUTSIDE AMUSEMENT AND EVEN IF IT'S A, UH, SAY AN OUTSIDE, UM, UM, SEATING THAT IT HAS TO BE CLOSED AT A CERTAIN TIME.

I ONLY ASKED THAT BECAUSE ONE OF MY, SO ONE OF MY DISTRICT JUST GOT A TICKET FOR THAT EXACT THING AND THEY REVERTED BACK.

THAT SAID, THAT'S LISTED IN THE CODE AT 11:00 PM THEY HAVE TO BE CLOSED, GOES BY WHATEVER HOURS

[02:50:01]

AND KEEP ON SAYING LIKE, THOSE HOURS CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY THE SUP.

SO THE, SO IT IS A RESTAURANT WITH A BAR THAT HAS A, IT'S A RESTAURANT WITH A BAR, BUT THEY SELL MORE FOOD.

THE OUTSIDE AREA HAS TO BE CLOSED AT 11, BUT THE INSIDE AREA DOESN'T HAVE A TIME RESTRAINT.

AND WELL, I WAS TOLD IT WAS BY CODE.

IF, IF THEY HAVE THE CO FOR THE RESTAURANT AND THE BAR AT THE OUTDOOR PATIO FUNCTIONS PROBABLY THE SAME AS THE RESTAURANT.

AND, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW.

WHAT ARE THE CLOSING HOURS IN THE CITY? IS IT MIDNIGHT? IT WAS, IT WAS THE TICKET SAID AT 7:00 PM FOR ONLY FOR THE OUTSIDE AREA, NOT THE INSIDE.

SO THE ZONING DOESN'T, AS, AS ANDREA SAID, THE BASE ZONING DOESN'T REGULATE HOURS OF OPERATION.

UM, IF WE'RE CONSIDERING AN RAR, UM, WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT HOURS OF OPERATION ON THE OUTSIDE AREA, YOU KNOW, TO HELP REDUCE NOISE AND MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, CAN YOU CLARIFY, AM I ANSWERING THE QUESTION? YES.

SO, OKAY, SO THE TICKET WAS, THE OUTSIDE AREA HAD TO BE CLOSED AT 11:00 PM NOT THE INSIDE AREA.

SO COMMISSIONER, I'M JUST GONNA, I, I DON'T WANT STAFF TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT A CITATION THAT THEY HAVEN'T NO, IT'S NOT SO, SO LEMME TAKE YOU THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOOKED AT BASED ON ZONING THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, WHETHER IT'S AN SUP OR BASED ZONING OR A PD OR SO.

SO LEMME I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON.

SO LET RE-CLARIFY THAT.

IS THAT IN THE CO BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT THE TICKET.

IT'S KIND OF ASKING TO GO ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER KINGSTON ABOUT THE, THE OUTSIDE PORTIONS.

UM, THAT COULD MEAN THAT WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT'S IN THE BUILDING AT A CERTAIN TIME BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE OUTSIDE AREA.

AND WHEN, WHEN, WHEN LOOKING AT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING AND THE OUTSIDE AREA BEING PART OF THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING, IT DOES REDUCE AFTER A CERTAIN TIME THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN THE BUILDING.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, THE ONLY PD WE HAVE IN THE CITY WITH LATE HOURS IS THE LOWER GREENVILLE PD AND THAT CA CAPTURES THE USE THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON WAS REFERENCING.

SO THAT REGULATE REGULATES LATE HOURS.

UM, AND THOSE ARE BY SUP, BUT IN THE REST OF THE CITY, OUTSIDE PORTIONS WOULD CLOSE AT NORMAL HOURS THAT ARE OKAY.

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY'S NOT REGULATED THROUGH THE ZONING CODE.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, CAN WE GET A CLARIFICATION THAT THE OUTDOOR PORTION OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS, IF THEY HAVE COS AS BARS AND RESTAURANTS DO NOT FALL UNDER THIS CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE? NO.

ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NO.

COMMISSIONER, FORESITE, HAMPTON, AND KINGSTON.

WE HAVE THREE IN OPPOSITION.

MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL GO TO NUMBER EIGHT.

SEVEN.

PARDON ME? SEVEN WISHFUL.

THINK IN THERE.

UM, YEAH, I HAVE A, I HAVE A MOTION AND THEN I MIGHT ASK, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT SOMETHING HERE.

BUT, UM, ON DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SEVEN OF DCA 1 9 0 0 2, I MOVE THAT WE ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES IN CA DISTRICTS.

A MOTION, A SECOND DISCUSSION.

AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF WE TOOK NO ACTION ON THIS, DOES THE ZO OAC ORDINANCE ALREADY NO.

WOULD, WOULD BASICALLY REMOVE THEM ANYWAY, RIGHT? THAT'S FINE.

IS THIS, WELL, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL USES.

BUT NOW THAT THIS BODY IS GOING BACK AND PUTTING SOME IN THIS MOTION WOULD BE IN ORDER.

SO THIS MAKES SENSE.

THIS, THIS WOULD KIND OF TRUMP ANY OKAY.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE NOW GONNA KEEP IT, WE WOULDN'T KEEP THEM FOR CA SO A CHURCH THAT WAS 20,001 SQUARE FEET OR ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

COMMISSIONERS HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION.

SEE, SEE, NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

NOW WE GO TO EIGHT.

EIGHT, MR. MR. CHAIR.

UM, IN DISCUSSION, ITEM EIGHT A I I MOVE THAT WE ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN ONE HALF MILE RADIUS OF RAIL AND TOD STATIONS.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION.

I MEAN, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT BARS AND RESTAURANTS AND HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION

[02:55:01]

ABOUT THEIR IMPACT.

I DON'T SEE THAT BEING ANY DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE CLOSE TO RAIL, THEY'RE STILL CLOSE TO PEOPLE'S HOMES.

IN FACT, IN THEORY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE DENSITY NEAR RAIL.

SO THE IMPACT THAT THESE ESTABLISHMENTS, UM, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT WOULD HAVE, COULD POTENTIALLY BE GREATER ON A GREATER NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING ON THOSE TYPE OF USES.

UM, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE CLOSE TO RAIL.

I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, UM, BUT I THINK THAT HAVING SOME BUMPERS IN, IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT, UH, A VESTED RIGHT THAT YOU CAN'T UNDO MAKES SOME SENSE.

UM, CERTAINLY WHEN YOU HAVE THE ABILITY DOWN THE ROAD AFTER YOU MAKE CHANGES TO GO IN AND MAKE FURTHER CHANGES.

CONSCIOUS OF WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE THERE.

UH, COMMISSIONER TURNOCK FOLLOWED BY VICE RUBEN.

UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UH, IS THE CURRENT THINKING ON THE DISTANCE IS JUST, UH, HOW FAR SOMEBODY POTENTIALLY WOULD WALK TO GO AND USE THE PUBLIC TRANSIT? AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, AND IF THAT'S TRUE OR PARTLY TRUE, WHY, WHY WOULD BUS WALKING TO A BUS BE NOT AT A HALF MILE? OR WHY WOULDN'T IT BE THE SAME AS GO WALKING TO PUBLIC, UH, TO A, UH, RAIL? YOU KNOW, UH, TO THE SECOND QUESTION THAT I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE COMMISSIONER, MAKING THE MOTION ABOUT WHY THE, WHY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUS AND RAIL COULD, COULD BE CAPACITY, COULD BE THE PERMANENCE OF IT, UM, REGARDING HOW STAFF IS THINKING ABOUT MEASURING THIS.

SOME CITIES DO THE WALKING DISTANCE, SOME DO IT AS THE CROW FLIES.

THAT'S SORT OF THE EASIEST FOR US TO MEASURE AND, UM, UH, DO IT PERMITTING.

UM, BUT THERE'S PRECEDENT ALSO FOR WALKING DISTANCE.

UM, YOU MIGHT DO, AND THIS IS A BROAD IMPRESSION, IF YOU DO A A A ONE MILE AS THE CROW FLIES, THAT MIGHT BE HALF OR THREE QUARTERS WALKING DISTANCE.

OR IF YOU DO HALF MILE AS THE CROW FLIES, THAT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, UM, ONE QUARTER OR A LITTLE MORE WALKING DISTANCE JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST ZAGGING AROUND TREES.

SO AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUS AND RAIL, UM, THE, THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN THINK OF, AND I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONER, IS JUST CAPACITY IN GENERAL RAIL IS JUST USUALLY BUILT TO DELIVER MORE PEOPLE FASTER.

I HAD ONE QUESTION IN, IN OTHER CITIES, UM, AND THIS IS A, A VERY COMMON THING AND, AND WITH PARKING REFORM TO, UM, HAVE PARKING RELIEF, UH, NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT.

BUT DO THEY ALWAYS DO A CA CIRCLE OR DO SOME CITIES DO THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR OF THE RAIL LINE? PEOPLE DO, DO CORRIDORS.

I THINK CORRIDORS ARE MORE FREQUENT AROUND BUS FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

THE STOPS ARE MUCH MORE CONDENSED.

AND THEN IF, DEPENDING ON THE BUS TYPE, IF IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE, UH, A LESS PERMANENT BUS TYPE THEN STOPS WILL MOVE ALONG THE CORRIDOR.

SO THAT CAN MAKE MORE SENSE WITH A RAIL, YOU'RE NOT BOARDING THE RAIL BETWEEN THE STATIONS.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THOSE CIRCLES COME FROM.

COMMISSIONER FRANK.

UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR HERE.

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

UH, AND LEMME GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL COLOR, UH, UH, OF WHY THAT'S THE CASE.

WHEN WE FIRST STARTED MAKING AMENDMENTS AND VOTING FOR AMENDMENTS, THE FIRST THING THAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS TO PROTECT HOLMES, OUR S UH, TH H, S AND, AND DS.

AND WE DECIDED TO, TO KEEP MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND JUST REDUCE IT DOWN TO ONE UNIT PER ONE SPACE PER, PER UNIT.

NOW YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE HOMES THAT ARE NEAR RAIL STATIONS AND TODS.

IN FACT, I LIVE IN A SUBDIVISION THAT'S REALLY CLOSE INTO A, A RAIL STATION FROM MY DOOR.

AND I LIVE ON THE VERY INSIDE OF MY SUBDIVISION.

IT COULD TAKE ME ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF, MAYBE TWO MINUTES FOR A LIGHT JOG TO GET THERE.

THERE'S 340 UNITS, HOME UNITS WHERE I LIVE.

THIS BODY HAD JUST APPROVED 200 ADDITIONAL UNITS OF HIGHER DENSITY THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE RAIL STATION, WHICH IS A LOT CLOSER THAN WHERE I'M AT.

WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF ROOM FOR DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE HAVE TO BE

[03:00:01]

RIGHT? SO IF WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT HOMES IN ONE AREA, WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN THAT APPROACH FOR ALL AREAS, I THINK WE CAN GET THERE.

BUT AS THE THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT'S GONNA CAUSE, UH, A DISPROPORTIONATE OUTCOME BASED ON WHERE YOU LIVE AND IT COULD HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

SO WHAT I'M GONNA SUGGEST AN OFFER UP AS A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THIS TO TRY TO DEFINE A HAPPY MINIMUM.

A A MEDIUM, IS TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUM FOR ALL USES WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF RAIL TDS, EXCEPT FOR RD AND TH DISTRICTS, WHERE THE MINIMUM IS ONE SPACE PER UNIT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT TO WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

NOW, WHY, WHY DO I I CHOOSE A QUARTER OF A MILE? I CHOOSE A QUARTER OF A MILE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE DATA SAYS.

IF YOU DO THE RESEARCH AND LOOK AT WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE FOR DART AROUND THE TODS, THEY DO IT BY QUARTER MILES.

AND THE INFORMATION AND DATA THAT I RECEIVED IS PRETTY, IS ALMOST INCONSISTENT TO WHAT THE OVERALL GOAL IS FOR, FOR, FOR PARKING, UH, ELIMINATION.

UH, THEY, THEY FOUND THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN MULTIFAMILY THAT ARE NEAR DART STATIONS PAY A PREMIUM 17 AND 23%.

UH, THANK YOU, SIR.

YOUR TIME IS UP.

UH, THAT WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS, UH, IT WAS SECONDED.

SO WE'LL TAKE IT AS AN UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SO NOW WE'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS THAT ONE.

COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, PLEASE.

PARKING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

YES, FOR EVERYTHING I JUST SAID, YOU CAN JUST PUT IT UNDER, UNDERNEATH THAT.

BUT I, WHAT I WAS WITH, WITH THE POINT I'M TRYING TO DRIVE HOME HERE IS WE WANT TO BE EQUITABLE ACROSS THE CITY.

AND I THINK BY WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT IF WE TAKE AN INCONSISTENT APPROACH BY HAVING PROTECTION IN ONE PART OF TOWN, OR IF YOU ARE FORTUNATE NOT TO LIVE SO CLOSE TO A TOD OR FORTUNATE, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, UM, THAT YOU'RE GONNA EXPERIENCE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT HIGHER DENSITY, AND I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE, ESPECIALLY AROUND TODS.

AND WE'LL GET THE, THE RIGHT KIND OF HOUSING MIX IN, IN THEIR RETAIL AND THAT MAKES SENSE.

BUT THE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING HOMES WILL HAVE, UH, COULD HAVE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.

YOU CAN HAVE RETAIL BARS, RESTAURANTS WHERE THERE'S NO PARKING MINIMUMS, BUT I THINK THE QUARTER MILE GIVES ENOUGH BARRIER BETWEEN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE EXISTING HOMES WHERE PATRONS WHO GO VISIT THOSE AREAS WON'T BE PARKING.

MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU, SIR.

UH, FIRST ROUND ON THE AMENDMENT LAST YEAR WE FILED COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE COMPROMISE THAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN IS TRYING TO PROPOSE, BUT I ULTIMATELY DON'T THINK THAT I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO, UM, SUPPORT THIS FOR A FEW REASONS.

WE TALK ABOUT HOW, UM, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO TREAT ALL RESIDE ALIKE, BUT I THINK THERE IS A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE WITH RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT ARE NEAR TRANSIT, WHETHER IT'S WITHIN A HALF MILE OR A QUARTER MILE AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT AREN'T NEAR TRANSIT.

AND I THINK IN PARTICULAR, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THESE AREAS AROUND TRANSIT IS AN IDEAL AREA TO LOOK AT SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS, UM, THAT DON'T REQUIRE PARKING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MOST, MOST CONSTRUCTION IN THOSE DISTRICTS WILL STILL BUILD PARKING.

SINCE WE'D ONLY BE ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS, WE WOULDN'T BE SETTING MAXIMUMS. SO I DO THINK THAT RESIDENTIAL R ZONE, D ZONE TH ZONED, UM, PROPERTY IN THOSE AREAS ARE PROTECTED AND ARE SITUATED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVEN ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, ADVANCES IN, IN TECHNOLOGY, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, RIDE SHARE AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES OR, OR MICRO MOBILITY LIKE, LIKE E-BIKES, UH, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TALKING MAYBE 10 OR 15 YEARS AGO, I, I THINK A QUARTER MILE MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE, BUT, BUT TODAY I THINK A HALF MILE, CONSIDERING ALL THE ADVANCES THAT WE HAVE, UM, IS AN APPROPRIATE, UM, RADIUS TO SET FOR,

[03:05:02]

UM, A ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS AROUND DART RAIL STATIONS.

ANYONE ELSE? FIRST ROUND COMMISSIONER, WHEELER, .

IS THAT AN AMENDMENT THAT IF THAT, IF WE DO THAT, THAT, UM, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE, UM, SPACES ON SITE FOR, FOR, UM, RIDE SHARE? OR MAYBE I'M TOO FAR IF IT'S IN THOSE TYPE OF AREAS.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE BASE MOTION OR THE AMENDMENT? UH, DR.

WOODDALE CAN MAYBE IT'LL BE HELPFUL IF YOU, UH, IF YOU WALK US THROUGH AGAIN, WHAT WHAT DOES THE BASE MOTION DO? WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT DO? I WAS LOOKING AT THE DARK DEFINITION OF POD, SORRY, .

UM, SO, UM, WE HAVE THE BASE MOTION WAS TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN HALF A MILE RADIUS OF RAIL TOD STATIONS.

AND COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS TO SHRINK THAT TO A QUARTER MILE AND THAT'S IT.

NO, IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, EXCLUDING RDS AND THS.

SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT, UH, ANY TYPE OF USE, ANY TYPE OF USE IN R THERE IN RD AND TH, WHICH THERE ARE USES THAT LET'S SAY CHURCHES RIGHT, OR SCHOOLS, ANY TYPE OF USE THERE ARE IN THOSE DISTRICTS, NOT JUST SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT? WELL, THE SPIRIT, WHAT, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO WAS JUST PRIMARILY FAMILY OWNED RESIDENTS OR, OR, OR DWELLING UNITS IS WHAT I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING FOR.

SO, UM, YOU ARE SAYING THAT SINGLE FAMILY LAND USES, THERE ARE, UM, ZONED RDTH WILL HAVE TO BE PARKED WITHIN TODS.

SO IF I HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A RAIL STATION, I STILL NEED TO PARK MY, TO PARK MY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

CONSISTENT TO WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR THE OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT WE VOTED ON.

COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN JUST EXPLAINED IT.

SO I THINK HE JUST EXPLAINED IT.

SO BASICALLY HIS AMENDMENT SAYS THAT, UM, THE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STATION, WHAT THIS CONSTITUTE A TOD IS QUARTER MILE INSTEAD OF HALF A MILE.

SO HE CUTS IT IN HALF.

AND THEN HE WANTS TO ENSURE THAT SINGLE, IF RD AND TH ZONED AREAS ARE WITHIN THAT QUARTER MILE, ONLY THE SINGLE FAMILY USES WILL BE PARKED AND THEY WILL BE PARKED PER THE NEW RATIO, WHICH IS ONE PER UNIT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

AND, UH, THAT'S MY EXPLANATION AS FAR AS RATIONALE ON ALL.

LIKE I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE COMMISSIONER THAT CLEAR IT UP.

UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.

UM, I THINK SO IT CLEARED UP.

BUT IF WE ARE TO ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IT HAS DESIGNATED AREAS FOR A RIDESHARE.

I MEAN, I MEAN, WE'LL, WE'LL VOTE THIS OUT AND THEN IF SHE CAN MAKE THAT AMENDMENT YEP, WE'LL VOTE THIS ONE OUT, THEN WE CAN COME BACK.

UM, SO WE'RE NOW, UH, VOTING ON THAT.

PARENTS ARE ARRIVING DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK.

UH, UH, YES.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND, AND AND HOUSE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. NAVAREZ BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE, THE ZO OAC UM, MOTION WAS TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES EVERYWHERE, REGARDLESS OF HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO TODS EVERYWHERE.

AND THEN WE'VE GONE THROUGH ITEM BY ITEM AND PICKED OUT CERTAIN USES THAT WE THINK WHETHER WE WERE COLLECTIVELY WE'VE COMPROMISED AND THINK THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR RESIDENCE OR RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS CHURCHES, SCHOOLS SPECIFICALLY FOR SCHOOLS.

IF A SCHOOL IS WITHIN HALF A MILE, A QUARTER MILE OF ONE OF THESE TODS OR BUS ROUTES WHERE THIS, THIS, UM, EITHER OF THESE MOTIONS HAVE JUST BEEN MADE WOULD SAY THAT SCHOOLS NO LONGER HAVE TO HAVE ANY PARKING.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW? WITH THE TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLANS THAT YOU LOOK AT CONSTANTLY AND YOU USE PARKING AREAS TO, TO HANDLE THE, THE QUEUE FOR SCHOOLS IS, IS IT GOING TO WORK FOR SCHOOLS TO BE ABLE TO OPEN WITH NO PARKING OR WITH A, WITHOUT A, SOME MANDATED AMOUNT OF PARKING? WOULD TDMP TRUMP THAT ACTUALLY THANK, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I THAT'S, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

ULTIMATELY THE TMP IS AN EVALUATION OF THE PEAK HOURS, HOW

[03:10:01]

UH, TMP DOES NOT NECESSARILY, BUT IT COULD AT YOUR DISCRETION, IT COULD LOOK INTO HOW STAFF PARKS AND OR SPECIAL EVENTS PARK, BUT GIVEN THAT THEY WOULD BE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FROM A TOD, THEN YOU WOULD THINK THAT AT A MINIMUM A PORTION OF THE STAFF THAT WORKS AT THE SCHOOL IS NO LONGER NEEDING TO PARK.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINION, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE TOD IS A, AN ATTRACTIVE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OPTION FOR, FOR STAFF AND THEREFORE DO WE NEED TO APPLY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR A LAND USE, WHETHER IT'S A SCHOOL OR ANY OTHER USE? UM, SHORT ANSWER, NO.

THE TMP WOULD BE INDEPENDENT.

THE TMP ITSELF WOULD SERVE AS A STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE TOOL TO INCREASE PARKING, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE SITES AND THE UNIQUENESS OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO, UM, THE, UM, TOD, UM, WHETHER INDEPENDENT FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND, AND THEN GOING BACK TO A QUESTION BEFORE I, I KNOW THAT A QUARTER OF A MILE AND HALF A MILE MAY BE A DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF US TO VISUALIZE, BUT IF YOU CAN EQUATE A QUARTER MILE TO A FIVE MINUTE BRISK WALK, SOMEONE WHO'S ABLE TO WALK, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ANY CHALLENGES, A FIVE MINUTE WALK, A HALF A MILE WALK WOULD BE A 10 MINUTE WALK.

SO JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT AS REFERENCE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AS WE'RE EVALUATING BOTH OF THESE, UM, THE MAIN MOTION AND THE AMENDMENT.

UM, AND I THINK THIS QUESTION MAY BE FOR MR. WADE OR MR. NAVAREZ MAY BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN WHAT LANGUAGES IN THE ZAC RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SPEAKS TO, UM, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO ACCESS TO TRANSIT.

SO WE'RE MOVING, OR THE PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE AMENDMENTS, MAY MAYBE KEEP SOME FOR SOME, UM, ZONING DISTRICTS.

BUT OVERALL, HOW WOULD THESE FUNCTION? SO I KNOW IT'S NOT REQUIRED, THEY MAY BE PROVIDED, BUT ARE, ARE ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT SPEAK TO WALKABILITY EMBEDDED WITHIN THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION? NO, THEY'RE NOT.

UM, AND THEN ONE OTHER, AND I, WHOEVER WANTS TO TAKE THIS, AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR ASKING THE QUESTION, BUT WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OTHER SPECIFIC USES THAT MAY REQUIRE MINIMUMS. THIS, UM, THE MAIN MOTION WOULD BE NO MINIMUMS FOR ANY OF THOSE, NOT FOR BARS AND RESTAURANTS, NOT FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE OR OUTSIDE, NOTHING FOR SCHOOLS, NOTHING FOR CHURCHES.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S HOW I'M READING THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION.

COMMISSIONER FORESITE.

COMMISSIONER, UH, FRANKLIN, WOULD YOU, UH, ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD SCHOOLS TO YOUR UH, WE CAN COMMISSIONER.

WE CAN'T DO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT APPARENTLY TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, SO, BUT WE CAN, I THOUGHT IT IS A NON-FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO A NON-FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT YOU CAN MAKE THAT, UH, HE CAN MAKE THAT MOTION LATER, COULDN'T HE? HE COULD.

I MEAN, HE CAN ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO, FOR HIM.

MOTION.

OH, I BE YOU COULDN'T DO THAT.

YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ANOTHER ACTUAL MOTION.

AH, YES, YOU CAN COMMISSIONER FORAY IF HE WILL ACCEPT IT.

I WILL ACCEPT THAT.

CAN YOU REPEAT? YEAH, CAN I SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF HIS AMENDMENT? CAN YOU REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL GOT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE? SO WHERE ARE WE AT? I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO ADD SCHOOLS TO THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE, UH, ACCEPTED FROM THIS AMENDMENT.

UH, HE, HE HAS, UH, RD AND TH DISTRICTS THAT ARE ACCEPTED FROM THIS AMENDMENT.

AND I WOULD LIKE JUST TO ADD SCHOOLS TO THAT AS WELL.

ASK, UH, ADDING, UH, SCHOOLS, SCHOOLS, SCHOOLS.

BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE, UH, THAT WE, WE WERE VERY CAREFUL WITH THE WORD DISTRICTS BEFORE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN AND, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE YOU WERE, IT'S ACTUALLY, I THINK FROM WHAT I'M LISTENING TO YOU, I THINK WHAT YOU MEAN ARE THE USES, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, NEAR THE END OF YOUR MOTION THAT YOU HAD THE WORD DISTRICT AND THAT COVERS SOME OTHER THINGS.

SO I WANNA MAKE SURE, EARLIER YOU WERE TALKING WITH DR.

RE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU MET THE USE AND NOT THE DISTRICT OR BOTH, WHATEVER THE, THE TERM OF ART IS TO INDICATE OR CHARACTERIZE A DWELLING UNIT.

THAT'S THE ONE I'M REFERRING TO.

SO IS THAT DISTRICT OR Y YOU, YOU CLARIFIED VIA MY QUESTIONS THAT SINGLE FAMILY USES OR RESIDENTIAL USES, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY ALLOWED IN RD AND TH.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY RESIDENTIAL USES YES.

IN RD AND TH.

YES, THAT'S IT.

AND I, THE USES NOW COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT IS AS

[03:15:01]

AND I WOULD MAKE A COMMENT TO COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT.

DO NOT FORGET SCHOOLS ARE ALLOWED BY SUP OR THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PDS IF THEY'RE LOCATED IN RD AND TH.

SO THEY ARE ALREADY REGULATED BY THAT.

THE, THE PREVIOUS I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT THAT WE PASSED THAT, UH, KEPT, UH, ALL PARKING MINIMUMS FOR SCHOOLS THAT THAT, THAT, THAT AMENDMENT CONTINUES TO BE HONORED.

IT IS NOT OVERRIDDEN WITH THIS.

THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO.

AND, AND, AND, AND, AND I JUST WANT ALSO WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, UH, ONE QUESTION ALSO, BY THE WAY, FROM THE FOLKS THAT CAME HERE FROM KID SPRINGS THIS MORNING AND, AND THEY ASKED, UH, UH, ABOUT THEIR CONCERN THAT THE STREETCAR IS A BLOCK FROM THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THIS AMENDMENT HERE WOULD, UH, UH, THAT STREET CARS WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS PART OF THAT, UH, UH, THESE, UH, T RAIL TOD STATIONS.

IS THAT, IS THAT TRUE? WOULD STREET CARS BE CONSIDERED, UH, A RAIL TOD STATION? YES, BECAUSE IT'S A RAIL.

AND I WOULD MAKE, YES, BECAUSE THIS REFERS TO RAIL STATIONS AND THAT THIS, UH, STREET CAR IS ON A RAIL.

AND I WILL MAKE A COMMENT THAT THE STREET CAR HAS ONLY PD ZONING AROUND IT.

THE ONLY STREET ZONING AROUND THE STREET CAR IS THE CVS THAT'S ALREADY HYPER PARKED.

HAS 70 SPACES , IF I COUNTED CORRECTLY.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN INDICATED PREVIOUSLY WE PASSED A MINIMUM AMENDMENT TO KEEP PARKING MINIMUMS FOR, UH, THESE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

AND I SEE THIS AMENDMENT THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS OFFERED, UH, HAS BASICALLY, UH, SUPPLANTING THAT AND BASICALLY SAYING THAT NOW IF YOU'VE GOT A, A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT IS WITHIN A HALF MILE OR A QUARTER MILE OF A TOD STATION, THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS FOR THOSE DISTRICTS.

AND I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S AMENDMENT IS, UH, PROTECTING, UH, THE, THE, THE WHAT WE, WHAT WE HAD PASSED AND THAT ORIGINAL AMENDMENT IN PROTECTING, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS WELL.

AND I, AND I, I DO WANNA SAY THE PD, NOT NOT RESPECT, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE FOLKS FROM KID SPRINGS THIS MORNING, THEY FEEL THAT IF WE DO PASS, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S AMENDMENT THAT THIS WILL PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THOUGH PDS, UH, 4 68, AND I THINK IT WAS 8 34, A LITTLE BIT, THERE ARE A LOT OF PDS AROUND THE STREET CAR.

ALL OF THOSE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WITH PARKING REDUCTION.

BUT NOW, I, I WILL TELL YOU, IN ALL HONESTY, I TRIED TO FIGURE THAT OUT THIS MORNING.

PD 4 68, HALF OF THE PD THAT HAS, I WILL TELL YOU HOW MANY PAGES IS ONLY ABOUT PARKING.

LIKE IT IS, IT'S GONNA BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR US OR FOR ME TO JUST LIKE VENTURE TO GUESS.

HOW IS THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT OR THE PARKING REFORM IS GONNA IMPACT 4 68? I WILL TELL YOU THE PD IS HEAVILY, HEAVILY ABOUT PARKING.

SO WE WILL HAVE TO LIKE TEST IT OUT WITH PERMITS BECAUSE IT HAS SOME RATIOS.

IT HAS NO RATIO.

IT HAS, UH, IT DEFAULTS TO THE CODE IN SOME AREAS.

IT HAS REDUCTIONS FOR STREETCAR.

IT, IT HAS ITS OWN DEFINITIONS.

IT'S A WHOLE NEW CODE IN ITSELF.

SO I CANNOT, MY ANSWER, I'M SORRY, IS NOT A STRAIGHT YES OR NO.

IF IT'S GONNA PROTE PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PER THIS MOTION, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THERE ARE PDDS THAT HAVE AN UNDERLYING BASE, UH, ZONING THAT IS RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

PD ONE 60 WAS REFERENCED EARLIER.

RIGHT? YES.

SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PROTECT THOSE PDS, THAT PD YES.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

IT'S NOT JUST SCHOOLS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX AND TEACH DISTRICTS.

IT SCHOOLS WITHIN HALF A MILE OR A QUARTER MILE OF TRANSIT.

THAT IS COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT'S POINT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.

BECAUSE WE HE COULDN'T OR DID HE MAKE, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE WALL.

IT'S THE, ESSENTIALLY THE RESIDENTIAL USES.

AND COMMISSIONER FORESITE IS ADDING PLUS SCHOOLS.

PLUS SCHOOLS.

FOR LOADING OR, OR ANY KINDA OFF STREET PARKING.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT

[03:20:01]

NONE OF THAT STUFF WOULD APPLY ANYMORE.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION WAS THAT IT WAS REALLY, IT WAS PARKING FOCUSED.

AND SO THE, THE LOADING, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE AS PART OF THIS, BUT THE MOTIONS SAYS ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS. IT'S REALLY, IT IS REALLY ABOUT PARKING, NOT ABOUT LOADING.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT, UM, SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE FROM STAFF ABOUT HOW YOU THINK ABOUT LOADING THAT WE COULD, I THINK WOULD STILL APPLY.

SO THE LOADING AND AND SHORT TERM DROP OFF AND PICK UP PROVISIONS THAT WE VOTED ON LAST TIME WOULD STILL BE APPLICABLE.

I WOULD ASK COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT.

TO CLARIFY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HIERARCHY OF HOW WE'RE DOING THINGS.

UM, IN THAT CASE, I HAVE ANOTHER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT I'D LIKE TO OFFER.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER, INCLUDING IN YOUR AMENDMENT, UM, THE PROVISIONS WE'VE INCLUDED ON BARS, RESTAURANTS, AND INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT AS EXCLUSIONS? THE ONES WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON? YES.

CERTAINLY.

IF IT'S, IF WE WANT IT TO BE, UH, CONSISTENT ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS, LET'S DO THAT.

CAN I CLARIFY TO SAY THAT BARS, RESTAURANTS, AND COMMERCIAL BUS MONEY SIDE OUTSIDE, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN RD AND TH, BUT THIS IS, SO YOU INTEND FOR ANY DISTRICT, THIS IS WITHIN HALF MILE AND QUARTER MILE OF TRANSIT IN ANY, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S AMO, UH, AMENDMENT ONLY REFERRED TO RD AND TH.

YOU, I THINK YOU WERE MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS MOTION.

WELL, THAT WAS THE QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER.

MR. FRANKLIN WAS LIMITED.

ABOUT SCHOOLS.

I, WHAT WHAT I, WHAT I'VE HEARD COMMERS FRANKLIN WAS LIMITED.

THAT'S A, MY QUESTION I ASKED RDTH, THE LAND USES THAT WE'RE PICKING OUT ARE OUTSIDE OF RDTH, JUST ANYTHING WITHIN THE DISTANCE.

THAT'S SCHOOLS, BARS, ET CETERA.

WELL, THAT WAS A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

I ASKED ABOUT SCHOOLS AND THEY SAID YES.

AND SO I JUST ADDED TO THE LIST.

SO IF THAT ANSWER HAS CHANGED, HE, I BELIEVE HE DID ACCEPT THAT.

YOU DID ACCEPT THAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? I DID.

BUT THE MORE WE TALK, THE MORE CONFUSING IT GETS.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I WANTED TO DO.

THE FIRST THING WE VOTED ON SAYS THIS.

I MEAN, I BELIEVE WE APPROVED THAT KEEPING MINIMUMS IN RD AND TH DISTRICTS AND REDUCED MINIMUMS TO ONE SPACE PER UNIT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES.

FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES.

SO WE ADDED THAT PROVISION INTO THAT FIRST VOTE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER ONE.

THAT WAS FOR ANY DWELLING UNITS, I THINK FOR THE, YES.

BECAUSE WE, WE, WE USED THE WORD DISTRICTS THERE, AND I DIDN'T MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS AND THE DWELLING UNIT.

SO I ONLY FOUND OUT THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT NOW, SO ARE WE SAYING IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT WE VOTED ON, THAT'S A MORE BROADER PROTECTION FOR OKAY, THEN THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT THEN, BECAUSE I WANT THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS WHAT'S IN, IN ONE A.

I I UNDERSTAND.

SO BASED, AND THEN IF YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY USES THAT ARE IN MF, BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALLOWED IN MF THEY WOULD BE ZERO.

YOU JUST NEED THE PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ZONED R-D-N-T-H AND ONLY FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES FOR ANY DWELLING, ANY DWELLING UNIT FOR ANY OTHER DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN RB AND T DUPLEX.

OH, AND FOR DUPLEX.

SO SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX.

CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S PRETTY HARD TO FOLLOW.

PROBABLY BETTER TO TAKE IT ONE OR ONE BY ONE, BUT IT'S JUST MY SUGGESTION.

THE, THE COMMISSION.

MR. CHAIR.

MR. TRU, MAYBE I CAN YOU WANNA CALL THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS GORDIAN NOT, MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.

THE, THE MO THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE THE SCHOOL.

BUT I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.

SO I'D CALL A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

I I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE, THAT MAYBE WE WILL TAKE THAT AS A SEPARATE VOTE.

UM, SO LET'S FOCUS ON, UH,

[03:25:01]

OF THE SCHOOL.

SO WE HAVE A, UH, ELIMINATION OF ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES EXCEPT FOR RD AND TH WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF THE RAIL TOD STATION.

AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL OF THE SCHOOL DISCUSSION OF THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSER.

YEAH, I'D JUST LIKE TO SPEAK TO WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT MOTION.

UM, IF WE DRIVE AROUND OUR CITY AND LOOK AT OUR DART STATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD LITERALLY FOR DECADES, WE HAVE VIRTUALLY NO TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY.

AND THE REASON WE HAVE NO TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY IS THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SEES NO VALUE IN IT.

THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN IT.

THEY DON'T, IT JUST DOESN'T MOVE THE NEEDLE FOR THEM.

IN MY DISTRICT, I'VE GOT A TOD, UH, OPPORTUNITY WITH ZERO DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S A PARKING LOT AND A CANOPY TO GET ON THE TRAIN.

I'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE THAT BUILT A MULTIFAMILY NEXT TO THE STATION, AND THEY USED ABOUT HALF OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT AND SURFACE PARKED IT.

UM, BECAUSE THEY DON'T, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SEES THIS LAND AROUND THESE TOD STATIONS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER LAND.

AND THEY APPLY THE SAME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA TO IT, UH, TO UNDERWRITE IT.

AND, UM, THIS MOTION IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM PROVIDES A SIGNIFICANT INCENTIVE TO GET DEVELOPMENT GOING AROUND OUR TOD STATIONS WHEN WE CARVE OUT VARIOUS USES AND SAY, OH, NO, WE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN THAT ONE, AND WE REALLY DIDN'T MEAN THIS OTHER ONE.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE KINDA LIKE OUR SUBURBAN, UH, ATMOSPHERE OF OUR CITY.

WE KINDA LIKE OUR SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.

UM, WE'RE REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN NEW TYPES OF HOUSING.

WE'RE REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN A TRANSIT ORIENTED CHURCH.

WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN A TRANSIT ORIENTED GRADE SCHOOL.

WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN, UM, REALLY HAVING A CITY.

WE'RE INTERESTED IN A SUBURBAN, UM, UH, FABRIC THAT SORT OF ADAPTS TO A RAIL LINE, BUT NEVER REALLY TRANSFORMS ITSELF.

SO I JUST THINK IT'S A, A, A, A DISAPPOINTING, UM, REGRESSION TO, UH, START CARVING OUT ALL THESE USES AROUND TOD WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING GOING ON AT TODS, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP 'EM.

COMMISSIONER TURNOCK.

MR. CHAIR? YEAH.

COULD I CALL THE QUESTION ON THE FRANKLIN AMENDMENT? LET'S, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON IT.

UH, COMMISSIONERS.

WE HAVE A AMENDMENT BY, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES EXCEPT FOR R, D AND TH AND SCHOOLS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF RAIL AND TOD STATIONS.

DISTRICT RECORD VOTE.

DISTRICT ONE? NO.

DISTRICT TWO.

MOTION? NO, WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT.

WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT.

I'M VOTING THE AMENDMENT, CORRECT? YES.

ON THE FRANKLIN AMENDMENT.

LET, LET ME READ THAT AGAIN.

SO WE'RE, SO WE DON'T MOVE TOO FAST.

THIS, THIS IS THE MOTION, UH, MADE BY THE AMENDMENT MADE BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN TO AMEND, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS MOTION.

AND THE WORDING IS TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES EXCEPT FOR RD AND TH WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF RAIL AND TOD STATIONS IN ADDITION TO SCHOOLS.

AND WE, WE HAD, UH, COMMISSIONER TURNOCK VOTE.

UH, NO.

AND NOW DISTRICT TWO? YES.

DISTRICT THREE AND NAY.

DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10.

WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, THAT, YES.

WAS A GOOD IDEA IN A SENSE WHEN WE STARTED IT, BUT I, I SUPPORT SUPPORTED LISTENING TO, UM, WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WE DID THE MOTION.

UM, LISTEN TO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

UM, LIKE MY MOM, THIRD GENERATION BUS DRIVER, SISTER DRIVE THE TRAIN.

OUR TRAIN STATIONS HAVE PARKING THAT IS NEVER USED.

AND WE ARE NOW HAVING TO RE-LOOK AT BUILDING HOUSING AROUND IT.

AND IF I'M, I DON'T KNOW YOUR DISTRICT ALL THE WAY, BUT I, UM, FAR AS CELIA IS YOUR, I MEAN, ELIA AREA.

PARKING IS CRAZY.

I MEAN, NO ONE EVER PARKS THERE.

UM, MOCKINGBIRD STATION MAYBE, BUT NONE OF THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.

I DON'T SEE PARKING THERE.

AND WE CAN USE SOME DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT.

THAT DEFINITELY, IT

[03:30:01]

SO YEAH, WE NEED, WE NEED, WE NEED ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNITS AND BUSINESSES AROUND.

AND THAT WILL MOST CERTAINLY, I BELIEVE WILL, WILL CAUSE SOME VIBRANT, UH, AREAS.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S DANGEROUS AROUND SOME OF OUR, OUR, OUR TODS, BECAUSE NO ONE IS THERE, BUT THE PEOPLE GETTING ON THE BUS, THERE'S NO BUSINESSES.

SOUTH DALLAS IS WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.

UM, UM, CITY STAFF IS THERE EVERY WEEK.

THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THAT AROUND THE MLK STATION.

THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE GOT TOGETHER AND CREATED, I THINK POINT, POINT SOUTH.

I CAN'T REMEMBER.

I SHOULD KNOW IT DON'T, DON'T FAULT ME HANK.

UM, BUT THEY ARE WORKING BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROPERTY HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN AN EYESORE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY WANT HOUSING, THEY WANT BUSINESSES.

AND I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.

COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? 100%.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT FELT THAT COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN.

UM, I, I AGREE IT, I GO UP AND DOWN THE AREAS.

KESTON, LANCASTER, WEST MOLAND, ILLINOIS, UM, THE HAMPTON STATION, ALL THE WAY TO THE DESOTO POINT, RIGHT? AND FOR ME TO GET EVEN ACROSS SOME OF THESE STATIONS IS FOUR BLOCKS, RIGHT? AND I'M NOT EXAGGERATING.

IT'S A HEAT ISLAND.

UM, TO GET FROM ONE SECTION, WHICH IS, FOR INSTANCE, METRO METROCARE, WHICH IS AT LANCASTER, AND KEYS TO GET FROM THAT METROCARE TO THE ACTUAL STATION IS A FOUR MINUTE WALK ACROSS THE HEAT DESERT.

UM, THAT, THAT IS OVER PARKED THE KEY IN LANCASTER.

KEYSTON.

LANCASTER MALL IS OVER PARKED.

IT WAS THE BEE'S KNEES BACK IN THE DAY, RIGHT? BUT EVEN THEN, I THINK IT WAS STILL OVER PARKED.

UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF SPACE WITHIN THAT QUARTER TO HALF MILE RADIUS.

UM, THAT'S ALL CONCRETE THAT, THAT DESERVES DEVELOPMENT, UM, OF THIS TYPE.

SO THANK YOU HAND TO FOLLOW BY COMMISSIONER SHERLOCK AND KINGSTON.

WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, I THINK SOME OF OUR SPEAKERS EARLIER TODAY REFERENCED THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD DURING FORWARD DALLAS.

I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION, UM, BUT I ALSO HAVE THREE DART STATIONS IN MY DISTRICT, THE CEDARS BURBANK, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY LOVE FIELD AND BACHMAN STATION.

THERE'S PROBABLY A COUPLE THAT HAVE FORGOTTEN IT.

INWOOD, THEY ALL HAVE RADICALLY DIFFERENT CHARACTERS.

ONE OF THEM IS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT SUFFERS FROM IMMEDIATE COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THAT'S A CONFLICT AREA.

WE HAVE A CASE THAT WE'LL BE HEARING AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

I DO HOPE THAT IT SPURS REDEVELOPMENT.

THE COMMUNITY HAS ASKED FOR REDEVELOPMENT, BUT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO BE MINDFUL THAT THE CHARACTER OF EACH OF THESE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT.

AND I FULLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

IF WE WANNA HAVE A DIFFERENT FUTURE FOR OUR CITY, WE NEED TO START EMBRACING IT.

BUT I AM VERY MINDFUL OF SOME OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT CAN COME OUT OF THAT.

HOWEVER, I THINK THIS HAS TO BE A STEP THAT WE TAKE TO START THINKING ABOUT WHAT THAT FUTURE IS.

GIVES ME A LOT OF PAUSE.

AND I'LL PROBABLY BE BEFORE THIS BODY AT SOME POINT, TALKING ABOUT ALL THE REASONS WHY I MADE A BAD DECISION.

UM, BUT FOR TODAY, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.

UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN.

DON'T LOOK BACK.

UH, COMMISSIONER CHARNA.

THEN I GOTTA ADMIT THAT THE, UH, COMMENTARY IS A LITTLE, UH, DISAPPOINTING.

ESPECIALLY COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY LIVES NEAR A A RAIL STATION.

THERE'S A DISTINCT DISH, UH, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TOD AND A RAIL STATION.

AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WE ARE CHARACTERIZING 'EM AS BEING BOTH.

I SPOKE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I TALKED TO ARCHITECTS AND I TALKED TO, UH, BUSINESS OWNERS.

THIS IS GONNA BE A PROBLEM.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

AND THERE'S A FALLACY THAT TO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT BEING DONE.

I JUST MENTIONED IN OF, UH, NEIGHBORS.

WE JUST, THIS BODY APPROVED 200 NEW UNITS.

MY DEVELOPMENT HAS THREE FORTY, THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY UNITS ALL WITHIN, LIKE RIGHT AT, RIGHT AT THE TIP OF A QUARTER OF A MILE.

WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY.

THERE'S SO MANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT UP AND UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT'S AROUND A RAIL STATION.

THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS ASKING FOR IS PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT'S BEYOND THAT QUARTER MILE MARK.

NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILIES WHERE THERE'S SO MANY CARS BEING PARKED ON THE STREETS BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE CARS PER HOUSE.

SO PARKING IS ALREADY CONSTRAINED.

AND ONCE WE LOSE THAT QUARTER MILE BARRIER, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REDUCING, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT'S

[03:35:01]

GONNA SPILL OVER INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO SUFFER WITH IT.

IT WON'T BE IN YOUR BACKYARD.

IT'S GONNA BE IN MY BACKYARD.

SO IT'S HARD NOT TO TAKE IT PERSONAL WHEN THE IMPACTS OF THIS DECISION IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE CHAIR? YES, SIR.

CAN I CALL THE QUESTION? PLEASE DO.

WE HAVE A GO AHEAD.

WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON IT.

YOU WANT? YES.

TWO THIRDS I CALL COMMISSIONER.

YOU DON'T NEED TO MAKE PERSONAL COMMENTS.

RESPECTFULLY.

I MADE A MOTION THAT'S WITHIN THE RULES.

WE CAN VOTE ON IT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE ON IT? WE CAN CALL THE QUESTION.

AND UPO OPPOSITION COMMISSIONERS.

ANY OPPOSED? WE HAVE THREE.

WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT SECOND BY VICE DREW ROOM TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN HALF A MILE RADIUS OF A RAIL TOD STATION.

WE ONE MORE RECORD VOTE PLEASE.

HUH? DISTRICT ONE? YES.

DISTRICT EIGHT, NINE.

ABSENT DISTRICT 13? YES.

DISTRICT 14, NO.

AND PLACE 15? YES.

MOTION PASSES WILL GO TO EIGHT B.

UH, MR. CHAIR, I, UH, MOVE THAT WE, UM, REVISED THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE ALL MINIMUMS FOR ALL USES WITHIN ONE QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES.

NEED A DEFINITION FOR, UH, WE'D NEED A DEFINITION FOR HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTE.

IS THAT, OR THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

DO WE HAVE THAT? UH, WE, WE, NOT FOR THAT TERM.

DART DOESN'T USE THAT TERM, BUT THEY, WHAT DO THEY SAY? UM, ROUTES WITH A 15 MINUTE OR LESS HEADWAY.

AND THAT'S GENERALLY THEIR ROUTES ONE THROUGH 22.

WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND COMMENTS.

SO I SAW YOU'RE LIVE ON ABOUT THAT.

MAYBE YOU WANT TO TALK FIRST.

COMMISSIONER FORSETH.

WELL, MY QUESTION, I HAVE A QUESTION ACTUALLY.

THE, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION, HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES.

SO YOU'RE SAYING BASICALLY THAT YOU'RE GETTING RID OF ALL PARKING MINIMUMS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF THE ENTIRE BUS ROUTE.

WOULDN'T THIS BE MORE LIKELY BUS STOPS? WAS THE, THAT WAS THE INTENT.

BUS STOPS.

YEAH, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, COMMISSIONER FOR, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD STOP CATCH.

THAT'S GOOD CATCH.

SHOULD A BUS, BUS STOPS.

THANK ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AS STAFF HAS YES.

POINTED OUT THAT THOSE BUS STOPS COME FAIRLY REGULARLY DOWN THOSE ROUTES.

AND, AND HIGH FREQUENCY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THOUGH? I MEAN, HE SEEMS LIKE WOULD BE, HE HE JUST DEFINED IT STANDARD BUS.

HE JUST DEFINED IT.

CAN YOU REPEAT THE DEFINITION PLEASE? THE DEFINITION THAT DART USES IS ROUTES WITH A HEADWAY OF 15 MINUTES OR LESS.

SO A BUS COMES AT, AT MOST EVERY 15 MINUTES, MIGHT COME EVERY 10 MINUTES.

UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT SHIFTING ONE OR TWO ROUTES TO EVERY 10 MINUTES IN ADDITION TO BRT, WHICH GENERALLY WOULD, UM, BE INTENDED FOR 15 OR 10 MINUTES.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE, IS THAT 15 MINUTE INTERVAL THROUGH THE DAY? YES.

AND THAT'S, UH, AT SPECIFICALLY THE OFF PEAK TIME, ACTUALLY.

AND SO, UM, THAT'S THE TIME WHEN THEY EXPECT THE FEWEST PEOPLE TO BE ON THOSE BUSES.

COMMISSIONER WEER? YEAH, I GOT KYLE'S FOR PAUSE FOR THAT ONE BECAUSE WE DO NEED, THAT'S A LITTLE TOO MUCH OF NO PARKING.

UM, I LIVE IN A HIGH FREQUENCY AREA.

WE NEED PARKING AND WE NEED SOME PARKING.

UM, I'M IN SOUTH DALLAS, SO MALCOLM, UM, I DON'T KNOW THE BOUNCE ROCKS ANYMORE 'CAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T RIDE, BUT IT'S LIKE, USED TO BE THE 44TH.

I THINK IT'S 11 OR SOMETHING, OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

BUT, UM, I, WE HAVE TO HAVE, WE, WE STILL NEED PARKING IN THOSE AREAS, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THOSE AREAS.

UM, AND I LIVE IN LEAST TWO OF THOSE AREAS.

UM, I'M COOL WITH THE TRAIN FROM THE, FROM THE TRANSIT, FROM THE RAIL STATION, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S A FAFSA FORM OF TRANSIT, BUT NOT THE BUS STOPS

[03:40:01]

ITSELF, RATHER.

UM, UM, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY CANCEL THE BUS ROUTE, WHICH THEY OFTEN DO IN A LOT OF OUR AREAS, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIGHT.

IT TAKES SIX MONTHS, TAKES SIX MONTHS TO GET THE PARK, GET THE BUS ROUTE BACK A YEAR TO GET IT BACK.

SO IT KINDA, UM, GIVES ME MAJOR PAUSE ON THAT ONE BECAUSE OF HOW DARK WE'LL REMOVE OR STOP.

AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE THAT'S A HIGH FREQUENCY THAT'S NOW GOING DOWN SM RIGHT.

AND I'M LITERALLY HAVING TO HELP THAT COMMUNITY FIGHT TO GET IT BACK DOWN COLONIAL.

AND SO THOSE PEOPLE NO LONGER, THERE'S NO BUSINESSES ON SM RIGHT.

BUT THEY'RE ON COLONIAL.

SO, UM, YEAH, I, I, NAH, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT MOTION.

THAT ONE.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT.

YEAH, I TOO WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

UM, MY COMMUNITY HAS HAD A CRAZY RELATIONSHIP WITH DT OVER THE YEARS, AND AS, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLER MENTIONED, THE ROUTES CHANGE TOO FREQUENTLY.

UM, THE ROUTES AREN'T EFFICIENT.

THE ROUTES THAT ARE HIGH FREQUENCY PROBABLY AREN'T IN HIGH.

I MEAN, I HAVE THEM COMING DOWN REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY STREETS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, IT, IT JUST WOULDN'T BE AN OPTION, UM, FOR US IN MY HUMBLED OPINION.

UM, COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK FILE THAT COMMISSIONER C UH, I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

THIS IS A VERY STANDARD, UM, UH, SUGGESTION IN OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DONE THIS REFORM.

I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE USING THE RATIONALE, UM, FOR TRANSIT WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET DENSITY, TRYING TO DECREASE THE COST OF HOUSING IN, IN A SLEW OF, I WON'T REHASH ALL THE OTHER TALKING POINTS ON THE BENEFITS OF REDUCING PARKING.

THAT ALL APPLIES TO ALL FORMS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

AND, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCESS TO A BUS, THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO A RAIL TO BE NOW REMOVING ALL THE BENEFITS FROM THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, SO, UH, I I JUST NOT FOLLOWING THE RATIONALE THAT, THAT SOMEHOW THIS, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN RAIL COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

I'M LOOKING AT THE DARTS, UM, WEBSITE.

UM, AND THEY GIVE FOUR BUS ROUTES AS BEING A FREQUENCY DURING THE DAY AS 15 MINUTES.

AND THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE.

MALCOLM X MAPLE NUMBER THREE, ROSS NUMBER FIVE, LOVE FIELD SHUTTLE.

AND NUMBER NINE, JEFFERSON GASTON.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT AS WELL.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE OPENED.

AND I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR ROCKS.

SO THE HIGH SPEED WOULD REQUIRE, I MEAN THE HIGH, THE DEFINITION OF HIGH, UM, HIGH FREQUENCY WOULD BE 15 MINUTES DART.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SAYING BEFORE, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST SAYING IT'S FOUR BUS ROUTES.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS WELL.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR PRE 'CAUSE SPEAKING TO WHAT SOMEONE WAS SAYING EARLIER ABOUT THE BUS ROUTE, FREQUENCY CHANGING, YOU KNOW, PERIODICALLY AND, YOU KNOW, TYING CERTAIN PARKING MINIMUMS TO THESE BUS ROUTES THAT ARE CHANGEABLE.

DO YOU KNOW HOW RECENTLY YOU HAD THE INFORMATION THAT THERE WERE 22 HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES? THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO HANS MICHAEL RUTA FROM DART, HE REALLY CALLED OUT BUS ROUTES ONE THROUGH 22.

SOME OF THOSE ON THEIR WEBSITE YOU'RE PROBABLY SEEING ARE LISTED IN THE 20 MINUTE CATEGORY.

UM, THIS IS NEWS.

HE, HE TREATED THOSE AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE ROUTE CONFIGURATIONS, IF NOT THE FREQUENCY, THE ROUTE CONFIGURATIONS AS PERMANENT.

HE SAID WE CONSIDER THOSE AS PERMANENT AS RAIL.

UM, I EXPRESSED SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, A DART STEIN COULD BE PLUCKED UP AND MOVED SOMEWHERE.

AND HE SAID THOSE ROUTES ARE PROVEN ROUTES.

THAT'S WHY SOME OF THEM, UH, IF NOT MORE OF THEM ARE IN THE 15 MINUTE CATEGORY, IF NOT 20 MINUTE CATEGORY.

UM, AND SO AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE CONFIGURATION DART SEES THOSE AS HIGH VALUE, THOSE ARE THE ROUTES THAT WE'LL STILL BE USING IN 20 AND 40 YEARS.

BUT BY THE DEFINITION OF HIGH FREQUENCY, WE, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE FOUR THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING SHOWN.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF THAT'S CORRECT, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.

I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS WHERE THEY'VE HAMMERED IN ON ONE THROUGH 22 AS THEY'RE REALLY WINNING ROUTES.

UM, IF IT IS ONLY FOUR AS LISTED HERE, THEN THAT WOULD MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE MOTION.

SECOND ROUND COMMISSIONER WETHER.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DART WEBSITE SAY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHO THAT DART CHILD SPOKE TO, BUT IF YOU HAVE NOTICED OVER THE YEARS, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND, AND THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS FIGHT CONSTANTLY WITH DART FOR PLUCKING UP OUR BUS STOPS RIGHT NOW.

THE 13 USED TO GO DOWN COLONIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW IT GOES

[03:45:01]

DOWN SM RIGHT? THEY PLUCKED IT UP AND MOVED IT AND THOSE COMMUNITY, AND IT'S A HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTE THAT NOW, AND, BUT THE BUSINESSES ARE ON COLONIAL AVENUE.

THEY'RE NOT ON SM, RIGHT? SM RIGHT HAS TWO BUSINESSES THAT CAUSES AN ISSUE.

DIXON CIRCLE HAS BUSINESSES THAT THEY PLUCKED UP THERE AND THEY HAD TO FIGHT.

IT TOOK SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR.

SO TYING, TYING THE, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE TRAIN AND THE BUS.

THE TRAIN IS NOT EASY TO PLUCK UP AND MOVE, BUT THE, THE, THE DARK, THE THE BUS STOPS, AS YOU SAID, ARE EASIER TO PLUCK UP.

SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

THE TRAIN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT JUST GONNA MANEUVER THE TRAIN.

IT TAKES INFRASTRUCTURE, IT TAKES PLANNING, IT TAKES A MONTH.

IT DOESN'T TAKE A, IT DOESN'T TAKE THEM NOTHING TO DO THE BUS STOPS.

UH, I THINK BEFORE WE GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, UH, JUST A QUICK DISCUSSION HERE WITH, UH, MY, UH, CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE COLLEAGUE HERE.

UH, I KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS LOOKED INTO THIS MAYBE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN.

WHAT HAPPENS IF I DEVELOP OR ON ONE OF THESE LINES, UH, AND I PULL A BUILDING PERMIT OR I GET SOME KIND OF ENTITLEMENT AND THEN THAT BUS LINE CHANGES WHAT HAPPENS TO ME? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.

AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING INTO.

YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ONE THING FOR ONE GENTLEMAN OVER AT DART TO SAY, THESE, THESE ROUTES ARE SET IN STONE AND THEY'RE NEVER GONNA CHANGE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DOESN'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.

AND TO CHANGE SOME OF THESE STOPS, IT REALLY IS JUST A MATTER OF MOVING THE SIGN.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE A RAIL STATION WHERE THE CITY IS VERY, VERY INVOLVED IN WHERE THESE RAIL STATIONS GO.

UM, THE CITY IS NOT VERY INVOLVED IN WHERE DART PUTS, UM, A SIGN FOR, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATING THIS AS A BUS STOP.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE THE HESITATION ON THE PART OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

UM, SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.

WE'RE STILL LOOKING INTO THAT.

MR. CHAIR, I WOULD ADD, UH, THAT THE CODE IS NOT FOREIGN TO BUS STOPS.

THERE ARE EMBEDDED IN CODES IN THE BASE CODE AND IN THE PD REDUCTIONS FOR WALKING DISTANCE WITHIN BUS STOPS.

SO IT'S NOT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY ARE KIND OF WORKING WITH.

I DO UNDERSTAND ALL THE HESITATIONS, I WOULD SAY, IS NOT NECESSARILY NEW TO THE CODE.

AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THIS HIGH FREQUENCY ROUTES EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS SAYING, THEY ARE IN TRANSIT REACH AREAS.

THEY'RE, THEY ARE WITHIN A DISTANCE FROM RAIL.

SO I THINK THE INTENT OF DEMOTION IS BASICALLY TO ENSURE THAT ALL THESE AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY TRANSIT RICH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY WILL BE DEVELOPED, UH, WITH TRANSIT IN MIND.

VICE CHAIR, RUBIN, JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO MS. MORRISON.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW.

YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY ABOUT HOW THIS, YOU KNOW, AMENDMENT MIGHT BE IMPLEMENTED AND, AND CARRIED OUT OVER TIME.

I ASSUME IF WE PASS IT, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD ROLL UP ITS SLEEVES AND TRY AND COME UP WITH THE BEST OPTION POSSIBLE AND GIVE CITY COUNCIL ITS TAKE AFTER THOROUGHLY DIGGING IN ON, ON WHETHER THIS IS FEASIBLE OR NOT.

THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS DO.

GREAT.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, ALL THAT COMMISSIONER HAND.

UH, THIS, THIS SEEMS TO BE LIKE A GREAT ASPIRATIONAL CONCEPT, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE REALITY, I'M VERY PERSUADED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER HERBERT AND PER COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S COMMENTS.

IT, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE WE'RE WE'RE THERE YET.

THIS IS WELL ENOUGH ESTABLISHED THAT WE OUGHT TO BE CREATING ZONING RULES AROUND THE LOCATION OF THESE BUS STOPS.

SO I I I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

WELL, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER BEAT ME TO IT.

I'M, I'M PERSUADED BY THE COMMENTS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO, UM, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S COMMENTS.

UM, OUR CITY IS NOT EQUALLY SERVED IN MANY OF THESE AREAS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES AND TRY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT'S IN FRONT OF THEM.

BUT WE ARE ALSO HAD PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, THIS CREATES VESTED RIGHTS AND WE MAY BE INADVERTENTLY CREATING ISSUES THAT WE CAN'T UNDO EASILY.

SO I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR, NOT HERBERT CARPENTER.

UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE FORWARD DALLAS, UH, PROCESS, AND WE HAD ALL OUR BATTLES THAT WE FOUGHT THERE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS, UH, WORKED ON WAS KEEPING DENSITY OUT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND DIRECTING IT TOWARDS THOROUGHFARES, TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND, UM,

[03:50:01]

RAIL.

WOULD IT BE A CRAZY IDEA? UH, I, AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE WITH BUS ROUTES CAN CHANGE, BUT WOULD IT BE A CRAZY IDEA TO TIE IT TO THOROUGHFARES? AND INSTEAD OF DOING A DISTANCE, WE SIMPLY JUST DO FRONTAGE TO THOROUGHFARES TO REALLY KEEP IT AWAY FROM NEIGHBORHOODS AND TIGHT TIGHTEN IT UP, BUT NOT LOSE THE INTENT AND, AND LOSE ALL OF THE BENEFIT THAT WE COULD GAIN FROM THIS FOR A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT USE BUS US, THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES, UM, ONCE AT OAC AND THEN AGAIN AT CPC, I THINK THE, UM, THE HESITANCY WAS ON THE HOW, SO THE, THE CONCEPT MAKES SENSE.

IT MAKES SENSE AND THERE'S SOME BENEFITS TO THAT.

I THINK, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE WAY WE STRUCTURED IT, IF WE WANTED TO DO THAT, WOULDN'T BE TO EXPLICITLY REFERENCE THE THOROUGHFARE NECESSARILY, BUT MAYBE TO LIST WHICH STREETS THEY ARE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK, UM, FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE PLUSES AND MINUSES.

THOROUGHFARES ARE GENERALLY THE AREAS WHERE WE'RE SAYING, WE'RE GONNA PREPARE THIS ROAD VERY WELL FOR DRIVING INSTEAD OF DRIVING A BUS, DRIVING A CAR.

AND SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MORE NUANCED TAKE ON PARKING MINIMUMS, IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE PARKING AROUND DRIVING AREAS MAKES MORE SENSE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, UM, IT WOULD BE HONESTLY A VERY EGALITARIAN, UM, WAY OF REDUCING MINIMUMS IN, UH, PROPERTIES ALONG THESE THOROUGHFARES, ESPECIALLY MAYBE THE, THE DILAPIDATED SHOPPING CENTERS, THAT KIND OF A THING.

UM, AND SO AGAIN, THERE ARE PLUSES AND MINUSES.

I THINK WERE, WHERE THE CONVERSATION WAS HELD UP LAST TIME WAS MAYBE ON THE HOW.

AND I WOULD ACTUALLY ASK, UH, LAURA MORRISON AGAIN ABOUT HOW, UM, HOW MUCH CONSTERNATION THERE IS.

I MEAN, IS THE, IS THERE A WAY FORWARD WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WRITING THIS, THAT WE COULD ATTACH IT TO SOME OF THE THOROUGHFARES THAT ARE LISTED IN THOROUGHFARE PLANS? UM, HOW, HOW WE WOULD DO THAT? WELL, IF WE WERE TO GO THAT ROUTE, I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT WE LIST THE THOROUGHFARES, UM, IN ARTICLE FOUR, INSTEAD OF JUST REFERENCING ANY THOROUGHFARE ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

BECAUSE AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS NOT A FUNCTION OF ZONING.

SO WE WOULDN'T WANT AMENDMENTS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO AFFECT PEOPLE'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND, AND IF I EXPLORE YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, YOU SAID THOROUGHFARES, I TOOK THE CONVERSATION TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

YOU MIGHT JUST BE TALKING ABOUT THE STREETS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE THESE HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTES.

WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU MEANING WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT? WELL, I WAS THINKING UNPINNING IT FROM BUS ROUTES, BUT TRYING TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE, THE POSITIVE AND THEN CAN CAPTURE THE INTENT.

AND THEN IF, IF WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY PUT A RADIUS ON IT, PER SE, IT REALLY TIGHTENS UP TO JUST THE FRONTAGE.

IF YOU'RE FRONTING, UH, A THOROUGHFARE, UM, I THINK THAT'S A, A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

UM, AND SO THAT'S MY, MY INTENT REALLY BEHIND IS JUST TO, IS THAT A CRAZY IDEA? TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAS MERIT.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

IT SEEMS LIKE BY THE END OF TODAY, IF WE JUST TABLED THIS AND BY THE END OF THE TODAY, IF WE WANTED TO JUST CHOOSE TO LIST OUT THE CURRENT THOROUGHFARES, WE COULD START WITH THAT AND, AND MAYBE, UM, TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE.

EVERYBODY'S MIND'S ON IT.

IT'S NOT A CRAZY LEFT FIELD IDEA THAT PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO CHEW ON FOR A LONG TIME.

JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.

AND THEN, UH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER HERBERT JUST WANTED TO MENTION, I THINK, UH, AND I'LL BE BRIEF, THE, THE, THE CHANGES IN ROUTES FOR US HAPPEN FREQUENTLY AND MORE FREQUENTLY THAN YOU GUYS THINK, RIGHT? SO ROUTES ARE DISCONTINUED.

ROUTES BECOME FROM FREQUENT TO NON FREQUENT.

AND JUST JANUARY 15TH, THEY PROPOSE REDUCING ROUTES TREMENDOUSLY, WHICH IS WHY SOME OF 'EM AREN'T ON FREQUENCY LIST ANYMORE.

UM, UH, THE, THE SHUTTLES THAT WORK WELL HAVE BEEN CANCELED AT NORTH PARK AND OTHER PLACES AROUND THE CITY.

UM, THAT MALCOLM X MAPLE ROUTE, ON THE MAPLE SIDE OF TOWN, IT'S MAJOR STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES, BUT ONCE YOU CROSS OVER 30, IT BECOMES VERY MINIMAL IN DOWNSIDE STREETS AND, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

UM, SO THAT JUST WANTED TO RE-CLARIFY, UM, SOME, SOME OF THAT.

SO NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF ROUTES, THE ROUTES THEMSELVES CHANGE DRASTICALLY.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, I, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION EITHER BECAUSE, UH, TO ME, UM, TYING, UH, UH, PARKING ENTITLEMENT TO SOMETHING AS, UM, CHANGEABLE AS A, AS A BUS ROUTE IS A REAL PROBLEM.

UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE LIVED OFF FORT WORTH AVENUE NOW SINCE 1988, AND WHERE WE ORIGINALLY HAD THREE BUSES THAT CAME UP, WEST COMMERCE FORT WORTH AVENUE, WE NOW HAVE ONE, THERE'S ONE ON SINGLETON.

I MEAN, THAT'S IN OUR AREA.

THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE BUSES, FORT WORTH, AVENUE, AND SINGLETON.

[03:55:01]

YOU KNOW WHERE THEY WENT ORIGINALLY.

THEY, THEY NOW MEANDER OTHER PLACES.

UM, I, I MONITOR THE FREQUENCY OF BUSES PRETTY REGULARLY, AND I, I JUST NOTICE THAT THESE ROUTES KEEP FALLING DOWN.

THEY, THEY JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIKE A PLINKO GAME WHERE WE WERE HIGH FREQUENCY AND THEN WE JUST KEEP GOING DOWN.

UM, SO I, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT.

I DO, UM, LIKE THE IDEA OF, UH, OF LOOKING AT THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE THOROUGH AFFAIRS.

I THINK THAT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE.

UM, ANYWAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND COMMISSIONER KNIGHT.

GIL, TAKE US HOME.

IS ANYBODY ELSE WORRIED THAT THIS IS GONNA CREATE THE EFFECT OF PEOPLE ADVOCATING FOR DARTS STOPS TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SEE HAPPENING.

NO MORE DART STOPS FOR US.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER NINE YET, DEAR, I'M NOT SURE I CAN BRING US HOME.

UM, I, I AGREE.

AND I AS A BUS USER SEE ROUTES CHANGING.

UM, WHAT DOES IT TAKE IF WE EXPLORE THIS THOROUGHFARE IDEA, WHAT IS THAT STEP? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE PROCEDURALLY, HOW DO WE EVEN GO ABOUT THAT? I THINK WE DEAL WITH THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR NOW, AND THEN WE, WE THINK ABOUT THE OTHER ONE.

AND, UM, SO LET'S JUST DISPOSE OF THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES.

COMMISSIONER TURNER, A QUESTION.

WELL, COULD THERE BE A FRIENDLY MOTION AND THEN JUST TABLE THIS TO GIVE STAFF SOME TIME TO RESEARCH AND WE MOVE ON TO OTHER LINE ITEMS? I, I THINK IT WOULD BE CLEANER TO VOTE THIS UP OR DOWN, AND THEN WE CAN WORK ON A MOTION THAT WOULD INCORPORATE SOME OF THOSE IDEAS, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY DOABLE.

SO, UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST BE GLASS.

I, I WON'T BE SUPPORTED THE MOTION FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED.

UH, LOTS OF POTENTIALLY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE JUST CAN'T FORESEE NOW.

SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE.

DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15.

REALLY TEMPTED TO BE LONELY, BUT NO UNANIMOUS.

IT'S A, IT'S A LONELY WORLD OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE HORSESHOE.

UH, 2 27.

LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK COURSE.

COMMISSIONERS ARE WE, ARE WE RECORDING? WE ARE RECORDING.

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? YES, SIR.

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE RECORDING.

COMMISSIONERS WILL GO BACK TO OUR LIST.

AND WE ARE AT NUMBER NINE.

PARDON ME.

GO AHEAD.

A DISJOINTED MOMENT PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.

UH, MR. CHAIR.

UM, I, UH, MOVE THAT, UM, WE ELIMINATE MIXED MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, BONUS PARKING MINIMUMS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HARA FOR YOUR MOTION.

VICE CHAIR RUBIN, FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.

VICE CHAIR RUBIN, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY RIGHT NOW, UM, THE M-I-H-D-B UNDER CURRENT CODE ALLOWS A PARKING REDUCTION TO 0.5 PLACES PER DWELLING UNIT WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE PREVIOUSLY TO MULTI-FAMILY.

TO DROP IT TO 0.5 PLACES FOR DWELLING UNIT, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET THE M-I-H-D-B REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE A ZERO PARKING MINIMUM FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

IS THAT THE INTENT HERE? YES.

YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE MINIMUM WHATEVER IS WRITTEN IN THE PD OR IF IT'S PER CODE, A MINIMUM 5%.

REONE AND CHANGE THE CODE.

AND IF THERE WERE A PD, YOU KNOW, ONE COULD STILL SET A PARKING RATIO FOR SOMETHING THAT HAD A MIXED INCOME COMPONENT, CORRECT? YES.

AND WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY SOME OF THE PDS THAT DID STRIKE THAT DEVELOPMENT BONUS, BY THE WAY.

SO YES, THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO

[04:00:01]

I'LL, I'LL RESERVE COMMENTS ON THOSE PDS AND JUST SAY THAT I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER FORESITE.

BUT IF WE GET, IF WE PASS THIS AMENDMENT, AREN'T WE GETTING RID OF THE, THE ABILITY TO, OF THE CITY PLANNING, UH, DEPARTMENT AND PERMITTING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE BUILDERS, YOU KNOW, ON THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING, UH, BONUS.

SO IT BASICALLY, IF THE DEVELOPER, IF THE DEVELOPMENT RESERVES UNITS TO BE SET TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR 20 YEARS, UM, THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENT IS GONNA BE ZERO.

THEY, THAT MEANS THAT THE CODE REQUIRES ZERO.

THEY WILL PROVIDE WHATEVER IS NEEDED.

THERE IS NO, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE WHATEVER IS GONNA BE NEEDED AND PROVIDED.

IT'S JUST THAT THE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSION, POLICE, COMMISSIONER? MY, MY, MY ONLY FEAR IS, I MEAN, I, AND, AND I COULD BE MY, MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MY COMMUNITY COULD GREATLY BENEFIT FROM SOME PARKING.

I'M JUST SCARED OF HAVING NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

UM, ABSOLUTELY NONE COULD CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT BECAUSE WE'RE LANDLOCKED.

UM, AND WE DO NEED SOME PARKING, UM, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE BARS.

SO I THIS IS FOR MULTIFAMILY ONLY.

AND, AND ONLY FOR, THIS IS A, THIS IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS.

ONLY THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM ONLY.

YEAH, ONLY THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS.

AND THIS, IT IS AT 0.5 TODAY.

AND WE'RE CONSIDERING REMOVING THAT.

AND, AND AGAIN, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A TH A THOUSAND TIMES, BUT BACK IN THE DAY WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WORKED ON THIS AT ZAC AND THEN THE PLAN COMMISSION, UH, APPLICANTS AND, UH, AND DEVELOPERS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AT LEAST SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS, THIS ISN'T A PART OF THE, THE BONUS THAT THEY PARTICULARLY PAY ATTENTION TO.

BECAUSE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE PROJECTS, THE PARKING IS, UH, DETERMINED BY, BY BANKS, UH, AND HOW, UH, THESE THINGS ARE FINANCED.

SO IT'S, IT'S GOOD TO PUT A, YOU KNOW, AT NO REQUIREMENT.

BUT DO WE, ARE WE GONNA SEE THAT IN 99.9% OF THESE THEY ARE GONNA BE PARKED AND IN FACT, THEY'RE GONNA BE PARKED THE WAY THAT THEIR LENDERS REQUIRE? UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I THINK, OH, WELL I DIDN'T KNOW.

SO YEAH.

AND I'M TRYING TO READ BACK THROUGH THE PROVISIONS.

WE ONLY HAVE A PORTION OF THEM, BUT WITHIN THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GENERALLY WITHIN THE R STREET PARKING AND LOADING IT, IT'S NOT CLEAR.

'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING'S BEEN STRUCK IN TERMS OF GUEST PARKING, IN TERMS OF LOADING, IN TERMS OF, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ARE? IT'S ON PAGE 68 OF THE VERSION THAT I HAVE PRINTED OUT.

IF THAT'S THE, THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION, THAT WAS OF COURSE IN A SITUATION OF, UH, FULL REMOVAL OF PARKING MINIMUMS. AND SO THERE, THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DESIGN STANDARDS DELETED.

IT SHOULD HAVE JUST REFERRED TO JUST THE PARKING, UM, BONUS FOR THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT, WE, WE WOULD RETAIN EVERYTHING IN THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM, BUT CHANGE THE NUMBER FROM 0.5 TO ZERO.

WELL, AND IT MAY JUST SIMPLY BE A FUNCTION OF WHERE IT SHOWS UP IN OUR CODE.

'CAUSE THE TITLE IS LISTED AS DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT IT GOES ON TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ITEM C OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING.

AND IT SAYS NO MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING OR LOADING SPACES IS REQUIRED FOR USE REGULATED BY CHAPTER IN ANYWAY.

IT'S WITHIN THE M-I-H-D-B SECTION.

IT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

SO, I MEAN, AND THEN MULTIFAMILY PARKING IS THE NEXT ITEM WITHIN THAT.

SO I, I GUESS I'M JUST NOT CLEAR.

I UNDERSTAND, I THINK WHAT THE INTENT OF COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT'S MOTION IS, BUT I'M, I'M NOTING THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WITHIN THIS PROVISION THAT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING.

SO ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO LOADING? ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO GUEST PARKING? ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE'S, UH, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS FROM STAFF'S PERSEC PERSPECTIVE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE UNCHANGED.

IT'S ONLY THE PARKING.

BUT AGAIN, WHAT I'M READING IS THERE ARE NO LOADING, THERE IS NO GUEST PARKING.

UH, I THINK EVERYTHING WOULD REMAIN COMPLETELY AS IT IS IN THE MY HDB PROGRAM.

IT IS JUST UNDER THAT TITLE OF DESIGN STANDARDS.

UM, EVERYTHING WOULD BE RETAINED EXACTLY AS THE CURRENT CODE.

IT WOULD JUST BE THE HALF SPACE CHANGE TO ZERO IS, UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING.

'CAUSE WE, WE HAD THIS BEFORE WHERE WE KIND OF ASSUMED AND WE LEFT WAS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED.

AND I, I ASSUMED THAT IT WAS, UH, NOT THAT, THAT WE WERE ONLY CHANGING THE PARKING AND NOT ALL THESE OTHER VARIABLES.

BUT COMMISSIONER HOUSER CAN MAYBE SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT HE

[04:05:01]

MEANT.

UH, UH, CHANGING THE, UM, INCENTIVE PART BECAUSE THE INCENTIVES DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

THE INCENTIVE WAS ONLY ABOUT THE PARKING ITSELF.

I, I, I HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY'S SAYING.

I'M LOOKING WHAT'S IN THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME.

AND I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION, AND THIS MAY BE FOR COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, IS THAT WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT TIERS WITHIN THE MHDV PROGRAM AND THE TIERED SECTION THAT WAS MEANT TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF FLEXIBILITY.

AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE TYPE TWO, UM, OR EXCUSE ME, TYPE THREE DEVELOPMENTS.

ARE I, I GUESS WE'RE REMOVING ALL THE TIERS OF THE INCENTIVE AND SIMPLY SAYING THAT THOSE ALL GO TO ZERO.

SO CAN YOU PLEASE PUT THAT ON THE RECORD, PLEASE? THE, THE QUESTION IS, UH, WE CAN JUST CHANGE THE INCENTIVE PARKING HERE WHERE IT DOES NOT HAVE EFFECT ON LOADING, ET CETERA, AND GUEST PARKING.

YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION THAT, UM, THAT DEALS STRICTLY WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND LEAVES THE LOADING REQUIREMENTS ALONE.

UH, COMMISSIONER HALL? YES.

I, I, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING DENSE.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.

I'M A DEVELOPER.

I BUILD A MULTIFAMILY TOWER WITH 200 UNITS AND I'M GONNA CONTRIBUTE 10 FOR A MIXED INCOME.

YOU ARE EXEMPTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE 10? NO, THE, THE ZERO.

THAT'S HOW THE BONUS WORKS RIGHT NOW.

THE REDUCTION APPLIES TO EVERYTHING.

IT APPLIES TO ALL THE UNITS.

SO EVEN RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE 200 UNITS AND YOU PROVIDE 10 AS AFFORDABLE, YOUR NEW RATIO FOR YOUR ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS 0.5 PER UNIT.

THE MOTION SAYS YOUR NEW RATIO FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS ZERO.

'CAUSE THAT'S HOW THE INCENTIVES WORK, IS THE DENSITY.

YOU GET AN ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN FAR, YOU GET ADDITIONAL FLOORS.

SO THAT'S BEING BUILT AS WELL.

AND IT, YOU GET MORE, I COULD BUILD A 200 UNIT COMPLEX WITH NO, NO PARKING.

ARE WE READY FOR, UH, A VOTE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HERBERT? UM, I'M, I'M, I'M STILL THINKING AND LISTENING.

UM, MY WORRY HERE IS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, IF ANYBODY'S GONNA TRY IT, WE'LL BE FIRST IN LINE.

UM, SO THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S A BIT OF A PROBLEM.

UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, UM, I DO THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE'S BLUFF HAVE TO BE CALLED IN A WAY.

UM, DEVELOPERS ARE TELLING ME, TELLING US THIS WILL REDUCE COSTS, THIS WILL LOWER RENTS, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS, IS TO SEE THAT IS WITH DEVELOPMENT OR CHANGES LIKE THESE.

UM, WHICH IS WHY I'M ON THE FENCE.

BUT, UM, YES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE INTENT, BUT THAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WAS AT LEAST 15% OF THE SAYS REQUIRED CHANGE THAT TO PROVIDED PARKING MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR GUEST PARKING.

WELL, I, I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.

'CAUSE I THINK WE GOT INTO, INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT LAST TIME, AND IT'S A RABBIT HOLE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO IT, BUT JUST LIKE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GOAL OF THIS, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT TO LOWER RENTS.

IT'S TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS, AS SOMEONE THAT HAS STUDIED MARKETS FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, I, I KNOW THAT MARKETS BASICALLY HAVE THREE DIRECTIONS.

THEY GO UP AND DOWN OR SIDEWAYS.

AND IN THE MARKET AS WE HAVE IT CURRENTLY TODAY, A LOT OF THESE GAINS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE JUST GONNA BE POCKETED BY THE DEVELOPER.

THAT MAY BE SO, BUT MAR MARKETS CHANGE DIRECTIONS.

THEY CHANGE DIRECTIONS ALL THE TIME.

THESE ARE, THESE ARE 40, 50 YEAR INVESTMENTS.

AND WHEN THIS MARKET CORRECTS AND IT WILL, IT'S INEVITABLE, THEN THAT'S WHEN, BECAUSE OF THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING, WE MIGHT SEE MORE UNITS IN THE MARKET, AND THEREFORE THE PRICES SHOULD, ACCORDING TO ECONOMICS, CORRECT.

AND, AND PULL BACK MORE THAN THEY WOULD IF WE HAVE LESS UNITS THAT WOULD NOT BE CREATED BY SOME OF THE, BY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM.

UM, SO AGAIN, FOR ME, THIS ISN'T ABOUT REALLY RENT REDUCING THE, THE ACTUAL RENT PER UNIT.

IT'S ABOUT CREATING MORE UNITS THAT WILL INDIRECTLY THEN HAVE AN EFFECT ON PRICE.

IT'S SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE MARKET WILL CORRECT.

UH, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEWS TODAY, IT JUST START PRETTY UGLY DAY TODAY.

UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IF I MAY MAKE A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT, IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE, OR I CAN MAKE IT AS A MOTION IF I NEED TO, THAT WE CLARIFY.

THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING REQUIRED IS ZERO.

SO STRIKE THE REFERENCE TO LOADING.

AND THAT, AND

[04:10:01]

I, I CAN MAKE IT AS A MOTION IF THAT'S PREFERRED.

I, I, I'M GONNA MAKE THIS AS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO, AND I'M NOT GONNA REFERENCE THE SECTION, BUT NO MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING IS REQUIRED, UM, FOR MHDB PROGRAMS, STRIKE THE REFERENCE TO LOADING SPACES.

AND THEN UNDER MULTI-FAMILY PARKING, AT LEAST 15% OF PROVIDED PARKING MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR GUEST PARKING.

IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND, UH, THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD, DID NOT ACCEPT THAT.

UH, NOW WE'RE DISCUSSION DISCUSSING THIS NEW, UH, MOTION, UH, THAT I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA GET INTO LATER TODAY WITH COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.

UH, BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE YOU YEAH.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER DO.

I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THE, THE MOTION THIS, THIS IS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST WITHIN THE MIHP PROGRAM, CORRECT? THERE'S, UH, THERE'S A LOT MORE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE EXISTING CODE THAN SIMPLY THE PARKING.

AND WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT GUEST PARKING IS AVAILABLE AS A PART OF THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS.

THOSE ARE GENERALLY WHAT THESE ARE.

UM, AND ANYWAY, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT MORE LANGUAGE THAT IS REMOVED IN XX RECOMMENDATION, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF OUR EARLIER DISCUSSIONS.

WELL, I, I, I ASKED THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT, IT, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS MIGHT CONFUSE WHAT WE NEED TO END UP DOING AS AN OVERALL POLICY, AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

SO, UM, IF THERE'S A WAY TO STATE THAT SO IT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN M-I-H-B-I, I CAN CERTAINLY SAY THAT THIS IS SPECIFIC TO CHAPTER 51, A 4.1, 1 0 0 MIXED INCOME HOUSING.

'CAUSE THAT'S THE SECTION THAT WE'RE IN FOR MUCH DB, IF THAT HELPS.

I'M ALSO AMENABLE TO SIMPLY REFERRING IT BACK TO AGAIN, BASE OR WHEREVER WE END UP ON 51 AND 51 A.

THIS IS STRUCTURED AS AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM, SO IT'S INTENDED TO BE LESS.

SO TYPICAL GUEST PARKING WAS 0.25.

WE MAY END UP CHANGING THIS.

THIS IS 15%, SO AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY A LOWER METRIC.

COMMISSIONER THATRIGHT, UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND JUST SORT OF TIP MY HAND ABOUT OUR UPCOMING CONVERSATION.

I, I'M JUST NOT PERSUADED THAT THIS VISITOR PARKING ISSUE IS ONE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO GET.

IT'S GET INVOLVED WITH.

I THINK WE SET WHAT WE WANT FOR A PARKING PROVIDED FOR, UH, A PROJECT OR, OR, OR NOT SET IT.

AND AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND LET THE MARKET, LET THE, UM, THE OWNERS, LET THE LANDLORDS DECIDE HOW THEY'RE GONNA MANAGE THAT PARKING.

I, I THINK THIS JUST KIND OF MAKES THE, THIS PARTICULAR MOTION A LITTLE MURKY TO ME, NOT RATHER THAN CLARIFYING IT.

I WILL AGREE WITH THAT.

I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

I WILL SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS ON THE, NO.

I THINK THAT IS INTENDED TO STAND ALONE THE, THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

I MEAN, I AM GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.

I THINK THAT MAINTAINING VISITOR PARKING IS IMPORTANT.

I THINK IT'S THE ONE AREA WHERE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPERS, UM, OFTEN FALLS SHORT.

AND I THINK IT'S THE AREA THAT USUALLY ENDS UP IMPACTING SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND SURROUNDING BUSINESSES WHEN THEY DO FALL SHORT.

UH, COMMISSIONER, WE THERE? YEAH.

I'M GONNA SUPPORT THAT MOTION BEING SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES FROM APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND IS A PART OF THIS MOTION, I SHALL SO TO ENSURE THAT THE, THAT IT IS CLARIFIED WHERE THAT COMMERCIAL PARK MEANS THAT, UM, VISITOR PARKING IS AT, THIS IS ONLY FOR THE M-I-H-D-B.

UH, QUESTION FOR, SORRY TO GET IN WITHIN YOUR TIME COMMISSIONER, JUST QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UH, WHAT, WHAT WE DECIDE ON THE GUEST PARKING, UH, WHICH I THINK WE KIND OF WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED THE LAST TIME AND WE'RE GONNA CLEAN UP HERE TODAY.

HOW DOES THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM AFFECT THE GUEST PARKING PIECE? DOES IT, IS IT OVERLAY ON TOP OF IT OR IS THAT A SEPARATE PIECE? IT SPELLS ITS OWN GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT.

I THINK THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE 15%.

UM, AND SO IN 51, A FOUR POINT 1107 C TWO IS THE MULTIFAMILY AREA.

UH, A SAYS AT LEAST 15% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR GUEST PARKING.

[04:15:01]

COMMISSIONER WHEELER, FALLBACK COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

SO, UM, I'M OKAY WITH THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, IS JUST THAT, THAT IT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT, UH, SOME OF, SOME DESIGNATED, UM, GUEST PARKING.

I MEAN, IF NOT, UM, WHENEVER THERE'S NOT DESIGNATED GUEST PARKING, TWO THINGS HAPPEN.

PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREET BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TOLD AND, AND FINED.

AND ALSO, UM, WELL, BOTH OF 'EM IS THEY PARK ON THE STREET AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TOLD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE ONLY ONE.

THEY'RE DESIGNATED PARKING IS LOCATED.

UM, SO HAVING THAT IN THERE MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR COMMISSIONER WHEELER THAT IT IS CORRECT.

THE INTENT IS, IS THAT IT IS GUEST PARKING, THAT IT'S SET AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE PARKING THAT'S PROVIDED.

THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE MOTION THAT, THAT THE CODE SAYS REQUIRE PARKING.

I SAID PROVIDED SINCE WE'RE MOVING AWAY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS.

UH, AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, WELL, LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE.

THIS IS THE AMENDMENT.

AMENDMENT TO THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM.

DISTRICT 13, DISTRICT 14.

SO WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

UH, VOTE SEVEN TO SIX.

NO, IT, UH, COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S OUTTA OUT THE CHAMBER.

SO HE WOULD VOTE.

NO, HE'S ABSOLUTELY VOTE TAKEN.

HE'S ABSENT.

REMOTE TAKEN, BUT, BUT EITHER WAY IT WOULD'VE, IT WOULD'VE, IT WOULD STILL PASS.

YES, BECAUSE IT, THE MOTION WOULD'VE BEEN, HE WOULD'VE VOTED IN ABSENCE FOR THE MOTION.

SO IN THIS MOTION, NOW HE'LL VOTE IN ABSENCE FOR YOUR MOTION.

BUT YEAH, IT WAS SEVEN SIX.

SO DOES MY MOTION SURVIVE WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON? YES.

I JUST BECOME A PARTY MOTION.

THIS IS IN, THIS IS IN ADDITION TO, OKAY.

SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS MOTION WITH, UH, AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S MOTION THAT ALREADY PASSED.

AND I CAN EXPLAIN LIKE AFTER DO, AFTER THE LAST VOTE, I WILL EXPLAIN.

SO YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION IS TO BASICALLY HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO HAVE ZERO PARKING REQUIREMENT.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT LOADING VISITORS PARKING WILL STILL BE PROVIDED.

SO SHE MADE A MOTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE WILL SAY AT LEAST 15% OF THE PROVIDED PARKING MUST BE VISITORS.

AND THEN TO KEEP A REQUIREMENT, THAT LOADING MUST BE PROVIDED.

THAT'S IN ADDITION TO YOUR MOTION.

SO IF THAT PASSED, SO BASICALLY WHATEVER IS GONNA BE PROVIDED, 50%, 15% IS GONNA BE VISITORS AND LOADING WILL BE REQUIRED.

AND THEN NOW WE'RE BACK TO YOUR MOTION, WHICH SAYS THE INCENTIVE IF YOU PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IS THAT YOU CAN GO TO ZERO.

NOT TOO OVERCOMPLICATED, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I, THAT'S WHAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AGO.

THAT, SO THIS, THIS IN FACT DOES NOT OVERLAY ON TOP OF THE IHDV PROGRAM.

SO THAT, THAT THE GUEST PARKING AND THE LOADING NO, THE 50, IT WOULD, IT WOULD HAVE ERASED THAT REQUIREMENT THEN.

THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

SO IF YOU PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE GUEST PARKING IS PER THIS, NOT PER WHATEVER WE ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT OR WHATEVER WE AGREED LAST TIME.

SO THE 15% UHHUH REQUIRED, REQUIRED VISITORS IS ONLY FOR THE M-I-H-T-B PROGRAM.

[04:20:01]

THAT POINT 25 PER UNIT, THAT DOESN'T APPLY.

THIS APPLIES 15% OF YOUR PROVIDED MUST BE VISITORS.

YEAH, I THINK IT IS COMMISSIONER.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE, BUT IF YOU DO PROVIDE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 15% OF THAT VISITOR PARKING.

THAT'S WHAT SHE'S SAYING.

THAT'S WHAT SHE'S SAYING.

SO IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE NONE, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE, YOU DON'T HAVE VISITOR PARKING, BUT IF YOU DO, JUST KNOW THAT 15% IT HAS TO BE YES.

ONLY, ONLY IF YOU HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

ONLY IF YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROGRAM.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE BANK SAYS THAT, RIGHT? THE BANK KIND OF TELLS THEM ABOUT THE PARKING.

RIGHT? IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE.

, YES.

THE GUYS WRITING THE BIGGEST CHECKS RULE.

UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ONE IN OPPOSITION.

COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT.

MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 10.

GREAT.

AND IF, UM, I GET A SECOND, I'VE GOT COMMENTS ON THIS.

UM, I MOVE THAT WE STRIKE 51 A DASH 4.301 A THREE B NOW, WE'LL SOMEONE READ THAT LANGUAGE, PLEASE.

YES, PLEASE.

WE'LL HAVE IT PULLED UP.

MAYBE, MAYBE STAFF COULD READ IT.

ONE MOMENT PLEASE.

MY COMMENTS WERE THIS, THIS, THIS TEXT, UM, PROHIBITS PARKING IN FRONT OF A BUILDING, UM, WHICH I THINK IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT HARDSHIP.

UM, I MEAN, IN A PERFECT WORLD, I MEAN, YEAH, I LOVE IT, BUT I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A SETBACK ON OUR PERMITTING PROCESS AND IN, UH, IN DEVELOPMENT.

AND I, I JUST, THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

I'M NOT, I'M NOT READY TO RECOMMEND, I NEED TO HEAR THE LANGUAGE.

'CAUSE I, I WAS THINKING IT WAS REQUIRING PARKING BEHIND BUILDINGS.

AND I WOULD LIKE, IT'LL HELP ME TO HEAR THE, YES.

THIS IS 51, A 4.301 A, THREE B OFF STREET PARKING.

MUST BE LOCATED BEHIND ONE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LINE.

THOUGH OFF STREET PARKING IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT LOT LINE IF LOCATING IT BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK LINE IS DETERMINED IMPRACTICAL BY THE DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONER WEER.

SO LET ME GET THIS RIGHT 'CAUSE I THINK I'M, SO, I THINK THAT PD 5 9 5 IS WINNING TODAY.

UM, SO IS THIS SAYING, UM, SO IN, IN PD 5 95, WE REFER BACK TO 51 A.

THE ISSUE WE HAVE IS THE SETBACK IS 25 FEET FROM THE CURB ON EITHER SIDE WITH THIS ANSWER THAT, UH, WHERE, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW MY BUILDING HAS PARKING OUT FRONT, JUST LIKE ON JEFFERSON.

I CAN'T USE IT IN MY PARKING AGREEMENT.

WOULD THIS SOLVE THAT PROBLEM OR NO? PD 5 9 5 HAS ITS OWN SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT IT SAYS 51.

NO, WE REFER BACK TO 51.

WE, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE LIKE PARKING, SO IT SAYS FOR THE MINIMUMS, BUT THERE, THERE IS A LINE WRITTEN IN 5 9 5 THAT SAYS THE 30 FEET, THE 30 FEET OF THE FRONTAGE.

UM, I CAN FIND IT.

ANDREA WAS SHOWING IT TO ME.

SO THIS WON'T SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

ALL STREET PARKING PROVISIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.

SO THE ORIGINAL CODE LANGUAGE, I DON'T HAVE THE SECTION, I HAVE THE PAGE.

IT'S IN PAGE 43.

NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, ANY OFF STREET PARKING MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

SO, AND I KNOW, AND I CAN'T FIND IT AT THE MOMENT, THERE'S ANOTHER PROVISION IN OUR EXISTING 51 A THAT, UM, JUST GIVES GUIDANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, HIGHER DENSITY, CERTAINLY IN COMMERCIAL, AND I KNOW MULTIFAMILY IT APPLIES AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MF ONE THROUGH ALL OF THE MULTIFAMILIES, BUT THAT YOU COULD PARK IN THE FRONT YARD.

BUT THAT GENERALLY THE SPIRIT OF IT WAS THAT FRONT YARDS WERE MEANT TO BE OPEN AND UNOBSTRUCTED.

SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US WOULD BE ALL USES.

SO WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL MIXED USE.

UM, HAS, WAS THERE ANY, AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSIONER, IF, IF THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATION, I KNOW STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION KEPT IT BEHIND THE BUILDING LINE, SO WAS IT MEANT TO JUST ADDRESS THE PUBLIC REALM? ARE THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AS WE'RE, UM, THINKING ABOUT THIS REVISED LANGUAGE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE? AS WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE ZO ZAC RECOMMENDATION, IT WAS CHIEFLY THE PUBLIC REALM.

[04:25:01]

UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT DOES PRESENT, IT DOES, UM, INHIBIT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR PARKING AND CONSTRUCTION, ET CETERA.

THE IDEA IS THAT IT'S UNOBSTRUCTED AND ESPECIALLY THAT THERE'S NO, THERE AREN'T PARKING LOTS THAT, UH, PEDESTRIAN WOULD NEED TO TRAVEL ACROSS WHEN GOING FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE FRONT DOOR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

COMMISSIONER ER, SO MR. WADE, AS I READ THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, IT WAS NOT THAT YOU DON'T PARK BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK LINE.

IS THAT IT? YOU, YOU, YOU MUST PARK BEHIND THE BUILDING, NOT JUST THE FRONT SETBACK LINE IS THE WAY I READ THAT ORDINANCE AND WHICH LED ME TO RECOMMEND THIS CHANGE.

SO DID I READ THE DRAFT ORDINANCE CORRECTLY? THE, THE FIRST LINE OFF STREET PARKING MUST BE LOCATED BEHIND ONE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LINE.

AND SO IF THAT DOESN'T CORRESPOND WITH WHERE THE BUILDING IS BUILT, I THINK OFTEN IT DOES.

BUT UM, IF THE BUILDING IS SET FAR BACK, THEN YOU COULD HAVE THE PARKING BETWEEN THE SETBACK LINE AND THE BUILDING UNDER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

YOU COULD PARK BETWEEN THE SETBACK LINE AND THE BUILDING.

IF IT WAS A BIG ENOUGH LOT.

IF IT WAS A MASSIVE LOT, YEAH.

AND SO HOW IS THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE? FOR ONE THING, IT SIMPLIFIES IT.

I LIKE THAT.

IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, UM, IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, UH, THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND THEN IT APPLIES TO NON-RESIDENTIAL.

BUT THERE'S WIGGLE ROOM, UH, IF IT'S DETERMINED IMPRACTICAL BY THE DIRECTOR IN IT'S PROPOSED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, I'LL, I'LL JUST GO QUICKLY THROUGH THE LINES.

IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, ANY OFF STREET PARKING FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES MUST COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 51, A 4.401.

IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, EXCEPT MF THREE A AND M OR MF FOUR, A DISTRICT REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL USES MUST BE LOCATED BEHIND A REQUIRED FRONT BUILDING LINE.

SO NOT SETBACK LINE BUILDING LINE IN AN MF ONE, A MF TWO SAH, MF TWO A OR MF TWO SAH DISTRICT NO REQUIRED OR EXCESS PARKING MAY BE PLACED IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.

SO THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE SETBACK LINE.

IN AN MF THREE A OR MF FOUR A DISTRICT, ANY OFF STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL USES MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE EXCEPT FOR, AND THEN MECHANIZED PARKING, I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT TODAY.

AND THEN IN NON-RESIDENTIAL, EXCUSE ME, IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, ANY OFF STREET PARKING MAY, MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ISN'T, I MEAN, IN THE VERSION I'M LOOKING AT, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST READ OUT HAS BEEN STRUCK, BUT THAT WAS PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT, UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT HOW MR. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS MOTION IS, IS STRIKING.

IT WAS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT ALL PARKING BE BEHIND A STRUCTURE.

BUT IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THAT, THEN SOME OF THIS OTHER LANGUAGE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE PUT BACK IN.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? LIKE IN AN MF THREE OR MF FOUR DISTRICT, ANY OFF STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL USES MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

I MEAN, YOU STRUCK THAT BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE SAYING THAT EVERYTHING HAD TO BE BEHIND THE BUILDING.

BUT IF WE'RE ABOUT TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT ANYMORE, THEN THIS LANGUAGE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESTORED.

IF, IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE.

YES, BECAUSE IF WE STRUCK WHAT'S THERE AND STRUCK WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE, THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPLICIT THAT THE PARKING WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE LOT.

DISTRICTS, ANY OFF STREET PARKING MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT THAT JUST IN THE CURRENT CODE, LET'S SAY.

SO JUST KIND OF ANYWHERE.

SO WOULD EVERYTHING UNDER B AND C HAVE TO BE REINSTATED B AND C? BECAUSE UNDER C IT SAYS WELL, WELL AT LEAST TO C ONE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, ANY OFF STREET PARKING MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REINSTATED.

CORRECT? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WITH, WITHOUT, WITH WITHOUT THE, DO YOU HAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF LAUREN MORRISON HAS THE, UM, THE PROPOSED ZAC PROPOSITION IN FRONT OF HER, BUT, UH, WHAT ZAC RECOMMENDED WAS TO STRIKE THE LINE THAT SAYS, IN NON-RESIDENTIAL

[04:30:01]

BUT WITHOUT THAT, IS THERE, IS PARKING NOT PERMITTED, UH, EXTENDED UP TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE? IS THAT WHAT I'M, I WANNA UNDERSTAND SORT OF, I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WELL, ALL THIS WAS STRUCK, I THOUGHT BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT ZAC STAFF, WHATEVER, OR STAFF MM-HMM .

PROPOSED IN ZAC APPROVED REQUIRING THAT PARKING, ALL PARKING RESIDENTIAL, UNKNOWN RESIDENTIAL BE BEHIND A STRUCTURE.

BUT IF WE'RE, WE'RE, IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE, IF WE PASS A MOTION THAT SAYS THAT DOESN'T APPLY, THEN WE HAVE TO REVERT BACK TO SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE.

OR COME UP WITH ALTERNATE LANGUAGE.

IF YES, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, I'M, I'M TRYING TO CONCEIVE OF A SITUATION WHERE IT, WE DIDN'T DO EITHER, WHERE WE STILL STRUCK THE CURRENT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE, OR, OR WE FOLLOWED THE PRO THE PROPOSAL AND DIDN'T HAVE THE NEW LANGUAGE.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT, AND WHERE WOULD WE LAND? WHERE, WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

WHERE WOULD WE LAND? AND, AND IT'S BREAKING MY BRAIN TO THINK ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THIS.

SO I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE GIVING A CLEAR ANSWER, BUT I THINK IF IT, IT'S REASONABLE TO WANT TO REVERT BACK TO, SORRY, MY HAND.

EXCUSE ME.

WHAT IS CURRENTLY, BECAUSE THIS LANGUAGE IN RED THAT WAS STRUCK WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PARKING ORDINANCE, CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND THAT, SO THAT'S IN THE CURRENT CODE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 51 A 4.301, A TWO, A THREE, EXCUSE ME.

JUST A AND THEN NUMBERS, OR NOT EVEN THREE, I'M SORRY, A B SO EXCUSE ME, LEMME READ THAT AGAIN.

51 A 4.301 B AND CB IS OFF STREET PARKING PROVISIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

C IS OFF STREET PARKING PROVISIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

RIGHT, BUT JUST IT WOULD JUST BE C ONE, CORRECT.

BECAUSE, UH, NUMBER SIX IS TALKING ABOUT PARKING FOR LARGE SCALE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT WOULDN'T SEEM TO BE PERTINENT ANYMORE.

OR, AND THEN RETAIL MALL PARKING.

AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY, MR. MAYBE I CAN HELP A LITTLE BIT.

I'M NOT SURE.

PROBABLY MAKE IT WORSE.

BUT COMMISSIONER HOUSER IS YOUR, IS YOUR INTENT ESSENTIALLY TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO, TO JUST GO BACK TO WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY? YEAH, AND I WAS GOING TO, YEAH, YEAH, BASICALLY.

I WAS, I WAS BASICALLY GONNA ASK IF I WITHDREW MY MOTION.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE WE WOULD, NO, 'CAUSE I THINK WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION KEEPS THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION, DOESN'T IT? OH, CORRECT.

YOUR MOTION ESSENTIALLY SAYS KEEP THE, KEEP ATTORNEY SAID, JUST KEEP THE STATUS QUO, KEEP THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY.

THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD YOUR MOTION.

DOES THAT HELP? YES.

BUT IT, IT, I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT IF WE DID FOLLOW THAT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNS STRIKE SOME OF THIS.

BACK TO THIS, WE WOULD STILL HAVE ANOTHER PART OF X X'S RECOMMENDATION THAT APPLIES, THAT HAS A WAIVER, WAIVER PROCESS.

WE HAVE TO GO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S STRUCK, IT WOULD BE TO KEEP ALL THE LANGUAGE ON THAT TOPIC THAT'S IN THE CODE TODAY.

AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WOULD BE LOST? THE INTENT THERE WAS JUST TO OPEN UP FLEXIBILITY FOR DESIGN.

THAT THAT WAS THE LARGE THING, UM, TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PUT THE PARKING ELSEWHERE BESIDES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND STREET AND THE, UH, GENERALLY ASSUME THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

SO IT, IT WAS ABOUT, UM, IT WAS ABOUT PRESERVING THAT, I GUESS.

UM, AND SO ACTUALLY IT WOULD, IT WOULD DECREASE THE FLEXIBILITY A LITTLE BIT.

SO, YEAH.

SO IF, UM, WE, WE TALK ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT'S BEEN A, A REAL, YOU KNOW, HOT TOPIC FOR A LOT OF PLAYING COMMISSIONERS.

AND WE'RE CLOSE HERE, SO I DON'T WANT TO JUST SAY, OH, OR I DON'T WANT TO KILL THIS.

IF, IF WE'RE GONNA LOSE SOMETHING HERE.

I WANNA GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID, UM, THE DIRECTOR IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THIS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, SAY LOTS THAT HAVE EXTREME TOPOGRAPHY, FOR INSTANCE.

AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A RETHINKING OF WHERE THE PARKING CAN GO.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE, THE DI THE BUILDING DIRECTOR CAN OVERTURN THIS OR OVER OVERSEE THIS A DIFFERENT WAY.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ANSWERS.

SO FOR THE PROPOSED TEXT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, REVERTING BACK TO ZAC FROM, SO THE LINE THAT I READ OFF, STREET PARKING MUST BE LOCATED BEHIND ONE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LINE, THOUGH OFF STREET PARKING AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS MAY EXTEND TO THE FRONT LOT LINE.

IF LOCATING IT BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK LINE IS DETERMINED IMPRACTICAL BY THE DIRECTOR.

SO THAT'S WRITTEN IN, IN ZO X'S RECOMMENDATION.

UM, IF WE WERE TO REVERT

[04:35:01]

IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER PROCESS TO THESE DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, SOMEONE, WHATEVER THE REGULATIONS ARE, SOMEONE COULD STILL, UH, APPLY FOR THAT WAIVER IF IT'S AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.

AND THAT MAKES ME FEEL DIFFERENTLY.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS GO THROUGH AND KNOWING THAT, UM, THIS IS NOT GOING TO TIE A DEVELOPER'S HANDS FOR BRINGING FORWARD A PROJECT THAT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, A GREAT ADDITION TO A COMMUNITY JUST BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, SOME REASON.

ANY OTHER COMMENT? COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? SECOND.

SO IF WE, UH, REVERT TO ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, YOU COULD STILL PUT YOUR PARKING BEHIND A BUILDING, COULD YOU NOT? ABSOLUTELY.

SO YOU'VE GOT FLEXIBILITY IN THAT RESPECT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I SECOND IT.

ANY OPPOSED? NAY.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND A APOLOGIZE? WE'RE VOTING ON STRIKING THREE B.

WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY BEING, UH, 51 A 4.301.

B, C, C, UH, B.

C, CORRECT, CORRECT.

B, CB, C ONE.

I THINK WE'VE, WE CAN DO JUST ONE OR ALL OF IT.

'CAUSE BB SIX IS TALKING ABOUT ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING FOR LARGE SCALE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.

THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

THAT WOULDN'T SEEM TO BE, YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK YOU WANT EVERYTHING.

NO, WE DON'T WANT EVERYTHING.

AND THEN, UM, THEN FROM THERE IT GOES ON TO RETAIL MALLS.

I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THAT EITHER.

FINE.

SO IT'D BE B AND C ONE.

C ONE.

B AND C ONE.

IS THAT OKAY? ALRIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE FAVOR.

SECOND.

I THINK HE SAID B AND C ONE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? CORRECT.

B ONE THROUGH FIVE AND C ONE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR SAY AYE OR ANY OPPOSED OR IN OPPOSITION? LET'S GO TO 11.

UH, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND 51 A DASH 4.3014 C TO READ FOR PARKING LOTS GREATER THAN 50 SPACES.

A MINIMUM OF ONE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY THAT CONNECTS THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING TO THE NEAREST PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS REQUIRED.

IT'S BIG ENOUGH TO ASK THEM, THEY SHOULD, BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE CALL CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KEEP IT PAVED, THEN HAVING TO RECONFIGURE AND PUT IT IN SIDEWALKS.

COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER HOUSER? UH, PARDON ME.

CAN WE GET SOME EXPLANATION ON 'CAUSE SO WHAT ABOUT IS THESE, WHAT ABOUT IN THE LIKE PARKING LOTS THAT, OR LIKE THE STRIP MILE PARKING LOTS THAT HAVE SIDEWALKS AROUND THE PERIMETER.

THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO BUILD A PARK, SOME TYPE OF WALKWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT.

I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT.

THAT'S MY ONLY CONFUSION SINCE ON THESE PARK AND ANY SPACES WHERE OUR MALLS, OUR SHOPPING CENTERS, HOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK? UH, I BELIEVE THE IDEA OF THIS ONE, UH, WELL FIRST I'LL SPEAK TO THE IDEA OF THE STAFF IN ZAC RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS, UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONVENIENT PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF A PARKING LOT TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE BUILDING THROUGH LARGE PARKING LOTS.

AND SO THE WAY THE ZAG RECOMMENDATION IS WRITTEN, SIDEWALKS CAN APPLY, UM, IT'S WRITTEN SO THAT EACH PATH HAS TO BE WITHIN 65 FEET OF EACH PARKING SPACE.

SO JUST ENSURING THAT IT'S RELATIVELY CONVENIENT SIDE, THE SIDEWALKS CAN BE USED AS LONG AS IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH IN THE COMMISSIONER'S, UH, ITEM HERE, I BELIEVE HE'S TRYING TO KEEP THAT INTENT.

THE IDEA IS THAT AS A PARKING LOT GETS BIGGER, WE'VE GOT 50 SPACES HERE.

IT CAN BE 40, IT CAN BE 60.

UH, THERE'S A CONVENIENT PARKING ROUTE FROM, UH, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE FRONT DOOR.

AND SO, UM, YOU GO TO YOUR TARGETS, YOUR KMART, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT KMART, THEY'RE CLOSED.

KMARTS, UH, UH, WALMARTS, ET CETERA.

THE IDEA IS JUST THAT THERE'S ONE, UH, PATHWAY THAT'S PROTECTED FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT TO THE FRONT DOOR CONNECTING THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY, CONNECTING THE, UH, INTERSECTION, STREET INTERSECTION OR SIDEWALK, UH, SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND.

MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THAT IS IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO KEEP 'EM PAVED TO MAKE THE EXPENSE AND CREATING SIDEWALKS.

I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY ASPECT OF IT, BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE

[04:40:01]

AND THEY OFTEN HAVE 50 PARKING SPACES.

UH, ONE IN PARTICULAR IS THE, HAD THE, UM, LC FAYE HIGGINS SHOPPING CENTER AT SHOPPING CENTER.

WE JUST WANT THEM TO KEEP IT PAVED.

BUT MY FEAR IS THAT THE AT EXPENSE OF DOING THAT, AND I KNOW THEY HAVE MORE THAN 50, AND THEN ALSO SOMETIME WE'RE RIGHT, THE, SOMETIME SOME OF THESE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS ARE RIGHT AT THE 50 WHEN WE TALKING ABOUT PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, EVERY INCH OF THE PARKING LOT AND TAKING, PUTTING SIDEWALKS IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT, YOU CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE HOW THEY CAN FILE SHORT ON THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY ALREADY ARE MANDATED TO HAVE EVERY INCH COUNTS IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY, UM, MR. WADE, TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S POINT, THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD ONLY BE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE ON AN EXISTING LAND USE.

WE WON'T, WE WON'T BE GOING TO FIND RIGHT.

PARKING LOTS.

AND THEN A LITTLE CONTEXT ABOUT MY MOTION AS I READ THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, AS THESE PARKING LOTS GOT UP TO SAY MEDIUM OR AND LARGE SIZE, AND THOSE ARE IMPRECISE TERMS. THE ORDINANCE WAS REQUIRING MULTIPLE DEDICATED SIDEWALKS THROUGH A PARKING LOT.

NOT JUST ONE, BUT MULTIPLE, LIKE EVERY OTHER ROW IN THAT, IN MY OPINION, JUST CREATED MORE HARDSCAPE, MORE RUNOFF, AND WAS PLACING SIDEWALKS IN THE MIDDLE OF PARKING LOTS THAT HUMAN BEHAVIOR WOULD SUGGEST DON'T EVER GET USED.

WE ALL WALK AS THE CROW FLIES FROM OUR CAR TO THE DOOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.

AND EVEN THOUGH I CAN DRAW A REALLY BEAUTIFUL SITE, PLANT AS AN ARCHITECT WITH THESE SIDEWALKS RUNNING THROUGH THESE AISLES OF PARKING AND, YOU KNOW, PRETEND THERE'S LANDSCAPE ON 'EM AND ALL, AND THEY DON'T EVER GET USED.

AND SO THE, THE, THE IMPETUS FOR THE, MY MOTION WAS I GET THE PEDESTRIAN NEEDING TO GET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO THE DOOR OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT GETTING RUN OVER IN THE PARKING LOT.

AND SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS MOTION.

BUT DON'T MAKE ME PUT 3, 4, 6 PARKING, UH, SIDEWALKS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF MY PARKING LOT.

IT'S NOT NEEDED AND IT'S NOT PRACTICAL.

MAYBE THE 'CAUSE 50 IS NOT A LOT.

SO MY CONCERN 50 IS NOT A LOT.

THAT'S LIKE A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER.

IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN RAISE THAT NUMBER? BECAUSE I MEAN, I MEAN, IF YOU'VE BEEN IN THE SHOPPING CENTER IN WEST DALLAS, SOUTH DALLAS, IT'S EASY TO SAY 50.

YOU HAVE EIGHT 10 STORES THAT'S, WE CAN RAISE IT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT.

150 MAYBE, BECAUSE MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING.

'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T WANNA PUT 'EM EVERYWHERE.

NO, IT SAYING, SO IT SAYS AMENDED LANGUAGE TO READ FOR PARKING LOTS GREATER THAN 50 SPACES.

A MINIMUM, ONE PEDESTRIAN WALK WALKWAY.

I, I THINK I WANT IT RAISE FROM A PARKING LOTS GREATER THAN ONE 50.

UM, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NEGOTIATING HERE.

SOUNDS LIKE A CARD GAME OR SOMETHING.

BUT NO.

HUNDRED 50.

I JUST DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA CAUSE A FOR THE, BECAUSE SITTING HERE YOU MIGHT THINK 50 A LOT BE, I MEAN, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT I'M A DRAFTER.

50 IS 50 IS LITTLE IN A, IN A, A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER.

WELL, AND ONE 50 SOUNDS KIND OF BIG TO ME.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, UH, YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THIS, BUT I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, YOUR MOTION GETS RID OF C ONE THROUGH FOUR AND REPLACES IT WITH THIS THREE LINE SENTENCE.

IT JUST WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T NEVER ACHIEVE ITS INTENT, EVEN THOUGH I THINK THE TEN'S PRETTY GOOD.

THANK YOU MR. CHERNA.

UH, I, I DON'T LIKE THIS MOTION.

I PROBABLY WON'T SUPPORT IT.

UH, I, THE FIRST PLACE IN MY MIND, MIND WENT IS, IS THE INFAMOUS GOAT TRAIL WHERE WE SEE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN WE SEE A GRASS, UH, SHORTCUT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND PEOPLE ARE GONNA WALK THE WAY THEY'RE GONNA WALK.

UM, I APPRECIATE THE INTENT THAT THIS IS TRYING TO SOLVE, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT GETS US THERE.

AND THEN I CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PARKING LOTS IMMEDIATELY CAME TO MIND FOR ME WAS THE CORNER OF CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY IN MOCKINGBIRD.

SO ACROSS THE HIGHWAY FROM MOCKINGBIRD STATION THAT IS A VERY LONG THREE ROW PARKING LOTS WHERE THE SMU SCHOOL STORE IS AND USED TO BE A LITTLE MADELINE AND THEY MADE A LA MADELINE.

SO THERE, SO TO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, NOW WE HAVE A HIGH COUNT PARKING LOT THAT REALLY NOW HAS TO HAVE THE, THE, THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

SO I JUST CAN SEE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE

[04:45:01]

SO I, I DON'T THINK I'LL SUPPORT THIS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMERS? COMMISSIONER HAN, I'LL APOLOGIZE IF THIS GOT ASKED AND ANSWERED.

IS THERE A MINIMUM WIDTH OR IT'S JUST ONE, UM, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY IS REQUIRED? I THINK FOUR FEET WAS IN THE ORIGINAL, YEAH, I MEAN I JUST, I WOULD KEEP WHATEVER THE, THE WIDTH WAS STATED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

AND THEN, UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, I BELIEVE THIS IS CORRECT, THAT IN OUR COMPLETE STREETS MANUAL, WHEN YOU PROVIDE THESE TYPES OF, UM, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, THAT THERE ARE PROTE PROTECTIONS, ESSENTIALLY DOORS CAN'T OPEN INTO THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER KNIGHT, GO.

YEAH, I, I WILL SUPPORT THIS, UM, AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS SOME MOBILITY ISSUES AND WALKS THROUGH PARKING LOTS, I, I WOULD LIKE TO PROTECT PEOPLE A BIT MORE.

UM, SO I LIKE THE INTENT OF THIS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES DO THAT.

SO THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER C? NONE.

ANY OPPOSED? ONE IN OPPOSITION.

COMMISSIONER CHERNOCK REGARD TO NUMBER 12.

UM, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PAID PARKING THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER EER FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

OH, QUESTION.

UM, I'M, I I'M GONNA NEED SOME DEFINITION TO THAT.

UH, ONE OF THE THINGS, UH, WE HAVE A SPECIAL PARKING, UM, DISTRICT AROUND THE FAR PARK AND WE HAVE IT IN A, IN A PERIMETER.

AND THE REASON WE HAVE THAT PERIMETER IS BECAUSE OUTSIDE THE, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE TEARING DOWN HOMES TO PUT PARKING TO ALLOW FOR PAID PARKING.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW, HOW WOULD THAT ADDRESS OR WHAT THAT AFFECT THAT, UM, LITERALLY MARTIN LUTHER KING, PENNSYLVANIA, AL KIN AREA PEOPLE RETURN DOWN HOUSES JUST SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE, 'CAUSE THEY MAKE QUITE A BIT OF INCOME, DOING FAIR PARK AND SPECIAL EVENTS.

AND SO WE DO HAVE A PERIMETER, BUT WE HAVE PARKING LOTS BY SUP.

SO HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THAT? UM, BECAUSE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ALLOWING IT, BUT BY S-U-P-I-I WANT TO CLARIFY QUICKLY THAT, UM, ZAC RECOMMENDATION ALREADY ACCOMPLISHES THIS, IT ALREADY ALLOWS THIS, UM, ZAC RECOMMENDATION, EXCUSE ME, AS TIME TURN PAPERS, 4.301 A EIGHT IS STRUCK AND NOT REPLACED.

SO THAT A EIGHT IS THE LINE THAT SAYS IN ALL DISTRICTS EXCEPT CENTRAL AREA DISTRICT REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING MUST BE AVAILABLE AS FREE PARKING OR CONTRACT PARKING ON OTHER THAN AN HOURLY OR DAILY FEE BASIS.

THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO INSTITUTIONAL USES OR MECHANIZED PARKING APPROVED UNDER DIVISION 51, A 4.340 THAT'S STRUCK AND NOT REPLACED.

SO THAT, THAT ALREADY ACCOMPLISHES THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION.

SO BY DELETING IT THEN, WE'RE, WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING YOU CAN CHARGE FOR PARKING FOR EVEN FOR EVEN REQUIRED PARKING? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND, AND, AND, AND THAT'S NOT BY SUP.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU, SO THERE'S REQUIRED PARKING, WHICH IS JUST CONSIDERED ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN USE.

'CAUSE IT'S REQUIRED FOR THE MAIN USE FOR SURFACE PARKING LOTS THAT ARE PAID.

I MEAN, THAT'S A LAND USE IN ITSELF.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED PARKING, IT'S JUST PARKING THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR A FEE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I MEAN, IN SOME DISTRICTS, SOME, UH, PDS THAT MAY REQUIRE AN SUP, BUT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT RE CHARGING A FEE FOR REQUIRED PARKING.

AND SO THIS IS NOT A PARKING, SO THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE A PART OF A, PARTICULARLY A STRUCTURE, UM, OF REQUIRED PARKING.

SO THIS, YEAH, WE'RE TALKING A STANDALONE, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT STANDING ALONE PARKING LOTS.

THAT THAT'S ALREADY, UM, THOSE ARE CONSIDERED A SEPARATE MAIN USE AND ARE ALREADY ALLOWED TO CHARGE.

THAT'S A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT.

AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, REQUIRED PARKING.

RIGHT NOW THE CODE REQUIRES IT TO BE FREE AND AVAILABLE AND, AND SO DO THAT LANGUAGE NOT NEED TO BE IN THAT.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE SO THAT PARKING CAN BE CHARGED FOR THAT'S CORRECT.

SO I GUESS ONE THING I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I THINK I, I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT.

SO, AND I JUST DIDN'T READ THE DRAFT CORRECTLY THEN.

AND, UH, IF THE DRAFT ACCOMPLISHES THIS, I'M HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THIS MOTION.

THE DRAFT ACCOMPLISHES THIS COMMISSIONER .

[04:50:01]

I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR SOME OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK PART OF WHAT I HAVE HEARD THE DISCUSSION IS, IS TRYING TO HELP UNLOCK WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING PARKING TO SUPPORT NEW USES.

I THINK I SHARE COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S CONCERN THAT HOW ARE WE ADDRESSING, UM, LOSING, WHETHER IT'S HOUSING, YOU KNOW, LEGACY BUILDING STOCK, YOU NAME IT, TO BECOME A PARKING LOT.

I, AND I DON'T THINK THIS DOES IT BY DIRECT INTENT, BUT THAT I THINK WE HAVE SEEN CAN BE AN OUTCOME.

I THINK WE HEARD EARLIER TESTIMONY TODAY THAT IT HAPPENED ALONG, YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR OLDER COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS WHERE THEY NEEDED TO PROVIDE PARKING AND IF NOW YOU CAN CHARGE FOR THAT PARKING, WE ARE SOMEWHAT INCENTIVIZING THAT CHANGEOVER.

UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S, IT'S OPENING UP AN OPPORTUNITY.

UM, BUT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF THAT, UM, AS STAFF WAS, UM, SUGGESTING OPENING UP THIS, UM, CITYWIDE ON HOW WE, YOU KNOW, DON'T INADVERTENTLY, UM, ENCOURAGE SURFACE PARKING LOTS? AND THEN A SECOND QUESTION IS, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS, UM, CHARGING FOR PARKING AND THAT WE ARE NOT, UM, PARTICULARLY UNAFFORDABLE UNITS OR OTHER AREAS? SIMPLY, I, I KNOW IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE IN MY COMMUNITY IN THE PAST WHERE IT'S NOT ALLOWED, BUT THERE HAS BEEN EXCEPTIONS TRIGGERED.

SO THAT'S TWO QUESTIONS.

I KNOW, AND I, IT WAS LONG, I APOLOGIZE.

THE, THE BROAD ANSWER TO BOTH IS NO.

THIS IS A RELATIVELY RECENT, UM, ADDITION BROUGHT STAFF AND IT'S REALLY JUST BROUGHT FORMALLY TODAY.

UM, AND SO WE, I THINK THE, THE TRADE OFF BETWEEN GIVING FREEDOM WITHOUT INCENTIVIZING, IT'S A, UM, TOUGH, TOUGH LINE TO DRAW.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MAXIMUMS. I THINK MAXIMUMS WOULD BE THE, THE HEAVY HANDED WAY OF, UM, NOT INCENTIVIZING, BUT STILL GIVING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FREEDOM, BUT MOSTLY NO STAFF DID NOT, UH, GET INTO THE, UH, THAT KIND SECONDARY AND TERTIARY LEVEL OF IMPACT.

DID YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? UH, YES.

I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

MOTION WITHDRAW.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UM, REVISE AND HANG ON, I GOTTA GET THE RIGHT SECTION 4.30188 TO, I MAY NEED A MINUTE TO SAY THIS.

WELL, UM, IN ALL DISTRICTS REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING, UM, PROVIDED OFF STREET PARKING MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR A FEE EXCEPT MULTI-FAMILY USES.

AND I'M OPENING THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR TRYING TO CRAFT THIS IN MY MIND AND STATE IT IN A CLEAR WAY, BUT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CAPTURE.

WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, ARE YOU ALSO ACCEPTING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT? OH, SORRY.

YES, ABSOLUTELY.

AND I, I, I THINK THE WAY MY MOTION WAS INTENDED TO BE STRUCTURED WAS MAXIMUM AVAILABILITY.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU SAID.

I KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT I, I, THAT'S WHY I DON'T LIKE MAKING MOTIONS ON THE FLY AND I WILL APOLOGIZE TO MY COMMISSIONERS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO? WELL, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, UM, IN SOME OF THE EARLY CONVERSATIONS ON THIS, IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF AGING SHOPPING CENTERS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BENEFIT.

WE HAVE AVAILABLE PARKING THAT HAS BUILT, THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT, NEW USES FOR SURROUNDING BUILDINGS.

THERE'S A PARKING GARAGE IN MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS PROBABLY 50% AND PROBABLY GREATER THAN THAT VACANT ON ANY GIVEN DAY THAT COULD SUPPORT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING USES.

I THINK OUR TESTIMONY EARLIER TODAY TALKED ABOUT TWO PARKING GARAGES THAT GOT BUILT IN DEEP EL THAT HELPED RELIEVE SOME OF THE PARKING DEMAND BY BEING AVAILABLE AS PAID PARKING.

WHAT I DON'T WANNA SEE HAPPEN IS WE LOSE THE ADJACENT HOUSE BY A RETAIL CENTER FOR SURFACE PARKING BECAUSE WE CAN CHARGE FOR THAT PARKING.

SO IT BECOMES PART OF THE BUSINESS MODEL.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE'RE BUILDING A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT THAT'S IN A NATURAL, AFFORDABLE AREA THAT'S SUDDENLY CHARGING FOR THEIR PARKING IN ADDITION TO THEIR RENT.

AND SO, AND

[04:55:01]

SO CAN I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? SO IT'S TO ALLOW REQUIRED PARKING TO BE PAID PARKING EXCEPT FOR MULTIFAMILY USES.

I THINK IT HAS TO BE PROVIDED, DOESN'T IT? WELL, I GUESS MULTIFAMILY DOES HAVE A REQUIREMENT.

SO THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT AND RIGHT.

YEAH, RIGHT NOW STRUCTURE, ANYONE CAN CHARGE FOR THEIR EXCESS PARKING.

SO IT WOULD ONLY APPLY, THE AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO REQUIRED.

REQUIRED, YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY A CLEANER WAY TO STRUCTURE IT.

I WILL STATE THAT ON THE RECORD.

WELL, SO WE COULD SAY IN ALL DISTRICTS EXCEPT CENTRAL AREA, DISTRICT AND MAYBE LIKE CR OR CS, CERTAIN OTHER DISTRICTS THAT YOU WANNA BROADEN IT REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING MAY BE AVAILABLE STREET PARKING.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE JUST ADDING TO THE EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT.

BUT IF WE TABLE IT FOR THE MOMENT AND THEN AT OUR NEXT BREAK YOU CAN GET WHAT STAFF AND, AND COME UP WITH GOOD LANGUAGE WAY THAT WAY, I WOULD BE DELIGHT TO DO THAT.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THAT WAY WE CAN ALL THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT AND KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.

UH, SO WE'LL TABLE THAT ONE.

BUT ANYWAY, THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN, SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT MOTION, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AFTER THE NEXT BREAK.

THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER, UH, 13, UH, YES, MR. CHAIR IN, UH, 51 A DASH 4.81.

UH, THE SECTION PERTAINING TO T DMPS I, UH, MOVE THAT WE DELETE ALL LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO T DMPS.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HARA FOR YOUR MOTION.

COMMISSIONER SCHOCK FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

SEEING NONE.

THAT'S A BETTER CLARIFICATION.

OPPOSED? NO.

CAN WE, OH, OH, OH, SORRY.

SORRY, SORRY, SORRY.

AND IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

WELL, I JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REMOVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THE TDMP WAS MEANT TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC REALM.

AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT MAYBE IT'S GOT TOO MANY COMPLEXITIES, THERE'S A LOT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

WE DON'T REALLY KNOW, WE'VE GOT OTHER TOOLS, BUT ARE THERE ANY BASE STANDARDS THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER TO HELP BRING FORWARD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT CHANGING OUR APPROACH TO PARKING? I'M TAKING A MOMENT TO CALL EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE WRITTEN AND PARSED THROUGH THE, THE IDEA OF THE TDMP IS BEGINNING A CULTURE OF CONSIDERING OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION BUILDING AND REQUIRING THAT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BUILD IN WAYS THAT THEY WILL INTEGRATE AND KIND OF TAKE ACCOUNT FOR THE, THE TRIPS THAT THEY'RE GENERATING.

THE WHAT OTHER, WHAT SOME OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE IS GOING BE AN INCOMPLETE ANSWER, BUT, UH, CATEGORICAL.

WHAT SOME OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE IS SIMPLY MAKE IT SORT OF A CHECKLIST OF INCENTIVES JUST WITHIN THEIR CODE.

THERE'S NO, NO SPECIAL TD MP NESS ABOUT IT.

IT'S JUST SIMPLY IF YOU'RE DOING MULTIFAMILY AND YOU ADD, UH, AN EXTRA BIKE RACK BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN UM, HERE'S, YOU KNOW, HERE'S REDUCTION IN PARKING MINIMUMS OR, UH, FLEXIBILITY IN SOME OTHER WAY.

AND TO HAVE A CHECKLIST OF POINTS KIND OF LIKE THAT.

AND SO AT, AT THE CRUX OF WHAT THE TDMP IS, WE'VE PRES PRESENTED IT, IS IS JUST THAT, UM, EXCEPT IT'S KIND OF ON THE REQUIREMENT SIDE.

AND SO SOMETHING, SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT MIGHT BE DESIGN INCENTIVES MIGHT BE PARKING INCENTIVES.

UM, THE TODD LIPMAN WHO'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, HE'S GOT AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF, UM, IDEAS AND GUIDELINES FOR CREATING SORT OF LISTS OF, UH, PARKING INCENTIVES BASED ON LOCATION, BASED ON DESIGN, BASED ON SHARING THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO JUST PICK ON THE FLY FRANKLY.

UM, HOWEVER, I THINK THE CODE REFORM THAT'S COMING UP THAT, THAT WE'RE WORKING ON ALREADY IS A GREAT PLACE TO CONSIDER MAYBE ADDITIONAL SENSITIVITY TO, UM, MIXES OF USES IN A GIVEN DISTRICT OR DESIGN, THAT KIND OF A THING.

AND DO I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL WHEN THIS WAS, UM, ORIGINALLY BEING CONSIDERED THAT TREK HAD SENT FORWARD A MODIFIED VERSION OF THIS.

I KNOW THAT'S NOT, IT WAS JUST THEIR, UM, INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THIS ITEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? DID STAFF HAVE A POINT OF VIEW ON THAT? TO BE FAIR, TO TRACK THAT WAS THE INDUSTRY COMPROMISE.

THEY THEY

[05:00:01]

PREFER THAT.

IT'S SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH, AND IT, UM, IT STILL WORKED.

IT'S, IT'S SO LIGHT THAT IT CAN REALLY HARDLY BE CALLED A-T-D-M-P PROGRAM AT THAT POINT.

UM, HOWEVER, AND, AND IT'S STREAMLINED, IT STILL CAN BE WORTHWHILE.

HOWEVER, IT'S NOT A, UM, IT'S NOT A CORE PART OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AT THE, AT THAT LEVEL.

THANK YOU, MR. WADE.

THANK YOU, MR. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

THE MOTION SAYS LEAD ALL LANGUAGE IN REFERENCE TO SECTION 4.8012, BUT THEN WE HAVE THE NEXT SECTION, WHICH IS LIKE 4.804, AND THERE'S NO PROPOSED MOTION THAT I SEE DEALING WITH THAT.

WOULD WE NEED TO DELETE THAT AS WELL? I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S COMMISSIONER HOUSER'S INTENT, MR. STAFF'S ASSUMPTION ON THAT.

IT, IT WOULD BE BOTH 8 0 1 2 AND 8 0 4 8 0 1 2 INTRODUCES THE CONCEPT OF TDMP TO 4.8 HUNDRED AND THEN FOUR POINT, UH, 4.804 FLESHES IT OUT.

MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD JUST BE TO, UM, SAY 4.8 HUNDRED IN YOUR MOTION RATHER THAN ANYTHING MORE SPECIFIC.

COMMISSIONER TURNER, UM, I SUPPORTED THE, UH, I SECOND THE MOTION WHEN THIS IDEA WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO US.

I ACTUALLY SPOKE OUT AND WAS SUPPORTIVE AND IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT HAD, UM, MUCH SUPPORT AT THAT TIME.

I FELT LIKE I WAS, I WAS ONE OF THE FEW THAT DID.

UM, AND I'VE KIND OF CHANGED SINCE THEN BECAUSE I'VE REALLY TRIED TO HONE DOWN IN THE PRACTICALITY OF WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE GOING THROUGH PERMITTING.

AND MY, UM, MY THOUGHTS ON IT NOW IS I, I WOULD PRIORITIZE, UM, GETTING PERMITS THROUGH AND SIMPLIFYING THINGS.

UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I FEEL A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THIS TIME AROUND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? NO, I, I WOULD PROPOSE A FRIENDLY MOVEMENT THAT WE ELIMINATE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.8 HUNDRED, UH, ELIMINATE 4.8 HUNDRED, ALL OF IT DIR AND EVERYTHING, OR JUST THE TDMP LANGUAGE FROM 4.8 HUNDRED.

WELL, EXPLAIN TO ME, WHAT I AM ATTEMPTING TO DO IS GET RID OF THE, UM, TDMP PORTION.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE COMMISSIONER LANDED.

ELIMINATING TDMP LANGUAGE FROM 4.8 HUNDRED.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH, I, I STILL STAND WHERE I WAS.

UM, TDMP MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE MECHANISM, BUT WE JUST, IF ANYTHING, IF ANYBODY'S GONNA TRY IT, IT'S GONNA BE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND WITHOUT THE BUFFER THERE, IT, IT GIVES ME CONCERN.

UM, I I HOPE THAT WE HAVE SOME MECHANISM GOING FORWARD IF TDMP WAS TOO COMPLICATED, UM, THAT, THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO 'CAUSE YEAH, JUST A PAUSE FOR CALL.

LIKE MY COMMISSIONER SAYS.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT CORRECT, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, THE, THE CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION WAS, WAS OKAY, YOU DID NOT HAVE AN AMENDMENT RIGHT.

YOU DID NOT, WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

BUT YEAH, IT INCLUDES, WHAT'S THE MOTION? IT INCLUDES TO DELETE ALL THE TDMP LANGUAGE FROM THAT WHOLE DIVISION.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? WELL, I, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.

UM, I WILL DEFER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND TO STAFF.

I DO HOPE THAT THERE IS, UM, DISCUSSION VIA CODE REFORM BECAUSE I THINK THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS A CITY WOULD BENEFIT FROM, UM, IN THINKING MORE BROADLY ABOUT HOW WE WANNA CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AS WE'RE WRESTLING.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT GENERATION OF OUR CITY LOOKS LIKE.

MOVE THAT WE, UM, REQUIRE, UH, CUSTOMER VEHICLES IN A VEHICLE SERVICE CENTER TO BE PARKED ON SITE.

NO COMMENTS.

ALL AS IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ONE IN OPPOSITION.

MOTION PASSES.

LET'S GO TO 15.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN, UH, 51 A DASH 4.2 10 B THREE.

UM, I

[05:05:01]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER CROPPER.

UM, I CAN MAKE THIS AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, OR I, THEY CAN BE SEPARATE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE AUTO SERVICE CENTER, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD 4.202 10, WHICH IS MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE, AND 14 VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, BECAUSE THOSE USES ARE JUST MORE INTENSIVE VERSIONS OF THE AUTO SERVICE CENTER.

AND WE HAVE TREMENDOUS PROBLEMS IN DISTRICT SIX WITH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ADJACENCY, UM, WITH RESIDENTS.

AND THESE BUSINESSES ARE THE ONES THAT, UM, TEND TO OVERFLOW INTO THE PUBLIC REALM TREMENDOUSLY.

AND I SEE A PROBLEM, A POTENTIAL PROBLEM IF WE DO ELIMINATE, EXCUSE ME, I'M LOSING MY VOICE.

ELIMINATE, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS THAT THEY'LL BE EVEN MORE TEMPTED TO GO INTO VERY POSTAGE STAMP SIZE PLACES.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THOSE TWO MORE.

UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE.

SORRY, JUST A CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ARE, WHEN YOU SAY CUSTOMER VEHICLES, DO YOU MEAN THE VEHICLES BEING SERVICED OR CORRECT? THE VEHICLES BEING SERVICED.

THE SERVICED, OKAY.

SO I'M, I'M, I'M LEANING ON THE STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY TO GET MY WORDS RIGHT.

'CAUSE I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT RIGHT.

NO, I UNDERSTOOD YOUR INTENT, BUT WE'RE MAKING SURE, SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT? MM-HMM .

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND AMENDED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THEN THAT WAS ACCEPTED.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WOULD YOU JUST REPEAT THE SECTIONS THAT YOU'RE ADDING? CERTAINLY.

UH, 4.202 10, WHICH IS MACHINERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE, AND 4.202 14 VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE, UM, WHICH IS ALL CUSTOMER VEHICLES MUST BE PARKED ON SITE.

COMMISSIONER CHERNO.

UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THAT.

I THINK THAT, UM, THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

DITTO.

UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AND THE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES.

UH, WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 60.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

UH, IN 51 A DASH 4.314.

UH, I MOVE THAT WE STRIKE THE SECTION PERTAINING TO PARKING REDUCTIONS TIED TO BICYCLE PARKING.

CAN I HAVE A SECOND? NO.

LET'S HAVE A, WE HAVE A SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER WHEELER COMMENTS.

I, I, I NEED TO CLARIFICATION FOR THAT BECAUSE IN CERTAIN AREAS IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S NEEDED, UM, TO HAVE THOSE REDUCTIONS AS IT RELATES TO PARKING, UH, UH, FOR, FOR BIKING FOR BIKE RACKS.

AND IT HELPS REDUCE, I THINK IT'S OVER A HUNDRED, OR MAYBE I'M READING IT WRONG IN SOME OF OUR SHOPPING CENTERS.

IT HELPS WITH THAT FLOW WITH, UM, WITH HAVING THOSE REDUCTIONS BASED OFF THE BIKE RACKS.

AND THE REDUCTIONS ARE NOT THAT MUCH, BUT THEY DO HELP REDUCTION PARKING.

YEAH, BECAUSE EVERYWHERE'S NOT REALLY PARKING ANYMORE, JUST TRYING TO HELP A LOT OF TIMES THE SHOPPING CENTERS, UM, SHOPPING CENTERS.

MAYBE CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT THE INTENT THERE.

I I WOULD LOVE TO CLARIFY FROM COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT EXACTLY WHAT HE'S SAYING WITH THIS ITEM.

YEAH, I GUESS I JUST WAS STRUGGLING WITH EQUATING SIX BICYCLE SPOTS TO ONE REQUIRED PARKING SPOT.

AND MAYBE I'M, MAYBE I'M NARROW-MINDED OR OLD FASHIONED, BUT I I WAS JUST TRYING, I, I, YOU KNOW, SO I WAS, I WAS RECOMMENDING WE JUST REMOVE THAT, THAT SECTION SO IT WOULD BE NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO GET THE REDUCTION FOR PROVIDING BICYCLE PARKING.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, I GUESS SO.

THAT SO MUCH MANY CITIES ARE INCLUDING THAT AND IT DOES WORK.

UM, SHOPPING CENTER ON SAMUEL BOULEVARD, UH, WHERE AT THEIR MINIMUM HAD MET THAT MATCH AND, AND THOSE BIKING RACKS DID MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND THEY WERE LIKE, MAYBE THREE SHORT, IT ONLY TAKES ONE BUSINESS IN A SHOPPING, ONE TO TWO BUSINESS IN A SHOPPING STRIP TO THROW OFF THE

[05:10:01]

BALANCE OF THE PARKING.

AND SO THAT REDUCTION, UM, WE ARE GETTING SOME, BUT IT, IT'S, ANYTHING COULD DO THAT, YOU KNOW, AND ONCE YOU LOSE IT ALL, YOU CAN'T GET IT BACK, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S NO DELTA CRITICS.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT SEEM MINUTE, IT DOES WORK WHEN IT WORKS.

UM, AND MOST CITIES USE THAT AS A MECHANISM AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO RIDE BIKES.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE CONTEXT.

IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT A LOT, BUT IT DOES SERVE ITS PURPOSE WHEN IT NEEDS TO VICE CHAIR.

UM, RESPECTFULLY, THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY FIRM NO, UM, ON MY END, I THINK WE NEED TO, UM, TO ENCOURAGE CYCLING IN THE CITY.

WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE PROPERTY OWNERS TO, UM, INSTALL BIKE RACKS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT JUST GONNA LEAVE YOUR BIKE OUT, UM, NOT, YOU KNOW, LOCKED UP.

UM, THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY REASONABLE, YOU KNOW, TRADE OFF OF A PARKING, UM, SPACE IN EXCHANGE FOR, YOU KNOW, A MEANINGFULLY SIZED BIKE RACK.

I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT INCENTIVE TO HAVE IN OUR CODE, AND I WOULD STRONGLY, UM, ASK MY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO, UM, NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND KEEP THIS IN THE CODE.

UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YEAH, I, I THINK I'M CONFUSED.

UM, BECAUSE IF, IF, UH, PROVIDING BICYCLE PARKING IS TIED TO PARKING REDUCTIONS, BUT WE'RE ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS, THEN WE'RE EFFECTIVELY REDUCING AN INCENTIVE TO PROVIDE PARK, UH, BIKES.

I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO REQUIRE BIKE PARKING, I MEAN, YEAH, BIKE PARKING, THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO DECOUPLE IT FROM, FROM CAR PARKING SPACES.

UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE ONLY PLACE, UM, A REDUCTION WOULD BE TIED, UH, TO REQUIRED PARKING WOULD BE FOR THE HANDFUL OF USES THAT ARE STILL GONNA HAVE A PARKING MINIMUM.

I ASSUME THAT THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT MAYBE IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE, WE'RE OVERLAYING THEM OVER THE BASE CODE VERSUS OVERLAYING THEM OVER THE Z ZAC RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS POINTING OUT.

COMMISSIONER WE, AND I KNOW WE DOING THAT, BUT IT'S NOT, ITS IT'S BIKES.

IT'S, IT'S NOT A LOT, BUT IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE THAT ONE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE, AND BIKES, AND EVERY CITY IS REQUIRING BIKE RIGHTS.

THEY'RE REQUIRING IT.

UM, FORT WORTH HAS IT, UH, REALLY IS INTENSIFIED IN FORT WORTH.

BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU MIGHT GET EVERY SHOT EVERY, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE ENOUGH.

IT MIGHT BE ONE PERSON THAT SWITCHES TO A REDUCTION IN PARKING AND HAD A DELTA CREDIT, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE USE THAT THEY PUT IN IS MORE INTENSE AND YOU NEED THAT BIKE RACK.

IT, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

AND ONE OR TWO, OFTENTIMES THEY GET IT COME DOWN TO ONE OR TWO PARKING SPACES, AND WE HAVE TO GET REAL, REAL, REAL CREATIVE.

AND IF THEY, AND SAY YOU ARE IN PD 5 95 AND YOU ARE, AND WE HAVEN'T REMOVED THE, UM, SETBACK REQUIREMENT THAT PARKING MIGHT, THAT PARKING RACK MIGHT COME INTO PLAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT.

SO IT'S JUST THE, IT IS MINUTE, BUT IT IS NOT, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO SPACES LIKE THAT, IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE THE REDUCTION.

IT MIGHT BE THE SETBACK THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.

AND YOU LOSE TWO PARKING SPACES.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, GIVEN THE LAST SENTENCE IN SUBSECTION E AND THE AREAS THAT WE STILL REQUIRE PARKING WITH THE AMENDMENTS WE'VE PROPOSED, WHERE COULD YOU EVEN USE THIS? LET ME READ IT WHILE I THINK ABOUT THE ANSWER.

IN ADDITION TO A PARKING REDUCTION, GRANTED UNDER SUBSECTIONS A OR B REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES MAY BE REDUCED BY AN ADDITIONAL 5% BY PROVIDING SHOWERS, LOCKERS, AND CHANGING FACILITIES FOR BICYCLE RIDERS.

THIS PARKING REDUCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING, MEGAN AND, UM, LAURA, THE, THAT LAST SENTENCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARKING REDUCTION IS NOT, THAT'S TALKING ABOUT JUST E IS THAT CORRECT? NOT THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, THE ENTIRE SECTION.

SO YEAH.

JUST EAT THIS THE WAY WE'RE READING IT.

THAT JUST REFERS TO E OKAY.

BIKE, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE.

COMMISSIONER CHARNA.

UH, I LIKE THE, I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE STAYING IN THERE UNTIL WE HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO MONITOR

[05:15:02]

BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN THIS, UH, THIS GOES ON TO PERMIT AND THIS ACTUALLY GETS INSPECTED AND THERE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT THE BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS TO THE SPACING OF IT, THE SHAPE OF IT, IT'S, UM, THERE'S A LOT MORE TO IT THAT GOES IN, GOES INTO IT THAN ONE WOULD IMAGINE.

AND THAT ACTUALLY GETS INSPECTED, UH, AT, UM, WHEN SOMEBODY'S TRYING TO GET THEIR FINAL PERMIT.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, I ALSO THINK THAT THE INCENTIVE THAT IT CREATES FOR DEVELOPERS AND PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT TOO.

SO UNTIL WE HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO ACTUALLY OVERSEE THAT, I WOULD RATHER IT STAY IN UNTIL THAT POINT.

ANY THE COMMENTS COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.

ANY OPPOSED? AYE.

IN AYE, MOTION FAILS.

AND I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE WITH ALL THE PARKING, LIKE THE ELIMINATION OF A LOT OF PARKING AGREEMENTS AND THE REDUCTION OF PARKING AGREEMENTS, WE'RE GONNA, OR I MEAN PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE GONNA SEE PROBABLY FEWER PARKING AGREEMENTS NECESSARY.

WE'LL GO TO, UH, 17.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

IN 51 A DASH 4.328 A FIVE.

UM, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO STATE THAT EVIDENCE OF A VALID PARKING AGREEMENT MUST BE AN EXECUTED LEASE FOR THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR A MINIMUM TERM OF SIX MONTHS.

IF THE LEASE IS NOT RENEWED, THE BUSINESS HAS 30 DAYS TO ACQUIRE A NEW PARKING LEASE OR BE SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

WE HAVE A, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND FOR THE, THANK YOU.

LET SECOND IT, UH, COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER WEAVER, I, I AM GONNA BE OPPOSE OPPOSED TO THAT, I HAVE A PARKING AGREEMENT.

AND THE PARKING AGREEMENT IS NOT WITH THE TENANT.

IT IS WITH TWO PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND, AND NOW IT'S EVEN MORE INTENSE BECAUSE WHEN I HAD MY PARKING AGREEMENT, WE DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

IT NOW GOES THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

IT TAKES TIME, IT SETS BACK CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES.

IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF IT WAS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, ONE PROPERTY OWNER AND A TENANT.

BUT TWO PROPERTY OWNERS COME UP WITH THIS.

AND, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO SHARE PARKING AND IT COULD OFFSET A PARKING, UM, ONE PARKING OWNER THAT DON'T REALLY BENEFIT FROM IT, MAKE IT ANNOYED.

AND NOW WE LOSE PARKING.

BUT I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT MIGHT JUST BE DIFFERENT IF IT WAS WITH THE TENANT, I WOULD GO FOR THAT, BUT IT IS NOT WITH THE TENANT.

IT GOES, IT GOES THROUGH QUITE A RIGOROUS PROCESS NOW AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS TO SIGN OFF AND THEY DOUBLE CHECK.

I'VE HAD IT WHERE THEY HAD, WHERE THEY'VE PULLED UP THE CHURCHES, UH, THE PASTOR MEAN THE CHURCHES TO SEE WHO WAS THE OWNER, DEACONS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS OR WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE.

SO IT IS NOT JUST TENANTS, IT IS TWO PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND IF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS RENT, I WOULD HOPE THAT IF THE PARKING AGREEMENT HELPS GET US MORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES, THAT WE WOULD NOT RESTRICT IT LIKE THAT.

I PLEASE CAN I, CAN I GET AN EXPLANATION OF THIS? HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM THE PARKING AGREEMENTS WE HAVE NOW? AND IS THIS FOR REMOTE PARKING, FOR SHARED PARKING, FOR TANDEM PARKING? ALL.

WE HAVE A, A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPECIAL PARKING, UM, THAT WE USE PARKING AGREEMENTS FOR.

AND IS THIS SOMETHING THE CITY DOES IS NOT A PARTY TO, SO WE CAN'T ENFORCE THESE LEASES BECAUSE WE CAN ENFORCE OUR PARKING AGREEMENTS NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT RUN WITH THE LAND.

AND WE, WE ARE PARTY TO THOSE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CURRENT POLICY IS RESTRICTIVE AND, UH, TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE FOR, UH, FOR BUSINESSES AND TO PROVIDE A MEANS THAT IS MORE FLEXIBLE AND EASIER TO PUT IN PLACE WOULD, UM, PROVIDE BENEFITS TO, UM, BUSINESSES, PROVIDE BENEFITS TO, UM, OUR, OUR DISTRICTS IN TERMS OF SOLVING PARKING ISSUES AND NOT MAKING PEOPLE GO THROUGH THE HURDLE OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING THIS AS SOMETHING THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND, BUT JUST MAKE IT MORE OF A BUSINESS AGREEMENT TO SATISFY, UM, REMOTE PARKING NEEDS.

AND SO IF AN EXECUTED LEASE BETWEEN TWO TENANTS IS SHOWN TO BUILDING INSPECTION TO SHOW THAT THEY'VE GOT THEIR PARKING, WHAT KEEPS THEM FROM THEN TERMINATING THAT LEASE THE FOLLOWING WEEK AND THE CITY WOULD JUST HAVE NO IDEA THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED? THAT'S, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY NOT BEING PARTY TO THE PARKING AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE LOST.

THEY'RE OUT THERE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BECOMES OF THEM.

THEY'RE NOT FILED DEED RECORDS.

WE FILE THESE DEED RECORDS NOW SO THAT ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO BE PURCHASING SOME PROPERTY, THEY KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY IS ENCUMBERED BY THIS PARKING AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY HAS SIGNED OFF ON.

[05:20:05]

UM, CAN I INTERJECT WITH JUST CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION? IN THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION? THIS IS 4.328 A FIVE.

UM, IT IS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED THAT IS A, BE EITHER A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND OR BASED ON A LEASE OF THE REMOTE PARKING SPACES.

AND SO CURRENT, CURRENT CODE BEFORE THAT PROPOSED REVISION WOULD JUST SAY, JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE, BE A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND.

THE ZAC ZAC ADDITION, RECOMMENDED ADDITION IS BE EITHER A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND OR BASED ON A LEASE OF THE REMOTE PARKING SPACES.

SO BASED ON A LEASE THAT THE CITY HAS NO, IS NOT PARTY TO AND CAN'T ENFORCE, THAT'S PART OF THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION.

COMMISSIONER FORESITE? NO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

I, I'M, I'M GONNA START AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MORE TO PROBABLY WEIGH IN.

I'M, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND I WILL SAY, I THINK THIS PROBABLY CAME OUT OF DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS IN MY, UM, DISTRICT AS WELL AS THIS MOVES FORWARD.

AND WE ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, PRESUMING AS WE'RE TRENDING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF BUILT PARKING THAT IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE AND IT IS A WAY TO HELP MAKE THAT PARKING AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING REDEVELOPMENT THROUGH A PARKING AGREEMENT.

SO I, AND FOR THE HANDFUL OF USES THAT ARE STILL GONNA REQUIRE PARKING OR MY BUSINESS MODEL TELLS ME I NEED THEM, BUT I DON'T HAVE THEM ON SITE.

AND IT'S A WAY TO TRACK IT.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD HAS COME ABOUT ON SOME OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF IT, THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET FOLKS TO GIVE UP THEIR PARKING FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

ABSOLUTELY.

HERE.

AND UNDERSTAND MS. MORRISON'S POINT OF VIEW, BECAUSE AGAIN, I'VE ALSO BEEN THE PERSON WHO'S GONE AND WALKED THOSE PARKING SPACES.

'CAUSE I KNOW THEY'RE TIED TO ANOTHER BUSINESS OR AN OLD PARKING DISTRICT COMES UP AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT TIED TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S CO.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE.

I WILL SAY TO MS. MORRISON'S POINT, THE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THAT'S A PRETTY BIG STICK TO MAKE SURE YOU KEEP YOUR LEASE AND YOU KEEP GOING.

BUT IT, THERE'S, THERE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IS LIKELY A CHALLENGE.

AND I SEE THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS, BUT I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF IT AND I THINK IT SPEAKS TO A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT.

I'M JUST NOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS LANGUAGE MAYBE GETS US EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED TO GO.

COMMISSIONER ER, MY ISSUE IS, UM, IF I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND I AM A LANDOWNER AND I MAKE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE, WITH MY NEIGHBORING LANDLORD OWNER, I WILL THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN FOR A LEASE TO LEASE.

BECAUSE IN THE LONG, IF I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON MY PROPERTY AND I MAKE THIS AGREEMENT, WHAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE? IT'S GONNA BE A BIG FIT TO WHOEVER IS SHORT ON THE PARKING IN THE LONG TERM SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO LEASE THEIR BUILDING OUT.

UM, IF SOMEONE IS, IS DOING SOMETHING IN THEIR BUSINESS AND IT'S NON-CON AND IT'S NOT, UM, ATTACHED TO THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THAT IS A CODE VIOLATION AND THEY CODE HANDLE THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS THE, WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, THIS IS, THESE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS, I, I WOULD, I DON'T THINK THAT A, A TENANT SHOULD EVER BE MAKING THOSE TYPE OF, UM, AGREEMENTS WITH THESE TWO LANDOWNER SHOULD AND, AND, AND, AND BEING SOMEONE WHO IS, WHO HAS A PARKING AGREEMENT, I OWN MY PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER ACROSS THE STREET, HIS PROPERTY, I HAVE A LIVE WORK.

I JUST NEEDED ONE PARKING SPACE BECAUSE MY DRIVEWAY IS CONSIDERED THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE PARK FOR THE ACTUAL, UM, HOUSE, FOR WE, THE LIVE PART.

AND ACROSS THE STREET I GOT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR MY, MY LAND FOR THE MY NEIGHBORING BUSINESS.

THE INTENT OF HAVING A SHORTER PERIOD.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CAN YEAH, I THINK GO AHEAD MEL, I'LL FOLLOW YOU.

I, WELL, NUMBER ONE, I I, I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE SIGNED BY TENANTS, SHOULD BE SIGNED BY PROPERTY OWNERS.

I LIKE

[05:25:01]

UM, AND I DON'T EVEN NECESSARILY MIND IT BEING SIGNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES AS LONG AS IT'S FILED BY THE, IN THE COUNTY DEED RECORDS, WHICH THIS PROVISION DOES REQUIRE.

UM, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE A NOTICE MECHANISM WHERE IF IT'S MODIFIED SOMEHOW THAT ALSO HAS TO BE FILED.

SO IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT, I MEAN THERE'S A WAY TO DO THIS.

I'M JUST QUESTIONING WHETHER WE NEED IT WITH THE AMOUNT OF PARKING REDUCTIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I MIGHT TABLE THIS AND SEE IF WE REALLY EVEN HAVE THAT MANY PARKING AGREEMENTS IN THE FUTURE.

AND IF SO, THIS WOULD BE A FAIRLY EASY ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE IN THE FUTURE IF WE STILL REALLY EVEN HAVE PARKING AGREEMENTS.

MR. CARPENTER? YES.

I I'M GOING DOWN THE SAME PATH BECAUSE I MEAN, THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THOSE EXECUTED, YOU KNOW, THE COVENANTS NOW IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED PARKING IF WE ARE ELIMINATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.

AND IF YOU HAVE PARKING ACCESS, IF YOU HAVE PARKING THAT'S NO LONGER REQUIRED, IT JUST PROVIDED, IT SEEMS TO ME YOU'D BE FREE TO MAKE WHATEVER SITE ARRANGEMENT YOU WANT TO WITH A, WITH A, A NEARBY NEIGHBOR OR A FRIEND OR WHATEVER.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED THIS, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AND SAY THAT MAYBE THIS IS A, A, A SOLUTION FOR A PROBLEM.

WE'RE NOT SURE WE'RE GONNA EVEN HAVE.

AND, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT.

GOOD, GOOD CONVERSATION.

SO IS THE SIMPLEST THING, UH, FOR ME TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION? I THINK IT WOULD BE.

DONE.

MOTION IS WITHDRAWN.

WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 18.

CAN I, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, SIR, CAN I JUST POINT OUT THE ZAC RECOMMENDATIONS STILL INCLUDES BE EITHER A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND OR BASED ON A LEASE OF THE REMOTE PARKING SPACES.

IF YOU'RE WANTING TO JUST RETAIN WHAT'S IN CODE RIGHT NOW? NOT THAT I EXPECT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A MOTION, I GUESS, I THINK TO DO THAT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'D LIKE THAT.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER KINGS.

I DON'T SUPPORT IT.

I JUST LET SOMEONE, OKAY.

YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MODIFY ZAK'S RECOMMENDATION TO 51 A DASH 4.328 SUBSECTION FIVE, AND REMOVE THE WORDS EITHER AND OR BASED ON A LEASE OF THE REMOTE PARKING SPACES.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

AND CAN WE ALSO ELIMINATE THE, UH, LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 11, BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT THE LEASE THAT MAKES SENSE TO STAFF.

UM, YOU, YOU JUST WANT THE PART ABOUT THE LEASE AND NOT IF THERE'S A, IF THE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED OR TERMINATED, YOU STILL WANT NOTICE OF THAT, RIGHT? RIGHT.

JUST RETURN THE LANGUAGE TO WHAT IT IS IN THE CODE TODAY FOR PARAGRAPH 11 AS WELL.

AND, AND AMEND PARA SUBSECTION 11 TO REMOVE THE ADDITIONS THAT START WITH PROVIDE AND END WITH AGREEMENT.

EXCEPT THAT YOU KEEP THE WORD THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YES, I WAS GOING.

JUST ASK COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IF SHE WANTED ME TO READ THE REVISED, BUT I THINK SHE GOT IT ALL.

STAFF'S GOT IT.

ANY DISCUSSIONS? YOU ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

UH, COMMISSIONER, WHY DON'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT BREAK NOW.

IT'S FOUR 10.

LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.

WE HAVE THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE ONE OUTSTANDING ITEM THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WAS GONNA IRON OUT THIS ONE.

AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE ONE CLEANUP ITEM FROM THE LAST TIME AND MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE.

UH, SO WE'LL JUST TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK, COME BACK AND FINISH UP.

[05:40:57]

YOU READY, SIR? LOOKS LIKE HE'S READY TO MEET.

[05:40:59]

ARE

[05:40:59]

ARE WE RECORDING? WE ARE RECORDING 4 22 COMMISSIONERS.

WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

HAVE A COUPLE OF OUTSTANDING ITEMS. WE'LL, UH, WE'LL GO TO NUMBER, UM, EIGHT 18.

UM, MR. CHAIR, UM, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO, UM, STATE THAT NO PARKING MINIMUMS APPLY FOR ANY STRUCTURE DESIGNATED AS A RECORDED TEXAS HISTORIC LANDMARK, A STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK, A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, OR IS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, UH, HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.

OH, SORRY.

PLEASE.

UM, ARE WE ALSO INTENDING TO CAPTURE CITY OF DALLAS LAND DESIGNATED LANDMARKS? UM, SURE.

I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION.

THAT WAS A YES.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, CAN SOMEBODY GIVE US AN IDEA OF HOW MANY BUILDINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? NOT AT THIS TIME.

I CAN GIVE YOU SOMETHING AT ANOTHER TIME.

ANYBODY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? IF THERE MAY, MR. WADE, WOULD YOU BE AWARE IF THE, UM, IF HISTORIC, AND I WILL APOLOGIZE, I DON'T REMEMBER THE CURRENT NAME, BUT OUR DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION MAINTAINS A LIST OF OUR NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS, OUR INDIVIDUALLY LISTED, UM, DESIGNATIONS FOR BOTH BUILDINGS AND DISTRICTS THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THEIR CITY WEBSITE.

SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PROGRAM AND DEDICATED STAFF.

YOU WANNA LOOK? I DO.

WE WANNA LOOK, TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK.

I CAN, I CAN PULL THAT UP QUICKLY, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I'D ALSO LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

AMENDMENT, OKAY.

YEAH, PLEASE.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT IF ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE GONNA BE USED FOR BAR, RESTAURANT OR INSIDE OR OUTSIDE, UM, AMUSEMENT THAT THEY'D BE SUBJECT TO AN SUP IF THEY'RE, MAYBE IF THEY'RE LOCATED WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE TO, UM, RESIDENTIAL, MAYBE 500 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

MAYBE 200 FEET IN, 300 FEET OF CITY BLOCK.

SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE.

COMMISSIONERS, UH, UH, WE DO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, THAT, UH, REQUIRES ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS TO BE BAR AND RESTAURANT TO RECEIVE AN SUP WHEN THEY ARE WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE.

INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT DOOR AND OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT.

AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT LIST.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WOULD A I WOULD A PARK BE CONSIDERED AN OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT? I, I WILL JUST SAY THAT I AM ON THE GOOGLE DRIVE LINK FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEBSITE.

THEY ARE NOT ALL NUMBERED.

UM, BUT I AM NOW ON ROW 152 ON THE SPREADSHEET .

SO THIS INCLUDES LOCAL NATIONAL REGISTER.

UM, IT HAS MARKERS LISTED, SOME ARE MULTIPLE, UM, CITY, COUNTY.

SO IT HAS ALL THE DESIGNATIONS ON THIS AVAILABLE

[05:45:01]

SPREADSHEET.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WHILE THEY'RE WORKING IT OUT, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING YOUR AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? I'M SORRY.

WOULD YOU MIND, UM, REPEATING YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I GOT MY, UH, MY AMENDMENT WAS THAT FOR ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT GET USED FOR BAR RESTAURANT, INDOOR OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT, AND THEY'RE LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE, THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN SUP.

AND RESIDENTIAL USE, IS THAT MULTIFAMILY AS WELL? OR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX? I, I DIDN'T LIMIT IT, BUT, AND I, I'M JUST GONNA CHIME IN.

I THINK REQUIRING AN SCP FOR THESE USES WITHIN THESE LANDMARKS FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING.

YOU CAN ADD A PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THESE USES, BUT TO ADD AN SUP REQUIREMENT, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING TO CONSIDER PARKING REFORM.

I MEAN, I READ THE NOTICE PRETTY BROADLY.

CAN YOU PULL UP THE NOTICE? BUT HOW IS REQUIRING AN SEP FOR A USE TIED TO PARKING REFORM? THAT'S, THAT'S LOOKING AT A LAND USE AND DECIDING IF IT'S BY RIGHT OR BY SEP ARE PROHIBITED? WELL, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GIVING A PARKING, IF YOU'RE GRANTING A PARKING MINIMUM, THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THAT IS IF THEY GET AN SEP.

IT'S TIED DIRECTLY TO THE PARKING REDUCTION.

SO THE GENERAL RULE IS IF THEY'RE IN USES IN ONE OF THESE LANDMARKS DOESN'T HAVE TO PARK.

BUT IF YOU'RE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE OR A BAR OR RESTAURANT, THE SOLUTION TO THAT WOULD THEN TO BE, REQUIRE PARKING FOR THEM.

OR SAY THEY, THEY, THEY DON'T GET THE PARKING REDUCTION.

BUT TO THEN REQUIRE AN SUP.

AN SUP CAN THEN PUT ON ALL KINDS OF OTHER CONDITIONS ONTO THE USE, WHICH FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING.

WELL, YOU COULD LIMIT THE SUP TO JUST PARKING, BUT WE, WE DON'T DO THAT.

SUVS HAVE TIME LIMITS.

THEY HAVE SITE PLANS, THEY HAVE ALL OF THAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'D BE PUTTING ON THESE USES.

AND THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF PARKING.

DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA? WE MIGHT HAVE ONE VICE, MR. RUBIN, YOU CAN JUST SAY THAT THOSE ARE EXEMPTED FROM THIS PARKING, UM, LIKE THIS PARKING REDUCTION VICE CHAIR.

COULD WE NOT ROPE IT IN UNDER THE, MAYBE THIS WAS, WAS JUST SAID, BUT I WANT FLOAT IT OUT THERE ONE MORE TIME.

COULD WE NOT SAY THAT THESE USES IN SUCH HISTORIC BUILDINGS REQUIRE AN SUP FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PARKING IS REQUIRED? SO THERE'S A NEXUS TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I MEAN, THE, THE AUTHORIZED HEARING IS CONSIDERING AMENDING CHAPTER 51 58, THE DALLAS CITY CODE REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS.

AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE SECTIONS THAT, THAT GET AMENDED.

WOULD THAT NOT BE ENOUGH OF A NEXUS IF WE REFERENCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUP? SO TO SAY THAT BARS, RESTAURANTS, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LOCATED WITHIN THESE DESIGNATED STRUCTURES MUST RECEIVE, MUST OBTAIN AN SUP FROM CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHAT, IF ANY, PARKING IS TO BE REQUIRED.

I MEAN, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S BETTER.

SO IT'S, IT'S THE MOTION, UM, EXCEPT THAT BARS, RESTAURANTS, AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE WITHIN THESE DESIGNATED LANDMARKS, UM, MUST OBTAIN AN SUP.

UM, I DUNNO, HOW DID YOU PUT IT? I ALREADY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DE DETERMINING WHAT, IF ANY, PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THE USE.

WAS THERE THE 300 FOOT PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USE AS WELL? RIGHT.

WITHIN 300 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL.

WOW.

WITHIN 300.

ARE WE OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I DON'T KNOW IF I AM OR NOT, BECAUSE I I SO NO PARKING MINIMUMS WOULD APPLY FOR, I MEAN, THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE ONLY SENTENCE HERE, NO PARKING MINIMUMS APPLY FOR THOSE STRUCTURES FOR, FOR ANY USE OTHER THAN A A BAR OR RESTAURANT CA OR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.

[05:50:07]

BUT IF, IF THE, IF THE BAR, RESTAURANT OR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, UM, THEY, OKAY.

IF THEY FALL WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL USE, THEY HAVE TO GET AN SUP FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF A PARKING MINIMUM REQUIRED IS REQUIRED.

THAT'S IT.

IT'S, UH, ROUGH JUSTICE.

COMMISSIONER, WE PLEASE.

WHY WE JUST DON'T DO A RAR OR A DIR OR INSTEAD OF A SUP.

I MEAN, THE SUP CAN SET THE PARKING.

THE, HUH? IT'S CORRECT THAT THE RAR MAY NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE PARKING, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY YEAH.

WILL ACTUALLY REQUIRE IT.

AND SO WE ARE, WE'RE MAKING THEM GET A SUP FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE PARKING, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR THE PARKING.

IT, IT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO TRIGGER THE PROCESS AND TO ENGAGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORS AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS OLD HISTORIC BUILDING, WE MAY HAVE A BAR, RESTAURANT, ET CETERA, GET ENGAGED AND, UH, SEE IF THEY CAN PARK IT.

UM, DO, DO WE HAVE A NUMBER, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, OR NO, IT WAS HARD TO THINK.

I BELIEVE I RESPONDED BACK.

I'M NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL NUMBER BASED ON THE SPREADSHEET.

THE SPREADSHEET IS AVAILABLE.

I MADE IT TO ROW 200 IN THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET.

BUT AGAIN, IT HAS MARKERS, IT HAS NATIONAL REGISTER, IT HAS CITY, IT HAS ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY.

I I DID MAKE IT TO THE END OF THE SPREADSHEET.

AND THERE ARE 404 ROWS.

SO 403 SUBSTANTIVE ROWS THERE.

BUT AGAIN, SOME ARE SIMPLY MARKERS.

SO NOT ALL OF THEM ARE DESIGNATED BUILDINGS.

FOUR SITES.

WHAT DO I NEED? OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER C NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.

I THINK YOU HAD A, AN ITEM.

UH, SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE HAD A DISCUSSION, AND I THINK EVEN A VOTE LAST TIME REGARDING THE ISSUE OF GUEST PARKING AND MULTIFAMILY.

TURNS OUT, UH, THAT MOTION WAS A GREAT CONVERSATION STARTER, NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD SOLUTION, BUT IT DID GENERATE A LOT OF INPUT FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.

SO THAT'S PROGRESS.

UM, BUT HAVING DEBATED THAT AMONGST, UH, A NUMBER OF YOU AROUND THE, UH, THE HORSESHOE HERE AND HAVING RECEIVED A LOT OF INPUT FROM THE MULTIFAMILY INDUSTRY, I'D, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A CLARIFYING MOTION.

IS THERE SUCH A THING? ANYWAY, IT'S A MOTION.

UM, AND WHETHER WE CALL IT A NEW MOTION, A CLARIFYING MOTION.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'D LIKE TO RECONSIDER YOUR PRO, THE PREVIOUS MOTION, WHAT SHE SAID.

SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

WERE YOU ON A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT, SIR? WERE YOU ON THE PREVAILING SIDE? HE WAS, I WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.

THEN.

A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

I'M SORRY TO ADMIT, BUT I WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.

SO IT WOULD BE, I, I THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY.

I COULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT BETTER.

THAT, THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH, WE'LL, SECOND.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FIRST.

COMMISSIONER, PLEASE.

SECOND.

I THINK THIS IS BEING CIRCULATED AS WE, AS WE SPEAK.

SO, UM, I'M GONNA KEEP THE BALL BOUNCING IN THE AIR.

WHILE WE WAIT ON THAT.

WILL WE VOTE ON THE, THE RE WE VOTE ON THAT CONSIDERATION.

LET'S DO THAT.

DO YOU WANT VOTE ON, ON, ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST? YES.

WE, WE ACTUALLY MUST, WELL, IN THAT CASE, I'LL, I WILL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO, TO, UH, A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE LANGUAGE HERE.

COMMISSIONER? YES.

THE, THE LANGUAGE HERE.

JUST, JUST, UH, THE, THE CLAR, THE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.

UH, SHOULD I, SHOULD I READ THROUGH THE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE? PLEASE, SIR.

SO, UM, FOR MULTIFAMILY USES BETWEEN 20 AND 100 DWELLING UNITS.

[05:55:01]

POINT ONE OH.

GUEST PARKING SPACES PER UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED FOR MULTIFAMILY USES OF 100 UNITS OR MORE.

POINT ONE FIVE GUEST PARKING PER, PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR GATE OF THAT REQUIRED GUEST PARKING, NOT IN ADDITION TO, BUT OF THAT 0.05.

GUEST PARKING PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE A FENCE GATE FOR GATED DEVELOPMENTS.

DO, DO WE HAVE A SECOND BEFORE WE GO TO DISCUSSION? I'LL SECOND IT JUST TO DISCUSS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.

UH, COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? I HAVE A QUESTION.

DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO AREAS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN HALF A MILE OF TODI? I'M, I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOUR QUESTION.

DO YOU INTEND FOR THIS TO APPLY TO, UM, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN HALF A MILE OF TOD? WELL, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

UH, WELL, I'LL, I'LL SAY, I'LL SAY YES AND SEE IF THE, THE, THE GROUP AGREES WITH THAT.

DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.

DO WE NEED, UH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? SO, UM, A PART OF MY QUESTION IS, OH, MY CON, MY CONFUSION IS AROUND, CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR WALKING GATE.

UM, REMEMBER, SOME OF MY APARTMENTS ARE ACRES LONG AND WIDE.

ARE WE SAYING WE WANT DIRECTIONS TO WHERE VISITING PARKING IS AT THE GATE ENTRANCE OR JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GATE? WE'RE PUTTING ALL THE GUESTS IN ONE SECTION.

I THINK THE INTENT WOULD BE THAT WHEN YOU DRIVE UP TO APPROACH THAT GATE, IT'S CLEAR WHERE YOU GO FOR THE GUEST PARKING.

SO IF THAT GUEST PARKING IS INSIDE THE GATE, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE'S GUEST PARKING INSIDE THE GATE.

IT DIRECTS YOU HOW TO GET THERE.

AND IF THERE'S A GATE THERE, YOU, YOU, IT'S EASY TO TELL HOW YOU GET PAST THAT GATE, WHETHER YOU, WHETHER YOU HAVE TO PUSH A BUTTON, YOU HAVE A BARCODE, WHATEVER THE, WHATEVER THE ARRANGEMENT MAY BE.

THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, MY UNDERSTANDING HERE FROM TALKING TO MS. MORRIS IS THAT, UH, THE, THE TOD PIECE AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON ASKED THE RIGHT QUESTION.

WE, WE ALREADY VOTED AND DECIDED THAT PIECE.

SO APPLYING THIS WITHIN THE TOD ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE CRACKED OPEN FROM OUR PREVIOUS VOTE.

SO I'M UNDERSTANDING IN THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT, RIGHT.

THE, THE COMMISSION ALREADY VOTED TO NOT REQUIRE ANY PARKING WITHIN, WHAT WAS IT, HALF MILE OF TOD.

SO THIS, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WOULD NOT APPLY WITHIN A HALF MILE OF TOD POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

DID DURING THAT MOTION, DIDN'T WE MAKE A, A COMMISSIONER HAMPTON MAKE AN AMENDMENT FOR GUEST PARKING FOR THOSE, OR, OH, OKAY.

I WAS, I THOUGHT, THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MOTION COMMISSIONER TON QUESTION.

IF, IF WE WANNA REQUIRE GUEST PARKING NEAR TOD, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT SEPARATELY, RIGHT? YOU'D HAVE TO RECONSIDER THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS NEAR TOV, COMMISSIONER, FORESITE FATHER COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THEN, UH, HOUSEWRIGHT, UH, MY QUESTION IS TO COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, IS THAT OKAY? UM, WASN'T THE OBJECTION FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT WE WERE MICROMANAGING THE, THE WHOLE ISSUE OF GUEST PARKING? I MEAN, UH, IT SEEMED LIKE TO ME, WE'RE JUST STILL MICROMANAGING THE WHOLE ISSUE OF WHERE GUEST PARKING IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

AND, YOU KNOW, MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS OF, OF ALL PEOPLE, I'M THE ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, BELIEVES HERE.

BUT THAT, UH, WE, WE SHOULDN'T BE, UH, TELLING THE MARKETPLACE HOW TO MANAGE GUEST PARKING TO, I THINK, TO THAT POINT, I THINK, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU PUT THE GUEST PARKING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GATE, I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER SLEEPER POINT OF HAVING DIRECTIONS ON WHERE THAT GUEST PARKING WAS AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS GUEST PARKING IS ESSENTIAL.

UM, RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT CLEAR.

UM, WE GO TO A LOT OF APARTMENTS WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS VISITOR ON THE GROUND, BUT IT'S JUST A V AND THEN YOU GET TOWED AWAY.

'CAUSE OH, WE GOT RID OF ALL VISITOR

[06:00:01]

PARKING.

UM, SO I THINK I UNDERSTOOD HIM TO SAY WE WANTED SIGNS OR SYMBOLS TO WHERE THE GUEST PARKING WOULD BE AT THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

UM, FOR MY LARGE ACREAGES OF COMPLEXES, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I THINK NEXT NO, IT'S OKAY.

UH, JUST TO CLARIFY, IF THERE, IF IT'S A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND IT HAS A HUNDRED OR A HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS, 15 GUEST PARKING SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE TO VISITORS AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OR WALKING GATE.

AND THEN IN ADDITION 0.05 GUEST PARKING.

SO IT WOULD BE, OKAY, SO YOU HAVE A HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS, YOU HAVE 15 GUEST PARKING SPACES SOMEWHERE, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE ONE OUTSIDE A FENCE OR GATE.

WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF, OF, OF REQUIRING ONE OUT OF 100? OR IF YOU HAVE 200 DWELLING UNITS, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE TWO OUTSIDE THE GATE.

I, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT GETTING WHAT WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING WITH, OF REQUIRING SUCH A SMALL NUMBER OUTSIDE THE GATE.

IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY? COULD I, COULD I JUST, COULD I CLARIFY THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE IN THE, IN THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED WITH A HUNDRED UNITS, THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE FIVE, UH, SPACES OUTSIDE THE GATE.

IS IT NUMBER IS WRONG? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE DWELLING UNIT IS THE KEY LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND BULLET.

THE HUNDRED UNITS 0.05 IS THE, IS THE OUTSIDE THE GATE.

SO THAT'D BE FIVE, FIVE SPACES OUTSIDE THE GATE.

FIVE OUT OF 15.

SO A THIRD OF THEM? YES.

SO THERE WOULD BE 0.33.

IT, IT, OF THE REQUIRED TEST? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU USE AS THE DENOMINATOR.

IT, IT'S, IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS EASIER TO, TO STATE IT NOT AS IT STATED JUST AS A PERCENTAGE OF UNIT OF THE UNIT.

SO IT'S 0.05.

WELL, FOR GUEST PARKING, TO ME IT'S FIVE ONE HUNDREDS OF POINT.

ONE OF 0.15.

I CAN'T MAKE THE MATH WORK TURN OUT TO BE FIVE UNITS.

I, SO THIS IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.

AND MAYBE, SO I CAN, FOR COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S EXAMPLE, IF IT'S A HUNDRED UNITS, 0.15 OF THAT IS 15.

AND THEN THE WAY I READ THE SECOND BULLET POINT IS THAT FROM THE 15.05 HAS TO BE, AND THAT IS 0.0 0.75, SO EXACTLY RIGHT.

ONE UNIT.

AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING NOW, THAT IT'S THE, THE POINT, THE SECOND BULLET IS FROM THE A HUNDRED UNITS, FROM THE TOTAL 0.05.

FROM THE A HUNDRED, NOT FROM THE 0.15.

THAT'S CORRECT.

IT, IT, IT, 0.15 IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, FOR VISITOR PARKING IN TOTAL AND OUT OF THAT 0.05.

SO IN THIS CASE, FOR A HUNDRED UNITS, THAT WOULD BE FIVE, JUST OUT OF THE A HUNDRED IF WOULD BE, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE.

SO IF WE LOSE THE INTRODUCTORY CLAUSE OF THE REQUIRED GUEST PARKING, THAT WOULD BE, WOULD SOLVE IT.

'CAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THE 0.15 ACCESSIBLE WHEREVER, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 0.05 GUEST PARKING PER DWELLING UNIT OUTSIDE THE FENCE OR GATE.

IS THAT IT? IT, IT'S, IT'S SIMPLY TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT YOU HAVE A REQUIREMENT IN TOTAL.

IT'S 0.15.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT FOR GUEST PARKING.

BUT OUT OF THAT, UH, OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING ONE THIRD OF THE REQUIRED GUEST PARKING HAS TO BE OUTSIDE THE GATE.

THAT THAT'S THE WAY THE MAP WORKS.

SO CAN I RE JUST FROM, BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSING, MAYBE I'M NOT CONFUSING ANYMORE.

SO COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM THE HUNDRED, YOU GET 15 AND THEN FROM THOSE 15, FIVE HAVE TO BE OUTSIDE THE GATE.

GOTCHA.

A, A THIRD OF THE REQUIRED GUEST PARKING.

UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE.

ER YES.

AND, AND MAY I, MAY I JUST ADD TO THAT PLEASE.

PART OF THE, THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT GUEST PARKING, I MEAN, THIS IS A, IT'S A PRETTY SMALL NUMBER OUTSIDE THE GATE, BUT, BUT CURRENTLY IN MANY LOCATIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO DRIVE ANYBODY TO ONE OR TWO OF THESE TO SEE 'EM IF THEY WANT TO.

WHAT HAPPENS IN, IN APARTMENT PROJECT, AS YOU, YOU DRIVE UP TO THE GATE, THERE'S NO INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO GET IN AND, AND YOU CAN'T ALWAYS EVEN GET IN.

SO YOU HAVE, YOU'RE THERE, THERE'S GUEST PARKING, BUT YOU CAN'T GET TO IT UNLESS YOU'VE MADE SOME PREARRANGEMENT.

SO THIS IS TO ALLOW THERE TO BE A PLACE FOR SHORT TERM

[06:05:01]

VISITORS.

IT COULD BE A GRUBHUB, IT COULD BE ANYTHING.

SOMEBODY THAT COMES IN, DOES THEIR BUSINESS AND LEAVES QUICKLY THAT, THAT, THAT'S WHAT THESE SPACES WOULD TYPICALLY SERVE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE IF IT'S, UH, IF IT'S GRUBHUB, UH, UH, UM, UBER, UBER EATS THAT, THAT WE HAVE, THAT THEY HAVE SOMETHING ON FOR, FOR THOSE, FOR THOSE TYPE OF, UH, LOADING FOR THEM.

BUT AS FAR AS GUEST PARK, AND I THINK THAT'S LIKE A LOT OF MICROMANAGING.

I I WOULD RATHER JUST HAVE A CLERK, UH, UNDERSTANDING WHERE IS THE, WHERE IS IT AT IN APARTMENTS, BUT TO MANDATE THESE FIVE, UH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE, UH, BUILDINGS LIKE THAT IN, UM, UPTOWN OR EVEN IN BISHOP PARKS AREA WHERE THE PARKING IS ALL UNDERGROUND AND THERE IS NOT A OUTSIDE THE GATE, AND NOW WE'RE MANDATING A DEVELOPER TO ADD SOME PARKING OUTSIDE THE GATE.

I WOULD RATHER THEM HAVE SOMEWHERE WHERE A DROP OFF AND LOADING PLACE FOR THOSE TYPE OF UBER EATS.

BUT AS FAR AS IF YOU PULL UP TO A APARTMENT COMPLEX AND YOU ARE A VISITOR AND YOU CAN'T GET IN, THEN I'M GONNA THINK YOU WASN'T WELCOME ANYWAY.

SO I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO, I DON'T WANT EXCHANGE BOYFRIEND PULLING UP AND GETTING IN THE GATE, AND I DIDN'T LET HIM IN.

BUT IF IT'S FOR UBER AND ALL THEM, THEN WE JUST NEED THEM TO HAVE A LOADING.

BUT WE SHOULDN'T, MAN.

IT IS HARD.

IT'S ALREADY HARD ENOUGH WITH THIS.

AND THEY, THEY MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT ANYWAY.

'CAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE VISITOR, YOU HAVE TO LOG INTO A SYSTEM, PAY SOME MONEY TO PARK OVERNIGHT.

UM, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MANDATE THE FIVE OUTSIDE, ESPECIALLY.

'CAUSE WE A LOT OF, WE WANT A LOT OF THESE APARTMENTS TO START BUILDING UNDERGROUND AND BUILDING UP.

AND THAT'S JUST TO ADD ANOTHER BONUS.

UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING, A DIFFERENT RESTRICTION FOR THAT.

BUT I JUST THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS.

THE 15, THE, THE, THE 15% I CAN SEE.

BUT WHERE IT GOES, I DON'T SEE MR. CHAIR.

TO THAT END, AT LEAST TO FURTHER DISCUSSION, TO HOPEFULLY REACH A RESOLUTION, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT STRIKES A SECOND BULLET POINT, UM, REGARDING REQUIRING A PORTION OF THE PARKING TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE GATE.

UH, AN AMENDMENT BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT.

SO WE WILL DISCUSS STRIKING THE SECOND BULLET CALL THE QUESTION ON THAT.

AND MAYBE THAT'S UNPOPULAR.

THAT'S, DOES THE MAKER OF THE MOTION GET A CHANCE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THAT? UH, A THEY DO.

I REJECT THAT AMENDMENT.

I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS THERE, BUT ALSO, UH, UH, THINKING THROUGH IMPLICATIONS IN MORE URBAN ORIENTED SITES.

I COULD SEE TO THE FUTURE.

OKAY, SO LET'S JUST, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER CHER.

SO, UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.

AND I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST BEARING WITNESS TO WHAT JUST HAPPENED HERE FOR 10 MINUTES WHILE WE ALL TRY TO HACK THROUGH WHAT THIS ACTUALLY MEANT.

NOW, CAN YOU IMAGINE ARCHITECTURAL TEAM TAKING A LOOK AT THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEN HAVING THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION, AND THEN THEY GO AND TRY TO FILE A PERMIT.

AND NOW WE HAVE A, A, A A A PLAN REVIEWER THAT HAS HIS INTERPRETATION.

AND THIS HAS TO BE EX EXPLAINED TO EVERY NEW PLAN REVIEWER THAT TAKES A POSITION AT THE CITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, EXHIBIT A IS THE 10 MINUTES OF US , YOU KNOW, NOT EVEN BEING ABLE TO, SO I JUST, I, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S ACHIEVING WHAT IT'S ACHIEVING.

IT'S LOSING, AND IT'S, AND IT'S SIMPLICITY.

I THINK IT'S SETTING UP FOR A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES IT SUCH, WHERE I WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT, BUT, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S A TOUGH, IT'S TOUGH FOR ME.

AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE ON THIS IS 20 UNITS IS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AN URBAN INFILL THAT COULD BE A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE.

AND, AND WHEN YOU'RE ON SMALL SITES LIKE THAT, YOU'RE DOING, IT'S RUBIK'S CUBE, YOU'RE TRYING TO FIT THINGS IN VERY SNUGLY AND, UM, TO HAVE THESE KIND OF MANDATES, MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT IT ENDS UP KILLING, KILLING DEALS, UM, AND, AND, AND NOT ALLOWING, UM, PROJECTS TO GO FORWARD OR COMPROMISING THEM IN A WAY THAT HAS THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

UM, SO I, I THINK THAT 20 TO A HUNDRED IS, IS SOMETHING THAT I'M KIND OF STUMBLING ON AS WELL.

I THINK IF IT WERE OVER A HUNDRED, I, I WANNA BE RESPECTFUL TO A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT, UM, FOR SOME OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTS AND THE CONCERNS THAT YOU ALL HAVE WITH PARKING, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF 'EM, UH, OR THOSE WERE VOICED LAST TIME.

UM, AND I THOUGHT THEY MADE A LOT OF SENSE FOR LIKE MUCH LARGER APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

UM, SOME,

[06:10:01]

SO THERE'S THOSE, THOSE TWO THINGS ARE REALLY, I'M STRUGGLING WITH TO SUPPORT THIS.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT? NO.

BUT COMMISSIONERS, AGAIN, THIS IS A DISCUSSION JUST ON STRIKING OUT THE SECOND BULLET.

THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE, THE MAIN MOTION COMMISSIONER SLEEPER FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

AND THEN, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

LET ME JUST ADDRESS THE POINT.

COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK JUST MADE, SO YOU HAVE A 20 UNIT COMPLEX.

IT SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE TWO.

MR. CHAIR.

YES, PLEASE.

JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO RAISE A POINT OF ORDER, BUT WE'RE JUST ON THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE SECOND BULLET POINT.

YES, COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY.

YOU'RE JUST ABOUT TWO MINUTES TOO EARLY ON THAT ONE.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, ALL, WE'RE ALL, ALL WE CAN DISCUSS NOW IS JUST THE, THE STRIKING OUT OF THE SECOND BULLET POINT.

WE'LL VOTE ON THAT.

AND THEN WE GO BACK TO THE, THE MOTION.

SO NOW ALL WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON IS NOT THE ENTIRE MOTION, JUST THE AMENDMENT MADE BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN TO STRIKE OUT ESSENTIALLY THE, THE REQUIREMENT OF PLATE OF WHERE THE, UH, THE GUEST PARKING IS PLACED IN, IN REGARDS TO THE GATE.

SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON NOW.

AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO, UH, THE OTHER, THE OTHER PIECE, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECOND ROUND.

I SUPPORT, I SUPPORT, UM, THE, THE AMENDMENT REQUESTS.

UM, I JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE GETTING IN THE WEEDS, WEEDS OF WHERE THE, WHERE THE PARKING, THEY JUST NEED THE PARKING AND IT COULD CAUSE AN ISSUE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND PARKING AND, AND THEM NOT HAVING ANY PARK MEAN, YOU KNOW, HAVING THAT TYPE OF PARKING ON THE OUTSIDE, NO MORE THAN FOR GUESTS THAT ARE COMING, PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING TO MAYBE GET THE APARTMENTS OR DROP OFF AND PLUS THEM.

I DO.

SO I SUPPORT THAT PORTION.

COMMISSIONER TON.

I SUPPORT HAVING SOME PORTION OF THE PARKING OUTSIDE THE GATE, WHETHER IT'S IN A GARAGE OR NOT.

I MEAN, YOU CAN MANAGE THAT PRETTY EASILY.

THERE'S JUST GONNA BE A LOT OF PEOPLE, I KNOW WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME ON THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN URBAN AND FILL, WHERE GUESTS AREN'T STAYING VERY LONG FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHETHER THEY'RE DELIVERY UBER EATS OR JUST STAYING FOR A FEW MINUTES TO VISIT SOMEONE.

UM, AND THEY, AND THEY SIMPLY DON'T USE THE RESTRICTED GUEST PARKING, AND INSTEAD THEY USE THE NEARBY BUSINESS PARKING.

THEY BLOCK A DRIVEWAY, THEY DO WHATEVER.

IF YOU HAVE SOME SMALL AMOUNT OF ACTUAL GUEST PARKING THAT'S EASY TO USE, WELL MARKED AND NEAR OR AT THE SITE, THEN THEY WILL USE IT.

AND THAT'S SORT OF THE INTENT OF THIS IS HAVING SOME PORTION OF YOUR GUEST PARKING AND IT, AND IT'S A COMPROMISE.

WE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T WANT ALL THE GUEST PARKING OUTSIDE THE GATE.

SO WE'RE PUTTING MOST OF GUEST PARKING WITHIN THE GATE OR ALLOWING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT BY, BUT ALSO SAYING, LOOK, THE REALITY IS THESE FOLKS WILL PARK OTHER PLACES IF YOU DON'T MAKE IT EASY TO ALLOW THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING SHORT TERM VISITS ON THESE CAMPUSES TO PARK ON THE CAMPUS IN A VERY UNRESTRICTED WAY.

AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT.

COULD IT BE WORDED DIFFERENTLY? YES, I'M HAPPY TO WORDSMITH IT, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO, TO READ.

THAT'S AN EASY FIX.

AND I'M SURE STAFF WILL, WILL ADDRESS THE WORDING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, ONE THIRD OF THE GUEST PARK REQUIRED GUEST PARKING, UH, MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE GATE PERIOD.

THAT FIXES IT.

THAT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

SO A PART OF MY TEXT THAT I SENT READ, AND I'LL, I'LL JUST JUST READ IT, RIGHT.

IT DEVELOPMENTS WITH FEWER THAN 100 UNITS WOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING PROPOSAL OF LOCATING GUEST PARKING SPACES.

LOCATE A PERCENTAGE OF GUEST PARKING SPACES OUTSIDE OF ANY FENCES OF GATES FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH A HUNDRED UNITS OR MORE.

MULTIPLE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON PARCEL PARCELS LARGER THAN ONE ACRE GUEST PARKING SPACES MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE GATED AREAS OF THE COMPLEX.

THESE SPACES MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED FOR VISITORS VISITOR USE AND LOCATED NEAR PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS TO MINIMIZE WALKING DISTANCE AND ENHANCE SAFETY.

IS THAT A CLARIFYING MOTION? IS THAT A MOTION THAT THIS BODY WOULD, UM, RESPECT CLEARER THAN WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH, WITH THE PERCENTAGES ON THE FLOOR? CURRENTLY? I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION.

RIGHT, BUT OKAY, GOTCHA.

I'LL MAKE IT AFTER.

UM, VICE CHAIR RUBEN.

UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

MY APOLOGIES.

TRYING TO MAKE MY APOLOGIES.

MY CONVERSATION.

WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE THE BRIEF COMMENT.

I THINK I'VE SEEN HOW THIS PLAYS OUT IN A NUMBER OF, UM, INFILL PROJECTS.

THEY'RE GENERALLY A LITTLE BIT LARGER,

[06:15:01]

UM, WHICH I THINK, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER'S, UM, SLEEPERS ADJUSTMENT TO THIS.

IT'S THE UPS TRUCK, IT'S THE DELIVERY GUY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, NAME YOUR RIDESHARE GROUP.

IT'S A HANDFUL OF SPACES.

I DON'T THINK THAT IN MY REGULAR TRAVERSING OF SOME OF THESE MULTIFAMILY INFILLS I HAVE EVER NOT SEEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SPACES BE TAKEN UP.

THEY ARE UTILIZED, THEY'RE WELL UTILIZED, AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE.

AND I THINK OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT HOW THOSE CONCERNS, I THINK THIS TRIES TO BRIDGE THAT GAP, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE GONNA BE DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS.

SO I APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, PUTTING FORWARD THE MOTION.

I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

UM, THAT'S TRUE.

I JUST DON'T THINK THE OUTSIDE THE GATE REQUIREMENT ALLOWS FOR IN ANY AMOUNT.

IT ALLOWS FOR ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY CONSIDERING THE DIVERSE CONDITIONS AND NEEDS THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE CITY.

UM, AND, AND I JUST SEE THERE BEING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FROM REQUIRING EVEN SOME PERCENTAGE OF PARKING OUTSIDE A GATE, UM, GIVING SOME OF THE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE MAY BE SEEING.

SO THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED STRIKING IT.

COMMISSIONER TURNOFF, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, I KNOW IN, UH, SOME OF THE PDS AND IN DISTRICT ONE, THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED IN THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK IN A LOT OF OUR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ARE STILL UNDER 50 UNITS HAVE A, A DRIVE APPROACH WITH A GATE THAT'S ON A DRIVE AISLE.

AND SO IN ORDER FOR THAT CONFIGURATION TO WORK, THEY WOULD, WHAT WOULD THEY DO? WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPLEXES OR MORE THAN A HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS.

UM, AND THIS MAY APPLY TO UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGES AND ALL OF THAT.

SO I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF WHERE YOU PLACE THE GATE.

NO, I UNDERSTAND.

IT'S WHERE YOU PLACE THE GATE, BUT, BUT WHAT, UM, IMAGINE A BUILDING AND THEN ALONG THE PROPERTY, SO YOU'RE NOT GOING INTO THE BUILDING, IT'S A 25 UNIT APARTMENT, AND YOU'RE DRIVING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON A DRIVE AISLE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO THE PARKING IN THE BACK.

IT'S NOT COVERED PARKING, IT'S SURFACE PARKING.

OFTEN.

THAT GATE IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THE FENCE AND THE FRONT CORNER OF THE BUILDING.

IT'S A COMMONPLACE.

SO UNDER THIS, UM, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE PARKING BEFORE THAT GATE, BUT SOME OF OUR PDS DON'T ALLOW WHAT PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

SO YEAH, THE TWO WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER.

WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD A WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THAT CASE? IT WOULD PUSH THE GATE AND THE ENTIRE, IT WILL BASICALLY FORCE THE WAY YOU DESIGN YOUR SIDE LAYOUT TO PUSH THE GATE AND EVERYTHING BEHIND THAT SETBACK.

SO YOU CAN HAVE THE PARKING BEHIND THE SETBACK.

BUT IF THE DR BUT YOU ONLY HAVE THE DRY AISLE TO WORK WITH, THERE IS NO, IN ORDER TO CREATE PARKING SPACE, YOU'VE NOW GOTTA MOVE THE ENTIRE BUILDING OVER ON A TINY SITE.

I JUST, I, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST, I COULD, I HAVE BUILDINGS IN MY HEAD, IN MY DISTRICT THAT I COULD SEE THAT THIS WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO WORK.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT AS WELL HERE IS THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF OWNERSHIPS.

I MEAN, YOU CAN HAVE A CONDO BUILDING OF 50 UNITS OR 40 UNITS AND, YOU KNOW, THEY ALL HAVE THEIR UNIQUE PERSONALITY AND, AND THE, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE, THE OWNERSHIP'S ABILITY TO CHOOSE HOW THEY WANNA LAY OUT THEIR PLACE WHERE THEY LIVE.

BUT I THINK, I DON'T KNOW, OR MAYBE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THAT WITH CONDO DOCS OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS REQUIREMENT TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THE GATE ON GATED, JUST FOR MULTIFAMILY, OVER A HUNDRED UNITS.

RIGHT? NO, NO, THAT'S RIGHT.

I APOLOGIZE EVERYONE.

I'M, I'M, I'M VERY MISUNDERSTOOD HERE.

I THOUGHT WE WERE AT 20 TO A HUNDRED UNITS.

SO THE WAY COMMISSIONER SLIPPER'S MOTION IS, IT SAYS THAT FOR MULTIFAMILY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I UNDERSTAND.

IT'S JUST FOR A HUNDRED OVER.

FURTHER DISCUSSION JUST QUICKLY, PLEASE.

UM, IN MY DISTRICT GUEST PARKING IS IN FRONT THE GATE BECAUSE LEASING OFFICE ARE IN FRONT THE GATE, AND THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR FUTURE RESIDENCES COME INTO THE LEASING OFFICE WITHOUT THESE GUEST PARKING.

I'VE SENT IMAGES OF THESE GUEST PARKINGS THAT EXIST IN MY DISTRICT, AND THEY'RE

[06:20:01]

THERE.

I MEAN, 8, 10, 12 15 PARKING SPOTS ARE THERE BECAUSE THE LEASING OFFICE IS THERE AS WELL.

UM, SO I DON'T THINK APARTMENTS IN MY DISTRICT WILL BE BEING BUILT WHERE LEASING OFFICE AREN'T THERE AND WON'T HAVE PLACES FOR THEIR FUTURE RESIDENCES TO PARK.

USUALLY THREE ARE LABELED AS FUTURE RESIDENCES AND THE REST ARE JUST LEFT WIDE OPEN.

UM, BUT WE HAVE THIS TODAY.

IT EXISTS TODAY.

UM, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE, UM, TO THE CHERISH POINT EARLIER, OH, THEY'RE GONNA BUILD IT BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THEIR TENANTS WITHOUT IT.

UM, SO JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE IN REGARDS TO THE GUEST PARKING THAT'S ALREADY BEING BUILT IN THE HIGH RISE, THE TALLER BUILDINGS.

I SEE WHY THAT MAKES SENSE.

IN THE LOWER, UH, GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, LIKE OX SAID, IT DOESN'T WORK.

IT WON'T, THE DRIVE AISLES ARE ALREADY SMALL, EVEN IF THERE'S ONE GOING IN AND ONE GOING OUT.

UM, THERE IS A COUPLE WHERE YOU CAN PARK IN A DRIVE AISLE, BUT AGAIN, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN REGULATED TO RESIDENCES.

SO, UM, I I, I DO GET IT AND I DO GET, UM, TAKEN OUT THAT CLAUSE ABOUT THE, UM, OUTSIDE THE GATE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO STRIKE THE, UH, SECOND BULLET THERE.

UH, IN REGARDS TO THE GUEST PARKING AND THE GATE, UH, STICKER RECORD VOTE.

DISTRICT ONE, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT, RIGHT? YEAH.

ON STRIKING OUT THE SECOND BULLET? UH, YES.

DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10? YES.

SO NOW WE, WE GO BACK TO DISCUSSING, UH, THE ORIGINAL MOTION WITHOUT THE SECOND BULLET POINT.

AND, UH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER HARA, AS I'VE GOT QUESTIONS FOR, UM, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.

SO, UM, A PROJECT UNDER, UNDER THIS MOTION, IF IT WAS LESS THAN 20 UNITS, THERE'S NO GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT, BUT YOU'RE SILENT ON LESS THAN TWO.

SO I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S NO GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT.

YOU'RE NODDING.

SO I'M GONNA TAKE THAT AS A YES.

AND THEN IF I'VE GOT BETWEEN 20 AND 100 UNITS, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU'RE TAKING OUR 0.5 SPACES PER UNIT FROM LAST MEETING AND ADDING ANOTHER 0.1.

SO IF I'VE GOT 20 TO 100 UNITS, I'M REALLY PARKING IT AT 0.6.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU, YOU TOTALLY LOST ME IN THAT MAP.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAD TOLD ME AT THE BREAK EARLIER TODAY.

SO WE'RE GONNA PARK EVERY, WE'RE GONNA PARK OUR MULTIFAMILY AT 0.5.

AND OF THAT 0.5, YOU WANT 0.1 DEDICATED TO GUEST PARKING? WHERE'S THE 0.1 COMING FROM? IS IT COMING FROM OUR ART, THE WHAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED? OR IS IT, ARE YOU ADDING ON? THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

IT'S NOT AN ADD-ON IT.

IT'S NOT AN ADD-ON.

IT'S NOT IN ADDITION TO, SO IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S IN, IT'S AS A PART OF THE 0.5 THAT WE PASSED AT OUR LAST MEETING.

I THOUGHT WE PASSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS BASICALLY OUT THE WINDOW, RIGHT? YEAH, IT IS.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST 10% OF THE 0.5.

IS THAT CORRECT? POINT 10 OF THE 0.5.

MR. CHAIR, CAN I PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE? PLEASE? HOPEFULLY, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

IT WOULD BE FOR MULTIFAMILY USES BETWEEN 20 AND 100 DWELLING UNITS.

POINT ONE.

PARKING SPACES MUST BE AVAILABLE TO VISITORS.

HAVE 10 GUEST PARKING SPACES.

SO IF, IF, IF YOU HAD PER UNIT, IF YOU HAD 20 UNITS, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE ONE GUEST PARKING SPACE.

IF YOU HAD A HUNDRED UNITS, YOU'D HAVE TO

[06:25:01]

AND I, I, I ASSUME YOU COULD, IF YOU RESTRICTED ALL OF YOUR PARKING SPACES OR IF YOU RESTRICTED PARKING SPACES TO RESIDENTS, THEN THOSE PARKING SPACES COULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS GUEST PARKING.

BUT IF THERE WERE SPACES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO BOTH RESIDENTS AND GUESTS, THEN IT WOULD NOT, THEY COULD WORK OUT OF THE SAME POOL.

CAN I TRY TO RESTATE THE QUESTION IN A VERSION THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME? UM, IF YOU'VE GOT 20 UNITS AT 0.5 PER UNIT, THAT'S 10 REQUIRED SPACES.

GUEST ASIDE, JUST 10, 10 REQUIRED SPACES, WILL THERE NEED TO BE AN 11TH AS A GUEST SPACE, OR WILL ONE OF THOSE 10 COUNT AS THE GUEST SPACE? NOW YOU'D HAVE ONE GUEST SPACE IN ADDITION IN ADDITION TO THE 10, RIGHT? OKAY.

NO, NO, NO.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS.

MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION CHAIR.

THAT'S NOT THE MATH THAT I HEARD ABOUT TWO MINUTES AGO.

MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT 10% OF THE, OF THE 0.5 WOULD BE GUESSED.

IT'S NOT.

IN ADDITION TO THERE, THE, THERE'S NO WORD, THERE'S NO ADDITION TO HERE.

AND THERE WASN'T ONE TWO WEEKS AGO.

SO 10%, 10% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING IS, IS THAT THE INTENT? I DON'T, I DON'T THINK SO, MR. SO NOW IT, IT, WE, THE WAY THE CODE WORKS RIGHT NOW, IT REALLY HAS TO DO IF, UM, IT'S ASSIGNED OR NOT.

SO IF IT'S UNASSIGNED, WE DO ALLOW THAT 25 POINT 25 PER UNIT TO BE IN THE WHOLE MIX.

SO THAT'S NOT AN ADDITION.

BUT IF YOU ASSIGN IT IN YOUR RESERVE FOR YOUR RESIDENCE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL POINT 25.

WE HAVE, UH, SOME POTENTIAL LANGUAGE HERE FROM MS. ER, 10% OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE UNASSIGNED AND AVAILABLE FOR USE BY RESIDENTS AND GUESTS.

HOW'S THAT SOUND? 10% OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE UNASSIGNED AND AVAILABLE FOR USE BY RESIDENTS AND GUESTS.

AND IT'S NOT GUEST PARKING.

I MEAN, I MEAN, TO ME, THE, THE INTENTION OF THIS FIRST SENTENCE IS THAT THE VISITOR PARKING HAS TO BE CLEARLY DELINEATED THAT IT'S FOUR VISITORS.

THERE MUST BE UNASSIGNED AVAILABLE FOR GUESTS.

WHAT? 10% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE UNASSIGNED AND AVAILABLE FOR USE BY GUESTS.

THAT'S, THAT MUST BE MARKED AS A, AS RESERVED FOR GUESTS.

UH, COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, PLEASE, SIR.

QUESTION FOR STAFF.

HOW DOES ARTICLE 13 YOU, YOU, UM, APPROACH IT? SORRY TO THROW THE CURVE BALL AT YOU, BUT, UM, I KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT.

JUST A SECOND.

LET ME READ IT.

I DON'T KNOW IT BY HEART.

AND ALSO, CAN SOMEBODY RESTATE WHAT WE JUST SETTLED ON COM? UH, CHERISH? YOU DID.

NOW IN PLACE, RIGHT BEFORE ANY PARKING REFORM.

WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT TO WRITE IT DOWN.

AND 10% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY GUESTS.

I'M GONNA SAY VISITORS CLEARLY MARKED DEBORAH, DEBORAH, IT WASN'T USED.

IT WAS MARKED RIGHT.

YOU SAID MARKED, MARKED, DESIGNATED, MARKED, CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, WHATEVER.

BUT I DID SAY THEY MARKED, AND I'M SORRY.

WOULD, WOULD SOMEONE STATE THAT AGAIN, CLEARLY IN THIS DIRECTION TOO, SHE'S GONNA READ IT.

10% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE MARKED FOR USE BY GUESTS.

I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER SLEEPER WAS OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE.

SO THEN WE GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE CLEANED UP LANGUAGE FOR THE MOTION.

UM, COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER TURNOFF? I HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, IS THAT, UH, IS THE PRESENCE OF A GATE CHANGE ANYTHING? SO IF THERE'S NOT A GATE, THE IF IT NOT ANYMORE, THEY STRUCK IT.

RIGHT? SO THE, THE, THE, THE GATE IS STRUCK.

SO CURRENTLY, IF A PARKING LOT DOES NOT HAVE A GATE, HOW DOES PARKING, HOW DO WE APPROACH THAT CURRENTLY? PER THE, PER THE CODE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT

[06:30:01]

AS I SAID, IF THE SPACES ARE UNASSIGNED OR UNRESERVED FOR THE RESIDENTS, THEN WE ALLOW THAT POINT 25 PER DWELLING UNIT TO BASICALLY GO FROM THE SAME POD.

BUT IF YOU RESERVE FOR YOUR RESIDENCE, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE IN ADDITION.

SO AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING, WHAT, WHAT DETERMINES THAT? I MEAN, WHEN YOU HAVE THE PARKING CHART AND, AND THE SITE PLANS DON'T CALL THAT OUT, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS STANDARD ON ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO LABEL THAT.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND.

IN A MULTI-FAMILY, I THINK WE ARE, WE'RE ASKING THE APPLICANTS THAT QUESTION.

IF WE SEE A GATE, UH, WE ALSO ASK THAT QUESTION, OR I WOULD SAY THAT IF PARKING IS IN A GARAGE, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE MAY BE MULTI-FAMILY CONDOS LIKE ATTACHED, LIKE IF IT'S IN A GARAGE, THEN THAT'S IT.

YOU NEED AN ADDITIONAL 20 POINT 25.

BUT IN THE GARAGE ITSELF, IT, I THINK WE KIND OF LIKE LOOK AT THE GATE AND THEN WE GO, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY IT'S SO HARD RIGHT NOW.

LIKE, SHOW ME HOW MANY BEDROOMS, LIKE WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF BEDROOM? AND THEN START LIKE, OKAY, WHERE'S YOUR GUEST PARKING AND ALL OF THAT.

HOW MANY ARE YOU GONNA ASSIGN? YOU HAVE TO LIKE, SUBMIT LAYOUTS OF YOUR PARKING GARAGE AND ALL OF THAT.

SO IF THERE'S NO PRESENCE OF A GATE AND YOU ASK THE APPLICANT, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE ASSIGNED PARKING? AND THEY SAY NO.

HOW MANY GUEST PARKING SPACES DO THEY, DO THEY NEED 0.25? THAT CAN BE ESSENTIALLY COUNTED WITH ALL THE PARKING SPACES.

YEAH, IT'S NOT, IN ADDITION, IT'S BASICALLY YOUR REQUIRED PER BEDROOM.

BUT WITH THIS, THAT WOULD GO AWAY, UM, WITH THE, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN PLACE.

NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST DOING, UH, A PERCENTAGE OF ALL PARKING SHOWN REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S A GATE OR NOT A GATE.

PARKING SPOTS ARE FOR, TO, TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE.

SO THIS IS, IT JUST SAYS THAT THIS IS GETTING MUCH MORE, UM, RESTRICTIVE ON PARKING.

I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE, BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND THE REQUIRED IS VERY LOW RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS 0.5%.

SAME IF YOU WANNA RESERVE YOUR PARKING FOR YOUR RESIDENCE OR YOU ARE PROVIDING THAT PARKING IN GARAGES IS GONNA HAVE TO BE LIKE THAT.

THIS 10% IS GONNA BE IN ADDITION.

BUT IF YOU HAVE LIKE A BIG PARKING LOT, THEN YOU DON'T ASSIGN IT, THEN IT'S EASIER.

IT, IT DOESN'T DOUBLE DIP.

2020 UNITS IS A LOW THRESHOLD TO APPLY THIS.

I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE WHEN YOU'RE AT 50 UNITS AND ABOVE.

JUST THINKING ABOUT SPECIFIC BUILDINGS THAT I KNOW OF IN, IN MY DISTRICT, UM, I, I WOULD SAY THAT RIGHT NOW, FOR INSTANCE, THOSE, UM, MULTIFAMILY THAT THERE, THE GENTLE DENSITY, THERE ARE LIKE SHARED ACCESS, LIKE 10 UNITS.

THEY HAVE A, A SHARED ACCESS, A DRIVEWAY IN THE, IN THE MIDDLE, AND THEY ARE ATTACHED UNITS.

THOSE ARE STILL MULTIFAMILY.

THEY ALL HAVE TWO CAR GARAGES.

AND IF YOU JUST GO AND VISIT, THEY DO HAVE TWO PARKING SPOTS IN THE BACK.

AND THOSE ARE IN ADDITION.

NO GATE IS THERE.

BUT AGAIN, PARKING IS, IS, IS RESERVED IN THEIR PERSONAL GARAGE.

COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, I, I'LL JUST SAY IN MY, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I'VE LIVED IN TWO TOWNHOUSE COMPLEXES.

THEY ALL HAD GARAGES.

SO EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR ASSIGNED SPACE, IF YOU WILL, IN A GARAGE, BUT ONE OF THEM HAD NO GUEST PARKING WHATSOEVER.

AND IT WAS A NIGHTMARE ALL THE TIME.

PEOPLE LEAVING THEIR CARS PARKED IN THE GARAGE BLOCKING IT.

WAS IT JUST, IT WAS UNSIGHTLY.

I LIVE IN ANOTHER COMPLEX NOW THAT HAS, THAT HAS CLOSE TO IT, THAT HAS ABOUT, I THINK, UH, 6%, 7%, UH, UH, OF GUEST PARKING.

AND IT WORKS A WHOLE LOT BETTER WHEN YOU HAVE SOME GUEST PARKING ON SITE.

AND SO, I MEAN, JUST TO THINK ABOUT IT, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA BUILD A 20 UNIT PROJECT AND NOT BUILD ANY GUEST PARKING.

I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SETTING YOURSELF UP FOR I THINK, FAILURE AND PARKING WARS IF YOU DO THAT.

SO THIS WOULD ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, IN YOUR MIND WHEN YOU THINK OF A 20 UNIT COMPLEX, MAYBE YOU, MAYBE YOU THINK OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

I DON'T WANT THE 20 UNIT COMPLEX IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GUEST PARKING SPOT.

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT WORK, DON'T BUILD IT.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T WANNA BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T MAKE THE PROJECT WORK WITH THE MINIMUM AMENITIES TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THAT'S WHAT THESE GUEST

[06:35:01]

SO THEY DON'T COME HOME FROM WORK AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND THEIR PARKING SPOT'S GONE.

AND TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THERE, IT'S NOT TO MAKE IT EASY, SO EASY ON THE DEVELOPER OR SO EASY ON CITY STAFF THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.

IT'S SO THAT WE ALL LIVE IN A SOCIETY THAT IT FUNCTIONS BETTER.

I KNOW KIND OF A NOVEL CONCEPT IN THE UNITED STATES THESE DAYS, BUT THAT SHOULD AT LEAST BE THE GOAL.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SLEEPER SING ABOUT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

UH, LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE.

WHY NOT? PARDON ME? ASK WAS CHAIR.

YOU WANNA RESTATE THE MOTION? CAN I? NO, I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE MOTION? PLEASE? IF WE VOTE NO ON THE MOTION, THEN DOES, DOES IT REVERT BACK OR WE KEEP THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT, UH, WAS PASSED AT, UH, THE LAST HEARING? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

NO, DOES IT DOES NOT.

WHY? OH, NO.

MOTION.

WELL, CAN YOU SAY THAT FOR ON THE RECORD, PLEASE? SO, NO, SINCE THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RECONSIDERED, THEN THE FLOOR IS JUST OPEN FOR ANOTHER MOTION.

IT DOESN'T REVERT BACK TO WHAT YOU DID THREE WEEKS AGO OR TWO.

GREAT QUESTION.

OR TWO WEEKS AGO.

SO IF WE VOTE NO, THEN BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING NO GUEST PARKING AT ALL.

I BELIEVE IT GOES, GOES BACK TO THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION.

IT GOES BACK TO THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS NO PARKING.

NO, NO, NO.

PARKING.

WHICH WAS NO GUEST PARKING.

NO GUEST PARKING.

ALRIGHT.

MY HANDS ARE TIED, I REALIZE.

UM, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

WE'RE GONNA READ THE MOTION FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES BETWEEN 20 AND 100 DWELLING UNITS.

10% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE MARKED FOR USE BY GUESTS.

FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES MORE THAN 100 DWELLING UNITS.

15% OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES MUST BE MARKED FOR USE BY GUESTS AND CLEARLY MARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE AND WALKING GATE.

COMMISSION.

LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE.

DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10.

I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING FUNNY HERE, BUT YES.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU HAD SOME, SOME OTHER OUTSTANDING ITEMS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THIS IS RETURNING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION TO PAID PARKING.

AND AFTER REVIEW OF STAFF, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT UNDER SECTION 4.301 A EIGHT.

WE MAINTAIN THE LANGUAGE AND REVISE IT TO READ ALL USES EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL MAY CHARGE FOR PROVIDED PARKING.

THAT REPLACES THE PRIOR NUMBER EIGHT THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAD MADE TO ALLOW FOR PAID PARKING.

AND THEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT PERHAPS WE NEED TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL USES TO NOT CHARGE TABLE.

THAT'S THE ITEM WE TABLED.

COMMERS.

UH, DO WE HAVE A SEC? THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, YES.

DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER WHELAND.

BUT THAT'S NOT A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT LIKE THE SOUTH DALLAS FROG PARK WHERE WE CHARGE FOR PARKING ON LOTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND, AND THAT'S, AND IT'S ONLY IT PAID PARKING APPLIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

IF THERE ARE, UM, PROVISION, WELL, I'LL LET STAFF ANSWER PROVISIONS TO PDS, BUT THIS IS INTENDED TO ONLY ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL.

AND IN LIEU OF TRYING TO CALL OUT SPECIFIC, THE INTENT AS WE WERE DISCUSSING PREVIOUSLY IS TO, UM, ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT CHARGING FOR PARKING IN OUR, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS SO THAT IT'S NOT AN ADDED COST BURDEN.

FOR RESIDENTS, BUT NOT IN OUR SPECIAL PURPOSE.

WORSE.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE IMPACTING ANYTHING ON THE SPECIAL PURPOSES, THIS WOULD BE CITYWIDE.

SO I, I NEED TO, 'CAUSE THERE IS SOME MULTI, THERE IS SOME MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS THAT'S IN THE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS FOR DOING PUR AND IT'S NOT THE PD.

THIS IS SUCH AS THE FAR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT HAS MULTI-FAMILY

[06:40:01]

AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND DURING FAR TIME THEY CAN GET A PERMIT IF THEY WERE WITHIN THAT DISTRICT.

SO THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THEM.

AND YOU HAVE TO AMEND IT.

SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE IT.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC PD, BUT THIS IS, IT'S NOT A PD, IT'S IT'S NOT A PD.

IT'S THEN WHAT, WHAT IS IT? SO WITHIN A PERIMETER, SO FAR A PERIMETER OUTSIDE OF THE FAR PARK, YOU CAN GO, YOU, YOU GO TO A SPECIAL, UM, UH, RIGHT.

SO THAT'S NOT ZONING.

SO THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE.

I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING DURING THE FAIR, RIGHT? NO, WE, WE PARK OUT, WE PARK YEAR ROUND 200.

SO THAT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

YOU PAY A FEE TO, TO, OH, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

SO YOU, SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE FOR PARKING DURING THE FAIR AND THAT REGULATES PARKING DURING THE FAIR AND HOW YOU CAN CHARGE FOR IT.

THAT'S A WHOLE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING.

BUT THE AREA AROUND THIRD PARK, IT, IT IS PD 5 95 AND PD 5 95 IS A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.

BUT THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT INCLUDED IN P THIS IS JUST A, THIS IS LIKE A, ALMOST LOOKS LIKE A TOD AND YOU CAN PARK SO FAR OUTSIDE OF IT AND YOU PAY AT THE CONVENTION CENTER AND IT'S JUST NOT DOING FAIR PARKING.

YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN USE IT YEAR ROUND.

I THINK ONLY DURING THE FAIR.

YOU CAN USE IT FOR CONCERTS OR ANYTHING.

YOU PAY THE FEE ONCE A YEAR.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE PROTECT ONLY.

THAT'S NOT ZONING.

JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE PROTECTED.

THAT'S, I, YES, I SAID THAT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE.

THAT'S HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING.

COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, IF WE GO WAY BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE, THE, THE REASON FOR PARKING REFORM, I THOUGHT WAS TO DECOUPLE THE COST OF PARKING BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS A COST OF PER DECOUPLE THAT FROM ALL USES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL.

AND THIS MOTION HERE DOES NOT REMOVE THE BURDEN, THE COST BURDEN OF PARKING FROM ANY RESIDENT.

THEY'RE GONNA STILL BE PAYING FOR IT.

AND SO IF WE HIT, I PREFER A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN CHARGE FOR THE PARKING SO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT WILL PAY FOR IT.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T NEED IT WON'T PAY FOR IT.

AND SO THIS, THIS SEEMS LIKE IT REALLY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR MONTHS.

SO I I'M GONNA HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.

I SECONDED IT.

I, WHILE I UNDERSTAND, UM, WHERE COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT IS COMING FROM, WHAT I THINK WILL HAPPEN AS, AS, AS COMMISSIONER HERBERT HAS SAID, IF SOME OF THESE THINGS HAPPEN, THEY HAPPEN IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, IT'LL JUST BE AN ADDED CHARGE ONTO RESIDENTS AND MAKE, MAKE, UM, PARK, MAKE, UM, HOUSING ULTIMATELY MORE EXPENSIVE.

'CAUSE THEY'LL BE PAYING, IF YOU DECOUPLE THE CHARGES, PEOPLE WILL DO, WILL BE END UP HAVING TO PAY MORE FOR HOUSING.

THAT INCLUDES THE PARKING THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE USED TO BECAUSE THEY NEED IT, BECAUSE OF THE TERRIBLE TRANSIT THAT WE HAVE .

SO, UM, I WILL DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

THAT'S TRUE.

I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THE STATUS QUO.

UM, 3 0 1 A EIGHT READS THAT AN ALL DISTRICTS EXCEPT A CENTRAL AREA DISTRICT REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING MUST BE AVAILABLE AS FREE PARKING OR CONTRACT PARKING ON OTHER THAN AN HOURLY OR DAILY FEE BASIS.

SO RIGHT NOW, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX CAN CHARGE FOR REQUIRE PARKING IF IT'S A MONTHLY FEE.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

ALSO CHARGE, THEY ALSO CHARGE, UH, IF YOU PULL INTO A APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU AND YOU DON'T, AND YOU'RE A VISITOR, YOU HAVE TO LOG INTO THE BARCODES.

YOU LOG IN AND YOU PAY PER DAY OR HOUR.

THEY DO THAT RIGHT NOW.

WELL, THAT'S, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S TOWING COMPANY ILLEGAL.

SO THAT, THAT'S A PROBLEM RIGHT THERE THAT, THAT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE ADDRESSES.

AND WE SHOULD BE HOLDING, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS TO THIS PROVISION.

AND IF NOT, THE STATUS QUO SEEMS LIKE IT, IT WORKS.

AND WE'D NOW BE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR FREE AND QUOTATION REPORTS.

BUT REALLY JUST CRYING THAT TO BUNDLE BUNDLE THE PARKING CHARGES INTO THE MONTHLY RENT.

SO THIS SOUNDS LIKE, I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER HERBERT'S CONCERNS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE MOVING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF WHERE WE SHOULD BE MOVING IN.

OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE SEEMS TO, UM, GET IT RIGHT.

SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

I I WANNA ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION.

THE MOTION ALSO SAID PROVIDED PARKING AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRED.

SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS FOR US NOT ALLOWING

[06:45:02]

PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHARGE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A CODE REQUIREMENT.

SO THE CODE RIGHT NOW IS PURPOSEFULLY WRITTEN THAT YOU CANNOT CHARGE WHAT'S REQUIRED.

SO WE'RE KIND OF LIKE INTERFERING A LOT INTO PROPERTY RIGHTS.

WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU CANNOT CHARGE WHAT'S PROVIDED.

LIKE ESPECIALLY THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

VICE RUBIN, LIKE WE REGULATE WHAT'S REQUIRED, WHAT'S PROVIDED, AND IF THEY CAN CHARGE FOR THAT OR NOT.

I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT, I HAVE CONCERNS MR. MORON, CAN YOU, UM, CAN YOU STATE THE MOTION IN, IN PLAIN ENGLISH AND SEE WHAT, WHAT IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH? SO THE MOTION IS TO ALLOW, UM, ALL USES EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL USES TO CHARGE FOR PROVIDED PARKING, WHICH WOULD CHANGE WHAT'S IN THE CODE NOW, UH, WHICH ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY TO CHARGE, UM, LIKE ON A, ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, I THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, UH, JUST BECAUSE I NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, LOOK, WHAT IS THE Z OAC RECOMMENDATION? AGAIN? THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION, UM, IS, I'M SORRY.

UM, THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION IS JUST DELETING ALL, ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO, UM, THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION IS TO STRIKE THE PROVISION ALL TOGETHER SO THAT ANYONE CAN CHARGE FOR PARKING, CITYWIDE IT.

SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT WAS AN AMENDMENT AND THE, UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WAS ONE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS.

COMMISSIONER TURNER, UH, CAN STAFF, I MEAN, YOU HAD MENTIONED SOME OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS.

ARE THERE OTHER, ANY OTHERS THAT YOU WOULD ADD TO IT? OH, YEAH, EXACTLY.

LIKE, IT'LL BUNDLE IT UP.

IT WILL INCREASE THE CO THE COST OF HOUSING BECAUSE THAT THE, THE PARKING IS STILL GONNA BE PROVIDED.

LIKE, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF, THAT'S THE BASIS OF WHAT WE'RE, WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING ZERO OR 0.5.

UM, SO ONCE YOU BUNDLE IT, ESPECIALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY, I THINK IT DOES INCREASE THE COST.

LIKE I'M PRETTY SURE THAT NOW THEY'RE OFFSETTING SOME OF THE COST BY CHARGING MONTHLY OR ANNUALLY FEES.

UM, THAT'S WHY I THINK AT LEAST IF I CAN SUGGEST, MAYBE SAY FOR REQUIRED PARKING INSTEAD OF PROVIDING PROVIDED, BECAUSE THIS ONE ACTUALLY TAKES AWAY THE FLEXIBILITY THAT MULTIFAMILY COMPLEXES HAVE RIGHT NOW TO CHARGE FOR THEIR PARKING COMPLETELY.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT.

I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EXCEPTION TO REQUIRED.

I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LANGUAGE REQUIRED IS, IS FINE.

SO IT WOULD REVISE WHAT THE SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ALL USES EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL MAY CHARGE FOR REQUIRED PARKING.

AND I UNDERSTAND, I, I KNOW WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT, BUT I THANK YOU FOR DR.

REER FOR MAKING THE OBSERVATION.

NOW, NOW THE MOTION BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE 0.5 PER UNIT, UM, CANNOT BE CHARGED.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA CLARIFY IT, TO BASICALLY INCLUDE THAT IN WHAT'S IN THE CO RIGHT NOW AND ALLOW MONTHLY AND ANNUALLY, BECAUSE THE WAY YOU WORDED IT STILL, YOU STILL TOOK AWAY THEIR POSSIBILITY TO CHARGE MONTHLY OR ANNUALLY FEES.

SO IT'S STILL A LITTLE BIT MORE COUPLED.

THE, I THINK THE INTENT, AND I'M SORRY FOR VENTURING TO GUESS, THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO ALLOW HOURLY AND BASICALLY TO, TO ALLOW FEES FOR PARKING.

BUT MONTHLY AND ANNUALLY IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF PAY PAID PARKING VERSUS, UH, WHAT PROBABLY THE INTENT OF THE MOTION WAS COMMISSIONER KNIGHT.

REQUIRED 50, YOU'LL PROVIDE MORE FOR SURE.

SO I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE CALCULATION OF HOW THAT WOULD EVEN GO, BECAUSE IF YOU HAD HALF A, UM, HALF EVERY, HALF A SPACE PER UNIT REQUIREMENT AND THERE WERE NOT ASSIGNED SPACES, SO SINCE IT'S JUST KIND OF ALL BLENDED, AND THEN YOU WANTED TO CHARGE A SPECIFIC TENANT OR SET OF TENANTS A PARKING REQUIREMENT, THAT THAT WOULD BE O THAT WOULD BE OKAY.

IT WOULDN'T THAT UNDER HER CHANGE UNDER COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S MOTION? YEAH.

OR YES.

AND IS THERE A LIMIT? SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION IS, LET'S SAY EASY MASKS.

I NOT GOOD AT MATH.

SO A HUNDRED UNITS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE

[06:50:01]

50 CANNOT BE CHARGED AT ALL, LIKE ON A SEPARATE PAID PARKING.

SO THE PRICE FOR THOSE P 50, THAT'S THE BUNDLING PORTION GOES, YOU KNOW, IN THE PRICE OF THE UNIT, RIGHT? SO YOU JUST SET ASIDE IN YOUR GARAGE 50 SPACES THAT YOU CAN NEVER CHARGE FOR MONTHLY, HOURLY, MONTHLY, OR ANNUALLY.

BUT THERE'S ONLY 50 SPACES AT A HUNDRED UNITS.

SO THERE'S 50 SPACES IN THERE.

IF YOU PROVIDE JUST 50 SPACE SPACES.

IF, IF YOU PROVIDE MORE, THEN YOU CAN CHARGE.

IF YOU PROVIDE A HUNDRED OR YOU PROVIDE 75 25, YOU CAN CHARGE FOUR.

BUT AGAIN, THE BIG CHANGE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW, THE CODE RIGHT NOW SAYS, LET'S SAY WE DON'T, WE DON'T TOUCH IT.

AND WE SAY MULTIFAMILY STAYS PER THE CODE RIGHT NOW, UH, WITH THIS NEW RATIO, YOU WOULD HAVE THOSE 50 THAT CAN CHARGE MONTHLY OR ANNUALLY, BUT THEY CANNOT CHARGE HOURLY.

COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UM, UH, THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION.

I THINK A PART OF MY NEIGHBORS' PROBLEMS, UM, WHAT WE'VE NOTICED IS THAT A LOT OF THE GUESTS ARE BEING CHARGED PARKING.

UM, A LOT OF THE GUESTS AREN'T REGISTERED ON THE LEASE.

THERE'S A, A, A LOT THERE, RIGHT? THAT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE APARTMENTS ARE ASKING FOR, INCLUDING THE PAY, UM, OR CREATING BARRIERS THAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO PARK ON THE STREET.

UM, SO THE, I REQUIRE PAYING THE NON CHARGE FOR REQUIRED PARKING.

I DO RESPECT THE PAID FOR GUEST PARKING FOR THOSE VISITORS.

UM, IS WHERE I HAVE, UM, TROUBLE WITH.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KNIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

SORRY, MY BRAIN HURTS A LITTLE.

SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING THIS.

I'M A RENTER.

I PAY MONTHLY FOR ONE PARKING SPACE.

IF WE PASS THIS AS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, WILL MY RENT GO UP? UM, I DO NOT KNOW THAT'S GONNA BE UP TO YOUR LANDLORD.

I WOULD SAY YOUR LANDLORD WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE YOU SEPARATELY FOR PARKING, BUT HE'S GONNA HAVE TO OFFSET THOSE COSTS.

SO PROBABLY, YES.

SO THERE IS DATA ON THAT APPARENTLY.

UM, IF THEY ARE NOT UNB UNBUNDLED, A PRICE OF A UNIT IS BETWEEN 20, 30% MORE EXPENSIVE WHEN PARKING IS BUNDLED.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE, MR. DREA, CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING? SO RIGHT NOW, IF APARTMENT COMPLEXES MULTIFAMILIES ARE CHARGING THEIR RESIDENTS AN A NIGHTLY FEE FOR A VISITOR TO STAY, THEY ARE BREAKING THE CITY CODE.

NO, MA'AM.

UH, THEY ARE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING IF THEY'RE PROVIDING EXCESS PARKING.

SO IF AGAIN, PER ONE UNIT THERE'S THREE BEDROOMS, YOU NEED THREE SPACES.

THOSE YOU CANNOT CHARGE HOURLY.

BUT IF YOU PROVIDE A FOURTH, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T REGULATE THAT.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT'S REQUIRED AND WHAT'S PROVIDED FOR THE REQUIRED PARKING.

IT'S ONLY THEY CAN CHARGE MONTHLY OR ANNUALLY.

BUT IF THE, UH, VISITOR PARKING THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING IS REQUIRED, THEN THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PAR CHARGING FOR IT HOURLY, I MEAN, THE OVERNIGHT FEE.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

BUT I ALSO KNOW, UNLESS WE HAVE SPECIFICS TO COMMISSIONER HERBERT'S EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REQUIRED OR PROVIDED THAT MAY BE EXCESS PARKING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THE RESIDENTS WOULD KNOW EITHER.

EXACTLY.

I MEAN, I HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE CHARGING PEOPLE TO PARK ON LAND THEY DON'T OWN.

I WOULD SAY THAT.

AND TOWING AND TOWING CARS WHEN THEY DO IT MAY BE AN INCENTIVE.

A QUIET INCENTIVE TO, FOR BUILDERS TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING.

COM COMMISSIONER HOUSE.

COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT.

IF I, IF I'VE GOT A 40 UNIT COMPLEX AND I PROVIDED 20 PARKING PLACES, WHY WOULD I TELL THE LANDLORD YOU CAN'T CHARGE FOR THOSE 20 BECAUSE IT'S A VALUABLE COMMODITY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE NEED IT, SOME PEOPLE DON'T.

THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT PAY FOR IT.

WHY WOULD WE HANDCUFF SOMEONE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, THE NEW SCHEME IS THAT THE TOW TRUCK COMPANY WON'T TOW YOUR CAR.

SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M HEARING THIS RIGHT.

SO IF, IF APARTMENT COMPLEX, SAY YOU HAVE PREFERRED PARKING CLOSER TO THE, THE BUILDING COVERED PARKING, UM, EVEN GARAGE PARKING, THAT'S OKAY.

I THINK WHAT I'M, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE, WHAT I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH IS NOW THAT WE'RE REQUIRING THE, THE, THE, UH, GUEST PARKING,

[06:55:01]

YOU LOG IN AND REGISTER AND THEN YOU PAY TO STAY.

HOW ARE WE GOING? SO IS THAT NOW BECOMING REGULATED WHERE, BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRING THAT YOU DON'T, YOU CAN'T CHARGE OUR MOST APARTMENT COMPLEXES, ESPECIALLY THE NICER ONES.

YOU HAVE PREFERRED PARKING SPACES THAT, THOSE ARE MY, THAT WAY, YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU PULL IN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ARE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOMEWHERE TO PARK.

I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BUT, UM, THAT'S GOING, THAT'S OKAY.

BUT HOW DO WE REGULAR, WHEN WE'RE SAYING REQUIRED, 'CAUSE WE'RE NOW, WE'RE REQUIRING GUEST PARKING.

DOES THAT THEN CONSTITUTE THAT? THEY CAN'T CHARGE FOR THAT? UH, 'CAUSE THE FEE IS DAILY OR HOURLY, BUT YOU HAVE TO, WHEN YOU PULL IN AND, AND, AND LET ME SAY THIS, IT HAPPENS MORE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT THAN ANYONE.

I CAN PROMISE YOU, I, I TOOK SOMEONE ONCE, RAN IN THE HOUSE AND TOOK SOMEONE SOMETHING TO EAT AND CAME BACK OUTTA MY CAR WAS GONE.

UM, THEY TOW REGULARLY.

IT'S A BIG BUSINESS.

SO I, I, I WANNA KIND OF GET AN UNDERSTANDING ON THAT.

SO THE WAY THE GUEST PARKING GOING TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION WORKS IS LIKE 10%, UH, OF THE REQUIRED PARKING MUST BE UNA SITE AND AVAILABLE TO USE BY GUESTS.

SO IT, AND LOOKING INTO THIS MOTION FOR PAY PARKING, I THINK IT SAYS THAT EVEN THAT GUEST PARKING, YEAH, YOU CANNOT CHARGE FOR IT.

I WILL BE A CLOSE VICE CHAIR.

MR. CHAIR, CAN I MOVE THE CALL? THE QUESTION? YES, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, CAN WE TAKE A VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION COMMISSIONERS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

A AYE.

AND THE OPPOSED ONE IN OPPOSITION.

LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE.

WHAT DO WE, CAN WE, UH, CAN WE REREAD THE MOTION PLEASE? SOMEONE COMMISSIONER HANEN, PLEASE.

SECTION 4.301 A EIGHT.

MAINTAIN THE LANGUAGE AND PROVIDE TO REVISE, TO READ ALL USES EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL MAY CHARGE FOR REQUIRED PARKING.

THAT, AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

LET'S HAVE A RECORD VOTE.

COMMISSIONER, ANYTHING? WELL, I JUST, I DON'T THINK THAT WORKS BECAUSE THE INTENT IS YOUR OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S SUDDENLY GOING TO HAVE, IT CAN'T BE REQUIRED PARKING.

IT HAS TO BE ALL, BECAUSE IF YOU DO THAT, YOU'VE, YOU'VE, THE, THE OFFICE BUILDING CAN'T CHARGE FOR PARKING CHAIR.

YEAH, WE ACTUALLY CAN'T DISCUSS NOW THAT WE CALLED THE QUESTION NOW, BUT SHE HAS A QUESTION ON HER OWN MOTION.

THE MOTION DOESN'T WORK.

CAN I AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY ALL PARTIES? YEAH.

YOU WANNA WITHDRAW IT? I WILL.

WITH MOTION.

I WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION.

MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

DID YOU WANNA MAKE ANOTHER MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATE MOTION.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT THINK IN THE INTEREST OF BEING RESPECTFUL OF THIS BODY'S TIME.

THIS EVENING IS THE TIME TO DO IT.

I THINK I NEED TO VISIT WITH STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS CRAFTED CORRECTLY SO THAT WE DON'T REMOVE THINGS THAT I THINK THERE'S GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED AND WANT TO DO.

SO WITH THAT.

NO, THANK YOU.

SO WE'LL GO ON TO THE, THE NEXT ITEM.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING ITEMS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? UH, I'M SORRY.

UH, DID YOU HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE JUST EMAILED OUT OR THEY EMAILED OUT TO EVERYONE? DO YOU KNOW? NO, AND I'LL APOLOGIZE TO MY COMMISSIONERS.

I DIDN'T REALIZE WE WERE DISTRIBUTING EVERYTHING, BUT I'M HAPPY TO READ THROUGH THEM.

SO THE FIRST ITEM IS WITHIN THE GENERAL OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ADD A PROVISION THAT ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVISIONS FOR PROJECTS PROVIDING NO PARKING TO INCLUDE ACCESSIBLE ACCESS AND INDICATE ON THE SITE PLANET PERMITTING.

AND I DON'T THINK WE KNOW IT.

WHAT IT'S INTENDING TO ADDRESS IS THAT WHERE PARKING IS NOT PROVIDED, THERE WILL BE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

THERE IS EXISTING BUILDINGS IN DEEP ELLUM THAT DO NOT HAVE PARKING, THAT YOU IDENTIFY HOW YOU'RE ADDRESSING ACCESSIBILITY.

THIS IS MODELED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT AUSTIN HAS IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THEIR CODE.

THAT'S SIMPLY SAYING, IF YOU PROVIDE PARKING, OUR STATE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ADDRESS HOW YOU

[07:00:01]

DO ACCESSIBLE PARKING.

IF THERE IS NO PARKING, WE HAVE NO MEASURE TO REQUIRE ACCESSIBLE ACCESS.

MR. RUBIN.

DISCUSSION.

CAN WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM STAFF HERE? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, WE'RE KIND OF FLYING BLIND HERE.

IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'VE READ IT.

SO, FIRST COMMENT, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS JUST A REQUIREMENT TO SHOW HOW IT'S BEING ADDRESSED.

SHOW THAT IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHERE THAT THERE'S SOME CONNECTION TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE, THE LAND USE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.

SO THIS, THIS ISN'T A NUMERICAL REQUIREMENT, IT'S NOT A DESIGN REQUIREMENT, IT'S JUST SHOW HOW IT'S BEING ADDRESSED.

AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH LOADING.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS.

LOADING, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS SIMPLY SHOWN AT PERMITTING.

THERE'S NO OTHER REQUIREMENT OTHER THAN I'M ADDRESSING ACCESSIBILITY.

I I THINK IT'S SENSIBLE AND THERE'S PRECEDENT.

FIRST COME TO MIND IS MINNEAPOLIS THAT RECENTLY, UH, REMOVED ALL OF THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS. THEY DO HAVE A PROVISION THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THIS.

SEE, NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AND THE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? PLEASE? PLEASE.

HOW MANY UH, ITEMS DID, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WANT US TO ADDRESS HERE? BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, COVERING NEW GROUND THAT THE PUBLIC'S NOT AWARE OF.

I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME, IF THERE ARE NEW ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, UH, BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC, THAT WE SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, MAKING THOSE AVAILABLE AND TRYING TO, UH, HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THOSE AND, AND, AND TO JUST DEBATE ON THEM AT ANOTHER MEETING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK US TO BE DEBATING ON THINGS WE'VE NEVER SEEN WITHOUT ANY OP OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND IT, UH, HERE AT THIS LAST MINUTE.

AND I, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I THINK WE HAVE JUST A COUPLE MORE OUTSTANDING ITEMS, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE ITEMS THERE ARE.

AND I, THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER, WHAT I WOULD CALL SUBSTITIVE.

THE, THE BALANCE OF IT IS CLEANING UP LANGUAGE CONSISTENT WITH EV ALL THE OTHER ITEMS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

THE ONLY OTHER ITEM, IF I MAY PUT IT FORWARD AND I WILL HOLD ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, IS THAT UNDER RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES FOR MICROBREWERY, DISTILLERY AND WINERY, THAT WE REQUIRE PARKING OF ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL SALES AND SEATING AREAS.

AND SO THAT MY COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE'VE DISCUSSED BAR RESTAURANT USES, UM, THESE FUNCTIONAL IN THE SAME WAY.

AND THEY CURRENTLY REMOVED ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE US.

THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT SUGGESTED FOR STORAGE AREAS.

THOSE ARE THE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT CODE.

IF WE DON'T WANNA DEBATE IT TODAY, I'LL WITHDRAW THE MOTION.

DO WE? WELL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP, PLEASE, MR. YEAH.

THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY VOTED ON THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS IN THIS, THIS IS A SEPARATE USE WITHIN THE USE CATEGORY.

IT'S IF YOU, IF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS DETERMINING THAT WE'VE ALREADY DEBATED IT, THAT'S FINE.

IT'S MY READING OF IT WAS, IT WAS A SEPARATE USE.

SO YOU WANT, YOU WOULD JUST WANT THIS TO BE A SEPARATE PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM OTHER TYPES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS? YEAH.

IF, IF IT IS TREATING THE SAME AS ALL, SO IT'S ONE FOR 200 I BELIEVE, THEN I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

SHALL I CLARIFY HOW, HOW THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM BAR IN THE CODE ALREADY? THAT THEY'RE ALREADY DIFFERENT.

IF, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, WE HAVE UNDER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, WE HAVE BAR LOUNGE OR, OR TAVERN AND PRIVATE CLUB BAR.

THAT'S ONE USE THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER IS SAYING WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON.

AND THEN THERE'S MICRO BREWERY, MICRO DISTILLERY OR WINERY.

THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THAT IS, UH, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED ONE SPACE PER 600 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, ONE SPACE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA USED FOR STORAGE AND ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA USED FOR RETAIL SALES OR SEATING.

MS. MORRISON, ARE YOU SAYING THAT MICRO BREWERY IS CONSIDERED UNDER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT? I HAD BEEN ASSUMING WHEN Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT BARS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, BUT WE CAN TREAT THIS ONE DIFFERENTLY.

SO IT HAS A SEPARATE, I'M ASKING IT TO BE TREATED THE SAME.

SO IF THAT'S WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE BODY, THEN I HAVE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I WAS PROPOSING THAT WE STRIKE ITEM B FOUR E, WHICH CONSIDERS REMOVING PARKING AS A MITRE AMENDMENT.

ANY OTHER, OTHER ITEMS? I'M HAPPY TO ME TOO.

I MEAN, IT'S, YEAH, IT'S SO UNDER 4.219 SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

[07:05:01]

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, UH, HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.

AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR SECOND.

AND WE'LL JUST HAVE TO HAVE A MOMENT.

DID YOU GUYS LOOK THAT UP? NO, I'M SORRY.

WOULD YOU REPEAT, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS? UH, YES.

UH, ON ON EMAIL, YES.

IT SHOULD BE EMAIL.

IT'S 4.219 SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

ITEM FOUR, EXCUSE ME.

B FOUR E STRIKE REVISIONS TO LANGUAGE.

SO FOR THE RECORD, 2 1 9 IS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

B IS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PROCEDURE.

I'LL JUST READ FOUR AND CONTINUE IT WITH E THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY AS NECESSARY TO MEET THE CONTINGENCIES OF DEVELOPMENT.

AMENDMENTS THAT DO NOT QUALIFY AS MINOR AMENDMENTS MUST BE PROCESSED AS A ZONING AMENDMENT.

THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZE MINOR CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN THAT OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE SUP ORDINANCE AND THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

AND DO NOT, FIRST I'LL READ THE CURRENT CODE AND THEN I'LL READ THE ZAC PROPOSAL.

THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZE MINOR CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN THAT OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE SUP ORDINANCE AND THE UNDERLININGS UNDERLINES ZONING AND DO NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

THE ZAC PROPOSAL IS THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZE MINOR CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN THAT OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE SEP ORDINANCE AND THE UNDERLINE UNDERLINE ZONING.

AND I'M SO SORRY.

I JUST READ THE, I READ THE ZAC VERSION, THE EXISTING, I'M SO SORRY, THE EXISTING AND DO NOT DECREASE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN SO AS TO CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING.

THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION IS TO CUT MOST OF THAT AND ONLY LEAVE, CREATE A TRAFFIC HA HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

THAT'S .

UM, CONSIDERING ALL OF THE OTHER REDUCTIONS THAT WE'VE MADE IN, IN REQUIRED, IN REQUIRED PARKING, I, I THINK I AM COMFORTABLE REMOVING THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURE FOR PARKING REDUCTIONS.

UM, IT'S SLIGHTLY SUBSTANTIVE, BUT, BUT I, I THINK WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE, THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURE JUST DOESN'T MAKE ALL THAT MUCH SENSE FOR PARKING REDUCTIONS ANYMORE, GIVEN ITS, ITS LIMITED NATURE COMPARED TO A FULL SKILLED ZONING AMENDMENT.

THE OTHER AVAILABILITY FOR RELIEF AND THE, THE LARGER REDUCTIONS WE'VE DONE TODAY.

SO I WILL SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

PERFECT SUMMARY.

VICE RUBIN.

COMPLETELY AGREE AND SUPPORT THE MOTION.

UH, OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES ONE.

AND APO NO.

TWO, NO CHAIR.

I I WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION OF THE MICRO BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES AND THAT WAS WITHDRAWN.

IT WAS WITHDRAWN.

AND THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE MADE WAS THAT, UH, WHAT WAS VOTING ON EARLY ON WAS REFERRING ONLY TO BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN.

THEY'RE WITHIN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE.

THAT IT WAS REFERRING TO ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHES.

NO, THAT WAS NOT THE CONVERSATION THAT THIS BODY HAD BECAUSE THE RATIOS FOR MICROBREWERY AND MICRO DISTILLERY AND WINERY AND IN THIS SITUATION, THEY WERE DRASTICALLY, DRAMATICALLY INCREASED.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ALWAYS DISCUSSED ABOUT BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

SO BARS, AGAIN, UNDER ALCOHOL.

NOBODY AT THIS HORSESHOE SAID ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS.

IT WAS ALWAYS BARS AND RESTAURANTS.

AND UNDER ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, WE HAVE ACTUALLY THREE USES.

BARS, LOUNGE OR TAVERN MICROBREWERY, MICRO DISTILLERY AND WINERY AND PRIVATE CLUB BAR AND, UH, MICROBREWERY, MICRO DISTILLERY AND WINERY.

IF THEY ARE ONE PER 200, THAT'S A DRASTIC INCREASE FROM THE RATIOS THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW.

AND THAT WAS NOT A DISCUSSION THAT THIS BODY HAD.

YEAH, WE, WE HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS AND WE VOTED ON IT AND WE AGREED THAT WE DID.

UM, SO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, WE WENT THROUGH YOUR LIST, I BELIEVE, OR DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER PLEASE?

[07:10:03]

DOES THIS BODY WANT TO CONSIDER THESE THIS EVENING? YES.

ALRIGHT.

SECTION 4, 3 11.

AND LET ME FIND THE PAGE SO THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CAN ALSO SEE IT HAVE LOST MY, WELL, IT'S ITEM A ONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

IT'S TO STRIKE THE REVISIONS IN A FIVE AND A SIX.

YOU GUYS HAVE IT AND CAN KIND OF WALK US THROUGH.

WE, I THINK ARE CATCHING UP.

TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, WE WERE MAKING NOTES AND TRYING TO WRITE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED.

COULD WE, COULD SOMEONE CATCH US UP ON WHERE WE ARE NOW ON YES.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? CAN CAN YOU REREAD IT PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UH, YOU HAVE HER EMAIL, RIGHT? YES.

IT'S, IT'S 4.311, RIGHT? 4.311 FOR FOLKS WITH THE COPY.

IT SHOULD BE AROUND PAGE 47 OF OUR DRAFT DOCUMENT.

IT'S ON ITEM ONE A.

UM, THANK YOU ITEM.

WELL, IT'S, IT'S TO STRIKE THE, THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ON THE REDUCTIONS.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SECOND THE MOTION.

SO, UM, WHERE IT SAYS THE BOARD SHALL NOT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER PARAGRAPH ONE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN AN ORDINANCE, GRANTING OR AMENDED A SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.

AND THEN ON ITEM SIX, THE BOARD SHALL NOT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES EXPRESSLY REQUIRED IN THE TEXT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF AN ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING OR AMENDING REGULATIONS GOVERNING A SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

SO IT WOULD MAINTAIN THOSE, THOSE ITEMS HAVE ALSO JUST LOST SEVEN.

UH, I APOLOGIZE.

THE BOARD SHALL NOT GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USED AS A DANCE HALL.

AGAIN, IT'S TRYING TO ALIGN WITH THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

WE HAVE A MO UH, WE DID HAVE A, YEAH.

SO IT'S DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, OR NOT SUPPORT? I SUPPORT IT COMPLETELY.

UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.

YEAH, I MEAN I, I THINK THAT FS AND PDS COME THROUGH THIS BODY AND COUNCIL AND I DON'T WANNA CONVEY THAT POWER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

I MEAN THOSE ARE CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED WITH THE COMMUNITIES AND THE OWNERS AND I THINK THAT IS AN ADVOCATION OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

PERFECT SUMMARY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? SEEING ON ALL IS IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES, YOUR HONOR.

ROLL, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON .

THESE ARE MORE THAN CLEANUP ITEM, UH, 51, A 4.313 ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION.

AND I DON'T, I WILL SAY THIS IS ONE THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR IN THE CURRENT DRAFT REDUCTIONS THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT NOW WITH SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

SO THERE'S BASE CODE, BUT THERE'S ZO OAC AMENDED LANGUAGE AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY ALL ALIGN.

SO I, THIS MAY BE TO SIMPLY ASK STAFF TO REVIEW THIS LANGUAGE.

'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN MAKE A FULL AMENDMENT OTHER THAN TO NOTE WE'VE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONFLICT.

SO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IS YOUR MOTION TO HAVE STAFF UPDATE THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE TODAY? YES.

VICE CHAIR RUB.

ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS.

CNL IS IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

AND THEN THE LAST ITEM 4 7 0 2, WHICH IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LANGUAGE ITEM FOUR NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED.

UM, IT

[07:15:01]

WAS REMOVING THAT OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING WOULD BE INCLUDED IN A PD.

I I DON'T THINK I HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND DISCUSSION.

C LS IF I EVER SAY AYE.

THIS IS JUST AN A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW LOADING IS ADDRESSED.

AND I'M SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT HOTEL AND DAYCARE USES BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND THEM IN OUR DRAFT.

UNDER THE USES WE HAVE LANGUAGE NOW WITHIN THE PARKING AND LOADING SECTION THAT DEFINES SIZE AND REQUIREMENT FOR LOADING.

SO IF I MAY SIMPLY ASK STAFF TO CONFIRM HOW THOSE ARE ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL DRAFT.

FINAL DRAFT, YEAH.

SO, UH, UH, CBC RECOMMENDED ADDING A LOADING REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY USES ONLY.

THE REST IS PRE ZAC.

THE OTHER USES EXCEPT MULTIFAMILY.

FIGURED THAT ONE OUT.

WELL, IF I MAY SIMPLY SAY MY CONCERN, THOSE ARE TWO OF OUR MORE INTENSE USES, PARTICULARLY ON LARGER HOTEL PROPERTIES TO NOT HAVE ANY LOADING REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER IT BE RIDESHARE OR FOLKS ARRIVING, UM, IN LARGE SCALE.

AND FOR SMALLER HOTELS, IT'S LIKELY NOT AS CRITICAL, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY THINK OF SOME LARGER ONES THAT STRUGGLE WITH HOW TO MANAGE THAT.

IF I MAY PLEASE, COMMISSIONER COVER, I, I KNOW IT'S LATE IN THE DAY.

I MAY GET THE NAME WRONG, BUT I, I KNOW DURING ALL OF THIS, I, I BELIEVE, I KNOW I READ THE, THE, I THINK IT'S CALLED THE CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT THE CITY ADOPTED.

AND IT SAYS VERY SPECIFICALLY THAT IF THE CITY LOOKS, UH, GOES TO PARKING REDUCTIONS OR NO PARKING MINIMUMS, THAT MULTI-FAMILY AND HOTELS ESPECIALLY NEED TO BE LOOKED AT FOR, UM, LOADING AND FOR, UM, DELIVERY AND RIDE SHARE AND THAT SORT OF THING.

SO, I MEAN, TO ME, THE CITY HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED IN THAT THAT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT THAT THIS IS, UH, AN ISSUE.

AND I AGREE THAT THAT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO HOTELS OF A CERTAIN SIZE, BUT I THINK WE'RE, WE'D BE NEGLECTFUL, DERELICT IN OUR DUTY IF WE, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT.

I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION LAST TIME TO HAVE, UH, LOADING REQUIREMENTS AND SHORT TERM PARKING FOR DROP OFF AND PICK UP FOR MULTI-FAMILY OVER 150 UNITS.

AND IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN ADD THE SAME LANGUAGE FOR HOTELS.

COMMISSIONER HAM.

SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADD HOTELS OVER 150 ROOMS FOR LOADING AND RIDESHARE STANDARDS SIMILAR TO MULTIFAMILY.

I'LL, I'LL SECOND THAT.

COMMISSIONER TON.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, A HOTEL'S KEY THAT 80 ROOMS OR MORE? YES, I WOULD.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONERS.

SEE? AND NONE.

CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, CONTIGUOUS TO SINGLE FAMILY USES, BUT I, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING A DISCUSSION.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER, I HAD, UM, SUBMITTED A, A RECOMMENDATION AT THE END OF OUR LAST, UM, DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THE DAY TRYING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM THAT, UM, OCCURS IN DISTRICT SIX TO A A GREAT EXTENT.

AND I KNOW IN, IN SOME OF THE OTHER SOUTHERN SECTOR, UM, DISTRICTS WHERE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, TROUBLESOME ADJACENCY WITH HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES BEING RIGHT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY USES.

AND MY MY RECOMMENDATION WAS GOING TO BE TO MAINTAIN PARKING MINIMUMS FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN 500 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY USES.

I'M WILLING TO

[07:20:01]

BUT MY, MY MOTION WOULD BE IF I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO START, WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN PARKING MINIMUMS FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND INDUSTRIAL USES, UH, CONTIGUOUS TO SINGLE FAMILY USES.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

THAT'S TRUE.

MAY I OFFER A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WHICH I THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT SORT OF, WHAT WE DID EARLIER TODAY FOR AUTO SERVICES CENTERS IS REQUIRE VEHICLES FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN 500 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY USES TO BE PARKED ON SITE.

YES, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONERS C NONES IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

UM, MS. MORRISON, MICHAEL BURIES.

ANY OPPOSED? AYE.

HAVE IT.

THINK WE HAD AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE HERE? I THINK SO.

SO I THINK THE COMMISSION AND MYSELF INCLUDED, WHEN SPEAKING OF BARS, WE WERE ASSUMING THIS WAS ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS TO INCLUDE BAR LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND PRIVATE CLUB BAR AND ALSO MICROBREWERY MICRO DISTILLERY OR WINERY.

AND SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE LOWERED THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR BARD LOUNGE, TAVERN AND PRIVATE CLUB.

BUT WE ACCIDENTALLY, WELL, THE BODY ACCIDENTALLY INCREASED THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR MICROBREWERY MICRO DISTILLERY OR WINERY.

SO, O MAY I MAKE A MOTION PLEASE? COMMISSIONER AHEAD.

IN THE, UH, FOR THE MICROBREWERY, DISTILLERY AND WINERY USE TO REQUIRE PARKING OF ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL SALES AND SEATING, NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR OTHER FLOOR AREA.

IF I HAVE A SECOND, I CAN EXPLAIN WHAT THAT CHANGES.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SECONDED IT.

SO THE CURRENT STANDARD IS ONE PER 100 FOR THE RETAIL SALES AND SEATING AREAS SIMILAR TO A BAR OR RESTAURANT.

IT HAS PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR OTHER FLOOR AREAS AS WELL AS FOR STORAGE AREAS.

WE'RE REMOVING THOSE OTHER TWO PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND REDUCING THE RETAIL SALES AND SEATING AREAS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT FOR RESTAURANTS AND OTHER USES, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS CONSISTENT WITH OUR INTENT AND IT WOULD ALIGN THEIR FUNCTIONAL USE WITH OTHER USES AS WE HAD DISCUSSED.

I I WANNA CLARIFY.

BELIEVE I WAS JUST CORRECTED THAT I SAID ONE TO 100 AND I MEANT TO SAY ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET.

RUA, DID YOU HAVE A CLARIFICATION? YEAH.

SO YOU SAID RETAIL SALES AND SEATING.

THAT WAS MY NOTE FROM TRYING TO COPY.

THERE WERE THE THREE SECTIONS WITHIN MICROBREWERY DISTILLERY.

OH, IT'S, IT'S WHAT'S IN THE CODE BECAUSE THEN MY CLARIFICATION WAS THE ONE PER HUNDRED TO ONE.

200.

SO YOU CLARIFIED THAT IT'S ONE 200.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S ESSENTIALLY DELETING AA BB AND THEN ALTERING CC TO ONE TO 200.

IS THAT CORRECT? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

IT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMOVE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.313.

I DON'T REALLY THINK WE NEED THAT ANYMORE.

I, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE IF YOU WANNA EXPLAIN IT MORE, I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD CAUTION US, MAYBE WE WANNA CONSIDER AND TELL US, WE, WE, WE CAN LOOK AT IT BECAUSE SOME PDS STILL REQUIRE PARKING AND THEY, SOME PDS DEFER TO FOUR 300 FOR REDUCTIONS.

SO MAYBE WE DON'T WANNA HER YES, PLEASE.

I DUNNO IF IT'S A POINT OF ORDER OR OTHERWISE, BUT WE ALREADY DIRECTED STAFF TO REWORK THE SECTION.

SO I THINK THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PRIOR ONE.

SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS WHOLE SECTION.

UM, AND THIS, THIS MAY FALL INTO THE SAME CATEGORY OF CLEANUP, BUT SECTION 4 13 7 0 3 A THREE, UM, DEALS WITH TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN.

AND WE DID NOT TOUCH ON THAT.

I BELIEVE THE MOTION WAS TO REMOVE ANY TYPE OF LANGUAGE RELATED TO TD MPS.

ONLY REGARDING SECTION 13 800.

AND NOT 13 700.

BASICALLY REMOVE THE NEW TDMP LANGUAGE FOR ANY PROPOSAL, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN.

I, I MEAN, IF, IF THE COMMISSION MAKES A BROAD STATEMENT TO

[07:25:01]

ALRIGHT.

AND THEN LAST, UM, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AT ANY AREA THAT'S SUBJECT TO A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY DISTRICT'S EXEMPT FROM ANY PARKING REDUCTIONS MADE TO THE CODE AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 2020 20.

I'M SORRY, 2025.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

COMMENTS.

DISCUSSION? UM, I THINK ANY OF THESE AREAS, UH, ALREADY HAVE COMPLEX PARKING PROGRAMS IN PLACE AND DID NOT NEED THESE TYPE OF PARKING REDUCTIONS.

THEY ALREADY HAVE A SCHEME IN PLACE SIMILAR TO PDS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN PARKING, UM, SCHEMES IN PLACE AND THEREFORE, UM, SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER C AND ALL AS IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

UH, COMMISSIONERS.

THE, THE GOAL IS NOT TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY.

UH, STAFF IS GONNA COME BACK ON THE 20TH, I BELIEVE, AND WE WILL HAVE THE LANGUAGE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT IT ALL RIGHT AND THAT IT FITS WITH THE VOTES.

SEE IF WE NEED TO MAKE ANY LITTLE CORRECTIONS DRAFT.

UH, WHEN WILL WE GET THAT DRAFT LANGUAGE APPROXIMATE? I, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY.

UH, WHEN DO YOU THINK THAT WE'LL GET A, A COPY TO REVIEW? SO WHEN, WHEN DO YOU INTEND TO VOTE? 20TH ON THIS? 20TH ON THE 20TH OF MARCH 20TH.

UH, I, I WOULD WANT TO CONFER WITH CIO 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE A FEW EYES ON IT.

I I CAN TURN MY PORTION AROUND QUICKLY.

THAT'S WHAT I CAN SAY.

I MEAN, UM, BUT I CAN'T GIVE A, I I WOULD WANT TO TALK WITH CIOI WANT ALL OF US TO BE LOOKING AT THIS.

I MEAN, DO WE, DO WE THINK THAT WE WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK, IS THAT TOO EARLY? TOO LATE? JUST SHOOTING IN THE DARK A LITTLE BIT.

MAYBE THURSDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

SO THE 13TH? YEAH.

YEAH, I CAN DO THAT.

WE'LL SHOOT FOR THAT.

UH, VICE TRUMAN, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE MOTION FOR THE BODY'S CONSIDERATION THAT ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS THIS ORDINANCE BE, UM, SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF, UM, IN WRITING BY MARCH 18TH, 2025 FOR CIRCULATION TO THE BODY.

COMMISSIONER ? I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THE DRAFT ORDINANCE UNTIL LIKE, THE DAY BEFORE I, I, UH, TO REQUIRE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS BY A COMMISSIONER BE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BODY BY, IN WRITING OR TO STAFF FOR CIRCULATION OF THE BODY IN WRITING BY TUESDAY, MARCH 18TH.

AND I'M, I'M FLEXIBLE.

IS THAT PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THE DRAFT ON THE 13TH? YES.

THAT WE HAVE FIVE DAYS NOTICE? YES.

WITHIN FIVE CALEN OR, OR WITHIN FIVE CALENDAR DAYS OF, OF CIRCULATION BY CITY STAFF OR MARCH 18TH, WHICHEVER IS LATER.

MOVED THEN SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NAY ONE IN OPPOSITION? UH, CAN WE GET A MOTION TO HOLD THE ITEM? AND WE NEED A MOTION TO HOLD MR. CHAIR, MOVE TO HOLD THE, UM, MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL, UH, MARCH 20TH, 2025.

THANK YOU MR. RUBIN TO HOLD THE ITEM.

AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SO YOU KNOWLEDGE IF FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

COMMISSIONER WHEELER ISN'T THAT WEEK? UM, OR MAYBE I'M WRONG.

ISN'T THAT, THAT, THAT WEEK IS, UH, NATIONAL PLANNINGS CONFERENCE WEEK? SAME WEEK? NO, IT'S, IT'S MARCH.

NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MARCH 20TH.

MARCH 20TH.

MARCH 20TH IS, YES.

IT'S IT'S THE 28TH.

IT'S A REGULAR C IT'S THE 29TH TO THE 31ST.

THE A PA CONFERENCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE WEEK AFTERWARD.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE.