Thread by @ncoxbarrett

It's been awhile folks, but I'm back for more ZOAC live-tweeting about Parking!

Where we are: We are talking about "Parking Ratios Table Options" ooooo

I rate the proposal a solid "B-" in parking reform. Highlights:

No parking reqs in any districts except in or within 330ft of a SF, Duplex, or Townhouse district.

No parking reqs for first 5,000SF regardless of district.

No reqs-Historic buildings (pre-1965) exempt

Honestly, this is a "A" by Dallas standards, but these days, you gotta at least eliminate them entirely to be a contender for the Parking Reform champion.

The 330ft buffer is definitely the most annoying part

Much like residential proximity slope, this has the effect of excluding a huge part of Dallas land (about 63% of residential land plus the 330ft area around it).

This is partially offset by the exemption for the first 5,000SF which would allow something up to 10-12 studios if this applies to apartments (which is not clear if it is commercial only or also covers Multi Family).

Also included in this ZOAC discussion is a generally updated, reduced, and simplified table or parking requirements. Nothing ground breaking but generally a reduction of about 1/3. Most significant is going to 1 space per DU rather than 1 per Bedroom (which is ridiculous).

Part of the table below. You can see we're not coming close to what other cities are doing, which Staff is noting to the ZOAC. Staff goes on to also note that even in these cities where they've made these reductions, parking is STILL not fully utilized (I think)

Staff discussing the effect of reform on Planned Developments (PDs). Seems that if the PD defaults to the code for Parking reqs, they'll get the reduction. If the PD specifies its own parking ratios, they won't be affected.

This is significant sind PDs make up 17% of Dallas(!)

Commissioner LeDouglas Johnson asking why we're putting parking requirements on our biggest land use (housing/residential).

ZOAC starts to discuss unbundling, but City Attorney puts the Kibosh on that, limits to the parking ratios.

CPC Johnson pointing out that the neighborhood aesthetics we often like (old cottages, front porches, etc.) are pretty hard to build because of parking requirements.

Staff's concern is that if no parking is provided at all, people will park on the street.

Once again, I would like to point out that the City has near-absolute control of the public Right of Way and could set resident parking only or even no parking to control this.

Staff expresses concern about applying zero parking to apartments with several hundred units, however they are more concerned with establishing a framework/approach:

Do we do it by units? By proximity to transit? or by District?

CPC Johnson: If he, as a prospective renter/buyer, he'll make the decision whether he needs a parking spot.

Note: I agree, but we do have to control the externalities of not controlling parking in the ROW or else we'll be right back here in a few years.

ZOAC: Mark Rieves asking whether he thinks even 300-500 unit apartments shouldn't require parking.

CPC Johnson: Says he doubts anyone would build that much without providing for market demand (paraphrase).

Staff Engineering Nevarez: Says a home generates more demand than 1 parking space per unit. Acknowledges that is just reflective of current culture.

Note: We must always keep in mind that parking "demand" is absolutely responsive to parking policy. Change reqs, change "demand".

ZOAC Rieves: Has a problem with the idea of 11-unit or 200-unit apartments with no parking requirements, because it will spill out to the street.

I will continue to repeat this: City controls ROW, end of discussion.

Public comment time. I forgot to sign up again like always! Instead I sent mine by email.

First comment, from Mr. Garcia: Super excited about the parking reforms under considerations. Wanted to emphasize lower reqs for 4plexes and smaller.

Mr. Jacobs: Asks whether these ratios are minimums or maximums? Says transport options and other urban considerations make these ratios seem more appropriate for suburban/greenfield developments.

Note: I like the spirit of this question!

ZOAC Chair Murphy would like to hear from the transit people.

Note: Our transit is hamstrung by parking requirements. DART won't ever succeed without big parking and land use reforms.

ZOAC Rieves: Really concerned about parking requirements being exempt on places like Lower Greenville. Thinks that parking requirements/late night overlay was the only way to control these from turning into bars and was resulting in fights and murders.

Counterpoint: The rest of the world and even many places in America somehow manages to prevent people from being murdered in the streets without parking requirements.

Staff Udrea brings us back to the world Planning by asking whether we should be talking about controlling compatible land uses by regulating parking?

Note: I know some people say answer to this is yes, because Texas state law pre-empts most alcohol regulation at the local level.

ZOAC Rieves: Says parking requirements is what creates mixed-uses on lower greenville and bishop arts. If we remove parking reqs we'll lose those mixed-uses and end up with only bars.

Note: I don't think so. Deep Ellum has many bars/restauras, but still has many other uses too.

Regardless, the real problems we're experiencing right now of required parking is MUCH WORSE than the hypothetical/unlikely problem of too many bars/restaurants.

Further, just allowing more bars/restaurants elsewhere will help PREVENT an excessive concentration of night life.

That's a wrap! More to come in weeks ahead, but we're on the right track so far!

I really want this to pass. It'd be the biggest positive change in Dallas land use policy in...50 years?