Thread by @ncoxbarrett

zoac zoac zoac ZOAC ZOAC ZOAC! It's happening right now! We are back to talk parking!

A reminder of where we are:

I've looked over the materials for the meeting today and it looks great, we're looking at Lower Greenville as a specific example of what things might look like under the framework being considered.

Below reference of "lower greenville" areas.

I like that we're looking at Lower Greenville because the biggest resistance has come from residents in this area. Kudos to staff for addressing it head on!

ZOAC is currently reviewing the previous meeting which featured DART and Office of Econ Dev. Chief Eric Johnson. Specifically, importance of sidewalks to actually allow walking and impact of parking on affordable housing.

ZOAC Larry Hall says he was struck by Johnson's remark that the main area he said needed relief from parking requirements was areas south of I-30. Hall says he doesn't think we've heard enough from neighborhoods in these areas.

There's truth to this, since costly parking requirements have the effect of making marginal projects infeasible. Thus, in lower-income areas, projects previously not possible, become possible thanks to reduction in paperwork and costs that parking reform brings.

Staff Udrea notes that under the new DART bus system (as currently presented on Dartzoom) shows Greenville will have a very high frequency (for Dallas) transit route on Matilda, runs parallel to Greenville (about 640ft away).

Starting with "Low" Greenville, Staff Udrea did some impressive prepping and went out and estimated parking provided, brought up building SF per DCAD, and zoning maps to prepare maps

Low Greenville scenario:

Purple: Parking Required
Orange: Exempt due to Age
Yellow: Exempt due to distance

Lower Greenville!

Lots of Parking already. Oh, Orange may be exempt due to small size (<5,000 sqft) or age (pre-1967)

Now the big one: Lowest Greenville. 80 on-street and 1,600(!) off-street spaces! Also note, Lowest Greenville has a wild thing called a "Modified Delta Credit Overlay" which is even more wacky than Dallas' usual Delta Credit concept.

Interesting fact Staff notes that 31 of 90 lots are used exclusively as parking lots.

A few spots in the PD for this area receive complete relief from parking requirements, but with some big restrictions on the types of uses allowed.

Note: Zoning is "complicated".

Staff Udrea is showing the impact of parking requirements on the built environment, yellow lots are all lots that were converted from buildings to parking lots.

Depictions of on-street parking limitations on Lower Greenville (red=no parking, orange=resident parking only).

Note: This should be on the GIS site if it's not already!

311 data on parking service requests.

Folks requested Staff examine what might happen if current lots are re-developed (given the parking lots will no longer be required). I think the red items are items that are non-conforming now (i.e. exceed the current allowable standards).

Field observations! Can someone give Staff Udrea (and anyone who assisted) a bonus?

More field observations, including some parking lots that are nearly empty during peak nightlife hours.

ZOAC Rieves notes that some of these "Low Greenville" photos are strongly affected by the pandemic since a lot of traffic here is driven by the Granada Theater

Staff also noted some use of the ROW for commercial loading.

On to observations of Lower Greenville.

Lowest Greenville! Staff notes that most parking lots were half-empty to completely empty, despite being in very hot areas with high quality lots (well-lit, good repair).

Note: I have never paid for parking on lowest greenville because why pay for you can get fo' free?

Staff speculated that there is possibly not good way-finding to parking areas so parking lots not next to top destinations go unused.

Note: Yikes, that curb cut! Also, people parking in the sidewalk ROW, but good luck getting the police to ticket that (in my experience at least)

Staff also noted the Trader Joe's parking lot is almost always in use.

Note: this is a thing.

buzzfeed.com/caseyrackham/w…

Staff ends with a discussion of Induced Demand and we are on to staff Q&A!

Public comment time! Four commenters today. First: Says most of these lots are private and patron only, so there's not much public parking. (???)

Also mad Cons. Districts parking reqs may change.

Also says parking is the most important amenity he can offer tenants (???)

Next comment! This guy says we shouldn't implement a change to the whole city overnight. Says only Buffalo has done this and says that doesn't count because it's too small.

Note: Not sure why this is relevant?

Current commenters continues that the management tools mentioned aren't good.

Next commenter! Lower Greenville neighbor says the presentation today wasn't 100% accurate or based on some assumptions that aren't true.

Note: No presentation that is less than a dissertation will be perfect.

Commenter continues: says 330ft buffer isn't big enough s/b 1/4mi. Also says DART never changes anything and will believe it when she sees it.

Note: Even if DART stopped operations tomorrow, removing parking requirements would still make sense.

That 330ft "buffer" should be 0ft

note continued: The 330ft adjacent parking requirement is pointless because the way you control overflow parking is ROW management (no-parking zones/RPO zones & ticketing), not parking requirements.

ZOAC Rieves: Relates how developers converting old houses and parking lots to relieve parking problems, but what's happened is people built more stuff.

Rieves continues that parking reqs are the only means to control bars/restaurants.

Note: pretextual regulations are bad.

ZOAC Chair Murphy pushes backs: Says we should regulate nuisances uses through nuisance regulations not through parking reqs. Also says we are not forbidding or setting maximum parking reqs, so there will still BE parking.

Staff Udrea confirms that we are not talking about maximum parking reqs, which would prevent parking. Instead we are discussing letting the market set parking requirements, which by definition is not "one size fits all". (my paraphrase)

Staff continues: Setting parking by use definition ends up hurting some users/businesses because what makes sense for one business, makes no sense for another due to differences between businesses.

ZOAC Rieves asks city attorney: If neighborhood wants to regulate a bar/restaurants and wants to regulate this use, what could we do to regulate their use today (i.e. to take away existing rights)?

City Attorney: It'd have to be rezoned.

Rieves: You think they'd support that?

Attorney: I don't think it matters what I think about that.

Udrea: We have other zoning tools such as overlays and Residential Adjacency Reviews, noise regulations, and SUPs

We've run out of time! Upcoming public meetings:

Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Videoconference: bit.ly/ZOAC05192021
Teleconference: [phone] Event number (access code) 187 043 5388

and again on:

Thursday, May 20, 2021 8:30 – 10:00 am
Videoconference: bit.ly/ZOAC05202021
Teleconference: [phone] Event number (access code) 187 624 8279