Thread by @ncoxbarrett

It's been a hot week. You know what'd help with that? Parking Reform. Guess what? Today the ZOAC is discussing this very topic! 🥳

Sadly, there are 2 topics ahead of Parking Reform, including amending P(A) districts. This is very arcane! Funny enough, I actually own a property with one of the few P(A) districts in Dallas!

Basically ZOAC is discussing allowing amendments to P(A) districts to go through a less onerous process than a full zoning review.

Here's my P district! It makes no sense since it is perpendicular to the rest of the parcel. Also, there's no site plan for it on file (supposedly required). Nobody understands them!

Whew, on to the good stuff! ZOAC skips item 2 and moves on to Item 3-PARKING REFORM

Staff Lori Levy is leading our discussion, a change from our usual staff Andreea Udrea.

Since today's focus is on design standards for Parking, Staff is focusing on delivering the lowest impact parking.

Side note: I love to argue about the bioretention swales in Deep Ellum. It's already caused one big fight with @MCBSounds

Staff is reviewing the CECAP and other city plans. Idea is that when parking is provided, it be done so with least environmental harm.

Sounds like the "Proposed Standards", which assumes no parking minimums, would apply city-wide.

This is similar to the Lexington, KY approach focusing on the public impact of parking. They have a great site about it: storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6feec4…

CPC MacGregor asking about the point system, which is definitely the salient thing at hand.

The full set of points/standards weren't distributed before meeting, but i'm interested to see what all the options are.

Lots of discussion about run-off control and Innovative Water Management.

ZOAC Larry Hall: Asks if this would apply to only new construction or also to existing lots.

Staff: Thought is it would apply to new builds, but maybe to redevelopments/rebuilds of parking.

Next up: Urban Form! Aka "Stuff we like more than parking lots."

Alongside the environmental items, Staff is again focusing on minimizing the public impact of parking that IS provided, a marked improvement from deciding how much parking SHOULD BE provided.

Again, Lexington has some great examples on their website:

CPC LeDouglas Johnson: Would these requirements be tied to the street typologies in the Complete Streets Manual?

Staff: Yes, so if you were building on e.g. an industrial street, it'd be different from a Mixed-Use street.

Staff reiterates: These standards apply IF parking is provided. The level of standard is determined by the type of street as per the Complete Streets Manual.

Staff Continues: This is a separate and distinct conversation from the ratios and minimums discussion.

CPC MacGregor asks if HB2439 is going to preempt these design standards.

Note: I don't believe so, as form and massing controls are still allowed. Cities just can't prohibit certain materials that are allowed under building code.

Additional Note: Worst case scenario would be to add design standards but not remove the parking requirements. Let's make this a win/win by removing parking requirements buy adding standards if parking IS provided.

I have to drop off now, but it sounds like it's close to wrapping up with a discussion of next steps for Staff!