Developers could soon be able to decide for themselves how many parking spaces are needed for a new housing complex or business. The Dallas parking code hasn’t been overhauled since 1965, and the city’s Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee decided Tuesday it’s time for that to change with a vote to end minimum parking requirements.
The matter of eliminating minimum parking requirements for new development has been heard at ZOAC a whopping 27 times, said Senior Planner Michael Wade.
The zoning committee voted 6-2 Tuesday to support staff’s recommendations for amendments to the parking code.
ZOAC pays close attention to detail; its members thoroughly reviewed what appeared to be minutiae in the staff proposal and subsequent “friendly amendments” initiated during the three-hour meeting. Ultimately, committee members emphasized that if their recommendation is upheld, it won’t remove any existing parking spaces.
Planned Developments like PD 193 in the Oaklawn neighborhood — which set their own parking and loading requirements — would not be affected by a parking code change, city officials said.
ZOAC member Enrique McGregor said the biggest challenge in parking reform is combating the misconception that eliminating minimums is eliminating parking.
“All it’s doing is allowing the market to … determine what the right amount of parking is,” McGregor said. “The impact of having so much waste in empty parking spaces, which is caused directly by the code that we have, is that a lot of valuable real estate sits idle and unproductive. Billions of dollars of investment are tied up in parking that could have been invested in productive opportunities … It also reduces the tax base in a city that struggles to provide city services. It increases housing costs, which exacerbates the shortage of affordable housing.”
The matter will now go before the City Plan Commission.
The Road to Parking Reform
District 1 Councilman Chad West brought up the matter in 2019, but the idea was shelved for years due to a lack of interest from city officials. It resurrected last year, and while a majority of ZOAC members have expressed support for eliminating minimum requirements, they’ve also acknowledged that there shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all approach. In fact, that’s the problem, says Assistant Planning Director Andreea Udrea.
“[The current parking code] is a one-size-fits-all requirement because it’s a ratio that applies everywhere in the city and is blind to location and traffic,” Udrea has said.
Dallas’ current parking requirements designate one space per bedroom for a home, one space for every 100 square feet for a restaurant, and one space for every 200 square feet for retail.
Pros And Cons of Eliminating Parking Minimums
Several residents spoke on both sides of the debate at Tuesday’s ZOAC meeting.
Dallas was designed to be car-centric, and eliminating parking requirements will create challenges for motorists and neighbohoods, said District 14 resident Ed Zahra.
“By design, current parking minimums limit how much density can be developed on a space, which directly affects the infrastructure,” Zahra said. “[Parking minimums] need to be an integral part of any new parking management policy instead of being kicked to the curb.”
City Plan Commissioner Melissa Kingston said she generally supports eliminating parking minimums but suggested that exceptions be made for some categories.
“According to our City Attorney’s Office — and I agree with this assessment — if we eliminate all our parking minimums and we decide that in certain categories we have made a mistake, we are going to have a very difficult time reinstating those,” she said.
District 9 resident Swede Hanson suggested that parking minimums force developers to use up space for parking that could instead be used for affordable housing.
“Having grown up in D10 I can point to multiple big box retail centers with expansive concrete parking lots that sit nearly empty 365 days of the year,” he said. “The biggest reason for my support is the burden the parking code places on the development of affordable places to live. Unfortunately, the discussion around the development of attainable housing begins and ends with parking, not with how many additional units we can build, not with the additional equitable amenities we can provide, not with the type and quality of unit furnishings, but with the number of concrete parking spaces we must provide.”
