Draft off-street parking regulations

It might be useful to include language about equity needs here, and giving developers benefits for building in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods. Developers could get bonuses for helping develop biking and walking infrastructure or supporting TOD projects.

I think it should be:

40% affordable = 0.25 spaces/unit

60% affordable = 0 spaces required

Larger metropolitan areas already do this, it should give more space for investors to develop affordable housing in TOD areas.

Consider expanding the Excess Parking Amenities section to include “Smart Mobility Infrastructure” as an eligible amenity category. This could include smart crosswalk sensors, adaptive pedestrian lighting, real-time transit information displays, parking-occupancy sensors, micromobility charging hubs, and environmental monitoring devices. These additions would support the city’s smart-city goals and give developers more flexible options for meeting amenity requirements.

The City may also consider requiring a basic multimodal assessment or parking-demand justification when applicants propose parking above the maximum.

For surface lots over 50 spaces in §88-420-04-C, we should
require a minimum amenity score regardless of whether parking exceeds the maximum.

Would like to see Bus shelter with heating/lighting

Maybe add Protected bike lane (curbed) as , as well as Dedicated neighborhood mobility hub (bike share + scooter docks).

Keep as it is - no parking minimums in the urban core.

Excluding the Urban Core from parking minimums is great! Kansas City has all kinds of environments - urban, suburban, and rural - and increased density, and revitalization, or the urban core won't happen if parking minimums remain as they are.

Could we prioritize raised crosswalks and traffic calming over HAWK and RRFB? Surely the upfront cost and maintenance/upkeep costs make these much more expensive options. If we can use raised crosswalks/intersections, narrowed lanes and/or bump-outs, I would think those would be more cost effective and they are definitely well proven methods.

Is this a specific title/job/person (capitalized) or a general group of people?

Love this section!

Going from 1 point for uncovered to 15 points for covered seems like a large jump. Can the covered points be decreased to 5 points per space?

Can this be more specific to only include fixed bicycle racks? (to exclude ones that are able to be picked up by 1-2 people)

Can protected bicycle infrastructure be more points than just a bike lane? Perhaps 1.5 points per 10 linear feet?

Could there be a line item for pervious pavement for sidewalks?

I'm unsure this line item makes sense. What does this mean?

Exceeding what?

I have a slight concern that this will encourage over-installation of sidewalks, which creates rainwater runoff issues, increases heat island effects, and requires more maintenance. Can this point value be decreased or this line item be taken out?

Can "Sidewalk repaired" be added? For more points than an additional sidewalk or trail connection?

There's an extra space here

Some of the points specifically say "points" (ex: 10 points) while others only have a number (ex: 10) - can this be consistent throughout the whole table?

Could this point value get bumped to 30 or 35? Raised crosswalks provide better visibility for pedestrians, but also serve as traffic-calming measures.

This is a huge improvement. There are currently so many un-used parking spots at drive thrus.

I like this idea in theory, but I live in a dense neighborhood and there are quality of life issues involved in this change.

Security. You're pushing people farther away from their front door, especially women. Our sidewalks are broken. It's hard to navigate in icy conditions. We have a lot of seniors as well. It also leaves cars unsupervised on the street and that leads to more theft.

Blight and dumpsters. Our neighborhood has nowhere to hide the current trash and recycling bins, so they're all over the place. It's embarrassing and annoying to navigate around on the sidewalks. It's part of our visual environment now: an historic neighborhood with a lot of plastic bins.

Parking lots and alleys are where dumpsters go. There are few places dumpsters can safely be unloaded; the companies that unload them often don't put them back in the right place, blocking access. It is a constant problem with the smell and placement, and neighbors unable to access garages or storage areas. The city does not maintain alleys well.

This practical aspect has to be considered. An entrepreneur can't open a deli, for example, without a dumpster. They may not need the parking, but do need the trash pickup. In many of these older buildings, there is nowhere to place dumpsters.

Heat Island effect. We have very few street trees, so a "walkable" neighborhood is, at times, dangerously hot.

Transit. Why are we designing an area for transit that we don't have, and that is not funded, especially at a regional level? I don't quite understand the change without a bus system to make it work.

Bicycle storage. If people are physically able to use bicycles for transit, which many people are not, they often don't have a safe place to store a bicycle. That is true for people living in public housing and apartments especially.

Pedestrian overlays and parking districts. Speeding is a constant hazard. Visitors block driveways and alleys. We would request a neighborhood overlay with conditions to keep out businesses like dispensaries; to encourage businesses we'd like to see; implement a pedestrian overlay with traffic calming; and a parking benefits district. Some residents should have permits and protected street parking. Other areas should be paid parking and that revenue needs to come back directly to the neighborhood.

This seems high for inside the urban core. It would be nice to see this maximum reduced

This elimination of parking minimums has been needed in the city for a long time. This is huge progress for the City of Kansas City!

Missed the opportunity to fill out the survey, logging my support for the idea of drastically reducing our outright eliminating parking minimums.

I think this means that, in the Urban Core, none of these exemptions apply because the "greatest level of exemption" is actually zero parking required. This works but is a little confusing since most (all?) of these districts occur in the Urban Core. So maybe the language should say something like "In the districts outside of the Urban Core, these exemptions apply"...or something like that.

Does this force non-residential uses over 4,000sf in P/O Districts to have off street parking requirements in Urban Core areas? Seems like there should be an exception for Urban Core areas since, according to the table, there are no parking requirements in Urban Core areas.

Suggest leaving this section in. Excessive parking is a large problem in Kansas City, and there needs to be "sticks" associated with providing too much parking.

Suggest leaving this as it is. Churches have historically bought local homes and demolish them to meet the required parking ratios. Better to not force this issue.

This will be great for adding housing in the urban core since residents have more options to walk, bike, transit, uber, etc. Suggest leaving this exactly as it is.

Specifically made an account to comment on the elimination of parking minimums and give my full support as a midtown resident. Please push this through.

Are there further descriptions as to what a sidewalk improvement constitutes? (ie: widening the sidewalk, etc.)

I am thrilled that KC is getting rid of parking minimums in the urban core. THANK YOU! This will go a long way to increasing denser development, which will in turn spur the kind of walkable neighborhoods we need desperately.