Consultants present Dallas code diagnostic proposing 'gentle density', ADU by-right rules and end to SUP renewals

Megan Weimer, assistant director in the City of Dallas Planning and Development Department, opened a public meeting Wednesday evening where consultants walked residents through a technical "code diagnostic" that proposes replacing parts of the city’s zoning regulations with a simpler, consolidated Chapter 63.

Arista Strangis, principal and partner at the consulting firm (identified in the transcript as Camiro's), led the roughly 35‑minute presentation and described the diagnostic as a technical review built from GIS analysis, staff input and about 30 stakeholder interviews. "Dallas zoning reform — simple, clear, future ready," Strangis said, summarizing the goals of creating more predictable, user‑friendly regulations that implement the city’s Forward Dallas comprehensive plan.

The diagnostic recommends a single global use matrix with defined standards for principal and accessory uses, clearer measurement rules (for example, measuring building height in feet rather than stories), and a compartmentalized code structure to reduce contradictory provisions. To increase housing options, the team proposed a new set of "gentle density" residential districts intended to allow duplexes, triplexes and four‑unit buildings alongside single‑family housing. Strangis emphasized these are "tools in the toolkit," not map changes, saying the consultants "have not made any proposals as to where those districts go."

A second high‑profile proposal would remove automatic renewals for Specific Use Permits (SUPs). "We are making the recommendation right now to eliminate renewal of SUPs," Strangis said, adding the proposal recognizes concerns about industrial and health‑sensitive uses and will be refined in drafting. The team noted that SUPs can still be revoked for cause and that the recommendation is intended to reduce unpredictability for business owners who face renewal uncertainty.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were another focal point: the diagnostic proposes eliminating the ADU overlay and allowing ADUs by right within districts that meet strict standards on size, height and lot eligibility. The consultants said the change would be accompanied by detailed design and siting requirements intended to limit impacts on neighbors.

On design and development controls, the consultants recommended clarifying the difference between "yard" and "setback," adding impervious‑surface maximums to manage stormwater, consolidating similar multifamily districts into two tiers, and retaining a mixed‑income bonus with technical adjustments. They also proposed an administrative modification procedure — a narrowly defined, low‑impact change (example given: up to a 10% dimensional modification) that could be approved by a zoning administrator with limited neighbor notice.

The presentation addressed plan developments (PDs) and nonconformities at length. With "over 1,200 PDs," the team said PDs often replicate the same conditions and recommended converting common PD conditions into base code standards and offering an approval‑layer approach so unused PD approvals could expire. For nonconformities, the diagnostic proposed a new category, "nonconforming site characteristic," to handle elements such as landscape or parking design separately from structures.

During the Q&A, staff committed to robust public engagement: the consultants aim to release a "public draft 1" by the end of the year, followed by multiple outreach meetings and a redline "public draft 2" before hearings. Members of the public asked about stakeholder lists, effects on schools and churches, tree preservation, demolition controls, and how and where new districts might be mapped. On mapping, Strangis reiterated the distinction between producing district types and deciding which parcels would receive them: "It's the tools in the toolkit," she said; "we have not made any recommendations on that end."

No formal actions or votes were taken at the meeting. Staff encouraged written comments via DallasZoningReform.com and said meeting materials, including the executive summary and code diagnostic, are posted on the project website. The consultants said they will continue to analyze feedback and refine technical drafting ahead of the public drafts.

The next procedural step is the release of the first public draft, anticipated by the end of the year, followed by additional public meetings and a second redline draft for further comment.