This document discusses proposed amendments to the city's off-street parking requirements. It provides an outline of prior discussions and presentations with the Planning and Zoning Commission on parking flexibility. The Commission voted to recommend approval of draft ordinance amendments. The proposed amendments aim to provide more flexibility and reduce barriers to development. They include adjusting parking minimums and purpose statements, increasing eligibility for shared/off-site parking, exempting small sites from some requirements, and allowing more administrator discretion. The staff recommendation is to approve the nine proposed ordinance revisions.

1. Agenda Item #5
UDO Amendment 12-7.3 ‘Off-Street Parking
Standard’

2. Off-Street Parking Requirements Presentation
Outline
• Item from the 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission’s Plan of
Work to provide options on creating parking flexibility.
• Workshop presentations and policy discussion with the Planning
and Zoning Commission on parking requirements on:
– February 2nd
– May 4th
– June 1st
• On August 3rd, Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0
to recommended approval of this Draft Ordinance
Amendment to the City’s Off-Street Parking Requirements.

3. Policy Direction from Planning & Zoning Commission
• Provide flexibility and parking alternatives for
developing and redeveloping properties to increase
their economic development viability and taxable
value.
• Responsibly reduce regulatory barriers that
contribute to underutilized parking areas while still
protecting neighborhoods from overflow parking.
• Increase the discretion given to Administrator to
consider alternative parking options.
• Eliminate parking requirements that add minimal
value and would streamline staff processes.

4. Staff Recommendation & Discussion
• Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed nine ordinance revision concepts
recommended by staff:
– Adjust the purpose statement for Off-Street Parking Requirements
– Remove the percentage cap of intense uses allowed in shopping centers without requiring
additional parking
– Change distance eligibility requirements for shared & off-site parking options
– Provide relief for small sites by exempting a certain amount of square feet from the
requirements.
– Improving the demand-based parking option
– Adjusting the multi-family parking ratio for 2 bedroom units.
– Eliminate “concepts” requirement for large parking lots.
– Revisit required curbing around the perimeter of parking areas
– Applying redevelopment overlay parking requirements flexibility to all older sites by right.

5. Ordinance Revision #1: Adjusts the purpose
statement for Off-Street Parking Requirements
Per Section 12.7.3 in the Unified Development Ordinance :
1. Eliminate Reduce the occurrence of non-resident on-street parking in
adjoining neighborhoods;
2. Avoid the traffic congestion & public safety hazards
3. Expedite the movement of traffic on public thoroughfares in a safe
manner.
4. Provide flexibility and parking alternatives for developing and
redeveloping properties to increase their viability.

6. Ordinance Revision #2: Allows shopping centers to have a minimum
parking ratio that is not dependent of the parking ratios of the tenants
that occupy them.

7. Ordinance Revision #2: Allows shopping centers to have a minimum
parking ratio that is not dependent of the parking ratios of the
tenants that occupy them.
• Removes the rule that no more than 25% of any shopping center square
footage shall be utilized for intense uses unless additional parking is
provided.
• Allows shopping centers to maintain the specified parking ratio regardless
of the composing tenant uses unless otherwise determined by the
Administrator.
– 1 parking space per 250 square feet in General Commercial, Suburban
Commercial, and Wellborn Commercial.
– 1 parking space per 350 square feet in Commercial Industrial

8. Ordinance Revision #3: Extends the City’s demand based parking
option to all developments and remove the requirement that a
balance of land be held in reserve.
• College Station’s current Demand Based Parking Option:
– Only applies to large-scale developments
– Requires that the balance of land that would have been required parking be
held in reserve in an undeveloped area.
• New Demand Based Parking Options allows commercial and multifamily properties
to propose an alternative parking plan based on the demand they generate
without requiring that a balance of land be held in reserve.
– The reduction in parking spaces would need to be justified with a parking study
prepared by a professional engineer or transportation planner.
– Final determination would be made by the Administrator.

9. Ordinance Revision #4: Changes the distance eligibility
requirements for shared and off-site parking option from 250 feet to
500 feet.
Distance Approximate
Time to Walk
250 feet 1 Minute
500 feet 2 Minutes
≈ 250 feet
≈ 500 feet

10. Change Distance Requirements for Shared Parking Option
Distance Approximate
Time to Walk
250 feet 1 Minute
500 feet 2 Minutes
750 feet 3 Minutes
Approximately 250
feet from building
face

11. Change Distance Requirements for Shared Parking Option
Distance Approximate
Time to Walk
250 feet 1 Minute
500 feet 2 Minutes
750 feet 3 Minutes
Approximately 500
feet from building
face

12. Ordinance Revision #5: Provides relief for small sites by
granting a general reduction of two parking spaces for
certain non-residential uses
• Targeted parking relief for small sites by
exempting an amount an floor area from
parking requirements
– Provides an extra 585 -774 sq. ft. of
site flexibility depending on parking
configuration (2 parking spaces +
associated drive aisle)
– Does not apply to tenant spaces in
shopping centers
– Would require providing at least one
parking space unless otherwise
specified in the UDO.

13. Ordinance Revision #6: Eliminates additional layout and
landscaping requirements for large parking lots over 120 spaces.
• Currently UDO states that large
parking lots over 120 parking spaces
must choose one of three parking lot
concepts which are meant to
encourage additional landscaping.
• Eliminating this section would reduce
regulations and provide flexibility.
• The City’s normal parking
requirements would now also apply to
large sites.

14. Ordinance Revision #7: Allows curbs in parking areas to be
omitted if pedestrian areas are adequately protected
• Currently UDO states that all
paved surfaces shall be curbed
but alternatives can be approved
by the Administrator.
• There are enough examples of
omitted curbs with protected
pedestrian areas.
• Streamlines processes to allow
this by right.

15. Ordinance Revision #8:
Adjusts the Multi-Family Parking Ratio for 2 Bedroom Units
Current College
Station MF
Requirements
(Per Bedroom)
16 Peer City
Average*
Proposed College
Station Requirement
(Per Bedroom)
Efficiency: 1.5 1.2 1.5
1 Bedroom 1.5 1.5 1.5
2 Bedroom: 1.5 1.0 1.0
2 Bedroom where
each bedroom is less
than 130 s.f.
1.25 N/A Eliminate
3+ Bedroom 1.0 0.8 1.0
• Made up of 10 Texas cities (Austin, Bryan, Conroe, Denton, Georgetown, Missouri City,
Plano, San Marcos, Sugarland, & Waco) and 6 other university cities (Norman, OK;
Ft. Collins, CO; Columbia, MO; Fayetteville, AR; Tallahassee, FL; Baton Rouge, LA).

16. Staff Recommendation & Discussion
• In summary the ordinance amendments proposed for UDO 12-7.3 would:
– Adjust the purpose statement for Off-Street Parking Requirements
– Allow shopping centers to have a minimum parking ratio that is not dependent of the parking
ratios of the tenants that occupy them.
– Extend the City’s demand based parking option to all developments and remove the
requirement that a balance of land be held in reserve.
– Change the distance eligibility requirements for shared and off-site parking option from 250 feet
to 500 feet.
– Provide relief for small sites by granting a general reduction of two parking spaces for certain
non-residential uses.
– Eliminate additional layout and landscaping requirements for large parking lots over 120 spaces.
– Allow curbs in parking areas to be omitted if pedestrian areas are adequately protected
– Adjust the Multi-Family Parking Ratio for 2 Bedroom Units

17. Parking
Ratios

18. Alternative Parking Plan
• Currently 3 options to choose from
– Shared Parking
• For multi-use developments with different peak demands or operating
hours.
• Must be located no further than 250 feet from the building site.
– Off-Site Parking
• Allows for the location of parking to be at a remote location or separate
lot from the principal use.
• Must be within 250 feet or a shuttle service be provided.
– Bicycle Parking
• Allows for the reduction in the number of required spaces if bicycle
facilities such as bicycle lockers, employee shower facilities, and
dressing areas for employees are provided.

19. History of Off-Street Parking
Downtown Bryan 1931
Photo Credit: Downtown Bryan Association

20. The High Cost of Free Parking
• Landmark planning book written by
Donald Schoup, Professor of Urban
Planning at UCLA in 2005
• “Free parking” is not really free as
costs are passed on elsewhere.
• Makes the case that policies like
parking minimums are a prescription
with unintended side effects.
• Parking should be market driven by
prices.

21. Current Seating Capacity:
102,512 seats
Parking that would be
required: 25,628 spaces
Would require approximately:
194 acres

22. Critiques of Parking Minimum
Requirements
• An obstacle to redevelopment efforts.
• Harmful to small scale developments.
Makes some smaller lots undevelopable.
• Parking lots are aesthetically
displeasing.
• Private business can better judge value
vs. accessibility tradeoffs.
• Lowers densities and skews travel
choices in favor of driving while making
walking, biking, and transit less
competitive.

23. Northgate: Return on Investment

24. Various City Approaches Regarding
Reducing Parking Minimums
• Reduce or eliminate parking minimums in certain
districts such as their downtown and higher density
districts.
– (City of San Antonio, TX in Infill Development Zone).
• Reduce or eliminate parking minimums citywide
(Buffalo, NY; Asheville, NC).
• Reduce or eliminated parking requirements for
certain property types
– Non-residential properties (Fayettville, AR)
– Residential properties under a certain number of
units (Minneapolis, MN – 50 units)
– Buildings less than 2,500 & 10,000 sq. ft.
(Providence, RI)