Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends time‑based shared parking rule to Town Council, asks staff to refine contiguity language
Summary
The commission voted to recommend amendments to Chapter 82 adding optional time‑based shared parking based on a five‑year local study; commissioners asked staff to clarify geographic/contiguity limits and tenant/change‑of‑use handling before the measure goes to council.
The Flower Mound Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday recommended that the Town Council adopt a zoning code amendment to allow optional time‑based shared parking, moving a staff‑draft table and methodology forward with directions to refine contiguity language.
Nick, a town planning staff presenter, said the proposal would add time‑based shared parking to Chapter 82 (new Section 82‑84) as an optional tool developers may use to reduce minimum parking requirements when two or more compatible land uses in the same development can share spaces based on differing daily peak hours. He described a five‑year local observational dataset (hand counts and Nearmap aerials) covering roughly 120 sites and about 280 visits, yielding more than 36,000 vehicle observations across 17 land‑use categories. Staff compared local observations to the Shared Parking Manual (3rd ed., 2020) and calibrated a proposed table by weighting local data where sample sizes allowed.
Nick explained the mechanics: a developer totals required parking under standard minimums for each use, multiplies those totals by the table’s time‑of‑day percentages, and then takes the highest column total as the shared‑parking minimum. In one staff example shown to the commission, the shared‑parking calculation produced a roughly 31% reduction from the code minimum for an illustrative mixed‑use scenario; staff emphasized that use of the table is optional and developers may still submit their own shared‑parking study for special projects.
Commissioners welcomed the objective, which aligns with the town’s strategic plan goal to reduce oversupplied parking and increase open/landscaped space. Commissioners raised three recurring implementation questions: (1) whether two restaurants with different service profiles could qualify as distinct compatible uses (staff: both would fall under the broad "restaurant" category and would likely need a different additional use to qualify); (2) whether the "same development or subdivision" requirement is too broad geographically and needs a contiguity/distance standard to ensure walkability (staff: acknowledged the point and committed to proposing language before council); and (3) how tenant or use changes would be handled over time (staff: the recorded shared‑parking agreement would run with the development, staff would administratively review major changes and return to commission/council if substantial action is needed).
No members of the public registered to speak at the public hearing. After discussion, a commissioner moved, and the commission seconded, a recommendation to approve the draft LDR amendment to add time‑based shared parking; the motion passed on the commissioners’ recorded ayes. Commissioners asked staff to consider adding specificity about contiguity and walkable distance before forwarding the item to Town Council.
The recommendation will be transmitted to the Town Council for consideration; staff will refine suggested language on geographic contiguity and administrative review processes in advance of the council packet.
