Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA SPECLAL NORTHGATE COMMITTEE MEETING College Station, Texas August 17, 1983 10:00 A.M. The Northgate Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, August 17, 1983 at 10:00 A.M. at the Fellowship Hall of the ABM Presbyterian Church at 301 Church Street. Invitations are extended to .any interested persons, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Results of the study which has been conducted covering the North- gate area over .the past year will be presented, as well as recom- mendations and suggestions the Committee has compiled will be presented. ~~ ICJ ..- M i~ • NORTHGATE COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEETING: AUGUST 17, 1983 10:00 AM A&M PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OUTLINE AGENDA A. Introductions B. Schedule/Process C. Facts on Northgate 1. Demographic 2. Survey Results a. User - b. Owner D. Prel 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. iminary Recommendations Parking Zoning Traffic Maintenance Capital Improvements • E. Question and Answer C7 n • _.__ NORTHGATE COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF SURVEY DATA RETAIL CUSTOMERS/CHURCH-GOERS This data was collected at two different times--a football weekend in' November, 1982 and during the second week of classes in the~Spring, 1983. Nine hundred seventy nine survey forms were returned and tabulated from retail customers, 7s0 from church-goers (in italics). A. Why did you come to Northgate today? (963 responses) (757) • Business/Shopping: 519 Entertainment/Bar: 198 Food : 345 Church: 20 Other: 45 (Totals more than 100.0% bec~ by some individuals) 6. Where did you come from? (967 Campus: Apartments in Northgate: Bryan: College Station: Other: C. How did you arrive at Car (Driver): Car (Passenger):, Bicycle: Motorcycle: Shuttle Bus: Walk: (53.9%) (20.6%) (35.8%) (2.1%) (4.7%) fuse of multiple responses) (755) 474 (49.0%) 62 (6.4%) 126 (13.0%) 263 (27.2%) 42 (4.3%) Northgate? 430 123 37 15 5 362 (972 responses) (44.2%) (12.7%) (3.8%) (1.5%) (0.5%) (37.2%) 1s (2.1~) 10 (1.3%) 32 (4.2~) 754 (99.s%) - 4 (0.5~) purposes indicated 1 71 (22.60 38 •(5.~0%) I60 (21. Z%) 3s6 (48.50 20 (2.6~) (757) 407 (53.80 187 (24.70 15 (2.0~) 3 (0.4%) 2 (0.3~) 143 (18.90 D. If by car, where did you park? (522 responses) (5s0) On street, near business: 313 (60.0%) 249 (44.50 Campus side of University Dr: 29 (5.6%) 20 13.s~) Off-street parking lot: 180 (34.5%) 291 (52.00 How many passengers rode with you? (361 responses) (476) None: 129 122 One: 118 126 Two: 67 127 Three+: 47 101 Average number of riders: 1.09 1.43 • E. How would you rank the parking problem in Northgate? (938 responses) Never a problem(1): 34 21 Seldom a problem(2): 47 28 _ _ Sometimes a problem(3): 190 187 Often a problem(4): 272 2s2 Always a problem(5): 395 228 Average ranking: 4.01 (often a problem) 3.89 F. Would you come to Northgate more o ften if more parking we re available? (890 respons es) (693) Yes: 567 (63.7%) 351 (50.s~) No: 323 (36.3%) 342 (49.40 G. How often do you come to Northgate for each of the following purposes? Shopping/business (890 responses) (s02) - Never: 75 (8.4% - 11s (19.3%J Once a month: 162 (.18.2% 214 (35.5%) Twice a month: 150 (16.9%) 92 (15.30 Once a week : 191 (21.5%) 95 115.8%) Twice a week: 167 (18.8%) 47 (7.8%) Daily: 145 (16.3%) 38 (. s.3~J Entertainment/bar (836 responses) (491) Never: 136 (.16.3%) 319 (s5.0~) Once a month: 116 (13.9%) 85 (17.3%) Twice a month: 93 (11.1%) 32 (s.5%) Once a week: 185 (22..1%) 30 (s.1x) T~vi ce a week : 179 ( 21.4%) 19 (3.9~J Daily: 127 (15.2%) s (1.2%) Food (832 responses) (550) Never: 67 . (8.1%) I47 (26.70 Once a month: 105 (12.6%) 113 (20.50 Twice a month: 104 (12.5%) 88 (16.0 0 Once a week: 179 (21.5%) 9s (17.50 Twice a week: 232 (27.9%) 85 (15.50 Daily: 145 (17.4%) 21 (3.8~) Church (751 responses) (735) Never: 410 (54.6%) 1 (0.1%) Once a month: "55 (7.3%) 22 (3.0~) Twice a month: 41 (5.5%) 22 (3.0~) Once a week: 207 .(27.6%) 350 (47.s%) Twice a week: 28 (3.7%) 245 (33.3%1 Daily: 10 (1.3%) 95 (12.90 (72s) • ~ r H. How long do you expect to be in Northgate today?(967 responses) (755) • 1 hour or less: 531 (54.9%) 103 113.sx) 2 hours: 174 (18.0%) 436 (57.80 3 hours: 20 (2.1%) 73 (9.7~) 4 hours: 92 (9.5%) 95 (12.s%) 5 hours : 14 (1.4%) 11 61.50 6 hours: 47 (4.9%) 23 (3.0%), 8 hours: 89 (9.2%) 14 (1.9~) Average length of stay: 2.5 hours 2.5 hrs. I. Would you shop in Northgate if more specialty shops .were available? (910 responses) ( 703) Yes: 670 (73.6%) 442' (s2.9%J No: 240 (26.4%) 261 (37.1%) c: J. How do you rate the physical appearance of Northgate? (960 responses) (749) Ugly(1): 258 (26.9%) 30s (40.9%) Bad(2): 220 (22.9%) - 193 (25.80 Neutral(3): 367 (.38.2%) 225 (30.00 Not bad(4): 54 (5.6%) 11 (1.5%) Attractive(5): 61 (6.4%) 14 (1.9~) Average score: 2.4 2.0 K. Age of respondents (965 responses) (756J ~ ~ -' Under 18: 17 (1.8%) 19 (2.5~J 18-25: 767 (.79.5%) 395 (52.20 26-35: 123 (12.7%) 90 (11.9 0 36-45: 35 (3.6%) 78 (10.30 46-55: 18 (1.9%) 78 (10.30 Over 55: 5 (0.5%) 9s (12.70 L. .Sex (958 responses) (752) Male: 546 (57.0%) 394 (52.4 0 Female: 412 (43.0%) 358 (47.6%) M. Occupation (958 responses) (754) TAMU student: 711 (74.2%) 374 (49.60 TAMU faculty/staff: 76 7.9%) 133 (17.s~) High school/other student: 22 2.3%) 1s (2.1%) Other: 149 (15.6%) 231 (30.60 N. Current residence (953 responses) (752) Bryan/College Station: 890 (93.4%) 728 (96.80 Other Brazos County: 11 (1.2%) 12 (1.6~) Outside Brazos County: 52 (5.4%) 12 (1.6%) 0. If you are a visitor to Bryan/Coll ege Station, are you: (41 responses) (9) Former student: 23 (56.1%) 4 (44.40 Family/friend of TAMU student: 12 (29.3%) 2 (22.2%) Other: 6 (14.6%) 3 (33.30 • • ~ ~ l ~~~` be m O.© ® 0 0 v 3~i c ~ T T~~ T~ T T T ~ l// ~1 r~1 ~ I ~ ~ ' T ~ ~ ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ I~ ~ '~ of ~ _ ~~ i ~~ ~~ ~ Q ~~ ''~ ~ d ~~ ~ ~~ I • R. 2 N J a • __~ (bs/z ~ __ Nf!)~NH08 7 _ 3M >_ ti a V ~~ e m a x w ~f~ ~~7 L/U CS nnn lu ~l Q luti O d • NORTHGATE COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following detailed recommendations are presented to address problems in five broad areas: Parking, Zoning, Traffic, Maintenance, and Capital Im- provements. Many of these areas overlap and interrelate. For example, pro- posed parking restrictions may affect traffic flow; zoning changes that permit increased development may aggravate existing parking problems. Where pos- sible, recommendations are made to include a recommended phasing for implemen- tation: Phase 1: Immediate implementation is intended for low cost, easily accomplished improvements, such as restricting parking on certain streets. Phase 2: Short-term implementation (1-3 years) is intended for more costly or time-consuming projects such as a minor street im- provements or rezoning. Phase 3: Long-range implementation (more than three years) is intended for the more expensive projects such as land condemnation, con- struction of parking lots, etc. • P A R K I N G PROBLEM: TAMU students and employees are utilizing city streets in Northgate for all day parking of vehicles, resulting in traffic congestion on major arteries (College Main, Nagle), poor visibility at certain intersections (Cross and Tabor) and reduced parking availability for Northgate businesses. RECOMMENDATIONS: Phase 1: The City should permit only y one, or two parking in the area bounded by University and Church (both sides) and Wellborn and Nagle. This one-hour restriction would be in effect between 8 am and 5 pm weekdays and should be ricLorously enforc d. The City should prohibit parking between 8 am and 5 pm on College Main and Nagle between Church and the Bryan city limits. Phase 2: The Mayor should establish a dialogue with appropriate TAMU officials to discuss mutually advantageous solutions to mutual parking problems. Solutions to be considered might include: require dormitory students to park cars at remote location, allow- ing use of nearby lots for commuting students. Freshmen not allowed cars on campus. Mutual enforcement of collection of parking r 2 • tickets accumulated by students. PROBLEt1 T~1M-U students are utilizing city streets and vacant lots in Northgate for long-term storage of vehicles, resulting in traffic congestion, poor visi- bility at intersections and visual disruption to neighborhoods (parking on vacant lot at First and Church and on former drive-in theater site.) RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: The City should prohibit parking between 2 am and 5 am on all or selected city streets in Northgate. PROBLEM There is too little parking available in Northgate to support the existing retail and dining/drinking/entertainment establishments, especially when com- pared against the existing zoning ordinance requirements. For example, in the "commercial area" bounded by University and Patricia, Boyette and Lodge, the following comparison is enlightening: Total area of retail business: 46,552 sf Parking required 1 space/300 sf: 155 spaces Total employees: 64 employees Parking required 1/2 employees 32 spaces Total seats dining/drinking: 765 seats ~ • Parking required 1/3 seats 255 spaces Total employees: _ 42 employees Parking required 1/2 employees: 21 spaces TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 463 spaces Estimating 350 sf per parking space would yield a requirement for 162,050 sf, or 3 72 of parking. The total land area considered in this example is 124,100 sf (2.8 acres . RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: The city should recognize the fact that over forty percent of the people using the retail/d-ining establishments during the day walk to Northgate or arrive by other means than automobile, and reduce the parking requirements accordingly. (See section on Zoning for - further elaboration of this recommendation. Phase 2: The City should move to acquire (either by lease or purchase) nearby vacant or under-utilized land to be developed as a municipal parking lot. PROBLEM Northgate employees take up many of the few available parking spaces in Northgate, both off-street and on-street. RECOMMENDATION • Phase 2: Employees should be issued windshield st ickers and required to park 3 at a remote or satellite location. Proposed locations include the old City Hall property, which will be developed to include a large parking lot when Stage Center plans are complete. Stage Center might be willing to lease a given number of spaces for this purpose. An alternate possibility would be the parking lot proposed to be developed by A&M Methodist Church on part of the recently acquired Baptist property. PROBLEM Unauthorized persons occupy parking spaces in private off-street parking lots. RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: Merchants or churches should issue parking permits to employees or parishoners authorized to use these lots. For transient users such as customers or visitors, spaces should be clearly marked and monitored. Un-authorized users should be towed after proper noti- fication of authorities. PROBLEM Even where permitted, on-street parking is haphazard and undefined. RECOMMENDATION Phase 1: Continue program of clearly marking permitted parking spaces by installation of permanent white and yellow disks, marking spaces. • Z O N I N G PROBLEM Current C-1 zoning ordinance prevents commercial development of portions of Northgate due to parking and setback restrictions more appropriate for new development in suburban location. RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: The City should recognize tfie historic significance of the North- gate commercial area and adopt a new zone, carefully defined and structured,- to permit development to occur in an orderly fashion. Off-street parking requirements should be eased to take into account the high percentage of non-automobile arrivals and the development of municipal and/or satellite parking areas as they occur. Developers able to take advantage of the reduced off-street park- ing requirements might be required to pay for the development of municipal parking spaces located elsewhere. Existing front and rear setbacks would be ratified as acceptable, and new requirements set in conformance with these established • norms. 4 • Other restrictions that might be considered for change include signs and landscaping. New ordinance might be similar to Planned Urban Development (PUD) ordinance and also allow creative planning design solutions (per- formance not pre-scriptive). PROBLEM The residential areas of Northgate are currently zoned R-6, but remaining developable lots are often too small to permit good planning practices when developed at the high densities permitted by the R-6 Zone. Developers are not encouraged to put larger parcels of land together for more orderly well-planned development. RECOMMENDATION Phase 1: The City should move to down-zone all R-6 property to R-5, per- mitting 24 dwelling units per acre. PROBLEM There are currently no incentives for development of quality commercial or residential projects in Northgate. Development is proceeding in a haphazard, piecemeal fashion. Vacant and run-down properties continue to exist despite a potentially attractive location near the University. • RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: The city should make owners aware of the tax advantages that accrue to owners who rehabilitate 20-30 year old commercial properties. These incentives are in the form of tax credits and accelerated depreciation schedules. Phase 2: The City should consider the creation in Northgate of a Tax In- crement Financing District or a Tax Abatement District to en- courage new development. The former would set aside future tax revenues collected in the district due to new development and use them to pay off bonds for municipal improvements in the district. The latter would freeze taxes at current levels fora given period of time for making owners capital investments to their properties within the district. Obviously these two districts are mutually exclusive and would not overlap. Normally the Tax Abatement District would be a small "core" area, surrounded or flanked by a larger Tax Increment Financing District. TRAFFIC PROBLEM The conflict of pedestrian and .vehicular traffic at the intersection of Uni- • versity Drive and College Main. 5 • RECOMMENDATION Phase 2: Install a "scrambler" signal system which permits all pedestrians to walk in any direction at a given signal (all-red for vehicles), This would prevent conflicts with turning and through traffic as well, PROBLEM Traffic congestion on Patricia Street, especially between Boyette and College Main and College Main and Lodge, RECOMMENDATIONS - Nlq~ C.ikD~.c.-w ~• z ~~'~+' Phase 1: Prohibit parking on Patricia between College Main and Lodge. Change this portion of Patricia to one-way traffic west-bound. Phase 2: Change Patricia to one way west-bound between College Main and Boyette, or consider closing Patricia to all traffic except service vehicles/employee parking. PROBLEM Church Street "dies" at its east end into a confusing jumble of parking spaces, access lanes to the Skaggs shopping center with the result that the thoroughfare to University is ill-defined. • RECOMMENDATION Phase 1: Design and install a system of traffic flow by printing lines on the existing pavement to more clearly define the dedicated right-of-way. Phase 2: Re-engineer the area in question and construct permanent curb- and-guttered street to city standards. PROBLEM Alternative forms of transportation to and within Northgate are not encouraged, RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: Negotiate with the University to have its shuttle bus system make stops along current routes in Northgate. Phase 2: Improve pedestrian crossing of University at key (busy) points: Tabor/Asbury, Nagle/Ireland, Church/Spence (McDonald's) Establish bike paths within Northgate. Negotiate with University to have west campus shuttle make stops at satellite parking lot (old city hall) and in Northgate. Mer- chants may be asked to subsidize this system. NTENANCE U 6 • PROBLEM Trash is allowed to accumulate in Northgate on city streets. RECOMMENDATIONS Phase 1: Schedule the city-owned street sweeper to make regular passes through Northgate during the early morning, especially after peak-use periods (football weekends). Once no parking 2 am - 5 am is implemented, the sweeper will be able to do an adequate job. Phase 2: The peninsulas jutting into the intersection at University and College Main allow trash and water to accumulate and should be removed or redesigned. Install trash receptacles at key locations. PROBLEM Trash is allowed to accumulate in Northgate on private lots_ RECOMMENDATION Phase 1: Enforce existing city ordinances against this occurance. PROBLEM • Existing streets are badly deteriorated and worn. RECOMMENDATION Phase 1: Survey the area and fix the most badly deteriorated/most heavily travelled streets immediately. Phase 2: Continue a street improvement program as recently initiated on College ~4ain. PROBLEM Exist ng streets, intersections are^poorly lighted. RECOMMENDATION P ase 3; Install adequate street lighting system. C A P I T A L I M P R O V E M E N T S PROBLEM Congregation of students on University Drive during evening, night hours. RECOMMENDATION Phase 3: fter adequate municipal or private parking has been established and pedestrian/bicycle traffic encouraged, move to create wide patio on University frontage between Boyette and College Main, (occupying 7 sidewalk and present parking row similar to existing in front of "Bogies"). Low retaining wall would prevent most in-street in- cursions. Coupled with this would be a plan (previously proposed by others) to front-the businesses in this block on Patricia street, thus creating a mini-mall with pedestrian access only, outside seating, etc. PROBLEM Lack of adequate parks in the Northgate area. RECOMMENDATION Phase 3: City to move to acquire land and develop small parks along drainage easements or abandoned rights-of-way. PROBLEM Lack of curb and gutter and poor construction standards of existing streets. This problem exists not only older streets like Cross, Cherry, but also for Church Street where it "dies" behind Community Savings and Loan. RECOMMENDATION Phase 3: The City should move to bring existing street and drainage systems up to modern city standards of utility and safety.