HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 9, 2005 Agenda
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
May 9, 2005
After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will
convene in a Special Called Meeting on Monday, May 9,2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Work:
Session Room, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be
considered:
1.
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding proposed
amendments to the Development Code and Criteria Manual related to improving
multi - family and single-family development in the City of Denton.
2.
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on multi-family Texas Bond
Projects and Tax Credit Projects.
NOTE: The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its
Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended,
including without limitation, Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the day of , 2005 at o'clock:
(a.m.) (p.m.)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED
MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-
RELA Y - TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED
THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
May 9, 2005
DEP ARTMENT:
Planning and Development Department
Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager ft
ACM:
SUBJECT: SI04-0036
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding proposed amendments to
the Development Code and Criteria Manual related to improving multi-family and single family
development in the City of Denton.
BACKGROUND
At the November 18, 2004 joint City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Work:
Session to discuss methods to increase housing value and to affect the ratio of single family to
multi-family units, Council directed staff to prepare amended regulations related to multi-family
development. Staff has identified two regulatory approaches to improving the quality of multi-
family developments in Denton:
1. Land Use: Multi-family would only be allowed:
a. With a Specific Use Permit; or
b. As part of a mixed use development; or
c. In conjunction with a Master Plan Development; or
d. If the development received zoning approval allowing multi-family use within
one year prior to the effective date of the new regulation; or
e. If allowed by a City Council approved neighborhood plan.
2. Design Standards: Although design standards will not control how much or where multi-
family is developed, they will directly affect how it will look: and fit into the character of
Denton. Staff proposes amendments to the current standards including the consolidation
of standards for all multi-family developments with the increased standards for multi-
family developments in a Pedestrian District, and changes to the standards for ( a)
adjacency to single-family, (b) architecture including façade modulations / articulations,
stairways, building materials, and roof line, (c) on-street park:ing, and (d) accessory
structures.
1
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
November 16,2004 - Joint City Council/ Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
November 18,2004 - Joint City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Work: Session
January 12,2005 - Planning and Zoning Commission Work: Session
January 18,2005 - City Council Work: Session
January 26,2005 - Planning and Zoning Commission Work: Session
FISCAL INFORMATION
The requirements of the proposed regulations could increase the cost to develop multi-family
projects. Higher standards could increase the value of construction and lead to higher assessed
valuation.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that only the additional site design and architectural standards set forth in
Tables 2-1 and 2-2 be incorporated into the Development Code. Attachment 1 reflects the earlier
work: staff did for Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission and is included here so that
Council can consider several perspectives for addressing these issues. Staff will address
additional site design and architectural standards for single-family development at a future date
using the guidance from the Council on the multifamily regulations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis on Land Use
2. Staff Analysis on Design Standards
Prepared by:
Larry lchhart, RLA, AICP
Assistant Director of Planning and Development
Respectfully submitted:
Kelly Carpenter, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
2
Attachment 1
Land Use Analysis
This paper sets forth the proposed amendments that respond to the Council's January 18,2005
directives on multi-family housing improvements. This is not the recommended action.
A. The amendments reflect the Council's direction to remove the Downtown University Core
zoning districts (DR-2, DC-N & DC-G) and the Community Mixed-Use zoning districts (CM-G
and CM-E) from these amendments.
B. The existing L4 limitation is proposed to be modified and applied to the NRMU -12, NRMU,
RCC-D, RCC-N, RCR-l and RCR-2 zoning districts for multi-family development.
Multi - family is only permitted:
a. With a Specific Use Permit; or
b. As part of a mixed-use development; or
c. In conjunction with a Master Plan Development; or
d. If the development received zoning approval allowing multi-family use within
one year prior to the effective date of the new regulation; or
e. If allowed by a City Council approved neighborhood (small area) plan.
C. The Comprehensive Planning and Research staff look:ed at mixed use development
regulations of other cities, including some in Texas. Their research is the basis along with staff
was the basis for this proposal. The following definitions could be added to the Development
Code:
Mixed Use Development is defined as any single development that combines three or more
mutually supporting land uses on a single parcel or site or within a master plan development.
Land uses may be mixed vertically, within the same physical structure, or horizontally
connecting buildings (physical and functional integration of proj ect components, including
uninterrupted pedestrian connections) on the same lot and/or under unified control. Multifamily
as a single use cannot exceed 40% of the acreage in an NRMU -12 or NRMU zoning district,
50% of the acreage in an RCR-l or RCR2 zoning district, or 30% of the acreage in an RCC-D or
RCC- N zoning district.
Master Plan Development is defined as a unified development proposal that incorporates one or
more development options, including cluster development, mixed-use, or higher densities in a
comprehensive, integrated site plan instead of on a lot-to-Iot basis.
Master Plan Development, Existing is defined as existing development that is the subj ect of
platting, infrastructure or development activity prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, and
that incorporates one or more compact development options, including cluster development,
mixed use, and higher densities in a comprehensive, integrated site or tract under unified
ownership or control instead of on a lot-to-Iot basis.
D. The following clarification Sections should be added to the Development Code:
Section XX: Additional Mixed Use Restrictions:
3
To ensure that the non-residential component in a Mixed Use Development is actually
developed, all multi-family proposed as part of a Mixed Use Development in the NRMU -12,
NRMU, RCR-l, RCR-2, RCC-N and RCC-D zoning districts shall:
(1) Be subject to a development agreement (the "Development Agreement") between the
property owner and the City. The Development Agreement shall contain Assurances,
other covenants, and a Phasing Plan stipulating that non-residential development will be
constructed first and multi-family residential constructed last or only after 50% or more
of the non-residential component has been developed. The Development Agreement
shall be in recordable form and be recorded in the Real Property Records of Denton
County, Texas and shall constitute covenants running with the land and will be binding
on all owners and future owners of the property. Phasing Plan is defined as a graphic
and narrative document that indicates the sequence and/or timing of construction and
shall:
( a) Description of the phasing order (1, 2, 3,) or by time period (2005, 2006,
2007,) and includes infrastructure requirements for each phase.
(2) If a phased project proposes all or a majority of the common amenities for future phases,
(including, but not limited to, open space, landscaping and/or recreational facilities) then
"Assurances" are required. The Assurances will address amenities not constructed in the
early phases so that in the event that the future phases are not developed, sufficient
common amenities will be provided for the phases actually developed. The Assurances
will be a cash amount equal to the estimated cost to develop the amenities as determined
by the applicant's professionals and sealed by an architect or engineer. The Assurances
will be in the form of a cash deposit with the City or other form of security approved by
the City Attorney and the City Manager.
(3) Before building permits may be issued for any portion of the proj ect, a preliminary site
plan for the entire proj ect must be approved. Diversification of ownership will not be
considered a valid basis or justification for a variance or an amendment to a previously
approved site plan.
E. Section YY: Exemptions:
Existing master planned developments shall be exempt to the additional mixed-use restrictions.
F. Section ZZ: Appeals:
Any applicant desiring to present evidence that they would be limited by the current ordinances
of the City dealing with zoning and land use may appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council. After a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City
Council, may upon a showing that strict application of regulations would prohibit or have the
effect of prohibiting development, grant deviations from the standards contained in these multi-
family residential design standards, consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and
section and under the terms of an approved alternative development plan according to
Subchapter 13.5 of this Code.
4
Attachment 2
Design Standards
Existing Standards
Currently, there are two sets of standards (see below) that apply to multi-family development. §
35.13.13.2 apply to all multifamily developments and § 35.13.13.3 apply to multi-family
developments in pedestrian districts ("NR" zoning districts and downtown).
35.13.13.2 Multiple Unit Residential Buildings.
Any residential buildings designed for multiple units, either for rental or condominium
ownership and their lots shall comply with the following standards:
A. Orientation.
1. Orientation requirements for all multi unit buildings, except in designated
pedestrian zones:
a. At least 50% of the front yard frontage shall have buildings within 30 feet of
the front property line.
b. Buildings that are located within 30 feet of property line adjacent to a front
yard shall have at least 25% of the wall facing the street in window or door
areas.
c. Park:ing areas shall not be located between buildings and the street. Park:ing
lots may be located on the sides and behind the buildings.
2. A project greater than 3 acres must contain a public or private street system that
creates block:s of three acres or less. Private Streets shall be required to include
sidewalk:s of at least 5 feet, and include street trees according to the standards of
this section, but public street setback:s shall not apply.
3. Special Standards for Large Scale Multi Family Developments (greater than 30
units and/or more than 3 buildings). The same exterior design may not be used
for greater than 30 units and/or more than 3 buildings in a project. A variety of
compatible exterior materials' use and type, building styles, massing,
composition, and prominent architectural features, such as door and window
openings, porches, rooflines, shall be used.
B. Building Materials.
1. Windows shall be provided with trim. Windows shall not be flush with exterior
wall treatment. Windows shall be provided with an architectural surround at the
jamb.
2. Fronts and street sides of buildings visible from the public right of way shall be of
wood, masonry, stone, decorative block:, stucco, or HDO board or other high
quality material customarily used for the building style.
3. Glass. Use of glass for displays and to allow visual access to interior space is
permitted. Large expanses of unbrok:en glass surfaces are discouraged.
4. Metal Roofs. Metal roofs are permitted provided that they are of architectural
quality.
5
C. Open Space.
1. An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area, excepting required setback:s, shall be
dedicated to open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development.
Mixed-use developments of greater than 35 units per acre shall be exempt from
this requirement.
2. Areas covered by shrubs, bark: mulch and other ground covers, which do not
provide a suitable surface for human use, may not be counted toward this
requirement.
3. Private deck:s, patios, and similar areas are eligible for up to 5 percent of the 8
percent required open space.
4. Play areas for children should be provided for projects of greater than 50 units
that are not designed as age limited or student housing.
35.13.13.3 Multi Family Developments in a Pedestrian District.
Multi-Family developments within Pedestrian Areas shall, in addition to complying with the
basic Site Design Standards for Multi-Family buildings, conform to the following standards:
A. Orientation.
1. At least 75% of the front yard frontage shall have buildings within the maximum
setback:.
2. Buildings that are located within 30 feet of property line adjacent to a front yard
shall have at least 40% of the ground story wall facing the street in window or
door areas.
3. Park:ing areas shall not be located between buildings and the street.
4. Buildings shall be directly accessed from the street and the sidewalk:.
5. A minimum of one ground floor pedestrian entrance must be oriented toward the
street and include a porch.
6. Garages may occupy no more than 40% of the total building frontage. This
measurement does not apply to garages facing an alley or courtyard entrance.
Any garage may not extend beyond the building front. Garages that are at least
30 feet behind the house front may exceed the 40% frontage minimum.
7. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have recesses, proj ections,
windows, arcades or other distinctive features to interrupt the length of the
building façade.
8. Architectural Features. Fronts and street sides of buildings visible from the public
right of way shall include changes in relief such as columns, cornices, bases,
fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at least 15 % of the exterior wall area.
9. Height and Bulk:. Adjacent buildings shall have different elevations.
10. The top floor of any building rising over four stories must contain a distinctive
finish, consisting of a cornice, banding or other architectural termination.
6
Discussion:
The intent of the increased standards for multi-family developments in pedestrian districts is to
create a more distinct intermix between pedestrians and development. The focus of the design
should be on the pedestrian as opposed to the car. If designed properly, all new multi-family
developments can create a pedestrian atmosphere. In an analysis of two recent multi-family
developments, Providence Place (Quail Creek: off Brink:er Road) and Uptown College Park: (SE
corner of Oak: & 1-35), it is apparent that the street layout, building placements and on-street
park:ing of Providence Place promote pedestrian movement throughout the development, while
the Uptown development has a more "traditional" design and appears to be oriented towards the
car rather than the pedestrian. The developers and designers of Providence Place met the intent
of the code while Uptown development met the letter of the code. There is the potential that the
existing regulations could result in designs that do not meet the intent of the code. Therefore,
staff is proposing that the existing standards (as identified above) be combined and enhanced to
create one set of design regulations for all multi-family developments. (See Table 2-1.)
The following table identifies existing standards that apply to all developments (column 1), the
existing enhanced standards for developments in pedestrian districts (column 2) and the revised
or modified standards that staff is recommending (column 3). Also, new recommended
regulations are proposed in Table 2-2.
7
Table 2-1
Existing and Proposed Architecture and Site Design Standards
Existing Standards for all Districts
Existing Standard for Pedestrian
Districts
At least 50% of the front yard frontage shall At least 75% of the front yard frontage shall
have buildings within 30 feet of the front have buildings within the maximum setback.
property line.
Buildings that are located within 30 feet of Buildings that are located within 30 feet of
property line adjacent to a front yard shall have property line adjacent to a front yard shall have
at least 25% of the wall facing the street in at least 40% of the ground story wall facing the
window or door areas. street in window or door areas.
Parking areas shall not be located between Parking areas shall not be located between
buildings and the street. Parking lots may be buildings and the street.
located on the sides and behind the buildings.
Buildings shall be directly accessed from the
street and the sidewalk. A minimum of one
ground floor pedestrian entrance must be
oriented toward the street and include a porch.
8
Proposed Standard for All multi-
family Development
At least 50% of the front yard frontage shall
have buildings within 20 feet of the front
property line or within 30 feet of the curb
line of a private street.
Buildings that are located within 20 feet of
property line adjacent to a front yard or
within 30 feet of the curb line of a private
street shall have at least 40% of the ground
story wall facing the street in window or
door areas.
Parking areas shall not be located between
buildings and the street. Parking lots may
be located on the sides and behind the
buildings.
Buildings shall be directly accessed from
the street and the sidewalk. A minimum of
one ground floor pedestrian entrance must
be oriented toward the street and include a
porch.
Existing Standards for all Districts
Existing Standard for Pedestrian
Districts
Garages may occupy no more than 40% of the
total building frontage. This measurement
does not apply to garages facing an alley or
courtyard entrance. Any garage may not
extend beyond the building front. Garages that
are at least 30 feet behind the house front may
exceed the 40% frontage minimum.
Building frontages greater than 100 feet in
length shall have recesses, projections,
windows, arcades or other distinctive features
to interrupt the length of the building façade.
Architectural Features. Fronts and street sides
of buildings visible from the public right of
way shall include changes in relief such as
columns, cornices, bases, fenestration, and
fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior
wall area.
Proposed Standard for All multi-
family Development
Garages may not be located along the
portion of the building that fronts the
public or private street.
Building frontages greater than 100 feet in
length shall have recesses, projections,
windows, arcades or other distinctive
features to interrupt the length of the
building façade.
Architectural Features. Fronts and street
sides of buildings visible from the public
right of way or private street system shall
include changes in relief such as columns,
cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted
masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior
wall area.
Height and Bulk. Adjacent buildings shall have Adjacent buildings shall have different
different elevations. elevations.
The top floor of any building rising over four
stories must contain a distinctive finish,
consisting of a cornice, banding or other
architectural termination.
9
Any buildings constructed with a flat roof
must contain a distinctive finish, consisting
of a cornice, banding or other architectural
. .
termInatIon
Existing Standards for all Districts
A project greater than 3 acres must contain a
public or private street system. that creates
blocks of three acres or less. Private Streets
shall be required to include sidewalks of at least
5 feet, and include street trees according to the
standards of this section, but public street
setbacks shall not apply.
Special Standards for Large Scale Multi Family
Developments (greater than 30 units and/ or
more than 3 buildings). The same exterior
design may not be used for greater than 30
units and/ or more than 3 buildings in a
project. A variety of compatible exterior
materials' use and type, building styles,
massing, composition, and prominent
architectural features, such as door and window
openings, porches, rooflines, shall be used.
Windows shall be provided with trim.
Windows shall not be flush with exterior wall
treatment. Windows shall be provided with an
architectural surround at the jamb.
Existing Standard for Pedestrian
Districts
10
Proposed Standard for All multi-
family Development
A project greater than 3 acres must contain
a public or private street system. that
creates Bl6el{S of---three acres or less.
Private Streets shall be required to include
sidewalks of at least 5 feet, a 5 foot wide
planting area between the curb and
sidewalk, and include street trees
according to the standards of this section,
but public street setbacks shall not apply.
Special Standards for Large Scale Multi
Family Developments (greater than 30
units and/or more than 3 buildings). The
same exterior design may not be used for
greater than 30 units and/ or more than 3
buildings in a project. A variety of
compatible exterior materials' use and
type, building styles, massing,
composition, and prominent architectural
features, such as door and window
openings, porches, rooflines, shall be used.
Windows shall be provided with trim.
Windows shall not be flush with exterior
wall treatment. Windows shall be provided
with an architectural surround at the jamb.
Existing Standards for all Districts
Fronts and street sides of buildings visible
from the public right of way shall be of wood,
masonry, stone, decorative block, stucco, or
HDO board or other high quality material
customarily used for the building style.
Glass. Use of glass for displays and to allow
visual access to interior space is permitted.
Large expanses of unbroken glass surfaces are
discouraged.
Metal Roofs. Metal roofs are permitted
provided that they are of architectural quality.
Existing Standard for Pedestrian
Districts
11
Proposed Standard for All multi-
family Development
B ui1din~ shall
be of wood, masonry, stone, decorative
block, stucco, or HDO board or other high
quality material customarily used for the
building style.
OR
An amount equal to 40% of the total net
exterior wall area of each building
elevation, excluding gables, windows,
doors, and related trim, shall be brick or
stone (masonry). The balance of net
exterior wall area may be wood clapboard
siding, wood beaded siding, stucco,
masonry, HDO board or other high quality
material customarily used for the building
style.
Glass for display is a "mixed-use" standard
(commercial uses on the ground Door) and
not applicable for multi-family
developments. No "glass standard
proposed.
Metal Roofs. Metal roofs are permitted
provided that they are of architectural
quality.
Table 2-2
NEW REGULATIONS
Buildings constructed within 100 feet of existing single family use or zoning district, shall be limited to a single story with a pitched
roof.
Buildings shall front on public streets and/ or a private street system and not parking lots.
Entrances shall be clearly visible from the street edge sidewalk and shall be pedestrian-scaled. Front entries should be denoted
through the use of distinctive architectural elements and materials, such as ornamental glazing or paving, overdoors, porches, trellises
or planter boxes or as otherwise identified in this section.
On-street parking shall be limited to parallel parking spaces. (Requires change to Subchapter 14.)
Facade modulations /building articulation: Facades must be broken up to give the appearance of a collection of smaller structures.
Elements including but not limited to balconies, setbacks and projections may be utilized to articulate individual units or collections of
units. Unarticulated and windowless walls along street-facing or principle access lane facades are not permitted.
Stairwells shall not be the dominant architectural feature along any façade facing a public street or private street system.
The maximum number of colors shall be limited to no more than three (3) discernable colors and the primary color shall constitute a
minimum of sixty (60) percent of the façade (excluding windows, doors, roofing, fascia materials, or soffit materials).
Accessory structures such as carports, garages and storage units (but not including leasing offices, club houses or recreation centers)
shall not be located along public right-of-way and/ or private street system.
12
Accessory structures (including detached garages, carports and storage units) visible from the public right-of-way, private street
system and/ or adjacent residential properties shall include at least three (3) of the following on the façade that is visible:
.
1.
Façade modulation of at least six (6) inches for every thirty (30) feet of wall length;
Multiple building materials (e.g. brick, fieldstone, limestone, marble, granite, textured block, architectural pre-cast concrete,
concrete composite siding, wood clapboard siding, wood beaded siding, stucco or vinyl siding);
Multiple surface textures (e.g. rough, striated, imprinted, etc.) or patterns;
Separation in roof pitch, variation in direction of roof pitches, inclusion or dormers, or other variation on roof design; or
Use of false door or window openings, defined by frames, sills and lintels.
. .
11.
. . .
111.
.
1V.
v.
13
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
May 9, 2005
DEP ARTMENT:
Planning and Development Department
Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager ft
ACM:
SUBJECT - Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on multi-family Texas
Bond Projects and Tax Credit Projects.
BACKGROUND
Providence Realty Advisors proposes to build an additional phase of Tax Credit Multi-family
housing (Providence, formerly Quail Creek) in Denton and requests the City to support its
application. The purpose of this discussion is to understand Tax Credit Proj ects and to discuss
the City's policy on support of additional Tax Credit Projects in Denton. Pending Council
direction, staff will be able to respond to Providence Realty Advisors request to be placed on a
Council agenda.
The Texas Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Program issues mortgage revenue bonds to
finance loans for qualified nonprofit organizations and for-profit developers. To assist low-
income populations, financed properties are subject to what are lrnown as "unit set-aside
restrictions" for low-income tenants, such as rent limitations and other requirements set by the
State of Texas. For example, owners may elect to set aside 20 percent of the units in each
project for households earning 50 percent or less than the area median income; or 40 percent of
the units for households earning 60 percent or less than the area median income. In fiscal years
2003 and 2004 in Texas, a total of $407 million was committed and 7,368 affordable multifamily
apartments were produced, according to the Texas Controller of Public Accounts Office,
February 2005.
Applicants for funding under the Revenue Bond or Tax Credit programs must seek: approval by
resolution of the municipality in which they propose to locate a proj ect, if that municipality has
more than twice the state average of units per capita supported by the programs. Since the
number of units per capita supported by the programs in the City of Denton is 2.454 times the
state average for such units, then such applicants will seek: approval from the City. Applying the
multiplier above to Table 1, Denton has approximately 0.0145 Texas Bond fund/Tax Credit units
per capita.
Given the Council's recent focus on multi-family housing and the recent application request, the
agenda committee ask:ed staff to bring this to Council so it could discuss its preferred policy on
such Tax Credit Application support.
1
The following table lists the Tax Credit and Bond Revenue projects that exist in the City of
Denton today.
Table 1. Texas
Multi-Family Revenue Bond Projects and Housing Tax Credit Projects in Denton*
Total Low-Income Household Funding
Development Name Address Units Units Financing Type Year
Pecan Place 302 S Locust S t 24 24 $209,406 Elderly 1993
Country Park Apartments 1606 E McKinney 120 120 $701,222 Family 1994
The Waterford At Spencer
Oaks 2100 Spencer Rd 208 156 $1,128,301 Family 1996
Pebblebrook Apartments 191 Duchess Dr 250 250 $650,859 Family 1998
Rosemont @ Pecan Creed 3500 E McKinney 276 276 $932,246 Family 2001
Primrose @ Sequoia Park 1550 MingolUniversity 250 250 $728,563 Elderly 2001
Quail Creek North E of Brinker/N of Colorado 264 264 $1,039,028 Family 2002
Total 1,392 1,340
*These are existing units.
OPTIONS
1. Direct staff to bring all such applications forward for consideration by Council.
2. Direct staff to bring no such applications forward for consideration by Council.
3. Hold for further discussion.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
Since the enactment of the rule requiring that the applicant obtain local government approval, the
City of Denton has approved the Renaissance Project of the Denton Housing Authority, a project
of 150 units. Because these units have not yet been constructed, they do not appear in the table
above.
Prepared by:
Kelly Carpenter, AICP
Planning and Development Director
2
HANDOUT TO COUNCIL
Proposed amendments related to
improving multi-family and single-
family development
Presented to the
City Council
By the
Planning and Development Department
May 9, 2005
Land Use
Multi-family would only be allowed:
a. With a Specific Use Permit (SUP); or
b. As part of a mixed use development; or
c. In conjunction with a Master Plan
Development; or
d. If the development received zoning approval
allowing multi-family use within one year
prior to the effective date of the new
regulation; or
e. If allowed by a City Council approved
neighborhood plan.
5\C1 \ 05""
Design Regulations
Staff proposes the following amendments to the current
standards:
1. Consolidation of standards for all multi-family
developments with the increased standards for multi-
family developments in a Pedestrian District, and
2,
Changes to the standards for:
a) adjacency to single-family,
b) architecture including façade modulations/
articulations, stairways, building materials, and
roofline,
c) on-street parking, and
d) accessory structures,
Orientation
t
ro~==-------_1O0------------1 ~:~~~~~O::~:a~:
~ I shall have buildings
'] ! within 20' of the front
1! T property line or within
~ e I 30' ofthe curb line of
1 I a private street,
: (M,,"¡"," "¡"¡,,,, """",¡",,)
.~_2I':_=--------100' ------------1
t
2
Unacceptable
Providence Place
Brinker & Quail Creek
Acceptable
CityParc at Fry Street
Acceptable
Parking
Unacceptable
Parking areas shall not be
located between the buildings
and the street. Parking lots
"may be located on the sides
and behind the buildings
IE"""', co",'ot'",,)
Parking
On-street parking shall be limited
to parallel parking spaces.
(I'mp"<ed,www,p'otio")
....
University Courtyard
Bonnie Brae & Hickory
Undesirable
3
Architectural Features
Fronts and street sides ofbuildiilgs
visible from the public right-of-way
or private street system shall
include changes in relief for at least
15% of the exterior wall area,
,,'"difi,d """po CO",,"""'"
Craig Ranch Apartments
McKinney, TX
Acceptable
CityParc at Fry Street
Acceptable
Building Frontage
'"",,~~,¡,',",,",,'~ffi,DFI- ,:'":,,,{,","',»"','
~""~ "lIi,..~'~
", ' ";;<; , '- -~.' ¡
",-,",," .,.,,~j
,:". ';: ,i~",'~~, " ,,:111 ",:\!i;¡~
Craig Ranch Apartments
McKinney, TX
Acceptable
. Building frontages
greater than 100' in
length shall have
recesses, projections,
windows, arcades or
other distinctive features
to interrupt the length of
the building façade,
. Adjacent buildings shall
have different elevations,
(bi"'"gcog"""01'"
4
Building Frontage, cont.
University Courtyard
Bonnie Brae & Hickory
Unacceptable
. Buildings shall front on public
streets and/or a private street
system and not parking lots.
(I'mp""d",wco,""""")
Acceptable
Garages and Accessory Structures, cont.
Accessory structures visible from the
public right-of-way, private street system
and/or adjacent residential properties
should include at least 3 of the following
on the façade that is visible:
i. Façade modulation at least six (6)
inches for every thirty (30) feet wall
length;
ii. Multiple building materials;
iii.Multiple surface textures or patterns;
and
iv.Separation in roof pitch, variation in
direction of roof pitches;
v. Use of false door or window openings
(l'OIr""d ,,'w "'"',,',,'"
RAf=:1nR
Acceptable
r==r-=r I
L.J",,-.L..J
Acceptable
r--"--~
I I
Unacceptable
5
Garages and Accessory Structures
CityParc at Fry Street
Unacceptable
. Garages may not be located
along the portion of the
building that fronts the
public or private street.
(Mpd'fi,d "",'p" """"""")
. Accessory structures such
as carports, garages and
storage units (but not
including leasing offices
club houses, or recreation
centers) shall not be located
along public right-of-way
and/or private street system.
(pm"""dp,w",""""'"
Façade Articulation
CityParc at Fry Street
Facades must be broken up
to give the appearance of a
collection of smaller
structures. Elements
including, but not limited
to, balconies, setbacks,
projections may be
utilized... Unarticulated and
windowless walls along
street-facing or principle
access lane facades are not
permitted.
fI'mr""d ",wcog,,""op)
6
Stairwells shall not
be the dominant
architectural
feature along any
façade facing a
public street or
private street
system.
(I'mr""d"'wcog""""'¡
Stairwells
La Prairie
Teasley & Londonderry
Unacceptable
Street System
Providence Place
Brinker & Quail Creek
A project greater than 3 acres
must contain public or private
street system. Private streets
will include at least a 5'
Sidewalk and 5' Planting Area
between the curb and sidewalk,
and include street trees.
(Mod'",d,,"""" CO",,"""'"
7
Building Materials (Option 1)
Providence Place
Brinker & Quail Creek
. Buildings shall be of wood,
masonry, stone, decorative
block, stucco, HDO board,
or other high quality
material.
(MQdifi,d"",¡p"co",,"'ipoominp¡
Building Materials (Option 2)
The Exchange
Fort Worth Dr. & Collins
Unacceptable
Forty percent (40%) of the
total net exterior wall shall be
brick or stone. The balance
may be wood clapboard or
beaded siding, stucco, HDO
board or other high quality
material.
(pm""", "",co"""""'or""'"
8
Providence Place
Brinker & Quail Creek
Acceptable
Windows
. Windows shall be provided'
with trim.
. Windows shall not be flush
with exterior wall treatment.
. Windows shall be provided
with an architectural
surround at the jamb.
([""'0=""""°0)
Flat Roof Construction
Any buildings constructed
with a flat roof must
contain a distinctive finish,
consisting of a cornice,
banding or other
architectural termination.
(M"d'fi,d "",¡"" co",,',,¡o,,'
Uptown College Park
I-35E and Hickory
Acceptable
9
Adjacency to Single-Family
Unacceptable
Acceptable
The maximum number of
colors shall be limited to
no more than three (3)
discernable colors and
the primary color shall
constitute a minimum of
sixty (60) percent of the
façade (excluding
windows, doors, roofing,
fascia materials, or soffit
materials).
"'mp""d"'wco,,,"'¡"")
Buildings constructed within
1 00 feet of existing single
family use or zoning district,
shall be limited to a single
story with a pitched roof.
(I'mp""d",wco",I,,'o,,¡
CityParc at Fry Street
Unacceptable
Colors
Uptown College Park
I-35E and Hickory
Acceptable
10
Acceptable
Entrances
. Entrances shall be clearly
visible from the street edge
sidewalk and shall be
pedestrian-scaled.
. Front entries should be
denoted through the use of
distinctive architectural
elements and materials,
such as ornamental glazing
or paving, overdoors,
porches, trellises or planter
boxes or as otherwise
identified in this section.
(pm"o,," ,,"w co""",¡",,,
Vista Bonita
Ruddell & University
Melrose Apartments
211 Oak Street
Acceptable
Based on current regulations
11
Denton Affordable Housing Corporation
Rental Unit Portfolio
ConsU Gross
Acquisi. Renova. Total Unit Financ- Per Unit Month
Price Cost Cost ing. Rent Rent Status
5 incme
qualified
8,875 tenants
Leased
775 HOPE clients
Leased
900 disabled
No. Acqui. Tenant
Date Population Activity
RTC
. , " 12 3197 Mixed Income Acquisition
Transitional Acquls &
. .' , 2 3198 Housing rehab
Physically or Acquls &
, ,. 2 3198 Ment. Disab. rehab
"~~......-"" Transitional Acquired
1ï.ì1~.~ê'iL.. 2 5198 Housing New
-""V-"",,' .. Transitional Acquired
iMì,_:~ê'ìí, 2 5198 Housing New
_."~""..",." ~ Physically Acquired
~iíriti'Dr, .. 2 5198 Disabled New
Physically Acquired
Disabled New
~,s.ti8Þ1!r
~9D4/06 Stuart
828 Cross Timber (40
102 No. Wood St
2608 Mountainyiew
1840 Parkside
1814 Mohican
21t4 Westyiew Dr.
2121 Crestme.dew
1025 Beechwood
3308 Syracuse
1817 WhIt. Oak
2:ì.~iø¡m.îiI':5tk.,..
--":è'7'-'~"."
2:ì20~ì$iò:o..i."H
-- ,'_N_"',~_'
" "
¡~ .
3(,i!~1õi,:.""
2
5198
Transitional
3131/00 Homeless
Transitional
317/00 Homeless
Transitional
317/00 Homeless
2
1/1 0100
3131/00
417/00
3131/00
4/15/00
4/14/00
7/6/00
715101
1 0I30J( (
1 0I30J( (
2
1 0I30J( (
2
1 0I30J( (
2
1 0I30J( (
2
4101
2
4101
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Transitional
Housing
Dvlpmntly
Pisabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
New Cor>-
struction
New Cor>-
struction
New Cor>-
struclion
Acquis &
rehab
Acquis &
rehab
Acquls &
rehab
Acquls &
rehab
Acquls &
rehab
Acquls &
rehab
AcqUIs &
rehab
Acquls &
rehab
Acquisition
Acaulsftion
Acquisition
Acquisition
Acquisition
210,000
99,000
108,000
132,000
132,000
170,000
170,000
24,500
7,400
6,930
67,184
107,500
89,900
115,000
105,000
104,900
120,000
46,200
100,073
100,073
143,947
143,947
122,954
1 04,208
104,208
85,000
22,000
32,000
108,072
65,811
67,910
14,320
3,550
3,600
3,375
2,900
100
10,000
24,000
295,000
110,000
120,000
WFB
HTF,City,
FHLB
HTF,City,
FHLB
°
148,650 TDHCA
°
148,650 TDHCA
°
148,650 TDHCA
148,650 TDHCA
TDHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
0
132,572
73,211
74,840
81,504
111,050
93,500
118,375
107,900
105,000
t30,ooo
70,200
°
100,073
Dvtpmntly
Disabled Acaulsltion
Dvlpmntly
Disabled Acquisition
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
Aduft Pay
Care Facility
Dvlpmntly
Disabled
°
100,073
°
143,947
°
143,947
°
123,933
°
104,208
°
104,208
TPHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
TDHCA,
FHLB
FHLB,
WFB
WFB
WFB
WFB
WFB
WFB
WFB
WFB
WFB
375
410
410
600
600
400
B64
450
1,079
1,079
1,135
550
1,135
1,080
1,200
t,200
1,250
1,300
2,000
2,200
1,700
1,200
t,200
Leased
820 HOPE clients
Leased
820 HOPE clients
physically
disab.
physically
dlsab.
1,200
1,200
Leased
800 HOPE clients
Leased
884 HOPE clients
Leased
450 HOPE clients
Leased to
1,079 DCMHMR
Leased to
1,079 PCMHMR
Leased to
1,135 DCMHMR
Leased
550 HOPE clients
Leased to
1,135 PCMHMR
Leased to
1,080 DCMHMR
Leased to
1,200 DCMHMR
Leased to
1,200 PCMHMR
Leased to
1,250 PCMHMR
Leased
1,300 Shalom Place
Leased to
2,000 DCMHMR
Leased to
2,200 DCMHMR
Leased to
1,700 DCMHMR
Aduft Day
Care
Leased to
1,200 DCMHMR
t,200
811612004 4:37 PM
Rental portfolio post Kenmar
Denton Affordable Housing Corporation
Rental Unit Portfolio
Constt Gross
No. Acqui. Tenant Acquisi. Renova. Total Unit Financ- Per Unit Month
Units Date Population Activity Price Cost Cost ing' Rent Rent Status
HUD,
Physically New Con- DCHFC, Leased to
4 10tOO Disabled _on 319,200 0 319,200 FHLB 293 1,ln Disabled
HUD,
Physically NewCon- PCHFC, Leased to
2 10100 Disabled _on 159,600 0 159,600 FHLB 293 586 Pisabled
HUD,
Physically New Con- DCHFC, Leased to
2 tatOO Disabled struction 159,600 0 159,600 FHLB 293 586 Disabled
Tmstnl Hsg. WFB,
VIctims FHLB, Leased to
Domestic New Con- DCHFC, Transitional
4 7tO1 VIOlence structlon 25,000 258,763 263,763 City 294 1,176 Hsg clients
Tmstnl Hsg. WFB,
Vlettms FHLB, Leased to
Domestic New Con- PCHFC, Transitional
4 4/01 VIolence struetton 15,132 31t,309 326,441 City 360 1,440 Hsg clients
Tmstnl Hsg. WFB,
VIctims FHLB, Leased to
Domestic New Con- DCHFC, Transitional
6tO2 VIolence structlon 7,024 59,576 66,600 City 500 500 Hsg clients
Under
Tmstnl Hsg. WFB, Construetton;
VlCllms FHLB, ready for
Domestic New Con- DCHFC, occupancy
2 10101 VIolence _on 36,500 155,211 191,711 City 500 1,000 7103
Ready for
4-bedroom Acqulsltt occupancy
7tO1 rental rehab 41,517 65.000 106,517 WFB, 1,300 1,300 9103
68 4,65f ,573 43,772
'WFB=Wells Fargo Bank; FHLB=F_ral Home Loan Bank; TDHCA-lX Dept Housln9 & Community Affairs:
CIty=City of Denton HOME funds; HUP=Dept of Housing & Urban Development; PCHFC=Denton County Housin9 Finance Corp.
811612004 4:37 PM
Rental -'° post Kenmar
Total Low-Income Household Funding
Development Name Address Units Units Financing Type Year
Pecan Place 302 S Locust St 24 24 $209,406 Elderly 1993
Country Park Apartments 1606 E McKinney 120 120 $701,222 Family 1994
The Waterford At Spencer Oaks 2100 Spencer Rd 208 156 $1,128,301 Family 1996
Pebblebrook Apartments 191 Duchess Dr 250 250 $650,859 Family 1998
Rosemont@ Pecan Creek 3500 E McKinney 276 276 $932,246 Family 2001
Primrose @ Sequoia Park 1550 Mingo/University 250 250 $728,563 Elderly 2001
Quail Creek North E of Brinker/N of Colorado 264 264 $1,039,028 Family 2002
1392 1340
Average Home Values
Denton County Municipalities
City/Town 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 % Chg
Argyle
Aubrey
Bartonville
Clark
The Colony
Copper Canyon
Corinth
Denton
Double Oak
, lower Mound
Hackberry
Hickory Creek
Highland Village
Justin
Krugerville
Krum
Lake Dallas
Lakewood Village
ewisville
Little Elm
Marshall Creek
Northlake
Oak Point
Pilot Point
Ponder
Roanoke
Sanger
Shady Shores
Tro h Club
$ 146,631 $ 154,675 $ 176,455 $ 193,575 $ 205,837 $ 210,901 $ 216,830 48%
45,159 50,740 63,207 68,931 75,556 80,202 83,972 86%
162,629 165,808 187,060 217,772 215,509 242,306 263,851 62%
nla nfa 53,125 54,228 64,158 53,486 50,268 -5%
87,429 92,193 103,353 117,490 129,234 138,086 136,228 56%
170,036 183,162 213,586 228,094 240,973 253,787 256,340 51%
121,662 132,345 141,381 153,481 160,533 163,311 165,563 36%
~~-.wmI~~8IfNDI~--
198,686 212,386 228,906 247,855 262,698 272,281 267,201 34%
~~~~~~~ ' '.
23,803 25,010 30,109 33,669 45,292 42,839 56,503 137%
96,712 100,135 109,463 130,072 143,663 148,921 156,846 62%
178,165 184,698 199,666 212,932 219,526 229,099 233,431 31%
77,939 87,333 93,398 101,020 108,612 115,782 118,484 52%
82,481 87,277 99,082 104,527 112,326 118,180 119,070 44%
66,833 70,514 83,822 89,526 97,207 102,000 105,484 58%
73,831 80,121 85,775 93,701 99,586 102,672 104,862 42%
118,068 131,435 158,024 159,711 159,294 180,755 188,780 60%
~~~~88I!l!A!i!Y~~ ..
57,929 68,525 78,350 104,149 120,994 127,843 131,678 127%
18,277 17,946 20,575 20,446 24,850 28,600 29,607 62%
76,349 83,837 90,883 86,525 75,144 79,833 93,454 22%
116,995 125,340 139,952 148,290 154,265 164,221 167,194 43%
55,705 60,771 66,637 72,794 79,965 87,418 89,839 61%
65,153 74,260 84,631 87,527 97,018 99,643 98,041 50%
65,257 71,277 87,365 95,876 110,377 112,253 113,038 73%
57,540 60,913 68,649 72,645 79,583 86,344 89,891 56%
nla 109,446 121,305 133,196 150,184 160,284 164,765 51%
141,628147,394163840174789 184,018191,206 187,611 32%
% change: From 1998 to 2004
Source: Denton Central Appraisal District
Low Income Housing Vouchers in Denton County
Section 8
Denton County Cities Vouchers
Denton 943
lewisville 347
Carrollton 70
The Colony 44
Sanger 17
lake Dallas 16
Corinth 12
Aubrey 11
Flower Mound 7
Roanoke 5
Argyle 5
Little Elm 4
Pilot Point 4
Krum 1
TOTAL
1,486
63% of Denton County's housing vouchers are in the City of Denton.
2004 Total Number of Single-Family Residential Units by Appraised Value
$1 to $14,999
$15,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $119,999
$120,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $749,999
$750,000 and Above
Total
17,335
2004 Total Value of Single-Family Residential Units by Appraised Value
$1 to $14,999 $ 491,306 $ 107,433 $ 29,772 $ 3,871 $ 82,301
$15,000 to $29,999 2,966,175 1,004,810 272,426 160,111 417,066
$30,000 to $59,999 21,082,746 6,693,166 1,838,699 2,050,953 1,278,565
$60 000 to $119 999 537555,706 101280159 14318766 91 438411 9159,207
$120,000 to $199,999 1,577,962,507 1,190,027,363 313,936,139 574,849,335 29,956,800
$200,000 to $399,999 180,085,741 2,358,060,019 584,026,198 276,853,084 86,978,523
$400,000 to $749,999 5,517,248 588,448,483 158,519,406 4,529,137 26,543,280
$750,000 and Above 98,140,562 26,053,242 941,033 4,954,019
Total $ 2,325,661,429 $ 4,343,761,995 $----.1,098,994,648 $ 950,825,935 $ 159,369,761
Source: 2004 Certified Vaiues from Denton Centrai Appraisal District
2003-04 General Fund Social Services Budgets
0.44970
Highland Village $12,000 N/A $82,160 0.56963
Lewisville $173,196 $58,953 $59,847 0.45050
McKinney $0 $76,465 $75,753 0.59800
Piano $244,786 $225,000 $84,453 0.45350
Census 2000 Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics
Denton, Selected Denton County Cities and Selected Cities
Outside Denton County
Arlin ton
Carrollton
Fort Worth
McKinne
130,822
40,533
211,165
19,423
81,465
28,530
145,903
14,866
62.3%
70.4%
69.1%
76.5%
46,939
11,330
61,286
4,089
35.9%
28.1%
29.3%
21.1%
Census 2000 Profile of Mobile Homes to Total Housing Units
Denton, Selected Denton County Cities and Selected Cities
Outside Denton County
130,822
40,533
211,165
19,423
2,262
403
3,786
468
1.7%
1.0%
1.8%
2.4%
2004-2005 "Inner City" Comparison
CITY TAX BASE PER 04-05 TAX RATE
CAPITA
McKinney $75,450 0.593
Dallas $55,207 0.719
Denton $47,997 0.598
Fort Worth $41,688 0.865
Waco $42,183 0.6997
Census 2000 Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics
Denton, Selected Denton County Cities and Selected Cities Outside Denton County
Dentm %of The Colon %of Flowe %of Lewisville %af
total total Mound total total
[rota I Housing Units 32,752 8,836 16,970 31,720
1999 to March 2000 1,683 5,1'1: 516 5.8'1: 1,764 10.4'1: 2,289 7.2'1:
1995 to 1998 2,950 9.0'1: 939 10.6'1< 5,709 33.6'1< 8,876 28.00/,
1990 to 1994 2,407 7.3'1< 495 5,6'1: 4,335 25.50/, 3,680 11.6'1<
1980 to 1989 8,605 26,3'1: 3,227 36.5'1: 3,619 21.3'1: 9,303 29.3'1<
1970 to 1979 7,233 22,1'1: 3,481 39.4'1: 1,124 6,6'1: 5,042 15.9'1:
1960 to 1969 4,482 ]3,7'1: 113 1.3'1< 215 1.30/, 1,373 4,30/,
1940 to 1959 3,999 12.2'1: 65 0,7'1< 147 0.90/, 986 3.10/,
1939 or earlier 1,394 4.3'1: 0 0.00/, 57 0.3'1: 171 0.50/,
Cities in Denton County
Arlingtor %of Carrollton %of Fort Wort]; %of McKinne %of
total total total total
Total Housing Units 130,82 40,533 211,16 19,423
1999 to March 2000 3,822 2.9'1: 1,272 3.1'1: 7,789 3,7'1: 2,745 14,10/,
1995 to 1998 9,352 7.1'1< 4,1 J( 10.10/, 14,783 7.0'1: 6,042 31.1'1:
1990 to 1994 11,81 9.00/, 4,411 10.90/, 11,297 5.3'1: 2,889 14.9'1<
1980 to 1989 45,48C 34.8'1: 16,348 40,3'1: 41,971 19.9'1: 2,672 l3.So/,
1970 to 1979 34,47C 26.3'1: 10,015 24.70/, 29,10 13.8'1: 1,048 5.40/,
1960 to 1969 14,492 11.1'1: 2,831 7.00/, 29,364 13.9'1: 1,297 6.7'1:
1940 to 1959 10,42 8.0'1: 1,393 3.40/, 58,362 27.6'1< 1,973 10.2'1:
1939 or earlier 963 0.70/, 153 0.4'1: 18,497 8.8'1: 757 3.9'1:
Cities outside Denton County
Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics
2000 Census and 2000-2005 City of Denton Building Permit Data
Denton Texas
Total Housing Units* 39,874
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Total Single Family Units 21,863
Total Multifamily Units 16,202
Total Mobile Home Units* 1,766
Other (Boat, RV, Van, etc.)** 43
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
April 2000 to January 2005 7,121 17.9%
1999 to March 2000 1,683 4.2%
1995 to 1998 2,950 7.4%
1990 to 1994 2,407 6.0%
1980 to 1989 8,605 21.6%
1970 to 1979 7,233 18.1%
1960 to 1969 4,482 11.2%
1940 to 1959 3,999 10.0%
1939 or earlier 1,394 3.5%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2000-2005 City of Denton Building Permit Data
*Building Inspections through Trak-It does not track individual mobile home units. Only
the number mobile home parks and the number of stands or lots per mobile home park
are tracked. The number of lots does not often translate to the number of units. To date,
tl1ere _ar~--2, 186 lots. There is no way to track the age of the park or the units contained in
îh~pa¡'k;'. According to the Interim Building Official, there have been no new mobile
home parks since 2000. Given these issues, this number assumes that the number of
mobile home units has not changed since the 2000 Census.
* * Building Inspections through Trak- It does not track housing units other than single
family and multifamily. This number assumes that the number of "Other units" has not
changed since the 2000 Census.
Single Family and Multifamily Units in Denton
Since 2000 Census to January 2005
SF MF
I (attached & detached) (includes TF)
Total Units (only No, of % No. of %
SF+MF) units units
CenSlls 2000
(taken on April I, 2000) 30,944 16,400 50,07' 14,544 44,41'
Units based onflnaled
permits
Apr2-Dec3l,2000 31,391 220 52,95% 227 47,05%
Jan - Dee, 2001 32,897 1,078 53,80% 428 46,20%
Jan - Dee, 2002 34,904 1,253 54,29% 754 45.71%
Jan - Dee, 2003 35,856 897 55.35% 55 44,65%
Jan - Dee, 2004 37,983 1063 55,05% 1064 44.95%
Total Units (by type) 20,911 17,072
The adopted Denton Plan calls for a 60:40 ratio of SF to MF housing (excluding others) by the year
2020. By the end of2004, the SF to MF ratio is 55:45. .
SF MF
attached & detached) (includes TF)
Total Units (only No, of % No. of %
SF+MF) units units
Till end of2004 37,983 20,911 55.3% 17,072 44.7%
Jan 2005 38,065 76 55,]% 6 44.9%
Total Units (by type) 20,987 16,930
The adopted Denton Plan calls for a 60:40 ratio of SF to MF housing (excluding others) by the year
2020, By the end of2004, the SF to MF ratio is 55:45.
Human Service Agencies Number of Clients Served and Funding Source Information
''In;!fi¡;'~åsfçôrnþiét~!PrôgramY¡¡ârf:;~' >~..,'~j",~i>.FC)r 2oo5'2IÌo61'/o9f~n-ÚY¡¡år,
# Total # HSAC HSAC
Agency Name I Denton I S d # Denton Recommended Recommended
.~. of w~~~S Residents Served by Amount % of Human Services
Chents Funds Served Agency Total Budget Funding Budget
I
Federal Funds (Medicare, Ryan White Care
1$2,011,5601 Act, Housing Opportunities for Persons
AIDS Services of North I 13% I 58 1 58 I 435 1 0.32% I $6,500 w/AIDS and Supportive Housing Program),
TX, Inc, State Funds (Dept of Health), Local
Governments (Piano), Denton County, and
United Way
Federal Funds (VOCA, OVAG), State Funds,
CASA 37% I 109 I 109 I 295 I 1.92% I $8,000 I $416,783 I Local Governments (Lewisville and Flower
Mound), Denton County, local foundations and
United Way
Federal Funds (VOCA), Local Governments
Children's Advocacy I I I I I I I I (Lewisville, Flower Mound, Carrollton, and
Center 19% 211 220 1,178 1.97% $12,000 $609,000 Highland Village), Denlon County, Local
Foundations, and Contributions & Gifts, and
Special Events
PARD After School 44 I 1.99% $8,000 $402,150 'CDBG Funding supports scholarships to
Action Site existing City-funded programs.
PARD Owsley Summer City of Denton Parks and
99 Recreation Department I 4.29% I $10,500 I $244,705 I City of Denton CDBG funding
Playground Programs
PARD King's Kids 81 3.53% $10,500 $297,835 City of Denton CDBG funding
Playground
State Funds, Local Governments (City of
Communities in 24% 0 3,405 14,434 0.44% $5,000 $1 124056 Lewisville, LlSD, and Other School Districts),
Schools ' , United Way, Contribulions & Gifts, and Special
Events
Federal Funds (CACFP, Medicare), Local
Day Stay for Adults I 52% I 7 I 25 48 I 4.19% $12,000 I $286,145 I Governments (Lewisville and Highland
Village), Denton County, Local foundations,
Program Income, and United Way
Denton Christian I I I I I I I I Federal/State Funds (Child Care Services and
Preschool 100% 67 67 67 10.38% $30,000 $289,100 CACFP), United Way, Contributions & Gifts,
Program Income and Special Evenls.
Denton City County I I I I I I I I Federal/State Funds (Child Care Services and
100% 80 80 80 7.11% $30,000 $421,754 CACFP), local grants, United Way, Special
Day School Events and Program Income
iaI"""."
it
of
Community Development Division
Economic Development Department
101 S. Locust, Ste, 500
Denton, TX 76201
(940)349.7726. Fax (940)383-2445
MEMORANDUM
@:
To:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Barbara Ross, Community Development
Linda Ratliff, Economic Development
From:
Through:
Date:
Re:
April 12,2005
Social Service Agency Infonnation
Attachcd is information requested by City Council regarding social service agency activities. The
attached chart includes the fo1lowing: 1) the percentage of City of Denton funding as a part of the
total agency budget; 2) the percentage of clients served that are residents of Denton; and 3) the tenure
of the residents in the city.
The request for tenure infonnation was added to the agency quarterly reports last fa1l after Council
expressed an interest in knowing the length of time that service recipients had lived in Denton.
Therefore, the tenure infonnation included on the chart reflects only the first two quarters of agency
acti vity beginning in October 2004.
Some agency infonnation is not yet available. Staffwi1l continue to work with the agencies to obtain
complete information and wi1l provide an updated report as soon as possible.
If you have questions, please contact Wendy Na1ls at 349-7234 or me at 349-7235. Thank you.
~éßu~
Fair Housing. Homebuyer Assistance. Home Improvement. Minor Repair. Small Business Loans
"ww,çi'yofdrn<On,com ADAÆOElADEA
j
.,