Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 23, 2006 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL January 23, 2006 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, January 23, 2006 at 11 :30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1. Receive a briefing, hold a discussion and give staff direction on a process and review criteria for multi-family tax credit projects. 2. Receive a briefing, hold a discussion and give staff direction on proposed amendments to the Development Code related to infill development regulations. 3. Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding Council procedures. 4. Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the structure of Council meetings. 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 ,2006 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- RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 23, 2006 CM: Planning and Development Howard Martin, 349-8232 .. DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT Receive a briefing, hold a discussion and give staff direction on a process and review criteria for multi-family tax credit projects. BACKGROUND The Council requested that the staff propose a process and criteria for the review of Multi- Family Tax Credit projects. A proposal for a process and review criteria for the consideration of multiple family tax credit applications in the City of Denton is set forth in this staff report. At its January 10, 2006 meeting, Council directed staff to add criteria concerning preferences for new construction commensurate with demolition and for rehabilitation. 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 known 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 project, 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. Denton has approximately 0.0145 Texas Bond fund/Tax Credit units per capita. A proposed process that could be used by the City of Denton for consideration of Tax Credit Multiple Family projects is set forth in Attachment 1. OPTIONS 1. Direct staff to proceed as submitted. 2. Direct staff to proceed with changes. 1 3. Direct staff to pursue an alternative path. 4. Table this item. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Council proceed with amendments to the Development Code to implement this process and the amendment to the fee schedule. FISCAL INFORMATION Staff recommends that a fee be charged to cover the cost of processing. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Criteria and Process Respectfully submitted: ~~ Kelly Carpenter Planning and Development Director 2 Attachment 1 Multi-family Tax Credit Process Proposal 1. Applicant presents a Tax Credit Multiple Family Application with appropriate fees to the Planning and Development Department. 2. The Department processes the application according to its published procedures. 3. The Department adds Community Development to the list of reviewers. 4. The Department presents comments to the applicant. 5. After the review, staff will prepare all the documents necessary for Planning and Zoning Commission and Council review of the request. 6. Staff will put the item on a Council agenda, prepare a staff report and ordinance, and present the item to Council. 7. Approval by Council by ordinance will bind the applicant to the site plan, the bedroom count and mix, and the amenities list. 8. Applicant may submit documentation of Council approval to funding agencies. Implementation Plan To implement this plan, the Denton Development Code needs to be amended at 35.3.4 A. by adding the following: "7. Consider an application for a Multiple Family Tax Credit Application." This would mean that such an application would be treated like a zoning application and would have a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission and at the City Council. Further, the Denton Development Code needs to be amended at 35.12.14 by adding the following: "35.12.14. A. Definition: Multiple Family Tax Credit Application is an application to the City of Denton for approval of a project proposed to utilize State of Texas tax credit programs for the construction of multiple family projects. These projects may include low-income projects and lor elderly projects. These projects shall include a demolition, replacement and/or rehabilitation component. New construction without commensurate demolition is not allowed. B. Approval Process 1. Applicant presents a Tax Credit Multiple Family Application with appropriate fees to the Planning and Development Department. 2. The Department processes the application according to its published procedures. 3. The Department adds Community Development to the list of reviewers. 4. The Department presents comments to the applicant. 5. After the review, staff will prepare all the documents necessary for Planning and Zoning Commission and Council review of the request. 6. Staff will put the item on a Council agenda, prepare a staff report and ordinance, and present the item to Council. 7. Approval by Council by ordinance will bind the applicant to the site plan, the bedroom count and mix, the amenities list, and any other conditions placed by the Council. C. Information to be submitted In addition the Tax Credit Application form, applicant will provide the following informati on: . Type of project (elderly, low income, etc.) . Number of bedrooms by size of bedroom . Total number of bedrooms . Documentation that Denton has than twice the state average of units per capita supported by the State of Texas Tax Credit programs. . Type and amount of subsidy . Distance from nearest tax credit or other type of subsidized housing project . List of the amenities and design features (e.g., landscaping, streetscaping, pedestrian features, and the like) Census tract demographic and income information for the tract in which the project is proposed . A detailed site plan . Number of units to be demolished . Number of replacement units to be constructed . Number of units to be rehabilitated D. Review Criteria and Standards: Applicant must demonstrate compliance with all the criteria below: . Applicants must demonstrate compliance with the applicable sub chapters of the Denton Development Code (including but not limited to Sub chapters 5, 13,14, and 16 -21); and, . Applicants must identify the site design features they propose to enhance the project over and above the minimum requirements in the Denton Development Code. Applicant must identify by list and by drawing; and, . Application must meet the intent of the Denton Plan; and, . Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following strategy: Restrict Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects to the rehabilitation of existing older (10+ years) rental housing or to demolition and reconstruction of older rental housing; and, . Applicant must demonstrate that any new construction proposed is commensurate with their proposed demolitions. . Preference will be given to projects that demolish at least 100 multi-family units. . Preference will be given to projects that demolish multi-family units and replace them with duplexes or single family units. Finally, the Development Review Fee Ordinance should be amended to add the following: Tax Credit Multiple Family Application: $1000 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 23,2006 CM: Planning and Development ~ Howard Martm, 349-8232 __ DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT Receive a briefing, hold a discussion and give staff direction on proposed amendments to the Development Code related to infill development regulations. (DCA05-0005) BACKGROUND During a 2004 discussion, the City Council directed staff to identify those vacant infill lots less than 1J4 acre that might be available for acquisition, assembly and land banking. Between July-November 2004, staff identified over 100 vacant 1J4 acre and tax delinquent properties. No action has been taken on those lots. Utilities staff was directed to examine whether or not the impact fee discount program could be structured to apply to all infill development. Staff provided a briefing to the City Council on impact fees as it related to infill policies on January 25, 2005. Staff recommended that such incentive programs should be based upon budgeting funds to cover impact fees rather than waving impact fees due to the legal implications of applying impact fees to some users and not to other users. Following the March 2004 discussion, staff prepared a draft set of infill regulations for further discussion and review. Attachment 1 sets forth an infill program that included actions that the City can take as well as a set of Development Code amendments. Staff has met with and spoken to developers in Denton, the Chamber, the Denton Housing Coalition, and Community Development staff in order to identify specific infill issues with the Development Code. All of those groups identified their inability to complete infill development under the current regulations. A summary of these issues is provided in Attachment 2. In short, the site design and subdivision regulations were identified as the major barriers. At the July 19, 2005 meeting, Council directed that the proposed infill regulations be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration. The Planning and Zoning Commission agendas for August 10, September 14, September 28, October 26 and November 9 included the Infill Regulations. The Planning and Zoning Commission worked hard at decisions concerning the maximum size of an infill lot and on the boundaries of the infill area. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to the Council of the proposed amendments at its December 14, 2005 meeting. Addressing the comments of city departments, the Chamber and others, we find the following have been addressed by the proposed amendments: 1. The proposed infill regulations allow tandem driveways 2. The proposed infill regulations allow sidewalk construction to be waived 3. The proposed infill regulations allow zero lot line lots 4. The proposed infill regulations do not waive impact fees for infilllots 5. Setbacks are proposed to be compatible with surrounding neighborhood 6. An infill development boundary is proposed 7. A more specific definition of in fill is proposed Some issues were considered and not included in the proposed amendments. For example, waiving platting requirements is not included in the amendments. The following issues were identified not addressed in the attached amendments: 1. All walls, which face a street other than an alley, must contain at least 25% of the wall space in windows or doors. 2. Platting may require right of way dedication beyond the existing street width. In many infill locations, it is unlikely that the existing street will actually be widened. The amendments address waiving construction requirements in such an example, but not waiving the dedication. 3. Do the site design standards apply to platted lots? 4. A stormwater study (and its implementation) for all the downtown would help infill development. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). ATTACHMENTS 1. 2004 Infill Issues Synopsis 2. 2005 Summary of Community Comments 3. Proposed Development Code Amendments for Infill 4. Infill Maps 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Prepared by: ~~ Kelly Carpenter, AICP Planning and Development Director Attachment 1 Synopsis of 2004 Papers Need for Infill . Absorb some of the growth into existing neighborhoods . Improve quality of life for older communities . Help rehabilitate and revitalize declining neighborhoods . Take advantage of existing infrastructure . Help revitalize Downtown . Re-use walkable neighborhoods . Help create the density that will support transit . Provide different types of housing and shopping options Infill development can fill gaps in existing communities; conserve financial resources by taking advantage of existing infrastructure; and create new opportunities for mixed-use neighborhoods. More importantly, infill development can advance the community vision stated in the Denton Plan, and many of its policies, strategies and goals including: . Economic development and improved tax base . Revitalization of downtown and urban neighborhoods . Development of needed housing in close proximity to employment and services . Neighborhood preservation and enhancement . Transportation choices and connectivity . Walkable neighborhoods and transit supportive development . Efficient use of existing urban services and facilities . Resource and land conservation . Diversity of housing opportunities . Environmental protection ofland, air and water resources. Barriers to Infill in Denton . Vacant land may be oddly shaped or difficult to build on . Vacant land may be environmentally contaminated . Costs to demolish or remove remnants of existing structures . Neighborhood opposition . Development codes and development approval processes . Difficulty obtaining approval to rezone/upzone property . Building codes for rehabilitation . Unclear property ownership and title . Illegal subdivision by metes and bounds . Cost of infrastructure improvements In addition, the 2004 report contained a number of recommendations to encourage infill development in Denton. Staff recommended the following changes and amendments to the Development Code: 1. Establish an urban infill development boundary or boundaries in which to target incentives and promote infill development 2. Use special overlay districts in Chapter 7 of the Development Code to establish infill zoning overlay districts. The overlay may modify or eliminate existing regulations, or it may introduce new regulations 3. Establish specific design standards for each overlay district. Develop neighborhood district and/or small area plans successful infill 4. Establish criteria for reducing or waiving site design standards required for platting through an administrative process at staff level 5. Amend the live/work requirement in the code to allow more floor area for work, as long as the living is located to the back of the building and the business use is oriented to the street frontage 6. Amend code to allow tandem parking for infill single-family residential development specifically designed to increase the supply of affordable housing There are several issues that need to be considered as the Council examines an infill program: 1. How can the mixed-use zoning be improved to protect existing neighborhoods AND allow infill that meets the City's goals as set forth in the Denton Plan? 2. Higher site design standards are in place to improve the quality of development in Denton. If standards are lowered or waived to accommodate infill, how will the goal of improving development be met? 3. As infill becomes reality, how will the public improvements needed to support development and meet the goals of the plan (e.g. pedestrian orientation) be supplied if the platting requirements and improvements are waived or lowered? 4. Council's direction concerning residential development has been to encourage higher-end single-family residences. Residential infill regulations are generally utilized to promote density in mixed-use developments and/or affordable housing. The Denton Development Code defines infill as development or redevelopment of land that has been bypassed, remained vacant and/or is underused as a result of the continuing urban development process, where 80 percent of the land within a 500- foot radius of the site has been developed and are generally readily accessible to infrastructure services and facilities. While there is not a single existing definition of urban infill development that can be applied to all situations, staff offers the following revised definition: "Urban Infill Development": The reuse, redevelopment or building on vacant, abandoned, or significantly underutilized parcels surrounded by existing development which is contiguous on at least three sides and in the urbanized core area of the City (the Infill and Redevelopment Zone) that is served with all or most public services and facilities. Attachment 2 Summary of Community Comments 2005 Planning and Development Department 1. Site Design Standards: . Street Trees - All new development must install street trees. . Buffer and Screening Requirements - In zoning districts that allow mixed uses, the buffer separation and fencing requirements are difficult to meet. . Site Development Requirements - Often not compatible with existing conditions: · Garage doors shall not occupy more than 40% of the total building frontage. Any garage may not extend beyond the house front. · All walls, which face a street other than an alley must contain at least 25% of the wall space in windows or doors · Orientation of building toward the street. · Five percent of the land area that is not constrained open space shall be designated in green, plaza or combination of planned open space oriented to the neighborhood. 2. Subdivision Standards: . Platting - Many of the infill properties are unplatted land and reqUIre platting to current zoning regulations (lot dimensions and setbacks; perimeter paving improvements; public utilities and infrastructure improvements; right-of way dedication; drainage improvements, etc.) . Setbacks - Requirements per the underlying zoning districts are often not compatible with setbacks in surrounding areas and/or lots are often too narrow in width and/or depth to meet setback requirements. . Sidewalks - Installation of sidewalks required for all new developments. In many infill neighborhoods, sidewalks do not exist. New platted lot requires the construction of sidewalks, which do not connect with any existing pedestrian facility. Subdivision variance or fund escrow required. . Right-of-way dedication - Platting requires ROW dedication beyond the existing street width. In practically most of the street would not be widened. A subdivision variance is required. 3. Parking Standards: . Location of Parking - Due to narrow and irregular shape of lots, the requirement to locate parking in the rear or sides is difficult to meet. . Spaces Required - Two spaces per dwelling unit; the spaces cannot be tandem parking spaces. Infill lots are usually narrow and side by side parking is not possible. A parking variance is required. 4. Infill and Redevelopment Boundary - Absence of infill development area and specific criteria. 5. Financial Incentives - City provides no financial incentives to encourage infill. (These types of incentives are often associated with affordable housing and may no longer be relevant.) Community Development Department 1. Prohibitions of tandem driveways - Many infill lots are only 50' wide and building a 20' wide driveway is often impracticable or even impossible especially when retaining existing trees. 2. Prohibition of "snout houses" - When an attached garage is desired the often narrow (50') lots make constructing a garage difficult if it is not allowed to project forward of the majority of the building's front. 3. Impact fees - Under current Utility policy if there is no record of water or sewer service to an infill lot, even if the builder finds useable water and sewer taps along the frontage, he/she will be charged the Impact Fees. 4. Sidewalks - Most infilllots are in older neighborhoods, largely built out long before sidewalks were required to be built by the developer. If the lot has to be replatted for any reason, a variance from building sidewalks must be sought on a case-by-case basis and the non-existence of contiguous sidewalks is, by definition, not allowed as an argument. 5. Park fees - Infill lots are by definition found in established neighborhoods, where the opportunity for the Parks Department to acquire land for new parks is slim. Therefore the parks fees assessed from an infill builder are actually subsidizing park acquisition in neighborhoods far removed from the where the eventual owner of the infill house will live. 6. Platting - The application of the requirement to replat or plat has been inconsistent. The Development Code should have exact language that lays out all of the triggers that will cause a replat or a plat of a lot. Denton Housing Coalition The following are recommendations by the Denton Housing Coalition regarding infill housing policies in the City of Denton. These recommendations support the use of residential infill lots for development of affordable housing. The members of the DHC respectfully request that the City Council and staff of the Planning and Development Department consider incorporating these items into the City's infill development policy. 1. Zoning and building code requirements for infill housing should be determined based on the location and building style of the immediate or adjacent neighborhoods. It is requested that some type of administrative review with decision-making ability at staff level be used to approve developments that are consistent with the building construction style and zoning characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Review the current zoning code and consider revising the code to designate an NR-5 zoning for residential infill properties within or adjacent to neighborhoods that originally had SF -7 zoning. It is likely that residents in these areas would not want to accept an NR-6 designation and an NR-4 would not support affordability. Although Subchapter 7 of the Denton Development Code allows the establishment of special overlay districts that could expand the density from NR-4 to NR-5, this process is onerous and expensive especially for non-profit developers. Revising the Development Code would support efficient production of infill housing. 3. Infill lots in older low to moderate-income neighborhoods often do not meet the existing development code requirements and yet, are similar to lot sizes and configurations in the area. As a result, implementation of a streamlined process designed to allow approval at a staff level for infill housing developers (five lots or less) to obtain variances for lot size and setback requirements would be appropriate. A streamlined process would support investment in these low to moderate-income neighborhoods. 4. Waive building fees and/or impact fees if non-profit organizations agree to upgrade unit construction. For example - if code requires that the unit be 50% brick and the nonprofit agrees to do 100% brick, the City should waive or substantially reduce development fees. 5. Waive the sidewalk construction requirement for developers of single lot properties in low to moderate-income neighborhoods where it is likely that Community Development Block Grant funds may eventually be used to construct sidewalks or where sidewalks do not currently exist. Construction of sidewalks in a developed neighborhood that does not have sidewalks does not support the purpose of City-required sidewalk construction. These isolated sidewalks go largely unused because they do not connect to anything. Furthermore, it is likely that when sidewalks are constructed in the area through CIP or CDBG that the previously constructed single sidewalk would have to be replaced or would not match the newly constructed sidewalks and would detract from their appearance. 6. Waive the new rule requiring side-by-side driveways for infilllots (or circular or two entryways) as it may prove to be a hindrance with non-conforming lots. The item could be waived for infill lots where the developer allows for tandem parking when side-by-side is not feasible. 7. Review the requirement that all front facades must be 25% glass. This requirement could cause a substantial energy drain and increase utility costs for owners/renters. The City should support "green building" techniques in all residential, commercial and industrial construction. Chamber of Commerce 1. Definition - What is infill? 2. ROW Consistency . If the road is built to ultimate dimensions, leave the ROW alone (maybe clean up irregularities) 3. Drainage . 100-year floodplain to 10 year - Currently reqUIre 100 when surrounding system is designed for 10. 4. Utility Locations 5. Widths of sidewalks 6. Setbacks 7. Platting - Can infill be exempted? 8. Parking spaces - Do additional parking spaces require platting? 9. TIA's - Can there be different threshold and requirements for infill? Developers 1. Uncertainty of development schedule . Working within the built infrastructure is a nightmare. Designing to existing drainage and utilities that are built per old specifications and therefore do not meet the current Code. Trying to make the drainage, water and sewer onsite meet with the older pipes through the City's utilities department is like banging one's head against a wall. This is especially true in drainage where infill does not have the area to detain - and yet must meet 100-year design - while draining to systems built for 10-year design. Large greenfield has room to build detention - infill does not. . Time it takes through the process because of City coordination is prohibitive if there are current issues with utilities or drainage in the area (which there usually is). . Unreliable as-built information for underground utilities 2. NIMBYism and BANANAS . Because of the lack of past and current architectural and site plan standards that allowed blight, citizen's usually refuse anything in their neighborhood that is different than what they have.. .and usually require higher standards than what they have Due to increases in public infrastructure standards, as well as other local, state and federal regulations, the cost of building identical structures has increased dramatically from when the majority of homes were built in Denton - and yet the uninformed neighbors demand the same lot sizes, home sizes, street widths, etc. Infill cannot compete with sprawl development because of this. This becomes a problem when rezoning tracts that were designated NR-2 as a holding classification - only to be held to that due to neighborhood resistance to any change. The reason for our current traffic and drainage issues is due to these old neighborhood designs. 3. Floodplain, ESA . Much of the downtown area is undevelopable due to current floodplain maps that designate a large portion of downtown as being within the 100-year floodplain. A small tract cannot develop because doing so would require a study of the entire basin (or a very large portion of it) - cost prohibitive for a small tract (which most tracts downtown are) - and yet that study would theoretically benefit all the properties within the basin. It would be foolish not to provide this study to take a majority of the extremely valuable land downtown out of the flood areas. This becomes even more pronounced as rail serves downtown. . Stream buffers should be taken completely off the maps in the urban areas. It's odd to see these so called buffers surrounding existing developed properties - draining to concrete "streams". Those need to be removed from the ESA maps. Drainage Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be in place for drainage to improved channels - and get away from the "no development" regulations of the ESA in the urban areas. 4. Construction Costs . Contractors give better prices per lot for large developments over small ones. This is due to mobilization, for example, that is a static cost and therefore takes a larger percentage of the smaller budgets. 5. Impact and other fees . Although infill development impacts the city in significantly smaller ways than greenfield projects do, the impact and park fees do not change between them. It costs much less for parks and utilities departments to maintain lines and service lots that are closer to their base of operations than spread out over the outside reaches of Denton - and yet no benefit is realized by developing infill over other less responsible development. If there is a park within so many feet of the proposed development, why should there be park dedication fees? 6. Zero-Lot line developments . The existing code does not allow for the development of zero lot line developments. 7. Location of dumpsters is problematic. Attachment 3 Infill Regulations Subchapter 7 - Special Purpose and Overlay Districts 35.7.11 Infill 35.7.11.1 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this district is to provide standards for the development of infilllots in existing neighborhoods. The specific obj ectives of this district are to: . Allow flexibility in location, type and density within the densities supported by the Denton Plan and the Denton Development Code; . Provide flexibility in lot size, configuration, and vehicle access to facilitate infill development; . Provide clear development standards that promote compatibility between new and existing development and promote certainty in the marketplace; . Encourage development of needed housing in close proximity to employment and servIces; . Promote neighborhood preservation and enhancement through redevelopment of blighted, distressed and underutilized properties; . Encourage mixed use development opportunities in order to provide housing and neighborhood services close to jobs; . Encourage development that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that meets the city's economic development goals; and, . Encourage new development as well as preservation of a diversity of housing types and price ranges in existing neighborhoods. 35.7.11.2 Applicability and General Provisions. There is hereby established a special infill and redevelopment overlay district to be known as the Infill and Redevelopment Zone (IRZ). The boundary of the Infill and Redevelopment Zone shall be shown on the official zoning map of the City of Denton or on a separate map maintained in the office of the Director of Planning and Development. All applications for development for buildings, structures, and lots within the Neighborhood Residential, Downtown Residential, and Downtown Core Zoning Districts that are no greater than two acres may utilitize the flexibility, restrictions, limitations, and provisions of the Infill and Redevelopment Zone regulations as provided for in this article. In the case of conflict among regulations, the more flexible standard shall apply. A. Permitted Uses. . All uses permitted by the underlying Neighborhood Residential Zoning Districts (NR-l, NR-2, NR-3, NR-4, NR-6, NRMU, and NRMU-12) . All uses permitted by the underlying Downtown University Core Zoning Districts (DR-I, DR-2, DC-N and DC-G) 1 B. Neighborhood Meeting Requirement. Applicants proposing to develop on infilllots meeting the characteristics of this district must conduct at least one neighborhood meeting prior to public hearing at Planning and Zoning Commission or staff approval which ever is earlier. C. Plan Requirement. A site plan is required to be submitted for infill development within the IRZ district. The site plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. D. Approval Process, Administrative Adjustments and Appeals. 1. The Planning Director is authorized to grant administrative adjustments from the following requirements up to 25% in the Subchapter 5 of the Denton Development Code for the Neighborhood Residential Zoning Districts and Downtown University Core Zoning Districts in the Infill Redevelopment Zone: height, setback, and lot coverage. Decisions on administrative adjustments are appealable to the Planning and Zoning Commission by affected property owners (those within 200 feet) and the applicant. 2. Adjustments in excess of 25% require the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council using the Zoning Amendment procedure set forth ins Section 35.3.4.C.2 through 35.3.4.C.4. E. Content of Application. Any person intending to develop on a lot, building or structure regulated by this Section shall file with the Planning and Development Department an application accompanied by an accurately dimensioned site plan showing the placement of all structures, and detailed scaled elevation sketches or photographs of the front and side elevations of all proposed and existing structures to remain. The applicant may be required to furnish such additional information or supporting detail as may be reasonably necessary to assure compliance with the standards herein. If the property is not platted, platting is required pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas and the Denton Development Code, Subchapter 16 - Subdivisions. F. Impact Fees. Development fees may be reduced by the City Council if the proposed development exceeds these infill standards and exceeds the city's economic development goals. Where higher densities are appropriate in the NRMU and Downtown University Core Zoning Districts within the IRZ, park, water and sewer impact fees may be discounted by the City Council. G. Compatibility. While this Section is intended to promote quality development and eliminate conditions of gross design incompatibility that have the potential for enduring a century or more, it is not intended to stifle individuality or compel rigid conformity. Recognizing that great diversity of style, often between homes side by side, is one of Denton's central neighborhood strengths, this section is set forth with the intention that the acceptable 2 level of compliance with these standards will be the mInImUm necessary to assure compatibility, not conformity. This Section of the Code may be augmented by the publication in the Criteria Manual of guidelines intended to illustrate the standards. Such guidelines may be referenced in the interpretation and administration of the standards herein. H. Exclusions. This section does not apply to the following: 1. Infill or redevelopment of an entire street block face or 2. Infill or redevelopment of an entire neighborhood or 3. Infill or redevelopment ofland greater than two acres in size 35.7.11.3. Development Standards. This section sets standards for structure placement, height, scale, proportion, direction emphasis, design details, texture, and materials compatible with established structures in the neighborhood. A. Placement. No new or moved structure shall be located any closer nor any further away from a street property line than the structure situated on either side of it. Building separation shall be consistent with the general character of the neighborhood. Primary structures shall be oriented with the front fa<;ade and primary entrance facing the street or shall be oriented compatibly with the neighborhood where the neighborhood orientation is not with the front fa<;ade and primary entrance facing the street. Garages shall be located consistent with the character of garage location in the neighborhood. Any lot located on an alley and situated between structures that have vehicular access only to that alley shall be developed with driveway access to the alley only. Review and approval of garage placement under this section shall be consistent with other setback regulations and exceptions of this Chapter and the building code and fire code. B. Height, Scale and Proportion. The height of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Finished floor elevations (FFE), and front yard grade elevations shall be similar to those adjacent structures unless the Floodplain Administrator requires a higher FFE. Overall height, width, scale, and general proportions shall be similar to or consistent with the character of the neighborhood. C. Roof style and pitch of the proposed structure shall be architecturally consistent with the neighborhood character. D. Facade, Materials and Detail. Where neighborhood character includes discernable patterns of detail, including but not limited to, door and window trim, corner boards, cornice details, railings, and shutters, the details of any primary structure (or accessory structure visible from the public right of way) shall be compatible with such character. Where neighborhood character includes open or enclosed front porches, any primary structure shall include a similar porch. The materials 3 and relative proportions of doors and windows of the principal structure and any accessory structure visible from the public right of way shall be compatible with neighborhood character. Siding width shall be compatible with neighborhood character. Exposed wood on any structure shall be painted or stained in a manner generally compatible with neighborhood character. E. Maximum Lot Coverage. Lot coverage shall be compatible with the existing neighborhood character. F. Front Yard Setbacks. Setbacks are as permitted by the underlying zone. However, the contextual setback option may be granted by the Planning and Development Director. A contextual setback is an average of the setbacks of adjacent or abutting lots. In a case where an existing structure is located within 20-40 feet of the subject site and fronts the same street as the proposed building, a front yard setback similar to that of the nearest primary structure shall be used. "Similar" means the setback is within 0-10 feet of the setback provided by the nearest structure or building. If there are two adjacent structures fronting onto the same street, then an average measurement shall be taken using the two adjacent structures. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than 5 feet, except in the NRMU, DC-N and DC-G zoning districts, where there are no minimum front yard setback requirements. G. Tree Preservation and Landscape Requirements. Infill development, as defined in this Chapter, shall be exempt from Subchapter 35.13.7.C. Street Tree Requirements. All other provisions of 35.13.7 (Tree Preservation and Landscape Requirements) apply. H. Parking. All requirements of Subchapter 35.14. (Parking Standards) shall apply. For single-family dwellings on infill lots as described in this section, tandem parking shall be allowed. I. Zero-Lot Line Dwelling. Zero Lot Line Dwellings shall be permitted on infilllots in the IRZ and are subject to the same standards as detached single family structures elsewhere in this Chapter, except that the following additional provisions shall apply: 1. When a zero-lot line dwelling shares a side property line with a non- zero lot line development, the zero-lot line dwelling shall be setback from the common property line by a minimum of five feet; 2. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded easement for every zero lot line house that guarantees rights for construction and maintenance structures and yards. The easement shall stipulate that no fence or other obstruction shall be placed in a manner that would prevent maintenance of structures on the subj ect lot; 4 3. Placement and/or design of windows on the ground-floor of the zero- lot line house shall support privacy for the occupants of the abutting lot as well as for the proposed development; and 4. The development shall comply with the design standards m Subchapter 13 Site Design of the Denton Development Code. 1. Lot size. Developable infill lots must be at least eighty percent of the required minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district. In no case shall a lot be less than 3,000 square feet in area, except in NRMU where the minimum lot size is 2500 square feet. K. Sidewalk construction. In cases where infill development is required to construct a sidewalk on abutting non-collector or non-arterial road rights of way pursuant to Section 35.20.3.B of this code, and where sidewalk does not exist along said street in front of both properties abutting the subject infill residential development site on the same side of the street, infill development shall not be required to construct a sidewalk along the noncollector and nonarterial street abutting the subj ect development. L. Perimeter Paving Requirements/Road improvements on abutting non-collector and non-arterial road rights-of way. In cases where a plat is required to construct a half-street road on abutting public or private street rights-of-way pursuant to Section 35.20. L, and where said street in front of one or both properties abutting the subj ect development site on the same side of the street has not been improved to the subj ect standard, the subj ect development shall not be required to construct a half-street road along the non-collector and non-arterial street abutting the subject development. This section does not apply where the development would occupy a full block face. M. Unless otherwise noted in this Section, all other applicable standards of the Denton Development Code and Criteria Manual apply. Amendments to 35.23. Definitions. Infill Development: Development on vacant or underutilized parcels surrounded by existing development that is contiguous on at least three sides, no greater than two acres in size, and is served with all or most public services and facilities, including but not limited to water, wastewater and drainage. (This replaces the definition currently in Section 35.23.) Neighborhood: a sub area of the City of Denton in which the residents (or non- residential uses) share a common identity focused around a school, park, or community business center that are generally within walking distance of the homes or businesses, architecture, or other features with boundaries that may include highways, railroads or such natural features as rivers. The neighborhood character shall be deemed to be the 5 prevailing character of structures within 300 feet in either direction along street frontages, irrespective of intervening streets. Redevelopment: The demolition of an existing building and new construction on the same site (or assemblage of parcels). Zero lot line dwellings: Zero lot line dwellings are detached single family dwellings that have a side yard setback of zero feet on one side. 6 II l If-c - D I \ J III , D ~ '= I - ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ - , " 1/ /, ! I L I I \ I[ J--d II II Ii I~ City of Denton's ~~~!l Vacant Property ~! ' J .1 I \ I r I .I n- \ J H 1/ lJ {' ~ ~ IY~ h '. ~ '. I~"'~ !) \ I ~ ~I ~~~~ ~~< - ~,w- I I u ~ ---, ~ /~ -4 /~ II I "<<,j! ;j ~"rJ",\ "$ ,/' ,.," . .'''"" -. I \ J D Fr1 /" = - ~ \) h Ll ~~ ~\I Legend j D Denton City Limits Undeveloped Parcels D InfillBoundry IIIill A: 0 - 0.99 acres B: 1 - 1.99 acres u """,,,,. (I . I ~ II ~ fJ ~ ~~1 l~ jl~ m/~ L ~p I t:::= I I" ~ III Eli ~ UI w:nr '0, ~-=t I,!TI~ - Page 85 Page 87 1 couldn't work. if the lot was 56 foot. This is not going 1 to offset that by some other considerations as well. 2 to work if the lot is 50 foot. So if you take six feet 2 COMMISSIONER ROY: I realize we could do 3 for every nine lots you develop, you use a lot. And you 3 that. We have done that in the past But mther than 4 take that -- you take that across the whole thing, that's 4 work the problem for the developer which is kind of what 5 a considerable number of lots of what they have less to 5 that would be doing, I'm not sure we have total consensus 6 develop. And that's the issue as I see it. 6 as to what -- what we would like to have. I would say 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: BUt, sir, the -- 50 7 offer the developer a chance to come back with a different 8 feet, I mean, the lot that I looked at, the couple of 8 proposal based on the comments that we have had here 9 them, I mean, maybe, I don't know what they were, I'm 9 tonight And if they don't want to do it, fine, then we 10 going to guess they were 50-foot lots. They were very 10 can go ahead and take action. So I propose that we 11 small. I'm not sure visual1y whether it's 50 or 56 is 11 consider that, Mr. Chairman. 12 going to make much difference. Maybe if you get 60, 65, 12 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: well, we actually 13 it might. You might have some grass area. So I'm not 13 have a motion with no second, which means we really don't 14 sure whether it makes that much difference, whether it's 14 have anything to discuss or vote upon, so I will ask the 15 59.9 or 56 or 50. 15 applicant if they would like to table it and reconsider 16 I wonder if an approach would be to -- 16 their position. 17 after the applicant has heard these discussions, our 17 MR REICH HART: Yes. 18 concerns, and our apparent unwillingness to go with the 18 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: okay. Do we have a 19 approach that they've laid out here, that if they would 19 date certain that we can reschedule this? 20 like to reconsider and bring us back something that's 20 MS. CARPENTER: pardon me, Mr. Chairman. 21 closer to the PD but resolves, you know, the 50-foot 21 January 11th; is that the right date is the first meeting 22 problem, I would be willing to spend my time to review it 22 in January, then it would be the 25th. 23 further, if they are. 23 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: January 25th. Is 24 LEGAL: I just thought maybe I should bring 24 that satisfactory to you? 25 up one additional point here that we had a discussion 25 MR MURPHY: The sooner the better. Page 86 Page 88 1 earlier about the scope of the notice and the zoning 1 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: The sooner the 2 request and whether it was detailed enough or sufficiently 2 better. That's the "soonerist" it's going to get. 3 broad to cover the second proposal One other thought 3 MS. CARPENTER: IS the 11th the correct 4 came to my mind is that it may be - that it's broad 4 date? The first meeting in January, but I'm pretty sure 5 enough that I don't think. that the Commission has to 5 it's the 11th. The frrst meeting in January. 6 constrain itself to the proposals that are advanced by the 6 COMMISSIONER SlRANGE: Are we going to do 7 applicant that once the application for :rezoning is 7 it January the 11 th or January 25th? 8 brought forward that there may be other issues that are 8 MS. CARPENTER: The 11th, what she's 9 fair game as well as far as recommendations are concerned. 9 clarifying is that it might not be the 11th, so if you 10 If the nwnber of 50-foot lots is part of 10 make the motion the frrst meeting in January then we cover 11 what the Commission perceives to be a problem, perhaps one 11 it. 12 of the things to be considered. might be an increase in the 12 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: okay. All right. 13 nwnber of larger lots as part of the PD process that in 13 Then do we have a motion? I guess we'd need a motion. 14 order to mitigate the affect of decreasing the number of 14 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. I move that we 15 J -Swing lots or altering the conf1gU11ltion that perhaps 15 table this item to a date certain of the first meeting in 16 the recommendation might be offset somewhat by increasing 16 January. 17 the nwnber of 70-foot lots or .- or 60-foot lots and 17 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: Do we have a second? 18 decreasing correlative the nwnber of 50-foot lots, 18 COMMISSIONER THIBODEAUX: second. 19 It's just food for thought. There may be 19 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: We have a motion by 20 other things that may be addressed as well. I know the 20 Mr. Roy, a second by Dr. Thibodeaux, Please, vote. And 21 homeowner said something about a minimum lot size. I 21 that motion passes 7-0. 22 don't know, you know, where that's going with it. Maybe 22 Next item is Item G, which is amendment to 23 some of these other issues might help mitigate or offset 23 the Development Code relating to in-fill development 24 some of these other impacts, and insofar as the - as the 24 regulations. Ms. Carpenter. 25 request for zoning is somewhat broad, it may be possible 25 MS. CARPENTER: Mr. Chairman, this item is CondenseItIM PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER. 14,2005 Page 85 - Page 88 Page 89 Page 91 1 for the Planning Commission to consider making a 1 or less in size and they're not -- and are not affiliated 2 recommendation to Council on in-fill regulations. The 2 with an active subdivision, So for example, you'll 3 Council began discussing in-fill regulations back in the 3 remember if we go back to the map, on the east side, where 4 Spring of '04. And the Council worked on it for many 4 the Maple Leaf Subdivision is, 1:hero are -- that's just 5 months and has sent it back to the Planning Commission to 5 one example. It's an active subdivision. They're 6 make a final recommendation to the Council. 6 actively building homes in 1:hero. So we took that out 7 The purpose of the In-fill Ordinance is to 7 from the - the spread.shl::et that we prepared that showed 8 satisfy the following objectives, to allow flexibility in 8 you the number of platted lots for in-fill. 9 location, type and density within the density supported by 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: Is that little jog in 10 the Denton Plan and the Denton Development Code, to ]0 1:hero below Old North? II provide flexibility in lot size. configuration, and II MS. CARPENTER: NO, I don't think: so. I ]2 vehicle access, to facilitate in-fill development, to 12 think it's closer down to McKinney. It's just not in the I3 provide clear development standards that promote 13 table. It's still in the boundary, but it's not in the 14 compatibility between new and existing development and to 14 table, All right. Let's see. And that was the extent of 15 promote certainty in the marketplace. to encourage 15 what I bad to offer for you. I'll be happy to answer your 16 development of needed housing in proximity to employment 16 questions, 17 and services, to promote neighborhood preservation and 17 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: Anyone have any 18 enhancement through redevelopment of blighted, distressed 18 questions of Mrs. Carpenter? This is a public hearing. ]9 and under ut:iIizt:d properties, to encourage mixed use 19 We've now had the staff presentation. Is -- we have no 20 development opportunities in order to provide housing and 20 cards on this item.. Is 1:hero anyone here who wishes to 21 neighborhood services close to jobs, to encourage 21 speak: for or against in-fill development regulation? 22 development that is compatible with the swrounding 22 Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing, and I will 23 neighborhood and that meets the City's economic goals and 23 make a motion that we approve the amendment to the 24 to encourage new development as well as preservation of a 24 Development Code relating to in-fill development 25 diversity of housing types. 25 regulation., 0CA-05-0011 with one exception which we Page 90 Page 92 ] This Code addresses itself to permitted 1 discussed in our Work Session today that under Item 2 uses. It requires a neighborhood meeting. It sets forth 2 35.71] 2, Ilem II, little 1lem I that reads in-fill or 3 an approval, adjustment and appeals process. It addresses 3 redevelopment of an entire block or street face, that that 4 the content of applications, impact fees, compatibility 4 now is going to include no great -- in-fill or development 5 with surrounding neighborhoods. It sets forth the 5 greater than an entire block, phase -- entire street block 6 exclusions from the ordinance and then it sets development 6 phase. More than or greater, same thing. 7 standards that are specific to in-fill development that 7 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. S include site development standards as well as subdivision 8 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: I'll make that a 9 requirements. In addition, four new amendments are 9 motion. Do we have a second? IO proposed -- four new definitions are proposed in the ]0 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. II Development Code. All my people left and my map is down 11 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: okay. Second by Mr. 12 there. I'll have to go down 1:hero. 12 Watkins. Mr. Roy. I3 In addition, the Planning Commission spent 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes, just a quick 14 many weeks analyzing the challenge of where the in-fill 14 question, Just south of Old North there is kind of a jog 15 boundary ought to be drawn. The Planning Commission has ]5 in the map and I can't remember what that is. Is that the ]6 proposed a boundary and we'll see it on the map in a no 16 church? ]7 moment. 'fhere it is. which roughly follows these streets. 17 MS. CARPENTER: I can't -- I don't remember ]8 Bonnie Brae on the west, Willow Wood, then to 1-35 on the ]8 what the land uses are but I remember the reasoning was 19 south. Then behind San Jacinto and up Colorado, then 19 that they are large tracts of land in excess of two acres 20 north on Woodrow to McKinney. Then east to Mockingbird, 20 in size. 2] and then it eventually comes out at Old North and follows 2] COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. 22 Windsor along its north boundary. 22 MS. CARPENTER: And they're not going to be 23 And if you'll turn to the next slide for me 23 subject to the ordinance anyway. 24 -- thank you. In that land area 1:hero are 4] 3 platted 24 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. 25 lots and 209 parcels that are unplatted that are two acres 25 MS. CARPENTER: Right this second, I don't CondenseIt™ PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 14,2005 Page 89 - Page 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenseIt™ Page 93 remember the land use. 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: That's all right. 2 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. 3 COMMISSIONER ROY: It just looked a little 4 strange. I hadn't noticed that before. But I understand 5 that point. Thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: AnY other 7 discussion? If not, please, vote. Vote passes 7-0. 8 Last item on the Agenda tonight is the 9 quarterly review of the Denton Development Plan. Ms. 10 Carpenter. 11 MS. CARPENTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to 12 report that we're -going to be bringing at least four 13 amendments that are on Attaclnnent A to you in January. 14 They are really noncontroversial items like accessory uses 15 and some changes to the Development Review Committee where 16 responsibilities are left out of the Code, things like 17 that. So I'm happy to report we're going to bring four of 18 those forward. I'm also happy to report that we are 19 diligently working on front setback requirements, location 20 of buildings next to the street, front of building parking 21 all associated with ADP'S. We're looking at changes to 22 the ADP standards and also potentially changes to some 23 parking requirements that would address those three items. 24 You will remember at your last quarterly 25 Page 94 (End of proceedings.) 1 report, we added one item concerning a request by a 2 citizen to ban tow truck businesses as a home occupation, 3 That has been added to the list. There have been no other 4 requests from the public to make changes to the 5 Development Code. 6 COMMISSIONER slRANGE: okay. This is a 7 public forum item. Is then.: anyone here who bas any items 8 they would like to bring forward for the Denton - for the 9 review fOf the Denton Development Code? I think we 10 require no action on that. So with that, we'll adjourn 11 the meeting. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: EXcuse me. Can I ask a 13 question about that. 14 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: This is the listing of 16 the currently active items. Do we get a chance to 17 prioritize these? We did at one time or is the City 18 Council just going to do it? 19 MS. CARPENTER: That's a great question. 20 This is the priority -- this is the list in the priority 21 order of the Council. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: That answers my 23 question. 24 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: All right. We'll 25 adjourn the meeting at 8:46. PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 14,2005 Page 95 Page 93 - Page 95 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 23, 2006 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Howard Martin SUBJECT Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding council procedures. BACKGROUND The Council Agenda Committee has requested this item be placed on the January 23rd agenda. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 23, 2006 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Howard Martin SUBJECT Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the structure of Council meetings. BACKGROUND The Council Agenda Committee has requested this item be placed on the January 23rd agenda. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary