HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981
•
• f,
DEN... = r
N 7
GUIPE
Fr rn ork r_ row h
A Poli II
J,l
u
1081
. ~t
i• ice' . ~
1
t,
••S ~ : i I I f . y
71
i 1
e
e DENTON DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH
•
•
Prepared For: City Goverrim ant and Citizens of Denton
Prepared By: City of Denton Lend Use Planning Committee
•
DECEMBER, 1980
•
APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND Zr tNG COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 4, 1881
•
APPROVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL
• FEBRUARY 17, 1881
•
CITY COUNCIL
RICHARD STEWART, MAYOR
RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR PRO-TEM
J. W. RIDDLESPERGER •
RICHARD TALIAFERRO
DWIGHT GALLEY
JOE ALFORD
MARK CHEW
CHRIS HARTUNG, CITY MANAGER •
COUNCIL MEMBERS - OCTOBER, 1979
AT STUDY'S INCEPTION
BILL NASH, MAYOR
ROLAND VELA
RICHARD STEWART
BUD HENSLEY
RAY STEPHENS ~
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ANDY S1DORt CHAIRPERSON
LINNIE MCADAMS
ROBERT B. 40ODIN •
CAROLE BUSBY
MARILYN GILCHRIST
JACK MILLER
ROBERT LAPORTE
COMMISSION MEMBERS - OCTOBER, 1979
AT STUDY'S INCEPTION
LINNIE MCADAMS, CHAIRPERSON
ROBERT LAPORTE
BILL BRADY
CAROLE BUSBY
MARILYN GILCHRIST
RICHARD TALIAFERRO
DON RYAN
ANDY SIDOR
t
•
LAND USE PLANNING COMMITTEE
BETTY BAILEY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
ROBERT 0. BENFIELD TEXAS WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION
JIM BLANTON WEST DENTON
BILL BRIXIUS NORTHWEST DENTON
AUGUST BRO%74 SOUTH DENTON
" JIMMY DALE BROWN CHAMBER REPRESENTATIVE
REV. M.R. CHEW, JR. EAST DENTON
MIKE CHOCHRAN EAST DENTON
JESSE COFFEY DEVELOPER INTEREST
BOB CROUCH DEVELOPER INTEREST
• DOTTY DOWLING DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
" HARRY DOWN DEVELOPER INTEREST
BRIAN DUBIN SOUFH%lEST DENTON
" TOM FOUTS DEVELOPER INTEREST
MARILYN GILCHRIST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LARRY HARBERSON CDBG COMMITTEE
CHARLES HOPKINS DEVELOPER INTEREST
RICHARD E. JOHNSTON SOUTH DENTON
GEORGE KRIEGER UTILITY BOARD
ROBERT LAFORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ROY LEMASTER NORTHEAST DENTON
LARRY LUCE NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIV ERSfi'Y ADMINISTRATION
JO LUKER CDBG COMMITTEE
JANE MALONE PARK BOARD
• LINNIE MCADAMS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FLOYD D. MCDANIEL NORTHEAST DENTON
BONITA MINOR EAST DENTON
JANE MITCHELL RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
• STEVE PLAYER NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIT ERSfl'Y STUDENT BODY
GEORGE OLUFSEN SOUTH DENTON
MARK RODEN WEST DENTON
RON C. RYLANDER DEVELOPER INTEREST
LLOYD SANBORN SOUTHWEST DENTON
ANDY SIDOR PLANNING AND TONING COMMISSION
CHESTER SPARKS COUNTY COMMISSIONER
RAY STEPHENS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
DICK STEWART COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
BILL THOMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD
GRACIE TUNNELL SOUTHWEST DENTON
" B. DWAIN VANCE NORTHWEST DENTON
WILL WAGERS WEST DENTON
ALV IN WHALEY DEY ELOPER INTEREST
" CAROL WHEELER-LISTON NORTHEAST DENTON
WELDON WILLINGHAM CLIENT COUNCIL, WEST TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES
MIKE WORKMAN NORTHWEST DENTON
"LAND USE PLANNING COMMITTEE: TEAM CAPTAINS
if
•
•
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS f/
CHRIS HARTONG CITY MANAGER
RICK SVEHLA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
BOB NELSON DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
JOHN KELLER STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
A. J. SEELY REPRESENTATIVE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
BRUCE GAINES REPRESENTATIVE OF DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY
STEVE BRINKMAN DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
STANLEY THAMES CHAIRMAN DENTON 1180" LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION
•
PROGRAM STAFF
JEFF MEYER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
JOHN LAVRETTA FORMER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
STEVE FANNING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ASSOCIATE AND PROJECT DIRECTOR •
RICK BARNES SPECIAL PLANNING ASSOCIATE. FOR PROJECT
CHARLIE WATKINS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER
DAVID ELLISON PLANNING AS.01STANT (INTERN)
DENISE, SPIV EY PLANNING ASSISTANT
EMILY COLLINS PROGRAM SECRETARY •
JACKIE LAMAR PROGRAM SECRETARY
SUSAN WIGAND DEPARTMENT SENIOR SECRETARY
JANET COLE PROGRAM SECRETARY
•
•
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
f
PAGE
PREFACE-THE EMERGENCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE . . . . . . . vi
• 1. P1AN PURPOSE AND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
11. THE CONCEPT PLAN (LONG RANGE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH) 6
111. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
• A. LAND USE INTENSITY AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. MODERATE ACTIVITY CENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. LOW INTENSITY AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
•
.S. HOUSING 21
C. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . 34
D. UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
* E. TRANSPORTATION . . . 39
F. INDIVIDUALIZED POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. BY DEVELOPMENT AREA CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . 50
• a. OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS . . . . . . . . 50
b. EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS . . . . . . . 50
c. HARD TO DEVELOP LOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2. SPECIFIC AREA POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . 51
0" a. NORTH OF OAK STREET . . . . . . . . . 51
b. LAND USE SORDERIK, NTSU AREA . , . . . 51
a. NTSU & TWU TRANSFJRTATION PLANNING . . . . . . . 52
d. HOBSON LANE, TEASLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
CARROLL BOULEVARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
4
E. FORT WORTH AND DALLAS DRIVE . . . . . . . . .
g. EAST DENTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
BELL AVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
0. LAW MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
« Lv
1
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS •
(continued)
LIST OF PLATES
PAGE
1. OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. LAND USE INTENSITY AREAS . . . . . . . . 28
3. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING LOCATIONS . . . . . . 33
4. PAIiKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES 37
5. TRANSPORTATION LAND USE INTENSITY BALANCE 45
6. MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . 46
7. MASS TRANSIT CONCEPT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . 48
VOLUME I - APPENDIX •
THE EMERGENCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
I. Purpose and Uee of Plan
II. Existing Setting
III. The Planning Process
IV. Major Iseuee And Their Alternative Resolution
A. Queationnaire/Discussion Workshops
B. Alternative Land Use Designs for the City
C. Evalt.ation of Alternatives
V. Establishment Of A Consensus Framework ~
VOLUME: II - APPENDIX
A. An Introduntion to the Community Unit Conoept
B. Exomlle of Application of Area Wide Denaity/Inteieity
Standard
0. Concepts of Development Potential rating
NOTE: APPENDIX NOT INCLUDED BUT AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
I
v
•
PREFACE
The Emergence of the Development Guide
* INTRODUCTION
t As Denton entered the 80's the community was realW*ng an increasing volume
of questions concerning the way the community is developing and Its impact on
the quality of life.
The City leaders, in response to these questions, instituted a
community-based, city-wide plan update. One avenue for this future Denton
• study was the "Denton 801s" committee that looked comprehensively at the
future of Denton, in such areas es cultural activities, education, health, public
facilities, recreation, environmental and beautification issues. Coordinated
with that effort, the City Council initiated more specl,►ic study on the future
land questions, by commissioning the Land Use Punning CommiUee. The task
of the committee wns to produce a Development Guido that could be used in
day-to-day decision making on such things as the Capital Improvement
Program, Zoning, Subdivisions, etc.
The format of the plan, determined by the Planning and Zcning and the City
Council as the most useful, was a combination policy plan and fixed design
plan. This guide represents the document product of this specif is program.
•
The Planning Process
To pratuce the Development Guide, a 48 member City-wide planning
Committee was established. This committee was composed of residents,
policymakers, developers, civic leaders, and public o,►fictols, selected to
represent a cross-section of persons with specific expertise In community
development and persons who are both directly and indirectly concerned with
the future development of the City of Denton.
vl
•
v
•
Two methods for, selecting representatives were used to form the 46 member
committee. Established agencies, organizations, and commissions which were
already involved in p1mmIng or development in the City were invited and asked
to send representatives to participate in the planning workshops.
I
•
•
The remaining representatives included eighteen citizens-at-large; some seven
persons representing development interests--home bull ders, developers,
realtors, bankers, and large landowners, and one person to represent other
~ civic groupe not otherwise specifically designated. These representatives ws ae
self-selected at an open meeting on December 17, 1918.
VU
•
The Planning Workshops
The medium through which the committee worked was the "Planning
Workshop"-educational work sessions-which provided a context in which the
committee designed and evaluated the issues, the available alternatives and
the policies which could encourage the desired developmen! pattern.
The first, second, and third workshops were directed to developing a common
planning language and understanding. Through discussion and workbooks, •
furnished to the committee, the com i.ittee was familiarized with some
planning terms, vocabulary, and theories of City planning as well as some
basic development facts about Denton.
•
u+ m
Ar rr'w~,-1
CJ
l •
In the fourth and fifth workshops, the members of the Planning Committee
identified the major problems and Issues that they judged most important for
Denton. The identified issues served as a basis for work in the adxth workshop,
when the alternative development plans were prepared by workshop
participants.
vita
•
•
• f
I
ti
•
• The Consensus Plan
The consolidation, evaluation and final approval of the consensus plan aid
policies comprised the last steps toward the Denton Development Guide. This
• was accomplished by first bringing tczetl:er all c" the common elements,
presented in the alternative plans prepared by the five planning teams.
A study of the alternative plani showed remarkable similarities of basic city
• planning foundations of density, major transportation and location of major
activity centers. Detailed variations existed, but all p9ons exhibited similar
principles indicating a high degree of consensus among the committees."
•
•
NOTE:'A more detailed comparison of the alternative plans is available in a
separate report "Towards a Consensus Plan for Denton", June, 1980.
r
tx
•
i
•
In addition, the technical staff conducted an independent evaluation of the
alternatives compc,red to the finally adopted consensus plan presented in the
next section. This evaluation was considered both front a technical standpoint
and an evaluation of the committees' identified major issues and goals. A
summa; y of the evaluation is presented in the Volume I Appendix. •
Out of these workshops emerged the Overall Concept Plan which :s presented
in Chapter 11 of this report.
•
The development of a concept plan was the first major step towards a
Development Cuide for Denton, Texas. Chapter III of the Development Guide
is a more detailed expansion of the policies presented by the Concept Plan.
•
The following report then represents the total Development Guide for Denton,
Texas.
•
•
•
•
•
X
•
•
•
•
I. PLAN PURPOSE AND USE
.
•
•
1. PLANT PURPOSE AND USE
L INTRODUCTION
The Denton Development Guide is both a docu ent and a planning process
with an emphasis on the day-to-day use of the process.
This document is divided Into two main sections: The Concept Plan and
Development Policies. The Concept Plan represents the Long Range
Framework for Growth. It could be compared to a constitution that sets the
base for future day-to-day decision.
•
The next section presents a set of development policies that as a group support
the from ework of the Concept Plan. The policies are intended to be used as a
tool to aid in day-to-day development decisions, particularly for government
. officials, but also for all segments of the community. The set of policies Is
also Intended to document and structure public dectston-making in order to
report what is the official policy of the City.
• These policies are not intended to answer all questions, nor should they. This
Guide's major purpose is to organize a decision-making foundation for the
more detailed studies necessary in day-to-day decision making. In other
words, the emphasis is in the use of the Guide and not to the document'Itself.
This use includes daily discussion, debate, refinement, redrafting or
re-commitment to the policies In a consensus planning process. Only through
this continuous use can this gutdi serve Its goals of.
1. Assistance to comprehensive decision-making in a consensus planning
process.
2. Providing a check list of major Issues for the purpose of Insuring that
all Issues are considered in decision-making.
9. Encourage coordination, uniformity, and consistency in our community
development.
PAGE 1
•
•
B. THE USE OF THE GUIDE
The Planning Process utilized in the preparation of this guide and suggested in
its day-to-day use is a citizen based consensus planning process. Me extent A
and need for the citizen based consensus planning process in the day-to-day
use of this guide is intended to be flexible dependent upon:
I. The extent of uncertainty or controversy.
2. The time constraint of a pending decision.
3. The technical nature of the issue as compared to an issue that is
primarilya community value Judgment.
Ii
For example, a question in the use of the guide that is only mildly debated
and/or is of on urgent nature should be decided in a quick manner by the
responsible decision makers. Highly technical questions could be supported by
professional studies with very little, if any, need of consensus planning. •
However, an Issue that is highly debatable and has some time flexibility and/or
is primarily a community value judgment should be studied In the context of
this guide by a cross-sectional, self-selected citizen based consensus ploining
process, whether only for study of a small question from this guide or for the
guide's complete revision.
In response to the spirit of this planning process, a formalized procedure for
the use of the guide was approved by the Planning and Zoning and City Council
prior to the work of the Land Use Committee. This procedure is as follows:
•
i
A
PAGE 2
~ stir
•
UPDATE PROCEDURE
1. UPDATE DAILY ALONG W TH RELATED DECISIONS
(ZONING, C.P. SUBDIVISIONS, ETC.)
•
a. Staff Summary Reports
The staff report on all City Council/Planning and Zoning decision
Items shalt clearly relate alternative decisions with Impact on
• appropriate policies in the plan.
b. If a decision indicates a corresponding policy change Is required in
the plan, then:
1) The staff is required to draft a modified policy change and
present It to the next regWarly scheduled City Council meeting
for action or policy reWston. If in case of zoning action, the
required policy modification shall accompany the zoning
• ordinance final action.
2) The City Council will make final review of potential policy
change and incorporate said change In the Land Use Policy
Guide.
• c. Any Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council Member may
present a proposed policy change whether or not a pen(Ung or
recent Land Use decision has been made. The proposed change is
forwarded to the Planning aryl Zoning Commission for their review
• and recomrr endatfon to the City Council.
d. If a proposed policy change is determined by the City Council to be
a (1) relatively controversial decision, and (2) not an urgent
• decision, then a speo*l mint-neighborhood or Sector consensus
planning cross-section type of Study Committeo, headed by
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council members, may
be commissioned. The Committee study time will be structured to
the time constraints of the decision, The committee will be
* charged with bringing back a recommendation to the full Planning
and Zonfng Commission and City Council.
• PACE 3
8
•
2. YEARLY POLICY GUIDE RE-riDOPTION
a. In April thq complete policy guide is placed on the Planning and •
Zoning Commission Agenda for re-adoption or recommended minor
modification. After such study, the Planning and Zoning
Commission is required to forward a recomendation to the City
Council at their second meeting in May. •
b. The City Council will take the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation and reconfirm or modify the policy guide and
adopt the guide as a policy document for the upcc ming year. •
3. GENERAL POLICY FOR MAJOR UPDATE
•
a. This policy guide i3 to be upc'nted approximately every five years
to ten years.
•
1) Update dependent upon:
a) Population Growth
b) Extent of amendments during preceding years (more
amendments-morn need for general update). •
2) Process for update to be decided at the time of update.
•
0
•
PAGE 4
•
•
C. CONCLUSIONS
The use of this guide in the context of the total community development
• decision making process should therefore take five steps:
Step 1: A quick reference to the Concept Plan to Inspire aver-all P.road
consistency with the pending decision.
Step 2: Reference the functional area of this guide (i.e. lousing,
• thoroughfares, etc.) for any appropriate policy.
Step 3: Reference specialized policy areas of this guide:
*locational
A *special conditions such as current capacity of area public
facilities to support the proposed development.
Step 4: Reference other related detail plans, technical informattal
and/or unique individualised characteristics of tho Wve under
study.
•
Step 5: Assess the public controversy, the technical nature and/a' time
constraint of the Issue under study and then take appropriate
planning/decision making action.
•
•
A
•
• PAGE 5
.r ~I
•
•
•
f. THE CONCEPT PLAN :
LONG RANGE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH
•
•
•
~I. THE CONCEPT PLAN
A. INTRODUCTION
The Concept Plan outlines the boric Long Range Framework. From th!s
framework, the Long Range Coals and Objectives emerged. This foundation
then forms the basis for the day-to-day development policies which follow in
the next section. The intent is to provide a context for decision-making today
• based on a unified tong range context that helps make today's decision solve
todays problem, while at the same time, not compounding problems for the
futt.re.
The following section describes the Concept Plan's Coals and Objectives. The
next section describes the fundamental physical locational policies of the
Concept Plan.
® B. OVERALL GOADS AND OBJEMM
The planning process, including the alternative land use designs and the
written and verbal responses, culminated Into a Concept Plan. This Concept
Plan generates the specific goals and objectives. The following summarizes on
interpretation and documentation of the goals and objectives Indicated by the
Concept Plan.
•
1. LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT GOALS
Denton should become a self-sustaining city with a balanced economic
base, a choice of various housing styles and a variety of retail,
• employment and leisure activities. All of these should be centered arowid
the principle of providing ecoromic opportunities and services of a
j moderate-sized City white maintaining the small town atmosphere. The
goal is to provide our basic needs while minimizing our ecological and
social cost. This can be accomplished by such measures as:
0 PA067
•
•
a. Encouraging a VcHety of Housing from high density to low
density and ranchette, with an emphasis upon moderate to low
density.
•
b. Keeping all Transe7tation Systems in balance with land use.
c. Encouraging Green Belts. Open Space and Agriculture Lands both
within and adjacent to our City. •
d. Developing Such Concepts as the Community Unit Concept
(Communities within a city, described in more detail in Volume 11
Appendix.)
e. Encouraging Economics and Lifestyles that recognize a sense of
productivity and a period of conservation by emphasizing:
•
1) Transportation and Land Use systems that are efficient and
support a life-line to goods, services, jobs, and food supplies
within close proximity to homes.
2) These transportation systems should be energy efficient and •
give equal consideration to such modes as foot, bike-scooter,
f public and individual auto, and provide more housing closer to
employment, retail and leisure activities.
j. Recognizing Individuals And Families of differing life-styles and
needs: "protecting all by providing for all". •
g. Minimize Ecological, public health, crime or fire prevention loses
by thorough, on-going study of these issues by professionals as
well as the community as a whole. 0
rh. Provide For On-Going Citizen Education and participation Into
future decisions.
•
PAOR 8 0
•
•
2 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OBJECTIVES
This study was designed to emphasize the physical development factors
towards the fulfillment of our general long-range community goals.
However, related social and environmental goals and activities were an
integral part of the decision-making process that led toward defining the
Long-Range Growth Concept.
• In this context, this Development Guide outlines detailed policies that will
tend to encourage a steady, moderate growth in a development pattern
characterized by high concentrations along the freeway and at three
• specific major areas. The policies will also support other major special
purpose centers such as the airport industrial park area. Lesser
multi-purpose centers are emphasized in sub-city areas pr(martly Intended
to service these areas.
•
The policies for the overall growth frame-work will center around basic
objectives of.
• a, Protection of Existing Development, particularly residential
developm ent.
b. Encouraging Development where public facilities capacity is already
• available and ecologically sensitiv. areas are not significantly
impacted.
c. Providing and Maintaining an Overall City Balance between:
1) Transportation and Land Use
The transportation land use concept map provides the basic
policy for this balance insofar as regional and local transit
I,• systems and individual automobile traffic is concerned.
(Integrating pedestrian, bike and/or scooter traffic is
intended by policy but details are beyond the scope of this
plan.)
0 PAGE 9
•
2) Population and Utilities
The long-ranee development concept suggests raising overall
city densities only slightly over current levels of 6.2 people
per developed acre to average density of 6.5 people per
acre. Translated to the 55 square mile study area would •
mean a possible physical holding capacity of 175,000 to
225,000 people. This population figure corresponds with
current long range utility planning policies and projects,
Based on current development trends, the current basic ~
utility structure would accommodate growth into the 21st
century and provide basic utility facilities for 100,000
people. Any development beyond this figure would assume
adequate energy resources and acceptable economic and •
ecological costs in order to support life styles realized today.
•
•
•
•
•
PAGE 10 •
•
•
C. CONCEPT PLAN LOCATIONAL POLICIES
1. HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ACTIVITY CENTERS
•
The Concept Plan suggests a balance growth for Denton with three major
center areas as focal paints for a high level of activity. These Intensely
developed centers, in general, include not only commercial and related
activities but also higher density residential development. The dominant
center is the Triangle Mail area with other major centers located at the
Loop 28817-35 area to the north and the Airport area to the west. The plan
also recognizes the unique aspects of the original downtown area as a
• special-purpose, high-intensity emphasis center.
Z HIGHLY CONCENTRATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
•
The plan suggests Industrial activities in large and moderate-s+zed
concentrations, with the majority of the fobs in three industrial areas; the
Airport area, the North 1-35/Hwy 77 area, and the Southeast Denton
Triangle Mail area (generally north to Morse Road, bounded by Woodrow on
the West and Mayhfil/1-35 on the east.)
•
8. MODERATE-SIZE SUB-CENTERS
• in addition to the highly concentrated major activity centers, the plan
suggested a system of medium and small nodes of commercial and related
activity along the freeway and at selected intersections of projected row
major thoroughfares. However, this development would use site planning,
buffer zones of open spates, etc. to avoid creation of unsightly and
inefficient strip-type commercial.
•
PAGE 11
•
•
4. PREDOMINANTLY IOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The plan indicates predominantly low density residential development in
the city as a whole.
•
b. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Higher Intensity residential uses, represented by high and medium density
development, were distributed in a number of locations with a major
emphasis to limit excessive conce►.tration in any one place, except for the
major activity centers.
The plan indicates that concentration of high density housing should be
encouraged in the major activity center areas in order to lessen
transportation congestion, conserve energy and offer diverse life styles for
Denton residents. The plan shows the more limited moderately sized
concentrations of units generally related to the freeways, greenbelts,
major thornughfares, major and moderate activity centers, or as buffers to
higher intensity land use. To avoid creation of add(ttonal "concrete cities",
site planning, limited use of concrete parking areas, provision of open
spaces, small ana moderate parks, and buffering with greenbelts (s •
encouraged with all moderate or high-density housing.
6. TRANSPORTATION •
The plc, Indicates development patterns related to a transportation system
with the automobile a9 a dominate form of movement, generally in relation
to the current freeway and major thoroughfare plan. However, the plan
recognizes an increasing role for moss transit and strongly encourages a
local system as a priority (tem. As the concentrations of development
approach the plan's holding capacity, local and mass transit will be required
to serve the plan's land use pattern.
•
PACE 12
•
• Also, through citizen yueatfons and input, the committee recobmizes the
need for other modes of transportation to be integrated into an over-all
multi-mode transportation plan for the entire city. Ways to provide for
pedestrian, bike and scooter traffic now and in the future must be studied
• and provided for, if the Concept Plan is to realize its goals.
7. DRAINAGE AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
• The plan preserves a majority of the floodplain areas and floodways as open
space, maintaining the natural creek channel for drainage purposes. The
FQan ficrther suggests a general theme to encourage open space as an
element of all urban design decisions.
•
S. AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION
The committee recognized the need to preserve and encourage use of
• agriti4tural lands both within and near to the City of Denton. Further
study of ways these lands may be preserved, incentives for their use to
produce agricultural products essential to feeding and clothing the
residents of Denton and how preservation of such land might alter or
impart upon the f i,ial plan of this committee is needed,
The following Concept Plan map represents a graphic presentation of the
preceding iocational fromework. The next section presents a more detailed
• set of policies designed to help guide community development towards the
goals of this Concept Plan.
•
•
0 PAGE 13
1 I
11 L Limits of major I I \
I I urban development,I
all"
e
1 -
l,: hew ~ i l ~ ~ :..,~.f~ . f,v' ' •t: --:-.Y~-'~.
• c
f ` d
r
r,~ Rectfitt~~~
~ Residential ~
r i A a
1 f ~ f "Y11
i
• / • ~ t. / X14 I • ro~,ra 't
/ V / t ,~+y!I II' III
00
Note 1 OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN
1 High Intensity Area(commertial empho,is Low Intensity Area(aY.rtity encwroped
F
but m•divln ce tarps toncentratione ditcouroped)
U_ but di.,ersity encouroped)
.•rr
_S .'J
High Intensity Area (Empkym.nt .mpiI ~ Flood Plain-Open Spate lumi•.d arbors
but di.ertity encovroped) de.elopmenl, major pedwr an swye ) r
{ ; \ Moderate Intensity Area (I Yet sity Agriculture W Extremely Low
encouroped but limited b ngderate concenlratlom density
1
t
I 1
_
PACE 14
i
•
•
III. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
.
e
.
i
I~+r■~s~A®~~r~vr~a
a
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
A. LAND USE INTENSITY AREAS
•
1. MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
a. The Purpose of Designating Major Activity Areas
Is to provide a policy commitment to a general location in order
to Insure:
t) Adequate public Ire( a-.Aructure of sewer, water, and
• transportation facilities to support these centers. Without
such a plan, public funds can be Ineffectively utilised, for
example, community streets, sewer lines, etc., in areas of
town not supportive of the City's desire for growth. The
Concept Plan suggests balanced growth between all quandrants
of the City and for growth to be in balance with existing
(tetra-structure capacity.
• 2) Make a commitment to the business commwi ty that activities
in these area3 will be supported by City Government while
making n commitment to other residents that their
neighborhoods and local streets and facilities will not be
disrupted by an unplanned major activity center in their
neighborhood.
b. Commercial and Employment Enc (LR
•
The consensus showed by the land Mme alternatives Indicates the
major activity centers to be in the followi.V areas:
s
PAGE 18
•
•
l) 1-35E; liwyy 77; North Loop 288 area.
2) Golden Tri(v;,-Yle Mail area to Mayhiil Road.
3) Airport ano 1.35 area.
4) Original Downtown.
The plan indicates a consensus that the original downtown should be
continued as a moderate-to-major center, but possibly in a different
or unique category with emphasis on governmental, banking, and
specialized retail type urban center. Therefore, it is also given a
major activity center designation in order to establish policy
emphasis f t~r this purpose.
c. Diversity and High Density Residential
It is the policy of this plan that land use diversity, including high
density housing, be encouraged in these areas to not anly be a buffer,
to lower intensity, adjacent areas but also provide transportation
balance and energy conservation by having housing in close
proximity to jobs and services.'
d. Specific Center Characterisics
•
1) Triangle Mall Area. Dominant Commericol Center
It is the intent of this plan that the Triangle Mall area have a
slightly higher commercial emphasis in addition to encouraging a •
substantial employment balance. As a guideline and Indication
of scale, this area is intended to serve at maximum development
800 acres of commercial and industrial uses representing over
I1,000 jobs. •
*NOTE. All policies are contingent on existing available tnfra-structure and specific •
cite design considerations. See Individualized Policies Section.
•
PAGE 17
Ie
•
2) 1-35 and North Loop 288: Balanced Center
This center emphasizes more of a balance between commercial
•
and industrial uses. As a guideline for maximum development,
this area is intended to provide over 300 acres of commercial
and industrial development representing over 5,000 fobs in the
area.
3) Airport Area: Dominant Employment Center
Predominantly industrial land of approximately 1,400 acres will
I•
result in a capacity of over 18,000 fobs in the area.
4) Original Downtown
•
This plan recognizes the unique aspects of the original downtown
area as a special purpose high-intensity center for the City. This
guide supgests a continuing policy for support of the downtown
area. As part of a program Initiated by a Downtown Land
• Owners Association, the City would support moderate, public
action and expenditures In an effort to upgrade and preserve the
m•ea. Incentives and policies for encouraging realization of
. previous plans would be encouraged. Innovative programs should
be explored, such as emp] ils upon pedestrian traffic, use of golf
cart-like "trains" within the downtown area, while developing
perimeter parking and local public transportation collection
• points.
•
0 PAGE 8
•
•
e. Low Density Neighborhood Protection
It is the policy of this plan that development on the fringe of
these high activity centers, adjacent to low density residential
areas, should be protected by such measures as intensity
gradation (buffering), strict site design requirements,
transportation, land use balance, etc. Further, traffic planning
should insure that no local residential streets are utilized for •
general circulation to the centers. Development of the
community unit concept with its neighborhood or village council
will further ensure neighborhood protection.
•
•
•
•
•
O
f
PAGE 19
•
'o
2. MODERATE ACMITY CENTERS
a. Purpose anq Intent
•
The purpose of identifying moderate centers of activity parallels
many of the purposes discussed earlier for large centers, like
balanced city wide growth. However, in considering the criteria for
• oxrrent capacity and future design capacities for transportation and
utilities, the main consideration is not just for adequate capacity to
accommodate existing and future development demands. This policy
for moderate-size centers includes an intent to limit infrastructure
• to the Fanned limited moderate size centers. This policy helps
insure the long-range land use balance indicated by the concept plan.
b. Location
•
The general locations of these centers are shown on the map on page
26.
• c. Size/Intensity
Most of these centers should ser%v four neighborhoods (one potential
community urelt) of from 5,000 to 15,000 people. The size of these
• centers should then be 30 acres to 250 acres. These centers can
take on many mixes of land use. A prototype mix that encourojes
diversity and the community unit wicept would see a center
towards the higher end of the acreage range whereas a specialized
• center, say commercial, would need to be towards the small size.
For a example, very diversified center at full develo;xnent would be:
•
• PAGE 20
•
30 Acres of Service Industry; •
20 Acres of Commercial;
150 Acres of Public Lands (large parks, schools, government
buildings, etc.); •
50 Acres of Higher Density Housing/Apartments.
The above center would then be the focal point of four low density
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods would be made up of single-family, •
patio houses, duplex and limited townhouse/apartment, all interspersed
with open space greenways, pedestrian and bicycle ways. This land use
concept would serve well the physical elements needed to implement
the community unit concept that is discussed in Volume 11 Appendix. •
Most centers, if not as diversified, would be towards the smaller scale
of 30 to 50 acres for primarily commercial center.
•
Key factors for judging a proposed development for this size and
Intensity are:
1) Compare first to existing infra-structure capacity size/intensity •
as the current development is always limited to existing capacity.
2) Compare the development to the ultimate capacity (See Section
on Land Use/Transportation Balance) of the center unit or other •
defined study area. Note, a proposed development should not
utilize the total area intensity capacity unless the total area
capacity policy is increased.
•
•
PAGE 21 •
•
•
3) Give size bonus for diversity, I.e. (housing, commercial, office,
public facilities, open space), and conversely limit size for
specialized development, i.e. all commercial. It is recommended
• by this policy that all such judgments be made on proposed
development that will be realized within five years. If such
development plans are not realized within five years, the area
would then be subject to reconsideration (back-zoning) to a
smaller size (specialized center size.)
d. Diversity
• It is the policy to strongly encourage diversity in the moderate size
cem.er in order to encourage:
Intensity Gradation (buff eying);
• Energy Conservation;
Transportation Balance (Eliminate trips across town for
day-to-day needs);
A sense of "my part of town" (a community that concept);
• Jobs Close to Housing.
The above mentioned policy (C-3) is one incentive to create a more
diverse center. ]'his policy suggests the size of the center can be
• increased if the land uses are diverse. However, It Is the policy to
grant such bonuses to actual developments and not guarantee them
for future contingent phases. (Reference Policy C-3 Preceding.)
• e. High Density Housing
The plan indicates some high density housing in connection with the
major centers under the following lim(tations:
•
'Used for Buffering,
"Used for Diversity {see above);
•
PAGE 2?
•
•
'Access to Major Thoroughfares Required;
*Limit Concentration In One Place (500 to 1,000 units);
*Good site design standards to protect adjccent single-
family areas Barge setbacks, landscaped front yards, screening •
fences, traffic to major streets only, etc.).
f. Low Density Neighborhood Housing Protection
It is the policy of this plan that high Intensity development on the •
fringe and/or adjacent (within one block) of existing low density
residential areas should be protected by such measures as intensity
gradation (buffering), strict site design control, (setbacks, parking,
landscaping, etc,), insure transportation land use balance (see policy •
in transportation section), Further, traffic planning should insure
that no local residential streets are utilized for general circulation to
the high intensity developments.
•
g. Strip Commercial
1) Overall Policy Intent
It is the intent by encouraging centers of activities that the plan
discourage strip commercial. Designated corridors (although a
form of strip commercial) will be encouraged to create grouping
of activity centers down the corridor (nodes). This wilt be done by
such means as.
•
*Limited Curb Cuts;
*Requiring Planned Development Zoning of Multi-Ownership
to Provide Joint Site Designs (i.e, parking set-backs, etc.h •
*Encouraging Dtversity Down the Corridor (commercial
nodes broken up by high density housing, offices, etc.}
*discourage unsightly and hazardous strip commercial by
requiring sign restrictions, buffeting by greenbelts and/or •
landscaping in site designs.
•
PAGE 23
•
• 3. LOW UrMSITY AREAS
a. Purpose and Intent
• All areas not designated high or moderate Intensity areas are
considered luw intensity areas. The primary purpose of these areas
is to insure the overall area land use transportation balance by
controlling the overall density and intensity (75 trips/day/gross
• acre). Further, these areas represent our primary housing areas.
Thus, these areas should emphasize residential use whereas the
other intensity areas might emphasize commercial or employment
areas.
•
b. Location
The general location of these areas is shown on the map on page 26.
•
c. Size/Intensity
These areas are planned to correspond to an overall gross density
• policy of 4.7 umits,racre and overall intensity policy measured at 75
trips per day per gross acre. (See Appendix Volume 11 for
application of these policies.)
d. D(versity/Neighborhood Protection
Diveesifted land use encouraged, but concentration discouraged,
except for low density residential, small scattered sites of
• apartments (Usually less than 200 units, but no more than 500
units-see Housing Section), neighborhood commercial, office, etc.,
permitted as long as:
•
• PACE 24
0
1) Strict site plan control within one block of existing low density •
residential areas (development should maintain character of area,
architectural, landscaping, etc.).
2? Traffic planning insures access by collector street or larger and •
not through local low density streets.
3) The overall density/intensity standard not violated. (See Appendix
Volume II). •
4) Sufficient green space, recreational facilities and diversity of
parks are provided.
5) Input into planning by neighborhood or village councils is provided.
e. Strip Comm erclat
•
Any form of continous strip commercial is strongly discouraged In/or
backing up to low intensity areas.
•
•
•
•
PAGE 25 •
I ~
.wM
1
00
dtf 4
• ~ 'r'7 +iF" ~ a } I t L.S. 'P r^ c..
,!'tea' f
f
LIM 00
84
/ i i %
Alp
• J Plate 2
High Intensity Areas -
LAND USE INTENSIT,
r r ADOA`7 Modern}e Intensify Areas
l ?,L:ll
• low Intensity Areas
•
• B. HOUSING
The purpose of the following housing policies is to encourage housing types
that respond to the differing economic and individual lifestyles of Dentorls
citizens, protect existing and future neighborhood integrity and insure that our
•
over-all city-wide density policy is preserved.
• 1. HOUSING DIVERSITY
It is the policy of this plan that housing diversity be strongly encouraged in
Denton as a whole. The policy of housing diversity is closely related to
housing size and housing density; therefore, the following specific policies
• in those areas should also be ref erenced. In striving for the goal of housing
diversity, the plan recommends that in judging development decisions, we:
a. Work towards differing housing types in such quantities city-wide
• and sector-w(de that correspond to Denton citizens' financial
constraints and desires for differing Lifestyles.
b. Diversified housing should be available in all sectors of the city,
• which also suggests that one housing type should not be
concentrated in only one sector of the city. This policy will tend
to promote balanced diversity growth which provides benefits of
balanced land values, better utilization of infra-structure, more
• e~ awgi efficiency, reduces traffic congestion and provides more
of a senst~ of com munity in dif f ertng areas of the town.
c. Diversified housing patterns should be well planned to insure that
• all neighborhood integrity is maintained. Examples of a few such
planning policies are:
•
PACE 27
•
*No one type of housing overly corcentrated in one area;
*Good site design transition between housing types and density;
buffers (greenbelts, housing intensity Tadatlon, etc.);
*Transportation design where higher density can be served •
without flowing through tower density transportation facilities.
Provisions f or:
*Multt-modes of transportation integrated within and between
ne!ghborhoods and activity centers. •
*Codes should be expanded where necessary and strongly
enforced if already on the books to insure quality of smaller size
houYng.
•
Z HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING
a. Apartments. Geographic Distribution
It is the overall policy of this plan that apartments be dispersed
throughout the City with limited areas of high concentration in any
one area (See the map on page 33 map.).
b. Moderate Intensity Centers (See Policies on Page 22.) •
c. Low Intensity Areas
Individualized sites or smcil areas throughout the City would be
permitted only if It meets certain, limited conditions. Typical
limitations would be:
•
PACE 28 •
•
•
I) To have major street access (the intent is to limit access through
low density housing creas).
• 2) Desirable to have access to pedestrian, bike-scooter and public
transportation.
3) To have strict site design review for all projects within one block
• of existing single family dwellings. (The intent is to protect
existing housing as a priority policy by good transition,
screening, open space, landscaped front yards in character with
neighborhood, etc.).
•
4) To have access or be located adjacent to floodplains and/or
greenbelts or large open space is desirable. (The intent is for
higher density to provide more of their recreation demand and
also this will help keep the density low for the overall area.).
5) Not to exceed overall neighborhood density and intensity
standard (4.7 gross units per acre on average density and 75
4 trips/ day/acre on average intensity).
8) To be sure that existing street and other public facilities have
adequate, safe capacity for all modes of transportation.
7) Apartment locations that buffer other higher intensity uses are
desirable.
8) Apartment units care not to be concentrated in one area. A
guideline for this policy is under 500 units with most under 200
units in any one continuous ciuster of apartments.
PACE 29
•
~r
& APARTMENT:, RECREATION FACILITIES AND SITE PLANNING
Since multi-family densities put a greater strain on community recreation
areas than do single family areas, and in many cases, create some •
recreation and open space needs not typical of single family, the intent of
this policy is to encourage apartment complexes to provide a defined
amount of usable open and community garden as well as recreation
equipment and other space such as swimming pools, playgrounds, parks, •
etc. In addition, site plan review tends to insure neighborhood protection.
Therefore, it is the policy of this guide to require Planned Development
Ordinance control for larger complexes. Since the policy could be •
prohibitive to small apartment complexes, it is not suggested that it be
applied in such cases.
4. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION
The intent of these policies as well as numerous other policies throughout
this guide are intended to preserve our neighborhoods, the backbone of our
community. This goal is reinforced by the current unstable economic .
conditions and dwindling resources which make such things as rising housing
and energy costs a paramount federal, state, and local issue. Therefore,
the preservation of cur existing housing stock becomes a priority and a
major intent of these policies. The specific policies in support of these
issues are:
o. Modify -.odes to encourage remodeling of housing and
re-development of neighborhoods by providing bonus in regulation,
taxes, and codes (See more related policies in General Land Use
Management Policies Section.).
t•. The following general policies are suggested for all current •
neighborhoods, but particularly older neighborhoods:
PACE 30
•
e
1) Code enforcement will have a priority for older
neighborhoods.
e 2) Neighborhood committees, especially multi-neighborhood
councils (community unit) will be encouraged to interface
with planning and zoning, parks and recreation or other
pertinent boards as well as city departments and the City
• Council.
c. In review of zoning, subdivision, city budget Capital Improvement
Program Planning and other similar decision points priority will be
given to older existing neighborhoods to insure and put the
neighborhood and iubiic on notice that zoning stability will be
maintained, subdivisions and housing redevelopment will be
encoccragd and public funds will have a priority to these areas over
newly expanding areas.
b. SPOT APARTMENTS IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS
e Some older neighborhoods have been opened up to apartment develop-
ment and there are some unique parcels that are unrealistic for further
single family development. If it is determined that single family
preservation Is not totally preferable for the neighborhood (see above
policy) and higher density housing is to be allowed, then, it is the policy of
this guide that existing single family still will have a priority for
preservation. Therefore, the intent of the following policies are for that
goal.
a. Neighborhoods that already have a moderate amount (usually more
than 2 complexeVNock) of the current type of apartments would be
allowed to continue without any new major restrictions. However,
• neighborhoods should provide input prior to decision on this point.
i
PACE 31
•
b. Neighborhoods that have only a very limited amotnt of spot •
apartment development (usually two or less complexes per block)
should have strict site design standards such as:
1) Landscaped front yard, setback equivalent in site and •
character to the adjacent single family.
2) No parking in front of the complex.
•
3) Limited concentration on any one block (two per block as
maximum guideline).
4) Side and rear yard solid screening f ences. •
c. Neighborhoods should be encouraged to develop plans for their
sectors which take into account the needs of the entire city. This
can best be done by forming multi-neighborhood associations. (i.e. •
Community Unit Volume H Appendix) and (See Citizen Input
Section).
•
•
•
•
PACE 32 0
i
00 04
s ~ I ~ i Ali!' ~ ~ r
, r!ka 1 L s
i
.
r I ~
f; ~ I tom-
J
%
•c Ali rf
07-
4
t _f
/ _ f Iri Iry j aaNrnr
54
/
iI
• i Plate 3 ® High Concentrotion- w.r x=uni4 _
y MULTIFAMILY HOUSING Moderate Concentration-
LOCATIONS ® ® 500
Small IndNiduolized Sites !
F1-''- . under 500 wiN
•
• C. PARKS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of this section is to outline basic city-wide policies. Like all
• other areas of this guide, these park policies are intended to present only the
basic policies which can be used to guide the more detailed master park
planning by the Park Board of the City.
1. PARKS AND RECREATION
a. Park Master Plan
• 1) Purf7ose and Intent
It fQ the policy of this guide that parks and re reation facilities
be provided in accordance with the currently adopted Master
• Park Plan (1974 Plan Reference Map on page b d as modified
for conformance to the development guide.
2) Park Planning Policy
•
Make ample use of the Niakory Creek Floodplain
*Use as Natural Areas;
*Use for Community Park Location;
"Provide Public Golf Course.
In considering park planning priorities, the Land Use Planning
• Committee recommends the following areas of emphasis in types
of parks and open space:
• PACE 34
•i
i
•
TYPES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Percent o Emphasis Category
11% District Parks (up to 100 acres) golf course, camping
areas, large picnic areas, etc. •
38% Community Parks (up to 40 acres), ball fields, tennis
courts, picnic areas, community centers, etc.
30% Neighborhood Parks (5 to 10 acres)
•
15% Public natural open space (varying sizes)
06% Private natural open space (public acquisition of scenic
easements, agricultural zoning, etc.)
100% Total amount of resource effort •
TYPES OF PARK FACILITIES
Percent of Emphasis
•
11% Community Center
11% Ball Fields
03% Racketball/Exercise Facilities
•
08% Tennis Courts
11% Picnic Areas
16% Playgrounds for children
•
11% Bikeways/Pedestrtan Trails
07% Environmental Corridors
03% Equestrtan/Niking Trails
•
3.5% Golf Course
.5% Acquisition of Scenic Easements
03% Boulevard and Special Flower-Ptanntng Areas
•
10% Natural Open Space Areas
03% Improved Matntenace of Our Existing Facilities
100% Total Ar :,wnt of Resource Effort
PALL 36
•
•
•
2. NATURAL REVI)RCES
a. Major Floodpiains/Open Space Corridors
• Major floodplatns are part of a natural drainage system. It is the
intent of this policy guide that only limited portions of the floodplan
be utilized for urban development, and the floodplatns should
be caily he maintained as natural &ainage ways and open space
• corridors. Such drainage techniques as levees, cutoff channels and
detention ponds should iwe encouraged over extensive fill and major
channelization.
• b. Agricultural Lands
Primt agricultural lands close by the urban centers may be an
increasing necessity in the face of the currently worsening energy
• shortagE. In addition, agricultural lands in close prox(^nity and as
part of our urban setting are needed to maintain our small-town
western heritage. Therefore, the following policies are
recomm en fed:
•
I) Mafa• prime agricultural lands in our study area should
be encouraged to remain in such use. Some ways to
accompi+sh this are.
•
a, Encourage our legislators to change the tar laws
such that strong economic gain can be realized by
matntatntrk7 one's land to agricultural use.
•
b. Consider the location of such lwtd in infra-
structure and community facility llannir,,7.
2) Vest Focket Farms
Encourage private and public small, one lot or, bigger,
garden/farming throughoLt the City,
• PAGE 3B
r
-1- r /
G S I' " j
a 10
lose 1 1~ r
- t _
. - ~ I oil , - •
~f1 ~ ,i _ ~ i - ~ ~ yid -~.~a>
J 1 ( '
1 ~,l J
4 f
'17 N
1 . r.
TI,
r 99
1.6 Do
Plate 4 PARKS, RECREATION, & NATURAL RESOURCES
• Existing Parks Proposed Parks
LLW Flood Plain/Open Space
/L-
' - SCphbor}I•od Communlyood
❑ Prime Agricultural Land
•
•
D. UTILITIES OFl)vER ,WATER,ELECTRICITY,AND SOLID WASTE)
The purpose of this section is to outline development policies that can be used
as a guide for the more deto"Pd master utility planning (which is beyond the
scope of this report).
• 1. CURRENT PLANNING
0-10 Year Planning - In review of current development proposals, capacity
should be available to accommodate the current proposed development and
also provide enough reserve for additional development on the vacant :+md
• in the immediate study area. Such mintinum reserve allocation density is
three units per acre and/or area zoning density.
• 2 MID RANGE PLANNING
10-20 Year Planning - Planning for our twenty year plarvning should
accommodate growth of 100,000 people and provide a balanced
Infra-structure sytem to serve the density locations as presented in this
• development vdde.
8. TANG RANGE PLANNING
•
Long Range Utility Planning should recog.itze the Concept Plan's density
Policy in order that the next generation does not have to bear the cost of
correcting under-,Manned facilities. In addition, long range utility planning
• should also be based upon a thorough study of both economic needs for
continued growth and the ecological impact of expanding current basic
utilities .rapocity. The citizenry should be educated concerning the results
of such studies prior to a decision to increase capacity of basic utility
• f acilities.
•
PACE 33
•
E. TRANSPORTATION
1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The transportation system is the bfnding force that ties the land use
pattern together. Conflicts arise when the land use intensity and
distribution does not match the transportation system. The major purpose
of n long range land use transportation plan Is to Insure that today's
incremental decisions not only respond to today's needs but also contribute
towards the tong range Land Use/Transportation plan for the city. For
example, if we feel high intensity development is desirable at a particular
location in the distant future, we would not want to cut off a major
transportatfon route today that will be needed in the future for that area.
It Is the intent of this guide that Denton's transportation system should
• react to the community's plan and not have transportation be reactive to
un;4anned growth. Therefore, the following transportation policies are
structured in a two-tiered policy to accomplish this goal.
a. Tomorrow's Need: The Plan
'Long Range high intensity areas provided with transportation
lifelines.
b. Todays Needs:
•
"Capacity Today;
•Indlvidualited site design (md transportation needs;
"Todays decisions supportive of Long Range Plan.
•
•
40 PACE 99
•
•
2 TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONCEPT
This plan suggests a land use policy that is a modified corridor concept.
•
That is, major intensity land use in three major nodes generally
following the Interstate 35 corridor. The overall basic transportation
policy is to continue the emphasis of improidng transportation capacity
in this corridor as a continuing priority for the city. This includes auto, •
bike, scooter, pedestrian, and local and regional mass transit.
& MAJOR THOROUGHFARE LONG RANGE PLAN
The thoroughfare long-range plan is shown on the map on page 48. This •
plan represents the long-range framework for today's incremental
decisions that ere discussed in the next section.
•
The major street plan shows a road network for:
a. Majoh Arterial (Primary)
•
These steets transverse the city usually are streets with 80 to
120 feet right-of-ways and a landscaped boulevard and parkway
are desirble, if economically feasible, including maintenance
cost.
•
b. Major Arterial (Secondary)
These streets connect major sections of town and usually have a •
right-of-way of 60 to 80 feet.
•
PAGE 40
•
• c. Collector Streets
These are not shown on the following major steet map but are
specified in a separate map that is updated yearly by the
• Planning and Zoning and modified as needed by subdivision
review of detailed site design. Collector street design should
include consideration for oil modes of individual transportation.
These detailed collector street planning are subject to the
• following policy criteria:
I
1) At least one collector street per area between arterials to
collect neighborhood traffic to the major arter(als.
•
2) Collector street (or larger) required for higher intensity
land uses such as apartments, industrial areas, and
commercial areas.
•
3) As intensity increases, the iuimber of collectors required
is creases.
• Collector streets should not be allowed to be incrementally
linked-up until a major arterial is created. This procedure is the
same as setting policy to change land use intensity. tf such a
land use intensity change is desirable, this plan should first be
• changed to so indicate the activity center prior to designating a
new arterial on the thoroughfare plan.
•
•
0 PAGE 41
•
fl
4. CURRENT THOROUGHFARE PLANNING POLICIES
a. Street Capacity
It is the policy of this guide that all new developments be required
to provide adequate current street capacity serving their
development's immediate area and adequate current capacity of the
nearest ma)7 artery serving the development. Capacity criteria for •
this policy is defined as follows.
Full strr;et capacity is engineeringly defined as the level of
service at the current traffic volume at the intersection of
University Drive and Carroll Boulevard. The Carroll/ •
University capacity is to be portionally adjusted to lesser
street standards.
Exceptions to this policy would be if the City has the opportunity to
get a major industry in an area of town where the streets are
reaching capacity. In this case, the City will consider mitigation •
measures such as public expenditures for additional streets or mass
transit or a determination to allow the increased traffic congestions.
b. Land Use Intenatty/Transportation Balance •
1) Purpose and Intent
The second determinate of Land Use/Transportation capacity Is
the overall area intensity balance. The Long Range Concept
Plan is based on a transportation land use intensity balance bussed
on the fa".'-,wing criteria as shown on the accompanying mop on
page 45 entitled "Transportation Land Use Balance". This •
balance is based on a trip generation factor allocated to all
•
•
PAGE 42
•
• acreage within the City, divided between high, medium and low
intensity areas. Nigh intensity areas have no maximum limits.
Guidelines for medium intensity areas are 2S0 trips per day, per
gross acre. Low intensity area guidelines are 75 trips per day
• per acre.
2) Application of the Policy"
• The policy is applied as follows:
a. Deter ntng!ntensity:
• t. In a major center area, no long range calculations are
applied; however, short term capacity calculation as
defined in the preceding policy would be required.
it. In a moderate center area, the following procedure
would be followed:
-I- Calculate the aproxtmate area in acreage from
the concept plan map and adjust for extent of
diversity.
-2- Calculate the total area trips per day standard
• (total acreage X 250 tripVday=total area
standard).
-3- Estimate existing land use in acreage and
calculate trips generated.
•
t~
"Volume iI Appendix provides a more detail of the methodology.
0 PAGE 43
•
•
-4- Estimate vacant land in area and calculate
minimum reserve allocated (minimum developent
right). The Reserve allocation is 40% of standard
or 100 trip4/day X vacant land zoned for higher use
than MF-l. (And 30 trips per day for lesser zoning.)
-5- Estimate unallocated transportation capacity of 0
area by:
Total trips per day capacity (Step 2).
Minus - Total trips per day used (Step 3) 0
Minus - Total trips per day reserve (Step 4)
Equal - Unallocated trips capacity.
-6- Calculate trip generation of proposed devzlopment 0I
and compare results with Step 5. If le?s than the
balance (Step 5), then proposed development is
within Long Range transportation policy guideline.
If more than the balance, the next levels of policy
options are: Q) to reduce development scale; (2)
increase the center activity rating to a major
center area: (3) back zone vacant higher use land;
(4) differ consideration of back zoning until actual
development exceeds 250 trips/day standard; (5)
reduce minimum development right standard; (6)
raise moderate center standard.
Iii. If a major development is proposed in a low intensity
area, the same procedure, would be followed except
intensity standards would be:
" Total area standard Is 75 trips per day per gross •
acres. (Step 2)
* Minimum reserved allocated for all lands is 30 trips
per day per gross acres. (Corresponds to minimum
development right of 3.0 units per acre.)
(Aiso reference housing section; for related overall 0
neighborhood density policy (See that section for
example calculation.)
h
PACE 44 A
t 1 ! i ~ 1 1
•
.
5__j
s
41
op"
• l ti
.fi'n'
floodplain ! l .
~LIly(~` I
00
77%
err. I
eir III I\ ~ • _
It L
1 t
Hly
of ~ijlli
~i `y Ali„~
0 is"
• r Plate 5 TRANSPORTATION/ ® Very Little Control of Intensity -
LAND USE INTENSITY BALANCE Moderate
' t 75Yoh/1 250 Yro ~0®ro Significant
I r- !
1 1.
s 0
i I I 1 ~
r
i
'CAE f + '1 ~ ~ ~ti i a ~ - / •
viV~ r r
,rte T~
0 60
%
• ~i ~ rat ~ -
41
7 f ~ •
van
. 49 / fe~ee:~.• / - - ---t-- ate.,,
T Plate b MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN _
Major Arterial (PRIMARY) Transverses City, I to6 lane., 80c, 170'right ch vwy
j ~;~L Major Arterial (SECONDARY) C*nnects major sections of the City, 3 to 4 lanes, 60'b 60'row
r / COIIeCtOf (NOT SHOWN)Collech mlAAhborl, o traffic so 006fials, SO to 60'row
5 LO Existing Grade reparation V Proposed (NEW OR REBULT)Grade Separation F+~„~f
NOTE: for Ol 6 (2 see PN* sl 5,}
I it
r-- - PAGE 46
i
•
•
b. MASS TRANSIT
This plan by policy recognizes an increasingly important need for mass
transit. Any large concentrations of development will, at some time,
• require mass transit if the land use transportation balance is to be
maintained. However, our problem is not totally long range. Today our
energy problems become more critical by the day. Therefore, the overall
policy of this guide is to start today on localized mass transit and to lay a
• long range plan for inter-regional mass transit networks for the future.
The graphic concept pirn for this is presented in the map on the following
page.
•
•
•
•
•
• PAGE 41
. -r \
_.1-1`a 1111111111 1 111111!'
r 111 {111nn11 •
11 ~ 11111 1l I - r' ~
l 1
- 1 11111111 ~ ~ -
1 ;
y yy 77Ya Il ~ ~ ~S-"~
, 1 1 11 !!I
f ~J 1, :
11 _ ry d/ 4
I J r
L -J
tir
i,s
/ Plate 7 MASS TRANSIT CONCEPT PLAN
TRANSIT LINE
0 Major Local Stops Fbgbial Bass Transit Line
Regional Transit Stops Wor park and ride 1,!1111111 Local Mass Trr - +sit Line ,
1-- - - PACE 48
•
•
6. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
Since we spend more time in the walking transportation mode than any
• other, it is the intent of this policy that planning for this need be an
increasing priority in our transportation planning. Specifically, the
following is recommended
• a. Long Range Plan
There should be a city-wide or at least sect(>r-wide pedestrian and
bicycle-scooter transportation plan developed.
•
b. Today's Need
Regardless of the above general plan, we should coitcentrate on the
• following in our current planning:
1) Require sidewalks and bike-scooter paths on collector streets
in all new subdivisions and starting a city program for all
• older subdivisions.
2) Consider changing development ordinances to require
pedestrian and bike-scooter ways in all large commercial
• par?dng lots.
3) Encourage all commercial centers to have at least one safe
access that is totally pedestrian.
•
4) As part of the implementation of the above Long Range Plan,
consider limiting parking on one side of designated streets for
bicycle/soooter ways. For equity, this land would be rotated
• to the other side every few years.
•
PAGE 49
•
• F. INDIVIDUALIZED POLICIES
1. BY DEVELOPMENT AREA CHARACTERISTIC
• a. Older neighborhoods
An underlying policy of this guide 13 the increased protection of older
neighborhoods. Many interrelated policiez speak to this objective,
• particularly a specific section on housing, should be referenced. Also,
the Community Unit Concept in Volume 11 Appendix with the
development of neighborhood and %filage counctls should be noted.
b. Existing Neighborhoods and Developed Areas
As n Policy of this guide, areas already developed have priority to
terms of.
" zoning and sub-divtston protection
' C1P, C.D.B.G. and other infra-structured and community
facilities project planning.
Specific policy in terms of protection of existing single family
housing is found on numerous pages throughout this guide.
• c. Let out Lots or Hard to Develop Lots
It is the intent of this guide to be flexible to unique situations such
as left out lots. However, neither This gutdF, nor the City,
f guarantees development of all lands in the City 0 the highest use
desired by the owner, but it does pledge to work with individualized
situations keeping in mind basic guide constraints of.
•
• PAGE Sil
•
I) Protecting existing adjacent housing areas, particularly older •
housing.
2) Maintaining the overall neighborhood density/intensity
standards. •
One solution to such lots is for neighborhood associations to
explore apparent ways to secure temporarily and/or acquire use
of these lots for meeting neighborhood and valage recreational, •
park, green/open space am, agricul tural needs.
2. SPECIFIC AREA POLICIES
a. Future Apartment Zoning North of Oak Street
Limited conditions allow new zoning in neighborhoods for medium
density housing only and in all cases require strict site design •
requirements. (Also see related policies in housing section under
spot apartment zoning and overall neighborhood density/intensity.)
Protection of existing adjacent housing and overall area
density/intensity should be carefuly considered before permitting •
additional medium density housing.
b. Land Use Bordering the N.T.S.U. Campus
•
The N.T.S.U. master ~dan indicates Its north boundary to be on West
Hickory and its east boundary on Bernard. On the perimeter of
these boundaries, there is great pressure for some university related
commercial and apartment uses. These land use pressures have been •
allowed to develop in areas that were previously developed for
single family use. It is the policy of this guide to allow continuation
of this type of development but only under detail site plan review
requirements which should include neighborhood input. •
PACE 51
•
•
•
c. N.T.W. and T.W.U. Transportation Planning
The L.U.P.C. wants to point out that N.T.S.U. and T.W.U. each have
• campus master plans involving among other things, detailed traffic
planning in and around their respective campuses. These detailed
plans are beyond the scope of this guide, except in regard to the
total campus master plans as they may impact on city-wide
• development concepts of this guide. These aspects were considered
by the L.U.P.C. as a whole, and the university representatives
specifically, who insured they were in accord.
It is specifically noted that the Long Range Major Thoroughfare
Plan does not show an arterial thoroughfare through either campus,
but indicates major arterials on the perimeter of the main campus
axes.
•
Traffic to the N.T.S.U. campus between nrEas north cnd south of the
campus will primarily be carried via Bonnie Brae and Carroll, but it
is recognized another Intermediate r*rth/south connection, probably
• In the Avenue E corridor, needs to be considered in the future, as
the N.T.S.U. campus plan is completed.
d. Hobson Lane, Teasley and West of 1-35E Area
•
It Is the policy of this guide that the neighborhood density/intensity
stcndard be closely monitored especially in conjunction with
cor.omerical and concentrated high density pre,mures coming from
• the 1-35E corridor. This plan does recognize limited commercial
type developments adjacent to 1-35E, but specifte3 commercial use
circulation be self-contained and not routed through the interior
neighborhoods as this is a potential problem due to the one
•
•
PAGE 52
•
way service rcads. Also, the Teasley and Hobson Lane area is not to •
have either a major or moderate activity center; but only low
intensity (predominately single family, very limited neighborhood
services, small isolated apartments/ townhouses, etc.)
•
e. Carroll Boulevard
1) Strip Commercial Policy •
Carroll Boulevard is intended to be a major north/south
thoroughway and maintaining thoroughway traffic flow is of high
priority; therefore, strip commercial of Carroll is strongly
discouraged. However, selected nodes such as the immediate •
downtown area would be permitted. Other sections of Carroll
could support duplexes and small scale multi-fmntly and office
under very limited conditions:
•
"site design to protect adjacent single family requiring such
things as screening fences, large setbacks, landscaped front
yards, sign control, etc.
'site design to insure good off-street circulation and parking and •
very limited curb cuts in order to minimize traffic disruption on
Carroll.
'input from adjacent neighborhoods prior to a decision.
2} North Carroll Boulevard Extension •
It is the policy recommendatiol of this plan that Carroll Avenue
be maintained and improvea av one of the major north/south
thoroughfares across the City. *-rtrt of this policy is to continue •
the 1814 thoroughfare plan polio;, that North Carroll should
eventually tie into Highway 71 in the most traffic efficient route
that is economically and environmentally feasible. It is
•
•
PAGED
•
• recognized that deternanfng the final detail alignment of this
connection Involves many complicated factors of traffic
engineering, economic cost, and neighborhood-environmental
protection. Therefore, it is further recommended that prior to such
• connection, a more detailed 1rofessional Impact study be conducted
to analyze the alternative means and impacts of connection to
Highway 77.
• f. Fort Worth Drive and Dallas Drive-Heavy Commercial Strips
It Is a policy recommendation that increased public activity is
needed to promote the Improving of traffic flow and upgrading of
• the appearances of business along these heavy commercial strips.
Examples of some actions:
I) Encourage a Fort Worth Drive and a Dallas Drive Business
• Association to develop overall plan for:
'signs,
'outside storage;
• *building f p .
*off-street parking.
2) Based on such mutually developed plans, public action stich a&-
*modify codes to accommodate unique, individualized
• or group proposals;
*utilize public funds to upgrade and beautify infra-
structure;
*Increase code enforcement In order to protect invest-
ment o, public and private owners in upgrading effort.
•
• PAGE 54
•
g. East Denton •
This close-in older neighborhood offers many advantages for
residential developmenmt. This fact is recognized by the recent
past and continuing concentrated public expenditures in U:e area •
from C.I.P. and C.D.B.G. funds. In light of this commitment,
specific policies are emphasized for the area:
l) The policy to protect older neighborhoods is given special •
emphasis in this area.
2) Industrial development adjacent to this neighborhood to the
south a,id east is to be monitored closely. Among other
things, industrial development will be limited to the area east
of Woodrow Lane.
h. Bell Avenue; University to Sherman •
It is the policy recommendation of this plan that Bell Avenue be
maintained and improved as one of the major north/south
thoroughfares across the City. Part of this policy includes the •
eventual need to improve Bell Avenue between University Drive and
Sherman Drive in the most traffic-efficient route that is
economically and environmentally feasible. It is recognized that
determining the final detail alignment and width of this connection •
involves many complicated factors of traffic engineering, economic
cost, and neighborhood-environmental protection. Therefore, it is
further recommended that prior to such connection, a more detailed
professional impact study be conducted to analyze the alternative •
means and impacts of such improvements.
•
PAGE SS •
•
•
G. LAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
A 1. DEVELOPMENT OPPOR'T'UNITY AREAS
a. Purpose and Intent
• It is the purpose of these policies to encourage development in w,eas of
favorable natural features and where existing streets, utilities, sciools,
etc,, have existing unused capacity. Conversely, in v; eas where there
are intrusions of ecologically sensitive areas or where major
infra•s!ructure expenditures are required, it is the intent of this policy
to encourage development in these areas only when deficiencies are
corrected and to limit public funds to these corective measures. By this
• policy, it is the goal that public funding of infra-structure be more
efficiently used by the utilization of existing facilities first before
extensive funding on new facilities. In addition, it is intended to
strongly consider mitigation measures before development in
ecologically sensitive areas. Since this concept is somewhat new and
• since implementotton may require extensive detail ordinance review,
this guide does not suggest a specific implementation policy but does
recommend its consideration in continuing studies and works of the
Planning and ZoniNq, City Council ar i other future study committees.
•
Some discussion guidelines for this concept are presented in Volume 11
Appendix.
PAGE S6
OMM=d
•
2 HOUSING COST AND CITY P.EQULATiONS
Current trends in development standards have increasingly added
requirements to encourage higher quality housing but in so doing have •
raised the cost of housing by distributing these costs to the developer
and in turn new homeowners.
The conclusion of this guide suggests Denton's current quality and cost •
distribution is just about right, but could possibly be loosened a little
so long as it does not get to extensive. The major objective Is for
moderate housing growth.
~J
Selective assistance should be provided in certain areas to encourage a
limited amount of additional moderate income housing.
Some examples are:
1) Reduce standards that are purely for aesthetiw, etc., but not
any that will cause future Increases in maintenance cost. One
example is to allow, in limited areas, streets without curb and •
gutter, where drainage Is no problem.
2) Allowing more flexibility in house sitting on lot, by requiring
only a maximum percent converage and front yard requirement •
and fire separation.
3) Provide more flexible lot width and depth requirements as tong
as the minimum lot area Is maintained.
•
PAGE 51
•
•
I
i
4) Explore housiry development concepts used in other
counties or in other parts of our country such as row or
semi-detached houses sharing a large recreational and green
space.
•
& OONMVA71ON
a. Energy
Energy conservation in land use plasvzing is a basic policy of this
guide. Many policies such as balanced growth of activity centers,
housing diversity, housing close to employment and retail services,
multi-modal transportation, etc., all in part were recommended
because of energy coo,sideration. In addition, other specific detail
Implementation methods should be developed. The following are
two examples:
•
1) All housing, building, zoning codes, and other pertinent
ordinances should be reviewed and revised to be more
congruent with energy conservation and efficiency.
•
2) Masses of cot srote in parking lots, etc., cause energy
safety, and aesthetic problems. OrOwices should be
developed which will reduce these problems In all future
• developments.
b. Natural Resources
• Promoting conservation of all our natural resources should also be
a part of pianning for the future of Denton. Policies should be
develop«r which will encourage such conservation, especially of
water, eIPCtrtdty, and natural gas.
•
I• PAGE 68
•
c. Agricultural Lands, Open Spaces, and Greenbelts
To maintain a balanced, healthy community that is self-sustaining,
the conservation of our agricultueal land, open spaces, and
greenbelts is important. Tax incentive, coordination and •
cooperation with other governmental units, and involvement of the
private sector are all essential to accomplish this goal. Studies to
better understand the needs of a city in each of these areas and the
•
cost-benefit ratios are needed,
Also, establishment of cooperative relationships in the governing
booties of the county, state, and nearby communities should begin
as soon as possible so that future growth avoids ma/or conflicts and
provides for balance between economic, public, health, basic lifo
si.pport, and eco-system needs of the entire area. Specifically,
joint policies are needed to provide agricultural land, greenbelts,
etc., all around Denton and neighboring towns in order to preclude
a solid urban strip from Waco on the South, to Oklahoma City on
tho North.
4. URBAN DESIGN
Many policies of this gaide promote an Increase of and awareness of
better urban design as a policy for Denton. The inclusion of this policy
section is intended to speci,'icalIy emphasize and consolidate this
concept as a policy and also specificckiy recommend toning,
subdivision and other ctt% ordiances be changed towards a unified
urban, design for the City. Particular concerns are -Ignagap screening
outside stora9ar architectural, landscaping, scenic Views, green spaces,
historical preservation, and other similar urban design concepts.
•
i
I
I
•i
PAGE 59
•
R
b. CITIZEN INPUT INTO LAND USE DECISIONS
The Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, Land Use Planning
• Committee, and citizens who responded to the Concept Plan
emphasized the need for a means of providing ongoing neighborhood
Improvement as well as input of all citizens into decisions made by the
vorious city departments, boards, or the City Council as a whole,
• especially as regards land use issues. Also, the update procedure of
this putde recognizes there are future questions which remain
unanswered or issues which need additional study to provide a
framework for responsible land use decisions (for example, a more
O detailed multi-mode integrated transportation plan.) Those procedures
emphasize citizen input by self-selected cross-sectional type
committees. One intent of this type of committee is to rtrongly
encourage such committee representatives to be not only
• representative of their part of the City but also work on prnbleris of
all parts of the City and not just on one specialized interest.
In addition to such future formal city-wide study committees, it is also
• recognized that continuing local neighborhood self-help associations
are important for the continued maintenance of %rfable neighborhoods.
However, individual neighborhood problems are many times
intertwined with adjacent neighborhoods and city as a whole.
R Therefore, the community unit concept (Volume II Appendix) suggests
as one of its baste ingredients the need to bind together diverse
sections of the community to share in common facilities and mutul
problems. As a step towards such concepts and at the same time
• address immediate local neighborhood needs, the following process is
presented for neighbor-hood groups consideration.
•
PACE 60
•
a. Neighbor%oods define themselves and establish neighborhood
associations;
b. Ne:ghhoods cluster themselves into communities or villages and
establish a council made up of representatives of the
neighborhood groups. On a continuing basis, these councils could
address such things a&-
1) Protection and maintenance of individual and commw,ity •
property;
2) Crime and fire prevention,
3) Assess needs for and plan for basic life-support services
within or adjacent to each neighborhood or community •
unit (Le. food, health, facilities schools, child care
centers, housing diversity and density, etc.);
4) Assess needs for recreational, open space, agricultural,
and park fact? (ties;
5) Cooperative methods of conserving energy such as
garden or food co-ops, car or van pooling, talent pools,
etc.;
ti) Multi-mode transportation needs and facilities.
•
(This is not an exhaustive list of the functions of these
groups.)
These neighborhood or community groups would serve a need for
local area self-improvement as well as provide a means for
ensuring dialogue between neighborhoods or community units
with (:ity decision making and in addition, provide a vehicle to
representative selection to future city cross-sectional study •
committees.
i
•
PACE 81
•
w
6► pUBLIC EDUCATION
. Because the committee supports the basic philosophy adopted by the
City Council in calling for this study, i.e., study of the Issues aid input
by informed citizens Into land use decisions is Important, it is
recommended that support for continued stud/ and education of th9
public is reflected in budget and policy decisions by the City Council.
The Issues relating to informed land use decision making are complex.
The costs and benefit of different decisions are not always easily
Identified. Therefore, staff time and supportive resources are needed
to gather the data necessary to make decisions congruent with the basic
goals of this study. Also, education of the citizenry is important so
that decsions they make on public issues are informed decisions, with
. knowledge of their long range Impact on the life-styles -hey have
become accustomed to or desire to attain.
This continuing public education effort should be coordinated by one
responsible entity such as the City, but should also take advantage of
local educational resources and work through such groups as the
Chamber of Commerce, and League of Women Voters, neighborhood or
village councils, and local media.
•
•
• PACE 62