The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987 - 1988 7 f SI CITY Of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING ! DENTON, TEXAS 16201 / TELEPHONE (817) 566.8200 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 6, 1988 TO: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney d Rick Svehla, Deputy City Attorney f, Executive Director for Engineering I FROM: ('rank H. Robbins, Executive Director for Planning , ! I and Development SUBJECT: Codification of City Code Comprehensive Development Code I I A common need discovered by cities is to develop what Is called a Comprehensive Levelopment Code. Dallas is somewhat notable for its code, for instance. A Comprehensive Development Code puts together all the land use, building, and development regulations, including: zoning, subdivision, flood plain, building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire, and any other regulations of this sort, We may find that without changing substantive procedures or i standards, the compilation of a Comprehensive Development Code is an administrative editing exercise, albiet a large and complicated one. It is an excercise we ought to go through. In putting together a Comprehensive Development Code, we have three options to consider: i a) Re-codification through Tallahassee b) Internal re-codification using a word processor c) Combination Have Tallahassee do the first one, then put all of the development code on word processing, and I~ /r l "publish" our own amendments, thereafter, like Plam does, E for Instance. I think option c has some distinct advantages, particularily i 1 considering the rewrite of both the zoning and subdivision regulations in the next (what will probably be) couple of years. I Let's discuss this as we work through the re-codification excercise. ' i ~ 1 ! I , obins Aa'n- I db I 1 r Ii 1 cirr of oamrox, rE "s 215 E. McK1NNEYI DENTON, TEXAS 762011 TELEPHONE(617) 5568200 April S, 1988 Mr. George Watkins, Chairman Denton County Red Cross 602 Parkway Street Denton, 7'x, 76201 i Dear Mr. Watkins: E The City has recently been made aware of a zoning violation at your building on Parkway street. The property is zoned 2F or I two family. The property requires at least "0" or office f I zoning or a specific use permit for the Red Cross offices to remain there. The zoning ordinance also requires one paved parking space per 300 square feet of floor area for office use with a minimum of s spaces. The dwelling unit in the west side of the building requires 2 parking spaces. It appears that the property is not large enough to accommodate 7 parking spaces and associated maneuvering area. It would appear that the following options are available to you: (a) relocate offices to a properly zoned district (b) seek a zoning change (c) ask for a specific use permit (d) a parking variance would also be required. It is suggested that you I contact the Planning and Community Development Department located in the municipal building at 215 Ts, McKinney street or call that department at 566-8350 if you want information regarding zoning changes or specific use permits. It would also be helpful If you would provide this office with a scaled site plan of the Red Cross property showing property dimensions, driveway and parking spaces, and building location. We would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, if you have any questions of me, please feel free to come by my office or call at 566-8360. ~ r Sincerely, Jackie Doyle Building Official i cc; Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager Frank Robbins, Director of Planning $ Community Dev Robbie Baughman, Building Inspector 0368I i i I i CITY OF DE NTOM BETTY rscx> AN 1904 FED 27 Pfd 1: 37 WORD PROCL6SING GTR' CITY OF DENTON MEMCRANDUMJ f I j DATE: February 17, 1984 T0: Distribution List I FROM: Jeff Meyer, Director of. Planning and Community Development SUBJECT: POPULATION AND HOUSING DATA If I. Enclosed is information on population and housing in Denton, This data is generally acceptable by I I governmental entities andr private concerns with the exception of the federal government. j The official United States Census Bureau population for Denton 1 1 in 1981 is expected in July. I ! Jef e of Enclosures , 0265a J M ~ 1 i 7 i 1984 CI'1~' Gam' el>?Darl oae~lt 19E0-1961 twam" "oft wow" M.wYM hrilI 1910 80 19/1 19/i 19tl LM im l,M . ~.~+w !r7 8 3 7 I r..r J UB7 J 7,5:Z {..r.1 wU. awlrr..l ~ 1961 Dewlrww u.u1 r«r a1..ar r .w Marsom o.l.. l rr.+1 11WA6. wti n IYO lssl 19r 1990 19604961 January 1.1964 OWN 114mlip o Sys ww w... o D ' rrw _ ~ p I i ~ I i We"Mi cah..r ba.Mr 20 N~1rM o"Pift f elnw~ January 1, 1984 x 1961 WN 1964 $1. 1910 how a list 9e I St'gl. f~lh 3 J` ] f~M.~w war4 wv.► 50 2 . 0 mmWw>v y. ' l r.w 06, t r ~ r.aai r'JPC cIa 4(r PI, Don gyp.. Cie -e r ~c~- ~.xy P I ! ~ I~ !wl'"rw { abr Mar ad 1ar r.1 January d.wrlwi y4d P.'riwlw Papr~M w" +I x 1984 964 Im"dw em 11044 how IV 91 tAwle HMO 1A.YIN ll..r. a 10061 5 ' 55/9 Flo i ' (p 3 r 7. 74 4 p I e5~f~2 /8~ + ( S OCTOBER f986 AMERICAN r Memo } PLANNING ASSOCIATION Drafting Impact Fee Ordinances Intent in enacting the legithuion and to the effect of the ordinance. If the primary purpose of the ordinance is to raise Part 1: A Legal Foundation revenues for financing the expansion of municipal facilities and services, it will be regarded as a tax. On the other hand, if the By Terry D. Morgan, James H. Duncan, AICf, fees are irnposcd to regulate land by ensuring the provision of and Bruce W. McClendon, AICIP adequate facilities and services W meet the demands of new development, the measure will be regarded as regulation! This is the first parr of a Iwo-parr article on the drafting of in examining the erfect of an ordinance, the court will focus impact fee ordinances. purl 1 is concerned with the legislative on the nature of the improvements that can be funded from and judicial standards on which exaction ordinances must be the collected revctutes. If the revenues acre to. be spent on based and is intended to guide legal representatives in both racilities that primarily benefit the residents or users of new public and private rectors who are involved in drafting and development, the fee will be regarded as regulation. This, in evaluating local evacNon ordinances. Part 1, which will appear turn, is determined by whether the collected funds are in the November Memo, is presented primorUV front a segregated from genclal revenues and are earmarked to pay for prarlitioner's perspecilve and is designed to promote better specific improvements, within a reasonable time frame, that understanding of the technical and adrninistrotlve standards would directly (and primarily) benefit the users of the property $hat should be follower/ by planners and lax,rers interested in on which the lees were imposed. rising infrostrucnrre e.vaction svsterns. -luthorization for hnpact laces. Once the ordinance has been classified, the court looks to whether the measure is Over the last decade, development exactions-in whatever authorized under state law, Authorization of taxes, gener,lly form - have come to be evaluated similarly by the courts. The speaking, is more circumscribed than authorization of use of similar criteria to judge the validity of exactions is regulaton, In some jurisdictions, the state has not delegated welcome news for municipal growth management. I)y following taxing authority to local governments.' In other jurisdictions, certain procedures, the city planner and city attorney can the ability of municipalities to impose taxes Is dependent upon be relatively confident that am exactions ordinance will the exercise of home rule authority by the adoption of charter uccessfully nice( any legal challenge provisions (hat authorize the tax,' In still other jurischctions, This said, it is still necessary to proceed with caution in like California, municipalities have broad authority to impose drafting an exactions ordinance in order to withstand an attack local axes. III California, however, such taxes may be subjeo on its validity. In the first place, there will seldom be statutes to constitutional limitations such as those imposed by that expressly govern the subject matter of the regulation. Proposition IJ' Secondly, in many states, there is very little case law on the In those states that perinit municipalities to Impose local validity of exaction measures other (ban subdivision taxes, the characterization of the tax becomes important in dedications. finally, courts usually apply stale rather than determining the validhy of the ordinance. Ad valorem property federal constitutional analysis-often in rather amorphous taxes generally are most subject to limitations. lu California, I leans-Mich development actions are challenged. settle kinds of impact fees can be regarded as "special taxes" requiting it two-thirds vote of the local citlieos, a consttutonal " N;nablln Authority and Iimilation, for approval.' In other states, ail valorem taxes are B differentiated from excise luxas. In such jurisdictions, strict Valldily Under Slate Dw principles Of unilbnnhy govern ad valorem taxation but are Courts employ a two-step procedure in evaluating the validity not applied to ate levy of excise taxes" of a development exactions ordinance under stare law, The first Characterization of an Impact fee as a tax is not always a step is the classification or the ordinance as it regulaloy bad thing. In California, the statutory scheme expressly I measure, tax, or other classification (e.g., special assessment), authorizes impact fees as taxes, but not as regulation. Such fit the second step, the court determines whether the measure fees can be validated as taxes even though they are earmarked j Is authorized under state law, for a special hnproventent fund. Under Califonda lase, if a city Dislingulshing faxes front regulation. A reviewing court will mrompls to impose a revenue-raising fee as a condition for pay no heed to local laheling of an exactions oidimince in deterndning v,hether the ordinance is properly a species of 1 regulation or a tax. Rather, the court looks to the municipal 1. Ilrnuc folders sod Contactors Ass'n of Patin Reach County, hsc. N, Huard of Cotnmy Couni'rs of Pain Heach County, 446 Sold 6t0 (1'13. App. 1983); Hillis Ifonio. Inc, v. Snohomish Could), 650 P,2d 193 (WASH, 1982). Terry ,1lorgin Is an assistant city antorno for the city of Austin, "feuas, and a furmer private land-use allorney in Portland, Oregon. Jones 2. See Hillis !Ionics, Inc. v. Snohomish C'omly abosv. Duncan is the director of the Office of Land Development Scmces for 3, See C'Isero, (fills rarms v. Cily of Cherry [fills Village, 670 P2d I Austin and president-elect of the American Planning Association. 779 (Colo. 19831. I Bruce McClendon is the director of planning and Orowti I xlenagentent for fort Worth, 'twas, and a lorusei presldew c: 'he 4. See J 14'. Jones Cos, v. City of San Diego, 157 Col. App, 3d 745, ocrican Planning Assoclailon• 203 ('atJgnr. 38011984). i Adapled from the July/.Auqust Mud September 1966 issues of Toning . vat Planning Caw Report and rep'{met alrh pcrndsslau of Clark 3. See JIM. Jones Cos. v. Clly of Sou Diego, above. ~ Roardnlan Company, Ltd., 435 Hudson St., Mein York, NY IIf014 6. See Cherry Ifille Pnnms v. City of Cherry fulls 1'ilinge in Copyright visor, Clark lioardnsan Co., Lld. foolnote 3. l Ili I 1 tit arbdisisfun inrynosenreni, the ntcuwra will Lie IM it hIf ucd.' as a regu)atory may function. Impact fens may still fs rwtrdcd Inrlrorrud sear as el o;Is 4 aluablle e u allteeraa tissoc me to sl tt s, unp;wt fees. ees. n escess of such authority if an ordrrauce does not prcscrilm -Special al u assessments are cha ges la sG3ndards for elrcuntstances in which the exactions will be serges cvted against real property inrposedY that will particularly and directly benefit from local In states that adhere to a llrodera forth of homc ride improvements, file rssessntenls filly the cost or Ihasc Improvements 7'radntonally, special assessments cannot be authority, charter governments may leg is itne as the state Icvicd unless the property is specially benefited by the legislates, subject only to limitations that mss' he imposed bs mquoventel't in a manner differntg from general public constitutional provisions or by state la+v!^ 4t such jurisdictions, benefits and the assessment is equimbly Irw;ne Son Die o's the court will look to state law as a limitation rather than as special assessmcnl scheme, however, which was devised n Order an askrRy in new for regulation. Courts also may find enabling to implement a comprehe issue plan for the provision of public aurhorily in new state legislation Thar csrablishrs sl;urdards I'or facilities and services, was upheld, even 111011911 subslautial comprehensive planning!? public benefits would be derived from construction of Ile facilities.' In sustaining the ordinance, the court held that a Constitutionality special assessmcnl was not a lax under California law but an cTheonceptually dis eptually disttinct front from t iitsmpact fee ordinance is :xereise of the police power, validity uncle' stole law. Logicall do issues kultil AnOroriznlion for police power eraclious. If cite impact fee is tatutorg courts s nor mooch constitutional standards o dere wined to be a form of regulation, the court examines validity statutory questions are resolved. In practice, in cor whether the municipality has the authority to regulate for the with for impact fees are often regulatory lies ire conjunction purpose for which the fee is imposed. The authority can be st standards differentiating regulatory fees hunt Ial ail either express or implied. An increasing number of jurisdictions oat ryve tests ci must anticipate a bulb constitutional and have some farm of dedication or fee authority. The commonest statutory tests fit devising impact fees. form of statute authorizes local governments to enact user fees The constitutional challenge may take the form of more general and other charges related to provision of wastewater facilities? adopt oion n of the face of the ordinance, in which lire tutio If fees are to be imposed at the subdivision stage, the slate's adopt the ordinance is said to violate constitutional subdivision laws may serve at least as implied authority. The appliedprovisions. The attack may also be to the ordinance al strongest types of enabling statute specifically address the " to particular properties. The mole of judicial review will be different in each case. assess it adequacy of facilities as a requirement of subdivision attack, r court lit gene consti the particular I tmict o Intprove tire nt 40 Express authority for certain kinds of exactions measure on the p property owner stn air "asapplierdt~ratmck ~t tire nray be more limiting than general grants of authority, ordinance inny be valid on its face but unconstitutional howevrr, because the legislative intent may be interpreted to because of its peculiar impact on the landowner's property. circumscribe the kind of exaction that a municipality may There are three principal cons Ihudonai provisions limiting a impose. The legislature may also place more stringent standards local government's power to adopt an exactions ordinance. Tim oil local governments for particular kinds of exactions. For ordinance may be challenged as a taking of property without example, a California stance requires that a connection just compensation or as a violation of due process or equal between development and need be established before a municipality can enact exactions for school facilities!' A recent be~Subjee 1 tof stttate constitutional limitations as wellxastlthesse Washington statute prohibits local governments from imposing provisions. "any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, out the Evrcllons rneasti a as a taking. "I lie just compensation clause construction or reconstruction of residential buildings, of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions ill commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or. , oil the suite constitutions generally are held to limit a municipality's development, subdivision, elassificadon, or reclassification of police powers19 'Ib the extent that tut exactions treasure is land„ ^xccpl through "voluntary agreements."" classified as regulation, these provisions apply. "I'Ite takin Because (lie police posver is broad in scope, the authority to is raised most often in conjunction with subdivision g issue impose impact fees as part of the regulatory scheme may be requirements fu; fees in lieu of declicaliou. This probably j Implied from general grants of authority. This may depend, stems front the fact that subdivision exactions involve the j however, on the exercise of horse rule authorifyo In acquisition of private property for public use or payment or an I jurisdictions that strictly adhere to IrtunHP111 powers as equivalency measure (namely, the value of the property to be derivative of state delegmior, novel forms of exactions may be dedicated, all alternative fee system, or contribution of Funds Invalidated as being heyond municipal authority." Even If the toxard Improvements of facilities that are to lie constructed as municipality possesses homc rule powers to impose exactions a cor loo of development approaal), 7, Newport Building Corp, v. City of Sonia Anti, 210 Cal. App. 2tl file just compensation clause has seldom been applied to 771, 26 Cal.Rport B. 797 (1962); Santa Clara Santa Coraily Contractors on imp actfees,perhaps becausesu chfees are regard ed as personal Hoare ra Assn v. City of Suns Clara, 242 Go App. 2d 564, and 4J rather than real property. This does riot preclude its application, uMe C'o me R. 86 (1065however, and the principles established la subdivision cases P. JAV. Jones Cos. v, City of San Diego, above, and City of San no( r examined to ensure that the exactions measure will Diep.o v. flolodnak, 157 Cal. App. 3d 759, Cal spit. 797 (1934), not egarded as a taking. Feees rs in Ilcu of dedication requirements were often 9, See, e.g., Ihuh Code Ann., §103.34. invalidated as all unconstitutional taking in early decisions, 10. See, for example, xliller v. City of Port Angeles, 691 P,2d 229 Because the improvements to be financed were not specifically (Wash. App. 1984), ss'Irkh Bxaltdne5 Washington Slltte5 subdi%isiOa and uniquely attributable to the deCeloprrrent project or the laws. l1. Cal. Gust. Code, §65971. Sce McLain Worenr No. t Y. County I• City National Yank of Miami v. City of Caul Springs, t75 of San Diego, Idb Cal. App, 3d 712, 194 Ca).Rplr. ,'94 (1984). 5o.2d 984 (Pia, App. 19851. 16. City of College Slalion v. 1Lrde Rock Corp, in foonroie 13. 11. Wadi. Rev. Code Atm., §82.02.02(1. 17. See J.W. Jones Cos. v. City of San Diego in footnote 8. ! 13. Sce City of College Station r:'hide Rock Corp„ 6SO SAUd 302 (TC , 1984). 18. Hollywood, Inc. v, Oroward County, 431 Sold (Oct (flu. App. ' 1983). 14, K:unhi Y. Town of 1'orkloren, 59 N5'.2d JRS, 452 N.-2d 193, 465 M Aginc v, City of Tiburon, 447 US, 251 (1980); City of Austin v. NA'.S.2d 865 (1983). 'fcague, 5711 SAV2d 389 (des. 1978)• 2 J i Im,Js sierc not w be uu•J xdel} I'or floe hrnclir ul• 3he Due provers srartdarrLs «rrd equnl prr7lrcdwr renieu'. 'l 'ire rssidenls of the particular whdisision charged the lee, the majorily of impact fees are challenged either as violating due esacnuns onlinance (sal bold io be outside the ,cope or Unc process guarantees or depriving the landowner of the equal police poocr I hest decisions tend to careeorite public protection of the laws Although the tests of validity under improsements accoidtnp to n11eiller they will prinntrily beues'it these constitutional provisions are conceptually distinct, in the the public or can be nnribured ill specific devehrpmenl reatm of economic and social legislation there is little pro 10cn. 111 c principle belhind such rulings is that some difference in actual standards of review or judicial prucedure.1e mprncements, such as packs or schools, arc of It public Generally speaking, due process claims aliege that the character and must be financed through exercise of eminent development exaction is beyond the authority of the police domain pou'vrs or general taxing authority. Alone recent paver because it is arbinafy, capricious, and lacking a rational decisions rehiring to parks and schoo[s uphold subdivision basis. The same kind of due process inquiry may be posed in a csacrions as lung as the burden pfaced on the property owner taking claim, Equal protection analysis focuses on whether is proportional to fire special benefits resulting from the use of various ordinance categories has produced it consrrnction of the innpiovensents.'h discriminatory result. Under either standard, the court is A taking challenge (o an impact fee ordinance can be supposed to apply a deferential approach; that is, the court blunted by anticipating ate logic of the action in advance, "file cannot sit as a super legislature to second-guess the wisdom of first question to be aasacred is, what properly is being taken? the local government. If the ordinance is rationally related to a Most cowlitutional challenges against development exactions permissible objective, it must be sustahhcd.+" do not focus un lire regulation's effect on the developmenl Recent decision; address llte question of the rationality of potential of the property. In fact, Ute lies may well huvc been subdivision exactions and impact fees (Simultaneously, they paid so that development can progress while fitigarion is may serve to classify the ordinance as a regulatory device pending. Rasher, the landowner claims that it is the dedicated authorized under state law.) In the broadest formulation of the land or fee equivalent that has been taken, standards, there must be a "rational nexus" between a The government cannot deny Ilia( land or money passes into development project and the need for additional facilities. rite public domain because of the ordinance. This occurs with Tlrcre mast also be a reasonable connection between the every form of subdivision exaction, including dedication of expenditure for capital facilities and the benefits accruing to internal iutpioventents melt as sucels and drainage facilities, if the property on which the charge was imposed,r+ one form or exaction can be justified under constitutional he rationality of the ordinance can be reviewed with theory, so should other forms of exactions ilia( are not varying degrees of scrutiny. California courts apply minimal arbitrary and for Much there is a rational basis. scrutiny in establishing the relationships among lite use of the Courts seldom bother to articulate the theoretical foun(lation property, the need for additional public improvements for upholding subdivision exactions, One theory is that the attributed to the property, and the resulting benefit to the owner is compensated by the benefits that adhere to the land landowner. In particular, it Is unnecessary that the need for through approval of the development,rr Under this approach, puLhc improvements results from cite property being charged the (10CIOper receives quid pro quo, Sonic decisions have as long as there is a direct or primary benefit to the land reasoned tun the devclopment or land is a privilege and that a resulting from the improvement.19 In other jurisdictions, there property owner cannot complain about a taking when the must still be some direct benefit to the property before a privilege is cooditioned.rr 'this logi. is tenuous at best, since reasonable relationship will be established.10 the subdivision of land is mandatory in most jurisdictions. I'Ite Florida courts have gone the farthest in enumerating lite A more compelling theory is that dire dc%eloper is paying requirements for a valid impact fee ordinance. Tile standards only for the additional burdens being placed on the satisfy not only due process and equal protection guarantees, Commmllity. ilecanse (Ile olnnieipalil,v may regulate adverse but also ensure that the measure will be characterized as a impacts of development, it has file obligation to use its regulation rather than a tax. Exactions nhcasures will be upheld reguh nory power to mitigate such inspacts.t' The only other if there is a reasonable connection between the need for alternative is to deny development applications that burden additional capital facilities and (he growllh in population I community t;acilirics. generated by the development project and be(ween the funds Linder either theory, the fees assessed must be proportionate collected and the benefits accruing to flue developincindi The to the need for additional facilities occasioned by the latter requirement is satisfied If file ordinance specifically development project. In most instances, t,is ensures that the earmarks the funds collected for acqulsillon of capital facllltles + dcscloper will have it reasonable use of the land remaining. that will benefit the users of the project and if the funds are When the Ices exceed impacts generated by the project, flu to tae expended within a reasonable period of time. Failure to court may fill([ that the exaction is confiscaiory.rh It is also meet any of these requirements can result in invalidation of the possible ilia( an ordinance that is valid on its lace may be iegulaton,)r The Florida decisions have been used to model confiscatory as applied to hire propel ty. This occurs when a the methodology described in Part 2 of this article, dedication or fee requirement leases the owner without an Standards like those applied by Florida courts have recently economically viable use 'flirts challenge can be avoided by the appeared in a Washington statute that limits impact fees to incinsion of "escape" ptovisioss that authorize the municipality "voluntary agreements." Payments of rces may be agreed to in w %loive tit exactions in case of hardship, lieu of land dedication or "to mitigate a direct impact that has i 20. Pioneer Tnnt ;md S,ntngs Bank v. Village of Monot Prospect, 22 ;11.2d 375, 170 NJ?.2d 799 0960; Oucsi Asfaeia CS v. Towo of 26. Shdlon r. City of College Station, 780 F.2d 415 (5th Or. 1986). ~N,o brag, 225 N.1.S.2d 53S (1962). 21. City of New Orreaus v, Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976). 21. See Ciry or College Stafiuo v. 1hnle Kock Corp, in none 13, and 28. Jordan v, Vlllage of Menomonee Falls, 28 1110d 608, 137 ~ Rcllhlehem kaaugeiical Lutheran Church v. City of Lakewood, 626 1'.2d N.1V.2J 442 (1966)• - 668 (Colo. I'Mr, 29. Associated Home Builders Y. City of Walnut Creek, 4 CAM 22. rlruetl v. City of Alubile, 449 Sn2J 1222 1-11a. 1984). W. 94 Cal.Rpt. 630, 494 P,2d 606 (1971), appeal dismissed, 404 U.S. 1 23. Treat Mcredihh, Inc. v. C.-try of Osnard, 114 Cal. App. 3d 317, 878 (1972). 170 Co1.Rplr. 685 (C ?,App. 1981). 30, See llonse Builders Ass'n or' Gremer Kansas City Y. City of 24, See Sbllcr V4 City of Port Angeles, ill 1`001110le 10. Kansas City 525 S8%1.2d 832 (Mo. 1977), i 25. J.B.D Assoelnnes, Inc. v. Twrn of Atkinson, 121 N.If.581, 412 314 Sec liollyuood. Inc. v. Broward Comity in note 18, IN -2d 12 (N.1 198114 32. Ilrosva,d County Janis Corp., 31t So,7.J 371 (PIa. App. 1975)• 3 I I been identified as it consequence of a proposed development, seas not required to took for a statutory grant of power- it subdivision, or plat." o' The payment must be placed in a had only m dclernsine whether statutes imposed Iiuti1ations reserve account to fund a capital improvement agreed to by the ssith "smmislakable clarity." I inding none, it sustained the a parties. The payment must be expended within fire )cars ordinance, thereafter or refunded with interest. A municipality is prohibited front imposing the fee at all unless it can establish Exactions US Growth That it is "reasonably necessary as ❑ direct result of the Control Tools t proposed development or plat." Development exactions imposed pursuant to the police power are enacted to ensure that development proposals are Exactions for Special supported by adequate levels of essential facilities and Objectives services-although that purpose is often Icft umtared. Courts have authorized development exactions for a variety of Exactions thus may play an important role in a municipality's novel purposes. Mandatory dedications have been sustained for management of growth. Impact fees and dedication beachfrom access and the provision of low- and moderate- requirements may become tools used to implement policies t income housing.' expressed in the community's comprehensive plan, The plan, in Once state courts accept the principle that impact fees may turn, may become essential in justifying a scheme of exactions i be valid exercises of the police power, the objectives of an under judicial challenge. Impact fee system may be as broad in scope as is that power. The power of a municipality to regulate the timing and The principal issue then becomes the power of the municipality sequence of development based on the availability of public to regulate for the intended purpose under slate law, This, in facilities and services was upheld against statutory and turn, may depend on the exercise of home rule authority, constitutional challenges in the classic case, Golden V. Vbsun of A good example or how this approach works can be found Rauropo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138 ` in the Texas Supreme Court's recent decision ht City of College (1972). The subject ordinance, while delaying development of t Sdnrbn v. Virile Rock Corp.ss The city had adopted an sonic properties for as long as 18 years, committed the ordinance requiring dedication of parkland or fees•in•lieit as a municipality to supplying necessary services via a capital condition of subdivision plat approval. The ordinance provided improvements program. In sustainipg the ordinance, the New for a special fund for the deposit of all sums paid in lieu of York Court of Appeals emphasized that the ordinance was land dedication. Contributions had to be expended within two enacted pursuant to a plan for the accommodation rather than years for the acquisition or development of a neighborhood the prevention of municipal growth. park; otherwise the funds were returned to the property owners Some comprehensive plans expressly incorporate the concept in the subdivision. of adequate supporting facilities as plan policies that must be Relying upon Its previous decision in Berg Development Ca implemented in the development process. BJomgomery County, v, City of Mssourf City, 603 S,W,2d 273 (Vex, Clv, App. 1980), Maryland, recently survived a challenge to the adequacy the Court of Civil Appeals held that the ordinance was a standards in its plan." And In J.W Jones Cos, v. Cr7v of Son taking of property under the Texas constitution. It also held Diego. 157 Cal, App. 3d 745, 203 Cal.Rptr. 380 (1984), the that, as a matter of law, a requirement for dedication of court tustalned the city's special assessment scheme, known as parkland did not bear a substantial relationship to the health, facilities benefits assessments, as a valid plan implementation safety, or general welfare of the community and, consequently, measure. The general plan placed primary responsibility on was not a valid police power exercise. developers In newly urbanized areas to provide Community The Texas Sup, rte Court sustained the ordinance, reasoning facilities and services, including sewers, drainage facilities, that the goal of providing neighbor` sod parkland was a streets, parks, fire stations, and libraries. Building permits legitimate municipal objective and that the ordinance required could not be Issued until assessments for benefit areas were that the land or money be used only for that purpose within a paid by the property owner. Additional charges were to be reasonable time period. The state's high court cited slni lar imposed through the subdivision process. Concluding that the opinions from other jurisdictions. It noted that the transfer of system of assessments was an exercise of the city's regulatory title to a small portion of the property did not in Itself create powers, rather than a tax, the court further found that the a compensable taking, since the Texas courts had long charges were reasonably based on studies and were used to I recognized that municipalities could condition subdivision implement general plan policies. Consequently, the ordinance ! approval on the dedication of streets, wastewater mains, and establishing the assessment procedures and standards was a other public improvements, valid exercise of the police power and was not discriminatory, Because the ordinance required that only a small portion of even though developed properties were not subject to the , the properly be dedicated, the developer retained the economlc ordinance, value of the tract. Consequently, the dedication and fee r provisions were not arbitrary or unreasonable on their face. 36. See Ttrian Isoctopmew Corp. v, ,xlorngonrer , County, docket The reasonableness of n parkland dedication ordinance nits. 63708 and 61118 (Cir. Ct, idontgomm, Cry., 1983); see also'rvk.mi )lane Idomeuwners Assn v, County of 1bulomnc, 138 Cal. App. 3d ; thereafter would be adjudged according to whether the 664, 188 C'alApir. 233 (1982); see, generally, Das Wson, "Using \ subdivision generated the need for additional parks and Infrastructure controls to onside Doclopmenr," Zoning and Planning whether the parks would Bolt l the subdivision residents. [env Reporter a (Dce. 1985), 169, The court then turned to the question of whether there was statutory authority for the form of regulation. Although there - i Was no express enabling legislation, home rule cities udder The PAS Al ma is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory Texas law had full power of self-government. Thus, the court Service, a subscription reseerch service of the American Pianning As iarion Israel Stollman. Eauutise Direclor, Prad S. So, lkpaty Executise Director; Judith (koelk, .13. Wash. Rev. Code Ann., §82.02.020. Direclorof Reseatch; Sylvia Lewis, Publkations Director. 34, See Georgia-Pacific Corp, v. California Coastal Comni n, 181 The PASbfemo n ptaduced "t AM James Heoimovich. Editor Adele Ruthblan, Cal,Rptr. 393 (1982); In re Egg timbor Assoclates, 94 N.J. 358, 464 Assistant Editor. A.2d 1113 (1981), The concept of linkage, a practice whereby a Copyright 1986 by American Planning Assoclallon, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, 11. municipality attempts to implement affordable housing policies by 60637. The American Planning Assoclatiunh is headquarters offices at 1716 imposing Impact fees on commercial doelopirent, was given recent htassashasens Ave, N.W., Washington, DC20036, Judicial support In Terminal Plaza Corp. Y. City of San Francisco, 177 All rights reserved. Nopan of Ibis publication may be sepraduced of noticed In any Cal. App, 3d 892, 223 C311pta 379 (1986), loom or by any means, electronic or meehanieai, including phoiocopying, recording, or by any information uoiage and retrieval syncrn, widwui perrnhrion In Visiting A= the 35. See note 13. American Planning Association 4 I I i ' 1 I r 7 i 7 f i I CITY OF DENTON - PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DF,PARTMENT SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TEAM-REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE I SEPTEMBER 23, 1984 ~ I Summary of Team-Review QuesLionalre Responses I ~ Response to the iLems on a IO8-item quesLionaire designed Lu identify areas where teani members perceive they could improve as a work group are listed below: Significant areas of team functioning; j I. Team Climate I i As a team develops and matures, its informal rules become establisheu and influence the group's moment-to-moment events. While the guidelines within which the group operates seldom are written down, they are well understood. As the team progresses, new members enter and others leave, these become habitu.11 and are transferred to new members. Taken together, the traditions, habits, relationships, practices, rules, beliefs, and attitudes that are established as characteristic of the group become its climate. i j Much of the responsibility for establishing a group's climate falls on those with authority in the group. Yet, it is important to realize that authority comes from several sources - seniority, position, expertise, and personal power I - questions of authority must be sorted out in order to have a consistent 4 definition of the behavior expected yf team members. Not all group climates are conducive to the decelpment of a team approach. Team f building requires a group climate of openness - a norm of airing problems and matters of concern. A level of openness must exist for team members to establish relationships that are genuine and close. Openness has a major impa,71L on interpersonal relatlonships, and it is not an easily achieved or mainLzined characteristic. Too many people have learned to hide feelings and thoughts they feel are unacceptabe. It is vital to Loam building that team members are prepared to take risks and suggest initiatives. It should be possible for them to be wrong wiLhouL being made to look foolish. It is further important to recognize that the degree of openness in a team affects its climate so profoundly that to understand the advantages and disadvantages of openness need mention - Advantages: -Inner frustration is avoided -Closer personal relationships are established j -Problems are clarified and can be dealt with -Valid feedback is given, enabling others to learn and develop -Energy is released as issues become unblocked i. -Tile stiffening side effects of bureaucracy are lessened Disadvantages; -The individual becomes more specific and is more vulnerable -Unsureness is exposed and aan be interpreted as weakness -Others may feel threatened by and become hostile towards an individual utfrluulL-LO-uandle and potentially unsolvable problems are brought into the open i i The capacity of a team to deal with interpersonal prblems is a good test of team climate. A team that practices effective interpersonal. problem-solving combines both confrontation and care for individual viewpoints. The skills of listening are particularly helpful. When disagreement or communication breakdown occurs between members, the team should work at identifying whether: -There is no problem between the two parties; it is dust an illusion -The problem is particularly felt by dust one or the other of the parties -The problem is felt by one or more parties at the same time -There is a basic difference in beliefs and values between parties and therefore new information will not change matters greatly (But the parties have an underlying responsibility to work with one another effectively). Y It is often worthwhile to clarity the different sides of an interperonal problem by using one's own personal position as a starting-of point. The ste?s useful in this may be Teen from the following questions: i r -How do I what the relationship to end up? -What specific behaviors of the other person are a problem for mr? f -What effect does the other peron's behavior have on me? -What changes in behavior would I like to see? -Cart I clearly state the problem and tell how I feel without confusing or blaming the other person? -If the other person becomes defensive or agressive, do I practice listening skills? -How effectively can I use systematic problem-solving approaches to deal with difficult decisions? -Do we both negotiate "space" for ourselves, so that conflicts of values have minimum impact? i I , There are three interconnecting features of a conatructive team climate. These exist when the members have skills in interpersonal relationships, respect and warmth between themselves, and are supported in their openness by those with power and influence. i 1 i i 1 i C is . 1 ~s f~ I' 2. Critiquing Some groups operate an informal conspiracv; they refuse to review events in an analytical and critical wav. Such groups inhibit the free flow of Judgement and comment. Withholding criticism can be done for several reasons: -Politeness. Group members may feel that social etiquette precludes confrontation. j -Fear of "loss of face". Individuals may see criticism as an unwelco,:e 1 whittling down of their self-image. -"Don't Ruck the Boat". Group members my see criLicism as exposing wea'ness and I undermining morale. A -Inadequate skills. Group members appreciate the benefits of intensive review but simply do not feel able to handle this constructively. They lack the required skills of analysis and personal confrontation. i ~ j The review of both specific projects and routine working effectiveness provides valuable lenvning for a Loam. This means that Individuals gather to analyze the sere-gths and weaknesses of their performance, are open about their persona: assessments, and can Lake negative comments without developing ill-will. Critiquing assists the team in envolving. There is not short cut through developrnenti it requires that people question the statue quo. Although both positive and negative phservntions are valuable, in practice, it is not easy to use either positive or negaL.Ve feedback: positive comments can lead the team h I members to unwarranted pride and complacency. Negative inputs, on Lhe other hand, may be interpreted as sabotage and provoke dispute and argue.menLs. I Opetc critique can be especially Litreatentng to the more senior members. As having been the key to exisLing order and norms, they feel a greater sense of ownership. Thus, their self-esteem 18 more at risk. Individuals (all team members) can benefit greatly who have skill in the use of feedback r.onsLructively. They have acquired a valuable asset and can grow from error or / Inadequacy. Initially, feedback sessions are best conducted away (rain the busy fragmental;ton of work and work environment. I,ater, as skills are hunt, they can be integrated within team meetings and, informally, between members. The `ollowing guidelines may be useful in critiquing sessions. I 1 i i f i I f` d~# , i Avoid Try To ` Talking too much State your points simply and one at a time Jumping in and quickly moving on Explore ideas and feelings in depth, and find concrete examples of your points Glossing over problems Explore difficulties and their causes Lhoroughly, using a "what can we do about them" approach , eL it "contract" between yourselves that you believe is Raking false hopes 5 ' realistic i Taking a parental Lone Stay in the "adult" or rational part of youruelf, since the parent is the part of us that tends to be judgemental Not taking the process seriously Make it evident that you value the process enough to ` spend time seriously discussing these issues Being ~I .nt Ask whether you appear inconsistent and clarity Being inconsistent apparent inconsistencies Criticizing a person 'd ambitions or evaluations (the "putdown") Find out why the person has this view; contribute information and options rather Lhan judgements Making commitments too readily State Lhe truth, only make a commitment if you are sure it can be honored, and set a time scale that you know is realistic Displaying a negative and disinterested attitude Give your support and energy to make a session baluable and try to use the discussion as an important opportunity to improve h Solving others' problems Encourage others to suggest their own solutions and not depend too much on you Using targets as potential weapons Set `.argets for learning rather than discipline Seeing only one way ahead tie flexible and look carefully at options, even if you decide to discard them later 'The skillful mastery of feedback and critique consistently develps standards for f~ the team. As team members learn to express their judgements, they gain strength and release energy that was blec.ked through inhibited expression, The concept of responsibility is extended and becomes more willingly sought. As a whole, the Leam benefits and grows. I I I I ANNEXATION HISTORY January, 1976 April, 1983 Area of Dis- Vol. Invol. Carry- Year Denton annexed Annex. Annex. 108 over (acres) acres) (acres) acres acres) nacres 1983 23,943.41 781.61* 2,394.34 11612.73 1982 22,116.21 1,827.2 2,211.62 384.42 1981 21,639.68 26.474 63.0 440.0 2,163.96 1,723.96 1980 21,360.49 92.27 371.46 21136.04 2x136.04 1979 21,380.73 113.51 93.27 2,138.07 2,138.07 E i 1978 22,055.64 755.2 80.29 21205.56 20205.56 I 1977 211468.72 586.92 21146.87 2,146.87 r 1976 211466.72 21146.87 2,146.87 I 30% of 23,943.41 acres = 7,183.02 - 781.61 committed 6,4 I.41 acres or 10 sections j * Includes annexations completed and in progress thus far this year j i I { I ' I I I 1 i i} J, I ' r• 1 1 7 i / fJ , n v DEN ` y TIL'' I + _ aE..._+ -a.:..w.. 'P . ~tY, \l is , ' I~ Ij yy f l 111 _l _ ~ r ~ t i~ I rr th' r I r ' u • ~ t , 1981 ~ f ~ R' 3 ~ r t I r r ~ •1 r • ,r I .,,.ter. t ~ t 12 1 is s! DENPON DEVELOPMENT GUIDE A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH Prepared For. City Government and Citizens of Denton E Prepared By, City of Denton Land Use Planning Committee DECEMBER, 1980 ! I A PPROVFD BY THE PLANNING AND TONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 40 1981 k APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 17, 1981 I I 1 j i k i .rt.it 4. ll`wI AI J CPI'Y COUNCIL RICHARD STItiVART, MAYOR RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR PRO-TEM J. W. RIDDLESPERGER RICHARD TALIAFFRRO DWIGHT GAILEY JOE ALFORD { I MARK CHEIN i i CHRIS HARTUNG, CITY MANAGER COUNCIL MEMBERS -OCTOBER, 1979 AT STUDY'S INCEPTION r BILL NA;Il, MAYOR ROLAND VELA RICHARD S'TEWART BUD HENSLEY RAY STEPHENS PLANNING AND ZONING COAIAII8510N ANDY SIDOR, CHAIRPERSON LINNIE MCADAMS ROBERT B. WOODIN CAROLE BUSBY MARILYN GILCHRIST 1 JACK MILLER ROBERT LAPORTE E COMMISSION MEMBERS - OCTOBER, 1979 AT STUDY'S INCEPTION I,INNIE MCADA MS, CHAIRPERSON ROBERT LAFORTE BILL, BRADY CAROLE BUSBY f°' f MARILYN GILCHRIST RICHARD TALIAFERRO DON RYAN ANDY SIDOR f G. I 1 $ 1 } I lM 3 k LAND USE PLANNING COMMITTEE BETTY BAILEY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ROBERT 0. BENFIELD TEXAS WOAIFN'S UNIV ERSPTY ADMINISTRATION JIM BLANTON WEST DENTON BILL BRIXIUS NORTHWEST DENTON AUGUST BROWN SOUTH DENTON * JIMMY DALE BROWN CHAMBER REPRESENTATIVE REV, M.R. CHEW, JR. EAST DENTON MIKE CHOCHRAN FAST DENTON - ~l JESSE COFFEY DEVELOPER INTEREST BOB CROUCH DEVELOPER INTEREST DOTTY DOWLING DENTON HOUSING AUTHORTI'Y BOARD * HARRY DOWN DEVELOPER INTEREST BRIAN DUBIN SOUTHWEST DENTON * TOM FOUTS DEVELOPER INTEREST j MARILYN GILCHRIST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1 LARRY HARBERSON CDBG COMMITTEE I CHARLES HOPKINS DEVELOPER INTEREST RICHARD E. JOHNSTON SOUTH DENTON I GEORGE KRIEGER UTILITY BOARD I, ROBERT LAPORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I ROY LEMASTER NORTHEAST DENTON i E LARRY LUCE NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION E k JO LUKER CDBG COMMITTEE JANE MALONE PARK BOARD " LINNIE MCADAMS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FLOYD D. MCDANIFL NORTHEAST DENTON BONITA MINOR FAST DENTON JANE MITCHELL RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD STEVE PLAYER NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT BODY GEORGE OLUFSEN SOUTH DENTON MARK RODEN WEST DENTON RON C. RYLANDER DEVELOPER INTEREST LLOYD SANBORN SOUTHWEST DENTON ANDY SIDOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CHESTLP SPARKS COUNTY COMMISSIONER RAY STEPH ENS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE r DICK STEWART COUNCIL REPRESENTATIV F BILL THOMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD GRACIE TUNNELL SOUTHWEST DENTON B. DWAIN VANCE NORTHWEST DENTON WILL WAGERS WEST DENTON ALV IN WHALEY DEVELOPER INTEREST * CAROL WHEELER-LISTON NORTHEAST DENTON WELDON IVILI,INGHAM CLIENT COUNCIL, WEST TEXAS LEGAL SERVICES I I MIKE WORKMAN NORTHWEST DENTON *LAND USE PLANNING COMMITTEE TFAA1 CAPTAINS It f ....4 C+3.4Yii':1 Ei EX OFFICIO MEMBERS CHRIS HARTUNG CITY RIANAC"1' RICK SV EHLA ` BOB NFLSON DIRECTOR OF PUALIC itiOR1CS DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES JOHN KELLER STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHIS AY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION A. J. SE ELY REPRESENTATIV F, OF SUPERINT "NDENT OF SCHOOLS BRUCE GAINES REPRESENTATIV E OF DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY oY STEVE BRINKMAN DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION STANLEY THAMES CHAIRMAN DENTON "80" LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION n 1 i PROGRAM STAFF JEFF MEYER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING JOHN LAVRETTA FORMER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING STEVE FANNING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ASSOCIA'TF, AND PROJECT DIRECTOR I RICK BARNES SPECIAL PLANNING ASSOCIATE FOR PROJECT CHARLIE WA'TKINS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER G DAVID ELLISON PLANNING ASSISTANT (INTERN) DENISE SPIV EY PLANNING ASSISTANT EMILY COLLINS PROGRAM SECRETARY JACKIE LAMAR PROGRAM SECRETARY SUSAN WIG AND DEPARTMENT SENIOR SECRETARY t' I JANET COLE PROGRAM SECRETARY I t. I i 11 1! ti ,a TABLE OF CONTENTS THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PAGE PREFACE-THE EMERGENCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE . . . . , . vti I. PLAN PURPOSE AND USE , , , , . . . • It. THE CONCEPT PLAN (LONG RANGE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH) , I i 6 III, DEVELOPMENT POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A. LAND USE INTENSITY AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i6 1, MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS . . . . . . , , , . . . 16 I 2, MODERATE ACTIVITY CENTERS . . , . . . . . 20 3. LOW INTENSITY AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8, HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 C. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES , . . . , . , , 34 D. UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 E. TRANSPORTATION , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 39 F. INDIVIDUALIZED POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so 1. BY DEVELOPMENT AREA CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . 50 a. OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 b. EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS . . , . , . . . . . . . 50 e. HARD TO DEVELOP LOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2. SPECIFIC AREA POLICIES . . . , . , , , , , , . . 51 { a. NORTH OF OAK STREET , . , , . . . . . . , . 51 b. LAND USE BORDERING NTSU AREA . . . . . . , , . , 51 c, NTSU E TWU TRANSPORTATION PLANNING , , , . , , d. HOBSON LANE, TEASLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 _ e. CARROLL BOULEVARD 52 j FORT WORTH AND DALLAS'DRIVE 53 f ~ E EAST DENTON . . . . . . . . . . 55 5 5 l`. BELL AVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 G. LAND MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES , , , . , , , , , . . . 56 tv . w TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) LIST OF PLATES PAGE 14 1, OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN . 1 ; 1 , : ' ' 28 2. LAND USE INTENSITY Alr'EAS • . 33 3. MULTI-FAA}ILY HOUSING LOCATIONS 4, PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES 45 I 5. TRANSPORTATION LAND USE INTENSITY BALANCE 46 1 8. MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN • • ' ' ' 48 y, MASS TRANSIT CONCEPT PLAN . • . . • ' ' ' ' VOLUME I - APPENDIX THE EMERGENCE OP THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE , I, purpose and Use of Plan a~a II, Existing Setting j i III, The P"Zanning Prooess 3 IV, Major Issues And Their Alternative Reaolt<tion i A. Questionnaire/Dieeu88ti0n workshops 8, Alternative Land Use Designs for the City C, Evaluation of Alternatives ey s i V. Establishment of A Consensus Framework { r VOLUME II - APPENDIX A. An Introduction to the Connrrunity Unit Concept 60 B. Exampte of Application of Area 4li,de Density/Intensity f Standard i i 'C, Concepts of Development Potential Ratting k+ l ~ NOTE: APPENDIX NOT INCLUDED 13U7' AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST I I U I I i I II J 5 n I, u,1 n ~t I I I, .y. PREFACE The Emergence of the Development Guide INTRODUCTION As Denton entered the 80's the community was realizing an increasing volume f of questions concerning the way the community is developing and its impact on d the quality of life, The City leaders, in response to these questions, Instituted a i community-based, city-wide plan update, One a-enue for this future Denton study was the "Denton 8019" committee that looked comprehensively at the future of Denton, in such areas as cultural activities, education, health, public facilities, recreation, environmental and beautification Issues. Coordinated with that effort, the City Council initiated mori specific study on the future land questions, by commissioning the Land Use Planning Committee. The task of the committee was to produce a Development Guide that could be used in day-to-day decision making on such things as the Capital Improvement i Program, Zoning, Subdivisions, etc. The format of the plan, determined by the Planning and 'honing and the City Counctl as the most useful, was a combination policy plan and fixed design plan. This guide represents the document product of this specific program. The Planning Process i To produce the Development Guide, a 46 member City-wide planning j Committee was established. This committee was composed of residents, s policymakers, developers, civic leaders, and public officials, selected to I represent a cross-section of persons with specific expertise in community r i. developm pnt and persons who are both directly and Indirectly concerned with the future development of the City of Denton. I i A It ri..::: 1'a u: a~ 5f j tl ii Two methods for selecting representatives were used to form the 46 member committee. Established agencies, organizations, and commissions which were already trvolved in planning or development in the catty were invited and asked N/ to send representatives to participate in the planning workshops. ~ I f ~ y . I i i r The remaining representatives included eighteen citizens-at-large; some seven. persons representing development interests-homebuilders, developers, realtors, bankers, and large landowners, and one person to represent other civic groups not otherwise specifically designated. These representatives were i self-selected at an open meeting on December 17, 1979. i I I i I 1 I ~ vtt 1 The Planning Wo, kshops The medium through which the committee worked was the "Planning Works}.op"-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 development pattern. The first, second, and third workshops were directed to developing a common f planning language and understanding. Through discussion and workbooks, r { furnished to the committee, the committee was familiarized with some I ~ planning terms, vocabulary, and theories of City planning as well as some basic uavelopment facts about Denton. i r, r ~U ~ ~ niw7 mn v 1 r 1 I l~ Y J In the fourth and fifth workshops, the members of the Planning Committee t. f identified the major problems and issues that they fudged most Important for Denton. The Identified issues served as a basis for work in the sixth workshop, ~ when the alternative development plans were prepared by workshop f participants. viii i i I 1 J.XmiYia I.4I4e.'e . N T The Consensus Plan The consolidation, evaluation and final approval of the consensus plan and policies comprised the last steps toward the Denton Development Guide. This was accomplished by first bringing together all of the common elements. i presented in the alternative plans prepared by the five planning teams, A study of the alternative plans showed remarkable similarities of basic city planning foundations of density, major transportation and location of major l activity centers. Detailed variations existed, but all plans exhibited similar principles indicating a high degree of consensus among the committees,* j { NOTE:"A more detailed comparison of the alternative plans is available in a separate report "Towards a Consensus Plan for Denton", June, 1980. i Ix €i f j ~r r. S ?p_Kll i`i )'P/TNT 6 Et??ti+t4 t~hlfk In addition, the technical staff conducted an independent evaluation of the alternatives compared to the finally adopted consensus plan presented in the l next section. This evaluation was considered both from a technical standpoint f and an evaluation of the committees' identified major issue's and goals. A summary of the evaluation Is presented in the Volume I Appendix. 1 Out of these workshops emerged the Overall Concept Plan which is presented in Chapter 11 of this report. i j The development of a concept plan was the first major step towarda a i Development Guide for Denton, Texas. Chapter III of the Development Guide is a more detailed expansion of the policies presented by the Concept Plan, ra l The following report then represents the total Development Guide for Denton, Texas. ; 1 E i I r. i ~ J 1 l,.l I i x i 'N.L5Tt31Y]~ 1 Y.4Y1Wtw YR:ixt.{r R (7Sypplf A I 1. PLAN PURPOSE AND USE i I i j 1 r 1 r PLAN PURPOSE AND USE A. RMODUMON The Denton Development Gulde is both a document 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 P!an and Development Policies. The Concept Plan represents the ! wig Range i Pramework for Growth. It could be compared to a constitution that sets the I base for future day-to-day decision. The next section presents a set of development policies that as a group support 4 I the framework 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 f also intended to document and structure public decision-making in order to { report what is the official policy of the City. I I 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 in the document'itself. This use includes daily discussion, debate, refinement, redrafting or re-commitment to the policies in a consensus planning process. Only through j \ this continuous use can this guide serve its goals of, f 1. Assistance to comprehensive decision-making in a consensus planning { process. j ! 2, Providing a check list of major issues for the purpose of Insuring that all issues are considered in decision-making. 3. Encourage coordination, uniformity, and consistency in our community development. I 1 i PAGE 1 i Y$^,iy3'2i 43MPAr tai l.) i 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. The extent and need for the citizen based consensus planning process In the day-to-day use of this guide Is intended to be flexible depen4ent upon; 1. The extent of uncertainty or controversy, f 2. The time constraint of a pending decision, 3. The technical nature of the Issue as compared to an Issue that is primarily a community value judgment. For example, a question to the use of the guide that is only mildly debated and/or is of an urgent nature should be decided in a quick manner by the j responsible decision makers. Highly technical questions coWd 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 t is primarily a community value judgment should be studied in the context of this I gu tae by a cross-sectional, self-selected cttlz i based consensus planning process, whether only for study of a small question from this guide or for the li 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 hand Use Committee. This procedure is as follows: 4 y 1 {Tit I~ ! j tai I I PAGE 2 I 1 t':I IY!IN 4 V. W ..iA 1"aM1'nt G3 UPDATE PROCEDURE 1. UPDATE DAILY ALONG WITH RELATED DECISIONS (ZONING, C.P. SUBDIVISIONS, ETC.) a. Staff Summary Reports The staff report on all City Counctl/Planning and Zoning decision items shall clearly relato 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 regularly scheduled City Council meeting for action or policy revision. If in case of zoning action, the required policy modification shall accompany the zoning ordinance final action, 2) The City Council wilt make final review of potential policy f change and incorporate said change in the Land Use Policy Guide, c, Any Planning and Toning Commission or City Council Member may present a proposed policy change whether or not a pending or recent Land Use decision has been made. The proposed change is ! i i forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation 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 special mint-neighborhood or Sector consensus planning cross-section type of Study Committee, headed by I ! Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council members, may I j be commissioned. The Committee study time will be structured to I the time constraints of tha decision. The committee will be f charged with bringing back a recommendation to the full Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council PACE 3 S~ 1 $l4tl6g~ a~-24i1 . R1 If Y:Y?Y! Mu.?F',Ytft '(ppryfs 2. YEARLY POLICY GUIDE RE-ADOPTION a. In April the complete policy guide is placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda for re-adoption or recommended minor mcdification. After such study, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to forward a recomendatlon to the City I 1 ! Council at their second meeting in Alay, ~ ff r~ b. The City Council will take the Planning and Zoning Commission f recommendation and reconfirm or modify the ' fy policy guide and adopt the guide as a policy document for the upcoming year. 3. GENERAL POLICY FOR MAJOR UPDATE I i a. ?'his policy guide is to be updated approximately every five years to ten years. i 1) Update dependent upon: a) Population Growth b) Extent of amendments during preceding years (more amendments--more need for general update). 2) Process for update to be decided. at the time of update, f Ik ' 1 4 PAGE 4 iKki J!Pt;A III 1 I ti ~ 1 C. CONCLUSIONS The use of this guide in the context of the total community +evelopment decision making process should therefore take five steps: i A Step 1: 4 quick reference to the Concept Plan to insure over-all broad consistency with the pending decision. Step 2: Reference the functional area of this guide (i.e, housing, i thoroughfares, etc.) for any appropriate policy, i ! Step 3: Reference specialized policy areas of this guide: I *Iocational *special conditions such as current capacity of area public facilities to support the proposed development. { Step 4: Reference other related detail plans, technical information and/or unique individualized characteristics of the Issue under {I study. Step 5: Assess the public- controversy, the technical nature and/or time constraint of the issue under study and then take appropriate planning/decision making action. i 4 I 1 r { i i { PAGE 5 1 . CAP 1 ki5 kkk ~ i { l is THE CONCEPT PLAN LONG RANGE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH 3 l i I 1 1 i I i` I 1 i I I f ' I II. THE CONCFLAN ~ A. INTRODUCTION The Concept Plat outlines the basic Long Range Framework. From this I framework, the Long Range Goals and Objectives emerged, This foundation then forms the basis for the day-to-day development poNaes which follow in the next section. The intent is to provide a context for decision-making today based on a unified long range context that helps make today's decision solve today's problem, while at the same time, not comp3unding problems for the future. I ~ { The following section describes the Concept Plcm's Goals and Objectives, The next section describes the fundamental physical locational policies of the f 1 i Concept Plan, f ' B. OVERALL GOALS AND 0&IECTIM The planning process, including the alternative land use designs and the written and verbal responses, culminated into a Concept Plan. This Concept f Plan generates the specific goals and objectives. The following summarizes an \ 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 around the principle of providing economic opportunities and services of a moderate-sized City while maintaining the small town atmosphere, The goal h; to provide our basic needs while minimizing our ecological and i i social cost, This can be accomplished by such meastv-es as; i i PAGF7 3 d rj l I I M-a bg 1 1 it a. Fncouracltr a Vnrtety_9 Housing from high density to low density and ranchette, with an emphasis upon moderate to low density. b. Keeping all Transportation Systems in balance with land use. i c. Encouraging Green Belts, Open Space and Agriculture Lands both within and adfacent to our City. f d. D_e~ To fp ng Such Concepts as the Community Unit Concept (('-:1,munities within a city, described in more detail in Volume 11 f e, Encouraging Economics ar.d Lifestyles that recognize a sense of productivity and a period of conservatlon by emphasizing: f I) Transportation and Land Use systems that are efficient and support a life-line to good's, services, fobs, and food supplies within close proximity to homes. 2) These transportation systems should be energy efficient and t { give equal consideration to such modes as foot, bike-scooter, public and individual auto, and provide more housing closer to j employment, retail and leisure activities. f. Recognizing individuals And families of differing life-styles and r needs; "protecting all. by providing for all". g. _ tntmize EcatogIcal, 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, r- h. Provide For On-G_otng Citizen Education and participation into future decisions. I Pr1GL 8 X11 `y =1 ec a 2. LONG RANGE DEVEDDPMENT CONCEPT OHJE()TZM 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, r ~ 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 61 specific major areas. The policies will also support other major special purpose centers such as the airport industrial I park area. Lesser multi-purpose centers are emphasized to sub-city areas primarily Intended to seri4ce these areas. The policies for the overall growth frame-work will center around basic ,I objectives of; a. Protection of Existing Deyel2pment, particularly residential development, b. Enaouraginq Development where public facilities capacity is already available and ecologically sensitive areas are not significantly impacted. C. Providing and Maintaining an Overall City Balance between. 1) Transportation and Land Use The transportation tend use concept map provides the basic policy for this balance Insofar as regional and local transit systems and Indtvldual automobile traffic is concerned. , (Integrating pedestrian, bike and/or scooter traffic Is intended by policy but details are beyond the scope of this plan.) PAGR Q 14'i4sANA rsaA;:Ch~ ;H 1 2) Population and Utilities The long-range 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 inile study area would O 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, i, I ~ I I t:•~ i i f ~ I L, !I if I t-, i r PAGE W i 71 1'e .5 { a I; Co CONCEPT PLAN LOCATIONAL POLICIES i. HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ACTIVITY CENTERS A The Concept Plan suggests a balance growth for Denton with three major center areas as focal points 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 A center is the Triangle Mail area with other major centers located at the I Loop 28811-35 area to the north and the Airport area to the west. The plan j also recognizes the unique aspects of the original downtown area as a special-purpose, high-intensity emphasis center, i i 2 HIGHLY CONCENTRATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEN'T' I I The plan suggests industrial activities in large and moderate-sized concentrations, with the majority of the jobs in three industrial areas; the Airport area, the North 1-35/Hwy 77 area, and the Southeast Denton Triangle Mall area (generally north to Morse Road, bounded by Woodrow on 1 the West and MayhilI/1-35 on the east.) 3. 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 reelected intersections of projected new major thoroughfares. However, this development would use site planning, buffer zones of open spaces, etc, to avoid creation of unsightly and inefficient strip-type commercial. i PAGE, II I N.;~ Vlui 4. PREDOMINANTLY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The plan indicates predominantly low density residential development in the city as a whole. N' 6. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Nigher intensity residential uses, represented by high and medium density j development, were distributed to a number of locations with a major F`~ 1 I emphasis to limit excessive concentration in any one placer 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 II transportation congestion, conserve energy and offer diverse life styles for E ) Denton residents. The plan shows the more limited moderately sized concentrations of units generally related to the freeways, greenbelts, major thoroughfares, major and moderate activity centers, or as buffers to higher intensity land use, To avoid creation of additional "concrete cities", site planning, limited use of concrete parking areas, provision of open spaces, small and moderate panes, and buffering with greenbelts is r'i` encouraged with all moderate or high-density housing. 6. TRANSPORTATION c r The plan indicates development patterns related to a transportation system i with the automobile as a dominate form of movement, generally in relation i to the current freeway and major thoroughfare plan. However, the plan recognizes an Increasing role for mass transit and strongly encourages a local system as a priority itern, 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. i i PAGE 12 j~ t7 ~ €a r" Also, through citizen questions and Input, the committee recognizes the need for other modes of transportation to be integrated into an over-ail 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 i plan further suggests a general theme to encourage open space as an element of all urban design decisions. I 8. AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION I The committee recognized the need to preserve and encourage use of agricultural 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 final plan of this committee is needed, i The following Concept Plan map represents a graphic presentation of the preceding locattonul framework. The next section presents a more detailed set of policies designed to help guide community development towards the goals of this Concept Plan. i i i I 1 I PAGE 13 f i i f _ V, l_ Limits of major IIt ban developlnonl,j • I I O'er-'-•• j I \ - f. i ` . • ` al e lv~ Y ~~IyI~~ L • 4•~~. h. Nfltl~3 j : tit-,...+f f • • i ~ ` .7j"rT. • r I ~8 ! erf~r!" ' r dMfrki~d ~y • ~ • I ~Y so ~r ` • t l-tit 0 "s I 1 Its kvnn - / . / / ' }fie • • 1 Plate 1 OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN I r - Icy MDivomi ' Y ancouragod ArL High Intensify Area (Commorcial ernplimis LOW fnterlSl but drvormy encouraged) bul madinm or rge concentralion discouraged i I High Iniensity Area (Fmploymenl empbosis Flood Plain- Open Space (timi'ed urban but dlvarsily encouraged) development, major pedevrion ways ) ~ t Moderate Intensity Area (Dlver,iry Agriculture &,br Extremely Low / s encouraged bur Imied to moderolo concentrahom) Density PAGE 14 I I i f !E t I I 1 E 111, DEVELOPMENT POLICIES i j I~ 1 f r j i I~ ,rr:;..• ,;era y't,~ l ;r III. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. LAND USE INTENSITY AREAS h Y. MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTM a. The PurLose o Desi4natinq Major Activity Areas Is to provide a policy commitment to a general location in order i E to insure: 1 f I 1) Adequate public infra-structure of sewer, water, and transportation facilities to support these centers. Without such a plan, public funds can be Ineffectively utilized; for example, community streets, sewer tines, etc., in areas of j town not supportive of the C(ty's desire for growth. The I Concept Plan suggests balanced growth between all quandrants of the City and for growth to be in balance with existing infra-structure capacity. 2) Make a commitment to the business community that activities in these areas will be supported by City Government while making a commitment to other residents that their neighborhoods and local streets and facilities will not be disrupted an iur by planned ma/or activity center in their neighborhood. b. Commercial and Employme~asis I I The consensus showed by the land use alternatives Indicates the major activity centers to be in the following areas; PAGE 16 }5. r, 1) I-35E; Ilwy 77; North Loop 288 area. 2) Golden Triangle Mail area to Mayhill Road. 3) Airport and 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 empr•ysis on governmental, banking, and specialized retail type urban center. Therefore, it is also given a major activity center designation to order to establish policy emphasis for this purpose, ff , c. Diversity and Nigh Density Residential I It is the policy of this plan that land use diversity, Including high density housing, be encouraged in these areas to not only be a buffer s j to lower Intensity, adjacent areas but also provide transportation balance and energy conservation by having housing in close ' f proximity to jobs and services.' d. 5pectfic Center Characterisics i 1) Triangle Mail Area; Dominant Commerical Center It is the Intent of this plan that the Triangle Mali area have a i 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 I~ 600 acres of commercial and Industrial uses representing over 110000 jobs. I r ~4 "NOTE; All policies are contingent on existing available infra-structure and specifte site design cc,tsiderattons, See Individualized Policies Section, PAGE 17 1 1~ I tt sl M I i 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. I 3) Airport Area, Dominant Employment Center Predominantly Industrial land of approximately 1,400 acres will result in a capacity of over 18,000 jobs In the area. i 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 suggests 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 area. incentives and policies for encouraging realization of previous plans would be encouraged, Innovative programs should be explored; such as emphasis upon pedestrian traffic, use of golf cart-like "trains" within the dowgown area, while developing perimetur parking and local poblic transportation collection a points. i I a fAC,Ii G6 I e, Low Density Neighborhood Protect ton 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, Y9 i I I 7 I 3 , I II ~ I i I I PACE; 19 I Z MODERATE ACTrY 1W CENTER a. Purpose and Intent The purpose of identifying moderate centers of activity pm-alle+s many of the purposes discussed earlier for large centers, like balanced city wide growth. However, In considering the criteria for current capacity and future design capacities for transportation and f utilities, the main consideration is not lust for adequate capacity to accommodate existing and future development demands. This policy for moderate-size centers includes an intent to limit (nfra-structure to the Ip anned limited moderate size centers. This policy helps ~I insure the long-range land use balance indicated by the concept plan, ll h b, Location The general locations of these :enters are shown on the map on page 26, c. Size/Intenstt r 1 f Mait of these centers should serve four neighborhoods (one potential community unit) 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 proto-type mix that encourages diversity and the community unit concept 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 development would bw i I PAGE 20 i 1 l ~ I I I I 30 Acres of Service Industry; r1 20 Acres of Commercial; 150 Acres of Public Lands (large parks, schools, government buildings, etc,); Ee 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 ui) of single-family, I patio houses, duplex and limited townhouse/apartment, all interspersed with open space green ways, 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. 04 Most centers, if not as diversified, would be towards the smatter scale of 30 to 50 acres for primarily commercial center. I t Key factors for fudging a proposed development for this size and Intensity are; 1) Compare first to exi.sttnq (nfra-structure capacity size/tntensity as the current development is always limited to existing capacity. I 2) Compare the development to the ultimate capacity (See Section f on Land Use/Transportation Balance) of the center unit or other defined study area. Note, a proposed development should not w4lize the total area Intensity capacity unless the total area capacity policy is Increased, ! J ' c~ 3 i s f 4, j I 1 PAGE 21 .\f iattl: n. r + !Pgyy~ 7 1 i~ r, 3) Give size bonus for diversity, i.e. (housing, commercial, office, public facilities, open space), and conversely limn stzt for specialized development, (.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 f~ would then be subject to reconsideration (back-zon(ng) to a ; smaller size (specialized center size.) i ~ d. Diversity It is the policy to strongly encourage riversity to the moderate size j center in order to encourage! i Intensity Gradation (buffering); Energy Conservation; Transportation Balance (Eliminate trips across town for f day-to-day needs), € A sense of "my part of town" (a community unit concept); Jobs Close to Housing. i \ The above ment(oned policy (C-3) is one incentive to create a more J diverse center. This policy suggests the size of the center can be increased if the land uses are diverse. However, It is the policy to r grant such bonuses to actual developments and not guarantee them for future contingent phases. (Reference Policy C-3 Preceding.) { e. High Density Housing I ~ The plan indicates some high density housing in connection with the jl major centers under the following limitations, f *Used for Buff er(ng; *Used for Diversity (see above); PAGE 22 i cs it'~W£!p] *Access to Major Thoroughfares Required *Limit Concentration In One Place (500 to 1,000 units); *Good site design standards to protect adjacent stngle- faintly areas (large setbacks, landscaped front yards, screening fences, traffic to major streets only, etcd. f. Low Dens(ty Neighborhood Nousip 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, etcd, Insure transportation land use balance (see policy II In transportation section). Further, traffic plarrn(ng should insure i that, no local residential streets are utilized for general circulation to the high intensity developments, , g. Strip Commercials j 1) Overall Policy Intent It is the intent by encouraging centers of uctivities that the plan discourage strip commercial. Destgnat E ed corridors (although a `i form of strip commercial) wilt 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,); "Encouraging Diversity Down the Corridor (commercial nodes broken up by high density housing, offices, etc,); i j "dtacouroge unsightly and hazardous strip commercial by requiring sign restrictions, buffering by greenbelts and/or landscaping to site designs, I PAGE 23 i h 1 & IAW DrMNSrrY AREM a. Purpnse and Intent All areas not designated high or moderate intensity areas are considered low 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 tr(ps/day/gross acre). Further, these areas represent our primary housing areas. This, these areas should emphasize residential use whereas the other intensity areas might emphasize commercial or employment f areas. b. Gooa.ton The general location of these areas Is shown on the map on page 26. j ~ II c. Size lntensi~ These areas are planned to correspond to an overall gross density 1 /JI policy of 4.7 units/acre and overall Intensity policy measured at 75 E v trips per day per gross acre. (See Appendix Volume 11 for application of these policies.) d. D(yerstty/Neighborhood Protection 1 Diversified 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 f units-see Housing Section), neighborhood commercial, office, etc., I k permitted as long as, j PACE 24 Tj t Ai:iS'L~'!t.l 43`M4alyti i k%;x:3;Y 4i!LtiJ6Y p~N 4i.ywi» ~(re(FJ ~ t 1) Strict site plan control within one block of existing low density °q residential areas (development should malwain character of area, architectural, landscaping, etc.). 2) Traffic pla+vltng insures access by collector street or larger and ri not through local low density streets. 3) The overall density/intensity standard not violated. (See Appendix Volume 11). t I 4) Suffictent green space, recreational facilities and diversity of parks are provided, 5) Input into planning by neighborhood or village councils is provided, F j e. Strip Commercial Any form of continous strip commercial is strongly discouraged in/or backing up to low intensity areas. fh j f 1 i 1 E I I PACE 25 I ~ { of "o of of 1, 4 - --1 ` - ' I f f iv Of 0 ' 06 17 4 ffaadpW!n ' • ,kA 0 • l r Plate 2 High Intensity Areas -1- - LAND USE INTENSIT AIJAS ftom Moderate Intensity Area ~ I Low Intensify Arens , PAC.F 26 ; I B. HOUSING The purpose of the following housing policies is to encourage housing types that respond to the differing economic and Individual lifestyles of Denton's citizens, protect existing and future neighborhood Integrity and insure that our over-all city-wide density policy Is preserved, 1. HOUSING DrOMITY it 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 referenced. In striving for the goal of housing f diversity, the plan recommends that in judging development decisions, we: a. Work towards differing housing types in such quantities city-wide and sector wide 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 ` l to promote balanced diversity growth which provides benefits of balanced land values, better utilization of infra-structure, more energy efficiency, reduces traffic congestion and provides more of a sense of community 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 1 ~ planning policies are; Ir j . i a PAGE 27 h I ryYPlWi1 I'VAiI/i(V. 1 S.'t q u!..~ i r R *No one type of housing overly concentrated in one area; *Good site design transition between housing types and density; buffers (greenbelts, housing Intensity gradation, etc.); *Transportation design where higher density can be served without flowing through lower density transportation facilities, Pro vislons for: I *Multi••moder of transportation integrated within and between I neighborhr.. o and activity centers, r t i "Codes should be expanded where necessary and strongly ! j enforced if already on the books to insure quality of smaller size housing, f E 2. HIGHER AENUN HOUMG a. 62artmentsr Geo a hic_Uistribution It is the overall policy of this plan that apartments be dispersed throughout the City with limited areas of high concentration to any l I one area (See the map on page 33 map,). r i b. Moderate IntensltL:enters (See Policies on Page 22,) (4 a Low Intensity Areas Individualized sites or s,?iall areas throughout the City would be to permitted only if it meets certaln• limited conditions, Typical limitations would be, f } I I 1 E l PAGE: P8 i } R To have major street access (the intent is to limit access through low density housing areas). 2) Desirable to have access to peeestrian, bike-scooter and public transportation. 3) To have strict site design review for all projects within one blo k of existing single family dwellings. (The intent is to protect existir(I 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 andlor grcmbelts 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 areal. 7 5) Not to exceed overall neighborhood density and intensity standard (4.7 gross units per acre on average density and 75 trips/day/acre on average intensity). 6) To be sure that existing street and other public facilities have _rJ adequate, safe capacity for all modes of transportation. r 7) Apartment locations that buffer other higher Intensity uses are desirable, 8) Apartment units are 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 cluster of apartments. I PAGE 29 - sir r, R 3. APARTMENTS, RFXREATION Ii'ACILITIrn 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 swtmming pools, playgrounds, parks, etc, M addition, site plan review tends to insure neighborhood protection. 1 Therefore, it Is the policy of this guide to require Planned Development j i Ordinance control for larger complexes. Since the policy could be prohibitive to small apartment I complexes, it is not suggested that It be j applied to such cases. 4. HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION The intent of these policies as well as numerous other policies throtcghout I I this guide are Intended to preserve our neighborhoods, the backbone of our community. This goal is reinforced by the current unstable economic 1 conditions and dwindling resources which make such things as rising houstrng and energy costs a paramount federal, state, and local Issue. Therefore, ~ ` j the preservation of our existing housing stock becomes a prioriy, and a major intent of these poltries, The specific policies to support of these issues are. t. l a. Modify codes to encourage remodeling of housing and re-development of neighborhoodsi by providing bonus in regulation, taxes, and codes (See more related policies to General Land Use r, Management Policies Section,). J f b, The following general policies are suggested for all current, neighborhoods, but particularly older neighborhoads; I I I PAGE 30 I 'r !j r 1) Code enforcement will have a priority for older neighborhoods, 2) Neighborhood committees, especially multi-noighborhood councils (community unit) will be encouraged to Interface with plmning and zoning, parks and recreation or other pertinent boards as well as city doportmenta and the City Council, 1 c, in review of zoning, subdivision, city budget Capital Improvement Program Planning and other similar decision points priority will be r given to older existing neighborhoods to Insure and put the neighborhood and public on notice that zoning stability will be maintained, subdivisions and housing redevelopment will be encouragd and public funds will have a priority to these areas over newly expanding areas. R I 6. SPOT APARTMENTS IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS Some older neighborhoods have been opened up to apartment develop- ment and there (ire some unique parcels that are unrealistic for further single family development, if it is determined that single family j preservation is not totally preferable for the neighborhood (see above policy) and higher density housing is to o allowed, then, It is the poliay of this guide that oxisting single family still will have n priority for preservation, Therefore, the Intent of the following policies are for that J goal. 1 I j a, Neighborhoods that already have a moderate amount (usually more 1 than 2 complexes/block) of the current type of apartments would be allowed to continue without any new major restrictions. 11owever, neighborhoods should provide input prior to decision on this point. PAGE 31 f y F1 04 I b, Neighborhoods that have only a very limited amount of spot apartment development (usually two or less complexes per block) should have strict site design standards such as. 1) Landscaped front yard, setbacks equivalent in site and 0' F character to the ad/acent single family. 2) No parking to front of the complex. I Ka i 3) Limited concentration on any one block (two per block as j maximum guideline), i 4) Side and rear yard solid screening fences. i 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, (La, Community Unit Volume 11 Appendix) and (See Citizen Input { Section), 1 i PAGE 32 4+ 1 I 1. III 00.1 1~ r I / • r T- `Ift I • rr `r 'n 0 Y \ nI 1++ ~ 1 ft4~Udpl~ln ! , ~ l,~~j ~ s ~ I'_ W'~ i 00 46 ul 06 j V f I'It•~t@ 3Y Fli~h Cc ncentraiion- war 1000vinil, Concenlration- MULTIFAMILY HOUSING Modcraie N,oo Ai 10 1 J0o 0 unili nit LOCATIONS Small II,$vidualivIld 5iles 77 i I I 1 it t II 1 C. PARKS, AND NATURAL RESOUR"M The purpose of this scctton Is to outline basic oft:,-wide policies. Like alt other ureas of this guide, these park policies are Intended tc present only the basic policies which can be used to guide the more deia(led master park planning by the Park Board of the City. i 1. PARKS AND RECREATION 1 a. Park Master Plan { 1) Purpose and Intent ~ I It is the policy of this guide that parks and recreation facilities be provided in accordance with the cum,ently adopted Master Park Plan (1974 Plan Reference Map on page 37) and as modified for conformance to the development guide. 2) Park Planning Policy Ii { J Make ample use of the Hickory Creek Floodplain ''Use as Nolurai 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: i i , i i PAGE 34 ~E s n 'i TYPES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Percents Emphasis Category 1196 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, eta r 30% Neighborhood Parks (5 to 10 acres) 15% Public natural open space (var)ing sizes) 06% Private natural open space (public acquisition of scentc easements, agricultural zoning, etc.) 100% Total amount of resource effort cti TYPES OF PARK F.ACIUT1ES j Percent of Emphasis 11% Cnmmunity Center I 11% Bali Fields 03% Racketball/Exerobie Facilities 4'' J 08% Tennis Courts , 11% Picnic Areas 16% Playgrounds f or children 11% Bikeways/Pedestrian Trails 07% Environmental Corridors 0396 Equestrian/Hiking Trails 3,5% Golf Course 15% Acquisition of Scenic Easements ~ 03% Boulevard and Special Flower-Planning Areas 10% Natural Open Space Areas 03% improved Maintonace of Our Existing Facilities 100% Total Amount of Resource Effort PAGE 36 rs a I ; ~I 2. NATURAL RESOURCES a, Major Floodplatns/Open Spaca Corridors Major floodplatns are part of a natural drainage system. It is the Intent of this policy guide that only limited portions of the floodpian / be utilized for urban development, and the floodplains should basically be maintained as natural drainage ways and open space corridors. Such drainage techniques as levees, cutoff channels and f detention ponds should be encouraged over extensive fill and major channellzation. i b, Agricultural Lands Prime agricultural lands close by the urban centers may be an j Increasing necessity in the face of the currently worsening energy shortage, in addition, agricultural lands & 01030 proximity and as part of our urban setting are needed to maintain our small-town we3tern heritage. Therefore, the jollowing policies are recommended: 1) Major prime agricultural lands in our study area should be encouraged to remain in such use. Some ways to accomplish this are: a. Encourage our legislators to change the tar laws such that strong economic gain can be realized by maintaining one's land to agricultural use, b. Consider the location of such land in (nfra- structure and community facility planning, 2) Vest Pocket Farms Encourage private and txiblic small, one lot or btgr w, garderVfarming throughout the City. + I PAGE 3S kI f ` i if 1 1 I 44..' Q411 ij I ♦.e♦...••• it kil- I \t • ~ Cj f I t~o j 13 h, PI e) E I r p , ! t♦ ~i jx /a L'1 i _ ~ ~ a, ~•I"{`.~ ~\~,t~y ~E ~`~r W'`.'3t~ / y,,•~ /i - ♦ `IL Y Ill ~ l A'~ / A f~l.l ~ll 5 ~ 1 i~ el W a J f ~ .,E,11 I - ~ - Il~ r Au. ht~ S ~r`, '.1 ~ ~ )~•r'~ /`~~1~ N tel. ~t 4 Y 'x~~r j 1 ~ !s, II .1 .r 'I+- • w`t ~ ~,14~. y~f \ \ ~ • ,Sri.. 1 ~ . • ~ s^. r ?+~~,4~,~: fl 1.3'. n..:"~ !~C I is b ~i ~ ,'{S.~ - r Y 1 . } 1.... _ . Plate 4 PARKS, RECREATION, & NATURAL RESOURCES I I Existing Parks Proposed Parks Flood Plain/Open Space I 0 wyhbol'ooo U Noiyhbo,hood x~~lne~ I 1 Commmlly Community Prime Agricultural Land i ✓ ~t~l! I 'MCP,-3,' «„TL<It,~. I `I r I i I` i I I~ I I M i D. UTILITIES Own sWATERXLECTRICITY,AND SOLID WASTE) The lurpose of this section is to outline development policies thit can be used as a guide for the more detailed master uJlity planning (which is beyond the scope of this report), I T~ 1. CURRENT PLANNING 0-10 Year Planning - lit review of current development proposals, capacity should be available to accommodate the current proposed development and also provide enough reservv for additional development on the vacant land in the immediate study area. Such minimum reserve allocation density is three units per acre and/or to,aa zoning density, 2. MID RANGE PLANNING { 10-20 Year Planning - Planning for our twenty Aar accommodate growth of 100,000 planning should people and provide a balanced tnfro-strueturo sytem to serve the density locations as presented in this development guide, I { 8, LONG RANGE PLANNING Long Range Utility Planning should recognize the Concept Plan's density & Noy in order that the next generation does not have to bear th(~ cost of correeting tvider-planned factlitles, In addition, long range utility planning sluauld also be based upon a thorough study of both economic needs for continued growth and the ecological impact of expanding current baste utilities capacity, The citt,ronry should be educated concerning the results of such studies prior to a decision to increase capacity of basic utility facilities, I I PAGE 3R i I r ra ii E. TRANSPORTATION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT I The transportation system is the binding force that ties the land use pattern together. Conflicts arise when the land use intensity and i distribution does not match the transportation system. The major purpose of along range land use transportation plan is to insure that today's incremental decisions not only respond to todays needs but aisc contribute towards the long range Land Use/Transportation plan for the ofty. For example, if we feet high Intensity development is desirable at a particular ' location in the distant future, we would not want to cut off a major 1 transportation route, today- that will be needed in thr future for that area. i I It is the intent of this golds that t)onton's transportation system should react to the community's plan and not have transportation be reactive to l ! unplanned growth, Therefore, the following transportation policies are structured In a two-tiered policy to accompliah this goal. a. Tomorrow's Need; The Plan 1 *Long Range high intensity areas provided with transportation lifelines. 1 b. Today's Needs; "Capacity Today; 1 "'Individualized site design a'9 transportation needs; *Today's decisions st:pportfve of Long Range Plan. ' 1 PAGF, 39 r f! I 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 Improving transportation capacity In this corridor as a continuing priority for the city. This includes auto, bike, scooter, pedestrian, and local and regional mass transit. 1 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 E decisions that are discussed in the next section, I ' The major street plan shows a road network for; ' a. hiafoP Arterial (Primary) 'T'hese steets transverse the city usually are streets with 80 to 120 feet right-of-ways and a landscaped boulevard and parkway are desteblo, if economlcaily feasible, Including maintenance h. Major Arterial (Secondary) ~l These streets connect major sectto::s of town and usually have a right-of-way of 60 to 80 feet, I { PAGE 40 f a I 1 I iI c, Collector Streets Those are not shown on the following major steet map but are 11 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 all modes of individual transportation. These detailed collector street planning are subject to the 4 following policy criteria: 1) At least one collector street per area between arterials to collect neighborhood traffic to the major arterials. ~I j 2) Collector street (or larger) required for higher Intensity land uses such as apartments, industrial areas, and Commercial areas. 3) As Intensity Increases, the number of collectors required 1 increases, Collector stroets should not be allowed to be incrementally linked-up until a major arterial is created, Thit procedure is the same as setting, policy to change land use intensity. If 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, I 1 f ' Pil OF A Z I I 1 1 i a,. CURRENT THOROUGHFARE PLANNING POLICIES i a. treet Capa it Is the policy of this quir.?a that all new developments be required their to provide adequate current street capacity serving development's immediate area and adequate current capacity of the I I nearest major artery serving the development. Capacity criteria for this policy is defined us follows: j Full street 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 portionaliy adjusted to lesser street standards. Exceptions to this policy would be If the City has the opportunity to gel; a major industry to an area of town where the streets are reaching capacity. In this case, the City will consider mitigation measures such as public expenditures for additionol streets or mass transit or a determination to allow the Increased traffic congestions. h. Land Use .inter:stty/7 ransportation Balance 1) Purpose and Intent Tho second determinate of Land Use/Transportation capacity to the overall area intensity halance, The Long Range Concept Plon is based on a transportation land use intensity balance based ~ on the following criteria as shown on the a,ccompanyiny map on page 45 entitled "Transportation Land Use Balance". This balance is based on a trip generation factor allocated to all i j I i PAGE 42 I I c, t Y 1 y, kl j I ~ acreage within the City, divided bets,een high, medium and low Intensity areas, High intensity areas have ro maximum limits„ Guidelines for medium Intensity areas are 250 Wp per day, per gross acre. Low intensity area guidelines are 75 trips per day per acre, i 2) Application of the Policy* I ~ r The policy Is applied as follows: a, Ueterming Intensity: i I. 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, j ti. In a moderate center area, the following procedure ! would be followed, -I- Calculate the aproximate area in acreage from I the concept plan map and adjust for extent of diversity, -2- Calculate the total area trips per day standard i (total acreage X 250 tr(ps/day=total area standard), -3- Estimate existing land use in acreage and calculate trips generated. r f *Volume II Appendix rwovides a more detail of the methodology. l 1 PAGR 43 JIJ I era C 1 •4- Estimate vacant land in area and calculate minimum reserve allocated (minimum de•relopent right). The Reserve allocation is 40% of standard or 100 trlp,Vday X vacai,i land zoned for higher use than MF-l. (And 30 trips per day for lesser zoning,) -5- Estimate unallocated transportation capacity of area by: Total trips per day capacity (Step 2). Minus - Total trips por day used (Step 3) Minus - Total trips per day reserve (Step 4) Fqual - UnallocR6ec trips capacity. -6- Calculate trip generation of proposed development r i ~ and compare results with Step 5. If less than the balance (Step 5), then proposed development is within Tong Range transportation policy guideline, s if more than the balance, the next levels of policy options are. 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 octual development exceeds 250 trips/day standard; (5) reduce minimum development right standard; (6) raiso moderate center standard. i tti. I a major development is proposed in a low intensity area, the sane procodure, 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 umds is 30 trips per day per gross acres. (Corresponds to rninirnum development right of 3.0 units per acre.) (Also reference housing section; for related overall i neighborhocxl density policy (See that section for i exampia calculation.) i 1 PA rr 44 I i e .•.,e~'•~~ / I ~~♦N r.. ••o e♦•♦..e•♦rHrr rr •♦.r 1••s♦.•4 l ~ A11 ~ I ~ ''tt ` r 4~ 0* G • i • l • S, 4 title 7 r ~ ~ . ~ l llt rj ``4 ;3 t\ood )W 1,4 N~ ~ 01 A#7 .a OZ. ~/1 S 1 M.rrkM iY/ / 1 + L ♦ k~F~ Plate 5 TRANSPORTATION/ ® Very Little Control of Intensify LAND USE INTENSITY BALANCE - Moderate 75 v} /doy/oc 250v/d/a u ~il(~n f1C£int j 250 v/A ~f P C , 45 r I i <i r; f. ~f 111 •,i• f I ••.•i / y 5 _F 00 6 0*4 \ r o 1 } i _ 1 ~ . ~ ~ a , I Il 1T " 1 t f'-RIF I I p ~1 r~ V t; " _ I 1 I ~ 04 X \ / / l , • lilt •~i\ti+ar , • mkm Plate 6 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FLAN I Major /\rtBrlal(PRIMARY) Transverses City, h to6 Iones, 861o 120'righi of woy I, Major ArterlFt (SECONDARY) Connects motor sections o1 Ike Cily, 3 to A ones, 60'ro 80'row f l 1 Golleclor(NOT SHOWN)Collacls ns Lborhaod Irollic to orterinls, 50'to 60'row t \rs 0 Existing Grade 6oparalion W Plroposed(New OR aFauaT)Grftde Separation N3f f si NOTE °or O1 3 O see page SI _ PACE 46 f r v,sd oA. 1 1 6. 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 poltoy of this guide is to start today on localized mam transit and to lay a long range plan for inter-regional mass transit networks for t):r, future. The graphic concept plan for this Is presentod to the map on the following EE page. E f i s y i 1 i i i i ~ I i II ~ PAGE 47 T h t „111, I ~ 1 ~ II11Ilf !1 1 ~ ,Ill I I 1 ,''r • 1 141 ' , _ "~c \ ~(1 ,_:E , IIj` ~~J1 .ray L'.,~+~~ ''yJ j•7 % l w ~ ~ 1 I 111 1'` ~ l- ~ % i Plate 7 MASS TRANSIT CONCEPT PLAN i TRANSIT LINE 1 ` 0 Major Local Stops .w..mm Reglonat Mass Transit Lind r Regional Transit Stops Uor park and ride 141 11 1 11 11 Local Mass Transit Line PAGE 48 ; f f1 ~ I 5) i I I I 8. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE Since we spend more time in the walking transportation mode than any I 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, 1 a. Long Range Plan I I f I There should be a city-wide or at least sector-wide iwdestrian and h bicycle-scooter transportation plan developed, i I b. Today's Need Regardless of the above general plan, we should concentrate on the ! following in our current planning: II ' I 1) Require sidewalks and bike-scooter pat~,s on collector streets I~ in all new subdivisions and starting a city program for all older subdivisions, J 2) Consider changing development ordinances to require pedestrian and bike-scooter ways in all large commercial ' parking lots. I 3) r;ncourage all commerclal centers to have at least one safe access that is totally pedestrian. j 4) As part of the implementation of the above Long Range Plan, consider limiting parking on one side of dorrignated streets for bicycle/scooter ways. For equity, this land would be rotated I to the other side every few years, i PAOP 48 I i 1 71 x , sl 1, f ' I i F. INDIVIDUALIZED POLICIES 1, BY DEVELOPMENT AREA CHARACTERISTIC i a. Older neighborhoods An underlying policy of this guide is the increased protection of older 4 neighborhoods, Many interrelated policies speak to this objective, particularly a specific section on housing, should be referenced. Also, the Community Unit Concept in Volume If Appendix with the development of neighborhood and village councils should be noted, i b. Cxistil Neighborhoods and Developed Ansas As a policy of this guide, areas already developed have priority in terms af; " zoning and.vub-dli 4sion protection CIP, C,D,13.0, acid other Infra-structured and community i facilities pro/act 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 r It is the iii;,3nt of this guide to be flexible to unique situations such as left out lots. However, neither this guide, nor the City, guarantees development of all lands in the City to the highest use r desired by the owner, but it does pledge to work with tndivi, aultzod situations keeping in mind basic guide constraints of. i I PAGE 50 n j e1 . t) Protecting existing adfccent housing areas, particularly older housing. i' 2) Maintaining the overall neighborhood density/intensity standards. r One solution to such lots is for nelghborhood associations to explore apparent ways to secure temporarily and/or acquire use of these lots for meeting neighborhood and village recreational , park, green/open space and agricultural needs, I~ 2. SPECIFIC AREA POLICIES I~ a, Future Apartment Zoning North of Oak Street [,united conditions a'.low new zoning in neighborhoods for medium I density housing only and In all cases require strict site (2esign g' 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 ' 4 density/intensity shotdd be carefuiy considered before permitting 1 additional medium density housing. n is b. band Use Bordert~he N 7~.S.U. Caisue _ I i~ Tito N,T,S.U, master plan indtcates Its north boundary to be on West Hickory and its east boor lary art Bernard. On the perimeter of these boundaries, thero is gi cat pressure for some un(versity related III ~ commerL.tal and apartment uses, These land use pressures have been allowed to develop in areas that were previously developed for j single family use, It is the policy of this guide to allow continuation j of this typo of development but only under detail site plan review requirements which should Include nelghborhood Input. i 1 PAGE 51 { 1 c. N.7'.S,U, 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 plane are beyond the scope of this guide, except in regard to the r~ total campus master plaits 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. II Ij J it is specifically noted that the Long Range Major Thoroughfare I Plan does not show an arterial thoroughfare through either campus, but Indicates major arterials on the perimeter of the main campus cores, I Traffic to the N.T.S.U. campus between areas north a..9south of the campus will primarily be carried eta Bonnie Brae and Carroll, but It f Is recognized another intermediate north/south connection, prohably In the Avenue E corridor, needs to be considered in the future, as tho N.T.S.U. campus plan is completed. i j i , t---.- d. Robson Lane, Teasley and West o 1-35E Area It is the policy of this guide that the neighborhood density/tntenstty standard be closely monitored especially in conjunction with commerical and concentrated high density pressures coming from the 1-35R'' corridor. This plan does recognize limited commercial { type developments adjo^ent to 1-35E, but specifies commercial use { circulation be self-contained anti not routed through the Interior ' neighborhoods as this Is a potential problem due to the one li 1 PAGE 52 way service roads, 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 tharoughway traffic flow Is of high priority; therefore, strip commercial of discouraged. However, selected nodes such as the immediate (Owntown area would be permitted, Other sections of Corroll could support duplexes and small scale multi-family and office under very limited conditions; *site design to protect adjacent single family requiring such things as screent;tg fences, large setbacks, landscaped front yards, sign control, etc, *site design to Insure good off-street circulation and parking and very limited curb ruts in order to minimize traffic disruption on Carroll. *Input from adjacent neighborhoods prior to a decision, 2) Nath_Carroll Boulevard Fxtension It Is the policy recommendation of this plan that Carroll Avenue be maintained and Improved as one of the major north/south ' thoroughfares across the City. Part of this policy is to continue the 1974 tWoughf are plan policy that North Carroll should eventually tie into Highway 77 in the most traffic efficient route that Is economically and environmentally feasible. It Is I s PAGE 53 7 } e M recognized that determining the final detail alignment of this connection involves many complicated factors of traff(a engineering, economic cost, and netghborhood- en viranmentat protection. Therefore, it Is further recommended that prior to such connection, a more detailed professional Impact study be conducted to analyze the alternativa means and impacts of connection to T1 Highway 77. f. Fort Worth Drive and Dallas Drive-Heavy Commero'.al Strips It is a policy recommendation that increased public activity is f i needed to promote the improving of traffic flow and upgrading of i the appearances of business along these heavy commercial strips, f Examples of some actions, j 1) Encourage a Fort Worth Drive and a Dalian Drive Business i ~ f ` Association to develop overall plan for, If *signs, *outside storage; *bu(iding refurnishing; *of f-street parking. ' J 2) Based on such mutually developed plans, public action such as: *modify codes to accommodate unique, individualized or group prop(uals, *utilize public funds to upgrade and beautify infra.. / structure; f *increase code enforcement to order to protect invest- ment of public and private owners in upgrading effort. ;I I ~ i v PACE 54 4 i f i g. Fast Denton This close.-In older neighborhood offers many advantages for residential developmenmt. This fuct Is recognized by the recent past and continuing concentrated public expenditures in the area from C.I.P. and C.D.B.C. funds. In light of this commitment, specific policies aro emphasized for the area: l I) The policy to protect older neighborhoods is given special emphasis in this area. i 2) Industrial development adjacent to this neighborhood to the south and east is to be monitored closely. Among other things, industrial development will be limited to the area east of Woodrow Lane. f h. Bell Avenue; University to Sherman f It is the policy recommendation of this plan that Bell Avenue be maintnined and improved as one of the ma/or 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 ervironmentally 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. f~ PACE' 55 r.t~lqrrp 4 P G. LAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES 1. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS a. Purpose and Intent It is the purpose of these pollutes to encourage development in areas of f favorable natural features and where existing streets, attlittes, schools, etc., have existing unused capacity. Conversely, In ar tas inhere there j are Intrusions of ecologically sensitive areas or w1 re major, infra-structure expenditures are required, it is the intent c;t this policy ~ j to encourage development in these areas only when deftctenc(es are j corrected and to limit public funds in these corective measures. By this i policy, (t is the goal that public fending of tnfra-structure be more efficiently used by the utilization of existing facilities first before extensive funding on now facilities. In addition, It is intended to strongly consider mitigation measures before development in i ecologically sensitive areas, Since this co•iceO is somewhat new and since implementation may require extent ~lv,. dotail ordinance review, this guide does not suggest a specific trine m.entatlon policy but dogs recommend its consideration in conth uiny stadies and works of the Planning and Zoning, City Council and ott e'r, '•u'.ore study committees. Some discussion guidelines for this conce;, cro presented in Volume 11 Appendix. II it t i i i i PAGE 56 r t!x v`lid icf bliYk. 2. HOUSING COST AND CITY REGULATIONS 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 dcvelope~, and In turn new homeowners. The conclusion of this guide suggests Denton's current quality and cost r~! i distribution Is just about right, but could possibly be loosened a little oo long as it does not get to extensive. The major objective is for j moderate housing growth. Selective assistance should be provided in certain areas to encourage a I limited amount of additional moderate income housing, I ? Some examples are: c ' i i i 1) Reduce standards that are purely for aesthet(cs, etc,, but not any that will cause future increases In maintenance cost. One example is to allow, in limited areas, streets without curb and c gutter, where drainage is no problem, L. i Allowing more flexibility in house sitting on lot, by requiring only a maximum percent converage and front yard requirement c: and fire separation, 3) Provide more flexible lot width and depth requirements as long as the minimum lot area Is maintained. i ~ i PAGIs s7 i i 14':YKI::v`l 9 k15 E3 t`r Explore housing development c;ncepts 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. 9. CONSERVATION _ a. F;ne! i' Energy conservation to land use planning is a basic policy of this guide. Many policies such as balanced growth of activity centers, I f housing diversity, housing close to employment and retail services, multi-modal transportation, etc., all to part were recommended because of energy consideration. In addition, other specific detail implementation methods should be developed. The following are two example's; 1) All housing, building, zoning codes, and tithe: pertinent a f ordinances should be reviewed and revised to be more congruent with energy conservation and efficiency. 2) Masses of concrete in parking lots, etc., cause energy safety, and aesthetic proolems. Ordinances 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 planning for the future of Denton. Policies should be developed which will encourage such conservation, espectatly of f water, electricity, and natural gas. ll PACE 58 r I l s F ~ I c, Lricultural !xnds, Upert Spaces, and Greenbelts To maintain a balanced, healthy community that is self-sustaining, the conservation of our agricultural land, opon spaces, and greenbelts is Important. Tax Incentive, coordination and cooperation with other governmental units, and In%YA rment of the private sector are all essential to accomplish this goal, Studies to I I better undervtand 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 j , bodies of the county, state, and nearby communities should begin c` r 1 as soon as possible so that future growth avoids major conflicts and 11111 provides for balance between economic, public, health, basic life j support, 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 to order to preclude a solid urban strip from Waco on the South, to Oklahoma City on i the North, I E 4. URBAN DESIGN Marty policies of this guide promote an increase of and awareness of better urbcm design as a policy for Denton, The Inclusion of this policy section Is Intended to specifically emphasize and consolidate this concept as a policy and also specifically recommend zoning, subdivision and other city ordiances be changed towards a unified urban design for the City. Particular concerns are signoge, screening t outside storage, architectural, landscaping, scenic views, green spaces, historical preservatir,t, and other similar urban design concepts. I I PAGE 50 I ' a 5. 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 on-going neighborhood improvement as well as input of all citizens into decisions made by the various city departments, boards, or the City Council as a whole, especially as regards land use issues, Also, the update procedure of this guide 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 detailed multi-mode Integrated transportation plan,) Those procedures emphasize citizen input by self-selected cross-sectional type i committees, One Intent of this type of committee is to strongly i j encourage such committee representatives to be not only representative of their part of the City but also work on problems of all parts of the City and not just on one specialized interest, f i 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 viable neighborhoods. However, (nd(Mitial neighborhood problems are many times intertwined with adjacent neighborbnods and city as a whole. Therefore, the community unit concept (Volume 11 Appendix) suggests as one of Its basic ingredients the need to bind together diverse sections of the community to share in common facil(ttes and mutul problems. As a step towards such concepts and at the some time address Immediate local neighborhood needs, the following process is presented for neighborhood groups consideration; it 1 k i I PAGE 60 i ~ 1 ~I m1l:Y44i~ ~I p:Yg<.QEN~. l' a. Neighborhoods define themselves and establish neighborhood associations; b. Neighhoods cluster themselves Into communities or villages and 04 establish a council made up of representatives of the neighborhood groups. On a continuing basis, these councils could address such things as, 04 1) Protection and maintenance of individual and cammtmity property; I 2) Crime and fire prevention; ~ f 3) Assess needs for and plan for basic life-support servtce.3 within or adjacent to each neighborhood or community ! unit (Le. food, health, facilities schools, rrhtld care centers, housing diversity and density, etc.); 4) Assess needs for recreational, open space, agricultural, E and park facilities; p, f 5) Cooperative methods of conserving energy such as garden or food co-ops, car or van pooling, talent pools, etc.; 6) Muitt-mate transportation needs and facilities. (This Is not an exhaustive list of the functions of these i groups.) 9 These neighborhood or eemmuntty groups would serve a need for local area self-improvement as wall as provide a means for ensuring dialogue between neighborhoods or community loots with city decision making and to addition, provide a vehicle to representative selection to future city cross-sectional study committees, { ~ I j i i f I PAGE 61 i E a 66 Mn= EDUCATION Because the committee supports the basic philosophy adopted by the City Council in calling for this study, i.e., study of the Issues and Input by informed citizens Into land use decisions is Important, It Is recommended that support for continued steady and education of the ( public is reflected to budget and policy decisions by the City Council. j 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 ai~d supportive resources are needed to gather the data necessary to make decisions congruent with the basic goals of this study. Also, educution of the citizenry I,s Important so that decsions tla:y make on public tssuos are Informed decisionst with knowledge of their long range impact on the Iife-styles they have j become accustomed to or desire to attain. f This continuing public education effort should be coordinated by one 1 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. I k { PAGE 62