HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989
B8tJJt. v ti14' i'r.
f
1
WY of DSNT4N 1215 E. MnKlnney / Denton, Texas 76201
. MHMORANDUM
1
I
DATE: November 15, 1989
TO: Prank Robbins, Gxecutlv~~ Diroctor
Planning and Development
PROM: Harry Persaud, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: COMPLHTE COUNT TASK PORC13
k
So 'far the Task Force hold three meetings, The Introductory
E meeting on August 2nd concentrated on various types of local
f promollonal activities to encourage participation in 1990
j census,
At their second meeting on August 29, the Tusk Force discussed
a work pprogram to guide the activities of the Task Force over
the period to September 1900, At that meeting the 't'ask Porco z
i discussed the Involvement of school children in an educational'
project relating to the 1990 census, With the assistance of
Bettye Myers representing DISD, the School Board has adoptod a`
resolution to this effect on October 10, 1989.
A staff member of the Census Bureau was invited to our last
meeting on September 29 to explore areas that the Bureau can
assist us in launching local promotional activities, '
The noxt meeting is scheduled for November 21, 5 p,m,
airy Persaud
a
dw
2047x
}
017Y Of vN1d70N 215 Er MoKlaney / Denton, rexas 76201
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 120 1989
j T0; Jerry Clark, City Engineer
Harry Persaud, Senior Planner
t Wtick Svehla, Deputy City Manager
c FROM. Prank H, Robbins, Executive Director
for Planning and Development
SUBJECT,, Forecasting Work Program N2
Based on our meeting of October 3rd, attached is a second work
program, The project would now be comppleted in February rather
than April. There are some opportunities to do this even
faster. As we discussed the other day, any, program changes
should be agreed to at hater meetings after we have begun what
we agreed to start on October 3rd,
Twill be asking Darlene to gat us together again toward the
end of the second week in October. We can chock our task stati
and revise the work program then.
f ran o ns T~P"`~"
dw
1973x
r
h
FORECASTING WORX PROGRAM 12
h
WHAT FACT '89
WHO WHIN
Develop land use to employ- Planning October 13r 1989
ment conversion chart
Acquire 1980 aerial photos, Planning/Engineering October 13, 1989
Prepare 1986 to 1989 aerial engineering October 20, 1989
Photo(s) and 1980 aerial
with 200 TWO Shown,
Develop 1980 to 1989 platting Engineering October 201 1989
by TSZ Chart.
Determine T8200 foe which there Engineering/Planning October 20r 1989
has been no growth since 19801 review
and for which there is no at a joint
meeting. I`
~ I more developable land built
out TSZ,
prepare land use acres to Plannin
population or employment g catcher 20, 1489
conversion tables.
Develop current data for each TSZ1 October 27, 1989
1. Land use by acres Planning/Engineering
2, Housing units by number Planninq/Engineering
3. Population Planning
f 4. Employment planning/Economic
Development
I
Engineering will Oct bar 27r 1989
measure land-use,
0ount housing
j units, and conduct
Li windshield eurvoya for
TSare not now in L(;M19.
Planning, reorganize November 100 1989
I LUMIS Piles for 200,
TSZ'a and snoods data,
det JAS existing data enonomic Development October 27, 1989
E, as the bases
and Engineering co-
ordi
n
ate`.employment
and make on-ground
survey or phone
calls to'aoyuire
aaaurate employment by
200 TWO,
Deliver to Planning for
LUMI9.
prepare base map with TSZ, current Engineering October 270 1989
zoning and intensity study areas
shown,
i
1C^,4: j
„ Project status
9 page 2
WHO IfBN
Compare existing land use acres Planning November 3, 1989
and existing population and
employment with conversion
tables, Verify and amend
conversion tables,
Develop list of zoning by planning November 3, 1989
land use acres that has
occurred between 1988 and the
present for those T8219
_ that are not built outs
prepare a map overlying 1980 Nriginsering November 3
i TSS aerial showing where actual , 1989
j growth has occurred between
1980 and the present by land use
EE solov#
I Prepare a list of growth I'
Tax1e with the aoreage of actual 8ngineering November 30 1989
growth by land use,
{
Loc4lte "hot projects" and
probable growtij areas to Foracaet Focus November 14, 1989
20106 Group Meeting
I
Complete study area 2010 Planning November
i forecast by population, 17, 1969
{ land use, and employment,
De11e10p "hot projects" and planning/Engineering November 24, 1939
growth area land use acreages.
Complete first 2010 forecast by planning/ 22, 1990
200 TWO of land use, Focus Group December
population, and employment
review by Focus Group,
Complete second iteration planning/ January 19, 1990
Of T$Z 2010 forecasts, Focus Group
Review by Focus Groups,
Complete final forecast Planning January 26, 1990
iteration, Deliver tore
casts to J,19,
Publish forecast data, Planning
Pabruary 9, 1990
` 1991k
i
IR
f:'' y J
3
1
CITY of vjwroAI /215 E, WKlnney / Denton, Texas 7o201
MEMORANDUM
1
f DATEt September 1, 1989
!
TOt Planning and xon.ing commission
f
FROMr
Frank H, itobbina executive Uirectot '
Planning and Development
r
SUBJECTI THE STRIP COMME&CIAL PROBLEM #3 !
BACK-GR,ouxpr
i
r At the budget workshop on August 22nd and during a
on August 15th,-lt.was. ex coning caea'Couha ,
f kinds of issues the auto bodyAShophCaseeilluminated. gIihave eve Co d categor prized thesized thesed
E issues as "the strip commercial problem", e
has voiced the same kind of concerns as were expressedgonnAugust 15, staftoa
anticipates a work session with Council in October on this subject.
THE PROBLEM f
Almost every city in the country with land use 141gulations had addressed this
LJ Problem in one form or another and to varying de.greea, E
1
The characteristics of tns problem seem to boil down into two:categoriees
(1) strip commercial development is unattractive and O 2
streets, , it aougeatr our major
WHAT WZ 1!H yg pONB
Our approach so far has been both cosprenenaive and the City's actions within
the last year to correct the problem have been significant, as follostat
1, Adopted Denton Development Plan aiah separation policies, "1/3 rule" in
moderate activity centers, and a Concept Plan which shows an urban form
without strip commercial development,
24 Adopted Curb co" standards and arterial access rules in the Subdivision
and Land Deve,%, meat Regulations,
h
e
t
tr .
d
t Mayor and City Council
September 10 1989
Page 2
- 3, Adopted a Landscape and Tree Preservation Ordinance.
4, Adopted a Sign Ordinance
5. Initiated a local Keep Texas Beautiful Program which, among other
things, will improve our appearance by controlling litter,
6. Adopt a CIP with an underground utility component,
THE FUTURE
Our vision of the future is not yet clear, however, as exemplified by our
discussions around the auto body and paint zoning case, It seems that the
Council does not believe that we have gone far enough with our newly adopted
standards and approaches to date. Our traditional opproaeh has been to react
to all requests for commercial or retail zoning by, asking for a planned
development rather than "straight zoning".
This reaction essentially would require all zoning eases along major.
thoroughfares to be planned developments, However, planned developments are
most commonly employed for unusual or Particularly difficult locatioaa, not
everywhere along all major streets, The planned development process s both
cumbersome and expensive (in time, money, and energy) for those involved in
the process, It also tends to be a "crap shoot", Predictability is 'low.
Additionally, the 113 rule in the Denton Development Plan still tends to be
"first come first serve." Members of the Appendix o tee have voiced
concern about the disproportionate share analysis, as practiced,
If we have not gone far enough, I suggest that we look at a more predictable
and less cumbersome approach for the process of determining land use along our ,
major streets, Simply, we could move toward developing standards and
processes that encourage what we like and preclude what we should not allow,
The Department has begun to address the strip commercial problem in a proposed
Entranceway Plan outline (attached), and has begun Co explore drainageway
beautification in the contexts of the Greenbelt plan and next year'sCIP.
SOME REGULATORY APPkOACWLS
1. Eliminate from the "C" District some of the more distasteful uses and
I put them into some kind of a new heavy commercial zoning district.
1 2, Develop new commarcial/retail zoning district(s), with a "long menu" of
design related standards (like Carrollton, Plano, and Richardson).
3 3. Increase landscaping standards, and/or building 'setback) and/or height
standards, and/or use new measures as shown is the attached PAS report,
4, Develop entranceway overlay zoning districts with standards or guides
for site plan approval.
5. Develop a land use plan as part of the Penton Duvalo ant Plan for
major streets, detailing the location an or es ga Had ar s
applicable to specific planes. This step could preoode new ordinances,
dj
i~
4,
Mayor and City Council
September 1, 1989
t. page 3
i
6, Require (expensive) traffic impact analyses (TIA's) for all (or most
large) commercial/retail zoning cases and/or plate
7. Develop a conditional use section in the zoning ordinance which would
allow P&Z and Council to attach conditions to "straight zoning",
As a beginning, I would appreciate your thoughts about what specific issues
should be addressed to correct the strip commercial' problem. For instance, Y
heard comments about allowing a'metal building. The issues there are
architectural control and building materials, Additionally, your thoughts
about the degree to which our current regulations have solved that problem
would be helpful. Some ideas on processing the ideas, eg., through the
community, the Beautification Task Force, P42, sto, are requested. With that,
I staff would begin to develop alternative approaches, or we could continue with
our approach of requesting planned developments along all our major streets.
Problem Points
r
In May, staff briefed the City Council concerning the outline of the
entranceway plan and presented a slide show of some of our major streets. I
asked them to comment about the outline and things that came to their minds as-
I I presented each slide. The points they made then were am follows:
4 1. Many different uses (not good or bad, just observation).
2, Cluttered.
3, Signage is a problem.
4. Others have done better.
5, Above ground utilities (add to clutter),
1
6. Need landscaping. Buildings and pavement are hotter without it
7. Lots of assessed (property) value,
84 'Getting battar,
9& set a tone.
10. Aecorstize good work. _Oat Chamber involved.
11. Need strong portable sign enforcement.
12. Banners are controversial.
I 13, Oreater setbacks.
14, Use hedges.
15, hear parking.
16. Mark crosswalks.
j ,
?fr -
}
F Mayor and City Council
September 1, 1989
E Page 4
17. Use patterned brick instead of concrete,
18, Visible trash bins and utility boxes are problems
Other issues anfl points that have been made by others in the context of the
1-35 body shop oase, tho DISD project, and by commissioners who have received
and commented ou the "Commercial Strip" papers and Kendig are as followei
1. Don't allow metal buildings on entranceways.
2. Park care being worked on in rear.
3. Add landscape volume as a regulatory standard to screen.
8xamplet University Bank.
4, Use creeks as an amenity, beautify creeks.
5. Place pedestrian and bike access along creeks.
6. Use material other than cement in drainage ditches.
7, Development costs increase
8, Allow intensity bonuses across study area boundary lines when amenity
or public benefit iscreated outside the study area of the development.
i
9, Create entranceway overlay district.
f 10, Create conditioned use zoning,
11, The parking lot stacking requirement is working with the landscape
ordinance's 201 front yard standard in forcing and locating front yard
landscaping.
Y
v
Frank H, -Roins
wp
Attachment
lot Lloyd HarYbllt City Manager
Beautification Task Force
nm fairs Committee
t 1 0
er en a
Cov
1868k -
r
1
MAKING DENTON LIVABLE
Entranceways: Forin and Hunction
PURPOSii 1. Introduce proposed outline of Entranceway Plane
Form/Landscaping and Design, Function/Mobility and
Land Use.
2, Establish some vision of our arterial corridors or
entranceways.
3. Reaquaint with existing intensity measures
4, introduce transportation modeling and now intensity
measures
S. Acquire Council's comments and ideas
ENTRANCEWAY PLAN
A, Design Componentsi Cheating recognizable and itnique
f attractive images,
~ f
f: 1. Vegetation: Diversity. Low Maintenaace,
-2, Pedestrian and bike access,
j 3. Vehicular access and thru traffic,
4. Street furniture
E 5. Unique 'urban places
{ 6. Signage
7. Liter abatement
61 Uses and compatibility
9. Scale of buildings
10, Setbacks
II, Parking
12, Fighting
13\ Vti site traffic clrculaton
j 14, Curb cuts
I 15, Median `design
16\ Lot size and configuration
17, Buffering, visual -and noise
j
1.
B, An Action Plan of Public Landscaping Improvements
f i, Settin Priorities
2. Establishing per unit costs
34 Allocation of cost9, CIP and\ budgets
4. Public lnvolvementi - Volunteerism and Public Service,
Keep Texas Beautiful in Denton.
r
1
Making Denton Livable
April 17, 1989
i Page 2
C. Regulatory Approaches, Beyond 'lintensity"
1. Transportation Modeling and .Traffic impact Analysis
(TIArs)
a, Accurate measures of transportation impacts,
2, New Standards for Nonresidential Uses (by Lane Kendig)
a. The Problem With Traditional Nonresidential
Land-Use Intensity Standards.
b. Some Old and Some New Principal Land-Use Intensity
( standards
building Coverage
Lmperyious'Surface Ratio
I Landscape Surface Ratio
Building Volume Ratio
Landscape Volume Ratio
Site Volume Ratio
Lane-Use Intensity Systems
c. How the Interaction of Standards Affects Intensity
Parking Ratios
J Parking Area
j Parking Setback
I 1 Loading Regulations
Height
Minimum Lot Area
M
Li I d. Intensity`Standarda for Measuring Carrying Capacity
Trip Generation Standards
Water andSewer Systems
Resource Protection
e. Community Character and Intensity Standards
i73IX
r
CITY of D!'NTON 1215 E. McK1nnsy 1 Dsnton, Pskas 78201
MEMORANDUM
DATE; December 8, 1989
' TO., Mayor Ray Stephens
E PROM: huline Brock, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND GOALS
I 1
Thank you for the opportunityto report to you about the work
of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
i of the Council, the many other Boards and}CommissionlthatdWehat
work with, and the interest And involveaent of many individual
citizens, we believe our accomplishments during the past fiscal ,
year have been quite substantial. We believe our goals for
f community, are very aggressive, but extremely
rImportant 'for the
Following are the past year's accompiishmentsi
1. Adoption of Appendix A to the Denton Development Plan, ,
2. Twelve; proposed or adopted amendments to the Denton
Development Plan.
*9 study areas boundary amendments
*Oak-Hickory Thoroughfare Plan note
*Air ort Sppecial Activity.Expansion
6141 9 density removed from moderate activity center bonus E
ce culatiun. •
36Adoption of the Park Donation Policy recommended by Parks
Board,
4. 1988 CIP
S. Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance promulgation and
moratarit:m.
}
.
Memo to Mayor Ray Stephens
December 8, 1989
a ► Page 2
6. Adopted Sign Ordinance.
7. Discussed Greenbelt Planning Concepts,
81 Promulgated rewrite of two major sections of subdivision
regulations.
Drainage Section
*Process Section
9, Adopted Denton Development Plan Utility Line Criteria,
10, Reviewed and conceptually approved Bed and Breakfast
Ordinance,
11. Conceptually approved uses in single family districts,
12. Recommended Locust and Myrtle access,
` 13, Approved sidewal!t locations for CXP items,
14. Adopted downzoning fee,
j j 151 Statistical information
a, Conducted rS public hearings
jj b, Reviewed 42 plats
f c, Reviewed 27 zoning cases
d, Conducted 26 workshops or study sessions
~ a, Reviewed 4 tree removal cases
f. Reviewed 3 941 , Cases
g Reviewed I ..f indonments
h. Revio4ed 2 variances
i, Reviewed 2 annexations
Following are our goals for this year,
1 Continue the rewrite of the Subdivision and Land
Development Regulations by adopting new drainage and
process sections,
,
~41~mo to Mayor Ray Stephens
December 8, 1989
f Page 3
2, Rewrite the zoning ordinance to include new regulations
for our entranceways,
31 Develop the Capital Improvements Plan,
4, Develop an Entranceway Plan.
S. Develop a Greenbelt Plan,
6, Begin major thoroughfare planning using automated
transportation modeling,'
71 Develop an 'Annexation Plan,
8, Complete 1010 population and employment forecasts,
E
9, Adoption of a Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance.
-10R Adoption of an Airport Zoning Authority Ordinance.
11. Improve development` case reports to Council by using
sllidas and GIS produced maps and data.
1 With best regards and appreciation for
planning and zoning. Your interest in
Buline Brock
dw
)i
E
2064x
~f T
wl~~ 1 '
MEN
Rl
u WN1A
f
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
wry a/ D!'111roN / 215 E. A4001ney / Denton, Texas 7620E
MEMORANDUM
DATE; November 2, 1989
Planning and Zoning Commission
I ! FROM, Frank H. Robbins, Executive Director
j for 'Planning and Development
SUBJECT; SIGN ORDINANCE REVIEW
BACKGROUND
Council asked at the adoption of the newest sign ordinanc
February 1989 for an annual review of it, Largely , as a in
consequence of a Council member's request for a proposal to
allow the use of an existing supporting structure for anew
sign
n that would conform in size and height, he com
prehensive
review process has nlread begun, of sign issues raised andythat individualsea~ndythe$Crd a hambermofr
Commerce are working on ordinance amendments,
Otig
f THE PROCESS
LLr f
P SCOPE OF AMENDMENTS
One of the first decisions we might make, and one for which f
Council m ht
g participate, concerns the scope of o
amendment
Would the scope p tentiaT
' s' be broad and might we consider
j fundamentally new gppraaches es and be in a "re-" mode or
should the scope be one of fihe•tuni write
n withfn the basic
approaches of the ordinance? (gee thegattached "Approaches
Paper") Of course, we could decide that further amendments are
1
unnec6ssary, 1f 'a process were used to first determine scope j
and later to consider any ordinance amendments, staff proposes
a two phase review process, The First phase; would be to
determine scope and a doflnition of what issues required
further study, of which Council would approve,
F
.1
yiy ,R
Memo to Manning and Zoning Commission
7 November 2, 1989
Page 2
The second would be to conduct further study into the a
reed
upon issues warranting possible amendments, This two phased
approach mignt be used if it is felt that the ordinance is
basically sound and effective in facilitating beautification
and more effective signage. This two phased a
explicitly provide Council a ood frocom would
with the public and P&Z at a mid-courrsepointforcommunication
useful to invite members of the Council toiattendtP&Zy also be
public
hearings and workshops in order for them to remain relatively
close to community input and as a means for P&Z to provide
Insight to Council during the process,
THE LIMNING PROCBS5
Prior to any decision on the scope of the sign ordinance review
or about areas of potential ordinance amendments, we might
i embark on a ,
ordinance, program similar to the one used to adopt the latest
J
P4Z by the GovernmentalsAffairsvCommitteerofithe Chembermoft to
Commerce and the Beautification Task Force, meership
the Beautification Task Force has been expandedewithbmemberrsoof
{ the Keep Denton Beautiful Committee, and it has become the
J I Beautification Commission, The Chamber has advised us of a
sign poll that they are taking, tho result of which would be
provided P&Z and the Council,
€ These tyo groups may again provide productive and in's
forums for individual's and groups concerns to be alredtful
discussed and distilled into retommendations'to the M. As
these two groups interacted` with each other and PF,Z during the
initial drafting process last
was reached prior to P4Z's finalarecommendationltofCouncilSus
P&Z might determine if these two groups would again make
recommendations and request staff and/orP&Z member liaison
between the two groups and attendance at their meeting s,
could hold ppublic, hearings as, these two groups 'make their Pis
recommendtitions, P4Z's public hearing schedule could be a
function of the timing of Beautification's and Governmental
Affair's comments,
Staff can provide this document with its "Approach Paper" and
an "Issuos Paper" to those groups for discussion purposes,
Staff has also acquired two short before and after slide shows
from Lubbock and Dublin, Ohio,
Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission
i November 2, 1989
page 3
i
i
Staff proposes to present a sign issues Paper to ;P42 on
and ve cmobermmen2ts 2nd, from At Gtovehatr meeting, a public hearing could be held
nmental Affairs and Beautification could
be taken at that time, or their comments and ideas could be
communicated more informally,
Staff recommends a mailed notice be sent to all licensed sign
'
contractors a1id others as you may direct of a November 22nd
public hearing about our comprehensive review process.
CT
f &ran.ob3 ns
! dw
xc: Jsanae Morrison, Beautification Commission
Jerry Cott, Governmental Affairs'Committee-
{ E 2019X
if
z
t ~
I
I
1959 SIGN ORDINANCE APPROACHES
r. 1. Portable signs
a, Qualified registration requirements and "move it
and lose it" provision has already resulted in the
removal of about half of the portable sign clutter
in the city.
b, No more portable signs are allowed,
2. Sign height and size. By zoning and street adjacency.
a. The size and heigght are `regulated by whether the
sign is in a residential or non-residential
dl strict, Height is measured from the.curb line of
the adjacent street, be it an access, service, or
marginal access street. Residential district; 50
square feet in size and 6 feet tall, maximum.
b. Size and height in non-residential districts vary
according to the adjacent street as follows;
IH 35 ;
250 square feet,` 40 feet tall
Loop 288 150 square feet, 30 feet tall
All others; 60 square feet, 6 feet tall.
No more than 801 plastic.
31 Licensing, All sign contractors pay a nominal fee and
are given an "open book" test on the sign ordinance
prior to licensing and their construction of a sign
requiring a permit,
4. Number of signs,
i
a. Ground signs. By premise. One per 500 feet of f
frontage.
b. On-premise ground signs must be 400 feet apace when
more than one per premise is allowed,
C, Off-premise. By spacing 1500 feet separation,
Off premise signs
LJ
a. Same site as on-premise signs, There is no
distinction about size or height between on and
off-premise signs,
6, Temporary signs;
a, Event banners over streets are allowed,
r..
r i
r
y
W ww
S*Y.L 559
a
a
1989 Sign Ordinance Approachos
Page 2
b, Other banners, pennants and streamers are allowed
for 30 day maximum periods and for only 3 times per
premise per year,
c. Stake signs are authorized as temporary size and do
require permits,
7. Special provisions
a. Larger, taller signs are allowed where street
frontage exceeds 500 feet (120 square feet, 15 feet
tall)
I
b. Wail signs are not regulated unless they are
illuminated or projecting,
C. Special standards for historic district,
d. Roof signs are regulated by stories of the building,
e, Stake signs, No permit required, N
32 'square £eet, One off-premise real estate sign
allowed. hvettt stake signs must be removed within
! 10 days,
E
8. Non-conforming sign removal,
i a, 1£ a portable sign is moved, it may no
' Y not be replaced. j
b. If more than 60 percent damaged, it may not be ~f
repaired and must be removed,
c, Illegally placed signs, Notice to ownc,r, hive
L
business days to ;remove, tuilding ncficial may
remove and charge cost of removal,
d, if the material bearing. the sign letters or symbols
Are t:hanged, the sign must meet all the provisions
. of the ordinance,
of a afar n sign), Changing out letter and symbols
(eg 9 and billboard paper, and
painting over a sign face are allowed,
Special exceptions, Very narrow, Only a
height and setback for view obstructedandpmedical as to
emergency signage, No variance provision,
i'
v t':
Now-
,
l a.
p
.
wry Of D<NTON / 216 6, MoKloney / Denton, Texas 76201
MEMORANDUM
DATES October 230 1959
1 TOc Mayor and City Council
{ FROM$ Prank H. Robbins, Executive Director
Planning and Development
SUBJECTS ANALYZING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
PURPOSE
i The purpose of the work session is to review with the Council our most
recent staff work with the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the
f platting process.
I BACKQROUND
is In March 1989, the Council's strata is
1 analyzing the develo ment g goals committed responsible for
p process reported to you that the Following
objectives and tasks should be undeetakent
i
1, Continue regulatory streamlinibg,
2. Consider eliminating Council from the plat review process,
3. Analyze the impacts of required regulatory procedures.
Staff has been pursuing these tasks in the context of our re-write of
the subdivision and Lane, Development Regulations
Additionally, Senate` Bill 1075 came into effect in August, it f
aubatantially changes state subdivision law as followas {
I
1. Allows a city employee to approve, but not disapprove, plats with
four or fatter iota on an existing street, and where extension of 1
"municipal facilities" are not reauired,
2. Changes notice for residential replats to owners in the "original
subdivision" within 200 feet of the replat, regardless of the 'number i
' of iota to the aubdiviaion.
i
i
i
v,
i~
}
Mayor and City Council
October 23, 1969
Page 2
3. ply C. replat protest
re "standing" to those within 200 feet of the
reple
4, Authorizes the plat approving authority to approve protested plats
(20% of those within 200 feet) by three-fourths vote which
eliminates the "66 2/3% rule." '
Staff held a work session with Planning and Zoning in August to discuss
the platting process re-write, SB1075, and the goals committee's work.
STREAMLINING AND`ISsoEs
Streamlining the regulatory process simply weans making it easier to
understand and use, less time consuming, more efficient, and usually
leas costly for the public and private sector without decreasing
appropriate and in-depth scrutiny.
Three aspects of Texas platting laws related to steamlining are:
1. Approval of a plat is an administrative not a legislative act,
2. If a plat meats the requirements of the applicable ordinance, it
must be approved.
3, Vital plats must be approved by the wunicipal authority within 30
days, if the Commission approves the plat{ or 60 days, if the
Council approves plate.
Given the nature of plat decision making and the potential; for sh;rtening the
existing proo,esa, the goals committee and Planning and Zoning are exploring
the following iesues4
Issues
i. !,let decisions and plat variance decided by Planning and zoning,
only,
Currently Council approves !ki
preliminary piers, variances to the ,
Subdivision and Land Development Regulat.iona, and replete,
it
2s. Allow submission of the preliminary and final plate at one time for
all plats on a voluntary basis by the subdivider] or j
2b. Allow the Development Review Committee to approve preliminary plats.
3. Allow staff approval of minor subdivisions in acoordenee with SB10796
`
I
Planning and Zoning and staff have agreed that not all 'large or
intensive four lot plats should go without public review by Planning
and Zoning, Tentative parameters discusebd by the staff would allow
staff approval` of four lot plats that are five acres or leas in
size, unless the four lots were all single familyl and that the
subdivision would not generate more than 5,000 vehicle trips per day,
11A iYir"v:3!j
I
ly , Mayor and City Council
October 23, 1989
Page 3
Replats that require public hearings are required, regardless of the
number of lots, still have to be reviewed by the municipal authority
that approves plate.
4. Not require platting for a single parcel not being subdivided, which
was subdivided before Denton- adopted subdivision regulations, or
before'Denton's subdivision regulation became effective in the ETJ{
If basic water, sewer, and street improvements are adequate.
5. Platting and exaction standards for existing development.
Redevelopment incentives.
THE REWRITE PROCESS
The Subdivision and Land Development Regulations are bE,ing re-written
section by section. Last year we adopted a new street, sidewalk, and
parking lot section, A planning and zoning Committee is now working on
the drainage section. As the drainage 3ection reaches its final phases,
a now process section will be presented to Planning and Zoning for their
review and recommendation to Council.
I ATTACHNLNTS
591075
l Plat Flow Chart
Replat Flow Chart
ran 16 ns, C~'
2741,
A
i;
i
1
F
DILPRINT DATE; 06/211/99 TIME; 1408;26 PAGE;
A;LL NUMBER: SB1075 ENROLLED VERSION LEGISES: '1R
S.B. No. 1075
S.B. No. 1.0-75
AN ACT
relating to the authority and procedure for approving the revision of a
subdivision plat in certain incorporated areas of a county,
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OP THE STATE OF TEXAS$
SECTION 1. Chapter 212, Local Government Code, is amended by
adding Section 212,0065 to read as foll.owar
(Sec, 212,0065, DELEGATION OF -APPROVAL -RESPONSIBILITY. A
munici al t may dele ate the d t to approve m nor- ats nvolvin
four or ewer lots rontin on an axis tn street an not re uir n the
croation of an new street or t.3 extehsion of mun ci al facilities to an
employee o the mun ai a it The designated em to ee ma for an
reason -e ect to resent the st tote mun c a Bann ng comm ssion or
govern no ody, or oth to a rove the at. T e em to ee s a1 net
_disapprove the plat an she 1 be re u red to refer an at w c he
refusesto approve tote -municipal planning oomm ss on or overn ng body,
or both, within t e t me` era specified in Seat on 2 2,0 9.
SECTION 2, Subsection ( Sect on 212. 15, Local Government Code,
is amended to read as followsr
(b) Notice of the hearing required under Section 212.014 shall be
1 given before the 15th day before the data of the hearing by(t)
( 1)) publication in an official newspaper or -a newspaper
of general circu ation in the county in which the municipality is
located{i) and
((2).} by written notice, with a copy of Subsection (0)
attached, forwar ed by the municipal authority responsible for approving
slats to the owners (o_f Pro ert in the original subdivision), as
indicated on the most recently approve mun c a to -Me ereo tax roll
(or in the case of a subdivision within t ha extraterritorial urisdiotion
the most recently approved count tax roll within 200 feet o the property
upon w oh the replat_ s_requested)
<e »b a-illtlrt a pe by e-govern R9- a YT
i el-a}}-#e6e- n-t e,preee rtg-p ab>. The written notice may be delivered
C by depositing the notice, properly addressed with portage prepaid, in a
f post office or postal depository within the boundarien of the
{ i municipality, <s!-bke-preesd#rtg-p#ab-erertba#nr»Mere-dkae»#'AA-#eber-bhe
wr#rteh-nee ee-rka#i-ba-me##ed-nn#1►-te~bhe-owners-ed-#etss-#eeseed~w4bk#rt
I 59A-feeb-e!»Eke»~etr»tie-be-rep~AbtedT>
SECTION 3. Subsection (a), Section 212.015, Local Government Code,
is amended to read as followsr
(c) (If the r osed re plat is rotested in accordance with this '
subsection t e ro ose 'ra at must rece ve n order to be approved. he
a rmat vs vote o a east t retw our a o a members o the mun C a
`planning commission or overnin o V# or of or a legal Drotest,
written instruments r ne ,op ers o at least ~ 20 ercen o t e
area o the ots or an mete ate a o n n t o area
oovere Y .t e
propose T_. repl4t ~ A eaten n.q 2-65-7a-at rem t at area, ut w t i n tTe
vri inai auuazvzsion must ne filed with the munic~a ann n comet scion
or govern na body, or Ot , prior to the close o t e W C earin <f.
~9-pereehti-er-mere»e -b a-owners-tis-wkers•rted es~»rewYw_re » s• a-~, van
ender-8bbreeh#ert-4b}-!##e-w#hh-6ke-Mar#c#pe#-eudher#br-rsrpdrrebia-ler
epprev#rty-p#abs-a-wr#kbert-greberb»e!-bhorral►~abk#ny-bolero-er-ed~ehe
hear#rt~T-bhe-Mah4espa#-+lbbher#ey-ske~~»regd#rs-ler-ehe«rep#adb#n~-bke
+r4bEerr-approve#~ef»abr#Barb-66-Ada-pereertb-al-hhe-ewNSrr-el-as#-#ebr-#rt
rhe~preeed#rt~f-p#se-er-el-the-owners-el-Webs-#eeabed-w#bh#rt-58A»lee6-e!-she
6-1
3
i+
9ILPRih DAM 06121183
BILL NUMBERI 581075 T1y ~ 14;38;26 PAGE1 2
ENROLLED VERSION
LEG/SES, 71R
tebs~be-be-rep}atbed-#£-bhe-preeed#n
n-aen~pdt#hg-pere~snbeges-ef-ewRereh#g p"at-eenba#ne-Mera-bhen-#d8-}eas
ne#dered-egea}-Ee-e}}
ether-}eta-regard}eee-e£-a#ee-er-n nbaree£ ewtiereT-and-fhe_e~vners-e£-eateh
}eb-are-en6#b}ed,be-vaeb-an}Y-ens-vbbe-per-}eEs>
SECTION 4. Section 212,0151 Local Government Code
adding Subsection (d) to read as follows: is amended by
['(d} In com utin the ercenta a of land area under Subsection
!c) the area of streets 7m-d'-
all ess all a fnclu e I
SECTION Subsection (d), Section
is amended to read as followsi 12, 15, Local Government Code,
( !e)) <40> compliance with Subsections «b
not required for approval of a re plat of part a } acedg pla t( P the
is
area to be replatted was designated or reservedPfor potherithan`sin le or
duplex family residential use by notation on the last legally recorded
1 plat or in the legally recorded restrictions applicable to the plat,
SECTION 6. Section 232,009, Local Government Code i
T 1 read as follows. is a
Set,',
232.009, REVISION OF .PLAT, (a (s mended to
to real ro art located outside munioi alitieaTnd-the{exkreterretiorna
ur sd at nn of mun ai a t es wit a o u at on `o
as daterm ne un er C a ter 4 m on or more
subdivis on controlsoofWthe countydin whichathetlanadiIsslocatt to the
! in writing to the Commissioners court of the county for permissionytopply
revise the subdivision plat filed fOr record with the county clerk,
( 01) <0*} After the application is filed with the commissioners
court, t e court shall publish a notice of the application in a`newspaper
f general circulation in the county. The notice must include a statement
of the time and place at which the court will meet to consider he
application and to hear protests to the revision of the plat, The notice
{ must be published at least three times during the period
the 30th day and ends on the seventh day before the date oatheAgeeteg,
If All or
part of the subdivided tract has been sold to nondeveloper
owners, the court shall also give notice to each of those owners by
Certified or registered mail, return recei t re
address in the subdivided tract, p quested, at the owner's
<{e}> During a regular term of the oommissioners court, the
court she adopt an order to permit the revision of the subdivision, plat
j if it is shown to the court thatt
(1) the revision will not interfere with the established
rights of any owner of a part of the subdivided lands or
(2) each owner whose rights may be interfered with has
agreed to the rei-ision.
(,4,) <440 If the commissioners court permits a person to revise
a subdiv A on plat, _the person may make thn revision by filing for record
with the county clerk a revised plat or parr of a plat that indicates the
changes made to the original plat,
SECTION 7. Chapter 232, Local Government Code, is amended by
adding Section 232.010 to read as follows.
(Seo, 2,32.010. EXCEPTIONTO MAT 12E 112Z AMENTt CO
DETEM1 ATIO cbmm ss onars lour c e noun UN
0 ortl0ns 0 tl • Or mOYe rev ou
m a tlw Conv! a oe
egpr I D,
2-1 t on trout rev a t o efts ots m •s an o n s
ECT ON , a mportanae oatthis legislation and the crowded
condition of the calendars in both houses create an emergency and an
imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills
6-2
q
BILPRINT DA ~r 06/22/89
BILL NUNBSPi Se1075 ENROLLED VERSIONTIMEt 14:38:26 PAGEt 3
LEG/SES: 71R
j \ B
to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this hereby suspended, and that this Act take effect and be in forcefromu`e
and after its passage, and it is so enacted,
S.S. No. 1075
President o t e Senate
I hereby certify that $.H. (~o,SP075er a t e House
19890 by the following voter Yeas 31, 'lays 0; an the senate on April 20,
concurred ih House amendments on May 28, 1989, and that the Senate
Yeas 28, Nays 0. by the following vote:
I hereby certify that S.B. No, 107ecretary o t e Senate
amendments, on May 27, 1989, b passed the House, with
y a non-record vote.
Approvedr e C er o t e ouse
Date
Governor
I~ ~ r
I i
i
I ~
1
i
s 1
,
I
I,
,.1 s
i
i
E!I
\4rn p,
i{
PLAT
PREDE$IGN CONFERENCE*
PRELIMINARY PLAT**
FINAL PLAT
AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECOMNEHUATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
(REVIEW WILL CONTINUE WHILE RECOMMENDATION
REVISIONS ARE SUBMITTED.) (REVIEW WILL CONTINUE WHILE
REVISIONS ARE SUBMITTED,)
r ~
r j COURTESY NOTICE TO ADJACENT 1
i PROPERTY OWNERS it OVER r"WZZANNING AND ZONING
100 ACRES COMMISSION
PLANNING ANU`ZONING COMMISSION
NYLAR AN,) COPIES SUBMITTED ,
AND SIGNED !OR PILING,
Li CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
i
f
i
* UNLESS WAIVED BY CHAIR 0? DRC
rr PROPERTIES THAT D0 NOT REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF ENGINEERING
RIVIIW
PLAMB MAY BE T DO EA P)LLOWINO THE FINAL PLAT PROCESS
1745x
:j
6
h
1
r
REPLAT
FPPREDESIGN CONFERENCE*
PRELIMINARY PLAT" FINAL PLAT
FAND PLANS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
(REVIEW WILL CONTINUE: WHILE (REVIEW WILL CONTINUE WHILE
REVISIONS ARE SUBMITTED.) REVISIONS ARE SUBMITTED.)
NOTICE TO PROPZRTY OWNERS
IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
` PLAT IF RESIDENTIAL USE FOR
NOT MORE THAN TWO UNITS PER r
LOT - 15 DAYS PRIOR TO
PUBLIC REARING
1
E PLANNING AND 20NING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND ZONING
I) COMM298ION PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
IT
Y COUNCIL
BLIC StAIIINC
i E:pUo
FA AND COPtEB 800MITTED
SIGNED Nit FILING.
i
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS
PlttOR TO CONBTA CT10N
* UNLESS WAIVED BY CHAIR Of DRC
ar PROPERTIES THAT )0 NOT REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF LNOIN1dERYNG
PLANS MAY BE R'tVIEWYD FOLLOWING THE ?%HAL PLAT PROCESS
1r45k
.1
i
~r its`(1
i
2
1
Wry Of DAMON / 215 E. McKinney / Denton, Texas 76101
MEMORANDUM
DA'i8; October 17, 1989
TO: Mayor Ray Stephens
PROM: Frank H, Robbins, Executive Director '
f for Planning and Development
SUBJECT: PEP BOYS NOTICE RESPONSE
i
Following is an excerpt from the State's zoning legislation,
t
i (d) "If a proposed change to a regulation or boundary is
protested in accordance,with this subsection, 'the
proposed changge muot receive, in order to take
effect, the 'affirmative -vote of at least
three -fourths of all members of the overnin body,
e prgteSt uSt e written ansigned y the OWnOrS
i
i of at least 20 percent of either:
(1) the area of the lots or land covered` by the
propose. change, or
(2) the area of the lots or land Immediately
adjo n ng the area covered by the proposed_
change and extending 200 feet from that area,
(e) In computing the percentago of land area under
' Subsection (d), the area of streets and alloys shall
be Included."
ThatosIst ed If owners of 20 percent of the land either in the
three-fourzoning th Council vote ~Isw required 0 to approve rof it ove the zoning
change. pprove the zoning ;
f
i
ar:•ia:rxfA
an;aky .
;
Memo to Mayor Ray Stephens
Page 2
r October 17, 1989
Following is a list of Township II owner's responses
Total eligible to respond; 20
'Dotal responses: 13
Total negative responses; 13 or 100 percent of those
responding, responded
negatively.
Additionally, we received a protest petition from the vast
majority of the rest of Township It.
Following is a list of responses by land area:
Total area in Township 11 eligible to be counted; I
121,386 sq. ft.
Total area in Township II for which a'response was made:
861065 sq. ft. i
Total area in Township 11 for which a protest response
wag made: 86,065 sq. ft.
Total area within 200 feat of the zoning case.
f 3550774 sq. ft.
Percent of area for which there was a protest response.
24.19 percent
Attached is a map with the protested property s,taded.
Attached is our legal opinion about counting street
right-of-way with a protesting lots owners land,
s
k
ran c , o ns AICF
E
dw
C
xc: Gi¢yd%Harzdl.I'~' Ci'ty.Mariager
Members of the City Council
Zoning Case Pile
1985x
4
l4xc:~{1
{4
it i tt
to f~ ,9t'ff!
w 5 o' ~ U ~ O
V
;a LW
/ =or
'
N-1h 40
N ~ ~ n D ob•, a~~ ~ qs
vG aa~, a ,oti
• ~ i fib.
Y ~d
° I"b` o'daI duo , E
dm ~ N
o~
+s... .b
i1
=...m icier
i
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
Tot Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council
FROMt Joe D. Morris, Assistant City Attorney
f SUBJECT: inclusion of streets in calculating the Twenty
Percent of Land Area for Zoning Protests
I DATEt September 26, 1989
I
f Section 211.006 (d) of the Local Government Code (Vernon1988)
provides that the Council must approve a zoning change 'by_4 vote
I of at least three-fourths of its members if the change is protested
{ ) in writing by the owners of at least twenty percent of the area of
land within 200 feet of the land being rezoned. The statute also ;
} provides that in computing the percentage of land under that
i provision, "the area of streets and alleys shall be included."
• Attorney General Opinion JM-676 (1987), generally' discusses the
history and application of the latter provision, a copy of which
is attached. To summarize that opinion, in most oases the owners i
of lots abutting a public street hold fee title to the center of E
the street. If the :lot owner is qualified to sign the protest ~
petition, the portion of the street owned by the lot owner which i
is within the required distance should be included in the
calculation. If a street within the n4mossary 200 feet is owned
in fee, by the City or state, the City or state may sign the protest
and the area, within the street would be included in the total
calculation.
We will be available to answer any question you may have about this
matter.
J D, Morris
JDM:js
xot Lloyd V. Harrell, Cityy Manager
Frank Robbins,, Exeoutiva Director of Planning
and Community Development
r
i
VrrofDENTON,,rEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE($17)566.8007
Office of the Clly Manager
November 8, 1989
a
Mr, George Hopkins
Philips & Hopkins
I 101 N. Elm
Denton, TX 76201
Dear George:
This is a follow up to out phone. conversation regarding the 1
platting requirements for Peterbilt.
As you are aware, the foot that the Peterbilt property has
never been platted cams to out attention when the company
applied for its most recant building permit, At that title, the
{ City staff visited cono6triing how to handle this particular j
problem since Peterbilt had inadvertently been granted several
building permits In 'recant _years without requiring the property
to be platted. It Was de4;ided-that a building permit ;would be f
issued for the latest project but contact would be made with' I
' Peterbilt officials, to inform themthat they needed to plat
their property so that there would be no difficulty in issuing
future building permits. That was the purpose of Mr. Doyle 's
letter of September 28, 1989, which followed a verbal
conversation which he had with Peterbilt officials.
I have attached a copy of a memorandum from 'Frank Robbins
noting out Code provision which does require 'platting when
building permits are issued as Well as When property is
actually subdivided. This requirement has been enacted to
insure that the infrastructure' needs of the City are met as
well as to make property descriptions within the City ;constant
over a period of time. Out City Attorney's Office has ruled
concerning the validity of this procedure, and an excerpt from
the opinion of that office regarding this matte: is attached,
Also, i have spoken to Debra about this mattar, and if you feel
that there is anything in the way of state statutes of other
items which does not allow the city to require platting of land
inside the City limits when building permits are requested, `
please advise us so that such can be evaluated. This
requirement has been the consistent policy of the City since
1983 when this particular provision was enacted.
i
1 4A.I
George Hopkins
November 1999
Page 2
We wanted to alert Peterbilt as to this condition because it
can be very easily remedied, if they follow through and plat
their property at this time, our Planning Department has
advised us that no public improvements will be required and
only the standard permitting fee of $1,450 will be due, If* on
the other hand, the company waits until another building' permit
is requested to pursue ; the platting requirements, public
{ improvements including sidewalks and/or additional' right-of-way
may. be required. For this reason, we are encoucaginq Peterbilt
to pursue this matter at this point and get such resolved.
E As I have stated many times, please express our apologies to
Peterbilt for any misunderstanding. We are truly trying to
make this as easy for them as possible while at the same time
complying with the City Code.
Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
Very ly yours,
3
Lloyd V. M tell f
City Manager
fl LVH:bw
4770M 4
t ~ k
cc: Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning
Debra Drayovitch,_City Attorney
Attachments j
t1k r
S
{
:
i
1
vwa ,
Y
S
r
}
l
CITY of 08WON /215 E. MoKlnney l Denton, Texas 76201
k MEMORANDUM
DATEt November 6, 1989
i TOt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager 1
,
! NROh(i Prank H. Robbins, ftecutiVe Director
j Planning and Development
SUBJECT% REQUIREMENTS TO PLAT
i
November 2, that I provide you the ordinance provisions
You requested on
requiring platting when subdivision was not occurring and that this provision
` applies only within the city limits.
The subdivision and Land Development' regulations are applicable. Please note
that the title of the ordinance includes "and Land Development," meaning two
thingsA Subdivison may not be taking place, and the regulation is applicable
when land is developed. The specific provision concerning platting and
building, permitting is as follows from page 1072 of the Code. of Ordinancest
ARTICLE 111, 'LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
i
I AND PERMIT REGULATIONS
! I CHAPTER 1. JUP18DICTION AND SCOPE
The following regulations cover all lands within the city or extraterritorial
jurisdiction which are being prepared whether immediate or in the future for
development by reason of road construction, utility construction or service
request, drainage modification, building permit request or other similar -
L
development and lot improvement activities covers by these regulations.
•
Staff has been interpreting this provision to include building permits where a
building addition or expansion is being made, and not a permit where internal ;
improvements are being made.
I have included an excerpt from Joe's October, 1988 legal opinion 108-06,
! about platting inside the city limits,
&afi Robbins a
s
2061k
999111 }e~~
I
,
1
,
I CITY of DENTON / 215 E, McKinney Demon, rexes 16201
MEMORANDUM
i
DATE, November 6, 1989
TOt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
FROM: Frank H. Robbins, Executive Director
Planning and Development
1 _
SUBJECTs REQUIREMENTS TO PLAT `i
i
( You requested on November 2, that l provide you the ordinance provisions
I requiring platting when subdivision was not occurring and that this provision
j applies only within the city limits, s
The Subdivision and Land Development regulations are applicable. Please note
II ! that the title of the ordinance includes land Land` Development," meaning two
things, Subdivison may not be taking place, and the regulation is applicable
I when land is developed. The specific provision concerning platting and
building permitting is as follows from page 1072 of the Code of Ordinancesi
t ( ARTICLE III. LAND DEVELOPMW PROCEDURES
AND PERMIT REGULATIONS
i CHAPTER I, JURISDICTION A14D SCOPE
The following regulations cover all lands within the city or extraterritorial
Jurisdiction which are being prepared whether immediate or in the future for
` development by reason of road construction, utility construction or service
request, drainage modification, building permit request or other similar
development and lot improvement activities covered by these regulations.
Staff has been interpreting this provision, to include building permits where a
building addition or expansion is being made, and not a permit where internal
improvements are being made.
I have included an excerpt from Joe's October, 1988 legal opinion #06-06, _
about platting inside the city limits,
r n H, Robbing
wp r
2061k
%
tji" i
A0
OPINION NO, 88-06
October 6, 1988
Page Eleven
In order to minimize the amount of urban runoff from development,
the ordinance regulated the permissible slope of impervious
surfaces, the amount of pre construction clearing. that could be
done, and the depth of fill material that was allowed. It also
provided for building foundation standards and erosica control
requirements,
The plaintiff contended that the city did not 'have `the authority
to apply and enforce the ordinance to his property to be drive-
loped within Lhe city's ETJ, The court disagreed, holding that
- under section 26.177 of the Texas Water Code, a city was
authorized to enact an ordinance controlling urban runoff from
j development within the city or its ETJ.
f We would also note that where a developer in the City's ETJ 'is'
t J requesting the city provide water and sewer services to the deve-
loped property, the City may certainly adopt and apply reggulations
relating to the dedication, extension, construction, and connec-
tion of the utility lines that are needed to serve the property,
-Js have not been asked and do not now addressthe broader question E
of whether and to what extent the City may use its utility exten-
sion and connection policies to generally regulate or control the
f development of land within the ETJ, ;
s
V. Development Regulations Within the Corporate Limits.
Our conclusion that the City's Development Code only applies to
properties in the M which are subdivisions within the meaning i
of the state statute, does not mean that the City may not apply
its development requirements and standards to properties being
developed within the City which are not subdivisions of land, We
noted in Opinion ,369, without citing any authority,; that "under
the CiCy'e general police power it may impose development Stan-
dards on property; not being subdivided which is (located) within
the corporate limits".
The question was raised in Un.tariats Church, where the court held
Chat while the City it
could require a urdh to plat is ro rt
P.
pe
under its police power pursuant to an ordinance imposing the
requirement, it could not require the Church to dedicate a portion
of ate' property for a street extension, At one `point in the
opinion, the court seems to imply that the dedication could not
be required simply because the city's ordinance requiring the
dedication only applied to subdivisions:
s
RRR FFa~
i
;j
OPINION NO. 88-06
October 60 1988
Page Twolve
There is no statute, charter or ordinance which would
require the Church as a single lot owner to dedicate a
portion of its property for streets in order to get
approval of its plat to obtain a building permit, where
the Church does not propose to subdivide the lot, into
smaller lots or otherwise divide it into a subdivision.
Later, the court obscures the point by indicating that the
required dedication could only be based on the statutory auth-
ority to regulate subdivisions and that if there is no sub-
division, no dedication could 6e required, even if the city's
ordinances provided otherwise
Without constitutional, statutory or charter authoriza-
tion it would not be a proper police function to require
a property owner to dedicate its property for a public
ppurpose without compensation. In subdivi.sLon dove
lopment, a'ci,ty by statute and charter and/or ordinance
j is authorized to require the dedication of streets,
alleys and utility easements as a part of the orderly
I development of a city proper, There is a difference
concerning the statutorily autborized dedication of
streets in a-,;bdivisions, and the exercise of the police
power. to take private property for street purposes
without compensation, 436 S,W,2d 929-30,
~ Whatever doubts the court in Unitarian Church may have raised
t
about a city's authority to Impose p e t ng and development
4 requirements on development located within its corporate limits,
including the dedication of land, apart from its statutory
authority to regulate subdivisions, those doubts were put to rest
by the Texas Supreme Court in Cit of Colle a Station v. Turtle
Rock Corporation, 680 S,W.2d 80 Xo i"C$zS.
In that,casso the court upheld the constitutional right of a city
to require by ordinance the dedication of land for park purposes
in subdivision development, it i,i significant that the court did
not even refer to the State subdivision statute in concluding
that the city had the authority to impose the requirement.
Instead, the Court cleerly based its conclusions on the city's
exercises of its general police power:
A city may enact reasoctable regulations - to promote the
health, safety, and general welfare of its people, (cases
cited). Thus, in order fsor this ordinance to be a valid
WOW
G~
t
opI io r N0. 88-06
october 6, 1988
Page Thirteen
exercise of the city's police powero not constituting a
taking, there are two related requirements. First, the
regulation must be adopted to accomplish a legitimate
goal; it must be 'substantially related' to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the people. Second, the
regulation must be reasonable, it cannot be arbitrary.
in response to the lower court's holding that there certain
statutory provisions prohibiting or limiting the authority of the 1
city to require the dedication, the Court emphasized the inherent
power of home rule cities:
The court's construction of these statutes is at odds with
the 'texas authority on the powers of 'home rule cities.
Home rule cities have full power of self-government, Land
look to the acts of the legislature not for grants of
power but only for limitations on their powers..
(case cited). The intention o!' the legislature to impose
such limitations must appear with 'unmistakable clarity;
and if the "limitations arise by implication the pro
visions of the law must be 'clear and compelling to that
end
The court found that since there was no State statute which
"unmistakably" prohibited home yule cities from ena.ting an ordi-
nance requiring the dedication of land for parks, the city had the
' power to impose the requirement under its ggeneral police powers.
i Therefore, we affirm our statement in Opinion 369 that the City
I may impose, under its general police power, its development
requirements and standards on properties located within the city
which are proposed to be developed, regardless of whether or not
they are subdivisions of land within the meaning of the statute,
j SUMMARY
The City may not apply its Development Code to properties located
within the City's gTJ which are not subdivisions within the mean-
ing of the State subdivision statute, The State statute requir-
ing the platting of property applies to those properties which
are divided into two or'saore parts for the purpose of.'development.
If the property in question was not originally created by division
from another tract for the purpose of development and is not now
it
1
OPINION NO. 88-06
October 6, 1988
Page Fourteen
being divided for
purposes of development we) think it question-
able that a court applying existing ease iaw would told that the
City may apply its Development Code requirements to that property,
The City may, however, apply its Development Code requirements to
properties located _within the corporate limits of the City which
are not subdivisions of land, pursuant to its general police
power.
JDM:,js
xc: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
I I '
1 I APPROVED:
r
1--
DEBRA A, DRAYOVIUH
30911
E,
i
l
,>tV 5', IFS.
r,
CITY 01 DENTON X 215 E. MaXHmay ~ Oaatoa, rexa 76201
MEMOFUNUUM L
7r '
i
DAM October 24, 1989
Nr'
TOt Jerry `Clark
L,-Rick Svehla
Harry Persuad
hROMI Prank H. Robbins, BYeoutive Director
for Planning and Development
SUHJ'ECTj Porecaoting Work Program 43
i ~
Results from our meeting on `October 191
i
I 1. 1980 aerials have been acquired, j
1111 i
2. We agreed not to overlay aeriale with TSZ's because the 1980 I
through 1989 plat maps and data were completed and, provided an
appropriate visual aid for where growth has occurred.
' 3. Planning will tabulate the 1980-1989 data into TSZ's.
4. David and Harry were to complete the conversion tables for land
use acres to employees on Friday,
c ~
I have reviewed a copy of this and believe the industrial
development's lut areas are too large and need tobe reviewed.
Harry is to acquire Arlington's and A4 Worth's conversation t
tables
Planning will "calibrate" the conversion tables by comparing
local 'sample, NTCOQ data$ and others conversion charts against s
TEO known employment data.
f
fAM1A{ J~
I
Memo to Jerry Clark, Rick Svehla and Harry Persaud
October 23, 1989
page 2
5. Harry reported that 6 or 7 TSZ's still require "current"
(1986-89) deta.
6. 1980 to current trend data will be completed later as part of a
separate Planning Department `work program.
7. We have revised the work program so as to provide JAS with data
on January 8, 1989.
Attachment one is the new work program.
~ s
i
V ran H. Robbi' AICP f
I
1 da
i ~
• ~ ~ AttachmenC
i
1 1995Y
~ i
j
K
f
Jr .
{
f
i
i WHAT WHO WHEN COMMENTS
1. Develop land use to David Ayers 29 Oct 89 * Check local survey
employment conversion Harry Persaud * Acquire other's data
chart,
* Compare 100410
NTCOG, and others
* Run LUM7,S and
conversion table to
equal TEC data to
Compare 1980 and Plannincalibrate data",
J.990 census tract g 29 Oct 89
boundaries.
3. Develop census tract Planning 10 Nov 89
I` overlay over "TSZ Base
' Map '
4. Determine which T$Z's Planning 30 Oct 89
are built out or will
not grow to 2020,
5, Determine acres, Planning 29 Oct 89
Population and employ
E~ meat to bs allocated into
1 growth T$Z'g,
j 6. Put all current TSZ data Planning 10 Nov 89
I into 200 TSZ's in auto-
r i ! mated file,
7. Prepare base map with Engineering/ 27 Oct 89 * Planning has no funds
TSZ, current zoning Jarnell and
and intensity study Hiller for automated ;
areas shown. mapping,
t 8. Locate probably growth` Focus Group 30 Oct 89 J
areas, Make gross/ 3-5 p.m. j
conceptual allocation; of
„ 2010 employment and I
population.
Lji
9. Compute First 2010 Planning 30 Nov 89 J
' Forecast of 200 TS2's.
Review lot Forecast
Focus Group 4 Dec 89
Complete 2nd Forecast Planning 29 Dec 89
Review 2nd forecast Focus Group S ,Tan 89`
Provide JAS Data Planning 8 Jan 89
Publish Forecast Planning 12 Feb 89
f
w
lip, IV
CITY of OMTON, TOMS 216 E. MoKINNEY I DENTON, TEXAS 762411 TELEPHONE (617) W"200
MEMORANDUM
1
DATE: March 30, 1989
TO: Bob Nelson, Executive Director
Utility Administration
! FROM: Prank H. Robbins, Executive Director
Planning and Development
I SUBJECT: Triangle and Sunmount/Conneil'Plar Lines
! i
TRIANGLE
}
I would not recommend engineering or construction of the Triangle
y "Plan Lines" until:
1) Triangle has bought the tract and begun the platting
process.
i
2) Triangle completes the engineering within the platting
process.
Triangle is looking at a temporary building to begin operation in
this summer. There is still no contract of sale and ;Victor's owners
are now adding issues that will affect Trianggle's purchase.' There
is no need to hurry consideration of the Subdivision Regs, amendment
for pro rata exceptions'
When Triangle (et al) decide how the 16 acres will be `developed we
can better decide when, haw, and for what the $88,750 could be spent.
CONNELL
We have soon three or four cost estimates of 'plan Lines".to
Connell's property. The costs have ranged from $106,000 to $390,000
for water and from $69,281 to $S77,000 for sewerage. I suggest that
the Plan Line cost for Connell be the cost to get it to Connell's
property and no further. This will enable an expenditure 'within the
total $250,000 (minus Triangle) available this fiscal year for each
water and sewer,
Nook"
Memo; Bob Nelson
March 30, 1489
t Page 2
I we don't get y, but le al, to do a deals e
into "IndustrialoplannLines"nfor
any of this money, if-Connell and the rest of
next year. During our "pro rata, shoM%e reported such that " Plan
us' can't do a deal, the survey
Line,, funds should not b~o spent, Waiting twltdealthree orwfourintoths
to complete the survey,
effect is alright.
Finally, please send me a map of the proposed water and sewer lines
and cost estimates that would serve Connell's land.
/ra to ns, CY
ff db
10 i xc: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager
l ~
171Ox
Ii
! 1
Z *1I
l, J, i
NNN
J
I
ary of otJ rm. ra" 216 E. McKINNEY/ DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (C. 17J 5688200
MEMORANDUM
1 DATEr February 27, 1989
TO: Lloyd V, Harrell, City Manager
FROMI Frank H. Robbins, .Executive Director for Planning and .Developmet,t
SU&IECT1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION (
I
After a selection process which began in October 198Q, and after review of
some 45 applications; I have decided to promote Harry Persaud to the position
of Senior planner, _la this poettion, Harry will head up our Comprehensive
Planning and Data Management programs. Harry brings with him 12 years of
a perience in the profession and planning certification by the,Ameriean as
well as tho British professional, organizations for planners. He has been 'a {
Planning Director with a staff of 14 in British Guyana. I was'particularly
impressed with his quantitative and computer skills, as well as his ability
and experience in reaching consensus among diverse interests, His
f comprehensive planning abilities are solid. ,
Cecile Carson will be moving over from the Development Review section to loin
' Harry in the Comprehensive section. I consider this a step up for Ceoile0 who
has been doing development review and special projects in Denton for over six
years. Together they will employ a tremendous wealth of local knowledge which
will significantly help in planning efficiency.
Ceeilelg move will not become effective until a new Urban `Planner is hired for
Elizabeth Evans' Deve.iopiient Review section, hopefully within the May-June
time frame, With that move, we will hold workshops with the Planning and
Zoning Commission to define the City's and Department's comprehensive planning
priorities and programs for the next two to three years,
r
j
Fra H. Robbins, A C
wp
2445
R _ 3,.
.YLbA[i .
1 .y:L~_y
~~r0 '
Ip
~1
-1
l..n
fs,! `
t f `
~
,r f
,,t
+ ~ y ~
' ,
1 ~
~ ,
F ~ : i,
~ ~ ~
I
~ ~j~
~
~ti.:
. 5' ,i
E' r
.il~` ~
1 : alt.
'1 Ty' ~ 4
'r~i:
~ '
~t 7
iI~
"i~~"
~k~k}~,
i'.1 x:
l';..:5
.r.:
~ ,
r ~
„ i
.ri 4b
y 7 is
s ~
~