HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 6, 2012 Agenda
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
August 6, 2012
Joint Meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on
Monday, August 6, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E.
McKinney Street, Denton, Texas, at which the following items will be considered:
1.Call to order; announce quorum, introductions.
2.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an update on the
City’s development review process, including challenges to in-fill and redevelopment
projects.
3.Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries from the
City Council or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or
accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting
AND
Under Section 551.0415 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, provide reports about items of
community interest regarding which no action will be taken, to include: expressions of
thanks, congratulations, or condolence; information regarding holiday schedules; an
honorary or salutary recognition of a public official, public employee, or other citizen; a
reminder about an upcoming event organized or sponsored by the governing body;
information regarding a social, ceremonial, or community event organized or sponsored
by an entity other than the governing body that was attended or is scheduled to be
attended by a member of the governing body or an official or employee of the
municipality; or an announcement involving an imminent threat to the public health and
safety of people in the municipality that has arisen after the posting of the agenda.
NOTE: The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its
Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended,
or as otherwise allowed by law.
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the ________day of ___________________, 2012 at ________o'clock
(a.m.) (p.m.)
____________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED
MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-
RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED
THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: August 6, 2012
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development
ACM: Fred Greene
SUBJECT (DCA11-0005)
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an
development review process, including challenges to infill and redevelopment projects.
BACKGROUND
The Development Review Committee (DRC) is comprised of various representatives from
several City departments. It is the duty and responsibility of the DRC to review, evaluate, and
analyze all development projects to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the
Denton Plan, the Denton Development Code (DDC), and all other applicable codes, regulations,
laws and policies that govern subdivision platting and the development of real property within
the City of Denton and in some instances, within the C
To promote high quality, sustainable developments within the City
of Denton and to provide professional and timely development review services to our
The ultimate goal of the DRC is to ensure proper and timely growth management
within the City of Denton.
The DRC consists of two (2) sets of reviewing departments or reviewers: primary and secondary.
The primary reviewers evaluate and analyze those elements of a proposed development plan that
are standard and rudimentary. The secondary reviewers evaluate and analyze those elements of
the proposed plan that are important, but do not occur on a regular basis. The primary reviewers
include representatives from DRC Engineering, Planning, Fire, Denton Municipal Electric
(DME), and Building Inspections. The secondary reviewers include representatives from Denton
Municipal Airport, Denton County, , Watershed Protection, Economic
Development, Parks & Recreation, Real Estate, and the Police Department.
Over recent years, development plan intake,
distribution and review process. A listing of these improvements is provided as Exhibit 1. In
addition and prior to these recent improvements, in 2002, the City hired Zucker Systems to
conduct an organizational review of our plan intake, distribution and review process. The review
conducted by Zucker Systems made fifty six (56) recommendations for improvement. It also
identified several areas in the process that were considered to be very strong. The listing of the
recommended improvements is provided as Exhibit 2. Also included in this exhibit, are the
actions taken to address those recommendations.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned improvements that have been implemented, we still receive
complaints regarding difficulties related to the DRC process. The following discussion is aimed
at addressing these complaints and to identify potential remedies to the complaints.
DISCUSSION:
I.Is it difficult to develop in Denton?
Answer: Yes and No
The perception of the local developers is that it is more difficult to develop in Denton
than any other city. However, discussions and meetings with other cities reveal that our
process is not unlike any other cities. The main difference between Denton and other
cities is the Denton Development Code (DDC). The DDC has two (2) principal issues
that tend to create regulatory barriers:
1.Many areas of the DDC are difficult to interpret or the wording is ambiguous and
unclear. Additionally, clear and complete definitions are lacking.
2.The DDC is difficult to apply to infill and redevelopment projects, as it is
primarily aimed at Greenfield development. The applicability of the DDC to
infill or redevelopment projects is where the DDC begins to exhibit notable
deficiencies. Currently, redevelopment projects compose the majority of
development projects in the Infill Special Purpose District (ISPD) and within the
downtown area.
The above two (2) deficiencies tend to increase review time, complexities and
cost, and do not lend themselves to a smoother process toward project approval.
We believe these two (2) deficiencies are the root of the majority of complaints
from local developers. These regulatory barriers often work against good design,
raise roadblocks against innovation, or prevent projects that are otherwise
consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. Although the DDC
provide options to address design criteria through the processing of an Alternative
Development Plan (ADP), it is a largely negotiated and subjective process that
adds another layer of review that does not always produce a final product that
meets the overall goals and objectives of the Denton Plan and/or DDC. The
following are specific examples of some of the constraint attributed to the
difficulty of developing in the City:
a.Zoning, subdivision, and building codes can inadvertently preclude
redevelopment or in-fill.
b.Regulations for parking, road design, rights-of-way, or stormwater
management may prohibit or severely limit development.
c.Conflicting requirements often limit the ability to achieve permitted densities.
d.The need for waivers or variances can slow the approval process and add cost
to the development.
2
e.Various exactions (R/W, water/sewer, street improvements, park dedication,
etc) all take a toll on the cost of infill and redevelopment, especially smaller
projects.
f.The Mobility Plan and street improvement exactions are difficult to apply in
highly developed areas such as downtown.
For additional detail associated with the above examples, please see Exhibit 3,
hereto attached. These issues tend to make it very difficult to provide concise
one- This often causes developers to
become frustrated with City staff who is simply attempting to administer the DDC
as it applies to their project. Considering these deficiencies, one could conclude
that for infill and redevelopment projects, it is difficult to develop in Denton.
3.In addition to the aforementioned development constraints that have been
identified as being specific to Denton, in general, infill/redevelopment (in any
local) tends to be more challenging than greenfield development. Planning
literature and research categorizes the challenges into the following four groups:
Physical barriers
a.: Physical site constraints often limit the feasibility of
developing infill sites. Environmental issues, such as wetlands, poor soil,
poor drainage, or contamination from prior uses, can reduce the amount of
buildable land, require costly design solutions, or necessitate environmental
assessments and cleanup.
Social barriers
b.: People have an inherent resistance to change and a natural
fear of the unknown. As a result, plans to develop infill sites may encounter
vociferous opposition, whether or not it is justified from a land-use
perspective. Opposition can center on design compatibility, increased density,
different housing types, parking, traffic, or simply the prospect of more or
different types of people moving in.
Regulatory barriers
c.: Regulatory constraints often work against good design,
raise roadblocks against innovation, or prevent projects that are otherwise
consistent with the character of existing communities.
Economic barriers
d.: Difficult sites and uncertain outcomes and time frames
addition, land acquisition costs are usually higher for infill sites. Construction
costs are often higher for infill jobs. The infill preconstruction process is
often as time-consuming or more time-consuming than the process for
greenfield development. Another major obstacle is the lack of funding for
infrastructure maintenance and renovation.
Given the above, it may be stated that Yes; the perception is that development
(particularly infill/redevelopment) is difficult. Why that perception exists is most likely a
product of many things. Specifically to Denton, the following challenges have been
identified:
3
II.How do
process?
The DDC defines Infill Development as:
Development on a vacant parcel or groupings of vacant lots within an existing
block surrounded by existing development that is contiguous on at least two sides
for corner lots and contiguous on at least three sides for interior lots (existing
development located directly in front on the other side of the street may count as a
side for interior lots only), no greater than two acres in size, and is served with all
or most public services and facilities, including but not limited to water,
wastewater and drainage.
Typically, these lots are located in the older areas of the City and are remnants of platted
subdivisions, or remains from the transfer of property via a metes and bounds description.
Infill lots are simply parcels that have remained undeveloped due to economic,
regulatory, and/or physical impediment.
The DDC does not define redevelopment but research into redevelopment programs
acr
redevelopment incorporates two elements. First, redevelopment is one or more of the
actions taken by a city to stimulate activity and influence private market development
into a specified area. This action may include capital improvements, tax benefits,
technical assistance, or direct public investment. Second, redevelopment includes the
physical construction, expansion, or addition to a structure that is the result of a ci
stimuli. It is recommended that any revised definition Denton adopts for redevelopment
incorporate these two (2) elements.
III.How can the development process for infill development be improved and amended
to accommodate Redevelopment projects?
Since the problems identified above are primarily associated with the DDC as it applies
to infill (and redevelopment), the solutions should begin with the DDC. Therefore, staff
is recommending that we engage a consultant with a broad knowledge of the DRC and
planning processes to recommend revisions to the DDC as it applies to infill. This will
include the development of a definition for redevelopment applications and regulations to
promote a process that is not onerous, preserves the character of the neighborhood, and
mitigates potential impacts. This could take approximately ten (10) months to complete
by a consultant.
One such consultant with vast experience in development review procedures and
development code revision is Clarion. City staff has contacted Clarion and asked them to
provide a draft scope of work that includes the following tasks:
1.Evaluation of the Development Review Process;
2.Clean-up, reorganization, and reformatting of the current DDC;
3.Preparation of new infill and redevelopment standards; and
4
4.Development of code training.
Clarion could produce a clear and concise DDC with new infill and redevelopment
standards. Additionally, a review of the development review process is in order to insure
that it complements the changes made to the DDC. The training portion of the study
would be aimed at providing materials to educate community leaders and the public
about the revised DDC and the development review process. be
produced that will assist the applicant throughout the DRC process.
IV.How can the City address the complaint that it costs too much to develop in Denton?
There are two (2) elements to the complaint of the cost of development; fees and time.
Some developers complain of high cost for small infill and redevelopment projects,
especially when they are presented the various fees required for the project.
The following chart provides a within the
metroplex.
Type of Fees Denton Dallas Fort Worth Frisco McKinney Arlington Lewisville
Planning
Pre-Application $250 $250 No fee No fee $250 No fee No fee
1
Zoning $1,070 $1,050 $924 $750 $325 + $15 $1,000 $150
per ac.
16
SUP $1,720 + $1,170 None $300 + $10 per $250 $1,000 + See note
4
$65/acre or published acre $50 per acre
11
$500
ZBA $470 $600 $374 $150 + notice $50 $200 $100
fee
Variance $500 None $330 $150 + No fee None $350
published 4 notification published 4
Final Plat 1 $2,200 + $1,548 + $17 $341 $100 + $15 per $325 + $5 per $550 + $45 $200 +$5 per lot
$15/acre per ac. acre lot per acre
1
Prelim Plat $1,400 + $1,548 + $17 $676 $100 + $20 per $325 + $5 per $550 + $40 $200 +$5 per lot
$15/acre per ac. acre lot per acre
Building Inspections
Demo Permit $95 0.021 x sq. ft. + $67 $50 $15 $100 $50
$42
Clearing and $450 $50 $50 No fee None $100 $125
4
Grading published
Plan Review 3 $1,980 12 $150 minimum $107 None $100 $1010 $250
or $0.012 per Residential published 4 Residential
square feet of $242 $200
building area Commercial Commercial
CO $95 $280 $280 $100 $50 $80 See note 10
Utilities
Water ¾-inch Meter 2
8
Water Tap Fee $1,500 $675 $1,790 $1,270 $977 $1,498 See note
9
Water Impact Fee $3,400 See note $1,300 $1,772 $1,627 $845 $2,896
2
Water 1-inch Meter
8
Water Tap Fee $1,500 $775 $2,040 $1,740 $1,054 $1,498 See note
Water Impact Fee $8,500 See note 9 $2,167 $4,430 $2,767 $1,478 $4,923
Sewer 4-inch Service 2
Sewer Tap Fee $2,000 $2,343 $4,000 $1,200 $450 $3,452 See note 8
Sewer Impact Fee 7 $1,700 See note 9 $278 $1,619 $205 $1172 $1,971
Sewer 6-inch Service 2
5
Sewer Tap Fee $2,400 $2,343 $6,000 See note 5 $500 $3452 See note 8
Sewer Impact Fee 7 $4,250 See note 9 $464 $3,885 $349 $670 $3,350
Parks
Development Fee $291 per SF unit None No fee None No fee $1,283 per $750 for each
44
$187 per MF unit published published unit new dwelling unit
13
4
Dedication Fee 2.5 acres x (No. None 2.5 acres x 1 acre per 50 1 acre per 50 None None published
44
of units) x published (No. of units) x units or $1,561 units or fee published
(persons/unit) (persons per per unit based on
1,000 population unit)/1,000 property value
population per Collin
SF: 2.8 person Central
per unit SF: 3 person Appraisal
MF: 1.8 person per unit District
per unit 13
MF:2 persons
per unit
Notes:
1 The fee is calculated by size (acreage of lot/sq. ft. of buildin can be charged.
2 The fee is for a tap on paved alley or street.
3 The plan review fee is based on a new commercial building total valuation of $500,000.
4 No fee published on city website. Awaiting an email/phone respo
5 The City of Frisco does not have sewer taps greater than 4 inch.
6 The City of Lewisville does not have an SUP process.
7 The fee is based on a 1 inch water meter size.
8
9
The City of Dallas does not have water or wastewater impact fees
10
The City of Lewisville does not have a separate CO fee. A CO is
11
The fee for a Specific Use Permit for home occupations that require the approval of a SUP;
accessory dwelling units; and any development within the In-fill Special Purpose District that require the approval of a SUPe of $500.
12
Included in the fee is an Engineering Plan Review fee of $1,300. This is assessed when
the fee is a separate site plan review fee ($0.03 per building s to exceed $1,500).
13
The City of Denton Parks and Recreation and Legal Department is erties within the DTIP
area.
The other issue frequently mentioned is the time it takes to acquire approval from the
DRC process. Over the past three (3) years, many changes have been made to the DRC
process.
Committee while other changes were initiated by staff.
group of twenty-one (21) local development professionals including developers,
engineers, architects, surveyors, and consultants to provide feedback and discuss
development matters. It was created by the Planning and Development Department to
serve as a forum for developers to offer solutions to issues they encounter through the
development process and as a means for the City to communicate proposed DDC
amendments, provide clarification on the DDC, and to provide updates to the DRC
process. The feedback received from developers during these meetings has lead to
significant changes that have improved the DRC process. Recently, staff proposed an
improvement to the Develophelp
reduce the time for approval as well as reduce cost. Under the current review schedule,
6
applicants receive two (2) reviews with each paid development review fee. All
subsequent reviews require an additional fee. The City provides comments to the
applicant after each review within ten (10) days. This is called the 10-10 schedule with
two (2) reviews, ten (10) days for each review. Although this schedule has met the needs
of development community, it has not been without criticism. Many of the issues
expressed have dealt with having to pay an additional fee after the second review and
reducing the review timeframe in the second review from ten (10) days.
Staff has proposed changes to review timeframes whereby development applications
submitted through ProjectDox would take ten (10) days for completion for the first
review, and two (2) subsequent reviews would be completed in five (5) days each. This
proposed change would provide an additional review at no additional cost and reduce the
timeframes for the second and third reviews. This is called the 10-5-5 schedule three
(3) reviews: ten (10) days for the first review, five (5) days for two (2) subsequent
reviews. Although the total time staff has to review the development proposal would
remain the same twenty (20) days, the changes proposed offer a solution to issues
expressed by the development community. These changes would be initiated for
development applications that do not require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), flood
study, or other technical study or outside agency review (e.g., Tx.DOT). This proposed
implemented in September of this year (2012).
V.What In-fill and Redevelopment Incentives Should Be Considered?
To compensate for, or to mitigate the possible financial hardships and/or development
challenges of infill and redevelopment properties, many local governments have
implemented infill and redevelopment incentive programs to encourage development of
vacant lots, and redevelopment of underdeveloped or economically underperforming
parcels in urbanized areas where infrastructure and services already exist. There are
many reasons for local governments to use these incentives. For one, the incentives help
revitalize properties that are underused or blighted. The revitalization of these properties
creates jobs, increases purchasing power, and generates revenue. In addition, if infill and
redevelopment is oriented around public transit, it can lessen auto dependence and
therefore reduce air pollution and congestion.
The following are several infill development incentives that may be considered and
implemented in Denton.
Overlay Districts
1.
In 2006, the City established an Infill Special Purpose District (35.7.14 of the
DDC). Please see Exhibit 4. However, due to many other development
challenges identified in Section I of this report, only two (2) applications have
been submitted for projects within this District, to date. One of the applications
was reviewed and approved, and the other was withdrawn by the applicant. Staff
strict needs to be revised
to encourage redevelopment and revitalization. This can be accomplished by a
thorough review of the DDC as proposed above, and a review of all applicable
7
fees charged by the City for infill and redevelopment projects. The objective
nfill Special
Purpose District. Land outside of the Infill Special Purpose Overlay District is
largely Greenfield development that can be developed in accordance with the
needs of the owner and end-user. The existing Infill Special Purpose District
geographic boundary represents the area where applicants have expressed their
frustration with the DDC requirements.
Flexible Code Standards
2.
An important prerequisite to encouraging infill and redevelopment is to review
local government land-use controls and eliminate overly burdensome, inflexible,
or restrictive dimensional or design requirements (such as setbacks, height
limitations, lot coverage, tree preservations, etc.) that may serve as a deterrent to
those considering infill and redevelopment. One such example is to include
zoning for mixed-use in areas where infill and redevelopment is expected or is
being promoted. Conventional zoning is the most prevalent land-use regulation in
the United States and is based on segregating land uses within a municipality.
However, for infill and redevelopment to be economically viable, mixed-use
development and higher densities are often needed. This may be addressed
through the use of a form-base code such as the one currently being drafted by the
City. It is also important when regulating infill and redevelopment to allow for
the development of irregular, small, or otherwise abnormally sized parcels. Such
allowances turn under-used land into productive space.
Land Assembly
3.
Another tactic to promote in-fill and redevelopment is through a land assembly
program, within which local governments assemble small, individual parcels into
blocks that are under common ownership in a land bank. The municipal could
then make improvements to the property (or properties) and ensure that it is
suitable for redevelopment. A benefit of land assembly is that parcels that may
have been unattractive to developers or too small to build on are given new life.
Through land assembly, the local government ensures that land is ready to be
developed, which saves a developer time and money. Cities must exercise
caution in land assembly practices for a few reasons as it can be very expensive
and time consuming to clear up possible title issues and environmental
contamination. In addition, there may be dilapidated or damaged buildings that
require expensive demolition or rehabilitation. Also, in assembling land, some
property owners may hold out for more money once they learn of the land bank's
existence. The price of land may increase in general in the area once it is
common knowledge that the land is desirable. Another aspect to keep in mind is
that in some instances, eminent domain may be necessary to secure properties. If
that is the case, the municipal must be sure to demonstrate a valid public purpose
in acquiring the property.
Density Bonuses
4.
8
A variety of densities should also be allowed to make infill development
economically viable. To spark interest in infill development, many communities
offer density bonuses for building in target areas. For example, Battle Ground,
Washington, allows duplexes in its "infill development opportunities" overlay
district to be built at 120% of the normal maximum density. Portland, Oregon,
allows duplexes to be built in single-family zoning districts as long as the
duplexes are built on corner lots with unit entrances facing different streets. This
design strategy results in a single-family appearance but still increases density.
Density bonuses allow developers to increase the density of an infill or
redevelopment project, thus making a project economically feasible or otherwise
provide greater incentive for a developer to choose to build in an Infill Special
Purpose District.
Sales Tax Rebates
5.
Arizona encourages infill and redevelopment by offering a sales tax rebate for
infill or redevelopment single-family housing. Through this program, sales taxes
are returned by the City on the gross receipts for construction materials of the
single-family home. To get the refund, actual receipts must be turned in, and the
home must be in an infill area. Also, if the developer sells the home within
twenty four (24) months of its completion, the developer must pass along to the
purchaser all amounts rebated by the state.
Property Tax Abatement
6.
Spokane, Seattle, and Tacoma, Washington are all eligible under state law to take
advantage of a 10-year property tax exemption for multi-family housing
construction or rehabilitation in infill and redevelopment areas. Portland, Oregon,
also offers a property tax abatement program in target "distressed" areas for
housing development that costs under $105,000 per unit. The property owner
does not pay taxes on the value of improvements to the property for the first ten
(10) years. In certain instances, this abatement is also applied to rehabilitated
housing. The City could adopt a program (in accordance with state law) that
provides property tax abatement for uses and or developments that are deemed
desirable.
Reduced Impact Fees
7.
New development, particularly the high-density housing that is associated with
infill and redevelopment, puts additional strain on the existing public facilities and
services that will serve the development. To compensate for this, an impact fee is
typically assessed on developers. However, many cities choose instead to
encourage needed infill and redevelopment by offering to lower impact fees or
even waive the fees altogether for development in targeted infill and
redevelopment areas. These target areas are carefully selected to encourage new
development that meets the needs and objectives defined by the city. Another
option is to allow the developer to delay the payment of impact fees until after he
or she sees a profit on the infill development project. These fee reductions,
9
waivers, or delays are beneficial not only to the developer but to the purchaser as
well. The savings may also translate into a reduced price tag on the home.
Reduced fees for Specific Use Permits.
8.
The City of Denton can reduce or eliminate the Specific Use Permit (SUP) fees
associated with developments within the Infill Special Purpose District that
require a SUP.
Fast-Track Permitting
9.
Fast-track permitting allows infill and redevelopment proposals to be processed
ahead of traditional projects. Some communities consolidate permit processes to
allow the review and processing of related development permits to happen
concurrently. The City of Dallas has designed a process whereby applicants can
pay an increased development fee to meet with specific staff who have the
authority to make development decisions. During this meeting, all plans are
reviewed for Building Code, Land-Use and Planning, and Development
Engineering compliance. At the conclusion of the meeting, if the applicant is
agreeable to the proposed changes, the plans are approved. Shortening the permit
process will result in developers saving money that otherwise would have been
spent on holding costs. Due to the limited number of applications for In-fill
projects the City has not developed a process for Fast-Track Permitting. All plans
are reviewed in accordance with the existing plan review schedule.
Expedited Review Processes
10.
If the code amendments and incentives mentioned herein are adopted and
implemented, staff anticipates a vast increase in the number of development
applications that will be submitted for review by the City. To facilitate this
increase in work load, an expedited review procedure can be put into place by
adding additional staff who is responsible for dealing with infill and
redevelopment review. In addition, an infill incentive team may help to
coordinate the project and guide the developer through the approval process.
Streamlining the review and approval process is important because infill projects
are often seen as high risk, and the lengthy, complex approval process makes the
development even riskier and more expensive. Simplifying the review process
will save the developer money and make infill and redevelopment projects more
attractive.
Staff believes that the DDC needs to be modified to clearly encourage and accommodate infill
and redevelopment projects. Additionally, implementation of any combination of the above
incentives should result in an increase in the number of in-fill and redevelopment projects having
a positive effect on current underdeveloped, blighted, undeveloped, or economically
underperforming lots within the boundaries of the ISPD.
RECOMMENDATION
10
Staff recommends a thorough review of the DDC to reorganize and clarify the DDC as well as
develop infill and redevelopment standards for the DDC. Additionally, staff recommends a
review of the fees charged by the City for infill and redevelopment projects as well as developing
other incentives aimed at enhancing infill and redevelopment in the City. Staff also recommends
a thorough review of the DRC process. To facilitate a complete review of the DDC and the DRC
process, staff recommends proceeding with negotiations and hiring of a consultant to assist in
completing the tasks outlined in Section III of this report. Additionally, the City Manager
recommends that the City Council appoints an ad hoc committee consisting of two (2) council
members and a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission to meet regularly with the City
Manager and staff to receive updates on progress of with staff and the
advisory committee.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
No prior Action or review.
OPTIONS
1.Direct staff to proceed with hiring a consultant to assist in reviewing the DDC for in-fill and
redevelopment improvements to the existing code or;
2.Direct staff to recommend a process to revise the DDC using resources currently existing
within the City to accomplish the task.
EXHIBITS
1.Exhibit 1 Current list of process improvements
2.Exhibit 2 Zucker Report
3.Exhibit 3 Examples of Development Applications
4.Exhibit 4 Infill Special Purpose Overlay District
Prepared by:
Mark A. Cunningham, AICP, CPM
Director of Planning and Development
Respectfully Submitted:
Fred G. Greene
Assistant City Manager
11
Exhibit 1
List of Development Review Process Improvement
1.Created the Gas Well Inspections Division.
2.-of-service fee analysis and implemented the new fees.
3.Improved the multi-division (Planning, Building Inspections and Code Enforcement)
Certificate of Occupancy process including application, review, inspections, and final
approval.
4.Purchased and Implementation of ProjectDox Plan Review Software. As of January 1,
2011, applicants have the option to submit building permits and development applications
for review electronically.
5.Implemented online permitting through eTRAKiT. Building Inspectors use eTRAKiT to
input inspections in the field in real time. The division also now accepts online permit
payments through eTRAKiT.
6.Implemented a process to scan all issued permits and application documents.
7.Improved the Building Inspection webpage with information such as on-line applications,
on-line payments, on-line plan submittal, useful links, and other features.
8.Began electronic intake of plan and permit submittals through ProjectDox.
9.Installed a Smart Board in the Main Conference Room to enhance meeting effectiveness
and customer service.
10.Installed a computer and flat screen monitor in the DRC Conference Room to enhance
meeting effectiveness and customer service.
11.Researched State records for approximately 1,500 oil and gas wells to develop an internal
database that can be used to identify all pertinent well and site data.
12.Performed approximately 1,700 drilling and production inspections, which includes well,
site, compliance, random, and plat inspections, to establish an accurate count and
13.Created a new gas well permitting process.
14.
with the Finance Department to send annual inspection invoices to operators for each
well. The annual inspection program requires a tracking database to record numerous
well specific details and is verified in the field for drilling operators and citizens to follow
the progress via a color coded sticker system.
15.Hosted an informative meeting at City Hall to introduce the new Gas Well Inspections
Division to the operators. All oil and gas operators and their agents with wells in our
jurisdiction were invited to attend and le
oversight program. The operator information meeting was attended by approximately
sixty (60) representatives from the numerous stakeholders.
16.se for ease of record
retention, linking site activity, inspection history, and tracking.
17.Developed on-line gas well permitting process.
18.Worked with Tech Services to establish a Gas Well Inspections Laserfiche repository.
19.Created a series of pages on a new Gas Well Inspections website to provide public
information regarding the various aspects of the new Gas Well Inspections division.
20.Worked with Building Inspections to establish addressing protocol to ensure every gas
well drilling and production site is assigned a 911 address.
21.Created a checklist of gas well site inspection requirements and published the checklist
.
22.Streamlined bonding and insurance reviews and tracking in accordance with DDC
requirements for each operator, well, and drilling and/or production site.
23.Created new gas well related application and permitting forms and published all
24.Creation of Developers Committee to identify and resolve inefficiencies in the
development review process.
25.Created the DRC Administrator, and DRC Liaison positions that are charged with
assisting applicants with the processing of development applications and giving guidance
through the navigation of the DDC and other applicable codes and ordinances. The DRC
meetings were relocated to the City Council Work Session Room at Main City Hall.
Minutes are taken and all applicants (including the owner) are now invited to attend the
DRC meetings.
26.Created a Pre-Application process. As part of the development review process, the City
offers applicants the option of utilizing a pre-application meeting to obtain information
and development requirements for land planned for development.
27.Created unlimited plan submission opportunities. The submission guidelines were
revised from a limited twice per month submission, to a process that allows all applicants
to submit projects at any given time during the week.
28.Reduced the Project Intake Processing Time. Formerly, project intake took as many as
six (6) days to process and distribute. Currently, the process takes only 1½ days.
29.Created and published Timeline for DRC Projects. A development review and
processing time line that covers in excess of twelve (12) consecutive months is available
to all our customers.
30.Created several Process Flow Charts The following flow-charts were developed and
review processs:
a.Pre-application Process;
b.Planning and Zoning Commission Approval Process;
c.City Council Approval Process;
d.DRC Engineering Approval Process;
e.Zoning Board of Adjustments Approval Process; and
1
f.Annexation Process.
31.Neighborhood Planning Established a Neighborhood Planning section designed to
improve relationships between the City, various neighborhood groups and (when
applicable) various development projects.
32.Denton Development Code Amendments Recommended 22 amendments to the DDC
aimed at eliminating conflicts in the DDC or inhibitors to quality development.
33.Completed Tree Canopy Imagery Project.
34.Completed the Downtown Implementation Plan (DTIP). The DTIP was the recipient of a
Celebrating Leadership in Development Excellence (CLIDE) award from the North
Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG).
35.Implemented the Neighborhood Registry and Neighborhood Network.
36.Began composition of the a new Planned Development ordinance.
37.Initiated the development of the Form Based Code to manage development in the Central
Business District.
Reduction of the project intake processing time
38.. Formerly, project intake took as many
as six (6) days to process and distribute. Currently, the process takes only 1½ days. This
improvement affords Staff time to prepare reports and to dedicate adequate time to meet
with applicants to assist them with their projects and to respond to other Planning
inquires in a timely manner.
Applicant attendance at the DRC meetings
39.. All applicants (including the owner) are
now invited to attend the DRC meetings and are offered the added benefit of discussing
their project review comments with the committee. This face-to-face dialogue affords the
applicant the ability to gain clarity regarding any concerns raised by the DRC, and to
ascertain what is required to ensure an expeditious project review process and subsequent
approval. One of the future goals of the DRC is to provide live video conferences when
needed, for the benefit of out-of-town applicants.
Relocation of the DRC meetings.
40.The DRC now meets inthe City Council Work
Session Room located at City Hall Central. Prior to this arrangement, the DRC met in the
main conference room located in the basement of City Hall West. The new
accommodation offers a more professional setting, and also provides more seating
capacity for our customers.
The Creation of an Ombudsman Liaison
41.: This liaison is charged with representing the
interests of the public by investigating and addressing concerns reported by applicants,
individual citizens, as well as identified stakeholders.
Mandatory Pre-Application meeting:
42. The objective of the mandatory Pre-Application
meeting is to provide an orientation process whereby applicants will gain essential
process. In addition, applicants are given the knowledge to be able to make an informed
decision whether to continue with an official development application submittal or to
consider modifying their course of action.
43.. In an effort to cultivate and enhance a working relationship that
is beneficial to both the city and the development community, members of the DRC hosts
2
process and solicit feedback from developers on services and processes that may need
improvement. During this calendar year the DRC has hosted two luncheons; a third
luncheon is scheduled for September 17, 2008. Past meetings have been well received,
and attendance averages around 40-50 participants, excluding city Staff. Topics of
discussion have included: amendments to the DDC; revised development review
checklists, and presentations on improvements to the development review process.
Developers Committee
44.
community and key DRC staff was recently formed. The goal of the committee is to
identify and resolve inefficiencies in the development review process through a
collaborative process. The committee meets twice each month and the meetings are
facilitated by Assistant City Manager, Fred Greene.
Reorganization of Duties and Responsibilities:
45.
I.In addition to the aforementioned improvements, there has been a reorganization
of personnel as well as certain duties and responsibilities between the Planning
(DRE) section. The purpose of this reorganization is to provide enhanced
development engineering review and inspection services under one agency and to
provide leadership from an experienced Professional Engineer. Mr. P. S. Arora,
P.E., has taken the additional duties and responsibilities as the administrator of the
DRE section and will provide the leadership, engineering expertise, and decision
making skills needed of this new section. All development review engineering
services, horizontal site construction inspections of all development projects, and
the Freese and Nichols engineering consultants are now under the direction of the
DRE Administrator. In addition, the DRE section ensure complete oversight of a
development project and is expected to provide a seamless transition from project
review to project construction. An added benefit is the cultivation of a more
harmonious relationship with the applicant, the development engineers and the
construction community.
II.Mr. Brian Lockley has been appointed as DRC Administrator and will oversee the
overall DRC review process. The Development Review Administrator is
responsible for scheduling Pre-Application and DRC meetings, ensuring that all
primary and secondary departments are actively participating in meetings and that
comments are clear, concise, and entered into Trak-it on time. As DRC
Administrator, Mr. Lockley will also ensure the manifestation of established
objectives of the DRC. These objectives include the following:
a.Draft review comments that are specific rather that general in nature and that
will impart clarity and direction to aid the applicant in developing an effective
resolution;
b.Perform a thorough analysis of all projects during the first review and provide
a Code reference when possible against which all review comments may be
measured;
c.Ensure that the information or action requested of the applicant is achievable
without the creation of impractical difficulty or unreasonable hardship, to the
greatest extent possible;
3
d.Provide review comments that are realistic without circumventing the spirit
and intent of any code; and,
e.Enter all comments in the Track-It system prior to the established deadline.
III.Third, the DRC Administrator also serves in the capacity of the ombudsman
previously mentioned. In this capacity, Mr. Lockley is charged with representing the
interests of our identified stakeholders by investigating and resolving concerns and
complaints in an effective an efficient manner. As ombudsman, he will ensure that
SPA
the programs and services of the DRC are pecific, redictable, ccountable,
CE
onsistent, and quitable. In other words, he will ensure the creation of SPACE:
Specific
a.Provide review comments that are and understandable;
Predictable
b.Implement a development review process;
Accountable
c.Be to our stakeholders (internal and external) and protect the
health, safety and the general welfare of the public;
Consistent
d.Deliver administration and interpretation of all applicable Codes
and policies; and,
Equitable
e.Be and fair in the treatment of all our customers.
4
Exhibit 2
Zucker Systems Organization Review
Recommendations Responsibility Priority Status
1 Agree on Implementation Plan City Council City 1 Major elements of the Plan
Manager, have been implements and/or
Department Heads are on-going.
Issues All Functions
2 Amend Application Criteria Relevant 2 Engineering is engaged in
Manual. Departments update of all criteria manuals
and will begin presenting it
to stakeholders
3 Correct Development Code TOC Director of 3 Completed
page references. Planning and
Development
4 Empower DRC attendees to Department Heads 1 The DRC Administrator and
make decisions. all staff under his authority
are empowered to make
decisions in accordance with
adopted codes and policies.
The Engineering Admin is
also empowered to make
decisions at DRC meetings.
5 Review DRC timelines to DRC Chair 1 Planning & Development
address issues. has established timeframes
for plan reviews, applicant
meeting schedules, and
turnaround times. A year-
long DRC schedule was
created several years ago.
The schedule is based on
established P&Z and City
Council dates. This schedule
is available on-line.
6 Increase use of handing out DRC Chair 3 Business cards are made
business cards. available and are exchanged
during developer meetings
and emails are generated and
sent to applicants
introducing them to the
project and their P.M. at the
time of submission.
7 Streamline and improve DRC Chair 2 The Department has
permitting systems. developed an improved
application review, intake
and distribution, and
permitting process. This
also includes coordinated
efforts among Code
Enforcement, Building
Inspections, and Planning to
review applications for, and
to issue permits for signs and
Certificates of Occupancy.
8 Consider Project Managers for Director of 1 A Planner from the Planning
DRC projects. Planning and Division is assigned as
Development Project Manager for all
projects. Planners are
assigned to the same projects
from pre-applications to
formal submissions.
Complex developments (i.e.,
Rayzor Ranch) are assigned
to a specific planner to
address issues as they arise.
9 Email applicants with new Relevant 2 Comments are received by
comments. Departments applicants a week in advance
of meeting to address
comments and answer
questions.
10 Review Trak-It comment format DRC Chair 2 DRC members provide
to address customer concerns comments related to the
and uniformity. projects, general comments
that may impact the projects
during the building phase
and options for the applicant
to address comments.
11 Co-locate all private Assistant City 2 Due to inadequacy of
development and permitting Manager physical space, this is not
functions. possible.
12 Review signage and directions to Director of 3 Signs have been posted in
functions. Management and the City Hall West.
Public Information
13 Revise handouts and displays Director of 3 Several hand-outs have been
and add summary handouts. Planning and created, revised.
Development
14 Review and resolve management City Manager 1
and coordination issues.
15 Discuss staffs understanding of Department 1 A departmental strategic
the mission. Managers plan was created several
years ago that addresses the
departments line of
business, values, goals, and
objectives.
16 Clarify reference to Planning and Director of 3 Review comments reference
Building Divisions. Planning and what division is providing
Development the comments, and code
citations are provided.
17 Return all calls and emails the Department Heads 2 99% of all contacts within
same day. the Planning and
Development Department
are returned within 24 hours.
18 Expand the City Web site. Assistant City 2 The City website has been
Manager expanded to include flow
charts for each development
application process.
19 Adjust and announce goals for DRC Chair 2 The Department publishes
Plan Check turnaround times. the annual DRC schedule to
inform applicants of the
submission dates, turnaround
times, and public hearing
dates to aid them in planning
their development.
20 Communicate to applicants DRC Chair 2 If review comments are
when turnaround times cannot be incomplete, the applicant is
met. contacted and those
comments that are completed
are forwarded.
21 Develop an Expedited Plan DRC Chair 2 We have not implemented a
Check process. formal expedited review
process. However, in excess
of over 95% of all
applications and plans are
reviewed with 10 days. In
with others in the metroplex,
a 10-day turn-around is often
considered an expedited
review.
Building Inspections Division
22 Create and use checklists for Building Official 3 These checklists are updated
Plan Checks. periodically to address new
codes
23 10-day turnaround time for Building Official 3 This is the standard for the
Building Plan Check. City.
24 Have Plan check report to the Building Official 3 Plans Examiner supervisor
Assistant Building Official for now meets with commercial
process. plans examiners to review
comments before they go
out.
25 Assign a Plans Examiner or Building Official 1 This objective was deemed
Technician for over-the-counter unfeasible due to the fact
reviews. that there are too many
review entities involved.
Even the simplest reviews
involve more than one
reviewer from Building,
Planning, Fire, Health, and
Engineering. The
coordination of all of these
reviewers seems impractical.
The Permit Techs handle all
OTC permits that require no
review.
26 Reclassify the Landscape Building Official 3 Re-classified Commercial
Administrator to Permit and Plan Plans Examiner to Plans
Check Supervisor. Examiner Supervisor
27 Implement hand-held field Building Official 2 Hand-held computers did not
computers for Inspectors. serve the needs of the
inspectors; however, laptops
were mounted in each
and these
meet their needs.
28 Consider assigning private Assistant City 3 Implemented
property grading to the Building Manager
Division.
29 Meet with developers to address Director of 3 Subchapter 18 re-written
concerns on the grading process Engineering with help of a citizen and
and policies. developer committee. The
clearing and grading permit
policy was changed to
comply with TCEQ Storm
Water regulations. The
C&G permits are now issued
only after the Final Plat has
been approved by the P&Z.
This can be addressed again
Committee meeting as a
refresher.
30 Allow private property Building Official 3 Allow C&G and
development to begin before underground utilities as well
complete detailed plan approval. as slab only to be released
before complete approval.
31 Create a generic checklist for Building Official 3 These lists are always being
Inspectors. revised as new codes are
adopted. This is an ongoing
process.
32 Train staff on framing code Building Official 2 Inspector training occurs
requirements. every two weeks. Many
different topics are
addressed. Framing and
Advanced Framing has been
addressed several times and
it will periodically continue
to be addressed.
33 Determine framing inspection Inspector 2 We have had several internal
methods of surrounding Supervisor classes on framing and
jurisdictions. advanced framing. And as a
result of research, checking
with surrounding
jurisdictions, and internal
discussion, we added an
Exterior Sheathing
Inspection to our required
framing inspections. We
continue to have and attend
classes on framing.
34 Plans Examiners and Inspectors Building Official 3 This goal has never been
to enter job time into the fully implemented. Some
computer system. employees keep a written
time log, but the Trakit
application does not fit every
scenario and therefore would
not give an accurate
accounting of each
Engineering Department
35 Establish a process for over-the-Director of 2 Minor corrections are
counter adjustments and Engineering accepted as pdf files and
approvals. approved.
36 Review the Plan Check process Director of 1 All comments go out within
to complete all reviews within Engineering the required 10-day time
10 days. window.
37 Assign separate Engineering Director of 2 Two Senior engineers were
staff to work on private property Engineering hired and work on
plans. transportation, drainage and
water/sewer respectively.
38 Relocate Engineering staff Director of 2 One Senior Engineer is
working on private development Engineering located in City Hall West to
plans to City Hall West. coordinate with developers.
39 Assign different Inspectors to Director of 3 Generally the inspectors
CIP and private development Engineering work either on CIP only or
projects. development only projects.
This is to manage the ebb
and flow of the projects.
40 Document time, service, Director of 2 The projects are reviewed
disposition of Plan Check and Engineering and comments entered in
Inspections. Trak-IT within the required
time window.
41 Prepare an Engineering Director of 3
Applicants Guide. Engineering
42 Train the engineer attending Director of 1 Two Senior Engineers attend
DRC on all corrections and Engineering all meetings, and respond to
engineering requirements. comments/questions in their
respective areas of specialty.
43 Establish a direct link to Director of 3 Will review this further to
Engineering for applicants to use Engineering determine need and
at DRC meetings. feasibility
44 Eliminate construction details Director of 1 Construction details are only
from the Development Review Engineering required with Final Plans
Committee phase.
45 Conduct more thorough reviews Director of 1 That is always the goal
to avoid changes during Engineering
subsequent reviews.
46 Have added corrections Director of 2 DRC Engineering
reviewed and approved by a Engineering Administrator reviews all
supervisor. comments before they are
released.
47 List all corrections on the Director of 3 All corrections are
computer for transmission to the Engineering transmitted via website
web site.
48 Establish a customer feedback Director of 2
system in Engineering. Engineering Committee on regular basis
and get feedback with
Planning
49 Implement technical training and Director of 2 Technical training is part of
customer service training for Engineering the Professional
staff. Development hours required
for PE license. Will inquire
HR if any specific training is
available
Planning Division
50 Address and resolve issues in the Assistant City 1 On-going.
Planning Division Manager
51 Reorganize the Planning Director of 1 The Planning Divisions was
Division. Planning and reorganized several years
Development ago. Most relative, the DRC
Administration section was
created.
52 Review process issues and Director of 1 Several process
consider changes. Planning and
improvement measures were
Development
implemented including: (1)
reduction of the project
intake processing time; (2)
applicant attendance at the
DRC meetings; (3)
relocation of the DRC
meetings; (4) the Creation of
DRC Ombudsman and
Liaison positions; (5)
mandatory Pre-Application
meeting; (6) hosting of
cheon; and
(7) hosting of regular
Developers Committee
meetings.
53 Develop a more detailed work Director of 2 Implemented.
program. Planning and
Development
54 Station Planning on first floor of Director of 1 Incomplete. Not done due to
permit center. Planning and physical lay-out of the
Development building. However, a
Planner-of-the-Day is
available to meeting with the
public during working hours.
55 Examine cases exceeding the Director of 1 As stated above, However, in
median processing time to Planning and excess of over 95% of all
correct problems. Development applications and plans are
reviewed with 10 days,
which is often considered an
expedited review.
56 Set and monitor processing Director of 2 DRC has adopted
timeline targets for all cases. Planning and performance measure to
Development evaluate the effectiveness
and efficiency of the process
9ãwz,z·
Project Summary
Project Number:
Not applicable
Application Type:
Building permits to redevelop older structures.
Project Name:
Primarily older commercial structures
Proposal:
Redevelopment of an older commercial structure for a permitted use under
the DDC.
Issues:
Property owners want to update their property to make them more marketable for
additional permitted uses under the DDC. In some instances if the proposed use is more intense
than the previous use (office or retail use to restaurant use) the property owner must comply with
the International Building Code and International Fire Code. Due to the age of many of these
structures most were constructed without sprinkler systems and fire alarms and without proper
fire wall and floor separation. Under these circumstances, many of the property owners have
stated that these code requirements are onerous, and expensive when retrofitting the building. In
some instances these requirements preclude the owner from making the needed improvements.
The other option is to demolish the existing structure and rebuild a new structure but this option
creates a host of other issues the property owner must address. This action would cause the
property to be developed by current DDC requirements
I �,� :��
�` _�
�� . ��
� -
.�
�_ • :
� ��� ,��� _
� --- �`��.�
�
��t � d
! �� � •�
;Y$� �4Ef �� ���, .
:�t(i�� ��`
������}�■ i-
' ������C .
Yri�� :
.�-�$�� _. - '
�1€ I� -r , ��
�� 3� ;
¢�tt� &����. � .
���L `' � �
�
���;t ���
k`=�?�1i
�.'� _;,�-�....,
-,:-�_� r � !. :
iI
r �,� r� c - �
�. �
� �: I , �1�� i , � e �.
r :_ �� .
� �' �� y - -
� �E�� � �
�� �q; �y��
�} ...a,�'",a 0>
� :_rF � �'
�. F !
�=�': rr �
�'t i I1�!'°
����■
�� �I■�,
��'�rr� ' . ���
�� s�•`",� —
€� "` i ..�
>+ 'i: � �,�r' ., .
f r ��...
I 1� ���
� �°
,�:..� � ,
��r .:. � � .,' `.'� . <
; - � � ':; z �
� �! ; r �' -.
�"w� +�:
� � �; '� P � '� ��.
8 �. i
� t� _ � �1 ' �a `
�a� �,,���' ���' ` �
,+
"� �".� � �
�s� , ��
� � �� z�� �
� � �_ � .
?,
� '�� \ �
,�°'�,� ��� �f �
�� •�
@y� �� � &r-:;� � : e
i � s� � �
• -� �I
� �,
� x
!� _� � � ''
�� ��i �; �i � ;
��� � �i'� �
�� �"�Im., i� ; ts •
�� I!� '�'� � �
, �
�� ' , k
� � r°" 7 i
� � ` �a, ~ `€
���#;<. � ,:.
�.� �
: �:
�
�:.� &� �� � t9 � 3 .
,_� �:�� � �
�s '_ � t �>�{ � � i; � �;
��' ��'
s �
{
�r � S
( �
�` '��f �"x�a
5 g �
: ¢ 4
9 �
i 9 � ^ � � . �'
$ "
� � � � �' ����: � ��
� � M
S3 �k
i �' � j' .
� '.� Pt 4 !, a � �'
� �� i S �K �
� q� ': & } �t���� � 1 _� , 6 � t..
� � �� ���G�.E
� ��_ � � s�a�� �
� � � € e p
, ', � z � �
��� s � ����
� k ' � ,"
Y:: � t k� ;� t 4 E{ T
� 's 's Ei F s. � ,..�
? F �., � .� � . s¢ � �� .d
� � .� �h. �� i �i
� €
� �
� �
r;�
s r ,� ; �}�� '4 '�� `�
� �;�� �� �� � f ,�
� 4 4�..-� '} C°
� .: � � � ' �€ , i pc,�
i � � ��
' � & r� �_'" �`
� ; =� �' �
� '. � Yz
_' <} _ ; � y� �
�
�
� a . r .,�`. ;��� �: `�
,�
, �:
r
��
- �`� � �
r r � `° �� �' _
a z`
� 'c p
��' � f_;
��� v�$.
$ s� . .�a�' a :
i 9�. :: f 4: �. ���.
9
..* 4` i $ � � �t
�` � � `s
v � �`s
z �
��
�:
� ,
��� ���, � �°ti
h � ��
� ����� �,
; � � �-,,
� � �r� J
�, �- �,
�� ;,� . °,��
�" � � ��' ��`� ;�
� �X �"��� ��::
, ��
S'
a '. ^ ?� f �' �'�`° �' �'d'�.
�g, , ,,, a �'
� � '��,
}� �:�: o; s
��.&Lf� . � i!'' ,:�:�_�. �
�
� :.
City of Denton
Infill Boundary/Overlay Map
PD
NR-3
NRMU
S
T
40
NR-2
S
T
6
NR-6
EC-I
EC-C
ST
42
ST
41
UV
21
RCC-D
NR-4
S
T
17
CM-G
ST
3
DR-2
5
ST
16
23
4
NR-1
NRMU-12
NRMU
ST
NR-2
19
34
28
37
31
0
24
ST
ST
8 NRMU-12
10
NR-3
19
NR-3
NR-6
UV
20
7
30
22
0
18
6
UV
22
3
13
29
12
23
6
MF-1
S
T
21
39 1
UV
SUBAREA B 11
3627
NRMU
20
7
25
29
8
UV
10
CM-G
33
ST
2
ST
13
DC-G
DC-N
EC-I
DR-2
NUMBEROVERLAY TYPEORDINANCECASE NOACRESDATE
NR-4
ZONING
DR-1
1NR-42004-382Z04-00396.67407122004
2NRMU2005-025Z04-004512.50018012005
3NRMU2006-008Z05-00272.63003012006
4NR-42006-126Z06-000658.25802052006
5RCC-D2006-124Z06-00075.74002052006
6NR-32007-032Z06-001430.00002062007
UV
7NRMU2006-360Z06-00243.50012192006
8RCC-D2010-158Z10-001087.0008122008
34
9NRMU2007-048Z06-003810.20020022007
10NR-62007-075Z07-00045.280
ST
11NR-22008-045Z07-0025281.97002192008
1
12RCC-D2008-157Z08-000638.44507/15/08
13DC-G2007-106Z07-00083.31905152007
14NRMU2008-045Z07-002554.24002192008
15NRMU2006-302Z06-00205.61010172006
HISTORICAL DESIGNATION
16NRMU2006-302Z06-00290.000
NUMBERDESIGNATIONORDINANCEADDRESSCITYSTATEZIP
17RCCD2007-068Z06-0029181.90003272007
199-31599-315100 N LOCUST STDENTONTX76201.00000
18NRMU-122006-13947.0005162006
2H-1181-011003 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
NR-6
19NRMU2009-102Z09-00012.0004212009
394-00294-2191004 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
CM-E
HISTORICAL DISTRICTS
4H-1881-37101 ELM STDENTONTX76201.00000 CM-G
5H-1381-011015 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
20FRY STREET2010-182Z10-000912.4207212010
694-00394-2171018 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
21BELL AVENUE CONSERVATION DISTRICT2005-09911.6003222005
7H-1281-011023 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
22WEST OAK AREA HISTORIC DISTRICT2008-13652.0106172008
894-00194-2181035 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
23OAK-HICKORY HISTORIC DISTRICT87-22423.70012081987
9H-2482-36110 W HICKORY STDENTONTX76201.00000
24DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT94-156A3507.6809131994
10H-1981-57119 W HICKORYDENTONTX76201.00000
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES
1193-00193-104120-122 1/2 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
122008-0652008-065122 N LOCUST STDENTONTX76201.00000
25Cole Ranch2006-303MPC07-00023256.92011172006
13H-180-72123 N ELM STDENTONTX76201.00000
26Hills of Denton2007-150Z06-00262120.6217172007
14H-2382-241314 N LOCUST STDENTONTX76201.00000
27Hills of Denton North2008-262MPC07-0003484.84010212008
1595-00195-241513 N LOCUST STDENTONTX76201.00000
RCC-D
28Hunter Ranch2008-286MPC07-00013331.00011042008
16H-3385-21217 E OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
IC-E
NRMU-12
17H-2582-69221 N ELM STDENTONTX76201.00000
SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS
1891-00191-009305 MOUNTS STDENTONTX76201.00000
NR-4
1999-31699-316520 AUSTIN STDENTONTX76201.00000292005-143SD05-000194.2005242005
20H-481-01607 PEARL STDENTONTX76201.00000
302005-081SD04-000443.7701032005
21H-581-01609 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
31SD04-000347.000
22H-1481-18610 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
322003-061SD02-00036.7102182003
23H-2883-109619 GROVE STDENTONTX76201.00000
332010-016SD09-00014.1411122010
IC-G
24H-2783-81703 BOLIVAR STDENTONTX76201.00000
342002-150SD02-00017.5205142002
NR-2 25H-781-01705 W OAK STDENTONAZ76201.00000
352002-246SD02-000254.1306102002
26H-681-01722 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
NR-2
362004-204SD04-00020.0237202004
27H-981-01723 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
28H-3586-112805 BOLIVAR STDENTONTX76201.00000372004-126SD04-0001133.5004202004
NRMU
RCC-N
29H-881-01811 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
30H-1081-01812 OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
ZONING
NR-3
3198-00198-071815 N LOCUST STDENTONTX76201.00000
38NRMU-12Z08-001615.2003022010
32H-1681-18818 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
EC-C
39DC-G2009-303Z09-00081.7601122009
33H-1781-36819 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.00000
RCR-1
40NRMU-122010-077Z08-001615.3003022010
3498-00298-072821 N LOCUST STDENTONTX76201.00000
EC-I
3592-00293-031915 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.0000041NRMU2009-324Z09-000919.85812152009
362006-2852006-285918 W OAK STDENTONTX76201.0000042NRMU-122011-066Z10-00076.8364192011
37HL10-00022010-113322 TEXAS STDENTONTX76201.00000 RCR-2
43NR-42011-116Z11-000330.4427192011
¬
Legend
City of Denton
INFILL BOUNDARYCM-GETJNR-3RCC-N
Planning and Development
DTIP BoundaryDC-GIC-ENR-4RCR-1
221 N. Elm Street
ParcelsDC-NIC-GNR-6RCR-2
Denton, Texas 76201
OverlaysDR-1MF-1NRMURD-5
1,00050001,000Feet
(940) 349-8541
ZONING
DR-2MPCNRMU-12RD-5X
This map represents the current information
www.cityofdenton.com
within the City of Denton GIS System. It is
A
EC-CNR-1PD
not an official map of the City of Denton and
Historical
9
should not be used for engineering purposes.
CM-E
EC-INR-2RCC-DDesignation
It may contain errors or omissions.