The Denton City Council on Tuesday approved changes to the development code designed to spur growth on vacant lots in older neighborhoods, capping years of work on a hotly debated issue that pitted neighborhood groups against developers.

“Neither side is completely happy, so that probably means we struck a good medium,” Mayor Perry McNeill said after the council approved the city’s first infill development policy. “It’s a document in process. If there’s problems, we’ll correct it, but we need to do something to develop these small parcels that have been overlooked.”

Elise Ridenour, a member of the West Oak Area Homeowners Association who opposed the plan, said eleventh-hour
compromises made it more palatable.

“The ordinance doesn’t really address the developers’ needs or the neighborhoods’ needs,” she said. “But with tonight’s amendments, I’m much happier. I still don’t think it’s a great ordinance, but things particularly onerous for neighborhoods are ameliorated.”

The policy aims to offer flexibility in development standards for people building on small tracts of empty land inside areas of central Denton, while maintaining compatibility with existing structures.

Supporters said the plan would encourage growth on passed-over lots, helping to revitalize neighborhoods and enrich the city’s tax base.

But critics said the policy would create second-class standards, weakening neighborhoods’ protections in the city’s development code.

The policy applies to vacant lots 2 acres or smaller in an area roughly bounded by Windsor Drive to the north; Old North Road, Mockingbird Lane and Woodrow Lane to the east; Interstate 35E to the south; and Bonnie Brae Street to the west.

The policy won’t affect land inside established special-purpose or overlay districts, including the Fry Street overlay district, the Oak-Hickory Historic District and the Bell Avenue Historic Conservation District, officials said.

The issue dates to 2004, when council members asked city planners to identify vacant infill lots. Planners prepared a draft set of infill regulations, which they discussed with community stakeholders and in numerous meetings before the council and Planning and Zoning Commission.

Council members were set to vote on the policy last September but referred it back to the planning commission with changes in response to concerns raised during a public hearing.

Brian Lockley, Denton’s interim planning director, said the policy’s final version addresses most of those concerns.

Officials added provisions limiting where zero-lot line dwellings will be allowed and a neighborhood meeting requirement so adjacent property owners will know about developers’ infill proposals, among other changes.

The policy gives the city’s planning director authority to grant changes of up to 25 percent from city requirements for building height, setback and lot coverage – a provision critics have said puts too much power into the director’s hands.

Developers or nearby property owners can appeal the director’s decisions to the planning commission. And under a change made Tuesday, nearby property owners will be notified when the director intends to grant an adjustment. If at least 20 percent of the residents object, the issue will come to planning commissioners for a public hearing.

Council members agreed to the change after West Oak Street homeowner Steven Friedson said the process needed more neighborhood input.

“I’m still concerned that it stops at P&Z [Planning and Zoning Commission],” Friedson said after the meeting. “I’d like to see the process able to be appealed to the City Council.”

The policy does not contain reductions in impact fees, which are charged to new development to offset their effect on water and wastewater facilities.

Developers had sought the fee reduction as an incentive to build on infill lots, but city officials said granting the breaks could subject them to legal challenges from other ratepayers, who would have to make up the money lost.

LOWELL BROWN can be reached at 940-566-6882. His e-mail address is lmbrown@dentonrc.com .