October 11, 2011 Minutes
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 11, 2011
After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in 2nd Tuesday Session
on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Council Member King, Council Member Roden, Council Member Engelbrecht,
Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Watts
ABSENT: Council Member Gregory, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding drafting a new
Planned Development (PD) ordinance for inclusion within the Denton Development
Code (DDC), with associated development standards. The discussion will include a
general overview of the outline of the draft PD ordinance that will be included in the
DDC.
Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this presentation was the
completion of one started at a prior meeting.
The steps for a PD Detail Plan process involved the submission of a PD Concept Plan that was
non-binding; a community input meeting; a Council work session; PD Development Plan with
Council approval; and the PD Detail Plan with Planning and Zoning Commission approval.
General PD Regulations - to avoid the identified short comings of the City's former PD
regulations, the new PD regulations would address 28 specific areas. The adoption of the PD
Development Plan was required by the Council and established the PD District. He noted that
Item 4 which stated “include a master transportation, water, wastewater, and drainage study for
the entire PD area that is of such detail that identify the major public infrastructure facilities
needed by each phase, the connection of these facilities to the existing public infrastructure, and
any off-site improvements required” had raised questions from Council at the last presentation.
Council Member Watts noted that last time concerns from Council were on how to do a long
range plan. He questioned if that portion was not being included or did staff need direction on
#4.
Cunningham stated that staff still needed direction from Council on how to proceed with the item
or if Council still had questions.
Mayor Burroughs indicated he was worried about not having adequate public infrastructure if a
development was started and was not provided for a number of years. The proposal read that the
developer would have to come up with that up front but the time frame might be many years out.
He suggested putting in a time frame that would trigger an element for phasing.
PS Arora, Division Manager-Wastewater Administration, stated that a development would do a
master plan for the entire project which would show how the development fit in the larger picture
of the infrastructure. That would show what needed to be identified in terms of water, streets,
etc.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 11, 2011
Page 2
Mayor Burroughs questioned how a developer could predict where the water connection would
come through because as time went on it might change due to other circumstances.
Arora stated that an initial look would be done with what facilities currently were in place with
the water lines, etc. They had models to know what the existing use was and if an additional
load was placed on it how it would be handled. If the project was going to exceed the load, the
model of the project would show that.
Mayor Burroughs stated that only what the load was internal to the development in terms of
volume for drainage or the water requirement would have to be identified. A developer would
not have to identify the connections to other city facilities.
Arora stated correct that once the impact of the load was identified, staff would know what to
assess the developer for the infrastructure needs.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the wording for Item #4 implied that the developer would have to
know what the project would do to the city's infrastructure off- site as well.
Arora stated that it could be both internal and external to the development.
Council Member Watts felt that the wording of Item #4 needed to include that if the PD didn’t
have the interior capacity when it came to Council, the developer needed to acknowledge that
and have a plan on how to solve the problem. This was an issue of how to strike a balance of
planning the capacity needs of development with an understanding of what the developer would
have to do.
Arora stated that was how the City would get there and know what was being proposed. If the
infrastructure would not support the PD, then the developer and City needed to know what
requirements were needed.
Mayor Burroughs noted that the current wording for Item #4 included "connection of these
facilities to exiting public infrastructure". He asked how a developer would know many years in
the future where the connections would be and how would that be known up front to be
meaningful.
Arora stated that was done through the model. He stated that wording could be modified based
on Council’s concerns.
Council Member Watts asked about the list of 28 general fee regulations and who decided on the
specifics of those items.
Cunningham stated that there were guidelines associated with the list of 28.
Council Member Watts stated that staff and a developer would agree on the general concepts and
the project would then to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council.
Cunningham replied that was the correct sequence.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 11, 2011
Page 3
Cunningham stated that the next step was the PD Detail Plan. The proposal was to have the
Detail Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and not Council as it had to be in
accordance with the PD Development Plan. The PD Detail Plan must be in accordance with the
adopted PD District Development Plan.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that he was not comfortable with that procedure.
Cunningham stated that the PD Development Plan set the standards for the development.
Twenty five years from now the applicant could have the opportunity to review the plan as it
might be dated and could make adjustments for current standards. Once the plan was vested, it
was there.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that it was one thing to have a plan and another thing to
have it built. He was not convinced that this approach for approving the basic standards 25 years
out would work.
Mayor Burroughs asked at what point a Detail Plan was required to be submitted such as with a
multi-phase development.
Cunningham stated it was done when the developer was ready to do the phase. He noted that
there would be some vesting due to state law. Something had to be done with the development
plan within 24 months. If nothing was done, then the plan would expire. If something was done
with the plan, then the entire plan would be vested.
Aaron Leal, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the project was looked at as a whole and that was
what was looked at for vested rights due to state law.
Mayor Burroughs stated that a Detail Plan was when the elements on the ground were known.
The specifics were for the Detail Plan and that was not done for the whole development. The
uses were permanent when zoned and could not be changed. The way a development looked
with trees, utilities, traffic flow, etc. was done at the detail level and that was under a structured
time frame. Previously there was no time frame that expired but this proposal did have those
time frames.
Council Member Watts felt that in order to continue to give staff direction there was a need for
an informal staff report or a work session on vesting rights as it applied to PDs and what vesting
rights were or were not. That should include which regulations were subject to vesting and
which had to follow under the current regulations.
Mayor Burroughs suggested staff outline each of the elements and what would vest when a
Concept Plan or Detail Plan was done and when they were lost.
Cunningham stated that a detail plan would be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission instead of the Council.
Council Member Watts stated that he struggled with this option of not coming to Council for
final approval. The Detail Plan phase was when everything was decided and at times those were
very important to the community at large.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 11, 2011
Page 4
Cunningham stated that the PD Development Plan was when regulations for land use, etc. were
determined and adopted by Council. The Detail Plan phase ensured that what was proposed on
smaller tracks were designed in accordance with the regulations determined by Council.
Council Member Watts asked how that figured into the example of Robson Ranch with its
second detail plan.
Cunningham stated that there were a lot of loop holes with the original plan regulations. The
Detail Plan was to make sure it was in accordance with the regulations approved by Council.
The developer could not go outside the standards set by the Council and if a change was needed,
it would have to go back to Council. The bulk of the regulations were in the PD Development
Plan.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that the interest of the community was in the site plan not
the development plan.
Cunningham stated that right now development plans did not come to Council for review and
were only reviewed by staff. The development plan would have all of the lot coverage and all of
the 28 items listed in the development plan regulations.
Mayor Burroughs noted that the wording for the 28 areas did not indicate that they were under
the development plan stage and he could not tell when that review occurred. He felt that needed
to be made clearer.
Cunningham stated that all of those design standards would be in the PD District Development
regulations. When the proposal went to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission
was only ensuring that what was in the detail plan was in keeping with the PD District
Development Plan.
Council Member Roden asked what amount of time would be saved by not having Council
approval in the fourth step.
Cunningham stated that it might add another month. The goal was that the detail plan would not
rehash the development standards already in place.
Council Member Roden questioned the placement of the community input meeting. As it was
now proposed, the community meeting would be showing the use of the property. However, the
use was not the issue but rather what the project was going to look like. He asked when those
types of discussions would take place.
Cunningham stated that once the PD Development Plan was submitted, there would be two
public hearings; one at the Planning and Zoning Commission level and one at the Council level
to address the detail issues.
Council Member Roden asked for an example of what the entire process would look like going
through this process.
Cunningham stated that staff could make such a presentation at a future work session.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 11, 2011
Page 5
Council Member Engelbrecht asked about an abandonment of a project or the starting of a
project and not finishing it.
Cunningham stated that staff was working on a possible cash out provision to make sure the
project was implemented.
Council Member Watts stated that as this was a change from the current process and that all of
the ramifications might not be fully understood, he would suggest leaving the Detail Plan at the
Council level so as to make the process comfortable with Council and then move it to the
Planning and Zoning Commission in the future.
Cunningham stated that the next step would be to address Council's input regarding the
regulations and to run a couple of projects through the process to work out the kinks before it
was adopted.
Consensus of the Council was to keep working on the ordinance noting the Council’s concerns.
Following the completion of the 2nd Tuesday Session, the City Council convened in a Closed
Meeting to consider specific items listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda.
1. Closed Session
A. Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
1. Consult with, and provide direction to, City's attorneys on legal rights,
restrictions, obligations, and issues associated with the proposed
annexation of DH-12, where a public discussion of such legal matters
would conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City of Denton,
Texas under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the
State Bar of Texas, and where such matters may become an issue in
potential litigation.
B. Deliberations regarding Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters -
Under Texas Government Code Section 551.086; and Consultation with
Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code, Section 551.071.
1. Receive a briefing from Staff regarding public power competitive and
financial matters regarding Wholesale Transmission Charges for
September through December 1999; and consult with the City's attorneys
regarding legal issues involved in Public Utilities Commission of Texas
Docket No. 20381 and 39066 and Cause No. 99-14787 that have resulted
in a decision by the Supreme Court of Texas, styled Texas Municipal
Power Agency et al. v. Public Util. Commission of Texas, 253 S.W.3d
184 (Tex. 2007), which has now resulted in a Stipulation disposing [I have
deleted "all"] of the pending litigation regarding this matter, where a
public discussion of this legal matter would conflict with the duty of the
City's attorneys to the City under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Discuss, deliberate and
provide Staff with direction.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 11, 2011
Page 6
Following the completion of the Closed Session, the Council convened in a Special Called
Session to consider the following:
Ordinance 2011-193
1. Consider adoption of an ordinance amending a Service Plan adopted on August 16, 2011,
for an area of land to be annexed to the City of Denton, Texas, pursuant to an annexation
plan, generally identified as DH-12 consisting of approximately 1,167 acres located
south of east University Drive, east of north Mayhill Road, north and south of Blagg
Road, north and south of Mills Road and east and west of south Trinity Road, and more
specifically identified and depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, which area is adjacent
to and abuts the existing city limits of the City of Denton, Texas; providing for a savings
clause; and providing an effective date.
Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager, stated that staff was recommending approval of the
ordinance and plan as amended.
Council Member Engelbrecht motioned, Council Member Roden seconded to adopt the
ordinance as amended. On roll call vote: Council Member King “aye”, Council Member Roden
“aye”, Council Member Engelbrecht “aye”, Council Member Watts “aye” and Mayor Burroughs
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance 2011-194
2. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving and
authorizing the "Stipulation and Motion for Approval Thereon" regarding Public Utilities
Commission of Texas Docket No. 39066 that involves the wholesale transmission cost
payments for the period September 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999; authorizing the
settlement of claims and authorizing the city's legal counsel of record to execute and
deliver the stipulation; authorizing the city manager to receive payments and to pay out
the applicable payments in such amounts as provided in said stipulation; and providing
an effective date.
Mike Copeland, Utility Attorney, stated that the ordinance had been provided in the Council
packets.
Council Member King motioned, Council Member Engelbrecht seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll call vote: Council Member King “aye”, Council Member Roden “aye”, Council Member
Engelbrecht “aye”, Council Member Watts “aye” and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried
unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
MARK A. BURROUGHS JENNIFER WALTERS
MAYOR CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS