1. Call to Order, Roll Call, and Determination of Quorum. (Olson)

Mayor Olson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. with the following roll call:

Duane OlsonMayorPresent

Lynn HarpoldMayor Pro TemPresent

Keith PalmerDeputy Mayor Pro TemPresent

Donald LindemannCouncil MemberPresent

Chris SweetCouncil MemberAbsent

Judith CampCouncil MemberPresent

Staff members present:

Luke OlsonCity Manager

Amy BockesCity Secretary

Jonette EllisBuilding Clerk

Grant SavageFinance Manager

And with a quorum present the following items were addressed:

  1. Pledge of Allegiance. (Olson)

Mayor Olson led the Pledge of Allegiance.

  1. Items of Community Interest (Olson)

Freedom Fest Saturday, June 27, 2015

  1. Public Input. (Olson)

Barbara Bates, Lakeshore Blvd., requested that a future agenda item be placed on the agenda polling Council Members on their feelings about City staff and the City Manager. Bates mentioned rumors that the Council was wanting to fire the City Manager and City staff and she feels that Council should be polled on their opinions of City staff.

Mayor Olson stated that he talked to staff about the rumors to put them to rest and that no one would tell him where the rumors originated.

  1. Presentation and discussion of the following reports:
  • Financial Report for May 2015(Savage)
  • Municipal Court Report for May2015(Bockes)
  • Permits Report for May 2015(Ellis)
  • Department of Public Safety (DPS) Report regarding police, fire, medical, and code enforcement incidents during the month of May 2015(Shackleford)
  • Zoning and Development Activity Report for June2015(Ellis)
  • Strategic Plan Status Report for June2015(Luke Olson)

Council Member Lindemann inquired about the funds in the wastewater fund and what they can be used for once the sale of the wastewater system is finalized. Could they be used for improvements.

Grant Savage, Finance Manager, stated the money would be moved to the General Fund and after the funds are audited they could potentially be used for improvements.

Mayor Pro Tem Harpold discussed the possibility of contracting out mowing on an as needed basis to keep up with high grass since Public Works is busy with roads and other matters.

CONSENT AGENDA

All items listed under the Consent Agenda heading are considered to be non-controversial and routine in nature. The Consent Agenda can be approved by the City Council with a single motion. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager to implement each item in accordance with staff recommendations. Any City Council Member may remove any item from the Consent Agenda for discussion and separate action.

  1. Consider and act upon the minutes for the May 18, 2015Regular City Council meeting. (Bockes)
  1. Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Agreement with Denton County regarding the provision of property tax assessment and collection services. (Savage)
  1. Consider and act upon a resolution amending the authorized representatives listed on the City’s TexPool accounts and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. (Savage)

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Palmer motioned to approve the consent agenda items number 6, 7, and 8 as presented; motion seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Harpold. Motion passed with a vote of 4-0.

REGULAR AGENDA

  1. Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and act upon a request for a replat of Lot 91 of the Emerald Sound at Lake Lewisville Addition consisting of approximately 1.403 acres generally located at 660 Diamond Point Drive and plat a 0.370 acre tract being located in the B. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 388, in the City of Oak Point, Denton County. (Ellis)

The Emerald Sound at Lake Lewisville Addition, Section One was recorded in Denton County on July 14, 1993, creating 126 single family lots. In 1997 the Marglisceau family purchased Lot 91 (commonly known as 660 Diamond Point Drive), and a 0.370 acre tract from the Francis family. This 0.370 acre tract is the property is the basis for the request for the replat.

In January 1998, during the process of building the home, it was discovered, after the foundation was poured, that the 0.370 was not a part of Lot 91 and the builder (New Haven Homes) had built the house over the platted property line. An affidavit was submitted to the Building Inspection’s Department, holding the city harmless of the mistake due to the builder’s error. It is staff’s opinion that the error should have been corrected then by asking the property owner to replat the property.

Since that time, the structure has been labeled a “legal non-conforming structure”. This prevents any property owner to expand, alter or rebuild in a case where more than 60% of the structure is destroyed by any cause. Additionally, the property owner would not be allowed to build on the 0.370 acre tract.

State law requires that a public hearing be held and that notice of the public hearing be published and mailed to property owners within the original subdivision. On Thursday, May 20, 2015 notices of the public hearing were mailed and a notice of the public hearing regarding the proposed replat was published in the Little Elm Journal on Friday, May 21, 2015. The City received three responses to the replat, all were in favor.

State law notes that a replat may not amend or remove any covenants or restrictions. The replat contains a statement that indicates that it does not amend or remove any covenants and restrictions.

While the approval of zoning is discretionary, the approval of site plans and plats is ministerial. Therefore, if a property owner submits a site plan or plat that meets or exceeds the City’s minimum development standards and requirements, the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council have an obligation to approve the site plan or plat. The replat meets the City’s zoning and subdivision requirements.

At the June 5 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the replat. City staff concurs with the recommendation.

Mayor Olson opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m.

No one wished to speak.

Mayor Olson closed the public hearing at 6:16 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Harpold motioned that the City Council approve a request to replat Lot 91 of the Emerald Sound at Lake Lewisville Addition consisting of approximately 1.402 acres generally located at 660 Diamond Point Drive and a plat a 0.370 acre tract being situated in the B. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 388 in the City of Oak Point, Denton County to be referred to as Lot 91R; motion seconded by Council Member Camp. Motion passed with a vote of 4-0.

  1. Discuss and act upon a preliminary plat of Wildridge, Phase 2C and 3A, being a tract of land out of the E.A. Shahan Survey, Abstract No. 1204 and the William McNeil Survey, Abstract No. 814, in the City of Oak Point and the Oak Point ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction), Denton County, Texas containing 190 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots . (Ellis)

The subject property is split between city limits boundary lines. There are 53.795 acres inside city limits and 15.747 outside city limits. Generally, only a city’s subdivision regulations and sign regulations may be extended to their ETJ. However, the City entered into a Development Agreement with Crescent Communities. The Agreement significantly increased the City’s regulation over the development of the property by establishing a variety of development standards and a number of obligations for the developer that would normally not be required of a development within the ETJ. These standards establish a maximum number of lots that may be developed on the property and set forth requirements for minimum lot areas, setbacks, and architectural design of homes. Obligations include a requirement to reconstruct Shahan Prairie Road, to process building permits and inspections through the City of Oak Point, and to preserve trees on the amenity and open space lots.

Section 10.03.097 (5) of the Code of Ordinances (Subdivision Regulation Ordinance) states no lot can be split by jurisdictional boundaries. This plat shows 15 lots that are subject to being split between inside city limits and outside city limits (9 lots are adversely affected). Future lots may also be subject to this issue based on the attached Master Plan. Topography, street and open space layout would virtually make it impossible to keep all lots from being split at one point or another. This becomes an administrative nightmare for the city, the appraisal district and school districts. One way of addressing the issue is to know the exact square footage of each lot in each jurisdiction, and providing that information to the taxing entities.

Nine lots are adversely be affected by the jurisdictional split due to the imminent location of the structure. They are highlighted for your review.

While the approval of zoning is discretionary, the approval of plats is ministerial. Therefore, if a property owner submits a plat that meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and requirements, the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council have an obligation to approve the plat. The preliminary plat is consistent with the previously approved concept plan for the Wildridge development.

At the June 5 Planning & Zoning meeting the Commission vote 6-0 to recommend that City Council approve the preliminary plat subject to resolution of the boundary line issues. City staff concurs with added changes noted.

Paul McCracken, Kimley-Horn (applicants engineering firm) requested that one addiontal option be added to the items that are subject to final approval and that is to provide them with another option that would be acceptable to both the City and the developer on the boundary line issues. They will work with the City and all attorneys to makes sure that the options are acceptable and approved by the presentation of the final plat.

Council Member Lindemann requested an example of an alternate method. Paul McCracken stated that the taxing authority has the ability to separate the areas that are split without issue but they have other options such as annexation that will be discussed with the City.

Mayor Olson wanted to know how many options would be brought to Council with the final plat. McCracken stated one final option will be presented since it would be agreed upon by all parties before submission of the final plat.

Jonette Ellis, Building Clerk, stated that the park fees needed to be amended on the recommendation to be collected at the time building permits are issued.

Mayor Pro Tem Harpold motioned that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Wildridge, Phase 2C and 3A, being a 69.542 acre tract of land that is part of the E.A. Shahan Survey, Abstract No. 1204 and the William McNeil Survey, Abstract No. 814, in the City of Oak Point and the Oak Point ETJ, Denton County containing 190 single family residential lots and 9 HOA lots subject to:

1. Consider realignment of at least nine (9) lots adversely affected by Section 10.03.097(5), Subdivision Regulation Ordinance: no lot can be split by jurisdictional boundaries; or developer voluntarily agree to annex affected lots into city limits or any other method that is acceptable and agreeable to both parties;

2. Provide a list of approved street names from Denton County and label roadways;

3. Approval of the preliminary utility plans by the City Engineer, City staff and the Mustang Special Utility District; and

4. Payment of park fees in lieu of dedication with issuance of building permits.

Motion seconded by Council Member Camp. Motion passed with a vote of 4-0.

  1. Discuss and act upon a resolution opposing the proposed Oak Point Transmission Line and Substation Project by Brazos Electric Cooperative. (Luke Olson)

Brazos Electric Cooperative has proposed a plan that would construct transmission lines and substations in the City of Oak Point. The City of Oak Point is opposed to the proposed plan and is presenting City Council with a resolution stating the opposition. Brazos has met with the City and is willing to continue talks about other options for transmission lines and substations. The City Manager and Mayor met with Brazos on June 3 to discuss the situation and asked that Brazos propose one or two more locations for their project preferably in the location east of F.M. 720 between Martop and Lloyds Rd. Brazos indicated to the City that they are not wanting to impact future commercial and economic development and will work with the City as much as they can to reach an agreement that satisfies both parties. Although the City is in talks with Brazos, there is no guarantee that the proposed sites will be moved and an additional substation site may run transmission lines through all Polo properties in the City.

The purpose of the resolution is to oppose the substation sites 2 and 3 because of the potential negative impact on economic development and the potential limit to future commercial development in and around the City of Oak Point. The resolution also would oppose substation 4 because the location and route of this substation could affect the polo and equestrian events that are held in the City throughout the year. The fact that Brazos will not guarantee that these substation sites will be proposed to different sites, the City feels it is in the best interest to oppose any and all proposed transmission line and substations in the City of Oak Point.

City staff recommended that City Council approve the resolution.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Palmer asked if land can be condemned by eminent domain if property owners refuse to sell. Luke Olson stated they could.

Council Member Camp suggested a Town Hall meeting to discuss the Brazos proposal and address citizen’s concerns.

Luke Olson stated the resolution is the first step in the process and depending on the feedback from Brazos future steps are unknown and will be determined at the appropriate times.

Council Member Lindemann motioned that the City Council approve a resolution opposing plans by Brazos Electric Cooperative to construct the proposed transmission lines and substation project and authorize the City Manager to carry out any actions as deemed necessary; motion seconded by Council Member Camp. Motion passed with a vote of 4-0.

  1. Discuss and provide direction to City staff regarding the process by which the City Council wishes to make its appointments to the Planning & Zoning Commission, Economic Development Corporation, Municipal Development District Board, Board of Adjustment and/or the Parks and Recreation Commission. (Bockes)

Staff recommended that the Board and Commission appointments be done the same as the previous year with a meet and greet before the July Council meeting and then rankings and final appointments made by Council in Closed Session. Staff requested direction from Council on the process and Council directed staff to continue using the process started last year.

  1. Discuss and provide direction regarding drainage and flooding issues in Crescent Oaks and other affected areas. (Luke Olson)

Council Member Lindemann requested that the drainage and flooding issues in Crescent Oaks be set for a future meeting at the May 18 City Council meeting. The purpose of this item is to hear resident feedback and make recommendations to approach the issues of drainage in the area. Many of the drainage issues in the affected area were due to infrastructure that was put in before the City was incorporated in the late 1970’s and were not built to any standard or code. Throughout the years the City has done engineering studies that recommended temporary fixes with an overall reconstruction of the drainage in the Crescent Oaks area costing approximately $3-3.5 million dollars. City staff had made recommendations in the past on how to increase funding including storm water fees, however, in order to complete a project as large as this, it would take the issuance of bonds that could potentially increase property taxes. The Capital Improvements Fund has approximately $650k that can be used toward some resolution of the drainage issues.

City staff recommended that City Council provide direction based off of recommendations listed and feedback from residents.

Mayor Olson opened up the discussion to residents even though it was not a scheduled public hearing in order to obtain feedback on the issues.

Many residents from Crescent Oaks discussed the flooding issues and the drainage problems from the past and currently with the excessive amounts of rain and feel the City has not done anything to help. Residents showed pictures of drainage and flooding issues and requested that the City do something or they will be back with more people in other affected areas “holding Councils feet to the fire”. Many residents were frustrated with a 1998 engineering study that was done and a “common sense” approach that was never completed and asked that the City work on the issues listed to start and come up with solutions. They want Council to do more than talk, they want to see action. Some residents were opposed to recommendations about concrete culverts and others felt that it would help in some areas. The topic of keeping culverts clear of debris was touched on as well.