Sunset Valley City Council

I am oppose to the current proposal for the development of 9 Reese, and request the variance to be denied

Veronica - 11 Sunset Trl

I am writing to oppose the request for the variance as written. Recent Texas flood experiences and deaths show us that we must excercise extreme caution in how we develop property in the vicinity of creeks, flood plains, and floodways, etc. Although we must be reasonalble in allowing property owners a just use of their property, we must maintain the strictest of allowances on property that can cause potental dangers to other citizens and their property. The amount of impervious cover requested is in excess of that permitted. Why someone would need two tennis courts that contributes to going over the limits in place is not defensible. This doesn't even address the impact of tree removal necessary to build the courts.

Because of the nature of flooding and how water backs up during storms, any development can contribute to crisis. This property is near a bridge that, if flooded, can prevent the escape of residents it was meant to protect. Any strtuctures that alter the flow of water can potentially cause harm to citizens and their property including the owners of 9 Reese. Although the proposal claims this will not happen, there is no way that development will not alter water flow.

I do not understand the need to even mention the need for off street parking. This makes me think the property may be used for other than just family occupancy. Excessive use of tennis courts other than for immediate family will be a noise disturbance to others in the area.

As we continue to try to develop as a dark sky city, the idea of lighted tennis courts does not seem in keeping with that.

I have many concerns about this request and ask the council not to approve it as requested.

Mickie Powers, 23 Sunset Trail--A resident that lives with Williamson Creek ON my property.

I’m writing to share my concerns about the variance request for 9 Reese Drive, listed as Agenda Item #14.

While I understand and respect the desire to build a home on this lot, I am troubled by the scale of the proposed development and the lack of accessible evidence demonstrating that it will not negatively impact surrounding properties, particularly given the sensitivity of the site.

Specifically, I am concerned that:

- The lot lies almost entirely within the Critical Water Quality Zone and 100-year floodplain.

- The proposal includes over 17,000 square feet of impervious cover—well above the 14% threshold recommended by the City Engineer—on a lot with a history of flooding, which only heightens the need for caution and supporting evidence.

While I appreciate the applicant’s assurance that analysis has been conducted to evaluate flood impacts and water flow, the underlying studies have not been made publicly available in detail. Without access to these reports—or a clear summary of their methods, findings, and authorship—it’s difficult for neighbors to independently understand or assess how this development might affect surrounding properties.

Given the sensitive nature of this site—located almost entirely within the floodplain and Critical Water Quality Zone—it is especially important that the community have the opportunity to review the evidence supporting the conclusions presented. In light of the unique conditions surrounding this property, I would welcome the opportunity to review findings that address the potential long-term impacts on water quality, drainage, and the overall resilience of the surrounding neighborhood.
Without access to or citation of these studies, I cannot in good faith support this request. A development of this scale in such an environmentally sensitive area demands a high level of scrutiny and transparency.

All of this said, I would be more open to considering a proposal that reflects the engineer’s recommendation of 14% or less impervious cover and is limited to a modest home, a driveway, and perhaps a small pool or even a single tennis court. That kind of compromise would be more in line with the intent of the city’s land development code, the preservation of water quality, the long-term safety of the surrounding area, and the creation of a home that fits within the scale and neighborly character of the community.

Until those conditions are met and supporting studies are made available for public review, I respectfully oppose the current variance request.

Thank you for your service and for considering community input in your deliberations.

Lauren Alexander
Sunset Trail resident

No on the variance for 9 Reese Drive. Other residents have detailed the issues thoroughly in their comments below, so I'll just add that I'm disappointed in the city engineer that recommended only a reduction in impervious cover to the maximum of 14%, when a massive water-impeding wall is right there. We've just had a recent reminder of what happens when we don't take flood plains seriously, and the property itself has a history of flooding that can't be ignored. This plan WILL endanger neighbors and visiting tennis players.

I urge our engineer, the owner and their planners to read at least the list of purposes at the beginning of the Land Development Code, and come back to us when the development doesn't disregard half of those.

Re: Agenda Item #14 - 9 Reese Dr

I am writing to urge Council to vote NO on the variance proposal in its current form.

As other residents have commented at length, there are too many red flags within this proposal to consider this a good faith effort to develop the property within even a reasonable approximation of the development code requirements.

Why, for example, does the variance request include not one, but two tennis courts? How does this meet the definition of a hardship? The owner letter states that they are a young, growing family, yet the site plans shows nearly 13,000sf of impervious cover dedicated to the courts, versus what appears to be a 1500 sf home. It strains credulity to believe the prioritization of impervious cover for tennis matches their stated intention to occupy the property as a growing family. Even the rendering on the cover sheet shows a gym taking up a full third of the structure. Something isn't adding up given the stated intention and design materials provided.

-Reese Dr resident

I am writing in opposition to item #14 on City Council’s agenda for July 15, 2025, which is a variance request for the property at 9 Reese in Sunset Valley.

As the property is in a sensitive area for flooding and water quality, an increase in impervious cover goes against the environmental and residential qualities of the neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration of this concern.


Valerie Loomis
Sunset Valley resident

I am urging the City Council to vote no for Agenda item 14 July 15, 2025. The ordinance states that the “critical water quality zone shall remain free of all construction activity, development and alterations”. This restriction was in place when the applicant bought the property. When one resident is granted an impervious cover request it encourages others to apply as well. In terms of fairness to all residents and in order to protect the environment for all our residents, I believe that there should be no further impervious variances granted in Sunset Valley.
Thank you for protecting our environment.
Resident
Burton Pierson, Ph.D.

AGENDA ITEM #14 — 9 REESE DRIVE
After briefly reading over the development plans for 9 Reese Drive that was sent out to everyone, I am opposed to the plan in its current form as it is currently submitted, and I urge the Council to vote NOT to approve this proposal. There remain many very important, unanswered questions and concerns regarding the following:
1. Proposed Live Oak and Elm Tree Removal. On page 152, of the Site Plan, it shows a substantial amount of large-diameter oak trees and elm trees slated to be cut down and removed from the subject property and replaced with much smaller diameter trees. Regardless, it’s just not the same as having those original stately oaks. I think I share the same sentiment with many here in Sunset Valley who would like to see those heritage trees preserved as I feel they are an integral part of our history and who we are as a community, and it is my understanding that many of those trees have been there even before Sunset Valley was a city! Moreover, Sunset Valley is designated as a ‘Tree City USA with 6 Years Growth Award!’ I think it is imperative that everything be done to preserve these beautiful trees for more reasons than just their sheer beauty. We are in the presence of natural history—it’s an important part of our heritage here in Sunset Valley. It would be unfortunate and a real shame for Sunset Valley and future generations to lose those magnificent trees.

2. Two Tennis Courts. Reference pages 152, 153.
a. What is the reasoning behind the proposed two tennis courts being built instead of just one?
b. Would the property owner agree to eliminate from the Site Plan one tennis court, specifically, the proposed east tennis court in order to preserve the existing large group of live oaks?
c. Would the property owner agree to move the tennis court situated closest to the building structure further north towards the dry creek in order to preserve the 11.5” live oak?
d. Sunset Valley is a starry-night, dark-sky city. How will tennis court lighting impact the immediate neighbors and the surround neighborhood, and how will it impact our treasured, dark-sky ambiance?
e. What about any noise considerations regarding tennis courts and neighbors close-by?
f. To what extent will said tennis courts affect our local flood plain?
g. Will the intended operation of these tennis court(s) involve engaging in any commercial nexus or any commercial regulable activity (i.e. renting tennis court space, providing tennis lessons, short-term rental of the tennis courts and/or any short-term rental of the subject property, etc.), and if so, please explain? If true, how will this impact residential traffic, and has an authorized traffic survey been conducted?

3. Off-Street Parking. On page 153, of the Site Plan, it shows three (3) off-street parking spaces provided on subject property. Does the owner intend on using any street parking, and if so, please explain:
a. Why would street parking be needed?
b. Who would be using street parking?
c. When, specifically, would street parking be needed?
d. Where, exactly, would street parking be utilized?
e. How often or how frequent would street parking be needed?

4. Owner Occupied or Rental. Does the property owner intend on actually living in subject property as his or her designated homestead, or does the property owner intend on renting it out? It seems to be the latter. Please explain. The property, 9 Reese, appears to be a recently formed domestic company owned by a 9 Reese, LLC registered under Texas Secretary of State Company No. 0805157655.

Mark
Sunset

Re Agenda item 14
I strongly opposed the granting of this variance. It fails on all the findings. The applicant had the conditions when they bought the property; nothing has changed.

This is not a single family development. Roughly 2/3 of the impervious cover is for tennis courts, the pool is bigger than the house and the parking is bigger than the house. The house is clearly just a minimum required element for a commercial type ask in a residential area.

The concrete fence is prohibited by code. It blocks water flow for almost 2.5 acres at one of the most flood prone areas in the City. A perimeter fence would impede water flow into the creek and impede the flow at the back of the lot areas which drain to the creek all along Reese Dr from Sunset Trail. The applicant 's own analysis precludes the fence because the lot must be free flowing for the findings.

Additionally, the tennis courts in this location would regularly violate our noise ordinance of 65 decibels at the property line. The 'grunting' from tennis is known to exceed 100 decibels at 100 feet, and this is far closer!
Regular repetitive noise is annoying to adjacent residents which is another violation of the ordinance.

I have lived here since 1998 and watched the intense nature of flooding on this property. This is not an appropriate development for this light development lot.
Sincerely,
Reese Dr Resident

July 15, Agenda Item 14.
No! Kit Sheffield thinks 9 Reese Drive is worthless without this variance. That tells me he does not understand Sunset Valley.

Council Agenda Item #14 for 7/15/25 meeting

My name is Christine Allen, and I live at 12 Reese, directly across from 9 Reese. I am writing to oppose the request for a variance for this property. Granting a variance for a single-family home is significantly different from granting one for a private, multi-use estate consisting of a 13,000 sq. ft. tennis court, an almost 30 foot by 60 foot pool and a 1,500 sq. ft. home.

The municipal land development code requires Council to consider “existing uses of land in the vicinity.” It is my understanding that only a minority of homes in the area have pools—all of which are modest in size—and no homes have tennis courts, let alone two.

I believe the owner can make reasonable and economically beneficial use of their land without requiring a variance for such an extensive project.

Furthermore, more information is needed to fully understand the potential impact of this development. The property lies within the critical water quality zone, which is significantly more sensitive than the water quality transition zone—yet the applicant is requesting allowances beyond what is even permitted in the transition zone.

In summary, this proposal is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and does not meet the threshold for special exceptions. There is also insufficient information regarding its environmental impact.

I’m counting on you, as my elected Council representatives, to do the right thing and vote to deny the variance.

re: Development at 9 Reese

Many of the above comments are valid as it pertains to the negative impacts enumerated by the various residents. In order to avoid redundancy i wold like to add my very strenuous objection for the reason of which: I live at 7 Sunset, downstream as it is from the property. I have already experienced one flood since moving here in 2012. I know I will one day flood again. Paving the floodplain will without a doubt make that day come sooner. That said there is no way in which someone can factually claim that the development will not have a negative impact on the neighbors. Particularly in light of the recent flooding any frivolous development directly in the flood plain is foolhardy, ill advised and potentially dangerous.

I am vehemently opposed to callous residential development projects like this - especially from non-residents. The fact that Mr Sheffield's team didn't check with neighbors who would be affected directly or in-directly by this massive over-development of this flood plain parcel , that it would affect our dark sky mitigation, or understand the flood lands that make up our town. Due to factors like these, I am against it as it only reinforces this projects lack of care or sensitivity to current residents, the city's ongoing flood mitigation, or quality of life.
- Reese resident

Re: Council Agenda Item #14 for 7/15/25 meeting (9 Reese Drive Development)

Although I take issue with all aspects of this proposed development, including the very likely use of this space for non-residential purposes, I wanted to highlight required finding #3 in the variance request which states "that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property owners in the area." I argue that granting this variance and allowing this property development to move forward would have a significantly negative impact on the quality of life for all surrounding residents because of excessive noise pollution, light pollution, increased vehicular traffic, and lowering property values.

Additionally, I am deeply concerned about the environmental impact of the substantial amount of tree removal proposed including the removal of 14 live oaks. Not only would the noise and light pollution of this development be detrimental to the people in the surrounding homes, it would also cause a great deal of disturbance to our neighborhood's cherished wildlife.

I would point to the goals set forth in our city's comprehensive plan as good questions to ask ourselves about this development. As written in the plan, in Sunset Valley we strive to: Preserve and protect the quality of life for Sunset Valley residents...; Preserve and restore the community's natural resources and native biodiversity; Protect and improve water quality; Mitigate for potential damages from increased flooding... ; Promote responsible development and re-development that enhances the City's unique character of its natural resources and protection of the Edwards Aquifer.

Thank you for your consideration,
Katherine Johnson
1 Reese Drive

Hard no to the #9 Reese Rd private playground proposal...for all the previous well said reasons. Seems rather ludicrous that the idea is even being entertained in a neighborhood setting.

I am not in favor of granting a variance at 9 Reese to construct any structures including buildings, levees, mounded soil to elevate structures, etc. without further evaluation of flood zone impacts. The property is in a 1% flood zone designated AE on city flood maps. Construction in 1% flood zones will inhibit the flow of flood water such that water elevations upstream of said structures will increase even during storm events with < 1% probability. Whether applicable or not, the factors considered in the U.S. Corps of Engineers 404 permit program should be considered including modeling of the changes in flood conditions resulting from structure addition to the property in a Zone AE. Permitting construction of any additions to the property may become a liability, i.e., safety issue, to upstream property owners. Respectfully submitted, Randall Rosengarten P.E.

Agenda item #14 for July 15th:

We are writing to share our concern over the request for a variance at 9 Reese Dr. This proposal does not fit within the values of our city and will directly affect our dark sky requirements, the wildlife that loves that area of Reese, and increase our flood risks within the neighborhood. Not to mention the noise from two pickleball/tennis courts will be very loud. The owners want to make this their personal country club for their friends and family and not even live on the property, so we will have to suffer from the noise and light pollution. Without a set parking area, we will also suffer from increased traffic and our kids who love to ride their bikes and scooters up and down the street will be affected.

Lastly, an 8' concrete wall will be a complete eyesore for our old town SV neighborhood and affect our property values.

We strongly advise that you deny this request!

Thank you,
Reese Drive Residents

July 15, Agenda Item 14. I am opposed to granting the requested variance at 9 Reese Dr. As a lifelong tennis player I love tennis but would not want to live next door to a tennis court. The noise and sounds would be not just annoying but unbearable at times. And, 2 courts are not just for family - they will be used by friends at tennis and pool parties. The fencing is also a problem. I urge the City Council to deny the variance request.
Russell Harding

Re: July 15th agenda item #14
I am in absolute opposition to the request for a variance to build two or even one tennis court, a surrounding 8’ concrete wall, a driveway and parking area as well as a "clubhouse" that the Westlake owner will not live in at 9 Reese Drive.
The previous house at this property took in at least 18" of water at the Halloween flood years ago---when the creek widened more than halfway across the south side of the property. With the additional impervious cover as well as a concrete wall around the property, the water will have to flow elsewhere---to adjacent properties.
Sunset Valley purchased 10 Sunset Trail and made a beautiful and beneficial greenspace in order to help prevent flooding....how are we even thinking about allowing the impervious cover of a tennis court at the property immediately next to this?
The dimensions of one tennis court, including sides and backs of court is 4,752 square feet.
In addition to the increased risk of flooding nearby homes, a concrete wall will be an absolute eyesore and not befitting our residential neighborhood.
The overhead lights will be invasive to our homes, our wildlife, and the dark sky Sunset Valley has maintained and protected.
As an avid pickleball player, I know how loud the repetitive noise is. Having a court so close to our homes will diminish our peace and quality of life.

Allowing 9 Reese to be a non-resident’s personal country club is not in the best interest or values of the residents of Sunset Valley.
Please do not approve this variance.
-Reese Drive Resident

I am opposed to the proposed plans for an 8' concrete fence, 2 tennis courts, and a residential dwelling on 9 Reese. The property owner seeks a variance from the impervious cover restrictions , in part, on grounds that exceeding the impervious cover limitations of 14% deprives the owner of enjoyment of the property. The owner purchased the property with knowledge of the impervious cover limitation. The desire to develop the property as proposed creates a problem of his own making. Furthermore, city staff correctly recommends against allowing a variance to exceed the impervious cover restrictions in a flood plain area.
I further have concerns about an 8 foot concrete fence to be constructed along the creek bed. In times of flooding, what effect would such a fence have on water movement down the creek and into neighboring properties?

The owners allege in their application that they need 2 tennis courts to play tennis with their children--that seems unlikely. Based on experience with other purchases of residential property in recent years, it seems more likely that the need for 2 tennis courts is rrlated to a planned commercial enterprise. Furthermore, what efforts are offered to mitigate the effects of lighting and noise on neighbors? When citizens proposed a tennis court to be constructed on city parkland at the end of Lone Oak, objections to the effects of lighting and noise from night matches were considered by council and ultimately no tennis courts were constructed.

Finally, the proposed construction requires that numerous trees will be removed for the construction of the fence, the residence, and the tennis courts. However the proposed plantings do not appear to replace the number of trees removed.