Sunset Valley City Council

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.

Re: July 15th agenda item #14

I respectfully oppose the request to build a house, pool, driveway, and two tennis courts at 9 Reese Drive. This level of development is excessive and out of character with the quiet neighborhood.

The property lies in a known flood plain, and adding impervious surfaces will increase runoff and raise the flood risk for surrounding homes, whether it's within impervious coverage allowance or not. Rather than intensifying development, this land should be used to improve drainage—such as through a retention pond—to protect the community long-term.

Additionally, it's concerning that the property owner does not intend to live on-site. Decisions that affect the neighborhood should be made by those who also live with the consequences.

I urge the council to deny this request and prioritize responsible, community-minded planning.

Thank you.

-Sunset Trail resident

Regarding the July 15th agenda Item #14:

1. Granting a variance for impervious cover in a flood prone area is poor planning to say the least,
2. We have strived as a city to decrease light pollution and be as "dark sky"
as possible to protect wildlife and the rural feel of Sunset Valley. This project would be in direct opposition to those goals.
3. Solid fencing projects the feel of an unfriendly "compound" which does
not fit with the Old Town neighborhood.
4. Maybe most importantly, the noise generated by this tennis/pickleball/
swimming establishment would be horrendous for the people living in
Old Town, not to mention its impact on the wildlife.
As previously mentioned, this proposed development by someone who does
not plan to live in our city is NOT what we want. Please do not approve the
proposed project.

LEH, Lone Oak resident

Regarding the July 15th agenda item 14. I strongly oppose this variance. Please do not grant it. It will negatively impact the environment and those of us who live in Sunset Valley. What is being proposed would impose significant noise pollution as well as environmental pollution on the area. Additionally, a variance like this will decrease property values in the surrounding area. The proposed development is not aligned with the neighborhood feel of Sunset Valley.

Comment for Council Agenda items #14:

A variance for impervious cover is one thing, especially for a resident's personal home. This is not a commercial district, the parking, sound, excessive lighting for our night sky program, and concrete walls in a flood zone are all characteristics of this project that are not suitable for this residential lot. It would change the character of this neighborhood, and certainly not something that would add value to the quality of life for neighbors of this property. Please do not approve this variance.
- Reese Drive Resident

Commenting re: Agenda item #14:
-Two tennis courts, a pool, a driveway, a clubhouse for a property that won't even be lived in full time? Am I understanding that correctly? Even if the property owners were considering living there full-time that would be excessive. I feel that noise, parking problems, flora/fauna issues, etc will be perpetual.
-It sounds and feels like a private club being built and we, as Old Town residents, will deal with all of the problems/headaches/noise without any positive side.
-Please do not approve this one.
-Reese Drive resident.

Comment for Council Agenda items #14:
1. Concern over a vacation home being built in residential area. Visitors don't treat properties or neighbors in the same manner that residents create close relationships and engage in the community.
2. Concern over use of outdoor court lighting causing negative impacts for people and wildlife.
3. Concern over design of solid fencing material which very fortress like, unfriendly and canvas for graffiti at an often-vacant home.
4. Noisy with multiple tennis/pickleball courts. Negative impact on quality of life for neighbors throughout Old Town.
5. With extensive amenities, parking on the street could be a problem. Multiple sport courts may create parking and crowding problem.
This design seems ill suited for the quiet residential street of Reese Dr. Please do not approve.

I’m writing in regards to the July 15th agenda item 14. Presentation and possible action on a variance request under Land Development Code Section 150.323 to allow development within the Critical Water Quality Zone at 9 Reese Drive. (Mayor Bruner/Administration)

I strongly appose approval of this variance. Please do NOT approve this variance or anything like this variance in the future. Thank you!
Reese drive resident

Burton Pierson makes a solid argument and I tend to agree that the City Council retain the planning function for the Planning and Environmental Committee.

I believe it is prudent to have the planning function remain as part of our committee, as any and all land use impacts the environment.

Thanks for your consideration.

-Comment by Valerie Loomis, member of the Planning and Environmental Committee

Burton Pierson, Vice Chair of the Planning and Environmental Committee:

I am requesting that the City Council retain the planning function for the Planning and Environmental Committee. Staff has made our committee aware of the fact that some other cities locate the planning function under the auspices of the Zoning Commission. However, I believe that the City of Austin has completely separated the planning and zoning commissions. They differ in their membership and structure, and they perform different functions.

The City of Sunset Valley is very unique in that we have a very strong commitment to conservation and restoration. In fact, I believe we are near the cutting edge of municipal conservation and restoration. It’s one of the main reasons that it is “Good to Be Here”.

Because of this very uniqueness, we recognize that most of the planning that municipalities do has environmental impacts on species habitats and, therefore, biological diversity. Because of continual habitat degradation, we need to continue as much as possible to include the latest research and best practices supported by that research in our planning decisions. It is not the function of the Zoning Commission to keep up with the latest biological research. Therefore, it is imperative, if best practices are to prevail, that the Planning and Environmental Committee be able to provide best practices information to the Zoning Commission as all land use issues are being decided for Sunset Valley.

I leave a comment for the discussion of the Villas PUD in item 14 for this meeting.

First, the math is wrong and the record is incomplete. The 2005 PUD cap—225,635 ft² across 35.275 acres— equals 14.7 % of the subdivision, well below the 18 % upland limit the code allows. The number is low only because the ledger never counted the 6.49 acres in the Water-Quality Transition Zone, erasing ≈39,500 ft² (≈761 ft² per lot). Freezing that mistake in an ordinance permanently deprives many owners of square footage they may still lawfully use.

Second, codifying bad data is regulatory quicksand. Sunset Valley is a general-law city, unlike Austin, Bee Cave, Lakeway, Rollingwood, and West Lake Hills. Under Local Gov’t Code §§51.012 & 51.032 it may adopt ordinances only when they are reasonable and consistent with state law. Locking in an unverified, incomplete two-decade-old set of data—without any due-process mechanism to correct errors—fails that reasonableness test and invites takings claims under Tex. Const. art. I, §17.

Third, there is NO homeowner path. The Development Services Manager proposes strict, subdivision-wide limits now and vague “solutions” in some future code rewrite— no fee-in-lieu, no credit exchange, no administrative permit. Homeowners get handcuffed today with the promise of a key “sometime later.”

Fourth, a fix is affordable and fast. I spoke this week with Derek Kinsaul, a friend and land surveyor, whose firm completed the Brodie Lane LiDAR survey. He can produce a verified, lot-by-lot impervious-cover map for for about 50–60 thousand—half the figure I quoted last meeting and far less than a single lawsuit the ordinance could trigger.

Specific Requests to Council
* Delay adoption of any resolution/ordinance until a LiDAR survey delivers a vetted ledger.
* Publish draft “major/minor” thresholds and open a 30-day comment window before they take effect.
* Direct the Development Services Manager to return in 60 days with:
1. A presentation on how the city monitors impervious cover restrictions watershed controls generally, and especially focus on what the city does to maintain water quality standards in the Villas PUD
2. Study the current city-wide impervious-cover inventory (recommendations in Comprehensive Plan §403.A);
3. a ledger-correction protocol for missing or disputed data; and
4. an administrative modification permit (<400 ft² + standard LID checklist) so ordinary homeowners have a clear, low-cost path forward.

Codifying unverified data is not environmental stewardship; it is a permanent mistake. Measure first, regulate second. Thank you.

Regarding Agenda Item #8, The Mend Collaborative proposal for The Uplands being presented at the City Council meeting to be held on 15 April 2025:

I would like to see less disturbance of The Uplands habitat, in accordance with the original Plan One, which the residents voted for. Plan One did not include the features of a crescent for extra tents, an overflow parking lot, or pickleball courts extending into the meadow.

The planting of trees degrades the open prairie habitat and runs counter to the rewilding concept that Sunset Valley residents have expressed a preference for when surveyed.

Thank you for your attention to this comment and for all of the work you do for Sunset Valley.

RE: April 1, 2025 Agenda Item #8. Additional Information.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wYo2KABoEWM6TuSYvhyVgzCOzOEXAZ4u?usp=share_link

RE: April 1, 2025, Agenda Item #8 - RFQ For Legal Prosecutorial Services

PUBLIC COMMENT - Prior comment "removed by moderator".

We have been attempting to get building permits for a small extension that we have been told via email and in meetings should be “administratively approved”. Permits have still not been issued, and staff, homeowner, and contractor time is being wasted.


In Summary:


1. The city DOES NOT have our original building plans and most of our file is missing. It is therefore impossible to provide everything the city has asked for without demolition. This is precisely why the building permit should have already been issued for the current work.


2. City officials have stated multiple times in email and in meetings that our current work is going to be administratively approved. That was over a month ago.


3. City officials neglected to timely respond to our inquiries via email and voicemail for 6+ months prior to our work starting. Multiple website emails and voicemails left for the Development Services Director have actually never been replied to. We had to physically show up at Public Works in February to start getting the answers we had been inquiring on for months.



4. Multiple city officials appear to not work normal business hours. At least 4+ times in the last few months we have attempted to visit Public Works and City Hall to get the information we needed during mid-week regular business hours and been told that multiple city officials were scheduled to work that day but had not yet arrived at the office.


5. We believe that no other resident has been targeted for this type of enforcement for a small, legally allowed, structurally sound, and unobtrusive addition.


6.We wonder what the motivation is for item #8 on the City’s Agenda - Request for Qualifications for Legal Prosecutorial Services in order to “prosecute Class C misdemeanors”.


7. How many staff hours and legal billable hours have been wasted on permitting our project when there are much simpler solutions to resolve the permit, such as having clear instructions in the first place, or simply having staff walk over to have a conversation about the project requirements?

Removed by moderator.

Thank you for your question regarding the traffic flow during the Ernest Robles Way construction project. As part of the project planning process, various traffic management options were carefully considered, including the possibility of temporarily reorienting traffic to be bidirectional on the side of the road not under construction. These options were reviewed by the Public Works Committee, with safety as the top priority.

While bidirectional traffic may seem feasible, it presents significant safety concerns, particularly at the Brodie Lane intersection, where transitioning lanes could lead to driver confusion and an increased risk of accidents. Instead, the decision was made to implement detours and keep traffic flowing normally on the unaffected lanes, ensuring a safer and more predictable experience for all drivers.

We understand that detours can be inconvenient, and we appreciate your patience as we work to complete these improvements efficiently. The project will soon transition to the opposite side of the road, and the City will continue to evaluate the traffic control plan for any potential adjustments to improve traffic flow.