Sunset Valley City Council

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.

During the construction on Earnest Robles, is it possible to temporarily reorient the flow of traffic to be bidirectional on the side of the street that isn't under construction?

IOW, take the 2 working lanes on the side of the street that normally traffic in the same direction & divide that side of the street into 1 lane in each direction w/ a temporary barrier/cones segregating the direction of traffic.

I agree with reducing the water subsidy for residents but believe the current proposal to raise average monthly charges by 37% (with similar increases in next few years) is too rapid of an increase. I suggest a slower rate of increase over a longer period of time to allow families to adjust more easily. Thanks to everyone on staff and council for putting this plan together.

Posted by admin on behalf of resident:

I understand that the City Council is considering whether to reduce the water (and related) subsidy for the Sunset Valley residents that is collected through sales tax, despite having ample extra cash. My first question is why this subsidy and not the others? The City currently subsidizes xeriscape, for example, for a huge $10,000, provided the homeowner has enough resources to contribute an additional $10,000. Not all families can afford this, so the subsidy leans towards the wealthier households. In fact, if every household did use the subsidy, it would cost 10x what the water subsidy costs, so basically 10 years of subsidy. In addition, there are, or have been, subsidies for rainwater collection systems, large appliances, solar panels, Artfest, and farmer's market. The water subsidy is much more egalitarian than these other subsidies, as they apply to all households regardless of wealth. Note too, that larger households already pay more per gallon than smaller households due to the progressive nature of the rates, so families with children or live-in parents pay more per person for a gallon of water than single or dual resident households. (This should be fixed.)

The water subsidies were in effect when most of us bought homes in SSV, and were a consideration for moving here. They used to be more generous than they are now. The financial amenities contributed to paying more for homes in SSV than equivalent homes in Austin or in the county, so to reduce the subsidies should be voted on by the residents. (The other subsidies come and go, so could be reduced if necessary to continue the
water subsidy.) Otherwise, it feels like people were lured here with promises that were then broken.

Finally, the money collected by SSV belongs to all the residents and not just to the Council members. To change the rules that were in place when people moved here should at least be done with a vote of the residents. If people think subsidies are unfair, then we should eliminate them all
and reduce the sales tax back to what it was when I moved here, 7.75%. If it is merely a matter of resources, then perhaps we could reduce some
of the large multi-million dollar projects that SSV is considering, like Reimagine Brodie. At a minimum, give us a say in what gets subsidized,
either by poll or by vote. (Resident-Meadows)

A correction to my previous message earlier this afternoon.
I mentored at Becker Elementary in past years, and when I think of Austin ISD elementary schools that's what always come first to mind. I meant to say that I think subsidies from SSV to the Sunset Valley Elementary PTA should be a lower priority than subsidies for the citizens who actually live in the city. It is my opinion that, while donating to schools is a nice thing to do, it's really beyond the purvue of the SSV city council.