Sunset Valley City Council

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.

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.