Council declines site plan appeal despite claims of ordinance violations

City Council last week declined to even discuss an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a site plan, despite area homeowners’ arguments that the plan violates not only the Save Our Springs Ordinance but also the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance. The SOS Alliance, though not an appellant, argued in favor of the appeal for the project slated to be built at 8413 Southwest Parkway.

The Barton Creek Southwest Property Owners Association and the Travis Country West Homeowners Association appealed the commission’s decision to approve a site plan for the Sunset Ridge Apartments, currently planned to have 444 units in eight buildings. The developer is Manifold Sunset Ridge LIHTC, LLC, which hired attorney Richard Suttle to speak on its behalf at the hearing.

Keith Mars, assistant director of the Development Services Department, told Council that the Planning Commission’s approval of the site plan was required by the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance. He said if the applicant meets all the requirements of the Land Development Code, the commission has no discretion about approving the site plan. Mars said half of the proposed units are affordable ones under city rules.

Neighbors fighting the development believe that the developer has not complied with either environmental ordinance, which will have a detrimental impact on their environment.

Among those arguing for the appeal were attorney Eric Gómez, representing Travis Country West homeowners, and SOS attorney Bobby Levinski. Gómez is a former assistant city attorney now in private practice.

Both Gómez and Levinski told Council the decision to grant the site plan violates the SOS Ordinance. Gómez noted that there was a conflict between the restrictive covenants granted years ago and the SOS Ordinance. He said that staff was allowing the development to move forward under the covenants as opposed to the stricter SOS Ordinance. He also said staff was misinterpreting the law in other ways. Gómez noted that when the case was initially filed, there were not enough apartments proposed to require a traffic impact analysis. However, once developers decided to build 444 units, they had a project that would generate more than 2,000 trips per day – which means they were required to provide the traffic study.

Gómez also argued that there was insufficient information about the number of trees developers planned to eliminate.

Levinski told Council, “This is an issue where you are applying the city code to a site plan. This is not a public policy issue. This is whether or not the site plan complies with Title 25,” the Land Development Code. “And if it doesn’t, there should be no issue in deciding that it doesn’t comply with the Save Our Springs Ordinance.” Levinski said the site plan clearly is not in compliance with the impervious cover limits of the SOS Ordinance and does not comply with its nondegradation regulations. He said it appeared developers were proposing 41 percent impervious cover while the ordinance limits impervious cover to 20 percent to 25 percent. He also pointed out that the city recently lost the case because they tried to waive requirements of an ordinance by resolution. However, he said, the city must legislate by ordinance, not by resolution.

Neighbors expressed concerns in May when they learned about the number of units and the amount of impervious cover that would be allowed under the city’s Affordability Unlocked density bonus program.

Asked whether he thought the matter would end up at the Travis County Courthouse, Levinski pointed out that the Save Our Springs Alliance could not appeal because it was not a party to the appeal at Council. However, he told Council, “This is one of those opportunities where you have the opportunity to say no – that you’re going to enforce the SOS Ordinance, and if it needs to be resolved in court, don’t make the residents be the ones to have to bring it to the court. Side with your community.”

Suttle, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, denied all of the assertions made by those supporting the appeal. He said, “This site plan has been through a rigorous review process from the city staff, has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. It meets all the applicable rules and when built, will provide 101 units at 50 percent or below (median family income); 77 units at or below 60 percent MFI and 44 units at or below 80 percent MFI.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: Housing, District 8