Neighbors seek reversal of site plan approval for Bull Creek office building

It’s a case that never ends. The Champion sisters filed suit against the city in 1994 and again in 2004 over what they could and could not do with their property. At least one slice of that property is still the subject of argument. City Council is set on Thursday to hear an appeal from a decision by the Zoning and Platting Commission over development of the North Trails Office Park at 6601 North Capital of Texas Highway.

Members of the Lakewood Club, Northwest Austin Civic Association, the Bull Creek Foundation, Lake Austin Collective, the Save Our Springs Alliance and two individuals – Marcus Shaftel and Louise Roholt – have asked Council to reverse a decision by the Zoning and Platting Commission that would allow the project to use a septic system rather than joining the city’s wastewater system.

There are several other items of controversy, some of which relate to the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance. The applicant, represented by attorney Michael Whellan with Armbrust & Brown, told commissioners that they should approve the site plan for the property, which is within the Hill Country Roadway Corridor, because the plan complies with the requirements of the ordinance. Under city regulations, the land use commission must approve a site plan for development in a Hill Country Roadway Corridor if the commission determines that the proposed development complies with the requirements of the ordinance. The Zoning and Planning Commission voted to approve the site plan by a vote of 6-1 with 4 abstentions.

Whellan noted that the plan had gone through eight different changes in order to meet city staff’s requirements.

District 10 Council Member Marc Duchen wrote on the City Council Message Board that he had wanted to discuss the case at Tuesday’s work session, but staff advised him that he should wait until Thursday’s meeting for legal reasons. He noted that the neighborhood had indicated that they might seek a postponement. He added that the case “has a number of complexities including environmental implications to Bull Creek and the Colorado River, vested rights, etc., and we continue to look for alternate ways to minimize the environmental impacts. I look forward to having this discussion then on Thursday – not Tuesday.”

Shaftel told the Austin Monitor the group will likely ask for a postponement but he did not indicate how long a delay they would seek. The neighbors are using arguments put together by attorney Bobby Levinski of the Save Our Springs Alliance, which also opposes the site plan.

Whellan also argued that the planned office use is of lower intensity and has less impervious cover than allowed. He added, “The water quality facility is current volume and built to the green infrastructure standards as a bioretention pond. Moreover, staff has concluded that the stormwater and water quality ponds use the most current effective method of releasing stormwater to prevent erosion.”

Shaftel said via email, “The December ZAP meetings were problematic for two reasons: the plans were approved with known errors in them, along with assertions by City Staff that weren’t accompanied by reports or supporting documents or statements. We continue to try and piece together the legal reasoning and paper trail that supports the City’s assertion the Champion Settlement Agreement applies to the proposed project. The project itself is being initiated after the expiration period in the agreement, and it’s on a subdivision that includes statements that no further development on Tract 5 was planned. We hope to be granted a postponement so we can get to the bottom of these issues while seeking a path forward that doesn’t put a septic field 60 above and next to Bull Creek, nor excavate a three-story parking structure in the karst limestone bluff.”

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: Planning, District 5