The property, which sits at the corner of City Park Road and FM 2222, was rezoned from general office use to multifamily residence/moderate-high density use. The zoning change paved the way for an apartment complex, but residents believe there were several missteps in the process and are threatening to take the city to court.
Attorney Brad Rockwell, who is representing some of the residents, said the applicant/owner Champion Assets LTD, represented by attorney Richard Suttle, was permitted to amend its zoning proposal in the week leading up to third and final reading Nov. 10.
City law provides that if at least 20 percent of the property owners within a 200-foot boundary of the property sign a petition against the rezoning, Austin City Council would need a supermajority, or eight votes, to approve the rezoning, Rockwell said.
Jerry Rusthoven, manager of the city’s planning and zoning office, informed council at the start of its Nov. 10 meeting, that, earlier in the week, residents had submitted a valid petition to city staff, with 37.76 percent opposing the tract’s rezoning. However, he said between the time he received the petition and the council meeting, the applicant moved the zoning request boundary back 205 feet, which placed it out of reach for any official residential opposition. Residents were not made aware of this change until Rusthoven publicly informed the council.
Rockwell said the city erred in allowing the applicant to change the zoning proposal in the week leading up to its final approval because it established a different zoning boundary from the one that went through the first two readings. He said attorneys will try to strategically position a zoning proposal early in the process, but not days before the final reading.
“I’ve never seen it done so last minute,” Rockwell said. “The boundaries were completely different, it was a totally different project. We don’t think that’s what state law contemplates. You should have to start over again.”
He said the council’s approval also violated the comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin, which calls for the rezoned area to have no new residential growth. He also cited environmental violations committed by the applicant that he claims the city overlooked.
“The city has played fast and loose with regulations for a long time and no one has challenged it and sought independent judicial review to see if what they are doing is legal or not,” Rockwell said.
Attempts to reach city staff for comment on the case were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
Neighbors say this election is an issue
Neighborhood residents voiced their displeasure with the proposed development and zoning change during the Nov. 3 and 10 City Council meetings.
Residents have long opposed the project slated for City Park Road, a winding, two-lane roadway with challenging site lines that both neighbors and council members said can be dangerous to navigate as well as the additional traffic the residential development could generate.
Glenlake Neighborhood Association member Linda Bailey said she felt District 10 Council Member Sheri Gallo did not do enough to fight for the residents. Although Gallo voted against the zoning change, she supported it in its first two readings.
“The city has played fast and loose with regulations for a long time and no one has challenged it and sought independent judicial review to see if what they are doing is legal or not."
– Brad Rockwell, attorney
“We are not happy with Ms. Gallo, she sat there like a bump on a log,” Bailey said. “She didn’t vote for it, but she didn’t make a motion to oppose the rezone. She didn’t offer a compromise or a discussion. She knew what our issues were, and she didn’t say a thing to help out our side or the community and neighborhood. This is an election issue for us.”
For Gallo, the Nov. 10 meeting was the conclusion of nearly a year of discussions with neighbors and stakeholders about Champions Tract 3. She said she had a total of 35 meetings among nine neighborhood groups to listen to their concerns about the zoning change. She said she fought for the residents by voting no on the final reading and lobbied the council to keep the public hearing on this case open for four council meetings to allow the residents to voice their concerns and bring in expert witnesses.
“I made my position very clear to council the week before we had the final vote … that I was going to vote against the zoning case and support the neighbors,” Gallo told Community Impact Newspaper in an email. “In addition, I made sure that the public hearing was left open on this case for four council meetings so that the citizens and their experts had plenty of time to speak publicly to the council. This is not normal council procedure.”
Gallo is seeking reelection against Alison Alter in a Dec. 13 runoff election for the District 10 council seat. Bailey said she and her neighbors feel this issue will hold weight when they head to polls in three weeks. Alter said that Gallo failed to represent the resident’s concerns.
“The neighbors that are near that tract needed someone to be their champion in this process,” Alter said. “The way the zoning process is now, people look to their district council member for representation. It was hard to know this was in District 10 from what we saw of Council Member Gallo.”
