Summary of HOA Board meeting with attorneys and developer on July 9, 2008
Pam Monday gave a summary of the meeting that took place with the HOA Board, Tim Taylor (Bethany Lutheran's attorney), Bill Walters (the builder/developer), Cindy Kohler (assistant to Bill Walters and Project Manager), and the HOA attorneys, Tom Buckle and Doug Young. They learned that Bill Walters' current plan is to build a three-story, seven-building apartment complex (272 units) that would back up to Sawmill, and cover a total of 21 acres, including a portion of Plat 3, and all of Plats 4, 5, and 6. This is a considerably larger environmental footprint than the five-story single building that was originally proposed in the church’s 1998 site plan. Mr. Walters stated that he knows what neighborhoods want, and that he will be spending a substantial amount (approximately $450,000) on landscaping to beautify the area and that he was also willing to add a few additional trees if it would make the neighbors feel better about the project. However, when asked specific questions related to impervious cover and impact to the Edwards Aquifer, Mr. Walters would not directly answer the questions but, instead, preferred to talk about the beautiful landscaping planned for the development, and how he met or exceeded code regarding height and setback requirements. The parking lot will begin 25 feet behind the fence line along Sawmill, with the closest building being 50 feet from the fence (current code minimum setback). Mr. Walters would also not say if he planned to keep the complex or sell it to investors, but did admit that he has sold the last three apartment complexes that he built to institutional investors. When asked by the HOA attorneys if “anything else is not compliant with current law or any special deals you are getting under this ordinance or special deals to the church, Mr. Walters replied: ”We are compliant with zoning ordinance of the city of Austin—no variance from it.”
Mr. Walters denied that he is building anything for the church, with the exception of moving a sand playground for them and building a water quality fence. He will be closing on the deal this fall. Engineering contracts have been signed, they have a full design and a “full reliance on the ordinance” that was passed by the city in 2008. He denied knowing how many trees would have been required to be replanted or replaced if he was following current law rather than the exemptions granted by the ordinance. He acknowledged that a portion of one of the buildings was “sticking out” into the transition zone beyond the edges of the plats he is buying. He was asked what zoning category it would be if he were following current city code; he replied “somewhere between MF1 (18 units/acre) and SF6 (12.6 units/acre). This one is 12.9 units/acre.” (The ordinance states the zoning change is to MF2.) When asked by the attorney to clarify how many square feet of impervious cover is going to be included, the church attorney gave a very confusing answer which differed significantly from what the engineering report states. A follow-up conversation still leaves this question unanswered. Mr. Walters stated that a site plan has not yet been filed. When asked if he would be getting approval for the site plan from the city or from the City Council, he did not answer the question.
When asked why he did not notify homeowners about his plan, Mr. Walters replied “Under the ordinance, I am not required to notify homeowners.” When asked about other exceptions to the laws that are in the ordinance, he stated: “You’re asking legal questions; I’m just the developer. I’m not an attorney—the settlement agreement was between the church and the city; the neighborhood is not a party to the settlement agreement. When the amendment (sic) was made, it was not a sleight to the neighborhood—they’re just not a party to the settlement agreement.” However, Dr. Monday stated in her presentation that it does impact our community in that the City Council agreed, in closed session meetings, to an ordinance that would allow exemptions to the builder, and the exemptions allow violation of most current water quality, impervious cover, and other watershed protection environmental preservation laws such as those created by SOS. It seriously threatens the Edwards Aquifer and Barton Creek because of the proximity to Brodie Wild and the location directly over the watershed.
The church attorney, Mr. Taylor, reported upon being asked when the church plans to develop Plats 1 & 2 that it is “in the crayon drawing stage. We’ll still be able to build the education wing, meeting rooms, community group rooms. We need to get our debt down first for anything to happen… That’s why we had to sell the Manchaca church and consolidate the church.” When the HOA attorneys told Mr. Walters that since he was compliant with zoning as he has reported then it shouldn’t be a problem for him to go back through the zoning and compliance process, and also mentioned getting a guarantee amending the ordinance. At that point Mr. Taylor got concerned and asked “why should it be amended?” It did not seem likely that either party would be willing to do that. Dr. Monday stated that it's important to note that Oak Parke Homeowners Association did not create this problem for Bethany Lutheran or for the City; we are merely exposing decisions affecting all of us that were made without our knowledge or input, as is usually required by law.