Southeast Branch Library
Responsible Growth for Northcross' Attorney's Take
RECEIVED Mon., April 23, 2007
Dear Editor,
In his story on the fight to stop Lincoln Property from replacing Northcross Mall with a giant Wal-Mart, Michael King quotes Mayor Wynn as saying “city staff is required to … approve a plan [and] there has been … no discretion whatsoever of City Council regarding that proposed development” [“Point Austin,” News, April 20].
In truth, council and staff both have a legal duty to deny the site plan when, as here, the development would cause traffic to exceed the desirable operating level of nearby streets. LDC 25-6-141(B)(1). In addition, both the council and the staff have the discretion to deny a site plan when, as here, ”the proposed development may overburden the City’s street system.” LDC 25-6-141(A).
Moreover, the city had a legal duty to deny the site plan because (as acknowledged by city legal department and the city auditor) the city did not provide the required legal notice to neighbors. In addition, city staff did not have authority to approve the site plan because it included a garden center and the city’s codes treat a garden center as a conditional use that must be approved by the Zoning and Platting Commission.
The city staff acted on incorrect traffic information and incorrect interpretations of city code. The traffic calculations submitted by Lincoln Property and earlier accepted by city staff have been demonstrated to be low by 50%. Now that these deficiencies in the traffic analyses have been brought to light, the City Council should act on the new, truthful information instead of backing city staff’s increasingly indefensible efforts to bend the rules to facilitate a Wal-Mart development.
In his story on the fight to stop Lincoln Property from replacing Northcross Mall with a giant Wal-Mart, Michael King quotes Mayor Wynn as saying “city staff is required to … approve a plan [and] there has been … no discretion whatsoever of City Council regarding that proposed development” [“Point Austin,” News, April 20].
In truth, council and staff both have a legal duty to deny the site plan when, as here, the development would cause traffic to exceed the desirable operating level of nearby streets. LDC 25-6-141(B)(1). In addition, both the council and the staff have the discretion to deny a site plan when, as here, ”the proposed development may overburden the City’s street system.” LDC 25-6-141(A).
Moreover, the city had a legal duty to deny the site plan because (as acknowledged by city legal department and the city auditor) the city did not provide the required legal notice to neighbors. In addition, city staff did not have authority to approve the site plan because it included a garden center and the city’s codes treat a garden center as a conditional use that must be approved by the Zoning and Platting Commission.
The city staff acted on incorrect traffic information and incorrect interpretations of city code. The traffic calculations submitted by Lincoln Property and earlier accepted by city staff have been demonstrated to be low by 50%. Now that these deficiencies in the traffic analyses have been brought to light, the City Council should act on the new, truthful information instead of backing city staff’s increasingly indefensible efforts to bend the rules to facilitate a Wal-Mart development.
Brad Rockwell
[Editor's note: Attorney Brad Rockwell is representing Responsible Growth for Northcross in its dispute with Lincoln Properties, Wal-Mart, and the city of Austin.]
