06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 - Staff Report — original pdf

Backup

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: Greater South River City Combined CASE#: NPA-2026-0022.01.SH DATE FILED: February 5, 2026 PROJECT NAME: Rowen Vale PC DATE: April 14, 2026 ADDRESS/ES: 206 and 206 ½ E. Anne Street and 1710 Brackenridge Street DISTRICT AREA: 9 SITE AREA: 0.9 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: South Austin Christian Church / Rowen Vale, LLC AGENT: Rowen Vale, LLC (Megan Lasch) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith PHONE: (512) 974-2695 STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Civic To: Multifamily Residential Base District Zoning Change Related Zoning Case: C14-2026-0010.SH From: SF-3-NP To: MF-3-NP (as amended) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: September 29, 2005 CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 21, 2026 ACTION: (pending) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: April 14, 2026 – (action pending) 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 91 of 87 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the Applicant’s request for Multifamily Residential land use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the Applicant’s request for Multifamily Residential land use because the property is approximately 0.08 miles from South Congress Avenue which is designated as an activity corridor in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. South Congress Avenue has Metro Rapid bus operating on it and is proposed for a future light rail line. South Congress Avenue is an active commercial corridor and serves as a major north/south transportation corridor. The applicant is proposing a 64-unit, 100% income-restricted affordable housing development. The proposed development will help meet the Strategic Housing Blueprint’s goal to build 135,000 affordable housing units throughout the City, especially in high- opportunity areas such as this location. 0.08 miles from S. Congress Ave – Activity Corridor with public transportation and proposed light rail. Below are sections of the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan that could apply to this development. Staff is aware that the plan states single-family and multifamily construction should be compatible with surrounding single-family homes which the neighborhood has stated the proposed development does not. However, the neighborhood plan also wants to preserve housing affordability and wants to increase the diversity of housing options, which we believe the proposed development achieves. Since the neighborhood plan was approved by City Council in 2005, the City has adopted the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (2012), and the Growth Concept Map (2012) that designated activity centers and corridors where density could be accommodated. In addition, the City Council adopted the Strategic Housing Blueprint (2017) to help address the severe 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 92 of 87 shortage of affordable housing throughout the City. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 93 of 87 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS: EXISTING LAND USE: Civic - Any site for public or semi fire facilities, hospitals, and public and private schools. Includes major religious facilities and other religious activities that are of a different type and scale than surrounding uses. public facilities, including governmental offices, police, ‐ Purpose 1. Allow flexibility in development for major, multi the greater community; 2. Manage the expansion of major institutional uses to prevent unnecessary impacts on established neighborhood areas; 3. Preserve the availability of sites for civic facilities to ensure that facilities are adequate for population growth; functional institutional uses that serve ‐ 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 94 of 87 4. Promote Civic uses that are accessible and useable for the neighborhood resident and maintain stability of types of public uses in the neighborhood; 5. May include housing facilities that are accessory to a civic use, such as student dormitories; and 6. Recognize suitable areas for public uses, such as hospitals and schools, that will minimize the impacts to residential areas. Application 1. Any school, whether public or private; oriented civic facility, including all hospitals, colleges and universities, and 2. Any campus major government administration facilities; 3. Any use that is always public in nature, such as fire and police stations, libraries, and museums; 4. Civic uses in a neighborhood setting that are of a significantly different scale than surrounding non civic uses; ‐ 5. An existing civic use that is likely or encouraged to redevelop into a different land use should NOT be designated as civic; and ‐ 6. Civic uses that are permitted throughout the city, such as day care centers and religious assembly, should not be limited to only the civic land use designation. PROPOSED LAND USE: Multifamily Residential - Higher‐density housing with four or more dwelling units on one lot. Purpose 1. Preserve existing multifamily and affordable housing; 2. Maintain and create affordable, safe, and well-managed rental housing; and 3. Make it possible for existing residents, both homeowners and renters, to continue to live in their neighborhoods. 4. Applied to existing or proposed mobile home parks. Application 1. Existing apartments should be designated as multifamily unless designated as mixed use; 2. Existing multifamily-zoned land should not be recommended for a less intense land use category, unless based on sound planning principles; and 3. Changing other land uses to multifamily should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 95 of 87 Yes Yes Imagine Austin Decision Guidelines Complete Community Measures Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map: Located within or adjacent to an Imagine Austin Activity Center, Imagine Austin Activity Corridor, or Imagine Austin Job Center as identified the Growth Concept Map. Name(s) of Activity Center/Activity Corridor/Job Center: • 0.08 miles (403 feet) from South Congress Ave, an activity corridor Yes Mobility and Public Transit: Located within 0.25 miles of public transit stop and/or light rail station. • Bus routes along South Congress Ave, which is also for proposed light rail Yes Mobility and Bike/Ped Access: Adjoins a public sidewalk, shared path, and/or bike lane. Yes Connectivity, Good and Services, Employment: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles to goods and services, and/or employment center. • Numerous businesses along South Congress Ave Yes Connectivity and Food Access: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of a grocery store/farmers market. • 0.1 miles from Tiny Grocer / SOCO Grocery, 1718 S Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78704 • 0.5 miles from RiverCity Market, 2209 S Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78704 • 0.7 miles from H-E-B, 2400 S Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78704 Yes Connectivity and Education: Located within 0.50 miles from a public school or university. • 0.5 miles from Lively Middle School • 0.6 miles from Travis Heights Elementary School, 2010 Alameda Dr, Austin, TX 78704 Yes Connectivity and Healthy Living: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles from a recreation area, park or walking trail. • 0.5 miles Blunn Creek Greenbelt, 1901 East Side Dr, Austin, TX 78704 • 0.5 miles from Little Stacy Neighborhood Park, 1500 Alameda Dr, Austin, TX 78704 No Connectivity and Health: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of health facility (ex: hospital, urgent care, doctor’s office, drugstore clinic, and/or specialized outpatient care.) Yes Housing Affordability: Provides a minimum of 10% of units for workforce housing (80% MFI or less) and/or fee in lieu for affordable housing. • 64 income-restricted affordable units • 100% affordable (7 units at 30% AMI, 29 units at 50% AMI, 23 units at 60% AMI, and 5 units at 80% AMI) Yes Housing Choice: Expands the number of units and housing choice that suits a variety of household sizes, incomes, and lifestyle needs of a diverse population (ex: apartments, triplex, granny flat, live/work units, cottage homes, and townhomes) in support of Imagine Austin and the Strategic Housing Blueprint. • 64 income-restricted affordable units: • 6 studio apartments • 14 one-bedroom apartments • 34 two-bedroom apartments • 10 three-bedroom apartments No Mixed use: Provides a mix of residential and non-industrial uses. No Culture and Creative Economy: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of a cultural resource (ex: library, theater, museum, cultural center). 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 96 of 87 No Culture and Historic Preservation: Preserves or enhances a historically and/or culturally significant site. No Creative Economy: Expands Austin’s creative economy (ex: live music venue, art studio, film, digital, theater.) No Workforce Development, the Economy and Education: Expands the economic base by creating permanent jobs, especially in industries that are currently not represented in particular area or that promotes a new technology, and/or promotes educational opportunities and workforce development training. Industrial Land: Preserves or enhances industrial land. No Yes Not located over the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone or Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 10 Number of “Yeses” Proximity to Imagine Austin Activity Corridor 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 97 of 87 Proximity to Public Parks 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 98 of 87 Proximity to Public Transportation IMAGINE AUSTIN GROWTH CONCEPT MAP Definitions Neighborhood Centers - The smallest and least intense of the three mixed-use centers are neighborhood centers. As with the regional and town centers, neighborhood centers are walkable, bikable, and supported by transit. The greatest density of people and activities in neighborhood centers will likely be concentrated on several blocks or around one or two intersections. However, depending on localized conditions, different neighborhood centers can be very different places. If a neighborhood center is designated on an existing commercial area, such as a shopping center or mall, it could represent redevelopment or the addition of housing. A new neighborhood center may be focused on a dense, mixed-use core surrounded by a mix of housing. In other instances, new or redevelopment may occur incrementally and concentrate people and activities along several blocks or around one or two intersections. Neighborhood centers will be more locally focused than either a regional or a town center. Businesses and services—grocery and department stores, doctors and dentists, shops, branch libraries, dry cleaners, hair salons, schools, restaurants, and other small and local businesses—will generally serve the center and surrounding neighborhoods. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 99 of 87 Town Centers - Although less intense than regional centers, town centers are also where many people will live and work. Town centers will have large and small employers, although fewer than in regional centers. These employers will have regional customer and employee bases, and provide goods and services for the center as well as the surrounding areas. The buildings found in a town center will range in size from one-to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses, to low-to midrise apartments, mixed use buildings, and office buildings. These centers will also be important hubs in the transit system. Regional Centers - Regional centers are the most urban places in the region. These centers are and will become the retail, cultural, recreational, and entertainment destinations for Central Texas. These are the places where the greatest density of people and jobs and the tallest buildings in the region will be located. Housing in regional centers will mostly consist of low to high-rise apartments, mixed use buildings, row houses, and townhouses. However, other housing types, such as single-family units, may be included depending on the location and character of the center. The densities, buildings heights, and overall character of a center will depend on its location. Activity Centers for Redevelopment in Sensitive Environmental Areas - Five centers are located over the recharge or contributing zones of the Barton Springs Zone of the Edwards Aquifer or within water-supply watersheds. These centers are located on already developed areas and, in some instances, provide opportunities to address long-standing water quality issues and provide walkable areas in and near existing neighborhoods. State-of-the-art development practices will be required of any redevelopment to improve stormwater retention and the water quality flowing into the aquifer or other drinking water sources. These centers should also be carefully evaluated to fit within their infrastructural and environmental context. Job Centers - Job centers accommodate those businesses not well-suited for residential or environmentally- sensitive areas. These centers take advantage of existing transportation infrastructure such as arterial roadways, freeways, or the Austin-Bergstrom International airport. Job centers will mostly contain office parks, manufacturing, warehouses, logistics, and other businesses with similar demands and operating characteristics. They should nevertheless become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, in part by better accommodating services for the people who work in those centers. While many of these centers are currently best served by car, the growth Concept map offers transportation choices such as light rail and bus rapid transit to increase commuter options. Corridors - Activity corridors have a dual nature. They are the connections that link activity centers and other key destinations to one another and allow people to travel throughout the city and region by bicycle, transit, or automobile. Corridors are also characterized by a variety of activities and types of buildings located along the roadway — shopping, restaurants and cafés, parks, schools, single-family houses, apartments, public buildings, houses of worship, mixed-use buildings, and offices. Along many corridors, there will be both large and small redevelopment sites. These redevelopment opportunities may be continuous along stretches of the corridor. There may also be a series of small neighborhood centers, connected by the roadway. Other corridors may have fewer redevelopment 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 910 of 87 opportunities, but already have a mixture of uses, and could provide critical transportation connections. As a corridor evolves, sites that do not redevelop may transition from one use to another, such as a service station becoming a restaurant or a large retail space being divided into several storefronts. To improve mobility along an activity corridor, new and redevelopment should reduce per capita car use and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Intensity of land use should correspond to the availability of quality transit, public space, and walkable destinations. Site design should use building arrangement and open space to reduce walking distance to transit and destinations, achieve safety and comfort, and draw people outdoors. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to change the future land use map (FLUM) from Civic to Multifamily Residential. The applicant proposes to change the zoning on the property from SF-3-NP (Family Residence district – Neighborhood Plan) to MF-3-NP (Multifamily Residence Medium Density district – Neighborhood Plan) to build a 64-unit, income-restricted multifamily development with 100% of the residential units affordable. For more information on the proposed zoning change, see case report C14-2026-0010.SH. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance-required community meeting was virtually held on March 23, 2026. The recorded meeting can be found here: https://publicinput.com/neighborhoodplanamendmentcases. Approximately 305 meeting notices were mailed to people with utility accounts (renters) and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Three Austin Planning staff members attended the meeting, Maureen Meredith, Mark Walters, and Chase Gonsoulin. Abby Tatkow, Abby Penner, and Megan Lasch, from O-SDA Industries, LLC, attended. Thirty people from the neighborhood attended. Below are highlights from Abby Tatkow’s presentation: • The proposed zoning is MF-3-NP, which was amended from a previous request for MF-4-NP zoning. • We are proposing 64 income restricted affordable housing units. • The units will be 100% affordable • 7 units at 30% AMI • 29 units at 50% AMI • 23 units at 60% AMI, and • 5 units at 80% AMI. • There are two design options (See Applicant’s presentation in the report). Q: Why did you choose MF-3 zoning over a lower multifamily district? A: The primary reason is the location and the cost of the land. Providing affordable housing for this area, to make the numbers work, we have to provide a dense housing product. The resources and financing for affordable housing are limited, and we want to be good stewards 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 911 of 87 of those funds. We have reduced the number of units from seventy-five to sixty-four units, which is a reduction of 11 units, which is a large number. Q: Why did you put housing over parking? A: The reason that there is ground floor is parking is because people will want parking. We know there is a parking shortage in the neighborhood. Q: Are there any other multifamily developments of this density and size that are surrounded by single family homes? A: There is a development near Hancock Center and new Mueller development, that backs up again service road, but we would need to research this. You can look at the Property Profile tool to see where multifamily developments are located. Q: The SMART Housing letter says the development will be affordable for five years. Is this how long these units will be affordable? A: The Tax Credits we are applying for require affordability for 45 years. Affordability Unlocked will also require 45-year affordability. Q: Why is this the right place for this development? A: It’s close to South Congress and sixty-four homes in this area are not too dense. Q: The neighborhood plan states that developments should be compatible with single family homes. How will this affect staff’s recommendation? A: We will look at the neighborhood plan, and other relevant documents, such as the Strategic Housing Blueprint and the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan to make our recommendation. Q: The TIA that was submitted did not have the daycare as a use and then it was resubmitted with the daycare. Can you explain that? A: For previous properties we didn’t need zoning, so this process was overlooked this with this case. Once we were informed of this, we resubmitted it with the daycare use. Q: How will the queueing of cars with the daycare be handled in the neighborhood with people trying to leave their property? A: It’s similar to parking at the HEB and Oltorf, where people pull out of a parking space, people wait until you move and then you pull into the parking space. We feel confident this will not be an issue. Q: Will there be more details on water detention with Blunn Creek in close proximity? A: We will have on-site detention on the property. Q: Is there a recent traffic study done? A: Yes, we submitted it today. Q: What is the break-even number of units for this development? 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 912 of 87 A: We can’t provide a certain level of affordability without density. Properties operate on a very thin margin. In order to provide a deep-level affordability, you will need density. You would not be able to provide units at 30% MFI with 12 units. Even dropping the number of units on this property by 11 units, it makes this property much harder to operate. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 913 of 87 S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification Letter 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 914 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 915 of 87 Applicant Summary Letter from Application 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 916 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 917 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 918 of 87Letter of Recommendation from the Neighborhood Plan Contact Team (NPCT) From: Meredith, Maureen Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 5:17 PM To: tmfranz@ swanito@a; ellomail@; dk-new@; kamerakim@; jswhite@ Cc: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: GSRC NPCT Rec?: NPA-2026-0022.01.SH_206 E. Annie St Importance: High Dear GSRC Cmnd NPCT: Cases NPA-2026-0022.01.SH and C14-2026-0010.SH_206 E. Annie Street will be scheduled for the April 14th PC hearing and the May 21st CC hearing dates. The notices will be mailed later this week. If your team would like to have a letter of recommendation included in our staff reports, please email it to me and Jonathan no later than Tuesday, April 7th by 5:00 pm. If we get the letter after this date and time, we will submit it as late material to the PC hearing. Thanks. Maureen Maureen Meredith (she/her) Senior Planner Austin Planning 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr. Austin, TX 78752 512-974-2695 maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov Please Note: Correspondence and information submitted to the City of Austin are subject to the Texas Public Information Act (Chapter 552) and may be published online. Por Favor Tome En Cuenta: La correspondencia y la información enviada a la Ciudad de Austin está sujeta a la Ley de Información Pública de Texas (Capítulo 552) y puede ser publicada en línea. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 919 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 920 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 921 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 922 of 87 Applicant’s Presentation at the March 23, 2026 Virtual Community Meeting 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 923 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 924 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 925 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 926 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 927 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 928 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 929 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 930 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 931 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 932 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 933 of 87 Correspondence Received From: Alexander Ladage < > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 10:32 AM To: Qadri, Zo <Zo.Qadri@austintexas.gov> Cc: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development Near SoCo Council Member Qadri and Mayor Watson, I’m writing to express concern about the proposed project near South Congress. The scale and intensity of this development do not appear compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and it conflicts with the intent of the adopted neighborhood plan, which exists to guide thoughtful growth. This also feels like a poor location for added density—particularly for a daycare—given already strained parking and mobility conditions in the area. I’m worried this decision would set a precedent that undermines neighborhood planning and ignores the very real infrastructure limitations around SoCo. Additional Reasons Rezoning Single-Family Neighborhoods for Multifamily Density Is a Bad Idea: Erodes predictability and trust in the planning process. Homeowners reasonably rely on existing zoning and adopted neighborhood plans when making long-term financial and personal decisions. Spot rezoning undermines confidence that the rules will be applied consistently. Ignores infrastructure capacity constraints. Streets, utilities, drainage, sidewalks, and emergency services in single-family neighborhoods are typically not designed to support higher residential intensity. Upzoning without prior infrastructure investment shifts real costs onto existing residents. Creates spillover impacts that extend beyond the project site. Even modest increases in density can result in overflow parking, cut-through traffic, noise, and safety concerns that degrade quality of life well beyond the immediate parcel. Undermines neighborhood character and scale. Multifamily development introduced into low-density areas often disrupts established patterns of setbacks, height, tree canopy, and privacy—effects that are irreversible once constructed. Fails to address affordability in a meaningful way. Market-rate multifamily development in established neighborhoods rarely delivers housing that is affordable to local residents and instead may accelerate land value increases and displacement pressures. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 934 of 87 Misaligns land use and transportation realities. Increased density only makes sense where transit, pedestrian infrastructure, and daily services are already in place. Adding intensity in car-dependent areas exacerbates congestion and parking conflicts rather than reducing them. Creates inequitable outcomes. When single-family neighborhoods absorb density without corresponding public investment, residents effectively subsidize growth through reduced access, increased congestion, and degraded services. Weakens plan-based governance. Approving rezoning that contradicts adopted neighborhood plans signals that those plans are advisory rather than binding, discouraging future community participation and long-term planning efforts. Introduces incompatible uses without sufficient buffers or transitions. Multifamily density requires thoughtful transitions in height, massing, and use; absent those, conflicts with adjacent homes are inevitable. Sets a precedent that compounds over time. Each exception makes the next easier. Repeated deviations ultimately hollow out single-family zoning entirely without a transparent, citywide policy discussion. I urge City Council and the Mayor’s Office to reconsider this proposal and ensure growth decisions are aligned with existing plans and community context. Respectfully, Alexander Ladage Managing Director, Private Wealth Advisor O: +1 512-615-1830 (Voice & Text) F: +1 646-786-3275 Website | LinkedIn 200 W 6th Street., Suite 2600 Austin, Texas 78701 | United States 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 935 of 87 From: ben may < > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 12:05 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Opposition to Rowen Vale :: Great Opportunity for "Missing Middle" :: 206 E Annie St Hi Jonathan/Maureen - Thank you for your help with the review of this project - Who we are: My name is Ben May - my wife Stacy and I are long-time residents of the Travis Heights neighborhood, having lived in the area for over 25yrs, and in Austin for over 30yrs. We currently live at 1611 Brackenridge St (15yrs), and previously lived at 1301 Newning Ave (8yrs). It's safe to say that we have seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood, mostly for the better. Our boys (9 & 11) have lived here on Brackenridge their entire lives - and thoroughly enjoy our neighbors and neighborhood, despite it not really being safe enough for them to ride their bikes around. What I do: While my recent projects have been more focused upon the creative reuse of structures for Restaurants/Offices/Music Venues, I've also worked on several Multi- Family projects in the Mueller Redevelopment - (Greenway Lofts/ Wildflower Terrace) - Many of them with one of your City Architects - Kit Johnson. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Hailey/Johnson, and enjoyed the opportunity to bring quality housing to a larger number of residents than just the typical single-family custom residence. Being in the development world, I do not share the same 'NIBMY' stubbornness of many of my SRCC neighbors. I have no illusion that such a central neighborhood will remain SF forever, nor should it be locked to one house per one lot. HOME/Light-Rail 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 936 of 87 I have followed the Light Rail + South Congress TOD progress for many years now, including all the bumps and bruises from the previous CodeNext efforts. I personally have been looking forward to the inevitable growth that comes with these efforts, as they continue to bring a new vitality to the bustling South Congress area. I personally am excited about the new HOME Ordinance, and have begun exploring the redevelopment our single-home property into a 3-unit property. It just makes sense for the area. Fun fact: With the HOME ordinance Council already approved -> This 206 E Annie property ~40,000sf lot could be subdivided into (6) 5750sf+ lots with 3 units each - > As it is currently zoned = 18 units! (Already an 18x density boost) Opposition Statement: While I share in the excitement for what's next for South Congress, and the new opportunities available with Light Rail + HOME - I feel compelled to write in Opposition to the Rowen Vale project that is currently being proposed for 206 E Annie St. I'm also writing in Opposition to the Rezoning of all Church/'Civic' property in the SRCC area to an MF designation - 206 E Annie specifically - and believe the other 'civic' properties being considered for rezoning deserve more careful consideration. We fully support the introduction of Affordable housing upon this site - as do all of our neighbors - but the scale at which the developer is proposing to deliver Affordable Housing is just completely out of touch with the realities of this site. It is not just the fact that it will be taller than most of the buildings on S Congress Ave two blocks away, nor the fact that it completely ignores the existing historic nature of the neighborhood, but it is the lack of realistic consideration about the functionality of the proposed program upon this particular site. When one steps back and looks at this project's size, scale & program - it becomes apparent that it is being illogically forced upon this site. This project is being set up to fail not only the existing residents of the neighborhood, but will also fail the new residents of the development, as it is simply trying to do too much on such a challenging site. Currently, there are only two groups that feel this project makes sense: 1) The Politicians - who are pushing this monstrous scale in an effort to boost their Affordable Housing statistics for their upcoming reelection campaigns. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 937 of 87 2) The Developer - who will win the 'premier real estate' lottery - while building a sub-par project at minimum financial exposure, while reaping maximum gain. On the taxpayer's dime. Despite their rhetoric - Neither of these groups are approaching this project from an public-serving point-of-view (rather a self-serving point-of-view), and are failing to take the real-world logistics/operability and safety issues into consideration. Smoke & Mirrors: The Developer has been less than honest about several aspects of this project to date - Not only to the neighbors, but also to TPW, to Council, and even TDHCA, from whom they are seeking their tax credits. The developer knew they were going to include a PreK/Daycare on this site when the neighbors first met with them in Jan - purely bc of the extra points it would win them for their TDHCA Tax Credit competition. They made sure to include the PreK on their TDHCA application, as it scored them big points. Yet they conveniently failed to include the PreK program on their later application with TPW (even after they had already told the neighbors that they would be including it) - precisely bc they knew of the traffic/safety implications - and the fact that it would trigger an NTA review. TPW only found out about the PreK program when we requested a meeting with the developer and TPW. When TPW realized there was a PreK planned for this site they were blind-sided, and a bit shocked it was being proposed for this site. This ultimately forced TPW to recalculate their Daily trips, and initiated the NTA. The developer then said they would perform a 'fair' Neighborhood Traffic Analysis, stating their study would be sure to assess traffic at it's peak times - and yet when they finally performed the NTA - they made sure to perform their assessment on a Tues/Wed (slowest days of the week), instead of including a peak-day they stated they would. Additionally, I have yet to see a Siteplan from the developer that actually meets all the requirements of a project of this nature, failing to fully take into account all Zoning, Arborist, Sub-E, TCM, IBC, etc requirements. I realize the City is giving a remarkable amount of latitude (waivers) in the name Affordable Housing - but cramming something onto a site that is ill-suited to accommodating it is simply a recipe for disaster. A Better Model: "The Missing Middle" 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 938 of 87 Just this past Thursday the City Council voted to initiate the pursuit of implementing the ever-elusive Missing-Middle Housing! Was so incredibly excited to see this. The Mayor himself put it best: "This is the logical next step..." and I couldn't agree more. The fact that Council voted to initiate this Missing Middle (MR Zoning - from Mueller) lends to their awareness that there is a better solution - a better model than just slamming 5-story monstrosities directly next to existing Single Family neighborhoods. There is an effort to rezone the 'Civic' properties in our area - and I applaud the effort - However I think City should refrain from forcing ill-scaled/ill-suited MF projects onto these sites, and instead recognize the unique opportunity they now have with this new Missing Middle initiative. Not only because it makes the most sense, but also because City/DSD/Council now has the overwhelming support of our neighborhood to deliver this sensible Missing Middle scale! It's the classic developer trick - Come in with something obscenely massive, with the full intention of ultimately scaling down to the size project that they were initially wanting to do anyways. Now that monstrous Rowen Vale project has scared the hell out of the neighborhood - there is no better time for the City to propose a slightly reduced MR-1/MR-2 for this property that is completely surrounded by SF-3 properties. The entire neighborhood has been very vocal about supporting Affordable Housing on this site - Just not at the scale that Rowen Vale is proposing. However, if City Staff/DSD/Council were to pivot - and 'be willing to work with the SRCC Neighborhood' to amend the Neighborhood Plan towards this Missing Middle scale - I think the City would find a very warm welcome to this responsive scale. (Which is rare from SRCC I know ;) Townhomes / Cottage Courts / Townhome Courts / Townhome Courts + Small Corner-Commercial -> Now these make sense on a property that is completely surrounded by SF properties. Example / Case Study - 1301 Newning: I actually had the unique opportunity to help deliver this alternative model - with our old residence at 1301 Newning Ave. What was once a single 1901-built home (spilt 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 939 of 87 into 4 small units) on a 1.6ac lot in the middle of Travis Heights, has now been transformed into an appropriately-scaled multi-family project of 10-15 townhomes. Initially the new owner wanted to put an 80-unit apartment complex on the 1.6acs - but was understandably met with a great deal of resistance as the surrounding neighbors were in shock of the astonishing size and hyper-density of such a project located in the middle of an SF-3 neighborhood. I had presented the new owner/developer with an alternate site layout that I felt would work better for the site, and respond better to the neighbors/neighborhood. The developer scoffed, as it didn't fit their 'maximize' mentality, ("highest and best use right"?) However, after a great deal of opposition and discussion - the new owner/developer ultimately decided to present the siteplan sketch I had worked up for him - which consisted of a Townhome model - instead of the massive 'tone-deaf' monstrosity they had originally proposed. The neighbors were MUCH more supportive of this scale/model - even though it was much denser than anything they could've previously imagined for the property - and it is what ultimately got built - while still seeming like a 'win' for the neighborhood. In Summary: In summary - I hope City Zoning Dept can look past the top-down pressure of "We need to deliver as many units as possible as fast as possible - it doesn't matter how crummy they are!" This is not a vote against Affordable Housing (as no Council Member wants to vote against affordable housing) but rather this is a recommendation against a poorly scaled project for a challenging lot. Opportunity! -> I am hoping that the Zoning Dept recognizes the Opportunity that this property holds - with unanimous neighbor support for the Missing Middle density AND Affordable Housing. Just because there is a developer willing to cram an absurdly out-of-scale project onto this site does not mean it's the correct or best project for this property. A "bird in hand" does not always beat "two in the bush." (There might be 3 in the bush! ;) With further assessment of this site, one would most likely realize that a designation of MR-1 or MR-2 would be far better suited for this site - Not allowing the developer to cram an MF-6 unit-density onto a site that would typically only be allowed to host half of that unit count. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 940 of 87 The MF-3 zoning they are requesting is typically capped at 40' and 34 units - yet they plan to go 25% taller (50'+), and 200% denser (64 units) than these criteria - with unrealistic affordability multipliers. Thank You! I appreciate your consideration to this issue - amazed if you're still reading this - and hope you recommend that the Planning Commission and Council DO NOT approve the Rowen Vale project. Would love the opportunity to discuss alternative options with Staff and Council at the upcoming Planning and Council hearings, and hopefully we can find the best possible solution for this property, as well as the other Civic properties being considered for rezoning. Ben & Stacy & Cooper & Bodhi May 1611 Brackenridge St ** PS - My children are much cuter when they're not roadkill!! ���� From: Daniel Vickers Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:53 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 206 & 206 1/2 E. Annie St & 1710 Brackenridge St. C14-2026-0010.SH + NPA-2026-0022.01.SH Good afternoon- My wife and I live at 1901 Brackenridge St. directly across from the Lively School. My wife grew up in this neighborhood and Ms. Lively was her teacher in the 70s when it was named Fulmore. I moved here to this neighborhood in 1995. We both share a profound concern about the Plan Amendment and Zoning changes being considered for this development at the subject address. As a registered architect, the scale of this proposed project is an affront to the adjacent properties and the neighborhood from a scale/massing/increased traffic standpoint. Examples of 'similar' developments provided by development team are apples to oranges as the other scopes are directly adjacent to IH-35 feeder roads or directly 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 941 of 87 adjacent to main roads like Lamar. This project is literally surrounded on all sides by 1 to 2 story residences. I have seen zero renderings that show how the proposed development can be copasetic with the historical fabric of the neighborhood. Construction of the proposed scope would be a disaster. Where will the lay-down yard be for materials? Where will the workers park in this area? Where will a site crane be located? Will it swing over existing homes? Would these development changes if approved be a precedent for other similar struggling churches that would lead to a project such as this on Annie? So many reasons to NOT approve these changes being considered. Our property taxes are historically high here and these proposals do not align with this type of detrimental scope considerations. Please contemplate if this scope were to be proposed adjacent to your house. Thanks- Dan Vickers, RA, LEED AP BD+C Diane Vickers 1901 Brackenridge St. 512.567.1622 From: David Phillips Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 7:07 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale Zoning change and neighborhood plan amendment. My name is David Phillips and I have lived for 46 years at 207 East Milton Street. My home is separated from the Rowan Vale site (206 East Annie) by a 14-foot alley. This apartment building is proposed to be 5 stories tall. Our neighborhood consists of 2 lane streets with on-street parking for most of the residents. Lots of us have no driveways or garages. Our homes were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s and are part of a National Historic District. Mine was built in 1922. The automobile was not a major element in the lives of Austinites then. I have a curb cut, but no driveway. As a consequence of the burgeoning tourist trade on South Congress, we sometimes struggle to find a place to park near our own home. The parking on both sides of the street makes our streets effectively one-lane streets at times. This 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 942 of 87 apartment building will bring a great deal of added traffic to us and will add to the crowding and will threaten the safety of our City designated Play Street. This project is significantly out of scale with our homes. There is no building taller than 3 stories even on the main thoroughfare (Congress Avenue). This apartment building will literally tower over our homes. This would be a violation of the Neighborhood plan regarding the effect on the character of our neighborhood and its lack of proportionality to all the other buildings within many blocks of the site. I write to request that your recommendation to the Council be that the zoning change and the amendment to the Neighborhood Plan be denied to preserve the historic character of our neighborhood and the community that we have built. I want to work with the City on an affordable housing apartment complex that does not overwhelm us, does not create mobility problems that affect safety and which builds community for us and a project's residents. Thank you, From: duncan montgomery Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:33 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Proposed rezoning for Rowan Vale project in the 200 Block of East Annie Maureen, I am writing to register my concern with the proposed rezoning from SF to MF to accommodate a 3-5 story building in a residential neighborhood. I live in the neighborhood and while I understand the growth that is happening on South Congress Avenue, I see this as the beginning of that growth creeping into our neighborhood and weakening the SF nature of the area. My other concern is the added traffic and congestion on Annie and Nickerson. My 83 year old father lives on Nickerson and already battles congestion issues on the street every morning and afternoon during pick up and drop off for Lively. This frustration is also felt by the parents of Lively students. Two of my best friends deal with this congestion every day on Nickerson when they drop off their kids. The idea of adding a 64 unit apartment complex only 100 yards from the Lively driveways seems like it will cause problems for everyone (residents, teachers, students, parents and commuters). I sincerely hope that you decide to oppose the rezoning of this site and oppose the neighborhood plan amendment that allows this rezoning. Best regards, Duncan C. Montgomery High Frequency Entertainment, LLC highfrequencyentertainment.com 310-593-4170 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 943 of 87 From: francesco.passanti@earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 7:13 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale development on East Annie To Jonathan Tomko and Maureen Meredith, I live in Travis Heights, and I am very concerned about the proposed rezoning for the Rowan Vale development on East Annie. I will make three points. First, the character of the Travis Heights neighborhood is unique and important to the attractiveness of Austin, and it should not be encroached upon. Of course, this character is dear to those who live in Travis Heights. But it is also central to the overall attractiveness of Austin as a city. A unique quality of Austin is that at one moment you are in the middle of skyscrapers, and five minutes later you are in a green environment of small houses and gardens: city and country, skyscrapers and Johnson City next to each other. This visible juxtapposition is part of the brand of Austin, part of what entices people to move to Austin. It is a shortsighted move to weaken this brand by encroaching on the single-family neighborhoods close to downtown, and especially so in the case of a recognized historical district like Travis Height. Second, the argument of affordability, used to sell Rowan Vale, is a specious one. Yes, it is true that Austin badly needs affordable (hence multi-family) housing. But it is shortsighted to undermine, for the sake of that, the character of the city that I discussed above. It would be a bit like saying that New York City needs affordable housing, so let’s put apartment houses in Central Park—and then,fewer people would want to live in Manhattan. And in any case, the argument of affordability is a short-term one: once the zoning of East Annie has changed, it would be easy, after a few years, to upgrade Rowan Dale to more expensive dwellings. Third, the corridor of South Congress must not be allowed to encroach upon the adjacent neighborhood. In a rapidly expanding city surrounded by a belt of low- density neighborhoods, corridors are essential to connect downtown to outlying areas; and some, like South Congress and South Lamar, become vibrant commercial and cultural foci. But to function properly, corridors must be kept within their boundaries, and must not be allowed to gradually encroach into the neighborhoods, one block at a time. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Francesco Passanti Francesco Passanti 1906 Kenwood Avenue Austin, TX 78704-3634 Tel: 512 707-8939 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 944 of 87 From: Grant McClure Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 8:40 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowen Vale | SF-5 promotes affordability while ensuring compatibility Hi Jonathan and Maureen, We spoke briefly on the phone a few weeks ago. I appreciated your generosity with your time and knowledge. I'm a neighbor writing to oppose the proposed Rowen Vale development (NPA-2026- 0022.01.SH and C14-2026-0010.SH) at 602 1/2 E. Annie St. I support affordable housing, including on this exact lot, but not at this incompatible scale. This case is complicated, because the proposed plans make it challenging to uphold the City's commitments to both (1) affordability and (2) compatibility. Sadly, this project cannot achieve both. Instead, SF-5 fits like a glove. SF-5 is intended (1) "to facilitate the implementation of City affordable housing programs" and (2) "be used as a transition between a single family and multifamily residential use." (source: Code) In order to uphold the principles of both affordability and compatibility, please consider an alternate recommendation of SF-5. Are you available tomorrow for a quick call to discuss the more detailed recommendation below? Thanks, Grant *** Basis for my recommendation to you (reject MF-3; recommend SF-5 or maintain SF-3) Affordable housing is needed, but this project doesn't work: Austin needs more affordable housing, but Rowen Vale fails to meet Austin's standards requiring developments: • • "encourage compatibility" (source: Code); "ensure adequate transition" (source: Land Use Planning Principles, p.3); and are "built in proportion to surrounding homes" (source: Neighborhood Plan, p. 5). Applicant effectively requests MF-6 density in the middle of SF-3 (given Affordability Unlocked). Base zoning at MF-3 would permit up to 36 units per acre (source: Code) • 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 945 of 87 — or 32 units on this 0.9 acre lot. But with Applicant's stated intended use of the Affordability Unlocked Type 2 density bonus, Applicant proposes to build 64 units plus a Pre-K facility all on 0.9 acres — fully double the base density of MF-3. MF-5 zoning is capped at 54 units per acre (source: Code). Applicant's request is more like MF-6 than MF-3. The Affordability Unlocked program is no issue on its own, but staff should take this full perspective into consideration when evaluating "proportion," "compatibility," and "adequate transition" of this ostensibly MF-3 request, which looks more like a request for MF-6 density surrounded by SF-3. Even the Applicant said Rowen Vale would not be built in proportion. At the March 10 community meeting, when asked if the proposed project would be "built in proportion to surrounding homes" (source: p. 5, the #1 Planning Priority in GSRC Neighborhood Plan), Megan Lasch of Applicant, O-SDA, replied "no". She's correct. The proposed 64-unit, 5-story, 50 ft tall development with a separate 3-story Pre-K building and limited setbacks on 0.9 acres, all surrounded by SF-3 homes, simply cannot be "built in proportion" or "ensure adequate transition". Adding more lipstick to the site plans will not solve the fundamental issue: it's too big to be compatible. Staff can still promote affordable housing by recommending SF-5 instead. If staff decides to not support the request for MF-3, staff can recommend SF-5. This alternative would accommodate Council's desire for more affordable housing and the stated affordability and density aims of the Strategic Housing Blueprint and Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. SF-5 is an ideal fit and promotes both affordability and adequate transition: "An SF-5 district may be used as a transition between a single family and multifamily residential use or to facilitate the implementation of City affordable housing programs." (source: Code) If the Applicant cannot comply with a compatibility standards that ensure transition, Applicant's profitability should not bear on staff's recommendation. Applicant stated in the March 23 community meeting that the 64-unit count was set in stone and could not be further reduced. Applicant's desires for a given level of financial profit should have no bearing on staff's recommendation upholding the principle of compatibility. Staff should further reject any potential arguments that by not supporting MF-3, they might be impeding affordable development; indeed, the opposite is true. SF-5 would promote affordability while upholding the principle of compatibility. There's precedent; Staff made parallel arguments in the past. In the Heflin Housing case in 2023 (source: Staff Rec.), where Jonathan was the case manager, staff wrote that it "does not support" the proposed rezoning from SF-3 to MF-3 (same request as Rowen Vale's), in a lot surrounded by SF-3 and SF-6, and offered an alternate recommendation of SF-6. Planning Commission concurred (source: Minutes) and I believe the application was withdrawn before a Council hearing. In the staff recommendation (source: Staff Rec.), the included basis of recommendation was as follows: 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 946 of 87 • • • "Zoning changes should promote compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses." "Zoning should promote a transition between adjacent and nearby zoning districts, land uses, and development intensities." "Zoning should promote the policy of locating retail and more intensive zoning near the intersections of arterial roadways or at the intersections of arterials and major collectors." Well said. That is exactly the argument for recommending SF-5 in this case with Rowen Vale. Summary: Affordable housing is important. Unfortunately, though, the Rowen Vale project is too intense for a site surrounded by SF-3 homes. Staff should promote both affordable housing and compatibility by recommending SF-5 as the appropriate transition, or keep SF-3 zoning unchanged. Grant McClure (512) 590-9014 From: gretchen@ Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 4:15 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: daniel@ Subject: 1710 Brackenridge Street, Case No. C14-2026-0010.SH Hello Ms. Meredith, My name is Gretchen Scardino, and my husband Daniel and I have lived in Travis Heights for over 25 years—first on Academy Drive, and now on Newning Avenue. We are reaching out about the Rowen Vale development that is being proposed for 1710 Brackenridge Street. We have watched as Congress Avenue, and particularly Congress and Academy (which we drive through multiple times a day), has gone from a peaceful, quirky Austin neighborhood to what we now call The Domain South. Hundreds of people swarm Austin every day to shop the stores along Congress, the vast majority of which are nationwide brands that have no connection to our beloved, once-weird city. I recently heard that the Austin Motel and the Hotel San Jose will be torn down in the next year to make way for another Music Lane- esque development, which is absolutely heartbreaking. Along with eviscerating the character of our once homey, offbeat corner of Austin, the Congress Avenue over-development has resulted in a situation where we have to pay to park in the street in front of our own home. The vehicular traffic, and the demand for street parking in our neighborhood, is out of control. We certainly feel as 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 947 of 87 though the City of Austin is putting developers’ pocketbooks over the quality of life of the homeowners in our neighborhood. The Rowen Vale proposed development goes a step further and a step too far. It seeks to install an unattractive, high-density apartment complex the size of the Oltorf HEB inside our quaint, historic Fairview Park/Travis Heights single-family neighborhood. Development on major arteries is one thing, but Brackenridge Street is not a major artery. Nor is Annie Street. This is just not an acceptable development for our neighborhood or the families that live here, and we have great sympathy for our neighbors living in the charming bungalows so close to the proposed complex. Is this a done deal? If not, the City leaders should do everything possible to oppose it. Approving a zoning change from single family to multifamily, inside of a historic, family friendly neighborhood, would be a catastrophic change to the character of Fairview Park/Travis Heights. The City leaders really need to listen to their constituents here. For the record, we oppose the zoning change for 1710 Brackenridge Street. Sincerely, Gretchen and Daniel Scardino 1203 Newning Ave Gretchen Scardino 512-659-4470 (cell) -----Original Message----- From: James Vincent Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:10 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Concerning the Zoning application chance for 206 E. Annie This project borders on the absurd as to why the city would approve the rezoning for a building that looks like something out of the Soviet Union, and as tall as the HEB at S. Congress and Oltorf in the middle of one of the oldest historic neighborhoods in Austin is beyond my comprehension. Whether one is talking about character of a 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 948 of 87 neighborhood or Traffic or parking or heritage oaks, take your pick. Every single one should disqualify the approval of a zoning change. No one that I know is opposed to low income and affordable housing in this neighborhood , but this isn’t it. Take this building and put it a block away on S. Congress and fine. It fits in there but not in our neighborhood, not to mention you are going to kill the value of homes that have been owned sometimes for decades by retired people. How the city government would so callously not consider the implications of this in their decision is beyond me. Just imagine this monstrosity across the street from your own home and the decision to not allow a rezoning should be simple. Anyway, I hope you are honest and just do your job. This should be stopped. Sincerely James Vincent. 1711 Brackenridge St. From: Karen Kelly Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 9:44 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Qadri, Zo <Zo.Qadri@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale - OPPOSITION Dear Zo, Jonathan and Maureen, I am writing as a nearby resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning and neighborhood plan amendment for the development at 206 E Annie Street (Rowan Vale). I want to be clear that I support thoughtful, well-placed affordable housing in Austin. However, I do not believe this particular project is appropriate for this location, nor is it consistent with the intent of our adopted neighborhood plan. The scale and intensity of the proposed development are fundamentally out of step with the surrounding area. The 200 block of East Annie is characterized by one- and two-story homes with a cohesive architectural fabric. Introducing a 5 story, 64-unit structure on a sub-one-acre interior lot creates an abrupt and incompatible transition from single-family to multi-family use, which runs counter to the City’s own zoning and compatibility principles. Additionally, the proposal raises significant unresolved concerns regarding parking, traffic, and overall site functionality. The combination of a high number of residential units, limited parking, and a 40-child daycare on the same site introduces meaningful strain on an already constrained residential street network. These impacts do not appear to have been adequately addressed. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 949 of 87 I am also concerned about the precedent this sets. Approving both a zoning change and a neighborhood plan amendment for a project of this scale within the interior of a long-established neighborhood undermines the integrity of the planning process and the expectations of residents who rely on those plans for consistency and predictability. Finally, I understand there are outstanding concerns related to drainage, tree preservation, and infrastructure capacity that warrant careful consideration before any recommendation is made. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to recommend denial of both the requested zoning change and the neighborhood plan amendment. Thank you for your time and for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Karen Kelly From: Kelly Goodpastor Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 5:05 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Please oppose the Rowan Vale Zoning Request - Nickerson St. is already a mobility mess Dear Jonathan and Maureen, My name is Kelly Goodpastor. My family lives at 1611 Nickerson St. We have called this house home for many years. We are incredibly close to our neighbors, and we would welcome new neighbors at 206 E. Annie St. However, the project that is being proposed by Rowan Vale, with over 60 units and 100 residents, is a terrible fit for this site. For this conversation, please know I am speaking about Nickerson St., the side street for the Rowan Vale development, especially the short section of Nickerson between Annie and Milton, where the proposed building would have one of its two exits. This would also be the only exit for parents as they drop off and pick up their children at the proposed PreK that would be on site. Nickerson Street has, for many years, been a mobility nightmare. In the mornings and evenings during the week, people speed down Nickerson St. trying to bypass the lights on South Congress on the way to and from work. In fact, there have been 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 950 of 87 at least three of us who have called separately asking for stop signs to be placed at the intersections on Nickerson/Milton and Nickerson/Annie to slow down these drivers. All of us neighbors have witnessed near misses with other cars and pedestrians on this short section of street. Our rearview mirrors get knocked off frequently. On the weekends, Nickerson becomes a one-way street due to cars parked on either side and then cars in opposing directions trying to get past each other. Cars cannot get past each other, and drivers have to work patiently to back up, squeeze through, or find a different route. And this is while they also have to watch out for pedestrians as they walk to and from SoCo. The worst of this is truly at the small section of Nickerson between Annie and Milton where the Rowan Vale development has its exit. We heard recently that Rowan Vale did their traffic study on March 10th and 11th (a Tuesday and Wednesday). If this is the case, there are a couple items that concern us. First, they told neighbors at the mobility meeting that they would include a weekend day during the study, when mobility issues are at their worst. This appears not to have happened. Second, for at least one of those days, part of Nickerson near the Nickerson and Annie intersection was closed to through traffic due to road construction. Both of these items would have significantly altered the traffic study findings. About 30 minutes ago, I walked out of our house and onto Nickerson with my phone to see if I could capture a typical Saturday afternoon on Nickerson. I ask you to please take 30 seconds to watch the video below. It is the perfect example of what we see constantly, and I only had to wait a few minutes to capture this video. It shows drivers unable to get past each other, two having to back up, one having to back into an open spot (that spot is actually the opening for the current 206 E. Annie St church exit), another squeezing through, pedestrians walking in the street (there is no sidewalk on the west side of this section of street), and another car exiting his parking spot. This happens all the time on the weekends. Finally, due to the cars parked on either side, this exit for the development is truly in a blind and very tight spot. It will be incredibly challenging for 100 residents and 40 school families to navigate this exit, whether during rush hour as commuters speed to and from work, or on the weekend as Nickerson is clogged with parked cars, drivers and pedestrians visiting SoCo. We truly appreciate your time with this matter. If you would like to see the mobility challenges in person, we would welcome a visit on the weekend. We would be happy to meet with you on the proposed site and show you just how challenging mobility becomes. Many thanks, Kelly Goodpastor 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 951 of 87 From: KMead Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 2:22 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; johnathan.tomko@austintexas.gov Subject: Rowan Vale Dear Members of the Zoning Commission I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Rowen Vale development on Annie Street in the Travis Heights neighborhood. At the center of this conversation is not whether Rowen Vale is a thoughtful or innovative concept, it is, but whether it is appropriate for this specific location. The developer acknowledged this during the zoning meeting on March 10th, stating, “I would love to have purchased a lot on South Congress.” This reflects a key concern: this large-scale project is better suited to an area designed to support its scale, traffic, and infrastructure demands—not the interior streets of Travis Heights. Decision-Making Should Not Be Driven by Developer Constraints The developer has emphasized that the proposed scale is necessary for the project’s financial viability. However, rezoning decisions should be guided by appropriateness of land use—not by the financial model of a specific project. The City’s role is to define what is appropriate for the site and ensure development aligns with that vision. In this case, the requested zoning appears driven by project- specific needs rather than the realities of the site and surrounding neighborhood. At the end of the day, no matter how aspirational, Rowan Vale is a business venture. Scale and Neighborhood Integrity as Stated by the City The proposed five-story structure would be approximately 35 feet taller than most surrounding single-story homes from the 1940s—representing a shift from roughly 15–20 feet to approximately 50 feet within the interior of a residential block. This scale is not consistent with the City’s stated goal of integrating new housing while maintaining the character and integrity of established neighborhoods. What occurred on Rainy street is a concern for this area. Construction Impact, Logistics, and Protected Trees A project of this scale would require an extended construction period, including cranes and deep excavation. Given the narrow streets and built-out nature of the area, construction staging and equipment placement remain unresolved logistical challenges. Additionally, the excavation required introduces risk to protected heritage oak trees, which are both environmentally significant and legally protected. Parking, Affordability, and Infrastructure Strain Parking and infrastructure constraints present a significant challenge. The 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 952 of 87 surrounding streets are already under strain, as evidenced by the recent implementation of paid and permitted parking systems in response to documented demand. Introducing high-density housing without sufficient on-site parking will exacerbate these existing pressures. All four streets surrounding the proposed development are designated as paid or resident-only parking, raising concerns about alignment with affordability goals. Requiring residents of an “affordable” development to pay for parking—or rely on limited surrounding streets—creates a practical and financial burden. Overflow into nearby unrestricted areas is a predictable outcome. For example, on Drake, there are consistently significantly more vehicles parked on the unpaid portion than on permitted blocks. Based on three weeks of observation, daily there are 11 cars on the unpaid part of Drake and only 2 on the hybrid parking blocks of Drake. This demonstrates how quickly overflow conditions develop under current constraints. This is goal reality-based zoning to help ensure success for residents rather than creating a long-term struggles. Existing Developments and Unresolved Issues It is also important to consider the performance of existing developments by the same developer. A nearby affordable housing project reportedly faces parking challenges and is not at full occupancy. If existing projects are facing challenges, it is reasonable to question the urgency and readiness of introducing another high-density development in an even more constrained setting. Speculation About Future Residents and Lifestyle Assumptions Several assumptions presented by the developer regarding future residents and transportation patterns are speculative and not supported by sufficient data. Each time the developer engages in discussions they continue to demonstrate a broader pattern of stretching assumptions to fit a narrative. For instance: · identifying Tiny Grocer as a nearby walkable grocery option overlooks the reality that it is a boutique market with pricing that is inaccessible to many residents. Presenting it as an affordability-supporting feature reflects a disconnect between planning assumptions and lived realities of the residents. · Claims that residents will primarily be drawn from nearby service industry workers, or that many will not require vehicles, are not substantiated. Housing decisions are influenced by multiple factors—including community ties, schools, family needs, and overall cost of living—not proximity to employment alone. · Stating that many residents may “move in with a car and then realize that they don’t need one” Yet the developer’s own reference to census data indicating that only a small percentage of Austinites do not own cars further underscores this concern. Community Feedback The community feedback has been clear and consistent. There is strong support for 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 953 of 87 increasing housing and affordability, and a need for it be in alignment with planning principles, neighborhood conditions, and community input. There are too many issues regarding this proposal and a zoning change to MF-3 or MF-4 is not warranted for this property. Conclusion There is no need to rush this decision, particularly given the number of concerns, uncertainties and the potential for long-term infrastructure strain, a more measured approach is warranted. Rezoning at this scale is effectively irreversible and should be approached with caution. A widely supported and viable alternative is only months away: Missing Middle housing. Duplexes, fourplexes, and small multi-unit buildings provide increased density while remaining compatible with neighborhood scale and infrastructure. This is what is suited for this site and quite achievable. It balances all the needs and stressors of this lot. Support for this approach is strong and consistent. It is a rare alignment between community input, sound urban planning principles, and long-term sustainability. The city is taking steps to alleviate affordability concerns by creating a viable and sustainable model. It is not mega development OR housing. The City should not be pressured to make a decision regarding rezoning when a viable option is within reach. The developer does not even have their full funding until after July, so let’s not rush to make a decision that is detrimental to future residents. Rowen Vale, as currently proposed, is out of alignment and causes more problems than it solves if placed here. It is a strong concept applied in an unsuitable context. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of these concerns. I urge you to prioritize solutions that respect the character, infrastructure, and long- term health of Travis Heights, both current and future residents. Sincerely, Kimberley Mead 1803 Drake Ave Austin 78704 Kimberley Mead, M.A., LPC-S From: kristi pruett houser Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:34 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Proposed development in Travis Heights Dear Jonathan Tomko & Maureen Meredith- My family and I have lived at 1803 Brackenridge Street for almost 20 years and I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed housing development on the 200 block of East Annie Street. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 954 of 87 While I understand the importance of expanding housing availability in our city, I believe this particular project is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and raises several serious issues. The proposed density, building height, and overall footprint are inconsistent with the existing character of the area. The surrounding streets are frequently congested, especially during peak hours, and parking is already extremely limited for residents and visitors alike. Adding a development of this scale—without a clear and sufficient plan to address these existing challenges—will likely exacerbate daily traffic bottlenecks, increase competition for parking, and create additional safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. I respectfully ask that you oppose rezoning the site to MF zoning as well as the neighborhood plan amendment that allows this rezoning. Thank you so much for your consideration. Sincerely, Kristi Pruett Houser 1803 Brackenridge Street, Austin, TX. 78704 512-587-9150 From: Laine Montgomery Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 5:17 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Opposing project on 206 E Annie 78704 I would like to lodge a complaint and protest regarding the proposal for 206 E Annie in my neighborhood Travis Heights. There are MANY reasons why this project is absurd. This project isn’t compatible with surrounding uses and intensities and the neighborhood plan should be followed. South congress has become one of the most congested areas in 78704 and continues to get more congested due to popularity- This is a poor location for increased density and to boot a dreadful location for a daycare. There was some daycare in this area some years ago that were eventually made unsuccessful in part because it is simply too challenging for the parents for a pick up and drop offs… it’s making a crazy situation, significantly crazier. Parking and mobility near SoCo is already SO strained- the idea that it would worsen is incredibly frustrating to all of the homeowners in this area. Losing charge must understand that this sets a very bad precedent. This isn’t about opposing affordable housing. Austin absolutely needs thoughtful solutions… but let be clear- They are using this premise to manipulate and take advantage which is shameful. Thank you enormously for your time which I know is valuable, I hope you will see that there is enough people who are seeing this situation clearly and are really upset. Sincerely, Laine Montgomery, Travis Heights, District 9 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 955 of 87 From: lanx15@ Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 11:16 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Plan Amendment Case # NPA-2025-0016.2 Good Day Ms. Meredith, We are not in favor of any new massive housing projects. The area is already overbuilt in terms of housing. Greenspace is decreasing rapidly. Traffic is already growing due to recent large scale housing developments. There is currently a new one well underway at the corner of 7th Street and North Pleasant Valley Road. It remains to be seen what will happen at the corner of 5th and Pleasant Valley. We are tired of these corporations taking over the city to the detriment of singular homeowners who enjoy the peaceful and neighborly vibe of East Austin. Please represent our opinion in this meeting. We will try to attend but it is not an optimum time for us. Gratefully, Teresa and John Ivester 506 Allen Street Austin, TX 78702 From: Matt Robins Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 6:56 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale - Neighborhood Concerns Dear Mr. Tomko and Ms. Meredith, I’m a nearby homeowner writing to share feedback on the proposed Rowen Vale development at 206 E. Annie. I understand and respect the City’s broader housing and density goals. However, based on the materials presented to neighbors, the site-level execution of this project has not yet demonstrated that it can function without materially impacting the livability of adjacent residents, and it raises concerns about how well it aligns with the intent of existing zoning and neighborhood planning. Key concerns: • Transition and compatibility with surrounding homes Austin’s zoning approach generally expects a reasonable transition between single-family homes and larger multifamily buildings, so that new development does not overwhelm nearby properties. A 3–5 story structure (up to ~50 ft) on a site currently zoned SF-3 represents a significant shift in scale. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 956 of 87 As a homeowner who lives adjacent to a large-scale development, I have seen firsthand how mismatched scale can impact day-to-day quality of life— particularly through persistent disturbances that affect sleep and overall livability. I am concerned this project would create similar impacts for immediate neighbors. • Project scale relative to site constraints The current proposal appears too large for the lot, creating unresolved pressure on core systems: o Traffic and Pre-K queuing: Drop-off/pick-up is routed through a garage loop, with open questions about queuing capacity o Parking: Currently proposed parking (~46 spaces for 64 units), with comparables suggesting demand may exceed supply o Mobility: Constrained residential streets (Annie and Nickerson) are being asked to absorb significantly more activity • Real-world traffic and safety impacts The proposed circulation plan (Annie for entry/exit; Nickerson for exit only) concentrates vehicle movement in ways that will directly affect nearby residents. In my case, I already live near an intersection that experiences heavy cut-through traffic and frequent safety concerns and accidents (or frequent near misses). Additional concentrated flow from this project would compound an already challenging situation, particularly during peak hours like school drop-off and pick-up. • Setbacks and proximity impacts Tight setbacks (as little as ~5 ft in some areas) combined with the overall massing increase the potential for reduced light and diminished privacy for adjacent homes. While there are positive elements to the proposal, the current design does not yet demonstrate that these impacts can be mitigated to a level consistent with the intent of Austin’s zoning approach or the neighborhood plan. Given these unresolved issues, I respectfully recommend that the City not support the requested rezoning or neighborhood plan amendment unless and until these concerns are clearly addressed and demonstrated through updated plans and analysis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Matt Robins 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 957 of 87 -----Original Message----- From: Melanie Clapp Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 3:25 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: OPPOSE REZONE FOR ROWAN VALE/200 ANNIE S Hello Maureen As a homeowner at 1607 Nickerson Street a block away from the project in question , I strongly oppose the rezoning to accommodate the Rowan Vale project on 200 Annie St. There is no other precedence for a building with 5 stories in the Travis heights neighborhood in over a 100 years . The proportionality of this development is overwhelming to existing buildings. It’s proposed even larger than any building on South Congress where it would be more suitable . It never has been before that developers get approval for 5 stories in a residential neighborhood so why now with this developer is it being considered? The zoning should remain as it is. Annie and Nickerson is a small 2 lane residential street already dealing with heavy traffic flow from S Congress visitors, I35 cut through and parking limitations . Nickerson is a small residential street that at times can become one lane due to parking on both sides which makes it a very tight street at times . The proposed exit onto Nickerson from 64 unit building and preschool that would need a pickup/drop off and garage exit onto Nickerson grossly impacts surrounding houses. It is unrealistic due the nature of the street and would impact surrounding houses. Nickerson and Annie cannot accommodate comfortably a MF3 Zone change. This is the type of building with a MF Zone would be more fitting for a four lane road such as Congress , Lamar, Koenig , Burnet etc. not a small residential street such as proposed. Rowan Vale fails to uphold City of Austin Zoning Principles about transitions from SF housing to MF housing. I ask you to vote NO to this rezoning application and keep Zoning for this property as it stands . Appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you Melanie 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 958 of 87 From: Michael Breen Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 10:43 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rown Vale 206 Annie CASE NPA-2026-0022.01.SH Meredith, I just saw the neighborhood plan notice. I am strongly opposed to e changing from Civic to MultiFamily. I was looking at the plans and they are way out of scale with the neighborhood. I would love to have new neighboors and I would love to have lower costs housing for this neighboors, but 70 units on that block is too much. -- Michael Breen Austin, Texas From: Michele Kim Connors Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 9:49 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Please OPPOSE Rowan Vale proposal Dear Mr. Tomko and Ms. Meredith, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Rowan Vale development and the associated request to rezone the site on the 200 block of East Annie to multifamily (MF) zoning, as well as the related neighborhood plan amendment. This proposal represents a meaningful departure from both the City of Austin’s zoning principles and the intent of the Greater South Austin Neighborhood Plan. Our neighborhood has long maintained a careful balance between residential stability and thoughtful commercial activity. Rowan Vale, as currently proposed, would disrupt that balance in a way that is neither incremental nor compatible. First, the project fails to meet core zoning principles regarding transitions. Introducing a 64-unit, 3–5 story development adjacent to single-family homes is not a reasonable or sensitive transition. The scale, height, and density are out of proportion with surrounding structures and would materially alter the character of the area. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 959 of 87 Second, the proposal does not align with the neighborhood plan’s emphasis on compatibility and proportionality. The development is simply too large for the lot. This mismatch raises practical concerns that remain unresolved, including traffic queuing related to the proposed Pre-K use, insufficient parking, and broader mobility impacts on already constrained streets. My family has lived in Travis Heights since 2008. We’ve witnessed a lot of change and for the most part, it has been extremely positive for the community. However, a project of this scope is completely out of character and frankly, dangerous. My daughter recently got her driver’s license and the biggest concern that I have is her driving in our own neighborhood — with the number of tourists and shoppers along South Congress, a near constant stream of Waymo and Cybertaxi autonomous vehicles, recently implemented metered parking that has substantially increased the number of cars parking on both sides of already narrow residential streets, the proposed project would tip over the edge. I support increasing the density of Austin’s neighborhoods. And I love living in Travis Heights and would invite more people to share that joy. But this proposed project is not the solution. I’ve already seen a number of “for sale” signs go up in the surrounding neighborhood - but maybe that was always the goal of developers like this. The applicant’s shift to an MF-3 request does not meaningfully address these issues. The overall scale of the project remains unchanged. The purported concessions—such as height limitations or impervious cover adjustments—appear driven by regulatory necessity (e.g., Pre-K requirements) rather than genuine responsiveness to neighborhood concerns. There are also a number of site-specific impacts that warrant serious consideration, including: • Traffic safety and disruption from vehicle access points (including headlight intrusion onto adjacent homes) • Drainage and stormwater management • Tree preservation and environmental impact • Extremely limited setbacks and resulting loss of light and privacy for neighboring properties • Potential infrastructure strain, including water mains • Construction and environmental concerns, including the presence of asbestos in the existing structure Taken together, these issues point to a proposal that is not ready for approval and, more fundamentally, not appropriate for this location. I respectfully urge you to recommend against both the rezoning to MF zoning and the associated neighborhood plan amendment. Preserving the integrity of established planning principles and maintaining the balance of this neighborhood are critical. Please respect the families who call this neighborhood home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michele Connors, Resident at 1501 Nickerson Street since 2008 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 960 of 87 From: Mike Hall Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 1:15 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Opposition to zoning change for Rowan Vale - 200 block of East Annie Hello Jonathan and Maureen, My wife and I own 1801 Nickerson St, which is directly across Annie St from the current church and the proposed development called Rowan Vale. We oppose both the development as currently proposed and the zoning modification. We have the following concerns with the proposed zoning changes to accommodate this development. The neighboorhood is mostly single family single or two story homes and the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. It does not meet the principles for transitions from single-family (SF) to multi-family (MF) housing. The development's proportionality to the existing buildings is wrong. And this development will have a huge impact on the existing homes and I'd argue probably impact ours the most. The minimal parking in the development and the lack of unpaid parking in the immediate area will create a burden for the folks moving into the affordable housing. Likely resulting in parking issues further east in the neighborhood where parking is free. During rush hour, westbound traffic on Annie backs up all the way to Brackenridge St. I don't see how a high density housing project there will work from a traffic perspective. Additionally, the Fire Department frequently uses Annie, so causing huge traffic issues in that area is likely to impact life-saving services for the neighborhood. We are not opposed to affordable housing and not even opposed to affordable housing on that site. However, that support depends on the development fitting into the fabric of the neighborhood, having adequate parking, and matching the height and building coverage of surrounding homes. MF-3 zoning would allow much higher buildings and the increased density would exacerbate an already difficult parking situation. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 961 of 87 I've been on the calls with the city and the developer. My impression is that they are adding as much as possible to maximize the tax incentives (like the pre-k which the neighborhood doesn't need since an underenrolled one exists a few hundred feet away). It would seem the developer is much more concerned with the tax credits and profit vs building something that works within the site they have chosen. When pressed on why they can't move this development to a location like on S. Congress the response was that they wouldn't be able to make any money if they did that. I strongly believe that my neighbors and I should not bear the burden of a significant property value drop so that a for-profit developer can increase profits by erecting a 5 story box that clashes with the neighborhood. I'll say again, I support affordable housing and am happy to even have it across the street as long as it respects the limitations that the rest of the neighborhood does and fits within the fabric of our neighborhood. I also worry that the future tenants of this housing project are being used as pawns and exploited by this developer. The shops, restaurants, etc in the area are not affordable. Parking will be a problem for them and they will likely have to walk blocks from their home to afford to park. We should all treat any future neighbors with respect and ensure they are set up to succeed. Thank you for your time and for considering our viewpoint. I'm happy to discuss our concerns further and have included my phone number below. Mike and Joanna Hall 1801 Nickerson St. 512-773-5677 From: Seth R Bank Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 6:25 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale Development Dear Mr. Tomko and Ms. Meredith, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Rowan Vale development and the request to rezone the property on the 200 block of East Annie to multifamily (MF) zoning, along with the associated neighborhood plan amendment. In my view, this proposal is inconsistent with both the City of Austin’s zoning principles and the intent of the Greater South Austin Neighborhood Plan. Travis Heights has evolved over time, but it has done so in a way that generally respects 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 962 of 87 the balance between residential livability and nearby commercial activity. The scale and intensity of Rowan Vale would disrupt that balance rather than build on it. A primary concern is the lack of an appropriate transition. A 64-unit, 3–5 story development immediately adjacent to single-family homes does not reflect a compatible or gradual shift in density. The height, massing, and unit count are simply out of proportion with the surrounding context and would have a lasting impact on the character of the neighborhood. The project also appears oversized for the site, creating practical issues that have not been adequately addressed. Increased traffic and queuing associated with the proposed Pre-K use, limited on-site parking, and constrained surrounding streets raise legitimate safety and mobility concerns. These are not abstract issues—they affect daily life for residents and families in the area. My family and I have lived in Travis Heights for many years, and we have supported thoughtful growth and increased density where it is appropriate. However, this proposal does not strike that balance. The combination of existing congestion from South Congress activity, increased on-street parking pressures, and evolving traffic patterns already places strain on neighborhood streets. Adding a project of this scale risks compounding those challenges in a way that feels avoidable. The applicant’s shift to an MF-3 zoning request does not materially resolve these concerns. The overall size and intensity of the development remain largely unchanged, and the adjustments cited appear tied to regulatory requirements rather than a meaningful effort to reduce neighborhood impact. There are also several site-specific considerations that warrant careful review, including traffic impacts from ingress and egress points, drainage and stormwater management, tree preservation, minimal setbacks, loss of light and privacy, and potential infrastructure constraints. These factors reinforce the broader concern that the proposal is not well suited to this location. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to recommend against both the requested rezoning and the neighborhood plan amendment. Maintaining consistency with established planning principles and protecting the livability of this neighborhood are important considerations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Seth Bank Resident, Travis Heights ________________________________________________ Seth R. Bank Cockrell Family Chair in Engr. #21 Chandra Electrical and Computer Engr. Dept. The University of Texas at Austin web: http://lase.ece.utexas.edu/ 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 963 of 87 Mailing address: 10100 Burnet Road, Building #160 MER 2.206P Austin, TX 78758 From: Shi Winch Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 7:12 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Martha Newman Subject: Rowan Vale proposal J. Tomko, M. Meredith, M. Newman, I write in strong opposition to the proposed Rowan Vale 64-unit five-story facility on the 200 block of East Annie in historic Travis Heights. I specifically strongly oppose the change to MF zoning and oppose the proposed developer-driven neighborhood plan amendment that allows this MF rezoning. While all can acknowledge the need for more affordable housing across central Texas writ-large, the proposed project is wrong for this location on many levels. First, the proposal fails to uphold City of Austin Zoning Principles about transitions from SF housing to MF housing. The proposed development dramatically violates compatibility with the surrounding blocks east of commercial South Congress and would blot out the historical significance of this early Austin community. This neighborhood has worked hard and collaboratively with the city over years to accept needed changes to our SF models, and to our transportation corridor and major streets. Simultaneously we as a community have created neighborhood plans by and for our neighbors that compromise for now and looking forward. These plans preserve the unique character of interior blocks while accepting the sometimes- difficult changes denser development along key traffic & commercial corridors has brought. This section of Travis Heights not only makes up our homes but also attract visitors from around the world. One of the key characteristics in successful historic communities for tourism such as areas like Hyde Park and Travis Heights in Austin, and in successful tourism destinations like New Orleans, Savannah, Charleston, San Francisco is the maintenance of just this type of historic community. The trees, the park, the height limits, the availability of parking, Lively Middle School all contribute significantly to the character of the neighborhood, all of which would be erased or damaged with this proposal. Thank you for your attention, must stop now. I could say more about parking and traffic concerns, but need to eat. Shiela Winchester 1613 Drake Ave. Austin, TX. 78704 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 964 of 87 -----Original Message----- From: Susan Armstrong Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 4:10 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Proposed zoning change opposition I live in the SoCo/Travis Heights neighborhood, and strongly oppose the proposed zoning change. This would set a bad precedent and is a poor location for increased density, where parking and mobility are already strained. Additionally, the proposed project is incompatible with its surroundings. Your consideration is greatly appreciated, Susan Armstrong, Travis Heights, District 9 -----Original Message----- From: Tina Currie Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:55 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rezoning for Rowan Vale I would like to let you know that I am against the rezoning to multifamily for the Rowan Valley project in Travis Heights. I live at 1613 Brackenridge St. Tina Currie thank you for your assistance. Sent from my iPhone From: William Coats Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 2:37 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: SRC Neighbourhood Plan_Rowen Vale External Email - Exercise Caution Hi Maureen. Thank you for the patience and consideration you have afforded us over the past month as the opposition of the Rowen Vale project has haphazardly amped up. We are trying to be organized and rational but I know we have not always been so. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 965 of 87 Before recommendations are made to thee zoning commission I wanted to express a few things: • I realize neighborhood plans are only one part of the decision making process in zoning cases such ours but the Rowen Vale contravenes our neighborhood plan so directly that I think that approving this amendment risks making neighborhood plan FLUMs meaningless practically speaking. It is almost as if we learned about the Rowen Vale and then drafted the NP to keep it from happening. I don't mean this in a snarky way. It's just that the RV is so out of line with the Goals and Priorities of the Neighborhood Plan that an amendment changing "Civic" to "Multifamily" does not seem adequate to account for the changes being made by approving the project. It seems like the language of the amendment would have to have a much wider scope to capture the actual changes. And if the scope was to be correctly articulated in the amendment then the Neighborhood Plan is basically being thrown out for intents and purposes. Goal # 1 Maintain the historic fabric and respect the established neighborhood character and natural assets. Priority # 1 New construction and remodeling should be built in proportion to surrounding homes. This includes limiting height, massing, and maintaining appropriate setbacks. Encourage a bicycle and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. • The neighborhood plan amendment along with the zoning change at this location is a very impactul precedent. There are two other large SF3_NP_"Civic" parcels within 2 blocks of 206 E Annie. Both are churches and both are surrounded by homes. If Rowen Vale were allowed to go forward, there would be no justification for denying developers from rezoning and amending the other two. At that point the neighborhood ceases to exist in any recognizable form and it is a matter of time before the old homes start being picked off. 206 E Annie is the first domino. Maybe phasing out old housing within a few blocks of South Congress is the vision for some in the City. That would be very sad. I am afraid we are providing easier access to things we are destroying. Best Regards- William William Coats 512 547 7655 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 966 of 87 From: William Coats Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 1:54 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowen Vale_Scale and Degree Hi Jonathan First, thank you. I have been throwing random questions at you over the past few weeks, and I really appreciate you taking the time to answer them in an informative and matter fact way. Considering the staff recommendations are coming up, I wanted to share a few thoughts. To me the debate about Rowen Vale is rooted in two concepts, scale and degree. Scale: I will leave specifics to others and just provide opinion and anecdote. The height and footprint being proposed at this location are, frankly, shocking. On several occasions, I have gone to look at buildings of the same scale on major thoroughfares then I have come back to the neighborhood to visualize these projects on 206 E Annie. I have the same internal reaction each time. “What!? No way.” I have shown this to over 20 people and, to a person, they have had a similar reaction. Then, when I throw in the PreK concept the reaction is something like “Absurd” or “you have got to be kidding me”. One of the people is a multi-family developer developing a DB90 project as we speak. Safe to say he is no fan of NIMBYs Given the City’s worthy goal of creating more density and affordability and also getting people on board with this movement, I just can’t see why they would want to facilitate such an anomalous project that is so out of proportion to the surrounding single-family homes. I know you hear this a lot, but a project of this size really will fundamentally alter this pocket of old homes for the worse. A special pocket in my opinion. Degree: I imagine you have heard most, if not all, of the arguments that have been made against the Rowen Vale. Parking, congestion, incompatibility, operational challenges etc. I can totally see how Staff, the Zoning Commission and ultimately the City Council might glaze over, hearing the same old thing. That said, while the arguments are the same, it is the degree to which these issues exist with the proposed Rowen Vale project that is uniquely challenging. The parking ratio has vacillated between ~40 and 56 (such a wide range is confusing). It has included (unapproved) designated street parking on some site plans and not others. It does not seem to account for the impact of the preK queuing on Annie and under the building nor does it account for preK staff parking. But let’s take the highest total of 56 and assume and that the staff uses public transit. That is essentially one spot for every two residents. The degree of parking deficiency is too high. Especially given South Congress over-flow and the RPP program (not to mention the Living Streets designation on Milton). Acknowledging the unusually 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 967 of 87 deficient parking, the developer states that people without cars will “self-select”. Meaning the project is intended for that demographic. No families with kids, no one with a mobility issue and no commuter could self-select to live somewhere with such a high degree of parking uncertainty. Incompatibility probably does not rise to the top of concerns in zoning cases, but the proposed project is surrounded by pre-WWII homes and the homes just North of the subject property were built around the turn of the century. The Swisher Addition was platted in 1877. The Rowen Vale midrise, with its non-descript modern design, would tower over these bungalows and early Texas folk-style homes. It would, quite literally, block out the sun for several houses. Austin’s housing stock includes very few areas like this, with a concentration of turn of the century homes. The degree of incompatibility is too high, even if preservation is being somewhat deprioritized out of necessity. When congestion is cited as a reason for not increasing density, it even makes my eyes roll a bit. There are more people so, of course, there will be more cars. But the two-lane streets, existing parking difficulties, Lively pick-up and drop-off, the fire station 200ft away, South Congress activity and public works projects make congestion and mobility a very real concern. Lively parents will tell you how frustrating pick-up and drop-off are. I-35 has closed the Woodward underpass and the Riverside highway entrance. Getting from Congress to our homes is an unpleasant adventure on the weekends with the two land roads becoming 1 lane. Sideswipes are regular. Danger is real. I usually don’t drive on the weekends. Which I am ok with. It’s a city. I get it. But now a purple pipe project is kicking off on Monroe. And I assume light rail construction is coming since it is being cited as a justification for Rowen Vale. Adding a major construction project and over 100 residents is almost cruel. We are already boxed in. Congestion is inevitable in a growing city, but the degree of congestion would be too high. Addressing operational challenges like ingress/egress, dumpsters/deliveries, how the alley will be used, the preK queuing and circulation, are similar to challenges associated with any multifamily project. But if you look at them in totality and in the context of 206 E Annie, it becomes clear that this project would have a very hard time operating smoothly and safely. I suspect this is why so little detail about operations has been provided by the developer and may be related to the omission of the PreK on the traffic analysis worksheet. The reason why operating this project would have such a high degree of difficulty is because a project of this size should not be built in a location like this. These are my thoughts. I know you have a lot of thoughts and data to process before sending recommendations so I appreciate the opportunity to present my reasons for opposing the Rowen Vale. -W -- William Coats 512 547 7655 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 968 of 87 From: William Coats Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 1:18 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Hello Maureen. I am reaching out about an application (see attached) to amend the neighborhood plan to facilitate a multifamily project on a single family lot in my neighborhood. The lot is a couple of hundred feet from my house. It looks like you might be the person to talk to about this based on the attached document. I don't think it makes sense for the planning department to be on board with this change. I realize there is a push for density and affordable housing but this project is completely incompatible with the neighborhood and it sets a terrible precedent to have developers be able to change SF3 zoning and neighborhood plans at will. I have a few questions about the application and want to see what I can do about participating in this process as an interested party. I don't want to speak for anyone but there is a large and growing groundswell of opposition to this very unusual multifamily proposal in the middle of Travis Heights. In the long run I do not think supporting this project will help the City's efforts to create more density. Do you have a minute to talk? -- William Coats 512 547 7655 From: pagehouser@ Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:44 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowen Vale Project in Travis Heights Good afternoon, Maureen and Jonathan Thank you for giving us an avenue of discourse regarding the proposed housing development at the 200 block of Annie Street in Travis Heights; We’ve had a little bit of time to digest what is about to happen within our neighborhood. The intention behind this project is of good nature and the majority of our smart, open-minded and engaged neighbors have no beef with that. What does shake us to the core is the immense scale pared with institutional design, mixed use of materials and color ways that don’t align with the space, the vernacular housing stock that surrounds it and greater neighborhood that this project sits right in the middle of. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 969 of 87 If this is our reality, the wish of the City for the good of our community, I think it is reasonable to expect that those of us that are to absorb and accept this project and it’s new inhabitants, should also have a voice in how this project presents itself for the long term. Kind Regards, Page D Houser 1803 and 1805 Brackenridge St. Austin, TX. 78704 512-294-5303 From: Anita Tschurr Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 5:17 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 206 E. Annie St. Mr. Tomko & Ms. Meredith, I am the Chair of Planning & Zoning for SRCC. I have been working with many neighbors in the Travis Heights area concerning the development of the Church at 206 E. Annie St. I first met with the developer in mid-January 2926 to discuss this development. Then again at the home of one of the neighbors in February, then again at our in person meeting for SRCC. And then a couple more at the Church site. The last discussion I had with them, we had them scheduled for our March meeting. They canceled that one and moved it to our April meeting. I am very unhappy with the proposed development. It is too big for the lot, causing problems with queuing for the PreK, parking, and mobility that O-SDA hasn't yet resolved. Annie St is already a traffic nightmare. Travis Heights/Fairview Park is a federally protected historical neighborhood. Building a 5 story building with an active business is totally anathema to the 1 and 2 story bungalows with multiple restored homes. TH has some of the most subsidized housing in Austin. We want to be open, receptive and to help those who need housing, but this is not appropriate or in line with the neighborhood. Thank you for reading this. We hope this project will be rejected. Anita R. Tschurr 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 970 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 971 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 972 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 973 of 87 From: Martha Newman <marthagnewman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:01 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 200 Block of East Annie St External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Jonathan Tomko and Maureen Meredith, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Greater South River City Neighborhood Plan (NPA-2026-0022.01.SH) and to changes in the zoning for the lot on the 200 block of East Annie St (C14-2026- 0010.SH) that O-SDA has requested for their Rowan Vale Development. I support the City's efforts to increase affordable housing opportunities, and I would be happy with affordable housing adjacent to our backyard. But the proposed Rowan Vale development is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and it violates the City's own zoning principles and the principles of the Neighborhood Plan. Both encourage compatibility, seek to ensure adequate transitions, and suggest that new construction should be built in proportion to surrounding homes. While I praise the City's desire to promote affordable housing, that does not mean that every developer's proposal is viable. Rowan Vale proposes too many units on too small a lot. Their request for MF zoning should be denied. I oppose the rezoning of this lot for two main reasons. First, there are serious issues concerning mobility and traffic safety. Second, my own personal situation demonstrates why the Rowan Vale development is so incompatible with Zoning and Neighborhood Plan principles. Mobility and Safety: The lot on the 200 block of East Annie is surrounded on three sides by 2-lane neighborhood streets, and on the fourth side by an unused 14'-wide alley. All three streets allow residents to park with permits (RPP) and otherwise require paid parking. They often have few if any empty parking spots. Nickerson Street is in effect a 1-lane street; often, cars have to wait their turn to pass each other. Brackenridge is only slightly more passable. Annie Street is congested with commuter traffic and traffic from Lively Middle School. It is striped with a double yellow line, indicating that left hand turns across the line are generally prohibited (Texas Transportation Code § 545.055.) Onto these already congested streets, OSDA plans to put one entrance and two exits from a 64-unit apartment complex, and to route traffic associated with their proposed 40-student Pre-K in and out of their parking garage. The proposed exit onto Nickerson is unsafe due to blind spots and an often-impassable street. Given safety issues and traffic regulations, cars using the proposed entrance and exit onto East Annie Street should only enter and exit from west-bound Annie. The need to avoid a left turn will route cars through 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 974 of 87 other streets in the neighborhood, This creates serious safety issues as well as further congesting streets already known to the City as problematic. Incompatibility: MF-3 Zoning allows O-SDA to construct a building that, with the bonuses from Affordability Unlocked, could be as high as 60 feet, and thus is the functional equivalent of MF-5. The building will start less than 20' from the backyards of the houses on the south side of East Milton St. (14' alley +5' setback). City maps suggest that the lots for these single family houses run east-west. They do not. They run north-south. The proposed development is not going up in our side yards (we are very accustomed to houses sited very close together); it is looming over our backyards. The building will be 20 feet from the closest house, and between 50 and 70 feet from the other houses on the south side of East Milton St. Multiple stories of apartments will be looking down into our yard, destroying our privacy, and adding light from apartments, the garage, and security. In mid-winter, the parts of our backyards that are less than 20' from the back fence will receive no sunlight at all. I recognize that there are other MF-3 lots in our neighborhood adjacent to SF-3 housing. But these multi-family units were built according to the City's Zoning principles and were not constructed with the exemptions and multipliers that Affordability Unlocked provides. None so changed the nature of their neighbors' homes. You can see the effects of this proposed development in the attached images. Image 1 shows our current yard, shot from our back deck. The proposed building will be at least 5' closer to our yard than the existing gray church. A three-story building will be approximately the height of the utility pole; a five-story, 50' building will be the height of the trees. Figure 2 shows the projected view of a person standing immediately inside our back door (made with CAD, to scale; please ignore the blocking on top of the fence but imagine windows!). As you can see, even a three- story building constructed so close to the property line, without the usual zoning requirements for setbacks, sightlines, and compatibility, will block any view of the sky from the back of our house as well as from the houses of our East Milton St. neighbors. These proposed changes to Zoning and to the Neighborhood Plan, if granted, will establish a precedent throughout neighborhoods in Austin. It suggests that the City is willing to abandon established zoning principles to facilitate whatever the Council's current policy goals might be. But Zoning and Neighborhood plans exist to mediate between competing land-use goals. Maintaining consistent principles is essential for continued public support. I encourage you to continue to maintain the zoning principles the City has established and to honor the Neighborhood Plan that the community put together at the City's request. Please reject this request for Multiple Family zoning on the 200 block of East Annie St. Thank you for your consideration, best, Martha Newman 203 East Milton, resident since 1989. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 975 of 8706 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 976 of 87 -----Original Message----- From: James Vincent < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:15 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale project on Annie Thanks for your time Maureen concerning my objections to the Rowan Vale project on Annie across the street from my property at 1711 Brackenridge. There is no need for me to articulate the many objections as to why this is such a terrible idea. But I would like for your office to include my voice along with my many other neighbors in our attempt to stop the insanity of this project proceeding further and deny the request for rezoning as presented by Rowan Vale. Thank you for your time and patience on the phone and I just hope that the employees of city hall simple do their job and put and end to this proposal as presented by Rowan Vale. Thanks and Always the Best Jim Vincent From: Sean Ransenberg Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 7:06 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Cecelia Croman < Subject: Rowan Vale — traffic, safety, and compatibility considerations Jonathan, I hope you’re doing well. My name is Sean Ransenberg, and I’m writing on behalf of my wife, Cecelia Croman, and our household at 1601 Brackenridge Street, Austin, Texas 78704. Our home is within 500 feet of the proposed Rowan Vale project, so we experience firsthand how this part of the neighborhood functions day-to-day. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the neighborhood on this case. We know staff has to weigh a number of competing considerations, and we appreciate the care that you and your team bring to that work. Our hope is to share a few practical considerations that may be helpful as staff evaluates this application using the standard framework of compatibility, transition, traffic operations, and safety. We support affordability as a policy goal. Our concern is whether this particular project, at this particular intensity, is appropriate for this particular lot. In our view, it 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 977 of 87 is not. For that reason, we respectfully ask that staff either recommend against the rezoning or, at a minimum, identify SF-5 as the more compatible alternative. Traffic Operations and Safety Traffic operations and safety are our primary concerns. Travis Heights relies on a limited number of streets that function as neighborhood “lifelines,” and those routes are already operating under strain. The project would add: • 64 residential units • An on-site Pre-K • Only 47 parking spaces This combination is likely to push parking demand, circulation, and queuing onto Nickerson, Brackenridge, Annie, and nearby streets. Key concerns: • Pre-K pickup and drop-off queuing back onto Annie • Existing weekend and school traffic already creating peak congestion • Known speeding and cut-through traffic amplifying risk • Proposed egress onto Nickerson raising visibility and safety concerns These concerns become more significant when considered alongside near-term infrastructure work, including the South 1st Street Reclaimed Water Main Project. If key routes such as Monroe experience intermittent disruption over the next two years while this project adds additional congestion and queuing pressure, that combination could materially impact traffic operations, emergency access, and overall neighborhood safety. While the fire department does not formally weigh in on zoning matters, these conditions highlight broader concerns about how well these streets accommodate emergency vehicles today. Taken together, this raises real questions around access, response times, and reliability of key routes. We would encourage staff to take a close look at: • Whether parking demand and Pre-K activity can realistically be contained on- site • Whether the proposed Nickerson egress is safe under current conditions • Whether the level of intensity is appropriate given the neighborhood’s limited access routes and near-term infrastructure impacts Compatibility and Transition From a compatibility and transition standpoint, the nearby MF-3 properties do not appear to be meaningful comparisons for this site. Those parcels are generally adjacent to other multifamily zoning or the park and therefore maintain some level of transition. This lot does not. It is surrounded by SF-3, which makes the compatibility question more significant here. It also appears important to evaluate the actual intensity being proposed, rather than viewing this solely as a base MF-3 request. A 64-unit, 5-story project with an on-site Pre-K on roughly 0.9 acres is much closer to MF-6 intensity than a typical MF-3 project. Even base MF-3 would be difficult to reconcile with the surrounding SF-3 context, and the actual proposal goes well beyond that. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 978 of 87 In our view, the project is not built in proportion to surrounding homes, does not encourage compatibility, and does not provide an adequate transition. A Path Forward More broadly, this is not a choice between affordable housing and no affordable housing. Affordable housing can be pursued here in a way that also respects compatibility. If staff believes some zoning change is warranted, SF-5 would allow additional housing while still providing a more appropriate transition from surrounding single- family uses. If the applicant’s economics only work at a much higher intensity, we do not believe that should drive staff’s recommendation. The compatibility and transition reasoning staff used in the Heflin Housing case seems directly relevant here as well. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that staff either recommend against the rezoning or, at a minimum, provide an alternative recommendation of SF-5. Thank you again for your time, your consideration, and the work you are doing on this case. Sean Ransenberg-(513) 276-7734 Cecelia Croman 1601 Brackenridge Street Austin, TX 78704 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 979 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 980 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 981 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 982 of 87 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 983 of 87 From: Michael Breen Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:49 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Nickerson project Maureen Jonathan I was just reading Mayor Watson newsletter and this section jumped out at me. It felt like this is exactly what the Nickerson neighbors have been talking about. We would be happy to accommodate a project that brought 16 units we are just distraught at a 70 something unit project. Michael Breen 1804 Nickerson 512-965-9672 Last week, the Council approved a resolution to develop new zoning tools that allow more types of what’s called “Missing Middle” housing. (I’ll just say something that needs to be said: housing experts, housing advocates, and housing nerds have more strange names for things than you see in many other policy areas. There. I feel better getting that off of my chest.) Since I’ve been trying and failing to come up with a better term, “Missing Middle” housing refers to options that are between single family homes on one end of the spectrum and large apartment complexes on the other. It’s housing in the “middle” of the two poles. And, it’s “missing” middle because we don’t have enough of these developments. We tend to have more of the two poles. Missing middle developments are usually within the range of 3-16 units and fit better in established neighborhoods because they are lower density than an apartment complex. We have a development down the street from my house that would be described as missing middle. -----Original Message----- From: brooks kasson <swimmingbrooks@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:55 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 984 of 87 <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: rowan vale my understanding of this project is that the rezoning, though it appears to be a concession, is not. with building 2’s height limitation and mf-3’s impervious cover requirements, pre-k standards and regs are not met. there is no change in the size of this building which is in the middle of modest, single family homes….homes which deserve compatibility considerations, neighborhood traffic impact considerations, as well development parking considerations. what are these people thinking? please deny any zoning or likewise changes until all of these locale considerations are thoroughly met. sincerely, brooks kasson 1400 alta vista 78704 From: Kelly Goodpastor < Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 5:57 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Please Oppose the Rowan Vale Development- Their PreK Creates a True Queuing, Traffic, and Safety Concern Dear Jonathan and Maureen, When the Rowan Vale developers first presented their proposal to the City Council for the initial funding recommendation, they did not include a key part of their current plan: adding a PreK for 40 students on the already crowded development. As a result, the City Council gave their initial approval on a fundamentally different project than the one we now have before us. The Rowan Vale development was originally at the bottom of the list for the six projects currently competing for TDHCA credits. They "solved" this last-place issue by reworking their plans and adding a PreK for 40 students onto the already crowded lot, pushing them to the top spot of the six projects. The PreK would be located at the bottom floor of the easternmost 3-story structure along Brackenridge St, with 2 floors of apartments above. The developer forced the PreK program into this project purely for the tax credit scoring process. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 985 of 87 The most significant issue with the PreK is the queuing for drop off and pickup. Of the 40 students, about 37 would come from families living off site (this is reflective of the builder's own data). So, where do the 37 cars entering the PreK actually queue when they drop off and pick up their children from school? According to the developer's plan, cars are expected to queue in the ground floor parking garage of the westernmost building while one of the few staff members walks over and takes children from their parents to the separate PreK building. This queue will block Rowan Vale residents from pulling out from their parking spots to get to work. One must keep in mind that these are likely 3-5 year old children, all in car seats or booster seats with backpacks, etc. As a mother of two, I can assure you this is not a quick process. Additionally, there is another point of congestion -> AFTER the parents drop off their children. (This concern was actually pointed out by TPW). As parents leave the parking garage, they are forced to exit onto Nickerson Street - which has historically had challenges with speed as people cut through the neighborhood to avoid South Congress traffic. There is also paid and Residential Permit Parking on both sides of Nickerson, burdening the exit with extremely limited sight lines. So, parents will also be required to queue AGAIN at the parking garage exit - as they wait to pull out onto Nickerson, creating a second queue of folks in the garage after the drop off, and blocking additional residential parking spots. The queue will undoubtedly spill out onto Annie St., blocking traffic in both directions and posing legitimate safety risks to residents, PreK students, and the middle school children who are already coming through this area for Lively Middle School, located a block away - both during the drop off and the pick up - which also corresponds with morning/evening rush hour commutes to & from work. Please note, that in our conversations with Transportation and Public Works (TPW) on March 2nd, they confirmed that cars are not allowed to queue in the ROW (per the City's Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM)), so queuing there is also not an option. So, the issue remains unsolved. *It should also be noted that Annie St. is a main artery for Fire Engine 6 (located 1 block away) to access IH-35.* In development review practice under the the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM): • Queuing areas must be explicitly shown on the site plan if a use creates predictable vehicle lines. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 986 of 87 • Queuing is expected to occur in designated internal stacking areas, not in: • parking spaces, • parking aisles, • fire lanes, • or driveway access points. In a recent email to neighbors, in response to our concerns about the PreK queue, one of the developer's staff stated they would have "embedded flexibility to pivot to alternative drop off/pickup models if issues did arise," pointing to another one of their PreK partners that did not have "pre-defined pickup/drop off time at their other locations." Parents need to have a dependable timeframe in the morning before they go to work and in the afternoon after they get off work to rely upon. Most residents that qualify for the Affordable Housing program do not have the luxury of choosing their own schedule - so this is obviously not a credible solution. After multiple meetings with TPW and after reviewing the TCM, it has become increasingly apparent that the developer has failed to demonstrate where the 35+ families will safely queue while they wait to pick up/drop off their children. A 64-unit development, housing approximately 100 residents, with a PreK for 40 students, plus their PreK staff, plus building staff, all on less than a 1-acre lot does not compute, and should NOT be approved for development. I truly appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration. Warmly, Kelly Goodpastor 1611 Nickerson St. 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 987 of 87