07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 - Staff Report Part 1

Planning Commission – April 14, 2026

07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 - Staff Report Part 1 — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 128 pages

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE: C14-2026-0010.SH (Rowen Vale) DISTRICT: 9 ADDRESS: 206 and 206 ½ East Annie Street; 1710 Brackenridge Street ZONING FROM: SF-3-NP TO: MF-3-NP SITE AREA: approximately 0.90 acres (approximately 39,204 square feet) PROPERTY OWNER: South Austin Christian Church AGENT: Rowen Vale, LLC CASE MANAGER: Jonathan Tomko, AICP 512-974-1057 jonathan.tomko@austintexas.gov STAFF RECOMMEDATION: Staff recommends granting multi-family residence (medium density) – neighborhood plan (MF-3-NP) combining district zoning. For a summary of the basis of Staff’s recommendation, please see the basis of recommendation section below. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: April 14, 2026: Case is scheduled to be heard by Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: February 5, 2026: City Council approved a Resolution of Support for 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits on the subject tract, exhibit D below May 21, 2026: Case is scheduled to be heard by City Council. ORDINANCE NUMBER: TBD ISSUES: The applicant proposes to develop a 64-unit fully affordable housing development that includes 44 units with two or more bedrooms and 36 deeply affordable units, at or below 50% Median Family Income (MFI). According to the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint Scorecard these types of units have been particularly challenging for the City of Austin to realize. Being able to provide deeply affordable units approximately one mile south of Downtown Austin in a n environment with many transportation choices can help reduce low- and moderate-income households’ t ransportation costs by reducing automobile dependency. Coupling af fordable housing with an on-site da ycare facility, if also affordable, may also reduce a household’s childcare costs and be transformative financially. The development has received a Resolution of Support f r o m City Council (exhibit D) and a S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification letter from Austin Housing (exhibit H). Austin Housing has stated that 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 91 of 187 the development intends to submit a request for Rental Housing Development Assistance (RHDA) funding, although they have not received that application yet. The applicant has also indicated that they plan to utilize Affordability Unlocked, which is a development bonus program for affordable housing providers that offers substantial waivers of development regulations in exchange for high percentages of income-restricted affordable units. The applicant revised their original request of MF-4-NP to MF-3-NP on March 13, 2026, responsive to community feedback. The subject tract is located within the Travis Heights-Fairview Park National Register Historic District. There is a valid petition on this case at 71.91% of property owners, by land area within 200 feet of the rezoning request, see Exhibit G below. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The subject tract is currently a one-story church and one-story single-family residence on nearly an acre of land, located at the northeast corner of East Annie Street and Nickerson Street, approximately 350 feet east of South Congress Avenue, and approximately one mile south of the Austin Central Business District. To the north, is an approximately 15-foot-wide unpaved alley. North of that are five single-family homes constructed between approximately 1909 and 1928. To the east, across Brackenridge Street are two single-family homes constructed between approximately 1926 and 2004 and one garage apartment constructed in approximately 2006. To the south, across East Annie Street are two single-family homes constructed between approximately 2007 and 2008. To the west, across Nickerson Street are three single-family homes constructed between approximately 1914 and 1942. South Congress Avenue is an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor, part of the ASMP Transit Priority Network, and an ASMP level 3 roadway. Project Connect envisions stations South Congress and Oltorf (approximately 1/2 from the subject tract) and on SoCo between West James Street and Nellie Street (approximately 1/3 mile from the subject tract). The subject tract is within subdistrict 1 of the ETOD Overlay. Staff noted that there is a taller development, of seven stories under construction within 1,250 feet of the subject tract. While thi s development front s South Congress Avenue , it does illustrate that denser, transit supportive development may be coming along this major corridor proximate to Downtown Austin in the near future. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: Zoning should not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner; Granting of the request should result in an equal treatment of similarly situated properties. Staff noted that there were several instances of MF-3 base district zoning in the neighborhood within ¼ mile of the subject tract to the northeast, north, west, southwest and south. Some of these were adjacent to SF-3 base district zoning, while others were “deeper” into the neighborhood and even further away from the South Congress Avenue corridor. Many of these instances resulted in MF-3 base district zoning immediately adjacent to SF-3 base district zoning without 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 92 of 187a street or alley separating it. It was noted that this case has three streets and an alley separating it from SF-3 zoned properties closest to it. The proposed zoning should be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City Council. City Council has adopted several plans that address land development patterns, including the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (ASHB), Austin Climate Equity Plan, and Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP). Each of these plans aims to increase housing supply within walking distance to major corridors in a compact and connected way, so that pedestrian, bike, transit and other infrastructure can be better utilized efficiently. Granting the proposed zoning request would be consistent with the goals and objectives within these and other Council-adopted plans. Most notably the ASHB established a goal for 25% of affordable housing units that are created or preserved should have two or more bedrooms AND a system to provide opportunities for families with children. The ASHB also established a goal for 25% of affordable housing created transit be within ¼ mile (this is transit service that provides service every 15 minutes or better throughout most of the day, on weekdays and weekends). Granting this rezoning request would be consist ent with these Council adopted goals. high-frequency preserved or to of Zoning should promote clearly-identified community goals, such as creating employment opportunities or providing for affordable housing. This rezoning request promotes clearly-identified community goals to provide income restricted, deeply affordable, family friendly housing within walking distance to an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor. Imagine Austin envisioned not only Activity Corridors themselves as becoming denser, but ¼ mile from the corridors themselves. This allows people to reside, work, shop, access services, people watch, recreate, and hang out without traveling far distances. Granting this rezoning request would support that community vision articulated within the City’s 30-year Comprehensive Plan. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: ZONING Site SF-3-NP North (across alley) SF-3-NP South (across East Annie Street) East (across Brackenridge Street) SF-3-NP SF-3-NP West (across Nickerson Street) SF-3-NP LAND USES A one-story church and one-story single-family residence Five single-family homes constructed between approximately 1909 and 1928 Two single-family homes constructed between approximately 2007 and 2008 Two single-family homes constructed between approximately 1926 and 2004 and one garage apartment constructed in approximately 2006 Three single-family homes constructed between approximately 1914 and 1942 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: Greater South River City Neighborhood Planning Area 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 93 of 187WATERSHED: East Bouldin Creek Watershed SCHOOLS: A.I.S.D. Travis Heights Elementary School Lively Middle School Travis High School COMMUNITY REGISTRY LIST: Austin Independent School District, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Homeless Neighborhood Association, Overton Family Committee, Preservation Austin, South Central Coalition, South River City Citizens Association, South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, Zoning Committee of South River City Citizens AREA CASE HISTORIES: Number C14-2024-0031 (2105 South Congress Avenue) C14-2023-0021 (200 W. Mary) Request The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 2.84 acres from CS-MU- V-NP, CS-MU-V- NP & GR-MU-V- NP and CS-M-V-NP to CS-MU-V-DB90- NP. The Applicant is proposing to rezone 0.1585 acres from SF-3-NP to CS-MU- NP. The Applicant amended their request to GR-MU- NP. Commission 04.23.2024: To grant CS-MU-V-DB90- NP & GR-MU-V- DB90-NP on Consent. Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Woods (11-0) Commissioner Cox and Mushtaler were absent. 06.11.2024: To grant LR-MU-CO-NP was approved on the consent agenda on Vice Chair’s Azhar’s motion and Commissioner Maxwell’s second, on a unanimous vote. City Council 05.30.2024: CS- MU-V-DB90-NP on Tract 1 and GR- MU-V-DB90-NP on Tract 2 was approved on Council Member Ellis’ motion and Council Member Qadri’s second on an 11-0 vote. 12.12.2024: LR- MU-CO-NP was approved with Restaurant (General) and Restaurant (Limited) as conditional uses. Professional Office was removed from the prohibited use list. On Council Member Qadri’s motion and Council Member Harper- Madison’s second on a 10-0 vote. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 94 of 187 C14H-2014-0014 (Blue Bonnet Hills Neighbors) C14-2009-0032 (Congress Avenue Baptist Church) The applicant is proposing to rezone Blue Bonnet Hills Subdivision to Local Historic District designation. (Historic Zoning) The applicant is proposing to rezone property from SF-3- NCCD-NP to CS- NCCD-NP (1.0604 acres) and GO- NCCD-NP (.9513 acres) 05.26.2015: Approved SF-3-HD- NP and SF-3-H-HD- NP with conditions and recommendations 08.27.2009: To grant CS-CO-NCCD-NP and GO-CO-NCCD- NP with conditions on a 6-1-1 vote; Tovo-nay, Chimenti- abstain; Castillo- absent. N/A 11.19.2009: Approved CS-CO- NCCD-NP on Mayor Pro Tem Martinez’ motion and Council Member Spelman’s second on a 7-0 vote. RELATED CASES: NPA-2026-0022.01.SH – Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Change from Civic to Multifamily ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: Environmental 1. The site is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The site is located in the East Bouldin Creek Watershed of the Colorado River Basin, which is classified as an Urban Watershed by Chapter 25-8 of the City's Land Development Code. It is in the Desired Development Zone. 2. Zoning district impervious cover limits apply in the Urban Watershed classification. 3. According to floodplain maps there is no floodplain within or adjacent to the project location. 4. Standard landscaping and tree protection will be required in accordance with LDC 25- 2 and 25-8 for all development and/or redevelopment. 5. At this time, site specific information is unavailable regarding vegetation, areas of steep slope, or other environmental features such as bluffs, springs, canyon rimrock, caves, sinkholes, and wetlands. 6. This site is required to provide on-site water quality controls (or payment in lieu of) for all development and/or redevelopment when 8,000 s.f. cumulative is exceeded, and on- site control for the two-year storm. 7. At this time, no information has been provided as to whether this property has any preexisting approvals that preempt current water quality or Code requirements. Fire No comments on rezoning. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 95 of 187 PARD – Planning & Design Review PR1: Parkland dedication fees may apply to any future site or subdivision applications resulting from this rezoning. Site Plan 1. FYI: All comments regarding the effects of the proposed rezoning on subsequent Site Plan Review applications are intended to assist in identifying potential development constraints but do not include all regulations which may affect a specific proposal. Changes to property boundaries and requests for development cannot include all regulatory limitations which may apply to a specific subject to modification or reconsideration if affected by a change in property boundaries or if development is proposed on only a portion of the land proposed for rezoning. These comments are intended to assist in identifying potential development constraints, but do not address the actual restrictions which will apply to a specific development proposal. Austin Development Services offers a variety of pre-application review options to assist in evaluating specific development proposals prior to Site Plan Application. 2. Site plans will be required for any new development except for residential only project with up to 4 units. 3. Any new development is subject to Subchapter E. Design Standards and Mixed Use. Additional comments will be made when the site plan is submitted. Compatibility Standards 4. The site is subject to compatibility standards due to the proximity of triggering SF-3 properties. Reference 25-2-1051, 25-2-1053 5. Any structure that is located: a. At least 50 feet but less than 75 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 60 feet b. Less than 50 feet from any part of a triggering property may not exceed 40 feet Reference 25-2-1061 6. A 25-foot compatibility buffer is required along the property line shared with the triggering property. No vertical structures are permitted in the compatibility buffer. Reference 25-2-1062(B), 25-8-700 7. An on-site amenity, including a swimming pool, tennis court, ball court, or playground, triggering property. feet or from less the may not be constructed 25 Reference 25-2-1062 Transportation and Public Works (TPW) Department – Engineering Review 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 96 of 187 TPW 1. Transportation assessment/traffic transportation demand management plan shall be required at the time of site plan if triggered per LDC 25-6 and TCM 10.2.1. Assessment of required transportation mitigation, including the potential dedication of right of way and easements and participation in roadway and other multi-modal improvements, will occur at the time of site plan application. impact analysis and TPW 2. A new TIA determination worksheet has been received. Based on this new TIA DW, a Neighborhood Traffic Analysis is required and will be performed for this project by TPW staff. Results will be provided in a separate memo. LDC 25-6-114. NTA requires three (3) consecutive 24-hour tube counts, preferably on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, during a non-holiday week when school is in session. Please contact Kaylie Coleman (Kaylie.Coleman@austintexas.gov) to discuss the location of the tube counts. Results will be provided in a separate memo. LDC 25-6-114. NTA fees will be added in AMANDA. This comment will be cleared once the Memo is approved and the fees are paid. The NTA must be approved prior to the commission meeting. TPW 3. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 84 feet of right-of-way for E ANNIE ST. It is recommended that 42 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for E ANNIE ST according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. EXISTING STREET CHARACTERISTICS: Name ASMP Classification ASMP Required ROW Existing ROW Existing Pavement Sidewalks Bicycle Route Capital Metro (within ¼ mile) Nickerson St. East Annie St. Brackenridge St. Level 1 58’ 60’ 31’ Yes No Yes Level 2 84’ 61’ 40’ Yes Yes Yes Level 1 58’ 58’ 31’ No No Yes TIA: The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Determination Worksheet (found below as exhibit E) determined that a Neighborhood Traffic Analysis (NTA) was required it can be found below as exhibit F. Austin Water Utility AW1. No comments on zoning change. FYI: The landowner intends to serve the site with existing City of Austin water utilities. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 97 of 187 Based on current public infrastructure configurations, it appears that service extension requests (SER) will be required to provide service to this lot. For more information pertaining to the Service Extension Request process and submittal requirements contact the Austin Water SER team at ser@austintexas.gov. INDEX OF EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS TO FOLLOW: A. Zoning Map B. Aerial Map C. Applicant’s Summary Letter, Revised March 13, 2026 D. Resolution No. 20260205-036 Supporting 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits E. Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Determination Worksheet F. Neighborhood Transportation Analysis (NTA) Final Memo, Dated April 1, 2026 G. Valid Petition H. S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification Letter from Austin Housing I. Correspondence from Interested Parties 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 98 of 187 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 99 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 910 of 187Ms. Lauren Middleton-Pratt Planning Department City of Austin 1000 E 11th Street Austin, TX 78702 Re: Rezoning and Neighborhood Plan Amendment for .904-acre property located at 206 East Annie Street Austin, TX 78704 Dear Ms. Middleton-Pratt: As the owner of O-SDA Industries, a women-owned real estate development firm with a focus on detail-oriented, mixed-income, infill development, I am writing to respectfully submit the enclosed Neighborhood Plan Amendment (NPA) and rezoning application packages. The project, Rowen Vale, is a proposed new construction affordable housing community on ±.904 acres on East Annie Street between Nickerson Street and Brackenridge Streets in the Greater South River City neighborhood in South Austin. As submitted on 2/27/26 to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs in its Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application, Rowen Vale would involve the creation of 64 affordable apartment units with an on- site PreK. The property is located in the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Planning Area and has a Future Land Use Map designation of Civic. The NP amendment application requests to amend the FLUM from Civic to Multifamily and runs concurrently with the rezoning application. The property is currently zoned SF-3-NP. Rezoning for the site will be required to comply with impervious cover requirements for the new development. The requested zoning is MF-3 -NP. As the development is located within the Travis Heights national registered district, and the single-family home located on the property at 1710 Brackenridge is considered contributing, the development will be required to go to the Historic Landmark Commission prior to completing the permitting process in Fall 2026. This development has also applied for the City of Austin Affordability Unlocked Type 2 Density Bonus Program, which will afford the development several development entitlements and waivers. This proposal aligns with the goals and vision laid out in the Greater South River City Neighborhood Planning Area, by providing density that results in a net benefit to the neighborhood and by fostering a locale where each person has the greatest possible opportunity to pursue individual, family and community goals through its on-site PreK. As the LIHTC process enshrines strict deadlines, the development must have approved zoning by August 2026 in order to proceed. As such, our firm is available to answer any questions about this important affordable housing development and appreciates your efficient consideration of these applications. Best, Megan Lasch President, O-SDA Industries 5501-A Balcones Dr. #302 Austin, TX 78731 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 911 of 187The following provides an overview of the affordability and amenity-related information that can be found in the applicant’s LIHTC application: Unit Mix The proposed development will consist of a mix of efficiency, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units serving families at 30%, 50%, 60%, and 80% median area income levels. 64 units 6 Studios 14 1-bedroom units 34 2-bedroom units 10 3-bedroom unit 30% AMI Units = 7 (11% of total units) 50% AMI Units = 29 (45% of total units) 60% AMI Units = 23 (36% of total units) 80% AMI Units = 5 (8% of total units) On-site Amenities Resident on-site amenities will include a PreK, fitness center, snack kitchen and gathering space, computer lounge, kids playroom and beautiful spaces. More information about the developer can be found at www.affordablehousingtexas.com. 5501-A Balcones Dr. #302 Austin, TX 78731 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 912 of 187 RESOLUTION NO. 20260205-036 WHEREAS, Rowen Vale, LLC, or its successors, assigns, or affiliates (Applicant), proposes to construct an affordable multifamily housing development to be located at or near 206 East Annie Street, Austin, Texas 78704 (Proposed Development) within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Applicant intends for the Proposed Development to be for the general population; and WHEREAS, Applicant has or will submit an application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits for the Proposed Development to be known as Rowen Vale; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: Pursuant to Section 2306.6703(a)(4) ofthe Texas Government Code and Section 11.3(c) of the Texas Qualified Allocation Plan, Council expressly acknowledges and confirms that the City has more than twice the state average of units per capita supported by Housing Tax Credits or private activity bonds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: Pursuant to Section 11.3(d) ofthe Texas Qualified Allocation Plan, Council specifically allows the construction of the Proposed Development, which is located one linear mile or less from a development that serves the same type of household as the Proposed Development and has received an allocation of Housing Tax Credits or private activity bonds, or a Supplemental Allocation of credits, within the three-year period preceding the date Application Round begins. Page lof 2 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 913 of 187BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: Pursuant to Section 2306.6703(a)(4) of the Texas Government Code and Section 11.3(c) of the Texas Qualified Allocation Plan, Council supports the Proposed Development, approves the construction of the Proposed Development, and authorizes an allocation of Housing Tax Credits for the Proposed Development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: Pursuant to Section 2306.6710(b) ofthe Texas Government Code and Section 11.9(d)(1) of the Texas Qualified Allocation Plan, Council confirms that it supports the Proposed Development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: Council authorizes, empowers, and directs the City Clerk to certify this resolution to the TDHCA. ADOPTED: February 5 , 2026 ra. ILA- ATTESp 1 lt*Flu»(L_ 0 Erika Br;dy City Clerk Page 2 of 2 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 914 of 187Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Determination Worksheet Applicant must complete this worksheet except where noted for TPW Staff. Please submit completed worksheet to the TIA Determination Worksheet portal (https://atd.knack.com/development- services#services/traffic-impact-analysis-determination/) for review and signature. Please contact Lead Development Review Engineer if you have any questions. Contact information is available at: TPW-TDS Website Project: Location: Rowen Vale 206 E Annie Street Approved TIA? TIA name: Applicant/Consultant: Abby Penner Application Type (Please select only one): Email: abby@affordablehousingtexas.com Approved PUD? Location Jurisdiction: Full Purpose Approved PUD name: Phone: 512-944-3272 Zoning Site Plan Site Plan Extension Dev. Assessment Concept Site Plan PUD By checking the box below, the applicant acknowledges that City Council has adopted a Street Impact Fee (SIF) program effective December 21, 2020, and that street impact fees will be assessed for any building permit pulled on or after June 21, 2022. For more information on the Street Impact Fee program, please visit www.austintexas.gov/department/street-impact-fee I, the applicant, acknowledge this development is subject to the Street Impact Fee program. Description of existing and proposed uses: Existing Land Use: Tract Acres Zoning Land Use Type Proposed MF development with onsite Pre K - 71 units ranging from Studio to 3 bedroom Land Use (Select Type First) Units Value ITE Rate/FCE Trips/Day TPW STAFF USE ONLY 1 0.9 SF-3-NP Institutional_500s 560 - Church 1,000 SF GFA 7.31 560 7.60x 56 Custom: If none of the land use options in the spreadsheet work, please contact Lead Development Review Engineer for next steps. Please note that using custom uses may significantly increase review time. Use of custom land uses may also require data collection and analysis conducted by a licensed professional engineer in Texas before final determination Proposed Land Use: Tract Acres Zoning Land Use Type Land Use (Select Type First) Units Value ITE Rate/FCE Trips/Day TPW STAFF USE ONLY 1 1 0.9 0.9 MF-4-NP Residential_200s 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Dwelling Units 64.00 221 FCE MF-4-NP Institutional_500s 565 - Day Care Center 1,000 SF GFA 3.80 565 47.62x 259 181 Custom: If none of the land use options in the spreadsheet work, please contact Lead Development Review Engineer for next steps. Please note that using custom uses may significantly increase review time. Use of custom land uses may also require data collection and analysis conducted by a licensed professional engineer in Texas before final determination Abutting Roadways: Annie Street Nickerson Street Brackenridge Street Street Name Proposed Access (Y/N) Y Y N Proposed # of Driveways 1 1 0 384 Net Trips: ASMP Street Level 2 1 1 Please submit completed spreadsheet to TPW through KNACK (link at top of sheet). If you used Excel for the Web, please download and submit. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 915 of 187For TPW Staff Use Only ✔ A neighborhood traffic analysis (NTA) is required per LDC 25-6-114. The applicant may have to collect current traffic counts. Please contact the Lead Development Review Engineer. A traffic impact study with TDM is required. TIA scoping is required prior to beginning the study. Please see below for the type of study; for more information on each study, please refer to Section 10 of the TCM. Full TIA TA ZTA TIA Update A TIA compliance memo is required. The memo must demonstrate compliance of this case with the following TIA. For more information, please refer to the City of Austin TIA Guidelines Section 6. A traffic impact analysis is NOT required. Traffic generated by the proposal does not exceed thresholds established in the City of Austin Land Development Code (LDC). Mitigation per LDC 25-6-101 may still apply. A standalone Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required. For more information on the contents required in a TDM Plan, please refer to Section 10 of the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM). The traffic impact analysis has been waived. See notes below. Reviewer: Kaylie Coleman Date: 3/4/2026 More information on study requirements and how to submit can be found online at the TDS customer portal (https://atd.knack.com/development- services#customer-portal/) NOTE: A TIA determination must be made prior to submittal of any Zoning/Site Plan application; therefore, this completed and reviewed worksheet must accompany any subsequent application for the identical project. Changes to the proposed project may require a new TIA determination. This worksheet will remain valid for six months from the approval date above, after which a new TIA Determination Worksheet may be required. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 916 of 187MEMORANDUM To: CC: From: Date: Subject: Matthew St. Germain, BOE Kaylie Coleman, EIT; Bryan Golden, AICP; Matiur Rahman, P.E., TPW Manar Hasan, P.E., TPW March 30, 2026 April 1, 2026 206 E Annie St NTA | C14-2026-0010.SH The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the proposed development and present the findings of the Neighborhood Traffic Analysis (NTA) conducted by Transportation and Public Works (TPW). The proposed development includes 64 dwelling units of mid-rise multifamily and 3,800 square feet of day care center. The site is a 0.9-acre tract located at 206 E Annie St, as shown in Figure 1 below. The site is currently zoned SF-3-NP and the applicant is looking to rezone to MF-4-NP MF-3-NP. The site proposes access to Annie St, which is a level 2 road, and Nickerson St, which is a level 1 road. Figure 1: Site location 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 917 of 187 Date: Subject: March 30th, 2026 206 E Annie St NTA | C14-2026-0010.SH Roadways Annie St: The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) designates Annie St as a Level 2 road. The pavement width is approximately 40 feet in the vicinity of the site. There are two travel lanes, undivided, with striped bike lanes, street parking on one side, and sidewalk along the north side. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the ASMP, the required right-of-way of Annie St in the vicinity of the site is 84 feet. Nickerson St: The ASMP designates Nickerson St as a Level 1 road. The pavement width is approximately 30 feet. There are two travel lanes, undivided, street parking on both sides, and sidewalk along the east side. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the ASMP, the required right-of-way of Nickerson St in the vicinity of the site is 58 or 64 feet. Brackenridge St: The ASMP designates Brackenridge as a Level 1 road. The pavement width is approximately 30 feet. There are two travel lanes, undivided, street parking on both sides, and sidewalk along the east side. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the ASMP, the required right-of-way of Brackenridge in the vicinity of the site is 58 or 64 feet. Trip Generation and Traffic Analysis Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, the proposed development will generate 384 vehicle trips per day. The existing site is a church. See Table 1 for a detailed breakdown of the existing and proposed land uses and trip generation. Table 1: Proposed Daily Trip Generation Land Use Type ITE Code Existing Units Daily Trip Generation (vpd) Church 560 7,310 Square Feet Proposed Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Day Care Center 221 565 64 Dwelling Units 3,800 Square Feet NET TRIPS 56 259 181 384 24-hour traffic volumes were collected at three points, see Figure 2 below, on Annie St, Nickerson St, and Brackenridge St, on March 10, 11, and 12th, 2026. Page 2 of 5 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 918 of 187 Date: Subject: March 30th, 2026 206 E Annie St NTA | C14-2026-0010.SH Figure 2: Tube count locations Table 2 provides the expected trip distribution for the proposed land uses. This development proposes access to Annie St and Nickerson St. It has been assumed 65% of the site traffic will access the site via Annie St, and 35% of the site traffic will access the site via Nickerson St. Table 2: Trip Distribution Location Annie St Nickerson St Brackenridge St (no driveway proposed) Estimated Trip Distribution (Percentage) Estimated Trip Distribution (vpd) 65% 35% 0% 269 115 0% Table 3 represents a breakdown of traffic: existing traffic, proposed site traffic, and total traffic after development. Street Annie St Nickerson St Brackenridge St Table 3: Trip Summary Pavement Width Existing Traffic from Counts (vpd) Site Traffic added to Roadway (vpd) 40’ 30’ 30’ 3,736 533 364 250 134 - Total Future Traffic (vpd) 3,986 667 364 According to Section 25-6-116 of the Land Development Code (LDC), residential local or collector streets that are between 30 and 40 feet of pavement width are operating at a desirable level if the Page 3 of 5 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 919 of 187 Date: Subject: March 30th, 2026 206 E Annie St NTA | C14-2026-0010.SH average daily traffic volume for such a roadway does not exceed 1,800 vehicles per day. Based on the LDC criteria, existing traffic volume(s) are within the LDC’s desirable volume thresholds for Nickerson St and Brackenridge St, and the addition of traffic generated by the proposed development is expected to remain within the LDC’s desirable volume thresholds for both streets. According to Section 25-6-116 of the Land Development Code (LDC), residential local or collector streets that are 40 feet or wider of pavement width are operating at a desirable level if the average daily traffic volume for such a roadway does not exceed 4,000 vehicles per day. Based on the LDC criteria, existing traffic volume(s) are within the LDC’s desirable volume thresholds for Annie St, and the addition of traffic generated by the proposed development is expected to remain within the LDC’s desirable volume thresholds. Recommendations and Conclusions Based on the results of the NTA, Transportation and Public Works (TPW) has the following recommendations and conclusions: 1. Per the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP), the required ROW for Annie St adjacent to the site is 84 ft. The required ROW for Nickerson St and Brackenridge St is 58 or 64 ft. ROW dedication as per ASMP will be required at the time of site plan or subdivision, whichever comes first. 2. The ASMP recommends improvements to pedestrian facilities along Annie St, Nickerson St, and Brackenridge St, including completing missing sidewalks. This site will be required to construct the improvements as per the ASMP and TCM, including curb ramps, along their site frontage(s). 3. Due to the nature of day care centers, this site may be required to provide a queuing analysis to ensure adequate storage space shall be provided for queueing on-site in order to prevent queues spilling into the right-of-way. This will be reviewed at the time of site plan. 4. All loading, unloading, and trash collection shall occur on-site as per the City of Austin code and the TCM. This will be reviewed at the time of site plan. 5. If the number of units proposed in Table 1 is exceeded, the TDS division may be required to reassess the NTA. 6. This site will be subject to Street Impact Fee (SIF), which will help fund roadway capacity projects identified in RCP necessitated by new developments. The SIF calculation shall be performed during the Site Plan review, and the fee will be collected at the time of building permit application. For more information on Impact Fees, please visit the City’s SIF website (https://www.austintexas.gov/department/street-impact-fee). 7. This assessment is based on the proposed uses, intensity, and access. Any changes in these assumptions may require an updated NTA. 8. This NTA does not grant nor guarantee approval of proposed driveway types or locations. Driveway types and locations will be reviewed with the site plan application. Please contact me at manar.hasan@austintexas.gov if you have any questions or require additional information. Page 4 of 5 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 920 of 187 Date: Subject: March 30th, 2026 206 E Annie St NTA | C14-2026-0010.SH Sincerely, Manar Hasan, P.E. Austin Transportation & Public Works Page 5 of 5 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 921 of 187 Case Number: C14-2026-0010.SH PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 4/8/2026 296944.2181 71.91% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one-half of the adjacent right-of-way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Signature Petition Area Precent 0302000803 205 E MILTON ST 78704 0302000405 111 E MILTON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000306 1804 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000305 1802 NICKERSON ST 78704 0302001209 1801 BRACKENRIDGE ST 78704 0302000801 1705 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000814 201 E MILTON ST 78704 0302001210 303 E ANNIE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000707 1800 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302001306 1613 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000409 1706 NICKERSON ST 78704 0302001304 1707 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000406 113 E MILTON ST 78704 0302000706 1801 NICKERSON ST 78704 0302000309 107 E ANNIE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302001207 1805 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000410 1708 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000705 1803 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000411 106 E ANNIE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000304 1800 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000802 203 E MILTON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302001302 1709 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302001305 1701 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000407 1702 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302001208 1803 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302001303 1710 DRAKE AVE 78704 0302000408 1704 NICKERSON ST 78704 0302000709 1804 BRACKENRIDGE ST 78704 0302000813 209 E MILTON ST 78704 0302001301 1711 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000704 1805 NICKERSON ST AUSTIN 78704 0302000708 1802 BRACKENRIDGE ST AUSTIN 78704 REDACTED Total REDACTED 205 EAST MILTON LLC BALL KRISTEN L BREEN MICHAEL & STEPHANIE HUNTER BROWN BETSY CANTO-PONCE VICTORIA CHENU EVE & TOBIN MCGILL CHENU ROGER & ANNE-MARIE LIVING TRUST CLARKE CARYL F COX VIRGINIA LYNN CURRIE TINA G FITZPATRICK JOHN J JR & ELIZABETH K VASSALLO GOOD MARILYN J HAGA DON HALL MICHAEL LEE JR & JOANNA LYNN H HALL MICHAEL M & ELIZABETH J ASTON HOUSER KRISTI PRUETT & PAGE LLEWELLYN RICHARD & MARY LOVELL MAYER BARI SHIVA MELTON JOHN E & EDYE R MULHAUSEN JEFF W & KATHLEEN A NEWMAN MARTHA G NOLLMAN ANDREW & CASSANDRA NOLLMAN OLSOVSKY WILLIAM & LESLIE PEVETO GEOFFREY PRUETT KRISTI MICHELLE RASMUSSEN JOEL C & DANI SATIS TRUST SCHLOSSBERG FAMILY TRUST STILLWELL JOHN VINCENT JAMES L VOLZ JOHN ALOIS III WASHBURN JONATHAN & ERIN yes yes yes yes no no no no yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no yes yes yes no yes 11177.62 721.38 1925.54 5575.62 12051.87 6512.30 8620.88 2533.28 14143.42 2457.97 8385.48 12840.13 6662.91 14339.64 2713.91 853.59 8464.01 9232.10 13284.22 9609.58 8294.09 8457.17 9035.02 7310.55 4835.99 3539.76 8160.36 7034.34 23575.77 17074.21 6948.93 8955.04 8067.35 3.76% 0.24% 0.65% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 2.82% 4.32% 2.24% 4.83% 0.91% 0.29% 2.85% 3.11% 4.47% 3.24% 2.79% 2.85% 3.04% 2.46% 1.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.94% 5.75% 2.34% 0.00% 2.72% 273394.04 71.91% 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 922 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 923 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 924 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 925 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 926 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 927 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 928 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 929 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 930 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 931 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 932 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 933 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 934 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 935 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 936 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 937 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 938 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 939 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 940 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 941 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 942 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 943 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 944 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 945 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 946 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 947 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 948 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 949 of 187City of Austin P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 www.austintexas.gov/department/housing Austin Housing S.M.A.R.T. Housing Program March 3, 2026 (revision to letters dated January 26 and February 6, 2026) S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification O-SDA Industries, LLC 206 E Annie Street (ID 1053-6220) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: O-SDA Industries (development contact information: Abby Penner; ph.: 512-944-3272; email: abby@afordablehousingtexas.com) is planning to develop Rowen Vale, a 64-unit multifamily rental development at 206 East Annie Street, Austin, Texas 78704. The purpose of this revision is to reflect a reduction in total units as well as the number of units eligible for Capital Recovery Fees. The project remains eligible for 100% waiver of eligible fees. S.M.A.R.T. Housing – Rental – 206 E Annie St. Total units: 64 units Minimum Required: 40% (26 units) units average at or below 60% MFI - Requirements for 100% fee waiver Proposed unit mix: 10.9% (7 units) at or below 30% MFI 45.3% (29 units) at or below 50% MFI 35.9% (23 units) at or below 60% MFI 7.8% (5 units) at or below 80% MFI Affordability Period (S.M.A.R.T. units): 5 Years Fee waiver level: 100% AWU Capital Recovery Fees: 59/64 units eligible Does development contain commercial lease space? No Note: This certification letter only reflects the minimum requirements for the relevant program (S.M.A.R.T. Housing). Should the owner choose to participate in other affordability programs, the development may be subject to additional affordability restrictions and/or a longer affordability period. Because the applicant has proposed a unit mix that meets the minimum program thresholds, the development will be eligible for a waiver of fees listed in Land Development Code, Chapter 25-1-704, as amended or other fees waived under a separate ordinance except for Austin Water Utility Capital Recovery Fees and Austin Energy line extension fees (see below). The fee waiver level is listed above. The project will be subject to its minimum affordability period after issuance of a certificate of occupancy, unless funding requirements are longer. Based on the requirements under the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395.16(g) and 42 U.S.C. Section 12745 (A)(1) as it relates to how housing qualifies as affordable housing, only a certain number of units may be eligible to receive Austin Water Utility Capital Recovery Fee (CRF) waivers. The table above lists the number of units which are eligible to receive CRF fee waivers. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 950 of 187 Please note that Austin Energy line extension fees are only waived according to the calculation formula found in the Austin Energy Design Criteria Manual, Section 1.3.12. Austin Housing certifies the proposed project meets the S.M.A.R.T. Housing standards at the pre- submittal stage. The expected fee waivers may include the following fees: AWU Capital Recovery Fees Building Permit Site Plan Review Construction Inspection Demolition Permit Fee Concrete Permit Electrical Permit Subdivision Plan Review Parkland Dedication Fee (by separate ordinance) Regular Zoning Fee Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit Zoning Verification Land Status Determination Building Plan Review Prior to issuance of building permits and starting construction, the developer must: ♦ Obtain a signed Conditional Approval from the Austin Energy Green Building Program stating that the plans and specifications for the proposed development meet the criteria for a Green Building Rating. or (Contact Austin Energy Green Building: greenbuilding@austinenergy.com). 512-482-5300 ♦ Submit plans demonstrating compliance with the required accessibility or visitability standards. Before a Certificate of Occupancy will be granted, the development must: ♦ Pass a final inspection and obtain a signed Final Approval from the Green Building Program. (Separate from any other inspections required by Austin Development Services or Austin Energy). ♦ Pass a final inspection to certify that the required accessibility or visitability standards have been met. ♦ An administrative hold will be placed on the building permit, until the following items have been completed: 1) the number of affordable units have been finalized and evidenced through a sealed letter from project architect and/or engineer, 2) a Restrictive Covenant stating the affordability requirements and terms has been filed for record at the Travis County Clerk Office. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with S.M.A.R.T. Housing standards after the certificate of occupancy has been issued or repay the City of Austin, in full, the fees waived for this S.M.A.R.T. Housing certification. Please contact me by phone at 512-978-0823 or by email at robert.anderson@austintexas.gov if you need additional information. Sincerely, Robert Anderson, AICP, CNU-A Project Coordinator Austin Housing Cc: Marianne Reddivari, AE Jonathan Orenstein, AWU Mashell Smith, ORS 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 951 of 187 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 952 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 953 of 187McMansion go up than an apartment complex without ample Parking. A garage that the homeless will certainly appreciate Living in as you know they will, just as they do with all parking Garages. Who is going to be responsible for the safety of the People living around this area during and after construction? I understand we have grown. However, we have many apartments That are sitting vacant. I beg you and the city to rethink this, this has been a lovely neighborhood That has openly accepted many changes. I pay to park my car in front of My home, and that is my choice. But this is a lot to ask of any homeowner. Sincerely wanting the city to rethink this, Let some homeowner build one two or three, but apartments, no. Lynn Cox Sent from my iPad CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 954 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 955 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 956 of 187CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 957 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 958 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 959 of 187Applicant 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) — 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: "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. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 960 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 961 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 962 of 187areas 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 200 W 6th Street., Suite 2600 Austin, Texas 78701 | United States (Voice & Text) O: E: F: Website | LinkedIn This message and any attachments are for the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at Electronic Communication Terms. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message For further important legal disclosures, including our Regulation Best Interest disclosures, please visit Customer Relationship Summary, Customer Relationship Brochure and Privacy Statement. To opt out of receiving marketing communications from Rockefeller Capital Management and/or its affiliates please click Unsubscribe If you are an existing client, you will continue to receive service and transaction related communications. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 963 of 187 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 964 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 965 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 966 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 967 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 968 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 969 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 970 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 971 of 187Instead, 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) — 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 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 972 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 973 of 187CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 974 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 975 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 976 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 977 of 187go 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 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 978 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 979 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 980 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 981 of 187Francesco Passanti 1906 Kenwood Avenue Austin, TX 78704-3634 Tel: CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 982 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 983 of 187Mobility: 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 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 984 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 985 of 187Thanks- Dan Vickers, RA, LEED AP BD+C Diane Vickers 1901 Brackenridge St. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 986 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 987 of 187I'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. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 988 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 989 of 187Incompatibility 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 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 990 of 187 Dear Members of the Zoning Commission, I am wri(cid:415)ng to express my concerns regarding the proposed Rowen Vale development on Annie Street in the Travis Heights neighborhood. At the center of this conversa(cid:415)on is not whether Rowen Vale is a though(cid:414)ul or innova(cid:415)ve concept, it is, but whether it is appropriate for this speciﬁc loca(cid:415)on. The developer acknowledged this during the zoning mee(cid:415)ng on March 10th, sta(cid:415)ng, “I would love to have purchased a lot on South Congress.” This reﬂects a key concern: this large-scale project is be(cid:425)er suited to an area designed to support its scale, traﬃc, and infrastructure demands—not the interior streets of Travis Heights. Community Feedback The community feedback has been clear and consistent. There is strong support for increasing housing and aﬀordability, and a need for it be in alignment with planning principles, neighborhood condi(cid:415)ons, 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. 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 reali(cid:415)es of the site and surrounding neighborhood. At the end of the day, no ma(cid:425)er how aspira(cid:415)onal, 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—represen(cid:415)ng a shi(cid:332) from roughly 15–20 feet to approximately 50 feet within the interior of a residen(cid:415)al block. This scale is not consistent with the City’s stated goal of integra(cid:415)ng new housing while maintaining the character and integrity of established neighborhoods. What occurred on Rainy street is a concern for this area. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 991 of 187 Construc(cid:415)on Impact, Logis(cid:415)cs, and Protected Trees A project of this scale would require an extended construc(cid:415)on period, including cranes and deep excava(cid:415)on. Given the narrow streets and built-out nature of the area, construc(cid:415)on staging and equipment placement remain unresolved logis(cid:415)cal challenges. Addi(cid:415)onally, the excava(cid:415)on 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 surrounding streets are already under strain, as evidenced by the recent implementa(cid:415)on of paid and permi(cid:425)ed parking systems in response to documented demand. Introducing high-density housing without suﬃcient on-site parking will exacerbate these exis(cid:415)ng 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 prac(cid:415)cal 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 por(cid:415)on than on permi(cid:425)ed blocks. Based on three weeks of observa(cid:415)on, 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 condi(cid:415)ons develop under current constraints. This is goal reality-based zoning to help ensure success for residents rather than crea(cid:415)ng a long-term struggles. Exis(cid:415)ng Developments and Unresolved Issues It is also important to consider the performance of exis(cid:415)ng developments by the same developer. A nearby aﬀordable housing project reportedly faces parking challenges and is not at full occupancy. If exis(cid:415)ng projects are facing challenges, it is reasonable to ques(cid:415)on the urgency and readiness of introducing another high-density development in an even more constrained se(cid:427)ng. Specula(cid:415)on About Future Residents and Lifestyle Assump(cid:415)ons Several assump(cid:415)ons presented by the developer regarding future residents and transporta(cid:415)on pa(cid:425)erns are specula(cid:415)ve and not supported by suﬃcient data. Each (cid:415)me the developer engages in discussions they con(cid:415)nue to demonstrate a broader pa(cid:425)ern of stretching assump(cid:415)ons to ﬁt a narra(cid:415)ve. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 992 of 187 For instance:  iden(cid:415)fying Tiny Grocer as a nearby walkable grocery op(cid:415)on overlooks the reality that it is a bou(cid:415)que market with pricing that is inaccessible to many residents. Presen(cid:415)ng it as an aﬀordability-suppor(cid:415)ng feature reﬂects a disconnect between planning assump(cid:415)ons and lived reali(cid:415)es of the residents.  Claims that residents will primarily be drawn from nearby service industry workers, or that many will not require vehicles, are not substan(cid:415)ated. Housing decisions are inﬂuenced by mul(cid:415)ple factors—including community (cid:415)es, schools, family needs, and overall cost of living—not proximity to employment alone.  Sta(cid:415)ng 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 indica(cid:415)ng that only a small percentage of Aus(cid:415)nites do not own cars further underscores this concern. Conclusion There is no need to rush this decision, par(cid:415)cularly given the number of concerns, uncertain(cid:415)es and the poten(cid:415)al for long-term infrastructure strain, a more measured approach is warranted. Rezoning at this scale is eﬀec(cid:415)vely irreversible and should be approached with cau(cid:415)on. A widely supported and viable alterna(cid:415)ve is only months away: Missing Middle housing. Duplexes, fourplexes, and small mul(cid:415)-unit buildings provide increased density while remaining compa(cid:415)ble 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 crea(cid:415)ng 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 op(cid:415)on is within reach. The developer does not even have their full funding un(cid:415)l a(cid:332)er 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 (cid:415)me and careful considera(cid:415)on of these concerns. I urge you to priori(cid:415)ze solu(cid:415)ons that respect the character, infrastructure, and long-term health of Travis Heights both current and future residents. Sincerely, 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 993 of 187 Kimberley Mead 1803 Drake Ave Aus(cid:415)n 78704 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 994 of 187 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 995 of 187the City. That would be very sad. I am afraid we are providing easier access to things we are destroying. Best Regards William William Coats CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 996 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 997 of 187Melanie Melanie Clapp https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sidestreethome.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjonathan.tomko%40austintexas. gov%7Ca1e1ebad693a4aeed3df08de8e9a8dea%7C5c5e19f6a6ab4b45b1d0be4608a9a67f%7C0%7C0%7 C639104991611418143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMD AwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RaQynW6zYCc tGA1GnYJP7%2B9WOeaMRY8B6Sa503BUkwI%3D&reserved=0 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 998 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 999 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9100 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9101 of 187setbacks, 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 email: web: http://lase.ece.utexas.edu/ Mailing address: 10100 Burnet Road, Building #160 MER 2.206P Austin, TX 78758 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9102 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9103 of 187CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9104 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9105 of 187"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9106 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9107 of 187Fun 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. 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. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9108 of 187Yet 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" 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. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9109 of 187Example / 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 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. 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. 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9110 of 187Would 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!! B benmaydesign.com CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9111 of 187 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9112 of 187CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9113 of 187Subject: Request for Denial – Neighborhood Plan Amendment and MF-3 Rezoning (Rowen Vale – 206 E Annie St) Dear Mr. Tomko, My name is Jeﬀ Mulhausen, and I live at 1800 Nickerson Street within the Greater South River City Neighborhood Plan area in Austin. I am writing to respectfully request that staﬀ recommend denial of the proposed Neighborhood Plan Amendment and the associated rezoning to MF-3 for the Rowen Vale project at 206 East Annie Street and the adjacent parcels. From my perspective as a nearby resident, this request raises concerns related to consistency with the adopted neighborhood plan, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and the precedent it may establish for interior parcels within established SF-3 areas. The site is currently zoned SF-3 and is surrounded primarily by single-family homes. The proposed development—a 3–5 story multi-family structure with 64 units—would introduce a level of intensity that appears inconsistent with the existing development pattern and the transition principles typically applied within Austin’s zoning framework. This request places MF-3 density within the interior of a single-family area rather than in locations that have historically been identiﬁed for higher-intensity development such as major corridors. The Greater South River City Neighborhood Plan emphasizes compatibility, proportionality, and minimizing impacts to adjacent residential properties. Based on the materials that have been shared so far, the scale of the proposed project appears diﬃcult to reconcile with those goals. I encourage staﬀ to carefully evaluate this request against the City’s criteria for neighborhood plan amendments, particularly regarding consistency with surrounding land uses and neighborhood compatibility. Austin’s broader planning policies have generally encouraged locating higher-density housing along corridors, transit routes, and mixed-use areas where infrastructure and mobility are designed to support that level of intensity. This site appears to be located within the interior of a single-family block rather than along one of those areas, which raises questions about whether this amendment aligns with that approach. I would also appreciate a clear evaluation of compatibility and transition from the proposed MF-3 zoning to the surrounding SF-3 properties on this block. Beyond policy considerations, several practical impacts appear to still need further evaluation, including mobility and traﬃc conditions in the immediate area, queuing related to the proposed Pre-K component, parking demand on nearby streets, drainage and infrastructure capacity, and the potential eﬀects of project access points on homes along Nickerson, Annie, Milton and Brackenridge Street. I want to be clear that my comments are not intended to oppose aﬀordable housing. I understand the importance of expanding housing opportunities in Austin, including income-restricted housing. My 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9114 of 187 concern is whether this particular site—given its zoning context and location within an established single-family area—is appropriate for development of this scale and intensity. Additionally, since aﬀordable housing could already be pursued within the existing SF-3 zoning framework, it raises the question of whether a neighborhood plan amendment and MF-3 rezoning are necessary in this location. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that staﬀ recommend denial of both the Neighborhood Plan Amendment and the proposed MF-3 rezoning request. Thank you for your time, your work on this case, and your careful consideration of the planning principles that guide development decisions in our city. Sincerely, Jeﬀ Mulhausen 1800 Nickerson Street Austin, Texas 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9115 of 187 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9116 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9117 of 187CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9118 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9119 of 187Sent from Proton Mail for iOS. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9120 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9121 of 187Thank you for your comments. We will include them with our case backup. Staﬀ does not currently have a recommendation on this case and is continuing to review it. Once scheduled you can attend public hearings and provide public testimony if you would like to. Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-974-1057 From: Grant McClure < Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 8:15 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan < Cc: Meredith, Maureen < Subject: Re: Rowen Vale | SF-5 promotes aﬀordability while ensuring compatibility > > > You don't often get email from g . Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Jonathan - Thanks for your call this afternoon. I appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this case. I wanted to follow up on a few points from our conversation that seem relevant to staff’s recommendation. Nearby MF-3 properties are not comparable to this project or lot As shown in the screenshot below, all of the nearby MF-3 properties are contiguous, adjacent with either MF-3 / higher density or to the park, not surrounded by SF-3 like Rowen Vale. (The one exception is 50 ft away from — and is generally surrounded by — MF-3 on three sides.) Existing MF-3 lots do uphold the principles of "adequate transition" and "the policy of locating … more intensive zoning near the intersections of arterial roadways." This project does not. Base MF-3 is incompatible on this lot, regardless of this project The existence of other MF-3 parcels in the broader area does not, by itself, establish compatibility here. Even base MF-3 on this lot is incompatible with surrounding SF-3, as the staff recommendation also found in Heflin Housing, given the principles of compatibility, transition, and locating intense uses along arterial roadways. SF-5, SF-6 or MF-1 would be more compatible. Assess the project (MF-6 density) not simply base MF-3 Even setting aside that nearby MF-3 lots are not comparable to this lot (they are compatible land uses; this is not), staff should not put blinders on and view this solely as a request for base MF-3, when the Applicant requests MF-6 density. How is this different from the valid application of AU 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9122 of 187 Type 2 to existing MF-3? In those cases, the lots are already MF-3. The question before staff here is whether to support the change from SF-3 to MF-6 density. Staff should not. Stepping back to the big picture, promoting affordability doesn't require sacrificing compatibility… The decision before staff is not a choice between affordable housing and no affordable housing. It is a question whether this particular affordable project is compatible here at this particular intensity. It is not. … and denial of rezoning would not prohibit affordable housing A different project could achieve both affordability and compatibility. Perhaps Applicant's purchase option to buy the lot is at too high an offer price ($4.1mm for 0.9 acres), resulting in their economics requiring a massive 5-story building. That's not the City's problem nor the neighbors' problem. Applicant's proposed purchase price doesn't obligate the City to sacrifice compatibility by approving a massive 5-story building surrounding single family homes. Nor is their problem doomed to reoccur! If this rezoning application is rejected, another affordable project can follow. Protecting compatibility here doesn't preclude future compatible affordable housing on this lot; something that's needed and welcomed: compatible affordable housing. Thanks again for your time and consideration. Best, Grant 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9123 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9124 of 187Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-974-1057 From: Grant McClure < Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 8:40 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan < > > >; Meredith, Maureen < Subject: Rowen Vale | SF-5 promotes aﬀordability while ensuring compatibility You don't often get email from g . Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution 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 *** 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9125 of 187 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) — 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 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9126 of 18707 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9127 of 187"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9128 of 187