07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 - Greater South River City Citizens NPCT Letter of Recommendation

Planning Commission – April 14, 2026

07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 - Greater South River City Citizens NPCT Letter of Recommendation — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 45 pages

Late Back Up for Tuesday, April 14, 2026 Planning Commission Hearing Correspondence received for Items #6 and #7, NPA-2026-0022.01.SH and C14-2026- 0010.SH _ 206 and 206 ½ E. Annie Street and 1710 Brackenridge Street From: Greg Anderson < > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 11:58 AM To: Woods, Alice - BC <BC-Alice.Woods@austintexas.gov>; Haney, Casey - BC <BC- Casey.Haney@austintexas.gov>; Ahmed, Imad - BC <BC-Imad.Ahmed@austintexas.gov>; Maxwell, Felicity - BC <BC-Felicity.Maxwell@austintexas.gov>; Powell, Adam - BC <BC- Adam.Powell@austintexas.gov>; bc-joshua.hiller@austintexas.gov; Ramirez, Nadia - BC <BC-Nadia.Ramirez@austintexas.gov>; Lan, Anna - BC <BC-Anna.Lan@austintexas.gov>; Skidmore, Danielle - BC <BC-Danielle.Skidmore@austintexas.gov>; Bedrosian, Brian - BC <BC-Brian.Bedrosian@austintexas.gov>; Gannon, Chris - BC <BC- Chris.Gannon@austintexas.gov>; Breton, Peter - BC <BC-Peter.Breton@austintexas.gov>; Hunter, Candace - BC <BC-Candace.Hunter@austintexas.gov>; Cohen, Jessica - BC <BC- Jessica.Cohen@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Beeler, Melissa <Melissa.Beeler@austintexas.gov> Subject: Support for Item 6 Rowen Vale Dear Planning Commissoiners, I’m writing in support of Item 6, NPA-2026-0022.01.SH (Rowen Vale). One of the most important aspects of this proposal is its location in a high-opportunity area with strong access to jobs, transit, education, and daily needs. These are exactly the places where more Affordable housing is needed. And candidly, these are also the places where proposals like this often draw the most resistance from well-resourced neighbors opposed to change... It’s disappointing to see the project has already reduced its number of homes in response to feedback, yet continues to face opposition. This underscores the broader challenge we face as a city. You will likely hear requests to delay, postpone, or further dilute this proposal. I hope you’ll stay the course and act on it, especially given what looks to be an already packed agenda on the 28th. I appreciate staff’s recommendation and respectfully ask for your support Page 1 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 91 of 45Thank you for your service and consideration, Greg Greg Anderson M: 512.426.1041 From: Anita Tschurr Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 5:17 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 206 E. Annie St. Mr. Tomko & Ms. Meredith, I am the Chair of Planning & Zoning for SRCC. I have been working with many neighbors in the Travis Heights area concerning the development of the Church at 206 E. Annie St. I ﬁrst met with the developer in mid-January 2926 to discuss this development. Then again at the home of one of the neighbors in February, then again at our in person meeting for SRCC. And then a couple more at the Church site. The last discussion I had with them, we had them scheduled for our March meeting. They canceled that one and moved it to our April meeting. I am very unhappy with the proposed development. It is too big for the lot, causing problems with queuing for the PreK, parking, and mobility that O-SDA hasn't yet resolved. Annie St is already a traffic nightmare. Page 2 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 92 of 45 Travis Heights/Fairview Park is a federally protected historical neighborhood. Building a 5 story building with an active business is totally anathema to the 1 and 2 story bungalows with multiple restored homes. TH has some of the most subsidized housing in Austin. We want to be open, receptive and to help those who need housing, but this is not appropriate or in line with the neighborhood. Thank you for reading this. We hope this project will be rejected. Anita R. Tschurr From: pagehouser@ Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 6:21 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Rowen Vale Project in Travis Heights Written from the heart without the aid of AI. On Tuesday, 03/31/26 at 15:43 wrote: Good afternoon, Maureen and Jonathan Thank you for giving us an avenue of discourse regarding the proposed housing development at the 200 block of Annie Street in Travis Heights; We’ve had a little bit of time to digest what is about to happen within our neighborhood. The intention behind this project is of good nature and the majority of our smart, open-minded and engaged neighbors have no beef with that. What does shake us to the core is the immense scale pared with institutional design, mixed use of materials and color ways that don’t align with the space, the vernacular housing stock that surrounds it and greater neighborhood that this project sits right in the middle of. If this is our reality, the wish of the City for the good of our community, I think it is reasonable to expect that those of us that are to absorb and accept this project and it’s new inhabitants, should also have a voice in how this project presents itself for the long term. Kind Regards, Page 3 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 93 of 45 Page D Houser 1803 and 1805 Brackenridge St. Austin, TX. 78704 512-294-5303 Page 4 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 94 of 45 Page 5 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 95 of 45 Page 6 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 96 of 45 Page 7 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 97 of 45 From: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:34 AM To: Grant McClure <g > Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Rowen Vale | SF-5 promotes affordability while ensuring compatibility Hi Grant, The neighborhood can certainly request a postponement if they would like to for whatever reason. Detailed transportation issues within the bounds of the site will be examined in greater detail during the site plan phase which occurs after the rezoning process. Staff can not speculate from TDHCA's rankings whether a development will or will not be funded. We have a rezoning request on the table that we are evaluating for a staff recommendation. I hope this helps, Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-974-1057 jonathan.tomko@austintexas.gov Page 8 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 98 of 45 From: Grant McClure < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:30 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Rowen Vale | SF-5 promotes affordability while ensuring compatibility Jonathan - It appears there are signiﬁcant Pre-K queuing issues, which apparently may prevent the Rowen Vale project from receiving TDHCA funds and could impair the entire project's economic feasibility. (The project has the lowest score of all applications in Region 7, but is ranked ﬁrst solely because of its intended Pre-K, as I understand it.) Affordable housing is a major pillar behind why this proposed rezoning has some merit. If you knew in advance that this project would not be built, I imagine that would change the calculus on rezoning. Is clarifying these issues an unreasonable basis for delaying a staff recommendation and planning commission meeting? Best, Grant --- Grant McClure (512) 590-9014 From: Anita Tschurr < Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 5:16 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 206 E. Annie St. Mr. Tomko & Ms. Meredith, I am the Chair of Planning & Zoning for SRCC. I have been working with many neighbors in the Travis Heights area concerning the development of the Church at 206 E. Annie St. I ﬁrst met with the developer in mid-January 2926 to discuss this development. Then again at the Page 9 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 99 of 45 home of one of the neighbors in February, then again at our in person meeting for SRCC. And then a couple more at the Church site. The last discussion I had with them, we had them scheduled for our March meeting. They canceled that one and moved it to our April meeting. I am very unhappy with the proposed development. It is too big for the lot, causing problems with queuing for the PreK, parking, and mobility that O-SDA hasn't yet resolved. Annie St is already a traffic nightmare. Travis Heights/Fairview Park is a federally protected historical neighborhood. Building a 5 story building with an active business is totally anathema to the 1 and 2 story bungalows with multiple restored homes. TH has some of the most subsidized housing in Austin. We want to be open, receptive and to help those who need housing, but this is not appropriate or in line with the neighborhood. Thank you for reading this. We hope this project will be rejected. Anita R. Tschurr -----Original Message----- From: James Vincent < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:15 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale project on Annie Thanks for your time Maureen concerning my objections to the Rowan Vale project on Annie across the street from my property at 1711 Brackenridge. There is no need for me to articulate the many objections as to why this is such a terrible idea. But I would like for your office to include my voice along with my many other neighbors in our attempt to stop the insanity of this project proceeding further and deny the request for rezoning as presented by Rowan Vale. Thank you for your time and patience on the phone and I just hope that the employees of city hall simple do their job and put and end to this proposal as presented by Rowan Vale. Thanks and Always the Best Jim Vincent Page 10 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 910 of 45 From: Phillips < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:24 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: 'marthagnewman@gmail.com' <marthagnewman@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Re: Re: request for more information regarding Rowan Vale Project and Zoning Jonathan, thank you so much for your prompt and detailed response and your guidance regarding postponement. It's much appreciated- Warm regards, Diana Phillips -------------------- From: "Tomko, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> To: "Meredith, Maureen" <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>, " < Cc: "'marthag " < Sent: April 1, 2026 at 3:08 PM CDT Subject: Re: Re: request for more information regarding Rowan Vale Project and Zoning Martha, Please see comments responsive to your letter below. 1. Site Plan Documenting 65% Impervious Cover A site plan is not required for a rezoning to take place. The impervious cover would be determined during the site planning process which occurs after rezoning. The applicant has stated that they intend to comply with Ordinance No. 20160623-090. 2. Infrastructure Impact The site is within 500 feet of an Imagine Austin Corridor. Imagine Austin the City's Council adopted Comprehensive 30-year Plan aims to direct growth in a compact and connected manner with more intense infrastructure investments along more dense corridors and within centers. This rezoning request is in line with Imagine Austin. 3. Greater South River City Neighborhood Plan This case was submitted on February 6, 2026 and a notice of ﬁling was mailed out on February 24, 2026. A city facilitated meeting with the neighborhood took place on March 23, 2026. The neighborhood can certainly request a postponement if they would like to do, Page 11 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 911 of 45 but only the Planning Commission or City Council can grant a neighborhood postponement request, not staff. 4. Impact on Future Congress Avenue Development State and Local Statutes limiting alcohol sales would continue to apply. Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-974-1057 jonathan.tomko@austintexas.gov From: Martha Newman < > Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 9:02 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Subject: Re: Re: request for more information regarding Rowan Vale Project and Zoning Dear Jonathan, Thank you for copying me on your response to Diana Phillips's letter concerning the proposed Rowan Vale development on East Annie. I want to respond to one of your points. I recognize that a site plan is not required for re-zoning to take place. But, we are asking questions about impervious cover, about parking and Pre-K queuing, and other such matters because O-SDA is trying to put too big a structure on too small a lot, and everytime they claim to ﬁx one problem, they create another. For example, on the most recent site plan we have received from them. they are not yet down to 65% impervious cover, although they are close. But this new site plan shows that OSDA hopes to receive parking spots on Page 12 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 912 of 45 the City's streets (both Nickerson and Brackenridge), which they were told they could not do by TWP, and it is a site plan that does not mark the existing utility poles in the alley that supply electricity to our homes on East Milton -- poles that will be within 5 ft from of their building, which is too close according to code. It seems to me that if the purpose of the zoning request is to build a particular building by a particular developer, there is some need to ﬁgure out whether the building can be built to ﬁt the requirements of the Zoning regulations they have requested. O-SDA is currently making lots of promises -- about design, about the Pre-K, about Parking and Mobility, about impervious cover, about keeping the building to 50' hight -- , and it is unclear that they can do all that they have promised, The lot is too small for the building they want to create, and no promises will ﬁx that. Also, re the Transportation corridor, I assume you realize that, given Project Connect's recent plans for lightrail stops along S; Congress, one will be at Oltorf St (some .7 miles from the development), and the other, the "SoCo" stop, will be .5 miles in the other direction. thanks for your efforts, best Martha Newman 203 East Milton St. From: Sean Ransenberg < Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 7:06 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Cecelia Croman < > Subject: Rowan Vale — traffic, safety, and compatibility considerations Jonathan, I hope you’re doing well. My name is Sean Ransenberg, and I’m writing on behalf of my wife, Cecelia Croman, and our household at 1601 Brackenridge Street, Austin, Texas 78704. Our Page 13 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 913 of 45 home is within 500 feet of the proposed Rowan Vale project, so we experience ﬁrsthand how this part of the neighborhood functions day-to-day. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement with the neighborhood on this case. We know staff has to weigh a number of competing considerations, and we appreciate the care that you and your team bring to that work. Our hope is to share a few practical considerations that may be helpful as staff evaluates this application using the standard framework of compatibility, transition, traffic operations, and safety. We support affordability as a policy goal. Our concern is whether this particular project, at this particular intensity, is appropriate for this particular lot. In our view, it is not. For that reason, we respectfully ask that staff either recommend against the rezoning or, at a minimum, identify SF-5 as the more compatible alternative. Traffic Operations and Safety Traffic operations and safety are our primary concerns. Travis Heights relies on a limited number of streets that function as neighborhood “lifelines,” and those routes are already operating under strain. The project would add: • 64 residential units • An on-site Pre-K • Only 47 parking spaces This combination is likely to push parking demand, circulation, and queuing onto Nickerson, Brackenridge, Annie, and nearby streets. Key concerns: • Pre-K pickup and drop-off queuing back onto Annie • Existing weekend and school traffic already creating peak congestion • Known speeding and cut-through traffic amplifying risk • Proposed egress onto Nickerson raising visibility and safety concerns These concerns become more signiﬁcant when considered alongside near-term infrastructure work, including the South 1st Street Reclaimed Water Main Project. If key routes such as Monroe experience intermittent disruption over the next two years while this Page 14 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 914 of 45 project adds additional congestion and queuing pressure, that combination could materially impact traffic operations, emergency access, and overall neighborhood safety. While the ﬁre department does not formally weigh in on zoning matters, these conditions highlight broader concerns about how well these streets accommodate emergency vehicles today. Taken together, this raises real questions around access, response times, and reliability of key routes. We would encourage staff to take a close look at: • Whether parking demand and Pre-K activity can realistically be contained on-site • Whether the proposed Nickerson egress is safe under current conditions • Whether the level of intensity is appropriate given the neighborhood’s limited access routes and near-term infrastructure impacts Compatibility and Transition From a compatibility and transition standpoint, the nearby MF-3 properties do not appear to be meaningful comparisons for this site. Those parcels are generally adjacent to other multifamily zoning or the park and therefore maintain some level of transition. This lot does not. It is surrounded by SF-3, which makes the compatibility question more signiﬁcant here. It also appears important to evaluate the actual intensity being proposed, rather than viewing this solely as a base MF-3 request. A 64-unit, 5-story project with an on-site Pre-K on roughly 0.9 acres is much closer to MF-6 intensity than a typical MF-3 project. Even base MF-3 would be difficult to reconcile with the surrounding SF-3 context, and the actual proposal goes well beyond that. In our view, the project is not built in proportion to surrounding homes, does not encourage compatibility, and does not provide an adequate transition. A Path Forward More broadly, this is not a choice between affordable housing and no affordable housing. Affordable housing can be pursued here in a way that also respects compatibility. If staff believes some zoning change is warranted, SF-5 would allow additional housing while still providing a more appropriate transition from surrounding single-family uses. If Page 15 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 915 of 45 the applicant’s economics only work at a much higher intensity, we do not believe that should drive staff’s recommendation. The compatibility and transition reasoning staff used in the Heﬂin Housing case seems directly relevant here as well. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that staff either recommend against the rezoning or, at a minimum, provide an alternative recommendation of SF-5. Thank you again for your time, your consideration, and the work you are doing on this case. Sean Ransenberg-(513) 276-7734 Cecelia Croman 1601 Brackenridge Street Austin, TX 78704 From: Bari Shiva Mayer Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:48 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Neighborhood Planning Case NPA-2026-0022.01.SH (Rowen Vale) Hi Ms. Meredith, Thank you for putting together the Virtual Community Meeting on the subject Neighborhood Plan changes. As one of the nearest neighbors to the site, I wanted to take this opportunity to write in opposition to the proposal. I've attached a letter to that effect. My apologies in advance for its length (if brevity is the soul of wit, I must be chronically un- funny). I'll try and give you a call tomorrow or next week so you can put a voice to the name, and I promise to be less verbose on the phone. Thanks in advance, Page 16 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 916 of 45 Shiva Page 17 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 917 of 45 Page 18 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 918 of 45 Page 19 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 919 of 45 Page 20 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 920 of 45 From: Michael Breen < Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:49 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Nickerson project Maureen Jonathan I was just reading Mayor Watson newsletter and this section jumped out at me. It felt like this is exactly what the Nickerson neighbors have been talking about. We would be happy to accommodate a project that brought 16 units we are just distraught at a 70 something unit project. Michael Breen 1804 Nickerson 512-965-9672 Last week, the Council approved a resolution to develop new zoning tools that allow more types of what’s called “Missing Middle” housing. (I’ll just say something that needs to be said: housing experts, housing advocates, and housing nerds have more strange names for things than you see in many other policy areas. There. I feel better getting that off of my chest.) Since I’ve been trying and failing to come up with a better term, “Missing Middle” housing refers to options that are between single family homes on one end of the spectrum and large apartment complexes on the other. It’s housing in the “middle” of the two poles. And, it’s “missing” middle because we don’t have enough of these developments. We tend to have more of the two poles. Missing middle developments are usually within the range of 3-16 units and ﬁt better in established neighborhoods because they are lower density than an apartment complex. We have a development down the street from my house that would be described as missing middle. Page 21 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 921 of 45 -----Original Message----- From: brooks kasson < Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:55 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: rowan vale my understanding of this project is that the rezoning, though it appears to be a concession, is not. with building 2’s height limitation and mf-3’s impervious cover requirements, pre-k standards and regs are not met. there is no change in the size of this building which is in the middle of modest, single family homes….homes which deserve compatibility considerations, neighborhood traffic impact considerations, as well development parking considerations. what are these people thinking? please deny any zoning or likewise changes until all of these locale considerations are thoroughly met. sincerely, brooks kasson 1400 alta vista 78704 From: Kelly Goodpastor < Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 5:57 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Please Oppose the Rowan Vale Development- Their PreK Creates a True Queuing, Traffic, and Safety Concern Dear Jonathan and Maureen, When the Rowan Vale developers ﬁrst presented their proposal to the City Council for the initial funding recommendation, they did not include a key part of their current plan: adding a PreK for 40 students on the already crowded development. As a result, the City Council gave their initial approval on a fundamentally different project than the one we now have before us. Page 22 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 922 of 45 The Rowan Vale development was originally at the bottom of the list for the six projects currently competing for TDHCA credits. They "solved" this last-place issue by reworking their plans and adding a PreK for 40 students onto the already crowded lot, pushing them to the top spot of the six projects. The PreK would be located at the bottom ﬂoor of the easternmost 3-story structure along Brackenridge St, with 2 ﬂoors of apartments above. The developer forced the PreK program into this project purely for the tax credit scoring process. The most signiﬁcant issue with the PreK is the queuing for drop off and pickup. Of the 40 students, about 37 would come from families living off site (this is reﬂective of the builder's own data). So, where do the 37 cars entering the PreK actually queue when they drop off and pick up their children from school? According to the developer's plan, cars are expected to queue in the ground ﬂoor parking garage of the westernmost building while one of the few staff members walks over and takes children from their parents to the separate PreK building. This queue will block Rowan Vale residents from pulling out from their parking spots to get to work. One must keep in mind that these are likely 3-5 year old children, all in car seats or booster seats with backpacks, etc. As a mother of two, I can assure you this is not a quick process. Additionally, there is another point of congestion -> AFTER the parents drop off their children. (This concern was actually pointed out by TPW). As parents leave the parking garage, they are forced to exit onto Nickerson Street - which has historically had challenges with speed as people cut through the neighborhood to avoid South Congress traffic. There is also paid and Residential Permit Parking on both sides of Nickerson, burdening the exit with extremely limited sight lines. So, parents will also be required to queue AGAIN at the parking garage exit - as they wait to pull out onto Nickerson, creating a second queue of folks in the garage after the drop off, and blocking additional residential parking spots. The queue will undoubtedly spill out onto Annie St., blocking traffic in both directions and posing legitimate safety risks to residents, PreK students, and the middle school children who are already coming through this area for Lively Middle School, located a block away - both during the drop off and the pick up - which also corresponds with morning/evening rush hour commutes to & from work. Page 23 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 923 of 45 Please note, that in our conversations with Transportation and Public Works (TPW) on March 2nd, they conﬁrmed that cars are not allowed to queue in the ROW (per the City's Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM)), so queuing there is also not an option. So, the issue remains unsolved. *It should also be noted that Annie St. is a main artery for Fire Engine 6 (located 1 block away) to access IH-35.* In development review practice under the the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM): • Queuing areas must be explicitly shown on the site plan if a use creates predictable vehicle lines. • Queuing is expected to occur in designated internal stacking areas, not in: • parking spaces, • parking aisles, • ﬁre lanes, • or driveway access points. In a recent email to neighbors, in response to our concerns about the PreK queue, one of the developer's staff stated they would have "embedded ﬂexibility to pivot to alternative drop off/pickup models if issues did arise," pointing to another one of their PreK partners that did not have "pre-deﬁned pickup/drop off time at their other locations." Parents need to have a dependable timeframe in the morning before they go to work and in the afternoon after they get off work to rely upon. Most residents that qualify for the Affordable Housing program do not have the luxury of choosing their own schedule - so this is obviously not a credible solution. After multiple meetings with TPW and after reviewing the TCM, it has become increasingly apparent that the developer has failed to demonstrate where the 35+ families will safely queue while they wait to pick up/drop off their children. A 64-unit development, housing approximately 100 residents, with a PreK for 40 students, plus their PreK staff, plus building staff, all on less than a 1-acre lot does not compute, and should NOT be approved for development. I truly appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration. Warmly, Kelly Goodpastor 1611 Nickerson St. Page 24 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 924 of 45 From: Mónica Ceniceros < Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 12:14 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Proposed construction of Rowan Vale Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing as a concerned resident to express opposition to the proposed MF-3 zoning designation for the development in our historic neighborhood. To be clear, this is not an opposition to affordable housing. We strongly support the need for more inclusive and attainable housing in Austin. Our concern lies with ensuring that development aligns with the City’s adopted plans and respects the character and infrastructure of established neighborhoods. The City of Austin has already outlined a thoughtful framework for growth through Imagine Austin, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan. These plans emphasize directing the highest intensity development to designated activity corridors, while ensuring appropriate transitions into surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed MF-3 zoning does not follow this guidance. Instead, SF-5 zoning would provide a more appropriate balance. It allows for additional housing options—including “missing middle” housing—while maintaining compatibility with the existing single-family neighborhood and local street network. In contrast, MF-3 zoning introduces corridor-level intensity onto a local residential street, which is neither designed nor intended to support that scale. While the site is within a quarter mile of South Congress, it is not located on the transit corridor itself. Imagine Austin does not call for density to be applied indiscriminately. Rather, it speciﬁcally calls for a transition in scale from corridors into neighborhoods. SF-5 zoning fulﬁlls that role as a transitional step, whereas MF-3 represents a level of intensity intended for corridors, not interior neighborhood streets. Additionally, the Future Land Use Map designates this property as “Civic,” reﬂecting its long-standing use as a church for approximately 100 years. This designation carries meaning and intent. MF-3 multifamily zoning does not align with a civic designation and represents a substantial shift in both use and intensity. If the FLUM identiﬁes this site as Civic, then zoning should remain consistent with that designation or transition appropriately—such as SF-5 with civic or compatible residential use—rather than introducing MF-3 apartments. Page 25 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 925 of 45 This is ultimately a matter of responsible planning, consistency, and respect for both adopted policy and neighborhood context. We urge you to uphold the City’s guiding plans and support zoning that reﬂects a thoughtful transition rather than an abrupt and incompatible increase in density. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mónica Ceniceros | 506 Leland Street From: Melinda Steele Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 3:00 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: OPPOSE the Rowan Vale development- Where do the residents of this affordable housing development park??? Dear Jonathan and Maureen, Rowan Vale's developer, Megan Lasch, was unaware that the residents of her future development at 206 E. Annie St. would not qualify for standard RPP passes for the paid and residential parking zones surrounding the lot when she placed a contract on it. Had she known about this important fact and the ramiﬁcations for her residents, would she have put the property under contract for affordable housing? The Rowan Vale development has 64 units for approximately 100 residents. In their most recent site plan that they sent neighbors this week (the week of March 30th), the site plan lists 55 parking spaces for their residents (with 7 ADA compliant parking spaces for a total of 48 standard parking spaces). However, of the 48 standard parking spaces offered, the developer placed 9 of those standard spaces on the side streets that are currently hybrid RPP and paid parking spots. They listed these spots as "existing parallel street parking to be potentially incorporated with future street section." In the March 2nd mobility meeting with Joseph Al-Hajeri and Curtis Beaty from Transportation Public Works, the developer also included these "potential" on street Page 26 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 926 of 45 parking spots. The TPW team stated the developer would not be able to count them as part of their parking. In the recorded meeting, neighbor Susan Goldberg stated, "A point of clarity is there will be no removal of residential overnight parking for this project." Joseph Al-Hajeri responded, "As far as RPP zones on the street, no, they will stay the same." The developer heard this and acknowledged the TPW staff comments. However, they kept these spots in the most recent site plan, knowing there is an issue with putting an affordable housing development with limited onsite parking inside a hybrid RPP and paid parking neighborhood. With the help of the wonderful TPW staff, we understand that the residents at this development would be eligible to buy up to 120 day passes at $5 each if they wanted to park near their home. These day passes technically would end at midnight, but since the RPP enforcement does not begin until 8:00, they would have a grace period until the next morning. However, if they don't get to their car with a new day pass or to move it by the time enforcement comes after 8:00 am, they are looking at a $50 ticket per offence. And what happens if they go through all of their day passes? Then they have to pay for hourly parking. As a result, how is this affordable housing affordable? And as TPW staff pointed out, as Project Connect becomes a reality in future years, over 300 parking spots will be removed from South Congress, pushing the parking burden onto the neighboring side streets. Certainly, more neighboring streets will apply for RPP. If this happens, the Rowan Vale resident's parking woes become even worse, either competing for the more limited paid parking spots/RPP spots or having to walk farther to ﬁnd a free spot not designated as paid/RPP parking. We understand there are no longer any parking minimums in Austin, but this is an affordable housing development with a low percentage of on-site parking surrounded by RPP and paid parking; it doesn't make sense. One of the developers, Abby Tatkow, says the residents will "self select" and not have cars. In the City of Austin, 3%-5% of residents don't have cars. Her 'self-select' hope is not a credible solution to this problem. No one at the mobility meeting, during or since, has been able to show us examples of affordable housing (other than student housing) that is surrounded by paid or RPP parking while also not having adequate parking on-site. I have attached a map from the City of Austin RPP site showing how far residents would have to walk to ﬁnd free parking. As you will see, to ﬁnd free parking, Rowan Vale residents will need to walk to Drake where other Page 27 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 927 of 45 neighbors already depend upon the street for parking. After Drake, Rowan Vale residents will have to walk farther into the neighborhood in search of parking. Building affordable housing in a neighborhood where residents must depend upon paid street parking is not affordable. We urge you to please oppose the Rowan Vale development! Thank you, Melinda Steele From: Leslie Olsovsky < Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 3:01 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Value Development - Concerns from a local resident Hello Mr Tomko and Ms. Meredith, Page 28 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 928 of 45 I am a resident of Brackenridge St in Travis Heights and wanted to send along a note of concern regarding the zoning changes on the 200 block of East Annie due to the proposed construction of the Rowan Vale housing development. I support affordable housing, and many of the positives of this project resonate with me. However, I have broad concerns about the approach of the development company and the impact to the character of the neighborhood. I wanted to highlight a particular concern regarding the neighborhood infrastructure, which I do not believe supports the change of zoning for this project. A key concern for me is the traffic and parking stress this development would add to the (already busy) residential neighborhood. At peak times (weekends, rush hour), the streets cannot support current traffic patterns and parking can be challenging. While South Congress is an appealing destination, it does not have amenities that make a non-car lifestyle easy. A development without adequate parking seems unreasonable. There are many families living in the vicinity of the development (including mine with three young boys) and there should be consideration taken into the safety for pedestrians and cyclists with the added pressure on the traffic grid. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Leslie Olsovsky (928) 699-4077 1701 Brackenridge St. From: William Coats < Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 5:07 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Rowen Vale_Scale and Degree Last thing! Page 29 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 929 of 45 I wanted to send over one more thought. I was looking at some cool "missing middle" affordable housing in Meuller and noticed a higher density affordable housing project (see below). It is of a similar scale as the proposed Rowen Vale project. It is in a part of Meuller with a bunch of single family homes but it is thoughtfully sited across a thoroughfare and some shared green space, not right in the middle of the homes. I'm sure there are airtight deed restrictions that would prevent that from happening but it seems like homeowners in an old neighborhood like ours should be able to count on the same sort of restrictions given our zoning category, neighborhood plan and FLUM. The RV location is akin to the front half of the Hernandez, Eberly, McBee block with Mcbee being Annie. Obviously planning can't be this perfect with inﬁll development (like RV) but the image shows that the City of Austin knows how density should work. Separately, weren't neighborhood plans the City's idea? I read (on the AI) that the City Council basically mandated neighborhoods to work with the Planning Department on these plans in 1997 as part of then Mayor Kirk Watson's "smart growth" agenda. Thanks for taking in all of this information and giving it your consideration. I very much appreciate it. Page 30 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 930 of 45 Regards -William From: Cathey Capers < Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:44 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Rowan Vale Proposed Development April 6, 2026 Dear Mr. Tomko and Ms. Meredith, I’m writing in reference to the proposed Rowan Vale affordable housing development under consideration at the intersection of Annie St/Nickerson St./Brackenridge St. I have resided at 1807 Nickerson St. since 1991; my husband has resided here since 1980. We have witnessed the tremendous growth of Austin and the surrounding changes in the neighborhood, which thus far have managed to preserve the safety and amazingly quiet atmosphere just 1 block east of the S. Congress corridor. I’ve attended meetings with the developers and appreciated the sharing of information both by city staff and the developer team. I want to share our concerns about this particular project in its current proposed site. Along with most of my neighbors I believe the project as proposed in not consistent with the history and stated priorities of the Neighborhood Plan or the current designation of this site which is zoned for civic use. Rather than leap to a 64 unit highly dense project with extremely limited parking in an already over congested street, I would support the zoning designation that strives to achieve a more moderate level of increased density most suitable to this location (SF5 zoning). I would seriously lament this neighborhood street becoming a heavily trafficked and dangerous corridor, especially with two schools, including a proposed pre-school in its midst. I applaud the city of Austin ‘s efforts to prioritize affordable housing by increasing density but do not believe it has to happen in the way it is proposed. I offer the outstanding and award-winning Mueller development as an excellent example of something much more habitable for all residents. Page 31 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 931 of 45 The decision before the planning commission regarding the requested zoning changes could set a lasting precedent that would have implications across the city. I appreciate your consideration of the impacted area in your recommendation. Sincerely, Catherine Capers 1807 Nickerson St. Austin, Texas From: stephanie hunter < Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 5:27 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Fwd: Watson Wire: In the Middle of It All Dear Maureen and Jonathan, Thank you for your attention to this matter. I know you have heard from many of my neighbors and I just want to also record my objection for the Rowan Vale Development which is near my home. I am Stephanie Hunter and my address is 1804 Nickerson St. My husband is Michael Breen and I know he also sent his objection by email. While not against affordable housing, I am against a project of this size going into our established single family home neighborhood. We already have huge parking issues in our neighborhood and this no doubt would exacerbate it. I agree with Mayor Watson’s thoughts on this and would welcome the “missing middle” for this property. Again, I object to the Rowan Vale Development. Thank you. Sincerely, Stephanie Hunter Page 32 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 932 of 45 From: Shumway, Penelope < Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:22 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: OPPOSITION LETTER re Case Number: C14-2026-0010.SH (200 E. Annie St) Case Number: C14-2026-0010.SH Maureen, I am writing to respectfully, but vehemently, urge you to oppose the Neighborhood Plan amendment and re-zoning of the 200 block of East Annie St. being requested by O-SDA Industries, LLC (“O-SDA”). Please hear this: I am an advocate and avid supporter of affordable housing. However, I cannot and will not support O-SDA’s project at 200 E. Annie St. as currently proposed and the Land Use / Planning Commission and City Council should not support it either. Why you should oppose the Neighborhood Plan amendment and re-zoning of the 200 block of East Annie Street: 1. Rowan Vale is an egregiously under-researched project. A few examples. A. During an in-person neighborhood meeting, in response to questions regarding Rowan Vale’s proposed child-care center, the O-SDA representatives explained that O-SDA included the child-care center in its application as a well-known industry strategy used to ‘fast-track’ the application for approval. The O-SDA representative also noted that O-SDA had conducted no preliminary research prior to application submission (or by the time our neighborhood meeting took place two months after submission) on whether the 200 E. Annie site could safely and successfully and reasonably support a child-care facility, who they would contract the child-care out to, where on the site the facility would be located or any of the other things that would come along with a project of this nature (thinking: dedicated areas for 3 and 4 year old drop-off and pick-up, teacher parking, adequate protected play areas, thoughtful ingress/egress planning – to name just a few considerations). Reminder: this child-care facility is in addition to the high-density, 70 unit, apartment building proposed for this small (less than 1 acre) site. We were told that the child-care logistics were things that O-SDA would spend the time thoroughly researching only once their application was approved… Page 33 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 933 of 45 B. If a large, for-proﬁt company is attempting to enter a historically signiﬁcant neighborhood to develop the tallest building in the entire neighborhood (even including all buildings on retail and hospitality-focused South Congress) and, in order to build this high-density housing complex, that developer must seek not only a zoning change but also a neighborhood plan exception, it would stand to reason that the City of Austin, including our Land Use / Planning Commission and our City Council, should expect (and demand) at least a basic level of research, understanding and thoughtfulness about the site and what it’s capable of. These should be preliminary requirements, not afterthoughts. A preschool creates peak hour traffic for pick-up/drop-off queuing, and O-SDA’s careless proposal to combine MF-3 density with a preschool on a local residential street is unworkable, and disrespectful to everyone impacted by this project – existing neighbors, future neighbors, the proposed residents of Rowan Vale – everyone. C. An additional anecdotal example to demonstrate the lack of research and understanding at play here: In O-SDA’s initial application, they cited Tiny Grocer as the grocery store that their affordable housing tenants would utilize. Tiny Grocer is a treasured part of our South Congress community but, for the average person, the premium prices and micro-supply make it a humorous resource to cite for anyone’s weekly grocery needs. 2. 200 E. Annie Street is not like other O-SDA projects. A. This site is not even 1 acre. It is surrounded on all four sides by two lane roads. Due to street parking being universally permitted and utilized by residents and visitors to SOCO, the neighborhood’s two-lane roads function in practice as one-lane roads where we, the residents of Travis Heights, dodge and dive and patiently wave oncoming drivers through in order to make our way through the neighborhood. Our neighborhood streets are oversaturated with cars as it stands today... This site is too small, and the infrastructure surrounding the site is inadequate, to properly support a 70+ unit (as originally proposed by O-SDA) high-rise high-density apartment complex, not to mention to accommodate parking for the multiple tenants residing in each unit, parking for a child-care center, daily parking for teachers and parents, a secure toddler drop-off area, a suitable place for queuing parents during pick-up time, space for trash/recycling areas and heating/cooling units sufficient to service a complex of this size… the list of logistical red ﬂags goes on. Zoning intensity should correspond to the street Page 34 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 934 of 45 network. MF-3 zoning is not appropriate or advisable on local, residential streets that function as one-lane roads a majority of the day. This is exactly why there are zoning restrictions in play. Rowan Vale is exactly what our City’s zoning restrictions are in place to protect against. B. O-SDA developed and operates Aria Grand, another 70-unit affordable housing complex, less than 1 miles from the proposed 200 E. Annie site. This Aria Grand complex is located at 1800 S I-35 Frontage Rd., and beneﬁts from access to/from Woodland Ave. and I-35. Aria Grand is appropriately located for a development of its size and scale. It did not require Neighborhood Plan amendment to develop because it was not diametrically opposed to any zoning or neighborhood restrictions and it was not built to tower over a property line it shares with one and two story single-family homes. None of these same facts are true about O-SDA’s Rowan Vale proposal. To develop Rowan Vale would require an express exception to the established zoning parameters and neighborhood plan that Travis Heights home owners have respected and lawfully abided by for generations. Why should a large developer, who does not care enough about the potential project to do basic site research prior to application submission, be freely afforded a beneﬁt that local, tax-paying home owners are not? O-SDA would argue they deserve an exception because they are building critical affordable housing (…despite there being a 10-15% vacancy at the Aria Grand complex less than 1 mile away…). While I am in full support of affordable housing at 200 E. Annie St. it must be of appropriate scale and supported by suitable infrastructure. When asked in neighborhood meetings why O-SDA would not consider building town homes consistent with current zoning restrictions or even a lower-density apartment complex on this site, we heard from the O-SDA representatives that if Rowan Vale is not developed to the towering and inappropriate size currently proposed then it becomes a bottom-line issue (i.e., it would not make O-SDA the proﬁt they feel they deserve) and they would not pursue the 200 E. Annie St. site if it had less than the requested number of units. 3. A precedent concern; rewarding blatant disregard for the established rules and guidelines. A. It is my understanding that O-SDA has failed to properly notify the Greater South Austin Neighborhood Plan’s designated contacts who are supposed to make a recommendation before the City acts on a matter like the exceptions Page 35 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 935 of 45 sought by Rowan Vale. This failure to notify could be an oversight or it could be that this procedural step was not a high-enough priority to motivate O- SDA to satisfy its obligations and abide by the rules. Whether it is a lack of attention to detail or a lack of respect – or both – these deﬁciencies are traits of O-SDA I have consistently observed throughout this process so far. There is a pattern of O-SDA seeking exceptions to the rules instead of making efforts to abide. Rowan Vale could be a promising development but 200 E. Annie St. is not the right site for it. B. Rowan Vale is a careless attempt to re-zone an entire neighborhood and to overhaul a decades-old Neighborhood Plan. If an exception is granted in this instance, there is precedent formed that can, and will, be used by developers even less diligent than O-SDA in the future. The lack of respect for the checks and balances critical to a healthy, functioning local government and the little-to-no diligence efforts to ensure safe, reliable and sustainable streets and neighborhoods at play in this proposal should raise red ﬂags for the Land Use / Planning Commission and the City Council. As such, I respectfully request that you reject O-SDA’s request for a Neighborhood Plan amendment and re-zoning of the 200 block of East Annie Street. O-SDA has not proven itself to be a responsible, respectful or thoughtful participant in our collective efforts to create more affordable housing where it is needed and where it can be successfully, safely and meaningfully incorporated into our Austin community. Simply put: the Rowan Vale proposal is unreasonable and unworkable in its size/scale on the 200 E. Annie St site. It would create serious safety and logistical concerns for pedestrians and cyclists, for the existing home owners, for the new tenants of Rowan Vale, for the toddlers at the day care, for the parents and teachers of those toddlers, and for the nearly 1000 children going to and from the middle school, with its own particularized traffic patterns and density considerations, that is located less than 1 block from the proposed site. This is not the project that the citizens of Austin, including the affordable housing tenants, want or deserve. Sincere thanks for your consideration. Penelope Shumway Akin 2300 N. Field Street | Suite 1800 | Dallas, TX 75201 | USA | Direct: +1 214.969.4365 Page 36 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 936 of 45 From: Jennifer Parks < Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 4:54 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: paul Parks < > Subject: NPA-2026-0022.01.SH OBJECTION I am writing to object to the request to amend our neighborhood plan to rezone 206 and 206 1/2 E Annie St and 1710 Brackenridge St from Civic to Multifamily. This property is bordered on all sides by single family homes, and the developer Rowen Vale proposes to build a massive apartment block on the lot if it is rezoned. The design they have proposed is over 50 feet high, has a facade with multiple mismatched materials, and a cavernous ﬁrst-ﬂoor garage which all add up to an eyesore for anyone unfortunate enough to have to live near it or walk by it daily. Houses on its north literally would be in its shadow. Rezoning this property to multifamily and then packing 50-odd units on it is not in keeping with the scale and character of the neighborhood. It is simply designed to make the project ﬁnancially feasible for the developer. Page 37 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 937 of 45 Furthermore, in order to make their numbers “work", the developers have included a pre-K to obtain additional government incentives. This will cause traffic congestion in the middle of the neighborhood; plus, we already have a pre-K a few blocks away at Travis Heights Elementary, from which the pre-K would potentially siphon. I strongly believe that our neighbors should not be subjected to this horrendous building plan simply to proﬁt these developers. I believe the property would be better utilized in another civic use or by building smaller homes more in scale with the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jennifer and Paul Parks 1811 Drake (within 500 feet of the subject property) From: D'Anne M. Hiskey < Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 9:50 AM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 205 E Milton LLC concerns for rezoning of the 200 block of East Annie street Dear Jonathan and Maureen, My name is D’Anne Hiskey, and I am the owner and manager of an LLC property located at 205 East Milton Street, directly behind the proposed development site on the 200 block of East Annie Street. My home is a contributing property within the Fairview Park/Travis Heights National Historic District, and I care deeply about preserving the character, scale, and integrity of this neighborhood. As a homeowner in this district, I have personally invested in preserving its integrity. When making improvements to my home, I hired a historical architect to ensure that all additions remained consistent with the character and standards of the neighborhood. This was a signiﬁcant investment, but one I chose to make because I believe in protecting the historic fabric and thoughtful scale of this community. I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed rezoning of this site to support the construction of Rowan Vale, a 64-unit, 3 to 5 story affordable housing development. I want to begin by saying clearly that I am not opposed to affordable housing. I believe it is an important and necessary part of a thriving city. My concern is not the mission, but Page 38 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 938 of 45 whether this particular location, scale, and zoning are appropriate and consistent with the City’s adopted plans. As someone who lives directly behind this site, I will experience ﬁrsthand the impact of placing a large, multi-story development on a local residential street within a historic district. The height and density represent a dramatic and incompatible shift from the surrounding single-family homes and historic properties. I am especially concerned about traffic, safety, and parking. Our streets are narrow, and many residents, including myself, depend on street parking. Introducing this level of density will signiﬁcantly increase congestion, strain parking availability, and create unsafe conditions for children, pedestrians, and cyclists. Annie Street functions as a local residential street, not a corridor or collector. Zoning intensity should reﬂect that reality. This level of multifamily zoning introduces a scale of density that is not appropriate for this type of street and will lead to ongoing congestion and safety concerns. Additionally, the inclusion of a preschool alongside this level of density creates further risk. Preschool drop-off and pick-up times generate concentrated peak-hour traffic and queuing. Combining this with a 64-unit development on a local street will result in traffic patterns that are inconsistent with the intended function of the neighborhood and increase danger for families. The Future Land Use Map designates this property as Civic, reﬂecting its long-standing use as a church. Rezoning to multifamily represents a signiﬁcant departure from that designation and introduces a level of intensity that is not aligned with the surrounding neighborhood or planning guidance. A more appropriate approach would allow for additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. I am not opposing affordable housing. I am advocating for responsible placement and zoning that aligns with Imagine Austin, the Future Land Use Map, and the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, all of which emphasize appropriate transitions from corridors into established neighborhoods. As a homeowner, neighbor, and steward of a historic property, I ask that you carefully consider the long-term impact of this rezoning, not just in theory, but in the daily lived reality of those of us directly adjacent to this site. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, D’Anne Hiskey Page 39 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 939 of 45 From: Mary Fealkoff < Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 4:51 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Garcia, Ella <Ella.Garcia@austintexas.gov>; Brown, Destiny <destiny.brown01@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re:Zoning Case No. C14-2026-0010.SH; Neighborhood Plan Case No. NPA-2026- 0022.01.SH Dear Planning Commission and Staff, On behalf of the South River City Citizens (SRCC) Neighborhood Association, I am writing to respectfully request a postponement of the Planning Commission hearing currently scheduled for April 14, 2026, related to the proposed development at 206 Annie Street. Please ﬁnd our formal letter attached, which outlines speciﬁc concerns regarding recent changes to the zoning application, requested entitlements and waivers, and the timing of the Neighborhood Traffic Analysis. As detailed in the attached correspondence, residents have only recently received key information and have not had adequate time to fully evaluate the potential impacts or provide meaningful input. We are requesting that this case be postponed to allow for proper review, transparency, and community engagement consistent with the intent of the planning process. We appreciate your consideration and are happy to coordinate further as needed. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Page 40 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 940 of 45 Very truly yours, Mary Fealkoff President, South River City Citizens (SRCC) Neighborhood Association ----------------------- Mary Fealkoff President South River City Citizens NA http://www.srccatx.org/ From: Mary Fealkoff <president@srccatx.org> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 7:56 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Cc: chrisgoodpastor@me.com; williamcoatsiii@gmail.com; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Garcia, Ella <Ella.Garcia@austintexas.gov>; Brown, Destiny <destiny.brown01@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Re:Zoning Case No. C14-2026-0010.SH; Neighborhood Plan Case No. NPA- 2026-0022.01.SH Hi Jonathon, Thank you for giving us a selection of dates for the postponement. We would like to have the postponement be the June 9th date that you offered. Thank you again for all your help and working with SRCC on this matter. Mary ----------------------- Mary Fealkoff President South River City Citizens NA http://www.srccatx.org/ On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 9:17 AM Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> wrote: Page 41 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 941 of 45 Received, however the maximum number of days a postponement request can be requested for is 60 days. So, your options (within 60 days) are: • April 28, 2026 • May 12, 2026 • May 26, 2026 (we have been asked not to schedule cases on this date because it is an election day and the meeting will most likely be cancelled) • June 9, 2026 Please let me know which day the neighborhood would like to revise their request to and I will let the applicant know to see if they agree to the request or not. I will circle back with the neighborhood once I have heard back. Thank you, Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-974-1057 jonathan.tomko@austintexas.gov Page 42 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 942 of 45 From: Marie Case < Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 11:17 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Case numbers: C14-2026-0010.SH for Zoning and NPA-2026-0022.01.SH for the neighborhood plan. Dear Ms. Meredith and Mr. Tomko, Before tomorrow’s Planning Commission meeting I am writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning and development plan for 200 E. Annie St. I am a long-time resident of Travis Heights and I own and live at 1606 East Side Drive. From the time I moved to Austin to attend MCC through 2007 when I purchased this home, I dreamed of living in Travis Heights. Like so many who live here, I love this neighborhood and its historic homes. I believe the Rowen Vale proposal conﬂicts with the City’s plans, policies, and precedents—particularly as it relates to development within the Travis Heights/Fairview Park National Register Historic District. I ask staff and decision-makers to evaluate this request against: 1. the adopted Neighborhood Plan and FLUM consistency standards (including whether there are truly “changed conditions” that justify an amendment and whether the proposal meets the plan’s goals and objectives); 2. the City of Austin Historic Design Standards (March 2021), which guide work in National Register districts and evaluate location/setbacks, orientation, and scale/massing/height; and 3. the City’s compatibility framework intended to limit height and setback impacts near single-family areas. In my view, the proposal fails these tests—particularly on scale/massing/height, setback pattern, and neighborhood compatibility. Key inconsistencies that require clear ﬁndings • Staff acknowledges the Plan’s compatibility requirement and that the neighborhood believes this proposal is not compatible, yet still recommends approval. I request a clear ﬁnding—based on measurable criteria—of how this project meets compatibility expectations in a National Register Historic District. Page 43 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 943 of 45 • The request is framed as MF-3, but the City’s own materials describe how Affordability Unlocked can make it functionally equivalent to MF- 5 height/massing. That gap between the label and the real-world outcome undermines the premise that this is a moderate, compatible change. • Staff recognizes the site is within a National Register Historic District, yet the recommendation does not demonstrate how scale/massing/setbacks will maintain historic context—especially if development bonuses signiﬁcantly increase height. • The recommendation relies on anticipated public beneﬁts and layered subsidies, but even staff notes some funding requests have not yet been submitted/received. Major zoning/NPA changes should not hinge on beneﬁts that are not ﬁnalized. • Citywide goals matter, but they do not eliminate the requirement to demonstrate site-level compatibility within an adopted neighborhood plan area and historic district. Speciﬁc concerns • Inappropriate design and massing o The sheer size and limited setbacks are shocking. o The design is not compatible with existing home architecture and not in keeping with the established scale of the district. o The setbacks proposed are minimal and do not reﬂect the established pattern of development. • Parking and traffic impacts o The allotment of parking spaces is inadequate. o Increased traffic in a historic district with narrow streets is unsafe and unwise. o Our streets are already strained; we are effectively at or over capacity. • Incentives / tax credits o The proposed public incentives feel inequitable given the scale of the project and its impacts on the surrounding historic district. Page 44 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 944 of 45 There are better options for this site. Our community would be supportive of a different approach that respects the historic district while advancing Austin’s housing goals. Mayor Watson is correct: “Let’s work towards being a city that more people can afford, and do it in a way that adds to our existing neighborhoods.” The Travis Heights/Fairview Park National Register Historic District shines with pride and a commitment to upholding our history. This Rowen Vale proposal is simply too much building on too little land for this location. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marie Case 1606 East Side Drive Austin, TX 78704 Page 45 of 45 07 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 945 of 45