03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 - Staff Report

Planning Commission – May 12, 2026

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

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 230 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/Megan Lasch AGENT: Megan Lasch 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: Neighborhood postponement request to April 28, 2026, granted. April 28, 2026: Staff postponement request to May 12, 2026, granted. May 12, 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 tentatively 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 an environment with many transportation choices can help reduce low- and moderate-income households’ transportation costs by reducing automobile dependency. Coupling affordable housing with an on-site daycare facility, if also affordable, may also reduce a household’s childcare costs and be transformative financially. a Resolution of Support f r o m City Council (exhibit The development has received D) and a S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification letter from Austin Housing (exhibit H). Austin Housing has stated that 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 91 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 92 of 230a 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 93 of 230WATERSHED: 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 94 of 230 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 95 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 96 of 230 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 97 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 98 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 99 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 910 of 230Ms. 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 911 of 230The 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 912 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 913 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 914 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 915 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 916 of 230MEMORANDUM 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 917 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 918 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 919 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 920 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 921 of 230 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% 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 922 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 923 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 924 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 925 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 926 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 927 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 928 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 929 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 930 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 931 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 932 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 933 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 934 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 935 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 936 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 937 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 938 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 939 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 940 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 941 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 942 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 943 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 944 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 945 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 946 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 947 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 948 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 949 of 230City 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 950 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 951 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 952 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 953 of 230McMansion 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 954 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 955 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 956 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 957 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 958 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 959 of 230Applicant 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 960 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 961 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 962 of 230areas 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 963 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 964 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 965 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 966 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 967 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 968 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 969 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 970 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 971 of 230Instead, 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 972 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 973 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 974 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 975 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 976 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 977 of 230go 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 978 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 979 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 980 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 981 of 230Francesco 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 982 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 983 of 230Mobility: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 984 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 985 of 230Thanks- 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 986 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 987 of 230I'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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 988 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 989 of 230Incompatibility 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 990 of 230 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 991 of 230 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 992 of 230 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, 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 993 of 230 Kimberley Mead 1803 Drake Ave Aus(cid:415)n 78704 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 994 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 995 of 230the 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 996 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 997 of 230Melanie 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 998 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 999 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9100 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9101 of 230setbacks, 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9102 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9103 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9104 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9105 of 230"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9106 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9107 of 230Fun 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9108 of 230Yet 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9109 of 230Example / 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9110 of 230Would 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9111 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9112 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9113 of 230Subject: 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9114 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9115 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9116 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9117 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9118 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9119 of 230Sent 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9120 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9121 of 230Thank 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9122 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9123 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9124 of 230Jonathan 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 *** 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9125 of 230 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9126 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9127 of 230"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9128 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9129 of 230Incompatibility: MF-3 Zoning allows O-SDA to construct a building that, with the bonuses from Affordability Unlocked, could be as high as 60 feet, and thus is the functional equivalent of MF-5. The building will start less than 20' from the backyards of the houses on the south side of East Milton St. (14' alley +5' setback). City maps suggest that the lots for these single family houses run east- west. They do not. They run north-south. The proposed development is not going up in our side yards (we are very accustomed to houses sited very close together); it is looming over our backyards. The building will be 20 feet from the closest house, and between 50 and 70 feet from the other houses on the south side of East Milton St. Multiple stories of apartments will be looking down into our yard, destroying our privacy, and adding light from apartments, the garage, and security. In mid-winter, the parts of our backyards that are less than 20' from the back fence will receive no sunlight at all. I recognize that there are other MF-3 lots in our neighborhood adjacent to SF-3 housing. But these multi-family units were built according to the City's Zoning principles and were not constructed with the exemptions and multipliers that Affordability Unlocked provides. None so changed the nature of their neighbors' homes. You can see the effects of this proposed development in the attached images. Image 1 shows our current yard, shot from our back deck. The proposed building will be at least 5' closer to our yard than the existing gray church. A three-story building will be approximately the height of the utility pole; a five-story, 50' building will be the height of the trees. Figure 2 shows the projected view of a person standing immediately inside our back door (made with CAD, to scale; please ignore the blocking on top of the fence but imagine windows!). As you can see, even a three-story building constructed so close to the property line, without the usual zoning requirements for setbacks, sightlines, and compatibility, will block any view of the sky from the back of our house as well as from the houses of our East Milton St. neighbors. These proposed changes to Zoning and to the Neighborhood Plan, if granted, will establish a precedent throughout neighborhoods in Austin. It suggests that the City is willing to abandon established zoning principles to facilitate whatever the Council's current policy goals might be. But Zoning and Neighborhood plans exist to mediate between competing land-use goals. Maintaining consistent principles is essential for continued public support. I encourage you to continue to maintain the zoning principles the City has established and to honor the Neighborhood Plan that the community put together at the City's request. Please reject this request for Multiple Family zoning on the 200 block of East Annie St. Thank you for your consideration, best, Martha Newman 203 East Milton, resident since 1989. 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9130 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9131 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9132 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9133 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9134 of 230Key concerns: Pre K pickup and drop off queuing back onto Annie Existing weekend and school traffic already creating peak congestion Known speeding and cut through traffic amplifying risk Proposed egress onto Nickerson raising visibility and safety concerns These concerns become more significant when considered alongside near-term infrastructure work, including the South 1st Street Reclaimed Water Main Project. If key routes such as Monroe experience intermittent disruption over the next two years while this project adds additional congestion and queuing pressure, that combination could materially impact traffic operations, emergency access, and overall neighborhood safety. While the fire department does not formally weigh in on zoning matters, these conditions highlight broader concerns about how well these streets accommodate emergency vehicles today. Taken together, this raises real questions around access, response times, and reliability of key routes. We would encourage staff to take a close look at: Whether parking demand and Pre K activity can realistically be contained on site Whether the proposed Nickerson egress is safe under current conditions Whether the level of intensity is appropriate given the neighborhood’s limited access routes and near term infrastructure impacts Compatibility and Transition From a compatibility and transition standpoint, the nearby MF-3 properties do not appear to be meaningful comparisons for this site. Those parcels are generally adjacent to other multifamily zoning or the park and therefore maintain some level of transition. This lot does not. It is surrounded by SF-3, which makes the compatibility question more significant here. It also appears important to evaluate the actual intensity being proposed, rather than viewing this solely as a base MF 3 request. A 64 unit, 5 story project with an on site Pre K on roughly 0.9 acres is much closer to MF 6 intensity than a typical MF 3 project. Even base MF 3 would be difficult to reconcile with the surrounding SF 3 context, and the actual proposal goes well beyond that. In our view, the project is not built in proportion to surrounding homes, does not encourage compatibility, and does not provide an adequate transition. A Path Forward More broadly, this is not a choice between affordable housing and no affordable housing. Affordable housing can be pursued here in a way that also respects compatibility. If staff believes some zoning change is warranted, SF-5 would allow additional housing while still providing a more appropriate transition from surrounding single-family uses. If the applicant’s economics only work at a much higher intensity, we do not believe that should drive staff’s recommendation. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9135 of 230The 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- Cecelia Croman 1601 Brackenridge Street Austin, TX 78704 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9136 of 230Bari Shiva Mayer 1803 Nickerson St. Austin, TX 78704 April 1, 2026 Maureen Meredith, Plan Amendment Case Manager, and Jonathan Tomko, Zoning Case Manager City of Austin via email Re: Neighborhood Planning Case # NPA-2026-0022.01.SH Zoning Case # C14-2026-0010.SH Project Name: Rowen Vale Dear Mr. Tomko and Ms. Meredith, I’m writing in opposition to proposed changes to the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan, and 206 E Annie St. et al. zoning. As context, I’ve lived in Austin for nearly two decades. For the last 11 years, I’ve owned and resided at 1803 Nickerson St., only 100 feet from the subject site. This is the first time I’ve written to the City on any matter, and I apologize in advance for the length of this letter. Our neighborhood welcomes all without discrimination and regardless of socioeconomic status. I have applauded efforts to promote a compact and connected city, including in my own backyard, through reducing lot size minimums, increasing the supply of “missing middle” housing, and promoting transit and larger-scale development along South Congress Ave. However, I believe the proposed changes are inconsistent with the City’s goals and public interest: 1. The proposed changes do not allow for adequate transitions between adjacent land uses. 2. The proposed changes do not align with the City’s Growth Concept Map when all relevant factors are considered. 3. The proposed changes do not protect the historic character of the neighborhood. 4. The proposed changes do not meet the neighborhood’s urban design guidelines. 5. The proposed changes exacerbate existing parking and traffic issues. The proposed changes do not allow for adequate transitions between adjacent land uses. The first goal of all planning and zoning laws should be to ensure harmonious transitions between land uses. Page 1 of 4 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9137 of 230 Along with the GSRCCNP, the City’s comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin, is a guiding document for planning and zoning decisions. Per Imagine Austin (page A-27), “The Austin City Charter mandates that zoning regulations be in alignment with the comprehensive plan.” Imagine Austin policy LUT P4 guides the City to “… recognize that different neighborhoods have different characteristics, and infill and new development should be sensitive to the predominant character of these communities.” The GSRCCNP echoes a similar sentiment: “… respect the established neighborhood character and natural assets.” The subject site sits in the interior of a single-family neighborhood. Many of the surrounding homes are roughly a century old, on small lots, and connected by narrow streets that were typical of the time. Both Imagine Austin and the GSRCCNP require changes to be compatible with that character. The proposed change asks for MF-3 zoning. However, given the Affordability Unlocked density bonus, the applicant proposes to build at a density of roughly 71 units per acre—more like MF-6 zoning—including a pre-K school. It is impossible to transition from a 1930s-era, 1600 square foot, single-story home like my own, to a five-story MF-6-like development next door, in a way that is sensitive to the character of our community. The City has consistently recognized the need for appropriate transitions in previous planning and zoning change cases. For example, in Heflin Housing (C14-2023-0117), City staff recommended denying MF-3-NP for a SMART Housing project on 0.49 acres: “Zoning changes should promote compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses… MF-3-NP would not provide an adequate transition between it and adjacent SF-3-NP land uses.” In E MLK (C14-2020-0031), development of a 2.64-acre SMART Housing site was capped at 50 units with a 40-foot height limit within 300 feet of single-family zoning. In Gunter Street (C14-2024-0109), a 2.75-acre site was limited to 50 units via conditional overlay. The proposed changes do not align with the City’s Growth Concept Map when all relevant factors are considered. Imagine Austin’s Growth Concept Map defines “activity corridors,” including South Congress Ave., to “provide direction for future growth” (page 97). Imagine Austin specifically notes that “a corridor’s character will depend on factors such as road width, traffic volume, the size and configuration of lots, and existing uses” (page 104). In both E MLK and Gunter Street, although the sites were either directly on an activity corridor (E MLK Blvd.) or within 550 ft of an activity corridor (Gunter Street, off Airport Blvd.), the City took careful notice of existing land use. The proposed change—allowing 64 units on just 0.9 acres, not abutting an activity corridor, and surrounded on every side by existing homes—would substantially exceed any prior recommendation, even those made in more favorable locations. Page 2 of 4 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9138 of 230The proposed changes do not protect the historic character of the neighborhood. Protecting historic character is directed by Imagine Austin, the GSRCCNP, and good citizenship. Two Imagine Austin policies, LUT P41 and P42, state: “Protect historic buildings, structures, sites, places, and districts in neighborhoods throughout the City,” and “Retain the character of National Register and local Historic Districts and ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with historic resources and character.” Further, the first goal of the GSRCCNP is to “[m]aintain the historic fabric” of the neighborhood. A 64-unit apartment building replacing a contributing historic structure in a National Register District challenges these requirements. The applicant acknowledges the Historic Landmark Commission must review the project, but the Imagine Austin policy calls for retaining character and ensuring compatibility, not merely process compliance. For example, in Waverly North (C14-2025-0034), City staff highlighted the restoration of a historic portion of the property as part of their recommendation. Interestingly, the applicant in that case was the same as in this one. In Waverly North, the applicant rightly valued both the applicable Neighborhood Plan and historic preservation, writing in their cover letter, “This proposal aligns with the goals and vision laid out in the [Neighborhood Plan]… by providing multifamily development that reflects and preserves the historic nature and residential character of the neighborhood.” The proposed changes do not meet the neighborhood’s urban design guidelines. The GSRCCNP contains urban design guidelines that were developed in consultation with the public. The very first guideline (NC-1) is, “New single family and multi-family construction should be compatible with existing and historic home architecture. Building heights, construction materials, and architectural details should enhance the existing character of the neighborhood.” Imagine Austin corroborates this, explicitly requiring the protection and enhancement of streetscapes. For absolute specificity, the GSRCCNP elaborates (NC-5), “Multifamily building facades should express the scale of single-family houses and reflect the scale, height, and appearance of surrounding homes.” The enormous size of the proposed building, combined with the small area of the site, make it impossible for the development to be compatible with the neighborhood—regardless of budget. The site plan makes clear that setbacks are minimal, that massing will create vertical walls next to sidewalks and adjoining buildings, and that there is no room for the well-designed streetscapes that make for vibrant communities. To their credit, the applicant has met with neighbors on several occasions and has made some changes to their site and architectural plans. However, design changes cannot create space for compatibility where no space exists. Page 3 of 4 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9139 of 230The proposed changes exacerbate existing parking and traffic issues. Given the narrow streets surrounding the site, existing resident parking limitations (few houses have driveways or garages), widespread non-resident parking from South Congress Ave., and cut-through access to IH-35, our community is uniquely concerned about parking and traffic. The GSRCCNP has long been explicit about parking and traffic concerns in this area. Recommendations D23 and D24 call to “Identify parking spillover problems from multifamily developments into neighborhoods and support residential-parking-only petitions” and “Discourage any variances or waivers for parking reduction on any new or expanding developments.” The proposed changes would add considerably to the parking challenges already faced by the neighborhood. The current design calls for 46 parking spaces—a number limited by the size constraints of the site, as detailed above. This is a dubious choice for a 64-unit development intended to serve families who likely own cars (in addition to walking, cycling, or using public transit), especially since apartment residents are not eligible for the Residential Permit Parking program in effect on all surrounding streets. Traffic is an equally significant matter. In addition to the increased volume of traffic normally associated with 64 units, the development includes a pre-K. The pre-K brings additional traffic pressure, as well as queued cars during drop-off and pick-up. Neither the applicant, nor Transportation and Public Works, have articulated a coherent plan for how this can be accommodated. Continued discussion has raised more issues than it has addressed (such as a prohibited left turn from E Annie St. into the site, a fire hydrant blocking the designated driveway depicted on the site plan, and so on). Traffic and road capacity have been dispositive factors in City decisions. In Saxon 2 (C14-2024- 0099), the recommendation to deny was based on a Neighborhood Traffic Analysis that showed the property would exceed traffic capacity on the small street. In summary Given these factors, I respectfully request a recommendation against the proposed changes to the GSRCCNP and zoning. That said, the goals of the applicant are laudable, and I would encourage them to work with the City to re-scale their development plans on the site to address the aforesaid issues, or to find a larger site better suited to their planned size. Sincerely, _________ _______________ Bari Shiva Mayer Page 4 of 4 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9140 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9141 of 230On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 3:08 PM Tomko, Jonathan < > wrote: 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, 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 From: Phillips < Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 8:05 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan > ; Meredith, Maureen Cc: Subject: RE: Re: request for more information regarding Rowan Vale Project and Zoning ' < > External Email - Exercise Caution Jonathan and Maureen, attached is the complete signed letter requesting more information. I hope this makes it easier to read/file. Again, sorry for the glitch. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. My best to your and yours, Diana Phillips (c) 512 774 8057 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9142 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9143 of 230"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 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". 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9144 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9145 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9146 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9147 of 230through the neighborhood to avoid South Congress traffic. There is also paid and Residential Permit Parking on both sides of Nickerson, burdening the exit with extremely limited sight lines. So, parents will also be required to queue AGAIN at the parking garage exit - as they wait to pull out onto Nickerson, creating a second queue of folks in the garage after the drop off, and blocking additional residential parking spots. The queue will undoubtedly spill out onto Annie St., blocking traffic in both directions and posing legitimate safety risks to residents, PreK students, and the middle school children who are already coming through this area for Lively Middle School, located a block away - both during the drop off and the pick up - which also corresponds with morning/evening rush hour commutes to & from work. Please note, that in our conversations with Transportation and Public Works (TPW) on March 2nd, they confirmed that cars are not allowed to queue in the ROW (per the City's Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM)), so queuing there is also not an option. So, the issue remains unsolved. *It should also be noted that Annie St. is a main artery for Fire Engine 6 (located 1 block away) to access IH-35.* In development review practice under the the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM): • Queuing areas must be explicitly shown on the site plan if a use creates predictable vehicle lines. • 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9148 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9149 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9150 of 230Construction Impact, Logistics, and Protected Trees A project of this scale would require an extended construction period, including cranes and deep excavation. Given the narrow streets and built-out nature of the area, construction staging and equipment placement remain unresolved logistical challenges. Additionally, the excavation required introduces risk to protected heritage oak trees, which are both environmentally signiﬁcant and legally protected. Parking, Aﬀordability, and Infrastructure Strain Parking and infrastructure constraints present a signiﬁcant challenge. The surrounding streets are already under strain, as evidenced by the recent implementation of paid and permitted parking systems in response to documented demand. Introducing high-density housing without suﬃcient on-site parking will exacerbate these existing pressures. All four streets surrounding the proposed development are designated as paid or resident-only parking, raising concerns about alignment with aﬀordability goals. Requiring residents of an “aﬀordable” development to pay for parking—or rely on limited surrounding streets—creates a practical and ﬁnancial burden. Overﬂow into nearby unrestricted areas is a predictable outcome. For example, on Drake, there are consistently signiﬁcantly more vehicles parked on the unpaid portion than on permitted blocks. Based on three weeks of observation, daily there are 11 cars on the unpaid part of Drake and only 2 on the hybrid parking blocks of Drake. This demonstrates how quickly overﬂow conditions develop under current constraints. This is goal reality-based zoning to help ensure success for residents rather than creating a long-term struggles. Existing Developments and Unresolved Issues It is also important to consider the performance of existing developments by the same developer. A nearby aﬀordable housing project reportedly faces parking challenges and is not at full occupancy. If existing projects are facing challenges, it is reasonable to question the urgency and readiness of introducing another high-density development in an even more constrained setting. Speculation About Future Residents and Lifestyle Assumptions Several assumptions presented by the developer regarding future residents and transportation patterns are speculative and not supported by suﬃcient data. Each time the developer engages in discussions they continue to demonstrate a broader pattern of stretching assumptions to ﬁt a narrative. For instance: · identifying Tiny Grocer as a nearby walkable grocery option overlooks the reality that it is a boutique market with pricing that is inaccessible to many residents. Presenting it as an aﬀordability-supporting feature reﬂects a disconnect between planning assumptions and lived realities of the residents. · Claims that residents will primarily be drawn from nearby service industry workers, or that many will not require vehicles, are not substantiated. Housing decisions are inﬂuenced by multiple factors— including community ties, schools, family needs, and overall cost of living—not proximity to employment alone. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9151 of 230 · Stating that many residents may “move in with a car and then realize that they don’t need one” Yet the developer’s own reference to census data indicating that only a small percentage of Austinites do not own cars further underscores this concern. Community Feedback The community feedback has been clear and consistent. There is strong support for increasing housing and aﬀordability, and a need for it be in alignment with planning principles, neighborhood conditions, and community input. There are too many issues regarding this proposal and a zoning change to MF-3 or MF-4 is not warranted for this property. Conclusion There is no need to rush this decision, particularly given the number of concerns, uncertainties and the potential for long-term infrastructure strain, a more measured approach is warranted. Rezoning at this scale is eﬀectively irreversible and should be approached with caution. A widely supported and viable alternative is only months away: Missing Middle housing. Duplexes, fourplexes, and small multi-unit buildings provide increased density while remaining compatible with neighborhood scale and infrastructure. This is what is suited for this site and quite achievable. It balances all the needs and stressors of this lot. Support for this approach is strong and consistent. It is a rare alignment between community input, sound urban planning principles, and long-term sustainability. The city is taking steps to alleviate aﬀordability concerns by creating a viable and sustainable model. It is not mega development OR housing. The City should not be pressured to make a decision regarding rezoning when a viable option is within reach. The developer does not even have their full funding until after July, so let’s not rush to make a decision that is detrimental to future residents. Rowen Vale, as currently proposed, is out of alignment and causes more problems than it solves if placed here. It is a strong concept applied in an unsuitable context. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of these concerns. I urge you to prioritize solutions that respect the character, infrastructure, and long-term health of Travis Heights, both current and future residents. Sincerely, Kimberley Mead 1803 Drake Ave Austin 78704 Kimberley Mead, M.A., LPC-S 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9152 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9153 of 230"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9154 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9155 of 230that designation or transition appropriately—such as SF-5 with civic or compatible residential use— rather than introducing MF-3 apartments. 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 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9156 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9157 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9158 of 230With 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 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 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9159 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9160 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9161 of 230"Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9162 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9163 of 230I very much appreciate it. Regards -William On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:14 AM William Coats < > wrote: I really appreciate that Jonathan. Lots to read! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2026, at 10:28 AM, Tomko, Jonathan < wrote: > Good morning William, Yes, I make a point to read all correspondence submitted to me on every case and convey all critical points to any colleagues who may not have time to read everything. It is also my practice to visit every site with a rezoning application in which I am the Zoning Case Manager. Thank you again for your well thought out comments. <Outlook- rw5mbwqd.png> Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 From: William Coats < Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 3:02 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan < Cc: Meredith, Maureen < Subject: Re: Rowen Vale_Scale and Degree > > > External Email - Exercise Caution Ok- I hope you have a chance to read it. I do not get into any technicalities and tried to avoid topics that don't likely move the needle but rather have tried to make the case that there are characteristics of the Rowen Vale that make it considerably less rational than similar projects. Maureen, I sent you one as well. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9164 of 230 Thanks! -W On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 2:56 PM Tomko, Jonathan < > wrote: Thank you for your comments and for all your time thinking through this case from so many diﬀerent angles. We will include your comments 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 in person or virtually if you would like to. <Outlook- odxwfhfd.png> Jonathan Tomko, AICP Planner Principal Austin Planning, Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 From: William Coats < Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 1:53 PM To: Tomko, Jonathan < Cc: Meredith, Maureen < Subject: Rowen Vale_Scale and Degree > > > External Email - Exercise Caution Hi Jonathan First, thank you. I have been throwing random questions at you over the past few weeks, and I really appreciate you taking the time to answer them in an informative and matter fact way. Considering the staff recommendations are coming up, I wanted to share a few thoughts. To me the debate about Rowen Vale is rooted in two concepts, scale and degree. Scale: I will leave specifics to others and just provide opinion and anecdote. The height and footprint being proposed at this location are, frankly, shocking. On several occasions, I have gone to look at buildings of the same scale on major thoroughfares then I have come back to the neighborhood to visualize these projects on 206 E Annie. I have the same internal reaction each time. “What!? No way.” I have shown this to over 20 people and, to a person, they have had a similar reaction. Then, when I throw in the PreK concept the reaction is something like “Absurd” or “you have got to be kidding me”. One of the people is a multi-family developer developing a DB90 project as we speak. Safe to say he is no fan of NIMBYs 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9165 of 230 Given the City’s worthy goal of creating more density and affordability and also getting people on board with this movement, I just can’t see why they would want to facilitate such an anomalous project that is so out of proportion to the surrounding single-family homes. I know you hear this a lot, but a project of this size really will fundamentally alter this pocket of old homes for the worse. A special pocket in my opinion. Degree: I imagine you have heard most, if not all, of the arguments that have been made against the Rowen Vale. Parking, congestion, incompatibility, operational challenges etc. I can totally see how Staff, the Zoning Commission and ultimately the City Council might glaze over, hearing the same old thing. That said, while the arguments are the same, it is the degree to which these issues exist with the proposed Rowen Vale project that is uniquely challenging. The parking ratio has vacillated between ~40 and 56 (such a wide range is confusing). It has included (unapproved) designated street parking on some site plans and not others. It does not seem to account for the impact of the preK queuing on Annie and under the building nor does it account for preK staff parking. But let’s take the highest total of 56 and assume and that the staff uses public transit. That is essentially one spot for every two residents. The degree of parking deficiency is too high. Especially given South Congress over-flow and the RPP program (not to mention the Living Streets designation on Milton). Acknowledging the unusually deficient parking, the developer states that people without cars will “self-select”. Meaning the project is intended for that demographic. No families with kids, no one with a mobility issue and no commuter could self-select to live somewhere with such a high degree of parking uncertainty. Incompatibility probably does not rise to the top of concerns in zoning cases, but the proposed project is surrounded by pre-WWII homes and the homes just North of the subject property were built around the turn of the century. The Swisher Addition was platted in 1877. The Rowen Vale midrise, with its non- descript modern design, would tower over these bungalows and early Texas folk-style homes. It would, quite literally, block out the sun for several houses. Austin’s housing stock includes very few areas like this, with a concentration of turn of the century homes. The degree of incompatibility is too high, even if preservation is being somewhat deprioritized out of necessity. When congestion is cited as a reason for not increasing density, it even makes my eyes roll a bit. There are more people so, of course, there will be more cars. But the two-lane streets, existing parking difficulties, Lively pick-up and drop-off, the fire station 200ft away, South Congress activity and public works projects make congestion and mobility a very real concern. Lively parents will tell you how frustrating pick-up and drop-off are. I-35 has closed the Woodward underpass and the Riverside highway entrance. Getting from Congress to our homes is an unpleasant adventure on the weekends with the two land roads becoming 1 lane. Sideswipes are regular. Danger is real. I usually don’t drive on the weekends. Which I am ok with. It’s a city. I get it. But now a purple pipe project is kicking off on Monroe. And I assume light rail construction is coming since it is being cited as a justification for Rowen Vale. Adding a major construction project and over 100 residents is almost cruel. We are already boxed in. Congestion is inevitable in a growing city, but the degree of congestion would be too high. Addressing operational challenges like ingress/egress, dumpsters/deliveries, how the alley will be used, the preK queuing and circulation, are similar to 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9166 of 230challenges 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". -- 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". -- William Coats 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9167 of 230 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9168 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9169 of 230- Require meaningful green space and a humane relationship to the sidewalk and street. - Mandate quality materials and a coherent architectural language that responds to the surrounding context. - Require the developer to demonstrate genuine community engagement before any approval proceeds. Density done right is a gift to a neighborhood. Density done carelessly is a wound that doesn’t heal. Please don’t let this be the latter. Respectfully, Kathryn Kitchen 1612 Brackenridge Street District 9 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9170 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9171 of 230only offered after the developer learned they were not likely to receive funding. Adding the pre- school ensured that they would receive funding. This is a critical factor to consider when considering the appropriateness of this site for this project. Having a preschool on site was never a consideration when the property was vetted and selected. Had the developer known a pre-school was required, we believe due to the severe constraints of the site, 206 E Annie would never have been chosen. When O-SDA reconfigured the site to accomodate a pre-school, they had to reduce the number of units and subsequently realized they no longer needed MF-4 zoning to achieve their objectives; they then changed the zoning request to MF-3. While I understand a site plan is not required and need not be approved prior to zoning decisions, future site usage under MF-3 Zoning should be considered. Is this site appropriate for a day care/pre- k and can it be added without compromising safety for its students? Can it be added without exacerbating traffic patterns and congestion on existing residential streets not designed to accomodate commercial traffic? Reasons to deny MF-3 zoning related to the pre-kindergarten. 1. MF-3 zoning combined with a 40 student preschool will create significant congestion within the parking garage, which poses a safety issue. The complex has a single entrance for its 120+ residents, which is on Annie, and is the same entrance that will be utilized by the Pre-k. The even more significant problem relates to exiting, when both residents and pre-k parents will be trying to exit at the same time in the morning. This problem has no solution. 2. It poses a safety risk as it will cause traffic to back up in both directions on Annie. There are only 3- 4 cars that will be able to queue in the parking garage, leaving the remaining 35 cars to queue on Annie. Angel’s Care, the proposed provider, maintains hours from 7AM-5:30PM, which coincide with peak rush hour traffic. There is also a middle school one block away which further compounds the traffic congestion. It is worth mentioning that the traffic study (NTA) on Annie that was recently conducted was done while Annie (Woodward) was closed for construction at I-35. That has markedly changed traffic patterns and reduced traffic counts on Annie as Travis Heights residents now use Cesar Chavez and Oltorf to access northbound I-35. 3. It poses a safety risk to small children who are not visible below the hood of a car. They are expected to load and unload within the parking garage, an inherently dangerous place to load/unload as cars are backing up, entering, exiting, and parents/residents are rushing to get out of the parking garage to get to work.. We believe the developer is trying to mitigate these traffic problems by donating right of way to widen the street. While that is shown on the site plan, we’ve not been able to confirm with the developer. If that is the case, it further demonstrates that the developer recognizes that existing infrastructure can not support the level of density added by the pre-k in combination with the 120+ residents. New development should be designed to adhere to existing infrastructure instead of the other way around, modifying the street to meet the specific needs of the development. While the site is within a quarter mile of South Congress, it is located on an interior local residential street. We agree with Imagine Austin that density is needed. Our hope is that it be done in a careful 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9172 of 230thoughtful way, respecting what is and with a well considered design that introduces density appropriate to the neighborhoods near major transit corridors. This project with this zoning does neither. Thank you for your consideration, Susan 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9173 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9174 of 230Catherine Capers 1807 Nickerson St. Austin, Texas 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9175 of 230April 7, 2026 Mayor Kirk Watson, Council Members, City Manager Broadnax P. O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL RE: NPA-2026-0022.01.SH and C14-2026-0010.SH located at 206 E. Annie Street Dear Mayor Watson and Council Members, The City of Austin spent many taxpayer dollars to produce the Greater South River City Combined (GSRCC) Neighborhood Plan in 2005, a plan that exists in ordinance today. The Austin City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 20050929-Z001 as an amendment to Chapter 5 -22 of the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance is signed by Mayor Will Wynn and City Attorney David Smith reflecting the work of 27 city staff who worked on the plan. Part 2 ADOPTION AND DIRECTION of the plan subsection (B) states that “the City Manager shall prepare zoning cases consistent with the land use recommendations in the Plan”. The proposal to amend the Future Land Use Map from CIVIC to MF-4 is not consistent with the Neighborhood Plan as listed in the above referenced section of the Ordinance. And for the reasons also listed below in this letter, the GSRCC Contact Team DOES NOT support this proposal to amend the FLUM from CIVIC to MF-4. Residents of Travis Heights and Sherwood Oaks spent 16 months in twice monthly meetings with City of Austin planners from 2003-05. The South River City Citizens used membership dues to mail surveys and newsletters to 6,000 households to gather feedback for the creation of the Neighborhood Plan. City staff held neighborhood and preserve walks to see neighborhood concerns, look for opportunities and talk to residents who came outside to engage. The number one Planning Priority recommendation from this use of taxpayer funds and residents’ efforts was that “New construction and remodeling should be built in proportion to surrounding homes. This includes limiting height, massing and maintaining appropriate setbacks”. The proposed development at 206 E. Annie St. does not even adhere to the first Neighborhood Plan recommendation. It proposes a five-story apartment building across an alley from single story homes built in the early 1900’s. This apartment building is not proposed on S. Congress Avenue but instead two blocks interior to the neighborhood on a neighborhood street. The proposal is on property that ostensibly is a church but, while receiving 100% exemption from all property taxes for many years, has not been used as a place of worship during recent times. Neighbors report the church had its corporation involuntarily terminated over ten years ago. With the City of Austin facing dire financial shortfalls, having such a valuable property not contributing to the tax base without proper exemption has cheated the taxpaying residents and other businesses. To add insult to injury, the proposal seeks fee waivers that will create further unequitable burdens to Austin taxpayers AND according to the City’s Smart Housing Certification letter dated February 6, 2026, the Affordability period is ONLY FIVE YEARS. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9176 of 230 Page 2 April 7, 2026 RE: NPA-2026-0022.01.SH and C14-2026-0010.SH located at 206 E. Annie Street In the 38 years prior to the adoption of the GSRCC Neighborhood Plan, the plan area added approximately 2635 multifamily units or about 39 units/year. In the 14 years following adoption of the Plan (ending in 2019), the plan area added approximately 1776 multifamily units or approximately 126 units/year. So following adoption of the FLUM and Plan a THREE FOLD increase in construction of multifamily units has occurred with only a couple of FLUM amendments including one supporting a FLUM amendment for this same applicant to build an appropriately sited multifamily project on the S. IH 35 frontage road. Not one interior to a single family neighborhood. A member of the Neighborhood Plan Contact Team who as a private landlord has provided affordable housing for several decades adds the following about the proposed land use change: “The ‘Affordable Housing’ initiative as envisioned by our local city government will never provide ‘affordable housing’. 1. Housing prices are controlled by hugely powerful external variables that the local city government does not control or influence. 2. The administrative, planning, and implementation cost burden for the city’s efforts serve only to add to the tax burden. These added costs make housing more expensive, not more affordable. 3. The city has no plan or method to measure results from its initiatives. Even if the city can track the costs associated with the initiative, the city has no way to mark success. It’s another perpetual spending boondoggle, guided by vague feelings, not economic reality. 4. Even if the city could reduce local housing cost, the effects of supply and demand would be noticed, and there would be an increase in local demand at the temporarily-reduced cost. Market forces would then cause the supply of those in search of less costly housing to migrate here. That migration would subsequently create greater demand, and that demand would raise the local cost of housing as a result of market forces. In short, the initiative has “good intent” but it will never change the economic reality. It’s entirely a waste of tax money. Concessions to developers in the name of ‘affordable housing’ enrich the developers at the expense of all taxpayers. Taxpayers suffer; developers gain wealth; housing cost is not reduced. Not a good plan for the city of Austin. There is no mandate for our government to compete in the housing market.” Please proceed with reason and intelligence to deny this unwarranted change to the FLUM and support the Neighborhood Plan. Elloa Mathews, NPCT member since 2005 and immediate past Chair David Swann, NPCT member since 2005 Cc: Maureen Meredith, Jonathon Tomko COA Planning Anita Tschurr South River City Citizens Neighborhood Association Zoning Chair 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9177 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9178 of 230When we moved to Austin, we were in our early 20’s and just getting started, barely out of school. Before moving here, we lived in a tiny one-bedroom apartment with a space that was generously called a kitchen. It was part of pretty good-sized apartment complex near Baylor Law School. That way, we could have one car because I could walk to class. Our first Austin home was a triplex that was part of a group of triplexes located in a single-family neighborhood. We weren’t making a ton of dough, but could afford to live in Austin, which played a role in our falling in love with this town and staying here for almost 45 years now. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9179 of 230My first home in Austin. What’s Missing? “Affordability First” was my mantra while running for mayor. It’s been my agenda since taking office in 2023. Over the past three years, we’ve aggressively worked to add more housing stock through historic land use reforms, cutting regulatory red tape and simplifying our permitting process. 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9180 of 230Types of missing middle housing developments. 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. Our first Austin home was also missing middle. Our current land development code was passed in 1984. The code made it harder to create this type of housing. The result we see today is a huge gap and limited options for people who are looking to live in something other than a single-family home or a large apartment complex. This latest initiative allows us to be more responsive and intentional with how we grow in Austin. We’re filling in gaps and building upon the work we’ve done in the past three years to increase housing stock, and we’re doing it in a way that adds to our existing neighborhoods. More Housing Lingo & Needed Changes This sort of responsiveness and adaptability has helped Austin become a national leader in creating more housing. To be successful and get optimal results, we need to be willing to evaluate and reevaluate our work and see if it's doing what we want or causing problems. We can’t be rigid and stuck in our ways—especially if we can see things aren’t working the way we thought they would. I’ve spoken out about my unhappiness with our density bonus program known as DB90. (See what I mean about a strange name? DB90 ought to be the name of 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9181 of 230C3PO’s brother in Star Wars). DB90 is the only tool the city has available to incentivize affordable housing in all parts of Austin. It gives a developer more height for building a housing structure that provides more affordable housing. In some ways, it’s achieved the intended purpose. But DB90 has also created unintended consequences because it’s a rigid tool that can’t be adapted to different situations and neighborhoods. Having just one tool for every job doesn’t make a lot of sense. I wouldn’t use a butcher knife to spread butter on a piece of bread. (Actually, I'm dieting and very hungry. I might do this, but it would be because of irrational and primal instinct. I'd love some bread and butter, and I might use an axe to spread it.) The point is still good: We shouldn’t just use one citywide density bonus program to address our affordable housing hunger in such a large and diverse city. Last June, I initiated amendments to DB90 as well as our other density bonus programs. Council directed city staff to revisit DB90 and to bring back density bonus tiers that consider items such as the affordability requirements, height allowances, redevelopment requirements, and commercial standards. While developers can still request 90 feet in height, neighbors can help the council decide if the height should be more or less. We can also adjust the density, decide whether ground-floor commercial makes sense, make other adjustments so the development is tailored to the neighborhood. This is a far more intentional approach to development and creates the opportunity for robust conversations between neighbors and developers. My hope is that these tiers will replace DB90 and move in a more thoughtful way for increased density. Austin needs to continue work toward being a city that more people can afford, especially young people looking to stay here and plan their futures. The good news is we’re having success and our efforts have been recognized across this country. We’re now a national leader when it comes to housing reforms. We’re building more and making it easier to do so. We’re trying to provide more variety when it comes to the types of homes that are being built. We're paying attention to the results of our efforts and being willing to do some calibration to make things work better. View email in browser Mayor of Austin 301 W 2nd St Austin, TX 78701 4652 USA 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9182 of 230CAUTION: 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9183 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9184 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9185 of 230afterthoughts. 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 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 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9186 of 230to 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 | akingump com | Bio This email message was sent from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. The information contained in this e mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e mail, and delete the original message 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9187 of 230 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9188 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9189 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9190 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9191 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9192 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9193 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9194 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9195 of 230Annie 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 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 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9196 of 230For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at " ". "Report Message" button in Outlook. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9197 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9198 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9199 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9200 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9201 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9202 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9203 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9204 of 230This Rowen Vale building is TOO much building on to little land. Please advise. Kind Regards, B R E N D A L A D D Photographer/Educator/Artist My Passion is My Craft 1509 NEWNING AVE. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704 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 " . 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9205 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9206 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9207 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9208 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9209 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9210 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9211 of 230The 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 The sheer size and limited setbacks are shocking. The design is not compatible with existing home architecture and not in keeping with the established scale of the district. The setbacks proposed are minimal and do not reflect the established pattern of development. Parking and traffic impacts The allotment of parking spaces is inadequate. Increased traffic in a historic district with narrow streets is unsafe and unwise. Our streets are already strained; we are effectively at or over capacity. Incentives / tax credits The proposed public incentives feel inequitable given the scale of the project and its impacts on the surrounding historic district. 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. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9212 of 230Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marie Case 1606 East Side Drive Austin, TX 78704 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 " ". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9213 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9214 of 230One 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 Thank you for your service and consideration, Greg Greg Anderson 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 " ". 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". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9215 of 230 Dear Members of the Zoning Commission, My name is James Young. I live at 1803 Drake Ave. I have been a current resident of Travis Heights since 2012, and have lived in or close to this neighborhood since 1999. My wife has lived in this house since 2001. We live within 500 feet of the proposed project. I am writing to oppose the Rowen Vale development planned for Annie Street in Travis Heights, as it is is currently planned. Conceptually, Rowen Vale, is a solid idea, the question is whether this is appropriate for this specific location. A project of this scale is better suited to an area designed to support its size, traffic, and infrastructure demands—and that is not the narrow residential streets of Travis Heights. The developer stated they wanted to purchase property on South Congress, but could not afford it. Also, they could not make their development more to an appropriate scale in relation to the neighborhood because they could not make a profit, based on their business model. Frankly, that is not the neighborhood's concern and neither should it be the city’s. It is not, and should not be the government’s job to cater to developer’s needs at the expense of the residents of the neighborhood impacted. While the ideas behind the project are noble, when it comes down to it, this is a developer-driven, for-profit business venture like any other. The proposed five-story structure would be approximately 35 feet taller than most surrounding single-story homes from the 1940s—representing a shift from roughly 15–20 feet to approximately 50 feet within the interior of a residential block. This scale is not consistent with the City’s stated goal of integrating new housing while maintaining the character and integrity of established neighborhoods. A project of this scale would require an extended construction period, including cranes and deep excavation. Given the narrow streets and built-out nature of the area, construction staging and equipment placement remain unresolved logistical challenges. Additionally, the excavation required introduces risk to protected heritage oak trees, which are both environmentally significant and legally protected. Parking and infrastructure constraints present a significant challenge. The 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 52 of 87 surrounding streets are already under strain, as evidenced by the recent implementation of paid and permitted parking systems in response to documented demand. Introducing high-density housing without sufficient on-site parking will exacerbate these existing pressures. All four streets surrounding the proposed development are designated as paid or resident-only parking, raising concerns about alignment with affordability goals. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9216 of 230 This is goal reality-based zoning to help ensure success for residents rather than creating a long-term struggles and strain on the surrounding area in Travis Heights. It is also important to consider the performance of existing developments by the same developer. A nearby affordable housing project reportedly faces parking challenges and is not at full occupancy. With the current parking challenges and the lack of parking spaces, some of which will most likely be taken up by leasing staff and daycare employees, the already crowded parking will become even more crowded. If existing projects are facing challenges, it is reasonable to question the urgency and readiness of introducing another high-density development in an even more constrained setting. I happen to live on the one block that, for some inexplicable reason, was the only section of street in that area not designated paid/resident pass parking. We get a lot of cars there as it is, because it is free: local workers, and visitors to South Congress. The street parking on our block can get pretty congested and in the past, before paid parking, we have had it completely full when there was a big event in the area. We also have no driveway and have to park on the street. In the past, we could park on another block until the traffic cleared out, but now we can no longer do that without getting risk of ticketed or towed. The roads turn into one narrow lane as it is when it gets crowded. I guarantee that we would become overwhelmed with overflow from the proposed complex, because we are the free parking in the area. If existing projects are facing challenges, it is reasonable to question the urgency and readiness of introducing another high-density development in an even more constrained setting. Several assumptions presented by the developer regarding future residents and transportation patterns are speculative and not supported by sufficient data. Each time the developer engages in discussions they continue to demonstrate a broader pattern of stretching assumptions to fit a narrative. For instance: Identifying Tiny Grocer as a nearby walkable grocery option overlooks the reality that it is a boutique market with pricing that is inaccessible to many residents. Presenting it as an affordability-supporting feature reflects a disconnect between planning assumptions and lived realities of the residents. · Claims that residents will primarily be drawn from nearby service industry workers, or that many will not own vehicles, require vehicles, or will no longer want vehicles and sell the ones they have, are not substantiated, generalizing, and considering this is an affordable housing project, a bit classist. Housing decisions are influenced by multiple factors—including community ties, schools, family needs, and overall cost of living—not proximity to employment alone. · Stating that many residents may “move in with a car and then realize that they don’t need one” Yet the developer’s own reference to census data indicating that only a small percentage of Austinites do not own cars further underscores this concern. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9217 of 230 The community feedback has been clear and consistent. There is strong support for 06 NPA-2026-0022.01.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9 53 of 87 Increasing housing and affordability, and a need for it be in alignment with planning principles, neighborhood conditions, and community input. There are too many issues regarding this proposal and a zoning change to MF-3 or MF-4 is not warranted for this property. There is no need to rush this decision, particularly given the number of concerns, uncertainties and the potential for long-term infrastructure strain, a more measured approach is warranted. Rezoning at this scale is effectively irreversible and should be approached with caution. A widely supported and viable alternative is only months away: Missing Middle Housing. MF 3 or SF 5 duplexes, fourplexes, and small multi-unit buildings provide increased density while remaining compatible with neighborhood scale and infrastructure. This is what is suited for this site and quite achievable. It balances all the needs and stressors of this lot. Support for this approach is strong and consistent. It is a rare alignment between community input, sound urban planning principles, and long-term Sustainability. I have talked to a lot of residents in the area around the proposed site. I have read the many, many letters sent.. From what I have heard and seen, not a single one supports this development in it’s current configuration. Everyone is saying the same thing: we support more affordable housing, but not in the development plan currently proposed. Many have come up with alternative, more sensitive solutions to the issue that will both allow more affordable housing and is sustainable to the neighborhood. Some of them are in construction and planning. They know what they are talking about. Please listen to them. The city is taking steps to alleviate affordability concerns by creating a viable and sustainable model. It is not mega development OR housing. The City should not be pressured to make a decision regarding rezoning when a viable option is within reach. The developer does not even have their full funding until after July, so let’s not rush to make a decision that is detrimental to future residents. Rowen Vale, as currently proposed, is out of alignment and causes more problems than it solves if placed here. It is a strong concept applied in an unsuitable context. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of these concerns. I urge you to prioritize solutions that respect the character, infrastructure, and long- term health of Travis Heights, both current and future residents. Thank you, James Young 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9218 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9219 of 230From a broader perspective, supporting workforce housing ensures that neighborhoods like Bouldin Creek and South Congress remain diverse, inclusive, and authentic. Without it, we risk becoming communities that only serve visitors, rather than the people who make them special. I believe this project represents a thoughtful and important step toward addressing these challenges. It aligns with the long-term sustainability of both our local businesses and our community as a whole. I respectfully encourage you to support this development and initiatives like it. The future of Austin depends on our ability to create housing solutions that serve all members of our community—not just a few. Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to the continued success of our city. Kind Regards, Adam Weisberg, Co-Founder 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 " ". 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9220 of 23027 of 3203 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9221 of 23003 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9222 of 230Drew Zerdecki Vice President – Zoning, Zilker Neighborhood Association April 23, 2026 Re: Rowen Vale Rezoning and Neighborhood Plan Amendment; Case Nos. C14-2026-0010.SH and NPA-2026- 0022.01.SH Dear Commissioners, Council Members, and City Staff: Zilker and Travis Heights share more than adjacency and District 9. Both are residential neighborhoods framed by major transportation corridors, both rely on small interior streets to absorb what spills off those corridors, and both have cause to care about how the City addresses transportation at the zoning stage. I am the Zoning Chair of the Zilker Neighborhood Association and write to respectfully oppose the rezoning and neighborhood plan amendment proposed for the Rowen Vale project at 206 East Annie Street. The Neighborhood Traffic Analysis the Commission is being asked to rely on is missing a mandatory element required by LDC § 25- 6-115(C) and the Transportation Criteria Manual § 10.4.3.2(C), and at a minimum the Commission should postpone action on both applications pending its completion. I. The Site And Scale Make Transportation Review The Consequential Issue. The Rowen Vale site is an interior parcel in an established SF-3 block, not a corridor-fronting site. The Greater South River City Neighborhood Plan emphasizes compatibility, transition, and proportionality, and Austin’s planning framework steers higher-intensity development toward corridors designed to absorb it. According to the record, the project concentrates 100 residents (and perhaps 120 based on unit sizes and other characteristics), a 40- student PreK, and associated staff on a 0.9-acre lot with approximately 46 parking spaces. That makes the transportation analysis on Annie and Nickerson Streets the consequential element of the Commission’s review. Annie Street is also the main artery by which Fire Engine 6, one block from the site, accesses I-35; Lively Middle School is one block away. PreK drop-off and pickup will coincide with both emergency-response use of Annie and middle-school foot traffic crossing it. If the on-site queue fills, it spills into that lane. II. The NTA Is Missing A Mandatory Element Required By The Transportation Criteria Manual. Transportation Criteria Manual § 10.4.3.2(C) is unambiguous: “An NTA shall … provide an access management plan and queuing analysis as required by the applicable department.” Nevertheless, the April 1, 2026 NTA memo expressly recognizes, at Conclusion #3, that “due to the nature of day care centers, this site may be required to 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9223 of 230provide 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.” The NTA then defers that analysis to site plan review. Under the TCM the queueing analysis is a component of the NTA itself, not a separate downstream study. The Commission is being asked to act on an NTA that, on its face, identifies the triggering use and omits the mandatory analysis for that use. III. Annie Street Is Projected Within 14 Vehicles Of The LDC’s Desirable Threshold (On Counts Taken During The Lowest-Volume Weekdays). Table 3 of the NTA projects total future traffic on Annie Street at 3,986 vehicles per day. LDC § 25-6-116 sets the desirable volume threshold for a 40-foot residential street at 4,000 vehicles per day. This is a 14-vehicle margin on a street where cars already park both sides of the street. Moreover, the tube counts underlying that projection were collected March 10, 11, and 12, 2026: Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. As correspondence in the case file documents, no Friday or weekend counts were captured, despite a residential-plus-PreK-plus-amenity land- use profile that generates meaningful non-weekday volume and despite prior assurances from TPW that peak- volume days would be captured. On a 14-vehicle margin, the day on which the counts were taken is not a technicality. It is what separates an NTA that concludes "within thresholds" from an NTA that would trigger § 25-6-141(A)(2), the provision authorizing denial when projected traffic exceeds the desirable operating level on a residential street. IV. The Evergreen Avenue Precedent: When Transportation Concerns Are Deferred Until Site Plan. On June 13, 2023, the Planning Commission voted 11–0 to approve the rezoning of 1705 and 1707 Evergreen Avenue (pictured below), in the Zilker neighborhood, from SF-3 to CS-MU (Case No. C14-2023-0039). That vote rested on a series of specific representations on the record. With almost three years of distance and the full administrative record now in hand, each of those representations warrants revisiting: 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9224 of 230● Proposed Use and Transit Assurances: ○ Counsel on behalf of Applicant: “The impetus behind this project is perhaps to reduce some of the traffic because Status Labs would like to put housing there for their own employees…[w]e will be providing parking, we provide it now, we have our own parking, none of our folks are parking on the street and we would provide it for the new portion of the development.” ○ Commissioner Azar: “That’s honestly an exciting feature [because] to your point, that reduces trips.” ● Commissioners’ Concerns Regarding Transit: ○ Commissioner Muto: “We’re gonna be backfilling all these problems down the road and the new residents are gonna wonder what in the heck we were thinking.” ○ Commissioner Maxwell: “The additional traffic in this case is not theoretical. It already exists... I’m not sure we got quite adequate answers.” ● City Staff Comments: ○ Zoning Review Sheet: “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.” ○ City Staff (response to Commissioner Anderson’s traffic mitigation concerns): “All of this information will be addressed at the time of site plan review.” Flash forward to 2026. The site plan released March 5, 2026 bears little resemblance to those representations. What was approved as “trip-reducing workforce housing” is now an approved 2-story event pavilion whose de facto transportation mitigation is curbside parking and rideshare loading in the right-of-way, on a street with 23 feet of existing pavement. ● Approved Site Plan’s Use and Parking: ○ “Workforce housing with a parking lot” has become a 2-story event pavilion with a single parking space. ○ City approved an April 2025 waiver request in which Applicant notes that “most users of this event space will be utilizing street parking or ride shares and will be entering from the street.” ● Street Impact Fees & Traffic Mitigation: ○ The project’s Street Impact Fee, based on an ITE Code 560 (“Religious Place of Worship”) classification indicating little PM peak use traffic, was assessed at $0. ○ A 0.016-acre street deed was recorded October 14, 2025, and a waiver fee was paid, but the record contains no demonstration that the required 30-foot pavement cross-section can actually be achieved on a street with 23 feet of existing pavement. ○ A public information request specifically seeking any traffic analysis for Evergreen Avenue (PIR C303883-022326, certified complete March 5, 2026) returned no such assessment. Meaningful analysis was never performed. 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9225 of 230Every concern these commissioners flagged has materialized. This is not a criticism of the 2023 Commission, which asked the right questions and received specific answers from the applicant and from City staff. It is a cautionary tale about deferring analysis to an administrative stage the neighborhood cannot meaningfully reach. When ZNA sought administrative review of the released site plan in March 2026, the Director denied the request and noted that “Interested Parties have no right to appeal final determinations of an Administrative Site Plan Permit.” The parallels to Rowen Vale are direct. At Evergreen, the loading-and-drop-off function was implicit and re- surfaced at site plan as curbside rideshare activity. At Rowen Vale, it is explicit from day one: 46 spaces, nearly 100 residents, and 40 PreK families dropping off and picking up every weekday. The NTA has deferred the queueing analysis to the exact stage at which, as Evergreen demonstrates, the neighborhood has no remedy and the mitigation plan may well resolve into the very right-of-way use the TCM prohibits. The Code contemplates exactly this moment. LDC § 25-6-115(C) and TCM § 10.4.3.2(C) require the queueing analysis as part of the NTA — before the rezoning, not after. The Commission should hold the record to that standard. V. Relief Requested. We respectfully request that the Commission deny Rowen Vale’s applications for Rezoning and Neighborhood Plan Amendment or, in the alternative, postpone action until Transportation and Public Works issues a corrected NTA that (a) contains the queueing analysis required by TCM § 10.4.3.2(C) for the on-site day care use and (b) rests on tube counts that capture peak-volume days. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Drew Zerdecki Vice President – Zoning Zilker Neighborhood Association 03 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9226 of 2304818 E Ben White Blvd ● Austin, TX 78741 ● www.unitehere23.org April 28, 2026 Dear Planning Commission Members, I write today on behalf of UNITE HERE Local 23 in support of items #4 and #5 on today’s agenda amending the Greater South River City neighborhood plan and rezoning to build affordable, multifamily housing. UNITE HERE Local 23 is a union of hospitality workers including hotel housekeepers, cooks, bartenders, dishwashers, servers, and cashiers at locations in downtown Austin and at Austin International Airport. For our members that work downtown in District 9, there are not very many options to live close to work. In fact, most of our members commute from more affordable areas to work downtown, many commuting over an hour to work. While they have won wages and benefits that go far beyond the standard for non-union hospitality workers in the city, the cost of living and specifically the cost of housing remains high, especially in downtown. For many years, the community has been advocating for more of this type of development. This project is what working people need, and as the backbone of this city, they deserve to be able to live downtown and close to work. This is really a choice about what kind of city do we want Austin to be in 10, 20, 30 years. This is an opportunity to have an impact on that future. Austin is special, not because of the towers downtown, but because of our culture and diversity. Allowing for a more diverse population in all areas of the city will only make our community stronger. In addition to the location, the fact that this property will be 100% income restricted affordable housing, include free onsite pre-K, and is connected to public transit, this project will help move us toward the future we want and deserve. Sincerely, Rachel Melendes Political Director UNITE HERE Local 23 c. 210-887-1167 05 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 91 of 103 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9227 of 230From: Drew Zerdecki Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:40 PM To: LandUseLiaison < <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tomko, Jonathan <Jonathan.Tomko@austintexas.gov> Subject: Speaker Presentation — NPA-2026-0022.01.SH and C14-2026-0010.SH (Rowen Vale, 206 E. Annie Street) >; Meredith, Maureen Dear Land Use Liaison and Case Managers: Following up on my online speaker registration earlier today, attached is a document I plan to present. I am registered to speak in opposition on both Rowen Vale items: NPA-2026- 0022.01.SH (neighborhood plan amendment) and C14-2026-0010.SH (rezoning). In addition to serving as my displayed presentation during testimony, I am asking that this email and the attachment be included in the case backup as opposition correspondence under Planning Commission Rule of Procedure 2.200, which requires backup to include "letters in support or opposition for each case." I am copying the case managers for that reason. The attached single page documents an OpenCorporates search conducted today across all U.S. jurisdictions for the entity "Rowen Vale" — the ﬁrm named on the Submittal Veriﬁcation and identiﬁed as the agent in both Review Sheets. The search returned zero results. Rowen Vale, LLC does not exist. This raises a threshold procedural question under the Land Development Code. Section 25-1-81 provides that "a record owner or the record owner's agent may ﬁle an application," and authorizes the responsible director to require evidence of the applicant's authority to ﬁle. Section 25-2-242 limits initiation of zoning or rezoning to speciﬁcally enumerated parties. For the neighborhood plan amendment, Section 25-1-810(B) places the burden of demonstration on "the applicant." A non-existent entity cannot satisfy any of these provisions as the named agent of record. I am asking that the attachment be queued for display during my testimony and that this letter be included in the backup distributed to the Commissioners. For the neighborhood plan amendment speciﬁcally, I would also respectfully note that Section 25-1-810(A) provides that "the director may not recommend approval of a neighborhood plan amendment unless the requirements of Subsections (B) and (C) are satisﬁed," including the applicant's burden of demonstration under (B). I bring the attached search result to staff's attention so it can be evaluated against that prohibition before the hearing. 05 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 91 of 303 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9228 of 230Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Drew Zerdecki 1211 W. Mary St. C Austin, TX 78704 Attachment: OpenCorporates search result for "Rowen Vale" conducted April 28, 2026 05 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 92 of 303 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9229 of 230 05 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 93 of 303 C14-2026-0010.SH - Rowen Vale; District 9230 of 230