Planning Commission postpones Manor Road rezoning to Feb. 11 after neighborhood pushback

The City of Austin Planning Commission voted to postpone consideration of a rezoning and neighborhood plan amendment for 2967 Manor Road to Feb. 11, after residents raised concerns about notice, traffic, parking and building height.

The postponement decision followed a lengthy public comment period in which neighbors described the intersection at Manor and Airport as already congested and hazardous, and said a proposed rezoning to DB-90 that could allow an 81-unit, up-to-90-foot building would back up to single-family yards and worsen parking and circulation. Supporters of a longer postponement argued the matter could set a precedent by removing part of the MLK transit-oriented development (TOD) boundary for a single site.

Neighborhood representatives including Jim Walker (Rosewood neighborhood planning contact), Nathan Kennedy and several residents described what they said were compressed notifications and limited time for community review. Steve Hunt, a long-time renter on Rountree Drive, said the intersection is “one of the busiest and most unnavigable in east Austin” and warned a large building there would worsen safety and circulation.

Victoria Hassey of Thorough Design, representing the landowner, told commissioners the applicant was “amenable to a 2-week postponement” to pursue further neighborhood engagement. Staff said the case had been dual-noticed in part because legal guidance required mailing to addresses within the TOD boundary and nearby properties; planning staff described the mailing as an estimated “35 100” addresses (as stated in staff remarks) and said the dual notice was intended to limit multiple mailings while meeting legal timelines.

Commissioners debated whether two weeks would be sufficient for neighborhood engagement or whether a longer postponement was warranted. A substitute motion to postpone to Feb. 25 failed. The commission ultimately approved a motion to postpone to Feb. 11 (motion made by Commissioner Maxwell; second by Vice Chair Zarzaur). The motion passed 7–3 with one commissioner temporarily off the dais.

The commission emphasized the postponement was procedural — not a decision on the merits — and directed parties to use the interim period for focused engagement. The item will return to the Planning Commission on Feb. 11 for further consideration.

Ending: The postponement traps the case in the usual review timeline: staff noted the application was originally filed in July 2024 and the commission said it expects continued outreach before a hearing on substantive merits.