Author: Anisa Schell

Posted on

RM/MF Task Force Updates

The RM/MF Task Force was created in response to Councilman Treviño’s 2017 CCR regarding the municipal code and zoning for residential multi-family properties, specifically zoning categories RM-4 and MF-33. You can view the CCR here. This CCR was filed in response to community concerns over the way lots with these zoning categories are currently being developed. 

These two zoning designations (RM-4 and MF-33) are abundant in our inner core neighborhoods. They are the zoning designations most common for the so-called missing middle housing: duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes. They are an important tool for density in our neighborhoods, but in the last four or five years, the way these properties are being developed has changed.  Instead of the traditional duplexes or quadriplexes (two to four units in one structure), we are seeing more and more developments with four individual, tower-type structures on one lot, such as the ones at 930 W. Craig Place. These developments are typically sold as market-rate, single-family homes with some kind of condo-scheme in the title; not really the traditional – or needed – missing middle housing.  

930 W Craig in Beacon Hill – Zoned RM-4

After Councilman Treviño’s CCR was filed, a task force was created. The task force has been meeting monthly over the summer. While I’m not a member of this task force, I have participated in sub-committee meetings, and attended several of the task force meetings as an observer. DSD is facilitating this task force, with Cat Hernandez as the main staff member conducting the meetings.

At the second meeting of the task force, on April 23rd, only three of the appointed neighborhood representatives attended the meeting. They were told that the third and final task force meeting would be the May 28th meeting, but no meaningful changes had been suggested for the pertinent codes. The neighborhood task force members that had attended felt their concerns were being dismissed. They reached out to Tier One for help, and Cosima Colvin did a huge amount of legwork to reach out to the other listed neighborhood representatives to find out what was going on. Some did not even know the task force existed.  

– It is unclear how the original task force members were selected or appointed.  It is also unclear how they were notified of the task force itself.  

The original task force member list posted on DSD’s website on May 24. You can see that the list currently posted on the DSD website has changed.

There seems to be a lack of transparency happening in DSD, and the updates to RM-4 and MF-33 will have a huge impact on all neighborhoods across the city. 

Cosima was able to reach Gloria Castillo for D8, and get a representative from D7 (Jorge dela Garza) added to the list of neighborhood task force members. With these additions, the neighborhood task force members were able to start coming up with some recommendations.   

Around the same time, I approached Councilman Treviño about a “Slot Home” ordinance that I had heard of in Denver, CO. The Councilman thought this would dovetail with the RM/MF Task Force and issued a memo that it should be incorporated.  This was discussed during the May 28th task force meeting, with the neighborhood showing specific examples of why and how they thought Denver’s ordinance could apply to San Antonio. Due to this memo, additional meetings were added to the task force schedule. 

Between the May 28th meeting and the June 25 meeting, community members discovered that in a previous version of the Unified Development Code, there was a restriction on the number of structures allowed on a lot. There is a math formula used to determine the number of units per acre (11), found on the Table in Section 35-310 of the UDC.  When applied to a 4000 SF lot, the maximum number of units allowed for RM-4 is one. However, since at least 2015 DSD has been allowing up to four units each in an individual structure on a RM-4 lot.

I attended the June 25th task force meeting.  The neighborhood representatives inquired about the previous version of the UDC regarding number of structures allowed on a lot. This and other concerns brought up at the meeting were dismissed by Cat Hernandez as typos in the UDC that were fixed in 2015. She did not offer any proof of the typos, or any other specifics. It seems many of the development standards that neighborhoods would support to protect character were removed from the UDC during the 2015 update. 

Additionally, during the June 25th meeting, Denver’s Slot Home ordinance was generally dismissed because “Denver has a form-based code,” despite the fact that San Antonio has several form based codes currently in use. 

615 Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, Zoned RM-4

As the neighborhood task force members discussed some of their more specific concerns during the meeting, the task force members from the development community quickly started accusing the neighborhood members of making decisions for areas where they don’t live, specifically citing the west side and Denver Heights, which has a large concentration of RM-4 properties. A lot of time was spent discussing Denver Heights.  

Please note that the notes posted by DSD do not reflect my impression of the citizen comments made at the June 25, 2019 meeting.

After the meeting, I sent a request to DSD staff asking that Alan Neff from Denver Heights be added to the task force immediately. Cynthia Spielman reached out to them as well asking that Richard Garcia from Memorial Heights Neighborhood Association and member of the Westside Neighborhood Association Coalition also be added.  DSD refused to add either of them.  

At the July meeting there was a struggle to reach consensus on the many issues this task force is dealing with. Mike Shannon, the Director of Development Services, suggested they isses be tabled until the 2020 UDC review.

Two Tier One members in attendance at this meeting had their comments recorded by DSD:

  • Tami Kegley: Inappropriate zoning current exists and should be addressed. Perhaps look at a replat requirement when building a multifamily project, regardless if already platted.
  • Gemma Kennedy: A conceptual site design review should be required as this will save money in the long run.

Unfortunately these comments were not addressed or taken into account at the subsequent meetings, despite design review being one of the issues brought up n Councilman Treviño’s original CCR.

DSD’s August and September Task Force meeting notes can be viewed here:

Mary Johnson, President of Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association and T1NC Steering Committee Member, has taken the lead in representing neighborhoods at the Task Force meetings. She has stated that there are still several items that don’t seem to be resolved, including heights, the number of individual structures allowed per lot, under-tuck parking, and orientation to the street.

Mary was not alone in this assessment. Cynthia Spielman, another Tier One Neighborhood Coaltion member that attended the September 24th meeting, commented that the developers were still pushing for eliminating the requirement for houses to face the street, and in showing examples of projects built without this orientation, seemed to prove to the community members the need for orientation to be explicitly spelled out in the code. 

Despite this continued lack of resolution, DSD has moved forward with issuing a draft of the proposed changes to the pertinent sections of code.

The CCR, notes from the previous meetings, and supporting documents can be viewed here: https://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes#233873531-rm-4–mf-33-ccr

How you can help:

There is an RM/MF Community Meeting being held Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:00PM in the Board Room at 1901 S. Alamo. Please plan to attend this meeting.

DSD’s website states,

“General Community Meeting(s) will also be held to gather more input from the public. Comments and recommendations made either through meetings or submitted through email will be posted here. Please be clear on each recommendation and its’ basis. Email comments to Kristie Flores, Planning Manager at kristie.flores@sanantonio.gov; her contact number is 210-207-5889.”

Please email kristie.flores@sanantonio.gov and copy your Council person, regarding the following items:

  1. RM and MF developments on lots less than one-third of an acre shall be one (1) structure with the appropriate number of units, (i.e. four (4) units in one dwelling on an RM-4 lot).
  2. Under-tuck parking shall not be allowed on RM and MF zoned properties under one-third of an acre. Parking shall be in the rear of the dwelling.
  3. All developments in RM and MF zoned properties on less than one-third of an acre shall be oriented so that the primary entrance of the structure (front door) shall face the street and shall have a visible porch, patio or canopy.
  4. The height of RM and MF zoned developments be limited to 35′ or 2.5 stories when measured to the top of the gable.
  5. On lots with more than one structure and less than 1 acre in size, a preliminary site plan shall be submitted for a preliminary site plan review with the COSA Building Department, and notification shall be sent to the registered neighborhood association and property owners within 200 feet of the property. The building permit number assigned at that time shall be used throughout the building process. 

Update (October 15, 2019):
The proposed changes will go to the PCTAC on October 21, followed by the Planning Commission on October 23. It will then head to the Zoning Commission in November, followed by the Planning and Community Development Committee and then finally City Council in December or January.

We encourage you to submit comments about the proposed changes in writing to Planning Manager, Kristie Flores and to copy your City Council representative on the email.

Updated to clarify the following terms: “unit,” “dwelling,” and “structure.”

Posted on

UDC Updates for OHP and HDRC

The following update is from Monica Savino of the Dignowity Hill Historic District:

Hey All-

I want to bring to your attention a very important project going on right now that will effect all of us living in Historic, RIO, and Downtown, Neighborhood Conservation Districts, and those who own designated Landmarks.  AND those who are interested in designating their neighborhood, portion of as part of any of the above cited districts or a landmark. 

OHP has been working with various stakeholders and DSD as a task force in the process to update those UDC ordinances that effect their purview.  The draft will be available to the public soon before it goes on the road to City Council and I would urge each of you to make a point to review it when that copy is made public.  Again, I don’t have a date but want to get you in the loop now.  In the meantime, I can give you a synopsis of what’s being addressed.  If any of you want more specific info, please feel free to reply to me directly.

OVERVIEW

  • Streamline review process and optimize public participation
  • Improve consistency, predictability, and effectiveness of review
  • Shorten length of public meetings, reduce commission burnout
  • Align with 2020 UDC Update Cycle or other process (CCR, policy change, etc.)

STEPS TAKEN

  • Worked with task force to recommend policy changes
  • Public input will also inform the recommendations prior to any proposed amendments (me: and this is where you come in!)
  • Subcommittees formed to review the following issues:
    • HDRC and administrative review process
    • Non-owner landmark designation process
    • Neighborhood-level infill design standards
    • Downtown and RIO
    • Other clarifying amendments and minor process improvements.

____________________

To give you an example of subjects we’re discussing for HDRC/Admin topic, there’s talk of increasing the size and configuration of HDRC.  Maybe larger with alternates, maybe creating a separate review group for smaller projects, non-conforming work, or other criteria.  Also, there’s discussion about expanding the Administrative Review authority (staff approval) that would increase the range of work able to be processed through an Administrative CoA and how to effectively include public comments.

Non-owner landmark designations might have different method for “petitioning” a neighborhood for a building or place landmark along with higher standards of significance.

The Neighborhood Infill topic is very involved as you can guess.  There’s talk of application worksheets that will address design criteria such as massing, scale, and context areas, and a new process that will address the problem of infill that requires rezoning.  What comes first, the chicken or the egg?  What might happen is some sort of hybrid chicken-egg that puts OHP in the driver seat for design related criteria before zoning approvals are given.  This isn’t the same as HDRC review but something geared for the zoning process.  It’s still in the works and for that reason the Neighborhood Infill group will continue to meet in the coming months to hopefully have a robust yet efficient process in place for next year.

Same with Downtown and RIO – lots of details and work need to be done.  And there are other items and concerns we’ve been discussing with the intention of making the submittal processes in OHP more responsive to neighborhoods, consistent, and efficient for all participants.

So . . .  If you have a specific topic interest or general interest, have questions or want to keep up with the process, please let me know so that I can keep you in the loop.  This UDC revision is a very important activity that happens only once every 5 years and the revisions will effect all of us.  I encourage you to get involved.

Cheers,
Monica S.

Posted on

Following Up on Evergreen

Yesterday I shared the story of the demolition of two houses on E. Evergreen in Tobin Hill.

After the demolitions were approved, and the appeal that Tobin Hill Community Association filed was rejected, the Cole properties were rezoned to Infill Development Zone (IDZ), so that townhouses could be built.

My husband, Rick Schell, is the chair person for Tobin Hill’s Zoning and Development Committee. He attended the zoning hearing on July 17, 2019. It was a very long hearing. He knew by that time that the houses were being demolished, and that the rezoning would most likely be approved, but he waited 7.5 hours in order to read the Committee’s statement into the record.

After the hearing, he sent this email to the District 1 Zoning Commissioner:

Sarah,

I want to take a moment to tell you I appreciate your thoughtful approach to the various cases yesterday. I spent a lot of time last night and this morning thinking about the Evergreen case, and my statement, and your questions. I thought a follow-up email was important, so you understand why I came to Zoning yesterday with what I did.

I know your purview is related strictly to the zoning associated with the case, as staff indicated in response to your question.

We never should have been in front of the Zoning Commission in the first place, looking at the requested change.

There was a failure to follow the processes the city created by both OHP and by the Councilman. It is true that OHP flat-out failed to present the case to city council. The rest of the council members could only rely on what our D1 councilman told them. It is true that he read from a prepared statement that was factually inaccurate (at best). OHP could have corrected the inaccuracies, but they chose not to do so. It is true the Mayor asked why the council was not briefed by OHP on the case. There was overwhelming community support for this designation to happen, and it was ignored. There was overwhelming evidence to support this designation, and it was ignored.

Here is the deal: Our Councilman was elected by the community to represent us, the community. Developers have an entire department within the city to represent them (Development Services). They have land-use attorneys to represent them. They have money to back them. They have people who are paid to make the time. We have volunteers who take time from their day to come out and speak. They take off work, they find child-care for their kids, they sacrifice personal and family life to come voice their thoughts to the Commissions and the City Council. The only tool we have as a community is the city processes. When those are not followed, or are ignored, or are arbitrarily applied, what recourse does the community have?

I waited for 7.5 hours yesterday so that I could take 2 minutes of time to directly confront the failure of some city departments in following the processes they created for the community. I don’t want you to think that I am just another too-loud voice, arguing the wrong thing in the wrong setting, clamoring to be heard. I realize that I did not address the zoning directly, but we don’t have another forum to address these issues. I would encourage you and the rest of our commissioners to take a more direct approach to listen to the community before the commission meetings. You are appointed as an extension of the council office, whose role is to represent the community at large, and not as an extension of city staff and development services.

I look forward to continuing to work with you, our D1 staff in all the various forms it takes, and the community at large, whether developer or homeowner, to continue to make D1 a great place to live.

Best,

Rick Schell
THCA Zoning and Development Committee Chair

Posted on

The Curious Case of the Cole Houses: Demolishing 307 & 311 E. Evergreen

Tobin Hill is under fire, y’all. I’ve posted about it before: 14 demolition requests in the last 18 months.

Map courtesy OHP, showing demolition requests within the THCA boundary over the last 18 months.

There are a few ways to stop or slow a demolition.

One way is a large community outcry, such as what happened with 430 and 434 E. Magnolia (OHP stated that they had never received that much community input on a demolition case, that it was unprecedented).

Another way is submitting an application for finding of Historic Significance, and Landmark Designation with the City’s Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). This can often be a more effective way if the property in question has real historic significance.

307 and 311 E. Evergreen had both community support for their preservation, and substantial historic significance.

When Tobin Hill received the notification of a demolition request for these two houses on E. Evergreen, I posted the photos of the house with information provided by OHP to our social media pages, and I forwarded the request to Tobin Hill Community Association’s Historic Preservation Committee. THCA also met with Patrick Christensen, a local land use attorney, representing Imagine Homes who hoped to develop, but did not yet own, the properties.

When I posted the info on 307 and 311 E. Evergreen, now colloquially know as the Cole Houses, there was a huge outcry from the community, even extending beyond the borders of the Tobin Hill.

Let’s take a moment and talk about what I mean when I say, “huge outcry.”

The post was shared 64 times. 13,699 people saw the post. Between the comments on THCA’s Facebook page and other places it was shared, I compiled 75 comments asking for the preservation of these houses. So when OHP says 24 emails is “unprecedented,” and I tell you Evergreen has a “huge outcry,” you understand what I mean.

Many of the comments talk about the houses’ recent history as being used as a live music venue and recording studio. If you know Tobin Hill, you know music is an important part of our neighborhood’s culture. Additionally, one of the houses was the former offices of Mujeres Unidas, an HIV prevention and awareness non-profit.

Among the folks upset about the potential demolition of the Evergreen houses, was an archaeologist and historian that lives in the neighborhood, Stephen Fonzo. He agreed to assist THCA’s Historic Preservation Committee Chair, Ricki Kushner, in researching the houses pro bono. They discovered that in addition to the houses recent musical history, the house at 307 was the only home of Lt. Col. Robert G. Cole, WWII hero and recipient of the Medal of Honor. Robert G. Cole Junior and Senior High School are named for him (thus the nickname of Cole Houses).

Ricki and Stephen compiled a thorough Statement of Significance for each of the houses, and included letters of support from the North Saint Mary’s Business Association, the San Antonio Conservation Society, news clippings, photos, maps, emails, and statements of support from veterans. Together the packets on 307 and 311 E Evergreen are a combined total of 84 pages after review by OHP.

It is with this level of community support AND historically significant evidence that the Cole Houses went before HDRC for recommendation of Landmark designation.

The HDRC recommended approval at the April 17, 2019 hearing. However, because the Landmark designation was filed without the owner’s consent, THCA was told that it would have to go before City Council in June before continuing to the Zoning Commission.

On May 28, 2019 the Community Association received an email from Councilman Treviño’s office about the two pending cases in our neighborhood. Included in the communication was Patrick Christensen.

The email stated that Councilman Treviño was not going to support the designation of the Evergreen properties. His reason was that the Cole Houses are “on the commercial corner of the McCullough corridor.” However, the houses are NOT on the corner of McCullough; they are behind the Little Taco Factory and La Morenita Fruit Cups.  

Location of 307 and 311 E Evergreen St.

All 84 pages of historical evidence were ignored. Instead, the Councilman focused solely on the location of the houses.

In addition to the blow of this email, when the case came before City Council on June 6, 2019, OHP failed to present the evidence of the Cole Houses historic significance, or give Council a briefing on the houses before the hearing.

At the City Council hearing, the mayor noted that the Council was not briefed on the houses, not once, but twice. Sadly, Council voted against the designation based on Councilman Treviño’s recommendation anyway. He stated that the houses “do not warrant landmark status.”

In the video below, you can hear Ricki Kushner and other citizens speak to City Council about this case. Councilman Treviño’s makes his statement at 15:50. The Mayor states that there was not a staff presentation on this case at 20:30. He repeats that statement at 21:40, where he also asks for more information on these houses, and states his discomfort with the decision being made without a briefing.

Normally that would be the end of things. Without the owner’s consent or Council’s blessing the case can not move forward. But THCA was not ready to give up after so much work.

Several members of THCA attended the June 24th HDRC Hearing and signed up to speak during Citizens To Be Heard. We implored the Commission to intercede, reminding them that although the Landmark Designation had failed, they houses could still be preserved as a Historic District, which only needs a minimum of two properties. We reminded them of the evidence to preserve these houses, and told them about OHP’s failure to present the evidence to Council. HDRC asked that the houses be added to the July 17, 2019 agenda.

Meanwhile, the owner had erected a fence around the properties, preparing to demolish them. THCA was ready with an appeal, in order to get a stop-work order on the demolition if needed. However, on June 25, 2019, the Development Services Department (DSD) confirmed that a hold was placed once again on the addresses due to being on the July 17th agenda.

Late in the afternoon on Friday July 12, OHP called THCA to let them know that they were lifting the hold, and that the demolition requests for the Cole Houses had been approved. THCA searched for permits, but none had been pulled yet. We vigilantly watched the houses over the weekend for any sign of illegal demolition. None occurred.

Tuesday morning, July 16, my husband, Rick, drove by the houses at about 7:50am. Demolition (deconstruction) had begun.

I called DSD at about 9:30 a.m. and they confirmed that there had not been any demolition permits issued for the addresses. We requested a stop-work order.

Rick immediately called the Councilman’s office and was told by Chrissy McCain that demolition permits had been approved. She also said that the structures were completely demolished by this point (about 9:35 a.m.), so if THCA was to file an appeal, it would likely fail because the properties were demolished. Further, she said that the Councilman had approved the salvage plan just that morning.

Alarmed, I drove to the Cole Houses, to find them still standing, though deconstruction of the interior was occurring. I checked DSD’s online permit portal, which now showed a permit for 311 E Evergreen, approved at 9:51am and paid for at 10:23am that morning.

We went to DSD and filed the appeal.

The appeal was received by Zenon (Zeke) Solis, who was really not sure what to do. He stated that they had never received an appeal on a demolition permit before. He went back to the offices several times to ask questions before taking my paperwork. He then took 19 minutes to copy the appeal, which was only 9 pages long. Another stop-work order was issued.

The next day, July 17, we received notice from DSD that our appeal was being withdrawn by DSD and that THCA would receive a refund. View the emails from DSD here:

Re EXTERNAL BOA AppealDownload

The stop-work order has again been lifted. Deconstruction has resumed. The Cole Houses are being demolished.

We are left with many questions.

Why did Councilman Treviño state that the Cole Houses were on the corner of McCullough when they are not?

Why did his office include the developer’s attorney, Patrick Christensen, in the email prior to the Council hearing, but not the property owner?

Why didn’t OHP brief the Mayor and the Council on the 84 pages of evidence for Landmarking the houses?

Why did the Council proceed to vote, even after the mayor questioned this?

Why were the Cole Houses removed from the July 17th HDRC agenda, despite the commissioner’s request to evaluate them for a potential Historic District?

Why did the Councilman’s office preemptively discourage us from filing an appeal, even though it is within our rights to do so?

Why was the Councilman’s office giving permission for demolition instead of requiring that a permit be obtained though DSD prior to starting work?

Why did the Councilman’s office state that the houses had already been demolished before the demolition permits had been either filed or paid for?

Why did DSD refund THCA’s appeal and decide that it was not valid? – Is it not the role of the Board of Adjustment to decide if an appeal has merit?

It is all just so very curious.

Posted on

RM/MF Task Force – Issues

In this video, Mary Johnson, President of the Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association, explains some of the problems with San Antonio’s UDC Sections 35-310 and 35-517, which deal with building heights on properties zoned MF-33.

Background

In 2017 the Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association faced a development on a property in their neighborhood that was zoned MF-33. The property is surrounded by single-family homes, but the proposal included four new condos, detached from one-another, each four stories high.

Condo development proposed at four stories high in a single-family district. – Courtesy Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association
Site Plan showing proposal of four units on an MF-33 lot in a single-family district. -Courtesy Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association

When the section of the UDC dealing with MF-33 zoning was written, this development pattern was not anticipated. Historically, a multi-family property in a neighborhood would have attached units, for example a duplex, triplex or quadplex. Developing the lot with detached units creates a far more intense development while maintaining the historic density of the property’s zoning. While it’s still just four units, the units themselves are larger, taller, and taking up more of the lot.

The Monte Vista Terrace Neighborhood Association filed an appeal with the Board of Adjustment when they found out that the project was approved for building heights exceeding what was specified in the Unified Development Code.

35-517. Building Height Regulations – San Antonio Unified Development Code

When Mary and her neighbors went to the city after reading the code, it was discovered that there was a typo in the UDC. The code is written to allow growth while at the same time protecting neighborhoods. This typo is being exploited.

The way developers and the city staff are interpreting the code is allowing excessive heights on lots zoned MF-33 and RM-4 that are adjacent to single-family homes or adjacent to single-family districts. This affects how other parts of the UDC are applied on projects such as storm water requirements.

These interpretations have led to many RM-4 and MF-33 projects being built with a higher intensity than some projects being developed on lots zoned IDZ. The projects are having much greater impacts on neighborhoods than what has historically been built on RM-4 and MF-33 lots, which were originally intended to be low-density zoning designations. Because there is no rezoning required for these lots, neighborhoods have little time to react.

What is being done?

In response to these problems, District 1 City Councilman Roberto Treviño filed a CCR to review these zoning designations. There is a Task Force working to strengthen and clarify the UDC for the RM and MF properties in our neighborhoods.

The RM/MF Task Force is made up of a mix of neighborhood members and representatives from the development community, including developers who have been using the RM-4 and MF-33 zoning designations to their advantage. The task force is being facilitated by Cat Hernandez in the Development Services Department.

At the most recent meeting, there was pressure from the city and the developers to leave code largely unchanged and rely on Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Historic Districts to protect neighborhoods. This is not satisfactory, since we know that many of our most vulnerable neighborhoods do not have NCDs or Historic Designation to help them, and even those that do are still seeing this kind of development occurring. In the same way, we cannot rely on the land use categories to protect us. The code as it is written is unclear and is being manipulated for profit to the detriment of the surrounding neighbors.

It is important to remember that the council and the mayor set the agenda for the task force; our council has asked for this CCR because the constituents in the various districts have asked for help concerning the incompatible, intense, and dense development in our traditional neighborhoods. It is the job of the task force to set the policy concerning MF and RM zoned lots scattered throughout our traditional neighborhoods. Those task force members representing neighborhoods need to keep pushing for accountability when the city and developers want to rush to conclude the task force meetings without meaningful changes to the code’s language that make the code clear.

How Neighbors Can Help

Community is allowed to attend/observe the RM/MF Task Force meetings. Having members of the community there is important for transparency and accountability. The neighborhood representatives on this task force need community support in the room, and the city needs to see that this is an issue that the community cares about. Please plan to attend the next RM/MF Task Force meeting. It has been scheduled for 2:00pm on May 28th at 1901 S. Alamo.

You may read a summary of the CCR and the Task Force meetings so far on the city’s website, here.

Posted on

Demolitions Lead to Increased Property Taxes

On April 14, 2019, Bexar County Chief Appraiser, Michael Amezquita told the San Antonio Express News that the “biggest horror shows” when it comes to property tax increases are, “Anything within 3 miles of the Pearl.” Among many near-downtown neighborhoods, he specifically called out Tobin Hill North.

In 2016 a developer bought two older but structurally sound duplexes at 421 and 425 E. Mistletoe Ave. in Tobin Hill North. They obtained a demolition permit, cleared the land and built six two-story houses, facing a center drive. In some cities, they call these slot homes, and in 2018, Denver passed an ordinance which does not allow themto be built there any longer. The houses on Mistletoe were completed this spring and they sold for between $325,000 and $370,000 each. And they are driving our property taxes up.

Of course, most people will tell you is that these new, two-story houses will not be used as a comparable property with our older, single-story bungalows and cottages. They are right, the improvements portion of your tax valuation won’t use these new houses as comps. However, that only accounts for part of your tax valuation.

New house next to an existing one on E Mistletoe Ave.

Between 2015 and 2017, the Bexar Appraisal District increased only the improvements portion of the appraisal by about $2000 on my house, which is across the street from the new Mistletoe development. In that same time, the land value went from $25,000 to $61,000. This is about a 144% increase in just two years. The 2019 valuation has now increased our land value to $177,290. It has nearly doubled again, a 369% increase over four years. 

Sometime between 2015 and now, the Appraisal District realized that the original house on each lot could be torn down and three could be built in its place. Try going to Bexar Appraisal District and arguing that your landis not worth what they say it is.

Since January 2019, the Office of Historic Preservation has received seven demolition applications for Tobin Hill. Of those, three have been approved, two are on hold for evaluation by the Historic Design Review Commission, and two, 430 and 434 E. Magnolia, are still awaiting a decision by OHP. 

Like the properties on Mistletoe, 430 and 434 E. Magnolia are on a quaint and quiet street on the northern end of Tobin Hill.  While this part of Tobin Hill is not currently designated as Historic, it is surrounded on all four sides by Historic Districts: Monte Vista to the north and west, River Road to the east, and the Tobin Hill Historic District to the south. These two homes would be contributing to structures to a future Historic District in this area which has been identified in the past as being eligible for Historic Designation. 

400 block of E Magnolia and E Mistletoe

The applications for the demolition of these houses on E. Magnolia have generated a lot of neighborhood concern. OHP received 24 letters of opposition to the proposed demolition of these homes. This far exceeds what OHP’s Scout SA team typically receives for demolition applications. It was enough that Shanon Shea-Miller, Director of the City of San Antonio’s Office of Historic Preservation, requested a site meeting between Scout SA and the property owner. 

During the meeting with the property owner, we discovered that the owner believes he can get a better offer on the land if it is vacant. However, these houses are occupied and in good structural condition. Demolition should be a last resort, not a quick path to making a buck.  While the Appraisal District views the land as more valuable than the houses built on them, to the renters living there, this is home. 

When taxes go up, it makes it hard to stay in your home. This is how many homeowners go from living in housing that is affordable to becoming cost-burdened by their home. Landlords in my neighborhood, unable to get a homestead exemption on their rental properties, will need to raise rents to cover increased property taxes. Land values that have doubled, or in cases like mine, gone up 369% in just 4 years, mean that rents will rise to compensate for this increase. It is likely that many renters who could afford a place in Tobin Hill North in 2015 will soon be so cost-burdened they will have to find somewhere else to go.

430 and 434 E. Magnolia, photo from Google

430 and 434 E Magnolia are not stunning. They are not what some would consider worthy of a Landmark status. They are humble homes, and some of the last remaining affordable housing we have in Tobin Hill North. They are currently providing affordable housing in an area where finding an apartment or house to live in is becoming increasingly expensive.  The demolition of these homes, which are both currently occupied, and in sound structural condition, will cause the direct displacement of these residents. 

We need to focus on preserving the affordable housing that we already have. San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework specifically calls for the preservation of naturally-occurring affordable housing, especially rental units, like the duplex at 430 E Magnolia and the home behind it at 434 E Magnolia.  The Policy calls for the prevention and mitigation of displacement, and the need to address the impact of rising property taxes on housing affordability. 

It is clear that in neighborhoods like Tobin Hill North, affordability is tied to the land valuation. Demolitions like the ones proposed on E. Magnolia should be vehemently opposed. Our city: Development Services, the Office of Historic Preservation, our City Council and our Mayor should be denying requests for demolitions on houses that are structurally sound, and especially those that are occupied. It is in the best interests of not only those currently in need of affordable housing, but also of those who live nearby, who don’t want to see exponential growth in their tax bill every year. 

430 and 434 E. Magnolia will go before the Historic Design Review Commission for consideration of Landmark Designation in order to prevent demolition on May 1 at 5:00pm. The Tobin Hill Community Association would appreciate letters in support of the Landmark Designation of 430 and 434 E. Magnolia. Statements can be emailed to jessica.anderson@sanantonio.gov

We are also asking for community support in attending the hearing and speaking in favor of the Landmark designation. If you intend to speak, please sign up in person at 1901 S. Alamo St. on the day of the hearing. You may sign up anytime between 2:30 and 5:00 PM before the cases are heard.  

Posted on

Request from Tobin Hill at HDRC

Also read: NOWCASTSA’s excellent article: Tobin Hill neighborhood history, character is under fire by city and developers

April 18, 2019 Update from Anisa Schell (THCA Board):

Some of you may already be aware of the proposed demolitions of 430 and 434 E Magnolia. Because of the outcry of concern from the community, and after visiting the site with the Designation/Demolition Committee, the Office of Historic Preservation has decided to move forward with requests for Historic designation of both structures. The cases will be heard at the Historic and Design Review Commission Wednesday, May 1, no earlier than 5 PM in the first-floor boardroom at 1901 S Alamo.

The hearing is public and anyone may attend. 
In the past, it has been very helpful to have a large community of supporters attend and speak at the hearing.  You may sign up to speak before the hearing, anytime between 2:30 and when the case is heard (no sooner than 5:00pm).  

Each person will have three minutes to speak, but a short statement of support is all that is necessary. For example, you can use your time to say something like, “I am Anisa Schell and I live at 430 E. Mistletoe Ave. I support the Landmark Designation of these two houses. 430 and 434 E Magnolia are homes that contribute to the historic nature of the street and our neighborhood. They should not be torn down. Please designate these houses to protect them. Thank you.” 
In addition to speaking at the hearing, writing letters of support for the designation of these houses ahead of time is helpful.  Please send emails to Jessica.Anderson@sanantonio.gov. Your email should state that you support the Landmark Designation of 430 and 434 E Magnolia and make sure to include your name and address.  

The emails forwarded below provide a little more insight into what has happened so far with these properties. Also attached is the statement I wrote opposing the demolition of these properties. 

Tobin Hill Community Association needs your support for the historic designation of the two houses at 307 & 309-311 E. Evergreen.  

Demolition applications were filed for these houses in February. In researching the houses, it was discovered that 307 E. Evergreen was the home of Robert G. Cole who went to West Point, and later received the Medal of Honor for his bayonet charge during the Normandy Invasion. Cole has a video game character and local high school named after him (where Shaquille O’Neal went to school as well).

In its more recent history, 311 E Evergreen became locally known as “That Place Off Evergreen.” It was a local recording studio and live music venue, contributing to Tobin Hill’s culture of local music and the performing arts.

307 E Evergreen – photo by CoSA Office of Historic Preservation

The adjacent house, 307 E Evergreen, is known as The Cole House, as well as the former offices of Mujeres Unidas:

“Cole House is also significant in the area of social history for its associations with women’s civic history in the city of San Antonio. Clara Hoff Cole, the house’s longest continuous resident, moved into the house in 1919 and remained until her death in 1949. During that time she was a working professional and single mother of three children, teaching in the Tobin Hill neighborhood at Nathaniel Hawthorne, Jr. High School until sometime around 1944, when she had begun teaching at Mark Twain High School. Her involvement in the community and her son Robert’s military service attracted fairly constant attention from city newspapers through the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. Several decades later the Cole House became the office location of Mujeres Unidas, a charitable organization established in 1994 by Yolanda Rodriguez-Escobar to serve local women and Latinx community members with HIV/AIDS… Although their tenure at the Cole House happened within the past fifty years, it is still noteworthy and adds to the significance of the property in the area of social history and cultural heritage for the community of the Tobin Hill neighborhood and city of San Antonio.”
–Excerpt from 307 E Evergreen Statement of Significance, written and collected by Stephen Fonzo

These cases will go before the Historic Design Review Commission on April 17, 2019 at 5:30PM. Staff is recommending approval of the Landmark designations, however the property owner has not consented. If the homes are not designated, they will be demolished to make room for a multi-unit housing development.  

Your support at the hearing on Wed., April 17 would be appreciated.  The cases are “time certain” and are scheduled to be heard at 5:30PM. You may sign up at the One-Stop, 1901 S. Alamo, to speak any time from about 2:30 P.M. up until the time when the case is heard. (i.e., 5:00).  Emailed comments may be sent ahead of time to the case officer, Jessica Anderson, Jessica.Anderson@sanantonio.gov.

Posted on

Tier One Hosts IDZ Seminar

Residents from 22 neighborhood associations attended the IDZ Seminar hosted by Tier One Neighborhood Coalition at Lift Fund on June 16, 2018.

By Anisa Schell

On Saturday, June 16, residents from 22 neighborhood associations, spanning six City Council Districts gathered at Lift Fund to listen to the unveiling of the proposed Infill Development Zone (IDZ) ordinance. Catherine Hernandez and Logan Sparrow from the City of San Antonio’s Development Services Department presented details about the new ordinance at a seminar hosted by the Tier One Neighborhood Coalition (T1NC).  

The proposed ordinance was the culmination of efforts by the members of the IDZ Taskforce after District 1 City Councilman, Roberto C. Treviño filled a CCR in April of 2017. The Taskforce included seven neighborhood representatives from Tier One neighborhoods (those located inside loop 410), seven members from the development community, and non-voting member, Chrissy McCain from the District 1 Council Office.  

The Taskforce met thirteen times over the last year to write the ordinance after concerns were raised by neighborhoods over the current IDZ category. IDZ currently allows for zero parking requirements, heavily reduced setbacks and excessive building heights in residential areas. IDZ was originally intended for use on vacant inner-city lots. In the last few years, legacy neighborhoods like Dignowity Hill, Beacon Hill and Tobin Hill have seen IDZ used by developers to divide single family lots to hold 3 or more houses where one house previously stood. 

The new version of the ordinance would allow for IDZ to be split into three tiers of zoning. IDZ-1 would be the least dense, allowing 18 units per acre, which means for a 50 x 100 foot lot, two units could be built. The height restrictions would be 2.5 stories or 35 feet, and would allow for a parking requirement to be waived in some cases. IDZ-2 would be medium density, allowing heights up to 4 stories, and the highest density, IDZ-3 would allow for the most density, and would not carry height restrictions. 

In addition, two Residential zoning categories would be added with the new ordinance, R1 and R2. These new categories would take into account the historic development pattern of some inner-city neighborhoods that contain much smaller lots. Currently the smallest category the City uses is R3, which is minimum lot size of 3000 feet per unit.  R2 would allow a home to be built on a lot that is only 2000 square feet with a maximum lot coverage of 50%. R1 would allow a minimum lot size of 1250 square feet, the same as the current IDZ category offers. R1 would carry a maximum coverage of 45% and a max height of 3 stories or 35 feet. 

After the presentation, questions were taken from those in attendance. While the proposal seems to address many of the concerns neighborhoods have raised about IDZ, some concern still remains over parking requirements in certain neighborhoods.  There is another opportunity for public comment, June 18, 2018, 6:30-8:30 PM, 1901 S. Alamo, 1stFloor Board Room. More information about the proposed changes to IDZ can be found on the City’s website here.