T1NC chose to work with city staff (DSD and Planning) to modify their proposed 22-21 amendment, seeking to protect existing neighborhood and community plans and to provide for public engagement on future land use. As a result of this work, the Planning Department added language that may help protect neighborhood plans and future land use in neighborhoods as they participate in the sub-area planning process.
Language that may help protect future neighborhood land use:
The Planning Department added a reference to the “important aspect” of previously adopted neighborhood and community plans including their future land use, to the Statement of Purpose in the final version .
Planning also added to Sub-Area Plans: “Goals, objectives and future land use from adopted neighborhood and community plans shall be reviewed and serve as a foundational element…, throughout the development of sub-area plans.” This is important, but neighborhood and community plans and their future land use are to be used as a reference – not as a basis, to develop the larger area sub-area plans.
Planning also commits, in its edited amendment: “…When a proposed sub-area plan includes geographies in a previously adopted neighborhood or community plan, the planning department shall invite …registered neighborhood associations and registered community organizations with boundaries within the previous plan area to review, discuss, and provide input…”
However….
In our Amendment 16-4, which we hoped to incorporate into 22-21, we asked for previously adopted neighborhood and community plans, inclusive of future land use plans, to be incorporated without revision into Sub-Area Plans, thereafter amendable, which was denied because, they stated, incorporation without revision impermissibly restricts City Council performing “legislative” action of plan adoption. We also understood that many neighborhood and community plans have outdated or neighborhood-disliked future land use plans.
Areas of concern with the final version of 22-21 going before PCTAC on May 9:
(3) B, Corridor Plans
The “study areas of a corridor plan should” include areas (1/4) mile, (1,320 feet) of the major arterial, expanding to one-half mile around high traffic stations.
A city block is typically 330’ to 660’, so the corridor plans could potentially infringe higher density development a minimum of 2 blocks into currently residential zoned areas.
(b) (2) Stakeholder Participation
City also added to the final version a section on Stakeholder Participation, (b)(2). – which was not discussed in our meetings.
Besides the involvement of the T1NC UDC Committee, this amendment has been proposed with no “public hearings” and limited public participation process (PPP).
Once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supercede, (a)(5), currently adopted neighborhood and community plans and we’ll have to work within that framework.
(h) Consistency Requirements
Once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supercede, (a)(5), currently adopted neighborhood and community plans and we’ll have to work within that framework. Previous plans won’t be referenced anymore for rezoning applications. The new zoning will be consistent with the new land use.
The larger sub-area plans are too large to address specific individual and smaller neighborhoods needs and objectives which have been removed or been reduced by the new hierarchy of plan types.
Neighborhood Action:
T1NC UDC Committee is not making a recommendation, but urgently request that neighborhoods provide comment.
We should urge everyone – individuals and neighborhoods, to become informed, get involved, and to comment now or at city council if this amendment is supported by PCTAC.
In 2014 Julian Castro created the Mayor’s Task Force on Preserving Dynamic and Diverse Neighborhoods. This group developed a set of recommendations that included, among other things, the creation of a Housing Commission, displacement mitigation measures, a comprehensive review of city policies, and a housing bond.
In 2015 the Housing Commission to Preserve and Prevent Displacement was formed and for three years worked to carry out the somewhat limited Task Force recommendations. The most notable achievements of this commission were the successful creation of the 20 million dollar Neighborhood Improvements Bond and, in my opinion, serving as a platform to keep issues around affordable housing and displacement in the public eye.
When Mayor Ron Nirenberg took office in 2017, he realized that while these efforts were a good first step, a more energetic and holistic response was required. Shortly after taking office, he formed the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force on which I had the honor to serve. This five-member group was charged with a sweeping, whole-system review of San Antonio’s housing ecosystem and, over 12 months, led as hundreds of citizens participated by sharing stories and concerns, and serving on technical working groups. The task force worked with four different consultant groups as well as City staff to do a deep dive into data and facilitate the process.
This process revealed the following:
Housing costs are outpacing incomes in San Antonio and there is a wide and rapidly growing affordability gap. In 2000, you could find a starter home for a new $110k. Today the floor is about $170k. Incomes have remained relatively flat over that period.
50% of renters in San Antonio are spending more than 30% of their income on housing or 45% on housing plus transportation.
Housing supply is not keeping pace with growth: most new construction is outside San Antonio city limits
Neighborhood instability and displacement are real things and they are happening here.
It wasn’t easy but under the leadership of Lourdes Castro Ramirez. We treated one another with respect and, in the end; we developed not just consensus, but friendship. Ultimately, the five of us, from different backgrounds and points of view, boiled the oceans of information down into San Antonio’s Housing Policy Framework
The actions that the housing policy framework calls for are bold and sweeping and include:
Development of a coordinated Housing System
Increased investment in housing
Increase affordable housing production, rehabilitation, and preservation
Protection and preservation of neighborhoods
And the insurance of accountability to the public.
Page 12 of the Housing Policy Framework provides an initial timeline for implementation. Many but not all of these initial tasks are underway including:
Council adoption of Housing Policy Framework (August 2018)
Increased funding to implement framework recommendations (October 2018)
Reconstitution of the Housing Commission (February 2019)
The Housing Commission is tasked to ensure the Housing Policy Framework will of the people be implemented over the next decade and is currently chaired by Lourdes Castro Ramirez. It is to that body this commission that we will report our findings. Jessica Guerrero, who has joined on the phone, is our Housing Commission representative.
Preliminary steps on addressing and mitigating displacement (April 2019)
Review of the San Antonio Housing Trust (July 2019)
Establish a Technical Working Group on removing barriers to the production and preservation of affordable housing within the Unified Development Code
Strategy 1: Undertake an inclusive public process to determine standards and criteria to allow by-right zoning for housing developments in which at least 50% of the units are affordable. (We are not tackling this. The implementation plan calls for a separate working group to do so.)
Strategy 2: Exempt affordable housing units from SAWS impact fees. (Our group might wish to look at SAWS and CPS related issues)
Strategy 3: Revise the UDC to remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. (This will be the primary goal for our group and details are on page 40 of the Housing Policy Framework)
The previous Housing Commission noted several ways to improve Sections 35-360 (Bonus Density) and 35-372 (Affordable Dwelling Units) in the Unified Development Code. The concern was that these parts of the code were not highly utilized as the bonuses were small. Below is an overview of the general ideas of changes put forth by Housing Commission.
Current Policy
Issue
Proposed Changed
Applicability
Current policy only applies to multi-unit projects subject to application for rezoning, MDP, or planning. Policy should include single-unit projects and should allow for uses not permitted in a zoning district. (e.g. duplex in R-4)
Affordability
Currently the policy defines low income as not exceeding 80% AMI and very low income as not exceeding 50% AMI. Policy should have more comprehensive range of AMI categories especially for homeowners.
Density Bonus and Set-Aside
Currently developers can increase permitted units by 20% if 10% of the units are low income housing and a 10% increase if 5% of the units are very low income housing. Policy should have a minimum of 5% restricted income units and an increasing bonus density for every 1% increase of restricted units.
Affordability Period
The current policy states units must be affordable for 50 years. Policy should reduce the length of affordability to 20 years for a homebuyer and 30 years for rental units.
Additional Development Specifications(Proposed to be applicable for projects with 75% or more affordable units)
Issue
Proposed Changed
Minimum Lot Size
Allow minim lot size to be reduced to 1,250 square feet.
Building Setbacks
Should not require front or side setbacks and reduce rear setback to 5 feet.
Street Construction Standards
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to upgrade or improve existing streets or sidewalks.
Utilities
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing utility infrastructure.
Storm water Management
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to improve deficiencies in existing off-site storm water. There should be increased options for off-site drainage alternatives in lieu of on-site retention/ detention pond.
Parks & Open Space
Parks and open space dedication and fee in lieu of land dedication standards shall not apply.
Tree Preservation
Projects that reuse existing buildings or development an infill parcel of 5 acres or less should not be required to mitigate the removal of tress located in development areas.
The Mayor’s Office brought together 20 people from across San Antonio to address the development issues facing affordable housing in San Antonio. Over three meetings, this group determined the priorities and formed subcommittees around these priorities including:
Regulatory Cost Burden: this subcommittee provided recommendations for ways to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers
Accessory Dwelling Units: this subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods
Public Outreach & Engagement: this subcommittee focused on how engage neighborhoods and share knowledge so residents are an integral part of this process
The Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers committee had conversations about how to redirect the cost of affordable housing development away from developers. This committee engaged experts from many departments to learn about current standards and then worked to provide solutions. To date there have been six meetings as well as an engineer round table discussion meeting which took place in early January. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here. The following Removing Barriers committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee.
After six subcommittee meetings, it was determined that most of the standards in place are necessary for the health and safety of the residents. However, there were several ideas on how to shift the cost burden away from developers in order to incentivize more affordable housing development:
Proposed Amendments & Policy Issues
Impact Area
Tree Preservation & Open Space
Trees planted in the Right-of-Way should count toward tree mitigation in an effort to provide more shade and reduce the heat.
UDC
A funding source should be established so affordable housing development is exempt from Tree Mitigation fees.
Fiscal
Parking
Modifications to parking regulations should be centered on the idea that there are not one-size-fits all solutions. Some areas around transit may not need as much parking, but other areas, further from transit and amenities, may benefit from more than the minimum requirement
Policy
NHSD staff is working with the Planning Department to think about ways to fold in parking ideas/updates with the Regional Center Plans
Policy
NHSD staff is working with VIA about proposed amendments around transit stops
UDC (indirectly)
Storm Water
Regional Storm Water
A from ‘Fee In-Lieu-of development’ policy should be created for affordable housing
Fiscal & Policy
A funding source should be established to eliminate the cost of mandatory onsite detention for affordable housing
Fiscal
Immediate Neighbors
Currently, developments are not permitted to increase water run-off to neighboring properties. However, this is a consistent concern this committee has heard during this process.
The Accessory Dwelling Unit subcommittee was formed after the Removing Barriers Committee had several conversations around the important role Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) play in increasing affordable housing. ADUs are generally smaller and usually result in more naturally occurring affordable housing as well as options for aging in place and creating additional rental income. This subcommittee worked to find ways to update the Unified Development Code to help ADUs meet the current needs of San Antonio residents while respecting the culture and design of neighborhoods. The following committee members volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. Nine meetings were held to craft the proposed recommendations. All notes and presentations, to date, can be found here.
Updated language for maximum size:The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.
UDC
Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADU
UDC
Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residence
UDC
Impervious cover should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirements
Policy
Remove language with occupancy limitations
UDC
Updated language for parking: Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirements • For an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be included
UDC
Update language for setbacks to:Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhang
UDC
Update language for height limit to:Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half story
UDC
Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern book
Policy
Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updates
UDC
Update language for attached ADUs to: Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is largerAttached accessory dwelling units shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higherAttached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district
UDC
Update language for owner occupied to:Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADU
UDC
Update language for design to:
Remove design requirements
UDC
Create design guidelines and a pattern book
Policy
Identify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book
Fiscal
Communicate the benefits of ADUs for all residents in San Antonio
Policy
Develop a financing mechanism with lenders so residents could more easily get a loan to build an ADU
Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.
Remove language for minimum sq. ft. requirement.
The residential building code requirements provide a minimum size for each room depending on the room type (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, etc.) so establishing an additional minimum standard for sq. ft. was believed to be redundant so it was removed.
Maximum Size
The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling. The building footprint for the ADDU shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the building footprint of the principal residence. The “building footprint” shall include porches, but shall not include patios. Total floor area of the ADDU shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or be less than three hundred (300) square feet.
The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger, of leasable space in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.
The subcommittee wanted to allow smaller homes to have the ability to build a larger ADU without being limited by the total square footage of the primary residence. In addition, the subcommittee spoke to the importance of being able to have an ADU larger than 800 sq. ft. if a resident had a larger home.
# of Bedrooms
An ADU shall not contain more than one (1) bedroom
Remove the language limiting the number of bedrooms allowed in an ADU
Since the subcommittee increased the allowable sq. ft. it made sense to remove the one bedroom regulation
Utilities
The accessory dwelling shall be connected to the central electrical, water and sewer system of the principal structure. This provision does not apply to the electrical service if the distance between the primary structure and the accessory dwelling is greater than one hundred (100) lineal feet.
Remove language requiring the ADU utilities to be connected to primary residence
The subcommittee believed this requirement was not needed as SAWS and CPS have their own requirements and regulations to ensure the health and safety of residents so this language was removed.
Impervious Cover
Impervious cover is addressed within the accessory structuresection of the UDC: The maximum lot coverage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total area of the side and rear yards, provided that in residential districts the total floor area does not exceed a maximum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet.
Should be discussed at the larger level of city-wide storm water regulations and requirements
This discussion originated from the concern of increased water runoff that might result from additional construction on a residential site. After much discussion, it was determined this is part of a larger, city-wide conversation about how storm water runoff is addressed after construction is complete
Occupancy
The total number of occupants in the accessory dwelling unit combined shall not exceed three (3) persons.
Remove language with occupancy limitations
With the increased allowable square footage the subcommittee reasoned that a family could easily live in an ADU and did not want to limit housing options due to an occupant restriction so the language was removed.
Setbacks
Accessory detached dwelling units shall require a minimum setback from the rear and side property lines of five (5) feet.
Allow 3 ft. setback with no overhang
Since most other accessory structures are permitted to be built 3 ft. from the property line without an overhang the subcommittee felt this provision was appropriate for ADUs as well.
Parking
Parking areas shall be located behind the front yard.
Remove requirement for parking to be located behind main structureFor an ADU 800 or fewer sq. ft. no parking requirementsFor an ADU more than 800 sq. ft. one parking space should be included
The subcommittee could not determine a reason to require the location of parking to remain behind the main structure so this provision was removed. Building a parking spot is only required for ADUs more than 800 sq. ft. While there were many other options and exceptions discussed including elimination of parking requirements if residents is near a transit stop or has a street wide enough to accommodate on-street parking. However, primary residential homes are currently only required to build one parking spot, but usually have at 2-4. Knowing this, it was determined that most homes would not have to build any additional parking. A parking requirement was included for ADUs over 800 sq. ft. as ADUs that large would more likely have multiple people driving cars.
Maximum height of 25 ft.Maximum of two stories, no half story
The subcommittee wanted to ensure there was a respect for the neighborhood as well as the primary residential structure on the lot so they choose to reduce the maximum height in an effort to better conform to design and nature of San Antonio neighborhoods.
Scale
There are currently no regulations around scale
Discuss scale requirements in Phase II: design guidelines and pattern book
The subcommittee believes that, at the present moment, regulations around height will address the immediate concerns. The design guidelines and pattern book will allow for more details, as needed.
Define Included Sq. Ft.
The accessory dwelling shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area in any single-family residential zoning district other than the “FR” zoning district, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the “RE” zoning district. This restriction applies only to that portion of a structure that constitutes living area for an accessory dwelling.
Sq. ft. of an ADU shall include all leasable space when calculating maximum size, as included in maximum size updates
The subcommittee discussion around how square footage is calculated stemmed from a concern about the size and scale of an ADU if it was constructed on top of an existing garage. However, after more discussion, it was revealed that in order to build on top of a garage you would likely have to tear down the garage and rebuild unless it was constructed to accommodate an ADU on top. In addition, the ADU would still have to meet the proposed max height requirement of 25 ft.
Attached ADUs
The gross floor area of the accessory apartment shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the total living area of the principal dwelling unit.Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall not exceed one (1) person per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.Attached accessory dwelling units shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district.
Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure, whichever is larger;Shall be no higher than the principle structure or a maximum height of 25 ft., whichever is higher; and Shall be in compliance with the required setbacks of the primary structure required by the underlying zoning district
The subcommittee aligned the requirements for attached ADUs with those of the regulations for detached ADUs except where the regulations pertain to setbacks. The subcommittee believes that additions to the primary structure should respect the setback of the underlying zoning district.
Owner Occupied
Currently the owner of the ADU must live on the property. If the homeowner wants to take advantage of a homestead exemption they must live in the primary residence/main house
Create a provision to allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special provision that would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family No short term rentals shall be permitted in non-owner occupied ADU
Please see page 9 for extended details on subcommittee discussion around this topic
Design Requirements
In order to maintain the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the main building as a single-family residence, the ADDU shall have a roof pitch, siding and window proportions identical to that of the principal residence.
Remove design requirementsCreate design guidelines and a pattern bookIdentify a funding source to provide waivers for those who adhere to the design guidelines and/or pattern book
The subcommittee would like to produce design guidelines and a pattern book to help guide the development of ADUs in the City. In addition, they would like to find a way to reward those who use these approved plans by providing waivers for development fees.
Allows homeowners the opportunity to provide housing for relatives or the community Provides opportunities for home owners to earn additional income which may allow them to stay in their home in neighborhoods that are rapidly changingLimits market rate investment in neighborhoods which are rapidly changing
Would not be able to use as a large scale affordable housing investment strategy
Owner does not have to live in the home to build an ADU(No STR permitted)
No Short Term Rental permitted so would increase in long-term leases and rentersAllows investors to building affordable housing optionsWill likely increase the number of affordable units
ADUs could become an investment property and could begin to cause more neighborhood change in un-stabilized neighborhoodsMay limit the number of homes available owner occupancy It is still largely, still more lucrative for property owner to flip and sell a home
Create a provisionto allow homeowners, not residing on a property, to apply for a special exceptionthat would allow the construction of an ADU on a rental property currently zoned for single family(No STR permitted)
Provides a pathway to allow ADUs on non-owner occupied propertyNo short term rental permitted so an increase in long-term leases/rentersIs not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as it might be desirable in many areas.
Is not granted by- right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Additional development expenses Additional length added to the process
The Public Engagement & Outreach subcommittee was formed as a result of conversations that took place during the first few meetings of the Removing Barriers Committee. The committee placed a high priority on public engagement and wanted to create a subcommittee to focus on this topic so neighborhood engagement and knowledge sharing would be an integral part of this process. The following subcommittee members volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. There have been seven meetings. All meeting notes, presentations, and documents presented during meetings can also be found on the here.
This subcommittee has taken the time to discuss the City of San Antonio’s public participation principles, specifically what works well and what is missing. These conversations led to several big outcomes below:
The creation of a public outreach framework for Removing Barriers that created a structure for the public outreach and engagement subcommittee
Best practices for public meetings
The creation of a neighborhood focus group that will provide feedback about outreach and proposed UDC amendments
1. Public Engagement Framework
2. Public Meeting Best Practices
Utilize current communication networks such as neighborhood associations, community organizations, schools, churches, and City Council offices
Utilize meetings already happening
Provide accommodations for those who wish to attend a meeting:
Physical access at meeting location
Literacy Levels
Communication (language, on-line availability)
Be intentional about guest lists:
Include neighborhood associations and other active or informed participants
Look for community leaders and engaged members of different communities
Allow for flexibility for public comment during meetings
Take care not to over generalize
Plan meetings at a variety of times and locations to better accommodate all residents
3. Neighborhood Focus Group
After discussion on how best to reach everyone in San Antonio, this subcommittee has envisioned a city-wide meeting of neighborhood coalitions and neighborhood interest groups who would come together and serve as the focus group as well as a group that would be one of the first to hear and provide feedback about proposed recommendations from the ADU and Regulatory Cost Burden subcommittees
This group would consist of approximately 8-12 seats to be filled by neighborhood interest groups who would be encouraged to have interchangeable representatives depending on the topic/timing of meetings with the goal to always have a representative from each neighborhood interest group at each meeting
Representatives would be required to disseminate information to their organization networks
The subcommittee and staff have agreed to being this group with the understanding that adjustments and additions will be needed as the process continues throughout 2020
“Over the past two years, there have been a growing number of RM-4 and MF-33 housing developments which have caused much concern throughout our communities. Currently, the UDC designations for these codes allow for construction up to 35 feet in RM-4 and 45 feet in MF-33, with no specifications that the units allowed must be contained within a single structure.
This has caused an influx of developments or proposed developments to build four or more 2- 4 story single units on a single lot within a residential neighborhood, which ultimately is incompatible and highly impactful development.
City staff and the zoning commission have discussed and recommended denial for cases where IDZ infill was not appropriate, but where the base zoning of MF-33 or RM-4 allowed them even more density or development, which caused a conflict of ideas and put impotence [sic] on these decisions.
As a result, the community feels unprotected and the lack of notification and input required for development without a zoning change have led to concerns and fear of developments occurring “overnight” without consideration for the surrounding community. Development in our city is occurring at a rapid rate, and our citizens are turning to Historic Designation and NCDs as they perceive this to be their only option. However, these options ultimately do not regulate use of the property, or density, as designated by the zoning and therefore does not address the real issue at hand.”
The main issues this task force was meant to address were:
1. Height
2. Multiple units contained in a single structure
3. Neighborhood notification and input
Often when multiple structures sold as “single-family homes” are proposed (versus multiple units contained in a single structure), developers say they are encouraging homeownership. However, we have found that the stand-alone units are being used as luxury rental housing, regardless of being sold as a single-family condo.
Below are several examples of both new, incompatible multiple-structure RM-4 developments, and traditional, compatible, single-structure RM-4 properties. As you can see, containing multiple units in a single structure is both common, and architecturally diverse. There is no need to be concerned that this requirement, which is the traditional form for missing-middle housing, would create “monolithic” structures.
Multiple Incompatible Structures on one lot:
W Craig in Beacon Hill, zoned RM-4Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM-4
Traditional, compatible single structures with multiple units:
Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM-4 Fulton in Alta Vista, zoned RM4Fulton Ave. in Alta Vista, zoned RM4E Huisache in Monte Vista, zoned MF-33
“Missing Middle Housing” offers Compatibility with Single-Family Development Pattern
These diagrams from http://missingmiddlehousing.com show yellow missing middle housing mixed with one- and two-story neighborhood “typical” single-family homes. Above is a typical T3 neighborhood (similar to many in San Antonio) with the missing middle housing and single family mixed throughout the neighborhood.This diagram – the white buildings toward the left are the one- and two-story neighborhood “typical” single-family homes. The Missing Middle Housing buildings, in yellow, are shown to provide a transition to the more urban “main street” with live-work and commercial buildings and uses. The compatibility of multifamily buildings that are similarly scaled and massed (i.e.: contained in one structure) to the single-family is more widely accepted as compatible.
On December 5, City Council will be considering a proposed Ordinance adopting changes to Chapter 35 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), specifically Section 35-310-01 and Table 310-1 Lot and Building Dimensions Table, relating to Lot and Building Dimensions in “RM” and “MF”.
The changes proposed by DSD were recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commissions. We support the clarification added by the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee (PCTAC) limiting building height to 35’/2.5 stories for MF-33 properties under 1/3rdacre. However, we ask that the amended language recommended by the Zoning Commission regarding vacant lots be stricken.
The new wording proposed by the Zoning Commission will incentivize further demolitions in our neighborhoods. If a MF-33 lot is on a corner, and the lot next to it is a vacant (undeveloped) lot that is zoned for single family, the MF-33 could be built up to 45-feet high, because the vacant lot is not being used as a single-family home. If someone were to purchase both properties, they could have any structure on the single-family lot demolished in order to gain the additional ten feet in height by-right.If there is a vacant lot, the use should be assumed to be in line with its zoning, not a hypothetical school or church. We should be starting from the most conservative answer, not the most extreme.
We appreciate the hard work this task force has done on the proposed changes, however we feel the recommendations are not as complete as they could be. The CCR issued in 2017 by Councilman Treviño was created with the intent to address neighborhood compatibility issues. I ask that you read through the CCR. The main issues this task force was intended to address were:
Height
Multiple units contained in a single structure (massing)
Neighborhood notification and input
With this focus in mind, I ask that you approve the changes being proposed today with the following amendments:
To address height:
Remove the wording proposed by the Zoning Commission regarding vacant properties in Note 11.
Adopt the clarification provided by PCTAC on Note 11.
Amend Table 310-1 to reflect 35’/2.5 storiesallowing exceptions based on PCTAC’s clarification of Note 11.
Table 310-1: the placement of Note 11, which addresses height, should be moved from the header of the table to the first column for each zoning category. This will align the placement of the note to match the rest of the table lending clarity to all who use the table in the future.
To address massing and neighborhood notification and input:
35-310.01(c): Amend language from “must occur within a completely enclosed structure” to read “must occur within a single completely enclosed structure” so that it reads: “Unless expressly permitted as an accessory use, a use permitted in the “RE,” “R-20,” “R-6,” “R-5,” “R-4,” “RM-6,” “RM-5,” “RM-4,” “MF-18,” “MF-25,” “MF-33,” “MF-40,” or “MF-50” districts must occur within a singlecompletely enclosed structure.” This will address the concern over multiple structures.
35-310.06(a)(1)(b): Insert, “which shall be contained in a single structure” at the end of the sentence so that it reads, “The maximum number of dwellings is limited to two (2) units for RM-6, three (3) units for RM-5, and four (4) units for RM-4, which shall be contained in a single structure.” This will further address concerns over multiple units being attached.
These two changes that address massing will also help address the third concern over neighborhood notification. If a property owner wishes to develop their site with a different massing, they would be allowed to go before the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The BOA process is public and would trigger the public notification.
Please note that the traditional development pattern for RM-4 and MF-33 has consistently been to have multiple units in one single structure. There are numerous examples of this architecturally rich missing-middle housing throughout our neighborhoods. Please see second attachment.
These amendments would help address the concerns over compatibility of these zoning categories in our neighborhoods.
Thank you for serving our community.
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee
Cosima Colvin, Christine Drennon, Liz Franklin,Tony Garcia, Jordan Ghawi, Mary Johnson, Ricki Kushner, Margaret Leeds, Alan Neff, Velma Pena, Monica Savino, Anisa Schell, Cynthia Spielman, Amelia Valdez, Theresa Ybanez
Note: This letter is based on the T1NC template letter. We added specific details about our neighborhood in the second to last paragraph. Please feel free to use this as a template by deleting that paragraph or changing it to details about your community.
November 14, 2019
Re: CM Pelaez CCR “Developmental Regulations Review”
Dear Mayor Nirenberg,
We are writing to respectfully request that you vote against to the “Development Regulations Review” CCR that would require an economic impact analysis to accompany any proposed amendments for the 202 UDC review. It will come before City Council for adoption in December 2019 for a vote.
If passed, this ordinance would put an undue burden on residents and community groups wishing to submit any code amendments or participate in the 2020 UDC updates. It is important to include the input from community and advocates to create a balance between developer interests and community and neighborhoods. This balance is necessary in moving forward to meet the challenges of the future.
Groups “outside of DSD” do not have the resources to provide an economic impact assessment, particularly groups that have been (and can be argued still are) marginalized in the past. This is an unreasonable burden to place on your engaged and concerned constituents. The UDC review process should be inclusive and accessible by all of our citizens as well as adhere to the Public Participation Principles that Council adopted last year.
The expectation that San Antonio’s UDC recommendations should be limited to only those that would make development more profitable is a very narrow lens by which to view our City’s progress. Development and its effects, both positive and negative, is a complex issue and needs input from all stakeholders in order to make informed decisions. Costs to developers is already a factor that is considered when adopting amendments; codifying it would serve no purpose except to severely limit public input.
Our neighborhood of Beacon Hill has been one of the downtown neighborhoods that has changed. We have witnessed displacement, demolition of homes, incompatible development, and skyrocketing property taxes. We have also enjoyed the revitalization of the Blanco Road shopping corridor (and hope to repeat on Fredericksburg Road), the welcoming of new and engaged neighbors, and the repair to neglected properties. We understand that in order to meet the challenges of the future, we must perform a balancing act. We promote compatible, affordable, and sustainable housing and the revitalization of our commercial corridors; we promote the preservation of our unique and historic housing stock; and we seek to protect our legacy neighbors, particularly the most vulnerable, from displacement. In order to achieve these goals, Beacon Hill, along with the other neighborhoods, needs to have a part in the decision-making process. We need to be able to advocate for sensible and fair UDC amendments.
Please stand up for public citizen participation and support your constituents’ voices by voting against the Development Regulations Review CCR.
Update: D8 Councilman Pelaez met with T1NC members and then issued a formal memo to Department of Development Services (DSD) that states, in effect, that anyone submitting an external UDC amendment will not have to to the cost analysis.
The Unified Development Code (UDC) is extremely important to the residents of San Antonio as these codes guide development in our city and neighborhoods. These codes determine such things as how high a building can be constructed in the middle of a one and two story residential street to storm water reviews that are triggered when projects are built. The UDC deals with issues of parking, short term rentals, zoning and permitted uses. These codes are now being reviewed with requests for amendments due by May 1, 2020: UDC Amendment process and timeline available here.
The people who live in San Antonio are directly affected by these codes and how they are amended.
What is the CCR?
In November 14, 2018, Councilman Pelaez submitted a Council Consideration Request (CCR) which is the first step in creating an ordinance. It was signed by councilmembers from Districts 1, 3, 5, and 10. The CCR, “The Development Regulations Review,” requires that amendments to the UDC must have an “economic impact analysis” to determine if the request costs developers more money, less money, or has no monetary impact at all. The “economic impact analysis” must then be approved by the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Planning Commission. As part of the impact, the following items must be considered and documented: initial and long‐term maintenance costs; city cost (i.e. personnel costs and costs to enforce); Indicate and be able to rationalize the baseline (current costs) and the cost projections associated with the request.
Why this CCR restricts input from residents and advocates:
This requirement for an “economic impact analysis” is a barrier to public participation in that it places an onerous burden on citizens recommending code amendments. This requirement, which could soon be adopted by City Council in December 2019 as ordinance, violates the principles of inclusiveness and transparency as promoted by the Public Participation Principles adopted by City Council last year.
How this CCR is built on assumptions that are not accurate:
The CCR itself is built on the false premise that the City of San Antonio (COSA) has made project development difficult for developers through “recommendations that pertain to regulations on new construction of residences and commercial properties” by the SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Commission, and The Mayors Housing Policy Task Force (MHPTF).
In fact, the Housing Commission goals reflect the goals of production and investment in affordable housing. The SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan and the MHPTF actually make building cheaper and easier through land use recommendations, corridor development plans and by building code recommendations. Through the implementation of the Mayors Housing Policy Task Force, code barriers to affordable housing are being addressed. In addition, CoSA’s tax incentive and rebate programs, as well as their Fee Waiver Program help reduce the cost of development and make this CCR’s concerns seem disingenuous.
What this CCR is really about:
What is most telling is the CCR accuses those “outside of DSD” as “placing additional pressures on the current review process.” This CCR seeks to relieve those “pressures” by silencing the voices of residents who live in neighborhoods. We are those “outside of DSD.” There are very few advocates outside of DSD that have the money or the staffing to do a cost analysis. For the good of our city, cost to developers should not be the only lens in which we view our UDC amendments.
Why we can’t look at the UDC amendments through the lens of developer costs:
Development issues affect more than the financial bottom line for development. It also affects community safety, equitability, and quality of life. Developer demands, which have been the focus of City policy in the past, have resulted in suburban sprawl, one of the highest instances of income segregation in the country, and have endangered our water sources. Recently, our inner-city neighborhoods have experienced incompatible and expensive housing which has caused displacement, destruction of legacy homes which has destabilized our neighborhoods and communities, and severe flooding. Balance is needed as we move to meet the challenges of the future before we suffer more “unintended” consequences.
Additionally, CoSA needs to consider, what Jessica O. Guerrero, community advocate and member of the Housing Commission, calls the “social cost impact fees,” which are the “costs related to displacement on the social services and taxes side.”
Developers have the Department of Developmental Services (who is overseeing the amendment process) and CoSA to advocate for their needs. Who do we have to advocate for preserving our neighborhoods and protecting vulnerable communities except ourselves?
Tier One Neighborhood Coalition and others who are concerned about their neighborhoods advocate for compatible development and affordable housing that seeks to stabilize and maintain resilient and culturally-rich neighborhoods and communities. There will be no balanced and thoughtful approach to the UDC amendment process if Councilman Pelaez’s CCR is adopted by City Council and a prohibitive burden is placed on residents and community groups advocating for the care of San Antonio residents. This balance is important to a thriving and healthy city as well as to an inclusive and transparent UDC amendment process.
This CCR will go to Council to be adopted in December. Please write or call your council member and the mayor to request that they do not adopt this CCR as ordinance.
DSD Academy is holding a workshop on the UDC amendment process on Saturday, November 16th at 9 a.m. at One Stop (1901 S. Alamo).
Sources:
Section 35-11(a) of the UDC – the Updated UDC Amendment Request Form with Cost Impact Statements.
Agenda Memorandum File Number: 19-7814 by DSD (Michael Shannon), October 21, 2019 as part of materials for the presentation to PCTAC.
For more information and to sign up for updates. DSD will present on the UDC amendment process for neighborhood groups and organization. Contact Tony Felts, Policy Administrator (210) 207-0153 and Monique Mercado, Senior Planner (210)207-5016 for more information.
What is the Unified Development Code (UDC)?
The Unified Development Code (UDC) is extremely important to the residents of San Antonio because these codes guide development in our city and neighborhoods. These codes determine such things as “subdivision platting, zoning, street and drainage design standards, historic preservation, and protection of natural resources – trees, aquifer, etc.” The UDC deals with issues of parking, short term rentals, zoning and permitted uses. The UDC is updated every five years.
The people who live in San Antonio are directly affected by these codes and how they are amended.
The UDC Amendment Process:
These codes are now being reviewed with requests for amendments due by May 1, 2020. According to the Department of Developmental Services (DSD) which facilitates the process, the amendments are to “modify procedures and standards for workability and administrative efficiency, eliminate unnecessary development costs, and to update the procedures and standards to reflect changes in the law or the state of land use planning and urban design….”
Amendments submitted from outside the city staff, “external” amendments, cannot submit changes unless those changes clarify a provision or edit for grammar or punctuation. The Planning Commission must sponsor any external submission that creates change.
The Development Services Department (DSD) begins receiving submittals for proposed amendments on January 1, 2020. This year, the DSD has set up a dedicated email address for correspondence related to the UDC Amendment Process as well as UDC Amendment Submittals. That email address is UDCAmendments@sanantonio.gov
You may also contact Tony Felts, Policy Administrator (210) 207-0153 and Monique Mercado, Senior Planner (210)207-5016
The Path to Approval
DSD will take submissions, request additional information, conduct “small scale focus groups consisting of industry experts, applicable agencies, and neighborhood leaders, and the development community. (January – May 2020) For applications and instructions go to Sanantonio.gov/DSD
From PCTAC, the recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission, Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment (BoA), Historic and Design Review Commission (HDRC), Housing Commission, Parks and Recreation Board.
Referrals by these boards and commissions are sent to City Council by December 1, 2020.
Public Participation
According to DSD, “Throughout the UDC Amendment process, DSD will conduct an extensive community and stakeholder outreach program utilizing the SA Speak Up process, community meetings, social media, constant contact, and the DSD website. DSD will also conduct a comprehensive educational outreach campaign in 2021 after the UDC Amendment process ends in order to educate the community about the new changes to the code, and how those changes may affect them and their development process. This outreach will be done primarily utilizing SA Speak Up and DSD Academy sessions. We will also utilize social media and constant conduct to advertise the training opportunities.”
Timeline:
January 1, 2020 Amendment submittals begin
January, 2020 First SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the UDC Amendment process and providing information on submitting amendments and the amendment process
May 1, 2020 All amendment submittals must be completed
May, 2020 Second SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the major themes of the UDC Amendments that have been submitted, having the citizens identify their priorities based on the UDC submittals provided, and providing information about the submitted amendments
Mid-May, 2020 PCTAC begins meeting
October, 2020 Third SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the major themes of the UDC Amendments after PCTAC review, having the citizens identify their priorities based on the UDC amendments and PCTAC process, and providing information about the submitted amendments
October 30, 2020 Amendments forwarded to boards and commissions with PCTAC recommendations for review
November, 2020 Boards and commissions review amendments and make recommendations
December 1, 2020 Boards and commissions recommendations forwarded to City Council
December, 2020 City Council considers amendments
January 1, 2021 All passed UDC Amendments go into effect
January, 2021 Fourth and final SA Speak Up Survey gathering input about the UDC training
January through March, 2021 DSD conducts internal and external trainings and works with Municode to codify amendments.
UDC Changes since 2015
Since the 2015 UDC Update process, several changes have been made to the UDC as a result of CCRs or Stakeholder Groups. These changes have included:
· Zoning Sign and Courtesy Notice Changes
· Creating the RIO-7 Overlay in the vicinity of San Pedro Creek
· Modifications the demolition procedures for historic structures
· Military Lighting Overlay District (MLOD) update
· Comprehensive Land use Category Updates
· Short Term Rental regulations
· Infill Development Zone (IDZ) update
· Atlas 14 (storm water) update
· Habitat Compliance Form update
Source:
Agenda Memorandum File Number: 19-7814 by DSD (Michael Shannon), October 21, 2019
DSD Academy: UDC 2020. Presentation by Tony Felts, Policy Adminstrator. November 16, 2019 and January 15, 2020.
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.
“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.”
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).
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.
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.
The height of RM and MF zoned developments be limited to 35′ or 2.5 stories when measured to the top of the gable.
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.”
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.
Next ADU meeting: February 7th at 10 a.m. at NHSD at 1400 S. Flores
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or granny flats, mother-in-law-flats, back houses, pool houses, or garage apartments, whether attached or detached, are a big thing right now. ADUs can allow for extra income to homeowners to help with the rising taxes, they can provide for affordable rentals which are much needed, and they provide density that can help area businesses as well as justify better public transportation and other amenities. Most neighborhood residents throughout San Antonio are allowed to build an ADU on their property, but there is an opportunity to refine the Unified Development Code (UDC) that will make building these units easier for homeowners while also providing protection for neighborhoods.
Tobin Hill, however, has been struggling with an ADU that is substantially taller than its principal home, and seems incompatible with the surrounding area (some have likened it to a “tower”). A neighbor challenged the city’s Development Services Department (DSD) over the approval of the permit for this ADU, and took it to the Board of Adjustment in early August. The board voted in favor of the property owner and not the applicant (the neighbor) who was challenging the building. After the meeting it was expressed that many of the board members were confused about what their vote meant (which was not helped by the fact that DSD put up the wrong information on the screen about who was for and against the project). Consequently, the Board of Adjustment has agreed to vote at the September 16 hearing whether to hear the case again.
Tobin Hill’s Towering ADU
I am a Tri-Chair of the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee in which we are tasked, in part, with finding ways to help residents build ADUs more easily, while protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. We are looking for ways to not only make these structures easier to build, but to also ensure they are built in ways that can be embraced by neighborhoods across the city. We are also looking at ways in which it will be easier to rehab existing ADUs. Many of the UDC code amendments that we want to address include design issues, height restrictions, and definitions and interpretations.
For more information on the Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Committee, please click below:
