T1NC Neighborhoods Proposed UDC Amendments

UDC Amendment                                              Reasons this is important to your

                                                                            neighborhood

 

16-1 IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY OF BUILDING HEIGHT ON SMALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS Protects neighborhoods with  smaller residential lot sizes of 1250 sq ft to 3000 sq ft (R-1, R-2, R-3) from higher massing of new infill development.
16-2 THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF TYPE 2 STRS IN ANY BLOCK FACE, OR WITHIN A MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT ROUND UP.

 

 

Type 2 Short Term Rentals (STRs)  shall still be allowed by right  on  no more than one-eight (12.5%)  of the total number of  dwelling units on a block face. This amendment assures compliance.

This amendment has the support of the Short Term Rental Association of San Antonio.

16-5 REVISE THE HALF STORY DEFINITION SO IT IS A MORE TRUE HALF STORY

 

DSD withdrew their amendment and worked with T1NC on refining this amendment

 

This amendment assures that a half-story is exactly that instead of appearing to be a full story. This will make new construction or additions in residential areas more compatible with the homes around it.

 

16-6 FOR CHANGE OF ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS, APPLICANTS SHALL SHOW PROOF OF A MEETING WITH ALL REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OR PROOF OF AN ATTEMPT…

 

The Public Participation Principles which were adopted by City Council in 2019 recommends that information, including zoning and land use changes, be inclusive, accessible, and informative. This amendment would help ensure those recommendations are followed. For residents to make more informed choices, they must be given the opportunity to meet with the developers and see their presentation. This amendment will assure those presentations take place.

 

Continuance and postponements are costly to the city and to applicants. Continuances are a common result of a lack of sufficient discussion and information shared between applicants and individual neighbors affected to reach a deeper understanding of the impacts of the project and is more likely to result in less expense, time, and resources at the end of the project.

16-8 NOTICES FOR ZONING, PLANNING, AND BoA EXPANDED

 

 

Ensures that as our City of San Antonio grows and changes NOTICES are sent to registered Neighborhood Associations within 200’ and EXPANDED to include  registered Community Organizations within 200’.

Alliances and coalitions will be able to more effectively help  neighborhoods meet development challenges of the future.

 

 

16-10 CREATES A MORE INCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION OF ZONING, LAND USE, AND BOA NOTICES BY INCLUDING COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS with REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

 

 This amendment recognizes that stakeholders in a community have the right to be engaged.

16-10 should say Community Organizations not Neighborhood Organizations

 

 

16-12 IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY OF BUILDING SIZE ON MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS

 

 

Makes certain that new development is neighborhood compatible on lots containing two, three, or four family dwellings

 

Sets the maximum percentage of the lot that the buildings can cover to 65% in order to avoid development that does not fit in

 

16-13 DEFINITION OF ONE OVER ONE WINDOW

 

This is important for NCD standards of Beacon Hill, Mahncke Park, and Alta Vista as well as future NCDs.

 

Investors and developers are adding fake window divisions that are taken down after the buyer purchases the house.

 

26-1 GAS STATION RESTRICTIONS

 

  New locations near residential properties are not necessary and impact traffic problems through neighborhoods.

 

This amendment adds additional protections to the most vulnerable in our city, those who suffer from respiratory challenges as well as protect residents from Benzine emissions.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

16-4 PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS IN THE SA TOMMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The SA Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan states that it “does not alter or negate our existing neighborhood plans…” (1.3). This amendment will ensure that the Comprehensive Plan’s intent is respected.

 

T1NC worked with the Planning Department’s Amendment 22-21to amend so that neighborhood plans and neighborhood land use will be considered in larger area plans.

 

22-21 gives us language to protect our neighborhood plans however, there are areas of concern particularly in its lack of public participation and the codification of the corridor plans. This amendment is important because Sub Area and Regional land use plans supersede the original land uses.

 

Concerns:

*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. This amendment will codify the corridor plan.

 

•       (h) Consistency Requirements

Keep in mind that once sub-area plans get adopted, they will supersede, (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. This is already the case but bears repeating in light of this amendment.

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.

 

•       (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.

Aside from the involvement of the T1NC UDC Committee, this amendment has been proposed with no “public hearings” and limited public participation process which violates the Public Participation Principles.

 

 

 

 

 

T1NC - POSITION ON OTHER UDC AMENDMENTS

T1NC - POSITION ON OTHER UDC AMENDMENTS

UDC Amendment                                              Reasons this is important to your

                                                                            neighborhood

 

1-1 TRANSITIONAL HOMES:  SUBMITTED BY SA ARCHDIOCESE

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends DENIAL

Seeks to add housing and rehabilitation for training of adults on parole, early release or pre-release, or any other form of executive, judicial or administrative release from a penal institution in all residential areas.

While we recognize that transitional homes are important, this amendment does not take into account all of the other types of special housing businesses that already exist by-right and with no limits in our neighborhoods. For example, by-right Sober homes (containing parolees) and Adult Living facilities (up to 6 beds) may be in residential communities without a public hearing.

Before we can support this amendment, CoSA should reexamine its policy on special housing businesses in residential areas that creates compatibility instead of potentially overwhelming a community.

There is no justification that has been presented for a need for a by right zoning for this type of housing.

Neighborhoods face many challenges today without adding more unregulated transitional home use.

2-1 LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR UTILITY FACILITIES: SUBMITTED BY SAWS

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Denial

Seeks to remove the UDC requirement of planting a buffer within the street yard of electrical substations, water pumping / storage sites, and wastewater treatment plants.

Concerns:

-City staff did not offer an opinion on this amendment

-for SAWS and CPS!

-new pump stations and equipment are in highly visible ROW areas of communities; lack of screening has received many complaints by residents.

 

5-14 DEFINITION FOR RESTRICTED PARKING AREA- FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS SUBMITTED BY DSD CODE COMPLAINCE

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Seeks to limit the area of a lot in a residential district where the parking of oversized vehicles, is not allowed. For one-half acre or less in area, the restricted parking area includes the entire area of the lot. For lots or parcels greater than one- half acre in area, the restricted parking area includes the entire front yard, and areas of the side yard and back yard within 15 feet of the property line.
5-22 FENCING SUBMITTED BY COSA

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Allow up to a height of 8 feet for a fence on a residential property when it is adjacent to a railroad Right of Way (train tracks).  Residents will no longer have to apply for a variance!
5-23 BARBER/BEAUTY SHOPS-REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVE

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Today 100% of the Board of Adjustment cases to allow a barber/beauty shop in a residential home are approved for one chair only, no sale of products permitted, only the owner may cut hair on the premise, and no signage permitted.  All other regulations to remain but will not be allowed by right and removed the barrier to going to BOA for approval.

-Piano lessons allowed in home without a BOA requirement

-Code has been on the books since WWII

5-35 RM (RM4, RM5, RM6) DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED BY COSA

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

-amendment is a result from the RM/MF DSD Taskforce which was initiated by a Council CCR on 8/21/2017 by D1, D2, D9, D7, D3

 

Seeks to require multiple units to be in ONE enclosed structure for all residential districts.  For lots 1/3 acre or less.  Will no longer allow multiple structures on one residentially zoned lots.  A more compatible infill development for residential communities.

 

5-57 DEFINITION OF PERMANDENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND WHERE IT IS PERMITTED SUBMITTED BY COSA

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Permanent Supportive Housing is a combination of housing and services designed for people with serious mental illnesses or other disabilities who need support to live stably in their communities. These services can include case management, substance abuse or mental health counseling, advocacy, and assistance in locating and maintaining employment. Permitted in all multi-family zoned lots and only allowed in RM-6, RM-5, RM-4 with a specific use zoning change.
7-2 TREE PRESERVATION-USE OF TREE MITIGATION FUNDS SUBMITTED BY COSA

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

 

Allows the City to use the Tree mitigation fund, up to 25% per year, for the purchase of new park property.  This may be used for small lots for parks!
10-2 MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO IDZ SITE PLANS-SUBMITTED BY COSA

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

A NEW application for rezoning will be required if IDZ-1 zoned properties total floor area increases by 10% and any Council approved restriction is removed.  For IDZ-2/IDZ-3 any changes for increase of 15% in total buildable area or removal of a restriction approved by City Council
13-1 MISSION PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS-SUBMITTED BY MSJNA, HWMRNA, ROOSEVELT NA, VILLA CORONADO NA-THERESA YBANEZ

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

To better protect the Missions within the World Heritage Buffer Zone from encroaching development that would harm the Outstanding Universal Value - intangible heritage and authentic experience at and around the World Heritage site. The change would be in sync with SATomorrow plan and the community's goals."

-initiates the public process with a CCR.

19-1 WESTSIDE CREEKS WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREA SUBMITTED BY: SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

COSA supports this external amendment seeking to ensure adequate treatment of storm water runoff that may potentially adversely affect the water quality in the West Side Creeks

-COSA stormwater’s only concern is they wanted this amendment implemented after the Westside creeks construction was completed.

20-1 through 20-18 CHANGES IMPACTING HISTORIC DISTRICTRS SUBMITTED BY: OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Historic Districts!  OHP underwent a robust public process for their 18 amendments, starting in 2019, and there has been no opposition to date!  Many NAs participated in the process and support these amendments which incorporated their concerns, please register your support!

 

22-4, 22-5, 22-6, 22-7, 22-8 FIVE NEW PROPOSED MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT-while the amendment was withdrawn by planning department, it is still important to register your opinion. 

 

Withdrawn:  This will not proceed forward in the udc process at this time

 

UNANIMOUSLY denied by Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee because there was NO public engagement on the creation of the 5 new zoning districts.

These amendments sought to allow zoning by right (bringing in more intense uses) in the districts and remove the public zoning process today for alcohol, bars, gas stations, and entertainment venues which are some of the most highly discussed zoning cases.  Also, the zoning districts would eliminate parking requirements and increase building footprint, height, massing, and reduce setbacks without a public meeting on each parcel in the district. Only the creation of the district would have a public meeting.  Provided no buffering or transitional zoning to protect build environment and established communities.

23-5 TREE PRESERVATION SUBMITTED BY THE HOUSING COMMISSION- SUBCOMMITTEE FOR REMOVING BARRIERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends DENIAL

The proposed changes would seek to allow developers to use trees in the public right of way for consideration in the tree survey for a new lot development for single and multi-family.

-PCTAC recommended denial of this amendment because ROW trees are removed to access a site for construction and would weaken the tree ordinance.

-City Staff works with applicants to minimize the impact today for affordable housing developers

-DSD Staff brought the amendment back to PCTAC without discussion, but was denied

23-6 ACCESSORY DWELLINGS SUBMITTED BY THE HOUSING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTE REMOVING BARRIERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 

PCTAC APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 10-9!  SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS REMAIN ON IMPACT TO NEIGHBORHOODS

 

ADU-accessory dwelling unit

ADDU-Accessory detached dwelling unit

 

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends DENIAL

While Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can provide compatible housing for elders (40% according to AARP) and others, the biggest barriers, say residents, is cost which is not addressed in this amendment. T1 recommends that this amendment go through a public process which was the original intent.

-NHSD public engagement was limited to 120 survey responses for the entire city (in December and January), no robust engagement or public meetings held

-Removes public hearing for changes in a community, no BOA hearing for homeowner’s concerns to be addressed

-Why did the City not evaluate a reduction in fees for BOA or permit and other fees which residents say is one of the impediments to building or rehabbing ADUs?

-Amendment is from the Removing Barriers for Affordable Housing Committee but there is no affordability requirement for ADUs or ADDU when being built

-Code Compliance does not adequately enforce the owner-occupied requirement today for ADUs

SEEKS to

1) remove requirements that an accessory dwelling unit be connected to the electrical, water, and sewer system for the principal structure, (allowing 2 electrical meters on a single residential family property without a zoning change/public hearing)

2) removal of occupancy limits for an ADU, increase to allow more than 3 people to live in an ADU, more people with no oversight

3) ADU-expands the size of the ADU to maximum 800 sq ft OR 50% of the main home, which ever is larger.(larger ADUs on residential lots), increase in impervious cover and infill on residential does not have a drainage requirement.

4) expands ADDU bedroom limitation from 1 bedroom to allow 2 bedrooms,

5) ADDU-removes the 800 sq ft limitation for size of an ADDU but cannot exceed 40% of the principal residence, more impervious cover

6) one ADU per lot and ADDU: shall be built within the rear yard,

7) ADD: requiring 1 parking spot for ADDUs over 800 sq ft gross floor area

8)-relaxing the setback requirements for 3’ (instead of 5’) for rear and side setbacks for ADDU. (Concerns for urban core with shallow setbacks for drainage), no longer needs a variance.  What is on the adjacent property’s lot?, some setbacks are 18” on the other side and water heaters, AC units, water softeners can be placed in theses setbacks

8-ADDs that ADDU cannot exceed 25’ in height. (today 35’ is allowed)

27-3 Chapter 4-4.3 Regional Storm Water Management Program submitted by Public Works

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Proposed change revised the adverse impact analysis requirements (how storm water run-off is calculated for development) to provide a better way of truly analyzing for adverse impact to point of influence (up to where the storm water has an impact).

-better way to asses impacts of infill development specifically for urban core neighborhoods for new development.

27-4 Chapter 4- 4.3.9 Low Impact Development Submitted by Public Works

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Provides new requirements will allow the City to require “temporary” stormwater provisions to prevent runoff when doing a phased development during construction to ensure adequate measures are in place when the property is bare ground (been cleared no drainage infrastructure is built) to ensure no adverse or significant soil erosion/runoff.

-Requested by D10 Councilmember to address new construction runoff

27-5 Chapter 5.3 Rational Method-submitted by Public Works

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

The addition of section 5.3.1 provides additional language to give guidance on the method of calculating detention volume for small sites, specifically IDZ sites in the urban core!!!!
30-1 Use Regulations submitted by James McKnight Brown and Ortiz

 

T1NC Steering Committee recommends Supporting

Add the definition for "Human Services Campus" (HSC) and add a reference to that definition to Table 311-2.

 

Purpose: The purpose of this section is to regulate Human Service Campus uses to identify the intensity of the uses allowed on the property.

Site Plan: All Human Services Campus uses shall indicate on the required Specific Use Authorization site plan the use category and/or services provided on the property, which may include, but is not limited to, the following: (1)  emergency food, medical or shelter services. (2)  animal care facilities. (3)  schools, including educational, business and vocational. (4)  community health care clinics, including those that provide mental health care. (5)  alcohol or drug abuse services. (6)  information and referral services for dependent care, housing, emergency services, transportation assistance, employment or education. (7)  multi-family housing. (8)  consumer and credit counseling. (9)  day care services for children and adults.

To require a specific use permit for RM4, RM5, RM6, MF 18/25/33/40/50/60 and C1, C2, C3, D, ERZD