Read: The latest MF/RM UDC Recommendations released from DSD (11/19)
Read: T1NC’s Letter to the Mayor re MF/RM UDC Amendments
Background (excerpt from August 21, 2017 CCR):
“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:
Traditional, compatible single structures with multiple units:
“Missing Middle Housing” offers Compatibility with Single-Family Development Pattern
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.
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.