Single Family Development in City of Austin Since Passage of Watershed Regulations

Neighborhood Planning and Zoning DepartmentApril, 2008

What Are the Watershed Ordinances?

• Classify watersheds into 5 zones – Urban, Suburban, Water Supply Suburban, Water Supply Rural, and the Barton Springs Zone (BSZ).

• Establish impervious cover limits, water way delineation, setbacks, and water quality controls.

• Barton Springs Zone has most stringent impervious cover limits of 15/20/25 percent.

• Urban Zone is least stringent with no impervious cover limits except zoning.

Watersheds classified into either a Desired Development Zone (DDZ) or the Drinking Water Protection Zone (DWPZ).

City designed initiatives to direct growth in DDZ, including attracting major employers to DDZ

Smart Growth Zones Introduced Mid 1990’s

Watershed Reg. Area Acreage %Urban 38,518 10%Suburban 212,517 54%Water Supply Rural 53,191 13%Water Supply Suburban 25,975 7%Barton Springs Zone 66,409 17%Grand Total 396,609 100%

Development Status of Watershed Regulation Areas

Note: environmental constraints lands include steep slopes, flood plains, or land preservation and parks

Watershed Reg. Area Data DevelopedEnvironmental

ConstraintsUndeveloped Grand Total

URBAN % Acres 88% 6% 6% 100%Acres 33,895.0 2,297.6 2,325.2 38,517.7

SUBURBAN % Acres 48% 16% 36% 100%Acres 102,727.6 34,026.4 75,762.6 212,516.7

BSZ % Acres 42% 34% 24% 100%Acres 27,834.5 22,857.0 15,717.1 66,408.6

WATER SUPPLY RURAL % Acres 43% 42% 14% 100%Acres 23,086.9 22,597.3 7,506.8 53,191.0

WATER SUPPLY SUBURBAN % Acres 57% 35% 8% 100%Acres 14,821.7 9,079.8 2,073.1 25,974.6

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Urban Suburban Water Supply Rural Water SupplySuburban

Barton Springs Zone

Acr

es

Developed

Environmental Constraints

Undeveloped

Development Status of Watershed Regulation Areas

Development Snapshot

• Urban Zone – central area, mostly developed, potential for redevelopment

• Suburban – 36% (75, 762 acres) undeveloped, much of it agricultural; 16% constrained, mostly by flood plains

• BSZ – 24% (15, 717 acres) undeveloped, 34% constrained by steep slopes and preservation land or parks

• Water Supply Zones – mostly developed or environmental constraints; small amount of undeveloped land

Single Family Development in Development Zones

•Greater lot size is required in DWPZ to meet demand and comply with regulations

• Rate of land consumption greater in DWPZ

• Lot sizes have decreased as construction costs have increased

DECADE Acreage Consumption Num. Lots Avg Lot Size (SF) Acreage Consumption Num. Lots Avg Lot Size (SF)

1900 109 #REF! 377 12,609 8 #REF! 10 36,273

1910 146 #REF! 698 9,099 15 #REF! 8 83,022

1920 621 #REF! 2,391 11,322 62 #REF! 51 53,334

1930 1,345 #REF! 5,236 11,191 129 #REF! 197 28,470

1940 2,136 #REF! 9,136 10,185 458 #REF! 830 24,018

1950 3,649 #REF! 15,518 10,244 1,298 #REF! 2,391 23,656

1960 4,671 #REF! 16,660 12,212 1,858 #REF! 3,468 23,341

1970 5,691 #REF! 24,230 10,231 4,643 #REF! 11,098 18,225

1980 4,929 #REF! 19,592 10,958 7,328 #REF! 19,621 16,270

1990 2,687 #REF! 13,719 8,531 8,968 #REF! 24,948 15,659

2000 3,069 #REF! 24,402 5,478 5,259 #REF! 20,590 11,126

Grand Total 29,477 132,344 9,702 30,578 84,944 15,680

Desired Development Zone Drinking Water Protection Zone

Roadway Gross Density by Watershed Development Zones

Regulation Area Sum Reg Area Road DensityRoad Length (ft) Acreage feet per acre

Barton Springs Zone 3,191,366 67,798 47.07Water Supply Rural 1,914,731 52,019 36.81Water Supply Suburban 1,752,619 26,073 67.22

Total Drinking Water Protection Zone 6,858,717 145,890 47.01

Urban 5,790,067 38,370 150.90Suburban 10,235,290 212,836 48.09

Total Desired Development Zone 16,025,358 251,205 63.79

1961 – 70% of year’s single family (SF) development occurs in in future Urban Zone

1979 – Council passes Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan

1980 – 1st watershed ordinances passed; SF development almost equal in DDZ and DWPZ

1982 – Motorola builds plant in BSZ

1984 – City agrees to Circle C and Barton Creek MUD’s with 10-year annexation program

1986 – National real estate bust; Council passes Comprehensive Watersheds Ordinance

1987-1999 – 21,257 SF units built in DWPZ versus 12,903 in DDZ

1992 – Save Our Springs (SOS) becomes last major watershed ordinance to be passed

1995 – HB 1704 passes, grandfathering rules on many proposed DWPZ developments

1996 – Smart Growth initiatives and DDZ and DWPZ established

Early 1990’s – a trend towards more construction in the DDZ begins

2001 – Economic downturn

2002 – more units built in DDZ for first time since 1986

Timeline

Single Family Units Built in City of Austin Development Zones

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

A1

Year

Un

its

Desired Development Zone Drinking Water Protection Zone

Percentage of Single Family Built in City of Austin Development Zones

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

A1

Year

Desired Development Zone Drinking Water Protection Zone

Single Family Units Built in City of Austin Watershed Zones

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

450019

60

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

Un

its

A1 - Urban A1 - Suburban A1 - Water Supply Rural A1 - Water Supply Suburban A1 - Barton Springs Zone

Development Factors Within City’s Control

• Provision of infrastructure to encourage development in desired areas, or to protect tax base and City service areas from encroachment

• Development regulations (except in grandfathered properties) that protect environmental features

• Purchase of land for preservation or other agreements

• City policies that encourage desired development in urban and less environmentally sensitive areas

• City efforts to promote and improve image and livability, but require careful balancing with environmental goals

Development Factors Outside City’s Control

• Natural site factors that attract or discourage developers and home buyers (beauty, recreation, soils, flood plains)

• State and Federal policies that conflict with City efforts, such as House Bill 1704, which rolled-back regulations on an approximate 11,770 acres of SF development to date.

• National trends in home ownership and economic business cycles

• Past City decisions that may have encouraged growth in areas that would not be desired today

• Factors outside City’s control, such as decisions of private property owners, school districts, state legislature and agencies such as TXDOT, and competition from other cities and service providers.

Development in Barton Creek Watershed

Factors that have led to Development in DWPZ

• Natural amenities of the Hill Country and other perceptions make development in the DWPZ attractive.

• City agreed to Circle C, Barton Creek, and other developments to bring environmental protection and services to the area, and to capture tax and related economic benefits.

• Desired Development Zone has environmental limitations such as soils and flood plains that made development in DWPZ attractive

• Grandfathering of SF development (approximately 11,770 acres in entire City Jurisdiction) has allowed less-restrictive development

• Development environment in Texas, including a proliferation of agencies and jurisdictions, is not conducive to effective comprehensive planning, though the City is far ahead of other large cities in the state.

Conclusions

• Smart Growth policies and increased redevelopment are contributing to a development shift to the Desired Development Zone, the University Neighborhood Overlay and Vertical Mixed Use.

• Development trends have more to do with factors outside City’s control (business cycles, decisions of private land owners, natural site limitations, state transportation projects).

• Watershed regulations can limit development, but in many cases, only the outright purchase of land can ensure protection of land.

• The supply of undeveloped land within Austin’s ETJ is limited, and there must be land use and transportation policies that ensure the sustainable use of land.