Travis County Commissioners Court
September 26, 2006
Item 2
2. Receive comments regarding draft conservation development ordinance. Move to open the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Good morning, joe gieselman with the transportation natural resources and joe lisard, who will shortly join me. We have briefed the court on the draft development ordinance. We are currently on our 15th draft of the ordinance. I think the last time we visited with you, we were on the 10th draft. As we get additional comments from -- from various groups, including our own internal departments, we -- we make changes to that draft. We do not expect the court to act today, although whatever guidance that you can give us on what you have seen today would be helpful. We certainly have visited with our own legal department and with the planning and budget office. I think those discussions are ongoing. But as a result of those discussions, I think that we have made some substantial substantive changes to the -- to the 10th draft. Primarily in the area of the incentives. I think the way we calculated the incentives before that were in the ordinance were based on tax valuations. We have totally abandoned that method of calculating the incentives. We have gone to much more simplified, a slack $6 per acre, $600 per acre on lump sum payments because we think that it's just going to be easier to understand. Has nothing to do with taxes whatsoever. So it's -- it will just be a -- a fun from the county to the property owners. Because of the uncertain interest in property owners about -- about this ordinance, we also have taken advice and decided to put this in -- more to the tune of a pilot program where we would make eligible only five properties for this program. Just to see how it works. We don't know, there are all sorts of ranges of interest, from none at all, to everybody will be interested in it. So we are -- we are just waiting cautiously -- wading cautiously into the program. We suggest to the court that not only to limit the financial exposure of the county, but also to -- to just generate interest to -- that we limit this five property owners under the pilot program. Perhaps, you know, a shake down to see how such conservation developments actually work. The ordinance as we have explained before is intended to -- to -- to provide an alternative to property owners who want to develop their property. But set aside substantial portions of the property for open spaces. It is optional. It is not required by the county. It is -- we have our traditional subdivision regulations and we expect that most property owners will continue to use those regulations when they subdivide and develop their property. On the other hand, there may be properties with significant environmental features on them where property owners may want to set aside those lands, in pepper tee for open space -- perpuity while they developing those parcels. This gives them the opportunity to do that. We know that other local governments in our central Texas area have either adopted similar ordinances or in the process of developing conservation development ordinance. We know there's interest generally in central Texas to provide those type of tools to the development community.
>> is the county the only one that [indiscernible] is that municipality, is that only the county?
>> I believe there is another county in the hill country that is considering an ordinance like this. I don't think there has been any county in Texas that has actually adopted an ordinance.
>> okay. So it's in the works, though. As far as --
>> we know of one municipality that has already adopted an ordinance and has these type of developments being processed by the city administration.
>> which --
>> dripping springs.
>> weed this that georgetown has a draft ordinance under consideration.
>> consideration. Okay. Flower mound was also considering --
>> the -- the purpose of today's meeting is a public hearing to receive what input we might have received. The 10th draft has been on our website now for well over a month. We have tried to update the stakeholders who have express interest in this as we go along. Also a presentation on the changes that have been made to the -- to the incentives program portion of the ordinance. I don't know if you want that now or at the agenda item. It's labeled as such.
>> well, if we can get it in 30 seconds now. I mean, whoever came down may as well hear it.
>> all right.
>> but the full discussion of Commissioners court, which should take place under the action items.
>> okay. Let's go ahead and do a real quick overview of on the --
>> 30 seconds.
>> well, it's not --
>> okay. Let's take the public testimony then and for those who want to stay and hear the full discussion, which in my view unfortunately may take place at about 11:20, but it may be this afternoon. And I don't know whether that discuss will take five minutes or an hour and a half. But no action will be taken today. But just on the incentives, can you just describe the changes in 30 to 60 seconds?
>> yes.
>> I think we need to hear from residents who came for the public hearing.
>> yeah, I can give you a --
>> by the way, legally the reason for this I think is we typically sort of lay out whatever it is that the public hearing is on. But we do have -- we do that in a couple of minutes because we do hope that before coming and giving comments that you have read the document before us. But this document has been changed substantially recently, I don't know whether it's been -- the latest version has been circulated to interested people. What's the answer to that? Has the latest version been circulated to interested person.
>> it is on the website, it has been circulated.
>> mccracken: changes six --
>> changes and incentives.
>> very briefly. Fundamentally we have changed it to an annual appropriation by the Commissioners court. The incentive are not granted by right. If you -- if you accomplish what's set out in the ordinance, we must negotiate the incentives and bring an agreement to the Commissioners court for approval. So it is a -- totally up to the court whatever incentives go in each particular contract with the property owner. Pilot program. Five properties are eligible under the first pilot program. The payments to the property owners are flat fees. $6 per conservation acre for the annual payment and $600 lump sum payment for the lump sum payment when the property goes into development in the prior draft of the ordinance that was a calculation and we felt that this is a much simpler straightforward to identify how much money would be paid per year. Any other e-mails.
>> joe, is it correct that you have not gotten input from individual member goes of the court to the recent draft?
>> I think we -- I believe the court members understand but I think that I'm certainly still open to -- to -- it is a fairly complex ordinance, so I expect further feedback from the court members.
>> last meeting I attended I think we were on draft number 12.
>> yeah.
>> the number changes not only when the date change, but when there's significant changes today, right?
>> you bet.
>> all right. Would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing. If so, please come forward. [one moment please for change in captioners] we have not broadly distributed the ordinance. We stand ready for do that. I wonder in -- Travis County interested in the ordinance isn't interested [indiscernible]
>> absolutely. We have publicized it to our normal means and we have put it on the website, we have just not gone out and held public meetings across the county as we might have done in other efforts.
>> we would be happy to get your name and comments.
>> good morning. My name is kunda wissey, do you want my address?
>> no, ma'am.
>> I'm a board member with the native prairies association of Texas. And I live in east Austin. I'm absolutely thrilled to be here to support this ordinance. For so many years our conservation efforts have focused on the west side with all of these difficulties and there have been so many changes taking place on the east side in the rural areas, I moved away from Austin and lived in bastrop and commuted on 290 east, just dismayed to see how the character of the land was changing. What used to be open, beautiful, spacious, peaceful, would suddenly be a sort of -- a bit of land with the houses on it, no sense of feeling for the tradition of the landscape. And I see this conservation ordinance as having huge impact on what things are going to look like in east Travis County as they develop over the next few decades. It has flexibility. It encourages creativity and -- and open thinking. Makes it easy to do that, a dance card for it, a dance pattern, here's how we can do it and make it more beautiful and more reflective of who we are, where we are living. There's a few tiny changes that I would like to add. I would like to add the word prairie or native grassland to section 11 b, to give emphasis to it, because that's a huge part of what's important on the east side. And roman numeral v, 18, 4th line, that phrase says wheat, diseases, insects it's sort of an old fashioned word that doesn't have much meaning anymore. If you are on the in in this issue, you would use the word invasive and exotic species because they are such a big problem, it's much more specific. And paragraph 36, the significant and meaningful, section a, the last sentence, where it says grass space lands, nobody does that. It's grass lands like wet-- it's grasslands like wetlands, sounds like we don't know what we are talking about. [indiscernible] used the correct word. Also because on the eastside, 99.9% of the native grasslands are gone, what you see there is all exotics and weeds, the character of the land is still a grassland but it's not what used to be there. I would like to see some wording added to give flexibility for a developer on the eastside or the black land prairie -- where the blackland prairie traditionally was to be able to do a restoration of prairie or to recapture that character. There are beautiful, beautiful, beautiful lands. Stuffed with hundreds of species of flowers, along with lots of different kinds of grasses. I hope that you won't think of them as being bored monotonous grassland things, give us a chance. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is mitch wright, vice-president of land strategies, I am currently the chairman of the regional issues committee for the real estate council, otherwise known as reca. I appreciate this lady's comments because I enjoy the same things that she enjoys. I think there is a lot of great thought, wisdom, intent that is going into this ordinance. I don't think this ordinance is there yet. I think it has a lot of maturing to do. A lot of extended thinking to do on the -- on the basis of -- you know, grassland prairie, topics of the list of incentives. But I want to congratulate both the court and mr. Gieselman and mr. Lisard for the tremendous amount of effort in bringing this forth. Once we do get to the end of the line and craft an ordinance here, I think it will be a model that will live well beyond this county and be a significant issue for -- for the state of Texas and possibly beyond. So I'm real pleased to -- to be a part of -- of analyzing that and being able to voice my comments on that. The real estate council currently has no official opinion. We are studying this ordinance. Both on the legal aspects and on the design and planning aspects. As of yet there is not a design book or a design guidelines that has been issued where some of the nuts and bolts will really shake out. How some of this -- how some of this ordinance will play out on the land. It is -- it is a great thing that it is an optional and now that we have it as a pilot program, I would be very interested to find out which five tracks might be under that consideration if they are in fact designated. So -- so I -- I think that -- that there is a sense that they also need to kind of test the waters a little bit more, find out, want to be involved in that process. One of the main issues that has been floating around to us is that this proposal does not offer an equal yield product, so that has been counter balanced with an incentive package both through the processing of an application and through the financial incentives offered for an application. The equal yield issue, even though the incentive package is there, is still a big one for the development community. And -- and I think that that is one of the big hanging points from -- from the feedback that I have been receiving.
>> [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic]
>> no doubt in nobody's mind [indiscernible]
>> yes, sir. If you have a tract of land and you are able to -- under the current subdivision code, get say 200 lots on it, in a normal development that's processed in a normal fashion, and applying for the conservation ordinance you come 20% off of that number, for instance, so it's substantially less amount of loss that you would be able to bring to the market and have your profitability based on that. It's a financial pro forma impact that the developers are looking at. Now, what I see happening from that impact is that you have -- you have across the county, a very small percentage of land that -- that even can apply for this ordinance because it's -- it's outside of any of the other municipalities, jurisdictions. Not in etjs, not in the city limits or anything like that. So you are already limited in the areas that's available for the ordinance. Now, if -- if the ordinance is going to have an outright diminishing property to it, in terms of the yield, then you are going to remove the majority of the development community from considering that ordinance. I think that's a key point because the reality of it, you may only get two projects or three projects, surface, out of this whole process. To me I don't think that would be as valuable as working on this ordinance to where -- to where if there's developers that are on that threshold, on that line where they can go this way or that, they are really working the numbers hard, the snepts were pumped up a little bit more, maybe you would get 15 or 20 projects. So -- so looking at other techs, other mechanisms in the incentive package, trying to bring more of the development community over to this side is always -- is a very powerful thing. I think it's always been expressed to me through mr. Lisard, mr. Gieselman, that this is really kind of set up for the niche market of the conservation minded developer. And that's true. It is. But I would rather in the interest of the wonderful open space that we have remaining in the county, I would rather pull more of the development community in there with a stronger incentive package. It may be that that is crafted by -- an ascending scale of credits somehow, to where maybe the donation of conservation land isn't 50%, but 30% or 20% or some other measure that -- that there is, you know, less donation, but less credit. And therefore more open space is freed up and it may be in smaller increments. It may not have the dramatic impact if this was straight up developed as is. If you only have one project or two projects come out of this, that's going to be a nice looking tract of land. But all of the surrounding lands around it may not have the -- the opportunity, whether it's because it's financially constrained from the company that's trying to develop it or -- or if they are just not thinking in those terms at all. So -- so those are kind of some of how the concerns are snaking out in the incentive -- shaking out in the incentive side. So we are really eager to see that the whole incentive package -- there's nuts and bolts comments on the incentive package. I'm very thankful that Commissioner Daugherty has offered to have a session, I guess a work session Monday so that some of these things can be picked out. Right now the credit is for drip irrigation percentage of land where a lot of the development community would rather have spray irrigation. A little more land, but we would like to get that credit. We would like to have that available to us. Primary conservation lands. Wetlands, repairing corridors, karst features, there's only 50% credit for that. We would like to have 100% credit for that. Thereby more development projects considering this as a viable opportunity for them. Therefore protecting more open space. That pretty much wraps up my comments and I -- I am open to any questions that you may have on any of the specifics.
>> I just have one. [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic] you were speaking earlier on the prairie grass, grass lands, black land prairie out in northeast Travis County. And we have? Folks out there with large tracts of farmland. Stuff like that. And of course they have not had a chance to -- to have the opportunity to review this particular [indiscernible] they are stakeholders in this also, hopefully staff will give this to them later on. I hear what your concerns are, but at some stage of the game when we fine tune this particular ordinance getting it to come back to the Commissioners court, at some stage of the game the input I think has to be significant whereby you have all players involved at this, all at the table so we can come up with some substantial, sufficient ordinance to move forward on. I see what the short comings are as far as some of the incentives, but again those folks having a lot of farmland, ag exemptions, a whole lunch of other things, need to have an opportunity to even review the incentives as you were talking about right now. At some stage of the game, also to folks out there in eastern Travis County, in the on. The -- in the grassland prairie it's very important for everybody to know what everybody else is talking about.
>> I'm very open to having any discussions with the -- with the folks out there. But let me expand on that. The development pattern has been a model of homesteads, farm lands, farmlands, generallation lands being sold to home builders, subdivisions or development community retail centers and whatnot. The land is not developed by the homestead owner but transferred through a mechanism of the development industry which is what we are here for. So -- so that's kind of the process that I have seen is being -- being consumed in that manner and developed in that manner.
>> right.
>> so --
>> okay. Thank you very much.
>> would anyone else like to give testimony during this public hearing? We have four seats available. If you are here to give testimony during this public hearing, please come forward. And if -- give us your name and comments.
>> good morning. My name is kenan smith. My residence -- I'm a resident of southwest Travis County at 18320 shepherd's corral. My mail comes from dripping but we live in Travis County. I have two perspectives to share with you today. One is as a resident of southwest Travis County, very interested and focused on the growth issues in the hamilton pool road and southwest Travis County areas. The second is a professional perspective. By trade, I'm an architect and planner. I -- I'm in the interests of full disclosure, also in -- serve in the capacity with the city of dripping springs helping them review the first projects that are actually coming down the pike in the -- in the conservation development ordinance that dripping springs passed last April. Just to clarify, the -- the municipalities that I'm aware of that are -- that have conservation development ordinances in places, I think there are three that I know of, flower mound in the dallas/fort worth area, dripping springs, which is in our locality since last April and also I think bandera has the city of bandera has -- has conservation development ordinance. I'm aware that also there are beginning discussions in hays county about -- about forming a conservation development ordinance. So those are my perspectives and I'm happy to share those. I'm currently working with the city of dripping springs under contract to review that first project that is coming down the pike. I view this as -- so you can look at me as part of the choir, but someone, the choir, part of the choir with a vested interest in a way. This is, you know, without too much hyperoble probably one of the most important land use planning frame works that the Commissioners court will probably face in -- at least in you are sitting and perhaps in a couple of courts. I say that because it has potential to recreate the -- the framework for how development is approached in Travis County. And in doing so, you have the possibility of becoming the first county to throw a net over conservation development in the state of Texas. There's a great potential for you to show the we and deserve great leadership in the area of conservation development. The time is right for -- for central Texas and for Texas to embrace these concepts. They have been embraced in the northeast for some time. Although we always look askance at anything that happens in yankee land. But the sensitive qualities of our environments here in central Texas, I'm not just talking about the area where I live out in southwest Travis County, but also as a first -- as the first speaker spoke, of the bland land prairies, nate -- blackland prairies and native prairies in the east side. The case can be made there's incredible sensitivity in that land, compared to first glance, flood control, erosion, probably on other agendas you are looking at fixing the creeks on the eastside. Those are tremendous issues and those are all impacted by the way that development happens in watersheds on the eastside. So -- so equally strong arguments could be made for the -- for the umbrella of conservation development strategies and concepts in both -- in both ecosystems that your county embraces. I'm also -- with regard to my professional perspective, able to discuss and refute some of the previous comments. I've been a participant in actually -- and actually a facilitator in the ladybird johnson wild flower centers on conservation development five years running now, I can say absolutely that the fundamental concept of conservation development is not to take away any development potential from any particular piece of property, but apply the concept of density transfer. Do 200 lots in a conventional subdivision, you need to be able to do 200 lots quid pro your in a conservation development scenario. Now, I have to admit that I haven't waded through all of the details in the nuts and bolts of the 15th draft. But previous drafts were true to that concept of density transfer on par. To make sure that there are incentives to attract all kinds of developers to table. With regard to -- with regard to what we are facing in dripping springs, the project that I am currently reviewing for them, which in fact goes to planning and zoning commission out there tonight, that project is being brought by -- by more or less a dwoangsnal developer -- a conventional developer, one that is interested in [indiscernible] homes and a program of selling dirt to builders. We regard that in dripping springs as sort of a triumph. Here we have sort of a mainstream developer that -- that on his own devices chose to take the conservation development route and -- and is figuring out a way to work with the ordinance, to work with us as extended staff, to save 70% of the land as open space and we have -- we have taken them to task quite firmly on both the conservation side, but our ordinance out in dripping springs also creates incentives of -- of density bonuses, it's attracted by that. The main stream developer that sort of is bringing this first project is attracted by the density bonus. So -- so the ordinance out there, much simpler, half the size of yours, perhaps without some of the sophistication, but by got I'm proud of dripping springs having put it in place, has attracted a project with a mainstream developer, managed to come to -- before the planning and zoning commission, likely to be approved, setting aside 70% open space and figuring out how to -- to do sort of on par density with the rest of it. Those are my comments on the professional side. I was involved in dialogue over the water line that lcra this summer extended out hamilton pool road and sat on the hamilton pool road forum funded by the lcra and gave testimony to the laysation board. Our residents -- to the lcra board. Our residents out there, you should know, are very concerned about the quality of growth out there. Most of us are fairly level-headed and -- and are not delusional about the fact that growth is coming. We are interested in the shape and quality of that growth. Please give this ordinance a chance, it will give us a framework to do conservation development by right instead of by -- by permission. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. I'm happy to answer any questions if -- if -- if I can be a resource to you, let me know.
>> I am interesting in the dripping springs project, I have read all of the articles about it. Sounds like a great idea. I am interested in how do you get signoff on 900 homes, 676 acres unless you are really taking the area that's developing -- areas that are developing to literally develop those greatly. That is what's happening, correct?
>> that's exactly what's happening.
>> that cluster [multiple voices]
>> we've had some of those discussions in this court --
>> that's precisely how you do it.
>> being concerns about given the fact that you have left this open, when you go over here, you are liable to have 80% impervious cover on this small acreage that you can have. You are saying that that is the way to do this, correct?
>> that is the way that the ordinance is set up.
>> thank you.
>> but taken at the whole level, you have the conservation done rigorously, to a t. You have to allow the development to happen, but within standards, within the standards of, you know, vertical architecture, within standards of connections to open space. The real key to this is that the open space is what's giving value to the rest of that development of 70% of people live on a golf course development don't play golf. Why do they live there? Because they want that -- to know that they are looking out on something decent and it is -- it's preserved in perpuity. They don't even pick up a club.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, I'm christie mews, speaking today on behalf of the hill country alliance, I'm so glad to follow kenan because he covered everything beautifully and I won't take up your time. I would like to reiterate everything he said. And the development that you all were speaking about in dripping springs, 70 percent of property is open space, I think that's remarkable. I did participate in a lot of regional planning, as did many of our board members, many of our participants in the hill country alliance. Gerald Daugherty, I would like to thank you for pulling this piece of the southwest Travis County growth dialogue out and seeing it moving it forward. We do support the ordinance. We hope the court moves on it sooner rather than much later. The fact that it's become a pilot program, I think is another reason to -- to look at this in the near future. I understand that you are not ready to work on it today. But the pilot program aspect of it allows you to test it. And see how it's working and re-evaluate it. Also, the fact that it's an incentive based and purely optional, that's what people have been asking for and let's put this tool out there for people to use. I think that the development community, they need something to point towards and we talked to people in the hill country counties beyond Travis County, that are really watching this and really wanting to see what Travis County does. We hope this can be a model program that other hill countries use as well. Whether or not it's perfect today, we are not sure, but we think that it's something worth checking out. I did want to put out, too, we had a public hearing. The alliance hosted one in bee cave. One of our best attended events. We have had the 15th draft on our website now in two days. Sending it out regularly for people to look at. We haven't heard a lot of negative feedback on it. Like I had to say one thing, I would have -- one thing that I have heard is maybe it's a little too complex, I think staff is trying to get it so right. So thank you for your efforts on this.
>> thank you. [one moment please for change in captioners] I think it shows huge leadership on the part of Travis County Commissioners. I think it will be very important to the development of central Texas and maybe beyond. I think that a particular aspect of this impervious cover and conservation space transfers, I think that this could be the beginning of something very big because it does by bring in the landowners and provide the equity, the landowners who basically make it wort while for them to give up density, give up development opportunities and still get value for their property. So I hope that you folks will move forward with this. I'm a little discouraged that its the 15th iteration, but maybe this is the one that will take. Thank you very much.
>> move that the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. How many would stay here if we reach the action item discussion this morning? Because I'm about to suggest what time we may reach it? Then I suggest we reach it at 11:30. It's either 11:30 or 2:00. Does it matter. Is 2:00 more convenient? Is 2:00 inconvenient for anybody? Then let's try to do it at 11:00 thrirt we'll box in 30 minutes. We recess for lunch at 12. So if we're discussing brilliant ideas at 11:30, at 12 noon we recess until 1:30. At 2:00 we finish the discussion. Does it matter? Then let's shoot for 11.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, September 27, 2006 9:54 AM