HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 10.14.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
October 14, 2020 at 3:30 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The r egular me eting will c onvene at 3:30 p.m. on O ctober 14, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , please c opy and paste the following we blink
into your browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/2 G U M r Rx
Webinar I D: 999-8563-5251
P assword: 211390
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r: (Toll F r ee ) 833-548-0282 or +1(301)715-8592
P assword: 211390
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to planning@geor getown.or g by 2:30p.m. on
the date of the me eting and the Re cor ding Se cr etar y will re ad your
c omments into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the mee ting at the link above and "raise your hand" during the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom me eting, c lick on the link provided and join as an attende e.
You will be aske d to e nte r your name and email addre ss (this is so we can
ide ntify you when you ar e c alled upon). To spe ak on an item, clic k on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom mee ting we bpage once
that ite m has opened. Whe n you are calle d upon by the Re cor ding Se cr etar y,
your devic e will be r emotely un-muted by the A dministrator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P lease state your name clear ly, and when your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
harm are not allowed and will re sult in you be ing imme diately re moved fr om
the mee ting.
Page 1 of 68
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the U nified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee virtual conference will be
conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia
Nelson, C N U-A, P lanning D irector
B O n a subject not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future B oard agenda by filing a
written request with the S taff L iaison no later than one week prior to the B oard meeting. T he request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. F or B oard L iaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
At the ti me of posti ng, no persons had si gned up to speak on i tems not on the agenda.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2020 and S eptember 9, 2020
regular meetings of the Unified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee. -- Mirna G arcia, Management
Analyst
D Disc ussion and possible direction on propos ed amendments to the Tree P reservation and Lands caping
standards of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) s pecific ally as it relates to tree preservation, removal
and mitigation, and streetyard, gateway and parking lands cape s tandards (UDC G eneral Amendment No.
20-03) -- S teve Mc Keown, Landsc ape P lanner, Ethan Harwell, S enior P lanner, and Andreina Dávila-
Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
E Update on the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) amendment process, and the 2020 UDC Annual
R eview P lan, S c hedule and Next S teps -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 68
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
October 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes of the Augus t 12, 2020 and S eptember 9, 2020
regular meetings of the Unified Development C ode Advis ory C ommittee. -- Mirna G arc ia, Management
Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
8.12.20 Meeting Minutes Backup Material
9.9.20 Meeting Minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 1
August 12, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 3:30 P.M.
Teleconference meeting: https://bit.ly/3gDRdQ6
The regular meeting convened at 3:30PM on August 12, 2020 via teleconference at
https://bit.ly/3gDRdQ6. Webinar ID: 973-8589-0952. To participate by phone: call in number 833-548-0276.
Password: 408310. Public comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question”
function on the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Committee Member(s) in Attendance: PJ Stevens, Chair; Brian Robinson; Stuart Garner; Jen Henderson;
Brian Ortego; Tracy Dubcak
Committee Member(s) Absent: Philip Wanke
Staff Present: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner; Ethan Harwell, Senior
Planner
Meeting called to order at 3:30 P.M.
Regular Session
A. Discussion on how the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by
filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting.
The request must include the speaker’s name and the specific topic to be addressed with
sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact
information, please log on to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-
commissions/.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2019 and July 8,
2020 regular meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. – Mirna Garcia,
Management Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2019 meeting by Henderson. Second by
Dubcak. Motion to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2020 meeting by Henderson. Second
by Robinson. Approved (6-0).
Page 4 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 2
August 12, 2020
D. Update on the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment process, and the 2020 UDC
Annual Review Plan, Schedule and Next Steps. – Andreina Davila-Quintero, AICP, Current
Planning Manager
The purpose of this item is to discuss the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment
process and provide an update on the UDC Annual Review Plan, tentative schedule and next
steps. In addition, City Staff and members of the UDCAC will discuss the tasks identified at the
previous meeting, as well as new tasks to be completed for the next meeting. Feedback and
information received on each task will be incorporated when related UDC topics are scheduled
and presented for discussion.
Staff seek the Committee’s feedback regarding the applicable sections of the UDC. It is helpful if
the Committee members visit sites/areas of the City to see the impact of standards, review old
cases, and bring back ideas and possible solutions to share with the Committee and staff for the
next meeting.
E. Presentation and Discussion on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code
related to tree preservation and landscaping standards - Andreina Davila-Quintero, AICP,
Current Planning Manager
The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the current ordinances related to tree
preservation and landscape standards, identify issues and/or opportunities for improvements,
and to overview focus areas for discussion over the review cycle.
Next steps include:
- Review of issues related to:
o tree preservation and mitigation
▪ exclusion of ornamental trees
▪ lack of guidance on DBH measurement
▪ tree mitigation options
▪ boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on site
additions, floodplain
▪ priority of tree protection over certain site design elements
▪ address issues with tree preservation/disease control
o Streetyards, gateways and parking
▪ conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and landscape
requirements
▪ applicability of Gateway landscape requirements (and how these
relate to other landscape requirements)
▪ street yard requirements, particularly for projects with buildings at
great distance from the road and/or phased projects
▪ landscape requirements for inventory lots related to an auto sales use
▪ use of artificial turf for single-family residential
o Screening, buffering and water conservation
▪ Screening requirements for alternative waste containers
Page 5 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 3
August 12, 2020
▪ Revie of current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard
to the City’s water conservation efforts
Staff seek the Committee’s feedback on UDC landscape requirements and identify areas of
concern or interest. In addition, staff ask the Committee to observe existing landscapes
throughout the city, especially in gateways and provide comments for the next meeting on
Chapter 8 and potential solutions or discussion points.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Stevens. Second by Garner. Meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest,
Page 6 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 1
September 9, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 3:30 P.M.
Teleconference meeting: https://bit.ly/317lUYX
The regular meeting convened at 3:30PM on September 9, 2020 via teleconference at
https://bit.ly/317lUYX . Webinar ID: 995-3378-5336. To participate by phone: call in number 833-548-0276.
Password: 675042. Public comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question”
function on the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Committee Member(s) in Attendance: PJ Stevens, Chair; Stuart Garner; Brian Robinson; Philip Wanke;
Brian Ortego; Jen Henderson; Tracy Dubcak
Committee Member(s) Absent: Brian Ortego
Staff Present: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner; Ethan Harwell, Senior
Planner
Meeting called to order at 3:32 P.M.
Regular Session
A. Discussion on how the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee virtual conference will
be conducted, to include options for public comments and how the public may address the
Commission – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by
filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting.
The request must include the speaker’s name and the specific topic to be addressed with
sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact
information, please log on to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-
commissions/.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2020 regular
meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to reconsider minutes at the next scheduled meeting by Henderson. Second by
Dubcak. Approved (6-0).
D. Discussion and possible direction on proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation and
Landscaping standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC) particularly as it relates to tree
Page 7 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 2
September 9, 2020
preservation, removal and mitigation (UDC General Amendment No. 20-03) -- Steve McKeown,
Landscape Planner
This item is a continuation from the last meeting regarding tree preservation. Staff report
presented by McKeown. On July 14, 2020, the City Council directed staff to review the City’s
tree preservation and landscaping standards as a part of the 2020 UDC Annual Review Cycle.
The purpose of these revisions is to address ambiguity, conflicts with other code sections, and
challenges found in its implementation on several development projects. Tree Preservation
standards are part of the City’s development standards for subdivisions and development of
property. Landscaping standards as part of the City’s zoning standards for development of
property. Relevant sections of the UDC include, but are not limited to:
• Section 4.11, Gateway Overlay Districts
• Section 8.02, Tree Preservation & Protection
• Section 8.03, Residential Landscaping
• Section 8.04, Non-Residential Landscape Requirements
• Section 8.05, Review & Approval Process
• Section 8.06, Plant Selection, Installation, & Maintenance
• Section 11.04, Stormwater Management System Requirements
• Section 16.02, Definitions
In addition, staff reviewed possible solutions to address each issue, sought direction on possible
code language based on the solutions identified, and what public outreach or additional
information is needed to make a recommendation on proposed amendments. The remaining
items pertaining to Streetyard, Gateway and Parking, and Screening, Bufferyard and Water
Conservation will be addressed at the next two meetings.
There was discussion between staff and the Committee regarding the intent of measuring every
tree. The Committee stated it takes time to identify and locate every single tree. Staff stated all
trees are typically required to be identified on the survey to not overlook any trees that
may be protected. Staff will review wording.
There was also discussion regarding definitions for the following terms: trunk, branch, stem.
The Committee asked staff to bring back these definitions at the next meeting. The Committee
commented that the terms hardwood and softwood are too vague and recommend they not
be used. The Committee also stated there are a lot of varieties of cedar and it would be
better to define the types of tree we may want to keep.
The discussion also continued to consider excluding ornamental trees from the
definition of protected trees. The Committee stated the ornamental trees need to be
included so they may be included in mitigation and credit trees, and to identify a way
to measure for certain multi-trunk trees. Staff will bring back two options for
consideration at the next meeting.
Page 8 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 3
September 9, 2020
The Committee and staff continued to discuss the applicability of City approval for the
removal of protected trees within a right-of-way or public utility easement and
assessment of mitigation fees. The Committee suggested creating a new tree removal
permit so that a site development plan would not be required. Staff stated they can
bring back language that mimics heritage trees in the right-of-way at the next meeting
for the Committee’s review. There was also discussion to consider req uiring a tree
inventory for new projects and phased projects whose survey need to be updated after
5 and 10 years. Staff stated they will include it as an option for new development and at
the 5/10 year mark. The Committee asked staff to explore options to potentially provide
incentives to provide a tree inventory and bring back for their review at the next
meeting.
There was discussion to establish boundaries in which we are considering the project as
it relates to the tree preservation plan mitigation. Staff explained the boundaries may be
determined by the project or property line and not the limits of construction. Staff
stated the City of Leander prohibits the counting of trees within the floodplain. Staff
reviewed the possible solutions and the Committee requested staff bring back some
examples and more information to clarify during the next meeting.
Discussion continued to consider additional options for tree mitigation.
Chair Stevens opened the Public Hearing.
Amy Payne commented on the Parkside on the River master planned community, and
their challenge to allow credit for trees planted in their project.
Chair Stevens closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion continued between the Committee and staff regarding how other
jurisdictions allow credit for trees planted on street yards of single -family residential
lots. Staff stated the City does not enforce deeds, nor the Homeowners Association
regulations, but they will review with the Legal team to determine what the City can
encourage.
There was also discussion to consider altering the situations in which required
landscaping trees can be removed, specifically related to signage. Staff stated current
code allows for trees to be removed in four situations including when blocking existing
signage. The Committee asked if the applicant can do a “fee-in-lieu” option in the event
a tree may not be planted elsewhere on the site.
Page 9 of 68
UDC Advisory Committee 4
September 9, 2020
E. Update on the Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment process, and the 2020 UDC
Annual Review Plan, Schedule, and Next Steps – Andreina Davila-Quintero, AICP, Current
Planning Manager
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Stevens. Second by Garner. Meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Brian Ortego, Secretary
Page 10 of 68
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
October 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Dis cus s ion and pos s ible direc tion on proposed amendments to the Tree P res ervation and Landsc aping
s tandards of the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) spec ifically as it relates to tree pres ervation, removal
and mitigation, and s treetyard, gateway and parking landsc ape standards (UDC G eneral Amendment No.
20-03) -- S teve Mc Keown, Lands cape P lanner, Ethan Harwell, S enior P lanner, and Andreina Dávila-
Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
O n July 14, 2020, the C ity C ouncil directed staff to review the C ity’s tree pres ervation and landsc aping
s tandards as a part of the 2020 UDC Annual R eview C ycle. T he purpose of these revisions is to addres s
ambiguity, c onflic ts with other c ode sec tions , and challenges found in its implementation on several
development projects . Tree P reservation standards are part of the C ity’s development s tandards for
s ubdivis ions and development of property. Landsc aping standards as part of the C ity’s zoning s tandards
for development of property.
Relevant sections of the U D C include, but are not limited to:
S ection 4.11, G ateway O verlay Dis tric ts
S ection 8.02, Tree P reservation & P rotection
S ection 8.03, R es idential Lands caping
S ection 8.04, Non-R esidential Landsc ape R equirements
S ection 8.05, R eview & Approval P rocess
S ection 8.06, P lant S elec tion, Ins tallation, & Maintenance
S ection 11.04, S tormwater Management S ystem R equirements
S ection 16.02, Definitions
To facilitate the review process for this amendment, issues that have been identified by the public , the UDC
Advisory C ommittee and C ity staff were grouped into three (3) focus areas:
1. Tree P reservation, R emoval and Mitigation;
2. S treetyards, G ateways and P arking landsc ape standards; and
3. S creening, Buffering and Water C onservation.
For each of these focus areas, we will be looking to:
Dis cus s eac h is s ue in detail:
W hat we are trying to res olve
Bac kground on how we got here
W hat we can do to res olve each issue
Validate the rec ommended s olutions; and
S eek direction to draft the O rdinance
T he specific list of issues to be reviewed and amended for each of these three (3) focus area was finalized by
the U D C Advisory C ommittee at their S eptember 9, 2020 meeting (Attachment I). T he specific U D C
sections associated with each items have been provided for reference.
T he discussion for this item will be completed in four (4) parts:
P art 1: September 9, 2020 U D C AC M eeting R ecap
P art 2: Continue discussion on issues related to tree preservation, removal and mitigation, specifically:
Page 11 of 68
Dis cus s ion of follow-up is s ues as they relate to:
Definition of ornamental trees (T P.05);
R emoval of trees in the right-of-way or public utility easement (T P.06);
P roject boundary for tree pres ervation (T P.09);
Tree Inventory O ption (T P.10); and
Additional Tree Mitigation options (T P.11).
Dis cus s ion of possible s olutions and recommended terms for all issues
P art 3: D iscussion on the issues related to streetyards, gateways and parking landscape standards.
P art 4: N ext Steps
T he remaining items pertaining to s creening, bufferyard and water cons ervation will be addressed at the
next meeting.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None s tudied at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Attachment I - Specific lis t of Issues to be addressed Backup Material
Pres entation Pres entation
Page 12 of 68
Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations
2020 UDC General Amendments
UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation
Issue No.Relevant UDC Section(s) Issues Requestor
TP.01 8.02.020
Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which multi-trunk trees must be
included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk. UDCAC
TP.02 16.02 Consider adding a definition for tree branch and tree trunk. UDCAC
TP.03 16.02
Consider adding a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might
have different interpretations. UDCAC
TP.04 8.02.020
Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar) trees from the protected trees
definition.UDCAC
TP.05 8.02.020 Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees. UDCAC
TP.06 8.02.030, 8.02.040, 8.06.040, 3.23
Clarify applicability of City approval for the removal of protected trees within a right-
of-way or public utility easement and assessment of mitigation fees. Staff
TP.07 8.05
Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects and phased projects whose
surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years. Staff
TP.08 8.02.050
Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site
design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location). Clarify the existing
process for Heritage Trees. Staff
TP.09 8.04.040, 8.05
Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on
projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific) Staff, Public
TP.10 New, 8.02, 8.05
Consider requiring additional information on the health of a protected and heritage
tree to address disease control issues as it relates to tree preservation. Staff
TP.11 8.02.040 Consider additional options for tree mitigation. Staff, Public
TP.12 8.06.060
Consider altering the situations in which required landscaping trees can be removed
– specifically related to signage. Staff
Page 1 of 2Page 13 of 68
Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations
2020 UDC General Amendments
UDC Amendment No. 20-03
Streetyards, Gateways and Parking
Issue No.Relevant UDC Section(s) Issues Requestor
SY.01 8.03.030 Use of artificial turf for single-family residential Public
SY.02 8.04.030
Street yard requirements, particularly for projects with buildings at great distance
from the road and/or phased projects Public
SY.03 4.11, 8.04.030, 8.04.050
Applicability of Gateway landscape requirements (and how these relate to other
landscape requirements) Staff
SY.04 8.04.040 Landscape requirements for inventory lots related to an auto sales use Staff, Public
SY.05 8.05, 8.06, 10, 13.03 Conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and landscape requirements Staff, UDCAC
Screening, Buffering and Water Conservation
Issue No.Relevant UDC Section(s) Issues Requestor
SBW.1 8.04.070 Screening requirements for alternative waste containers Staff
SBW.2 New
Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard to the city’s
water conservation efforts Public, UDCAC, P&Z
Page 2 of 2Page 14 of 68
1
Tree Preservation and
Landscape Standards
Adjustments and Clean-up
UDC Advisory Committee
October 14, 2020
Page 15 of 68
2
Purpose
•Review and discuss issues and possible solutions to address conflicts, ambiguity, and alternative standards relating to:
1.Tree preservation, removal and mitigation (continuation from the September 9 UDCAC meeting)2.Streetyards, gateways and parking
Page 16 of 68
3
Agenda
•Part 1 - September 9, 2020 UDCAC meeting recap
•Amendment review process
•Review list of issues submitted by UDCAC, Public
•Part 2 - Discussion Tree Preservation Issues
•Validate solutions for TP items 1-4, 7, 8, and 12
•Discuss the issues for TP items 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11
•What we are trying to resolve
•Background on how we got here
•What we can do to resolve the issue
•Validate solutions for TP items 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11
•Part 3 - Discussion Streetyard, Gateways and Parking landscape issues
•Discuss the issues
•What we are trying to resolve
•Background on how we got here
•What we can do to resolve the issue
•Validate solutions and direction to draft Ordinance
•Part 4 - Next Steps
Page 17 of 68
4
UDC Annual Review Process
Topics are introduced by City Staff & Public
City Council discussion, P&Z recommends list of amendments
City Council reviews & approves topics to be amended.
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments
Public Outreach UDCAC, P&Z Make Recommendation Council Approval
5/26 06/16 07/14 08/2020
Given the COVID-19 pandemic the UDC Advisory Committee has not been meeting and have not been included in the review of the annual list of amendments.
Page 18 of 68
5
Part 1
September 9 UDCAC Meeting Recap
Page 19 of 68
6
Amendment Review Process
•Tree Preservation and Landscape standards amendment broken into 3 buckets/focus areas
TP Tree
Preservation
Removal
Mitigation
SY Streetyards,
Gateways
Parking
S
B
W
Screening
Buffering
Water
Conservation
Page 20 of 68
7
Amendment Review Process
•For each of these buckets/focus areas, issues were identified and presented by:
•Public
•UDCAC
•Staff
Page 21 of 68
8
Issues Submitted
Tree Preservation, Removal, and Mitigation
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
T P. 0 1 8.02.020 Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which multi-trunk trees must be included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk UDCAC
T P. 0 2 16.02 Add a definition for tree branch and tree trunk UDCAC
T P. 0 3 16.02 Add a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might have different interpretations UDCAC
T P. 0 4 8.02.020 Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar) trees from the protected trees definition.UDCAC
T P. 0 5 8.02.020 Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees.UDCAC
T P. 0 6 8.02.030, 8.02.040, 8.06.040, 3.23 Clarify applicability of City approval for the removal of protected trees within a right-of -way or public utility easement and assessment of mitigation fees.Staff
T P. 0 7 8.05 Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects and phased projects whose surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years. Staff
Page 22 of 68
9
Tree Preservation, Removal, and Mitigation, cont’d.
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
T P. 0 8 8.02.050 Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location).Staff
T P. 0 9 8.04.040, 8.05 Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)Staff, Public
T P. 1 0 New, 8.02, 8.05 Consider requiring additional information on the health of a protected and heritage tree to address disease control issues as it relates to tree preservation.Staff
T P. 1 1 8.02.040 Consider additional options for tree mitigation.Staff, Public
T P. 1 2 8.06.060 Consider altering the situations in which required landscaping trees can be removed –specifically related to signage. Staff
Page 23 of 68
10
Streetyards, Gateways and Parking
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
SY.1 8.03.030 Use of artificial turf for single-family residential Public
SY.2 8.04.030 Street yard requirements, particularly for projects with buildings at great distance from the road and/or phased projects Public
SY.3 4.11, 8.04.030, 8.04.050 Applicability of Gateway landscape requirements (and how these relate to other landscape requirements)Staff
SY.4 8.04.040 Landscape requirements for inventory lots related to an auto sales use Staff, Public
SY.5 8.05, 8.06, 10, 13.03 Conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and landscape requirements Staff, UDCAC
Screening, Buffering and Water Conservation
Issue No.Relevant UDC Issues Requestor
SBW.1 8.04.070 Screening requirements for alternative waste containers Staff
SBW.2 New Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard to the city’s water conservation efforts Public, UDCAC, P&Z
Page 24 of 68
11
Part 2
Discussion Tree Preservation Issues (continuation from the September 9, 2020 meeting)
Page 25 of 68
12
Streetyard, Gateway, & Parking Ordinance Purpose
& Essential Terms
•Chapter 8 Essential Terms:
•Residential:Single-family & Two-family
•Non-residential:All other uses
•Exempt Properties:Single & Two-family lots platted prior to Feb 13, 2007
•Diameter Breast Height (DBH):A tree measurement at four and one-half feet above ground
•Critical Root Zone (CRZ):Circular region measured outward from the tree trunk identifying the essential root area that must be protected
•Protected Tree:12”+ , non-excluded species
•Heritage Tree:26”+, Varieties of Oak, Pecan, Walnut, Bald Cypress, Am. Elm, Cedar Elm, Texas Ashe, Southern Magnolia
•Credit Tree:6” –>12”, non-excluded species
•Excluded Species:Hackberry, Chinaberry, Ashe Juniper (cedar), Chinese Tallow, Mesquite
Page 26 of 68
13
TP.01 –Multi-trunk Tree DBH Threshold
Issue:Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which multi-trunk trees must be included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk.
Possible Solutions:1.Continue current practices.2.Establish scale based on number of trunks and the size of the largest trunk that could easily facilitate the process to ID these trees, but require a certified arborist to complete surveys.3.Educational materials to explain and facilitate the tree survey process. Background:
•No minimum DBH threshold established for what must be measured.
•UDC measurement practices are consistent with the industry standard.
UDC Sections Affected: 8.02.020
Page 27 of 68
14
TP.01 –Multi-trunk Tree DBH Threshold
Issue:Consider establishing a threshold for identifying which multi-trunk trees must be included on a survey based on the DBH of the largest trunk.
Current Terms:1.On non-residential projects, a tree survey is required to include any tree 12 inches + in diameter.
Proposed Terms:1.Change the tree survey requirement on non-residential projects to require all trees 12 inches + in diameter except for the excluded species.
•Hackberry
•Chinaberry
•Ashe Juniper (cedar)
•Chinese Tallow
•Mesquite2.Include educational material in the Development Manual on how to measure trees.3.Codify terms for calculating the multi-trunk diameter of a tree.
Background:
•No minimum DBH threshold established for what must be measured.
•UDC measurement practices are consistent with the industry standard.
UDC Sections Affected: 8.02.020
Page 28 of 68
15
TP.02 –Trunks, Branches, & Stems
Issue:Consider adding a definition for tree branch and tree trunk .
Possible Solutions:1.Trunka.The main woody stem of a tree, from which its branches grow.b.The main woody part of a tree beginning at the ground and extending up into the canopy from which primary branches grow.2.Primary Branches -Branches attached directly to the trunk.3.Brancha.A secondary shoot or stem arising from the main stem of a trunk.b.A stem arising from a larger stem; a subdominant or subordinate stem; the pith in true branches has no connection to the parent stem.4.Stem -Slender woody structure bearing foliage and buds that gives rise to other stems.
Background:
•Standard definitions from the International Society of Arboriculture
UDC Sections Affected:16.02
TrunkBranches
Stem
Page 29 of 68
16
TP.02 –Trunks, Branches, & Stems
Issue:Consider adding a definition for tree branch and tree trunk .
Current Terms:1.No definition of the word trunk.
Proposed Terms:1.Define Trunk as in Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Additionas adopted by UDC 1.06 & 16.01:Trunk –the main stem of a tree, as distinct from the branches and roots. Background:
•Standard definitions from the International Society of Arboriculture
UDC Sections Affected:16.02
Trunk
Branches
Stem
Page 30 of 68
17
TP.03 –Hardwoods vs. Softwoods
Issue:Consider adding a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might have different interpretations.
Possible Solutions:1.Maintain current definition of Heritage Trees which designates by species.
•Varieties of Oak:
•Live, Post, Shumard, Bur, Chinquapin, Monterey
•Bald Cypress
•American Elm
•Cedar Elm
•Pecan
•Walnut
•Texas Ash
•Southern Magnolia.2.Consider expanding Heritage Tree species list.
Background:
•“Hardwood” and “softwoods” are not referenced in the UDC.
•Protected Trees are not restricted to certain species, but Heritage Trees are determined by species.
UDC Sections Affected:16.02, 8.02.020, 8.02.030
Page 31 of 68
18
TP.03 –Hardwoods vs. Softwoods
Issue:Consider adding a definition for “hardwood” and “softwood” trees as some might have different interpretations.
Current Terms:1.The UDC makes no reference to “hardwoods” or “softwood”. 2.Heritage Trees may only be trees of the following species.3.Protected Trees are any species of tree 12” or greater in diameter, save for the excluded species.
Proposed Terms:1.Continue to not use terms “hardwood” or “softwood”2.Do not add or subtract to current list of Heritage Tree Species.3.Continue to allow Protected Trees to be of any species, except for the excluded species, to allow maximum credit for various types of shade trees and ornamental trees.
Background:
•“Hardwood” and “softwoods” are not referenced in the UDC.
•Protected Trees are not restricted to certain species, but Heritage Trees are determined by species.
UDC Sections Affected:16.02, 8.02.020, 8.02.030
Page 32 of 68
19
TP.04 –Tree Species Excluded
Issue:Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar) trees from the protected trees definition.
Possible Solutions:1.Maintain current UDC list of excluded trees. These include:
•Hackberry
•Chinaberry
•Ashe Juniper (cedar)
•Chinese Tallow
•MesquiteBackground:
•Cedar trees are not considered protected trees.
•This is a standard practice in Central Texas.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.020
Page 33 of 68
20
TP.04 –Tree Species Excluded
Issue:Exclude all cedar (ash-juniper and mountain cedar) trees from the protected trees definition.
Current Terms:1.Cedar is among the UDC list of excluded trees. These include:
•Hackberry
•Chinaberry
•Ashe Juniper (cedar)
•Chinese Tallow
•Mesquite
Proposed Terms:1.Maintain current UDC list of excluded trees.
Background:
•Cedar trees are not considered protected trees.
•This is a standard practice in Central Texas.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.020
Page 34 of 68
21
TP.07 –Tree Inventory Option
Issue:Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects and phased projects whose surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years.
Possible Solutions:1.Require a Tree Inventory in lieu of a Tree Survey. This would allow for a better understanding of:
•The health of a tree
•Canopy cover
•Site feasibility
•Disease hotspots in the City
•The tree’s aesthetic and environmental value
•Requests for removals 2.On long term multi-phase projects require a tree inventory to verify health of all trees originally identified as protected (i.e. Credit, Protected, & Heritage)
Background:
•Only a Tree Survey is required on applications. This only includes information on the location, size, species, and status of each tree.
•Currently, every 5 and 10 years a survey is required to update only tree sizes
•Existing phased projects are beginning to experience tree health decline which affects previously established tree preservation requirements
UDC Sections Affected:8.05 Page 35 of 68
22
TP.07 –Tree Inventory Option
Issue:Consider requiring a Tree Inventory for new projects and phased projects whose surveys need to be update after 5 and 10 years.
Current Terms:1.Tree Inventory is only encouraged, not required.
Proposed Terms:1.Require the Tree Inventory when existing trees are to be credited toward tree mitigation requirements2.Require the Tree Inventory when a residential project is proposed to be planned and construction in three or more phases.3.Require the Tree Inventory when a master planned development is to be established under a Planned Unit Development or Development Agreement.4.Require the tree inventory when alternative tree standards are being requested through a Planned Unit Development, Development Agreement, or Subdivision Variance.5.Require tree surveys to identify if a tree is infected with oak wilt.
Background:
•Only a Tree Survey is required on applications. This only includes information on the location, size, species, and status of each tree.
•Currently, every 415 and 10 years a survey is required to update only tree sizes
•Existing phased projects are beginning to experience tree health decline which affects previously established tree preservation requirements
UDC Sections Affected:8.05 Page 36 of 68
23
TP.08 –Tree Protection as a Priority
Issue:Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location). Clarify the existing process for Heritage Trees.
Possible Solutions:1.Clean up Heritage Tree Priority Determination process to allow to be processed as an Administrative Exception. Current UDC provision is unclear on the process and review authority. 2.Protected Trees over 20” could take priority over site features, site layout, and building design. Triggers may be determined by DBH size and groves of protected.3.Incentives:a.Square inch of canopy to square foot impervious cover. (Must meet approved installation specifications)b.Allowing of overlap between streetyard and gateway requirement (i.e. 20-25 inch protected, or grove of protected trees count toward gateway requirement)
Background:
•Preservation of heritage trees take priority over conflicting UDC development standards (i.e. setbacks, sidewalks, signage, parking, drainage criteria, etc).
•Protected Trees may take priority over the design and construction of public sidewalks.
UDC Sections Affected:3.16, 8.02.050
Page 37 of 68
24
TP.08 –Tree Protection as a Priority
Issue:Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location). Clarify the existing process for Heritage Trees.
Current Terms:1.To protect a Heritage Tree any of the following may be varied:
•Setbacks
•Lot design standards
•Building heights
•Sidewalks
•Lighting
•Signage
•Parking
•Drainage criteria
•Connectivity
•Driveway separation
•Utility extension
•Protected Trees may take priority over design and construction of public sidewalks
•Alternative Standards shall be approved by the Director for administrative applications and by P&Z for applications under their approval.
Background:
•Preservation of heritage trees take priority over conflicting UDC development standards (i.e. setbacks, sidewalks, signage, parking, drainage criteria, etc).
•Protected Trees may take priority over the design and construction of public sidewalks.
UDC Sections Affected:3.16, 8.02.050
Page 38 of 68
25
TP.08 –Tree Protection as a Priority
Issue:Consider prioritizing the preservation of protected trees to allow flexibility in site design elements (I.e. parking layout, monument sign location). Clarify the existing process for Heritage Trees.
Proposed Terms:1.Maintain list of possible alternatives for Heritage Trees and expand the same list to Protected Trees or stands of Protected Trees with a cumulative DBH of at least 20” or more.
•Setbacks
•Lot design standards
•Building heights
•Sidewalks
•Lighting
•Signage
•Parking
•Drainage criteria
•Connectivity
•Driveway separation
•Utility extension
•Alternative standards shall be approved by the Director under the provisions for an Administrative Exception.
Background:
•Preservation of heritage trees take priority over conflicting UDC development standards (i.e. setbacks, sidewalks, signage, parking, drainage criteria, etc).
•Protected Trees may take priority over the design and construction of public sidewalks.
UDC Sections Affected:3.16, 8.02.050
Page 39 of 68
26
TP.12 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider altering the situations in which required landscaping trees can be removed –specifically related to signage.
Possible Solutions:1.Remove and replace with a tree that will reach a similar size as the removed tree in the same general area.
Background:
Current code allows for trees to be
removed in four situations, including
“[when] blocking existing signage”.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 40 of 68
27
TP.12 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider altering the situations in which required landscaping trees can be removed –specifically related to signage.
Current Terms:1.Removed trees and mitigate for the size and species of the tree. Mitigation trees must be planted along the same side of the building or parking lot.
Proposed Terms:1.Remove and replace with a tree or trees that will reach a similar size as the removed tree.
•Grouping replacement tree/s within required planting area where feasible (streetyard, parking lot, gateway buffer, etc.)
•Trees must be planted so that they will not impede signage visibility in the future
Background:
Current code allows for trees to be
removed in four situations, including
“[when] blocking existing signage”.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Page 41 of 68
28
TP.05 –Ornamental Trees as Protected Trees
Issue:Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees.
Possible Solutions:1.Continue to include ornamental trees in the definition of protected trees to allow them to be credited toward mitigation when site appropriate.2.Exclude only ornamental trees identified under Georgetown’s ‘Preferred Plant List’ as Prohibited species.
Background:
•All trees greater than 12 inches in DBH, including ornamental trees, are considered protected trees.
•In review of other cities it is not standard to consider the classification of a tree to determine if it is Protected or Heritage.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.020
Page 42 of 68
29
TP.05 –Ornamental Trees as Protected Trees
Issue:Consider excluding ornamental trees from the definition of protected trees.
Current Terms:1.Ornamental trees are allowed to count as credit trees for mitigation and as existing trees for landscaping requirements.
Proposed Terms –Option A:
•Follow new practice as defined under TP.01
Proposed Terms –Option B:
•Establish a ratio based on the size of largest trunk that is specific to ornamental trees, where all additional trunks will be considered at half the largest inch trunk size.
Background:
•All trees greater than 12 inches in DBH, including ornamental trees, are considered protected trees.
•In review of other cities it is not standard to consider the classification of a tree to determine if it is Protected or Heritage.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.020
Page 43 of 68
30
TP.06 –Removals of Trees within a ROW or PUE
Issue:Clarify applicability of City approval for the removal of protected trees within a right-of -way or public utility easement and assessment of mitigation fees.
Possible Solutions:1.Add language to address the removal of Protected Trees for work in the ROW or PUE. This may include:
•Clarify that removal is allowed for Protected Trees in the ROW or a PUE if mitigation fees are assessed
•Clarify when pruning is allowed on Protected Trees without City approval
•Clarify that standard tree protection practices should be observed around Protected Trees in the ROW and PUEs.
•Clean up and determine appropriate permitting and review process based on current practices.
Background:
•City approval is required to remove Heritage Trees from a City right-of-way and public utility easements.
•Current UDC is silent on the procedures for removal of Protected Trees in the ROW. Currently, can be processed through SDP or CON plan.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.030, 8.02.040, 8.06.040, 3.23
Page 44 of 68
31
TP.06 –Removals of Trees within a ROW or PUE
Issue:Clarify applicability of City approval for the removal of protected trees within a right-of -way or public utility easement and assessment of mitigation fees.
Current Terms:1.Heritage Trees Protected in the ROW need no review for pruning when done by a certified arborist for work being conducted by a public utility provider. 2.Heritage Trees may be removed with approval of the Urban Forester. Protected Trees are not included under this exemption. 3.Mitigation is required for any tree removed.
Proposed Terms:1.Continue current practices for Heritage Trees.2.Allow Protected Trees to be removed at the discretion of the Urban Forester.3.Make provisions to include it under the current Heritage Tree Removal Permit. 4.Rename “Heritage Tree Removal Permit” to “Tree Removal Permit”.
Background:
•City approval is required to remove Heritage Trees from a City right-of-way and public utility easements.
•Current UDC is silent on the procedures for removal of Protected Trees in the ROW. Currently, can be processed through SDP or CON plan.
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.030, 8.02.040, 8.06.040, 3.23
Page 45 of 68
32
TP.09 –Project Boundaries for Tree Preservation
Issue:Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)
Possible Solutions:1.Exclude trees located within the 100-year floodplain from Credit Tree calculations2.Evaluate tree removal criteria to consider areas along existing and proposed roadways. Determine whether or not these trees should be considered toward mitigation credits.3.Limit only trees located within the Limit of Construction (LOC) to be included in tree preservation and mitigation calculations, when the project boundary is larger than the LOC.4.Phased projects are required to meet tree preservation and mitigation calculations independently per phase.
Background:
•Boundaries may be determined by the project or property line.
•Leander prohibits the counting of trees within the floodplain
UDC Sections Affected:8.05.010, 8.05.020
Page 46 of 68
33
TP.10 –Information on Tree Health
Issue:Consider requiring additional information on the health of a protected and heritage tree to address disease control issues as it relates to tree preservation.
Possible Solutions:1.Consider a scalable requirement for providing additional information based on:
•Acreage, lot size, project type, tree density
•Residential, Commercial
•Location within the subdivision (e.g. public parkland, along trails)
•Negotiated agreements2.Include a requirement for a geo-referenced CAD file of tree survey required to be submitted with all projects (if applicable).3.Trees on-site identified with Oak Wilt are required to be evaluated for survivability, impact to surrounding trees, and properly handled in accordance with ISA disease control standards.
Background:
•Currently, collected tree information does not include health of the tree.
•Generally considered an industry best practice
UDC Sections Affected:8.05.010
Page 47 of 68
34
TP.09 –Project Boundaries for Tree Preservation –Option A
Issue:Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)
Current Terms:1.Existing trees within the entire project boundary (including floodplain or ROW dedication) can be credited toward the existing trees remaining.
Proposed Terms –Option A:1.Only trees within the limit of construction of a project may be considered for the purposes of tree mitigation. The limit of construction shall exclude:a.Area within FEMA 100-year floodplain and water quality stream buffers (per UDC 11.02), except that area which is disturbed for the construction of masterplanned trails, required parkland, common amenity areas, stormwater facilities, or utilities.b.Right-of-way dedication along existing roadways where no public improvements are required to be constructed as a part of the scope of work.
Background:
•Boundaries may be determined by the project or property line.
•Leander prohibits the counting of trees within the floodplain
UDC Sections Affected:8.05.010, 8.05.020
Page 48 of 68
35
TP.09 & 10 –Project Boundaries for Tree Preservation –Option B
Issue:Consider establishing boundaries for calculating protected and heritage trees on projects (i.e. floodplain, ROW, Limit of Construction, Phase or Section specific)
Current Terms:1.Existing trees within the entire project boundary (including floodplain or ROW dedication) can be credited toward the existing trees remaining.
Proposed Terms –Option B:1.All trees within a property may be considered for tree preservation and mitigation credit.
•Only 50% of Protected Trees within the FEMA 100-year floodplain or water quality stream buffer may be considered existing trees. In the same area no Heritage Trees shall be considered as existing trees.
•No trees shall be considered existing trees if located in an area of right-of-way dedication along existing roadways where no public improvements are required to be constructed as a part of the scope of work.
Background:
•Boundaries may be determined by the project or property line.
•Leander prohibits the counting of trees within the floodplain
UDC Sections Affected:8.05.010, 8.05.020
Page 49 of 68
36
TP.11 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider additional options for tree mitigation.
Possible Solutions:1.Divide Protected Trees into two classes for the mitigation & reevaluate fees and mitigation ratios. Reevaluate Heritage Tree mitigation fees.
2.Revise language and administrative process to allow removals over min. percentages of trees to remain. Consider additional fees or mitigation ratios for these removals.
3.Encourage more on-site mitigation in residential subdivisions. Planting in common spaces maintained by an HOA or other community organization or in residential streetyards.4.Allow developers to pay mitigation fees in advance, issue reimbursement for fees after on-site plants are installed/inspected.
Background:
Current options include:
•On-site replacement
•Fee-in-lieu
•Aeration & Fertilization
•Off-site replacements (not
commonly used)
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Avg. Tree Density Min. % of Protected Trees to be Saved
1-10 Trees per Acre 30%
11+ Trees per Acre 20%
City No. of Classes Ranges (inches)
Round Rock 3 8-20; 20-Monarch; Monarch
Leander 3 8-18; 18-26; 26+
Pflugerville 4 8-18; 18-25; 25+ (Not HT); 25+ (HT)
Cedar Park 3 8-19; 19-26; 26+
Page 50 of 68
37
TP.11 –Tree Mitigation Options
Issue:Consider additional options for tree mitigation.
Proposed Terms:1.Divide Protected Trees into two classes.
2.Removals in excess of allowable removals trees = standard mitigation plus 50%3.Clarify that mitigation by “On-Site Replacement Trees” shall first be considered foremost, within site feasibility limitations, other mitigation options.4.Developer shall provide a letter of intent which identifies the project trigger for mitigation plantings are to be installed.
•City will draft standard language to be included with letter of intent to address review of plantings and return of mitigation paid.
Background:
Current options include:
•On-site replacement
•Fee-in-lieu
•Aeration & Fertilization
•Off-site replacements (not
commonly used)
UDC Sections Affected:8.02.040
Current Tree Classifications Proposed Classifications
Protected 12”+$150 Protected 12”-18”$125
Protected 18”+$175
Heritage 26”+$200 Heritage 26”+$225
Page 51 of 68
38
Example A -2.75-acres commercial site, Williams Drive
Current Terms Proposed Terms
Total Inches Inches Removed
Heritage 86 86
Protected 937 639
Inches Removed Ratio Fee Total
Heritage 86 3:1 $200 $51,600
Protected 639 0.4:1 $150 $38,340
Total:$89,940
Total Inches Inches Removed
Heritage 86 86
Protected Lg.204 102
Protected Sm.733 537
Inches Removed Ratio Fee Total
Heritage 86 3:1 $225 $58,050
Protected Lg.102 0.4:1 $175 $7,140
Protected Sm.537 0.4:1 $125 $26,850
Subtotal:$92,040
Net Change
+$2,100 or 2.34%
Page 52 of 68
39
Example B –14.9 acre multi-family site, W. SH 29
Current Terms Proposed Terms
Total Inches Inches Removed
Heritage 875 194
Protected 2137 1638
Inches Removed Ratio Fee Total
Heritage 194.5 3:1 $200 $51,600
Protected 1638 0.4:1 $150 $38,340
Total:$89,940
Total Inches Inches Removed
Heritage 875 194
Protected Lg.322.5 289
Protected Sm.1804.5 1349
Inches Removed Ratio Fee Total
Heritage 194.5 3:1 $225 $131,287
Protected Lg.289 0.4:1 $175 $20,230
Protected Sm.1349 0.4:1 $125 $67,450
Subtotal:$218,967
Net Change
+$3,987 or 1.85%
Page 53 of 68
40
Example C –18.5 acre office park, Williams Drive
Current Terms Proposed Terms
Total Inches Inches Removed
Heritage 284 0
Protected 845 128
Inches Removed Ratio Fee Total
Heritage 0 3:1 $200 $0
Protected 128 0.4:1 $150 $7,680
Total:$7,680
Total Inches Inches Removed
Heritage 284 0
Protected Lg.415 41
Protected Sm.430 87
Inches Removed Ratio Fee Total
Heritage 0 3:1 $225 $0
Protected Lg.41 0.4:1 $175 $2,870
Protected Sm.87 0.4:1 $125 $4,350
Subtotal:$7,220
Net Change
-$460 or 5.99%
Page 54 of 68
41
Part 3
Discussion Streetyards, Gateways and Parking landscape standards
Page 55 of 68
42
Streetyard, Gateway, & Parking Ordinance Purpose
& Essential Terms
•Purpose:
•The purpose of these site-specific landscape elements is to :
•protect and enhance the character and wellbeing of Georgetown’s residences and visitors.
•reduces thermal impact, carbon emissions, and stormwater run-off while
•heralding the approach to the City,
•defining destinations, linking common elements together, and
•promoting a pedestrian friendly and active lifestyle.
Page 56 of 68
43
Streetyard, Gateway, & Parking Ordinance Purpose
& Essential Terms
•Chapter 8 Essential Terms:
•Streetyard:The area between any adjoining street right-of-way and existing or proposed building, the portion of which is closest to the right-of-way line.
•Gateway:Roadways within the City limits to be considered gateways into Georgetown of which properties fronting such roadways shall be subject to special landscaping and design standards.
•Shade Tree:The largest plants in the landscape that provide the overhead structure needed for shading and under which other plants live and grow.
Gateway Area
Streetyard Area
Shade Tree
Page 57 of 68
44
SY.01 –Use of artificial turf for single-family residential
Issue:Consider establishing an acceptable threshold for incorporating Synthetic/Artificial turf within the residential landscape.
Proposed Solutions:1.Allow rear yard application unrestricted except for meeting impervious requirements.2.Determine an acceptable percentage for residential streetyard applications3.Create Preferred Artificial Turf List that meets visually standards and demonstrate minimum City pervious (Drainage rate) requirements.Background:
•No surrounding city allows the use of synthetic turf in the residential setting.
•Georgetown UDC prohibits the use of synthetic turf in the residential setting.
•Per min. required live vegetation percentages, commercial projects can incorporate synthetic turf during the design process.
UDC Sections Affected: 8.03.030
Pros:
•Trifecta of savings: Time, Money, and Water
•Year-round healthy lawn appearance
•Permeability
•Pest and Bacteria Immune
•Eco-friendly
Cons:
•Installation cost
•Maintenance of underlayment every couple of years
•Hot to the touch if in direct sunlight
•Not Natural, lacks organic material
•No cooling-effect
•No Oxygen production (50 sf of grass produces enough oxygen for 4 humans)
•No erosion control
•No pollution control
Page 58 of 68
45
SY.02 –Streetyard landscape requirements and thresholds
Issue:
Streetyard requirements,
particularly for projects with
buildings at great distance from the
road and/or phased projects
Proposed Solutions:1.Keep current code and thresholds as is.2.Adjust thresholds to smaller square foot ranges to reduce requirements on mid-range sites; similar to other cities requirements.3.Base streetyard on proposed final build out of phased projects, specify installation of Shade tree requirements with completion of first phase/section.4.Add percentages to the highest threshold where the highest percentage of plantings are closest to ROW and lowest percentage closest to face of building
Background:
•Surrounding cities require a set quantity to area or linear distance on projects.
•Leander allows large landscaped activity areas (i.e. school facilities) a reduction in required quantities per sf calculation
•Georgetown UDC identifies (3) thresholds with increasing requirements, similar to other cities but with less qty. req. overall.
UDC Sections Affected: 8.04.030
Page 59 of 68
46
SY.03 –Applicability of Gateway landscape requirements
Issue:
Clarity of Gateway Landscape
requirements and how these
relate/overlap with other landscape
requirements.
Proposed Solution:1.Clarify Gateway code standards so it supersedes all other landscape requirements and overlay districts when it’s the more intense requirement.2.Clarify the boundary of the overlaying districts.
Background:
•Surrounding cities do not reference/classify corridors as Gateways which have enhanced landscape requirements.
•Georgetown identifies (3) types of gateways; Highway, Scenic/Natural, & Downtown which have enhanced landscape requirements
UDC Sections Affected: 4.11.010, 8.04.030 & 8.04.050
Page 60 of 68
47
SY.04 –Landscape requirements for inventory lots
Issue:
Clarify landscape requirements for
inventory lots as they relate to auto
sales use.
Proposed Solutions:1.Create a definition for “Auto or Vehicle inventory lot”2.Clarify that inventory lots are exempt from shade tree parking lot requirements
Background:
•Surrounding cities require either special use permits or parking lot landscape standards inline with their commercial parking lot landscape requirements.
•Georgetown does not clearly define the landscape requirements of inventory lots
•Inventory lots do not fit within existing Outdoor storage or display definitions
UDC Sections Affected: 5.09.030 & 8.04.030, 16.02
Page 61 of 68
48
SY.05 –Conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and Landscape requirements
Issue:
Consider clean-up of language and
available solutions that address
conflicts between commercial
signage, utility easements, and
landscape requirements
Proposed Solutions:1.Offer enhanced landscape options (ornamental trees, additional shrubs, and groundcover) around monument signs in-lieu of meeting a percentage of Gateway shade tree requirement.2.Shade Trees shall be offset internally to the site at a distance not to exceed 75% of mature size to avoid conflicts and utilities.3.A minimum10 foot depth of Gateway buffer shall extend beyond any conflicting easement.Background:
•Georgetown currently requires an AE submittal to consider any variation to landscape requirements
•Shade tree buffers at ponds are required to be pushed back in order to accommodate when utility conflicts occur
UDC Sections Affected: 8.04.030, Ch.13,
Page 62 of 68
49
Part 4
Next Steps
Page 63 of 68
50
UDC Annual Review Process
Topics are introduced by City Staff & Public
City Council discussion, P&Z recommends list of amendments
City Council reviews & approves topics to be amended.
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments
Public Outreach UDCAC, P&Z Make Recommendation Council Approval
5/26 06/16 07/14 08/2020
Page 64 of 68
51
Next Steps
Confirm direction on tree preservation, removals, and mitigation
Discuss Streetyards, Gateways, & Parking
Confirm direction on Streetyards, Gateways, & Parking
Discuss Screening, Buffering, & Water Conservation
Confirm direction on Screening, Buffering, & Water Conservation
Validate direction for draft Ordinance
Public Outreach Efforts
Draft Ordinance
10/14
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments.
11/11 12/09 Jan 2021
Page 65 of 68
52
Call to Action (Homework)
•Review UDC landscape requirements and identify areas of concern or interest
•Observe existing landscapes as you move around the city –especially in gateways
•Bring with you to our next meeting:
•Comments on Chapter 8 (section specific)
•Potential solutions or discussion points
Page 66 of 68
53
Requested Feedback
•What additional information/resources do you need for the next meeting?
Page 67 of 68
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
October 14, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Update on the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) amendment proc es s , and the 2020 UDC Annual
R eview P lan, S chedule and Next S teps -- Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he purpos e of this item is to dis cus s the Unified Development C ode (UDC ) amendment process,
and provide an update on the UDC Annual R eview P lan, tentative s chedule and next s teps. In addition,
C ity S taff and members of the UDC AC will disc uss the tas ks identified at the previous meeting, as well as
new tas ks to be c ompleted for the next meeting. F eedbac k and information received on eac h task will be
inc orporated when related UDC topics are sc heduled and presented for disc ussion.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Andreina Dávila-Q uintero, AI C P, C urrent P lanning Manager
Page 68 of 68