HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda UDCAC 11.11.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Unified Dev elopment Code Adv isory Committee
of the City of Georgetown
Nov ember 11, 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 N ove mber 11, 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/3nwa F S W
Webinar I D: 952-2770-0033
P assword: 934285
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r: (Toll F r ee ) 888-475-4499 or +1(301)715-8592
P assword: 934285
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 51
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 O ctober 14, 2020 regular meetings of the
Unified Development C ode Advis ory C ommittee -- Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
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, streetyard, gateway and parking lands cape s tandards , and s creening and water
c onservation (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
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 51
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
November 11, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes of the O c tober 14, 2020 regular meetings of the
Unified Development C ode Advisory C ommittee -- Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
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
minutes Backup Material
Page 3 of 51
UDC Advisory Committee 1
October 14, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 3:30 P.M.
Teleconference meeting: https://bit.ly/2GUMrRx
The regular meeting convened at 3:30PM on October 14, 2020 via teleconference at
https://bit.ly/2GUMrRx. Webinar ID: 999-8563-5251. To participate by phone: call in number 833-548-
0282 or (301)715-8592. Password: 211390. 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; Tracy Dubcak; Stuart Garner; Brian Robinson;
Philip Wanke; Jen Henderson
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 3:31 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 September 9, 2020 regular
meeting of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. – Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve the minutes by Henderson. Second by Robinson. 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
preservation, removal and mitigation and streetyard, gateway and parking landscape standards
Page 4 of 51
UDC Advisory Committee 2
October 14, 2020
(UDC General Amendment No. 20-03) -- Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner, Ethan Harwell,
Senior Planner, and Andreina Davila-Quintero.
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
To facilitate the review process for this amendment, issues that have been identified by the
public, the UDC Advisory Committee and City staff were grouped into three (3) focus areas:
1. Tree Preservation, Removal and Mitigation;
2. Streetyards, Gateways and Parking landscape standards; and
3. Screening, Buffering and Water Conservation
For each of these focus areas, staff and the Committee reviewed the following:
• Discuss each issue in detail:
o What are we trying to resolve?
o Background on how we got here
o What can we do to resolve each issue?
• Validate the recommended solutions; and
• Seek direction to draft the Ordinance
The specific list of issues to be reviewed and amended for each of these three (3) focus areas
was finalized by the UDC Advisory Committee at their September 9, 2020 meeting. The specific
UDC sections associated with each item have been provided for reference. The discussion for
this item was completed in four (4) parts:
• Part 1: September 9, 2020 UDCAC Meeting Recap
• Part 2: Continue discussion on issues related to tree preservation, removal and
mitigation, specifically:
o Discussion of follow-up issues as they relate to:
▪ Definition of ornamental trees (TP.05);
▪ Removal of trees in the right-of-way or public utility easement (TP.06);
▪ Project boundary for tree preservation (TP.09);
▪ Tree Inventory Option (TP.10); and
Page 5 of 51
UDC Advisory Committee 3
October 14, 2020
▪ Additional Tree Mitigation options (TP.11)
o Discussion of possible solutions and recommended terms for all issues
• Part 3: Discussion on the issues related to streetyards, gateways and parking landscape
standards
• Part 4: Next steps
The remaining items pertaining to screening, bufferyard and water conservation will be
addressed at the next meeting.
Staff sought feedback from the Committee on definitions and terms related to measuring multi-
trunk trees, hardwood versus softwood trees, tree inventory, and tree protection. While
discussing tree mitigation, the Committee recommended staff to work with the legal team to
determine what the City can require through deed restrictions, follow up on options for tier
process through an administrative process, and options on different fees for mitigation
depending on size.
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
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.
Streetyards, gateways, and parking were discussed, specifically the use of artificial turf. There
was discussion about major concerns allowing artificial turf in the front yard, it should not be
visible from the street, no objection to allowance in the rear yard, and that artificial turf will not
be maintained by property owners. It was not recommended by the Committee, and if allowed,
it should be limited to the rear yard only.
In addition, there was discussion about the applicability of gateway landscape requirements. It
was proposed that the Gateway code standards need to be clarify so it supersedes all other
landscape requirements and overlay districts when it’s the more intense requirement, and also
clarify the boundary of the overlaying districts. The goal is to make sure the gateway area is
heavily landscaped, and the Committee recommended staff to proceed as proposed.
The Committee discussed landscape requirements for inventory lots, where the proposed
solutions were to create a definition for “auto or vehicle inventory lot,” and clarify that
inventory lots are exempt from shade tree parking lot requirements. The Committee discussed
requiring an SUP for use, possibly requiring shade structures, and also asked if exempting
inventory lots meets the goal of the City.
Page 6 of 51
UDC Advisory Committee 4
October 14, 2020
Lastly, there was discussion regarding conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and
Landscape requirements. The proposed solutions included offering enhanced landscape
options (ornamental trees, additional shrubs, and groundcover) around monument signs in-lieu
of meeting a percentage of Gateway shade tree requirement. In addition, shade trees shall be
offset internally to the site at a distance not to exceed 75% of mature size to avoid conflicts and
utilities, and a minimum of 10 foot depth of Gateway buffer shall extend beyond any conflicting
easement.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Stevens. Second by Wanke. Meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
PJ Stevens, Attest Attest, Brian Ortego, Secretary
Page 7 of 51
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
November 11, 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, s treetyard, gateway and parking landsc ape standards, and sc reening and water c onservation
(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
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 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:Discussion of tree preservation issues
Validate solutions for item T P.09
Page 8 of 51
P art 2: Continue discussion on issues related to streetyard, gateways and parking landscape issues,
specifically:
Dis cus s ion of follow-up is s ues as they relate to:
S treetyard requirements (S Y.02);
Dis cus s ion of possible s olutions and recommended terms for all issues
P art 3: D iscussion on the issues related to screening and water conservation.
P art 4: N ext Steps
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 9 of 51
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 10 of 51
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 11 of 51
1
Tree Preservation and
Landscape Standards
Adjustments and Clean-up
UDC Advisory Committee
November 11, 2020
Page 12 of 51
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 and October 14 UDCAC meetings)2.Streetyards, gateways and parking (continuation from the October 14 UDCAC meeting)3.Screening and water conservation
Page 13 of 51
3
Agenda
•Part 1 -Discussion Tree Preservation issues
•Validate solutions for item TP.09 Option C
•Part 2 -Discussion Streetyard, Gateways and Parking landscape issues
•Validate solutions for items SY.01, SY.03, SY.04 and SY.05
•Discuss the issues for item SY.02
•What we are trying to resolve
•Background on how we got here
•What we can do to resolve the issue•Validate solutions for item SY.02
•Part 3 -Discussion Screening and Water Conservation 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
•Part 4 -Next Steps
Page 14 of 51
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 15 of 51
11
Part 1
Discussion Tree Preservation Issues (continuation from the September 9 and October 14, 2020 meeting)
Page 16 of 51
12
Tree Preservation 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 17 of 51
38
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 18 of 51
39
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 master planned 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 19 of 51
40
TP.09 –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 20 of 51
41
TP.09 –Project Boundaries for Tree Preservation –Option C
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 C:1.All trees within a property that has a floodplain may be considered for tree preservation and mitigation credit.
•Trees within the floodplain may not be counted as credit trees for purposes of tree mitigation
•Credit trees preserved within the developable area may be counted at a higher ratio of 2:12.No trees shall be considered existing trees if located in an area proposed for right-of-way dedication 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 21 of 51
42
Part 2
Discussion Streetyards, Gateways and Parking landscape standards (continuation from the October 14, 2020 meeting)
Page 22 of 51
43
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.
•reduce thermal impact, carbon emissions, and stormwater run-off while
•herald the approach to the City,
•define destinations, linking common elements together, and
•promote a pedestrian friendly and active lifestyle.
Page 23 of 51
44
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 24 of 51
45
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.
Possible 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 25 of 51
46
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.
Current Terms:1.Artificial turf is not permitted in a single or two-family residential property.
Proposed Terms:1.Artificial turf, when proposed, shall be limited to the rear yard only. When the rear yard abuts a local or collector-level street, artificial turf shall be limited to the area screened from view from the adjacent right-of-way.2.Include standards that define preferred artificial turf and maintenance 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
Page 26 of 51
47
SY.03 –Applicability of Gateway landscape requirements
Issue:
Clarity of Gateway Landscape
requirements and how these
relate/overlap with other landscape
requirements.
Possible 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 27 of 51
48
SY.03 –Applicability of Gateway landscape requirements
Issue:
Clarity of Gateway Landscape
requirements and how these
relate/overlap with other landscape
requirements.
Current Term:1.Gateway standards do not apply when another zoning overlay district exists.2.Gateway overlay districts boundary are determined by:a.Right-of-way line of each applicable roadwayb.Centerline of the roadway when conflicting gateway overlay districts occur
Proposed Terms:1.Gateway standards shall apply when more stringent than the standard of any other overlay district2.Clean-up referenced code sections 3.Option 1 -Clarify that gateway overlay boundaries extend the whole boundary of the property fronting the roadway (current requirement)4.Option 2 -Gateway overlay boundaries extend up to a maximum depth of 100 feet from the edge on the right-of-way line on either side
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 28 of 51
49
SY.04 –Landscape requirements for inventory lots
Issue:
Clarify landscape requirements for
inventory lots as they relate to auto
sales use.
Possible 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 29 of 51
50
SY.04 –Landscape requirements for inventory lots
Issue:
Clarify landscape requirements for
inventory lots as they relate to auto
sales use.
Current Terms:1.“Vehicle display and sales areas” are exempt from the parking lot landscape requirements.
Proposed Terms:1.Define “vehicle display and sales areas” as the area specifically reserved for the display and storage of vehicles actively for sale. 2.These areas shall not include areas reserved for required parking spaces, parking of vehicles in service, or areas reserved for the storage of vehicles not actively for sale.
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 30 of 51
51
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
Possible 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 31 of 51
52
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
Current Terms:1.An Administrative Exception may be requested for an alternative Landscape design.
Proposed Terms:When required shade trees conflict with signage or utility easement, one or more of the following options may be proposed to meet the requirement:1.Ornamental trees, additional medium and small shrubs around monument signs may be used to meet required gateway shade trees at a ratio as defined below:a.2 ornamental trees = 1 shade tree, orb.1 ornamental tree and 20 small to medium shrubs = 1 shade tree, or2.No more than 25% of the mature canopy size may encroach onto an easement, sign or any other conflict point; or3.Gateway landscape buffer shall extend a minimum of 10 feet 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 32 of 51
53
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
Possible 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 33 of 51
54
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
Current Terms:Street yard requirements are determined by 3 different street yard areas
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
Street yard
Size (sq.ft)
Required
Landscape Area
Required number of
Trees
Required number of
Shrubs
<50,000 20% of street
yard
1 per 5,000 sq.ft.3 per 5,000 sq.ft.
50,000 –
500,000
20% of street
yard
10 for first 50,000 sq.ft.
1 per additional 10,000
sq.ft.
30 for first 50,000 sq.ft.
3 per additional 10,000
sq.ft.
>500,000 20% of street
yard
55 for first 500,000
1 per additional 25,000
sq.ft.
175 for first 500,000 sq.ft.
3 per additional 25,000
sq.ft.
Page 34 of 51
55
SY.02 –Streetyard landscape requirements and thresholds -Opt. 1
Issue:
Streetyard requirements,
particularly for projects with
buildings at great distance from the
road and/or phased projects
Proposed Terms:Keep Streetyard requirements as there are currently outlined in UDC Section 8.04.030, seen below:
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
Street yard
Size (sq.ft)
Required
Landscape Area
Required number of
Trees
Required number of
Shrubs
<50,000 20% of street
yard
1 per 5,000 sq.ft.3 per 5,000 sq.ft.
50,000 –
500,000
20% of street
yard
10 for first 50,000 sq.ft.
1 per additional 10,000
sq.ft.
30 for first 50,000 sq.ft.
3 per additional 10,000
sq.ft.
>500,000 20% of street
yard
55 for first 500,000
1 per additional 25,000
sq.ft.
175 for first 500,000 sq.ft.
3 per additional 25,000
sq.ft.
Page 35 of 51
56
SY.02 –Streetyard landscape requirements and thresholds -Opt. 2
Issue:
Streetyard requirements,
particularly for projects with
buildings at great distance from the
road and/or phased projects
Proposed Terms:Revise Streetyard size thresholds to reflect sizes more commonly seen and updated planting requirements for each threshold
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
Street yard
Size (sq.ft)
Required
Landscape Area
Required number of
Trees
Required number of
Shrubs
<10,000 20% of street
yard
2 per 2,500 sq.ft.5 per 2,500 sq.ft.
10,000 –
100,000
20% of street
yard
8 for first 10,000 sq.ft.
1 per additional 10,000
sq.ft.
20 for first 10,000 sq.ft.
5 per additional 10,000
sq.ft.
>100,000 20% of street
yard
19 for first 100,000
1 per additional 20,000
sq.ft.
60 for first 100,000 sq.ft.
5 per additional 20,000
sq.ft.
Page 36 of 51
57
SY.02 –Streetyard landscape requirements and thresholds -Opt. 3 (threshold approach –may apply to Opts 1 or 2)
Issue:
Streetyard requirements,
particularly for projects with
buildings at great distance from the
road and/or phased projects
Proposed Terms:
•Create a streetyard planting percentage option that focus heaviest plantings near the ROW.
•Required for phased projects –to be completed in Phase 1
•Screening and Bufferyard plantings are still in addition to all other requirements. 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
10% (Low-level) of streetyard plantings located within 28 feet of building façade
30% (Mid-level) of streetyard plantings located between Low-level and High-level planting zone
60% (High-level) of streetyard plantings located between ROW & Mid-level planting zone
Proposed Building
10% (Low-level) Planting zone
30% (Mid-level) Planting Zone
60% (High-Level) Planting Zone
R.O.W.Page 37 of 51
58
SY.02 –Streetyard landscape requirements and thresholds -Opt. 3
Page 38 of 51
59
SY.02 –Streetyard landscape requirements and thresholds -Opt. 3
60% of
landscape
30% of
landscape
10% of
landscape
Page 39 of 51
60
Part 3
Screening and Water Conservation
Page 40 of 51
61
Screening and Water Conservation Ordinance
Purpose & Essential Terms
•Purpose:
•The purpose of the screening landscape requirements is to:
•protect and enhance the character and wellbeing of Georgetown’s residences and visitors, and
•obscure structures or land uses (i.e. parking or outdoor storage) from another.
•The purpose of the water conservation requirements is to:
•support water conservation as an effective resource to manage, sustain and protect the City’s potable water supply
Page 41 of 51
62
Screening and Water Conservation Ordinance
Purpose & Essential Terms:
•Water Conservation Ordinance Essential Terms:
•Hydrozone –The grouping plants with similar water requirements together in an effort to conserve water.
•Zonal Irrigation –means an automated irrigation system that can isolate and manage the irrigation needs of sections of landscape with similar watering requirements, allowing independent operation of each section of the system.
•Summer Dormancy Capabilities –means the ability of turf grass to survive without water for a period of sixty consecutive days between the months of May through September.
Page 42 of 51
63
SBW.01 –Screening requirements for alternative waste containers
Issue:Consider establishing screening standards for other trash receptacles (in addition to dumpsters), to include locational requirements.
Possible Solutions:1.Clarify that locational standards also apply to recycling containers, trash compacters and other waste containers.2.Include standards that ensure trucks may pick-up waste and recycling containers consistent with the standards of the Texas Disposal System.
Background:
•Georgetown UDC requires waste and recycling containers to be completed screened from public view.
•Georgetown UDC locational standards are only applicable to dumpsters.
•Locational standards do not address service truck access.
UDC Sections Affected: 8.04.070
Page 43 of 51
64
SBW.02 –Water conservation efforts for non-residential development
Issue:Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard to the city’s water conservation efforts.
Possible solutions:1.Require (not encourage) grassed areas to be planted with drought resistant species such as (but not limited to) Bermuda, Zoysia, or Buffalo
2.Limit use of turf to areas requiring stabilization methods
3.Require a higher percentage (more than 50%) of plant materials to be low water users
4.Require a minimum percentage of landscape area and specific site features (i.e. parking islands) to be a combination of 3 or more of drought tolerant features (i.e. ground cover, shrubs, agaves, boulders, rock, etc.) –based on area size.
Background:
•City’s water conservation standards include irrigation maintenance practices and additional landscape standards for residential property.
•City’s UDC requires 50% of plant materials to be low water users
•Grassed areas are encouraged to be planted with drought resistant species
UDC Sections Affected: New; Sec 8.06
Page 44 of 51
65
SBW.02 –Water conservation efforts for non-residential development
Issue:Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements with regard to the city’s water conservation efforts.
Possible solutions (continued):5.Require irrigation standards as outlined in Georgetown’s Water Conservation ordinance be implemented (i.e. subsurface irrigation for non-turf areas, Zonal Irrigation, & Hydrozone plantings)
6.Allow the use of Synthetic/Artificial turf in areas screened from public view, and in accordance with impervious cover requirements of the project.a.Include standards that define preferred artificial turf and maintenance requirements.
7.Explore feasibility of establishing landscape requirements based on estimated water usage.
Background:
•City’s water conservation standards include irrigation maintenance practices and additional landscape standards for residential property.
•City’s UDC requires 50% of plant materials to be low water users
•Grassed areas are encouraged to be planted with drought resistant species
UDC Sections Affected: New; Sec 8.06
Page 45 of 51
66
Part 4
Next Steps
Page 46 of 51
67
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 08-12/2020
Page 47 of 51
68
Next Steps
Confirm direction on tree preservation, removals, and mitigation
Discuss Streetyards, Gateways, & Parking
Confirm direction on Streetyards, Gateways, & Parking
Discuss Screening & Water Conservation
Confirm direction on Screening & Water Conservation
Validate direction on draft Ordinance
Public Outreach efforts
Draft Ordinance
UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments.
10/14 11/11 Jan 202112/9
Page 48 of 51
69
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 49 of 51
70
Requested Feedback
•What additional information/resources do you need for the next meeting?
Page 50 of 51
City of Georgetown, Texas
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee
November 11, 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 51 of 51